They've left a tantalizing hint - if you look inside the iTunes application bundle, you'll see an icon for ogg files. It looks like they were at least considering supporting it enough to provide artwork. It's possible it supported it internally, but the feature might have been removed before shipping for some reason.
There's actually nothing that Apple can do to create a monopoly here. After all, they have a single store client running on two platforms, one with small market share, no support outside the US, and a line of proprietary player devices that more or less require their software client to use.
Anyone with some cash and negotiating skills can create an online music store - and many companies have. There's no techological lock-in, exclusivity or leverage that Apple has that they can exploit, and most of the music they offer is also offered by others.
Microsoft, on the other hand, *can*, "*has* and likely *will continue to* leverage their OS monopoly to exclude others for playing in the media space. We'll see what happens when they open their music store.
An online store that wants to sell to iPod users merely has to provide the music in MP3 or unprotected AAC, since the iPod will accept both of those as well as Fairplay-protected AAC. You'd probably have to provide your own client to buy the music, and then use the scripting interface for iTunes to load it onto the iPod.
Consider yourself corrected - AAC is not proprietary and is part of the MPEG-4 specification. Apple's DRM wrapper for AAC, called "Fairplay", however, *is* proprietary.
On the other hand, Microsoft's WMA is proprietary no matter how you slice it.
I'm curious - how do you thing this backroom deal went down?
Please fill in the blank:
We're Apple Computer, and because we're an abusive monopolistic company, if you don't license Fairplay from us, then we'll __________________ and you'll be sorry you ever messed with us.
In this particular case, I agree with your speculation, but it remains speculation nonetheless. I notice you chose to address only part of my statement, though - what evidence do you have that Apple will somehow force them to use Fairplay?
Two players plays "Fairplay" protected AAC files - iTunes, and iPod, both Apple products.
I see no indication that out of the many, many, DRM schemes out there that the DVD forum will choose Fairplay, or that Apple won't license Fairplay to others.
On what basis should the EU look at Apple? They haven't forced anyone to do anything.
Apple has no monopoly on music formats, music stores, music players, or DRM schemes.
They have a "monopoly" on Fairplay only to the degree anyone has a "monopoly" on anything - Adobe has a "monopoly" on Photoshop, Macromedia has a "monopoly" on Director by these measures.
You're totally speculating whether or not the DVD forum will choose a DRM scheme, and speculating even further that that scheme will be Fairplay, and further that only one software music player in the world will ever play it. Based on all these fantasies, you've decided Apple is evil.
DRM is optional with AAC. Apple has chosen to use it in order to be able to license content from the content holders, who would never agree to license without it.
You can quite easily rip to AAC without DRM.
Also, the MP3 patent holders are trying to add optional DRM to MP3, so they'll be even more alike in the future.
Why is this a lockin for Apple? AAC is not owned or developed by Apple, and codecs are available from a number of sources. Microsoft could support AAC any time they want to - but they'd rather promote their totally proprietary formats.
That Apple utilizes the DRM features of AAC doesn't mean that everyone else is required to use it. Using iTunes, I can rip CD tracks to AAC that *don't* have DRM - which can even be played on a number of Linux-based media players.
There have been several attempts to remake Casablanca - as recently as this last May, they were planning one with Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez, but it was scrapped because of the failure of Gigli and the subsequent end of their...uh...whatever it was. In the past there several abortive attempts, including one by Ted Turner in the 1980s, and even Madonna and Sean Penn were mentioned at one time as leads.
There was even a TV series based on the film in 1983, starring David Soul of "Starsky and Hutch" (the original series), Ray Liotta, Scatman Crothers and Hector Elizondo.
There have been some thinly-disguised remakes, notably Sydney Pollack's "Havana".
SCO has amply demonstrated that their response to anyone who opposes them is to file a lawsuit (See SLAPP).
Whatever else SCO has done, they don't appear to be filing SLAPPs against their critics. So far they've just sued companies with whom they believe they have some sort of contract dispute, real or imaginary.
The only exception might be their suit against Novell for Slander of Title, but again, that's a very specific claim related to a contract.
So far, they haven't taken any specific legal action against Groklaw, Perens, or Moglen. They haven't even gone after the one person who who be most at fault if their public claims about Linux were true, Linus Torvalds, who would have been responsible for including the alleged tainted software in the kernel.
Microsoft has filed lawsuits against Lindows.com in about a dozen countries around the world. Just this last week, they've apparently gone on record claiming that even "Lin---s.com" is infringing on their trademark because it has an "auditive resemblance" to "windows" when pronounced "lindash".
You may also recall the recent legal threats against Mike Rowe over the domain "mikerowesoft.com" - while it didn't reach the point of actual litigation, it was clearly stated that they would sue if Rowe wouldn't capitulate. Microsoft has made numerous other similar threats over the years.
Microsoft also filed suit against Lucent in 2003 attempting to invalidate some inconvenient patents, and Steelcloud in 2000. They also sued a hacker in 1997 that had allegedly posted a patch for the trial version of Office 97 that defeated the 90-day restriction.
Before the anti-trust trial, they sued their several of their own OEMs for copyright infringement when they attempted to modify the startup screen.
They have also initiated a number of quite reasonable suits, mainly aganst companies pirating Windows, and spammers.
So what? If ones makes the impression and click-through numbers ridiculous enough, the advertiser won't believe the numbers, and won't pay, and/or will stop running ads on that site. Either way there's a nice bandwidth bill.
Even though it's legal to make such backup copies, the publisher is not legally required to make it easy or even possible for you to do so.
This came up during the one of the DMCA cases - the court asked about what happens when the protected content enters the public domain if it's illegal to distribute a mechanism to circumvent the protection. Under the current law, even if you have every right to the content, it's apparently illegal to take the necessary steps to get access to it.
This effectively gives the publisher an infinitely long copyright.
However, they plainly state on the checkout page that they do not bill your credit card until they actually ship the product - they do not "refund" money due to non-shipment because they haven't taken it in the first place.
So the question remains, is there any other company that's taking money for vaporware and not refunding it when it doesn't materialize?
Even SCO is trying to charge for software that actually exists, even if they don't appear to actually own it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you put in a box labeled "Duke Nukem Forever" it travels to the distant future and surprises some eloi and morlocks.
It appears the best way to *not* get sued is to *not* pay them.
They've left a tantalizing hint - if you look inside the iTunes application bundle, you'll see an icon for ogg files. It looks like they were at least considering supporting it enough to provide artwork. It's possible it supported it internally, but the feature might have been removed before shipping for some reason.
You forgot: MP3 - must license from MPEG
I expect some indie store to pop up one of these days that offers non-DRM'd indie music. I'll bet it even happens within the year.
Anyone with some cash and negotiating skills can create an online music store - and many companies have. There's no techological lock-in, exclusivity or leverage that Apple has that they can exploit, and most of the music they offer is also offered by others.
Microsoft, on the other hand, *can*, "*has* and likely *will continue to* leverage their OS monopoly to exclude others for playing in the media space. We'll see what happens when they open their music store.
An online store that wants to sell to iPod users merely has to provide the music in MP3 or unprotected AAC, since the iPod will accept both of those as well as Fairplay-protected AAC. You'd probably have to provide your own client to buy the music, and then use the scripting interface for iTunes to load it onto the iPod.
That's not Apple's decision to make, since they aren't the owners of AAC. And they're apparently smart enough at least to know that, unlike, say, you.
On the other hand, Microsoft's WMA is proprietary no matter how you slice it.
Please fill in the blank:
We're Apple Computer, and because we're an abusive monopolistic company, if you don't license Fairplay from us, then we'll __________________ and you'll be sorry you ever messed with us.
Without the market leverage of a true monopoly, all you end up with is a small marketshare - which is what's happened with Apple.
If Apple were actually a monopoly, then they might indeed be a bad one. However, we'll never know.
In this particular case, I agree with your speculation, but it remains speculation nonetheless. I notice you chose to address only part of my statement, though - what evidence do you have that Apple will somehow force them to use Fairplay?
I see no indication that out of the many, many, DRM schemes out there that the DVD forum will choose Fairplay, or that Apple won't license Fairplay to others.
On what basis should the EU look at Apple? They haven't forced anyone to do anything.
Apple has no monopoly on music formats, music stores, music players, or DRM schemes.
They have a "monopoly" on Fairplay only to the degree anyone has a "monopoly" on anything - Adobe has a "monopoly" on Photoshop, Macromedia has a "monopoly" on Director by these measures.
You're totally speculating whether or not the DVD forum will choose a DRM scheme, and speculating even further that that scheme will be Fairplay, and further that only one software music player in the world will ever play it. Based on all these fantasies, you've decided Apple is evil.
You can quite easily rip to AAC without DRM.
Also, the MP3 patent holders are trying to add optional DRM to MP3, so they'll be even more alike in the future.
That Apple utilizes the DRM features of AAC doesn't mean that everyone else is required to use it. Using iTunes, I can rip CD tracks to AAC that *don't* have DRM - which can even be played on a number of Linux-based media players.
You do know, of course, that that 3D file navigation interface in Jurassic Park was *real* - it was an actual product from SGI for IRIX.
There was even a TV series based on the film in 1983, starring David Soul of "Starsky and Hutch" (the original series), Ray Liotta, Scatman Crothers and Hector Elizondo.
There have been some thinly-disguised remakes, notably Sydney Pollack's "Havana".
The only exception might be their suit against Novell for Slander of Title, but again, that's a very specific claim related to a contract.
So far, they haven't taken any specific legal action against Groklaw, Perens, or Moglen. They haven't even gone after the one person who who be most at fault if their public claims about Linux were true, Linus Torvalds, who would have been responsible for including the alleged tainted software in the kernel.
This appears to be a mistake in the article - she is *still* the operator/editor of Groklaw in addition to her new position.
You may also recall the recent legal threats against Mike Rowe over the domain "mikerowesoft.com" - while it didn't reach the point of actual litigation, it was clearly stated that they would sue if Rowe wouldn't capitulate. Microsoft has made numerous other similar threats over the years.
Microsoft also filed suit against Lucent in 2003 attempting to invalidate some inconvenient patents, and Steelcloud in 2000. They also sued a hacker in 1997 that had allegedly posted a patch for the trial version of Office 97 that defeated the 90-day restriction.
Before the anti-trust trial, they sued their several of their own OEMs for copyright infringement when they attempted to modify the startup screen.
They have also initiated a number of quite reasonable suits, mainly aganst companies pirating Windows, and spammers.
So what? If ones makes the impression and click-through numbers ridiculous enough, the advertiser won't believe the numbers, and won't pay, and/or will stop running ads on that site. Either way there's a nice bandwidth bill.
This came up during the one of the DMCA cases - the court asked about what happens when the protected content enters the public domain if it's illegal to distribute a mechanism to circumvent the protection. Under the current law, even if you have every right to the content, it's apparently illegal to take the necessary steps to get access to it.
This effectively gives the publisher an infinitely long copyright.
However, they plainly state on the checkout page that they do not bill your credit card until they actually ship the product - they do not "refund" money due to non-shipment because they haven't taken it in the first place.
So the question remains, is there any other company that's taking money for vaporware and not refunding it when it doesn't materialize?
Even SCO is trying to charge for software that actually exists, even if they don't appear to actually own it.
I don't see Microsoft refunding anyone anything, unlike your hypothetical game store - so where precisely is the "fairness"?