Eddie Vedder Sued For Changing Lyrics On A Song

Court Dumps Class Action Lawsuit Saying Apple iPod Responsible For Hearing Loss

from the what-did-the-judge-say?--speak-up! dept

Thu, Dec 31st 2009 7:50am — Mike Masnick

A few years back, someone sued Apple, claiming that the iPod caused hearing loss, saying that the devices have an "inherently defective design" and that they need more warnings that you can acquire hearing loss if high volumes are used. The lawsuit eventually turned into a class action, which a district court dismissed. Now an appeals court has agreed, saying that the plaintiffs showed no evidence that an iPod "poses an unreasonable risk of noise-induced hearing loss." Basically, the argument amounted to "you know, Apple could make iPods that are less likely to lead to hearing loss." But that's not legally actionable, and it's good that the courts were quick to point that out.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: class action, hearing loss, ipods, sound
Companies: apple

14 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 31 Dec 2009 @ 7:53am

In other news...
When is the lawsuit against the sun for causing skin cancer going to filed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2009 @ 7:59am
  
  Re: In other news...
  Sunblock prevents cancer but it also causes cancer at the same time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2009 @ 7:59am

and people are suing wireless (ie: cell and maybe cordless) phone companies because they supposedly cause brain cancer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mike allen (profile), 31 Dec 2009 @ 8:58am
  
  Re:
  latest research suggests this is not so.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2010 @ 12:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, one person claims his wife got brain cancer in the shape of the antenna on the same side that she talked on the cell phone.
    
    "Despite Mr. Raynard's claim that his wife's tumor was in the same shape as the cell phone antenna, the case was thrown out for a lack of evidence."
    
    http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4117
    
    I remember seeing this on T.V. once and, IIRC, they had a picture of it and it did resemble the cell phone antenna.
    
    Also note, many of the cell phone - cancer studies are done by industry. Other countries are taking the issue more seriously than the U.S. but the U.S. government only favors industry, they could care less about the consumer, so it wouldn't surprise me if certain studies in the U.S. were censored from the public.
    
    I'm not saying that there is a link between cell phone use and cancer, just that we need to take into consideration the fact that industry does have incentive to skew the data and hide evidence when considering the evidence.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
R. Miles (profile), 31 Dec 2009 @ 8:30am

One lawfirm not to hire.
I guess no attorney saw the same outcome when Sony was sued for the very same reason when they introduced the Walkman to the world.

History doth repeat itself indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 31 Dec 2009 @ 8:31am

Incidentally, the European Union has recently enacted some legislation to restrict MP3 players to a maximum output of 85 decibels, adjustable to 100 decibels as long as the firmware limit is turned on by default, so anyone using an MP3 player sold after these rules come into effect has to purposely engage "Real Music Is LOUD!" mode before they can fuck their hearing up.
Anyone calling this legislation paternalistic has obviously never forgotten to lock the controls before pocketing their MP3 player when their playlist contains power metal. The three seconds it took me to rip my headphones off were quite enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TW Burger (profile), 31 Dec 2009 @ 11:31am

Self Inflicted Wounds
I hear MP3 players on the transit system while on my way to work every weekday. There is always one or two people in a train car of 30+ playing the music so loudly I can clearly make out the beat and often the lyrics from 20 feet away. These people create their own hearing loss.

I would to sue these mouth breather, over volume players for making the rest of us suffer the incredibly obnoxious and substandard music being pounded through our skulls twice a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701 (profile), 31 Dec 2009 @ 12:54pm

So...
...what were these plaintiffs suggesting Apple should do? Put hard-programmed limits on how high a user can turn up the volume?

I'm so sick of these shitbag control freaks trying to find ways to protect me from myself. If I want to listen to music loud on a device that I bought and paid for and own, then that's my right and if I go deaf because of it, then I have no one to blame but myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jake, 31 Dec 2009 @ 1:02pm
  
  Re: So...
  See my earlier comment. Something to stop you turning the volume to max by accident -which I'm sure we've all done at least once- really does make sense, as does some kind of lock-out for kids too young to know any better.
  
  Besides, I'd rather do something proactive to stop some fuckwit destroying their hearing through their own stupidity than pay their disability living allowance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 31 Dec 2009 @ 1:29pm
    
    Re: Re: So...
    > Besides, I'd rather do something proactive to stop some fuckwit
    > destroying their hearing through their own stupidity than pay
    > their disability living allowance.
    
    Yes, that's always the argument of the nanny-state: We have to rob you of your freedom to decide even the most basic and private of things, rob you of all your autonomy, for the good of society. Because, of course, we know better how to live your life than you do.
    
    Like hell.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jake, 31 Dec 2009 @ 3:56pm
      
      Re: So...
      There's a difference between "(robbing) you of your freedom to decide even the most basic and private of things, (robbing) you of all your autonomy" and backing up common sense with some safety barriers for the few (or so I'd like to think) who really are that dumb or careless.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701 (profile), 1 Jan 2010 @ 12:42pm
        
        Re: Re: So...
        If they're that dumb or careless, the gene pool is better off without them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul (profile), 3 Jan 2010 @ 5:04am

RF and Brain Cancer VS. Volume related hearing loss....
comparing hearing loss from iPods and brain cancer from cell phones is just not logical.

hearing loss due to you're being too g.d. stupid to turn the volume down should rightly not be an actionable liability.

users know how loud it is, so if the volume is maxed and it doesn't sound loud enough...you've probably got what we call rock and roll ears. you get the same thing from too much time in rehearsal studio with the amps cranked up too high.

brain cancer from a cell phone is an entirely different beast. a "user" can't detect that the close field RF is causing genetic damage (leading to cancer) besides the "mild" heating sensation. the telecom industry can fight the battle for as long as they want...but they will lose the war. RF, even tiny bits of it, cause genetic damage leading to cancer. plain and simple. betcha steve jobs wore his iphone (prototype) on a belt holster for the last 10 years leading to his pancreatic cancer.

telecom is in for a thrashing this decade that will make the cigarette class action suits look pale by comparison. RF causes cancer. no g.d. doubt about it.

use your cell phone and cordless home phones on speaker only or procure a shielded WIRED earpiece. if you can't, don't answer or call from it. blue tooth is just another RF source though better than holding your handset to the side of your brain. however, if wearing the BT headset all day, it defeats any safety effect you'd get from using it just during a call.

Further,...radiation above the normal/natural frequency range causes mitochondrial disfunction so loss of energy to repair the damage caused to the cells.

Combine mitochondrial disfunction and genetic damage and whathaveyougot? CANCER.
___________________________________
Paul F. Becker, Esq., Product Developer
MagnetoTherapy Bahamas, Ltd.
EarthPulse™ Sleep on Command™- the world's only electromagnetic sleep & recovery system
Sleep Your Way to Better Health™, Enhanced Performance and Longer Life
http://www.earthpulsetechnologies.com
U.S.:+1.305.434.7061 / International & Caribbean:+1.242.676.2324 / Canada:+1.778.786.3650 / U.K.:+44.131.516.8138
FAX:+1.772.539.8437
"Nearly all psychological, neurological and physiological disease including aging, is the end result of mitochondrial dysfunction; and NOT the other way around." ~ Paul F. Becker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]