EU Officials Cautious on AntiTrust Issues

An anonymous reader writes "News.com has a piece up looking at reactions from EU officials to the iTMS antitrust case. The individuals involved are wary of cracking open the DRM that protects the music sold at the iTunes Music Store." From the article: "One of the most outspoken government advocates on the issue is Norwegian consumer ombudsman Bjorn Erik Thon, who said he would act soon depending on how Apple responds to a letter the government had sent the company. If Apple can require an iPod for songs via iTunes, then music, book and film companies might restrict their products to specific players too, he said."

Comments

I'll be worried about this

[Anonymous Coward]

When Hollywood releases a movie playing device. Seriously, I thought the concept of "proprietary formats" was understood by now...

Re:I'll be worried about this

[Golias]

Well, the PSP is made by a major movie company. Yet, oddly, you can still buy any UMD movie on other formats.

Likewise, you can buy the same albums you see in iTMS from your local CD store, or in some cases from other music download sites. So what, exactly, is the problem?

I used to buy a lot of music from iTMS, but since I've started using my computer as the main playback device on my living-room stereo, I've come to demand lossless formats. Besides, if you want the full album it's usually a better deal to hunt down a used CD.

(I now generally only buy iTMS songs if it's just one tune that I want, and I'm mostly going to be listening in the car or some other setting where I don't care about hi-fi. For example, I recently downloaded "All the Time in the World" by the Subdudes. It's a great summer crusin' song, but I don't give a crap about the rest of the album. So that amounts to about three or four songs a month, which is a fairly small fraction of my music purchases. If iTMS starts offering lossless formats, I might go back to buying large quantities from them, since it is a hell of a lot more convenient than driving to the store... but for now I'm mostly off the bandwagon.)

Re:I'll be worried about this

[vingt]

Seriously, I thought the concept of "proprietary formats" was understood by now...

I've stopped trying to understand it 'cause I keep tripping up over all those makers of alternative players who distribute software for the user to use with their players but which is unusable with my Macs, then turn around and complain that Apple won't let the iTMS content get to their devices. They can ignore my consumer wishes in pursuit of their dream while chastising Apple in my supposed interest. Similarly, the competing purveyors of digital music content also ignore or short-change me 'cause I chose an Apple computer but want Apple to be forced to give them a leg up on "fair" competition.

Nah, I don't understand the concepts involved. I'm crippled by common sense and a sense of irony...

Media restricted to prefered player only

[Anonymous Monkey]

film companies might restrict their products to specific players too

Sounds like Sony and Blu-Ray.

Re:Media restricted to prefered player only

[GameEngineer]

"Sounds like Sony and Blu-Ray."

Please for irony's sake let this idiotic claim remain modded Insightful...

Re:Media restricted to prefered player only

[madcow_bg]

Nope, my friend...

Sony allows you to play every blu-ray disk to every blu-ray device with every blu-player. It is an unfortunate consequence there are not so many players.

The point is that YOU pay for the music. YOU can listen to it wherever you want, whenever you want.

Re:Media restricted to prefered player only

[d34thm0nk3y]

Sounds like Sony and Blu-Ray.

Considering Samsung is releasing a Blue Ray player BEFORE Sony I am wondering when my Samsung Fairplay compatible product will be out.

Oh righ, never.

Re:Media restricted to prefered player only

[kupan787]

Actually, the first gen blu-ray players wont be able to play back the quad layer blu-ray disks currently in development. So if you buy a first gen Sony player, you can't play every blu-ray disk.

Sony allows you to play every blu-ray disk to every blu-ray device with every blu-player. It is an unfortunate consequence there are not so many players.

But, Apple allows you to play every iTunes track with every iTunes player (any of the 1G-5G iPods, the Moto ROKR and upcoming iTunes phones, or on my Mac or PC). So hw is it any different? Further, comparing to other companies in similar boats, Apple offers more variety than buying a PS3 (you can only play PS3 games on a PS3), or the Xbox360 (you can only play Xbox 360 games on an Xbox360). So I am not seeing your point...

YOU can listen to it wherever you want, whenever you want.

Also, I can listen to the music I purchase on my iPod, on my computer, on my cellphone (ROKR), in my Car (either via burnt CD, or direct iPod to AUX input), on my home stereo (again, same way as via Car). Hell i can even play it on another music player (convert first to MP3, then load that MP3 on to said player). Also, there isn't someone standing over my with a timer (like teh subscrption music based services) which will delete my tracks if my subscrption runs out. I can listen to my tracks as many times as I want, as long as I want, whenever I want.

Re:Media restricted to prefered player only

[ClamIAm]

But wait. The biggest point here is that you cannot build a Blu-Ray player (or DVD player, or HD-DVD player) that will decrypt content without signing NDAs and promising to heavily restrict access to the insides of the player (draconian EULAs, no source, code signing, encryption). Proprietary "standards" are a loss for all.

Re:Media restricted to prefered player only

[DurendalMac]

Bullshit. Apple doesn't make the music, they just distribute it. You can buy the same music from a huge number of other vendors. Now, if Sony were to make their movies Blu-Ray only and, on top of that, SONY Blu-Ray players only, then this analogy would work for them, but it doesn't stick for Apple. The guy used a very crappy analogy.

Re:Media restricted to prefered player only

[Stephen R Hall]

But I can go out and buy any PC or Mac I want, download Apples free iTunes software, and play the music downloaded. I can burn it to a cd, and play it in any portable cd player I want, or any hi-fi system, dvd player, car stereo etc. You actually have a lot of freedom how you listen to music from iTunes.

Re:Media restricted to prefered player only

[carsurf]

He makes the point that maybe books and film will be restricted too. Well they already are. e-Books are distributed using restricted players from various companies and film clips are MS, RealPlayer, Qucktime etc.When dealing with digital everything is or is not on the table.

Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[falcon5768]

Really, you do. Infact Mr. Jobs has his gun pointing at your head right this minute. I cant hear him now, "BUY FROM iTUNES! DONT BUY A CD OR LISTEN TO THE RADIO"

I swear people get dumber and dumber the more consumerist we become.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[Phillup]

Not only do you have to buy from iTunes... but, what you purchase will only work on a iPod.

So, if you want to listen to it with your computer... any computer mind you... you are out of luck!

They should at least give you the option of converting the songs to a "regular" CD that would play anywhere a "normal" CD would!!

</sarcasm>

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[MustardMan]

It's that whole leveraging a monopoly thing. Microsoft didn't hold a gun to your head and force you to use IE, either, but they got nailed for bundling it with windows. In a lot of ways, the Apple DRM is even more strong-arm than MS's inclusion of IE. But the Apple apologists always act like it's ok, because they are Apple.

I use exclusively Apple computers. I own three ipods. I bought a new macbook within a few days of launch. All my friends call me an Apple fanboy because I constantly try to convince people to switch. But I'm not so gullible to think that the ipod/itunes lockin isn't a blatant abuse of the customer. Apple has pretty much guaranteed I am going to keep downloading my music from bittorrent, by using an artificial extra layer to limit customer choice, and still have no effect on piracy.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[MustardMan]

If you want to BUY major label music in digital format (ie without the hassle of ripping a CD and hoping they haven't added some new CD DRM to prevent that), and play it on your ipod, you DO have to buy it from itunes, or one of the shady overseas operations.

If you DO purchase music from the ITMS, it will ONLY work on a computer on an ipod. So, if a really kickass Sandisk player comes out a month from now, you're fucked. If you have that fancy new PDA with a huge storage card - tough luck, you can't play your itunes songs.

And I am sick and tired of fanboys throwing out the "you can rip to CD" line. First off, apple has already decreased the number of burns you're allowed. Who's to say they won't keep doing so until you aren't allowed to burn at all? Second off, buring to CD loses quality. Third off, if you wanted to go through all the hassle of dealing with physical media, you'd be better off buying the fucking CD IN THE FIRST PLACE at a damn brick and mortar store.

The whole point of digital downloads is CONVENIENCE. Apple DRM does zero to prevent a motivated pirate (as you point out with the CD ripping), yet it provides great inconvenience and limitations for legit paying customers.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[Overly Critical Guy]

It's that whole leveraging a monopoly thing.

No, it's not. What Microsoft did in the 90s was leveraging a monopoly, and I'll explain below.

Microsoft didn't hold a gun to your head and force you to use IE, either, but they got nailed for bundling it with windows. In a lot of ways, the Apple DRM is even more strong-arm than MS's inclusion of IE. But the Apple apologists always act like it's ok, because they are Apple.

You don't explain how exactly Apple's DRM is more strong-arm than Microsoft's inclusion of Internet Explorer. To use an iPod or iTunes, you don't even have to ever touch FairPlay, and just listen to your own MP3s. Microsoft's inclusion of Internet Explorer was targeted because it was a part of a series of behavior that included:

1.) Coercive OEM deals that threatened Windows license removals if manufacturers included rival software on new systems, including Netscape. Because of Windows dominance, a license removal would be commercial suicide.
2.) Vaporware announcements designed to lure customers away from buying existing competing products.
3.) Purposeful incompatibilities designed to make competing products appear as malfunctioning.

The big one is #1, and every time someone compares the iPod/iTunes tie-up to Microsoft's monopoly abuses of the 90s, I have to call them on it and point out Apple is doing absolutely no such thing. Apple is not calling up retail stores and telling them that if they don't remove all non-Apple music players from their shelves, Apple will no longer sell iPods through them. Apple doesn't really do anything about competing products. They, for the most part, completely ignore them and just let their own product design shine through.

But I'm not so gullible to think that the ipod/itunes lockin isn't a blatant abuse of the customer.

This is ridiculous. There is no abuse of customers going on. You're not forced to buy music from Apple, and if you do, it is of your own volition. You may also be disappointed to learn that if you buy an XBox 360, you can only play XBox games and not Playstation 2 games, even though they both use the same DVD format. Nobody is forcing the customer to do anything they don't want to do.

Apple has pretty much guaranteed I am going to keep downloading my music from bittorrent, by using an artificial extra layer to limit customer choice, and still have no effect on piracy.

You haven't explained how anybody's choice is being limited. You have free choice to buy music from Apple, with the implications that their service works only with other Apple products, as is their right. Or you have the free choice not to buy Apple's music, and just use MP3s you rip yourself. You also have the choice to buy any one of the myriad of competing music players that use PlaysForSure and other services. I fail to see what consumer choice is being limited here.

iTunes is specifically designed as part of Apple's vertical solution strategy, a medium for interacting with the iPod, and the iTunes Music Store specifically exists to provide music for people who have purchased the iPod. Apple is simply providing services to increase the value of an iPod to potential customers, just as they ship iLife only for Macs. It's adding value to a hardware purchase, just like when Nintendo releases first-party games to increase the value of a Nintendo hardware purchase. I may want to play New Super Mario Bros. on a PSP, but I'm not going to consider it monopoly abuse that I can't.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[pyros]

Second off, buring to CD loses quality.

No it doesn't. Going from a lossy compressed format to CDDA gives the save audio content. If you turn around and go back down to another lossy compressed format, it will potentially (probably) lose quailty from the original uncompressed copy that was used to generate the lossy compressed copy you bought from iTunes. (master DAT -> aac -> CDDA/wav -> mp3). Since the CD was made from a lossy compressed copy, it may have already lost everything that the mp3 compression of the original DAT would have lost, so going from the CD to mp3 might not lose anything. But just going from aac to cd won't lose anything.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[Overly Critical Guy]

I'm growing more concerned that some people apparently believe the mere fact Apple owns most of the music player market means there is an inherent legal right to open up FairPlay. If Apple has done no wrong and abused no one, there is no basis to punish Apple by doing that. Before anyone brings up the inevitable comparisons to Microsoft in the 90s, Microsoft specifically stifled competition by threatening Windows license removals from OEMs who shipped competing software. So they would force computer makers to stop shipping Netscape, then they bundled Internet Explorer for free with every copy of Windows. That is an example of leveraging a monopoly to stifle competition.

Releasing a music player and providing a first-party service or add-on for it to increase its value and appeal (just as companies like Nintendo do when they produce Metroid and Zelda), then watching as the music player goes on to be the most popular music player, is not an abuse.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[MustardMan]

I should have been more clear - burning to CD then ripping back into itunes loses quality. For a given song it might be unnoticable, or it might ne noticable. Either way it sucks.

Even if you burn to CD and rip back to AAC, you're going DAT-AAC-WAV-AAC.

There are two compression steps there - the WAV isn't the same as the DAT original, and so your encoding is going to be different as well. When it's given an uncompressed WAV, AAC doesn't somehow magically know which bits were thrown away so it can rebuild the original AAC.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[pyros]

I've always been under the impression that audio compression looked for certain digital representations of particular audio characteristics, and chunked the ones considered imperceptible. So at some point, all such bits will no longer be present, resulting in no more quality loss, just plain data compression.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[kthejoker]

This entire "concern" over Apple and iTunes is entirely related to the idea of the MP3 as some sort of universal standard of music consumption. Even excusing the proprietary MPEG-3 compression standard rhetoric, most people see the argument as "a music file is a music file is a music file."

This stands in sharp contrast to a Nintendo cartridge vs. a PSP UMD vs. an XBox CD/DVD. In reality it's nothing more than sleight of hand, but to the end consumer (and unfortunately, most legislators), a company should have the right to dictate what game software they allow on their system, but should not have the right to dictate which music file types/DRM they allow on their system.

Obviously, the underlying assumption here is that any DRM that is controlled by one company (and unlicensable), rather than by an industry at large, is considered to be bad. Whether or not you believe to be this true will ultimately govern your own opinions on this case.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if a really kickass Sandisk player comes out a month from now, you're fucked.

You'd have the same "problem" if you bought music from any other music download store, and a really kickass iPod came out. At least with iTunes tracks you have the option of burning to CD, unlike most WMA stores.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

If every encoder used a perfect psychoacoustical model that would be true, the problem is that encoders are not perfect and you will lose quality moving from one lossy format to another.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[mrchaotica]

Obviously, the underlying assumption here is that any DRM that is controlled by one company (and unlicensable), rather than by an industry at large, is considered to be bad. Whether or not you believe to be this true will ultimately govern your own opinions on this case.

And that whole argument is a red herring to begin with!

That assumption needs to be reframed to say that any DRM at all is considered to be bad. That's the real issue!

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[mrchaotica]

I'm growing more concerned that some people apparently believe the mere fact Apple owns most of the music player market means there is an inherent legal right to open up FairPlay.

I'm growing more concerned that some people apparently believe that FairPlay has a legal right to exist at all, regardless of whether Apple is a monopoly or not. What everyone needs to realize is that ALL DRM SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[mkw87]

Who's up for writing an application that burns songs to a virtual image (takes literally seconds to do a CD), then rips them back to various formats?

If only I could code, I'd be a millionaire by now.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[Overly Critical Guy]

FairPlay has a perfect legal right to exist. I would like to see your legal argument that it doesn't. DRM should not be illegal. A person can sell their product in any way they want to; that's called personal freedom.

If you don't like DRM, don't buy products with it, and encourage others to do the same. It's that whole "free market" thing at play. You apparently believe the government should step in and regulate, which is always the wrong solution. There's no need.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[Overly Critical Guy]

Clearly, based on your previous posts, you have an alarmist viewpoint that doesn't lend itself to rational discussion of the debate. DRM is not bad, and you don't have the right to tell me I can't make a piece of music, package it in a format that uses DRM, and sell it. I have every right in the world to do that if I want to. If you don't like the DRM, you have every right in the world not to buy it. The free market works these things out naturally.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[mrchaotica]

I would like to see your legal argument that it doesn't.

Simple: the content doesn't actually belong to the "seller" to begin with! The content inherently belongs to society, and a temporary privilage of distribution rights is granted by society to the creator to encourage that creator to continue to create. This, by the way, is why the right to property is not violated when the monopoly expires.

Because of this, the issue is about what restrictions the "seller" can place on public property, which is an area where the "seller" has no inherent rights. On the other hand, the public does have inherent rights in this case; particularly the rights to Fair Use as well as the right to any use once the so-called "product" reverts to Public Domain.

Put simply, the public's Right to Fair Use trumps the assumed "right" of the "seller" to place extra restrictions on the "product!"

Let me provide an example, to help you understand how absurd your argument is: imagine for a moment that the government contracts with a private company to administer a public park (e.g. like Stone Mountain here in Georgia). The company gains the "right" to charge admission, provide concessions, etc, but the land remains the property of the State. Now, here's the question: does that company have the right to, say, refuse admission to black people? Or beat up all the tourists on every other Tuesday? Or prevent people from showing their friends pictures of their trip? Or refuse to throw open the gates after the contract expires and the company no longer has the "right" to restrict access?

Obviously, the answer to all these questions is "absolutely not!" So why do people assume that it's okay to do so for creative content?

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[mrchaotica]

...and you don't have the right to tell me I can't make a piece of music, package it in a format that uses DRM, and sell it.

The Hell I don't! I have every right to say to you whatever I please -- it's called Free Speech. Whether what I say has any legal weight (or indeed, has legal consequences if it's slander or something) is an entirely separate issue.

If you don't like the DRM, you have every right in the world not to buy it. The free market works these things out naturally.

Oh, man! You're so confused it's comical! Do you realize that you just claimed that a government-granted monopoly is a free market?! 'Cause that's what copyright is (by definition), in case you didn't realize. There is no such thing as a "free market" for DRM!

The only way the free market could work these things out naturally is if all of copyright law (not to mention the DMCA) were repealed. If you want to support that, great!

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[falcon5768]

Because its a private organization that owns the creative content. We are not talking about the government here, a private buisness has all the rights in the world to refuse you if they wanted to. ITs not good buisness practice which is why you never see it, but be a teenager and go to a mall and get kicked out for doing nothing but take your case to court and guess what the judge will tell you? Stop wasting his time. What seems to be the problem here, is this jaded hippy sense of everything belonging to everyone. I think the USSR proved comunisim doesnt work.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[mrchaotica]

Because its a private organization that owns the creative content.

False! If that were the case, it would be unconstitutional for copyright to expire, because it would violate the 5th Amendment:

No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Because it is legal for copyright to expire (and indeed is required to do so by the Constitution), it is obvious that works of intellect are not property! QED.

What seems to be the problem here, is this jaded hippy sense of everything belonging to everyone.

Well, I guess that makes Jefferson et al. "jaded hippies" then, because they're the ones who came up with the idea! Remember, the Constitution justifies copyright by saying that its purpose is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," not "to invent a property right for fake property!"

You're entitled to your opinion that companies somehow "own" our culture and the Public Domain, but it's still incorrect.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[kthejoker]

That's an equally comical statement. What he says is absolutely true. The market part is in you choosing whether to buy said content or not - not in whether or not you get a share in the content other people create.

Seriously, though, this kind of misrepresentation and misunderstanding is at the heart of the undercutting of strong arguments against DRM and anti-piracy draconian tactics.

When you buy the content, you also buy the DRM that comes with it. You can't say, "I want Spiderman 2 the movie, but I don't want the DRM." It's an all-or-nothing package. So you (the savvy consumer) either need to stand up in what you believe in, and not buy Spiderman 2 because it has DRM, or suck it up and buy Spiderman 2 with the DRM because you want it badly enough.

To suggest that somehow because content creators have a monopoly over their content, and choose to protect their content, that they are cheating you - when you have every right to create your own content, or buy alternative content, or not buy any content at all - is the definition of a straw man.

It simply comes down to put up or shut up. If you see DRM, don't buy it. But claiming copyright is a monopoly is ridiculous - it's a monopoly over a single piece of content, that you are not OBLIGATED to buy. What you are basically saying is I really really want that new DRM'ed music album, but without the DRM. If the copyright holder isn't willing to give you that *particular* album without DRM - tough luck to you. Go buy some other content.

And isn't that really what this argument is about anyway? There are tons of people willing to provide you DRM-free content - they're called local bands, and local artists, and local filmmakers. But now you're just basically saying, "Hey, I only want major label / major studio content, but I don't want DRM on it," which isn't just idealistic, but untenable. And on top of that you're saying, "The only people who make content even worth having are major labels / major studios." So guess what, you run with the mainstreamers? They're not going to give you what you want.

So your only alternatives are create your own content, support content that is already DRM-free, or shut up and put on the "I'm a mainstream-loving DRM bitch" T-shirt. DRM is inevitable in some form; it doesn't have to be universal.

Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes

[mrchaotica]

To suggest that somehow because content creators have a monopoly over their content, and choose to protect their content, that they are cheating you - when you have every right to create your own content, or buy alternative content, or not buy any content at all - is the definition of a straw man.

No, it's not a straw man. The fact is that copyright was created as a social contract to benefit society -- not the copyright holder -- and using DRM violates that social contract. That's the entire point!

Larger scope

[SuperKendall]

Sounds like Sony and Blu-Ray.

Your thinking is too limited. This sounds exactly like DVD and CSS, or Blu-Ray/HD-DVD and AACS. In either case unless you sign agreements to support those DRM standards you are not able to build devices to play that media.

The movie companies MIGHT restrict the products to certain players? They already do today and have for years!!

If I were Apple I'd write back: "Dear Sirs; either ban CSS as well or get off our case."

Re:Larger scope

[MustardMan]

The main difference is - Apple won't license FairPlay to anyone. They will build a little itunes app that can run on a phone, but it's heavily crippled. Let's see Creative or Sandisk get a license to use Apple's DRM - won't happen unless a government body forces them to.

However, with CSS, they will license the technology to just about anyone willing to spend the cash. That's why there are so many cheap no-name DVD players at Wal-Mart and such.

Re:Larger scope

[nutshell42]

The movie companies MIGHT restrict the products to certain players? They already do today and have for years!!

If I were Apple I'd write back: "Dear Sirs; either ban CSS as well or get off our case."

Shhh! Don't tip them off, if this goes through ladies and gentlemen it will be the end of CSS and AACS and all this POS. Well, that, or we get a completely toothless piece of paper hailed by its creators as major step forward for consumers and ignored by the world at large.

Re:Larger scope

[2nd Post!]

So if Apple licenses Fairplay at half a million, we're all dandy right?

Re:Larger scope

[advocate_one]

It's NOT the same... any manufacturer can implement a DVD player as they just have to fulfil the requirements (jump through the hoops) to get a licensed implementation of CSS and get their key... Apple however, doesn't allow anyone else to make players that can play content that's been locked up with their system... It's a closed shop with the only exception being that bastardized crippled phone that can only ever hold a maximum of 100 tunes

Re:Larger scope

[Anonymous Monkey]

You are right, I was being limited. It would have been better to say it sounds like Sony and Betamax, and we all know what happened with that. In reading my old post it sounds a bit like a troll.

The point I was trying to make is this: If every time the game doesn't go your way, you take your ball and go home the other kids stop playing with you. If you play nice with the other kids, more people like you and everything is more fun. And music players should be fun, right?

Then again, I can cite Microsoft, iPods, and all Apple products before OSX to prove my self wrong.

Re:Larger scope

[ozbird]

The main difference is - Apple won't license FairPlay to anyone.

"FairPlay"? "Plays4Sure"? "Digital Rights Management"? I see a pattern emerging here...
To paraphrase Sir Humphrey Appleby of Yes Minister:

... always dispose of the difficult bit in the title. It does less harm there than [in the contents].

Re:Larger scope

[Anonymous Coward]

However, with CSS, they will license the technology to just about anyone willing to spend the cash. That's why there are so many cheap no-name DVD players at Wal-Mart and such.

Uh, no. The reason there are cheap no-name DVD players at Wal-Mart is because CSS got cracked, thereby enabling every no-name manufacturer to make a DVD player. How many of those no-name DVD makers are actually paying license fees? Not many, although some claim to pay, but underreport the number of units sold.

Re:Larger scope

[mrchaotica]

It's all in the "great tradition" of doublespeak. Man, it almost feels like the eighties again...

Ignorant Government Idiots

[coinreturn]

One more time and all together now:

You don't have to use an iPod to play iTunes Music!

Options:
1. Play music on your computer (Windows or Mac)
2. Burn CD and play on your stereo
3. Re-rip to MP3

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[MustardMan]

4. lose quality and waste more time than you would have driving to the store to buy the fucking cd
5. ???
6. profit for everyone but you

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Lose quality? Where? Did you forget you can re-rip to AIFF or even FLAC?

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also possible to strip the DRM from the iTunes AAC files with JHymn. However, there aren't many players that play AAC files, so even without the DRM, you're pretty much SOL

Of course, mentioning this product violates the DMCA, which violates my right to free speech, but I'm posting anonymously anyway.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[MustardMan]

uh... ANY lossy re-encode degrades quality. When you go from lossy format A to lossy format B, B chooses different bits to lose, and A has already lost some. Encoding to the CD itself loses quality.

Nevermind that if you rip to a lossless format, you're wasting tons of HD space and certainly not improving over the quality of your much-smaller AAC.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[moracity]

Amen! iTMS and iPod are separate entities having no dependence on the other. How hard is this to understand? I have an iPod and 99.9% of my music is NOT from iTMS. If I threw my iPod away, I could still buy all the music I want from iTMS and play it where ever I want. Sure, there's an extra step...so what? It's no different than downloading(legally) a movie, then having to burn it to a DVD for playback on a DVD player.

If anything, I'd like someone to force Apple to have better quality encoding on their downloads. The few albums I do have from iTMS sound awful. Not being able to re-download songs is a real turn-off as well. I don't think iTMS albums are worth $9.99.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You forgot:

4. Play music on selected phones.

That said I don't think companies that intentionally restrict consumer rights above and beyond what copyright law does should be given the protections of copyright. It should be an either or proposition. Either copyright your song and consumers are obligated to follow the rules about not copying it, but you cannot impose any additional rules, or don't copyright it and impose your own technological restrictions, but if someone breaks your DRM they can do anything they want with it including republish.

I think what Apple is doing now is wholly necessary, but only because they are competing against the windows media format which is illegally bundled with a monopoly OS. I'm all for the EU making it illegal to further restrict use of copyrighted media by either format and the return to sane, standard formats that will entail. All I really ask, however, is they apply whatever standard equally to both iTunes and Windows Media.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[holt]

Ok, then go "to the store to buy the fucking CD." I don't see the problem. What makes you think you have to buy this content from iTunes Music Store?

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[Pink Tinkletini]

As you point out, the CD is downsampled from the original master recording using an even less efficient lossy compression algorithm than AAC, namely "throwing away bits." But Apple encodes tracks in the iTunes Music Store using the studio's master recordings. So it's not completely out of the question that iTMS tracks could be perceptually closer to the original than the CDs, even at one-tenth the data rate.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[punkass]

Yeah, it's really too bad that they outlawed music stores after iTMS came to be, eh?

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[MustardMan]

But if you then burn that AAC file to a CD, instead of the CD being recorded directly from a master, it's recorded from something where bits were already thrown away. Hence, you lose quality by using the "burn and re-rip" loophole that the fanboys like to tout as proof that Fairplay isn't evil. IF you want digital music without DRM, the best quality you're gonna get is either buying the CD and ripping it, or getting it from a pirate site.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[Yvanhoe]

Are really 2. and 3. free and legal ?

Disclaimer : this may be, I don't use iTunes nor iPods

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[MustardMan]

Well for one, the record labels are also adding DRM to CDs.

For two, unfortunately most normal computer users don't understand DRM and how it limits their rights until it's too late. Relying on consumer ignorance to lock them into a DMCA-protected proprietary DRM scheme is unethical and should be illegal.

I hate the "if you don't like it, don't buy it" argument - if you don't like windows, don't buy it. But definitely don't ask the government to step in and do something about their abuse of monopoly power. After all, if you don't like it, you don't HAVE to use it.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[jawtheshark]

Hold on! Hymn only functions on tunes you bought in iTunes 5. For iTunes 6 you are on your own. As for players that can do AAC without DRM: I don't know for players under Windows, but xmms does just fine. You just have to install the AAC plugin. I don't think it will play the DRMed version, but those that I unDRMed with Hymn back when iTunes 5 was current, work just fine. I haven't bought from iTunes since version 6 is out.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[coinreturn]

Are really 2. and 3. free and legal ?

Yes, they are both free and legal. And clearly documented by Apple.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[Yvanhoe]

then why the proprietray format ? I must have missed something...

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[stinerman]

I've been thinking about that recently. The same should be applied to any sort of "creative property" for lack of a better term.

Copyright is designed to enrich the public knowledge pool by giving authors a time-limited monopoly on distribution of their works. Without such a monopoly, many authors or inventors would simply try to keep their knowledge secret, which doesn't benefit the public. This is obvious with respect to books, especially when copying is very easy. In the software world, companies who do not release the source code for public inspection aren't really publishing anything in the sense that copyright assumes. The copyright on Windows 1.0 will expire in 2080, IIRC, assuming another retroactive extension is not made by Congress. This source will not likely be available anywhere (even at Microsoft) since it was never published, yet Microsoft gets a monopoly on the distribution of it and its derivative works (the binary).

I think that you make sense. If you don't publish your source, you don't get copyright. If forgo copyright protection, feel free to put whatever restrictions you want on your binary files, and even make EULAs that forbid redistribution, etc. If you do publish, you can't put any other restrictions on the files.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[houghi]

1) I do not have a Windows or Mac
2) As strange as it might seem. My PC is my stereo (see 1)
3) Legally?

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[coinreturn]

1) I do not have a Windows or Mac
Then you are not one of their potential customers. Just like MS will have trouble selling me Xbox games because I do not have an Xbox.

3) Legally?
Yes. The capability is built into iTunes.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If you don't publish your source, you don't get copyright.

I have previously advocated going even further. For those companies that do publish a work, they use copyright to make a profit. They stop making a profit when they stop selling that work. I think the day a publisher stops selling a work at a reasonable market price is the day that work should enter the public domain and stay there. That will ensure all works, even ones the publisher does not find profitable, do not "vanish" as so many have in the last several decades. I also still think we need a reasonable and shorter maximum copyright duration as well and protections for creators versus distributors. The artist(s) involved in the creation of a work should be guaranteed no less than 50% of the profit from each sale (note profit not cost). Copyright reform is badly needed, but sadly most people just don't care that our musical, artistic, literary, and cinematic heritage is being steadily destroyed.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[stinerman]

I'd be happy with a blanket copyright of 5 years with an extension to 10 if still commercially sold.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[Fred_A]

Has anyone actually found some DRM-ed CDs that did anything to a Linux machine ?

I found out (after the fact) that I had a few "protected" disks (apparently they weren't even audio CDs anymore) and the ripping software doesn't even seem to notice. Apparently most of them rely on adding a data track to the CD which automates the installation of Windows drivers.

For now, DRM is still irrelevant to some users. Can't say what the future will hold of course...

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[dr.badass]

For two, unfortunately most normal computer users don't understand DRM and how it limits their rights until it's too late.

How is "when they sign up for an account" too late?

Relying on consumer ignorance to lock them into a DMCA-protected proprietary DRM scheme is unethical and should be illegal.

The only thing that relies on consumer ignorance is your argument. You seem to be implying that Apple is keeping the DRM restrictions secret, which they are not.

I hate the "if you don't like it, don't buy it" argument - if you don't like windows, don't buy it.

Uh, ok. I don't like Windows, so I didn't buy Windows. What's your point?

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[dr.badass]

The artist(s) involved in the creation of a work should be guaranteed no less than 50% of the profit from each sale (note profit not cost).

They are already guaranteed 100%. The only way you can get less is by giving/selling away your rights.

Copyright reform is badly needed, but sadly most people just don't care that our musical, artistic, literary, and cinematic heritage is being steadily destroyed.

It probably has something to do with the fact that it is being created at a faster rate.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[darkmeridian]

Right. And you have to waste the time and effort of making a cd and then re-ripping it to MP3. How are the mom and pops who are using iTunes actually manage to do this?

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

They are already guaranteed 100%. The only way you can get less is by giving/selling away your rights.

Suppose you're a musician. Your goal is to get the world to hear your music and you'd like to make a living at it. You're really good. So you decide to sell your music and use copyright, as intended, to make money doing so. After a few weeks you realize that a cartel (legally defined as such) owns the distribution chains needed to reach more than a tiny segment of the population. Without their buy-in you will never sell your music in any major store, be played on the radio, or on television and basically you'll be shut out. Now this cartel exists and has been convicted of their illegal behaviors numerous times. You go to them and they say, "sure, even though you did 90% of the work we want you to sign this complex contract giving away somewhere between 90% and 130% of the profit, depending upon how many copies sell." After careful review you realize even if you do fairly well for sales, you'll actually end up owing them money for giving up your copyright to them. But, your goal is to be heard, so you have to suck it up and hope you can make enough money selling t-shirts and doing other things to pay them back and maybe make enough to live on.

I think this situation is sickening. If you don't, well go to hell.

It probably has something to do with the fact that it is being created at a faster rate.

Nope. It has to do with infinitely long copyright durations. Ever see the movie, "It's a wonderful life" at christmas time? It is a timeless classic. If its copyright had not expired and PBS did not air it, you'd never have heard of it. It was a box office flop and the studio threw it in a box never to be seen again (until it entered the public domain). That was back when copyrights only lasted 14 years. No movie, book, music, etc. has entered the public domain for over 40 years and it is likely none ever will again. Over 40 years sitting in a warehouse, things decay. The last copies of many works are now gone. How many of them would have become timeless classics? The majority of great works are not recognized as such until long after they are initially presented. The vast majority of those great works, will now never enter the public eye or be recognized. We all know how wonderful media executives are at picking the best things for us to see. That is why of the top 10, best selling TV series on DVD, 4 were cancelled in the first season. How many never make it to DVD and how many will never be recognized for how wonderful they are? How many books? How many songs?

Copyright law is doing the exact opposite of what it is intended and because of the wording of the constitution, congress just has to claim that they are incompetently trying, rather than maliciously ignoring the stated purpose of copyright and the supreme court is powerless. Our descendants' artistic heritage is going down the shitter. They don't even keep reference copies anymore. Welcome to the new dark ages, all for the meager profit on that half a percent of works that still make money after 10 years.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[mrchaotica]

Relying on consumer ignorance to lock them into a DMCA-protected proprietary DRM scheme is unethical and should be illegal.

That's beside the point. All DRM is unethical and should be illegal.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[mrchaotica]

Uh, ok. I don't like Windows, so I didn't buy Windows. What's your point?

Me too, but that doesn't changed the fact that I'm forced to use it at work because, due to Microsoft's monopoly (acquired by illegal means), the software I'm required to use (AutoCAD) only runs on Windows.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[MustardMan]

Good point. I tend to get caught up in arguing with the Apple apologists and get away from the big picture. The RDF is a scary thing - the only people I've ever seen (sometimes violently) standing up for the legitimacy of DRM are Apple fanboys, and people who make money from DRM.

I wouldn't have a problem with DRM if - a.) the DMCA was repealed, and b.) a giant red sticker that says "WE WILL FUCK YOU OUT OF YOUR RIGHTS IF YOU BUY THIS" was on the cover of every product implementing DRM.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[mrchaotica]

a giant red sticker that says "WE WILL FUCK YOU OUT OF YOUR RIGHTS IF YOU BUY THIS" was on the cover of every product implementing DRM.

I've been thinking of organizing a kind of "guerilla activism" campaign to get a bunch of people together, invade stores that sell DRM-infected products, and put these stickers on them. What do you think -- good idea? Also, which strategy do you think would work better: a sort of "blitzkreig" where everybody runs in and labels everything as quickly as possible, or a stealth operation where a few guys per store label all but the outer row of products, so that the employees don't immediately notice?

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[coinreturn]

Oh, alas, oh, what a pain in the ass! The point is that you do NOT have to buy an iPod to enjoy iTunes music (as in my list of other ways to play the music - including using your Windoze POS, you Apple-basher) and you do NOT have to buy iTunes music to enjoy an iPod, so (staying ON topic of the article), the issue of monopoly is bogus.

Also, Mom and Pop can easily do the re-rip process if they want since the process is clearly outlined in the iTunes help file!

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[Ash-Fox]

1) I do not have a Windows or Mac

Do you use a *nix os? If so, you can buy a copy of Code-weaver's Crossover office. compatibility information.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[Lars T.]

Sure, a 96kbit MP3 from a pirat site is going to be better quality than a 192kbit MP3 re-rip from an iTMS tune. Whatever you say.

Re:Ignorant Government Idiots

[MustardMan]

Heh, you must go to some shitty pirate sites. The one I visit sometimes has lossless rips ;)

Ummmm, NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Other then the fact that SAMSUNG will be releasing a blue-ray player adn that blue-ray is a licensed technology you are correct.

So to summarize, you are incorrect.

Very common

[gr8_phk]

>> film companies might restrict their products to specific players too
>Sounds like Sony and Blu-Ray.

Sounds like every game console ever made.

Re:Very common

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sounds like every game console ever made.
Are you refering to the fact PS games won't play on an xbox or a GameCube etc.?

If so you are forgetting a huge differance.

There are recognized openly available standards for audio, and the player only needs to decode a file.

Writing multiplatform software is alot harder.
I haven't written software for a games console but I have written things to run under Windows and Linux.
You could go for the option of only using things in the Ansi C spec (if using C), but look through the spec, you see anything missing? I do. There is no thread functions, or any graphics functions, for thoose you need to go to the OS, or to other software running on the system (which varies from system to system). And don't even start on interfacing with devices.

Making a game cross platform takes more effort than a one platform game.
However the oppposite is true of music, it takes more effort to make a track that only plays on one player. If you want multiplayer all you need is to use any of the common formats (MP3, Ogg Vorbis). If you want single player you have to create your own format, or use a pre-existing format but modify it not to work except on your player, e.g. use an MP3 file but use AES encryption on it so a player needs to decrypt the file. (OK so reverse engineering could break this, but it would be illegal in the USA, DMCA and all).

Re:Very common

[mrchaotica]

Legality is orthogonal to difficulty. In other words, the fact that complying with the law is difficult is not an excuse for breaking it.

Re:Very common

[mmeister]

> Are you refering to the fact PS games won't play on an xbox or a GameCube etc.?
> If so you are forgetting a huge differance.

Actually -- there isn't. Apple isn't requiring an exclusive license on the music, so Sony, TimeWarner, etc are able to encode their music into the other format as well.

The iPod is open. It plays MP3's just fine! The only thing that is closed is the copy-protection, something that the RIAA insists upon. Talk to them about removing the copy protection and you can open up the iPod and iTunes.

Until then, I think the whole issue is whining about the fact that Apple took a risk, put in hard effort to design a friendly experience and it paid off. Now folks want to capitalize on that with zero effort on their part. That sounds more like a leech to me.

Re:Very common

[AnyoneEB]

That is not the same. There is nothing stopping you from putting, say, a PSX game disc into your PC (or DC for that matter) and playing it. PS2, XBox, and XBox 360 games are all on DVDs, they may be signed, but they are not encrypted. Once again, there is nothing stopping you from playing those games on the sufficiently powerful computer if someone or group has taken to time to create an emulator. (I have left out GCN and cartridge based systems because, while they may be legally emulated, getting the games onto your PC is more difficult.) Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft may not want emulators, but they are doing anything to actively prevent them from being used other than producing the best hardware for their games to run on.

So?

[Wordsmith]

So what? Game companies can make games that run on only one platform. The company that makes my water pitcher makes filters that can only fit in one brand of pitchers.

The problem isn't the DRM itself. Apple (and others) make intentionally crippled products, limited by this DRM junk. The consumer is free to decide if the crippled product is worth the price he/she is being asked to pay. If it's not, the product goes away, for lack of a market. Maybe some consumers DO find it a worthwhile trade, and the company can flouish because of it. Maybe some don't. If a government interferes with that process, it's interfereing with the free market.

The problem comes in when the government also interferes by making it illegal to circumvent the DRM, or do other "unauthorized" things to products people already have purchased. If Apple wants to sell me a crippled product, but I can make it better by circumventing the DRM, so be it. I haven't done anything ethically wrong until I've redistributed the product (presuming one buys into copyright as a valid concept, which we will for purposes of this dicussion). Maybe that easy circumvention is WHY it's worth it to me ot purchase the product. No one's going to tell me I can't rewire my blender to make it operate past spec, or cram together my own water filter out of parts I find in the store. It shouldn't be any different with media.

The solution is for government to butt out entirely.

Re:So?

[ClamIAm]

Your entire argument rests on two incredibly huge assumptions. The first is that people are educated about DRM. The second is that there is a non-DRM replacement for each thing that. As most who watch the tech scene know, these two assumptions are absolutely, laughably false. People do not know what DRM is. Oh, and try buying the latest movie release (legitimately) without DRM.

Re:So?

[mypalmike]

No one's going to tell me I can't rewire my blender to make it operate past spec, or cram together my own water filter out of parts I find in the store.

I own the electrical system inside my home, but I'm legally required to hire a licensed electrician to modify it. I can't perform home renovations (even purely internal ones) without a building permit. I can't cut down my own tree in my own yard that's over 6 inches in diameter at chest height. I can't legally inhale the wonderful fumes from my own aeresol can, or melt down that Sudafed and make meth with it.

Now, I don't agree with any of these laws. I'm just saying that there are already laws that limit what you can privately do with your own stuff.

Re:So?

[Wordsmith]

I'm not making those assumptions. But I don't want a government to interfere with a process consumers are empowered to direct themselves. Most people aren't informed about DRM. But there's nothing to stop them from getting informed. IF they don't, then so be it. It means they don't care. And the market will respond accordingly, to serve the things they do care about.

I know you can't easily buy the latest movie release without DRM (the vast majority of the time). So? If there are enough people so bothered by the DRM that the product doesn't sell, the policy will change. If there aren't that many people so bothered, than apparently it isn't enough of a deterrent to most people that the producer should have any reason to care. So be it.

I'm OK with DRM staying around, if it's what the free market decides it can live with. But I don't want the government telling me it's illegal for there to be an alternative scenerio. I would hope consumers would wise up and cast off DRM; maybe they won't. But so long as it's legal to circumvent DRM, or to buy products without them (think small, indy producers), I can shop around for a product that suits me.

Re:So?

[jZnat]

Some of those are in the interest of other people's safety. DRM is only in the interest of securing a laughably failing business model. Nobody benefits.

Re:So?

[Wordsmith]

Fair point. But as you note, those are arguably bad laws too.

Re:So?

[ClamIAm]

I'm not making those assumptions.

Oh OK. Hey wait a minute:

I'm OK with DRM staying around, if it's what the free market decides it can live with.

So you're assuming that we have a free market. What does a free market require? Consumer education, as well as competition between providers. Which, as my previous post points out, do not exist.

Re:So?

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

"I'm OK with DRM staying around, if it's what the free market decides it can live with."

The free market can't make a decision on the quality of a product when they're not INFORMED about the product in question. One excellent example is region coding. It doesn't affect many, but some people are affected by it. Nearly no one except those who are affected by it even know what it IS. This is because the movie companies have no interest in informing their customers about this fact. The free market stops working when there is little to no information for the potential customer to judge the product.

"Might"? that's the freaking point!

[plasmacutter]

The whole point of DRM was never to stop piracy, but to force any and all vendors to license the use of official playback by preventing them engineering their own playback ability.

Ed Felten has pointed this out on numerous occasions, and I seriously doubt these government officials are so stupid as to not see it.

News flash corporate sellouts: you can't have your cake and eat it too..

DRM is deliberate incompatibility, and if you protect it you can't encourage interoperability at the same time!

Re:"Might"? that's the freaking point!

[Fred_A]

The pupose of DRM is to force the switch from a model where consumers buy their media (or at least a support that holds it and that can be kept ad vitam eternam) to a model where people rent their media, Whether some material support is involved or not.

Re:"Might"? that's the freaking point!

[cmarkn]

Then there should be no discussion of iTunes wrt DRM, since you buy tunes from the iTune Store, not rent it. It is not like the places that you rent WMA tunes from that are only playable as long as you keep paying for them.

Re:"Might"? that's the freaking point!

[Lussarn]

since you buy tunes from the iTune Store, not rent it.

Well, the discussion is fully open whetever or not you buy music from iTMS. Buying something means transfer of ownership. I don't see that happening with Apples offering. If I'm not able to retransfer the ownership I'm not so sure I actually own the music. I say it's a glorified form of renting. Lifetime renting if you will.

Until somebody comes up with a digital download music scheme which doesn't takes away all comsumer rights we have on physical objects I would never call it "buying". As an example buying a CD fully preserves the rights of the consumer.

If I'm not mistaken somebody tried to sell a tune from iTMS on ebay, Apple of course stoped it because they don't see a purchase from iTMS as a transfer of ownership.

Ummm... Those industries already do that.

[JorDan Clock]

There are tons of DRM'ed music, books, and movies. I'm fair sure Sony required people to convert their music into their ATRAC format for their early "MP3" players. eBooks often can only be read by specific programs on certain platforms. DRM protected DVDs can only be played on certain DVD players (albeit, this point is much less restrictive than many others.). Sure, you can (supposedly) only play music obtained from ITMS through an iPod or iTunes, but honestly, is it that big of a restriction? If you buy an iPod, you're likely to want digital music, and since not everyone is a pirate, they want to buy it. So Apple sets up a service for their product. There are other services that are less platform restricted, and some that are completely free of platform restrictions. Didn't the Prismiq have a media download service? I wouldn't be surprised if that media could only be played on the Prismiq. Was that available in Europe?

Re:Ummm... Those industries already do that.

[E-Rock]

Being wildly successful makes you subject to special scrutiny. You think that Microsoft could get away with selling Computers and the OS the way Apple can? No way! Since Apple is the market in digital media, and even outsells retail (http://news.com.com/iTunes+outsells+traditional+m usic+stores/2100-1027_3-5965314.html), they're lucky that all people want is to let the music be played on other devices.

This is ridiculous

[ostermei]

"If Apple can require an iPod for songs via iTunes, then music, book and film companies might restrict their products to specific players too, [Norwegian consumer ombudsman Bjorn Erik Thon] said."

That's such a load of crap. He may have a point if Apple were the originators of the content itself, but that's not the case. Apple is just one of many retail salepoints for songs that are produced elsewhere. If he doesn't like Apple's particular way of selling the songs, he has every right to purchase his music somewhere else (including buying the physical CD and ripping the music into whatever DRM-free format he would like... MP3, for example, which would still play on that iPod he apparently was forced to buy).

A more accurate way to argue the point he's making is to say that it would allow retailers to restrict the products they sell to specific players. For example, Barnes & Noble might start selling only ebooks in a proprietary .bn format that can only be played on their bnReader device. That won't stop you from swinging by Borders and picking up the good ol' dead-tree version, though.

Re:This is ridiculous

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

That's such a load of crap. He may have a point if Apple were the originators of the content itself, but that's not the case.

I think you're missing several important points. First it does not matter how many companies are intermediaries or what options are available today. Copyright is supposed to be a two-sided deal. If the government provided a monopoly on the publication of something, subject to a whole series of rules and restrictions, why should content producers be able to implement technology that takes those rights away from the purchaser? I mean, if the law already states the proper balance of rights, why should the government grant them a monopoly at all if they are further restricting it?

As for choice, sure you can buy a CD today, maybe. Many of those CDs now have DRM as well and they may not even be available tomorrow. My opinion is DRM should void the copyright deal. Let them put any technological restrictions they want on it, but the government should not have to uphold their half of the deal then either and if someone cracks it, it is free to distribute. That sounds fair to me.

The second point you're missing is this is being presented by some parties as an antitrust issue. If Apple has a monopoly on digital music players (which is a big if) then they are illegally tying ITMS and iPods. Now MS is doing the same thing with WMF and Windows, and the EU has done nothing, but two wrongs don't make a right.

For example, Barnes & Noble might start selling only ebooks in a proprietary .bn format that can only be played on their bnReader device. That won't stop you from swinging by Borders and picking up the good ol' dead-tree version, though.

Nope. What he's saying is the book publisher might start offering it only in the .epb format, which can only be read on their player and not selling a dead tree version. Then the consumer must choose between not reading a work (or possibly any works) or reading it with fewer rights than the copyright deal signed into law grants them.

I say it is time to reform copyright, including making DRM illegal. I don't mean just Apple's DRM. I mean all of it.

Re:This is ridiculous

[Chazmyrr]

Yes, because repurchasing the same content in each new format is not only the best way to spend the money I earn, it's also the best way to guarantee that companies will have high profit margins since they won't have to produce any new content.

Re:This is ridiculous

[Kadin2048]

If Apple has a monopoly on digital music players (which is a big if) then they are illegally tying ITMS and iPods.

You had me up to here. They are doing no such thing: they're not saying you have to use music from their store, in fact you can load music onto that iPod from anyplace you want (including pirated stuff).

If you choose to get music from the iTMS, then it becomes locked to the iPod: but it's not as if the consumer doesn't have a number of alternatives besides the iTMS.

Were Apple to make it so that you suddenly had to get your music from the Music Store in order to use that iPod that you just bought, then there would be a serious antitrust issue. But all the arguments I've seen basically ignore the fact that most people don't get their music from the iTMS! People still buy CDs every day, and put that music onto their iPod.

The line that seems to be coming up in this discussion a lot so far is that the music companies are adding DRM to their CDs, and thus the alternative avenue to the iTMS is being cut off. If this is happening, and if the market doesn't correct it (because I bet people aren't going to be very pleased when they can't put that new CD onto their iPod), then there's a place for regulation: at the very least, DRMed CDs should be required to prominently warn consumers that they're not rippable.

But generally, if the music companies start selling DRMed CDs, it doesn't make sense to turn around and punish Apple. Punish the companies selling "defective" CDs: since many more songs are sold every year on CD than on the iTMS, DRMed CDs present much more of a threat to the marketplace than where you can use iTMS-downloaded songs.

Basically, I find the whole iTMS argument flawed. Basically people are taking the iPod's possible monopoly over portable music players, and use that to justify cracking open Apple's music distribution outfit. This doesn't make any sense: Apple doesn't have a monopoly over music distribution; in reality the iTMS doesn't have more than a few percent of the worldwide music-sales market versus CDs and other sources. The thing they have a monopoly over (the iPod) is already open to non-Apple music.

Re:This is ridiculous

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You had me up to here. They are doing no such thing: they're not saying you have to use music from their store, in fact you can load music onto that iPod from anyplace you want (including pirated stuff).

I don't think you understand antitrust law. Whether or not you can load data from elsewhere is irrelevant. If Apple has a digital music player monopoly then it illegal for them to gain any advantage from that monopoly to gain market share in another market (DRM formats, jukebox software, OS's, or peppermint stick sales).

Suppose Apple has a monopoly with the iPod. They also are in the digital music downloads market. It is illegal for them to do anything with the iPod to gain an advantage over Napster or Sony in the digital music downloads market. Can Napster bundle their software with every iPod sold? If not, neither can Apple. Can Napster restrict their music with DRM on the iPod? If not it is illegal for Apple to do. Basically, the iPod division at Apple has to treat products in markets other than the monopoly just as they would products from another company. When the ITMS calls them and says, "hey we want to integrate seamlessly with your player and we wrote some protocols" Apple is legally obligated to treat them the same as if Sony called with the same request. That means no secret protocols, no bundling, and no favoritism. Either everyone gets to ship their music player on CD with iPods, or no one does. It's the law.

Basically people are taking the iPod's possible monopoly over portable music players, and use that to justify cracking open Apple's music distribution outfit. This doesn't make any sense: Apple doesn't have a monopoly over music distribution; in reality the iTMS doesn't have more than a few percent of the worldwide music-sales market...

That is the whole point. It is not illegal for them to have a monopoly on music players. It is illegal for them to use the monopoly on music players to unfairly gain market share in music sales or any other market. All this assumes they have such a monopoly, which has not yet been determined.

To show a parallel. MS has a monopoly on Windows. That is legal. They bundled Windows Media Player with Windows. That is illegal. They wrote secret, undocumented protocols to let their new server OS better interoperate with Windows desktop (the monopoly) while other OS's could not. That was illegal. The UE convicted MS of both of these abuses, but they did not yet stop either of them. It would be hypocritical of the EU to stop Apple's monopoly abuse when they have allowed MS's in the very same market. Personally, I think the EU should stop both.

Re:This is ridiculous

[HTH NE1]

You don't have to go beyond their premise:

"If Apple can require an iPod for songs via iTunes..."

An iPod is not required for iTunes! You can still play protected AAC files on PCs and Macs, and the application allowing you to play them is free(beer) (completely for PCs, bundled with the OS for Macs but also can be downloaded).

Confusing the device provider w/content provider.

[Sierran]

This is a common trend. I'm not a fan of zealous copyright wielding, and (full disclosure) I am an iPod owner. On the other hand, around 95% of the music on my iPod is there through having been ripped off a CD collection I've been accruing over the past 15 years. The Norwegian ombudsman's quote seems to me to miss the one critical point that other posters above me have had no trouble seeing: The fact that Apple is the sole source of the player but not the content. If they were the sole source of both, that would indeed be a problem. If there were no other way to get music onto an iPod, that would indeed be a problem. If there were no other way to get downloaded music from the internet legally onto an iPod, that would be a problem. However, those aren't true. You can buy music on CD. You can get it on vinyl. You can buy it from places like eMusic.com (no, I have no affiliation other than having paid them for a month of service) and download it as DRM-free MP3s, which can happily be loaded onto Apple's iTunes and iPod.

The only part of the Apple solution that is 'locked' is the iTunes Music Store. And as we can see, everything available through there (with the exception of a few 'exclusive tracks!') is also available *elsewhere* - and there's a great deal of content that *isn't* available there. Furthermore, Apple makes no attempt to lock the iPod down from handling this other, DRM-free content (and if anyone whines 'it won't play format xxx' I slap them).

At that point, the thing that their 'lock' is protecting is their 'ease of use' consumer flow. In other words, we built this thing in such a way that the only people who can extract rents from downloading music to it (i.e. use DRM to make people pay money to download music to it) is us. If people want to invest a little energy and time, they can put music on it to their heart's content without having to cope with anybody's DRM, but if they want to accept the DRM and pay the cash for ease-of-use, they have to pay it to us.

That's what capitalism is all about. There's a perfectly good way onto the iPod for music that isn't from ITMS. If you don't want to pay Apple, don't. Buy a CD and rip it. Hell, record it yourself and load it. Your iPod will play it just fine. These bills have zip to do with protecting consumers, they have to do with protecting other businesses who want to extract their own rents in the DRM download market and want to freeload off the iPod's popularity. Screw 'em.

"Just don't buy it" is a fallacy.

[plasmacutter]

I refer you to this article on "why market forces cannot correct DRM"

Further.. only in commodity type markets where there are substitute goods do people actually have the choice to "buy from another vendor". Copyrighted works are a monopoly market, and for this excercise the morality of this monopoly is not what is in question.. it's the way the market is. As such you do not have the option of buying the work from a vendor with less restrictions, there is only one vendor.

Re:"Just don't buy it" is a fallacy.

[Wordsmith]

At the moment, you most certainly do. You can buy most CDs without DRM, and a few stores, such as E-Music, sell a little mainstream music without DRM.

Even if those options go away, there's nothing preventing Joe Garage Band from releasing his music without DRM, to make it more appealing than the corporate-controlled music that has DRM.

I'd argue (seperately) that the concept of copyright isn't really valid, and the sorts of monopolies you speak of with regard to individual works are indeed a problem - for far more reasons than the connection to DRM. But one doesn't need to buy into that argument to see that DRM is an aspect of a product consumers can take or leave, of their own volition.

Re:"Just don't buy it" is a fallacy.

[fupeg]

Nice try, but no dice. First off the article is wrong. The guy got screwed by HBO, but he could have been aware of this possibility when he bought the media center and when he subscribed to HBO. Such awareness would have obviously decreased the value of the media center, and he should make the evaluation "is it worth it?" If he was only buying the media center to record and archive HBO shows, then clearly the answer would have been no. Caveat emptor indeed. If nobody buys these media centers, then certainly the vendors will change their feature sets or stop making them.

Now your claim that you cannot buy from another vendor in a non-commodity market is also wrong. It's only true in a real monopoly situation where this in no possible substitute effect on the good. A vendor can have a unique good (thus a mini-monopoly on that exact good) but if there are other goods that can have substitute value, then it is not a true monopoly and the consumer can ideed buy from another vendor.

In the Apple music case, this means that if the only way to buy music was from iTMS, then people would have no choice but to buy music from Apple. Thus they could also only buy an iPod if they wanted a music player that they could download music to from their computer. However, this is clearly not the case. Indeed people have an enumerable number of choices when it comes to buying music. They can buy new CDs from many differents stores or order them online. They can buy used CDs. They can also buy other digital versions, from vendors like Yahoo, Napster, and Urge. Not to mention that most digital music is downloaded over P2P networks currently. Any of these options allow people to use any portable digital music player they like, not just an iPod.

Re:"Just don't buy it" is a fallacy.

[plasmacutter]

Nice try, but no dice. First off the article is wrong.

no the article is not wrong, you yourself keep vascillating between not buying hbo and not buying the media center, you prove the article's point. Some people will choose not to buy HBO.. others will choose not to buy the media center.. the point is that all this collusion, which should be illegal, results in a division of response by consumers which destroys the consumer's effect on correcting the market.

Now your claim that you cannot buy from another vendor in a non-commodity market is also wrong. It's only true in a real monopoly situation where this in no possible substitute effect on the good.

so tell me who else besides MGM sells stargate SG1? oh i'm not hearing you.. that's right MGM is a complete monopoly.. and they demand DRM.. and guess what, anyone who wants to sell without restrictions the way the customer wants.. well they can go cry in the corner ther is no substitute for that show. so guess what, every electronics manufacturer is forced to sell a DRM product and there is no real choice there.

In the Apple music case, this means that if the only way to buy music was from iTMS, then people would have no choice but to buy music from Apple. Thus they could also only buy an iPod if they wanted a music player that they could download music to from their computer. However, this is clearly not the case.
yes it is, let me debunk these "options" 1 by one.

They can buy new CDs from many differents stores or order them online.
cd's with rootkits and DRM which disable their computers, then present them with only one format to keep them from transferring it to portable music players of their choice, next?

They can buy used CDs. see above.. next?

They can also buy other digital versions, from vendors like Yahoo, Napster, and Urge.
which would then have them locked into microsoft the same way apple's itunes locks people into DRM.. oh yeah and they dont work on mac or linux, next?

Not to mention that most digital music is downloaded over P2P networks currently.
good point but that is considered illegal and therefore "illegitimate", you get sued for excercising that "choice".

so your examples are: go with this company's DRM, or that company's DRM, or risk getting your computer rooted and disabled, or risk being sued into bankruptcy or even prosecuted for going to the one truly interoperable option of illegal downloading.

I'm sorry but those are not real choices, they are all DRM lockins stemming from the same monopoly source which always demands DRM.

Now if you were to repeal the DMCA this would cease to be the case and there would be true choice. As it is now my argument still stands.

Re:"Just don't buy it" is a fallacy.

[aaarrrgggh]

Here, here! Despite being a big apple fan, my wife and I have only bought a handful of "impulse" tracks off of iTunes.

Why? Because the quality is less than ripping from CD, and the DRM is a hassle in the long-run.

As long as non-DRM media with equal or better quality is available at an equal price, it is easy to avoid DRM.

The consumer advocacy groups should be going after the copy-protected CDs and help to define fair use in more general terms, rather than specifically focusing on iTunes.

All DRM is equally evil, even if some of it is more palatable than others.

Re:Confusing the device provider w/content provide

[plasmacutter]

The problem is the music industry does not allow anyone else to sell in a less restricted format.

And cd's are not an example of this, they now contain some of the most virulent DRM ever produced. Since they are not encrypted they now come bundled with software which roots your system and incapacitates it to varying degrees based on which company made it.. and no i'm not just talking about XCP/sony rootkit drm either..

Let me guess you are an american

[SmallFurryCreature]

That's what capitalism is all about.

That is right, Apple, iTunes, RIAA, sueing kids, that is what capitalism is all about. Norway isn't a capilalist country, the is socialist or by american standard, communist. Apple wants to sell in Norway then it got to play by norwegian rules.

Companies are free from not entering the european market. But Apple wants to have their cake and eat it too. Just because americans have a goverment that is so cheaply bought doesn't mean the rest of the world works the same.

Good job Norway. What do you know, a goverment official looking out for the people. It must be a cold day in hell.

Re:Let me guess you are an american

[calstraycat]

Norway isn't a capilalist country, the is socialist or by american standard, communist.

What a patently absurd statement. Norway is neither a socialist nor a communist state.

why not?

[bobs666]

Everyone else is doing it. Why not. Say the biggest Music Publisher buys a mp3 player producer and changes the format to a proprietary format and the only way to get pod music is to use that hardware. Now that everyone that is anyone has the new player other musicians can't get published until they sign with the big monopoly.

Net2phone patented the Internet cant find the /. any more.

Direct Tv and Comcast transmits there own digital formats. You can't store them on your hard drive and play them back until you go to analogue and recompress them.

The list goes on. PS. this is sarcasms.

Re:Confusing the device provider w/content provide

[soft_guy]

You have a lot of options:

Buy CDs (or LPs).
Buy non-DRM MP3s.
Buy from iTMS and play it on your computer.
Buy from iTMS and burn to CD and play anywhere.
Buy from another vendor.
Don't buy music at all..
etc.

Confusing Capitalism with Monopoly:

[plasmacutter]

Every time I see articles objecting to DRM lockin schemes I see some corporate brainwashee come out saying "but just dont buy the DRM, the people making the DRM aren't selling the content"

This is fallacious and misleading.

Look, i'll spell this out for you:

just because the maker of the DRM/Player isnt the sole marketer of the copyrighted work doesn't mean consumers actually have a choice.

Copyright is a government mandaded monopoly, and that means that anyone who wants to market it either gives the Copyright Holder his draconian DRM or can cry in the corner, and the copyright holder can easily dictate minimum restrictions.

This means that if you don't buy into one drm-lockin platform you have to buy into another or not buy at all.. and that's about as much of a choice as "living in a facist dictatorship or not living at all". What will you do, lock yourself away in a cave or live with mennenites?

in the case of CD's which don't have actual encryption, they now include autorun software, etc. which is designed to disable your computer, so there is no argument that CD's are DRM free anymore. Granted people with technical knowledge can circumvent the majority of DRM atm, but the argument being made is for the 85% of the market which does not have that knowledge.. and what happens to the remaining 15% as they make it more robust and crack resistant?

wow, afraid to right click?

[Anonymous Coward]

So...

1) Buy song through iTunes.

2) Right click on song, select "Convert to MP3" or "Convert to AIFF" (depending on your prefs)

3) Take your music anywhere.

How is that restrictive?

Re:wow, afraid to right click?

[ilovepolymorphism]

That's not possible to do with songs bought from the iTMS.

Norway not in EU

[jabuzz]

Er, Norway is not in the EU, so frankly what Bjorn Erik Thon thinks is of no importance whatsoever to what the EU competition officials might or might not do.

Re:Norway not in EU

[fuzzfuzz]

That might be, but the ombudsmen of the two EU countries Sweden and Denmark are following it up (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments /9832/), and they are very interested in what is going on with this in Norway. (Sorry, only have links about the last in danish)

Re:Norway not in EU

[handelaar]

It is, however, a member of the European Economic Area, and therefore both inside the single European market and bound by the trading obligations thereof.

EFTA states (other than Switzerland, which isn't in the EEA) have their behaviour regulated by the ominous-sounding EFTA Surveillance Authority, rather than by the European Commission, on matters related to compliance with Single Market regulations.

XBox Live?

[erroneus]

What about other services like XBox live? Okay, so it's not a media distribution service so maybe that alone disqualifies the argument a little, but it is a service but they require you to have an unmodified XBox to use it... you can't just make your own device.

It's unbelievable...

[Mofaluna]

how these bureacrats still haven't figured out the importance of open standards for a free market. Wasn't the microsoft case clear enough?

Flawed reasoning...

[midifarm]

Apple doesn't require an iPod for iTunes. In order to transfer songs TO an iPod one must use iTunes. The only real arguement here is that in order to purchase songs via ITMS, one needs iTunes. It is, however; not required to use an iPod to listen to the songs. A Game Cube requires the use of software titles written for that machine and the software title needs the GC. If one chooses to participate in a closed hardware system, whether it's the iTunes-iPod, WMA or game consoles, that is the freedom of choice. I don't expect Halo to play on the PS2. This lawsuit should have no legs. The only people this potentially hurts are the retailers in Norway and the Norwegian consumer that wishes to own an iPod and buy songs via ITMS. Needless to say you can always import your CD's to iTunes and use it that way. The music distributors make more money that way!

Re:Confusing the device provider w/content provide

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The only part of the Apple solution that is 'locked' is the iTunes Music Store... That's what capitalism is all about.

We're talking about anti-trust law here. If Apple is wielding monopoly power in the digital music player space (which has yet to be determined by the courts) then advantaging themselves in any way in the separate music jukebox software space is a violation of the law. It doesn't matter that people can download some music from other places and put it on the iPod. It doesn't matter if they can rip the same music from CDs. It is easier for consumers to buy from ITMS, so Apple gains an advantage. Heck, just distributing iTunes with every iPod is illegal (if they are wielding monopoly power).

Now, there are several big caveats here. First, Apple has about 70% of the market, last I looked, which makes their being declared a monopoly pretty iffy. Second, the definition of markets is vague. It would be perfectly reasonable for the courts to rule that DRM'd digital music downloads and non-DRM'd digital music downloads are different markets. Third, For DRM formats, Apple is competing against Microsoft's WMF format. Microsoft has already been convicted of abusing their monopoly to promote that format and as such is not really in a position to bring complaints against Apple. Further, they have not stopped leveraging that monopoly and the courts have not acted to stop them. Apple can easily argue that the EU is unfairly discriminating against it if they apply a harsher penalty against them. Does anyone thing Apple offering a special version of the iPod upon request that costs the same, but does not include iTunes will make any difference in the market?

Basically, Apple is verging on doing something illegal, but MS has clearly already done the same thing and was punished a slap on the wrist. Now I'm all for forcing Apple to open their DRM or for making DRM illegal entirely, but they need to apply the same standard to MS as well.

Re:Confusing the device provider w/content provide

[stubear]

This isn't capitalism, this is "the Wal-Mart Effect". Apple has established itself as the gatekeeper of sorts for digital music. The Apple/iPod/iTunes brands are as synonymous with portable music players and online music stores as Wal-Mart is with consumer goods super stores. As with Wal-Mart, Apple is in the position of making market decisions for others, limiting choices for the consumer, by keeping their player from recognizing other file formats and selling only fairplay encoded AAC files through iTunes (a format that no other digital music player can recognize unlike WMA which Microsoft licenses to numerous companies). Without this lock-in, Apple would not have the commanding lead in portable music players they have today and this is why they won't open the file format or license it to others.

Somehow I don't think that's the issue.

[Kadin2048]

So if Apple were to agree to license out FairPlay to anyone willing to pay a "fair market value" for it, where the value of the license was equal to the number of FairPlay-compatible players the licensee planned on selling, times Apple's profit margin on an iPod, everyone would be happy? Because I'm pretty sure Apple would be okay with that. Say $75 USD a unit?

Apple is a company which exists to make money for its shareholders. I can guarantee you that they would license the FairPlay scheme to anyone who was willing to pay Apple what it's worth. Unfortunately, the problem here is that nobody -- least of all SanDisk and Creative -- can afford that.

Re:Somehow I don't think that's the issue.

[MustardMan]

Your definition of "fair market value" seems to be a lot different from normal licensing schemes.

And second, you've assumed that Apple always does exactly what will make them the most money - it's simply not true.

And lastly, who's to say Apple would make money by licensing fairplay? What if itunes went down the crapper because someone was able to sell fairplay-encoded music in an interface that was better than itunes? What if third party players exploded in popularity, because people could easily transfer all their already-purchased music to those players, and ipod popularity dwindled?

Apple's DRM is about a lot more than just protecting the music studios - it's about vendor lock-in. To be able to deny that, you have to be drinking some serious Kool-Aid

Re:Somehow I don't think that's the issue.

[mkiwi]

And lastly, who's to say Apple would make money by licensing fairplay? What if itunes went down the crapper because someone was able to sell fairplay-encoded music in an interface that was better than itunes? What if third party players exploded in popularity, because people could easily transfer all their already-purchased music to those players, and ipod popularity dwindled?

And lastly, who's to say Apple won't make money by licensing fairplay? What if itunes becomes even more popular because competitors continue to make crappy interfaces as they have been doing since the dawn of the digital music age? What if apple developed an iPod that was also a PDA and cellphone- Apple could release iSync for Windows, and everyone would be able to sync all their current contacts, calenders, and to do's with the new ipod.

My point is that we don't live in the magical world of "if's" You can speculate all you want on the future, but it will never get you anywhere. Action is required for anything to happen.

As to the rest of the post, that was pretty on-target.

Re:Somehow I don't think that's the issue.

[MustardMan]

We don't live in a world of "if's", but the decision-makers at apple do. The GP insisted Apple was willing to license fairplay at a "fair" price, even though all evidence has shown the opposite, and I was trying to give an example of a scenario that might run through the heads of the Apple execs. Considering the miserable failure of the attempt to license Mac OS, I'd say there's a pretty good chance that some people at Apple are thinking the same way.

Re:Somehow I don't think that's the issue.

[smoker2]

What if itunes went down the crapper because someone was able to sell fairplay-encoded music in an interface that was better than itunes? What if third party players exploded in popularity, because people could easily transfer all their already-purchased music to those players, and ipod popularity dwindled?

*Me does double take*

Better than itunes
ipod popularity dwindles

Hang on !
I thought that Apples popularity in this market was due to them having the best music store _and_ the best player.

If that were true, then they would lose nothing by licencing fairplay. Your comments suggest that maybe they _have_ to lock consumers into their device and software, or risk losing customers to the superior competition.

M$ / Apple / Sony - what's the difference - vendor lock-in takes precedence.

I guess you'll have to retake Apple fanboyz 101 !

Ombudsman in reality a Microsoft Shill

[Been on TV]

We understand what the Norwegian Ombudsman and his department is saying, but in reality his is acting as a Microsoft shill. His department has never lifted a finger to make sure Microsoft DRM protected material is available to non-Microsoft customers in Norway.

Best example of this is the government, (mandatory) license financed "Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation" (public TV and radio) that publish all their video content in Microsoft DRM protected format. The Ombudsman has done nothing to ensure that this material truely is available to the public; only to Microsoft customers. There are other public institutions in Norway as well that publish Microsoft DRM protected content only.

If the ombudsman is eager to enforce Norwegian legislation in this area, he should first make sure the very government institutions and structure his department is a part of is in compliance with the law, before starting to go after one private company.

Re:Ombudsman in reality a Microsoft Shill

[mmeister]

In fact, if you're a Mac user, you are S.O.L. in viewing or listening to any Microsoft DRM protected material.

Microsoft wants to give you the choice --

1) use their OS only.

Yep -- you're choice!

No, you don't, and few people do.

[Kadin2048]

...without the hassle of ripping a CD...

The only people unwilling to go through the "hassle" of ripping from a CD and who instead buy tracks at $0.99/song are people who have so much money to burn, they probably don't even know SanDisk or Creative exist, or that there are other MP3 players out there besides the iPod.

Seriously -- get a clue. The vast majority of songs on the vast majority of iPods in the world have been ripped from CDs (or downloaded illegally). The iTMS is a sideline, albeit a profitable one, but it's one that Apple would happily sacrifice in a particular market if the alternative in any way cut into their iPod hardware sales.

I don't know anyone who buys an iPod and then loads it up with music from the iTMS, or who bought an iPod because of iTMS. Who can afford to? By the time you filled that iPod up, it would be worth as much as a fairly decent, brand-new car. No, most people rip from CD, and it's dead easy to do. Frankly, sticking the CD in the drive and clicking on Import is easier, out of the box, than getting stuff from the iTMS is. (No signing up for an account, no entering your credit-card number, no high-speed internet required for good experience, etc.)

Nobody HAS to buy anything from iTMS. I'm sure there are lots and lots of people out there who can testify to the fact that they own iPods and have never bought anything from the iTMS. Personally, the only stuff I've bought was a few Audible books, and the free songs I've gotten from Pepsi caps. Even the people who download from the iTMS regularly, I'd wager, have far more songs on their computers from other sources than they do from the iTMS.

In short, you're vastly exaggerating the difficulty of ripping music from CD, and overstating the importance of the iTMS. If anything, the number of people out there with iPods is what will keep record companies from ever selling many un-rippable CDs, since so many people buy CDs and the first thing they do is stick them in their computers and rip them to their iPod.

If Apple offered a Napster-like music subscription ("all you can eat") service through the iTMS, then I would start to see your point of view: then you'd have a digital download service that was a practical source from which to fill up a HD-based music player. But at 99 cents a song, and much higher in some places in Europe, the iTMS certainly isn't it.

Re:No, you don't, and few people do.

[MustardMan]

Seriously -- get a clue. The vast majority of songs on the vast majority of iPods in the world have been ripped from CDs (or downloaded illegally). The iTMS is a sideline, albeit a profitable one, but it's one that Apple would happily sacrifice in a particular market if the alternative in any way cut into their iPod hardware sales.

One billion songs is a sideline?

http://www.apple.com/itunes/1billion/

The point isn't to fill an ipod up with music from itunes. The point is the many many people out there who get some free itunes songs in a coke bottle, set up an account to download them, then say "oh it's only a buck" when that hot new Lil Jon song comes out. Keep that up for a year, and suddenly it's become a royal pain in the ass to buy anything other than an ipod, even if a good chunk of your music isn't from the ITMS.

That's called vendor lock-in.

Re:No, you don't, and few people do.

[Fred_A]

I too don't understand what the "hassle" is...

Ripping a CD is just starting one of the many CD ripping utilities, clicking once (possibly twice depending on the utility), waiting for the disk to pop out and archiving it. That's what I do whenever I buy a new CD. Then I synced my ~/Media/sound/MP3 tree with my iRiver H320 (now lost —whine— waiting for a Creative replacement) every now and then.

Once every 3 months, I have to enter the track info myself because they don't seem to be on the freedb (or because I don't like the way they have been entered). Ok, that's sort of a minor hassle.

Maybe in Windows it's really horribly complicated but somehow I doubt it...

Re:No, you don't, and few people do.

[Kadin2048]

It's not any more complicated in Windows; you put the CD into the drive, open up iTunes, click Import. It defaults to 128 kbit AAC, but you can change it to MP3 by going into the Preferences -- I think that requires maybe four clicks at most, although I don't have it in front of me to test.

iTunes became popular both on the Mac and the PC even before the iPod or the iTMS because it made ripping stuff from CD and organizing it dead easy. I know a lot of people (mostly older / nontechnical folks) who never really understood the whole MP3 thing when it was Musicmatch Jukebox or WinAmp, but understood iTunes enough to rip their CD collection and burn mix CDs. (That was the original mantra of iTunes: "Rip, Mix, Burn.")

Now other programs have matched or arguably surpassed iTunes in ease-of-use, but it's certainly not a hassle to rip from a CD.

How is the phone not relevant?

[SuperKendall]

It seems to me the Motorola phone is the exception that proves my point. Apple is will to work with some device makers to allow playing on iTunes content outside of an iPod. They are just very picky who they allow to do so.

Mandatory warnings might be a good idea

[mpcooke3]

Something like this for ipods:

"Warning: This player supports Digital Restrictions that may prevent you from exercising any right you have to transfer or backup your music"

A similar warning could be put on ITMS checkout for the songs themselves.

What's the dispute?

[WhiteWolf666]

I don't understand.

1. You don't have to buy an iPod. You can buy any music player you want; and there are plenty of vendors. Furthermore, you can use any of your music players with Windows or OS X.
2. You don't have to buy songs from iTunes. You can use any online service you want; and there are plenty of vendors. Unlike the OS scene, lower marketshare for Microsoft's online music store, or Real's online music store does != less content. Napster has 1.5 million pay-for songs on it. MSN music has millions, as does Rhapsody. Nobodies forcing you to use iTunes.
3. iTunes *will* rip MP3 or AAC without an iPod, on both Windows and OS X. iTunes *will* copy MP3s or AACs to _any_ USB block device-style MP3 player, without you having to own an iPod. However you purchase non-DRM MP3s or AACs, you can manage them with iTunes, and copy them to _any_ USB block style device; including iPods.
4. The iPod can be access without using iTunes. There's plenty of Linux tools, and a fair number of OS X and Windows tools. MP3s and/or AACs can be copied to your iPod.

The ONLY limitation on the iPod/iTunes combination is AACs purchased on iTunes protected by FairPlay. Now, if iTunes had exclusive marketing agreements with the RIAA regarding content, or if the iTunes music store was the only online music store out there, or if no one made MP3 players but Apple; then there would be an anti-trust argument. As it is, the consumer *is not hurt* in *any* way by iTunes/iPod. You can buy a Samsung MP3 player, and play the _same_ exact music from the MSN Music store as you would have purchased from iTunes. Better yet, if you purchased non-DRMd music, you could managed it via iTunes and play it on your Samsung MP3 player.

The iPod/iTunes combination is less of an anti-trust problem than Windows/Windows software, or Xbox360/Xbox games, or Blu-ray/BD-ROMS, and HD-DVD/HD-DVD disks. Out of all of these product "tie-ins", the online music market is the *only* one where you can purchase the same _exact_ content from multiple providers. It's actually a competitive landscape.

Context is very important for antitrust. It's not about principle; in no way does Apple DRM limit market availability for RIAA music, unless the RIAA decides to exclusively license Apple, which they _have not done_. Now, I do believe that DRM is bad, but antitrust legislation is not the correct way to resolve it.

Any argument you can come up with regarding iPod/iTunes applies 100 fold to Windows/Windows Media/Software/Music. Win32-only, or WMV only is a far bigger problem in terms of competition, and you can easily see that by comparing the online libraries of OS X content versus Win32 content.

That all being said, product-tie-ins is one of the weakest forms of monopoly abuse. I suspect that all this noise regarding iTunes/iPod is being generated by Microsoft funding. Nothing else really makes sense. For god sakes, Apple has even started to license FairPlay, in terms of usage on Motorola's phones; and don't forget that Apple is NOT vertically integrated with content providers (RIAA).

I'm all in favor of generalized legislation protecting the consumers right to reverse engineer DRM for us on . Should I be able to try and crack FairPlay in order to play DRMd AACs on my Rio Karma? Sure. It's retarded that reverse engineering content you've paid for for usage on a hardware you own is illegal. But legally busting Apple without going after Microsoft/Sony/Real/AACS/CSS/HDMI ? What fucking sense does that make?

iTMS DRM only symptom...

[idsofmarch]

But should Apple be responsible for what the CD companies are doing with DRM? Is it Apple's responsibility to open up their format when others can remain closed? This is a potentially serious problem, but Apple has become the whipping boy for the problems with DRM and proprietary formats, Sony, Microsoft and others also engage in similar schemes and any attempt to fix the problem has to keep that in mind.

The problem is not Apple, the iTMS/iPod-lock in is merely a symptom.

Re:iTMS DRM only symptom...

[plasmacutter]

The problem is not Apple, the iTMS/iPod-lock in is merely a symptom.

I never said apple was.. i was pointing out that this argument that it's a free market is a fallacy..

I agree with everything you said, basically the implicit solution I left out was to repeal the DMCA

uh, welcome to DRM!

[marimbaman]

This is stupid. DRM and free competition are fundamentally incompatible.

First they want DRM, now they whine that it's not *their* DRM? Tough luck.

Dual format players

[grahamsz]

If apple licensed fairplay to everyone, then someone like Samsung would produce a player that plays Windows Media and iTunes music.

I'd buy a player that gave me that flexibility, and then Apple and Real/Yehoo/Microsoft would end up in a bidding war which would be bad for everyone (except of course the consumer)

Product tying

[Anonymous Coward]

If Apple can require an iPod for songs via iTunes, then music, book and film companies might restrict their products to specific players too

Film companies already do. Unless you happen to know of a DVD-player on the shelves at your local electronics store, which doesn't have a license from DVDCCA?

Re:Confusing the device provider w/content provide

[Sierran]

I'm unsure of what exactly it means to be advantaging themselves in the 'music jukebox software' space. Their music jukebox software is free. The question at hand is whether their owning the iPod and using that to encourage users to utilize a particular service for content (iTMS) is illegal/wrong. Let me state that if Apple owned any of the content in question, and it was hence impossible to utilize the content in any other format (i.e. un-DRMed), then that's a problem. Here's the thing, though - the stuff they're selling through the iTMS (music, video) is, by being defined as intellectual property, a 'monopoly.' It's owned by the IP rights holder, and can always at that rightsholder's whim be restricted to a single source. Apple is making it available through a particular channel, which the iPod makes it easy to use.

All of the anti-trust arguments rest on Apple's market share. In turn, in order for the iTMS to be relevant, it seems to me that you'd have to prove the availability of iTMS on the iPod and NOT on other players to be a factor in the purchasing decision of the iPod. However, that's backwards from reality. The iPod was a massive hit before iTMS was doing well, and iTMS is an effort to capitalize on a much bigger product - the sale of iPOD hardware. At that point, Apple had a better product than the competition, and is attempting to capitalize on that fact. They are not preventing anyone from selling other mp3/aac players. They're not preventing anyone from selling their content through iTMS. They're not preventing anyone from setting up competing digital distribution links - market choice, however, may make it difficult, and entities may be petitioning for relief from that. I say this because *unless* they have clauses in their distribution contracts with content providers saying that 'unless the iTMS is the ONLY digital distribution source you use, you can't distribute through iTMS' they're not preventing the sale of music through other digital download services. (CAVEAT: THEY MAY HAVE THESE CLAUSES, I DON'T KNOW! If they do, then I acknowledge a problem!) Rather, they're using their market position to encourage people to buy music through iTMS, because it's easier than ripping CDs. Making things easier is not monopolistic; making *other* things *harder* deliberately is. The former is innovation. The latter is anticompetitive.

Leveraging a market position to sell more of something is not illegal. Leveraging it to restrict *other* people selling things may indeed be illegal. However, given that the iPod (and iTunes) will accept non-DRMed tracks from non-Apple sources (online and off), I argue that they're not preventing anything - they're just refusing to do R&D work to make it easy for other people to sell stuff in their patch. I really don't have a problem with that.

And to those that note that Norway isn't capitalist - fair enough. Apple, however, certainly is. So my response: if Norway isn't capitalist, it sure should stop spending 'money' buying Apple's products in a 'market' and then using domestic law to tell Apple how to design those products to conform to its 'noncapitalist' system.

a different view

[Original Replica]

Apple wants you to use their player to play stuff from their online store. OK. Nintendo wants you to use their machine to play their games, yet no one thinks anything of it. Some gaming consoles even have exclusive content, while I don't know of any music that is available only from iTunes. Don't like it? take your $$$ elsewhere

Re:a different view

[Firehed]

Indeed. Until the internet is completely ubiquitous and CDs are dead as a result, this just won't happen. Some games are even worse, by offering a game on all three major platforms, but restricting some desirably bit of content to each console (ex. some characters are only playable on the PS2, some others on the GC, and some others on the Xbox) - this would be akin to offering all but one track of an album on the CD, and all but one on the download (full album only) - so you need to buy eight of the songs twice to get all the content. If we're lucky, the content industry might even realize at some point that CD sales are dropping in favor of download services, and lower the disc cost accordingly. Yeah, I know, fat chance. But if they try to tighten their stranglehold any more than they have already, there'll be a consumer outcry.

Of course, there are some tracks that are only available for legal download on iTunes, but it's just as easy to buy the CD and just rip the thing. I dunno about other download services' front-end software, but I know iTunes makes it one-click simple. I think a couple artists have prereleased some stuff on iTunes, so arguably that is some exclusive (and thus monopolized) content. But if you think about it, you'll only be able to buy Beatles music through Apple Records (and eventually perhaps through an AR-licensed contract through iTunes/other), thus they have a monopoly over that content. So in reality, Apple (comp) is never going to have a true monopoly over music or downloads, at least until artists start their recording and licensing directly through them.

Re:Confusing the device provider w/content provide

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'm unsure of what exactly it means to be advantaging themselves in the 'music jukebox software' space. Their music jukebox software is free.

Are the developers who work on it paid? If so, then it is not free, it is "bundled." That is to say, you pay the cost of it when you buy other products. This is fine and people use this technique all the time, right up until you bundle it with something you have a monopoly on and for which there is an existing, competitive market.

The question at hand is whether their owning the iPod and using that to encourage users to utilize a particular service for content (iTMS) is illegal/wrong.

Bundling is the first form of tying used as an example in US law, when discussing illegal actions for a monopoly. EU law treats it just the same way. MS was convicted of giving their media player away for free with Windows. How is Apple giving their iTunes program away with iPods and different? (assuming Apple is ruled to have a monopoly)?

Apple makes money selling/licensing songs. That is pretty clearly a market. Lots of other people also sell song downloads. If Apple gains an advantage due to an existing monopoly, they are breaking the law.

All of the anti-trust arguments rest on Apple's market share. In turn, in order for the iTMS to be relevant, it seems to me that you'd have to prove the availability of iTMS on the iPod and NOT on other players to be a factor in the purchasing decision of the iPod.

No. No. No. Antitrust law isn't about stopping a monopoly from maintaining that monopoly. It is about stopping them from leveraging that monopoly into more monopolies and thereby bypassing the competitive marketplace. Assuming Apple has a monopoly with the iPod and they tie the iPod to ITMS (which they do), then Apple gains an advantage. Suppose ITMS and the Napster service are both about the same quality. In a free market, customers would decide which is better and everyone would win as they struggle against one another to make better services and lower prices. Because Apple has a monopoly on iPods and because ITMS is tied to the iPod, it gains an advantage. This is not because it is better, just because Apple has tied it to the iPod and won't let Napster do the same. So maybe Napster loses in the market instead of wins. An inferior product has gained market share. Customers end up using that inferior product. The market has failed.

Fast forward five years. Apple has a monopoly on both music players and music downloads. They tie each to another new product and take over two more markets, despite not innovating a better product in that market. This can continue ad infinitum until only a few monopolies dominate all markets. That is why it is illegal.

The iPod was a massive hit before iTMS was doing well, and iTMS is an effort to capitalize on a much bigger product - the sale of iPOD hardware.

And that is fine, right up until Apple has a monopoly on that first product... then it becomes illegal for them to capitalize upon it to take over new markets.

Rather, they're using their market position to encourage people to buy music through iTMS, because it's easier than ripping CDs. Making things easier is not monopolistic; making *other* things *harder* deliberately is. The former is innovation. The latter is anticompetitive.

You don't seem to understand antitrust law at all, either the purpose or the laws themselves. Using a monopoly market position to encourage people to buy anything in another market is illegal, because it stifles innovation in the other market. Why should Apple make a better music service if they can more easily gain market share by leveraging the iPod and bundling it with their monopoly? You definition of monopolistic is way off. Monopolistic does not mean "bad" it means controlling an entire market.

Leveraging a market position to sell more of something is not illegal.

Leveraging a monopoly market position to sell more of something in anot

case closed

[Pliep]

From TFA: "Johansen noted that many other firms produced portable music players, and music purchased via iTunes could be bought on CDs or other Web sites."

The vinyl lock in

[littleghoti]

By your logic, the fact that I bought stuff on vinyl and cassette is also a lock-in, although these formats could be played by anyone. Because now I have lots of music in these formats and it would be a "royal pain in the ass" to convert them to another format. I really can't see how that is different to buying stuff from itunes. The best format for music changes, and it would be foolish to think in fifty years that MP3, AAC or CD will still be the most used way of storing the musical bits. Whatever format you use, it is going to be a hassle to convert to any future format if you have a large quantity of music.

EU is good/EU is evil!

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU was praised on this site when they went after Microsoft, but ridiculed because they are going after Apple. The hypocrisy of Apple fanboys is un-fucking-believable!

Re:Confusing the device provider w/content provide

[Ash-Fox]

The problem is the music industry does not allow anyone else to sell in a less restricted format.

Oh really?

Does this mean it's a violation of antitrust...

[argent]

Not only isn't Apple a publisher, but if it's against antitrust for Apple to distribute entertainment media that only works with one brand of music player because publishers might start doing that, it's against antitrust for ANY software company to write software that ony runs under Windows.

Bungie, Squaresoft, Nintendo... ? Time to release Super Mario Kart for XBox...?

DVDs?

[C0R1D4N]

Don't DVD distributors already do this with regional encoding?