More Euro countries enter battle over iTunes DRM - Page 4

Perhaps you should put down the Apple fanboy goggles and read the actual complaint from the Norwegian consumer group.

It's pointless discussing until you do.

Says you.

The Norwegians are arguing otherwise and I agree.

Maybe you should read the dictionary instead of the complaint .

Complainants in an advesarial system (which is what the western legal system are) always put the strongest arguments forward and are not required to balanced. Doesn't mean they're right.

I'm pretty sure that if it was an open format even I could probably write a reader. Likely to be crude and ugly but functional.

He seems to have, it's your argument which has changed tack from consumer-bias (the foundation of the Norwegian complaint) to manufacturer-bias - who cares if nobody wants a piece of Sony's system, it's still closed. It's not Apple's fault they have so many pretenders!

Is that a bit fanboy-ish? McD

Save yourself the effort and burn it to an unprotected CD - no D to A to D required, all courtesy of the 'unfairly restricted' iTunes


I think people buy from iTunes because it's easy not because they're 'not pirates' you're confusing cause & effect and possibly setting us up for....


..the sell - there it is! Still got shares/financial interest?..


Sorry, the system wouldn't work at all. Conventional wisdom is that prevention is better than cure (DRM as opposed to watermarking). All this system would achieve is continued piracy albeit with a mechanism to track the number of copies originating from particular source. Respective country's tax payers would have to foot the legal bill to chase the 'rogue' pirates only to find that they are not responsible for the number of illegal downloads - "sorry your honour, is it my fault that the others chose to download my file?" of course it isn't. But then again your argument does make sense because...


..the truth comes out at last. You are a pirate! How inconvenient it must be that DRM prevents you from applying your own interpretation of the law!

And by the way..


...if DRM can be cracked, so can the watermarking as it's all digital encoding and just a matter of time but that doesn't matter as, clearly, copyright protection isn't a factor in your argument.

McD

We live in democracies - the complaint is always about choice (or the perception of) that's why these consumer groups exist. If we're not given enough, we complain. If we're given to much and things inevitably fail to deliver, we complain.

However I'm not sure about this..

1. "a well functioning digital society" - ?!! didn't the great Uncle Steve show us (valid) stats on how certain countries' music sales were going to the wall? With 50% CD sales decreases and piracy on the rise? How is this "well functioning"?

2. "For all practical purposes this means that iTunes Music Store is trying to kill off one the most important building blocks in a well functioning digital society, interoperability" - With the real examples being what? plays-for-sure? This approach doesn't work! It failed! Even MS abandoned it!

3. "the Fairplay DRM system acted against the interests of consumers" - How? by providing the only successful digital music download model? How is that against consumers' interests? What is against consumers' interests is the assumption that this group are capable of understanding what makes a digital music solution useful to consumers and given they think the 'benefits' of interoperability outweigh the compromise in solution design, they clearly don't.

4. "The Consumer Council believes that Apple has only three options: it can license Fairplay to any manufacturer that wants iTunes songs to play on its machines; it can co-develop an open standard with other companies; or it can abandon DRM altogether." - these options are all the same. DRM runs a race to outpace the crackers, iTunes maintains this pace by constantly upgrading an enticing users to upgrade with extra features. To open up or license the DRM would break the pace and fix the DRM allowing it to be cracked and rendering it useless. So no options here.

This whole case is so clearly orchestrated by pirates it's not funny. Tragically they'll probably win their case because the only other group people who can't understand why this is wrong - are the general public and if iTS is illegal, it's illegal though their rationale is full of holes (and shouldn't this have been picked up before iTS was licensed to trade?)

McD

Nope. I didn't bring Sony up and I've said on a number of occasions already that it's totally irrelevant.

*corrected for spelling and grammar in bold.

Your weird phrasing aside, I fail to see what your point is. The Norwegians are exercising their right to complain under their laws. They're a democracy, blah, blah blah, SO WHAT?

The format *IS* an open format not some weird extension like you were saying with your DICOM files. I've no idea what DICOM files are and don't care either. All Fairplay does is encrypt the audio data, add a key and store it in a plain old mp4 container file. That's no secret. It's not proprietary. MP4 is designed to work that way. That is why it's used with DRM instead of MP3, which isn't capable of DRM. They're complaining about the restrictions, not the file format, not some silly closed UMD style media format, not that the iPods can't play WMA files. It's a matter of contract, not software, not hardware.

I'm not sure what's going on in this thread. Is it Apple fanboy-ism? Is it 'Woo Woo America No.1' jingoism? God forbid it was the French complaining. I can imagine the racism coming across the Atlantic now. It is tiresome though that despite quoting the complaint made in this very thread, the reading comprehension thereof seems to be lacking.

I seem to be in the minority but I believe that if you do not agree with the way a company conducts it business then you are free to go to another supplier. That is why I do not use a MS Products. If you do not like iTunes then go elsewhere. Apple does not hide the fact that there are restrictions on its material. If you do not like it then do not become involved. It is your choice and your right. Just as it is the right of Apple to place these restrictions. No one twisted your arm when you parted with your money. To stand there like a 4 year old and stamp your feet because you cannot have it your way. That is beyond reason and does not even deserve a response.

Besides if you you are the least bit computer savvy, taking any iTunes audio product. It can be reproduced into any format desired as many times as you want. That includes MPG4 audio books. There are two catches however. One only for personal consumption and two you have to do a little work. It is not handed to you on a sliver platter.

For crying out loud stop the belly aching and grow up. If you use it Pay for it , know that no service is going to satisfy all.

I see no reason to now drop into ad hominem arguments about Apple fanboy-ism, etc. The people discussing this have read and understood the complaint. They don't agree with your view of it. In my case, as I said before, I believe the complaint as presented is fallacious and based on very subjective criteria (see bolded terms in the quote below).

To restate the lockin fallacy a different way...

1) you can buy and listen to music from the iTS and never buy apple hardware

2) you can buy apple hardware and never buy music from iTS (like me)

Yes if you want the best experience you buy both, but that's good design.

Should they license Fairplay??? To me that's a question for Apple, not the courts. Unless Norwegian law is so specific about what consumer's rights are with respect to music so as to remove any subjectiveness, then I continue to wonder about the motivations behind this action. Apple has provided more access to DRM'd music than any other DRM scheme out there (I believe).


I guess some is ok. How much is not?


Again is there a specificaiton of this? I don't claim to know.

Of course they have the right to bring this action. I believe that actions such as these, which seem to be based on subjective interpretations, will likely end up with some sort of political solution. No one is questioning the right to pursue this but, because of the quality of the arguments presented, some of us are questioning the motivations behind the action.

(BTW thanks for the corrections. I was going out the door last time.)

I didn't say you did, Trendannoyer brought it up as a comparable closed ecosystem & you claimed it was irrelevent based on nobody wanting to open it - which in itself is the point that's irrelevent. Seems like you have the goggles on.

Yes, you are.

You're also free to complain to your nations consumer ombudsmen if you think a company is operating unacceptably. That's what they're doing. That's what ombudsmen are there for.

Both are valid approaches.

No, I just said it was irrelevant. It's a side issue that nobody would want to licence it.

McDave, your entire response incensed me so much due to its lack of understanding and jumping to conclusions that it's taken me a couple of hours to calm down enough to respond without swearing at you or breaking my computer in anger whilst replying. That's the first time that's ever happened to me.


I'm not sure why you feel the need to repeat something that's already been said multiple times in this thread by multiple different people. It's also been explained why that is an unacceptable solution to some people.



The sell? The sell? No sir, I have no shares/financial interest in the company, or indeed any links with them whatsoever. Neither do any of my family, friends or acquaintances. In addition it wasn't like this was my former company's flagship product, nor was I, any family, friends or acquaintances involved in the development of the system. In case you care, the company in question is Cambridge Consultants.



Conventional wisdom? It's funny to see "wisdom" and "DRM" used in the same sentence as each other. DRM demonstrably does not stop piracy.



Really? Why is that? Do taxpayers currently foot the bill for the RIAA, BPI and various other recording industry bodies legal battles? No.


Wrong. That is no excuse. We know this because it already hasn't worked as an excuse. All the people who have been taken to court by the RIAA so far have been taken to court for uploading, not downloading.



Well, here's the bit where I really have to bite my tongue. No, I am not a pirate, and it makes me very angry that you accuse me of this.

1.) I suggest you read this thread, paying close attention to my responses contained therein. I would like to point out that since the conclusion of the thread, I changed my mind and no longer consider royalties to be the "least bad" solution to how artists/writers should be paid. I now believe that they should be salaried employees like everyone else, and given bonuses/incentives to supplement their income.

2.) Just because I suggest that a particular behaviour is acceptable, doesn't mean I engage in it myself.

3.) I do not consider "making compilations for your friends to introduce them to new music" to be piracy. I consider acquiring all/most of your music without paying for it to be piracy. There is a world of difference (in my view) between:

Scenario a) "Person A" thinking to themselves "I like track Z" or "I like album Z", then going to their friend, "Person B", who has "track Z"/"album Z", and copying it from them.

and scenario b) "Person B" makes a compilation of tracks that he thinks "Person A" might like. He doesn't know whether "Person A" will like those tracks for sure, the tracks have not been requested by "Person A". "Person A" receives the compilation. He likes some of the tracks and not others. He then investigates further the artists who produced the tracks he likes, and ends up buying a couple of albums.

Now, if you want to have a discussion about how to draw the lines between what is piracy, what is not piracy, what is acceptable behaviour and what is not, then let's do it. But don't accuse me again of being a pirate because I am not, by any definition.



No, it can't, and your "explanation" is no such thing. Again, DRM has a high probability of being cracked because you are provided with:

1.) An encrypted track
2.) A key to decrypt the track
3.) A method to use the key to decrypt the track

Any DRM system conceivable has to provide you with 2.) and 3.), otherwise you can't play the track. Even if you can't work out how to hack 2.) and 3.) in order to permanently remove the DRM, you will always be able to record the analogue signal and end up with a DRM-free track.

An encrypted watermark cannot possibly be removed, it even survives recording of the analogue signal, unlike DRM. If you don't understand how DSSS and CDMA work, please don't bother arguing with me about this because you'll just piss me off. With an encrypted watermark, you are given:

1.) A track with an encrypted watermark.

You are not given a key, and you are not given the encryption method, because removal of the watermark is not necessary for playback. Unless you've a 128 bit quantum computer in your basement (people are struggling to build 3-bit quantum computers, by the way, and adding bits is exponentially harder), encryption is unbreakable. This is very important to appreciate. DRM encryption has not and never will be cracked. DRM systems have been hacked because they have to give you the key and encryption method for playback purposes (Sorry for saying it several times, hopefully you'll understand this time).

Of course, none of this proves that watermarking would stop piracy - I'm just saying that it really is impossible to remove this form of watermarking. In fact, I don't think that watermarking would stop all piracy, as there are plenty of sources of material other than online music stores. What I do believe, is that watermarking (in conjunction with consumer education) would be just as effective as DRM at preventing the pirating of content that originated at an online store.

I believe strongly that trusting people, explaining to them why you are trusting them and the method you will use to check whether that trust has been breached, is more likely to serve your long-term interests than using restrictive DRM schemes that just serve to antagonise people. Treat people as criminals from the off, and they are more likely to behave accordingly (i.e., as criminals).

*my highlighting of your arrogance


way to put your point, you think your right so thats ok, then you retreat into calling people fanboys and accusations of jingoism when you get stuck and when that doesnt work you correct spelling

but hey, its your view, so I'm fine with that.

shall we agree to wait and see what the courts do, if they do anything at all?

I was just sticking to the facts of the matter. The Norwegian complaint is based on the contract between Apple and the consumer, not the hardware. Nor did they mention Sony. So bringing up UMD disks as a parallel is totally wrong.

In this thread we've had Americans accusing Europeans of whinging about it because we can't compete and bringing up arguments such as Boeing v Airbus and we've had outright defences of Apple's DRM as opposed to other peoples even though they actually are complaining about ALL DRM on music stores and list MSN.no and a couple of others. Excuse me for suggesting people aren't concentrating on the actual facts of the complaint and are jumping to defend Apple without reading. It wasn't helped by a highly inaccurate leader on the original piece which made it seem like there was backing from France, Germany and other European counties at some kind of official level. There isn't.

I was correcting spelling because in the very post I was told to go look at a dictionary instead of reading the facts, the response was littered with spelling mistakes, bad grammar and factual inaccuracies. Irony is obviously lost on you.

Are you a lawyer -- an antitrust lawyer? How do you know what the "facts" -- let alone interpretations, which is often where the law comes down -- are?

I don't mean this as a contentious question... just trying to put your vehemence into context, that's all. (And, I am not suggesting that vehemnce is a bad thing).

Because these are the facts and they include their interpretations...

http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2006/1138119849.71

and

http://forbrukerportalen.no/filearch...ic%20Store.pdf


That is the basis on which the Norwegian Ombudsman has been asked to act. Fact.

Whilst we've had lots of opinion, noise and debate here about whether DRM is evil, has parallels with Sony's system and whatnot, the question is really whether the Norwegian Consumer Council has a case in largely Norwegian and more widely, EU law.

Most of the points raised in this thread are dealt with in the original complaint (see the PDF), including burning to disk, restricting geographically and more. They clearly state what their issue is with regard to their laws and they state which laws and why they believe they apply.

However, on here some of us have concentrated on defending Apple (fair enough if you want to) instead of adding any light to the debate and finding out if the Norwegian Consumer Council actually have a point. There's very little discussion in this thread about the actual complaint.

I'm not saying the Norwegian Consumer Council are right but they do have every right to lodge a complaint. I've tried to just add to the information flow in this thread rather than take sides but it's kind of difficult when you end up as the target of abuse, just for pointing out what the Norwegian Consumer Council are complaining about.

Speaking of Norway, here's Microsoft Norway demoing Vista.

http://atvs.vg.no/player/index.php?id=7334


Nice computer they picked to demo it on.

Steady on old chap, no need to blow an artery or, worse, break your machine (we're such slaves to our opinions aren't we?). Let's take this in easy chunks...



I was actually agreeing with you that anyone with an external A to D could capture analog audio & convert to an unprotected digital file which could be burned onto CD but no need as that function is already available in iTunes. That'll serve me right!



Sorry, I was goading but you are selling something



I think all but the Pharmaceutical Industry would believe that prevention is better than cure. DRM will not stop piracy but limits it's channels (see following posts) the iTS will not become part of the problem but is part of the solution (I accept only part) As far as I'm aware (and maybe we could use watermarking to track this) no music purchased from iTS has appeared on the P2P networks because unless you're able to crack the DRM there's no point. So DRM does limit piracy from that source



No that's private action. I'm talking about breaking copyright law (public action) which is paid for by the tax payer in most parts of the world



As I said above I'm not talking about private action. So someone can break the law because they know they won't be pursued privately? Nonsense!

...

Well, there's no arguing with that. Except, of course, the last part.

If breaking the law is an inadequate deterent how is watermarking going to work at all? All it proves is that one identifiable individual is guilty of at least one upload for one track, all subsequent copies in circulation could have been distributed by other parties and the extent is unlikely to be procured by the original perpetrator so what's the point?

Knowing that a DRM'd file also has your ID and that nobody could play it (without going through a lot of hoops) is far more effective. I do take your point that DRM is oppressive and likely to inspire rebellion (as is our nature) but so is any direct action that grates with our convenient perspectives.

Speaking of which...

Yes, I agree. Your sentence would not have been laughable, had it not included the part about DRM in parentheses. Your implication is that FairPlay DRM prevents the piracy of iTS tracks. But this is untrue. Even if we were to assume that iTS DRM were "uncrackable", you can still burn a FairPlay track to CD and give that CD to a friend, who could then upload it on p2p. Indeed, you could rip it back yourself and share it on p2p.

I still believe that having better respect for your customers, educating them about why they should not steal music (in a much more sophisticated manner than blunt-instrument "Piracy is theft. Theft is illegal. Therefore you shouldn't pirate"), and informing them that monitoring systems are in place, is a better preventative measure than DRM.

(The set up) - the challenge to the financial model of the music industry (no doubt from a lot of commercial experience and intimate understanding of financial requirements in each step of the supply chain) - though most of this thread is downright biblical so I fell asleep.


Except this one...


(The sting) - "by any definition"....except your own! You've justified the illegal distribution of music! Your preferred "Scenario b)" contains far more breaches than the single track "Scenario a)" and I love your awesome market expansion proposition through theft! How does that work? Now let me see..."A spokesperson for Apple Inc said the theft of 500 iPods from the store in Kent, England yesterday was OK because we're sure the recipients will all develop morals and purchase Macs in time for Christmas"

I haven't laughed so much while writing a response (seriously) don't sit on these forums - go & write for Ricky Gervais !!!

Jesus wept. You obviously missed the bit where I made it pretty clear that I do not make compilations for my friends. Nor do I download music via p2p or acquire any through friends giving me tracks. I am not a pirate, even by your draconian interpretation of the term.



So, an admittance that you didn't even bother to read a thread concerning the discussion of piracy in great depth. If you can't be bothered to appreciate/attempt-to-understand my viewpoint, why argue with me?



The practice of people making compilations for their friends has been going on for decades, since well before the wide-spread piracy of music tracks online and the decline of CD sales. It does not hurt the industry.

I thought I'd explained it pretty simply. You must be wilfully ignoring the distinction between the two scenarios that I outlined. In "Scenario B", none of the tracks had been requested by the recipient. This means that no sales have been lost - Person A didn't intend to purchase (or acquire in any other way) the tracks that he's been given. Person A now listens to the tracks he's been given. If he doesn't like any, he never listens to the compilation again, and will probably throw it away, or perhaps keep it on his shelf out of politeness.

If he does like some of the tracks, then he will investigate the artists and may end up buying some albums or additional tracks that he would not have bought had he not received the compilation in the first place. In an ideal world, if he does not buy any additional material, he should purchase from an online store the tracks from the compilation that he likes.


I explained how it worked. How this managed to go over your head, I don't know.


Oh please. Theft of hardware and theft of software is very different on a material level. If someone steals an iPod, not only have they taken something they should have paid for, they have also removed the possibility that that specific iPod be sold to anyone else. This is not applicable to digital distribution of music, there is no "denial of property" and the direct material impact is exactly nothing.

So, if iPods cost Apple absolutely nothing to replicate (note I said replicate, not develop or market), your above scenario of 500 people receiving stolen iPods and then paying for Macs would actually result in a net positive effect for Apple if sufficient numbers of those 500 people had not originally been intending to purchase a Mac, even if all 500 had been intending to purchase an iPod before receiving the stolen one.

Thanks for the links. That is very informative. I agree with you that everyone hyperventilating on this topic (I am paraphrasing what you said) should read it.

Not sure about that... The Apple TV commercials all say "iPod + iTunes", so the association of the two is well known by the public out there.

... and since it is really not limited to iTunes/iPod (yeh, CD burning stuff again...) I don't think Apple should/would add a "Playable on iTunes and iPod only", because that would be simply not true...

Greetings,
miguy2k

Is this really terribly hard to understand?

No. Is it hard for you to understand logic? What you quoted, or Apple's adverts, do not imply that the only portable player that iTunes downloads can be played on is the iPod, without jumping through hoops.

I do think it would be courteous of Apple to make it obvious rather than just hinting at it.

It does imply it. It doesn't require it, but it does imply it.

This:

does not require that you can't also play it on a sixth machine, but it does imply it.

Common sense does trump logic.

Oh, o.k. then. I'm talking about logical implication, not the colloquial meaning.

Just saying that you can play iTS downloads on an iPod does not make it obvious that they won't play on anything else.

In the meantime, Microsoft will roll out Vista with no action from these idiots. Seems they want to punish the company that has media attention and more to lose from lawsuits then M$oft and their endless pockets. Screw em.

If you don't like DRM, go buy your things elsewhere, that's part of what you agree to when you buy it. Granted, they are annoying at times, such as sharing libraries over my home network.

I can't stand when people complain about it... It's not like they took a bunch of money and bribed the music industry to DRM ALL of their music, you can find just about any of it in an open CD format... You don't HAVE to buy from Apple, remember all of you who buy from them just increase their power for locking things down.

it doesn't say "play your music on your mp3 player", it doesn't say "play your music on any mp3 player" - it specifically says "iPods". as in iPod made by apple. there is no need to say "won't play on any other mp3 player". it is perfectly obvious that the expected player is to be an iPod.

sennen

Ahh I see, so detailed scenrios/justifications are just for a 'friend' of yours. Do you use this one when visiting the doctor?



Do I have to? Or will I come to the conclusion that your preferred market model happens to reinforce the piracy that you advocate (but don't excercise)



The problem/damage of piracy has been with us for quite a while but it doesn't hurt the market any less. You seem to differentiate between 'wide-spread piracy' through online distribution & 'making compilations for your friends' when surely millions of instances of the latter 'going on for decades' would be as damaging.



I am wilfully not being distracted by the detail when both so clearly violate the law which you are wilfully ignoring - nice alternate close!



Person A doesn't need to buy any tracks because someone is giving him stolen stuff for free, he will probably not feel the need to look for his own music as someone keeps doing that for him. He may even feel that because he's getting stolen stuff, it's OK to give stolen stuff and so the cancer spreads.



And if he doesn't end up buying?

What happened to clicking preview on iTS or listening to the radio neither of these are illegal. Please show me how to get to this 'ideal world' you speak of, all I see is criminal justification in this one.



'twas a rhetorical question for emphasis



OK - a sale is a transaction between a seller & a buyer. Whether the seller has no 'stock' (maybe because someone stole his iPods) or whether the buyer has no capability or desire to purchase (maybe because he received a stolen iPod or music track) the transaction fails and the sale is lost. This is regardless of the apportionment of value either seller or buyer cares to attribute to the product, service or combination of the two (conveniently cutting into the supplychain and applying plausible cost-justifications is irrelevent - I'll read that thread one day). By giving a stolen copy of the music or original iPod you eliminate the demand which stops the transaction occuring as surely as eliminating the supply. The evidence?....

In response to the magical market growth by piracy inspiring honesty - if this were the case the recent dramatic rise in on-line piracy would have heralded an equivalent growth in legal sales. It didn't so it doesn't work.

McD

Well, it just seems odd to me to debate with someone and then stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la" when they respond.



That's exactly the point. The latter has been going on for decades. Online distribution is a much bigger problem that does real damage. The reason why online distribution has done more damage is obvious to me, I've tried to explain it to you twice now, and still you don't get it.



O.K., so, yes, you are choosing not to fully engage your brain when reading my posts. If you do not expend any thought considering what the difference between the scenarios might be, you'll never appreciate why I find one acceptable and one not.


Yes, I am wilfully ignoring that both break the law. I'm doing that because what is legal and what is illegal does not tell me what to find acceptable behaviour and what to not. Theft is illegal (and remember here, legally piracy and theft are different things) because theft is unacceptable behaviour, rather than the other way around. If you were to try and explain to someone why piracy is unacceptable behaviour, how would you do it without resorting to "it's illegal"?



So "Person A" is just going to sit around not buying music he likes just on the off-chance that his friend is going to give him compilations covering all the music that he likes? I've already said that requesting music for free is unacceptable.


The sooner you realise the similarities between "Scenario B" and listening to the radio, the better. And no, I'm not saying they're exactly the same.


I can't do that. All I can tell you is what I find acceptable behaviour, and my reasoning for that.


I agree with all of that, and nothing I said suggests otherwise. None of what you say contradicts what I said. If iPod replication costs nothing, the damage to Apple is considerably less if an iPod is stolen.



No, this just demonstrates that you haven't grasped the central difference between my "Scenario A" and "Scenario B". On-line piracy is people engaging in "Scenario A", which I've already said I do not find acceptable behaviour. Of course it isn't going to lead to an increase of legal sales, because people know what music they want, and then they go and get it from p2p instead of paying for it. Again, this is Scenario A, not Scenario B.

Finally, I would like to point out that this debate you're having with me about making compilations for friends is particularly odd in the wider context of our discussion about DRM. FairPlay does absolutely nothing to prevent people making compilations for their friends using tracks from the iTS.

Yes, the Norwegian Consumer Council are completely aware of that, and of the burn it to CD workaround, and that they have the choice of buying something else or not at all. This is all mentioned in their complaint to the ombudsman.

They're still arguing that these restrictions are too much and break Norwegian contract law.


To be fair, Apple do have the largest online music store so it would make sense to target them first but they do state that other stores will also need to change. Here's what Torgeir Waterhouse from the council says...

"Many other music download services operate with similar terms and conditions. CDON.com, prefueled.com and MSN.no are examples of other affected services. We are therefore asking the Consumer Ombudsman to investigate the terms and conditions of these download services, says Torgeir Waterhouse."

http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2006/1138119849.71

i was referring specifically to the Chucker's question of how difficult it is to understand apple's disclaimer/conditions of use/whatever, but that's ok, i see the relevence.

putting norwegian contract law aside for one moment, it truly is difficult for me to understand why people/consumers would have a problem with this - music purchased from apple is to be played on apple hardware, or your computer using apple software. what is the big deal?

[broken record] if you don't like the product (drm, restrictions, bit-rate, hardware, software, whatever), don't buy it. [/broken record]

music that i purchase from iTS will be played on my nano thru headphones/in the car, or on my computer. if i want to hear, for example, RIDE or my bloody valentine in their full floppy-fringed, 'wall of sound' glory, i know i have to listen to the cd on a proper sound system. simple. why is it apple's responsibility to provide for the infinitely varied needs of all the audiophiles around the globe?

[broken record] and as others have said, why should they be punished for producing a successful business model - nothing is stopping other companies do it their own way. [/broken record]

in the past we had to buy the whole cd even if we just wanted one song (and damn i hated it when you heard one song by a band and then bought their album, only to find the rest of their tracks were shite!), why is it so hard now? we're spoiled, that's all. and there's no pleasing some people.

burn the playlist SEVEN times!! last time i checked it was 5... wow apple changed their contract with me... can i sue them quick lets form a consumer group.


you'd think that, but common sense like personal responsibility seems to be something that is in very short supply for some people

No, it was originally ten. They lowered that from ten to seven and simultaneously increased the computer amount from three to five. This was years ago.


Yep.