PDA

View Full Version : Apple in court over iTunes.



dtravis7
12-03-2014, 06:29 PM
Thought this was an interesting read. Wonder how it will turn out?


Apple on trial: Were iTunes updates really an anti-consumer scheme? | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/apple-on-trial-were-itunes-updates-really-an-anti-consumer-scheme/)

chscag
12-03-2014, 10:48 PM
I don't like DRM, but in this instance I don't see that Apple had any choice but to implement it in such a way as to protect the copyright holders and themselves. The lawsuit in my opinion has no merit. But since I'm not a lawyer....... ;P

chas_m
12-04-2014, 01:14 AM
I'm inclined to agree that the case has little or no merit. What bugs me about this is that Real is pretending that Apple deliberately excluded them, when in fact the iPod could *always* play non-DRM'd music files in standard formats (WAV, AIFF, MP3). So all they ever had to do was sell non-DRM music and it would have worked fine on any iPod. But of course they didn't because they'd agreed to sell DRM'd music to appease the record companies who license the stuff ... exactly the same as Apple.

Hopefully the judge isn't named Cote and thus will be able to see and understand what actually happened and rule fairly.

Quietone
12-11-2014, 07:36 PM
I'm inclined to agree that the case has little or no merit. What bugs me about this is that Real is pretending that Apple deliberately excluded them, when in fact the iPod could *always* play non-DRM'd music files in standard formats (WAV, AIFF, MP3). So all they ever had to do was sell non-DRM music and it would have worked fine on any iPod. But of course they didn't because they'd agreed to sell DRM'd music to appease the record companies who license the stuff ... exactly the same as Apple.

Hopefully the judge isn't named Cote and thus will be able to see and understand what actually happened and rule fairly.
Hi, I hope it's OK to put this here. Taking the DRM discussion a bit further, from what I've read, Judge Cote is on the side of the consumer using and backing up files for personal use. In an article I read, regarding DRM, where Apple is mentioned, although this is about e-books, it got my attention. If anyone's interested, here's the link: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/pointing-users-drm-stripping-software-isnt-copyright-infringement-judge-rules

bobtomay
12-11-2014, 08:37 PM
I like the headline of that article...


Pointing Users to DRM-Stripping Software Isn't Copyright Infringement, Judge Rules

Quietone
12-11-2014, 09:57 PM
That headline is what got me to look, too. :D

This issue is very important to me; I was working on a long post that took me awhile to write, but I got logged out before I could finish, so I will have to write it offline and post it, if anyone's interested. There are multiple concerns about this but they're all part of the DRM debate, which I will briefly state, till I can recall and write out my original message, as much as possible from my memory.

Whether it's music, art, books, blogs, forum posts, news, and anything else I may've missed, when people share and don't claim ownership, and give credit to the author, artist, etc., I believe this is fair enough and shows a genuine interest and respect for the people and their creations.

Another point I made is, backing up files and programs for personal use is a very important right as well; many companies state right in their Terms of Service that they allow this, as long as the original is not altered.

I had also mentioned about someone posting lyrics and chords to a Neil Young song; the page got taken down and replaced by a takedown notice, which I promptly reported to EFF.

Another concern is when I discovered that Mozilla had caved into implementing DRM into Firefox, which EFF found about and posted about on their site. It seems Mozilla believes there's no alternative options, despite EFF's disagreement. This was all done in secret, which is very unfortunate, considering the open nature of Firefox.

So, while the DRM issues go far beyond the points mentioned by others in this thread, there's a lot more to it, as most here likely are aware of, which I feel the need to discuss. If this is not the right place for doing so, please let me know.

So while I wait for a response, I will have fun trying to rewrite my original message and put it in a file.

chscag
12-11-2014, 10:01 PM
So, while the DRM issues go far beyond the points mentioned by others in this thread, there's a lot more to it, as most here likely are aware of, which I feel the need to discuss. If this is not the right place for doing so, please let me know.

If you have a valid topic to discuss regarding DRM, take it to the Lounge which is our off topic forum. Start a new thread there, not here.

Quietone
12-11-2014, 10:14 PM
If you have a valid topic to discuss regarding DRM, take it to the Lounge which is our off topic forum. Start a new thread there, not here.
Hi chscag, OK and thanks. I thought of that just before seeing your reply. Now I am embarrassed. Oops! Thanks again. :Oops:

chas_m
12-12-2014, 02:30 AM
The bottom line on this particular matter, however, is that Apple is very likely to win it. Not only has Real had a terrible time getting any actual plaintiffs to show actual harm, but as mentioned previously Apple's DRM did not "lock out" other competitors (as long as they didn't use their own DRM, or try to hack a security hole into Apple's as Real did).

The fact that Real isn't suing Microsoft for exactly the same reason tells you everything you need to know about this case IMO.

cwa107
12-12-2014, 09:50 AM
The bottom line on this particular matter, however, is that Apple is very likely to win it. Not only has Real had a terrible time getting any actual plaintiffs to show actual harm, but as mentioned previously Apple's DRM did not "lock out" other competitors (as long as they didn't use their own DRM, or try to hack a security hole into Apple's as Real did).

Exactly. The premise of this suit is disingenuous at best. At no point did Apple "lock other companies out of the iPod". The iPod was entirely capable of playing standard MP3s, along with many other non-DRM-encrypted formats. If another company wanted to make their music accessible to iPod users, or if an individual wanted to buy music from another source, they were entirely capable of doing so (I know I did, in many cases - including from Real).

I agree that the consumer was harmed by DRM, but not by Apple - the blame for this is with the content creators. DRM is and has always been a pain for legitimate, paying customers. The pirates will find a way around it regardless.



The fact that Real isn't suing Microsoft for exactly the same reason tells you everything you need to know about this case IMO.

Bingo. Well put.

vansmith
12-12-2014, 11:32 AM
I agree that the consumer was harmed by DRM, but not by Apple - the blame for this is with the content creators.The content creators really aren't to blame though (not to exonerate content providers - they've got plenty of blame). This case has nothing to do with content and everything to do with Apple's alleged purposive locking out of Real's DRM'd music. As I understand it, Harmony took Helix'd music (Real's DRM scheme) and translated it into a FairPlay compatible format which Apple didn't like and consequently, allegedly, blocked. In that sense, it might be anti-competitive since Apple is purposefully locking out music purchased elsewhere. The emails cited appear to highlight this (or at least as they were presented). This is also why Real (or whoever the plaintiff is now) isn't going after Microsoft because MS didn't do this. Now, Real did circumvent Apple's FairPlay encryption scheme which Apple could use to invalidate the suit but who knows.

I don't think much will come of this case but it all depends on how this gets spun. If the plaintiff can spin this as "they purposefully locked out our product" then there might be merit. If Apple can spin this as "they broke our encryption scheme and circumvented our technological locks" then Apple might win (especially if they can create doubt as to whether Real was targeted or not). Who knows - it's the law and it swings every which way.

I'm also not a lawyer so I may have completely misinterpreted what this case is about. In that case, ignore what I just said. ;)

Quietone
12-12-2014, 01:49 PM
So there is no across the board standard for DRM encoding? That may be a very important aspect of the issue. Hmmm, very interesting.

vansmith
12-12-2014, 02:24 PM
No, there's no standard for DRM. Each major disseminator of content had their own standard - Apple, Real, MS, insert other group (Sony?).

richardbenson22
12-17-2014, 08:04 AM
I have heard that Apple won the law suit of itune of anti - alleging !

chas_m
12-17-2014, 08:12 AM
Essentially, Real got laughed out of court. The jury was unanimous that Real's claims (evil Apple deliberately blocked our hack for no purpose other than to stop competition) were not true.

Jury finds in favor of Apple in iPod/iTunes DRM lawsuit | Electronista (http://www.electronista.com/articles/14/12/16/decision.reached.in.less.than.24.hours/)

Apple wins iPod & iTunes DRM antitrust case, jury decides | 9to5Mac (http://9to5mac.com/2014/12/16/apple-wins-ipod-itunes-drm-antitrust-case-jury-decides/)

banesto
01-03-2015, 06:50 PM
how convenient for Apple, they can go just next door in this courthouse to pony-up for the storage civil law suit being held that day.
I knew that "unknown storage" was devious, How can a computer in 2014 not know what ⅓ of the HD storage is?
And we are stupid for letting Apple get away with this.

dtravis7
01-03-2015, 07:00 PM
So you are stating that apple is hiding stuff on your computers drive? Do you have proof of this?

banesto
01-03-2015, 07:24 PM
So you are stating that apple is hiding stuff on your computers drive? Do you have proof of this?

Apple is being sued for leading customers into purchasing more storage on the cloud.
They are allowed 5gb free, and lots of newbies are paying for more.
the new iOS8 was found to have "bogus" storage on their devices.
this should be a fun news topic!

vansmith
01-03-2015, 08:32 PM
There is indeed a lawsuit in progress about a lack of storage space but I suspect that this lawsuit will only be winnable for the plaintiffs if they can prove that Apple purposefully misled customers about the storage space. As far as I can tell, Apple hasn't done this.

Slydude
01-03-2015, 08:52 PM
the new iOS8 was found to have "bogus" storage on their devices.


Can you explain what you mean by this?

banesto
01-03-2015, 08:54 PM
Apple sued over 'shrinking' gadget storage (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30655176)
link goes to Jan 2 BBC technology section

banesto
01-03-2015, 08:56 PM
Can you explain what you mean by this?

personally, Mavericks is taking up over 5GB of "who knows what" in my MacBook air, 2011
i know what files i have and use and clean the airbook monthly.

Slydude
01-03-2015, 09:45 PM
As far as that lawsuit is concerned I'm not a lawyer but I don't see it really going much of anywhere. If you look at operating systems for various devices and from various manufacturers I'd bet they have one thing in common: Each subsequent release of the OS probably took up more space than the previous one. That does not however mean that users were "forced" to pay for cloud space.

If I have an 8 GB device for example the OS may indeed take up more space but that doesn't generally mean I am forced to pay for additional iCloud space. I could do either of the following:
1. Continue using the older OS until I really "need" one of the new features. This coming from someone still running IOS 7 on an iPhone 4S.
2. Look for alternatives to iCloud for storing data.
3. Rethink the amount of data on my phone.
4. Update the phone to one with more storage so that storage is not an issue.
5. Use another device probably from another manufacturer.

Not attempting to be snotty here. Merely pointing out that there is not a direct correlation between loss of storage space on the device and purchase of additional iCloud space.

banesto
01-03-2015, 09:48 PM
Not attempting to be snotty here. Merely pointing out that there is not a direct correlation between loss of storage space on the device and purchase of additional iCloud space.
Oh, no snootiness on your part, I'm frustrated, but there are other things important on this planet than suing apple over incompetence, i just want to inform us we need to 'watch out!"

chscag
01-03-2015, 09:50 PM
Well, I guess you can always switch to Windows since you're so unhappy with Apple. But you had better get a larger hard drive..... Windows 8 x 32 bit uses 16 GB and Windows 8 x 64 bit wants 20 GB. ;)

banesto
01-03-2015, 09:59 PM
Well, I guess you can always switch to Windows since you're so unhappy with Apple. But you had better get a larger hard drive..... Windows 8 x 32 bit uses 16 GB and Windows 8 x 64 bit wants 20 GB. ;)

Im not haply with 2014 apple, i love everything since!
i am going to fire up a HP laptop i found last summer just for fun!
no offense, but buying products is not a solution, that is offered as advice here way too much, managing space is more feasible and creative!

Slydude
01-03-2015, 10:08 PM
no offense, but buying products is not a solution, that is offered as advice here way too much, managing space is more feasible and creative!

I didn't take his comment that way at all. I took it merely as an indication of how much space other operating systems take up by comparison.

While a few of our members might seem to default to the "you need new gear" response, I doubt that's the dominant approach. Several of our members, myself included, are running reasonably well on older gear.

chas_m
01-04-2015, 10:58 AM
banesto is a good example of the sort of person who shouldn't be put on juries. He appears to have made up his mind without any facts, or listening to both sides.

This case will be about as successful as the "Real" case, if it even gets that far. There is no provable link between "other" (which is simply done for simplification sake; would you even known what /var/private is if it were listed?) and any attempt to sell anyone iCloud space. The case has very little if any merit and is very very unlikely to get far, presuming that the judge involved is not a complete tech illiterate.

vansmith
01-04-2015, 12:11 PM
banesto is a good example of the sort of person who shouldn't be put on juries. He appears to have made up his mind without any facts, or listening to both sides.Didn't you do this in saying what followed this quote (making a decision without hearing both sides)? ;)

banesto, the 5GB being used is not purposefully obscured - Apple just isn't providing granular details about what is part of the Other category. That's a huge difference when considering the idea that this case is predicated on Apple misleading consumers.

dtravis7
01-04-2015, 01:22 PM
There are so many different type of files, that is where other comes in. They can not list them all for goodness sake!

And what set me off is the first post by the OP where he said computer like Other on OSX is some hidden tactic by Apple to deceive us.

Quietone
01-04-2015, 02:26 PM
:( It seems to me that most companies, products and services, have their advantages and disadvantages, so it all depends on what people are willing to put up with. What saddens me most is how they get away with the deceptions. I love my Mac and Ipad but when I read news about things Apple does that are less than honorable, it makes me sick.

They have a good, loyal customer base, and their products are better than the cheap garbage we switched from. If they want to stay on top, they'd better do right by their customers, or they'll find themselves on the losing end. It's really sad to see these stories of lawsuits- I thought they were better than that.

When people have had enough, from whatever company they're dealing with, they'll look elsewhere, or just do without. Maybe someone will make something better, and be reasonable. It seems the only way companies will do what they should, is when they lose their customer base. Hit them where it hurts. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Dysfunction
01-05-2015, 12:27 AM
There are so many different type of files, that is where other comes in. They can not list them all for goodness sake!

And what set me off is the first post by the OP where he said computer like Other on OSX is some hidden tactic by Apple to deceive us.

Meh, it's so not worth bothering Travis. The other category has been explained before. I know, I've done it. If people wish to believe it's a conspiracy, they will. I say, let em... No skin off of my nose.