«

impossible wrote:
> "sam" <> wrote in message news:475db74d$...
>> impossible wrote:
>>> "frederick" <> wrote in message
>>> news:1197271437.659637@ftpsrv1...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What facts? That the third-party software WD includes on its new
>>>>> external hard drive package respects the law on DRM?
>>>>>
>>>> What "law"?
>>> US and EU copyright law.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
>> It implements the policy by file type.
>> Nothing to do with respecting the law on DRM, whatever that means, or any
>> drm protection in the file, or the copyright status of the file.
>
> If you go to WD's product site, you'll see that the third-party software
> they use specifically bans ceratin file types because of "unverifiable media
> license authentication" issues. There's no other reason for WD to do that
> than to stay onside with copyright lawyers.
>
>
Its got nothing to do with DRM though.
It means Mionet can't verify the copyright status of files of any type
and they are more concerned that action from the MPAA and RIAA against
media file types will impact on their file sharing service than other
file types.
If you want to put all your media of whatever file type onto the WD
device and share it on some p2p service there is nothing stopping you,
the only restriction is to the WD Anywhere Access bundled web service
application.

"sam" <> wrote in message news:475dc751$...
> impossible wrote:
>> "sam" <> wrote in message
>> news:475db74d$...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>> "frederick" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:1197271437.659637@ftpsrv1...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What facts? That the third-party software WD includes on its new
>>>>>> external hard drive package respects the law on DRM?
>>>>>>
>>>>> What "law"?
>>>> US and EU copyright law.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
>>> It implements the policy by file type.
>>> Nothing to do with respecting the law on DRM, whatever that means, or
>>> any drm protection in the file, or the copyright status of the file.
>>
>> If you go to WD's product site, you'll see that the third-party software
>> they use specifically bans ceratin file types because of "unverifiable
>> media license authentication" issues. There's no other reason for WD to
>> do that than to stay onside with copyright lawyers.
> Its got nothing to do with DRM though.
> It means Mionet can't verify the copyright status of files of any type and
> they are more concerned that action from the MPAA and RIAA against media
> file types will impact on their file sharing service than other file
> types.

For some reason that eludes me, you're trying awfully hard to parse this as
something other than a DRM issue. When the MPAA or RIAA go knocking on
someone's door, it's because they're claiming violations of the DRM regime.
Because the Mionet software makes no attempt to veryify license
autheniticty, WD would run the risk of inviting costly DRM-based MPAA or
RIAA litigation. Whether or not the MPAA or RIAA could make such a complaint
pay is hard to say. But by banning a range of applicable file types, WD is
removing itself from any potential liability suits for DRM violations.

> If you want to put all your media of whatever file type onto the WD device
> and share it on some p2p service there is nothing stopping you, the only
> restriction is to the WD Anywhere Access bundled web service application.

Yes, that's absolutely true. But then WD would not be liable tto DRM-based
litigation by facilitating those shares.

sam wrote:
> Its got nothing to do with DRM though.
> It means Mionet can't verify the copyright status of files of any type
> and they are more concerned that action from the MPAA and RIAA against
> media file types will impact on their file sharing service than other
> file types.
> If you want to put all your media of whatever file type onto the WD
> device and share it on some p2p service there is nothing stopping you,
> the only restriction is to the WD Anywhere Access bundled web service
> application.

Yeah, but when they sell it as access your files anywhere, and it ends
up being access a small subset of your files anywhere, I believe they
are falling short under consumer law - nothing copyright about it IMO,
they are no more responsible for copyright violations then are the guys
that make dvd burners or printer/scanner combos etc.

This product doesnt do what I would need out of it (in many more ways
then this, but thats a different issue) - so I wont buy it. Thats no
reason to avoid all WD products, or to get this overpriced NAS if the
other features are useful to me.

IMO calling this DRM is like calling a no diving sign on a jetty a
lifeguard...

impossible wrote:
> "frederick" <> wrote in message
> news:1197320455.180214@ftpsrv1...
>> impossible wrote:
>>> "frederick" <> wrote in message
>>> news:1197271437.659637@ftpsrv1...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What facts? That the third-party software WD includes on its new
>>>>> external hard drive package respects the law on DRM?
>>>>>
>>>> What "law"?
>>> US and EU copyright law.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
>> Ok thanks - I get it.
>> So - a company which makes ginsu steak knives with rubber blades "respects
>> the law" wrt preventing stabbing homicide.
>
> Oh, thanks -- I get it. Another person who can't do analogies.
>
>
Care to suggest a better one?

"frederick" <> wrote in message
news:1197345524.650075@ftpsrv1...
> impossible wrote:
>> "frederick" <> wrote in message
>> news:1197320455.180214@ftpsrv1...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>> "frederick" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:1197271437.659637@ftpsrv1...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What facts? That the third-party software WD includes on its new
>>>>>> external hard drive package respects the law on DRM?
>>>>>>
>>>>> What "law"?
>>>> US and EU copyright law.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
>>> Ok thanks - I get it.
>>> So - a company which makes ginsu steak knives with rubber blades
>>> "respects the law" wrt preventing stabbing homicide.
>>
>> Oh, thanks -- I get it. Another person who can't do analogies.
> Care to suggest a better one?

If only I had a clue what you were driving at.

impossible wrote:
> "sam" <> wrote in message news:475dc751$...
>> impossible wrote:
>>> "sam" <> wrote in message
>>> news:475db74d$...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>> "frederick" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1197271437.659637@ftpsrv1...
>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What facts? That the third-party software WD includes on its new
>>>>>>> external hard drive package respects the law on DRM?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What "law"?
>>>>> US and EU copyright law.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
>>>> It implements the policy by file type.
>>>> Nothing to do with respecting the law on DRM, whatever that means, or
>>>> any drm protection in the file, or the copyright status of the file.
>>> If you go to WD's product site, you'll see that the third-party software
>>> they use specifically bans ceratin file types because of "unverifiable
>>> media license authentication" issues. There's no other reason for WD to
>>> do that than to stay onside with copyright lawyers.
>> Its got nothing to do with DRM though.
>> It means Mionet can't verify the copyright status of files of any type and
>> they are more concerned that action from the MPAA and RIAA against media
>> file types will impact on their file sharing service than other file
>> types.
>
> For some reason that eludes me, you're trying awfully hard to parse this as
> something other than a DRM issue. When the MPAA or RIAA go knocking on
> someone's door, it's because they're claiming violations of the DRM regime.
> Because the Mionet software makes no attempt to veryify license
> autheniticty, WD would run the risk of inviting costly DRM-based MPAA or
> RIAA litigation. Whether or not the MPAA or RIAA could make such a complaint
> pay is hard to say. But by banning a range of applicable file types, WD is
> removing itself from any potential liability suits for DRM violations.
>

Its not a DRM issue because it doesn't involve any form of access
technology as defined in the link you posted earlier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
What you mean is copyyright infringement, it exposes mionet to the risk
of being party to the unauthorized distribution of copyright protected
media, whether or not it is protected by DRM is irrelevant. However any
DRM protected files would be useless to unauthorized users.

sam wrote:

> Its not a DRM issue because it doesn't involve any form of access
> technology as defined in the link you posted earlier
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
> What you mean is copyyright infringement, it exposes mionet to the risk
> of being party to the unauthorized distribution of copyright protected
> media, whether or not it is protected by DRM is irrelevant. However any
> DRM protected files would be useless to unauthorized users.

Also, anyone technologically advanced to be bitching about this is smart
enough to do a portfoward and dyndns and not need some 3rd party
snooping on their shared files looking for ones they deem acceptable or not.

Richard wrote:
> sam wrote:
>> Its got nothing to do with DRM though.
>> It means Mionet can't verify the copyright status of files of any type
>> and they are more concerned that action from the MPAA and RIAA against
>> media file types will impact on their file sharing service than other
>> file types.
>> If you want to put all your media of whatever file type onto the WD
>> device and share it on some p2p service there is nothing stopping you,
>> the only restriction is to the WD Anywhere Access bundled web service
>> application.
>
> Yeah, but when they sell it as access your files anywhere, and it ends
> up being access a small subset of your files anywhere, I believe they
> are falling short under consumer law - nothing copyright about it IMO,
> they are no more responsible for copyright violations then are the guys
> that make dvd burners or printer/scanner combos etc.
>
> This product doesnt do what I would need out of it (in many more ways
> then this, but thats a different issue) - so I wont buy it. Thats no
> reason to avoid all WD products, or to get this overpriced NAS if the
> other features are useful to me.
>
> IMO calling this DRM is like calling a no diving sign on a jetty a
> lifeguard...

Its not overpriced, about $NZ436 for the 500GB version.
But you are right, their claims about WD Anywhere Access are bullshit.

Richard wrote:
> sam wrote:
>
>> Its not a DRM issue because it doesn't involve any form of access
>> technology as defined in the link you posted earlier
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
>> What you mean is copyyright infringement, it exposes mionet to the
>> risk of being party to the unauthorized distribution of copyright
>> protected media, whether or not it is protected by DRM is irrelevant.
>> However any DRM protected files would be useless to unauthorized users.
>
> Also, anyone technologically advanced to be bitching about this is smart
> enough to do a portfoward and dyndns and not need some 3rd party
> snooping on their shared files looking for ones they deem acceptable or
> not.

It seems to be a fairly hackable embedded linux platform that you can
get ssh access to. You could add your own ftp or http server to it, or
change the config of the included lighttpd webserver.
The Access Anywhere sounds like it blows, but some people will still
find it useful, out of the box.
Sometimes it takes some crappy included software to get the community
working on a better version, like with the nslug and the wrt54g.

"sam" <> wrote in message news:475e149f$...
> impossible wrote:
>> "sam" <> wrote in message
>> news:475dc751$...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>> "sam" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:475db74d$...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>> "frederick" <> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1197271437.659637@ftpsrv1...
>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What facts? That the third-party software WD includes on its new
>>>>>>>> external hard drive package respects the law on DRM?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What "law"?
>>>>>> US and EU copyright law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
>>>>> It implements the policy by file type.
>>>>> Nothing to do with respecting the law on DRM, whatever that means, or
>>>>> any drm protection in the file, or the copyright status of the file.
>>>> If you go to WD's product site, you'll see that the third-party
>>>> software they use specifically bans ceratin file types because of
>>>> "unverifiable media license authentication" issues. There's no other
>>>> reason for WD to do that than to stay onside with copyright lawyers.
>>> Its got nothing to do with DRM though.
>>> It means Mionet can't verify the copyright status of files of any type
>>> and they are more concerned that action from the MPAA and RIAA against
>>> media file types will impact on their file sharing service than other
>>> file types.
>>
>> For some reason that eludes me, you're trying awfully hard to parse this
>> as something other than a DRM issue. When the MPAA or RIAA go knocking on
>> someone's door, it's because they're claiming violations of the DRM
>> regime. Because the Mionet software makes no attempt to veryify license
>> autheniticty, WD would run the risk of inviting costly DRM-based MPAA or
>> RIAA litigation. Whether or not the MPAA or RIAA could make such a
>> complaint pay is hard to say. But by banning a range of applicable file
>> types, WD is removing itself from any potential liability suits for DRM
>> violations.
>>
>
> Its not a DRM issue because it doesn't involve any form of access
> technology as defined in the link you posted earlier
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
> What you mean is copyyright infringement, it exposes mionet to the risk of
> being party to the unauthorized distribution of copyright protected media,
> whether or not it is protected by DRM is irrelevant. However any DRM
> protected files would be useless to unauthorized users.

Ok, good. I stand corrected.