bbloke
Registered
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4151009.stm
Is it just me or do people like this need to grow up a bit?
Is it just me or do people like this need to grow up a bit?
iTunes user to sue Apple
- Thread starter bbloke
- Start date
brianleahy
Colonel Panic
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?
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
Doctoral Student
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
Registered
This is up there with sueing McDonlads for making you fat. Or divorcing your parents.
brianleahy
Colonel Panic
"Suit" not "suite".
Though I have stayed in a frivolous suite once or twice...
Though I have stayed in a frivolous suite once or twice...
pds
Registered
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.
Or maybe I have lived in the land of the conspiracy theory too long.
drunkmac
has a mac beyond repair
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.
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.
adambyte
Registered
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.
Oh well, it's the American way... sue.
symphonix
Scratch & Sniff Committee
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.
- 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
Registered
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.
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
U.S.D.A. Prime
I don't think the iTunes Music Store ever sold MP3 files... they have always been protected AAC files, correct?
MDLarson
Registered
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.ElDiabloConCaca said:
It could be that I'm remembering iTunes default encoder switching from MP3 to AAC... that's probably it... I think.
Ripcord
Senior Lurker
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)
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
Senior Lurker
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.
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
Registered
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::
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
Registered
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:
pds said:Or maybe I have lived in the land of the conspiracy theory too long.