or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › More Euro countries enter battle over iTunes DRM
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

More Euro countries enter battle over iTunes DRM - Page 3

post #81 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I do believe that this will become an EU-wide issue in the near future, and this is not the last we will hear of it. It is not (quite) there yet, but it will soon be.

If this ever reaches a legal trial at the EU level (which I doubt) I really can't see how Apple can lose and be forced to change its ways, for the following reasons:

1) There is still competition and choice
2) The music bought from the iTunes store is playable on any computer
3) There are work-arounds (albeit involving quality-losses) to have the music playable on all other MP3 players

On the other hand, I find it very reasonable to believe that the EU will at some point force Apple to open up its national iTunes stores in the EU to consumers from other EU countries. In my view, the current system is violating the treaties regarding a EU-wide open market with free movement of goods and services. I am actually surprised that this issue has not been discussed more yet.

/Galex
post #82 of 159
http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2006/1138119849.71


It's worth reading the official statement from the norwegian government.
post #83 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr O View Post

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


It's worth reading the official statement from the norwegian government.

They aren't the government.

http://forbrukerportalen.no/Publikasjoner/1080715527.7
post #84 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

I can't use a competing store if it doesn't have the songs I want.




If the store uses a lowish bit-rate lossy format not supported by the iPod (e.g. 128 kbps WMA), I don't want to re-compress that with AAC, as this will result in additional quality loss, and 128 kbps WMA is only just borderline acceptable quality-wise. De-compressing to AIFF/WAV preserves quality but uses too much space.

So, if there's a competitor store out there selling the same music as iTunes but using high bit-rate (at least 192) mp3 or some lossless codec, and operates in the U.K., please tell me about it.

The question really is: should Apple be penalized because it's competitors suck?

Mr. H: using your own example, it is entirely possible for you to find all the songs you are looking for in acceptable quality, to work on your player of choice, at any combination of music portals. It's not Apple's fault if the buying experience by other download portals isn't as elegant or seamless as the iTS. It's not Apple's fault if consumers all over the world have chosen the iPod / iTS solution; no one held a gun to their heads to do so. These countries are only going after Apple because it's in the dominant position.

the XBox / PS2 analogy is a fitting one. You can't separate the iPod from the iTS; that's the ecosystem Apple created, and it's no more anti competitive than the ecosystem Sony created with the Playstation or microsoft with the XBox. Apple should not be penalized for creating a working ecosystem.
post #85 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

They aren't the government.

Aegis, you're right! It's still worth reading though as it puts everything into perspective!
post #86 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by csimmons View Post

The question really is: should Apple be penalized because it's competitors suck?

No. The question is 'Should consumers be penalised because they can't play their music where they want like they've done for years already?'

Quote:
Originally Posted by csimmons View Post

the XBox / PS2 analogy is a fitting one. You can't separate the iPod from the iTS; that's the ecosystem Apple created, and it's no more anti competitive than the ecosystem Sony created with the Playstation or microsoft with the XBox. Apple should not be penalized for creating a working ecosystem.

Not really. We're talking about music here not software written specifically for a specific platform.
post #87 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

No. The question is 'Should consumers be penalised because they can't play their music where they want like they've done for years already?'

No. The question is 'Should consumers be allowed to make choices, then complain about them?'.
post #88 of 159
At first I'd like to say that I am a European, but I'm totally against the government's stupid argumentation!

Argument 1: Customers are limited to Apple products
As many of you already said, the fact is that the music purchased on the iTunes store is playable on ANY device you want... just burn your CD and here you go... That's the definition of "fair play": use it as it is meant to be and everybody's happy... If you use the "front door" of iTunes for letting your music out (that would be the cd burning feature), everything is OK, so d*mn, stop arguing with this...

Argument 2: Impact on music industry
As they MAY remember, Apple signed their contracts WITH the music industry. By that time, the music industry KNEW that their stuff would only be playable on iTunes/iPod (or all other devices after burning it on CD), but hey... they signed the contract, so that means to me that they're OK with it...
And as has already been said: those governments argue to be defending customers, so leave the industry out of that all please...

Escalation
What comes next? Will they sue Apple for not releasing OS X for PC "just because it's technically doable and because it WOULD work on that platform"??

My personal ultimate counter-argument
EVERY customer who buys music on the iTunes store knows perfectly well that the music he buys will only play on iTunes&iPod (at least without burning it to cd first). So it is definitely no hidden cheat on the customer!!
Every customer can feel free to buy music from Microsoft's Zune marketplace (wait, let me have a laugh first.... LOOL, ok let's go on...), from the much-(over)advertised "www.musicload.de" (in Germany), or whatever other site sells media content... If they don't own an iPod they will probably go that way (so they perhaps don't need to burn the intermediate CD -although I don't even know HOW open this stuff is-), but if the use an iPod, they probably won't want anything else then the iTunes Store...
=> It's the user's choice, so stop pretending defending them, there's nothing to defend, period.

Yay, nice long reading *g*

Greetings to all of you from the Belgian/German border,
miguy2k

PS: I hope Belgium won't hop in as well :-/
post #89 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

No. The question is 'Should consumers be penalised because they can't play their music where they want like they've done for years already?'

How exactly did the iPod and iTS penalize consumers for something they actually didn't do for years already?
Lugging around a couple of cds or compact cassettes with you isn't exactly freedom either (isn't it?) and common practice in the 80's and 90's of the last century.

I think consumers have more, better and easier ways to listen to their music than they've done for years already.
The concept of taking all your music with you, manage it easily and listen where you want it is just over 5 years old.

It started with the iPod in combination with iTunes.
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #90 of 159
On a loosely related topic, I've never had a problem with Apple's DRM until I realized that downloaded videos cannot be burned for playback on a standard DVD player. I'm not sure how I missed that (well, I've never purchased a video through iTunes), but I have to say I find that unreasonable, especially when I'm paying to purchase the film.

Do I have this correct?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #91 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Apple should charge a hefty fee to license their DRM to other manufacturers. That would shut the boneheads up.

Well, considering this is exactly what the boneheads are asking for... Yes, it would shut them up.
post #92 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by csimmons View Post

Mr. H: using your own example, it is entirely possible for you to find all the songs you are looking for in acceptable quality, to work on your player of choice, at any combination of music portals.

It is? Well, come on then, tell me which stores I should be using.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #93 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by miguy2k View Post

My personal ultimate counter-argument
EVERY customer who buys music on the iTunes store knows perfectly well that the music he buys will only play on iTunes&iPod (at least without burning it to cd first).

No, really, he doesn't. Only geeks and people who've read third-party "downloading music guides" know that. Apple don't make it exactly clear when you visit iTunes Store that the downloads will only work with the iPod.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #94 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Yeah, if I want the whole album (or most of the tracks), that's the best option. But if I want only one or two tracks?

Does the concept of a minimum acceptable quality make sense to you? If 128 kbps AAC is your minimum acceptable quality, you don't what to go under that, by definition. Re-compressing 128 kbps with any lossy codec, at any bit-rate, will result in additional quality loss.

[snip]

Please explain how my reasoning implies I want things for free? I want to pay for my music, and then be able to play it on any device I choose, without having to compromise file size or quality.

Actually, this is all nothing but whining.

If you don't want an entire album - tough. The record industry forced people to buy whole albums for decades. Nothing is stopping you from going back to that model, or asking the labels very nicely if they'll let you have just a song or two, please.

Minimum acceptable quality of re-ripped iTMS songs not acceptable? Again - tough. Choose a different product.

You want to play your music on any device you choose? As many people have already pointed out, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever stopping you right at this very moment. What you don't like is the terms under which you're being allowed (by the record labels) to do so.

Once again - tough. Sure DRM sucks, but as a consumer, you have the power to deal with it right inside your own, pointy-little head. Choose not to consume a product that doesn't meet your needs. No-one's forcing you to buy music AT ALL, which essentially reduces your 'argument' to nothing but a mewling "but I want it!"
post #95 of 159
I say screw them. I understand that court battles could insue but here are the facts.

1. They entered the market with the understanding that the iTunes format was only capable on the iPod. They asked for the iTunes store, they weren't forced into it.
2. Have a problem with the format from the iTunes store...maybe don't purchase from the store. The iTunes application will gladly convert all of your music into a nice standard that can be played on many MP3 players.
3. Shut up if you buy a cheap MP3 player, you knew what you were getting into when you bought it, if you didn't then too bad. No one lets you take back a car simply because you didn't realize something was different about it...thats you own fault.

Apple should not put up with this, its tough to know since the figures aren't readily available to the public what their sales are in those countries but refusing to change isn't going to cripple their sales that much and considering the iPod has over a 75% market share in the Americas...business isn't going down the drain any time soon.
post #96 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

Not really since it's a strawman. The fact you can choose to buy music elsewhere is irrelevant.

The argument the Norwegian ombudsmen is making is that music bought from the iTunes music store should not be restricted to playing only on Apple hardware/software. There's a further issue in Norway in that once a sale has been completed, the terms of that sale aren't allowed to change, so for instance when Apple changed the number of places you could play a song from 5 to 3 (IIRC) it should not have applied to songs already in your library.

Seems fair enough to me. At no other point in the music industry's recent history has this kind of restriction applied and I don't see why it should still apply. Most consumers would probably be of the same opinion.

Obviously it requires one of three things.

1) Apple to licence Fairplay
2) Apple and everyone else to use a common open DRM scheme
3) Getting rid of DRM

It will happen eventually.

This is not meant to troll or flame you I think you are quite insightful on many topics on the boards but, Aegis why will DRM go away. When I hear peole say this I think that it's as likely to go away as copyright and patent rights. Without DRM how can the artist protect themselves from piracy? What would the alternative be? To me it seems DRM is hear to stay and will be a tug of war between the music industry and consumers.
post #97 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

That is not an equivalent thing at all.

The reason you can't play an Xbox game on another console is because the Xbox represents a hardware platform that Microsoft consider to be state-of-the-art at the time of development to trade-off retail price, performance, and profits. Games then have to be written to target that hardware platform to obtain decent performance, and this requires considerable effort.

A music player on the other hand, is much more of a generic platform. Any player on the market is technically capable of decoding AAC (even if the manufacturers haven't implemented an AAC codec, they could if they wanted to), and therefore the only thing stopping them playing iTunes Store downloads is FairPlay DRM.

Whilst licensing FairPlay may do Apple some damage, it is difficult to deny that Apple being forced to licence FairPlay would be good for the consumer.



Ok, maybe an Xbox differs from music in that it has to be specifically written for that one device. Then why isn't Microsoft, Yahoo, or Napster being prosecuted to open up their proprietary music format to be compatible with an iPod? Seems to me that it's hardware manufacturers that made ok products, but are stuck with lousy software that want to break into the iTunes market place.

If Apple's model wasn't good for consumers, then why would so many of them buy iPods, and why would Microsoft have made the Zune (which if you remember uses a new format which is incompatible with Playsforsure or whatever Microsoft's original format that they sold to everyone else was)? People didn't buy iPods because they had purchased music on iTunes, they most likely bought the player and then bought songs.

If you don't like the end-to-end model that Apple uses, don't buy an iPod!

Also, instead of complaining about DRM to companies that sell the music, why not go to the companies that made the music and required DRM in order for digital sales to be allowed at all!
post #98 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

No, really, he doesn't. Only geeks and people who've read third-party "downloading music guides" know that. Apple don't make it exactly clear when you visit iTunes Store that the downloads will only work with the iPod.

So, taking this as the goal - protecting the consumer 0 all that is needed to address the 'real' issue is a better, easier to read warning about the what can, and can't be done with your purchases? Then everything is OK?
post #99 of 159
[QUOTE=AppleInsider;1032590]France, Germany, and the Netherlands are all teaming up with Norway to pressure Apple into opening its iTunes music format for the sake of compatibility, according to news reports.

Apple does not force anybody. You cna buy at iTunes store and play the music on iPod and any computer, apple, sony, panasonic, you name it. Once you have downlaoded the music you can burn it on a cd and play it on any cd player and subsequently record etc. Nobody is being forced to buy anything on iTunes. Nobody forces you to play the music on an iPod. It is one's choice. Th essence of a monopoly is that you have no choice. You are locked in. But nobody is forced to buy music at iTunes and even if you do, you can play it on a pc, a CD player, any stereo you want. Apple offers portability through iPod, but this is voluntary.
post #100 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

This is not meant to troll or flame you I think you are quite insightful on many topics on the boards but, Aegis why will DRM go away. When I hear peole say this I think that it's as likely to go away as copyright and patent rights. Without DRM how can the artist protect themselves from piracy? What would the alternative be? To me it seems DRM is hear to stay and will be a tug of war between the music industry and consumers.

CDs haven't had DRM on them for decades yet the works are still copyright. I think at some point, governments will intervene and remove DRM so that consumers have the same rights they've always had.

How the music industry solves piracy is another issue.

It'll probably be the European Union that rules against DRM as digital sales become more popular. At the moment, digital sales are small and IMHO stifled by DRM. It'll take legislature to open up the market. Unlike the USA, Europe places a much higher value on culture and free expression above pure market goals. It's evident in this thread that most of us Europeans value that whereas the overriding view in the USA seems to be that governments have no right to interfere (even if that's not actually true in the USA).
post #101 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tid01217 View Post

Ok, maybe an Xbox differs from music in that it has to be specifically written for that one device. Then why isn't Microsoft, Yahoo, or Napster being prosecuted to open up their proprietary music format to be compatible with an iPod?

They are, but you know, iTunes is the poster boy...

Quote:
Not just iTunes
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
post #102 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Without DRM how can the artist protect themselves from piracy?

How exactly does DRM protect artists from piracy? Answer - it doesn't. Check it out, I bet you any popular track currently on iTunes is also available on p2p networks. DRM can never protect artists from piracy, because even if everything was protected with secure DRM (i.e. anti-digital-copy mechanisms that actually worked unlike DVD's encryption system and FairPlay (which is currently removable)), you would still have to be able to play back the file, which involves converting to analogue. That analogue signal can then be recorded to create a non-DRM file.

In addition, and this really should be obvious: people buying from iTunes are not pirates, because they are buying from iTunes, not pirating! So the only thing that DRM is doing is preventing the legitimate purchaser from using the tracks in any way that they wish.

Now, you could say that the DRM prevents casual sharing amongst friends. I think that in itself (if restricted to making compilations for your friends to introduce them to new music) is acceptable, but what if those friends then seed the music you've given them on p2p? You have to remember though, that the current FairPlay DRM doesn't stop that, because if you burn a CD for your friend, they can rip the tracks DRM-free and then seed.

A technical problem with DRM, beyond the ability that you can just record the analogue output, is that when you sell a DRM-protected track to someone, you also have to provide them with a key and a mechanism to decrypt the track, otherwise they can't play the track. Hopefully it is obvious that this makes it highly likely that the end user will then be able to figure out a way to permanently remove the DRM using the key and mechanism that has been provided to them for playback purposes.

I believe that a much better system than DRM is encrypted watermarking. A company that I used to work for developed a watermarking technology that is encrypted into the noise of a music file (I believe that it works-in-a-similar-manner-to/uses-the-same-principles-as DSSS or CDMA). Because the watermark is embedded in noise, you can't hear it. Because it is encrypted, you can't remove it, even by re-encoding the song or recording and compressing the analogue signal. In order to remove the watermark, you'd have to compress the signal so much it would no longer be listenable.

Because you can't hear the watermark, there is no reason for the end-user to need to remove it for playback purposes. This means that the user need not be provided with a key for the watermark or a mechanism for removing it (unlike DRM). Coupled with the fact that the watermark survives conversion to analogue, back to digital and subsequent re-compression, removal of the watermark by the end-user is impossible (without more-or-less destroying the file).

The system would work like this: each user has a unique watermark encryption key (just like at the moment, they have unique DRM encryption key). The key is stored on iTS servers, linked to an iTS account, but is never given to the end user. The watermark is added to the file before being sent to the user. The user is made aware that the file contains an inaudible watermark. If the user then were to share the file over p2p, the file could easily be traced back to them. They could then have their iTS account deleted and be prosecuted in the courts if necessary. Basically, it is an un-obstrusive method to help keep honest people (they're honest because they're using iTS rather than p2p to get the songs) honest.

Have a read of this article that Aegis posted earlier: arstechnica article
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #103 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

On a loosely related topic, I've never had a problem with Apple's DRM until I realized that downloaded videos cannot be burned for playback on a standard DVD player. I'm not sure how I missed that (well, I've never purchased a video through iTunes), but I have to say I find that unreasonable, especially when I'm paying to purchase the film.

Do I have this correct?

Yes, of course. And under the terms of the licence Apple uses on iTunes, they could actually make it even more restrictive such as it self destructing after 4 views. This is the problem with DRM that Norwegian consumers are complaining about as it breaches contract law.
post #104 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tid01217 View Post

Then why isn't Microsoft, Yahoo, or Napster being prosecuted to open up their proprietary music format to be compatible with an iPod?

It would be impossible for them to do that. It they are required to use DRM by the record companies, and can't licence Apple's FairPlay, they cannot make a DRM-protected track that will play on the iPod. There is no way for them to get onto the iPod the DRM-removal mechanism necessary to play back the file. Well, I suppose they could write custom iPod firmware based on Linux-on-iPod, be then the iPod wouldn't be able to playback iTS purchases.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #105 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

CDs haven't had DRM on them for decades yet the works are still copyright. I think at some point, governments will intervene and remove DRM so that consumers have the same rights they've always had.

How the music industry solves piracy is another issue.

It'll probably be the European Union that rules against DRM as digital sales become more popular. At the moment, digital sales are small and IMHO stifled by DRM. It'll take legislature to open up the market. Unlike the USA, Europe places a much higher value on culture and free expression above pure market goals. It's evident in this thread that most of us Europeans value that whereas the overriding view in the USA seems to be that governments have no right to interfere (even if that's not actually true in the USA).

CD's also didn't NEED DRM for decades because for a very long time there was no consumer technology that could duplicate them with anything approaching their quality. Now there is.

Not that I think DRM is the solution, I don't. Music in western culture seemed to thrive for centuries without any notion of DRM or even copyright protection.

And it seems to be true that Europe is much more consumer focused, and the US isn't nearly as laissez faire as we preach. But the current case really does go too far. Consumers aren't idiots that need to be protected from themselves. They can choose other products if the iPodosphere doesn't meet their needs. Treating them like sheep in this way is every bit as bad as some monopolistic corporation treating them as sheep from the other direction.
post #106 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

How exactly does DRM protect artists from piracy? Answer - it doesn't. Check it out, I bet you any popular track currently on iTunes is also available on p2p networks. DRM can never protect artists from piracy, because even if everything was protected with secure DRM (i.e. anti-digital-copy mechanisms that actually worked unlike DVD's encryption system and FairPlay (which is currently removable)), you would still have to be able to play back the file, which involves converting to analogue. That analogue signal can then be recorded to create a non-DRM file.

In addition, and this really should be obvious: people buying from iTunes are not pirates, because they are buying from iTunes, not pirating! So the only thing that DRM is doing is preventing the legitimate purchaser from using the tracks in any way that they wish.

Now, you could say that the DRM prevents casual sharing amongst friends. I think that in itself (if restricted to making compilations for your friends to introduce them to new music) is acceptable, but what if those friends then seed the music you've given them on p2p? You have to remember though, that the current FairPlay DRM doesn't stop that, because if you burn a CD for your friend, they can rip the tracks DRM-free and then seed.

A technical problem with DRM, beyond the ability that you can just record the analogue output, is that when you sell a DRM-protected track to someone, you also have to provide them with a key and a mechanism to decrypt the track, otherwise they can't play the track. Hopefully it is obvious that this makes it highly likely that the end user will then be able to figure out a way to permanently remove the DRM using the key and mechanism that has been provided to them for playback purposes.

I believe that a much better system than DRM is encrypted watermarking. A company that I used to work for developed a watermarking technology that is encrypted into the noise of a music file (I believe that it works-in-a-similar-manner-to/uses-the-same-principles-as DSSS or CDMA). Because the watermark is embedded in noise, you can't hear it. Because it is encrypted, you can't remove it, even by re-encoding the song or recording and compressing the analogue signal. In order to remove the watermark, you'd have to compress the signal so much it would no longer be listenable.

Because you can't hear the watermark, there is no reason for the end-user to need to remove it for playback purposes. This means that the user need not be provided with a key for the watermark or a mechanism for removing it (unlike DRM). Coupled with the fact that the watermark survives conversion to analogue, back to digital and subsequent re-compression, removal of the watermark by the end-user is impossible (without more-or-less destroying the file).

The system would work like this: each user has a unique watermark encryption key (just like at the moment, they have unique DRM encryption key). The key is stored on iTS servers, linked to an iTS account, but is never given to the end user. The watermark is added to the file before being sent to the user. The user is made aware that the file contains an inaudible watermark. If the user then were to share the file over p2p, the file could easily be traced back to them. They could then have their iTS account deleted and be prosecuted in the courts if necessary. Basically, it is an un-obstrusive method to help keep honest people (they're honest because they're using iTS rather than p2p to get the songs) honest.

Have a read of this article that Aegis posted earlier: arstechnica article

Nice reply. Finally someone who opposes DRM gives a plausable alternative. Those who oppose DRM seem to dismiss the rights of the artists. The interests of all parties must be considered in this debate IMO. For the record I'm not a big fan of DRM but I think Apple did the best they could to protect the rights of users. I'm really scared when I hear music label execs discuss DRM. We would be totally screwed if they got their way.
post #107 of 159
can anone answer me this?

When are these knobs going after Sony as you cannot play your UMD films on anything other than a PSP made by Sony?

are PSPs on sale in Norway?

if they are then surely they ALSO break the laws in Norway, do they?


as stated already, but as yet unanswred if, PROIR to opening the iTMS Apple had to pass various Govement of Norway checks in order to TRADE (iTms) in that country, why are the people responsible for PASSING Apples right to trade in the way that Apple applied to, not being held to account for ALLOWING Apple to break the Laws of Norway?

surely the fault lies with whoever passed Apples product/service as LAWFUL

can anyone address these points?

WITHOUT talking about sodding straw-bloody-men!
post #108 of 159
I'm from Germany. Here's nobody teaming up with the Scandinavians.
post #109 of 159
The market is free.
If I don't like to be bound to an iPod device AND if I don't like to convert my iTs, then I can shop at another online shop or buy CDs. The fact that iTunes is so successfull, is because it's so good (IMHO). After all, we live in a free market, aren't we?
And in the end, I can still play my iTs with the iTunes software.

I think Apple is making a lot of money with iTunes, so I don't see why Apple would make it hard for customers: DRM is a conditio-sine-qua-non, not only for the music industry, but also for all the hardworking musicians; nobody likes to work for free.

Regarding CDs that can play on any CD player: that is also not completely true. Some protected CDs can't be played in car CD players and on computers.

There are so many products on the market that are 'tightly coupled': mobile phones to carriers, television channels to digital TV providers, camera lenses to camera bodies, ...
One can always find something that breaches the 'principles of the free market'.

Let the free market be free
post #110 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer View Post

can anone answer me this?

When are these knobs going after Sony as you cannot play your UMD films on anything other than a PSP made by Sony?

Who in their right mind would licence the UMD format though from Sony to make a player?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer View Post

as stated already, but as yet unanswred if, PROIR to opening the iTMS Apple had to pass various Govement of Norway checks in order to TRADE (iTms) in that country, why are the people responsible for PASSING Apples right to trade in the way that Apple applied to, not being held to account for ALLOWING Apple to break the Laws of Norway?

That's where Apple is clever. Norway's iTMS, like all of the European stores, is based in Luxembourg, not Norway. Apple says it operates under the laws of England & Wales. I'm not sure how they get away with that exactly.

The reason they operate from Luxembourg is because that has the lowest sales tax in the EU. How they come to use English/Welsh law, I'm not sure. It should be in theory the law of Luxembourg and certain EU trading laws would then apply such as the free movement of goods across borders. Eg. there should be no restriction (legally, if not morally) for myself in the UK to buy David Hasslehoff's 'Jump in my Car' from the German iTunes store.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer View Post

surely the fault lies with whoever passed Apples product/service as LAWFUL

can anyone address these points?

WITHOUT talking about sodding straw-bloody-men!

It's all a bit odd, and that's why it's good that it's being questioned aside from the points about interoperability and breaking contracts.
post #111 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jello View Post

Regarding CDs that can play on any CD player: that is also not completely true. Some protected CDs can't be played in car CD players and on computers.

And Phillips (who are Dutch) and invented the format regularly take companies to court for calling their CDs 'CDs'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jello View Post

There are so many products on the market that are 'tightly coupled': mobile phones to carriers, television channels to digital TV providers, camera lenses to camera bodies, ...
One can always find something that breaches the 'principles of the free market'.

Let the free market be free

In Europe, it's illegal in many countries to lock a phone to a provider and it's not illegal to unlock phones across the whole of the EU now IIRC. Some countries provide free TV, others let the market decide or a mix of both. Can't help you on the camera mount issue though.
post #112 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

I agree that this if being lobbied by those who simply can't compete with a great solution. And, I'm sorry, but it is typical of Europe to go after any successful american enterprise with gov't backed approaches - Airbus.

As I recall, the US used the NSA to spy on Airbus contract negotiations and to pass on the details to Boeing. Nice one that, especially since the UK gives the NSA carte blanche access to tap every phone circuit that passes through the UK and probably all those within. The UK is nominally part of Europe and the wing assemblies for many an airbus are made there.
post #113 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

Who in their right mind would licence the UMD format though from Sony to make a player?

and answering my question with a question does not answer my question does it?

one could just as easily argue "who in their right mind would make an ipod"
the comparison with Sonys CLOSED system stands.



Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

That's where Apple is clever. Norway's iTMS, like all of the European stores, is based in Luxembourg, not Norway. Apple says it operates under the laws of England & Wales. I'm not sure how they get away with that exactly.

IF there is a loophole (as i assume that is what you are saying) then it is up to the people doing the complaining to close the loophole FIRST, which would involve (i imagine) going through the European court (?) in order to close the loophole, i would be sure then that Apple would have to comply or change its business.

England and Wales are i believe part of Europe, no matter what certain politicians might say

Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

The reason they operate from Luxembourg is because that has the lowest sales tax in the EU.

does that help lower the price to the consumer?


Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

How they come to use English/Welsh law, I'm not sure. It should be in theory the law of Luxembourg

but in practice it seems it is not, therefore, again it seems that the people doing the complaining should direct their efforts to the Law makers to correct the law, and if those who make the law find that current law stands, the complainers should "shut up" so to speak, as has been pointed out MANY times here already, no-one has a gun to your head to buy an ipod. *




Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

Eg. there should be no restriction (legally, if not morally) for myself in the UK to buy David Hasslehoff's 'Jump in my Car' from the German iTunes store.

i just checked the UK store and "jump in my car" by the Hoff is indeed already there... so what restriction are you suffering from?

----

*{further to this...im fairly sure that an iPod is considered a luxury item, as are ALL other MP3 players,CD, DVD, Tape (digital and analogue) and mini disc. therefore are liable for luxury tax in countries that apply such things, and are considered by most rational people to NOT be a necessity of life, it is not therefore a RIGHT of anyone, either in Law or on Moral grounds to expect to buy a luxury item that as PART of its added function is tied into a PROPRIETY format (fairplay) to which the user is warned about. while it STILL functions as a standard MP3 player!

Music purchased from iTMS is in a PROPRIETY format, much like music downloaded from the zune market place is, much like a wax cylinder is, much like a Tape Cassette is, much like minidisc and UMD are, you cannot reasonably expect to play your propriety UMD in an Edison Phonograph how could this be more obvious. }
post #114 of 159
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jello
Regarding CDs that can play on any CD player: that is also not completely true. Some protected CDs can't be played in car CD players and on computers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

And Phillips (who are Dutch) and invented the format regularly take companies to court for calling their CDs 'CDs'.

So, by implication, it would be OK for iTS to do what it does if it renames the downloaded song to be, say, FP songs instead of ?
post #115 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer View Post

and answering my question with a question does not answer my question does it?

one could just as easily argue "who in their right mind would make an ipod"
the comparison with Sonys CLOSED system stands.

It's not really a good comparison though since plenty of people make an 'ipod' because they want to and nobody wants to make a UMD player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer View Post

IF there is a loophole (as i assume that is what you are saying) then it is up to the people doing the complaining to close the loophole FIRST, which would involve (i imagine) going through the European court (?) in order to close the loophole, i would be sure then that Apple would have to comply or change its business.

England and Wales are i believe part of Europe, no matter what certain politicians might say

No, I'm not saying there's a loophole, just stating how they operate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer View Post

does that help lower the price to the consumer?

It may do. Or it may just help Apple pay less tax.

I'm surprised they chose Luxembourg to be honest. Many of these online companies choose to operate their fulfilment operations out of the Channel Islands eg. CD-WOW, Amazon, Tescos.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer View Post

but in practice it seems it is not, therefore, again it seems that the people doing the complaining should direct their efforts to the Law makers to correct the law, and if those who make the law find that current law stands, the complainers should "shut up" so to speak, as has been pointed out MANY times here already, no-one has a gun to your head to buy an ipod. *

Well yes. That's EXACTLY what they are doing though - going through the correct legal process of approaching their country's ombudsman.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer View Post

i just checked the UK store and "jump in my car" by the Hoff is indeed already there... so what restriction are you suffering from?

That's not my point. The point is that under EU law I'm entitled to buy goods (although calling the Hoff goods is stretching it) from any member state. By Apple restricting where I can buy, they're breaking EU law and should be called up on it. But that's another battle.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer View Post

*{further to this...im fairly sure that an iPod is considered a luxury item, as are ALL other MP3 players,CD, DVD, Tape (digital and analogue) and mini disc. therefore are liable for luxury tax in countries that apply such things, and are considered by most rational people to NOT be a necessity of life, it is not therefore a RIGHT of anyone, either in Law or on Moral grounds to expect to buy a luxury item that as PART of its added function is tied into a PROPRIETY format (fairplay) to which the user is warned about. while it STILL functions as a standard MP3 player!

Music purchased from iTMS is in a PROPRIETY format, much like music downloaded from the zune market place is, much like a wax cylinder is, much like a Tape Cassette is, much like minidisc and UMD are, you cannot reasonably expect to play your propriety UMD in an Edison Phonograph how could this be more obvious. }

Music purchased from iTMS is NOT in a proprietary format. It's AAC. I'd reasonably expect to be able to play it wherever I have AAC support (in my case, my Mac, my 2 phones and the kid's Shuffles)

Norway's complaint is that the DRM then applied constitutes a locking mechanism to restrict usage to Apple's players and as such is against their laws. Please read what they are complaining about instead of spouting shite about playing UMD disks on phonographs. It's not about hardware. That's irrelevant. It's not about there being other choices, including not buying from iTMS. It's about what you can do with legitimately (even stupidly since you didn't read the fine print) bought music.
post #116 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

I'm surprised they chose Luxembourg to be honest. Many of these online companies choose to operate their fulfilment operations out of the Channel Islands eg. CD-WOW, Amazon, Tescos.

A friendly FYI: CD-WOW is based in Hong Kong (unless they moved recently?). Play.com is based in the Channel Islands.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

That's not my point. The point is that under EU law I'm entitled to buy goods (although calling the Hoff goods is stretching it) from any member state. By Apple restricting where I can buy, they're breaking EU law and should be called up on it. But that's another battle.

Indeed, but this is not Apple's fault. The problem lies in the ridiculously convoluted manner in which the recording industry is set up, with multiple bodies administering copyrights and royalties across the EU. It is the record companies that are breaching EU law, and as a direct consequence, so is Apple.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #117 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

A friendly FYI: CD-WOW is based in Hong Kong (unless they moved recently?). Play.com is based in the Channel Islands.

Sorry, yes, got the two confused.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Indeed, but this is not Apple's fault. The problem lies in the ridiculously convoluted manner in which the recording industry is set up, with multiple bodies administering copyrights and royalties across the EU. It is the record companies that are breaching EU law, and as a direct consequence, so is Apple.

No matter who's fault it is, they still need calling out on it.
post #118 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

No matter who's fault it is, they still need calling out on it.

utter bollocks

whoevers FAULT it is are the one who needs calling out.

would you agree that if it is NOT apples fault (ie they are operating within the law, through loopholes if that is the case), but still within the law, then apple shouldnt be the ones being sued?
post #119 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

Music purchased from iTMS is NOT in a proprietary format. It's AAC. I'd reasonably expect to be able to play it wherever I have AAC support (in my case, my Mac, my 2 phones and the kid's Shuffles)

While people like to ignore it, iTS music IS, by definition, in a proprietary AAC format - hence no one else can read it. If you want an analogy look at the early days of DICOM format for medical images. This was a published standard but was left as extensible by the user. For quite some time manufacturers created proprietary extensions make the images proprietary. The fact that the unlying image was in a standard format was irrelavent in the big picture.
post #120 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

It's not really a good comparison though since plenty of people make an 'ipod' because they want to and nobody wants to make a UMD player.

its is the perfect comparison, but you choose to not see it as one because it suits your argument. it is a closed eco system just like apples iTunes store. although in fact i suppose it IS LESS closed as songs bought on the store can at least be used on more than one device which i suppose IS better than the number of devices you can play UMD on... mmm... in that respect they are different but only in terms of Apples being more open



Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

No, I'm not saying there's a loophole, just stating how they operate.

funny they could operate within the law for long enough to become a large enough pile of money that everyone wants to take a bite.

plus you yourself say
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

Norway's government actually went as far as saying they would not investigate Apple's practices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

It may do. Or it may just help Apple pay less tax.

so you admit that Apple operating in Luxembourg MAY cost the consumer LESS.. while operating somewhere else (Norway) may cost the consumer MORE ? and so it MAY have been a choice baised on that

Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

surprised they chose Luxembourg to be honest. Many of these online companies choose to operate their fulfilment operations out of the Channel Islands eg. CD-WOW, Amazon, Tescos.

as an aside, wernt tescos and other supermarkets forced to move out because of monopoly issues (cant remember the details)



Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

yes. That's EXACTLY what they are doing though - going through the correct legal process of approaching their country's ombudsman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

The point is that under EU law I'm entitled to buy goods (although calling the Hoff goods is stretching it) from any member state. By Apple restricting where I can buy, they're breaking EU law and should be called up on it. But that's another battle.

cool, let the courts decide, but if they change the law first, apple can change how they operate, and so avoid any fines.

but Norway isnt part of the EU as you pointed out
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

A number of people have posted in this thread that it's "Apple v the EU" in this argument. Please, that's not the case. The complaint has not been brought before the EU Parliament, council or courts. Norway isn't even a member of the EU.

so what way are you arguing? that Apple are within the law or are not?



Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

Music purchased from iTMS is NOT in a proprietary format. It's AAC. I'd reasonably expect to be able to play it wherever I have AAC support (in my case, my Mac, my 2 phones and the kid's Shuffles)

Norway's complaint is that the DRM then applied constitutes a locking mechanism to restrict usage to Apple's players and as such is against their laws. Please read what they are complaining about instead of spouting shite about playing UMD disks on phonographs. It's not about hardware. That's irrelevant. It's not about there being other choices, including not buying from iTMS. It's about what you can do with legitimately (even stupidly since you didn't read the fine print) bought music.

once the music has "fairplay" attached to it it IS a propriatry format, and ONLY music bought from iTunes store has this propriatry format that only plays on iPods THE most popular player, which of course it WASNT to begin with, why didnt someone take Apple to court when it WASNT the biggest kid on the block? after all if its practises were SO restrictive THEN (as apparently now) people would have voted with their wallet and left it on the shelf... wouldnt they?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › More Euro countries enter battle over iTunes DRM