New York and Connecticut Officials Investigate Apple Music for Possible Antitrust Violations

[zin]

They trump it in terms of force, not morality or rationality. Apple has every right to do what wants with its property and its speech, so long as they don't infringe on the individual rights of others. That's the meaning of the work their. It indicates possession and therefore, right control.

Like I said, others would disagree.

Your assumption is that Apple, or people in general derive their rights from their government. This is fundamentally impossible. Who put the government there? Individuals. what are politicians? People who, in this country, are elected by individuals. Government cannot be a source of rights, because it doesn't exist in nature. It's not a beginning, it is a result of the ingenuity of individuals. The source of the rights of governments is the individual, and the source of the individuals rights is the fact that they exist as a conscious, rational being. An individual's rights are inherent to their existence. The only legitimate function of government is to secure the rights with which individuals are born. Individuals delegate their right to be free of coercion to the government, and the function of government is to remove people who would initiate force from society. It's not to be the only entity is allowed to initiate force, or the only entity that is allowed to seize ownership/control of private companies for "the public good" or whatever. Individuals do not have the right to seize/control other people's property, therefore they do not have the right to delegate that right to a government they created to do it for them.

Nobody is born with any rights. Government has a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence and force. It is an entity that people have delegated to be a source (and protector) of their rights. As for the issue of eminent domain, seizing land for public use, as I said earlier, many other people would disagree. Some people believe the Government should have the power of eminent domain, others don't. We'll happily disagree.

1. All laws are made up laws.
2. The only legitimate type of law is moral law. I don't have a right to get a majority of people on my side, and elect someone who would pass a law to kill you (or would you consider that moral/just?). No majority has that right, regardless of the law, and no majority has the right to tell Apple what it can or can't do with its property. It belongs to APPLE. NOT the people. Freedom of Speech is APPLE's RIGHT. NOT just when the people decide to permit it.

1. Yes, of course. The difference is laws passed by the Government have validity and legal legitimacy. Your own "moral rights" don't.
2. We'll happily disagree. The law already tells Apple what it cannot do with its property. Just because you don't think it should doesn't make it any less legitimate or that they shouldn't follow those rules.

Again, not in terms of morality. The Anti-trust laws are some of the most evil laws the U.S. has ever come across. Reality and rationality trump bureaucratic/popular whim every time.

Oh boy. Just because you think people should have the right to fix prices, monopolise markets, and abuse market power to the detriment of competition and to consumers doesn't mean that the laws are automatically evil. Many people have differing opinions to that.

It's not an opinion, it's a statement of reality as viewed from an uncompromisingly rational standard of ethics. Many people are wrong.

It is an opinion. Ethics are inherently subjective in nature. You have a different view on how government should work and so do I and many others.

 

[Wondercow]

Oh brother! In the 2nd paragraph you are referencing a rumor to prove it isn't happening but in the first paragraph you are denying a point because it is only a rumor.

How you can get that from my post I have no idea. I'll simplify a bit:

There's a rumour about "X".
John Doe, who is said to be involved in "X", is interviewed.
John Doe claims that "X" is not happening.
Thus, the only evidence known is: "X" is not happening.

And the labels have to deny such stuff, else they risk incriminating themselves for potential collusion AND/OR make a very important partner (Apple) unhappy for throwing them under a bus. "Deny, deny, deny" is a default PR strategy for any claims of wrongdoing. Most of the convicted criminals in jails will deny they did the crime too.. . even the worst of them when facing overwhelming evidence that only they could have done it.

So what? That doesn't affect anything in my post nor the one to which I replied. There still isn't evidence, as the OP claimed, and there still isn't news of Apple colluding. There is evidence that actually goes against the OP's claim, and there is news of a rumour of Apple colluding.

What we do have right now is a number of state & federal governments digging in to see if those rumors- unfounded or not- have any merit. That much effort & time is not arbitrarily spent so they likely already have something sufficient to warrant such activities. What they are probably doing now is trying to figure out if they have enough to justify taking legal actions and potentially winning some judgement.

Once again, you're making an illogical assumption. Governments are more proactive these days with anti-trust matters, especially with the world's largest company. There have been instances, recently, of governments looking into Apple proactively to gain evidence if any existed.

We also have a recent history of Apple being found guilty of similar practices in another kind of media (Ebooks). Apple was not innocent. They did not "Settle with no admission of wrongdoing". They took it to court and were found GUILTY. In the eyes of the law pair a recent guilty verdict with rumors of pretty similar business activities and it should at least breed suspicions worth taking a deeper look. If the rumors are true, it's a classic case of a Goliath engaging in anti-competitive behavior... a relatively easy victory showing the justice departments doing their jobs (well). If the rumors are false, they'll move on to something else and nothing will come of this.

Most of your post has had nothing to do with the claims made in my post, nor those made by the poster to whom I replied. Accidentally or purposefully you've obfuscated the issue; the fact remains that there has not been (as far as I've seen) news of "Apple attempting to collude with labels" for any reason, nor has there been any evidence of same.

(In regard to the e-books case, there's pretty much a 50-50 split between knowledgeable people who believe that they are guilty and those who believe that they aren't guilty on the same evidence. There's also the matter of the judge seemingly being prejudiced. Personally, I'm waiting for the appeal.)

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

So what? That doesn't affect anything in my post nor the one to which I replied. There still isn't evidence, as the OP claimed, and there still isn't news of Apple colluding. There is evidence that actually goes against the OP's claim, and there is news of a rumour of Apple colluding.

What is that evidence? The labels claiming it didn't happen isn't evidence. That's PR: "deny, deny, deny". This thread is not convicting Apple of wrong doing- just discussing that these Gov entities are looking into whether Apple did something it shouldn't have and not everyone is coming down on one side or the other (as they shouldn't in a situation like this).

Where you are right is that it is generally a pile of rumors right now- no charges have been filed and may not be filed. Where we would disagree is that I don't have blind faith in Apple- especially given the Ebooks outcome- so I consider the rumors and at least 4 Government entities looking into it plausible. That's not me convicting Apple of guilt but I can look at what is happening, see why it could be that Apple misbehaved and not be surprised if this escalates from rumors and "looking into it" to charges.

If your view of this is true, Apple has done nothing and this will go nowhere. They don't need you to defend them in a thread like this.

(In regard to the e-books case, there's pretty much a 50-50 split between knowledgeable people who believe that they are guilty and those who believe that they aren't guilty on the same evidence. There's also the matter of the judge seemingly being prejudiced. Personally, I'm waiting for the appeal.)

I see. So even if Apple is found guilty in a court of law, you'll marginalize that FACT as if it's barely true. "Knowledgeable people" don't get to decide if a guilty verdict is valid or not; that's the court's job. They did their job. Guilty was the verdict.

And of course the judge was prejudiced because he ruled against Apple. Had he ruled for Apple, I bet you wouldn't see him prejudiced for Apple.

I'll respect you believe what you believe. And I like Apple too. But I am suspicious of Apple on this subject. Whether you are right or my suspicions are guessing right will be determined later on- when charges of wrong doing are filed or not filed.

 

[Z400Racer37]

Like I said, others would disagree.

Like I said, many others are wrong.

Nobody is born with any rights. Government has a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence and force. It is an entity that people have delegated to be a source (and protector) of their rights.

You can't delegate a right to the government that you don't have. You can't say " I don't have the right to x, so therefore I'm going to delegate the right to do x to this thing I just made even though I didn't have it to begin with." That does not define the source of rights. It is fundamentally impossible to assert that your rights originate from a thing that was created by man. Where did I/we derive the right to create it?

As for the issue of eminent domain, seizing land for public use, as I said earlier, many other people would disagree. Some people believe the Government should have the power of eminent domain, others don't. We'll happily disagree.

As I said before, they are wrong. This is not subjective. ANY individual who would STEAL MY property is EVIL to human life. Period. Don't think so? Why not take all my land? All my property? All my food? I mean, I'm sure there are other people in the wold who could use that food, right? Why not let me starve so they could have the food? Too extreme? Where's the line? Please explain.

1. Yes, of course. The difference is laws passed by the Government have validity and legal legitimacy. Your own "moral rights" don't.

So, any law that is passed by any government is valid and legitimate? What do you think of the Nazis? How about Stalin? How about ISIS? Iran? All valid? All legitimate?

2. We'll happily disagree. The law already tells Apple what it cannot do with its property. Just because you don't think it should doesn't make it any less legitimate or that they shouldn't follow those rules.

You didn't answer my question; If a majority passed a law to kill you, is that moral or just; or in your words valid and legitimate? Are you seriously willing to submit that you derive your right to exist on this earth solely from the permission of a majority?

It is an opinion.

No it amongst rational people.

Ethics are inherently subjective in nature.

Only if they are not handled rationally, with the promotion of human life as the standard of value.

You have a different view on how government should work and so do I and many others.

Yeah, that's why I'm trying to help people understand the right view. It's not a debate really, it's more of an explanation. If people are willing to be rational and objective, and unbiased, then they will eventually get it. I;m not saying it's easy, particularly given the corrosive ethical standards that exist in the world today, but with some effort and objective thought it is possible to understand.

 

[Wondercow]

What is that evidence? The labels claiming it didn't happen isn't evidence. That's PR: "deny, deny, deny"

Self-serving evidence is evidence just the same. You are certainly free to judge it how you wish and ascribe to it whatever value you like (and I doubt anyone would claim it to be strong evidence), but that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.

Now, please don't be a hypocrite if you're ever suspected of any wrongdoing. When you tell people "I didn't do it" don't be angered that they discount your PR, and remember to instruct your attorney not to tell the powers-that-be about your stated denial(s). Of course, the other side will include your statements since they are, in fact, evidence.

Where you are right is that it is generally a pile of rumors right now- no charges have been filed and may not be filed

It's not "generally" a pile of rumors, it is rumour. And I'm right in everything I said: there is no evidence that Apple colluded and there is no news of Apple colluding. Further, the only evidence that exists actually goes against what the OP said. This is all true.

Where we would disagree is that I don't have blind faith in Apple

That's where we disagree? I never claimed you have blind faith in Apple. Please don't put words in my mouth.

so I consider the rumors and at least 4 Government entities looking into it plausible

Of course it plausible; I don't think anyone has claimed it isn't.

If your view of this is true, Apple has done nothing and this will go nowhere. They don't need you to defend them in a thread like this

Do tell--what is my view of Apple? I've not stated a view, nor have I implied any personal feelings. Nothing I've said here dictates my "view". Shall I repeat myself again?

There is no evidence that Apple colluded with the music publishers and there are no news reports of Apple having colluded.

Those are fact-based, logical statements. There is no "view" presented other than "let's remember the facts"

I see. So even if Apple is found guilty in a court of law, you'll marginalize that FACT as if it's barely true. "Knowledgeable people" don't get to decide if a guilty verdict is valid or not; that's the court's job. They did their job. Guilty was the verdict.

Forgive me for being unclear, by "knowledge people" I meant attorneys, professors of law, legal analysts, judges etc. Many feel the court erred, which is why we have both appellate courts and legal analysis. Further, the appellate judges went very hard on the justice department; their questioning suggests that they don't fully accept the Department's reasoning.

And of course the judge was prejudiced because he ruled against Apple. Had he ruled for Apple, I bet you wouldn't see him prejudiced for Apple.

She, judge Denise Cote, should not be prejudiced against any defendant. No judge should be prejudiced, if they are they must recuse themselves from the case. It is distressing that she made the comments she did, and even if Apple had won the judge would still be wrong.

I cannot fathom why you so cavalierly state "of course the judge was prejudiced because he (sic) ruled against Apple"

Whether you are right or my suspicions are guessing right will be determined later on- when charges of wrong doing are filed or not filed.

I am right: There is no evidence that Apple colluded with the music publishers and there are no news reports of Apple having colluded. This was in response to someone who claimed that there was both evidence of collusion and "news" of same.

Edit--
When I say "there is no evidence that Apple colluded . . ." I mean there is none to which we, the general public, are privy.

 

[zin]

Like I said, many others are wrong.

Who could argue with that logic?

You can't delegate a right to the government that you don't have. You can't say " I don't have the right to x, so therefore I'm going to delegate the right to do x to this thing I just made even though I didn't have it to begin with." That does not define the source of rights. It is fundamentally impossible to assert that your rights originate from a thing that was created by man. Where did I/we derive the right to create it?

Rights come from laws. Laws originate from legislatures. Legislatures are an organ of government. A right not enshrined in law is not legally enforceable. Apple doesn't have a right to do whatever it likes with its property and it never did.

"Rights" themselves are man-made concepts. In the same way governments are man-made concepts. But some how people seem to place more validity and legitimacy in laws passed by government than these so-called natural rights.

As I said before, they are wrong. This is not subjective. ANY individual who would STEAL MY property is EVIL to human life. Period. Don't think so? Why not take all my land? All my property? All my food? I mean, I'm sure there are other people in the wold who could use that food, right? Why not let me starve so they could have the food? Too extreme? Where's the line? Please explain.

Eminent domain is not stealing. Stealing is by definition theft, which is illegal. Eminent domain is legal.

Why not take all of your property? Because eminent domain is used for public use but must be adhered to by the rule of law. Arbitrarily targeting you and seizing all of your property without compensation and justification would be illegal. If a representative government attempted to do so to everybody in a society ruled by law then they would lose legitimacy and be forced out of office.

As for "where's the line", that would be for individual cases. Take it to a court of law. That's one of the reasons why we have them.

Unlike you, I have an understanding that we live in a society with other people. Nobody has an unlimited right to do whatever they want, even with their own property. The rational and logical perspective is that the law must restrict and limit everybody in order to ensure a stable civilisation. Having a central government is one of the cornerstones of stability in a civilised society.

So, any law that is passed by any government is valid and legitimate? What do you think of the Nazis? How about Stalin? How about ISIS? Iran? All valid? All legitimate?

What is the definition of "valid" and "legitimate"? The Nazis assumed power through an election in accordance with German Federal Law. This gave them legitimacy. They destroyed that legitimacy when they meddled with the legislature and the rule of law. Stalin was the valid leader of the Soviet Union because the Soviet system did not make use of free votes. Did that make him the legitimate leader? By any and all Soviet standards, yes. By international and reasonable standards, no. Stalin did not uphold the rule of law.

ISIS is not a recognised sovereign government. It is attempting to take over Iraqi Government territory by means of illegitimate force. Iran has, of course, a valid government. It has its own theocratic system. By its own standards, its Supreme Leader is the legitimate leader. By the standards according to the rule of law, he is not the legitimate leader because he has the power to impose arbitrary decisions at a whim.

You didn't answer my question; If a majority passed a law to kill you, is that moral or just; or in your words valid and legitimate? Are you seriously willing to submit that you derive your right to exist on this earth solely from the permission of a majority?

I didn't answer because you never even asked that question. No, it isn't moral or just. That would be an arbitrary decision imposed by a tyranny of the majority. That is against the principles of the rule of law. Not to mention I'm sure you'd find people who would disagree, such as ISIS. In the majority of countries a right enshrined in a constitution, which is a set of laws upheld by government, would prevent this from happening.

I think you are confusing "majority rule" with "rule of law". They are mutually exclusive, although related.

As for where I get my right to exist from, what makes you think I even have a "natural" right to exist? For all intents and purposes, my "right" to exist derives from the fact that somebody else taking my life violates the law. Remove these laws and there is no right protecting my existence. In that situation the only thing protecting my existence would be my fists.

The fact you think you have a right to exist granted to you by some "higher power", such as nature, is laughable. Granted, however, there are some things that derive a right to exist not from codified laws or by courts. The State, for instance, gains a right to exist when its citizens surrender some of their interests for the collective group under its jurisdiction.

No it amongst rational people.

Sorry, but no. Your view on how government should operate is an opinion. No matter how you dress it up, other people will disagree. That doesn't make them wrong. In the same way I have no right to claim that the beliefs of ISIS are "wrong". I strongly disagree with them but that doesn't make them "wrong" and me "right". There is no factually "right" and "wrong" when it comes to ethics.

Only

if they are not handled rationally, with the promotion of human life as the standard of value.

Ethics are always subjective. Most people would agree that murder is wrong. Yet you could easily find people who believe the opposite, both argued from a rational perspective. That doesn't mean they are "wrong". There is no standard of value that you can make comparisons with.

Yeah, that's why I'm trying to help people understand the right view. It's not a debate really, it's more of an explanation. If people are willing to be rational and objective, and unbiased, then they will eventually get it. I;m not saying it's easy, particularly given the corrosive ethical standards that exist in the world today, but with some effort and objective thought it is possible to understand.

Give it up and get off your high horse. There is no "right" view. That is just an excuse to behave like a bigot whilst subtly implying that people who have an opposing view are simply uninformed.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Self-serving evidence is evidence just the same. You are certainly free to judge it how you wish and ascribe to it whatever value you like (and I doubt anyone would claim it to be strong evidence), but that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.

What is the evidence? Apple claimed THEY didn't do anything wrong in the Ebook case. But they were found guilty anyway. I don't consider business PR evidence any more than I consider rumors evidence against Apple.

Now, please don't be a hypocrite if you're ever suspected of any wrongdoing.

um, OK??? However, if I commit a crime and am found guilty of that crime, and then it is rumored I may have committed something close to the same crime again, and the press writes a bunch of stories about me appearing to be committing that crime, I won't be surprised if investigators decide to take a harder look at me rather than simply ignoring the press stories and trusting that I wouldn't do it again.

It's not "generally" a pile of rumors, it is rumour. And I'm right in everything I said: there is no evidence that Apple colluded and there is no news of Apple colluding. Further, the only evidence that exists actually goes against what the OP said. This is all true.

OK. I guess we need to define news. You were provided with a link here at MacRumors. I'll accept that MacRumors is not news. So how about:

• https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/apple-reportedly-urging-music-labels-end-free-streaming-132320811.html
• http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/per...trong-arming-labels-to-cut-spotifys-free-tier
• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/t...etween-apple-music-and-major-labels.html?_r=0
• http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/...-pressuring-spotify-to-reduce-free-streaming/
• http://www.thestar.com.my/Tech/Tech...els-to-end-free-streaming-deals-with-Spotify/
• http://www.musictimes.com/articles/...ssuring-labels-end-free-spotify-streaming.htm
• http://www.bet.com/news/music/2015/...ord-labels-to-end-free-spotify-streaming.html

Is any of that news? Since it's also offering headlines like: "Apple Strong-Arming Labels to Cut Spotify’s Free Tier…" I'm going to guess you'll dismiss it too as NOT news. There's plenty more where that came from. Do a search. Pages and pages of news (or probably NOT news by how you seem to see things).

There is no evidence that Apple colluded with the music publishers and there are no news reports of Apple having colluded.

Stand by. Evidence is rarely shown at this stage. If it turns into something any of the Government teams wants to pursue, the evidence will come out in court. There is a lot of news (or not news) sites publishing stories that Apple pressured labels to kill off a competitors free tier. I suppose those could all be slandering or even libel and thus subject to easy & lucrative settlements that will make Apple a lot of money when Apple sues all of them for publishing such lies.

Forgive me for being unclear, by "knowledge people" I meant attorneys, professors of law, legal analysts, judges etc. Many feel the court erred, which is why we have both appellate courts and legal analysis. Further, the appellate judges went very hard on the justice department; their questioning suggests that they don't fully accept the Department's reasoning.

OK. So guilty is guilty* if you can find a group of attorneys, professors of law, legal analysts, judges, etc to question a verdict? If Apple is not guilty, they should appeal. Why haven't they? They are not exactly pinched for cash or lacking attorneys to drive such an appeal. Where is that appeal?

I cannot fathom why you so cavalierly state "of course the judge was prejudiced because he (sic) ruled against Apple"

Because most of what you are saying is so overwhelmingly pro-Apple that I was being sarcastic there. In other words, (again sarcastically) of course she was WRONG because she sided against Apple. This site has lots of that mentality:

• patent law "needs reforms" and is "outdated" or a "broken system" when patents work against Apple BUT patents are "protecting intellectual capital" when they are working for Apple
• analysts are stupid & worthless when they say something negative about Apple but quoted to no end as authorities when they say something positive

...and on and on. That's how I'm reading your posts in this thread. Everything that is negative against Apple is invalid, wrong etc. including a guilty verdict in a court of law... and nary a hint of a statement that shows objectivity that maybe Apple could have done something wrong... again.

I appreciate innocent until proven guilty. As such Apple is currently innocent here and remain so until such a time that they would be found guilty of this should such a time come. Best I know, I and others have not already convicted Apple of wrong doing in this thread. If something I wrote appears to be me finding them guilty before they have even been charged with anything, that's certainly not my intent.

That said though, there are multiple Government entities looking into this. Apple does have an Ebook guilty verdict of relatively similar business behaviors toward similar self-interest objectives (making Ebooks more expensive to prop up their foray into Ebooks). So, while I can agree with you that they are not already proven to have colluded nor even proven to be guilty of anything in this arena, I am open to the idea that they MAY have done something wrong... especially given the news (or not news) stories about this topic and that they have 4 relatively independent bodies looking into this very thing. Based on my experience around justice departments, they don't just randomly pick a target, nor waste time & resources chasing after nothing without some kind of confidence that something is there.

IMO, I'm guessing there is probably something to the news stories worth investigating. That's currently speculation by me imagining something that may or may not be true. But this is MacRumors and the biggest part of what this site is about is... speculation, not facts. If Apple has done nothing wrong, there's nothing to worry about. If they have done something wrong, it will come out eventually. Between now and then, it's all speculation without tangible evidence... which is almost everything that is written here every day.

 

[thekev]

1. All laws are made up laws.
2. The only legitimate type of law is moral law. I don't have a right to get a majority of people on my side, and elect someone who would pass a law to kill you (or would you consider that moral/just?). No majority has that right, regardless of the law, and no majority has the right to tell Apple what it can or can't do with its property. It belongs to APPLE. NOT the people. Freedom of Speech is APPLE's RIGHT. NOT just when the people decide to permit it.

You talk about Apple as if it represents an individual rather than the collective interests of its shareholders. It's still a corporation, and corporations don't even exist without legal recognition. Any right you assign to it is in fact granted by laws, because it isn't a person (and don't misquote Citizens United as a response, because I can dig up the full quote).

 

[MacGizmo]

Now that the U.S. government has brought peace to the world, fed all the hungry, employed all the jobless, fixed our education system, and overhauled our miserable healthcare; I think it's great that they're moving on to more important things like $10 p/m music subscriptions.

Priorities!

 

[Renzatic]

It is an opinion. Ethics are inherently subjective in nature. You have a different view on how government should work and so do I and many others.

Par for the course for people who argue morality in such a simple fashion, they only consider their own concerns and favoritisms without any regard to the consequences.

By his definition of morality, Apple should be allowed to do as they please, since it's immoral to impede their will, or determine how they choose to use their property. By allowing Apple to do this, they can easily take the position of the government he's arguing against, acting immoral themselves, since they can use their vastly larger pool of money and influence to curtail competition from smaller businesses, impeding their will, and determining how they choose to use their property in the marketplace Apple is now defining.

It's pretty Ayn Randian mode of thought. My morality is absolute and unimpeachable as far as I'm concerned, and any action I take can be considered just, because it's my will. Yours? Not so much.

edit: or "how dare you to do to me what I planned to do to that guy over there".

 

[Oletros]

Now that the U.S. government has brought peace to the world, fed all the hungry, employed all the jobless, fixed our education system, and overhauled our miserable healthcare; I think it's great that they're moving on to more important things like $10 p/m music subscriptions.

Priorities!

Yes, governments can do just one thing at a time.

And no person must be detained and judged until there is no poor people on Earth. Priorities!

 

[Wondercow]

What is the evidence?

I detailed the evidence in my prior post. That you don't want to admit that it is a form of evidence doesn't change anything. I'm not saying it's direct evidence, reliable evidence, nor important evidence. And, as with any and all evidence, the individual is free to weigh it as he sees fit and ascribe importance as he sees fit. That you don't see it as reliable is fine--I've never said differently--but it is still evidence.

OK. I guess we need to define news. You were provided with a link here at MacRumors. I'll accept that MacRumors is not news. So how about [list of links] Is any of that news?

First, why is MacRumors not news? They post many things that are factual and objective. Second, every one of the links you provided, save one, is just a rehash of the story from The Verge with no new content. Third, as I already said, they are all news of a rumour. The Verge's article doesn't cite sources other than wording like "according to multiple sources", they don't even legitimize it by way of "according to sources at [record label] who wish to remain anonymous" Finally, the one link you provided that wasn't from The Verge doesn't support your, nor the OP's, contention. It says nothing about Apple having engaged in antitrust activity, simply that they're being investigated.

Stand by. Evidence is rarely shown at this stage. If it turns into something any of the Government teams wants to pursue, the evidence will come out in court. [emph. mine]

Sigh. That's the point. Please actually read what I write instead of the argument you want me to be making.

bbeagle said:
It's not that someone is looking into Apple - it's that someone is doing it . . . with no evidence. [emph. mine]

Mackinjosh said:
No evidence? Have you not been following the news for the past few weeks. [emph. mine]

To which I replied:
Yes, "no evidence". [emph. mine]

Right now there is no evidence to support the claim that Apple colluded with the labels for anything. I feel it should be obvious, but keep in mind that I am referring to publicly-available evidence, since that's all any of us can judge. The various entities may have veritable mountains of evidence that haven't been disclosed, but for all we know there is no evidence of wrongdoings.

There is a lot of news . . . sites publishing stories that Apple pressured labels to kill off a competitors free tier. I suppose those could all be slandering or even libel and thus subject to easy & lucrative settlements that will make Apple a lot of money when Apple sues all of them for publishing such lies.

What does this have to do with anything? You're forcing yourself to see an argument that I am not making, was not making, and will not make. Why can't you just read what's there instead of what you want to be there?

OK. So guilty is guilty* if you can find a group of attorneys, professors of law, legal analysts, judges, etc to question a verdict?

Where to start? How to keep it short, and in layman's terms? A court can rule someone guilty (or not guilty) and legal circles explode because of obvious (to said legal circles) mistakes. Said mistakes may include ignoring case law, not following the law as written, bias against a court officer or defendant, overstepping bounds and "creating law", et cetera. Judges have also been known to use "tricks" in order to expedite their cases to keep their dockets clear and appeals minimal because it looks good to their superiors. Just like anyone else, judges risk being terminated for mistakes, including being overturned too many times. This is why appellate courts exist, as do pardons at various levels, and why governments sometimes pass new legislation to "undo" what the courts have done.

If Apple is not guilty, they should appeal. Why haven't they? They are not exactly pinched for cash or lacking attorneys to drive such an appeal. Where is that appeal?

They appealed right away, I even referenced the appellate court's demeanour in my previous reply. This is more evidence that you're just looking for an argument.

most of what you are saying is so overwhelmingly pro-Apple

That's going to need a citation and, again, please stop seeing what you want to find instead of what's really there. All of what I've said is pro-logic and pro-objectivity, you see pro-Apple because of your bias. Is there currently evidence of collusion with record labels? No. Is there currently news about this collusion? No. Is there news about the rumour of collusion? Yes. Is there currently an even split (not an exact figure) amongst those in the legal field as to whether Judge Cote erred and the validity of Apple's appeal? Yes. Does any of this indicate a pro-Apple bias on my part? No, it's all just fact.

This site has lots of that [double standard] mentality

Or perhaps it's your bias again, seeing what you want to see instead of what's really there. Do you actually take the time to reference the posters? Is it the same posters being hypocritical, or is Group 'A' supporting one side and Group 'B' supporting the other, and you just assume they're the same people--thus leading you to a faulty conclusion about "that mentality"?

[Referencing my posts] Everything that is negative against Apple is invalid, wrong etc. including a guilty verdict in a court of law... and nary a hint of a statement that shows objectivity that maybe Apple could have done something wrong... again.

Again, you're going to need to cite that, as it appears to be your bias again. I haven't said anything about everything negative against Apple. And why would I say anything about the possibility that "Apple could have done something wrong"? I'm not arguing that aspect at all--it's not germane, in any way, to what I'm saying since their guilt or innocence does not change the objective facts that 1) there is no evidence of wrongdoing, and 2) the news reports are reports of rumours. That, my friend, is objectivity--accepting facts at face value without feelings and opinions.

Best I know, I and others have not already convicted Apple of wrong doing in this thread

Post 31
Post 57

 

[Breaking Good]

The government exists to keep people safe, true. The problem is, they try to do more than they are qualified to do these days. They regulate markets they know nothing about, and they end up creating an environment that only favors big business, and leaves the smaller ones without a chance at competition. How could you be for this?

So are you saying that Apple is a small business?

Do you believe that big business is looking out for your best interests?

Unfortunately, all we have to counter balance big business is big government. It isn't an ideal solution. But it is the best we've got at the moment.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Very good Wondercow. I suggest just pinning this thread and standing by to see how this plays out. If Apple has done nothing wrong, you can resurrect it with a simple reply and rub it in the faces of those who you think convicted Apple prematurely and without evidence. I won't do the same as I don't even care that much about who is right or wrong on this topic. You've written what you believe and I've written what I believe. Anyone still reading this thread that is not you or me can draw their own conclusions or ignore both of us.

 

[michaelsviews]

Sounds like Schneiderman and his cronies are out to make a$$'s out of themselves just like they did on dietary supplements. Or maybe he upset Andy.

 

[Happybunny]

Oh for the simpler days of "Napster"

 

[gnasher729]

I might be miss understanding the situation, but is this not what Michael Bromwich was embedded in Apple to prevent? I can't remember exactly what he's reemit was.

Michael Bromwich is at Apple to put money into Michael Bromwich's pockets. Charging more than $1,000 an hour, plus about the same amount for his sidekick because Michael Bromwich isn't actually qualified to do the job. Great work if you have a judge giving it to you.

 

[Wondercow]

Very good Wondercow. I suggest just pinning this thread and standing by to see how this plays out. If Apple has done nothing wrong, you can resurrect it with a simple reply and rub it in the faces of those who you think convicted Apple prematurely and without evidence. I won't do the same as I don't even care that much about who is right or wrong on this topic. You've written what you believe and I've written what I believe. Anyone still reading this thread that is not you or me can draw their own conclusions or ignore both of us.

You're still looking for me care; you're still seeing this through your personal bias that I must be rabidly rooting for Apple. It would seem that you simply can't comprehend that someone isn't taking a side and is taking a logical approach of "here are the facts we know, and this is the logical place those facts lead right now".

Why would I want to be so petty as to "rub it in the faces of those who I think convicted Apple prematurely and without evidence"? Besides, so far there have been only two in this thread, and their existance was a topic you brought up.

Please stop trying to force this to be something it's not, and please ask yourself why a simple statement of facts, with no emotion either way, bothers you so much.

 

[winston1236]

My head feels fine. No stick beatings here. So because Spotify, Pandora, Rdio, etc. have a free tier that is ad-supported, the gov't should force Apple to do the same? Its called Capitalism.

We have more of a corporatist than capitalist country. But I think there's much more to this story than a one page article on Macrumors.

 

[Dargoth]

So are you saying that Apple is a small business?

Do you believe that big business is looking out for your best interests?

Unfortunately, all we have to counter balance big business is big government. It isn't an ideal solution. But it is the best we've got at the moment.

Why on earth would I be saying that Apple's a small business? My point was that the government is sticking their noses into areas they know nothing about. All this regulation that's supposed to "deal with big business" tends to end up hurting the small ones far more, simply because the big ones can always get around supposed restrictions by lobbying and hiring good lawyers, which the small ones can't afford. I'm sure you think the government is putting the screws to big business, but don't be so naive. They've been in bed with big business for decades.

 

[satcomer]

Oh for the simpler days of "Napster"

Kids today have no reference for the original Napster.

 

[Melab]

They trump it in terms of force, not morality or rationality. Apple has every right to do what wants with its property and its speech, so long as they don't infringe on the individual rights of others. That's the meaning of the work their. It indicates possession and therefore, right control.

*Sigh.* This is going to be a long discussion.

Your assumption is that Apple, or people in general derive their rights from their government.

He said nothing about rights or where they come from.

This is fundamentally impossible.

This is fussing over trivialities. Is there really that much of a difference between saying "X has this right" and "X should have this right" if they are both statements about what the law should be?

Who put the government there? Individuals.

What are politicians? People who, in this country, are elected by individuals.

And?

Government cannot be a source of rights, because it doesn't exist in nature.

Gibberish.

It's not a beginning, it is a result of the ingenuity of individuals.

That's a weird thing to say, calling it "ingenuity". Furthermore, how is this relevant?

The source of the rights of governments is the individual, and the source of the individuals rights is the fact that they exist as a conscious, rational being. An individual's rights are inherent to their existence.

Well that's a whole lot of irrelevant rambling.

The only legitimate function of government is to secure the rights with which individuals are born.

Cool. I'm sure everyone here agrees with that.

Individuals delegate their right to be free of coercion to the government, and the function of government is to remove people who would initiate force from society.

This is false. There is much more to law than "initiating force". Fraud, hacking, theft, privacy, environmental protection, animal rights, child neglect, etc. The list goes on.

It's not to be the only entity is allowed to initiate force, or the only entity that is allowed to seize ownership/control of private companies for "the public good" or whatever. Individuals do not have the right to seize/control other people's property, therefore they do not have the right to delegate that right to a government they created to do it for them.

You are absolutely right, but only because you are so wrong. There is no "delegation of rights" involved here.

The only legitimate type of law is moral law. I don't have a right to get a majority of people on my side, and elect someone who would pass a law to kill you (or would you consider that moral/just?). No majority has that right, regardless of the law, and no majority has the right to tell Apple what it can or can't do with its property. It belongs to APPLE. NOT the people. Freedom of Speech is APPLE's RIGHT. NOT just when the people decide to permit it.

Apples to anvils. There is flexibility in what becomes law because things are always "blurry". This does not involve property rights. This is about business practices.

Again, not in terms of morality. The Anti-trust laws are some of the most evil laws the U.S. has ever come across.

That is just stupid.

Reality and rationality trump bureaucratic/popular whim every time.

Are you trying to set a record for the most number of sentences that don't make any sense.

It's not an opinion, it's a statement of reality as viewed from an uncompromisingly rational standard of ethics. Many people are wrong.

Many disagree that you are being rational here.

 

[Melab]

You can't delegate a right to the government that you don't have. You can't say " I don't have the right to x, so therefore I'm going to delegate the right to do x to this thing I just made even though I didn't have it to begin with." That does not define the source of rights. It is fundamentally impossible to assert that your rights originate from a thing that was created by man. Where did I/we derive the right to create it?

You are splitting hairs. Anyway, this is a great example of why talk of "rights" is just fluff. I'd prefer arguments of more substance.

As I said before, they are wrong. This is not subjective. ANY individual who would STEAL MY property is EVIL to human life. Period. Don't think so? Why not take all my land? All my property? All my food? I mean, I'm sure there are other people in the wold who could use that food, right? Why not let me starve so they could have the food? Too extreme? Where's the line? Please explain.

He said nothing about this being subjective. He may be wrong, but he's not being subjective.

So, any law that is passed by any government is valid and legitimate? What do you think of the Nazis? How about Stalin? How about ISIS? Iran? All valid? All legitimate?

You didn't answer my question; If a majority passed a law to kill you, is that moral or just; or in your words valid and legitimate? Are you seriously willing to submit that you derive your right to exist on this earth solely from the permission of a majority?

Do you want to sound like a moron?

No it amongst rational people.

Only if they are not handled rationally, with the promotion of human life as the standard of value.

"Promotion of human life" is not the "standard of value". There are situations where the right thing would involve not doing something that could improve your situation.

Yeah, that's why I'm trying to help people understand the right view. It's not a debate really, it's more of an explanation. If people are willing to be rational and objective, and unbiased, then they will eventually get it. I;m not saying it's easy, particularly given the corrosive ethical standards that exist in the world today, but with some effort and objective thought it is possible to understand.

 

[campyguy]

I'm in TL;DR mode with this thread, but it's pretty entertaining so far I'll admit. I'm still holding the opinion that both states are doing this because they can't take care of their own house - they're going after Apple because NY and CT need some distraction from not being able to control the graft, corruption, and payoffs in their own states.

And, likely because they're not getting their "cut". Look up how many studios are in each of these states - every time I go back to NYC I can find stacks and stacks of CDs and vinyl that weren't pressed in the US, pretty much the same as I could find in the 70s, 80s, 90s...

My guess is that the AG offices want to distract or obfuscate the other areas in this arena that they've (insert choice expletive here) up. July 1 is coming up, and it's almost time to fund their offices - self-importance is key here so they get funded for the next 12 months, so it's time to distract from all the other stuff they're not getting right.

Call your Congressperson. No, wait - he/she needs the cash too.