I'm curious how this might affect pre-existing purchases that are DRM'd. Presumably, they would remain DRM'd due to the license and price upon which they were purchased. Optionally, Apple might add an additional "fee" to un-DRM your existing iTunes collection.
I would think it incumbent upon Toyota to specify the alleged infringing work, otherwise I would side with many of the remarks here.
Risky, though if I were the webmaster I'd try to get some legal assistance. I'd take down what was obvious, document this fact; then perhaps counter sue.
Places like Youtube are good examples here, a company sends a DMCA take-down notice, with a specific example. Unfortunately, it seems Youtube (or anyone else) doesn't always bother to verify, they just do it. But imagine if Toyota told Youtube they had to take down all videos of "x" or else. I'm sure that would fly like a fart in church.
And really, at the end of the day, where is Toyota being "hurt" by this. Having one of their cars on your desktop, etc., is free advertising for them, to some degree.
This touches on a concern I have. What about the various "mashups" we see out there on Youtube, et al.
"Scary Poppins" was pretty creative; imagine if the copyright holders went after them? Actually, did they?
I like to work with video in creative ways, and I'm concerned about "fair use" vs outright infringement.
Are there any pro-Fair-Use attorneys here that can comment on this.
I question what benefit companies like Universal hope to obtain from pursuing these innocuous projects.
The case against the Youtube baby video with "Let's Go Crazy" was and is completely inappropriate and over the edge.
What if I film a friend at a club, where a popular song is audible, then I publish it on YouTube as a an innocent family video? Am I going to get sued? Right.
I agree with a previous poster, new technologies are difficult to follow, etc. However, that's ultimately not a good excuse.
If we begin to set standards, laws and consequences (that are enforced) then we'll see some change take place.
Companies are less likely to go the extra mile, if they don't feel they are legally compelled to.
Personally, if I were one of the unfortunate people who's identity was stolen, I'd be pretty angry at the negligence, talking to a lawyer and pursuing these companies.
Though, being a former Microsoft Windows user now converted Apple, I'm biased. The first thing that occurs to me is how much OS X has done for the desktop. I see some distributions out there mimicking what Apple does in some ways.
Once you start using one, you feel like you've been in the stone age (in my case, with Windows).
Yeah, Apple does have a crappy track record when it comes to their "public image" - I once got a posting "moderated" (read: deleted, hand slapped) for being critical of their neglect in the iPhone area. But despite that, I look around and see how much Apple has done for the consumer market... and well, that's just good ol' fashioned capitalism.
I remember a time when they weren't doing so well. And now the tables have turned. I say good for them.
SO... I'm interested in more specificity about the original article here - why attack Apple? I've actually used the Genius Bar before (yeah, I just couldn't figure it out on my own) and they were really helpful; no complaints here. I'd be pretty pissed off if some lunatic were wasting their time, making me wait, with their ranting about corporate policy - where clearly the poor guys in the Genius Bar have nothing to do with it. That argument needs to be taken to Cupertino.
Okay, I'm done ranting. I just love the Apple product line. Since recently converting to the product, I've been much, much more productive and generally very happy at using the desktop once again.
I realize this is a very complex topic; however, as a consumer, it boils down to this.
I pay for use of x upload and x download, and I expect full, unbridled usage of that bandwidth -- though I rarely use it, I expect my provider to manage their commitments to their customers by building out their infrastructure. Though I realize the customer relationship is different than that of a commercial relationship, I don't really see it that way.
If, on the other hand, they're going to insist on limiting my bandwidth (that I pay for), I expect the prices to be reduced accordingly, if not significantly if they are unable to deliver and/or provide that which I originally paid for.
I'm being somewhat facetious here, though I believe these points are significant.
I've become quite frustrated and disillusioned about the iPhone. Once the bells and whistles wore off, I've seen the obvious: it's essentially a featureless, fancy phone.
Apple's apparent apathy toward consumer feedback and requests for functionality is a serious turn off. Irregardless of whether it's a first-generation device or not, it seems they spend more time and effort trying to keep this phone "locked down" than in pursuing more useful functionality.
I'm sick of having to visit viewmymessage.com (which doesn't always work well) every time someone sends an MMS. The iPhone is devoid of basic document viewing capabilities, the camera is average.
At this stage, after a slightly buggy 1.1.4 release, the fact that I must "jailbreak" my phone to make it more useful is rather sad. This little phone is capable of so much more.
I'm not alone in this feeling; several of my friends and co-workers who have the phone are growing tired of it.
Conversely, RIM/Blackberry seems to have done it right when it comes to useful phones. Their Blackberry Bold (due in July for AT&T) will be 3G, can do iTunes, the screen size is the same as the iPhone, a real QWERTY keyboard, etc.
That will be my new phone. The iPhone will very likely become an overpriced, featureless paperweight (unless I sell it).
I love Apple computer systems, they are top notch, but I feel they messed up with the iPhone. From what I've heard of the 3G phone, there's no motivation for me to hang out and spend more money on the product line.
What I found very disappointing recently was when I posted a politely critical message about the slow development cycle of iPhone features on discussions.apple.com that got "moderated" (read: deleted) with a private response saying I wasn't allowed to be critical of Apple's internal processes.
Not only was that generally petty, I think it speaks volumes (image control, etc).
The net has been around for a while - surely there is some "prior art" on this.
This reminds me of the Compuserve debacle over the GIF format; remember how they attacked every company under the sun, for "license fees." And they got it.
I suspect the motivation for both of these is money. Compuserve wasn't doing to well back then, as I recall, and they needed the cash.
Then, there was lawsuit against RIM over their apparent infringement on a patent by (I forget whom) PULLing messages down from an email server. They solved it by having the email servers PUSH instead. Or something like that.
I don't know how VueStar hopes to enforce this. I find it utterly laughable, and rather petty.
If we could design some clever encryption mechanism to hide and restore content, such as using a TrueCrypt hidden container, with a few "legitimate DRM-managed tunes" visible, they'd not be able to detect it.
The trouble would be hacking the iPod OS, etc.
Either way, clearly this is where we come up with more clever tools to manage our private information and content.
The 3G Blackberry Bold will be out soon; I found an SSH client for it - and you don't have to "jailbreak" the phone to use it, like you do an otherwise featureless iPhone.
There may be other software solutions for the Blackberry.
I've actually had to try using this before; this was a year ago, and it was to track down an annoying telemarketer -- the "answer" I was given is they were unable to trace it. Which I suspected what utter BS.
We've been seeing this problem in the Lowell, MA area, from time-to-time. I've also seen how some legitimate phone calls (from companies) are using CallerID spoofing - I still think that should be illegal.
I'm wondering:
1) How did they track down the telemarketers who were spoofing. Obviously they left or gave information about their identity and product.
2) How are these companies being permitted to spoof their Caller-ID? I read an article in alt.2600 a while ago about some of this, but the details escape me.
I even had a marketing front for The American Cancer Society (and others) calling, looking for "volunteers" - and when I complained to them, they said that seeking volunteers was not covered under the Do Not Call rules. Very sneaky and clever, eh?
Would the onus fall upon Vongage to demonstrate this (presumably).
Does anyone know enough about the patent who can comment on what specifics Verizon claims is original. As I recall, the idea of "voice over IP" has been around for quite some time, so I wonder what part of this technology Verizon claims is theirs and truly original and protected.
And we already have solid-state drives, to some degree. I saw one company that offers solid-state drives in a RAID formation. I seem to recall articles here where leaps are being made in chip technology that will make these more realistic and cost-effective.
If you're going to provide free access, or access to only "paying customers" then secure your network. The burden is upon the company to do this, and I don't see how they can prosecute him for providing this service that already trespasses into public property. Would be an interesting legal precedent.
As for the proper solution - how would you both secure your network AND make it easy for paying customers to access? The present processes don't really provide a solution to that problem... ?
I've been getting contacts from people who barely speak english about positions that really don't match my profile, in places I would not work (far away).
One of them, consult-ics.com, contacted me about a contract with Verizon, and insisted I must provide my SSN before my resume could be submitted.
And let's not forget the spidering that grabs these addresses - I have a special address for my resume that is getting spammed, that address only exists on monster.com.
Ah, but the problem with the monster.com-reponder is that unscrupulous idiots (a/k/a "Employers") abuse this process by sending "work from home!" emails and other crap, to which Monster does not respond (they get paid to allow this).
In fact, I think I have a few slightly saracstic responses from them about this - one of them, suggesting if I don't like it, I can cancel my account. [insert colorful metaphor about what I think of them here]
The end result, for me, is that I refuse email from Monster's letters process, with an error message asking them to direct messages through their ISP - that way, I can block and/or complain about spam.
It's a catch 22.
I guess the alternative is to sign up for another email account and have those messages routed there - but that really doesn't address the problems involved.
Slashdot Mirror
This is great news (and about time).
I'm curious how this might affect pre-existing purchases that are DRM'd. Presumably, they would remain DRM'd due to the license and price upon which they were purchased. Optionally, Apple might add an additional "fee" to un-DRM your existing iTunes collection.
I would think it incumbent upon Toyota to specify the alleged infringing work, otherwise I would side with many of the remarks here.
Risky, though if I were the webmaster I'd try to get some legal assistance. I'd take down what was obvious, document this fact; then perhaps counter sue.
Places like Youtube are good examples here, a company sends a DMCA take-down notice, with a specific example. Unfortunately, it seems Youtube (or anyone else) doesn't always bother to verify, they just do it. But imagine if Toyota told Youtube they had to take down all videos of "x" or else. I'm sure that would fly like a fart in church.
And really, at the end of the day, where is Toyota being "hurt" by this. Having one of their cars on your desktop, etc., is free advertising for them, to some degree.
This touches on a concern I have. What about the various "mashups" we see out there on Youtube, et al.
"Scary Poppins" was pretty creative; imagine if the copyright holders went after them? Actually, did they?
I like to work with video in creative ways, and I'm concerned about "fair use" vs outright infringement.
Are there any pro-Fair-Use attorneys here that can comment on this.
I question what benefit companies like Universal hope to obtain from pursuing these innocuous projects.
The case against the Youtube baby video with "Let's Go Crazy" was and is completely inappropriate and over the edge.
What if I film a friend at a club, where a popular song is audible, then I publish it on YouTube as a an innocent family video? Am I going to get sued? Right.
I agree with a previous poster, new technologies are difficult to follow, etc. However, that's ultimately not a good excuse.
If we begin to set standards, laws and consequences (that are enforced) then we'll see some change take place.
Companies are less likely to go the extra mile, if they don't feel they are legally compelled to.
Personally, if I were one of the unfortunate people who's identity was stolen, I'd be pretty angry at the negligence, talking to a lawyer and pursuing these companies.
Sounds like this may be a useful treatment for astronauts... I wonder, with the issues they face in long-term weightlessness.
I'm a little puzzled.
Though, being a former Microsoft Windows user now converted Apple, I'm biased. The first thing that occurs to me is how much OS X has done for the desktop. I see some distributions out there mimicking what Apple does in some ways.
Once you start using one, you feel like you've been in the stone age (in my case, with Windows).
Yeah, Apple does have a crappy track record when it comes to their "public image" - I once got a posting "moderated" (read: deleted, hand slapped) for being critical of their neglect in the iPhone area. But despite that, I look around and see how much Apple has done for the consumer market... and well, that's just good ol' fashioned capitalism.
I remember a time when they weren't doing so well. And now the tables have turned. I say good for them.
SO... I'm interested in more specificity about the original article here - why attack Apple? I've actually used the Genius Bar before (yeah, I just couldn't figure it out on my own) and they were really helpful; no complaints here. I'd be pretty pissed off if some lunatic were wasting their time, making me wait, with their ranting about corporate policy - where clearly the poor guys in the Genius Bar have nothing to do with it. That argument needs to be taken to Cupertino.
Okay, I'm done ranting. I just love the Apple product line. Since recently converting to the product, I've been much, much more productive and generally very happy at using the desktop once again.
Has anyone made attempts at decoding the SKYPE protocol. This would take some clever reverse engineering of the code and some clever wire sniffing.
I wonder if it would be possible to inject an encryption layer underneath what their service provides.
On a legal note, in the US, could consumers who purchased SKYPE products sue SKYPE.
Chances are pretty good that if this backdoor exists, it has for a long time.
I'm curious how they're accomplishing this; what their network is, did they obtain permission from the mobile carriers for special access.
Ultimately, is there a way the consumer/hacker could accomplish this - perhaps via a VoIP service.
I've been guilty of this. Tapping out one word, watching traffic, then another. Dangerous mix, and I know one day I'll not be so lucky.
What we need is better voice recognition so we can speak our answers - that's the lesser evil ;-)
The correct code to use for comments is: 08-82
Please, when posting something like this, it would be helpful to have all the correct information in the summary to begin with (thanks).
I realize this is a very complex topic; however, as a consumer, it boils down to this.
I pay for use of x upload and x download, and I expect full, unbridled usage of that bandwidth -- though I rarely use it, I expect my provider to manage their commitments to their customers by building out their infrastructure. Though I realize the customer relationship is different than that of a commercial relationship, I don't really see it that way.
If, on the other hand, they're going to insist on limiting my bandwidth (that I pay for), I expect the prices to be reduced accordingly, if not significantly if they are unable to deliver and/or provide that which I originally paid for.
I'm being somewhat facetious here, though I believe these points are significant.
I've become quite frustrated and disillusioned about the iPhone. Once the bells and whistles wore off, I've seen the obvious: it's essentially a featureless, fancy phone.
Apple's apparent apathy toward consumer feedback and requests for functionality is a serious turn off. Irregardless of whether it's a first-generation device or not, it seems they spend more time and effort trying to keep this phone "locked down" than in pursuing more useful functionality.
I'm sick of having to visit viewmymessage.com (which doesn't always work well) every time someone sends an MMS. The iPhone is devoid of basic document viewing capabilities, the camera is average.
At this stage, after a slightly buggy 1.1.4 release, the fact that I must "jailbreak" my phone to make it more useful is rather sad. This little phone is capable of so much more.
I'm not alone in this feeling; several of my friends and co-workers who have the phone are growing tired of it.
Conversely, RIM/Blackberry seems to have done it right when it comes to useful phones. Their Blackberry Bold (due in July for AT&T) will be 3G, can do iTunes, the screen size is the same as the iPhone, a real QWERTY keyboard, etc.
That will be my new phone. The iPhone will very likely become an overpriced, featureless paperweight (unless I sell it).
I love Apple computer systems, they are top notch, but I feel they messed up with the iPhone. From what I've heard of the 3G phone, there's no motivation for me to hang out and spend more money on the product line.
What I found very disappointing recently was when I posted a politely critical message about the slow development cycle of iPhone features on discussions.apple.com that got "moderated" (read: deleted) with a private response saying I wasn't allowed to be critical of Apple's internal processes.
Not only was that generally petty, I think it speaks volumes (image control, etc).
Goodbye, iPhone...
The net has been around for a while - surely there is some "prior art" on this.
This reminds me of the Compuserve debacle over the GIF format; remember how they attacked every company under the sun, for "license fees." And they got it.
I suspect the motivation for both of these is money. Compuserve wasn't doing to well back then, as I recall, and they needed the cash.
Then, there was lawsuit against RIM over their apparent infringement on a patent by (I forget whom) PULLing messages down from an email server. They solved it by having the email servers PUSH instead. Or something like that.
I don't know how VueStar hopes to enforce this. I find it utterly laughable, and rather petty.
If we could design some clever encryption mechanism to hide and restore content, such as using a TrueCrypt hidden container, with a few "legitimate DRM-managed tunes" visible, they'd not be able to detect it.
The trouble would be hacking the iPod OS, etc.
Either way, clearly this is where we come up with more clever tools to manage our private information and content.
The 3G Blackberry Bold will be out soon; I found an SSH client for it - and you don't have to "jailbreak" the phone to use it, like you do an otherwise featureless iPhone.
There may be other software solutions for the Blackberry.
Where is Youtube's sense of Country patriotism and loyalty?
I enjoy the Youtube service, but I find this appalling and completely unacceptable.
"Community Guidelines" is a poor excuse to allow displays of our soldiers being hurt.
What's next, beheading videos? Would that violate their guidelines or is that also considered free speech, too.
Bad decision; the major media should cover this one.
I've actually had to try using this before; this was a year ago, and it was to track down an annoying telemarketer -- the "answer" I was given is they were unable to trace it. Which I suspected what utter BS.
I want someone to make me one! ;-)
We've been seeing this problem in the Lowell, MA area, from time-to-time. I've also seen how some legitimate phone calls (from companies) are using CallerID spoofing - I still think that should be illegal.
I'm wondering:
1) How did they track down the telemarketers who were spoofing. Obviously they left or gave information about their identity and product.
2) How are these companies being permitted to spoof their Caller-ID? I read an article in alt.2600 a while ago about some of this, but the details escape me.
I even had a marketing front for The American Cancer Society (and others) calling, looking for "volunteers" - and when I complained to them, they said that seeking volunteers was not covered under the Do Not Call rules. Very sneaky and clever, eh?
Google won't even use IMAP, what on earth would I want from a large userbase using POP3? Get rid of it, Google. Grow with the times...
Would the onus fall upon Vongage to demonstrate this (presumably).
Does anyone know enough about the patent who can comment on what specifics Verizon claims is original. As I recall, the idea of "voice over IP" has been around for quite some time, so I wonder what part of this technology Verizon claims is theirs and truly original and protected.
I agree with you on this.
And we already have solid-state drives, to some degree. I saw one company that offers solid-state drives in a RAID formation. I seem to recall articles here where leaps are being made in chip technology that will make these more realistic and cost-effective.
I agree here.
If you're going to provide free access, or access to only "paying customers" then secure your network. The burden is upon the company to do this, and I don't see how they can prosecute him for providing this service that already trespasses into public property. Would be an interesting legal precedent.
As for the proper solution - how would you both secure your network AND make it easy for paying customers to access? The present processes don't really provide a solution to that problem... ?
Ugh! I feel your pain.
I've been getting contacts from people who barely speak english about positions that really don't match my profile, in places I would not work (far away).
One of them, consult-ics.com, contacted me about a contract with Verizon, and insisted I must provide my SSN before my resume could be submitted.
And let's not forget the spidering that grabs these addresses - I have a special address for my resume that is getting spammed, that address only exists on monster.com.
Go figure.
Ah, but the problem with the monster.com-reponder is that unscrupulous idiots (a/k/a "Employers") abuse this process by sending "work from home!" emails and other crap, to which Monster does not respond (they get paid to allow this).
In fact, I think I have a few slightly saracstic responses from them about this - one of them, suggesting if I don't like it, I can cancel my account. [insert colorful metaphor about what I think of them here]
The end result, for me, is that I refuse email from Monster's letters process, with an error message asking them to direct messages through their ISP - that way, I can block and/or complain about spam.
It's a catch 22.
I guess the alternative is to sign up for another email account and have those messages routed there - but that really doesn't address the problems involved.