U.S. Backs Apple's iTunes DRM 327
breun writes "The U.S. has asked foreign governments to consider the effects of interfering with popular new technologies, pointing to recent scrutiny of Apple's iTunes Music Store as an example of bad judgment. The U.S. Justice Department's antitrust chief Thomas Barnett cited recent foreign proposals to impose restrictions on Apple's iTunes service as an example of strict regulation which could discourage innovation and hurt consumers." From the Washington Post article: "In prepared remarks, Barnett said the scrutiny of Apple 'provides a useful illustration of how an attack on intellectual property rights can threaten dynamic innovation.' Barnett said Apple should be applauded for creating a legal, profitable and easy-to-use system for downloading music and other entertainment via the Internet."
Re:Or maybe it's just a GOOD government in action. (Score:1, Informative)
{
print "copyright infringement != stealing" . "\n";
}
Re:They're right (Score:2, Informative)
Music just isn't the same. It's not that important. And if it's as important to you than make you're decision by voting with your money (which would be a good idea IMHO)
Re:Or maybe it's just a GOOD government in action. (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, no contract is legally binding if you're not allowed to read it before purchasing. With a music even after you buy it you never agree to their terms since they are never presented to you. Besides that, it's a license not a contract which has to be signed by an individual one way or another. What if I'm a company and buy a bunch of cds with a company credit card. No identity ever signed a contract, no person is responsible.
DRM does intrinsically interfere with fair use as I'm explicity allowed to format shift and resample. The minute I have to break DRM to accomplish either of those then my fair use is comprimised without my consent.
Re:I Smell Something Fishy... (Score:4, Informative)
What about the "other" DRM? (Score:5, Informative)
This works in theory and practice with itunes: You still can buy in other online music stores or even buy the CD
It's very different in the case of DVD, though. Because the companies who make movies are the same companies who control the "electronics" market, consumers didn't have a choice, they were imposed what format they should use, like if they were living on Russia when Communism was still there. I just don't understand why companies are allowed to be big enought that they control EVERYTHING on a given market. It's like the companies who make petrol would also make cars and would make their petrol compatible only with their engines, and if other company tried to build a car compatible with their petrol would get sued. IMO this is anti-liberal and goes against capitalism. Should people be allowed to create big enterprises that create jobs? Hell, yes. Should those companies be allowed to control the market and lock out competitors? Hell, NO.
Remember that the ONE reason why you can see DVD in Linux is because someone broke the DRM protection. In the case of Itunes, it's clear that its DRM isn't dangerous, since you can buy other players and use other music stores. But if itunes would got 99% of the online music market, it WOULD be a problem. So DRM can be both good and bad - it's up to the government to make laws to stop it from being bad.
Re:Call me stupid.... (Score:3, Informative)
It discourages risk taking. If you have a neat idea that could take the world by store, but it will cost a bunch of money to create, why would you want to take that risk if you're going to be forced to give that technology away once it catches on?
It encourages copy-cats. Why spend the R&D effort developing something unique and original (something that may or may not be successfull) when you can wait for someone else to do that work, prove its viability, and capitolize on it?
Re:car analogy alert (Score:3, Informative)
>>> ability to use something I bought as I see fit a "right" of some company?
>> High performance cars artificially limit your top speed. Heck, 50cc scooters in some
>> markets do this. There are workarounds.
> Car analogies. They need to go, ok? We definitely need a car-analogy equivalent of Godwin's law.
It wasn't an analogy. It was an answer to a question. A car is another product which may
be artificially limited by the manufacturer.
That's Right! (Score:5, Informative)
Apple is the least restrictive DRM, and I don't doubt for a minute that they have fought a pretty tough battle against labels wishing for the most draconian of rights.
Re:Or maybe it's just a GOOD government in action. (Score:3, Informative)
At least one federal court disagrees [bitlaw.com].
Re:Or maybe it's just a GOOD government in action. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Too easy to see... (Score:3, Informative)
The "protection" of DRM by law has produced a new monopoly right to those who produce DRM. only they are legally allowed to produce playback devices for the DRM'ed format.
Since apple's IPOD is the most popular device, the inability to support competitor formats, only apple's is an abuse of a monopoly position via product tie-in.
they refuse to license their format, and also (but with good reason) refuse to license WMA playback from microsoft (would you willingly put yourself under your competitor's thumb?).
The main rub is their refusal to do one or the other is being used to lock either:
a - itunes customers into ipods.
b - ipod customers into itunes.
This would be equivalent to ford making it illegal to buy any brand of tire except (insert brand here).. It's vertical integration and expansion of monopoly power by tie-in, which is a violation of antitrust law (across the majority of major industrialized nations at this point). Keep in mind that microsoft was convicted of using a very similar strategy in both the US and the EU (remember WMP free versions the EU demanded?)..
in this case they are using this tie-in strategy to squeeze competitors out of the market.
Unfortunately we have a bunch of schilling, sell out, delusional idealogues who refuse to uphold those laws or stand up for consumer rights, they refuse to acknowledge the continued fact that corporations have been stripping the "free" from free market for years, and the idea that there is a "free market" in DRM access after the DMCA instituted stiff criminal barriers to entry is nothing short of cognitive dissonance, if not full fledged delusion.