That's complete BS. As you can read quotes from Steve Jobs back in the 2000 era, he never wanted to offer DRM music or subscription based music, the music studios forced it on them at that time. He hated the idea of DRM.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod Lawsuit Against Apple Given Class-Action Status
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's complete BS. As you can read quotes from Steve Jobs back in the 2000 era, he never wanted to offer DRM music or subscription based music, the music studios forced it on them at that time. He hated the idea of DRM.
I plan to send in a letter asking to be excluded. I also plan on sending in a letter from my dog and my cat. I will probably also make up a few hundred fake names and addresses and send those in as well. Anything that makes life a bit harder for these bottom feeders, is a good thing.
I have learned not to trust Steve Job quotes. He was a marketing genius and would lie out his ass if it meant he could turn another buck. There are example after example of him back stabbing people to get ahead. Do not put any faith in those quotes.
Some evedence of those quotes being pure BS is the fact that the DRM would only work on Apple devices threw Apple software. Fairplay only works on iTunes and Apple devices.
If he really believed that crap he would of let other companies use it and tie into it. So yeah it was"forced" on to Apple but they did not put up much of a fight.
Yep. They mention Real as I recall, which could only play in the Real Player software etc. Someone created a 3rd party hack that would allow Real files to play in iTunes and apparently sync to ipods but then Apple updated iTunes to block that hack and that action is part of the suit. But no one has yet shown that Apple updated iTunes just to block that hack and whether it was done on their own or if it was done at the request of Real etc.
Also were these folks aware that the iPods would only play certain files when they bought them and the same for iTunes store purchases only working in iTunes etc. Aware in the sense that Apple advertised it and put it in the terms and conditions requiring the users to agree to the terms (if they agreed without reading that's not Apple's fault). if so and these folks bought anyway that can't be held against Apple
----------
what about everything into movies and tv shows, what about all the apps. what about the fact that you can't 'legally' run Mac OS on hardware you bought from someone not Apple.
Apple has been taken to court over vertical integration and thus far have won every time.
----------
But was that done by Apple or was it done via the DRM that those stores put on their files. Most likely it was a combo of the latter plus proprietary file formats. How is that Apple's fault. if someone like Real wants to make an exclusive file format and not license it out to other folks, that's their fault if the files don't work in other software etc
----------
As I understand it the judge is going to allow Apple to file a request for summary judgement which Apple is likely to do, pointing out all the erroneous info about how Real was to blame that their files were exclusive to their software, that you could play ripped music, the terms and conditions of the software, store etc. As well as all the suits that back up that this pairing of iTunes, iPod and store is vertical integration and in several previous suits has been deemed totally legal.
The judge will then toss the whole dang thing out and it will be done with.
Agreed. Hopefully, this is why Apple has kept their bankroll. My respect for them will go up exponentially if they just play chicken with these guys, and take it all the way. Let's make a class action troll law firm pay for once...
That's not evidence. You have to look at the original agreements between the labels and Apple. At the time, those agreements were revolutionary, because they allowed purchasers to play music purchased on iTunes on any iPods they owned and up to 5 computers. Prior to that, electronic purchases were limited to being played on only one device. IIRC, you couldn't even legally remove a song from one device to put it on another device (before someone argues that people didn't pay multiple times to download music to multiple devices, this was because the prevailing attitude at the time was that you shouldn't have to pay to download music to any device, so most music downloads were pirated copies rather than legal purchases). The price Apple paid for such (at the time) generous conditions from the labels? FairPlay/DRM, which was intended to prevent purchasers from "sharing" their purchases with other users, which the labels feared would lead to even more widespread piracy of music. At the time the agreements were signed, I don't think the labels anticipated that the iPod, pricey as it was, would become the dominant MP3 player, or that most users would even own more than one, so they didn't mind conceding to Apple the right for purchasers to upload songs to multiple iPods, as long as those tunes couldn't also be copied to what they saw as the myriad of cheap non-Apple MP3 players soon to crowd the market.
In other words, at the time, iTunes offered a huge improvement over the digital rights that were previously offered to purchasers of digital music. And it likely happened only because the labels didn't realize how big iTunes and the iPod would become. And because Apple fought hard to expand purchasers' digital rights, not to restrict them.
With respect to Apple's software updates intended to defeat third party programs that circumvented FairPlay, I suspect that this was a condition of the contracts that Apple signed with the labels (after all, if the DRM can be circumvented, what is the point of having it?).
Yes! Who wants to DDOS-sue the lawfirm (everyone repeatedly sues them as quickly as possible without lawyers so it costs them nothing but costs the firm money and time)?
Actually, knowing little about law, I don't know if that would even work... But being serious, I have almost no respect for lawyers at this point.
Last edited by a moderator:
You're proposing to terrorise them because you think you are right. We could just throw away the legal system and ask you next time
Couldn't think of a worse example?
Microsoft and Sony have their own SDKs, license agreements, technical requirements etc. Music doesn't have any of that. DRM was just an artificial thing we were forced to put up with.
You're proposing to terrorise them because you think you are right. We could just throw away the legal system and ask you next time
Lawyers abuse the court system, or try to do so, in order to "terrorise" people and to force them into settlements even when those people have done nothing wrong. People who were accused of having made illegal downloads and tried to clear up the matter were told that actually, these lawyers had no intention to go to court, or to find out whether illegal downloads had happened or not, but they were only interested in dropping lawsuits in exchange for money.
Has happened in the UK (result: the courts wised up to it, and the law firm went bankrupt), was attempted in Germany (courts told the lawyers to **** off), in Canada (just recently a court refused to handle a case against Doe #1 to #10,000 and told the lawyers to file a case against each one individually, at Can$ 350 each which puts a damper on the extortion business model).
That was also a long time at a time where Microsoft was still pushing "PlayForSure" which was implemented by many companies, who were so afraid of Microsoft that they didn't dare adding support for AAC (they were later royally ********* by Microsoft when the Zune was released, which not only didn't support Microsoft's own "PlayForSure" but also supported AAC). So Apple supported the old standard (MP3), the new standard (AAC, with the A's not standing for Apple but for Advanced and Audio, and used in about every DVD that you purchase), and the new standard with Apple's DRM, while everyone else supported the old standard (MP3), plus Microsoft proprietary formats, plus Microsoft proprietary formats with Microsoft's DRM.
I think the refusal of the device makers to implement AAC out of fear of Microsoft was a major factor that kept the iPod the market leader.
Thats not terrorising, thats abuse of a system/blackmail-like practices. It wasn't very successful. It doesn't endorse or excuse terrorising in any way. I don't get your point.
So typical of America. (meaning allowing this kind of crap to even hit the courts).
Spend hundreds and thousands of dollars suing on a freaking music player because they didn't like the functionality of it, and yet there are homeless people starving and sleeping in the streets in their own country.
Shame on these greedy pathetic people.
It must be nice to have those kinds of problems as your biggest worry in life.....
This lawsuit boggles my mind. Such spoiled children...
Spend hundreds and thousands of dollars suing on a freaking music player because they didn't like the functionality of it, and yet there are homeless people starving and sleeping in the streets in their own country.
Shame on these greedy pathetic people.
It must be nice to have those kinds of problems as your biggest worry in life.....
This lawsuit boggles my mind. Such spoiled children...
Not to mention this DRM was most likely a demand from the music industry, not something imposed by Apple.
This is a huge waste of time and money.
This is a huge waste of time and money.
Total BS
Hopefully, this lawsuit ends up where it should, in the trash heap of frivolous lawsuits.
Hopefully, this lawsuit ends up where it should, in the trash heap of frivolous lawsuits.
Whats wrong with the people that always stick up for Apple? It was known back then that all music players played mp3s. But Apple came out with their player that played aac, knowingly, to exclude music bought from them from being played on another player. Now some will argue that aac is better than mp3, and Apple was just using the best. This is BS. It was a calculated strategic move to lock itunes and their player together.
I don't think apple will fight it because it would probably cheaper to pay a settlement than lawyers, but if Apple did fight it I don't think they'd win, but not for what you said.
1. DRM was a condition of sale in Apple's contracts with the record labels. Apple is also the company who fought the industry on DRM and got it taken away.
2. DRM was a condition of sale in nearly EVERYONE's contracts with the record labels who operated digital music sites.
Apple was simply the first company to launch a legal digital music store, and of course they get the blame. It's the record labels who should be getting sued... they not only forced DRM on us, they even installed software on our computers against our will.
There Ain't one. If you wana opt out you gotta write a letter.
How do I ask the Court to exclude me from the Class?
Answer:
To ask to be excluded, you must send an Exclusion Request in the form of a letter sent by mail to: Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 8038, Faribault, MN 55021-9438, stating that you want to be excluded from In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation. Your Exclusion Request must include your name and address. To be valid, your letter asking to be excluded from the Class must be signed and postmarked no later than July 30, 2012.
This is yet another frivolous lawsuit. It has nothing to do with reality. My iPod I bought in 2005 was updated in 2006, I am sure, because it is up to date on the software. However, it is NOT included in the iPod list.
The Shuffle I bought for my wife and daughter ARE included, but for a 1-GB device, does it really matter?
Besides, I have never been prohibited from installing whatever music I wanted on the iPods I own. Everything was able to be put on the iPods, regardless of the source.
The Shuffle I bought for my wife and daughter ARE included, but for a 1-GB device, does it really matter?
Besides, I have never been prohibited from installing whatever music I wanted on the iPods I own. Everything was able to be put on the iPods, regardless of the source.
There Ain't one. If you wana opt out you gotta write a letter.
Seems a bit discriminatory, doesn't it?
jW
strike me off the list of this total BS lawsuit which will only make the roaches richer.
I probably bought some iPods during that time - who didn't? Unlike the complainant however, I was aware of the fact that the DRM was thanks to the music industry and had nothing to do with Apple.
I hope this gets kicked out of court quick.
I probably bought some iPods during that time - who didn't? Unlike the complainant however, I was aware of the fact that the DRM was thanks to the music industry and had nothing to do with Apple.
I hope this gets kicked out of court quick.
You're proposing to terrorise them because you think you are right. We could just throw away the legal system and ask you next time
Well, it would be legal (in two senses). Just wondering if it would work. Also, it wouldn't be terrorism, just giving them a taste of what they give everyone else with their ridiculous lawsuits.
But this case isn't nearly as bad as a ton of others. I'd advocate doing it to the company that sued Cisco because one of their employees who left and got a job at Cisco took a file from his old company with him... a makefile. They sued in a state where the judges did not know what a makefile (or OS) was. Makefiles reveal absolutely nothing about the code they are used for.
----------
Lawyers, not the general people of America. It would be nice if Real had to pay the government for all the time and money they wasted for them on this lawsuit.
I got an email. I don't think I count because I don't live in America, but they're nuts if they think I'm going to opt out by post.