European Countries Up Pressure On iTunes, FairPlay

[babyj]

yes, I did change it - EU to local law - to make it apparent that I was talking about individual European countrys court and not the EU Court entity.

It may not be a clear cut case - but each side can still give it a go!

In a growing number of areas, EU and individual country laws are one and the same thing. If there is support from a number of EU countries for this, it could very easily end up being implemented in EU law as it ain't the sort of thing other countries are going to strongly object to.

If it does end up in EU law then Apple will be in big trouble as its a pretty big and growing single market.

I find it hard to believe it will become law though. Everyone knows when they buy music from iTMS that it will be locked to their iPod and other Apple playback devices (iTunes, Apple TV etc), its not like Apple changed the rules.

Its possible to convert it to another format by burning and ripping, so everyone can play it on another MP3 device if they really want to. The process isn't much different from ripping a CD either.

The biggest issue will be the knock on effects, if you are able to play digital music on anything you want why shouldn't the same be applied to everything else. It could blow a pretty major hole in the Bluray / HD protection and applying it to games consoles would be interesting.

 

[Stella]

No, I don't see you point.

Apple v Oranges.

I don't see the difference between windows software and mac software and xbox and PS games. Its still software just a different format.......

EDIT: and yes i know that is very over simplified and there is far more to it that format but you see the point.....on no wait you don't!

 

[eenu]

No, I don't see you point.

Apple v Oranges.

I think the only thing we agree on is that Stella Artois is the Goddess of beer!

 

[Stella]

I think the only thing we agree on is that Stella Artois is the Goddess of beer!

LOL :-D

 

[whooleytoo]

This isn't true. Music has always been restricted by the format that it was delivered in. When music moved from LP to CD many people had to re-buy their whole music collection on CD. Did you hear them bitching about about it? Well, yes. But nobody said "I should be able to play my old LPs on my new CD player" Let's not even get into tape.

There is my response right there.

The only previous restrictions were due to format, which was changing for technical reasons. Tapes were far more robust than vinyl, and enabled recording. CDs offered much better music quality than tapes and random access to tracks. The restrictions (not being able to play your LP in your CD player) were necessary for technical reasons to improve the music playing experience.

The restrictions in the digital music industry however are entirely arbitrary and artificial. A song with a closed DRM sounds no better than a song with open DRM, nor does it offer any other benefit.

You never had to buy a vinyl record from the same company you bought your record player from. You didn't buy all your music tapes from Sony because they were all that would play on the Walkman in the '80s. Likewise, CDs worked on all players - until very recently, when the curse of inadequate DRM reached them!

 

[maxp1]

The restrictions in the digital music industry however are entirely arbitrary and artificial. A song with a closed DRM sounds no better than a song with open DRM, nor does it offer any other benefit.

You never had to buy a vinyl record from the same company you bought your record player from. You didn't buy all your music tapes from Sony because they were all that would play on the Walkman in the '80s. Likewise, CDs worked on all players - until very recently, when the curse of inadequate DRM reached them!

You don't HAVE to buy music from iTMS. Nobody is forcing you. Sure, it's easy and cheap and convienent, but it also comes with restrictions. Those restrictions are not a secret, you know about them when you buy and you have a choice whether to agree to those restrictions or not (and buy from iTMS or not depending on whether you agree to the restrictions.)

What I hear now is people saying "I bought this music with restrictions (which I can easily circumvent) but now I don't want to have the restrictions and am too lazy to circumvent them."

I don't know what to say to that. WAAAAAHHHHH!!! might be an appropriate response.

 

[Stella]

I'm loooking forward to when Zune v4 takes over iPod and microsoft are in Apple's present position.

Then what will these pro-itunes-lock-in people say?

I doubt it'll be "Microsoft have every right to lock-in users, and not make Zune Mac compatible"!

 

[cortolemos]

I still don't understand how a court of any country can force a company (Apple in this case) to license a proprietary technology (DRM - FairPlay) to it's competition, compulsively... Now if what the Norway ombudsmen are talking is stripping the music of the DRM, I think that is unfair to enforce this to only one company in that market, as this will artificially change the market nature and it's an unexcusable act of government control of the market, and if at the end of all the fuss the iTS Norway is closed the very objective of protecting the costumer will be flawed cause the iPod/iTunes users of that country will have no choice to legally buy and download music for their use... So at the end the costumer will suffer the most.

 

[eenu]

I'm loooking forward to when Zune v4 takes over iPod and microsoft are in Apple's present position.

Then what will these pro-itunes-lock-in people say?

I doubt it'll be "Microsoft have every right to lock-in users, and not make Zune Mac compatible"!

Actually i will say that. MS have the right to lock in or do what they want with their music store content. There is lots of hardware not mac compatible, i bought a mac i knew that i live with that fact. Big deal.

 

[Stella]

Microsoft have been forced to license proprietary technology to its competitors, by the states and the E.U!

Removing DRM was one out of three(?) options.

I'm sure there are other online music stores available in those countries.

I.e., in Norway: users could go to
http://www.prefueled.com

I still don't understand how a court of any country can force a company (Apple in this case) to license a proprietary technology (DRM - FairPlay) to it's competition, compulsively... Now if what the Norway ombudsmen are talking is stripping the music of the DRM, I think that is unfair to enforce this to only one company in that market, as this will artificially change the market nature and it's an unexcusable act of government control of the market, and if at the end of all the fuss the iTS Norway is closed the very objective of protecting the costumer will be flawed cause the iPod/iTunes users of that country will have no choice to legally buy and download music for their use... So at the end the costumer will suffer the most.

 

[maxp1]

I'm loooking forward to when Zune v4 takes over iPod and microsoft are in Apple's present position.

Then what will these pro-itunes-lock-in people say?

I doubt it'll be "Microsoft have every right to lock-in users, and not make Zune Mac compatible"!

This assumes that we think that Apple is locking in customers. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way that Apple is doing business and I wouldn't think there was anything wrong with Microsoft doing business that way too as long as Microsoft offered a way to convert their DRMed files to a non-DRM format (which Apple currently does and Microsoft currently does not). The problem I have with Microsoft is that in the past they have been abusive with their monopoly power which makes their future actions somewhat suspect. But as long as they stay away from abuse then it's all good as far as I'm concerned.

I personally would not buy music that was in Microsoft's format just as I don't buy music that is in Apple's format. I have made an informed decision to buy music elsewhere and have suffered no consequences from doing so. There is no abuse of Apple's market dominance (which I don't think is a monopoly yet, not that there is anything wrong with being a monopoly, just with being an abusive monopoly.)

 

[maxp1]

Microsoft have been forced to license proprietary technology to its competitors, by the states and the E.U!

Microsoft has been proven to be an abusive monopoly. Apple has not. When you abuse your power you suffer the consequences.

 

[Stella]

Microsoft has been proven to be an abusive monopoly. Apple has not. When you abuse your power you suffer the consequences.

Yes, it was due to that.

However, I was commenting on:

I still don't understand how a court of any country can force a company (Apple in this case) to license a proprietary technology (DRM - FairPlay) to it's competition, compulsively...

And I gave an example of how this has happened - regardless of the suitation.

 

[cortolemos]

Microsoft have been forced to license proprietary technology to its competitors, by the states and the E.U!

Removing DRM was one out of three(?) options.

I'm sure there are other online music stores available in those countries.

I.e., in Norway: users could go to
http://www.prefueled.com

The majority of the online music stores sell music in WMA DRM format, non-readable in iPod/iTunes (at least for Mac) And I really enjoyed this argument, because if I am understanding you right if there was no iTS the costumer has all the choice in the world, if there is iTS then the costumer choice is somewhat impaired...

What technology was Microsoft forced to license to competitors?

 

[Stella]

I'm turning my ( anti lock-in ) argument on its head for a moment:

Those iPod users can use those stores and have to convert the music back to unprotected DRM. If not, they can just buy a new compatible media player - i.e., non Apple hardware.

They have a choice to use the available stores, and to buy compatible hardware.

Seems fair...?

BUT:
Would it not be easier and better for the consumer if all music stores were interopable (spell) with digital devices? Yes?

The majority of the online music stores sell music in WMA DRM format, non-readable in iPod/iTunes (at least for Mac) And I really enjoyed this argument, because if I am understanding you right if there was no iTS the costumer has all the choice in the world, if there is iTS then the costumer choice is somewhat impaired...

What technology was Microsoft forced to license to competitors?

ADD: what technologies:
A quick search on google - didn't mention specific technologies - but the requirement to:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/18/ms_antitrust_compliance_extension/

Try more searching for yourself - i used: "license technology microsoft anti trust"

I imagine Samba related technologies / API would be one of them.

 

[eenu]

BUT:
Would it not be easier and better for the consumer if all music stores were interopable (spell) with digital devices? Yes?

Of course it would! and i don't dispute that!

My dispute has and always will be that the Apple music machine is not breaking a law and is not preventing other competitors. The EU should not be able to force apple to license their technology to others!

EDIT: If the EU ruled that from this day forward any NEW digital music retailers had to allow their licensed music to work on any player then i would agree totally. But i do not agree with changing the other companies that are doing it their way now.

 

[Sandfleaz]

And while we're complaining, shouldn't my iTunes songs play in my 8-track player?

(some of you youngsters may have to ask your Dad about 8-tracks)...man I'm getting old.

 

[Stella]

OK, we've gone further than I really wanted to go down this route ( but anyway - again, its fun ). I was initially responding to the person who was asking "how would it be possible for a country to force a company to license out its own technology".

I gave an example - regardless of the reasons why.

The reason you gave in the case of MS - was correct - due to its monopoly abuse.

If the EU or any country finds that Apple has been abusing its position by using Fairplay as leverage to illegally lock in consumers - then these entities have every right to. Remember, the in the article, did it not say that they thought this is what Apple where doing?

Quote:
"It doesn't get any clearer than this. Fairplay is an illegal lock-in technology whose main purpose is to lock the consumers to the total package provided by Apple by blocking interoperability," Waterhouse told OUT-LAW.COM."

This claim of illegal strategies will be tested in court, should it go that far, and if Apple are found guilty, then Apple have broken local laws.

Of course it would! and i don't dispute that!

My dispute has and always will be that the Apple music machine is not breaking a law and is not preventing other competitors. The EU should not be able to force apple to license their technology to others!

ADDED:

That would be fanastic, absolutely! Wow we agree on something!! :-D

EDIT: If the EU ruled that from this day forward any NEW digital music retailers had to allow their licensed music to work on any player then i would agree totally.

Yes, Hell, Apple should have thought about backwards compatibility - supporting ancient playback devices

And while we're complaining, shouldn't my iTunes songs play in my 8-track player?

(some of you youngsters may have to ask your Dad about 8-tracks)...man I'm getting old.

 

[maxp1]

Stella,
I hate to break it to you but you've lost the argument. All your issues have been reduced to 'but I think..." without suppporting facts or side issues that don't really matter in the bigger picture.

I will definitely hand it to you that you've done a good job arguing. You haven't resorted to any dirt tricks and have dealt with what you believe in a straight forward way. That's rare these days and I respect it.

Once again, I do not disagree with you that it would be better if Fairplay were an open format. I just disagree that Apple should be forced to do anything with Fairplay that it doesn't want to (absent an abusiveness)

On the day that I go to Amazon to buy music and am told that I can't buy it in any format other than Fairplay I will be right there with you screaming bloody murder to the rafters. But that day hasn't come and in all honesty I don't think it will.

I have to get on with my day.
Thank you.

 

[Swift]

Two things

One, why doesn't Apple preempt here? If they licensed to all the Plays4Sure devices, wouldn't that just toast Microsoft's buns? I mean, MS fanbois could have the Zune all to themselves. I mean, of course, they'd continue playing their MS tracks, but now they could hook up to iTunes and try themselves some AAC. For a licensing fee, of course.

But the other thing is, European pressure on Apple is massively unfair and strategically stupid. It's not Apple that made it a precondition of the iPod that it have DRM. That's the music companies and the studios. European governmental pressure should be applied to Sony, Columbia, Disney etc. Apple would survive, at this point, very nicely, and the world's consumers would be very happy.

But when they come after my iPod, they're just acting like a buzzkill. Why Apple? Why not Creative, and M$, and all the others as well? This is justifiable only if Apple is a monopoly. It is not. You can get all the songs on iTunes on the other music stores. Just with different DRM.

 

[maxp1]

EDIT: If the EU ruled that from this day forward any NEW digital music retailers had to allow their licensed music to work on any player then i would agree totally. But i do not agree with changing the other companies that are doing it their way now.

Add my agreement to this statement.

 

[eenu]

OK, we've gone further than I really wanted to go down this route ( but anyway - again, its fun ). I was initially responding to the person who was asking "how would it be possible for a country to force a company to license out its own technology".

I gave an example - regardless of the reasons why.

The reason you gave in the case of MS - was correct - due to its monopoly abuse.

If the EU or any country finds that Apple has been abusing its position by using Fairplay as leverage to illegally lock in consumers - then these entities have every right to. Remember, the in the article, did it not say that they thought this is what Apple where doing?

Quote:
"It doesn't get any clearer than this. Fairplay is an illegal lock-in technology whose main purpose is to lock the consumers to the total package provided by Apple by blocking interoperability," Waterhouse told OUT-LAW.COM."

This claim of illegal strategies will be tested in court, should it go that far, and if Apple are found guilty, then Apple have broken local laws.




ADDED:

That would be fanastic, absolutely! Wow we agree on something!! :-D

I did say i am not against freedom to do what you want!

Apples argument will simply be its not illegal as the consumer entered into an agreement when purchasing and not only that its the way its been done since 2000/01 (cant remember the iTMS exact launch yr) and only now 6-7yrs later the courts have decided its not on. Apple legal have the potential to show a big middle finger to the EU on this one and i hope they do. I do also hope though that the EU will learn they are peeing in the wind with this one but make a new law/act that states that from now on new digital music operators must be platform/hardware independent.

 

[Stella]

deleted.

 

[goosnarrggh]

Just a couple of observations:
1) This is a consumer ombudsman. His role is not to dictate policy or to interpret law. His role is to define an "ideal world" where consumer interests are protected.

2) This is not a call to get rid of DRM. Realistically, DRM is necessary in a world where it's possible to make near-perfect duplicates of digital media. This is simply a call to make DRM schemes interoperable, for the general benefit of consumers.

3) Re the "Protected AAC is to MP3, as CD is to Cassette" argument trying to debunk the expectation of interoperability... I don't buy it. Most portable media players on the market can play the AAC format at this point. So the comparison shouldn't be between protected AAC and MP3; rather, it should be between Protected AAC and Unprotected AAC.

And in that case, a correct analogy to draw would be, "Protected AAC is to Unprotected AAC as CSS-encoded DVD is to Unprotected DVD". And in this more direct analogy, it is clear that ALL CSS-encoded DVDs will play in any manufacturer's DVD player. (Zones are an exception. But zone encoding is on the way out. It's already been legally mandated that all DVD players sold in Australia must either play all zone encoding, or else must include instructions for how to switch zones at will, as many times as one wants to.)

Why shouldn't that also be the case for the DRM applied to AAC files?

Graham Henderson, the president of the CRIA (Canadian equivalent of RIAA), has gone on record as saying that, ten years from now the current FairPlay vs PlaysForSure sorts of debates will seem ridiculous... Not because DRM will be gone, and not because we'll end up with a single supplier of content or of players. But because common sense backs the concept of standardization.

 

[whooleytoo]

What I hear now is people saying "I bought this music with restrictions (which I can easily circumvent) but now I don't want to have the restrictions and am too lazy to circumvent them."

I don't know what to say to that. WAAAAAHHHHH!!! might be an appropriate response.

I'll see your "WAAAAAHHHHH!!!", and raise you a "I don't want choice! Too confusing! I want music sellers to dictate to me what devices I can listen on and device sellers to dictate to me where I can buy music!!!"

Incidentally, I doubt it's legal here to circumvent a DRM scheme, so that's not an option.

Maybe I've misssed it in this thread, but I've read a few 'stop whining' comments, yet I've not yet read any constructive argument why a market with various incompatible DRM schemas is a good thing. Most consumers hate it, consumer groups are actively lobbying against it, EU governments are starting to work against it, the music labels are frightened of it, and yet apparently rather than try and fix it we should shut up and accept it. Why?