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.
If he gets Apple, then I'm calling iRiver for the damage they've done to my hearing.
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,
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 am going to mail a large salami to the judge, in hopes that he will use it to smack the plaintiff.
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
He's infringing my patent: US PAT 99846321-666 "A method for obtaining stupidly large amounts of financial compensation from commercial organisations by suing them because they failed to point out (rightly or otherwise) something mind-numbingly obvious about a potential (real or otherwise) hazard related to the use of their product/s that anyone with a small degree of common sense would be competent to identify for themselves and thus take appropriate action."
AT&ROFLMAO
Actually I want my iPod to go louder.
If I have a big pair of earphones on, then the iPod doesn't really have enough power to drive them. I have heard a rumor that a US firmware (as opposed to EU) will give it more volume (apparently the EU has a law that forces output to be capped at a *safe* level), but I have been unable to find any regional firmware at all.
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
... they want their lawsuit back.
Wasn't the same thing done over the Sony Walkman?
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
People have been citing the McDonalds coffee lawsuit since it happened as an example of stupid lawsuits, and I don't know how many times I've had to point this out to people: McDonalds' had been very negligent about the way they delt with their coffee. http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm has a list of facts about the case which you would be well-advised to read, including that McDonalds keeps their coffee significantly hotter than other restraunts and that they had privately settled more than 700 cases like this in the past, but had taken no action to prevent it happening again.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I knew someone would bring up the McDonald's Coffee case.
.. Other establishments sell
m cdonalds.htmo naldsCoffeecase.aspx
The knee-jerk reaction to any seemingly stupid/frivolous litigation (or patent) is to assume that the summary = the case, when in fact things tend to be more complex.
There are a lot of details to the McDonald's case that the unwashed masses tend to not know:
Some important points:
"McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle."
"[she] suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas."
"During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks."
"it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste.
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees."
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_
http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/Mcd
Every single set of headphones/earphones has a different sensitivity level. That is, feed the same amount of power to 2 different sets of phones, and one will be louder than the other because of the efficiency of the speaker drivers which convert electricity into vibrations.
Basically, at a given volume level on the portable player (say 75% of total) may produce 80 dB of sound output with Brand X headphones and 84 dB of sound output with Brand Y.
IMO if you damage your hearing it is your own damn fault. It is quite easy to tell if you are listening to something that is too loud. If your ears always ring after you listen to a couple of MP3's on your portable player, turn the freaking volume down, nimwit. Same deal if your ears bleed....
My spoon is too big.
Think about that statement for a minute, then explain it to me once again, answering the following question: how can REALLY low noise impair your hearing? Be specific, make sure you talk about the decibel level at which that REALLY low noise can impair your hearing.
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.)
Yeah but, you are in USA, where, you know, people is stupid..
I got a great example with product warnings (agree, some are from Tesco, a UK company) but lot of them are from USA companies.
I love these:
Sears hairdryer:
Do not use while sleeping.
Nytol sleep aid:
Warning: may cause drowsiness.
Disposable razor:
Do not use this product during an earthquake.
Hand-held Massaging Device
Do not use while sleeping or unconscious. [O MY F GOD]
Microwave Oven:
Do not use for drying pets.
Anyway, better take a look at them, really funny... but makes you think... in a country where anyone can sue anybody for anything... what can you expect.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
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...
Apple has countersued John Kiel Patterson's finger for moving the iPod's volume beyond the 93db range, which has possibly caused damage to his hearing.
His finger will be required to testify in court that it indeed did raise the volume beyond acceptable levels, his ears were also subpoenaed in to testify about their injuries.
Noone is sure about Patterson's brain, it has gone missing and possibly is living out of the country.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
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
In my opinion this absolutely, beyond belief, nullifies any claim this man may have even thought he had.
nothing
"The iPod players are 'inherently defective in design and are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss..."
So basically, he's telling us that if there was a big sticker pasted on the side that said "Hey, Asshat, don't turn it up too loud, you will lose your hearing!" that everything would have been OK, and he would not have sued?
*sigh*
What an asshat.
Because you can only sue people that actually did damage.
I think the guy has no case as he done it to himself: Limiting the (maximal) volume of the iPod, would also limit people with hearing disabilities from using it.
The guy is just an asshat for not having common sense: Hell, I could go around sueing the several clubs I visited in my teenyears, as the speakers certainly caused hearing loss... Then again, it was my -own- decision to go to those clubs... and stand in from of those speakers.
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!"
I had earbud 'phones almost 10 years before the iPod came out. They're not a new idea, they're just trendy now.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
#1
No one, NO ONE else in that town or the surrounding area sold coffee anywhere NEAR that hot.
#2
If you spilt coffee on you from a restraunt or that you made yourself you would probably not even manage FIRST DEGREE burns These were THIRD degree burns, the kind your more used to seeing from actual fires and not boiling water.
#3
The city AND state had filed health warnings with McDonalds due to the complaints, which McDonalds prompty ignored.
#4
The lady inquestion only sued after McDonalds refused to cover her health expenses. (Which they HAD done in the previous two instances in this state.)
#5
A company memo existed that flat out said that it would be cheaper and better marketing slogun to be able to say they had the "Hottest Coffee" and pay off any lawsuits that would happen from burn victims then to lower the tempurature and lose the possibility of lording it over their competitors.
#6
And finally it was not the defendant who sued for millions, it was the jury who awarded it becuase it was "unspecified" and the jury specifically said 3million was picked because it was the sales for one days worth of coffee at McDonalds and the jury thought that they needed to prove the company memo wrong.
Which, interestingly[1], is why the volume goes so high in the first place. Steve Jobs is partially deaf, and he tested the iPod before it was released.
[1] Or not. Mods, you decide.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
In the early days headphones sat on the side of your head and let in other noise. However, with the IPod ear buds fit 100% percent into your ear.
Oh don't be ridiculous - I was using in the ear 'phones like that years before the iPod was available.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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.
Because Apple pionered the idea of earbuds or at least popularized it of course.
Are you kidding? And let me guess: Linux invented the command line, Google invented XmlHttp, and BeOS invented the graphical operating system.
Earbud headphones have been around, and popular, for DECADES. Just because you weren't looking doesn't change reality.
Did ANYONE read the article? The guy's hearing wasn't even damaged - it specifically says that in there. He is suing because he thinks his iPod MIGHT damage his hearing if he keeps turning it up so loud.
Also, he evidently can not control himself to lower the volume because the warning that Apple ALREADY ships with the damn thing is not sufficient to alter his idiotic behavior.
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. --
This is why my Mother-in-Law brings ear plugs to concerts and movies, so if it's too loud for her, she can put them in. That way, she's accepting personal responsibility for her hearing, and NOT trying to shift the responsibility onto anyone else.
She even brings enough for everybody.
When I got my iPod, I bought a pair of high end earphones form Shure. With them, I'm very comfortable listening at much lower volumes than with a regular pair of ear buds or headphones.
It's all about taking care of your own body, instead of whining like a spoiled little brat demeaning everyone else do it for you.
What's next, some spoiled little mamma's boy going to sue McDonnalds for making him fat, as if any reasonable person with an IQ above 50 should realize fast fod is BAD for them?
Oh wait... Nevermind.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Oh, and as to the "now she's rich" part, that too is bogus. She initially asked for enough to recover her exact medical costs only. McDonalds refused so she sued for a larger amount. That amount was first granted, but then later was significanlty reduced. I forget what the final dollar value was but suffice to say it wasn't enough for her to go off and live a rich millionaire fantasy life.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
20 degrees isn't all that much, you're still gonna get scalded. Would 20 degree cooler coffee had lessened the injury that much? Methinks the lawyers would still be happy to sue. Note they call this a "problem" with the coffee.
Spilled hot stuff causes problems. They are a gigantic corporation. That McDonald's had to "settle" cases more indicates fear of publicity driven by greedy lawyers than anything else. Unless an employee dropped the cup, or a pot, McDonald's should have no liability.
And the drunk who tripped on a curb broke his wrist. Being able to sue for your own stupidity is the whole problem.
Why should they pay for her stupidity?
Five year old children are aware of the risk of dangeriously hot things. That's why suing over this is so idiotic.
Congratulations. A lawyer convince a bunch of yokels with sob stories. This is hardly a desired outcome. And the notice that the original award, a staggering $2.7 million, was just 2 days' sales of coffee indicates how badly the drooling lawyers wanted to tag McDonald's.
Still $480,000 more than it should have been.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
FTFA:
You can't take the sky from me...
If you have ever had a loved one truly hurt by a defective product this case should anger you, but I am glad that America is a country that uses courts as a means of consumer protection as opposed to excessive government regulation. It really is almost a binary choice. Either you have the government aggressively regulate everything from paper clips to chainsaws or you allow aggrieved parties to bring suit against each other. The advantage that a court has is that 12 citizens that make the decision to award "victims." I've lived in places in Europe where there was a ministry office that covered whatever product was on the market and these "philosopher king" bureaucrat could issue whatever edict that they wanted. I remember specifically hearing that there was a Norwegian law on the books regulating the color of cheese wax (this could have been a joke though). Sure we do this to a large extent in the US. The FDA really acted WAY out of line when they outlawed Ma-Huang (ephedrine) because a couple of idiots ate it like candy, but take a look at what the EU proposes to regulate and you soon get the idea that Europe would rather have the state act like a nanny and shoo consumers away from making their own choices.
At one time people took responsibility for their own actions and products were MUCH more dangerous.
The lawyers will argue that by bringing up all the product lawsuits we now have safer cars, and
other products. But lawsuits are still brought against companies whose products are missused by
stupid people. There has to be a limit some where.
ALL headphones, ear buds or over the ear types, can cause hearing damage by delivering a sound level
that's too high. Listening with speakers can cause the same damage too (while peeling the paint
off the walls and cracking the windows). I suppose a form of active feedback could be added to
headphones with a transducer to measure the sound level being delivered to the ear and back off the
volume before it reaches the danger point. Would consumers buy such a product? (that would be like
having a car that wouldn't go above 55mph by having a speed regulator. Some trucking companies actually
put such a gizmo in their trucks to keep their drivers honest). Would you like the government to demand
that makers of portable audio players put such a circuit into such players?
At some point our tort system exists only to make a profit for the lawyers and for "whiplash Willies" to
abuse the system for a quick buck. The small aircraft business was almost destroyed by product liability
lawsuits. Those cases involved 20-50 year old planes that were built before todays standards were
developed. How can you justify calling such a product "defective"? Should you be allowed to sue Ford if you were hurt when your 80 year old model "T"'s gas tank exploded today?
In fact, it's probably not entirely his fault either. He probably went to the doctor with hearing problems, had expensive tests and treatments, and then his insurer asked him to sue Apple. That's the way it works.
I accidentally cut my finger open using a Leatherman tool, and had to go to the ER. When it came time to pay up, my insurance company sent me a letter asking where the accident occurred, what products were involved, and asking me to sue anyone who might be liable in order to recoup the costs. The letter really didn't have a checkbox for "It was my own stupid fault"; it just assumed that it would be possible to sue somebody.
I wrote "It was my own stupid fault" on the form and sent it back... but don't be surprised if you see someone suing Leatherman for making knives sharp enough to cut into fingers.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
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.)
If they do that, I'll claim that the lawyers caused me hearing loss.
i can't hear you. type louder.
I have hearing loss that didn't become apparent until my 30's.
;)
A good part of it is genetic (a fact I didn't find out until recently). Another good part is also from being in loud environments (driving tractors, working in a coal-fired power plant, computer machine rooms,etc.). I also had lots of middle-ear infections as a kid.
I wore hearing protection when it was recommended. I didn't listen to *really* loud music (no concerts), and I didn't start wearing headphones until my hearing loss was already apparent.
I wear some pretty advanced hearing aids, but they aren't great for listening to music (I lose too much bass). I like to take them out when listening to music, and I typically have to crank my iPod close to the maximum volume. I've had to return laptops because they just didn't have enough audio "ooomph".
I use the most efficient headphones I can (based only on my perception), but many electronic devices just fall a little bit short of having a comfortable volume. I need an extra boost. I've tried a few sound boosters for headphones, but haven't found one I really like (If someone has some good recommendations, I'd appreciate it)
I'm really going to hate it if they impose more severe limits on volume. I'd like the option of going a bit higher.
I understand the higher volumes can still be damaging if you have hearing loss, but I can't really enjoy music otherwise.
The population is aging, and everyone's hearing is just going to get worse. Just wait until you guys find out hearing aids aren't covered by insurance! (I'm hoping that will change soon)
Now, if someone would just get on the ball and sell hearing aids with built-in bluetooth, I'd be very, very, happy. (If there isn't a patent on this already, it is mine!
If anyone knows of any home-brew hearing assistance device projects, please let me know!
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
The McDonalds coffee suit has NOTHING to do with frivolous lawsuits such as TFA. Here are a few important facts about the McDonalds case:
1. McDonalds coffee was held at temperatures at 180 degrees, 40-50 degrees higher than normal coffee, which is hot enough to produce a 3rd degree burn in as little as two seconds.
2. The plaintiff, a 79-year old woman, spent eight days in the hospital recieving skin grafts for 3rd degree burns covering 6% of her body.
3. There were 700 similar incidents, including some as serious as the plaintiff's.
4. She only asked for a $20,000 settlement; McDonalds refused.
6. The actual compensatory award was $200,000, the other $2.7 million (2 days of McD coffee sales) was punishment for McDonalds' "reckless, callous and willful" conduct. This was later reduced to only $480,000.
There are some stupid lawsuits, but most of them don't win. And if you're going to argue the point with anecdotal evidence, at least research your anecdotes.
Power corrupts. Knowledge is power. Study hard. Be evil.
(IIRC Pete Townsend recently spoke out against earbuds because he experienced hearing loss from headphones)
In spite of his claim to the contrary, don't you think it's possible that his hearing loss might have had something to do with being the guitarist for "THE LOUDEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND IN THE WORLD" for four decades?
The guy was exposed to 90 - 110 db's almost nightly for most of his career. No matter what he says, that's the main reason he's nearly deaf now. If headphones damaged his ears, it's because he had to crank them up to overcome the hearing loss from his wilder youth.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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.
So it won't really be a very big story, then?
Guy 1: "Can you hear me now?"
Guy 2: "What?"
Guy 1: "Can you hear me now?"
Guy 2: "Eh? What did you say?"
Guy 1: "Can you hear me now?"
Guy 2: "Ugh? YO! What did you say?"
Guy 1: "Can you hear me now?"
Guy 2: "Whaaat?"
Guy 1: "Can you hea...."
Guy 2: "HEY! Yo! Hello?!"
Guy 1: "...r me now?"
Guy 2: "I'M LISTENING TO MY IPOD, CAN YOU SPEAK LOUDER???"
Guy 1: "Awe, fuck this guy!" *click*
Guy 2: "I'M GOING TO TURN OFF MY IPOD NOW, CAN YOU SPEAK UP?"
*tone*
Guy 2: "Yeah, I'm doing good... you?"
Live forever, or die trying.
All this talk of Hot Coffee... Excuse me, I have to go rub one out. Where did I leave GTA again?
How is this even an issue?? i take it the guy comes from the same gene pool as the woman who sued mcdonalds over the coffee being "too hot."
what's he want?
a big fat label on the back of his iPod saying "CAUTION...if ur a fucking idiot and turn the volume up too loud, you just might get Tinnitus"
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.
These warnings can be very annoying. On my Sony Ericsson, every time I hit SPEAKERPHONE, I must confirm that I am aware that this may damage my hearing. AFAIK, there is no way to permanently shut this reminder off, presumably because someone else could pick up my phone and not receive the warning.
This is slowly getting out of control...
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.
Do not insert iPod in any bodily orifices, no matter how convenient.
Do not use headphone cord to tow your boat.
Do not superglue iPod to upper arm because you are too cheap to buy an exercise armband.
Do not pull out battery and attempt to eat lithium goo.
Do not rip off plastic cover, whittle it into a knife, and plunge it into your heart.
You are correct, however the reason this case went to court in the first place is because the injuries caused were NOT minor. One expects hot coffee to be hot, perhaps too hot to drink immediately, however you also have the expectation that it shouldn't severely injure you if spilled or consumed immediately. When coffee causes third degree burns, as in this case, that is a severe injury. It caused deep tissue damage to the woman's crotch area. That would indicate the product was dangerously hot. Incidentally the damage would have been the about the same regardless of location, sure the crotch is more sensitive nerve-wise but the skin there has the same burn tolerances as other uncalloused skin.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but making coffee, tea or any hot beverage requires boiling water, i.e. 100C (212F), shouldn't common sense dictate that it isn't a good idea to splash that liquid on yourself before checking to see if it's ok?
One, coffee is not brewed with boiling water by most modern devices, older percolating devices used boiling water, it is in fact recommended by the Nation Coffee Association that coffe be brewed at a temperature no higher that 185F. Also, as was testified by burn specialists in this case, water at 190 degrees F (which was the temp McDonalds was serving at) causes third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds. In this case the temperature was so high that it would have caused immediate injury. The woman didn't splash it on herself to test the temperature, she spilled it. Now in this case the woman did a stupid thing by placing the cup between her legs. But what if it hadn't been the case? Let's alter the scenario slightly and say that a toddler in the seat next to her knocked the cup from the cup holder and into her lap. The temp was the same and she would have received the same injuries. The product was dangerously hot. There is a range in which coffee can be served hot but not be extremely likely to cause injury, McDonalds was knowingly operating above this range. (They had received over 700 complaints about the temp being too hot, they were aware they were 15 to 25 degrees above industry standard, and had not consulted an industry specialist to confirm the safety of this higher temperature.) Two links for you. A google search will find more information that corraborates these links as well.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
the medical profession now reckon that ANY overload of your hearing causes at least SOME permanent loss of hearing, so if you do regularly get a ringing in your ears, or if peaks of volume make your ears hurt, you're setting yourself up for big trouble later in life. My mother works at a charity for acquired deafness (people go go deaf rather than being born without hearing) and she says that whilst once hearing loss was associated with heavy industrial work with lots of noise, she's seeing younger and younger people develop the problem - it's no longer an elderly "disease"
So, moral of the story, resist the urge to increase the sound level as you listen - don't let it creep up. If you're listening in a noisy environment, consider noise-cancelling closed-cup phones, so you can listen at a lower level.
Steve Jobs is partially deaf, and he tested the iPod before it was released.
Which, interestingly, might prove that briefly testing the iPod can already cause partial deafness?