EU Officials Cautious on AntiTrust Issues 156
An anonymous reader writes "News.com has a piece up looking at reactions from EU officials to the iTMS antitrust case. The individuals involved are wary of cracking open the DRM that protects the music sold at the iTunes Music Store." From the article: "One of the most outspoken government advocates on the issue is Norwegian consumer ombudsman Bjorn Erik Thon, who said he would act soon depending on how Apple responds to a letter the government had sent the company. If Apple can require an iPod for songs via iTunes, then music, book and film companies might restrict their products to specific players too, he said."
Media restricted to prefered player only (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like Sony and Blu-Ray.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Very common (Score:4, Insightful)
>Sounds like Sony and Blu-Ray.
Sounds like every game console ever made.
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't the DRM itself. Apple (and others) make intentionally crippled products, limited by this DRM junk. The consumer is free to decide if the crippled product is worth the price he/she is being asked to pay. If it's not, the product goes away, for lack of a market. Maybe some consumers DO find it a worthwhile trade, and the company can flouish because of it. Maybe some don't. If a government interferes with that process, it's interfereing with the free market.
The problem comes in when the government also interferes by making it illegal to circumvent the DRM, or do other "unauthorized" things to products people already have purchased. If Apple wants to sell me a crippled product, but I can make it better by circumventing the DRM, so be it. I haven't done anything ethically wrong until I've redistributed the product (presuming one buys into copyright as a valid concept, which we will for purposes of this dicussion). Maybe that easy circumvention is WHY it's worth it to me ot purchase the product. No one's going to tell me I can't rewire my blender to make it operate past spec, or cram together my own water filter out of parts I find in the store. It shouldn't be any different with media.
The solution is for government to butt out entirely.
Re:Ignorant Government Idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
5. ???
6. profit for everyone but you
"Might"? that's the freaking point! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ed Felten has pointed this out on numerous occasions, and I seriously doubt these government officials are so stupid as to not see it.
News flash corporate sellouts: you can't have your cake and eat it too..
DRM is deliberate incompatibility, and if you protect it you can't encourage interoperability at the same time!
This is ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
A more accurate way to argue the point he's making is to say that it would allow retailers to restrict the products they sell to specific players. For example, Barnes & Noble might start selling only ebooks in a proprietary
Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes (Score:3, Insightful)
I use exclusively Apple computers. I own three ipods. I bought a new macbook within a few days of launch. All my friends call me an Apple fanboy because I constantly try to convince people to switch. But I'm not so gullible to think that the ipod/itunes lockin isn't a blatant abuse of the customer. Apple has pretty much guaranteed I am going to keep downloading my music from bittorrent, by using an artificial extra layer to limit customer choice, and still have no effect on piracy.
Confusing the device provider w/content provider. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only part of the Apple solution that is 'locked' is the iTunes Music Store. And as we can see, everything available through there (with the exception of a few 'exclusive tracks!') is also available *elsewhere* - and there's a great deal of content that *isn't* available there. Furthermore, Apple makes no attempt to lock the iPod down from handling this other, DRM-free content (and if anyone whines 'it won't play format xxx' I slap them).
At that point, the thing that their 'lock' is protecting is their 'ease of use' consumer flow. In other words, we built this thing in such a way that the only people who can extract rents from downloading music to it (i.e. use DRM to make people pay money to download music to it) is us. If people want to invest a little energy and time, they can put music on it to their heart's content without having to cope with anybody's DRM, but if they want to accept the DRM and pay the cash for ease-of-use, they have to pay it to us.
That's what capitalism is all about. There's a perfectly good way onto the iPod for music that isn't from ITMS. If you don't want to pay Apple, don't. Buy a CD and rip it. Hell, record it yourself and load it. Your iPod will play it just fine. These bills have zip to do with protecting consumers, they have to do with protecting other businesses who want to extract their own rents in the DRM download market and want to freeload off the iPod's popularity. Screw 'em.
Re:"Might"? that's the freaking point! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ignorant Government Idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
Nevermind that if you rip to a lossless format, you're wasting tons of HD space and certainly not improving over the quality of your much-smaller AAC.
Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes (Score:3, Insightful)
If you DO purchase music from the ITMS, it will ONLY work on a computer on an ipod. So, if a really kickass Sandisk player comes out a month from now, you're fucked. If you have that fancy new PDA with a huge storage card - tough luck, you can't play your itunes songs.
And I am sick and tired of fanboys throwing out the "you can rip to CD" line. First off, apple has already decreased the number of burns you're allowed. Who's to say they won't keep doing so until you aren't allowed to burn at all? Second off, buring to CD loses quality. Third off, if you wanted to go through all the hassle of dealing with physical media, you'd be better off buying the fucking CD IN THE FIRST PLACE at a damn brick and mortar store.
The whole point of digital downloads is CONVENIENCE. Apple DRM does zero to prevent a motivated pirate (as you point out with the CD ripping), yet it provides great inconvenience and limitations for legit paying customers.
Re:Ignorant Government Idiots (Score:2, Insightful)
For two, unfortunately most normal computer users don't understand DRM and how it limits their rights until it's too late. Relying on consumer ignorance to lock them into a DMCA-protected proprietary DRM scheme is unethical and should be illegal.
I hate the "if you don't like it, don't buy it" argument - if you don't like windows, don't buy it. But definitely don't ask the government to step in and do something about their abuse of monopoly power. After all, if you don't like it, you don't HAVE to use it.
Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes (Score:2, Insightful)
No it doesn't. Going from a lossy compressed format to CDDA gives the save audio content. If you turn around and go back down to another lossy compressed format, it will potentially (probably) lose quailty from the original uncompressed copy that was used to generate the lossy compressed copy you bought from iTunes. (master DAT -> aac -> CDDA/wav -> mp3). Since the CD was made from a lossy compressed copy, it may have already lost everything that the mp3 compression of the original DAT would have lost, so going from the CD to mp3 might not lose anything. But just going from aac to cd won't lose anything.
Somehow I don't think that's the issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is a company which exists to make money for its shareholders. I can guarantee you that they would license the FairPlay scheme to anyone who was willing to pay Apple what it's worth. Unfortunately, the problem here is that nobody -- least of all SanDisk and Creative -- can afford that.
Re:Because you HAVE to buy from iTunes (Score:3, Insightful)
Releasing a music player and providing a first-party service or add-on for it to increase its value and appeal (just as companies like Nintendo do when they produce Metroid and Zelda), then watching as the music player goes on to be the most popular music player, is not an abuse.
No, you don't, and few people do. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only people unwilling to go through the "hassle" of ripping from a CD and who instead buy tracks at $0.99/song are people who have so much money to burn, they probably don't even know SanDisk or Creative exist, or that there are other MP3 players out there besides the iPod.
Seriously -- get a clue. The vast majority of songs on the vast majority of iPods in the world have been ripped from CDs (or downloaded illegally). The iTMS is a sideline, albeit a profitable one, but it's one that Apple would happily sacrifice in a particular market if the alternative in any way cut into their iPod hardware sales.
I don't know anyone who buys an iPod and then loads it up with music from the iTMS, or who bought an iPod because of iTMS. Who can afford to? By the time you filled that iPod up, it would be worth as much as a fairly decent, brand-new car. No, most people rip from CD, and it's dead easy to do. Frankly, sticking the CD in the drive and clicking on Import is easier, out of the box, than getting stuff from the iTMS is. (No signing up for an account, no entering your credit-card number, no high-speed internet required for good experience, etc.)
Nobody HAS to buy anything from iTMS. I'm sure there are lots and lots of people out there who can testify to the fact that they own iPods and have never bought anything from the iTMS. Personally, the only stuff I've bought was a few Audible books, and the free songs I've gotten from Pepsi caps. Even the people who download from the iTMS regularly, I'd wager, have far more songs on their computers from other sources than they do from the iTMS.
In short, you're vastly exaggerating the difficulty of ripping music from CD, and overstating the importance of the iTMS. If anything, the number of people out there with iPods is what will keep record companies from ever selling many un-rippable CDs, since so many people buy CDs and the first thing they do is stick them in their computers and rip them to their iPod.
If Apple offered a Napster-like music subscription ("all you can eat") service through the iTMS, then I would start to see your point of view: then you'd have a digital download service that was a practical source from which to fill up a HD-based music player. But at 99 cents a song, and much higher in some places in Europe, the iTMS certainly isn't it.
How is the phone not relevant? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Somehow I don't think that's the issue. (Score:3, Insightful)
And second, you've assumed that Apple always does exactly what will make them the most money - it's simply not true.
And lastly, who's to say Apple would make money by licensing fairplay? What if itunes went down the crapper because someone was able to sell fairplay-encoded music in an interface that was better than itunes? What if third party players exploded in popularity, because people could easily transfer all their already-purchased music to those players, and ipod popularity dwindled?
Apple's DRM is about a lot more than just protecting the music studios - it's about vendor lock-in. To be able to deny that, you have to be drinking some serious Kool-Aid
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
You had me up to here. They are doing no such thing: they're not saying you have to use music from their store, in fact you can load music onto that iPod from anyplace you want (including pirated stuff).
If you choose to get music from the iTMS, then it becomes locked to the iPod: but it's not as if the consumer doesn't have a number of alternatives besides the iTMS.
Were Apple to make it so that you suddenly had to get your music from the Music Store in order to use that iPod that you just bought, then there would be a serious antitrust issue. But all the arguments I've seen basically ignore the fact that most people don't get their music from the iTMS! People still buy CDs every day, and put that music onto their iPod.
The line that seems to be coming up in this discussion a lot so far is that the music companies are adding DRM to their CDs, and thus the alternative avenue to the iTMS is being cut off. If this is happening, and if the market doesn't correct it (because I bet people aren't going to be very pleased when they can't put that new CD onto their iPod), then there's a place for regulation: at the very least, DRMed CDs should be required to prominently warn consumers that they're not rippable.
But generally, if the music companies start selling DRMed CDs, it doesn't make sense to turn around and punish Apple. Punish the companies selling "defective" CDs: since many more songs are sold every year on CD than on the iTMS, DRMed CDs present much more of a threat to the marketplace than where you can use iTMS-downloaded songs.
Basically, I find the whole iTMS argument flawed. Basically people are taking the iPod's possible monopoly over portable music players, and use that to justify cracking open Apple's music distribution outfit. This doesn't make any sense: Apple doesn't have a monopoly over music distribution; in reality the iTMS doesn't have more than a few percent of the worldwide music-sales market versus CDs and other sources. The thing they have a monopoly over (the iPod) is already open to non-Apple music.
What's the dispute? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. You don't have to buy an iPod. You can buy any music player you want; and there are plenty of vendors. Furthermore, you can use any of your music players with Windows or OS X.
2. You don't have to buy songs from iTunes. You can use any online service you want; and there are plenty of vendors. Unlike the OS scene, lower marketshare for Microsoft's online music store, or Real's online music store does != less content. Napster has 1.5 million pay-for songs on it. MSN music has millions, as does Rhapsody. Nobodies forcing you to use iTunes.
3. iTunes *will* rip MP3 or AAC without an iPod, on both Windows and OS X. iTunes *will* copy MP3s or AACs to _any_ USB block device-style MP3 player, without you having to own an iPod. However you purchase non-DRM MP3s or AACs, you can manage them with iTunes, and copy them to _any_ USB block style device; including iPods.
4. The iPod can be access without using iTunes. There's plenty of Linux tools, and a fair number of OS X and Windows tools. MP3s and/or AACs can be copied to your iPod.
The ONLY limitation on the iPod/iTunes combination is AACs purchased on iTunes protected by FairPlay. Now, if iTunes had exclusive marketing agreements with the RIAA regarding content, or if the iTunes music store was the only online music store out there, or if no one made MP3 players but Apple; then there would be an anti-trust argument. As it is, the consumer *is not hurt* in *any* way by iTunes/iPod. You can buy a Samsung MP3 player, and play the _same_ exact music from the MSN Music store as you would have purchased from iTunes. Better yet, if you purchased non-DRMd music, you could managed it via iTunes and play it on your Samsung MP3 player.
The iPod/iTunes combination is less of an anti-trust problem than Windows/Windows software, or Xbox360/Xbox games, or Blu-ray/BD-ROMS, and HD-DVD/HD-DVD disks. Out of all of these product "tie-ins", the online music market is the *only* one where you can purchase the same _exact_ content from multiple providers. It's actually a competitive landscape.
Context is very important for antitrust. It's not about principle; in no way does Apple DRM limit market availability for RIAA music, unless the RIAA decides to exclusively license Apple, which they _have not done_. Now, I do believe that DRM is bad, but antitrust legislation is not the correct way to resolve it.
Any argument you can come up with regarding iPod/iTunes applies 100 fold to Windows/Windows Media/Software/Music. Win32-only, or WMV only is a far bigger problem in terms of competition, and you can easily see that by comparing the online libraries of OS X content versus Win32 content.
That all being said, product-tie-ins is one of the weakest forms of monopoly abuse. I suspect that all this noise regarding iTunes/iPod is being generated by Microsoft funding. Nothing else really makes sense. For god sakes, Apple has even started to license FairPlay, in terms of usage on Motorola's phones; and don't forget that Apple is NOT vertically integrated with content providers (RIAA).
I'm all in favor of generalized legislation protecting the consumers right to reverse engineer DRM for us on . Should I be able to try and crack FairPlay in order to play DRMd AACs on my Rio Karma? Sure. It's retarded that reverse engineering content you've paid for for usage on a hardware you own is illegal. But legally busting Apple without going after Microsoft/Sony/Real/AACS/CSS/HDMI ? What fucking sense does that make?
Re:Confusing the device provider w/content provide (Score:3, Insightful)
All of the anti-trust arguments rest on Apple's market share. In turn, in order for the iTMS to be relevant, it seems to me that you'd have to prove the availability of iTMS on the iPod and NOT on other players to be a factor in the purchasing decision of the iPod. However, that's backwards from reality. The iPod was a massive hit before iTMS was doing well, and iTMS is an effort to capitalize on a much bigger product - the sale of iPOD hardware. At that point, Apple had a better product than the competition, and is attempting to capitalize on that fact. They are not preventing anyone from selling other mp3/aac players. They're not preventing anyone from selling their content through iTMS. They're not preventing anyone from setting up competing digital distribution links - market choice, however, may make it difficult, and entities may be petitioning for relief from that. I say this because *unless* they have clauses in their distribution contracts with content providers saying that 'unless the iTMS is the ONLY digital distribution source you use, you can't distribute through iTMS' they're not preventing the sale of music through other digital download services. (CAVEAT: THEY MAY HAVE THESE CLAUSES, I DON'T KNOW! If they do, then I acknowledge a problem!) Rather, they're using their market position to encourage people to buy music through iTMS, because it's easier than ripping CDs. Making things easier is not monopolistic; making *other* things *harder* deliberately is. The former is innovation. The latter is anticompetitive.
Leveraging a market position to sell more of something is not illegal. Leveraging it to restrict *other* people selling things may indeed be illegal. However, given that the iPod (and iTunes) will accept non-DRMed tracks from non-Apple sources (online and off), I argue that they're not preventing anything - they're just refusing to do R&D work to make it easy for other people to sell stuff in their patch. I really don't have a problem with that.
And to those that note that Norway isn't capitalist - fair enough. Apple, however, certainly is. So my response: if Norway isn't capitalist, it sure should stop spending 'money' buying Apple's products in a 'market' and then using domestic law to tell Apple how to design those products to conform to its 'noncapitalist' system.
a different view (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Somehow I don't think that's the issue. (Score:3, Insightful)
And lastly, who's to say Apple won't make money by licensing fairplay? What if itunes becomes even more popular because competitors continue to make crappy interfaces as they have been doing since the dawn of the digital music age? What if apple developed an iPod that was also a PDA and cellphone- Apple could release iSync for Windows, and everyone would be able to sync all their current contacts, calenders, and to do's with the new ipod.
My point is that we don't live in the magical world of "if's" You can speculate all you want on the future, but it will never get you anywhere. Action is required for anything to happen.
As to the rest of the post, that was pretty on-target.
Re:Ignorant Government Idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
That's beside the point. All DRM is unethical and should be illegal.
The vinyl lock in (Score:3, Insightful)