European Countries Up Pressure On iTunes, FairPlay

[ftaok]

How about this ridiculous analogy???

I think most people who are against Apple in this argument will probably list "lock-in" as why they're against Apple. How about this for a ridiculous analogy?

Let's say I buy a Volkswagen and I love it. I go out and spend tons of money on VW accessories, clothing, posters, mugs, etc. Now, when it comes time for a new car, I'm locked into VW since I've already spent so much money on VW stuff. I don't want to have to trash my VW stuff because I now want to buy a BMW.

So what's the solution? If you think like some of these EU lawmakers, the solution would be that VW allow BMW to label their cars as VWs. But since there are some BMW owners that want to buy a Benz, then BMW has to let their name and logo be used by others. Heck, let's take it one step further and say that all car manufacturers have to use the same name and logo in the spirit of accessory interoperability.

Of course, this analogy is totally in jest, but the argument against Apple is kinda ridiculous in my eyes.

ft

 

[morespce54]

Another person who forgets this process takes time and is an inconvience.

On iTunes STore does it say any where that the music is only playable on iPod?
( just interested !)

that's a very good point...

 

[ThomasJB]

Don't get me wrong either, I dislike DRM, i've actually previously turned down a potentially important career opportunity because the entitiy in question was involved in developing DRM technologies.

On the other hand, I don't see why Apple should be faulted for creating a system to support their own media players.

(...)it is what I have decided to be the best choice, and I can't fault anyone but myself if it seems like a poor decision in retrospect.

That's quite impressive about the career choice - I didn't know you felt so strongly about this stuff!

I agree, Apple shouldn't be faulted for creating this system, they should be applauded for helping legal downloading become bigger. But - I think it would, especially in the long term, be great for EVERYONE involved (artists, consumers, and distributors alike) if Apple switches to universal compatibility (since their system is already the best - I fail to see why people would use their competitors).

I'd just much rather see Apple get a big market share by doing what they do best - provide the best solution - than by making their files exclusive to their software/players etc. Mind you, as I said before, I don't think it is up to governments to tell Apple to do this. I think it's up to us, to convince them to do it.

All in all, I have made the same choice you have for obtaining a large chunk of the music I buy, so I think we're actually very close to being on the same page.

ftaok, I don't think this particular analogy has a lot of merit because designing, manufacturing and selling cars is so vastly different from licensing and selling music.

 

[ThomasJB]

Originally Posted by Stella View Post
Another person who forgets this process takes time and is an inconvience.

On iTunes STore does it say any where that the music is only playable on iPod?
( just interested !)
--
that's a very good point...

That's a good point indeed, and that's what I was talking about in my first post. This is what I find on the iTunes main page, and I tend to just skim the text on these things - obviously that's my responsibility but still - and although it mentions 'AAC songs' (quite ambiguous) I just can't see the average consumer extracting "these files will only work with iPods and select other systems" from this text. And as such, I think this sort of thing is perfectly understandable from a business point of view, but NOT helping legal distribution of music in general.

Here is the text:

---

More in store.

Open 24/7, the iTunes Store features more than 3.5 million 99¢ songs, 65,000 free podcasts, 20,000 audiobooks, 200 TV shows, and now, movies and iPod games. Find, download, play, and sync in a fraction of the time it takes to drive to any superstore.

Get songs for a song

With songs, albums, and music videos from major and independent music labels, plus individual artists, the iTunes Store eliminates the hassle of subscription services and banishes annoying ads. For just 99¢ each, you get high-quality AAC songs that won’t disappear at the end of the month, or ever. What you buy is yours to keep. That’s fair to you and fair to artists.

 

[Stella]

- I can play MP3 on any type of digital players ( mostly )
- I can go out and buy a CD and play it on any CD player
- 10 years ago I could buy a tape album and play it on any tape recorder
- 15 years ago I could buy a record and play it on any record player - assuming the record physically fit - but there were plenty of manufacturers to choose from

Following on from the above -
Why can't I buy music from any music store and play it on any digital music player?

The last question sounds stupid and utterly restrictive, after you've considered all types of other music formats.

( Please, don't say, why can't i play a record in a cassette player ?!! - its not consistent )

 

[ftaok]

ftaok, I don't think this particular analogy has a lot of merit because designing, manufacturing and selling cars is so vastly different from licensing and selling music.

Well, I was talking more about the accessories (stuff like coffee mugs, keychains, etc.) locking me into a particular brand of car. The accessories are like the songs and the car is like the mp3 player.

The fact that cars are so different than mp3 players has nothing to do with the analogy. Apple chooses to license (or not) the music they sell. VW chooses to license their name and logo. While not 100% analogous, it's mostly applicable.

Also, don't forget that Apple isn't the only manufacturer of a products that play iTMS music. Motorola has a couple of phones that "Fairplay", of course, they are licensed to do so.

 

[Mulyahnto]

Sorry, I just don't buy the "car parts" analogy. How bout I turn it around with this? What if you could only buy one type of TOOTHPASTE for the TOOTHBRUSH that you bought? Think that would be RIGHT?

Nope.

w00master

True, but so what if you can't use it with your toothbrush, buy other toothpaste. It's not like Apple has a monopoly on music.

 

[ftaok]

Following on from the above -
Why can't I buy music from any music store and play it on any digital music player?

Maybe that's not the question to ask. Perhaps these are the statements that are pertinent.

- I can buy iTMS songs from iTMS and play it on any iPod (and some Moto phones).

- I can buy Zune songs from Zune Marketplace and play it on any Zune.

- I can rent Napster songs from Napster and play it on any Plays for Sure device.

The key differentiation is that iTMS songs are different than Zune songs which are different than Napster songs. Just because they are all songs and digital files, doesn't mean they are the same.

Perhaps the thought that one shouldn't expect that a cassette tape be playable in a CD player, can be extended to the thought one shouldn't exptect that iTMS songs be playable on a Zune. Or perhaps not.

ft

 

[sofila]

cortolemos: piracy happens, you may not like it but it's still there.
None of the record companies was ready to stand against the Mp3 tsunami that almost wiped them off. Their management always get the point 1 year too late, and things for them are going to get worst and worst. And I'm really happy with that.

 

[Stella]

I disagree, I think my questions where perfect examples.

Never before have you been restricted to music source and music player like you have now - and there is absolutely no need for this. As some one put it "its an artificle limitation" - which it is.

All below is the same music format - digital music.

Maybe that's not the question to ask. Perhaps these are the statements that are pertinent.

- I can buy iTMS songs from iTMS and play it on any iPod (and some Moto phones).

- I can buy Zune songs from Zune Marketplace and play it on any Zune.

- I can rent Napster songs from Napster and play it on any Plays for Sure device.

The key differentiation is that iTMS songs are different than Zune songs which are different than Napster songs. Just because they are all songs and digital files, doesn't mean they are the same.

Perhaps the thought that one shouldn't expect that a cassette tape be playable in a CD player, can be extended to the thought one shouldn't exptect that iTMS songs be playable on a Zune. Or perhaps not.

ft

 

[eenu]

- I can play MP3 on any type of digital players ( mostly )
- I can go out and buy a CD and play it on any CD player
- 10 years ago I could buy a tape album and play it on any tape recorder
- 15 years ago I could buy a record and play it on any record player - assuming the record physically fit - but there were plenty of manufacturers to choose from

Following on from the above -
Why can't I buy music from any music store and play it on any digital music player?

The last question sounds stupid and utterly restrictive, after you've considered all types of other music formats.

( Please, don't say, why can't i play a record in a cassette player ?!! - its not consistent )

Times change......we used to hang people for crimes here should we continue to do so because we did 30 or 40 years ago? No.

I could list hundreds of things that have changed......times change, markets change. As has been said hundreds of times before Stella, i have no disagreement that the digital music industry shouldn't be open from today forward but this thread is specific to apple being forced to open up and its that point i detest so strongly.

 

[ThomasJB]

The fact that cars are so different than mp3 players has nothing to do with the analogy. Apple chooses to license (or not) the music they sell. VW chooses to license their name and logo. While not 100% analogous, it's mostly applicable.

Hmm - I can't agree with that. VW owns their name, their logo, that's all trademarked. Apple doesn't own the recordings it's selling. The labels do.

For example, Jive (a record label) owns recordings made by Britney Spears. Then, Jive enters an agreement with CD and mp3 distributors. The agreement reads something like: distributor is allowed to sell label's song, each then gets 50% of the net sales price. (obviously it is way more complicated than this)

The point is that Apple is 'merely' the distributor - not the creator, or owner, of the music that's being sold. So - from a consumer's point of view it is much more reasonable to ask for universally compatible formats of the recording that's bought, than it is to ask for all car brands to be merged into one, because you don't want to buy new mugs with the car's brand on them. (this is also a MUCH less likely scenario, a much more obscure item than a digital music file - to the point where the analogy becomes sketchy just because of that, let alone the difference in rights involved)

I'm sure you're well aware that European laws, if taken one small step further, do NOT wish for one big car brand to avoid us Europeans having to buy a lot of mugs

 

[Stella]

Times change......we used to hang people for crimes here should we continue to do so because we did 30 or 40 years ago? No.

I could list hundreds of things that have changed......times change, markets change. As has been said hundreds of times before Stella, i have no disagreement that the digital music industry shouldn't be open from today forward but this thread is specific to apple being forced to open up and its that point i detest so strongly.

OK, at least you agree with that ( it should be open, ideally from this point forward ) :-D

But as you say, times change, and Apple should be forced to change to its new environment ( kicking and screaming, if necessary :-D ) - to allow consumers more choice.

( I get the feeling we are going round and round in cirlces !)

 

[eenu]

Apple should be forced to change to its new environment ( kicking and screaming, if necessary :-D ) - to allow consumers more choice.

NO i strongly disagree. The new company's should be forced to change and if Apple want to follow they should. If they want to stay closed they should. It should be left up to them.

 

[ftaok]

I disagree, I think my questions where perfect examples.

Never before have you been restricted to music source and music player like you have now - and there is absolutely no need for this. As some one put it "its an artificle limitation" - which it is.

All below is the same music format - digital music.

So what would make you happy? Would you be satisfied with a singular form of DRM that all digital music players could make use of? Would Apple, Microsoft, and the rest agree to this? Would the music companies agree to this?

Personally, I really don't care about this issue too much. I do have some money invested in my iTMS library that could become a concern if I want to buy something that isn't compatible. But I'm saavy enough to work my way around the limitations. Would I like to see DRM go away? Sure, but not at the expense of simplicity and selection.

ft

 

[ftaok]

For example, Jive (a record label) owns recordings made by Britney Spears. Then, Jive enters an agreement with CD and mp3 distributors. The agreement reads something like: distributor is allowed to sell label's song, each then gets 50% of the net sales price. (obviously it is way more complicated than this)

The point is that Apple is 'merely' the distributor - not the creator, or owner, of the music that's being sold. So - from a consumer's point of view it is much more reasonable to ask for universally compatible formats of the recording that's bought, than it is to ask for all car brands to be merged into one, because you don't want to buy new mugs with the car's brand on them. (this is also a MUCH less likely scenario, a much more obscure item than a digital music file - to the point where the analogy becomes sketchy just because of that, let alone the difference in rights involved)

Yeah, Apple doesn't own the music. Apple is merely the distributer. However, Apple has an agreement with the owner's of the music and must follow that, unless they want to breach the contract. Now, I don't pretend to know what the agreement is, but I do know that DRM was part of the agreement. If the EU wants Apple to open up, they better check with the Sony's and Universal's to see if they'll let Apple relax their DRM.

For the record, I am fully aware that my analogy wasn't 100% analogous. But I still think that it's pretty close, maybe 72.3%.

ft

 

[Stella]

Yes, one standard DRM that all manufacturers could use.

Total device interoperability. No dependency between music store and digital player.

Of course, no DRM would be better.. but thats not going to happen soon.

So what would make you happy? Would you be satisfied with a singular form of DRM that all digital music players could make use of? Would Apple, Microsoft, and the rest agree to this? Would the music companies agree to this?

Personally, I really don't care about this issue too much. I do have some money invested in my iTMS library that could become a concern if I want to buy something that isn't compatible. But I'm saavy enough to work my way around the limitations. Would I like to see DRM go away? Sure, but not at the expense of simplicity and selection.

ft

 

[ftaok]

Yes, one standard DRM that all manufacturers could use.

Total device interoperability. No dependency between music store and digital player.

Of course, no DRM would be better.. but thats not going to happen soon.

To do this, the music labels have to be on board. No one mentions the fact that iTMS has consistent terms across all songs. The other stores have different terms for different songs. Some songs can be burned twice, others have unlimited, etc.

Personally, I am OK with the Fairplay terms (although I was a bit miffed when they went from 10 to 7 burns, but at least they bumped it up from 3 to 5 comptuers) and would rather have the system today rather than an open DRM system with more restrictive terms.

That's one big hurdle to overcome. Is it possible to have one standard DRM with varying terms depending on the store? It opens a slippery slope where Wal-mart could benefit by the work of others. For example, they get Apple to do the hard work of negotiating the DRM terms. Then, they come in and bully the labels into getting the same DRM terms for less money. Then they sell for 89 cents, as opposed to Apple's 99 cents.

Or maybe the EU could force the DRM to have consistent restrictions across all stores and leave it to the stores to negotiate with the labels on price alone.

The more I think about it, the more I think that nothing will end up happening and we're stuck with the status quo.

ft

 

[Stella]

They've done it with DVD protection, they can do it with music - except there are more parties invovled.

Yes, I agree that terms conditions will be have to be consistent across all music stores and there will have to be a lot of co-operation between all players - music stores and record companies.

Price: some music stores may forgo less profits to be able to sell for less than others - but as long as music companies get the $$$ they want, are they going to worry about retail prices?

To do this, the music labels have to be on board. No one mentions the fact that iTMS has consistent terms across all songs. The other stores have different terms for different songs. Some songs can be burned twice, others have unlimited, etc.

Personally, I am OK with the Fairplay terms (although I was a bit miffed when they went from 10 to 7 burns, but at least they bumped it up from 3 to 5 comptuers) and would rather have the system today rather than an open DRM system with more restrictive terms.

That's one big hurdle to overcome. Is it possible to have one standard DRM with varying terms depending on the store? It opens a slippery slope where Wal-mart could benefit by the work of others. For example, they get Apple to do the hard work of negotiating the DRM terms. Then, they come in and bully the labels into getting the same DRM terms for less money. Then they sell for 89 cents, as opposed to Apple's 99 cents.

Or maybe the EU could force the DRM to have consistent restrictions across all stores and leave it to the stores to negotiate with the labels on price alone.

The more I think about it, the more I think that nothing will end up happening and we're stuck with the status quo.

ft

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Something that can be said is I do not see how this is bad for the consumer.

Also I willing to be good money that a lot of the people here that are screaming what apple is doing locking in people is just fine would change there tune very quickly if it was Microsoft in the position that apple is currently in.

And if that is is the case then you just pretty much admitting that either that you think the other way and it should be opened up or well you only care about apple and what is best for apple and not the consumer.

 

[onlytobbe]

Don't tuch my expensive DRM-limited bad quality itunes music!

 

[EagerDragon]

Just close the iTunes store and see them cry. Apple does not make that much from the iTunes store and it is unlikely to affect their bottom line much.
Just shut it down and shut them up. There are others with their own proprietary scheme out there, why they don't go after them too?

IMHO they are Apple bashing, close the store. F$%* them.

 

[EagerDragon]

The perfect DRM is no DRM. Buy the CD, rip it, play it in any device you prefer. Total and complete equality, burn it as often as you like and move it to as many systems as you like. This exist today, what is the big deal? Why all the belly aching?

 

[Stella]

Just close the iTunes store and see them cry. Apple does not make that much from the iTunes store and it is unlikely to affect their bottom line much.
Just shut it down and shut them up. There are others with their own proprietary scheme out there, why they don't go after them too?

IMHO they are Apple bashing, close the store. F$%* them.

Short sighted opinion....

 

[BuzWeaver]

Haddieman notes that while many people are getting more and more annoyed at DRM, Norway actually did something about it. The PC World article explains: "Good intentions, questionable execution. European legislators have been giving DRM considerable attention for a while, but Norway has actually gone so far as to declare that Apple's iTunes store is illegal under Norwegian law.

The crux of the issue is that the Fairplay DRM that is at the heart of the iTunes/iPod universe doesn't work with anything else, meaning that if you want access to the cast iTunes library, you have to buy an iPod."

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/25/2341240&from=rss