[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack06

Well yes Stiggles, this was the question I tried to get answer to earlier in the thread.

Unfortunately, some posters are insistent on muddying the waters with this DRM nonsense, which to be honest, does not have much to do with the real anti-competitive practice here, which was that Apple was deleting consumer data obtained from other sources.

DRM actually has nothing to do with the anti-competitive practice here. It's a factor, not the cause.

DRM policies did not force Apple to deceive consumers and delete their personal data without their consent. Apple made that decision itself, and that is the problem here.

From what I have read so far, Apple claim that the music they removed breached the license agreements they had with record labels.

I don't know enough about the case (or the license agreements) to decide whether that is true or not. However, if it was true, then I don't think removing the illegal music was wrong.

I assume you think they shouldn't have removed it, whatever the circumstance?

[Zack06]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidspud

From what I have read so far, Apple claim that the music they removed breached the license agreements they had with record labels.

I don't know enough about the case (or the license agreements) to decide whether that is true or not. However, if it was true, then I don't think removing the illegal music was wrong.

I assume you think they shouldn't have removed it, whatever the circumstance?

No, if you read back the thread, you'll see that my issue lies with the fact that they deliberately and systematically failed to publicise what they were doing with consumer data.

The user had no idea this was happening until after it had happened. Throwing up a generic "error message" is not a sufficient warning for the selective deletion of personal data, whatever the circumstance.

Also, the music was not necessarily illegal. A consumer who purchased music legally from Real for example, to put on their iPod, would have had it deleted without clear warning, just because Apple was embroiled in disputes about DRM. It's unfair to the consumer, and it was anti-competitive to other stores selling music legally.

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack06

No, if you read back the thread, you'll see that my issue lies with the fact that they deliberately and systematically failed to publicise what they were doing with consumer data.

The user had no idea this was happening until after it had happened. Throwing up a generic "error message" is not a sufficient warning for the selective deletion of personal data, whatever the circumstance.

Also, the music was not necessarily illegal. A consumer who purchased music legally from Real for example, to put on their iPod, would have had it deleted without clear warning, just because Apple was embroiled in disputes about DRM. It's unfair to the consumer, and it was anti-competitive to other stores selling music legally.

I agree, they should have made it clear.

And you are right, I shouldn't have used the words 'illegal', but it is very common that things purchased from one place cannot be consumed elsewhere.

[swordman]

There is no other question than whether apple acted in an uncommunicative manner. Talk around DRM is just the usual diversion tactics of the desperate, much in the same way Amazon was to blame for Apple's crimes in fixing the eBook market. Removing data while totally wrong is just a symptom of this behavior.

Old SJ's

Quote:

We need to make sure that when Music Match launches its download music store it cannot use iPod. Is this going to be an issue

clearly shows the intention of apple, whether this case can hold together against the might of apple, well...

[Zack06]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidspud

I agree, they should have made it clear.

And you are right, I shouldn't have used the words 'illegal', but it is very common that things purchased from one place cannot be consumed elsewhere.

Well that's fair as the consumer does not own the premises in those cases.

But in this case, the consumer owns the device, not Apple, so I don't see why they should be blocked from using a device they paid for, in the way that they want?

[Roush]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack06

Well yes Stiggles, this was the question I tried to get answer to earlier in the thread.

Unfortunately, some posters are insistent on muddying the waters with this DRM nonsense, which to be honest, does not have much to do with the real anti-competitive practice here, which was that Apple was deleting consumer data obtained from other sources.

DRM actually has nothing to do with the anti-competitive practice here. It's a factor, not the cause.

DRM policies did not force Apple to deceive consumers and delete their personal data without their consent. Apple made that decision itself, and that is the problem here.

Do you actually know what this case is about? It has nothing to do with alleged 'deleting' of data (which didn't happen, BTW)

It's an anti-trust case centred around DRM.

The allegations are that Apple sought to maintain its monopolies on the digital music and digital music player markets through the use of DRM (and its subsequent actions to repair breaks in the DRM systems), creating both lock-in and lock-out scenarios.

Read document 788 on the case's electronic docket, a ruling on an Apple motion by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, in which she summaries the case if you require reference material.

The amended complaint, document 382, filed in 2010 is also excellent reading for a blow-by-blow on what this case is about.

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack06

Well that's fair as the consumer does not own the premises in those cases.

But in this case, the consumer owns the device, not Apple, so I don't see why they should be blocked from using a device they paid for, in the way that they want?

As I said, I think it is an interesting argument, but they are not being stopped using the device. They are being stopped using something that breaches a license.

[Zack06]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roush

Do you actually know what this case is about? It has nothing to do with alleged 'deleting' of data (which didn't happen, BTW)

It's an anti-trust case centred around DRM.

The allegations are that Apple sought to maintain its monopolies on the digital music and digital music player markets through the use of DRM (and its subsequent actions to repair breaks in the DRM systems), creating both lock-in and lock-out scenarios.

Read document 788 on the case's electronic docket, a ruling on an Apple motion by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, in which she summaries the case if you require reference material.

The amended complaint, document 382, filed in 2010 is also excellent reading for a blow-by-blow on what this case is about.

So do you want to explain why the Wall Street Journal has direct quotes of evidence given during a lawsuit case stating the contrary?

Quote:

“You guys decided to give them the worst possible experience and blow up” a user’s music library, attorney Patrick Coughlin said in U.S. District Court in Oakland, California

When a user who had downloaded music from a rival service tried to sync an iPod to the user’s iTunes library, Apple would display an error message and instruct the user to restore the factory settings, Coughlin said. When the user restored the settings, the music from rival services would disappear, he said.

Apple directed the system “not to tell users the problem,” Coughlin said.

Giving falsified evidence is a serious offence, so these allegations are not to be taken lightly. I don't think lying to give the illusion you are enlightened about this case is the best decision on your part.

[Gormagon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack06

So do you want to explain why the Wall Street Journal has direct quotes of evidence given during a lawsuit case stating the contrary?



Giving falsified evidence is a serious offence, so these allegations are not to be taken lightly. I don't think lying to give the illusion you are enlightened about this case is the best decision on your part.

The WSJ are reporting evidence given in an ongoing court case. To pull statements made during that case is disingenuous at best. Unless you have specific evidence to present, in which case you should be doing before the court, and not on a forum, we have to allow both sides of the argument to present.

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionic

As far as I'm aware, CD's ripped via iTunes never had DRM added. They could be copied and played anywhere, although by default iTunes used to save them as aac format but it had an option to rip them as standard mp3. However iTunes itself had some weird restrictions when it came to burning your own audio CDs using iTunes though. If I recall correctly it would only let you do it 7 times. But if you had ripped as bog standard mp3 it was easy enough to get around that but using other software to burn the audio CD's such as Roxio etc.

IIRC it would only let you burn any playlist 7 times, a restriction imposed to keep the record companies sweet.

But you could get around it as there was no restriction to the number of playlists you could add tracks to.

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack06

No, if you read back the thread, you'll see that my issue lies with the fact that they deliberately and systematically failed to publicise what they were doing with consumer data.

The user had no idea this was happening until after it had happened. Throwing up a generic "error message" is not a sufficient warning for the selective deletion of personal data, whatever the circumstance.

Also, the music was not necessarily illegal. A consumer who purchased music legally from Real for example, to put on their iPod, would have had it deleted without clear warning, just because Apple was embroiled in disputes about DRM. It's unfair to the consumer, and it was anti-competitive to other stores selling music legally.

It wasn't deleted form their libraries - it just wasn't compatible with the DRM being used on the iPod.

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

There is no other question than whether apple acted in an uncommunicative manner. Talk around DRM is just the usual diversion tactics of the desperate, much in the same way Amazon was to blame for Apple's crimes in fixing the eBook market. Removing data while totally wrong is just a symptom of this behavior.

Old SJ's

clearly shows the intention of apple, whether this case can hold together against the might of apple, well...

I don't know what your problem is, or why you keep saying that, but no-one ever said Amazon were to blame for anything.

Talk around DRM is no such thing - it's the entire crux of the case.

[swordman]

You may claim it is, just as the 'amazon' element was the crux of the ebook scandal. I'm afraid both attempts at deflection are pitifully poor and transparent.

[alanwarwic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack06

...DRM policies did not force Apple to deceive consumers and delete their personal data without their consent....

The thing is,Apple warning the user of what they are going to do would have created other problems for them.

Far safer to keep quiet about it in the safe knowledge that the dependable press wont talk about, which of course they didn't..
The press don't start the conversation unless Apple feeds them something.

As we well know, balanced negatives are not allowed to exist in the Apple media world.

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

You may claim it is, just as the 'amazon' element was the crux of the ebook scandal. I'm afraid both attempts at deflection are pitifully poor and transparent.

I don't think I even said Amazon was the crux of the ebook thing - I just mentioned it as a factor which set the ball in motion. For whatever reason, ever since you have wanted on about me saying Amazon were to blame. Which wasn't actually what I said.

I do think that DRM is at the heart of this case though. if it really had been about limiting iPod content to iTunes purchased content this would have affected non DRM music such as music loaded from CDs.

But it didn't.

In which case it seems absurd that people are trying to argue that the DRM is irrelevant.

[swordman]

Restating something 100 times doesn't make it any more true than the first time, you do know that.

Would be better that you start each post on these subjects with "Not sure what this is about exactly but I can assure you apple are not to blame, here are my reasons why" it would be much simpler for everyone

[calico_pie]

You're absolutely right. It was true the first time.

If you would like to shed any light on why this only affects DRM music but not non DRM music in order to demonstrate that the DRM is irrelevant, then I'm all ears....

[alanwarwic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gormagon

...we have to allow both sides of the argument to present.

Both sides do get discussed. However the other 50% is, as always about giving users the 'run around' enough to, as always, obscure the subject.

Users got sacrificed for gain, it is as simple as that.

[calico_pie]

I understand that you would like to reduce the whole thing to Apple were the bad guys, and everything was their fault, and they only ever sought to screw users over for their own gain.

But it really isn't as simple as that at all.

At the time the record companies were reluctant to embrace digital downloads because of what had been happening with file sharing / Napster.

So in order for Apple (or indeed anyone) to get started with a digital music store, the record companies had most of the clout and so imposed restrictions through DRM. If anyone was looking after their own interests it was the record companies.

Think about it - Apple made most of their money by selling iPods, not by selling music on iTunes.

So it wasn't even really in their interests to restrict what people could play on their iPods.

Which again brings us back to the fact that non DRM music from CDs wasn't affected.

Presumably your argument is that Apple removed music because they only wanted people to be able to play music purchased on iTunes.

But the fact that none of this affected music bought on CD tells us otherwise.

I've asked you already why that might be, but you have declined to answer up until now.

Any thoughts yet?

[Stiggles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

I understand that you would like to reduce the whole thing to Apple were the bad guys, and everything was their fault, and they only ever sought to screw users over for their own gain.

But it really isn't as simple as that at all.

At the time the record companies were reluctant to embrace digital downloads because of what had been happening with file sharing / Napster.

So in order for Apple (or indeed anyone) to get started with a digital music store, the record companies had most of the clout and so imposed restrictions through DRM. If anyone was looking after their own interests it was the record companies.

Think about it - Apple made most of their money by selling iPods, not by selling music on iTunes.

So it wasn't even really in their interests to restrict what people could play on their iPods.

Which again brings us back to the fact that non DRM music from CDs wasn't affected.

Presumably your argument is that Apple removed music because they only wanted people to be able to play music purchased on iTunes.

But the fact that none of this affected music bought on CD tells us otherwise.

I've asked you already why that might be, but you have declined to answer up until now.

Any thoughts yet?

It is as simple as that.

Apple have always liked to control what users do with their devices whether they make money out of it or not. Only recently have iphone users been allowed to add widgets to their phones!

It wasn't anything to do with Napster. Music companies and movie companies have always been reluctant to move to digital as it's far cheaper. They have always been way behind the times on this and still are to a point.

You are doing what you always do. Pick one thing and stick with it. This time it's DRM that's apparently to blame for apples decision to remove users music from their devices!! Apple don't know where the users music came from, so they had no business removing it from anyone's device.

CD users weren't affected because they used itunes to rip the CD. If they were simply in MP3 format in a users library, they would have been deleted from the device as well.

It's incredible you think again they haven't done anything wrong and can't just say, "yep, they were complete morons to do that." and be done with it instead of the utter tripe we have to endure from you. Its always the "everyone else is wrong and I'm right" attitude from you. Oh, and before you start on the "who is everyone", that will be the 98% majority who think you are incorrect again.

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

It is as simple as that.

Apple have always liked to control what users do with their devices whether they make money out of it or not. Only recently have iphone users been allowed to add widgets to their phones!

It wasn't anything to do with Napster. Music companies and movie companies have always been reluctant to move to digital as it's far cheaper. They have always been way behind the times on this and still are to a point.

You are doing what you always do. Pick one thing and stick with it. This time it's DRM that's apparently to blame for apples decision to remove users music from their devices!! Apple don't know where the users music came from, so they had no business removing it from anyone's device.

CD users weren't affected because they used itunes to rip the CD. If they were simply in MP3 format in a users library, they would have been deleted from the device as well.

It's incredible you think again they haven't done anything wrong and can't just say, "yep, they were complete morons to do that." and be done with it instead of the utter tripe we have to endure from you. Its always the "everyone else is wrong and I'm right" attitude from you. Oh, and before you start on the "who is everyone", that will be the 98% majority who think you are incorrect again.

I'm pretty sure the ease in which people could share files using Napster was a huge part of why the record companies wanted DRM to prevent that. Are you seriously disputing that?

Re:BIB - I'm not sure about this. When you say 'CD users weren't affected because they used iTunes to rip the CD'. So what? Users were using iTunes to get the music from Real onto the iPod too.

Why were the tracks from Real being deleted, but not the ones from CDs?

As far as I know they were not deleting any old DRM free mp3 - what makes you think they were? I'm pretty sure you're wrong there.

If you're interested, this might be worth a read.

"The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music."

I'm not even saying they have done nothing wrong. I'm saying there were reasons why they did what they did, all tied up in the deals with the record companies and the DRM imposed by the record companies. This insistence from yourself and others that none of that is relevant beggars belief to be honest.

To paraphrase: It's incredible you can't see that and can't just say, "Yep, I can see that its not that simple." Instead of having to endure you getting on some sort of moral high horse and you wanging on about having an attitude.

This notion you have that you are just posting an opinion, but I somehow have an attitude is just utter nonsense. I just have a different opinion to you. And I would very much doubt that just 2% of a wider population would think that DRM was not a key part of this.

Having a different opinion to Stiggles is not an attitude.

Feel free to dismiss all of this, in your usual dismissive style. But it doesn't make for a very constructive discussion.

[swordman]

Amazing the spectrum of responses here.

non apple downloads were "illegal", punters should expect their ipods "wiped", can't play xbox games on playstation, apple didn't have a problem with you playing your own bought music.

Fascinating the lengths people go to, without actually understanding anything.

[Stiggles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

I'm pretty sure the ease in which people could share files using Napster was a huge part of why the record companies wanted DRM to prevent that. Are you seriously disputing that?

Yes i am. DRM would have happened with or without Napster. Do you have any proof to the contrary, or are you just posting your opinion?

Quote:

Re:BIB - I'm not sure about this. When you say 'CD users weren't affected because they used iTunes to rip the CD'. So what? Users were using iTunes to get the music from Real onto the iPod too.

Why were the tracks from Real being deleted, but not the ones from CDs

As far as I know they were not deleting any old DRM free mp3 - what makes you think they were? I'm pretty sure you're wrong there.

Even if its not true, it was just a theory really, it still doesnt make it right. They have zero right to delete anything from anyone's library full stop.

Quote:

If you're interested, this might be worth a read.

"The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music."

I'm not even saying they have done nothing wrong. I'm saying there were reasons why they did what they did, all tied up in the deals with the record companies and the DRM imposed by the record companies. This insistence from yourself and others that none of that is relevant beggars belief to be honest.

There are no reasons to do what they did. If for some reason they felt there was a reason, they should have told users instead of hiding behind an error message.

Quote:

To paraphrase: It's incredible you can't see that and can't just say, "Yep, I can see that its not that simple." Instead of having to endure you getting on some sort of moral high horse and you wanging on about having an attitude.

This notion you have that you are just posting an opinion, but I somehow have an attitude is just utter nonsense. I just have a different opinion to you. And I would very much doubt that just 2% of a wider population would think that DRM was not a key part of this.

Having a different opinion to Stiggles is not an attitude.

You do have an attitude on here whether you care to agree or not. You talk about me thinking i have a moral high ground. I'm not the one who spends his time constantly on here telling people they are wrong and that their favourite company can do no wrong. That's you.

Quote:

Feel free to dismiss all of this, in your usual dismissive style. But it doesn't make for a very constructive discussion.

What, just like you dismiss everything everyone says on here all the time.. Bit rich isn't it?

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

Amazing the spectrum of responses here.

non apple downloads were "illegal", punters should expect their ipods "wiped", can't play xbox games on playstation, apple didn't have a problem with you playing your own bought music.

Fascinating the lengths people go to, without actually understanding anything.

Not forgetting the claim that talk about DRM was a diversion from a lawsuit focused around DRM

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

Yes i am. DRM would have happened with or without Napster. Do you have any proof to the contrary, or are you just posting your opinion?

I didn't say DRM wouldn't have happened without Napster. But obviously Napster highlighted how easy it was to illegally distribute digital content on a massive scale, and DRM was primarily a means to prevent the illegal distribution of digital content on a massive scale.

Quote:

Even if its not true, it was just a theory really, it still doesnt make it right. They have zero right to delete anything from anyone's library full stop.

They weren't deleting anything from anyone's library - they were removing it from the iPod.

Quote:

There are no reasons to do what they did. If for some reason they felt there was a reason, they should have told users instead of hiding behind an error message.

That's just it - there were reasons. reasons I've been discussing. That you don't feel those reasons justify their actions is one thing - but it doesn't make those reasons magically disappear.

Quote:

You do have an attitude on here whether you care to agree or not. You talk about me thinking i have a moral high ground. I'm not the one who spends his time constantly on here telling people they are wrong and that their favourite company can do no wrong. That's you.

What, just like you dismiss everything everyone says on here all the time.. Bit rich isn't it?

There is no attitude - just a difference of opinion.

And no - I'm not just dismissing everything. I'm making perfectly valid points:

- DRM is at the centre of this, as evidenced by the fact that non DRM music was not affected.

- DRM was imposed by the record companies, not Apple. Had Apple not used DRM, the big four record companies would not have granted the rights for the music.

- the agreement between Apple and the record companies required Apple to patch the DRM if it was hacked or broken, or face losing the rights.

- to prevent that happening Apple neither licensed Fairplay or supported other drm.

- it seems perverse that you are trying to argue that DRM is irrelevant given that the plaintiffs themselves seem to think that it is:

"the plaintiffs in this lawsuit argue that Apple misused its DRM technology to prevent consumers from being able to play music purchased from third-party music stores. The lawsuit focuses in particular on how Apple allegedly used its DRM technology to stifle competition from Real Networks, a competitor in the online music market.

Your counter arguments:

- non of the above is relevant.

- i have an attitude problem.

- 98% of people (ie you, Swordsman and Alan) disagree with me.

- I'm saying all of the above because I like Apple.

- i spend more time discussing this than you.

So given that the former are reasonable arguments, and the latter are dismissive and add virtually nothing constructive to the discussion then no - not in the least bit rich.