<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New SunnComm MediaMaxMess</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7143/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7143</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net - reader powered</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7143/comment-page-1#comment-25509</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2005 02:51:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-25509</guid>
		<description>say, i&#039;m rather curious,(and i have similiar anti-corporate pimp views) isn&#039;t making a statement like that grounds for a lawsuit/criminal investigation/riaa buttfuck on the person who posted it? I&#039;d imagine it is in the U$A, but would the site operators/owners of p2p.net be forced (and would they comply?) if some legal leech/corporate interest &#039;demanded&#039; the person&#039;s ip address who posted that?

I&#039;d not be surprise if that post would be considered some crazy legal bullshit like &#039;conspiracy to commit copyright theft&#039; or &#039;incitement of theft&#039; with an insane mandatory 20 year prison stretch for each count.
eh, that&#039;s the great thing about america, you&#039;ll do more time for copying a movie than for setting a retarded kid on fire. That&#039;s what i call priorities.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>say, i&#8217;m rather curious,(and i have similiar anti-corporate pimp views) isn&#8217;t making a statement like that grounds for a lawsuit/criminal investigation/riaa buttfuck on the person who posted it? I&#8217;d imagine it is in the U$A, but would the site operators/owners of p2p.net be forced (and would they comply?) if some legal leech/corporate interest &#8216;demanded&#8217; the person&#8217;s ip address who posted that?</p>
<p>I&#8217;d not be surprise if that post would be considered some crazy legal bullshit like &#8216;conspiracy to commit copyright theft&#8217; or &#8216;incitement of theft&#8217; with an insane mandatory 20 year prison stretch for each count.<br />
eh, that&#8217;s the great thing about america, you&#8217;ll do more time for copying a movie than for setting a retarded kid on fire. That&#8217;s what i call priorities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7143/comment-page-1#comment-25407</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:26:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-25407</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t EVER buy a CD from the music cartel.  If you really want anything they sell - for gawds sake, DOWNLOAD IT!  Protect yourself and punish them at the same time.

Support the &quot;other&quot; labels and artists.  Buy their music - it&#039;s better product anyways...

Just my opinion.  Your mileage may vary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t EVER buy a CD from the music cartel.  If you really want anything they sell &#8211; for gawds sake, DOWNLOAD IT!  Protect yourself and punish them at the same time.</p>
<p>Support the &#8220;other&#8221; labels and artists.  Buy their music &#8211; it&#8217;s better product anyways&#8230;</p>
<p>Just my opinion.  Your mileage may vary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7143/comment-page-1#comment-25388</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2005 03:09:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-25388</guid>
		<description>I hope this gets as much attention as the sony fiasco is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope this gets as much attention as the sony fiasco is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7143/comment-page-1#comment-25382</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:07:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-25382</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s just this sort of sloppy programming coupled with intense desire to protect the product that are turning off people buying. No where in all of this are you rewarded as a faithful customer for either doing the right thing or for getting a product that does what the customer expects; simply the playing of that purchased product. More than anyone else, the faithful customer is the one stuck with a product that doesn&#039;t do as it is billed and that expections will be rarely met. No other type of business could survive in the physical world with these sort of attitudes and with this type of shabby and shyster product and expect to sell it big.

The cartels first off think you are a thief. No one that thinks otherwise would come up with such a scheme to protect the goods and at the same time expect the customer to just accept it as part of the deal. Anyone that buys these substandard products is just asking for more trouble where they least expect it. In a world where a fresh install of windows isn&#039;t expected to last through the install and upgrade patch process before being attacked by hackers and probes, these sort of methods by well known and what should be respected companies is just unbelievable to the average Joe that just wants to play his music. As was said, &quot;It&#039;s your product, it isn&#039;t your computer&quot; and this is part of where these businesses are losing it. After the Sony debacle, I no longer trust any of these companies not to try and insert malware of some sort on my computer. No matter the name or the method, no matter how it is presented; a rose is still a rose and a pigs ear is still a pigs ear. Hiding it in a 1000 word or greater EULA, written in legalise isn&#039;t what I call respected either (nor is not directly mentioning what will be done in the EULA). This sort of behavior should, if our lawmakers were really truthful about it, trigger a legal requirement that a popup, plain and simple, tell the user of any intented modifications to be done to their computer and directly ask for a yes or no. Further, if you say no, that&#039;s what it means. It doesn&#039;t mean no today and yes sometime in the future. 

This sort of slimy underhanded tactics are what I have come to expect from the industry and it is a sign that things have gone far to far in their favor. They are to the point of its ok to do anything to your computer in the effort to collect every last penny.

Meeting and exceeding your customer base expectations should be the goal of any business that is intending to have a future. By the contrary, those that don&#039;t meet those expectations will suffer the result of such. Is it any wonder that p2p is gaining and continues to gain inspite of all that the cartels are doing and attempting to do?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s just this sort of sloppy programming coupled with intense desire to protect the product that are turning off people buying. No where in all of this are you rewarded as a faithful customer for either doing the right thing or for getting a product that does what the customer expects; simply the playing of that purchased product. More than anyone else, the faithful customer is the one stuck with a product that doesn&#8217;t do as it is billed and that expections will be rarely met. No other type of business could survive in the physical world with these sort of attitudes and with this type of shabby and shyster product and expect to sell it big.</p>
<p>The cartels first off think you are a thief. No one that thinks otherwise would come up with such a scheme to protect the goods and at the same time expect the customer to just accept it as part of the deal. Anyone that buys these substandard products is just asking for more trouble where they least expect it. In a world where a fresh install of windows isn&#8217;t expected to last through the install and upgrade patch process before being attacked by hackers and probes, these sort of methods by well known and what should be respected companies is just unbelievable to the average Joe that just wants to play his music. As was said, &#8220;It&#8217;s your product, it isn&#8217;t your computer&#8221; and this is part of where these businesses are losing it. After the Sony debacle, I no longer trust any of these companies not to try and insert malware of some sort on my computer. No matter the name or the method, no matter how it is presented; a rose is still a rose and a pigs ear is still a pigs ear. Hiding it in a 1000 word or greater EULA, written in legalise isn&#8217;t what I call respected either (nor is not directly mentioning what will be done in the EULA). This sort of behavior should, if our lawmakers were really truthful about it, trigger a legal requirement that a popup, plain and simple, tell the user of any intented modifications to be done to their computer and directly ask for a yes or no. Further, if you say no, that&#8217;s what it means. It doesn&#8217;t mean no today and yes sometime in the future. </p>
<p>This sort of slimy underhanded tactics are what I have come to expect from the industry and it is a sign that things have gone far to far in their favor. They are to the point of its ok to do anything to your computer in the effort to collect every last penny.</p>
<p>Meeting and exceeding your customer base expectations should be the goal of any business that is intending to have a future. By the contrary, those that don&#8217;t meet those expectations will suffer the result of such. Is it any wonder that p2p is gaining and continues to gain inspite of all that the cartels are doing and attempting to do?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7143/comment-page-1#comment-25351</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:02:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-25351</guid>
		<description>What a mess ? I&#039;m sure lots of execs will walk away from this.

And what ever happened to Kevin M. Clement ?

SunnComm hires Sony BMG guy
http://p2pnet.net/story/7068 



</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a mess ? I&#8217;m sure lots of execs will walk away from this.</p>
<p>And what ever happened to Kevin M. Clement ?</p>
<p>SunnComm hires Sony BMG guy<br />
<a href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7068" rel="nofollow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7068</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7143/comment-page-1#comment-25339</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:03:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-25339</guid>
		<description>The EFF filed suit against Sony for both the XCP and the MediaMax...

http://djtechnocrat.blogspot.com/2005/11/eff-files-class-action-lawsuit-again.html

-Todd</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The EFF filed suit against Sony for both the XCP and the MediaMax&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://djtechnocrat.blogspot.com/2005/11/eff-files-class-action-lawsuit-again.html" rel="nofollow">http://djtechnocrat.blogspot.com/2005/11/eff-files-class-action-lawsuit-again.html</a></p>
<p>-Todd</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>


