Steve Jobs: Apple would embrace DRM-free music 'in a heartbeat' - Page 4

Hmmm.... that is a rather strong statement. Seems to imply that one actually needs to have experienced something in order to be able to comment on it (as a commentator). Surely you don't mean that?

DVD DRM was cracked 8 years ago. It's only still there for DMCA purposes.

The point of that is to only enforce a law and not necessarily protect consumers.


That doesn't matter its still illegal. The movie industry is consistent with having copy protection on DVD's and DRM on digital downloads. While the music industry is not consistent with this at all.

So, you seem to be claiming that this is the only legal process under which the Norwegians can address the overarching problem - DRM and interoperability? While I freely admit I don't know Norwegian law I would find it astonishing that this is the only legal theory under which they could address the DRM/interoperability issue. The action MAY be a valid one (although as stated in other threads I don't believe so) but I highly doubt it is the only legal avenue open to them. I always believe in the creativity of the legal mind It seems reasonable that if they wanted to pursue the record companies on this issue they could find a theory under which to do so.

Yes. As I've said over and over again in a couple of threads now. This is about CONSUMER LAW and it's CONSUMERS who are protesting, not governments or businesses. As such, the only bit of the process they can protest about is their rights as consumers in the contract between the consumer and the retailer (Apple, MSN.no....).

That's how most European countries have their laws set up.

So calling the Norwegian Consumer Council spokesman stupid for not going after the record companies is in itself stupid. They've a specific case with a finely defined contract to argue against.

Well, no, not really.

The laws are in place to protect consumers, or at least that's what they're supposed to do. So, in theory enforcing the laws, protects the consumer.

Of course, there's plenty of laws that if enforced are pretty stupid, like being able to marry your horse in Utah, but this isn't Utah, and the law isn't that silly.

The ripping of a DVD isn't the illegal part, it's the decrypting for copying that may be considered illegal. I do have legal pressed DVDs that aren't encrypted. Even without the encryption, it's still illegal to redistribute without the owner's permission.

why is it an ecosystem?

Apple has done nothing to unfairly stifle competition against iPod or iTunes. Anyone is free to develop mp3 players and download services that rival iPod/iTunes. Consumers are free to choose to buy those products instead of iPod/iTunes. iTunes has dominated the download market because it has beat its competition in a fair market. Apple's only crime is not in sharing its technology with others which the government has no right to force it to do.

Forcing Apple to share with its competition does not protect consumers as much as it helps companies that did not have the vision or imagination to compete against Apple.

It's not about consumer choice or competition in the marketplace.

It's about consumer restrictions placed on a purchase by Apple (even if Apple say the record companies made them do it) which the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman is saying are too restrictive and also breaks some laws, notably changing of rights AFTER a purchase has concluded.

Imagine if Apple were a plumber that only guaranteed their plumbing would work on the last Friday of every month and they were allowed to come round and switch your water off every week. And that at any point in the next 100 years they could come round and swap your hot for cold water. This was all in the small print in your invoice but you failed to read it because you're used to expecting plumbing to work 24 hours a day and nobody reads the small print. You'd probably object that those restrictions are unfair wouldn't you. If I argued there were other plumbers you could have chosen from, that still doesn't make it fair. In the opinion of the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman, Apple's restrictions are unfair. It doesn't matter that there are other music companies or players as it's all about the contract of sale between Apple and a consumer. Removing those restrictions coincidentally opens up the market to competition of course but it is coincidental to the legal argument.

The Norwegian Consumer Council (not the Ombudsman) was right today to welcome Jobs' call for abolishing DRM but still persist with the call to fine Apple for infringing on consumer rights. As they pointed out again, it's not about being able to play other people's songs on the iPod, it's being able to play iTunes purchases on other players.

I'll give you some "bullshit", aegis. If the European consumer rights groups and governments truly cared to get DRM problems out of the way, they
1) never would have let EUCD get passed to begin with
2) would work towards undoing EUCD right about freaking now.

Without EUCD, the encryption in DRM could easily and legally be circumvented by any consumer, making this a non-issue.

That is what consumer rights groups should be working towards. Pull away from the root of the problem.

Yes, I know. Norway isn't part of the EU, so EUCD doesn't affect them. But most of the countries being talked about are indeed EU members.

Totally agree. But that doesn't make Norway's argument any less valid.

where and who are all these protesters? i see no marchers down city streets waving placards, nor daily articles in the local broadsheet about the evils of iTS and DRM, not even online protests (of high or even any profile, at least) against apple/iTS.


i am not american, but why would i want to protest? what great wrong is being inflicted upon me? if i don't like something i don't buy it. if i so choose, i can buy an iPod and not use any iTS content at all - there is no-one twisting my arm to buy content from iTS. but it so happens that it is convenient to sample and buy a track here or there (before i go off to buy the cd) and i know that i'll only be able to play it on an iPod etc etc. no big deal at all, nothing to scream blue bloody murder about.

sennen

Merely irrelavent and misdirected. Those terms are not inconsistent with 'valid'. I think that's the point trying to be made over an over.

And I have to agree with sennen, why would I complain about being given more choice, which is what Apple has accomplished, within the restrictions imposed by the record companies. I haven't lost anything, just gained.

They're the Norwegian Consumer Council, a consumer body in France called UFC Que Choisir and a German federation of consumer bodies called Verbraucher. Similar bodies in Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands have also joined in. Those are all just regular joe public consumer bodies.

They've then been validated to some extent by the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman (who's a government appointed but independent body) who has the power to threaten fines and/or legal action in Norway.

There HAVE been people marching up and down the streets with placards but if you've not spotted those (unlikely) then try Google.



Sigh. Does anyone read what I write before spouting the same shite again? Once more, it's not about choice or competition or the iPod, it's about the restrictions in the contract of sale between a consumer and Apple when you purchase an iTunes track from their store.


Sigh. See above.

it's not shite, it is common sense. if you don't like the terms and conditions of a contract, don't enter into it. if the iTS is breaking the law in norway, then these consumer groups should be trying to close the norwegian store. but obviously they want to have their cake and eat it too... mmm, cake....

Well these bodies don't want a free market where products compete on their own merits. If they feel Apple is offering an unfair deal they could encourage people to stop buying iTS products. But obviously most consumers in Norway don't feel iTS is an unfair deal.


The consumer does not need government protection from iTS restrictions. That's what the free market is for. If iTS restrictions are unreasonable people are free to not use the service. Its up to other companies to offer a better deal than Apple offers. That would force Apple to open its restrictions.

Oh sigh sigh sigh. The only problem here is the you refuse to believe that anyone could read what you've written and disagree with it. I haven't read many responses at all that are not at all inconsisitent with what you've written, they simply disagree. It OK to disagree, wouldn't you agree???

They aren't trying to close the store, they're trying to make Apple obey the law. It's not necessary to close retailers down if you can persuade them to change their ways.

That's how ombudsmen and regulators work in any industry. They fine the law breakers until they comply after enough warning. In Apple's case they have until March to say what they'll do and till October to do it.


No that's exactly what they want. They want music to be able to be played on any player no matter where you bought it without overly restrictive rights management so that you're free to use any player and other companies are free to participate in a market otherwise dominated by one closed system. They ARE encouraging people to stop buying iTMS products until this is corrected. 22 songs on average on an iPod capable of 1000 (Jobs' figures) is FAR from a ringing endorsement of the deal iTMS gives consumers so I've no idea how you can 'obviously' speak for most consumers in Norway.


The free market isn't an answer for everything, that's why there are laws. And of course, this is Norway, not America, so it has a completely different political, cultural and societal make-up. Frankly, Americans telling Norwegians how to run their country is patronising and completely none of their business. But if Apple wants to operate in Norway, then abiding by their laws is a given.

But that is exactly the point that people are trying to make, it is NOT Apple that has to be persuaded or change their ways, as addressed in the letter from Jobs, its the record companies. That's why this effort is misdirected, even if valid. Apples only reasonable choice in the scenario is to shut down given what is put forth in the letter.

I'm trying to point out the FACTS of the legal position the Norwegian Consumer Council are taking with Apple but you, sennen and TenoBell keep bringing it back to opinion rather than paying any attention to what the Norwegian Consumer Council are complaining about.

Here's their press release...

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

Here's their complaint... (PDF)

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

Please read.

I'm not stating MY opinion, I'm stating THEIR opinion which only relates to a very specific breach of consumer contract law. You're welcome to disagree with them of course but do try and stick to their points.

i agree that the free market is definitely not the answer to everything (or [rant] anything for that matter if you want to work towards a truly equitable and egalitarian world [/rant]) and that consumer groups are vital in free market capitalist economy. CHOICE here in Aust, does a great job. i just think that there are many more consumer issues of far greater importance than this for them to be concerned about.

our lives are filled with restrictions, some for better/our own good, some for worse - which we should try to change, but also some that really have very little if any impact upon us. Fair Play DRM, whilst not ideal, is not evil, barely restrictive and as far as i am concerned, it is simply a non-issue because i have the choice of whether to be restricted or not.

if apple is violating the law in norway by selling a certain product and apple can't sell this product without the DRM (because of their contract with the record companies), ask them to remove the product form the "shelves" (or in the extreme close the store).


but it's not a closed system if you don't want it to be! just don't buy music from one store - the iTS.

And as I pointed out earlier, under consumer law, the contract is with Apple so the only complaint Norwegian consumers can make with any legal basis is with Apple. Jobs' letter does not change that.

If you read the complaint they made it's against Apple first (after all they control the largest part of the digital download market) but it's also against four other stores. If they all decided to shut up shop instead of complying with the law then the record companies will have nowhere to sell downloads in Norway. That's not good for the record companies.

Let's just run through Jobs' suggestion - 'Go direct your energies at the record companies'. Well, let's say Norway threatens to take them to court instead of Apple. Their reaction might be to just not supply online stores in Norway with ANY content, to pull out of the download market in Norway, instead of providing un-DRMd content. That's bad for everybody.

The record companies need online stores to sell their music or they're back with CDs again and a flourishing p2p market. Either way, it's going to end up on p2p unprotected.

So, buy an iPod, a Zune, a Sony and a Zen. Buy the same song four times to get it on each since you're not allowed to copy between them. Yeah, I see what you mean. It's great to have a choice in closed systems. \

Regardless, that's not what they're complaining about. Each of these stores has a restrictive contract. They're complaining about each contract in turn not that you don't have a choice of which restrictive contract you can freely pick.

no, buy the music once - on CD. if it is available as a single, all the better

as i said: "if apple is violating the law in norway by selling a certain product and apple can't sell this product without the DRM (because of their contract with the record companies), ask them to remove the product from the "shelves" (or in the extreme close the store)."

Well yes, that's what I do do. But again, that's not the specific issue.


It may come to that. I would think not though as at some point the record companies are going to realise they've nowhere to sell their crap. It's inevitable IMHO that they'll have to supply without DRM.

When all the "free" market offers us as consumers are take-it-or-leave-it choices, where big companies are acting in concert to enforce very similar restrictions in nearly all of their offerings, I'm happy for the government to step in and (in a rare show of favoring the consumers over big business) improve the choices available to me.

If you want to call it "having your cake and eating it too", fine. That's what I want. I want the convenience of something like Apple's online store and more choices for what I use to play back those selections. I don't want to have to buy CDs instead to get away from those restrictions. I don't want to have to lose sound quality and/or bloat file sizes by having to burn purchases to CD and re-rip those CDs.

Taking away laws that make circumventing DRM illegal would be the best way to improve consumer choices. (By the way -- burning music to CD and re-ripping for the purpose of circumventing DRM restrictions could very well be considered both illegal and a violation of your EULA.) If we can't get that, then mandatory licensing of DRM systems is the next best thing.

I realize that most of the DRM grief is due to the music labels and not Apple. But I'll take consumer relief from one-sided restrictive agreements and improved protection of my fair use rights wherever I can get it.

Why? How do you come to that conclusion regarding the tradeoff of non-DRM on-line music and no on-line music. Do you know how the economic models of the record companies are structured? Do you know how they view this tradeoff? If these are the choices they face they may evaluate that closing shop is the better case for them. They have done this in the past in the fact they didn't offer on-line music in any significant way before iTunes.

I think the only reasonable conclusion to be derived if they would close up shop is that it is bad for consumers as it removes a choice. I do believe adding choices is generally a good thing.


How is the stores shutting down because of the action against the operators different (to the consumer) than them shutting down because of action against the record companies. You're whole premise about the results of this actions seems to be based on the last sentence. I don't see how this is a forgone conclusion in any current scenario. The record companies may very well assess that non-DRM offering will only make p2p worse.

Now, before you go and quote all your previous statements again, I have read the complaint and agree that they have the right to bring it and that they think they have their FACTS correct. Thats not what's being discussed.

As the topic of this thread is actually the letter, not the Norwegian action (thats another thread), I think that the more interesting discussion would be about Job's assertion that Apple cannot reasonably open Fairplay to others because the inordinate burden of managing that much more complex system in a way that doesn't violate their contracts with the record companies. That's really the crux of this matter (assuming you don't get rid of DRM). I actually agree with Job's position on this. They've only been successful in keeping this working (i.e. realtively secure, and yes I know about Qtfairplay, etc.), despite the massive incentive to crack it, because they control the complete ecosystem. If this is the case then Apple has no where to go without the cooperation of the record companies - hence the suggestion to refocus efforts.

No, it's not a fact. iPods work with iTunes. So what? Big deal! Very little iTunes purchased content is on any given iPod. THAT'S a fact.

Most content is not from iTunes, that's also a fact.

People have asked me to do that because they know that this is something that I have professional software that I do it with. Most of these people are also kids, friends of my daughter, and their friends.

I think that PR certainly has something to do with the timing, but it's certainly nothing new for Jobs. He's been saying this for years.

And, I believe him.

If Apple continues to sell songs at the same price as others, there would be NO reason for people to buy anywhere else, unless others can make the case that their songs are of higher quality, and people caredwhich they don't.

Otherwise, people will continue to buy from iTunes and buy iPods. And, some, who haven't, because of Apple's exclusive DRM, might now choose to do so.

Bright lights, etc. are a big motivating force for rock musicians.

Charitable works are something else entirely, as long as much publicity accompanies it.

Actually, that's not true.

I don't know where you get the idea that the labels are being rendered obsolete. iTunes is just another music store. The method of delivery is different, that's all.

It's interesting that so many who have no contact with the industry think that the labels don't contribute. That's funny. It really is!

Who do you think pays for everything the musicians need to record, hold publicity tours, advertise them, pay for their outfits, intruments, hotel rooms, etc?

Do you realise that most acts lose money? Do you realise that most advance payments are lost to the labels forever? It's only the very few top acts that make money for the labels. Those few acts at the top pay for the entire pyramid of acts below them.

Those top few acts want it all. Do you think they care about new acts, or acts that barely break even? No, they don't.

And that's where you hear that the labels are robbing them. Those acts forget that when they were new, the labels took from the current top acts to help pay for them. And it goes round and round.

No one would ever hear of new acts if it weren't for the major labels. They are the only ones to have the money to do the promotions.

That's why indie's are indie's. They have little money for promotion, tours, or much else. Many of their acts may be very good, but few hear about them.

Without any labels, there won't be any recording going on. What new act can afford the studio time to do a professional album?

Sure, rarely, an act does something in their basement. I used to do that when I was young. But, even with todays equipment, the result is rarely good for more than an audition "tape".

This example is not a good one. Obviously, Parlephone is selling goods fraudulently. The cd spec cannot be worked around, and it is licensed out to be done the way it is. This was one of Sony's problems. If someone sued them for that, they would have had a decent chance of winning. No one has reason to expect that a cd will have either DRM, or content protection.

Of course, since this is hypothetical, we can assume that the cd CAN have this. If so, one must then look to the cd player. Why doesn't it play that cd? If others do, then it could be the cd player that is at fault

It also would depend on the applicable law. Would the protection on that cd be legal, or not? If the law says nothing either way, then the presumption would be that it is legal.

Naturally, they could change the law.


This can get ticklish. If a referendum were to be held, and the question asked was:

Would you rather have music sold online with DRM, or have no music sold online? The answer could be interesting indeed.

Apple is certainly not deceiving their customers, as they are forthright about telling what will work with what, unlike the case you mentioned about the cd.

It seems to me that the authorities had plenty of time to decide to not allow Apple and Sony to set up their stores there. As they have, it appears to be hypocritical to try to change the rules that most people are quite happy about, to curry favor with the few who are not.

I assume they will not allow MS to sell the Zune with it's exclusive rights DRM, and that MS knows that.


Well, I find this to be very odd. The companies who sell the "deficient" products are fine, but the stores are not. Very odd.

So, If a small car dealer sells a car model that later proves to be defective, or of poor design, something that a dealer is in no way qualified to determine, that dealer, and all of the other dealers selling that model get in trouble, but the car manufacturer gets off the hook?

Because that's exactly what you are saying here.

Somehow, I don't think that's true. It doesn't have to be a defect, or poor design, it could be deceptive. Say an engine rated at 200 horsepower that turns out to be only 150 instead.


Debbie Gibson?

Well now, that destroys your credibility, doesn't it?

quoting a song i know "sometimes you must accept... you can't always get what you want". why does apple have to provide all the solutions? [they certainly don't when it comes to hardware, but we still buy it] they have provided a solution. why doesn't some other company filled this need for you? it seems to me like if apple took the DRM off, then ppl would prob still complain about the bitrate, or something else. <shrug>

I mean that unless people know how an industry works, and why, they shouldn't be making comments that don't take it into account.

Comments that I read from these commentators show that they don't know the industry, and are speaking from an outsiders perspective.

It's important to understand the mechanics of something before criticising the result.

EDIT:

I just would like to make it clear that by "commentators" I mean people who are paid to write, or bloggers with well read blogs. I don't mean people posting in threads like this (though it would be nice). No one pays much attention to what we say other than the others in the thread. We are free to fight, argue, or whatever.

While I wouldn't call them stupid, I would call them shortsighted.

They seem to be going for the easier mark. It's simple to tell Apple to shut down the iTunes store in their country, but much more difficult to tell all the record companies to change their ways, or else.

[QUOTE=aegisdesign;1039198]It's not about consumer choice or competition in the marketplace.[quote]

It is about that.


That's a very artificial argument. I'm really surprised that this has gone even this far. It's absurd to expect product interchangability.

I suppose they will require Blu-Ray and HD-DVD to be compatible.

What about cassette tapes and cd players? Did they do this with Beta and VHS?

Or DVD and Beta/VHS.

Do all vacuum cleaners have interchangable bags? They should, you know. It can be difficult finding the right bag.

How about tires on cars? Shouldn't they all be the same size? Tires would be much cheaper if made the same size.

Or diesel and gas cars. You never know when you might need one or the other when somewhere you aren't familiar with.

Shouldn't all locks have the same key blank? It would be much easier to get a key made.

I could go on. But you can see how quickly it becomes overwhelming.

Music is not different than any other product.

When all program file formats are forced to be 100% compatible with one another, or all programs are required to run on all OS's, I might be willing to listen.

Otherwise, this is a fake problem, and I don't believe that genuine consumer interest is at stake.

But sometimes you can... especially if you don't automatically roll over and play dead for corporate interests over your own.

Why are you so eager for corporate interests to win out over greater consumer freedoms and rights?

And what will they do if Apple says no, we opened the store, and you full well knew the conditions of our contract before we opened it.

Will they try to fine Apple to the point that they are forced to close the store? That would be the same as telling Apple to close the store. It would be a tax.

Here, we understand that the power to tax, or levy fines, is the power to destroy.

Aegis, you are contradicting yourself. It's one or the other.

The arguments they are presenting are flawed on the face of it.

They aren't even sure if they have the right to judge this. The best they come to that is that they "may" have the right. They should get that straightened out first amongst themselves.