Do Not Eat iPod Shuffle – Moon of Alabama

January 20, 2005

Do Not Eat iPod Shuffle

On Apple´s iPod shuffle site there is a picture of an iPod accompanied by two chewing gum stripes. The picture byline is:

iPod shuffle: smaller than a pack of gum and much more fun. ⁽²⁾

The footnote says?

2. Do not eat iPod shuffle.

May be this is just a joke by Apple marketing, but other product hazard warnings are not. The recent Wacky Warning Labels contest has some fine entries of hilarious warnings and there are more scientific warnings needed.

The background of such warnings are of course potential legal claims of product users which might result in steep fines for the producer.

Such warnings make me feel under disability and put under tutelage. How is this general high valuation of liberty and freedom compatible with the urge to make someone else responsible for ones own stupidness?

I for one don´t like to be handled as childish as is done by warning labels. I also do not like others to reduce their responsibilities by pointing to a lack of warning.

There was no label "Attacking Iraq might end in a quagmire" on the map. Saddam should be punished for that and the Iraqi people and the author of that map and the print shop and the producers of that war.

But no, not the American public or politician … never.

Posted by b on January 20, 2005 at 12:12 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Bernhard:
The wacky warning label contest is great fun, but drill down on the site: the organization behind it is industry-funded astroturf with an antiliability agenda not restricted to silly lawsuits from people brushing their teeth with toilet brushes.

Posted by: ralphbon | Jan 20 2005 12:54 utc | 1

B, it is very unlikely that you watch the CBS tv drama series Joan of Arcadia, but it is faintly possible that someone here other than myself might be watching, or might enjoy it if they tried it. Joan is a high school girl living in suburbia, who has the experience of God speaking to her all the time, giving her learning suggestions. After making allowance for this fictional conceit, it’s quite true to life, a series of dramas rather than melodrama, with warmth and humor as well as conflict and tragedy.
One story thread is that Joan’s older brother Kevin is confined to a wheelchair, due to injuries in a car accident a couple of years ago. Kevin was the passenger – the driver was his friend, who was drunk. The family of the driver sued Kevin (and his family) – Kevin knew his friend was drunk, you see, and yet he didn’t stop him from driving – so it constitutes contributory negligence. The friend is suffering because of the accident, and it’s partly Kevin’s fault – so Kevin should pay. The premise – “something is wrong” means “it’s someone’s fault” means “someone should pay someone a large sum of money” – is both ridiculous and realistic – such things do happen.
Yet last week the suit was dropped – Kevin’s friend refused to continue it, and was thrown out of his parental home because of it. “Just like last time, I was driving – but this time, I could stop before the collision” is the way the friend explained his change of heart to Kevin.
Maybe someday something like this can happen in the interaction between the U.S. and Iraq.

Posted by: mistah charley | Jan 20 2005 12:56 utc | 2

@ralphbon
I know that it is an industry group, but they do point to a real problem too.
The question is where to put the border between consumer use- responsibility and producer warning-responsibility. My feeling is that this border has in many case been pushed to far to the consumer side (there are also cases were it should go more to the producer).
To me this shows a lack by consumers of taking responsibility for themself and this has some psychological background with deep political consequences.

Posted by: b | Jan 20 2005 13:02 utc | 3

Indeed, I may be a hardcore leftist and I loathe Rand, but it doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be some level of personal responsibility when people do stupid things. It’s just the last way we have of going on with natural selection (yes, I’m quite the fan of the Darwin Awards).
And no, I don’t mean the “jacuzzi cases” Edwards dealt with – which were legitimate -, but stupid warnings like “don’t use the microwave oven to dry your pet”.
Ultimately, this is completely pointless since there’s an infinity of way people could do harm by stupidly using some tool, so you’ll never be 100% free from frivolous lawsuits. On the other hand, I’m all for information like the toxicity level of chemical products, or labels about not-really-obvious hazards like spray cans who could explode nastily if heated just a bit.
BTW, is there any such label on guns, as “this is a deadly weapon, handle with care”? Or on an Abrams tank?

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Jan 20 2005 13:57 utc | 4

Bernhard, thanks for this thread, it is a topic I have thought about often. Everytime I went to the US for professional education I was confronted with it. I am a therapist and do verbal and body/mind therapy by touching. The first thing I learned, before I also did body/mind work was that as a verbal therapist I am not allowed to touch a person, not even for comfort, you need a license as a body worker to touch someone – because otherwise it could be taken as sexual harrasment, at least that is the explanation given to me. Besides that, in every seminar, I was given a pile of papers with examples of diclaimers I was supposed to give to the clients for signing, before I worked with them. Like it is their own responsiblity for what is happening during a session and so on. In the US when you go to a seminar you have to sign a disclaimer, that for what ever happens to you during the seminar is your own responsibility. This is not something I have seen here in Europe. Interesting, some years ago I went to a Ayurveda seminar in the US where I had to sign this disclaimer. However, the last couple of years I went to seminars with the same teacher in Germany and did not have to sign a disclaimer.
When ever I talked about this in the US I was looked at like I was coming from a different planet, it was like they could not even imagine that people can trust each other. I have now worked with people for almost 25 years and there where never any problems in this direction. It really seems at times like working on an other planet.

Posted by: Fran | Jan 20 2005 14:01 utc | 5

Consumers have to be responsible for their decisions. It is their decision to buy the object, product, or substance and it is up to them to know what they are buying and what to do with it, as well as what not to do with it. I’m not fan of companies that make shoddy or dangerous products, and I agree with Clueless Joe about chemical labeling. But I am disgusted by people who are stupid enough to voluntarily shell out their money for something that (they claim) harms them in some way or disappoints them, and then blame it on someone else.

Posted by: maxcrat | Jan 20 2005 14:07 utc | 6

do not fire nail gun while pointed at face

Posted by: kat | Jan 20 2005 15:58 utc | 7

i’m not so sure i agree that consumers should be totally responsible for their decisions. take for example drugs. we all know that the drug companies don’t pull a product for sometimes years after it has been discovered too dangerous, because of the loss of revenue. if it were not for the treat of financial retribution corporations could run wild(er). limits on suing is exactly what insurance companies want. money talks. that’s what corporations hear. most lawsuits are not as warm and fuzzy as the joan of arcadia story. if a person doesn’t have the money or insurance to get decent health care after an accident then it is very difficult to get a reimbursement for expenses one didn’t expend. the public should not be restricted in their ability to seek punitive damages.

Posted by: annie | Jan 20 2005 17:21 utc | 8

Bernhard — I don’t disagree with you about consumer responsibility. I’m just pointing out that this industry group is using these harmless and fun examples as a Trojan horse to advance a decidedly un-harmless agenda.

Posted by: ralphbon | Jan 20 2005 17:56 utc | 9

to ralphbon’s point, just look at what’s featured in the left banner at the wacky warning site – a flattering and laudatory article about the founder of Home Depot. Now, why would a flattering profile of the CEO of Home Depot be featured by this industry group? Maybe because Home Depot has been hit with numerous injury lawsuits over the last few years, caused by dangerous conditions in their warehouse-style stores. Interesting, huh?
Lawsuits are, for better or for worse, the only mechanism we have here in America to protect consumers against the rampaging greed of corporations. Surely our government can’t be trusted to do it. So, yeah, it gets taken to wacky and maybe even frustrating extremes, but the alternative is much worse for us here.
And of course, that’s why George W-is-for-Wanker Bush is making tort reform a major initiative for his next term. His goal is to have no corporate governance of any sort. If it were up to him and his ilk, we still wouldn’t have seatbelts in our cars, much less airbags.

Posted by: semper fubar | Jan 20 2005 18:35 utc | 10

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
[/SNL]

Posted by: OkieByAccident | Jan 20 2005 19:30 utc | 11

You know, the problem isn’t with the law suits or the lawyers or plantiffs that file them, it is with juries..if there is indeed a problem. The juries decide cases, that is the system. If people on a jury make a bad decision it is partly the defense lawyers’ fault for not screening potential jurors better. Stupid people serve on juries and stupid people vote public officials into office, probably the only way to fix that is improve the education system. The thing that torques me is that Bush is ready to go to the mat for corporations that are sued for studpid reasons (or not stupid reasons). But at the same time Buschco doesn’t give a shit about policing corprations when they polute or like Enron, bilk the public for millions or billions and then go bankrupt and bilk its shareholding public some more. Frankly, if someone sues a company because he heated a lava lamp on a stove and it exploded and he wins 1 million dollars, ok, thats not fair, but look at Libby, Montana or Bophal, India, Phen Fen users, the stockholders of Enron or any number of people or communities that have suffered terribly because of corporate malfeasence or negligence. Its likely that someone stupid enough to eat a toliet brush and then lucky enough to win $200,000 will probably be feeding that money back into the enonomy in no time while no one’s life or health have been destroyed.
***This is only my opinion, nothing in this post is to be construed as advice or as a call to any form of action either in the present nor in the future, nor does it necessarily represent the opinions or views of other posters, the owners of Moon of Alabama (MoA), its readers, internet host or people who have ever visted the site. Do not operate heavy machinery or motor vehicles while reading this post, if irritation occures dicontinue reading.***

Posted by: stoy | Jan 20 2005 20:02 utc | 12

@stoy
Uhggg – …… your post just let me slip off my chair and it hurt. Oh how this hurts. Oh …
What was your insurances address?

Posted by: b | Jan 20 2005 20:18 utc | 13

Too late, I just filed for Chapter 11 yesterday!
Mwhaaaaa!

Posted by: stoy | Jan 20 2005 20:20 utc | 14

Nice one, stoy.
Meanwhile, one of my favorite warning labels came on a 3-step stepladder I bought. The second step had a label reading, “Do not stand on or above this step.” Hence users were officially permitted to step only on the first step, obviating the value of 2/3 of the ladder.

Posted by: ralphbon | Jan 20 2005 22:22 utc | 15

The warning on my package of earswabs says “not to be inserted into the ear”. So if I puncture my eardrum and sue, they can say “toldja so”.

Posted by: rapt | Jan 20 2005 22:54 utc | 16

if a person doesn’t have the money or insurance to get decent health care after an accident then it is very difficult to get a reimbursement for expenses one didn’t expend.
The problem to me seems to be the lack of universal health insurance. But I don´t want to drag the discussion of in yet another discussion. Of course the consumers right to seek punitive damages within the context of the american system is one of the few things a injured and not insured person has. As long as there isn´t universal health insurance I understand fighting for the right to seek punitive damages. In a mayor overhaul of the US government I would recommend (like anyone ever asks me!) getting rid of punitive damages while getting rid of the conditions that make punitive damages necessary.
Today, the system of punitive damages might foster an attitude that rewards stupitidy and lack of responsability of the consumer. Also it creates the illusion that you are not responsible for your actions unless someone told you it would be a bad thing in advance. And I think that was b´s point. Correct me if I am wrong.
And, to finish this of, a stupid warning label: Cover eyes while inflating the balloon. The balloon might explode and hurt the eyes. Illustrated with a picture of covering ones eyes with the hand while inflating. If I don´t look at the balloon how should I know when it is full?

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Jan 21 2005 2:20 utc | 17

Personal fave (from real life, not third party anecdote too): “Do not attempt to carve roast while rotisserie is in motion.”
Personal strange association: Lily Tomlin (iirc) in her “Edith Ann” skit, many years ago “I mustn’t paint the walls or the floors or the carpet; and like a little angel, I never disobey. But nobody told me that I mustn’t paint the baby… so I did!” anyone else remember this, or am I crossing a couple of culture-wires?
anyway my point: the hopelessness of explicit micromanagerial list-based restrictions or warnings for the (presumptively) literal minded. the list of stupid things we can do is infinite (just ask anyone who’s ever worked in ER). trying to prohibit explicitly every possible stupid act is an impossible task.
furthermore the general atmosphere conduces to greater and greater restrictions on personal liberty. most US communities where there’s any money, are fenced and signed and warned and prohibited to an astonishing extent. I remember breathing a huge sigh of relief when visiting a maritime Canadian town because I could walk out on a floating public dock that did not have waist-high steel railings all around it and minatory, scary signage warning me that falling into cold water might result in injury or drowning. just for a few blessed days I was in a polity where citizens were treated like grownups instead of slightly backwards children, and it was nice.
still, label writing must keep a lot of second-rate lawyers employed… and as we all know, every lawsuit boosts the GDP so it’s all good, right?

Posted by: DeAnander | Jan 21 2005 2:50 utc | 18

Isn’t this all a part of the growing trend towards individualism, which says among other things that “you have rights” – there are no “duties” anymore, except in so far as someone enforces his/her rights to force you to do something.
That’s my main problem with the laissez-faire: it’s fine, so long as it accompanied by either (i) a strong sense of personal responsibility or (ii) a strong enforcement system of clear rules, applying to all.
Everything seems to be done to kill off my item (i) – this “you have God-given rights” culture (in France, I call it “zakissocio” – as in “mes acquis sociaux”) promoted by TV, politicians, etc. And Bushco is certainly trying its hardest to dismnatle item (ii).
The interesting thing about the hard right is that they make constant references to “family values” and religious morality, which could indeed provide a decent framework for item (i), but it’s all either for show (as long as you look like you are religious, it’s fine, don’t bother with practising it otherwise), or for others (ah, the good ol’ time when you could lead and control your flock through the fear of god), or very selective in its use of the scriptures, for self-interested purposes.
They are practising religion, thus they are moral and responsible, and it is “fair” to move towards dismnatlement of outside imposed rules. We must point out their self-selective “religion”, their hypocrisy at all times to fight them, otherwise we lose the debate, bacasue they have the “good” on their side (just like the communists used to have their ideals of equality and peace for all to justify all the horrors they did).
Fight for personal responsibility and collective rights (i.e. that apply to all), not the other way round.

Posted by: Jérôme | Jan 21 2005 9:51 utc | 19

My wife worked for a lawyer years ago. One day, a woman asked him to represent her son who was castrated by a vacuum cleaner. Seems he suffered from raging hormones and they have an orifice too near the exhaust fan. She wanted the lawyer to sue the manufacturer for poor design and no warning labels. There is no efficiency in putting the exhaust fan in the middle of the unit and I’m not sure what label would stop an oversexed teen from humping a domestic applicance, but… Anyway, the lawyer declined the case after he stopped laughing. Proves that even lawyers have limits.
I concur with DeA that nothing we do will prevent some individuals from behaving stupidly and injuring themselves and then trying to collect on their stupidity, but corporations should not be allowed to use these absurd examples to duck their own responsibilities.

Posted by: lonesomeG | Jan 21 2005 13:56 utc | 20

Back to Main