Apple admits to deleting your iPod music not purchased from Apple
Apple admits to deleting your iPod music (because
confusion)
Yes, it's OK -- let's not confuse the poor widdle users
Computerworld | Dec 5, 2014 3:29 AM PT
Apple appears to have admitted that it did in fact
silently delete music bought from Real Networks and others. The class-action
lawsuit alleges that your iPod would stop working if you used Real, forcing you
to reset the device.
But, when it came back, your non-Apple music would be
gone. Apple execs argue that this was perfectly acceptable, because to do
anything else would be, err, "confusing." BTW, it's most certainly
not Saint Steve's fault. Oh no.
Apple deleted music that some iPod owners had downloaded
from competing music services...attorneys for consumers told jurors. ... Apple
directed the system “not to tell users the problem,”...attorney Patrick
Coughlin said in U.S. District Court in Oakland, Calif.
…
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.” ... Updates that deleted non-Apple music files were intended
to protect consumers...he said.
Here's Lynn Schindler's list: [Ugh -Ed.]
The device that changed the world...was the iPod – which
eventually paved the way for the iPhone, iPad, and well – i-Everything. ... The
claims argue that Apple knowingly erased non-iTunes content [but] are harshly
contested by Apple lawyers who argue that ultimately this was all done in an
effort to maintain simplicity [and] security.
…
The class action lawsuit is seeking $350 million. ... The
allegations are just the most-recent lineup of questions that make Apple seem
demonstrative, and unethical [but] it’s unlikely to change the way Apple does
anything operationally.
Right on cue, here's Eddy Cue, via Nick Statt: [You're
fired -Ed.]
"Steve was mighty upset with me and the team
whenever we got hacked. ... If a hack happened, we had to remedy that hack
within a certain time period or [the record labels] would remove all their
music from the store. ... All these other guys that tried the approach of
trying to be open failed because it broke. There's no way for us to have done
that and have the success that we had."
…
[He] joined the company in 1989 and eventually oversaw
the launch of Apple's online store in 1998. ... Cue helped launch Apple's
iTunes digital-music store in 2003. ... He led negotiations with the five
largest record labels around 2002 to build out Apple's initial 200,000-song
library. ... He was also responsible for ensuring that Apple's...DRM tool,
called FairPlay, was in compliance with the record labels and that it was
updated regularly to protect that relationship. ... Cue also says that record
labels, when they first hammered out their contracts with Apple, requested DRM.
…
Complicating Apple's narrative, however, are allegations
that it misled iPod users...when those consumers attempted to put songs sold by
other online music stores onto their iPods using software like RealNetworks'
Harmony. That software reportedly reverse-engineered Apple's FairPlay. ...
Apple's response in iTunes 7.0 was to...prevent the iPod from playing any
songs. ... It would then force users to reset the device, deleting any songs
not purchased from iTunes.
Confused? Josh Lowensohn says it's
"complicated":
Much of the case hinges on whether updates made to iTunes
added new features and improved the software, versus simply attempting to shut
out efforts to sync up music...with something else by adjusting [the] software
[and] trying to squash competitors.
…
Augustin Farrugia, a senior director of internet security
and DRM at Apple [said] the company viewed anyone trying to inject code as an
attacker.
…
The trial is slated to run another six days.
Meanwhile, Tim Gillespie Jr. thinks back to the days of
yore:
They are talking about Real hacking the DRM. Every time a
new iTunes was released, they'd patch holes, as required by the record labels.
They had 90 days to fix any holes or the record labels would pull their music.
…
Update: Still confused? This anonymous author tries again
(but can't resist a fandroid-dig):
Day three of the Real vs. Apple trial over allegations
that Apple deliberately blocked rival stores' DRM music files on the iPod (a
potential antitrust violation) continue[s].
…
Apple's defense comes down to a view that if a company
like Real could reverse-engineer the FairPlay DRM...others could do the same
with more malicious purposes, such as the ransomware attacks or Trojan malware
files that are a constant threat to Android devices.
…
Real's attorneys, however, argue that the sole purpose of
[the Apple] updates was to lock out competitors...Apple made no attempt at all
to block un-DRM'd music files. ... Real is asking for damages of $350 million,
while Apple believes the company is owed nothing.
Comments
Post a Comment