[d@DCC] pressplay.com and virus-free music?

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: General Copyright Discussions <discuss (at) digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:55:48 -0500 (EST)

(Copy to support@napster.com and the digital-copyright.ca forum)

  I saw a commercial the other night talking about "Virus free, porn free, 
music downloads -- only $.99 per song".   I thought it was pressplay.com, 
but I must have been mistaken.

  That URL redirects to http://www.napster.com/  .  This site says on the 
bottom:

  "System Requirements PC only, Windows XP/2000, Microsoft Internet
Explorer 5.01 or higher, Windows Media Player 7.1 or higher, Internet
connectivity"

When you try to sign up it says:

  "We're sorry, Napster is not currently compatible with your operating 
   system.

   Napster is currently compatible with Windows XP/2000.
   Windows 95, Windows NT and the Mac OS are not supported at this time.

    If you are planning on using Napster on this computer, the service 
    will not be compatible and you should discontinue registration. If you
    will use Napster on a different computer, with a compatible operating
    system, please continue."



  As a security professional I use higher security standards based
operating systems such as Linux and *BSD which have had full public
scientific peer review.  This higher level of security is available to
MacOS-X as well given that the underlying platform, Darwin, is itself
fully public peer reviewed Free/Libre and Open Source Software.  This
public peer review is what is necessary to make computers less susceptible
to viruses which tend to either be software errors or in the case of many
Microsoft products it is basic design flaws.

  I have documented the problems with Microsoft Office and Microsoft
Outlook in a document on my work website where I explain why I do not
accept file attachments from Microsoft outlook.
  http://www.flora.ca/no-outlook.shtml

  This page references how some members of the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) believe that Microsoft should be held criminally negligent
for some of the deliberate design flaws at the root of many of the viruses
that infect their customers.


  This email filtering ends up filtering out the vast majority of SPAM and
Viruses that otherwise I would have to wade through, and has been a huge
time saver.  The automatic messages this filtering system sends out has
encouraged a number of people to switch from Outlook to more safe peer
reviewed email packages such as Mozilla Mail.

  I am wondering if I went to the right site with this commercial.  If so,
I am wondering why you claim to be virus-free when you mandate the usage
of the very platforms that lack peer review and have been the target of
the vast majority of viruses?  If someone really wanted virus free music
downloads they would be downloading their music in an open vendor neutral
file format like MP3 onto a fully peer reviewed and secure platform that
would play the music.

  I would understand a virus-free music site that advocated people to only
use Linux, *BSD and MacOS-X to download music safely, but I do not at all
understand a site that requires exactly the opposite.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/

--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca