- Jan 4, 2005
- Reaction score
- Modesto, Ca.
- Your Mac's Specs
- MacMini M-1 MacOS Monterey, iMac 2010 27"Quad I7 , MBPLate2011, iPad Pro10.5", iPhoneSE
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/...tware-isnt-copyright-infringement-judge-rulesI'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.
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.
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.
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 agree that the consumer was harmed by DRM, but not by Apple - the blame for this is with the content creators.
So you are stating that apple is hiding stuff on your computers drive? Do you have proof of this?