And those terms were unreasonable and monopolistic. Next?
This is the reason people hate and leave Apple - not overpriced products (which I disagree with) but being trapped by the content they paid for. Excellent mouse trap but bad for the consumer.
And Apple did not stop anyone from removing DRM from music bought from iTunes and listening to them on other devices for personal use (someone already mentioned this to you in this thread). It's called Fair Use and it's part of the copyrights law. If fact, I remember a support page on Apple website that gives step by step instruction on how to use iTunes to burn you DRM protected music to a CD then importing them again to remove DRM. You can then use any device to play your music. No traps.
Absolutely.
There's no reason why I shouldn't be able to play my iTunes music or movies on any device I want I.e. Kindle Fire, Smart TV, etc because it's my music not Apple's.
Slam dunk case. I've been wanting this to go to trial for years.
Actually it's not your music, or Apple's. It belongs to the music companies, song writers and musicians. You are only granted a license to use it. Period. It was in fact the music companies that required the DRM, and there is absolutely no reason why Apple should have had to "share" their technology or innovations with anyone else.
So why did you agree to them when you made your purchase? You had alternatives.
You're just looking to blame someone else for your own ignorance.
Obviously I'm not the only one - there's $1B worth of others. And what were my alternatives then. Thankfully Amazon offered an alternative to later purchases which I can now play on any device. This is why I've never bought an iBook.
It's about the freedom of my purchases.
Actually it's not your music, or Apple's. It belongs to the music companies, song writers and musicians. You are only granted a license to use it. Period. It was in fact the music companies that required the DRM, and there is absolutely no reason why Apple should have had to "share" their technology or innovations with anyone else.
Again this is about eContent purchases payable on other eDevices. You need to stop thinking who owns whatever.
Wait, Amazon Video can't play on Apple TV, or load it with iTunes. I can't execute Microsoft Windows Executable, or open any Office document correctly on my Mac/Linux I can't play YouTube video at 1080p on any mobile device that doesn't use Google application, or simply an Google hardware. I have to get cable subscription for cutting the cable, or pay a heavy tax to the studio. Oh, and I don't own the ebook bought from Amazon, just own the permission to open it with the app by Kindle. If Apple is an antitrust company, are't these?
Oh yes, these are the sugar daddy of lobbyists. See Apple? Buy some lobby firms.
Wait,
Amazon Video can't play on Apple TV, or load it with iTunes.
I can't execute Microsoft Windows Executable, or open any Office document correctly on my Mac/Linux
I can't play YouTube video at 1080p on any mobile device that doesn't use Google application, or simply an Google hardware.
Whoa, there. You forgot the cardinal rule: it's only evil when Apple does it.
Again you can play it on ANY DVD player not just a Sony.
Again - NOT a brain twister.
Try playing a DVD for Japan in another region and see what happens. DVDs will NOT play in any player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu
No - really?
We're talking eContent being compatible on other eDevices. Quite a simple concept actually.
Yeah, let's forget about all the hassles people had with ebooks and not being able to read purchases from one bookstore on the device from another. Or how certain stores "patched" the so-called bugs that let people get around this. Electronic content has been locked to devices for years by numerous companies.
It seems quite clear from your comments that you don't have a clue. My 8 year old daughter could troll better than you.
And those terms were unreasonable and monopolistic. Next?
This is the reason people hate and leave Apple - not overpriced products (which I disagree with) but being trapped by the content they paid for. Excellent mouse trap but bad for the consumer.
Too bad "hate Apple" not the reason they leave the forums.
I should sue the DVD industry for making me use a DVD player to play MY movies. I should be able to play my DVDs on an 8mm projector if I want to. They are my movies.
DVD region locks are a better analogy. But it's easier for trolls to focus their hate on Apple.
And those terms were unreasonable and monopolistic. Next?
This is the reason people hate and leave Apple - not overpriced products (which I disagree with) but being trapped by the content they paid for. Excellent mouse trap but bad for the consumer.
Have you even read what this suit is about? You seem to have it completely backwards in your urgency to complain about all things Apple.
You're saying that Apple shouldn't have prevented content purchased from iTunes from working on other devices. (Which of course was never really a problem and Apple made it no problem at all once they convinced the labels from insisting on DRM.)
What the lawsuit is about is that Apple didn't allow songs purchased from other sources to be played on their iPod.
See how that's backward? You're saying Apple wanted lock-IN while the lawsuit is about lock-OUT.
So the question is how many people bought an iPod thinking that they would be able to play music from some source other than the iTunes music store? Probably everyone, and they were right. Apple supported lots of open standards and most of the music on iPods was ripped from consumers' CDs using iTunes. Now what about people who thought that Apple would support DRM-encumbered music from other sources? First, how many people are we talking about? Thousands maybe. BFD. And anyone who expected that were deluded and didn't base their expectation on anything that Apple every said. Ridiculous law suit. I hope it gets thrown out before it gets to a jury.
Have you even read what this suit is about? You seem to have it completely backwards in your urgency to complain about all things Apple.
You're saying that Apple shouldn't have prevented content purchased from iTunes from working on other devices. (Which of course was never really a problem and Apple made it no problem at all once they convinced the labels from insisting on DRM.)
What the lawsuit is about is that Apple didn't allow songs purchased from other sources to be played on their iPod.
See how that's backward? You're saying Apple wanted lock-IN while the lawsuit is about lock-OUT.
So the question is how many people bought an iPod thinking that they would be able to play music from some source other than the iTunes music store? Probably everyone, and they were right. Apple supported lots of open standards and most of the music on iPods was ripped from consumers' CDs using iTunes. Now what about people who thought that Apple would support DRM-encumbered music from other sources? First, how many people are we talking about? Thousands maybe. BFD. And anyone who expected that were deluded and didn't base their expectation on anything that Apple every said. Ridiculous law suit. I hope it gets thrown out before it gets to a jury.
Bingo. Very good- I was wondering when I would be called up on that. Yes I remember those ITunes updates - those cat n mouse games against real player's files and crippling them out. Not letting anything in I can actually understand. I don't like not being locked out from playing on other devices or playing on other peoples non Apple devices. But the root of the issue which cuts both ways is Apple insisting on DRM. Was it to protect the music industry or to sell more iPods. Let the courts decide. Steve Jobs has left an email trail which should put it all together.
Try playing a DVD for Japan in another region and see what happens. DVDs will NOT play in an ......
It seems quite clear from your comments that you don't have a clue. My 8 year old daughter could troll better than you.
Really? Regional DVD players? You can buy a region free player.
You don't understand the concept like my 90 years old grandmother.
Comments
And Apple did not stop anyone from removing DRM from music bought from iTunes and listening to them on other devices for personal use (someone already mentioned this to you in this thread). It's called Fair Use and it's part of the copyrights law. If fact, I remember a support page on Apple website that gives step by step instruction on how to use iTunes to burn you DRM protected music to a CD then importing them again to remove DRM. You can then use any device to play your music. No traps.
Actually it's not your music, or Apple's. It belongs to the music companies, song writers and musicians. You are only granted a license to use it. Period. It was in fact the music companies that required the DRM, and there is absolutely no reason why Apple should have had to "share" their technology or innovations with anyone else.
We all know the answer is they did not.
Obviously I'm not the only one - there's $1B worth of others. And what were my alternatives then. Thankfully Amazon offered an alternative to later purchases which I can now play on any device. This is why I've never bought an iBook.
It's about the freedom of my purchases.
Again this is about eContent purchases payable on other eDevices. You need to stop thinking who owns whatever.
Speak for yourself. Let's hear what the court of anti-trust laws has to say.
"Monopoly" has a specific legal definition, it's not a matter of opinion. Besides, that is not what this lawsuit is about.
Amazon Video can't play on Apple TV, or load it with iTunes.
I can't execute Microsoft Windows Executable, or open any Office document correctly on my Mac/Linux
I can't play YouTube video at 1080p on any mobile device that doesn't use Google application, or simply an Google hardware.
I have to get cable subscription for cutting the cable, or pay a heavy tax to the studio.
Oh, and I don't own the ebook bought from Amazon, just own the permission to open it with the app by Kindle.
If Apple is an antitrust company, are't these?
Oh yes, these are the sugar daddy of lobbyists.
See Apple? Buy some lobby firms.
Don't see the basis: virtually every track on my first iPod was from my physical cd collection and I kept that habit for quite a while.
Whoa, there. You forgot the cardinal rule: it's only evil when Apple does it.
Again you can play it on ANY DVD player not just a Sony.
Again - NOT a brain twister.
Try playing a DVD for Japan in another region and see what happens. DVDs will NOT play in any player.
No - really?
We're talking eContent being compatible on other eDevices. Quite a simple concept actually.
Yeah, let's forget about all the hassles people had with ebooks and not being able to read purchases from one bookstore on the device from another. Or how certain stores "patched" the so-called bugs that let people get around this. Electronic content has been locked to devices for years by numerous companies.
It seems quite clear from your comments that you don't have a clue. My 8 year old daughter could troll better than you.
Too bad "hate Apple" not the reason they leave the forums.
DVD region locks are a better analogy. But it's easier for trolls to focus their hate on Apple.
And those terms were unreasonable and monopolistic. Next?
This is the reason people hate and leave Apple - not overpriced products (which I disagree with) but being trapped by the content they paid for. Excellent mouse trap but bad for the consumer.
Have you even read what this suit is about? You seem to have it completely backwards in your urgency to complain about all things Apple.
You're saying that Apple shouldn't have prevented content purchased from iTunes from working on other devices. (Which of course was never really a problem and Apple made it no problem at all once they convinced the labels from insisting on DRM.)
What the lawsuit is about is that Apple didn't allow songs purchased from other sources to be played on their iPod.
See how that's backward? You're saying Apple wanted lock-IN while the lawsuit is about lock-OUT.
So the question is how many people bought an iPod thinking that they would be able to play music from some source other than the iTunes music store? Probably everyone, and they were right. Apple supported lots of open standards and most of the music on iPods was ripped from consumers' CDs using iTunes. Now what about people who thought that Apple would support DRM-encumbered music from other sources? First, how many people are we talking about? Thousands maybe. BFD. And anyone who expected that were deluded and didn't base their expectation on anything that Apple every said. Ridiculous law suit. I hope it gets thrown out before it gets to a jury.
Bingo. Very good- I was wondering when I would be called up on that. Yes I remember those ITunes updates - those cat n mouse games against real player's files and crippling them out. Not letting anything in I can actually understand. I don't like not being locked out from playing on other devices or playing on other peoples non Apple devices. But the root of the issue which cuts both ways is Apple insisting on DRM. Was it to protect the music industry or to sell more iPods. Let the courts decide. Steve Jobs has left an email trail which should put it all together.
I love Apple but loathe fanbots.
Amazon can play on a host on nonAmazon devices. Apple has locked them out.
Really? Regional DVD players? You can buy a region free player.
You don't understand the concept like my 90 years old grandmother.
Nope.