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

DRM free music the only way forward.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

DRM free music is the only true path to interoperability. Anything else will fall short.

From TFA:

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.

Thanks Steve - why not offer DRM free music from artists and labels that you already have granted you permission?

Re:DRM free music the only way forward.

[tbo]

Thanks Steve - why not offer DRM free music from artists and labels that you already have granted you permission?

The same reason Apple is opposed to variable pricing: consistency. They don't want to clutter iTunes with complicated explanations of what you are and aren't allowed to do with each track of music. Consumers will get confused and pissed off when Britney Spears will play on their Zune but Christina Aguilera won't.

Has she read Steeve Jobs' essay on DRM?

[ZDRuX]

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.

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:Has she read Steeve Jobs' essay on DRM?

[mike2R]

Here we have living proof that "you can fool some of the people all of the time."

Come on, it's lock in, lock in, lock in. It may conveniently tie in with some of the labels own ends, but this is all about making sure that iPod owners stay iPod owners.

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

[daveschroeder]

Oh, I agree with you. I have a pretty good devil's advocate myself: in a world where electronic distribution becomes the norm, without DRM, how can content owners control releases and pricing in different market? For example, 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? When it's physical product, the answer is simple. When it's electronic, why can't I just buy it from Fooistan's store? Some people will say that import regulations and taxes could still prevent that, but then what enforces that? Something like DRM. What if content owners want to control release schedules in different markets, as is, like it or not, their right, as the duly recognized legal "owners" of the content? Now we have various controls (such as region codes on DVDs) that support this, in addition to sales price disparities, and so on. Without DRM, that process falls apart. Some people might say, "Hey, that's globalization for you. You wanted free markets, right?" Yes, but not so that it harms developing economies. The prices can't equalize overnight, and it's not fair to force prices down to a lowest common denominator. There are difficult questions in the no-DRM panacea. A lot of the answers will revolve around information wanting to be free and "old business models" dying (a lot of which is BS). The fact is that different markets bear different prices for the same products. You can't just remove the only controls, with their associated legal extensions, and expect everything to go along fine. Enterprising folks will set up stores in the "cheapest" nations or locales and sell globally. If there are no rights management or (enforceable) legal prohibitions to doing so, everyone will gravitate to the lowest price.

That's what DRM is about. It's not about not being able to be defeated. It will ALWAYS be defeated. It's about having a control that has legal extensions that prevent people from, or punish people for, circumventing it. This means you can't legally then buy music from the Fooistan online store. You need to buy it from the US store, at the prices the content bears in the US, at the times the content owners choose to release it in our market. Even if you take out all middlemen and we have a magical scenario where artists all get 100% of the proceeds from their creations, you have to allow for the idea that they are the people who get to determine how their content is sold, where it's sold, when it's sold, and for how much it's sold. This means THEY may even decide it's best to sell it for $5 in Fooistan and $25 in Canada. Why is that not their right? You might say, "Well, it is, but I think I still get to buy it from Fooistan even though I live in Canada." How does that help? We can go in and out of all sorts of global and legal and political and philosophical arguments. But that's really what the general copyright and rights management issues come down to: control.

And, ultimately, the owner/originator/creator/assignee of the content SHOULD fundamentally be allowed some control. That's not to say that the prevailing system is great, or even good. But the opposite situation where everything has no restrictions or licenses doesn't work either: What's to stop anyone from buying one copy of something and making X more copies? If there are no controls to enforce that; essentially, to create an artificial "scarcity" as some like to call it, what is to legally stop anyone from doing that? You can say there can still be a "law" against it, and so on. No, that won't fly. Sure, there can be a law. But you can never (easily) prove anything was circumvented, copied, sold, "stolen", or paid for when such a system is the status quo.

Yes, there are a million exceptions people can nitpick about what I've said here. But the fact is, the issues are a lot more complex, again, than most people would like to believe.

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:The only real solution

[GaryPatterson]

I think the music industry would love the EU to force Apple to licence FairPlay.

For them, the ability of other companies to sell iPod-playable music would be a complete win. In one fell swoop, they'd have almost total control back.

Imagine - the industry puts a demand for variable pricing starting at $2 for older music and topping out at $5 for just-released music. The alternative is that they'll withdraw the licence to sell music. Apple might stand firm as they've done in the past, but they now depend on every other FairPlay licencee standing just as firm. If they stand together, the industry will be forced back to the table. If a single one caves in, the industry will have found the weakness they need to gain the upper hand. Suddenly that company gets all the music to sell, and companies who stood with Apple lose their contract.

Licencing FairPlay is the worst possible outcome for consumers. It hands control to the music industry, maintains DRM and weakens any other attempts to change the online sales models. Consumers have been well served by Apple having strong control and keeping prices lower.

The only point to criticise Apple on is their failure to sell music without DRM. I don't know if they'd want to do that on a band by band basis (might be difficult to manage) but they should be able to do this by label. I've heard rumours that the music industry might have forced a condition on Apple that every song must have DRM. If that's true, then it's a sad thing.

Apple should strongly resist any attempt to licence the ability to sell FairPlay tracks.

There may be a case to make that FairPlay should have a playback-only licence. That is, only Apple can sell the music, but you can play it on any licenced player. That situation would be diametrically opposed to Apple's mission here - to sell iPods. Even allowing other companies to sell music for the iPod maintains their basic goals, but allowing iTMS purchases to play on other players undermines Apple's business.

Lastly, if the solution to the EU's issue is licencing, will the EU dictate the terms Apple must licence on? Will they oversee the negotiations? Will any changes only be binding to the EU iTMS? What if negotiations break down - will Apple be forced to negotiate against its own interests? The EU have raised a number of issues for which they're not putting forward any solutions. "Something must be done!" is always a handy vote-winner, but the real progress comes from the usually unsaid part - "... and this is the workable solution I've come up with."

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

[Fallen Kell]

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.

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

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

GP: MS for behavior that might someday lead to a monopoly in server OS's

Parent: How does Apple have a monopoly when I can walk into a Wal-Mart or Target and on the shelves right next to the iPods

1) The parent specifically mentioned server OS's (where MS has multiple competitors in the market), other mp3 players don't count.

2) Apple's supposed monopoly is in the digital music market, not the portable music player market.

3) You don't understand what a monopoly is do you? Hint: It doesn't mean you have 100% of a market.

All of your concerns are answered here

[daveschroeder]

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

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:but iTunes Store sells AAC, not MP3s, right...?

[mAIsE]

AAC is an actual standard, part of MPEG 4, un like WMV and now MP3, anyone is free to implement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

Another Clueless Bureaucrat

[Steve B]

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.

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: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:Capitalist acts between consenting adults

[Kristoph]

Yes, suppliers have options, what's your point? If Apple stopped making iPod's someone else would make jPod's or kPod's or whatever because there is DEMAND!

Anyway, I am not against DRM. I am just against vendor lock in of the stuff I bought. Actually I own a Mac and an iPod but I want the option of using something else in the future. In fact, I saw the sansa player, which I'd like to give a try, but there is no way to do that unless I do something deemed illegal to covert my music to a different format.

]{

Re:Capitalist acts between consenting adults

[kocsonya]

Because this is the *same* government that grants the right of the music factory to charge for their product every time they make a copy for about one and a half century even if the actual cost of making that particular copy is practically zero and *anyone* can make that copy if they want. This is the same government which in some countries artificially raises the price of data medium and give a cut to the music factories because the medium is capable of holding music.

In this case they do not do Big Brother things, they do not limit what you can do - it is actually DRM that limits what you can do and the various IP laws (by the government, actually). All they want now is that the music manufacturers can't squeeze you more than what the law grants to them.

WRONG!

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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.

Re:no drm best, open drm better than nothing

[Seumas]

That's not going to be enough as far as I'm concerned. Even if it were completely DRM free and open, it's still ten bucks an album. If I'm going to buy an album for ten bucks, I might as well just go get the physical CD and rip it myself.

Also, what is the current cut that an artist gets currently? I bet it's not significantly greater than the point they get for physical media. Fucking the artist is still fucking the artist.

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

[Viceroy Potatohead]

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.

Not half as convenient as allofmp3 was... If I wanted a song off an album, I'd pick it up from allofmp3. I never had to rip to CD and back, and I could chose my bit rate. Now that was convenient. I really don't see how Apple couldn't do the same thing. There's no way they have legal protection against enabling-copyright-infringement (or whatever) by requiring one to burn to cd and back. That's just a pointless inconvenience.

Re:Another way to look at it...

[Sacrelicious2]

Your analogy makes no sense. A better analogy would be to say that sony music cds only play on sony cd players.

Re:You appear to have replied to the wrong comment

[daveschroeder]

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.

Re:Reasonable?

[Atlantis-Rising]

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!

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

[karmatic]

You can still use allofmp3 - you just have to buy an xrost card and activate that. Yes, there are companies that take visa.

Re:You appear to have replied to the wrong comment

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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.

Re:but iTunes Store sells AAC, not MP3s, right...?

[wo1verin3]

AAC is not free to implement, there are several companies which hold patent claims. Google for AAC and PATENT and you should find some mention of it.

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: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:You appear to have replied to the wrong comment

[rtb61]

I dare say that non-DRM music has a significant competitive advantage over DRM music and as copies of non-DRM music spread so would the popularity of the non-DRM music creators. So obviously the DRM music producers will not like non-DRM music competing with them at the same location, hence would be likely to put an enormous amount of pressure on distributors to ensure that it does not happen.

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?

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.

Re:Don't underestimate the music industry.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Neither I nor anyone else outside of the highest echelons at Apple can say for sure,

Agreed completely. Nice to see someone who admits instead of just spouting their (or pundits') opinions. (I include myself in that).

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.

Again agreed (along with the rest of your comment for the most part).

BUT, if that is the case, Apple has to say something.

They can't let the situation stay like this - with Jobs accusing the 'labels' of not allowing DRM free music, while acting as a label mandating DRM themselves.

Re:Don't underestimate the music industry.

[SeattleGameboy]

... 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 Well, I HAVE worked at an on-line music distribution company (Not Apple, but a pretty significant one) and I can tell you that no such restriction exists. Labels will approve/disapprove a particular DRM solution, but they do not have the authority to tell you you must use the same DRM for everyone else (because everyone else want their own control).

Usually what happens is that there are one or two labels who are REALLY strict (say, Universal) and for the sake of simplicity everyone else gets the same treatment. It is really done for the benefit of the distribution company than the labels (one consistent process is ALWAYS better/simpler than multiples).

There are plenty of small independents who don't care about DRM, but their catalog is so small (both in number and popularity) that it is not practical to design something just for them.

So if you are looking to blame someone, the blame here lies with Apple, not the labels.

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.

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

[mgv]

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


I think it all comes down to choice with regard to quality.

You will never get 1:1 quality with a CD. Its a sample of the sound, and has a degree of loss. Not much of a loss as it samples at 44 KHz, but still a loss.

Most people will say that the loss on a CD is less than the threshold of hearing. I'd agree with that in general. There is more loss on a MP3 or AAC file, but if its less than the threshold of hearing for you, does it matter? Probably not. If you are a real purist, you'll probably play off vinyl to avoid sampling/compression errors. Not that most music systems could do justice to this level of sound quality, and vinyl does scratch ....

Now I personally think that apple should sell music without DRM free and high quality. Possibly apple feels the same about this also, as they are in this game to sell ipods, not music.

If you are buying 128 Kb/s AAC (equivalent to 192 Kb/s MP3 roughly), burning it to a cd and re-ripping in high quality, perhaps you should consider one of two options:

1. Rip into a loseless format. If you are doing very high quality MP3's (around 320 kb/s) you might as well use a lossless code as the size difference isn't that much anyway, and you will have no degredation from the original on playback.

2. If disk space is an issue, use AAC, not MP3, as it should generally lose much the same information on the second pass encoding. MP3 drops different types of sounds to save space, so it makes more sense to use a similar codec on the second pass.

Or, where possible, use a music provider that doesn't encrypt your music.

Anyway, just my 2c worth,

Michael

Price discrimination in the digital age.

[Kadin2048]

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.

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.

Almost as wrong as the article on Norway

[Lars T.]

"Kuneva's comment -- which the Commission stressed is purely her personal view"

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.

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

[DrDribble]

Oh come one, always with the burn/rip cycle. Incredible that you also didn't mention the very simple and convenient "virtual CD drive" thingy. If you buy a CD that doesn't play in your car, just rip/burn and you're good to go! Even more convenient, you can buy CD that doesn't play, just order the same CD from another country! If that doesn't play either, just buy the CD very easily on iTMS and burn it! It's all just so convenient! Buy, download, burn, rip, convert, burn - these are not good ways of putting MP3's on my car stereo. Fortunately I have eMusic - they treat me as a customer, wanted as a customer, not wanted as a (potential) criminal or terrorist. With eMusic, I download and burn. Or download and copy. They even let me download the *tracks I bought* as many times as I want. No backup required for my music. iTMS is a pile of s**t. Expensive, DRM and no backup! And iTunes is ugly.

Re:You appear to have replied to the wrong comment

[TheRaven64]

There is no small print attached to certain albums, no extra gotchas, and the price is always the same

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.

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

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

[Hatta]

Its only 128, but its a great deal for what has become 150 gigabytes of trance and ambient electronica.

The best part is, the encoding artifacts sound just like the music!