Posted on

AllofMP3.com

I just created an account on AllofMP3.com. I’m wondering why, after hearing about it ages ago, I only signed up now. Was it because of all the buzz surrounding it nowadays (it has been mentioned several times on the more popular tech podcasts out there)? It also seems strange that I should choose to “sign-up” just after the legality of the site has been put into question.

But after I heard that the hosts of Digg actually use the service… I thought “Hey, who cares if it’s legit or not!” Here are high(ish) profile American hosts who openly admit to using the service (among other things) and not getting arrested for it. I guess it wouldn’t hurt to partake of the benefits of using it as well. And to me, until it’s proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it is indeed an illegal operation (and promptly shut down); and as long as it’s not phishing my credit account info, I’m considering it legal no matter what other people say hahaha.

In all honesty, aside from the whole legality issue, I really believe that AllofMP3 has nailed music distribution for consumers perfectly. I’m definitely going to use it – and I’ll tell you why you should use it too.

Read More

Posted on

Question Mr. Attorney

Ok for all the lawyers out there (Punzi, anyone?), I just wanted to get your opinions on this for the heck of it. It’s no biggie really, just an article I read a couple of days ago which got my attention.

This is the scenario: A molester, is going to court because of evidence a thief sent the police (anonymously). This all happened when the thief had opened a memory card which was part of the “goods” he had stolen from the molester – who was just a “victim” at the time. The thief was apprehended from an unrelated case, but said he was the one who gave them the molester – in case you were wondering.

Now the question is: is that evidence admissible in the court?

The story was popular because… aside from the fact that people were painting the theif as a hero (claiming there is honor among thieves as he chose the moral high road in sending the evidence at the risk of being caught), there was also much hoo-haw over the legality of how the evidence was “procured.”

Read More

Posted on

Oh really now?

It’s the Content, Not the Source

The Apple lawsuit really boils down to the definition of a trade secret, not the definition of a journalist. Commentary by Adam L. Penenberg.

via Wired News

No. “Trade Secrets” or “Journalism” are just words being thrown around to defend each position on a legal standpoint. The Apple lawsuit(s) really boils down to a company willing to crucify its very own supporters.

Boooooo!

Posted on

If The New York Times Jumped Off a Bridge

If The New York Times Jumped Off a Bridge

On the fallacious argument that Apple wouldn’t be suing The New York Times if they had published what ThinkSecret did.

via Daring Fireball

A excellent read, but still not convincing enough – though I must admit, he makes a lot of sense. I especially agree about the New York Times analogy being moot, as there was no actual experience to base anything on.

But on the contrary, how is he so sure that Apple will sue said NY Times if it should publish? I mean since he already went hypothetical in the first place that Apple would have more reason to sue. Notice that even that hypothetical situation should also be moot – since, as he himself said, the NY Times isn’t that sort of publication. I guess my point is never try to disprove anything hypothetical with anything similarly hypothetical.

Anyways, that’s all I have to say about that article… end train of thought… period.

But since I’ve gone this far… might as well speak my mind about the issue.

Read More

Posted on

Oh Apple, say it ain’t so!

The best post I’ve ever read all day about the whole Apple debacle.

It’s all very well being preachy about right and wrong, but come on if every crime, no matter how small, was punished to the full extent of the law the whole population would be living under house arrest.

For those of you who don’t know what the hell I’m talking about. There’s been quite some lengthy discussion about Apple suing some kids. A little over two months ago, Apple decided to finally put its foot down and act on some people who have illegaly distributed preview versions of its upcoming OS called Tiger.

For a detailed scoop of the issue: http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/000369.html

Despite Apple having every right to take such a course of action, it seems to be gaining a lot of bad press – comparing them to Microsoft as a cold-hearted corporation.

For the buzz it has generated: http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/000473.html

Most noticeable is that Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak himself, as well as other respectable Apple software developers seem to have taken the side of the defendants (to a certain extent).

Read More