It has a license.txt file which contains the terms under which they may distribute it. And I never uploaded my software to any of these sites; they just find & post it themselves.
Thanks. Unlike download.com / softonic.com, Brothersoft's copy seemed clean (once I found the download link that is! I think this site takes that trick to new heights). BTW, I've never submitted my software to *any* of these (or any other) site - they just find it themselves. The large majority usually just linked back to my site however - or at least they did the last time a checked. That may be a practice that's changing, however...
Please be advised that your your "CNET Download.com installer" is in violation of the terms of my software. Section 4a) permits distribution UNMODIFIED copies only. Additionally, section 4c) does not permit "bundling" with other software components.
Please remove my software from your site immediately, as the reputation of my application is now at risk.
...they aren't bundling Android with their "monopoly" produce of search...Google is not providing any additional incentives to handset makers who use Android...Also, when you go to google.com, you don't have to use Andoid, and it's not pushed on you either...
If you're browser identifies your O/S as Android (e.g. "User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.0; en-us; Droid Build/ESD20) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17") they return a highly customized web page, with a strange little tab on the top and specialized little coffee cup & fork and knife icons. They don't customize the page like that for other O/S's, do they?
As author of the popular GSpot app, I regularly deconstruct and analyze multimedia files. I've just now whipped together a small CLI app called "NIPPIN" that will recursively traverse an M4A file. It can be used for informational purposes only (and I've found that much of the "technical" info in this thread is wrong). Or you can create a "privatized" copy of your iTunes Plus file, that, unlike that "other" app, is "provably correct" (see web page).
Mine does it the right way; it doesn't "blank" any characters, it recalculates all atom lengths, and it recalculates the entire stco table as required. When the input files are the same songs downloaded from different accounts, the resulting output files all have identical MD5 hashes. Hell, even if you're not interested in privacy, it saves a minimum of 32KB per file - which adds up - that's like an extra 75 songs on a 30GB iPod.
And BTW - privacy may not concern some people, but to others it's very "real". Why else would the DMCA, of all things, protect against use of Personally Identifiable Data for copy protection mechanisms? Either the people who wrote the DMCA believe Personally Identifiable Data is a serious and "real" issue, or they put this provision in section 1201 of the DMCA to promote file sharing. Take your pick.
Seems like Panda just drafted up a new press release for a old well known Trojan (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Codec) - one that's been around for months. They just wrote it up like it's something new and distributed it to the likes of TechWorld - to generally "scare" people, and, of course, get their own company name in print (and they apparently didn't even have anything to do with finding it!). Business at Panda must be slow these days...
Slashdot Mirror
Your software is not bundled with anything else.
Yes it is - it's bundled with the "StartNow Toolbar" or the "Babylon Toolbar" (seems to be luck of the draw, if you call that luck).
Thanks. It is rather overdue for an update though...
It has a license.txt file which contains the terms under which they may distribute it. And I never uploaded my software to any of these sites; they just find & post it themselves.
Thanks. Unlike download.com / softonic.com, Brothersoft's copy seemed clean (once I found the download link that is! I think this site takes that trick to new heights).
BTW, I've never submitted my software to *any* of these (or any other) site - they just find it themselves. The large majority usually just linked back to my site however - or at least they did the last time a checked. That may be a practice that's changing, however...
Thanks.
I just sent the following email to Download.com:
Please be advised that your your "CNET Download.com installer" is in violation of the terms of my software. Section 4a) permits distribution UNMODIFIED copies only. Additionally, section 4c) does not permit "bundling" with other software components.
Please remove my software from your site immediately, as the reputation of my application is now at risk.
Sincerely,
Steven Greenberg
Author, GSpot Codec Appliance
...they aren't bundling Android with their "monopoly" produce of search ...Google is not providing any additional incentives to handset makers who use Android ...Also, when you go to google.com, you don't have to use Andoid, and it's not pushed on you either...
If you're browser identifies your O/S as Android (e.g. "User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.0; en-us; Droid Build/ESD20) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17") they return a highly customized web page, with a strange little tab on the top and specialized little coffee cup & fork and knife icons. They don't customize the page like that for other O/S's, do they?
Mine does it the right way; it doesn't "blank" any characters, it recalculates all atom lengths, and it recalculates the entire stco table as required. When the input files are the same songs downloaded from different accounts, the resulting output files all have identical MD5 hashes. Hell, even if you're not interested in privacy, it saves a minimum of 32KB per file - which adds up - that's like an extra 75 songs on a 30GB iPod.
And BTW - privacy may not concern some people, but to others it's very "real". Why else would the DMCA, of all things, protect against use of Personally Identifiable Data for copy protection mechanisms? Either the people who wrote the DMCA believe Personally Identifiable Data is a serious and "real" issue, or they put this provision in section 1201 of the DMCA to promote file sharing. Take your pick.
Seems like Panda just drafted up a new press release for a old well known Trojan (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Codec) - one that's been around for months. They just wrote it up like it's something new and distributed it to the likes of TechWorld - to generally "scare" people, and, of course, get their own company name in print (and they apparently didn't even have anything to do with finding it!). Business at Panda must be slow these days...