They aren't. All companies promoting DRM should be forced to license it
So, if Apple isn't being singled out, then can you please show me similar attempts to outlaw other DRM providers that don't license their DRM? Also, why should companies using DRM be forced to license it?
If Apple is unable to sustain a business without using illegal lock-in schemes,
Why is it illegal? Can you show me that law that says that this is illegal?
Well, I suppose if you can't see the difference between using an illegal scheme to keep your customers dependent on you, and allowing end users the freedom to use and modify software, then you might think that.
But it doesn't allow complete freedom to use and modify software. You aren't allowed to use and modify that software without providing source code. So, I guess the GPL should be made illegal, because it doesn't allow users to modify the program without providing source code, thus limiting the freedom of end users.
What they are doing is to tell that iTunes can't through DRm restrict and prevent the consumer from moving the music to, for example, other players.
Which means that they are trying to force Apple to allow other companies to sell their product (Fairplay, not the songs themselves) by other vendors. That is, if you mean the original DRMed file, and not a derivatave thereof. In actual fact, Apple does allow users to transfer their content to other players, albeit through a loophole that involves extra effort. But it alsop takes extra effort to transfer a Chevy engine to a Volkswagen, but I don't see anyone mandating that a Chevy engine must be easily transferrable to a VW.
It is the addition of such DRM enforcing various rules (which they consider to be the same as contract terms regulating the sale) are consisered unfair and thus are against the law (which itself is based on a EU directive) on unfair terms in consumer contracts.
Sources? As the EU is moving towards DMCA-like laws, this doesn't seem to be true.
Even if it was stated so though, they consider the obstacle is to high since it requires you to have a CD burner, to buy CD-discs, it requires extra time and you might reduce quality depending compression of formats used when moving to a mp3 player.
And it takes a lot more time and quality loss to transfer your songs on vinyl records to cassette or MP3. So, should vinyl be banned? Audio quality is a poor metric for this, as it is so subjective, and even if there is quality loss, the ability to access purchased media remains.
So they consider the concequences for the consumer is still to severe and thus the terms unfair and illegal. You might not agree or like it bu that is how they interpret the law.
That's up to them. but I can still disagree, (as you say). Personally, I think the law should be interpreted equally. So, if they want to outlaw iTunes store, they also have to outlaw Playsforsure stores, and the Zune store. Then we would get to the meat of the argument, instead of being about selective enforcement. If this were to apply to all online stores, then we would see where people really stand on this issue. But by scapegoating Apple, they are trying to avoid the true implications of such policies.
When it comes down to it, this is a question of whether DRM itself is legal or not. If it is illegal, it should be illegal for everybody, because DRM inherently restricts options.
But PlaysForSure isn't the only solution here. A much better solution would be for them to just license FairPlay to other stores and hardware manufacturers.
Well, they could, but why should they be forced to do this? I'd like to see one good reason why. After all, other companies are not forced to license their products to other companies. Why is Apple so special that it deserves unequal treatment?
More baseless speculation. Why are you wasting my time and yours with this?
It's all speculation at this point. What's so bad about speculation? Especially as Apple's business model is about providing solutions that work well and are easy to use. And it's not a long-shot or "baseless" that other companies would screw with Apple's model. It's very much based on what has actually happened historically. When Apple has licensed its technologies before, it resulted in nothing but grief. When Microsoft licenses its technologies, it has resulted in crap like Playsforsure and Windows.
Because you'd have to be a dishonest troll to interpret my position as "antithetical to freedom", and you know it. Supporting one regulation does not mean opposing all freedom.
No, but it opposes freedom in this particular instance. Both freedom of the consumer to choose a closed solution, and the freedom of a company to offer such solutions. It's not really much different to saying that the GPL should be banned because it disallows proprietary forks without offering source code.
WTF are you talking about? If you think that Apple adding PlaysForSure support to the iPod would give Microsoft a monopoly, you don't understand what a monopoly is.
No, again, you seem to have reading comprehension problems. I'm saying that Norway banning iTunes while allowing Microsoft free rein with Playsforsure has the potential to put Microsoft in a monopoly position.
Besides, how would Apple supporting playsforsure address the Norwegian's concerns about iTunes songs not playing on other portable players? The debate is not about what formats the iPod can play, but whether iTunes purchases can play elsewhere.
Anyway, according to another poster, it is possible that Apple would not be allowed to put Playsforsure on the iPod. Apparently, the Playsforsure contract stipulates that MP3 and WMV (and WAV, I guess) are the only allowed formats. Apple uses AAC on the iPod, so if this restriction is true, would not be allowed to license Playsforsure.
This particular government clearly believes Apple's lock-in scheme constitutes an abuse.
No. It's one person within the government. And he offers no logical reasoning for that. The fact is, you aren't locked in. Sure - people can believe bullshit all they want - but that doesn't make it true. I don't think governments should be respected for basing laws on falsehoods.
Apple can alleviate this problem without screwing their existing users simply by opening up FairPlay,
But can they? Their contract with the record companies probably states that they can't open up Fairplay. And the playsforsure company's contraqcts with Microsoft probably stipulate that they must support only Playsforsure as a DRM scheme.
How practical is it, anyway? Other companies would probably screw up Fairplay, if the crappiness of Playsforsure on many devices is anything to go by. And Apple would have its image tarnished by a bunch of third-party companies.
Oh, I get it, you're just trolling. Fuck off.
No, I'm not. When you take a position that is antithetical to freedom, why shouldn't I ask if you hate freedom?
For one thing, that way you're reencoding and losing quality,
So what? You can still play the song, can't you? You lose quality when you transfer a vinyl record to audio cassette. I guess that vinyl records should be banned, then.
and for the other it simpy isn't practical in volume;
Why not? It's a lot quicker and more automated than recording from a vinyl record. And plenty of people have done the vinyl to MP3 or vinyl to cassette transfer on large collections.
Yeah, I'm a long-time electronic music (and dance music etc.) fan. Except I mostly go to dance, and to listen to good music - not to be a poser. I like all the genres - and I guess the factional warfare and competition just washes over me. I'm somewhat obvlivious to it, I guess. So in a way, I don't belong to any particular "tribe." This does get under the skin of some people who are all like "speedcore is the only techno I dance to" or "trance 4 evar!"
Yeah, technically it is all dance music, and that's how I usually think about it... But these days "dance" gives the connotations of commercial house or pop - specifically Madonna and Kylie Minogue, I guess.
Anyway, I guess I didn't pick up on your sarcasm, as I have zero snark levels when it comes to music - it's all good. Heh, it's always funny when I tell someone at a rave that I really like Country music. They react like you just took a big, sloppy dump in their stash of disco biscuits.
Someone who already has purchased iTunes music can't then go buy a non-Apple music player.
But you can! Apple even provides the tools to do this for free, in their own software. Heck, it even reminds you to regularly back-up your music.
It's a pretty poor argument, when your entrie argument rests upon a false premise, which can easily be shown to be false in a few short sentences - or maybe a short demonstration in a courtroom of how to burn CDs for use in other players.
That's because you're in the US where people are used to being shafted by corporations because they have immeasurably more clout with shill politicians than individuals, and have therefore bought laws that favour them at the expense of everyone else.
And how am I being "shafted" by the iTunes or Zune stores? They are just music, luxury items. I won't die without them. In fact, I would save money over buying on a CD. I know about the restrictions up-front, so I have made an informed choice. So, if I don't mind the restrictions (they allow me to do eveything I expect to do with the songs) - then what's the problem.
I suppose you think it's better that the government shaft consumers instead, by removing choices? The government knows what's good for you, better than you do, right? Let the government tell you what you want to buy? Banning iTunes is pretty ridiculous, especially under the pretense of "consumer choice" or freedom - because iTunes is something that most people want to use. The consumers have spoken with their wallets, and they don't like the Playsforsure option. So they choose iTunes instead. So, Norway should force them into the option that they don't want?
You can't buy a song on iTunes and freely listen to it on other player than the iPod.
Of course, that is totally false. You can listen to it on a Mac, a PC, an iPod, a Motorola RoKr, an iPhone. You can burn it to CD and listen to it on a car CD player. Heck, you could even take that CD and transfer it to a Creative or Sandisk player.
With PlayForSure you can, there are hundreds of PlaysForSure compatible players, you're not locked in to one single _HARDWARE_ vendor.
So what? You're locked into one single software/DRM vendor - Microsoft. So what's the big difference? Why is it OK to be locked into a software company's products, but not a hardware company's? In many ways, being locked into hardware is more "natural" than being locked into software. It doesn't really matter if different manufacturers make them - they are ALL playsforsure devices - and Microsoft is profiting from each one of those.
And yes, if you want to develop/distribute a hardware device/service compatible with PlaysForSure you CAN request a license.
But there is no guarantee that the request will be granted. There is no guarantee Microsoft won't change their terms & conditions.
Right because all those digital players available run on Windows CE or Mobile or whatever!
of course, that will involve a hardware/firmware component for portable players. But tell me - why no Playsforsure compatibility for any desktop OS other than Windows?
Of course they would licensee the technology to everyone, no company would bloody do that. Are you THAT naive ?
This sentence doesn't make sense in the context it was posted in, and is grammatically a trainwreck, so it's hard to decipher. I'll take it at face value, though. Are you naive? Do you really think that they would license to everyone? Say I'm a Norwegian hacker who wants to make software to circumvent Playsforsure encryption. Do you really believe they would give me a license?
and certainly you can't blame FairPlay lock-in on MS's supposed unwillingness to license PlaysforSure to a company like Apple. Do you have some evidence? Or are you just speculating wildly?
You don't seem to understand. I'm just raising possibilities. I never said that this was the case. Neither of us know - and that's the problem. We are talking about private business contracts which none of us are privy to. The contract may stipulate 3-legged albino rhinoceros orgies, for all we know.
Microsoft may be willing to license the technology - of course they want to make money from it. But would it be wise to hand Microsoft a monopoly for online music? They haven't shown themselves to be very trustworthy in the past. The potential is always there for Microsoft to change their contracts, or to exclude certain players, or to collude with certain other companies. And handing them a monopoly that is ripe for abuse, in the name of consumer choice is completely surreal and crazy, IMO.
Apple may be control freaks over their own products, but at least they don't try to manipulate and control other companies. So, Apple can screw up, and it only affects their products. Not to mention that having to interoperate could weaken the products, and limit what Apple can do with them. Do you want Apple to become the next Microsoft? I think competition is good, and monopolies are bad. You just seem to want to give one of them monopoly power over the market,
Nevertheless, every civilized country regulates trade and protects consumers from fraud, monopolies, and other abuses. If you're going to argue that government has no place doing that, then prepare to be dismissed as a kook.
Again with the reading comprehension problems. I wasn't saying that governments couldn't regulate trade - I was just saying that generally, government's primary mission should not be about shopping. Things like human rights, liberties, law & order, and defense are the more important issues for governments.
Anyway, yes, they should protect consumers from fraud, monopolies and other abuses. So why don't they fucking do that, instead of going after Apple just because it is trendy at the moment - even though Apple does not have a monopoly, and has not committed fraud, and has not abused anything?
If Apple were actually guilty of any of these things, then I'd say "go for it - prosecute them" - but they haven't done anything wrong, so it's stupid.
Only in a superficial analysis. Think deeper: the success of iTunes leads to a situation in which many consumers do not have much of a choice, because they're locked into Apple products. Banning iTunes prevents that situation from arising.
So, you're basically advocating screwing over existing users of iTunes, who voluntarily chose to use it - and giving them no choice at all? In fact, making their very purchases illegal? Nice.
"And by banning [the sale of meat infected with Mad Cow Disease], the government is preventing you from making the choice of [eating infected meat]. If people want to [die of Mad Cow Disease], shouldn't that be their choice?"
That's fucking idiotic. Songs purchased on iTunes have no way of harming the consumer. They are a luxury item, and one that is not essential to life. They are physically incapable of causing any harm to anyone. this has got to be one of the most stupid analogies ever. Also, there aren't millions of people who want to catch mad cow disease - in fact, everybody wants to avoid it. However, there are millions of people who want to buy from the iTunes store. Seeing as this choice doesn'r harm anyone, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Do you hate freedom or something?
Do you realize how long it'd take to do that with a decent-sized music library? It's so tedious and inconvenient that it isn't a real alternative. If you have en
It is perfectly legal _in the US_, but not everywhere else. In the UK for example, this would technically be illegal, as is the act of copying music from CDs, tapes, records etc. onto iPods or other similar music players.
Are you sure of that? Has there ever been a case go to court that you can cite?
This used to be the case in Australia, but the law was never enforced, and they recently changed it to allow taping and MP3 players.
So you admit that apple is "hijacking" your files (be it a bit less than other companies)
Of course I do. But the "bit less than other companies" is the crucial difference. They have less tie-in, but they are the only company getting dissed for this and legally threatened so far. Shouldn't the law treat people and companies equally?
but still you're defending them (and thus DRM in general)?
No, I'm not defending DRM. I think it's sucky. But I don't think it's illegal or should be. The arguments that it restricts consumer choice don't hold up, because before services like iTunes, there was very little consumer choice in the pay-for-download music market. Now there are many more choices. If you are willing to put up with DRM, of course.
Well, it is, kinda, but there's nothing Apple could do about that. The record labels would never allow the songs to be sold without DRM - so they have to use this loophole for removing the DRM. It's infintely better than the situation with Playsforsure, where some tracks have no legal way to burn to CD or remove DRM.
Well if any software house wishes to buy/get a license to play WMA and/or Microsoft PlaysforSure on Linux they can, Microsoft gives it to you.
How do you know? Perhaps it relies on APIs within Windows, and not available on Linux? Do you have any actual evidence that playsforsure is available for any developer for any platform?
Also, I don't think Microsoft would give you a license if they considered you an untrustworthy developer. There are probably "trade secrets" and NDAs involved.
The problem is if you want to do the same with Apple DRM u just cant, period.
Why is this more of a problem? After all, even though Microsoft's DRM is supposedly available to license, for whatever reason, it is only available on one platform - Windows. Meanwhile, iTunes runs on two platforms. So, as it stands, there's less lock-in OS-wise.
I love windows much as u do, but comparing what Apple is doing to anything else like PlayForSure ( for example... ) is just plain stupid sorry
I wasn't really comparing. Playsforsure is crap compared to Fairplay. I agree there's no comparison - but from a legal perspective, or a platform freedom perspective, there isn't a lot of difference except that Apple gives users more choice.
nothing's stopping a company like Apple from licensing PlaysForSure.
Except for Microsoft. They are not legally obligated to sell you a playsforsure license, just like a nightclub is not legally obligated to let you in.
Because closed systems are harmful to consumer freedom.
How so? Don't consumers still have the right to buy or not buy a product?
The government's job, among other things, is to protect consumer choice.
Is it? Nothing in the Constitution mentions "consumers." And I don't see how having iTunes available limits choice. If the government bans the iTunes store, that reduces choice. So, isn't this an argument for not banning the iTunes store?
If you're effectively forced to keep buying Apple (or MS) products because you have a big collection of music from the iTunes (or Zune) store
And by banning it, the government is preventing you from making the choice of purchasing from the iTunes store. If people want to use a closed system, shouldn't that be their choice?
, which you got because that was the only place to download music for your iPod (or Zune), then you're a victim of a predatory company, and the government is right to step in and keep the same thing from happening in the future.
Victim? If it is clear up-front that the songs will only work on a certain player, than it is the consumer's choice. Who is forcing them to make that decision?
In any case, how is the iTunes buyer forced to use an iPod, when it is simple to burn the songs to CD and play them on another device?
True, but iTunes does stop Sony's music players from using the iTunes store.
Actually, this is perfectly possible and legal - if you burn to CD and re-import.
That is the problem for Norway--not the iPod, the iTunes Store.
Which is what I was talking about. All the other DRM-based stores restrict what players can be used, so why can't Apple? Even more importantly, the other stores do not allow burning to CD or another unencumbered format, for at least some of their tracks, if not all. So you can't use them on other players without violating the user agreement and/or DMCA-like laws. But every track at the iTunes store allows for such conversion. So it seems that Apple is less guilty of tie-in than any of the competing DRMed sources.
Re:My Talk With Richard Stallman About This
on
Norway Outlaws iTunes
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Nullsoft Winamp
Can I play my purchased music from services such as the new Napster, MusicMatch, MusicNow, or BuyMusic.com through Winamp 5?
Yes. Yes you can.
Amazon Unbox video player
Musicmatch Jukebox
All of those applications use Microsoft software (or at least APIs, but probably software) to gain Playsforsure functionality. All of them only run on a Microsoft OS.
Yes, but other DRM formats do not work on the ipod. This is because of Apple,
So, Apple should be forced to pay for a license to someone else's DRM - even though their product was never intended to play other people's DRMed files? That's not very "free market" of you.
And how do you know it's because of Apple? Perhaps Apple originally wanted to license some other DRM scheme, but that scheme did not meet their standards? I believe in freedom. The freedom to run what I want on my machine. Is there any reason Apple should be exempt from this freedom? Should they be forced to run any old crappy DRM on the iPod, just because it exists?
What if this DRM caused some sort of security risk? Should I be forced to run some random company's software on my machine, despite the ill effects it might have?
So the problem is that Microsoft won't let competitors to use the software they developed and paid for and the relationships they fostered with the XYZ companies.. nor share the revenue from that process and Windows sales with companies that don't have Microsoft's best interests in mind?
How does that strike you?
Sounds fine to me. Why should Microsoft share the revenue of products it created with its competitors? Should Toyota give part of its revenue to Ford for some reason?
Nobody is asking Apple to sell anybody else's merchandise, what the hell are you talking about?
you got it the wrong way around. Norway is trying to force Apple to allow their product to be sold by competitors. The anaology works just fine.
I hate analogies but here's one that's a little more apt: Remember when the discman was the defacto portable player? Now imagine that all CDs released by SONY were only playable on their discman as opposed to all audio players.
Doesn't make sense, because iTunes isn't stopping anyone from buying Sony's music in other formats, on CD or from another online music store.
They are trying to lock iTunes consumers into their products, which screws both its music player competitors AND consumers.
And this is what countless other companies try to do, and they don't get banned in Norway for selling stuff that only works with their product. Nobody is forced to buy it. Not to mention that it is trivial to burn the songs from iTunes and rip them to another player. So where's the lock-in?
I dont think you know what a commodity is, as your implication that quanity of sale has something to do with whether or not a product is a commodity is...puzzling.
No, my definition of commodity has nothing to do with quantity of sale. I thought your definition might have something to do with that - because you weren't very clear, and seemed to be using the term in a highly abnormal way.
This is the definition of "commodity":
an article of trade or commerce, esp. a product as distinguished from a service.
something of use, advantage, or value.
Stock Exchange. any unprocessed or partially processed good, as grain, fruits, and vegetables, or precious metals.
Obsolete. a quantity of goods.
Now, there is nothing in the definition of "commodity" that could include iTunes songs, but also exclude Playstation games and Panasonic parts, or vice versa. If you use the "unprocesseds goods, such as grain" definition, then none of these are a commodity. If you use the "something of use" or the "article of trade or commerce" definition, then they all are.
So tell me, what is your definition that makes iTunes songs a commodity, but PS2 games not a commodity?
Porting a game from a PS3 to a Gamecube is highly nontrivial, requiring vast amounts of programming resources. Converting music from one format to another requires a freeware program.
What does this have to do with being a commodity or not?
Anyway it could be trivial if Sony and Nintendo didn't provide barriers to doing this. Also, it would be highly non-trivial to convert an iTunes song to a vinyl record. So what's your point? Should Nintendo and Sony be banned from releasing incompatible hardware?
And where do commodities come into it?
Apple is using its dominance and success in one industry to give it a huge unfair advantage(and pricing power, if itunes wanted to raise prices tomorrow, it would be done) in another industry.
But Apple doesn't have dominance in any industry. It only has a very small minority of the music industry compared to companies like Sony. And there isn't any evidence that Apple has an unfair advantage. Even if it did have a dominant market position, it would have to abuse that position for it to be illegal, because it isn't illegal to have a monopoly.
The patents, and the huge amount of pricing power. The government should outlaw it because textbook economics shows that such actions are good for the economy.
Textbook economics should determine the law? What kind of crazy talk is that? Shouldn't the people determine the law - not some highly unproven and contentious textbooks? Economics as about as respectable as voodoo when it comes to the arts and sciences. It's basically speculation and political opinion.
Anyway, I wonder how much you know about economics when you don't even understand what a commodity is?
anyone willing to pay licensing is allowed to make a device supporting PlaysForSure,
Are you sure of that? It's likely that Microsoft has other restrictions apart from just paying the licensing fee. I doubt that Joe Bloggs could just walk up to Microsoft and say "I'd like one license to develop playsforsure devices." They would probably laugh in his face.
nobody is allowed to make a device supporting fairplay
So what? Nobody but Sony is allowed to make a device supporting Playstation games. What's the big deal?
refusing to acknowledge that is nothing but blatent fanboyism.
Who is refusing to acknowledge that? I certainly acknowledge that. But why should it be illegal to make a closed system? Why should Apple be forced to license their technology if they don't want to?
I don't see how it's a fanboy issue, as I hate Microsoft, but support their right to do the same thing with the Zune. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Nobody is forcing you.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if Apple isn't being singled out, then can you please show me similar attempts to outlaw other DRM providers that don't license their DRM? Also, why should companies using DRM be forced to license it?
If Apple is unable to sustain a business without using illegal lock-in schemes,Why is it illegal? Can you show me that law that says that this is illegal?
Well, I suppose if you can't see the difference between using an illegal scheme to keep your customers dependent on you, and allowing end users the freedom to use and modify software, then you might think that.But it doesn't allow complete freedom to use and modify software. You aren't allowed to use and modify that software without providing source code. So, I guess the GPL should be made illegal, because it doesn't allow users to modify the program without providing source code, thus limiting the freedom of end users.
Which means that they are trying to force Apple to allow other companies to sell their product (Fairplay, not the songs themselves) by other vendors. That is, if you mean the original DRMed file, and not a derivatave thereof. In actual fact, Apple does allow users to transfer their content to other players, albeit through a loophole that involves extra effort. But it alsop takes extra effort to transfer a Chevy engine to a Volkswagen, but I don't see anyone mandating that a Chevy engine must be easily transferrable to a VW.
It is the addition of such DRM enforcing various rules (which they consider to be the same as contract terms regulating the sale) are consisered unfair and thus are against the law (which itself is based on a EU directive) on unfair terms in consumer contracts.Sources? As the EU is moving towards DMCA-like laws, this doesn't seem to be true.
Even if it was stated so though, they consider the obstacle is to high since it requires you to have a CD burner, to buy CD-discs, it requires extra time and you might reduce quality depending compression of formats used when moving to a mp3 player.And it takes a lot more time and quality loss to transfer your songs on vinyl records to cassette or MP3. So, should vinyl be banned? Audio quality is a poor metric for this, as it is so subjective, and even if there is quality loss, the ability to access purchased media remains.
So they consider the concequences for the consumer is still to severe and thus the terms unfair and illegal. You might not agree or like it bu that is how they interpret the law.That's up to them. but I can still disagree, (as you say). Personally, I think the law should be interpreted equally. So, if they want to outlaw iTunes store, they also have to outlaw Playsforsure stores, and the Zune store. Then we would get to the meat of the argument, instead of being about selective enforcement. If this were to apply to all online stores, then we would see where people really stand on this issue. But by scapegoating Apple, they are trying to avoid the true implications of such policies.
When it comes down to it, this is a question of whether DRM itself is legal or not. If it is illegal, it should be illegal for everybody, because DRM inherently restricts options.
Well, they could, but why should they be forced to do this? I'd like to see one good reason why. After all, other companies are not forced to license their products to other companies. Why is Apple so special that it deserves unequal treatment?
More baseless speculation. Why are you wasting my time and yours with this?It's all speculation at this point. What's so bad about speculation? Especially as Apple's business model is about providing solutions that work well and are easy to use. And it's not a long-shot or "baseless" that other companies would screw with Apple's model. It's very much based on what has actually happened historically. When Apple has licensed its technologies before, it resulted in nothing but grief. When Microsoft licenses its technologies, it has resulted in crap like Playsforsure and Windows.
Because you'd have to be a dishonest troll to interpret my position as "antithetical to freedom", and you know it. Supporting one regulation does not mean opposing all freedom.No, but it opposes freedom in this particular instance. Both freedom of the consumer to choose a closed solution, and the freedom of a company to offer such solutions. It's not really much different to saying that the GPL should be banned because it disallows proprietary forks without offering source code.
No, again, you seem to have reading comprehension problems. I'm saying that Norway banning iTunes while allowing Microsoft free rein with Playsforsure has the potential to put Microsoft in a monopoly position.
Besides, how would Apple supporting playsforsure address the Norwegian's concerns about iTunes songs not playing on other portable players? The debate is not about what formats the iPod can play, but whether iTunes purchases can play elsewhere.
Anyway, according to another poster, it is possible that Apple would not be allowed to put Playsforsure on the iPod. Apparently, the Playsforsure contract stipulates that MP3 and WMV (and WAV, I guess) are the only allowed formats. Apple uses AAC on the iPod, so if this restriction is true, would not be allowed to license Playsforsure.
This particular government clearly believes Apple's lock-in scheme constitutes an abuse.No. It's one person within the government. And he offers no logical reasoning for that. The fact is, you aren't locked in. Sure - people can believe bullshit all they want - but that doesn't make it true. I don't think governments should be respected for basing laws on falsehoods.
Apple can alleviate this problem without screwing their existing users simply by opening up FairPlay,But can they? Their contract with the record companies probably states that they can't open up Fairplay. And the playsforsure company's contraqcts with Microsoft probably stipulate that they must support only Playsforsure as a DRM scheme.
How practical is it, anyway? Other companies would probably screw up Fairplay, if the crappiness of Playsforsure on many devices is anything to go by. And Apple would have its image tarnished by a bunch of third-party companies.
Oh, I get it, you're just trolling. Fuck off.No, I'm not. When you take a position that is antithetical to freedom, why shouldn't I ask if you hate freedom?
So what? You can still play the song, can't you? You lose quality when you transfer a vinyl record to audio cassette. I guess that vinyl records should be banned, then.
and for the other it simpy isn't practical in volume;Why not? It's a lot quicker and more automated than recording from a vinyl record. And plenty of people have done the vinyl to MP3 or vinyl to cassette transfer on large collections.
Yeah, technically it is all dance music, and that's how I usually think about it... But these days "dance" gives the connotations of commercial house or pop - specifically Madonna and Kylie Minogue, I guess.
Anyway, I guess I didn't pick up on your sarcasm, as I have zero snark levels when it comes to music - it's all good. Heh, it's always funny when I tell someone at a rave that I really like Country music. They react like you just took a big, sloppy dump in their stash of disco biscuits.
But you can! Apple even provides the tools to do this for free, in their own software. Heck, it even reminds you to regularly back-up your music.
It's a pretty poor argument, when your entrie argument rests upon a false premise, which can easily be shown to be false in a few short sentences - or maybe a short demonstration in a courtroom of how to burn CDs for use in other players.
And how am I being "shafted" by the iTunes or Zune stores? They are just music, luxury items. I won't die without them. In fact, I would save money over buying on a CD. I know about the restrictions up-front, so I have made an informed choice. So, if I don't mind the restrictions (they allow me to do eveything I expect to do with the songs) - then what's the problem.
I suppose you think it's better that the government shaft consumers instead, by removing choices? The government knows what's good for you, better than you do, right? Let the government tell you what you want to buy? Banning iTunes is pretty ridiculous, especially under the pretense of "consumer choice" or freedom - because iTunes is something that most people want to use. The consumers have spoken with their wallets, and they don't like the Playsforsure option. So they choose iTunes instead. So, Norway should force them into the option that they don't want?
Of course, that is totally false. You can listen to it on a Mac, a PC, an iPod, a Motorola RoKr, an iPhone. You can burn it to CD and listen to it on a car CD player. Heck, you could even take that CD and transfer it to a Creative or Sandisk player.
With PlayForSure you can, there are hundreds of PlaysForSure compatible players, you're not locked in to one single _HARDWARE_ vendor.So what? You're locked into one single software/DRM vendor - Microsoft. So what's the big difference? Why is it OK to be locked into a software company's products, but not a hardware company's? In many ways, being locked into hardware is more "natural" than being locked into software. It doesn't really matter if different manufacturers make them - they are ALL playsforsure devices - and Microsoft is profiting from each one of those.
And yes, if you want to develop/distribute a hardware device/service compatible with PlaysForSure you CAN request a license.But there is no guarantee that the request will be granted. There is no guarantee Microsoft won't change their terms & conditions.
Right because all those digital players available run on Windows CE or Mobile or whatever!of course, that will involve a hardware/firmware component for portable players. But tell me - why no Playsforsure compatibility for any desktop OS other than Windows?
Of course they would licensee the technology to everyone, no company would bloody do that. Are you THAT naive ?This sentence doesn't make sense in the context it was posted in, and is grammatically a trainwreck, so it's hard to decipher. I'll take it at face value, though. Are you naive? Do you really think that they would license to everyone? Say I'm a Norwegian hacker who wants to make software to circumvent Playsforsure encryption. Do you really believe they would give me a license?
and certainly you can't blame FairPlay lock-in on MS's supposed unwillingness to license PlaysforSure to a company like Apple. Do you have some evidence? Or are you just speculating wildly?
You don't seem to understand. I'm just raising possibilities. I never said that this was the case. Neither of us know - and that's the problem. We are talking about private business contracts which none of us are privy to. The contract may stipulate 3-legged albino rhinoceros orgies, for all we know.
Microsoft may be willing to license the technology - of course they want to make money from it. But would it be wise to hand Microsoft a monopoly for online music? They haven't shown themselves to be very trustworthy in the past. The potential is always there for Microsoft to change their contracts, or to exclude certain players, or to collude with certain other companies. And handing them a monopoly that is ripe for abuse, in the name of consumer choice is completely surreal and crazy, IMO.
Apple may be control freaks over their own products, but at least they don't try to manipulate and control other companies. So, Apple can screw up, and it only affects their products. Not to mention that having to interoperate could weaken the products, and limit what Apple can do with them. Do you want Apple to become the next Microsoft? I think competition is good, and monopolies are bad. You just seem to want to give one of them monopoly power over the market,
Nevertheless, every civilized country regulates trade and protects consumers from fraud, monopolies, and other abuses. If you're going to argue that government has no place doing that, then prepare to be dismissed as a kook.
Again with the reading comprehension problems. I wasn't saying that governments couldn't regulate trade - I was just saying that generally, government's primary mission should not be about shopping. Things like human rights, liberties, law & order, and defense are the more important issues for governments.
Anyway, yes, they should protect consumers from fraud, monopolies and other abuses. So why don't they fucking do that, instead of going after Apple just because it is trendy at the moment - even though Apple does not have a monopoly, and has not committed fraud, and has not abused anything?
If Apple were actually guilty of any of these things, then I'd say "go for it - prosecute them" - but they haven't done anything wrong, so it's stupid.
Only in a superficial analysis. Think deeper: the success of iTunes leads to a situation in which many consumers do not have much of a choice, because they're locked into Apple products. Banning iTunes prevents that situation from arising.
So, you're basically advocating screwing over existing users of iTunes, who voluntarily chose to use it - and giving them no choice at all? In fact, making their very purchases illegal? Nice.
"And by banning [the sale of meat infected with Mad Cow Disease], the government is preventing you from making the choice of [eating infected meat]. If people want to [die of Mad Cow Disease], shouldn't that be their choice?"
That's fucking idiotic. Songs purchased on iTunes have no way of harming the consumer. They are a luxury item, and one that is not essential to life. They are physically incapable of causing any harm to anyone. this has got to be one of the most stupid analogies ever. Also, there aren't millions of people who want to catch mad cow disease - in fact, everybody wants to avoid it. However, there are millions of people who want to buy from the iTunes store. Seeing as this choice doesn'r harm anyone, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Do you hate freedom or something?
Do you realize how long it'd take to do that with a decent-sized music library? It's so tedious and inconvenient that it isn't a real alternative. If you have en
Are you sure of that? Has there ever been a case go to court that you can cite?
This used to be the case in Australia, but the law was never enforced, and they recently changed it to allow taping and MP3 players.
Of course I do. But the "bit less than other companies" is the crucial difference. They have less tie-in, but they are the only company getting dissed for this and legally threatened so far. Shouldn't the law treat people and companies equally?
but still you're defending them (and thus DRM in general)?No, I'm not defending DRM. I think it's sucky. But I don't think it's illegal or should be. The arguments that it restricts consumer choice don't hold up, because before services like iTunes, there was very little consumer choice in the pay-for-download music market. Now there are many more choices. If you are willing to put up with DRM, of course.
Well, it is, kinda, but there's nothing Apple could do about that. The record labels would never allow the songs to be sold without DRM - so they have to use this loophole for removing the DRM. It's infintely better than the situation with Playsforsure, where some tracks have no legal way to burn to CD or remove DRM.
How do you know? Perhaps it relies on APIs within Windows, and not available on Linux? Do you have any actual evidence that playsforsure is available for any developer for any platform?
Also, I don't think Microsoft would give you a license if they considered you an untrustworthy developer. There are probably "trade secrets" and NDAs involved.
The problem is if you want to do the same with Apple DRM u just cant, period.Why is this more of a problem? After all, even though Microsoft's DRM is supposedly available to license, for whatever reason, it is only available on one platform - Windows. Meanwhile, iTunes runs on two platforms. So, as it stands, there's less lock-in OS-wise.
I love windows much as u do, but comparing what Apple is doing to anything else like PlayForSure ( for exampleI wasn't really comparing. Playsforsure is crap compared to Fairplay. I agree there's no comparison - but from a legal perspective, or a platform freedom perspective, there isn't a lot of difference except that Apple gives users more choice.
Except for Microsoft. They are not legally obligated to sell you a playsforsure license, just like a nightclub is not legally obligated to let you in.
Because closed systems are harmful to consumer freedom.How so? Don't consumers still have the right to buy or not buy a product?
The government's job, among other things, is to protect consumer choice.Is it? Nothing in the Constitution mentions "consumers." And I don't see how having iTunes available limits choice. If the government bans the iTunes store, that reduces choice. So, isn't this an argument for not banning the iTunes store?
If you're effectively forced to keep buying Apple (or MS) products because you have a big collection of music from the iTunes (or Zune) storeAnd by banning it, the government is preventing you from making the choice of purchasing from the iTunes store. If people want to use a closed system, shouldn't that be their choice?
, which you got because that was the only place to download music for your iPod (or Zune), then you're a victim of a predatory company, and the government is right to step in and keep the same thing from happening in the future.Victim? If it is clear up-front that the songs will only work on a certain player, than it is the consumer's choice. Who is forcing them to make that decision?
In any case, how is the iTunes buyer forced to use an iPod, when it is simple to burn the songs to CD and play them on another device?
Actually, this is perfectly possible and legal - if you burn to CD and re-import.
That is the problem for Norway--not the iPod, the iTunes Store.Which is what I was talking about. All the other DRM-based stores restrict what players can be used, so why can't Apple? Even more importantly, the other stores do not allow burning to CD or another unencumbered format, for at least some of their tracks, if not all. So you can't use them on other players without violating the user agreement and/or DMCA-like laws. But every track at the iTunes store allows for such conversion. So it seems that Apple is less guilty of tie-in than any of the competing DRMed sources.
All of those applications use Microsoft software (or at least APIs, but probably software) to gain Playsforsure functionality. All of them only run on a Microsoft OS.
Winamp only works because it uses Microsoft software to fulfill the playsfor sure functionality. Let me know when it works with Linuxamp or Macamp.
So, Apple should be forced to pay for a license to someone else's DRM - even though their product was never intended to play other people's DRMed files? That's not very "free market" of you.
And how do you know it's because of Apple? Perhaps Apple originally wanted to license some other DRM scheme, but that scheme did not meet their standards? I believe in freedom. The freedom to run what I want on my machine. Is there any reason Apple should be exempt from this freedom? Should they be forced to run any old crappy DRM on the iPod, just because it exists?
What if this DRM caused some sort of security risk? Should I be forced to run some random company's software on my machine, despite the ill effects it might have?
Sounds fine to me. Why should Microsoft share the revenue of products it created with its competitors? Should Toyota give part of its revenue to Ford for some reason?
you got it the wrong way around. Norway is trying to force Apple to allow their product to be sold by competitors. The anaology works just fine.
I hate analogies but here's one that's a little more apt: Remember when the discman was the defacto portable player? Now imagine that all CDs released by SONY were only playable on their discman as opposed to all audio players.Doesn't make sense, because iTunes isn't stopping anyone from buying Sony's music in other formats, on CD or from another online music store.
They are trying to lock iTunes consumers into their products, which screws both its music player competitors AND consumers.And this is what countless other companies try to do, and they don't get banned in Norway for selling stuff that only works with their product. Nobody is forced to buy it. Not to mention that it is trivial to burn the songs from iTunes and rip them to another player. So where's the lock-in?
No, my definition of commodity has nothing to do with quantity of sale. I thought your definition might have something to do with that - because you weren't very clear, and seemed to be using the term in a highly abnormal way.
This is the definition of "commodity":
- an article of trade or commerce, esp. a product as distinguished from a service.
- something of use, advantage, or value.
- Stock Exchange. any unprocessed or partially processed good, as grain, fruits, and vegetables, or precious metals.
- Obsolete. a quantity of goods.
Now, there is nothing in the definition of "commodity" that could include iTunes songs, but also exclude Playstation games and Panasonic parts, or vice versa. If you use the "unprocesseds goods, such as grain" definition, then none of these are a commodity. If you use the "something of use" or the "article of trade or commerce" definition, then they all are.So tell me, what is your definition that makes iTunes songs a commodity, but PS2 games not a commodity?
Porting a game from a PS3 to a Gamecube is highly nontrivial, requiring vast amounts of programming resources. Converting music from one format to another requires a freeware program.What does this have to do with being a commodity or not?
Anyway it could be trivial if Sony and Nintendo didn't provide barriers to doing this. Also, it would be highly non-trivial to convert an iTunes song to a vinyl record. So what's your point? Should Nintendo and Sony be banned from releasing incompatible hardware?
And where do commodities come into it?
Apple is using its dominance and success in one industry to give it a huge unfair advantage(and pricing power, if itunes wanted to raise prices tomorrow, it would be done) in another industry.But Apple doesn't have dominance in any industry. It only has a very small minority of the music industry compared to companies like Sony. And there isn't any evidence that Apple has an unfair advantage. Even if it did have a dominant market position, it would have to abuse that position for it to be illegal, because it isn't illegal to have a monopoly.
The patents, and the huge amount of pricing power. The government should outlaw it because textbook economics shows that such actions are good for the economy.Textbook economics should determine the law? What kind of crazy talk is that? Shouldn't the people determine the law - not some highly unproven and contentious textbooks? Economics as about as respectable as voodoo when it comes to the arts and sciences. It's basically speculation and political opinion.
Anyway, I wonder how much you know about economics when you don't even understand what a commodity is?
Are you sure of that? It's likely that Microsoft has other restrictions apart from just paying the licensing fee. I doubt that Joe Bloggs could just walk up to Microsoft and say "I'd like one license to develop playsforsure devices." They would probably laugh in his face.
nobody is allowed to make a device supporting fairplaySo what? Nobody but Sony is allowed to make a device supporting Playstation games. What's the big deal?
refusing to acknowledge that is nothing but blatent fanboyism.Who is refusing to acknowledge that? I certainly acknowledge that. But why should it be illegal to make a closed system? Why should Apple be forced to license their technology if they don't want to?
I don't see how it's a fanboy issue, as I hate Microsoft, but support their right to do the same thing with the Zune. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Nobody is forcing you.
Wouldn't it be more insulting to have yout techno referred to as "dance music"?
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.