Denmark may join France and demand Apple open its DRM

Denmark's largest telecom company, TDC, and the Maersk shipping giant, have joined the French call for Apple to open up its DRM to all players, with TDC's CEO saying that "we can only press for something like the French, because it gives the consumers as many opportunities to shop for music." We're not sure if such calls resonate with the Danish government; last time we checked, the Prince was still wandering around muttering something about ghosts, and his pals were warning him that "something rotten" was going on at the top. And chances are Steve Jobs isn't losing any sleep over this -- unless he's seeing ghosts as well -- since Denmark's population of about 5.4 million makes it one of Europe's smaller markets. Regardless of whether the corporate pronouncements translate into actual law, they do seem to point to a growing trend in Europe to demand greater DRM interoperability. Elsewhere in Europe, Apple's long-running battle with the surviving Beatles over the use of the name "Apple" is due back in court this week, as Paul and Ringo continue to insist that the iPod and iTunes violate the terms of a 1991 settlement in which Apple agreed to stay out of the music business. Apple has defended itself by insisting that the agreement with the Beatles' Apple Corps publishing company applied only to physical media and not "data transmission," as Apple defines its products. Maybe Apple should try the same excuse on those melancholy Danes and see if it'll be enough to get them to put down their slings and arrows.

Read - Denmark
Read - Beatles

[leojsoap @ Mar 27th 2006 12:42PM]

ah crap, here comes WWIII�

be sure invest in a good bomb shelter before prices spike, kids.

[Torontoguy @ Mar 27th 2006 12:50PM]

If Apple doesn't comply, Denmark will publish political cartoons on iTunes and the protests will result in iPods being burned in the streets. You don't mess around with cartoons!
On a serious note, Apple may feel that it could pull out of France without a major hit to its revenues but if the requirement that they open their format spreads to the entire EU then we are talking a major market.

[Matt @ Mar 27th 2006 12:50PM]

Despite its small size, the Denmark development is huge because it shows the dominoes are falling in the EU. Other countries are going to adopt the DRM bill.

And the Beatles case is new to me...seems like a slam-dunk case against Apple.

[BONOBOHO @ Mar 27th 2006 12:51PM]

its interesting how these countries are failing to recognize the problem is not apples drm, its the isitence of the recording industry of using it.

if a music store wanted to sell plain old mp3s, they would work on any portable music player.

disappointing, disingenuous politicans. par for the course i suppose.

[soundboy64 @ Mar 27th 2006 1:03PM]

Just to clarify the Apple v. Apple settlement was in 1991.

[jj @ Mar 27th 2006 1:14PM]

Soon other countries in the EU will catch on and follow suit. As an American, I am so glad that this happening. It just tells you how much influences that big corporations so as Micorsoft and Apple have on U.S. law makers. I hope this momentum will spread the the States and worldwide.

Consumers deserve the right to play their legally purchased music on whatever digital music player they choose without fear of being locked in and limited to a specific company.

Forget burning your DRMed songs to CD. I think that is a load of B.S! First you have to shell out extra money for CDs for hundreds or thousands of songs in your collection. Then you will have to deal with loss of music quality when you recode your music.

If at the expense of Apple's success to have the options of playing downloaded song on any digital music player I want, then so be it.

[Marc Perton @ Mar 27th 2006 1:16PM]

Thanks. I've updated the date on that.

[Curmudgeon @ Mar 27th 2006 1:19PM]

"The 1991 settlement outlines the rights each company has to the Apple trademark. While Apple Corps was given the right to use the name on any "creative works whose principal content is music", Apple Computer was given the right to use the name on "goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content," but not on content distributed on physical media.[1] In other words, Apple Computer agreed that it would not package, sell or distribute physical music materials."

A slam dunk? I think not.

[Cabana Boy @ Mar 27th 2006 1:21PM]

Oh the ironies of ironies if iTunes were forced to use WMA PlaysForSure DRM Because of all of this. The likely chance of this happening is about me winning the next Mega Millions, but at the same time...

Hmmm, Yes, this is all BillyG's doing! This is how he's going to kill the iPod, via Europe! Or something.

[duerra @ Mar 27th 2006 1:22PM]

I really wish some of these politicians would just nip this in the bud and mandate open communications standards. This would include video, music, documents, etc.

Basically, if it's at all necessary to convey information between multiple devices in a way that is non-transparent to the end user, the standard for doing so must be open. No patents, no propietary DRM, etc. OPEN COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS.

[Andrew Stone @ Mar 27th 2006 1:26PM]

Seems to me if we saw a bunch of legislation and lawsuits against Microsoft we'd only be seeing "Oh mah gahd Micro$$$$oft is $o freakin eViL guys!"...

But because its apple, "Maybe Apple should try the same excuse on those melancholy Danes and see if it'll be enough to get them to put down their slings and arrows."

Whatever. I love my Mini as much as the next mac user, but i hope to god that MS's "Urge" music service is more user friendly than iTMS.

[Matt @ Mar 27th 2006 1:27PM]

@#8 Curmdgeon

The very next sentence says: "Critically, however, the agreement prevented Apple Computer from distributing content on physical media. This was designed to cover CDs and tapes, but it is unclear whether it included later inventions such as digital music files or devices used to play them.

Apple Computer will argue that its music service, which has sold more than a billion songs since 2002, is merely data transmission."

---------

Merely data transmission?? No different from email messages or http requests? It seems somewhat thin, as the digital files of today are the equivelant of what tapes and CDs were at the time, which would violate the agreement.

Maybe not a slam-dunk, but without hearing more details I'd be inclined to side with the Beatles.

[bmson @ Mar 27th 2006 1:37PM]

Don't fu*k with the danes :P
When denmark get pissed, they get well pissed... :/

But if denmark does it, the rest of scandinavia will follow.
denmark, norway, iceland, sweden and finnland.

~23.000.000 people
Maybe not as large as the US market butnot a small market (5 of the richest nations in the world)

This is not only a apple thing. We have to fight DRM, all of us.

P.s. Apple has never looked far away from the states.
It's very local company, but they have been changeing after they startet iTMS.

[Sean @ Mar 27th 2006 1:50PM]

In other news France and Denmark announced a new bill that will force Coca Cola and Pepsi to open up their secret formulas so that all soft drink manufacturers could produce the beloved product so consumers could have more ways to buy Coke and Pepsi drinks.

Idiot politicians.

[jon @ Mar 27th 2006 1:59PM]

This is great news...it's basically telling Apple to play nice with other Electronic devices other than the Ipod or else the law will allow for people to legally hack the DRM.

[E71 @ Mar 27th 2006 2:03PM]

'Demand'? That's quite a strong word. What are you Europeans gonna do, challenge us? Because you know that's a battle you will lose. Haha.

[Cabana Boy @ Mar 27th 2006 2:04PM]

The problem is, this isn't about axing DRM. Most likely, it is to change one form of DRM to another. Outside of iTMS, the major DRM that all the label uses is...

WMA - PlaysForSure

Since Apple will not license its DRM technology (whereas Microsoft's licensed it to everyone but apple), the logical solution in the eyes of all major labels, is for iTMS to get in line and use the PlaysForSure.

Why? Easy, since the current set of PortalPlayer chip that powers the iPod is indeed PlaysForSure ready, they'll use that as leverage-switch your DRM to PlaysForSure and enable WMA support on iPods via Firmware.

Now, so does StevieJ say "Screw Euroland, we're outta here!" or does he comply because he doesn't want to lose the European Market?

Scary.

[The Chosen Second @ Mar 27th 2006 2:09PM]

Hanson is crying and pasting their pants over this.

[mike @ Mar 27th 2006 2:15PM]

I can't believe it took us fifteen posts before someone said anything about Hamlet! I thought Engadget readers were more well read than that. Get thee to a nunnery!

[inlogic @ Mar 27th 2006 2:16PM]

"14. In other news France and Denmark announced a new bill that will force Coca Cola and Pepsi to open up their secret formulas so that all soft drink manufacturers could produce the beloved product so consumers could have more ways to buy Coke and Pepsi drinks.

Idiot politicians."

What? Lol I paied for the product I have the RIGHT to play it wherever I want in whatever music player I own without being forced to consume a certain product. Just because in the US things work out has the major companies want to, the same doesn't happen in Europe at least not with the same scale they happen in the US.

It's good to see these kinds of things happening in the EU.

[some_bloke @ Mar 27th 2006 2:20PM]

People do not have a "Right" to do whatever they want with digital content.

I find it ironic that many of my fellow Americans get into a tizzy and begin demanding "Rights" with something as petty as their music files while the government we elected tramples all over out constitutionally endowed rights. Having said all of that:

While the socialist countries like France and Denmark might very well feel they have some providence in tinkering with the free market economic models which drive innovation, the sad fact of the matter is that this anti-DRM legislation is massively short sighted and, like most socialist policy, tends to favor political delusions of grander to appease the proletariat without taking reality into account. I've said it before and I'll say it again; the only way Apple can make iTMS work is by using it as a value-addition to the iPod. Apple has repeatedly stated that iTMS profits are miniscule due to the record industry's profit taking, credit card processing fees and bandwidth prices. Apple is totally open about this model and does not hide the fact that iTMS tracks will only work on iPod players. I don't understand how anyone could call this setup "unfair" or demand more "rights." Consumers are free to acquire music through other means and no effort is made to hide this reality when you purchase iTunes tracks.

If the EU colludes with France and Denmark on this legislation, then all of the short sighted fools who supported it will cheer in the streets whilst Apple simply shuts down the ITMS in the countries that enact this legislation. It is very simple kids, Apple will NEVER open Fair Play and any attempt to legislate Apple (or MSFT) to unlock their standards will simply result in the implosion of the online music/media industry.

I know some folks want to live in a fantasy land where music and movies and television shows get produced by artists for free and just magically appear on your media device for your enjoyment much like air. The reality is that it costs money (LOTS of money in the case of movies) to make this content and while consumers endlessly blather on about their media "Rights," the sad fact of the matter is that those rights come with responsibilities that a huge percentage of consumers simply will not uphold.

[jon @ Mar 27th 2006 2:20PM]

It's apple that chooses not to license WMA from microsoft...not the other way around.

[mike @ Mar 27th 2006 2:29PM]

here's the deal: if you want your country to be one of only places in the free world where you can't buy the de facto mp3 player? sure! fine! the French citizens will just have to import iPods from the US or... *gasp... buy a Creative player...

Either way, the allure of iPods is not going away..

It's not just the Store and it's not the iPod design, and it's not the UI.. it's ALL OF THOSE THINGS. Everything about the iPod+iTunes idea is good, ... you wanna keep looking for 'reasons' why they have an 83% marketshare in music?


Show me another company on this earth that does Software and Hardware like Apple.

There's Nintendo.........anyone else?

[I.P.Freely @ Mar 27th 2006 2:31PM]

#18 - You did not pay for it to play anywhere. You paid for the right to play on any iPod, right to burn 7 Consecutive CD without changing the playlist, you paid for the right to play this file on 5 Computer.

If you didn't realize that, then you have made a grave mistake. If you do not agree with this arrangement then I suggest you do not purchase anything from iTMS.

The consumer has the right not to buy, no one has been forced to purchased any songs from Apple. Unless this is the case NO GOVERNMENT has the right to force a company to give away it's advantage. No matter how unfair it is.

MS chose to license their software. Apple has not. But unlike computers, iPod and iTunes are not necessity for everyday life. It is a luxury item.

Government should stay out of it. And for god sake, it's the competitor call for this.

[Virtuous @ Mar 27th 2006 2:35PM]

I hope Apple Computer destroys Apple Records. The Beatles still live in the dark ages. No authorized digital downloads of Beatles songs proves my point.

[Dave H @ Mar 27th 2006 2:41PM]

There's always open source DRM - like http://www.openmediacommons.org/, though I don't know how ready it is yet.

Oh #14 (Sean) it's not like Coca cola releasing their recipie, it's like them being forced to allow people to empty the cans/bottles into their own glasses.

[Curmudgeon @ Mar 27th 2006 2:42PM]

To Matt:

"ritically, however, the agreement prevented Apple Computer from distributing content on physical media. "

I'm sorry, but data transmission is data transmission. Whatever the intent of the agreement was when the companies signed it, this only covers physical media, not digial media. It's for the courts to decide if digital sales are the same, but I'd hardly call it "a slam dunk." I wouldn't even call it a sure bet.

[Tom @ Mar 27th 2006 2:43PM]

Apple may join nobody and demand France and Denmark shove it.

[Sean @ Mar 27th 2006 2:43PM]

@ inlogic (currently #18):

You agreed to the terms the record companies impose on Apple governing the DRM and the availability of the items you purchased before using the iTMS. If you want to use the music on other players simply make a CD, and re-rip the songs back into iTunes for DRM free service, or buy a CD. This isn't rocketscience.

As for the idiotic statement that music is yours to do with what you want simply because you paid a buck for it, I'm sorry to tell you but you're wrong. Most entertainment products carry with it some form of copyright protection via law, which is why you can't turn around and start giving or selling the one copy of music you have to multiple individuals. If you buy a CD and want to sell THAT CD then you have the right under law, but to state that just because you paid a buck for a song and that entitles you to use it however you like without respecting the provider's legal copyright is one of the most socialistic things I've heard.

If you don't like iTunes or the iPod then don't use/buy it, simple. However, its not the place of government to force a company like Apple who sells a product provided by a 3rd party to make that product work in everyone else's player just because you bought their music and a different MP3 player while ignoring the requirements to play the music. You're an idiot, buy a different player or reconvert your music.

[nicholas paredes @ Mar 27th 2006 3:00PM]

While the concept of open media is a good thing, isn't the targeting of Apple only unwarranted. Require that every file type, including a .doc, be open. And, isn't this an issue with the copyright holders rather than Apple, afterall Apple didn't even want DRM feeling that it would hinder sales.

This law needs some thought!

[JR @ Mar 27th 2006 3:03PM]

Tom:

Certainly, they could. However, such a move would not be entirely practical.

For starters, abandoning tens of millions of millions of potential customers is never a particularly good idea.

Next, consider the possibility that this concept could gain traction in other European nations. The longer Apple drags its heels, the more it stands to lose.

[Julian Bond @ Mar 27th 2006 3:05PM]

"DRM Is Killing Music. And It's a Rip Off."
http://www.voidstar.com/node.php?id=2686

[Torontoguy @ Mar 27th 2006 3:08PM]

I think the recording industry should realize that thier music isn't safe on Apple and pull all of their songs off iTunes. Eventually, the only thing that people will be able to find there will be the Esperanto version of "I wish I were an Oscar Meyer Weiner" aka "Mi deziras esti Oskar Mejeran kolbason".

[Thill @ Mar 27th 2006 3:17PM]

I just do not get what the big problem is here. I own both an iPod and two non-iPods. My wife uses a non-iPod and I have had no problem burning the music onto a CD or DVD using either the audio or MP3 format and then importing into the software that shipped with her Samsung Yepp player. I will admit that I have not done this in several months since she received an iPod Nano as a Christmas present, but I know that it works..

A standard DVD will hold close to 1500 songs on it, and worse case (if you have a massive song library) you would have to burn multiple DVD's).

I also think that while it would be nice to have a common format across all players, however, there is a workaround in place in case somebody switches from an iPod to a non iPod, and vice versa.

Maybe governments should try to solve real problems like global warming, global energy issues, world hunger, animal rights, world peace, or world medicine.....

[French Guy @ Mar 27th 2006 3:27PM]

The problem here is that in most of EU countries, we have to pay a tax on every CDR, DVDR, mp3 players, ... By paying this tax, we have the RIGHT to do private copies of music for us and for our family. The big problem is that the incomes from this tax goes to music singer and writers. Not to music companies.

Now, our politicians decided to protect big music companies by creating laws in order to punish those who want to crack DRMs. But in the same time they keep this "private copy" tax. That's why they are saying "do not worry, with drm you still have the ability to make private copies, we will just ask apple & microsoft to make drm interoperable..."

In fact, you can be sure, that nothing will happen. Apple will continue to sell fairplay aac music, and we will still have to pay this tax for a right we couldn't use anymore because of DRMs. This is how it works in France; more and more taxes, less & less liberty.

I hate taxes, I hate French Politicians, I hate Apple, Microsoft, Music companies, singers and writers.

[DAN @ Mar 27th 2006 3:42PM]

(from boingboing)

In 2002, Steve Jobs said, "If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own."

In 2006, France said, "The consumer must be able to listen to the music they have bought on no matter what platform."

Sounds like Steve agrees with France.

--------

My personal opinion... I don't get it. I don't like DRM. I don't buy from iTunes music store. I still use and love iTunes and iPods. I buy CDs because there is no DRM, it's full AIFF quality, I can rip to whatever format and quality I want, and there's high-res art to fondle. And if I find it used, it's usually cheaper than iTunes Music Store.

Please, stop acting like you don't have a choice!

[J. Christensen @ Mar 27th 2006 3:58PM]

I doubt that Apple will shut down the iTunes Music Store in the whole EU. And yes, this new legislation will be adopted in the entire EU in some form.

The fact of the matter is that the european market (in general, not only online music) is bigger than the US maret...In almost every consiveable way.
And it's getting bigger by the day.

Because EU business legislation is more strict than US law, it has the biggest impact on the multinational corporations. It's easier to subject to EU rules and legislations than to handle different standards and rules for US and the EU.

And to my American friends (and I mean friends). Just because we in Europe (or at least in Scandinvaia) has opted for a social-liberal welfare state and market economy, it doesn't make us red communist scum.

Take a look at the economical, social and cultural statistics and demographs for US vs. the Scandinavian countries and tell me who's got the least worst system?

That said, I really admire I lot of things about the US. Altough you Americans do really have some serios problems at the moment.

Anyway, that still won't stop me from doing a very cool US roadtrip (Miami -> S.F) later this year ;-)

J. Christensen
A Dane/Scandinavian/European

[French Guy @ Mar 27th 2006 4:01PM]

What choice ? Most of the CD in EU are now copy protected. With the new french law you can be prosecuted if you try cracking the cd copy protection. CD Ripping software are now ILLEGAL in our "beautiful" country. P2P software are now illegal too. Music companies have now all the rights. They can decide on which devices you have the rights to hear the music you paid for, they can decide how many times you will be allowed to transfer it to any portable device, and I guess in future, they will decide how many times you will be allowed to hear it, or when you will have to re-pay in order to keep enjoying your music.

In France, citizens just have the right to PAY and to shut up. Killing DRM is easy, people just have to boycott any DRM file. But you know, majority of citizens are dumb, and boycott is impossible. In fact, we deserve what is happening to us... Too stupids !

[Andrew Stone @ Mar 27th 2006 4:13PM]

Once again, the point is being MISSED.

THEY ARE NOT DEMANDING DRM BE 'KILLED'.

They are simply saying, as France did, that if you download a song on iTMS, you should be able to throw it on your Samsung or Creative player and listen to it. They ARE NOT SAYING IT WILL BE A MUSIC FREE FOR ALL. They are saying if you choose to use iTMS, you should still be able to hear your music if you flip to a Creative player in a year.

If you can be pissed at MS for sticking IE or Windows Media Player in with XP, than you can definatly see why REQUIRING users to use iPods if they buy their songs on iTMS is lame.

Does this not make sense to everybody else? If i break my iPod and decide i'm ready for a Sony Walkman Phone to keep pocket clutter down, all of the sudden i can't listen to my songs while walking around on campus any more. THAT SUCKS, AND THESE COUNTRIES ARE TRYING TO FIX IT.

I, for one, hope they whole EU goes this way and it pushes Apple to learning how to play well with others.

[Andrew Stone @ Mar 27th 2006 4:23PM]

Added point to the one i made before...

The real problem here is that Apple doesn't make any money on selling songs, they make it on selling iPods.

In fact, nobody makes money on digital music sales... why do you think the RIAA is so bent on jacking prices up?

An artist, when they sell a song on iTMS, will only see 10, 12, maybe 15 cents. And because the music industry keeps putting out CRAP cds that have one hit on them and everyone doesn't want to spend 15 bucks to hear that one song, they are shafting themselves out of the several extra dollars they would have seen if the iTMS user who bought just the one hit song would have gone to Best Buy and bought the disk.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/9524976/def_jam_freezing_out_itunes

Read the above article in the latest Rolling Stone. THE FACT IS, ITUNES IS NOT THE FUTURE OF MUSIC, AT LEAST NOT IN ITS CURRENT FORM, BECAUSE ITUNES WILL KILL THE INDUSTRY AS LONG AS THE INDUSTRY CONTINUES TO PUT OUT ONE HIT WONDER "YING YANG TWIN" CDS THAT GIVE NOBODY A GOOD REASON TO SPEND 15 BUCKS WHEN THEY CAN HEAR THE ONE GOOD THING ON IT FOR 99 CENTS.

All France and Denmark will do by forcing Apple to allow iTMS music to be played on any digital music player will be to force this process to move faster... or maybe prolong the process if people start using, say, Urge or Napster, and the RIAA can convince Urge or Napster to bump track prices up. But then everyone wouldn't switch to those services, so yeah. Its a screwed up system.

[Lidz @ Mar 27th 2006 4:30PM]

I'm surprised nobody has blamed this on President Bush...

[Jim F @ Mar 27th 2006 4:37PM]

Andrew,

While your industry analysis may be correct -- I honestly don't know enough about how the music business works to comment, don't you see anything wrong with a government forcing a hardware manufacturer to make their device play back a certain type of file?

Why is this the concern of lawmakers? Why should it be? You the consumer have made the choice to purchase software from the iTMS with full knowledge that the only portable hardware that supports it is the iPod.

As private entities Apple, Napster, Rhapsody, etc etc etc have each chosen a specific business model to maximize profits for their shareholders over the long term while at the same time pleasing their customers.

Having a government step in and change that model can not only be detrimental to the long-term plans of the company in question, but it can also hurt the economy in general by decreasing revenue.

If history has taught us one thing over and over again, it's that governments should steer as far clear from business decisions as possible.

This issue isn't about DRM, it isn't about the "rights of the consumer" -- it's a simple matter of socialism vs. capitalism. Personally, I'll take the system where I'm largely allowed to make financial decisions for myself.

Jim

[Kasper @ Mar 27th 2006 4:50PM]

Uhm... I really don't care about this whole discussion, all I care about is when I buy something, I want to have the freedom to do whatever I friggin' want with the item I've bought.
If I'm only allowed to download a song or an album 5 times fron iTunes after purchase, that means that after about six months (gotta reinstall the computer once a month or so) I have lost the right to listen to the music. Well then I fucking haven't bought the CD, then I've only been renting it.

Suck my dia, I would rather use twice or thrice the amount of money, buying an actual CD.

[inlogic @ Mar 27th 2006 4:53PM]

@ Sean #28:

"As for the idiotic statement that music is yours to do with what you want simply because you paid a buck for it, I'm sorry to tell you but you're wrong. Most entertainment products carry with it some form of copyright protection via law, which is why you can't turn around and start giving or selling the one copy of music you have to multiple individuals. If you buy a CD and want to sell THAT CD then you have the right under law, but to state that just because you paid a buck for a song and that entitles you to use it however you like without respecting the provider's legal copyright is one of the most socialistic things I've heard."

I think you are taking me as stupid or something on that genre, you made too many supositions out of a sentence with 24 words regarding my position on this subject, therefore let's get somethings clear that you accused me, I never stated that I payed for the rights of the Music, I technically don't 'own'(in terms of (c) etc..) the music but the file that hosts it, I payed for that file and it's my opinion that as an owner of the file that contains the music, I am or should be entitled to play it(the file) in any media I want without constraints that only(in a monopolist fashion) allow me to play in a company developed Product, in this case iPOD. While I understand your and the other's point that state iTUNES is not the way Apple does proffit but the mean through iPODS, I still don't concieve this kind of atitude, and it has nothing to do with logic but my personal view on commercial moves.

While you and me are aware of how to bypass the DRM protection scheme it's not the point of discussion(once again you took me as an idiot, and you in all your sapience should know before hand that one should not take that kind conclusions out of such a short statement as the one I did), but that the file should by 'default' be open to all Digital Media Players, as I stated before, because of my views on this subject, and while you may not agree with me, since we live in an Ocidental Culture you should respect it as I respect yours and not Stamp me as an Idiot because I don't agree with it.

Cumps.

[Andrew Stone @ Mar 27th 2006 5:02PM]

Jim -

You say:

"don't you see anything wrong with a government forcing a hardware manufacturer to make their device play back a certain type of file?"

But you have it a bit wrong... France won't say "Ok samsung, your device HAS to be able to play songs purchased on iTMS". They are simply saying "Ok Apple, you have to make your format available for Samsung or whoever to use if they WANT." Samsung, Creative, whoever else won't be forced to allow songs purchased on iTMS to work on their devices, but will have the option. And thus, the consumer will have the OPTION to not choose an iPod if they want a new MP3 player. Right now, if you've been using iTunes to purchase music, and you want to continue to use that music, you have to continue carrying around an iPod.

I think we would all agree that if MS had thought all this "legal digital transmission of music for cash" business up first, and we'd all been buying our songs on Urge for the last two years (and having them DRM'd with PlaysForSure), and playing them ONLY on Microsoft manufactured devices, and the France came in and made this move, we'd be psyched. Apple gets leeway because iPods are pretty and work well. But Apple doesn't make a music phone (unless i want to roll with the Rokr), so, in my case, a good, hard drive based music phone isn't an option for me because Apple doesn't make one and i can't use my iTMS purchased music in a Sony or Samsung device.

Free market arguments aside (yes, i was aware only iPods would play my songs when i bought them, but that doesn't mean i can't hope for it to change), the ONLY people this law would hurt would be Apple. Its good for consumers (fosters competition, gives consumers options).

[c.Lake @ Mar 27th 2006 5:18PM]

@ some_bloke #21

Your absolutely right -- Apple doesn't hide the fact that you MUST use an iPod if you buy from iTunes. They say, quit plainly burn your music to a CD because, "if you have a HDD crash - your screwed".

I guess what we (engadget posters) get so piss off about, is that fact that RIAA & MPAA, continually go running to the government over every piss-ass little thing. It's ridiculous, they are like a bunch of 5 year olds. On line music is lock down to BE-JESUS and back, for some reason, THAT's NOT GOOD enough!

- It's the NEW-Improved copy-right law to benefit Disney.
- Buy all your DVD movies over again in the new Blu-ray format.
- Shows automatically deleting off TIVO when you record them from cable.
- There's s sunset on the "Analog Hole" -- it's never F'ing going to end.

When does "Common Sense" come into play in this situation, involving, the musician, the customer, and our money?

[applesucksleo @ Mar 27th 2006 5:25PM]

Apple is just as much a monopoly as anyone else...what if you bought a CD and it would only play in one brand of player. Nobody would stand for that. Screw Apple and their compressed "audio" files. I prefer CD,SUPERAUDIO CD,or DVD Audio(24 bits,192kilohertz)encoding.Kiss my ass Stevie Jobs-pod,I won`t give you a penny.

[Jim F @ Mar 27th 2006 5:30PM]

Andrew,

Ok, I misspoke a bit, but the root of my argument is still the same -- this law would compel Apple to make its DRM available to other companies when their business model clearly isn't geared in this direction, no? Let's assume that this would be, naturally, for a fee.

We can all agree that if Apple felt it was a good business decision to license their DRM for other companies to implement than they would do so. We can also agree that other digital music player manufacturers would probably jump at this as "works with iTunes" can be a big selling point for a product.

However, the folks running Apple have decided that this is not a good business decision and have therefore kept the iPod/iTMS solution as a "razors and blades" model. Actually, I don't like razors and blades -- if I buy a Mach 3 Turbo I'm locked into buying overpriced blades from Gillette.

If I buy an iPod, on the other hand, I can throw any MP3 or AIFF audio on there and never spend a dollar at iTMS.

I'm still looking at this situation and seeing the people commenting here and coming to the conclusion that the people who care passionately about cross-platform compatibility make up an insignificant amount of the market for iPods -- because let me tell you, if Apple thought they could sell more iPods by opening this thing up they certainly would.

Apple has made a product here that a lot of people are happy with -- a few might be happier if it did more things (personally I'd love for Apple to sell an AM tuner in addition to the FM one so I could sit at work and listen to Mike & the Mad Dog all day), but we're dealing with capitalism here -- the market will embrace a product and it will be successful. Or they'll say "I don't really want to buy that..." and it'll be the Lisa or the Edsel or New Coke.

If I was an Apple shareholder I'd be fuming that anyone was trying to dictate how "my" company did business. I'm not, however, so I'll just take my place as a believer in liberty and start fuming about how a government is trying to stick its nose in private interests.

-- Jim

[play free games @ Mar 27th 2006 5:31PM]

I really don't know why they have drm on their music files anyways. I know it's to appease the music companies. It's so simple to get around anyways, with a burn and re-rip. Why don't they hire DVD Jon?

[JCC @ Mar 27th 2006 5:38PM]

What the Americans should do to stick it back to the French is to have congress enact a law requiring all French wineries that sells to the U.S. allow ANY wineries to purchase their grape vines. Let's see how the stupid Frogs like it�Two can play that game!