Just to play devil’s advocate what if, back in the day, CDs had been released that could only be played on Sony CD players? You buy the CD, it’s yours but you MUST buy a Sony player in order to listen to it. Isn’t that what this lawsuit is really about? It’s not the DRM itself, it’s the fact that those tracks could only be played back on an Apple device because Apple would not license the Fairplay DRM. If the DRM had been some cross platform, universal format (like DVDs) that other manufacturers could license I don’t think this particular lawsuit would have happened.
But Sony and Philips created and patented the technology behind the CD. The CD was made a standard that anybody could license and every electronic company that wanted to make players that could play a CD had to pay Sony and Philips for a license to do so. Which was a smart move on Sony and Philips part. But Apple did not want to license out their FairPlay DRM and they didn't have to as it was not a standard. Plus Apple did not want to maintain FairPlay on all MP3 players.
The issue is that an iPod can only play digital music bought from Apple iTunes Store that had the FairPlay DRM. Nevermind ripping non DRM music from other sources. Real found a way to get their Real Music DRM to play on an iPod but it was defeated with an update to the firmware in an iPod. Remember, back then, Record labels required all digital downloaded music to have a form of DRM. They either had to created their own or license PlayForSure from MS. So Real could not sell DRM free music and since Apple would not allow Real DRM to work on an iPod, even though Real found a way for it to work, Real is suing for anti-competitive behavior because this essentially shut off Real from 75% of the MP3 player market (at the time.).
Apple claim is that Real exploited a security hole in FairPlay and that they mearly patched the security hole as required by the Record labels to maintain the integredy of the DRM they created in order to sell digital downloaded music. The thing was that the security hole was in the firmware of the iPod, not in the DRM software included in the digital music from the iTunes Store. The firmware in an iPod plays a part in how FaiPlay DRM works and Apple had every right to patch any security hole in the software that is included in the products they sold.
If the Record labels wanted a standard DRM that would work on all MP3 players, then they should have created one and made it a licenced standard like the CD, instead of requiring that anyone that wanted to sell downloaded digital music to create and maintain their own.
Just to play devil’s advocate what if, back in the day, CDs had been released that could only be played on Sony CD players? You buy the CD, it’s yours but you MUST buy a Sony player in order to listen to it. Isn’t that what this lawsuit is really about? It’s not the DRM itself, it’s the fact that those tracks could only be played back on an Apple device because Apple would not license the Fairplay DRM. If the DRM had been some cross platform, universal format (like DVDs) that other manufacturers could license I don’t think this particular lawsuit would have happened.
Having to buy a Sony player to play CDs would have been a bad idea, but it certainly would not have been illegal. Betamax only played on Sony VCRs because Sony refused to license the technology, which in the end, is what killed it because VHS was available on many more models of players.
The other issue is that Apple never wanted DRM - it was forced on them by the record labels.
I'm not one who automatically defends Apple no matter what, but this lawsuit is completely ridiculous. There was plenty of competition in the market - Apple dominated because they provided the highest quality total experience. Unfortunately, the courts frequently get this wrong because they don't understand technology.
You could still burn that music you got from iTunes onto a CD!!! You could already play it on your computer. So no need to own a iPod to play the music as you could play on your computer you already had!!! Once it was burned to CD there was no DRM on the music!!! You could do whatever you wanted to it!!!! No one forced you to buy the music from Apple in the first place. It was the Record company's that made Apple have DRM. Something Apple in the end got them to drop!!! Apple did nothing wrong.
I'm wondering if Apple was even allowed to license FairPlay by the labels.
I'm pretty sure they weren't, which to me is a good defense. Apple can rightly say "Hey, we did not want to do this. We were forced to by the RIAA. We're the victims here. Go sue them."
I think the issue is...customers purchased songs off the iTunes Store with DRM which was made so it only played on iPods and it also locked out other DRM solutions such as FairPlay so it could not play on iPods. I believe however that the updates didn't purposely break FairPlay if I remember correctly. There was something that just happened to break it. It was quite a while ago, but something sticks in my mind about Apple not purposely breaking FairPlay DRM.
I'm not saying I agree with this lawsuit, in fact I think its kinda stupid but I don't think ripping CDs and syncing them to an iPod was the issue.
I think Apple has fixed this issue already to be honest. No songs are DRM today and EVERYONE had the opportunity to fix their songs so they weren't DRM anymore and therefore, could play on anything they wanted to. This is what I don't get about the entire thing. The fix was provided.
After this we should sue Apple because OS X can only be installed on a Mac and it purposely makes OS X so it only works on a Mac. Hell...why not?
No, the issue is that Apple didn't allow other online music stores to sell music to iPod users, and the music bought on iTunes didn't transfer to other devices. Real Networks created a work around to Fair Play that allowed music bought through its competing store to work in iTunes.
I honestly don't think Apple should be found liable though. First, Jobs originally pushed for DRM free music, the labels, however, required the DRM. It was the labels, not Apple that required DRM. Second, Real Networks relied on a bug to implement its hack. Apple fixed the bug.
"What remains is an allegation that Apple attempted to maintain a monopoly on the portable media player and downloadable music markets "
Apple's screwed. Only Amazon can have a monopoly.
THE D.O.J.'s case against Apple over e-books was ludicrous. This case, although I disagree with, may have more merit. The issue is did Apple take action to prevent music bought on its stores from moving to other services. If so, was that a violation of anti-trust laws.
You could still burn that music you got from iTunes onto a CD!!! You could already play it on your computer. So no need to own a iPod to play the music as you could play on your computer you already had!!! Once it was burned to CD there was no DRM on the music!!! You could do whatever you wanted to it!!!! No one forced you to buy the music from Apple in the first place. It was the Record company's that made Apple have DRM. Something Apple in the end got them to drop!!! Apple did nothing wrong.
Just to play devil’s advocate what if, back in the day, CDs had been released that could only be played on Sony CD players? You buy the CD, it’s yours but you MUST buy a Sony player in order to listen to it. Isn’t that what this lawsuit is really about? It’s not the DRM itself, it’s the fact that those tracks could only be played back on an Apple device because Apple would not license the Fairplay DRM. If the DRM had been some cross platform, universal format (like DVDs) that other manufacturers could license I don’t think this particular lawsuit would have happened.
That's not what the suit's about but...
As long as Sony disclosed it would only play on Sony Players what's the problem? Proprietary tech isn't illegal, and it had to be purchased from Apple's store anyway what next? A lawsuit against Apple for OSXs inability to run Windows Apps?
Too many assumptionists out there. Apple techs not for people who can't read.
Just to play devil’s advocate what if, back in the day, CDs had been released that could only be played on Sony CD players? You buy the CD, it’s yours but you MUST buy a Sony player in order to listen to it. Isn’t that what this lawsuit is really about? It’s not the DRM itself, it’s the fact that those tracks could only be played back on an Apple device because Apple would not license the Fairplay DRM. If the DRM had been some cross platform, universal format (like DVDs) that other manufacturers could license I don’t think this particular lawsuit would have happened.
Not really a good analog. Because a CD player can only play C.D.s.
An iPod can play music from a variety of sources including from Apple's Music Store, ripped from traditional CDs, and downloaded from anywhere in MP3 format. Apple told people from the get go, that music bought on the iTunes Store could only be played on Apple devices. Moreover your analogy doesn't make clear if Sony or the music labels are dictating the lock in.
As long as Sony disclosed it would only play on Sony Players what's the problem? Proprietary tech isn't illegal, and it had to be purchased from Apple's store anyway what next? A lawsuit against Apple for OSXs inability to run Windows Apps?
Too many assumptionists out there. Apple techs not for people who can't read.
Yes, it isn't much different than X-Box video games only playing on an X-Box.
Just to play devil’s advocate what if, back in the day, CDs had been released that could only be played on Sony CD players? You buy the CD, it’s yours but you MUST buy a Sony player in order to listen to it. Isn’t that what this lawsuit is really about? It’s not the DRM itself, it’s the fact that those tracks could only be played back on an Apple device because Apple would not license the Fairplay DRM. If the DRM had been some cross platform, universal format (like DVDs) that other manufacturers could license I don’t think this particular lawsuit would have happened.
What the suit is about is people who've bought those Sony Players not being able to play someone else's proprietary music format or host software. Industry-standard music formats always could be added to iTunes and I'm unsure Apple ever claimed iPods would work with other host software.
These victims are victims of nothing more than their own assumptions.
It might be, but Apple never did that. They were in no way a monopoly. Any music purchasable from iTunes could be burnt to a CD and then ripped back, DRM-free. This remains true today. They don’t have an argument and have wasted a decade of Apple’s time and money pursuing illegality. Screw them all.
Regarding Sony... what about their MiniDisc format, so popular in Japan?
It might be, but Apple never did that. They were in no way a monopoly. Any music purchasable from iTunes could be burnt to a CD and then ripped back, DRM-free. This remains true today. They don’t have an argument and have wasted a decade of Apple’s time and money pursuing illegality. Screw them all.
Regarding Sony... what about their MiniDisc format, so popular in Japan?
Sue Sony! Sue Sony! Oh... wait a second... they aren't really making that much money anymore..? Sue Apple! Sue Apple!
I think I remember another reason was that Apple did not take lightly other competitors essentially hacking iTunes to allow other players to be used. Didn't Palm do that as well back in the day?
If an unapproved plug-in is used in iTunes and it ends up breaking it for some (any) reason, the user will automatically blame Apple for it, and I don't think Apple wanted to be in that position to maintain compatibility with competing products. It's why the iPod worked so well with iTunes. It was designed by Apple, for Apple, to only work WITH Apple. Case closed.
Yep. It's often called a "correction", but it's really about profit taking.
Doesn't explain why the profit taking today or why the stock was down over 6% at one point today. Even CNBC anchors were scratching their head over that one.
They should give Apple an award for freeing up music!
Exactly! It's suits like this that just waste time and cost money needlessly. The digital music world is a better place largely because of Apple! And the world is not being polluted with as many plastic disks that contain a dozen or fewer songs.
Comments
Just to play devil’s advocate what if, back in the day, CDs had been released that could only be played on Sony CD players? You buy the CD, it’s yours but you MUST buy a Sony player in order to listen to it. Isn’t that what this lawsuit is really about? It’s not the DRM itself, it’s the fact that those tracks could only be played back on an Apple device because Apple would not license the Fairplay DRM. If the DRM had been some cross platform, universal format (like DVDs) that other manufacturers could license I don’t think this particular lawsuit would have happened.
But Sony and Philips created and patented the technology behind the CD. The CD was made a standard that anybody could license and every electronic company that wanted to make players that could play a CD had to pay Sony and Philips for a license to do so. Which was a smart move on Sony and Philips part. But Apple did not want to license out their FairPlay DRM and they didn't have to as it was not a standard. Plus Apple did not want to maintain FairPlay on all MP3 players.
The issue is that an iPod can only play digital music bought from Apple iTunes Store that had the FairPlay DRM. Nevermind ripping non DRM music from other sources. Real found a way to get their Real Music DRM to play on an iPod but it was defeated with an update to the firmware in an iPod. Remember, back then, Record labels required all digital downloaded music to have a form of DRM. They either had to created their own or license PlayForSure from MS. So Real could not sell DRM free music and since Apple would not allow Real DRM to work on an iPod, even though Real found a way for it to work, Real is suing for anti-competitive behavior because this essentially shut off Real from 75% of the MP3 player market (at the time.).
Apple claim is that Real exploited a security hole in FairPlay and that they mearly patched the security hole as required by the Record labels to maintain the integredy of the DRM they created in order to sell digital downloaded music. The thing was that the security hole was in the firmware of the iPod, not in the DRM software included in the digital music from the iTunes Store. The firmware in an iPod plays a part in how FaiPlay DRM works and Apple had every right to patch any security hole in the software that is included in the products they sold.
If the Record labels wanted a standard DRM that would work on all MP3 players, then they should have created one and made it a licenced standard like the CD, instead of requiring that anyone that wanted to sell downloaded digital music to create and maintain their own.
Just to play devil’s advocate what if, back in the day, CDs had been released that could only be played on Sony CD players? You buy the CD, it’s yours but you MUST buy a Sony player in order to listen to it. Isn’t that what this lawsuit is really about? It’s not the DRM itself, it’s the fact that those tracks could only be played back on an Apple device because Apple would not license the Fairplay DRM. If the DRM had been some cross platform, universal format (like DVDs) that other manufacturers could license I don’t think this particular lawsuit would have happened.
Having to buy a Sony player to play CDs would have been a bad idea, but it certainly would not have been illegal. Betamax only played on Sony VCRs because Sony refused to license the technology, which in the end, is what killed it because VHS was available on many more models of players.
The other issue is that Apple never wanted DRM - it was forced on them by the record labels.
I'm not one who automatically defends Apple no matter what, but this lawsuit is completely ridiculous. There was plenty of competition in the market - Apple dominated because they provided the highest quality total experience. Unfortunately, the courts frequently get this wrong because they don't understand technology.
You could still burn that music you got from iTunes onto a CD!!! You could already play it on your computer. So no need to own a iPod to play the music as you could play on your computer you already had!!! Once it was burned to CD there was no DRM on the music!!! You could do whatever you wanted to it!!!! No one forced you to buy the music from Apple in the first place. It was the Record company's that made Apple have DRM. Something Apple in the end got them to drop!!! Apple did nothing wrong.
I'm wondering if Apple was even allowed to license FairPlay by the labels.
I'm pretty sure they weren't, which to me is a good defense. Apple can rightly say "Hey, we did not want to do this. We were forced to by the RIAA. We're the victims here. Go sue them."
Apple's screwed. Only Amazon can have a monopoly.
I think the issue is...customers purchased songs off the iTunes Store with DRM which was made so it only played on iPods and it also locked out other DRM solutions such as FairPlay so it could not play on iPods. I believe however that the updates didn't purposely break FairPlay if I remember correctly. There was something that just happened to break it. It was quite a while ago, but something sticks in my mind about Apple not purposely breaking FairPlay DRM.
I'm not saying I agree with this lawsuit, in fact I think its kinda stupid but I don't think ripping CDs and syncing them to an iPod was the issue.
I think Apple has fixed this issue already to be honest. No songs are DRM today and EVERYONE had the opportunity to fix their songs so they weren't DRM anymore and therefore, could play on anything they wanted to. This is what I don't get about the entire thing. The fix was provided.
After this we should sue Apple because OS X can only be installed on a Mac and it purposely makes OS X so it only works on a Mac. Hell...why not?
No, the issue is that Apple didn't allow other online music stores to sell music to iPod users, and the music bought on iTunes didn't transfer to other devices. Real Networks created a work around to Fair Play that allowed music bought through its competing store to work in iTunes.
I honestly don't think Apple should be found liable though. First, Jobs originally pushed for DRM free music, the labels, however, required the DRM. It was the labels, not Apple that required DRM. Second, Real Networks relied on a bug to implement its hack. Apple fixed the bug.
"What remains is an allegation that Apple attempted to maintain a monopoly on the portable media player and downloadable music markets "
Apple's screwed. Only Amazon can have a monopoly.
THE D.O.J.'s case against Apple over e-books was ludicrous. This case, although I disagree with, may have more merit. The issue is did Apple take action to prevent music bought on its stores from moving to other services. If so, was that a violation of anti-trust laws.
You could still burn that music you got from iTunes onto a CD!!! You could already play it on your computer. So no need to own a iPod to play the music as you could play on your computer you already had!!! Once it was burned to CD there was no DRM on the music!!! You could do whatever you wanted to it!!!! No one forced you to buy the music from Apple in the first place. It was the Record company's that made Apple have DRM. Something Apple in the end got them to drop!!! Apple did nothing wrong.
Good points.
As long as Sony disclosed it would only play on Sony Players what's the problem? Proprietary tech isn't illegal, and it had to be purchased from Apple's store anyway what next? A lawsuit against Apple for OSXs inability to run Windows Apps?
Too many assumptionists out there. Apple techs not for people who can't read.
Just to play devil’s advocate what if, back in the day, CDs had been released that could only be played on Sony CD players? You buy the CD, it’s yours but you MUST buy a Sony player in order to listen to it. Isn’t that what this lawsuit is really about? It’s not the DRM itself, it’s the fact that those tracks could only be played back on an Apple device because Apple would not license the Fairplay DRM. If the DRM had been some cross platform, universal format (like DVDs) that other manufacturers could license I don’t think this particular lawsuit would have happened.
Not really a good analog. Because a CD player can only play C.D.s.
An iPod can play music from a variety of sources including from Apple's Music Store, ripped from traditional CDs, and downloaded from anywhere in MP3 format. Apple told people from the get go, that music bought on the iTunes Store could only be played on Apple devices. Moreover your analogy doesn't make clear if Sony or the music labels are dictating the lock in.
That's not what the suit's about but...
As long as Sony disclosed it would only play on Sony Players what's the problem? Proprietary tech isn't illegal, and it had to be purchased from Apple's store anyway what next? A lawsuit against Apple for OSXs inability to run Windows Apps?
Too many assumptionists out there. Apple techs not for people who can't read.
Yes, it isn't much different than X-Box video games only playing on an X-Box.
What the suit is about is people who've bought those Sony Players not being able to play someone else's proprietary music format or host software. Industry-standard music formats always could be added to iTunes and I'm unsure Apple ever claimed iPods would work with other host software.
These victims are victims of nothing more than their own assumptions.
Uh, OK...
OT: anyone know why Apple took a big drop this morning and is now down almost 3%? Yeah the market overall is down this morning but not that much.
EDIT: now it's down 5%. Why?
Because more people are selling shares than buying them. When more people buy shares than sell them, the price goes up.
It might be, but Apple never did that. They were in no way a monopoly. Any music purchasable from iTunes could be burnt to a CD and then ripped back, DRM-free. This remains true today. They don’t have an argument and have wasted a decade of Apple’s time and money pursuing illegality. Screw them all.
Regarding Sony... what about their MiniDisc format, so popular in Japan?
Because more people are selling shares than buying them. When more people buy shares than sell them, the price goes up.
Yep. It's often called a "correction", but it's really about profit taking.
It might be, but Apple never did that. They were in no way a monopoly. Any music purchasable from iTunes could be burnt to a CD and then ripped back, DRM-free. This remains true today. They don’t have an argument and have wasted a decade of Apple’s time and money pursuing illegality. Screw them all.
Regarding Sony... what about their MiniDisc format, so popular in Japan?
Sue Sony! Sue Sony! Oh... wait a second... they aren't really making that much money anymore..? Sue Apple! Sue Apple!
I think I remember another reason was that Apple did not take lightly other competitors essentially hacking iTunes to allow other players to be used. Didn't Palm do that as well back in the day?
If an unapproved plug-in is used in iTunes and it ends up breaking it for some (any) reason, the user will automatically blame Apple for it, and I don't think Apple wanted to be in that position to maintain compatibility with competing products. It's why the iPod worked so well with iTunes. It was designed by Apple, for Apple, to only work WITH Apple. Case closed.
Doesn't explain why the profit taking today or why the stock was down over 6% at one point today. Even CNBC anchors were scratching their head over that one.
They should give Apple an award for freeing up music!
Exactly! It's suits like this that just waste time and cost money needlessly. The digital music world is a better place largely because of Apple! And the world is not being polluted with as many plastic disks that contain a dozen or fewer songs.