Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Jolly Roger Newsgroups: alt.comp.freeware,comp.sys.mac.system,alt.hacker,alt.privacy.anon-server,comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: "Unhackable" Apple Confirms Malware-Infected Apps Found And Removed From Its Chinese App Store Date: 25 Sep 2015 04:26:20 GMT Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <220920150315428842%nospam@nospam.invalid> <91777a714f0d3c05732c6cc8035a09ba@remailer.cpunk.us> <220920151252101796%nospam@nospam.invalid> <220920152128268439%michelle@michelle.org> <220920152224189621%michelle@michelle.org> <230920150841382109%michelle@michelle.org> <230920151950041296%nospam@nospam.invalid> X-Trace: individual.net MR1CDLz3E45kCiFV2U2mngMqxNXb3VhDgyBE4oCcUq3sVERgAH Cancel-Lock: sha1:w/yxqt5UFZTwMDjinc7QHj4kwYA= X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-) User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin) Xref: csiph.com alt.comp.freeware:243898 comp.sys.mac.system:80561 alt.hacker:8301 alt.privacy.anon-server:45447 comp.os.linux.advocacy:322859 On 2015-09-25, Nobody wrote: > On 9/24/2015 7:01 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2015-09-24, Nobody wrote: >>> >>> Apple going through my personal files on my personal device and >>> deleting items without my permission certainly is a criminal act. >> >> Apple didn't delete any files, as court records show. Your ignorance is >> showing. >> >>> They have no right to inspect my files for DRM and delete them on that >>> basis, or any other basis. >> >> Apple didn't inspect your silly files. All Apple did was check DRM to >> ensure it was genuine before transferring songs to Apple devices. They >> certainly have a right to verify the DRM was legitimate and refuse to >> transfer illegitimate songs to Apple devices. And the courts and a jury >> agreed, which is why Apple won the lawsuit. Apple did nothing wrong. > > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/04/apple-deleted-music-ipods-rivals-steve-jobs That's an article from The Guardian written before the case was over, echoing claims made by the people who lost the case. Naturally, the writer of the article could not have known ahead of time that the plaintiffs claims were false, and they lost the case as a result. > Hmm... they have a word for what you are... wait...it'll come to me... > oh yes...WRONG... you are completely and horribly WRONG. You are projecting - and failing hard. Fool. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR