Apple in court over iTunes.

[dtravis7]

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

 

[chscag]

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]

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]

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/...tware-isnt-copyright-infringement-judge-rules

 

[bobtomay]

I like the headline of that article...

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

 

[Quietone]

That headline is what got me to look, too.

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]

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]

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.

 

[chas_m]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[richardbenson22]

I have heard that Apple won the law suit of itune of anti - alleging !

 

[chas_m]

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

Apple wins iPod & iTunes DRM antitrust case, jury decides | 9to5Mac

 

[banesto]

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]

So you are stating that apple is hiding stuff on your computers drive? Do you have proof of this?

 

[banesto]

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]

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]

the new iOS8 was found to have "bogus" storage on their devices.

Can you explain what you mean by this?