Apple Deleted iPod Owners' Songs Downloaded From Competing Music Services Between 2007 and 2009

[mercuryjones]

Rad my post two posts up

"In the end a court will not allow you to just make up stuff. If the plaintiff's lawyers say this happened they have to prove that it did indeed happen and that it was not an aberration, but a common practice that occurred."

I don't think people realize how court works. You don't just throw stuff at a wall. You claim something happens you have to be able to provide some type of proof.

That's all well and good. I simply asked how they plan to prove this, without access to the original setup. Now, if the plaintiff still has the entire setup as is, that's one thing. It's just going to be interesting to see this in action, and to find out how many people it actually affected.
Plus, if it only got rid of the music off the iPod, and you still had the original file on your computer, what did you actually lose?

 

[SirCheese]

Kind of a misleading title... its not like Apple went in and deleted those specific songs without the owner knowing (essentially like hacking). The iPod was restored, which coincidentally erases the entire contents of the iPod.

Actually, they did delete it without consent, they forced the users to restore the device if they detected music from another source.

----------

These comments are wimpy at best.

People don't seem to get it. Why should Apple have let another company into its ecosystem.
If I own a grocery store, you can't come in and tell me you are going to put your stuff on my shelves! And if you do, I would most certainly throw you and your stuff out on the curb.
After Apple wins this, and they will, I hope they take each an every individual in this sham of a class action to court and sues them into abject poverty.

haha....the true American way.

Apple isn't going to win. They deleted purchased music without user consent. They more or less admitted to it. It's over.

----------

How about "morally deplorable"? At least with Apple if you're happy to play nice in their walled garden, they treat you as a customer not a product.

Please, you are nothing more than a product and dollar signs to them. Nothing more.

 

[samcraig]

Except that Google does this on a scale that is 100 times bigger, and Googles business entirely relies on selling ads, and therefore Google absolutely cannot be trusted with any private data, because my personal information is what allows Google to make money.

You just argued the best reason for Google to keep your data private. It's in their best interest to do so, so they can continue to make money off of targeting ads to you.

Apple and Google have different revenue models. Google didn't start off in hardware like Apple did. Further - if you think Apple wasn't hoping that iAds would be so tremendously successful, that they would eventually supplant Google Ads - well, I think you're not being genuine. Just because Apple isn't doing iAds 100x more isn't because they don't want to. It's because they haven't been able to.

 

[SirCheese]

Except that if you actually read what happens. That's not what happens. The anology doesn't fit at all BTW.

- It is more like selling a special key-chain on which all the keys are exact copies of master keys kept in a special file. Then, someone adds keys on that key-chain without putting into the file and loses that key-chain and expects the key replicator to replicate keys it doesn't have.

Actually, you should try reading yourself. But no, you would rather make assumptions and act like you know what you are talking about. You still haven't linked to me to prove Tim Cook says that the watch will last days, why is this? Because it was never said, you just seem to like to make up things to suit your agenda, you are pretty transparent in your agenda.

----------

no response to the actual content.

Oh the irony.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I don't know what's worse.
What they did or their awful comeback:



classy

Glassed Silver:mac

All of Apple's excuses sound the same. What IS worse is that a lot of people actually believe them.

Remember the, "You're holding it wrong." and the "Just plug it up to charge it" excuses. The Apple Maps letter was the first time they've ever admitted to making a mistake in a very VERY long history of blaming the end user.

 

[wiredup72]

The title of the post is accurate and apple will end up paying for their actions IMO. People can debate the choice of worlds MR used and everything else, but apple flat out deleted content from people's devices without any warning that "a reasonable person" could decipher.
And Job's emails just confirm what we all know; he was a ruthless business man. No big deal. Nothing candy coated. Plain and simple.
The question at hand is did he/they operate within the rules set by the laws of our society, not whether they were evil or big brother. Job's, like many leaders, try to push those boundaries all time. Do I find their behavior immoral or more appropriately, amoral? Probably. I feel that way about most businesses. But my feelings are not what is being investigated and are irrelevant to the case.

 

[Iconoclysm]

What does any of this have to do with Apple deleting music that was purchased not from them? This alone should be a huge no-no.

Factory resetting is not "deleting music that was purchased not from them".

----------

All of Apple's excuses sound the same. What IS worse is that a lot of people actually believe them.

Remember the, "You're holding it wrong." and the "Just plug it up to charge it" excuses. The Apple Maps letter was the first time they've ever admitted to making a mistake in a very VERY long history of blaming the end user.

Yes, I remember the actual statements that you apparently did not actually see because "You're holding it wrong" was never said.

----------

Perhaps you may not realize this, but this is an Apple NEWS site. It's not an Apple fan club site. Apple haters may be interested in Apple news as well. I'm sure Apple fan club sites do exist, and perhaps the truly simple solution is for the fans that can't take the heat to be the ones leaving.

As for myself, I'm 100% an Apple fan; but I'm also an adult.

There's a huge influx of Apple haters coming from other sites. They typically do not contribute to any discussion beyond the simple high fiving each other over their own misperceptions. More than half the time, they don't even understand the technology they're for/against, and it's beyond annoying... Unfortunately, there is nowhere out there for anyone with a level head to have a discussion.

 

[ee4life]

There are a few things I'm not entirely clear on, as there seem to be multiple accounts from different sites/forums as to the circumstances that cause this "event" to occur.

Did the third-party purchases contain DRM? Was the DRM mechanism reverse-engineered from FairPlay to allow for playback on Apple devices, or did they have a license from Apple? If the former, aren't the sellers responsible for false advertising regarding compatibility when they had no partnership with Apple and thus no long-term guarantee that their hacked approach would work? If it used a different DRM, has Apple ever advertised or publicly assured compatibility with said DRM?

Was syncing only done through iTunes, or was third-party syncing software involved? Has Apple ever publicly sanctioned/promoted a third-party application for syncing music with an iPod?

Given the vague or conflicting details from all the click-bait articles, it's hard to evaluate the legitimacy of the complaint.

 

[SirCheese]

Between 2007 and 2009, Apple stealthily deleted content that iPod owners had downloaded from rival music services...

or on the other words: illegal downloaded music services...

In this case, I support Apple 100%.

Or in other words, you assume it's illegal. People were getting paid for music deleted as well. So.....

 

[Iconoclysm]

the typical "Apple can do no wrong" attitude from a selective few makes me chuckle a little.

I'm starting to see why some view Apple fanboys as somewhat a cult.

Apple can certainly do wrong...it's just that when they do NOT do something "wrong" or it's misconstrued that it seems people are acting that way.

 

[kolax]

Yes, I remember the actual statements that you apparently did not actually see because "You're holding it wrong" was never said.

'Just avoid holding it that way' was the actual response, but that does imply 'you're holding it wrong'.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/24/apple-responds-over-iphone-4-reception-issues-youre-holding-th/

 

[comacnut]

These comments are wimpy at best.

People don't seem to get it. Why should Apple have let another company into its ecosystem.
If I own a grocery store, you can't come in and tell me you are going to put your stuff on my shelves! And if you do, I would most certainly throw you and your stuff out on the curb.
After Apple wins this, and they will, I hope they take each an every individual in this sham of a class action to court and sues them into abject poverty.

haha....the true American way.

So, say you ordered a shelf from Amazon. Does Amazon have the right to tell you the only things you can put on those shelves are other items you purchased from Amazon?

 

[Iconoclysm]

Or in other words, you assume it's illegal. People were getting paid for music deleted as well. So.....

So let's say Sega created a hack for their software to run on a Nintendo platform in 1993, then Nintendo closed down that ability....then Sega sued them in 2003...after they went bankrupt because Nintendo wouldn't let them run their own games on Nintendo's platform without paying any royalties to Nintendo. It's a similar situation. Except in this case, the actual content owners dictated to Apple how their system must be run.

 

[SirCheese]

Really.. I don't think so. Did you read what the hell is behind the headline. Probably not.

You obviously didn't read it either. And yes, they are going to pay up.

 

[Iconoclysm]

'Just avoid holding it that way' was the actual response, but that does imply 'you're holding it wrong'.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/24/apple-responds-over-iphone-4-reception-issues-youre-holding-th/

You don't need to provide a link to what was said. He never told the person he was in the wrong.

----------

You obviously didn't read it either. And yes, they are going to pay up.

As if you have any idea how this case is going to turn out without hearing any defense.

 

[samcraig]

Factory resetting is not "deleting music that was purchased not from them".


Yes, I remember the actual statements that you apparently did not actually see because "You're holding it wrong" was never said.

1. It could be if the only reason for a factory reset is because the device "saw" music not purchased from them. Then we're just talking semantics.

2. Indeed, the exact words Steve Jobs emailed me (and a couple of others) was "Non issue. Just avoid holding it in that way."

The implication, not the quote, is accurate.

 

[ee4life]

So, say you ordered a shelf from Amazon. Does Amazon have the right to tell you the only things you can put on those shelves are other items you purchased from Amazon?

Say you order an Elfa shelving system from The Container Store. And then you go to Home Depot and find a competing shelving system and it says that their part are compatible with Elfa. And so you buy one of their shelves then you get it home and put it on the Elfa rack and it keeps falling off. Do you sue Elfa because the third-party shelf they never advertised, promoted, or sanctioned didn't work?

 

[Iconoclysm]

1. It could be if the only reason for a factory reset is because the device "saw" music not purchased from them. Then we're just talking semantics.

2. Indeed, the exact words Steve Jobs emailed me (and a couple of others) was "Non issue. Just avoid holding it in that way."

The implication, not the quote, is accurate.

We're talking about a device whose firmware has been "cracked" - by a competitor no less. The only semantics are whether or not you believe it should be allowed.

There's quite a difference between "you are doing something wrong", which is quite rude, and what he actually said.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Yes, I remember the actual statements that you apparently did not actually see because "You're holding it wrong" was never said.

It's been addressed already but I'll also add that your point is moot.

Primarily because it was still a laughable excuse for an Apple shortcoming.

And as I've already stated, we have more recent apologies for such shortcomings that contrast the previous methods of blaming the consumer.

Read the whole statement in context.

There's quite a difference between "you are doing something wrong", which is quite rude, and what he actually said.

Saying that a design flaw in a popular computer product isn't an issue, and then telling the consumer to "hold it differently" or to "Just plug it up." is in fact very rude and arrogant. What he said in the original statement was rude.

Issue an apology, and fix the problem.

Which is exactly what happened with Apple Maps.

 

[bloodycelt]

IIRC, what is not being mentioned is exactly how said competing music was placed on the iPod.

I do know, iTunes verified their library on the iPod whenever you synced it, and would display errors if you had tampered with the library on the ipod (Like using ephpod).

However, I like others simply downloaded the music to my iTunes folder, and it added it and synced it.

If the court rules against Apple, this could have some interesting effects; such as Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft being unable to block homebrew on their consoles via security updates.

(That is what Apple was doing; they blocked anyone that circumvented the ipod's OS design.)

 

[bobenhaus]

Busted! Typical Apple tactics. People need to keep Apple accountable .

 

[samcraig]

We're talking about a device whose firmware has been "cracked" - by a competitor no less. The only semantics are whether or not you believe it should be allowed.

There's quite a difference between "you are doing something wrong", which is quite rude, and what he actually said.

I disagree. I found the comment rude. And when I sent to MR and it was written up, others were dumbfounded.

 

[SirCheese]

Factory resetting is not "deleting music that was purchased not from them".They detected music not purchased from Itunes, threw up an error and forced them to factory reset. Quit being such an apologist. It's disgusting.

----------



Yes, I remember the actual statements that you apparently did not actually see because "You're holding it wrong" was never said.It was implied.

----------



There's a huge influx of Apple haters coming from other sites. They typically do not contribute to any discussion beyond the simple high fiving each other over their own misperceptions. More than half the time, they don't even understand the technology they're for/against, and it's beyond annoying... Unfortunately, there is nowhere out there for anyone with a level head to have a discussion.

Ironic. Sounds just like the Macolytes spewing their crap in Google articles.

----------

So let's say Sega created a hack for their software to run on a Nintendo platform in 1993, then Nintendo closed down that ability....then Sega sued them in 2003...after they went bankrupt because Nintendo wouldn't let them run their own games on Nintendo's platform without paying any royalties to Nintendo. It's a similar situation. Except in this case, the actual content owners dictated to Apple how their system must be run.

It's not similar but OK....

 

[DaveN]

For example, one piece of the class action is a fairly common complaint with Apple devices:

View attachment 517602

I.e. the lawsuit complaint is that the user was locked into paying higher hardware prices, due to Apple not only not licensing its DRM methods, but also actively working to prevent any compatibility methods that arose from competitors.

How is that different than Mercedes? Let's see how paragraph 87 would be worded in a complaint about Mercedes.

87. Normally markets for *transportation* goods such as *Automobiles* are characterized by intense competition and narrow profit margins. *Mercedes'* pricing in the *Automobile* Market, by contrast, is exactly that of a monopolist, excessive and arbitrary. For example, in June 2006 the only difference between the *380SL* and *450SL* models of the *SL* was the *size* of their *engines*. At spot prices in the *engine capacity* market at the time, *a 1 Liter increase in engine size* costs approximately *$1000.00*. Nonetheless, Mercedes charged an additional $15,000.00 for the *450SL* model.

88. Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured by this anticompetitive conduct. As a direct result of *Mercedes'* anticompetitive use of *Mercedes authorized parts*, Plaintiffs and members of the Class paid supracompetitive prices for *Mercedes' cars*.

Granted my prices are approximate but things cost more on a Mercedes than they do on a Kia.

Note to Apple's attorneys... If you use my logic, please do send some cash this way!

 

[SirCheese]

You don't need to provide a link to what was said. He never told the person he was in the wrong.

----------



As if you have any idea how this case is going to turn out without hearing any defense.

They admitted it.... what else do you want?