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?
"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
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
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
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"
That is not specific to Apple. That is endemic, and actually the point, of DRM of any kind. If that was a reason to target Apple, the target should be broadened to attack any and all DRM.
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
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
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?
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
norway is not part a member of the EU
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.
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.
they aren't just targeting apple it said in the article that it would apply to everyone....
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
Sony ha
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.
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.
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
open DRM.
Staring at a white background [on a computer screen] while you read is like staring at a light bulb — Maddox
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."