Apple in court over anticompetitive behaviour again

calico_pie · 13-12-2014, 14:32

Quote:

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/12/...k-competitors/

http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/13/a...s-competitors/

I thought we already pretty much knew that, and it had the caveat:

WSJ notes that outside the courtroom, Schultz said his team's early work was necessary for digital copyright protection

Can anyone explain how making the iPod more restrictive increased it's price though?

swordman · 13-12-2014, 15:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by slattery69

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.

Can't find where it mentions DRM there

calico_pie · 13-12-2014, 17:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

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.

swordman · 13-12-2014, 17:59

ok

calico_pie · 13-12-2014, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

ok

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?

kidspud · 13-12-2014, 19:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

Can't find where it mentions DRM there

Try reading the court papers.

alanwarwic · 13-12-2014, 19:19

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.

kidspud · 13-12-2014, 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

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.

swordman · 14-12-2014, 00:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

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?

No just you as per usual

swordman · 14-12-2014, 00:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidspud

Try reading the court papers.

Sorry I thought as you were claiming it was the 'crux' of the case it would be mentioned there

Never mind

calico_pie · 14-12-2014, 00:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

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.

calico_pie · 14-12-2014, 00:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

No just you as per usual

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?

swordman · 14-12-2014, 00:59

Largely spot on yes.

To do what?

calico_pie · 14-12-2014, 01:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

Largely spot on yes.

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.

Quote:

To do what?

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.)

calico_pie · 14-12-2014, 01:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

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.

The software was the DRM.

swordman · 14-12-2014, 01:30

Not read any of those links to know they say nothing that correlates to your ramblings on here.

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

Quote:

Prevent iPods from playing songs not purchased on iTunes.

More luck I would guess though

Stiggles · 14-12-2014, 02:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

On the subject of rudeness.

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.

kidspud · 14-12-2014, 06:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

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.

alanwarwic · 14-12-2014, 10:53

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.

kidspud · 14-12-2014, 11:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

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.

calico_pie · 14-12-2014, 12:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

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.

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.

calico_pie · 14-12-2014, 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

Not read any of those links to know they say nothing that correlates to your ramblings on here.

Presumably apart from all the references to DRM.

Quote:

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

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.....

Stiggles · 14-12-2014, 12:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

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.

That's hypocrisy!!

calico_pie · 14-12-2014, 13:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

swordman · 14-12-2014, 13:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Presumably apart from all the references to 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

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

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.

13-12-2014, 14:32	#276
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by Everything Goes http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/12/...k-competitors/ http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/13/a...s-competitors/ I thought we already pretty much knew that, and it had the caveat: WSJ notes that outside the courtroom, Schultz said his team's early work was necessary for digital copyright protection Can anyone explain how making the iPod more restrictive increased it's price though?

14-12-2014, 02:47	#292
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Nigel Farage's golden boy's rant at 'p****s', 'Chigwell Peasants' and 'C*** bird' Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie On the subject of rudeness. 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.

13-12-2014, 15:55	#277
swordman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 6,342	Quote: Originally Posted by slattery69 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. Can't find where it mentions DRM there

13-12-2014, 17:06	#278
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by swordman 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.

13-12-2014, 17:59	#279
swordman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 6,342	ok

13-12-2014, 18:32	#280
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by swordman ok 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?

13-12-2014, 19:10	#281
kidspud Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 11,501	Quote: Originally Posted by swordman Can't find where it mentions DRM there Try reading the court papers.

13-12-2014, 19:19	#282
alanwarwic Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: the wild world web Posts: 28,132	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.

13-12-2014, 19:22	#283
kidspud Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 11,501	Quote: Originally Posted by alanwarwic 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.

14-12-2014, 00:43	#284
swordman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 6,342	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie 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? No just you as per usual

14-12-2014, 00:45	#285
swordman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 6,342	Quote: Originally Posted by kidspud Try reading the court papers. Sorry I thought as you were claiming it was the 'crux' of the case it would be mentioned there Never mind

14-12-2014, 00:54	#286
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by alanwarwic 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.

14-12-2014, 00:57	#287
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by swordman No just you as per usual 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?

14-12-2014, 00:59	#288
swordman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 6,342	Largely spot on yes. To do what?

14-12-2014, 01:07	#289
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by swordman Largely spot on yes. 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. Quote: To do what? 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.)

14-12-2014, 01:13	#290
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by swordman 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. The software was the DRM.

14-12-2014, 01:30	#291
swordman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 6,342	Not read any of those links to know they say nothing that correlates to your ramblings on here. 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 Quote: Prevent iPods from playing songs not purchased on iTunes. More luck I would guess though

14-12-2014, 06:22	#293
kidspud Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 11,501	Quote: Originally Posted by swordman 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.

14-12-2014, 10:53	#294
alanwarwic Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: the wild world web Posts: 28,132	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.

14-12-2014, 11:32	#295
kidspud Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 11,501	Quote: Originally Posted by alanwarwic 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.

14-12-2014, 12:19	#296
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by Stiggles 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. 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.

14-12-2014, 12:29	#297
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by swordman Not read any of those links to know they say nothing that correlates to your ramblings on here. Presumably apart from all the references to DRM. Quote: 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 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.....

DS Forums

Apple in court over anticompetitive behaviour again

14-12-2014, 12:50	#298
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie 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. That's hypocrisy!!

14-12-2014, 13:17	#299
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by Stiggles 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. Quote: 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. Quote: 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. Quote: 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.

14-12-2014, 13:17	#300
swordman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 6,342	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie Presumably apart from all the references to 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 Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie 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.