Slashdot Mirror
EU Commissioner Slams Music Lock-In
Nonu writes "EU Commissioner for Consumer Protection Meglena Kuneva has come out against DRM lock-ins like Apple's iPod-iTunes combo. Kuneva said she believes the tie-in that keeps music bought from the iTunes Store from playing on MP3 players other than the iPod was unreasonable. '"Do you find it reasonable that a CD will play in all CD players, but an iTunes song will only play on an iPod?" asked Kuneva. "It doesn't [seem reasonable] to me. Something must change."' The EU is in the midst of an effort to harmonize its consumer protection laws, and along with the question of DRM tie-ins it is also looking at mandating cooling-off periods during which customers could 'return' downloaded music."
iTunes is extremely convenient. If I want just a song off of an album, I'll pick it up from Apple. But I also burn all the songs to a CD and then rip them back at high quality into mp3's.
Yeah - I know there is a slight loss in quality from ripping directly from the CD but for the cost savings, I can deal. And by ripping at high bit rates, you don't get near as much of the artifacts.
If an album is good enough I'll buy it and rip that. But for a song or two, it's iTunes, burn, and rip. Works great.
From TFA:Thanks Steve - why not offer DRM free music from artists and labels that you already have granted you permission?
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I don't own an iPod and have never used iTunes, so I'm obviously talking out of my ass, but I thought iTunes Store sells AAC. Even if there's no DRM, most of your MP3 players aren't going to play them, anyway, right? Huh?
Somebody must have figured out how to tinker w/ whatever you buy from iTunes Store so you can get an MP3 player-playable file out of it? Anyway, I avoid the whole iTunes/iPod craze all together...
Because if she has, she would know that Jobs himself opposes the DRM scheme. The reason they are using it is because of the very strict rules the music industry has imposed on them when it comes to file security and making sure the encryption will not be broken.
Jobs said that making all the songs on the iTunes store playable on different devices is possible, but giving out the encryption system to 100 different device makers without any overwatch is simply asking for disaster. Code has been leaked before (DVD discs anyone?), and this would be no exception.
It's not so much Apple's fault, because it's the music industry that said they cannot share their iTune songs, OR the encryption to play them on any other device, otherwise their license to sell online music would be revoked.
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The solution isn't standardized DRM. It's no DRM. The music industry (and apparently government regulators) want you to believe the only practical solution is the former. The real solution is the latter, for all the reasons Jobs outlined, not the least of which is that DRM will NEVER stop piracy and ALWAYS be able to be defeated.
Probably not. But it almost appears that way. More likely politics on the issue that iTunes being an Apple product, and Apple not being an EU based company, while several other EU based companies *cough* Philips *cough* LG *cough* are not making any headway into the market which is completely dominated by Apple. While I personally love the outcome of the fight, i.e. someone fighting for removing of DRM. The reasons for the fight are suspect in my eyes.
Why just fight against DRM for iTunes, and not DRM for everything? If the EU commisioner was really fighting for consumer rights here, it should be all DRM'ed anything, music, movies, electronic books, etc., etc., should be able to be universally used on any device. Which essentially means that it needs to be universal. Problem here is that as such, DRM can not work.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
DRM free music is the only true path to interoperability. Anything else will fall short.
For the record, I agree.
As to the oft-repeated response to Jobs' statement, I answer those concerns in one of my previous responses to another similar response. Summary: it is nowhere near as technically, legally, and procedurally as simple as people seem to think it is, and the fact Apple isn't doing it now doesn't mean Jobs' DRM statement was just PR fluff that they floated out because they "knew" they'd "never have to do it":
They already store unprotected files on the server that are accessible from certain clients. I'm sure they probably thought of the eventuality that they could sell unprotected music someday, and if they have any sense they already have something designed and implemented. It is definitely a business decision and not technical limitations that are holding them back.
Yes. And the business processes that go into rolling something like this out are probably far more complex than the technical processes. This actually speaks to my point: technically, sure, it may be that "2-3 day" operation people think it should be. From a business and support perspective, it's not. There may even be legal issues in one or more of Apple's other contractual relationships. This is the same as people thinking Apple should have been able to create an iPod battery replacement service in a week or two. In reality, it took the better part of a year. The point is that things are a little more complex and take a little longer than people seem to think.
I never said he was in love with DRM.
You didn't say that, but others making this argument essentially say that.
The simple fact is that Apple does not sell songs without DRM, even though they have the ability
You don't know that they have that ability right now. Just because the songs are stored unprotected on their servers doesn't mean they have the end-to-end business, technical, and logistical processes, today, to do that. I can just see people saying, "Please...how hard can it be?" It may NOT be "that hard". But it's a LOT harder than people seem to think it is. It's not as if they can just flip a switch. There are a lot of things that would have to happen at the back end to support this, not to mention a client update may even be needed.
I'm NOT saying any of this is impossible, or that it would be "hard" for Apple to do, or that they shouldn't do it.
I'm simply saying that using the fact that they're not currently doing it as some sort of "proof" that Apple doesn't really want to be rid of DRM is disingenuous.
and many independent labels have requested to have their music sold unshackled.
But how many of these labels have direct relationships with iTunes (i.e., not another intermediary)? I honestly don't know. Even if there are many, they, in total, comprise a very small portion (much less than "30%") and don't include any major labels. And the major labels - the ones who WANT DRM - are what's at issue here. I know that to some people, the converse situation of applying DRM to these other artists' music who may not want it stands as some sort of "proof" that Apple really isn't serious about ridding iTunes Music Store of DRM.
If Steve was anti-DRM, then why does iTunes not have the ability to sell unrestricted music from those labels that want it?
This is a legitimate question. Even if the number of people with valid rights to request this (i.e., people with direct contractual relationships with Apple) is very small, Apple should still enable this, even if only as a symbol.
The answer is that they can make a whole shitload of money while still appearing
Ummm... no. But then again, (real) CDs aren't locked up with DRM. It's shocking to me that a standardized format with no DRM can be played in any device conforming to that standard.
Maybe this idea is just my head spinning... but does this make sense to anyone else? Using some of their analogy:
:: iTunes File : iPod
CD : CD Player
Kinda makes sense to me like that... and at least sort of reasonable.
Maybe I should be able to play my CDs in my tape player too though?
All this "lock in" is pissing us consumers off, bigtime! I can't get my Apple iTunes songs to play on my PSP unmodified. I can't get my Zune to work on Linux. I can't get my iPod to connect to my C64 GEOS box nor can I get my Rio500 to communicate with a toasted cheese sandwich!!! This is CRAP!!!
BTW, can we up the "cooling off period" to 40 years so I can return all the extra songs from CDs and albums that I ever purchased just to get one good song? I think then we can all get some sleep at night. Way to tackle a big issue, EU!
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
Apple Chairman and CEO Steve Jobs has said that his company would make everybody happy by selling DRM-free music if only the record labels would agree to it. Color some Europeans unimpressed: a spokesperson for the Norwegian Consumer said that while Jobs' comments were welcome, they don't address the underlying problem of interoperability.
WTF? Selling DRM-free music most certainly would address the underlying problem of interoperability -- in the worst-case scenario, DRM-free music in one format (e.g. AAC) could be transcoded to a different format (e.g. MP3), albeit not at optimum quality.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
If consumers voluntarily buy a system that emplys DRM restrictions and Apple is voluntarily supplying it, where is the harm? Why should the government step in to prevent commerce between consenting adults?
Of course there are people out there that think government should be a "big brother" to keep its little brother, "the public" out of trouble.
I say I'm an adult. If I want to buy a system that employs DRM, it's my god damn business.
Would this mean that I could return the Britney Spear's download after she cut her hair?
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I too wish for lossless, DRM free, music with the breadth of the iTunes store.
However, in absence of that, I think a law, that essentially says that any digital product that is sold or otherwise licensed to a consumer (DRM or not) implicitly includes a license to the software required to play that media on the device of the consumers choice, would be the next best thing.
Needless to say, the software, or at least the specification to create the software, would need to be made available to any company or individual wishing to create software or devices inter-operable with that media.
]{
And, how about ZuneTunesTM songs playing on a Fairplay or any MP3 player? I assume this is included in the legislation. Perhaps crafting speeches which attack the problem rather than a vendor is a lost art.
Or perhaps this is a pre-canned comment you keep ready to drop on someone who says something anti-ITMS?
Anyway, I'll reply to the bit that did seem to intersect my comment:
Summary: it is nowhere near as technically, legally, and procedurally as simple as people seem to think it is, and the fact Apple isn't doing it now doesn't mean Jobs' DRM statement was just PR fluff that they floated out because they "knew" they'd "never have to do it":
Artists have been asking for DRM free ITMS music for months. If Jobs was as concerned about DRM being imposed on him as his little blog makes out, don't you think Apple should lead by example and become the first label (let's face it, that's what they are now) to offer DRM free tunes.
Even an announcement stating they're going to offer DRM-free tunes as soon as technically feasible would be enough for me.
Without that, Jobs' calling on the rest of the music industry to drop DRM when he appears unwilling to drop it himself smacks of hypocrisy.
Apple talking the talk, not walking the walk again.
(PS, what did you think of my diary?).
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
http://www.lge.com/about/corporate/company_history .jspe w.jsp
http://www.lge.com/about/corporate/company_overvi
Corporate Name LG Electronics Inc.
Established October 1, 1958 (As a private Company)
Corporate Office LG Twin Towers
20, Yeouido-dong, Youngdungpo-gu, Seoul, Korea 150-721
Tel: 82-2-3777-1114
URL: http://www.lge.com/
EU based companies *cough* Philips *cough* LG *cough*
LG is not European [You've made some Korean's very happy thinking so tho']
Why just fight against DRM for iTunes, and not DRM for everything? If the EU commisioner was really fighting for consumer rights here, it should be all DRM'ed anything, music, movies, electronic books
They are looking at DRM on all music - its just Apple's the biggest DRM dealer/pusher around at the moment.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Nobody is forcing people to buy music from iTunes.
In fact, there's a lot of music you can't get on iTunes, and must buy elsewhere.
iPods play MP3s great, too.
People are buying there by choice.
Christ! Isn't it obvious?
Consumers hate DRM as it removes freedom, but big business likes it because it locks in customers, and gives them a lesser product for the same price, prevents piracy etc.
Now, why does the music business want to prevent piracy? So they can guarantee sales.
Apple has such a big chunk of the online music industry that <i>they'll get sales regardless of whether they have DRM or not</i>. So, if the customer will be happier without DRM, it makes sense for Apple to be against DRM... happier customers + guaranteed sales.
Still... put your money where your fucking mouth is, Jobs. You've got enough weight to pressure the record companies out of the stone age.
The big music execs may have big chunks of their markets, but there isn't a single one that has the % market share that Apple has, in their respective businesses. They have more to protect... and they're just greedy fucks used to getting bucketloads of free money. They like putting up big brick walls, and suing their customers. Apple is far from non-evil, but they're a bit more 'with the times', so they're willing to see some sense in actually giving the customer what they want.
The real issue with music piracy is value-for-money. Once they can compete with piracy in the value-for-money stakes, they may start to win this. It's about society's percieved value of goods and services... it really shows how out of sync $30/cd is with what the general public perceives the value of it. You could blame piracy for this, yes. You can similarly blame price fixing.
You appear to have replied to the wrong comment?
Um, no?
Or perhaps this is a pre-canned comment you keep ready to drop on someone who says something anti-ITMS?
Or perhaps I specifically and directly said it was a response to a previous similar statement, and even linked to that very response in my post, since it was directly on-topic and there was no reason to retype it all?
Anyway, I'll reply to the bit that did seem to intersect my comment
Actually, the entire response is on-topic, because it speaks to why Apple isn't necessarily already doing no-DRM for the comparatively very small number of artists with legal standing to request this.
Artists have been asking for DRM free ITMS music for months. If Jobs was as concerned about DRM being imposed on him as his little blog makes out, don't you think Apple should lead by example and become the first label (let's face it, that's what they are now) to offer DRM free tunes.
I spoke to that too in my response. And for what it's worth, I agree, if only to quiet all the people who think Jobs' statement isn't genuine, and/or stupidly believes that Jobs' statement isn't the gentleman's equivalent, in the corporate media and business world, of Jobs walking into a boardroom with both middle fingers raised high.
Further, Apple may NEVER do this until it can be 100% across the board, like it or not, and we also don't know if one or more of the other major label contracts mandates that all music sold via the same store/mechanisms share the same controls. Even if the latter isn't the case, the former is still by far a legitimate enough reason for Jobs to not want to do it (e.g., why do some tracks I bought play on my Zune and others won't?). I know that a lot of people don't buy that argument, but frankly, it's perfectly legitimate.
The good of humanity? HE INVENTED THE ONE BUTTON MOUSE, for heaven's sake! I'd rather have a dozen, a hundred bureaucrats than that evil demonic tool!
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
With CDs you can make a copy. So once the package is opened, it's understandable not being able to return it. But with DRMed music files, your right to view the file is taken away with returning the file. You can't make copies. Music, unlike movies, tends to be played over and over which makes the whole returning thing work.
I am in no way encouraging DRM.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Now, I'm more liberal than the majority of the population here in the United States, and I'd guess I'm probably more in the line of France and western Germany, but honestly, let the people choose what they want to buy. If they want to buy something that's less than 1/10th the quality of a CD, let them. They're basically over-paying for each song by around 100% anyway, since for the argument's sake, an average CD will consist of 10 songs, and the bitrate of the files they are downloading are less than 10% of a CD's bitrate. So, they're paying $1 for $0.1 worth of music. I'd say that's the biggest rip-off. The only thing I can see anyone slamming Apple for would be if they marketed any form of lossy media (And yes, an m4a or aac file encoded at 320kb/s is still lossy) as "CD-Quality" or something along those lines, then they could be in trouble for false-advertising.
After she's done with this, I want games for the PS2, PS3, Xbox, Xbox360 and Wii to all work on each other's systems. It's not fair that God of War 2 is only compatible on two of those systems! Stop Sony! Intercompatibility is where it's at! It's not fair I can only play it on Sony's systems!
for the comparatively very small number of artists with legal standing to request this.
It doesn't really matter how many artists if you want to lead by example.
(e.g., why do some tracks I bought play on my Zune and others won't?). I know that a lot of people don't buy that argument, but frankly, it's perfectly legitimate.
This argument would be legitimate, but sorry. Apple haven't minded confusing ITMS customers in the past.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
keep an eye on amarok ver 2.0 they are adding support for alternate online music sellers.Unlike iTunes Amarok works with just about every mp3 player out there and offers a far better environment than itunes for managing your music.
Music bought from iTunes can only be used on iTunes compatible hardware.
How different is this from Pay-Per-View or premium movie channels? How different is FairPlay from, say, Macrovision?
With PPV, you bought the movie. But that doesn't mean you can watch it forever. In fact, due to Macrovision, you may not be able to record it at all (assuming your VHS, DVR, or recording device honors Macrovision).
Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant. The principle exists. You can only watch your PPV movie on a device with the PPV hardware. Just because that PPV hardware is from different vendors doesn't matter - the spec is controlled by PPV (and the STB client is most likely written by PPV).
This DRM lock-in stuff is silly; DRM type lock-ins have been around forever in one form or another. "Why doesn't this damn CD fit in my 8-track player?"
Where has this guy been? Xbox games only play on Xboxes and PS2 games only play on PS2/PS3. Windows media player, WMA/WMV and playsforsure is windows only. The last time I checked, not all iPod owners buy from iTMS and not all people buying from iTMS have an iPod. Need I mention that iTunes is not locked into OS X?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
She's already soft-pedalling on her comment. http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNe ws/idUSL139204020070313
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
Perhaps we also need to condemn Sony because PS3 media doesn't work in a Wii.
'"Do you find it reasonable that a CD will only play in a CD player, but an iTunes song will play on all iPods?"
I'd love to be able to trade in my tapes for CDs. Or play Wii games on a PS3, or 360 games on a Windows box or even under Mac/Linux. Can I have a pony now?
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
Well if the consumer is too retarded to change the iTunes default ripping format from AAC to MP3 (which works on every imaginable player), then it's the consumer's problem, Apple isn't restricting anything here.
Think of it from the 'artist's' point of view as a a pro DRM type, you are more likely to be seen a greedy, ass hat, weasel of a freak and about as far from cool as you possibly can be, whilst you know that your non-DRM competitor will be seen as really cool, some one who is actually into the music and not in it just for the money and cares about the fans buying the music. Can you see the problem now?
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
i wondered why nobody ever brings that up? you could not trade in 8-tracks for cassettes, then for vinyl then for CDs..... same way you could not trade in VHS, Betamax or LaserDisc for DVD, or DVDs for BluRay/HDDVDs. i'm no fan of DRM, but how is the iTMS/iPod any different from that? no wonder the labels love locking people to an iPod or Zune or whatever else. if there was no DRM you would NEVER have to buy those songs or movies again.
i don't understand how Apple or Microsoft or Napster or anyone can be blamed for the DRM that the big labels demand. the EU and everyone else should go after the labels that require it. if Apple deactivated their DRM tomorrow, they would breach their contract with the big labels, and whenever this time period of licensing is over, the labels would pull everything from iTMS.
just as I can't use a CD on my record player o MP3 player, Apple's files are just a transport medium. You CAN buy this music from other places, go and do it. I can't buy music from my local ISP because they use Windows DRM, this is going to be a double edged sword which should also stop DRM on DVDs etc, Why not remove ALL DRM??
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Meglena Kuneva: "Do you find it reasonable that a CD will play in all CD players, but an iTunes song will only play on an iPod?"
:-)
So basically she demands DRM free music. Isn't that the reason why CDs (those ones which have the official CD logo from Philips) play on all CD players?
Neither I nor anyone else outside of the highest echelons at Apple can say for sure, but I suspect that Apple has agreements in place with the major labels to the effect that all music sold through the iTMS will have the same DRM, regardless of where it comes from.
I suspect this, because if I was a DRM-loving music label, sitting on top of a whole lot of content that Apple really wanted, it's one of the conditions that I would insist on as an absolute.
If this condition didn't exist, then as you and others have pointed out, Apple could start selling some artists' works without DRM, and there's a chance that the market might favor them, because -- let's face it -- to a consumer, DRM sucks. The record labels aren't (completely) stupid; someone there, maybe an intern, junior staffer, or coffee-boy sat down at someone's unlocked computer and typed it into a memo once: "given a choice, people will probably choose the digital format that sucks least." Since they have decided that it is their purpose on Earth to deliver to consumers music in formats that Really Suck, and they also like making money, it follows that they'll do anything in their power to keep other people from releasing music in a less-sucky format. And at least back a few years ago when Apple and the labels were negotiating to get the iTMS started, they had more then enough clout to push such a codicil through.
In short: to a music executive, DRM must be universal. No music must be allowed to escape without it, because once people get a whiff of that sweet, sweet DRM-freeness, they're never going to want to come back. For that reason, it must be nipped in the bud, snuffed out before those independent-label hippies can use it to their advantage.
I doubt we'll see any DRM-free music in the iTMS catalog at least until the next big renegotiation between Apple and the labels, and even then, I'm not sure that Apple is really in a position to be dictating terms with them too severely. Apple has other concessions that they need to get first, chief among them is a renewed agreement to stay with the flat-rate pricing model of $1 a track, and not go to some variable-pricing model as the labels would prefer.
It's easy to paint the labels as a bunch of bumbling buffoons, who don't have the slightest concept of the modern digital economy, but I think this is a dangerous underestimation. They're nothing if not cunning, and moreover they have a lot of money with which to hire any number of smart, mercenary types (e.g. lawyers, consultants, etc.) to assist them in their paranoid delusions: it's inconceivable that the possibility of an upstart rival using a lack of DRM to try and compete didn't occur to them, and that once realized, they wouldn't have taken steps to minimize this possibility.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
From your nickname, I wonder if you're a bin laden sleeper too...
If you hadn't talked about iTunes, I would have thought you run Linux...
Still... put your money where your fucking mouth is, Jobs. You've got enough weight to pressure the record companies out of the stone age.
Jobs had a very difficult time even getting the iTunes store off the ground. Since then the labels have pushed back very hard. They've tried to institute differential pricing, which would allow them to charge more for popular songs and *cough* less for unpopular songs. They've kept their margins quite high on iTunes sales. They've thrown considerable money behind a host of iTunes competitors in hopes of wresting control from Apple, and now they are pretending that Apple has foisted DRM on them.
The inmates are definitely running the asylum that is the music industry. They feel Jobs has too much power. They still can't come up with viable business models on their own. They come at every problem from the perspective that their customers are their enemy, and that the one company that has made the authorized download market viable is also their enemy.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Within the DRM formats, Apple's is the most lenient and the that givess the less trouble to the user. If this take on DRM is serious, why don't they attack the draconian DRM formats like MS and EMI? Ok, ok just create a story with "Apple" and you will get a headline, but other than that, why don't they attack the companies that create the worst DRM formats?
if a label feels that it needs to sell something in Fooistan for US3 that sells for US$18 in the United States, because that's what the market bears and that's how they've chosen to price it - which is their right - without some of the controls of DRM, how can the $3 version be restricted to Fooistan?
Your conclusions are all right -- that such a scheme is impossible -- but I disagree with your premises, namely that doing such is a "right."
You have the "right" to try and sell your wares at whatever price you wish, but others have a right to not buy it, and buy it from somebody else if they prefer.
In general, you are a fool, if you try and sell a good in one place, at a price that's higher than what you sell it at in another place, plus the cost of transporting it from the latter place to the former. So, for example, if you sell records in Fooistan for $3, and it costs $1 to send a record from Fooistan to Baristan, then you will probably never be able to get much more than $4 for records in Baristan, because if you attempt to charge more, consumers will just end-run you, and have stuff shipped in from Fooistan, where it's cheaper. This is their right, and the sellers' right, under many historically-established doctrines, such as First Sale. (Which sadly no longer seems to exist in Great Britain, but that's a story for another day.)
The fact that people in Baristan might pay a whole lot more than $4 for your record, if they existed in a complete vacuum (i.e. where the cost of transportation from Fooistan was infinite), is totally irrelevant. You have no 'right' to that price, because it's provably not what the real-world market will bear when it's connected to other markets. It might as well be ignored, because it doesn't matter.
What computers do to information (among many other things) is make the cost of transporting it from one place to another, very, very low. So it ought to be basically impossible to sell a digital commodity in one place for a different price than you sell it in another, because people will just ship the files (at negligible cost) around your carefully-designed price-discriminatory barriers. In effect, cheaper communication and transportation (with information, these are the same thing) link the markets into one market, where there is but a single prevailing price for any fungible good. This is pretty basic economics here.
The sellers of some types of information, particularly entertainment, have attempted to defy this by erecting technical hurdles which prevent information from being easily transmitted from one place to another. In effect, they're making it harder to transport goods, thus allowing a greater difference in price to be created in different regions. With DVDs, this is done with region coding and locking. With iTunes songs, it's done with a flat prohibition on resale, enforced by per-user licensing. But like all DRM, these are inherently flawed and thus surmountable; the fact that they can be worked around means that you can only charge so much more for content in various areas, before it becomes worth the trouble to buy it from some other area and bypass the blocks.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This critisism has nothing to do with consumer rights at all. If it had, she wouldn't point her finger at Apple but at DRM as a whole. All major DRM systems known to me lock the consumer in.
WMA: Microsofts usual way of doing things. Use the market share of Windows to push forward the format. Many stores consider DRM and choose Microsofts because Windows is nearly everywhere and they will have an instant consumer base. While one can choose from a few players, I have yet to see a system that allows you to use it without Windows. So you have a choice with players but a large collection keeps you sticking with windows.
Fair-Play: You can choose from two operating systems but you can only use Apples Players. You have a little more freedom choosing your computing platform but the devices are more limited.
Of course Apple had to open itself towards Windows. Without it, they would not have the userbase that made them successful.
In the end though, there is not much difference between the two. Why is it that she attacked Apple then? In Europe WMA has a significant market share and the domination of the iPod is far from as big as in other parts of the world. I believe she is as bought by the music industry as those in the EU implementing ever more drastic copyright regimes. Why? It's a known fact that the big 4 love and hate Apple at the same time. Getting Apple to open up their DRM would most probably reduce the power of the position they are in now. With Apple's market share, Jobs can actually resist the big 4 labels and not raise prices for certain tracks, somthing the majors want for quite some time. But less power for Apple doesn't mean less sales and revenues for the music industry.
Therefore, if she was actually fighting for consumer rights, she'd attack DRM and with that the major 4, Apple and Microsoft at the same time. But nobody in the EU fights agains the powerful lobby of the music industry. They usually get what they want fairly easily. Attacking Apple however helps the music industry.
I'm sure it's the same kind of **** we've been seeing for quite some time now -- badly concealed lobbyism and nothing more.
I don't really see why that needs a 'cooling off period.' That seems like a pretty straightforward contract-law dispute: someone charging someone else based on terms of a contract which weren't adequately disclosed at the time an agreement was reached.
If the user was presented with a contract and just didn't bother to read it before agreeing, then I've no pity for them whatsoever. Maybe losing a dollar/euro/pound or two will teach them to read the fine print, before they lose something important -- like their house to a shady mortgage. Consider it a life lesson.
If, however, the cell-phone company did in fact charge the user without provably informing them of the charges they were about to incur, then they should unquestionably be in Deep Shit. (That's a legal term of art there.) IIRC, some telephone companies used to pull similar gimmicks a while back, called "slamming", where they would change your long-distance service provider without permission or consent. IIRC they got slammed with some pretty big fines and damages.
There are laws in place which ought to deal with a whole host of problems that seem to be major crises today. Maybe we should encourage people to work within the (vast) framework of laws and precedent already established, before we go making up bunches of new laws which might have a lot of unforeseen effects?
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"Kuneva's comment -- which the Commission stressed is purely her personal view"
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Wow, quite a bit of strawmen there. How, exactly, you can legitimately compare iTMS lock-in to console systems is beyond me. Programmers create games specifically for a particular console, unless they decide to make the game, at extra initial cost, multi-platform. Porting a game to multiple consoles and/or PC is sometimes difficult, definitely time consuming, and costly. How is that in any way analogous to creating music? Do artists and bands create music specifically designed to play on only one platform? Is it time consuming and costly to make their music multi-platform? Of course it isn't. Music was, from the very beginning, inherently easily reproduced, as well as being "multi-platform."
It is not a question of people wanting to do more than they should be able to with their music. It is, in actuality, the exact opposite. It is a prehistoric music industry attempting to do more than they should be allowed to with the artists' music, because it realizes that it is dying. Apple's DRM is a result of this. Apple had no real choice in the matter. If they wanted to sell RIAA-endorsed music, they had to provide DRM of some sort. Yet Apple most certainly is benefitting from FairPlay. Whether you would like to admit it or not makes no difference. They have in effect cornered the music download market, and are in a position where they could, if they felt strongly enough, start making inroads toward the eventual death of DRM. Maybe we have actually witnessed the beginning of this with Steve Jobs' recent "Thoughts on Music" open letter, yet I remain unconvinced. It would be a trivial thing, as well as a great symbolic gesture, for iTMS to cut the DRM requirement for indie labels and unsigned artists, yet they have not. If it has anything to do with the contract that they signed with the RIAA, then that can be taken to court and quite easily be dealt with.
Secondly, the fact that WMA and PlaysForSure are Windows-only is a red herring. PlaysForSure is at least licensed out. That has nothing to do with the issue, of course. PlaysForSure is also a form of DRM, and should be abolished along with FairPlay. I would imagine that the European Union feels the same way about both of the DRM implementations respectively. Attempting to apply bias before having given sufficient thought to something is defective. Judge the past along with the present. Consider relations between the EU and Microsoft over time, and then try to make an informed hypothesis as to how this situation will further unravel.
Lastly, the fact that iTunes is not locked-in to OSX has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. I do not understand why you even mentioned this unless it was yet another attempt to obfuscate the true concern. iTunes is available on both Macintosh and Windows-based computers for one simple reason: more customers equal more cash flow.
I do not understand how the Slashbots can be so liberal, pro-choice, and pro-freedom when the issue suits their bias, and yet as soon as Apple is brought up, they turn into mindless, apologetic shills spouting inadequate excuses left and right.
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
it is Europe who actualy tries to do something about
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
If we had the fairest possible DRM, fewer people would complain. The resulting faction that wanted DRM done away with completely would have little pull in the market. On the other hand, we don't want it too much such that nobody buys music and the labels claim, "Hey, we tried... but people don't want to pay for downloaded music!"
We seem to be at a pretty (un)happy medium right now.
I think this might have more truth in it than most at Slashdot are willing to admit. One of the iTMS' biggest strenghts has always been that the customer knows what he's getting - every time. There is no small print attached to certain albums, no extra gotchas, and the price is always the same. It's simplicity for the customer, and that's what Apple has been selling across the board, not just in music files. While it isn't fair towards the independents who could give a rat's ass about DRM, it still makes business sense.
Not that I wouldn't want to see DRM go away, but I also think that it will only happen when they can offer a large majority of music without DRM. At that point, the inevitable small print will turn into leverage to get rid of the remaining DRM protections - the last record company to insist on having DRM will look like the bad guy. (As if the big four don't already..;) )
And no, I'm not an iTMS apologist. I buy my music as CDs and LPs, and will as long as they don't offer losslessly compressed DRM-free music online. (Sidenote: I heard Allofmp3 may sell some tracks recompressed from a lossy source - don't know if it's true however.)
Many of the so called "CD"s sold by the major music publishers do NOT play in many players because they are not Redbook compliant. These so called CDs use copy protection to make ripping the songs to MP3s difficult.
I do not buy copy protected CDs. When offered copy protected CDs as gifts, I attempt to return them as they do not play in my car & converting them to MP3s is a pain in the ass. I suggest that the commissioner push the music publishers to abandon this instead of harping on apple. Currently, I use the MP3 format as it is ubiquitous and my entire collection is not too large to be stored on my MP3 player. When, in a few years the capacity of MP3 players has increased to the point where it is feasible, I will rerip all my CD's to a lossless format.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Hi,
> Do you find it reasonable that some Brussels bureaucrat can tell Steve Jobs
You mean a democratically appointed representative for all european consumers.
Then yes. She can and she fucking should. It's her job.
Blu-Ray movies don't work in my DVD player, vinyl doesn't work in my Laserdisc player, my Windows PC won't install Office For Mac, my XBox 360 can't play Wii games and I had to use legally questionable firmware hacks to get my PSP to understand my PS1 files.
While we're at it, maybe all music programs should be blocked from encoding to anything other than mp3? The 42 tracks in my iTunes library that came from the store (half of them the free ones from Single Of The Week, in case you're wondering how I ended up with so many) would have a rather smaller lock-in effect if I wanted a different brand of music player than the 50Gb of stuff I ripped to AAC from my own CDs and can't face doing all over again. Similarly, WMP defaults to WMA, for those that use that.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Please note that this comment only applies directly to the US iTunes Store. The UK one, for example, does not have a fixed price per album, although most are £8.99 ($17.373 in American money), and quite a few albums do not allow the purchase of individual tracks.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
What she is doing is blaming Steve and friends for the fact that she isn't doing anything about the RIAA cartel. Why focus on iTunes instead of something like SONY connect where the content provider and the distributor are one and the same?
Well, this particular bureaucrat has been championing consumer rights for years. Steve Jobs has produced overpriced electrical equipment and made lots of money from it.
In this discussion it really beats me why Apple gets slapped for something Microsoft has been doing for years. True without succes. I have made two attempts to buy online music from a Windows driven site. Teh first time my credit card got charged three times (I did get it back) and I purchused the hard cd. The second time I was able to play the music in Virtual PC using Windows only (so what's different from iTunes there?), but a year later (and a new version of MediaPlayer) and my licenses for th elegally obtained music cannot be used any more nor can they be moved to another system!!! In other words is is worthless, I get the option to purchase a new license! That is ten times worse than the iTunes/iPod partial lock-in an d nobody ever protested.
Same game different channel.
/. is late. Commissioner Kuneva has already softened her statement (linky here.
The PC games industry also needs regulation for its DRM, its not on the packaging, its not in the advertisements, its intrusive and doesnt work and you are up shit creek without a paddle in most cases and have to resort to nocd cracks. I wish the games industry is also regulated as self regulation is ineffective.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
Typical bureaucratic response to overwhelming consumer choice validating the success of a product - let's pass some more laws and see if we can somehow get a bigger piece of the pie and convince the public that they don't overpay taxes to a severely bloated government. She misses the point that people already have options for getting their music to play on multiple players. A person could easily just buy the CD and rip it in an unencrypted format, which is my personal preference, but some people own an iPod and just don't give a shit if they can't play their music on the Microsoft ShitBrick (Zune) because they will NEVER own one. Bureaucrats should pass a law forbidding them to make laws that regulate things that are beyond their comprehension before they end up passing a law that actually does some harm.
Also is wrong. It will play on a number of iPods. It also plays on a number of computers (yes, even Apple and Windows machines alike) and the songs stream just fine through my stereo via this device. In addition, the burned audio cd's also play fine on my car stereo, something which cannot be said for some original cd's bought in a store.
The difference is, it's far easier to convert an audio file to play on any different player on the market than it is converting a PC game to play on the console or vice versa.
What they're doing is preventing people from being able to convert these music files to play on their beloved player and forcing people to use their specific audio device. How you can compare console games to this is beyond me though.
Don't like iTunes? Have an 'issue' with iPod? BUY THE MUSIC ELSEWHERE.
There are dozens of alternatives, from other online services all the way to 'burn yer own' cd stations at grocery stores.
If a supplier offers a product that is extremely good, but then starts to lock in proprietary components (including consumables that are necessary) why don't we let the MARKET decide whether the limitations exceed the value? Customers are fairly smart over time.
On this same premise, when is the EU commissioner going to go after Schick and Gilette for having the AUDACITY to build their razor blades in such a proprietary fashion? I mean, you can't use a Gilette blade on a Schick handle - heavens!
Or closer to the EU - how about Volkswagen for making it's f*cking windshield wiper blades with a unique mounting, so you can't just buy their blades off the shelf like every other car, but have to buy VW blades at $16-$18 EACH?
Such monopolist behaviour MUST STOP! Someone call the government to regulate!
Or we could just let the market punish manufacturers that go too far?
-Styopa
It is likewise unreasonable that CDs will only play in CD players, that MP3s will only play with an MP3 decoder, that HP printers can't use Canon cartridges, and that 0.5 mm pencils won't accept 0.7 mm lead. Not fair!
Isn't the EU starting to sound a little sand in the vagina neurotic about this one issue? There are OTHER storefronts besides iTunes. And there are other PC clients besides iTunes you can use to force content on to your iPod. It sounds like protectionism from the EU and I wish they'd just shut the hell up about it.
Selling me your CD's and e-mailing me an iTunes track aren't the same thing... If you sell me a CD, I own the physical manifestation of the product and now you do not. This isn't tantamount to piracy. Digital internet distribution makes it a bit more complicated because the physical manifestation of these tracks is on your hard drive. So, to be perfectly fair in your analogy... you'd have to compare selling/giving me a CD to giving me your hard drive (or any portion thereof, except that one assumes a piece of a hard drive platter isn't going to be much use to me). The issue isn't black or white but analogies for argument's sake should be equal.
Sheesh!
Consumers vote with their feet. And the vast MAJORITY of Consumers have voted -- iTunes!
Damn! Does EVERYTHING have to have Government Intervention???
I would say there are two main reasons (which are really just different side of the same reason):
I wouldn't call downloading music of BitTorrent for my own enjoyment theft (copyright infringement it may be, but not theft). I would call either buying the CDs or downloading the songs and then setting up shop to sell copies of them left and right, making a huge profit in the process, theft.
So, basically, the reason Apple couldn't do the same thing is IT'S BLATANTLY ILLEGAL, YOU MORON!
Have a nice day.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
You sure?
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It's like she is complaining because Apple makes the most comfortable foot bindings that allow you to wear Apple shoes, and they should share their foot binding technology with the other foot wear manufacturers.
Really, we should all stop foot binding.
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
If they were really serious about this philosophy, they'd go after Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft for selling game consoles that prevent any non-licensed content from playing. If I'm not mistaken, they are using copyright laws as part of the control mechanism. (I.E. the console requires a code before the game will run, and the code is not secret but is copyrighted.) That's really an abuse of copyright law, it wasn't meant to be used that way at all.
It's not DRM, it's not supposed to prevent copying. It's just supposed to prevent competition.
People will do stupid things. People will do stupid things. People will do stupid things. Trust me, most consumers don't understand now that timebomb they're in for, but they will eventually. Fortunately someone in governance has a little foresight and is DOING THEIR JOB and trying to protect consumer interests even if consumers aren't interested in them.
If I remember correctly, Apple wasn't allowed to let their music downloads operate just like a CD:
The music companies wanted there to be a one-user purchase.
Thus this EU guy trying to make it open is like trying to get them to break the deals they made with the the music companies. I wonder if they can comply with the EU and keep the RIAA (or whoever it was) happy.
However, iTunes let's you burn as many CDs as you want of the purchased music, so are they really being that controlling?
PS.I believe there was a SlashDot link/article on how Apple's DRM wasn't implemented for any reason other than the requirement set by the RIAA/recording companies, in return for a licensing deal. Search for it in the Apple section.
... is not free.
/. could be so very ignorant of this whilst the majority seem quite aware of how MS has been doing well at this game is beyond me.
That's the goddamn point. The goal of any company that is big enough is to pervert the market so that it IS NOT FREE but works towards their ends. That people on
This is what Apple are doing with iPod + iTunes - they are trying their damndest to ensure there is no such thing as a "free" market by locking their customer's investments into their platform. This is market perversion 101.
Capitalism is not a magic bullet. People who think the market will solve all the worlds ills need to wake up and take a good, hard look at reality.
It has been said that Apple stores their music files DRM free on their servers. The iTunes client encases songs in DRM during the download process. This is necessary to isolate potential breaches in the DRM scheme.
Using this system, if Apple wants to sell DRM free music, they need to add a flag to indicate that a file can skip the DRM encoding process. This flag will be sent to the client during the download process. If the flag is set, the client will skip encoding. This is technically possible and probably easy to implement.
Let us consider a simple mistake. A song file, which is controlled by one of the major labels, is flagged incorrectly. The file is supposed to be protected by DRM, but it is flagged as DRM free. Let's pretend that this file is downloaded 10,000 times before the problem is found. Apple can only flip the flag, which will only affect future downloads. They cannot retrofit the 10,000 copies of the songs already downloaded with DRM.
Wouldn't the major label demand restitution for all those songs sold DRM free? Wouldn't that restitution be written into the contract? From a business perspective, is this risk worth it? Is it worth it to appease a small percentage of labels, artists, and customers?
There are so many other areas of lock-in in the IT industry, many of which are much worse and harder to work around than Apple's. Look at microsoft's document formats not to mention their own DRM schemes, and various other methods of lock-in.
Now, while i agree that any kind of lockin, including apple's is bad, they are by no means the worst offender. Many people have already mentioned the burn to CD method, and you can always buy your music from somewhere else, apple don't have a monopoly on music distribution, or even sufficient grip over the market to assert any pressure on consumers. The tie-in is also one way, you can play standard drm-free mp3s on the ipod anyway.
I consider being forced to run windows and/or msoffice, in order to read documents sent to me by various companies to be a far worse kind of lockin, but too many people are already locked in, so they don't realise the situation. Apple wouldn't be having these kinds of issues if they'd established a microsoft-level stranglehold over the market already.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
What are the barriers to entry in music downloads?
a) access to content
b) network servers
c) music compatible with a DAP
Now (a) is nothing to do with Apple but with copyright. I think we can take it for granted they aren't going to abolish or weaken copyright.
b) isn't much of a barrier
We're left with (c).
Now, if you can get (a) with the sale of MP3's you have no barrier there either.
If you can get (a) with the sale of some other DRM then there is a barrier to entry but it only happens because you cannot get content without DRM.
Still not Apple's problem. That their FairlyPlay(tm) scheme only works with iPods is not a barrier to entry: use another DRM.
So the iTunes store isn't able to be an effective monopoly because the only barriers to entry are ones that are required by other parties.
Lets have a look at the iPod then.
It plays MP3s. It plays AAC. You can turn your FairlyPlay(tm) restricted content with these formats by ripping to CD and then converting the CD to one of these formats. That WMA doesn't let you rip their content to CD or direct to unprotected MP3/AAC is the barrier to having a store that can load up an iPod but it is one that MS have built up. Not Apple.
So where, although there is a monopoly of prescence, is the monopoly power? A monopoly happens to exist when the course of the product can be driven by the monopoly player. A cartel is a monopolist made up of bit-players but it still needs to be able to drive the market for it to be a cartel.
No capability to drive the market (unless market chooses to follow your lead) means you aren't a monopoly even with 100% of the market: if nobody WANTS to play in that market, why is that your fault?
O! Sorry! That was the wrong question.
"Do you find it reasonable that an American is cleaning up in the digital music and video download space and that Europe is doing nothing?" I thought not.
sqribbles.blogspot.com/.
instead of constantly going after apple about opening up their drm how about you just go the other route and stop using itunes, if you dont like that itunes only works with ipods then dont use it, there is other music services out there, or you can still go buy the cd and rip it yourself. why should apple allow other players to work with their service? right now they have a good thing going getting the music sales and the player sales why would they let someone else in? I am not an apple user in fact I despise apple and their products so i dont use them, if you dont like the way they do things you dont have to sue them either. dont like windows? dont use it, dont like apple? dont use it. eventually people will realise apple is garbage and the problem with disappear.
I do not understand why people continue to believe that if you buy a track from iTMS, it will only play on an iPOD. Last time I checked you can press the play button right there in iTunes...hmmm...
. html Hey wait a minute... does that mean that I can play that cd in a CD PLAYER!!?!? And wait, a cd player isn't an IPOD is it!!!
Also, you can burn a cd from playlists that you create using... you guessed it...iTunes! Check it out straight from Apples website: http://www.apple.com/ilife/tutorials/itunes/it4-2
You don't even have to own an iPod to be able to use iTMS or to listen to the music purchased from it.
Someone way up towards the top said something about not being able to play a PS2 game on an XBOX360, and that is totally right. Apple isn't forcing anyone to buy an iPod or use iPods to play music. The iPod and iTMS are two completely different products/services. The iPod has the ability to play music that wasn't purchased from iTMS, and you DO NOT have to have an iPod to play music purchased from iTMS. Where is the "lock-out"? Yes they have DRM on their music, but they aren't stopping you from playing that music on a non-apple device!
Just because you are too lazy to RTFM or click a few buttons, doesn't mean that Apple is evil or is doing anything wrong. Apple has done more than any other company to bring the music industry to current times than anyone else.
Also, this whole argument about "if I buy a cd, it plays in ALL cd players..." is crap. Well no kidding, it's a CD!! Guess what... If I buy an iTMS track, it will... wait for it... PLAY ON ALL MODELS OF IPODS!!! Wow what a startling concept. I could understand that argument if I bought a track from iTunes and it didn't work on my 1st Generation iPod, but that isn't the case. It doesn't matter what kind of iPod I have, I know that if I buy a song from iTunes, it will work with the iPod that I own. However, if I buy a record, it is understood that I need to have a record player to play the thing. No one seems to be upset about that! If I want the music that is contained on that record to play in my CD player, then I will have to do some work to get it there, wont I? It is the same principle as my iTMS music. If I want that music that I have purchased to work on my CD player, then I will have to do a little bit of work, and guess what, it is much much less work to rip a cd from iTunes than it is to make a CD from a record.
I hate it, but DRM isn't going anywhere anytime soon. At least with iTunes I have a system that works great, is easy to use, and doesn't make me feel like a criminal every time I use it. I just click a few buttons and a few minutes later I am listening to the music that I purchased. Yes, it has limitations, but no more than the cd to record comparison I made earlier.
Tapes play in tape players, cd's play in cd players, records play on record players, and believe it or not, the iPod is the player apple chose for it's offerings. They were just nice enough to give you the option to make it play on other mediums. We should be thanking them, not bringing legislation against them.
Note: I am not an Apple Fanboy, or an employee. I am just a satisfied customer that is tired of hearing people complain about a good thing. It has been said quite a few times, if you don't like it, no one is forcing you to use it or buy it. If you don't like iTMS, then DONT USE IT! If you don't like iPods, go buy a zune or some other music player, and good luck trying to find something that is as easy to use as an apple product. If you still aren't happy, go buy a CD. If that isn't working for you, go to a concert. If you still aren't happy, you shouldn't be listening to music at all.
For example if I purchase a CD I do not own the physical media in a way I can say it is my property but the artist gives me permission to listen to the works within and the physical medium is merely just a symbolic representation of that agreement.
Anyone with a law degree feel free to correct me, but from what I understand of U.S. law this is WRONG WRONG WRONG. There is no such thing as a "license to listen". The ONLY right of yours which copyright law limits is the right to COPY. When you buy a CD, you are receiving an authorized copy of the work, in the sense that the people who produced the CD were authorized by the copyright holder to make copies of their work and press them to discs. That is the ONLY "licensing" going on here. You own a physical disc with a legally-made copy of an artistic work on it. The only authorization required by the copyright holder for you to come into legal possession of this copy of his work is the authorization to make the CD in the first place - the rest of it is straight-up sale of a physical object between distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and you. You haven't been given any sort of license, and there is nothing that you might want to do with that disc that you would NEED to be licensed to do (i.e. nothing that's not already within your unrestricted rights) besides make copies of it.
If the music companies want to give you a "licence" to their music which works in the sense you describe, they'd have to give you an actual license agreement along with the CD saying that by this purchase you are entitled to one copy of the work contained on the disc in any format you like, and that they'd happily replace your damaged CDs or swap them for other media if you like. Of course they don't actually want to offer licenses like this because it would cost them money, while requiring you buy a new copy on each new media format you want would actually make them money, so why do it any other way? Of course, they could offer such a service for a recurring fee... and it would be especially nice for them if all your music stopped working if you failed to pay that fee. And that's what's really going on here. This talk of "licensing" is all just clever spin by the music companies to get people used to the idea of not actually owning music, but in thinking that the music companies are generously granting them a license in perpetuity for a small one-time fee. Then later, when everything moves to subscription-based DRM'd music downloads, people won't feel so shafted in comparison to before - the "one-time licensing fee" of purchasing a CD will seem like some miraculous bargain that they used to be getting instead of the regular way copyrighted works have always been distributed.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Is The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs obligatory around here yet? If not, it should be.
I'll start.
See this post: O, Bulgaria, defender of freedom:
Cool funny t-shirts for geeks, gamers and everyone else
Watch out, Record Execs, I'm an Independent Musician and I'm distributing my self-made music (Meaning I am the sole copyright holder) with a Creative Commons License and NO DRM attached! Whachoo going to do about that? HUH? HUH?
Actually several points here: (1) People who state that the entertainment industry "forced" Microsoft and Apple to DRM their products are completely mistaken. MS and Apple actually held the reins and were in a position to call the shots. The entertainment industry were the ones who were actually in the position of "we can either sell via Microsoft and/or iTunes, or miss out on this technology completely." I do not believe there was any danger of MS and Apple, once their technology was offered, being short of content. Companies in the industry who balked initially would have lined up to sign on. So this is a completely specious argument, even if it was raised by MS and Apple themselves. (2) EU Commissioner for Consumer Protection Meglena Kuneva has hit the nail on the head. (3) Where was the US, though, in all this? Answer: The big-corporate-friendly government administration would not dare do something like Kuneva suffested in the U.S. today, because they know whom lines their pockets. What a disgrace. We used to lead the world in freedom and free market, but lately the fascists have been allowed to gain control. I despair for my once-proud nation.
The free market....is not free.
I'm sorry, but that's total bullshit.
Nobody is compelling anyone to buy itunes. Yes, companies are trying to dominate the market. They are also trying to out-compete their competition.
As long as the consumer is not somehow compelled or restricted from exercising their right to buy from one vendor or another, it's not anticompetitive.
The contention from USDoJ was, I understand, that MS OS had become so ubiquitous that it exercised unfair control of the majority of the market to EXCLUDE other vendors' products from working on MS OS (ie Netscape, IIRC). Personally it seemed like a witch hunt to me - even then you could buy OS/2, any number of a variety of Linuxen, etc.
But does iTunes command that much of the online music market? Not by a long shot.
People need to stop looking to the government for solutions.
-Styopa
The EU is essentially complaining that a cassette doesnt play in a CD player. If they would rip the music to audio CD, it would play in any audio CD players. CDs don't play in any CD player, specifically CD players attached to computers. That requires extra software, and sometimes is blocked completely.
With Apple songs, specifically, you can play it on a variety of computers. The iPod is one such variety.
When you buy a song, you own the media, not the content. Do people who buy books automatically get free books-on-tape?
Vertical integration is a pretty powerful tool for perverting the free market to a corporation's ends. That does not make what they are doing any less wrong.
So, essentially by endorsing DRM, Apple is propping up the major labels & their artists.
Well, we're pretty much in agreement I guess.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
The EU Consumer Affairs Minister is right--it is unreasonable. But it's not Apple's (or MS's, or Real's) fault. It's the music labels' fault. They require the DRMs or they will not license their music for download. Instead of beating up on Apple, she should beat-up on the RIAA and its corresponding international rights agencies.
While she's at it, she might ask why oh why the labels require DRM for downloads, but sell DRM-free music on their CDs? As Steve Jobs noted a few weeks ago, the record labels are the single largest source of DRM-free music available on the internet. Of course, we all know too well why the labels don't protect their CD tracks with DRM: if they did, suddenly tens of millions of CD players would stop working, and there would be hundreds of millions of unhappy (or perhaps homicidal) music customers.
But Apple and the iTunes Music Store are the 1000-pound gorilla filling most of the room and make an easy target. Why bother the labels about their licensing practices? Let's also leave Real and Microsoft out of the picture for doing the same as Apple (again, because the labels require it).