The problem you seem to have is that you think that your iphone is still somehow apple's property, and they have the right to say what you can and cannot do with it.
The phone? No. The operating system? Hell yes. This has always been true, if I buy a book I own the book but I don't own the content of the book, I only have a limited license to that and the publisher has a right to limit what I can and cannot do with it.
So for example, I can't legally buy Harry Potter books, undo the binding and rebind the pages adding new pages containing pornographic sketchs of Harry/Ron/Hermione 3-ways, then sell them - funny though that might be.
Your mistake was thinking that when you bought the iPhone you also bought the OS, you didn't - you only bought a license.
Before changing the rules this week, Apple forced any app which you can buy any content outside the app to implement iap system and disallowed any link outside the app to buy this content.
So yes, they tried to force the iap system on any app, now they have backpedaled but it's also not allowed to link outside the app.
If they changed the policy, why are you condemning them? The policy changed.
The "not allowed, within the app, a link to their website to purchase content" policy is the same as Best Buy not allowing Amazon or someone else to put a sign in Best Buy's store (or on the packaging for Best Buy stores) telling the customer to buy the product cheaper if you go to them directly.
We'll see how this policy goes, but looks like Amazon and Netflix are still being allowed their link, since it just directs to their website.
The phone? No. The operating system? Hell yes. This has always been true, if I buy a book I own the book but I don't own the content of the book, I only have a limited license to that and the publisher has a right to limit what I can and cannot do with it.
So for example, I can't legally buy Harry Potter books, undo the binding and rebind the pages adding new pages containing pornographic sketchs of Harry/Ron/Hermione 3-ways, then sell them - funny though that might be.
Your mistake was thinking that when you bought the iPhone you also bought the OS, you didn't - you only bought a license.
I don't claim that users own the OS of their phone, but there are many rights they should have granted to them when they buy it. Your example of the book even works here. What apple is doing is more akin to telling someone that they can't draw in a book that they bought, or highlight passages. The notion of a publisher doing that is ridiculous.
What you are talking about is stealing content from a book and using it, that's a completely separate issue. Running an application on a phone in no way, shape, or form involves stealing the content of the OS. Doing this does not violate apple's intellectual property in some weird way, it simply involves using the OS for its intended purpose. It's a regularly accepted fact that an OS allows applications to run. That is the purpose of an OS. Saying that the OS vendor has the right to disallow applications that don't pay them a huge chunk of money is crazy on a computer device, although it isn't without precedent.
This same action has been done on game consoles for years, where developers who do not have permission from the console maker (ie give them a huge chunk of money) cannot sell applications for it. However, in this scenario, the rules were spelled out clearly before the developers started writing games for the console. With iOS, the rules are being changed after the fact. If Apple's draconian rules applied to applications on iOS from the start (using the terms they setup in January, and not the new relaxed ones), do you think the big content providers would have stepped up and built applications for iOS?
More important, do you think Apple would sell near as many iOS devices if it weren't for vendors like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and the other content providers? These providers all released free applications, and cannot pay 30% of the price they charge for the content to Apple, as I seriously doubt they have margins in that range, and if they can't charge extra on the platform, forget it.
So for example, I can't legally buy Harry Potter books, undo the binding and rebind the pages adding new pages containing pornographic sketchs of Harry/Ron/Hermione 3-ways, then sell them - funny though that might be.
Your mistake was thinking that when you bought the iPhone you also bought the OS, you didn't - you only bought a license.
Under copyright law, you can do exactly that.
I think your mistake is buying into the whole trip about a license. That leaves the door wide open to DRM on copyrighted works of all sorts, and kills lots of rights that consumers have accrued such over the years, such cutting up their physical books, or reading your Apple brand book on a kindle.
I assure you, you cannot. By all means try and watch your ass get sued. Fair use does not extend nearly that far.
Quote:
I think your mistake is buying into the whole trip about a license. That leaves the door wide open to DRM on copyrighted works of all sorts, and kills lots of rights that consumers have accrued such over the years, such cutting up their physical books, or reading your Apple brand book on a kindle.
Ahh so if I don't buy into the facts then the facts cease to be true? Do you watch Fox News perchance - that's certainly their mindset.
I think your mistake is buying into the whole trip about a license. That leaves the door wide open to DRM on copyrighted works of all sorts, and kills lots of rights that consumers have accrued such over the years, such cutting up their physical books, or reading your Apple brand book on a kindle.
You're mistaking what you can potentially do with your own property with the ability to make changes to a copyrighted work and then SELL that. You can't do that.
Similarly, it is perfectly legal to jailbreak iOS on devices you own, and do with it what you will.
I've been using analogies that relate Apple's CURRENT policies with the policies of brick-and-mortar stores or a commission-based salesperson. I didn't agree with Apple's previous policies, although other brick-and-mortar stores like Wal-Mart conduct similar business practices.
My whole argument is that Apple provides value to developers with the App Store and In-App API, and that value is more than the simple credit card processing fee or any potential hosting of data. It is a service, and Apple values it at 30% of any revenue generated through their store or API. Obviously, many other developers also value it at 30% or higher, as they are more than willing to pay to have access to Apple's customers. So far, not all developers have seen the value of the In-App model as 30%, and they are free to forgo using that API and instead market to their customers directly and use the web instead. Other developers feel 30% is worth it, as the convenience factor will likely increase sales.
Apple merely doesn't want a developer blatantly directing the customer Apple delivered (since they bought it through the App Store, Apple delivered the customer) to circumvent the App Store and buy additional content directly from the publisher. They are free to sell directly to customers, but they need to attract those customers outside of the App and App Store.
Again, in all of this, you may not agree with Apple's policy of "walling the garden" and only sanctioning a singular store (by default; obviously you can jailbreak or use non-native HTML5 webapps). If so, argue this point, as it is more valid. If Apple allowed more than one store, then this entire issue would be a non-issue, but of course if they did, they would lose the benefits of having a closed and controlled ecosystem.
I want to know what the heck is up with Hulu being banished from Apple TV? It's not like it's technically impossible. Hulu works on iOS devices, laptops, Netflix works on Apple TV. What's up with that?!?
Apologies in advance but you make lots of good points so this is a monster post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by philgar
I don't claim that users own the OS of their phone, but there are many rights they should have granted to them when they buy it. Your example of the book even works here. What apple is doing is more akin to telling someone that they can't draw in a book that they bought, or highlight passages. The notion of a publisher doing that is ridiculous.
What you are talking about is stealing content from a book and using it, that's a completely separate issue.
I agree that the example I gave was more extreme, but that was precisely to demonstrate that the principle that you do not own the OS is not a new one, so we're down to debating whether constraints on an iPhone are reasonable. Some people genuinely think that it's outrageous that there are any restrictions at all and that they own the phone so Apple have no right etc etc. so it's good to get that out of the way.
Quote:
This same action has been done on game consoles for years, where developers who do not have permission from the console maker (ie give them a huge chunk of money) cannot sell applications for it. However, in this scenario, the rules were spelled out clearly before the developers started writing games for the console. With iOS, the rules are being changed after the fact.
Curse you - you spotted my counter-example in advance! I could point out that the the rule that they could change the rules was set out at the start, so the developers all knew what they were getting into. The real difference is of course that consoles were an old and established paradigm, whereas the App Store is charting completely new territory. Previous e-stores either sold only media such as iTunes, or sold only software such as Steam. Of course the rules were going to get amended.
Quote:
If Apple's draconian rules applied to applications on iOS from the start (using the terms they setup in January, and not the new relaxed ones), do you think the big content providers would have stepped up and built applications for iOS?
It would depend how they were enforced, if it was 30% of the gross sale price then obviously not. If it was 30% of the net transaction profit then quite possibly yes. At any rate it's a silly question, Apple never enforced those rules on anybody so it's a strawman. The 30% rule makes sense for Apps, and for in-app purchases of additional software, which is I suspect what it was intended for. It obviously doesn't make sense for content, as many of us argued even back then, and it never seemed likely that it woudl survive unamended. I don't think we're at the final iteration even now.
Quote:
More important, do you think Apple would sell near as many iOS devices if it weren't for vendors like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and the other content providers? These providers all released free applications, and cannot pay 30% of the price they charge for the content to Apple, as I seriously doubt they have margins in that range, and if they can't charge extra on the platform, forget it.
I don't know, but I do know that only about 6 million kindles have been sold, and we're already at 15mil iPads, so clearly Amazon wasn't the secret in the sauce. I know that netflix and hulu aren't available in the UK where iPads-2s are nevertheles selling out in the Apple stores, so clearly they aren't the magic ingredient either. Obviously these are good apps, but don't over do it - Apple had a hit product even without them.
Can you imagine how they would have screamed if Apple had refused to allow them to develop native apps? Can you imagine Amazon giving Apple the right to sell direct to Kindle devices - even if it ws only Wifi? Don't kindle owners own their handheld computers too? Where is the outrage? Of course Apple don't really care because there are already far far more iPhones and iPads capable of reading eBooks than Kindles and Nooks.
This is a difficult area because on the one hand Apple wants to get as much of the value chain as possible out of the iPad, and on the other it wants to encourage a vibrant ecosystem. Apple could have charged a huge fee for the iOS dev-kit and gotten away with it, but instead it sells for $5 - the PS3 devkit was $20k only a few years back. Apple is handling the distribution for the developers and is willing to handle distribution for in-app content too - which again is more than Sony do for their fat cut on console game profits.
I'm just saying that we all need to take a deep breath here and remember that the iPad and iPhones aren't computers, they're devices - and devices have often had different rules regarding what development is acceptable.
Your analogy isn't correct. I can legally take the Harry Potter story and do with it whatever I want provided 1) the use is non-commercial, 2) doesn't take from the copyright holder's right to make money from the work, and 3) doesn't violate any trademark by implying the content holder supports my actions.
Technically singing along with an album you bought violates the copyright. That is unless you have a good fair use defense like your action is non-commerical, isn't taking from the copyright holder's ability to make money, and doesn't violate some other right like a Trademark.
So the OS is like the actual story in Harry Potter. Apple can claim its licensing limits certain behaviors, but that doesn't necessarily make the limitations legal. Jail-breaking and unlocking are prime examples. Apple doesn't want you to do either, but copyright law allows both activities even though Apple doesn't support such activity.
So, the problem with your example isn't that you altered the images, but that you would be depriving the copyright holder of significant sales. I could do what you suggest and give copies away to all my friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
The phone? No. The operating system? Hell yes. This has always been true, if I buy a book I own the book but I don't own the content of the book, I only have a limited license to that and the publisher has a right to limit what I can and cannot do with it.
So for example, I can't legally buy Harry Potter books, undo the binding and rebind the pages adding new pages containing pornographic sketchs of Harry/Ron/Hermione 3-ways, then sell them - funny though that might be.
Your mistake was thinking that when you bought the iPhone you also bought the OS, you didn't - you only bought a license.
Apple merely doesn't want a developer blatantly directing the customer Apple delivered (since they bought it through the App Store, Apple delivered the customer)
And I disagree in this point, in Netflix, Hulu or Kindle cases I highly doubt that Apple delivered the consumer
I don't know, but I do know that only about 6 million kindles have been sold, and we're already at 15mil iPads, so clearly Amazon wasn't the secret in the sauce. I know that netflix and hulu aren't available in the UK where iPads-2s are nevertheles selling out in the Apple stores, so clearly they aren't the magic ingredient either. Obviously these are good apps, but don't over do it - Apple had a hit product even without them.
Are you denying that there would be less sales if all the major apps weren't on the App Store but on other platforms?
And I disagree in this point, in Netflix, Hulu or Kindle cases I highly doubt that Apple delivered the consumer
Really? You highly doubt that more people read kindles on iPad/iPhone than on Kindles? Despite the fact that there are literally 10 times the number of devices? I have a small but growing kindle library which I read exclusively on iProducts. I prefer kindle to the iBookstore thus far primarily because iBooks on iPhone doesn't have an orientation lock.
So for me at least Apple did indeed deliver the consumer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion
Are you denying that there would be less sales if all the major apps weren't on the App Store but on other platforms?
That's impossible to answer, all I can say is that we know that they're not substantially lower in markets where those Apps aren't available at all. We also know that the iPad is the pre-eminent tablet and it can't play Flash, which means it can't access a lot of video sites.
I don't think consumers have that much brand loyalty to Netflix or Hulu - what they like is the service that they offer, and there's no reason why Apple couldn't offer that service itself - it already offers video for sale and rental, so why not subscription? The cloud would seem to be the first step towards it.
Ok - this is all getting pretty far off-topic, but I'm game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Your analogy isn't correct. I can legally take the Harry Potter story and do with it whatever I want provided 1) the use is non-commercial, 2) doesn't take from the copyright holder's right to make money from the work, and 3) doesn't violate any trademark by implying the content holder supports my actions.
This just isn't so. Fair use doesn't go nearly that far, consider for example Fan-fiction. From wiki
While such genres as parody and criticism are recognized by statute and case law as fair uses of a copyrighted work, fan fiction has not historically been recognized by U.S. courts as falling into these or other recognized fair use genres.
Only parody is legally protected, aside from that I cannot find a single case where an author's rights haven't been upheld against writers of fan-fiction. It rarely goes to court, but authors such as Anne Rice have been zealous in stamping it out and apparently quite successful. Rowling incidentally permits non-profit fan-fiction, but not or a pornagraphic or sexual nature.
Quote:
Technically singing along with an album you bought violates the copyright. That is unless you have a good fair use defense like your action is non-commerical, isn't taking from the copyright holder's ability to make money, and doesn't violate some other right like a Trademark.
PRS is a horribly complicated area which is why I didn't use it as an example. PRS in the UK have sued small businesses for playing the Radio. PRS sued youtube for music videos that had been uploaded by the record company themselves. Again it's not enough that it be non-commercial, the requirement is that it's non-public. Technically if I record myself singing Poker Face and post it on Youtube that would be a violation, even if my singing is so poor that nobody will be put off from buying a Gaga CD - however parody is protected so Cartman's rendition is ok, even though it's arguably better than the original
There is also an exclusion in the UK for sacred music in a church service and for music at funerals, so the playing of Bjork's 'Oh So Quiet' at a friend's funeral was covered - but if we had played it at his wake it would not be.
Quote:
Apple can claim its licensing limits certain behaviors, but that doesn't necessarily make the limitations legal.
Except as a previous poster has pointed out for the Console market. iPhone's OS is EXACTLY like a console OS and they have demonstrated in court that they do have the right to lock out certain software from their device, or to demand payment.
Quote:
Jail-breaking and unlocking are prime examples. Apple doesn't want you to do either, but copyright law allows both activities even though Apple doesn't support such activity.
Again this is more complicated than you make out. Jail breaking IS legal under an exception to the DMCA, but this is not a derivative of a broad fair-use right. It is subject to renewal every 3 years, and it's entirely possible that once unlocking becomes supported in the USA that jailbreaking will be removed from the exclusion list. In fact if you examine the decision - it's very specific to mobile phones - so most likely at this point iOS jailbreaking is illegal on the iPad. In 2013 they could extend the exception to tablets, or they could remove the exception as they did in the past to IP blocklists.
Really? You highly doubt that more people read kindles on iPad/iPhone than on Kindles?
No, I haven't said so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
Despite the fact that there are literally 10 times the number of devices? I have a small but growing kindle library which I read exclusively on iProducts. I prefer kindle to the iBookstore thus far primarily because iBooks on iPhone doesn't have an orientation lock.
So for me at least Apple did indeed deliver the consumer.
No, Apple didn't delivered the consumer, Amazon did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
That's impossible to answer, all I can say is that we know that they're not substantially lower in markets where those Apps aren't available at all. We also know that the iPad is the pre-eminent tablet and it can't play Flash, which means it can't access a lot of video sites.
I don't think consumers have that much brand loyalty to Netflix or Hulu - what they like is the service that they offer, and there's no reason why Apple couldn't offer that service itself - it already offers video for sale and rental, so why not subscription? The cloud would seem to be the first step towards it.
Can you answer the questio? A simple yes or no is all that I need. Do you say that Apple not having ANY of those apps and being on others platforms it won't hurt sales?
No, Apple didn't delivered the consumer, Amazon did.
Do we disagree on what this phrase means? I bought an Apple device and then decided to buy books for it. I chose kindle books because I liked their software marginally more, but had they not existed I would have settled for Apple. In my case Apple delivered the consumer to Amazon. Now a friend has a vast kindle library which he now reads exclusively on his iPad in spite of spending months swearing to me that he preferred the kindle's eInk to LCD. In his case perhaps Amazon delivered the consumer to Apple - though he already owned an iPhone so it's doubtful.
Quote:
Can you answer the questio? A simple yes or no is all that I need. Do you say that Apple not having ANY of those apps and being on others platforms it won't hurt sales?
The sales of the iPad-2 have been constrained by supply since it's launch, so while I'll stipulate that the loss of some apps would reduce demand I'll say that yes - the lack of those apps wouldn't have hurt its sales. But of course it's just an opinion, and there is no way to know, unless you have some links to market research that shows that those apps were foremost in peoples' minds when they purchased.
As for the iPhone I don't think that any of those apps are remotely important to its sales, and as 3G gets capped across america they'll be even less so. If anything was going to hurt iDevices it was the lack of Flash. Remember how Adobe insisted they were doomed because they lacked it? How the IT press got on board and insisted that Flash was a key requirement? Users apparently shrugged and went on buying. Nowadays practically nobody believes that Flash is a key selling point on mobile.
Suppose those apps really were critical to iDevice's success. Then Hulu/Amazon/Netflix could offer Android or MS an exclusive and make considerable income from the deal. You can be sure that MS would pay - they have a history of offering content suppliers exclusives and it worked well for them with the Halo franchise.
If you disagree and think that Hulu & Netflix are such strong brands that they can make or break a mobile platform then I strongly recommend you buy their stock - I however think that they are commodity purveyors of other peoples content and that ultimately Apple at least will cut them out. iBooks is already directly competing with Kindle, and if they just add an orientation lock on iPhone it will probably be good enough on the A5 that I'll cease to have a preference either way. On the A4 processor I find it a bit sticky.
Now see if you can answer my simple question. Why is it not an issue that Amazon don't allow 3rd party eReader software on the kindle?
Ok - this is all getting pretty far off-topic, but I'm game.
This just isn't so. Fair use doesn't go nearly that far, consider for example Fan-fiction. From wiki
While such genres as parody and criticism are recognized by statute and case law as fair uses of a copyrighted work, fan fiction has not historically been recognized by U.S. courts as falling into these or other recognized fair use genres.
Only parody is legally protected, aside from that I cannot find a single case where an author's rights haven't been upheld against writers of fan-fiction. It rarely goes to court, but authors such as Anne Rice have been zealous in stamping it out and apparently quite successful. Rowling incidentally permits non-profit fan-fiction, but not or a pornagraphic or sexual nature.
PRS is a horribly complicated area which is why I didn't use it as an example. PRS in the UK have sued small businesses for playing the Radio. PRS sued youtube for music videos that had been uploaded by the record company themselves. Again it's not enough that it be non-commercial, the requirement is that it's non-public. Technically if I record myself singing Poker Face and post it on Youtube that would be a violation, even if my singing is so poor that nobody will be put off from buying a Gaga CD - however parody is protected so Cartman's rendition is ok, even though it's arguably better than the original
I don't think the person you are replying to is talking about distribution of commercialization like you are though. I can take a Harry Potter book and do whatever I want to it so long as I don't try to make a business out of that and distribution is based on first sale rights. I can do these things personally in my house and only there.
I don't think the person you are replying to is talking about distribution of commercialization like you are though. I can take a Harry Potter book and do whatever I want to it so long as I don't try to make a business out of that and distribution is based on first sale rights. I can do these things personally in my house and only there.
Commercialization is distinct from distribution. You can certainly tell your girlyfriend a Pornagraphic Potter story in the privacy of your own bedroom or sing a Beatles song to your mom over the phone and you'll be fine. But even non commercial distribution would run into copyright law.
Do we disagree on what this phrase means? I bought an Apple device and then decided to buy books for it. I chose kindle books because I liked their software marginally more, but had they not existed I would have settled for Apple. In my case Apple delivered the consumer to Amazon. Now a friend has a vast kindle library which he now reads exclusively on his iPad in spite of spending months swearing to me that he preferred the kindle's eInk to LCD. In his case perhaps Amazon delivered the consumer to Apple - though he already owned an iPhone so it's doubtful.
The sales of the iPad-2 have been constrained by supply since it's launch, so while I'll stipulate that the loss of some apps would reduce demand I'll say that yes - the lack of those apps wouldn't have hurt its sales. But of course it's just an opinion, and there is no way to know, unless you have some links to market research that shows that those apps were foremost in peoples' minds when they purchased.
As for the iPhone I don't think that any of those apps are remotely important to its sales, and as 3G gets capped across america they'll be even less so. If anything was going to hurt iDevices it was the lack of Flash. Remember how Adobe insisted they were doomed because they lacked it? How the IT press got on board and insisted that Flash was a key requirement? Users apparently shrugged and went on buying. Nowadays practically nobody believes that Flash is a key selling point on mobile.
Suppose those apps really were critical to iDevice's success. Then Hulu/Amazon/Netflix could offer Android or MS an exclusive and make considerable income from the deal. You can be sure that MS would pay - they have a history of offering content suppliers exclusives and it worked well for them with the Halo franchise.
If you disagree and think that Hulu & Netflix are such strong brands that they can make or break a mobile platform then I strongly recommend you buy their stock - I however think that they are commodity purveyors of other peoples content and that ultimately Apple at least will cut them out. iBooks is already directly competing with Kindle, and if they just add an orientation lock on iPhone it will probably be good enough on the A5 that I'll cease to have a preference either way. On the A4 processor I find it a bit sticky.
Now see if you can answer my simple question. Why is it not an issue that Amazon don't allow 3rd party eReader software on the kindle?
There are many issues here at stake... sure hulu/amazon/netflix are just content providers, but they provide a lot of content, and at reasonable prices that people like. I would never claim that everyone who has an iOS device wants these apps, I personally don't use them, but knowing they're available makes the device more attractive. Right now I can't afford those services, int he future, things will change, and I can. I WANT those services available on my phone or future tablet etc.
With the example of buying the iPad, you partially bought it because you wanted to read books on there. Even if you were stuck with just iBooks, you might think twice. iBooks catalog isn't as impressive as amazons, knowing you have a choice is good.
The reason I don't get up in arms about other devices that have the same strategy is because for most of them, I don't care. I'm not invested in the platform, I don't have a device that uses it, and I have no plans on getting one. I've been using apple devices for a while now, and I don't want to be forced to not use Apple's products (which are often superior) because I don't like Apple's business practices, or find their restrictions unacceptable.
And at the end of this post, you brought up the point that I really really really concern myself with:
"If you disagree and think that Hulu & Netflix are such strong brands that they can make or break a mobile platform then I strongly recommend you buy their stock - I however think that they are commodity purveyors of other peoples content and that ultimately Apple at least will cut them out."
This fact really scares me. Apple is getting into more markets, there's no questioning that, and they'll likely be successful. I am not an Apple stock holder, I am just an Apple consumer, and this power going to a single corporation scares me, and makes me feel that Apple will have too much power over me personally, and I don't want that. I tend to trust Apple, and have in the past, but at the end of the day, they're a corporation that's willing to screw their consumers over for profit, if the profit justifies it, and with some of these moves, it appears that they're getting greedier, and more willing to do this.
I am not afraid of Apple going head to head competing with Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, etc. What I am afraid of is that Apple will offer competing services, and then block out my ability to use a competitors service. Or if not outright blocking it, making it extremely annoying to use a competitors service, such that I default to using Apples. This is exactly what Microsoft did in the past, only to nowhere near the degree that Apple appears to be doing it. When Microsoft crippled opponents office software on Windows, there was an outrage. If Apple does the same thing on iOS, will there be? Sure, iOS isn't a monopoly, but it IS a monopoly on the iOS devices that we already own. I can't install Android on my iphone at the moment and avoid apple, and even if i could, there's no way it would run well.
As Apple takes on these other services, they might not offer the exact same services, and they might not charge the same either. As a consumer, more choice is good for me. Being able to decide who I buy software from is good, and being able to decide who I buy content from is good. Giving all this power to one single company is a recipe for disaster. It's just asking to screw yourself over, and that is what I worry about. What happens when Apple decides that Netflix is stopping people from paying to rent Apple's movies? Or that Amazon is preventing people from buying more iBooks, etc. It's a dangerous idea, and because I've already bought into iOS, I feel that I have a stake in what they choose to do with it. I don't want the rules changed on me after I bought it (I know their EULA says they're allowed to change the EULA at any time, but is that in itself legal?).
There are just a lot of things going on here, and it seems on these forums everyone thinks Apple can do no wrong, as they have been fairly benevolent in the past, and not overly restrictive. However, the thought of giving them so much power sickens me. There's a reason on the rare instances that I buy music online (most of my music I get on CDs or LPs), I tend to buy from Amazon (normally I only do this when an album I'm thinking of getting is available for very cheap, otherwise I'll pay an extra dollar or two and get the CD).
Comments
The problem you seem to have is that you think that your iphone is still somehow apple's property, and they have the right to say what you can and cannot do with it.
The phone? No. The operating system? Hell yes. This has always been true, if I buy a book I own the book but I don't own the content of the book, I only have a limited license to that and the publisher has a right to limit what I can and cannot do with it.
So for example, I can't legally buy Harry Potter books, undo the binding and rebind the pages adding new pages containing pornographic sketchs of Harry/Ron/Hermione 3-ways, then sell them - funny though that might be.
Your mistake was thinking that when you bought the iPhone you also bought the OS, you didn't - you only bought a license.
Before changing the rules this week, Apple forced any app which you can buy any content outside the app to implement iap system and disallowed any link outside the app to buy this content.
So yes, they tried to force the iap system on any app, now they have backpedaled but it's also not allowed to link outside the app.
If they changed the policy, why are you condemning them? The policy changed.
The "not allowed, within the app, a link to their website to purchase content" policy is the same as Best Buy not allowing Amazon or someone else to put a sign in Best Buy's store (or on the packaging for Best Buy stores) telling the customer to buy the product cheaper if you go to them directly.
We'll see how this policy goes, but looks like Amazon and Netflix are still being allowed their link, since it just directs to their website.
The phone? No. The operating system? Hell yes. This has always been true, if I buy a book I own the book but I don't own the content of the book, I only have a limited license to that and the publisher has a right to limit what I can and cannot do with it.
So for example, I can't legally buy Harry Potter books, undo the binding and rebind the pages adding new pages containing pornographic sketchs of Harry/Ron/Hermione 3-ways, then sell them - funny though that might be.
Your mistake was thinking that when you bought the iPhone you also bought the OS, you didn't - you only bought a license.
I don't claim that users own the OS of their phone, but there are many rights they should have granted to them when they buy it. Your example of the book even works here. What apple is doing is more akin to telling someone that they can't draw in a book that they bought, or highlight passages. The notion of a publisher doing that is ridiculous.
What you are talking about is stealing content from a book and using it, that's a completely separate issue. Running an application on a phone in no way, shape, or form involves stealing the content of the OS. Doing this does not violate apple's intellectual property in some weird way, it simply involves using the OS for its intended purpose. It's a regularly accepted fact that an OS allows applications to run. That is the purpose of an OS. Saying that the OS vendor has the right to disallow applications that don't pay them a huge chunk of money is crazy on a computer device, although it isn't without precedent.
This same action has been done on game consoles for years, where developers who do not have permission from the console maker (ie give them a huge chunk of money) cannot sell applications for it. However, in this scenario, the rules were spelled out clearly before the developers started writing games for the console. With iOS, the rules are being changed after the fact. If Apple's draconian rules applied to applications on iOS from the start (using the terms they setup in January, and not the new relaxed ones), do you think the big content providers would have stepped up and built applications for iOS?
More important, do you think Apple would sell near as many iOS devices if it weren't for vendors like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and the other content providers? These providers all released free applications, and cannot pay 30% of the price they charge for the content to Apple, as I seriously doubt they have margins in that range, and if they can't charge extra on the platform, forget it.
Phil
So for example, I can't legally buy Harry Potter books, undo the binding and rebind the pages adding new pages containing pornographic sketchs of Harry/Ron/Hermione 3-ways, then sell them - funny though that might be.
Your mistake was thinking that when you bought the iPhone you also bought the OS, you didn't - you only bought a license.
Under copyright law, you can do exactly that.
I think your mistake is buying into the whole trip about a license. That leaves the door wide open to DRM on copyrighted works of all sorts, and kills lots of rights that consumers have accrued such over the years, such cutting up their physical books, or reading your Apple brand book on a kindle.
If they changed the policy, why are you condemning them? The policy changed.
I haven't condemned the new rules
Under copyright law, you can do exactly that.
I assure you, you cannot. By all means try and watch your ass get sued. Fair use does not extend nearly that far.
I think your mistake is buying into the whole trip about a license. That leaves the door wide open to DRM on copyrighted works of all sorts, and kills lots of rights that consumers have accrued such over the years, such cutting up their physical books, or reading your Apple brand book on a kindle.
Ahh so if I don't buy into the facts then the facts cease to be true? Do you watch Fox News perchance - that's certainly their mindset.
Under copyright law, you can do exactly that.
I think your mistake is buying into the whole trip about a license. That leaves the door wide open to DRM on copyrighted works of all sorts, and kills lots of rights that consumers have accrued such over the years, such cutting up their physical books, or reading your Apple brand book on a kindle.
You're mistaking what you can potentially do with your own property with the ability to make changes to a copyrighted work and then SELL that. You can't do that.
Similarly, it is perfectly legal to jailbreak iOS on devices you own, and do with it what you will.
I haven't condemned the new rules
I've been using analogies that relate Apple's CURRENT policies with the policies of brick-and-mortar stores or a commission-based salesperson. I didn't agree with Apple's previous policies, although other brick-and-mortar stores like Wal-Mart conduct similar business practices.
My whole argument is that Apple provides value to developers with the App Store and In-App API, and that value is more than the simple credit card processing fee or any potential hosting of data. It is a service, and Apple values it at 30% of any revenue generated through their store or API. Obviously, many other developers also value it at 30% or higher, as they are more than willing to pay to have access to Apple's customers. So far, not all developers have seen the value of the In-App model as 30%, and they are free to forgo using that API and instead market to their customers directly and use the web instead. Other developers feel 30% is worth it, as the convenience factor will likely increase sales.
Apple merely doesn't want a developer blatantly directing the customer Apple delivered (since they bought it through the App Store, Apple delivered the customer) to circumvent the App Store and buy additional content directly from the publisher. They are free to sell directly to customers, but they need to attract those customers outside of the App and App Store.
Again, in all of this, you may not agree with Apple's policy of "walling the garden" and only sanctioning a singular store (by default; obviously you can jailbreak or use non-native HTML5 webapps). If so, argue this point, as it is more valid. If Apple allowed more than one store, then this entire issue would be a non-issue, but of course if they did, they would lose the benefits of having a closed and controlled ecosystem.
I don't claim that users own the OS of their phone, but there are many rights they should have granted to them when they buy it. Your example of the book even works here. What apple is doing is more akin to telling someone that they can't draw in a book that they bought, or highlight passages. The notion of a publisher doing that is ridiculous.
What you are talking about is stealing content from a book and using it, that's a completely separate issue.
I agree that the example I gave was more extreme, but that was precisely to demonstrate that the principle that you do not own the OS is not a new one, so we're down to debating whether constraints on an iPhone are reasonable. Some people genuinely think that it's outrageous that there are any restrictions at all and that they own the phone so Apple have no right etc etc. so it's good to get that out of the way.
This same action has been done on game consoles for years, where developers who do not have permission from the console maker (ie give them a huge chunk of money) cannot sell applications for it. However, in this scenario, the rules were spelled out clearly before the developers started writing games for the console. With iOS, the rules are being changed after the fact.
Curse you - you spotted my counter-example in advance! I could point out that the the rule that they could change the rules was set out at the start, so the developers all knew what they were getting into. The real difference is of course that consoles were an old and established paradigm, whereas the App Store is charting completely new territory. Previous e-stores either sold only media such as iTunes, or sold only software such as Steam. Of course the rules were going to get amended.
If Apple's draconian rules applied to applications on iOS from the start (using the terms they setup in January, and not the new relaxed ones), do you think the big content providers would have stepped up and built applications for iOS?
It would depend how they were enforced, if it was 30% of the gross sale price then obviously not. If it was 30% of the net transaction profit then quite possibly yes. At any rate it's a silly question, Apple never enforced those rules on anybody so it's a strawman. The 30% rule makes sense for Apps, and for in-app purchases of additional software, which is I suspect what it was intended for. It obviously doesn't make sense for content, as many of us argued even back then, and it never seemed likely that it woudl survive unamended. I don't think we're at the final iteration even now.
More important, do you think Apple would sell near as many iOS devices if it weren't for vendors like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and the other content providers? These providers all released free applications, and cannot pay 30% of the price they charge for the content to Apple, as I seriously doubt they have margins in that range, and if they can't charge extra on the platform, forget it.
I don't know, but I do know that only about 6 million kindles have been sold, and we're already at 15mil iPads, so clearly Amazon wasn't the secret in the sauce. I know that netflix and hulu aren't available in the UK where iPads-2s are nevertheles selling out in the Apple stores, so clearly they aren't the magic ingredient either. Obviously these are good apps, but don't over do it - Apple had a hit product even without them.
Can you imagine how they would have screamed if Apple had refused to allow them to develop native apps? Can you imagine Amazon giving Apple the right to sell direct to Kindle devices - even if it ws only Wifi? Don't kindle owners own their handheld computers too? Where is the outrage? Of course Apple don't really care because there are already far far more iPhones and iPads capable of reading eBooks than Kindles and Nooks.
This is a difficult area because on the one hand Apple wants to get as much of the value chain as possible out of the iPad, and on the other it wants to encourage a vibrant ecosystem. Apple could have charged a huge fee for the iOS dev-kit and gotten away with it, but instead it sells for $5 - the PS3 devkit was $20k only a few years back. Apple is handling the distribution for the developers and is willing to handle distribution for in-app content too - which again is more than Sony do for their fat cut on console game profits.
I'm just saying that we all need to take a deep breath here and remember that the iPad and iPhones aren't computers, they're devices - and devices have often had different rules regarding what development is acceptable.
Technically singing along with an album you bought violates the copyright. That is unless you have a good fair use defense like your action is non-commerical, isn't taking from the copyright holder's ability to make money, and doesn't violate some other right like a Trademark.
So the OS is like the actual story in Harry Potter. Apple can claim its licensing limits certain behaviors, but that doesn't necessarily make the limitations legal. Jail-breaking and unlocking are prime examples. Apple doesn't want you to do either, but copyright law allows both activities even though Apple doesn't support such activity.
So, the problem with your example isn't that you altered the images, but that you would be depriving the copyright holder of significant sales. I could do what you suggest and give copies away to all my friends.
The phone? No. The operating system? Hell yes. This has always been true, if I buy a book I own the book but I don't own the content of the book, I only have a limited license to that and the publisher has a right to limit what I can and cannot do with it.
So for example, I can't legally buy Harry Potter books, undo the binding and rebind the pages adding new pages containing pornographic sketchs of Harry/Ron/Hermione 3-ways, then sell them - funny though that might be.
Your mistake was thinking that when you bought the iPhone you also bought the OS, you didn't - you only bought a license.
Apple merely doesn't want a developer blatantly directing the customer Apple delivered (since they bought it through the App Store, Apple delivered the customer)
And I disagree in this point, in Netflix, Hulu or Kindle cases I highly doubt that Apple delivered the consumer
I don't know, but I do know that only about 6 million kindles have been sold, and we're already at 15mil iPads, so clearly Amazon wasn't the secret in the sauce. I know that netflix and hulu aren't available in the UK where iPads-2s are nevertheles selling out in the Apple stores, so clearly they aren't the magic ingredient either. Obviously these are good apps, but don't over do it - Apple had a hit product even without them.
Are you denying that there would be less sales if all the major apps weren't on the App Store but on other platforms?
And I disagree in this point, in Netflix, Hulu or Kindle cases I highly doubt that Apple delivered the consumer
Really? You highly doubt that more people read kindles on iPad/iPhone than on Kindles? Despite the fact that there are literally 10 times the number of devices? I have a small but growing kindle library which I read exclusively on iProducts. I prefer kindle to the iBookstore thus far primarily because iBooks on iPhone doesn't have an orientation lock.
So for me at least Apple did indeed deliver the consumer.
Are you denying that there would be less sales if all the major apps weren't on the App Store but on other platforms?
That's impossible to answer, all I can say is that we know that they're not substantially lower in markets where those Apps aren't available at all. We also know that the iPad is the pre-eminent tablet and it can't play Flash, which means it can't access a lot of video sites.
I don't think consumers have that much brand loyalty to Netflix or Hulu - what they like is the service that they offer, and there's no reason why Apple couldn't offer that service itself - it already offers video for sale and rental, so why not subscription? The cloud would seem to be the first step towards it.
Your analogy isn't correct. I can legally take the Harry Potter story and do with it whatever I want provided 1) the use is non-commercial, 2) doesn't take from the copyright holder's right to make money from the work, and 3) doesn't violate any trademark by implying the content holder supports my actions.
This just isn't so. Fair use doesn't go nearly that far, consider for example Fan-fiction. From wiki
While such genres as parody and criticism are recognized by statute and case law as fair uses of a copyrighted work, fan fiction has not historically been recognized by U.S. courts as falling into these or other recognized fair use genres.
Only parody is legally protected, aside from that I cannot find a single case where an author's rights haven't been upheld against writers of fan-fiction. It rarely goes to court, but authors such as Anne Rice have been zealous in stamping it out and apparently quite successful. Rowling incidentally permits non-profit fan-fiction, but not or a pornagraphic or sexual nature.
Technically singing along with an album you bought violates the copyright. That is unless you have a good fair use defense like your action is non-commerical, isn't taking from the copyright holder's ability to make money, and doesn't violate some other right like a Trademark.
PRS is a horribly complicated area which is why I didn't use it as an example. PRS in the UK have sued small businesses for playing the Radio. PRS sued youtube for music videos that had been uploaded by the record company themselves. Again it's not enough that it be non-commercial, the requirement is that it's non-public. Technically if I record myself singing Poker Face and post it on Youtube that would be a violation, even if my singing is so poor that nobody will be put off from buying a Gaga CD - however parody is protected so Cartman's rendition is ok, even though it's arguably better than the original
There is also an exclusion in the UK for sacred music in a church service and for music at funerals, so the playing of Bjork's 'Oh So Quiet' at a friend's funeral was covered - but if we had played it at his wake it would not be.
Apple can claim its licensing limits certain behaviors, but that doesn't necessarily make the limitations legal.
Except as a previous poster has pointed out for the Console market. iPhone's OS is EXACTLY like a console OS and they have demonstrated in court that they do have the right to lock out certain software from their device, or to demand payment.
Jail-breaking and unlocking are prime examples. Apple doesn't want you to do either, but copyright law allows both activities even though Apple doesn't support such activity.
Again this is more complicated than you make out. Jail breaking IS legal under an exception to the DMCA, but this is not a derivative of a broad fair-use right. It is subject to renewal every 3 years, and it's entirely possible that once unlocking becomes supported in the USA that jailbreaking will be removed from the exclusion list. In fact if you examine the decision - it's very specific to mobile phones - so most likely at this point iOS jailbreaking is illegal on the iPad. In 2013 they could extend the exception to tablets, or they could remove the exception as they did in the past to IP blocklists.
Really? You highly doubt that more people read kindles on iPad/iPhone than on Kindles?
No, I haven't said so.
Despite the fact that there are literally 10 times the number of devices? I have a small but growing kindle library which I read exclusively on iProducts. I prefer kindle to the iBookstore thus far primarily because iBooks on iPhone doesn't have an orientation lock.
So for me at least Apple did indeed deliver the consumer.
No, Apple didn't delivered the consumer, Amazon did.
That's impossible to answer, all I can say is that we know that they're not substantially lower in markets where those Apps aren't available at all. We also know that the iPad is the pre-eminent tablet and it can't play Flash, which means it can't access a lot of video sites.
I don't think consumers have that much brand loyalty to Netflix or Hulu - what they like is the service that they offer, and there's no reason why Apple couldn't offer that service itself - it already offers video for sale and rental, so why not subscription? The cloud would seem to be the first step towards it.
Can you answer the questio? A simple yes or no is all that I need. Do you say that Apple not having ANY of those apps and being on others platforms it won't hurt sales?
Really?
No, I haven't said so.
No, Apple didn't delivered the consumer, Amazon did.
Do we disagree on what this phrase means? I bought an Apple device and then decided to buy books for it. I chose kindle books because I liked their software marginally more, but had they not existed I would have settled for Apple. In my case Apple delivered the consumer to Amazon. Now a friend has a vast kindle library which he now reads exclusively on his iPad in spite of spending months swearing to me that he preferred the kindle's eInk to LCD. In his case perhaps Amazon delivered the consumer to Apple - though he already owned an iPhone so it's doubtful.
Can you answer the questio? A simple yes or no is all that I need. Do you say that Apple not having ANY of those apps and being on others platforms it won't hurt sales?
The sales of the iPad-2 have been constrained by supply since it's launch, so while I'll stipulate that the loss of some apps would reduce demand I'll say that yes - the lack of those apps wouldn't have hurt its sales. But of course it's just an opinion, and there is no way to know, unless you have some links to market research that shows that those apps were foremost in peoples' minds when they purchased.
As for the iPhone I don't think that any of those apps are remotely important to its sales, and as 3G gets capped across america they'll be even less so. If anything was going to hurt iDevices it was the lack of Flash. Remember how Adobe insisted they were doomed because they lacked it? How the IT press got on board and insisted that Flash was a key requirement? Users apparently shrugged and went on buying. Nowadays practically nobody believes that Flash is a key selling point on mobile.
Suppose those apps really were critical to iDevice's success. Then Hulu/Amazon/Netflix could offer Android or MS an exclusive and make considerable income from the deal. You can be sure that MS would pay - they have a history of offering content suppliers exclusives and it worked well for them with the Halo franchise.
If you disagree and think that Hulu & Netflix are such strong brands that they can make or break a mobile platform then I strongly recommend you buy their stock - I however think that they are commodity purveyors of other peoples content and that ultimately Apple at least will cut them out. iBooks is already directly competing with Kindle, and if they just add an orientation lock on iPhone it will probably be good enough on the A5 that I'll cease to have a preference either way. On the A4 processor I find it a bit sticky.
Now see if you can answer my simple question. Why is it not an issue that Amazon don't allow 3rd party eReader software on the kindle?
Ok - this is all getting pretty far off-topic, but I'm game.
This just isn't so. Fair use doesn't go nearly that far, consider for example Fan-fiction. From wiki
While such genres as parody and criticism are recognized by statute and case law as fair uses of a copyrighted work, fan fiction has not historically been recognized by U.S. courts as falling into these or other recognized fair use genres.
Only parody is legally protected, aside from that I cannot find a single case where an author's rights haven't been upheld against writers of fan-fiction. It rarely goes to court, but authors such as Anne Rice have been zealous in stamping it out and apparently quite successful. Rowling incidentally permits non-profit fan-fiction, but not or a pornagraphic or sexual nature.
PRS is a horribly complicated area which is why I didn't use it as an example. PRS in the UK have sued small businesses for playing the Radio. PRS sued youtube for music videos that had been uploaded by the record company themselves. Again it's not enough that it be non-commercial, the requirement is that it's non-public. Technically if I record myself singing Poker Face and post it on Youtube that would be a violation, even if my singing is so poor that nobody will be put off from buying a Gaga CD - however parody is protected so Cartman's rendition is ok, even though it's arguably better than the original
I don't think the person you are replying to is talking about distribution of commercialization like you are though. I can take a Harry Potter book and do whatever I want to it so long as I don't try to make a business out of that and distribution is based on first sale rights. I can do these things personally in my house and only there.
I don't think the person you are replying to is talking about distribution of commercialization like you are though. I can take a Harry Potter book and do whatever I want to it so long as I don't try to make a business out of that and distribution is based on first sale rights. I can do these things personally in my house and only there.
Commercialization is distinct from distribution. You can certainly tell your girlyfriend a Pornagraphic Potter story in the privacy of your own bedroom or sing a Beatles song to your mom over the phone and you'll be fine. But even non commercial distribution would run into copyright law.
Do we disagree on what this phrase means? I bought an Apple device and then decided to buy books for it. I chose kindle books because I liked their software marginally more, but had they not existed I would have settled for Apple. In my case Apple delivered the consumer to Amazon. Now a friend has a vast kindle library which he now reads exclusively on his iPad in spite of spending months swearing to me that he preferred the kindle's eInk to LCD. In his case perhaps Amazon delivered the consumer to Apple - though he already owned an iPhone so it's doubtful.
The sales of the iPad-2 have been constrained by supply since it's launch, so while I'll stipulate that the loss of some apps would reduce demand I'll say that yes - the lack of those apps wouldn't have hurt its sales. But of course it's just an opinion, and there is no way to know, unless you have some links to market research that shows that those apps were foremost in peoples' minds when they purchased.
As for the iPhone I don't think that any of those apps are remotely important to its sales, and as 3G gets capped across america they'll be even less so. If anything was going to hurt iDevices it was the lack of Flash. Remember how Adobe insisted they were doomed because they lacked it? How the IT press got on board and insisted that Flash was a key requirement? Users apparently shrugged and went on buying. Nowadays practically nobody believes that Flash is a key selling point on mobile.
Suppose those apps really were critical to iDevice's success. Then Hulu/Amazon/Netflix could offer Android or MS an exclusive and make considerable income from the deal. You can be sure that MS would pay - they have a history of offering content suppliers exclusives and it worked well for them with the Halo franchise.
If you disagree and think that Hulu & Netflix are such strong brands that they can make or break a mobile platform then I strongly recommend you buy their stock - I however think that they are commodity purveyors of other peoples content and that ultimately Apple at least will cut them out. iBooks is already directly competing with Kindle, and if they just add an orientation lock on iPhone it will probably be good enough on the A5 that I'll cease to have a preference either way. On the A4 processor I find it a bit sticky.
Now see if you can answer my simple question. Why is it not an issue that Amazon don't allow 3rd party eReader software on the kindle?
There are many issues here at stake... sure hulu/amazon/netflix are just content providers, but they provide a lot of content, and at reasonable prices that people like. I would never claim that everyone who has an iOS device wants these apps, I personally don't use them, but knowing they're available makes the device more attractive. Right now I can't afford those services, int he future, things will change, and I can. I WANT those services available on my phone or future tablet etc.
With the example of buying the iPad, you partially bought it because you wanted to read books on there. Even if you were stuck with just iBooks, you might think twice. iBooks catalog isn't as impressive as amazons, knowing you have a choice is good.
The reason I don't get up in arms about other devices that have the same strategy is because for most of them, I don't care. I'm not invested in the platform, I don't have a device that uses it, and I have no plans on getting one. I've been using apple devices for a while now, and I don't want to be forced to not use Apple's products (which are often superior) because I don't like Apple's business practices, or find their restrictions unacceptable.
And at the end of this post, you brought up the point that I really really really concern myself with:
"If you disagree and think that Hulu & Netflix are such strong brands that they can make or break a mobile platform then I strongly recommend you buy their stock - I however think that they are commodity purveyors of other peoples content and that ultimately Apple at least will cut them out."
This fact really scares me. Apple is getting into more markets, there's no questioning that, and they'll likely be successful. I am not an Apple stock holder, I am just an Apple consumer, and this power going to a single corporation scares me, and makes me feel that Apple will have too much power over me personally, and I don't want that. I tend to trust Apple, and have in the past, but at the end of the day, they're a corporation that's willing to screw their consumers over for profit, if the profit justifies it, and with some of these moves, it appears that they're getting greedier, and more willing to do this.
I am not afraid of Apple going head to head competing with Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, etc. What I am afraid of is that Apple will offer competing services, and then block out my ability to use a competitors service. Or if not outright blocking it, making it extremely annoying to use a competitors service, such that I default to using Apples. This is exactly what Microsoft did in the past, only to nowhere near the degree that Apple appears to be doing it. When Microsoft crippled opponents office software on Windows, there was an outrage. If Apple does the same thing on iOS, will there be? Sure, iOS isn't a monopoly, but it IS a monopoly on the iOS devices that we already own. I can't install Android on my iphone at the moment and avoid apple, and even if i could, there's no way it would run well.
As Apple takes on these other services, they might not offer the exact same services, and they might not charge the same either. As a consumer, more choice is good for me. Being able to decide who I buy software from is good, and being able to decide who I buy content from is good. Giving all this power to one single company is a recipe for disaster. It's just asking to screw yourself over, and that is what I worry about. What happens when Apple decides that Netflix is stopping people from paying to rent Apple's movies? Or that Amazon is preventing people from buying more iBooks, etc. It's a dangerous idea, and because I've already bought into iOS, I feel that I have a stake in what they choose to do with it. I don't want the rules changed on me after I bought it (I know their EULA says they're allowed to change the EULA at any time, but is that in itself legal?).
There are just a lot of things going on here, and it seems on these forums everyone thinks Apple can do no wrong, as they have been fairly benevolent in the past, and not overly restrictive. However, the thought of giving them so much power sickens me. There's a reason on the rare instances that I buy music online (most of my music I get on CDs or LPs), I tend to buy from Amazon (normally I only do this when an album I'm thinking of getting is available for very cheap, otherwise I'll pay an extra dollar or two and get the CD).
Phil