Slashdot Mirror
Apple DRM Lawsuit Might Be Dismissed: Plaintiffs Didn't Own Affected iPods
UnknowingFool writes The lawsuit involving Apple and iTunes DRM may be thrown out because the plaintiffs did not own the iPods for which they are suing. The lawsuit covers iPods for the time period between September of 2006 and March of 2009. When Apple checked the serial numbers of the iPods of the plaintiffs, it appears they were not manufactured during this time. One plaintiff did purchase an iPod in 2005 and in 2010 and has withdrawn from the suit. The second plaintiff's iPod was manufactured in July 2009 but claims purchasing another iPod in 2008. Since the two plaintiffs were the only ones in the suit, the case may be dismissed for lack of standing.
You're suing it wrong.
You're buying it wrong.
You're DRM'ing it wrong.
Now that the stupid cliché is done, let's continue with the real discussion.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I guess the thrill of big fees in a class-action suit made them forget to do some elementary checking.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
you could put all the non-drm music you bought or "acquired" you want on them, but anything with DRM was always only itunes music. the same thing was with every other MP3 player of the time with a DRM'd music store. but only apple is left and they have the money
I've observed that flaws in Apple products seem to most affect those who do not use Apple products.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
If the suit is dismissed for lack of standing, Apple is entitled to damages from the lawyers and plaintiffs. :D
You're doing it wrong.
It might take a while to "rip" the CD into iTunes but it is relatively quick to add a CD to your iPhone through iTunes.
(Apple will even tell you how to do this.)
It takes 10-20 minutes at most to do all this. And you don't have to sit in front of the Mac while it processes.
So..
I call "BullShite" on your comment.
Apple defends its action and claims it was just worried its users were at the hands of hackers. Apple’s security director Augustin Farrugia informed the court that hackers “DVD John” and “Requiem” were potential threats to users and thus removed non-Apple music files from iPods. Farrugia reasons Apple did not inform users of the deletion because the company does not want to “confuse users” with “too much information.” ....
http://www.digitaltrends.com/m...
If your hatred of Apple is so white hot,
If your hatred of Apple gets you foaming so bad at the mouth,
that you would lie, that it is okay to do
the fault's not with Apple
The fault lies with you
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
This lawsuit is bullshit. I remember this time and the issue from when it happened. Apple had DRM fights with Realplayer and Rhapsody. Basically Apple allowed you to import unprotected mp3 files and audio CD's. They further allowed (of course) purchases from their own store and were under contractual obligations from record companies to lock down music from the iTunes store at that time. What Rhapsody and Realplayer wanted to do is to sell DRM'ed music yet let it play under iTunes and obviously the iPod, so those companies had to hack iTunes to allow this. If they just sold unprotected content iTunes would have happily imported it and there would be no issue. So they figured out how to hack iTunes, Apple saw what they did and changed it. I think this cycle repeated once or twice. If a customer updated iTunes and had hacked DRM content basically iTunes rejected it and forced the user to start clean. That customer would not be able to use DRM'ed content from Realplayer or Rhapsody. Apple was certainly not required to allow others to hack into iTunes and make it play DRM'ed music from other content providers.
The second plaintiff's iPod was manufactured in July 2009 but claims purchasing another iPod in 2008.
An iPod bought an iPod?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The i in ipod stands for idiot!
How much was the backhander from Apple to the plaintiff that backed out.
Or was there a good reason not involving bribes or threats?