Yawn. My device, my choice as to what music I put on it sure, and if I knew a software update would disrupt it, I would not install it.
Enjoy your DRM'd Realplayer music then.
One of these days I'll get around to cleaning up the tags on the back up copies of purchased songs I downloaded via napster in the nineties under the fair use doctrine we have in this country, early MP3 tags don't work so well on an iPhone 6.
Tags look like this 01.01.01.01.Song.etc
Too bad Real's DRM broke iTunes ability to load anything you want.
Anybody who used Real Player and bought a song from them, should not be allowed to play it on Apple's devices!
Realplayer has some damn nerve! They hacked Apple's DRM, and then they got upset when Apple put a stop to that!
Anybody who bought a crappy product that hacks Apple's DRM deserves nothing.
This case is similar to a damn thief who made a copy of a key to your house, and then the thief sues you because you went and changed your lock!
Under your twisted mentality, the only music allowed on an Apple device should only be purchased from Apple's iTunes Store. Is that what you are trying to say? So I guess you would have a hissy-fit if someone purchased music from Amazon, digital or CD, and put it on their iPod? Or the millions that steal music off the internet and put it on their iPod? If that is your belief, you should delete all of your music in iTunes that was not purchased directly from Apple. The lawsuit was messed up because the RIAA required the DRM, not Apple, and Microsoft also had their own DRM that did not play nicely with other players, but they were not included in the suit either.
FairPlay is gone now for music (sort of, your personal information is still wrapped in the file), but the RIAA should have had it licensed as the universal DRM platform to protect all digital downloads during that time period. Not everything was available in the iTunes Store, but available from other digital vendors. Same is still true today. I would rather buy a CD used off Amazon than buy it from Apple. Then I could rip it at my bitrate of choice, or choose Apple Lossless. It would be nice if Apple's "Mastered for iTunes" was Apple Lossless instead of the lossy AAC 256.
This case was a farce from the start and it's nice to see it over and done with - until the inevitable decade of appeals. I do have to compliment the posters on AI who seem for the most part to "get it" regarding the details of this case. I'm appalled at the ignorance and utter stupidity on some of the other sites reporting the outcome. For the life of me I cannot fathom how some people have such a vile distain for Apple. Where does this deep rooted hatred come from? Apple's simply a consumer products company that has never forced a single person to buy one of their products. If you don't like Apple don't buy their stuff. It can't get any simpler than that. Whatever inspires the deep hatred that's spewing on some web sites and media outlets seems to emanate from a very dark and ugly part of humanity that literally scares the crap out of me. Knowing that these people walk freely among us is very unsettling.
The answer to you question is simple >Apple has almost single handedly taken out or gutted multi billion dollar companies : RIM, NOKIA, SONY, HP, MSFT etc. the music and movie businesses, retail record stores: its about to heavily plunder Samsung, the banking sector, wearables, TV, Thats a heck of a lot of vested interest and billions at stake. This is why the competition is doing this.
Under your twisted mentality, the only music allowed on an Apple device should only be purchased from Apple's iTunes Store. Is that what you are trying to say?
Not at all.
This case was in the past, when there was DRM. There is no longer DRM on any iTunes songs.
It is idiotic for RealPlayer to sue Apple, because Apple made it so that their DRM hack no longer worked. Screw RealPlayer, and apparently, the jury thought the same.
(because apparently they couldn't find real plaintiffs).
They found a 65 year old woman who bought an iPod for her ice skating lessons, in the court she seemed confused with not much idea of what it was all about, although apparently she did learn to skate backwards.
Also, I'm kicking around the idea of getting more stock. I'm thinking there's some big gains to be had between now and whenever they announce their christmas results.
Careful.
That's 'holiday' results for Tim Cook and SolipsismY.
This combined with the appeal of the eBooks case (where 2 of the judges seemed clearly in favor of Apple and even took shots at Amazon) and it's been a Merry Christmas week for Apple.
Are you claiming that news, either good or bad, never influences stock prices?
You would be wrong.
I'm not claiming that this news has any particular effect, but stock price is a combination of many things and events.
No-one really knows how the stock market works. It is simply a combination of billions of small decisions every day. Every day on the New York Stock exchanges about 15 trillion dollars is traded. That's every single work day. That doesn't include the commodities, futures and option markets in Chicago and else where. The US Government is tiny in comparison, about 1/3 of one percent. If you knew how the stock market worked you would not be on here and claiming you do know is the claim of very inflated Ego. As are most of your posts which also exhibit complete and utter nonsense.
The actual truth is you are extremely ignorant about such things which is obvious from your posts.
Your statement "I know perfectly well how the market functions" is an example of your superficiality
This case was a farce from the start and it's nice to see it over and done with - until the inevitable decade of appeals. I do have to compliment the posters on AI who seem for the most part to "get it" regarding the details of this case. I'm appalled at the ignorance and utter stupidity on some of the other sites reporting the outcome. For the life of me I cannot fathom how some people have such a vile distain for Apple. Where does this deep rooted hatred come from? Apple's simply a consumer products company that has never forced a single person to buy one of their products. If you don't like Apple don't buy their stuff. It can't get any simpler than that. Whatever inspires the deep hatred that's spewing on some web sites and media outlets seems to emanate from a very dark and ugly part of humanity that literally scares the crap out of me. Knowing that these people walk freely among us is very unsettling.
Marketing.
When you're a fan of something on the basis of it being "open", then you need to paint the other guy as locking you in to a "closed" system even if that isn't really the case, otherwise your belief system falls apart and you are exposed as the snivelling little weakling you really are.
I think I'll watch some porn on my iPhone, just because I can.
No-one really knows how the stock market works. It is simply a combination of billions of small decisions every day. Every day on the New York Stock exchanges about 15 trillion dollars is traded. That's every single work day. That doesn't include the commodities, futures and option markets in Chicago and else where. The US Government is tiny in comparison, about 1/3 of one percent. If you knew how the stock market worked you would not be on here and claiming you do know is the claim of very inflated Ego.
The actual truth is you are extremely ignorant about such things which is obvious from your posts.
Your statement "I know perfectly well how the market functions" is a example of you superficiality
The truth is that I am doing just fine in the market, even though I've only been at it a few years now. And that's what's important to me, real world results. Not posts on a forum.
I think it would solve most problems if the asked-for damages went both ways. You win, you get it. You lose, that’s what you pay them.
Nice in theory. However, if you are a little guy who has been wronged, you may have a good case and still lose. You might just be outgunned by a defendant with bigger pockets. Do we really want to live in a system where you need money to try and obtain justice in the Court system?
Lots of these problems really are judges fault. They have the ability to knock out these cases at an early stage. They also have the ability to impose sanctions in cases where the case clearly was filed improperly.
This case was in the past, when there was DRM. There is no longer DRM on any iTunes songs.
It is idiotic for RealPlayer to sue Apple, because Apple made it so that their DRM hack no longer worked. Screw RealPlayer, and apparently, the jury thought the same.
The RIAA required the DRM, not Apple. At the time, Apple never said "we have to make these changes to iTunes to comply with the contract we have with the RIAA and their DRM requirement." They made it sound like they did not want anyone else to sell music that could play on an iPod, taking away from their royalties in the iTunes Store. That is when things got ugly. Remember, Microsoft was also investigated/sued for their monopoly with Internet Explorer and blocking other web browsers from being installed. This was the same thing. Except the suit took too long to process and DRM was eventually removed, which required them to dismiss some of their causes of action. The jury realized that the "plaintiffs" did not suffer any damages because iTunes did not prohibit anyone from importing their own CDs to add to an iPod, and DRM no longer exists in iTunes or Amazon. Also, Real Music Store eventually became the Rhapsody streaming service under a subscription model. Technology changed faster than the lawsuit. If DRM is gone, then my email address should not be tagged in the iTunes purchases.
Nice in theory. However, if you are a little guy who has been wronged, you may have a good case and still lose. You WILL be outgunned by a defendant with bigger pockets. Do we really want to live in a system where you need money to try and obtain justice in the Court system?
Lots of these problems really are judges fault. They have the ability to knock out these cases at an early stage. They also have the ability to impose sanctions in cases where the case clearly was filed improperly.
We already live in this system, "justice" is only available to the wealthy.
The joke is that you apparently thought this case would have an effect on Apple's stock price. Why in the world would Apple's stock price go up after this verdict?
Expect the same when the ebooks decision comes down - no effect on Apple's stock price. More publicity, but no effect - there just isn't that much money involved either way.
The joke is that you apparently thought this case would have an effect on Apple's stock price. Why in the world would Apple's stock price go up after this verdict?
Expect the same when the ebooks decision comes down - no effect on Apple's stock price. More publicity, but no effect - there just isn't that much money involved either way.
It's not just about this case.
I just didn't want to see AAPL fall below the 50 day, which was 108 something.
I think it would solve most problems if the asked-for damages went both ways. You win, you get it. You lose, that’s what you pay them.
That would be a great system. It definitely would stop all these frivolous lawsuits. I think it should be mandatory the plaintiff has to pay attorney fees for the defendant if they lose in court.
Comments
Yawn. My device, my choice as to what music I put on it sure, and if I knew a software update would disrupt it, I would not install it.
Enjoy your DRM'd Realplayer music then.
One of these days I'll get around to cleaning up the tags on the back up copies of purchased songs I downloaded via napster in the nineties under the fair use doctrine we have in this country, early MP3 tags don't work so well on an iPhone 6.
Tags look like this 01.01.01.01.Song.etc
Too bad Real's DRM broke iTunes ability to load anything you want.
Absolutely not.
Anybody who used Real Player and bought a song from them, should not be allowed to play it on Apple's devices!
Realplayer has some damn nerve! They hacked Apple's DRM, and then they got upset when Apple put a stop to that!
Anybody who bought a crappy product that hacks Apple's DRM deserves nothing.
This case is similar to a damn thief who made a copy of a key to your house, and then the thief sues you because you went and changed your lock!
Under your twisted mentality, the only music allowed on an Apple device should only be purchased from Apple's iTunes Store. Is that what you are trying to say? So I guess you would have a hissy-fit if someone purchased music from Amazon, digital or CD, and put it on their iPod? Or the millions that steal music off the internet and put it on their iPod? If that is your belief, you should delete all of your music in iTunes that was not purchased directly from Apple. The lawsuit was messed up because the RIAA required the DRM, not Apple, and Microsoft also had their own DRM that did not play nicely with other players, but they were not included in the suit either.
FairPlay is gone now for music (sort of, your personal information is still wrapped in the file), but the RIAA should have had it licensed as the universal DRM platform to protect all digital downloads during that time period. Not everything was available in the iTunes Store, but available from other digital vendors. Same is still true today. I would rather buy a CD used off Amazon than buy it from Apple. Then I could rip it at my bitrate of choice, or choose Apple Lossless. It would be nice if Apple's "Mastered for iTunes" was Apple Lossless instead of the lossy AAC 256.
What is it like not knowing how the stock market actually functions? This case and the share price are NOT connected
I know perfectly well how the market functions.
Are you claiming that news, either good or bad, never influences stock prices?
You would be wrong.
I'm not claiming that this news has any particular effect, but stock price is a combination of many things and events.
This case was a farce from the start and it's nice to see it over and done with - until the inevitable decade of appeals. I do have to compliment the posters on AI who seem for the most part to "get it" regarding the details of this case. I'm appalled at the ignorance and utter stupidity on some of the other sites reporting the outcome. For the life of me I cannot fathom how some people have such a vile distain for Apple. Where does this deep rooted hatred come from? Apple's simply a consumer products company that has never forced a single person to buy one of their products. If you don't like Apple don't buy their stuff. It can't get any simpler than that. Whatever inspires the deep hatred that's spewing on some web sites and media outlets seems to emanate from a very dark and ugly part of humanity that literally scares the crap out of me. Knowing that these people walk freely among us is very unsettling.
The answer to you question is simple >Apple has almost single handedly taken out or gutted multi billion dollar companies : RIM, NOKIA, SONY, HP, MSFT etc. the music and movie businesses, retail record stores: its about to heavily plunder Samsung, the banking sector, wearables, TV, Thats a heck of a lot of vested interest and billions at stake. This is why the competition is doing this.
Under your twisted mentality, the only music allowed on an Apple device should only be purchased from Apple's iTunes Store. Is that what you are trying to say?
Not at all.
This case was in the past, when there was DRM. There is no longer DRM on any iTunes songs.
It is idiotic for RealPlayer to sue Apple, because Apple made it so that their DRM hack no longer worked. Screw RealPlayer, and apparently, the jury thought the same.
Of course. This was never in question.
Now sue the morons responsible for this for damages.
You can sue the RIAA since they required the DRM.
(because apparently they couldn't find real plaintiffs).
They found a 65 year old woman who bought an iPod for her ice skating lessons, in the court she seemed confused with not much idea of what it was all about, although apparently she did learn to skate backwards.
Finally, some fucking sanity.
Also, I'm kicking around the idea of getting more stock. I'm thinking there's some big gains to be had between now and whenever they announce their christmas results.
Careful.
That's 'holiday' results for Tim Cook and SolipsismY.
This combined with the appeal of the eBooks case (where 2 of the judges seemed clearly in favor of Apple and even took shots at Amazon) and it's been a Merry Christmas week for Apple.
Bit premature.
An adequate Advent week, perhaps.
I know perfectly well how the market functions.
Are you claiming that news, either good or bad, never influences stock prices?
You would be wrong.
I'm not claiming that this news has any particular effect, but stock price is a combination of many things and events.
No-one really knows how the stock market works. It is simply a combination of billions of small decisions every day. Every day on the New York Stock exchanges about 15 trillion dollars is traded. That's every single work day. That doesn't include the commodities, futures and option markets in Chicago and else where. The US Government is tiny in comparison, about 1/3 of one percent. If you knew how the stock market worked you would not be on here and claiming you do know is the claim of very inflated Ego. As are most of your posts which also exhibit complete and utter nonsense.
The actual truth is you are extremely ignorant about such things which is obvious from your posts.
Your statement "I know perfectly well how the market functions" is an example of your superficiality
Careful.
That's 'holiday' results for Tim Cook and SolipsismY.
True, saying Christmas is verboten now, according to many people.
That's why I still say Merry Christmas, and not happy holidays to people, because my hope is that they will be offended.
This case was a farce from the start and it's nice to see it over and done with - until the inevitable decade of appeals. I do have to compliment the posters on AI who seem for the most part to "get it" regarding the details of this case. I'm appalled at the ignorance and utter stupidity on some of the other sites reporting the outcome. For the life of me I cannot fathom how some people have such a vile distain for Apple. Where does this deep rooted hatred come from? Apple's simply a consumer products company that has never forced a single person to buy one of their products. If you don't like Apple don't buy their stuff. It can't get any simpler than that. Whatever inspires the deep hatred that's spewing on some web sites and media outlets seems to emanate from a very dark and ugly part of humanity that literally scares the crap out of me. Knowing that these people walk freely among us is very unsettling.
Marketing.
When you're a fan of something on the basis of it being "open", then you need to paint the other guy as locking you in to a "closed" system even if that isn't really the case, otherwise your belief system falls apart and you are exposed as the snivelling little weakling you really are.
I think I'll watch some porn on my iPhone, just because I can.
No-one really knows how the stock market works. It is simply a combination of billions of small decisions every day. Every day on the New York Stock exchanges about 15 trillion dollars is traded. That's every single work day. That doesn't include the commodities, futures and option markets in Chicago and else where. The US Government is tiny in comparison, about 1/3 of one percent. If you knew how the stock market worked you would not be on here and claiming you do know is the claim of very inflated Ego.
The actual truth is you are extremely ignorant about such things which is obvious from your posts.
Your statement "I know perfectly well how the market functions" is a example of you superficiality
The truth is that I am doing just fine in the market, even though I've only been at it a few years now. And that's what's important to me, real world results. Not posts on a forum.
I think it would solve most problems if the asked-for damages went both ways. You win, you get it. You lose, that’s what you pay them.
Nice in theory. However, if you are a little guy who has been wronged, you may have a good case and still lose. You might just be outgunned by a defendant with bigger pockets. Do we really want to live in a system where you need money to try and obtain justice in the Court system?
Lots of these problems really are judges fault. They have the ability to knock out these cases at an early stage. They also have the ability to impose sanctions in cases where the case clearly was filed improperly.
Not at all.
This case was in the past, when there was DRM. There is no longer DRM on any iTunes songs.
It is idiotic for RealPlayer to sue Apple, because Apple made it so that their DRM hack no longer worked. Screw RealPlayer, and apparently, the jury thought the same.
The RIAA required the DRM, not Apple. At the time, Apple never said "we have to make these changes to iTunes to comply with the contract we have with the RIAA and their DRM requirement." They made it sound like they did not want anyone else to sell music that could play on an iPod, taking away from their royalties in the iTunes Store. That is when things got ugly. Remember, Microsoft was also investigated/sued for their monopoly with Internet Explorer and blocking other web browsers from being installed. This was the same thing. Except the suit took too long to process and DRM was eventually removed, which required them to dismiss some of their causes of action. The jury realized that the "plaintiffs" did not suffer any damages because iTunes did not prohibit anyone from importing their own CDs to add to an iPod, and DRM no longer exists in iTunes or Amazon. Also, Real Music Store eventually became the Rhapsody streaming service under a subscription model. Technology changed faster than the lawsuit. If DRM is gone, then my email address should not be tagged in the iTunes purchases.
…been wronged, you may have a good case and still lose.
I don’t see how, though. If you’re in the right, you have nothing to fear from betting big. It’s just like Jeopardy.
Nice in theory. However, if you are a little guy who has been wronged, you may have a good case and still lose. You WILL be outgunned by a defendant with bigger pockets. Do we really want to live in a system where you need money to try and obtain justice in the Court system?
Lots of these problems really are judges fault. They have the ability to knock out these cases at an early stage. They also have the ability to impose sanctions in cases where the case clearly was filed improperly.
We already live in this system, "justice" is only available to the wealthy.
And AAPL is now under 108 again! What a joke!
The joke is that you apparently thought this case would have an effect on Apple's stock price. Why in the world would Apple's stock price go up after this verdict?
Expect the same when the ebooks decision comes down - no effect on Apple's stock price. More publicity, but no effect - there just isn't that much money involved either way.
The joke is that you apparently thought this case would have an effect on Apple's stock price. Why in the world would Apple's stock price go up after this verdict?
Expect the same when the ebooks decision comes down - no effect on Apple's stock price. More publicity, but no effect - there just isn't that much money involved either way.
It's not just about this case.
I just didn't want to see AAPL fall below the 50 day, which was 108 something.
I think it would solve most problems if the asked-for damages went both ways. You win, you get it. You lose, that’s what you pay them.
That would be a great system. It definitely would stop all these frivolous lawsuits. I think it should be mandatory the plaintiff has to pay attorney fees for the defendant if they lose in court.