Why would it be unpopular? It is pretty clear from available evidence that the latter possibility is what actually happened. The only thing that's unpopular is trolls and lawyers trying to convince an ignorant court system that the former and the latter are really the same thing.
It's unpopulare here because most people posting here believe Apple is incapable of doing wrong, and I suggested a plausable scenerio in which Apple may have done wrong. And I suspect you may fall into that category from the "it's pretty clear..." statement. Is it? How so? What evidence are you referring to? From what I've read here, Apple said they deleted the songs but that they did it for security reasons. But just because that's what Apple said doesn't mean it's true. Thus the trial. My post was outlining one line of evidence which was plausible which could lead to Apple being in trouble. The latter part which you say is "pretty clear" are also possible. The plantiffs would have the burden of proof to show that those arguments (safety and security) aren't true.
Your analogy doesn't work either, because, unlike BetaMax, Apple was contractually required by the record labels to include DRM in the iPod.
Undoubtedly true, but to what end? Surely that was to ensure that iPods would not play FairPlay-encoded music that had not been authorised on the iPod? Not that it would block music legitimately downloaded from a rival service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen
The other company exploited a flaw in Apples DRM to defeat the system. When Apple patched the flaw (as was no doubt required by contract), the exploit stopped working.
I'm not sure that has been established. It certainly seems like Apple was paranoid about exploitations, but I haven't seen any definite judgement that this is what happened. Apologies if I've missed anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen
That's all that happened here. Apple wasn't trying to maintain a monopoly or bully another company. They were just trying to fulfill their contract.
It's a little carefree to dismiss this as "all that happened". Even if what you say is true, Apple overplayed the error, forcing factory resets and removing music without any messaging. And I think the paranoia speaks to something a bit more.
I also remember Apple being quite open at one point about how to circumvent DRM by ripping to a CD then ripping back. It was certainly in Steve Jobs' open letter about DRM, and I think I remember there being help pages on Apple's website offering instruction. That doesn't seem in the spirit of a contract with strict rules about DRM, but does seem in the spirit of Apple pushing their own online store. Which would be fine, if it wasn't to the targeted exclusion of other rivals when Apple held a dominant position in the portable music player industry.
Did they? I mean ever, operationally, not just as a matter of procedure. Why is it that search engines are useless for anything older than a few years? I can’t find any instances of this in help forums (et. al.) from the dawn of the iPod...
Actually, that IS the reality of the situation...at least as far as the iPod being open to begin with. The iPod existed before the iTunes Music Store and the only way to put music on it was from other sources.
If that's the case then Apple may be boned on this one. It's pretty sleazy to create a product with an open platform and then start closing out your competition once you become popular and have the power to do so. That got Google into trouble not too long ago with how they were giving their services preference in search results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
That's funny. That's exactly why I got an iPod. I didn't want DRM
It is funny how the times change. If one wants DRM free mp3's then an iPod with iTunes is a fine choice. Then again, hasn't DRM with mp3's pretty much died out everywhere?
I can add my history. I purchased some music on Amazon using their app to place the songs into iTunes. As soon as iTunes updated, the songs were lost. Of course, this has been several years ago when the only option was the iPod.
Why are people talking about me behind my... oh, you mean the music thief. Never mind.
According to some, everything will be free anyway within a few decades as automation puts everyone out of work and causes global genocide. And they don’t think this is a bad thing. They actively want it to happen. And they have the gall to call me insane. I’m a worthless pile of garbage, yes, but I’m not insane.
There's no need for name calling.That was a long time ago. We all did it, and we've all matured, and we've all changed. But when you think about it was downloading a song off Napier really any different than listening to it on YouTube?
If that's the case then Apple may be boned on this one. It's pretty sleazy to create a product with an open platform and then start closing out your competition once you become popular and have the power to do so. That got Google into trouble not too long ago with how they were giving their services preference in search results.
It is funny how the times change. If one wants DRM free mp3's then an iPod with iTunes is a fine choice. Then again, hasn't DRM with mp3's pretty much died out everywhere?
You could always load unprotected MP3s on an iPod. If I remember correctly it was MS that did not allow MP3s on their devices (which is probably a big reason why they failed). DRM was a condition for all music sold on the web at the time. Maybe you should look at the BS that people had to go through to buy music on the web before iTunes. Different songs had different usage rights etc., it was a nightmare for consumers. Amazon only sold unprotected MP3s much later in the game & only because the record labels allowed them to do so. They did this to create more competition with Apple & weaken Apple's negotiating power. Soon after Apple was allowed to drop DRM.
Like so many things Apple related the media has failed to report and has obfuscated details to make Apple sound like it was doing something much worse than what it was really doing. As others have mentioned Apple never did anything to compel users who had ripped content from CDs to restore their iPods. The broad brush statements accusing Apple of "deleting user's songs" fails to make this point clear. It was only when content from an "untrusted" source was put on an iPod that Apple indicated an error. Apple's response to untrusted content was to protect itself and its business partners from potential harm.
I believe Apple was fully justified in limiting the content that was playable on their own devices because they were committed to providing a quality of service to their users and an assurance of intellectual property protection to their business partners who had invested heavily in the iTunes song-based rather than album-based ecosystem. People forget that Apple had to fight hard to create the $0.99 song marketplace and help legitimate music purchasers avoid paying $10 for an album just to get the one or two songs they really wanted.
My gut feel is that many of the loudest whiners here were trying to use Apple's iPods to further their illegal music acquisition process but were too stupid and/or too lazy to burn their acquisitions to CD before importing them into iTunes. In my opinion Apple actually left a readily available backdoor open for users to exploit Apple's rather weak assurances to the content owners. Rip it from CD. It's mostly the stupidest of the stupid (SoS) and the laziest of the lazy (LoL) who are crying foul here. It's not like there were no rival music players on the market that did not enforce any constraints whatsoever on what content you could put on their devices. I remember quite clearly getting calls from neighbors in this time period asking me to help their kids with "computer problems" in this area. Some parents thought that iPods and other devices and an internet connection allowed their kids access to gigabytes of "free music" that they otherwise would have had to pay for. You can't fix stupid, despite how hard companies like Apple try to protect themselves from stupidity.
This analogy really doesn't fit. Let's rework it...
I have a Sony BetaMax machine and another company makes a tape meeting the BetaMax format specifications, but also add a special little button that prevents the tape being copied. It doesn't affect the BetaMax machine at all, but Sony decide to remote update the BetaMax machine (god knows how they do that in the 80s, but stick with it). Now my tapes are useless.
WTF Sony?
And let's be clear, the analogy doesn't really work because BetaMax was a proprietary standard owned by Sony, whereas Apple doesn't own MP3 or AAC at all. Sony could probably get away with saying they were protecting their proprietary format and investments. What excuse do Apple have? Protecting sales from their store is the accusation, which doesn't fly nearly so well.
The fact that they allowed CDs to be ripped doesn't work in their favour, it just highlights a vindictiveness specifically towards other digital download stores.
I disagree: producing hardware that isn't universally usable with all media formats is the point: other system's DRM wasn't functional with an iPod, well, neither was a VHS format tape in a Betamax: ANYONE'S Betamax for that matter. While non-DRM'd tracks, like mine from my CD's, and the iPod was completely compatible, before and after the store was implemented.
One’s ownership, the other is subsidized rental. Any content on YouTube is by the authorization of the copyright owner.
Search songs, and you'll find unauthorized postings with lyrics, people dancing to it, or a photo montage. Why aren't those immediately removed? I can listen to more music now than I ever could in the Napster days.
Search songs, and you'll find unauthorized postings with lyrics, people dancing to it, or a photo montage. Why aren't those immediately removed? I can listen to more music now than I ever could in the Napster days.
Plus, Google makes money on these infringing views with their inline and embedded ads. The entire music business should file thousands of lawsuits against YouTube/Google.
Search songs, and you'll find unauthorized postings with lyrics, people dancing to it, or a photo montage. Why aren't those immediately removed? I can listen to more music now than I ever could in the Napster days.
Plus, Google makes money on these infringing views with their inline and embedded ads. The entire music business should file thousands of lawsuits against YouTube/Google.
It’s one more reason why Google needs spend a very long time in the wilderness. They are thieves with no moral compass.
Comments
Why would it be unpopular? It is pretty clear from available evidence that the latter possibility is what actually happened. The only thing that's unpopular is trolls and lawyers trying to convince an ignorant court system that the former and the latter are really the same thing.
It's unpopulare here because most people posting here believe Apple is incapable of doing wrong, and I suggested a plausable scenerio in which Apple may have done wrong. And I suspect you may fall into that category from the "it's pretty clear..." statement. Is it? How so? What evidence are you referring to? From what I've read here, Apple said they deleted the songs but that they did it for security reasons. But just because that's what Apple said doesn't mean it's true. Thus the trial. My post was outlining one line of evidence which was plausible which could lead to Apple being in trouble. The latter part which you say is "pretty clear" are also possible. The plantiffs would have the burden of proof to show that those arguments (safety and security) aren't true.
No analogy is perfect
Your analogy doesn't work either, because, unlike BetaMax, Apple was contractually required by the record labels to include DRM in the iPod.
Undoubtedly true, but to what end? Surely that was to ensure that iPods would not play FairPlay-encoded music that had not been authorised on the iPod? Not that it would block music legitimately downloaded from a rival service.
The other company exploited a flaw in Apples DRM to defeat the system. When Apple patched the flaw (as was no doubt required by contract), the exploit stopped working.
I'm not sure that has been established. It certainly seems like Apple was paranoid about exploitations, but I haven't seen any definite judgement that this is what happened. Apologies if I've missed anything.
That's all that happened here. Apple wasn't trying to maintain a monopoly or bully another company. They were just trying to fulfill their contract.
It's a little carefree to dismiss this as "all that happened". Even if what you say is true, Apple overplayed the error, forcing factory resets and removing music without any messaging. And I think the paranoia speaks to something a bit more.
I also remember Apple being quite open at one point about how to circumvent DRM by ripping to a CD then ripping back. It was certainly in Steve Jobs' open letter about DRM, and I think I remember there being help pages on Apple's website offering instruction. That doesn't seem in the spirit of a contract with strict rules about DRM, but does seem in the spirit of Apple pushing their own online store. Which would be fine, if it wasn't to the targeted exclusion of other rivals when Apple held a dominant position in the portable music player industry.
Did they? I mean ever, operationally, not just as a matter of procedure. Why is it that search engines are useless for anything older than a few years? I can’t find any instances of this in help forums (et. al.) from the dawn of the iPod...
Actually, that IS the reality of the situation...at least as far as the iPod being open to begin with. The iPod existed before the iTunes Music Store and the only way to put music on it was from other sources.
If that's the case then Apple may be boned on this one. It's pretty sleazy to create a product with an open platform and then start closing out your competition once you become popular and have the power to do so. That got Google into trouble not too long ago with how they were giving their services preference in search results.
That's funny. That's exactly why I got an iPod. I didn't want DRM
It is funny how the times change. If one wants DRM free mp3's then an iPod with iTunes is a fine choice. Then again, hasn't DRM with mp3's pretty much died out everywhere?
I can add my history. I purchased some music on Amazon using their app to place the songs into iTunes. As soon as iTunes updated, the songs were lost. Of course, this has been several years ago when the only option was the iPod.
You scum piece of shit.
Why are people talking about me behind my... oh, you mean the music thief. Never mind.
According to some, everything will be free anyway within a few decades as automation puts everyone out of work and causes global genocide. And they don’t think this is a bad thing. They actively want it to happen. And they have the gall to call me insane. I’m a worthless pile of garbage, yes, but I’m not insane.
There's no need for name calling.That was a long time ago. We all did it, and we've all matured, and we've all changed. But when you think about it was downloading a song off Napier really any different than listening to it on YouTube?
One’s ownership, the other is subsidized rental. Any content on YouTube is by the authorization of the copyright owner.
If that's the case then Apple may be boned on this one. It's pretty sleazy to create a product with an open platform and then start closing out your competition once you become popular and have the power to do so. That got Google into trouble not too long ago with how they were giving their services preference in search results.
It is funny how the times change. If one wants DRM free mp3's then an iPod with iTunes is a fine choice. Then again, hasn't DRM with mp3's pretty much died out everywhere?
You could always load unprotected MP3s on an iPod. If I remember correctly it was MS that did not allow MP3s on their devices (which is probably a big reason why they failed). DRM was a condition for all music sold on the web at the time. Maybe you should look at the BS that people had to go through to buy music on the web before iTunes. Different songs had different usage rights etc., it was a nightmare for consumers. Amazon only sold unprotected MP3s much later in the game & only because the record labels allowed them to do so. They did this to create more competition with Apple & weaken Apple's negotiating power. Soon after Apple was allowed to drop DRM.
That's funny. That's exactly why I got an iPod. I didn't want DRM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
It is funny how the times change. If one wants DRM free mp3's then an iPod with iTunes is a fine choice.
???
Isn’t DRM the reason you did not get an iPod? (as you wrote previously)
FYI: MP3 does not have (and cannot have) DRM.
AAC & WMA can have DRM.
Like so many things Apple related the media has failed to report and has obfuscated details to make Apple sound like it was doing something much worse than what it was really doing. As others have mentioned Apple never did anything to compel users who had ripped content from CDs to restore their iPods. The broad brush statements accusing Apple of "deleting user's songs" fails to make this point clear. It was only when content from an "untrusted" source was put on an iPod that Apple indicated an error. Apple's response to untrusted content was to protect itself and its business partners from potential harm.
I believe Apple was fully justified in limiting the content that was playable on their own devices because they were committed to providing a quality of service to their users and an assurance of intellectual property protection to their business partners who had invested heavily in the iTunes song-based rather than album-based ecosystem. People forget that Apple had to fight hard to create the $0.99 song marketplace and help legitimate music purchasers avoid paying $10 for an album just to get the one or two songs they really wanted.
My gut feel is that many of the loudest whiners here were trying to use Apple's iPods to further their illegal music acquisition process but were too stupid and/or too lazy to burn their acquisitions to CD before importing them into iTunes. In my opinion Apple actually left a readily available backdoor open for users to exploit Apple's rather weak assurances to the content owners. Rip it from CD. It's mostly the stupidest of the stupid (SoS) and the laziest of the lazy (LoL) who are crying foul here. It's not like there were no rival music players on the market that did not enforce any constraints whatsoever on what content you could put on their devices. I remember quite clearly getting calls from neighbors in this time period asking me to help their kids with "computer problems" in this area. Some parents thought that iPods and other devices and an internet connection allowed their kids access to gigabytes of "free music" that they otherwise would have had to pay for. You can't fix stupid, despite how hard companies like Apple try to protect themselves from stupidity.
This entire thread is moot. There is no aggrieved party in the lawsuit and it'll likely be tossed.
Yes, well, that's why we're 'mooting' it, I suppose.
This analogy really doesn't fit. Let's rework it...
I have a Sony BetaMax machine and another company makes a tape meeting the BetaMax format specifications, but also add a special little button that prevents the tape being copied. It doesn't affect the BetaMax machine at all, but Sony decide to remote update the BetaMax machine (god knows how they do that in the 80s, but stick with it). Now my tapes are useless.
WTF Sony?
And let's be clear, the analogy doesn't really work because BetaMax was a proprietary standard owned by Sony, whereas Apple doesn't own MP3 or AAC at all. Sony could probably get away with saying they were protecting their proprietary format and investments. What excuse do Apple have? Protecting sales from their store is the accusation, which doesn't fly nearly so well.
The fact that they allowed CDs to be ripped doesn't work in their favour, it just highlights a vindictiveness specifically towards other digital download stores.
I disagree: producing hardware that isn't universally usable with all media formats is the point: other system's DRM wasn't functional with an iPod, well, neither was a VHS format tape in a Betamax: ANYONE'S Betamax for that matter. While non-DRM'd tracks, like mine from my CD's, and the iPod was completely compatible, before and after the store was implemented.
Search songs, and you'll find unauthorized postings with lyrics, people dancing to it, or a photo montage. Why aren't those immediately removed? I can listen to more music now than I ever could in the Napster days.
Search songs, and you'll find unauthorized postings with lyrics, people dancing to it, or a photo montage. Why aren't those immediately removed? I can listen to more music now than I ever could in the Napster days.
Plus, Google makes money on these infringing views with their inline and embedded ads. The entire music business should file thousands of lawsuits against YouTube/Google.
Search songs, and you'll find unauthorized postings with lyrics, people dancing to it, or a photo montage. Why aren't those immediately removed? I can listen to more music now than I ever could in the Napster days.
Plus, Google makes money on these infringing views with their inline and embedded ads. The entire music business should file thousands of lawsuits against YouTube/Google.
It’s one more reason why Google needs spend a very long time in the wilderness. They are thieves with no moral compass.