Melanie Tucker must die!

alra111

alra111

Registered
The following is an excerpt from this article.

Apple faces a lawsuit in the U.S., following similar charges in Europe, over tying its iTunes music store to the iPod digital music player.

Apple revealed the suit, submitted in July to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday.

The suit was filed by a user, Melanie Tucker, and seeks class-action status. It alleges that Apple violates antitrust laws by refusing to allow music bought in its iTunes store to be played on any digital music player besides the iPod. It also charges Apple with not making it clear to customers that music from the iTunes store and the iPod are incompatible with music and devices offered by other companies.
Click to expand...
Does anyone know this her? If so, can you please tell her to leave Apple alone and go work for her money?

Alra111
 
It's a bit much to call for her death, really. :/ ... And let's be honest: Apple behaving like a Microsoft isn't exactly why we've chosen Apple in the first place. At least I think so.
 
i agree with her. i mean, i've not been a fan of legal music downloads at all. if i want music, i'll buy it on cd. if i want single tracks, i'll get them off limewire. if an artist wants my money, they'd better work for it, by making a good album. getting single tracks off limewire or similar is just a slightly easier alternative to recording from the radio. which we've all done for 20 years, and the industry survives.

i am in absolute opposition to DRM. it's ironic that it removes my right to listen to music i've paid for. or suspects me of stealing. my ipod is 90% full of music that i paid for. i must have spent thousands of pounds on music, and yet none of it has any DRM on it. i have about 5 tracks i've bought from iTMS and i don't listen to them because i've rebuilt my computer so many times without 'deauthorizing' beforehand that it won't let me play them.
 
bobw said:
Hope she has a lot of money if she's suing Apple.
Click to expand...

Most law firms who do class action lawsuits do not charge a fee, preferring instead to go for a percentage of the winnings. This is especially profitable, as class action lawsuits try to seek millions and billions of dollars in compensation. That's why there are so many frivolous class actions going on.
 
While I agree that DRM is not especially helpful and I certainly think Apple could actually do better - I also have to say that I *really* don't see grounds for a lawsuit. She's got all the freedom in the world. She could buy an iPod - nobody hindering her - or buy her music elsewhere. It's not as if Apple were the _sole_ supplier for that thing called "music". They merely primarily cater for the users of their successful music player, the iPod.

The real question, I think, is if Apple is _so_ confident that the iPod's the best music player in the world and that iTunes Store is the best place to buy music and videos online, why do they still have to make each product protect the other this way. They could easily let other digital music players have access to iTunes (and make money off of more people buying tracks) and let the iPod have access to other online music stores, since if they're right, one would buy on iTunes, anyway. ;)

That said: Me too, I'm not buying songs on iTunes, because I still like to have a "real" album, i.e. a CD. Then _I_ can choose what quality my digital files on the iPod should have and I automatically have a backup as well. On CD.
 
It's an on going issue and the saga continues over at digg over the iPod DRM

Apple doesn't force pople to buy iPods, it's just if you do decide to buy an iPod, you have to use iTunes. Apple doesn't force people to buy from their ITMS, that's an option too. You can freely add any CD, downloaded track etc and put into iTunes etc

As for Melanie wingeing she can't put her bought songs onto a ugly looking MP3 player, it's just Apple protecting their sales so the Music Artist can get some commision. I think a lawsuit is ridiculous and waste of time.

For those interested, here's the Discovery channel Documentry of iTunes and iPod history

Direct link to Movie sorry, 166mb and worth the look for the enthusiast and others ;)
http://web.mac.com/hackersmovie/iWeb/iPod History/Movie_files/iPod History Discovery Channel-1.mov
 
fryke said:
The real question, I think, is if Apple is _so_ confident that the iPod's the best music player in the world and that iTunes Store is the best place to buy music and videos online, why do they still have to make each product protect the other this way. They could easily let other digital music players have access to iTunes (and make money off of more people buying tracks) and let the iPod have access to other online music stores, since if they're right, one would buy on iTunes, anyway. ;)
Click to expand...
Well, Apple can't make songs from other stores work unless they license that store's DRM (really Microsoft's DRM, in most cases). And they certainly can't license their DRM to others if they don't buy licenses for all other DRM schemes as well — otherwise you'd have iPods only supporting iTunes and other players supporting iTunes AND other services.

I hope she wins this case, not because I hate Apple, but because it would set a good precedent for the industry. If Apple is deemed guilty here, what does that say about the iron-fisted DRM built into Blu-ray and HD-DVD? It would open the door to seriously challenge the DMCA, and the DMCA really needs to be challenged, IMO.

Personally, the only way I'll buy DRM'd media is if I know of a way to bypass that DRM (which would be illegal, thanks to the DMCA, but that doesn't stop anyone from ripping DVDs).
 
A question: is it not possible to convert the songs you brought to mp3 or something? (Sorry I have not brought anything on iTunes...)
 
Sunnz said:
A question: is it not possible to convert the songs you brought to mp3 or something? (Sorry I have not brought anything on iTunes...)
Click to expand...
Not directly. Apple allows you to burn songs to a limited number of audio CDs, and since audio CDs are inherently unprotected, you can then convert those to mp3. Obviously, this is not practical for anyone with a significant number of tracks.

Other than that, there is no legal way to do it (actually, I'm not even sure the burn-and-rip method is legal, technically).
 
it's not. also, movies bought off the iTunes Store are nigh-on impossible to convert. the only way so far is video-screen-capture, like snapz pro, which again, is really not practical. i can't think of any reason why i would want to buy a movie from itunes for the price of a dvd. i mean, it takes longer to download than it does to rip it from a dvd!
 
I think Apple's dominance in this market is evidence enough for why it's important, from a business standpoint, to maintain control of the content (e.g. DRM). For Apple to license their DRM to allow other companies to sell MP3 players would be the single stupidest move Apple could possibly make. It makes no sense at all.

And the reason a lot of people (like myself) are more than willing to buy online instead of ripping discs is CONVENIENCE. Sure, ripping a music CD isn't terribly painful, but it's still ten times more effort then just buying them from iTunes (or wherever). Not to mention the landfill savings.
 
ten times more effort? I pop in a CD, it gets the track names from the 'net and rips the CD, done. I don't see how this is "ten times more" anything...
 
My question is, if Apple were to lose this law suit, and have to open up their iTunes Store to all other MP3 players, would that mean all other online music stores would have to do the same?
 
I guess he meant getting your bottom off the chair to go to the shop and buy CD is "10x" more then click click click...

But again if you want to play the songs in your car or your nice home theatre then you still have to buy a blank CD so you can burn it anyway!!!
 
Thanks Sunnz for backing me up. Exactly. You have to physically make effort to buy the CD. You also have to store it somewhere, taking up space. If you want to nitpick over the math, I suspect it's actually way more than ten times the effort.

Personally, in terms of the best possible listening experience, I'd take an LP over anything. Better headroom, smoother sound. I've A/B'ed LP versus CDs and vastly preferred LP. The problem is—it's inconvenient as hell. And that's what the entire iPod experience is. Convenience. Otherwise EVERYBODY would just buy CDs and rip them.
 
Cheese,

I do not know the legal aspects of it, and I wonder the same thing. However, I could see a scenario where other companies would NOT have to comply. The only reason I say that is because when Microsoft recently had to rework how Flash plays in Explorer, no other browser company had to comply, even though it's the same issue for them.
 
mindbend said:
Thanks Sunnz for backing me up. Exactly. You have to physically make effort to buy the CD. You also have to store it somewhere, taking up space. If you want to nitpick over the math, I suspect it's actually way more than ten times the effort.

Personally, in terms of the best possible listening experience, I'd take an LP over anything. Better headroom, smoother sound. I've A/B'ed LP versus CDs and vastly preferred LP. The problem is—it's inconvenient as hell. And that's what the entire iPod experience is. Convenience. Otherwise EVERYBODY would just buy CDs and rip them.
Click to expand...
But again, you get a lot more if you go buy the CD - the printed artwork, quality packaging and CD, you know, the material stuff... if you really liked your artist, you would think it is actually enjoyable to do the extra work of storing it, talking to the sale-man, etc.

What's LP?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top