PDA

View Full Version : French 'iTunes' Law Passed


edcrosay
Jun 30, 2006, 11:24 AM
Read here http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,71287-0.html?tw=rss.technology

Sucks for the Frenchys when Apple pulls the ITMS store there.

TheFallGuy
Jun 30, 2006, 12:47 PM
also posted here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_hi_te/france_itunes_law_5

...Currently, songs bought on iTunes can be played only on iPods, and an iPod can't play downloads from other stores that rival the extensive iTunes music catalog from major artists and labels — like Sony's Connect and Napster....
The iTunes on my computer accepts quite a few common file extensions to be played on it, as long as I direct the it to the proper folders (usually I just put them in the iTunes folders to save the hassle and mess). In addition to that, my iPod plays some of the common extensions. As far as purchased songs from iTunes, I can't vouch for putting them onto a different player because I don't have anything other than an iPod. But if I want I can always burn them to CD and then transfer them to other formats if needed.

As far as Sony's Connect you MUST have these requirements:
We appreciate your interest in the Connect music store, but our store currently only works with Internet Explorer 5.5 and above. You don't seem to be using that particular browser at the moment, so, unfortunately, we'll have to part ways until we support the browser you're currently using or you upgrade to the latest version of Internet Explorer. Please click the Download link below if you'd like to upgrade now.

Thank your for your interest in the Connect music store!

System Requirements

# Microsoft® Windows® 98 SE, ME, 2000 or XP
# Minimum of 500 Mhz processor
# Minimum of 400 MB available hard disk space
# Minimum of 128 MB RAM
# Internet Explorer 5.5 or later
# CD-ROM drive (for installation and import or playback from CD)
# Supported CD-Recordable drive (for CD burning purposes)
# Internet Connection (broadband suggested)

Note: Administrator privileges required for installation on PCs running Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Professional or Windows XP Home Edition.
I tried using both Safari and Firefox to reach their page and this is what it pulled up immediately. If that isn't exclusive then...

Which makes me wonder why they are just targeting Apple. Why don't they go after Sony also? I can't even get to Sony's sight to see what file extensions they use or to evaluate whether or not I would like to use their service. Apple on the other hand is accessable to Mac and Windows.

...It also maintained a loophole introduced by senators, which could allow Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple and others to dodge the data-sharing demands by striking new deals with record labels and artists....
So all Apple really has to do is go back to the artists and try to leverage a deal with the artists. But I doubt artists would want to make themselves exclusive to only iTunes - they want to hit as many markets as they can while still making a buck or two off their work - and that is their right.

I guess, from my point of view I see that the French are unfairly attacking only one provider without addressing the inadequecies of the other providers. It smells like rotten cheese to me.

baleensavage
Jun 30, 2006, 01:33 PM
I don't believe that the French are targeting Apple in particular. I belive that the media is doing that. The law encompasses all media content providers so everyone from Sony to Napster to Apple are probably going to be targeted. The media, who loves to trample Apple any chance they get, sees Apple as having the most to lose from this since they have such a high market share, therefore all articles about this subject are in reference to Apple in particular. It would be like if they made a law restricting fast food restaurants, you can bet McDonalds would be in the headline of every article.

MacRumors
Jun 30, 2006, 02:26 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Several media outlets are reporting (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8IIKJC00.htm?sub=apn_tech_down&chan=tc) on the passing of the French copyright law which aims to force companies to open their digital rights management formats to other companies.

The law was first reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060313154218.shtml) in March and sparked speculation that Apple could potentially withdraw iTunes from France.

A softened version (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060511122105.shtml) of the law later passed the French Senate. In the revised version, they provided a potential loophole for Apple's music service:

A new regulatory authority will have the power to order companies to license their exclusive file formats to rivals on request -- but only if the compatibility restrictions they impose are "additional to, or independent of, those explicitly decided by the copyright holders."

This means Apple may have to negotiate these specific terms in the contracts with their content providers, potentially giving content providers a bit more negotiating power.

dizastor
Jun 30, 2006, 02:31 PM
This is amusing to me. First we fight piracy and search for a workable DRM solution. Apple solves the problem and builds a business model around it. Then when it becomes successful we need to "open-up" the DRM so that others can profit from our success.

So, in summary, go after the people stealing music, and then also go after the people who find the best solution to legally sell music. Seems like a win win situation for the attorneys.

ccunning
Jun 30, 2006, 02:57 PM
This should also enable the French to use a subscription service such as Napsters with their iPod right. That is something I would personally find usefull, although I would prefer Apple offer a similar service.

Les Kern
Jun 30, 2006, 03:23 PM
So, in summary, go after the people stealing music, and then also go after the people who find the best solution to legally sell music. Seems like a win win situation for the attorneys.

Exactly.
I hope they ask Microsoft to open THEIR proprietary formats.... sure.
For now I think it should be:

Le iTunes - Juste à travers le cadre en l'Allemagne, la Belgique ou Espagne!

angelwatt
Jun 30, 2006, 03:23 PM
These French politicians might as well jump into this hole they've dug themselves because I doubt Apple will play their games. Wonder if Apple will even bother responding to this or just walk away quietly.

boncellis
Jun 30, 2006, 03:32 PM
I'm impressed with the combination of iTunes' ubiquity and quality overall. When the iTMS came out and the deluge of imitators followed I feared for its continued success. I suppose those fears were unwarranted, but I wanted Apple to remain the market leader because they innovate like only a few computer companies dare. Now that its success has influenced the hallowed halls of the Estates-General, it is quite the coup.

Now please, Apple, don't rest on your laurels!

Stella
Jun 30, 2006, 03:40 PM
They are not specifically targetting Apple - it applies to all.
:-\

They only mention Apple because it has the largest market share...

I don't believe that the French are targeting Apple in particular. I belive that the media is doing that. The law encompasses all media content providers so everyone from Sony to Napster to Apple are probably going to be targeted. The media, who loves to trample Apple any chance they get, sees Apple as having the most to lose from this since they have such a high market share, therefore all articles about this subject are in reference to Apple in particular. It would be like if they made a law restricting fast food restaurants, you can bet McDonalds would be in the headline of every article.

HGW
Jun 30, 2006, 04:07 PM
these french policies are brilliant

if an oil supply company said you can only fill up your car from here if its a mercedes, there would be a public outcry.

iPod is cool but apple DONT TELL ME WHAT TO PLAY MY MUSIC ON

gauchogolfer
Jun 30, 2006, 04:15 PM
Le iTunes - Juste à travers le cadre en l'Allemagne, la Belgique ou Espagne!

Je suis plus proche à l'Italie... I think that will work as well :)

gauchogolfer
Jun 30, 2006, 04:16 PM
these french policies are brilliant

if an oil supply company said you can only fill up your car from here if its a mercedes, there would be a public outcry.

iPod is cool but apple DONT TELL ME WHAT TO PLAY MY MUSIC ON

When you buy music from iTMS, you know exactly what you're signing up for. The car/gas analogy doesn't make sense here. It's more like, why does Toyota make me buy Toyota-brand parts to keep my warranty valid?

craigatkinson
Jun 30, 2006, 04:25 PM
It sounds to me like the French are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to back down on the legislation that they had already begun to draft, but they also don't want to lose Apple's business, so they are making a loop hole specifically for Apple. In the end I think the law will be moot.

finalcoolman
Jun 30, 2006, 04:29 PM
When you buy music from iTMS, you know exactly what you're signing up for. The car/gas analogy doesn't make sense here. It's more like, why does Toyota make me buy Toyota-brand parts to keep my warranty valid?


Ok then. It's almost like Apple is paying you money to spill out such absurd statements but there is one problem, they are not. All these people who are against this are crazy. I have to ask those people: What do you gain with Apple's propretary DRM? Nothing. Zilch. What would you lose with a universal DRM scheme? Nothing. If you want to remain using your iPod with iTunes, thats fine, it wont hurt you one bit. But at least you will have CHOICE.

You see the problem here is Apple is close to becoming a monopoly (if not already) with legal online music sales. The same kind of monoploy that Microsoft has with Windows. Now what would happen if with Vista Microsoft forced you to install Microsoft Office and you were not allowed to install any other office suite? If they banned all browsers but IE from running on Windows? If they barred all Media Players and you had to use WMP? No iTunes/Quicktime allowed on Windows, just the preinstalled WMP. If you had to use a Microsoft input device and any other brand like Logitech would not work? Outcry is what would happen with people going on TV and calling Microsoft the spawn of Satan and lawsuits popping up like killer bees from your worst nightmare. But with Apple's locking of iTunes and the iPod whoa, wait thats different, right? Cause Apples an angel and you know Apple's always right. Cause the French are evil now because they oppose Apple's music monopoly right? Ya just blame it all on the French when they are the ones standing up for you saying it's your music and you have the right to do what you please with it. How could you possibly insult the French government for actually standing up for consumers rights? But oh wait, they stood up against Apple. Whatever, I mean what else can I expect from a bunch of blind sheep.

It's simple. I want to be able to buy any MP3 player I please wether it be from Sony or Sandisk or Samsung or iRiver and be able to put songs purchased from the music store on any of them. Same would go vice-versa if I was stupid enough to be a blind sheep with zero self confidence in that I had to be like everyone else with the stupid white ear buds hanging out of my ears and I want to put songs purchased through say Napster or Connect on an iPod.

The thing is I have the right to choose and although I love iTunes, I will NEVER buy an iPod. It's like being forced to buy a Cinema Display if you brought a PowerMac or Mac Mini. It's like being forced to buy all your programs from Microsoft because Microsoft made the OS. I have the right to mix and match to my pleasing and no dimwit by the name of Steve Jobs will take that away from me.

HGW
Jun 30, 2006, 04:39 PM
When you buy music from iTMS, you know exactly what you're signing up for. The car/gas analogy doesn't make sense here. It's more like, why does Toyota make me buy Toyota-brand parts to keep my warranty valid?

i dont agree, im talking about buying music in general. what gives them a say in what we do with it,

apple understand that we want to buy and own our music. but we dont all want to buy and own an iPod. they are saying its not our choice, so really its a subscription service to apple music.

the french said if you buy music online its yours

danny_w
Jun 30, 2006, 04:51 PM
They mention Apple because Apple refuses to license their DRM to anybody else, so nobody can make a player that will play protected iTMS music. Microsoft, on theother hand, will gladly license their DRM to anybody that wants it, including (I suspect) Apple.

So we have purchased iTMS content that cannot be played on anything except an iPod or iTunes (yes, I know the workarounds, but I'm talking DRM here), and we have iPods that can play most formats except for protected WMF (or whatever they call it). So Apple gets it going both ways. I don't agree with the French law, but I can understand how it applies mainly to Apple (although techically it applies to everybody).

They are not specifically targetting Apple - it applies to all.
:-\

They only mention Apple because it has the largest market share...

Bonte
Jun 30, 2006, 05:33 PM
This means Apple may have to negotiate these specific terms in the contracts with their content providers, potentially giving content providers a bit more negotiating power.

Maybe so but who are these 'copyright holders'?

Here in Europe the copyright stays with the artist and the labels have an exclusive publishing right but not the copyright. So is Apple (and MS) to re-negotiate with the artists or the record labels? Do the labels need to make adjustments to there artist contracts? Can any artist sue Apple or his label over this? What about rented music?
?
?
?

edit:
The Register has the same questions, its a dumb law.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/30/france_itunes_law_loophole/

LethalWolfe
Jun 30, 2006, 06:08 PM
Ok then. It's almost like Apple is paying you money to spill out such absurd statements but there is one problem, they are not. All these people who are against this are crazy. I have to ask those people: What do you gain with Apple's propretary DRM? Nothing. Zilch. What would you lose with a universal DRM scheme? Nothing. If you want to remain using your iPod with iTunes, thats fine, it wont hurt you one bit. But at least you will have CHOICE.

You see the problem here is Apple is close to becoming a monopoly (if not already) with legal online music sales. The same kind of monoploy that Microsoft has with Windows. Now what would happen if with Vista Microsoft forced you to install Microsoft Office and you were not allowed to install any other office suite? If they banned all browsers but IE from running on Windows? If they barred all Media Players and you had to use WMP? No iTunes/Quicktime allowed on Windows, just the preinstalled WMP. If you had to use a Microsoft input device and any other brand like Logitech would not work? Outcry is what would happen with people going on TV and calling Microsoft the spawn of Satan and lawsuits popping up like killer bees from your worst nightmare. But with Apple's locking of iTunes and the iPod whoa, wait thats different, right? Cause Apples an angel and you know Apple's always right. Cause the French are evil now because they oppose Apple's music monopoly right? Ya just blame it all on the French when they are the ones standing up for you saying it's your music and you have the right to do what you please with it. How could you possibly insult the French government for actually standing up for consumers rights? But oh wait, they stood up against Apple. Whatever, I mean what else can I expect from a bunch of blind sheep.

It's simple. I want to be able to buy any MP3 player I please wether it be from Sony or Sandisk or Samsung or iRiver and be able to put songs purchased from the music store on any of them. Same would go vice-versa if I was stupid enough to be a blind sheep with zero self confidence in that I had to be like everyone else with the stupid white ear buds hanging out of my ears and I want to put songs purchased through say Napster or Connect on an iPod.

The thing is I have the right to choose and although I love iTunes, I will NEVER buy an iPod. It's like being forced to buy a Cinema Display if you brought a PowerMac or Mac Mini. It's like being forced to buy all your programs from Microsoft because Microsoft made the OS. I have the right to mix and match to my pleasing and no dimwit by the name of Steve Jobs will take that away from me.

Oh lord.:rolleyes:

There is nothing illegal or wrong about having a monopoly. The problems arise when a company uses it's monopoly status to unfairly hurt the competition. Which Apple hasn't and MS has. BTW, your "hypothetical" examples of MS abusing its power have already happened, basically, and it's why MS got taken to court in the US and Europe. Last time I checked there is nothing stopping me from using competeing digital players, jukebox software, and on-line music stores on a Mac.

The current state of iPod/iTMS is really no different than business model for video games. Can I play Halo on a PS2? Or how about Zelda on an Xbox? A PC copy of FIFA World CUP 2006 on a GameCube?


Lethal

SPUY767
Jun 30, 2006, 06:18 PM
[Sings a long, slow goodbye to iTMS France.]

This is wonderful. . . Apple has never done anything but fight for the consumer, if also for itself at the same time. Apple used their clout to stuff a bitter pill down the throats of the record companies all of which benefited the consumer. All of a sudden, Apple's evil for wanting to make sure that the end user experience of using its products is not tainted by the rot that infects half of the rest of the computer industry? Save it. Liberalist activism kills the proper operation of a free market. What the French are saying to apple is basically like the principle saying to a school, we're going to automatically tack 10 points on to the grades of all the dumb kids in the school. It's punishing Apple for working hard and being diligent in providing a product that consumers actually want. The sooner liberals, and soccer moms, figure out that for every person who succeeds, there also has to be one person who fails, the better off we will all be.

Now, call me a socialist or whatever you please.

hondaboy945
Jun 30, 2006, 06:23 PM
I wonder why there is so much negativity in relation to this topic. Whatever the outcome, someone is getting screwed. If Apple's hand is forced, it might pull ITMS out of France (France loses, and so does Apple). If Apple gets to keep its DRM private (Those people who do not like the IPod lose). Either way someone will lose. If Apple loses too much money over this garbage there goes some really cool innovations in the computer world, because they will have less money to do things with. Just my 2 cents.

SPUY767
Jun 30, 2006, 06:32 PM
I wonder why there is so much negativity in relation to this topic. Whatever the outcome, someone is getting screwed. If Apple's hand is forced, it might pull ITMS out of France (France loses, and so does Apple). If Apple gets to keep its DRM private (Those people who do not like the IPod lose). Either way someone will lose. If Apple loses too much money over this garbage there goes some really cool innovations in the computer world, because they will have less money to do things with. Just my 2 cents.

Didn't you just answer your own question? That's why everyone is pissed. Because the French have managed to write a law that simultaneously screws everyone!

SPUY767
Jun 30, 2006, 06:39 PM
The current state of iPod/iTMS is really no different than business model for video games. Can I play Halo on a PS2? Or how about Zelda on an Xbox? A PC copy of FIFA World CUP 2006 on a GameCube?

Or for that matter, why can't we run Mac OS X on PC hardware?

http://www.tennis-schedule.com/images/screenie.jpg

:eek:

Naturally folks, I'm just kidding. I happened to have a PC with just the right specs to use the patched from 0sx86project.org, and I had a liscense from the copy of Tiger I was running on the Old G4, god rest its soul, that got hit by lightning. Patching an image of my Tiger install disk, and using it to install Mac OS X on this thing was a chore, but I must admit, This machine is a beast. Dual Core 3.8 Ghz Pentium D, if the nVidia Drivers supported the 7950X2, it would be perfect, but as it stands, it absulutely pummels the G5 in just about ever task I can think of running. Better stop talking 'fore this post gets moved.

LethalWolfe
Jun 30, 2006, 06:46 PM
Or for that matter, why can't we run Mac OS X on PC hardware?
:eek:
Because Apple needs hardware sales to stay in business (their profit on software sales are pretty slim).


Lethal

SPUY767
Jun 30, 2006, 06:52 PM
Because Apple needs hardware sales to stay in business (their profit on software sales are pretty slim).


Lethal

I said I was kidding. :( But this does bode well for the performance of the MacPros. If a single Dual Core is running this fast, 2 Dual cores, with a better architecture should be absolutely smoking!

LethalWolfe
Jun 30, 2006, 07:02 PM
I said I was kidding. :( But this does bode well for the performance of the MacPros. If a single Dual Core is running this fast, 2 Dual cores, with a better architecture should be absolutely smoking!
My reply snuck in before your edit.


Lethal

HGW
Jun 30, 2006, 07:13 PM
Oh lord.:rolleyes:

There is nothing illegal or wrong about having a monopoly. The problems arise when a company uses it's monopoly status to unfairly hurt the competition. Which Apple hasn't and MS has. BTW, your "hypothetical" examples of MS abusing its power have already happened, basically, and it's why MS got taken to court in the US and Europe. Last time I checked there is nothing stopping me from using competeing digital players, jukebox software, and on-line music stores on a Mac.

The current state of iPod/iTMS is really no different than business model for video games. Can I play Halo on a PS2? Or how about Zelda on an Xbox? A PC copy of FIFA World CUP 2006 on a GameCube?


Lethal

your argument isnt very strong, all of it.

apples monopoly is hurting competition albiet fairly

if i buy a cd i dont want to find i cant play it in certain stereo's.

there are technical reasons why one game wont work in another console.

EagerDragon
Jun 30, 2006, 08:06 PM
It is time to pull out and see what the goverment will do. They are sure to get presure from the public.:)

EagerDragon
Jun 30, 2006, 08:21 PM
[QUOTE=All these people who are against this are crazy. I have to ask those people: What do you gain with Apple's propretary DRM? Nothing. Zilch. What would you lose with a universal DRM scheme? Nothing. If you want to remain using your iPod with iTunes, thats fine, it wont hurt you one bit. But at least you will have CHOICE.
[/QUOTE]

Apple did not create a DRM so they could control the market. The music Industry requested the use of DRM. So Apple decided to take advantage of the situation..... Make the best and coolest player, comply with the DRM requirement so it can get a good deal from the music industry and close the DRM so the iPod and iTunes are one. This sells more iPods and more music while keeping the music industry happy.

Whats wrong with that?

Buy CD's rip them and play them on the iPod or your choice of mp3 players. You have the choice with the exception that you caqn not buy from iTunes and move the music as is. You do have the choice to burn them to a cd and copy the music to any player you like. You still have the choices you are looking for.

space1nvaders
Jun 30, 2006, 08:32 PM
The way free enterprise works is simple. Supply and demand. If people want to buy music from Apple and play it only on an iPod they have that right. If people want to buy music from Apple and play it on something else then you know it cannot be guaranteed to work. iTunes is designed for the iPod.

Let competition offer the option. Who has the right to tell Apple how to run their business. The only thing Apple needs to do is produce a quality product and not mislead people in the process. Governments need to stay out of the music business.

ZoomZoomZoom
Jun 30, 2006, 08:45 PM
If I remember right (since I'm on a friend's windows laptop right now and there's actually so much adware that I can't do a Google search for this information) Apple makes profit off of its iPods, not off the iTunes music store.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, HGW, Apple creates a workable DRM solution where there previously was none - and now shouldn't be allowed to profit from it?

Apple is running a business, not a charity, and iTMS is supposed to break even and then sell iPods for profit, not exist without generating profits and serve the public good, while also helping sell iPod competitors. Right now, we see a business model that is mutually beneficial - customers obviously have benefit, or else they wouldn't use iTMS or buy iPods - and Apple benefits by generating profits. With this excessive regulation, you might see Apple pull iTMS out of France completely. Both the consumer and Apple would rather have a non-government regulated iTMS than having no iTMS at all. (If not, iTMS wouldn't be generating sales today)

LethalWolfe
Jun 30, 2006, 08:47 PM
your argument isnt very strong, all of it.
Well, let me say, your counter argument is absolutely brilliant. All those years as captain of the debate team have really paid off.

apples monopoly is hurting competition albiet fairly
So Apple should be penalized for no other reason than they've made an outstanding product that tons of people want? I guess every company w/a successful product should be forced to license their product away to companies that can't make as good a product. Talk about rewarding failure. I'm sure that will motivate companies to innovate and pump money into R&D.:rolleyes:

if i buy a cd i dont want to find i cant play it in certain stereo's.
I would love it too if there was a popular, cross platform digital format that plays back on virtually all devices. Oh, wait, there is. MP3. If you don't like Apple's business model nothing is stopping you from using competing products.

there are technical reasons why one game wont work in another console.
And there are technical reasons why a song from the iTMS won't play back on a non-iPod. What is your point? Nintendo, for example, could license DS tech just as easily as Apple could license FairPlay, but they don't for obvious reasons.


Lethal

HGW
Jun 30, 2006, 09:31 PM
Well, let me say, your counter argument is absolutely brilliant. All those years as captain of the debate team have really paid off.

was hoping you would re-read your own post and question it further

So Apple should be penalized for no other reason than they've made an outstanding product that tons of people want? I guess every company w/a successful product should be forced to license their product away to companies that can't make as good a product. Talk about rewarding failure. I'm sure that will motivate companies to innovate and pump money into R&D.:rolleyes:

they are selling other peoples products and are limiting its use in the process, i care about this

I would love it too if there was a popular, cross platform digital format that plays back on virtually all devices. Oh, wait, there is. MP3. If you don't like Apple's business model nothing is stopping you from using competing products.

not now but down the line when the song i want is not available on cd (it happens) it stands a good chance of only being available on iTunes

And there are technical reasons why a song from the iTMS won't play back on a non-iPod. What is your point? Nintendo, for example, could license DS tech just as easily as Apple could license FairPlay, but they don't for obvious reasons.

the technical restrictions are put there by apple to protect & manipulate the market.


Lethal


its like supermarkets saying you can only buy food if you shop online or goto a corner shop

SPUY767
Jun 30, 2006, 09:45 PM
its like supermarkets saying you can only buy food if you shop online or goto a corner shop

No, it's not like that at all. It's like Nissan selling a nissan Fuel Pump, and someone bitching cause they can't put it in their '78 Fiesta.

Every industry in the world has its share of proprietary technology. Governments saying that everything needs to be standardized would be the end of competition, and the end of innovation. If what France has chosen, quite poorly, to do spreads to other regions of the world, we are inching closer and closer to fully commoditized markets in every facet of our lives.

HGW
Jun 30, 2006, 09:48 PM
No, it's not like that at all. It's like Nissan selling a nissan Fuel Pump, and someone bitching cause they can't put it in their '78 Fiesta.

yea exactly what you dont need, how funny would it be if the whole music industry pulled out of france in a backlash

music should be a right and not a business markets woe

Bosunsfate
Jun 30, 2006, 09:52 PM
I think that all in all Apple will do just fine.

They have the suppior products and no matter how this goes down they will still have a sizeable market share.

What I think is the real risk is for the consumer.

What will the music industry do? The ITMS was a breakthough in getting music out legally. Up till that time, the whole industry was heavily risisting the whole online music business model.

So what does this mean then? Now, how do you control the copying of music?:confused:

The real loss is likely to be less content available from any music store....:mad:

Arnaud
Jun 30, 2006, 11:28 PM
I read a lot of non-sense here.

Starting by "Apple has never done anything but fight for the consumer", which is a joke. Apple is a company selling products to make benefits. They found a nice niche when bringing the iPod in, and their choice of features as well as their strategy made it a very succesful product, point. For the rest, I see enough complains in the other threads regarding quality of the products/services (the noise issues, the heat of last products?) to see Apple as a normal company, trying first to save money on the back of their clients. Making intelligent developments is more a strategy to keep ahead from competition than "fighting for the consumer".

About the law and the monopoly point, monopoly is illegal. As stated above, the same happened to Microsoft - and most Apple-users were happy then -. What was it, I think MS had to authorize the use of other media players than WMP when selling a license of Windows, right ? Did anybody on these forums really stand up for MS then, saying you knew what you bought when you bought Windows ?

I understand some points of the issue here, the consumer should be able to choose where he buys from, and with which player he wants to use it. Analogies to car are not so wrong, but you can buy spare parts from another brand to fix your Toyota or whatever. Some companies do protect their market, like BMW which has a special shape/cradle for the stereo so you cannot buy elsewhere another model, but boy, does it suck! Options at BMW are too expensive, and everyone complains about it! I guess technically, they'll argue they cannot change the shape due to external factors like the size of the dashboard...

I do not understand why suddenly every member here is pro-monopoly, just because Apple might be earning less ? Do you all have shares ?

NB: All my thanks to finalcoolman, for calling me (and other iPod users) "a blind sheep with zero self confidence". I chose my iPod because I like it and its features, not to have white earbuds. Additionally, your rant sounds like it's coming directly from another MP3 Player's company marketing blabla, which doesn't make it much better.

finalcoolman
Jul 1, 2006, 02:17 AM
NB: All my thanks to finalcoolman, for calling me (and other iPod users) "a blind sheep with zero self confidence". I chose my iPod because I like it and its features, not to have white earbuds. Additionally, your rant sounds like it's coming directly from another MP3 Player's company marketing blabla, which doesn't make it much better.

This has nothing to do with me standing up for another company here. In fact that's why I mentioned multiple other companies. However to your point. YOU are in the minority. Most people don't choose an iPod for it's "features". In fact I'll go as far to say as the iPod is a gimmick if it lacks one of the most important features: battery life. Anything less than 40-50 hours is garbage in my opinion and with iPod's hovering around 10 hours I do not know what to say about them. Why? Cause where I come from one of my units has a 300 hour battery life. However I do not want to turn this into an iPod versus the rest of the world argument. So back to my main point, although you may have allegedly chose the iPod for its "features" 97% of the iPod buying public choose the iPod because of the fact that every other kid at school/work has one and because it's a fad and the other 2% choose the iPod because they are blind Apple fanatics. You don't like what I say, fine. But you can't deny it's true.

P.S. Thank you for agreeing with my other points that Apple's emusic monopoly is wrong.

Arnaud
Jul 1, 2006, 03:02 AM
So back to my main point, although you may have allegedly chose the iPod for its "features" 97% of the iPod buying public choose the iPod because of the fact that every other kid at school/work has one and because it's a fad and the other 2% choose the iPod because they are blind Apple fanatics. You don't like what I say, fine. But you can't deny it's true.

...Do I really need to underline your stats look completely random ?

Pistol Pete
Jul 1, 2006, 03:19 AM
Farewell french!

gauchogolfer
Jul 1, 2006, 05:02 AM
Ok then. It's almost like Apple is paying you money to spill out such absurd statements but there is one problem, they are not. All these people who are against this are crazy. I have to ask those people: What do you gain with Apple's propretary DRM? Nothing. Zilch. What would you lose with a universal DRM scheme? Nothing.

Well, if Apple tried to sell music with no DRM, we'd lose the entire store because every artist/group there would pull out in an instant. As for a universal DRM, good luck getting all the companies to agree on a standard. Will MS agree to allow iPods to play WMA-DRM'ed files? Not likely. We'll see where this goes in the future.


You see the problem here is Apple is close to becoming a monopoly (if not already) with legal online music sales. The same kind of monoploy that Microsoft has with Windows. Now what would happen if with Vista Microsoft forced you to install Microsoft Office and you were not allowed to install any other office suite? If they banned all browsers but IE from running on Windows? If they barred all Media Players and you had to use WMP? No iTunes/Quicktime allowed on Windows, just the preinstalled WMP. If you had to use a Microsoft input device and any other brand like Logitech would not work? Outcry is what would happen with people going on TV and calling Microsoft the spawn of Satan and lawsuits popping up like killer bees from your worst nightmare. But with Apple's locking of iTunes and the iPod whoa, wait thats different, right?

Of course it's different, since you can install RealPlayer, Napster, WMP, whatever you like (if provided) on a Mac. There's no restriction on what software you can install. What if Microsoft insisted that you use Windows to play their DRM'ed files....oh, wait, they do.


Cause Apples an angel and you know Apple's always right. Cause the French are evil now because they oppose Apple's music monopoly right? Ya just blame it all on the French when they are the ones standing up for you saying it's your music and you have the right to do what you please with it. How could you possibly insult the French government for actually standing up for consumers rights?
Check my info at left, I LIVE in France. Sheesh.

It's like being forced to buy all your programs from Microsoft because Microsoft made the OS. I have the right to mix and match to my pleasing and no dimwit by the name of Steve Jobs will take that away from me.
You have more choice than you think. iTMS, CDs, independent online music stores (Podsafe Music Network), artists directly. Mix and match as you like.

SPUY767
Jul 1, 2006, 07:48 AM
In the music arena, Apple has stood as the only barrier to the recording companies gouging music download prices. The other music stores would cave in a minute when faced with the pressure that Apple has faced. Apple has twice stared down the barrel of a gun an come out on top because they have used their market clout to keep the prices down, not the other way around.

Second, Monopolies are not by their very nature illegal. What you do with a monopoly makes it illegal. Has Apple once used its vast majority share of the mp3 market to stamp out competition? No. The reason Apple has a monopoly is, and will remain, that consumers have chosen the iPod as a fine product. And you show me a HD mp3 player with 50 realistic hours of battery life and I'll reach inside my own ass and pull out a golden nugget.

Arnaud
Jul 1, 2006, 08:25 AM
Food for thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_antitrust_case
A reminder of the US case against Microsoft. The problem was the bundling of Internet Explorer with the OS (and not WMP, as I thought).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
Definitions of a monopoly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust
Definitions of the set of laws in force for "the promotion of economic and business competition by prohibiting anti-competitive behavior and unfair business practices"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
Definition of the "vendor lock-in" situation, one of the situations controlled by Antitrust laws, where "a customer is so dependent on a vendor for products and services that he or she cannot move to another vendor without substantial switching costs, real and/or perceived".

So, a monopoly is not de facto illegal, but some behaviors attached to it are. The iTunes/iPod situation looks rather close to the "vendor lock-in" situation, which could/should be a source of concern even under the US laws.

Of course, for details, go and see an attorney :)

billyboy
Jul 1, 2006, 11:04 AM
When you buy music from iTMS, you know exactly what you're signing up for. The car/gas analogy doesn't make sense here. It's more like, why does Toyota make me buy Toyota-brand parts to keep my warranty valid?
You dont actually know wgat you are letting yourseldf in for without doing some reading! if my brother and his boys are anything to go by they dont advertise very predominantly that to play on other MP3 players you need to burn to cd first

Jamvan
Jul 1, 2006, 11:17 AM
...So back to my main point, although you may have allegedly chose the iPod for its "features" 97% of the iPod buying public choose the iPod because of the fact that every other kid at school/work has one and because it's a fad and the other 2% choose the iPod because they are blind Apple fanatics. You don't like what I say, fine. But you can't deny it's true.

...Do I really need to underline your stats look completely random ?

81.6% of statistics are made up on the spot!

Azmordean
Jul 1, 2006, 12:00 PM
First, I feel the need to point something out. My understanding of the French law is NOT that there can be no DRM. So everyone saying, no DRM = no digital downloads, you are barking up the wrong tree. The French law says IF you have DRM, you must be willing to license it to other companies. Not license for free, not give away, but license. So, if iRiver for example wanted to pony up and pay Apple a licensing fee, Apple would give them the right to use FairPlay on iRiver mp3 players. Note I said "use." Not reverse engineer. Simply use it. This would allow users who prefer iRiver mp3 players to download from iTMS.

Now that that is out of the way, a little about monopoly. Monopoly is not, itself, illegal. USING monopoly power to gain power elsewhere as a general matter is. Case in point, Microsoft. Microsoft is considered a virtual monopoly with Windows. That's no problem. That's not why the federal government got after them. The problem arose when Microsoft USED its Windows monopoly power to force its BROWSER down the public's throats. This is called, I believe, "tying" - as in, tying two products together. You leverage your monopoly power to increase your market share (or even form a monopoly) in a DIFFERENT area. Everyone wonders why there is no Microsoft iLife? This is why. Microsoft has a monopoly, so if THEY tried to do something like iLife (not saying it'd be good.. but bear with me :p), they'd get sued again. They'd be using their monopoly of windows to kill competition in other areas (photo management software, movie creation software, etc). Apple gets away with it precisely because its market share is tiny. No one is worried about iCal putting other calendaring software out of business. So Microsoft has to just sit and watch while Apple gets accolades for things Microsoft couldn't do legally even if it wanted to. Microsoft is sort of like a big slobbering dog on a chain. Apple is the annoying poodle that's prancing around yapping, *just* out of reach.

So.. now that you understand tying, lets move to the matter at hand. iTMS and iPod. Online music sales *IS* an area where Apple has or is at least getting pretty close to a virtual monopoly. No problem there. But Apple is USING its monopoly power to gain an advantage in a completely separate market - the MP3 player market. THAT is the issue the French are concerned with. It is an issue other governments may become concerned with very soon, because the minute Apple has a virtual monopoly of online music sales, they are clearly guilty of tying with the iPod.

No one really cares that iPod can't play Sony music store files. That just means iPod lacks some features other music players have. If you want Sony music, you can buy a different player that has that feature. The issue is what I noted above - iTMS is a virtual monopoly, and if you use it, iPod is your only option. CLASSIC tying. So, I see what the French are getting at. Their methodology is weird, as it seems normal antitrust law would work just fine - if not immediately, pretty soon as iTMS continues to grow. I don't see the need for a new law here, but I agree with the general concern the French government is displaying over the situation.

As a final aside, let me just say that I LOVE Apple products. I'm not some MS fanboy out to get Apple. I have two macs myself. But I also like consumer choice - and I see that Apple is leveraging its iTMS semi-monopoly to force iPod on people. Thats wrong, and I'll call Apple on it, despite the fact I like the company as a whole. I actually think this is more of Apple's stupid fears that it can't compete. They always fear competition for some reason. They feel they need to protect and coddle the iPod by boosting it up by tying iTMS to it. I think its nonsense. iPod is a great product that can compete with other MP3 players ON ITS OWN. It doesn't need to be bolstered by tying. Come on Apple.. its time to let the baby iPod fight its own fights - its all grown up now! Stop the monopoly leveraging, end the tying, and license fairplay. Heck, you may ever MAKE MONEY from the licensing fees!

zap2
Jul 1, 2006, 12:14 PM
You dont actually know wgat you are letting yourseldf in for without doing some reading! if my brother and his boys are anything to go by they dont advertise very predominantly that to play on other MP3 players you need to burn to cd first


well if you had read the stuff(which is your legal jobs when signing up) you would have knowen that,

finalcoolman
Jul 1, 2006, 04:49 PM
Thanks Jahutch for explaining what I've been trying to explain. As you said iTunes is close to becoming a virtual monopoly and Apple's "tying" is ILLEGAL once iTunes achieves a virtual monopoly. With other providers like Napster on the brink of going this is going to be VERY soon. All I can say then is we wont need any new laws so stop trying to blame the French because in sue happy America it will be: bring on the Microsoft style antitrust lawsuits from the 90s. Apple has a great service but they can't use it to force iPod's down peoples throats. This doesn't mean I'm anti-Apple it just means I believe everyone should have a choice.

gauchogolfer
Jul 1, 2006, 05:05 PM
What is the current fraction of music sales that are done online, compared to CDs? If you are going to say that iTMS represents a monopoly, it's certainly in a small fraction of the total music market. EVERY SINGLE CD you purchase can be played on an iPod. I believe as well that the iPod came before iTMS, not the other way around. So, the driver for the monopoly here would be the hardware, not the software. If this is the case, should the iPod just be able to play all DRM formats, so that you can use it with any online store? Is this an acceptable solution to you?

Arnaud
Jul 1, 2006, 06:09 PM
81.6% of statistics are made up on the spot!

:)

...I don't even know whether to take that seriously or not ! :D

HGW
Jul 1, 2006, 06:26 PM
81.6% of statistics are made up on the spot!

i enjoyed reading this

space1nvaders
Jul 1, 2006, 08:07 PM
I actually think this is more of Apple's stupid fears that it can't compete. They always fear competition for some reason. They feel they need to protect and coddle the iPod by boosting it up by tying iTMS to it. I think its nonsense. iPod is a great product that can compete with other MP3 players ON ITS OWN.

I understand your explanation however the opinion you make about Apple having a fear to compete I disagree with for software development reasons.

You see, Apple has had almost complete freedom to change their technology on the fly as they improve their product line. Many who have purchased just before new product releases complain about this but this is the nature of rapid development.

I think Apple just wants to maintain control over the entire solution. Apple wants to avoid this scenario: Making agreements with competetive music player manufacturers (who invest heavily in being compatibly with iTMS), then releasing an update that is NOT compatible with those music players. Apple can easily maintain compatibility with iPod because they control the software in the iPod. Apple does not control the software in other music players so how can Apple assure these companies compatibility in the future?

Being compatible with other music players involves the whole interface Apple has with iPod that not only trasfers songs but updates play counts, downloads pictures from iPhoto, postcasts, and TV shows. Later movies. So anyone buying another music player is not even going to get all of the features iPods have. If third party developers create solutions they will still only offer limited features.

The only way for other hardware manufacturers to compete with Apple is to do everything Apple does (create their own iTunes). Anything less and THEY are not competing.

Azmordean
Jul 1, 2006, 08:17 PM
What is the current fraction of music sales that are done online, compared to CDs? If you are going to say that iTMS represents a monopoly, it's certainly in a small fraction of the total music market. EVERY SINGLE CD you purchase can be played on an iPod. I believe as well that the iPod came before iTMS, not the other way around. So, the driver for the monopoly here would be the hardware, not the software. If this is the case, should the iPod just be able to play all DRM formats, so that you can use it with any online store? Is this an acceptable solution to you?

First, the market at issue is the music download market, not the music market as a whole. True, one can always purchase CDs, but in my mind, as well as a lot of others (including, apparently, the French government), CDs are a VERY different product than a music download. Given this, music downloads are properly considered a SEPARATE market from CDs. In this separate market, iTMS is close to achieving near monopoly status. You are correct the iPod came first, but what came first doesn't matter. iTMS has the near-monopoly, iPod, while a market leader, decidedly doesn't. Thus, Apple is using its strong market position with iTMS to further push for iPod's domination of the mp3 player market. That's my view of it anyway!

Azmordean
Jul 1, 2006, 08:19 PM
dmsgregg:

I don't see how licensing FairPlay would limit Apple. Apple would be free to upgrade iPod, to upgrade iTunes, and so on as they wish. So long as whatever encoding scheme is used to enforce the DRM, other players with FairPlay would continue to be compatible. If Apple did change FairPlay, they'd simply provide the changed version to their licensees who could put it in a firmware patch. Innovation issues come up with other kinds of licensing, but not with licensing a DRM scheme.

gangrenous toe
Jul 1, 2006, 09:06 PM
iPod + iTunes is different than windows + ie. ipod + iTunes IS one product, every single advertisment, and I mean ALL of them say " iPod + iTunes." If you buy into one of them you have absolutely no right to complain, you did buy into both.

garybUK
Jul 2, 2006, 04:29 AM
Well considering the music stores are very US centric (i'm not complaining as it's a US company) we don't have TV shows yet, music videos are abysmal and have not been updated in a while. Music is crappy quality 128kbps I couldn't care less, now if I can play WMA or Ogg files on my iPod that would be cool, and if I could play the odd purchased song on another player that would be pretty good also.

I dont see this as a bad thing, in fact it may even enable a couple of the other media player manufacturers to support the Macintosh platform which is good!


Oh while i am on my soap box, another gripe I have with the store....... WHY THE HELL CAN I NOT PURCHASE SONGS FROM THE GERMANY / FRENCH / PAN EU store????????!!!!!!!

My RIGHTS as a EU citizen state that I can purchase anything anywhere anytime in any state I have free movement and are able to live / work in any state, so why am I restricted to the UK store because my bank is a UK bank ???

I am able to order cd's and dvd's from amazon.de or fnac.fr and have them delivered in 2 / 3 days.


Anyway, Apple have created a very sucessful business model out of their closed DRM and iPod, It seems a little they don't want anyone taking a piece of that, and why should they??? but they have to be careful of the line when they stop thinking of the consumer.

HGW
Jul 2, 2006, 08:06 AM
i wish the british would pass a law that says a shop can not block your exit with loads of empty trolleys to make you queue to leave.

long live the french government.

ZoomZoomZoom
Jul 2, 2006, 08:58 AM
Other issues aside, I don't even understand why the French government is trying to "solve" this "problem."

iTMS is a great online music store. Revenue is coming in where there was piracy before. The iPod is a great music player, and it is fairly priced. Plenty of people buy iPods without even using iTMS or using iTMS as a deciding purchase factor. Sure, there's some restriction in choice, but the customer doesn't really end up sore in the end. And Apple deserves to get boosted iPod sales, as iTMS really isn't a profit-generating machine, and Apple took the time and risk to develop and implement this DRM solution.

I don't think that Apple's done anything wrong, but even if it has - nothing bad's really happening. You get some sore people at Rio and Sony, but the average customer's just fine. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Go address other more important and customer-damaging monopolies.

space1nvaders
Jul 2, 2006, 09:36 AM
dmsgregg:

I don't see how licensing FairPlay would limit Apple. Apple would be free to upgrade iPod, to upgrade iTunes, and so on as they wish. So long as whatever encoding scheme is used to enforce the DRM, other players with FairPlay would continue to be compatible. If Apple did change FairPlay, they'd simply provide the changed version to their licensees who could put it in a firmware patch. Innovation issues come up with other kinds of licensing, but not with licensing a DRM scheme.

Should Apple do the same for iPhoto? How about iMovie and TV Shows? If the French government is only talking about music, then it is just a part of the iTunes package. My point is the playing of music is only a feature of the iTunes+iPod solution. Consumers are missing out on all the other features of iTunes by using other players. Do they know that? For example, if I play an audiobook on my iPod and stop in the middle, then sync with iTunes, it remembers where I left off in iTunes so I can play the rest on my computer. This stuff is not going to work with other players because they don't control the software on the computer.

Apple made it difficult for people to copy music by allowing it to only play on 5 computers using iTunes. If DRM is opened up for other players besides iTunes will that rule still be in effect? Who will enforce it? What if a company creates a music player like iTunes but allows unlimited computers to play the songs?

It gets more complicated and governments just don't understand the technology enough. Goverments just need to stay out of it and let technology run its course. By the time a solution is made the software will change. The hardware will change. Standards will change. What ultimately drives everything is (like I said in the first article) supple and demand.

For now people who want to play iTunes songs on other players will just have to burn a CD and import it into another desktop player designed for other music players.

HGW
Jul 2, 2006, 10:22 AM
well its just not right, music should not be imposed upon by the shop and sold in a way that restricts its use. you can say apple have done nothing wrong and to be honest they have done something right by saying 99c a song, but all in all this is a really cheap way of getting people to buy an iPod. admit it

space1nvaders
Jul 2, 2006, 10:28 AM
well its just not right, music should not be imposed upon by the shop and sold in a way that restricts its use. you can say apple have done nothing wrong and to be honest they have done something right by saying 99c a song, but all in all this is a really cheap way of getting people to buy an iPod. admit it

The music files are stored on the hard drive. Who will stop someone from creating software with no limitations from turning iTunes music into free downloads on the internet like Napster?

HGW
Jul 2, 2006, 10:44 AM
The music files are stored on the hard drive. Who will stop someone from creating software with no limitations from turning iTunes music into free downloads on the internet like Napster?

whats to stop them at the moment

the restrictions will still be there just not as restricted.
its not about doing away with DRM its about controlling it better. there will always be piracy

Azmordean
Jul 2, 2006, 01:02 PM
Should Apple do the same for iPhoto? How about iMovie and TV Shows? If the French government is only talking about music, then it is just a part of the iTunes package. My point is the playing of music is only a feature of the iTunes+iPod solution. Consumers are missing out on all the other features of iTunes by using other players. Do they know that? For example, if I play an audiobook on my iPod and stop in the middle, then sync with iTunes, it remembers where I left off in iTunes so I can play the rest on my computer. This stuff is not going to work with other players because they don't control the software on the computer.

Apple made it difficult for people to copy music by allowing it to only play on 5 computers using iTunes. If DRM is opened up for other players besides iTunes will that rule still be in effect? Who will enforce it? What if a company creates a music player like iTunes but allows unlimited computers to play the songs?

It gets more complicated and governments just don't understand the technology enough. Goverments just need to stay out of it and let technology run its course. By the time a solution is made the software will change. The hardware will change. Standards will change. What ultimately drives everything is (like I said in the first article) supple and demand.

For now people who want to play iTunes songs on other players will just have to burn a CD and import it into another desktop player designed for other music players.

Most of your concerns deal with other companies reverse engineering / changing FairPlay. That wouldn't be permitted, indeed, it may not even be possible. If iRiver licenses FairPlay, they are licensing it as is. The license would not permit changing the number of computers allowed, etc. You'd get FairPlay as is, almost as a "plugin." And everyone knows iPod will have the most features when it comes to working with iTunes. I think most people just want basic functionality with their other players - e.g., the ability to transfer iTMS songs to an iRiver player and listen to them.

59031
Jul 2, 2006, 04:04 PM
Thanks Jahutch for explaining what I've been trying to explain. As you said iTunes is close to becoming a virtual monopoly and Apple's "tying" is ILLEGAL once iTunes achieves a virtual monopoly. With other providers like Napster on the brink of going this is going to be VERY soon. All I can say then is we wont need any new laws so stop trying to blame the French because in sue happy America it will be: bring on the Microsoft style antitrust lawsuits from the 90s. Apple has a great service but they can't use it to force iPod's down peoples throats. This doesn't mean I'm anti-Apple it just means I believe everyone should have a choice.

You have a choice to buy your music from another store. Period.

space1nvaders
Jul 2, 2006, 06:38 PM
Most of your concerns deal with other companies reverse engineering / changing FairPlay. That wouldn't be permitted, indeed, it may not even be possible. If iRiver licenses FairPlay, they are licensing it as is. The license would not permit changing the number of computers allowed, etc. You'd get FairPlay as is, almost as a "plugin." And everyone knows iPod will have the most features when it comes to working with iTunes. I think most people just want basic functionality with their other players - e.g., the ability to transfer iTMS songs to an iRiver player and listen to them.

I think my main concern is setting a precedence that would put Apple in the position indirectly supporting other manufacturers and catering to more and more requests to interface with iTunes in order to take advantage of Apple's market share. Apple already offers a developer kit for integration with iTunes. See http://www.kaisakura.com/dreamsicle.html. If this works for the Sony Walkman Phone, then I don't see the problem. The government must want Apple to make iTunes work with every device, but it is the hardware manufacturers responsibility to develop the software.

finalcoolman
Jul 3, 2006, 12:17 PM
You have a choice to buy your music from another store. Period.

Whatever. I'd like to see what you have to say abou this after the iTunes Music Store is classified as a virtual monopoly and/or after a couple of Microsoft style anti-trust lawsuits are filed. Sorry buddy but Apple is not above the law.

Saxking20
Jul 3, 2006, 02:05 PM
I think it's interesting that Steve Jobs has been kissing up to Le French in nearly every Macworld presentation, talking to some guy with a picture of the Eiffel Tower in the background. And then, he gets bit in the a++ by them.

We needed their help dealing with Iraq and the USA got bit in the a++ by them.

Who was dealing in the oil for food program behind our backs? Guess.....

My dad got mustard gassed in a foxhole in France while trying to save there sorry a++es in WWI and then, dummy us, we did it again in WWII.

France sucks.

Take your music store out of France, sell them no iPods and forget about them. You will survive without France Apple.

whmees
Jul 3, 2006, 02:49 PM
I think the primary reason I have a hard time following this argument/law/whatever is that it's (apparently) seperating the online music market from the offline market.

The way I see it, iTMS is used primarily because it's easy, efficient, and immediate (versus buying in real life, which takes time to find the cd/vinyl, etc.). All online music stores are used because of this ease, as I'm pretty sure most people would prefer to have a hard copy of a disc somewhere.

That being said, I dont really think what Apple has done is "wrong" in any sense of the word: it's pretty much widespread knowledge that if you purchase music from iTunes, you can only play it on an iPod. I guarantee it's somewhere in the contract that you "sign" when you purchase music at the store, and for people to get upset because their Zen player or whatever can't play songs they buy from iTMS is just kind of silly.

If there's such a huge market for a breadth of music downloads which can be played on other players, why aren't the other businesses successful? The beauty of a free market is that competition naturally drives progression, and consumers are always looking for the best deal.

It's almost like people getting mad at hybrid cars that can use mixtures of fuel (thereby getting more mileage): if you want to ride the slide, you have to pay to enter the park.

Besides, you can always just listen to the music on your computer ;).

space1nvaders
Jul 3, 2006, 06:05 PM
Whatever. I'd like to see what you have to say abou this after the iTunes Music Store is classified as a virtual monopoly and/or after a couple of Microsoft style anti-trust lawsuits are filed. Sorry buddy but Apple is not above the law.

Apple is not breaking the law. Apple created a huge market and now companies want a piece of Apples market.

Napster was breaking the law. The Apple DRM helped solve that problem for music companies.

iTunes lets you burn a CD which in effect is the same as purchasing a CD to do whatever you wish and like I said before there are companies writing software to interface with iTunes and transfer music to other devices.

HGW
Jul 3, 2006, 07:09 PM
it wouldnt be a problem if it was something apple had created, but its not its music and music at the end of the day belongs to the user creater whoever
the french realise this and have done their best to give us more use from it

forget how well apple are doing, they are really that good most people will still want an iPod to go with their iTunes.

wheres the problem

looks like the rest of europe are set to follow france. stupid fanboys

(run on mac without windows, same thing)

KingYaba
Jul 3, 2006, 09:17 PM
screw france. apple does'nt need 'em

Saxking20
Jul 3, 2006, 09:19 PM
The way I see it, iTMS is used primarily because it's easy, efficient, and immediate (versus buying in real life, which takes time to find the cd/vinyl, etc.). All online music stores are used because of this ease, as I'm pretty sure most people would prefer to have a hard copy of a disc somewhere.

That being said, I dont really think what Apple has done is "wrong" in any sense of the word: it's pretty much widespread knowledge that if you purchase music from iTunes, you can only play it on an iPod. I guarantee it's somewhere in the contract that you "sign" when you purchase music at the store, and for people to get upset because their Zen player or whatever can't play songs they buy from iTMS is just kind of silly.

Bravo! You have a choice. Viva La Difference. :)

rjgjonker
Jul 4, 2006, 06:38 AM
We needed their help dealing with Iraq and the USA got bit in the a++ by them.

You mean the French actually tried to solve the problem instead of immediately killing thousands of people and starting a civil war that is not going to end in the coming decades?

Who was dealing in the oil for food program behind our backs? Guess.....

The USA and a couple of other countries, including France. But I suppose Fox News didn't tell you that.

My dad got mustard gassed in a foxhole in France while trying to save there sorry a++es in WWI and then, dummy us, we did it again in WWII.

A lot of French soldiers fought for the independence of your country. The French helped the US every time they were in need. They even were so kind to tell your government that their intelligence services gathered that terrorists were planning an attack in New York and Washington, D.C. on 11 September 2001. However, your government decided that it was not in their best interest to prevent such an attack. I guess Fox News didn't tell you that either.

But then again, this is way off-topic. It is not relevant to the discussion at all. The point is that French lawmakers are attempting to prevent companies from imposing a vendor lock-in on consumers.

In my opinion, this is a necessary measure to remain a healthy market. I would, however, have preferred it if DRM was forbidden altogher. It is rather insane and it benefits only record companies, but not consumers and artists.

ZoomZoomZoom
Jul 4, 2006, 09:16 PM
it wouldnt be a problem if it was something apple had created, but its not its music and music at the end of the day belongs to the user creater whoever
the french realise this and have done their best to give us more use from it


Quite simply, when you go to a store, whether it be physical or online, and buy music - you do not own the music. You pay for certain rights to the music. When you purchase a song from iTMS, you pay for the right to listen to the music on your computer or on an iPod, not for the right to play it on a Rio.

Licensing might be a way to help solve the problem with profits, but there are many extranalities that Apple is hurt by in the case of licensing. Good part with licensing is that Apple will turn profit from iTMS, just from the sales of rival music players in addition to the profit margins off sales from iPods. An extranality, though, would be that you'll have fewer people exposed to Apple, and therefore have a weaker 'halo effect'. (Yes, the 'halo effect' does occur.) And seeing as Apple makes about half of its profit off of computer hardware, and seeing as Apple has been seriously stepping up its attempt to become a serious competitor in that industry, fewer iPod sales (even though compensated partially through licensing revenues) will hurt the company.

Saxking20
Jul 5, 2006, 12:16 AM
In my opinion, this is a necessary measure to remain a healthy market. I would, however, have preferred it if DRM was forbidden altogher. It is rather insane and it benefits only record companies, but not consumers and artists.

You just don't like it because you must pay for your music from ITMS instead of stealing it. That's what you are about. With ITMS, FINALLY the artists have a shot at getting paid.

No one is stopping you from going to a store and BUYING a CD for a change.

Timepass
Jul 5, 2006, 12:54 AM
I for one am glad to see this law passed and think it about time.

Apple full well would abuse their power when they got to vertial monoply. They where already pushing that in both markets. The other music stores where very hurt by the fact that their stuff could not play on the number 1 player (the ipod). And the other MP3 players where hurt very baddly by not working with iTMS.

The burning to cd and reripping is not a valid solution. It is a work around hack but not a valid arguement to say it still fair. nor is going to buy the CD. Even more so since quite a bit of stuff is only sold on the iTMS. It about time it happened.

Is everyone so scared that it going to hurt apple by having to play on fair grounds all of sudden. Or god forbid each product has to stand on their own with out support of the other.

rjgjonker
Jul 5, 2006, 05:19 AM
You just don't like it because you must pay for your music from ITMS instead of stealing it. That's what you are about. With ITMS, FINALLY the artists have a shot at getting paid.

No one is stopping you from going to a store and BUYING a CD for a change.

Ah, it's nice that you know 'what I'm all about'. I didn't know that myself. In fact, you appear to know a lot of things about me I did not know. Are you working for the CIA?

One of the reasons that I won't buy anything from iTMS is that the artists still get next to nothing. In fact, they get even less (http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com/2006/06/14/weird-al-yankovic-says-digital-is-a-raw-deal-for-some-artists/) than they get from CD sales. Most of the revenue of iTMS sales goes directly to greedy record companies instead of the people who actually made the music.

The most important reason, however, is that I refuse to buy anything that comes with a licence that says the company that sold me it can revoke my right to use the product anytime it pleases or that forbids me from playing it on certain devices. DRM is rediculous. Vinyl records, tapes and CD's have never had DRM and that has never hurt anyone. Record companies are just trying to take freedom away from consumers because they can. It is time for our governments to force the records industry cartel to stop abusing their monopoly.

But then again, your probably 'all about' corporate theft apologism. I'm sorry that other people might choose to adhere to their moral values. I can imagine they bother you.

Saxking20
Jul 5, 2006, 12:36 PM
Ah, it's nice that you know 'what I'm all about'. I didn't know that myself. In fact, you appear to know a lot of things about me I did not know. Are you working for the CIA?


You seemed to know a lot about me when you said I got my information from Fox News. How did you know that? Are you with Interpol?

I will no longer argue with a jerk who is bent on STEALING music. Smoke another joint and listen to your cheap mp3 player.

rjgjonker
Jul 5, 2006, 05:58 PM
You seemed to know a lot about me when you said I got my information from Fox News. How did you know that? Are you with Interpol?

I will no longer argue with a jerk who is bent on STEALING music. Smoke another joint and listen to your cheap mp3 player.

I have never stolen anything, I do not own an MP3 player* and I've never smoked a joint. As far as I am considered, this discussion is over. You refuse to discuss the actual topics and keep making up things that would be entirely unrelated even if they were true.

Please keep doing whatever you want me to believe you do.

*I do own devices that can play MP3, but not dedicated music players.

ZoomZoomZoom
Jul 5, 2006, 09:39 PM
One of the reasons that I won't buy anything from iTMS is that the artists still get next to nothing. In fact, they get even less (http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com/2006/06/14/weird-al-yankovic-says-digital-is-a-raw-deal-for-some-artists/) than they get from CD sales. Most of the revenue of iTMS sales goes directly to greedy record companies instead of the people who actually made the music.


Amen to that one. But it's still not something that is easily fixed. From the whole iTMS deal, only the record companies are really making the profit. Apple has to cut its profit from the iPod, and the record companies (who don't do anything and get anywhere from 2/3rds to 4/5ths of the 99cent song revenue) are already trying to raise the price of songs on iTMS.

numediaman
Jul 7, 2006, 12:39 PM
It is amazing how many people would rather stick up for a corporation than for a democratic country's right to impose its' own laws.

If Apple finds the new law too restrictive it has the option to pull out of France. It won't. Like most good companies, Apple will find an accommodation and will continue to sell in France.

As for those who have a built-in hatred of France . . . good. When I vacation in France I won't have the misfortune of bumping into you. That is what a vacation is all about: an escape from insanity.

rickag
Jul 8, 2006, 03:42 PM
As for those who have a built-in hatred of France . . . good. When I vacation in France I won't have the misfortune of bumping into you. That is what a vacation is all about: an escape from insanity.
I don't have hatred for the French, but do harbor some justifiable resentment for their treatment of me and my family.

My family went on a vacation to France, when we were living in Germany, and those lovely French held us up at the border. We arrived at the border at 10:05pm, which was 5 minutes too late, so we had to stay on the tour bus until 8:00am the next morning.

When we went to the Casino de Paris, the attendent intentionaly took us to the wrong seats, treated us with distain and passed us off to a different attendant.

In general, the treatment we received from the French was unaccetable, shoddy, given only with contempt for us and was intended to make us feel like we shouldn't have bothered to visit their country.

And this from a society that had open bathroom stalls along side of the Champs Elysées leading up to the Arc de Triomphe. These stalls had only partial walls that only came within 10 - 12 " to the ground. Yes folks, while walking down the romatic Champs Elysées, with sidewalk cafes on the other side of the street, you could see the fair citizens of France with their pants/dresses around their ankles while they were taking a dump.

All in all the trip was only worth it to see historical sights, which would have been much more enjoyable, except for the French.

I will give the French credit for one thing. During our time in Germany, the French gave the US military something like 30 days to vacate France. After all those years following WWII, having US military troups in France became unacceptable. I agreed, time to stand up and provide their own defense.

It did however disrupt the lives of thousands of US citizens(wives and children) and military due to the short notice. Dependents were inconvenienced having to pack up quickly and find temporary quarters throughout Europe.(side note: the French thought they would just walk in the vacated bases/posts and have operational facilities. Ha, some of the base/post commanders had everything, and I mean everythiing removed, electric plugs & covers, light fixtures, light switches & covers, toilets, all furniture, sinks, bath tubs, shower fixtures, etc. Kudos for the French for not wanting to rely on the US military, but bad form for giving such short notice.

And yes, you will not have to "have the misfortune of bumping into" me or my family in France.:)

Arnaud
Jul 8, 2006, 04:52 PM
Yes, sure, and in the middle age, the French people used to burn witches, and there were no bathrooms in the inns :eek:

Seriously, how old is your story, and how relevant is it to estimate a country and its policy towards DRM nowadays ???

We all have bad memories of visits to this or that country - which includes countries of the EU as well as the US -.

rickag
Jul 9, 2006, 12:25 PM
...
Seriously, how old is your story,
...
If you knew French history you would be able to determine when these experiences occured(hint: When did France request all US military installations be vacated? :) )

And yes this has almost nothing to do with DRM, except in the context of French attitudes toward the rest of the planet.

MikeTheC
Jul 9, 2006, 02:14 PM
Whoa! Wait a minute! Stop the press!!!!!

You folks want to talk about how Apple is somehow doing mankind a disservice, and then you want to hold Sony up as an example of a positive alternative?!?!?

Are you out of your collective minds?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Apple's only "guilty" of tying, or linking, or what-the-frack-ever, iTunes to the iPod. You want to call that a monopoly, then fine. But if you think that's bad, then please pull your heads out of the sand and take a look at what Sony's been up to! Do you have any -- and I mean any -- idea how much of the entertainment industry that Sony has bought up?

Apple's trying to "force" people to buy an iPod and use iTunes? Puhleese! Sony tried (and got called on it) to force the entire planet to agree to near slavery-like terms for music CDs, and given how insanely huge a portion of the music and movie business they own -- to say NOTHING of how much of both they control -- they were (and still are) a much bigger threat to competition and consumer rights than Apple is, or likely could be, even in their wildest wet dream.

Wake up and smell the coffee, folks! We've got the Russian Mafia, the Italian Mafia, and the Yacuza (sp?) running amuck in world politics (on the one hand) and more immediately profitable pursuits, such as the worldwide entertainment industry (on the other hand) and you folks want to bitch and complain about Apple's actions?

You all need to get some perspective on this.

Arnaud
Jul 9, 2006, 04:53 PM
If you knew French history you would be able to determine when these experiences occured(hint: When did France request all US military installations be vacated? :) )

And yes this has almost nothing to do with DRM, except in the context of French attitudes toward the rest of the planet.

Ok, I wasn't clear enough.

My first guess was that, to be stopped at the German-French boundaries, you had to have this event happen before the Schengen agreement, i.e. in 1995 - after that, nobody got stopped at the boundaries anymore, but for random controls.

After more thoughts, I guessed your "adventure" happened close to 1966, when France withdrew from the Nato. This is the official time when the American bases were shut in France.

Is that what you are referring to ? Really ?

Are you really taking the point of an American tourist in 1966 as a reference point for judging France?

Let's play your game then. I remember that the black segregation "ended" officially in the US only in 1964, thanks to the new Voting right acts and the new Civil right acts. So, according to your sense of logic, what do you think I should do? Call all American people racists, because of what happened more than 40 years ago?
This is exactly the same kind of reasoning, isn't it?

Now, the most important question, do you really think you can judge the French position regarding DRM by comparing with the impression you had as an American tourist in 1966 ?
What do you think is the treatmen of Japanese people visiting a casino in Las Vegas nowadays? Should they judge the American foreign policy based on that, based on a 17-year old bell-boy and a 25-year old croupier?

Thanks for the "lesson" in French history. Go back to read your own, and then you might learn something about judging people. Hint: you can't.

Regarding the DRM, it has nothing to do with your story. And the most harmful country with its "attitude towards the rest of the planet" does not seem to be France nowadays.

dsnort
Jul 9, 2006, 10:47 PM
Wow, I wandered in thinking I was going to see a discussion of the new French Law, and read an argument over french history! A little off key imho. A couple of observations tho.
1.) I read where one opiner wrote that he wouldn't buy anything from iTMS because the artist's don't get enough of the money. What is Aple supposed to do about that? If they want the music available on iTMS they have to make a deal with the person that owns the rights to the song. If the artist no longer owns the rights to their own music, it's usually because they signed them away for some real or perceived benefit. They music industry is replete with stories of artist who have made bad deals, Grand Funk Railroad just to name one, ( and don't ya' think Paul Mcartney throws darts at a pic of Michael Jackson everytime a Nike ad comes on with "Revolution" as the music!). The situation is far from perfect, but I don't see where iTMS can change it. Oh, and since every provider of music is in the same boat, where are you going to get your music, since the artist is getting "screwed" by all of them.
2.)Isn't DRM an intellectual property, covered by a copyright issued by a sovereign nation? Aren't there international accords between most nations to honor each others copyrights? Isn't this law by the french the same as telling an artist that they must make their music available for other artist to be able to record and make money off of? This is bad law. The whole idea behind copyright and patent law is that if you come up with something unique and different, you should be able to profit from it without having a bunch of tag alongs sucking up the market off of your work. If you don't like the way iTMS and iPod work, you are perfectly free to not use them! Use the competitive product. Or burn a CD, stick it in your Sony Walkman, and BE HAPPY!

Arnaud
Jul 10, 2006, 12:48 AM
2.)Isn't DRM an intellectual property, covered by a copyright issued by a sovereign nation? Aren't there international accords between most nations to honor each others copyrights? Isn't this law by the french the same as telling an artist that they must make their music available for other artist to be able to record and make money off of? This is bad law. The whole idea behind copyright and patent law is that if you come up with something unique and different, you should be able to profit from it without having a bunch of tag alongs sucking up the market off of your work. If you don't like the way iTMS and iPod work, you are perfectly free to not use them! Use the competitive product. Or burn a CD, stick it in your Sony Walkman, and BE HAPPY!

I understand that the French law asks a music provider to make its DRM available to all mp3-player manufacturers. This way, the market is open, but wherever you buy your music, and on whichever player you use it, it is still DRM-protected, thus not open be "stolen".

Providers are not asked to drop the DRM.

dsnort
Jul 10, 2006, 10:01 PM
I understand that the French law asks a music provider to make its DRM available to all mp3-player manufacturers. This way, the market is open, but wherever you buy your music, and on whichever player you use it, it is still DRM-protected, thus not open be "stolen".

Providers are not asked to drop the DRM.

I'm not an expert, and i may be waaaaay off base, but I think you missed my point. Apples DRM is as much an intellectual property as an artist's songs. They have the same right to be protected as a songwriter. If their right is not protected, who's will be?

Timepass
Jul 11, 2006, 03:39 AM
My question to everyone defending apple.

What if instead of apple being affect so heavy by this law it was M$. M$ before forced to open up there DRM because they have control over that market with a music player and music store tie in like apple. APple is some small fry that cannt get in the market. Would you all being the saying the same thing. if the answer is no then all you arguments go out the window because it no based on ethics or anything it based on your worship of apple. Now if the answer is yes then you have formed your own opinan and not following one company blindly.

dsnort
Jul 11, 2006, 04:44 PM
My question to everyone defending apple.

What if instead of apple being affect so heavy by this law it was M$. M$ before forced to open up there DRM because they have control over that market with a music player and music store tie in like apple. APple is some small fry that cannt get in the market. Would you all being the saying the same thing. if the answer is no then all you arguments go out the window because it no based on ethics or anything it based on your worship of apple. Now if the answer is yes then you have formed your own opinan and not following one company blindly.

A valid question. Your hypothetical parallel is off on a couple of key points though.

1. Apple does not have a monopoly on this market. They have the major market share. There is a difference.

2. Sony a small fry? I don't think so.