Fact: Microsoft license out their brand of DRM to third parties.
Fact: Apple don't license out their brand of DRM to third parties.
Cheers Daniel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav
Fact: Apple's DRM works on Macs and Windows
Fract: Microsoft's DRM does not.
If Apple did what the lawsuit suggested, they could then be sued for locking out Mac users.
The fact is that if you want to buy other players, then you should purchase your music where it supports them. Nobody forced you to buy music from the iTunes music store.
iTunes software is free. It works with several different formats and with CDs. You never have to go anywhere near the online iTunes "store" for any of your music. There's no "tie-in" if you're talking about iTunes software -- nothing at all. It works with many standards and you can convert whatever doesn't work (which is only really a couple, one DRM'd and one not, that I can think of).
So, I don't see any "point" here at all with music (of different formats) being loaded onto the iPod, via the software supplied for free by Apple. What's the "point" that causes someone to be "locked-in"??
You can't implement another store into iTunes (like you can in Windows Media Player) or you can't use your iPod just with another software (maybe with an Amazon software). You have to deal with iTunes and wuuups there is accidentally a store in it...
Variety is not what most of Apple's users ask for.
You're conflating the Zune DRM and the Plays for Sure DRM. PFS is licensed and was a failure. The Zune DRM is limited to Windows, Zune Marketplace, has all sorts of odd restrictions, and was a worse failure.
You're conflating the Zune DRM and the Plays for Sure DRM. PFS is licensed and was a failure. The Zune DRM is limited to Windows, Zune Marketplace, has all sorts of odd restrictions, and was a worse failure.
What's screwed up is that Apple came out with the iPod concept first. iTunes software was an application to manage content either with or without an iPod. The iTunes Music Store was a new concept to sell legal copies of content and have some amount of restrictions to discourage sharing content.
Since the whole concept was new and different and there are so many different players involved, it mutates into something that EVERYONE can live with. Hey, if someone buys a phone from AT&T, that phone only works with AT&T, just like if someone buys a phone from Verizon, that phone will only work with Verizon.
Companies have to put some amount of control because it affects the overall user experience and support. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. One does NOT have to purchase content from iTunes Music Store to put content on an iPod. So, what's the problem?
With blinders on, we sue over what we haven't bothered to learn.
The big problem is that the iPod owners of Florida won't see a dime if this lawsuit goes through. It's only for the lawyers submitting the lawsuit since they have nothing better to do, but make a name for themselves.
They should make it where people have to sign up for the lawsuit FIRST and get EVERY single person signed up before they submit a lawsuit, otherwise it sounds like a BS lawsuit.
I'm surprised it took this long. Look, Apple has by far the best solution here in both hardware and software. That doesn't mean they're exempt from anti-trust laws. The tie between the olayer, the software, and the DRM songs makes it very difficult to move to a different player if they decide the iPod isn't right for them.
I'm surprised it tool this long. Look, Apple has by far the best solution here in both hardware and software. That doesn't mean they're exempt from anti-trust laws. The tie between the olayer, the software, and the DRM songs makes it very difficult to move to a different player if they decide the iPod isn't right for them.
I think the only way to make the consumers happy is for Apple and the others to offer to remove the DRM on songs that are sold, but the problem with that is that the record labels/artists probably have to approve of it also.
Personally, the way to alleviate the situation is to purchase only DRM free content or purchase the original CD and convert to the iPod.
It's too bad Kazaa and Napster apps came out to illegally share content. At least Apple's DRM was more fair than the others. But that's MY opinion.
Whatever, users who don't want to use an iPod and listen to their music on the go can buy a cd player and burn a cd. If they lose their iPod or it breaks, isn't that their fault? It's like saying a car only runs on the road and that if a car owner wants to drive on the grass, he cannot because there are too many mailboxes in the way.
Whatever, users who don't want to use an iPod and listen to their music on the go can buy a cd player and burn a cd. If they lose their iPod or it breaks, isn't that their fault? It's like saying a car only runs on the road and that if a car owner wants to drive on the grass, he cannot because there are too many mailboxes in the way.
Lawyers, stfu.
I am surprised these lawyers don't sue automakers for making cars where you can only buy certain critical components from the manufacturer. Isn't that FORCING someone to buy a replacement part from only one supplier?
LOL. Some of these lawyer are just trolling for $$$$.
This crap again? It's not like Apple is the only company doing this? where's the validity?
This is no different than if I were to sue Nikon or Canon because their respective lenses ONLY work on THEIR camera bodies! WTF?!!
If an oligarchy does it, instead of a monopoly, the harmful effects are the same. That is a weak argument.
The real problem here is much deeper. Copyright and patent law is an intellectual farce. There is no way to regulate wisely an absurdity.
It is also absurd that Nikon and Canon have duplicated one another's efforts. They would create better products if they collaborated. The only reason that iTunes works is because of collaboration. Collaboration is a good thing, as is sharing and trading, but we have made these things illegal. We encourage predation, which is not the same as trade.
Inflation is a man-made phenomenon. To escape inflation, people create inflation for others. Even if the person wins this suit, the costs will just get passed on to future customers; Apple won't actually pay anything. Similarly, the more Apple profits on what they sell, others will just raise their prices for the goods they sell to Apple. There is no escaping from a vicious circle. Capitalism is as absurd as these lawsuits, but it is the laws themselves that are driving, and are driven by, the absurdities.
Yes, but not without iTunes. I think the point here is, that the software and the shop is the same.
I have iTunes on my computer and I have a library of music stored in that software's database. I have NEVER purchased any music from the iTunes Store. Clearly they are NOT the same thing.
Now if I had purchased some iTunes Protected music and then decided to abandon iPod for another player I would have to use iTunes to convert that music into a form my new player could accept. Having done that I could then abandon iTunes too. So yes some DRM infested music is initially tied to a proprietary, yet freely downloadable application, but I can easily free myself from the grip of that software.
Having actually read the details of the McDonald's coffee case I agree it had merit. This iPod/iTunes one does not.
I have iTunes on my computer and I have a library of music stored in that software's database. I have NEVER purchased any music from the iTunes Store. Clearly they are NOT the same thing.
Now if I had purchased some iTunes Protected music and then decided to abandon iPod for another player I would have to use iTunes to convert that music into a form my new player could accept. Having done that I could then abandon iTunes too. So yes some DRM infested music is initially tied to a proprietary, yet freely downloadable application, but I can easily free myself from the grip of that software.
Having actually read the details of the McDonald's coffee case I agree it had merit. This iPod/iTunes one does not.
Yeah, the McDonald's case is COMPLETELY different. Someone got severely burned.
The iPod/iTunes lawsuit is just frivolous lawsuit and it should be dropped.
Thanks for posting that link, but the people who like to use the McDonalds case as an example of a sue happy nation aren't interested in knowing the facts of the case. It's much more exciting to use the McDonald case if you don't know any of the facts about the case.
Oh hum... once again, a dumb ass group of people whom will lose.
First, with the workaround for the download DRM'd music, which is to burn as an Audio CD, the rip back in, is a basic protocol to strip the DRM and also, have a BACK UP of the music you've purchased. Also, the purchase of the blank CD, plays an important role into paying a tax levy that goes to compensation of music industry, very much like the Cassette did back in its day. [This was the same tax levy they wanted to impose on the iPod, which it can't impose because it is device, not the by-product of a Device. To pay a levy on the iPod would like paying a Green tax levy on a product that is already Green. The money that is being made is in the selling of the music, not the device itself.]
Anyway, before I stray...
Also, with Apple's move toward DRM Free content, which will lead others to allow the distribution of DRM Free content on iTunes, this also is another concept that will make this class action suit null and void. Oh, also, there are a couple of other devices that have provided Driver for use with iTunes. Also, I remember a while back that there were people creating apps to use with the iPod, but no one took interest and simply felt that iTunes was the best. Also, if you plug in your iPod and use it as drive, you can transfer other MPEG stuff onto it, then later copy to your home computer and have the content be apart of content for your iTunes... ie: No one has locked down anything... that would be a problem that exists between the seat and the screen.
iTunes software is free. It works with several different formats and with CDs. You never have to go anywhere near the online iTunes "store" for any of your music. There's no "tie-in" if you're talking about iTunes software -- nothing at all. It works with many standards and you can convert whatever doesn't work (which is only really a couple, one DRM'd and one not, that I can think of).
So, I don't see any "point" here at all with music (of different formats) being loaded onto the iPod, via the software supplied for free by Apple. What's the "point" that causes someone to be "locked-in"??
If I were to agree that Apple has a monopoly, which I don't because the vast majority of music still comes from CDs and I don't consider digital downloads a market in-and-of itself, but if I were to agree...
There is a difference between a monopoly and an illegal monopoly. Simply having the largest or even near 100% marketshare is NOT illegal! Using that leverage to force other entities to follow your direction and interfere in their businesses IS illegal (like MS insisting that PC makers include Windows on all PCs, even if the customer only wants Linux).
To the best of my knowledge, Apple has never told music companies they can't sell their music on other online stores. They haven't told MS to kill off the Zune (like MS tried to tell Apple the had to kill off QuickTime in the 90s). Other than having produced a better product than anyone else has been able to come up with, I can't think of one thing Apple has done to leverage their possible monopoly to interfere with anyone else's business.
Sure, maybe they've created an ecosystem that some customers don't want to live in. But in what way is that illegal? That's a question of customer satisfaction, not a question for the lawyers to decide.
And since I love my analogies...if I don't like McDonald's cheeseburgers, I simply don't buy any more. I don't keep buying them and then later sue McDonald's to force them to make a cheeseburger I like.
Comments
The Zune is more closed than the iPod because of the subscription service.
If the judge is smart, they'll throw this sucker out.
Fact: Microsoft license out their brand of DRM to third parties.
Fact: Apple don't license out their brand of DRM to third parties.
Cheers Daniel
Fact: Apple's DRM works on Macs and Windows
Fract: Microsoft's DRM does not.
If Apple did what the lawsuit suggested, they could then be sued for locking out Mac users.
The fact is that if you want to buy other players, then you should purchase your music where it supports them. Nobody forced you to buy music from the iTunes music store.
We are both correct... It's a mixed up world...
iTunes software is free. It works with several different formats and with CDs. You never have to go anywhere near the online iTunes "store" for any of your music. There's no "tie-in" if you're talking about iTunes software -- nothing at all. It works with many standards and you can convert whatever doesn't work (which is only really a couple, one DRM'd and one not, that I can think of).
So, I don't see any "point" here at all with music (of different formats) being loaded onto the iPod, via the software supplied for free by Apple. What's the "point" that causes someone to be "locked-in"??
You can't implement another store into iTunes (like you can in Windows Media Player) or you can't use your iPod just with another software (maybe with an Amazon software). You have to deal with iTunes and wuuups there is accidentally a store in it...
Variety is not what most of Apple's users ask for.
We are both correct... It's a mixed up world...
You're conflating the Zune DRM and the Plays for Sure DRM. PFS is licensed and was a failure. The Zune DRM is limited to Windows, Zune Marketplace, has all sorts of odd restrictions, and was a worse failure.
You're conflating the Zune DRM and the Plays for Sure DRM. PFS is licensed and was a failure. The Zune DRM is limited to Windows, Zune Marketplace, has all sorts of odd restrictions, and was a worse failure.
What's screwed up is that Apple came out with the iPod concept first. iTunes software was an application to manage content either with or without an iPod. The iTunes Music Store was a new concept to sell legal copies of content and have some amount of restrictions to discourage sharing content.
Since the whole concept was new and different and there are so many different players involved, it mutates into something that EVERYONE can live with. Hey, if someone buys a phone from AT&T, that phone only works with AT&T, just like if someone buys a phone from Verizon, that phone will only work with Verizon.
Companies have to put some amount of control because it affects the overall user experience and support. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. One does NOT have to purchase content from iTunes Music Store to put content on an iPod. So, what's the problem?
With blinders on, we sue over what we haven't bothered to learn.
The big problem is that the iPod owners of Florida won't see a dime if this lawsuit goes through. It's only for the lawyers submitting the lawsuit since they have nothing better to do, but make a name for themselves.
They should make it where people have to sign up for the lawsuit FIRST and get EVERY single person signed up before they submit a lawsuit, otherwise it sounds like a BS lawsuit.
I'm surprised it tool this long. Look, Apple has by far the best solution here in both hardware and software. That doesn't mean they're exempt from anti-trust laws. The tie between the olayer, the software, and the DRM songs makes it very difficult to move to a different player if they decide the iPod isn't right for them.
I think the only way to make the consumers happy is for Apple and the others to offer to remove the DRM on songs that are sold, but the problem with that is that the record labels/artists probably have to approve of it also.
Personally, the way to alleviate the situation is to purchase only DRM free content or purchase the original CD and convert to the iPod.
It's too bad Kazaa and Napster apps came out to illegally share content. At least Apple's DRM was more fair than the others. But that's MY opinion.
Lawyers, stfu.
Whatever, users who don't want to use an iPod and listen to their music on the go can buy a cd player and burn a cd. If they lose their iPod or it breaks, isn't that their fault? It's like saying a car only runs on the road and that if a car owner wants to drive on the grass, he cannot because there are too many mailboxes in the way.
Lawyers, stfu.
I am surprised these lawyers don't sue automakers for making cars where you can only buy certain critical components from the manufacturer. Isn't that FORCING someone to buy a replacement part from only one supplier?
LOL. Some of these lawyer are just trolling for $$$$.
This crap again? It's not like Apple is the only company doing this? where's the validity?
This is no different than if I were to sue Nikon or Canon because their respective lenses ONLY work on THEIR camera bodies! WTF?!!
If an oligarchy does it, instead of a monopoly, the harmful effects are the same. That is a weak argument.
The real problem here is much deeper. Copyright and patent law is an intellectual farce. There is no way to regulate wisely an absurdity.
It is also absurd that Nikon and Canon have duplicated one another's efforts. They would create better products if they collaborated. The only reason that iTunes works is because of collaboration. Collaboration is a good thing, as is sharing and trading, but we have made these things illegal. We encourage predation, which is not the same as trade.
Inflation is a man-made phenomenon. To escape inflation, people create inflation for others. Even if the person wins this suit, the costs will just get passed on to future customers; Apple won't actually pay anything. Similarly, the more Apple profits on what they sell, others will just raise their prices for the goods they sell to Apple. There is no escaping from a vicious circle. Capitalism is as absurd as these lawsuits, but it is the laws themselves that are driving, and are driven by, the absurdities.
Think.
Yes, but not without iTunes. I think the point here is, that the software and the shop is the same.
I have iTunes on my computer and I have a library of music stored in that software's database. I have NEVER purchased any music from the iTunes Store. Clearly they are NOT the same thing.
Now if I had purchased some iTunes Protected music and then decided to abandon iPod for another player I would have to use iTunes to convert that music into a form my new player could accept. Having done that I could then abandon iTunes too. So yes some DRM infested music is initially tied to a proprietary, yet freely downloadable application, but I can easily free myself from the grip of that software.
Having actually read the details of the McDonald's coffee case I agree it had merit. This iPod/iTunes one does not.
I have iTunes on my computer and I have a library of music stored in that software's database. I have NEVER purchased any music from the iTunes Store. Clearly they are NOT the same thing.
Now if I had purchased some iTunes Protected music and then decided to abandon iPod for another player I would have to use iTunes to convert that music into a form my new player could accept. Having done that I could then abandon iTunes too. So yes some DRM infested music is initially tied to a proprietary, yet freely downloadable application, but I can easily free myself from the grip of that software.
Having actually read the details of the McDonald's coffee case I agree it had merit. This iPod/iTunes one does not.
Yeah, the McDonald's case is COMPLETELY different. Someone got severely burned.
The iPod/iTunes lawsuit is just frivolous lawsuit and it should be dropped.
People who constantly bring up the McDonald' coffee burns incident need to read this page:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Thanks for posting that link, but the people who like to use the McDonalds case as an example of a sue happy nation aren't interested in knowing the facts of the case. It's much more exciting to use the McDonald case if you don't know any of the facts about the case.
First, with the workaround for the download DRM'd music, which is to burn as an Audio CD, the rip back in, is a basic protocol to strip the DRM and also, have a BACK UP of the music you've purchased. Also, the purchase of the blank CD, plays an important role into paying a tax levy that goes to compensation of music industry, very much like the Cassette did back in its day. [This was the same tax levy they wanted to impose on the iPod, which it can't impose because it is device, not the by-product of a Device. To pay a levy on the iPod would like paying a Green tax levy on a product that is already Green. The money that is being made is in the selling of the music, not the device itself.]
Anyway, before I stray...
Also, with Apple's move toward DRM Free content, which will lead others to allow the distribution of DRM Free content on iTunes, this also is another concept that will make this class action suit null and void. Oh, also, there are a couple of other devices that have provided Driver for use with iTunes. Also, I remember a while back that there were people creating apps to use with the iPod, but no one took interest and simply felt that iTunes was the best. Also, if you plug in your iPod and use it as drive, you can transfer other MPEG stuff onto it, then later copy to your home computer and have the content be apart of content for your iTunes... ie: No one has locked down anything... that would be a problem that exists between the seat and the screen.
Okay... I'm done.
iTunes software is free. It works with several different formats and with CDs. You never have to go anywhere near the online iTunes "store" for any of your music. There's no "tie-in" if you're talking about iTunes software -- nothing at all. It works with many standards and you can convert whatever doesn't work (which is only really a couple, one DRM'd and one not, that I can think of).
So, I don't see any "point" here at all with music (of different formats) being loaded onto the iPod, via the software supplied for free by Apple. What's the "point" that causes someone to be "locked-in"??
The"point" is that it's an illegal monopoly.
There is a difference between a monopoly and an illegal monopoly. Simply having the largest or even near 100% marketshare is NOT illegal! Using that leverage to force other entities to follow your direction and interfere in their businesses IS illegal (like MS insisting that PC makers include Windows on all PCs, even if the customer only wants Linux).
To the best of my knowledge, Apple has never told music companies they can't sell their music on other online stores. They haven't told MS to kill off the Zune (like MS tried to tell Apple the had to kill off QuickTime in the 90s). Other than having produced a better product than anyone else has been able to come up with, I can't think of one thing Apple has done to leverage their possible monopoly to interfere with anyone else's business.
Sure, maybe they've created an ecosystem that some customers don't want to live in. But in what way is that illegal? That's a question of customer satisfaction, not a question for the lawyers to decide.
And since I love my analogies...if I don't like McDonald's cheeseburgers, I simply don't buy any more. I don't keep buying them and then later sue McDonald's to force them to make a cheeseburger I like.
The"point" is that it's an illegal monopoly.
You obviously don't understand what a monopoly really is or what about it is illegal.