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 One plaintiff did purchase an iPod in 2005 and in 2010 and has withdrawn from the suit.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.
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?
Make it so it really hurts. Ask them to pay Apple in brown Zunes.
I found it a bit curious that one of iPods presented (the 2008 one) was not purchased by the plaintiff but the plaintiff's former husband's law firm. I don't know if it is the same law firm in the case but it wouldn't surprise me.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
That's what this lawsuit was all about. The problem here is that the plaintiffs bought their DRMed tunes prior to Apple stopping that practice, but didn't buy a PMP until AFTER Apple had a solution.
That's not how I read Apple's "admissions" at all. Apple countered Real's Helix format when it tried to trick iTunes into thinking they were FairPlay files.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
what is a PMP. there are no pmps, just ipods.
Apple only removed non-Apple, emulated Fairplay DRM encoded music from iPods. Any music you actually ripped from CDs, downloaded from the internet or got from friends were completely and totally unaffected. Only music files that used a hack to make them appear to be protected by Apple's Fairplay DRM were removed.
That's a bit out of context... Apple threw up an error message when it detected the music DB had been messed with, and then restored the iPod contents from what was stored in iTunes. All Apple was testing for was that things had been messed with. If the rival music services (read: Real) had properly reverse engineered the sync process, there would have been no problem. Also, if they hadn't included DRM on their music and had pushed it through a regular iTunes sync, there wouldn't have been a problem. The only problem was when Real was attempting to sync their hacked-up version of FairPlay-DRM'd audio through their hacked-up version of an iTunes sync session to the iPod DB. If they got it wrong, everything was reset.
Real got bitten again by embracing PlaysForSure, which eventually stopped being supported by MS altogether (you can't actually PLAY stuff encrypted with PlaysForSure anymore).
Of course, Apple made it slightly more difficult by changing the sync protocl part way through this, which indicates they were putting up a token effort to prevent people doing an end-run around the sync process and the FairPlay DRM.
The real losers here were people running Linux who wanted to use an iPod -- same thing happened there. But that group wouldn't be as useful in a class action suit -- plus, the number of people affected is significantly smaller.
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.
You are quoting out of context. There was nothing duplicitous about it, every step was clearly explained and logic if you thought for a second what you were doing. And of course Apple doesn't restore music it isn't managing. Why would you expect it to? I don't expect your backups to contain my files.
It's a shit acronym and using it makes one a dick. ;) Where are the impersonal Music Players?
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.
It's a shit acronym and using it makes one a dick. ;) Where are the impersonal Music Players?
Windows Media Player?
You mean , like a turntable or vcr?
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
From the iTunes XML file, yes? Did they delete them from the HD? I don't think so. As for another music service, you are aware that Amazon MP3 files of mine have survived many years of iTunes, right?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Um, iTunes didn't delete ANY files. The files on your device were deleted. After that, you then had to re-load from iTunes, and if you used another library, you then had to re-load from there as well. Not rocket science.
Great, thank you for your insightful comment, and especially the effort you put into sharing that with everyone. I cant wait to hear what other insights you may have.
If you are suing for wrongdoing, then you should be able to prove that you were wronged. In this case, one plaintiff couldn't prove that she had an iPod that was covered by the suit. The other plaintiff's situation is more debatable. The iPod that was submitted is not covered but she is claiming another iPod that is covered; however, the covered iPod was not bought by her but by a third party. Seeing how one of the claims of the suit is that Apple's actions raised the cost of the iPod, since she did not purchase the iPod, she cannot claim damages according to her own suit.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.