hi
would u be kind enough to tell me the following things:

1- Apple was sued by a lussiana guy for damaging sound level. As a result forks at apple introduced volume limiter ..OK
But why did they put the password for volume limiter in a file easily acessed by people .. and that too with a very descriptive name ( _volume..) removing this file easily removes the volume level....
2- why dont they put a hardware volume limiter instead ,,wat was the problem

i hope u got my point plz help
thanking in advance

I would think that changing the hardware midstream would be very expensive and impractical. The fact of the matter is that most people lack either the knowledge and/or impetus to remove the software limiter, and if they do so Apple still has a legal defense.

I'm of the opinion that cases such as these should be laughed out of court. If you don't have enough sense to stop doing something that causes pain, you deserve whatever you get.

Do you want to be like Europe, where all portable audio are "hard" limited with no easy way to get around? Just because there is a morron that has no clue how to reduce the volume of his iPod, doesn't mean everybody has to suffer from a stupid rule. How about this, since high speed accidents are dangerous, maybe all car manufactures should just put a hard speed limit of 30mph on all cars. Do you want that? Same idea, since alcohol is "addictive and dangerous," maybe we should make it illegal. Oh, they tried that, and it didn't work. (same thing with volume limit in Europe, many users are finding firmware or service mode hacks to bypass the limit, or simply import a US/Asian version of the device)

Unfortunately it's stuff that gets put in place as a result of a culture whereby people sue anyone for anything...started in the US I believe.

I firmly believe people should take responsibility for their actions but everyone is happy to blame someone else for their mistakes if they think they can make some money out of it.

Sure, blame the United States.

You must see irony in the fact that Apple doesn't limit the volume on iPods sold in the US.

He's right though. Europe is getting more litigious, we usually trail the US in this but in this instance the reverse is true.

According to this article though, I can imagine you'll get the same in the US soon enough. Let's save adults from themselves eh?

I highly agree. Just like the kids who sued McDonald's for making them fat, the woman who sued McDonald's for selling her hot coffee that she spilled on her legs, etc. I recently went to a Deftones concert and was 2 ft away from the speakers. I had a ringing in my right ear for days. Did I sue the Deftones? No because I understood that, if I stood that close to the speakers, it could damage my ears.

These kind of cases are meant mainly to get money out of Apple because they have had success with their iPods. Someone somewhere always wants something for free, especially money. So these people see how successful a company is and they want part of that companies money for doing nothing. Next thing you know, people will be suing Nintendo because one of their kids hit the other kid in the head with the Wiimote while playing a game even though Nintendo includes a disclaimer about such a thing happening (just like Apple included a disclaimer about listening to music at high volumes, just like every other DAP and headphone manufacturer includes a disclaimer about listening to music at high volumes).

Yes, some cases are trivial. IMHO, however, the coffee case may have been borderline. That is, I don't think it was ridiculous (as the fat case appears to be). In both cases, the news reporting was horrible.

Read the specifics of the Liebeck (coffee) case for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Corp.

But, back to hearing damage...

-brendan

actually I am very glad for the European folks, that they did it that way and not a hardware limiter. I don't understand your point. Pls explain.

Didn't they limit the volume to only 100dB or something?

I thought Apple's approach to this was good. Aside from the "ouch, it hurts when I do this..." scenario, I see a perfectly realistic scenario where having volume limiting makes sense.

If you are using your iPod in a noisy environment (train, walking down a city street, etc.), you will continue to crank the volume until it seems comfortable in relation to the surrounding noise. You would not realize until you are away from the noise what a rediculouly high volume you set it to eventually.

With the way Apple implemented it, you can set the volume limit as you see fit. You can set it in a quiet environment and would prevent yourself from inadvertantly making it too loud in a noisy environment.

This approach let's you set the limit and some responsibility is placed on the user. I like that. Everybody is different - how can some lab determine what the max setting should be for EVERYBODY. Though I'm sure a lawyer will find a way to make a case with this too.

Does anyone else find this as amusing as I do?

I've read from a few sources that it started in the UK (Paisley, Scotland), just our American friends do it more and better. Off topic, but we should not accuse the innocent

"only 100dB" is enough to damage hearing. In the UK, employers are required to provide hearing protection at 85dB and to enforce its use at 95dB in the workplace.

Judging from the loudness of some people's players on public transport around here, we're heading for a generation of deaf people. I can sometimes hear sound from other people's earphones from 20ft away, on a noisy tram; that's OVER the music I'm playing on my Shure E2s! Still, they have only themselves to blame IMO...

I think concert and club organisers should be required, by law, to provide free ear plugs (discrete little in-ear things in funky colours would be good) at the door if the loudness exceeds that at which permanent damage could be caused.

Because I don't believe that everyone in there understands just how much damage they could be doing to their ears. You don't know what permanent damage you're doing until you've done it! People assume that just because their ears seemed to recover fine after last time, they will do so again and again. Every study shows exactly the opposite!

And I don't think many people realise just how exhilarating "illegally" loud sound levels can be when your ears are suitably protected. If anything, it sounds far better than loud levels without ear protection, and easier to talk (shout) at people too! (If you doubt this, try it!).

Cheers,
David.

Actually, do you guys think that the original poster is probably just a troll?

Joined: 13-September 06
And he/she only posted this 1 post on Nov 10.

Weird.

That's why I say only. I really don't see what the big deal is... Unless you have 128ohm headphones or something.

Just a little off topic: Actually, they do this at every concert I have attended. They post signs telling everyone that the music will be loud (they also advise that moshing could occur) and could potentially cause damage to one's ears. They then have these containers near every entrance to the concert that hold free ear plugs and the outside signs even say this. If the containers are empty, the sign advises everyone to go to either the merchandise stalls or anyone of the snack stalls to pick up some free ear plugs. In fact, I attended a couple of concerts in Cincinnati, OH where they were required to hand out the free ear plugs before the concert started. I did notice that the ear protection advisement procedures were a little more strict in Cincinnati, OH than where I currently live (southern New Mexico).

I just hope that Apple doesn't start enacting a hardware volume limiter on US iPods. I feel that, if I want to turn the volume up, I should be able to. People should know that playing a iPod (or any other DAP) at loud volumes for any amount of time could cause ear damage (as the iPod warns). If these people don't know that then they don't deserve an iPod.