Norwegian consumer group opposes iTunes TOS

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 69
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Flip it around, since the burden of proof would be on you in this case...



    What benefit is there to the artist to *have* to release a piece of work unencumbered and unprotected?





    I am not convinced does anything but help shady individuals. As soon as someone unlocks it, the file can be freely traded. There is no DRM in common use that isn't easily broken, it basically restricts the more honest uses.



    This suit isn't necessarily about unencumberment either but interoperability. Apple wants to be the sole user of what they call "Fairplay" when it is pretty unfair as it is a lock-in ploy as well. If it wasn't a lock-in ploy, they would licence it.
  • Reply 22 of 69
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    I just don't see it. People only pay money when there is a *benefit* to them. You have to make it *worth* it for them to plunk down cash, or they won't. Feelings of good will are not the basis for a market system.



    In that case (and I'm not contesting whether your negative consumer view is right or wrong), selling intellectual creations simply will never work right. End of story.
  • Reply 23 of 69
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    In that case (and I'm not contesting whether your negative consumer view is right or wrong), selling intellectual creations simply will never work right. End of story.



    Huh? While there are occasional abuses, it generally seems to work OK.
  • Reply 24 of 69
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JeffDM

    Huh? While there are occasional abuses, it generally seems to work OK.



    Where, exactly?



    In software? No. There's an endless battle between software producers and software pirates, with asinine "technologies" such as serial numbers and software activation.



    In music and movies? No, see this very thread.



    Where?
  • Reply 25 of 69
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JeffDM

    There is no DRM in common use that isn't easily broken, it basically restricts the more honest uses.



    Actually, iTunes 6's DRM still hasn't been cracked, to my knowledge. Of course, it's going to happen eventually.
  • Reply 26 of 69
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    never mind
  • Reply 27 of 69
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    In that case (and I'm not contesting whether your negative consumer view is right or wrong), selling intellectual creations simply will never work right. End of story.



    I'm with JeffDM in this case... it *has* worked, until easy, bit-perfect, digital copies showed up. Copyright is a limited-time monopoly on the absolute right to copy a work, and dictate who else may copy it in what fashion. It's like a patent - monopoly as enticement for the artist/inventor, limited-time as enticement for putting it in the marketplace at a fair value. The product *itself* should be the enticement for the consumer.



    The law doesn't need changing, the enforcement does... and that's what DRM does - it *precisely* stops the same people that a lock on your house does: the casual thieves. The pros are small in number, and you're absolutely right, nothing is going to stop them... but they're easier to track, prosecute, and stop, than the little guys.



    So you make it not worth their while for the little guys by throwing up simple roadblocks that y'know, just aren't worth saving $0.99 over.



    It's not a legal enforcement, as in the executive branch, that's just a scary precedent (and one the MPAA and RIAA are trying... :P), but a technical 'enforcement' that everyone knows isn't crack-proof, but just crack-tedious for the casual user.



    Look at FairPlay vs. other DRMs... it is *very* flexible to the end user in comparison, and meets *most* people's needs well. OTOH, it is *just* a pain enough to get around that most people will just toss $1 at the song instead.



    I seriously think this is an example of letting personal desires as the consumer get in the way of clear thought on the overall market structure. :/
  • Reply 28 of 69
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    I'm with JeffDM in this case... it *has* worked, until easy, bit-perfect, digital copies showed up.



    Oh, that's what we're talking about.



    Well, yes. But Easy, bit-perfect, digital copies are now there. And they're here to stay. What's to do about that?



    Quote:

    It's like a patent - monopoly as enticement for the artist/inventor, limited-time as enticement for putting it in the marketplace at a fair value.



    Ah, see, I consider the concept of patents outdated, at least with their current life spans.



    In any case, I'm too tired right now to continue blabbering, nor do I think there really is much of a point.



    As usual , there isn't any fundamental issue you and I actually disagree upon, so why bother.
  • Reply 29 of 69
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,605member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bikertwin

    Pull out of enough countries, and you have no sales.





    No, you would create a black market.
  • Reply 30 of 69
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    Oh, that's what we're talking about.



    Well, yes. But Easy, bit-perfect, digital copies are now there. And they're here to stay. What's to do about that?



    Ah, see, I consider the concept of patents outdated, at least with their current life spans.




    Somewhat agreed. I think that the time-to-market needs to be taken into account for different industries, but I don't think that the whole concept of patents is wrong by any means.



    It just needs tweaking.



    Quote:

    In any case, I'm too tired right now to continue blabbering, nor do I think there really is much of a point.



    As usual , there isn't any fundamental issue you and I actually disagree upon, so why bother.




    But these are the fun bits!
  • Reply 31 of 69
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Look at FairPlay vs. other DRMs... it is *very* flexible to the end user in comparison, and meets *most* people's needs well. OTOH, it is *just* a pain enough to get around that most people will just toss $1 at the song instead.



    The problem with DRM is the roadblocks put up for the people who do spend the $1. Those who follow the rules and are honest have less flexibility with how they use the music they supposedly own than do those who steal music, or those who do buy the music, but who say "Screw DRM!".



    Copyright laws are already horribly inbalanced in favor of media companies, no matter how much wailing they do about the sad, sad state of affairs in which piracy is hurting them oh-so-much. Media companies have the best legislation in their favor that lobbyists and money can buy, and it just keeps getting worse.



    Apple's DRM might be among the least offensive DRM out there in some ways, but it's still part of a system which denies traditionally recognized "fair use" rights, and does so in a which that penalizes honest, EULA-abiding users more than anyone else.



    DRM also goes beyond it's alleged purpose of protecting intellectual property, having even more power to protect business models from competition, creating barriers both to consumer choice and to healthy competition.
  • Reply 32 of 69
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Somewhat agreed. I think that the time-to-market needs to be taken into account for different industries, but I don't think that the whole concept of patents is wrong by any means.



    It just needs tweaking.



    I agree with protecting ideas and inventions. I also, however, agree with the greater good. Far too often, patents are abused to hinder such greater good, and to hinder healthy competition. Heck, look at Creative suing Apple on a nonsense patent and Apple suing them back on first one, now four(?) different patents which, while I didn't look at them extensively, are probably just as trivial/unimaginative. I don't care for Creative's mediocre players, nor do I like their business tactics, but Apple is being just as "evil" in this as they are, sadly.



    Quote:

    But these are the fun bits!



    When you and I are both on a coffee high, yes.
  • Reply 33 of 69
    bikertwinbikertwin Posts: 566member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Sarcasm. Look it up.



    Short version: I agree with you.





    Gotcha. My bad.
  • Reply 34 of 69
    bikertwinbikertwin Posts: 566member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    I don't care for Creative's mediocre players, nor do I like their business tactics, but Apple is being just as "evil" in this as they are, sadly.



    It's just a negotiating tactic to get Creative to come to a mediated solution. I don't think Apple expects to win--even if they did, it would cost a lot of money.



    A negotiated settlement is in everyone's best interest, it seems.
  • Reply 35 of 69
    bikertwinbikertwin Posts: 566member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aplnub

    No, you would create a black market.



    And that means no sales for the record companies.
  • Reply 36 of 69
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Which means no new songs for you.
  • Reply 37 of 69
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    I agree with protecting ideas and inventions. I also, however, agree with the greater good. Far too often, patents are abused to hinder such greater good, and to hinder healthy competition. Heck, look at Creative suing Apple on a nonsense



    Full stop.



    That's the problem... the patent determination process is overloaded, and crappy patents are getting through.



    Does that mean the entire *concept* of a patent is bad? No. I'd say it is a critical component of driving innovation.



    The problems with the current system, as I see it, are in determining appropriateness of award, and determining length of patent viability.
  • Reply 38 of 69
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Full stop.



    <insert British English comment here>



    Quote:

    That's the problem... the patent determination process is overloaded, and crappy patents are getting through.



    Agreed.



    Quote:

    Does that mean the entire *concept* of a patent is bad? No. I'd say it is a critical component of driving innovation.



    Agreed.



    Quote:

    The problems with the current system, as I see it, are in determining appropriateness of award, and determining length of patent viability.



    But while the latter can perhaps be somewhat easily agreed upon, what about the former? Who's to judge whether a patent is "trivial"? The bottom line is, you cannot objectively neutrally say so. That problem will always haunt patents, no matter what. Too-trivial patents will get permitted, and not-trivial-at-all patents will get rejected.



    At the patent office's desk, PEBKAC. As always.
  • Reply 39 of 69
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Which means no new songs for you.



    Exactly. "Well, if the people won't provide songs in the ways I'd like them to, I'll just pirate them! HAH!" isn't a solution. Neither is forming a pirate party (wtf?).
  • Reply 40 of 69
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:

    That said, I really don't think that consumer interests are served by the iTMS as it is. It basically means you are either stuck with the iPod or you crush sound quality to use some other device, or use some shady cracking software. Then there are the videos, there is no way to use it without the iTunes software or an Apple device.



    Well for one you know what you are buying before you buy it. It is a consumers individual choice to buy it.



    For another Apple does not force consumers to use iTMS media on their iPods.



    If the consumer market felt iTMS unfairly served them the consumer market is completely free to not use it.



    I disagree that this is some case where government needs to step in and create laws to change something the free market could deal with.
Sign In or Register to comment.