Remember folks, many, if not most, of the *IAAs victims are technically guilty. True, the RIAA and friends are coming down on them unnecessarily hard, but it's not like they are truly innocent. It's the innocent ones that, thankfully, get the nice press.
Really? Says who? How do you know the bulk were not just strong armed into an agreement because they weren't quite sure if they were innocent or not? OR even if they knew they were innocent, they just didn't have the finances to defend themselves. This isn't criminal court where they are guaranteed a state defender if they can't afford one. This is civil court and they are SOL if they can't defend themselves.
You are buying into this same *IAA BS that they *only* go after the guilty. Fact is you don't know if the majority are factually or technically guilty and it doesn't matter either way. IF they were in fact guilty, it still does not give the *IAA the permission to engage in predatory and/or illegal practices in prosecuting their case. Just as it doesn't give the government the right to violate laws to obtain a confession or guilty verdict in a criminal case. You don't get a "bye" to violate laws because you were chasing actual people violating the law.
The fact that many or most of the defendants are actually guilty will greatly weaken any class-action suit.
Exactly how many cases have been concluded with a determination of guilt in favor of the *IAA? There may have been some, but I am not aware of any offhand. I do not believe that settlements out of court count in this regard but then again, IANAL. I don't think you can show out of court settlements as proof of anything other than the previous vict...err defendants settled. Depending on the wording of those settlements they may clearly state that without admitting any guilt they accept the settlement, blah, blah, blah. Hardly something the *IAA could use to bolster their case in this regard.
Again, even if the majority are guilty technically or otherwise it doesn't give the *IAA a blank check to violate other laws in pursuing them.
In this context, it seems like abusing the legal process to maintain the impression of a legitimate legal campaign as long as possible.
Technically legal but IMHO unethical. I hope it comes round to bite them in the ass.
The RIAA Lawyers doing something unethical???
I'm SHOCKED, shocked I tell you!
=)
I remember when the first iMac was released without serial ports or a floppy drive. It was USB and cdrom only. I remember one of those Kim Kommando AM radio guys predicting failure for the product based on the lack of a floppy disk drive alone, not to mention there wasn't even a USB printer available on the market for it. The iMac became the biggest selling computer model of all time.
Not exactly an apples to apples comparison there. The floppy drive, serial ports etc. were old technology being replaced by newer tech. The battery configuration in the iPhone is not being changed out for something newer and better or easier to use.
If the battery provided twice the talktime of other batteries and lets say twice the lifetime of other batteries that would be an argument that Apple made it non-user replaceable because it was an improvement over current battery technology and users would rarely if ever need an additional battery or to replace the current one. That is not the case. The battery is similar if not less than what is found in any other phone on the market and is not user replaceable on top of that. That is the problem.
The problem is that lots of people burn through a battery (or 2!!) during a single day and expect to be able to easily swap out batteries and keep going. This is not possible with the iPhone and in order to use all the great features of this device you will need to charge it up at least once every day. With a 300-400 charge cycle life on the battery, that equates to having to replace that battery every single year you own it.
Granted it will be under warranty the first couple times, but that is still a hassle that you do NOT have to deal with with any other phone on the market. Granted the iPhone is still the coolest phone I have seen in a long time and everything it can do is awesome, but this battery issue was not widely known at the time it was released although those of us familiar with Apple sure suspected this would be the case.
Slashdot Mirror
You are buying into this same *IAA BS that they *only* go after the guilty. Fact is you don't know if the majority are factually or technically guilty and it doesn't matter either way. IF they were in fact guilty, it still does not give the *IAA the permission to engage in predatory and/or illegal practices in prosecuting their case. Just as it doesn't give the government the right to violate laws to obtain a confession or guilty verdict in a criminal case. You don't get a "bye" to violate laws because you were chasing actual people violating the law. Exactly how many cases have been concluded with a determination of guilt in favor of the *IAA? There may have been some, but I am not aware of any offhand. I do not believe that settlements out of court count in this regard but then again, IANAL. I don't think you can show out of court settlements as proof of anything other than the previous vict...err defendants settled. Depending on the wording of those settlements they may clearly state that without admitting any guilt they accept the settlement, blah, blah, blah. Hardly something the *IAA could use to bolster their case in this regard.
Again, even if the majority are guilty technically or otherwise it doesn't give the *IAA a blank check to violate other laws in pursuing them.
I remember when the first iMac was released without serial ports or a floppy drive. It was USB and cdrom only. I remember one of those Kim Kommando AM radio guys predicting failure for the product based on the lack of a floppy disk drive alone, not to mention there wasn't even a USB printer available on the market for it. The iMac became the biggest selling computer model of all time.
Not exactly an apples to apples comparison there. The floppy drive, serial ports etc. were old technology being replaced by newer tech. The battery configuration in the iPhone is not being changed out for something newer and better or easier to use.
If the battery provided twice the talktime of other batteries and lets say twice the lifetime of other batteries that would be an argument that Apple made it non-user replaceable because it was an improvement over current battery technology and users would rarely if ever need an additional battery or to replace the current one. That is not the case. The battery is similar if not less than what is found in any other phone on the market and is not user replaceable on top of that. That is the problem.
The problem is that lots of people burn through a battery (or 2!!) during a single day and expect to be able to easily swap out batteries and keep going. This is not possible with the iPhone and in order to use all the great features of this device you will need to charge it up at least once every day. With a 300-400 charge cycle life on the battery, that equates to having to replace that battery every single year you own it.
Granted it will be under warranty the first couple times, but that is still a hassle that you do NOT have to deal with with any other phone on the market. Granted the iPhone is still the coolest phone I have seen in a long time and everything it can do is awesome, but this battery issue was not widely known at the time it was released although those of us familiar with Apple sure suspected this would be the case.