maybe but it remains that they changed the specs of the systems removing features that convinced pple to buy the product in the first place, that sounds shady if you ask meOriginally posted by scabstermooch:I think what creative is trying to do is to pre-emptively demonstrate that it has tried to do something about copyright infringement - so that it cannot later be said that Creative knew infringemnt was gg on but did nothing even though it could.
Maybe the fact that the firmware contains this 'feature' is so widely publicised is deliberate IE Leaked?
yupz so.... kill RIAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! kill them all!!!!!!!!!!!!!Originally posted by chenc:You still didn't understand the issue.
RIAA is out to make sure that the only way you get to listen to a song wherever you want is to buy it.
While no doubt that everything has its own good and bad uses, this doesn't give RIAA a reason to do so.Originally posted by chenc:See, most of the latest hits are being broadcast through radio before the album is out as a promo. But ppl record it, and sell them, or allow downloads online.
Yar, you can argue that its like the knife thing. You can use it to kill ppl but that doesn't make knife illegal.
But RIAA is right now pushing the world to a new trend. If something has potential to be used against copyright laws, ban it.screw them
Yes it is. Hence, I disagree with this move. Still, we do not know what happened behind closed doors. Who knows, perhaps the RIAA has been round to discuss creative's legal liabilities? Or, perhaps creative did a risk assesement and decided it is not likely to be sued by consumers for something that costs less than $500?Originally posted by hisoka:maybe but it remains that they changed the specs of the systems removing features that convinced pple to buy the product in the first place, that sounds shady if you ask me