Apple Faces Suit Over iPod-iTunes Link

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Earlier today Apple said the company is facing several federal lawsuits for allegedly creating an illegal monopoly by tying iTunes to iPods.

The case, filed July 21, is over Apple's use of a copy-protection system that generally prevents iTunes music and video from playing on rival players. Likewise, songs purchased elsewhere aren't easily playable on iPods.
Click to expand...
 
Well, Zune will be next. Then plays-for-sure devices.

While none of us like this lock-in crap, Apple is hardly the only one doing it.

-Larry
 
I'm still trying to understand how anything to do with iPod or iTunes constitutes a monopoly. There are plenty of other players available. There are plenty of other ways to purchase music and video available. You don't have to purchase an iPod if you want a digital music player. You don't have to purchase iTunes music or video if you want digital media files. You don't have to have an iPod to purchase iTunes music or video. You don't have to purchase iTunes music and video if you own an iPod. Where is the monopoly?

I guess they're defining iTunes files as a class of product. As a class of product, there must be competition in selling it, so Apple must allow others to sell iTunes files?

Or is it that iTunes and the iPod have such a sales lead over their competition that they must be cheating? Maybe Apple is doing steroids?
 
Dumb lawsuit.

I'm with Vryce. People just can't stand Apple's success. They had a good idea and people are trying to punish them.

They didn't create iPods and make sure no one else made any other portable audio devices. What about car companies who offer special packages? You can't use them on other cars. Is that a monopoly?

The iPod is their player, and iTunes supplements it. They did nothing wrong, and there are almost too many other options. This lawsuit is implying that iPods and iTunes are the best.

I agree that iTunes music isn't as friendly to other players, but I wouldn't say that rival media is easily playable on iPods. With so many options for conversion, anything can be made compatible if it isn't already.
 
Vryce said:
I'm still trying to understand how anything to do with iPod or iTunes constitutes a monopoly. There are plenty of other players available. There are plenty of other ways to purchase music and video available. You don't have to purchase an iPod if you want a digital music player. You don't have to purchase iTunes music or video if you want digital media files. You don't have to have an iPod to purchase iTunes music or video. You don't have to purchase iTunes music and video if you own an iPod. Where is the monopoly?

I guess they're defining iTunes files as a class of product. As a class of product, there must be competition in selling it, so Apple must allow others to sell iTunes files?

Or is it that iTunes and the iPod have such a sales lead over their competition that they must be cheating? Maybe Apple is doing steroids?
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right. You can buy an iPod and you don't have to buy music or videos from iTunes. This means you are limiting yourself to your own collection of CDs or DVDs that you can rip, or "free" content that you "find" on the web.

Now consider music and videos you don't have in your collection that are not available in CD or DVD formats. Where are you going to buy it legally? Well, if you have an iPod, you're locked into using iTunes. Also, if iTunes doesn't have it, and it happens to be on Rhapsody, Napster, MovieLink or CinemaNow, you're definitely SOL since Apple doesn't want to open up their iPod to those services.
 
mung3r said:
Now consider music and videos you don't have in your collection that are not available in CD or DVD formats. Where are you going to buy it legally? Well, if you have an iPod, you're locked into using iTunes. Also, if iTunes doesn't have it, and it happens to be on Rhapsody, Napster, MovieLink or CinemaNow, you're definitely SOL since Apple doesn't want to open up their iPod to those services.
Click to expand...

umm.. correct me if im wrong (and i've got an ipod that I use with itunes) but whats stopping you from buying songs off rhapsody (or some other website that puts an mp3 file format onto your computer) and doing import to library> pick your song...

then its on itunes and the next time you plug in your ipod its been updated with your new song
 
This is a joke. There are alternatives. If you don't like it don't buy an iPod.
 
mung3r said:
Now consider music and videos you don't have in your collection that are not available in CD or DVD formats. Where are you going to buy it legally? Well, if you have an iPod, you're locked into using iTunes.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

If you have a collection in the first place, then you're buying music. You don't have to stop buying CDs and DVDs because you now have an iPod.

There are many conversion apps for music and movies, some that are even free. If the lawsuit focused more on the time and hassle rather than the difficulty, then maybe it would redeem some credibility.

I have over 5000 mp3s on my iPod, none of which came from iTunes. CDex or other apps to rip music, add them to iTunes, and click-and-drag to my iPod.

I've also found reasonable apps to convert my DVDs to mp4. If iTunes doesn't think my iPod can play that movie, iTunes will convert it.

There is absolutely nothing "locking" people to iTunes, save for musical performances held specifically by iTunes. What, are they gonna sue the musicians for harboring Apple's monopoly?
 
the lawsuit doesn't have anything to do with itunes purchased songs or the ipod itself. just rather the exact reason i will never own an ipod, the fact you have to use itunes to use an ipod. i hate itunes with a passion and cant get it to work to my taste so i said screw it and got something else. this lawsuit is aimed at opening ipod support to anyone who wants to write a driver for it, therefore eliminating the "monopoly" itunes has over controlling an ipod.

yes any file can be added and converted to itunes but it is forcing you to use their software to interface with it.

if this does in face go through i will have mixed emotions about it... some programs i have liked in the past were built to accommodate a device and they may disappear as theres no drive to create your own software suite if you have to share the profits.
 
KennyT said:
the fact you have to use itunes to use an ipod.
Click to expand...
Wrong. You don't have to use iTunes at all. There are quite a few programs (not all free) that will let you explore and add/remove media from your iPod.

I like Mediafour's XPlay. You can also use Rockbox, Anapod, and Ephpod to name a few.

Plus you can tell iTunes that you'll deal with your iPod manually, thus making it a removable hard drive.

I'm sorry that you're so strongly against iTunes.
 
Sorry. Rockbox isn't an iPod explorer. It's jukebox software to replace or use instead of the native firmware.

Anapod and Ephpod are iPod explorers.

You can also check out iPodLinux, which can even play basic games.
 
GJSNeptune said:
You can also check out iPodLinux, which can even play basic games.
Click to expand...
So can rockbox, it's got doom included, one just needs to install the .wad files...... and a couple of other games, plus I believe a gameboy emulator............
 
^Case in point.

People are narrow-minded about Apple. Sometimes when I first try software and hate it, I revisit it awhile later and I realize it isn't so bad. I didn't like iTunes at first. At all. Then I started using it to edit mp3 information. I actually didn't like how it made my songs sound compared to Winamp3.

Actually I have a 60GB Video iPod because my girlfriend bought me one for christmas. By then I didn't mind iTunes, and I've used the store quite a bit. Maybe I can sue my girlfriend.



Besides, Apple products are highly reliable. The newegg of electronic devices. How many of you have researched mp3 and portable audio players? iPods just about always have the best ratings. Zune didn't get off to a good start, a lot of people recommend Creative, but then a lot say they have a lot of problems with them.

iRiver is also expensive like Apple, but they make pretty good stuff. I don't think anyone can beat Apple's clickwheel though. Interface is the usual shortcoming of non-Apple audio players.

I know it's subjective, but lawsuits like this one are wastes of time.
 
It may be premature, but it's certainly true that Apple is using iTunes/iPod to lock people into the iPod. Now if you're buying CD's and encoding your own songs, then it's irrelevant, but if you buy an iPod, and you want to buy songs online, you're mostly limited to iTunes...but more than that, if you buy a song in iTunes, you cannot play it on any player other than the iPod. If you want to switch players to the Zune, Samsung or iRiver, you either have to rebuy that music or do a lossy to lossy transcode (unacceptable to anyone who actually cares about audio quality).

If the tables were turned, and it was MS that was locking people into the zune, virtually nobody would defend MS (and rightfully so...the Zune model (a clone of apples) is anticompetitive and bad for the consumer).

There's absolutley no reason for Apple not to license Fairplay to other companies, accept that Apple wants people that buys songs on iTunes to be locked into the iPod.

The Zune model is jsut as bad, but at least the original Apple DRM was licensed to everyone.

Apple may prevail this round, but if their dominance continues, they will eventually be considered a monopoly.
 
Vryce said:
I'm still trying to understand how anything to do with iPod or iTunes constitutes a monopoly. There are plenty of other players available. There are plenty of other ways to purchase music and video available. You don't have to purchase an iPod if you want a digital music player. You don't have to purchase iTunes music or video if you want digital media files. You don't have to have an iPod to purchase iTunes music or video. You don't have to purchase iTunes music and video if you own an iPod. Where is the monopoly?
Click to expand...

Well said. It sounds like a crybaby frivolous lawsuit to me.

Besides, how long has the ipod been out now? Someone's a little late to the party. Or it was probably done purposely so the plaintiff has a better chance of getting a big settlement.

I hope the plaintiff loses and goes bankrupt.
 
The problem is that once you buy iTunes music there is no legal means in transfering that music to other players. You are therefore locked into the iPod to use music that you legally bought. That's the hang up, there is a major issue with that.
 
GJSNeptune said:
^Case in point.

People are narrow-minded about Apple. Sometimes when I first try software and hate it, I revisit it awhile later and I realize it isn't so bad. I didn't like iTunes at first. At all. Then I started using it to edit mp3 information. I actually didn't like how it made my songs sound compared to Winamp3.

Actually I have a 60GB Video iPod because my girlfriend bought me one for christmas. By then I didn't mind iTunes, and I've used the store quite a bit. Maybe I can sue my girlfriend.



Besides, Apple products are highly reliable. The newegg of electronic devices. How many of you have researched mp3 and portable audio players? iPods just about always have the best ratings. Zune didn't get off to a good start, a lot of people recommend Creative, but then a lot say they have a lot of problems with them.

iRiver is also expensive like Apple, but they make pretty good stuff. I don't think anyone can beat Apple's clickwheel though. Interface is the usual shortcoming of non-Apple audio players.

I know it's subjective, but lawsuits like this one are wastes of time.
Click to expand...

This thread is iPod vs other players. Your arguments there fall right on your face. The fact is that all of Apple's iPods are not made by some special factory that is some how immune to defects. They're all made in extremely similar Chinese factories with workers barely making a living. iPods are not more expensive anymore anyway, their expense before was artificial and a inflation for some other reason than high profit margins because of name brands, think of shoes for instance, and clothing also. The reason you might hear of more issues with Creative or other players also has a lot to do with their target audience, those who buy Creative tend to be knowledge and buy Creative (just an example) because of certain features which the iPod does not have, its not a price issue (since the iPod prices lowered they are often cheaper than Creative's players) and its not an availability issue (iPods are much more commonly available than other players because of demand).

As I posted out in the post above, the main focus of the lawsuit would likely be the fact that purchasing iTunes music locks you into the iPod. In order to break this means you must perform actions that either a.) are illegal or b.) reduce the quality of the audio. Therefore using your overwhelming market share in a market to monopolize and prevent competition from having a fair chance. I myself would blame the consumer and say "you should have known what you were getting into" but that has been shown a large number of times to simply not fly in courts. Do I honestly believe anything will come out of this? Ehh, probably not. Apple's image is not Microsoft evil enough yet for that to happen. Though I've seen far more crazy things happen.
 
Skrying said:
The problem is that once you buy iTunes music there is no legal means in transfering that music to other players. You are therefore locked into the iPod to use music that you legally bought. That's the hang up, there is a major issue with that.
Click to expand...

You can always use iTunes to play your music on a computer, or burn your music to CD (using a single button click provided by the iTunes software). Once it's on CD you can do anything you want with it. You aren't locked into anything just because you buy iTunes music. You don't even need an iPod to buy iTunes music. You don't need iTunes to use an iPod.

You are locked in to NOTHING. iTunes music files are restricted to iTunes and the iPod, but the buyer is informed of what he or she is buying going into the purchase. Even if they weren't informed of the restrictions on iTunes music and movies, that wouldn't be a monopoly issue.


So...

--You don't need an iPod to buy and play iTunes music.
--You don't need iTunes to enjoy and update your iPod's music library and firmware.
--You can only play iTunes music on iTunes or an iPod, however, you can easily, using iTunes itself, burn that music to a standard audio CD format which can then be used the same way any audio CD can be used.
--You can not play DRM audio files from competitors in iTunes or on your iPod.


Now...the only true restriction on that list is the last one. Tell me: in what other market are you required to support the creations of your competitors? Most of the time companies do so because it is advantageous to their bottom line. That is not the case with the iPod. Is this suit looking to require all companies to support the offerings of their competitors or be considered monopolies?
 
I support the existence of monopolies so on the most fundamental level I disagree with the lawsuit.
 
I'd just explain to the judge that iTunes is like a "driver", and is necessary to work. Using sub-par 3rd party drivers might result in wrongful RMA's and refunds.

Can't fault them for that, nVidia is going through the same shit.
 
Skrying said:
As I posted out in the post above, the main focus of the lawsuit would likely be the fact that purchasing iTunes music locks you into the iPod. In order to break this means you must perform actions that either a.) are illegal or b.) reduce the quality of the audio.
Click to expand...
Um, wrong. You can take your iTunes purchases and burn them to CD. Its called the analog hole trick in which you can either backup or burn to CD. You don't even need an iPod. And, as far as reducing the quality, care to explain?

I think a lot of folks have a perception about Apple and therefore tend to spout off en masse as if its the god's truth. It gives hope to those that would wage a lawsuit without fully understanding what your options are. I'm sure Apple will have fun tearing this one apart in court.

-E
 
TechLarry said:
Well, Zune will be next. Then plays-for-sure devices.

While none of us like this lock-in crap, Apple is hardly the only one doing it.

-Larry
Click to expand...


How so? Zune is far more open than Ipod, allowing you to get content at MANY providers.... and plays-for-sure doesn't require you to shop at a specific store.

Plays for sure is a "seal of approval" found at MANY places, and on MANY devices from several different manufacturers. Far be it for me to say, but it's about as "open-source" as you could expect from microsoft.

Methinks ye doth not know of what thou doth speaketh.
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
How so? Zune is far more open than Ipod, allowing you to get content at MANY providers.... and plays-for-sure doesn't require you to shop at a specific store.

Plays for sure is a "seal of approval" found at MANY places, and on MANY devices from several different manufacturers. Far be it for me to say, but it's about as "open-source" as you could expect from microsoft.

Methinks ye doth not know of what thou doth speaketh.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The Zune doesn't support Plays for Sure either. It only supports its own music store, so places that use PfS such as Napster are a no go. See Arstechinca for the details.

-E
 
sniper991122 said:
umm.. correct me if im wrong (and i've got an ipod that I use with itunes) but whats stopping you from buying songs off rhapsody (or some other website that puts an mp3 file format onto your computer) and doing import to library> pick your song...

then its on itunes and the next time you plug in your ipod its been updated with your new song
Click to expand...

There's nothing stopping you from using a format that works across all devices. In fact, that's how it should be so that anyone can put that content on whatever device supports mp3 (and any other open format). It only becomes an issue when these services get greedy and lock up premium content with DRM that is not cross-platform.
 
GJSNeptune said:
Wrong.

If you have a collection in the first place, then you're buying music. You don't have to stop buying CDs and DVDs because you now have an iPod.

There are many conversion apps for music and movies, some that are even free. If the lawsuit focused more on the time and hassle rather than the difficulty, then maybe it would redeem some credibility.

I have over 5000 mp3s on my iPod, none of which came from iTunes. CDex or other apps to rip music, add them to iTunes, and click-and-drag to my iPod.

I've also found reasonable apps to convert my DVDs to mp4. If iTunes doesn't think my iPod can play that movie, iTunes will convert it.

There is absolutely nothing "locking" people to iTunes, save for musical performances held specifically by iTunes. What, are they gonna sue the musicians for harboring Apple's monopoly?
Click to expand...

Read what you quoted from me carefully - where are you going to buy content that is *not* currently available in CD or DVD format legally? Let me take this point further. If Apple strikes a deal to carry exclusive content on iTunes wrapped with their flavor of DRM, how do I get that on my non-iPod device?

The only solution to interoperability problems is to ditch DRM and start supporting open formats that work on all devices.
 
mdameron said:
I'd just explain to the judge that iTunes is like a "driver", and is necessary to work. Using sub-par 3rd party drivers might result in wrongful RMA's and refunds.

Can't fault them for that, nVidia is going through the same shit.
Click to expand...


this is what i am referring to. i can use whatever program i want to put music on my sansa even explorer if i wish. can you use the jukebox program of your choice with an ipod? nope. you can download a hacked together extension that may work or it may kill your ipod. will you even have full control of it? probably not, but then again i dont know for sure as i have no personal experience with the software. i would much rather drag and drop songs onto my player then have to use a certain program. forgive the consumer for wanting freedom.
 
KennyT said:
this is what i am referring to. i can use whatever program i want to put music on my sansa even explorer if i wish. can you use the jukebox program of your choice with an ipod? nope. you can download a hacked together extension that may work or it may kill your ipod. will you even have full control of it? probably not, but then again i dont know for sure as i have no personal experience with the software. i would much rather drag and drop songs onto my player then have to use a certain program. forgive the consumer for wanting freedom.
Click to expand...

Then don't buy an iPod. There are other products you can buy that fit your criteria better.

Still no monopoly.
 
Some of the ignorance here is amazing, and some of you have even PROVEN the entire point of the lawsuit while saying its bullshit. Just simply amazing.

"The analog" trick is illegal. It purposely circumvents the DRM of that iTune music file. Therefore locking you into an iPod for your mobile use of iTunes purchased songs. That's so simple that its really mind blowing some of you simply either ignore it or are completely ignorant as to what is being said. Warning the consumer about this before hand is not enough, if it was then god damn we should go back in history and complete rewrite a large part of all the monopoly lawsuits against Microsoft.
 
Well life is about business, and products from one company naturally go together. Why hold it against Apple that they chose to copyprotect the content they provide? If you don't want an iPod, don't use iTunes, and if you don't want to use iTunes, don't get an iPod. iTunes isn't the only music service, and iPods aren't the only players. Naturally they complement each other.

Either we choose to consume something, or we choose not to. We aren't innovating and improving technology. We deal with what's available. Some of us obviously can't.
 
GJSNeptune said:
Well life is about business, and products from one company naturally go together. Why hold it against Apple that they chose to copyprotect the content they provide? If you don't want an iPod, don't use iTunes, and if you don't want to use iTunes, don't get an iPod. iTunes isn't the only music service, and iPods aren't the only players. Naturally they complement each other.

Either we choose to consume something, or we choose not to. We aren't innovating and improving technology. We deal with what's available. Some of us obviously can't.
Click to expand...

You miss the point. When you hold a monopoly as Apple does in this market its against the law to lock out your competition from a fair chance to compete. Just like Microsoft runs into. You must provide LEGAL tools or ways for a consumer to change platform if they choose without any loss to them. Apple is not providing that. You can keep saying what you say above, but its clearly skipping around the point of the lawsuit, hindsight is always 20/20 as they say.
 
Skrying said:
if they choose
Click to expand...
It isn't their fault that no one can match their services and products. By suing Apple because iTunes songs cannot be played on other brands of audio players is admitting that people would rather use iTunes in the first place, otherwise the "monopoly" wouldn't be such a problem.

It's clear that people for the lawsuit have an Apple thorn in their side for whatever reason, and those who think it's superfluous and unfounded respect Apple for their innovation and reliability.

Let's just sue Apple for being a good company and controlling prices. Let's sue Neilsen for having a monopoly on ratings services. Let's sue ClearChannel for being awful, closed-minded, and greedy. Actually, let's sue everyone so we can feel big.
 
Skrying said:
"The analog" trick is illegal. It purposely circumvents the DRM of that iTune music file.
Click to expand...

Silly talk...

The DRM is 'circumvented' by using iTunes to burn an audio CD. Apple provides this consumer friendly feature thus is it not illegal; no DMCA breaking involved. You can now rip the CD and encode in your format of choice, however using a lossy encoder will result is less quality than the original DRM'd file.

Furthermore capturing output of your legally purchased/owned material is not illegal for a number of uses. By its nature it does not have any DRM, it's already been removed (if present) by the features allowing you to experience the material.

Both methods above may result in lower quality or large size than the original.

IANAL and don't claim to completely understand all the gibberish contained the in DMCA. The summary is 18 pages by itself and is pretty easy to follow. The full text is 59 pages and hard to read. On page 3 & 4 of the summary you'll note that circumvention of access restrictions is illegal yet circumvention of copying protection is not. It also states:

Making or selling devices or services that
are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain
circumstances...
Click to expand...

My understanding is that creating and/or distributing a tool whose sole purpose is circumvention of DRM might be illegal; I presume PlayFair would be one such tool. I say 'might be' because it's not clear to me how 'access restrictions' apply to the person who purchased access rights. It could be this point the suit is about.

It is also my understanding that DRM'less material has no access restrictions. Thus I presume QTFairUse is legal under DMCA. Though copyright law might prohibit specific usage, this falls under fair use doctrine.

As always educated yourself, use your own judgment, and take responsibility for your actions -- that is don't take anything I said here as truth. :D
 
Skrying said:
The problem is that once you buy iTunes music there is no legal means in transfering that music to other players. You are therefore locked into the iPod to use music that you legally bought. That's the hang up, there is a major issue with that.
Click to expand...

Bought tracks can be burned to CD. CDs can be ripped. Last I checked, its not illegal to rip your own CDs to your computer.
 
Skrying said:
So removing the DRM is not illegal? What's the point of it then?
Click to expand...
It's not being removed. You're using legal means to bypass it. Programs that rip CDs aren't illegal. Apple allows you to burn songs to CDs. And what, if they remove that feature, are we going to sue them for that as well?

What's up your ass, anyway? Maybe you're a lawyer.
 
Skrying said:
So removing the DRM is not illegal? What's the point of it then?
Click to expand...

Clearly the purpose of DRM is to grant access to material for which the right to access has been obtained. It's not a copy control/protection method.

Removing DRM is certainly illegal. PlayFair does this, QTFairPlay does not. Though both produce similar results. The difference is in how the results are achieved. QTFairPlay accesses the material using software written by Apple specifically to do so. PlayFair reversed engineered Apple's code to break the lock. FYI I've not used either of them, haven't examined the code, and am only restating information that I've read (so I could entirely be talking out my ass). Look up FairPlay on Wikipedia for more information.

Reading the DMCA summary might help. It can be interpreted many ways. I don't believe there's much precedence to back up particular interpretations. Perhaps someone will chime in or you can always do a search.

At the moment the DMCA is a nuisance law. It's a fear stick. It'll remain a fear stick till it is throughly challenged. Because this will take a lot of money, and there's much to lose on either side I expect the stick to be around for a while.
 
Interesting. Effectively there's no purpose at all for DRM then, or at least DRM coding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top