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

Capitalist acts between consenting adults

[mc6809e]

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.

Re:All of your concerns are answered here

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Damn! Was that ever long. But you know what is sad? There have been plenty of apple apologias even longer than that. Yours is no disgrace.

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.

So, even if they are not DOING it, Apple could have long ago said that yes they WILL do it and are currently WORKING ON IT. That Apple has said nothing of the kind is proof enough. And puh-leaze, don't give me any bunk about how Apple doesn't pre-announce things. They can and do when it suits them. If Jobs's anti-DRM stance were true, he could gain even more leverage over the big-5 by merely announcing the intent to go DRM-free for the labels that are OK with it.

Re:Burn The iTunes Tunes To CD and Rip Them Back

[Nikker]

But if you own a license to the song, then what is wrong with obtaining a 1:1 quality of the song?

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.

If I own a cassette tape of an artist should I be able to listen to the same tracks of DVD-Audio quality? Why not? As everyone here knows that even in the day of the cassette tape the original recording (which you have a license to) was done at a much higher fidelity they just didn't have the ability to mass distribute it(cost effectively of course)

So wouldn't this be like buying a hard copy of a book that was made on a poorly maintained press with smears within its pages, would it be wrong to download a copy in digital form? Is the artist or copyright holder missing out on something?

Re:Burn The iTunes Tunes To CD and Rip Them Back

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Apparently you're thinking I'm saying things i didn't say. Kudos to you for not ACing it, BTW.

You made some assumptions there which I'm not even going to bother to actually specifically address, but I will enumerate:

You are assuming:

1. allofmp3 are Russian mob.
2. I "throw money" at Russian mobsters.
3. I "steal" music
4. I feel I am moral for "stealing" music
5. I am going on and on about "sketchy legal loopholes"
6. I am an experienced e-lawyer (sarcastically)
7. I know that the artist is not getting financial any benefit whatsoever
8. You think I might bother arguing that the RIAA just has to contact...
9. We both know that allofmp3 are/were skirting the law
10. I benefited from allofmp3
11. I am an asshat
12. The /. zeitgeist is close-minded
13. I have a problem with "big business" taking advantage of the GPL
14. Something about Apple and blogs
15. I feel big business exploits musicians
16. And I benefit from that

Truly lame... If you can't take a post which said, essentially, that iTunes is not as convenient as allofmp3 --and that I think it could offer the same level of service-- and turn it into your own projectionist ramble, then good luck with that. FWIW, other than being an asshat, there're only two other assumptions you made which have an element of truth in them, as far as I can see.

If you don't think allofmp3 offer[s/ed] a great service, that's your problem. I have no problem paying for music at a reasonable rate --hell, I have thousands albums on vinyl, countless tapes, and tons of CDs. I've paid for them all. But I know what music is worth to me. I'm virtually NEVER going to pay even $10 for an album anymore if I only want one or two or three tunes off of it. Since some time in 2002, the only places I've been getting new music have been free publicity offerings by bands/labels or allofmp3. Cut that off, and I'll just stop consuming. I can perform well enough to get my musical kicks, and I have a decent library of existing music. $1 a song is a ridiculously overinflated price, for digital delivery, by at least an order of magnitude. Am I ripping someone off @ $1 an album? Nope. Not remotely. If it's good, then I'm a fan (and a collector), if it isn't, then I'll delete it myself, and spread my opinion that it's garbage. I've spent more money on music in my life than food, so your silly assertions are garbage to me.

As Jello Biafra sang:

"tin-earred,
graph-paper brained
accountants
Instead of music fans
Call all the shots at giant record companies now
The lowest common denominator rules

"Forget honesty
Forget creativity
The dumbest buy the mostest
That's the name of the game

"But sales are slipping
And no one will say why
Could be they put out one too many lousy records"

Cheers [&Sorry for the long post].

Don't underestimate the music industry.

[Kadin2048]

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.

Badly hidden lobbyism

[dazk]

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.

Re:Console games lockedto consoles, WMP windows on

[FunWithKnives]

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.

Don't be disingenuous

[danaris]

I really don't see how Apple couldn't do the same thing.

I would say there are two main reasons (which are really just different side of the same reason):

1. Apple has to deal with the labels in the US directly, and there's no way they'd get the rights to sell the music through the iTMS if they didn't put the DRM on it
2. AllOfMP3 is only able to do what they do because they operate in Russia, don't actually get ANY legal permissions from ANY artists or labels, and thus, more or less, sell stuff they don't own.

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