Originally Posted by swordman:
“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.”
“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.)



