Slashdot Mirror
iTunes User Sues Apple Over Lock-In
GregChant writes "It seems like Apple can also be at the receiving end of a lawsuit, too: Californian Thomas Slattery filed suit against Apple because 'Apple has turned an open and interactive standard into an artifice that prevents consumers from using the portable hard drive digital music player of their choice'. With over 200 million songs sold, and Apple controlling over 80% of the hard drive digital audio player market, is this just a case of someone just trying to cash in on Apple's success? Or is this genuinely an issue of buyer lock-in and monopolistic practices?"
Bogus. One has to wonder if this is an effort by some company to force Apple to open up the iPod without having to pay Apple to license it like HP has. Somebody somewhere is always trying to get something for free.
.mp3, AIFF, WAV, MPEG-4 and AAC along with an Apple lossless format.
The reality is that Apple has placed copy protection on the songs sold through the iTMS as the mandate of the record industry just as Napster and Microsoft has with their music formats. If you will remember, iTunes came out before the iTMS and any songs sold through the iTMS. Therefore, if you obtain your music somewhere else other than the iTMS, if you chose to use iTunes (nothing that says you have to use iTunes either) you can use any portable hard drive music source that runs OS X or Windows. There is nothing saying that you cannot do this on any device you can find that will runs those alternatives. Apple is not forcing anybody to purchase songs from the iTMS. Quite the contrary, they have made iTunes flexible enough that it can play
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I agree with this guy. Locking us in. Where do I sign up for the free money?
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
The clear solution for apple is to stop being so damn secretive over what they do. Stop locking up DRM etc, please, it kind of defeats the point.
"Apple has unlawfully bundled, tied, and/or leveraged its monopoly in the market for the sale of legal online digital music recordings to thwart competition in the separate market for portable hard drive digital music players, and vice-versa," the lawsuit said.
Mr Slattery called himself an iTunes customer who "was also forced to purchase an Apple iPod" if he wanted to take his music with him to listen to.
While I cannot comment on the legality of them bundling and tying the device to their store I can certainly say that the less tech savvy are forced to use an iPod if they would like to listen to their iTunes music on the go.
The second you download your first album and you realize that you can't play it on a portable device other than a CD player you wonder if you shouldn't just go out and get that iPod so that you can continue to get your music legally... Most people would think it really sucks to pay $10 for an album and then not be able to listen on the go without burning to a CD and then re-ripping to WAV>MP3.
It's not that I didn't expect this to happen with Apple though. They have always promoted lock-in. For now it is working as a benefit. Will they continue to be the leaders in the market though? Only time will tell if people begin to shy away from being forced into using their formats and their hardware. Sadly, in this day and age I have little faith in the consumer and their knowledge and desire to have freedom of choice.
I know it is bad form to go against Apple on Slashdot (especially with the editors apparently being paid off to put iPod on the front page at least once a day) but why can't we all be against them promoting a format that locks you into their hardware? Aren't we all for open standards that works across multiple platforms? Just because their device is sleek, sexy, and "the in thing" we should all just stop and pay homage? Maybe once MSFT opens the DOC format or switches it over to XML then Apple can open up AAC and we can all be happy?
Me? I'm going to stick to downloading and listening to my *free* and *legal* music from etree, FurthurNET, etc, and convert it over to MP3 to listen on the go. I just wish that everyone else would too. At least I know I am not supporting *multiple* monopolies when I listen to the freely distributable music that I do.
YMMV.
if (vendor == apple) { slash.bots =: defendDeity } else if (vendor = microsoft) { slash.bots =: postFlamebait }
then he can import the tracks into whatever he wants. Apple's not locking him into anything - he's just trying to make money off a nonsensical lawsuit.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
If you feel limited by the choices offered by the iPod, why not get a different portable media player?
If you feel limited by the choices offered by the iTunes Music Store, why not use a different online music store?
This would only be a "lock-in" if, say, the iPod was the only portable media player that ran on a Mac, or if the iTunes Music Store was the only way to buy music online through a Mac... but I don't think it would even be then, because if it's that important to you, you could always go buy a Windows box.
Love the Third Amendment?
BS. Don't like iTunes/iPod, buy a Nomad or Dell Jukebox or something. Apple has no responsibility to make iTunes and iPod work wih anything else. In fact, they would have more of a monopoly if iTunes worked with other players, because then even if you couldn't afford an iPod you could still use iTunes for music purchasing and syncing.
$8.95/mo web hosting
If you don't like it then don't buy it. Last time I checked there were at least half a dozen online music services, 3 types of Operating systems to use, and numerous mp3 players.
-Dipster
With over 200 million songs sold, and Apple controlling over 80% of the hard drive digital audio player market, is this just a case of someone just trying to cash in on Apple's success?
Yup. When Apple sues someone, Apple is right. When someone sues Apple, again Apple is right. This is guy is just trying to make a quick buck, while, when Apple sued Think Secret, Apple was only doing the right thing.
You mean like how if you want to run OSX, you're stuck with their overpriced (yet sexy) hardware?
SURPISE people: Apple makes its money through hardware. OSX is only there to bring in sales for the computers, and iTunes is only there to sell the iPods.
What'd he expect? Its not like they don't make it clear that the iPod and iTunes go together.
no comment
with
or
Hmmmm...what's next? Suing all of the major record labels because they release their music on CDs? After all, I'm *forced* to buy a portable CD player of I want to take my music with me. Hmmm...maybe Sony should be implicated in this as well!
It's not illegal until they start bundling features people want and expect as a convience.
You can burn the music to a CD. And if you want it on your non-iPod player, you can - though admittedly with generational loss - rip that CD to MP3 or any other format.
So I download musinc from iTunes, burn it to a CD, then rip it as an MP3. That doesn't sound like lock-in to me -- it sounds like Apple had to accomadte the demands of the labels in order to even begin to sell the music in the first place!
What is monopolistic is not even being able to burn a CD or even change the encoding of a particular piece of music because of DRM, such as WMA.
What exactly do you mean by "Don't touch this button?"
I imagine a lot of people will say it's just a case of the "little" guy making a superior product (Apple is very small when compared to MS).
That said Apple is enforcing a product lock-in the same way MS has done in the past by not licensing key technologies needed to make compatible products. They have the choice to license FairPlay to competitors and I know a number would do it if given the opportunity, but they have not so they can maintain control.
Ask yourself this; if Microsoft came out with a proprietary DRM scheme as Apple has and only allowed it to work with a Player they produced wouldn't it just be a case of MS abusing their monopoly yet again?
I have like 3 other portable MP3 capable players. When iTunes came out for Windows I was stoked, until I realized that everything I wanted to get from the service was AAC encrypted and locked and couldn't be converted to MP3. If I already have other MP3 players, why the heck would I want an iPod? I have NO need for an iPod. Therefor, iTunes is useless to me.
You know, I'm all for protecting the livelihood of artists (although I think they have WAY too much money) but this DRM stuff is getting rediculous! Why can't we just have regular old MP3's? They work, they're portable, and they're the only universal standard out there! ARGH.
So, basically, I say screw Apple. Allow us to convert to something playable on other players and MAYBE I'll join iTunes. Otherwise, I hope they lose this one big time.
And if they use the argument that they sell the iPod at a loss in order to get more iTunes subscribers, then how can they justify locking the format so it can't be played on other players?
Apple is, and has seemed, to be a monopolisitc type company. Take their computing line for example. The hardware is designed and manufactured by Apple, the software developed and sold by Apple, and upgrades and most extra hardware sold by Apple. Support and apps are mostly through Apple as well. Their OS does not even have a port to an x86 based system, even though proposed several times. They have their own "AirPort" 802.11 systems and technologies such as firewire, which fortunatly are open to everyone but not widespread.
The deal with the iPod is just the same. They would like to keep eveything pertinent to themselves. If it is possible, they will go on as long as they can. But now with this suit, it will likely change. They should use some format that can be exported and then saved onto any player or transfered elsewhere. There are SourceForge projects that do this, but it should be native...
_
Free 27" Sony WEGA TV
It sure is a kludge if you have to burn it to a CD and then rip it to get a usable standard music file. Is there some sort of utility that fakes things with a "virtual CD" so you don't have to be reefing on a CD-RW for this?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
And as a typical moron, he didn't read the requirements or any of the readily available information on what buying on the ITMS involved, so he sues instead of sucking up his mistake. To fucking bad.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything here. There are alternatives, plenty of them, to iTunes and the iPod. Consumer ignorance does not equal anti-competitive behavior.
"Honestly, judge, I was forced to buy and iPod! Oh the misery!"
Give me a break.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
Sorry, but the problem isn't with Apple. I'm sure they'd love to be able to do that and keep these dumb lawsuits from appearing. The real problem is the music industry, who probably told apple they couldn't do that (i.e. export to mp3 from iTunes).
If you have gripes with the iTunes store, you need to take it up with the music industry, they're the one calling the shots. It's amazing Apple was able to get cd burning in there, don't be an idiot and ruin it for the rest of us.
IMO this guy reminds me of the idiot shining a laser at a plane flying over head... You get way more attention than you were expecting.
The only way the iTunes store could possibly export audio from it is to convert to wma, but then they'd have to license Microsoft technology, and that's just... wrong.
"Mr Slattery called himself an iTunes customer who 'was also forced to purchase an Apple iPod' if he wanted to take his music with him to listen to."
He can burn CDs of his music from iTunes. Even the claim that Apple has turned an "open and interactive standard" into something proprietary is ludicrous, as AAC is not an open standard.
Isn't this like suing Honda for only selling Honda parts at their dealership? Even if your Honda Cd changer is made by Bose or something, doesn't mean you have the right to make that changer work in your lincoln.
- This guy goes to iTunes, buys tracks thinking he can switch them over to mp3 with no issues.
- This guy flat out ignores the legal info when he signed up for iTunes.
- Was go to pirate the music, but couldn't figure out how so is now tryin to play the system on itself.
- Has a small penis.
Except for the small penis, those things are the comments I've heard from others who tried to do the same thing but got to laze once they realized Apple covered their tracks.Ummm, you don't have to by a Sony CD player to listen to a CD, CD implies it will work on any CD player. The point of the suit is you buy a song and download to your mac, then you can't transfer it to a dell jukebox or creative nomad, FORCING you to buy another peice of hardware to listen to someting you have licensed.
I tried about four times, and could not parse that sentence.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Nobody is forcing him to use iTunes Music Store, iTunes, a Mac, or an iPod. They're all choices, and your are responsible *yourself* for making sure you make an informed choice based on the information Apple provide (and they do provide reasonable information).
This crud about open standards is ludicrous, too.
-psy
The only difference is that apple is fuckin awesome at what they do. 80% share is a result of this factor, rather than monopolistic practises.
.acc song into .mp3 through iTunes. .mp4 is the open standard anyway, not .acc. It's not like apple has stolen mp4 from the world.
Besides, you can convert any
__
Thou hast besquirted me, O leotarded one.
The question now becomes whether iTMS can be considered a monopoly[2] in the online music sales business. If so, then the rules are somewhat stricter, and they may be forced to license FairPlay DRM to other ODMs (or pay damages, or be told not to be so naughty or whatever it is legal systems do these days).
[1] Made up statistic. Probably about right.
[2] Linguistically a monopoly exists when there is no competition. Legally, it the concept is somewhat fuzzier - note how Microsoft is legally classed as having a monopoly in the operating systems market in spite of the existence of competing products, due to their ability to control the market.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
He bought the tracks. He owns the music. Is it OK to make your consumers jump through any arbitrary series of hoops you like, as long as you can eventually circumvent the Apple format issues?
I see this as analogous to Windows Activation, where the customer is treated from the off as a de facto pirate, and forced to go through a laborious process to use software they've already paid for. That's also why I've also supported Playfair with donations. I tried to find a URL for PlayFair, but it's been taken down from sarovar as well due to legal threats.
And you assume it is easy for everyone to just "make a CD". Most users would have great trouble even with this simple task. It isn't at all obvious to Aunt Tillie like my uncle what formats are, how they are different, or even how to solve a problem like that.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
if(vendor == MSFT)
{
throw new SlashbotAngryFitException();
}
else
{
Slashbots.Fud.Spew();
while(true)
{
Defense defend = new Defense();
defend.ToTheDeath(vendor);
ButtKiss praise = new ButtKiss();
if(RMS.IsScragglyOldHippy)
{
praise.BendOverFor(RMS);
}
if(GPL.IsFashionableForGeeksToDefend && GPL.NeverRead && GPL.IsViral)
{
praise.KissArse(GPL);
}
if(Linux.Creator == Linux && Linus.IsHumble && Linux.IsFashionableForGeeksToUse && MSFT == TEHSUXORS)
{
praise.LickPussy(Linus | Linux);
}
}
}
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
So let me get this straight.
It's OK for Apple to use copyright law to restrict how people can use the music they sell to people, but it's not OK for the RIAA to do the same?
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Oooooooo! If it where not for the Apple ass-kissing in your following paragraph, this would have earned you a Flamebait and a long string of underage geeks spewing about how information needs to be free...
Most Apple-afficianados would have never thought they'd be on the other side of the coin in an antitrust case, but here they are. Clearly, Apple is the dominant player in the online music market, as well as the HD-based portable music player market. But there is more than one way to listen to music purchased iTunes music store: you can also make CDs of the songs and play them in and Compact Disc player, many of which would be considered portable by many standards. Furthermore, to negotiate the landmark rights deals with record companies, Apple surely had to show the labels that the iPod would not become a liability as a means to proliferate music easily to others, and the closed system accomplishes that feat. The question is, as much as many of us push for an open-source world, where do we draw the line between our right and our desire to use different technology platforms amongst each other? My personal (and knowingly imperfect)analogy is that I love my PS2...but I really like Halo 2...should antitrust litigation dictate if I should be able to play halo on my ps2?
1) Online Music Distribution
2) All Electronic Music Distribition, or
3) All Music Distribution.
While Mr. Slattery's lawyers might make some headway in asserting #1, Apple is very likely to convince the court that either #2 or #3 are what matters when it comes to measuring the consumer's options. After all, traditional plastic CDs ought to be considered competitive with iTunes, just as would any other online music store. Once you bring the bricks/mortar/plastic end of the business into the market being measured for anti-competitive behavior, Apple is far from being a monopolist.
My guess is that this is a PR stunt sponsored by one of the evil companies that begrudge Apple its just deserts--e.g., Real.
Of course, I'm not your lawyer or anyone else's involved in this case. I'm also not singling Real out as the culprit. I'm merely mentioning them based on their anti-consumer practices in the past.
I think most people would actually buy an iPod first and then look to use iTunes, in that case similar problems arise with the other sites not supporting playback on the iPod.
I guess the exception could be Apple users but I can't see an Apple user having such a problem with having to use an iPod.
In the drops - An Aussie's musings on all things cycling
Everyone is always complaining that the iPod only plays iTunes music. Apple seems to do little to discourage this perception. But, the iPod plays THE standard - mp3 files. In that sense it is no more exclusionary then the Microsoft-type players. I use iTunes extensively and one of the first things I do once I buy a group of songs is burn them to CD, for both backup and to play in my car. Once they are on CD I can do whatever I want with them - convert to any format, load into an iPod or ANY OTHER media player, etc.
so this guy is sueing because he wants music off of ITunes store but not use the Ipod... thats like sueing BMW because they have BMW only rims and you can't get them otherwise. You don't need the itunes/ipod just like you don't need a BMW/BMWrims, you can get music in other places.
letting me run windows on PowerPC.
this is stupid.
I've got to say, I'm on this guy's side.
A while ago, I bought myself a nice, shiny Parker fountain pen. Now I awake to find myself locked-in to their proprietary, long-style ink refill cartridges.
Meanwhile, all of my friends are running around, laughing their asses off with their shorter ink cartridges that they can fit into every other type of fountain pen, or even lend to each other (illegally!)...
Of course, the same argument can be made about other devices and standards. But I don't think you see any other market currently with this much market share in a single company's "control".
IANAL and all that...
---
And reading my blog will prove IANAL ;-)
I find the semi-biased choice of words from the submitter interesting. Apple 'controls' 80% of the market?
More like Apple is 'the choice' for 80% of the market. When I want a music track, or a CD I don't find myself forced or 'controlled' to buy from iTunes.
I do because it works with my stuff that I bought well before it came out....not because I'm forced, coerced, have no option too.
I always find the Apple iTunes Music Store part funny on how the slashdot community reacts. on one hand it's apple, the company everyone wants to love but somehow everything costs too much or just missing feature xx for you to personally use, on the other, it's DRM'd stuff and that's satan incarnate.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
is this just a case of someone just trying to cash in on Apple's success
I just hate it when people overuse the word "just" or put it in strange places in a sentence. The word "just" means "only." To test to see if your use of the word "just" is correct, substitute the word "only" and see if your sentence makes sence.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
So you go out and pay for your music. And they tell you how you can, and can't use it.
You go and pirate music, and you can do whatever the heck with it you want.
No wonder people download free music. If I buy something, I want to put it on whatever device I want to.
So now this guy legally buys his music from iTunes, and is spending even more money to sue Apple.
Brilliant.
He should have just bought the CD and ripped the tracks himself, and then sold the album on ebay.
Apple is quite clear on where iTunes songs can be used:
Where has Apple failed to deliver on what was promised?So it becomes a question of his desire to play the tunes on other devices. This is no different than it's ever been - 1980: you buy an LP and copy it to cassette for use in the car, 1990: you buy a CD and copy it to cassette for use on your Walkman, etc.
Note, too, that the audio quality after iTunes>CD>MP3 import is still better than people experienced with LP>cassette w/Dolby.
How has Apple "locked" him into purchasing an iPod in order to play his tunes on other devices?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Linguistically a monopoly exists when there is no competition. Legally, it the concept is somewhat fuzzier - note how Microsoft is legally classed as having a monopoly in the operating systems market in spite of the existence of competing products, due to their ability to control the market.
A legal monopoly in the U.S. is determined by it's influence on the market. Basically, the courts ask if it is possible to compete in the space with a reasonable chance of success, and if a better product can compete. In the case of MS, they ruled that other companies cannot make money by selling OSs, even if they have better OSs. This was demonstrated by several attempts. By the same definition I don't think Apple would qualify. Other companies can and do enter the market and make profits. Note this is completely separate from whether or not they have illegally abused that monopoly. Further note, IANAL and this is just the layman's explanation that was given to me.
The following is the Slashdot rule for determining if it is a monopoly>
if(is_microsoft) monopoly = true
else monopoly = false
The biased news coverage here is embarassing.
...both. DRM is certainly "bad" in that it limits you from doing whatever you want with your content, and in that it is manipulated by vendors to lock you in to products and services. Rather than shopping around for the best player, the best music store, the best music app, the best OS, etc., you have to buy into whatever system the manufacturer provides for you. And it squashes competition and gives rise to ridiculous things like Sony's ATRAC.
But... I think we can all agree that being able to legally download music online, in some form, is a very good thing. And the fact is that, without DRM, this wouldn't be happening at all. No major industry copyright holder such as a record company or a movie company would ever agree to make their content available online without some form of DRM-like control.
So you can either give up on the whole idea of online music stores, or you can accept DRM as a necessary evil. You can even just burn your tracks to CD and rip them in whatever codec floats your boat. DRM is certainly immoral in a "free as in speech" sort of way, and it contributes to the general glut of competing and incompatible codecs, but it's here to stay.
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Question. Is there a way of "building your own ipod" mp3 player? has anyone done this? I've seen "build your own tiVo", but... mp3 :-?
How can I say this when everyone has an iPod and uses iTunes? Think about it. Does a sale of a plastic CD compete with iTMS? Yes it does. If I buy a CD, I'm unlikely to buy the same song on iTMS, and vice versa. Likewise, does a traditional CD Walkman compete with an iPod? Again, yes it does. While many people will opt for both, each device performs essentially the same function--making purchased music portable.
You might disagree with my interpretation. One of the grey areas of antitrust/competition law is the definition of the market being measured for anticompetitive behavior. Everyone has an opinion about the scope of the relevant market, including the judges deciding the case. I happen the subscribe to the interpretation above.
The point of this is about monopoly and being forced in. I am not sure this guy will win, but every argument you guys made (read the requirements, there are other alternatives, nobody's forcing you, blah blah blah) could have been (have been!) made by Microsoft when it was being sued. So let's focus on this instead of arguments that have no consequence.
And you assume it is easy for everyone to just "make a CD". Most users would have great trouble even with this simple task. It isn't at all obvious to Aunt Tillie like my uncle what formats are, how they are different, or even how to solve a problem like that.
That was really funny! You have never used a Macintosh with iTunes - right? There are other operating systems out there, where burning a CD could be complicated. On a Mac, in iTunes you do:
Could it be easier? If you have been able to download songs from iTMS you are able to burn CDs as well - trust me.
I completely agree taht the user is not locked in to anything since he can create a compliant Audio CD - the defacto standard for digitial audio since 15 years.
It seems like Apple can also be at the receiving end of a lawsuit, too
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
"GregChant writes "It seems like Apple can also be at the receiving end of a lawsuit, too: "
Umm.. *ANYONE* can be on the receiving end of a lawsuit, too. What's your point again?!
I agree with this guy for the most part, and I say more power to him.
That said, I think it is funny that almost every comment to this point has been, here come the apple fans to the blind defense of apple.
NO! I have yet to see one comment saying apple is god. I have seen 100 comments saying apple fanboys are stupid and think apple is god. I think we are pointing fingers at imaginary people. Nobody thinks apple is in the right.
Move on.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
...after all, the terms of their use of the name "Apple" was that they never would never be in the music business. That went out the door pretty fast.
First we have a story where Apple sues TS, now we have a story where Apple is being sued, for some slashdotters and their opinions, their mind is going to enter 1 infinite loop!
Jonathanjk.com
It's what you want. Everything you said, including and especially your conclusion, is support for the notion that Apple is not limiting your freedom to choose the source and/or format of your music in a manner that harms consumers of the music industry. While some people might not like iTMS or iPods or Fairplay, they can vote with their dollars or dowloads.
The judge will toss this person out of court within 15 minutes. The music bought on iTMS is *prepared* to operate wonderfully on the iPod. As history has shown, Apple provides it's clients with the greatest user experience it can on *its* hardware.
The music itself can easily be burned to CD and ripped on your PC for use with your NOMAD etc. This can even be done in iTunes itself! The case has no legs to stand on, Apple has freely provided everything *anyone* needs to play their iTMS music on ANY PORTABLE DEVICE on the market if you spend 10mins and take your head out of your ass long enough to understand the technolgy you're using.
RANT FOLLOWS
It's a good idea to burn any music you buy online to CD. Apple will NOT provide you with new copies of music you previously purchased on iTMS if your hard drive goes nuclear. Apple, and other online stores, are not about to waist terabytes of bandwidth($$$) supplying you with backups of music you bought for peanuts then lost because you're a careless ass.
I suspect other online stores act in a similar manner. So if the judge is up to date on technology, he'll recognize that everyone SHOULD be making CD backups *anyway* - and charge this twit with waisting everyone's time.
Think of that logic in this context, the next time you loose your NOFX *physical* CD, go back to the store you purchased it from and demand a new copy. Even with a reciept you'll get your ass kicked all the way to the street.
You seem to be confusing AAC with Fairplay, which is the digital rights management wrapper Apple places around AAC when music is purchased on the iTunes Music Store.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
All the songs in the ITMS are in AAC format. Since no other player I know will play AAC either DRMed or not DRMed, I don't think he has a case...
It's like some fucked up Invasion of the Body Snatchers...Slashdot readers start using Imacs, and are replaced by Apple's pod people (Ipod people?)
You can almost hear the chanting in the background as they march lockstep with blank stares...
"Think different...Steve is great...Apple is great...ThinkSecret is evil...AAC is the only format...think different..."
If ever Slashdot neaded a strong dose of Linux zealotry, now is the time. Look at what's happening to these poor people! RMS, won't you please help?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
If it were Microsoft doing this slashdotters would be unanimous in their condemnation.
1) Build your own music service, which matches your needs, and the perceived needs of your potential cutomers.
2) You can use aPurchase songs, burn a CD backup (which you should do anyways), and then re-import to iTunes as an mp3. Then you can use it on any player.
3) Get a life.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Isn't this kind of the same deal with videogames? You have the XBOX and PS2 version of GTA 3 and Vice City, however in order to play the XBOX version you need an XBOX. If I buy music from iTunes, I have to use the iPod. Basically, you are buying Apple's version of the song, so you need to use Apple's player.
I think I am going to sue Rockstar for not making the GTA series compatible between consoles.
I'm using Redhat 9 while I mull over which distro I'm jumping to next. Microsoft isn't forcing me to do anything either. And even if I have windows, I've got quite the pick of browsers and media players free and not. They'd just preinstall crap for my convienence. At least in the case of Microsoft they're thing that allow me to do things easily, rather preventing me from doing them easily. So please explain what your standard for having a monopoly is....
Reverse engineering is still legal. Apple can suck it. Or should AMD just hand their fab keys over to Intel with a handwritten appology?
Remember three clicks is three times more than one click on a link to setup.exe. And that's too great a barrier to entry. Also, there is the inserting of the media, the waiting for it to burn, and then going back and ripping everything again. All of which is a far greater barrier than "click."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Microsoft is dominant in several key IT markets. If Microsoft throws its weight around, it is capable of squashing competition in those markets to the detriment of consumers. The same practices that are harmful to the market in the hands of a monopolist like Microsoft, are helpful and pro-competitive in the hands of a smaller player. Whether or not Microsoft is dominant in any music-related market is not a question I would even begin to try to answer here, but you should be aware that drawing equivalencies between monopolists and non-monopolists can make you sound pretty dumb.
Nintendo led the way in this practice in the 1980s - a closed console (computer) that would only work with cartridges (software) that Nintendo had blessed (which usually meant Nintendo manufactured them, on pricing that included a license fee).
Although relentlessly attacked in court by a company then called Atari Games, Nintendo's approach held up, as far as I know. Later, market pressure from Sega and then Sony forced Nintendo to moderate some of its requirements, but they pretty much defined the business model for the console sector for years to come.
I see this as firmly within that tradition. What's the big deal? As we saw with Nintendo, there was really no monopoly after competition got going.
While I wish it was easier to converted the protected files to mp3 a little easier, I cannot fault Apple for making it difficult. They have a good catalog and I can get any song from their store for 99 cents. I imagine that part of the reason they got so many artists to participate was offering some protection of their music.
Having said all of that, it ,I>is possible to convert the music...although it does take a little more work than simply exporting the files. There are several ways, some included here:
http://www.bpurcell.org/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry& entry=1036
http://www.tunebite.com/index.php?affiliate=1002
I also believe you should be able to burn your protected songs to a CD and then ripping them to mp3 from the CD
I do not profess to understand the legalities of all of this, but these are the ways to do it. If you are converting this music to mp3 for personal use, I believe you are allowed to convert it legally.
Having done so much with so little for so long, I now can do anything with nothing at all.
Talking about leveraging a Monopoly, to me this sounds a bit like the problems to get a non-MS port for NTFS access.
I'm surprised there is no court case (yet) about this lock-out of other systems.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Sure, it's not actually legal, but a lot of people are posting messages that they are burning CDs.
At our house we only use iTunes to manage MP3s ripped from our CDs to put on the iPod so it's not an issue for us, but I didn't think there was a reason to actually burn to CD anymore.
Modded as a troll?
The truth hurts I guess...
This is like suing GM because Ford parts don't work in their cars. ITunes is an Apple product, designed to work with other Apple products. There are several other choices available for pay-to-download music. They DON'T have a monopoly.
Just another example of a legal system out of control. Everyone loses but the lawyers.
I purchased a video game the other day, and imagine my surprise that it only worked in a Playstation 2, not in my Xbox. Apparently, they are forcing me to play these games on their Playstation 2, and I can't play it anywhere else. That's outrageous! Where can I find a lawyer to help me fight this monopolistic practice?
Any sane judge will tell that guy to go buy a different portable player, use another online music store, and shut the fuck up. The guy has NO CASE. Apple never made a secret of the fact that music downloaded from the iTMS won't work on any other portable player except the iPod. For that matter, neither do the other online music stores. If he didn't do due diligence while shopping for a portable player or before purchasing downloadable music online, that's his problem.
That guy is either a complete moron, or he's just looking for a quick buck and thinks Apple will pay him off to make him go away-- which I highly doubt they will.
Furthermore, like others have said, you can use any player you want, you just have to burn and rerip your iTMS purchases to do it.
~Philly
They could license their implementation of Fairplay to other portable MP3 player manufacturers like iRiver and Creative.
But they won't do that, because iTunes is designed from the get-go to drive iPod sales through this AAC/Fairplay lockin.
To get the best experience you need iTunes, an iPod, and a Mac. You have to jump through hoops, degrading the audio quality of the music in the process to use the music you've purchased through iTunes on anything else.
These barriers are in place specifically to drive people to get an iPod. They are anti-competitive by design. Whether the iTunes/iPod combination provides a sufficient market dominance to be ruled a monopoly and subject to Anti-Trust law, is a matter for the courts to decide.
If he doesn't like Microsoft's excellent Windows 98 product with bundled Internet Explorer, he is welcome to use another OS like Linux. There is no monopoly or lock-in, this guy's just looking for a quick buck.
IPOD is not and never was a monopoly. They do not force you to use thier IPOD, nor are you forced to download music from them exclusively. There are many portable music players out there to choose from, and many forms of compression with which to convert music for use on your portable player.
This so-called 'lawsuit' is a blatant manipulation of the court system to opportunistically extort Apple into paying this complainent out-of-court settlement money. It's horrible that this even gets attention.
Mark my words, Slashdot readers: This case will be deemed frivilous by the courts.
Brooklyn.
between a user suing a record company because he/she can't play a CD in their PC because of DRM, and a user suing a record distribution company (Apple) because he/she can't play a song in his/her choice of mp3 player?
IMHO, the gripe is a valid one, especially so because Apple is not a fringe player in the internet distributed music market but a monopolistic player. Most of the arguments to the contrary do not consider the monopoly issue. The main reason why MS had to delink the Windows Media Player from their OS was because they're a monopoly in the OS market.
Another thing is that one monopoly cannot be compared to another. You cannot compare say, the television market with the PC market or the music market. This is because the nature of competition and user expectation is different in every market. A TV buyer is not expected to assemble his/her TV but buys it as a black box. Similarly, a person who purchases a CD expects to play their CD in any popular CD player.
I wanted a 3G iPod (wife got it for me), because it was the coolest player out there, with the most storage. I quickly loaded my 300+ CDs into it and was happy. THEN I discovered the iTunes Music Service. Now, I buy almost all of my music through ITMS.
You see, ITMS is #1 because the iPod is #1, not the other way around. Would I have bought music through ITMS? Maybe. But I certainly would not have switched to it almost exclusively, had I not been an iPod owner, not to mention that it's a great service (usualy cheaper than buying "physical" albums).
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
He might have had a scenario like mine. I have been ripping music to itunes and purchased a few albums using Apple's online store. I told my parents I wanted an iPod but instead they bought me a Dell Jukebox. They said they did it because Dell advertised that its *like* an iPod or they though it was an iPod. What they bought me was quite fine (a 20 gig unit), but I had them return it back to Dell, as I could not use it with my downloaded music and ripped cds (which I spent alot of time doing). They finally gave me money toward the iPod and I ordered it myself. As a consumer, to the average joe, this didn't make alot of sense and I still feel bad about it.
Apple have a monopoly on the digital download market. Yes, there are other options but there are alternatives to Windows as well. This didn't protect them against claims they have a monopoly. iTunes clearly makes up most of the market.
To use it, you need to buy a second piece of hardware. This is a lot more of a problem for the cinsumer than MS bundling a browser. This is arguably part of the system, and only an incremental step after also supplying a text editor and other applications. iTunes users actually have to go out and buy another product which is only tangentially related. They have a choice of just one because Apple refuse to either licence their DRM, or offer an alternative format from iTunes. If you wanta portable digital music player, apple prevent you from having a choice. This is quite clearly product tying. This is illegal abuse of a monopoly.
The fact that there are other services isn't significant. Since Apple has such a large proportion of the customer base, there is clearly a good reason for this. Copying to CD, then reencoding to mp3 also isn't a reasonable option. This is very inconvenient, for those who aren't tech savvy, and loses track information for those who are.
Why are people defending Apple for reducing consumer choice?
What nobody seems to realize is that Apple wants to take on the role of 'the [music/show/media] business' by providing next generation tools and services to link artists with consumers. They BELIEVE in DRM, but they believe they can mediate the degree and kind of DRM better than the music/film giants.
If you look at how the puzzle is taking shape, an artist will be able to create art using Apple tools (Garage Band to Logic), market them using Apple services (iTMS), and sell them to Apple customers (which is just about EVERYONE when it comes to music and iPods). This is all planned to be COMPLETELY independent from the music industry. What works for music now will work for video later. Apple is a product development company via VERTICAL INTEGRATION. They find basic components that aren't being fully exploited (like DSPs), and they cobble together whatever else is available to force that component to serve user experience in (hopefully) some life-altering way. That is what "Insanely Great" means to Apple in practical terms.
DRM is a tool to incite artists to want to put their work out through iTMS instead of the traditional routes.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Do they EXCLUSIVELY control the acquisition of music by consumers? Do they EXCLUSIVELY control the sale of portable hardware on which you can transport and play music? Do they EXCLUSIVELY control the personal computer business?
The answer to all of these is HARDLY; and any claim otherwise means you fail to understand anti-trust law, and certainly didn't follow the Microsoft anti-trust case. A LARGE amount of effort in that case was spent defining the "market". Defining the market for portable music as only including iPod and iTunes is ignorant, at best.
And all it does is play playstation games. I feel locked in, because I want to play Halo 2. I'm suing Sony.
It doesn't have a USB port.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Looks like I have to buy a cd-burner and learn to use it, and then learn how to copy those to mp3. (which will involve re-entering all the song data, since cddb won't work for custom CDs).
Or, I could just buy an iPod.
Turns out, if you want to use Apple software, your best option is always Apple hardware.
Monopoly? No. Because I don't have to use Apple software. But don't blame it on the record labels, Apple is the one who won't let anyone else build a iTMS capable player.
Changa hates change.
Actually, it would be more like someone suing Ford because their parts don't work in GM cars.
"Mr Slattery called himself an iTunes customer who "was also forced to purchase an Apple iPod" if he wanted to take his music with him to listen to. " Sorry, I doubt anyone was holding a gun to his head and actually forcing him to buy an iPod. It's his choice to use iTunes instead of the Real or MS stores, and it's his choice to not rip his own music. There are plenty of ways for him to use another player with Apple's iTunes music. My favorite is writing a mix CD for my car and then ripping the resulting CD for use in any other "hard drive digital music players" of my choice.
iTunes DRM Music is for iPods only. Apple makes this clear. Other manufacturers are free to make plugins that let their non-DRM MP3 players work with iTunes, but not use Apple's DRM.
This is like me sueing Sony because my Playstation won't play XBox games. Its a matter of perspective.
They use monopolistic and unfair market practices by tying the use of the iTunes Music Store in to owning an iPod. Two different markets, really. One is online music sales, the other is portable music players. Both of these have competition in other fields, but tying them to each other such that using one means you almost have to have the other is indeed illegal.
This could be avoided entirely by Apple simply licensing their implementation of Fairplay to other portable music player manufacturers. They have thus far refused to do that.
I don't expect them to sell non-DRM'd music, and I don't expect them to sell anything other than AAC. But players like iRiver and the Zen and such would love to support the iTunes Music Store. Building in AAC support they can do on their own. Building in Fairplay and DRM support they must license from Apple. Either that or they have to go the Real Player route and DIY the thing. Which leaves them open to Apple breaking compatibility at any time.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Windows Media DRM scheme, while more oppressive in most ways, is licensed to several different portable players (i believe).
This, to me, has been the most obnoxious part of apple's DRM since the beginning. Overall, it's pretty lenient, but it does lock the music buyer into apple's hardware from a legal, not to mention practical, standpoint. People aren't going to buy a Zen player, then burn all their music to CD, then rip it all into MP3 at a loss of quality.
Whether the issue is lawsuit-worthy, on the other hand, is arguable. I, for one, don't think so. I think it's obnoxious on the part of apple -- just as so much of what microsoft does is obnoxious -- but probably not illegal.
As much as i hate F***in walmart you can download all the songs you want for $0.88 a piece and get them in mp3 format. If this guys doesn't want them in Apple's format he can go to Walmart and buy music. Or buy used CD's rip the songs and trade the used CDs back into the used CD store for more used CD's to Rip.
THere is no way Apple has a monopoly on digital music. If you look hard enough I bet this guy is funded by either Real Networks for M$ (the usual villans in these cases)
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
one time i bought this thing called a compact disc, and then i realized that i had to buy a CD player to play it on.
man did i feel locked in.
How pointless is this?
Anyone can pay for an iPod and use it with MP3's, no copy protection required.
iTunes is a free application which allows you to manage your mp3 collection (in a very efficient manner), you can also use it (for free) to make managing your iPOD even easier.
iTunes music store is a free service (ie you only pay for what you buy, no membership fees) which allows you the choice to buy music in a quick and easy way. iTunes music store has copy protection which locks-in the track via DRM. This is a necessity to appease the record companies, if you wish to buy this music from ITMS then you can play it back on your computer, or, if you have an iPOD you can play it back using that (in fact you could have a million iPOD's and put that one track on each iPOD). You can also burn that track to CD (very easily).
How is this locked in? Don't use iTunes Music Store if you have a Nomad or whatever use something else. You can still use the iTunes software (for free), you just can't use the extra services.
That's like saying I get cable TV but those bastards don't let me pay $10 for a pay-per-view show and watch it at my baby's momma's house. I'm locked in!
It's the terms and conditions of the service, which, again, is optional!!!
I did too, until I bought a Sony CD player and the laser died.
Then there's no need to whine to the court when it's, in fact, crippled. Use the iPod for what God and Nature intended: MP3.
sulli
RTFJ.
'Apple has turned an open and interactive standard into an artifice that prevents consumers from using the portable hard drive digital music player of their choice'.
iTunes is a closed source app with some APIs. So it is clearly not 'open'. Who the hell knows what an 'interactive' standard means. And who the hell decided that iTunes is a standard? A standard what? mp3 player?
The only standard that one can argue it is, is that its the standard way to easily load your ipod. Which is also an apple device. Im not sure how using the apple loader program to load an apple device makes you have 'lock in' Use the damned app that came with your 'player of choice'. Its not apple's job to do the heavy lifting for another vendor..
seriously.. WTF?
You can run windows on PowerPC, I've done it plenty of times. And Microsoft encourages it, because they make money from software sales, not hardware. A better analogy would be suing Apple because you can't run OS/X on a PC. Apple says that's illegal because Apple makes money off hardware sales, not software. iTunes is free, the music is cheap. That's because Apple iTunes is simply a value-add for the iPod, which is the actual product they sell for profit.
Changa hates change.
Apple's mighty legal team will not lose this fight. Further, this poor guy is going to the poorhouse after he pays his legal bills when the Apple legal team gets through with him.
People should not fear what they do not understand; people should fear because they do not understand.
I would argue that Apple has a 'virtual monopoly' with iTunes. The civilian Mac users (including those in my household) do not waste time downloading Real or any of the other music software, because Apple pre-loads iTunes. "Why would I use something else, when I have all I need right here?"
It's similar to the WMP argument used: Microsoft used their OS in order "bundle" WMP, therefore locking in people. It's not a true bundle (WMP can't be deleted that I know of), but when Apple pre-loads its own software on its computers for free, it puts all other companies trying to compete.
Maybe not a monopoly in the legal sense, but something close. And this shouldn't be forgotten.
In this case, try substituting "just" with "merely."
Changa hates change.
How about suing the company that makes those coffee machines that take custom coffee cartridges. Surely they're "making" me buy their machines to drink their coffee.
The ipod plays other music formats (mpe, wav, aiff). Songs purcahsed at the itunes music store can be burned to a disc to be played on any cd player. You're not locked in -- unless you expand the suit to sue home entertainment companies because you "had" to buy a cd player to play the cds you've burned.
Buy a rio and sign up for the Real store, or napster, or walmart, or any other music store. No one forced him to buy an ipod to listen to music.
I should sue Real/Napster/Microsoft for making a DRM system that doesn't work on a Mac and forced me to buy a Windows box.
There are other choices... LOTS of other choices..
/restrictions that the Ipod uses, then you can choose one of *many* others..
If you dont like the formats
Once you have no other choices, then we can talk about suits.
He's just trying to cash in.. Prolly is a lawyer..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Of course, the use of "just" twice within 5 words, does make the author an idiot. But not just for using the word.
Changa hates change.
Considering that the iPod came out first and allowed you to play any format of music you wanted form any online music service where is the monopoly? iTunes came out later and has always been designed for use with two products - your computer and the iPod.
Now Apple entered the market late in the online music game and had to guarantee for the RIAA that they can protect music with DRM - something that, really no one else has been able to effectively do, even Apple's isn't all that effective. But at least they guaranteed to the record companies that the music will only be stored in two places the iPod and your computer. And that sharing of files wasn't going to be easy since you can only copy songs about 5-6 times before the copy sounds bad.
If he bought his music player prior to iTunes getting into the market then that was his choice and there were other places he could get his music just like other iPod owners but iTunes has always been specifically designed for the iPod. Not the other way around.
Who he should sue is RIAA for putting the restrictions in place first. How else would Apple have been able to offer music? Plus has Apple made any money on iTunes - not really because it wan't designed to be a money maker the iPod was.
The iPod is just a piece of hardware but it doesn't lock people into any music format. iTunes was designed to be the application for the iPod and your computer to use that music and it doesn't lock you into any format. You can rip CD's into MP3's or AAC - your choice! But in offering music Apple had to adhere to what the RIAA wanted else no record company would have entered into an agreement with Apple in offering music.
If they own 80% of the music downloads it's obiviously due to the fact they sold all those iPods but no one is locked into any format that they don't want. Don't want DRM AAC then buy CD's or purchase MP3's from a different source don't use the iTunes Music Store. Again consumer choice.
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
The essence of the complaint is that once you have bought music from iTMS, you can't play it back on normal MP3 players, only on an iPod.
Not to be too retentive, but you shouldn't be able to play iTMS files on a normal MP3 player. They're AAC files.
There are two ways to download music legally, but you're always locked-in:
Of the two methods, Apple, gives you slightly more freedom because you can buy music, burn a CD, and re-import as MP3 then use any player... no Mac, no iPod.
You can own an iPod and use iTunes, and still have perfect portability - just buy CDs instead, and rip everything to MP3 instead of AAC (something iTunes will do without complaining about it. Want a different player down the road? All those MP3s will go over to it without a hitch.
The only lock-in I can see is to the ITMS - and that's hardly a requirement for owning and using an iPod.
This is just too obvious; I must've missed something.
#DeleteChrome
licencing hardware like software must be fought at any and all levels before it becomes a standard. That's what Apple (and M$ XBox for that matter) are saying is "give us money for the privelage of using this hardware for what we tell you to and only what we tell you to". What this amounts to is a type of rental that has no return. You're just paying for the privelage. If companies want to continue with this type of practice then they should be forced to admit that they are merely a rental, change "purchase price" to "deposit" and have an end to the rental period when the user gets their deposit back. In the case of the iPod Apple only wants it to be used for iTunes drm music so it shouldn't be hard at all to prove the case to the court that the iPod should be treated as a rental device as long as they keep users locked out since they don't truely have freedom of ownership. The whole concept of ownership is getting lost if it hasn't already.
I don't think "almost" will get you very far in court. Furthermore, this is just a case of "tie-in sales", I don't think it is "vendor lock-in". The former could be found illegal in the US (Clayton Act) if it would seem that you have to much market power. Studies have proven (F.M. Scherer et al.) that if you don't have (a lot of) market power (to be determined by the court) you can actually get away with tie-in sales.
Lock IN!!!!
-Randy
1) Purchase music from Apple Store
2) Burn music to "red book" audio CD
3) Rip music from CD
4) Put re-ripped music on player of choice
5) PROFIT!
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
Did anyone read the complaint? Anyone have the link to it?
While it would be nice to see the detailed legal claim, one ought to expect this guy to lose.
Apple does not control the online music market, nor are its hardware platforms and software any kind of necessity. Apple may have a large market share that may constitue a monopoly, but they have not been using that postion to enforce their monopoly. With a solid hold on the market, there are no market forces forcing Apple to change its practices.
Until Apple uses its position to force competitors out, then there would be a case, but it is no secret that ITMS songs only play on iPods and iTunes, and Apple is trying to force others out of the market.
Apple has a free COM API available to developers on their website. It is feasable that someone could develop a Windows XP Embedded based player using this API. Just because the market hasn't embraced this option doesn't mean that Apple is at fault.
apple entered two different markets and rose to dominance in both. They did not levergae a monoloply in one market to gain in another.
moreover it's dubious they have a monopoly. It all depends upon how you define the market. Does apple have a monopoly on digital music players. No, if you consider CD players. Does apple have a market monopoly on music sales? ha. no. what about online music sales. Um no, check with BMG, columbuia house, amazon who all sell digital music on line.
So apple did not leverage a monoloply and it may not even have a monopoly if you define the market correctly. They only have a monopoly on the ipod market but that is too narrow a definition and does not intrude on say the WMA or rasphody market, which by the same narrow scope are "monopolies".
move along nothing to see here. .
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I have an iPod. I don't use iTunes music store. Your tie-in is imagined. Btw, I buy my music in a music store, on CDs. I'm not sure why you think Apple providing an alternative market in which to purchase music somehow mandates you use that market. I don't like DRM in any form. So I buy CDs, in music stores. And still I use an iPod to listen to my music. No tie-in. No case. No kidding.
My boss MAKES me use Windows => monopoly
Nobody makes me use iTunes => choice
The first thing I do when I buy music from iTunes is burn a CD as a backup
The second thing I do is copy the CD to my Sharp Zaurus because I don't have an iPod because nobody forces me to get an iPod
I hope this helps you morons understand the differences between monopoly and choice; now you can resume watching your master Bill Gates and his crashing demos of stuff that people only get because they are forced to (Okay, I'll admit that any true slavery regime attracts a few volunteer Uncle Toms like you)
Apple! vendor lock in? You have to be kidding!!! Thats never happened before.
someone who gets it.
From the end of the article:
Rivals use the MP3 format or Microsoft's WMA format - or in the case of Real its own AAC format - while Apple uses AAC with its own copy protection, which it says helps thwart piracy.
That is incorrect - no mainstream music store uses MP3 as a format, and it is unfair to make it sound like Apple's store is the only one with this issue.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Microsoft is different. They control the OS that runs on the majority of desktops in the world, "
.net code, using SQL Server. I can't show up with a linux box now can I?
true
"and nobody has any alternative (small users partially excepted). "
also true(in a practical sense).
I mean, it's not like the secertary at a bank can decide to use a different OS, is it?
If you use it at work, most people will use it at home. I write
In addition to that, they are a convicted monopolist."
again, true.
you may love Microsoft, but thats no reason to take a few words from a post and then removie its context to justify your feeling.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Back on December 13 and 14, DRM Blog suggested pretty much the same thing that this guy is suggesting. Here he suggests that people should boycott iTunes and iPod because it is monopolistic. And then here after he had been called a cretin/fool/idiot/etc for even suggesting such a thing, he tried to explain why he was right.
It is good to see that other people agree with this point of view but it is sad to see all of these Apple iPod people that cannot see that there is a potential problem here. Just because Apple competes with MS does not make Apple perfect. They are still a large company that will use any advantage they have to make more money and lock people into their products.
iTMS was created to allow people with iPods to buy music online. It is a companion service. A record company restriction (not Apple!) is that the music has to have DRM, in this case the fairly lax Fairplay. Apple clearly think of the iPod as a format rather than an instance of a digital media player. What if Philips never licensed the CD? Then you'd never have got a non-Philips CD player (yeah, the format would have died a death, but that's another issue that Apple should also be thinking about).
...
It is the licensing of Fairplay that is the problem if you decide you want to play music you've bought from iTMS on a non-iPod player. Obviously HP and Motorola have licences for it, with the HP iPod and the upcoming Motorola iTMS compatible phone (rumoured anyway). Yeah, so the HP player is practically a copy of the iPod, but anyway
No, they can't. The music license Apple has with record companies specifically disallows third-party licensing of the DRM wrapper Apple is allowed by its license to sell music in. If anyone should be sued for this, it is the record companies. Apple's hands are tied.
I was always under the impression that the reason that Apple locked up its format was directly related to the RIAA. By locking the format down they somewhat appease the RIAA because sharing and moving the music becomes a great deal more difficult. The irony is, most /.ers can probably get around this bullshit anyhow. All you have to do is hop on google and do some searching and you can come across software that will convert the closed format in to the open format and then convert the apple format to mp3's etc. You can also do it with that apple movie software and ripping the soundstream ... it's not impossible but you definately need some geek skillz.
I think he means an "iTunes Music Store" customer not "iTunes" customer. iTunes doesn't do any of the things he is complaining about.
iTunes doesn't load your MP3s onto rival MP3 players, but that's not its job.
iTMS sells music in AAC format. If you don't want music in Apple's format, buy it somewhere else. Apple never sold music in any other format, so they haven't converted any formerly open market into a closed one.
Can you use an iPod with music not from iTMS? Yes.
Can you use iTMS music without an iPod? Yes (burn CDs, play it through iTunes).
Microsoft makes deals with hardware companies such that they are forced to bundle Windows with their hardware whether their customers want/need it or not (how many of us don't already have all the Windows licenses we're ever likely to need?). These deals are deals the hardware companies cannot refuse, because otherwise they will not be able to sell computers with Windows as cheaply as compliant companies (this is called leveraging a monopoly).
Can I buy a low-end Dell PC without paying for a Windows license? Basically, no.
Microsoft puts gotchas into their OSes to do things like break applications written using non-Microsoft compilers (remember the Borland compiler hack in 95 betas?)
Microsoft deliberately modifies their APIs to break third party software for strategic purposes (remember "DOS 2 ain't done 'til Lotus won't run"?; see "Hard Drive")
Does Windows Media Player intentionally break file associations to QuickTime files so that QuickTime appears not to work, when in fact it's simply WMP that doesn't work? Basically, yes.
Microsoft "embraces and extends" standards to make the Microsoft variant of a "standard" the defacto and break otherwise compliant code. (Which is why it's more important for your web page to render correctly in IE than to be actually correctly coded.)
Can I remove IE from my Windows install? Basically, no.
>I have an iPod. I don't use iTunes music store.
Then you're not WTF I'm talking about, are you?
People who use the iTunes Music Store basically have to have an iPod if they want to use it on a portable device. The music won't work on anything but an iPod (without cracking the DRM yourself).
Like I said in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue if they'd license the DRM to other music players and let them build iTMS support into their devices.
This isn't about tying-in the iPod to the iTunes Music Store. It's about tying the iTunes Music Store into the iPod.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
AAC is an international standard owned by MPEG - the NATURAL successor to MPEG-3. I believe ANY music store can use it, as long as it pays the licensing fees..
WMA was actually developed AFTER AAC, and I imagine that Microsoft set its fees at an aggressive level to attract other stores. Of course, there's no way Apple would choose to pay them anyway!
Bottom line is.. as far as I know, there's no reason other music players don't support AAC except economics(MS support vs paying AAC licensing).
Studies have proven (F.M. Scherer et al.) that if you don't have (a lot of) market power (to be determined by the court) you can actually get away with tie-in sales.
Somebody else posted that the iTunes Music Store does something like 80% of all online music sales. Not sure of the exact numbers myself, but you can find them if you're interested, I'm sure.
In any case, I think this is indeed vendor lock-in. For one thing, if you use an iPod, the only available online music store for you is iTMS. Music stores selling WMA files won't work (the iPod hardware actually does support WMA, but the software does not... it's a PortalPlayer chipset). If you use iTMS, the only portable it works on is the iPod (since Apple refuses to license FairPlay). It's a pretty clear case of lock-in and Jobs himself has said so on more than one occasion. They use iTMS to sell iPod's and iPod's really only work with music from iTMS or music you ripped from CD.
Yes, you can use CD's, in both directions, but that's somewhat beside the point.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Remember Apple's old ad campaign "Rip, Mix, Burn...?"
You can even just burn your tracks to CD and rip them in whatever codec floats your boat.
Just change the order. "Mix, Burn, Rip".
A google search for "Apple Fairplay licensing" gives quite the opposite impression, one that Apple is on the verge of licensing FairPlay to Macrovision for copy-protected CD's, and Motorola for use in certain cell phones, for instance.
There is never once, in any of the articles I found, any mention that Apple is contractually obligated NOT to license Fairplay.
Perhaps you could site something to back up your assertion.
/tinfoil_On
/tinfoil_Off
Perhaps Microsoft is funding the suit behind the scenes? Bill just finished talking about Apple's exclusivity in this regard.
HMMM.
That was fun!
shame on us / for all we have done / and all we ever were / just zeroes and ones
ITunes places music you buy in your iTunes Library folder. This is so it can keep track of music you have and music you have bought. It even sorts and stores the music in folders based on Artist and album and names the music files with the song name. There is nothing stopping the user from going into that folder and placing the song files onto their device of choice. Also, iTunes stores the index of your library in an xml file. Which means it would be easy to create an application that could read an iTunes index and import the library (and people have).
iTMS was created to allow people with iPods to buy music online. It is a companion service.
This is what Apple says and it's the way they want the court to see it, but is it really true? Is Online Music Sales a wholly separate market from Portable Player Sales? Considering the number of people who complain that music from iTMS won't play on their non-iPod device, I'd say that the evidence is pretty heavy for considering them to be separate markets.
In which case the iTMS and iPod tie-in might be an example of vendor lock-in, which might indeed be illegal.
It is the licensing of Fairplay that is the problem if you decide you want to play music you've bought from iTMS on a non-iPod player.
Agreed. I had not heard of a Motorola iTMS compatible phone yet, but assuming this is true and they do start licensing Fairplay out to companies, then there's no more case.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
How much are we betting that this is something that Micro$oft is funding?
...
They did it with SCO
M.
I bought this Gameboy game cartridge, which I can play at home either on my Gameboy player for Gamecube, or my Super Gameboy for SNES. But now Nintendo is telling me that if I want to take my games with me, I have to buy a portable system that's compatible with Gameboy cartridges -- and NINTENDO IS THE ONLY COMPANY THAT MAKES THEM!
Waaaaah! Unfair!
No one forced the idiot sueing (sp?) Apple to buy music at the iTMS. Apple did not shove its products down people's throats like M$ does (think M$IE or WMP). People have to go out and search for iPods, on top of having to download and install iTunes themselves. It is not bundled with every PCs sold on the market -- spare me the HP-Apple deal where iTunes is supposedly bundled with HP's products, this deal is nothing in the Big Picture.
/. crowd thought of it initially. Apple did not impose its product(s), want it or not, like M$ has done repeatedly over the years. Buyers, people CHOSE the best product despite the fact that it cost more (iPod) or that you have to go out and get it yourself (iTunes). And if the competition still can't get it right, it's not Apple's fault.
In fact, even on HP machines that might come with iTunes pre-loaded, WMP is still pre-loaded, so Apple does not have these machines all by itself, it still has M$ clinging to its back.
People can avoid dealing with Apple, they can run their x86 machines without the slightless trace of Apple software. But you cannot avoid having WMP on your PC, like you cannot get rid of MSIE in favour of FireFox if you run Windows. You have a *CHOICE* with Apple, you don't with M$.
So the guy CHOSE to download and install iTunes, could absolutely not know that iTMS songs can only be played with Apple Software or on an iPod, and now he complains about "lock-in"?
The truth is that Apple came out with a product that succeeded on its own merit, despite what the
This is nothing more that a stunt engineered by the competition who cannot come up with something as good as what Apple sells. Period.
Is the Music apples sells through iTunes exclusive? I mean, can REAL.COM sell the same music? If not, then Apple is monopolizing, if so, than I agree with other posters: just buy a different MP3 player, the same you would if you wanted to play Xbox and PC games.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
yes, but there is probably much less money to be made on selling music at 99cents a pop compared to the profit margin of selling an ipod. plus, when apple sells an ipod, there is that (slight) chance that the customer might purchase a mac later on. the bottom line is that apple does not have a monopoly. that is the key factor in this doomed lawsuit. they are one company out of dozens selling songs online. if you don't like apple telling you that's the way they do business, go buy a rio or iriver player and have your pick of other online music retailers.
But the problem is vendors all want to develop their own DRM solution so they don't have to pay royalties. Thus, we have 50 ba-jillion DRM formats.
Format wars are nothing new, (read VHS, CD, DVD...) The REAL issue is Apple is the leader in the format war, thus far and they refuse to license their technology to the other hardware vendors. If Phillps had refused to licensed the Compact Disc to other vendors, it would never be the de-facto standard audio format.
While I don't know if this kind of lock in is illegal, it is stupid and could become a reason for another format to win this war and watch Fairplay fade into memory...
The only way to end war is for everyone to get a piece!
This is like sueing Ford because he can't use GM parts in his Ford. Or sueing Intel becasue the sockets on their mobo's won't fit an AMD Opteron.
We have that now! The winning side can immediately request a judgement against the plaintiff for attournies fees and it is frequently granted.
And it's not as great as you think. Lawsuits are largely based on the convoluted argumentative logic (and outright lies) of the lawyers and paid "experts" involved, not on facts or rights as a lot of people seem to think.
Frequently non-frivoulous, justified lawsuits fail in court and innocent people get severely burned by this. It's tripply insulting to be harmed by a company, lose a case against them becuase of a phony paid expert or a slick laywer and then suffer the indignity of paying for the proveledge!
It creates a serious atmosphere of fear against small complaintents even though they are 100% in the right. It is a tool used by corporations to prevent any type of lawsuit from even ocurring, justified or not.
Going a step further, in California, the insurance companies actually got a law passed that makes it impossible to sue a third party's insurance company for failing to pay a claim. So now they can deny claims with impunity becuase they can't be sued. As usual, it's the little guy that gets beaten sensless by these types of "corrections" to the system.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
This is literally a non-issue. Apple does not force you to use an iPod for music you download from the iTunes music store, they just make it convient.
Want to use you iTunes music on a different player/device? Burn it to a CD, rip it back to your machine and move it.
Doesn't take a genius to figure this out.
I suppose the 'problem' is that it isn't "generic digital music" that is being purchased, it is "Fairplay AAC", which can only be played by devices that support "Fairplay AAC" music. It is Apple's choice if they want to license the format or not.
it is the consumer's choice to buy or not to buy from iTMS.
The monopoly is that once I purchase an iPod I can never change my mind. My friend purchased an iPod awhile ago, bought all of his music through iTunes and then a month ago his iPod stopped working. Well I take that back, it still works but a hard drive error prevents it from storing more that 15 songs so rather than just have a heavy CD player he tried to get it repaired. Long story slightly shorter, it was going to cost as much to repair as to buy a new one. Since the majority of music he's purchased is through iTunes, he's out of luck. Its iPod or start again from square one.
Apple has a monopoly on its current iPod owners. They can't get a different MP3 player without losing their music and they can't use alternative music stores on their iPod. I'm not really sure how this is all that much different from the aurguements against Microsoft's monopoly. Hell at least Windows still lets you install non-Microsoft products... for now anyway.
there are lots of places online that sell music. this idoit should just shop somewhere else. one of the reasons that apple products are so good is because of the tight knit intergration.
Burn them to a disk, re-import as MP3's. iTunes allows this.
Is it convenient? No.
Is it a civil tort? Not unless selling music on CD's is, because they also force you to import them to turn the tracks into MP3s.
Therefore, I believe that this whiner is simply upset by the apparent ease with which Apple COULD permit the process to occur but has opted against in order to seek a balance of interests that placates the rights holders enough that the entire enterprise can exist in the first place, albeit by denying users the flexibility they would find optimal if their interests were the only ones at play here.
tone
tone
I think I would be more upset about these things if there weren't other players in this market. It's not Apple's fault that napster blows. It's not Apple's fault that, for the most part, every other MP3 player type device isn't as good as theirs. If you don't like the restrictions on iTunes, don't use it. Use napster and the others. You have options. iTMS just happens to be the best, but it's not the only one.
As far as Fairplay goes, I imagine that Apple would have loved to leave that crap out. But, we all know the RIAA would never have gone for that.
This lawsuit is baseless and would be even if it were pointed at MS instead of Apple.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Right. Which is why I complained about overuse of the word, and not use of the word.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
juuust kiddin. but seriously, people are babies. If I buy some peice of hardware that doesn't do what i want/need, I do what any well adjusted, personality-disorder-moderated, sane person would do: I COMPLAIN AND WHINE ABOUT IT. ON THE INTERNET. sue happy people get what they deserve: bankruptcy unducing lawyers fees. But his case begs the question: in regards to the recent Airplane-cockpit-laser-painters, is this guy less retardedier -or more?
were unavailable, because were on yahoo messenger, and well, he's on AIM and we all know how that goes.
yeah, i know, trillian.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
No one is forcing us to buy these products. You have the options that the manufacturer gave you. Don't like it? Don't buy it.
It really is that simple. Especially since all products list system requirements and recommendations on the box.
-Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
That's interesting. I was pretty sure a legal version of iTunes available for non-Apple hardware, for the Operating System Whose Name We Do Not Speak.
Do not speak unless you can improve on the silence.
Why? Because I don't want my freedom to use my electronic music files abridged. Apple's format won't let me transfer the files to a new computer more than a few times, without going through a lot of contortions... I can't play music purchased from the iTunes Music Store on my Linux boxen, or on set top boxes. There is no freedom in AAC, only lock-in to Apple's players.
So I choose to buy my music the old fashioned way: on CDs. Then I rip them to MP3 (with CDex) and I can use the music on any player I like, including iTunes and my iPod. The CDs conveniently play in consumer electronic devices, and in my car.
This is what Mr. Slattery should do. Nobody has tied him up and kept him from ordering CDs from CDNow or goint to Walmart or whatever. The music is available elsewhere. He needs to get a grip.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
if it was MS doing this I would say, "Yes, this is a monopolistic practice." but since it is Apple and the are "teh coolest" it cant be. Oh, and I am a fag.
And in a related story, a man in Cleveland has just sued NBC because he couldn't stomache watching people eat rats on Fear Factor. He wants US $2.5 million for his intestinal distress.
One key point in Apple's defense is that they can simply point at the other online stores - Napster, Wal-Mart, etc. They have more open standards (WMA), but not by much.
Think of it this way: The iPod can only work with iTunes. Most of the iPod competitors can work with any of the competing stores. Granted, the competing stores aren't as good as iTMS yet, but Apple's not preventing them from competing.
Additionally no company has to open it's product to another company simply because it's a monopoly. There needs to be an abuse of that monopoly, which must then be proven that the abuse of the monopoly led to some kind of damages to the competition or consumers, i.e the prevention of others from entering their arena(Despite my wording this does in no way apply to rhapsody being locked out of iPods, as no consumers are damaged by their player not working with iTMS). Since a monopoly can only be established if apple were selling things that you couldn't get any where else, then it can also be argued that no monopoly exists.(I.e a question that can be asked is that if the company were to close, would a replacement quickly fill the void, the answer is yes.) Since Apple are not unique in having music, a music players or a juke box software it makes a case for monopoly very difficult. i.e there is no case.
Apples lead in the market would be easily proven by it's strong customer base and higher quality of product and product esteem. None of these things -force- any user to purchase 1. music from apple 2. music players from apple, 3. juke box type software from apple, or 4. even an apple computer. The growth of the iPod was significant, but this also occured in droves before the iTMS existed, the iPod beat other consumer music devices out in cost per megabyte, and hence provided better value, despite it's higher price, while simultaneously delivering a better experience as well as addressing that consumers have more than say 128mb of music.
Unlike the windows monopoly any user can enjoy high quality music from their favourite artist before and after apple came onto the scene. The only type of monopoly apple can force onto another company is by making a certain record companies music perform poorly on the iTunes Music Store. (Similar to how MS prevented competitive companies software from working correctly in windows.)
Okay, thanks for the explanation :)
You don't have to buy an iPod, and you don't have to use iTunes if you do. You don't have to buy music from Apple.
If your music collection isn't in MP3 format you're in for trouble at some point. MP3 is the universal standard. So stop collecting AACs...
Apparently, the infamous French Competition Council agrees with this opinion. They claim that the iPod plays several formats of music, of which FairPlay/AAC is only one. It would be entirely possible for an enterprising company to leverage this to make a system which relies on the iPod's natural security (it is difficult, although not impossible, to remove songs from your iPod... at least for a casual user) and specific downloading tools.
Since Real has managed to make Harmony (and evidently Apple can't stop them), you've got concrete evidence that it's possible, albeit difficult.
But... has anyone considered that the decision to license their format may not be Apple's choice? Apple itself licenses the DRM they are using, they didn't create it in house. Much like Nvidia may not be able to legally open their graphics card drivers, Apple may be in a position where it is not their call to make.
So far, the FairPlay format has proven to be pretty good. Not perfect, but we know that no DRM scheme can be. The RIAA is demanding that DRM be used. And it's also quite possible that they don't want Apple to license the DRM either. When it comes to iTMS, Apple has to listen to the RIAA, otherwise they'll back out entirely.
Does this mean that Apple might be in a legal-rock-or-hard-place? Possibly... but here's an even worse thought. What happens if this situation forces them to close iTMS?
The iPod is the dominant MP3 player on the market, and the iTMS is probably the biggest music store. But they are not your only option! Many other players exist out there, and many other online stores. Apple has a massive market lead, but nothing forces you to buy an iPod except your desire to use iTunes Music Store. Other MP3 players provide nearly identical (and sometimes superior) functionality.Apple's music store is so popular because of the experience as a whole. It is easy, attractive, and has a good selection. But other music stores have comparable selections, and other music players integrate with them just fine. We are not yet at a situation where you must use an iPod and iTMS in order to get anything done in the digital music world.
To further prove the case, note that it's trivially easy to burn the protected songs to CDs, and then rip them back into another format. You may suffer some quality loss in this fashion, but in most cases it will not be significant enough to ruin the song (unless you are an audiophile with a trained ear). Apple could sneakily address this problem with a DRM'd lossless encoding of the file.
The suit is spurious, and should be dismissed. Maybe in 5 years he'll have grounds for it.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
One huge reason I chose not to buy an iPods for people versus other HDD players was the iTunes software. I would rather use file manager to move mp3s. Also iPod doesn't support OGG.
Why is it that when Microsoft has some kind of monopolistic hold over something, it's evil, but when Apple does it, all the zealots rush out to defend them?
Apple is a buisness. It's primary motivation is profit. What did you expect? Apple has been locking people in to their hardware for a long, long time now, and suing the crap out of anyone who would try to make them do otherwise. Just try to make a G5 compatible to sell. If it gets even remotely popular, Apple will rip you a new one.
This is the primary reason I'll never buy an Apple product - their practices are less than angelic, despite what people are lead to believe.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
In a related story, I'm suing Microsoft for not providing Redhat RPMs on the Windows Update site.
Luke, help me take this mask off
All one has to do is convert the songs to MP3. If this guy's logic follows, then I can sue the record companies because their CDs don't play on my MP3 player.
No argument here. But I don't think all the complaining is "fair". Some is. Some is just sour grapes. Tough luck for now, I seyz.
The iTMS is an optional service offered to users of iTunes and/or iPod. That's it. Users of iTunes and/or iPod have a myriad of non-Apple ways to load music into the app and/or device.
If you want full control over your digitally downloaded media, you'd better go knock on the RIAA and MPAA's doors, not Apple's. It's been well documented that Jobs brought the music industry to this point kicking and screaming. Requiring Apple to police the use of their DRM iTMS files on every 3rd-party device is asking way too much (at least for now, likely). What happens if a licensee of FairPlay slips up and allows the DRM to be more easily defeated that it is now? What happens if they do it deliberately?
You'll have to cite a similar MS situation that we non-MS users have yelled and screamed about. I can think of many non-similar situations:
* Marketing a supposedly "compatible" office suite on another platform when said company is in full control of the closed document standard and having it not be 100% compatible. They certainly work better together now, but the damage was done long ago when they didn't so well. Should we fault them? Maybe not as a money-making company. But Apple offers no deception about how you can get music on your iPod and what the optional iTMS works with (and doesn't).
* Leveraging OS dominance in the browser wars coupled with poor standards adherence. This would have never been a big issue if they would have bothered making IE feature compatible cross-platform or make it render emerging standards *well*. They didn't. Should they have? Well, this year certainly will tell with Firefox on the rise. Compare to iTunes. Apple made them *identical* on both platforms. iPod works *identical* on both platforms. If people switch to Apple machines because of using iTunes and iPod, it's not because of enhanced features or performance on OS X vs. Windows.
* There are plenty of other examples where the dominance of Windows is guaranteed in the near term because of exclusive, closed apps/file types/"standards". Access and Outlook come to mind immediately, but I'm sure others can cite many others from the enterprise sector. You can't compare this to an optional service that is "locked" into using Apple's technology.
And yes, even as an iTunes/iPod user I'd like to use my music purchased from iTMS more freely than I can now--*legally*. I'd like to share my iTMS albums over iTunes with my co-workers, for example, but I can't right now. Their machine would have to use up one of my authorization slots. I'd like the option to convert to other formats without going to CD.
But the fact is, I can't grouse about the way Apple has implemented all this. Technically, it is fantastic and nearly bug-free. The features provided are innovative and have lead me to use my music in ways I never did 5 years ago. I haven't usually found MS technology to work this well or be so inspiring, even when I'm using Windows.
I see a lot of arguments stating that you can get your music on line from places other than iTunes MS, and you can purchase players other than the iPod.
You can make the same arguement about operating systems and Microsoft.
What is making Apple a target here is that they have the largest share of this market. Obviously, they do not have the commanding share of the market as Intel or Microsoft may have. I would expect this situation to get worse for Apple in the even that their market share does approach that of Intel or Microsoft.
it is the consumer's choice to buy or not to buy from iTMS.
Agreed, and I'm the last person to say that the consumer shouldn't do a bit of research first. However that's irrelevant to the issue. The questions at hand are:
1. Are these two different markets (online music sales vs. sales of portable player devices)?
2. If 1 is yes, then is Apple unfairly using its stranglehold on one to dominate the other as well?
Because if the answers to both of these are yes, then we have laws in place against that sort of thing.
Nobody's saying Apple isn't being upfront about what it's selling, really. They're saying that the practices Apple is engaging in may be illegal.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
What really got microsoft screwed was you couldn't remove their built in shit. You can with apple.
Oh really? What legal online music store works with the iPod other than iTMS? The answer is none of them. Apple has crippled the iPod's capabilities by disabling support for the WMA format (it has that support built into the PortalPlayer chipset it uses).
Don't like WMA? I don't blame you, I don't either. However the fact of the matter is that if you want to use iTMS with any portable other than an iPod, you can't because of the FairPlay DRM not being licensed to anybody else. And if you have an iPod, you can only use the iTMS and not any other music store because Apple won't add support for WMA files and allow other online stores to work.
You don't have a choice to switch to other stuff, there's no alternatives. Yes, you can buy CD's and rip/encode them, but that's neither here nor there and not what I'm talking about.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
From the article, it would seem this guy's argument _could_ be read like this:
"Apple is infringing on my rights because the format I purchased my music is tied tightly to iPod. Since I purchased the rights to the music, I should be able to play it on other devices that are similar (to an iPod)."
This sounds to me like a similar argument one who purchased a bunch of cassette tapes of music is all pissed-off because he can't put those tapes into boombox with a CD player in it.
"Cassette-producing company is infringing on my rights because the format I purchased my music is tied tightly to a boombox with a casette player. Since I purchased the rights to the music, I should be able to play it on other boomboxes that are similar (except have a CD player instead of a tape player)."
Anybody else read it that way, or do you not see the similarity between encoding standards and physical media?
I mean, it seems like he wants iTMS to provide alternative copies of the music he purchased (with the encoding/DRM Apple uses) for play on other "similar" players (ie, ones that don't support the Apple DRM, but have similar physical features in that they are compact and have harddrives).
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
I'm sure it wouldn't be a question, and a lot more ./ers would be complaining.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
No, they tie use of the iTunes Music Store to using iTunes on either a Mac or Windows PC.
For the rest, take a look at the markeplace. You advocate Apple do something to intentionally cannibalize their iPod sales. For it to make any kind of business sense they would have to charge 3rd parties enough for the license to at least make up for this loss -which would probably add significantly to the cost of those other players.
Keep in mind, the iTunes Music Store doesn't make a lot of money -it exists as a value-addition to the iPod to increase iPod sales. Increasing iTMS sales at the expense of iPod sales is not a viable business option for Apple. The tie between the iTMS and the iPod is all that keeps the iTMS alive. Remove that tie and the iTMS store dies and the iPod loses value. Then we can all pay homage to Microsoft and WMA.
I know this is a late post but I'd like to mention that when try to install the new update for apple quick time.. It forces you to install itunes, which is an incredible annoyance. That kind of crap I wish didn't happen.
------
insert sig here,here, and here
Can I sue because my xbox format game won't play on my playstation. No, I would have had to buy the Playstation version. When you buy something from iTMS you know what you are getting. You are not getting a freely open version of music that will play on any player, you know that. If you don't agree to that you can buy ALL THE SAME MUSIC somewhere else and play it on whatever you want. There is no user lock in. Maybe it's not as convienient as iTMS, but it might be better quality. All costs are not measured in dollars.
Thomas Slattery seems to have other meanings and/or identity according to www.urbandictionary.com.....
o mas+Slattery&defid=170525
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Th
1. Thomas Slattery
One that has a long face and is very very arrogant about picking girls (that are ugly) and about his sport and well being.
'Slattery' was boasting how he picked up some chick.
Source: Hugh Wilson, Jul 1, 2003
Increasing iTMS sales at the expense of iPod sales is not a viable business option for Apple.
I didn't say it wouldn't hurt. But it's quite possible that the alternative is indeed illegal.
If they can't make money on the music store without justifying it by increased iPod sales, then they need to close the thing now. Because several other music stores are coming into existance and they certainly are justifying it solely by the music sales. And most of them are underpricing iTMS as well.
And lets be realistic. The iPod was outselling all the competition by nearly double well before they opened the iTMS.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
s/some/every/ig
CD Players are not what we're talking about, and you know it. We're talking about digital music players and online music sales here.
If you don't like the restrictions on iTunes, don't use it. Use napster and the others. You have options. iTMS just happens to be the best, but it's not the only one.
Yes, fair enough, and I'm not suggesting differently. But again, competition is also not what we're talking about. We're talking about vendor lock-in.
If you have an iPod, iTMS is your only viable choice for online music purchasing. If you use iTMS, the iPod is your only viable choice for portable digital music players. Apple has taken steps on both the iPod and the iTMS to ensure this to be the case. On the iPod side, they disabled the chipsets native support for WMA. On the iTMS side, they sell with FairPlay, which they won't license out to anybody else.
These actions force you to use one if you have the other, unless you want to stick to using CD's for everything. And these actions are what make the basis for the lawsuit. Nothing else.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
cancel his account on iTMS and thus "free" this idiot into the wild
yes, but there is probably much less money to be made on selling music at 99cents a pop compared to the profit margin of selling an ipod.
;)
This is true, I grant you. However it's also a pretty thin argument, as several other music stores (all selling WMA) are in existance. Online music sales is fast becoming a booming industry.
plus, when apple sells an ipod, there is that (slight) chance that the customer might purchase a mac later on.
That's *real* thin.
the bottom line is that apple does not have a monopoly. that is the key factor in this doomed lawsuit.
No, in point of fact, that's not a factor at all in this lawsuit. Whether they have a monopoly or not is wholly irrelevant to the charges made against them. The charges are that they are engaging in unlawful business practices. Simple as that.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Ok you buy music from iTMS and apple has decided to use a DRM scheem that is supported by iTUNES. IMHO it is no diffrent than Sony writing a video game for the playstation2. If this guy wins, I'm going to sue Microsoft for not letting me play xbox games on the playstation2 and Nintendo for not letting me paly GamCube games on the PS2. Apple written a DRM scheem and chosen iTUNES as it's target platform.
Apple will be the next record label, but they will not be what the labels are today. They will have direct relationship with the artists and the consumers, eliminating any distribution channels but Itunes. This will happen within 3 years. Watch!!
I'm suprised that the RIAA hasn't gotten involved. Based on people's responses here, it seems that Apple encourages people to remove copy protection, something that I've heard that the RIAA frowns upon.
.mp3, removing the copy protection and allowing them to play on other mp3 players. Aside from whether or not that is a real solution, why isn't the RIAA getting involved to try and make it so that people don't need to remove copy protection in order to listen to their music.
Hear me out, the most common defense of iPod and iTunes (other than 'No one is making you buy their products', which is a moronic arguement. But then again, "No one forced meet to read their opinions") is that people can easily burn their iTunes purchased music onto a CD and then re-rip them as
If I can purchase music from iTunes and play it on any mp3 player (or from other music vendors and play it on my iPod), then I'll leave the copy protection in place, making me less likely to share it if a friend of mine asks me for a copy. Granted I could still burn it to CD and re-rip and I might do that for myself, but am I going to take all that time so my friend saves a buck on the new U2 song... probably not.
Apple already had a stranglehold in "digital audio players" before iTMS was launched. That's kinda different from the usual "monopoly used to gain stranglehold in another market" methodology.
Apple can't be faulted for having a product everyone wants, that the market is defined by even. There are plenty of alternatives at similar prices, even cheaper even, should the consumer want something else.
There's plenty of competition in the marketplace, quite simply competition is meant to be better for the consumer, and right now when comparing Fairplay AAC to various WMA offerings, you can see how the consumer is getting something better with Fairplay AAC, and that product is winning in the market.
I think that Apple has a complementary offering, a digital music player, and a music store to buy music legally for that player. Apple doesn't have a strangehold on music stores (quite easily shown), therefore how can it dominate the other except by having a product that most people want?
But is this really the market? Isn't Apple competing in a market for recorded music generally?
Even within the narrower market, they are a new entrant and have serious competitors - unlike Microsoft in the desktop PC market.
They could license their implementation of Fairplay to other portable MP3 player manufacturers like iRiver and Creative.
But the reason they built iTunes was to sell iPods.
To get the best experience you need iTunes, an iPod, and a Mac.
No, to get the best experience you need iTunes and an iPod. No Mac needed. I have Windows, it works exactly the same as my brother's pod+tunes on Mac.
You have to jump through hoops, degrading the audio quality of the music in the process to use the music you've purchased through iTunes on anything else.
That's right. And it's not a secret. Apple: iTunes + iPod. They didn't pitch you on iTunes and tell you it works with anything else but iPod.
They are anti-competitive by design.
Hmmm, I really fail to see the anti-competitive aspect. Apple is competing against other software/hardware makers. They built an esteemed digital music player that people drool over. They built a great digital music store that people love. You can buy the iPod and listen to MP3s on it. You can use iTunes to manage your MP3s or buy music to listen to on your computer. The killer combo is iTunes + iPod.
Just because they don't open both of those up for the whole world to resell doesn't mean their being anti-competitive. They are selling two products, and people are buying them.
Where is the abuse of anti-trust laws?
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
I just discussed both sides of this argument with a friend. On one hand, there are competitors, so this guy is free to buy his music from someone else, so the case should be thrown out. On the other hand, however, what would happen if a court rules that apple must make their DRM'd solution work with other players? Think about the legal precedent this sets in the world of DRM.... may not be a bad outcome.
...the big money-maker will stop being the players and start being the downloads. That's when you can expect Apple to start licensing its DRM to makers of other players.
Yes, but if you want to keep your system up-to-date you'll be using their software update tool which will notice that this software was removed and ... want to download the whole bloody thing again. I found this out the hard way (removing the dvd prgram (iDVD?), iChat, and iPhoto) when I was told I needed to download 100MB over my ~56k connection ... ouch.
Remember the entire idea of charging downloaded music stems from the Napster case. To be fair it has become a requirement within the music download industry as a whole. Trying to say that this is a tactic that only Apple is using with the intent of creating a monopoly is a pretty silly notion. After all remember it was the artists themselves who chose for things to be this way. Apple is just making their money like everyone else. iPods sell iPods not iTunes; its not like iTunes is the only thing iPods can be used for.
Apple has failed to become a desktop monopoly not for want of trying but for their inability to pull it off. Proprietary and monopolistic practices are in their genes. The FSF and LPF were boycotting Apple for several years because of it.
Whether Apple can overcome their tradition remains to be seen. Their use of open source in a few places is a good sign, but they have not exactly been giving much of anything back that's actually useful. And Apple's business strategy still seems to be built firmly around keeping large parts of the platform proprietary.
It doesn't matter if a way around it is secret or not. Everyone knows that you can download Mozilla or Firefox, it didn't stop the courts from determining that Microsoft abused their monopoly by bundling IE with Windows (or Windows Media Player with Windows).
Where is the abuse of Anti-Trust laws?
Tying iTunes downloads to the iPod is anti-competitive, it is not possible to create a competing player to the iPod in regards to iTunes music because Apple won't license Fairplay to any other device makers.
But as I said in my first post, whether that is a violation of Anti-Trust law or not, depends on whether a court determines that iTunes or iPod enjoy a dominate/monopoly position in the market, and whether the court determines that that position is being abused. In short, it's up to the courts to decide.
What may be perfectly legal behaviour for them when they are not a monopoly, can become a violation of Anti-Trust laws once they are determined to possess a defacto or real monopoly. That's one of the things that makes Anti-Trust law so tricky.
This script is readily available on the internet. This is part of the hymn project, which is LEGAL. I DID NOT write this script!
.m4p files onto this script, and out comes mp3 with all your personal credentials deleted. You can play this anywhere, and share at will without worry.
Just download hymn.exe, faad.exe, lame.exe in the same folder as this VB script. Name it something.vbs. Drag your iTunes
'coded by man on street
Set oFs = CreateObject ("Scripting.FileSystemObject")
Set oShell = WScript.CreateObject("WScript.Shell")
Set id3Options = CreateObject("Scripting.Dictionary")
binDir = oFs.GetFile(WScript.ScriptFullName).ParentFolder & "\"
workingDir = binDir & "working\"
decodedDir = binDir & "decoded\"
id3Options.Add "title", "--tt"
id3Options.Add "artist", "--ta"
id3Options.Add "album", "--tl"
id3Options.Add "date", "--ty"
id3Options.Add "track", "--tn"
id3Options.Add "genre", "--tg"
makeDirectory(workingDir)
makeDirectory(decoded Dir)
For Each arg in WScript.Arguments
walkArguments(arg)
Next
removeDirectory(workingDir)
Sub convertFile(fileName)
Set protectedFile = oFs.GetFile(fileName)
albumName = protectedFile.ParentFolder.Name
albumDir = decodedDir & albumName & "\"
makeDirectory(albumDir)
protectedFile.Copy(workingDir)
trackName = oFs.GetBaseName(protectedFile)
return1 = oShell.Run(quote(binDir & "hymn") & " " & quote(workingDir & trackName & ".m4p"), 1, TRUE)
return2 = oShell.Run(quote(binDir & "faad") & " " & quote(workingDir & trackName & ".m4a"), 1, TRUE)
Set LaunchedApp = oShell.Exec(quote(binDir & "faad") & " -i " & quote(workingDir & trackName & ".m4a"))
tagInfo = LaunchedApp.StdErr.ReadAll
For Each tag in id3Options.Keys
tagSwitches = tagSwitches & " " & id3Options.Item(tag) & " " & quote(getTag(tag, tagInfo))
Next
rem return3 = oShell.Run(quote(binDir & "lame") & tagSwitches & " " & quote(workingDir & trackName & ".wav") & " " & quote(albumDir & trackName & ".mp3"), 1, TRUE)
return3 = oShell.Run(quote(binDir & "lame") & " --ignore-tag-errors " & tagSwitches & " " & quote(workingDir & trackName & ".wav") & " " & quote(albumDir & trackName & ".mp3"), 1, TRUE)
End Sub
Sub walkArguments(arg)
If oFs.FolderExists(arg) Then
Set thisDir = oFs.GetFolder(arg)
Set subDirs = thisDir.SubFolders
Set theseFiles = thisDir.Files
If subDirs.Count > 0 Then
For Each dirName in subDirs
walkArguments(dirName)
Next
End If
For Each fileName in theseFiles
walkArguments(fileName)
Next
ElseIf oFs.FileExists(arg) Then
If oFs.GetExtensionName(arg) = "m4p" Then
convertFile(arg)
End If
End If
End Sub
Sub makeDirectory(dirName)
If Not oFs.FolderExists(dirName) Then
oFs.CreateFolder(dirName)
End If
End Sub
Sub removeDirectory(dirName)
If oFs.FolderExists(dirName) Then
oFs.GetFolder(dirName).Delete
End If
End Sub
Function quote(myString)
quote = Chr(34) & myString & Chr(34)
End Function
Function getTag(frameName, tagString)
Set oRegEx = New RegExp
oRegEx.Pattern = frameName & ".+\n"
frameNameAndValue = oRegEx.Execute(tagString).Item(0).Value
frameValue = Mid(frameNameAndValue, InStr(frameNameAndValue, ":") + 2)
getTag = Left(frameValue, Len(frameValue) - 2) 'Strip CR/LF
End Function
OK, I'm seeing a lot of poorly thought out analogies trying to compare gasoline engines to diesel engines. The main problem with this is that all gas stations sell BOTH kinds of fuel, whereas music stores only sell the music that works in THEIR player, or whoever paid them big bucks to license their DRM.
In the case of Apple, NO ONE can license their DRM for ANY PRICE.
So here is an analogy that makes sense:
Company sells a special kind of cassette in the 80s that cannot be played in standard tape players. Company creates store that ONLY sells music on these special tapes. Company creates player for these special tapes and then patents the technology so NO ONE else can make one EVER. Sues anyone who tries. Refuses to license their technology for ANY PRICE unless all they want to do is rebrand the player that The Company already built.
Even this analogy has some flaws, first it doesn't express how the special cassette DOES have some advantages over regular cassettes. First they are VERY easy to buy, second they can hold thousands of songs without needing to flip them over or switch to another cassette, and finally the songs contained on them can be played in any order. The analogy also doesn't take into account the relationship between the way people normally buy music (CDs) and MP3s. However, I think this analogy is sufficient to express the absurdity of Apple's control.
what does this have to do with a mac?
i saw the baby, and the baby looked at me
The BBC report the name of the litigant as 'Thomas Slattery'. This is incorrect.
His name is 'Darl McBride'.
Just run a Windows emulator in your alternate OS.
Man, there are waaayy too many Apple zealots here.
Slashdot used to be for nerds, not sheep.
My new 20GB iPod is loaded up with 3100 tunes, all of which were ripped to MP3 from my personal CD collection or purchased online thru Rhapsody. I have never used iTunes and don't intend to. The wonderful MediaCenter from J River interfaces with the iPod quite nicely.
/. crowd who worship at the alter of Apple even though their practices are more monopolistic than Microsoft's. At least Microsoft licenses their DRM technology. The result.....
Avoiding DRM is real simple. Use Rhapsody to purchase music online which goes straight to CD. Then rip the CD to MP3 which can then be uploaded to any portable on the market today.
Even if you don't want to use Rhapsody, simply burn a CD of your iTunes/Napster-purchased DRM-infected files and then rip it to MP3. Case closed.
All of that not-withstanding... I am always amused at the
How many portable players can you play Windows Media protected files on (such as those purchased from Napster) ? Dozens.
How many portable players can you play iTunes-purchased files on (the Real hack aside) ? One.
A) RIAA forced DRM. Ok, sure, but no-one is suing over DRM. They're suing because Apple won't allow iTMS to work with anything but an iPod. RTFA.
B) You use iTunes with a Rio... but without iTMS.
And I use a car with wood for fuel... I use it as a fireplace to keep warm.
better options... um... not using iTunes?
I buy mp3s online, and CDs in shops. I don't need wma or aac crap.
Changa hates change.
The intersting point is whether or not this is an area that RIAA should actually be involved in. Currently the solution to this problem of incompatiblity is to burn the songs to a CD and then re-rip them. This removes the copy protection and lets them play on any .mp3 player. The RIAA if they are really concerned about losing money to piracy, they should be concerned that online music stores are encouraging people to remove copy protection. The RIAA should be enforcing a unified copy protection that works across platforms so that people won't need to remove copy protection making to more difficult to casually trade copywrited material.
Also, can people please stop the terrible analogies, this is nothing like the fact that your VCR won't play DVDs. If you want to compare it to anything compare it to AIM and MSN Messenger, closed networks that are unwilling to allow competitors access to their subscribers.
If people truely need an analogy, a good example would be a cell phone company that lets you call anyone who is also on their network or anyone's home phone, but if someone has a cell phone though a different company you can't call them. Because of the size of their network and the fact their phones look really pretty everyone buys one. You think they are overpriced, but if you buy a competitors you can't call any of your friends.
Now, I actually like iTunes. It slurped up my previously ripped MP3 collection with no problems. I like the design, layout, and semantics of iTunes. It's really a nice app.
What's more, is that the SlimServer software has some integration with iTunes. Pretty cool. You can set up playlists in iTunes and then use SlimServer to play it through your stereo via the SqueezeBox. Way cool, really.
So, my wife heard a song on the radio that she liked, so we fired up iTunes and got an account on iTMS. Very nice integration, I must say. We found the song she liked, paid our $0.99 and downloaded it. It was an extremely smooth and appealing experience. But after getting the song, we found that we can use iTunes to play it through the computer's speakers, but when we try to play it through the SqueezeBox -- nothing!! It won't work.
I dug around, and finally found this:
This means that I paid $0.99 for a worthless stream of bytes!! I'm not gonna spend time to download, burn, and re-rip. That's stupid. I can go buy the damn CD, rip it, and then immediately sell it to Cheapo, and be out only a little money (as opposed to the total loss that iTMS offers). Thankfully, I downloaded only one song and wasted only a buck.
iTMS looks really nice, and you gotta hand it to Apple -- it's a nicely integrated product. I like iTunes, and I'll probably continue to use it. But, until I can play music on my own players, I will not be wasting any more money on iTMS.
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
those locking-in bastards!!!
Has Apple refused to license Fairplay to other companies? Or have other ocmpanies just not asked?
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
You do have to write a virtual CD-R driver kernel extension to fake the OS into thinking your disk image is a CD-R, but that's all it takes. But this is /. That's old hat, right?
It seems to me the model is top-to-bottom proprietary. Apple's store, Apple's application, Apple's file format, Apple's device. Where's the open standard that was hijacked? ITMS wasn't made until many months after iTunes and iPod.
I hope this guy loses his shirt over legal fees.
The iPod is really nothing other than a distribution format. Did anyone sue Sony/Phillips because they invented the Compact Disc and another competing format couldn't get in without being a licensee? Even if Apple had 100% of the market someone could invent another music storage device that was proprietary and better and they could recapture the market. Same goes for the format itself really. If Microsoft brought out Windows Media and it was 10 times better than AAC and the price was the same or lower, wouldn't there be room for fair competition?
Basically it's like suing a CD company because your company makes LPs or tapes.
Which is kind of the whole point of bringing a lawsuit.
In the past year, ThinkSecret has published several "articles" outlining a lawsuit filed by certain retailers against Apple:h tml
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/retailaccounting.
They went so far as to actively solicit people to send in confidential information -- read the articles and then check the rules covering what they're looking for.
Seems someone(s) at ThinkSecret has a bit of an axe to grind with Apple over alleged harm done by Apple to independent retailers. Since that lawsuit is going nowhere.... perhaps disseminating Apple's trade secrets is Nick dePlumber's way of getting his/her/its pound of flesh.....
Ugh. I'm seeing this all over the thread. MS is a convicted monopolist. MS was convicted of being a monopoly.
ACK!! I can't take it anymore!! You people are so fucking dumb!!
The above is like saying "Bobby is a convicted male human. He was also convicted of having short hair." Dumb, dumb, dumb!!!
People, you can't CONVICT someone of having a monopoly. It's like convicting someone of owning a car!! To be clear, it's perfectly legal to hold a monopoly. It's what you DO with that monopoly that could get you into trouble.
If you use your monopoly to stomp out competitors unfairly or to gain an unfair advantage in an unrelated market, then you are in trouble. The you can be convicted of ABUSING your monopoly power. Like Microsoft does.
Nobody can be convicted of HAVING a monopoly. It's not illegal!!
There. Please forward to everyone on this website. The collective intelligence here might then raise a point to, like, 89.
OK, I will answer your question. The case brought by the US government against MS is not equivalent to this claim brought against Apple.
First of all, issue in the claim against Apple is: whether Apple is abusing its controlling position in online music sales (due to the success of iTMS) in order force consumers to buy players that are compatible with the iTMS DRM scheme.
Now, look at the issue in US v MS: whether MS was illegally foreclosing competition in the browser market by forcing consumers to use MS's browser as the browser was: (a) an integral file system navigation tool, and (b) difficult to uninstall.
One way to demonstrate the absurdity of drawing an equivalency between the Apple case and the MS case is to parse the US v MS issue in terms of Apple and music:
Whether Apple was illegally foreclosing competition in the portable music player market by forcing consumers to use Apple's DRM as the DRM was: (a) an integral element of songs purchased on iTMS, and (b) difficult to defeat.
The obvious problem with this formulation of the issue is that consumers always have the option to purchase the same song from: (i) another online source in another format that is playable on other players, and (ii) a bricks and mortar establishment that sells plastic discs with digital music on them.
In other words, when you are measuring the impact to the consumer (and that is always the question in antitrust), the market at issue is not "sale of legal online digital music recordings", but rather "sale of digital music" regardless of the means of delivery.
I don't understand the link you're making in that if you have an ipod, you must use iTMS. It plays standard MP3s, yes?
The lack of support for WMA would be inconvenient for some, but would still not constitute lock-in.
In my eyes the lawsuit, as we know it, is still baseless.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
iTunes / iPod is a power game.
They make practically no $$$ on music, people knowing this didn't understand thier hostility to license to Real.
Apple's reason is because they are planning on ITMS being the sole distributer of all music.
I honestly believe Apple is far more Evil (in a slashdot way) than MS. Even if MS is equally evil they have few fanboys that are as religious as the Apple ones, and are heavily watched by Governments etc.
http://www.hymn-project.org
I don't consider these types of DRM issues to be rights concerns until they cross a specific line: When they restrict me from copying music that I myself composed, performed and recorded.
When a device does *that*, I consider my rights to have been abridged. On the other hand, I don't think it gives me the right to sue anyone. Rather, I think it gives me the responsibility to avoid using that device or format.
The larger question of whether this situation raises the barrier to entry for an independent musician, is left as an exercise.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
First, there's nothing stopping this person from purchasing their music on CD and ripping it to whatever format he desires. Then, he could use it with any device that he chooses to.
Second, there is absolutely nobody forcing this idiot to buy music from the iTunes Music Store. In his lawsuit he claims that he had to buy an iPod after choosing to purchase music from the iTMS. There are plenty of places to buy digital music if he's to cheap to buy the CD. There is nobody forcing him to make his purchases from any particular company. This idiot and his ignorant lawyer think they can make a lot of money due to his own stupidity.
Obviously, this guy doesn't realize what a big fool he's made himself out to be. It's sad, really.
Karma Schmarma
But the iTMS music files are DRM'd with an AAC encryption scheme. So only Apple-DRM compatible players can play the music as it is downloaded. As far as I'm aware, only the iPod is currently able to play these DRM'd files. Copying the files elsewhere does squat.
Of course, if you feel like breaking the DMCA, you *can* decrypt the files for use in other players.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
Apple has licensed their DRM, to both HP and Motorola already. That's why their branded devices can and will be able to play back Fairplay encoded files from the iTMS. Sorry to have to say this, but, you're wrong. It is Apple's right to license their software to whomever they choose.
Companies like Virgin and Real make a huge stink about not agreeing to Apple's contract terms and therefore were not allowed to license the DRM. Then they try to sue or create a huge misleading marketing campaign to sway the general masses to their perspective. Quite sad really. What's worse, is all of those that base their opinions on the behavior and campaigns of those companies that are legally in the wrong.
Excellent point.
Why do people start talking about this in barely-related threads? It's even more annoying than the people who plug Gentoo every chance they get (even to me, a fan of both Macs and Gentoo)!
But, what the hell -- since you brought it up, I might as well reply anyway:
It's not just that saying Apple hardware is overpriced isn't true; even saying it's "more expensive but worth it" isn't always true either. Take the Apple iBook 12" as an example. For similar price, size and weight, etc. it's cheaper than the competition.
To all the trolls out there who'll try to compare it to "desktop replacements:" A 10lb behemoth with a 70watt desktop CPU and one hour battery life is not comparable (or even portable, for that matter).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Sure, they might (can) get rid of it.. But, who would want to? It's still Bundled with the OS (or pre-loaded if you prefer the Politically Correct term).
Regardless of if you can delete it or not, my point is the same: Because Apple pre-loads iTunes on their OS, they use their 100% (or close) marketshare of Apple Hardware to assist their for-profit iTunes store via Apple Software.
if I understand your argument, if WMP (or any MS product) could instantly be deleted without ramifications, Microsoft wouldn't be bundling. I disagree. Microsoft falls into the same category as Apple, with the possible exception that WMP 10 comes with the MSN music store, Napster, Wal-mart, and a few others. At least MS (for now) is offering competitors to use their bundled software for minimal charges.
I don't think Apple will do that, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
I agree, use it or not. Your choice. When my hard drive crashes after I download 4 full CDs and I didn't have time to back them up or burn them off, piss on the fact that I can't download them again without paying. That is silly. Charge me a minor download fee but not full price.
I live in a country that doesn't have iTMS yet so the music on my iPod comes from going to the local music store and buying CD's.
Oddly my collection on my iPod lacks the first track of every EMI released album i own, indeed i can't even play the first track of these cd's on my computer, either at home or work. I have to go to the lounge room and use the CD player, but i can't use the combo dvd/cd player. The first track will only Play on a CD only player.
So as someone else has said not all CD's work every cd player.
I would call the analogy apt.
Apple licenses FairPlay DRM very selectively.
And, of course:
Apple is not in the habit of licensing its IP to companies that directly compete with it.
That second one seems like a real no-brainer to me. Licensing FairPlay to makers of other portable music players would be a huge risk to iPod sales. Maybe once iPod sales start to flatten out, they'll license it more widely, but I really see Apple's thinking as being something like this, right now:
"Okay, so, which product segments do we not want to touch with a thirty-nine-and-a-half-foot pole? Phones? Yeah, we so do not want to go there. We're not a phone company. So we'll license some IP to someone who does phones, cross-market with them, and everything will be cool. As far as computers and portable music players, well, we can rule that space on our own. Okay, what else don't w
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
I guess this fellow isn't aware of Linux running on the iPod? http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/feedback/linux_on_ipod/ Linux_on_ipod_review.html
If he wants to talk about Lockout then the better model to look at is what HP is doing in cooperating in creating and supporting DRM which will obsolete the majority of DVD drive technology not because they are technically outclassed, but rather because they won't be able to support Microsoft's DRM across DVD AND MP3 mobile players which market subscription/DRM based music!
Besides, the issue really is how companies make money. If customers own the music like CDs and vinyl records were owned in the past, one can't resell that unless the owners choose (and with iPod it's unlikely that will happen as so many users are unique in musical taste). However with the subscription model a customer no matter how many times one pays per month or per year only has use of the music and can play it ONLY as long as one subcribes to the providing service! Drop the "service" and you loose "your" access to hear or listen to "your" music! Amazing how that little piece of information is left out of these "services". Look folks...there is nothing wrong with making money, and many, many times what is in a company's interest is NOT what is in the consumer's interest. Apple, as a company, has made a choice that comes closer to the consumer interest than Microsoft's DRM and their associated subscription services.
It's going to take some thinking to see it all out, but people are really nasty when Mr. Flim-Flam does nothing day and night but figure new ways to empty money from working people's pockets. Consumers don't like it when the government does it; the public won't appreciate it either when it becomes clearer that this DRM and Microsoft subscription setup is just one more way to catch consumers sleeping. Look at it this way, Microsoft is losing ground to open source products more and more; as open source get's better the worse it is for their business model especially as they nor anyone else can hang onto the concept of "IBM compatible" anymore. This means that the pc has no more status than the paperclip; keep in mind that business model and you'll have all the inducement Microsoft and others need to find a new "angle".
Since the earliest civilizations folks, what was true then remains true today, REMEMBER: CAVEAT EMPTOR BUYER BEWARE
Mitakuye Oyasin: Translation from Lakota Sioux, "We are all related."
Oops... premature posting. :)
The ending wasn't quite there. What I was going to say was, Apple's basically sitting there making 2 lists.
List 1: Market segments we can own ourselves without overreaching.
List 2: Market segments that are far enough from our core strengths that we'll partner with someone else.
So far, list 1 includes the iTunes music store, the iPod family, iTunes software, and AirPort Express.
List 2 includes an obscene amount of iPod accessories, the forthcoming iTunes-capable phone from Motorola, the mumbled-abount car radios with built-in iPod docks, etc.
If someone is making something that directly competes with the iPod, Apple's not going to license FairPlay DRM to them. If they're making something in a different space - heck, why not?
So, basically, look for more FairPlay licensing to people that create non-iPod devices that get music from iTunes, or things iPods plug into for playback or power, or whatever. Things like the iBoom for example. Maybe someday we'll see a version of that with a CD player thrown in, and the technology necessary to rip a CD and shove it onto the iPod, without even having a computer involved.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
If they used un-DRMed music, they would not be able to get deals with any major record labels.
I'll play them a sad song on my tiny violin. Is it Apple's fault that the RIAA only did business with Real when Real agreed to use a format that wasn't one of the many that play on iPods? Real didn't have to do business with the RIAA. Incompatibility with the iPod was a consequence of Real's decision to resell the big labels' music, a consequence that Real certainly forsaw - and not one that Apple can be blamed for.
"This is true, I grant you. However it's also a pretty thin argument, as several other music stores (all selling WMA) are in existance. Online music sales is fast becoming a booming industry."
:) )product. there are dozens of other companies promoting hundreds of other devices compatible with real's and microsoft's and insert your company's name here drm. i cannot see this guy getting any more than his 15 minutes of fame from this lawsuit.
exactly. that gives individuals an increasing choice in the matter. an ipod purchaser claiming ignorance that he's locked-in (and he isn't) to buying tracks from itunes for his ipod would hardly stand up in court, methinks. especially when there are legal methods to transfer most drm restricted to an ipod and aac's to other devices. how can that stand up in court?
apple makes one (or three depending on your definition
...you almost have to have...
Almost only counts in horseshoes, but not in a court of law. Apple doesn't force anyone to buy either music nor an iPod from them.
All theory is gray
Will you still believe that when to avoid that device or format, you have to pay ten or even a hundred times as much money for the same device because all the sheep who didn't understand or care created economies of scale for the DRM device?
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
you fucking GNU/Hippie
There is a difference between the Apple music strategy and the Microsoft OS situation. Apple's ipod/itunes "lock-in" was contrived before they were in the "near monopoly" position they are in now. This lock-in existed BEFORE they even gave us itunes for Windows. 95% of the computing world had a choice NOT to go with this "lock-in" but they did. There is a big difference. Apple have stated from day one that they make the "whole widget" they have always been a hybrid software/hardware company. This is a continuance of that concept. Contrast this with the MS Office/Windows combination. There is little doubt that success of one fed upon the other until MS had a near monopoly in both markets. This was actually fair strategy in the days before MS had the monoploy in these markets. What is not fair strategy is for MS to use the monopoly that they NOW have in the OS space to leverage an unfair advantage somewhere else - like web browsers or media formats that postdate their rise to a monopoly in the OS space. In order to "exploit" your monopoly, you have to be one first.
I don't think a slashdot article has pissed me off this much in a while, particularly some of these comments. What kind of excuse is burning a cd to get around the DRM restrictions? If you have say, 300 mp3s from the store, you know how many CD's you'd have to burn just to get those on your mp3 player? Say 20 songs per cd that's 15 cds. That's ridiculous.
Of course a virtual-cd type thing or simply using hymn to bypass the DRM works fine, but oh no then you're violating the dmca! And your average user will never figure that out anyway.
Yeah, apple made itunes to go with their ipod, and locks users in, blah blah, but your average user doesn't know this shit, sees their friends or what not using iTunes, uses it as well, and knows no better than to shell out cash on blank cd-rs just so they can rip to mp3 and put em on their mp3 player...and while apple doesn't have to support people using songs bought from their store on alternative players, what do they expect?
I wholeheartedly agree with this lawsuit, and seriously, fuck all you apple trolls on here. Karma be damned, you people are so full of apple's bullshit you probably piss apple juice...
I had to help 2 people so far undo iTunes-related-damage so they could use their music on a third party player, and after I'm done I uninstall iTunes and install your-favorite-p2p software. I don't have time for this bullshit, and most people would rather put up with getting the occasional bad track then having to figure out how to get rid of the DRM on their iTunes songs...
copyright can go to hell for all I'm concerned, why should I have to put up with this corporate bullshit just to be able to have some freedom of choice? Use another store? Yeah, what store has as much as iTunes? Oh, that's right, none of them, except oh say, gnutella, kazaa, etc, etc.....
If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
I can write a support plug-in for iTunes for different portable players.
I can write an iTunes plug-in for different codecs.
I can write a plug-in that trans-codes (though I think technically that violates an Apple license) from protected AAC to whatever other codec.
If M$ had the guts to make the move they could write a plug-in for iTunes tyhat supported WMA DRM. And further if they bothered to do it right, could then allow iTunes to transcode to AAC or WMA without DRM or MP3 or whatever at the user level.
Why can't I write a protected AAC codec for Windows Media Player.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
I don't understand the link you're making in that if you have an ipod, you must use iTMS. It plays standard MP3s, yes?
Nearly no online music stores sell standard MP3's. Only indie type labels and such sell those, which is hardly much of the industry.
If you want to buy music online and you have an iPod, you're pretty much stuck with iTMS.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
See, there is your problem. A decoder doesn't just drop the information the encoder leaves out, it puts back something close enough that most won't tell the difference.
Okay, so the guy you replied to didn't really know his stuff, but it's quite true nevertheless. Transcoding does cause extra quality loss.
Lossy encoding isn't just "removing the bits you can't hear". That's only a half truth, a sort of "dumbing it down" sort of thing.
Lossy encoding does indeed involve removing inaudible sound, but there's a lot more to it. Quantization noise is introduced (and that is additive), noise shaping is performed, temporal masking, a lot of different things are done to the sound.
Essentially what any lossy compression is doing is to consider the sound as an analog waveform, and then attempts, as best it can, to represent that waveform with some smaller amount of bits. The various techniques used to do this change that waveform in small, or even large, amounts. So when you use lossy encoding, you're taking the waveform, applying a bunch of transformations to it, and then producing a new waveform from that. Transcoding means you're applying a bunch of transformations to it again, which only makes it diverge further from the original source waveform. Furthermore, it's then represented in a more or less analog fashion. All those digital bits in an MP3 or AAC are indeed describing an analog waveform, but not using digital sampling methods anymore. Not entirely, anyway.
But the point is that when you do this multiple times, you're changing an already changed waveform. Quantization noise, in particular, is very additive, and after just a few transcodes, you can definitely hear the difference. It's not a matter of pointing to a study, it's a simple matter of saying "try it yourself and you'll see" because it's fairly blatent after just 3 or 4 transcodings.
Transcoding is not necessarily bad, but it is something you should avoid if possible, because repeatedly doing it will produce distortion you can hear.
Oh, and a decoder can't add back information that is not in the file. It's not frickin' magic, you know.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I can't really see what the value added benefit (or value add) there is of purchasing an iPod.. Of course I never leave my computer, but I use rhapsody as my service, and with ipod I have to purchase the music to put on the device.. With rhapsody I burn a CD which I can just rip to mp3s and store on any mp3 player.
You apple freaks, I guess I'll never understand you..
BTW, I was once an Amiga user, I understand the pain of knowing someone else has it better, hasta la vista baby..
Just say no to license servers!!
Well done, it's about time. IMO If Apple was in the same position as Microsoft they would be A LOT worse. Macs suck. Get over it, fanboys.
Only indie type labels and such sell those, which is hardly much of the industry.
It's only the foundation of the fucking industry. It's funny how when it's a large industry you're screaming MONOPOLY MONOPOLY but for smaller industries, eh, who cares?
I own an iPod, it's filled about half way, I've never used iTMS, where's the tie in?
If you want to buy music online and you have an iPod, you're pretty much stuck with iTMS.
That, of course, is an unfortunate situation. Though, it is not apple's fault. The device is fully capable of playing standard MP3s. The fact that few are selling them really doesn't change anything. If a person has an iPod, and for some reason just doesn't like iTMS, then they can just buy what they like and convert as needed.
As I said before, it is unfortunate that the iPod doesn't support WMA. But, then again I can fully understand why they don't. I also have to say I'm glad they don't support it. Anything that helps WMA gain an even greater foothold is not really a good thing over all. And being supported on the most popular player would certainly help that right along.
Even if they did support it, don't all of the places that are selling WMA based music use a DRM scheme that apple would have to license? I'm not sure how that would make business sense for them.
As much as one might like WMA support, I personally would rather have OGG support. But, I don't see that happening either. It remains that, at this point, the iPod and iTMS are the best products in their categories. They are not the only ones, however. If you buy an iPod and didn't realize that the best licensed online source of music is iTMS, and you wouldn't really be able to use much else, I'm sorry. But, as sad as that is, it is not apple's fault and I don't see why they should do anything about it.
It's not like they are hiding anything. It's not like they are the only players in the market. It's actually a pretty crowded market, just all the other players aren't very good.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
It's time for me to come out of lurker mode to once again bring all the enthusiastic readers my patent pending Bull Shit Theory of the Day (BTOD) .
It pains me to say, given that with free speech comes free opinion, but I am getting fed up with the pissing, the moaning, the bitching and the complaining that get done in the name of Company X is the AntiChrist, Company Y Save Us! Apple Computer, Inc. is a Corporation. Their sole purpose for being in business is not to cater to your every whim. They are in business to please their shareholders. Shareholders are pleased by making money. They don't care about you or me .... no wait, I'm a shareholder, maybe they do care about me.
The point is that they are in business to make money. If they think that selling a $500 Mac or selling a $9000 PowerMac will make them money, then they will do that. By contrast if keeping Real Networks and their music off the iPod will make them money, they will find every legal way to do that. (Better stay legal, don't make me flex my voting options.)
What never ceases to amaze me though, is the rule that "What is good for the goose is *not* good for the gander." All nature of items that you use for a goose so many people refuse to use for a gander. Why is that?
Let me explain
People are up in arms about the fact that Apple has made changes to the iPod firmware to keep music bought from Real Networks from working on the iPod. Real used AAC DRM controlled files bought and downloaded from Apple that were reverse engineered to give them the keys that allowed them to change their own AAC controlled files so that they looked like an Apple iTMS file to the iPod. Apple, as their right, changes the firmware and now they have become Company X.
I must interrupt to call bullshit on this. Apple is the Goose.
You see, my Mom drives a Chevy Blazer. It's the largest pile of cow dung I've ever been forced to examine. It is, at this moment, slowly bleeding to death in my parents garage. (And to skip the flame baiting and trollers, I am married and live 35 miles away from my parents.) It leaks from the transmission, it leaks from the rear main seal, it leaks from the oil pan, heck for all I know the transfer cases leaks and I'm not even sure that there *is* fluid in there.
Hang with me, the point is coming.
Even though she is mad as a hornet in a hen house at GM, and even though the vehicles that they purchase for my father will never again be GM (He currently has a Ford F150 and a Dodge Van) my mother *will* be buying another Blazer. Why?
On Star
Does that mean she has the right to sue GM because On Star isn't available on a Ford? What do you think GM, as a Corporation and we've already covered what their interests are, would do if Ford discretely hacked the On Star system so that their brand new Ford Mustang authenticated itself as a Buick LeSabre? Do you think they would offer assistance to a driver in a Mustang that was upside down on it's roof?
"Help, I've flipped my car and I can't get out."
"I see that you are in a Buick LeSabre, the side windows are specifically designed to be kicked out in the event of a roll over."
"LeSabre? I'm in a Ford Mustang GT."
"...click...buzzzzzz."
"Hello? Hello??
So now we have the GM Gander. You and I both know what is going to happen, GM is going to change the On Star system so that Ford vehicles can't use it. Why? Because if Ford wants an On Star like system, they need to build their own system with their own network and have their own button. Call it the FoMo Net or something. Is this anti-competitive? Would anyone even think twice about this happening?! No. Why? It's the auto business, a Ford is not a Chevy.
Yet we argue about this same thing day in and day out with Apple and Real, Linux and Microsoft, BeOS and Palm .... no .... wait, that one's the same thing now
"Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
That, of course, is an unfortunate situation. Though, it is not apple's fault.
I disagree, it's 100% Apple's fault. They're the ones who disabled WMA support, they're the ones refusing to license FairPlay to other player manufacturers. It's a pretty clear case of delibrately locking iTMS users into the iPod and iPod users into iTMS.
Remember when Real came out with the new Harmony thing that allows Real's online store to send protected files to iPod's by faking FairPlay support? Remember the huge fuss they raised then, calling Real a bunch of hackers and pirates, in no uncertain terms? To me, that's a pretty clear indication that they did it intentionally. They want to lock in users to Apple in both markets. That just ain't right, man.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
an ipod purchaser claiming ignorance that he's locked-in (and he isn't) to buying tracks from itunes for his ipod would hardly stand up in court, methinks. especially when there are legal methods to transfer most drm restricted to an ipod and aac's to other devices.
Please. There are no other choices for an iPod user other than iTMS and Real's online store (which Apple vehemently claims is illegal and dangerous and run by hackers and pirates and such).
And there are no legal ways to transfer DRM restricted material to and iPod and iTMS's FairPlay protected AAC's to other devices. Even the burn and re-rip method violates the DMCA.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
There's plenty of competition in the marketplace, quite simply competition is meant to be better for the consumer,
I agree that competition is good, but there is no competition.
-Try buying music online for your iPod with any store other than iTMS (with the exception of Real's store, which I admit has added support for iPod's on their own and which Apple claims they did illegally).
-Even better, try putting iTMS music on any other player device.
Can't do it? Exactly. That's what "vendor lock-in" means. Having competition is not the issue here. Locking an iPod purchaser into the iTMS or locking an iTMS user into the iPod is the issue.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
For some reason Windows users, who have never had any trouble resisting Steve's "reality distortion field" in the past, went crazy for the iPod. To me that's the best indication of the quality of the product. Apple hasn't leveraged it's monopoly to make people buy it's iPod. The products were integrated from day one. You could say it built it's monopoly by integrating its products. In fact that's why we love Apple in the first place, because it products work together seamlessly.
As has been discussed on /. before, all DRM sucks. It doesn't matter whether it's Apple's, MS's or whoever. If you plan to build your music collection on low res, DRM downloads too bad for you. There is only one legitimate, uber compatible format in existance. MP3. It plays on my iPod, my car stereo, my DVD player etc. I bought one album on the iTMS just to see how it worked. Burned to CD and ripped back to MP3. The quality difference is hardly noticable. Even then, I saw the same album for sale, used at around the same price. Hmmn, full quality, no DRM, Liner notes and cover art. iTMS is for rubes.
So i say stick it too em Apple. Hard. No vasaline. If you can make tons of money, convert some iPod users to Mac, keep your company solvent and continue making Macintoshes for me to buy I'm all for it
since you can only buy thier stuff in either mp3 or windows formats and neither will work on an ipod. However there must be some mp3 to ipod format conversion tool.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
I'll grant that they disabled WMA support. And I'll even grant that I don't understand myself the total reason for not licensing FairPlay, assuming that they own the whole thing and can license it. But, none of this addresses the ipods ability to play standard MP3s. I would only grant that they are locking you in if that ability wasn't there. The fact that it isn't convenient to do something doesn't take away your ability to do so.
As long as your music is in any of the ipod's supported formats (AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 (32 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Apple Lossless, WAV, AIFF, Audible) then you're good to go.
For true lock-in look to some of the devices out that which can only play encrypted files, such as the early RCA Lyras. No open/un-encrypted files. That's lock-in.
On the subject of Real, I'm not sure I would agree with Apple's reaction, whether they were within their rights or not.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Shut the fuck up you penguin fucking AC pussy.
HP has thus far been able to implement Fairplay AAC decoding on their Windows Media Center PC.
Motorola will be shipping cell phones that can play Fairplay AAC encoded content.
What iRiver and Zen could do (Compaq did it 20 years ago!) is reverse engineer the iPod such that their devices look like iPods when plugged into iTunes.
Why haven't they done that if the market is so lucrative and they are so bright? Compaq figured out how to reverse engineer BIOs from IBM, and people are porting Linux to the iPod.
GPL Deconstructed
Or, like when Compaq reversed engineered the BIOS of IBM PCs, Creative or iRiver could reverse engineer the iPod to make their devices look like iPods to iTunes.
Why can't they do that?
GPL Deconstructed
I'm speaking of lock-in to music stores, not lock-in to file formats. A player that doesn't support MP3's, for example, is dead on arrival. Look at a lot of Sony's players. They support MP3 only by convert it to ATRAC. Ick.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
"Will you still believe that when to avoid that device or format, you have to pay ten or even a hundred times as much money for the same device because all the sheep who didn't understand or care created economies of scale for the DRM device?"
I already have to pay a premium for pro gear just to avoid DRM restrictions. But, to answer your question, I won't ever point the finger of blame at anybody, except the last person to take the action.
If you signed a homeowner's agreement that restricts your rights, well, YOU signed it, not a pig's ear.
If I bought a Sony Minidisc, well, I bought it.
Sony hasn't impaired my ability to write and record music, but they have made it impossible for me to use their nice inexpensive format in good conscious. That's an argument to not use the format, but I don't think I ought to sue them, and I don't think I can hold them responsible for my being forced to look elsewhere for recording devices.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
No "disgruntled iTunes customer" hires three law firms to file his suit (Braun Law Group P.C. of LA; Katriel Law Firm of DC; and Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP of NY).
Somebody open a pool on what company is bank-rolling this!
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
If I bought a Sony Minidisc, well, I bought it.
I'll concede your right not to care about DRM, but comparing signing a homeowner's agreement, which is disclosed six ways from Sunday, with the purchase of a Sony device which if anything, goes out of its way to avoid disclosing its DRM payload doesn't ring true.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
They could license their implementation of Fairplay to other portable MP3 player manufacturers like iRiver and Creative.
Total lunacy. Apple makes no signifigant money on the iTMS; in fact they have called it a loss leader. They make money on iPod sales, which the iTMS helps promote.
Apple learned from their experience with Mac clones that you have to charge your licencees enough money to make up for lost sales of your own product. It would be simply impossible for Apple to charge iRiver and Creative enough money to make up for lost iPod sales, because 1) the profit margines are slim the way it is 2) there's no way to tell if the purchaser of an iRiver H10 intends to use aac, mp3 or wav and 3) because people are total skinflints when it comes to licensing Apple's technology. Remember all the whining and carrying on when Apple wanted a whole 25 cents per Firewire device? Geeks would be standing outside the Cupertino headquarters with torches and pitchforks if Apple wanted a $20 cut from every portable player that used their technolgoy.
Licensing makes even less sense if the the devices in question would continue to support wmv. Apple would not only be losing a chunk of the hardware market, but also the online store market. A lose-lose scenario!
These barriers are in place specifically to drive people to get an iPod. They are anti-competitive by design.
Pfft. It's not anti-compeditive when Microsoft just throws money away at a market segment in order to gain marketshare, and they don't have to worry about making a profit? It's not anti-compeditive when Wal-Mart uses their brick & mortar markeshare to strongarm record labels into accepting terms for the Wal-Mart online music store that Apple and Real could never hope to match? It's not anti-compedtive when Sony launches their own store and can slash prices on albums from Sony's own label to get prices that their compeditors can't match?
For Apple to license Fairplay would be to cutting off their own legs at the knees. To eliminate these "anti-compeditive" practices would necesitate price controls, and who wants those?
They use monopolistic and unfair market practices by tying the use of the iTunes Music Store in to owning an iPod.
If the iTunes Music Store was your only way to get music from any sinifigant number of bands, you might have a point. As it's not, you don't. Want to buy an iPod and an iRiver and use the same song on both players? Then buy the frikkin physical cd, rip it to whatever format you choose, and then upload it to both players. Fairplay is in no way unfair or monopolistic, and this is a bunch of pointless bitching.
CD Players are not what we're talking about, and you know it. We're talking about digital music players and online music sales here.
We're talking about using copy protected AAC files on portable players, and the last time I checked, portable cd players were...portable.
They're the ones who disabled WMA support
How do you disable something that never existed in the first place?
they're the ones refusing to license FairPlay to other player manufacturers
No, that would be refusing to be driven out of the market, as licensing would do nothing but cost Apple money and in the long run turn wmv into the dominant format.
Remember when Real came out with the new Harmony thing that allows Real's online store to send protected files to iPod's by faking FairPlay support? Remember the huge fuss they raised then, calling Real a bunch of hackers and pirates, in no uncertain terms?
Remember when Apple in no uncertain terms rebuffed Real the first time they asked?
They want to lock in users to Apple in both markets. That just ain't right, man.
Bitch, bitch, bitch. The iPod plays open formats like wav and mp3 just fine, and you can always by the physical disk.
Online music sales is fast becoming a booming industry.
More like a ballooning dot-com industry. Apple didn't make the iTMS to make a profit, so for anyone to compete with them and make money, they also have to lose or break even on the store while making money on a player. iRiver and Creative don't have the market presense or muscle to compete on those terms, and AFAIK Real's store and www.buymusic.com weren't going anywhere with their stores.
That leaves just a few other playres. There's Microsoft, who cheefully sets fires to large piles of money in order to gain marketshare (i.e. XBox). That leaves Wal-Mart, the only entity that can make labels bend over at the ankles and take anal like a trooper, and the labels themselves to elimiate the middleman (i.e. Sony's store).
That is abusing a monopoly.
No, that's not bending over backwards to help your compeditors. Oh, and Apple has no monopoly on either online music store or portable players, they have a monopoly on iPods the way GM has a monopoly on Chevies.
Apple doens't make much money on the iTMS, they make it on the hardware. There is no way Apple could charge Real enough money in licensing to make up for lost iPod sales, so that makes no sense for them.
If it were anyone other than Apple doing this, you wouldn't think twice before saying so.
With the exception of Microsoft, if it were anyone else *but* Apple, people wouldn't be bitching at all.
"Apple has unlawfully bundled, tied, and/or leveraged its monopoly in the market for the sale of legal online digital music recordings to thwart competition in the separate market for portable hard drive digital music players, and vice-versa," the lawsuit said.
Its not bundled, its not tied, and they aren't remotely close to having a monopoly on either hardware or online music. Next?
The iPod is not a MP3 player, it doesn't even support MP3 files.
huh? what the hell? where did this guy come from?
try it and find out. don't post something you know nothing about. iPod plays mp3, mp4 (aac), wav, aif, audible, and apple lossless.
All good points, but that gets me to a' thinking... I'm the owner of an original iPod (and thus a Mac user). I can also argue that because none of the other music providers that compete with Apple provide a DRM which is compatible with the Mac OS, I am also suffering from the "monopolistic practices" of Real and Microsoft.
When these companies provide DRM solutions which will work on Mac OS X (as Apple's solution has worked on Windows) then, and only then, will I feel there is any merit to these arguements. But for now, if you use a Mac you only have one choice, and Apple is not at fault here.
Is this guy on the Real Networks payroll?
I should not have posted those nasty things. Just because they may be true, does not make them better said than unsaid. Thinking back, ajservo did not ask for that.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...