"Sorry, but it looks like he was trying to do exactly what Apple said they can't allow you to do - in the first paragraph of their terms of use. Tough."
Yeah, low-down, sneaky little bastid. Trying to play music he'd already paid for instead of downloading it for free via p2p. That'll teach him!
" 1st, this letter has inconsistancies in it. It 1st says that the songs disappeared, but later said that they could not be played."
You didn't read past the first paragraph. He says he had to do a re-install, and upon restoring his set-up, itunes asked him to reauthorise his music files, and was met with a refusal.
"When reading the "Terms of Service", it says that purchases are not available outside of the US and the "service" is not used outside of the US. I'm guessing that iTunes must phone home or something to do with its DRM. If he were to move back to the US, I would guess that he could play his songs again, provided that they were not deleted."
(How this got modded up to 5, Insightful I don't know...) He initially used the service in the US, to buy the music files he had. Upon trying to reauthorise the files after the reinstall (if you remember) from Canada, he was refused. No phoning home... he logged on and tried to reauthorise. Do you see? He couldn't play the songs because itunes insisted he reauthorise after the reinstall! (Is friday free crack for moderators day, or something?)
"As his letter ends with, maybe we should buy CDs, they are not that expensive when bought used, or download free music, or "share" mp3s off of someone you don't know."
Or maybe, online music services shouldn't have stupid rules, that shoot themselves in the foot, and screw their PAYING customers, if they want to make online music file purchasing an appealing alternative to Kazaa, et al.
The same situation as that I mentioned can also occur in child killing situations, where the prosecution cannot say with any certainty which parent killed the child.
It's not a good outcome, but I only think you can say it's "wrong" when you only look at it from one side.
An abstract case of three people sealed in a soundproof room with a knife, which all three have handled, with no oppurtunity to view from the outside, and they later emerge, one dead and the other two blaming each other for the murder.
Should you punish an innocent man, if you cannot prove who used the knife?
That would seem to fly in the face of what is considered just.
The Belgian judge's actions, in the case you mentioned, seem quite unjust, since the defendant has a right to silence, and it wasn't proved he comitted the crime.
" Do you suppose they still would be so eager to hear the music once it has cost them $15,000 in fines?"
Your'e forgetting: once the RIAA has got your $15,000, you're nolonger any use to them. Let's face it, how many people are going to spend $15,000 on CDs in their lifetime?
" If I let my friend use my car, and he runs over 14 children I will be sued. I will lose. I will have my life ruined. Select your friends, and let them borrow your car only if needed."
Does this apply to rental firms also? And if not, why not?
In the UK just recently two young men walked free from court when the prosecution could not prove which one of them was at the wheel, when the car they were in struck and killed a pedestrian. Both individuals claimed the other was driving at the time of the incident.
Simple revision: You put your CD collection on display on your porch, along with a cd player. Other person comes along, pops chosen CD into your CD player, and plugs his laptop into the sound outputs from the CD player.
The CD player is the enabler, the other's laptop/recording device is their end of the p2p equation. Inquiries are made and resolved by the other rotating his eyes in the direction of your CD display.
As for announcement of CDs, that is different. Maybe the porch is on a very busy road, I dunno.
"yoga, meditation and feng-shui is childish, silly and new-age clap-trap put about my a bunch of charlatans looking to make a quick buck out of the naieve, impressionable and those with more money than sense."
Moderated as insightful, yet flamebait seems more justified. Turgid, maybe you should relieve your ignorance on the subject by reading a good book.
I think also of interest would be where you stand if you share a copyright, non-licensed for free copying track, which a lot of people also share, and as such only contribute, say, 12% of a given download.
" It's more akin to putting a computer with a CD burner on your front porch along with your entire cd collection and hundreds of blank cds, then going and staking signs around the neighborhood about how the computer is there and so are the blank cds, and listing which cds you have, and your phone number in case they would like to ask you if you have cd XYZ song ZYX."
I would disagree. It's more like putting your cd collection on display on your front porch, and a person bringing their own laptop along and popping your CD into their drive and copying it, without your intervention, then returning the disc, and going on their merry way.
Oh yeah.... except on the internet.
Doesn't seem so evil, immoral and illegal when it's put like that, does it?
I have revised my opinion on how to defend against the RIAA when using p2p. Previously I suggested the use of user names such as "sunflowergrrrl_13@kazaa" and the like, betting that the RIAA would not be foolish enough to prosecute sweet little photogenic girls, and suffer the negative publicity.
Since they are prosecuting the likes of "Lisweet@Kazaa" "ktgurl13@Grokster" and the like, however, (the heartless bastards) I now am of the opinion that "cuntfuckcunt@kazaa" might be the way to go.
I agree. It seems like what the world needs is more CD Baby-like outfits, who don't demand that a musician sells their souls to them in return for the ability to make a living out of their artistic talent.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, low-down, sneaky little bastid. Trying to play music he'd already paid for instead of downloading it for free via p2p. That'll teach him!
They don't delete your songs. This guy LOST his songs in a reinstall, and was trying to buy em back."
See, here's another thing, RTFA by all means, but do ITFAC (Interpret the flipping article correctly.)
He wasn't trying the repurchase the tracks, merely re-authorise them after his reinstall.
The letter is incredibly poorly written.
Which, of course, begs the question, why have the stupid restriction in the first place?
You didn't read past the first paragraph. He says he had to do a re-install, and upon restoring his set-up, itunes asked him to reauthorise his music files, and was met with a refusal.
"When reading the "Terms of Service", it says that purchases are not available outside of the US and the "service" is not used outside of the US. I'm guessing that iTunes must phone home or something to do with its DRM. If he were to move back to the US, I would guess that he could play his songs again, provided that they were not deleted."
(How this got modded up to 5, Insightful I don't know...) He initially used the service in the US, to buy the music files he had. Upon trying to reauthorise the files after the reinstall (if you remember) from Canada, he was refused. No phoning home... he logged on and tried to reauthorise. Do you see? He couldn't play the songs because itunes insisted he reauthorise after the reinstall! (Is friday free crack for moderators day, or something?)
"As his letter ends with, maybe we should buy CDs, they are not that expensive when bought used, or download free music, or "share" mp3s off of someone you don't know."
Or maybe, online music services shouldn't have stupid rules, that shoot themselves in the foot, and screw their PAYING customers, if they want to make online music file purchasing an appealing alternative to Kazaa, et al.
(Patiently waits while moderated Offtopic.)
It's not a good outcome, but I only think you can say it's "wrong" when you only look at it from one side.
An abstract case of three people sealed in a soundproof room with a knife, which all three have handled, with no oppurtunity to view from the outside, and they later emerge, one dead and the other two blaming each other for the murder.
Should you punish an innocent man, if you cannot prove who used the knife? That would seem to fly in the face of what is considered just.
The Belgian judge's actions, in the case you mentioned, seem quite unjust, since the defendant has a right to silence, and it wasn't proved he comitted the crime.
I can only assume no jury was involved.
Your'e forgetting: once the RIAA has got your $15,000, you're nolonger any use to them.
Let's face it, how many people are going to spend $15,000 on CDs in their lifetime?
In other news, a man with a gun pointed at his head by his wife swears that he's never even so much as looked at another woman, since he got married.
Zealously respects copyrights, my arse.
What an excellent way for an abused child to reek revenge on his or her cruel and uncaring parents (before skedaddeling.)
Does this apply to rental firms also? And if not, why not?
In the UK just recently two young men walked free from court when the prosecution could not prove which one of them was at the wheel, when the car they were in struck and killed a pedestrian. Both individuals claimed the other was driving at the time of the incident.
Try the Useragent Toolbar from http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/
Bazooka.
Read all about it. [PDF] Get over that.
The CD player is the enabler, the other's laptop/recording device is their end of the p2p equation. Inquiries are made and resolved by the other rotating his eyes in the direction of your CD display.
As for announcement of CDs, that is different. Maybe the porch is on a very busy road, I dunno.
Lmao.
I nearly threw up, I laughed so much at that.
I bow to your superior hum0r 5k1llz.
Moderated as insightful, yet flamebait seems more justified.
Turgid, maybe you should relieve your ignorance on the subject by reading a good book.
I dunno. In the UK, just the other day two people were found innocent when they were in a car which crashed into and killed somebody.
Each of them said the other was driving, and sice the actual driver (and hence killer) could not be identified, they both walked.
Maybe this would work as a defence in a multi-user household as well as with wi-fi.
I think also of interest would be where you stand if you share a copyright, non-licensed for free copying track, which a lot of people also share, and as such only contribute, say, 12% of a given download.
I would disagree. It's more like putting your cd collection on display on your front porch, and a person bringing their own laptop along and popping your CD into their drive and copying it, without your intervention, then returning the disc, and going on their merry way.
Oh yeah.... except on the internet.
Doesn't seem so evil, immoral and illegal when it's put like that, does it?
"Steal content" my arse.
Since they are prosecuting the likes of "Lisweet@Kazaa" "ktgurl13@Grokster" and the like, however, (the heartless bastards) I now am of the opinion that "cuntfuckcunt@kazaa" might be the way to go.
Lets see them file papers against that.
People have shared their music with their friends since the compact cassette was invented. It's a great thing to do.
Now people are doing it on the internet: the great thing that brings people together accross the world.
That means it's happening on a WIDER scale. That's all. It's not imoral. It's "big issue" status seems to be solely to do with it's transparancy.
I agree. It seems like what the world needs is more CD Baby-like outfits, who don't demand that a musician sells their souls to them in return for the ability to make a living out of their artistic talent.
I thought once you bought the disc/tape, it was yours to do with as you liked (except of distribute *copies* of the content.)
Surely it's your right to sell it, loan it for free or for a fee, give it away, or otherwise use or dispose of it as you see fit?
Anyone clarify this for me?
"It's like modding someone up, and posting a reply... isn't it ironic?"
Or should that be wolf eating sheep?
errr...