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.'"
Without the hardware tie in there's realy no incentive for Apple to keep running iTunes. Its the iPod & iTv sales that make them money.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I'm as anti-DRM as the next communist terrorist hippie, but where do the priorities begin here? Why not make the effort to follow through on removing Microsoft's stranglehold on "standards" to open up before they make their way to Apple? Which is more important -- the computers we use everyday, or the music we listen to on them?
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?
But what if I want to buy music on iTMS and play that music on my Zune?
I mean, I guess that's the complaint. It doesn't seem to awful to me, but then again I wouldn't mind if Apple dropped DRM completely.
This is a coordinated action by the Finnish and Norwegian consumer ombudsmen and German and French consumer watchdog organizations. At least that's what the strange gobbledygook here maintains.
"You're being too successful. Please stop."
:-)
Look, I loathe DRM as much as the next guy, but Apple's not using their market dominance to smack around, say, Microsoft from making a run at them. Microsoft is doing a FINE job all by themselves at lousing up their attempts to dethrone Apple.
Ergo, this is just market forces at work. The market has spoken, and people prefer the iPod and iTunes to the competition. Until there's good evidence that iTunes prevents someone from, say, playing a WMA file on Windows or the like, Apple's in the clear on this. Let them have their success, and stop monkeying with the system.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
No DRM system is open, so it's silly to ask for "open DRM". Apple is the wrong target; the right target for this sort of action is the record companies which refuse to sell music that isn't deliberately stripped of interoperability.
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
...add iPod and iTunes to Bill of Rights....or even better ..make it a Fundamental Right!!
Then the world will be divide in two - those who have iPods and those who don't.
Eclipse PDE and Me
...are now part of the European effort to push Apple into an open DRM system...
I really don't see the point for end users. Music from iTunes store can still be restricted by "Open DRM" to only run on iPod. Music from other providers can have confusing and different restrictions on number of PCs, number/type of devices and expiration time. The only "Open DRM" is an unencrypted MP3 or AAC, but that is already available on iPod.
Not iTunes the program, iTunes the music service.
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
If you don't like iTunes and Apple's DRM scheme, don't buy from the Apple music store.
I like my iPod. I own an iPod.
I don't like the iTunes music store. I'd quite like to try out some of these subscription services, ignoring the DRM aspect (which I'm addressing now) I quite like the idea of paying "rent" to have access to a huge music library. And if someone did the same for films I'd like that too, I'd happily pay a fairly big monthly fee to the music and movie people to get unlimited digital viewing of whatever they produce.
What these countries are trying to do is let you use any music player with any music store, and vice versa, and hopefully get rid of the extra DRM problems created by all of this in the mean time. And it doesn't seem to be exclusive to iTunes, it applies to everyone. I'm certainly hoping for these kind of changes, more choice is nver a bad thing.
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
You can't play songs purchased on itunes music store on your Zune. That means that if you ever want to move away from an iTunes+iPod to iTunes+Zune, you're unable to.
...surely the seeds of our destruction lay garnished in our technological 'advancements'
They didn't listen on Caprica, either. Look where that got 'em.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Hopefully this will be applied across the board. Does the Zune also infringe upon such laws. If there is going to be DRM, I am at least happy with the way iTunes handles it, and I typically avoid it by purchasing CDs, discarding the empty shell afterwards.
I burn at 128, a lower resolution copy, which is within fair use for those who wish to call me a thief...
If you buy music or video from iTMS, you are forced to keep an iPod as a AV player since no other device can handle the DRM on iTMS files. You say, "Don't buy an iPod and don't buy iTMS stuff then." The problem is that later on, you do not have a choice. If someone wants to change their mind and get an iRiver or a Creative or...etc. as their next device then the bought media will be unreasonably difficult (if you wanted to transfer video, I figure you'll have to use screen capture software, and let it run for the duration of each show you want to copy; having to repetitiously burn CDs, rip them, and write new tags isn't fun either) to transfer to your new player. It's the "place/format shifting" part of Fair Use.
I own an iPod.
I own music that I bought from iTunes.
If I wanted to buy a Zune (Oi - stop sniggering at the back) I'd lose all that music, so if I want to keep on playing it, I need to add the cost of re-purchase to my Zune - this keeps people buying iPods, which keeps them buying iTunes DRM etc.
I paid for that music, it's mine - why is it wrong to want to play that on my next portable music player? Why would I not want to but the best hardware next time, rather than the latest iPod?
The Swedish Consumer Agency (KO) has a "Microsoft Only" IT strategy.
Call the other asshats and ask them to publish their own IT strategy.
Sigh.
- - -
kvp.com
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
In particular, I don't think you've ever actually used iTunes - either the store or the player. Or an iPod for that matter.
If you had, you'd know that Apple isn't forcing anyone to buy music from iTMS. Me, I've been using iTunes since the beginning of this century and I've somehow managed to never buy any music from iTMS.
Of course, I've had Apple goons break my legs a couple times, but they can pry the MP3's out of my cold, dead hands. (And they're trying. I've experienced a couple drive-by shootings in the past couple months.)
You missed: 4) Re-tag music. And yes, if you have a library of even a thousand songs, average length 3 minutes apiece, assuming 1MB/min that's roughly 5 discs of burning time. If you have a medium-speed burner, that's going to take you 30 minutes. Say relabeling each song takes 10 seconds. That's another 10,000 seconds = about 3 hours. So because of "lock in" I'd have to spend three hours of my life (that could have been spent somewhere else) converting my library in order to use it on another device when Fair Use would dictate that I have the right to place/format shift the media that I paid for, the right that is blocked by making the breaking of DRM illegal.
If they had been serious about controlling Microsoft they would have gone after the unholy PC maker/Microsoft alliance. But no, that would probably have affected more European companies. So, we have Windows XP N. I for one find it hilarious that pretty much the same demographic that whines about government involvement in their lives were more than happy to see Microsoft get the shaft. Whatever makes you tick, I guess.
These things have a root in protectionism, as always. Europeans just love to dilute markets enough through regulation that consumers end up with less and no one makes any money. The idea that people would go to another player/music service out of choice because they have realized that DRM is bad for them is completely foreign to our pseudosocialist European friends. Competition is good only as long as the they have control over it.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
here here! Mod parent up. I don't understand the problem. Company B invents a widget that people like to purchase. You don't have to buy the widget if you don't want to...
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"
I know, I know, we're not talking about the largest market in the world with GDP way over the US. We're talkin' 'bout damned hippies.
(joke)
did the EU also contact MS about the Zune marketplace?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The government of Norway is still not satisfied iTunes DRM, and has given Apple until September to change iTunes. Also, consumer advocacy groups in France and Germany are pushing for Apple to change the iTunes DRM.
So one EU government (out of 27), has issued an ultimatum to Apple. Consumer lobby groups in two other EU nations are also advocating against iTunes DRM.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Just say no to .no!
It's not the EU The title is misleading, Norway isn't even part of the EU! France and Germany, as sovreign nations, are following Norway's example. It dosn't appear to be anything to do with the EU at all.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
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?
You said:
I own music that I bought from iTunes.
and:
I paid for that music, it's mine
Actually, one of the problems with DRMed media is that the record and movie companies don't view that you have bought anything. They view it that you have rented it for play on one specific device, which means that if you want an iTunes purchase to play on, say, Zune, you need to buy it again for Zune.
"Norway has now given Apple a new deadline of September of this year to change its policies...."
Or else they will send a letter to Apple telling them how upset they are.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
I know this is somewhat off topic, but I see that there are ad-sense type ads on this discussion for software that allows you to get songs off of an iPod. Now, I know that slashdot wouldn't exist without advertising, however, in this case, the ads do clueless readers a disservice.
0 173
P rograms&Page=SharePod
No one should have to pay to get their music off of their iPod. Hell, even Apple now has a page that explains how to do this without any additional software other than iTunes:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=30
Also, there are plenty of free programs out there that do what the advertised programs do:
Windows:
http://www.ephpod.com/
http://www.sturm.net.nz/website.php?Section=iPod+
Mac:
http://www.ilinkpod.com/
http://fadingred.org/senuti/
I'm sure there are some for Linux as well, but I've yet to connect my iPod to Linux so I haven't ever looked for any.
english is my first language, but my only formal education in it was from U.S. public schools, so you may forgive me for
Or, is it that this process is: a) too complicated b) too much work c) too time consuming for most Europeans to figure it out?
Not a European myself, and I'm not so sure they're actually railing against DRM in and of itself so much as one particular brand of DRM being restricted to one piece of software and one portable device, but as you brought up this issue...well, let's face it: it's almost as much work as pirating something, and unless you plan on keeping that music on one device, you're effectively paying to experience this inconvenience. As such, one could argue it's foolish, and the only reason to bother is to avoid the risk of prosecution through buying legally, and you still do the so-far-so-good legally gray bit that nobody's gotten a slap on the wrist for as of yet.
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
Sorry, but you're wrong about needing to re-tag the music. If you burn an audio CD in iTunes and then re-rip it, the tags are intact.
english is my first language, but my only formal education in it was from U.S. public schools, so you may forgive me for
Yes you are. The only place that can put DRM in the songs that will play on the iPod, is iTunes. Other places want to be able to put DRM in their songs, and have them be compatible with the iPod. Apple is essentially locking people into buying from iTunes if they want to buy music from big record labels online. Yes, there are alternatives to buying DRM'ed, but their legality is still not confirmed.
i fail to see how this should warrant forcing apple to license fairplay or allow the ipod to play wma-drm files. there are plenty of options out there, apple does bully the market. it is certainly not their fault that nobody has come up with a competitive music store and/or player that people want. if they pulled a microsoft and started telling the labels that they can only sell through itunes, that would be a totally different story.
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
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.
Nay! Apple must not be restricted! If they maintain a microsoftian monopoly it is for the good of mankind, and we must not question their mysterious and infinite wisdom. All will become clear when the iPhone is brought down from the heavens and placed in the pockets of iPod-earplugged yuppies striding along the streets of the Financial District. They will show us the way. They will understand the word made silicon and plastic, and convey it to the rest of us mere cheapskate mortals who are unable or unwilling to invest in the meager cost of an iPod, iPhone, MacBook, or other godly Apple instrument. Then we shall see, then we shall hear, then we shall know. The clouds will part, warriors will lay down their arms and embrace each other, weeping with joy and brotherly love. The hungry shall find nourishment, the thirsty will quench themselves with pure crystalline water. The poor shall know prosperity for the first time and forever. The barren shall bear fruit, and the downtrodden shall find dignity.
It is the unbelievers, the infidels who challenge the sacred rule of the Jobsian iSacraments. They must be stopped!
...are we scared yet?
And I'd like to add something :
if you don't like our laws, nothing forces you to sell on our market.
I'm getting tired of all these whining on "you're jealous of our success" (which is by the way not yours, as American, but apple's), "don't buy it if you don't like it" and so on.
The beginning argument, "don't buy it if you don't like it" is as stupid as "if you're innocent, you've nothing to hide, so let us search your home".
In Europe, we make efforts to protect the consumer/citizen. As a consumer, I like this spirit. (However, I agree, sometime, we totally miss it)
What part of "choose" do you not understand?
...and please don't give me crap about my "taste in music" because you have no idea. The fact that I make my decision based on my interest in music and convenience of the system have nothing to do with what kind of music I like.
I *choose* to spend money on tracks on iTune because it's easy for me. I don't wnat to spend the time to buy a CD, take it home, unwrap it, and click "burn"
I also don't want to search Peer-to-peer sites, find the version that has some semblance of the correct meta-data and deal with it that way.
I know Apple isn't forcing me to use their system. I just don't care about *a lot* (ie- not all) of my music enough to really care about it.
Also, I'm not lazy, user interfaces and user experiences should be as seemless and efficient as possible, the "Apple system" provides that for me better.
That said, a large majority of my library is mp3 as well (the ones I *do* care about)- but that's irrelevant.
How about some real consumer rights, like "If you own it, do what you want with it."
FUCK DRM.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
If the CD is "copy protected" (given to me as a gift as I refuse to buy any DRMed media), I play it through my external DVD player which has a digital output connected to my PC's sound card. Slightly more work, yet also incontrovertibly legal.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Doing what you describe is, however you want to play it, illegal, as you are violating a contract you made with Apple when you bought their music:
9. Purchase of Apple Content
b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following Usage Rules, and you agree to use Products in compliance with such Usage Rules.
Usage Rules
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
That is clearly a 'no getting around the DRM' clause. Are you suggesting that all users of the iTunes store should commit an illegal act to relieve Apple of the burden of illegally abusing their iPod monopoly?
The point is - music you buy from iTunes is only playable on either your computer (a limited number, to boot) or an iPod (admittedly unlimited). The European courts look unfavourably on any kind of lock-in, and they want iTunes music to be playable on any device, legally, because you bought it, and Apple are denying you the right as a consumer to use it how you like.
There is no way you should be forced to spend upwards of 200 dollars to use something you spent 99 cents on.
It's amazing really - the bulk of these comments are "Why should Apple let you play iTunes music on any other player", when almost exactly the same people have been saying "Microsoft have to give their full Windows API to EVERYONE otherwise it's monopoly abuse". Why shouldn't Apple have to a) give out how they code their DRM to allow others to make DRM music that is compatible, and b) give out their DRM specs so manufacturers can code their MP3 firmware to be able to play iTunes music?
I love a good bout of hypocrisy.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
'' Yes you are. The only place that can put DRM in the songs that will play on the iPod, is iTunes. Other places want to be able to put DRM in their songs, and have them be compatible with the iPod. Apple is essentially locking people into buying from iTunes if they want to buy music from big record labels online. Yes, there are alternatives to buying DRM'ed, but their legality is still not confirmed. ''
Why is that Apple's fault? Anyone can sell music in standard formats (MP3, AAC) that will play on an iPod without any problems, and Apple is not stopping them. eMusic does it, for example. If the record companies don't allow iTMS competitors to sell music without DRM, that is not Apple's fault.
What exactly is the tie-in? You can certainly use an ipod without itunes (I'm doing it on my Ubuntu box right now, as a matter of fact). You can just as easily use the itunes music store without owning an ipod. Neither of these require owning an apple iMac or MacPro, either.
:-)
I suppose the only real tie-in is that you cannot reasonably use an ipod without having access to a computer. Given how popular ipods are now a days, I bet some people did try that along the ways.
As for using ipods with other music download sites, the devices play mp3s, which are what most music is currently distributed in (just ask the RIAA!). It's the other sites that are being incompatible.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
What the !*&^! has that got to do with anything! Soverign states have the right to control commerce within their boundaries. Norway, France, and Germany (not the EU as others have pointed out) have concerns about hardware lock in. End of story. Or do you think that all commerce should stop because GWB is trying to write himself a place in the history books?
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
And? I can't play my vinyl albums in a cd player. Should CD manufactures also include an album with each cd sold?
Am I not allowed to create my own music format?
sheesh.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
the deal here is that while "techies" may know how to get around the DRM you cannot easily integrate an iPod without using iTunes and you cannot easily use iTunes with another MP3 player.
The problem becomes, whats in it for Apple? I think now that the iPod is so successful that there is little risk allowing iTunes to work with other players, other than the support issues that the other players just foul up iTunes. Same goes for the reverse, allowing the iPod to be easily integrated to other Music managers. This requires that their DRM be available for anyone else to incorporate.
Frankly if I were in these governments I would just make all companies use the same standard. Its bad enough consumers deal with DRM, let alone 10 different shades of it.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I'm not pointing out that the scheme is useless. The scheme has a use. It pacifies the recording industry into a false sense of security and it got the whole legal downloading of music kick started.
It's kind of like getting your uptight, virginal boyfriend/girlfriend to finally take a few sips of wine. Yeah, you could argue that he/she should have just given himself/herself to you in the first place, but unfortunately, sometimes in life we have to build up a certain level of trust and tear down a certain level of reserve or nothing exciting will ever happen.
Let's just be glad the way around Apple's DRM is easy and hope that at some point the recording industry realizes that it is unnecessary. But, the answer isn't to require Apple to let others use their DRM- that would be a step backward. The answer is to show people that owning an iPod isn't tied to using the iTunes Music Store (iTMS), and that, conversely, buying tracks on iTMS isn't tied to using those tracks only on an iPod. Educating the public about how easy it is to use iTMS tracks with the device of their choosing is a far better solution than opening up Apple's DRM for more use elsewhere.
And, to those of you who say that taking your 5,000 tracks you bought from iTMS and burning them to CD and then re-ripping them would be too much work, here's a hint- don't do it all at once. One or two CDs a day and you'd have this library free of DRM restrictions in no time.
english is my first language, but my only formal education in it was from U.S. public schools, so you may forgive me for
"You can't play songs purchased on itunes music store on your Zune."
Burn them to CD them rip them to mp3 and play them on your Zune. Problem solved. Your argument may have been valid five years ago when there were still people with computers without a CD burner, but virtually every machine has one today.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
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.
Well, to be fair it's more akin to printer ink-cartridges than like screws. I can get the right size screws made by many different companies if I choose, but a lot of companies (replacement mop heads are another example) lock you into using them as a source to load their products. I agree with your sentiment completely (although I won't complain if Apple could drop the DRM entirely), I'm just trying to refine the case a bit.
Of course, there's a different between iTMS and my printer: if I can't get ink-cartridges, my printer ceases to be useful. If I can't get iTMS songs for my iPod and iTunes, I still have my vast library of already-purchased music *and* I can use that old standby method that has supplied almost all of that music already: buy the damn CD and rip it. So really, Apple is comparatively clean in this behavior. Again, I would love to see them drop the DRM, assuming it's even up to them, but I can't get upset at Apple specifically when so many other companies pull much worse crap in this same vein and aren't ever targeted by politicians.
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
Seems the only way Microsoft's Zune could compete was to buy a country.
There are a lot of things that are only available on iTunes. Just search for "iTunes exclusive". Sometimes they are special tracks, sometimes live versions unavailable elsewhere, etc.
Nope. Burning the tracks to a regular audio CD and then re-ripping them is no illegal. In doing this, you haven't "circumvented" or "modified any security technology" to do so. You've only done what Apple has allowed you to do with iTunes. If they didn't want you to be able to do this, then they wouldn't have designed the software to allow it. Also, this method of 'circumventing' the DRM has been widely published since the the iTunes Music Store was announced and Apple have done nothing to prevent people from distributing this information.
english is my first language, but my only formal education in it was from U.S. public schools, so you may forgive me for
And? I can't play my vinyl albums in a cd player. Should CD manufactures also include an album with each cd sold?
That's because they are fundamentally different media and making them somehow compatible would be practically impossible.
Compare that to digital files which are fundamentally similar and in fact it takes more effort to make them incompatible.
Nobody expects manufacturers to spend time and effort making incompatible things work together, but they do expect them not to spend time and effort on something that makes them incompatible.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
and if their computer doesnt have a CD burner, then it's very cheap to get one...I think I saw one free in a specially marked box of cereal.
Somewhere, the spirit of P.T. Barnum has a big grin on his face.
I personally like to download a non-DRM copy from P2P along with the copy song purchased from iTunes. While technically not legal, I seriously think that any litigation taken against me would not hold up in court. If I can burn the iTunes music and rerip into a non-DRM format then I can arguably just dowload the copy as a more expedient alternative. I won't share the song after it has been downloaded. Moreover, I don't think the courts would uphold restrictions on obtaining non-DRM copies when the music is purchased because it infringes on a consumers right to choose (in this case- what player to use for the music). I am pretty sure you won't see those types of lawsuits because Apple would risk the courts banning the use of DRM for the purpose of locking a consumer to a platform. After seeing Microsoft faulty implementation of DRM, I don't think it is a good idea for developers to cripple their software by arbitratrating how their software is used.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Open standards for differing digital media should be different that different physical media.
Woud you then say that web technologies should also be locked into the browser that renders them?
Or word processing files? I can understand a *limited* expectation of behavior (using Lynx for web, or Notepad for text files) but to completely prevent usage seems odd.
I happen to like Apple's closed system though, and I'd continue to use it regardless of DRM- but that doesn't mean open standards aren't important.
Don't overlook that these are foreign companies ruling against a US based one. I'm sure that their motives are far less altruistic than you might think. Probably more along the lines of "What legislation can I pass that gets me positive PR *and* stops giving money to the Americans?".
Apple has a lock on the market and this is just a political move. The only difference is that the politicians involved aren't owned by the US government this time.
they aren't just targeting apple it said in the article that it would apply to everyone....
So does:
Netflix, Blockbuster video, Las Vegas, the movie industry, exotic dancers....
Am I missing something here?
How about after the irreplaceable battery inside the iPod dies, or the harddrive becomes irreversably corrupt, or the iPod stops functioning in some other way, you decide to go with another brand of player? You'll have to sacrifice any music you bought from the ITMS, which may be worth hundreds of euros. Not many people want to do that. If you use iPod/ITMS, you're locked in. That's the problem.
First, I didn't relize that in the EU and Norway people put a gun to your haed and forced you to use an iPod. That's wierd.
Second, There are many expensive things that allow you to manipulte much cheaper things. A blender comes to mind. The price of the iPod doesn't matter in this conversation.
this issue and the MS monopoly issue are completly different and as irrelevant as comparing a car to chocolate.
the iPod is just a device for playing music that apple puts out. If they want to make there own music format, then fine.
here is no hypocrisy here, only yuour inability to see the difference between an operating system by a cmompany that abused it's monopoly, and a hardware company that makes a music device.
I think I'll go out and create a new device witrh my own private music format, and then force apple to make the product they sell suport it.
I don't like DRM but this argument makes no sense what so ever.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
norway is not part a member of the EU
Call me stupid for missing that obvious point.
It also makes the "EU Countries Call Out iTunes DRM" headline even more ludicrous. Thanks for the correction.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
You have: 1. A music file 2. A music file player 3. An online store for the music files None of those elements should be laden down with branding. If I want to buy music song-per-song, I should be able to do so easily. The product should not be tied into some proprietary player. It should not degrade when I convert it to a different format - not by design, anyway. I should be able to buy, listen, and collect the music in whatever way I see fit. Anything they add to that equation is doomed to failure. Let me raise the bugbear of The Artist who created the music. What does any of this market scheming do for them? What does sit do for me, as a User? I realize that Apple is doing what it can to make money - just as MS does, and plans to take far, far beyond this - but that doesn't mean I have to applaud or play along. Too bad if it endangers their revenue model - make money by improving your computers and hardware, Steve! Lots of work to do there, IMO
YES! You see, the music industry has this greedy scheme: Get DRM on all devices and then slowly close the door on all free formats. The only problem is that Apple decided to screw the screwers. They put DRM on iTunes that only they could use in addition non DRM formats to ensure wide distribution and seize the marketplace.
Now the RIAA and the copyright cartel have a huge problem. If they beat down on Apple, then Apple may just say "well screw you, we'll just disable any DRM and all music will be free" - ruining their plan to close the doors. However, if they don't beat down on Apple, then Apple will be the DRM master, also runining their greedy plans to be the DRM masters themselves.
The RIAA and the music industry are like the Mexican Army. You see, the Mexican Army (mid 1800) had better equiptment, more men, and better training than the US Army, but the US Army was albe to waltz in and kick ass because none of the Mexican generals trusted each other enough to work together. That's why the western half of America today belongs to the US and not Mexico. Well the same is true with DRM, they will kill each other before they will help their peers at their expense.
Correction- the exotic dancing thing is actually cheaper for me (free) than the rental Sucker.
15 minutes? jeez, get with the future.
I ahve a modest computer, and it has never taken me longer the 3 minutes to burn a disk.
What are you using, so 2x burner on a 486?
Burn at 192. There is no detectable quality loss by the human ear. Yes, even your ear.
You can import using AIFF,WAV(isn't this lossless?),Apple lossless,AAC,MP3(128/160/192).
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I don't think Apple has to "open its DRM", I think licensing it to third parties would be enough. Microsoft already does this, I have a non-MS MP3 player that will play WMA files.
"I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
You can't play music purchased from the Zune store on your iPod either. What's your point?
One should never throw the letter Q into a privet bush.
> Probably more along the lines of "What legislation can I pass that gets me positive PR
;( Just look at DOJ v MSFT. You better behave you convicted monopolist.... or... or... damnifiknow what will happen. How many times have they promised to stop the Windows Tax over teh last fifteen years and is there a single large vendor who will defy their unwritten law and unbundle Windows from their PCs?
Especially when one actually looks at what they have done..... i.e. nothing. It is typical European brinksmanship. You better comply before our deadline.... or we will talk sternly to you and set a new one. Flaunt us for a decade and we might start fining you, but don't worry the fine will be less than the ill gotten gains you are reaping. (See EU vs MIcrosoft)
The problem is talk by itself is useless, talk backed by a credible threat of action can be very effective. Europe lost the ability for taking action on anything twenty years ago. Forget international affairs, they lack the required ferocity to even bully a small corporation like Apple Inc. And they actually wonder why they always fail in diplomatic efforts. Just for example, why would Iran listen to them? There is never the slightest hint of an "or else" even discussed.
Not that the US is much more effective at policing corporations.....
Democrat delenda est
My point was to answer someone's question: "Why is this a problem...I don't understand...etc."
But since you choose to pick me to represent a)the parent post I answered, and b) the entire point of TFA, I'll answer... Open Standards are important.
"How about after the irreplaceable battery inside the iPod dies, or the harddrive becomes irreversably corrupt, or the iPod stops functioning in some other way, you decide to go with another brand of player?"
Rip it to disk(or virtualDisk) and reimport. You can do this with lossless formats as well as mp3.
"You'll have to sacrifice any music you bought from the ITMS, which may be worth hundreds of euros. Not many people want to do that."
As I explained, no you don't. You could also, say, not buy one.
" Not many people want to do that. If you use iPod/ITMS, you're locked in. That's the problem."
No, people like you spread FUD. That's the problem.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I was actually replying to the sentence after that, "Just don't force me to do it," and its implication that Apple is forcing its customers to buy music from iTMS. They aren't.
If you had taken things the other way around and talked about how Apple makes it hard for people to use music they buy on iTMS with other products, you'd be on firm ground.
Fair enough... my sentence should have been worded where the "force me to do it" was attached to the "trust in your system" instead of the "purchase your music" aspect.
Apologies.
Open up restrictive DGM schemes and let me play my Xbox games on the Playstation!
;)
Say no to digital vendor lock in!
But what if I want to buy music on iTMS and play that music on my Zune?
I mean, I guess that's the complaint. It doesn't seem to awful to me, but then again I wouldn't mind if Apple dropped DRM completely.
You will have the same hoops to jump through if you were to buy music from any of the Playsforsure stores and tried to play it on your Zune or if I wanted to play them on my iPod.Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
But for me it would have a positive effect on my business with the iTMS if Apple actually did decide to drop DRM from iTMS. I would start purchasing more songs from them. It's a hassle to avoid/decrypt the DRM yourself with workarounds anyway. It's time for Fair Use to prevail, it should have been proven to these DRM'd companies by now that DRM doesn't work.
Apples DRM is as follows:
Unlimited CD burns
Unlimited iPods(yes, this includes your friends. you can have music uploaded from multiple computers and users on one iPod)
Five computers.
Boo. Freaking. Hoo.
"Oh noes! I can only burn it to ? CDs, on which the DRM does not carry over! And I, unlike 99.99% of iTunes users, cannot use my crappy third party Mp3 player! I am limited to iTunes, CDs, and iPods! Unless I just rip it again!"
If you actually download from iTunes, chance are you have an iPod. If you don't, who cares?
worse there are programs that with a CD-RW you could just automate the whole thing. Might take a few hours to do a few gig library (unless you have a DVD-RW) but in the end you could do it in your sleep.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
circumvent transitive verb
1 a : to hem in b : to make a circuit around
2 : to manage to get around especially by ingenuity or stratagem
Just because Apple haven't asked you to stop, doesn't mean it's not illegal. It's also not illegal because of state/federal/European law regarding personal copies - you agreed to terms and conditions when you bought the music and if you fail to follow them youYou have circumvented copy protection - if you perform the actions you outline, you end up with a close to exact copy of what you had before yet without any copy protection. That seems pretty textbook to me.
Let's just say for a brief moment that you might be right: if the circumvention is that 'trivial', and it's not illegal, and Apple don't have a problem with it, then why are they taking every measure possible to avoid providing information about their DRM to their rivals? Surely if circumvention is trivial and Apple don't care, where is the issue with providing documentation to rivals for their DRM?
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
I dare you to rip music off an irreversably corrupt harddrive.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
But you can play vinyl albums in any phonograph? You can play any CD in a CD Player? Why can't you play any digital audio file in any digital audio player?
If I were to be a customer of one of MSFT's Playsforsure stores, I would not only be tied to WMP and a Playsforsure device but I would also have to run windows. The Zune is even worse because not only would I have to run Windows, use the Zune software, I'd be limited to the Zune marketplace and CD's.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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.
What these countries are trying to do is let you use any music player with any music store, and vice versa, and hopefully get rid of the extra DRM problems created by all of this in the mean time. And it doesn't seem to be exclusive to iTunes, it applies to everyone. I'm certainly hoping for these kind of changes, more choice is nver a bad thing.
No, what they're doing is saying you cannot buy closed DRM, and you cannot sell DRM.
How is it even their business what people do with their money willingly? And what's worse, why do people clamor "Please Government! Save me from my own bad decisions!"
I guess being an American, I just don't get it... Although that aspect of Americanism is dying fast.
Latewire
First, I didn't relize that in the EU and Norway people put a gun to your haed and forced you to use an iPod. That's wierd.
Try reading my comment, because I don't think you actually did. I said if you buy iTunes music then you have to buy an iPod to be able take it with you. That is fact, stop trying to spin it.
Second, There are many expensive things that allow you to manipulte much cheaper things. A blender comes to mind. The price of the iPod doesn't matter in this conversation.
But there isn't branded veg, sold as normal veg, that can only be blended in a particular type of blender that costs you $200. The price matters because Apple are essentially charging you a $200 levy to make music that you should be free to use portable. If you don't buy an iPod, your music stays put. EU court says "This isn't on - sort it out."
this issue and the MS monopoly issue are completly different and as irrelevant as comparing a car to chocolate.
Can you give me a reason why they're incomparable? I gave a good reason why they are, care to properly rebut that?
If they want to make there own music format, then fine.
It's not a new format. It's an MP4 or an MP3, I forget which at this time. However, I have a right to expect that anything labelled as an MP4/MP3 is playable on any device marked as being able to play MP4 or MP3, like say my Sony Ericsson phone. I can't, because of iTunes DRM.
here is no hypocrisy here, only yuour inability to see the difference between an operating system by a cmompany that abused it's monopoly, and a hardware company that makes a music device.
Rephrase that as 'a hardware company that has as much of a monopoly on the MP3/MP4 player market as Microsoft does on the OS market, which is leveraging that monopoly to sell music as a software company' and you're closer to the truth.
I think I'll go out and create a new device witrh my own private music format, and then force apple to make the product they sell suport it.
You don't make close to 90% of the MP3 players out there. Monopolies are treated differently because if they weren't, the market they monopolise would stagnate. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
I don't like DRM but this argument makes no sense what so ever.
I would blame a limited understanding of the issues at hand on your part, rather than mine.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
France and Germany, as sovreign nations, are following Norway's example.
One might add, that - at least for the German side - it is not "Germany" (or the German government), but the "Verbraucherzentrale", which is a non-profit organization with task to support consumers. They are (partly) sponsored by the German state(s), but they are not a state organisation, ie this is not a political decision.
I could also:
-intercept the audio going to my speakers.
-get a tape recorder and record the sound from my speakers.
-record it off the radio!
-record a cover band singing it...
After all the /.ers crapping their pants over Zune not-so-long ago, I find it refreshing to be reminded that we do indeed live in a world NOT run by techs and Apple worshippers (oddly enough). See also: Jobs potentially getting busted for scamming Apple stock. If Apple were running the show, things wouldn't be much different (heck, at least Gates doesn't scam stock... that I remember). Er, come to think of t, everything would be more overpriced and it would ALL be pearl and chrome... but that'd be the only difference. And Jobs would be scamming the stocks.
It's especially unbelievable with Zune Store vs. Itunes debacle. Everyone was screaming their heads off that "Oh no, Zune requires a proprietary player" and "It's so terrible! You can only get Zune songs from a Zune store!". It was like the world collectively forgot the existance of iTunes for a moment of blind Microsoft-bashing.
Oh, wait.
> Is there anything that's ONLY available from iTunes that can't be acquired elsewhere?
Yes, a fanatical devotion to a company.
So here's the deal. Apple has a near monopoly on portable music players. As such, they wield a lot of power normal companies do not. Thus, all other things equal, it is perfectly reasonable for the law to require them not to tie the iPod to their store and DRM and jukebox software. I think this is makes sense and benefits consumers. Just because I have an iPod (theoretically) doesn't mean I should have to buy my music from Apple instead of Sony's online store. Likewise, I should be able to use Mplayer of Windows Media player on equal ground with ITunes.
So here's the problem. Microsoft also has tied their DRM (which they license to stores) and their music jukebox software to a monopolized product (Windows). They have even been convicted of this by the EU courts. But no one has stopped them from this tying and the "punishment" was useless and did nothing.
I'm all for mandating only open standards, including DRM, for music players in a given country or the EU. But stopping Apple from tying while not stopping Microsoft is not justice, it is handing the market to Microsoft. As soon as Windows Media Player can interoperate with iPods it will own the market (it already owns a lot of it). Allowing MS to tie their jukebox software to Windows, but not letting Apple tie their jukebox software to iPods is enforcing a double standard.
All of this relates to public perception. People are accustomed to tolerating illegal lock-in with their operating system since it has been standard practice for years. People are less accustomed to the same for portable music players. Enforce the law against both of them or neither.
I bought my first iPod (second generation) in 2002 which was long before iTMS came out in the US let alone when it came to Canada (where I live). I relied on CD's and eMusic to fill my iPod before iTMS was available in Canada and many of my colleagues rely on sources other than iTMS to get their music for their iPods. I use iTMS because of its large selection, the free weekly songs and the shear convenience of it.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
An open market is good whether it's Apple or Microsoft that are being told about it. I can't see how this DRM enhances the user experience or is godd in any other way than to force consumers into one label. It's good Norway is doing something about it. (I live in Sweden and i thought that the nordic consumer rights bla bla people had joined together sometime last year because of this. I might be wrong though.)
+1 Agree -1 Disagree
Yeah- but my point is that I wouldn't bother to spend that 100 dollars again. I'm find with starting over, and the tracks I do want to keep, as slashdot has triumphantly declared throughout all these threads, I'll burn to CD and import back or find another means of doing it.
I wouldn't spend a full 100 dollars to get everything back... I'd take the effort to burn over about 30% or so of the stuff I think is worth the effort (it may be all 100%, I'm not really sure, it depends how much more my time is worth to me over the value of the song at the time) and just part with the rest. That leave a loss of 60 dollars or so.. I've spend more on a family dinner and didn't get nearly as much use out of that than the four years of having that music around.... and yes slashdot logic guys, I *am* saying that a song I'd listen to on a regular basis, I would be willing ot part with.
I don't worship music... if it's there, fine, if it's not, fine. I'll find a way to preserve or import over stuff that is *really* important to me.
But... I agree with you, and the point of this article. There shouldn't be DRM, I should be able to play my music on whatever player I want. My original post (if I recall- I don't want to backtrack and I've had many in this thread) was just saying that even if Apple didn't have DRM on the files, I would still choose their system. My original post came out wrong as I admitted to somewhere else. I meant for the "don't force me..." to go with the "use your system" and not with the "buy your music" -if that clears anything up.
Sony ha
Because the RIAA (or your local equivalent) said so.
Really.
Stop blaming the messenger.
DRM is inherently evil and defective by design. Check this movement by Free Software Foundation for details on http://www.defectivebydesign.org/
"You will have the same hoops to jump through if you were to buy music from any of the Playsforsure stores and tried to play it on your Zune or if I wanted to play them on my iPod."
Or tried to play music from the Zune store on a PlaysForSure device or iPod.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
You either have DRM or you don't. I, for one, hope the RIAA comes to their senses at some point in time and drops their demand for DRM'd music on online music stores. I don't share my music now. And I rarely buy anything on iTunes because of the DRM.
I'm all for DRM being made illegal. But demanding that Apple open up its music while not requiring all Plays4Sure and Zune and other DRM schemes to be either open or interoperable is sheer stupidity. No, Apple doesn't have a monopoly. It has a large share of the market, but the same songs are available for all platforms and all players by: buying from another store, which have most of the same content and some that Apple doesn't have, or by ripping CDs, or, well, by those other means of copying music.
Who said I was blaming Apple? You should read the other 10 posts or so I have throughout here where I express the need for an Open Standard and how that has nothing to do with my opinion of Apple's solution.
So if people bitch about Microsoft doing vendor lock-in and such, then Apple MUST allow me to buy a standalone copy of OSX that will run on non-Apple hardware!
See how stupid that sounds?
Living With a Nerd
any argument stating that "you can already do this" only weakens the argument that these countries are being unreasonable for expecting them to let you do it
It's nothing to do with the EU, but the title says "EU Countries", which France and Germany most definitely are. If it said "EU Calls Out iTunes DRM", then the complaint would be more valid.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
It's like the summary says: over here in Europe we're upping the pressure on companies that force DRM on consumers, and I feel that US customers should do the same.
And that part is really good (the fact you keep the music forever). Still, I found the subscription to be tiresome. I don't buy music every month. I tend to buy 5CDs one month, and then none for the next two months. I don't like the fact that eMusic is basically pushing me into the same type of contract I hate having with my cellphone provider.
If they went back to unlimited downloads for a monthly fee, I might consider it. If they went à la carte, I might consider it. What they have now doesn't fit my needs enough.
Mac is primarily a hard ware company.
cat
Well, I'm primarily a nice guy, but I can still be an asshole.
Apple may be primarily a hardware company, but they still make software.
Living With a Nerd
Well, if DRM is the problem, then what Norway and France and Germany ought to do is just outlaw DRM entirely and be done with it!
After all, why should it be the governments' responsibility to prop up Apple's business model, to the detriment of their own citizens?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
- You buy an iPod
- You buy music from ITMS
- Your iPod breaks
What music player to you buy to replace your broken iPod? If you buy a non-iPod, your new player will be unable to play the music that you bought from ITMS. There's the lock-in.That's impossible.
If it's an open standard, then anyone can built tools of arbitrary functionality that interoperate with it, thus defeating the very purpose of DRM. DRM must always be a trade secret.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
but that just makes it clear how much simpler it'd be just to grab the music in mp3/flc from usenet/torrent/allofmp3 in the first place (and only get one lot of lossy encoding).
Apple could quite easily add a 'convert to mp3 and lose some quality' button on iTunes. They don't - as the record labels wouldn't let them (and Apple want to keep you on their iPods). Labels are trying to tie me to DRM, Apple is trying to tie me to iTunes - it's in neither of their interests to make life any easier for me - they win, I suffer trying to play their game.
The quite ridiculous thing is if I bought that music on the shiny plastic disk, I have it at full quality to do with as I wish. Now I sit back and think about it the entire online music system seems to be a way of taxing the lazy and impulsive. That's it.
I don't think this is about giving more choice to consumers. Europe is full of monopolies like the BBC who agressively go after people for fees the same way the RIAA goes after people for file sharing, and countries like France where the "visual style" of clothing is considered and IP and people can go to jail for copying another's "style"... and the same EU that wants to make it illegal to sell Champaign that isn't from Champaign, or make it illegal to sell Parmisan cheese made outside of Parmigiano. Monopolies and restrictions in order to benifit certain companies and economic interests are rampant in Europe. There are hundreds of things hurting European consumers far worse than iTunes.
This action is more about protectionism, and scoring a few cheap political points with the anti-American populous by going after a visible U.S. corporation, than about protecting consumers. If the E.U. really wanted to protect consumers, they would simply ban all DRM, and the problem would be solved! Of course, then they would piss off big European media companies like Vivendi, who are looking to create a DRMed locked-in European digital music monopoly.
Anyone making an MP3 player can get a license for the WMA format for a reasonable price. I don't think these organizations want Apple to offer it for free, they want them to offer it at a reasonable price.
iTunes has a big marketshare and that big marketshare can only use iPods to play their downloaded music on the go. This means people get a strong incentive to own an iPod if they use iTunes. This kind of interlocking violates antitrust laws in many countries, competitors get an artificial disadvantage they can't remove if the customer has another product of yours already. This was also the problem with Windows bundling IE and WMP, competing browsers and media players didn't have a chance to be included with Windows just because Windows is made by the same company as IE and WMP. The point is to prevent a company from using its marketshare in one sector to gain an advantage in another.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
It's misleading by mentioning the EU at all. Could just as well have said NATO countries. Just because it didn't really say anything about the EU itself doesn't mean this title wouldn't lead many people (including Rude Turnip) to believe the EU had a part in this. Tabloids love doing that.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Yes because abandoning markets (which means handing them to the competition on a silver tablet) is a good idea. What if this escalates to EU wide levels? Should Apple hand a whole continent to the competition?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Your comment made me laugh so hard I had to reply. Seriously. The Consumer protection agency in Norway decided to complain about Apples terms for Norwegian consumers regarding music purchases which were too restrictive according to Norwegian consumer protection laws. Apple cannot limit liability in Norway and Apple wanted to use English (UK) law which is not valid here. The Ombudsman demanded this be changed immediately - when in Rome... does as the Romans!!
Secondly he wanted changes to the DRM restrictions that are in conflict with Norwegian fair use laws. This includes MSN Music and every other service on the market using DRM! Norway does have a few MP3-player companies for sure - but this agency is hardly interested in helping them! Its all made in Korea anyway. Try to restrict the hateful anti-Europe sentiments.
Rip it to disk(or virtualDisk) and reimport. You can do this with lossless formats as well as mp3.
Yes but for a collection of thousands of Euros that's going to take quite some time. Time has a value too and since it's less of a hassle to just buy an iPod Apple has an advantage compared to other vendors.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Yes but if you have music from iTunes you can't buy a player from a different vendor. Currently iTunes is the biggest store around so it's the first target. MS licenses the WMP formats to other vendors so they can offer content in that format or build players that use it.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
So you'd be perfectly willing to spend hours upon hours burning and ripping tracks that you've already payed good money for? Might be fine for you, but some of us have lives to be getting on with. If we could afford to spend the hours you propose sitting at the computer, we wouldn't really need a portable music player would we? Anyway, ripping CDs is still illegal in the UK.
Lets face it. The law makers here are not arguing to allow users to move the music they bought in iTunes to another player. They want other companies to have access to the secret juice that drives the innovative system that Apple created, so that they can, without effort, get into the business i nthe name of competition. Apple did the (almost) impossible. They actually convinced the record companies to sell their music with DRM which is not terribly restrictive. No competitor has come around yet to creating something that is as good, whilst appeasing the big record companies.
No emusic is not quite up there. Until Justin Timberlake starts selling on emusic, it will remain a very small sideshow in the whole online music scene.
Who cares about inferior portable players? I define inferiority based on a lack of usability in the default configuration, not how many features it has. I care about my lack of platform close when it comes to WMP. It only works on windows. iTunes is cross platform compatible while WMP is not.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
So if people bitch about Microsoft doing vendor lock-in and such, then Apple MUST allow me to buy a standalone copy of OSX that will run on non-Apple hardware!
I think it's pretty bad form that they don't. Especially since they seem to be quite happy to sell their software as a standalone product. If I pay that much for a piece of softwae, I have bought the product. Who are they to tell me how and where I can use it?
r The only reason that nobody's called them on this is that they don't have enough share of the OS market for anyone to get upset about product tying.
the market voted with its (dollars, yen, euros, kroner, what have you)... and Apple won. the hardware works. the software works. it's easy to use and fun, and the kids got it.
what is there about these countries that makes them want to force you to break what works?
what they'll end up with is torrents of MP3s, all illegal, if they persist. MP3s will play nicely on iPods.
lucky for them they aren't picking on a company that the bushies like. look what happened to Saddam and Iraq for saying he wanted bush 41 dead....
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The point is, this poster has found that the iTunes sales model fits the way they buy music. There is no single way to buy music. There is no unique type of customer. And I agree - I don't mind paying $0.99/track even though I can't play it on a Zen. $0.99/track, with restrictions, is worth it to me. It's great. I intend to continue buying music like this. It's not because I'm stupid. It's not because I'm unaware of the consequences of my actions. It's because a track that I want, with restrictions, is worth more to me than $0.99. It's that simple. The only people who don't understand this are people who have a religious anti-DRM ax to grind. That's their problem.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
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
And who do you think gave ~90% of the market share to Microsoft? Consumers. Not some wizard, not some evil billionaire geek...consumers.
Living With a Nerd
Of course this doesnt answer the fact that you can use another service, even to load songs onto a iPod, there is no real reason to use iTunes beyond ease of use. That right there defeated the whole argument they have that you must use iTunes or else, which is how they word it. No there is nothing saying you must anywhere, its simply eurotrash legislators taking a playbook out of our shit for brains government.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Apple is a systems company. Neither the hardware nor the software can stand alone.
And the same DRM that Zune uses is supported on over a hundred of other devices made by dozens of other companies. www.playsforsure.com will help you find such devices that are supported. Let's see Apple do that.
Apparently you haven't heard: PlaysForSure is not compatible with the Zune. That means that any DRM-based stores out there which used PlaysForSure before the Zune came out (isn't that all of them but iTunes?) will not function with the Zune, and as far as I know, tracks from the Zune store will not function on PlaysForSure devices.
It's funny because France has been threatening stuff like this for months now, and now MS stepped in, as the single company that should benefit from cutting off iTunes and just legitimized Apple's strategy and said to Hell with the old strategy. It was actually kind of nice to see Microsoft do that.
P.S. I hope you're not planning to buy a Zune based on the information you just stated.
.....Apple may be primarily a hardware company, but they still make software......
Honda is primarily a car company, but they also make engines. Therefore they ought to be forced sell their engines to other car makers as well? Apple makes their OSX for Apple computer hardware. Why should they sell their engines (OSX) to other computer makers or make it easy for consumers to install Honda engines in their Fords?
All theory is gray
apples to oranges. Both the software and hardware industry are COMPLETELY different than the automobile industry. And for the record, many car companies DO sell their engines/parts to other manufacturers. Look under the hood of any toyota made in the last 20 years, and tell me how many GM parts you find.
Living With a Nerd
.....I have bought the product. Who are they to tell me how and where I can use it?........
/. nerd you might be able to make OSX run your cheap Dell with enough effort. If you are a good machinist and a good mechanic, you might be able to make the Nikon lens work on you Canon also. Just don't expect Apple to make it easy for you. Also don't make and sell kits to make OSX run on a Dell. You'd hear from Apple's lawyers.
So you bitch because you bought a lens for your expensive SLR Nikon and it will not fit your cheaper Canon? OSX is made for Apple computers. If you are a smart
All theory is gray
....Slightly more work, yet also incontrovertibly legal.....
No work at all if you have a Mac. Macs don't pay attention to any of these hare-brained DRM protection put on CDs. Macs ignore Sony's root kits also. Just pop in the CD and rip as usual. If you have a PC, just hold down the shift key as you insert the CD and then rip as always. All the CD protection schemes are a big laugh.
All theory is gray
1) You have a choice of other online stores to fill your iPod with music other than the iTunes store. You don't have to be an iTunes customer to be an iPod customer.
2) Can I fill my iPod with music from the Zune Marketplace? If not, then why aren't we requiring the Microsoft to "open their DRM" as well?
.....Please Government! Save me.......
At least not for the consumer? Fine of course for the big, greedy companies who bought protection of the government for themselves in the DMCA and similar laws in other countries. If government had stayed out of the protection racket for these outfits, we would have dozens of legal DRM eliminating programs to choose from. There cannot EVER be *any* DRM scheme that will NOT be broken. Even in theory, DRM is IMPOSSIBLE as long as any such supposedly "protected" content is playable on a programmable device.
All theory is gray
The difference in the specific situation here and the above examples (engines from one manufacturer in another's car, OSX on all PCs) is that the examples do NOT come from monopoly situations. The only reason that Apple is being chased here is because they have a monopoly on the DRM'd music / portable music player market.
Please don't send a Word document when a text file will do the job.
That only works for the CDs that try to prevent you from ripping them by installing something via auto run when you put the CD in. The ones that violate the Red Book standards (invalid data tracks, bogus checksum data, whatever) are more sinister, and you might want to be careful about trying them on a Mac.
open DRM.
Staring at a white background [on a computer screen] while you read is like staring at a light bulb — Maddox
I have found copy protected "CDs" to be so completely transparent that I don't bother caring any more; every single copy protected "CD" I've ever bought has ripped perfectly on my computer. (Of course, that was incontrovertibly illegal, or at least a civil offense. And so is ripping uncopyprotected CDs where I come from. But I didn't realise it at the time ;)
Look out!
So it's time for us to ask for a little liberation from abroad. Apple's due for a good reality check on this one, and it'll take a free people to deliver it.
You can easily legislate technology, governments do it all the time.
There are laws that govern how much cars can pollute, to take just one example.
This is really not a story about technology, it's about consumer protection, something that exists in much of Europe and not really in the US.
One of the main complaints is that Apple can revoke access to music that people have bought, that's illegal around here, so naturally they have to fix the problem.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
Funny how that works, we (well many in Europe) see Americans as rash, stupid and violent in international affairs.
You (the US) seems to lack all moderation.
The EU works mainly to maintain the open market with free competition, it has succeeded in doing that for a long time, many cartels have been broken up and many companies have been fined into compliance with the laws.
The way to fix the problems is not to say "(We will ban all your products from the entire EU | turn your country into a glass parking lot) unless you do as we say", the objective is not to kill the opposition, but to modify harmful behavior, in that regard moderation is key.
It's much better to talk to the company and back that up with increasing fines, because that's something that will eventually make the company change its mind.
Apple and MS are small potatoes, they will fall in line soon enough.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
You have completely failed to understand the issue.
This has nothing to do with how successful Apple is, this has to do with Apple not obeying the laws.
You can't pretend sell stuff around here and then amend the contract after the fact.
There are several other problems with DRM, like the restrictions on otherwise legal use (like making unlimited copies), so it good to see that the other end of the copyright bargain gets some backing.
It's simple consumer protection, Apple has to shape up and obey the laws.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
You might have heard of this concept called "laws", "laws" tell people and companies how they must act and what happens when they don't.
I know that this will come as a shock to you lawless frontier cowboys, so brace yourself, around here there are things that you just can't do, no matter what.
One of these things is murder, no matter what contract you get someone to sign, you can't murder them.
Some business transactions are regulated in the same way, here are a couple of examples:
* You can't get less than 2 years warranty on new goods, no matter what the store says.
* You can't be forced into further restrictions after a sale has been made (EULAs are void).
What Apple does is to apply restrictions that are not legal, that's why they are being asked to fix their problem.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
So you bitch because you bought a lens for your expensive SLR Nikon and it will not fit your cheaper Canon?
Only to an extent. Lack of standards in lens fittings is a bad thing. But my Canon has a Sigma lens. They don't specifically design these things not to be compatible. I don't care if they make it easy for me. I just don't want them to make it hard for me.
Also don't make and sell kits to make OSX run on a Dell. You'd hear from Apple's lawyers.
Which is my point. Who would Ihear from is I made a lens adapter ring for my Canon?
Oh, the horror, the horror. If you want to find a way to force the labels to do away with DRM, fight the good fight. I'm with you. But why the hell should you and your friends start screwing up the way I like to listen to music? I like my iPod. I don't want a Zune or a Plays4Sure or anything else. I grab most of the music on my iPod from CDs and uh, other places. Mp3's play on everything. Sometimes I like to buy a song, or a whole album, from iTunes. I may have 200 purchased tracks. Why the hell do you have to be such a buzzkill? Do you think that screwing up other people's fun is what an activist does? And no, it's not a monopoly. You can get all the same tracks as the iTunes store has on a number of other services. No reason why you can't. There's no exclusivity in the iTunes store, as far as I know. That would be a monopoly. If Apple said, "If you make Dave Mason available on the Zune store, we'll drop all his tracks," that would be a monopolistic practice. They don't do that. Microsoft has paid Universal a fee on each Zune -- gee, Universal is a thousandaire by now! -- and allowed them and Sony to disable the "squirt" for their already-crippled WiFi on about half of their songs. With Apple, there's even a few hacks available to take the DRM off. Illegal, but I've heard some people do it. Not that I know how. And another thing, if this suit is successful, and Apple has to start loading songs on to other players for which they haven't gotten the money, they'll have to make the music store a profit center, which it's not now. Watch the iTunes prices go up. Thanks, Mr. Buzzkill.
These are the stupid CD's that I need the external DVD player for. Due to the bad TOCs, PCs & Macs never mount the disks but the external DVD player can play them. Using it's digital out gives me perfect copies which I can then split into songs & transform into MP3s.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Europe would like a big piece of that cash pie,
The cost of the penalty in anti-trust trials is insignificant compared to the cost of the prosecution - it's not something countries do to make money.
I equally hate DRM just as much as anyone else here, but the whole argument looks flawed. Customers buy the ipod because they like it, not because any evil government forced it upon them. They buy the songs from the apple store because they find it convenient - not because there is a decree stopping them from visiting allofmp3 and downloading whatever they like.
Log story short, this drm lock is chosen by the customers because they see a perceived benefit in it. Its just the same as going the windows or the OSX route - they get a locked down system and they use it because they like it better than a open or free system. If any, the governments should be targeting to change the mindset of the people. The boycotts should be called by the actual users. Anything else is against the rules of the open market.
BTW, the whole issue reminds me of the binary modules in the linux kernel episode.
For the record I haven't bought a single DRMed file and won't for the rest of my life. But I stand by apple here, they built the ecosystem and they should get to choose the rules by which they operate it. Its the same with Microsoft's monopoly, and I don't see any government asking them to open up the windows source.
Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips."
"Apple is essentially locking people into buying from iTunes if they want to buy music from big record labels online."
Can't I just buy a CD, rip it to mp3/or whatever format I want and load it to whatever device I want? I don't see how Apple is forcing anyone to do anything.
That's actually an interesting analogy. Why are these countries not forcing services like Napster, etc. to make their format compatible with the Ipod?
If every service should be compatible with every player, who should pay for the software maintenance/development effort?
The previous poster wanted to say:
"I only like mainstream music. Is Britney Spears next album out?"
"I hate using a search button. It is so 1990s"
"I am deaf"
"Three subscription models are less choice than one model, the true Apple's one. Seriously"
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Or European Economic Area, which is several countries outside the EU and the EU, who agree to be bound by economic policies.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
In Mexico panaderias (bakeries) used to sell milk with a catch, you could buy milk only if you bought bread.
This was declared illegal (tied sales are illegal in most countries I have lived in).
What Apple is doing is controlling which portable device you can use by means of tying iPods to iTunes. The "option" of burning a CD and then ripping it is a non option, any person with a modicum of computing literacy knows this.
Lets say that is like if the panaderias allowed the shop downstairs (who are renting space and thus can be arm forced) to sell you milk only if it was deficient in some way.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
All this jumping through loops should not be a consumer concern.
Since the companies are not organizing a competitive market that allows consumers to get what they are paying for, then govrnments have to intervine in order to tell the companies what is acceptable behaviour in a competitive and fair market.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"You are being succesful, curb your monopolistic instincts"
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... to play iTunes music, unless it is an iPod.
Save us all the burning-ripping nonsense.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You can happily download with your Web browser only.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Then why don't you guys fight that battle first?
Rich
Apple could get a license and add WMP playback, too. Creative can't get a license for that Apple DRM so their Zen will not be able to play music downloaded from iTunes. Apple's competition cannot add a feature Apple's products have and that feature is of no original value, it's value comes from another product Apple provides. This violates antitrust laws.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
.....ones that violate the Red Book standards (invalid data tracks, bogus checksum data, whatever) are more sinister.......
Ever CD/DVD I have ever tried, mounts fine on my external DVD drive using the TOAST program. Some would not mount with the finder, but the finder would recognize the disk once mounted. Some garbage labeled files would give error messages if clicked on, but all the sound tracks were good.
All theory is gray
We are doing
.....Who would Ihear from is I made a lens adapter ring for my Canon?.....
Nobody. If you obtained a legit copy of OSX for Intel and installed that on your Dell, Apple would not send the lawyers. Right now of course it is impossible to obtain a legal copy of OSX that will run on an Intel chip unless you also buy a Mac. In that case, Apple should not care if you erase OSX on the Mac and install it on YOUR Dell. There is no copyright on a lens adaptor you might make and sell, but there is on OSX. If you made and sold a software kit that allowed installation of OSX by anyone on a Dell, you would hear from Apple's lawyers unless Apple were selling OSX for Intel standalone on the open market so you could get a legal copy thereof.
All theory is gray
The cost of the penalty in anti-trust trials is insignificant compared to the cost of the prosecution - it's not something countries do to make money.
It is not the penalty I am talking about. Europe would like to promote domestic software companies, so they are going after the large foreign software company.
Okay. I understand why Apple wants DRM. I understand why the labels want DRM. I understand why DRM can't be fully open.
I hate that Fairplay is a moving target!
I don't want Fairplay to move. I don't want to have to upgrade my copy of iTunes from 6.x to 7.x simply to get songs from the iTunes store without losing the metadata. I don't like losing metadata because I'm afraid I'll lose critcal details: for a while, I had a few songs in my copy of iTunes with no artist listed because I couldn't remember who did them.
If Apple licenses Fairplay to other vendors, it won't move as fast. I think that this will be a good thing.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
I'm so sick of hearing the same FUD over again over again. License WMA/DRM from MSFT? Please. How Apple does violate antitrust laws? Apple made the iPod, they made the ITMS. They own both products. I do not see how this is similar at all to how MSFT tried to control a platform (PCs) that it did not manufacture, design or even sell. MSFT tried to block competing software from running on OEM machines that they did not own. There is a thriving third-party addon industry surrounding the iPod and Creative has become an official licensee for accessories.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
I hate to break this to you, but Microsoft actually has a policy that if a computer-maker buys a bulk license for MS-DOS/Windows (yes, MS's policy is that old) for any of its computers, it has to pay for the OS for every single one of them. That is one reason Microsoft's OSes are dominant today.
MS's model is precisely analogous to the BBC model.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
What are you basing this on? Do you have evidence that MSFT would license to Apple?
They've made IE and Office for the Mac, letting Apple use WMP formats would increase the number of platforms covered by them and give MS a bigger marketshare in the media format market. If MS is unwilling to do that, just call the antitrust commission and tell them that MS isn't willing to license its formats on non-discriminatory terms.
Why would Apple want to do this?
Because that would allow Macs to play more formats and let people use their Mac even when encountering a video that's WMV-only?
If MSFT was the least bit interested in seeing WMA technology on other computer platforms than Windows, we would have already seen an up to date version on not only windows but OS X and Linux.
Of course the license for the format costs money so MS isn't going to give it to Apple for free (would piss their licensees off because they're paying a few cents for each device or copy while Apple wouldn't need to pay anything) and Linux can obviously not afford paying per-copy fees (does Linux even play DVDs by default?). Noone's saying these formats have to be free as in beer, Apple can charge a reasonable fee for using them.
It is up to MSFT to support other platforms if they want business from those users.
I think here support goes from the software vendor towards the format, i.e. MS decides what formats to include with Windows, Apple decides what formats to include with Macs, etc.
License WMA/DRM from MSFT? Please.
Why not? Don't want it to keep your users locked into your format? Okay. But you have the option and that's what counts, if e.g. Zeta wanted to offer support for WMP playback they could.
How Apple does violate antitrust laws? Apple made the iPod, they made the ITMS. They own both products. I do not see how this is similar at all to how MSFT tried to control a platform (PCs) that it did not manufacture, design or even sell.
Antitrust is about using a large marketshare in one market to gain a big marketshare in another market. Microsoft doesnt dominate the PC (which would be hardware), they dominate the OS market and used that to dominate the browser and software media player market. Similarily, Apple dominates the music download market and uses that to control the hardware player market (and the other way around). It's impossible* for a competitor to dethrone Apple in the portable music player market without at the same time attacking their hold in the music download market and vice versa, same as it is practically impossible for anyone to dethrone IE as the most used browser without dethroning Windows as the most used OS.
There is a thriving third-party addon industry surrounding the iPod and Creative has become an official licensee for accessories.
There's also a thriving market for all kinds of addons for Windows, whether they be useful programs or just fixes for problems in Windows (virus and spyware removers, for example). Addons don't compete with the main product and the point of antitrust laws is to allow competition with the main product without having to enter dozens of other markets to break all the interlocked monopolies.
Optimally the documentation MS has to provide for the Windows API would allow other OSes to license the API and make their OS run Windows applications while paying a small fee per copy to MS.
*=Technically possible but too hard for anyone to pull off.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Bullshit. The EU is built around the Internal Market - and one of the greatest concerns for Europe is opening national markets to both domestic and foreign (European/international) competition. If you do not know this - you know nothing about the EU. I wish I could explain it all - but then again I studied this at Uni and it would take some to time do.
No, the license is for the TV set. The channel gets the funds over the national budget. Many consumers do not understand this important legal distinction.
You are such a troll! What Norway is trying to do is keep our tiny language alive through active measures like producing programming in our native language! In another 50 years we will probably only use English anyway - all our major corporations already do. Our cultural protection program has nothing to do with foreigners or xenophobia - its about American TV and music crushing our own unique culture. You have probably heard about how the French protect their language.
No, in my "socialist" country, like you said, it is all about the "proletariat". At least try to be consistent. We actually have a system where the people have the power.
We are not members of the EU (of our own choosing).
You obviously have not visited Norway. The council is independent and non-political. Your political and legal system is so different from ours - I understand your scepticism. We have our tiny leftwing anti-American groups, of course, but our close historical ties (WWII/NATO) and the 4 million Norwegian-Americans mean we are actually quite fond of the US.
I should hire you to be my speech writer (err forum poster). I just end up going around and around explaining the same things over and over again when this sums it up quite nicely.
I'm not sure if this is directed to me.. if it is, maybe you can look up my other ton of posts on this matter and find that you misunderstood me.
Apple does not force anyone to use iTMS. I bought my first iPod long before there was an iTMS anywhere let alone in my country (Canada). I was attracted to the device because it was well supported on the mac and because I found it to be the easiest to use. Guess where I got my music? CD's, eMusic and other sources.
Why are you having such a problem with understanding that I do not want to run windows? There is no way for me to access MTP based players on any other platform. All playsforsure devices use MTP rather than acting as a mass storage device IIRC.
I do not have to use iTMS with my iPod but I choose to because I find it convienient. I have also bought audio books from audible.com (a company separate from Apple) and they work fine in iTunes and the iPod. If I was so inclined, I could use a number of different applications on windows, OS X or linux to manage my non-DRM'ed MP3s and AAC files but again I prefer iTunes.
You do not seem to get that the iPod is not tied to one platform, that iTunes not tied to one platform either and that you do not need to use iTMS if you don't want to and you can simply manage Mp3 with your iPod or other supported devices.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Fined... or...
They will simply stop letting users in those countries purchase from iTMS in order to comply with the legislation.
That would probably do very little to hurt iPod sales anyway.
If they wanted to pick a fight, they'd have iTunes block access to iTMS and put up a "sorry, your government has legislatively disabled your access to iTMS; to email your government representative and complain, click here: [insert appropriate contact information derived from credit card billing information here]".
-- Terry
what they'll end up with is torrents of MP3s, all illegal, if they persist.
But, Doctor Evil, that already happened!
As a concept, DRM is necessary based on the assumption that, if left to their own devices, consumers will take valuable data (the kind which has taken work to create and thus is deemed to be worth monetary compensation for permission to possess) and redistribute it without such permission 'coz they can'.
I believe that this assumption is unfortunately reasonable. But that aside, I wonder what would happen if record companies and distributors like apple were to collectively give their customers the benefit of the doubt. If they were to remove DRM and simply make a polite request that anyone who wanted their own copy of the song please buy it instead of just copying someone else's.
Basic Idea: If people could be trusted to act in the interests of other parties instead of solely themselves, DRM would not be necessary. But that level of trust in the consumer is unreasonable. The consumer, in reality, can't be trusted to give fair pay to content creators when they don't have to. However, I believe that the reason for this is that the consumer doesn't trust the company. The consumer feels that if they don't go out of their way to avoid paying any money they can, they will inevitably be ripped off. Again, not a particularly unfair assumption in most cases. This is a case of circular distrust. Though I don't honestly believe it will ever happen, I believe what it would take to break this cycle is for either the consumers (who are much harder to organise) or the company to deliberately give the benefit of the doubt to the other party. They would more than likely lose a great deal of money over it, but if say, Apple and the RIAA were to jointly remove all DRM and simply ask their consumers to do what is fair (which for certain companies, without pointing fingers, may mean dropping their prices), they may find that when their customers realise that the company has enough respect for them to treat them how the company itself would like to be treated, they may just return the favour.
"People can enforce laws and morality - but only God can change the heart." - Jeremy Cole
Censorship is the opposite of education. If neo-darwinism were defensible, people would not need to try and censor ID.