Wednesday News Round-Up
Mar. 22nd, 2006 12:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixen1) Do not miss tonight's South Park. "The Return of Chef." Enough said.
2) The Supreme Court has muddled things up again. Or have they? Honestly, it's nearly impossible to tell without knowing more of the particulars. Suffice to say I was most aggrieved to read they weren't allowing the police to search homes when they're invited in by only one occupant. Really, if they're invited in, they're invited, and it's not like they can go snooping for anything other than plain-sight stuff and have it last in a trial.
But this case is singular in that they took the wife's admission of entrance just as the husband was objecting to it. As in he was right there and said no but they went on her say-so. Now, I am not pleased at the idea that the husband overuled the wife because he was hiding illegal drugs, but I am delighted to read the language of this ruling saying that husband and wife are equally protected against search and seizure and neither the one nor the other has the power to deny the other the right to say no to the police when they have no warrant to search. It's a gender equality I hope to be often repeated in future rulings (though, with the conservative appointments Dubya's managed to get in, I doubt I will see such things).
On the other hand, this severely mucks up police procedure and will lead to future back-and-forth rulings in lower courts, I am sure. Was the husband right at the door or was he sufficiently distracted so as not to be able to deny entry until it was too late? Will the police be obligated to inquire of both spouses, either in person or via phone, before they may search premises? If the permission is not obtained because one spouse is away, will the search hold up in court? If the permission is obtained from the missing party, will it have to be documented and how will that work?
Ideally, the police shouldn't have to worry about these things. They shouldn't be searching without warrants save to eliminate distractions/possible suspects in cases (and if you leave your evidence in plain sight, well, you're a dumb-ass criminal, aren't you?). I'll be interested to see how this develops.
3) France mucks around with iTunes and iPod, and Apple isn't happy (small wonder)
Apple hasn't got a leg to stand on, you ask me. The remarks about BMW insisting upon BMW-only approved gasolene is very telling. Perhaps I'm biased by my frustrations with their proprietary ownership of my ripped CDs in AAC format, but I'm not pleased with Apple. Oh, they have a remarkable interface in iTunes to be sure, and the iPod is king of the mp3 player hill for a number of good reasons, none of which have to do with Apple's treatment of its purchasers. And it's very interesting that they've got themselves in such a snit over this because clearly owning the market on mp3 players isn't enough. Watch out, Bill Gates, Apple wants to take over the world.
As I understand this, the iTunes songs purchased would be then usable on machines not necessarily of the iPod lineage. I can see why Apple is determined that should not happen from that direction, though, honestly, as I said, they have nothing to worry about as far as iPod is concerned. Other companies' players are still just as expensive, come with little of the benefits and streamlining of product and accessories as the iPod, and not a one has the physical hardware attraction (both of interface and aesthetic). So I doubt making iTunes songs playable on other machines than iPod will hurt their bottom line. Apple underestimates their support network, I dare say, and it will take a monumental push from a serious competitor before they'll lose that advantage, and I don't see other companies being capable of it (the biggest names are sorta bogged down in other debacles, like Sony and the PS3).
I think it's more the fear of the revolt against iTunes that Apple fears, as well they should. If their songs are as swappable as any of the other programs, they'll have to start competing more fiercely on the music sale end than on the iPod end. This means renegotiating prices with music houses and what not, and it means a real possibility of another store opening up and stealing their business away. People will still buy iPod, I think, even if iTunes isn't their store of choice. But Apple has so much to lose if they stop controlling 99.9999999999% of the music sales. I bet they make more money on that than on their ridiculously priced hardware.
I wonder what we'll think of this in a year's time. That seems to be the turn-around for new developments. Stay tuned.
2) The Supreme Court has muddled things up again. Or have they? Honestly, it's nearly impossible to tell without knowing more of the particulars. Suffice to say I was most aggrieved to read they weren't allowing the police to search homes when they're invited in by only one occupant. Really, if they're invited in, they're invited, and it's not like they can go snooping for anything other than plain-sight stuff and have it last in a trial.
But this case is singular in that they took the wife's admission of entrance just as the husband was objecting to it. As in he was right there and said no but they went on her say-so. Now, I am not pleased at the idea that the husband overuled the wife because he was hiding illegal drugs, but I am delighted to read the language of this ruling saying that husband and wife are equally protected against search and seizure and neither the one nor the other has the power to deny the other the right to say no to the police when they have no warrant to search. It's a gender equality I hope to be often repeated in future rulings (though, with the conservative appointments Dubya's managed to get in, I doubt I will see such things).
On the other hand, this severely mucks up police procedure and will lead to future back-and-forth rulings in lower courts, I am sure. Was the husband right at the door or was he sufficiently distracted so as not to be able to deny entry until it was too late? Will the police be obligated to inquire of both spouses, either in person or via phone, before they may search premises? If the permission is not obtained because one spouse is away, will the search hold up in court? If the permission is obtained from the missing party, will it have to be documented and how will that work?
Ideally, the police shouldn't have to worry about these things. They shouldn't be searching without warrants save to eliminate distractions/possible suspects in cases (and if you leave your evidence in plain sight, well, you're a dumb-ass criminal, aren't you?). I'll be interested to see how this develops.
3) France mucks around with iTunes and iPod, and Apple isn't happy (small wonder)
Apple hasn't got a leg to stand on, you ask me. The remarks about BMW insisting upon BMW-only approved gasolene is very telling. Perhaps I'm biased by my frustrations with their proprietary ownership of my ripped CDs in AAC format, but I'm not pleased with Apple. Oh, they have a remarkable interface in iTunes to be sure, and the iPod is king of the mp3 player hill for a number of good reasons, none of which have to do with Apple's treatment of its purchasers. And it's very interesting that they've got themselves in such a snit over this because clearly owning the market on mp3 players isn't enough. Watch out, Bill Gates, Apple wants to take over the world.
As I understand this, the iTunes songs purchased would be then usable on machines not necessarily of the iPod lineage. I can see why Apple is determined that should not happen from that direction, though, honestly, as I said, they have nothing to worry about as far as iPod is concerned. Other companies' players are still just as expensive, come with little of the benefits and streamlining of product and accessories as the iPod, and not a one has the physical hardware attraction (both of interface and aesthetic). So I doubt making iTunes songs playable on other machines than iPod will hurt their bottom line. Apple underestimates their support network, I dare say, and it will take a monumental push from a serious competitor before they'll lose that advantage, and I don't see other companies being capable of it (the biggest names are sorta bogged down in other debacles, like Sony and the PS3).
I think it's more the fear of the revolt against iTunes that Apple fears, as well they should. If their songs are as swappable as any of the other programs, they'll have to start competing more fiercely on the music sale end than on the iPod end. This means renegotiating prices with music houses and what not, and it means a real possibility of another store opening up and stealing their business away. People will still buy iPod, I think, even if iTunes isn't their store of choice. But Apple has so much to lose if they stop controlling 99.9999999999% of the music sales. I bet they make more money on that than on their ridiculously priced hardware.
I wonder what we'll think of this in a year's time. That seems to be the turn-around for new developments. Stay tuned.
