Slashdot Mirror
EU Countries Call Out iTunes DRM
seriouslywtf writes "Europe is upping the pressure on Apple to open up its restrictive DRM that ties iTunes to the iPod. Norway ruled last year that the iPod-iTunes tie-in was unreasonable and gave Apple a deadline to make a change to its policies, but was unsatisfied with the response they got. Now France and Germany have joined forces with Norway, making it a lot harder for Apple to just walk away from those markets. From the article: 'France's consumer lobby group, UFC-Que Choisir, and Germany's Verbraucherzentrale are now part of the European effort to push Apple into an open DRM system, with more countries considering joining the group. However, the company has been under some fire over the last year due to those restrictions, first with France and then Denmark looking to open up restrictive DRM schemes (including, but not limited to iTunes) ... Norwegian consumer groups were unimpressed by Apple's response. Norway has now given Apple a new deadline of September of this year to change its policies, and the pressure on Apple will likely grow in the months leading up to the deadline.'"
Apple, I'll still choose to buy music from you because you continue to offer the most seemless system for music management. Just don't force me to do it. You made a good system, just trust in it.
Is this a great country, or what?
Sigh.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Surely it is the job of the RIAA/Record labels to define an open DRM standard. After all they are the ones who demand DRM. Apple did not demand DRM on their own. Of course DRM suits Apple to tie users lightly into the iPod.
In any case, no user is actually tied - just burn a playlist on to a CD and copy the MP3's to any device.
Should Wallmart be forced to allow K-Mart to sell goods via the Wallmart checkout systems?
DRM, by definition, causes vendor lock-in. If DRM schemes were licensed under a fair and non-discriminatory policy then they would not work, because anyone who wanted to get around them would be able to get the specification. You could even legally create an open source application which did all of the rights checking inside #ifdefs so if someone defined the IGNORE_DRM symbol then they could compile a version that decrypted the DRM'd content but didn't apply any restrictions. This wouldn't even be illegal, since they would be distributing the version that respected the DRM and end users would be applying the modification.
The correct solution, then, is not for lawmakers to go after Apple, but for them to go after DRM in general. Except on books, where it makes perfect sense.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I don't understand the logic behind this. This sounds akin to demanding from Sony that Playstation 3 discs run on all other gaming systems. This isn't an issue of vendor lock in, as it was with Microsoft making it difficult for home users to use anything but Internet Explorer with Windows. If European consumers don't want to deal with the DRM on the iTunes store, then they should not purchase songs from there, it's as simple as that. I can see no reason why Apple should be under some kind of obligation to allow a product that people are well aware only plays on the iPod to play on other MP3 players. Does someone care to enlighten me as to why this makes any logical sense whatsoever?
-Alex
Or realize it but don't care. Last time I brought this up I got blasted by Slashdot because people seem to think that just because I don't want golden, infinite access to every track purchased since I was 5 years old that that somehow means I have horrible taste in music. Slashdot group thing seems to completely neglect the fact that a dollar for a track is worth it (to me) to get a good amount of use in a very convenient manner (where convenient means: purchase, sync, correct meta-data, no virus, searching, ethical dilemas,etc...) ...but if tomorrow I lose the song, I'm not going to miss out considerably. If I really like and want to keep something- I'd just go buy the whole CD. Or... just get over it. That 99cents is the price I pay for "easy"
Surely you jest. iTunes provides a vastly superior experience to the user: their music catalog is huge, the tools they provide to search for tunes and sample tunes is so much easier to use, their purchasing model is friendlier, and the sound quality is top notch. A magazine I subscribe to included in this month's issue a free 35 song sample from eMusic.com. I investigated it and the service was horrible in every way. Music catalog sucked. Finding songs in their catalog sucked. The sound quality of samples sucked. Their purchasing options were limited to three subcription models. Even with free music samples I could not find any compelling reason to use their service. If a company wants to compete successfully against an iTunes, they better offer an advantage somewhere.
I hope you are sarcastic...
That easily takes 15 minutes per cd (burning and ripping), and results in quality loss (as 128kbit AAC is good enough, but re-ripping to another format is a bit much).
The time aspect alone makes this route prohibitive...
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Without getting into the "correctness" of the EU's position ("just don't buy it" speaks loudly to me) I fail to see the issue here.
Instead of forcing Apple/et al to open up their standards, simply make it legal to break that very DRM if it isn't open. You will very quickly see applications for sale to do it (come out from the shadows) and the Apples of the world will be motivated to change to an open standard.
If you can't be good, be good at it!
1. Norway is not part of the EU. 2. I cant see how actually an EU country is doing something here.. only organizations that work in this countries.... Conclusion: Catchy but wrong title
I think it's akin to saying: "What if I buy a 10mm screw but I want to use it in a 5mm hole?" At some point, consumers stop being victims and start becoming whiney assholes.
Apple has one of least troublesome DRMs, and there's not really a tie-in, since you can put any mp3 file in the iPod, and use a program like winAmp to do so. Why don't they bother MS, Sony or EMI that has much more draconian DRM systems. I mean, as long as these are legitimate and genuine complaints, and just suing the company they would profit the most, considering how much Apple has of the mp3 player market.
That's not a good analogy at all.
There is a good reason why screws are and drill bits are available in different sizes. Some jobs warrant larger screws (shelves that carry more weight, etc.)
Typically the user will decide the size required and drill a hole and buy a screw to match. The user _wants_ differing sizes sometimes.
Now, what is the reason I would _want_ to pay for some music that only works on a subset of playback machines? Or want to pay for a music player that didn't play any of my existing collection?
The people making screws in different sizes are not deliberately limiting what the user can do with them. It's the nature of them that creates a limit. Conversely, the nature of digital data is that it can easily be copied to other devices. It takes interference from the manufacturer to create artificial limitations. This is where the problems lies.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
I fully expect to get modded into oblivian for this, however;
There are many arguements below that make the case that you have the RIGHT to buy music without restriction and that the music companies MUST sell it that way. My questions is, why? They own the rights to the product, they have the right to dictate how they want to sell it. The only real right you have is to NOT buy it.
If you want the laws changed to that you have the explicit RIGHT to platform shift, get the law changed. Like it or not, according to the DCMA, there are cases where you don't have that right.
If you want music that is unencumbered by DRM, buy it from somewhere that sells it that way. Buy CDs that don't have copy protection, if you stumble on one that does, return it as defective.
You have never been to Europe, right? Perhaps you watch a lot of Fox News?
Of course I have been to Europe. And I have never actually watched Fox News except for YouTube clips. But of course, in your mind everyone who disagrees with the utter unquestionable moral superiority and infailability of lily white European socialism must be some stereotypical redneck of your imagination.
Europe is NOT full of monopolies because the EU actively fights against them (example: Microsoft) and all other kinds of trade barriers within the EU.
Or rather, Europe fights against foreign monopolies (example: Microsoft). But that isn't progressive, every place is keen to punish foreign competition in order to give advantage to its own companies. But I don't see it fighting against France Telecom, or Lufthansa, or huge media conglomerates like Vivendi. Look at the downright nasty things Airbus has done to force countries into purchasing Airbus planes (like threatening to vote against full E.U. membership to countries who don't purchase Airbus planes... or making disaster relief funds for tsunami stricken countries contingent on purchasing Airbus planes). The E.U. can be outright predatory when it comes to promoting its own interests.
Of course the E.U. cracked down on Microsoft. They are a visible U.S. company, Europe would like a big piece of that cash pie, and so it promotes E.U. self-interest while scoring cheap points on the anti-American front. Protecting the consumers has nothing to do with it.
The BBC and many other national public broadcasters are NOT monopolies because there is plenty of competition!
And Microsoft isn't really a monopoly either. You can choose MacOS, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc., etc.. Microsoft was accused of competing "unfairly". Well, if forcing all people who own a TV to pay a licensing fee for a television station they may or may not choose to watch is not unfair competition, I don't know what is. Could you imagine if every computer was forced to purchase a Microsoft license, regardless if you decide to run Microsoft products or not? It would be considered scandalous!
This happens to be the case in Norway as well - for reasons of protecting our language from the massive English influence on the commercial TV-stations.
Or rather, behavior that is considered right-wing xenophobia in North America is considered perfectly reasonable in Norway (at least, that is the impression I gather from your statement). If someone would be proposing the same sorts of "language protection" in the U.S., they would be considered more along the lines of David Duke or Jean-Marie Le Pen.
And as far as Norway is concerned this is about Norwegian consumer protection laws that far better than anything the US has ever seen - they actually protect the consumer! Think democractic socialism where consumers actually have rights.
U.S. consumer protection laws don't have any bearing on the legitimacy of European consumer protection laws. In both places, the consumer protection laws seem to be designed around giving the power-elites more power - With the power elites in Europe being the government autocrat variety, and the power elites in the U.S. being the big business variety. In both places I am highly skeptical of them actually protecting the consumer.
The only thing that protects the consumer are consumers. When the government "protects" the consumer, it turns into a rent seeking scheme where companies bribe politicians in order to avoid government crackdown, and those who remain honest and don't bribe politicians are the ones most likely to suffer. If the E.U. was really concerned about protecting its citizens, it would ban DRM outright - That would be a completely political/national/economicly neutral and universal way to make sure the customer would be protected from lock-in.
Norway is a great friend of the US - and loves America! The population has nothing but great respect for the US.
Norway isn't a frien