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.
"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 }
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
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
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!
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?"
It's not illegal until they start bundling features people want and expect as a convience
No. It is not illegal until a company leverages their monopoly to prevent others from fairly competing. If your monopoly is fairly maintained because you have the best product and consumers simply prefer to purchase your product, then all is fair and no laws have been broken.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
What "point" do you think is defeated, and what problem do you think you're solving for them? It's incredibly unlikely that Apple will lose this suit; they don't really have a problem.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
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.
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
On the other hand, I would much rather it was in DRM-free format. This would allow me to play it on devices other than my iPod. Fortunately, the HYMN project allows me to remove the DRM without much effort.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Oh..so like the change that locked out Real?
Locked out Real after Real cracked Apple's Fairplay code violating the license. Sure, any company would have done the same.
Remember in both Europe and America right clicking on "download now!" is considered too great a barrier to entry into the market place. Burning a CD, let alone re-ripping it, is significantly more involved.
Let's see, using iTunes it takes all of three clicks to burn a CD. If you want to do it in one click, then you pay for the convenience by purchasing an iPod. Remember: Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You want to listen to music, and you want convenience.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
"Locked out Real after Real cracked Apple's Fairplay code violating the license. Sure, any company would have done the same."
Same old arguments man... As if microsoft didn't have a "license" to protect DOS back when they illegally changed the API's.
Don't get me started. Real didn't break any legally binding "licenses" if any at all. They simply allowed their music to be played on the iPod. Period.
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
...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(){}'
Enter Real Audio software upgrade for iPods: Stiffled by apple illegal practices.
If Real had reverse engineered Apple's software and wrote their own code to run on the iPod (or any facsimile), that would be one thing. The problem was that Real cracked Apple's Fairplay code and violated the license. This is what got them in hot water and how Apple (like any other company) would have protected themselves from somebody else wanting a free ride on their back.
This is an almost IDENTICAL practice to what microsoft did to DOS and started it all way back when.
Read your history. IBM licensed DOS from Microsoft....Compaq reverse engineered the chipset and BIOS thus setting in motion the Wintel PC industry......Microsoft licensed DOS to any and all people who asked. Where Microsoft did wrong with DOS was to insert code into Windows that made it incompatible with other flavors of DOS from folks like Novell.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
The RIAA is the reason that Apple is restricting the music, in order to sell it Apple must restrict how it can be used, in the end its all traced back to the RIAA.
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.
RIAA will not allow Apple or anyone else to sell music distributed by RIAA member corporations in digital form online without DRM. In the United States, or anywhere else copyright law will let them prevent it.
Are you honestly suggesting iTMS could be successful if people couldn't buy the latest Britney Spears single from it? Independent music is all well and good, but people want the music RIAA owns. Their sales may be down, but they're still huge.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
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.
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...
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.
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.
"slashdotters" are never unanimous about anything ever. There is no hive mind.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Wow! You mean I don't need to buy a CD writer or any blanks? This iTunes thing must be wonderful.
If Real was really concerned about the compatibility of their music with different players, they could have simply used un-DRMed AAC or MP3. But they didn't. They just wanted to piggyback on Apple's success (and oh by the way, not have their software work on Macs, but that's another story).
Apple had no obligation to consult with Real and figure out how to not break their software.
Jesus, this is REAL NETWORKS we're talking about. They've been purveying the MOST OBNOXIOUS SOFTWARE EVER for ten years now.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Do people on /. even know what it means to be an illegal monopoly?
It doesn't just require a company to have 80, 90 or even 100 percent of the market. Just having a large markershare is not wrong or bad. If you have a great product that is holding marketshare on it's own merit then you are not an illegal monopoly.
For it to be illegal you have to use illegal tactics and your dominant position to hold that monopoly, or to use your monopoly in one area to gain a monopoly in another. Just having a popular product is not enough to be considered a monopoly, you have to abuse that position to maintain it.
Apple is surely not a monopoly in digital music, and they definitely have not done anything to this point to indicate an abuse of a dominant position through illegal means. They are using DRM just like every other device manufacturer and music distributer out there.
Microsoft on the other hand knowingly and intentionally used their position to maintain said position and to also branch into other areas.
What do you mean open sourced it? The file format is a standard format, it's part of MPEG-4. It's not like it's some proprietary Apple thing. Or do you mean open source the DRM layer? That would eliminate the entire point of having such a layer by showing people precisely how to go in and remove the DRM component. Apple's done a very good thing here. The iTunes store is a very good thing. It's reasonably priced, broadly available and as a heavy user of Macs, PCs and my iPod, I have never encountered anything in the DRM which has ever prevented me from doing something I've wanted to do. DRM is the price of getting low-cost, legally available copyrighted material via the Web. For the convenience iTunes affords me, I will gladly pay that cost.
Never trust anyone who treats a collection of myths like a science book, or a science book like a collection of myths.
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.
Because Apple is not really concerned with compatibility of their music with different players.
I don't care if Apple broke Harmony on purpose or not. They had no obligation not to break it. It's their product: They can do what they want with it. It's your money: You can do what you want with it.
Don't buy from iTMS or buy an iPod. That's fine.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
"I don't care if Apple broke Harmony on purpose or not. They had no obligation not to break it. It's their product: They can do what they want with it. It's your money: You can do what you want with it."
I don't care if [Microsoft] broke [DR-DOS]on purpose or not. They had no obligation not to break it. It's their product: They can do what they want with it. It's your money: You can do what you want with it.
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
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.
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
No, they were "convicted of" forcing PC manufacturers to buy Windows regardless of whether Windows was installed.
They may have settled a civil suit with Caldera, but that's a totally different matter.
I'm a pragmatist. Microsoft's monopoly resulted in bad products. Apple's "monopoly" results in good products. Apple's "monopoly" is, therefore, good (for me) and Microsoft's is bad.
Do you understand?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
If they used un-DRMed music, they would not be able to get deals with any major record labels. And Apple didn't just "not consult" with Real, they deliberately and maliciously broke what Real had done as soon as they could. Though it goes against my very nature to be supporting Real, especially against Apple, they are in the right here.
I am trolling
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
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.
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
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.
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)