Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued Over Potential Hearing Loss
freaktheclown writes "A man is suing Apple, claiming that the iPod can cause hearing loss for those who use it." From the article: "The iPod players are 'inherently defective in design and are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss,' according to the complaint, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., on behalf of John Kiel Patterson of Louisiana. The suit, which Patterson wants certified as a class-action, seeks compensation for unspecified damages and upgrades that will make iPods safer."
The world has enough proof that there is no intelligent life in the US.
Well too me this seems rather unfair on Apple.
/. for keeping me a wake all night to try and get first posts.
In short he had the volume control and it was in his power to change it to the correct level for him.
It sounds all too like the person who burgled and empty house and fell though the rotten floor boards. Then he sued.
He shouldn't have had the volume high enough to damage his hearing anyway.
It seems like saying I should sue
I'm sure if he wins many more will follow though.Could this be the demise of Apple?
This just shows how ignorant people can be... it's like suing the maker of a handgun because you were careless with it. Take responsibility for your actions people... if you listen to your iPod too loud then deal with the consequences of your stupidity.
This just in! 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
Good idea!
I'll start suing the manufacturers of the various amplifiers, receivers, and speakers I've had over the past ~25 years of brutalizing my ears. And I'll name all the bands, especially Motorhead, who have given me pleasure in a separate suit!
My hearing probably isn't what it should be but the last thing I'd consider doing is suing the product makers.
written as the sweet sounds of Slayer fill my office...
Trolling is a art,
...and how are iPods any different from any other headphone-capable audio device?
Nothing to see here, move along
There are at least a few problems here (all of which have been discussed over the months since the first of these ridiculous complaints):
First, I've seen ZERO evidence that this has anything to with the iPod per se as opposed to just the nature of in-ear earphones.
Second, you only incur damage if you play the sound too loud. We've been quite saturated with information on that sort of effect for decades (Townshend?). If you cant figure out that it doesn't matter where the sound is coming from, just how loud it is, then screw you.
There's more, but this alone is enough to dismiss this crap...
"Stumble before you crawl"
I can only assume that you haven't paid attention to the goings-on in the US for the last, oh, two point five decades or so. There is no need to assume responsibility for your actions, as long as you can find a lawyer (you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one) to plead your case. The goal isn't to win a trial, but to win a settlement. Cash in, as it were. There's a whole industry built around these nuisance suits. The worst part is that the ones that do go to a jury trial are likely to be succesful anyway as the jurors apparently sit there thinking, 'Well, if we give this guy a big award, when it's our turn...' Entitlement mentality.
On top of that, you get the 'junk science' lawsuits. Dow Corning and the silicone breast implant bankruptcy is a prime example. There never was and is not any scientific evidence that silicone breast implants lead to any of the medical conditions (real or imagined) that were the cause of those lawsuits. I believe there are still silicone implants available, too (although DC is no longer maufacturing them).
Some times I think I went to bed last night in one timeline. A timeline where normal, common sense prevails. Yet, somehow I've woken up in another timeline. One where everything is slightly off kilter. Not enough to be grossly disorienting, but just enough to be maddeningly noticeable.
--
Sig sour
Right, so now explain why he's singling out Apple instead of suing everybody who makes earbud-style headphones.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
We've reversed evolution. Now the stupid unproductive people are the ones who are able to reproduce the most. They're able to do so by living off lawsuit money and welfare.
The problem with that is that earbuds have been around for years, probably a decade or more now, so there's been plenty of time to document such side-effects and make people aware of them, or pull such headphones off the market.
I don't get why people use those things anyways. They always hurt my ears (and I have friends bitch about that all the time as well), so I tend to use larger headphones that just cover my ears entirely. They do pretty much the same thing, and they're not a PITA to wear (though maybe a PITA to carry around; then again, I wear them most of the time. Like right now, for instance.)
Send him an olive-loaf. It's a dual-purpose weapon, you can use it on mimes as well.
Except those are no more likely than earbuds to damage your hearing. In order to cause damage, the volume has to be high enough to hurt. You ever hear something at 110+ decibels? Holy shiat, you deserve what you get if you cannot respond properly to pain stimuli.
And while I'm ranting... what about concerts? I went to an Aerosmith concert a few years ago, and the sound was so loud it was distorting in my ear. I mean... LOUD. Shouldn't we be suing them too? Especially since we can't turn down the volume in that situation.
Oh wait... personal responsibility. Almost forgot it existed. As it seems the person who brought the suit did as well. Either that or he's just looking for money. That might explain going after Apple instead of smaller fish. No, it can't be, he's definitely looking out for all of our best interests...
Because they're making lots of money selling iPods. Big money = juicy target.
It's nothing but punnishment for success.
My Gameboy (circa 1990) had earbuds... should I sue Nintendo for those horrible Tetris sounds I blared into my ears as a child? iPod is not the only device that ships with earbuds. Also, when does common sense come in on these lawsuits? (I realize you were just making a point, but you have to admit they aren't very logical if you think about them for more than 5 seconds, as is the case with most lawsuits anymore.)
Starmen.net
I agree that it should come down to personal reponsibility, but he is sueing also because he says there are not enough warnings with the iPod docs. My pair to Shure inner ear canal headpohnes have warnings all over the place.
This reminds me of the old woman who spilled the hot McDonald's coffee on her lap and sued becuase it was too hot and didnt have anough warnings/labels that is was hot so now she is rich and every to go cup of coffee you buy from many places is covered in "HOT!" or "Warning: Contents May be Hot!"
Just for the record, sounds don't have to be loud enough to hurt in order to cause hearing loss. Sounds ~85dB (around the level of a busy street or a factory) or higher are enough to cause permanent damage to hearing. Now, obviously, exposure time necessary for significant damage are inversely proportionate to the volume of the noise.
And I totally agree that Mr. Patterson is a fruitloop. There's a volume control for a reason. And if I want to ruin my hearing, or say, I don't know, use an iPod for something other than earbuds, like, maybe unpowered speakers, or multiple set of headphones, that's my right! I might need the power that the iPod can put out. Just 'cause some people lose their hearing 'cause they're dumb or not careful enough to protect themselves by turning the volume down a bit, doesn't mean everyone else should suffer. Think of it as evolution in action.
I bought a mini just before they were discontinued, but my other friends have bought the 20 gig, 40 gig, and nano versions of the ipod. None of their purchases came with rubberized earbuds that form a seal in the ear, all of them are regular bud types with the slip-on foam covers. So what are these earbuds you're talking about? Are they even sold by Apple? Made by Apple? They don't seem to be the default option that comes with the product so I don't really see how a specific type of earbud that is not distributed with the ipod could be construed as "ipods cause hearing loss." In addition, as others have said, this suit has already come up in other forms, and since Apple complies with sound level regulations it looks like they've got a pretty clean case for no liability. Plus this is yet another lawsuit where the person harmed had a great deal of control over the company's product but they are somehow disavowing any personal responsibility for the damage caused. If you crank the volume on ANY sound reproduction device, and output that to sealed headphones of ANY type at maximum levels then it's a safe bet you're hurting your ears. That ringing you hear everytime you finish listening to your music? Yeah, that's your ears telling you to turn it down!
Personal responsiblity seems to be lost in this age, people need to own up to their own dumb-assery. Apple was not telling people it was ok to blast music at any volume you like with no ill effects, they are not directly responsible for some people's misuse of this particular product.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
FTFA:
You can't take the sky from me...
That's not how courts work.
You can get a bunch of scientists together and claim it's impossible.
I can get a bunch of "victims" together who claim that they lost 75% of their hearing from listening at REALLY low levels. They'll cry. They'll force the lawyers to yell the questions. They'll spend the court's time fiddling with hearing aids. They'll talk about how they lost their jobs and how their babies were run over by a bus because they couldn't hear the bus until it was too late. It'll be really tragic. And there's no way to prove they can still hear just as well as before.
The jury can decide either way: for the huge super-rich corporation or for the tragic half-deafened victims.
During the trial, some ridiculous "public interest group" will send out a press release warning people of the hearing loss, even at REALLY low levels. It'll be in every newspaper and on every TV newscast. Slashdot will post it 4 times in 3 days.
Apple will settle the case for $10 per iPod. Lawyers will get $9.02 of it and Apple will give iPod owners 98 cents off their next iTMS music purchase.
They'll artificially limit the sound level on future iPods and put a warning label on them. They'll raise the price $20.
The lawyers will buy new houses and fast cars. Then they'll start looking for their next big score. (Maybe Apple will have a hit against earnings because of the case. Did they warn the shareholders sufficiently? I smell a shareholder lawsuit.)
Even ignoring loudness, the iPod has issues driving headphones. Bass, in particular, is mushy. I got an Xin Mini, it's about the size of a box of matches, takes 3xAAA cells, and will comfortably drive a pair of full-size Sennheisers. It also has a binaural crossover circuit, so the stereo image sounds much better.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
People get lung cancer, they sue the cigarrette companies.
People don't realize their coffee is hot, they sue the people who made it (McDonalds comes to mind).
People break into your house, get trapped in your garage and are forced to eat dog food to survive while you're on vacation, they sue you for emotional distress.
It seems like a short leap to sue the people who make music players for going deaf.
Etymotic, with their earphones that absolutely seal into your ear canal, blocking out almost all outside noise, and putting themselves very close indeed to your eardrum.
I've been using a pair of Etymotic ER-4S headphones for about five years now. In practice, I find Ety's are far safer than normal earbuds for just the reason you cite. Since the outer part of the earbud is essentially an earplug with excellent noise blocking, the headphone doesn't have to compete volume-wise with ambient noise. You get the same clarity of sound with a lower volume level due to this.
It's also worth noting that due to the Ety's proximity to the eardrum, they don't need to be very loud at all. Their drivers run intentionally quiet for this reason. For comparison, with conventional headphones or earbuds if I set them at a comfortable listening level then set them down on the desk, I find that I can still hear the sound to some extent. With Ety's, I can't even tell whether they're on unless the volume is particularly loud or it's *very* quiet in the room.
Of course, it's critical with any headphone, Ety's or otherwise, to train yourself to moderate playback volume for extended listening.
This situation is more like the kid heard from someone that somebody may be shooting near his leg, so he sues the person with the deepest pockets, just in case he might get shot in the leg someday.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Granted, the U.S. system has its flaws, and any oppositional model presents a jurist with seemingly crazy, contradictory information to work through, but I'm not stumbling across better models out there anywhere. What's your alternative? Solomonic wisdom dispensed by all-powerful judges? Or what?
Our civil court system does put the burden of frivolous lawsuits on the people bringing them. Personally, for example, I'm not considering suing Microsoft for the endless frustration their risibly awful API has brought me -- because I'd have to foot a lawyer's bill with no chance of winning, and Microsoft has the legal resources to eat my lunch. The lawyers know that'd be a losing case so they won't take it without the money up front. Ta da! Deterrence.
In any case the U.S. legal system is hardly, hardly skewed against big corporations and for the "little guy." Paid any attention to politics over the last 26 years?
It's appalling to me how completely the "tort reform" folks, whose position is always that we need to limit damages, control public discussion of the legal system. They distort unbelievable corporate conduct until the public has its head up its ass about stuff like the Mickey-D's coffee case. These folks don't have your best interests at heart, or those of our society. They're about protecting the people who give them money. And that's not you or me.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Since this guy singled out Apple rather than all earbud makers or all media players shipped with earbuds Apple should counter sue claiming what this lawsuit is, a nuisance lawsuit.
If Apple needs a witness I have been using my iPod for years and at full volume and I have not lost my hearing at all.
Well this is not specific to the iPod. We've known for years that portable players, back from the old Walkman can damage your ears.
French law limits the output of 'portable players' so the iPod sold in France has a different firmware from anywhere else in the world.
Something they could do is to have an option (maybe deep in the preferences) to limit the volume to a maximum safe level. If someone wants it louder, then he could unlock the full potential of the iPod, after agreeing on the warnings.