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

[Dietrichw]

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.

You hate on Apple just because it has Apple's name on it without regard to what really happened. Apple actually took the high road by only blocking it, they could have completely ended RealNetworks but chose to do the better thing and only block it on their products. Apple just turned away and moved on with developing digital music distribution which earned the trust of record companies. Apple's best interest was earning the trust of record companies to make more content available to consumers, that is what I have been argueing the whole time.

[LAwLz]

You hate on Apple just because it has Apple's name on it without regard to what really happened. Apple actually took the high road by only blocking it, they could have completely ended RealNetworks but chose to do the better thing and only block it on their products. Apple just turned away and moved on with developing digital music distribution which earned the trust of record companies.

No I am not just "hating on Apple". I am saying that Apple did not act in the interest of the consumers because they were actively trying to block competitors.

You are so full of crap when you try to pretend like Apple was only trying to help consumers. If they tried to help consumers they would not have deleted legally purchased songs just because they were bought from a different store. If they wanted to help spread digital distribution they would have licensed the DRM to others, but they refused to do that. They wanted a monopoly and that's basically what they had for quite some time.

 

I actually buy the idea that Apple only used DRM to gain the trust of record labels. I agree with you on that. What I don't agree with is that you are trying to twist Apple deleting music, refusing to share the technology and actively blocking music bought from other stores into something that was good for anyone other than Apple. They were acting purely out of self interest on that, at the expense of their competitors and the consumers. I am going to list my points again, and I want you to respond to each one of them and explain how they benefited the consumer or Apple's competitors:

 

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.”.

 

Don't try to spew bullshit like "you're only hating on them because they are Apple" when I have given you a list of things that were bad for competition and consumers. That argument carries as much weight as me saying "you're just defending them because they are Apple" (and that "argument" means absolutely nothing).

 

 

 

Here is a quick and unbiased summary of what happened for anyone not familiar.

1) Record labels are scared that if they sell music digitally it will just get stolen.

2) Apple works with the record labels and develops a proprietary DRM called FairPlay that only worked with Apple products. Music which uses pre-existing DRM does not work on iTunes or iPods.

3) RealNetworks, another company who sold DRM protected music, contacts Apple asking if Apple could license the DRM to them so that music bought from their store would work on iPods. Apple refused.

4) RealNetworks releases a program that converts music bought from their store into a format that is compatible with FairPlay, allowing their customers to listen to the legally bought music on their iPods.

5) Apple becomes furious, threatens to take legal action against RealNetworks. They also release an update which stops the converted files from working. On top of that they also release an update that removes the files from the customers' iPods without telling the customers. Apple states that they did not inform their customers that the update would delete their music because that would just confuse people.

 

 

I can see how point 1 and the first part of point 2 could benefit consumers, but the other 3 and ½ are bad for consumers and competitors.

[Dietrichw]

No I am not just "hating on Apple". I am saying that Apple did not act in the interest of the consumers because they were actively trying to block competitors.

You are so full of crap when you try to pretend like Apple was only trying to help consumers. If they tried to help consumers they would not have deleted legally purchased songs just because they were bought from a different store. If they wanted to help spread digital distribution they would have licensed the DRM to others, but they refused to do that. They wanted a monopoly and that's basically what they had for quite some time.

 

I actually buy the idea that Apple only used DRM to gain the trust of record labels. I agree with you on that. What I don't agree with is that you are trying to twist Apple deleting music, refusing to share the technology and actively blocking music bought from other stores into something that was good for anyone other than Apple. They were acting purely out of self interest on that, at the expense of their competitors and the consumers. I am going to list my points again, and I want you to respond to each one of them and explain how they benefited the consumer or Apple's competitors:

 

 

Don't try to spew bullshit like "you're only hating on them because they are Apple" when I have given you a list of things that were bad for competition and consumers. That argument carries as much weight as me saying "you're just defending them because they are Apple" (and that "argument" means absolutely nothing).

 

 

 

Here is a quick and unbiased summary of what happened for anyone not familiar.

1) Record labels are scared that if they sell music digitally it will just get stolen.

2) Apple works with the record labels and develops a proprietary DRM called FairPlay that only worked with Apple products. Music which uses pre-existing DRM does not work on iTunes or iPods.

3) RealNetworks, another company who sold DRM protected music, contacts Apple asking if Apple could license the DRM to them so that music bought from their store would work on iPods. Apple refused.

4) RealNetworks releases a program that converts music bought from their store into a format that is compatible with FairPlay, allowing their customers to listen to the legally bought music on their iPods.

5) Apple becomes furious, threatens to take legal action against RealNetworks. They also release an update which stops the converted files from working. On top of that they also release an update that removes the files from the customers' iPods without telling the customers. Apple states that they did not inform their customers that the update would delete their music because that would just confuse people.

 

 

I can see how point 1 and the first part of point 2 could benefit consumers, but the other 3 and ½ are bad for consumers and competitors.

1) licensing is a two sided thing, just because Apple and RealPlayer couldn't come to a licensing agreement doesn't mean Apple just outright refused them. You can't assume that it was solely Apple's fault that there wasn't a license agreement.

2) if there was evidence that other music stores with DRM approached Apple with reasonable terms for licensing for other DRM types to work on iTunes and iPods then Apple blocking music from other music platforms would be a legitimate argument, but there is no evidence of that. Apple had to block other DRM types if they didn't have the license

3) this was 2006, most people wouldn't be able to understand DRM and licensing laws so Apples vague message about why iTunes removed the music from iPods makes sense. Not great but makes sense

[Techhog]

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 know that Apple's money was very useful to them this holiday season.

[mr moose]

1) licensing is a two sided thing, just because Apple and RealPlayer couldn't come to a licensing agreement doesn't mean Apple just outright refused them. You can't assume that it was solely Apple's fault that there wasn't a license agreement.

2) if there was evidence that other music stores with DRM approached Apple with reasonable terms for licensing for other DRM types to work on iTunes and iPods then Apple blocking music from other music platforms would be a legitimate argument, but there is no evidence of that. Apple had to block other DRM types if they didn't have the license

3) this was 2006, most people wouldn't be able to understand DRM and licensing laws so Apples vague message about why iTunes removed the music from iPods makes sense. Not great but makes sense

 

1. license agreement argument is moot,  apple deleted legal files legitimately purchased from a consumers device without their knowledge and thus without their permission.  No one has the right to delete personal data off my private property let alone private data that is 100% legitimate and legal. 

 

2. Is all hearsay.  there could have been no other companies or there could have been 100 all trying to get their DRM to work on ipods.  The fact is we can only form an opinion based on what we know.  See point one for what we know.

 

3. Speaking as an enthusiast from way back in the 80's and watching the impact tech has on society it is rather ignorant to assume people didn't understand DRM in 2006.  But then you may not have been aware of it yourself or too young to remember.  

[IdeaStormer]

Apple is headed to the Sony way of doing things, eventually only iTunes on iPlayer (made that up to mean Apple only stuff) hardware which leads to no one buying it, yea that will work :lol:

[Darkman]

RIP SSDs

(Anyone remember what DRM kills SSDs? )

[PortentousLad]

Is it actually possible to fire judges/juries or politicians for being absolutely clueless dimwits?

 

...WENN ICH KÖNIG VON DEUTSCHLAND WÄR!!!

[Mooshi]

Who even cares for the standard ipod anymore when most people use their smartphones and other portable devices like handhelds? If you care about good sound, you wouldn't go for an ipod anyway when there are better players out there that actually focuses on audio quality without forcing software on you like Apple does with itunes.

[GoodBytes]

Who even cares for the standard ipod anymore when most people use their smartphones and other portable devices like handhelds? If you care about good sound, you wouldn't go for an ipod anyway when there are better players out there that actually focuses on audio quality without forcing software on you like Apple does with itunes.

So are you saying that companies can do what they want, screw over the consumer completely, and by the time it gets to court, which takes several years, it no longer relevent, and can continue this behavior with future products and do even more anti-consumer actions?

[rentaspoon]

@GoodBytes http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/apple-anti-trust-case-hangs-in-the-balance-due-to-lack-of-eligible-plaintiffs/

For once I believe Apple, I never had trouble putting MP3s on my ipod and then playing them on my MP3 stereo

[Psykomantis00]

Clickbait title from a butthurt anti apple fanboy. Who ever would have though. 

[Victorious Secret]

RIP SSDs

(Anyone remember what DRM kills SSDs? )

 

Anybody remember how that was 100% sensationalist bullshit that came from a single dodgy Russian source and was never verified to be true? 

RIP critical thinking. 

[mr moose]

Anybody remember how that was 100% sensationalist bullshit that came from a single dodgy Russian source and was never verified to be true? 

RIP critical thinking. 

Critical thinking is long dead now,  unfortunately they forgot to bury the body leaving us with the illusion it may still exist.

[Master Disaster]

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)

Have you seen The Wolf Of Wall Street? The scene from the end of the movie sums up American justice perfectly.

This is after he's robbed millions of dollars from thousands of people, millions of dollars from the IRS, broken just about every business law in the country, shot his wife, crashed his car while so high he didn't even realise he was driving, sold cocaine & other drugs and countless other crimes... (remember its a true story folks)

Off topic: the best movie I saw all year.