this is a link to what the plaintiffs are taking apple to court for- https://ipodlawsuit.com
this was the original sign up page if you wanted to be part of the class action law suit.
"The lawsuit claims that Apple violated federal and state laws by issuing software updates in 2006 for its iPod that prevented iPods from playing songs not purchased on.
The result really relies on whether Apple are/were allowed to sell an iPod that only allowed online music purchases via iTunes.
Walled garden, you pays your money you takes your chance?
Of interest, so as not to threaten less, MusicMatch did seem to sell tracks at exactly the same price as iTunes.
I bet Apple's main gripe was that these tracks would work on other devices too. Of course, people using Windows and the iPod had gotten used to the bundled MusicMatch so a forced change was needed to push users into line.
The result really relies on whether Apple are/were allowed to sell an iPod that only allowed online music purchases via iTunes.
Walled garden, you pays your money you takes your chance?
Of interest, so as not to threaten less, MusicMatch did seem to sell tracks at exactly the same price as iTunes.
I bet Apple's main gripe was that these tracks would work on other devices too. Of course, people using Windows and the iPod had gotten used to the bundled MusicMatch so a forced change was needed to push users into line.
You have always been about to add music that was not purchased via iTunes.
The vast majority of my music at that time was purchased from allofmp3.
Every commentary on the trial seems to think that it was.
Have they all gotten it wrong too? Seems strange that everyone seems to think this is about DRM if isn't.
If they weren't using DRM to do this, what were they using?
The result really relies on whether Apple are/were allowed to sell an iPod that only allowed online music purchases via iTunes.
Walled garden, you pays your money you takes your chance?
Of interest, so as not to threaten less, MusicMatch did seem to sell tracks at exactly the same price as iTunes.
I bet Apple's main gripe was that these tracks would work on other devices too. Of course, people using Windows and the iPod had gotten used to the bundled MusicMatch so a forced change was needed to push users into line.
Hi Alan - you obviously know a lot about this.
If you could answer any of my questions in recent posts I think I'd find that helpful.
If not, I'll assume you are ignoring them because you are unable to, which I would understand completely.
Sorry I thought as you were claiming it was the 'crux' of the case it would be mentioned there
Never mind
It is the crux of the case.
See where it says:
"The lawsuit claims that Apple violated federal and state laws by issuing software updates in 2006 for its iPod that prevented iPods from playing songs not purchased on.
Sorry I thought as you were claiming it was the 'crux' of the case it would be mentioned there
Never mind
Don't be sorry, I fully understand how you struggle to understand anything you have to read.
The sign on sheet that seems to be the only thing you have looked at does not in anyway detail the 'crux' of the matter. Just reading (and understanding) it will show you that.
Now if you want to go off and read the papers submitted to the court (to help you out, try reading the 1st paper submitted) and then come back and give your informed view
I'm sure it won't change your mind because you seem unable to admit any misunderstanding you make (despite making them constantly), but at least when you come back on here it will give me something else to laugh at.
Someone should really write a comedy drama based on an imaginary tech company.(Channel 4 , are you listening)
There is enough stuff out there to make a whole series. Forums and Wiki wars are choice cuts.
I could not see any legal problem whatsoever, in that, even if everyone knew who the tech company was, the risk of source material coming out would likely be deemed more disparaging than fiction.
Someone should really write a comedy drama based on an imaginary tech company.(Channel 4 , are you listening)
There is enough stuff out there to make a whole series. Forums and Wiki wars are choice cuts.
I could not see any legal problem whatsoever, in that, even if everyone knew who the tech company was, the risk of source material coming out would likely be deemed more disparaging than fiction.
Yes, they should definately do one on an imaginary company. You could be a script writer.
You accuse people of being rude, yet you are one of, if not the most rude and obnoxious people on here.
Not really - me saying I think you are rude is not me being rude. I say it because you often are quite rude. I'm certain not the only one to think that.
If you want to give any examples of where you feel I've been rude, I'd be quite happy to apologise. Unlike you, who decided to go with calling me rude and obnoxious instead.
Not really - me saying I think you are rude is not me being rude. I say it because you often are quite rude. I'm certain not the only one to think that.
If you want to give any examples of where you feel I've been rude, I'd be quite happy to apologise. Unlike you, who decided to go with calling me rude and obnoxious instead.
The hypocrisy and irony is staggering.
I already have given examples from one post, but as always you brushed them aside. Although in fairness your list was nothing. I wouldn't class telling the truth as being rude. You for example, look for rudeness in every post anyone makes. It's your classic closing line.
And I'm not the only one who thinks you are rude, obnoxious and probably the most unfriendly person on here. There are 2 people on here that consistently back you up. No one else does. Its those people who see you as this.
You would never be happy to apologise. Not once have you ever done that on here. Oh, but I have....
I wish you would stop banging on about hypocrisy though just because someone thinks you are what you have accused someone else as being.
I already have given examples from one post, but as always you brushed them aside. Although in fairness your list was nothing. I wouldn't class telling the truth as being rude. You for example, look for rudeness in every post anyone makes. It's your classic closing line.
You mean where I described this:
"Well i suggest you hop on over and tell apple you have it sussed then.
Since you know it all as always, and think you are spot on, I'm sure you can squash this case immediately!!"
As unconstructive childish sarcasm? It was, so I didn't think an apology was needed.
Anyway - what was that? One example compared to your steady stream.
And I'm not the only one who thinks you are rude, obnoxious and probably the most unfriendly person on here. There are 2 people on here that consistently back you up. No one else does. Its those people who see you as this.
Didn't realise we were keeping a score of who was backing who up. But as far as I can tell you like to assume that anyone who doesn't specifically say they agree with me, must agree with you. That's a logical fallacy.
But if you do want to keep some sort of score, there are only a few posters who regularly bother with these discussions, and only really yourself and one or two others that seem to make the discussions such hard work.
By my arithmetic that certainly doesn't make it the 98% / 2% split you suggested earlier.
You would never be happy to apologise. Not once have you ever done that on here. Oh, but I have....
If you apologised, I must have missed it. Post 292 certainly didn't seem much of an apology.
I wish you would stop banging on about hypocrisy though just because someone thinks you are what you have accused someone else as being.
That's hypocrisy!!
No - the hypocrisy is that you call me rude and obnoxious, when its almost always you being rude.
In the first link you provided I saw no mention of DRM, can you point it out to me then. The article should be riddled with it as it is the 'crux' of the case, odd
See where it says: "Prevent iPods from playing songs not purchased on iTunes."
They did this using DRM. It Manages the Rights of Digital music to do things like prevent music with incompatible DRM from being supported.
(And even then, its not quite right, because it only applies to music with non FairPlay DRM. DRM free music always played just fine.)
Again, if I have misunderstood that, by all means explain what they do use to do this.
You're very good at telling people they are wrong, but not so good at correcting them.
Possible because the people you are saying are wrong, actually aren't wrong at all.
But as I say, I'll happily stand corrected.....
They prevented it via a software update, what that updated did DRM or not is largely irrelevant.
Your ramblings on this thread about the music industry forcing apple into DRm, apple fighting for the consumer to remove it etc etc etc are simply smoke screens as per usual to deflect from the issue.
DRM was in place, (whether apple were forced to use is all irrelevant) it was being used and was in place. Apple were already complaint with the music industry needs as you have claimed, there was no need for further action. However this software update removed the ability of the competition (it is claimed) to compete, this software update was done solely for the reason to prevent this competition - that is the crux of the case.
How this software update achieved this is a side issue and not the crux of the case. The case would be the same if it was achieved through alternate methods other than DRM.
In the first link you provided I saw no mention of DRM, can you point it out to me then. The article should be riddled with it as it is the 'crux' of the case, odd
They prevented it via a software update, what that updated did DRM or not is largely irrelevant.
Your ramblings on this thread about the music industry forcing apple into DRm, apple fighting for the consumer to remove it etc etc etc are simply smoke screens as per usual to deflect from the issue.
DRM was in place, (whether apple were forced to use is all irrelevant) it was being used and was in place. Apple were already complaint with the music industry needs as you have claimed, there was no need for further action. However this software update removed the ability of the competition (it is claimed) to compete, this software update was done solely for the reason to prevent this competition.
How this software update achieved this is a side issue and not the crux of the case. The case would be the same if it was achieved through alternate methods other than DRM.
Its in the article title.
And when the article mentions preventing music from playing, that's a reference to DRM.
That you don't seem to be grasping that unless it literally mentions "DRM" every time it mentions "preventing music from playing" isn't my problem.
The case would be the same if they used something else. But obviously whatever they used is the crux of the case.
It literally makes no sense to agree that the case is about "preventing music from playing on an iPod", but not about DRM when those two things are, to all intent and purpose, synonymous.
The software they updated was the DRM. (or, if you want to be really pedantic the part of the software that unlocked the DRM to allow the track to play.)
Comments
Can't find where it mentions DRM there
See where it says:
"The lawsuit claims that Apple violated federal and state laws by issuing software updates in 2006 for its iPod that prevented iPods from playing songs not purchased on.
The software was the DRM.
Every commentary on the trial seems to think that it was.
Have they all gotten it wrong too? Seems strange that everyone seems to think this is about DRM if isn't.
Apple faces trial in decade-old iTunes DRM lawsuit
Apple DRM trial now hinges on mystery iPod as plaintiff dismissed
Apple ends its arguments in the DRM trial, but it’s far from over
If they weren't using DRM to do this, what were they using?
Try reading the court papers.
Walled garden, you pays your money you takes your chance?
Of interest, so as not to threaten less, MusicMatch did seem to sell tracks at exactly the same price as iTunes.
I bet Apple's main gripe was that these tracks would work on other devices too. Of course, people using Windows and the iPod had gotten used to the bundled MusicMatch so a forced change was needed to push users into line.
You have always been about to add music that was not purchased via iTunes.
The vast majority of my music at that time was purchased from allofmp3.
No just you as per usual
Sorry I thought as you were claiming it was the 'crux' of the case it would be mentioned there
Never mind
Hi Alan - you obviously know a lot about this.
If you could answer any of my questions in recent posts I think I'd find that helpful.
If not, I'll assume you are ignoring them because you are unable to, which I would understand completely.
So if I mention it, I've got it wrong...
But if anyone else mentions it, they haven't got it wrong.
So how does that work exactly?
I'll ask again - if they weren't using DRM to do this, what were they using?
To do what?
You've lost me.
Can you explain how, if I say something, I'm wrong.
But if other people say the exact same thing they are not wrong?
Even by your standards, that makes absolutely no sense.
Why? Have you forgotten what it was you are saying I'm wrong about?
Prevent iPods from playing songs not purchased on iTunes.
(Although really its songs using non FairPlay DRM - DRM free songs would play on an iPod just fine.)
It is the crux of the case.
See where it says:
"The lawsuit claims that Apple violated federal and state laws by issuing software updates in 2006 for its iPod that prevented iPods from playing songs not purchased on.
The software was the DRM.
Actually just for certainty I read the first one and yes I am right.
You have through your ramblings managed to get something right in fairness
More luck I would guess though
Ever thought you bring it on yourself?..
You accuse people of being rude, yet you are one of, if not the most rude and obnoxious people on here.
Don't be sorry, I fully understand how you struggle to understand anything you have to read.
The sign on sheet that seems to be the only thing you have looked at does not in anyway detail the 'crux' of the matter. Just reading (and understanding) it will show you that.
Now if you want to go off and read the papers submitted to the court (to help you out, try reading the 1st paper submitted) and then come back and give your informed view
I'm sure it won't change your mind because you seem unable to admit any misunderstanding you make (despite making them constantly), but at least when you come back on here it will give me something else to laugh at.
There is enough stuff out there to make a whole series. Forums and Wiki wars are choice cuts.
I could not see any legal problem whatsoever, in that, even if everyone knew who the tech company was, the risk of source material coming out would likely be deemed more disparaging than fiction.
Yes, they should definately do one on an imaginary company. You could be a script writer.
Not really - me saying I think you are rude is not me being rude. I say it because you often are quite rude. I'm certain not the only one to think that.
If you want to give any examples of where you feel I've been rude, I'd be quite happy to apologise. Unlike you, who decided to go with calling me rude and obnoxious instead.
The hypocrisy and irony is staggering.
Presumably apart from all the references to DRM.
See where it says:
"Prevent iPods from playing songs not purchased on iTunes."
They did this using DRM. It Manages the Rights of Digital music to do things like prevent music with incompatible DRM from being supported.
(And even then, its not quite right, because it only applies to music with non FairPlay DRM. DRM free music always played just fine.)
Again, if I have misunderstood that, by all means explain what they do use to do this.
You're very good at telling people they are wrong, but not so good at correcting them.
Possible because the people you are saying are wrong, actually aren't wrong at all.
But as I say, I'll happily stand corrected.....
I already have given examples from one post, but as always you brushed them aside. Although in fairness your list was nothing. I wouldn't class telling the truth as being rude. You for example, look for rudeness in every post anyone makes. It's your classic closing line.
And I'm not the only one who thinks you are rude, obnoxious and probably the most unfriendly person on here. There are 2 people on here that consistently back you up. No one else does. Its those people who see you as this.
You would never be happy to apologise. Not once have you ever done that on here. Oh, but I have....
I wish you would stop banging on about hypocrisy though just because someone thinks you are what you have accused someone else as being.
That's hypocrisy!!
You mean where I described this:
"Well i suggest you hop on over and tell apple you have it sussed then.
Since you know it all as always, and think you are spot on, I'm sure you can squash this case immediately!!"
As unconstructive childish sarcasm? It was, so I didn't think an apology was needed.
Anyway - what was that? One example compared to your steady stream.
Didn't realise we were keeping a score of who was backing who up. But as far as I can tell you like to assume that anyone who doesn't specifically say they agree with me, must agree with you. That's a logical fallacy.
But if you do want to keep some sort of score, there are only a few posters who regularly bother with these discussions, and only really yourself and one or two others that seem to make the discussions such hard work.
By my arithmetic that certainly doesn't make it the 98% / 2% split you suggested earlier.
If you apologised, I must have missed it. Post 292 certainly didn't seem much of an apology.
No - the hypocrisy is that you call me rude and obnoxious, when its almost always you being rude.
In the first link you provided I saw no mention of DRM, can you point it out to me then. The article should be riddled with it as it is the 'crux' of the case, odd
They prevented it via a software update, what that updated did DRM or not is largely irrelevant.
Your ramblings on this thread about the music industry forcing apple into DRm, apple fighting for the consumer to remove it etc etc etc are simply smoke screens as per usual to deflect from the issue.
DRM was in place, (whether apple were forced to use is all irrelevant) it was being used and was in place. Apple were already complaint with the music industry needs as you have claimed, there was no need for further action. However this software update removed the ability of the competition (it is claimed) to compete, this software update was done solely for the reason to prevent this competition - that is the crux of the case.
How this software update achieved this is a side issue and not the crux of the case. The case would be the same if it was achieved through alternate methods other than DRM.
Its in the article title.
And when the article mentions preventing music from playing, that's a reference to DRM.
That you don't seem to be grasping that unless it literally mentions "DRM" every time it mentions "preventing music from playing" isn't my problem.
The case would be the same if they used something else. But obviously whatever they used is the crux of the case.
It literally makes no sense to agree that the case is about "preventing music from playing on an iPod", but not about DRM when those two things are, to all intent and purpose, synonymous.
The software they updated was the DRM. (or, if you want to be really pedantic the part of the software that unlocked the DRM to allow the track to play.)