I hope they don't. I don't use itunes to legally download my music, because of the DRM. My non-drm iriver can't touch .m4p, and by removing the DRM on a file I legally bought I'm breaking the law... instead I'd like to see them choose a different avenue of distribution. It would be awesome to see them distribute their files DRM-less, but I doubt that'll happen.
Apparently Apple can break the terms, but no one else can. Imagine if I came out with an APPLE CALCULATOR, how pissed they be, then I said well so long as I don't do any "computer" stuff with it, we can remain friendly about it, k? then all of a sudden I start to release 'computing' devices.. I mean Apple sure the hell will protect themselves, but when it comes down to following the agreement, they show their true colors, brown-s**t.
"I hope they don't. I don't use itunes to legally download my music, because of the DRM. My non-drm iriver can't touch .m4p, and by removing the DRM on a file I legally bought I'm breaking the law... instead I'd like to see them choose a different avenue of distribution.It would be awesome to see them distribute their files DRM-less, but I doubt that'll happen."I don't buy Music from iTunes and I'm not stuck using a piece of s**t iRiver. Time to upgrade river boy.
I don't see it happening, but I wish it did. Honestly I was thinking the apples would settle the suit and the settlement would involve The Beatles licensing exclusively to iTunes.
The spirit of the agreement, as I interpret it, was that Apple could put media player and authoring software on their computers (that would have sucked if they couldn't), but could not sell media. It prevented Apple from selling physical media like CDs, but in this lawsuit Apple computer argued that they are just "delivering" the media (which had no meaning before online media stores), while Apple corp is arguing that they are selling it. Again, its a subjective interpretation, but I think the spirit of the argument clearly puts it in Apple Corps' favor.
Apple Computer won the lawsuit largely because it elected not to settle out of court as it has done in the past. The agreement with the Apple Corps was largely over the trademark "apple" logo - the Apple Computer version of which is today highly visible and instantly associated with the computer company, not the Apple Corps. The Apple Corps logo, on the other hand, is a photo of a green apple (fruit), no bite missing, no stylized stem, etc. The differences between Apple Computer and Apple Corps are violently apparent as well. Apple Computer sells computers, computer software and web-based data distribution services, including music-related products such as Quicktime, iPods, Garage Band, and of course, the iTunes Music Store. It does not produce music or other creative works itself. It at most acts as a conduit for many record labels to distribute their product via its servers and bandwidth. Apple Corps is a company that records and produces music, i.e., a record label. It seems to me the judge recognized this difference and ruled accordingly, putting an end to thirty years of legalized extortion. If you want a relatively unbiased view, check out the BBC article at: <a class="user" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4983796.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4983796.stm</a>
@mikeazorin"because they are not currently easily accessible."Are you serious? Going to Best Buy or buying from Amazon isn't easy enough? If those options are too hard for some people, then I guess getting out of bed in the morning is probably too hard for them, too.
mrspontaneousMay 8, 2006
I hope they don't. I don't use itunes to legally download my music, because of the DRM. My non-drm iriver can't touch .m4p, and by removing the DRM on a file I legally bought I'm breaking the law... instead I'd like to see them choose a different avenue of distribution. It would be awesome to see them distribute their files DRM-less, but I doubt that'll happen.
azenoneMay 8, 2006
Onions. Big. Round. Onions.
isepicMay 8, 2006
Apparently Apple can break the terms, but no one else can. Imagine if I came out with an APPLE CALCULATOR, how pissed they be, then I said well so long as I don't do any "computer" stuff with it, we can remain friendly about it, k? then all of a sudden I start to release 'computing' devices.. I mean Apple sure the hell will protect themselves, but when it comes down to following the agreement, they show their true colors, brown-s**t.
deezknotsMay 9, 2006
"I hope they don't. I don't use itunes to legally download my music, because of the DRM. My non-drm iriver can't touch .m4p, and by removing the DRM on a file I legally bought I'm breaking the law... instead I'd like to see them choose a different avenue of distribution.It would be awesome to see them distribute their files DRM-less, but I doubt that'll happen."I don't buy Music from iTunes and I'm not stuck using a piece of s**t iRiver. Time to upgrade river boy.
500freestyleMay 9, 2006
I don't see it happening, but I wish it did. Honestly I was thinking the apples would settle the suit and the settlement would involve The Beatles licensing exclusively to iTunes.
deuteriumMay 9, 2006
I can't believe all the Apple apologists on this site. Man what a blind bunch of lemmings.
rm999May 9, 2006
The spirit of the agreement, as I interpret it, was that Apple could put media player and authoring software on their computers (that would have sucked if they couldn't), but could not sell media. It prevented Apple from selling physical media like CDs, but in this lawsuit Apple computer argued that they are just "delivering" the media (which had no meaning before online media stores), while Apple corp is arguing that they are selling it. Again, its a subjective interpretation, but I think the spirit of the argument clearly puts it in Apple Corps' favor.
dlm3May 9, 2006
Apple Computer won the lawsuit largely because it elected not to settle out of court as it has done in the past. The agreement with the Apple Corps was largely over the trademark "apple" logo - the Apple Computer version of which is today highly visible and instantly associated with the computer company, not the Apple Corps. The Apple Corps logo, on the other hand, is a photo of a green apple (fruit), no bite missing, no stylized stem, etc. The differences between Apple Computer and Apple Corps are violently apparent as well. Apple Computer sells computers, computer software and web-based data distribution services, including music-related products such as Quicktime, iPods, Garage Band, and of course, the iTunes Music Store. It does not produce music or other creative works itself. It at most acts as a conduit for many record labels to distribute their product via its servers and bandwidth. Apple Corps is a company that records and produces music, i.e., a record label. It seems to me the judge recognized this difference and ruled accordingly, putting an end to thirty years of legalized extortion. If you want a relatively unbiased view, check out the BBC article at: <a class="user" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4983796.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4983796.stm</a>
sirwallyMay 9, 2006
@mikeazorin"because they are not currently easily accessible."Are you serious? Going to Best Buy or buying from Amazon isn't easy enough? If those options are too hard for some people, then I guess getting out of bed in the morning is probably too hard for them, too.
soundgardensMay 10, 2006
They really got owned...