Future of iTunes Norway, Sweden, Denmark?

[casperghst42]

Your laws ARE perverted (meaning they are not fair and serve only greed).
Just like our laws are perverted in many of our states, yours in your tiny country has a worse effect. After all, you still don't matter in the grand scheme of things...
And sooner or later, Apple will leave you, then you won't be able to buy anything from iTunes...

I think you should look up the word 'perverted' before you use it in this context.

The laws are there to protect the 'user', and there is nothing wrong with that, this case is the same as the case against M$, Apple have an unfair advantage over any other producer of media players, media from iTMS will only play on iTunes or on an iPod, which is what this whole case is about.

 

[Highland]

Stop being such asses and realise that proprietary DRM on music, video, pictures or digital books is a really, really, ridiculously stupid thing for consumers and society. I'd rather have no DRM, but if we have to, let's make it something that everyone can use.

Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame. We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time.

That's just wrong on so many levels. I wish I had more time...

I dare you to try and argue against those points. Trust me, I've spent long enough in the music industry and observed all the DRM and copy protection stuff that's been happening since... well... a very long time (since DAT days etc).

#1 "proprietary DRM on music, video, pictures or digital books is a really, really, ridiculously stupid thing" -- So you don't want to have free interchange on products you own with content you've bought a license to play? I'm not saying we have a legal right to play the content where we like, I'm saying we SHOULD.

#2 "I'd rather have no DRM, but if we have to, let's make it something that everyone can use." -- I think it'd be much better to have one DRM model for all. The idea of heaps of different online stores all selling music that only works with one or two devices is just insane. And if you think that wouldn't work because it'd be cracked... well, every DRM model can and will be cracked in time. They all suffer that flaw.

#3 "Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame." -- The DRM is there because labels want it, not because Apple does. Period. Don't even bother arguing about that one.

#4 "We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time." -- CDs won't be around forever. So what are we going to do when DRMed files are the ONLY choice? That's not an option I like to think about. We need to fight this right now or be in a whole lot of trouble.

Honestly, there's really not really a sane way to argue that proprietary DRM is good for consumers. There's quite a few ways to argue that it's morally not a good thing for society. There's also a few ways to argue that it breaches fair trading practices.

 

[gaseby]

Comments from the Norway's Consumer Council

The newspaper VG in Norway have an article today where they have interviewed a spokes person from the Council:
- They see the answer to be positive and in the right direction, however a lot remains
- The outstanding issues are:
Not being able to play the purchased music on other players than iPOD
When you purchase the music you cannot regret the purchase after it has been downloaded (they still see this as a problem and it may indicate that they do not know they are talking about, unfortunatelly)

The person also reflects that the current situation clearly indicates that the Noregian concumer laws should be ammended, a statement which to me indikates that the Council are complaining based on "whishful" laws...

This is a pitty since I fully agree with them that the music should be playable on all players.

 

[dsnort]

I dare you to try and argue against those points.

Dare!!??? As in double dog dare!!?? As in triple dog dare with a cherry on top!!?? ( Don't get your bowels in an uproar, I'm only teasing!! )

Trust me,

Nope. Prefer to think for myself.

#1 "proprietary DRM on music, video, pictures or digital books is a really, really, ridiculously stupid thing"

Oddly enough I am not in complete disagreement with this. If you will look back earlier in this thread you will see where I opined that Apple would be forced to abandon it's proprietary ways, not by government fiat, but by competitive pressure. To do so otherwise is just to allow companies that have not been able to produce a successful product to feed at the trough that Apple built.

So you don't want to have free interchange on products you own with content you've bought a license to play?

Depends on the license. I have a license to drive a passenger vehicle. If I want to ride a motorcycle on the road, I have to get a different license. If you don't like the license offered by a certain vendor, then take your business elsewhere.

"I'd rather have no DRM, .....The content owners are as much, if not more to blame." -- The DRM is there because labels want it, not because Apple does. Period. Don't even bother arguing about that one.

This is the argument that most pains me. For better or worse, and whether we like it or not, the content owners OWN THE CONTENT. It is their property, and they are free to do with it as they please, up to and including making it unavailable for digital download. And many content owners do just that because they feel the DRM is too lenient, and is depriving them of revenue. If you don't believe me, go to iTMS and try to find any recordings by Garth Brooks, ACDC, the Beatles, etc. etc.. EDIT: Honesty compels me to acknowledge that I do not know for certain why this content is not there, DRM may not be involved. That being said, it does underscore that many content owners do not find online digital downloads advantageous at this time, and I'm certain that that's not because they find the DRM unfair to the consumer.

CDs won't be around forever.

Maybe, but my opinion is that the music industry will adopt a model similar to the movie industry, new content available on CD now, digital downloads in 6 months to a year

Honestly, there's really not really a sane way to argue that proprietary DRM is good for consumers.

How do you sanely argue that the consumer, who is getting exactly what they paid for, is being harmed? More honestly you would argue that the consumer is trying to change the terms of the deal they willingly signed up for, and using the Consumer Council of Norway to put the "strong-arm" on Apple. Remember, "Caveat Emptor"!

 

[Highland]

Dare!!??? As in double dog dare!!?? As in triple dog dare with a cherry on top!!?? ( Don't get your bowels in an uproar, I'm only teasing!! )

I'm not upset

I just find it really strange for people to defend questionable actions of large companies!

Nope. Prefer to think for myself.

That's the best way for all of us to act.

Oddly enough I am not in complete disagreement with this. If you will look back earlier in this thread you will see where I opined that Apple would be forced to abandon it's proprietary ways, not by government fiat, but by competitive pressure. To do so otherwise is just to allow companies that have not been able to produce a successful product to feed at the trough that Apple built.

In a situation where one company has a monopoly, they're not likely to be challenged by competitive pressure.

Depends on the license. I have a license to drive a passenger vehicle. If I want to ride a motorcycle on the road, I have to get a different license. If you don't like the license offered by a certain vendor, then take your business elsewhere.

The license for iTMS you're defending also states that the license may be changed at Apple's discretion at any point with no recourse from the consumer. This means they could say "guess what, none of your songs can be burnt to a CD any more", or "all iTMS songs, including previous ones you've bought, only work on the new iPod micro". Agreements like that are illegal in most counties. This is one of the MAIN points Norway is contesting.

This is the argument that most pains me. For better or worse, and whether we like it or not, the content owners OWN THE CONTENT. It is their property, and they are free to do with it as they please, up to and including making it unavailable for digital download.

While I certainly agree with that (they do own the content), it's about "balance of power". Right now the music industry has pretty much all of it. Think of an employment situation where the employer has all the power... without someone to defend the employees (minimum wages etc), they can ask the employees to work for whatever they choose.

Noway just has good representation for it's people. That's a GOOD thing.

Here in Australia, Apple's dead pixel policy is the same as it is worldwide (I think it's something like "we won't replace anything with less than 4 dead pixels"). That agreement is actually illegal here... any manufacturing defect within reason is deemed as faulty, so I can take my brand new 30" Apple display that I paid a fortune for back to the store and swap it for one that's actually like the one in the brochure

Without laws like this in place, companies can run rampant.

Maybe, but my opinion is that the music industry will adopt a model similar to the movie industry, new content available on CD now, digital downloads in 6 months to a year.

Ok, this one I'm going to totally, and completely flat out disagree with you. CDs will die as soon as digital downloads are successful enough. Why?

Pros:
- No need for stock control, warehouses, freight
- No need for manufacturing
- No need for artwork printing, or even expensive artwork (crappy JPEGs are pretty cheap to knock up)
- The ability to lock EVERYONE in to DRM, and not have a non-DRM version of the songs on the market (big plus)
- Simultaneous world-wide release to all digital music stores is a snap, and much easier than dealing with all the retail chains

Cons:
- Some consumers won't buy digital downloads... but what choice do they have now? If they want the song, they'll buy it MWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.

How do you sanely argue that the consumer, who is getting exactly what they paid for, is being harmed? More honestly you would argue that the consumer is trying to change the terms of the deal they willingly signed up for, and using the Consumer Council of Norway to put the "strong-arm" on Apple. Remember, "Caveat Emptor"!

Firstly, remember that the iTMS agreement has a point where they can change any aspect of the agreement at any time.

Secondly, it's about abuse of power. "Getting what you agreed to" doesn't cut it if it's an unfair contract to begin with. I think some of you might not know that the sole reason that artists get a reasonable amount of money from a successful song exists BECAUSE governing bodies stepped in and set up the mechanical/publishing royalty system. It's the kind of thing that the music industry can't be left to self regulate. They will f&^k it up.

 

[dsnort]

Highland
I'm going to try to do this without all that cumbersome quoting we've been doing.

1.Cool, we all need to laugh sometimes. And big company or individual, right is right, and wrong is wrong. It is no more ethical to trample the rights of the large than it is to run roughshod over the small. ( Because where do you draw the line between big and small, and who gets to decide?) And just in case you think I will always jump to Apples defense, I personally think they are dead wrong on the dead pixel issue. Anyone receiving a new product from a manufacturer has a right to expect it to be properly functional with no obvious defects.

2.What? We agree on something? ( I must have my open mind meter set too high!)

3.Disagree that iPod is a monopoly. MP3 players introduced in 1998, first download service, Napster P2P, in 1999. iPod into'd 2001. If I remember correctly currently 70% of market(?). Even the French legislature admitted that there was fierce competition in the online music business, and that the competition was effective.

4.I believe Apples letter to the CC of Norway clarified that changes to the agreement only affected FUTURE downloads, and had no effect on files downloaded prior to the change. There is no "Ex Post Facto" effect.

5. Ehhh, the balance of power can be a bit slippery. The maiin reason they have all the power, is because we give it to them! We vote with our dollars. Just like the main reason we have $3.00/gallon gas (US) is because we continue to go to the pump and pay $3.00 for a gallon of gas. If we would find ways to limit our usage, the price would come down. But everyone is convinced that they should be able to jump in an auto and hare off around town on the slightest pretext. The wife and I have reduced our gas bill about 40% a week just by taking the time to plan out our trips so as to accomplish as much as possible in one trip, instead of making 5 trips. (Meanwhile, my sister inlaw lives in her car, and is the loudest complainer about the price of gas you've ever heard)
Similiarly, we have this insane argument over the terms of some service we didn't even know about 10 years ago, but have convinced ourselves we can't live without!

6.As for the cd thing, I guess only time will which of us, if either of us, is right.

Well, the wifes abed, need to go before she gets sleepy

G'night, and look forward to hearing from you.

IF YOU DARE LOL

 

[Highland]

1. Agreed. The only situation governing bodies should step in is in extreme cases. The dead pixel thing is really just a case of Apple trying to push their luck I think. Quite a few manufacturers do that with dead pixels.

2.

3. The iPod isn't a monopoly, but iTMS might be considered one soon, driven by the fact that it only operates with it's own player (which isn't really any better than the competition). I'm not arguing that iTMS or the iPod is bad. In fact, I think they're both great and might be considered the saviour of the recording industry if we get this DRM mess fixed.

4. Apple's agreement with users can be changed at any point (according to Apple). That's illegal in some countries, plain and simple. The changes to the situation in Norway might be only "from now onwards", but the iTMS agreement still says they can shift the rules for songs purchased dating back to the launch of iTMS.

5. Yes and no. Sure, we all vote with our dollars, but when the only players are big companies and the four major labels are all working only with a small selection of online stores, we're not left with enough choices to show how we'd like things done. If you like an artist then you have to put up with whatever's served.

Another example of how things have been done well in the past for the music industry is the current situation with cover songs. It works really well. Anyone can cover anyone, but the original artist gets paid 100% of the song writing royalties (publishing), while the new performer gets all the mechanical royalties (physical sales). It works, and it's law. I doubt a system like that would be put in place today. Today it'd be all like "I own this song so no one else can touch it!". We all need to mature a little and look at this from a more positive angle for everyone, rather than short term greed.

6. Yep, time will tell. Although I think you probably do agree that CDs will die, it's just a matter of time, and what they're replaced with. I can't see another physical audio format being introduced and having any mainstream success though.

 

[dsnort]

Still can't agree with ya on the cd thing for one reason, I went to a movie theatre this past weekend. I may be showing my age, but i can remember when the hue and cry was that the availibity of movies on VHS was going to put the theatres out of business, but it didn't. There are always going to be those who want the latest and greatest right now, without having to wait, and these people are willing to pay a premium. Some type of physical media will allow them to do that.

 

[Saerd]

It would be sad if they'd decide to close them.

 

[dsnort]

I was thinking, ( always a dangerous activity).

There IS one thing that could make me switch over to the cross platform compatibility side of this argument.

That would be if the CC of Norway enforced it ACROSS THE BOARD!

My first MP3 player was a Creative Zen Micro. The only reason I have an iPod is because when I switched to Macs, the nice people at Creative Labs informed me that their sync software DID NOT SUPPORT MAC OS.

I can't even access Sony's Connect music store on my Mac. I'm told I need to "upgrade to Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher". (Upgrade to IE??? Bwahahahahaha!!! Those silly wabbits. )

I have a couple of programs I used in my PC days that are completely useless now, they won't run on Mac OS. Why not? I bought them! I paid for them! What right do these software companies have to lock me into a single platform?

I have, at last count, 317 files on my comp with the extension .xls. If I should decide I prefer to use Lotus, will I be able to open these files as is? Or will I have to take the time to convert them to XML format? Will I lose any of the custom formatting these files contain? ( I honestly don't know. I'm just beginning to learn the ODF stuff. Beside, current version of Lotus appears to be Windows only!) And these files aren't something I paid for, they are my own creations!

I'd be more than willing to see Apple surrender some iPod sales, (given the quality of the product, I don't think it would be much), if it would remove the single largest block against switching to Mac OS; the availabilty of software! Then the OS's could compete on other planes; features, ease of use, quality of computing experience, stability, etc. All of which would be, dare I say, good for the consumer?

Maybe I'm just a silly dreamer, but imagine the boon to Mac and Linux users if all these software development companies were forced to make their products interoperable, with the same functionality, and price.

What a beautiful place the world would be!

 

[applebum]

I was thinking, ( always a dangerous activity).

There IS one thing that could make me switch over to the cross platform compatibility side of this argument.

That would be if the CC of Norway enforced it ACROSS THE BOARD!

My first MP3 player was a Creative Zen Micro. The only reason I have an iPod is because when I switched to Macs, the nice people at Creative Labs informed me that their sync software DID NOT SUPPORT MAC OS.

I can't even access Sony's Connect music store on my Mac. I'm told I need to "upgrade to Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher". (Upgrade to IE??? Bwahahahahaha!!! Those silly wabbits. )

I have a couple of programs I used in my PC days that are completely useless now, they won't run on Mac OS. Why not? I bought them! I paid for them! What right do these software companies have to lock me into a single platform?

I have, at last count, 317 files on my comp with the extension .xls. If I should decide I prefer to use Lotus, will I be able to open these files as is? Or will I have to take the time to convert them to XML format? Will I lose any of the custom formatting these files contain? ( I honestly don't know. I'm just beginning to learn the ODF stuff. Beside, current version of Lotus appears to be Windows only!) And these files aren't something I paid for, they are my own creations!

I'd be more than willing to see Apple surrender some iPod sales, (given the quality of the product, I don't think it would be much), if it would remove the single largest block against switching to Mac OS; the availabilty of software! Then the OS's could compete on other planes; features, ease of use, quality of computing experience, stability, etc. All of which would be, dare I say, good for the consumer?

Maybe I'm just a silly dreamer, but imagine the boon to Mac and Linux users if all these software development companies were forced to make their products interoperable, with the same functionality, and price.

What a beautiful place the world would be!

dsnort - finally, someone has hit the nail on the head. A standard DRM does not help ALL consumers - only those using Windows. This is why I see these rules/laws as fluff. There has to be 2 parts to any law before I will see it as positive. First - the law must insist on OS Neutrality. Meaning, if you want to have an online music store, it must work on Linux, Mac, and Windows. You make a music player, then it must have drivers or work on Linux, Mac and Windows. Once you have that, then let's get a universal DRM that is used by all these music stores and all these music players. Until both things happen, these laws do not help all consumers. And isn't what these laws are supposed to do - help the consumer???

My household has nothing but Macs. If these "laws" were enacted and we suddenly had a universal DRM, it would NOT help me as a consumer. I would still only be able to use iTunes, as none of the other big music stores (Sony, Yahoo, Napster, Real, Microsoft, Walmart) work on a Mac. I could perhaps buy a different player, but that would only help if that player had drivers or software that would work on a Mac.

These "laws" seemed to be created by Windows using politicians who don't truly understand what it would take to be fair to ALL consumers. It seems that they only care about whether Windows users get all the bells, whistles, and benefits. So I say leave it the way it is until it will help everyone.