Please read our Rules and continue to report content that violates our rules on underage content.
main image
UploaderScarface, avatar
TagsBruce_Willis, fakes
Source Link
Unknown
LockedNo
Info498x800 // 101KB // jpg
avatar
- Reply
Koyomi_Araragi: oh god... why...
- Reply
Anonymous1: I don't even want to know what it looks like when it hardens.
- Reply
Ruke: I can guess some Apple fanboy is mad about the lawsuit
- Reply
JWN926: @Ruke: What?
- Reply
Anonymous2: feature... he is indeed a dickhead!
- Reply
Anonymous3: Ah, Apple fanboys. Can't live with them, and... well, that's all.
- Reply
Anonymous4: Fake and gay!
- Reply
JeKv: My hair is foreskin. Your argument is invalid.
- Reply
Anonymous5: Looks like a stubby elephant trunk
- Reply
chickenboo: Did it REALLY have to be labelled "fakes"?
- Reply
Anonymous6: Personally I think its great he doing this suit, though I'm not sure how effective it'll be. Ultimately when it's all said and done this isn't an Apple issue but the owners/distributers of the music. When music started being distributed digitally it seems all prior law on the subject of 'you bought it, you own it' went out the window. 'Course, NAPSTER didn't help this at all, hardening musicians, record labels and the RIAA to digital media.

So, when Apple introduced the first iPod in October 2001 the RIAA and it's minions were well stirred up. _Everyone_ had to do some type of per user digital licensing with music at the time, not just Apple. Apple simply made the right choices as to their hardware.

(Everyone seems to forget that Apple had a prior 4th quarter profit in 2000 of just $170 Million, they didn't have a huge ad budget and had to rely almost solely on its established user base. They had to be smart with their money, unlike MS who could squander years of profit over PlaysForSure and it's partners, ending with the failed Zune)

I suspect that Apple couldn't care less about per user music licensing, just so long as they get their money for the hardware.

So I say go for it Bruce, maybe we'll finally get a return to established law on purchased ownership that had been in force prior to the late 1990's.
- Reply
Anonymous7: @Anonymous: of course idiot and we love it!! Stupid Bruce Willis


Report an ad?