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."
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.
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.
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.
]{
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.
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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?
The truth shall set you free!
You made some assumptions there which I'm not even going to bother to actually specifically address, but I will enumerate:
You are assuming:
- allofmp3 are Russian mob.
- I "throw money" at Russian mobsters.
- I "steal" music
- I feel I am moral for "stealing" music
- I am going on and on about "sketchy legal loopholes"
- I am an experienced e-lawyer (sarcastically)
- I know that the artist is not getting financial any benefit whatsoever
- You think I might bother arguing that the RIAA just has to contact...
- We both know that allofmp3 are/were skirting the law
- I benefited from allofmp3
- I am an asshat
- The
/. zeitgeist is close-minded
- I have a problem with "big business" taking advantage of the GPL
- Something about Apple and blogs
- I feel big business exploits musicians
- 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].
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.
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.