But nobody has used short file names in decades.
In VFAT, the long file names are interleaved with the counterpart to inodes under UNIX. Each inode contains an 11-byte short file name, and these must be unique within a directory.
So now, the "feature" continues to be necessary only so that FAT can provide compatibility with itself. That's like begging the question.
It's to provide interoperability with the billions of other devices using FAT. How is a network effect necessarily begging the question?
automatically formatting non exfat volumes >32G as exfat is actually conforming to the spec.
Reformatting a card with data in a foreign file system causes data loss. Which section allows data loss without the user's confirmation to conform?
By the way, what's the legal status of extracting the audio tracks from the videos bands upload to YouTube and end up in our browsers caches?
More than likely a violation of YouTube's terms of service and therefore possibly a crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. (I'm not a lawyer; before you go into business or otherwise publicly act on this; talk to one.)
I only use Linux, but have an iPad3.
Was it a gift?
The only reason anyone should ever used iTunes is if they are forced to (they own an iPod or iPhone)
Owning an iDevice isn't the only thing that forces one to use iTunes. A lot of recording artists sell their music on iTunes but not Google or Amazon. Good luck finding, say, "Bück dich" by Rammstein; all you get on Amazon MP3 (U.S.) or Google Play Music (U.S.) are cover versions.
If you really want to fix the copyright mess, the only way is to get rid of copyright completely and replace it with [compulsory licensing].
This is already the law for a few specific uses of works, such as recording cover versions of musical works.
And of course zero revenue means zero cut to be paid.
And therein lies the difference: producers of "premium" works would BAWW that distribution without charge "cheapens" their works.
Also curious: how is this "problem" not something that streaming services have as well? Streaming from music you own vs. streaming from music you "rent"... it's all streaming.
I imagine it's easier to get the rights to cache music you own than music you rent. For music you own, it's mostly just transcoding your library down to a lower bitrate.
Given that inordinate amount of bandwidth is already taken up by streaming video
Bandwidth used by Netflix and YouTube and the like is largely over fixed lines, such as fiber and cable. Music, on the other hand, is commonly streamed through a cellular last mile, whose carriers tend to charge far more per gigabyte than a wired ISP.