Steve Jobs Questioned In iTunes Monopoly Suit

An anonymous reader writes "Twelve years ago Bill Gates had to deal with lawyers questioning him in regards to the Microsoft antitrust case. Now it might be that other tech mogul's turn. Steve Jobs has been ordered to answer questions regarding Apple's iTunes music monopoly. From the article: 'US Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd, based in San Jose, California, ruled on Monday that lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the antitrust lawsuit may question Jobs for a total of two hours. Apple may appeal the decision. A company spokeswoman declined to comment, while attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for comment.'"

Comments

Bad guys

[jijok]

I think we all see it finally - Apple and Google are the new bad guys. Even Microsoft looks like a saint compared to them.

Re:Bad guys

[ePhil_One]

Exactly, that bastard Steve forced the record companies to accept his tyrannical 99 cent pricing policy and allow me to burn purchased songs to CD's where they can be ripped back to MP3 free of the restrictions! We must end his monopoly on rights restricted downloadable music for the iPod! Other companies MUST be free to sell us restricted license music & video for our iPods! Unite!

Re:Bad guys

[thetoadwarrior]

There is nothing that ties you to buying music from iTunes and you don't even have to use to get music onto your iPod yet Microsoft has abused its position many times to gain an advantage. The lastest being making Bing the default search engine in their browser they attempt to force onto people. What's worse is when Bing shortly came out my settings for both Firefox and IE were switched to Bing.

That is abusing your market position in one area to gain power in another. Providing one of many options to buy music is not.

Re:Bad guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize that because of you, /. accounts above 2M are now assumed to be trolls? You had a good run, but it's finally over. Go away.

Re:Bad guys

[Anonymous Coward]

most of itunes is DRM free now anyways.

Re:Bad guys

[TheSeventh]

Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?

Want to develop software that the iPhone already provides? Good luck. Your own browser version? It's possible, but it'll be slow because only Safari can be fast, and that's how Jobs wants it. Your own email client? Maybe, maybe not. Their rules for letting apps competing with stock applications into the App store aren't really that clear, regardless of what their criteria actually says.

Haven't they learned anything from all of Microsoft's troubles? Or does Jobs think he's immune to all of that nonsense because Apple Lovers don't complain much. Whatever Apple does is the right way to do it. Pass the Kool-Aid please.

Re:Bad guys

[Master Moose]

Microsoft hate is too firmly infused in my being to make them a saint.

I can not imagine a world where I can not swear at, derride, and hate M$.

I thought it was a compulsary part of the /. account requiremnts.

Re:Bad guys

[node 3]

Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?

You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products. McDonald's controls where you can get Big Macs from, Microsoft controls where you can get Xbox 360 games from, Safeway controls what they stock in their stores, and Apple controls where you can buy iOS apps from.

Haven't they learned anything from all of Microsoft's troubles?

"Troubles"? You mean both companies being wildly successful? We should all be so lucky to have such problems!

Or does Jobs think he's immune to all of that nonsense because Apple Lovers don't complain much.

Um... they don't complain all that much because they aren't bothered by things that irk you. That's why they are Apple users in the first place. You basically just tried to make the fact that people are happy with Apple seem like a bad thing.

Whatever Apple does is the right way to do it. Pass the Kool-Aid please.

You know, just because people have different opinions than you, that doesn't make them cultists. In fact, *you're* the one making a moral/ethical plea with regards to how Apple manages their iOS ecosystem, if you want to go down this "kool-aid" road...

Re:Bad guys

[snowraver1]

I know that you jest, but "[forcing] the record companies to accept his tyrannical 99 cent pricing policy" sounds like something that someone in a monopoly position could do.

Also, while I'm no iTunes expert, I'm pretty sure that you can convert your Apple music to mp3s. My wife does it somehow.

Re:Bad guys

[chrb]

Exactly, that bastard Steve forced the record companies to accept his tyrannical 99 cent pricing policy and allow me to burn purchased songs to CD's where they can be ripped back to MP3 free of the restrictions

Points which are irrelevant to the antitrust case in question. Back in 2004, RealPlayer could be used to transfer FairPlay compatible music to the ipod. Apple said "We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA and other laws." After that, Apple changed the firmware to break the RealPlayer generated files.

If the Zune had reached 74% market share, and Apple had responded by adding the capability to download itunes music to the Zune, and Microsoft then broke that and blocked Apple from the market, you would be outraged. This is no different.

Re:Bad guys

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?

Uh, yeah, this argument doesn't really carry any water until you set your sights on Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.

Re:Bad guys

[ejtttje]

Also, while I'm no iTunes expert, I'm pretty sure that you can convert your Apple music to mp3s. My wife does it somehow.

Only because Apple was able to convince the RIAA to drop the DRM restrictions... Apple was certainly not alone in that, but they did fight the good fight for us in terms of removing DRM on music, even though the associated lock-in was working in their favor to keep people using iTunes/iPod. Unfortunately I see no pressure to do the same with TV/Movies they sell through iTunes, as much as I would like to buy TV a la carte and watch it on my Linux media center. (Hacked AirPlay developments not withstanding)

Re:Bad guys

[Chris Burke]

It's hard to describe how much Real hate I'm overcoming in order to say: That's pretty shitty.

Re:Bad guys

[Hatta]

allow me to burn purchased songs to CD's where they can be ripped back to MP3 free of the restrictions!

Free of high frequency components too! Plus bonus transcode artifacts!

Re:Bad guys

[pcx]

Really, no it's not. Look at it from Apple's perspective (or anyone who creates something for that matter). They created a music manager (itunes), a store, and the portable device used to play them. Apple considered that line a single product. In their view Windows had pretty much the same setup (if more open) in that there were little used music stores for windows media player, and mp3 players that plugged into windows. In their view real was perfectly free to make their own store, their own manager, and their own portable devices (or license a portable device from someone else) and compete with them even on the mac os.

I guess the TL;DR: is that instead of building a burger king next to the mcdonalds, Real tried to set up a counter inside the mcdonalds instead of doing the real hard work and competing fair and square.

Re:Bad guys

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a really twisted view you have there. The iPod and iTunes are separate products. If they weren't, you wouldn't be able to buy/use one without the other.

An accurate analogy would be reusing a McDonald's cup for your drink at Burger King. Although it might look a bit weird, there is nothing wrong with it.

Re:Bad guys

[jmac_the_man]

Microsoft developed an OS which it sold to its consumers, who were primarily OEMs. This OS had features, one of which was "It works with almost all the software your customers will see for sale in the brick and mortar software shop down the street, so you can market your hardware to people who may not be familiar with computers." In order to ensure this feature, it made contracts with its OEMs, who were free to accept, decline, or negotiate parts of this deal. The deal exchanged discounts on the cost Microsoft would charge its customers (who, again, were willing participants) for guarantees that its customers would only sell Microsoft's product. In my view, the only difference between this and what Apple does is that Microsoft's customers (who, again, are predominantly OEMs) negotiated and agreed to their deal, whereas Apple's customers didn't have a choice.
The canonical example of an anti-trustworthy action would be if a car company decided to make a special connector between the fuel tank and the gas pump, so you would only be able to use the special gas station set up by the car's manufacturer. Meanwhile, you cannot (well, you can, but Apple says it's hacking and will try to block you) put songs on your iPod without using the special media manager that the manufacturer made. (Or alternately, you can't put media from your iTunes library on an MP3 player unless it's a special device made by the manufacturer.) Your car cannot accomplish its primary purpose (driving from Point A to Point B) without gasoline, and your MP3 player cannot accomplish its primary purpose (playing media) without a media manager, so this is probably a better analogy. It's EXACTLY what Apple is doing.
Finally, isn't this largely an Open Source/Free Software site? We demand APIs for everything else so that we can use a generic X with something else because the default solution doesn't meet our requirements. Why not for iTunes?

Re:Bad guys

[exomondo]

You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.

He was referencing the fact that not only does it bundle its own software but if you develop software that functionally duplicates on of their apps you likely can't even distribute that (according to the dev agreement). MS can't even bundle its own software on its product even though it gives you absolute freedom to install whatever other software you want.

So where apple can quite happily bundle safari with iOS and tell you what you can and cannot install MS can't bundle IE with Windows even though they impose no restrictions on what you can and can't install.

Re:Bad guys

[exomondo]

Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?

Uh, yeah, this argument doesn't really carry any water until you set your sights on Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.

Well it actually does, it's just that it applies equally to them as well. There's no rule that says you have to have a go at Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft before you're allowed to have a go at Apple.

Re:Bad guys

[erroneus]

In reality, the right to create things that are compatible has been upheld by numerous court rulings to the point that it would be pointless to even bring the question of interoperability to court again. In the RealPlayer case, what Apple did was legally actionable. They created and to some degree control their market, but they don't necessarily have a right to destroy the opportunities of others to be compatible with their market.

With that said, just as in the case of DR DOS vs Microsoft, the plaintiff needs to prove that the incompatibility was introduced intentionally to block the competitor from the marketplace. DR DOS, if I recall correctly, was able to prove that sufficiently and I have little doubt that Real will be able to prove it as well.

Re:Bad guys

[Anthony Mouse]

I know that you jest, but "[forcing] the record companies to accept his tyrannical 99 cent pricing policy" sounds like something that someone in a monopoly position could do.

It sounds like something anyone with a store could do. "Let me sell for my price or I'm not buying anything."

The fact that the record companies gave in only means that they wanted to be in the store more than they wanted to charge something other than 99 cents. That could be because Apple has OMFG XBOX HEUG market control, or it could just be because the record companies weren't really that opposed to it.

Re:Bad guys

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?

You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products. McDonald's controls where you can get Big Macs from, Microsoft controls where you can get Xbox 360 games from, Safeway controls what they stock in their stores, and Apple controls where you can buy iOS apps from.

McDonald's produces Big Macs; they capitalize on production. Safeway buys stock and, having bought them, resells at higher prices, capitalizing on distribution and easy access.

Apple and Microsoft distribute software from third parties; they provide developers access to a marketplace, which is generally good for the consumer. But essentially, they're capitalizing on the fact that they were proactive in preventing you from getting the software anywhere else. By restricting the marketplace artificially, they are creating a monopoly where one need not exist. They may be allowed, and in fact it may be an excellent idea for everyone involved, but it's not an issue of "supposed to".

Re:Bad guys

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?

Uh, yeah, this argument doesn't really carry any water until you set your sights on Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.

Well it actually does, it's just that it applies equally to them as well. There's no rule that says you have to have a go at Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft before you're allowed to have a go at Apple.

No, it just reeks of bias and damages your appearance of objectivity.

Re:Bad guys

[Anthony Mouse]

You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.

I think you're confusing "their own products" with everything in the entire world that can be used with their products. Sears has a "monopoly" on Craftsman screw drivers. They don't have a monopoly on screws that can be used with Craftsman screw drivers. And if they tried to leverage their strong market position in screw drivers to monopolize the market for screws, well, did you see what happened when Microsoft included Internet Explorer with Windows? And Microsoft didn't even try to prohibit you from using other browsers.

Re:Bad guys

[Anthony Mouse]

I don't see what the problem is. Yes, you should enforce the law against all of the companies that are breaking it.

Re:Bad guys

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I don't see what the problem is. Yes, you should enforce the law against all of the companies that are breaking it.

Are you really sure about that? I mean, it didn't come up until it became fashionable to hate Apple.

Re:Bad guys

[WrongSizeGlass]

I think we all see it finally - Apple and Google are the new bad guys. Even Microsoft looks like a saint compared to them.

Microsoft couldn't look like a saint if it was standing next to every serial killer that Hollywood has ever produced while wearing the cutesiest Disney outfit they could steal from a drunk Magic Kingdom employee.

Re:Bad guys

[halowolf]

Like Walmart?

Re:Bad guys

[Anthony Mouse]

If the companies are breaking the law then it should be enforced. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't tell you whether they are all as a matter of law doing something illegal. But they're certainly doing something unsavory -- using products in one market to control another.

People are talking about it more with regard to Apple because Apple is the more serious case. They have a stronger market position in their market than their competitors -- none of the three consoles is unambiguously the market leader in that market, whereas iTunes could easily be described as such for music download stores and iPod/iOS for music players. And having two related markets makes the problem worse, because they make it so iOS only works properly with iTunes and vice versa. They're also applying the DENIED stamp to a lot more apps than any of the console makers, and especially problematic is that they deny apps that compete with their own.

But they are all in the same boat. What Sony is doing with the PS3 right now in my opinion should be getting them in hot water -- they're essentially blocking third parties from making software for the PS3 without their approval, and they're denying software that competes with their own. Imagine the Linux people get the SPUs unlocked and then small game publishers start making PS3 games that run on PS3 Linux without needing Sony's permission -- that would increase competition in the marketplace. Outwardly trying to prevent it sounds pretty anticompetitive to me.

Re:Bad guys

[Anthony Mouse]

Exactly like Walmart.

Re:Bad guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, isn't this largely an Open Source/Free Software site? We demand APIs for everything else so that we can use a generic X with something else because the default solution doesn't meet our requirements. Why not for iTunes?

itunes is free...

Re:Bad guys

[mug funky]

iTunes TV is woeful quality... it's like they took the FAQ page from a 1337 release group in 2001 and made it their delivery spec.

there's a lot of services that are a ton better.

Re:Bad guys

[mug funky]

"Apple considered that line a single product"

your analogy would be apt if, instead of Real setting up a counter in the McDonalds, Apple declared the Burger King to be part of it's own product line.

Re:Bad guys

[DougReed]

... or change the drop-down box in Preferences->General->Import Settings to 'MP3' and buy real coasters instead of making your own.

Re:Bad guys

[mug funky]

off topic dude.

we're not talking about browsers.

we're not talking about Microsoft's past (and probably present) tactics.

this one's about Apple.

Apple are abusing their position.

Questions are being asked.

Deal with it.

Re:Bad guys

[UnknownSoldier]

wow, mods are on crack .... their sarcasm detector broken?

Re:Bad guys

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

I know that you jest, but "[forcing] the record companies to accept his tyrannical 99 cent pricing policy" sounds like something that someone in a monopoly position could do.

Interesting point. So what does it tell us that somehow the record companies have actually forced a 69, 99, or 129 cent pricing policy upon the monopoly?

Re:Bad guys

[SuperSlacker64]

...but not open source.

Re:Bad guys

[exomondo]

Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?

Uh, yeah, this argument doesn't really carry any water until you set your sights on Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.

Well it actually does, it's just that it applies equally to them as well. There's no rule that says you have to have a go at Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft before you're allowed to have a go at Apple.

No, it just reeks of bias and damages your appearance of objectivity.

Rubbish, if you have a problem with one company you don't have to go after every other company that could possibly have the same issue for the original argument to be justified, nor does that have any impact on your objectivity. Sure the same argument applies to many other companies, but the fact that he didn't seek out every other company that it could potentially apply to (and neither did you) doesn't damage his original argument or objectivity in the slightest.

Re:Bad guys

[node 3]

You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.

He was referencing the fact that not only does it bundle its own software but if you develop software that functionally duplicates on of their apps you likely can't even distribute that (according to the dev agreement).

No shit, Captain Obvious. iOS is Apple's product. This is them controlling their product. Controlling how your product works is not inherently monopolistic.

MS can't even bundle its own software on its product even though it gives you absolute freedom to install whatever other software you want.

So where apple can quite happily bundle safari with iOS and tell you what you can and cannot install MS can't bundle IE with Windows even though they impose no restrictions on what you can and can't install.

Um... IE comes bundled with Windows.

Re:Bad guys

[node 3]

Apple has no more a "monopoly" over iOS than Safeway has over what they carry on their store. It's also just as "artificial" (there's nothing inherent about the land upon which Safeway builds there stores that gives them a "monopoly" over its use).

If you aren't allowed to control your own products and offer them under your own terms, within a reasonable legal framework, what's the point of proprietary products in the first place?

Re:Bad guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there is a quality loss involved. You've purchased a compressed format to start with, if you're looking for that ultimate quality, buy the CD and rip it to Apple Lossless (most of my CD's are ripped this way, then re-ripped to a compressed format to load on the iPod). Remember, this ONLY affects music purchased via iTunes, everything else is unencumbered.

But it doesn't get around the fact this was a MAJOR concession by the record companies, at a time they were trying to argue that ripping your CD's to digital format was illegal, signing agreements that gave you the right to burn custom mix CD's. And that several record companies initially refused the deal to pressure Steve jobs into accepting their terms at a time when the iPod's dominance wasn't a given.

Re:Bad guys

[node 3]

You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.

I think you're confusing "their own products" with everything in the entire world that can be used with their products. Sears has a "monopoly" on Craftsman screw drivers. They don't have a monopoly on screws that can be used with Craftsman screw drivers.

Screwdrivers do not have DRM or security measures or license agreements. Your analogy makes no sense.

There are much better analogies, like video game consoles, which have even more stringent restrictions than iOS. This shouldn't be a surprise to readers of a nerd-oriented site like Slashdot.

And if they tried to leverage their strong market position in screw drivers to monopolize the market for screws, well, did you see what happened when Microsoft included Internet Explorer with Windows? And Microsoft didn't even try to prohibit you from using other browsers.

Two problems here:

1. MS still distributes IE with Windows.
2. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in smartphones. They can't use their position to force Angry Birds, for example, to only run on iOS.

Re:Bad guys

[exomondo]

You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.

He was referencing the fact that not only does it bundle its own software but if you develop software that functionally duplicates on of their apps you likely can't even distribute that (according to the dev agreement).

No shit, Captain Obvious. iOS is Apple's product. This is them controlling their product. Controlling how your product works is not inherently monopolistic.

Are you actually reading what you wrote dumbass? You just said You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products, now you're saying it's them controlling there product and that's not inherently monopolistic. Well which is it?
I think you're missing the point that having a monopoly isn't necessarily a bad thing it's when you leverage that monopoly in another market, which is what MS did (but Apple isn't), that it becomes a problem.

MS can't even bundle its own software on its product even though it gives you absolute freedom to install whatever other software you want.

So where apple can quite happily bundle safari with iOS and tell you what you can and cannot install MS can't bundle IE with Windows even though they impose no restrictions on what you can and can't install.

Um... IE comes bundled with Windows.

You haven't seen the 'ballot' or heard of the massive antitrust case the was brought on them? (of course it's EU)

Re:Bad guys

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

you don't have to go after every other company that could possibly have the same issue for the original argument to be justified...

Yup.

nor does that have any impact on your objectivity...

Uh huh. 10+ years of this very public and obvious behaviour going on, but it's not worth criticizing until a company that's fashionable to hate suddenly does it. Super objective.

Re:Bad guys

[exomondo]

you don't have to go after every other company that could possibly have the same issue for the original argument to be justified...

Yup.

So why are you suggesting that the argument doesn't 'hold water' until it has been applied to other companies? That's obviously a load of shit.

nor does that have any impact on your objectivity...

Uh huh. 10+ years of this very public and obvious behaviour going on, but it's not worth criticizing until a company that's fashionable to hate suddenly does it. Super objective.

Or until that behavior actually affects you in a negative way. It's pretty obvious that you are the one lacking objectivity here, you're suggesting the argument is invalid because it hasn't been applied to companies other than apple, when in fact that has nothing to do with the validity of the argument whatsoever.

Re:Bad guys

[dryeo]

Microsoft was in such a strong position that their negotiating with the OEMs consisted of, "If you want a competitive deal, you don't sell any operating system besides Windows (and before that it was MS-DOS). Not much of a choice.

Re:Bad guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft couldn't look like a saint if it was standing next to every serial killer that Hollywood has ever produced while wearing the cutesiest Disney outfit they could steal from a drunk Magic Kingdom employee.

So Microsoft is a serial killer groupie that gets kids drunk and then engages in crossdressing?

Re:Bad guys

[Anthony Mouse]

Screwdrivers do not have DRM or security measures or license agreements. Your analogy makes no sense.

Of course screwdrivers don't have any of those things -- that's the point. Phones have no actual reason for them either, other than to allow manufacturers to be overly controlling and anti-competitive.

1. MS still distributes IE with Windows.

You didn't hear about the whole browser ballot thing? Microsoft is required to offer their competitors as an alternative. As in, the thing Apple is refusing to do with competitors' apps they deny.

2. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in smartphones. They can't use their position to force Angry Birds, for example, to only run on iOS.

Sherman Act Section 2:

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony ...

I don't know what that means to a lawyer, but it sure sounds like you don't actually have to have a monopoly to violate it.

As for not being able to keep Angry Birds off of Android, that's not the problem. The problem is that they can keep Chrome off of iOS (or disadvantage it vs. Safari), or prohibit competing app stores for iPhone (thereby making Apple the exclusive distributor, with it's 30% cut), or prevent you from using Skype or Skype features in exchange for consideration from AT&T, on and on.

Re:Bad guys

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

When a problem isn't a problem until a particular entity is involved, then the problem you describe isnt actually the problem you percieve. In other words: You are not being objective and it's hard to take your principled posturing seriously. It's like listening to Microsoft talk about the dangers of Open Source.

Re:Bad guys

[ThePromenader]

Well, MS ~did~ manage to make most of the world addicted 'users' of their half-baked product, and XP ~did~ have a rather vamped-up 'Playskool' look about it...

Re:Bad guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck using some proprietary bullshit like Apple Lossless, just use FLAC.

Re:Bad guys

[Daengbo]

(Or alternately, you can't put media from your iTunes library on an MP3 player unless it's a special device made by the manufacturer.)

Really? This makes no sense. Please elaborate. I've never used an iPod and only used iTunes once to initialize an iPad for my school.

Re:Bad guys

[Daengbo]

Apple, Sony, Nintendo, printer manufacturers, and any other company that appears to lock competitors out of interoperability (specifically allowed by the DMCA) using DRM should be investigated and punished if the allegations are true. This has been my position (and the position of a large number of Slashdotters) for years, and is one of our major arguments against DRM. Does that statement make me objective in your eyes? Good. It should. We have to start somewhere. Apple seems as good a place as any.

Re:Bad guys

[Daengbo]

People have been singing this tune for years. The government didn't decide to move for years, just as it didn't move on MS until long after the monopoly was cemented and the action did no good. Government is slow and predictable that way.

As far as I know, it's not fashionable to hate on Apple. In fact, the numbers are better than ever. Maybe on Slashdot, yeah, but we don't hold a lot of sway with governments, or more of the world would be running on FOSS.

Re:Bad guys

[exomondo]

When a problem isn't a problem until a particular entity is involved, then the problem you describe isnt actually the problem you percieve.

Firstly, i didn't say it wasn't a problem until a particular entity is involved, you made that up. And in fact i didn't even make the original comment.

In other words: You are not being objective and it's hard to take your principled posturing seriously. It's like listening to Microsoft talk about the dangers of Open Source.

No, because i never said that at all at any point in the discussion, you just put that in there.
I simply said that just because he makes that argument against apple and not against other parties that the argument applies to doesn't make the argument any less valid, it may make him ignorant, it may make him an anti-apple guy.
You seem to think it affects the validity of the argument, and that is rubbish, you just want it to apply to those other parties before apple. But in fact it applies equally to all those parties so why do you care so much that everyone else cops it before apple? Why does it matter so much to you?

Re:Bad guys

[UnknowingFool]

If the Zune had reached 74% market share, and Apple had responded by adding the capability to download itunes music to the Zune, and Microsoft then broke that and blocked Apple from the market, you would be outraged. This is no different.

The problem with your MS analogy is that MS didn't get in trouble by keeping their lock-in on their own products per se. They got in trouble for tactics they used against their competitors to maintain that lock-in. MS does have to make an Office for Linux or AIX for example. What MS can't do (but did) is threaten any of their OEMs not to install OpenOffice or receive higher prices.

But as it stands, Apple would have been in legal trouble if they did what you described and MS would be justified in breaking their hacks.

Re:Bad guys

[DMiax]

What bias? There is news about apple but we should be talking about everyone else? So we should be talking about Apple every time another company does something bad? I suggest that for every news we look at the companies involved in said news. It just looks more logical to me...

Re:Bad guys

[UnknowingFool]

Of course screwdrivers don't have any of those things -- that's the point. Phones have no actual reason for them either, other than to allow manufacturers to be overly controlling and anti-competitive.

The copyright holders would disagree with you. Whether you think DRM is evil or not, it has a purpose from the standpoint of those that own the copyrights. Seeing that Apple nor Real nor MS owns said copyrights, they had to use DRM in order to be able to sell music.

You didn't hear about the whole browser ballot thing? Microsoft is required to offer their competitors as an alternative. As in, the thing Apple is refusing to do with competitors' apps they deny.

Depends on what you consider an alternative. You can get music in a variety of different ways none of which involves Apple. You just can't get Apple DRMed music without Apple. They key difference is that MS took anti-competitive steps to prevent other browsers from getting any share. Threatening OEMs to raise their prices if they installed Netscape. Apple never said you can't use RealPlayer or their music; they said you have to use iTunes to use their iPods. MS was forced to offer an alternative because it was a punishment.

I don't know what that means to a lawyer, but it sure sounds like you don't actually have to have a monopoly to violate it.

The best analogy I have is murder. You don't have to murder someone to be convicted of attempted murder; however, you still have to take steps towards an actual murder. Thinking about it isn't enough. Buying a weapon isn't enough. In the case of Apple, remember this isn't the state v Apple. This is a civil action. It's up to the plaintiff to provide enough evidence. Apple breaking Real's hack of their system may not be enough.

Re:Bad guys

[jmac_the_man]

ITunes only works with iDevices. Most songs people have in their iTunes library are MP3s, which play on all kinds of devices. (For that matter, so do unprotected AACs.) I have a Creative brand MP3 player which came with its own iTunes-like software, but I use Windows Media Player to fill it up instead, partly because if I were to get a non-Creative brand MP3 player, my library would still work.

Re:Bad guys

[jmac_the_man]

Finally, isn't this largely an Open Source/Free Software site? We demand APIs for everything else so that we can use a generic X with something else because the default solution doesn't meet our requirements. Why not for iTunes?

itunes is free...

Now read the other 37 words of the quote, moron.

Re:Bad guys

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea if the OP had actually acknowledged problems caused by other companies. You were just spouting because he didn't express them in the same post as the one about Apple.

You're the one with no objectivity. You're the one that should STFU. Go make a hole in an apple and fuck it.

Re:Bad guys

[Anthony Mouse]

The copyright holders would disagree with you. Whether you think DRM is evil or not, it has a purpose from the standpoint of those that own the copyrights.

It seems to me the copyright holders want it for only the reason that Apple does -- because it suppresses competition. It's not like DRM actually stops music or movies from getting on The Pirate Bay. It does, however, allow concentration of the distribution channel -- if everybody has an iPod and iPod music only comes from iTunes and the RIAA can get good placement in iTunes for their artists over perhaps better independent artists, hey, that's great for them compared to having to contend with a thousand independent music outlets where indie bands get a fair shake.

Depends on what you consider an alternative. You can get music in a variety of different ways none of which involves Apple. You just can't get Apple DRMed music without Apple.

One way or another you're contradicting yourself here. Is it that Apple et al need DRM because you can't sell music without DRM? Because if so then "can't get Apple DRMed music without Apple" is pretty much the same thing as saying "can't get music without Apple." And if not then the DRM is only there for the benefit of Apple.

Apple never said you can't use RealPlayer or their music; they said you have to use iTunes to use their iPods.

Microsoft never said you can't use Netscape; they said you have to use IE to use Windows [without a Netscape tax]. It seems to me what Apple does is worse -- Microsoft was making it more expensive, Apple is just prohibiting it outright.

Apple breaking Real's hack of their system may not be enough.

Maybe, but that is hardly the only thing they've done. Again, trying to leverage iTunes to dominate music players and iPod to dominate music stores, then trying to use iPod/iOS to dominate app stores, etc.

Re:Bad guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple uses it's iTunes monopoly to force me to buy iPads, over and over again. I don't even know how to use a computer but I have all these iPads stacked up in the living room. I'm afraid they may fall over and hurt my dog.

Re:Bad guys

[node 3]

Screwdrivers do not have DRM or security measures or license agreements. Your analogy makes no sense.

Of course screwdrivers don't have any of those things -- that's the point. Phones have no actual reason for them either, other than to allow manufacturers to be overly controlling and anti-competitive.

Phones that run software do have uses for these things. I can't believe you just stated that security and licenses are only there for "overly controlling and anti-competitive" purposes.

1. MS still distributes IE with Windows.

You didn't hear about the whole browser ballot thing? Microsoft is required to offer their competitors as an alternative. As in, the thing Apple is refusing to do with competitors' apps they deny.

Outside of the jurisdiction being discussed. I.e., it doesn't apply.

2. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in smartphones. They can't use their position to force Angry Birds, for example, to only run on iOS.

Sherman Act Section 2:

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony ...

The iPhone is not "any part of the trade or commerce", it's a product. It's fucking insane to say a company or person can't control their own products.

I don't know what that means to a lawyer, but it sure sounds like you don't actually have to have a monopoly to violate it.

As for not being able to keep Angry Birds off of Android, that's not the problem. The problem is that they can keep Chrome off of iOS (or disadvantage it vs. Safari), or prohibit competing app stores for iPhone (thereby making Apple the exclusive distributor, with it's 30% cut), or prevent you from using Skype or Skype features in exchange for consideration from AT&T, on and on.

You still haven't explained why this should be illegal.

Re:Bad guys

[node 3]

You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products.

He was referencing the fact that not only does it bundle its own software but if you develop software that functionally duplicates on of their apps you likely can't even distribute that (according to the dev agreement).

No shit, Captain Obvious. iOS is Apple's product. This is them controlling their product. Controlling how your product works is not inherently monopolistic.

Are you actually reading what you wrote dumbass? You just said You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products, now you're saying it's them controlling there product and that's not inherently monopolistic. Well which is it?

That's why I used the quotation marks. 'A "monopoly"' is different from 'a monopoly'. Since you clearly need this spelled out: you are supposed to be able to be the sole supplier of your own products, but this isn't a monopoly as defined by antitrust law.

I think you're missing the point that having a monopoly isn't necessarily a bad thing it's when you leverage that monopoly in another market, which is what MS did (but Apple isn't), that it becomes a problem.

I never said anything about whether it's bad or not. Nor did I ever say simply having a monopoly is illegal. I'm not sure where you are getting these straw men from, but they are not from my words.

MS can't even bundle its own software on its product even though it gives you absolute freedom to install whatever other software you want.

So where apple can quite happily bundle safari with iOS and tell you what you can and cannot install MS can't bundle IE with Windows even though they impose no restrictions on what you can and can't install.

Um... IE comes bundled with Windows.

You haven't seen the 'ballot' or heard of the massive antitrust case the was brought on them? (of course it's EU)

Which has absolutely nothing to do with a lawsuit in California. Your argument is dishonest.

Re:Bad guys

[thetoadwarrior]

So I can develop whatever I want for Nintendo's systems, Playstation 3 or Xbox 360? Not every system is open and is meant to be. Just as Apple will happily let you do what you want on a Mac and even help sell / promote your GPL'ed app in their store but on the system where performance and security matter more they don't. It only makes sense. It certainly makes more sense than home consoles being locked down.

Re:Bad guys

[thetoadwarrior]

It's called an example of actual market abuse. Where as iTunes in no way forces me to use a certain format or get their music from their store. I have no more music from iTunes itself but I have used it to put my years worth of MP3s from various sources include Amazon onto an iPod though I typically don't even use iTunes and put my music onto my iPod through other software.

Apple don't even require you to own their own hardware to use iTunes. You can use Windows. The only place where they do place restrictions are with apps and to be quite honest that makes complete sense given the fact power and data usage are much bigger issues on mobile devices.

Re:Bad guys

[exomondo]

That's why I used the quotation marks. 'A "monopoly"' is different from 'a monopoly'. Since you clearly need this spelled out: you are supposed to be able to be the sole supplier of your own products, but this isn't a monopoly as defined by antitrust law.

Like i said, you're missing the point the OP was making, it isn't about being the sole supplier of the platform, it is - see the first comment you replied to - about controlling what apps go on that platform.

I never said anything about whether it's bad or not. Nor did I ever say simply having a monopoly is illegal. I'm not sure where you are getting these straw men from, but they are not from my words.

Hence the 'i think you're missing the point', otherwise i would have refuted something you actually said rather than just pointing you in the direction the OP was going with his/her comment.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with a lawsuit in California. Your argument is dishonest.

How so? What you think just because they were brought in different jurisdictions that means they have nothing to do with eachother?

Re:Bad guys

[UnknowingFool]

It seems to me the copyright holders want it for only the reason that Apple does -- because it suppresses competition. It's not like DRM actually stops music or movies from getting on The Pirate Bay. It does, however, allow concentration of the distribution channel -- if everybody has an iPod and iPod music only comes from iTunes and the RIAA can get good placement in iTunes for their artists over perhaps better independent artists, hey, that's great for them compared to having to contend with a thousand independent music outlets where indie bands get a fair shake.

Then why did Apple fight so hard to sell DRM free music? That kinda defeats your argument. See from the standpoint of Apple and anyone who sells a player, the music was a feature to sell more players. Selling music with DRM actually is a hindrance as they have to maintain an authentication system for as long as the player exists. With no DRM, Apple doesn't have to worry about it for music for upcoming generations of players.

One way or another you're contradicting yourself here. Is it that Apple et al need DRM because you can't sell music without DRM? Because if so then "can't get Apple DRMed music without Apple" is pretty much the same thing as saying "can't get music without Apple." And if not then the DRM is only there for the benefit of Apple.

Can you get music without Apple? Yes. If you wanted to use Apple's DRMed music you had to use Apple. Can you get Unix servers? Yes. Can you get an AIX without IBM. No.

Microsoft never said you can't use Netscape; they said you have to use IE to use Windows [without a Netscape tax]. It seems to me what Apple does is worse -- Microsoft was making it more expensive, Apple is just prohibiting it outright.

Did you read above? MS did not get in trouble for lock-in per se. They got in trouble for anti-competitive acts to protect that lock-in. Threatening OEMs not to install Netscape was one example. Threatening Intel not to create a Java VM was another. Apple has never threatened it's users not to use Real. What they did was prevent Real from using their iPod system as it was not intended. Can you install Solaris on an AIX machine? As a user, yes. Can you run a business that does it? I think Oracle and IBM would both send their lawyers against you.

Maybe, but that is hardly the only thing they've done. Again, trying to leverage iTunes to dominate music players and iPod to dominate music stores, then trying to use iPod/iOS to dominate app stores, etc.

Can you today walk into any Best Buy and get a non-Apple music player? Can you today get music online or offline without ever dealing with Apple? The answer to both is yes. There is a difference in being number #1 because everyone selects your product and being #1 because consumers had no choice. You seem to think it is the former and not the latter.

Re:Bad guys

[Anonymous Coward]

there's a lot of services that are a ton better.

Are any of them available in Australia? All of the ones I've found are only available in the US, which is rather inconvenient. Hence, piracy is the way to get them.

The media here keeps going on and on about how Australia's piracy problem is out of control - the reality is that our legal options to obtain this content are extremely limited and involve spending ridiculous amounts of money on Foxtel (cable TV) for a "package" of channels that hold absolutely no interest to me. You can't just say "I want the free to air channels, plus Sci-Fi and National Geographic" - to get all that you need the basic package ($40/month) + documentaries package ($20/month) plus the entertainment package ($30/month) and suddenly you're paying $70 a month just to watch the occasional doco or sci fi show (which usually are repeats anyway)?

Fuck that. The only legal option is iTunes here, and the quality of the downloads from there are just shithouse. Hence why there's so many pirates in Australia.

Re:Bad guys

[node 3]

That's why I used the quotation marks. 'A "monopoly"' is different from 'a monopoly'. Since you clearly need this spelled out: you are supposed to be able to be the sole supplier of your own products, but this isn't a monopoly as defined by antitrust law.

Like i said, you're missing the point the OP was making, it isn't about being the sole supplier of the platform, it is - see the first comment you replied to - about controlling what apps go on that platform.

The person I replied to used the word "monopoly". I didn't just conjure it up out of thin air.

As the sole supplier of their platform, they have the right to dictate the terms of that platform. That's not a monopoly in the anti-trust sense of the term.

I never said anything about whether it's bad or not. Nor did I ever say simply having a monopoly is illegal. I'm not sure where you are getting these straw men from, but they are not from my words.

Hence the 'i think you're missing the point', otherwise i would have refuted something you actually said rather than just pointing you in the direction the OP was going with his/her comment.

I'm refuting both that Apple has a monopoly, and that they are abusing it. It's their platform, it's their rules. My point is that there's nothing inherently illegal about this.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with a lawsuit in California. Your argument is dishonest.

How so? What you think just because they were brought in different jurisdictions that means they have nothing to do with eachother?

Because it means they have nothing to do with each other. EU law is not US law and vice versa. It's not the same court, it's not the same jurisdiction. Whether or not MS has to have a "browser ballot" in the EU has absolutely nothing to do with whether Apple is engaged in anti-trust violations in the US.

Re:Bad guys

[Anthony Mouse]

Phones that run software do have uses for these things. I can't believe you just stated that security and licenses are only there for "overly controlling and anti-competitive" purposes.

In what way is that not true? By "security" I am obviously talking about security against the user rather than against outside attackers. And software license agreements of the variety included with almost all commercial software provide the customer with basically nothing and take many things away -- I don't need any EULA controlling what I do when I buy a book at the store, so why do I need one when I buy software on the internet?

Outside of the jurisdiction being discussed. I.e., it doesn't apply.

OK, so the remedy was the EU remedy rather than the US remedy. It was the same conduct that got them into trouble in the US.

The iPhone is not "any part of the trade or commerce", it's a product. It's fucking insane to say a company or person can't control their own products.

What's "fucking insane" is to say that a company can control their products after selling them. They sold it, someone paid them, it isn't theirs anymore.

You still haven't explained why this should be illegal.

You don't understand why it should be illegal for a company to leverage a dominant market position in one market into a dominant market position in another market?

It's because we like competition. Monopolies are great for monopolists and horrible for everyone else. We want choice -- choice in web browsers for Windows as well as for iOS, choice in whether we use VOIP over WiFi or cellular voice service, choice in whose app store we buy apps from or sell our apps through, etc. We don't want a single entity or a concentrated oligopoly having control over who wins and loses in the marketplace. We don't want app developers to have to choose between paying 30% to Apple or losing access to half their customers. It's basic free market theory -- capitalism only works when there is competition; monopoly and oligopoly "capitalism" is nothing but corporatocracy.

Re:Bad guys

[exomondo]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with a lawsuit in California. Your argument is dishonest.

How so? What you think just because they were brought in different jurisdictions that means they have nothing to do with eachother?

Because it means they have nothing to do with each other. EU law is not US law and vice versa. It's not the same court, it's not the same jurisdiction. Whether or not MS has to have a "browser ballot" in the EU has absolutely nothing to do with whether Apple is engaged in anti-trust violations in the US.

It's about why, and that comes down to how much control a company is allowed to assert over their platform, hence my comment in the first place. Just because it is that company's product they cannot assert absolute control over it. If you don't understand the connection between this case and the EU case then have a look at the US v MS settlement, MS was not allowed to assert absolute control over *their* platform.

Re:Bad guys

[Anthony Mouse]

Then why did Apple fight so hard to sell DRM free music?

Apple wanted to get rid of the DRM the record companies wanted, not the DRM that Apple wants. You still can't run programs not approved by Apple on your iPod/iOS device without jailbreaking. They each want different forms of DRM because they each sell different products. That doesn't mean either of them actually expects it to stop "piracy" or is interested in it primarily for that reason.

Can you get music without Apple? Yes. If you wanted to use Apple's DRMed music you had to use Apple. Can you get Unix servers? Yes. Can you get an AIX without IBM. No.

OK, let's try this.

Premise: DRM is useful and necessary for distributing content.
Premise: The only DRM supported by iPods is Apple DRM.
Premise: Only Apple (or those with Apple's permission) can distribute music with Apple DRM.
Conclusion: Only Apple (or those with Apple's permission) can sell music for iPods, because DRM is required and Apple has the only DRM supported by iPods.

To escape the conclusion one of the premises must be wrong, most plausibly the first one. If DRM is not required then it should be discontinued. In some cases (music) it has been -- great. In those cases the DRM doesn't exist so it stops being anti-competitive (obviously). But to the extent that it still exists, the analogous conclusion still applies -- he who controls the DRM controls the market.

Did you read above? MS did not get in trouble for lock-in per se. They got in trouble for anti-competitive acts to protect that lock-in. Threatening OEMs not to install Netscape was one example. Threatening Intel not to create a Java VM was another. Apple has never threatened it's users not to use Real. What they did was prevent Real from using their iPod system as it was not intended.

Why do you think that what Apple intended has anything to do with anything? If Microsoft intended that no browsers competing with Internet Explorer should run on Windows, and implemented technical measures to prevent it, you would not see that as an anti-competitive act to protect lock-in? And you would accept that competing browsers trying to work around it are doing something wrong? How is Apple's behavior different?

Can you install Solaris on an AIX machine? As a user, yes. Can you run a business that does it? I think Oracle and IBM would both send their lawyers against you.

Nobody can install Solaris on an "AIX machine" because they run on completely different processor architectures, no Solaris drivers exist for IBM hardware, etc. But let's say that I, as a business, go to IBM and order up an x86-based xSeries server and then I buy myself a copy of x86 Solaris to run on it. You think they're going to send lawyers? IBM will be happy for the hardware sale and Oracle will send a promotional brochure for "Oracle Solaris Premier Subscriptions for Non-Oracle x86 Systems".

Can you today walk into any Best Buy and get a non-Apple music player? Can you today get music online or offline without ever dealing with Apple? The answer to both is yes. There is a difference in being number #1 because everyone selects your product and being #1 because consumers had no choice. You seem to think it is the former and not the latter.

You're thinking about the wrong side of the market. The device purchaser gets to decide if they want an iPhone or a Droid. The app developer doesn't get to decide which of their customers buy which device -- and if a majority of their customers buy an iPhone and then Apple rejects the app because it competes with Apple's own offerings, that will have an extremely anti-competitive effect in the app market.

Re:Bad guys

[UnknowingFool]

Apple wanted to get rid of the DRM the record companies wanted, not the DRM that Apple wants. You still can't run programs not approved by Apple on your iPod/iOS device without jailbreaking. They each want different forms of DRM because they each sell different products. That doesn't mean either of them actually expects it to stop "piracy" or is interested in it primarily for that reason.

Way to switch topics in mid stream. We were talking about music. Even you agree that it was the record companies that wanted it.

Premise: DRM is useful and necessary for distributing content. Premise: The only DRM supported by iPods is Apple DRM. Premise: Only Apple (or those with Apple's permission) can distribute music with Apple DRM. Conclusion: Only Apple (or those with Apple's permission) can sell music for iPods, because DRM is required and Apple has the only DRM supported by iPods.

What is the market that we were talking about? The market is music. Again, can you get music without Apple? Yes. If we limit the market to just online music, can you get online music without Apple? Yes. So how does Apple control the online music market again? So what you did was define the market to be so narrow that Apple is guaranteed to have control. Basically you've defined the market as Apple DRM'ed online music. Which coincidentally Apple controls. That's like saying Honda controls the car market for sedans named Civics. Look at their sales figures! They own 100% of the market. Honda must be stopped from selling Civics is the gist of your argument.

One of the tests of monopoly is high enough market share to control the market. However, the market must be defined as not to be too exclusive or too inclusive. But that's only one test. Another test is the lack of suitable alternatives. Another test is whether a significant barrier to entry exists. If you define the market to be online music then Apple does not have a monopoly.

Why do you think that what Apple intended has anything to do with anything? If Microsoft intended that no browsers competing with Internet Explorer should run on Windows, and implemented technical measures to prevent it, you would not see that as an anti-competitive act to protect lock-in? And you would accept that competing browsers trying to work around it are doing something wrong? How is Apple's behavior different?

iPods play MP3, AAC, Apple Loseless and Fairplay. The first 2 are neither owned nor controlled by Apple. FairPlay is their format which they did not license to Real. What Real did is design their Helix DRM so that it fools the iPod in thinking that it is a FairPlay file. If Apple changed their iPods not to play any DRM free music, you might have a point. Your analogy would be closer if Netscape, Firefox, Opera and Chrome all pretended they were IE when making API calls to Windows. The only other software that does the same kind of deception is malware.

Nobody can install Solaris on an "AIX machine" because they run on completely different processor architectures, no Solaris drivers exist for IBM hardware, etc. But let's say that I, as a business, go to IBM and order up an x86-based xSeries server and then I buy myself a copy of x86 Solaris to run on it. You think they're going to send lawyers? IBM will be happy for the hardware sale and Oracle will send a promotional brochure for "Oracle Solaris Premier Subscriptions for Non-Oracle x86 Systems [oracle.com]".

So no hacker would/could write a driver for AIX? No one is talented enough to do that? The problem isn't a matter of technical possibility. You as a user can install Solaris onto a AIX machine legally. What you can't do is start a business that does it. Both Oracle and IBM would sue you to oblivion if you did. This is no different. Hackers want to install Real Player onto their iPods. Even if Apple says it's illegal, it's not. A company wants to do it as a busi

Re:Bad guys

[node 3]

It's about why, and that comes down to how much control a company is allowed to assert over their platform, hence my comment in the first place.

Except that "why" you brought up isn't a "why" for the topic at hand.

Just because it is that company's product they cannot assert absolute control over it.

Of course not, but they can control the sources of content for it. Why aren't you bitching about Wiis and Xboxes and Kindles? Do you think they are illegal as well?

If you don't understand the connection between this case and the EU case then have a look at the US v MS settlement, MS was not allowed to assert absolute control over *their* platform.

Yes, convicted criminals do often have their rights taken away.

Re:Bad guys

[Risen888]

allow me to burn purchased songs to CD's

This is stupid. No one's allowing you to do anything, and God knows if there was a way to stop you from doing that, they'd do it.

Re:Bad guys

[Risen888]

Yes, them too. But right now we're talking about Apple.

Re:Bad guys

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Exactly.

Verb conjugation

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me, or does the person who wrote this title not understand how to properly use the past tense?

Re:Verb conjugation

[Anonymous Coward]

How will you expect the editors to took the time to conjugated verbs properly, when there's flamebait to will have been posted?

Ad revenues, man! Slashdot needed / needs / will need / will have needed / had needed / is needing / to need them!

Re:Verb conjugation

[QRDeNameland]

How will you expect the editors to took the time to conjugated verbs properly, when there's flamebait to will have been posted?

This is like the "Inception" of sentences, except I stayed awake until the end.

Re:Verb conjugation

[dgatwood]

Obligatory HHGG reference: It wioll haven be posted?

Re:Verb conjugation

[Pete Venkman]

They went ahead and put past tense for when the editors dupe this article in a month.

Re:Verb conjugation

[dunng808]

More impotantly, there is nothing of interest here, even for nerds. The Jobs is going to be questioned. Oh gosh. Start those fies burning, we're gonna roast him.

Right.

Let us know when you have the transcripts. That will be stuff that matters.

Re:Verb conjugation

[ColdWetDog]

Your English teacher is / was / will be disappoint.

Re:Verb conjugation

[Culture20]

Your English teacher is / was / will be disappoint.

No, Yoda were completely appoint.

Re:Verb conjugation

[EmagGeek]

A month? I bet this is reposted tomorrow...

Re:Verb conjugation

[Kitkoan]

Yeah, my English teacher is very disappointment in my grammer.

Re:Verb conjugation

[teh kurisu]

grammer

And your spelling.

Re:Verb conjugation

[elrous0]

Me sorry on you.

Unlike Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike Gates, which had a poor implementation of an OS, Jobs has a good implementation of an App/Audio store.

Re:Unlike Gates

[jijok]

If Windows wasn't a good OS, why are everyone using it?

Re:Unlike Gates

[growse]

You think iTunes is *good*?

You must lead a sheltered life.

Re:Unlike Gates

[Jafafa Hots]

I never realized that "good" was a synonym for "buggy, bloated, restrictive piece of shit."

Re:Unlike Gates

[Master Moose]

A combination of history, good marketing, vendor lock in, agressive business practise, a few other sprinklings of fairy dust and mostly a public who know no better.

Re:Unlike Gates

[Seumas]

Then you are free to use Amazon's service (and I guess there may be others).

I'm not really sure how they have a monopoly, when it's dead simple to opt for Amazon, instead. I use iTunes as my player and it's the most convenient podcast client I've found (because I listen to a lot of them), but I've never bought a single song on iTunes. I save that for Amazon. Better quality. Better prices. Re-downloadable. No DRM.

They may have some shitty business practices, when it comes to the operation of their app stores and itunes stores, but they have almost single-handedly kept music from being tied to nothing more than CDs for another twenty years, which is what would have happened if they hadn't leveraged against the music industry to strong-arm them into the 21st century, as they bit and kicked every inch of the way.

Re:Unlike Gates

[TheFlamingoKing]

Wait, are we talking about Microsoft or Apple now?

Re:Unlike Gates

[d3vi1]

If Windows wasn't a good OS, why are everyone using it?

Who's everyone? While Windows market share is still huge, I'm not considering it dominant anymore. Don't look at MacOS when you look at the ratios, look also at iPad, iPhone and whatever else. The tablets will eventually become at least as common as the PCs and Apple kicks arse for now, smart-phones are taking care of more of our needs than ever before and the iPhone is doing well and Android is doing excellently. Slowly we are getting to a point where the PC is not required anymore. For average users a NAS, a PS3/Apple_TV/XBox360 and a tablet are everything that they need at home. PCs are slowly fading from their dominant position and we don't have Windows on any of the devices that I mentioned before.

Re:Unlike Gates

[camcorder]

Because MS abuses its monopolistic status. You can't migrate over other operating system easily, even if you can. There're still too many incompatibilities. For almost every implementation of technology now there's a classification of Unix-based couple of OS and Windows ones (which was actually Unix based at the beginning). MS diverged its operating system too much and never released any reliable specs for considerably long time to cause vendor lock-in. Not any other implementation could ever existed apart from theirs...

Enough?

Re:Unlike Gates

[uniquename72]

mostly a public who know no better.

I would argue that this applies to iTunes as well.

Re:Unlike Gates

[GIL_Dude]

You certainly make a good point about how there are a lot of devices that can / could handle general computing tasks that are not "PCs" (such as tablets and phones) and that those generally don't run Windows. However, today, most of those devices are still considered secondary devices - and many of them require a PC or Mac in order to get their updates. This will change, and not all of them require it. But - right now - most of them are ancillary devices. For example, most updates for the iPhone require it be tethered to a PC / Mac in order to get them. In the Android world, many phones do OTA updates (like my Motorola Droid), but my Wife's HTC Aria just got an update to 2.2.2 and it had to be applied tethered to a PC (not a Mac) and was a wipe and load. I do believe that it won't be too long before most of these devices dispense with that tethered connection. Today though I have to consider a lot of them as secondary devices - and unlike Steve Jobs I can't call them "post PC devices" when they still require a PC / Mac in order to get updates.

Re:Unlike Gates

[The Grim Reefer2]

For average users a NAS, a PS3/Apple_TV/XBox360 and a tablet are everything that they need at home.

So much for convergence. ;-)

Re:Unlike Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not really sure why people say Microsoft have a monopoly, (sic for extraneous comma) when it's dead simple to opt for Linux/BSD/etc, (again, extraneous comma) instead.

Ok, those extraneous commas I had to make use of to lampoon a 4digit UID poster really truly annoy the living shit out of me.

Re:Unlike Gates

[kevinmenzel]

How on earth was Windows "UNIX" based? Home windows (the line beginning with 1.0) certainly wasn't, and if anything NT was OS/2 based. If you are referring to the POSIX subsystem... you can still install the UNIX Subsystem in Windows 7... And you damn well can migrate to another OS easily, so long as your data is readible in both systems. Which largely is going to depend on software, but it's not exactly surprising if some niche software you depend on isn't avaliable. Especially if you're dealing with a closed-source blob, your rant on UNIX compatibility (assuming that you are talking about the same POSIX subsystem/UNIX subsystem that actually exists) wouldn't even help you because POSIX compatibility doesn't mean binary compatibility.

Re:Unlike Gates

[oliverthered]

Does iTunes ever get bundled with anything... e.g. a different piece of apple software or maybe some products?

And are you ever required to use the interface for anything to do anything even if it's free. say maybe a bit like internet explorer?

do they have any kind of exclusive deals with anyone, do they lock people in or out.

Do they in any other way abuse the trust of people?

Re:Unlike Gates

[node 3]

You think someone with an opinion on technology different from yours is ignorant? You must be a geek.

Re:Unlike Gates

[Drakino]

iTunes is bundled with every Mac. It's not bundled with anything else though. When you buy an iPod, iPhone or iPad, you have to manually download iTunes if you use something other then OS X. A number of years ago, iTunes was also bundled with HP computers via a mutual business agreement to allow HP to sell HP branded iPods. iTunes sued to be bundled with iPods as well, via a CD in the package.

Keep in mind bundling is different in this case though vs when Microsoft was doing it. Apple iTunes has only been bundled with Apple products or with a company they had an agreement with. Microsoft IE was forced to be bundled with Dell computers, or Compaq, etc due to their agreement to buy OEM copies of Windows. If the OEM (Dell/Compaq etc) didn't want IE, or wanted to hide it and instead bundle Netscape Navigator, Microsoft penalized the OEM. And this was after Microsoft had already been in trouble for forcing OEMs to buy a copy of Windows for every machine they shipped, even if it was loaded with a different OS such as OS/2 Warp.

Re:Unlike Gates

[ColdWetDog]

I never realized that "good" was a synonym for "buggy, bloated, restrictive piece of shit."

You must be new here.

Re:Unlike Gates

[jrumney]

When you buy an iPod, iPhone or iPad, you have to manually download iTunes if you use something other then OS X.

If you use Windows. If you use anything else, you're on your own.

Re:Unlike Gates

[multisync]

why are everyone using it?

Hey, did you write the headline for this article?

Re:Unlike Gates

[Seumas]

As you point out, bundling in and of itself isn't a monopolistic activity. Using your leverage to wedge everyone else out and force your stuff to be bundled with third party deliverables may be considered such, depending on circumstances.

Additionally, so would doing things like making special APIs that only iTunes has access to which accelerates speed and response and reliability, while not providing the same access (since you're the OS maker) that other application developers would benefit from for their music players. Or worse, if you not only provided yourself special higher-performing API stuff, but impacted the one you allowed everyone else to use.

As far as we know, Apple isn't doing that, either. Hell, anyone who uses iTunes on a regular basis can tell you the last thing it seems to have is access to anything meant to improve speed.

I think about the best claim one could make is that Apple is a bit obsessed with what is and isn't allowed to be sold in their store and in some cases at what price and under what conditions. So does Wal-mart. Not sure what's wrong with that. I might see an issue if they were the only game in town, but Amazon is a very strong competitor. Of course, Amazon has their own problems where that's concerned. Perhaps nothing "monopolistic", but certainly tending towards "unfriendly to the author/content-creator/publisher". And even if Apple didn't have any competition, I wouldn't see a problem unless they didn't have any competition, because they unfairly undermined and prevented any said competition from popping up through nefarious means.

Re:Unlike Gates

[Culture20]

Who's everyone? While Windows market share...

Dude, I started reading "Who's everyone?" and immediately thought that the next sentence was the catch phrase of MichaelKristopeitXXX

Re:Unlike Gates

[oliverthered]

There may be an issue with exclusive content deals.. That is to get some content (e.g. from the open university) you need iTunes and that's the only way you can get it.

That's a bit like Apple making the Open University make their customers use iTunes.

If that's done to stifle competition then that's a breach of trust....

Price fixing may also be another thing.. and they do do some price fixing of sorts.

Format restrictions, or preference.

I think there was one point where Apple was pushing software on people using one of their other products through automatic updates.

Re:Unlike Gates

[Cable]

Windows is bundled with new computer systems. Most people use Windows because it came with their computer or they use Windows at school or work.

Is Windows a good OS? That depends on how one defines a good OS. Ubuntu is a good OS, but only a select few out of the masses (we computer hobbyists, geeks, nerds, gurus, the GNU dirty hippies) use it or install it for others.

Back on a related topic, Apple does not have a monopoly on music or videos. Apple has a lot of competition. For example Amazon.com MP3 and audio CD MP3 files import into the iPod and iPhone and one can synch those up.

I used to be a big critic of Apple, but now I love my iPod and buy music from iTunes, Amazon.com, audio CDs and the like.

Re:Unlike Gates

[oliverthered]

"Additionally, so would doing things like making special APIs that only iTunes has access to which accelerates speed and response and reliability,"

Can a third party client use the API to connect to whatever/wherever iTunes get's it's stuff from? or is it vendor locked into Apple?

Are the files that are downloaded restricted to something which requires a none-free license from Apple to be able to use and use at full speed? Putting competitors at a disadvantage, and not one purely based on the un-wrapped content provided by the service.

I wouldn't see a problem unless they didn't have any competition, because they unfairly undermined and prevented any said competition from popping up through nefarious means.

A monopoly doesn't need to be a big monopoly nor broad reaching. Patents and copy-right are both forms of limited monopoly.

Re:Unlike Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's everyone? While Windows market share...

Dude, I started reading "Who's everyone?" and immediately thought that the next sentence was the catch phrase of MichaelKristopeitXXX

which one?

'cower behind your chosen pseudonym some more feeb'?

'your completely pathetic'?

or, my personal favorite, the patently false:

'you are NOTHING'? (you tend to get that when you really nail him)

Re:Unlike Gates

[Gilmoure]

Exactly. If they would just pass laws that all computing purchasing decisions have to be approved by a certified /. geek (with appropriate fees paid and cool stamps applied to customer's network passport), we could get out of this whole Microsoft/Apple/Google mess. The world would run on NetBSD, everyone would roll their own browser (using approved render engine) and vi would be the text editor. My God, it'll be beautiful!

Re:Unlike Gates

[Gilmoure]

Oh, sure, go and try and run 6 monitors with a internal 4 drive array and 32 GB of RAM on your tablet. No one will want these once they realize how limited they are.

Re:Unlike Gates

[Cable]

Agreed. The iPod, iPhone, and iPad can install apps on them to purchase media. The only thing is that Apple controls the app store.

    When Microsoft faced the DOJ it had the bundled software of IE and Media Player. I believe that the same argument was made, but I could be wrong.

    Apple is a top contender for the tablet computers. Apple should know that price, legacy software, quality, marketing, promotion and other factors like word of mouth helps sell products.

    Before Microsoft became big each PC had a different operating system based on CP/M, and other systems. IBM saw the threat of Apple. IBM decided to cater to small businesses with the IBM PC to beat Apple, but Microsoft licensed DOS to other companies and alternative BIOS to IBM BIOS to run MS-DOS and later Windows to counter Apple's Macintosh.

    If Apple lawyers are smart they will reference the MS DOJ case. Basically (BASIC ally *grin*) standards sell better when OEM companies licence them.

    So the tablet standard that has the most OEMs bundle it via a license will create the next standard. Apple hasn't done that since the Mac clones. I doubt they will, but hope they might. Apple iOS is a great OS so far, however, Droid, Blackberry, Linux, Windows Smart phones are innovating to compete. But I could be wrong.

Re:Unlike Gates

[Cable]

I apologize to all. Long ago we had BASIC for 8 BIT computers and each system had to modify it. BASIC was not an OS but a system language shared by many computers, designed to be easy to use (a programming language for the rest of us *grin*) and portable (if you don't mind the peeks and poke changing to convert from one system to another (3D0G *grin* 8EON for Epson printers) and hope it works.

    Apple had a BASIC standard different from IBM, Commodore, Atari and others. Apple was used because it was hackable (back then hacking was a good thing to use double high rez and other tricks of the trade), affordable, and expandable.

    Now we have Java, Python, Shockwave Flash and others. Is that enough? Not quite. If Apple wants to get back to it's roots then it needs to give the customers what they want and need. Have an ability for customers to unlock their iPhone for a small fee to change mobile companies. That would help drop these charges against Apple.

    The iPod, iPhone are small tablet computers, the iPad is a larger tablet computer.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an iTunes version of Monopoly?

Re:Whoa, Whoa, Whoa...

[blacklint]

Well, yes... MONOPOLY for iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad on the iTunes App Store. But that's not what we're talking about.

Re:Whoa, Whoa, Whoa...

[MrEricSir]

Why would you buy a $20 board game when you can buy a $500 device that lets you play board games?

"I don't remember"

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point. He will conveniently forget the dodgy decisions, or they'll be off record. We all know what Apple are like, they're not going to hand themselves, not unless it's a typical gay sexual practice out of hours.

Re:"I don't remember"

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to become a /. editor. The beauty of your words, just grouped together in nonsensical ways. It's just awesome.

Re:"I don't remember"

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point. He will conveniently forget the dodgy decisions, or they'll be off record.

What dodgy decisions? Apple's contracts with the record companies say they must potect the DRM, Fairplay, used to enforce the record companies IP. Real Networks showed they had broken that DRM by demonstrating in a very public way their ability to encode songs using the Fairplay DRM system. Apple was legally required to make the changes and force competitors to either make their products unencumbered or not playable on the iPod. They have stated this publically, if someone reveals an email showing that Apple was secretly happy the record companies had trapped themselves this way, who is really going to be surprised?

Re:"I don't remember"

[The Grim Reefer2]

You need to become a /. editor. The beauty of your words, just grouped together in nonsensical ways. It's just awesome.

Member, editor. It's all such a thin fuzzy line.

Re:"I don't remember"

[c0lo]

Member, editor. It's all such a thin fuzzy line.

Rejoice: a new oxymoron is born.
(thin line - accidentally cross it because it takes no time, but very well defined. Fuzzy line - is non-trivial to cross but, being fuzzy, there is no way to tell the exact moment one actually crossed it) .

/. editors - they do get paid, while members don't, isn't it?

Re:"I don't remember"

[Culture20]

Member, editor. It's all such a thin fuzzy line.

Rejoice: a new oxymoron is born.
(thin line - accidentally cross it because it takes no time, but very well defined. Fuzzy line - is non-trivial to cross but, being fuzzy, there is no way to tell the exact moment one actually crossed it) .

/. editors - they do get paid, while members don't, isn't it?

I think he was saying the /. editors' members were thin fuzzy lines.

Re:"I don't remember"

[c0lo]

I think he was saying the /. editors' members were thin fuzzy lines.

As I believe the /. editors are in no way resembling the The FSM (Blessed be His Noodly Appendages), I think the correct expression should be
he was saying the /. editors' limbs were thin fuzzy lines.
But anyway, this is quite OT.

Re:"I don't remember"

[Culture20]

I was making a crude joke about their penises. But now I had to explain it. :(

Re:"I don't remember"

[ThePromenader]

I thought you were making a joke about how /. users shaved their 'lady parts' ; )

Re:"I don't remember"

[Gilmoure]

*golf clap*

How is iTunes a monopoly?

[thetoadwarrior]

Are people dumb enough not to be using Amazon for music? Even then what actually ties you to buying music from iTunes? Hell what ties you to using iTunes to get music on your iPod? I'm doing quite well without it on my Linux machine.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[ePhil_One]

Only iTunes can place rights restricted music using the native "Fairplay" DRM on the iPod. That is how it is a monopoly. Everybody else has to use unrestricted formats.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Mr. McGibby]

Only iTunes can place rights restricted music using the native "Fairplay" DRM on the iPod. That is how it is a monopoly. Everybody else has to use unrestricted formats.

Yeah, wow. That's really stifling competition.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[marblesbot]

It took me a second, but ePhil_One, you are hilarious!

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[thetoadwarrior]

Personally I consider that a positive thing rather than a negative thing.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[uglyduckling]

Wow that's the best bit of anti-logic I've heard for weeks.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... iTunes music has been unencrypted for years now.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[sodul]

Everybody else has to use unrestricted formats.

That's good then.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Bobfrankly1]

In your haste to comment, you failed like so many others to READ.

At issue is a piece of software called Fairplay that allowed only music bought on iTunes to be played on the iPod, according to the complaint.

One competitor, RealNetworks Inc, responded in 2004 by introducing a new technology that would allow customers to play music downloaded from its site on their iPods. But Apple quickly announced a software upgrade to iTunes that once more blocked music from RealNetworks, the complaint charges.

Lloyd said the deposition of Jobs would be limited to questions about the back-and-forth with RealNetworks in 2004.

It's not about buying music from iTunes. It's about Apple killing music from a competing retailer on the iPod.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[SilverHatHacker]

Perhaps people are not American enough to use Amazon? I'd be happy to give them my Canadian money for music if they would accept it.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[TheFlamingoKing]

That sound you hear is the woosh of ePhil_One's comment going over the heads of most of these respondents. Must we actually use sarcasm tags?

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[sockonafish]

That's just Apple refusing to support a DRM scheme other than their own, especially one that essentially broke Apple's DRM.

Unencumbered media would still have loaded onto an iPod just fine. If Real weren't so incompetent, they would've pioneered DRM-free music sales, and might have saved themselves from becoming irrelevant.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[ClioCJS]

What ties them to using iTunes to get music on it is that you can't just put mp3s on these devices like flash drives. You have to do a bunch of database bullshit... in part to reduce battery power later (or that is the excuse, at least). On a jailbroken iPhone you can use PwnTunes to actually scan the drive and import all mp3s found into iTunes so that they will actually fucking play. It's the most goddamn annoying awful thing. And oh, if you want to map your iPhone to a harddrive, that's another issue. You gotta get Expandrive. Yea. It's a bunch of bullshit. If this thing wasn't given to me for free I wouldn't have it.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Bobfrankly1]

Only iTunes can place rights restricted music using the native "Fairplay" DRM on the iPod. That is how it is a monopoly. Everybody else has to use unrestricted formats.

Yeah, wow. That's really stifling competition.

If you want to purchase music from an artist or label that refuses to sell in an unrestricted format, then the iTunes store is your only avenue, short of (illegally?) ripping the music from a CD. Need an example? Try buying a Beatles MP3 on Amazon. It's all cover bands.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[fean]

How many commercial applications can copy songs to an iPod?

-none-

Because Apple prevents competition with legal threats. They can't block Linux/Open Source, but they do prevent commercial competition, which is what is illegal. This suit is about the iTunes application, not the music store.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[krizoitz]

Ripping from a CD is not illegal in any way shape or form if you own the CD and rip it for your own use. Apple has supported this method for a LONG time. iTunes isn't a monopoly. 1) You can get music off CD's and rip it 2) You can get Mp3's off Amazon 3) You can put music from either source (or any other compatible, i.e. non-DRM'd MP3, AAC, WAV etc.) on your iPod 4) You can put non-DRM'd iTunes music on other devices 5) The only reason music on iTunes was ever/is now DRM'd is because the labels demand it, Steve Jobs has been very vocal about non-DRM'd music being the right choice.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Americano]

The suit stems largely from the Apple / RealNetworks dispute regarding the Harmony service Real tried to offer, allowing people to buy music from Real, and load it on iPods by re-DRM'ing the track as a "FairPlay-compatible" track. Apple made changes that (deliberately or not) stopped Harmony-purchased tracks from working on an iPod.

I'm not certain that this rises to the level of "antitrust" for several reasons:
1) They weren't under any obligation to license their FairPlay technology to other vendors, and in fact VirginMega actually got shot down by a court in 2004 for that very reason;
2) It's possible that turning a blind eye to how easily FairPlay was reverse engineered by Real could have put Apple afoul of its agreements with the record labels;
3) iPods have *always* allowed (and played) non-DRM'ed MP3/AAC tracks - Real could have sold non-DRM tracks if they wanted to sell for the iPod - eMusic has been doing it for a while now;
4) Real could have built their own iPod competitor, and had a run at the market that way; Microsoft's Zune and Sansa's various portable models both did this;

In short, there was enough competition and choice for consumers on the market that Apple's product decision didn't reasonably constitute "monopolistic" behavior.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

People are stupid...

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

iTunes has been completely DRM free for 2 years.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[fean]

Not about DRM, about directly transferring music to the iPod, rather than having to go through iTunes.

Nice try, though! (not that I disagree with Real + Broken DRM)

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Shadow Wrought]

In your haste to comment, you failed like so many others to READ.

You must be new here. If you're looking for commentary based on actually based on TFA, than perhaps slashdot is not for you...

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... iTunes music has been unencrypted for years now.

The lawsuit covers Real Networks attempt to compete with Apple using their own Fairplay DRM to protect the digital music they were selling, before the music labels had agreed to allow unrestricted sales. Its quite arguable that this has quite a lot to do with WHY Apple can now sell unrestricted music, because the only other real options were giving 80% of the market to Apple/iTunes or forcing Apple via lawsuits like this one to place music industry controlled DRM codec onto iPods alongside their own.

Today's reality has little to do with it.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[GrumpySteen]

No, of course not. Slashdotters have no trouble understanding sarcasm.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[GrumpySteen]

How many commercial applications can copy songs to an iPod?

There aren't many, but there are some. Winamp has been able to since the 5.55 release in March of 2009. It works well, too, I might add.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Master Moose]

Are people dumb enough not to be using Amazon for music?. .Hell what ties you to using iTunes to get music on your iPod? I'm doing quite well without it on my Linux machine.

Avoiding apple at all costs, my son was gifted a iPod by a family member a few weeks ago. One of the latest 4G devices. Without Jail Breaking the device, there is no way (that I have found) that I can get this to sync to my Ubuntu PC. I have searched forum after forum after forum.

I tried to purchase an Mp3 from amazon, it wanted me to use their default downloader. Which was not compatible with 64 bit linux

So while I don't have to use itunes specifically to use the IPod. . Linux is not an option for it at present

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[node 3]

That's not how the word "monopoly" works. If iTunes was the only place to buy music, it could be a monopoly. Just because some artists are exclusive to one store does not make that store a monopoly.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

What defines a monopoly is anti-trust legislation. Of course the legislation itself is so vague basically anyone can be defined as a monopoly. Prices are high? obviously you are a monopoly because you are taking monopoly profits. Prices too low? obviously you are a monopoly because you are engaged in predatory pricing. Prices the same as company B? obviously you are a cartel fixing prices. Few competitors in marketplace? obviously you are creating barriers to entry to eliminate competition. More competitors enter the market even as an anti-trust suit goes on? We'll just append them to the suit.

It doesn't matter if a company is actually monopolistic or causing any harm. Most of the anti-trust cases of the last century just made consumers worse off anyway (higher average prices). Governments benefit from additional income from fines and lawyers benefit from more hours to bill everyone. Don't get confused and think that they're doing this for the consumers.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[node 3]

Only iTunes can place rights restricted music using the native "Fairplay" DRM on the iPod. That is how it is a monopoly. Everybody else has to use unrestricted formats.

During the time in question, there were multiple DRM restricted music stores. Apple is the sole source of FairPlay DRM, but that's not a monopoly. That's having control over one's own product, which is generally how things are expected to work.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Return it and get yourself a Sansa Clip or similar. They work with Linux, and you might even be able to get 2 players for the return price of the single iPod.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[node 3]

Just because it makes no sense doesn't mean he didn't mean it. You have read the posts here, right?

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[chrb]

Can a user download DRMed music from a company that isn't Apple and put it on their ipod? I don't even know why people are bothering to argue this point - Apple blatantly does have a monopoly on being able to produce FairPlay compatible files for iPods. The real question is whether the courts will decide that this monopoly, and Apple's behaviour in blocking RealPlayer's FairPlay converter, is enough to invoke antitrust law.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[node 3]

It's not about buying music from iTunes. It's about Apple killing music from a competing retailer on the iPod.

This assumes Apple has any obligation whatsoever to support third party DRM'd music stores on their iPod. I see no reason why that should be the case.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[foniksonik]

So a band you care about has an exclusive agreement? BTW there's nothing illegal about ripping your CDs and you can certainly buy those on Amazon. maybe you should boycott The Beatles for signing a digital downloads only agreement with the #1 music store in the world.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Bobfrankly1]

I put illegal? because the record companies assert that it is, many others assert that it isn't, and I haven't seen a case that attempt to prosecute over it. American law is convoluted and easily twisted. Just because you and I believe it is legal doesn't mean we can't be successfully sued for it by corporations with expensive lawyers.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to live in the USA to buy music from Amazon, other places are pretty much out of luck.

Still, I don't think Apple has a music monopoly. Or even anything close to a monopoly. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of places to purchases music, many of them on-line. Most of them inexpensive and DRM-free. I don't think this court case has a leg to stand on.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[EXTomar]

How is Amazon's inability to secure The Beatles proof that iTunes has a monopoly? Hell a year ago iTunes didn't have The Beatles either where I find it hard to believe Apple Records suddenly went "Now that iTunes is a monopoly on the download music market, we will jump in!"

On the other hand, Apple Records has a history of shrewdly protect their rights on The Beatles and has rejected many deals as along the way where it appears that Apple Computer Inc kept negotiating till they got a deal Apple Records agreed too. Added to this nothing is stopping Amazon from making similar concessions where it is only up to Amazon leaders to decide if The Beatles library is worth suspected cost.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[hedwards]

Despite the ironic tone of your post, yes it is indeed stifling competition. iPods make up a substantial portion of the portable music player market, and because of Fairplay they aren't available for services which allow all you can listen to plans protected by DRM, unless Apple provides it. Previously when iPods weren't the most popular portable music player, they were the only player that could use the ITMS without resorting to buning the songs to disc as an intermediary step. And that was a substantial benefit to Apple that did hurt the competition as a lot of the content was exclusive to the ITMS.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Bobfrankly1]

In your haste to comment, you failed like so many others to READ. You must be new here. If you're looking for commentary based on actually based on TFA, than perhaps slashdot is not for you...

Not new, I simply choose not to tolerate willful ignorance when source material is literally one click away.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Ben4jammin]

So Apple is a monopoly based on the actions of another (the artist) party? That doesn't make sense to me. At that point your beef is with the artist, not Apple. It is not Apple's responsibility to make the music available.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[jo_ham]

Yes, but there is no DRM on any music on the iTunes Store any more, and it's been that way for some time. Fairplay was never designed to be something that would spread - Apple had it out of necessity, but didn't want it to become a de facto standard.

Even when they were selling music with Fairplay DRM they included a feature in iTunes to strip it off (burn to audio CD) if you wanted it (although this meant quality loss if you then re-encoded it). The fiarplay converter isn't strictly needed, if you have any old files left over that have DRM - Apple has two methods to remove that DRM, one of which has always been there (burn audio CD), the other offered at the time they swapped to non-DRM files (a $0.20 per-track upgrade to download the new files).

But since they removed all the DRM, it is no longer an issue - the lawsuit seems to be about Fairplay, which hasn't been in use for some time, for this exact reason. They never wanted DRM in the first place, but had no choice due to the content owners demanding it. They removed it as soon as possible and made it extremely weak and trivial to defeat *within their own program* from the outset, strongly encouraging that you did so when you purchased music back then.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[peragrin]

Fairplay hasn't been used in anything but movies for 5 years now.

let's move into this decade please.

Also Fairplay wasn't apple's idea but the demands of the music industry who didn't want compatible RM schemes.

Apple is guilty of lots of things fairplay isn't one of them.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[hedwards]

It's definitely an antitrust situation. Apple controls a substantial block of the portable music player and refuses to license out the scheme or allow others to enter the market to sell compliant tracks. According to the Wikipedia, the iPod line accounts for 90% of the HDD based portable music player market and 70% of the portable music player market over all. That's a significant portion of the market to be locking other people out of.

iPod Sales

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[langelgjm]

BTW there's nothing illegal about ripping your CDs

Well, that depends on who you ask. E.g., if you asked the former General Counsel of the Copyright Office, he would say that ripping your own CDs is probably copyright infringement.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried using Amazon to buy music and it wasn't until I was about to pay for the music that it informed me that they were not licensed to sell music in my region. Is it US only? Either way, iTunes is the only online store I have found that sells mainstream music in my country (New Zealand)

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[R3d M3rcury]

iTunes isn't a monopoly.

As always, that depends.

iTunes controls 64.5% of the online movie market. iTunes controls 70% of online music sales.

Remember, when you're talking about a monopoly, it's the market that matters.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[jrumney]

Leveraging a monopoly in one market (MP3 players) to gain a monopoly in another (online music stores) is a violation of antitrust law. The problem no longer exists, so damages will be limited, but if Real want to continue to pursue this based on the situation 5 years ago, then that is between them and the lawyers on both sides, who will likely be the only winners here.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Rinikusu]

Yes. In fact, most "other" music stores (such as Napster, Rhapsody, etc) have ways to automatically put purchases music into your iTunes collection for this purpose.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Tigris666]

Are people dumb enough not to be using Amazon for music?

Given 90% of Amazon music can't be downloaded from Australia, you just called all Australians dumb. Congrats.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Charliemopps]

If you have an Ipod, throw it out. The cheapest MP3 player they sell at Walmart will be superior in every way, I guarantee it. Stop drinking the coolaid, get away from apple... you'll be much happier.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

As with any antitrust analysis, if you define the domain narrowly enough, then you will find a monopoly.

Only McDonald's makes Big Macs. It's obviously a monopoly on Big Macs...

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[larry bagina]

There's two problems with your example:

1. You can buy the Beatles USB box set from Amazon which contains their entire catalog in FLAC and 320 kbps MP3.
2. The iTunes hasn't sold DRM music in 4 years. That includes the Beatles' catalog.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Change .com to .ca. And stop being dumb.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Americano]

... Apple doesn't sell DRM'ed music anymore. Why would they "license out a scheme" that they are no longer even using?

Other stores can (and do, quite successfully) sell DRM-free tracks that play on an iPod just fine.

Who's being locked out, again?

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[SilverHatHacker]

Wow, no kidding. Banshee is even smart enough to use the Canadian store for its plugin. Maybe Amazon shouldn't put "Only available to US Customers" in big letters on the top of the American page and instead redirect you to your own country's store?

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction - not 'their' iPod, 'MY' iPod. If I bought music from RealNetworks that they made playable on MY iPod, and Apple then broke that capability to keep me from playing music I had bought on my device....

Yeah, that's abuse.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to why I'll never use Linux in a desktop environment. I can't believe there are home users who are willing to subject themselves to the nonsense of not being able to do stupid shit like buying an MP3. Guess that comes with the territory when you intentionally select an OS with a 1% market share.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[eeyoredragon]

A few notes

• I've heard artists get more of the money you spend on iTunes than Amazon (from Collide)
• Many would argue that Apple's encoding is higher quality than the MP3 you get from Amazon
• The interface in iTunes is better than Amazon's web interface which is not consistent.
• If you use iTunes, buying from iTunes is more convenient.
• In case someone isn't aware, there is no DRM on iTunes music anymore.

Why am I dumb to not use Amazon?

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

This assumes Apple has any obligation whatsoever to support third party DRM'd music stores on their iPod. I see no reason why that should be the case.

This assumes that MICROSOFT has any obligation whatsoever to support third party BROWSERS on their OPERATING SYSTEM. I see no reason why that should be the case.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Archangel Michael]

This is more of a problem with Linux than it is with ... Apple. iPods are not open devices, and Linux isn't popular enough to support iTunes. I wonder if you'd complain that the Canon printer I just got doesn't work with my OS/2 machine the same way the iPod doesn't work with Linux.

I'm sure you can get iTunes to work in a VM on your Linux box, or perhaps use a version that runs well under WINE or something. After all, isn't the point of running Linux on your desktop .. geek snobbery? Hell, give your son a chance to hack it all up and get it to work, and give him a Sansa instead.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[gnasher719]

Leveraging a monopoly in one market (MP3 players) to gain a monopoly in another (online music stores) is a violation of antitrust law. The problem no longer exists, so damages will be limited, but if Real want to continue to pursue this based on the situation 5 years ago, then that is between them and the lawyers on both sides, who will likely be the only winners here.

RealNetworks always could put its music onto iPods - the one thing that Apple stopped them from doing was adding Apple's "Fairplay" DRM to their music. They could have just lived without DRM; their customers would have loved it.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[atomicbutterfly]

If you're using Winamp, I'd recommend obtaining the ml_ipod plugin (http://mlipod.sourceforge.net), which replaces the .dll bundled with Winamp to interface with iPods and other media players with something far superior. Features here: http://mlipod.sourceforge.net/wiki/Ml_iPod_versus_pmp_iPod

No I am not a shill, I just like the plugin. I doubt the ml_ipod developers could pay me to be a shill even if they wanted to. :)

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[CaptBubba]

They do not have any obligation to make 3rd party DRM work, but that isn't what the lawsuit is about. The issue is they apparently actively moved to break compatibility with Real's files, when they had the dominant music player on the market (~70%). If true, it is sketchy and a legal gray area, hence the lawsuit.

If the things which broke compatibility were bug fixes done without any thought to Real's service then Apple is in the clear. However if so much as a single email turns up which says "awesome, this fixes Bug #23912 and also keeps Real's tracks from working!" then the lawyers and both sides will go nuts and we won't know for years what the Real result will be.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[wvmarle]

At the time non of the major labels would have accepted non-DRM sales. Many of the smaller labels would also have required DRM. The non-DRM movement started only recently. While yes Real could have tried to pioneer non-DRM music, they would have been limited to unknown artists that were just desparate to become known, only to be abandoned by those same artists when they did become known and would start requiring DRM on their music. The time wasn't there yet.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Cimexus]

Same here. I'd love to buy music for my iPod from Amazon. But their MP3 store doesn't sell to Australia. (And before anyone asks, no, there isn't an amazon.com.au - the US one will happily ship here for books and CDs and stuff, but not the digital downloads).

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[mmj638]

Australians can't use Amazon or any of those similar competitors. iTunes is the only choice for most mainstream music here. There are competitors but they offer tiny catalogues.

There's also CD stores or piracy of course, but online there's no real competitor to iTunes.

Once you look beyond the US and UK, I'll think you'll find iTunes has quite a monopoly. And I'm sure it's partly the fault of the record companies.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean '1-click' Amazon? Yeah, they're our friend.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[node 3]

Um, who was it that ran the software update on your iPod?

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[tyrione]

I sure hope you're not a lawyer. If so, you wasted a lot of money.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[node 3]

I don't know that MS has to support third party browsers on Windows in the jurisdiction of the lawsuit in question, but if they do, it's due to reasons that do not exist in the iPod. They were found guilty of monopolistic practices far more egregious than just updating their firmware to fix security flaws in their DRM.

How many browsers do they have on the Xbox 360? There's nothing inherent about having a software platform that legally requires you support third party software.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[node 3]

They do not have any obligation to make 3rd party DRM work, but that isn't what the lawsuit is about. The issue is they apparently actively moved to break compatibility with Real's files, when they had the dominant music player on the market (~70%). If true, it is sketchy and a legal gray area, hence the lawsuit.

It's not a "sketchy gray area". Lawsuits don't imply this. They only imply a sufficiently valid dispute.

If the things which broke compatibility were bug fixes done without any thought to Real's service then Apple is in the clear. However if so much as a single email turns up which says "awesome, this fixes Bug #23912 and also keeps Real's tracks from working!" then the lawyers and both sides will go nuts and we won't know for years what the Real result will be.

Apple doesn't care if Real's tracks work. They only care that Real's tracks were not in a supported format. There's nothing illegal or shady about fixing your DRM when someone circumvents it. In fact, this is generally expected, and often legally required by contract.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Kalriath]

Clearly you forgot about Vodafone music store, Telecom music store, Digirama (which might I add, sells music in 256Kb/s MP3 with no DRM AND lets you redownload forever).

Your definition of "only" is flawed.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Leveraging a monopoly in one market (MP3 players) to gain a monopoly in another (online music stores) is a violation of antitrust law.

How did Apple ever have a monopoly on MP3 players? They weren't the first Mp3 player, they weren't the first DRM encumbered digital music player (Sony & ATRAC3, either in Minidisc or netwoek walkman guise), Slashdotters ave always seemed eager to point our better spec players that are cheaper than iPod's,

I assume your arguement is that because Apple has 85% marketshare with its iPod line, its a defacto monopoly (similar to Windows being viewed as a monopoly despite the availability of other x86 OS'es), but that s a bit of kind of a stretch. And considering that Apple "leveraged its monopoly" to remove DRM from its products, leveling the playing field, makes teh arguement even hader to buy

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard the wooooosh too. It was loud.

I tend to believe that the deniers are just fanbois.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

the suit is not about whether or not there are other places to buy music, its about the fact that music must be channeled through itunes in order to put it on apple's devices, which is an anti-competitive situation. FairPlay DRM is still in place. additonally, iOS devices cannot be used without itunes. contrary to popular belief, lawyers and courts are not wildly incompetent. RTFA

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[jrumney]

How did Apple ever have a monopoly on MP3 players? They weren't the first Mp3 player, they weren't the first DRM encumbered digital music player (Sony & ATRAC3, either in Minidisc or netwoek walkman guise), Slashdotters ave always seemed eager to point our better spec players that are cheaper than iPod's,

Being a monopoly has nothing to do with being first to market.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[jrumney]

RealNetworks always could put its music onto iPods - the one thing that Apple stopped them from doing was adding Apple's "Fairplay" DRM to their music. They could have just lived without DRM; their customers would have loved it.

You are forgetting the reason that Fairplay existed in the first place. At that time, record companies were not willing to license their music for DRM free distribution. So effectively, by blocking third party implementations of Fairplay from their devices, Apple was leveraging the dominant market position of iPods to eliminate competition in the online music store business.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[RatherBeAnonymous]

If they intentionally changed Fairplay for only the purpose of breaking RealPlayer's reverse engineering, then that was an anti-competitive act. This is not much different than MS releasing a version of DOS that prevented Lotus 1-2-3 from running, an act they were accused of several times.

Apple had and has an overwhelming majority of the MP3 player and legal music download market. This has been an advantage to Apple when negotiating deals with copyright holders. They also used Fairplay in a way that locked iPods to iTunes. Jobs even used to comment about how attractive their copyright protection scheme was to copyright holders (and then Apple would advise people to burn-rip-play to bypass the protections). Apple also steadfastly refused to license other music players or music stores for Fairplay. There was just the one exception with the Motorola Rokr phone. And to my knowledge, it was not possible for a person to install a plugin in their iPod to enable any other DRM scheme.

If Apple is found to have used their vertical integration to keep others out of the legal music download business, they then they should reap the consequences.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[centuren]

iTunes controls 64.5% of the online movie market.

I'll just quote the first sentence from that article:

"Despite intensified competition from fierce rivals including Microsoft Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Apple Inc.’s iTunes store in 2010 managed to hold onto its dominance in the U.S. market for movie electronic sell through (EST) and Internet video on demand (iVOD), new IHS Screen Digest research shows."

Wait, one more quote from the 3rd paragraph:

“The iTunes online store showed remarkable competitive resilience last year in the U.S. EST/iVOD movie business, staving off a growing field of tough challengers while keeping pace with an dramatic expansion for the overall market,” said Arash Amel, research director, digital media, for IHS. “Apple faced serious competition from Microsoft's Zune Video and Sony Corp.'s PlayStation Store, as well as from Amazon and—most significantly—Wal-Mart."

Remember, when you're talking about a monopoly, you're talking about competition in the market. If iTunes has managed to attract a majority of consumers in a market rife with competition, then one can only cry monopoly after digging up anti-competitive practices that specifically play a larger factor than normal consumer choice.

 

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have to support it - but they can't deliberately kill it either. Deliberately breaking a competitors product is an anti-competitive practice (thus, anti-trust law being used) and may constitute tortuous interference (interfering in the contract between Real and their customers).

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[krizoitz]

Thats the fault of the other companies, not Apple's, why should Apple be forced to support another companies product? iTunes isn't a monopoly, there are competitors.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[purpledinoz]

Piracy is a HUGE competitor to iTunes. With the Internet nowadays, it is impossible to have a monopoly on music distribution. The RIAA is just too stupid to figure out that they should use their huge music catalog and start their own store.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one which sees a difference between "not supporting" and "actively working against"?

Apple quickly announced a software upgrade to iTunes that once more blocked music from RealNetworks

This assumes Apple has any obligation whatsoever to support third party DRM'd music stores on their iPod.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[marblesbot]

There's more information in those links in the summaries?

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Breezy today?

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about buying music from iTunes. It's about Apple killing music from a competing retailer on the iPod.

This assumes Apple has any obligation whatsoever to support third party DRM'd music stores on their iPod. I see no reason why that should be the case.

Anti-competitive business practices. It would be like the phone company refusing to let you use telephones made by anybody other than their own approved supplier. (which they tried to do before being bitch-slapped down).

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[gl4ss]

go to your record stores in your downtown area..

I bet there's beatles records in every one of them.

actually, the digital wholesale should be seperated from the digital consumer selling.. but that's impossible, the consumer could just go to the wholesale website and act as a music service buying music for resale.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[porjo]

I live in Australia and last time I tried to use Amazon music was told that is isn't available to my region/country. I know there are proxy services that can get around that, but it's just as easy for me to fire up iTunes on a VM and download from there!

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Celarent Darii]

You don't need to throw it out, send it to me !

If you find the ipod so bad, I'm sure I'll find someone who will take it.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[gl4ss]

I got a 160gb classic.

I will not touch itunes, winamp is still the choice.

filling it up is as simple as pressing sync in winamp and doesn't take ages and it's properly threaded, it also does conversions needed if any(I got a bunch of .mod's etc in the music library..).

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Carewolf]

Could the legal suit be about past behavior instead of current behavior? They usually are... The question of course is what the courts could force them to do, when complaint no longer applies. Should that change it from anti-trust to a civil case based on anti-trust laws?

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Xest]

How is Microsoft a monopoly?

Are people dumb enough not to be using Apple for their OS? Even then what actually ties you to buying an OS from Microsoft? Hell what ties you to using Microsoft to get an OS on your laptop? I'm doing quite well without it on my Apple machine.

Hopefully this will give you a big hint as to the fact you don't understand that it's marketshare that determines monopoly, not amount of competition. There's always been many many competitors to Windows, yet Microsoft had a monopoly because of the marketshare, not the lack of competition.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[dzfoo]

But why would I ask him? I base my position in previous case law, tradition, and common sense. He has himself stated that he would not be "shocked" if the courts agreed that ripping CDs is fair use, so why would his own personal opinion matter?

          -dZ.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[osu-neko]

If you have an Ipod, throw it out. The cheapest MP3 player they sell at Walmart will be superior in every way, I guarantee it. Stop drinking the coolaid, get away from apple... you'll be much happier.

I went through four different MP3 players before settling on the iPod. The most expensive player they sell at Walmart is still inferior in every way that actually matters. The only thing I regret at this point is the money I wasted on the other crap, rather than doing the smart thing and buying an iPod in the first place. You get what you pay for...

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[daver00]

This is pretty far from the truth, iPods sync nicely with quite a few linux programs. You may need to open it in iTunes just once in order to set it to hard drive mode first. The problem you may have had is that it is just a bit too new for the open source software to work with it. Give it a few months and somebody will have gotten it working.

I have the same problem right now with a new Nano using Media Monkey in Windows. An update will fix it soon enough.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[PhilHibbs]

They may not be under any obligation to actively support something, but specifically taking measures to change their customers' devices so that they can no longer purchase from Real is another thing entirely.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[cpu6502]

This has nothing to do with "fact" - whether or not iTunes is a monopoly.
This has to do with record companies wanting to set-up their own music stores (and also to charge more than $1 per song), so they are using their friends in DC to lay pressure on the iTunes division of Apple.
Follow the money.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[langelgjm]

He has himself stated that he would not be "shocked" if the courts agreed that ripping CDs is fair use, so why would his own personal opinion matter?

Yeah, by saying that he was basically saying he would not be shocked if, in his opinion, a court wrongly determined that issue. His own personal opinion mattered because he was head counsel for the copyright office, and thus had more effect on setting US copyright policy than you or I will ever have.

Citing common sense won't get you very far in a court, especially on IP issues. Also, what precisely is the previous case law you would point to? Betamax is inapposite, since Betamax was about one type of time-shifting, and had nothing to say about space-shifting.

I'm not saying I agree with him. Technically he is probably right, but I don't think there's every been a legal test of that specific issue, and I imagine record companies would be loathe to sue someone for ripping a CD, it would be terrible publicity. But on its face, ripping a CD in my view, while definitely "fair", ends up failing all four fair use factors. It's not transformative, it usually applies to creative works, it copies the whole work, and it affects the related market for digital copies. It also plainly violates the reproduction right.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[smelch]

Ok, warning, I'm about to be kind to Microsoft. Further warning, its about the Zune.

iTunes completely blows, which we all know. However Microsoft's Zune gets blasted all the time for the hardware, which I won't argue, though I do own one (and thought it had a slight edge over the iPods that were out when it came out, thickness aside). But has anybody used the Zune software? Its really pretty good, especially when next to iTunes. Now that they've discontinued the hardware, I hope they don't end up scrapping the whole music library altogether. My instinct is that if I ever used Rhapsody or the new Napster that I would probably like their software as well. Does anybody know how they all stack up against each other when running on windows?

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

It can't be downloaded anywhere except the US either, so he's the dumb, typical US-centric one.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[elrous0]

People called Windows a monopoly, even though there are, and have always been, plenty of other OS's.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how the word "monopoly" works. If Microsoft was the only place to buy operating systems, it could be a monopoly. Just because some software is exclusive to one operating system does not make that operating system a monopoly.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Gilmoure]

Yeah, right.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[sFurbo]

1) They weren't under any obligation to license their FairPlay technology to other vendors, and in fact VirginMega actually got shot down by a court in 2004 for that very reason;

They could be, if not doing it would be enough to leverage their monopoly on MP3 players to gain an advantage in the digital music market.

2) It's possible that turning a blind eye to how easily FairPlay was reverse engineered by Real could have put Apple afoul of its agreements with the record labels;

Irrelevant, simply having a contractual obligation to do something doesn't make it legal (hitmen are still accused of murder).

3) iPods have *always* allowed (and played) non-DRM'ed MP3/AAC tracks - Real could have sold non-DRM tracks if they wanted to sell for the iPod - eMusic has been doing it for a while now;

But it was an advantage to be able to put DRM-protected music on iPods, so the monopoly on MP3 players was leveraged to gain an advantage in the digital music market.

4) Real could have built their own iPod competitor, and had a run at the market that way; Microsoft's Zune and Sansa's various portable models both did this;

This is irrelevant, Apple had a monopoly. If this was a valid counterpoint, it could be used in any anti-trust suit. Microsoft: You could just have coded your own OS, Bell Systems: You could just have laid your own telephone cables, etc.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Americano]

They could be, if not doing it would be enough to leverage their monopoly on MP3 players to gain an advantage in the digital music market.

They have not been declared to have a "monopoly" on MP3 players. They would first have to be declared a monopoly before we can say that they then used that monopoly to unfairly limit the competition. Alternative hardware exists: Sansa players, Zune, and numerous other iPod work-alikes. Alternative music stores existed: Amazon, eMusic, Zune Marketplace; Any MP3 purchased without DRM, any MP3 purchased via iTunes, and any MP3 ripped from your own music sources will load on an iPod just fine. Consumers had plenty of alternatives, and Real could have easily gone out and negotiated DRM-free sales.

From a good overview of the VirginMega decision in France:

It may be implied from that decision that the owner of intellectual property rights has no general obligation to grant a licence to its competitors even if these intellectual property rights may confer a dominant position on the concerned operator. Competition law can limit the exercise of intellectual property rights only where such exercise prevents the development of competition between undertakings. When these intellectual property rights are not essential to access the relevant market, their owner, even if in a dominant position, remains free to refuse to grant a licence.

In other words: Apple's refusal to license FairPlay does not prevent people from competing in the MP3 download market, OR the MP3 player market. It is therefore not an essential facility that people are being denied the use of, and it therefore does not follow that Apple is unfairly limiting competition. The existence of multiple competing MP3 retailers and MP3 player manufacturers is evidence of this.

Irrelevant, simply having a contractual obligation to do something doesn't make it legal (hitmen are still accused of murder).

Entirely relevant. Apple is under no obligation to destroy its own business because Real couldn't develop a viable business model. There is no obligation on Apple's part to provide a platform for its competitors to access a market - the existence of numerous competitors suggests that there is nothing essential about FairPlay that makes it a necessary element of competition in the MP3 or MP3 player market.

But it was an advantage to be able to put DRM-protected music on iPods, so the monopoly on MP3 players was leveraged to gain an advantage in the digital music market.

You have it exactly backwards. If the monopoly on MP3 players were leveraged to gain an advantage in the music market, then they would have said "You may not load any tracks on the iPod EXCEPT for tracks bought through the iTunes store. *That* would be using your size advantage in the MP3 player market to unfairly limit competition in other markets. In fact, there are numerous other ways to purchase music to load on your iPod - Real's complaint is that Apple declined to *help* them become middlemen growing fat on taking a cut of sales of music they did nothing to produce to a device they also didn't produce. I'd love a piece of that racket too, but I would never suggest that Apple declining to help me secure that position is an "antitrust" violation.

This is irrelevant, Apple had a monopoly. If this was a valid counterpoint, it could be used in any anti-trust suit. Microsoft: You could just have coded your own OS, Bell Systems: You could just have laid your own telephone cables, etc.

And if Microsoft hadn't been abusing its position as the dominant OS to prevent alternative OS'es and browsers from being loaded by OEMs, then they probably wouldn't have been penalized. Bell Systems was a government-sanctio

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[IndigoDarkwolf]

This assumes Apple has any obligation whatsoever to support third party DRM'd music stores on their iPod. I see no reason why that should be the case.

Rephrased: This assumes Microsoft has any obligation whatsoever to support third party browsers on their Windows OS. I see no reason why that should be the case.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Bobfrankly1]

Fairplay hasn't been used in anything but movies for 5 years now.

let's move into this decade please.

Also Fairplay wasn't apple's idea but the demands of the music industry who didn't want compatible RM schemes.

Apple is guilty of lots of things fairplay isn't one of them.

The lawsuit (or at least part of it) circles around the events of 2004. "Lets move into this decade please" doesn't work in the courtroom. =D Real's complaint isn't simply about Apple's use of fairplay, it's that Apple blocked non-fairplay DRM music from iTunes.

One competitor, RealNetworks Inc, responded in 2004 by introducing a new technology that would allow customers to play music downloaded from its site on their iPods. But Apple quickly announced a software upgrade to iTunes that once more blocked music from RealNetworks, the complaint charges.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Bobfrankly1]

It's not about Apple supporting another companies product. It's about Apple blocking a competitor's product. Not a big deal when you don't have the vast majority of the customers (specifically, customers buying DRM locked music, recall that this lawsuit is based in 2004, according to TFA). Apple however had enough of the customer base that the courts may consider them having a monopoly, in which case antitrust laws come into effect.

One of the main elements of antitrust law:

-banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.

Apple looks good for "refusal to deal".

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[node 3]

MS never got in trouble for having a monopoly.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[node 3]

That's not how the word "monopoly" works. If Microsoft was the only place to buy operating systems, it could be a monopoly. Just because some software is exclusive to one operating system does not make that operating system a monopoly.

Um, I'm not sure what point you think you are making, but your re-written post is actually quite correct.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[node 3]

Leveraging a monopoly in one market (MP3 players) to gain a monopoly in another (online music stores) is a violation of antitrust law. The problem no longer exists, so damages will be limited, but if Real want to continue to pursue this based on the situation 5 years ago, then that is between them and the lawyers on both sides, who will likely be the only winners here.

They didn't have a monopoly in MP3 players, nor did they force people to buy music from iTunes.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[node 3]

This assumes Apple has any obligation whatsoever to support third party DRM'd music stores on their iPod. I see no reason why that should be the case.

Rephrased: This assumes Microsoft has any obligation whatsoever to support third party browsers on their Windows OS. I see no reason why that should be the case.

They don't have to support third party browsers on their Windows OS. Any jurisdiction (such as the EU, which has no bearing on a lawsuit in California) where they do have to do this, it's as a punishment (or in an attempt to avoid punishment) for past behavior, which would be a "reason why that should be the case" which applies to Microsoft and not to Apple.

Thanks for agreeing with me, but you really didn't have to rephrase my post in order to do so.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[node 3]

They may not be under any obligation to actively support something, but specifically taking measures to change their customers' devices so that they can no longer purchase from Real is another thing entirely.

They didn't actively change their customers' devices. Their customers voluntarily updated their iPods.

The deliberate action to offer an update that breaks Real's DRM happened. No one has made a compelling argument that this is illegal.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[node 3]

It's not about buying music from iTunes. It's about Apple killing music from a competing retailer on the iPod.

This assumes Apple has any obligation whatsoever to support third party DRM'd music stores on their iPod. I see no reason why that should be the case.

Anti-competitive business practices. It would be like the phone company refusing to let you use telephones made by anybody other than their own approved supplier. (which they tried to do before being bitch-slapped down).

Um, no. It was actually against the law to connect a non-approved phone to the Bell system. I'm unaware of any law which requires Apple to allow any apps be run on their phones. It's not illegal to only allow approved software on your platform. In fact, it's the industry standard in mobile phones, gaming consoles, and set top boxes.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[node 3]

Sure they can deliberately kill it on the iPod itself. Real circumvented Apple's DRM. Apple fixed their DRM. Your assertion that it's illegal to fix your own DRM is amazing.

Real can sell music for the iPod in supported formats all they want. Apple did nothing to stop this.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[node 3]

Am I the only one which sees a difference between "not supporting" and "actively working against"?

There's a difference, but it doesn't change anything. Apple is under no obligation to keep from breaking Real's breaking of Apple's DRM. In fact, they are likely under contract to do so.

Apple never did anything to prevent Real from selling music to iPod owners in MP3, AAC, WAV, AIFF, or other officially supported formats. They just prevented Real from using Apple's own, proprietary DRM format. This is not illegally anti-competitive. If it is, please be sure to let GeoHot know. I imagine such a fact would be quite useful to him at the moment, where it actually true and not just geek fantasy.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Shadow Wrought]

I simply choose not to tolerate willful ignorance when source material is literally one click away.

How exactly will you "not tolerate" it? By typing RTFA? If people posting without reading TFA really, truly bothers you, than about the only thing /. will regularly provide you is aggrevation.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[thetoadwarrior]

Of course it's not just about competition but your market share if you abuse it. Again I fail to see how Apple opening up their music by removing DRM or allowing iTunes to import anyone else's music shows any signs of using their music store might to stop competition or stop consumers from using their music how they wish.

I suspect they'd offer DRM-free movies too if publishers were happy to do so.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[thetoadwarrior]

Music doesn't have to be channeled through iTunes. Yes most people will just use it and naturally Apple advertise only their option but there is nothing stopping you from using Amarok or many other solutions.

Microsoft still has the largest marketshare but I would argue they haven't been abusing their position as much. Therefore they're not really a monopoly same as Apple hasn't been forcing me to use their system to buy or get music onto my iPod.

Sure apps are different but unlike a PC a mobile device is much more sensitive to power usage, data usage and security problems. People could track my every step, cost me money by eating up my data or render my phone useless by draining the battery. I would actually prefer to have a gate keeper (though I do use Android because I can't stomach the idea of paying for an iPhone) because it makes sense and certainly makes more sense than the Wii, PS3 or Xbox 360 being locked down.

And it's only the apps that you can't (without jail breaking) get onto an iphone. You can get music on them as well. It's not just iPods.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[thetoadwarrior]

But Apple isn't the one that has caused that. It's not their fault that Amazon doesn't want to support Australia. The record companies control where music can be sold more than anyone else. Once one company can do it then pretty much anyone else can. Of course smaller companies won't be able to offer the same selection but that will be down more to the cost of getting it from the music publishers. Amazon on the other hand doesn't have that issue and I suspect they just don't want to sell music elsewhere at this time unfortunately.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[thetoadwarrior]

I'm in the UK, numb nuts.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[thetoadwarrior]

They're at least in the UK and Germany and I suspect most if not all of Europe. If they don't do it in New Zealand I suspect that is more because of costs of selling and or support and not having a hardware device as an incentive to sell music in as many countries as possible.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[thetoadwarrior]

The latest iphone should be supported now. It wasn't initially but if you get the latest libraries (libmobiledevice I think) it works. Then your phone should mount to Linux and Amarok at least should show an option for iphones.

That's a bit rubbish the downloader doesn't work on 64-bit Linux. I have to admit I'm still using 32-bit Ubuntu on my laptop mainly because it will have less issues and I don't have enough memory on it to worry about any sort of benefit to having a 64-bit OS so I wasn't aware of that issue.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[thetoadwarrior]

You could always sell tracks that would play on an iPod or iPhone. I had only like 5 tracks from iTunes. I binned them because they were from the early days and had DRM. The hundreds of other files I had played fine including those from Amazon so how are they stopping them? If you want to argue that they stopped people from selling DRM tracks fair enough but considering Apple pushed for selling non-DRM music themselves I don't see that as being an abuse of market power because I'm not aware of any device that allows any DRM scheme to be used and it defeats their goal of making things more open by making their music playable on any device as well as anyone else's music being playable if it's in a certain format. Yes they don't, for example, support FLAC but a lot of devices don't.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[thetoadwarrior]

I prefer not being forced to a country site. I buy from numerous Amazon country shops rather than just the UK one. As it is the message asking if you want to go to your country specific site when you go to the .com is enough.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[thetoadwarrior]

Name one music device that will play unlimited DRM formats and why would Apple licence fairplay when they would prefer all the music to be DRM-free and again it doesn't stop you from buying CDs and ripping them or even burning your DRM'ed iTunes music and playing it elsewhere. Yes it's a hassle but a minor hassle brought on by others. You can argue the same about the Kindle or just about anything else that uses DRM. Why doesn't Microsoft licence their Xbox DRM to allow people to create legal emulators for the PC or even PS3?

Microsoft has a monopoly on Xbox 360 software just as Nintendo and Sony do on their own systems. But if you want to play games you aren't strictly locked to their system (aside form exclusives like Mario) and you certainly aren't locked into iTunes or Apple to listen to music or to even get music onto an iPod.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[mmj638]

It's not fully Amazon's fault either - I would do a lot of my finger pointing at the record companies.

Amazon sells other stuff to Australia. I'm guessing the record companies have made it prohibitively hard to license their stuff. Maybe Apple's done an exclusivity deal with them in this market for all I know - who knows.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Bobfrankly1]

I simply choose not to tolerate willful ignorance when source material is literally one click away. How exactly will you "not tolerate" it? By typing RTFA? If people posting without reading TFA really, truly bothers you, than about the only thing /. will regularly provide you is aggrevation.

I display my lack of toleration by correcting them ALONG with the obligatory "RTFA". As I already did. =D If my commentary was out of place here, I suspect I wouldn't have the glowing "karma" rating that I do.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[foniksonik]

CD ripping is not copying however. There is no transfer of possession. No court is going to find a person guilty of infringement for using a copier to copy a book, a magazine, a newspaper, etc. that they already own without some proof that the intent is to resell the original or transfer it while retaining the copy - aka fair use. CD ripping (of CDs you purchased or own legally) is transcribing the media into a format usable by you the owner in the same way that photo-copying a manuscript for marking up with a highlighter or for readying more easily in a larger font is merely transcribing.

Copyright infringement only applies when the copy is transferred to another who does not own the original either in a hard format or in some cases even by broadcasting it to an audience or when the copy is in fact a replacement for the original which is then transferred to a new owner.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[centuren]

Ok, warning, I'm about to be kind to Microsoft. Further warning, its about the Zune.

iTunes completely blows, which we all know. However Microsoft's Zune gets blasted all the time for the hardware, which I won't argue, though I do own one (and thought it had a slight edge over the iPods that were out when it came out, thickness aside). But has anybody used the Zune software? Its really pretty good, especially when next to iTunes. Now that they've discontinued the hardware, I hope they don't end up scrapping the whole music library altogether. My instinct is that if I ever used Rhapsody or the new Napster that I would probably like their software as well. Does anybody know how they all stack up against each other when running on windows?

I remember when the iPod came out and I felt it didn't come close to the elegance and beauty of my Sony Minidisc players. Immediate storage capacity was an obvious feature, although I never found carrying a few minidiscs around to be annoying. However, a major reason I've owned two iPods in my life and never bought a Minidisc player after the MZ-N1 is the point you bring up: software. Whatever bad things anyone has to say about iTunes, it cannot be compared negatively to SonicStage. I could even have lived with it's "convert from MP3s on the fly or convert your whole library to something nothing else could play" aspect, if it wasn't so riddled with bugs I'd be lucky to have all the graphical components of the interface show up at once (if it didn't crash).

That said, given the disposable income, I'm sure I'd buy (or import) one of the latest Sony Minidisc players, if only for the joy of great portable hardware.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[Xest]

Well you can have a monopoly regardless of whether you abuse it, but yes that's certainly what the case has to decide- whether it has been abused.

My personal view is that Apple isn't as clean as you suggest- other stores had DRM free music long before Apple and despite Job's say so it seems likely Apple preferred DRM because of the lockin to their platform and only really budged when they started losing ground to other distributors because of their DRM policy.

Apple don't make it easier for other hardware to use their store- when Palm tried to do it in the same way Apple does they got into a big fight, Apple's competitors have to go through a relatively crippled API such that Apple is certainly making sure using artificial methods that their product works better with their software than their competitors does.

So whilst it's pointless to say one way or another, as that's really for the courts, I think it's naive to suggest there isn't evidence of potential monopoly abuse.

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[langelgjm]

That's simply not true. Copying is a plain violation of the reproduction right, which is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, regardless of what you do with the copy. And Carson's point is that while everyone assumes space shifting to be a fair use, by the letter of the law it may not be.

Now, you're right in the sense that no one is going to sue you if you sit around all day making copies of a book and never do or intend to do anything with them. But internal photocopying within an organization has been the subject of lawsuits, despite there being no legal transfer of possession (see, e.g., American Geophysical Union v. Texaco).

Re:How is iTunes a monopoly?

[mldi]

I know this is /. and all, but RTFA for a change and you'll understand why they're questioning him. Apple isn't being forced to support another company's product. They're being asked about updates to iTunes and iPods that rendered competitors' products useless... a classic antitrust move if you are a major player in that market. Also, they force you to use their iPods if you buy Fairplay'd music off of iTunes by blocking competitors. That's a required product tie-in. They're forcing consumers to use only their products for those files. Also a classic antitrust move.

ridiculous

[marblesbot]

I am not a fan of Apple. ITunes is one of the worst pieces of crap I ever made the mistake of using. However, popularity and lack of research done by users of iTunes does not make a monopoly. Apple makes the software that runs on their hardware. Nobody is forced to use iTunes. As much as I dislike Apple, this is ridiculous.

Re:ridiculous

[fean]

OK, because everyone seems to forget this, every time the 'monopoly' work is brought up.

It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to abuse a monopoly.

They are not being sued because everyone uses them, they're being sued because they used their monopoly status to limit competition.

Re:ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT monopoly status? I'm no fan of Apple or iTunes but there has to be a dozen or more places online to get music, not to mention, um, you know, FROM CDS?

You can't abuse a monopoly status WHEN YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE.

This is someone being an asshole to Apple. I would almost bet that now that MS has paid the DOJ to look the other way, they're now paying them to attack others of abusing "monopolies" that don't exist. Talk about TRUE abuse of monopoly power.

Re:ridiculous

[marblesbot]

Apple doesn't have a monopoly.

Re:ridiculous

[Bobfrankly1]

By your definition, neither did Microsoft. Yet they were successfully prosecuted as such.

Re:ridiculous

[fean]

It does have a monopoly on software that is 'allowed' to transfer music files onto the iPod.

Others have tried to write software that communicates with the iPod, however Apple quickly changes their schemes and then threatens legal action for reverse engineering.

Having a monopoly on software that you wrote for your hardware is, again, NOT ILLEGAL. However, abusing this status IS ILLEGAL.

Re:ridiculous

[Bobfrankly1]

Did Apple give you that tinfoil hat? I think it's brainwashing you. Oh wait, I see the problem, they embedded a shuffle in it.

Re:ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

There are number of applications that can write to the iPod. Just go to Macupdate.com and search for iPod and you will find over 500 Apps listed and there are a heap that allow 2 way transfers.

Where you are confused is where others have tried to tell iTunes that their phone IS an iPhone. Apple even supplies APIs for 3rd parties to link their MP3 players into iTunes, here is a quick list from Apple of compatible players http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2172.
See also http://daringfireball.net/2009/06/webos_itunes_integration

I have over 15,000 songs on my iPod, 30 of which I have bough off Apple (28 being 'free song of the week')

As for getting 3rd party MP3s into itunes..... yeah I know that getting the files and dropping them onto the iTunes icon on a Mac is way too technical for some but that is all it takes.

Re:ridiculous

[node 3]

OK, because everyone seems to forget this, every time the 'monopoly' work is brought up.

It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to abuse a monopoly.

They are not being sued because everyone uses them, they're being sued because they used their monopoly status to limit competition.

Apple never had a monopoly in music players or music downloads. They lead both of those markets, but never abused that status in any legally reasonable sense. Apple wasn't blocking Real from selling music. In fact, they weren't even blocking Real from selling music compatible with the iPod. They have no obligation whatsoever to allow third party music on the iPod.

Re:ridiculous

[jo_ham]

You seem to be under the illusion that iTunes is the only software that can write to the iPod, and confusing the time where Apple changed their protocols to more rigorously enforce checking of the USB vendor ID after a different company was spoofing Apple's ID (against the terms of their contract with the USB IF) in order to make their device appear to be an iPod so they could get around having to write any sync software (or licence a third party thing like The Missing Sync) for use with iTunes.

Re:ridiculous

[hedwards]

What word would you use to describe a company with a 90% market share in a given market? That market being HDD based portable music players.

Re:ridiculous

[Em Adespoton]

and what I think you meant to say... the only thing they were blocking was an exploit of their DRM software that could have been abused by others and cause their contracts with the RIAA members to become void. This exploit was brought to their attention by Real, who attempted to use it to inject DRM'd music of their own onto iPods. Real could have sold non-DRM'd music that was iPod compatible, except that the RIAA wouldn't let them.

In essence, it was the RIAA that was abusing its monopoly position to prop up Apple's sales channels. Apple was just being a good software/hardware manufacturer.

Re:ridiculous

[node 3]

No, I meant what I wrote and didn't intend to blame the RIAA in any way. Apple's music contract was with each individual label, and has absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA.

Re:ridiculous

[Duradin]

Forget 90%. They have 100% market share on Apple HDD based portable music players!

Why narrow it down to HDD based portable music players? Why not include flash based ones? Or what that make your percentage less dramatic?

Re:ridiculous

[mjwx]

Apple never had a monopoly in music players or music downloads.

Yes it does.

Monopoly in economic terms does not mean 100% of the market, it means enough market share to "determine significantly on which terms" others can access that market.

MS has never had 100% of the OS market, but for a long time MS has had enough to prevent others from accessing it. By the same token, Apple has been using it's influence to make non-Apple MP3 players disappear from store shelves. To fix prices at which other stores can sell MP3's and prevent other stores from operating in certain nations (As an Australian the only digital alternative I have to ITMS is piracy).

Sorry but Apple is both a monopoly and abusing that position.

Re:ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick look at the Australian Dick Smiths Web site, searched for MP3 plays, all brands and there were 46 OTHER bands apart from Apple, most of these selling at a price CHEAPER than Apple iPods.

99.9% of MY music is from CDs, and yes many of them are preowned ones I got at a cheaper price, in fact only about 4 tracks out of my 14,000 (ALL legal !) have been bought from the itunes store (Though I do have about 26 or so "free track of the week" songs from ITMS)..

Re:ridiculous

[marblesbot]

I thought the antitrust suit against Microsoft was ridiculous, too. I'm not a user of Microsoft products, either. I don't even think bundling IE with their OS is wrong. I would never use it! It seems to me that a monopoly is something where consumers don't have a choice and then the price fixing begins. It should also be something important, like telephone communications (ATT), and not a side note of the entertainment world. There are plenty of other mp3 players around. And, plenty of other software to use. And even more ways to get music. Apple didn't have good business sense not letting other companies write software to allow more use of their iPods, but they are not required to let others cash in on their hardware.

Re:ridiculous

[marblesbot]

I call it good marketing strategy. Or lazy consumers. I'm doing great with my non-Apple HDD based portable music player and non-Apple software.

Re:ridiculous

[dzfoo]

It's a well known fact that 83% of all iPod branded HDD-based portable music players designed by Apple are only available from Apple.

          -Barney.

Re:ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the antitrust suit against Microsoft was ridiculous, too.

I presume you were on here writing as such when all the fanbois were writing that Microsoft should be bashed for any or even no reason at all?

Re:ridiculous

[node 3]

Um, every single non-Apple centric retail store that sold iPods also sold no-name shit MP3 players. Radio Shack, Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, Target, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Sears. And none of them appeared to have their prices fixed by Apple (I'm not sure why Apple would require Circuit City price a Coby MP3 player at $39).

Also, you could import your music into your iPod from ripped CDs, or any online source of industry standard MP3, AAC, AIFF, WAV (among other) formats. I also don't recall other stores having their prices for music set by Apple.

In fact, I'm having trouble making any sense of your post whatsoever.

Re:ridiculous

[marblesbot]

I hadn't realized my full nerd potential to know about /. yet.

Editing Needed...

[Bobfrankly1]

Steve Jobs Questioned In iTunes Monopoly Suit

Steve Jobs has been ordered to answer questions regarding Apple's iTunes music monopoly.

It wouldn't be a Slashdot headline if it didn't contradict itself in the summary. He is ordered to answer questions. He hasn't been questioned yet.

Re:Editing Needed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta get those search engine hits!

Re:Editing Needed...

[alostpacket]

Not only that but he was wearing a fabulous suit made out of Monopoly. I wonder if that's 3 or 4 buttons....

Re:Editing Needed...

[anlag]

Thought that. It's not even ambiguous, it's actually flat out wrong. "Steve Jobs To Be Questioned..." would have sufficed.

Re:Editing Needed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs Questioned In iTunes Monopoly Suit

Steve Jobs has been ordered to answer questions regarding Apple's iTunes music monopoly.

It wouldn't be a Slashdot headline if it didn't contradict itself in the summary. He is ordered to answer questions. He hasn't been questioned yet.

Don't quote it that way

Re:Editing Needed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that but he was wearing a fabulous suit made out of Monopoly. I wonder if that's 3 or 4 buttons....

Its Steve Jobs, so it will be a 1 button suit.

Re:Editing Needed...

[znerk]

Not only that but he was wearing a fabulous suit made out of Monopoly. I wonder if that's 3 or 4 buttons....

Its Steve Jobs, so it will be a 1 button suit.

Wouldn't that be Amazon?

Article title should be:

[Mr. McGibby]

Steve Jobs May Be Questioned In iTunes Monopoly Suit

Re:Article title should be:

[mjwx]

Steve Jobs May Be Questioned In iTunes Monopoly Suit

Actually it should be:

Steve Jobs Will Be Questioned In iTunes Monopoly Suit.

This ruling clears up any ambiguity in his attendance.

How is Windows a monopoly?

[Sycraft-fu]

Please remember when all that was happening Apple was alive and well selling desktop computers, and Linux had a huge share of the server (particularly web server) market and a sliver of the desktop market.

Yet, MS was still nailed for being a monopoly. Reason is you do not have to have 100% of a market, just the lion's share.

Re:How is Windows a monopoly?

[Americano]

And technically, just having a "large market share" doesn't mean you're subject to penalties, either.

You have to *abuse* that large market share to unreasonably restrict competition. If you're simply better at what you do than anybody else, and people overwhelmingly choose your product/service, then there's no basis for an antitrust suit. Once you use your dominant position to harm Gateway's or RealNetworks' business, as Microsoft was found to have done.

Antitrust law is intended to encourage competition by making it painful for the big guys to stomp on the little guys who are competing well; it's not intended to punish someone for succeeding in a *legitimate* competition. It's possible to have a large market share without abusing it, though I'm sure it must be awfully tempting.

Re:How is Windows a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

It obviously has something to do with market share but that is not why Microsoft was considered a monopoly. Microsoft is a monopoly because they create lock in. They bundle IE with the OS and tied it into the Os so you can't un-install it (at the time of the monopoly stuff). They also force hardware manufacturers to only bundle windows or else they raise the price of windows for that manufacturer.

All apple is doing is saying if you buy a song from our service you need to play it on our device? How is that any different than an Xbox only playing xbox games, or a nintendo DS only playing DS games?

They aren't preventing competitors from releasing competing music stores, or from releasing competing players, or from releasing competing music software.

This is not a monopoly in any way shape or form. It is a successful business model that happens to have a large market share. This has only occurred because the people like it and use it.

Re:How is Windows a monopoly?

[bloodhawk]

That isn't quite true, the rules significantly change once you become a monopoly, things that were perfectly legal suddenly become grounds for action under anti trust laws. Most of what Microsoft did was perfectly legal until they were declared a monopoly.

Re:How is Windows a monopoly?

[Americano]

Which is exactly what I just said - a company's behavior is what determines whether they will be subjected to antitrust penalties. It's not simply a matter of "being big", there has to be abuse of that monopoly status (tying, coercion, price fixing etc.) before the law will penalize you.

Re:How is Windows a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not the point of anti-trust laws at all. Historically, they have been created ex post facto to justify less worthy competitors getting government to attack a more productive company. Anti-trust laws ostentatiously promote competition, but do exactly the opposite.

http://mises.org/daily/436
http://mises.org/books/antitrust.pdf

Re:How is Windows a monopoly?

[Carewolf]

Your argument contradicts reality.

Re:How is Windows a monopoly?

[itsdapead]

Please remember when all that was happening Apple was alive and well selling desktop computers, and Linux had a huge share of the server (particularly web server) market and a sliver of the desktop market.

In the late 90s, if you walked into a typical computer store, or picked a random online/mail-order reseller you'd usually find all of the desktop computers came with Windows, and all the software was for Windows (in larger stores there may have been an out-of-date Mac and a boxed copy of Office for Mac). If you asked the assistant about installing Linux you'd probably get some bullshit about voiding the warranty, or, more likely, a blank stare (if you were really lucky, an out-of-date copy of Red Hat on the software shelf). If you picked up a magazine with "Personal Computer" in the title you'd find 2 column inches on Mac, 2 column inches on Linux and the rest of the magazine about Windows PCs. If a software ad didn't mention what operating system it ran on, they meant Windows. Most of the cheaper peripherals only worked with Windows. Then there were all the websites which only worked properly on Internet Explorer.

The digital audio player market has never been like that - apart, maybe, for a short time after the iPod's launch I've always seen a reasonable range of non-iPod "MP3" players on offer, even more so if you count things like car stereos and CD/DVD players with "MP3" playback. Even 3rd-party speakers with iPod docks tend to have audio inputs for other devices. Any nascent iPod monopoly was ended once and for all when phones started to offer digital music (I suspect this was the real reason Apple made the iPhone). Apple's iPod/iPhone/iTunes may be market leaders, but it only looks like a monopoly when you start narrowing the definition to e.g. "touch screen portable audio devices over $200".

Its hardly surprising that Apple have a brief "monopoly" when they invent (or, more accurately, successfully market) a new sub-genre of device or service. Android is now doing well against iPhone, and its only really in the last year that Android devices started to bear comparison with the iPhone (I have an 18-month old Android phone and, believe me, it doesn't compare). It looks like its going to be another year before Android tablet makers "get it" and start competing with iPad - and then that will stop looking like a monopoly.

Re:How is Windows a monopoly?

[Americano]

I'm shocked and amazed that you'd suggest that laws are sometimes abused above and beyond their original intent & purpose.

Re:How is Windows a monopoly?

[thetoadwarrior]

But it's not just about competition. Microsoft used their position to harm competition and do things like ruin Java compatibility. Apple on the other hand has pushed for non-DRM music for ages and only sold it with DRM when they had to. But as it is you can play your iTunes music on any device that supports the format and you import music into iTunes in any supported format. It would be nice if they support FLAC but not doing so is hardly an abuse of power.

Re:How is Windows a monopoly?

[thetoadwarrior]

To be fair the music is DRM-free as Apple always wanted so you can play your music on other devices too. Music through iTunes is much more open than any console and the games, movies, etc they sell. The Xbox 360 won't even let you surf the internet because you might find some sort of online entertainment that may dissuade you from buying a XBL membership.

CDs

[CommanderEl]

Am I the only person who still buys their music from a record store?

Re:CDs

[marblesbot]

What's a record store?

Re:CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey gramps - I didn't think they let the residents of the 'home' use the computers after six

Re:CDs

[Pete Venkman]

What's a record?

Re:CDs

[c0lo]

What does it mean to buy music?
(No, seriously... letting aside the interpretation on the line of copyright/piracy, WTF does "buying music" means? What rights you have over a music that you bought?)

Re:CDs

[Scott64]

I would, except the record stores around here charge $25.99 for CDs I can pre-order online for $12.99 and get free stuff for pre-ordering. I've also been buying a lot of vinyl lately. One particular album I bought on vinyl came with the CD of the album for free.

Re:CDs

[Bobfrankly1]

Whats a "store"?

One of my favorite quotes...

[Rooked_One]

In a movie, a kid asked the question "What makes America great?"

"Our endless appeals system."

This was the tobacco lobbyist in Thank You for Smoking.

The whole apple music thing has always confused me. Why didn't they go with something already existing? This would make sense, but we know Apple is out to make dollars. By whatever means possible of course.

Re:One of my favorite quotes...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's off topic but I frelling love that movie.

Like, oh my god. One of my top10 movies of all time. In case the previous sentence didn't tip you off, High Fidelity is No. 1

Re:One of my favorite quotes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Freetards love to express the notion that a corporation is out to make a dollar. OH REALLY!?!?!?!?!

Re:One of my favorite quotes...

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole apple music thing has always confused me. Why didn't they go with something already existing?

Because DRM was a key technology that would make or break their products. It is central to Apple's philosophy to either own (control) such key technology or use open tech (such as H264, AAC or HTML5).

If you can't see why, ask any vendor who tied their product to Microsoft's PlaysForSure.

Re:One of my favorite quotes...

[PhilHibbs]

The whole apple music thing has always confused me. Why didn't they go with something already existing? This would make sense, but we know Apple is out to make dollars. By whatever means possible of course.

Yes, Apple is a business, with shareholders and employees. They are out to make money. Not just dollars, either, they'll take euros, sterling, yen, roubles, pretty much anything.

Re:One of my favorite quotes...

[Rooked_One]

seashells? The native americans liked that currency... alas, I don't live near the ocean... Umm... Magical red dirt!!

babys; big fuzz about unprecedented evile fleeing

[Anonymous Coward]

not without wrecking/killing some more of us, we're told.

mr. jobs is genuinely ill. no doubt his shysters can negotiate his % of the rising holycost. sheesh. let's make sure we leave our domestic ruling class lifenders to go about their 'business' for us/steve/god? are there only 2 channels?

for the rest of us, that's already been worked out. play-dates. photons. out they go. flying out of windows, with rats in their mouths, using their butts as(s) an ignition/propulsion source, & hoping the rats will consent to fueling the remainder of their 'flight'. chariots? honestly? chosen? yikes

The article title is a troll

[sjdude]

The article title reads: "Steve Jobs Questioned In iTunes Monopoly Suit". QUESTIONED??? This hasn't happened yet, so Jobs has not been questionED. Bullshit troll article title.

Fairplay is no longer in use in iTMS music

[romanval]

If it's about Fairplay there's one problem: Apple's has removed Fairplay DRM for all iTunes audio for over 3 years now (5 years for EMI music). And there's never been anything that keeps any iPods (any version) from playing standard MP3's that were bought from other sources.

Re:Fairplay is no longer in use in iTMS music

[Anonymous Coward]

Well first of all, the this is about past damages, so that's not a problem at all.

Second of all, Apple hasn't removed all DRM from their music. They have gotten several major labels to remove most of their DRM in the US market for audio-only downloads. Videos are making up more and more of the downloads, and the major labels in say, Japan, are still using DRM.

Re:Fairplay is no longer in use in iTMS music

[Anonymous Coward]

Fairplay is not fully gone. Apple devices do not allow 3rd party software (or competition) to put music onto the device because the device's music database is still protected by a Fairplay DRM hashing algorithm. This has the final consequence that you can only put music on those devices using iTunes and thus the average user might tend to rather buy that music from the iTunes Music Store instead. This might be called creating a "monopoly" to some degree but is up to the jurisdiction to decide.

Re:Fairplay is no longer in use in iTMS music

[Anonymous Coward]

And there's never been anything that keeps any iPods (any version) from playing standard MP3's that were bought from other sources.

There was never anything keeping people from installing browsers other than IE, either. The problem is that people won't lift a finger if a default is given to them. In the case of iTunes, which has almost all of the (legal) download market, people will just keep buying iPods/iPhones because that's all that iTunes can sync with.

I need some numbers.

[netdigger]

I really can't make a decision on this with out some quantifiable data. We all know that their are other sources to buy digital music. But how much of the digital music market belongs to iTunes? Not only that how do the sales of digital albums and the sale of CDs.

I did find some data saying that iTunes had 80% of the digital market, but it wasn't from a creditable source nor was it dated. For all that I know it could be from 2002 when it was really the only option.

It isn't

[msobkow]

I only know one person who buys music from iTunes. Everyone else uses other services, rips their own DVDs, or downloads torrents.

Apple is far from having a music monopoly.

But I have always been curious why Apple didn't get sued for getting into the entertainment business. I seem to recall Apple Records of Beatles fame having Apple Computer agree not to get involved in music so that there would be no confusion between the two Apples.

Re:It isn't

[larry bagina]

Apple (as in the Beatles) has sued Apple (as in computer) many times. They finally settled it for good last year or so, with Apple (as in computer) paying for full rights to the name and licensing it back to Apple (as in the Beatles)

Overview of Antitrust Law Related to Bundling

[TheoMurpse]

People interested in this news item might be interested in this relatively brief overview (considering lawyers' tendency to logorrhea) of antitrust and IP rights bundling put out by the US government. Enjoy!

Legality of cd-ripping

[langelgjm]

See my sig.

Re:Legality of cd-ripping

[langelgjm]

So, I had to really cut down that quote to get it to fit in my sig. Here is the full quote.

There are those who confidently claim that making a copy of music on your hard drive is an act of space shifting protected by the fair use privilege. I'm sure that some people engage in such space shifting, for example by copying music files from lawfully purchased CDs onto their computer hard drives. But anybody why thinks that that is fair use is going out on a limb... I am not saying that it is frivolous to argue that space shifting is fair use. I am not saying that I would be shocked if some court were to conclude that it is fair use. But I don't happen to believe that it is, and I do happen to believe that anyone who makes such a a copy on a hard drive without the consent of the copyright owner is probably engaging in copyright infringement.

The citation is David O. Carson (former General Counsel for the US Copyright Office), "Making the Making Available Right Available", 33 Colum. J. L. & Arts. 135, 138.

Re:Legality of cd-ripping

[KingAlanI]

Yeah, I can't say all I intend to in 120 characters either.
Summarization is good (and I could definitely stand to get better at it), but there's such a thing as forcing too much.

Re:Legality of cd-ripping

[Carewolf]

That is pretty stupid. Why would I believe this douchebag instead of using common sense, and basic concepts such as first sale? "Space shifting" was first explored with tape-recorders and was deemed legal.

Re:Legality of cd-ripping

[dzfoo]

You know what would be a more interesting and apt quote? This one,

"I am not saying that I would be shocked if some court were to conclude that [space shifting CDs] is fair use. "

-- David O. Carson (former General Counsel for the US Copyright Office), "Making the Making Available Right Available", 33 Colum. J. L. & Arts. 135, 138.

Maybe I should put that in my sig, uh?

        -dZ.

Re:Legality of cd-ripping

[elrous0]

Why would I believe this douchebag instead of using common sense

Because "common sense" isn't a recognized defense in a court of law.

Re:Legality of cd-ripping

[zeroshade]

Because he's a lawyer who actually knows the law, specifically Copyright Law, and you're making assumptions.

Re:Legality of cd-ripping

[ChrisMaple]

Because "common sense" isn't a recognized defense in a court of law.

It's called "reasonable man", an aspect of common law.

Re:Legality of cd-ripping

[Carewolf]

I only trust experts with vested interests if they speak against their own interest.

Better mousetrap

[NiceGeek]

There are plenty of online music stores with competitive pricing. Only in the fevered imagination of Apple-bashers is this a monopoly.

Re:Better mousetrap

[H0p313ss]

Agreed. There is always the possibility that there is some history of anti-competitive behavior that we are unaware of. But short of that this just comes off as suing your competitor when you fail to compete.

a high level manager might be closer to the issue

[peter303]

Steve is receiving sporadic medical treatments and may not be in the best shape for interrogation.

Boo who

[hawkingradiation]

People aren't buying my music.

Monopoly, you keep using that word

[mjwx]

It does not mean what you think it means.

That's not how the word "monopoly" works. If iTunes was the only place to buy music, it could be a monopoly. Just because some artists are exclusive to one store does not make that store a monopoly.

Actually you should have looked up the word monopoly in a dictionary before commenting on it. From Wikipedia

In economics, a monopoly [removed the phonetic stuff because /. wont render it] exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it

It does not say 100%, it says "sufficient control". Apple has this in the digital music distribution market as it can, much like MS in the OS market dictate how other people can sell their products.

Now being a monopoly is not illegal, abusing your monopoly is, Apple's been skirting this for a long time but staying 1 step ahead of an actual investigation until now. Apple has enough sway that it gets to dictate what price other stores can sell at, that is a clear abuse, even if the publishers are in on it, it's still abuse.

Re:Monopoly, you keep using that word

[dzfoo]

But they don't have "sufficient control to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to" the market for online music.

Again, signing an exclusive artist to the iTunes store only makes iTunes a monopoly if you narrow the scope to the music of that artist. If, say, we're talking about Beatles music, then yes, Apple has a monopoly on access to it's online catalog. But that is hardly at question, and is a very limited market space. The allegations are pertaining to the entire music market.

This comes up over and over. Microsoft had a monopoly on Operating Systems for Personal Computers, which is a more general and broad scope than merely Operating Systems from Microsoft. Likewise, IBM had a monopoly on general purpose Electronic Digital Computer Systems, not on Computing Services and Products provided by IBM.

Apple, so far, has a monopoly on Apps made for iOS and music artists signed exclusively with iTunes, which are narrow spaces indeed. This is not to say that it will not change in the future. However, this is the state of things as they currently stand.

          -dZ.

Re:Monopoly, you keep using that word

[Fri13]

Monopoly is situation where there is only one company selling products or services at that area. The corporation (or store, what ever you want) can have monopoly in the town, in the district or state or even whole country or world.

Microsoft had monopoly in PC's what had Intel CPU in them. Microsoft did not have monopoly on PC's what had AMD (or any other) CPU.
Neither Microsoft did not have monopoly on personal computer markets (personal computer is not PC, as PC was IBM's own personal computer product and brand what it lost to anyone else) as there were multiple different personal computers available than just PC's, like Macintoshes and so on.

Apple does not have monopoly for music store. It can have exclusive rights to some artists and albums... but it does not make it monopoly.

Monopoly is situation where there is only one and no competition (Like Microsoft did not have competition anymore after it got Netscape off from browsers and no one could sell PC's with other OS than Microsoft DOS or NT).

There is other definition to situation what Apple can have. It is "Dominant market position" what means, the market has multiple competitors, but one is so big that it has dominant control over prices and sales what even competitors does.

Apple might have abused its dominant market position, but exclusive rights does not make it if others want to offer such deal to Apple for iTUnes. IF Apple denies artists who sells music trough iTunes to sell it trough other companies, then Apple might abuse its dominant market position in US.

Re:Monopoly, you keep using that word

[node 3]

I never said 100% (neither directly nor indirectly) was required for a monopoly. Sorry you had to waste your time looking up things on Wikipedia.

Amazon's downloader usable from 64-bit Ubuntu

[zooblethorpe]

I tried to purchase an Mp3 from amazon, it wanted me to use their default downloader. Which was not compatible with 64 bit linux

So while I don't have to use itunes specifically to use the IPod. . Linux is not an option for it at present

It is possible to get the Amazon MP3 downloader up and running on 64-bit Ubuntu -- I use it on my home machine running 64-bit Ubuntu 10.04. I don't recall which exact libraries you need, but this hitlist should get you started.

Cheers,

Re:Amazon's downloader usable from 64-bit Ubuntu

[Master Moose]

Thanks, Will check it out

Remember When?

[ChiRaven]

Remember the day when Apple Computer reached an agreement with the Beetles' company that in order to avoid a lawsuit over their name they would NOT get into the music business? Wonder what ever happened to that?

Re:Remember When?

[Zorque]

I'm pretty sure they worked it out, considering The Beatles are on iTunes now.

Monopoly?

[rossdee]

I buy my music from Amazons mp3 store. Who says Itunes has a monopoly?

Just a quick point about Amazon

[atomicbutterfly]

I just want to remind some of our American friends that for the large majority of people outside of the US, we CAN'T use Amazon for music because Amazon are idiots and still haven't expanded availability of MP3 purchases for people outside of the US. I live in Australia and tried to purchase an MP3 from Amazon, and instead got to a page showing the message

(Amazon MP3 purchases are limited to U.S. customers.)

Short of musicians like Jonathan Coulton who have their own pages and can provide to anyone in the world, iTunes is the ONLY commercial marketplace of DRM-free content in my supposedly first-world country. Hence, they have a monopoly. I will not play Apple for that though.

Re:Just a quick point about Amazon

[atomicbutterfly]

Hmm, was supposed to say "I will not blame Apple for that though". Dunno why I typed play - but hey, music was on the mind while typing that I guess. :)

Re:Just a quick point about Amazon

[konohitowa]

Darn! I thought I had learned a new piece of Australian jargon. ;)

Re:Just a quick point about Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

Every country has different laws to go through, as well as different record labels/publishing companies to deal with.

Amazon have UK, French, and German/Swiss/Austrian MP3 stores right now. What makes you think they are NOT working on the others? Maybe they don't see the business ROI yet.

Re:Just a quick point about Amazon

[rossdee]

Then surely that is a matter for the Australian Trade commision, or whatever it is that oversees business and monopolies in Ozzie land, and presumably similar Goverment orginazations in other countries (I guess in Spain it would be the Spanish Inquisition)

questioned ina a Monopoly suit?

[Rocket_Sci]

I read this headline, and all I can think of is Steve Jobs being questioned in a tuxedo with a top hat and a cane, like this guy: http://bit.ly/fVUUOJ

What Fairplay DRM music?

[SuperKendall]

Only iTunes can place rights restricted music using the native "Fairplay" DRM on the iPod.

That wouldn't seem to be much of a sticking point considering all music from iTunes has been DRM free for years now.

iTunes Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with the Monopoly games on the iTunes store? Seems like the licensing is okay.

Depends where you live...

[itsdapead]

Ripping from a CD is not illegal in any way shape or form if you own the CD and rip it for your own use.

It is in some countries, e.g. here in the UK, although everybody realises it is stupid, I don't think anybody has ever been prosecuted and there is talk of fixing the law.

However, everybody ignores the law so, yes, buying a CD and ripping it is, and always was, a perfectly viable "competitor" to iTunes.

Copyright is a monopoly. DRM is a monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright is a monopoly. DRM is a monopoly. How can you say that iTunes is NOT A MONOPOLY? It combines BOTH.

Now, feel free to say that this sort of monopoly is at least warranted, but please STOP saying that it can't be! 'cos, like, you can buy music, man"

You're shooting the messenger

[itsdapead]

Because Apple prevents competition with legal threats.

...and if they hadn't, they'd be getting legal threats from the recording industry, who (at the time) only allowed Apple to sell their music on the promise of secure DRM. Providing alternate ways to sync music to the iPod circumvents this. That's changed for music - but the issue has now moved on to video and software.

The monopoly/cartel here is not Apple, but the recording industry, who were trying to force DRM on the public. The trouble is with DRM - unlike encryption - is that its very hard to implement in an "open" way, because if the user has access to the code, they can extract an unencrypted version. Actually, DRM is pretty futile full stop.

Leave the guy alone

[EmagGeek]

He has something like a few weeks to live. Let the guy be in peace.

Yes, monopoly, i like that game

[hesaigo999ca]

The only monopoly, is that they played by the rules from the get go, had napster done so too, they would have been on top today, limewire is the same, no one is charging for downloads, so they get nabbed, meanwhile itunes is not charging enough for the artist to get enough money, but enough to keep the record cos off their backs, so they get to keep playing without getting 75 trillion dollar lawsuits.

Thats the only monopoly here....

How is Microsoft an monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are people dumb enough not to be using System 9 for an operating system? Even then what actually ties you to buying software for Windows? Hell what ties you to using Office to read documents at work? I'm doing quite well without it on my Linux machine*.

*: Circa the Microsoft antitrust trials.

Re:How is Microsoft an monopoly?

[thetoadwarrior]

In most cases yes but even Open Office isn't completely 100% compatible with Office even if I get by just fine with OO.

That's different to a bit of music software that is completely neutral and accepts my MP3 collection that I've spent years collecting and if I wanted to buy music from iTunes and play it elsewhere I can now that Apple got their want and can sell DRM-free music and it works exactly as it should which isn't always the case with Office documents even if that is generally the case.

Title is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs Questioned In iTunes Monopoly Suit

That's nonsense. There's no way that Jobs will be in a suit while he's being questioned. He's going to wear his trademark turtlenecks. But it's possible that he'll have an "iTunes Monopoly" banner printed on it, just for the heck of it.