The website's been running for several years now. I'd think that were it illegal, it would have been shut down by legal action by now. The fact that it has not leads me to think that its legal status is reasonably solid.
Just because it *looks* like a store-bought CD doesn't mean that it can be treated like a store-bought CD. If this putative relative ever plays that CD and listens to that song, then that is a copyright violation. Likewise, if I can prove to a court that you gave them that CD with full knowledge that they were going to play back that song, then you are guilty of contributory copyright violation. Do it enough times to exceed a $2,500 barrier and you have violated the NET Act and you are a Federal criminal looking at 3 years in Federal prison and several millions of dollars worth of fines. You may as well have shared it on Kazaa.
you just plug it into a wall socket on one end, and then plug it into an audio device on the other (via either 3mm stereo analogue cabling or via mini-Toslink optical cabling, which is well suited for a 7.1 surround sound system)
You know, real high-quality players have digital outputs and inputs built-in to the device. Apple saw fit to disable the TOSLink interface specified in the PortalPlayer reference design. If you can only add reasonable quality line-level and digital output to an iPod using dongles and clinky hacks then it's not a high-quality device, it's a lowest-common-denominator playback-only toy.
It's dubiously legal at best inside Russia, and is not legal outside of it.
So you're saying that if I buy a legally licensed CD manufactured in Slovakia, and then sold in, say, Copenhagan, then that CD becomes illegal if I carry it into the US? Or are you saying that if I download a track from a euro iTMS store and then carry my iPod into the US that it becomes illegal?
If corporations are free to arbitrage minimum wage and environmental standards between different countries with captive labour markets and so produce things dirt cheap and then import them into higher-wage countries, then why do you honestly think that consumers shouldn't have an equal opportunity to game our brave new globalised world? If I want to buy legally licensed music produced in Russia and then import it for my personal use into another country, why shouldn't I? What you're saying is a version of imperialism, that somehow the US-based RIAA licensing mafia has more legality than a similar Russian-based licensing mafia.
Furthermore, ignoring my colloqial use of the term "mafia", what proof do you have that the people behind allofmp3.com are involved in illegal, coordinated activities? From my point of view, only the RIAA has been sued under the RICO for racketeering.
even disregarding the questionable legality of the allofmp3 music in the United States
So you're saying that if I buy a legally licensed CD manufactured in Slovakia, and then sold in, say, Copenhagan, then that CD becomes illegal if I carry it into the US? Or are you saying that if I download a track from a euro iTMS store and then carry my iPod into the US that it becomes illegal?
If corporations are free to arbitrage minimum wage and environmental standards between different countries with captive labour markets and so produce things dirt cheap and then import them into higher-wage countries, then why do you honestly think that consumers shouldn't have an equal opportunity to game our brave new globalised world? If I want to buy legally licensed music produced in Russia and then import it for my personal use into another country, why shouldn't I? What you're saying is a version of imperialism, that somehow the US-based RIAA licensing mafia has more legality than a similar Russian-based licensing mafia.
If corporations are free to arbitrage minimum wage and environmental standards between different countries with captive labour markets and so produce things dirt cheap and then import them into higher-wage countries, then why do you honestly think that consumers shouldn't have an equal opportunity to game our brave new globalised world? If I want to buy legally licensed music produced in Russia and then import it for my personal use into another country, why shouldn't I? What you're saying is a version of imperialism, that somehow the US-based RIAA licensing mafia has more legality than a similar Russian-based licensing mafia.
CD is my property, CD becomes family member's property.
But if this putative relative ever plays that CD and listens to that song, then that is a copyright violation. Likewise, if I can prove to a court that you gave them that CD with full knowledge that they were going to play back that song, then you are guilty of contributory copyright violation. You may as well have shared it on Kazaa.
I can't see where their profit margins would be that much lower.
Because licensing rates for broadcast and pseudo-broadcast media are much, much lower (ASCAP) than individual per-item licensing fees (ala RIAA). You really think Clear Channel pays $0.30 *every time* it plays a Britney song?
I'd be surprised if the RIAA left that much money on the table - they'd argue that if Apple can make a living with such a low margin
Because the subs model is based on radio broadcast royalties, not unit royalties, and the slice left for the "broadcaster" is much, much larger. They use different licensing schemes, ASCAP vs RIAA. They settle for different slices of the pie.
It's quite impressive that you manage to post the EXACT SAME MESSAGE 10 times without any of them being moderated as Redundant.
And I believe it's quite amazing that several different people exhibited such sheep-like behaviour that they managed to post essentially the same Apple fanboy message ("iChoonz Good! Napster Bad!") and get modded up every time. It's like a bleedin' cult meeting.
Which is more than you get from napster, which leases you the right to listen to the music, as long as you pay the subscription fee.
I believe Napster has several licensing options, one of which is similar to Apple's: a pay-per-individual-license fee. Then you can download the tune and store/playback without paying any additional license fee.
Really? The best estimate I've seen is 1m per day tops. It may approach 1.5m within a year, but it's not there yet. And the net is around $0.05.
Subs work better as a revenue model than Apple's pay-per-individual-license. I think I'd call Rhapsody's ~700K subs per month @ $10 a reasonable success. Real has around a 30% Q-on-Q growth rate. And its radio-like license model means that it gets to keep far more of each $10 sub.
Let's say Rhapsody keeps (say) 40% of its revenue. That's ~ $30m per year.
Let's say Apple gets to keep $.05 of each song. At 1m a day that's ~ $18m per year.
So you see, the subs business is a good one to be in. Add in the revenues from the satellite subs, Napster's 200K monthly subs, and the fact that the telcos are salivating to offer music subs services across multiple devices profiles and aggregate the billing, and you see why the subs business is hot.
Napster may never eclipse Apple's pay-per-download download license gross, but its net take from the subs business could eclipse Apple's iTMS net.
Subs do work. I think I'd call Rhapsody's ~700K subs per month @ $10 a reasonable success. Real has around a 30% Q-on-Q growth rate. And its radio-like license model means that it gets to keep far more of each $10 sub.
Let's say Rhapsody keeps (say) 40% of its revenue. That's ~ $30m per year.
Let's say Apple gets to keep $.05 of each song. At 1m a day that's ~ $18m per year.
So you see, the subs business is a good one to be in. Add in the revenues from the satellite subs, Napster's 200K monthly subs, and the fact that the telcos are salivating to offer music subs services across multiple devices profiles and aggregate the billing, and you see why the subs business is hot.
Napster may never eclipse Apple's pay-per-download download license gross, but its net take from the subs business could eclipse Apple's iTMS net.
at least I own the digital files I download off iTunes
No, you don't. Try selling them to someone else. Try gifting them to your family, or your heirs. They are not your property.What you are doing is licensing them from Apple with a pay-per-individual subscription license fee of $.99.
The Napster reality won't live up to the hype for most people. In contrast, the iPod reality exceeds the hype for most people. Do the math...
Subs do work. I think I'd call Rhapsody's ~700K subs per month @ $10 a reasonable success. Real has around a 30% Q-on-Q growth rate. And its radio-like license model means that it gets to keep far more of each $10 sub.
Let's say Rhapsody keeps (say) 40% of its revenue. That's ~ $30m per year.
Let's say Apple gets to keep $.05 of each song. At 1m a day that's ~ $18m per year.
So you see, the subs business is a good one to be in. Add in the revenues from the satellite subs, Napster's 200K monthly subs, and the fact that the telcos are salivating to offer music subs services across multiple devices profiles and aggregate the billing, and you see why the subs business is hot.
Napster may never eclipse Apple's pay-per-download download license gross, but its net take from the subs business could eclipse Apple's iTMS net.
The key to success is to open many ways to play this music your purchased.
Subs do work. I think I'd call Rhapsody's ~700K subs per month @ $10 a reasonable success. Real has around a 30% Q-on-Q growth rate. And its radio-like license model means that it gets to keep far more of each $10 sub.
Let's say Rhapsody keeps (say) 40% of its revenue. That's ~ $30m per year.
Let's say Apple gets to keep $.05 of each song. At 1m a day that's ~ $18m per year.
So you see, the subs business is a good one to be in. Add in the revenues from the satellite subs, Napster's 200K monthly subs, and the fact that the telcos are salivating to offer music subs services across multiple devices profiles and aggregate the billing, and you see why the subs business is hot.
Napster may never eclipse Apple's pay-per-download download license gross, but its net take from the subs business could eclipse Apple's iTMS net.
Apple has proven that the iTunes Music Store is a viable business model, with over 250-plus million sales to date.T
Subs work. I think I'd call Rhapsody's ~700K subs per month @ $10 a reasonable success. Real has around a 30% Q-on-Q growth rate. And its radio-like license model means that it gets to keep far more of each $10 sub.
Let's say Rhapsody keeps (say) 40% of its revenue. That's ~ $30m per year.
Let's say Apple gets to keep $.05 of each song. At 1m a day that's ~ $18m per year.
So you see, the subs business is a good one to be in. Add in the revenues from the satellite subs, Napster's 200K monthly subs, and the fact that the telcos are salivating to offer music subs services and aggregate the billing, and you see why the subs business is hot.
Napster may never eclipse Apple's pay-per-download download license gross, but its net take from the subs business could eclipse Apple's iTMS net.
One of the tools I'm best known for is Folding Table Theory of Start-Ups. It says that when you walk into a new entrepreneurial company and you see a nice lobby and expensive office furniture, that company has its priorities screwed up -- either it is more interested in comfort than success or it is over-capitalized and lazy -- and it will never make it.
This "theory" has virtually no real predictive value. I've seen plenty of glitzy start-ups that succeeded. I've also seen plenty of dirt-poor, cheap-arse start-ups that failed. Classic example of glitzy start-up that prospered: Google. It *never* spared any expense in super-expensive office furniture or expensive employee toys and perks.
they're still trying to compete with the iTMS, and so far with limited success.
I think I'd call Rhapsody's ~700K subs per month @ $10 a reasonable success. Real has around a 30% Q-on-Q growth rate. And it's radio-like license model means that it gets to keep far more of each $10 sub.
Let's say Rhapsody keeps (say) 40% of its revenue. That's ~ $30m per year.
Let's say Apple gets to keep $.05 of each song. At 1m a day that's ~ $18m per year.
So you see, the subs business is a good one to be in. Add in the revenues from the satellite subs, Napster's 200K monthly subs, and the fact that the telcos are salivating to offer music subs services and aggregate the billing, and you see why the subs business is hot.
I use the Scheduler function of Media Center to record shows at specific times through the radio or TV tuner. MC will do autotranscoding and bitrate up/downsampling for different device profiles during sync. Or if you don't get a chance to sync, it will stream the recorded media over LAN or WAN. I haven't used it, but the new version 11 apparently also does streaming client-specific on-the-fly bitrate transcoding. It works pretty well. There are, of course, dedicated PVR-like programs for internet or broadcast media, but they seem to cost a relatively lot of money for single/limited functionality.
Partnering with anyone on basic design aspects of the iPod means that Apple throws away the leverage it has worked so hard to build.
You are aware that the iPod runs a PixOS operating system (owned by Sun), a PortalPlayer firmware/chipset, a Synaptics wheel controller, some Wolson DACs, and licenses AAC and the FairPlay DRM wrappers from third parties, right? And that the iPod itself is OEM'd by ASUSTek (iPod and shuffle) and Hon Hai Precision (mini). Basically, with the iPod Apple works like Dell as a VAR and slaps its logo on, fills sales and direct channels, and adds some after-market service. That's also why it was so easy for HP to get into iPod "manufacturing": its just gets Hon Hai and ASUSTek to add its own logo and remixes the channel and after-market service a bit differently.
What if as you listened each song was stored on the ipod for a short time, and within a small window you'd be able to save that song permanently to your device. You wouldn't be able to charge per song, but you could just factor into the cost per month an aggregate value to place on each song played.
Sounds like you've just described Napster-To-Go exactly. You know, Rhapsody's getting ~700K monthly subs, Napster is around 200K monthly subs. Figure $10-$15 per month over a year and this exclipses Apple's revenue from ther iTMS. If this trend continues, I expect it won't be long before Apple introduces an all-you-can-eat subs model. I suspect the only thing holding Apple back is that it has not yet bought or developed a suitable DRM wrapper similar to the MS Janus scheme that Napster is using...
You know, I think me and you have a different definition of what "get together" means. Read the story, it's quite short, and the twist, uh, comes quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
Did they train you to begin a refutation by insulting the other party?
Please explain to me how you can consider allofmp3 legal? The website's been running for several years now. I'd think that were it illegal, it would have been shut down by legal action by now. The fact that it has not leads me to think that its legal status is reasonably solid.
You can indeed sell or gift your harddrive and your files on that harddrive to anyone you like.
Give your theory a try. Try advertising for sale a bundle of your iTMS "songs. Go on.
I do that all the time. It's called to burn a CD!
Just because it *looks* like a store-bought CD doesn't mean that it can be treated like a store-bought CD. If this putative relative ever plays that CD and listens to that song, then that is a copyright violation. Likewise, if I can prove to a court that you gave them that CD with full knowledge that they were going to play back that song, then you are guilty of contributory copyright violation. Do it enough times to exceed a $2,500 barrier and you have violated the NET Act and you are a Federal criminal looking at 3 years in Federal prison and several millions of dollars worth of fines. You may as well have shared it on Kazaa.
you just plug it into a wall socket on one end, and then plug it into an audio device on the other (via either 3mm stereo analogue cabling or via mini-Toslink optical cabling, which is well suited for a 7.1 surround sound system)
You know, real high-quality players have digital outputs and inputs built-in to the device. Apple saw fit to disable the TOSLink interface specified in the PortalPlayer reference design. If you can only add reasonable quality line-level and digital output to an iPod using dongles and clinky hacks then it's not a high-quality device, it's a lowest-common-denominator playback-only toy.
It's dubiously legal at best inside Russia, and is not legal outside of it.
So you're saying that if I buy a legally licensed CD manufactured in Slovakia, and then sold in, say, Copenhagan, then that CD becomes illegal if I carry it into the US? Or are you saying that if I download a track from a euro iTMS store and then carry my iPod into the US that it becomes illegal?
If corporations are free to arbitrage minimum wage and environmental standards between different countries with captive labour markets and so produce things dirt cheap and then import them into higher-wage countries, then why do you honestly think that consumers shouldn't have an equal opportunity to game our brave new globalised world? If I want to buy legally licensed music produced in Russia and then import it for my personal use into another country, why shouldn't I? What you're saying is a version of imperialism, that somehow the US-based RIAA licensing mafia has more legality than a similar Russian-based licensing mafia.
Furthermore, ignoring my colloqial use of the term "mafia", what proof do you have that the people behind allofmp3.com are involved in illegal, coordinated activities? From my point of view, only the RIAA has been sued under the RICO for racketeering.
even disregarding the questionable legality of the allofmp3 music in the United States
So you're saying that if I buy a legally licensed CD manufactured in Slovakia, and then sold in, say, Copenhagan, then that CD becomes illegal if I carry it into the US? Or are you saying that if I download a track from a euro iTMS store and then carry my iPod into the US that it becomes illegal?
If corporations are free to arbitrage minimum wage and environmental standards between different countries with captive labour markets and so produce things dirt cheap and then import them into higher-wage countries, then why do you honestly think that consumers shouldn't have an equal opportunity to game our brave new globalised world? If I want to buy legally licensed music produced in Russia and then import it for my personal use into another country, why shouldn't I? What you're saying is a version of imperialism, that somehow the US-based RIAA licensing mafia has more legality than a similar Russian-based licensing mafia.
This is NOT legal except within russia
If corporations are free to arbitrage minimum wage and environmental standards between different countries with captive labour markets and so produce things dirt cheap and then import them into higher-wage countries, then why do you honestly think that consumers shouldn't have an equal opportunity to game our brave new globalised world? If I want to buy legally licensed music produced in Russia and then import it for my personal use into another country, why shouldn't I? What you're saying is a version of imperialism, that somehow the US-based RIAA licensing mafia has more legality than a similar Russian-based licensing mafia.
CD is my property, CD becomes family member's property.
But if this putative relative ever plays that CD and listens to that song, then that is a copyright violation. Likewise, if I can prove to a court that you gave them that CD with full knowledge that they were going to play back that song, then you are guilty of contributory copyright violation. You may as well have shared it on Kazaa.
I can't see where their profit margins would be that much lower.
Because licensing rates for broadcast and pseudo-broadcast media are much, much lower (ASCAP) than individual per-item licensing fees (ala RIAA). You really think Clear Channel pays $0.30 *every time* it plays a Britney song?
I'd be surprised if the RIAA left that much money on the table - they'd argue that if Apple can make a living with such a low margin
Because the subs model is based on radio broadcast royalties, not unit royalties, and the slice left for the "broadcaster" is much, much larger. They use different licensing schemes, ASCAP vs RIAA. They settle for different slices of the pie.
It's quite impressive that you manage to post the EXACT SAME MESSAGE 10 times without any of them being moderated as Redundant.
And I believe it's quite amazing that several different people exhibited such sheep-like behaviour that they managed to post essentially the same Apple fanboy message ("iChoonz Good! Napster Bad!") and get modded up every time. It's like a bleedin' cult meeting.
Which is more than you get from napster, which leases you the right to listen to the music, as long as you pay the subscription fee.
I believe Napster has several licensing options, one of which is similar to Apple's: a pay-per-individual-license fee. Then you can download the tune and store/playback without paying any additional license fee.
selling ongoing at a rate of 1.5 million a day
Really? The best estimate I've seen is 1m per day tops. It may approach 1.5m within a year, but it's not there yet. And the net is around $0.05.
Subs work better as a revenue model than Apple's pay-per-individual-license. I think I'd call Rhapsody's ~700K subs per month @ $10 a reasonable success. Real has around a 30% Q-on-Q growth rate. And its radio-like license model means that it gets to keep far more of each $10 sub.
Let's say Rhapsody keeps (say) 40% of its revenue. That's ~ $30m per year.
Let's say Apple gets to keep $.05 of each song. At 1m a day that's ~ $18m per year.
So you see, the subs business is a good one to be in. Add in the revenues from the satellite subs, Napster's 200K monthly subs, and the fact that the telcos are salivating to offer music subs services across multiple devices profiles and aggregate the billing, and you see why the subs business is hot.
Napster may never eclipse Apple's pay-per-download download license gross, but its net take from the subs business could eclipse Apple's iTMS net.
No target market
Subs do work. I think I'd call Rhapsody's ~700K subs per month @ $10 a reasonable success. Real has around a 30% Q-on-Q growth rate. And its radio-like license model means that it gets to keep far more of each $10 sub.
Let's say Rhapsody keeps (say) 40% of its revenue. That's ~ $30m per year.
Let's say Apple gets to keep $.05 of each song. At 1m a day that's ~ $18m per year.
So you see, the subs business is a good one to be in. Add in the revenues from the satellite subs, Napster's 200K monthly subs, and the fact that the telcos are salivating to offer music subs services across multiple devices profiles and aggregate the billing, and you see why the subs business is hot.
Napster may never eclipse Apple's pay-per-download download license gross, but its net take from the subs business could eclipse Apple's iTMS net.
at least I own the digital files I download off iTunes
No, you don't. Try selling them to someone else. Try gifting them to your family, or your heirs. They are not your property.What you are doing is licensing them from Apple with a pay-per-individual subscription license fee of $.99.
The Napster reality won't live up to the hype for most people. In contrast, the iPod reality exceeds the hype for most people. Do the math...
Subs do work. I think I'd call Rhapsody's ~700K subs per month @ $10 a reasonable success. Real has around a 30% Q-on-Q growth rate. And its radio-like license model means that it gets to keep far more of each $10 sub.
Let's say Rhapsody keeps (say) 40% of its revenue. That's ~ $30m per year.
Let's say Apple gets to keep $.05 of each song. At 1m a day that's ~ $18m per year.
So you see, the subs business is a good one to be in. Add in the revenues from the satellite subs, Napster's 200K monthly subs, and the fact that the telcos are salivating to offer music subs services across multiple devices profiles and aggregate the billing, and you see why the subs business is hot.
Napster may never eclipse Apple's pay-per-download download license gross, but its net take from the subs business could eclipse Apple's iTMS net.
The key to success is to open many ways to play this music your purchased.
Subs do work. I think I'd call Rhapsody's ~700K subs per month @ $10 a reasonable success. Real has around a 30% Q-on-Q growth rate. And its radio-like license model means that it gets to keep far more of each $10 sub.
Let's say Rhapsody keeps (say) 40% of its revenue. That's ~ $30m per year.
Let's say Apple gets to keep $.05 of each song. At 1m a day that's ~ $18m per year.
So you see, the subs business is a good one to be in. Add in the revenues from the satellite subs, Napster's 200K monthly subs, and the fact that the telcos are salivating to offer music subs services across multiple devices profiles and aggregate the billing, and you see why the subs business is hot.
Napster may never eclipse Apple's pay-per-download download license gross, but its net take from the subs business could eclipse Apple's iTMS net.
Apple has proven that the iTunes Music Store is a viable business model, with over 250-plus million sales to date.T
Subs work. I think I'd call Rhapsody's ~700K subs per month @ $10 a reasonable success. Real has around a 30% Q-on-Q growth rate. And its radio-like license model means that it gets to keep far more of each $10 sub.
Let's say Rhapsody keeps (say) 40% of its revenue. That's ~ $30m per year.
Let's say Apple gets to keep $.05 of each song. At 1m a day that's ~ $18m per year.
So you see, the subs business is a good one to be in. Add in the revenues from the satellite subs, Napster's 200K monthly subs, and the fact that the telcos are salivating to offer music subs services and aggregate the billing, and you see why the subs business is hot.
Napster may never eclipse Apple's pay-per-download download license gross, but its net take from the subs business could eclipse Apple's iTMS net.
One of the tools I'm best known for is Folding Table Theory of Start-Ups. It says that when you walk into a new entrepreneurial company and you see a nice lobby and expensive office furniture, that company has its priorities screwed up -- either it is more interested in comfort than success or it is over-capitalized and lazy -- and it will never make it.
This "theory" has virtually no real predictive value. I've seen plenty of glitzy start-ups that succeeded. I've also seen plenty of dirt-poor, cheap-arse start-ups that failed. Classic example of glitzy start-up that prospered: Google. It *never* spared any expense in super-expensive office furniture or expensive employee toys and perks.
they're still trying to compete with the iTMS, and so far with limited success.
I think I'd call Rhapsody's ~700K subs per month @ $10 a reasonable success. Real has around a 30% Q-on-Q growth rate. And it's radio-like license model means that it gets to keep far more of each $10 sub.
Let's say Rhapsody keeps (say) 40% of its revenue. That's ~ $30m per year.
Let's say Apple gets to keep $.05 of each song. At 1m a day that's ~ $18m per year.
So you see, the subs business is a good one to be in. Add in the revenues from the satellite subs, Napster's 200K monthly subs, and the fact that the telcos are salivating to offer music subs services and aggregate the billing, and you see why the subs business is hot.
Make my iPod like TiVo
I use the Scheduler function of Media Center to record shows at specific times through the radio or TV tuner. MC will do autotranscoding and bitrate up/downsampling for different device profiles during sync. Or if you don't get a chance to sync, it will stream the recorded media over LAN or WAN. I haven't used it, but the new version 11 apparently also does streaming client-specific on-the-fly bitrate transcoding. It works pretty well. There are, of course, dedicated PVR-like programs for internet or broadcast media, but they seem to cost a relatively lot of money for single/limited functionality.
I could see buying the $599 model to get the 60GB drive, though.
That's a bit rich for me! I spend $80 to add 80GB to my Archos.
Partnering with anyone on basic design aspects of the iPod means that Apple throws away the leverage it has worked so hard to build.
You are aware that the iPod runs a PixOS operating system (owned by Sun), a PortalPlayer firmware/chipset, a Synaptics wheel controller, some Wolson DACs, and licenses AAC and the FairPlay DRM wrappers from third parties, right? And that the iPod itself is OEM'd by ASUSTek (iPod and shuffle) and Hon Hai Precision (mini). Basically, with the iPod Apple works like Dell as a VAR and slaps its logo on, fills sales and direct channels, and adds some after-market service. That's also why it was so easy for HP to get into iPod "manufacturing": its just gets Hon Hai and ASUSTek to add its own logo and remixes the channel and after-market service a bit differently.
What if as you listened each song was stored on the ipod for a short time, and within a small window you'd be able to save that song permanently to your device. You wouldn't be able to charge per song, but you could just factor into the cost per month an aggregate value to place on each song played.
Sounds like you've just described Napster-To-Go exactly. You know, Rhapsody's getting ~700K monthly subs, Napster is around 200K monthly subs. Figure $10-$15 per month over a year and this exclipses Apple's revenue from ther iTMS. If this trend continues, I expect it won't be long before Apple introduces an all-you-can-eat subs model. I suspect the only thing holding Apple back is that it has not yet bought or developed a suitable DRM wrapper similar to the MS Janus scheme that Napster is using...
His "girlfriend" is a wireless device?
You know, I think me and you have a different definition of what "get together" means. Read the story, it's quite short, and the twist, uh, comes quickly.