Apple sued over iPod/iTunes 'monopoly'
updated 12:25 pm EST, Wed November 7, 2007
iPod/iTunes lawsuit
Apple's legal woes are being compounded by a newly-launched class-action lawsuit, court documents reveal. A 19-page filing was originally submitted to a Florida court in August, but the case is just now seeing the light of day after having been moved to the US District Court for the Southern District of California. The venue change was requested by Apple, which argued that similar cases have been pending in the California court for more than two years. The latest incarnation was brought about by Floridian Frederick Black, who alleges that he and other state residents have been made victims of Apple's music DRM protections, according to AppleInsider.
The difficulty is that while iPods can play non-Apple music, and DRM-free tracks are available via iTunes Plus, shoppers who buy standard tracks from iTunes will find they cannot load the tracks on other music players. Black claims that this violates Florida's Antitrust and Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Acts, since people switching from one iPod must either buy another or repurchase their music collections elsewhere.
Alternatively, says Black, Apple could choose to finally license its Fairplay DRM scheme to other companies, or incorporate support for Microsoft's Windows Media format into its own technology. Should that not be appealing, an unspecified, industry-wide copy protection scheme could be adopted.
Apple is further accused of using underhanded tactics, such as intentionally disabling the little-known Windows Media support on earlier iPods, or using its economic clout to influence third-party content providers. "[Apple], by controlling such a large part of the portable digital media player market, the online music market and the online video market, maintains sufficient economic power in these markets to control consumer pricing in these markets, which has resulted in consumers paying higher prices," reads Black's filing.
The company is a monopoly in digital media, says the lawsuit, actively excluding competitors from the industry. Should Black win his case, he would be granted damages of at least $15,000, and possibly triple that, plus legal fees and relief suggested by the court. A jury is being requested.
Seriously...
11/07, 12:32pm reply
It's times like this when I hate being an American. Apparently, we can sue for anything.
njfuzzy
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Apr 2001
hah
11/07, 12:37pm reply
there is a serious flaw in the logic of this lawsuit... to have a monopoly, a company must create and control a market that is inherently essential.
If you don't like what Apple is doing, buy that really cool new Zune 2, I promise there won't be any lines, or people to share music with for that matter...
One last comment, just to be rude... Mr Frederick Black, when you look in the toilet after you take #2, does it look similar to a mirror?
dwoodruff
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2006
Wait...
11/07, 12:52pm reply
What are those round silver things called again?? they hold data and u can use them to burn your iTunes purchased songs too.. they work in all kinds of cars, DVD players and home stereos... you can even re-rip music back to your computer to use in other devices...
damn it. it's on the tip of my tongue!!
dwoodruff is 100% correct
Monopoly - a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity.
So no one else sells mp3's online? No one else sells MP3 players? No one can use mp3's on the iPod? There is no way to get iTunes AAC music on other mp3 players??
yea.. no monopoly here...
eldarkus
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Feb 2004
Buy a different player
11/07, 12:53pm reply
There is plenty of competition. Apple is not a monopoly. Case closed.
jogdish
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jan 2006
Besides...
11/07, 12:54pm reply
Its easy enough to export your DRM music to a normal CD Audio format, which you can re rip into a DRM free MP3 file for use on anything. This is just stupid.
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Joined: Jan 2003
It ain't Apple...
11/07, 01:09pm reply
...it is the record labels. Apple would just as soon dispense with DRM, but in order to get the labels to play ball Apple had to adopt a DRM technology.
If this suit contends that Apple did not use the "right" DRM, then it is mighty thin indeed. There is no precedent for that, and none likely to emerge.
I predict a hasty dismissal.
bradpdx
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Sep 2007
One day
11/07, 01:25pm reply
One day, this will be a genuine issue - i.e. when download sales exceed CD sales, or you could provide some argument that while it was technically possible to transfer all your iTMS purchases to a new system, the effort required to do so was unacceptable.
With the growing number of DRM-free files on iTMS he might also find himself looking stupid by the time it actually comes to court. Notably (and this is where I think this is a shill case), removing DRM was not on the list of suggested options.
I do like the idea of making it an industry specified standard though (like CCS on DVD, or MPEG). Because that's actually the last thing the RIAA want (an intractable technical problem landing on their doorstep).
Some wacky HDCP style scheme keeping music digital all the way to decoder chips locked inside your sealed speakers? Somehow I don't think so.
JulesLt
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2005
to MacNN Editors:
11/07, 01:32pm reply
Why do you bother to run articles on this subject? This particular question has been put up dozens of times and shot down, and is in no way newsworthy.
Perhaps if the arguement actually changed or even had the most minute shred of logical sense to it, then it would be worth putting up. However, it still doesn't on both counts. Please keep the trash news off the feeds. Thanks.
danviento
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Dec 2005
re: danviento
11/07, 01:45pm reply
Come on man.. I love this kind of trash! I just wish they would do more follow up. I hear all about the new laqwsuits, but then never hear what happens to them..
just once, I wish MacNN would tell me how the judge had to take a 10 min recess after opening statements cause he was laughing so hard..
eldarkus
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Feb 2004
wmv compatability??
11/07, 02:15pm reply
I have a first gen iPod and second gen nano, and I may be wrong, but the iPod has never had .wmv compatability. Can somebody let me know if this is true one way or another?
Robert-oh
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Nov 2007