Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday December 06 2014, @09:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the paid-for-but-not-yours dept.

A WSJ story details how Apple, in 2007-2009, deleted music from users' iPods if it hadn't been downloaded from their own service

Apple deleted music that some iPod owners had downloaded from competing music services from 2007 to 2009 without telling users, attorneys for consumers told jurors in a class-action antitrust suit against Apple Wednesday.

“You guys decided to give them the worst possible experience and blow up a user’s music library", attorney Patrick Coughlin said in U.S. District Court in Oakland, Calif. When a user who had downloaded music from a rival service tried to sync an iPod to the user’s iTunes library, Apple would display an error message and instruct the user to restore the factory settings, Coughlin said. When the user restored the settings, the music from rival services would disappear, he said.

Apple directed the system “not to tell users the problem,” Coughlin said.

To plaintiffs in the case, the move showed how Apple had stifled competition for music players and downloads. They are seeking $350 million in damages in the decade-old suit, claiming Apple’s actions forced them to pay more for iPods. The damages could be tripled under antitrust laws.

Apple contends the moves were legitimate security measures. Apple security director Augustin Farrugia testified that Apple did not offer a more detailed explanation because, “We don’t need to give users too much information,” and “We don’t want to confuse users.”

Related Stories

Apple Wins iPod Music Antitrust Case 37 comments

El Reg reports

Apple has prevailed in an almost decade-long antitrust legal battle over the way its iPod gadgets handled music not obtained through iTunes.

A federal jury in Oakland, California, took just four hours to clear the iThings maker of wrongdoing--and tossed out calls for a $351[M] compensation package for eight million owners of late-2000s iPods. That figure could have been tripled if the iPhone giant had lost its fight.

Apple was accused in a class-action lawsuit of designing its software to remove music and other files from iPods that weren't purchased or ripped via iTunes--but the eight-person jury decided that mechanism was a legit feature.

[...]It was argued that Apple had deliberately set up iTunes to report iPods as damaged if they stored music that, essentially, wasn't sanctioned by Apple: if alien files were found by the software, users were told to restore their devices to factory settings, effectively wiping songs not purchased from or ripped from CD by iTunes.

Apple countered that it was only preventing iPods from being hacked or damaged by third-party data. The company said the protections were implemented to prevent people from listening to pirated music--a claim the jury upheld.

Related:
Apple Deleted Rivals' Songs from Users' iPods - Class-Action Suit
Apple's Intentional iPod Lock-in Efforts - Engineer Testifies in Court

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Saturday December 06 2014, @09:26PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Saturday December 06 2014, @09:26PM (#123297) Journal

    I smell an economic slap for Apple Inc. It just prooves: You don't own any device labeled iOS or Android!
    It's under the control of your corporate overlords. As long as the MCU has the code signing bit set. It's out of your control!

    And watch out for any advice to "reset" embedded devices. It all to often results in data loss.

    As a bonus, your music habits will be used to profile you.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday December 06 2014, @10:00PM

      by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 06 2014, @10:00PM (#123303)

      You don't own any device

      You can pretty much stop there. If it's sold to you as a "device", it's almost definitely under at least as much control of the manufacturer as it is under your control, and the manufacturer considers the OS vendor more important than you. Smartphones, tablets, and even what are now marketed as PCs fall under this. (iOS and Android's largest competitor, Windows, is trying to move towards the same damn thing.) Basically, when you buy something like this, you are paying for the privilege of a particular vendor controlling access to you as a buyer in whatever application marketplace is associated with it.

      Doing what the user wants is a suckers' game. The idea instead is to do enough of what the users want so they'll buy "devices" with your software installed, and then you take a 30% cut of whatever the users buy to make it something useful. The big money is not in the initial sale, but in that 30% cut, so it is vitally important to the OS vendors to control what a typical user, or ideally even a technical sophisticated user, can and can't do with their own machine.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday December 07 2014, @12:33AM

        by kaszz (4211) on Sunday December 07 2014, @12:33AM (#123335) Journal

        In that case the manufacturer needs to be treated as an enemy.

    • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Saturday December 06 2014, @10:38PM

      by Nerdfest (80) on Saturday December 06 2014, @10:38PM (#123312)

      Care to explain how raw Android is not under a user's control?

      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday December 06 2014, @11:28PM

        by edIII (791) on Saturday December 06 2014, @11:28PM (#123320)

        I think he meant that practically every hardware platform that runs Android is locked by the manufacturer. Android itself is obviously far more open as an operating system, and I would even take it as far as to say the culture of Android of ethically superior to that of Apple. Nevertheless, there is also ZERO freedom in the Android marketplace because of the difficulty of sourcing hardware that can have custom firmware loaded into it.

        Quite frankly, I found it easier to load custom firmware into Sony PSPs. That required hacking the batteries of all things. You take your average Motorola or Samsung, and you better have some pretty good skills to unlock it to the point you can control your own "cyberspace" in the device itself. An average person has equally as good of a prospect of jailbreaking an IOS device as they do an Android device.

        It's pointless making it a vendor debate as well, as I've played with an Intel NUC for the last two weeks that can't run Linux despite the lies from Intel saying, "some customers reported that it did. Trust us.". Two weeks later I have OpenSUSE running on it, with the hardware all but crippled.

        We are all learning the hard way that vendors aren't really in it to sell us product anymore. We are the product.

        It's not hyperbole to say I fear for our future WRT to free computing and the ethics that surround such an apparent silly notion.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Saturday December 06 2014, @11:44PM

          by Nerdfest (80) on Saturday December 06 2014, @11:44PM (#123323)

          The big reason that it's disappearing is that people are actually *rewarding* companies like Apple for taking our freedom away.

          There are many Android devices that are extremely open to custom firmware, including those directly from Google OnePlus, and maybe one other. Not sure if any of them 'officially' warranty devices that have been flashed, but that would be an even better step.

          • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday December 07 2014, @01:01AM

            by kaszz (4211) on Sunday December 07 2014, @01:01AM (#123341) Journal

            Perhaps time for an disincentive for people that rewards companies that takes freedoms away? and also the same for the companies themselves.

            • (Score: 2) by hash14 on Sunday December 07 2014, @04:23PM

              by hash14 (1102) on Sunday December 07 2014, @04:23PM (#123493)

              I would say that there already is a strong incentive for using Android products over Apple ones. f-droid is a thriving place for open source software on Android, none of which is finding its way onto an Apply device. And all the custom mods and roms for Android products (Cyanogenmod, etc.) also make for a much more engaged user community. There's nothing an Apple device can do that an Android one can't, so it's very well possible that people will eventually just migrate away from Apple's platform for good someday. It's not likely that it will happen the other way.

              That said, it's becoming more and more crucial to use Copyleft licenses for all the software that we write so we can keep free software for free platforms.

              • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 09 2014, @02:58PM

                by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday December 09 2014, @02:58PM (#124186) Journal

                Unfortunately businesses seem to prefer iOS, and this too can drive sales.

                I can't tell you how many times I've read about some new app and said 'hey, that looks pretty cool' only to discover the iOS version is out already and the Android version is promised in three months. And a year later the promised Android app still hasn't arrived.

                The thing I don't get though is that it seems like it's so much cheaper and easier to develop for Android. So why do so many companies prefer iOS? Is it because the bosses and marketing droids all use Apple so that's all they think matters? Is it about having greater control over the users? Or is there some legitimate technical reasons I just don't know about?

        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 09 2014, @02:54PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday December 09 2014, @02:54PM (#124185) Journal

          I think he meant that practically every hardware platform that runs Android is locked by the manufacturer. Android itself is obviously far more open as an operating system, and I would even take it as far as to say the culture of Android of ethically superior to that of Apple. Nevertheless, there is also ZERO freedom in the Android marketplace because of the difficulty of sourcing hardware that can have custom firmware loaded into it.

          Loading a custom ROM on damn near any Android phone takes about thirty minutes. Not that hard. I mean I'm sure the guys who coded the tools had to do some work, but so did the guys who wrote the Linux drivers for my laptop.

          Also keep in mind that there are no developer licenses for Android. I can write software to do anything I want, I can load it onto my phone, I can distribute it to others...all completely free.

          Android phones are certainly more locked up than a PC, but they're still closer to a PC than they are to an iPhone...

          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday December 09 2014, @08:21PM

            by edIII (791) on Tuesday December 09 2014, @08:21PM (#124376)

            Loading a custom ROM on damn near any Android phone takes about thirty minutes. Not that hard. I mean I'm sure the guys who coded the tools had to do some work, but so did the guys who wrote the Linux drivers for my laptop.

            Several hours in my case on a Droid Bionic. While there does seem to be a plethora of tools, some of them become obsolete due to continuing efforts by Motorola to prevent it. It took me some time searching through forums and tutorials before I found what I needed to unlock the Droid Bionic.

            It's also worth mentioning that whatever devices that did exist and were unlocked, were either prohibitively priced, or not for sale. My choice of the Droid Bionic was very specific at the time. It was literally the only one in my price range, compatible with Verizon's network, and had publicly available information on how to unlock it.

            I'm still unaware of any phone under an unsubsidized 9 billion dollars, that isn't hardware locked by the manufacturers. Although, admittedly, I'm completely out of the market WRT smartphones.

            Last I checked, Motorol and Samsung were still sociopathic dicks that don't respect full device ownership. If I'm wrong, then yayyyy, progress.....

            Also keep in mind that there are no developer licenses for Android. I can write software to do anything I want, I can load it onto my phone, I can distribute it to others...all completely free.

            This is why I think the culture of Android is ethically superior to that of Apple.

            Android phones are certainly more locked up than a PC, but they're still closer to a PC than they are to an iPhone...

            I disagree. For the average person, which is what I am apparently, it does seem that it takes longer than 30 minutes. I've dealt with PS1's, PSPs, XBOX, etc. IMHO, I think it's about equal effort for most people. Although, I will give you that at least with Android there is a simple check box to load unsigned applications. Not the OS, but the apps. The PC.... let's not go there buddy :) I've spent some time dealing with UEFI and Linux. The PC is certainly not an open platform anymore where you can just install whatever OS you want. Intel and Microsoft are absolutely determined that Linux is not allowed to play. In any case, I feel physically ill knowing that some Linux distros are bending over and letting Microsoft shove it in. Why we live in a world where you need to go to Microsoft to sign binaries for free software I will never understand...

            Hardware across the board is moving towards being locked up, and the legislation is moving towards supporting the locks. Hence my disagreement and my post saying this is not an Android versus Apple issue, but Free Computing versus Poisoned Ownership.

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Sunday December 07 2014, @03:31PM

      by Foobar Bazbot (37) on Sunday December 07 2014, @03:31PM (#123481) Journal

      You don't own any device labeled iOS or Android!

      Look, it's a shame you need to research a prospective device with respect to such things, but there's actually quite a bit of Android hardware with unlocked bootloaders, and more with bootloaders that ship locked, but the manufacturer offers a simple way to request an unlock code (e.g. Motorola).

      And while the latter does mean the manufacturer initially owns it, and merely offers to give you ownership after you buy it (and after making you read scary disclaimers, and in some cases "sign" away your device's warranty with a click), and could leave you with a locked device if the manufacturer has died, turned more-evil-than-normal, or such, it's practically not bad -- (1) check that manufacturer exists and unlock website is running, (2) buy device, (3) unlock device, leaving only the short window while the device is in transit for things to go awry.

      I won't buy an Android device unless it has an unlocked or unlockable bootloader, and I can certainly see why some would only buy ones that ship unlocked. But writing off "any device labeled ... Android" is unjustified.

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday December 08 2014, @01:36AM

        by kaszz (4211) on Monday December 08 2014, @01:36AM (#123614) Journal

        Even if your booloader is "unlocked" the CPU still demands signed boot blocks that ends with the unlocked stuff. That means an area where spyware etc can hide.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 06 2014, @10:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 06 2014, @10:00PM (#123304)

    300 million is nothing to APple.

    You can be to see more of this in the future.
    Followed with "We don't want to confuse our users." bullshit.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by kaszz on Sunday December 07 2014, @01:04AM

      by kaszz (4211) on Sunday December 07 2014, @01:04AM (#123343) Journal

      Perhaps they will be treated the Sony way. Karma is a bitch ;)

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by Grishnakh on Sunday December 07 2014, @03:07AM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Sunday December 07 2014, @03:07AM (#123369)

        Nope, Sony just doesn't have the cachet and the mindless lemming fanbase that Apple has. Apple customers will happily accept whatever abuse Apple decides to dump on them.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @12:20AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @12:20AM (#123329)

    This took a while to hit the front page.
    Meanwhile, Apple is now arguing that the lead plaintiff, Marianna Rosen, does not own a qualifying product because the serial number on her iThingie says it was purchased a few months too late.
    Apple Questions Plaintiff iPod Purchase Dates in Ongoing Class-Action Lawsuit [macrumors.com]

    -- gewg_

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @01:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @01:16AM (#123345)

      From the NY Times [nytimes.com] (emphasis mine):

      “Ms. Rosen’s trial testimony with regard to her alleged purchase of the two iPods in 2007 and 2008 was not credible,” Apple said in its filing. Apple also attached a receipt showing that the iPod Touch was purchased by Ms. Rosen’s husband’s law firm, not the plaintiff herself.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @02:42AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @02:42AM (#123362)

        Lawyers are dumb. If you are going to do something sneaky pay cash!

        You can argue that there is a glitch in the system that got the manufacturing dates and/or sales dates wrong - computers are full of bugs. But you can't make that argument if there is a receipt that can be connected to a purchase history on the buyer's side that also confirms the dates.

  • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Sunday December 07 2014, @07:39AM

    by dyingtolive (952) on Sunday December 07 2014, @07:39AM (#123420)

    You know what device never did this? My Zune.

    I don't like MS, but man that thing was actually pretty cool.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @08:48AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @08:48AM (#123430)

      Microsoft PlaysForSure [wikipedia.org]

      PlaysForSure was introduced in 2004. In 2007, Microsoft rebranded and scaled back "PlaysForSure" into the subset Certified for Windows Vista.

      Microsoft's Zune works only with its own content service called Zune Marketplace, not PlaysForSure.
      [...]
      the Zune cannot play PlaysForSure music purchased from the MSN Music Store

      -- gewg_

      • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Sunday December 07 2014, @09:17AM

        by dyingtolive (952) on Sunday December 07 2014, @09:17AM (#123432)

        Yeah, sure. PlaysForSure was a joke and MS's own hardware couldn't play the music because, as I recall, it was DRM encumbered and was more of a "all you can eat for a monthly subscription" type thing. Or something. I never actually used that service, and I don't really remember the details. Like I said, I'm no fan of MS.

        You know what the Zune software, itself, never did? Delete songs or flash error messages when trying to sync music even if it was from a competitor. The Zune marketplace might have been the only SERVICE that worked with the Zune, but that never meant that it was the only source of music you could put upon the Zune. I mean, if I was going to hate it for anything, it would be that they didn't allow you to mount the damned thing as a hard drive without black magic.

        --
        Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @07:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @07:57PM (#123530)

          PlaysForSure was a joke

          Don't stop there; finish the thought: M$ is a joke.

          it was DRM encumbered

          PlaysForSure was DRM--start to finish.
          ...and like -EVERY- M$ file format, it was meant to break compatibility.

          I never actually used that service

          That's called "dodging the bullet".
          Meanwhile, the people who had ALREADY paid for[1] PlaysForSure music couldn't use those files with their Zunes.
          So, Retroactive Uselessness.
          That's close kin to the situation being discussed.

          [1] Notice that I didn't say "bought".
          Those folks never actually "owned" anything; things that you own, you can resell or allow your kids to inherit.

          -- gewg_

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @08:01AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @08:01AM (#123425)

    How about criminal charges?
    There's now way Apple didn't violate a bunch of post-9/11 cyber terrorism aws with insane penalties and no statue of limitations.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @09:50AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @09:50AM (#123440)

      Yeah. 300 million is something that might've been appropriate at the time of the violation and probably still way too low. Now it's absolutely ridiculous.

      If they really did this then it's a really really anti-competitive move. And they've vastly profited from this abuse. They need a real punishment.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by bradley13 on Sunday December 07 2014, @08:07AM

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 07 2014, @08:07AM (#123426) Homepage Journal

    What, has the latest info not hit Soylent? I didn't see it in the comments anywhere, but this turns out to be just another baseless class action, i.e., a "get rich quick" scheme for lawyers. You know the game: Lawyers come up with an idea how to extort money from a corporation, but they need representatives from the class supposedly affected. At the end of the lawsuit, the class members get some worthless coupon, and the attorneys get their hours paid at some absurd hourly rate.

    First of all, the lawsuit is technically pretty shaky. Basically, as I understand it, the only items deleted were those loaded up by a service that tried (and failed) to fake Apple's own DRM. Apple detected songs that appeared to be damaged, and that it had no record of, so it removed them. Songs that didn't try to look like iTunes downloads were unaffected.

    But now the bombshell: The people the lawyers recruited to represent the class did not own iPods during the time that this happened [arstechnica.com]. What a surprise, one of them is even the wife of a lawyer who specializes in class action lawsuits (favor for a friend?). So it becomes completely obvious that the whole thing is lawyer driven.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Sunday December 07 2014, @12:21PM

    by theluggage (1797) on Sunday December 07 2014, @12:21PM (#123452)

    A WSJ story details how Apple, in 2007-2009, deleted music from users' iPods if it hadn't been downloaded from their own service

    Its the plaintiff's lawyers' job to spin the facts in the favor of their clients, but I wish "independent" news sites wouldn't parrot them.

    To cut the weasel words, Apple deleted music from one specific service that exploited a vulnerability in Apple's proprietary DRM to trick the iPod into playing DRM'd content that hadn't been signed by Apple (probably threatening Apples contract with the record labels). Meanwhile, iPods have always supported DRM-free music from any source, and Apple have done nothing to hamper other competing services offering DRM-free music (which have been around since early 2008). Many people, like myself, have iPods but have never bought a song from iTunes.

    DRM is inherently anti-competetive, and the blame for that rests firmly with the big players in the music industry. If lawyers really want to strike a blow for consumers then maybe they could challenge the legality of the DMCA and its international equivalents.