Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Wins iTunes DRM Case

Posted by Soulskill on from the drm-protected-history-is-written-by-the-victors dept.

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.

149 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. I'm shocked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't believe the 700 billion dollar corporation won this.

    1. Re:I'm shocked. by alen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      i'd be surprised if apple didn't win the case. they blocked and non-apple DRM like every other company out there and Real had to hack it. but in the end itunes allowed you to use any hardware you wanted as long as the maker coded to a few of apple's API's. i use my Note 3 with itunes on my macbook. itunes itself has supported non-apple devices for many years as long as the files don't have any DRM.

    2. Re:I'm shocked. by Frobnicator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      i'd be surprised if apple didn't win the case.

      At the jury level this is expected. The appeal was expected either way. And in the longer term this may turn out differently.

      Anti-trust concerns usually do benefit the consumer in the short term. And as the article points out, the jury specifically wrote that the features have an immediate benefit to the consumer.

      Usually anti-trust problems are not immediately bad for the consumer. In the short term the consumer sees a lower price, easier access, and other conveniences.

      In the long term the market ends up with monopolies and oligopolies, a loss of vibrancy, a slowdown in innovation, less desire to follow expensive advances, and worse customer experiences. Think of your local telco and cable companies as prime examples.

      I expect that like so many other technical cases the jury's verdict will be overturned on appeal because juries in the US rarely understand the actual law. While criminal law is usually pretty straightforward for a lay jury, things like IP law and business law are often miscommunicated or misunderstood when handed to a jury of random citizens.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    3. Re:I'm shocked. by dunkindave · · Score: 2

      I expect that like so many other technical cases the jury's verdict will be overturned on appeal because juries in the US rarely understand the actual law.

      Then it is good that the jury doesn't interpret the law - that is up to the judge and is (supposed to be) based on case law. The sole purpose of the jury during the trial phase is to determine facts, like given the judge's instructions about what the law is, did the defendant violate it, or based on the evidence, did the party do or not do the claimed action. Any appeal will not be based on the jury getting the wrong answer, it will be based on the judge giving the jury the wrong instructions about what the law is, or on what evidence was allowed in or not allowed in, or some other procedural issue, but not the jury's decision.

    4. Re:I'm shocked. by amaurea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't the USA have a concept of jury nullification, where the jury does much more than just determine facts, and actually takes a position on what's right and wrong?

    5. Re: I'm shocked. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why was this modded down? It's the truth. Oh mods, cover the truth with your mod points. Yay.

      When I was your age, we knew that you started out at -1 as an AC. And we liked it.

      Kids these days.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:I'm shocked. by nebaz · · Score: 2

      Jury nullification has a tarnished history here, as it was often used in the South to acquit white men of lynching crimes. While it may be possible for a juror to use it, even mentioning it may be considered grounds for dismissal, or so I've heard. (IANAL)

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    7. Re:I'm shocked. by gnupun · · Score: 1

      I can't believe the 700 billion dollar corporation won this.

      You want to buy music from multiple vendors on your mobile device? Well we need a standard and open platform like the PC, where any vendor can add their hardware, software or DRM. Apple hardware/software stack is proprietary and owned by one company, so this decision is correct.

    8. Re:I'm shocked. by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Anti-trust concerns usually do benefit the consumer in the short term. And as the article points out, the jury specifically wrote that the features have an immediate benefit to the consumer.

      Usually anti-trust problems are not immediately bad for the consumer. In the short term the consumer sees a lower price, easier access, and other conveniences.

      In the long term the market ends up with monopolies and oligopolies, a loss of vibrancy, a slowdown in innovation, less desire to follow expensive advances, and worse customer experiences. Think of your local telco and cable companies as prime examples.

      Or in this case, rendered utterly irrelevant.

      Because iTunes sells unprotected music. Just like Amazon and many other music stores. iTunes is still #1, but their market share is sliding.

      The iPods are on life-support - they don't make Apple much money anymore but Apple keeps them around because there's still a tiny demand for them.

      And streaming services have basically taken over music sales - sales from iTunes and other stores is far lower nowadays while streaming services like Pandora and others are rising.

      Whatever harm iTunes did, seems to have resulted in a far more vibrant marketplace now than it was years ago.

    9. Re:I'm shocked. by dunkindave · · Score: 5, Informative

      Doesn't the USA have a concept of jury nullification, where the jury does much more than just determine facts, and actually takes a position on what's right and wrong?

      Yes, but that is for criminal trials, not civil trials. Basically, for a criminal trial if the jury returns a verdict of innocent then the defendant walks, no matter how the jury reached that verdict, even if it blatantly goes against the evidence. Jury nullification isn't explicitly codified in law, rather it is a concept that people have applied that is based on how the legal process works, i.e. a jury that returns innocent ends the prosecution. It has been used for juries to deliver justice when people have been unfairly, but legally, charged with crimes.

      A civil trial doesn't really have the same protection since a judge is allowed to toss a jury's verdict if he feels it goes egregiously against the facts of the case, but if he does he must defend his decision and he doesn't get to replace the verdict with his own, but rather he in essence declares a mistrial and it has to be retried. Again, this is for the trial portion where the jury's purpose is as a determiner of facts. On the other hand, the jury award during the penalty phase can be reduced by the judge. And like always, any such action by a judge better be defensible otherwise he opens it up to being overturned on appeal.

      Just like in criminal trials, in civil trials juries are given wide discretion in order to allow justice to be served. For example, it is not uncommon for the plaintiff to be awarded more by the jury than the plaintiff asked for, or for the jury to decide with their hearts instead of what the evidence logically dictates. Since civil juries decide based on the preponderance of the evidence and that is subjective, the level that must be reached for the judge to be able to toss the jury's decision is pretty high, so overturning such jury results is not very common (though make big press when the few do happen in big cases).

    10. Re:I'm shocked. by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whatever harm iTunes did, seems to have resulted in a far more vibrant marketplace now than it was years ago.

      Be careful about confusing causation with correlation.

    11. Re:I'm shocked. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      You want to buy music from multiple vendors on your mobile device?

      Who wouldn't want that?

      Well we need a standard and open platform like the PC, where any vendor can add their hardware, software or DRM.

      We have such a thing, so that's good, but I would argue that DRM is not only unnecessary, it needs to die a fiery death.

      Apple hardware/software stack is proprietary and owned by one company, so this decision is correct.

      True enough, which is reason #2 that I will never own Apple anything. Reason #1 why I will never use Apple music devices is that would force me to use iTunes, which sucks beyond measure.

    12. Re:I'm shocked. by gnupun · · Score: 1

      ... but I would argue that DRM is not only unnecessary, it needs to die a fiery death.

      You must have heard of things like Napster and BitTorrent. Plenty of people can't/won't pay for music. In fact, I've heard the PS4 DRM was too hard for pirates to crack. It may have been cracked since then. But until then, the only way to play PS4 games was to buy/rent them.

      My point is consumers pay to use all products and services, except digital ones, because they are easy to use without paying. DRM forces the consumer to pay for a product and that's good for the creators and honest people who pay for the product because it keeps the prices down.

    13. Re:I'm shocked. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      they blocked and non-apple DRM like every other company out there and Real had to hack it.

      Is this supposed to be a sentence? If so, I don't know what it means, at all. I'm speaking literally here.

      I think he meant that it's warmer down south than it is in the winter.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re:I'm shocked. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      they blocked any non-Apple DRM, just like every other company out there, and Real had to hack it (to get their stuff to work around Apple's DRM).

      but in the end, iTunes allowed you to use any hardware you wanted, as long as the maker coded a few of Apple's APIs (eventually Apple decided to play nice and stop suing manufacturers and instead made an API system that allowed other hardware to play nice with iTunes).

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    15. Re:I'm shocked. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's software stack is proprietary yet they got pinged for private APIs (which Apple does) and for bundling a web browser (which Apple does). It is the same anti-competitive behavior but Apple gets away with those dirty tactics because they dont technically have a monopoly.

      You seem to miss some relevant details. First of all, Apple's browser can be removed. MS argued that they couldn't remove IE or it would break Windows. Second, the core components of Apple's browser was built on open source. Chrome is built on these components. How anti-competitive is it to not only choose open source for their browser but release additional parts beyond what was mandated by the license (JavaScriptCore and WebCore)? And you call those tactics "dirty"?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    16. Re:I'm shocked. by hondo77 · · Score: 2

      The iPods are on life-support - they don't make Apple much money anymore but Apple keeps them around because there's still a tiny demand for them.

      That's true but the funny thing is that that "tiny demand" was well over a billion $$ in revenue in the past year. Funny how that much money is considered tiny...for Apple, anyway.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    17. Re:I'm shocked. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the USA have a concept of jury nullification, where the jury does much more than just determine facts, and actually takes a position on what's right and wrong?

      But that's usually in a case where Apple products suck, they make overpriced junk, the users are hipster fanboys, therefore Apple is guilty. Always.

      Right? I mean isn't Apple always guilty?

      This is too precious! A person who thinks Apple is always guilty marked my saying that as troll.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re:I'm shocked. by Macman408 · · Score: 1

      I was on a jury recently (for someone accused of misdemeanor possession of methamphetamines). Some of the questions that the judge asked every potential juror were exactly along this line:
      - Do you actively participate with any groups that advocate for or against the legalization of drugs?
      - Do you believe that possession of a small amount of drugs should be legal?
      - (If either of the above was true:) Will you follow my instructions regarding the law, even if it disagrees with your beliefs?

      Anybody that wasn't willing to follow the judge's directions was excused from service.

      Of course, that also meant that a surprisingly large fraction of the people in the jury room claimed that they either used meth themselves, wouldn't convict someone of meth possession, or had a close family member or friend that used it; and that they wouldn't follow the judge's instructions on the law - they all knew they would be immediately excused and not have to show up for the rest of the week.

      I told the truth, and ended up on the jury. It was an interesting process... Plus I got $68.16 to compensate me for my week's worth of time!

    19. Re:I'm shocked. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Only laws and states can create monopolies and oligopolies. Free-markets do not have them.

      Regulated free markets don't have them, true free markets always end up in them.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    20. Re:I'm shocked. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      they blocked any non-Apple DRM, just like every other company out there, and Real had to hack it (to get their stuff to work around Apple's DRM).

      but in the end, iTunes allowed you to use any hardware you wanted, as long as the maker coded a few of Apple's APIs (eventually Apple decided to play nice and stop suing manufacturers and instead made an API system that allowed other hardware to play nice with iTunes).

      Errm, wrong. The Mac version of iTunes was and AFAIK still is able to sync with a number of PMPs, and you could always drag any music file from iTunes on the mounted player, which copied the files to them.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    21. Re:I'm shocked. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Except that, from the first, people were putting outside music on their iPods. Steve Jobs looked at iTunes sales and iPod sales once and figured the average number of iTunes songs on an iPod was something around 4. The iPod was and is a standard platform in that sense. The complaint appears to be that the iPod wouldn't accept any DRM except Apple's.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    22. Re:I'm shocked. by sh00z · · Score: 1

      Apple hardware/software stack is proprietary and owned by one company, so this decision is correct.

      True enough, which is reason #2 that I will never own Apple anything. Reason #1 why I will never use Apple music devices is that would force me to use iTunes, which sucks beyond measure.

      And does your reason #2 also carry over to Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, all of whom use similar tactics to prevent outsiders from developing and releasing games for their platforms? This case is exactly the same premise.

    23. Re:I'm shocked. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Back when this lawsuit started, iTunes most definately worked with nothing that wasn't sold by Apple. They actually sued a company for making a product that faked being an iPod so it would work with iTunes.

      Yes, you could always drag the music out of iTunes and into your music player, unfortunately, at this time it didn't do anything for you because they used DRM that no one else could LEGALLY play. We are talking pre 2005 here, not since 2006 as that archive.org article clearly shows (the document was CREATED in 2006, the iPod was already old hat by then). I won a 60GB iPod at the Christmas party in 2005, and remember having these issues with it.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    24. Re:I'm shocked. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Apple hardware/software stack is proprietary and owned by one company, so this decision is correct.

      Microsoft's software stack is proprietary yet they got pinged for private APIs (which Apple does) and for bundling a web browser (which Apple does). It is the same anti-competitive behavior but Apple gets away with those dirty tactics because they dont technically have a monopoly.

      1. Which of Apple's "private" APIs haven't either been removed or made public after coming out of beta?
      2. Microsoft has been attacked for bundling IE with Windows because they previously made a settlement with the DOJ in which they agreed not to tie other Microsoft products to the sale of Windows.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    25. Re:I'm shocked. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Back when this lawsuit started, iTunes most definately worked with nothing that wasn't sold by Apple.

      Bullshit, as I just fucking proved in my previous post.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    26. Re:I'm shocked. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Your previous post which linked information from 2006, this was prior to 2006, it did not work.

      Are you having reading comprehension issues?

      The first iPod was released on Oct 23 2001, the page you linked in the internet archive was from 2006, so between those times, that page did not exist, and iTunes was forcefully incompatible with all hardware not made by Apple. They sued odioworks for making software that synced to the iPod http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
      They got very mad and did something to Palm when their Pre faked being an Apple device, but it must have been short of a lawsuit as I cannot find info about a lawsuit:
      http://forums.macrumors.com/sh...

      Yes, you could bypass iTunes if you had another device, they even gave you a way to strip their DRM, but it required burning a music CD then reripping the song. Later on, they removed the DRM, but early iTunes had DRM to prevent the use of the music on anything but an Apple device.

      Now, Apple iTunes did not allow other hardware prior to 2006, if you can show ANYTHING that says otherwise (from before 2006) than you can say you proved something, but your link quite clearly shows that the page hosted on archive.org is from 2006, not earlier.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    27. Re:I'm shocked. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Your previous post which linked information from 2006, this was prior to 2006, it did not work.

      Wanna bet? http://www.digitalnetworksna.com/itunes/ You lost. You so fucking lost it completely.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    28. Re:I'm shocked. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Are you a troll? When is that link from? When did they add support? I have lost nothing, you still have not addressed anything about pre 2006, which I know is fact, and provided good backing with links to the information. You still persist in linking information from post 2006, once they stopped doing it.

      And I will direct you to the relevant section of the article you link to:

      Itunes 4.2 or later has built-in support

      Which, if you read further down, only allows you to drag and drop files, it doesn't have true support for the players. In fact, the date they started supporting devices not made by Apple looks like:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

      June 28, 2005, with support of the Motorolla Rokr E1

      Dragging files to an external hard drive (that happens to be a music player) is not support, that is not using the application.

      So, as I have consistently said, the early devices would strip out the Real Audio files, which they were capable of playing. The early iTunes actively prevented usage of devices other than Apple products. Here is a story about them blocking access to the Palm Pre for a second time: http://www.wired.com/2009/10/p...

      Also, the early iTunes bought music had DRM that prevented playing it on other devices, this was due to licensing requirements from the music publishers, and is addressed in the article above.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    29. Re:I'm shocked. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Learn to read. Then learn to admit defeat.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  2. Huh? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet beyond monetary damages, the case has zero bearing on the modern technology industry, as both the MP3 music file format and the iPod itself have waned in popularity

    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.
    1. Re:Huh? by Ixokai · · Score: 1

      The claim is very weird, yes, but the premise isn't -- the case has absolutely no bearing on the industry. Not because MP3s and iPods have been replaced by streaming and iPhones or whatever other device people use instead of a dedicated iPod, but because the DRM has long since been dropped in the music space.

      Worst case scenario, Apple pays the lawyers involved some number of millions of dollars and a pittance to consumers (as in all class action cases), and changes nothing because its all entirely moot at this point.

    2. Re:Huh? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Yet beyond monetary damages, the case has zero bearing on the modern technology industry, as both the MP3 music file format and the iPod itself have waned in popularity

      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.

      You hinted towards the very definition of "waning" in your description, especially identifying yourself as one of those rare individuals who still purchases their music, and in a 30-year old format.

      Do not simply dismiss those "streaming services". If they don't comprise the majority of music consumption these days they likely soon will, and reflect an impact similar to the one Netflix has had on video streaming.

      Sure consumers like MP3s, but consumers are also really fucking lazy. They don't even type the name of a song into a device anymore, they just speak into their Beats-enabled cell phones and out pops damn near any song they want. This kind of user catering can really only be done with a rather massive online streaming service.

      And there are now several to choose from, with perhaps the most important factor for the average hipster being the price; free.

    3. Re:Huh? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Not because MP3s and iPods have been replaced by streaming and iPhones or whatever other device people use instead of a dedicated iPod, but because the DRM has long since been dropped in the music space.

      It's still relevant, but an expected ruling. This is not about DRM on the songs, it is about DRM on the connection between iTunes and the devices. That is, you can't use a non-apple device with iTunes. And Apple can go out of their way to make that happen.

      That's really annoying, but this is the same as Keurig putting DRM on their kcups, or HP putting DRM on their printer cartridges. Lame, but legal.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Huh? by Ixokai · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can use non-apple devices with iTunes and the iTunes music store just fine. You have always been able to do so. I don't know why you'd want to because as far as mp3 managers go it kinda sucks, but you could plug a random mp3 player in and provided its not going out of its way to be weird, iTunes will detect it and list it on devices and it'll happily copy any non-DRM'd content to it.

      All you could not do was use non-Apple devices with DRM'd music-- but no music is DRM'd anymore, so that's not relevant.

      You also couldn't use DRM'd music from other services on Apple's devices, and you still can't, but that's not relevant either because there's no obligation for Apple to support anyone elses DRM.

      The case is not about supposed non-existent DRM between iTunes and iThings, its about Real hacking Apple's DRM on files and trying to copy such hacked DRM'd content -- instead of plain straight up mp3s that iTunes always supported fine -- into an iThing. Apple closed the hole in their DRM and such hacked content was no longer valid.

      But, that's not relevant anymore because Apple doesn't use that DRM on any music anymore. (They _do_ use it on non-music stores still, though)

    5. Re:Huh? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? People no longer use MP3s? They don't buy iPods?

      Waned in popularity != never use. Today music streaming is more normal for teens and young adults.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:Huh? by RDW · · Score: 1

      "Yet beyond monetary damages, the case has zero bearing on the modern technology industry, as both the MP3 music file format and the iPod itself have waned in popularity"

      Wait, what? People no longer use MP3s? They don't buy iPods?

      They've also technically got it backwards. Neither Apple nor Real were distributing mp3s, but DRM'd music files in other formats - mp3s were never targeted by Apple's countermeasures to Real's hack. Today it's actually possible to get most music in plain mp3 format from Amazon and other online retailers so, if anything, mp3 is now vastly more popular than before (at least as a legitimate distribution format).

    7. Re:Huh? by tepples · · Score: 1

      How much would it cost you to buy a (lawful) copy of the entire library available through Pandora or Spotify?

    8. Re:Huh? by zieroh · · Score: 1

      How much would it cost you to buy a (lawful) copy of the entire library available through Pandora or Spotify?

      I don't think that's really a meaningful question. The much better question is: how much would it cost you to buy a lawful copy of everything you might reasonably listen to on Pandora?

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    9. Re:Huh? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Slacker is pretty much Netflix for music with the paid plans, you can cache onto an iPod too.

    10. Re:Huh? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      You only own a licence to listen to music you purchased on that format and that cd

    11. Re:Huh? by maccodemonkey · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? People no longer use MP3s? They don't buy iPods?

      iTunes, the iPod, and the iPhone (which are either the default software player or the default hardware for most people, especially inside of the US) have been using MP4/AAC for years.

      Google still seems to be using MP3 strangely (AAC compresses much better with higher audio quality, and you'd think they would like to save on bandwidth costs), but they could be doing that because they have to support a wider range of devices. Amazon falls into the same category.

      So yeah, while MP3 is still around, but with 63 of all digital music sold in the MP4/AAC format, it's hard to argue it's the universal standard it once was.

    12. Re:Huh? by tepples · · Score: 1

      The much better question is: how much would it cost you to buy a lawful copy of everything you might reasonably listen to on Pandora?

      Probably more than someone would pay for Pandora in ten years, especially someone who switches among several autogenerated "stations".

    13. Re:Huh? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      because the DRM has long since been dropped in the music space.

      This is not true, even if Apple insists on saying it is. As near as I can tell, what they mean is that they aren't putting DRM on music that was added after the DRM-free date. However, the iTunes library is full of music that is as "protected" by DRM as it ever was. Or at least that was true three years ago, when I spent far too much time working out how to strip the DRM off of a song I downloaded from it.

    14. Re:Huh? by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Even if it costs tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars to own legally? Renting is cheaper (1/10th or 1/100th the price to own).

    15. Re:Huh? by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      They stopped making iPods and while many people still use MP3s, the digital market itself has moved more toward streaming and subscription based services, where people buy access rather than files that they need to migrate.

    16. Re:Huh? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      So Apple can automagically remove all DRM from music you owned? What thinks Apple has the right to do so? As for existing DRM music they will continue to work; you could strip them manually if you want if you want to transcode from one lossy format to another. Or you could pay the music companies an additional fee to strip it and upgrade your music to a higher bit rate. I personally avoided DRM as much as possible so my upgrade price was a few dollars when the time came to remove it.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    17. Re:Huh? by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's still relevant, but an expected ruling. This is not about DRM on the songs, it is about DRM on the connection between iTunes and the devices. That is, you can't use a non-apple device with iTunes. And Apple can go out of their way to make that happen.

      I think you are making the mistake of thinking that Apple was sued for something that remotely makes sense. They weren't.

      Apple sold music with DRM in 2006. That music was hard or impossible to copy, as music with DRM should be. But that's not what Apple was sued for. And making it impossible for music with DRM to be copied is actually what DRM is there for.

      Realnetworks had developed their own DRM "solution". Which had the unfortunate disadvantage that it didn't play on iPods, and it didn't play on Microsoft "Playforsure" compatible players either. So it was quite dead in the water. So Realnetworks decided to create a hack where they removed their own DRM, then put fake "FairPlay" (that's Apple's DRM) around it, and copied that to the iPod.

      It turned out that they damaged directory structures on the iPod, and the iPod's "FairPlay" implementation noticed that there was something fishy about these files. Altogether so bad that Apple's software suggested that you reformat the iPod. And that is what these lawyers complain about: That Apple didn't allow their hacked DRM to play on an iPod.

      The obvious and 100% iPod compatible solution would have been to remove the DRM and _not_ to try to add Fairplay DRM to the music. Music without DRM, like mp3, AAC, WAV, ALAC has always played on all iPods.

    18. Re:Huh? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      This is not true, even if Apple insists on saying it is. As near as I can tell, what they mean is that they aren't putting DRM on music that was added after the DRM-free date. However, the iTunes library is full of music that is as "protected" by DRM as it ever was. Or at least that was true three years ago, when I spent far too much time working out how to strip the DRM off of a song I downloaded from it.

      Just in case that you still have a reasonable amount of music with FairPlay DRM: You can buy Apple's "iTunes Match" for a year, which will among other things allow you to replace any music bought from Apple, and any music from anywhere that the software recognises, with DRM free 256 Kbit/sec copies. Costs about $25 or so. If you have lots of music with DRM or in lower quality, it's worth it.

    19. Re:Huh? by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      Apple sold music with DRM in 2006. That music was hard or impossible to copy, as music with DRM should be. But that's not what Apple was sued for. And making it impossible for music with DRM to be copied is actually what DRM is there for.

      If by "hard to copy" you mean use iTunes to burn a regular audio CD containing the DRM'd songs and then use iTunes to rip the songs as an MP3.

    20. Re:Huh? by bledri · · Score: 2

      because the DRM has long since been dropped in the music space.

      This is not true, even if Apple insists on saying it is. As near as I can tell, what they mean is that they aren't putting DRM on music that was added after the DRM-free date. However, the iTunes library is full of music that is as "protected" by DRM as it ever was. Or at least that was true three years ago, when I spent far too much time working out how to strip the DRM off of a song I downloaded from it.

      No, they removed the DRM from the vast majority of their catalog and automatically upgraded songs in the iTunes library back in 2009. The reason that not all music is DRM free is not all labels and artists agreed to sell non-DRM music. Apple has to abide by it's contracts, even if it pisses a few people off.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    21. Re:Huh? by sh00z · · Score: 1

      ...This is not about DRM on the songs, it is about DRM on the connection between iTunes and the devices. That is, you can't use a non-apple device with iTunes. And Apple can go out of their way to make that happen.

      That's not what the case is about at all. I've owned non-Apple devices that worked just fine with iTunes. The case is about Real writing software that tricked iTunes into thinking that their DRM was Apple's. After the way the music labels strongarmed Jobs into including DRM in the first place, the simple defense would have been to show those threats, and describe their worries about losing access to the music if they couldn't detect and reject counterfeit DRM. Note that at the same time, Audible.com was working *with* Apple to get their DRM into the iTunes ecosystem.

    22. Re:Huh? by sh00z · · Score: 1

      They should have been punished and punished hard for the antitrust violations inherent in using their music store to force people to buy iPods if they wanted the full quality music for use away from their computer.

      How did they do that? It was entirely possible to insert a CD, rip it with iTunes to high quality AAC, and put it on your iPod.

      Even better, you could rip a CD entirely losslessly, and put a bit-for-bit copy on your iPod (or your Nomad or your Rio). As you could with WinAmp in Windows. Apple never FORCED anybody to do anything remotely like GP claims.

    23. Re:Huh? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      why exactly do you want to stream everything?

      For the price of one album per month, you get a larger variety than you'd get buying one album per month.

      For the price of not owning any music.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    24. Re:Huh? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Even if it costs tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars to own legally? Renting is cheaper (1/10th or 1/100th the price to own).

      Paying for the need to be online to listen to music: Priceless.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    25. Re:Huh? by tepples · · Score: 1

      I assume that people are already paying to be online because they need to be online for reasons other than listening to music, or they use the offline rental mode that some streaming providers offer.

  3. it was a crap suit by swschrad · · Score: 3

    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?
    1. Re:it was a crap suit by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      The issue I always had with the suit was that it boiled down to this:

      "Apple won't let other vendors lock in their customers using the Apple infrastructure, but they do it themselves! No Fair!"

      The response should be something along the lines of "There are competitors out there offering similar things. You could either partner with them (as you did) or do it yourself (as you failed to do)." While I was annoyed by Apple's DRM and never bought a DRM'd track from them, it's not like consumer choice would have been improved via Real offering their own DRM of the same music for the same price on the exact same platform. And that's where things were at, until Amazon provided DRM-free tracks and the market changed (for the better).

    2. Re:it was a crap suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One tiny correction. It wasn't Amazon that went down the no DRM road first. It was Apple. Apple launched DRM free iTunes music on April 2nd 2007. Amazon launched it in January 2008.

    3. Re:it was a crap suit by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      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.

      I had creative zens until I abandoned the dedicated mp3 player and I never had to flush data through anything, Literally drag and drop it on through explorer and it was good to go.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  4. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by jbolden · · Score: 1

    These two questions:

    A) Is DRM a bad thing?
    B) Did Apple's DRM raise the price of iPods?

    are two very different questions. If is very easy to see how someone could answer the questions differently. The court was asked to decide B not A.

  5. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Apple does not have a monopoly on MP3 players. If You don't like the way Apple places restrictions on what how songs get onto Your iPod, don't buy it. Otherwise, it's like complaining Tesla has a monopoly on on the electric car, which it doesn't. As far as "totalitarian behavior" goes, You have a curious definition of "totalitarian": We give Customers a pleasant experience; They come back for more because They enjoy that experience; We do things to make that experience more enjoyable; therefore, We are acting in a totalitarian fashion. (WTF?!?)

  6. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It should be pointed out that Apple later convinced the music labels to let them remove DRM from the iTunes Store. Which really kind of makes the whole thing moot.

  7. Good for consumers? by mrspoonsi · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How can DRM and locking out competitors ever be defined as good for consumers?

    1. Re:Good for consumers? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      When bypassing the DRM involved breaking the security of a device, that's bad for consumers.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Good for consumers? by romanval · · Score: 1

      It wasn't... Even Apple didn't want to do DRM, but the record companies were shellshocked from Napster (and other P2P) at the time. They would have never sold their music on iTMS without it.

    3. Re:Good for consumers? by KeithJM · · Score: 3, Informative

      When DRM is a prerequisite to get the rights to offer the item to consumers at all. I'm not saying it necessarily WAS worth it, but the people who owned the rights to the music wouldn't allow downloads without DRM. So the options to bring it to market were download music with DRM, or don't download music legally. The consumer gets to decide whether they want that deal or not.

    4. Re:Good for consumers? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Then every device is bad for customers by your logic

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:Good for consumers? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Hard to say, but I'm sure the jurors--each sporting the latest iPhone as they walked out of the court house--knew what they were doing.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    6. Re:Good for consumers? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      How can DRM and locking out competitors ever be defined as good for consumers?

      I suggest you read what the case was actually about. Apple is claimed to have prevented Realnetworks from adding Apple's DRM to Realnetworks' DRM music and copying it onto Apple's iPods. The reality is that Realnetworks created an awful hack and damaged the data on an iPod in the process to an extent that Apple's software thought the iPod was broken and reformatted it.

      To your question "How can DRM ever be defined as good for customers": Without DRM, it would be impossible to rent videos online for cheap instead of having to buy them for three times as much. And in 2006 when this happened, without DRM there would have been no online music stores. Surely offering you to buy music with DRM is better than not offering you to buy music without DRM.

    7. Re:Good for consumers? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Clearly not every device is bad for customers if what he/she said was true, as devices exist which don't require DRM to run, or will minimise any interoperability issues with DRM'd media.

    8. Re:Good for consumers? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Clearly not every device is bad for customers if what he/she said was true, as devices exist which don't require DRM to run, or will minimise any interoperability issues with DRM'd media.

      So iPods aren't evil, because they never required DRM to work.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  8. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Steve Jobs himself was anti-DRM (on music, at least): http://readwrite.com/2007/02/0...

    It's a shame the original page isn't even on Apple's own website anymore.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  9. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    It should be pointed out that Apple later convinced the music labels to let them remove DRM from the iTunes Store. Which really kind of makes the whole thing moot.

    It's moot - for now.
    You say "Don't have a cow!"
    But you never can know
    How the wind will blow
    Come the next lobbyist - politician pow-wow.
    Burma Shave

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  10. Deals? by robmv · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:Deals? by nwf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's silly. Making products work with only your products is legal and has been going on for at least 100 years. If you get razors from company X you can't get blades from company Y. Like video games (that Apple mentioned in their argument) that work only in their console, if you get a DVD it won't play in your VCR, your AT&T phone won't work on Verizon, if you get HBO you can't record it without DRM in HD, only certain garbage cans fit into my cabinets trash drawer, etc. It's stupid to expect a company has to make their products universally compatible just because they have the industry-leading product. We have hand sanitizer dispensers and, guess what, they only let you use their packaged liquid. Only an idiot would think companies should be compelled to do otherwise.

      And regarding the record companies, it was "use music with your DRM only or no music for you". So the alternative would be NO iPods or downloadable music. You'd be back having to buy a crappy album for a single good song.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    2. Re:Deals? by Ixokai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your analogy is dumb.

      The customers would never have had access to the music catalogs of the major music labels were it not for deals to implement DRM and patch holes when that DRM is exploited.

      Real exploited a hole to create fakely-DRM'd content, and Apple had to close it or they'd be in breach of contract and suddenly the ITMS has no content.

      (At least, in theory. In reality Apple got big enough by this point that they were able to muscle the labels into letting them un-DRM the entire catalog, which seems quite the opposite of illegally screwing customers.)

    3. Re:Deals? by robmv · · Score: 1

      It ia a joke analogy, I know but the main idea is that your deals doesn't give you a blank cheque to do anything above the law, as I said, "if that was the case"

      Continuing with the joke analogy, If the killer don't agree to kill the husband, the customer, the wife, will not get access to enjoy the money from the inheritance either

    4. Re:Deals? by robmv · · Score: 1

      Say that to Google, they don't have the right to make their search products to only work with their browser or OSs, monopoly regulations will start to hit them. What did Apple wrong?, I can't say for sure, IANAL and apparently they will try an appeal, but was Apple music service big enough at the time they started screwing with other companies trying to enter the market? maybe, maybe not.

    5. Re:Deals? by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      Say that to Google, they don't have the right to make their search products to only work with their browser or OSs

      Google Maps with navigation only worked with Android for 3 years.

      Google NaCL only works with Chrome.

      Do you want other examples of Google technologies that only work with Chrome and/or Android?

    6. Re:Deals? by robmv · · Score: 1

      You are taking examples that are not a market monopoly, Search is an example that they can't do whatever they want, any example you find that say they can do watherver they want with that technology, doesn't make true: the parent comment "Making products work with only your products is legal" there are situations where that isn't true. The situation here is, was iTunes to big so they can't do whatever they wanted?

    7. Re:Deals? by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      You mean like promoting internal products in their search results?

      http://www.zdnet.com/article/y...

      Or forcing a company to use their location services over a competitor (Android has 80% of the worldwide market)?

      http://www.androidpolice.com/2...

      Or not allowing a company to manufacturer non Google approved Android devices if they manufacturer Android approved devices?

      http://marketingland.com/googl...

    8. Re:Deals? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      The customers would never have had access to the music catalogs of the major music labels were it not for deals to implement DRM and patch holes when that DRM is exploited.

      Absolutely not true. Customers had access to those music catalogs before iTunes existed, both in legal and illegal ways. I think what you meant was that Apple would never have had access.

    9. Re:Deals? by Ixokai · · Score: 1

      No, I mean the customers who are party to the suit -- Apple's customers. Yes, there was other channels they could have gotten music, but the catalogs were not exhaustive and were just as locked down as anything Apple ever did.

      ITMS wasn't the first to try to do legal online music, I'm not arguing that. They did get all the paranoid labels on board and made it easy, and at the time that was a big deal. I remember I *could* buy music online at the time, but it was mostly a pain in the butt from most sources -- it was no real competition to the illegal napster route. Then ITMS made things easy and had everything I wanted, so I started using it to buy my music online.

      Had they not made the DRM deals, ITMS would never had much of a selection and that would have harmed me as a consumer.

    10. Re:Deals? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      For the most part Apple does what they always do: they work to make things easy for the consumer. Before Apple, you could buy music online. The sites were terrible to navigate and sometimes it wasn't even easy to pay. Pricing was ludicrous. Then you had to get your music software to authorize and then sync it to your device. PlaysForSure was almost an ironic name back then.

      So here comes Apple: Consumers use iTunes for everything. payment, navigation, downloading are all integrated. All songs are the same price. Syncing your iPod was seamless. It's no small wonder that people were throwing their money at Apple as Apple made it ridiculously easy to buy music.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:Deals? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      If you get razors from company X you can't get blades from company Y.

      Really? I own two brands of razors - an Edwin Jagger and a couple of Merkurs. I can use any brand of blade I want to buy - Astra, Feather, Gillette, Merkur, Personna, Wilkinson, Sharp, Shark, and Polsilver, just to name a few.

      Maybe you're buying the wrong kind of razors.

    12. Re:Deals? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You are taking examples that are not a market monopoly, Search is an example that they can't do whatever they want

      I think you need to first lean what a market monopoly is, and then secondly learn what anti-trust laws are. If you did you'd find that Google does not have a monopoly on search, and not cross-licensing to allow others interoperability (as in this case being discussed) would not fall afoul of anti-trust laws even if a monopoly position was in play.

    13. Re:Deals? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That's very true, but when a company starts making trash cans with superfluous 3 foot poles sticking out the sides which only fit in their cabinets, something's afoot.

  11. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    And when Apple removed DRM from their music in 2009, you were cheering, no?

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  12. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by Ixokai · · Score: 2

    DRM is so terrible that.... Apple did away with it on the music store years ago.

    Its the content industry that is keeping it on the movie and tv stores. I am against DRM too but remember who requires it in their contracts to distribute.

  13. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You mean other than they never wanted it in the first place.

  14. The video game crash of 1983 by tepples · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:The video game crash of 1983 by Smauler · · Score: 1

      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.

      You seem to forget that studios _have_ to be willing to publish in a format that people will use. The studios being "willing" to publish is irrelevant. If they try to publish works in a format no one uses, they lose their revenue stream. Their entire business model is having as many people as possible buy the content.

    2. Re:The video game crash of 1983 by tepples · · Score: 1

      The Atari 2600 was such an unbelievably primitive system, it was impossible to make complex game with

      You'd have a point if if the Atari 2600 were the only platform affected by the crash. It was not.

      and the NES was a ten year leap ahead in technology

      The ColecoVision was almost as sophisticated technically as the Sega Master System and Nintendo Entertainment System that followed it. In fact, the nearly pixel-perfect port of Donkey Kong to the CV inspired Nintendo to make the Famicom in the first place. All the CV really lacked was smooth scrolling. Why did it crash too?

    3. Re:The video game crash of 1983 by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The Video Game Crash happened because personal computers had better graphics and cheaper games. You could get a computer which could do more than play games for the price of a console. Curiously or not 1983 was around when the C64 came out.

    4. Re:The video game crash of 1983 by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Think back to 1983 and 1984 when the North American video game market crashed due to too much choice.

      Nothing that you've said here is an accurate reflection of why that crash happened. Lockout wasn't even remotely a factor.

      DRM is good for consumers because it ensures that studios will be willing to publish more than zero desirable works in a format.

      This also doesn't resemble the truth at all. If there were no such thing as DRM, there would be just as much content being produced. Or, at least, there isn't any indication that wouldn't be true.

      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.

      And that was good for consumers how?

    5. Re:The video game crash of 1983 by drerwk · · Score: 1

      The crash happened across platforms, though I have a limited view of it - I co-wrote Repton for Sirius Software, available on Apple II, C-64, and Atari 400/800. Sirius went out of business because 20th Century Fox failed a promised payment of $20mil. But I also worked for Infocom around '85 - and they were also crushed - maybe due to being text based.

    6. Re:The video game crash of 1983 by tepples · · Score: 1

      Nothing that you've said here is an accurate reflection of why that crash happened. Lockout wasn't even remotely a factor.

      Then please help me understand why the abundance of low-quality shovelware was either A. unrelated to lack of lockout or B. not a factor in the crash.

      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.

      And that was good for consumers how?

      Because DRM gives consumers access to view the movie at home, as opposed to having to wait years to see it again in theaters if it ever comes back to theaters.

    7. Re:The video game crash of 1983 by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Another problem Infocom had was that they wanted to be in the productivity software business more than the text adventure business, and put a LOT of resources into Cornerstone (a database product, if I remember aright), which flopped.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  15. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by Smauler · · Score: 1

    I personally started buying music online a few years back. I didn't want DRM.

    I've spent probably a few hundred pounds with Amazon, just because when I started buying music online they were the place to offer DRM free. Apple lost me as a customer because of DRM.

  16. Re: Yes this is Terrible. by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

    That again is also muddying the waters, considering that Apple established via their contracts with RIAA member companies that DRM was required for them to sell music online. The more appropriate question is whether their prevention of competitors DRM Schemes on the iPod drove up prices of either the music itself or the iPod devices upon which said digitally purchased tracks could be obtained. This would also seem to be an easier question to answer as it would allow for direct analysis of Apple's business model versus their competitors, or even the price jump experienced when their tracks went from $0.99 to $1.29.

    --
    Thirty four characters live here.
  17. Lawyers by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    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.

  18. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by Karlt1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only reason they did that is because Amazon beat them to it and was taking their customers away. If not for competition, Apple never would have removed DRM.

    2/6/2007
    http://macdailynews.com/2007/0...

    "The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music."

      "Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly."

    5/30/2007

    Apple starts selling DRM free music

    https://www.apple.com/pr/libra...

    9/25/2007
    Amazon starts selling DRM free music,
    http://readwrite.com/2007/09/2...

    As you were saying?

  19. Re: Yes this is Terrible. by jbolden · · Score: 2

    The more appropriate question is whether their prevention of competitors DRM Schemes on the iPod drove up prices of either the music itself or the iPod devices upon which said digitally purchased tracks could be obtained.

    That's a hard question to answer in a suit against Apple. Certainly the RIAA wanted Apple to be nothing but a device manufacturer allowing a host of other formats and selling agents. At the same time the other ones available like Real they didn't want. So it is hard to find a monopolistic act where Apple wasn't under contract. That's a much better question for an anti-trust suit against the RIAA.
     

  20. Re:8-person jury will get free mac pros and iphone by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    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)

  21. Enough customers do in fact tolerate DRM by tepples · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Enough customers do in fact tolerate DRM by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      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.

      True, but that isn't an argument for how DRM can be good for consumers.

    2. Re:Enough customers do in fact tolerate DRM by tepples · · Score: 1

      DRM is good for consumers because it ensures that studios will be willing to publish more than zero desirable works in a format.

      studios _have_ to be willing to publish in a format that people will use.

      there are many people willing to buy copies of works in a DRM format

      True, but that isn't an argument for how DRM can be good for consumers.

      Which brings me back to the original assertion: DRM allows studios to make works available to those members of the public who accept DRM that the studios would be unwilling to make available to anyone without DRM. If the choice were between DRM home video and requiring the public to wait seven years for a repeat theatrical screening, how would the latter "be good for consumers"?

    3. Re:Enough customers do in fact tolerate DRM by tepples · · Score: 1

      If the studios were to lose the 80 percent to competition with illegal copies made by warez d00dz, studios would have a harder time getting loans for the production of movies in the first place. This would mean the end of big-budget action and fantasy films.

  22. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2

    The court was asked to decide B not A.

    The court was not asked to decide either one of those things. You're not even paying attention.

  23. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by jbolden · · Score: 1

    Well yes actually. That's what they are being sued for. I know it sounds ridiculous but that is the plaintiff's claim.

  24. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by GrahamCox · · Score: 2

    It wasn't Apple being totalitarian, it was the music industry in general. All Real had to do to make their stuff work on the iPod was to remove ALL DRM. However, had they done that, they'd have been the ones in the dock at the behest of the RIAA, et. al. Eventually Apple's power and market dominance gave them enough clout to tell the music industry where to stick their DRM. And yes, that sounds "totalitarian", but actually, it was the consumer who benefited.

    Seems to me that people just like to use the existence of the meritless case to push and reinforce their own anti-Apple views. Such views may have some validity, but to use this particular case and the history behind it to push them is ridiculous. We consumers enjoy DRM-free music today because of Apple, make no mistake. Do you really think Real (or Amazon, or whoever) would have managed the same thing if Apple hadn't? Nope - we'd still have crappy DRM-encrusted music from the industry or would be using the hit-and-miss GNUTella method.

    Remember that any industry-backed music download service had to compete with free (albeit free with strings attached, in the form of terrible rips, mislabelled files and malware). Apple pulled it off, and they deserved to win this.

  25. Good Decision by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Good Decision by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      The decision was good. Apple did not have a monopoly. People could choose not to use Apple products and still listen to music.

      What's more, people could choose not to use Apple's iTunes music store and still listen to music on their iPod. Reports of this case always seem to airbrush over the fact that the "lock out" only ever affected competing DRM formats: there was no problem with playing unprotected MP3 or AAC files from any source.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    2. Re:Good Decision by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      Great idea. Should one ever try to sue a big company and lose, they would be in debt for the rest of their lives, with no chance to ever pay back what they owe. Sounds like a great protection for the corporations from the little guy.

  26. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by Ixokai · · Score: 1

    That's awfully weird considering Apple dropped DRM from its music store before Amazon opened their music store.

    Your memory and reality are having a somewhat awkward dissonance.

  27. C64+1541 was expensive by tepples · · Score: 1

    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.

  28. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    Well yes actually. That's what they are being sued for. I know it sounds ridiculous but that is the plaintiff's claim.

    The plaintiff's claims were nowhere near as sensible as the things you asked about. (Actually, Apple's legal reply to most of the claims was "what you are claiming doesn't make any sense". Usually a legal reply to a reasonable accusation either says "we didn't do it" or "we were allowed to do it". )

  29. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    And anyway, I have the impression that Apple's music DRM is the only one that still works. If you bought music with Apple's DRM ten years ago, you can still play it. Try playing PlayForSure music. No chance. It doesn't work anymore. I think there are some other schemes that stopped working. (If anyone knows of any other music DRM that still works, I'd be interested to hear about it).

    And Apple's DRM could always be removed legally by burning the music onto a CD using Apple's own iTunes software, and today Apple's DRM can be removed legally (unfortunately not for free) by subscribing to iTunes Match once.

  30. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    "Starts selling" is the key. Yes, they had some DRM free content. Amazon had all DRM free music content. That's a massive difference. I was very much against Amazon at the time because of the one click patent, but I started buying music there because they were doing it the right way. iTunes went all DRM free later on, well after Amazon.

  31. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

    I've spent probably a few hundred pounds with Amazon, just because when I started buying music online they were the place to offer DRM free. Apple lost me as a customer because of DRM.

    Apple started selling DRM free music (5/2007) before Amazon started selling music (9/2007).

  32. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by OhPlz · · Score: 2

    Article from 2009 announcing price cuts to iTunes music, mentions Apple has plans to go DRM free in the future:

    http://www.computerworld.com/a...

    From same article:

    "While iTunes is the most popular digital music store, others have been faster to offer songs without copy protection. Amazon.com started selling DRM-free music in 2007 and swayed all the major labels to sign on in less than a year."

    Awfully weird indeed.

  33. Re: Yes this is Terrible. by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

    Amazon didn't launch with all four of the major record labels. So while all of their music was DRM free. They didn't have all of the music that Apple had.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Music

  34. Re: Yes this is Terrible. by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    They didn't have to. They had enough to start chipping away. As Amazon's sales increased, they'd have more power to reign in the hold-outs. Apple didn't have a choice. Amazon was probably hoping they'd try to hold-out. Without devices of their own, the DRM-free nature of their catalog was their best draw. That's probably why they're so heavily into the Kindle, Fire, and other gadgets now. They want their catalog to be the first that a consumer sees. Something they'll never get on other company's devices if those companies have a catalog of their own.

  35. Re: Yes this is Terrible. by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

    That's not what happened.

    Here is the long version of the story....

    1. Around the end of 2006, the EU was clamoring for Apple to license FairPlay. That's why Jobs said that most of the four record labels were based in the EU.

    2. Jobs posted "Thoughts on Music" (the previously quoted article) telling the music industry if they wanted interoperability they could license their music DRM free.

    3. Most of the music industry wanted Apple to have variable price music and to allow full albums to be sold without breaking them up. Apple refused. But made a deal with EMI.
    4. The industry wouldn't let Apple sell music over the cellular network on the then new iPhone.
    5. Amazon starts selling DRM free music acquiescing to the studios demands.
    6. 2008 - around the time that Amazon had all four labels, Apple gave in to the labels on variable price music in exchange for DRM free music and the right to sell over the cellular network.

    If you read the entire "thoughts on music" article, Jobs said that very little music in the typical iPod came from iTunes.

    Amazon was only selling music in the US from two of the labels when it first came out. Not real competition to Apple.

  36. Re: Yes this is Terrible. by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    Within a year of Amazon opening their digital music store, they had the major labels. Apple was still heavily into DRM then. I don't really care what Apple wanted to do, I'm looking at the facts for what they are. A year in, Amazon had what it needed to be a significant threat to Apple's iTunes store. Jobs may have been truthful saying that little music came from their store at the time, most music would have been ripped from people's CD collections, and I'm sure a significant chunk from file sharing. What was their percent out of the total that had been purchased from online? I'm sure they saw the iTunes store as a big part of Apple's future. Device sales alone only get you so far.

    One thing is certain, Jobs wouldn't have been giving Amazon credit for busting DRM. That doesn't mean they didn't play a big part. They pulled off what Apple couldn't or wouldn't.

  37. Re: Yes this is Terrible. by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

    Within a year of Amazon opening their digital music store, they had the major labels. Apple was still heavily into DRM then. I don't really care what Apple wanted to do, I'm looking at the facts for what they are.

    You mean like your previous "fact" that Amazon started selling DRM free music before Apple did?

    A year in, Amazon had what it needed to be a significant threat to Apple's iTunes store. Jobs may have been truthful saying that little music came from their store at the time, most music would have been ripped from people's CD collections, and I'm sure a significant chunk from file sharing. What was their percent out of the total that had been purchased from online?

    If only Jobs had stated how many songs on a typical consumers iPod came from iTunes in his "Thouhts on Music" post. We would know....

    Oh wait he did....

    I'm sure they saw the iTunes store as a big part of Apple's future. Device sales alone only get you so far.

    If only we could look into the distant future in 2014, 7 years after all this happened and see what percentage of Apple's revenue came from device sales of that iPhone thing they introduced in 2007. compared to music sales and iPod sales. I'm sure you're right, it's not like over 90% of their revenue come from devices....

    One thing is certain, Jobs wouldn't have been giving Amazon credit for busting DRM. That doesn't mean they didn't play a big part. They pulled off what Apple couldn't or wouldn't.

    You mean after 7 years still being the number one music retailer in the world?

  38. Re: Yes this is Terrible. by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    I don't care who sold DRM free first. This thread is from my comment pointing out that Apple is not the reason music sales now are free of DRM. Amazon's catalog was entirely free of DRM, and they had the major labels within a year. Amazon did that, not Apple. Amazon got there well before Apple. Get it? That's my first comment here.

    Apple can't rely on device sales. There's not much more you can make a gadget do. What's going to be next for innovation? Twice the resolution of a retina display? Digital goods are going to be the bread-winner. It's inevitable.

    Your last bit there doesn't contradict anything I said. Amazon could have been number one if Apple dug in on the whole DRM thing. I think that's part of what pushed Amazon to create their line of devices. The device drives the catalog. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here. I wouldn't bet on Apple, but who knows.

  39. Re: Yes this is Terrible. by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

    I don't care who sold DRM free first. This thread is from my comment pointing out that Apple is not the reason music sales now are free of DRM.

    You've already shown that you don't the history behind what happened. But even after posting the dates that Jobs posted a letter stating that they would go DRM free if the labels allowed them and proving that they would once they were allowed to by one of the labels you still insist that Amazon forced them too?

    If you knew the history, you would know that the labels didn't want to go DRM free. They wanted Apple to license FairPlay so other retailers like Real would have a chance. Apple said no and their only alternative was to go DRM free because no one would buy music that they couldn't use on iPods.

    Amazon's catalog was entirely free of DRM, and they had the major labels within a year. Amazon did that, not Apple. Amazon got there well before Apple. Get it? That's my first comment here.

    If by well before Apple you mean less than a year....

    Apple can't rely on device sales. There's not much more you can make a gadget do. What's going to be next for innovation? Twice the resolution of a retina display? Digital goods are going to be the bread-winner. It's inevitable.

    Yes and inevitable the world will come to an end. But Apple has been selling hardware since 1977.

    Your last bit there doesn't contradict anything I said. Amazon could have been number one if Apple dug in on the whole DRM thing.

    Amazon still in 2014 only sales music in two countries. in 2008, Apple had 70% plus of the MP3 market. Most people in the U.S. were either using iPods or CDs - both of which were supported by iTunes. They weren't affected by Apple's DRM.

    I think that's part of what pushed Amazon to create their line of devices. The device drives the catalog. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here. I wouldn't bet on Apple, but who knows

    You obviously don't know how little money is made off of selling digital goods compared to the margins Apple makes on hardware or how little profit Amazon has made over its entire 15+ year existence.

    What next? Do you think Intel can't keep successfully selling processors?

  40. Re: Yes this is Terrible. by OhPlz · · Score: 2

    I don't care what Jobs said. It's irrelevant. Amazon's store was DRM free. They had the major labels within a year. Apple did not. I don't care what Jobs said at the time. Amazon got it done while Jobs was still blathering on about it. Actions beat words. Apple didn't rid DRM from their catalog until Amazon forced them to. You can go on talking about Jobs all you want. I saw what actually took place.

    Hardware margins are a fool's game. Apple is going to lose its shirt if it keeps betting on them. Digital goods is the future. Mark this comment and come back in a few years. You'll see. I also wouldn't bet against Amazon. They're making strategic moves now and sacrificing the short term to win big in the long term.

  41. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    "Starts selling" is the key. Yes, they had some DRM free content. Amazon had all DRM free music content. That's a massive difference. I was very much against Amazon at the time because of the one click patent, but I started buying music there because they were doing it the right way. iTunes went all DRM free later on, well after Amazon.

    The reason was that the music labels were worried about Apple's strength in the market, so they forced Apple to sell an inferior product (music with DRM), and they only allowed Apple to sell DRM free music after Apple agreed to raising prices.

  42. Re: Yes this is Terrible. by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

    I don't care what Jobs said. It's irrelevant. Amazon's store was DRM free. They had the major labels within a year. Apple did not.

    It was a whole extra 6 months.

    I don't care what Jobs said at the time. Amazon got it done while Jobs was still blathering on about it.
    Actions beat words. Apple didn't rid DRM from their catalog until Amazon forced them to. You can go on talking about Jobs all you want. I saw what actually took place.

    Obviously you didn't see what took place. You didn't know that the average user had 12 songs bought from iTunes on their iPod. The truth is that once every other company failed to sell DRM music because it wouldn't work on the iPod and Apple refused to license FairPlay, the industry didn't have a choice.

    Do you really think that Apple - the company that first was able to get a consistent licensing agreement with its while catalog - was trying to keep DRM even though they got rid of it as soon as they were allowed to?

    Hardware margins are a fool's game. Apple is going to lose its shirt if it keeps betting on them.

    People have been predicting that Apples margins would collapse since 1977.

    Digital goods is the future.Mark this comment and come back in a few years.

    If only Apple had a thriving. growing digital goods business that sold music, video, and apps....

    You know, maybe they should also get into payments! Nahh, that would never work...

    You'll see. I also wouldn't bet against Amazon. They're making strategic moves now and sacrificing the short term to win big in the long term

    Someone also hasn't looked into Apple's CAPEX.....

    Amazon has been in business for over 17 years. 17 years ago in 1997 Apple was almost bankrupt and now is the most valuable company in the world. Who's strategy has worked better?

  43. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by Kartu · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia disagrees.

    In short: Mr Jobbs refused to let other players in, to a point when major "music companies" preferred no-DRM to DRM dominated by Apple.

    25th of September 2007 was when BETA version of amazon music came to life, but DRM free music from major players came later:

    In January 2008 it became the first music store to sell music without digital rights management (DRM) from the four major music labels (EMI, Universal, Warner Music, and Sony BMG), as well as many independents.[1][2][3][4]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

    Before that happened:

    The music companies had argued that Apple, which dominates the digital music market with its iPod player and iTunes service, should license its copy protection software to rivals. But Mr. Jobs has refused, saying that such a move would invite several problems, including the possibility that hackers would crack the technology.

    Which led to:

    Now, some music executives are privately backing the idea of dropping the software from music sold through virtually every service except iTunes, in order to strengthen AppleÃ(TM)s rivals and potentially diminish Mr. JobsÃ(TM)s advantage. The major labels have been upset with AppleÃ(TM)s inflexibility on music pricing, among other issues.

    From:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12...

  44. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by Kartu · · Score: 1

    No, not at all.

    Apple didn't allow competitors with DRM. (reminds me early Apple vs PC days)
    Music industry decided it's better to have no-DRM + competition, than Apple only DRM.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12...

  45. Re: Yes this is Terrible. by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia disagrees.

    Wow if Wikipedia disagrees, I guess that solves the issue....

    But who are you trying to refute?

    How are you saying anything different from what I said? The industry wanted Apple to license its DRM. Apple refused and said if the industry wants interoperability and competition license the music free of DRM and they will go along with it.

  46. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    In fact, Steve Jobs was always anti-DRM on iTunes music. (Not necessarily from basic goodness, but because non-DRMed music was likely to sell more iPods, and that's where Apple got most of its money). Apple DRM was almost trivial to work around.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  47. Re:8-person jury will get free mac pros and iphone by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    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
  48. Re:8-person jury will get free mac pros and iphone by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    That won't happen, Apple didn't want the DRM.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  49. Re: I'm "shocked" vs "not shocked" by baristabrian · · Score: 1

    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
  50. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Article from 2009 announcing price cuts to iTunes music, mentions Apple has plans to go DRM free in the future:

    http://www.computerworld.com/a...

    From same article:

    "While iTunes is the most popular digital music store, others have been faster to offer songs without copy protection. Amazon.com started selling DRM-free music in 2007 and swayed all the major labels to sign on in less than a year."

    Awfully weird indeed.

    Amazon started selling DRM-free music in September 2007

    Apple started selling DRM-free music in April 2007 - https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02Apple-Unveils-Higher-Quality-DRM-Free-Music-on-the-iTunes-Store.html

    Ohh, and http://news.cnet.com/2100-1027-998590.html

    > April 28, 2003 12:16 PM PDT
    Apple unveils music store
    ...
    The songs cost 99 cents each to download, with no subscription fee, and include the most liberal copying rights of any online service to date. Jobs has been an outspoken opponent of so-called digital rights management (DRM) in the past, arguing that limitations on digital music will undermine the market for legitimate content.

    Two-thousand-fucking-three.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  51. Re: Yes this is Terrible. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Within a year of Amazon opening their digital music store, they had the major labels. Apple was still heavily into DRM then.

    Because Amazon paid the major labels not to let anybody, especially not Apple, sell DRM free music. Time to sue Amazon.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  52. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    No, not at all.

    Apple didn't allow competitors with DRM. (reminds me early Apple vs PC days) Music industry decided it's better to have no-DRM + competition, than Apple only DRM. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12...

    So in other words, this suit was about making money from Apple for forcing the music industry to drop DRM.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  53. What is the benefit of owning a copy? by tepples · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:What is the benefit of owning a copy? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      You don't own the music; the label does. You own a copy of the music.

      Not with streaming music.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    2. Re:What is the benefit of owning a copy? by tepples · · Score: 1

      That's what I meant. What's the benefit of owning a copy over streaming?

  54. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by jbolden · · Score: 1

    I agree. This suit is bizarre. Feel free to educate me if I'm underestimating how bizarre. But my understanding of the claim was that Apple used monopoly DRM to raise the price of iPods and that was the restraint of trade act.

  55. Re:8-person jury will get free mac pros and iphone by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    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
  56. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by Smauler · · Score: 1

    Of course Apple had _some_ DRM free titles by 2007, everyone did. Selling a small portion of your catalogue DRM free is not very useful for me. I don't want to have to check which DRM is on which song.

    In 2007, Apple was selling EMI (and EMI only) music DRM free at additional cost. By January 2008, Amazon sold everything DRM free. Apple went DRM free in 2009. Google Fairplay.

  57. Re:Yes this is Terrible. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Of course Apple had _some_ DRM free titles by 2007, everyone did. Selling a small portion of your catalogue DRM free is not very useful for me.

    It was all music from one of the major studios, not "a small portion". That means you fail.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.