Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

figgnuttan said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

Using your grocery store analogy; It's more like if you own a grocery store, then you sneak into my house, into my pantry, and remove any groceries I bought from a different grocery store - leaving the groceries I bought from your store.
--
-hey where's that Big Box of popcorn I had? It was right here in my pantry!:eek:
 
mercuryjones said:
That's all well and good, but this pertains to music being deleted off an iPod. Obviously, if you bought an iPod, you kind of knew you were buying into the iTunes/Apple ecosystem. Along with that, price as a factor kind of flies out the window, considering you could have bought a much cheaper MP3 player at the time.
This really boils down to people using a device that they really didn't understand and putting files on it when they really had no idea what the outcome would be. And then doing a factory reset and being shocked to learn that all the music files were then gone. So, end result? Sue Apple, just because.
Click to expand...

You're preachin' to the choir here, buddy. It just seems that in the original complaint, a major issue was lock-in. Never mind the fact that anyone with a clue could just use iTunes to burn the music to a CD and re-rip it without the DRM.

It's not that I don't sympathize with the issue. I buy a movie from Amazon... why can't I watch it on iTunes? I buy a license for Office for Windows... how come I can't run it on my Mac too? I switch to Android from iOS... how come I can't just download all those apps I bought before for free? I should just sue somebody because the terms I agreed to are so unfair!
 
ee4life said:
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?
Click to expand...


Your missing the point. Home Depot made sure my part was compatible with the Elfa shelf but Elfa came over and knocked my **** off anyway.
 
mercuryjones said:
This is most likely it in a nutshell. However, instead of suing Real Networks and the Harmony hack (no money there), it's best to go after Apple (where there is plenty of money).
And really? What was the added bonus of purchasing from Real instead of iTunes? Were the prices that much different at the time?.
Click to expand...

You need to remember at the time Apple was already under investigations for anti trust on music before real entered the picture. Real just made it worse.
Apple did some things that got regulators off their back (removing DRM) but that does not change the fact that they are open to still be busted for Anti trust during that time.
 
comacnut said:
Your missing the point. Home Depot made sure my part was compatible with the Elfa shelf but Elfa came over and knocked my **** off anyway.
Click to expand...

Except a third-party can never guarantee absolute compatibility, unless officially authorized by the first-party. Even if it was compatible with a given design (choose FairPlay or anything else), any changes to the design might break that reverse-engineered compatibility. Only the first-party has the authority to guarantee compatibility. This is accomplished with licensing to third-parties.

It's obvious that FairPlay was an evolving system. That the competition kept trying to break it and failed their customers by not keeping up is not Apple's fault. They had no agreement in place for licensing.
 
Last edited:
69Mustang said:
Under a rock? I wish. I live with 3 women (wife and two daughters). That is definitely between a rock and a hard place. :D

/wife reads quote over shoulder

/smacks back of head:eek:
Click to expand...

haha... i'll be right there with you soon. Baby (girl) due in January.
 
I do not understand how the competing music services files got onto the pod in the first place. As I read it trying to sync someone else's competing drm technology would cause the 'restore ipod' pop up. So how did the ones already on the ipod get onto it?
 
inscrewtable said:
I do not understand how the competing music services files got onto the pod in the first place.
Click to expand...

It was possible before Apple closed the loopholes that Real was exploiting. After that, iTunes indicated problems with the devices which Apple techs would advise wiping devices.
 
i had the original brick ipod for years. and 95% of my music was either from napster or some other torrent. don't think i ever noticed anything missing...
 
TimelessOne said:
You need to remember at the time Apple was already under investigations for anti trust on music before real entered the picture. Real just made it worse.
Apple did some things that got regulators off their back (removing DRM) but that does not change the fact that they are open to still be busted for Anti trust during that time.
Click to expand...

You seem to remember history slightly different than I.

In 2006, downloadable music was still small with the rest of the music business. Not a chance in hell that anyone would successfully claim antitrust. If anyone could be convicted of anti-competitive behaviour it would be the music companies which refused to allow Apple to sell DRM-free music ages after they signed contracts with Amazon to do just that, with the clear intention of damaging Apple's business.

----------
pdjudd said:
It was possible before Apple closed the loopholes that Real was exploiting. After that, iTunes indicated problems with the devices which Apple techs would advise wiping devices.
Click to expand...

Either the music on the iPod was the only copy of the music, in which case Realnetworks was run by idiots who never heard of a thing named "backup". Or Realnetwork's lawyers have been forgetting to tell us that the music was still on the user's Mac.
 
Update to the story is that they have already released one of the plaintiffs and the case is very close to being dismissed for lack of actual evidence for the case.

Guess once again, story is blown out of proportion because Apple.
 
njchris said:
Wasn't real networks music files only playable with their player or you could burn to CD? Wasn't this when all the music files were protected?

So it wouldn't work on the ipod because real networks files were protected/DRMed?
Click to expand...

They developed a hack that would remove Realnetwork's DRM and put fake "FairPlay" DRM around it, and they put that onto the iPod. The iPod would then complain that there were dodgy files that looked like FairPlay files but on closer inspection were not. Just like another company making a music player that pretended to be an Apple iPod; and iTunes would be saying "this device says that it is an Apple iPod but I can see that it isn't; this is very suspicious, possibly a hack to steal user's data, so better safe than sorry and I won't touch this device. "

----------
SirCheese said:
Actually, they did delete it without consent, they forced the users to restore the device if they detected music from another source.
Click to expand...

You just made that up. Apple didn't delete anything without the user's consent. iTunes detected that the iPod was messed up and said "Hey user, I can't use this iPod until you do a factory reset". Realnetworks were the ones messing it up. The user clearly had the choice of not using iTunes anymore with that iPod, or doing a factory reset.

----------
samcraig said:
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.
Click to expand...

If Google has my data, and uses it to sell advertisements, how do they need have my private data? How is that not a breach of privacy? If you sneak into my home and read my diary, how is that not a breach of privacy if you don't tell anybody else? If a thief takes my money and doesn't give it to anyone else, how is my money not stolen?

----------
comacnut said:
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?
Click to expand...

They have the right to tell you not to put say more than 50kg of load on the shelf.
 
gnasher729 said:
They developed a hack that would remove Realnetwork's DRM and put fake "FairPlay" DRM around it, and they put that onto the iPod. The iPod would then complain that there were dodgy files that looked like FairPlay files but on closer inspection were not. Just like another company making a music player that pretended to be an Apple iPod; and iTunes would be saying "this device says that it is an Apple iPod but I can see that it isn't; this is very suspicious, possibly a hack to steal user's data, so better safe than sorry and I won't touch this device. "

----------



You just made that up. Apple didn't delete anything without the user's consent. iTunes detected that the iPod was messed up and said "Hey user, I can't use this iPod until you do a factory reset". Realnetworks were the ones messing it up. The user clearly had the choice of not using iTunes anymore with that iPod, or doing a factory reset.

----------



If Google has my data, and uses it to sell advertisements, how do they need have my private data? How is that not a breach of privacy? If you sneak into my home and read my diary, how is that not a breach of privacy if you don't tell anybody else? If a thief takes my money and doesn't give it to anyone else, how is my money not stolen?

----------



They have the right to tell you not to put say more than 50kg of load on the shelf.
Click to expand...
Forcing them to restore due to another media which they didn't like isn't forcing? "Oh hey, look, we detected something we don't like! <throw up error> You must factory reset" and....music gone. You apologist are just.....yea...
 
SirCheese said:
Forcing them to restore due to another media which they didn't like isn't forcing? "Oh hey, look, we detected something we don't like! <throw up error> You must factory reset" and....music gone. You apologist are just.....yea...
Click to expand...

And then the customer can just say "glad I have that file on my computer, because how else can I sync it to my iPod." Music back. If it happens again, determine the issue. All standard music works and then I put this Harmony file on there and it goes all wonky. Guess I won't put that song on the iPod again.
Problem solved.
 
gnasher729 said:
If Google has my data, and uses it to sell advertisements, how do they need have my private data? How is that not a breach of privacy? If you sneak into my home and read my diary, how is that not a breach of privacy if you don't tell anybody else? If a thief takes my money and doesn't give it to anyone else, how is my money not stolen?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Apple sneaks and steal your data?
 
JPIS said:
Let's watch this play out sans the sarcastic comment, Keirasplace. If I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge & if you are, I'll expect the same.

There are far too many on MR who thrive on the put downs & negativity to others & there's no place for that in an informative forum. :)
Click to expand...

Your comment demonstrated that you did not read the article. That does warrant negativity in a discussion thread on this very article, thus the high road rhetoric sounds really out of place.

BTW, the plaintiff has been thrown out as expected. waiting now for that retraction...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back