# iTunes user to sue Apple



## bbloke (Jan 6, 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4151009.stm



> ITunes user sues Apple over iPod
> 
> A user of Apple's iTunes music service is suing the firm saying it is unfair he can only use an iPod to play songs.
> 
> He says Apple is breaking anti-competition laws in refusing to let other music players work with the site.





> Mr Slattery called himself an iTunes customer who "was also forced to purchase an Apple iPod" if he wanted to take his music with him to listen to.



Is it just me or do people like this need to grow up a bit?


----------



## pds (Jan 6, 2005)

probably a schill


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 6, 2005)

Yeah, here's another article on the same story.

http://channels.aimtoday.com/pf/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0002/20050105/2105531173.htm

If he wins this, it'll certainly shake things up.  

If it's illegal to make songs play only on an iPod, then shouldn't it also be illegal to make ANY kind of software or media hardware-specific?


----------



## diablojota (Jan 6, 2005)

Well, basically it is a frivilous suite, the guy will lose. There are plenty of other options out there. He wasn't forced to pick iTunes, much less iPod. He could've burned a cd and re-ripped it as an mp3 if he was really desperate. This fool needs to get a life.


----------



## jonparadise (Jan 6, 2005)

This is up there with sueing McDonlads for making you fat. Or divorcing your parents.


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 6, 2005)

"Suit" not "suite".

Though I _have_ stayed in a frivolous suite once or twice...


----------



## pds (Jan 6, 2005)

The suit is frivolous in the extreme and so I think the guy is a setup. Now the charge is one of the "facts on the ground" that will be trumpeted as "users are fed up with Apple's penchant for locking people into their proprietary architectures."

Or maybe I have lived in the land of the conspiracy theory too long.


----------



## MDLarson (Jan 6, 2005)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> "Suit" not "suite".
> 
> Though I _have_ stayed in a frivolous suite once or twice...




I have sympathy for the fellow, as I have the same opinion.  BUT, I think it's entirely legal for Apple to make iTunes work only with iPod... I just think it's stupid.  I like as many things to work with as many things as possible, is all.


----------



## drunkmac (Jan 6, 2005)

I think this dude is really stupid and anyone whos with him as well.

Ok. Forced to buy an iPod? Go buy that crappy Sony Walkman with the horrible encoding and go be forced to use their software and their music service.

He's probably some cheap bastard who cant afford an apple.


----------



## cbrooks3 (Jan 6, 2005)

Ummm, last I checked you can burn  cd's with your purchased music from ITMS and take it with you. Not as cool as an iPod, but it gets the job done.


----------



## adambyte (Jan 6, 2005)

heh. I think it's funny that if this were Microsoft, we'd all just be like, "There they go with their anti-competitive practices again," and, though it might have a little more legal standing against MS, the guy would still probably lose.

Oh well, it's the American way... sue.


----------



## symphonix (Jan 6, 2005)

There are a few basic flaws with these claims:

- That iTunes is the only viable music management and download service: Not true. Ever heard of Real, Microsoft, MusicMatch, Virgin, Sony and at least a dozen others?

- That iTunes forces users to use only an iPod music player: Not true. Just about any Mp3 player works with iTunes.

- That the iPod is the only viable music player: Not true. The customer has a lot of choices for players made to compete with iPod, from Sony, Virgin, Panasonic, Creative and many more. (I'd still choose an iPod myself, though!)

- That the iPod only works with the iTunes music store: Not true. You can put songs on your iPod from any CD, any MP3 file or unprotected WMA or AAC audio file. Admittedly the only software for managing the iPod is iTunes, and the only music store that provides DRM-protected music playable on iPod is iTunes, but you can certainly buy your music from ANY source, including just ordering the CD from Amazon.

- That Apple is not within their rights to release a media player that only plays content from Apple: This is the most debatable.

_Is a cable TV provider within their rights to sell recievers that only work with that provider's cable network?

Is the Playstation in breach of anti-trust laws because it only plays Playstation games, and not games for XBox or Nintendo?

Could Kodak be sued if the Kodak printer dock only works with Kodak digital cameras? 

Could Palm be sued because their PDAs don't run Windows CE software?_

All of these illustrations are completely ridiculous. Its only that Apple has enjoyed some success with the iPod that has caused people to see it in a different light.


----------



## MDLarson (Jan 6, 2005)

Wow, at the risk of siding with the "stupid" guy (thanks drunkmac...), I will continue to make the point from the consumer point-of-view, and NOT the Apple Evangelist point of view.

MP3 was the original digital music format.  When the iTunes Music Store debuted, its music files were in MP3 format.  It is only because of deliberate actions taken by the movers and shakers in this new industry that incompatibilities exist.  The analogies that symphonix provided don't exactly fit because the reasons for _those_ incompatibilities are directly related to the technical limitations inherent in those technologies.  With possibly the exception of the cable providers, they all started from different platforms from their competitors.

I view an iTunes AAC song file not as "media content from Apple", but a song file I bought and own.  That's how it's advertised, after all.  I _expect_ to be able to listen to it on any digital music player on the market, as most people expect.

And no, I don't think this guy should sue.  I think it is entirely within Apple's rights to do iTunes this way  I simply would *rather* have an open system that is easier to work with and less frustrating to new users who don't know the difference.

I don't think Apple "forced" this guy to buy an iPod - that's silly.  But I perceive one of the great Apple advantages to be ease of use and simplicity.  There is nothing simple and easy about downloading iTunes AAC files, burning them, ripping them back as MP3 format, and doing what you will with them.  That method is wasteful and annoying for something that _could_ very easily have been better.  For anyone to suggest _that_ as a viable solution for the iTunes masses is ridiculous.

p.s.  Apple sells iPods not because the iTMS "requires" it, but because it's a great product.  Apple gets iTunes installed on computers not because the iPod "requires" it, but because it's a great product.  For that reason, I believe the importance of a closed system is very much diminished.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jan 6, 2005)

I don't think the iTunes Music Store ever sold MP3 files... they have always been protected AAC files, correct?


----------



## MDLarson (Jan 6, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> I don't think the iTunes Music Store ever sold MP3 files... they have always been protected AAC files, correct?


Hmm, I thought I remember the iTMS switching to AAC.  I am not 100% positive, but I'm _mostly_ positive about that.  I can't remember rightly.

It could be that I'm remembering iTunes default encoder switching from MP3 to AAC... that's probably it... I think.


----------



## Ripcord (Jan 7, 2005)

No, it's always been the same copy-protected AAC, hence threads like this one:

http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31906&highlight=itunes+store+aac

and the comment about every file being AAC on the itms launch coverage (April 28th) by macrumors:

http://www.macrumors.com/apr28.html

(There's undoubtably better sources, but it really doesn't matter)


----------



## Ripcord (Jan 7, 2005)

Better links:

http://music.tinfoil.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=660

http://shumans.com/articles/000006.php

etc


----------



## aicul (Jan 7, 2005)

Lets go absurd: 

We all forget that we all need to have a electric power supplier to run the iPod. Maybe we can sue Apple for forcing us to have an electric utility bill every month.

More seriously:

I vote for a more open iPod - this said I don't own one and use iTunes with my mp3 player.

I hate format wars as the real loosers are the majors. By this I mean that they freak out that users copy their propretary stuff. But often they are the first instigators of "copying". I own various copying tools to permit me convert formats from A to B to C only because majors have built pointless walls to supposedly protect their propretary rights (which by the way I purchased a right to).

Now, having coping tools means I have the means to copy anything... the temptation is big. Its like, if I had a tool to copy water into gas for my car, I would not think twice.

So as my title hints: As long as the majors will treat their customers as criminals that copy their music, their customers will do just that. Might as well be what you are accused of being.


----------



## bbloke (Jan 7, 2005)

Hmmm, how about...  

I wanted to run OS X, so I went out and bought it, but then found out I was "forced" to buy a Mac.  So I bought the hardware, but Mac hardware "only" runs OS X, it cannot run every operating system out there.  So, I've been "forced" to buy Apple's hardware, due to their proprietary methods, and am now locked into OS X.  Argh, Apple tricked me and now have me by the delicate bits!  Where's my lawyer?!

::ha::


----------



## bbloke (Jan 7, 2005)

pds said:
			
		

> The suit is frivolous in the extreme and so I think the guy is a setup. Now the charge is one of the "facts on the ground" that will be trumpeted as "users are fed up with Apple's penchant for locking people into their proprietary architectures."


Interesting theory, and not one I had previously thought of.  It would be quite cunning if true.  Interestingly, the story about this potential law suit even made it into the free paper (today's edition) that you can read on the buses in my area.



			
				pds said:
			
		

> Or maybe I have lived in the land of the conspiracy theory too long.


----------



## cockneygeezer (Jan 7, 2005)

Has the world really gone IPR and copyright mad or what? Suing each other, court cases, left, right and centre. I blame the Americans myself. (They killed Napster and SuprNova  ) 

Suing Apple because he can't play his music from the iTMS on anything but a iPod, please...! How patethic can you get? Has this person got anything better to do? Maybe he should over read the Terms and Conditions and maybe the system requirements of the iPod before downloading or buying an iPod? 

Prat.

Maybe I should sue RealNetworks because I have to use RealPlayer to play a RealMedia file? Or Microsoft, because I have to buy and use MS Windows to use MS Access...

(My $0.02 and I expect change)


----------



## symphonix (Jan 7, 2005)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> There is nothing simple and easy about downloading iTunes AAC files, burning them, ripping them back as MP3 format, and doing what you will with them. That method is wasteful and annoying for something that could very easily have been better. For anyone to suggest that as a viable solution for the iTunes masses is ridiculous.



Perhaps, but as I understand it, iTunes is the _only_ Music service that allows easy burning of the songs you purchase to a standard CD. On a current model iMac, burning a CD full of music takes under three minutes. Once you've done this, you've got it ... legitimately and legally ... to do with as you please. Load it into your CD stacker, onto your Windows XP Super-Duper edition PC, into your clock radio-CD player, whatever. With subscription services, you don't get this functionality.

Also, you don't have to do this for the majority of Mp3 players that are recognised by iTunes (including many of the third party ones, such as Creative). In fact, if your Mp3 player is supported by iTunes, then you need only drag the file to its icon in the sources list and the song is automatically converted to an Mp3 (Can someone who has an iTunes compatible non-Apple player confirm this one way or the other? I've only done it with unprotected AAC files to a Creative NomadII).

And finally, this expectation is no more ridiculous than some of the other systems on offer at the moment. Sony's Playstation Portable will support music downloaded from Sony's service in the ATRAC format, provided you purchase specialised media to store it on as well (the PSP mini-optical discs). It also takes over an hour to transfer 1000 songs. Sony's PSX (a Japanese system that is basically a PS2 and media centre combined) allows you to store music, but strictly for playback only on that system. And Real and Yahoo are both planning on offerring a service that lets people "rent" a song by the month.
So what's so crazy about suggesting that users should get into the habit of burning Audio CDs of any music they legitimately own? Its common sense.


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 7, 2005)

I think it's also worth distinguishing between something that's irritating, and something that warrants a lawsuit.   You may not _like_ the hassle of burning songs to a CD as an intermediate step to putting it onto a non-Apple player, but it hardly amounts to grounds for an antitrust suit.  Yes; Apple makes it most convenient to stick with Apple products - that's just good design, and it's practiced in every industry.   We won't FORCE you to buy our product, but we'll make it worth your while if you do...


----------



## MDLarson (Jan 7, 2005)

I think I tentatively agree with you then.    Good points.


----------



## fryke (Jan 8, 2005)

Btw.: No-one's even mentioning it, but primarily, you buy songs to _iTunes_ not to iPod. You buy them in iTunes and are allowed to do several things to those songs, ONE thing being to put them on iPods directly. This case will solve itself soon. Maybe someone should pat him on the shoulder and tell him that he didn't pay much attention. Maybe he'd go: "Oh, you're right. I see." And let the case rest.


----------



## Arden (Jan 8, 2005)

Nah, nut jobs are rarely sensible.


----------



## karavite (Jan 9, 2005)

You think he could find something to sue Microsoft for instead! Sounds like one of these guys who just goes around suing anybody and everybody - Apple should file some type of nuisance and/or counter suit and teach him a major lesson.


----------



## Ripcord (Jan 9, 2005)

symphonix said:
			
		

> Also, you don't have to do this for the majority of Mp3 players that are recognised by iTunes (including many of the third party ones, such as Creative). In fact, if your Mp3 player is supported by iTunes, then you need only drag the file to its icon in the sources list and the song is automatically converted to an Mp3 (Can someone who has an iTunes compatible non-Apple player confirm this one way or the other? I've only done it with unprotected AAC files to a Creative NomadII).



No, I don't believe this bit is true for protected files.


----------



## bobw (Jan 9, 2005)

This is why are courts are so clogged. In the US, anyone can sue anyone else. It's up to a Judge to throw out frivolous suits like this. 
 We have people in prisons suing because they don't like the underwear they are issued.


----------



## aicul (Jan 10, 2005)

bobw said:
			
		

> We have people in prisons suing because they don't like the underwear they are issued.



I heard that iPod Socks are available on the market. This could be a good starting point...


----------



## bookem (Jan 10, 2005)

Does this mean I can sue EMI, HMV, Virgin etc because the vinyl I bought won't play on my CD player?


----------



## ThickAir (Jan 11, 2005)

bbloke said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4151009.stm
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a lie. You can burn CD's. AND with a simple audio editing app that lets you digitize your CD's, you can take the music off the CD and put it on anything you want. pretty simple actualy. Not necessarily legal, but it works flawlessly. I personally have an ipod but I needed to do this to extract a track to play with as a dance remix.


----------



## bbloke (Jan 11, 2005)

ThickAir said:
			
		

> That's a lie.


I presume you mean the guy's complaint, and not what I wrote.


----------



## karavite (Jan 12, 2005)

bookem said:
			
		

> Does this mean I can sue EMI, HMV, Virgin etc because the vinyl I bought won't play on my CD player?



You may have something there! Let's go for a class action suit. Also, I have these old Kodak prints and even though I hold them up in front of my computer, iPhoto won't do anything with them!


----------



## Arden (Jan 14, 2005)

karavite said:
			
		

> You may have something there! Let's go for a class action suit. Also, I have these old Kodak prints and even though I hold them up in front of my computer, iPhoto won't do anything with them!


 You have to stick them in the cupholder and put a flower in its love handle first. ::love::


----------



## ApeintheShell (Jan 16, 2005)

The socks are terrific in my opinion.This is going to be like the hard drive lawsuit; downright annoying and pointless.


----------



## ChicagoLarry (Jan 25, 2005)

Forget the legal issues, I find it interesting that Mac users would be so down on the proprietary antics of Microsoft, and then turn right around and think it's just fine that Apple does the same thing. I REFUSE to purchase any song from the Apple Store because they do NOT sell mp3s, they sell a format that will play ONLY on their own hardware, or at least only with their own software (iTunes). Too bad so many people think that consumer-unfriendly tactic is just fine, and buy the songs. I try to be a good consumer, and I refuse. If I can't play the song on ordinary equipment with ordinary mp3 software, I won't buy, won't encourage them. So legalities have nothing to do with my view, my sympathies are with those who can't stand this kind of consumerism whether it is Gates or Jobs.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jan 25, 2005)

I understand your reasoning -- Apple does limit the devices you can play their files on, and that can be frustrating.

However... nobody sells mp3s.  All songs sold by any company have some sort of rights-management attached to the songs, and they're usually WMA files.  Microsoft is the digital monopoly, so it's natural that most digital audio players play their format.  Apple, by limiting the compatible devices to their own devices, retains complete control over the musical experience, as well as the quality of the experience.  Less compatible, but a better overall system than Real's or Microsoft's or Sam's or WalMart's music stores, in my opinion.

As long as music is considered "owned" by the artist/label, I don't think we'll see online stores offering unprotected files.


----------



## Mephisto (Jan 25, 2005)

I personally don't have a problem with digital rights. iTunes offers a service that you can opt not to use.  You can always buy the CD new or used and burn it yourself.

There are multiple sites that offer MP3's legally though.  eMusic being my choice, but they do not have a lot of mainstream stuff.  I guess it depends on what you listen to.


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 25, 2005)

In addition, the MPEG4 (aka AAC) codec is not - to my knowledge - proprietary.  Anyone else who wanted could make an MP4 player.

Dunno about 'protected AAC' files, but as El Diablo noted, everyone's protecting their online songs these days.


----------



## wnowak1 (Jan 25, 2005)

This is crazy.  Its like suing ford because the brakes you bought don't fit your chevy.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jan 25, 2005)

The fool knew damn well which devices he could use the music on and how exactly he could listen to it when he signed up for the iTMS account.

Besides, the "limiting" done by Apple is so infintesimally small that it could hardly be considered "limiting consumer choice."  I've got my protected AAC files everywhere: in my car, on the stereo, on the computer, on the iPod, shared to my girlfriend's computer, burned on CDs, etc.  No piece of Apple hardware short of the iPod was required for any of that.  He might as well sue the grocery stores for preferred product placement claiming the subliminality of it took away his choice of cheaper brands.


----------



## wnowak1 (Jan 25, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> claiming the subliminality of it took away his choice of cheaper brands.



LOL, good one.


----------



## Canada-Man (Jan 26, 2005)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> In addition, the MPEG4 (aka AAC) codec is not - to my knowledge - proprietary.  Anyone else who wanted could make an MP4 player.
> 
> Dunno about 'protected AAC' files, but as El Diablo noted, everyone's protecting their online songs these days.




Exactly, I'm pretty sure Creative or Sony or whoever builds mp3 players could make it m4p compatible.

This thread would not exist if the guy who sues Apple would have a girlfriend. Let's find a girl for him.


----------



## mindbend (Jan 26, 2005)

The competiton could make AAC players, but because Apple is still not licensing Fairplay, none of these players could play iTunes content. Apple has complete control of it. The competiton would have to develop their own rights-managed AAC if they wanted to use AAC, or have them be license-free, which won't happen of course.

Since I'm an Apple fan, I don't care at all if it's proprietery or not. Kudos to them. They have the best player, the best overall experience anyway. If you don't like it, buy something else. Go away.


------

Side topic. What are the latest rules on iTunes songs on multiple machines and ipods? I was thinking of grabbing a shuffle or two, but if my library will only play on one iPod, that's going to kind of kill things.


----------



## ChicagoLarry (Jun 28, 2005)

Pardon me for grinning! Not sure why... maybe a tinge of irony there.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 28, 2005)

....and DRM protected WMA's don't work on iPods. i'm going to sue microsoft for this.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 28, 2005)

Well... it is true that there's no support for other MP3 players with iTunes. At least I don't know of any. However, it is possible to transfer the iTunes library to other MP3 players manually, I did so. Works great.

So I don't see much of a point in that lawsuit.


----------



## fryke (Jun 28, 2005)

Old thread. Nothing's come out of the law suit, right?


----------



## Krevinek (Jun 28, 2005)

HomunQlus said:
			
		

> Well... it is true that there's no support for other MP3 players with iTunes. At least I don't know of any. However, it is possible to transfer the iTunes library to other MP3 players manually, I did so. Works great.
> 
> So I don't see much of a point in that lawsuit.



It depends, a few will work as long as they are seen as mass storage devices (oddly). Although the suit itself is over Apple forcing iTMS to use only the iPod. If anything, this lawsuit is probably pretty quiet right now because the suit itself not going before a judge or awhile... or because Apple paid the guy off and asked him to be quiet.


----------



## Canada-Man (Jun 28, 2005)

I will sue this website because it can only be viewed with a web browser.


----------



## WinWord10 (Jul 23, 2005)

But you can use whichever browser you like ;-)


----------

