Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
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.
*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.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
Well, if you go to the AMC website, you'll find videos from the second half labeled "Season 5, Episode 13" and such.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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".
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
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.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.