Well, see, I was going for a “can’t be heard because iPod made the judge deaf” joke.
But yours works too.
Great, except when you’re driving a car you know when it starts getting dangerous. You can’t tell what volume starts to cause hearing damage if it’s below the pain threshold.
Ah thanks QED, I thought the pillow thing was true.
I’m so tearing the tags off when I get home!
Um, no I didn’t.
If you say so.
I got it. And I chortled. FWIW.
Oh, and the lawsuit? Bogus.
Do you? One is used to driving at 60 safely, so one speeds up to 65. Still no problems. It’s a very long drive and one starts to creep to 70, but doesn’t even realize. 40-50 miles later, one is doing 85 without realizing it. I’ve been there, where I’ve looked down at the spedometer and said, “WTF, I’m going how fast?” (Granted, when I was driving my 15 year-old Dodge Dart, I thought the car was going to fall apart at 50 - no danger there of not knowing how fast I was moving) When I slow back down to 60-65, it feels like a crawl.
One has to manually turn up the volume, it is not automatic. If one ignores the symptoms, is it the manufacturers fault? Is it the manufacturer’s fault when there are explicit warnings about the behavior one is engaging in? I’m reminded of the (perhaps apocryphal) tale of a chainsaw with the warning “Do not attempt to stop the blade with your hands”. If one fails to read or heed the warning, is it the chainsaw manufacturer’s fault. (I’m always curious what might have prompted such a warning, and whether, absent such a warning, the manufacturer could be held liable if someone did try to stop the blade with their hand).
I dunno, I can kind of see where you’re comin’ from, but I suffer tinnitus and a slight hearing loss caused (or so the doctor says) by listening to too much earsplitting music on headphones in my misguided youth. I’m not sure that the government placing a limit on how much punishment your iPod can give to your ears is any more out of line than mandating fuel mileage for auto manufacturers or telling tobacco companies that they can’t market their wares to children.
Have you ever noticed those black and white signs next to roads that have a big number in the middle and the words “Speed Limit” written above? A speed at which it’s ILLEGAL to drive above, because of safety concerns.
Is there an analogous line on a iPod’s “volume indicator” that says, “operating iPod above this level can damage your hearing”?
Perhaps you would like RFID chip in every speed limit sign and a receiver in every car that warns a driver every time he is exceeding the speed? Or maybe you want it automatic - a limiter on the engine that forbids exceeding the posted speed limit?
Or perhaps nanny government should make a law that one cannot listen to an iPod over 85 decibels under any circumstances?
Just as a street sign tells me I shouldn’t drive over a certain speed (and has legal authority behind it) because of safety concerns, the iPod ships with a warning about prolonged exposure to loud noise. And just as many millions of drivers routinely ignore the posted speed limit, placing not only themselves but also their passengers, pedestrians, and other drivers at risk, millions of iPod users, putting only their own hearing at risk, ignore the warnings.
Actually, I thought they already did, in the little instruction sheet that nobody reads because (as Cecil put it) even a BRAIN-DAMAGED FREAKING ORANGUTAN can figure out how to use an iPod.
Different MP3s have different levels. It is possible to rip the same song so that one version is very quiet, and one version is very loud.
Putting a redline on the volume indicator of the iPod isn’t going to be all that helpful. Will a song at normal levels, cranked, cross the 100 decibel mark? I don’t think it does, but that may also depend on the speakers or headphones attached to it.
Another story on the case:
:dubious:
In the EU some brands come with the 85 decibel limit programmed in. Needless to say it takes about 2 minutes to find and download a hack but with the popularity of these things and the potential for serious long term hearing loss I don’t think it’s unreasonable to mandate a built-in limit.
It’s not like kids have a lot of that ‘think of the future’ common sense. I didn’t at ear-splitting rock concerts in the seventies and that undoubtedly has affected my hearing.
I approve of it only to stop my public transport journeys becoming a hi-hat hell. 
Ear buds haven’t. Nor has the incredible convenience of the iPod which leads to its use, by some, for many more hours per day than most people used their Walkmans or Discmans.
This is an argument best made to the legislature, not the courts.
Interestingly, an irrelvant, factually questionable, ad hominem, and boorish comment like this is consistent with your posting history, too. I suppose we’re both creatures of habit.
SteveMB, I don’t think there’s anything either surprising or particularly bothersome about this. First of all, I represent lots of clients that have interests both conflicting and aligned. It doesn’t change my actions w/r/t any particular client. Moreover, so what if this is a plot by Microsoft against Apple? If Apple is committing a tort and negligently destroying people’s hearing, what’s it matter that it’s their competitor discovered it? Society is better off with the problem solved no matter what the motives of those who acted to solve it. Of course, if Apple isn’t doing anything that should make them liable, the courts aren’t going to be any more receptive to invalid claims by Microsoft than they are to invalid claims by some dweeb off the street.
–Cliffy
Which is precisely why I don’t want the luddite nannies in congress or any state legislature touching the issue.
FACT: There is a warning in the iPods about headphones and volume level
FACT: People ignore the warnings or don’t even bother to read them
FACT: When people are presented the consequences of ignoring the warnings, they blame Apple
FACT: Reports of the dangers of hearing loss related to iPods started appearing in earnest around late December: CNN
FACT: First publicized lawsuit appears one month later
FACT: Plaintiff does not state whether he has hearing loss due to iPod usage.
FACT: Only Apple is named in the lawsuit (guess no one else makes loud MP3 players)
The suit is available at FindLaw. Page 7 has the iPod’s “hidden” warning, including a warning that a user can experience volume creep.
If this lawsuit gets a dime, I’m heading to the nearest shyster* I can find, and soon no car will be sold publicly that can exceed 65mph.
*My opinion on this particular lawyer and his motivations (and his skills - he didn’t cast a wide-enough net. Easily every MP3 manufacturer, every headphone seller, and every digital music could have also been extorted. Not a global indictment of the profession.
No, and there can’t be. The SPL at your eardrum depends not only on the setting of the volume control, but also on the headphones. How close the physical sound-production surface is to the eardrum makes a difference–which can vary from individual to individual, even for the same set of headphones, as does the electrical and mechanical design and construction of it. A number of factors can make one set of headphones significantly louder than another; there’s just too many variables for there to be a “one size fits all” solution.
In product liability law, “defective” can have a meaning that is quite different from the normal meaning.
That is, if a product is used in its expected manner or in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable to the manufacturer will cause damage, then the device is defective and the manufacturer might be liable for the damage (if the defect is a manufacturing defect rather than a design defect).
On the other hand, if it can be shown that Apple breached a duty of care in designing the I-Pod – in other words they should have known (that it was reasonably forseeable) that making it playable at X decibels was going to cause damage – then that can be considered a design defect that might result in liability.
Devices that injure people through expected use are defective. Unless, of course, you’re suggesting that Apple intended to cause deafness, in which case that could be an intentional tort.
It seems to me he’s just doing his job here. The law doesn’t allow him to go after companies whose products his client hasn’t used or whose products have not casued any damage to his client. His client used Apple’s product. We don’t know whether he used any other ones that caused damage to his ears. If he obtains a judgment against or a settlement from Apple, that’s a basis for other people to go after other companies whose products have caused deafness.
Certainly I’m no product liability lawyer, nor am I a lawyer of any type. I just don’t see how this is dissimilar to manufacturing and selling automobiles capable of exceeding the fastest speed limit. Shouldn’t Porsche know that most of its drivers are going to exceed 65mph, engaging in a demonstrably unsafe behavior? Or is it assumed all that power is simply for 0-to-60 acceleration?
Maybe he can convince a jury that Apple created a defective product. Stranger things have happened (OJ is still free, after all). Maybe he can convince a jury that despite the warning, people are still going to engage in a self-destructive manner. I sure hope not, though. Still, who wants to be in my auto manufacturer class action. Enough lead plaintiffs, we can hit every auto manufacturer out there.