Slashdot Mirror
Apple Wins iTunes DRM Case
An anonymous reader sends word that Apple's iTunes DRM case has already been decided. The 8-person jury took only a few hours to decide that the features introduced in iTunes 7.0 were good for consumers and did not violate antitrust laws.
Following the decision, the plaintiff's head attorney Patrick Coughlin said an appeal is already planned. He also expressed frustrations over getting two of the security features — one that checks the iTunes database, and another that checks each song on the iPod itself — lumped together with the other user-facing features in the iTunes 7.0 update, like support for movies and games. "At least we got a chance to get it in front of the jury," he told reporters. ... All along, Apple's made the case that its music store, jukebox software, and hardware was simply an integrated system similar to video game consoles from Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. It built all those pieces to work together, and thus it would be unusual to expect any one piece from another company to work without issues, Apple's attorneys said. But more importantly, Apple offered, any the evolution of its DRM that ended up locking out competitors was absolutely necessary given deals it had with the major record companies to patch security holes.
I can't believe the 700 billion dollar corporation won this.
Wait, what? People no longer use MP3s? They don't buy iPods?
This sounds like an odd claim ... I've got way more MP3s now that I did in 2005, and it's the primary way I listen to music. When I buy a CD (yes, I still do that) the first thing I do is rip it.
Sure, there are streaming services. But I'm betting lots of people still play MP3s on portable players.
It's not as glamorous, but saying MP3s have no bearing on the modern technology industry? I'm not buying that.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Have they ever used iTunes? There's no way anybody could consider that interface "good for consumers."
every time you have to move data from one system to another, it has to be flushed through some software to work on the new stuff. every time. all the way back to ENIAC, nothing is truly portable. I never had issues with iThingies, but then I never tried to use Real or Creative, either. and if I did, hey, flush the data through something else. like always.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Yes this is Terrible. Yes it was not so much that Apple has a monopoly, as much as Apple's behavior is so totalitarian. I am very anti-DRM and anti-DMCA, and wish there was more anti-DRM and anti-DMCA sentiment in the population at large.
How can DRM and locking out competitors ever be defined as good for consumers?
"Your Honor, I ended up killing him, It was absolutely necessary given deals I had with his wife to patch her problems"
A secret deal is not an excuse to screw illegaly your customers, if that was the case.
How can DRM and locking out competitors ever be defined as good for consumers?
"Ever" is a strong word. Think back to 1983 and 1984 when the North American video game market crashed due to too much choice. Because the Atari 2600 had no lockout, anybody could develop a poorly balanced game and sell it. In an era before Internet reviews, when games cost $20 or more (roughly $60 in today's money), people grew leery of spending on something they think might not be fun, and many retailers and end users gave up video gaming altogether. It took Nintendo and its lockout regime to convince retailers and end users to give video games a second chance.
In addition, DRM is good for consumers because it ensures that studios will be willing to publish more than zero desirable works in a format. Video CD and Super Video CD didn't do very well in North America because they were far easier for end users to duplicate flawlessly than, say, a VHS tape that incorporates generation loss as well as Rovi's Macrovision analog copy protection. It took CSS to get the major movie studios to sign onto DVD for the North American market. So end users were faced with a choice between VCD/SVCD, which has no DRM and no major titles, and DVD, which has DRM and major titles.
Apple's lawyers were not working to bring out the truth or present anything that Apple did that hurt the competition. Their job is to win. Half-truths and ridiculous scenarios being presented as helping the customer are all part of the game. The lawyers succeeded in steering the jury to see Apple as a humble, helpful, servant of the people. Preventing possibly corrupted music files from inhabiting their ecosystem was a noble goal. Lies, but apple Apple wins.
8-person jury will get free mac pros and iphones now
"I hate Apple so I'm just going to make shit up."
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to forget that studios _have_ to be willing to publish in a format that people will use.
And if there are many people whom the DRM doesn't inconvenience, then there are many people willing to buy copies of works in a DRM format. The popularity of video game consoles, DVD, and iTunes Music Store prior to 2009 has shown that there do exist enough customers willing to tolerate DRM to keep a market going.
The decision was good. Apple did not have a monopoly. People could choose not to use Apple products and still listen to music. Not a big deal.
This was just a bunch of lawyers desperately looking to hit the jackpot. They were so creepy they had to find a new client to justify the case because none of their original clients qualified.
Even then they case was open and shut absurd and dumped.
"Following the decision, the plaintiff's head attorney said an appeal is already planned."
Aye, spoke like a true ambulance chaser.
What we need to have happen is that the judge should award damages to Apple for all their legal fees which the plaintiff and lawyers should then have to pay. If this was a basic part of the legal system it would quickly put an end to these nuisance lawsuits that are wasting the court's time and blocking valid cases from getting into court.
You could get a computer which could do more than play games for the price of a console.
At launch, a Commodore 64 computer with a 1541 floppy drive cost much more than the second-generation consoles did.
Just stop buying Apple's CRAP, and it will go away, like it should have after Woz left the company.
Apply hasn't had an original thought or idea since he left and these iCrap products continue to prove it.
Die Apple, Die!!!
All they had to do was void the warranty if any songs are put on the ipod that was not purchased from Apple. Better yet, create a new Apple-only audio format.
I have to agree. Similarly, it would be interesting for somebody to post a good argument that Apple favored DRM or that DRM itself was good for Apple, rather than take it as an axiom (or derived from another axiom like "Apple is bad") and try to argue away from the evidence.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That won't happen, Apple didn't want the DRM.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Lawsuit had nothing to do with rival music storesâ(TM) music files, and everything to do with rival music storesâ(TM) DRM. The plaintiffs in this class action suit are, from what Iâ(TM)ve read, deliberately blurring the lines to conflate the two. Apple: Only ever supported one DRM format: FairPlay. They never licensed FairPlay to other device makers or music stores, and never supported any other DRM format in iTunes or on iPods. Always supported non-DRM music â" in MP3 and AAC formats â" on both iTunes and iPods. Included DRM on iTunes Music Store tracks at the insistence of the record labels. As famously made clear in Steve Jobsâ(TM)s âoeThoughts on Musicâ open letter in 2007, Apple wanted to sell DRM-free music tracks, and, once the record labels allowed them to, they did just that. The thing with Real Networks is that they backwards-engineered FairPlay in 2004, and Apple responded by closing the loopholes Real exploited. If Real had sold DRM-free MP3 files, Apple wouldnâ(TM)t have done anything. Amazonâ(TM)s music store has always sold music in plain no-DRM MP3 format, and those files have always worked perfectly with iTunes and iPods.
-- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
You don't own the music; the label does. You own a copy of the music. What is the value of owning a copy of the music other than to listen to the music? Streaming provides the ability to listen to the music at a price less than that of owning a copy. Are you counting on the copy appreciating in value and then being able to resell the copy to a collector for a profit later?
You know that and I know that, but from the comments here a fair number of people on /. think otherwise, for no reason I can see.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes