Apple hit by Swedish anti-iTunes pressure
France's iPod law came and went, and Denmark's anti-iTunes Music Store pressure didn't really seem gather a whole lot of steam; we just saw Norway turn to their own national consumer ombudsman for assistance in prying open Apple's FairPlay DRM so Apple music will, um, play fairly on other devices. But now we can tack on another to the growing number of European nations dissatisfied with Apple's DRM lockbox: Sweden. The Swedish Consumer Agency spokeswoman Marianne Aabyhammar had this to say about the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish anti-iTunes triumvirate: "iTunes' terms and conditions are illegal in all three countries," and "If iTunes fails to improve its terms and conditions in Sweden, we may take the case to Sweden's market court." Funny how this same spirit of Swedish openness drove Jens of Sweden out of business, but let's keep focused; there's no denying that we're past the tipping point, and the pressure by European states for Apple to Update: according to iTWire, the DRM is apparently not the specific target of the Scandi triumvirate, but is rather the end user terms and conditions outlined by Apple's iTMS. Norway's Consumer Council, for example, apparently takes an anti-DMCA stance and allows for the lawful breaking of DRM for fair use purposes -- which is what's in question here. So even though the issue at hand may not be about the DRM, it's still about the DRM. And we all know (and have known) what's really at stake here is getting Apple to open up and allow people to listen to the music they bought on whichever playform they choose, right? Ok, good.
Filed under: Portable Audio, Portable Video
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Eli @ Jun 11th 2006 2:29PM
I don't see what there is to reconsider.
If you want music that can play on anything, buy CDs and rip them. If you want music that only plays on your iPod, buy it from iTunes.
What next? Suing them because if you want to run OSX you have to buy a Mac?
I'm not a fanboy. In fact I dislike Apple with a passion most of the time. But Europe is just ridiculous.
Guest @ Jun 11th 2006 2:33PM
I am not really supprized. Its accualy very similar to the US, the oil companies made some money earlier in the year (and more now) and the goverment wants to charge them extra tax. How apple has been successful and people want to take it down.
I think all DRM needs to be changed. The point is to prevent copying and giving music away, but it needs to be changed to work with all products registered to the same person *you know whever you buy a comp/software you register? Well your music should play on any device registered to you, no expections or limmits on how many devices*
Mark @ Jun 11th 2006 2:38PM
#1 is absolutely correct. Additionally, if the European countries are complaining about the DRM, don't bitch it Apple. Bitch at the record companies. These countries seem to think it is Apple responsible for the DRM. Idiots.
Anders, Sweden @ Jun 11th 2006 2:42PM
We don't need iTMS, we got The Pirate Bay. :)
inlogic @ Jun 11th 2006 2:44PM
"I'm not a fanboy. In fact I dislike Apple with a passion most of the time. But Europe is just ridiculous"
Ridiculous? We here are against all this Apple DRM crap because this is not about protecting the music of being copied and piracy whatsoever, this is about creating a monopoly around all the iPod owners & or force people to buy one so that they can use their services.
It's not just apple, Microsoft is in the European Courts too for their monopoly and their monopolist attitude.
I'm quite happy with this attitude in Europe, it means the Judicial systems across Europe are working towards the benefit of the people and not towards the interests of a huge corporation.
Ultim8fury @ Jun 11th 2006 2:49PM
@Inlogic
Whilst Apple does get the lock-in benefit of the DRM. It is primarily there at the behest of the record industry. Without the DRM there wouldn't be an iTunes music store Apple would not be allowed to sell the music online. This attitude in Europe is pointed at the wrong end of the music industry. Bitching at the shop because the content is locked isn't the way to get the problem fixed.
Jeppez @ Jun 11th 2006 3:04PM
It really is very simple. Apple's Terms & Conditions are illegal in all three Nordic countries. If Apple wants to sell music in Denmark, Sweden and Norway they will have to obey the law and play by the rules there.
I guess those 20 million Scandinavians are quite nice consumers as it's the most developed region in the world when it comes to IT and telecom (and pretty much anything else for that matter).
And yes, the consumers in Scandinavia have way better rights and conditions then their friends in the US. Why is that bad?
I know I might sound like a soft social-liberal European (which is what I am), but you can not always count on raw (US) capitalism to find the best solution
to every problem.
The regulation of DRM rights and rules should be upheld be the government (in the case of Europe by the European Union), not by a bunch of companies. The government is elected by the peoples (the consumers), the corporations are not....
Peter @ Jun 11th 2006 3:09PM
What is the solution? Same as when france requested this. Exactly how do they make a solution that can play everywhere and still keep the record industry happy?
TC @ Jun 11th 2006 3:17PM
I think this is entirely fair. Sweden doesn't have to let Apple sell iTunes music in it's country. It's Apple that want some of that sweet Swedish currency, but they need to learn to play by the rules of the country they sell in. Although it is the music industry forcing Apple to implement DRM, DRM isn't the issue, Apple could just as easily allow WMV encoded versions of the music alongside the AAC. At the moment, it's much trickier to get your purchased iTunes music on a non-Apple branded mp3 player than it is on an iPod. Many Apple fanboys would be up in arms if Microsoft made WindowsMedia tracks only useable with Microsoft hardware, and this is a similar situation. At the end of the day, it's up to Apple to decide if they want a slice of the european market, and if they do then Europe should slap Apple about until they stop breaking the media puchasing laws of the respective countries.
Chris @ Jun 11th 2006 3:29PM
#1 makes a good point about OS X on Mac authorized HW. ITMS is not the only online music store, nor is it the only media that will play on an iPod.
Apple simply needs to pull out of these countries.
dasmenneke @ Jun 11th 2006 4:11PM
if apple would licence its drm i'd agree,
but now they re just the monopoly abusers they ve always accused microsoft of being, ... and microsoft licences their wma drm to everyone ... heck they could even licence it for the ipod if they wanted
Philip @ Jun 11th 2006 4:21PM
I don't believe DRM is necessary for recorded music, and I don't buy DRM music myself, but...
If Scandinavia wants to be part of the world economy, their legal system has to respect and enfore contracts made under other legislations; they can't simply void them. Nobody would be willing to ever do business with Scandinavians if contracts made under other legislations were not enforceable in Scandinavia.
If Scandinavia enforces song interoperability, then they are denying rights owners full control over the licenses they can offer. This is confiscation by the state of part of the rights owner's property, and it isn't clear why it won't apply to all forms of intellectual property, because it won't be so easy to create a watertight definition that separates a "song" from other forms of IP.
DRM technology cannot currently safely offer untethered interoperability. So other music stores require the player to "phone home" to revalidate the music on a regular basis. Because Fairplay is private to Apple, it can be retropectively updated if ever cracked in the way DVD's were. That's why Apple can offer untethered perpetual playability of your purchased music, and the others can't. And that's why consumers prefer ITMS.
The music "industry" support these moves against Apple not out of desire for a better consumer experience, but because they want to eliminate buy-to-own and force all playback to be tethered. They know that Apple will not be able to offer buy-to-own if interoperability is enforced. You will have to revalidate the music you "own" on a regular basis.
They hope that the politicians will completely fail to understand any of this, and will believe they are making DRM downloads the same as bought CD's, when in fact they are doing the opposite.
tf @ Jun 11th 2006 4:32PM
"Many Apple fanboys would be up in arms if Microsoft made WindowsMedia tracks only useable with Microsoft hardware"
Do your homework: that is the case. There is no Microsoft player for DRMed WMAs on the Macintosh. None of the Microsoft based stores support the Mac. Etc... I.E. Apple's DRM is more "open" than the alternatives.
Bigboy @ Jun 11th 2006 4:36PM
Inlogic,
Your comments are ridiculous. Who says you have to buy an iPod or use iTMS to listen to digital music?
Go buy CDs , rip them yourself into MP3s and listen on a freakin' Rio. Apple isn't preventing you from doing that.
Not to mention there are other options to downloading music.
Oh and Jeppez, without capitalism, you still would be listening to scratchy music on wax cylinders.
Ash @ Jun 11th 2006 4:37PM
It isnt DRM that is the target, although a lot of people seem to think it is, and in essence I don't exactly mind DRM, especially Apple's, it is unobtrusive, what I think the problem is, and I cant see how people would complain.
Making people agree to be subject to laws of a country, potentially, they have never visited is absurd. I wouldnt sign up to something that let me pay in my own currency, talked to me in my own language, but snuck in something saying I was subject to the laws of another country for this particular agreement!
Interoperability is a big issue, people say buy and ipod or don't, the thing is if you want the best experience the ipod is the way to go, it's slick and nothing measures to it, you then get iTunes on a cd with it so you can manage your iPod's music collection, and the store is integrated, it would be absurd to assume people wouldn't use it, especially as easy as it is. These 2 facts have meant Apple has the lion's share of the market, the problem is I doubt they will remain at the top forever, the problem is as soon as they slip away from the top, or even worse, can the iPod when its unprofitable you're potentially stuck with thousands of €s of useless files, with pretty much every medium there was a route of upgrading it and keeping it with you, I recorded my tapes to cd and eventually ripped those to MP3s, with DRM'd files there is no easy way to do it, and by easy I mean that your average iPod user will be able to do, so if your new player doesnt support them you're in real trouble.
The last is Apple's ability to change the rights on a song you have already purchased, this needs to be seriously stamped on, I buy X song for Y and I expect to be able to play it on my iPod, 5 machines and burn it to cd, next day Apple goes, hey you can now play it on 1 computer, 1 ipod, and you can't burn it! Far from fair. Now if I buy new songs the new rules can apply, that's fine, it's like buying a car, the dealer coming around the next day and taking away the bumpers because he changed his mind.
Ash
tomtul2 @ Jun 11th 2006 4:38PM
Who will benefit if Apple loses to Sweden? Probably Microsoft and all the makers of alternate music players and websites like Creative, Rio, Sony, Nokia, Yahoo, Napster ... . These giant companies don't need govt help, they will provide an alternative to iTunes no matter what restrictions Apple has.
Anonymous @ Jun 11th 2006 4:39PM
@Chris, "Apple simply needs to pull out of these countries."
It's not so simple when these European countries are some of the richest in the world, if Apple believed they wouldnt be affected by pulling out of these countries, they would have stopped selling by now.
They'll fight it or eventually agree to follow the European law or they'll take a huge blow in profits.
TC @ Jun 11th 2006 5:05PM
tf: I think you need to re-read my comment. My point was there are lots of Mp3 players that aren't made by Microsoft that support WMA. There aren't lots of Mp3 players that support protected AAC. Hence why I said Microsoft "hardware" and not "software". Homework done!
tf @ Jun 11th 2006 5:05PM
"It's not so simple when these European countries are some of the richest in the world, if Apple believed they wouldnt be affected by pulling out of these countries, they would have stopped selling by now.
They'll fight it or eventually agree to follow the European law or they'll take a huge blow in profits."
That's presuming a whole lot. For one, as Apple continues to expand its catalogue and markets, 3 or 4 Euro countries do not necessarily represent very much.
Secondly, Apple does currently run the stores at a profit. If changes enforced by these countries cause Apple to run into the red in these countries, they will make more profit by leaving the markets behind.
"It isnt DRM that is the target."
Clearly it is. Every store is run this way, but Apple is the first, primary target. The interoperability issue is 100% a DRM issue. These countries have not made steps against the studios for DRMed CDs, they have just said that the user can uses tools available to crack it. Guess what? Those tools exist for iTunes too. But those DRMed CDs might not even play on a Mac. Whereas iTunes can be on 5-7 computers (I forget), infinite iPods, and there is (essentially) unlimited burning, not to mention that an iPod is capable of "connecting" or "transmitting" to most every car, stereo, or portable component using simple headphone cables, a docking device, or radio transmission. (Sounds more open than the existing music market in Europe to me.)
As one poster mentioned above, licensing DRM is only one element of this (which is why the governments seem so off base to me.) Apple's DRM is not an internet-tethered DRM nor is it a clocked/"rental" DRM. Even if Apple did offer licensing, would other stores or devices pay for additional licensing that is more costly than Microsofts and refuses to acknowledge a business model they have gambled on ("subscriptions") when they are already burning 40-50 million a quarter? Would Apple be forced to support this model it is philosophically opposed to? Would it have to deal with the tech support for every other store and device? Would it have to accept the higher costs, greater tech support, and less userfriendly experience when the current situation does allow for burning and there are tools to crack tunes, just as Norway has said is permitted to circumvent CDs?
tf @ Jun 11th 2006 5:08PM
"tf: I think you need to re-read my comment. My point was there are lots of Mp3 players that aren't made by Microsoft that support WMA. There aren't lots of Mp3 players that support protected AAC. Hence why I said Microsoft "hardware" and not "software". "
No, my point remains: so what if there are several crappy WMA devices. WMA is currently locked to hardware running Windows or Microsoft-approved devices. I cannot play protected WMAs on a Mac. Hence, it is a more closed system and tied system than Apple's.
Bayoujohn @ Jun 11th 2006 5:25PM
Apple was up front and very clear from day one. All music purchased from the iTMS is designed to work with the iPod. Period. No ifs ands or butts. They didn't mislead anybody. The countries, their recording industry organizations, EVERYBODY had the information that that was the way it worked. It's been that way for a year and peachy keen. NOW they want to change the way a company does things?
ONLY IF FRANCE GIVES UP ON THEIR MONOPOLY ON CHAMPAGNE.
ONLY IF MICROSOFT IS FORCED TO PORT MSACCESS TO OTHER PLATFORMS
ONLY IF EVERY MP3 PLAYER MAKER IS FORCED TO HAVE THE EXACT SAME INTEROPERABILITY.
Apple is being unfairly targeted with these attacks and they need to sue the hell out of the governments that gave them not only tacit, but legal approval to open their businesses in their countries in the first place.
Apple-Audi-connection @ Jun 11th 2006 5:41PM
Our collective schzophrenic views on digital media and hardware choices are really astounding...
"force people to buy one(iPods) so that they can use their services(iTMS)"
How can Apple force someone to buy an iPod and force them to voluntarily use iTMS? There are many other players out there. A number of different formats not to mention the old 'diy - rip a CD yourself - method'. You have never lost any abilities you had before. If you want the percieved convenience of buying individual tracks ready-packaged for a device, you have a few choices.
This is not 'forcing' like we've known for decades with Windows. But more on that in a minute...
"ITMS is not the only online music store, nor is it the only media that will play on an iPod."
Well, hello, lucid thought... Exactly right, you don't have to use the iTMS to fill up your iPod... well, I guess that doesn't really fit in to the 'locked in' meme... 99% of the music in my library are MP3s that I ripped from CDs I bought over the last 20 years. If my memory serves me, most WMA MP3 players have a similar facility with MP3s, yet no one is crying foul that they only play WMAs... But Apple could license Fairplay to other manufacturers, you say... I can't see how we can force an inventor to license their invention by mandate... No matter how monopolistic MS was, there was never an argument that they should be fored to write Windows for PowerPC...
"and microsoft licences their wma drm to everyone ... heck they could even licence it for the ipod if they wanted"
Again, why should Apple be forced to license WMA when iPod owners don't want WMA... let MS suffer their own foolishness and not be subsidized by Apple's success.
"Interoperability is a big issue, people say buy and ipod or don't, the thing is if you want the best experience the ipod is the way to go, it's slick and nothing measures to it, you then get iTunes on a cd with it so you can manage your iPod's music collection, and the store is integrated, it would be absurd to assume people wouldn't use it, especially as easy as it is."
Now this one was funny as I believe the parent was using this in a negative way... a sort of, 'it works so well, how could you not use it, therefore it should be punished for being too damn good"... I am reminded of an obscure auto racing memory. Audi raced for a couple of years in the Trans-Am series in America. They were racing large sedans, but because of their Quattro drivetrains, they demolished the competition. For every race they won, they were penalized for being unfairly competitive and forced to add ballast weight. They still managed to trounce the competition and went on to win the series. Afterward, probably in disgust at the everchanging 'rules', they left the series. The SCCA went on to protect the pathetic American car companies that Audi whooped by outlawing all-wheel-drive cars and non-American engines from the series... ouch...
Apple is Audi right now. What they deliver is so superior to the competition yet still so easy to use(like Quattro) that no one else can compete. However, they are not cheating. They simply did it right. We can keep adding ballast, but it won't work until they win and quit out of discust at our total lack of appreciation for what they do...
Has anyone else 'stood up to the Record companies' and told them that prices aren't going higher any time soon and made it stick? Not that I know of, but hey I don't pretend to be all that smart, so tell me if I'm wrong...
TC @ Jun 11th 2006 5:43PM
tf: Nice - but that wasn't MY point, so less sarcastic comments next time, eh?
With regards to your point:
It's in both Apple's and Microsoft's interest for their DRM files to be played on as many OS platforms as possible. Microsoft are working on a patch for MacOS to play pWMA through Quicktime as we speak. Maybe the patch won't work (knowing MS, likely), but that doesn't make WMA more 'closed'. If you want to go with the whole 'How many OS's can you run the files on, how about PDA's?
Pocket Tunes supports protected WMA on Palms, Windows Media Player Mobile 10 supports protected WMA on PocketPCs. And no PDA can play protected AAC, just iTunes and the iPod. Just saying.
The point is it would be easy for Apple to provide WMA versions AS WELL as AAC from iTunes, but that would mean people could buy their own Mp3 players instead of one of Apples. Again, it's up to Apple if they want the money from the "3 or 4 Euro countries". If they do - obey the law of the country they're selling in. They don't have to sell in Europe if they don't want to. Personally I think they do.
Ash @ Jun 11th 2006 5:47PM
@tf: It isnt DRM at the moment, however its the lack of interoperability, the requirement to be subject to english law outside its juridsiction, and the fact that Apple can simply change the rights on a track that was bought with different expectations.
In the UK Apple has an effective monopoly on the legal digital music sales market, and is using fairplay to abuse that position, it doesn't really matter if the whole point of ITMS is the only place that can buy iPod compatible DRM'd music, Apple is clearly using Fairplay to lock people into iPods by preventing other players from playing them, and regardless of people posturing and claiming it's all fair and Apple's deserves all of this for building the market its only a matter of time before the industry gets large enough that the more socialist governements start to realise that ITMS & Fairplay is simply a way of ensuring that your next mp3 player is an iPod.
Ash
tf @ Jun 11th 2006 5:54PM
"tf: Nice - but that wasn't MY point, so less sarcastic comments next time, eh?"
Why should I care if it's your point or not: your point is flawed. You say Microsoft is A-Okay because I can choose multiple portable devices, but I'm still locked to a PC. Why is it more acceptable to be locked to a Microsoft-based PC (which is $1000 more than an iPod) and not okay to be locked to an iPod which does interoperate with Macs and PCs, allows burning, etc...particularly when the PC is still the primary storage and access point for music? It's not, it's just hypocrisy.
"It's in both Apple's and Microsoft's interest for their DRM files to be played on as many OS platforms as possible."
In your mind, not in mine or in Apple's. Apple doesn't support subs, they don't support tethered DRM, they don't support internal clocks and tracks timing out. They don't support poor UIs and cheap devices, they don't support non-integrated systems that may involve poor software. It's in Apple's best interest to provide the best experience and to have as much of the market as possible. They are accomplishing that.
"Microsoft are working on a patch for MacOS to play pWMA through Quicktime as we speak."
No they aren't. They abandoned WMP for Mac entirely and pointed to a third party for support. Now you are just making stuff up to defend Microsoft.
"The point is it would be easy for Apple to provide WMA versions AS WELL as AAC from iTunes."
No, it wouldn't. It would be twice as costly, would force them to license from a competitor, would force them to be a part of playsforsure which is still a buggy, misnomer, they wouldn't be able to troubleshoot their own store without support from Microsoft, etc...
"Again, it's up to Apple if they want the money from the "3 or 4 Euro countries". If they do - obey the law of the country they're selling in. They don't have to sell in Europe if they don't want to. Personally I think they do."
And, I disagree. A handful of countries will not hinder Apple's continued success, but the progress of the digital music markets in these countries will stall if the only successful company leaves the market.
David Muszynski @ Jun 11th 2006 5:54PM
Buy songs from iTMS. Burn to disk, RIP disk back to computer. DRM gone.
Cry me a river about losing quality with generations, it's not locked to the iPod anymore.
tf @ Jun 11th 2006 6:00PM
"It isnt DRM at the moment, however its the lack of interoperability, the requirement to be subject to english law outside its juridsiction, and the fact that Apple can simply change the rights on a track that was bought with different expectations."
It's still DRM. Yes, there are a couple of terms in the ToS they don't like. They are so minor and industry wide, there would not be this action directed at Apple if it was the issue. And interoperability IS a DRM issue.
So... for whatever spin and posturing anyone wants to put on it, I will say it is an issue with the DRM and the success of Apple.
"In the UK Apple has an effective monopoly on the legal digital music sales market, and is using fairplay to abuse that position"
No, it's not. It's a business that only has been progressing for 2-3 years and represents about 4.5% of its future value. 80% of 4.5% is not a monopoly; it is a company singlehandedly driving a new market.
Rik @ Jun 11th 2006 6:10PM
"Yes, there are a couple of terms in the ToS they don't like. They are so minor and industry wide, there would not be this action directed at Apple if it was the issue."
You are kidding right? Apple, according to the contract, can change your ability to use the music you have paid for whenever they like. If tomorrow they want to reduce the number of machines you can play music on, so be it. If they want to prevent ITMS songs being burned to CD ever, so be it. The arguement that you can take your money elsewhere if they do that is irrelevent because they can apply it retrospectively to your old music through an iTunes update. In the UK this would fall foul of the law which covers unfair terms and conditions in a contract. Such 'we can do what we like' clauses need to be stamped on post haste.
RikF
Frank @ Jun 11th 2006 6:12PM
To Inlogic,
So when a judicial system is working for the people, then it's the right system? Did you read much about the history of communism? Yes indeed, Mao wanted EVERYONE to have money and enjoy life. Look at where they are at now?
Technology is made proprietary with a reason - to create marketing and competitive edge. Does a jacuzzi tub fit into the space of your origianl tub space? Why not? Perhaps you like the flip-open Fararri car door and do you suggest it should git into your FIAT? Why do those designers even bother to think of anything if everything should just go with anything?
Perhaps your judicial system is far better than the one in the US. Could that be the reason that your people have not invented anything cool for the universe?
Anthony @ Jun 11th 2006 6:13PM
Whoa. If ANYONE thinks pressure and empty threats from Norway, Sweden and France is going to make Apple change their business model, you need to admit yourself to the Institute for the Socially Challenged.
And by the way, Apple didn't create DRM. While it certainly benefits them in terms of iPod revenue, DRM is the result of record companies and the recording industry.
...Did you REALLY suugest that Apple might have to change their business model? That makes me giggle uncontrollably.
tf @ Jun 11th 2006 6:17PM
"You are kidding right? Apple, according to the contract, can change your ability to use the music you have paid for whenever they like. "
RikF, no, I'm not kidding. Every single EULA I have ever read states that terms can change at anytime. Guess how the EU responds? They simply ignore it and say that it's unenforceable. It's a completely insignificant matter... but because these countries know they aren't going to make progress on DRM, they are throwing around these petty claims as a scare tactic.
And, please, let's not make these absurd claims that tomorrow there will be no rights at all. Apple maintains these clauses probably solely because the studios equally reserve the right to change terms on Apple. Apple will do everything it can to maintain or improve terms... not out of altruism but because of the economics of potentially upsetting their customers. Apple had to scale back on one term at one time while they actually increased usage rights in another term. That's it.
TC @ Jun 11th 2006 6:29PM
tf: Yes tf, in Apples mind it is in it's interests to allow its DRM'd files to play on a wide range of OS's. And Apple do. Itunes works on PC, and Mac. I'm sure they would want it to work on Linux if the opportunity arose. Read what I said.
You seem to be misreading what I say and mistaking me for an msoft fanboy, please believe me (especially after I'm just finishing off building a Linux based PC), I'm not.
All I'm saying is:
The law in Sweden/EU includes the fact that if you sell music online, you can't use market leverage of the store to sell your Mp3 players.
It doesn't matter that the iPod is a great Mp3 player. It doesn't matter that AAC is a pretty good compression algorithm. It doesn't matter that Macs are nicely designed with well thought out GUI's.
I'm think you're completely right that a handful of countries will not hinder Apple's success (Again, I never said anything to the contrary). But, with the current exchange rates of the Dollar versus the Euro, and a nice chunk of potential profit with relatively low overheads, I think Apple will want to sell in those markets. How much Steve Jobs wants that we'll have to see, because if he wants to sell in Sweden he has to obey the law. But why should Sweden allow him to break their law? People buying AAC's on iTunes would already be considered an import (money flowing out of their economy) so they don't have to sit back and let Apple do this. They can slap them about until Apple either bows to the law or says "No deal, we won't sell in your country."
There's no need to get worked up over this, there will still be iTunes and AAC's in the US. Apple just wants to do a bit of business overseas.
Kevin M. @ Jun 11th 2006 6:53PM
YES!!!! The bitches that run Apple are getting what they deserve.
Hopefully the world will turn to OGG.
tf @ Jun 11th 2006 6:55PM
TC, okay, sure, Apple wants to support OSes, but that does not mean they want to support other platforms, devices, or services offered by competitors.
I myself had a firm view of Microsoft's actions and what I thought was a proper response to their actions. Ultimately, it would have involved a government involving in technological coding. That view makes it difficult to resolve my current view, but I do believe there is a difference, although it is difficult to articulate.
The very fact that most commentors quickly diverge and disagree on the solution, the problem, etc...
For example, you say Apple is leveraging the store to sell iPods. Others would say the opposite. The fact that most stats show about 20 iTunes per user and/or that 20% of iPod users are iTMS users contradicts your point but whatever...
However, you predict difficult business choices for Apple... How? They won't have to withdraw from the computer, software, services, or iPod market. Just the store. What does Norway or Sweden or Denmark represent versus the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and Japan? 5%? Of that 5% of business, how much does Apple make on that iTune? 1 penny on the dollar? A few million for every billion sold? It's nothing.
The fact is: people are ascribing their own views of what the marketplace should be or what usage should be when it is evolving naturely. One can claim Apple monopolizes the device which helps them with the store. Or you can claim that they monopolize the store and leverage that into the device. The proposals get even more schizophrenic when it comes to a solution: providing wma support in the store, providing it on the iPod, licensing FairPlay to other stores, licensing FairPlay to other devices, etc... All of these solutions are half solutions that equally require the business cooperation of competitors with opposing business plans and strategies. None of them fully solve the problem.
Here's an example: if the proble is not allowing the consumer to migrate to a competitor, what if Apple provided a migration tool that converted FairPlayed AACs to protected WMA at the time of migrating from the iPod to another device? Would that fully solve the problem? Seems to, to me? However, now you have the business/competitor problem? How does Apple tie the converted files to a particular store or competitor? Most other stores would primarily be offering subs and may not offer the files in their catalog? How does Apple transfer its download service to another provider? How is the transfer from one company's proprietary format to another any more legal, even if the transfer is possible? Well, the problem is governments do not develop universal, non-proprietary media formats with DRM that universally satisfioes the rightsholders, the distributors, device manufacturers, consumers, sovereign entities, and personal disagreements. If they did, they wouldn't have a problem to interfere in...
Tech^CF (Happy protected Norwegian) @ Jun 11th 2006 7:10PM
to TF
EULAs, TOSs and such often state they can change anytime. But they can't change any deals already signed for (services or things bought).
If it was possible then I could sell cars with 50 year warranty and a free gasoline for 20 years. And then change it to 0 years warranty and no free gas the next day.
Rik @ Jun 11th 2006 7:18PM
TF we have laws that state that such terms are unenforcable. The laws have to be used before a change is made - getting something undone is harder than preventing it in the first place. Besides, it isn't Apple that I am worried about, it is the record labels. When they decide that 'downloads are eating into album sales so you must stop people burning' Apple may put up a fight, but odds on they will loose. The ability to retroactively apply this to product that you have paid for is wrong. If the record labels are happy to put hand on heart and say 'we won't take away rights you have today' then there should be no problem removing the clause from the contract.
tf @ Jun 11th 2006 7:20PM
Happy protected Norwegian (who has to use CD cracking software to burn a CD), I think your view of the law is off: of course changes to EULAs and ToSes change ther terms of services or products already bought by definition. The extent of the change, its effects on the consumer and the business, is what determines whether or not it is illegal. Legal claims regarding EULAs are rarely made because the effects to the consumer are minor and/or because the business would not risk the impact of significant and fraudulent alterations.
Gaurav Sharma @ Jun 11th 2006 7:32PM
This isn't that complicated.
Buying a Windows PC still gives you a choice on hardware from Dell, HP, Sony, Acer, Lenovo and hundreds of other brands.
Buying from iTMS gives you the choice of nothing but iPods to playback your music. You *have* to buy an iPod to keep playing your music. For the rest of your life. You're not even *allowed* to consider other brands, or the music gets it.
It's not right at all, and I'm interested in seeing how Apple responds to all this. They'll either have to open Fairplay, or team up with a few other companies (like Sony or Nokia) on DRM and illustrate consumers still have choice.
Personally I've had enough of this situation and am sticking with MP3 100% VBR ripped from CDs from Amazon. Sounds perfect to my ears, and the price paid for the CDs is justified by non-DRM audio of quality higher than can be found anywhere online, legal or not.
TC @ Jun 11th 2006 7:45PM
tf:"For example, you say Apple is leveraging the store to sell iPods"
No, I'm saying European law forbids that practice. I'm pretty sure most people with iTunes like Apple stuff in general and would probably buy an iPod anyway. Likewise, obviously a lot of people with iPods burn Cd's to AAC instead of using iTunes. The fact is though that it is easier to get your iTunes Store AAC's to an iPod than a competitors player, and this is what is considered monopolistic by law.
"However, you predict difficult business choices for Apple... How?"
No I don't!!!! As you say yourself, the amounts compared to US/UK/Japan is small. All I'm saying is, if Apple wants that small extra profit, they shouldn't be suprised that they have to obey the law in the country they want the money from. I also think Playsforsure is rubbish, for what it's worth. But the fact remains that if you were a complete novice, and bought stuff from the iTunes store, which portable music player would you buy to carry your tunes on the go? An iPod (iTunes even installs ipodservice.exe on your PC whether you have an iPod or not! 3Mb of memory used up for no reason!). I know that scenario isn't how it happens in real life - but until that actual situation is resolved, Apple will be breaking the law in Sweden. To be honest, I think Sweden will probably bargain with Apple to get a nice chunk of cash from them in return for allowing their existing business model. Sweden shouldn't be critisized for doing that - Apple want's something Sweden has, so Sweden tests Apples resolve for it's own benefit.
The problem with this post is the 'Anti-iTunes' bit in the title - immediately this is going to get people pro and against iTunes to comment and arguments ensue. I think iTunes is good, fairly priced (esp as you don't have to get the bad tracks of an album to listen to the few good ones). I also think the iPod (nano esp.) is a good audio player, great design and layout, good (but maybe not best) audio quality.
But I do think it's true that iTunes bought DRM files are designed to be used only on iPods, whereas WMA (or, WMP - whatever) DRM files were not designed to be used only on Microsoft portable audio players. I'm not praising/cussing anyone (indeed, I actually prefer the sound of AAC to WMA) but I'm just stating that is the issue I feel the courts are arguing.
bc @ Jun 11th 2006 8:12PM
It was stated earlier, "Its accualy very similar to the US, the oil companies made some money earlier in the year" and this statement was used as the unpinnings to indicated that the US should not collect extra taxes from the big oil compainies ... this has no logical nextus to the Swedish / Apple DRM issue. Please stay on point or go trolling with your dribble elswhere.
jib @ Jun 11th 2006 8:24PM
One thing you have to remember is from the side of the public in the Scandinavian countries. In Europe, the governments are run way better and actually with a notion of being for the people. If the license Apple have written is illegal in these countries, then the governments have a responsibility to the people of its countries to do something about it. Sweden is simply making an attempt at doing that.
Just 'suppose' there existed a competitor in the world market place similar to Apple and iTunes (and while reading this, please disregard any financial aspect) but are based in russia for example. They system of DRM works as well as Apples, if not better, and has huge industry support. When they launch in the US however, one of their terms and conditions in the license completely disregards some US law.
Would you, as a US citizen, expect your government to say 'sure, thats ok... your trying to protect the music industry' or would you expect your government to say 'hey wait a minute - thats not legal here'
Zenbob @ Jun 11th 2006 8:38PM
Woof. So many people getting so huffy about all this. It's difficult for me to tell from the posts: is everyone from Sweden, and therefore specifically affected by the issue? Me, I'm in New York. I like iTunes. I don't have an iPod, but I've bought several thousand CDs over the years and have a ton of music. I also buy music from various online music sources, including the iTunes Music Store, which is pretty handy. If I need an iTunes Music Store selection in MP3, I burn it, rip it back and have it. Yeah, it's the extra step, but it's there for the taking and if I need the tune in MP3 I take the extra step. It's still way simpler than buying an entire CD (for 50%-70% more than iTunes is selling it for) which may or not have an album's worth of music I like.
But actually, all my observations are preamble and backstory to my essential point: I'm going to go out on an enormous limb and guess that all posters enjoy music. Fantastic! So do I! Apple provides several ways to listen to music quickly, efficiently and fairly inexpensively (and legally). There are other options. Take them if you don't like Apple. I believe it all falls into the idea of a market economy. Why all the vituperation? We're all music lovers. Have a discussion, don't sling mud. That's just my preference in threads like this. The issues at play are intriguing to discuss. Since I neither work for Apple nor live in Scandinavia, they are somewhat at a remove from my personal life. Still, it's interesting to consider and discuss. I'm always amazed how quickly the nasty tone creeps in. Why? Music is good! We have more music and more ways to listen to music than we've ever had before! This is good!
Be well.
Reg @ Jun 11th 2006 8:44PM
My 2c solution:
Force Apple to license FairPlay to manufacturers of other MP3 players for say, $5 per unit.
That's it.
The result would be that almost everyone wins: the iTunes store becomes open, other manufacturers can make a player that plays music from it, the RIAA still have their precious DRM in place, and Apple stills makes a bit of money off each license.
iPod marketshare *may* dip slightly once other manufacturers have access to the store, but cool people will still buy iPods because, well, they're cool.
Chris McDowell @ Jun 11th 2006 10:17PM
reg
Apple now has customers from all of these other companies calling them saying that their player will not play this new song they just bought and that they want apple to fix it. This is not Apple's problem but Apple will take the hit from it because people will think Apple has bad customer support and their music doesnt work. The idea of "It Just Works" is now broken because you have other manufacturers that build crap and blame Apple for the problem.
Chris McDowell @ Jun 11th 2006 10:24PM
This lawsuit as I see it is not about the DRM. It is about the Terms of Use Agreement that gives Apple the right to change your abilities. The European countries want it so that part of it is removed so that Apple cannot change the rights of the Terms of Use. Which I think would make things very difficult if they decided to allow more Sharing or anything like that because they would not be allowed to give the users more rights or less. It would however protect the User from less rights. The french lawsuit was about DRM but not this one.
Jay C @ Jun 11th 2006 10:57PM
Why won't my copy of Microsoft Office for Windows work on my Mac also??? I have to buy a copy of Microsoft Office for the mac also!!!!! OMG I already paid for the software it should work on any computer - I demand all software be able to run on any compter. I should be able to move my software from my windows machine to my mac to a Sun system to a Linux system!!!
Now doesn't that just sound stupid? Nobody believes that, but these idiots in Europe who can't invent something that can compete want to force the big bad US company to change it's business model to suit them. SCREW them - pull the stores out - in total those markest maybe are 2 or 3 percent of total iTunes sales. Let them live with Microsofts DRM and junk mp3 players.
Ben Hobbs @ Jun 12th 2006 1:23AM
Wow,
With attitudes like the majority I've seen here its no wonder these corporations are being allowed to trample all over peoples rights as consumers.
iTunes is a rip-off, paying the same amount as a CD from a shop without any of the costs involved.
DRM sucks, We are forever hearing about how we are ripping off the music companies, yet they are more successful than ever, whilst strangling our enjoyment
Mattshellder @ Jun 12th 2006 2:09AM
What's the problem here? When I buy a DVD i don't expect it to play on my VCR. Its not like there aren't other online music stores if you want songs to play on other formats OR (god forbid) you burn the songs to a CD. If it is that big a deal to people they should just go to the store and buy the CD.
treetrunk @ Jun 12th 2006 5:19AM
Apart from the price fixing which means we pay 45% more than those in the US at the current exchange rate, my main problem, and the reason I will never use the itunes music store are these clauses:
"The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party. iTunes reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time."
and
"Accordingly, in the event that iTunes changes any part of the Service or discontinues the Service, which iTunes may do at its election, you acknowledge that you may no longer be able to use Products to the same extent as prior to such change or discontinuation, and that iTunes shall have no liability to you in such case."
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Taking a worst-case example, over the next couple years you could fill your 60GB ipod with the quoted "15,000 songs" at 99c/79p a song, to the tune of $14850 (or £11850 - a whopping £3800 over the exchange-rate price). Having spent enough to buy a small car, because of the above conditions Apple would be entirely within their rights to change and reduce what you're allowed to do with it, without any compensation. That could be anything short of stopping you from playing it atall.
I'm not sure how far they could stretch the "use to the same extent" clasue, but theoretically they could probably even "discontinue support" for old iPods, so your music would only play if you bought a new one. It'd only take a sly firmware "update", which could easily be shipped with the automatically-updating itunes. That's how they buggered university networks by introducting the "only 5 unique users a day" to itunes music sharing - and if you want to use the newest ipods, you have to have the new itunes.
I get my music from allofmp3.com - cheaper, higher quality, and a full choice of formats.
Christiaan @ Jun 12th 2006 6:30AM
It makes me laugh to see people defending Apple here. They're breaking the law. Period. What's there to defend?
Some of you Nth Americans are so indoctrinated, you think profits are a human right or something. You'd probably let these companies kill your mother if there were profits to be made.