Jury Finds Apple Not-Guilty - DRM Found To Be Good For Consumers

[GoodBytes]

Apple was brought to court in a class action suits about iTunes and iPod centering on extra security measures implemented in 2006.

Marianna Rosen and Melanie Wilson, brought the lawsuit against Apple with nearly 8 million affected people, where they were claiming the company used a DRM system named FairPlay, to block competing digital music services from putting their music on iPods devices.

A jury of 8 placed an unanimous verdict that Apple is innocent and that said Apple's iTunes 7.0, the first version implemented the DRM with iPods, was a "genuine product improvement", meaning it was good for consumer.

An eight-person jury has decided that Apple is not on the hook for what could have been more than $1 billion in a trial centering on extra security measures the company added to iTunes and iPods starting in 2006.

Delivering a unanimous verdict today, the group said Apple's iTunes 7.0, released in the fall of 2006, was a "genuine product improvement," meaning that new features (though importantly increased security) were good for consumers. Plaintiffs in the case unsuccessfully argued that those features not only thwarted competition, but also made Apple's products less useful since customers could not as easily use purchased music or jukebox software from other companies with the iPod.

The decision means that Apple did not violate antitrust laws, and saved itself from paying a potential 1 billion dollars to consumers for damages.

Source: http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/16/7402695/jury-decision-in-iTunes-iPod-DRM-case

[SeanBond]

Drm good for consumers. Yep. Sounds about right to me.

[Sidiox]

Does that jury know stuff about tech and DRM? I don't particularly mind the verdict, as long as they knew what they were talking about. 

[EcoBoost]

Eww

[SpagettiNinja]

Does that jury know stuff about tech and DRM? I don't particularly mind the verdict, as long as they knew what they were talking about. 

 

Of course they dont. Those general juries dont know about anything except basic law.

[Laputacake]

Drm good for consumers. Yep. Sounds about right to me.

Just imagining Ubisoft sitting in a corner laughing mischievously with a spade

[SOLO_AVENGER]

I wonder how much they paid the jury!

[fringie]

Brb shooting myself in the face.

[Dietrichw]

"DRM Found To Be Good For Consumers" well that was taken out of context. Apple's fairplay DRM helped prove to record companies that music can be distributed digitally and not turn into a complete mess of piracy. If Apple didn't do this we wouldn't have the music streaming services we have now, Apple's DRM helped bring the music distribution industry into the digital age much faster.

 

IF it was used in the present day then yes it would be very anti competitive, but this was 2006 when there was still a lot of uncertainty about distributing music digitally and it helped establish the validity of digital music distribution to record companies.  

 

This case wasn't about DRM being good or bad for consumers, it was about Apples use of DRM to thwart other companies. In the end the jury decided that Apple was working to get record companies to distribute music digitally which made more content available to consumers rather than thwarting competitors.

[brownninja97]

i believe they were bribed

[PowerPigeon]

Apple doesn't even use FairPlay anymore though. Why does it matter anymore?

[IdortMasterRace]

DRM Found To Be Good For Consumers

 

But no kind of DRM is good for consumers.

[LAwLz]

Apple doesn't even use FairPlay anymore though. Why does it matter anymore?

Because the legal system is slow as balls and it took until now to get a verdict.

 

 

 

"DRM Found To Be Good For Consumers" well that was taken out of context. Apple's fairplay DRM helped prove to record companies that music can be distributed digitally and not turn into a complete mess of piracy. If Apple didn't do this we wouldn't have the music streaming services we have now, Apple's DRM helped bring the music distribution industry into the digital age much faster.

 

IF it was used in the present day then yes it would be very anti competitive, but this was 2006 when there was still a lot of uncertainty about distributing music digitally and it helped establish the validity of digital music distribution to record companies.  

 

This case wasn't about DRM being good or bad for consumers, it was about Apples use of DRM to thwart other companies. In the end the jury decided that Apple was working to get record companies to distribute music digitally which made more content available to consumers rather than thwarting competitors.

That's a load of bullshit.

1) Apple refused to license the technology to anyone. If they really wanted to just help bring digital music to the market then they would have licensed it.

2) Apple actively blocked other music brought through stores such as RealPlayer Music from working on the iPod. The music worked at first, then Apple released a patch to block it. Apple clearly wanted a monopoly on music that worked on the iPod. Didn't get your music from Apple? Then you couldn't play it on your iPod. If Apple wasn't out for money then they would have allowed music from other stores as well. The record labels were already okay with selling their music through other stores such as RealPlayer.

3) Apple has admitted to deleting music that were bought from competitors stores without telling users. Their reasons for not telling the users were “We don’t need to give users too much information,” and “We don’t want to confuse users.”.

 

You're arguing that Apple did it to make more music available in their stores, but that's clearly not the case. Apple went out of the way to block any music not bought from them. That's anti competitive and anti consumer.

[zacRupnow]

Reminds me of the beginning of this great movie, but not the end because in reality one smart guy can't change how stupid and ignorant all the others are.

[Bouvie_11]

Well in that case.....

[mr moose]

Does that jury know stuff about tech and DRM? I don't particularly mind the verdict, as long as they knew what they were talking about. 

 

They didn't,  just like the big samsung v apple case a few years back, it took the jury less than a  day to deliberate (from memory) 634 pieces of detailed IP legislation 100 pages of orders to process and a 20 page verdict form to fill out.   The same evidence it took lawyers years to set the case up from and the court 3 weeks to debate.  

 

The jury in these cases do not know what they are deliberating on.

[Sidiox]

They didn't,  just like the big samsung v apple case a few years back, it took the jury less than a  day to deliberate (from memory) 634 pieces of detailed IP legislation 100 pages of orders to process and a 20 page verdict form to fill out.   The same evidence it took lawyers years to set the case up from and the court 3 weeks to debate.  

 

The jury in these cases do not know what they are deliberating on.

Well I don't know anything about the American jury system, but that is just plain fucking stupid..... The american government disappoints me once again, how surprising. 

How the hell can you let people decide about this if they probably don't even know what DRM is?

The same also goes for the judges in other cases though, those should be assisted by people that actually know what they are talking about.

[mr moose]

Well I don't know anything about the American jury system, but that is just plain fucking stupid..... The american government disappoints me once again, how surprising. 

How the hell can you let people decide about this if they probably don't even know what DRM is?

The same also goes for the judges in other cases though, those should be assisted by people that actually know what they are talking about.

And to make it worse when the jury did decide apple were in the wrong (because it was as obvious as day and un-arguable) the president overruled the decision claiming it would hurt the economy too much.   My only response to that is if the economy is in danger then stop with these fucking stupid court cases, let investors develop a sense of confidence in the market and watch them start pouring money into the economy again.

[Sidiox]

And to make it worse when the jury did decide apple were in the wrong (because it was as obvious as day and un-arguable) the president overruled the decision claiming it would hurt the economy too much.   My only response to that is if the economy is in danger then stop with these fucking stupid court cases, let investors develop a sense of confidence in the market and watch them start pouring money into the economy again.

Wow, if that is true.....

That would be, ehm, weird to say the least. A financial interest overrules the law, that could create some very interesting situations... (with that I mean problems ofc)

Well yeah if the result of the court case can't be that Apple (or insert any other big company) is wrong because that would not be good for the economy, then it is a waste of money to even have such a case, and those cases as far as I have seen cost a lot often to set up with the lawyers and all.

I can understand that taking out a giant tech company wouldn't be good to the fragile economy and I get that they don't want to do that, but atleast punish them somehow, by fining them or something, this is just weird, make enough money and you can do whatever you want.

(as I said before in another thread, no big company's product will ever be banned, they are simply too big for that)

[mr moose]

Wow, if that is true.....

That would be, ehm, weird to say the least. A financial interest overrules the law, that could create some very interesting situations... (with that I mean problems ofc)

Well yeah if the result of the court case can't be that Apple (or insert any other big company) is wrong because that would not be good for the economy, then it is a waste of money to even have such a case, and those cases as far as I have seen cost a lot often to set up with the lawyers and all.

I can understand that taking out a giant tech company wouldn't be good to the fragile economy and I get that they don't want to do that, but atleast punish them somehow, by fining them or something, this is just weird, make enough money and you can do whatever you want.

(as I said before in another thread, no big company's product will ever be banned, they are simply too big for that)

 

Sorry, I need to update that last post I made,  obama overruled it on the patent type ( a technicality).

 

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-overrules-apple-import-ban-201402283.html

 

But the same outcome and reasoning is evident.

[Dietrichw]

Because the legal system is slow as balls and it took until now to get a verdict.

 

 

 

That's a load of bullshit.

1) Apple refused to license the technology to anyone. If they really wanted to just help bring digital music to the market then they would have licensed it.

2) Apple actively blocked other music brought through stores such as RealPlayer Music from working on the iPod. The music worked at first, then Apple released a patch to block it. Apple clearly wanted a monopoly on music that worked on the iPod. Didn't get your music from Apple? Then you couldn't play it on your iPod. If Apple wasn't out for money then they would have allowed music from other stores as well. The record labels were already okay with selling their music through other stores such as RealPlayer.

3) Apple has admitted to deleting music that were bought from competitors stores without telling users. Their reasons for not telling the users were “We don’t need to give users too much information,” and “We don’t want to confuse users.”.

 

You're arguing that Apple did it to make more music available in their stores, but that's clearly not the case. Apple went out of the way to block any music not bought from them. That's anti competitive and anti consumer.

Apple didn't have the rights to play music protected with other forms of DRM, if Apple continued to allow itunes to work with other DRM types without licensing then Apple would have gotten sued. Apple also did not block all music that was not form the itunes store, users could play music that was not protected with DRM like music taken from CDs. 

[LAwLz]

Apple didn't have the rights to play music protected with other forms of DRM, if Apple continued to allow itunes to work with other DRM types without licensing then Apple would have gotten sued. Apple also did not block all music that was not form the itunes store, users could play music that was not protected with DRM like music taken from CDs. 

[Citation Needed]

What actually happened was that RealNetworks allowed DRM protected music from their store to be converted to a format that was compatible with FairPlay (Apple's DRM). It was RealNetworks that developed and allowed this because they had their own store. Apple threatened with legal actions and later blocked those audio files from being played. Apple was at no risk of being sued because it was RealNetworks themselves that made it possible to play music from their store on the iPod.

[LifesCompanion]

Oh god. What the fuck?

It makes sense but just because it makes sense, it doesn't mean it's the correct choice.

[Dietrichw]

[Citation Needed]

What actually happened was that RealNetworks allowed DRM protected music from their store to be converted to a format that was compatible with FairPlay (Apple's DRM). It was RealNetworks that developed and allowed this because they had their own store. Apple threatened with legal actions and later blocked those audio files from being played. Apple was at no risk of being sued because it was RealNetworks themselves that made it possible to play music from their store on the iPod.

so you expect Apple to go to them and say "Hey, we noticed you are selling music that works with our DRM system without proper licensing. How about we give you the proper licensing because what you are currently doing is reason for us to sue you and shut you down" 

Hell no! Apple had every right to block it since RealNetworks was doing that without proper licensing.

[LAwLz]

so you expect Apple to go to them and say "Hey, we noticed you are selling music that works with our DRM system without proper licensing. How about we give you the proper licensing because what you are currently doing is reason for us to sue you and shut you down" 

Hell no! Apple had every right to block it since RealNetworks was doing that without proper licensing.

No I didn't/don't expect Apple to do that because Apple is a terrible company.

What it does prove however is that they were not just acting for the good of the consumers like you are trying to pretend. They were acting in anti competitive and anti consumer ways.

 

If they had been acting for the good of the consumer then they would have allowed it to continue, but that would mean Apple wouldn't be able to have a monopoly on DRM protected music on the iPod like they wanted.