• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Topic: Tascam better have good lawyers...

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Tascam better have good lawyers...

    Hi,

    I\'ve been following, like most of you, I\'m sure, the ongoing discussion about Tascam\'s plans to integrate copy protection of libraries in their software.

    Does anybody see anything wrong with this picture?
    I mean the Tascam-centric (Or GigaStudio-centric) copy protection approach versus the developer-centric (or library-centric approach).
    Isn\'t Tascam, by making their application directly such an integral part of the CP scheme vulnerable to possible future developments?

    Let\'s say that if GigaStudio\'s role in this scheme fails, the whole scheme fails. Now, imagine that GS code is reverse engineered, and somebody patches the application to automatically detect and decrypt encoded files without authorization. This would break all the existing libraries to date. Not only that, but you\'re making a cracker\'s life so much easier, because you only need to break the minimum common denominator (GS), to in fact break all libraries.

    On the other hand, any developer is free to enforce copy protection on their own library at their own discretion (by any method or scheme they wish). What\'s wrong with watermarking?

    Why does Tascam want to expose themselves to the mere possibility that they could be sued a million times their c r a p in gold by the developers if their system fails and makes these libraries vulnerable to pirating? Why not let each developer take matters into their own hands, and avoid any type of liability?
    Why would they do that? Hint, hint: Listen to Bruce, and his \"conspiracy theory\", because the more I think about it, the more this seems like a mere attempt to protect GigaStudio\'s predominance in a market of ever-increasing competition.

    Who pays for this? Whoever pays for the software (the user). Do you know how expensive it is to create and maintain Copy Protection? You gotta spend time programming, testing, and debugging the code. Then, spend some more in customer service reps to help with the maelstrom of phone calls from confused and pissed off users.
    For crying out loud, let\'s invest in making Giga the best, and not in trying to keep the competition down under through this type of strategies!

    Disclaimer: I\'m no insider, and my comments are based on the general feeling expressed by many people in this forum of things to come.
    If there\'s anything wrong with my reasoning, please let me know!

    Ruben

  2. #2
    Senior Member Richard Berg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    232

    Re: Tascam better have good lawyers...

    I don\'t think Tascam distributes contracts to developers asserting that their copy protection is invulnerable, so why would they be liable for a lawsuit? I can\'t sue MS if someone hacks into my IIS-hosted website -- and that\'s a case where I\'d have implied warranties & such on my side, unlike your proposed scenario.

  3. #3

    Re: Tascam better have good lawyers...

    Hi Richard,

    I\'m no lawyer, but I remember a case about a burglar that fell through the roof of the house that he was sneaking in, hurting himself, and got a very nice compensation for damages. The way I see it, anytime that a party is instrumental in other party\'s loss, no matter how seemingly illogic the underlying reasoning at first, there\'s ground for trial. And your case, after that, is many times only as good as your lawyer\'s suit (Unfortunately, many jurors don\'t see through the rethoric, and are easily impressed)

    Even if no legal liability existed, I think it is fair to say if the case scenario that I presented were to materialize, that would hurt Tascam\'s reputation a great deal, after trying to make such a point of incorporating the host application directly into the copy protection scheme.

    Ruben

  4. #4
    Senior Member Richard Berg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    232

    Re: Tascam better have good lawyers...

    True. And if you follow the other thread, it\'s obvious enough I\'m on your side -- just ever the skeptic...

  5. #5

    Re: Tascam better have good lawyers...

    Originally posted by MrArkadine:


    I\'m no lawyer, but I remember a case about a burglar that fell through the roof of the house that he was sneaking in, hurting himself, and got a very nice compensation for damages.
    <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">I think that says a lot more about the screwed up american legal system than anything else...

  6. #6

    Re: Tascam better have good lawyers...

    That\'s true, Simon.

    How about the lady that sued McDonalds for getting burnt with their coffee?
    Bottom line is, any person can sue you for the most outrageous reason, and stand at least a probable chance of being successful and ruining your life. Really sad...

    Ruben

  7. #7
    Senior Member Richard Berg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    232

    Re: Tascam better have good lawyers...


  8. #8

    Re: Tascam better have good lawyers...

    Originally posted by Richard Berg:
    not so fast
    <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Richard,

    Very interesting. It seems that this case was much less outrageous than it is commonly thought to be. I didn\'t know the particulars of it, but reading through the facts, it does seem that the case was a fair one against McDonalds.

    Now, let\'s talk about O.J.... [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

    Ruben

  9. #9

    Re: Tascam better have good lawyers...

    Even after reading about the case I don\'t think that it\'s McCdonald\'s fault.

    Here is why...

    1. She opened the lid of the coffee in between her legs. It would seem to me that the one who was at fault was the lady or gravity.

    2. She wore sweatpants shich held the coffee next to her skin. Who put on the sweat pants anyway? McCdonald\'s?

    Let\'s face it, it was an accident.

    Russ

  10. #10

    Re: Tascam better have good lawyers...

    Originally posted by ryounger:
    Even after reading about the case I don\'t think that it\'s McCdonald\'s fault.

    Here is why...

    1. She opened the lid of the coffee in between her legs. It would seem to me that the one who was at fault was the lady or gravity.

    2. She wore sweatpants shich held the coffee next to her skin. Who put on the sweat pants anyway? McCdonald\'s?

    Let\'s face it, it was an accident.

    Russ
    <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Yes, it was an accident. But apparently it was the type of accident that had happened before, resulting in serious injuries to various McDonald\'s customers. McDonald\'s knew about this and did nothing -- despite the fact that they sold their coffee ***45 to 55 degrees*** hotter than coffee made at home! To me that sounds like negligence, not to mention blatant disregard for the safety of its customers. It\'s almost like they were begging to be sued. Maybe the old lady was responsible for \"initiating\" the accident, but McDonald\'s was totally responsible for its \"severity\" -- and as such, I think they\'re partially liable (ESPECIALLY because they were previously aware of the danger and did nothing to change it).

Go Back to forum

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •