Eliminate Constant Re-Indexing of Music-Android App

[text]

"Please explain how on gods green earth would people knowing what music you listen to be a security vulnerability"

Because I illegally downloaded my music. Derp Derp

"Do you think someone is going to break into your house and steal your computer if they like your musical taste?"

Rude. But no. However, if you're caught pirating music, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have been known to confiscate all of your hardware, including your phone.

"Or do you think they will get you ostracized for your lack of musical taste?"

There's no reason to be a smartass and rude to people. You could have just asked rather than get your panties in a twist.

"Why do you encrypt your music library?"

That's none of your business. But my response here should be self explanatory.

"fyi there are programs out there that allow you to remotely wipe the data on your phone if it were to get stolen"

Yeah, I'll just do that while I'm sitting in a jail cell.

"If you are so concerned with security that you go as far as encrypting your music, then Lookout, or some similar program, would be a far better solution for you than attempting to block this much desired modification."

LOL. So that's your problem? You think I'm trying to block this modification? I am not. I am simply saying that I don't want my music library cached on my phone. There are many reasons why someone wouldn't want this. Hell, if they wanted to, they could add an option. How's that? Does that completely blow your pea brain? Hey... tit for tat.

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, pup.

Thanks,
Text

[Pishtim]

*facepalm* lol

A music file doesn't tell people whether it's stolen, or legitimately acquired. Did you know that? People get caught for sharing files on uTorrent or the like. Let me explain it this way: you could have stolen 100,000 songs, but there's no way that law enforcement can tell that they were stolen by looking at the files themselves. "derp derp" You would have to share those songs illegally and you only get busted for what you share. Encrypting your music is completely pointless.

And if your hardware was confiscated, you think encrypting the files is going to stop the FBI? Heck, they would probably make you give them the password, and if you didn't, you would be incriminating yourself.

Very well thought out buddy...

[text]

*facepalm* lol

A music file doesn't tell people whether it's stolen, or legitimately acquired. Did you know that? People get caught for sharing files on uTorrent or the like. Let me explain it this way: you could have stolen 100,000 songs, but there's no way that law enforcement can tell that they were stolen by looking at the files themselves. "derp derp" You would have to share those songs illegally and you only get busted for what you share. Encrypting your music is completely pointless.

And if your hardware was confiscated, you think encrypting the files is going to stop the FBI? Heck, they would probably make you give them the password, and if you didn't, you would be incriminating yourself.

Very well thought out buddy...

Now you're facepalming yourself. Did you know that if you amass a large quantity of media files and you don't have proof that you paid for those legally, then you can be charged with copyright violation? Did you know at that scale, the penalty for that violation would exceed the penalty for 2nd degree murder?

And no, if I encrypt my files, I can not be forced to reveal the password. I can not be forced to be a witness against myself. This is a Constitutional right. You clearly haven't read those rights.

Well thought out, buddy.

Are you a jerk or a gifted amateur?

[Pishtim]

Did you know that if you amass a large quantity of media files and you don't have proof that you paid for those legally, then you can be charged with copyright violation? Did you know at that scale, the penalty for that violation would exceed the penalty for 2nd degree murder?

Totally false bro. Read up a little bit and elighten yourself. Hoard all the music you want: http://slashdot.org/story/06/08/19/0042259/what-is-proof-of-music-ownership Distribution is the ONLY way you're ever going to get brought to suit.

And no, if I encrypt my files, I can not be forced to reveal the password. I can not be forced to be a witness against myself. This is a Constitutional right. You clearly haven't read those rights.

I am going to post this link, but don't bother arguing it. My above point makes this point completely moot: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57365004-501465/judge-americans-can-be-forced-to-decrypt-their-laptops/

[text]

Totally false bro. Read up a little bit and elighten yourself. Hoard all the music you want: http://slashdot.org/story/06/08/19/0042259/what-is-proof-of-music-ownership Distribution is the ONLY way you're ever going to get brought to suit.

Perhaps distribution can get you in trouble. I don't deny that. But if you have 100,000 songs and you don't have ANY proof to the purchase of these files, can a jury convict you? Is it beyond a REASONABLE doubt? Absolutely not. This shows the failure in your argument. Relying on a slashdot article to justify illegal behavior is ridiculous and most people would wind up in prison.

I am going to post this link, but don't bother arguing it. My above point makes this point completely moot: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57365004-501465/judge-americans-can-be-forced-to-decrypt-their-laptops/

Epic failure. You clearly didn't read the entire article. If you had, you would have seen this line: "While the U.S. Supreme Court has not confronted the topic, a handful of lower courts have."

And I still don't have to comply. Additionally, to refute your argument, a Supreme Court has indeed ruled on this matter already:

"In previous cases, the courts have held that when the government already knows of the existence of specific incriminating files, compelling a suspect to produce them does not violate the Fifth Amendment's rule against self-incrimination. On the other hand, if the government merely suspects that an encrypted hard drive contains some incriminating documents, but lacks independent evidence for the existence of specific documents, then the owner of the hard drive is entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment."
source: [url]arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/appeals-court-fifth-amendment-protections-can-apply-to-encrypted-hard-drives.ars[/url]


And if that isn't enough for you, I would like to remind you that I still can not be forced to open the container of illicit files. This is because encryption programs offer dummy drives, where if a password is entered, depending on that password, dummy volumes will be opened so that they can be inspected, revealing nothing incriminating. Thus, getting the user out of trouble completely. This is called a "hidden drive". http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=hidden-volume

And none of this justifies caching someone's entire library to their cell phone. How ridiculous. And none of your arguments even attempts to justify your childish attitude.

I think that about wraps up all of your arguments. gg

In short: You lose.

[GJ51]

*facepalm* lol

A music file doesn't tell people whether it's stolen, or legitimately acquired. Did you know that? People get caught for sharing files on uTorrent or the like. Let me explain it this way: you could have stolen 100,000 songs, but there's no way that law enforcement can tell that they were stolen by looking at the files themselves. "derp derp" You would have to share those songs illegally and you only get busted for what you share. Encrypting your music is completely pointless.

And if your hardware was confiscated, you think encrypting the files is going to stop the FBI? Heck, they would probably make you give them the password, and if you didn't, you would be incriminating yourself.

Very well thought out buddy...

Now you're facepalming yourself. Did you know that if you amass a large quantity of media files and you don't have proof that you paid for those legally, then you can be charged with copyright violation? Did you know at that scale, the penalty for that violation would exceed the penalty for 2nd degree murder?

And no, if I encrypt my files, I can not be forced to reveal the password. I can not be forced to be a witness against myself. This is a Constitutional right. You clearly haven't read those rights.

Well thought out, buddy.

Are you a jerk or a gifted amateur?

So, let me get this right, as I am not a Constitutional expert, your contention is that you have a Constituional protection that ensures that you can not be forced to reveal a password, but if we don't save all of our reciepts for any music with no DRM in our library we are considered guilty until proven innocent?

No wonder I'm so confused.

[Pishtim]

Totally false bro. Read up a little bit and elighten yourself. Hoard all the music you want: http://slashdot.org/story/06/08/19/0042259/what-is-proof-of-music-ownership Distribution is the ONLY way you're ever going to get brought to suit.

Perhaps distribution can get you in trouble. I don't deny that. But if you have 100,000 songs and you don't have ANY proof to the purchase of these files, can a jury convict you? Is it beyond a REASONABLE doubt? Absolutely not. This shows the failure in your argument. Relying on a slashdot article to justify illegal behavior is ridiculous and most people would wind up in prison.

Wow you are so full of it. First of all this isn't a slashdot article, it's a forum, and, it's a dozen people (each with different backgrounds)telling you you won't get sued just for having a ton of songs (sorry if I didn't want to take the time to post 12 links where they're all going to tell you the same thing...). All you would have to say is you threw away all your music CDs after you digitized them. Sounds pretty rock solid to me Now remember, this is the WHOLE reason you're encrypting your music and I'm showing how retarded it is. You think you have to keep every receipt for every song or CD you ever acquired? You think you have to have an original CD of all the music you own? Find me ANY precedent what-so-ever to justify your fears. Encrypting your music because you're afraid of getting sued for simply having the music is the most obtuse thing I've heard in a while.

Here, since you don't like slashdot I'll give you virtually the same thing from the horses mouth: http://riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law hrm, is it me, or does this article from the RIAA's own website not mention anything about it being illegal to possess any amount of music you want to? Seems like all they are talking about is distribution, copying, something about friends lending CDs...

Tell me again how in your fantasy world you'd get sued just for having a ton of music... I got a kick out of it.

[text]

So, let me get this right, as I am not a Constitutional expert, your contention is that you have a Constituional protection that ensures that you can not be forced to reveal a password, but if we don't save all of our reciepts for any music with no DRM in our library we are considered guilty until proven innocent?

No wonder I'm so confused.

I'm saying that a jury or judge can convict you if it is beyond a reasonable doubt. That is ALL they require. If you have a hundred thousand individual music files and you can't provide even one receipt for any of them, is it likely you could be convicted? I think so. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me. Even the time stamps on the files (when you originally saved the file to the hard drive) would be incriminating because you would have to say that you just bought it last week and you forgot where you bought it from -- along with 99,999 other files.

Wow you are so full of it. First of all this isn't a slashdot article, it's a forum, and, it's a dozen people (each with different backgrounds)telling you you won't get sued just for having a ton of songs (sorry if I didn't want to take the time to post 12 links where they're all going to tell you the same thing...).

We're talking about reasonable doubt at this point. Is it likely you have 100,000 mp3's without any proof of purchase? Not even a credit card receipt? Not an account history you could share from Amazon or iTunes? Nothing? Can a jury find your judgment beyond a reasonable doubt? Again, yes.

Sounds pretty rock solid to me

That doesn't surprise me when I think about your last replies, which never attempted to consider an alternative.

Now remember, this is the WHOLE reason you're encrypting your music and I'm showing how retarded it is. You think you have to keep every receipt for every song or CD you ever acquired?

Yes, my family (aside from myself) is able to provide proof of all their online purchases.

You think you have to have an original CD of all the music you own?

You don't have to own a CD to own an MP3

Find me ANY precedent what-so-ever to justify your fears.

Again, if the criminal justice system has a reasonable suspicion that you did not acquire these files lawfully, then that means there must have been distribution, even if it was only on the receiving end. That is enough to convict you. There are many cases where people's laptops and phones have been searched and charges filed because of the copyrighted contents of those devices. Even just the act of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected is a violation of copyright. You would have a very hard time getting anyone to believe that you purchased 100K songs legally, all with no DRM attached, AND without a shred of evidence to back up your claim. If they found this music library, it would be evidence of reproduction. This is all that is needed in a civil suit.

Encrypting your music because you're afraid of getting sued is the most obtuse thing I've heard in a while.

Hiding your ill gotten, illegal files is obtuse? Are you sure you know what that word means?

Again, you're still being disrespectful, childish and idiotic. Sorry, but I'm going to have to start disregarding your replies unless you can clean it up.

[GJ51]

I'm saying that a jury or judge can convict you if it is beyond a reasonable doubt. That is ALL they require. If you have a hundred thousand individual music files and you can't provide even one receipt for any of them, is it likely you could be convicted? I think so. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me. Even the time stamps on the files (when you originally saved the file to the hard drive) would be incriminating because you would have to say that you just bought it last week and you forgot where you bought it from -- along with 99,999 other files.

But I just copied my entire library to a new RAID array and all the date/time stamps are the same.

I guess I'm screwed.

How do you define reasonable doubt? So if I say I bought my music and paid cash in local stores and shredded the disks after I ripped them to the computer, you don't think that that would be cause for reasonable doubt? I buy a newspaper every day from a coin vending machine and I have a stack of them in my garage collecting until I take them to be recycled. I have no reciepts, Are they all stolen? Possesion of non-DRM music in digital form constitutes evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in your opinion?

[text]

How do you define reasonable doubt? So if I say I bought my music and paid cash in local stores and shredded the disks after I ripped them to the computer, you don't think that that would be cause for reasonable doubt? I buy a newspaper every day from a coin vending machine and I have a stack of them in my garage collecting until I take them to be recycled. I have no reciepts, Are they all stolen? Possesion of non-DRM music in digital form constitutes evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in your opinion?

That's for the judge and jury to decide, isn't it? If you have vast quantities of movies and music (or even just one or the other), it's possible. But I do see your point. But let me ask you something: Would you want to risk it? Wouldn't it just be easier to conceal your ill-gotten goods? I think so. Which leads me back to my original comment:

I would not like for my phone to cache directories of my files.

Good point, though. But it seems unlikely.

[GJ51]

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the man come and take you away

[Pishtim]

So if I say I bought my music and paid cash in local stores and shredded the disks after I ripped them to the computer, you don't think that that would be cause for reasonable doubt?

lol I just posted a near identical scenario (which didn't get posted for some reason, so I had to start over). Text thinks he's going to be the first person in the United States to get convicted of having "a lot of music". And yes, Text, you would be the first one. Keep encrypting your music, trooper.

[text]

So if I say I bought my music and paid cash in local stores and shredded the disks after I ripped them to the computer, you don't think that that would be cause for reasonable doubt?

lol I just posted a near identical scenario (which didn't get posted for some reason, so I had to start over). Text thinks he's going to be the first person in the United States to get convicted of having "a lot of music". And yes, Text, you would be the first one. Keep encrypting your music, trooper.

Clearly you didn't read anything I replied with. Perhaps your only intent here on this thread is to belittle, argue and rage on someone? Are you an angry boy?

The act of copying is an infringement. Downloading it to your computer makes a copy on your computer and is hence an infringement. Possessing copies on your computer is not, I believe, by itself an infringement yet would be pretty compelling evidence that you had made those copies on your computer. If you can't understand this basic English, then we are done here.

Go ahead, download a bunch of illegal crap to your computer and when they ask you about it, use your rock solid argument: You threw away the originals. Lol. Do that x100K and see what happens. You don't really believe that, do you?

By the way, converting copyright work to a non-protected digital medium is also illegal. I highly doubt you could find non-DRM protected versions of every song you own.

Your naivety leaves a lot to be desired. Your attempts to strawman my position and ad hom me only illustrate the weakness in your own argument.

Thanks,
Text

PS. Gary: You can not copy standard music CD's to your computer without first decrypting the contents. That would be illegal.

This should wrap it up nicely.

[Pishtim]

Downloading it to your computer makes a copy on your computer and is hence an infringement. Possessing copies on your computer is not, I believe, by itself an infringement yet would be pretty compelling evidence that you had made those copies on your computer.

*facepalm* lol is that compelling evidence? Tell me again what differentiates a song from thepiratebay.org and song from amazon.com? If you became a lawyer, you could be right up there with Robert Shapiro

I highly doubt you could find non-DRM protected versions of every song you own.

um hate to break it to you, but music DRM died, like, a long time ago. It would actually be very hard to find DRM protected music anymore. But nice faux pas.

PS. Gary: You can not copy standard music CD's to your computer without first decrypting the contents. That would be illegal.

Standard music CDs are encrypted? wow I learn so much from you. You have clearly gravitated towards the talk-out-of-my-arse approach to this.

None of what you said has sufficiently supported the argument that you could be prosecuted for having a ton of music without a paper trail. You are NEVER going to suffiently support it and that's exactly why nobody has ever been tried (let alone convicted) in court for "you have a lot of music, and you can't prove it wasn't stolen, so it must be stolen". Think about how absurd that is. Your logic is obviously so airtight, then why haven't prosecutions been forthcoming?

It's amazing how you can spit all that nonsense, then pat yourself on the back

[text]

For all the kids that read this:

Go ahead and illegally download infinite number of movies and music and books from the internet. If and when the feds come knocking (which they've done many times before), show them your illegal library of copyright infringement and just tell them "I purchased all of this and I no longer have any proof of this claim. You have to believe me. A jury can not convict me."

LOL.

Good luck

This would only be plausible on a very small scale.

{repeat entire argument ad nauseum }

fallacy: lack of evidence is evidence of lack