Apple Wins iTunes DRM Case 191
An anonymous reader sends word that Apple's iTunes DRM case has already been decided. The 8-person jury took only a few hours to decide that the features introduced in iTunes 7.0 were good for consumers and did not violate antitrust laws.
Following the decision, the plaintiff's head attorney Patrick Coughlin said an appeal is already planned. He also expressed frustrations over getting two of the security features — one that checks the iTunes database, and another that checks each song on the iPod itself — lumped together with the other user-facing features in the iTunes 7.0 update, like support for movies and games. "At least we got a chance to get it in front of the jury," he told reporters. ... All along, Apple's made the case that its music store, jukebox software, and hardware was simply an integrated system similar to video game consoles from Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. It built all those pieces to work together, and thus it would be unusual to expect any one piece from another company to work without issues, Apple's attorneys said. But more importantly, Apple offered, any the evolution of its DRM that ended up locking out competitors was absolutely necessary given deals it had with the major record companies to patch security holes.
I'm shocked. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe the 700 billion dollar corporation won this.
Re:I'm shocked. (Score:5, Insightful)
i'd be surprised if apple didn't win the case. they blocked and non-apple DRM like every other company out there and Real had to hack it. but in the end itunes allowed you to use any hardware you wanted as long as the maker coded to a few of apple's API's. i use my Note 3 with itunes on my macbook. itunes itself has supported non-apple devices for many years as long as the files don't have any DRM.
Re:I'm shocked. (Score:5, Interesting)
i'd be surprised if apple didn't win the case.
At the jury level this is expected. The appeal was expected either way. And in the longer term this may turn out differently.
Anti-trust concerns usually do benefit the consumer in the short term. And as the article points out, the jury specifically wrote that the features have an immediate benefit to the consumer.
Usually anti-trust problems are not immediately bad for the consumer. In the short term the consumer sees a lower price, easier access, and other conveniences.
In the long term the market ends up with monopolies and oligopolies, a loss of vibrancy, a slowdown in innovation, less desire to follow expensive advances, and worse customer experiences. Think of your local telco and cable companies as prime examples.
I expect that like so many other technical cases the jury's verdict will be overturned on appeal because juries in the US rarely understand the actual law. While criminal law is usually pretty straightforward for a lay jury, things like IP law and business law are often miscommunicated or misunderstood when handed to a jury of random citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
I expect that like so many other technical cases the jury's verdict will be overturned on appeal because juries in the US rarely understand the actual law.
Then it is good that the jury doesn't interpret the law - that is up to the judge and is (supposed to be) based on case law. The sole purpose of the jury during the trial phase is to determine facts, like given the judge's instructions about what the law is, did the defendant violate it, or based on the evidence, did the party do or not do the claimed action. Any appeal will not be based on the jury getting the wrong answer, it will be based on the judge giving the jury the wrong instructions about what t
Re:I'm shocked. (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't the USA have a concept of jury nullification [wikipedia.org], where the jury does much more than just determine facts, and actually takes a position on what's right and wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
Jury nullification has a tarnished history here, as it was often used in the South to acquit white men of lynching crimes. While it may be possible for a juror to use it, even mentioning it may be considered grounds for dismissal, or so I've heard. (IANAL)
Re: (Score:2)
I was on a jury recently (for someone accused of misdemeanor possession of methamphetamines). Some of the questions that the judge asked every potential juror were exactly along this line:
- Do you actively participate with any groups that advocate for or against the legalization of drugs?
- Do you believe that possession of a small amount of drugs should be legal?
- (If either of the above was true:) Will you follow my instructions regarding the law, even if it disagrees with your beliefs?
Anybody that wasn't
Re:I'm shocked. (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't the USA have a concept of jury nullification [wikipedia.org], where the jury does much more than just determine facts, and actually takes a position on what's right and wrong?
Yes, but that is for criminal trials, not civil trials. Basically, for a criminal trial if the jury returns a verdict of innocent then the defendant walks, no matter how the jury reached that verdict, even if it blatantly goes against the evidence. Jury nullification isn't explicitly codified in law, rather it is a concept that people have applied that is based on how the legal process works, i.e. a jury that returns innocent ends the prosecution. It has been used for juries to deliver justice when people have been unfairly, but legally, charged with crimes.
A civil trial doesn't really have the same protection since a judge is allowed to toss a jury's verdict if he feels it goes egregiously against the facts of the case, but if he does he must defend his decision and he doesn't get to replace the verdict with his own, but rather he in essence declares a mistrial and it has to be retried. Again, this is for the trial portion where the jury's purpose is as a determiner of facts. On the other hand, the jury award during the penalty phase can be reduced by the judge. And like always, any such action by a judge better be defensible otherwise he opens it up to being overturned on appeal.
Just like in criminal trials, in civil trials juries are given wide discretion in order to allow justice to be served. For example, it is not uncommon for the plaintiff to be awarded more by the jury than the plaintiff asked for, or for the jury to decide with their hearts instead of what the evidence logically dictates. Since civil juries decide based on the preponderance of the evidence and that is subjective, the level that must be reached for the judge to be able to toss the jury's decision is pretty high, so overturning such jury results is not very common (though make big press when the few do happen in big cases).
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the USA have a concept of jury nullification [wikipedia.org], where the jury does much more than just determine facts, and actually takes a position on what's right and wrong?
But that's usually in a case where Apple products suck, they make overpriced junk, the users are hipster fanboys, therefore Apple is guilty. Always.
Right? I mean isn't Apple always guilty?
This is too precious! A person who thinks Apple is always guilty marked my saying that as troll.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I'm shocked. (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever harm iTunes did, seems to have resulted in a far more vibrant marketplace now than it was years ago.
Be careful about confusing causation with correlation.
Re: (Score:3)
The iPods are on life-support - they don't make Apple much money anymore but Apple keeps them around because there's still a tiny demand for them.
That's true but the funny thing is that that "tiny demand" was well over a billion $$ in revenue in the past year. Funny how that much money is considered tiny...for Apple, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
they blocked and non-apple DRM like every other company out there and Real had to hack it.
Is this supposed to be a sentence? If so, I don't know what it means, at all. I'm speaking literally here.
I think he meant that it's warmer down south than it is in the winter.
Re: (Score:2)
they blocked any non-Apple DRM, just like every other company out there, and Real had to hack it (to get their stuff to work around Apple's DRM).
but in the end, iTunes allowed you to use any hardware you wanted, as long as the maker coded a few of Apple's APIs (eventually Apple decided to play nice and stop suing manufacturers and instead made an API system that allowed other hardware to play nice with iTunes).
it was a crap suit (Score:4)
every time you have to move data from one system to another, it has to be flushed through some software to work on the new stuff. every time. all the way back to ENIAC, nothing is truly portable. I never had issues with iThingies, but then I never tried to use Real or Creative, either. and if I did, hey, flush the data through something else. like always.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to buy music from multiple vendors on your mobile device? Well we need a standard and open platform like the PC, where any vendor can add their hardware, software or DRM. Apple hardware/software stack is proprietary and owned by one company, so this decision is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to buy music from multiple vendors on your mobile device?
Who wouldn't want that?
Well we need a standard and open platform like the PC, where any vendor can add their hardware, software or DRM.
We have such a thing, so that's good, but I would argue that DRM is not only unnecessary, it needs to die a fiery death.
Apple hardware/software stack is proprietary and owned by one company, so this decision is correct.
True enough, which is reason #2 that I will never own Apple anything. Reason #1 why I will never use Apple music devices is that would force me to use iTunes, which sucks beyond measure.
Re: (Score:2)
You must have heard of things like Napster and BitTorrent. Plenty of people can't/won't pay for music. In fact, I've heard the PS4 DRM was too hard for pirates to crack. It may have been cracked since then. But until then, the only way to play PS4 games was to buy/rent them.
My point is consumers pay to use all products and services, except digital ones, because they are easy to use without paying. DRM forces the consumer t
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft's software stack is proprietary yet they got pinged for private APIs (which Apple does) and for bundling a web browser (which Apple does). It is the same anti-competitive behavior but Apple gets away with those dirty tactics because they dont technically have a monopoly.
You seem to miss some relevant details. First of all, Apple's browser can be removed. MS argued that they couldn't remove IE or it would break Windows. Second, the core components of Apple's browser was built on open source. Chrome is built on these components. How anti-competitive is it to not only choose open source for their browser but release additional parts beyond what was mandated by the license (JavaScriptCore and WebCore)? And you call those tactics "dirty"?
Re: I'm shocked. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why was this modded down? It's the truth. Oh mods, cover the truth with your mod points. Yay.
When I was your age, we knew that you started out at -1 as an AC. And we liked it.
Kids these days.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, what? People no longer use MP3s? They don't buy iPods?
This sounds like an odd claim ... I've got way more MP3s now that I did in 2005, and it's the primary way I listen to music. When I buy a CD (yes, I still do that) the first thing I do is rip it.
Sure, there are streaming services. But I'm betting lots of people still play MP3s on portable players.
It's not as glamorous, but saying MP3s have no bearing on the modern technology industry? I'm not buying that.
Re: (Score:2)
The claim is very weird, yes, but the premise isn't -- the case has absolutely no bearing on the industry. Not because MP3s and iPods have been replaced by streaming and iPhones or whatever other device people use instead of a dedicated iPod, but because the DRM has long since been dropped in the music space.
Worst case scenario, Apple pays the lawyers involved some number of millions of dollars and a pittance to consumers (as in all class action cases), and changes nothing because its all entirely moot at t
Re: (Score:2)
Not because MP3s and iPods have been replaced by streaming and iPhones or whatever other device people use instead of a dedicated iPod, but because the DRM has long since been dropped in the music space.
It's still relevant, but an expected ruling. This is not about DRM on the songs, it is about DRM on the connection between iTunes and the devices. That is, you can't use a non-apple device with iTunes. And Apple can go out of their way to make that happen.
That's really annoying, but this is the same as Keurig putting DRM on their kcups, or HP putting DRM on their printer cartridges. Lame, but legal.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
You can use non-apple devices with iTunes and the iTunes music store just fine. You have always been able to do so. I don't know why you'd want to because as far as mp3 managers go it kinda sucks, but you could plug a random mp3 player in and provided its not going out of its way to be weird, iTunes will detect it and list it on devices and it'll happily copy any non-DRM'd content to it.
All you could not do was use non-Apple devices with DRM'd music-- but no music is DRM'd anymore, so that's not relevant.
You also couldn't use DRM'd music from other services on Apple's devices, and you still can't, but that's not relevant either because there's no obligation for Apple to support anyone elses DRM.
The case is not about supposed non-existent DRM between iTunes and iThings, its about Real hacking Apple's DRM on files and trying to copy such hacked DRM'd content -- instead of plain straight up mp3s that iTunes always supported fine -- into an iThing. Apple closed the hole in their DRM and such hacked content was no longer valid.
But, that's not relevant anymore because Apple doesn't use that DRM on any music anymore. (They _do_ use it on non-music stores still, though)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's still relevant, but an expected ruling. This is not about DRM on the songs, it is about DRM on the connection between iTunes and the devices. That is, you can't use a non-apple device with iTunes. And Apple can go out of their way to make that happen.
I think you are making the mistake of thinking that Apple was sued for something that remotely makes sense. They weren't.
Apple sold music with DRM in 2006. That music was hard or impossible to copy, as music with DRM should be. But that's not what Apple was sued for. And making it impossible for music with DRM to be copied is actually what DRM is there for.
Realnetworks had developed their own DRM "solution". Which had the unfortunate disadvantage that it didn't play on iPods, and it didn't play on Microsoft "Playforsure" compatible players either. So it was quite dead in the water. So Realnetworks decided to create a hack where they removed their own DRM, then put fake "FairPlay" (that's Apple's DRM) around it, and copied that to the iPod.
It turned out that they damaged directory structures on the iPod, and the iPod's "FairPlay" implementation noticed that there was something fishy about these files. Altogether so bad that Apple's software suggested that you reformat the iPod. And that is what these lawyers complain about: That Apple didn't allow their hacked DRM to play on an iPod.
The obvious and 100% iPod compatible solution would have been to remove the DRM and _not_ to try to add Fairplay DRM to the music. Music without DRM, like mp3, AAC, WAV, ALAC has always played on all iPods.
Re: (Score:2)
If by "hard to copy" you mean use iTunes to burn a regular audio CD containing the DRM'd songs and then use iTunes to rip the songs as an MP3.
Re: (Score:2)
because the DRM has long since been dropped in the music space.
This is not true, even if Apple insists on saying it is. As near as I can tell, what they mean is that they aren't putting DRM on music that was added after the DRM-free date. However, the iTunes library is full of music that is as "protected" by DRM as it ever was. Or at least that was true three years ago, when I spent far too much time working out how to strip the DRM off of a song I downloaded from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not true, even if Apple insists on saying it is. As near as I can tell, what they mean is that they aren't putting DRM on music that was added after the DRM-free date. However, the iTunes library is full of music that is as "protected" by DRM as it ever was. Or at least that was true three years ago, when I spent far too much time working out how to strip the DRM off of a song I downloaded from it.
Just in case that you still have a reasonable amount of music with FairPlay DRM: You can buy Apple's "iTunes Match" for a year, which will among other things allow you to replace any music bought from Apple, and any music from anywhere that the software recognises, with DRM free 256 Kbit/sec copies. Costs about $25 or so. If you have lots of music with DRM or in lower quality, it's worth it.
Re: (Score:3)
because the DRM has long since been dropped in the music space.
This is not true, even if Apple insists on saying it is. As near as I can tell, what they mean is that they aren't putting DRM on music that was added after the DRM-free date. However, the iTunes library is full of music that is as "protected" by DRM as it ever was. Or at least that was true three years ago, when I spent far too much time working out how to strip the DRM off of a song I downloaded from it.
No, they removed the DRM from the vast majority of their catalog and automatically upgraded songs in the iTunes library back in 2009. The reason that not all music is DRM free is not all labels and artists agreed to sell non-DRM music. Apple has to abide by it's contracts, even if it pisses a few people off.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what? People no longer use MP3s? They don't buy iPods?
This sounds like an odd claim ... I've got way more MP3s now that I did in 2005, and it's the primary way I listen to music. When I buy a CD (yes, I still do that) the first thing I do is rip it.
Sure, there are streaming services. But I'm betting lots of people still play MP3s on portable players.
It's not as glamorous, but saying MP3s have no bearing on the modern technology industry? I'm not buying that.
You hinted towards the very definition of "waning" in your description, especially identifying yourself as one of those rare individuals who still purchases their music, and in a 30-year old format.
Do not simply dismiss those "streaming services". If they don't comprise the majority of music consumption these days they likely soon will, and reflect an impact similar to the one Netflix has had on video streaming.
Sure consumers like MP3s, but consumers are also really fucking lazy. They don't even type the
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what? People no longer use MP3s? They don't buy iPods?
Waned in popularity != never use. Today music streaming is more normal for teens and young adults.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yet beyond monetary damages, the case has zero bearing on the modern technology industry, as both the MP3 music file format and the iPod itself have waned in popularity"
Wait, what? People no longer use MP3s? They don't buy iPods?
They've also technically got it backwards. Neither Apple nor Real were distributing mp3s, but DRM'd music files in other formats - mp3s were never targeted by Apple's countermeasures to Real's hack. Today it's actually possible to get most music in plain mp3 format from Amazon and other online retailers so, if anything, mp3 is now vastly more popular than before (at least as a legitimate distribution format).
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what? People no longer use MP3s? They don't buy iPods?
iTunes, the iPod, and the iPhone (which are either the default software player or the default hardware for most people, especially inside of the US) have been using MP4/AAC for years.
Google still seems to be using MP3 strangely (AAC compresses much better with higher audio quality, and you'd think they would like to save on bandwidth costs), but they could be doing that because they have to support a wider range of devices. Amazon falls into the same category.
So yeah, while MP3 is still around, but with 63
Re: (Score:2)
They stopped making iPods and while many people still use MP3s, the digital market itself has moved more toward streaming and subscription based services, where people buy access rather than files that they need to migrate.
Re: (Score:2)
How much would it cost you to buy a (lawful) copy of the entire library available through Pandora or Spotify?
Re: (Score:2)
How much would it cost you to buy a (lawful) copy of the entire library available through Pandora or Spotify?
I don't think that's really a meaningful question. The much better question is: how much would it cost you to buy a lawful copy of everything you might reasonably listen to on Pandora?
Re: (Score:2)
The much better question is: how much would it cost you to buy a lawful copy of everything you might reasonably listen to on Pandora?
Probably more than someone would pay for Pandora in ten years, especially someone who switches among several autogenerated "stations".
Re: (Score:2)
You only own a licence to listen to music you purchased on that format and that cd
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it costs tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars to own legally? Renting is cheaper (1/10th or 1/100th the price to own).
Good for consumers? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't... Even Apple didn't want to do DRM, but the record companies were shellshocked from Napster (and other P2P) at the time. They would have never sold their music on iTMS without it.
The video game crash of 1983 (Score:2)
How can DRM and locking out competitors ever be defined as good for consumers?
"Ever" is a strong word. Think back to 1983 and 1984 when the North American video game market crashed due to too much choice. Because the Atari 2600 had no lockout, anybody could develop a poorly balanced game and sell it. In an era before Internet reviews, when games cost $20 or more (roughly $60 in today's money), people grew leery of spending on something they think might not be fun, and many retailers and end users gave up video gaming altogether. It took Nintendo and its lockout regime to convince ret
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, DRM is good for consumers because it ensures that studios will be willing to publish more than zero desirable works in a format.
You seem to forget that studios _have_ to be willing to publish in a format that people will use. The studios being "willing" to publish is irrelevant. If they try to publish works in a format no one uses, they lose their revenue stream. Their entire business model is having as many people as possible buy the content.
Enough customers do in fact tolerate DRM (Score:2)
You seem to forget that studios _have_ to be willing to publish in a format that people will use.
And if there are many people whom the DRM doesn't inconvenience, then there are many people willing to buy copies of works in a DRM format. The popularity of video game consoles, DVD, and iTunes Music Store prior to 2009 has shown that there do exist enough customers willing to tolerate DRM to keep a market going.
Re: (Score:2)
And if there are many people whom the DRM doesn't inconvenience, then there are many people willing to buy copies of works in a DRM format. The popularity of video game consoles, DVD, and iTunes Music Store prior to 2009 has shown that there do exist enough customers willing to tolerate DRM to keep a market going.
True, but that isn't an argument for how DRM can be good for consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
DRM is good for consumers because it ensures that studios will be willing to publish more than zero desirable works in a format.
studios _have_ to be willing to publish in a format that people will use.
there are many people willing to buy copies of works in a DRM format
True, but that isn't an argument for how DRM can be good for consumers.
Which brings me back to the original assertion: DRM allows studios to make works available to those members of the public who accept DRM that the studios would be unwilling to make available to anyone without DRM. If the choice were between DRM home video and requiring the public to wait seven years for a repeat theatrical screening, how would the latter "be good for consumers"?
Re: (Score:2)
Think back to 1983 and 1984 when the North American video game market crashed due to too much choice.
Nothing that you've said here is an accurate reflection of why that crash happened. Lockout wasn't even remotely a factor.
DRM is good for consumers because it ensures that studios will be willing to publish more than zero desirable works in a format.
This also doesn't resemble the truth at all. If there were no such thing as DRM, there would be just as much content being produced. Or, at least, there isn't any indication that wouldn't be true.
So end users were faced with a choice between VCD/SVCD, which has no DRM and no major titles, and DVD, which has DRM and major titles.
And that was good for consumers how?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing that you've said here is an accurate reflection of why that crash happened. Lockout wasn't even remotely a factor.
Then please help me understand why the abundance of low-quality shovelware was either A. unrelated to lack of lockout or B. not a factor in the crash.
So end users were faced with a choice between VCD/SVCD, which has no DRM and no major titles, and DVD, which has DRM and major titles.
And that was good for consumers how?
Because DRM gives consumers access to view the movie at home, as opposed to having to wait years to see it again in theaters if it ever comes back to theaters.
Re: (Score:2)
The Atari 2600 was such an unbelievably primitive system, it was impossible to make complex game with
You'd have a point if if the Atari 2600 were the only platform affected by the crash. It was not.
and the NES was a ten year leap ahead in technology
The ColecoVision was almost as sophisticated technically as the Sega Master System and Nintendo Entertainment System that followed it. In fact, the nearly pixel-perfect port of Donkey Kong to the CV inspired Nintendo to make the Famicom in the first place. All the CV really lacked was smooth scrolling. Why did it crash too?
Re: (Score:2)
The Video Game Crash happened because personal computers had better graphics and cheaper games. You could get a computer which could do more than play games for the price of a console. Curiously or not 1983 was around when the C64 came out.
Re: (Score:2)
C64+1541 was expensive (Score:2)
You could get a computer which could do more than play games for the price of a console.
At launch, a Commodore 64 computer with a 1541 floppy drive cost much more than the second-generation consoles did.
Re:Good for consumers? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can DRM and locking out competitors ever be defined as good for consumers?
I suggest you read what the case was actually about. Apple is claimed to have prevented Realnetworks from adding Apple's DRM to Realnetworks' DRM music and copying it onto Apple's iPods. The reality is that Realnetworks created an awful hack and damaged the data on an iPod in the process to an extent that Apple's software thought the iPod was broken and reformatted it.
To your question "How can DRM ever be defined as good for customers": Without DRM, it would be impossible to rent videos online for cheap
Deals? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Your Honor, I ended up killing him, It was absolutely necessary given deals I had with his wife to patch her problems"
A secret deal is not an excuse to screw illegaly your customers, if that was the case.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's silly. Making products work with only your products is legal and has been going on for at least 100 years. If you get razors from company X you can't get blades from company Y. Like video games (that Apple mentioned in their argument) that work only in their console, if you get a DVD it won't play in your VCR, your AT&T phone won't work on Verizon, if you get HBO you can't record it without DRM in HD, only certain garbage cans fit into my cabinets trash drawer, etc. It's stupid to expect a compan
Re: (Score:2)
Say that to Google, they don't have the right to make their search products to only work with their browser or OSs, monopoly regulations will start to hit them. What did Apple wrong?, I can't say for sure, IANAL and apparently they will try an appeal, but was Apple music service big enough at the time they started screwing with other companies trying to enter the market? maybe, maybe not.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Maps with navigation only worked with Android for 3 years.
Google NaCL only works with Chrome.
Do you want other examples of Google technologies that only work with Chrome and/or Android?
Re: (Score:2)
You are taking examples that are not a market monopoly, Search is an example that they can't do whatever they want, any example you find that say they can do watherver they want with that technology, doesn't make true: the parent comment "Making products work with only your products is legal" there are situations where that isn't true. The situation here is, was iTunes to big so they can't do whatever they wanted?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like promoting internal products in their search results?
http://www.zdnet.com/article/y... [zdnet.com]
Or forcing a company to use their location services over a competitor (Android has 80% of the worldwide market)?
http://www.androidpolice.com/2... [androidpolice.com]
Or not allowing a company to manufacturer non Google approved Android devices if they manufacturer Android approved devices?
http://marketingland.com/googl... [marketingland.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You are taking examples that are not a market monopoly, Search is an example that they can't do whatever they want
I think you need to first lean what a market monopoly is, and then secondly learn what anti-trust laws are. If you did you'd find that Google does not have a monopoly on search, and not cross-licensing to allow others interoperability (as in this case being discussed) would not fall afoul of anti-trust laws even if a monopoly position was in play.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deals? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your analogy is dumb.
The customers would never have had access to the music catalogs of the major music labels were it not for deals to implement DRM and patch holes when that DRM is exploited.
Real exploited a hole to create fakely-DRM'd content, and Apple had to close it or they'd be in breach of contract and suddenly the ITMS has no content.
(At least, in theory. In reality Apple got big enough by this point that they were able to muscle the labels into letting them un-DRM the entire catalog, which seems quite the opposite of illegally screwing customers.)
Re: (Score:2)
It ia a joke analogy, I know but the main idea is that your deals doesn't give you a blank cheque to do anything above the law, as I said, "if that was the case"
Continuing with the joke analogy, If the killer don't agree to kill the husband, the customer, the wife, will not get access to enjoy the money from the inheritance either
Re: (Score:2)
The customers would never have had access to the music catalogs of the major music labels were it not for deals to implement DRM and patch holes when that DRM is exploited.
Absolutely not true. Customers had access to those music catalogs before iTunes existed, both in legal and illegal ways. I think what you meant was that Apple would never have had access.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I mean the customers who are party to the suit -- Apple's customers. Yes, there was other channels they could have gotten music, but the catalogs were not exhaustive and were just as locked down as anything Apple ever did.
ITMS wasn't the first to try to do legal online music, I'm not arguing that. They did get all the paranoid labels on board and made it easy, and at the time that was a big deal. I remember I *could* buy music online at the time, but it was mostly a pain in the butt from most sources --
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part Apple does what they always do: they work to make things easy for the consumer. Before Apple, you could buy music online. The sites were terrible to navigate and sometimes it wasn't even easy to pay. Pricing was ludicrous. Then you had to get your music software to authorize and then sync it to your device. PlaysForSure was almost an ironic name back then.
So here comes Apple: Consumers use iTunes for everything. payment, navigation, downloading are all integrated. All songs are the same pr
Good Decision (Score:2)
The decision was good. Apple did not have a monopoly. People could choose not to use Apple products and still listen to music. Not a big deal.
This was just a bunch of lawyers desperately looking to hit the jackpot. They were so creepy they had to find a new client to justify the case because none of their original clients qualified.
Even then they case was open and shut absurd and dumped.
"Following the decision, the plaintiff's head attorney said an appeal is already planned."
Aye, spoke like a true ambulance
Re: (Score:2)
The decision was good. Apple did not have a monopoly. People could choose not to use Apple products and still listen to music.
What's more, people could choose not to use Apple's iTunes music store and still listen to music on their iPod. Reports of this case always seem to airbrush over the fact that the "lock out" only ever affected competing DRM formats: there was no problem with playing unprotected MP3 or AAC files from any source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These two questions:
A) Is DRM a bad thing?
B) Did Apple's DRM raise the price of iPods?
are two very different questions. If is very easy to see how someone could answer the questions differently. The court was asked to decide B not A.
Re: Yes this is Terrible. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's a hard question to answer in a suit against Apple. Certainly the RIAA wanted Apple to be nothing but a device manufacturer allowing a host of other formats and selling agents. At the same time the other ones available like Real they didn't want. So it is hard to find a monop
Re: (Score:2)
The court was not asked to decide either one of those things. You're not even paying attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes actually. That's what they are being sued for. I know it sounds ridiculous but that is the plaintiff's claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes actually. That's what they are being sued for. I know it sounds ridiculous but that is the plaintiff's claim.
The plaintiff's claims were nowhere near as sensible as the things you asked about. (Actually, Apple's legal reply to most of the claims was "what you are claiming doesn't make any sense". Usually a legal reply to a reasonable accusation either says "we didn't do it" or "we were allowed to do it". )
Re:Yes this is Terrible. (Score:4, Informative)
Steve Jobs himself was anti-DRM (on music, at least): http://readwrite.com/2007/02/0... [readwrite.com]
It's a shame the original page isn't even on Apple's own website anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And Apple's DRM could always be removed legally by burning the music onto a CD using Apple's own iTunes software, and today
Re: (Score:3)
DRM is so terrible that.... Apple did away with it on the music store years ago.
Its the content industry that is keeping it on the movie and tv stores. I am against DRM too but remember who requires it in their contracts to distribute.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems to me that people just like to use the exi
Re: (Score:3)
It should be pointed out that Apple later convinced the music labels to let them remove DRM from the iTunes Store. Which really kind of makes the whole thing moot.
It's moot - for now.
You say "Don't have a cow!"
But you never can know
How the wind will blow
Come the next lobbyist - politician pow-wow.
Burma Shave
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean other than they never wanted it in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally started buying music online a few years back. I didn't want DRM.
I've spent probably a few hundred pounds with Amazon, just because when I started buying music online they were the place to offer DRM free. Apple lost me as a customer because of DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
That's awfully weird considering Apple dropped DRM from its music store before Amazon opened their music store.
Your memory and reality are having a somewhat awkward dissonance.
Re: (Score:3)
Article from 2009 announcing price cuts to iTunes music, mentions Apple has plans to go DRM free in the future:
http://www.computerworld.com/a... [computerworld.com]
From same article:
"While iTunes is the most popular digital music store, others have been faster to offer songs without copy protection. Amazon.com started selling DRM-free music in 2007 and swayed all the major labels to sign on in less than a year."
Awfully weird indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple started selling DRM free music (5/2007) before Amazon started selling music (9/2007).
Re:Yes this is Terrible. (Score:5, Interesting)
2/6/2007
http://macdailynews.com/2007/0... [macdailynews.com]
"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."
"Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly."
5/30/2007
Apple starts selling DRM free music
https://www.apple.com/pr/libra... [apple.com]
9/25/2007
Amazon starts selling DRM free music,
http://readwrite.com/2007/09/2... [readwrite.com]
As you were saying?
Re: (Score:2)
"Starts selling" is the key. Yes, they had some DRM free content. Amazon had all DRM free music content. That's a massive difference. I was very much against Amazon at the time because of the one click patent, but I started buying music there because they were doing it the right way. iTunes went all DRM free later on, well after Amazon.
Re: Yes this is Terrible. (Score:2)
Amazon didn't launch with all four of the major record labels. So while all of their music was DRM free. They didn't have all of the music that Apple had.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Music
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't have to. They had enough to start chipping away. As Amazon's sales increased, they'd have more power to reign in the hold-outs. Apple didn't have a choice. Amazon was probably hoping they'd try to hold-out. Without devices of their own, the DRM-free nature of their catalog was their best draw. That's probably why they're so heavily into the Kindle, Fire, and other gadgets now. They want their catalog to be the first that a consumer sees. Something they'll never get on other company's dev
Re: Yes this is Terrible. (Score:2)
That's not what happened.
Here is the long version of the story....
1. Around the end of 2006, the EU was clamoring for Apple to license FairPlay. That's why Jobs said that most of the four record labels were based in the EU.
2. Jobs posted "Thoughts on Music" (the previously quoted article) telling the music industry if they wanted interoperability they could license their music DRM free.
3. Most of the music industry wanted Apple to have variable price music and to allow full albums to be sold without breakin
Re: (Score:2)
Within a year of Amazon opening their digital music store, they had the major labels. Apple was still heavily into DRM then. I don't really care what Apple wanted to do, I'm looking at the facts for what they are. A year in, Amazon had what it needed to be a significant threat to Apple's iTunes store. Jobs may have been truthful saying that little music came from their store at the time, most music would have been ripped from people's CD collections, and I'm sure a significant chunk from file sharing.
Re: Yes this is Terrible. (Score:2)
You mean like your previous "fact" that Amazon started selling DRM free music before Apple did?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care what Jobs said. It's irrelevant. Amazon's store was DRM free. They had the major labels within a year. Apple did not. I don't care what Jobs said at the time. Amazon got it done while Jobs was still blathering on about it. Actions beat words. Apple didn't rid DRM from their catalog until Amazon forced them to. You can go on talking about Jobs all you want. I saw what actually took place.
Hardware margins are a fool's game. Apple is going to lose its shirt if it keeps betting on them.
Re: (Score:2)
8-person jury will get free mac pros and iphones now
"I hate Apple so I'm just going to make shit up."