Re:What do you get combining Apple + gaming compan
on
Apple Eyeing EA?
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Jacked up the price and sampling bitrate for higher fidelity (insofar as that's even possible with digital music).
Yes, they are about the money. But who isn't?
Everyone's Apple-DRM anger would make more sense if they had pioneered the per-song deal without DRM, then added a "gotcha" lower-price, lower-quality, DRM-laden product. But they did the opposite.
As for point #1, replacing your DRM-laden songs. Now that is typical Apple - typical American corporate beast. They didn't even offer the option, trade up to DRM free (with higher sampling bitrate) for 30 cents. I or anyone could argue the problems with ensuring the old copy was gone, etc, etc, and how poor Apple would have pay again for the license because that's how the music guys would look at it.
But that part is just the way-sucky part of American business ethics. Is it Apple's fault you can't convert your DRM songs? The record companies'? Both? The end result is the consumer has a moving target, accepts (in general) that the market has moved on to newer/better, and bites the bullet. To be clear - I'm not saying it's ok because it's understandable, I'm saying it's less ok because it's understandable.
Meanwhile - can't you burn your DRM-laden music to CD, then import it DRM-free? I thought you could do this, I don't know. I know the quality **may** take a hit - not sure. But you might try it - CDs are way cheap, hold a lot of songs, it's worth a try.
...it says are designed to protect the interests of customers. Under the new regime users will be expected to validate their software in a much more precise way than before... Windows 7 will make it harder to ignore repeated messages.
I have no clue, the operation of Windows Media Player. iTunes offers to do a scan and add your music to your iTunes library - however, nothing is converted and nothing is uploaded to Apple or anyone else - and - you can skip it, I always do.
I wasn't being sarcastic - does SiriusXM do that?
And this evil may not be new to you - but it kinda is to me. Maybe it's because I prefer http://www.magnatune.com/ and I have a low threshold for evil - I don't even use LastFM any more.
Ok, you asked for it - I'm calling you paranoid. Know why? Takes one to know one - in this case, I am, too.
I have Miro on my computer. I use it for legally watching things about the Hubble and other cool stuff that I don't get on my DirecTV. But it's also a torrent downloader (and sharer (relayer?), from what I can understand - I'm not knowledgeable about anything torrent other than pirates evidently love it, too (Nixon voice for humor: I am not a pirate)).
If this isn't a recipe for a lawsuit, I don't know what is: a) I give my permission for a full scan, b) I'm found to have lots of music on the same computer as torrent software, c) the company doing it is funded by an RIAA member.
You're not paranoid when they really are out to get you.
Apple and Rhapsody know all about my music collection and Netflix knows what movies I like to watch.
I'm not a Rhapsody user, I have used iTMS, so please enlighten me. How does Apple know all about your music collection? At no time, to my knowledge, has Apple ever scanned my hard drive and cataloged ALL my music, and then uploaded it to their servers.
We're not talking about marketing here - we're talking about a hard disk scan.
Kindly disclose - do you in any way, shape or form work for any part the music industry? I disclose that I am in the semiconductor industry - and am asking a yes/no question only.
Wow - SiriusXM scans your entire hard disk when you subscribe and uploads to its servers a complete catalog of all of the music files that they find on your computer (and is funded by an RIAA member), and then when that is complete - gives you pay-network listening?
I did NOT know that SiriusXM was like Lala in that regard.
This doesn't sound as evil as it's being made to be.
Either we have different ideas of what evil is, or you're comparing to sufficiently large values of evil - or something.
I would say that the single biggest reason that Windows is as prevalent as it is today is that to a very large extent, MS has maintained backwards compatibility at almost any cost.
I have one pgm from OS X 10.0 that no longer worked at some point (10.2? Not sure.) It was freeware. I had to update OroborOSX a few times with my OS X update. I have a platform running Tiger (10.4 - current rev now is 10.5, Leopard) - and it is running my Microsoft Office X that I bought when that was a 10.1 machine. At some point, IE wouldn't run and MS said they would no longer support it under OS X (I'm just rounding out the list - I could care less if that was Apple's or MS's doing.)
None of my user files are affected by upgrades.
Like you, I can point to a few - very few - examples of OS X not bending over for backwards compatibility.
I can't say what backwards compatibility OS X has with OS 9 and prior (supported via Classic mode for a while on OS X) - other than to say - pretty much none.
By the time OS X came out, Apple had lost all sorts of market share - are you suggesting that that was because they weren't providing backwards compatibilities?
I just cannot believe that a large extent of the reason for MS's market share is their over-the-years backwards compatibility.
You are correct in that they did have that, and I've seen Win users over the years tout it as important, and then brag to me that OS X didn't have that (info source: see flying monkeys). Then those same users would get slammed when technology moved on and not complain, because whatever it was had a good run before being obsolesced.
My take on it is much simpler: MS saved money over the years by not upgrading fundamental parts of their OS until/unless absolutely forced to do so (see: Win32) or sometimes never. Now, their own technical inertia may kill them.
OS X is gaining market share. I'd like to believe that Linux is as well, but I don't know (maybe it's dropping). But quite simply, that has nothing to do with backwards compatibility.
Look, I'll just Godwin myself - Nazi Germany appeared to be working.
Forget about anti-pirate disingenuousness for just a second - I'll grant you that thats a possibility, but having never pirated any music, art, video or software in my life, I think I'm qualified to ask:
You're OK that their business model has them scan a customer's hard disk and gets a list of what you already have on your hard drive? And they're funded by an RIAA member? Not as a philosophical point, not as a political point - for you, as a business point.
I'm way OK with any company that serves its market and makes a decent buck - I really am. But just making a decent buck in no way indicates that you're ethical, nor does it mean that you'll be in business tomorrow. Is it so impossible to imagine that eventually they get sued when their overlords abuse that private user info - right out of business? What happens to the little guy, customer, holding the bag, with his locker full of music that he's paid for, but can no longer access?
Lala.. Layla - I see where you're going - then I found out that they have financial backing from Warner Music Group - and at that point, for some weird reason, all I could hear in my head was the theme to Rawhide.
At first I thought that maybe my subconscious was thinking of Warner treating people like cattle. But then, I realized that what I was really thinking was that it's the music industry that are all animals - and not the scary kind - just the stupid bovine kind.
You know, the kind that will stampede over a cliff to their death if that's what the rest of them are doing.
Say... are we on top of an escarpment (Balcones, to a few of you Texans out there)? "Rowdy! Give me a hand over here!"
I wish I were making this up - seriously. But's true - check out how nefarious these assholes are and how stupid people that they are still in business. For your dining and dancing pleasure, I submit, from TFA (emphasis mine):
The patent proves Lala is trying to develop a new type of DRM, according to Robertson. Instead of wrapping individual songs in DRM, Lala's plan calls for a network to act as a fortress that surrounds an entire music ecosystem. Lala CEO Geoff Ralston confirmed that Lala filed the patent but denied the company is trying to wrest control away from users.
"It's a patent around Web Songs," Ralston said.
Web Songs are one of the cornerstones of the company's latest business model. Lala, which has switched focus from two prior models, now offers three main features. In the first, MP3s unprotected by DRM can be purchased and download for rates comparable to iTunes. A second option offers users unlimited, ad-free streaming access to music they already own. The way this works is that users allow Lala to scan their hard drives and preserve a list of the songs the person owns. Lala's system will then stream its own copies of the songs to the user. This way users don't have to worry about losing their music to hard-drive meltdowns or misplaced music players.
Lala's last feature allows people to listen to streaming music--that they don't already own--for 10 cents per song. Lala calls these Web Songs. One of the ways Web Songs is different than MP3s is they can't be downloaded to a portable device. "A Web Song by definition has a limited set of rights associated with it," Ralston said. "One right you don't have is the right to take it with you. It's not a portable song. Another right you don't have is to copy it. Everything has limited rights, even an MP3. You're not allowed to take an MP3, copy it, and sell it."
Here's another slice, for those who'd like to avoid RTFA (emphasis NOT mine):
"A network-based DRM system manages digital media assets stored in the network," states the document from Lala, which has been praised by music labels and has financial backing from Warner Music Group. "The system provides consumers with access to the digital media from any device connected to an electronic network such as the Internet, while enforcing the intended uses by the copyright owners."
"The Web restricted nature of the offering," Lala writes elsewhere in the filing, "means that the digital assets are at all times controlled by the system and thus result in minimal piracy."
Love the language - minimal piracy. Think about it.
See, I made the same mistake in an earlier post, so I'll pass along the correction: this isn't criminal, it's civil, in this case it's not a warrant but a court order as part of the discovery process - which, the guy correcting me said, was so that each side could see what the other would bring against them in court.
So, yes, if we were talking stolen, I'm with you on what would happen in any age. But this isn't stolen, it's copyright violation, so you don't have your house searched.
So, you bring in what you're told. You disagree, your lawyers go before the judge, who decides one way or another. You don't go along with the program, now it's severely criminal - you don't get to fuck with judges.
So - if it's a computer document, you have to bring in the whole computer (IANAL, so I'm guessing that it's either that or you bring in the hard drive (same thing!!) - whatever the order says).
Hey, I want to make sure we're square. No way am I accusing anyone of wife beating - I was trying to make the case that the some of this discovery process in and of itself seems to have logical fallacy woven into it.
In my high state of anger (which I tried to subsequently moderate) I maybe didn't communicate clearly. At first, I thought you were helping me explain, but now I fear a miscommunication.
The wife-beating phrase was a toss in because I was so angered, I couldn't even remember the phrase, "logical fallacy," but did want to get the idea across.
If we got cross-threaded on that, my bad, please forgive. This later post is maybe better for what I'm upset about in this discovery process - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1225765&cid=27865723 - I just find the whole thing... well, 'nuff said.
You know, as a moral software developer, I don't pirate any software, and my wife is a fine (as in painting) artist, so I don't copy art - but the fact is, not once in my life have I ever pirated any music, video, art or software. Never have, never will.
So I'll never be on the jury to vote for your innocence. Sorry.
I'm sorry, too (and I admit to taking your statement in a completely different direction). I'm not worried about getting caught for my piracy. I'm worry about being ruled against in a trumped-up case.
Lawyers are getting slicker and the judges seem to be getting dumber. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can say what they like about dumbed-down juries and lowest common denominators - but I've served on juries, and I'll tell you: just as mind-numbingly painful is the exposure you'll get to a lack of intelligence, the crystal-clear common sense you'll often find from those "lowest common denominators" is a thing of beauty to behold.
That all being said, I'd need all of the help on a jury that I can get. Typically lacking common sense, I have that snarky attitude and appearance that does not sit well with the average Joe.:P
And now a commercial for jury service, to any reader at large: it's not just an act of civil responsibility - these days, with all of the disincentives to serve, it's an act of moral courage to do so. But I assure you, you stand the most excellent chance to have as your reward an education in the people around you that you cannot buy elsewhere. To get it, here's the trick - don't question the other jurors' intelligence and don't ask WHY they THINK this or that - ask them WHAT or HOW they think (or feel or believe) about something - and you are very liable to be humbled by what you've opened yourself to learn.
It might be hard to prove exactly when the drive was wiped, but it'd be easy to show that the fingerprint of the timestamps doesn't match what it'd be if the drive was as old as it claimed to be and had aged at 1 second per second since then.
emphasis mine
Easy to show to you and me or easy to show to a jury? I'm naive enough to skip my own forensics experts at that point, take the stand with pre-arranged questions from my lawyer, and then testify as follows:
Geez, I don't know, I'm not a forenics computer guy. I do not have clue one about the inner working of timestamps and the idea of time having a fingerprint frankly sounds like something out of Star Trek to me. I don't even know why my fate is being decided this way. Evidently, their experts say that my own computer says I am liar. I don't know, but I thought from watching TV that using lie detectors against a person is against the law. Are you telling me now - let me get this straight - that a Windows computer that makes me and everyone I know crazy with all its crazy Windows frustrations of losing my files when I'm typing them and crashing on me and stuff - are you telling me that that is now a lie detector? And that my very own Windows-computer-lie-detector is their point in accusing me guilty?
Like I admitted, I'm naive, but I'd bet if someone said that while I was on a jury, I could not in any way under the sun find him guilty of anything whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
Jacked up the price and sampling bitrate for higher fidelity (insofar as that's even possible with digital music).
Yes, they are about the money. But who isn't?
Everyone's Apple-DRM anger would make more sense if they had pioneered the per-song deal without DRM, then added a "gotcha" lower-price, lower-quality, DRM-laden product. But they did the opposite.
As for point #1, replacing your DRM-laden songs. Now that is typical Apple - typical American corporate beast. They didn't even offer the option, trade up to DRM free (with higher sampling bitrate) for 30 cents. I or anyone could argue the problems with ensuring the old copy was gone, etc, etc, and how poor Apple would have pay again for the license because that's how the music guys would look at it.
But that part is just the way-sucky part of American business ethics. Is it Apple's fault you can't convert your DRM songs? The record companies'? Both? The end result is the consumer has a moving target, accepts (in general) that the market has moved on to newer/better, and bites the bullet. To be clear - I'm not saying it's ok because it's understandable, I'm saying it's less ok because it's understandable.
Meanwhile - can't you burn your DRM-laden music to CD, then import it DRM-free? I thought you could do this, I don't know. I know the quality **may** take a hit - not sure. But you might try it - CDs are way cheap, hold a lot of songs, it's worth a try.
http://www.jakeludington.com/itunes/20060513_unlock_itunes_music_store_files.html
And for a bit of Apple-DRM background, from a few years ago, check out:
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
Hope this helps you have a better day!
These simple words - and so it begins.
(Yeah, yeah, Tolkien, yadda, yadda - it's my post.)
Hello Moderator -
I have garnered a lot of mod points expressing displeasure against Lala.
In the interests of fairness/equal time, please mod parent up - they are a Lala employee.
Thanks,
EarlyMon
Since we're both into Creative Commons licensed mp3s, and in the event that others who may not know are following this thread, in addition to Magnatune, check out http://www.jamendo.com/ - for those interested in Creative Commons and what it mean to their music, see
http://www.jamendo.com/en/creativecommons/
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8518
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/03/jamendo-adds-licensing.html
...it says are designed to protect the interests of customers. Under the new regime users will be expected to validate their software in a much more precise way than before... Windows 7 will make it harder to ignore repeated messages.
That's it - I cannot top that - I can't even try.
Good question - maybe they look at id3 tags, too - I don't know.
Don't forget to remove any software that the RIAA might object to before doing that scan, BTW.
I have no clue, the operation of Windows Media Player. iTunes offers to do a scan and add your music to your iTunes library - however, nothing is converted and nothing is uploaded to Apple or anyone else - and - you can skip it, I always do.
I wasn't being sarcastic - does SiriusXM do that?
And this evil may not be new to you - but it kinda is to me. Maybe it's because I prefer http://www.magnatune.com/ and I have a low threshold for evil - I don't even use LastFM any more.
Ok, you asked for it - I'm calling you paranoid. Know why? Takes one to know one - in this case, I am, too.
I have Miro on my computer. I use it for legally watching things about the Hubble and other cool stuff that I don't get on my DirecTV. But it's also a torrent downloader (and sharer (relayer?), from what I can understand - I'm not knowledgeable about anything torrent other than pirates evidently love it, too (Nixon voice for humor: I am not a pirate)).
If this isn't a recipe for a lawsuit, I don't know what is: a) I give my permission for a full scan, b) I'm found to have lots of music on the same computer as torrent software, c) the company doing it is funded by an RIAA member.
You're not paranoid when they really are out to get you.
Should've used Preview - sorry to shout - only meant to bold a single phrase.
Apple and Rhapsody know all about my music collection and Netflix knows what movies I like to watch.
I'm not a Rhapsody user, I have used iTMS, so please enlighten me. How does Apple know all about your music collection? At no time, to my knowledge, has Apple ever scanned my hard drive and cataloged ALL my music, and then uploaded it to their servers.
We're not talking about marketing here - we're talking about a hard disk scan.
Kindly disclose - do you in any way, shape or form work for any part the music industry? I disclose that I am in the semiconductor industry - and am asking a yes/no question only.
(c) pay network listening (like SiriusXM)
Wow - SiriusXM scans your entire hard disk when you subscribe and uploads to its servers a complete catalog of all of the music files that they find on your computer (and is funded by an RIAA member), and then when that is complete - gives you pay-network listening?
I did NOT know that SiriusXM was like Lala in that regard.
This doesn't sound as evil as it's being made to be.
Either we have different ideas of what evil is, or you're comparing to sufficiently large values of evil - or something.
I would say that the single biggest reason that Windows is as prevalent as it is today is that to a very large extent, MS has maintained backwards compatibility at almost any cost.
I have one pgm from OS X 10.0 that no longer worked at some point (10.2? Not sure.) It was freeware. I had to update OroborOSX a few times with my OS X update. I have a platform running Tiger (10.4 - current rev now is 10.5, Leopard) - and it is running my Microsoft Office X that I bought when that was a 10.1 machine. At some point, IE wouldn't run and MS said they would no longer support it under OS X (I'm just rounding out the list - I could care less if that was Apple's or MS's doing.)
None of my user files are affected by upgrades.
Like you, I can point to a few - very few - examples of OS X not bending over for backwards compatibility.
I can't say what backwards compatibility OS X has with OS 9 and prior (supported via Classic mode for a while on OS X) - other than to say - pretty much none.
By the time OS X came out, Apple had lost all sorts of market share - are you suggesting that that was because they weren't providing backwards compatibilities?
I just cannot believe that a large extent of the reason for MS's market share is their over-the-years backwards compatibility.
You are correct in that they did have that, and I've seen Win users over the years tout it as important, and then brag to me that OS X didn't have that (info source: see flying monkeys). Then those same users would get slammed when technology moved on and not complain, because whatever it was had a good run before being obsolesced.
My take on it is much simpler: MS saved money over the years by not upgrading fundamental parts of their OS until/unless absolutely forced to do so (see: Win32) or sometimes never. Now, their own technical inertia may kill them.
OS X is gaining market share. I'd like to believe that Linux is as well, but I don't know (maybe it's dropping). But quite simply, that has nothing to do with backwards compatibility.
Look, I'll just Godwin myself - Nazi Germany appeared to be working.
Forget about anti-pirate disingenuousness for just a second - I'll grant you that thats a possibility, but having never pirated any music, art, video or software in my life, I think I'm qualified to ask:
You're OK that their business model has them scan a customer's hard disk and gets a list of what you already have on your hard drive? And they're funded by an RIAA member? Not as a philosophical point, not as a political point - for you, as a business point.
I'm way OK with any company that serves its market and makes a decent buck - I really am. But just making a decent buck in no way indicates that you're ethical, nor does it mean that you'll be in business tomorrow. Is it so impossible to imagine that eventually they get sued when their overlords abuse that private user info - right out of business? What happens to the little guy, customer, holding the bag, with his locker full of music that he's paid for, but can no longer access?
The emperor has no clothes.
For an answer as to how this adds up to an attractive new product, I humbly submit http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1227035&cid=27879191 (it's a recycle of one of my other comments... sorry - couldn't resist)
Many, many thanks!
Lala .. Layla - I see where you're going - then I found out that they have financial backing from Warner Music Group - and at that point, for some weird reason, all I could hear in my head was the theme to Rawhide.
At first I thought that maybe my subconscious was thinking of Warner treating people like cattle. But then, I realized that what I was really thinking was that it's the music industry that are all animals - and not the scary kind - just the stupid bovine kind.
You know, the kind that will stampede over a cliff to their death if that's what the rest of them are doing.
Say ... are we on top of an escarpment (Balcones, to a few of you Texans out there)? "Rowdy! Give me a hand over here!"
Rollin', rollin', rollin'...
I wish I were making this up - seriously. But's true - check out how nefarious these assholes are and how stupid people that they are still in business. For your dining and dancing pleasure, I submit, from TFA (emphasis mine):
The patent proves Lala is trying to develop a new type of DRM, according to Robertson. Instead of wrapping individual songs in DRM, Lala's plan calls for a network to act as a fortress that surrounds an entire music ecosystem. Lala CEO Geoff Ralston confirmed that Lala filed the patent but denied the company is trying to wrest control away from users.
"It's a patent around Web Songs," Ralston said.
Web Songs are one of the cornerstones of the company's latest business model. Lala, which has switched focus from two prior models, now offers three main features. In the first, MP3s unprotected by DRM can be purchased and download for rates comparable to iTunes. A second option offers users unlimited, ad-free streaming access to music they already own. The way this works is that users allow Lala to scan their hard drives and preserve a list of the songs the person owns. Lala's system will then stream its own copies of the songs to the user. This way users don't have to worry about losing their music to hard-drive meltdowns or misplaced music players.
Lala's last feature allows people to listen to streaming music--that they don't already own--for 10 cents per song. Lala calls these Web Songs. One of the ways Web Songs is different than MP3s is they can't be downloaded to a portable device.
"A Web Song by definition has a limited set of rights associated with it," Ralston said. "One right you don't have is the right to take it with you. It's not a portable song. Another right you don't have is to copy it. Everything has limited rights, even an MP3. You're not allowed to take an MP3, copy it, and sell it."
Here's another slice, for those who'd like to avoid RTFA (emphasis NOT mine):
"A network-based DRM system manages digital media assets stored in the network," states the document from Lala, which has been praised by music labels and has financial backing from Warner Music Group. "The system provides consumers with access to the digital media from any device connected to an electronic network such as the Internet, while enforcing the intended uses by the copyright owners."
"The Web restricted nature of the offering," Lala writes elsewhere in the filing, "means that the digital assets are at all times controlled by the system and thus result in minimal piracy."
Love the language - minimal piracy. Think about it.
See, I made the same mistake in an earlier post, so I'll pass along the correction: this isn't criminal, it's civil, in this case it's not a warrant but a court order as part of the discovery process - which, the guy correcting me said, was so that each side could see what the other would bring against them in court.
So, yes, if we were talking stolen, I'm with you on what would happen in any age. But this isn't stolen, it's copyright violation, so you don't have your house searched.
So, you bring in what you're told. You disagree, your lawyers go before the judge, who decides one way or another. You don't go along with the program, now it's severely criminal - you don't get to fuck with judges.
So - if it's a computer document, you have to bring in the whole computer (IANAL, so I'm guessing that it's either that or you bring in the hard drive (same thing!!) - whatever the order says).
And that's how I arrived at my analogy above.
Hey, I want to make sure we're square. No way am I accusing anyone of wife beating - I was trying to make the case that the some of this discovery process in and of itself seems to have logical fallacy woven into it.
In my high state of anger (which I tried to subsequently moderate) I maybe didn't communicate clearly. At first, I thought you were helping me explain, but now I fear a miscommunication.
The wife-beating phrase was a toss in because I was so angered, I couldn't even remember the phrase, "logical fallacy," but did want to get the idea across.
If we got cross-threaded on that, my bad, please forgive. This later post is maybe better for what I'm upset about in this discovery process - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1225765&cid=27865723 - I just find the whole thing... well, 'nuff said.
Many thanks!
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
It does NOT happen to be TRUE that ONLY the GUILTY want to HIDE things.
Your pithy snark proves nothing.
You know, as a moral software developer, I don't pirate any software, and my wife is a fine (as in painting) artist, so I don't copy art - but the fact is, not once in my life have I ever pirated any music, video, art or software. Never have, never will.
So I'll never be on the jury to vote for your innocence. Sorry.
I'm sorry, too (and I admit to taking your statement in a completely different direction). I'm not worried about getting caught for my piracy. I'm worry about being ruled against in a trumped-up case.
Lawyers are getting slicker and the judges seem to be getting dumber. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can say what they like about dumbed-down juries and lowest common denominators - but I've served on juries, and I'll tell you: just as mind-numbingly painful is the exposure you'll get to a lack of intelligence, the crystal-clear common sense you'll often find from those "lowest common denominators" is a thing of beauty to behold.
That all being said, I'd need all of the help on a jury that I can get. Typically lacking common sense, I have that snarky attitude and appearance that does not sit well with the average Joe. :P
And now a commercial for jury service, to any reader at large: it's not just an act of civil responsibility - these days, with all of the disincentives to serve, it's an act of moral courage to do so. But I assure you, you stand the most excellent chance to have as your reward an education in the people around you that you cannot buy elsewhere. To get it, here's the trick - don't question the other jurors' intelligence and don't ask WHY they THINK this or that - ask them WHAT or HOW they think (or feel or believe) about something - and you are very liable to be humbled by what you've opened yourself to learn.
And that miniseries is going to come out on..... what date?
Probably because I remind people of them in the real world, too.
It might be hard to prove exactly when the drive was wiped, but it'd be easy to show that the fingerprint of the timestamps doesn't match what it'd be if the drive was as old as it claimed to be and had aged at 1 second per second since then.
emphasis mine
Easy to show to you and me or easy to show to a jury? I'm naive enough to skip my own forensics experts at that point, take the stand with pre-arranged questions from my lawyer, and then testify as follows:
Geez, I don't know, I'm not a forenics computer guy. I do not have clue one about the inner working of timestamps and the idea of time having a fingerprint frankly sounds like something out of Star Trek to me. I don't even know why my fate is being decided this way. Evidently, their experts say that my own computer says I am liar. I don't know, but I thought from watching TV that using lie detectors against a person is against the law. Are you telling me now - let me get this straight - that a Windows computer that makes me and everyone I know crazy with all its crazy Windows frustrations of losing my files when I'm typing them and crashing on me and stuff - are you telling me that that is now a lie detector? And that my very own Windows-computer-lie-detector is their point in accusing me guilty?
Like I admitted, I'm naive, but I'd bet if someone said that while I was on a jury, I could not in any way under the sun find him guilty of anything whatsoever.