Man sues Apple for terminating Apple ID with $24K worth of content

[Bitter]

1 minute ago, Den-Fi said:

Bwahaha yeah. It was something else. Though I will say, no one was raging about it. It was more "what happened?!" and not "how could you?!"

I'm confident the ladies at the Mexican restaurant I frequent would chase me out with a broom calling me a bad man.

[Bombastinator]

9 hours ago, Gaires said:

I'm looking at this from business perspective.

 

Happy customer is returning customer, if Apple doesn't want to do business with this invidual anymore but they treat him right he will tell his friends etc how well Apple treated him even though he clearly did something to make Apple unhappy.

Goes again to exactly what happened and why he was booted.  This is still unknown here at least.  I very much doubt he could have done 24k of harm, but I also doubt the 24k number is accurate.  If he actually spent 24k thats one thing but I doubt it happened.  The difference between what was spent and what the plaintiff thinks the value is is profit for the plaintiff.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Bombastinator

[Bombastinator]

9 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

If it is Candy Crush, it would be the developers locking him out of that game and Apple shouldn't be terminating the account for a single app. Could be spin, but I would still err on the consumer's side. 

As little error as possible is preferred generally. I’m not familiar with the specifics of that game.  I merely picked it as a random “free to play” game with micro transactions and a reputation for addiction and huge charges.  There are lots of them.

[Bombastinator]

10 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

didn't consider that

too bad you can just sideload stuff, or have alternative app repositories 

I don’t think Apple users will put up with side loading if they have a choice.  Lack of side loading is often considered a positive.  The problem is side loading can be done by anyone, and what is sideloaded can be malware.  A solution other than side loading may be preferred.

[Spindel]

On 4/23/2021 at 5:22 PM, TetraSky said:

Companies being allowed to shut down your accounts containing hundred/thousand of dollars worth of "digital goods" in them... Is the thing I fear most in this digital world. But I hate collecting physical media so much... 
I do wonder what this content was, though.

 

I would certainly love to have this option!
At least with Steam and the like, you can download your games and back them up locally. If steam ever goes away, most games are easily crackable to skip the DRM.
But with things like Apple, Google and what not... Especially on mobile... Can you even download movies and music ? I remember with Google Play Music, I could download my songs that I bought (up to a limited number of times). But after they switched to Youtube Music, I seems to have lost that option with my library of songs and no longer feel like buying more.

Yes from iTunes I can download both music and movies. While music is DRM free the movies are not. The DRM is tied to your apple ID so if you are suspended you can not watch even an offline movie file. 
 

DRM is the movie studios making. They want it Apple (and other online vendors) implement it because no DRM no movie. 
 

Apple actually fought the music industry to get the music DRM free. 

[Bombastinator]

9 minutes ago, Spindel said:

Yes from iTunes I can download both music and movies. While music is DRM free the movies are not. The DRM is tied to your apple ID so if you are suspended you can not watch even an offline movie file. 
 

DRM is the movie studios making. They want it Apple (and other online vendors) implement it because no DRM no movie. 
 

Apple actually fought the music industry to get the music DRM free. 

In that case the company that forced the institution of the DRM would be the company that owes money.

[Spindel]

8 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

In that case the company that forced the institution of the DRM would be the company that owes money.

It has always been the music and movie industry that force DRM on the online vendors. 

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, Spindel said:

It has always been the music and movie industry that force DRM on the online vendors. 

The music industry is exceptionally messed up even for an industry.  There’s just a whole lot that seems hinky with this thing.  I’m glad there’s a judge somewhere who can unwind this greasy ball of yarn.  This one may take a while.

[avg123]

When you "buy" a movie, you are not actually "buying" a $100 million movie.

 

You are just buying a license to the movie. The license is provided by the movie rights owner, not the owner of the medium of delivery. iTunes or the company who made that blu ray disc is not providing you the license, the movie rights owner is.

 

The license is perpetual. As long as you hold on to the physical disc or iTunes account, you own the license perpetually. You can watch the movie as many times you want for as long as you want. 

 

But the medium is not guaranteed or perpetual. The medium is your physical disc or the iTunes account. 

Just because you bought a blu-ray disc does not mean you are entitled to a replacement disc if ever your original disc is damaged or lost.

If your disc is damaged or lost, you lose access to your movie.

 

THE SAME APPLIES TO YOUR ITUNES ACCOUNT. You lose access to your itunes account, you lose access to your movie. 

iTunes is just medium through which you access your movie license.

 

[XWAUForceflow]

44 minutes ago, avg123 said:

THE SAME APPLIES TO YOUR ITUNES ACCOUNT. You lose access to your itunes account, you lose access to your movie. 

iTunes is just medium through which you access your movie license.

 

Yes, and the court case is about whether or not companies (in this case Apple, but it goes much farther than this) should be able to decide at their own discretion if they want to block you from the account or not.
This is not about whether or not they should never be able to block you, but rather if there needs to be a better more transparent way which can be challenged by the customer or not. Because right now according to the lawsuit Apple apparently can do so without notice, explanation, policy or process.

I am not saying that this is true, but this appears to be what the case is about and I think it would be really good if companies would be forced to be much more transparent and open about this.

[Tenelia]

On 4/23/2021 at 10:30 PM, RejZoR said:

I know everyone loves to shit on Apple constantly, but I'd absolutely like to know why his account was terminated. Coz I don't see how Apple would just randomly terminate someone's account for no reason what so ever. And really, that is the most important part. Coz you really need to screw something really badly that they terminate not only your account but also all content associated with it.

Yeah... Every company has pretty unique process flops.

E.g. Google wiped the Terraria developer's Google account (all across Google) without justification or even a proper response, and most people are betting that an AI or algorithm must have flopped.

e.g. Microsoft freezing an account because someone's OneDrive was detected to have "Copyrighted" content (whatever that means)...

 

None of that is right, but there's always a reason to start with.

[RejZoR]

On 4/25/2021 at 7:29 AM, Bombastinator said:

The music industry is exceptionally messed up even for an industry.  There’s just a whole lot that seems hinky with this thing.  I’m glad there’s a judge somewhere who can unwind this greasy ball of yarn.  This one may take a while.

It's why I don't buy music from the big ones who use some bullshit delivery methods like locked in streaming. I did however buy bunch of music from indie performers who sell music as an MP3 or FLAC that you can actually backup and actually own. And use anywhere you like, on your phone, in your car, on your MP3 player etc. Some even offer how much you're willing to pay for a song and in all those cases I've offered much more than it was listed initially. Because I felt they deserve it because they play it honestly and not scummy like the big music industry.

[Arika]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

It's why I don't buy music from the big ones who use some bullshit delivery methods like locked in streaming. I did however buy bunch of music from indie performers who sell music as an MP3 or FLAC that you can actually backup and actually own. And use anywhere you like, on your phone, in your car, on your MP3 player etc. Some even offer how much you're willing to pay for a song and in all those cases I've offered much more than it was listed initially. Because I felt they deserve it because they play it honestly and not scummy like the big music industry.

I don't even like streaming services for the same reason. If I can't have an mp3/flac/any audio file I can transfer to wherever I like, I'm not paying for shit 

 

I actually bought some music off iTunes because I couldn't find it anywhere else and was pleasantly surprised that you are given a raw file that you can do what ever you want with it 

[KaitouX]

4 hours ago, avg123 said:

The license is perpetual. As long as you hold on to the physical disc or iTunes account, you own the license perpetually. You can watch the movie as many times you want for as long as you want. 

 

But the medium is not guaranteed or perpetual. The medium is your physical disc or the iTunes account. 

Just because you bought a blu-ray disc does not mean you are entitled to a replacement disc if ever your original disc is damaged or lost.

If your disc is damaged or lost, you lose access to your movie.

The issue here is the fact that the seller can revoke your access to the medium whenever they want without even having to explain the reason why they want to do it. If someone loses access to their account because they lost the password/email that's their issue, but the company blocking it is another completely different issue.

 

That would be like if the Blu-ray publisher could remotely break the disks if they decided you did something wrong.

[agatong55]

Has Apple released anything regarding this yet?

[WhitetailAni]

2 hours ago, Tenelia said:

Yeah... Every company has pretty unique process flops.

E.g. Google wiped the Terraria developer's Google account (all across Google) without justification or even a proper response, and most people are betting that an AI or algorithm must have flopped.

e.g. Microsoft freezing an account because someone's OneDrive was detected to have "Copyrighted" content (whatever that means)...

 

None of that is right, but there's always a reason to start with.

I'm amazed Google hasn't kicked me out yet for uploading Windows ISOs.

Thankfully they haven't caught on to my method of using 7zip to split the ISO into multiple parts. I then name then "7 part 1", "Vista part 2", "98 SE part 1", etc.

7 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

That would be like if the Blu-ray publisher could remotely break the disks if they decided you did something wrong.

Good thing Sony doesn't know how to do that.

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

I don't even like streaming services for the same reason. If I can't have an mp3/flac/any audio file I can transfer to wherever I like, I'm not paying for shit 

 

I actually bought some music off iTunes because I couldn't find it anywhere else and was pleasantly surprised that you are given a raw file that you can do what ever you want with it 

But is in M4A format, isn't it? Or is it AAC ?

[Tenelia]

22 minutes ago, FakeKGB said:

I'm amazed Google hasn't kicked me out yet for uploading Windows ISOs.

Thankfully they haven't caught on to my method of using 7zip to split the ISO into multiple parts. I then name then "7 part 1", "Vista part 2", "98 SE part 1", etc.

Every engineering team has only so much time and energy to work on issues. Some more urgent than others.

[Arika]

33 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

But is in M4A format, isn't it? Or is it AAC ?

Yeah, M4A. But everything i have that plays music (which is mainly my DAP) can play it without issue. But i can copy it all over the place and play it on essentially anything. I'm not sure what iTunes "actual" TOS says, but i have the files and they cannot stop me from accessing them (unless for some reason my harddrive, backup harddrive, DAP and phone all shit the bed at the same time and i have to re-download it).

[RejZoR]

3 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Yeah, M4A. But everything i have that plays music (which is mainly my DAP) can play it without issue. But i can copy it all over the place and play it on essentially anything. I'm not sure what iTunes "actual" TOS says, but i have the files and they cannot stop me from accessing them (unless for some reason my harddrive, backup harddrive, DAP and phone all shit the bed at the same time and i have to re-download it).

I mean, GOG also has DRM free games and you can just copy them everywhere, but I'm pretty strict about it. If they were honest and gave us DRM free, I'm keeping my "promise" too and not share stuff with anyone.

[spartaman64]

On 4/24/2021 at 3:36 AM, RejZoR said:

Yeah, the reasons kinda fucking matter. You know, reasons are what sets apart a murderer from someone just defending themselves and killing someone in the process of doing so. But hey, reasons just don't matter at all to you all. Feels like I woke up in a twilight zone where everyone is suddenly stupid.

 

I just stated various reasons that COULD lead to account termination and in the end stated that we DON'T KNOW what the reason actually was because it's NOT STATED anywhere. But it seems reading comprehension is entirely alien concept to you lot so I'm just gonna back off for my own sanity sake. You keep on doing the hurr durr dance lynching Apple. It's not because I'm a fan of Apple, it's because I'm not a fan of lynching and bullshit. Especially when everyone seems to be doing it on basis of literally nothing. Yet you all somehow manage to justify it. Is that the hill you wanna die on? Apparently yes.

as other people said if you go to a store drunk and start breaking stuff they rightfully get to ban you from the store and charge you for whatever damages you caused. but they dont get to also go to your house and take back everything you bought from them. apple could lockdown his account so he cant purchase things etc but they shouldnt restrict him from stuff he bought.

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

as other people said if you go to a store drunk and start breaking stuff they rightfully get to ban you from the store and charge you for whatever damages you caused. but they dont get to also go to your house and take back everything you bought from them. apple could lockdown his account so he cant purchase things etc but they shouldnt restrict him from stuff he bought.

And again, we STILL don't know what the reason was. We're 4 pages deep and all people have done is run a witch hunt on basis of: "Apple bad, reeeeeeeeeeee."

 

Which is why I refuse to condemn Apple until I do.

[IkeaGnome]

16 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

And again, we STILL don't know what the reason was. We're 4 pages deep and all people have done is run a witch hunt on basis of: "Apple bad, reeeeeeeeeeee."

 

Which is why I refuse to condemn Apple until I do.

It's a class action lawsuit.

https://www.scribd.com/document/503818550/Price-v-Apple#from_embed

It also looks like it's not necessarily about HOW or WHY he got banned, just that people can arbitrarily get banned(Apple isn't the only company that does this). 

Spoiler

 

It looks like another catch point for the case is that the plaintiff had $7 and change in unspent funds that he can't get back.

Spoiler

It looks to me like they are trying to actually get TOS treated like a normal contract. 

[Bombastinator]

31 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

It's a class action lawsuit.

https://www.scribd.com/document/503818550/Price-v-Apple#from_embed

It also looks like it's not necessarily about HOW or WHY he got banned, just that people can arbitrarily get banned(Apple isn't the only company that does this). 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

It looks like another catch point for the case is that the plaintiff had $7 and change in unspent funds that he can't get back.

  Reveal hidden contents

It looks to me like they are trying to actually get TOS treated like a normal contract. 

I was under the impression that TOSes were potentially pretty horrifying precisely because they were more or less normal contracts.  I didn’t realize they were even worse.

[IkeaGnome]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

I was under the impression that TOSes were potentially pretty horrifying precisely because they were more or less normal contracts.  I didn’t realize they were even worse.

I think they're trying to get rid of the arbitrary "We can delete your account at any time with no reasoning" and then not giving reasons to bans when there's a paid service involved.