Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Sued For Dividing Final Season of Breaking Bad Into Two On iTunes

samzenpus posted 1 year,6 days | from the heisenberg-is-not-happy dept.

The Courts 458

An anonymous reader writes "Last night's episode of Breaking Bad was one of the most intense in series history, but for those who haven't seen it yet, don't worry, I won't be putting out any spoilers. You see, today's Breaking Bad news has nothing to do with Walter White's slow transformation into Scarface, but rather with a legal suit filed against Apple by a Breaking Bad fan. In a lawsuit that many saw coming, an Ohio man named Noam Lazebnik recently filed a class action suit against Apple upon finding out that the $22.99 he forked over for a 'Season Pass' of Breaking Bad was only good for the first 8 episodes of the show's final season."

cancel ×

458 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First World Problems (-1, Flamebait)

ColdWetDog (752185) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797123)

Hey, what do you all think of the new iPhone?

Re:First World Problems (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797141)

I think you can be taken for an extra $20 in third world countries as well. Swindlers exist everywhere.

Re:First World Problems (2, Insightful)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797235)

I seriously doubt this was apple!s decision. Wrong party to sue.

Re:First World Problems (5, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797261)

*I seriously doubt this was apple!s decision. Wrong party to sue.*

well apple sure was the party that sold the season pass... even if apple wasn't the party to decide that the final season is actually two seasons.

Re:First World Problems (2)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797493)

It's ok, it's all good man.

Re:First World Problems (1)

poetmatt (793785) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797829)

do you not remember who controls the itunes store?

Re:First World Problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797965)

Actually, as far as publishing the movies, tv shows, and music the publishers themselves are who directly control the Meta data, the videos in the release & the pricing.

Re:First World Problems (3, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | 1 year,6 days | (#44798089)

You posted that at 10:34, the story went up at 10:22. It's possible that there was someone out there who was stupid enough to not realize that apple was not making breaking bad, and he or she happened to somehow have enough money to hire a lawyer who was willing to take their money in exchange for nothing. But it's also possible that whoever is behind this spent longer than 12 minutes thinking about it and has a better idea of what they're doing than you do.

There's probably already a rule for this, but I'm going to go ahead and state that as a general rule, any one line objections raised about a story within the first 15 minutes of the story going up on slashdot are probably not really that insightful. If you think you've found a gaping hole in a legal strategy, maybe consider that the strategy is more complex than the headline suggests. If it's a story about a scientific study, and you don't bother reading the actual published paper, maybe don't bother spouting a one line rejection of it.

Perhaps it takes some slashdotters less than 15 minutes to read a scientific paper, digest it, and crystalize a major problem to one line, maybe there are slashdot lawyers out there who pull up the documents online and read through a court case and then explain in one single sentence the glaring flaw. But I doubt it has ever actually worked like that.

Re:First World Problems (0)

jedidiah (1196) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797617)

Yes. The perfect excuse to tolerate liars and cheats.

Re:First World Problems (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797145)

Iphone... Isn't that one of those niche devices for self-important people?

Re:First World Problems (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797155)

You could at least wait until tomorrow, my friend/troll. And by the end of the month you'll be sick of hearing about the iPhone 5S and iPhone 5C.

Re:First World Problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797397)

And by the end of last month you're sick of hearing about the iPhone 5S and iPhone 5C.

FTFY!

Re:First World Problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797157)

It's crap, wake me up when they shrink it down small enough to fit inside my wallet.

Why is Apple the one being sued? (5, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797139)

They didn't make the Breaking Bad series, they're not the ones who decided to split up the season in two. What's next, suing Apple because the new pop music album is crap?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (4, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797169)

One of the cardinal rules of litigation is that the list of defendants includes everyone involved (in any way) who has money.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (5, Insightful)

ChromaticDragon (1034458) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797563)

There are couple of problems with your quip. First, it seems this chap isn't going after money. The article suggests he is seeking only a refund... for all he deems swindled by this. Second, he doesn't seem to have sued more than his immediate interface in this chain of commerce. That is, he's simply trying to hold Apple to their apparently declared obligation.

Actually, however, there are a number of reasons to sue multiple parties in many cases regardless of the amount of money sought. Sometimes it's pretty clear who did you wrong. Here it seems rather clear that Apple made a particular promise prior to a proper appreciation or understanding of the intent of AMC. But often it's not entirely clear. Next, suing all involved parties forces them all to get their act together (individually and collectively) since if any party doesn't show at court judgement may default against them regardless of actual guilt/responsibility. Sadly, it seems litigation is often required to get multiple bureaucracies to work together... or against each other. Which brings us to another reason - getting your opponents' lawyers to do your work for you as they endeavour to show the other defendant guilty.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44798073)

There are couple of problems with your quip. First, it seems this chap isn't going after money. The article suggests he is seeking only a refund... for all he deems swindled by this.

^^ This is insightful?

Are we supposed to believe that this guy is undertaking the effort and expense of litigation all in the name of recovering his $22.99?

NO!

There is an army of lawyers here, FUNDING and waiting upon the outcome of this case before launching similar class-actions that will net them millions of dollars and all the "swindled" customers a free season something.

Good god man. Wake up. Read between the lines.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44798099)

First, it seems this chap isn't going after money. The article suggests he is seeking only a refund...

In other words he's going after money.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (5, Informative)

jonwil (467024) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797175)

Apple did not split the new season in 2 parts but they ARE the ones that sold it as a "season pass" and didn't say anywhere that the "season pass" is not good for the entire season.

To me its a fairly simple case of misleading advertizing.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (5, Insightful)

gorzek (647352) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797293)

Indeed. AMC's official stance is that this is one season of 16 episodes. For Apple to make the decision to consider it two "seasons" as far as "season passes" are concerned--well, I hope they've got some good fine print on that, otherwise they're boned. To me, "season pass" means "season pass," not "half a season pass." If Apple doesn't like it, they should take it up with AMC.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued? (3, Interesting)

tysonedwards (969693) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797445)

Or, Apple gave AMC an account to upload content (as they do every other iTunes Content Distributor whether they be app, music, movie or tv) and AMC did it under the guise of Season 5 is 8 episodes. Just because AMC is covering their asses as SciFi did on many occasions in the past does not mean that Apple is at fault. Basically, it is the same as the DVD and Bluray copies sold as Season 5 during a mid-season break only to have 5.1 after the season truly ends. Or do you blame Best Buy for those too?

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797517)

That depends completely on what advertising Apple did. If it showed up on the front page of itunes? If yes, then I completely blame apple.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797885)

Apple is still the vendor and the vendor is responsible, even if they outsourced some of the work. If AMC broke Apple's rules then Apple should take action against AMC and refund their customers. If AMC didn't break Apple's rules then Apple's rules are ridiculous and Apple is responsible.

And yes, I would blame Best Buy or any other shop if they sold something as "Season 5" and then released "Season 5 Part 2". Any normal person would understand a "season" to be the complete season's set of episodes, not half of them.

Re: Why is Apple the one being sued? (1)

Old97 (1341297) | 1 year,6 days | (#44798117)

Apple did not out source any work. They own the store, really more of a consignment shop. The content owners set the prices and terms. The content owners provide the product descriptions, etc. Apple handles delivery and payments on behalf of the content owners.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (3, Interesting)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797475)

Fine print won't help if you can call this "Misleading Advertisement". False and misleading advertisement are both illegal; if you put something reasonable as a title on your shit and people are reasonably mislead, you're misleading. "Entire CD for $5!" *"We only carry 2 tracks of this CD as a bundle, you get the entire 2 tracks we carry as the digital version of the CD, you have to buy the rest" fineprint bullshit will quickly get you boned unless it is slapped right across the front somewhere most complete retards will spot it. The harder you bury that fine print, the guiltier you look and the less amused the courts will be.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797437)

I don't watch Breaking Bad or buy Season Passes but it this simply a case of impatience? I mean that not all content is released immediately. For example movies are not available on DVD before you can get it on PPV. I couldn't find that Apple offers the second 8 episodes for sale at all. The last episode was just released. Has it been released to Apple yet?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797547)

False Advertising
Bait and Switch

Call it what you will, but they need to make good on what they sold, or it's breach of contract and they have to refund all the money they swindled.

Doesn't matter who decided to split in two, a season is a season, period.

Season pass - means entire season. not season part one pass, season part two pass.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (1, Funny)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797585)

So I have to buy another season pass, and only then can I download it on my 10gb unlimited connection?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797183)

They are the ones who advertised a "season pass" product that is really only half of the season.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (2)

Crimey McBiggles (705157) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797185)

Because they're the ones that processed the transaction behind an ad that said "Season 5 for $22.99" without specifying that it's just part 1.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797953)

Even 16 episodes for $22.99 is way too much. You think AMC makes that much off cable viewers? No way.

For that kind of price you could get the DVDs. This is why I wait for shows to be on Netflix.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (2)

egamma (572162) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797997)

Even 16 episodes for $22.99 is way too much. You think AMC makes that much off cable viewers? No way.

For that kind of price you could get the DVDs. This is why I wait for shows to be on Netflix.

22.99 is for the high-def version; would you consider that an acceptable price for the Blu-ray disks? It's $14.99 for the standard definition. It is a complete rip-off for only 8 episodes, but seems like a decent price for 16.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44798025)

You think AMC makes that much off cable viewers?

Nope they make way way more.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,6 days | (#44798159)

Not possible.
Show some math.
AMC gets at most a couple dollars a month out of a cable viewer, and has to provide far more shows than just this one.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797203)

No but they are the ones who are selling a season pass for half a season.

Maybe things are different in the US, but in the UK at least the onus is on the retailer to make sure the products they sell are correctly advertised.

If it's genuinely not Apple's fault, then Apple gets to sue onwards to the provider of the product to recoup their costs, but either way the consumer's purchase contract was with Apple, so the consumer is right to take it up against Apple.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (1)

hedwards (940851) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797311)

The rules probably aren't as strict in the US. However, this is such an egregious example, that it's going to be a slam dunk. I'm guessing that Apple will wind up settling as half of a season isn't the same as a season. Especially if previous seasons were sold at a similar price.

It does get a bit funny as it's relatively common for cable series to do 2 seasons a year rather than one long season, so that's a potential out. However, if that's a change from previous seasons, which it sounds like it was, then they would still have to properly advertise that it's a shortened season.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797747)

Hey if we are going the bullshit route, why not 22 seasons, one for each week with 4 episodes each season, you know the chunks between designated commercial breaks.

This is a straight up warning, paying before delivery from a modern corporation is a mugs game. The more they get, the more likely they are to lie, cheat and steal to get more.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (3, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797327)

If it's genuinely not Apple's fault, then Apple gets to sue onwards to the provider of the product to recoup their costs, but either way the consumer's purchase contract was with Apple, so the consumer is right to take it up against Apple.

Normally that is not how it works. Apple can request that they are excluded from the suit and the court can agree. The court has to determine this based on a number of factors. If Apple is simply a middleman or distributor selling a product based on the content holder's wishes they are more likely to be dismissed from the case. Also if competitors have the exact same arrangement, it is more likely the content holder is the one who has to address the suit.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (-1, Flamebait)

jedidiah (1196) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797749)

You are just a fanboy talking out of your ass trying to find any lame excuse you can to excuse your pet brand.

You must be an alumni of the Cuppertino school of law.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797821)

Run along, little troll. Grown ups are speaking.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797949)

Wow all insults and no points and plain hate. In the case of lawsuits, liability matters and middlemen/distributors have limited liability in most cases. You can sue your local pharmacy if you get a bad bottle of Tylenol but the judge is most likely going to dismiss the pharmacy from the suit unless you can prove that they were liable in some way other than selling you a product made by Johnson & Johnson. The judge will tell you to sue J&J. In this case Amazon appears to do the same thing with Breaking Bad. Based on your reaction, are you going to sue Apple if you bought a season pass from Amazon?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797985)

If they are the ones doing the advertising they have shared liability. Calling it a season pass, means you are selling a season full of shows. Otherwise they should advertise it as a half season pass.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797933)

Sounds like an excellent way for companies to avoid any responsibility for the products they sell. Pass the responsibility up the chain to some foreign company incorporated in the Kayman Islands, or to some factory in China. Someone you can't really sue, or who will simply declare bankruptcy and set up a new shell company the same day.

The UK way is better. Hold the seller responsible for what they sell, and then it's up to them to sue their suppliers. Make it easier and cheaper for the individual consumer to get justice and fair treatment from large corporations with deep pockets.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | 1 year,6 days | (#44798163)

It's a concept in law called "liability.". And in life as well. People can't get judgments against you based on what your neighbors do. In this case what is Apple guilty of doing? If Apple took upon themselves to split the seasons, then they have more liability. If they are selling "as-is", then what should the courts do?

If you get some tainted ground beef, what is the store's liability to you? The answer is: it depends on the store's involvement. Did they properly handle the beef? Did they reprocess it? (Some stores buy it in bulk and split it into smaller portions). Did they know there was an issue with the ground beef and sold it to you anyway?

Now if the store didn't know there was an issue, if they properly handled it, if they merely resold the beef to you "as-is" then what is their liability? Most likely, very little. But are you going to rail against them when it was really someone else that tainted the beef?

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44798069)

It used to be that way in the US, then we kept electing "pro business" governments.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797383)

As you stated in your post, the season was split in two. It was ONE season in TWO parts. So if you bought a season pass, how many episodes should it contain?

They are not suing over the quality of the show, but the fact that its misleading to call it a season pass when it has half the season. More importantly, they are not even suing for a "zillion dollars", just a refund.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797825)

Season 5 is not split into two seasons, it's one season that was half aired and the other half is airing now.

Apple sold a season pass, not a half season pass, so Apple is in the wrong.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued? (2)

rgbscan (321794) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797833)

Traditional seasons are falling by the wayside. A "season" used to basically follow the traditional U.S. school year. New shows in the fall, running through the spring - with summers of re-runs. Usually 22 shows or so.

Look at shows like the walking dead. Premiered on the last day of October. Ran for only only 7 episodes, then a long break until the following October. Shows like Supernatural and Smallville traditionally kept their summer reruns going well into fall, often debuting the new "season" in late December. Way back in 2002, the show 'Felicity' had new shows in the fall, took the winter off, and had new shows again in the spring. Ensuring that new episodes were always on during 'sweeps' and in the slower periods they ran reruns. Walking dead took a similar break in season 2 (minus the reruns) with 6 shows, a 3 month break, and the rest of the season airing. This allowed them to not compete with the superbowl, as well as introduce a new show in the same time slot viewers were accustomed to tuning in. Curb your enthusiasm season 8 consisted of just a few new episodes spanning only the three summer months but it's sold as a season. Jesery Shore seasons 5 and 6 span the same summer physically but were aired a year apart as separate seasons since the first few weeks took place in Italy then they flew back to Jersey to continue the summer - which you could argues should be one 'season' as it's a continuing storyline with no break. Glee seasons 5 is being split out over two years so they can keep the actors in their "senior year" for two seasons and not advancing a grade every season as they had been.

There's all kinds of monkey business in what constitutes a tv season. The traditional understanding is falling by the wayside in a world of DVR's, streaming, and ratings grabs.

absence of malice (2, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797153)

Clerical/technical fuck up. Probably soon to be fixed. Move along.

Re:absence of malice (1)

ah.clem (147626) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797201)

Yeah, same thing happened with that "Hobbit" movie, and that last "Harry Potter" movie. Man, I hate those "Clerical/technical" fuck ups!

Re:absence of malice (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797685)

Oh? did you already pay for that Hobbit movie in a "full-pack" of 2, and then get charged for the third one?

when did that happen?

Re:absence of malice (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797827)

Are you this stupid all the time, or just on Monday mornings?

He isn't suing because the season's being broken into two parts. He's suing because he was led to believe that he was getting both parts for what he paid.

Re:absence of malice (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797899)

Personally I was glad to see the Hobbit movie split up. They skipped way too much in the Lord of the ring series.

I have no interest in Harry Potter so I never watched those.

Abense of Malice (1)

krovisser (1056294) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797217)

is not Malice of Absense.

Re:absence of malice (1)

hedwards (940851) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797319)

I'm not sure what the person's problem is. It works fine for me when I hold it using my thumb, middle finger and pinky.

Amazon, others doing it too (4, Informative)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797159)

From what I understand, other vendors are doing it as well, and it was due to a decision by AMC. Besides, if they charge $2.99 per HD episode, and the season pass was $22.99, wouldn't it seem peculiar to give such a big price break for 16 episodes? Not trying to excuse Apple, just trying to introduce a little reason into the debate. I think the fault ultimately lies with AMC and the way they decided to break up the season into two parts.

Counterpoint (5, Interesting)

schneidafunk (795759) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797231)

If the price is $3 per episode, why bother paying $23 for 8 episodes... to save $1?

Re:Counterpoint (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797363)

Since I was curious, I (eventually) navigated the iTunes store to something that might be relevant to the debate.
Breaking Bad Season 3 Deluxe download. 13 HD episodes and 55 supplemental videos for $37.99. Non-deluxe is 13 HD episodes for $29.99.

Given those rates, an 8 episode pack should cost $18 or a similar pack with related clutter should cost $23

IFF this was a "deluxe" package, he got what he paid for, despite the name being a clear case of false advertising.

Re: Counterpoint (2)

techprophet (1281752) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797657)

Even if the price is fair, the advertising is extremely misleading. If it was AMC's decision, then they'll be held accountable eventually.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too (1)

DMiax (915735) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797239)

the other side of the argument is: if it were clear that there was not a big discount with the season pass, the customer could decide not to buy it.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too (1)

Assmasher (456699) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797249)

That's understandable; however, the problem likely resides with their selling it as a "season pass."

I wonder when it was that AMC informed its content clients (such as Apple) that it was going 16 episodes this season ;).

To be honest, from a legal point of view this will come down to whether or not Apple defined "season pass" specifically in relation to episodes.

I wouldn't be aggrieved by this (nor would you most likely) because I'd understand that I was getting episodes x normal price - discount, but people like my Dad wouldn't understand that, they'd see "computer gobblygook, season pass price = no thinking about buying episodes, more computer gobblygook..."

Re:Amazon, others doing it too (3, Informative)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797531)

No, from a legal standpoint it will come down to if it was reasonable to assume the customer knew what this shit meant. If there's a highly buried definition somewhere in doublefine print, folks start looking guilty. Misleading advertisement is a crime, and writing somewhere deep in the manual "You only get 20% of what you pay for, but we call it Full Package and show a picture of the other 80%, just you have to spend 5x more to get the rest really" will not be looked upon favorably by the courts. Putting in "Full Package!*" with "*Complete accessory set shown, sold separately; Full Package references the full standard set, not to include the full accessory set" directly below in half-size print will not get you boned in court, as the judge will look at the plaintiff like he's stupid for not reading the text shoved right in front of his face.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797707)

In a case of copyrighted content, it will also come down to what AMC wanted as well as they get to control distribution. If Apple is merely a distributor, their liability is less. If that's the case Apple's stance might be: "We don't control what the copyright owners consider a 'season.' "

Re:Amazon, others doing it too (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,6 days | (#44798027)

They do however have to deal with what a reasonable person would call a $X. You can't advertise or sell a BRAND NEW CAR, excludes tires, motor and windshield in tiny print. This is because those things are part of a car to a reasonable person.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too (1)

sed quid in infernos (1167989) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797273)

Yeah, but Amazon is really clear when you buy a season pass that you're paying $(n * 2.87) for the n episodes that have already been aired and $2.87 for each future episode as it comes out. It's very clear there's a per-episode price, and splitting it into multiple seasons has no effect on the total price paid.

I have no idea if iTunes is as clear; I don't order from them.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too (0)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797561)

Amazon's ass is well-covered and they are lawsuit-proof.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797283)

You mean above the already huge $0.97 pricebreak on the half season ? I guess that's why the felt obliged to tell buyers that buying a seasonpass is cheaper than buying individual episodes... Otherwise they wouldn't notice.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too (2)

The MAZZTer (911996) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797377)

AFAIK it costs next to nothing to distribute digital episodes, so a huge markdown isn't too suspicious. Steam regularly puts games on sale for 75-80% off.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797441)

AFAIK it costs next to nothing to distribute digital episodes, so a huge markdown isn't too suspicious.

It doesn't cost next to nothing to produce the content.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797559)

Yeah, but how much of the price is distribution costs? You have the costs of creating the content, costs of marketing the content, and costs of supplying the content. Physical media are expensive.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797569)

Yeah, but how much of the price is distribution costs?

Very little.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797955)

Build a data center and a platform to distribute video content, along with a legal team to handle the agreements you must enter into with the content providers in order to even be allowed to distribute their content, and then come back here and let us all know how cheap it was.

Why did you spoil things for me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797191)

Scroll down.

"Walter White's slow transformation into Scarface"

Gee, thanks for spoiling things for me. :)

Queue Tuppe666 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797223)

To tell us how Apple (Made in China) is evil and Google (Made in USA) is great.

Also http://www.reddit.com/user/Tuppe666

Re:Queue Tuppe666 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797395)

That guy is hard to tolerate.

As usual, the legit users get punished (5, Insightful)

Powercntrl (458442) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797225)

Meanwhile, the people who just download the series through torrents have no such problem.

Call Them (2)

Luthair (847766) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797253)

I had something similar happen with Microsoft and Doctor Who a few years ago, support gave me credit to get the second half. /shrug

AMC split season 5 (1, Insightful)

LoRdTAW (99712) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797255)

Might be related to the fact that AMC split the fifth season into two sets of episodes that were aired at different times. For example, when the new episodes began airing last month, it was halfway through the final season making the one season feel like two. Perhaps someone at Apple made the mistake of thinking they were two separate seasons.

Re:AMC split season 5 (4, Informative)

Bill Dimm (463823) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797913)

Perhaps someone at Apple made the mistake of thinking they were two separate seasons.

The studio sure seems to be encouraging that mistake. They are selling DVDs saying "The Fifth Season [amazon.com] " on the packaging with no hint that it is half of a season [amazon.com]

Some thoughts (4, Interesting)

Cowclops (630818) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797269)

Obviously, its a problem when "Season Pass" doesn't actually get you the whole season. If I hadn't RTFA'd I might have presumed that the guy was complaining that he didn't get access to either all 16 episodes including the ones that weren't even played yet (that would be absurd) or that he didn't get access to the first 8 + the ones that have been played already (not absurd but I wouldn't be on his side)

If Apple's intention was that buying a season pass to season 5 of breaking bad would get you the first 8 episodes now, and the last 8 episodes when they were released to dvd/bluray/download, it would just be a matter of patience and I'd still be on Apple's side on this one.

Except from the sounds of it, Apple was selling a season pass to "Season 5" and not listing it as "The first 8 episodes of season 5." They had no intention of ever giving him access to the last 8 episodes of Season 5 for that price, making it "Not really a season pass." Clearly this is a problem and the guy just wants his money back for misleading advertising. If I were him, I'd be ok with a gift card in the amount of the price of the first 8 episodes, since the second 8 will presumably be priced the same anyway, effectively getting me what was advertised. The whole season for one price.

Re:Some thoughts (1)

hedwards (940851) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797365)

The point is that he's not being given access to the whole season, just the first 8 episodes with no provision for getting the rest of the season. And being charged basically the same price as if he bought the shows individually. Which tends to reduce the point of buying a season pass as there's usually an episode or two that you don't really want in a season.

Re:Some thoughts (0)

UnknowingFool (672806) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797597)

It's a matter of semantics. People consider Season 5 to have 16 episodes. In this case, Season 5 is only 8 episodes and The Final Season (Season 6) has the other 8. Some previous "seasons" had more than 8 while the first season only had 7. Now the idea of seasons originally came from broadcast network programing ususually with summers being off-season. Cable programs have loosely followed the same rules however not always. Some cable shows seasons start in the summer. The real question is what does AMC consider a "season". If Apple is only following AMC's wishes then this guy has to sue AMC.

Re:Some thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44798049)

AMC is advertising it as season 5 with 16 episodes so the argument it is two separate seasons doesn't pass a sniff test. Take a look the Breaking Bad website has the lastest episode as 514 (season 5, episode 14) so its pretty obvious somebody is pulling a fast one.

Re:Some thoughts (1)

Aonghus142000 (908581) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797765)

...If I were him, I'd be ok with a gift card in the amount of the price of the first 8 episodes, since the second 8 will presumably be priced the same anyway, effectively getting me what was advertised. The whole season for one price.

Being that it's a class action lawsuit, he'll be lucky to walk away with that much. Meanwhile, his lawyer is looking forward to a seven or eight figure payday.

Re:Some thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44798125)

Named Plaintiffs in a class action suit are usually well-compensated from the recovered funds.

I was a named plaintiff in a product defect lawsuit related to a vehicle I purchased back in 2000. The defect was dangerous and caused me to be in an accident (the rim of the wheel bent and shattered after hitting a pothole that shouldn't have come close to causing the damage it did). It turned out that the wheels were defective because they were over-hardened by the manufacturer.

There were 20 total named plaintiffs in the case, and each of us was awarded the original price of our new cars plus punitive and compensatory damages for our accidents. The rest of the class got to have their rim hardness tested for free by a manufacturer-selected testing lab, which of course found that they were all just fine and within spec, and nobody was ever allowed to sue over the defective rims again. NHTSA of course felt a recall was unnecessary given the 100% passing rate at the testing lab..

But yeah, otherwise you're right. If you're not a named plaintiff in a class action suit, you actually come out worse than when you went in, because there are always indemnities placed against you in the process.

YoOu FAIL 1t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797337)

I'll have offended profIts without FreeBSD is already

bizna7ch (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797367)

everything else centralized models A83 the Bazaar for election, I OpenBSD. How many

Problem Solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797375)

http://thepiratebay.sx/search/breaking%20bad/0/99/0 [thepiratebay.sx]

HTH. Now you can go tell your lawyer to go back to playing golf or fishing or whatever it is lawyers do in their free time.

Better Call Saul! (5, Funny)

bradgoodman (964302) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797389)

...for a lawsuit like this!

Say Herro To Ma Rittle Frond (0)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797403)

>> Walter White's slow transformation into Scarface

What - he bought a tiger? He bagged CatWoman? What?

Re:Say Herro To Ma Rittle Frond (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797581)

He bagged CatWoman?

Spoiler alert!

Re:Say Herro To Ma Rittle Frond (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797607)

No, no, no. The blue meth is a mutagen similar to the Wild Card virus, and when Heisenberg tries it for the first time he happens to be watching Scarface and it triggers a transformation. It's a spectacular sequence with Walter White slowly morphing into an Al Pacino clone and calling people cock-a-roaches. Oh, I probably should've put a "Spoiler" tag on this post.

War Chest (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797421)

This, and so many of the other lawsuits being filed against Apple, amount to "they have a massive war chest of cash and I WANT ME SOME OF THAT!!"

I hope the judge throws this out of court quickly.

Xbox Video did this too with Dr. Who (1)

earlzdotnet (2788729) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797601)

Xbox Video did this too with the last season of Doctor Who. I bought the season pass for a steal when it was on sale, for like $8 or something. Then, new episodes started coming out but weren't on Xbox Video. It took me weeks to figure out that I had actually bought "season pass part 1" or some bullshit like that. I haven't bought anything from Xbox Video since.

To view the complete season.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797655)

There is an enormously complicated method available that also comes at a very absurd price.

Actually, what this method encompasses is 'somehow' transferring, nay, copying of a digital file that must then laborously be copied to and played on a 'media player' device which are some form of 'black' computer art and therefore really very hard to find at Walmart.

This method is obviously out of reach from everybody except for the most experienced black-hat hacker elite (those guys even use 'keyboards', and the most wealthy of them are connected to some kind of world-wide 'web' of computers).

People should be glad that APPLE goes through all this trouble for them and then sells you the files at a reasonable price!

this is a story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44797713)

I know you slashtards need your daily dose of apple bashing but this is seriously barrel-scraping.

Won't get far (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797859)

I doubt any plaintiff could have any sort of standing without having already signed several mandatory arbitration clauses.

Define Season (1)

coinreturn (617535) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797889)

Did the Season Pass define what consists of a "season"?

How not new (1)

Adam Appel (1991764) | 1 year,6 days | (#44797945)

I've seen this down with Walking Dead and Doctor Who on iTunes. Probable others, but I don't remembe them.

I haven't seen it yet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44798063)

>>>most intense in series history Thanks alot JOff, I haven't seen it yet.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>