>>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 :-)
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
>>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.