What comes on these DRM'd MemorySticks? What information do you want to remove from them? People want to crack Bluray because people like pirating movies--particularly high quality movies--what do people want to pirate that comes on these MemorySticks? And is that same information available in the same or better quality elsewhere, with fewer restrictions?
The number of product out there doesn't really matter so much as the number of people who really want to see that product cracked, and the availablility of a comparable product with less restrictive DRM. Most Bluray movies will be offered exclusively on the Bluray format, meaning the only way to get high-quality copies is to crack Bluray or HDCP.
Reading through some docs on it MagicGate, it looks unlikely that it's related to BD+. BD+ works by using the Bluray hardware to create a virtual machine which it uses to run validation code. MagicGate looks like a TPM chip.
There are a whole lot of people interested in cracking the next generation of optical-disc video. That goes a lot longer than trying to crack some small, proprietary DRM.
With copyright it's not so serious an issue, I think. I don't think we'll run out of pleasant combinations of notes and lyrics any time soon, though if we start seeing people trying to copyright small sets of chords, we may see some trouble (several years ago, there was a parody news story about Metallica trying to do something like this.)
With patents, it's an issue because the USPTO got lazy. Or perhaps just swamped. I think some patent reform is in order, but I'm mostly okay with the way things used to be. It's the dilution that needs reigning in. That, and maybe patent trolls who never actually make a product, but that should die down if specific details on the construction of the product were once again required for the patent to be valid.
The effort required for patent invalidation is something else that is troublesome, but that road leads to the terribly corrupt legal system we have, and the fact that legal services are so expensive. Maybe Michael Moore can make that the focus of his next movie.
Everyone's a little off, here, but it's a confusing topic.
What most of us care about when talking about 2G vs 3G is bandwidth. There are other differences (how the data is transmitted--WAP vs packet switching, etc), but when non-telecom geeks sit around talking about it, they're talking about speed.
For a device to be 3G, it must have at least 144kbps download. EDGE gets over 200kbps. EVDO gets around 2Mbps. HSDPA gets around 3-7Mbps, with a theoretical max of 14Mbps. Therefore, as far as most people care, EDGE is 3G (it is also packet-switched, which is one of the other major differences.)
This is the problem with using terms to talk about these things rather than just what you really mean. 2G, 3G, EVDO, EDGE... they all have ranges of data rates, so people tend to group them that way. They think that EVDO is faster than EDGE, so EDGE must be 2G (or the absurd 2.5G) while EVDO must be 3G.
EDGE (which this phone doesn't even support) carries a maximum theoretical downstream bandwidth of 473 kbps. In practice, most handsets/providers max out at about half that. That makes it technically 3G, however HSDPA lets you get 7Mbits/sec. That's a pretty big difference.
These phones have the so-called '2.5G' (which isn't an official designation, but implies packet-switching and other technologies normally associated with 3G, but without the speeds). To be called 3G, you must have at least 144 kbps. That's 60% of what you typically get on EDGE, and that's not what this phone is going to get (obviously, as it's not 3G). With plain old GPRS, you're talking about 80kbps. That's painfully slow for any sort of interactive use (it would obviously be fine for checking mail in the background.)
The data rates are going to suck. EVDO gets something in the range of 2Mbps--noticeably faster than EDGE--and it seems slow to me. Almost anyone who has a PDA phone right now would be seriously downgrading their data rate in order to pick this phone up.
Hard to tell from the press release which mass market (GTA02) model (if either) is really close to feature parity with the iPhone, but if you compare the two top end models, the price is the same. Except that the Mako doesn't support EDGE. The only reason I didn't switch to an iPhone the day it came out was because it only supports EDGE. I'm sure as hell not buying a phone that has worse data rates.
Well, I happen to disagree with software patents. Traditionally, you haven't been able to patent mathematical equations and algorithms. That's a very recent thing.
The other problem with patents is that they tend to (now) be overly broad. A patent should give the reader all the knowledge he needs in order to reproduce the product. That's the social contract. You get a monopoly on the product for a limited period of time, and everyone gets to see how you did it. Then, when the monopoly is over, anyone can recreate/improve on your work. Nowadays, so many patents are too broad or too simple--patents on business models and most software patents, for one (for example, the infamous "1-Click" patent.)
So no, I really don't think that the current patent system works the same way that you're describing. Under the old system, you could work around patents and come up with a similar product that does things differently. Under the current system, it seems like the correlation of inputs/outputs is what's patented, and the actual method of translating input to output is kept secret, preventing anyone from recreating anything even remotely similar before the patent expires.
That's disingenuous. Musicians learn how to play with other people's music. Strawman. Of course that's how musicians learn to play. But learning to play does not equal performing. Regardless, it's easy enough to play other people's music--play at venues who have paid the fee. As others in the comments have pointed out, it's really not that much money, even for a small business.
Playing shows is extremely hard work as it is. Bury the musicians in red tape... it's better for them. What, musicians aren't pushing it? Funny that. Another bad argument. It's not the musician who has to worry about this 99% of the time--it's the venue. Right now, if I wanted to, I could go cover Margaritaville at almost any of the local bars. Why? They've paid the fee. I wouldn't have to do any extra red tape, except possibly tell them what I'm playing ahead of time. Yeah, that sounds pretty hard.
Does it "promote the arts"? Actually, it does! In fact, it does so in two distinct ways.
First, it encourages people to create so that they'll be paid. Second, it encourages people to create so that they don't have to pay other people.
Honestly, it seems win/win to me.
What's wrong with Joe Averge playing a cover at your bar? What gave you the impression that there was something wrong with it? No one is trying to stop this.
The simple rule of thumb is that ethics are codified. Morality also generally benefits humanity, and atheists can have morals. It's just not defined, and it does vary from person to person.
She lost me at:
Orrin Hatch, songwriter and Republican senator from Utah, seems to be the only person in Washington with a progressive view of copyright law. One lobbyist says that there's no one in the House with a similar view and that "this would have never happened if Sonny Bono was still alive." She's also got a long way to go to overcome the image of the rocker who lives an outlandish lifestyle. While I was reading the words about how these people only make '$45,000 per year' (which is, by the way, almost exactly what I make working 7-6, Monday through Friday), I couldn't help but picture the cars these people drive, the drugs, the money, etc. And she implies that $45,000 would come from an outstanding record contract.
What a joke.
This is exactly like those sports stars who complain that they aren't making enough because they have to live to a certain lifestyle in order to attract the fans. Sorry. If your 'business model' revolves around creating an image that requires you to light your cigar with a c-note, but you're not making enough to do so, then your business model is flawed.
Basically, what this is saying is that AllofMP3 has a better business model than the current RIAA one, which I agree with completely. Someone else already mentioned that AllofMP3 doesn't have to worry about paying production costs. Other than that, can you define 'better' in this context, and then explain how it's actually better?
Actually, you don't get to determine "fair market price." You get to determine what price would convince you to buy a given product, and that's all.
The fact that the music industry is doing so well (despite their own protests to the contrary) indicates that they've found a fair market price. It's possible that they could do a little better, sure, but probably not much better.
To sell for what you think is a fair price, they'd have to sell 2-3 times as many units (assuming digital downloads, and ignoring the fact that the costs for transferring the product don't scale with your 'fair market value.') and 3-6 times as many considering physical units in order to make the same profits. They'd actually have to sell more than that in order to increase profits. I don't think that this is likely to happen.
It's usually around this point where someone says, "But they don't have to make the same profits! They're making plenty of money!" As a corporation, their goal is to maximize profit. Period. The RIAA doesn't care about promoting the arts, making the world a better place, or even producing music that people love, except as much as it takes to get money from your pockets. If this price point maximizes their profits, then it is the correct price point, regardless of whether or not it means that you can't (or don't want to) pay for their product.
If a musician made a CD, and could sell it to a single person for $5billion, or to 5 million people for $10, the correct business decision is to sell it to the single person.
A better phrase would be, "When you're done with it." Plenty of people sell CDs when they get tired of them. Knowing you have the option makes it easier to justify the cost.
I know that I'm probably outside the norm around here, but I still purchase CDs. I shop around and try to find the best prices, but if I knew that the second I purchased them, their value would drop to $0.00, I might think twice about taking chances on some of them.
If you own CDs that you never listen to, DVDs that you never watch, or games that you never play (or hell, any piece of property that you never use), then it's the same thing. You can hold on to it just in case you ever need it (packrat mentality) or you can sell it and try to get something useful out of it.
Get off your fucking high horse. We need to get people to check things out before they blindly download/run, send personal information, etc. I don't care if CmdrTaco himself had posted that link, I'd expect any thinking person to verify it somehow before sending in their personal information.
Even if someone were to consider a person with good Karma and lots of posts to be reliable (I can't imagine why a person would think that--online reputation is pretty worthless), your account could have been hacked, or your e-mail address hacked and used to get a recovery password, etc. Who the hell knows?
If you really think that it's safe to just follow any link--even from an "old" member of the community--and input your personal information, then I guess I see exactly what the problem is.
I think the idea behind revoking the security clearance is because the US considers you more likely to defect if you have bad credit (since credit is used for so many things here.) If you're up to your eyeballs in debt, and an enemy agent comes along offering to take care of all of that for you in return for secrets, you might take him up on that. Someone without that debt is less likely to be in that situation.
Uninstall Vista? Please. The Ubuntu partitioner does it for you.
Now personally, I'd probably reinstall Ubuntu anyway. I just don't trust OEMs not to put crapware on it, even in Linux. What I get for buying Linux pre-installed on the Dell is a reasonable expectation that all of the hardware should work, nothing more.
Valid points, and I'm aware of the definition of pedantic:) The problem is that civil cases are based upon a preponderance of the evidence, and because of that, corner cases aren't likely to be an issue (as you state.) When they are issues, the court gets presented with this information and makes an informed decision. Otherwise, courts would largely be unnecessary.
Certainly, the PDF is strongly worded. To be perfectly accurate, absolute words such as "always" and "never" should be avoided, however the exaggerations made in the PDF are slight. I'll address some of the finer points below:
From item 16 of the declaration: "In some instance, providing the IP address alone to the ISP has been enough to enable the ISP to identify the infringer." You may never have seen a subpoena without a date and timestamp; however, Carlos Linares has gone on record strongly implying that such does happen. Also, "The RIAA typically has included... a date and time...". Note the use of the weasel word "typically". Even the RIAA isn't willing to claim that this never happens. I missed that in the document somehow. It's rather unfortunate, and I guess it means that we've been fairly lucky. I may have been mistaken on the date being a requirement--though the rules are vague enough that it could be interpreted that way. Since the law requires "sufficient evidence to identify the infringing works", I would argue that the date is absolutely required for transient IP addresses.
Can time-based information be considered reliable, especially if there is only a 10 minute allowance for error? The example I cited was, itself, an edge case. Is it reliable? That is for the court to decide. The same answer applies to your other positions on time. Can the DST change affect results? Of course. Does the RIAA have anything else to go on? Not really. It's certainly a chink in the armor of their argument, and a place when searching for flaws in their methods, but it's not (and shouldn't be) a guaranteed "get out of court free" card for the defendant.
Is 10 minutes enough room for error? Did this particular case have 10 or more minutes? Does the methodology support 10 minutes of error? It's also an issue of protocol. With Gnutella, I believe that search results may be cached for longer than 10 minutes. I'm not sure about BitTorrent trackers. But it's impossible to begin an investigation without knowing who the alleged infringer is.
The plaintiff needs to reasonably prove that the defendent is guilty before confiscating hardware, especially if the loss of hardware causes hardship. You're asking for something that's impossible. If they could prove guilt, they wouldn't need to confiscate the hardware. They're trying to gather proof, and they're using the best information they have.
Look at it this way. If the RIAA (or an agent thereof) logs on to a filesharing network and finds infringing content, what information do they have? They have an IP address, the network name, a filename, and possibly a URL. It would be reasonable to require that they download the file and verify that it is infringing, however current law does not seem to require this (what exactly constitutes a "good faith belief" that the work is infringing?), and I'm not sure that it's been challenged in court. With only that to go on, how does one prove that the defendant is guilty? Some of the statements you are making seem to imply (rightly) that this isn't enough to prove guilt. But really, it's all you can get from a single infringement. Multiple infringements by the same person would certainly make for a stronger case, but to get that, they need the name (and hopefully more identifying information, as there are many Joe Smiths in the country.) Even without multiple infringements, the company should have a reasonable right to protect their copyrights, and the individual should have a reasonable right to privacy (though there may not be a law requiring that the ISP respect this right), so what's the solution?
By registering 2 MAC addresses, Telus will let users have two IPs at once.... If Bob, someone completely unknown to Alan, were to get the username and password for Alan's account, it would be possible for Bob to register his NAT router to Alan's account. This is a highly fringe case, and Telus isn't even in the US (as far as I know). Most people will be tied to a wire, but in the case of a wireless ISP in the US where multiple devices are allowed and the user let slip his username and password, it certainly would be an issue.
If the ISP receives the subpoena with only an IP and responds with the account info for the current holder, then Bob takes it in the shorts for Adam's actions. This never happens. We receive notifications from the MPAA and RIAA on a daily basis. They always include a date and timestamp. Regardless, if one happened to omit it, the subpoena would be invalid. This is a strawman argument.
If Mark starts poking around at 21:32, downloads the files and disconnects at 21:45, finishes the paperwork at 21:59 and timestampts it when he finished the paperwork, it's possible that the IP address would have been reassigned to a different user in the intervening 14 mintues. My understanding is that the software handles all of this, and what goes on the paperwork is the time that the software reports. I can't find the link that originally conveyed this, however. Human error is certainly a possibility, but does that somehow remove the legal rights of the copyright holder? Ostensibly, this is why an investigation occurs at all, and why creating images of the alleged infringer's hard drive is necessary.
As for clock accuracy, that's such a border case as to be almost irrelevant. My suspicion (based solely on my own experience with the DHCP logs and these types of requests) is that they watch for several minutes to see that the files remain attached to that IP address. I've never seen a request that was less than 10 minutes from the beginning or end of a DHCP lease, and they're almost always in the middle of a multi-day string of renewals by the same user.
You have a lot of really valid points, but you've muddied the waters with spots of pedantry.
You also left out (or I missed it in your write-up) IP address spoofing as a flaw. It's rare, but it happens. Probably more often on campus networks or corporate networks than on cable or DSL, where the modem itself limits spoofing quite a bit.
Yeah, but those are the unencrypted tracks, which are definitely the minority on iTMS right now.
I didn't think that the Hymn project was relevant anymore--it doesn't seem to work with recent versions of iTunes. Does QTFU (can't seem to find a specific mention of it on their site)
For what it's worth, iTunes lets you burn songs to CD any number of times--though you can only burn a specific playlist a certain number of times. It's the most asinine restriction ever, since you can always copy the CD that you just burned.
That looks pretty interesting, and is definitely something I will probably check out. Unfortunately, while browsing their catalog, I didn't see a whole lot of overlap with the iTMS. I think that the selection is certainly relevant, although I guess that was an assumption I made when the grandparent post implied that there were other services with less restrictive DRM.
I mean, hell, Jonathan Coulton has no DRM and some of the least-restrictive licensing ever.
Who exactly is selling a more crippled DRM? Interesting choice of words.
I'd like to know who is selling less crippled music? With Microsoft's solution, to play on the PC, you need Windows Media Player, correct? Music from the Zune store only plays on the Zune. Allofmp3 is closed.
Apple does let you burn their DRM'd songs to CD, meaning you can play them in any CD player. You can also rerip. It's a crappy solution to get it onto a non-iPod player, but it's possible. Do other solutions offer this?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, come on, your user ID number indicates that you've been around long enough to remember the petrified/Natalie Portman/hot grits posts.
What comes on these DRM'd MemorySticks? What information do you want to remove from them? People want to crack Bluray because people like pirating movies--particularly high quality movies--what do people want to pirate that comes on these MemorySticks? And is that same information available in the same or better quality elsewhere, with fewer restrictions?
The number of product out there doesn't really matter so much as the number of people who really want to see that product cracked, and the availablility of a comparable product with less restrictive DRM. Most Bluray movies will be offered exclusively on the Bluray format, meaning the only way to get high-quality copies is to crack Bluray or HDCP.
Reading through some docs on it MagicGate, it looks unlikely that it's related to BD+. BD+ works by using the Bluray hardware to create a virtual machine which it uses to run validation code. MagicGate looks like a TPM chip.
Does anyone care to?
There are a whole lot of people interested in cracking the next generation of optical-disc video. That goes a lot longer than trying to crack some small, proprietary DRM.
With copyright it's not so serious an issue, I think. I don't think we'll run out of pleasant combinations of notes and lyrics any time soon, though if we start seeing people trying to copyright small sets of chords, we may see some trouble (several years ago, there was a parody news story about Metallica trying to do something like this.)
With patents, it's an issue because the USPTO got lazy. Or perhaps just swamped. I think some patent reform is in order, but I'm mostly okay with the way things used to be. It's the dilution that needs reigning in. That, and maybe patent trolls who never actually make a product, but that should die down if specific details on the construction of the product were once again required for the patent to be valid.
The effort required for patent invalidation is something else that is troublesome, but that road leads to the terribly corrupt legal system we have, and the fact that legal services are so expensive. Maybe Michael Moore can make that the focus of his next movie.
Everyone's a little off, here, but it's a confusing topic.
What most of us care about when talking about 2G vs 3G is bandwidth. There are other differences (how the data is transmitted--WAP vs packet switching, etc), but when non-telecom geeks sit around talking about it, they're talking about speed.
For a device to be 3G, it must have at least 144kbps download. EDGE gets over 200kbps. EVDO gets around 2Mbps. HSDPA gets around 3-7Mbps, with a theoretical max of 14Mbps. Therefore, as far as most people care, EDGE is 3G (it is also packet-switched, which is one of the other major differences.)
This is the problem with using terms to talk about these things rather than just what you really mean. 2G, 3G, EVDO, EDGE... they all have ranges of data rates, so people tend to group them that way. They think that EVDO is faster than EDGE, so EDGE must be 2G (or the absurd 2.5G) while EVDO must be 3G.
EDGE (which this phone doesn't even support) carries a maximum theoretical downstream bandwidth of 473 kbps. In practice, most handsets/providers max out at about half that. That makes it technically 3G, however HSDPA lets you get 7Mbits/sec. That's a pretty big difference.
These phones have the so-called '2.5G' (which isn't an official designation, but implies packet-switching and other technologies normally associated with 3G, but without the speeds). To be called 3G, you must have at least 144 kbps. That's 60% of what you typically get on EDGE, and that's not what this phone is going to get (obviously, as it's not 3G). With plain old GPRS, you're talking about 80kbps. That's painfully slow for any sort of interactive use (it would obviously be fine for checking mail in the background.)
The data rates are going to suck. EVDO gets something in the range of 2Mbps--noticeably faster than EDGE--and it seems slow to me. Almost anyone who has a PDA phone right now would be seriously downgrading their data rate in order to pick this phone up.
Well, I happen to disagree with software patents. Traditionally, you haven't been able to patent mathematical equations and algorithms. That's a very recent thing.
The other problem with patents is that they tend to (now) be overly broad. A patent should give the reader all the knowledge he needs in order to reproduce the product. That's the social contract. You get a monopoly on the product for a limited period of time, and everyone gets to see how you did it. Then, when the monopoly is over, anyone can recreate/improve on your work. Nowadays, so many patents are too broad or too simple--patents on business models and most software patents, for one (for example, the infamous "1-Click" patent.)
So no, I really don't think that the current patent system works the same way that you're describing. Under the old system, you could work around patents and come up with a similar product that does things differently. Under the current system, it seems like the correlation of inputs/outputs is what's patented, and the actual method of translating input to output is kept secret, preventing anyone from recreating anything even remotely similar before the patent expires.
First, it encourages people to create so that they'll be paid.
Second, it encourages people to create so that they don't have to pay other people.
Honestly, it seems win/win to me. What's wrong with Joe Averge playing a cover at your bar? What gave you the impression that there was something wrong with it? No one is trying to stop this.
The simple rule of thumb is that ethics are codified. Morality also generally benefits humanity, and atheists can have morals. It's just not defined, and it does vary from person to person.
What a joke.
This is exactly like those sports stars who complain that they aren't making enough because they have to live to a certain lifestyle in order to attract the fans. Sorry. If your 'business model' revolves around creating an image that requires you to light your cigar with a c-note, but you're not making enough to do so, then your business model is flawed.
Actually, you don't get to determine "fair market price." You get to determine what price would convince you to buy a given product, and that's all.
The fact that the music industry is doing so well (despite their own protests to the contrary) indicates that they've found a fair market price. It's possible that they could do a little better, sure, but probably not much better.
To sell for what you think is a fair price, they'd have to sell 2-3 times as many units (assuming digital downloads, and ignoring the fact that the costs for transferring the product don't scale with your 'fair market value.') and 3-6 times as many considering physical units in order to make the same profits. They'd actually have to sell more than that in order to increase profits. I don't think that this is likely to happen.
It's usually around this point where someone says, "But they don't have to make the same profits! They're making plenty of money!" As a corporation, their goal is to maximize profit. Period. The RIAA doesn't care about promoting the arts, making the world a better place, or even producing music that people love, except as much as it takes to get money from your pockets. If this price point maximizes their profits, then it is the correct price point, regardless of whether or not it means that you can't (or don't want to) pay for their product.
If a musician made a CD, and could sell it to a single person for $5billion, or to 5 million people for $10, the correct business decision is to sell it to the single person.
A better phrase would be, "When you're done with it." Plenty of people sell CDs when they get tired of them. Knowing you have the option makes it easier to justify the cost.
I know that I'm probably outside the norm around here, but I still purchase CDs. I shop around and try to find the best prices, but if I knew that the second I purchased them, their value would drop to $0.00, I might think twice about taking chances on some of them.
If you own CDs that you never listen to, DVDs that you never watch, or games that you never play (or hell, any piece of property that you never use), then it's the same thing. You can hold on to it just in case you ever need it (packrat mentality) or you can sell it and try to get something useful out of it.
Get off your fucking high horse. We need to get people to check things out before they blindly download/run, send personal information, etc. I don't care if CmdrTaco himself had posted that link, I'd expect any thinking person to verify it somehow before sending in their personal information.
Even if someone were to consider a person with good Karma and lots of posts to be reliable (I can't imagine why a person would think that--online reputation is pretty worthless), your account could have been hacked, or your e-mail address hacked and used to get a recovery password, etc. Who the hell knows?
If you really think that it's safe to just follow any link--even from an "old" member of the community--and input your personal information, then I guess I see exactly what the problem is.
I think the idea behind revoking the security clearance is because the US considers you more likely to defect if you have bad credit (since credit is used for so many things here.) If you're up to your eyeballs in debt, and an enemy agent comes along offering to take care of all of that for you in return for secrets, you might take him up on that. Someone without that debt is less likely to be in that situation.
The rhetoric in here is really getting thick.
Uninstall Vista? Please. The Ubuntu partitioner does it for you.
Now personally, I'd probably reinstall Ubuntu anyway. I just don't trust OEMs not to put crapware on it, even in Linux. What I get for buying Linux pre-installed on the Dell is a reasonable expectation that all of the hardware should work, nothing more.
But maybe that's just me.
You can get FreeDOS, which is almost as good as not getting any OS. I mean, there's pretty much nothing you can do with it, anyway.
Certainly, the PDF is strongly worded. To be perfectly accurate, absolute words such as "always" and "never" should be avoided, however the exaggerations made in the PDF are slight. I'll address some of the finer points below: From item 16 of the declaration: "In some instance, providing the IP address alone to the ISP has been enough to enable the ISP to identify the infringer." You may never have seen a subpoena without a date and timestamp; however, Carlos Linares has gone on record strongly implying that such does happen. Also, "The RIAA typically has included... a date and time...". Note the use of the weasel word "typically". Even the RIAA isn't willing to claim that this never happens. I missed that in the document somehow. It's rather unfortunate, and I guess it means that we've been fairly lucky. I may have been mistaken on the date being a requirement--though the rules are vague enough that it could be interpreted that way. Since the law requires "sufficient evidence to identify the infringing works", I would argue that the date is absolutely required for transient IP addresses. Can time-based information be considered reliable, especially if there is only a 10 minute allowance for error? The example I cited was, itself, an edge case. Is it reliable? That is for the court to decide.
The same answer applies to your other positions on time. Can the DST change affect results? Of course. Does the RIAA have anything else to go on? Not really. It's certainly a chink in the armor of their argument, and a place when searching for flaws in their methods, but it's not (and shouldn't be) a guaranteed "get out of court free" card for the defendant. Is 10 minutes enough room for error? Did this particular case have 10 or more minutes? Does the methodology support 10 minutes of error? It's also an issue of protocol. With Gnutella, I believe that search results may be cached for longer than 10 minutes. I'm not sure about BitTorrent trackers. But it's impossible to begin an investigation without knowing who the alleged infringer is. The plaintiff needs to reasonably prove that the defendent is guilty before confiscating hardware, especially if the loss of hardware causes hardship. You're asking for something that's impossible. If they could prove guilt, they wouldn't need to confiscate the hardware. They're trying to gather proof, and they're using the best information they have.
Look at it this way. If the RIAA (or an agent thereof) logs on to a filesharing network and finds infringing content, what information do they have? They have an IP address, the network name, a filename, and possibly a URL. It would be reasonable to require that they download the file and verify that it is infringing, however current law does not seem to require this (what exactly constitutes a "good faith belief" that the work is infringing?), and I'm not sure that it's been challenged in court. With only that to go on, how does one prove that the defendant is guilty? Some of the statements you are making seem to imply (rightly) that this isn't enough to prove guilt. But really, it's all you can get from a single infringement. Multiple infringements by the same person would certainly make for a stronger case, but to get that, they need the name (and hopefully more identifying information, as there are many Joe Smiths in the country.) Even without multiple infringements, the company should have a reasonable right to protect their copyrights, and the individual should have a reasonable right to privacy (though there may not be a law requiring that the ISP respect this right), so what's the solution?
It's certainly not a simple situation.
As for clock accuracy, that's such a border case as to be almost irrelevant. My suspicion (based solely on my own experience with the DHCP logs and these types of requests) is that they watch for several minutes to see that the files remain attached to that IP address. I've never seen a request that was less than 10 minutes from the beginning or end of a DHCP lease, and they're almost always in the middle of a multi-day string of renewals by the same user.
You have a lot of really valid points, but you've muddied the waters with spots of pedantry.
You also left out (or I missed it in your write-up) IP address spoofing as a flaw. It's rare, but it happens. Probably more often on campus networks or corporate networks than on cable or DSL, where the modem itself limits spoofing quite a bit.
Yeah, but those are the unencrypted tracks, which are definitely the minority on iTMS right now.
I didn't think that the Hymn project was relevant anymore--it doesn't seem to work with recent versions of iTunes. Does QTFU (can't seem to find a specific mention of it on their site)
For what it's worth, iTunes lets you burn songs to CD any number of times--though you can only burn a specific playlist a certain number of times. It's the most asinine restriction ever, since you can always copy the CD that you just burned.
That looks pretty interesting, and is definitely something I will probably check out. Unfortunately, while browsing their catalog, I didn't see a whole lot of overlap with the iTMS. I think that the selection is certainly relevant, although I guess that was an assumption I made when the grandparent post implied that there were other services with less restrictive DRM.
I mean, hell, Jonathan Coulton has no DRM and some of the least-restrictive licensing ever.
I'd like to know who is selling less crippled music? With Microsoft's solution, to play on the PC, you need Windows Media Player, correct? Music from the Zune store only plays on the Zune. Allofmp3 is closed.
Apple does let you burn their DRM'd songs to CD, meaning you can play them in any CD player. You can also rerip. It's a crappy solution to get it onto a non-iPod player, but it's possible. Do other solutions offer this?
Easiest to say that Firefox is a safer version of Internet Explorer.