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