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."

Comments

The only real solution

[daveschroeder]

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.

Re:The only real solution

[Sam Ritchie]

without DRM, how can content owners control releases and pricing in different market?

I think that's the point - most traditional media organisations have not yet grasped the concept that for digital media, there's only one market. They're stuck on the idea that DRM is a convenient way to artificially segment the global market and apply their traditional means based pricing mechanisms. Most software vendors realised the futility of this years ago and, with relatively few exceptions, have roughly comparable pricing worldwide. Yes, this means products are less affordable in poorer countries. Yes, this means price gouging is limited in richer countries. Ultimately though, this means that poorer countries get a leg up in selling their own software/digital content - behold the beauty of the free market.

Your assertion is that content owners have the 'right' to segment the market this way to maximise profits - I disagree. What gives them that right and why? They already have sufficient rights granted to them via Berne, WIPO etc to guarantee a worldwide monopoly on reproduction of their content. Where's the public interest in legal frameworks purely for enforcing variable price & availability depending on the physical location of the consumer? Does anyone validly believe Hollywood would stop making movies if they couldn't sell downloads to Fooistan for less than they sell to Canada without reducing the Canadian price?

Re:Capitalist acts between consenting adults

[Kristoph]

The government is stepping in to keep the consumer from harm and/or to ensure the market is functioning properly by attempting to regulate some degree of interoperability. The government has done this many times to very positive effect. In many cases such interoperability leads to much greater choice and much lower cost. If the government failed to do that choice would exist but it would be expensive and difficult to obtain because alternatives would have a significant market disadvantage. So, in summary, the whole point here is to give you choice, not to butt into your business.

]{

Re:Has she read Steeve Jobs' essay on DRM?

[jmv]

Has it ever occured to you that the statements made by Jobs about DRM were *precisely* made because of what the EU's doing. It's the old proven method to deal with "you shouldn't be doing X" by responding "I don't like it either, but Y is forcing me to do it". In this case, both the music companies and Apple want DRM, for very different reasons. The music industry wants you to buy your music 10 times, while Apple wants to make sure it won't work on anything other than an iPod.

Re:Wow.... Consumer's rights being advocated?

[ClosedSource]

Ever noticed how the EU was perceived to be smart when it was punishing MS for behavior that might someday lead to a monopoly in server OS's, but is considered dumb when they attack Apple who has a monopoly today on portable music players.

Re:iTunes lock-in is a red herring

[Technician]

How different is FairPlay from, say, Macrovision?


With Macrovision, when I sell or give you my DVD, it will play in your player. It will play in anybody's player in the same region.

What happens when you mail me your iTunes track?

Re:It's peoples' own money

[Guuge]

This isn't about preventing people from buying music from Apple's store. It's about Apple preventing competitors from developing better players for that music. Does Apple own a patent on music? Why should Apple be able to dictate how its customers use that music after they've purchased it? It's a classic example of a company using their dominance of one market to control another. Think about how you'd feel if Microsoft decided that the only browsers you're allowed to use in Windows are browsers developed by Microsoft. In this case, Apple decided that the only music players you're allowed to use for iTunes music are those developed by Apple.