Apple Sued For Dividing Final Season of Breaking Bad Into Two On iTunes

An anonymous reader writes "Last night's episode of Breaking Bad was one of the most intense in series history, but for those who haven't seen it yet, don't worry, I won't be putting out any spoilers. You see, today's Breaking Bad news has nothing to do with Walter White's slow transformation into Scarface, but rather with a legal suit filed against Apple by a Breaking Bad fan. In a lawsuit that many saw coming, an Ohio man named Noam Lazebnik recently filed a class action suit against Apple upon finding out that the $22.99 he forked over for a 'Season Pass' of Breaking Bad was only good for the first 8 episodes of the show's final season."

Comments

Why is Apple the one being sued?

[ArcadeMan]

They didn't make the Breaking Bad series, they're not the ones who decided to split up the season in two. What's next, suing Apple because the new pop music album is crap?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[tverbeek]

One of the cardinal rules of litigation is that the list of defendants includes everyone involved (in any way) who has money.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[jonwil]

Apple did not split the new season in 2 parts but they ARE the ones that sold it as a "season pass" and didn't say anywhere that the "season pass" is not good for the entire season.

To me its a fairly simple case of misleading advertizing.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Sarten-X]

They are the ones who advertised a "season pass" product that is really only half of the season.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Crimey McBiggles]

Because they're the ones that processed the transaction behind an ad that said "Season 5 for $22.99" without specifying that it's just part 1.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Xest]

No but they are the ones who are selling a season pass for half a season.

Maybe things are different in the US, but in the UK at least the onus is on the retailer to make sure the products they sell are correctly advertised.

If it's genuinely not Apple's fault, then Apple gets to sue onwards to the provider of the product to recoup their costs, but either way the consumer's purchase contract was with Apple, so the consumer is right to take it up against Apple.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[gorzek]

Indeed. AMC's official stance is that this is one season of 16 episodes. For Apple to make the decision to consider it two "seasons" as far as "season passes" are concerned--well, I hope they've got some good fine print on that, otherwise they're boned. To me, "season pass" means "season pass," not "half a season pass." If Apple doesn't like it, they should take it up with AMC.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[hedwards]

The rules probably aren't as strict in the US. However, this is such an egregious example, that it's going to be a slam dunk. I'm guessing that Apple will wind up settling as half of a season isn't the same as a season. Especially if previous seasons were sold at a similar price.

It does get a bit funny as it's relatively common for cable series to do 2 seasons a year rather than one long season, so that's a potential out. However, if that's a change from previous seasons, which it sounds like it was, then they would still have to properly advertise that it's a shortened season.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

If it's genuinely not Apple's fault, then Apple gets to sue onwards to the provider of the product to recoup their costs, but either way the consumer's purchase contract was with Apple, so the consumer is right to take it up against Apple.

Normally that is not how it works. Apple can request that they are excluded from the suit and the court can agree. The court has to determine this based on a number of factors. If Apple is simply a middleman or distributor selling a product based on the content holder's wishes they are more likely to be dismissed from the case. Also if competitors have the exact same arrangement, it is more likely the content holder is the one who has to address the suit.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

As you stated in your post, the season was split in two. It was ONE season in TWO parts. So if you bought a season pass, how many episodes should it contain?

They are not suing over the quality of the show, but the fact that its misleading to call it a season pass when it has half the season. More importantly, they are not even suing for a "zillion dollars", just a refund.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

I don't watch Breaking Bad or buy Season Passes but it this simply a case of impatience? I mean that not all content is released immediately. For example movies are not available on DVD before you can get it on PPV. I couldn't find that Apple offers the second 8 episodes for sale at all. The last episode was just released. Has it been released to Apple yet?

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[tysonedwards]

Or, Apple gave AMC an account to upload content (as they do every other iTunes Content Distributor whether they be app, music, movie or tv) and AMC did it under the guise of Season 5 is 8 episodes. Just because AMC is covering their asses as SciFi did on many occasions in the past does not mean that Apple is at fault. Basically, it is the same as the DVD and Bluray copies sold as Season 5 during a mid-season break only to have 5.1 after the season truly ends. Or do you blame Best Buy for those too?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[bluefoxlucid]

Fine print won't help if you can call this "Misleading Advertisement". False and misleading advertisement are both illegal; if you put something reasonable as a title on your shit and people are reasonably mislead, you're misleading. "Entire CD for $5!" *"We only carry 2 tracks of this CD as a bundle, you get the entire 2 tracks we carry as the digital version of the CD, you have to buy the rest" fineprint bullshit will quickly get you boned unless it is slapped right across the front somewhere most complete retards will spot it. The harder you bury that fine print, the guiltier you look and the less amused the courts will be.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends completely on what advertising Apple did. If it showed up on the front page of itunes? If yes, then I completely blame apple.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

False Advertising
Bait and Switch

Call it what you will, but they need to make good on what they sold, or it's breach of contract and they have to refund all the money they swindled.

Doesn't matter who decided to split in two, a season is a season, period.

Season pass - means entire season. not season part one pass, season part two pass.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[ChromaticDragon]

There are couple of problems with your quip. First, it seems this chap isn't going after money. The article suggests he is seeking only a refund... for all he deems swindled by this. Second, he doesn't seem to have sued more than his immediate interface in this chain of commerce. That is, he's simply trying to hold Apple to their apparently declared obligation.

Actually, however, there are a number of reasons to sue multiple parties in many cases regardless of the amount of money sought. Sometimes it's pretty clear who did you wrong. Here it seems rather clear that Apple made a particular promise prior to a proper appreciation or understanding of the intent of AMC. But often it's not entirely clear. Next, suing all involved parties forces them all to get their act together (individually and collectively) since if any party doesn't show at court judgement may default against them regardless of actual guilt/responsibility. Sadly, it seems litigation is often required to get multiple bureaucracies to work together... or against each other. Which brings us to another reason - getting your opponents' lawyers to do your work for you as they endeavour to show the other defendant guilty.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

So I have to buy another season pass, and only then can I download it on my 10gb unlimited connection?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[rtb61]

Hey if we are going the bullshit route, why not 22 seasons, one for each week with 4 episodes each season, you know the chunks between designated commercial breaks.

This is a straight up warning, paying before delivery from a modern corporation is a mugs game. The more they get, the more likely they are to lie, cheat and steal to get more.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

Run along, little troll. Grown ups are speaking.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

Season 5 is not split into two seasons, it's one season that was half aired and the other half is airing now.

Apple sold a season pass, not a half season pass, so Apple is in the wrong.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[rgbscan]

Traditional seasons are falling by the wayside. A "season" used to basically follow the traditional U.S. school year. New shows in the fall, running through the spring - with summers of re-runs. Usually 22 shows or so.

Look at shows like the walking dead. Premiered on the last day of October. Ran for only only 7 episodes, then a long break until the following October. Shows like Supernatural and Smallville traditionally kept their summer reruns going well into fall, often debuting the new "season" in late December. Way back in 2002, the show 'Felicity' had new shows in the fall, took the winter off, and had new shows again in the spring. Ensuring that new episodes were always on during 'sweeps' and in the slower periods they ran reruns. Walking dead took a similar break in season 2 (minus the reruns) with 6 shows, a 3 month break, and the rest of the season airing. This allowed them to not compete with the superbowl, as well as introduce a new show in the same time slot viewers were accustomed to tuning in. Curb your enthusiasm season 8 consisted of just a few new episodes spanning only the three summer months but it's sold as a season. Jesery Shore seasons 5 and 6 span the same summer physically but were aired a year apart as separate seasons since the first few weeks took place in Italy then they flew back to Jersey to continue the summer - which you could argues should be one 'season' as it's a continuing storyline with no break. Glee seasons 5 is being split out over two years so they can keep the actors in their "senior year" for two seasons and not advancing a grade every season as they had been.

There's all kinds of monkey business in what constitutes a tv season. The traditional understanding is falling by the wayside in a world of DVR's, streaming, and ratings grabs.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[AmiMoJo]

Apple is still the vendor and the vendor is responsible, even if they outsourced some of the work. If AMC broke Apple's rules then Apple should take action against AMC and refund their customers. If AMC didn't break Apple's rules then Apple's rules are ridiculous and Apple is responsible.

And yes, I would blame Best Buy or any other shop if they sold something as "Season 5" and then released "Season 5 Part 2". Any normal person would understand a "season" to be the complete season's set of episodes, not half of them.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[AmiMoJo]

Sounds like an excellent way for companies to avoid any responsibility for the products they sell. Pass the responsibility up the chain to some foreign company incorporated in the Kayman Islands, or to some factory in China. Someone you can't really sue, or who will simply declare bankruptcy and set up a new shell company the same day.

The UK way is better. Hold the seller responsible for what they sell, and then it's up to them to sue their suppliers. Make it easier and cheaper for the individual consumer to get justice and fair treatment from large corporations with deep pockets.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Wow all insults and no points and plain hate. In the case of lawsuits, liability matters and middlemen/distributors have limited liability in most cases. You can sue your local pharmacy if you get a bad bottle of Tylenol but the judge is most likely going to dismiss the pharmacy from the suit unless you can prove that they were liable in some way other than selling you a product made by Johnson & Johnson. The judge will tell you to sue J&J. In this case Amazon appears to do the same thing with Breaking Bad. Based on your reaction, are you going to sue Apple if you bought a season pass from Amazon?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[h4rr4r]

Even 16 episodes for $22.99 is way too much. You think AMC makes that much off cable viewers? No way.

For that kind of price you could get the DVDs. This is why I wait for shows to be on Netflix.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[h4rr4r]

If they are the ones doing the advertising they have shared liability. Calling it a season pass, means you are selling a season full of shows. Otherwise they should advertise it as a half season pass.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[egamma]

Even 16 episodes for $22.99 is way too much. You think AMC makes that much off cable viewers? No way.

For that kind of price you could get the DVDs. This is why I wait for shows to be on Netflix.

22.99 is for the high-def version; would you consider that an acceptable price for the Blu-ray disks? It's $14.99 for the standard definition. It is a complete rip-off for only 8 episodes, but seems like a decent price for 16.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think AMC makes that much off cable viewers?

Nope they make way way more.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

It used to be that way in the US, then we kept electing "pro business" governments.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are couple of problems with your quip. First, it seems this chap isn't going after money. The article suggests he is seeking only a refund... for all he deems swindled by this.

^^ This is insightful?

Are we supposed to believe that this guy is undertaking the effort and expense of litigation all in the name of recovering his $22.99?

NO!

There is an army of lawyers here, FUNDING and waiting upon the outcome of this case before launching similar class-actions that will net them millions of dollars and all the "swindled" customers a free season something.

Good god man. Wake up. Read between the lines.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, it seems this chap isn't going after money. The article suggests he is seeking only a refund...

In other words he's going after money.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Old97]

Apple did not out source any work. They own the store, really more of a consignment shop. The content owners set the prices and terms. The content owners provide the product descriptions, etc. Apple handles delivery and payments on behalf of the content owners.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[h4rr4r]

Not possible.
Show some math.
AMC gets at most a couple dollars a month out of a cable viewer, and has to provide far more shows than just this one.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

It's a concept in law called "liability.". And in life as well. People can't get judgments against you based on what your neighbors do. In this case what is Apple guilty of doing? If Apple took upon themselves to split the seasons, then they have more liability. If they are selling "as-is", then what should the courts do?

If you get some tainted ground beef, what is the store's liability to you? The answer is: it depends on the store's involvement. Did they properly handle the beef? Did they reprocess it? (Some stores buy it in bulk and split it into smaller portions). Did they know there was an issue with the ground beef and sold it to you anyway?

Now if the store didn't know there was an issue, if they properly handled it, if they merely resold the beef to you "as-is" then what is their liability? Most likely, very little. But are you going to rail against them when it was really someone else that tainted the beef?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

So there is no incentive to sell blurays / dvd's of the season as they make more off the cable viewers including those who don't watch the show?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bought a season pass for walking dead on Amazon, covered all the episodes of both halves. Just saying, if you're paying for the season you should get the season. If the menu says a meal is 2 sandwiches and puts a single price next to it and only brings you one sandwich, they're still shorting you a sandwich.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[ObiWanKenblowme]

If AMC gives Apple a bundle of episodes to sell and calls it "Season 5", how would you reasonably expect Apple to advertise it? Would you expect other retailers to be similarly liable? Amazon is selling all 8 episodes of "Season 5" right now - does that make them liable if I bought their season pass option?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[h4rr4r]

For 16 episodes $15 would be fine if that was the HD price. For SD so long as it is 480P and in 16x9 I might be ok with it.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesery Shore seasons 5 and 6 span the same summer physically but were aired a year apart as separate seasons since the first few weeks took place in Italy then they flew back to Jersey to continue the summer - which you could argues should be one 'season' as it's a continuing storyline with no break.

Jersey Shore has a storyline?

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[gbjbaanb]

why is Apple being sued even if all they did was set down a box and say "hey consumers, good stuff will be in here" and "hey producers, stick your stuff in here". You'd think with that kind of setup they're doing nothing but acting as a middle man bringing consumers and producers together so they could engage in a transaction of goods for money.

However, they didn't do this - to each side they said "we'll handle this", and charged a tidy sum for the privilege, Consumers don't see who produces the goods, and producers don;'t see who purchases them - Apple sticks a great big wall in between so that they, and only they, are the ones taking the big fat cut. As a result, the consumer has no-one else to sue - his business was with Apple.

now, Apple might well decide to sue the producer in turn for not supplying the described product, but I fear that Apple, in their greed simply set up the box like I first described and left them to it - in order to make as much money as possible with the least amount of effort. And this is the result, no-one to blame but themselves.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

Leading online media outlet does bait and switch for popular TV series. More t 11!

And most of the idiots on here keep monetarily supporting them! Sorry folks, but if you really thought Apple, or AMC was square, their advertising really is working on you!

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another reason to sue multiple parties: in some jurisdictions there is joint and several liability, which means if party A is 90% responsible and broke, and party B is 10% responsible with deep pockets, you can recover 100% of a damage award from party B.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Mitsoid]

Midleading Advertisements CAN be countered by fine print.

Nearly every commercial that mentions a percentage or dollar figure will have a star(*).. and either a 1/16th inch print paragraph will follow(for tv), or one of the 100 fastest talkers in the world will chime in (saying the paragraph in 5 seconds)

Both of which, while 100% unintelligible to 99% of the population, are legal defenses in court.

And there's more ways they can get around misleading advertising. My favorite is the "I think/I Feel/I Like".... No star needed.. 99% free reign*...
Man: "Crime is on the rise, you owe it to yourself and your family to protect them."
Woman: "I feel safer now that I bought my pet USB Rock" :-) (99% free reign has minor limits, it cant break OTHER laws.. like claiming to cure a disease -- but it can: "I feel it helped me fight (disease)")

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

No but they are the ones who are selling a season pass for half a season.

Maybe things are different in the US, but in the UK at least the onus is on the retailer to make sure the products they sell are correctly advertised.

If it's genuinely not Apple's fault, then Apple gets to sue onwards to the provider of the product to recoup their costs, but either way the consumer's purchase contract was with Apple, so the consumer is right to take it up against Apple.

It's extremely unlikely that Apple made the choice to call the 8 episode set a "season".

That choice was almost certainly made by AMC when they chose how to group the episodes they uploaded to Apple.

Apple's "season pass" is a consistently defined feature that lets you purchase all current and future episodes from a set as defined by the publisher. If the publisher is saying they consider 16 episode a season, but sellin g an 8 episode set on iTunes, they're the one advertising falsely.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[h4rr4r]

I would hope it does make amazon just as liable.

A reasonable person does not expect them to break one season in half and call it two seasons. Maybe they should have waited 6 months between airing them.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

Use your brain just a little bit. The context of that was businesses that had millions or billions of dollars, not twenty-three dollars plus legal fees.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Shared liability requires shared involvement of some sort. If Apple has no action other than providing a martket place for AMC, then how much liability do they have? If you feel that you got a bad deal at a local flea market can you take it up with the flea market owners or do you address the vendor?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[roc97007]

They didn't make the Breaking Bad series, they're not the ones who decided to split up the season in two. What's next, suing Apple because the new pop music album is crap?

Wow, they'd be out of business in a month.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Again, if AMC is defining the season, that's AMC's liability, not Apple. Not Amazon. Copyright law is clear that content owners have immense power when it comes to distribution. If Apple and Amazon were colluding with AMC to do this, then you have a case. I would think neither Apple or Amazon have the time or werewithal to micro-manage AMC's one show in this way. Like every other content holder, they leave the content holder alone to make their own decisions.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[roc97007]

There are couple of problems with your quip. First, it seems this chap isn't going after money. The article suggests he is seeking only a refund... for all he deems swindled by this.

^^ This is insightful?

Are we supposed to believe that this guy is undertaking the effort and expense of litigation all in the name of recovering his $22.99?

NO!

There is an army of lawyers here, FUNDING and waiting upon the outcome of this case before launching similar class-actions that will net them millions of dollars and all the "swindled" customers a free season something.

Good god man. Wake up. Read between the lines.

Shrug. Sometimes it's a matter of principle. As the OP said, he's apparently seeking a refund for a product he purchased and didn't receive. Going after the retailer for this is entirely reasonable. If the retailer was unknowingly selling half-full boxes of product, it's then the retailer's job to sue the manufacturer. In the IT industry it's called "one throat to choke". When you deal with a distributor, the distributor is ultimately responsible to the customer for the product matching the description. In this case "season pass" for half a season is clearly receiving a half-full box.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[roc97007]

Apple did not split the new season in 2 parts but they ARE the ones that sold it as a "season pass" and didn't say anywhere that the "season pass" is not good for the entire season.

To me its a fairly simple case of misleading advertizing.

You got it. If they didn't mean "Season Pass" they should have used a different word.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[bluefoxlucid]

Depends where the fine print is. Fine print often occurs on the cover of things, on the face. I've seen things starred and crossed and otherwise marked where you had to get *inside* to see the fine print, or where I've searched everything and not found the fine print anywhere but it was buried somewhere inconvenient and unnecessarily difficult to find. Fine print that's in legal documents that you have to read in full can be considered misleading.

In my example, if the TOS says somewhere buried deep in an FAQ that you can't normally get to unless you've spent an hour or so boredly browsing and reading all the terms and conditions and additional documentation on the site (i.e. it's not conveniently linked from the content you're purchasing), it's reasonable to assume that nobody has actually seen this and nobody has any warning about wtf is going on here. If it is also reasonable to assume that the meaning would be interpreted wholly different than the actual terms dictate, then it is *unreasonable* to assume that any person using the service would actually know the terms of their purchase. Because of this, you now have a case that a reasonable person would have had expectations that the provider has fostered contrary to what is actually being provided. You can argue that the provider did not provide any reasonable means for any customer to discover the nature of the service, and so is now culpable.

Think about the "Users never read the EULA" argument, except the user probably doesn't even realize the EULA exists and wouldn't have been directed to click through that part unless they went intentionally searching--and yet the user has somehow agreed to things they never saw nor were asked to read or sign. If that's a likely scenario, it's a hell of a lot stronger than "Yeah, I know I should have read the fine print, but I didn't ... nobody reads that stuff."

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[h4rr4r]

I am not suggesting they do otherwise, only that they change their advertising to reflect what is really going on.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Rude Turnip]

Completely irrelevant to this discussion. You are free to buy it from them, another provider, or do without.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[sjames]

If they are selling "as-is", then what should the courts do?

Reverse the transaction w/ the consumer and invite Apple to do the same with their supplier.

Now if the store didn't know there was an issue, if they properly handled it, if they merely resold the beef to you "as-is" then what is their liability?

To make sure that what they sell as food is fit for consumption.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[h4rr4r]

If the flea market owner has big signs up falsely advertising the product what would you do?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't make the Breaking Bad series, they're not the ones who decided to split up the season in two.

Apple does bear some liability in this.
For one, they allowed it onto their market.
For another, they are the ones who are selling the passes, it's not just someone else using the market to sell the product. So they have a direct, active financial interest in the content and as such they also have a duty to make sure they aren't participating in misleading (or fraudulent) marketing.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

The document for the lawsuit quite clearly says that it is $20 for the one guy, and likely on the order of $22 or less per other person who joins in. What other cases are waiting for this one to go through? Why aren't they going through anyway, or didn't pave the way first instead?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[ObiWanKenblowme]

Change their advertising...how, exactly? They're using the name of the product.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[wisnoskij]

If you bought it from Apple, they are the only one you have a contract with, and the only party who broke the contract with you, by providing you with half of what you bought,

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that AMC is advertising this as the second half of season 5. Very rarely does ignorance prove an adequate defense, so the suit against Apple is perfectly justified. Now, if AMC did not inform Apple of this, then Apple is perfectly set up to then proceed to sue AMC, but don't try to say Apple is in the clear.

I worked on a project in a major company. One of the sub-components we sourced didn't work under certain circumstances that were extremely difficult to test, but the vendor guaranteed that they tested for that. When this situation came up in the the real world, we got sued. I was involved with the project to identify the ones that didn't work (the component was designed to work, but it wasn't tested so something like 10% didn't work while the rest were fine). We lost, and in turn ended up suing the vendor. It was the vendors fault ultimately, but we as a middle man didn't do due diligence, so as such, we were found at fault in the original suit.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

How is Apple supposed to know? They have millions of shows, music, movies, etc. They have thousands of content holders if you include independent musicians. They don't know the public expects BB Season 5 to have 16 episodes. Season Pass is still controlled by what AMC says should be in the season. Now if there was a malfunction and somehow not all of episodes got into Season 5, that's another story. But in this case AMC purposefully decided to charge $22 for Season 5 at the beginning of it and then create "The Final Season" as a separate season with a different Season Pass. From what I can tell the most Apple can do is require AMC to list the total number of episodes when creating the pass; however, that might create some issues with other content holders who don't want to commit to number count. If they want to make more episodes or fewer, revise pricing, etc.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good lord, anything to defend Apple, huh? AMC said it was one season, with a 6-month break in the middle. Apple disregarded that and took it upon themselves to call the second half a separate season. They're not merely distributing it, they're taking the content and sleazily repackaging it in a way that rips off their customers.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[h4rr4r]

"Season pass" is the name of the AMC product?

I believe Season pass is a supposedly descriptive term itunes uses. In cases when it may be confusing they could include an air date range or number of episodes outside the fine print.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

What they've done wrong is, they sold something without looking into what it was. I go into a store and buy a package of almonds, and open it up inside and it's peanuts, the store either refunds my money, or I sue them. They're responsible. You can't sell something as something it isn't, even if you as the seller didn't know. Upon finding out, you as the seller have a responsibility to correct it. Apple sold it as a full season. Even if AMC didn't let them know, well, now they know. They have to correct it. They're free to sue AMC for doing this to them, but they're still responsible for correcting the mistaken transaction.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[h4rr4r]

What I am talking about is a set of very simple scripts. You can test season length via episode count of previous seasons or length between airdates. Very easy to automate.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[AmiMoJo]

In the UK there is no such thing as selling something "as-is" or "sold as seen". Your consumer rights always apply, so unless something is sold as "scrap" or "spares/repairs, non-working" you can expect it to both work and last a reasonable length of time, as well as come with the statutory warranty even if it is marked "as-is".

In this case unless Apple clearly labelled it "batch of episodes, may not be the complete season" then UK consumers have a right to expect it to be the entire season. The official season numbering counts both halves as one, and it has been marketed that way by AMC.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[jedidiah]

Apple is the public face of this. They should be worried that this kind of thing could effect their reputation. You would hope that they view themselves as vulnerable to backlash over this. If nothing else, they should be concerned about covering their butts and making sure they don't look like thieves.

They should not be acting as if they think they can get away with anything.

If AMC pulled a fast one on them, then Apple needed to adjust their approach accordingly. They failed to do that.

They acted as if they're above the law and now they are being sued. This is generally why companies are sued. They think they can be jerks and walk all over the little people.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is THEIR garden. The buck stops at Apple. Approved, denied, 30%, etc... They are the gatekeepers.

You can't control everything, then say "It's not my responsibility" when something happens on your property.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Midnight Thunder]

why is Apple being sued even if all they did was set down a box and say "hey consumers, good stuff will be in here" and "hey producers, stick your stuff in here".

I would argue that the customer shouldn't have to dig to find out who is responsible. From the customer's point of view Apple sold him the content and was the point where the text was presented. Now whether it is Apple or the publishers behind, is for Apple to decide whether they pass the buck.

In the example of Best Buy the relationship between the box and the store is a bit clearer, but if Best Buy has an advert saying something that incorrect and it has the Best Buy logo on it, then it is Best Buy's responsibility, even it was the publisher behind changing the offering.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[prelelat]

If best buy advertised as "Buy the whole 5th season for 22 bucks" yeah it's best buys fault. They didn't advertise correctly. The problem with apple isn't that they sold half the season it's that they sold the full season and then it was broken up and you only got the first half. It's a bait and switch they should get a refund or the second half which they thought they were paying for in the first place.

If AMC screwed apple then apple could turn around and sue their pants off for damages to them caused by this. Though I doubt that they would, considering they can just take the hit for the cost of lawyer fees and keep their contract with AMC. Apple might not be directly at fault but you have to go after the person who screwed you and Apple screwed it's customers either intentionally or unintentionally.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Old97]

Do you really think that people think Apple produces "Breaking Bad"? Really? Do you think that Apple doesn't provide an accounting to the providers of which Apple ID's bought their shows and more? Nonsense. You really haven't a clue, do you? And as for the "greed" and "making as much money as possible" (from content), you obviously don't get Apple's business model. They make the big bucks on the hardware. The content sells hardware. You don't have to get any of your content from iTunes in order to use it on any idevice. Those companies that sell their stuff on iTunes pay a 30% cut to Apple on a price they set themselves. That's much less a markup than a retail store. If a content provider wants to give it away, i.e. price = 0$, Apple charges nothing to anyone. That's not exactly greedy. It's taking a long view - giving up maximum profit on content in order to maximize profit over the long term. All for profit companies try to make as much money as possible. It's what stockholder expect managers to do. If they don't, the managers get fired. The stockholders are primarily fund managers with our pension and 401k dollars so I hope they demand profitability. Do you think companies are in business to be nice? Do you believe in unicorns and Santa Clause. Grow up.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

AMC's official stance is that this is one season of 16 episodes.

Where is this explicitly stated? If this is true then why is both Apple and Amazon show a "Season 5" and "The Final Season" as two separate seasons?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't make the Breaking Bad series, they're not the ones who decided to split up the season in two. What's next, suing Apple because the new pop music album is crap?

If you bought a pay tv channel because it promised you that you, for that price, could watch a specific TV series, a sport series or similar - and they stopped sending it before the finals, you wouldn't have a problem at all with the tv channel that took your money on that promise?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

But you are assuming that everything is known beforehand. With BB, the number of shows was probably known due to budget; however, if there were problems they might have split a show into two shows or delay an episode a week due to production problems. Yes AMC could delay the release six months, but they would lose sales of people who want it immediately.

Based on the history of BB, the number of episodes have varied from season to season. Season 1 had 7 while most seasons had 13 except for this last one which is 16. And that doesn't include all the bonus episodes.

For a show that is smaller like The Guild, they can be have to be more flexible. They might have to cut down the number of episodes based on how the season came out. I don't disagree that it should be more clear, but Apple has the least amount of knowledge to do so. AMC should have been more clear.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Rorgg]

It did say, however, that the season pass was valid for all season 5 episodes aired in 2012.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Lithdren]

On August 14, 2011, AMC announced that Breaking Bad was renewed for a fifth and final season consisting of 16 episodes. Season five is split into two parts, each consisting of 8 episodes. The first half premiered on July 15, 2012, while the second half premiered on August 11, 2013.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Bad#Season_1_.282008.29

Based on the term "Season Pass" I'd consider this to mean I get all 16 episodes of the season, as announced by AMC when they said it was the final season. Apple should be sued, because thats who the guy paid. If Apple was mislead i'd expect them to sue AMC. Stop acting like a fanboy of Apple. Its not like you can go to other sources for anything on an Apple product, so if course, they're the ones getting sued. Weather Apple was misleading or not is an open debate, since it depends on what Apple knew before labling it a "season pass" but you cant just asume they're innocent and cannot be sued because you like the company.

Based on what I can see, if I were the judge i'd throw a book at Apple, and quite possibly find a way to get AMC involved, because my lord this is a bad thing to let go unpunished.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Please explain why Amazon also did this. Possibility 1). Amazon and Apple colluded to do this. 2). AMC did it on their own without input from Apple or Amazon. Considering the thousands of content holders that Apple and Amazon have to deal with, I hardly think that they went out of their way to micro-manage this one show from AMC.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[msauve]

Well, if you go to the AMC website, you'll find videos from the second half labeled "Season 5, Episode 13" and such.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[houghi]

On a show called Talking Bad Vince Gilligan said at one point (paraphrasing) ... in part 2 of series 5 that is how our lawyers say we should call it ...
To me this means several things in the way it was worded.
1) For the creators it is series 6. Mr. Gilligan did not seem to agree with it being season 5 part 2.
2) For the legal department it is series 5
3) It has already been discussed (at least internally) on a legal level

For all I know some parties might have asked to turn it into separate seasons, so they can sell it twice instead of once. That has been rejected for some reason.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[ObiWanKenblowme]

I'm not sure if you're being willfully obtuse or not. AMC refers to and sells the 8 episodes as "Breaking Bad: Season 5". You can debate the merits of that all you wish, but are you seriously suggesting that Apple (or Amazon, or any other retailer) are being disingenuous for listing the product as "Season 5" and selling it as a single season?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does get a bit funny as it's relatively common for cable series to do 2 seasons a year rather than one long season

Ending one season in Spring and starting the next season in Autumn of that year is not "2 seasons a year".

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Apple is the public face of this. They should be worried that this kind of thing could effect their reputation. You would hope that they view themselves as vulnerable to backlash over this. If nothing else, they should be concerned about covering their butts and making sure they don't look like thieves.

As does MS and Amazon but please let's just rail against Apple.

They should not be acting as if they think they can get away with anything.

Apple hasn't responded yet, but you seemingly know what Apple is thinking.

If AMC pulled a fast one on them, then Apple needed to adjust their approach accordingly. They failed to do that.

How do you suppose Apple bypass copyright law? The most Apple can maybe do is have shows list the total number of episodes in the future but they may get resistance from the content holders about this.

They acted as if they're above the law and now they are being sued. This is generally why companies are sued. They think they can be jerks and walk all over the little people.

Anyone can be sued. It is not a reflection of guilt. I can sue you if I wanted for your comments here on slashdot. I won't win buy I can sue. You've already judged them despite not knowing much about liability or law.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[mark-t]

While it wasn't Apple's choice to split the season into two parts, but it's worth noting here that the show's creators themselves are referring to the second part as the "second half of season five"... which means that even though the season was split in two, the second half of it is still *PART* of the same season, and rightfully should be included in something that claims to be a "season pass" for season 5.

Now it might very well be the case (and I actually expect it is likely to be so) that the creators of the show mislabled their "season pass" and they should have been explicit up front about it only being for the first half of the season if that's what they ever meant, but the consumers still did not have any direct financial dealings with the creators of the show. They bought the stuff on iTunes.

That said... Apple's liability would likely be limited only to the consequences of selling what appears to be nothing more than a falsely advertised product. It may not have been Apple doing the false advertising, but they were still the ones doing the selling, and there is entirely reasonable cause for them to be made to offer either a refund or store-credit.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[tipo159]

It did say, however, that the season pass was valid for all season 5 episodes aired in 2012.

a) It did not say this at the time that I purchased Season 5. It was added later.

b) If you read the text of the suit, you will see that some Apple CSRs told customers would be getting all 16 episodes.

c) Another AMC series, Walking Dead, had a mid-season break and included all of the episodes for the season, before and after the break (which was split across calendar years), as part of the 'Season Pass'.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[ultranova]

They didn't make the Breaking Bad series, they're not the ones who decided to split up the season in two.

They are, however, the ones who run the store that sold it to the customer. That makes it their problem.

What's next, suing Apple because the new pop music album is crap?

No, but if they sell a 16-track album and then inform the buyer that he'll have to fork over extra cash for the last 8 tracks, they should be sued.

Seriously, how can even an Apple fanatic defend outright fraud? One would think you'd at the very least want to ensure that the iBoxes you take home actually contain the iDevice you thought you bought, rather than an iSlip telling you to send more money to actually receive it (or an empty postal package containing another note - why quit a winning strategy?). Or do you get paid for defending them and couldn't come up with anything better?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

That's true. However that doesn't explain the network's distribution. Personally I hate this trend of splitting seasons into Season 5.1 and Season 5.2 or Season 5 (Spring) or Season 5 (Fall). The BBC experimented with splitting series up for DVD sales or Schedule pigeonholing (make the season last despite the lack of episodes).

In AMC's case, they either didn't want to delay the Season 5 premiere by waiting on the second half of the season to finish production or (and) they wanted to milk the cash cow as long as possible by having the new episodes spread out into two half seasons.

To AMC's credit, they didn't label the second half of the distribution as "Season 6" but as "The final season". I think this has more to do with AMC's right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing than Apple or Amazon wanting to confuse or frustrate their customers.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

AMC was founded as a subsidiary of Cablevision; the whole point was to generate content that would convince people to pay $bignum/month for a premium cable package. The spin-off into a separate company was only a couple years ago.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Stop acting like a fanboy of Apple.

Please read up on "liability" instead of levying insults. For most part middlemen and distributors have limited liability. You can sue them but more than likely their liability is small. In this case the liability relies most on who split the season in the Apple store. If Apple did it, they have more liability. If AMC did (despite announcing it was 'one season'), then they have liability.

Its not like you can go to other sources for anything on an Apple product, so if course, they're the ones getting sued.

You can get BB from Amazon and Microsoft. Guess what? Two seasons of 8 episodes each. Logic would dictate AMC made the decision unless you think Apple somehow colluded with MS and Amazon in some way against the wishes of a copyright holder.

Weather Apple was misleading or not is an open debate, since it depends on what Apple knew before labling it a "season pass" but you cant just asume they're innocent and cannot be sued because you like the company.

Apple only labeled the mechanism a Season Pass. From the points above it seems that they don't control what is a season. In your link above, Season 1 of BB was 7 episodes while Season 2 was 13. Apple didn't release a 20 episode Season 1. You know why? Apple doesn't control that. They are resellers.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point he was trying to make was that the consumer didn't enter into an agreement with AMC or the producers or anyone but Apple. In that sense the consumer doesn't have any interaction whatsoever with anyone but Apple so they are the people to talk to when he feels the terms of their deal are violated.

If the show had put out two episodes then went on hiatus for a year and a half due to a strike or something, the consumer would certainly expect to not have to pay another $22 for the rest of the episodes because the listing clearly stated every episode in the season without any stipulation on release dates.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is responsible to the customer. If AMC misrepresented the product to Apple, they're responsible to Apple, and Apple can in turn sue them.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't make the Breaking Bad series, they're not the ones who decided to split up the season in two. What's next, suing Apple because the new pop music album is crap?

They better pray the latter never comes true. They would be broke faster than it would take to read this sentence with the current ratio of shit:shinola being produced today.

Then again, kids today actually call that shit music...

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[gbjbaanb]

indeed. I should think that most people don't even know who makes Breaking Bad at all - maybe they think its HBO or Fox. I'd never heard of AMC before now.

That said, I'm sure some people really do think that Apple made it, some people are dim.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't make the Breaking Bad series, they're not the ones who decided to split up the season in two.

It's simple fraudulent advertising.

Apple is the one who sold him a "season pass", while using a different definition of "season" that most people use.

And Apple refuses to give a refund.

Therefore, I can haz lawsuit!

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Reverse the transaction w/ the consumer and invite Apple to do the same with their supplier.

Apple can chose not to do business with AMC over this as is their right.

To make sure that what they sell as food is fit for consumption.

This is where the analogy breaks down. Food has to follow USDA regulations about safety. In this case the consumer thought he was paying a low price of $1.75 an episode when all previous seasons were over $2 per episode. Pricing seems to be at the discretion in Apple's ecosystem. Now Apple might start warning content holders to be more clear in their Season Passes about the number of episodes but besides this how you suppose Apple to change what a copyright holder on distribution.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[spire3661]

If I go into Best Buy and through their advertising they inform me that I can get all of season 8 of breaking bad on DVD for $X. If I then take the box home and only find HALF of season 8 in it, im going ot go back to Best Buy and say 'WTF'

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

In your case of almonds, it clear it wasn't almonds. A more apt analogy is that you are complaining about is that there aren't enough almonds based on the can size. But how can the store change a product they don't have a legal right to change? In this case Apple sold exactly what AMC put into their store. No more no less. Something that appears to be dictated by AMC.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[kannibal_klown]

They didn't make the Breaking Bad series, they're not the ones who decided to split up the season in two. What's next, suing Apple because the new pop music album is crap?

Exactly.

This isn't the first time they've done it. Doctor Who was split into half-seasons once or twice as well and they also had separate "Season Passes" through iTunes. There are other examples but I only know of the Doctor Who one from personal experience. Studios sometimes split up a season.

Meanwhile, do the math. It still comes out to under the normal $2.99 per-HD-episode that they usually charge. Unless that price is the SD version (I'm not near iTunes at the moment) it's not like they priced it at the amount for the whole 16 episodes and only gave them 8.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[geekoid]

They are the ones that said it would include all the final episodes.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Old97]

But they did enter into an agreement with AMC. AMC provided the product definition and description and set the price. People bought the AMC product at the AMC price, not an Apple product. If I buy a PS3 and find out that it's DRM'd all my gaming, it's Sony's fault not Best Buy's.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

The thing is the show's creators may have been trumped by AMC execs. I don't doubt Apple has some liability but it's very small. A good lawyer from Apple would likely get them dismissed from the suit.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[ArcadeMan]

My comment was not to defend Apple because "they can do no wrong", it was because I think AMC manages their own content provider account on iTunes and they're the ones responsible.

This situations is akin to suing Wal-Mart for food poisoning instead of suing the company that made the food.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[ahabswhale]

Apple doesn't define the terminology used by its content providers. AMC can call it whatever the hell they want to.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[geekoid]

Nice strawman.

If Best Buy said the disk would contain all the episodes, then yes.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[ahabswhale]

Given that apple lists every episode included in the "season", I don't see what the big deal is. The term "season" has no definitive meaning and this little game has been used by content providers in the exact same way to sell blu-rays and DVDs on Amazon. In short, "season" means whatever the content provider wants it to mean and you shouldn't make assumptions. Shady? Yes. Illegal? No.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Half-pint HAL]

Impatience has nothing to do with it... he's not complaining that he's not getting the goods delivered now, but that he's not getting the goods deliveredat all.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm slightly on a tangent here, but I'm in the UK and I only really know UK law, but I assume the same principles apply. The customer's contract is with the vendor. That's all that's important. In this case, the vendor is Apple, and the guy had a contract with them, not the producers of the series, not the actors who were in the show.

If I buy an iMac from PC World (well, I wouldn't because I'm not a moron and PC World are rip-off merchants) and the mac breaks, I go back to PC World as my contract is with them. They can tell me to take it up with the manufacturer, but that is normally a cop out (and nice manufacturers will offer to do it because they want a good PR). But under the law, my contract for the mac was with PC World so they are the ones required to sort it out.
 
The same applies here, his contract was with Apple for flogging a misleading product. They are the ones who should cough up to the problem.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[mark-t]

It's still a falsely advertised product, and even if Apple themselves did not falsely advertise anything, they *DID* sell it.... and that makes them liable.

But Apple's liability is limited to just that... they may not be liable for the false advertising itself, but they can still reasonably be held liable for selling a product that was falsely advertised. Accordingly, either a refund or an in-store credit needs to be offered to consumers, and Apple should seek any appropriate compensation from those are ultimately responsible... but there is no reason for the consumer to pursue damages from them because the consumer's financial dealings were strictly with Apple.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is closer to a situation where some damage is incurred or perceived, and the best route is to go after who you feel caused the (perceived) damage. If Apple loses, they could in turn sue their business partners who made the bad decisions to recoup their own losses, but that's not likely. Especially if there was some business contract signed. I have no idea.

But it's like this. Let's say you cut yourself on the pump handle at a gas station. The owner isn't at fault, because the sharp piece was a manufacturing defect that wasn't caught before the pump was shipped out from the pump-manufacturing company and then installed. We'll assume that the customer or installer has an expectation not to have to file down any barbs on their own -- we'll assume it's a high-grade product that is assumed safe to use before shipping out.

Well, you aren't likely to sue the manufacturer. You are likely to sue the owner of the gas station. It is the owner's property, after all, and the owner owns the pump. So the owner has to take the brunt of the lawsuit and pay your damages, which then gives the owner ammunition for turning around and suing the pump manufacturer for supplying the pump that caused the owner to get sued by you. And the owner also has a chance of recouping his damages that way.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[sjames]

Apple is supposed to know their product. AMC hasn't been shy about how many episodes constitute this season and that number has always been 16.

Apple could have avoided a lot of bother by just giving the guy the $20 he's asking for and declaring the whole thing a mis-understanding. Then they could demand AMC's cut back and I'll bet they would have gotten it. They could have also said 8 episodes in their description, but would have lost the marketing weasel advantage of season pass sounding like more than 8 episodes.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called advertisements.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

So there is no incentive to sell blurays / dvd's of the season as they make more off the cable viewers including those who don't watch the show?

The incentive is to make extra money. If they made more of DVD's and blurays, they why broadcast it on cable?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

What? Season Pass allows the consumer to buy a season. But Apple doesn't set what a "season" is. The content owner does that. Based on the fact that BB Season 5 is in two seasons on Amazon, MS, and Apple, I would say AMC lied. Or at best one part of AMC is not listening to another part of the company.

Personally I don't know what Apple said to the guy. Maybe he's the type of guy to sue first and ask for refunds later.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Really? You mean that any company has to live in fear that they can be sued for what someone else does? There must be lawsuits left and right then. Tylenol was tainted at the J&J manufacturing plant --> local pharmacy must pay £45 million.

But that's besides the point that the lawsuit originates here in the states. Therefore US laws apply, not English laws.

In this case unless Apple clearly labelled it "batch of episodes, may not be the complete season" then UK consumers have a right to expect it to be the entire season. The official season numbering counts both halves as one, and it has been marketed that way by AMC.

The point you are missing is that Apple doesn't control pricing or what goes into a season or what the label of the season is. The content holder controls that. Apple is merely a reseller. A reseller.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's part of the same story arc, that's what makes it season five.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[msobkow]

TV.com also lists them as a single, sixteen episode season.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Dragonslicer]

My mostly uninformed guess as to why the people involved would be required to call it "part 2 of season 5" has to do with the contracts of the actors or production crew.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[sjames]

Apple can take that up with AMC. They are the ones who have a contractual relationship.

Amazon explicitly lists the cost/episode in their descriptions, but just to be on the safe side, they really should be more clear that it's only a half season. If someone wants their purchase with Amazon reversed, I would suggest that they too should just issue the refund and take it up with AMC.

AMC does look like they're ultimately the bad guy here and as long as the retailers push back it stays that way. if the retailers instead push on the customers, they become accomplices.

The retailers DO have a responsibility here since they have chosen to attach their names to the sale (and take a cut of the profit) for better or worse.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Apple might say something to AMC but other than banning AMC from iTunes, Apple doesn't have much recourse if AMC decides not to change things. AMC holds the copyrights though.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[sjames]

AMC has the root password to Apple's web server? Apple is unable to make the item read (season 5 part 1, 8 episodes). ASTONISHING!

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

The root cause here is that Apple doesn't disclose any useful information like an episide count in their season descriptions. They've been selling split seasons for quite some time, but I've never seen them actually commit to how many episodes they're going to give you.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[houghi]

Uploaded the segment where he said it: http://youtu.be/jFDJbjxa1ZU

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[mooingyak]

There's a distinction between ambiguous and misleading.

If I say that something is "20% better", the first question you would want to ask is "better how?", since 'better' is not necessarily easy to define. The fine print can clarify what I mean by 'better', because 'better' is ambiguous.

If I say 12 pack of Awesome Brand beer for $10, and when you get it home and open it up there's only 6 beers in there, then you would be rightfully pissed. The fine print can't say "by 12 we mean 6". Fine print can't outright contradict.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[HornWumpus]

As much of a story line as the shows fans are capable of following.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[houghi]

Ass Hole Google added me to Google Plus. By deleting it, it deleted the video as well. So have another place: https://vimeo.com/74143850
Ready in about an hour.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Ambvai]

I read that as Vince Gilligan saying "Our lawyers want us to call it Part 2, when it's still really just the same Series/Season 5."

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Um. AMC has a contract with Apple. AMC controls pricing. AMC controls product description. AMC controls what a "season" is. AMC controls copyright. Please tell me how do you suppose Apple bypass copyright law. If AMC wanted to name the last season as "Walt says screw you all" Season with 1 episode, Apple can't just change it on their whim anymore than change the description of the Twilight movies as "Stupid teen vampire movie". The only legal recourse is that Apple stops selling Breaking Bad.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

My comment was not to defend Apple because "they can do no wrong", it was because I think AMC manages their own content provider account on iTunes and they're the ones responsible.

This situations is akin to suing Wal-Mart for food poisoning instead of suing the company that made the food.

Are you trying to say that if I buy bad Kraft cheese from Wal-mart, I need to go to Kraft for a refund and not Walmart? That is BS.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

I go to Walmart and I buy a box of dozen coke cans. But when I open it the box contains only 6. Do I go and return to Walmart or do I go to coke? What if I bought a dozen chairs from walmart.com and got only 6 of which the manufacturer is in China? Do I now need to deal with a Chinese manufacturer because I got only 6 chairs instead of a dozen?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Darinbob]

I've always considered those all one season. Even if there's a three month gap in betwee two "halves" of a season, it's still one season. If last year you pay $22 for a season of 16 episodes, and this year you pay $22 for the final season and find out it only has 8 episodes then that sounds like bait and switch (how can there even be two final seasons?).

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[ArcadeMan]

You get the refund from Wal-Mart, but the blame is on Kraft.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[AvitarX]

I did the math once, that's almost exactly what they make. For choice demographics it's about $1.50/viewer/hour (this was done using the show greys anatomy, as it was the easiest to find articles discussing viewership and ad revenue at the time I did it).

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Darinbob]

Except that historically it has meant the entire 12 months of a show, never mind where there are gaps in the middle of production. Historically also if you pay $22 for last year's season, then you would expect roughly the same amount of episodes for this year's $22. Since you don't get the full year's worth of episodes then many consumers would feel cheated and would prefer to wait until there's a sale.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[ArcadeMan]

You get the refund from Wal-Mart, but the blame is on The Coca-Cola Company.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[sjames]

I see, so Apple are utterly powerless puppets at the mercy of AMC? Totally innocent bystanders invaded in a hostile takeover with no influence whatsoever over what their web servers say?

I very much doubt that.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Kalriath]

No. Basic consumer law is that you enter into an agreement with the vendor that sells you the product, not the supplier. If you were to buy a program on iTunes and it never downloaded, that would be something you take up with Apple, not AMC. Same principle.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Rich0]

If Apple is simply a middleman or distributor selling a product based on the content holder's wishes they are more likely to be dismissed from the case.

Not likely. If I buy a car from the Toyota dealer, and I get it home and it doesn't run, I sue Toyota. I don't sue some company that made the engine. Toyota sold me a CAR, which includes an engine. The fact that they bought the engine from somebody else doesn't change the fact that they sold me something defective.

The same is true of Apple - they sold a season pass. Now, maybe they didn't have the legal right to sell a season pass, but they sold one all the same. If I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge the fact that I don't own the bridge only makes more more liable, not less.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[DinDaddy]

Except, as noted elsewhere, terminology that is almost certainly written by Apple says "This Season Pass includes all current and future episodes of Breaking Bad, The Final Season.", since that is their boilerplate wording used everywhere.

That alone makes them liable in this case.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Darinbob]

Does not matter that much, if you are paying for X dollars for Y episodes last year you will be mad if you find out this year it's X dollars for Y/2 episodes. Especially true if it's been hyped all over the place that this is the "final" season and now you have to buy two final seasons. It's bait and switch, the sellers of these episodes on iTunes very clearly knew that many fans would buy this product quickly expecting to get all remaining episodes of the series.

The meaning of season has not changed that much, just how it is presented and produced. One full year of episodes is a season (not starting in January of course, usually autumn to autumn historically). What is changed is how the episodes are presented. Many of these shows are not labeling things as two seasons in a year, they'll use terms like "mid season finale" instead. Even AMC is calling this just one single season of Breaking Bad. A season has also been what is sold to a network, as in they get a certain number of episodes for the year, regardless of when they're actually broadcast (and sometimes they're broadcast in very strange ways, as with Babylon 5). So having some gaps during broadcast is irrelevant to what is or is not a season.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[DinDaddy]

Specifically, it said "This Season Pass includes all current and future episodes of Breaking Bad, The Final Season."

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Darinbob]

Wow, that's expensive. There are people paying $2.99 for one single episode? I would love to be that rich some day.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[kannibal_klown]

Wow, that's expensive. There are people paying $2.99 for one single episode? I would love to be that rich some day.

I think it's $2.99 for the HD version, $1.99 for the Standard Def version. I haven't bought one in a while so I can't say for sure.

The season-passes (think box-sets) are / were often priced at a slight discount compared to buying each episode individually... so the season-passes are somewhat price-competitive with the DVD box sets for SD and BluRay box sets for HD. Meanwhile you tend to get the episodes within 24hr of them airing.

I don't buy that many shows... sometimes season pass here-and-there if I only learned about (or got into) a show mid-way through a season and it's not on Netflix or my cable company's OnDemand service.

Meanwhile the video quality is solid and there are no commercials so it's not a horrible price to pay. And I make enough that I never consider pirating stuff anymore.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[JazzLad]

If you buy Season 8 of BB, you need to demand a refund.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

They get paid for each cable subscriber whether or not they watch and how much.

A tiny fraction of viewers watch any particular show (or even a particular channel) in a given month (not to mention inertia keeps people subscribed in the months where they aren't airing episodes).

If 5% of viewers watch each month, and they get $2/subscriber, that's $24/viewer/month.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

So is Amazon and Microsoft. But let's rail on Apple for what appears to be a decision by AMC. Also lets just ignore parts of the copyright law that you don't like. I'm calling Amazon right now so they can change Twilight to "Really stupid teen vampire movie". You still are not understanding the term "copyright" are you? Congress made it certain that copyright holders have a lot of control of their own content.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[cheater512]

Pity this guy isn't in Australia. Apple would be forced to refund or give him both 'seasons' over here without any lawsuit.
We have a government organisation called the ACCC to keep companies in line with their advertising.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Belial6]

Apple really isn't expected to know it before hand. They are expected to refund the money when they find out what happened. Just as I don't expect Costco to know if there is lead pellets in the dried mangos at their store, I do expect them to refund our money when we customers find the lead pellets. It is up to the store to address it with the manufacturer.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[AmiMoJo]

In the case of tainted medicine the manufacturer would probably be liable as long as the pharmacy made reasonable efforts to ensure the supply was safe, e.g. buying from reputable suppliers with the correct documentation. It's really not the same thing at all, a flawed comparison.

The content holder controls that. Apple is merely a reseller. A reseller.

So if you buy a TV that says "surround sound" on it, but the surround sound feature is broken and it only gives you stereo who is liable? The shop you bought it from or the manufacturer?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[sjames]

You clearly don't understand copyright at all. It does not control the description of a copyrighted work.

You are certainly free to make your request to Amazon (or use the customer review feature to say it yourself), and they are free to ignore you because it's their website.

Your last post pushed it over the edge. I was trying to reserve judgement, but it is clear that you are either a troll or a totally sold out (cheap) fanboi.

Meanwhile, even with your twisted imaginings of the power of copyright, if AMC insisted on a deceptive description, Apple would certainly be free to not carry the item at all.

Or, of course, they could just give the dude his money back and apologize for any confusion.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're going to keep posting this awful analogy? There is a difference between tangible and intangible items. You d/l a TV show, you don't own anything except a license to view. That's only one reason this analogy sucks. And you're certainly not going to sue anyone over 6 coke cans vs. 12. Hey - it's your analogy.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Belial6]

How do you suppose Apple bypass copyright law? The most Apple can maybe do is have shows list the total number of episodes in the future but they may get resistance from the content holders about this.

This is a good question. It also has an easy answer. Timothy Cook can call up Josh Sapan and tell him that he is creating a problem for them. He can then further explain that if they don't rectify the problem by either refunding the money or supplying the rest of the season, AMC will no longer be welcome to sell their shows in Apple's store.

Apple tells plenty of businesses that they can choose the Apple way or the highway.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Belial6]

The only legal recourse is that Apple stops selling Breaking Bad.

You sound like you don't see that as an option.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Belial6]

The store can take back the package of almonds and return it to the manufacturer. At the very least, the store can take the product off the shelf. I don't expect Safeway to know every single product they sell. If customers complain that there is a problem with the product, I do expect Safeway to look into it. If they find there is a problem, I expect them to stop selling it.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Which is more likely? Apple split BB into 2 seasons as you stated despite what AMC wanted. And so did MS and Amazon because Apple did it. Or AMC went back on their word and split them for all the vendors. I'm leaning towards #2 because I don't think any of the stores care enough to do split them.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Belial6]

Not all lawsuits are created equal. While I wouldn't hold Safeway responsible for tainted Tylenol when the tainting happened at the manufacturing plant, I most certainly would expect Safeway to refund my money on that Tylenol, and once Safeway is notified of the problem with Tylenol, continuing to sell it makes them fully liable, even here in the US.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Belial6]

I would guess that Apple's liability would extend about as far as a refund. Luckily, that is all the guy is suing for.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a distinction between ambiguous and misleading.

If I say that something is "20% better", the first question you would want to ask is "better how?", since 'better' is not necessarily easy to define. The fine print can clarify what I mean by 'better', because 'better' is ambiguous.

If I say 12 pack of Awesome Brand beer for $10, and when you get it home and open it up there's only 6 beers in there, then you would be rightfully pissed. The fine print can't say "by 12 we mean 6". Fine print can't outright contradict.

By you own definition "season" is ambiguous not misleading. As there is no standardized number of episodes in a "season".

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Um lead pellets are not supposed to be in mangoes. Apple sold a customer a Season Pass to a show where they don't know how many there was supposed to be nor do they set the number of shows. Nor did they set the price of the Season Pass. The price at $22 for 8 was slightly higher than previous seasons, but at $22 per 16 would have been a 40% discount. The dispute is that the customer didn't get the huge discount he thought he was getting.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

The flea market owner didn't make the signs of the vendor.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Belial6]

Once Wal-Mart has been informed that the food is tainted, they most certainly are responsible for continuing to sell it. Beyond that, for anyone who had previously purchased the product, Wal-Mart would be the place they would go to return the product for a refund. Of AMC decided to start uploading and selling hard core porn from their account, you can be sure that Apple would step in and put a stop to it. Apple would use the rational that they are protecting their customers and their own reputation. Apple has set up a system where they have taken responsibility for what they sell. They have sold their products and services with the understanding that Apple has a 'curated' store. That means they are more responsible than someone like E-Bay.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

But you don't sue the dealership if the problem was with the car and nothing the dealership did. For example, your Toyota doesn't get the advertised gas mileage. Are you still going to sue the dealership? In this case, Apple is a reseller of AMC's product.

In this case Apple had a legal right to sell AMC's product. Now it appears AMC says Season 5 should be one season but based on how it is two seasons at Apple, Amazon, and MS stores, they've gone back on their word.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[GumphMaster]

Sounds like someone is owed a huge bonus if the show makes it to a sixth season, the producers don't want to pay it, and the legal weasels are only to happy to oblige.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[narcc]

There is a significant difference between Apple and Amazon here. On Amazon, when I buy a "season pass" that means I buy all the episodes in the season that are already available outright and I agree to let Amazon bill me for each new episode as they're released. When I bought Season 5, I paid for one episode at a time with a small discount in the price.

That is, I didn't pay a one-time fee with the expectation that I'd get the whole of Season 5. I paid individually for each episode as they were released. (Which, by the way, you can cancel at any time.) I did have to "buy" the second half of Season 5 under the same terms. That was an inconvenience, sure, but a minor one. Given the length of time between the first and second half of Season 5, it could be seen as a positive as I could have lost interest in the show.

In short, I knew exactly what I was paying for with each transaction.

Had I paid a flat-fee up front for the whole of Season 5 and only got the first half, I'd been upset as well. Season 5 means Season 5 -- not half of Season 5.

Even worse, if the poor fellow from the article expected to get the entire fifth season for 22.99, he may have thought he was going to pay less than he would had he bought it through Amazon. As it turns out, he paid quite a bit more. If price was a factor in his decision, he got screwed twice.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[mooingyak]

By you own definition "season" is ambiguous not misleading. As there is no standardized number of episodes in a "season".

Not really. Just because one season may have 13 episodes and another 16 episodes doesn't mean that there's any confusion about what is or isn't part of season 5. AMC last summer phrased the now current episodes as "the second half of season 5". They have at no point described it as season 6. And from TFA:

The complaint further notes that consumers who purchased the first eight episodes "were specifically informed in writing that they were paying for 'all current and future' episodes of Season 5."

This isn't a case of 'better' or 'more satisfying' being inherently vague terms. The content promised is fairly specific, and does not match up with what was delivered.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

And Apple was supposed to do this beforehand? Tim Cook would not likely call Josh Sapan over a $22 dispute. Right now it will be Apple underlings working with AMC people. But considering AMC split them at Amazon and MS, they will have to change it everywhere. If AMC says no, again, how do you suppose Apple bypass copyright law?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Middlemen have limited liability and power to change things. Can your local store repackage Tide laundry detergent into smaller containers because they want? No. They have to sell Tide at whatever size Tide makes. Now they can point out that Tide makes a smaller size for their competitor. In this case it seems BB is split into two seasons everywhere so it's not just iTunes.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Personally I don't think Amazon or Apple really cares about how many episodes or seasons BB has. They just want to sell it the consumer.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I say 12 pack of Awesome Brand beer for $10, and when you get it home and open it up there's only 6 beers in there, then you would be rightfully pissed.

Seeing as only half the beer was there, I'd say only half-pissed.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Except I just checked with Amazon and you still only get the first half of season 5 of Breaking Bad.

You have to order the "Final Season" of Breaking Bad to get the last 8 episodes. Also the price per episode for the last 8 episodes are now $2.99 /ea where the "Season 5" episodes are $1.99/ea. Amazon is charging $1 more per episode for the last half of the season. If I ordered "Season 5" and expected to pay only $1.99/episode for the unaired episodes, I would be just as pissed.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

You clearly don't understand copyright at all. It does not control the description of a copyrighted work.

You don't understand the term "advertising copy" do you? Look it up.

You are certainly free to make your request to Amazon (or use the customer review feature to say it yourself), and they are free to ignore you because it's their website.

The review section is not the description section.

Your last post pushed it over the edge. I was trying to reserve judgement, but it is clear that you are either a troll or a totally sold out (cheap) fanboi.

The fact that Congress has granted copyright holders a lot of power is fanboyism? Do you have a point or just insults?

Meanwhile, even with your twisted imaginings of the power of copyright, if AMC insisted on a deceptive description, Apple would certainly be free to not carry the item at all.

Advertising Copy. In a dispute between two parties and one of them holds copyrights, please tell how one trumps copyright power? If there is no enumerated recourse in the contract, the only action that Apple can do is simply not sell BB. That's it.

Or, of course, they could just give the dude his money back and apologize for any confusion.

And you know that they didn't do that, how? When someone files a class-action lawsuit for $22 what you think the motive is? For $22 you file in small claims court. Filing class-action means you expect lots of money.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[c 0xFF]

If I say 12 pack of Awesome Brand beer for $10, and when you get it home and open it up there's only 6 beers in there, then you would be rightfully pissed. The fine print can't say "by 12 we mean 6". Fine print can't outright contradict.

I can't help but think of the fine print on hard drives: "1 GB = 1000 MB."

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't some crazy decision by AMC. It was an agreement between the Show Runner and AMC. There was a final 16 episode order, and from the very beginning it was understood it would be split between two years. Same thing happened with Lost. ABC wanted 3 years worth, but Abrams wanted 48 episodes. They went with 3 seasons of 16 episodes.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[WillyWanker]

But they are the ones that run the store. They claim they have no power, that's it up to the producers, but of course that's complete bullshit. Apple has, and has always maintained full control over iTunes and the app store with an iron fist. Apple says "jump", and producers and developers say "how high?" If they tell the producers, "no, you must include the second 8 episodes as part of the existing season because we sold our customers passes to all of season 5, not just the first half" do you really think they would say no and risk being booted off iTunes? I don't think so.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[narcc]

Did you even read my comment?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Rich0]

But you don't sue the dealership if the problem was with the car and nothing the dealership did.

Sure, but if I order and pay for an SUV from the dealership and they deliver me a a compact car, I'm going to want my money back. That isn't the fault of the manufacturer - the dealer misrepresented what they sold.

It is fine if the studio decides to split a TV series in two - Apple just needs to clearly advertise what is being sold and all is well. If they sell you a season and deliver half a season, the fault is entirely their own. They can always deliver both half seasons for the single half-season price - they just might have to take a loss on it if they have to pay 2x the cost to the studio. Chances are they won't let that happen though.

If you're selling a product and take money from somebody, you have to deliver what you sold them. If circumstances beyond your control cause you to not be able to make good on your promise, then at the very least you need to refund the money, not keep it and deliver half a product for the cost of the whole.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Yes. Which is why I mentioned the price difference between the first and last half of the same season. The argument is that there are 16 episodes in Season 5 therefore you should be able to get all 16 episodes for the same rate as "Season 5" not the higher rate as "Final Season".

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that AMC is in charge of distribution and owns the show. The "showrunner" can call it anything they like but AMC is the one that sets the distribution terms.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[mattack2]

Actually, according to imdb, AMC isn't the *sole* production company either. It's listed as produced *for* AMC.

High Bridge Productions (as High Bridge)
Gran Via Productions
Sony Pictures Television (in association with)
American Movie Classics (AMC) (for)

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[DigitAl56K]

For 16 episodes $15 would be fine if that was the HD price. For SD so long as it is 480P and in 16x9 I might be ok with it.

Why? It's the exact same content. It was already shot in HD. Yeah, it has to be mastered for Blu-Ray. The SD version has to be mastered for DVD too.

You should just be able to buy it in the best format your device supports. The fact that people are willing to pay more for HD just keeps allowing the industry to keep charging more for HD, for the exact same content.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[LordVader717]

Apple are the vendors. They sold it to him and debited his account. They are his primary contact and ultimately responsible for fulfillment of the contract. The fact that the error happened upstream does not excuse this.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like AMC wanted to have its cake and eat it too.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[narcc]

Apparently you didn't, as otherwise you'd notice that I already address the first part of your post.

I should also point out, as you're clearly confused, that the price per episode is exactly the same for the first and second half of season 5. You'll pay exactly the same amount regardless of it being split in two.

Your price difference non-fact is 100% wrong. The $2.99/episode cost is for the HD version. That was the price of the HD version for the first half of season 5. You can buy the non-HD version for $1.99/episode (Ignoring, of course, the discount per episode if you buy a "season pass".)

See, you pay per episode on Amazon. The "season pass" charges you for what is out now (you know EXACTLY what you're getting) then per episode as they come out.

When you buy Season 5 on Amazon, now, it's clear that you're only getting 8 episodes (and it's priced accordingly) Had you signed up for a season pass when the first half of the season was still airing, you'd have paid for what had already aired, then per episode (automatically, as that's how a season pass works on Amazon.)

The fellow in the article bought a season pass for a flat rate which he believed would include every episode in season 5. On Amazon, it's obvious what you're getting and what you're paying. On Amazon, you might have expected to eventually get all 16, and you may be slightly disappointed that you need to sign-up for the second half, but you only actually pay for the 8 in the package.

One is clear and honest (Amazon), and the other is deceptive (Apple).

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they get me a free season of breaking bad (or a $20 refund), I think they deserve a few bucks in compensation for helping me out. If they do the same for a million other customers, it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to earn a few dollars per customer, for a few million in total.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[mjwx]

They didn't make the Breaking Bad series, they're not the ones who decided to split up the season in two. What's next, suing Apple because the new pop music album is crap?

Apple sold the pass, they are obliged to meet provide the product that has been paid for. Countries with consumer protection laws make this quite clear, Apple must either provide the product as described at the time of sale or a refund. Apple should be suing the production company for its losses.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Belial6]

No, it happens ofter the fact. Of course it shouldn't need to be Tim Cook and Josh Sapan, but at the end of the day, Apple has access to every level of AMC, right up to Sapan. You also didn't read thoroughly. As stated before, the way Apple handles it if AMC says no is:

He can then further explain that if they don't rectify the problem by either refunding the money or supplying the rest of the season, AMC will no longer be welcome to sell their shows in Apple's store.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

why do people keep asking or act dumb on this?

Apple delivered the content to its customers, it is also there responsibility to put into clear cut language the "terms of purchase" The guy paid for 16 episodes and only got received 8. This is typical of Apple to do this, and other companies as well. All they had to do was refund him the money since 'they' did not keep the terms of the agreement, or provide him with the remaining 8 episodes which he had paid for.

They tried to shaft him, and tried to get away with it, and Apple will not be the only one to receive a summons to appear if front of a judge, AMC will also be seeing time in court for also failing to keep the terms of agreement with Apple.

I guess because Apple was involved, it made for headlines, where as if it had been AMC, nobody would bother to notice. It is "news that matters to nerds" however this is just choppy reporting because of who is currently involved, really lazy "shock the crowd" article.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't make the Breaking Bad series, they're not the ones who decided to split up the season in two. What's next, suing Apple because the new pop music album is crap?

AMC who produce the series didn't break up the series into Seasons 5 and The Final Season. Apple iTunes arbitrarily did that to suck more money out of its customers. I purchased a Season Pass to Season 5 (which is currently screening the final 3 episodes) - I believe that Apple was misleading and deceptive in its marketing of this product - the lawsuit is deserved and I hope the plaintiffs win significant damages

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[xenobyte]

They didn't make the Breaking Bad series, they're not the ones who decided to split up the season in two. What's next, suing Apple because the new pop music album is crap?

Apple sold the pass, they are obliged to meet provide the product that has been paid for. Countries with consumer protection laws make this quite clear, Apple must either provide the product as described at the time of sale or a refund.

Apple should be suing the production company for its losses.

Exactly. They sold a "season pass", not a "half season pass" or similar. If the Apple expected the product they sold to be the complete season and it turned out to be only half a season, it's up to Apple to sue the producers for not delivering to them.

That's the way this works on every level of sale. You buy a product and if it turns out to be something else than what was promised and you paid for, you can either get a full or partial refund. If the seller refuses the refund you can sue, and if the seller can pay you have good odds at getting your refund then as the law is very clear on this.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK, it would be the shop who sold it. The law is perfectly clear. It was the shop who sold it as, in effect, you and the shop have formed a contract for the sale. You don't have a contract with the manufacturer. In reality some shops try fobbing you off and telling you it the manufacturers fault. A visit to Trading Standards will soon show them the error of their ways.

While I am talking about suing, this would actually be in a Small Claims court: minimum cost, no lawyers. I my be biased but, having used them, I think they are brilliant.

The shop can sue their wholesaler and so on up the chain.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Everything Else Was]

That's correct. 1GB = 1000MB
On the other hand, 1GiB = 1024MB
Are you getting them confused?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Dredd13]

They're the ones who advertised "This Season Pass will contain all episodes of Breaking Bad, Season 5" without actually verifying they had the rights to offer all that content for that price.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Your price difference non-fact is 100% wrong. The $2.99/episode cost is for the HD version. That was the price of the HD version for the first half of season 5. You can buy the non-HD version for $1.99/episode (Ignoring, of course, the discount per episode if you buy a "season pass".)

Yep my bad. Amazon sent me to the SD version on Season 5. I double checked and it is the same price. $2.99/ep HD.

See, you pay per episode on Amazon. The "season pass" charges you for what is out now (you know EXACTLY what you're getting) then per episode as they come out.

Actually it doesn't. I just checked and Amazon has the final 8 episodes as Season 6 in their catalog.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I do agree that your paying per episode with Amazon. However the amount that you paid for Season 5 on Amazon and Season 5 on iTunes is practically the same. You still have to order a season pass for the "Final Season" on both to get the last 8 episodes and the amount of money spent still remains the same.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

But, not before the Australian government slapped a gag order on news outlets reporting this, oh country with specifically limited speech.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

One of the cardinal rules of litigation is that the list of defendants includes everyone involved (in any way) who has money.

So Breaking Bad must be a money losing enterprise for all involved - he only sued Apple.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

Indeed. AMC's official stance is that this is one season of 16 episodes.

So why do they sell it everywhere as "The Fifth Season" Plus "The Final Season"? Why did they air it in two parts with almost a year between? Are you working for AMCs PR department and try to cover up your boo-boo by blaming this on Apple?

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

Except, as noted elsewhere, terminology that is almost certainly written by Apple says "This Season Pass includes all current and future episodes of Breaking Bad, The Final Season.", since that is their boilerplate wording used everywhere.

That alone makes them liable in this case.

Errm, this is about "The Fifth Season", which is different to "The Final Season". Not because Apple says so, but because AMC does. Thanks for actually making Apple's case.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

Actually, however, there are a number of reasons to sue multiple parties in many cases regardless of the amount of money sought. Sometimes it's pretty clear who did you wrong. Here it seems rather clear that Apple made a particular promise prior to a proper appreciation or understanding of the intent of AMC.

http://www.imore.com/fans-will-need-new-season-pass-final-episodes-breaking-bad

"Final episodes of Breaking Bad reportedly require new season pass on iTunes, Amazon, other services"

On all services. Not just Apple. AMC sold the Season Pass Option on all services and now fucks over their customers, and you blame Apple for it, but not the other services, and most certainly not AMC.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very simple. You paid apple, not AMC. The contract was between the end-user(me & you) and apple. If AMC splits the season in 2, then Apple should've made reasonable accommodations for this(acces to second season without further pay, merging both seasons into one[as AMC is advertising], etc.)

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[narcc]

Actually it doesn't. I just checked and Amazon has the final 8 episodes as Season 6 in their catalog.

Yes, it has the last 8 as season 6 -- but when bought the pass for season 5, you only paid for what was already out and then paid (automatically) for the remaining episodes as they became available. You didn't pay a flat-rate expecting to get all the episodes in season 5 for that price only to discover later that you only got half of the episodes.

That's the key difference here. You knew exactly what you were getting with each transaction.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

That's not what happened. AMC says Season 5 is in two seasons. Not Apple. Not Amazon. Not MS. Your analogy would be closer if you ordered a RAV and thought it was the equivalent to a Humvee based on Toyota advertising. The dealership delivered you a RAV. The fact that it can't really go offloading without major modifications isn't the dealership's responsibility.

Apple doesn't know what a "season" is. The studio defines it. Just like the studio decides how many episodes are in each season. Apple like Amazon are resellers; they don't get involved with product choices. For example Firefly produced 13 episodes but only 12 aired. Fox could have released only 12 episodes on iTunes; it's not Apple's call to insist on them releasing all episodes.

According to what AMC designated as Season 5 to Apple, Apple delivered all 8 episodes. If AMC wants Season 5 to be 16 episodes, they should put them all in Season 5. The problem is the show's creators have said one thing but AMC has done another.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Rich0]

That's not what happened. AMC says Season 5 is in two seasons. Not Apple.

That is the entire problem. If Apple said Season 5 was two seasons, then they would be doing nothing wrong. They just sold a season pass for Season 5 without declaring in advance that it was for only half a season.

Apple doesn't know what a "season" is.

Then they were negligent. The consumer certainly doesn't know what it is. It is the duty of the vendor of a good to know what they're selling. How can Apple sell a "season" if they don't know what a "season" is? If they couldn't be sure about AMC's terms then they shouldn't have sold any season passes until they were sure. If AMC changed the rules after-the-fact they should just let users download the entire season and dare AMC to sue them - AMC can't change the contract after they signed it.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[bkcallahan]

You forgot that cops are allowed to lie too. Though we haven't determined if they're people or not.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[c 0xFF]

I can't tell if this calls for a "whoosh" or a history lesson.

No, I'm not getting them confused. It's unfortunate that MB and family got an overloaded definition, but it's something that's been with us for a long time. MiB is a relatively recent invention that tries to resolve this. Nobody uses it. Except a few pendants here and there like you.

The fact remains that many people are surprised that the hard drive industry uses a different unit (sometimes even mixing units, as was the case with the 1.44" floppy) than just about everybody else (including operating systems). People have been confused many times. Hence the fine print.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

That is the entire problem. If Apple said Season 5 was two seasons, then they would be doing nothing wrong. They just sold a season pass for Season 5 without declaring in advance that it was for only half a season.

Let me be clear on this: Apple doesn't set how many episodes are in Season 5. AMC does. Apple does not create Season 5. AMC does. Apple does not create a Season Pass and set it to Season 5. AMC does. Apple provides the store and the mechanism for AMC to manage their account. Apple is a reseller.

Then they were negligent. The consumer certainly doesn't know what it is.

How many songs will be in Lady Gaga's next album? Apple doesn't know. Gaga and her record company knows. In my example which you missed, Apple cannot dictate to Fox how many episodes of Firefly they will release.

It is the duty of the vendor of a good to know what they're selling. How can Apple sell a "season" if they don't know what a "season" is?

Did you know Firefly had 13 episodes in their only season? Fox knew. Joss Whedon knew. Seeing how only 12 episodes were aired how Apple does know? When the content maker uploads their content to Apple, Apple has to accept that what the content says is a "season". If Fox only uploaded 12 episodes for Season 1, are you going to say Apple was supposed to have omnipotence and know about Episode 13?

If they couldn't be sure about AMC's terms then they shouldn't have sold any season passes until they were sure. If AMC changed the rules after-the-fact they should just let users download the entire season and dare AMC to sue them - AMC can't change the contract after they signed it.

I will bet you one million dollars that the contract between AMC and Apple does not specify how many episodes are in Season 5. The contract specifies generally what Apple will do and what AMC will do. Apple will provide an account for AMC. AMC will manage their content. Apple will sell AMC's content and be the middleman passing 70% back to AMC. That is their contract. Their contract never says: AMC will release 16 episodes in Season 5 by Sept 30.. Apple's lawyers will be writing new contracts every day of the week if that were the case.

Second, not all content holders know how many episodes will be in a season. Especially with cable as their seasons don't have to follow broadcast network seasons. The show's creators could have had enough content for 14 episodes. Shows release bonus episodes all the time.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Season-Pass-include-episodes/forum/Fx2ITDO0PFZ5BH3/TxHGJR3HL6VQHW/1?_encoding=UTF8&asin=B008LRCLHY

"Very misleading as it says "Get the entire season for $13.99"."

Does Amazon pay you well to lie?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

as was the case with the 1.44" floppy

Was the 1.44 inch floppy the width or the thickness? It's either really small or really thick.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

Except that historically it has meant the entire 12 months of a show,

You mean exactly like the way Apple delivered? The entire first part of Season 5 that aired in 12 months?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

I would hope it does make amazon just as liable.

A reasonable person does not expect them to break one season in half and call it two seasons. Maybe they should have waited 6 months between airing them.

Exactly, a reasonable person wouldn't expect something hat airs over 2 years to be one season.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

I would hope it does make amazon just as liable.

A reasonable person does not expect them to break one season in half and call it two seasons. Maybe they should have waited 6 months between airing them.

Exactly, a reasonable person wouldn't expect something hat airs over 2 years to be one season.

Oops, I forgot - they didn't wait 6 month between the two parts, they waited 10. Episode 8 aired September 2, 2012, Ep. 9 August 11, 2013

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

Good lord, anything to defend Apple, huh? AMC said it was one season, with a 6-month break in the middle. Apple disregarded that and took it upon themselves to call the second half a separate season. They're not merely distributing it, they're taking the content and sleazily repackaging it in a way that rips off their customers.

If AMC can't even tell the difference between 6 months and 10 months, why would I believe them when they say that it wasn't their choice selling what the producers call one season as two? Why, to blame it all on Apple, of course.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

What I am talking about is a set of very simple scripts. You can test season length via episode count of previous seasons or length between airdates. Very easy to automate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Bad_(season_5)

Episode 1, July 15, 2012
Episode 8, September 2, 2012
Episode 9, August 11, 2013

What does your automated script say how many episodes are in the first season of "Season 5"?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

You forgot option #3:

AMC, Apple and Amazon are all run by people trying to get as much money as possible from consumers. Birds of a feather...

Option 4: the customer watched the first part of Season 5 for a fair price, and now sees a way to get that money back.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

Apple is supposed to know their product. AMC hasn't been shy about how many episodes constitute this season and that number has always been 16.

Apple could have avoided a lot of bother by just giving the guy the $20 he's asking for and declaring the whole thing a mis-understanding. Then they could demand AMC's cut back and I'll bet they would have gotten it. They could have also said 8 episodes in their description, but would have lost the marketing weasel advantage of season pass sounding like more than 8 episodes.

Why did all other services also sell an 8 episode season pass for the first part of "Season" 5? Did Apple force them?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

I see, so Apple are utterly powerless puppets at the mercy of AMC? Totally innocent bystanders invaded in a hostile takeover with no influence whatsoever over what their web servers say?

I very much doubt that.

So you are arguing that it was Apple forcing all other video services including Amazon to sell a 8 episode season pass? Not AMC?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[sjames]

No, I argue that Apple had the ability to make it clear on the website that the offer was for 8 episodes (half a season).

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[sjames]

I doubt it. Note that Apple could just be the unlucky one to be sued, the others might have just refunded people's money, or the other ones could be next. I have no idea there. The subject of TFA, this discussion, and the lawsuit is Apple. If the other kids all jumped off a cliff would you jump too?

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[DJRumpy]

Technically it's all of Season 5. The last season is not considered part of Season 5, but rather it's called the Final Season.

Amazon, Google, Apple, are all selling it this way, as defined by AMC. Just because you think that 'Season 5' should include 16 episodes means nothing. AMC defines what a season of the show is compiled and sold as, and they have two seasons: "Season 5" and "The Final Season".

Since Apple does not define what is in a season of the show, they have met their obligation with the season pass. It gave this person access to the entire Season 5, which AMC defined as 8 episodes, and Apple delivered.

I'm betting this lawsuit will go no where.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[narcc]

The episodes included are listed. That thecurrent season is inexplicably split in to two seasons is irrelevant as you see EXACTLY what you're getting for 13.99.

This isn't rocekt science. When the author bought his season pass, he rightly expected 16 episodes for the amount he paid up-front. On Amazon, you know exactly what you're paying for as you only pay for what is currently available.

There is no lie here. No deception. That's the difference between Amazon and iTunes at the time the author made his purchase.

I can only explain this very simple thing so many times. Use your head!

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

They promised "the entire season for $13.99" - are you some kind of moron, or does Amazon pay you too?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

I doubt it. Note that Apple could just be the unlucky one to be sued, the others might have just refunded people's money, or the other ones could be next. I have no idea there. The subject of TFA, this discussion, and the lawsuit is Apple. If the other kids all jumped off a cliff would you jump too?

If everybody else attacked Apple and pretended they were the only one guilty, would you too? Silly question, you already did.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[sjames]

You clearly haven't read my comments. I have been quite clear that the others might find themselves subject to a similar suit. Or it may be that the others just refund the $20 to avoid the mess. How would I know?

Note that Apple could just be the unlucky one to be sued, the others might have just refunded people's money, or the other ones could be next.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[narcc]

What promise?

When the author bought his season pass, he expected to get every episode in the season (the season was not split in two, at that point.) He expected 16 episodes to make up the entire season for the price he paid.

At the same time, had it bought a season pass on Amazon, he would have only paid for the episodes already out, then individually for new episodes as they arrived. (He would have paid per episode, less a discount for opting for the season pass.)

TODAY, now that the seasons are split, you KNOW that you only get 8 episodes when you buy Season 5. That was not the case when the author bought his season pass on iTunes. He rightly expected all 16 episodes for the advertised price.

Had he purchased a season pass on Amazon, he would have no right to complain. He would have known the price per episode and ONLY paid for the episodes that he received. He would have been slightly inconvenienced, needing to click "buy" to continue the previous arrangement for the second half of the season, now considered to be its own season.

Why is this so damn hard for you to understand? The author got screwed out of 8 episodes he rightly expected to get for the advertised price. The same could not be said had he opted to use Amazon instead of iTunes. On Amazon, then and now, you know EXACTLY what you're getting when you click "buy".

This isn't difficult.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

Thanks for the confirmation, now all you have to tell us is how much Amazon pays you for claiming that when they offered a season pass for the "entire fifth season" of Breaking Bad, they didn't mean what Amazon now calls Season 6.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[ultranova]

This situations is akin to suing Wal-Mart for food poisoning instead of suing the company that made the food.

Which is actually correct. Wal-Mart sold you the food, so you sue Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart can then turn around and sue the food manufacturer, if they think the food was bad to begin rather than, say, mishandled by Wal-Mart. But that's between them and no longer involves you.

That's how delivery chains work: products travel down, money and blame travel up.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

he he "onus"

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Rich0]

Ultimately Apple advertised a season pass for Season 5 on their website, profited from the sales of that season, and delivered content for something that virtually any consumer would not consider the entire Season.

They can argue all the above in court, but I doubt any jury would buy it. If you sell me Season 5, you need to deliver Season 5. Apple could refund the purchase to anybody who was mislead and say that they had nothing to do with it, and that would probably allow them to escape liability if they did it before they got to trial. However, they control the store - they could remove the show from their store at any time as being fraudulent, just as Ebay or Amazon does when third parties list items that are misleading.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Ultimately Apple advertised a season pass for Season 5 on their website, profited from the sales of that season, and delivered content for something that virtually any consumer would not consider the entire Season.

That is not the point. The point is that a fan expected Season 5 to last 16 episodes even though AMC broke it into 2 seasons. This is probably because there was a break in between the seasons and they wanted to sell DVD/Bluray sets sooner. Waiting for the last 8 would have delayed releasing the box set. Did Apple ever advertise to the fan that Season 5 is 16 episodes? No. Also Apple didn't even set what the description of the season was. AMC does that.

They can argue all the above in court, but I doubt any jury would buy it. If you sell me Season 5, you need to deliver Season 5.

Let me clear again: Apple only sells what AMC says is Season 5. Period. AMC has told them and Amazon and MS that Season 5 has 8 episodes. Period. Apple can't lump Seasons 5 and 6 into one season just because they want to. That is them changing the product. They can't do that any more than your local store deciding you don't get enough chips in a bag of potato chips. Can the store open up the bag and start combining them into bigger bags? No. They sell what is provided to them by the manufacturer. Considering that AMC split BB Season 5 everywhere and not just iTunes, really that was AMC's decision not Apple's.

You think Season 5 is 16 episodes. You have no standing in a contract between Apple and AMC any more than you can tell the store that you get more chips. You have a problem with a product, take it up with the manufacturer.

Apple could refund the purchase to anybody who was mislead and say that they had nothing to do with it, and that would probably allow them to escape liability if they did it before they got to trial. However, they control the store - they could remove the show from their store at any time as being fraudulent, just as Ebay or Amazon does when third parties list items that are misleading.

From the seller's standpoint, the buyer got the product that the manufacturer made. The second thing is what are the damages? In this case, the fan had to pay normal price for a season. That's it. He wasn't going to get a 40% discount that he might have thought he was getting. Apple and Amazon sold the eight episodes at $22. Based on pricing if the buyer thought he was getting 16 episodes for $22 that's 40% off. Even if he wins, he can't prove damages.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Rich0]

You think Season 5 is 16 episodes. You have no standing in a contract between Apple and AMC any more than you can tell the store that you get more chips. You have a problem with a product, take it up with the manufacturer.

If I pay Apple $22, I have a contract with Apple, implied or written. I certainly have standing to sue them if I didn't get what they sold me. Whether season 5 is 8 or 16 episodes is a matter of fact/law to be determined by a judge and jury. I'm sure they'll take AMC's opinion into account.

The second thing is what are the damages? In this case, the fan had to pay normal price for a season. That's it. He wasn't going to get a 40% discount that he might have thought he was getting. Apple and Amazon sold the eight episodes at $22. Based on pricing if the buyer thought he was getting 16 episodes for $22 that's 40% off. Even if he wins, he can't prove damages.

It sounds like he can prove $22 in compensatory damages fairly trivially using the very argument you just presented (or at least $11 if you consider half the episodes made good on). Multiply that by however many Apple sold if it becomes a class action, and add in punitive damages if the behavior is deemed egregious.

I'm sure his lawyer wouldn't be spending money on the case if he didn't think he has a shot.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The guy paid for 16 episodes and only got received 8"

Where do you get this information? I just went to the iTunes store, and there are only 8 episodes to Season 5, when you look at what Season 5 contains. They actually show you all the episodes you'll be receiving, so I don't see how anyone can bitch, unless they don't receive what's listed.

Now, they offer "Season 5", and "Season 5 Deluxe Edition". If you are not careful when you look, it SEEMS that "Season 5" has 16 episodes, but that is only because the real episodes are the odd-numbered ones, and the even-numbered ones are the commentaries (you know, "the inside scoop", "the making of", etc.). When you look at "Season 5 Deluxe Edition", they list eight episodes, then list 32 add-ons (you know, "the inside scoop", "the making of", etc.). BUT THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT (8) EPISODES.

As someone else said - this lawsuit is going nowhere.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

If you pay a Ford dealership $20000 for a car and you have a problem with the fuel mileage is that really the dealer's fault. The dealer sold you the car as they got it from Ford. Now if it was something they added or altered from Ford, that's a completely different story. Again you can sue the store if you felt cheated on a bag of Lay's potato chips? Yes. Will you win? No.

It sounds like he can prove $22 in compensatory damages fairly trivially using the very argument you just presented (or at least $11 if you consider half the episodes made good on). Multiply that by however many Apple sold if it becomes a class action, and add in punitive damages if the behavior is deemed egregious.

First of all you missed the point damages. The most the plaintiff can prove is that he wasn't going to get the discount he thought he was getting. Second "egregious" only really applies of Apple did something no one was doing. Apple is doing want everyone from Amazon to MS is doing: selling the product as-is from AMC.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Gen_Music]

He only bought from Apple. He has no right to sue others as he had no business with them.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Gen_Music]

Because it is their duty to make sure that the contents match the label.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Only if the product isn't what the manufacturer says it is. AMC says Season 5 is 8 episodes everywhere including DVD and Bluray box sets. Apple is supposed to argue that isn't based on what?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

But this lawsuit isn't claiming that the plaintiff got sick. Only that the product wasn't he thought it should be from the the manufacturer.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

In the UK, it would be the shop who sold it. The law is perfectly clear.

Even though the shop had no say in the manufacture or design of a product? Again, I don't see lawsuits left and right in the UK. Maybe the law isn't what you think it is.

It was the shop who sold it as, in effect, you and the shop have formed a contract for the sale.

And the shop sold you exactly what the manufacturer sold it. Your complaint isn't about what the shop did but about something about the product itself that the shop did not and cannot change. That's as silly as suing a automobile dealer because you didn't get the gas mileage you expected from a car. How is the dealer suppose to affect that?

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

See my understanding of local tort law means you usually have to go after point of sale and then they have the fun time suing the next rung up the ladder. Though it's been 6 years since I studied that so my recollection could be faulty, add that I was studying it as part of an accounting degree not law.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

He only bought from Apple. He has no right to sue others as he had no business with them.

That never stopped people from suing Apple when they bought their iPhone from (e.g.) AT&T. So what's stopping him from suing the people who actually made the decision that "Season 5" of Breaking Bad actually has two seasons - sorry, "parts".

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Rich0]

If you pay a Ford dealership $20000 for a car and you have a problem with the fuel mileage is that really the dealer's fault. The dealer sold you the car as they got it from Ford.

If they sell you an SUV for $20k and deliver you a compact car, the dealer is certainly liable, even if that compact car is exactly what they received from Ford. The issue isn't that the recordings were defective - the issue is that what was sold was misrepresented. It is certainly the duty of a reseller to correctly represent what was being sold.

It sounds like he can prove $22 in compensatory damages fairly trivially using the very argument you just presented (or at least $11 if you consider half the episodes made good on). Multiply that by however many Apple sold if it becomes a class action, and add in punitive damages if the behavior is deemed egregious.

First of all you missed the point damages. The most the plaintiff can prove is that he wasn't going to get the discount he thought he was getting.

As far as compensatory damages go - you say I missed the point and yet I only claimed $11 in damages for him, which to me seems to be the discount he thought he was getting. I'm not sure what exactly you're disagreeing on.

Second "egregious" only really applies of Apple did something no one was doing. Apple is doing want everyone from Amazon to MS is doing: selling the product as-is from AMC.

Behavior being egregious has nothing to do with whether no one else is doing it. Behavior being egregious has to do with it being shockingly bad or unconscionable. It is possible for an entire industry to be uniformly engaged in egregious behavior. In any case, egregious is whatever a jury decides it is - judges basically read the definition of the term and the jury fills in what they want to assess, if anything. It isn't uncommon to have $1 in compensatory damages and $1M in punitive damages.

Usually punitive damages result when the defendant seems likely to repeat their behavior. I don't believe Apple is admitting any wrongdoing here, and the compensatory damages are only $11 after a long trial, so it would seem that punitive damages would be necessary if the goal is actually to change their behavior.

All Apple needs to do is just state up-front how many episodes are in the season, or what period of original TV airtime is covered by the pass. By all means they can make the studios specify that when they put the pass up for sale, and Apple can just enforce it. The issue was that they used generic wording that customarily means one thing and in the end they delivered something else. If the NY Yankees sold a season pass and then in June sent out a letter telling everybody that if they wanted tickets after July 1st they'd have to buy another one there would certainly be a lawsuit unless this was specified up-front when the tickets were first sold. They used a term that has always been used to mean one thing to sell something else.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

If they sell you an SUV for $20k and deliver you a compact car, the dealer is certainly liable, even if that compact car is exactly what they received from Ford. The issue isn't that the recordings were defective - the issue is that what was sold was misrepresented. It is certainly the duty of a reseller to correctly represent what was being sold.

Again you missed the point. If you paid $20K for a Ford Escape, did you get a Ford Escape from the dealership? What the plaintiff is complaining about is that the Ford Escape doesn't get the gas mileage that Ford advertised and that it can't go offroading like he thought it could. Did Apple or AMC ever tell the plaintiff that Season 5 was 16 episodes? Apple certainly didn't as Apple doesn't know (and I think doesn't care). The show's creators did but they aren't really in charge of the distribution side. In this case and the case of the Ford, it's really on the onus of the manufacturer.

It sounds like he can prove $22 in compensatory damages fairly trivially using the very argument you just presented (or at least $11 if you consider half the episodes made good on). Multiply that by however many Apple sold if it becomes a class action, and add in punitive damages if the behavior is deemed egregious.

Prove how? Step 1: he must prove liability. Step 2: he must prove damages. The most he can prove is that he thought he was getting a huge discount. But that is a tough argument to make that not getting discount = damages. As for punitive damages, you are completely jumping the gun. Punitive damages comes in when there sort of additional action of behavior. What is Apple accused of doing in the worst light is selling a product from AMC with AMC setting the pricing and product control.

As far as compensatory damages go - you say I missed the point and yet I only claimed $11 in damages for him, which to me seems to be the discount he thought he was getting. I'm not sure what exactly you're disagreeing on.

Because in law, I paid money != damages. In this case the plaintiff paid full price for something. He wasn't overcharged above retail. Now if the plaintiff had it in writing that he was supposed to pay $X for Y amount, that's a different story (like in newspaper ads, shelf price). All he has is $X amount for Season Pass with the number of season episodes not defined by Apple or AMC. In a place other than Apple's website from an interview with someone not in charge of pricing or product control, he thought Season 5 would transitively get him 16 episodes on iTunes. AMC wasn't clear on this but the plaintiff also made an assumption.

Behavior being egregious has nothing to do with whether no one else is doing it. Behavior being egregious has to do with it being shockingly bad or unconscionable.

egregious adjective absurd, appalling, arrant, bizarre, excessive, extravagant, flagrant, glaring, inordinate, intemperate, outrageous, outré, uncomfortable

Apple sold the product as-is from AMC; it's the same product everywhere. Tell me how that is egregious. That's not egregious if you merely don't like it. Did Apple do anything different? No. You might have more of a case with AMC.

It is possible for an entire industry to be uniformly engaged in egregious behavior. In any case, egregious is whatever a jury decides it is - judges basically read the definition of the term and the jury fills in what they want to assess, if anything.

Again, what is Amazon, Apple, Best Buy, Microsoft accused of doing other than selling AMC's product. If you think they had a secret meeting with them to screw over , that's another story.

It isn't uncommon to have $1 in compensatory damages and $1M in punitive damages.

Cart before the horse. Step 3: plaintiff must prove that a reseller did something egregious

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Rich0]

If they sell you an SUV for $20k and deliver you a compact car, the dealer is certainly liable, even if that compact car is exactly what they received from Ford. The issue isn't that the recordings were defective - the issue is that what was sold was misrepresented. It is certainly the duty of a reseller to correctly represent what was being sold.

Again you missed the point. If you paid $20K for a Ford Escape, did you get a Ford Escape from the dealership?

In my example, no. Hence the dealer is liable.

Did Apple or AMC ever tell the plaintiff that Season 5 was 16 episodes? Apple certainly didn't as Apple doesn't know (and I think doesn't care).

Well, after they get sued for a few million dollars hopefully they'll care a bit more. If they didn't specify the number of episodes, then they sold the entire season - whatever is reasonable and customary. Neither the seller or vendor gets to decide what is reasonable and customary - that is decided by what everybody else is doing. If they want to be different, the onus is on them to be different.

It sounds like he can prove $22 in compensatory damages fairly trivially using the very argument you just presented (or at least $11 if you consider half the episodes made good on). Multiply that by however many Apple sold if it becomes a class action, and add in punitive damages if the behavior is deemed egregious.

Prove how? Step 1: he must prove liability. Step 2: he must prove damages. The most he can prove is that he thought he was getting a huge discount. But that is a tough argument to make that not getting discount = damages.

Not getting a discount means spending more money than was advertised. That is obviously damage - a monetary loss is the simplest form of damages to claim in court. As far as liability goes - that seems to be what we're arguing over.

As for punitive damages, you are completely jumping the gun. Punitive damages comes in when there sort of additional action of behavior. What is Apple accused of doing in the worst light is selling a product from AMC with AMC setting the pricing and product control.

What Apple is doing in the worst light is selling something and delivering something else, blaming somebody else for it, and forcing people to sue them en masse to get their money back.

As far as compensatory damages go - you say I missed the point and yet I only claimed $11 in damages for him, which to me seems to be the discount he thought he was getting. I'm not sure what exactly you're disagreeing on.

Because in law, I paid money != damages. In this case the plaintiff paid full price for something. He wasn't overcharged above retail. Now if the plaintiff had it in writing that he was supposed to pay $X for Y amount, that's a different story (like in newspaper ads, shelf price). All he has is $X amount for Season Pass with the number of season episodes not defined by Apple or AMC. In a place other than Apple's website from an interview with someone not in charge of pricing or product control, he thought Season 5 would transitively get him 16 episodes on iTunes. AMC wasn't clear on this but the plaintiff also made an assumption.

Sure, but the plaintiff's assumption was based on what everybody does. If I sell you Ford Focus for $15k and deliver a toy car, I'm going to get sued, because nobody would see that price and description and think of a toy car. Apple sold a season of a TV series, and they didn't deliver what they sold.

Behavior being egregious has nothing to do with whether no one else is doing it. Behavior being egregious has to do with it being shockingly bad or unconscionable.

egregious adjective absurd, appalling, arrant, bizarre, excessive, e

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

In my example, no. Hence the dealer is liable.

Er what? You asked for a Ford Escape. You got one. You didn't get the equivalent of a Humvee that you were expecting. That's the dealership's fault? How?

If they didn't specify the number of episodes, then they sold the entire season - whatever is reasonable and customary. Neither the seller or vendor gets to decide what is reasonable and customary - that is decided by what everybody else is doing. If they want to be different, the onus is on them to be different.

According to Microsoft and Amazon "Season 5" and "The Final Seaon" are 8 episodes each on digital download. According to Best Buy and Amazon "Season 5" DVD Box set is 3 discs (roughly 8 episodes) and was available before "The Final Season" was broadcast. Suffice to say, AMC has decided to sell them as two seasons despite what they have said it being one season.

It sounds like he can prove $22 in compensatory damages fairly trivially using the very argument you just presented (or at least $11 if you consider half the episodes made good on). Multiply that by however many Apple sold if it becomes a class action, and add in punitive damages if the behavior is deemed egregious.

He can prove he paid $22 for "Season 5". He can't prove that he lost value in something considering that downloads are 2.99 each and would have received a huge discount paying 1.375 each. For punitive damages, he must prove Apple did something different other than reselling AMC's product that Microsoft nor Amazon didn't do.

Not getting a discount means spending more money than was advertised. That is obviously damage - a monetary loss is the simplest form of damages to claim in court. As far as liability goes - that seems to be what we're arguing over.

The problem with that is that it was never advertised on Apple's site that Season 5 = 16 episodes. Apple probably didn't know as AMC controls that.

What Apple is doing in the worst light is selling something and delivering something else, blaming somebody else for it, and forcing people to sue them en masse to get their money back.

Resellers (especially those of copyrighted work) have limited liability and ability to change a product. AMC as the copyright holder gets to determine what "Season 5" is and they have decided it is 8 episodes. This is not blame. This is the way it is.

As for as suing, my contention is the guy is suing the wrong party. He should be suing AMC only. As a parallel, there is a class action lawsuit against VitaminWater over false claims of health and benefits. Not named in the suit as defendants are wholesalers, distributors, or retailers. The defendants named are the manufacturers (Coca-Cola). Going after Walmart for claims VitaminWater made would be a waste of time and expense.

As far as compensatory damages go - you say I missed the point and yet I only claimed $11 in damages for him, which to me seems to be the discount he thought he was getting. I'm not sure what exactly you're disagreeing on.

The issue is what he thought was getting could be reasonably determined by your average consumer. He thought he was getting 16 episodes yet at the same time, was it reasonable that the average consumer thought he should get a 40% discount on a brand new season of a popular show? If it looks to good to be true, it usually is. Caveat Emptor.

Sure, but the plaintiff's assumption was based on what everybody does. If I sell you Ford Focus for $15k and deliver a toy car, I'm going to get sued, because nobody would see that price and description and think of a toy car. Apple sold a season of a TV series, and they didn't deliver what they sold.

Everyone is selling "Season

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Rich0]

There really isn't anything in your reply that wasn't in your previous replies, and I doubt I have anything new to add.

You think the fact that Apple never claimed Season 5 was 16 episodes long absolves them of liability, and that AMC is the only one at fault.

I think the fact that Apple never claimed Season 5 was 8 episodes long makes them liable, and that they should either distribute all 16 to anybody who paid for the season or refund their money. In the future they should ensure their contracts with contract providers ensure they don't get burned when providers play tricks (if they pay as episodes are delivered or after the whole season is delivered they're covered, as they can refund the season to the purchasers, the purchasers already got to see 8 episodes for free, and the content provider loses all their money for playing games).

Eventually we'll see what the courts say...

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

I think the fact that Apple never claimed Season 5 was 8 episodes long makes them liable.

First of all the omission of a fact does not automatically convey liability especially when it comes to advertising. If the plaintiff had it in an email that Apple or Amazon said it would be 16 or 8 episodes, that's a different story. Because when it is not spelled out clearly, it's an assumption made by the plaintiff. Then it comes down what a reasonable person would think and who is most liable. Generally, assumptions made and not spelled out would go in favor of the defendant.

If Coca-Cola said tha starting tomorrow that you can get 2 for 1 on 12 packs, can everyone assume that everywhere in the world, all retailers would honor that agreement? Your local store may not have that agreement with Coca-Cola. If you sue your local store, you're suing the wrong party.

Second, Apple doesn't know. They don't control content. AMC could have split it into 4 parts of 4 episodes each. AMC basically lied to consumers saying Season 5 was 16 but then sold it as 8.

and that they should either distribute all 16 to anybody who paid for the season or refund their money.

Copyright would prevent Apple from combining the two seasons into one. Contract obligations would likely prevent them from making any changes to the Season Pass. However we don't know if Apple said anything to the plaintiff. Did they offer the plaintiff a refund but he sued anyways? If the plaintiff wanted his money back, the proper venue is small claims court not class action status.

In the future they should ensure their contracts with contract providers ensure they don't get burned when providers play tricks (if they pay as episodes are delivered or after the whole season is delivered they're covered, as they can refund the season to the purchasers, the purchasers already got to see 8 episodes for free, and the content provider loses all their money for playing games).

What you propose is really difficult to enforce. For BB, there was more than a year between the two parts. Apple can't hold onto AMC's money for more than a year. Nor can they not pay AMC for product that was delivered to a customer. Most states have laws against the longest I've seen is 60 days delay. The only party that loses is Apple.

Now Apple could put it into a contract but they would have to write one for every season pass for every show. Their lawyers would be doing nothing but writing these contracts forever. And then AMC would never agree to it.

But the thing is: you're still punishing the wrong party. AMC can do the same thing with Amazon or Microsoft with another show. AMC is the one that should be more clear. BBC had enough sense to label two parts of a season as Parts 1 and 2.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Rich0]

What you propose is really difficult to enforce. For BB, there was more than a year between the two parts. Apple can't hold onto AMC's money for more than a year. Nor can they not pay AMC for product that was delivered to a customer. Most states have laws against the longest I've seen is 60 days delay. The only party that loses is Apple...Now Apple could put it into a contract but they would have to write one for every season pass for every show.

It would be simple to enforce. They only need one contract, which would be binding on all shows distributed under the terms of the contract.

There are a bunch of ways of handling it. Maybe give the studio a choice of terms.

One example could be a time box - the studio agrees that a season is all epsiodes that air within a certain time period (set longer than the planned season length). Another example could be a set number of episodes. Whatever the studio sets gets advertised by Apple.

Regarding payments the solution is simple - pro-rate the payments. I pay $20 for 10 episodes. Each time the studio delivers an episode Apple gives them $2/subscriber the next day (minus whatever their cut is). If the studio fails to deliver Apple refunds the balance to the consumer. If you pay by time then just pro-rate the payments over time. If the consumer has paid for a calendar year then they get a calendar year, regardless of how long the season stretches out. If they pay for a calendar year and the show stops airing episodes then consumers probably should have the right to cancel.

There are lots of ways to make what is being sold transparent and that would be a win for consumers. None of this is particularly onerous for the studio or Apple - these are the sorts of arrangements any subscription-based service manages.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Gen_Music]

Because he has no real authority to know (in a logically provable way) whether the source of his problem was AT&T or any link higher up the supply chain from Apple. It's improbable but still plausible that actually this is because someone (Like a TV channel) bought a limited (time) online monopoly over Breaking Bad with the rights to sell the Boxset and then acted as a reseller to the world's businesses. Because he has no inside knowledge of the business deals between corporations he cannot irrefutably make the link between AT&T's business dealings with Apple until after he's already started litigating (and if the judge requests the contracts).

The fact that there is a possibility is good enough for Apple to be a far better option. Even if he successfully gets his hands on the that contract to sue AT&T, the judge may rule that this Apple's place to sue AT&T for not selling them a product as advertised and not yours, you should sue Apple because they sold it to you.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Plumpaquatsch]

Did it really take you so long to not come up with a decent explanation?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

It would be simple to enforce. They only need one contract, which would be binding on all shows distributed under the terms of the contract.

And AMC and any content producer would agree that Apple holds onto their money for over a year, why? And I'm pretty sure there laws against a blanket contract where one party can hold onto money past 60 days in a consignment model. But the thing is which you're refusing to acknowledge: AMC says Season 5 is 8 episodes and they are the copyright holders. According to AMC they delivered the season to Apple, and Apple doesn't get to decide it is 16. At best, AMC made a false claim to the consumer so Apple has a lack of standing.

One example could be a time box - the studio agrees that a season is all epsiodes that air within a certain time period (set longer than the planned season length). Another example could be a set number of episodes. Whatever the studio sets gets advertised by Apple.

This solution does nothing to prevent the underlying behavior by AMC. AMC on their website says Season 5 is over two years. AMC has sold "Season 5" as only the first 8. Again you are asking Apple to do something to police AMC. Why not just sue AMC so they don't do this again? The CSPI didn't sue Walmart to put warning labels about dubious health claims on VitaminWater; they just sued Coca-Cola to remove their false labels.

Regarding payments the solution is simple - pro-rate the payments. I pay $20 for 10 episodes. Each time the studio delivers an episode Apple gives them $2/subscriber the next day (minus whatever their cut is). If the studio fails to deliver Apple refunds the balance to the consumer. If you pay by time then just pro-rate the payments over time. If the consumer has paid for a calendar year then they get a calendar year, regardless of how long the season stretches out. If they pay for a calendar year and the show stops airing episodes then consumers probably should have the right to cancel.

So you want Apple to implement a complicated system of payment which may violate laws regarding debt and finances (to which AMC would never agree) instead doing the simple thing: Go after AMC. Sue them to oblivion. Why are you so bent on making Apple come up with a solution for something they didn't do. Would you suggest the same thing to Best Buy and Amazon. They don't pay AMC for customers who expected the full last season: They will only pay AMC when "The Final Season" DVD box set comes out and is shipped to customers.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Rich0]

And AMC and any content producer would agree that Apple holds onto their money for over a year, why? And I'm pretty sure there laws against a blanket contract where one party can hold onto money past 60 days in a consignment model.

It isn't their money, because they didn't deliver any product. I'd be perfectly fine with an arrangement that bills the consumer per-episode in which case nobody is holding any money.

Basically the consumer paid Apple to deliver a TV show, and Apple subcontracted AMC to actually produce it. I don't get how that would be illegal.

Vendors agree to not be paid until they deliver their goods all the time. If AMC doesn't like the terms then they can avoid selling on iTunes, Amazon, and everybody else who gets sued over this nonsense. I doubt they get paid in advance by the cable networks either.

But the thing is which you're refusing to acknowledge: AMC says Season 5 is 8 episodes and they are the copyright holders.

I hereby acknowledge that AMC says that Season 5 is 8 episodes and they are the copyright holders. Happy?

Not sure what that has to do with anything. The people filing the lawsuit never paid a dime to AMC, and never were in communication with AMC. AMC didn't promise them anything, and doesn't owe them anything. If I pre-order a book from Amazon and the author gives up and never publishes it, then Amazon owes me money because they sold me something that didn't exist.

Would you suggest the same thing to Best Buy and Amazon.

Of course I would - if they sell a full season to customers and deliver only half a season. What makes you think I'm interested in picking on Apple?

I really don't see any way to regulate this except at the point of sale. They're the ones posting descriptions of what they're selling and collecting money. That's how it works in every other industry as well. No reputable vendor lets companies sell products on their website and then not make good on them...

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

It isn't their money, because they didn't deliver any product. I'd be perfectly fine with an arrangement that bills the consumer per-episode in which case nobody is holding any money.

What? The Apple store model is a consignment model. AMC is not paid until Apple is paid. This is unlike a wholesale-retail model where the manufacturer is paid a lower wholesale price by the retailer and the retailer assumes all the financial risk if no one buys the product.

I'd be perfectly fine with an arrangement that bills the consumer per-episode in which case nobody is holding any money.

Then that's not a Season Pass. That is the current a-la-carte system that everyone already operates.

Basically the consumer paid Apple to deliver a TV show, and Apple subcontracted AMC to actually produce it. I don't get how that would be illegal.

First of all, there is no "subcontracting". AMC had made a show and is using Apple's store to sell their product. This is a consignment model. Second, you can't imagine a scenario where holding onto money longer than legally allowed 60 days in a consignment model is illegal? Can your boss refuse to pay you until a year from now? Can a grocer not pay a farmer until next season? Yes, if it clearly written in a contract, however, they contract must be agreed by both parties and AMC would never sign it. Otherwise current law normally says 60 days delay in most places.

Vendors agree to not be paid until they deliver their goods all the time. If AMC doesn't like the terms then they can avoid selling on iTunes, Amazon, and everybody else who gets sued over this nonsense. I doubt they get paid in advance by the cable networks either.

Yes in a consignment model; however, they don't agree to any additional conditions that delay their payment. In a consignment model there are rules and laws about how long you can hold payment.

I hereby acknowledge that AMC says that Season 5 is 8 episodes and they are the copyright holders. Happy?

Then no vendor can tell them that Season 5 should be 16 episodes. Not Apple. Not Amazon. Not Best Buy.

Not sure what that has to do with anything. The people filing the lawsuit never paid a dime to AMC, and never were in communication with AMC. AMC didn't promise them anything, and doesn't owe them anything. If I pre-order a book from Amazon and the author gives up and never publishes it, then Amazon owes me money because they sold me something that didn't exist.

Because in a lawsuit you should sue the party most liable. AMC says it's 16 episodes but made them 8. Their vendors can't change the product. In my example above, Coca-Cola said VitaminWater had health benefits. Coca-Cola didn't sell it to the consumer. Walmart did. Why didn't the class action lawsuit target Walmart? Because resellers have limited liability and in that case Walmart didn't make the claims; Coca-Cola did.

AMC didn't promise them anything, and doesn't owe them anything. If I pre-order a book from Amazon and the author gives up and never publishes it, then Amazon owes me money because they sold me something that didn't exist.

You just contradicted yourself. If Apple didn't promise 16 episodes, then who did? Again you still are unwilling to acknowledge "Season 5" is 8 episodes which you contradicts what you said above. Apple presold "Season 5". They got "Season 5" from AMC. They delivered "Season 5". It was 8 episodes. Period.

Of course I would - if they sell a full season to customers and deliver only half a season. What makes you think I'm interested in picking on Apple?

Because every single thing you've said was against Apple. You haven't acknowledge the simple fact that all vendors of "Season 5" are in the same boat. Also you still are unwilling to acknowledge that suing AMC w

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Rich0]

The Apple store model is a consignment model.

Hardly. In a consignment model the customer hands over the cash and walks out with the item. They're selling SUBSCRIPTIONS for the delivery of items in the future.

AMC didn't promise them anything, and doesn't owe them anything. If I pre-order a book from Amazon and the author gives up and never publishes it, then Amazon owes me money because they sold me something that didn't exist.

You just contradicted yourself. If Apple didn't promise 16 episodes, then who did?

I said that AMC didn't promise them anything, not that Apple didn't promise them anything. Apple promised them a full season.

Of course I would - if they sell a full season to customers and deliver only half a season. What makes you think I'm interested in picking on Apple?

Because every single thing you've said was against Apple. You haven't acknowledge the simple fact that all vendors of "Season 5" are in the same boat. .

Of course they're all in the same boat. I've pointed this out several times:

I'd be fine with every one of them being sued, if they all engaged in this behavior.

Amazon and MS should do the same, assuming they don't also want to get sued.

At this point we're basically just repeating the same arguments over and over. You're entitled to your opinion, however wrong it may be. The court will issue theirs, and then we can argue again about whether they got it right or not... :)

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Hardly. In a consignment model the customer hands over the cash and walks out with the item.

No, that is not a consignment model. Please look what consignment model. Consignment says nothing about "cash" or whether the good is immediately transferred. It is entirely about ownership rights.

Consignment is the act of consigning, which is placing any material in the hand of another, but retaining ownership until the goods are sold or person is transferred. This may be done for shipping, transfer of goods to auction, or for sale in a store (i.e., a consignment shop). To consign means to send and therefore consignment means sending goods to another person. In case of consignment goods are sent to the agent for the purpose of sale. The ownership of these goods remains with the sender. The agent sells the goods on behalf of the sender, according to his instructions.

They're selling SUBSCRIPTIONS for the delivery of items in the future.

Which has nothing to do with whether it is a subscription or not if it is consignment. Preselling a good happens all the time everywhere. That has little bearing in this case whether it was a presale or a sale.

I said that AMC didn't promise them anything, not that Apple didn't promise them anything. Apple promised them a full season.

What are you smoking? You just agreed above that "Season 5" is 8 episodes. The Season Pass from Apple was for "Season 5". They delivered 8 episodes. Apple never said it was it "The Last 16 Episodes" or "The Last Season" or how many episodes. AMC said Season 5 was 16 but then sold 8. The title of the pass was "Season 5". You keep saying Apple should have delivered 16 episodes when they still don't get to decide how many episodes AMC set.

At this point we're basically just repeating the same arguments over and over. You're entitled to your opinion, however wrong it may be. The court will issue theirs, and then we can argue again about whether they got it right or not... :)

At this point I don't understand why you're not putting any liability on AMC. They made the product. They made the claims. You don't sue Walmart for what Coca-Cola claims. If that were the case then any manufacturer can avoid liability by going through a reseller. If Coca-Cola said VitaminWater cured cancer, do you expect to win millions from Walmart? No. You sue the manufacturer for claims made by the manufacturer. Not resellers. Not middlemen.

Re:First World Problems

[MightyYar]

I think you can be taken for an extra $20 in third world countries as well. Swindlers exist everywhere.

absence of malice

[tverbeek]

Clerical/technical fuck up. Probably soon to be fixed. Move along.

Re:absence of malice

[ah.clem]

Yeah, same thing happened with that "Hobbit" movie, and that last "Harry Potter" movie. Man, I hate those "Clerical/technical" fuck ups!

Re:absence of malice

[hedwards]

I'm not sure what the person's problem is. It works fine for me when I hold it using my thumb, middle finger and pinky.

Re:absence of malice

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh? did you already pay for that Hobbit movie in a "full-pack" of 2, and then get charged for the third one?

when did that happen?

Re:absence of malice

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you this stupid all the time, or just on Monday mornings?

He isn't suing because the season's being broken into two parts. He's suing because he was led to believe that he was getting both parts for what he paid.

Re:absence of malice

[h4rr4r]

Personally I was glad to see the Hobbit movie split up. They skipped way too much in the Lord of the ring series.

I have no interest in Harry Potter so I never watched those.

Re:absence of malice

[Pieroxy]

Personally I was glad to see the Hobbit movie split up. They skipped way too much in the Lord of the ring series.

I have no interest in Harry Potter so I never watched those.

The Potter movies are about the same: Lots of stuff left out to make the movie fit in under two hours. At least, for the last one, they made two movies so we get a more detailed view of what's in the book (which is anyway quite bigger than the previous ones)

Re:absence of malice

[h4rr4r]

Do little kids even care?
I figured the potter movies target the same audience that read the books, children. Which are not knowing for being that picky with movies.

Re:absence of malice

[Bacon Bits]

The Potter movies are about the same: Lots of stuff left out to make the movie fit in under two hours.

That's kind of true, but the last book was extremely light on action. 80% of it was Harry wandering around doing nothing in particular while he heard news about what other characters were doing. It's literally a book about the main character hearing other people's stories while he cowers in fear. (Quite a hero!) Then in the last bit all the action finally moves on stage and everything rushes to an abrupt conclusion. Honestly the last book was very poorly done.

How they managed to split it into two movies is beyond me. I was so disappointed with the last book I didn't bother watching the movies from Order of the Phoenix onwards.

Re:absence of malice

[sjames]

First, you'd be surprised how many adults read the series and saw the movies. Second, given the time span between book 1 and the last movie, even if they started reading it as kids, not all were still kids by the time the last movie ran.

Re:absence of malice

[h4rr4r]

Sorry I was being trollish. My spouse actually likes the series quite a bit, much to my dismay. I have tried on several occasions and it is simply too childish for me. I can't understand how a college educated woman can read what is maybe a year further along than one fish two fish.

I tried to watch some of the movies and they were just as bad. I watched one quite drunk and that made it pretty manageable.

Re:absence of malice

[Anonymous Coward]

It's quite simple how they managed to split the movie up. This really goes on how well that book was written (and yes, I love the series, deal with it), but if you actually count the pages, less than 5% are they wondering around. It's literally like 25 pages of wondering around in the forest not knowing what to do. It feels much longer because the rest of the book reads much faster, but the actual number of pages isn't very many. This argument came up to me before that most of the book was just wondering around, so I counted out the pages, and was shocked as to how few it was, as it really did feel like a lot of the book.

Re:absence of malice

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry I was being trollish. My spouse actually likes the series quite a bit, much to my dismay. I have tried on several occasions and it is simply too childish for me. I can't understand how a college educated woman can read what is maybe a year further along than one fish two fish.

I tried to watch some of the movies and they were just as bad. I watched one quite drunk and that made it pretty manageable.

Try www.hpmor.com then.

Re:absence of malice

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Breaking Bad fans must be holding the TV remote wrong.

Re:absence of malice

[ah.clem]

Actually, I was laughing at the notion of greed being a "Clerical/technical" fuck up. Sorry to be so subtle.

Re:absence of malice

[h4rr4r]

Fanfiction is not really interesting to me. If one could tell an interesting tale he would not need to borrow another writers universe.

Re:absence of malice

[Trimaxion]

Sorry I was being trollish. My spouse actually likes the series quite a bit, much to my dismay. I have tried on several occasions and it is simply too childish for me. I can't understand how a college educated woman can read what is maybe a year further along than one fish two fish.

I tried to watch some of the movies and they were just as bad. I watched one quite drunk and that made it pretty manageable.

It's just plain fun!

Maybe she finds intellectual stimulation in other areas of her life. It's nice to be able to relax and read a story without putting a lot of thought into it. I've met people who only read "literature" and look down on works like Harry Potter, and I think those people are nuts.

For what it's worth, the Potter series did get darker as it went on, as if it was aging along with its initial audience. It didn't end happily ever after for all the characters.

Re:absence of malice

[Pieroxy]

Sorry I was being trollish. My spouse actually likes the series quite a bit, much to my dismay.

It doesn't look like you respect her (or others in general) quite well enough. You should learn to respect other people's choice without being judgmental. The fact that you can't find pleasure in something she finds pleasure in should make you happy for her, nothing else. Various people find their pleasures in various activities and the only thing that can deter their pleasure is the judgment of others looking down on them from high up there, where they think they belong.

Re:absence of malice

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, fair enough. I can agree that Greed is not a fuck-up but a fucker-upper.

Re:First World Problems

[ArcadeMan]

You could at least wait until tomorrow, my friend/troll. And by the end of the month you'll be sick of hearing about the iPhone 5S and iPhone 5C.

Re:First World Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

It's crap, wake me up when they shrink it down small enough to fit inside my wallet.

Amazon, others doing it too

[XxtraLarGe]

From what I understand, other vendors are doing it as well, and it was due to a decision by AMC. Besides, if they charge $2.99 per HD episode, and the season pass was $22.99, wouldn't it seem peculiar to give such a big price break for 16 episodes? Not trying to excuse Apple, just trying to introduce a little reason into the debate. I think the fault ultimately lies with AMC and the way they decided to break up the season into two parts.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[DMiax]

the other side of the argument is: if it were clear that there was not a big discount with the season pass, the customer could decide not to buy it.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[Assmasher]

That's understandable; however, the problem likely resides with their selling it as a "season pass."

I wonder when it was that AMC informed its content clients (such as Apple) that it was going 16 episodes this season ;).

To be honest, from a legal point of view this will come down to whether or not Apple defined "season pass" specifically in relation to episodes.

I wouldn't be aggrieved by this (nor would you most likely) because I'd understand that I was getting episodes x normal price - discount, but people like my Dad wouldn't understand that, they'd see "computer gobblygook, season pass price = no thinking about buying episodes, more computer gobblygook..."

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[sed quid in infernos]

Yeah, but Amazon is really clear when you buy a season pass that you're paying $(n * 2.87) for the n episodes that have already been aired and $2.87 for each future episode as it comes out. It's very clear there's a per-episode price, and splitting it into multiple seasons has no effect on the total price paid.

I have no idea if iTunes is as clear; I don't order from them.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean above the already huge $0.97 pricebreak on the half season ? I guess that's why the felt obliged to tell buyers that buying a seasonpass is cheaper than buying individual episodes... Otherwise they wouldn't notice.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[The MAZZTer]

AFAIK it costs next to nothing to distribute digital episodes, so a huge markdown isn't too suspicious. Steam regularly puts games on sale for 75-80% off.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK it costs next to nothing to distribute digital episodes, so a huge markdown isn't too suspicious.

It doesn't cost next to nothing to produce the content.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[bluefoxlucid]

No, from a legal standpoint it will come down to if it was reasonable to assume the customer knew what this shit meant. If there's a highly buried definition somewhere in doublefine print, folks start looking guilty. Misleading advertisement is a crime, and writing somewhere deep in the manual "You only get 20% of what you pay for, but we call it Full Package and show a picture of the other 80%, just you have to spend 5x more to get the rest really" will not be looked upon favorably by the courts. Putting in "Full Package!*" with "*Complete accessory set shown, sold separately; Full Package references the full standard set, not to include the full accessory set" directly below in half-size print will not get you boned in court, as the judge will look at the plaintiff like he's stupid for not reading the text shoved right in front of his face.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[Dexter Herbivore]

Yeah, but how much of the price is distribution costs? You have the costs of creating the content, costs of marketing the content, and costs of supplying the content. Physical media are expensive.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[bluefoxlucid]

Amazon's ass is well-covered and they are lawsuit-proof.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but how much of the price is distribution costs?

Very little.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[UnknowingFool]

In a case of copyrighted content, it will also come down to what AMC wanted as well as they get to control distribution. If Apple is merely a distributor, their liability is less. If that's the case Apple's stance might be: "We don't control what the copyright owners consider a 'season.' "

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

Build a data center and a platform to distribute video content, along with a legal team to handle the agreements you must enter into with the content providers in order to even be allowed to distribute their content, and then come back here and let us all know how cheap it was.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[h4rr4r]

They do however have to deal with what a reasonable person would call a $X. You can't advertise or sell a BRAND NEW CAR, excludes tires, motor and windshield in tiny print. This is because those things are part of a car to a reasonable person.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[Dzimas]

Vendors should simply clarify what a "season pass" is by listing the number of shows in the season. It's pretty hard to argue that you were mislead when iTunes tells you in advance that you're purchasing eight shows. I'm somewhat puzzled that this functionality isn't already included in the iTunes, Amazon and Google markets.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

Did it. Relatively cheap since I just clustered it with the data center I was already running through a 3rd party vendor. Still make a boatload of money distributing the content. You realize that file sharing sites make a profit without data centers, simply through advertising revenue right? iTunes actually has people paying them.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, look at apple's financial statements and determine how profitable (or not) it is?

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[UnknowingFool]

No but a car coming from the dealership will have all those things included. The dealership can't take them off at their whim. If AMC has split the season into two (and judging by Amazon, they have), can Apple put them back into one season without their permission.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[h4rr4r]

I am not sure, but they likely should warn viewers. Perhaps a simple system would be to include the dates in the season pass; Season 5 season pass, includes all episodes that air from DATE_X to DATE_Y. Another approach might be to warn that this is a very short season.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

No that wouldn't seem peculiar at all. Are you seriously saying that you've never bought in bulk, never asked for/received a discount for buying more than one, and expect pricing of non-physical media to _scale linearly_ even though it doesn't for physical products?

Here's a counterpoint - look at the price of Komplete 8 ($500) versus the individual software that makes it up - it's about 1/3 of the cost.

Here's another: STTNG Best of Both Worlds ($18) versus a season ($60) on BluRay.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[UnknowingFool]

From this brewhaha, Apple might warn their content holders about this in the future, but from what I know that would require Apple to micro-manage them to prevent it.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[h4rr4r]

I figured something simple and automated, compare air dates and if two seasons start with in the same X days warn about it or if season less episodes by some percentage than previous one.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[sjames]

They can't, but they CAN advertise a half-season pass.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

can Apple put them back into one season without their permission.

This will come down to the exact contract between Apple and AMC much more than details of copyright law. If the contract is along the lines of "AMC can list what it wants, Apple will take a cut and have the right to distribute as is," then Apple might not be able to combine it. But if it were more along the lines of, "Apple will just pay AMC X amount per episode," or even have a clause like, "Apple is allowed to make promotional deals," they would have a lot more flexibility, assuming they still will make enough profit to bother doing it.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple doesn't specify the number of episodes. One possible reason is that the number of episodes isn't always known ahead of time, such as when The Bitch in Apt. 23 (which is much better than its title) was teetering on cancellation or when The Office would get padded out with extra episodes because everything else on NBC was a failure, This lets Apple give customers however many episodes there actually are rather messing around with either making them aware their season pass didn't get them the full season or having to issue refunds for season passes because the season wasn't as long as predicted.
 
Another possible reason is just that the prices the networks dictate are usually something like (N * $2.99) - $2, which is rarely divisible into whole cents.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[mark-t]

The problem isn't necessarily in dividing the season into two. The problem as I see it is that they are somehow considering the second part to be a separate season from the first, in spite of the fact that they are still labeling them as two parts of the same season.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[UnknowingFool]

Apple doesn't control pricing so how do you figure they do that? The only time Apple changes prices is when the offer something free for the week. Even then, I'm sure they have to get copyright holder permission to do so. And if we are looking pure numbers, the plaintiff must have thought be was getting a deal at $22 for 16 episodes (1.375 per) when previous seasons were selling at over $2 per episode.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[UnknowingFool]

I seriously doubt the contract between the two are that detailed when it comes to this show. If its the same as the music side: AMC controls pricing. AMC controls content. AMC controls descriptions. Apple can promote and Apple takes their 30% cut.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[sjames]

Apple controls their website and every thing it says. They just need to change what it says about this particular item.

Yes, the plaintiff must have thought he was getting a good deal, but it wasn't 'too good to be true'. Certainly not so good that his belief would fail a reasonable person test.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just depend on the CONTENT PROVIDER to provide this? If the provider sends you Season-X Episode-Y why do you need to "guess" this is actually something else?

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[UnknowingFool]

Have you paying attention to anything that has happened in the last several years? Apple's model has always had the content provider setting prices. The only exception is individual songs can only be one of 3 prices but the content provider chooses which of the prices. Are you sure you know that Apple controls the description? So someone at Apple has to guess what a description rather than have the content owner provide the description. The plaintiff was getting half off a popular show. That's a really good deal. Or the plaintiff assumed something that no one (not AMC) spelled out.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[Belial6]

No it wouldn't. It would just require Apple to tell AMC that if they pull this kind of trick, they will not be able to sell anything in their store. No micro-management involved.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[Belial6]

And Apple can ban the seller.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[WillyWanker]

Either way, it's misleading and/or false advertising. If one buys a pass to season 5 one expects to get all the episodes of season 5, not find out halfway thru that their season 5 pass was really just the first half of season 5 and that they now have to pay again for the second half of the season. That's fraud. It's one thing if it's done and made crystal clear what you're getting prior to purchase. It's another if they tell you you're getting one thing and then deliver half and demand another payment for the other half.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

You would still have to sue who you purchased the access from. Once the company you sue, either wins or loses, they will in turn sue AMC for the money they lost or had to pay due to a bad business practice or something of that sort.

Why did you spoil things for me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scroll down.

"Walter White's slow transformation into Scarface"

Gee, thanks for spoiling things for me. :)

Abense of Malice

[krovisser]

is not Malice of Absense.

Queue Tuppe666

[Anonymous Coward]

To tell us how Apple (Made in China) is evil and Google (Made in USA) is great.

Also http://www.reddit.com/user/Tuppe666

Re:Queue Tuppe666

[Anonymous Coward]

That guy is hard to tolerate.

As usual, the legit users get punished

[Powercntrl]

Meanwhile, the people who just download the series through torrents have no such problem.

Counterpoint

[schneidafunk]

If the price is $3 per episode, why bother paying $23 for 8 episodes... to save $1?

Re:Counterpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I was curious, I (eventually) navigated the iTunes store to something that might be relevant to the debate.
Breaking Bad Season 3 Deluxe download. 13 HD episodes and 55 supplemental videos for $37.99. Non-deluxe is 13 HD episodes for $29.99.

Given those rates, an 8 episode pack should cost $18 or a similar pack with related clutter should cost $23

IFF this was a "deluxe" package, he got what he paid for, despite the name being a clear case of false advertising.

Re: Counterpoint

[techprophet]

Even if the price is fair, the advertising is extremely misleading. If it was AMC's decision, then they'll be held accountable eventually.

Re:Counterpoint

[frinkster]

If the price is $3 per episode, why bother paying $23 for 8 episodes... to save $1?

Convenience. When you buy a season pass in iTunes and say "yes" to all of the questions, your computer will automatically download each new episode as soon as it becomes available. You will also receive a notification that your new episode is ready to watch.

Re: Counterpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably more efficient to buy 8 episodes in one transaction than 8 episodes in eight transactions

Re:First World Problems

[noh8rz10]

I seriously doubt this was apple!s decision. Wrong party to sue.

Call Them

[Luthair]

I had something similar happen with Microsoft and Doctor Who a few years ago, support gave me credit to get the second half. /shrug

AMC split season 5

[LoRdTAW]

Might be related to the fact that AMC split the fifth season into two sets of episodes that were aired at different times. For example, when the new episodes began airing last month, it was halfway through the final season making the one season feel like two. Perhaps someone at Apple made the mistake of thinking they were two separate seasons.

Re:AMC split season 5

[Bill Dimm]

Perhaps someone at Apple made the mistake of thinking they were two separate seasons.

The studio sure seems to be encouraging that mistake. They are selling DVDs saying "The Fifth Season" on the packaging with no hint that it is half of a season

Re:AMC split season 5

[jollyreaper]

Piracy means never having to deal with this kind of BS. Hint to companies: don't make piracy easier/better than watching legally. We have choices we never had before.

Re:AMC split season 5

[thetoadwarrior]

Apple is doing it because it is a new season and every single shop is marketing it as such. AMC wants to milk it for what they can.

Re:First World Problems

[gl4ss]

*I seriously doubt this was apple!s decision. Wrong party to sue.*

well apple sure was the party that sold the season pass... even if apple wasn't the party to decide that the final season is actually two seasons.

Some thoughts

[Cowclops]

Obviously, its a problem when "Season Pass" doesn't actually get you the whole season. If I hadn't RTFA'd I might have presumed that the guy was complaining that he didn't get access to either all 16 episodes including the ones that weren't even played yet (that would be absurd) or that he didn't get access to the first 8 + the ones that have been played already (not absurd but I wouldn't be on his side)

If Apple's intention was that buying a season pass to season 5 of breaking bad would get you the first 8 episodes now, and the last 8 episodes when they were released to dvd/bluray/download, it would just be a matter of patience and I'd still be on Apple's side on this one.

Except from the sounds of it, Apple was selling a season pass to "Season 5" and not listing it as "The first 8 episodes of season 5." They had no intention of ever giving him access to the last 8 episodes of Season 5 for that price, making it "Not really a season pass." Clearly this is a problem and the guy just wants his money back for misleading advertising. If I were him, I'd be ok with a gift card in the amount of the price of the first 8 episodes, since the second 8 will presumably be priced the same anyway, effectively getting me what was advertised. The whole season for one price.

Re:Some thoughts

[hedwards]

The point is that he's not being given access to the whole season, just the first 8 episodes with no provision for getting the rest of the season. And being charged basically the same price as if he bought the shows individually. Which tends to reduce the point of buying a season pass as there's usually an episode or two that you don't really want in a season.

Re:Some thoughts

[UnknowingFool]

It's a matter of semantics. People consider Season 5 to have 16 episodes. In this case, Season 5 is only 8 episodes and The Final Season (Season 6) has the other 8. Some previous "seasons" had more than 8 while the first season only had 7. Now the idea of seasons originally came from broadcast network programing ususually with summers being off-season. Cable programs have loosely followed the same rules however not always. Some cable shows seasons start in the summer. The real question is what does AMC consider a "season". If Apple is only following AMC's wishes then this guy has to sue AMC.

Re:Some thoughts

[Aonghus142000]

...If I were him, I'd be ok with a gift card in the amount of the price of the first 8 episodes, since the second 8 will presumably be priced the same anyway, effectively getting me what was advertised. The whole season for one price.

Being that it's a class action lawsuit, he'll be lucky to walk away with that much. Meanwhile, his lawyer is looking forward to a seven or eight figure payday.

Re:Some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

AMC is advertising it as season 5 with 16 episodes so the argument it is two separate seasons doesn't pass a sniff test. Take a look the Breaking Bad website has the lastest episode as 514 (season 5, episode 14) so its pretty obvious somebody is pulling a fast one.

Re:Some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Named Plaintiffs in a class action suit are usually well-compensated from the recovered funds.

I was a named plaintiff in a product defect lawsuit related to a vehicle I purchased back in 2000. The defect was dangerous and caused me to be in an accident (the rim of the wheel bent and shattered after hitting a pothole that shouldn't have come close to causing the damage it did). It turned out that the wheels were defective because they were over-hardened by the manufacturer.

There were 20 total named plaintiffs in the case, and each of us was awarded the original price of our new cars plus punitive and compensatory damages for our accidents. The rest of the class got to have their rim hardness tested for free by a manufacturer-selected testing lab, which of course found that they were all just fine and within spec, and nobody was ever allowed to sue over the defective rims again. NHTSA of course felt a recall was unnecessary given the 100% passing rate at the testing lab..

But yeah, otherwise you're right. If you're not a named plaintiff in a class action suit, you actually come out worse than when you went in, because there are always indemnities placed against you in the process.

Re:Some thoughts

[UnknowingFool]

AMC controls what Apple distributes as they are the copyright holders. I seriously doubt that Apple is micro-managing this. If you look on Amazon, BB Season 5 is split into two seasons as well. From what I know from my friends who have iTunes albums, they control many things like album price, which songs can be sold as singles, etc. The one thing they can't control totally is pricing of singles. They must pick from 3 prices for singles.

Re:Some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

They consider it season 5 to be 16 episodes. AMC listed the final season as a 16 episode season, it just happened to be split up.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/08/done-amc-sony-tv-reach-deal-for-16-episode-final-season-of-breaking-bad/

Re:Some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

That somebody is most likely AMC who advertise the "season" as 16 episodes, but then only gave 8 of those episodes to Apple to sell as "season 5".

Apple has no incentive to re-group the seasons because ether pice based on episode count anyway.

Re:Some thoughts

[gnasher719]

The point is that he's not being given access to the whole season, just the first 8 episodes with no provision for getting the rest of the season. And being charged basically the same price as if he bought the shows individually. Which tends to reduce the point of buying a season pass as there's usually an episode or two that you don't really want in a season.

I looked on the iTunes store, and they offer Season 5, eight episodes (plus some bonus material). To clarify: Apple can offer whatever they like, at any price, and customers can buy it or not - there's nothing wrong with it as long as what Apple actually sells is the same as what Apple offers. If someone thinks the program was too expensive, then they are entirely entitled to their opinion and shouldn't buy the program. But the offer is "Season 5, Eight episodes" and that's what the guy received. The price for these eight episodes seems totally in line with other programs that have 8 episodes.

_Afterwards_ the TV company then went and created more episodes and also called them "Season 5" if what is reported is correct. But that's outside the iTunes Store. So Apple would be well-advised to call the new episodes something different, like "Season 6" or "Season 5b". Apple sold him "Season 5", not "whatever the TV company decides to call Season 5".

Re:Some thoughts

[Lithdren]

You keep repeating this all over this story like you know something the rest of us dont.

Please explain to me how this guy is supposed to sue AMC, a company he has not had any direct contact with in the purchase of this "Season Pass"? AMC might be making the content, but Apple is selling it. If I buy an apple from the grocery store and get home to discover its plastic and not an actual apple, I dont ask the grocery store who they get their apples from, I go complain to the grocery store.

Re:Some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should he accept a gift card?

Money back bitches.

Re:Some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

They're offering that now, but are you sure that's what the offer was when he bought it? Seems to me that if that was what they were selling at the time that the lawyer wouldn't have taken up the case.

What's more, the season is 16 episodes, calling it a season pass is misleading if it's only half of a season that's included.

Re:Some thoughts

[thetoadwarrior]

Because he did get all of season 5. The latest season is just as much season 6 as it is season 5B. It's called the final season and it's sold as a separate product everywhere. Even Amazon instant video (where it doesn't matter) puts them in their own group.

Re:Some thoughts

[geekoid]

NO. He is saying Apple said it was the complete final season.
SO Apple is responsible for promising something then not delevering it. IF AMC changed something it is not the consuymer fault. Apple should get thing squared away with AMC before making promises.

Apple said
" 'all current and future' episodes of Season 5."

So it's on Apple as far as the consumers are concerned.

Re:Some thoughts

[asylumx]

You don't file a lawsuit to regain $22.99. He's filing a class action lawsuit, which means he's speaking for everyone who paid $22.99 and probably his lawyers stand to make millions (and maybe him, who knows). If all you wanted was your $22.99 you'd just call Apple and make a stink, and eventually someone would refund you.

Re:Some thoughts

[UnknowingFool]

It's called liability. If you have a problem with a national brand item that you got at your local store, who do you sue? You sue the store and the brand. If the store only sold you the product as-is and your problem is with the product, the store most of the time will petition to be dismissed from the suit. If you can prove the store altered or tampered with said product, you can keep them in the suit.

In this case, Apple is a store for AMC. They don't control pricing. They don't control what constitutes a "season". They don't control the descriptions of the products. These are the points in dispute. So their liability is limited.

If you have a problem with a Ford vehicle because of the transmissions wear out faster than expected, can you sue the dealership where you bought the Ford? Yes. However, if it a question of faulty design and the transmission doesn't last as long as Ford advertised, you really should be suing Ford not the dealership especially if the dealership had no part other than the original sale.

Re:Some thoughts

[fuzznutz]

If you buy a Ford Mustang at a dealership and they deliver a Ford Escort, you wouldn't be suing Ford. When the salesman claims we only meant you get a half of a Mustang when we said Mustang, that wouldn't make you any happier. When the dealership claims you really bought a "Eddie Bauer Pony edition" Escort, that wouldn't make you want to sue Ford, would it? When they claim Ford decides what a Mustang really is anyway, that wouldn't make you want to sue Ford would it?

The issue is misleading advertising.

Re:Some thoughts

[UnknowingFool]

If you buy a Ford Mustang and expect it to get 22 mpg when it only gets 16 who do you sue? The dealership? The dealership delivered to you a Ford Mustang. The literature from Ford says 22. When it is the same Ford Mustang at every dealership, then can you say that particular dealership did something unusual?

Problem Solved

[Anonymous Coward]

http://thepiratebay.sx/search/breaking%20bad/0/99/0

HTH. Now you can go tell your lawyer to go back to playing golf or fishing or whatever it is lawyers do in their free time.

Better Call Saul!

[bradgoodman]

...for a lawsuit like this!

Re:Better Call Saul!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Badger's plot for a Star Trek episode deserved its own slashdot news item.

Re:First World Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

And by the end of last month you're sick of hearing about the iPhone 5S and iPhone 5C.

FTFY!

Say Herro To Ma Rittle Frond

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Walter White's slow transformation into Scarface

What - he bought a tiger? He bagged CatWoman? What?

Re:Say Herro To Ma Rittle Frond

[Sponge Bath]

He bagged CatWoman?

Spoiler alert!

Re:Say Herro To Ma Rittle Frond

[Dexter Herbivore]

No, no, no. The blue meth is a mutagen similar to the Wild Card virus, and when Heisenberg tries it for the first time he happens to be watching Scarface and it triggers a transformation. It's a spectacular sequence with Walter White slowly morphing into an Al Pacino clone and calling people cock-a-roaches. Oh, I probably should've put a "Spoiler" tag on this post.

Re:First World Problems

[Dexter Herbivore]

It's ok, it's all good man.

Xbox Video did this too with Dr. Who

[earlzdotnet]

Xbox Video did this too with the last season of Doctor Who. I bought the season pass for a steal when it was on sale, for like $8 or something. Then, new episodes started coming out but weren't on Xbox Video. It took me weeks to figure out that I had actually bought "season pass part 1" or some bullshit like that. I haven't bought anything from Xbox Video since.

Re:Xbox Video did this too with Dr. Who

[Anonymous Coward]

BBC did that with Dr Who, and shamelessly flaunted it as such everywhere (which was IMHO the real reason they did the american season split like they did)

Re:First World Problems

[jedidiah]

Yes. The perfect excuse to tolerate liars and cheats.

To view the complete season..

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an enormously complicated method available that also comes at a very absurd price.

Actually, what this method encompasses is 'somehow' transferring, nay, copying of a digital file that must then laborously be copied to and played on a 'media player' device which are some form of 'black' computer art and therefore really very hard to find at Walmart.

This method is obviously out of reach from everybody except for the most experienced black-hat hacker elite (those guys even use 'keyboards', and the most wealthy of them are connected to some kind of world-wide 'web' of computers).

People should be glad that APPLE goes through all this trouble for them and then sells you the files at a reasonable price!

this is a story?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you slashtards need your daily dose of apple bashing but this is seriously barrel-scraping.

Re:First World Problems

[poetmatt]

do you not remember who controls the itunes store?

Won't get far

[Guppy06]

I doubt any plaintiff could have any sort of standing without having already signed several mandatory arbitration clauses.

Define Season

[coinreturn]

Did the Season Pass define what consists of a "season"?

How not new

[Adam Appel]

I've seen this down with Walking Dead and Doctor Who on iTunes. Probable others, but I don't remembe them.

Re:First World Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, as far as publishing the movies, tv shows, and music the publishers themselves are who directly control the Meta data, the videos in the release & the pricing.

I haven't seen it yet.

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>most intense in series history Thanks alot JOff, I haven't seen it yet.

Re:First World Problems

[interkin3tic]

You posted that at 10:34, the story went up at 10:22. It's possible that there was someone out there who was stupid enough to not realize that apple was not making breaking bad, and he or she happened to somehow have enough money to hire a lawyer who was willing to take their money in exchange for nothing. But it's also possible that whoever is behind this spent longer than 12 minutes thinking about it and has a better idea of what they're doing than you do.

There's probably already a rule for this, but I'm going to go ahead and state that as a general rule, any one line objections raised about a story within the first 15 minutes of the story going up on slashdot are probably not really that insightful. If you think you've found a gaping hole in a legal strategy, maybe consider that the strategy is more complex than the headline suggests. If it's a story about a scientific study, and you don't bother reading the actual published paper, maybe don't bother spouting a one line rejection of it.

Perhaps it takes some slashdotters less than 15 minutes to read a scientific paper, digest it, and crystalize a major problem to one line, maybe there are slashdot lawyers out there who pull up the documents online and read through a court case and then explain in one single sentence the glaring flaw. But I doubt it has ever actually worked like that.

I'm like a chocaholic, but with meth

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody want to party?

Season 5 is only 8 Episodes

[EmagGeek]

Obviously, that's the way Breaking Bad works. Seasons are 8 episodes long, and there are two seasons per year.

Nothing to see here... move along.

Amazon Prime

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon is trying to dodge this by calling the second half of season 5, season 6.

Bloom County did it first, in the 1980s

[Scot Seese]

You apparently missed the "Bloom County" comic strip from the 1980s in which sleezebag attorney Steve Dallas advises Opus the penguin, who has just been punched in the nose by actor Sean Penn, to sue Nikon - the maker of the camera he used. Because, deep pockets.

Bloom County won a Pulitzer 1987. If newspapers today ran full comic pages with new Bloom County, Calvin & Hobbes and The Far Side, I'd subscribe to a newspaper again.

You know which site did not do that?

[mapkinase]

primewire.ag and bunch of other sites.

Re:War Chest

[Anonymous Coward]

Know how i can tell you never read the article? He's simply suing for a refund. This has nothing to do with the "massive war chest".

Wonder if you would feel the same was if you thought you were wronged and simply wanted a refund?

Or just move on to torrents

[Anonymous Coward]

When this happens you can just pirate the following season to make a point. Have everyone else do the same and they will be pissed beyond belief. Fight fire with fire, if they want to steal your money like that, just don't give it to them. Plus the world would be a better place if it accidentally cancels the show since breaking bad keeps being raved as the best show out there in conversations that have no relevancy.

Re:First World Problems

[Goaway]

I thought the current fashion among self-important people was to constantly talk about how little they care about iPhones.

BSG

[phorm]

BSG had a short "second season" as well. I collected the DVD's after the fact and there's actually "Season 2.0" and "Season 2.5"

I think Heroes had something similar but it was due to a strike of some sort where the on-TV season was interrupted.

I'll bet Apple caves quickly and quietly

[technomom]

Apple is generally very good about reacting to bad press. Witness the stolen clock image and how quickly they settled up with the company they stole it from.

I'm betting that they pedal backward on this too and eventually release as a single season. I give it about 2 weeks.

Re:I'll bet Apple caves quickly and quietly

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is generally very good about reacting to bad press. Witness the stolen clock image and how quickly they settled up with the company they stole it from.

I'm betting that they pedal backward on this too and eventually release as a single season. I give it about 2 weeks.

Yeah, because we all know how quickly and cleanly they dealt with the EU judge who ordered they tell their users that Samsung didn't steal their designs...

Re:I'll bet Apple caves quickly and quietly

[thetoadwarrior]

I wouldn't if I were them. It's a new season with an awkward name of "the final season" which was probably to avoid admitting to fans they ran out of ideas in season 5.

Re:I'll bet Apple caves quickly and quietly

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because we all know how quickly and cleanly they dealt with the EU judge who over stepped the law and ordered they tell their users that Samesung didn't steal their designs when they really did

Fixed that for you.

Gamers should keep a close eye on this one

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Season Pass" is regularly used in the video game industry to sell bundles of downloadable content called $DLC. Publishers also pull shady tactics misleading their customers into thinking they will get all of the $DLC for a particular game bundled under a supposed "season pass". The outcome of this suit would have implications across multiple mediums.

$3?

[CauseBy]

Apple wants/gets THREE DOLLARS per person per episode of TV watched? Holymotherfuck, are TV watchers millionaires or something? How can you afford to pay three dollars to watch an hour of TV? I'm sort of a TV outsider, not a luddite but not a participant -- but my market price for watching TV (always without commercials, except for Football) is one tenth that amount. I would think three dollars for the whole eight episodes would be about right.

Re:$3?

[gnasher719]

Apple wants/gets THREE DOLLARS per person per episode of TV watched? Holymotherfuck, are TV watchers millionaires or something? How can you afford to pay three dollars to watch an hour of TV? I'm sort of a TV outsider, not a luddite but not a participant -- but my market price for watching TV (always without commercials, except for Football) is one tenth that amount. I would think three dollars for the whole eight episodes would be about right.

1. Apple charges whatever the TV company providing the show wants them to charge. 2. You don't pay $2.99 per episode to watch the show, but to download it, keep it forever, and watch it as many times as you want. Plus there is a backup so if your computer breaks you can download it again for free. And if you are on the road with only your iPhone with you, you can download it again (hope the bandwidth doesn't cost too much). 3. There are different prices for HD, SD, and again for renting (watch once) which is considerably cheaper.

And have you ever checked what people pay for TV channels?

Re:$3?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bill at $200 an hour. $3 is about 1 minute of my time. Paying $3 for an episode is more cost effective than watching ads or searching the pirate bay.

Maybe your time isn't worth anything to you.

Re:$3?

[thetoadwarrior]

You might want to to calculate out how much your average box set costs. The £18 they charge for breaking bad is significantly cheaper than most blu-ray box sets even if you factor in the lack of episodes.

Re:$3?

[sed quid in infernos]

Ever since I dropped cable and started buying shows individually, I've saved about 80% on my costs of video-viewing (which included cable, netflix, plus buying DVDs). Also, I watch less crap--no couch-surfing with the remote--and am happier for it. Sure, it's artificial willpower. But it works for me.

Basically, if it's not worth $3, then it's not worth an hour of my time.

Re:$3?

[CauseBy]

And have you ever checked what people pay for TV channels?

Yes! It's astonishingly expensive! AND those channels have commercials. The mind boggles.

Re:$3?

[CauseBy]

Indeed. I have a similar opinion about those box sets.

Re:$3?

[CauseBy]

Word. Mostly agreed, except a lot of things that I don't pay $3 for are worth my time.

And you know what, fuck me anyways because I've never even seen the show. Maybe it really is ten times better than the best TV show I've ever seen, which is why it costs ten times more than I can ever imagine paying.

Seriously?

[mschaffer]

If you pay $22.99 for X and you are delivered 0.5X you are being ripped-off. This is not the same as paying $22.55 for Y and Y sucks.

Re:Seriously?

[Darinbob]

Very true. But people will defend whatever Apple does because Apple is their religion.

Re:Seriously?

[UnknowingFool]

Since both Amazon and MS also sells the Season 5 as two seasons of 8 episodes we could conclude that it's just Apple zealots defending Amazon and MS. Or we might conclude that AMC wasn't clear about the number of episodes when they distributed them to their vendors.

Re:Seriously?

[mschaffer]

Yes.
WWJD: What would Jobs do?

Re:Seriously?

[mschaffer]

I hope they get sued as well. It's just false advertising.

Re:Seriously?

[UnknowingFool]

That's like suing the car dealership because the car you bought doesn't get the gas mileage that the manufacturer claims.

Re:First World Problems

[noh8rz10]

It's possible that there was someone out there who was stupid enough to not realize that apple was not making breaking bad, and he or she happened to somehow have enough money to hire a lawyer who was willing to take their money in exchange for nothing.

Maybe his or her lawyer is... Saul Goodman! Just call Saul! Ha ha BB humor.

Re:First World Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

do you not remember who controls the itunes store?

Alex, What is it a shell company which holds no assets but which owes money to Apple, Inc itself?

Re:First World Problems

[Half-pint HAL]

I seriously doubt this was apple!s decision. Wrong party to sue.

Very basic principle of consumer law: sale is a contract between retailer and customer. If I buy a phone and the box is missing a vital component (perhaps even the handset), it's the retailer's responsibility to supply me with the missing goods -- he can't just fob me off with "that's what the manufacturer sent us".

I felt cheated as well, but

[longk]

I felt cheated as well, when I found out I needed another Season Pass. But this feeling passed quickly when I noticed that Season 5 was significantly cheaper than previous seasons. The per-episode price didn't really change.

Re:I felt cheated as well, but

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it. The guy just wants a refund on an item sold to him under clearly fraudulent circumstances. Are Apple such dicks they won't simply give him his $22 back without a lawsuit?

It is a seperate season - people are just babies

[thetoadwarrior]

Everyone treats it as a separate product and it's not called Season 5 or 5B. Given that it's coming out in two months

Whether you buy in the physical format or digital, it's seperate on Amazon too.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Breaking-Bad-Final-Season-Copy/dp/B00E3R32YW/
http://www.amazon.com/Transformation-Walt-Heisenberg-HD/dp/B00DTOYQM2/

That's because it's a separate product. You can blame the Vince for skirting the issue to avoid admitting he ran out of steam and couldn't give you a complete season 5. I do believe the internet turns the average person into a mouth breathing douche so I'm not surprised this is becoming more common.

Re:First World Problems

[s13g3]

Mod parent +5 Sane and Cogent.

Apple sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Apple.

Re:First World Problems

[ArcadeMan]

Well yes, we're all already sick of hearing about the unofficial rumours and leaks, but wait until it's official and people can buy them. It will be a non-stop deluge of reviews, security holes, hacks and other various topics about the iPhone 5S, iPhone 5C and iOS 7 for at least a month. And then when you think you're safe from all the fanboys and the trolls, Apple will launch the iPad mini 2. Retina or not? Marketing buzzword or not? Etc.

Re:First World Problems

[glavenoid]

Of course, since your factual and correct summary of consumer law is cogent and apropos to this case some idiot slashdot neckbeard had to dock you -1 offtopic.

Re:First World Problems

[BasilBrush]

Do you not remember it's an agency model.

One of the many reasons to go the pirate way...

[cpotoso]

So long ago I got tired of all the crap that companies try to pull "just because it is digital"... Yep, "just because it is digital" cuts also the other way: I have not bought any DRM'd crap in at least 5 years and I get all my stuff from either rental (netflix) or from the bay (not the e- but the p-). Most problems hence solved.

Re:First World Problems

[lgw]

I was constantly talking about how little I care about iPhones before constantly talking about how little one cares about iPhones was cool.

I was also complaining about hipsters before complaining about hipsters was cool, and making self-referential jokes before they were cool, just so you know.

Re:First World Problems

[noh8rz10]

+1 irony

Re:First World Problems

[noh8rz10]

actual scenario: the consumer bought a laptop from best buy. he assumed the laptop came with a charger, but it didn't because that's what the manufacturer decided to do, and said so on the box (perhaps it was in small letters). So user sues best buy because the product didn't meet his expectations. Just call Saul!

Google and amazon: definition of season

[goombah99]

Google play and amazon both sell the final season as though it were not season 5++

So clearly everyone has partitioned it.

Now as to word mincing about what a "season" means, one can counter mince as well: technically a Season is 1/4 of the way around the sun. And the two tranches of episodes are clearly an entire sun rotation apart. So he bought a season pass and got a seasons worth of episodes.

Re:Google and amazon: definition of season

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Truth be told. AMC is set up for DVD sales and not digital distribution. They made a decision to sell the first half of Season 5 on DVD and whatever. The problem being that they decided to name the second half of the DVD set as "The Final Season". It helped DVD sales because you can buy the first half of the season while you waited on the second half to air later in the year. It doesn't hinder DVD sales because they can sale a "Complete Season 5" edition as well as "Final Season" edition of the DVD after the season finale airs.

It appears AMC unwittingly created a problem for their digital distribution vendors by labeling Season 5.1 as "Season 5" and Season 5.2 as "Final Season".

When the customer sued Apple for non-delivery of goods he gave Apple ammunition to go after AMC for damages resulting from their own screw up. I'm sure in the end, there is enough fine print in the iTunes user agreement or seller agreement to cover Apple's legal expenses.

Re:First World Problems

[imikem]

I'd also suggest modding GP, "You Must be New Here."

Re:First World Problems

[glavenoid]

That's funny! At least HAL got some reasonable mods to give that comment a little credit. I hope the original idiot neckbeard mod feels impotent now that other people undermined his/her assessment of that comment.

I don't think I deserved a "troll" mod, perhaps flamebait or offtopic, or even the boring overrated or redundant, but troll? who, me?

Re:First World Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

So I buy a dozen chairs from wamart.com manufactured by chang co. in China. I get only 6. I'm obviously going to complain to Wal-mart. If Amazon sells the same chairs and I bought from Amazon and I got only 6, I'd complain to Amazon. I'm not interested in dealing with some Chinese company. They can just very well tell me that dozen = 6 in China (just like first 8 episodes = season 5 in AMC speak)

Won't go anywhere

[NumenMaster]

Then he should add Amazon to the list because they did the same thing. Except, of course, they didn't give it a stupid name like a season pass. They, instead, sold 8 episodes of the season which was broken up by a year. So you could really construe it as two separate half seasons. I'm betting it won't go anywhere. Besides, this private citizen doesn't have the funds to go against Apple's billions.

Re:It is a seperate season - people are just babie

[NumenMaster]

Almost completely agree with you here. The ever false sense of anonymity on the net give dudes the sense that being a douche won't lead to an ass whooping. I don't agree that they weren't douches before the net. They were, but fearing the consequences (eating a knuckle sandwich, for instance), censored their nasty personality issues.

I do believe the internet turns the average person into a mouth breathing douche so I'm not surprised this is becoming more common.

Re: First World Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Analogies suck.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:It is a seperate season - people are just babie

[thetoadwarrior]

I'm not sure it's that. People can be just as stupid on their facebook page which identifies every aspect of their life. I think a lot of people still don't realise the internet is open to everyone. They're sitting in their room, they feel they're in a private area and, at most, they view it as just sitting arond and talking with friends.

It's the only sane answer I can come up with why people are willing to share so much and say such stupid things under their own name on a platform that never forgets. Because surely having the internet never forget you said something awful is worse than a quick punch to the face?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:First World Problems

[noh8rz10]

yeah but these court actions are unfounded and essentially a shakedown by shady lawyers like Saul Goodman. The question at hand is if the suit is merited.

Re:First World Problems

[steamraven]

http://xkcd.com/675/

Get used to it

[nurb432]

Hasn't anyone noticed the season 1.5 crap lately, often almost a year during the 'break'? This isnt anything new..Its also insulting. This just expands on that to bilk your pocket too.

Fine line between what is an episode?

[tonejava]

Looking at the iTune page for Season 5 and "The final season" What seems to be defined as the season pass includes 8 episodes plus the "making of" (which in my mind is fodder) to justify the cost of the so called season.

It is kind of FUBU

expensive

[map200uk]

wouldnt't catch me paying that - seems a bit expensive for one series why not just pay for netflix ..10$ a month and get way more $23 for one series...no ta

buy elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Its on the internet.
Buy it from a country that has consumer protections laws, and never have to worry about this bullshit ever again.

Re:First World Problems

[poetmatt]

wrong. It may be an agency model for content, but apple has to approve everything - it is explicitly set up that way.

So, it's still controlled by apple.

Re:First World Problems

[BasilBrush]

You're extrapolating from the app approval process. AFAIK there is no such review per listing for TV media. They just approve the account.

Re:First World Problems

[Half-pint HAL]

actual scenario: the consumer bought a laptop from best buy. he assumed the laptop came with a charger, but it didn't because that's what the manufacturer decided to do, and said so on the box (perhaps it was in small letters). So user sues best buy because the product didn't meet his expectations. Just call Saul!

Except in this case, the box said "everything you need" in big letters and "charger not included" in small letters. No amount of small print can justify the big print being wrong.

Re:First World Problems

[noh8rz10]

actual scenario: the consumer bought a laptop from best buy. he assumed the laptop came with a charger, but it didn't because that's what the manufacturer decided to do, and said so on the box (perhaps it was in small letters). So user sues best buy because the product didn't meet his expectations. Just call Saul!

Except in this case, the box said "everything you need" in big letters and "charger not included" in small letters. No amount of small print can justify the big print being wrong.

Of course it can. Have you ever bought any electronics?

EVERYTHING YOU NEED!!!!!! *

*not really

Re:First World Problems

[poetmatt]

apple has the last say on every aspect of the itunes store, because it is *their* store. they are responsible, even if they may not have a direct hand in the matter.

Re:First World Problems

[BasilBrush]

Oh, there's no doubt they're legally liable. They are the retailer. The customer complaints (or lawsuits) go to Apple. And Apple can turn can take it up with the TV company that actually chose to market the series that way.

But anyone that says that Apple actually did this, that anyone at apple took this decision, or approved it, are wrong.

Re: First World Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

ok so when I but a HP printer that omits a printer cable (by design) should I sue BestBuy because the Lexmark printers (by design) include a printer cable?

or better yet

When I buy a box set of Season 5 for BSG at Bestbuy should I sue them because I also have to but Season 5.5 as well to complete the 5th season?

Apple will compromise, as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple will end up giving them their 20 bucks or whatever, even tho it's AMCs mistake. Who cares about this.

Failed analogy

[fuzznutz]

If I purchased a car and got 28% less than the advertised mileage (which is in fact advertised by the manufacturer, not the dealer) I would still be talking to the dealer. I most likely was delivered a lemon and it would be either repairable or refundable under my state's lemon laws. If the manufacturer had fudged the numbers to the EPA and the issue was fleet wide, then the manufacturer should be sued of course. The issue is as to who advertised the "facts." In the case of Apple, Apple advertised and accepted payment for the "season" package and decided not to deliver a full season. It is irrespective of AMC. AMC never offered nor sold said package. Apple is in the wrong. They got screwed by their supplier and instead of sucking it up and delivering what they promised, they stuck it to their customers.

Compare that to the recent airline ticket fiasco with United Airlines. They decided it was in their best interest to honor FREE tickets which were offered to customers due to a software problem. They never intended to offer a ticket for free, but rather than screw a customer, who obviously knew it was a mistake when they ordered, United stood behind what they offered.

Re:Failed analogy

[UnknowingFool]

If I purchased a car and got 28% less than the advertised mileage (which is in fact advertised by the manufacturer, not the dealer) I would still be talking to the dealer. I most likely was delivered a lemon and it would be either repairable or refundable under my state's lemon laws.

And if Mustangs everywhere had the same issue?

If the manufacturer had fudged the numbers to the EPA and the issue was fleet wide, then the manufacturer should be sued of course.

My point exactly.

The issue is as to who advertised the "facts." In the case of Apple, Apple advertised and accepted payment for the "season" package and decided not to deliver a full season.

Apple did not specify how many episodes were in Season 5 nor do they control that. You keep saying that Season 5 is 16 episodes. You don't get to decide that. AMC does.

It is irrespective of AMC. AMC never offered nor sold said package.

By that logic, Ford could never be sued for anything. No manufacturer could.

Apple is in the wrong. They got screwed by their supplier and instead of sucking it up and delivering what they promised, they stuck it to their customers.

Apple sold a product that was provided by the manufacturer. A product which has copyright protection . By your logic, any bookstore could republish a trilogy as a single book because they want. The author and publisher have no say in the matter as fans expected a single book.

Compare that to the recent airline ticket fiasco with United Airlines. They decided it was in their best interest to honor FREE tickets which were offered to customers due to a software problem. They never intended to offer a ticket for free, but rather than screw a customer, who obviously knew it was a mistake when they ordered, United stood behind what they offered.

Again you are assuming the conclusion before the premise. In this case the price was always advertised at $22.

Re:Failed analogy

[fuzznutz]

As has been pointed out before, you cannot arbitrarily change what constitutes a season to a reasonable person after the purchase.

And besides, go check out AMCs website before making claims about "AMC gets to decide on the definition of a season." THEY SAY THERE ARE 16 EPISODES THEMSELVES. How about the "whats next" link: "Episode 515". Or click on the episode 14 photos link. The header says "Breaking Bad Season 5 Episode Photos." Duuuuuuuhhhhh.

As I said. AMC screwed Apple who then decided to screw their customers. Apple decided to offer a "SEASON" pass and then redefined the season after AMC got greedy. I don't care if it came out as two halves, Apple sold the season, not a half season.

If you went to your local grocer to buy a 12 pack of Coke they advertised and put down your money only to be served a six pack at the same cost you would be reasonably upset that they screwed you. I would take little consolation if their excuse was that Coca-Cola only sells in six packs now and I have to buy it twice to get the other half. You are a nitwit if you cannot see that. I don't give a shit about your lame copyright excuse. I'm not asking them to pirate or media shift or whatever the hell you were trying to obfuscate with. Apple should have eaten the cost of the second half or not offered a "season pass" to begin with. Don't sell shit if you can't deliver the goods.

Re:Failed analogy

[fuzznutz]

In this case the price was always advertised at $22.

For a season pass, not a half season.

Re:Failed analogy

[UnknowingFool]

Again, you think Season 5 = 16 episodes. You don't get to decide that; you are not the copyright holder. Only AMC does. AMC thought Season 1 was 7 episodes; are you going to say AMC should have combined it with Season 2 to make it a 20 episode Season 1?

Re:Failed analogy

[UnknowingFool]

As has been pointed out before, you cannot arbitrarily change what constitutes a season to a reasonable person after the purchase.

As been pointed out before, sometimes not even the content producer knows how many episodes are in a season. This is the price for quick production times. Ten years everyone had to wait at least six months until the DVD box sets came out so everyone knew at purchase how many episodes. Are you going to tell The Guild how many episodes they should make in a season. Are you going to tell some shows, that they can't combine two-part episodes into one big one for continuity reasons.

And besides, go check out AMCs website before making claims about "AMC gets to decide on the definition of a season." THEY SAY THERE ARE 16 EPISODES THEMSELVES. How about the "whats next" link: "Episode 515". Or click on the episode 14 photos link. The header says "Breaking Bad Season 5 Episode Photos." Duuuuuuuhhhhh.

Check out Amazon's website or Microsoft's Xbox Live. Even the DVD box set for Season 5 (which has been out) has 8 episodes. 1) Apple did all of this or 2) AMC isn't being clear.

As I said. AMC screwed Apple who then decided to screw their customers. Apple decided to offer a "SEASON" pass and then redefined the season after AMC got greedy. I don't care if it came out as two halves, Apple sold the season, not a half season.

Again, Apple does not define nor tell copyright holders what is in their content. They don't tell New Line that Hobbit should be one film. Apple provides a store for AMC to sell their wares. AMC provides content including descriptions. Apple handles the infrastructure and billing. You keep saying it's one season; again you are not the copyright holder. Also if you have a problem with a product in how it was manufactured, take it up with the manufacturer.

If you went to your local grocer to buy a 12 pack of Coke they advertised and put down your money only to be served a six pack at the same cost you would be reasonably upset that they screwed you.

The problem with you analogy was that the store advertised that it was a 12 pack. A better analogy is that the store advertised a box of coke (without saying how many) and that you read on Coke's website that they sell 12 packs in that style of box and made the assumption the store was selling a 12 pack. The store wasn't clear; but you put 1 and 2 together and thought it was 4.

You are a nitwit if you cannot see that. I don't give a shit about your lame copyright excuse.

Apple does not get to tell Peter Jackson that The Hobbit should be one movie. Not too long ago Apple had to sell DRM music because of copyright. They couldn't remove the DRM merely because they wanted; they had to negotiate that with the copyright holders. If Apple breached copyright: 1) they'd lose and 2) no one would allow them to sell anything == no store. Good thing you are not Apple's lawyer or have thought things through.

I'm not asking them to pirate or media shift or whatever the hell you were trying to obfuscate with.

As a reseller you don't get to change someone else's manufactured product on a whim. Especially if it is copyright protected. You are creating a derivative which only the copyright holder can allow. And Congress ensured that copyright holders have a great deal of power when it comes to ability to control distribution.

Apple should have eaten the cost of the second half or not offered a "season pass" to begin with. Don't sell shit if you can't deliver the goods.

Your entire premise is based on your opinion. Not what the law says. Not what contracts say.

Re:Failed analogy

[fuzznutz]

I promise that this is the last I will say on this. You are either trolling me or you are an Apple shill (or both).

Your entire premise is based on your opinion. Not what the law says. Not what contracts say.

Your position is based entirely upon your opinion as well. I find it hard to believe that you have inside information of Apple's and AMC's contracts or even expertise on consumer protection case law, for that matter. Wait until the class action lawsuit is resolved before making such a generalized statement of authority.

And besides, it's just bad business. Sooner or later, this kind of customer treatment catches up with every business. Customers who believe they were treated poorly will do more damage to your business than making good on a promise that you should have never made.

Re:Failed analogy

[UnknowingFool]

I promise that this is the last I will say on this. You are either trolling me or you are an Apple shill (or both).

Option 3: You don't know anything about contracts, copyrights, or the situation. You seem to be blaming Apple for something everyone else is doing: Selling AMC's work as-is from AMC. You seem to be under the impression that Apple actually did more than provide AMC a place to sell their wares. Apple does not set the pricing. Apple does not control the content. Apple is a reseller. I don't see you railing on Amazon or Microsoft or Best Buy as they all are merely resellers.

By your logic, someone could sue Amazon or Best Buy for selling Breaking Bad Season 5 DVD Box set for the same principle. It only has 8 episodes. But here's the thing you keep failing to acknowledge or understand: Amazon nor Apple can change what AMC produces. Period.

Your position is based entirely upon your opinion as well. I find it hard to believe that you have inside information of Apple's and AMC's contracts or even expertise on consumer protection case law, for that matter.

This is basic contract and copyright law not consumer protection law on Apple's part. As a reseller you don't get to alter a manufacturer's product unless you have permission. A store can't decide to split up a 12pk of Coca-Cola into 2 packs because they want. This is especially true of copyrighted work. Altering a copyrighted work is creating a derivative work. Only a copyright holder can authorize a derivative work and seeing how Season 5 is 8 episodes everywhere it is unlikely AMC would authorize this.

In terms of consumer protection, the plaintiff must prove that Apple did something wrong. Did Apple ever advertise Season 5 was 16 episodes? No. AMC said somewhere else but not on Apple's site. Did Apple do anything other than resell AMC's copyrighted work? No. Was the pricing of Season 5 out of the norm compared to other seasons or competitors? No. Does Apple set prices? No. Does Apple control content? No. Does Apple have any right to change AMC's product? No. A plaintiff might have more of a case against AMC, not Apple.

Wait until the class action lawsuit is resolved before making such a generalized statement of authority.

And Apple most likely would have themselves removed from the lawsuit as a reseller. Like I said before, Apple does not set pricing. Apple does not control content. AMC could have said Season 5 was 4 episodes and set the price at $50. It's not Apple's call to change this.

Re:Failed analogy

[fuzznutz]

By your logic, someone could sue Amazon or Best Buy for selling Breaking Bad Season 5 DVD Box set for the same principle.

Apple PRESOLD an item that they did not yet have. They offered a SEASON pass to a series. They collected money for items listed for sale on their iTunes site. Apple sets the rules and terms of service for offering items on their store. Looking at AMC's website (the only authority you seem to believe has any say on the definition of season) confirms that they did not deliver what AMC considers and identifies to be part of season 5. This has nothing to do with Best Buy selling a boxed set. Best Buy makes no promise (implied or explicit) to anything besides the goods they deliver. That is the difference. You need to re-evaluate your pathological need to exonerate Apple.

As for my understanding of contract law and copyrights (which incidentally has nothing to do with my argument and shows how far off base you are) we'll see how things turn out.

I broke my own rule about dropping this thread. Feel free to reply, but I won't be seeing it.

Re:Failed analogy

[UnknowingFool]

Apple PRESOLD an item that they did not yet have.

It is irrelevant whether Apple sold or presold an item in the lawsuit. And Amazon never presold a DVD box set in their store? How is this relevant?

They offered a SEASON pass to a series. They collected money for items listed for sale on their iTunes site. Apple sets the rules and terms of service for offering items on their store.

Again, Apple nor Amazon determines what is in a Season. They resell the pass. That's it. AMC decides what is in a Season and which pass is attached to which seasons. You keep ignoring the simple fact that Amazon and Apple are resellers.

Looking at AMC's website (the only authority you seem to believe has any say on the definition of season) confirms that they did not deliver what AMC considers and identifies to be part of season 5.

And AMC has sold Season 5 as 8 episodes to everyone in both digital and physical formats. Apparently, AMC lied. Not Apple, not Microsoft, not Amazon, not Best Buy.

This has nothing to do with Best Buy selling a boxed set.

Are you smoking something? AMC sold to Best Buy and Amazon DVD/Bluray sets of "Season 5" which only have 8 episodes. Therefore, AMC considers "Season 5" to be 8 episodes regardless of what they say on their website. Unless you somehow believe Apple is controlling AMC's DVD/Bluray supply chain.

Best Buy makes no promise (implied or explicit) to anything besides the goods they deliver. That is the difference. You need to re-evaluate your pathological need to exonerate Apple.

HELLO? Neither did Apple. Apple never said Season 5 was 8 episodes or 16 episodes. They only sold AMC's "Season 5" to consumers. AMC says it's only 8 episodes when they previously said it was 16. Also have you failed to notice or acknowledge that Microsoft and Amazon and Best Buy are in the exact same situation as Apple?

It's rather clear that you don't have a grasp of concepts like liability or contracts or copyrights. For a look at how a class action lawsuit involving consumer protection, look up the VitaminWater lawsuit. Consumers and the CSPI feel that Coca-Cola (the manufacturer) falsely claimed and mispresented health benefits. Whether they win or not, the most important part of the suit is who is not named as a defendant: wholesalers, distributors, and retailers. They didn't sue Walmart or Target or your local grocery store. The CSPI could have filed suit against them but it would be a waste of time and resources as those parties are resellers.

Of course you won't be seeing my response. You don't have any real grasp of the facts to backup your misconceptions about resellers, contracts, or copyrights.

Re:First World Problems

[poetmatt]

They agreed to the contract. There is no way around that, even if it was the label that made the decision. You are arguing nonexistent semantics.

Re:First World Problems

[BasilBrush]

They agreed to the contract.

Yes.

There is no way around that, even if it was the label that made the decision.

No one is trying to go around that. I already said Apple are legally responsible to the consumer. And the TV company may be legally responsible in turn to Apple.

You are arguing nonexistent semantics.

No, you just aren't realising there is no argument here. I'm just being explicit about who did what and who is legally responsible. Which is not the same thing.