urm no...
piracy has increased significantly since digitally downloaded music became more mainstream.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Again Facing Antitrust Inquiry Over Digital Music
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
urm no...
piracy has increased significantly since digitally downloaded music became more mainstream.
iCon may have said that but it's far from the truth.
Fairplay DRM benefitted Apple massively up to a point by locking people into iPod/iTunes.
Apple saw the DRM backlash coming (once they had the marketshare) and bailed.
very clever by iCon to pin the blame on the record companies.
Because Apple is attempting to strongarm companies into not dealing with a rival of theirs. That's illegal. That's dirty. That's going to get them into hot water like it has. And it illustrates perfectly what an ugly company they're fast becoming.
You forget however that the record labels themselves were very against DRM free music for a very long time - I have seen quotes from Warner and Sony that basically said that they would never let Apple do that. When music stores were just getting started (and even when iTunes came around) DRM was almost always there. It wasn't until Amazon started selling mp3's that the clamor started getting large enough. In reality Apple cared little if people got their music from P2P or from the iTunes Store - they just cared if people were listening to it on the iPod which at the time the music store came out, was already really popular.
DRM did work for Apple, but general music listening and selling a really good music player was better for them. If it was all about the lock in to iTunes, than the software should have been made available on the PC on day one instead of using MusicMatch.
When it comes to selling music, Apple cannot just do whatever they want - a great deal of their decision making is based on the approval of the IP owners - the record labels.
Where has Apple told music studios that they cannot sell their music at other retailers at all?
That's not the allegation. The allegation was that Apple threatened to retaliate against the labels if the labels continued supporting Amazon's daily deal.
Anti-competitive behavior does not require that Apple totally exclude or destroy competition. It's enough that it leverages its market power in a way that results in increased prices for consumers. If the allegations are true, Apple likely has a problem, though it will also be able to argue that the overall effect is a reduction in prices (probably not a good argument, since music still costs a lot) and that it has insufficient market power (there are other big competitors, but Apple has enough market leverage to make this dicey).
p.s.: "not dealing" is an acceptable shorthand for "not entering or continuing in a particular deal," IMHO - I assume that's what the poster meant.
My post was going off of my interpretation of what "not dealing" meant. My interpretation was that he meant that Apple was forcing the labels not to sell their music - a notion that I felt was absurd.
Anyhow, from what I have read, this wasn't about forcing higher prices on Apple's side of things, the allegations (supposedly) that Apple isn't going to promote those artists on their front pages. Again, from what I understand, Apple's beef is with the exclusionary period and the undercutting that Amazon is offering. I think that Apple doesn't want their partners doing both activitiesat the same time. Apple isn't forcing any price hikes and they aren't against exclusivity (at least from what I understand). What I am reading is that Apple is encouraging fair pricing through their marketing prowess like another retailer would do.
The analysis will be based on the effect, not on Apple's goals. The argument (again, I don't know if it's true) is that Amazon couldn't continue to sell music at a discount compared to Apple (daily deals) because Apple threatened retaliation against the record labels. If true, then competition for those particular songs/albums was damaged, and the price was higher than it should have been.
I haven't read anything that suggests that Amazon couldn't continue to sell discounted music - I doubt that Apple would even want to even suggest that it was trying to do that (especially after they had to publicly announce variable pricing).
The problem that I see is proving the effect overall and determining if Apple can meet the definition of a trust or just a successful business operator. Apple may have a large percentage of digital music sales, but we all know that Apple is going to work very hard to argue (as they have in their keynotes) that they actually have a smaller share of music sales overall. As you have pointed out before, Antitrust requires a relevant market and even then that is only one part.
Anyway, we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Right now this is just an inquiry - not an all out investigation or trial here. My guess is that the courts are just investigating a complaint from somebody - which they are obligated to do merit or not.
What about the affect prior to Apple's stance? How much more did those same sales cost Apple customers since apple was prohibited from offering these same deals. Is Apple supposed to give these same music companies prominent positioning on the itunes site, market the hell out of them for free and then get sacked by then giving an outlet to sell that same music at a much lower cost. Not to mention allow them to sell it first on Amazon before it was even allowed to be sold on iTunes? That was the original issue as well don't forget.
Revisionist history...
iTunes would never have been allowed initially without DRM. Every online music store had to have their own version (most supported the doomed PlaysForSure method used by Microsoft). Nobody had a leg up on anyone else. If what you were implying were true, there should've been a groundswell for the Microsoft solution, not the Apple solution. The only reason iTunes did as well as it did was that people liked iPods and they like iTunes. If Microsoft and their hardware partners hadn't designed their products from the perspective of engineers and focused just a little more on UX, then maybe the outcome would've been different. I'm sure with Steve Ballmer in charge of the Zune that things will change dramatically (for the worst! LOL!)
Apple should have every right to let their partners know they will no longer be paying out of pocket for promotion of their partners products if their partners are subsidizing a competing service.
If the DoJ wants someone to investigate go investigate Intel who truly has abused its monopoly over the past decade and continues to do so. Or maybe investigate the RIAA/MPAA for their shenanigans over the last 30 years.
If the DoJ wasn't stacked with former RIAA/MPAA lawyers(thanks Obama) this wouldn't be under investigation.
What you endorse is not the free market but anarchy and the powerful repressing the weak without state intervention.
Prove it. Provide one link which actually backs up that baloney with *proof*.
Else, you're nothing but a big hairy troll talkin' trash. [yes, i just called you a liar.]
This is getting worse. The DOJ is looking into ALL media now.
http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/05/29/doj.may.have.carte.blanche.to.investigate.apple/
http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/05/29/doj.may.have.carte.blanche.to.investigate.apple/
All media? The foundational premise is that Apple would have to be able to exert monopoly control, do they have that over movies and TV shows? If the DoJ is that interested in media, I think an inquiry into NetFlix and Hulu would be in order. Remember, it's not enough to have a demonstrable monopoly, they also have to prove it was gained or maintained by illegal means.
If the DoJ really cares about competition, how come there are now only three international airlines and four national wireless cellular providers?
