3 ms·

To be fair, they probably came up with that in a way to reduce the /other/ army of people coming to see in the 'genius' to restore the laptop they've never back

To be fair, they probably came up with that in a way to reduce the /other/ army of people coming to see in the 'genius' to restore the laptop they've never backuped EVER and have accidentally wiped, containing 10+ years of their digital life...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nrinaudo 10y ago
If it's the case, somebody at Apple is seriously incompetent. - Copy files that don't belong to them without the owner's explicit permission: some people call that piracy. I believe individuals caught doing that with movies have been faced with some hefty fines. I understand the purpose, but it needs to come with a big, massive, Allow Apple to pirate your data, trust us, it's for your own protection checkbox. Who knows, it might even initially be true. - do you know of any good backup solution that forcefully deletes the files it's backing up? Do you think there might be a reason why not? I find this entirely unacceptable behaviour from Apple, and I say this as someone who has been using OS X almost exclusively for 10+ years now.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I believe individuals caught doing that with movies have been faced with some hefty fines. I doubt it. The only hefty fines were for redistribution, not mere copying/download.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    Apple are re-distributing. And they're doing as part of business, which usually tips it from civil[1] to criminal[2]. [1] I think the US term is "a tort"? [2] Fines and prison time, not damages.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >Apple are re-distributing. Only to the user they got the audio themselves. Any proof they're redistributing random X users not tagged in their collection files to others? In any case, the whole "piracy" angle is BS (not to mention it lacks intent and profit from explicit piracy). What's at stake is plain bad program behavior -- deleting users files without explicit confirmation, making bad matches to different versions of songs, etc.
      - mioelnir 10y ago
        > Only to the user they got the audio themselves. How do you know that? And it is irrelevant either way. That you are the sole owner of the rights of a piece of music does not grant Apple an automatic license to distribute it "just to you".
        coldtea 10y ago
        >How do you know that? I'm smart like that. Or rather I have read in detail about how Apple Music works. Besides, the burden of proof is on those making that claim. >That you are the sole owner of the rights of a piece of music does not grant Apple an automatic license to distribute it "just to you". I call BS. That's exactly the same as Dropbox/Google Drive whatever making a copy of your files and distributing them just to you, and tons of other Cloud services handling your files besides. At the moment you use Apple Music (which is a services for moving your music collection to the Cloud among other things) you are implicitly allowing Apple to upload and serve you your music files. Plus, you explicitly approved the whole process and granted that right when you clicked on the iTunes/Apple Music license agreement. Nothing different than what happens with thousands of other services.
        mapt 10y ago
        The work was not merely backed up, but repackaged into a format that Apple is more comfortable selling in; .wav files were converted to AACs, and rare remixes were converted to the popular hit versions. The old stuff was then deleted from local storage without permission, which is intent to make these privately owned tracks an excludable good, not to mention theft. A further problem arises when a user has a non-transferrable IP that Apple doesn't sell in his left pocket and some generic track that Apple sells in his right pocket, and Apple picks both pockets with the intention of becoming a redistributor. The user does not have permission to transfer, nor has he indicated to Apple that he's given permission, for Apple to acquire the proprietary IP and redistribute it. It is entirely plausible that this proprietary IP was never intended for sale, was a trade secret, was a nude tape, or was a classified recording. There's all sorts of issues with Borg-style cloud IP assimilation under the "Fair Use Doctrine", and commercial usage of the IP for "backup" while simultaneously being a vendor of the IP (and competing products) make it unlikely that you could apply fair use credibly for something this expansive.
DanBC 10y ago
In that case they should copy, but not delete, the files. And they should have better content matching so they don't destroy user data.
buserror 10y ago
Seriously, how can that post get -3 karma; why the hate, I have a lot more sympathy for Mr Clueless without backups than this. The user in question committed his data, his 'life' as he calls it, to a service that is made for mom+pop, without reading the EULA, and he complains? The guy's a composer and keeps his masters into.... iTunes? Seriously? He discovers /after the fact/ that his special recording he care so much about has been replaced? Hasn't he tried google, or perhaps do a bit of due diligence about it before committing 120GB of his precious data to a cloud provider? ... To a service that is /meant/ to be able to replace songs automatically? What's not clear about 'automatic'? Now I don't mean apple is /right/ here, it's very likely done so that apple can sell machines with less flash, for more -or something like that- there's no doubt that there is a reason why they delete the data.. a reason that doesn't need to benefits the user ultimately. However I don't have a lot of sympathy for that particular user; he comes as someone who should know better. I'm a mac user since 1984, and I don't use Apple Music, iCloud, or any of these fancy subscription services. I'm also a musician, and a photographer, and it wouldn't cross my mind for a minute to just commit my stuff to a place that might decide the data is 'theirs' in their next update.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nrinaudo 10y ago

If it's the case, somebody at Apple is seriously incompetent. - Copy files that don't belong to them without the owner's explicit permission: some people call that piracy. I believe individuals caught doing that with movies have been faced with some hefty fines. I understand the purpose, but it needs to come with a big, massive, Allow Apple to pirate your data, trust us, it's for your own protection checkbox. Who knows, it might even initially be true. - do you know of any good backup solution that forcefully deletes the files it's backing up? Do you think there might be a reason why not? I find this entirely unacceptable behaviour from Apple, and I say this as someone who has been using OS X almost exclusively for 10+ years now.

coldtea 10y ago
>I believe individuals caught doing that with movies have been faced with some hefty fines. I doubt it. The only hefty fines were for redistribution, not mere copying/download.
- DanBC 10y ago
  Apple are re-distributing. And they're doing as part of business, which usually tips it from civil[1] to criminal[2]. [1] I think the US term is "a tort"? [2] Fines and prison time, not damages.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Apple are re-distributing. Only to the user they got the audio themselves. Any proof they're redistributing random X users not tagged in their collection files to others? In any case, the whole "piracy" angle is BS (not to mention it lacks intent and profit from explicit piracy). What's at stake is plain bad program behavior -- deleting users files without explicit confirmation, making bad matches to different versions of songs, etc.
    - mioelnir 10y ago
      > Only to the user they got the audio themselves. How do you know that? And it is irrelevant either way. That you are the sole owner of the rights of a piece of music does not grant Apple an automatic license to distribute it "just to you".
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >How do you know that? I'm smart like that. Or rather I have read in detail about how Apple Music works. Besides, the burden of proof is on those making that claim. >That you are the sole owner of the rights of a piece of music does not grant Apple an automatic license to distribute it "just to you". I call BS. That's exactly the same as Dropbox/Google Drive whatever making a copy of your files and distributing them just to you, and tons of other Cloud services handling your files besides. At the moment you use Apple Music (which is a services for moving your music collection to the Cloud among other things) you are implicitly allowing Apple to upload and serve you your music files. Plus, you explicitly approved the whole process and granted that right when you clicked on the iTunes/Apple Music license agreement. Nothing different than what happens with thousands of other services.
        mapt 10y ago
        The work was not merely backed up, but repackaged into a format that Apple is more comfortable selling in; .wav files were converted to AACs, and rare remixes were converted to the popular hit versions. The old stuff was then deleted from local storage without permission, which is intent to make these privately owned tracks an excludable good, not to mention theft. A further problem arises when a user has a non-transferrable IP that Apple doesn't sell in his left pocket and some generic track that Apple sells in his right pocket, and Apple picks both pockets with the intention of becoming a redistributor. The user does not have permission to transfer, nor has he indicated to Apple that he's given permission, for Apple to acquire the proprietary IP and redistribute it. It is entirely plausible that this proprietary IP was never intended for sale, was a trade secret, was a nude tape, or was a classified recording. There's all sorts of issues with Borg-style cloud IP assimilation under the "Fair Use Doctrine", and commercial usage of the IP for "backup" while simultaneously being a vendor of the IP (and competing products) make it unlikely that you could apply fair use credibly for something this expansive.

DanBC 10y ago

In that case they should copy, but not delete, the files. And they should have better content matching so they don't destroy user data.

buserror 10y ago

Seriously, how can that post get -3 karma; why the hate, I have a lot more sympathy for Mr Clueless without backups than this. The user in question committed his data, his 'life' as he calls it, to a service that is made for mom+pop, without reading the EULA, and he complains? The guy's a composer and keeps his masters into.... iTunes? Seriously? He discovers /after the fact/ that his special recording he care so much about has been replaced? Hasn't he tried google, or perhaps do a bit of due diligence about it before committing 120GB of his precious data to a cloud provider? ... To a service that is /meant/ to be able to replace songs automatically? What's not clear about 'automatic'? Now I don't mean apple is /right/ here, it's very likely done so that apple can sell machines with less flash, for more -or something like that- there's no doubt that there is a reason why they delete the data.. a reason that doesn't need to benefits the user ultimately. However I don't have a lot of sympathy for that particular user; he comes as someone who should know better. I'm a mac user since 1984, and I don't use Apple Music, iCloud, or any of these fancy subscription services. I'm also a musician, and a photographer, and it wouldn't cross my mind for a minute to just commit my stuff to a place that might decide the data is 'theirs' in their next update.