France and Germany pile on the EU iTunes anti-DRM pressures

Apple doesn't seem to have given much weight to Norway's threats of repercussions for the continued iPod + iTunes + FairPlay lockdown, but even if the Norwegians decided to actually get nasty about it, Apple could always pull iPods from Norway shelves and take its business elsewhere. However, Apple might have to start paying attention now that other EU members are hopping aboard, with France and Germany leading the charge. Norway, which had originally set a June '06 date for an Apple response, which then got bumped to August, has a fresh September date for Apple to respond to, and the members of this new anti-DRM coalition are promising increased pressure as that date looms near. No telling how this will end up playing out, but we're sure Apple isn't going to give up its little cash-cow ecosystem without a fight. All of this is in addition to a law that went into effect in France last August which allows regulators to force Apple to open up the iPod and iTunes, but we haven't heard a peep out of that one so far.

[Via Slashdot]

[Joe @ Jan 24th 2007 8:15AM]

September 2006?

[Theli @ Jan 24th 2007 8:19AM]

Might this be the beginning of the end for DRM?

One can only hope...

[Intrepid @ Jan 24th 2007 8:26AM]

I hate DRM, and if Apple fights to keep it alive - I'll hate Apple even more.

[Stephen Shores @ Jan 24th 2007 8:41AM]

Wow! More power to them!

[clnr @ Jan 24th 2007 8:41AM]

Good news indeed. Just a comment on the text, Norway is not a member of the European Union.

[Stephen @ Jan 24th 2007 8:42AM]

...if that would be a good thing.

[JRA219psu @ Jan 24th 2007 8:44AM]

As the date looms near....uh well I'm pretty sure the date has passes and gone seeing how its 2007 now...any1 care to clear this up please?

[Lebeu @ Jan 24th 2007 11:54AM]

This view is also - atleast partly - shared by the Finnish Consumer Ombudsman; another country in the bandwagon.

Full link to the story(in English):
http://www.kuluttajavirasto.fi/user_nf/default.asp?id=19354&site=36&tmf=7420&root_id=7420&mode=readdoc

[Lebeu @ Jan 24th 2007 1:02PM]

Hehhehh...rather: "Link to the full story" ...not the other way around :D

[Alan Strangis @ Jan 24th 2007 9:33AM]

Following the slashdot article to the ars technica one states...

"Norway ruled that the iTunes-iPod tie-in was unreasonable. Norway's Consumer Ombudsman gave Apple a deadline of June 21, 2006 to come up with a solution, but the deadline then got pushed back to August 1, 2006. Norwegian consumer groups were unimpressed by Apple's response.

Norway has now given Apple a new deadline of September of this year to change its policies, and the pressure on Apple will likely grow in the months leading up to the deadline."

So Apple's got some time. Hope they lose the argument. DRM blows. It's the reason I'm still buying CDs and ripping them, thereby skipping a burn/rip scenario (unless I buy something from emusic).

BTW, although I love engadget, I'm curious why slashdot is given a "via" when their article links to arstechnica, while the "Read" link goes to yahoo news. Social bookmarking sites are great, but bypassing them to get the 'real' links is just one less layer of cruft to get to the meat.

[DS @ Jan 24th 2007 10:02AM]

if apple removed DRM from itunes right now I would easily download over $100 worth of music immediately.

[franctuggya @ Jan 24th 2007 11:21AM]

Just for the record: Norway is not a member of the European Union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_accession#Countries_who_failed_to_join_or_left

[Joel Rose @ Jan 24th 2007 10:07AM]

Well.. I hate DRM... but I do see, given Apple's business model (they make virtually nothing off the song sales), the iTunes/iPod link is vital making money and keeping the ideal .99 cent song price. If they are forced to break that tether... they will probably, in the long run, start charging more for songs because they will have people using competitors products using a service that is relatively pricey to run which they make very little money from.
I guess the opposing arguement is that this will force Apple to make even more appealing iPods to ensure that people aren't tempted to use competitors products...

[rico @ Jan 24th 2007 10:34AM]

How do you say "Apple is going to get a HUUUUUGE fine like microsoft did" in French ? ;-)

[shmengie @ Jan 24th 2007 11:00AM]

as a rule of thumb, if the eu wants it, it's probably a bad idea. the idea of collective bargaining should have died in the 1930's. but, socialist/communist ideas will always live, as long as there is someone who wants what he hasn't earned.

and yes, drm sucks. that is a given. hating drm is as profound as hating hemorrhoids.

[glacia @ Jan 24th 2007 11:28AM]

Wow. I don't know what else to say. Not about the article but the responses. They're all pretty much intelligent responses with no one spinning out of control.

DRM doesn't work and if we want it stopped, stop supporting it.

[Beau @ Jan 24th 2007 11:52AM]

Uhm, these are free countries right? These people aren't required by law to own an iPod. If you don't like the iPod/iTunes business model, don't buy an iPod and don't buy from iTunes. Apple has every right to defend this practice and we have every right not to buy from them.

[Marian @ Jan 24th 2007 12:04PM]

The whole thing is bullshit. Like the old astroturfing of Real about Harmony and iPods.
There's no person who would want to buy music from iTunes Store but refuses to buy an iPod!!!

Most of the people, even after they buy an iPod, have a rejection for iTunes (the program). After a while, they get used to it, and after a while more, they might even love it. But there's no such thing as "I want to buy music from iTunes Store, but I hate the iPod".

So you may ask yourself, who's behind the request of "dehidrated water". Because open DRM is equivalent to dehidrated water.


I am against DRM, but having a communist DRM won't help the cause. Au contraire.

[branko.milojic @ Jan 24th 2007 12:44PM]

Beau, man you really dont get it:
of course people can buy another product.
they can even buy their songs in other format, and not from itunes.
wait...
can they
apple has exclusivity distribution rights for some artists.
apple has a near market domination.
and if you buy a song from ITUNES: you pay for the right to listen to this song.
this is the fee: the right for YOU to listen to THAT song you paid the rights for, on one device at a time, with the fair play possibility to back it up.

nowhere you paid the rights for listening to one soong ON IPOD only.
so unlike USA (waranties for a mnth, no retraction perod after an online purcchase....) most countries in the world have consumer protection. might be new idea to you. as US only enforces it via lawsuits.

so yes you buy a song from ITUNES, can only listen to it on IPOD while you paid for the rights to listen to this song. final dot.
and if ou buy another MP3: you have to re-pay for that right, you already paid for...... unless,
you spent money on ITUNES, your ipod is broken, dead, and after a year or 2, no more support from apple, so YOU MUST BUY A NEW IPOD, from APPLE, hmmm!
souds like the dominant playing is putting constraints to FORCE new sales to its customers.......

same as the car industry, europe put laws, you can buuy your breakes from any garage, until recently you had to go to the brand dealer.

get real, I'd guess you were spitting at microsoft when they were doing half of that, and now defend Apple.
an information to you: APPLE is not a religion, you need not worship APPLE. ;)

[Daniel @ Jan 24th 2007 12:18PM]

How is this Apple's problem? They don't have exclusives with the labels or artists & the labels can sell their songs in mp3 format if they want? How is this Apple's problem again?

[Marian @ Jan 24th 2007 2:31PM]

> apple has exclusivity distribution rights for some artists.

Name one single artist that distrubute music only through iTunes (and actually we heard about him/her).


> apple has a near market domination.

But they don't have a monopoly! You can still buy other solutions and have access to the same content (unlike what you said earlier). Of course, you won't have the benefits of the Apple products. But if you buy a Hyundai, do you expect it to behave like a BMW? That doesn't happen in the same way with Microsoft related to the operating systems.
Of course it bothers some people - the competition. The same way BMW shareholders are bothered by Toyota (Lexus).


>and if you buy a song from ITUNES: you pay for the right to listen to this song.

1. When you buy a song on a CD you don't pay for the right to listen to the song. You pay for the right to listen to the song on a CD player. You cannot use the CD in a tape player. You cannot use the CD in a minidisk player or anything else. Same with iPod/iTunes - don't tell me there's a single single buyer from iTunes Store that is not aware of the limitations.
2. Burn the freaking song on a CD as many times as you want and do anything you want with it! It's your right, guaranteed by Apple. Please do the same thing with WMA DRM! (in case you know, Microsoft allows labels to specify if they allow users to burn the songs, how many times are they allowed, etc).


> so unlike USA (waranties for a mnth, no retraction perod after an online purcchase....) most countries in the world have consumer protection. might be new idea to you. as US only enforces it via lawsuits.

Now you only show us your prejudice.



> so yes you buy a song from ITUNES, can only listen to it on IPOD while you paid for the rights to listen to this song. final dot.
>and if ou buy another MP3: you have to re-pay for that right, you already paid for...... unless,
> you spent money on ITUNES, your ipod is broken, dead, and after a year or 2, no more support from apple, so YOU MUST BUY A NEW IPOD, from APPLE, hmmm!
> souds like the dominant playing is putting constraints to FORCE new sales to its customers.......

It looks like you are really clueless. Again - you buy a song - you can write it on a non-protected CD for as many times as you like. Second - you buy a song from iTunes Store, you are aware that you cannot transfer it directly on a non-Apple supported player. Same for any other DRM system. Only that other DRM systems might not give you the chance to burn it on a non-protected CD.



> same as the car industry, europe put laws, you can buuy your breakes from any garage, until recently you had to go to the brand dealer.

Good luck in buying Volkswagen brakes and installing on your Renault!!! (that's the parallel with the DRM systems)



> get real, I'd guess you were spitting at microsoft when they were doing half of that, and now defend Apple.
> an information to you: APPLE is not a religion, you need not worship APPLE. ;)

For your information: I own only an Apple product - an iPod. I never buy music from iTunes store, because it has DRM. But unlike you, I am not bitching about this; I know the rules of the game - you don't find non-DRM online stores that sell major artists in 2007. Maybe in 2008...
In the same time, I know that PraysForSure and equivalent solutions don't solve anything. Even Microsoft discarded it, and went for vertical integration.
I guess this consumer profile doesn't fit your assuption about me.

[Theli @ Jan 24th 2007 1:29PM]

"Uhm, these are free countries right? These people aren't required by law to own an iPod. If you don't like the iPod/iTunes business model, don't buy an iPod and don't buy from iTunes."

That argument may work for us consumers, and specifically for us consumers who know about the iTunes/iPod lock-in, but I don't think that for instance Norway's Consumer Ombudsman could argue along the same lines. You cannot assume that everyone knows everything about every product they buy, and therefore some consumer protection is needed.

"Apple has every right to defend this practice..."

Not necessarily.

[Rand @ Jan 24th 2007 2:44PM]

Uh ignorance about the product you buy isn't an excuse. Take responsibility for yourself. Yes DRM sucks, but lets be honest here.... is the argument you don't like DRM. Or is it that Apple won't share their proprietary technology they developed? If its DRM then blame the recording industry because they are the ones forcing a DRM requirement.

[Sprocket999 @ Jan 24th 2007 3:14PM]

If DRM is so bad, and the Euros hate it sooooo much, why was Christmas 2006 such a record breaking time in Europe for iPod sales?

Anyone?

[Marian @ Jan 24th 2007 3:32PM]

But the government know better what's good for the consumer.

[CapWKidd @ Jan 25th 2007 11:28PM]

Why not just remove the DRM once you download the song(s)? I know I have used one of theses DRM "strippers", but forget the name (I tested on a friend's iTunes downloaded file - I have never downloaded any songs from iTunes myself).

[sprocket999 @ Jan 24th 2007 3:53PM]

Marian: Maybe I didn;t make myself clear. If the European consumers hate this DRM so much, why are European consumers buying iPods in record breaking numbers? Obviously they don't have an issue with the iTune Store tie-in (should they choose to use it -- emphasis on CHOOSE).

[Marian @ Jan 24th 2007 3:57PM]

I was sarcastic in that message. I put a tag, but it didn't show up in my message.

So, in fact I agree with you.

[Sprocket999 @ Jan 24th 2007 11:51PM]

Ah -- OK. We're cool.

[Joe @ Jan 24th 2007 4:40PM]

>Good luck in buying Volkswagen brakes and installing on your Renault!!! (that's the parallel with the DRM systems)

Not it's not that parallel and you know that. If Renault wanted to, they can design, produce and legally sell brakes which work in Volkswagens no problem. (They have no incentive to do so, but they could)
The issue is proprietary code (iTunes DRM) and compatability. Granted that the iTunes DRM is the most generours one around, it still is not available on any other product. Hence, the files purchased on iTunes do not work on any other player. This is just going to be deemed illegal and I can't find any wrong with it.

The problem is that we need to understand the reason for this illegality. One of them is the following: Apple (considered under German law) sells songs. Just as when you buy a CD, you purchase a good (even if it is ust software code like mp3) and according to law you OWN it. This allows you to do whatever the hell you want with it: Sell it, convert it, donate it, play it on other players etc. Anything - it's yours. Apple does not like this and hence has the DRM restriction. Unfortunately this partly renders their iTunes service illegal. If users knew that they only purchase a user license of the song for the playback only on an iPod, possibly a CD, (and believe me apart from us informed reading online the average consumer has no clue whatsoever) Apple's sales would drop. And the problem that Apples terms and condition of business are also illegal because they are too long. Sounds weird but it is/will be considered illegal and potentially fraudulent when tested before the courts. The requirement for terms of biz with end users is that they are short, to the point and understandable to Joe Public.
Well let's face it, Apple's are not understandable by the "officious bystander" as Britsh law calls it. And hence not legal.

The reason the iPod sells is that it just ever so chique and you can rip your legally purchased CDs ('cause you can do whatever you want with these) on it or your your friend's etc.

Yes I myself have one (an absolutely gorgeous red nano :-) ) and sometimes I even buy songs in iTunes, but I know about DRM and the first thing is burn them on CD and rip again as MP3. Because if my PC crashed (and considering I had used my 5 PC licenses up) I would lose my purchase. And this is another potentially illegal thing.

I very much agree with freedom of business and individual's liberty to decide and chose. But this idea of a few European countries going against DRM uses (and that is in general not only with iTunes by the way. They're only first due to their quasi-monopoly) I find to be welcomed. And should they succeed even the better.
Distrust in consumers from huge corporations like Apple/MS/Film/Music industries does not really help their sales either. If there was real competition in MP3 music downloads then prices would sink naturally. But competition law or antitrust as you call it in the US is another story altogether...

One comment on this bullying the US or the EU for their different consumer protection legislation or the lack thereof. Guys, sorry, just grow up. Either way is alright as long as consumers are not willing to vote for politicians that do it their way. In Europe politicians have decided in favour of consumers through strict legislation. This comes with great benefits for the user but also at usually slightly higher costs. So, neither is better or worse, just different...

[Marian @ Jan 24th 2007 6:25PM]

Apple almost subsidies the iTunes Store. Apple gets very tiny margins from the music sold (i've heard that their profit is 4 cents per song). They do that because they make people happy (they deliver a solution that just works) and this helps selling more iPods (they sold about 88 million till now). Do you think it's fair that a [socialist] government decides that "is unfair to invest in technology and be the only one that benefits from it. why doesn't the competition benefit from your investment" ?
Because it's almost a non-profit activity anyway, they have the only store that also behaves as a gateway for free content - podcasts. And there are plenty of podcasts in iTS... They do that again, because they don't care that much about sales in iTS as long as they have good sales for iPods.
Licensing the technology to some other store won't bring any benefits for Apple - the iPod customers will blame Apple when things don't work well in the other stores.
Licensing the technology to other mp3 player manufacturers won't bring any benefits for Apple - they have to have customer service to support issues with other players ; there are more people that hate iTunes than people that hate iPods (so there won't be many customers) ; no real financial incentive.




" The problem is that we need to understand the reason for this illegality. One of them is the following: Apple (considered under German law) sells songs. Just as when you buy a CD, you purchase a good (even if it is ust software code like mp3) and according to law you OWN it. This allows you to do whatever the hell you want with it: Sell it, convert it, donate it, play it on other players etc. Anything - it's yours. Apple does not like this and hence has the DRM restriction. Unfortunately this partly renders their iTunes service illegal. If users knew that they only purchase a user license of the song for the playback only on an iPod, possibly a CD, (and believe me apart from us informed reading online the average consumer has no clue whatsoever) Apple's sales would drop. And the problem that Apples terms and condition of business are also illegal because they are too long. Sounds weird but it is/will be considered illegal and potentially fraudulent when tested before the courts. The requirement for terms of biz with end users is that they are short, to the point and understandable to Joe Public.
Well let's face it, Apple's are not understandable by the "officious bystander" as Britsh law calls it. And hence not legal. "

That's only your vision about what's legal and what's not in Germany. First of all, because of copyright laws, you don't have full rights on a copy of protected work (protected by copyright). In U.S., the rights are governed by the first-sale doctrine. In Germany, the application of the first-sale doctrine is different. I would say that it's more restrictive than in U.S. (google for it to see).
Yes, DRM takes away the rights under first-sale doctrine, but here there's no discussion if DRM is legal/moral or not, it's a discussion about forcing (by law) open DRM or not.
Interconectivity between systems is not governed by any laws, because it's absurd.
Open DRM is an absurd idea (like dehidrated water), because open means open for anybody, including people from whom you are supposed to protect the content (aka hackers). If you force by law selling licenses of FairPlay DRM, to whom should Apple be forced to license the technology? How should Apple protect itself that the technology won't fail in the wrong hands, and the labels will be screaming around because of it?
The argument that what iTunes Store does know is illegal is nonsense.






"The reason the iPod sells is that it just ever so chique and you can rip your legally purchased CDs ('cause you can do whatever you want with these) on it or your your friend's etc."

There are two major reasons: it is beautiful and it just works. Nobody really wants to waste his/her time and be pissed of by a piece of crap that is cumbersome and/or it freezes all the time and/or refuses to play some of your songs and/or ...





"But this idea of a few European countries going against DRM uses "
Did you actually read those laws? They are very pro-DRM, not anti at all... That's the sad thing... they want to throw dust in people's eyes by breaking up working vertical solutions. They tell to the voter "but we did everything in our power to make things right for you". Lip service...

[Joe @ Jan 25th 2007 3:03PM]

>>Apple gets very tiny margins from the music sold (i've heard that their profit is 4 cents per song).>Because it's almost a non-profit activity anyway...>Do you think it's fair that a [socialist] government decides...>Did you actually read those laws? They are very pro-DRM, not anti at all... That's the sad thing.>>

So, please quit this "Socialist" ideology rubbish. Yes, I have read the laws and applied them before. Already due to their sheer lenght, iTunes "terms of business" are illegal in Germany.
As for Britain, I can say they are not. France is still undecided. And yes: the laws are in favour of the Corporations.
Your misunderstanding in the whole issue lies in the fact that you assume that the legislators are going against Apple. This is obviously not the case in Germany. It is consumer protection agencies which they have as a strong force in defending/gaining/creating consumer rights.
In France, yes, the legislator has put a law in that requires any DRM music seller to open up their system to competition IF the copyright owner requires that. Which just makes logical sense. It has, to date, not happened though.

The discussion about the whole topic goes wrong at this very point:
People need to distiguish between
a) Apple's business practices which may or may not contradict some national law and
b) DRM usage by any company as far as copyright, ownership law etc. are concerned.

As for Apple'S case: Shall the courts decide. They know best. IMHO they are at least partially illegal in some countries.

In the DRM use discussion the music industry is just about to answer the question themselves: They will abolish it in the medium term.

So, what remains? The question of how to ensure that the copyright holder gets fairly paid/compensated for other people's use of their product/investment/invention etc.
Well, again copyright law is different across the world. Find a system that suits all worlds and you win the Nobel Prize of Sweden (suing Apple by the way). But just assuming one (US) law to be just right is not of much use here.

Interestingly enough you refer to the first-sales doctrine. I quote from Wikipedia:
"The doctrine of first sale allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell or give away) a particular, lawfully made copy of the protected work without permission once it has been obtained. That means the distribution rights of a copyright holder end on that particular copy once the copy is sold."
Well then, tell me how DRM fits in with this. It can not. Because music is not legally defined as Software (yet). And by Apple/everybody else it is sold and not rented.
And even if it was defined as "sofware" if you read the Wiki article carefully you will find out that even then within the US there are confliciting views and conflicting court decisions on whether or not such "licenses" - EULAs can be sold on or not. Especially interesting is the section on Microsoft v. Zamos!
And I can assure you that licenses in the "old world" can be sold on legally no problem. Still DRM does not allow for this. Is DRM breaking the law?

Another article from the UK you might find interesting: http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertainment/hi-fi-and-audio/hi-fi-amps-and-receivers/news/apple-to-open-up-fairplay-drm?articleid=394429162
It seems to me that Apple does have an interest in licensing their technology to others. And it's not just lip service as proven by Netgear's product announcement. So maybe the whole issue will soon be solved simply because Apple might after all be afraid of competition. Just that tiny bit.
How beautifully the market forces of competition work in the consumer's favour again! Please Apple, keep up that market spirit and we'll all be cool :-)

So much for now.