US government supports Apple stand on French law

In what's shaping up to be the biggest Franco-American battle since US lawmakers renamed their favorite side dish "Freedom Fries," the US government has now declared its support for Apple in the company's dispute with France over DRM interoperability. US Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, questioned about the case on CNBC, declared that he would "compliment [Apple] because we need for companies to also stand up for their intellectual property rights. At issue is a draft law that would require Apple and other companies to open up their DRM to competitors or allow consumers to do so on their own, so that music purchased in an online music store could be played in any manufacturer's digital audio player. Earlier this week, Apple referred to the French bill as part of a "state-sponsored culture of piracy." While Guiterrez didn't say whether the US government would do anything specific on Apple's behalf, he did say that it's a good policy to "have the government work with other governments." We assume this will continue to escalate, and it'll only be a matter of days before French students start burning iPods in the streets and Americans retaliate by torching Archos Gminis. And it looks like the cafeteria in Cupertino will have to start serving iToast for breakfast.

[Meh @ Mar 23rd 2006 6:33PM]

Surprise, surprise.. the government supporting squashing the common mans' fair use rights.

[alc277 @ Mar 23rd 2006 6:38PM]

As long as I still get my SpaghettiO's nobody gets hurt.

[cyberfunk @ Mar 23rd 2006 6:50PM]

Is this the same law that will potentially make the awesome VLC illegal ? IE.. the one with the dreaded "vivendi-Universal amendment?"

Does anyone know if those two laws are one and the same ? If so, then this law seriously ought not to pass... I hear that it'd basically kill Mplayer/VLC/et al in France... and while I dont much care about what they get quite honestly, I'm chilled by the implications.

[tony @ Mar 23rd 2006 6:59PM]

#3, I don't think they're the same.

This law is ridiculous on its own, though. It infringes on a company's right to conduct business how it chooses. Just last year France investigated Apple for anti-trust violations in connection with iTunes but couldn't find any indication of breaking competition law. If people don't like the "walled garden" of iTunes, they can join other music services.

just a quick analogy. Imagine a government forcing Sony to make its Playstation 2 play Xbox games. Would anyone think that's a choice the government should make?

[MikeN @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:05PM]

MMMMMMMMM iToast
Forget France, just do what I do, pull out.

[dasmenneke @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:05PM]

the big fault is that they just should've been called belgian fries from the beginning, since they were invented/made first in belgium

[Marty @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:15PM]

Im convinced the majority of engadgets posters are now on the payroll from apple.

Everyone is up in arms over HDCP, slagging sony for using dodgy DRM and overall constantly on the fight for fair use, and as soon as there's a glimmer of light you slam them because they have the balls to go up against your darling apple.

I think this is the best thing to happen and if more countries get behind it then there will be fair use. Think about it: if you're not a geek and you want to be law abiding, you buy an ipod like everyone else, all your cd have anti copying protection, and to put things on your ipod, you need to install itunes which happens to have iTMS built into it.

Two years down the track youre ready for a new player and really like the samsung offerings, but cant buy it because you dont want to repurchase all your music.

#4 That is a terrible analogy, its more like saying you need to rebuy a game to play on a dell if you bought it for a compaq. Its not like theres any difference in coding needed between mp3 players as there is between ps3 & xbox360

[Mr. Mario @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:22PM]

Funny. I didn't realize that it was Apple who created the music they sell... oh wait they dont.

So what rights are they talking about?

How about the right to buy an mp3 player and be able to use your music from other stores without having to go exclusively throught the company that made your mp3 player in the first place.

This will definitely open up competition and maybe bring down song prices.

[Mr. Mario @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:25PM]

#4
Your quick analogy doesnt work because the technology on the PS' and XBOXs are different.

However, an MP3 is an MP3 is an MP3. They are very interchangeable.

How would you like it if you bought a Toyota car and were only able to fill it up at Toyota gas stations???

[tony @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:31PM]

the analogy may not be perfect but the point stands: the government shouldn't dictate what media should be played on consumer electronics.

Apple isn't violating any competition law--there are about a dozen other online music stores in France, some of which are "open." Yet 60% of the market still chooses to go to iTunes.

I'm not arguing against "fair use" or open platforms--I'm arguing that it should be up to the consumer and not the government.

[The Hague @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:32PM]

The difference here, of course, is that Microsoft basically told Apple to "knife that baby" (QuickTime) so they could own the next round of digital.

Since Apple wisely told them to piss off, then proceeded to win the next round of digital, perhaps we should let private companies interface with consumers as they wish.

Instead of companies (like, um...Microsoft) pushing around consumers and other companies, at the same time.

Apple is a CLOSED SYSTEM. For good reasons.

So, get over it, and take your money elsewhere.

You're all bitching because they won, and because they're the best.

The market told me so.

And it just gets worse next week...

[pj @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:32PM]

#8 Hmm, the right to buy an mp3 and play it on any player? I just the checked the constitution, couldn't find it.

#9 How would i like it? I probably wouldn't buy an toyota then. Just like you shouldn't buy from itunes if you're not happy with the situation.

Quite frankly, apple should be free to put whatever restrictions it wants on the music it sells. I don't have to like it (and i don't) but maybe if some other company could create a decent mp3 player and take some market share, it would force apple to open up.

[Kit @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:32PM]

This whole kerfuffle boggles me.

Does this same law mean that Blu-Ray content producers will be REQUIRED to support HD-DVD aswell?

Did anyone expect VHS players to play Betamax?


If anyone's interested, I don't think my favourite CD was released on Tape. I'M OUTRAGED! I bought it on CD, and now I can't hear it on my 10 year old Walkman? I demand vengeance.




This law is ridiculous. It's not like they didn't tell you in advance that you have to use an iPod to hear it OFF your computer.

[Jeffrey Gisin @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:34PM]

It's good to know at least some people in this country have common sense. ITunes is one of the most annoying music sites to pirate. To make one of their songs a common MP3 you have to burn a CD with the music, then rip it off the CD. Most people are too lazy for this and apple knows it.

Is this bad. If you're a pirate, yes. But why on earth should Apple cater to pirates. They created a system to maximize their potential to earn money. They are a business after all. What right does France have to destroy this system? The fact remains, if you don't like it, go somewhere else for music. The fact that so many people use Itunes gives credelance to Apple's business practice.

[Sean @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:46PM]

Dear lord we have a lot of idiots on this site. Look, Apple created a software and MP3 player that will allow you to use the music you get from the store (ie those discs we called CDs) or any other recorded audio file (like AIFF) and play them through your computer and through the iPod. Its not a closed system, its an enforced DRM by the content providers in which Apple is playing by their rules under their contract with the record companies. If France, or many of the morons here, don't like it then DON'T buy an iPod or use iTunes. Apple doesn't have a monopoly, their not the content providers and they're not the only gig in town. Go to a Russian site if you want stripped DRM MP3s, buy an iRiver or Samsung player if you can't stand mp4 files, but stop acting likes its France's right to tell Apple how they should write code and act on their contractual agreements with the content providers.

France is the entity which should deserve the most ire in this story, since its their socialistic lawmakers whom want to force a private company to hand over the keys to their profit generating machine to other competitors because someone doesn't like the way Apple is playing with their toys.

To make a long comment, short... stop whining.

[len @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:47PM]

Even PC game analogy is too narrow. Music is like music, and movies are like movies. They pre-date computers by decades and have an intrinsict existence regardless of the encoding scheme or whatever technology they sit inside. They have had dozens of different physical storage mediums over the years, but the concepts of ownership, both for the copyright holder and the consumer who has a copy, haven't changed much (at least in my lifetime).

Enter DRM, and everything changes. A new paradigm is being forced upon the consumers. What France is trying to do is define an existence for digital music with *law* that is consistent with past expectations, whereas Apple wants to define it with *software* according to its own agenda. Many industries are heavily regulated for to the public good, why should music be any different?

[Jay @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:47PM]

I agree with #12 for the most part so I won't buy from Apple's iTMS...or Apple in general. If only the general consumer would realize that there are much better MP3 players that don't require you to buy from them specifically.
In short, good job Apple/iTunes for making some damn good money. Bad job consumers for being their bitch.

[pete @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:49PM]

#14
France is fighting for their consumers. They are saying that when you buy music you are supposed to buy music as it is advertised. Companies don't tell comusmers clearly that they are buying an Apple's version of the song.

I love the ipod and I'm pro-Apple except for their copyright feature here. I don't like the fact that I can't listen to an itunes song on another pc.

[Marty @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:52PM]

"Apple isn't violating any competition law--there are about a dozen other online music stores in France, some of which are "open." Yet 60% of the market still chooses to go to iTunes. "

Because 59% of the market doesnt know any better!

What does that 59% of the market call an mp3/pmp player? an ipod. There pumped full of advertising and iTMS is preinstalled. Do you really think these people that barely know how to use a computer think they can use anything else?

In any other industry if you play on the ignorance of the consumer you get fined, why should it be any different?

Microsoft got blasted for preinstalling wmp and iexplore in windows products. Everyone knows you can just install a competitor but the majority just sticks to it because they don't know any better.

Im not saying get rid of iTMS, or dont preinstall it.. but the government had a good idea with the flat fee and no drm, and you intelligent people just don�t get it. Why are we moving towards a world where you need to buy media for every single device you own? HD-DVD, UMD, DVD, MP3? Why is industry dictating what the consumers actually want? Why don't more people try and educate against misleading marketing?

Because of you fanboy. Because of you.

[Sean @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:52PM]

Letting the market decide works for those of us that have a choice -- it's the reason I don't own an iPod, for instance -- but what about those that don't? People who receive iPods as gifts, or choose to buy it simply because they think it's the best at the moment, but expect to get something else for their next player? It's fair for them to have to re-buy all of the music they actually paid for, when a "pirate" switching players doesn't have any trouble at all?

I support France's position here simply to give everybody an easier way to transcode music they legally bought so they can continue to use it. It's no surprise the US Govt is siding with Apple, I'm sure Sony and others have plenty of lobbyists that know this could be a blow to DRM's future, and I hope it is.

[jl @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:53PM]

Well, I want to use my T-mobile phone on the AT&T network. If that doe not happen, I want to go to France and complain about it!!! When ever you subscribe into a wireless phone service, it is a �closed" system. You can't use other provider's network when you reception is poor, should the law mandates that AT&T's or Cingular's network service be available to T-mobile users? If you don't like the reception, change the carrier, simple as that. For anyone that doesn�t understand is a moron.

[Bruce @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:54PM]

The EU is trying to do the same thing to Microsoft's Intellectual Property, but since Microsoft is EVIL no one cares.

[The Hague @ Mar 23rd 2006 7:58PM]

Yes, many industries are heavily regulated for the public good.

The public cannot take pollution out of the air/water/bio system after its been put in. Good places for science, the peer review method, and accepted standards to be enforced by the government.

But I'm sorry - I missed where the government should enforce standards on my choice of entertainment, or its delivery. Especially when there is a choice available in the marketplace. Here, and in France.

Yes, you can agree that the anti-trust action against Microsoft was well founded and still chalk this thing up to French nationalism.

Some of you are totally off the map on this one. Sorry!

[Fairights @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:00PM]

The thing i dislike the most about apple users in general is that even if its wrong they defend apple.
They been getting jereked with old technology housed in attractive packaging and paying for 4 year old harwdare at high prices. Go apple fans go-fucking loosers-

[x23 @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:01PM]

"However, an MP3 is an MP3 is an MP3. They are very interchangeable."

iTunes doesn't sell MP3s. no major store sells MP3s. eMusic and Bleep are the only ones i can think of that sell MP3s. and yes. they are interchangable.

somehow i've managed to fill my iPod with music without ever being 'locked in' to the iTMS. ripping from CDs i already owned... or the aforementioned MP3 stores. if the iPod *ONLY* played .m4p i could see this being an issue. but that simply isn't the case. i was never once forced to purchase from iTMS in order to fully enjoy my iPod(s).

"If only the general consumer would realize that there are much better MP3 players that don't require you to buy from them specifically."

i see this mentioned time and time again. it simply is not true. it is a lie. the iPod and the iTunes application existed WELL BEFORE there ever was an iTMS. do people not realize that?

for the 9,000,000th time. having an iPod does not mean you HAVE to use the iTMS.

[jl @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:01PM]

BTY, I can�t play my vinyl LPs with an 8-track player and I�ll sue!!!! Where is the French law when you need it ?

[baralong @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:02PM]

I have to agree with some about the apple bias here at engadget. Still I disagree with the french law.

I own an iPod and I won'tbuy from iTunes. Why? Because I don't want to be locked into only buying iPods in the future. I also have a PDA and a Phone capable of playing MP3s (WMA OGG ...) and I want to be able to move my media around. I'm also no fan of the iTunes player interface, so on my PC I don't use it to play music (it's sole purpose is to load up my shuffle for my bike ride)

If Apple are up front about "if you buy from iTunes then you can only play it on an iPod" then buyer beware. We are all responsible for our choices. Sure I'd *like* Apple to open up to letting other players play music from iTunes, but I don't think a Government should force them to.

That said if the government says that it's OK for you to re-encode legaly purchaced music then I'm fine with that. It's what I do with my CDs.

[x23 @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:05PM]

"They been getting jereked with old technology housed in attractive packaging and paying for 4 year old harwdare at high prices."

do you have links to this 4GB Nano competitor from 2002 you speak of? i am very interested as surely they must sell quite cheap on eBay these days. being 4 years old and all.

[jl @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:09PM]

Engadget, please take "Fairights" off this blog. This guy uses profanity and has no class!!!!

[bwy @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:10PM]

This is a joke. Why don't these activists apply their efforts to something useful, like human rights issues around the world? There are places in the world where people can't even speak freely.

People know exactly what they are getting when the buy an iPod, use the iTMS, etc. There is no deception and we're not talking about access to essentials like food, water, or shelter.

To burden a government and waste taxpayer money worrying about something like this is ridiculous. I fail to see how this is the "next big humanitarian crisis" that needs to be solved.

[Ben @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:12PM]

Apple choosing to bundle itms and ipod is their company's choice, just like its microsofts choice whether they want to share their application programming interfaces with other companies. that's why microsoft won against the DOJ in the monopolization case.

hmm, actually i think microsoft lost, i think they were required to make it easier for other companies to make software for windows. but obviously the apple fanboys will tell you their is a clear difference between microsoft restricting what their software will work with and apple restricting what their software will work with.

[jl @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:15PM]

One more thing: The French should make the HD-DVD format interchangeable to Blue-ray-DVD. Otherwise, HD-DVD is going to be a CLOSED system and we don�t want that do we? The whole world's economy is going to depend on the French!!!

[sam @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:21PM]

agree with #17

you guys all think this world would be
perfectly functional if we just let market forces do their work. sadly its not the case.

[The Hague @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:21PM]

Yes, there is a clear difference between Microsoft using its market power to muscle other companies into submission

AND

Apple using its market power to force Microsoft into submission

The difference being - an excellent product (for most people), compelling advertising, ease of use, etc.

And Microsoft "won" the DOJ case...because the DOJ changed hands after the election.

Read some of the testimony. All Apple did was offer a way to sell music online, and let you OWN IT.

Whiners.

[The Hague @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:26PM]

Yes, Sam.

Some of us think that certain areas of the market should be left alone...

...others regulated.

And if monopolies arise, that's a different story.

Don't be so black and white with everything. Allow the "gray area" to exist!

[Ben @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:27PM]

hey 31,

you know that broadcom announced a chip that can play blu ray and hd dvd and it will let hardware manufacturers play both in one piece of hardware. bluray and hddvd are not secretive formats, they will let anyone make hardware that works with them. The problem with the drm, is that apple and microsoft don't let anyone make hardware for their content. that is the anticompetitive part. it is not a problem that the government need to concern itself with, unless the firm being "anticompetitive" has market power, and like microsofts case with windows, apple has a lot of market power with mp3 players and mp3 content.

if they didnt have the market power it would not matter, because they would go out of business shortly with their business plan. with them as big as they are now and with the first mover advantage, it will take longer for them to lose their business, but if they keep the music and hardware linked they will lose their market share eventually.

[jack @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:30PM]

DRM sucks. I think anyone will agree to that, however, Apple's DRM is definitely the lesser of two evils in my opinion.

No one is locked into purchasing songs from only the iTunes music store, nor do they have to play songs purchased from the ITMS on an iPod. People have options:
1. Buy AAC files from the ITMS burn them to a CD. Rip that CD and save the files in any format you see fit. I agree that this is a bit of a hassle, but come on, people are not locked in.
2. Buy a CD, rip it, and skip using the ITMS altogether.
3. Find another service that offers mp3s and use it, but be warned their DRM is probably far more restrictive than Apple's.
4. Buy AAC files from the ITMS, burn a CD, rip it, and save the files in whatever new format you choose. Then upload those files to your mp3, music player, of preference, whether it's an iPod or whatever else.

In closing, yes DRM sucks. In a perfect world it wouldn't exist. Apple has made the best of a bad situation with their DRM. Their DRM is easy to bypass if that is what the user wants to do. This in turn gives the user the choice. The bureaucrats/politicians in France are like the bureaucrats/politicians elsewhere. They have no idea what they are talking about.

[jm @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:31PM]

everyone is coming up with their own analogy of ipod-drm "closed systems" like phone networks, consoles, etc or other examples where the french should be kicking up a fuss but arent.
why would u boast about this? are u proud that u live in a world that is becoming so restricted?

[Ben @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:37PM]

33, i was being sarcastic about microsoft winning the doj case, they lost and then they ended in a settlement.

and the quality of a product has nothing to do with whether their is a monopoly that should be broken up.

and despite your hatred for microsoft, their should be no difference in the eyes of the doj for what the company's name is.

i sort of hope apple doesnt open the ipod or itunes cause i want them to fail just like they did in the pc market. their share of the pc market was very big in the mid 80's they had great marketing, but they aligned the hardware and software together and the more free market of microsoft making software and lots of companies making hardware won out. the same will happen with mp3's once parents of little rich kids realize that there is alternative hardware to ipod's and that that hardware can be used with many different sevices, not just one.

people like options. apple doesnt get that.

[rayk @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:47PM]

God some people on this site are truly moronic in the worst fanboy way ever.

People, honestly why are you trying to defend apple and their DRM? Is it because you get pay checks in your mail from Steve?

I can only see benefit from this law, as DRM schemes are draconic and should not exist to the degree apple has gone too. Can't you guys see the benefit as consumers from this? This can potentially open up the market so you CAN buy a creative player and use songs from iTMS on it, or vice versa. What is wrong with this?

The analogies to vinyl, consoles and so on are irrelevant. Because all mp3 files are the same, just some of them have a lock that prevents you from using them else where.

Sat apple released a CD player long ago, and a store that sold music CD's. But the catch was, those CD's were locked to the apple CD player so they wouldn't work anywhere else. Would you complain about that? I know I would.

To those saying you can burn a CD off with iTMS songs and re encode it - why on earth should you be FORCED to do that? Do you guys even account for the loss of quality when your doing this? So you buy a lossy format song, and then you re encode it for further loss. Great!

I guess those that get iPods can't tell the difference between a song encoded at 96kbs and 192kbs.

[Angus McDonald @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:51PM]

Vive la France!!

I'm with the frogs on this one, using DRM to create a monopoly sucks. We would never have the video/DVD rental market that exists now if every video had to be played on the one (and only one) vendor's player.

Apple should give up on this one. I ain't going to let them brickwall me into giving them a monopoly on my personal digital life, just like I won't let Microsoft do it with my work digital life.

Now it's true that the French have a peculiarly paranoid view of culture - kinda the opposite of the Chinese Cultural Revolution - but on this one they are right on the money.

[Mr. Mario @ Mar 23rd 2006 9:01PM]

I dont get all this MS bashing and Applephilia...

Next time Steve Jobs starts up a $39 billion dollar foundation for the improvement of mankind I'll think about defending Apple and iTMS.

However, seeing as how Apple is nothing more than a middle man I would think that the music companies' (who actually own the distribution rights to their music) rights have more weight than Apples.

If I pay $1 for a song I should be able to use it on other computers of mine. And if they will argue that that allows for people to share files, again, then maybe they should get to work on something that doesn't assume I am a criminal.

[The Hague @ Mar 23rd 2006 9:15PM]

Ben-

We offered up reasoned discussions on this topic, you, and whiners like you, offer grand generalizations, contempt for people "who don't know any better" etc, and general name calling.

Oops. I call people names too.

Whiners.

And yes, Apple does, in general, rule over everybody and everything.

There. I finally said it.

And no, I don't work for them.

[Great Googly Moogly @ Mar 23rd 2006 9:18PM]

"10. the analogy may not be perfect but the point stands: the government shouldn't dictate what media should be played on consumer electronics."

I'd rather have the government do it than A COMPANY.
Sheesh, reading this comments space it's clear the retardation of today's people is staggering. They take it up the pooper from corporations and, yes, governments, and defend the whole process in the holy name of capitalism and consumerism.

Whatever happened to looking out for people? Healthy egotism?

The indoctrination has been quite successful, sadly.

[Nick @ Mar 23rd 2006 9:22PM]

#19 Pete said: "France is fighting for their consumers. They are saying that when you buy music you are supposed to buy music as it is advertised. Companies don't tell comusmers clearly that they are buying an Apple's version of the song.

I love the ipod and I'm pro-Apple except for their copyright feature here. I don't like the fact that I can't listen to an itunes song on another pc."

Wrong on both counts. Apple's Terms of Service defines the product, and points out that the DRM is part of the product. By definition, they are telling you it is an "Apple version." Read it here:

http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/legal/terms.html

It is linked from within the iTunes application.

Secondly, the license also tells you that you can play an iTMS song on up to a certain number of devices which includes players and computers. Nothing prevents you from copying an iTMS song from a Mac to a PC or vice versa, and authorizing that computer to play the file.

So, in fact, the music IS being sold "as advertised."

[Great Googly Moogly @ Mar 23rd 2006 9:22PM]

Addendum:
Ponder this:

You have an iPod for a few years, you buy music from iTunes.
You find a better product and move over to it. OH SHIT I CAN'T PLAY ANY OF MY MUSIC I BOUGHT THESE PAST YEARS!

[The Hague @ Mar 23rd 2006 9:31PM]

I guess I'm retarded.

I went from paying $15.99 for a CD, to $9.99 on iTMS.

Damn that market - finding new ways to lower prices and distribute goods!

If only there was a black hole of piracy, or a monthly subscription model that LOCKS YOU INTO the good will of the company controlling your "collection".

Damn Apple for keeping the concept of purchase, and ownership alive.

We should all wish for some magic, government mandated, neutral uber system of payments, royalties and copy protection. That works on everything, everywhere, from all companies, in all countries.

Instead, I'll just enjoy my effortless, forget about it, iPod experience.

Next.

[bmson @ Mar 23rd 2006 10:00PM]

This is so simple.
I'm buying music, not a format.

I bough a song in iTMS, I lost my iPod.
Now I can't listen to the music I played unless I buy my a new iPod.

Some people are saying that it's like your music is not published on a tape.
When you buy a cd you can take your music of the cd and make a copy, put it on a tape, move it to every single portable player.

If you buy the same thing online you can't do anything with it, expept put it on your iPod.

It would be similar if all CD's from sony would only be playable in a CD player from sony.

I think the US-goverment has gone 360� and lost there freedome thinking.
Let's take a little bit of the public-freedome and give it to the companies.

iTMS is the biggers online music store and because of that, they do have a bigger responsibility.

[c.Lake @ Mar 23rd 2006 10:00PM]

@ houseaddict #14
I'm an American, and don't have anything against the French. The French have their own problems they have to deal with, (lots of Riots every 50 years or so).

Look I don't like or agree with Apple's DRM either, but they do STATE very clearly, that if you buy from iTunes, you have to own an iPod. If your going to get in �BED� with Apple � you already know how the �player-plays.� However... there "IS" an alternative to buying music from iTunes. Just look over a few counties over to the right. They are offering music for $0.10, with NO DRM in it at all.
www.allofmp3.com

The guys at Engadget can't win. You accuse them of being bias towards Apple, than get mad and say they are in bed with Microsoft. Who are they really sleeping with... Oracle?

[Lane @ Mar 23rd 2006 10:10PM]

It's Apple's music store and their Ipod. They can do whatever the hell they want with it.