Members Jeff Leites Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/eS9dXVN4u8NgZI/Lawsuit-Claims-iPod-May-Cause-Irreparable-Hearing-Loss.xhtml Turn down the volume dumba$$! Coffee is hot and loud music can damage hearing. Deal with it! People like this make me sick :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 You can't expect personal responsibility from people! I'd much rather find a scapegoat for my actions than take personal responsibility. And if I can call a lawyer, than woo-hoo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 Not to mention, people are total pussies anymore (sorry for the offensive terminology...the use of it makes me a hypocrite in a certain sense). If you can't stand the jams, get out of the sweet spot! Sell your stupid iPod and go watch the cartoon channel. Try mixing live sound for a bunch of metal bands. Try sepnding years in front of a pair of speakers. Try spending years around raging guitar amps, drums, etc... Try going to see Obituary without earplugs! Wankers! Sheesh...I forgot to take plugs to that show and didn't realize I should have sued the band, the venue, and the city of columbus for my lack of common sense. Who knew my own ignorance and/or mistakes could land me a windfall! I should have called Dyer, Garafalo, Mann, and Schultz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members franknputer Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 What a tool. I use my iPod at work sometimes, plugged into the 2nd input of my PC speakers. I have to turn the volume most of the way up to have it at a competing level with my PC. Considering the many types of inputs that it should be able to deal with (next time I mix a band it's coming along for sure!) limiting its output (because somebody MIGHT be too stupid to turn the volume down) makes it less attractive to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 Originally posted by franknputer ...limiting its output... makes it less attractive to me. All of my old CD walkmans have a headphone output and and line output. Do the iPods have both? If not, they need to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 P.S. I think it was mp3's that caused the hearing damage. Now if they would have just used wav files, they would have been ok. That's what they get for messing around with 10% of the original file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 Every idiot knows that headphones for extended periods can cause hearing damage. The earbuds are a problem IMO because the in-ear nature can create dangerous sound pressure levels in the tiny enclosed space of your ear canal. I always use standard over-the-ear headphones. The article mentioned "lack of adequate warnings"... that is standard legalese when somebody uses a product in a dangerous way. That's why you see stupid labels like this I've actually got a portable stroller that says "Remove child before folding" on the tag. These type of warnings help the manufacturer deflect lawsuits. Without a warning label, there is a possibility that one could establish that the dangerous behavior was predicted and then ignored by the manufacturer. The other defense is a sort of "every idiot knows that's dangerous" claim. I forget the fancy latin term, but basically it means you can't make a claim for something everyone knows is dangerous, like juggling chainsaws or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Super 8 Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 I knew it was just a matter of time before this happened.How long have we had personal audio devices with headphones????The fact that it's trendy or uses a hard drive, doesn't change it's fundamental purpose. But NOW it needs warning labels. Warning: You may be too stupid to operate this product sensibly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members where02190 Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 Whether we use 4 different mixes or just 1 mix for the entire band, is there any downside to sharing one transmitter? Would we be better off with 4 separate transmitters? The ipod itself has only hp outs, but the ipod dock has a line output. I think it was mp3's that caused the hearing damage. This is a distinct possibility IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MorePaul Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 Originally posted by Billster The earbuds are a problem IMO because the in-ear nature can create dangerous sound pressure levels in the tiny enclosed space of your ear canal. I always use standard over-the-ear headphones. +1000 on those little evil things These type of warnings help the manufacturer deflect lawsuits. Without a warning label, there is a possibility that one could establish that the dangerous behavior was predicted and then ignored by the manufacturer. There's a strange thing going on in pharm right now with that - pharm companies are starting to "overwarn" to try to provide themselves with a tort shield...the problem therein is it makes the warnings basically useless and toothless -- so there is a lot of noise abt reform in pharm warning (some of that is prob based on the concept that one cannot contract out of recklessness) The other defense is a sort of "every idiot knows that's dangerous" claim. I forget the fancy latin term, but basically it means you can't make a claim for something everyone knows is dangerous, like juggling chainsaws or something. you're probably thinking abt "Volenti non fit injuria" -it's kinda nic b/c you can deconstruct it to understand it 'you did it voluntarily so you ain't injured (in the tort sense); Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 Originally posted by Super 8 How long have we had personal audio devices with headphones???? And therein lies the gist of the ridiculousness. It's only because of iPod's popularity that this suit is getting media attention. The iPod is no more specifically dangerous than any Sony Walkman that's been sold since 1978 or so. And "ear-bud" transducers are nothing new either. Apple already ships every iPod with a warning about damaging hearing due to extended use at high volume. When people ignore that warning, I have ZERO sympathy. Now... let's go sue all the makers of chainsaws. Those things are sharp! Someone could hurt themselves! - Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 Originally posted by MorePaul There's a strange thing going on in pharm right now with that - pharm companies are starting to "overwarn" to try to provide themselves with a tort shield...the problem therein is it makes the warnings basically useless and toothless -- so there is a lot of noise abt reform in pharm warning (some of that is prob based on the concept that one cannot contract out of recklessness) Yeah, if you try to warn of everything, you can actually go right round 360 and warn of nothing. Originally posted by MorePaul you're probably thinking abt "Volenti non fit injuria" -it's kinda nic b/c you can deconstruct it to understand it 'you did it voluntarily so you ain't injured (in the tort sense); I'm not sure that's it. It's more like "open and obvious", but as it pertains to product and not premesis liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 Originally posted by Jeff da Weasel And therein lies the gist of the ridiculousness. It's only because of iPod's popularity that this suit is getting media attention.- Jeff Yeah, I forgot to mention the "deep pocket" syndrome. Are we also suing Zen, and all other MP3 makers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 Originally posted by Billster Are we also suing Zen, and all other MP3 makers? Really. If you want this thing to have credence, you sue EVERY manufacturer of personal listening devices based on any platform, from HD to Flash to CD to freakin' cassette for that matter. I guess the suit is dumb enough as is, but singling out the iPod is what really makes the guy seem like a money-grubbing fruitcake. - Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 MY favorite warning was in a men's room, where the cloth roller towel thingie had a warning about not hanging yourself. Seriously. I can just see the headline now: "Man accidentally hangs self on towel roller in men's room." That would get Darwin award of the year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MorePaul Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 Originally posted by Billster I'm not sure that's it. It's more like "open and obvious", but as it pertains to product and not premesis liability. Well there's "res ipsa loquitur" but , as applied, that's more 'an obvious screw up' (literally, it speaks for itself - like oh, a doctor leaving a clamp in ya or something) - so that probably isn't what you are thinking of either (but maybe it'll spark ya)I've seen just the straight English, pretty much as you said, "open and obvious" in documents-- but not sure what the underlying latin might be hmm, I'll see if I can ask a torts guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kiwiburger Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 Don't blame the fruitcake. Blame the corrupt judges and brainless jury members who think that 'justice' means screwing over the big corporates because they appear to have money and they are jealous. The law is an ass. It's official. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MorePaul Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 I'd pref to wait for the outcome before crucifiction perhaps the verdict will be directed and then become part of the caselaw sadly, juries are what they are (which is why judicial oversight and direction is important)...'peeps at large' I'm all for allowing people to make their legal stand (and in doing so, we get a legal test, which can then help establish the doctrine surrounding these sorts of cases) but I'd also like to see more sanctions against plaintiff AND counsel if the suit is determined to be frivolous tort reform? hell yeah ! hopefully cases like this can fuel that tort abolition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 I do think consumers need to think a lot more about the hearing safety issue. And if there's a good side to this, it's that the dumb-assedness of it will get some media attention. (I'm all for reasonable product liability litigation, don't get me wrong. It's that old reasonableness bugaboo.) (I do think there should be a prominent warning about hearing damage in all media portable's literature -- but I don't think I've bought anything with headphones in a decade that didn't have some kind of warning.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members franknputer Posted February 3, 2006 Members Share Posted February 3, 2006 Originally posted by the stranger All of my old CD walkmans have a headphone output and and line output. Do the iPods have both? If not, they need to. They don't, and they really don't need to have them either. They work just fine the way they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted February 3, 2006 Members Share Posted February 3, 2006 isn't the national sport filing a lawsuit and collecting a respected profession anymore? Anybody a potential idea who to sue for raising my pocket money? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Myshell Posted February 3, 2006 Members Share Posted February 3, 2006 i don't even want to hear about this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.