This article is about how the situation was considered by a court and ruled to be an acceptible tool of law enforcement. The courts *are* the self-check!
The grandparent advocates a check as in restraint; the court has provided a check as in blank.
True, but couldnt you say that police can examine your fingerprints at a crime scene without your knowledge?
A search of a crime scene requires consent of the owner, a search warrant, or "exigent circumstances" such as a reasonable belief that evidence would be destroyed in the time it would take to obtain a warrant.
Sure, if they're using GPS to investigate innocent people, thats wrong, but it sounds from the story like they're just using it on criminals...?
A suspect by definition has not been convicted of the crime under investigation and by right and law is presumed innocent.
BMG, however, is not a recording label. They are a redistributer.
BMG operated over 200 labels, including Arista, the RCA group, and the BMG group. In August, it became half of Sony BMG.
There don't seem to be any other labels that are in agreement and I would question the validity of the one person at EMI that made that part of a statement that was quoted in the press release from Real. The perspective shown there obviously aren't an industry-wide held belief.
I haven't seen any labels criticizing Real's behavior; you'll have to provide support for that claim--and again, the fact that they're still doing business with Real is a pretty good hint. Do you generally reject the idea that a senior vice president making a statement for a press release speaks on behalf of the company, or do you have some specific reason to dispute the statement from EMI other than it being terribly inconvenient for your position? Do you think ythat you in a better position to speak for EMI?
The way that Real has "hacked" the iPod software in order to allow Harmony to mimic the Apple DRM is a threat to the security of the DRM.
Harmony doesn't touch the iPod software; it transcrypts the songs into a format the iPod understands.
The letter that Glaser "sent to Jobs" was another media stunt that came after the corporate negotiations failed when Apple denied them the rights to use or have access to any of their software or hardware.... The letter was released to the press by Real, supposedly at the same time that he sent it to Jobs.
The New York Times claims that the letter was leaked by "a person close to Apple", so you're implying that the Times reporters were part of the deception or that they were played by one of Glaser's shadowy minions. Either way, some evidence is in order.
The idea of licensing the Apple DRM doesn't make any sense when Real wants to distribute their own DRM, which is the only logical long term goal of distributing music electronically if you aren't producing it yourself.
Everyone selling WMDRM tracks disagrees. Real claim to disagree, and their actions match up pretty well with their stated motivations--if they're trying to secure a future for their DRM in portable devices, removing it and replacing it with someone else's isn't going to help. Apple's actions indicate disagreement--they're trying to ensure that their DRM isn't used in any store but their own. You revisit this theme repeatedly and at greater length. For the sake of brevity, I'm only going to address it this once; don't interpret omission as concession.
HP has a contract with Apple that covers the hardware and the software, so it does include the DRM.
They haven't done anything beyond what's possible with a truckload of retail iPods and the public QuickTime API. If they have some privileged access, neither they nor you have shown it.
Motorola and Apple just announced that they are going to release a device that sounds like it will extend the iPod to work as a phone too. As for the Motorola phone that plays Fairplay DRM'd files is due out in '05. That too includes the licensing of the DRM. Regardless of what you think.
As I stated above, I forgot about Moto, but they aren't relevant to my statement in context, which was about music sales.
Real isn't interested in making any hardware devices, that's why they need to leech onto whatever device they can to try and justify to people why they should buy their music files and their DRM.
Real's justification is that it offers better fidelity and compatibility with more devices than most other competitors. Supporting Rhapsody wouldn't be as strong a selling point for the iPod, but it's at worst neutral.
You and I have no clue as to what kind of a deal Real offered to Apple when they supposedly a
Unfortunately, what the law states and what lawyers convince juries of isn't always the same thing.
Unfortunately, legislators can't foresee every possible case, so laws have to be interpreted by judges (not juries). You're welcome to your own interpretation, but yours don't carry the force of law.
In any case, my own moral compass points straight and true, so I'll be relying on that.
As well you should. But this is your only post in this thread concerned with morals; all the rest are about law, and it's the law I was trying to figure out. Fortunately, AC jogged my memory.
I submit that every instance of the numbers "1" and "0" and any combination thereof (in particular, binary code) is an application of the hash functions above to copyrighted material, child pornography, terrorist activity or any other type of illegal content.
Overcoming the presumption of innocence is going to be difficult with 100% collision.
These are the reasons that copyright laws are generally broken in the first place.
There are a lot of things wrong with copyright law today, but you made a statement about how things are, not how they ought to be. Intuitively, it seems to me hashes shouldn't count as derivative, but I'm not convinced that they don't.
Do they even know what a.torrent is? Someone should inform these lawyers that their clients don't, actually, own what they're claiming to own.
A torrent file contains hashes of the payload. Playing devil's advocate for a moment, an encoding of a copyrighted work is obviously derivative, so why not a hash? IIRC, case law on sampling has established that a derivative need not be perceptible to be infringing, and I don't see any claim to fair use.
I haven't seen any labels praising Real's behavior, you'll have to provide support for that claim.
It was widely reported when Harmony debuted. Real's press release might jog your memory:
"Interoperability of devices and jukebox software is one of the biggest challenges for today's music consumer," said Thomas Hesse, Chief Strategic Officer and Head of Global Digital Business, BMG. "RealNetworks' Harmony Technology is the first to address this issue by giving the consumer flexibility and choice."
"EMI's goal is to allow consumers to access our music on as many legitimate platforms as possible, and seamlessly, across a range of devices. RealNetworks' Harmony Technology will make it easier for consumers to enjoy their digital music in a truly flexible way," said Ted Cohen, SVP Digital Development and Distribution, EMI Music.
As for contracts, you're simply wrong. If Apple allows others to mess with their model, then the labels will lose confidence in their ability to protect their media and they won't renew, it's that simple. Real's contracts are irrelevant, as this is about Apple stopping Real from screwing with their device.
Again, the labels don't give two shits about any model other than their own; it doesn't matter whether Apple or Real sells a song as long as the label gets a cut and the buyer can't decrypt it.
As for the lists, Apple has 7 (8) and the Rio offers 6. So, the list is longer for Apple. As I stated before, they have the most support for any device out there. I don't see what your point was there.
My points were (unstated) that counting VBR MP3 separately is unnecessary, since just about everything manufactured this century supports it, including the Karma; (implied) that a second flavor of PCM is less useful than, for example, a free lossless codec; and (primarily) that citing support for Audible's proprietary and restricted format as evidence of the iPod's openness is ludicrous. By that logic, Microsoft Windows is the most open OS.
The problem from Real's perspective is that they couldn't negotiate a deal to get their own DRM onto the iPod.
The letter Glaser sent to Jobs suggested that Real license Apple's DRM.
Apple does allow others to use their DRM. They've worked out contracts with HP and Motorola already.
HP just sells iPods; Apple's DRM isn't even a black box to them, it's a black box inside a white box inside a cardboard box. I had forgotten about the Moto deal (which still hasn't yielded an actual product, right?), but I was speaking of music sales; Real isn't trying to make an iTMS-compatible phone.
The future is all about DRM and whose is going to be used the most.
Apple's refusal to license its DRM to Real generates iTMS sales at the expense of Apple DRM users.
Glaser wants the Real DRM to be used somewhere, anywhere.
No, he and the rest of Real want the songs they sell to be playable on any suitably restricted device. That means using Apple's DRM on iPods, Microsoft's on everyone else's portable audio players, and their own on personal computers (since there isn't a suitable standard, Microsoft's is tied to WMA, and Apple won't license theirs). Real think the long-term money is in music, not crypto, and Apple's reaction shows agreement.
Pop-up blocking sometimes gets disabled out of the blue.
Ever notice that Cmd-K (disable popup blocking) is one key away from Cmd-L (focus on location bar)? If you have OS 10.3, you can assign a different shortcut through System Preferences: Keyboard & Mouse: Keyboard Shortcuts.
If Apple allows this questionable scheme, it is a scheme, to continue then they will lose their licensing agreement with the labels which allows them to run the iTunes Music Store.
Nonsense. The labels don't care what kind of locks Real uses to shackle their music as long as their customers can't unlock them. If anyone stood to lose a contract, it would be Real, since the files created by Harmony can be decrypted by Hymn, but in fact major labels have praised Harmony.
The iPod is the single most open digital music device on the market today. It supports the playback of more audio formats than any other device like it. It supports AAC, MP3, Apple Lossless, AIFF, MP3 VBR, WAV and Audible. It also supports the DRM from the iTMS.
I count PCM in two flavors (WAV, AIFF), two open formats (MP3, AAC), one proprietary (Apple Lossless), and two encrypted (iTMS, Audible). Compare to the Rio Karma: PCM (WAV), two free formats (FLAC, Vorbis), one open (MP3), one proprietary (WMA), and one encrypted (WMDRM). You might like the iPod's list better, but it doesn't take any prizes for openness.
It does not support any other form of DRM, which is really what has Rob Glaser's panties in a bunch, as it won't support the Real DRM.
The problem from Real's perspective was that Apple won't let anyone else use Apple's DRM. Again, it doesn't matter whose locks are used, just that there are locks.
The difference is that Plucker was created, developed, and continues to be developed on Linux and UNIX platforms first, and was ported to work on Windows, through cross-platform toolkits like Python and wxWidgets.
None of which changes the fact that in the Windows world, there are dozens of choices of how to talk to a Palm device, including Plucker, contrary to what you implied in your first post.
True, you could copy arbitrary files to the Newton and other non-Palm devices, but for Palm devices, pilot-link was second, right after Palm's own tools.
I meant a Palm device. "proof of concept" was hyperbole; I apologize for not expressing myself clearly.
No, he means "for the Palm Desktop", as written. The very first tool you recommend, Plucker, runs on Windows. Third-party tools for copying arbitrary files to a device have been around on Windows since pilot-link was a proof of concept. Speaking of which, the latest news on the pilot-link site relates how the donation of a Tungsten T3 much like JabrTheHut's will allow the project to begin reverse-engineering the new PIM databases. What was that about "featureless proprietary tools"?
The proper name to use is "Leonardo", or "Leonardo Da Vinci", not "Da Vinci". That's like referring to someone as "of Dallas".
Geographical names are one of the most common categories of surname. Calling someone 'of Vinci' is no more ridiculous than calling others 'of Paris', 'of England', 'the Scot', or 'by the Hill'.
You're comparing Gil's *estimate* for BeOS, to the *actual* time for NeXTSTEP. I'm sure Gil didn't estimate 5 years for NeXTSTEP.
No, he didn't, and that's my point. BeOS was rejected for not measuring up to a standard that NEXTSTEP couldn't meet either. The idea that NEXTSTEP would have been ready in less than three years was based on unreasonable assumptions.
It's quite likely that BeOS would have taken longer than 3 years.
Three years? Possibly. Five years? Not considering what Be accomplished in that same period without Apple's resources.
For one thing, something like Carbon was probably required either way they went.... Even on BeOS, it would have been advantageous to not just use the Mac APIs as-is.
Carbon was necessary because developers weren't willing to completely rewrite their programs in a different language or forever run in a penalty box. BeAPI wasn't as close to Mac Toolbox as is Carbon, but it was closer than OpenStep/Yellow Box/Cocoa, and it used C++. (For the record, I mostly like Cocoa and ObjC, but I don't like it when my migration path is a total rewrite.) Even had developers still demanded an updated Toolbox in addition to BeAPI, my understanding is that it would have been easier to implement on BeOS.
A lot of the work done between OpenStep and OS X wasn't strictly *necessary*, but was desirable. OS X could likely have retained OpenStep's version of Mach and BSD, for example. Updating those weren't really showstopping necessities.
Nitpick: OpenStep was a specification, OPENSTEP was an OS that implemented it. (IME, calling the OS NEXTSTEP is usually the least confusing option.) The Mach and BSD updates may not have been absolutely necessary, but neither were they exactly frivolous; keeping the old versions would have required more work at other levels of the OS and made it more difficult to change some undesirable design elements.
And it's not like updating BSD and Mach would have held up the Carbon team over much.
The Mach and BSD layers were updated before Apple unveiled Rhapsody; Carbon came after.
The rhythm is off, but the rhyme is true, so the reader is left hanging.
The limerick, peculiar to English Is a verse form hard to extinguish Once Congress in session Decreed its suppression But people got around it by writing the last line without any rhyme or meter
Slashdot Mirror
BMG operated over 200 labels, including Arista, the RCA group, and the BMG group. In August, it became half of Sony BMG.
I haven't seen any labels criticizing Real's behavior; you'll have to provide support for that claim--and again, the fact that they're still doing business with Real is a pretty good hint. Do you generally reject the idea that a senior vice president making a statement for a press release speaks on behalf of the company, or do you have some specific reason to dispute the statement from EMI other than it being terribly inconvenient for your position? Do you think ythat you in a better position to speak for EMI?
Harmony doesn't touch the iPod software; it transcrypts the songs into a format the iPod understands.
The New York Times claims that the letter was leaked by "a person close to Apple", so you're implying that the Times reporters were part of the deception or that they were played by one of Glaser's shadowy minions. Either way, some evidence is in order.
Everyone selling WMDRM tracks disagrees. Real claim to disagree, and their actions match up pretty well with their stated motivations--if they're trying to secure a future for their DRM in portable devices, removing it and replacing it with someone else's isn't going to help. Apple's actions indicate disagreement--they're trying to ensure that their DRM isn't used in any store but their own. You revisit this theme repeatedly and at greater length. For the sake of brevity, I'm only going to address it this once; don't interpret omission as concession.
They haven't done anything beyond what's possible with a truckload of retail iPods and the public QuickTime API. If they have some privileged access, neither they nor you have shown it.
As I stated above, I forgot about Moto, but they aren't relevant to my statement in context, which was about music sales.
Real's justification is that it offers better fidelity and compatibility with more devices than most other competitors. Supporting Rhapsody wouldn't be as strong a selling point for the iPod, but it's at worst neutral.
--
Build an internet incorruptible by corps and goverments.
Metanet
As for the counting, see my direct reply.
"Interoperability of devices and jukebox software is one of the biggest challenges for today's music consumer," said Thomas Hesse, Chief Strategic Officer and Head of Global Digital Business, BMG. "RealNetworks' Harmony Technology is the first to address this issue by giving the consumer flexibility and choice."
"EMI's goal is to allow consumers to access our music on as many legitimate platforms as possible, and seamlessly, across a range of devices. RealNetworks' Harmony Technology will make it easier for consumers to enjoy their digital music in a truly flexible way," said Ted Cohen, SVP Digital Development and Distribution, EMI Music.
Again, the labels don't give two shits about any model other than their own; it doesn't matter whether Apple or Real sells a song as long as the label gets a cut and the buyer can't decrypt it. My points were (unstated) that counting VBR MP3 separately is unnecessary, since just about everything manufactured this century supports it, including the Karma; (implied) that a second flavor of PCM is less useful than, for example, a free lossless codec; and (primarily) that citing support for Audible's proprietary and restricted format as evidence of the iPod's openness is ludicrous. By that logic, Microsoft Windows is the most open OS. The letter Glaser sent to Jobs suggested that Real license Apple's DRM. HP just sells iPods; Apple's DRM isn't even a black box to them, it's a black box inside a white box inside a cardboard box. I had forgotten about the Moto deal (which still hasn't yielded an actual product, right?), but I was speaking of music sales; Real isn't trying to make an iTMS-compatible phone. Apple's refusal to license its DRM to Real generates iTMS sales at the expense of Apple DRM users. No, he and the rest of Real want the songs they sell to be playable on any suitably restricted device. That means using Apple's DRM on iPods, Microsoft's on everyone else's portable audio players, and their own on personal computers (since there isn't a suitable standard, Microsoft's is tied to WMA, and Apple won't license theirs). Real think the long-term money is in music, not crypto, and Apple's reaction shows agreement.Intelligent - Intel = ligent
Put them together, and it's close enough if you squint. "Talent without Lent" doesn't manage quite the same pith.
You're thinking of a different ninja.
Three years? Possibly. Five years? Not considering what Be accomplished in that same period without Apple's resources.
Carbon was necessary because developers weren't willing to completely rewrite their programs in a different language or forever run in a penalty box. BeAPI wasn't as close to Mac Toolbox as is Carbon, but it was closer than OpenStep/Yellow Box/Cocoa, and it used C++. (For the record, I mostly like Cocoa and ObjC, but I don't like it when my migration path is a total rewrite.) Even had developers still demanded an updated Toolbox in addition to BeAPI, my understanding is that it would have been easier to implement on BeOS.
Nitpick: OpenStep was a specification, OPENSTEP was an OS that implemented it. (IME, calling the OS NEXTSTEP is usually the least confusing option.) The Mach and BSD updates may not have been absolutely necessary, but neither were they exactly frivolous; keeping the old versions would have required more work at other levels of the OS and made it more difficult to change some undesirable design elements.
The Mach and BSD layers were updated before Apple unveiled Rhapsody; Carbon came after.
Is a verse form hard to extinguish
Once Congress in session
Decreed its suppression
But people got around it by writing the last line without any rhyme or meter