very interesting. kdf Wrote: > 1)"it's not our fault what the user does with it" > Many aplications for file sharing, claim that it is only a tool and > that they can't be responsible for what users do with it. Groups like > the RIAA only see song titles and start issuing court orders. Search > on google already and you can get song listings from someone's > slimserver. Think in terms of not getting their attention at all, and > not having to even get to teh point of arguing the finer points of > 'facilitating'. How could such a feature be implemented in such a way > that a user can't, say, through ignorance or a simple slip, end up with > their entire song catalogue as a download (ie, maybe stay away from a > simple playlist link, or at least make it not internet downloadable, > for example)
i kinda reject this whole premise for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that the per song DL feature is already built in, and yet, has not brought the attention of the RIAA. and lest we forget, the streaming feature (with or without bitrate limiting) is never going to go away, and there are many "stream rippers" that could do exactly what a normal DL would do. someone could loadup a playlist with anything, all albums, random, whatever, and a stream ripper would do exactly what a straight DL would do. i think all acknowledge that file sharing isn't the purpose of the app, and as a p2p app, its miserable, b/c u have to use something like google to search. as a defense to the google search, SS could be configured to not be open by default, assign some default pword, or randomize it per SS DL. avoiding red flags is a good idea... but to what degree? is it really necessary to avoid straight album DL links when it can be achieved song by song, or as a stream? i don't think the RIAA has the right to assume criminality when there is a legitimate use. it also depends what is shared. lets not forget, p2p itself is not illegal. should we deny tools b/c some might use it illegally? i believe in the rights of copyright holders, but i don't believe those trump my rights to p2p or whatever else legally. i think its reprehensible to err on the side of killing all p2p to protect copyrighted material, instead of erring on the rights of those to legally p2p. but without a built in search app, and since SS is so clearly other things first and foremost, i don't think the RIAA could ever take action, although they might one day eventually notice. kdf Wrote: > 2) Rhapsody, iTunes (should apple ever allow this party drm users) > > Slim devices has recently brought in a couple of high profile > partnerships with Pandora, and Rhapsody. The latter is very specific > about how their api is used and what kind of access if there for their > DRM. Now, I realise their music is internet and it woudlnt' be > possible to download anyway, but lets assume their executives are not > up to speed on the inherent impossibility of downloading a complete > song. consideration must be given as to how to respond to their > paranoia as well. Consider how that could be approached. whats interesting about this, is that in response to the insanity of DRM, hardware is already available to defeat it. as far as i know, DRM does not impede the RCA lyra device i mentioned elsewhere. in addition to that, linksys has put out this product: http://reviews.cnet.com/Linksys_WMB54G_Wireless_G_Music_Bridge/4505-3243_7-31660626.html?tag=pop the reason DRM doesn't work on these, is that it places the sound card on the OTHER end of the equation... this is just going to keep going on, DRM is a dumb idea whose time will end as solutions defeat it. personally, i wonder what SB will do to keep pace with these DRM defeaters. to more specifically answer your Q, i don't know how anyone can successfully fully answer and meet the concerns of someone who is unreasonable. kdf Wrote: > 3) Lastly, one idea off the top of my head, a feature could be available > that uses a playlist simply to feed a list of filenames to an outside > application for conversion or burning, rather than an actual download > of files that creates a "save as" dialog box. Something like a > separate script, akin to the split scanner, that takes the list and > dumps files to a pre-specified location on the same hard drive. i don't know what the split scanner is or does, but sure, i have no problem with whatever method to feed a burner or whatever locally. however, i still want the ability to simply grab an album remotely without having to go thru the unnecessarily clumsy streaming method. kdf Wrote: > This is just one idea. I'm only suggesting consideration for a more > complete discussion of the implementation, instead of just a chant for > "make my albums downloadable" that leaves all the thought and effort to > those at which the chanting is directed. > > So, instead of disputing ethics and legality, try turning it into ways > to work around those issues, to make them not an issue. I'm sure others > can point out other potential roadblocks along the way. Discussing the > issues and the ways to work around them will go a long way to making a > real implementation. i absolutely hear you on this, but unfortunately, i can't think of a way... unless you'd be open to SS acting as a ftp server, and not just a web server? anyway, interested to hear anyones response. -mdw -- MrSinatra www.LION-Radio.org Using: Squeezebox2 w/SS 6.3 - Win XP Pro SP2 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25383 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
