Re: more protocols: shuffle/repeat, check in/out

On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 09:39:41PM -0700, Rob Park wrote:
> Look: I bought my mz-n707 under the pretence that I would be able to use
> my computer to transfer music onto it "up to 25 times faster than
> analog" via USB. The software packaged with the device was defective (it
> doesn't run on my computer).

Caveat emptor....

> I paid for something that I quite clearly did not get. I should be suing
> Sony for false advertising, in theory. But I haven't the money or the
> inclination, so I'm eagerly awaiting the completion of this project.

You can only sue Sony if they promised you something, you paid for it,
and they failed to deliver it.  So it basically comes down to whether 
Sony's advertising would lead you to believe this product would
work with your Mac.  Sony are a huge corporaration with a large
advertising and legal budget, so I would imagine their advertising
is careful not to make such promises (although I've not paid much
attention to their adverts).  If this is the case then you probably
only have 2 possible courses of action

i) Complain about the adverts.  I'm guessing you're in Canada so
I don't know how you would go about this.  In the UK we have a 
body called the Advertising Standards Authority who can force
companies to withdraw adverts if there are enough complaints.

ii) Return your NetMD recorder as "not fit for purpose" and get
a refund.

That's pretty much it... 

If you were lied to by the sales person in the shop where you bought
the player (which seems to happen a fair bit), then in the UK
there's a seperate body (Trading Standards, run by the local
government) who deal witht this kind of thing.  But again your
recourse is pretty much limitted to returning the goods for a
refund.


> How can this project be illegal? It's the only way I'm going to get my
> money's worth out of my md player. Whether or not this violates the
> DMCA, I have no idea, but the DMCA is a load of bunk anyway (which,
> unfortunately, doesn't stop big companies from using it to bully smaller
> companies, and people like us).

I think you answered your own question there... If it violates
the DMCA, then by definition it is illegal (in the US, but the
US seems happy to chase people in other juristrictions, which is nice).

Ironically, if Thomas' interpretation is correct (and I see no
reason why it isn't) then what we're doing may well be fine under
the DMCA but illegal under the EU Copyright Directive. Which
is kind of ironic (to my mind).

On the plus side, the recent result in Norway suggests that
European courts might take a fairly enlightened view. Although
I don't know if the Norwegian case would have ended the same
way if Norway had enacted the Copyright Directive into law.

Pete.