• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • Mobile Phones
Apple in court over anticompetitive behaviour again
<<
<
6 of 13
>>
>
calico_pie
09-12-2014
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.”

You're not kidding!
swordman
09-12-2014
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“Not forgetting the claim that talk about DRM was a diversion from a lawsuit focused around DRM”

No claim fact, unlike your view that anything downloaded outside of apple is illegal. What a fascinating insight into the mind of the manipulated and uninformed
Stiggles
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“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.”

Distribution was on a massive scale before Napster!! Napster had nothing to do with it.
Copying things was huge before the interwebz came along. Even when the interwebz came along, downloading was huge from newsgroups, Kazaa etc etc...

The industry just didn't know what to do. Napster was the biggest single site with the largest volume of users at the time and they went for that.

The industry are still clueless right now both in music and movies.

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

From the library on the ipod. Which is what i meant. Still doesn't detract from the fact they should never have done it. If they felt they had a reason, they should have informed the user. They didn't.

Quote:
“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.”

No, the reasons your discussing are thinking as always that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Thats the issue here again. You are not correct. This had zero to do with DRM and everything to do with apple wanting to control what went on somones device they bought. Why don't you understand that?

Quote:
“There is no attitude - just a difference of opinion.”

Its always a difference of opinion with you. There is nothing apple will do that you will ever hold your hands up and admit was foolish. The attitude comes from your arrogance in thinking everything you say is correct and apple never do anything wrong. We have seen this all before.

Quote:
“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.”

No. you are making no point at all. You are simply copying what someone else is saying. As usual.

Quote:
“Your counter arguments:

- non of the above is relevant.”

Because it isn't. You are looking as always for a way for apple not to be blamed for this. All you spout out is DRM this, DRM that. Look at the big picture for once. It's not hard to miss.

Quote:
“- i have an attitude problem.”

You do.

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

And the others.

Quote:
“- I'm saying all of the above because I like Apple.”

Which is more than accurate.

Quote:
“- i spend more time discussing this than you.”

Are you disagreeing with this point?

Quote:
“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.”

Except they are not reasonable arguments. Repeating what some article has said with absolutely no thought process added from you shows it is a bit rich.

You rely on what you read in a positive light about apple and repeat the same tired nonsense over and over. I rely on positive, negative and neutral. I have no axe to grind with them and i don't hate apple. I would say the exact same thing if it was any company. Do stupid things, deserve a kicking.
kidspud
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by swordman:
“No claim fact, unlike your view that anything downloaded outside of apple is illegal. What a fascinating insight into the mind of the manipulated and uninformed ”

Except for as usual your complete inability to follow a thread is demonstrated (hardly surprising with your history of lying in this forum).

I reacted my use if the word illegal in my very next post.

Now, why does the case keep referring to DRM?
swordman
10-12-2014
Lying is not really an acceptable term for a forum is it, you should try and be a little more respectful to people, hard as that obviously it's for you.

The fact you realised how foolish you looked after doesn't alter the fact that you thought this was the case, says everything about your mindset.

I thought you admitted earlier you had little idea about this issue, what have you got now then, just enough information to play the dutiful sidekick yet again.
kidspud
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by swordman:
“Lying is not really an acceptable term for a forum is it, you should try and be a little more respectful to people, hard as that obviously it's for you.

The fact you realised how foolish you looked after doesn't alter the fact that you thought this was the case, says everything about your mindset.

I thought you admitted earlier you had little idea about this issue, what have you got now then, just enough information to play the dutiful sidekick yet again.”

Are you saying you didn't lie? You had plenty of chances at the time to admit that you had completely misunderstood the article, but you chose not too had tried to continue with the lie.

And you are right about one thing (well done). The fact I'm happy to correct myself says a great deal about me. The fact you think someone correcting themselves makes them look foolish says a great deal about you.

There was some very useful information provided by Roush, maybe you should read it.

Now, why does the case make so many references to DRM?
calico_pie
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by Stiggles:
“Distribution was on a massive scale before Napster!! Napster had nothing to do with it.
Copying things was huge before the interwebz came along. Even when the interwebz came along, downloading was huge from newsgroups, Kazaa etc etc...

The industry just didn't know what to do. Napster was the biggest single site with the largest volume of users at the time and they went for that.

The industry are still clueless right now both in music and movies.”

You are still taking this too literally. I'm not saying that Napster, and Napster alone was responsible for DRM. But clearly it was a high profile example of something the record companies saw as a threat, and highlighted to them the need to somehow prevent that from happening.

"Napster" was more of an example, rather than the be all and end all.

Quote:
“From the library on the ipod. Which is what i meant. Still doesn't detract from the fact they should never have done it. If they felt they had a reason, they should have informed the user. They didn't.

No, the reasons your discussing are thinking as always that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Thats the issue here again. You are not correct. This had zero to do with DRM and everything to do with apple wanting to control what went on somones device they bought. Why don't you understand that?”

Its not that I don't understand that. I understand it perfectly well, I just don't think its that simple.

reBIB - really that should read:

everything to do with apple wanting to control what went on somones device they bought, through the use of DRM.

The whole case against Apple is that they sought to use DRM in an anti-competitive manner to prevent music from competitors digital stores from playing on the iPod.

How exactly can that not be about DRM?

Even if those tracks had not gotten on the iPod in the first place, and subsequently removed, the case would still be made. The issue is not that Apple removed tracks, the issue is that Apple sought to prevent the tracks from getting on the iPod in the first place.

The case boils down to this:

If the plaintiffs can amply demonstrate that Apple sought to use DRM in an anti-competitive manner to prevent music from competitors digital stores from playing on the iPod, Apple will be found guilty.

If Apple can amply demonstrate that they were compelled to use DRM by the record companies, and that it was impractical to licence their DRM out or support other DRM, Apple will be not found guilty.

Quote:
“Its always a difference of opinion with you. There is nothing apple will do that you will ever hold your hands up and admit was foolish. The attitude comes from your arrogance in thinking everything you say is correct and apple never do anything wrong. We have seen this all before.”

There is no attitude - all of the above is absolutely reasonable, and precisely what the case is about.

Quote:
“No. you are making no point at all. You are simply copying what someone else is saying. As usual.”

Well, that's what the case is about. It would be difficult to explain what the case is about without paraphrasing what has been written about the case elsewhere.

Quote:
“Because it isn't. You are looking as always for a way for apple not to be blamed for this. All you spout out is DRM this, DRM that. Look at the big picture for once. It's not hard to miss.”

"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."

I'm finding it literally unbelievable you can read the above paragraph, and still insist that this has nothing to do with DRM.

DRM is the big picture. That some tracks were removed from some iPods is only part of that big picture.

Quote:
“You do.”

No, I really don't. You just seem to have a problem with people disagreeing with you.

Quote:
“And the others.”

Were there?

Quote:
“Which is more than accurate.”

Nice edit. Either that or a reasonable understanding of what the case is about. One of the two.

Quote:
“Are you disagreeing with this point?”

I'm saying its not a very constructive argument.

Quote:
“Except they are not reasonable arguments. Repeating what some article has said with absolutely no thought process added from you shows it is a bit rich.”

They're not only reasonable, they are precisely what the case is about.

Quote:
“You rely on what you read in a positive light about apple and repeat the same tired nonsense over and over. I rely on positive, negative and neutral. I have no axe to grind with them and i don't hate apple. I would say the exact same thing if it was any company. Do stupid things, deserve a kicking.”

Its not about a positive light.

It boils down to two things.

Firstly, the case being made against Apple by the plaintiffs:

"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."

(Odd that they refer to DRM if this "had zero to do with DRM". But hey. What_do_I_know.)

Secondly, what either the plaintiffs need to demonstrate to find Apple guilty:

If the plaintiffs can amply demonstrate that Apple sought to use DRM in an anti-competitive manner to prevent music from competitors digital stores from playing on the iPod, Apple will be found guilty.

If, however, Apple can amply demonstrate that they were compelled to use DRM by the record companies, and that it was impractical to licence their DRM out or support other DRM, Apple will be not found guilty.

That is not me seeing Apple in a positive light - its an entirely objective summary of what the case is about, and what both sides need to do to win.

If that is not your understanding of the case, by all means let us know what your understanding of the case actually is. What is it that you think the plaintiffs need to demonstrate to win the case?

Is it, for example, that they simply need to demonstrate that Apple removed tracks from their iPods?

Because if it is, you're wrong. Woefully wrong.
alanwarwic
10-12-2014
I might as well post this pro Apple stance first before the usual culprits do.
Apparently Apple don't want anyone to see the disposition cos they care
http://www.infoworld.com/article/285...-internet.html

'Apple's lawyers argued that releasing the video could discourage others from testifying'

Aside from that, I also wonder how Steve Jobs anti MusicMatch tactical emails surfaced. We know that Apple had/instigated a 'delete emails' policy by not having any email backup system as such.

They ain't stupid unlike the priginal choice of plaintiffs who hjave now been replaced by a legible plaintiff who a 'wipe-able by Apple' device in the correct time period..
calico_pie
10-12-2014
Thanks Alan.

Could you clarify what part of the following could be described as a "pro Apple stance"?

(As opposed to an entirely objective summary.)

The case being made against Apple by the plaintiffs is this:

"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."

If the plaintiffs can amply demonstrate that Apple sought to use DRM in an anti-competitive manner to prevent music from competitors digital stores from playing on the iPod, Apple will be found guilty.

If, however, Apple can amply demonstrate that they were compelled to use DRM by the record companies, and that it was impractical to licence their DRM out or support other DRM, Apple will be not found guilty.

If that is not your understanding of the case, by all means let us know what your understanding of the case actually is. What is it that you think the plaintiffs need to demonstrate to win the case?

Is it, for example, that they simply need to demonstrate that Apple removed tracks from their iPods?
Stiggles
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“You are still taking this too literally. I'm not saying that Napster, and Napster alone was responsible for DRM. But clearly it was a high profile example of something the record companies saw as a threat, and highlighted to them the need to somehow prevent that from happening.

"Napster" was more of an example, rather than the be all and end all.”

Except you didn't use it as an example. You stated Napster. I said you were wrong.

Quote:
“Its not that I don't understand that. I understand it perfectly well, I just don't think its that simple.

reBIB - really that should read:

everything to do with apple wanting to control what went on somones device they bought, through the use of DRM.”

No i shouldn't. Apple shouldn't be deciding what goes on anyone's ipod whether its copied music or not. They aren't liable!! It was purely about control and nothing else.

Quote:
“The whole case against Apple is that they sought to use DRM in an anti-competitive manner to prevent music from competitors digital stores from playing on the iPod.

How exactly can that not be about DRM? ”

The whole case with apple is people complaining about them removing music from their ipods with no warning. DRM was used to do it. That's it.

Quote:
“Even if those tracks had not gotten on the iPod in the first place, and subsequently removed, the case would still be made. The issue is not that Apple removed tracks, the issue is that Apple sought to prevent the tracks from getting on the iPod in the first place.”

It makes no difference whether they removed them or stopped them getting there. The point is they shouldn't have been doing it in the first place!

Quote:
“The case boils down to this:

If the plaintiffs can amply demonstrate that Apple sought to use DRM in an anti-competitive manner to prevent music from competitors digital stores from playing on the iPod, Apple will be found guilty.

If Apple can amply demonstrate that they were compelled to use DRM by the record companies, and that it was impractical to licence their DRM out or support other DRM, Apple will be not found guilty.”

Which they did. Apple aren't liable for what goes on the device once it's been sold! Much the same as Sony etc would have been liable for games played on a cracked playstation. So they abused it.

Quote:
“There is no attitude - all of the above is absolutely reasonable, and precisely what the case is about.”

Your attitude is a know it all attitude.

Quote:
“Well, that's what the case is about. It would be difficult to explain what the case is about without paraphrasing what has been written about the case elsewhere.”

Ok.

Quote:
“"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."

I'm finding it literally unbelievable you can read the above paragraph, and still insist that this has nothing to do with DRM.

DRM is the big picture. That some tracks were removed from some iPods is only part of that big picture.”

DRM ISNT the big picture. Even without DRM apple would have used something else to take rivals music off the device. Come on! You don't really think apple would have allowed rival music on it even if DRM hadn't been about?!

Quote:
“No, I really don't. You just seem to have a problem with people disagreeing with you.”

Not at all. I like it. It's how people learn. You just have a severe attitude where you believe you are always right and everyone else is always wrong. Theres a name for that....

Quote:
“Were there?”

Yup.

Quote:
“Nice edit. Either that or a reasonable understanding of what the case is about. One of the two.”

Nice edit? I didnt edit that at all

Quote:
“I'm saying its not a very constructive argument.”

It's a perectly constructed argument. It just doesn't agree with yours! This is what you do all the time.

Quote:
“They're not only reasonable, they are precisely what the case is about.”

Ugh..Except it isnt. Its about apple taking music from peoples devices without telling them and hiding behind DRM as the reason.

Quote:
“Its not about a positive light.”

Yes it is. It's always. this with you and apple. Take the amazon debacle, yes you did eventually admit apple didn't do things quite the right way. But that took a looooong time for you to do, and even at that, you still shifted the blame elsewhere and tried to paint apple in a positive light. I just find it weird someone can spend so much time defending a company who don't actually know you, or care whether you exist or not.

Quote:
“It boils down to two things.

Firstly, the case being made against Apple by the plaintiffs:

"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."

(Odd that they refer to DRM if this "had zero to do with DRM". But hey. What_do_I_know.)

Secondly, what either the plaintiffs need to demonstrate to find Apple guilty:

If the plaintiffs can amply demonstrate that Apple sought to use DRM in an anti-competitive manner to prevent music from competitors digital stores from playing on the iPod, Apple will be found guilty.

If, however, Apple can amply demonstrate that they were compelled to use DRM by the record companies, and that it was impractical to licence their DRM out or support other DRM, Apple will be not found guilty.

That is not me seeing Apple in a positive light - its an entirely objective summary of what the case is about, and what both sides need to do to win.

If that is not your understanding of the case, by all means let us know what your understanding of the case actually is. What is it that you think the plaintiffs need to demonstrate to win the case?

Is it, for example, that they simply need to demonstrate that Apple removed tracks from their iPods?

Because if it is, you're wrong. Woefully wrong.”

The only one woefully wrong here is you. But this will go on for months and months with you telling everyone once again "im right and you are all wrong.'. This is why debating with you is stale and very boring.

The whole case revolves around the removing of music from peoples devices. They used DRM to do this with some daft excuse that "it was to protect the users against viruses and malicious content.". Utter twaddle.

They then went onto say they didn't want to "confuse users with to much information." hence why they didn't inform users of what they were doing. Again, utter twaddle. Steve jobs states in an email when he learned of reals music service that would have been able to have music on the ipod "We may need to change things here," and “We need to make sure that when Music Match launches … they cannot use iPod.”. The software was updated and no other music apart from CD could be used.

Sorry, but the case speaks for itself here. It was to stop users moving from itunes to another service provider. Nothing to do with DRM. DRM was simply the tool used to stop the music going on and now the excuse for it. The problem here is, you are siding with apple as always and missing the bigger picture. I am taking a neutral side and seeing it from both sides.
swordman
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“Are you saying you didn't lie? ..........
Now, why does the case make so many references to DRM?”

Lie! again not really appropriate language in a forum, but still you persist it seems.
If you were happy to correct yourself why isn't the forum full of your reversing posts, heaven knows they are needed.

You were right earlier when you said you do not understand this issue, however read up it is not difficult and it doesn't involve illegal downloads
kidspud
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by swordman:
“Lie! again not really appropriate language in a forum, but still you persist it seems.
If you were happy to correct yourself why isn't the forum full of your reversing posts, heaven knows they are needed.

You were right earlier when you said you do not understand this issue, however read up it is not difficult and it doesn't involve illegal downloads ”

You seem to think you've suddenly become some sort of forum moderator, delusional again.

Oh, and another reference to illegal downloads, demonstrating again your inability to follow a thread.

Now, can you explain why the case continues to reference DRM?
calico_pie
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by Stiggles:
“Except you didn't use it as an example. You stated Napster. I said you were wrong.”

What I actually said originally was this:

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

As in file sharing generally / Napster as a high profile example. Either way, no reasonable person would have been so pedantic over something like that.

Quote:
“No i shouldn't. Apple shouldn't be deciding what goes on anyone's ipod whether its copied music or not. They aren't liable!! It was purely about control and nothing else.”

Only in your opinion. Another opinion is that it was largely to do with Apple being compelled to use DRM by the record companies.

You might not agree with that opinion (although it is widely recognised as being a perfectly valid one), but that doesn't in and of itself invalidate that opinion.

Quote:
“The whole case with apple is people complaining about them removing music from their ipods with no warning. DRM was used to do it. That's it.”

No - the case is about music with DRM other than FairPlay being incompatible with iPods:

"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."

Its right there. In black and white. From the horses mouth. And yet you are still disputing it.

Quote:
“It makes no difference whether they removed them or stopped them getting there. The point is they shouldn't have been doing it in the first place!

Which they did. Apple aren't liable for what goes on the device once it's been sold! Much the same as Sony etc would have been liable for games played on a cracked playstation. So they abused it.”

That's the whole argument that the court has to settle - i.e. whether Apple were, to all practical intent, liable because of the agreements they had with the record companies.

You might want to dismiss that out of hand, but the whole point of the trial is to determine whether or not that was the the case.

Unless you want to argue that it would have been OK for Apple to prevent Real Networks music from playing on an iPod, and that it only became an issue when it was removed?

Maybe so, but that is not the argument the plaintiffs are making.

Quote:
“Your attitude is a know it all attitude.”

I will never understand the difference between you posting your opinion (presumably not a know it all attitude) and me posting my opinion, which apparently is.

Quote:
“DRM ISNT the big picture. Even without DRM apple would have used something else to take rivals music off the device. Come on! You don't really think apple would have allowed rival music on it even if DRM hadn't been about?!”

Yes.

Apple never wanted to use DRM. It is widely known and on record that Apple never wanted to use DRM. Apple dropped DRM as soon as they could.

"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."

As I said earlier, it wasn't even in Apple's interests because they made most of their money from selling iPods, not from selling the music.

So if you stop to think about it for a second, instead of wanging on about my attitude you'd realise that if Apple made most of their money selling iPods, preventing music without good reason made no sense.

As is also evidenced by the fact that there was no problem with non iTunes, DRM free music. Another point you just ignore.

The question you don't seem to be able to answer is why didn't Apple remove all music that hadn't been purchased on iTunes?

Quote:
“Not at all. I like it. It's how people learn. You just have a severe attitude where you believe you are always right and everyone else is always wrong. Theres a name for that....”

I'm going to assume that most people believe they are right. Why - do you have doubts that you might not be right here?

At least I'm backing up my opinion with perfectly valid points, rather than making it personal in a way that you seem to excel at.

Quote:
“Yup.”

Given that the subject of the case is in the public domain, I'm surprised I'm the only one here who seems to know what its about.

Quote:
“Nice edit? I didnt edit that at all ”

Sorry - wires crossed.

Quote:
“It's a perectly constructed argument. It just doesn't agree with yours! This is what you do all the time.

Ugh..Except it isnt. Its about apple taking music from peoples devices without telling them and hiding behind DRM as the reason.”

Might be more wires crossed, because how much time either of us discusses this certainly isn't a perfectly constructed argument at all.

You don't even seem to have much of an argument at all - it seems to simply be:

Apple removed some tracks, which is wrong, therefore Apple are guilty.

Which is fine, if you want to ignore:

- that they were compelled to use DRM by the record companies

- that they had reasonable grounds not to licence their DRM or support other DRM

- that non iTunes / DRM free music was unaffected

- that it didn't even make financial sense for them to do this

- that it is on public record that Apple never wanted to use DRM in the first place

- that Apple were a key player in getting the record companies to drop DRM

- that Apple dropped DRM as soon as they were able to

Quote:
“Yes it is. It's always. this with you and apple. Take the amazon debacle, yes you did eventually admit apple didn't do things quite the right way. But that took a looooong time for you to do, and even at that, you still shifted the blame elsewhere and tried to paint apple in a positive light. I just find it weird someone can spend so much time defending a company who don't actually know you, or care whether you exist or not.”

The only "Amazon debacle" was me so much as mentioning Amazon in the wider context of what happened, and that forever being interpreted as "blaming Amazon" and "exonerating Apple" when it was no such thing.

Quote:
“The only one woefully wrong here is you. But this will go on for months and months with you telling everyone once again "im right and you are all wrong.'. This is why debating with you is stale and very boring.

The whole case revolves around the removing of music from peoples devices. They used DRM to do this with some daft excuse that "it was to protect the users against viruses and malicious content.". Utter twaddle.

They then went onto say they didn't want to "confuse users with to much information." hence why they didn't inform users of what they were doing. Again, utter twaddle. Steve jobs states in an email when he learned of reals music service that would have been able to have music on the ipod "We may need to change things here," and “We need to make sure that when Music Match launches … they cannot use iPod.”. The software was updated and no other music apart from CD could be used.

Sorry, but the case speaks for itself here. It was to stop users moving from itunes to another service provider. Nothing to do with DRM. DRM was simply the tool used to stop the music going on and now the excuse for it. The problem here is, you are siding with apple as always and missing the bigger picture. I am taking a neutral side and seeing it from both sides.”

Then you do seem to misunderstand what the case is about, because its not about the removal of music at all.

Its about Apple not supporting DRM other than their own.

Again, unless you want to take the position that had this music not gotten on to iPods and subsequently been removed, Apple would have no case to answer.

Do you?

Just to repeat some of my last post though, as I don't think you've really answered what I was asking.

Firstly, the quote about what the plaintiff's case 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."

Are you saying that that isn't accurate?

Secondly, what the plaintiffs need to demonstrate to find Apple guilty:

If the plaintiffs can amply demonstrate that Apple sought to use DRM in an anti-competitive manner to prevent music from competitors digital stores from playing on the iPod, Apple will be found guilty.

Are you saying disagreeing with that? In which case what do they have to demonstrate?

Thirdly, what Apple need to demonstrate to be found not guilty:

If, however, Apple can amply demonstrate that they were compelled to use DRM by the record companies, and that it was impractical to licence their DRM out or support other DRM, Apple will be not found guilty.

Are you saying disagreeing with that? In which case what do they have to demonstrate?

My points seem to be made up of:

- what the case against Apple is

- what the court has to determine

- what each party needs to demonstrate to win

- the background around DRM including who compelled who to use it

All of which seems a far more objective view than yours which amounts to little more than:

- Apple removed music, and so are guilty

- I have an attitude on account of having the audacity not to agree with such a simplistic take on it
Stiggles
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“What I actually said originally was this:

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

As in file sharing generally / Napster as a high profile example. Either way, no reasonable person would have been so pedantic over something like that.



Only in your opinion. Another opinion is that it was largely to do with Apple being compelled to use DRM by the record companies.

You might not agree with that opinion (although it is widely recognised as being a perfectly valid one), but that doesn't in and of itself invalidate that opinion.



No - the case is about music with DRM other than FairPlay being incompatible with iPods:

"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."

Its right there. In black and white. From the horses mouth. And yet you are still disputing it.



That's the whole argument that the court has to settle - i.e. whether Apple were, to all practical intent, liable because of the agreements they had with the record companies.

You might want to dismiss that out of hand, but the whole point of the trial is to determine whether or not that was the the case.

Unless you want to argue that it would have been OK for Apple to prevent Real Networks music from playing on an iPod, and that it only became an issue when it was removed?

Maybe so, but that is not the argument the plaintiffs are making.



I will never understand the difference between you posting your opinion (presumably not a know it all attitude) and me posting my opinion, which apparently is.



Yes.

Apple never wanted to use DRM. It is widely known and on record that Apple never wanted to use DRM. Apple dropped DRM as soon as they could.

"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."

As I said earlier, it wasn't even in Apple's interests because they made most of their money from selling iPods, not from selling the music.

So if you stop to think about it for a second, instead of wanging on about my attitude you'd realise that if Apple made most of their money selling iPods, preventing music without good reason made no sense.

As is also evidenced by the fact that there was no problem with non iTunes, DRM free music. Another point you just ignore.



I'm going to assume that most people believe they are right. Why - do you have doubts that you might not be right here?

At least I'm backing up my opinion with perfectly valid points, rather than making it personal in a way that you seem to excel at.



Given that the subject of the case is in the public domain, I'm surprised I'm the only one here who seems to know what its about.



Sorry - wires crossed.



Might be more wires crossed, because how much time either of us discusses this certainly isn't a perfectly constructed argument at all.

You don't even seem to have much of an argument at all - it seems to simply be:

Apple removed some tracks, which is wrong, therefor Apple are guilty.

Which is fine, if you want to ignore:

- that they were compelled to use DRM by the record companies

- that they had reasonable grounds not to licence their DRM or support other DRM

- that non iTunes / DRM free music was unaffected

- that it didn't even make financial sense for them to do this

- that it is on public record that Apple never wanted to use DRM in the first place

- that Apple were a key player in getting the record companies to drop DRM

- that Apple dropped DRM as soon as they were able to



The only "Amazon debacle" was me so much as mentioning Amazon in the wider context of what happened, and that forever being interpreted as "blaming Amazon" and "exonerating Apple" when it was no such thing.



Then you do seem to misunderstand what the case is about, because its not about the removal of music at all.

Its about Apple not supporting DRM other than their own.

Again, unless you want to take the position that had this music not gotten on to iPods and subsequently been removed, Apple would have no case to answer.

Do you?

Just to repeat some of my last post though, as I don't think you've really answered what I was asking.

Firstly, the quote about what the plaintiff's case 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."

Are you saying that that isn't accurate?

Secondly, what the plaintiffs need to demonstrate to find Apple guilty:

If the plaintiffs can amply demonstrate that Apple sought to use DRM in an anti-competitive manner to prevent music from competitors digital stores from playing on the iPod, Apple will be found guilty.

Are you saying disagreeing with that? In which case what do they have to demonstrate?

Thirdly, what Apple need to demonstrate to be found not guilty:

If, however, Apple can amply demonstrate that they were compelled to use DRM by the record companies, and that it was impractical to licence their DRM out or support other DRM, Apple will be not found guilty.

Are you saying disagreeing with that? In which case what do they have to demonstrate?

My points seem to be made up of:

- what the case against Apple is

- what the court has to determine

- what each party needs to demonstrate to win

- the background around DRM including who compelled who to use it

All of which seems a far more objective view than yours which amounts to little more than:

- Apple removed music, and so are guilty

- I have an attitude on account of having the audacity not to agree with such a simplistic take on it”

Yeah, i'm done with you. Complete waste of time.
calico_pie
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by Stiggles:
“Yeah, i'm done with you. Complete waste of time.”

Probably easier than addressing the points in any constructive way.

Not even the bit about Napster?

What actually was wrong with:

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

Would you have been happier / less pedantic about it if I'd said this instead:

At the time the record companies were reluctant to embrace digital downloads largely because of what had been happening with file sharing / Napster.
alanwarwic
10-12-2014
Some of this litigation has fascinating parallels.

In that when Apple got rid of Google, they did so for similar reasons
The iPod bundled Musicmatch for Windows on early iPods but MusicMatch introduced a web centric music store so it really had to go.

http://m.tuaw.com/2014/12/03/old-ste...itrust-lawsui/

So the removal of Music Match bought music on the iPod was essential to the 'no competition allowed' strategy that still pertains today in so many ways across most of its gadgets.
kidspud
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Some of this litigation has fascinating parallels.

In that when Apple got rid of Google, they did so for similar reasons
The iPod bundled Musicmatch for Windows on early iPods but MusicMatch introduced a web centric music store so it really had to go.

http://m.tuaw.com/2014/12/03/old-ste...itrust-lawsui/

So the removal of Music Match bought music on the iPod was essential to the 'no competition allowed' strategy that still pertains today in so many ways across most of its gadgets.”

Which part of Google did Apple get rid of I have a few Google apps on my iPad, should they not be there?
Stiggles
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“Probably easier than addressing the points in any constructive way.

Not even the bit about Napster?

What actually was wrong with:

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

Would you have been happier / less pedantic about it if I'd said this instead:

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

I've addressed everything in my last post in a very constrictive manner. Your constructive discussions are basically looking for any reason to excuse apple. Like i said before, i see this from a neutral point. You don't. You will not just accept that apple have effed up here and be done with it. With you it always has to be something else and another reason for it.

Why can't you just realise that apple did this for themselves and there was NO other reason. DRM was simply the tool used for apple to, and i quote "We need to make sure that when Music Match launches … they cannot use iPod.”. Instead, you will spend months on here trotting out the same fact you think are accurate.

Anyway, this is my last post on the matter. You will simply dismiss this as you always do.
Stiggles
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“Which part of Google did Apple get rid of I have a few Google apps on my iPad, should they not be there?”

This:-

https://bgr.com/2014/12/09/apple-map...ind-my-iphone/

A while back they also removed Google maps. Also in Safari, they removed the name "Google" in the search bar so you knew which search engine you were using. Others were fine.
tdenson
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by swordman:
“you should try and be a little more respectful to people, hard as that obviously it's for you.
.”

I can't let that pass. You are the most rude and disrespectful person I have ever encountered.
tdenson
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by Stiggles:
“ I am taking a neutral side and seeing it from both sides.”

LOL
alanwarwic
10-12-2014
So they never even bothered warned that were deleting their MusicMatch users tracks so as to help the user out ?
And they don't warn users that IOS update is a 'no going back, for better or for worse' affair to help the user out too?


It is quite bizarre this 'everything they do to me I support' thing. Google are in it for themselves too you know. It just happens we are allowed to say it.
I'm sure IOS and Android users would like to see iTunes, iMessage etc become a more global agnostic service, not that limited facility they are now

I'm sure it will happen before irrelevance sets in.
Stiggles
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by tdenson:
“LOL ”

Only for once i am!
calico_pie
10-12-2014
Originally Posted by Stiggles:
“I've addressed everything in my last post in a very constrictive manner. Your constructive discussions are basically looking for any reason to excuse apple. Like i said before, i see this from a neutral point. You don't. You will not just accept that apple have effed up here and be done with it. With you it always has to be something else and another reason for it.

Why can't you just realise that apple did this for themselves and there was NO other reason. DRM was simply the tool used for apple to, and i quote "We need to make sure that when Music Match launches … they cannot use iPod.”. Instead, you will spend months on here trotting out the same fact you think are accurate.

Anyway, this is my last post on the matter. You will simply dismiss this as you always do.”

So your assertion is that Apple sought to use DRM willfully, with the implicit intention from the outset, to prevent music from competitor's download stores from playing on iPods - correct?

The reasons I have trouble accepting that is that Apple opposed the use of DRM from the outset, and only used it because they were compelled to do so by the record companies.

It is getting boring repeating that, but I'm genuinely baffled as why you don't see the contradiction in that.

Its not really about looking for excuses for anything - these actually are the things the court will try to establish. When all of this comes up in the trial, are you going to accuse the trial of trying to excuse Apple?

Unfortunately that's how these things work - everything is looked at and a verdict reached on the findings.
alanwarwic
10-12-2014
No, it was Steve Jobs assertion. Did you not see the emails mentioned, the ones that somehow survived Apples non backup policy?

I guess the recipient still had the emails, an operative at a lower level ?
<<
<
6 of 13
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map