Nordic regulators to discuss legal sanctions against Apple

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Nordic consumer regulators will meet in Iceland this month to discuss possible legal action against Apple Computer if the company does not make its iTunes music store downloads compatible with players other than the iPod, the Associated Press is reporting.



Norwegian officials have scheduled the meeting for Aug. 24-25 in Reykjavik, the report states, where they will discuss whether or not they will file a lawsuit against the iPod maker, and precisely what approach they will take in doing so.



In June, consumer agencies in Norway, Denmark and Sweden accused Apple of violating local contract and copyright laws in their countries by making its iPod the only portable music player capable of playing tracks purchased from the company's iTunes music store.



For its part, Apple has staunchly defended its iTunes business model, saying it us unwilling to open its FairPlay digital rights management scheme to competitors.



The AP quotes a member of the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman as saying the Aug. meeting would include discussion of "possible legal steps" against Apple, but a final decision on a lawsuit would not be made until Nordic regulators talked with Apple representatives in September.



In an similar crackdown, France recently passed a legislation that allows regulators to force Apple to open its iPod + iTunes franchise to rivals. The French law went into effect earlier this month.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 74
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quick, someone say, "If you don't like iPods and iTunes Music Store Music, don't buy them!" or "you can burn to CD and rip your songs back, so you can do anything you want!"... completely demonstrating your misunderstanding of the problems with proprietary DRM systems.
  • Reply 2 of 74
    bdj21yabdj21ya Posts: 297member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shetline


    Quick, someone say, "If you don't like iPods and iTunes Music Store Music, don't buy them!" or "you can burn to CD and rip your songs back, so you can do anything you want!"... completely demonstrating your misunderstanding of the problems with proprietary DRM systems.



    Gonna have to disagree with you there. The solutions you suggest (and which you imply are not solutions) seem to take care of the problems with proprietary DRM quite nicely. Although I guess it depends on concept of what these problems are.



    Personally I don't see problems, but rather the strength and beauty of the free market.
  • Reply 3 of 74
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,315member
    Just because everybody fails competing with iTMS and iPod doesn't make Apple responsible to make the music playable on all other devices. But if they would open up FairPlay to competitors just because it turns out nobody can beat iTMS, then there has to be a licensing fee per sold device that goes to Apple I guess. It would increase the prices of competitor's music players. It would also strengthen the iTMS's position, but not the iPod's.
  • Reply 4 of 74
    doh123doh123 Posts: 323member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shetline


    Quick, someone say, "If you don't like iPods and iTunes Music Store Music, don't buy them!" or "you can burn to CD and rip your songs back, so you can do anything you want!"... completely demonstrating your misunderstanding of the problems with proprietary DRM systems.





    well it is true in some ways. But the bigger picture is having to comply with stupid laws. Government regulation is not a good thing in most areas. If people dont like buying proprietary, they shouldnt be able to force a company to change by law, they should try to change the company by just not buying their product. The problem is that competitors cant do as good of a job from Apple, yet are mad and want to use the government to force Apple to use their success to reward others that want a peice of their pie. Forcing Apple to open their DRM is as bad as patent sharks.
  • Reply 5 of 74
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bdj21ya


    Gonna have to disagree with you there. The solutions you suggest (and which you imply are not solutions) seem to take care of the problems with proprietary DRM quite nicely. Although I guess it depends on concept of what these problems are.



    Personally I don't see problems, but rather the strength and beauty of the free market.



    I believe that shetline meant that these were the solutions, and that DRM is misunderstood. Your response to that was a prime example of how easily things are misunderstood.

    I also think that it would be a good idea for Apple to start considering a "Plan B" and develop a new revised way to handle the DRM concerns that seem to be plaguing the world market. If Apple at least develops something now, and has that in their back pocket, then if the market place someday changes (Imagine that!), then Apple would remain on top. This would be better than the scenario of the "Buggy whip companies" that were too slow to change when the auto changed the marketplace. \
  • Reply 6 of 74
    doh123doh123 Posts: 323member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ReCompile


    I believe that shetline meant that these were the solutions, and that DRM is misunderstood.



    thts not how i read it at all, he said if you think these are solutions that you do not understand whats wrong with propritary DRM. basically saying those dont fix the problem of it.
  • Reply 7 of 74
    bdj21yabdj21ya Posts: 297member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ReCompile


    I believe that shetline meant that these were the solutions, and that DRM is misunderstood. Your response to that was a prime example of how easily things are misunderstood.\\



    I read it the same way as doh123, since shetline didn't really give any indication of sarcasm in the last part of his comment. However, if I misunderstood you shetline, then I apologize.
  • Reply 8 of 74
    Just how big is the Nordic market? Not one of Apple's most important markets and certainly not worth making major programming efforts in order to comply with what ever laws they dream up during their long, cold winter. I doubt if Apple will stay there if there is no relief from the government.



    While I don't love DRM it's going to be there for legal music sales, which is far better than the mass of illegal music being passed around with malware (for the PC users) - the situation we faced before iTunes made legally buying music acceptable.
  • Reply 9 of 74
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bdj21ya


    I read it the same way as doh123, since shetline didn't really give any indication of sarcasm in the last part of his comment. However, if I misunderstood you shetline, then I apologize.



    Well, If I misunderstood the misunderstanding of DRM being misunderstood... than I apologize to all who have plagued their eyes reading this. <noted sympathetic sarcasm> But none the less, it does make my point about how easily things are misunderstood.
  • Reply 10 of 74
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Quality and ease-of-use are not always enough to beat Microsoft--not unless you look years into the future. Smart business moves are needed too, and Apple's ability to strategically choose WHEN and HOW to let others share their iTunes/iPod success is a very important factor to use against Microsoft.



    But if it violates laws, that's that. Just make sure Microsoft is also sanctioned for everything they offer that only runs on Windows and not on Mac.
  • Reply 11 of 74
    If they do this Apple will simply pull the iTunes store in Iceland.
  • Reply 12 of 74
    This is my opinion (also posted in the french forum, but posted also here since I think it's relevant):





    The best alternative to DRM is called TRUST.



    Trust is what record labels used between 1968 (year in wich Philips invented the audiocassette) and Internet.



    People always copied music via audiocassettes from their friends and nobody introduced drm on them.



    The difference between then and now is not only internet but trust and quality of music. If i really like a band i buy their music. This is how it worked before internet and there is no reason why it should not work today.



    Apart from this: Music today sucks much more than before.

    90% of music out there is clone of a clone of something else. And this is a tunnel that has no exit, because it's the road that record labels chose since early 90's. Marketing. Quick money with boy bands. Quick and easy does not last and the results are here now.



    So this is my opinion about alternatives.



    1: Eliminate DRM. Go on trust. People will like that and music sales will go up. If you want to copy you will still do it. Anyway.



    2: Stop producing crap music. People lose trust on you and won't buy from you anymore.



    Simon
  • Reply 13 of 74
    bdj21yabdj21ya Posts: 297member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by simonbeckerman


    The best alternative to DRM is called TRUST.



    Technically, trust is the ONLY alternative to DRM, unless you count just not having any music sales at all. (think about it, either you put mechanisms into music to make copying difficult, or else you're trusting people, one or the other).



    However, while it is undoubtedly the best alternative (since the only other alternative is no music sales), I think it's a poor second to DRM. Prior to Apple's DRM solution, file sharing networks were helping to create the mindset that music SHOULD be free. I had a hell of a time convincing anyone at college that there might be something wrong about it. I think that if that mindset had been allowed to continue, it would have eroded music sales to the point where it was not profitable to sell music. Instead, musicians would have to make their money from live shows and/or sitting with a mug on the street. Trust didn't work, that's why we've moved to the better alternative--DRM.
  • Reply 14 of 74
    "2: Stop producing crap music. People lose trust on you and won't buy from you anymore."



    There is a lot of good music out there - all types.



    A lot shows up in musicals - Jekyll & Hyde is a good example. Josh Groban ain't that bad, neither is Il Divo. On the punk side Shades Apart did some good stuff (Eyewitness), but unfortunately faded away. There is also a lot of great existing music to be found if you take the time. Ella in Berlin is as good today as it was almost half a century ago - if you like jazz.



    The challenge is finding what you like and that's hard these days because there is so much out there.
  • Reply 15 of 74
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by simonbeckerman


    Apart from this: Music today sucks much more than before.



    I don't like the RIAA, nor most of the junk on the radio either, but to be clear: are you suggesting that people only steal music they don't like?



    I blame piracy on selfishness and dishonesty.



    If you (hypothetical, not you personally) don't like music, you won't pirate it, and you won't buy it.



    The music people steal--and buy--is music they like.



    If you like it enough to have it in your collection, pay for it. You don't have some "right" to someone else's creative product for free, just because you don't like the contract they signed, or the price they choose.



    And if it sucks so much, why would you want to steal it?



    There's some missing logic there. If I create a song, or a movie, or a software program, or whatever, I have the right to sell it in whatever way I wish, through whatever business relationships I choose, at whatever price I name. If that price keeps most people away, that's my choice--or the choice of those I have elected to work with. It doesn't give anyone the right to enjoy my work without compensation, unless I choose to let them.
  • Reply 16 of 74
    bdj21yabdj21ya Posts: 297member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nagromme


    I don't like the RIAA, nor most of the junk on the radio either, but to be clear: are you suggesting that people only steal music they don't like?



    I blame piracy on selfishness and dishonesty.



    If you (hypothetical, not you personally) don't like music, you won't pirate it, and you won't buy it.



    The music people steal--and buy--is music they like.



    If you like it enough to have it in your collection, pay for it. You don't have some "right" to someone else's creative product for free, just because you don't like the contract they signed, or the price they choose.



    And if it sucks so much, why would you want to steal it?



    There's some missing logic there. If I create a song, or a movie, or a software program, or whatever, I have the right to sell it in whatever way I wish, through whatever business relationships I choose, at whatever price I name. If that price keeps most people away, that's my choice--or the choice of those I have elected to work with. It doesn't give anyone the right to enjoy my work without compensation, unless I choose to let them.





    Hear hear!
  • Reply 17 of 74
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by simonbeckerman


    This is my opinion (also posted in the french forum, but posted also here since I think it's relevant):





    The best alternative to DRM is called TRUST.



    Trust is what record labels used between 1968 (year in wich Philips invented the audiocassette) and Internet.



    People always copied music via audiocassettes from their friends and nobody introduced drm on them.



    The difference between then and now is not only internet but trust and quality of music. If i really like a band i buy their music. This is how it worked before internet and there is no reason why it should not work today.



    Apart from this: Music today sucks much more than before.

    90% of music out there is clone of a clone of something else. And this is a tunnel that has no exit, because it's the road that record labels chose since early 90's. Marketing. Quick money with boy bands. Quick and easy does not last and the results are here now.



    So this is my opinion about alternatives.



    1: Eliminate DRM. Go on trust. People will like that and music sales will go up. If you want to copy you will still do it. Anyway.



    2: Stop producing crap music. People lose trust on you and won't buy from you anymore.



    Simon



    That's a misunderstanding of the situation that existed, even before the cassette was invented.



    There was no way that anything like DRM could have been implemented before the digital age.



    No company was happy about the situation, but there was little they could do about it, other than to put copyright notices on their products, telling the user that it was illegal to copy.



    Once it became possible to do "perfect" copies, the fear was (and it has been born out in reality) that copying would rise to unheard of levels.



    There has never been anything in any kind of business relationship that has depended solely on trust. There has always been laws regulating what can, and can't be done. That is enshrined in our Constitution, and in the basic laws of almost every country.



    Now, companies can physically attempt to prevent unlawful duplication of their work, and they have done so.



    If people didn't break that "trust" so naively mentioned, then DRM wouldn't be required. But there are some people who like to believe, incorrectly, that they own the works in question, and that they can do whatever they want with them.



    Those are the people to blame for DRM.
  • Reply 18 of 74
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nagromme


    I don't like the RIAA, nor most of the junk on the radio either, but to be clear: are you suggesting that people only steal music they don't like?



    I blame piracy on selfishness and dishonesty.



    If you (hypothetical, not you personally) don't like music, you won't pirate it, and you won't buy it.



    The music people steal--and buy--is music they like.



    If you like it enough to have it in your collection, pay for it. You don't have some "right" to someone else's creative product for free, just because you don't like the contract they signed, or the price they choose.



    And if it sucks so much, why would you want to steal it?



    There's some missing logic there. If I create a song, or a movie, or a software program, or whatever, I have the right to sell it in whatever way I wish, through whatever business relationships I choose, at whatever price I name. If that price keeps most people away, that's my choice--or the choice of those I have elected to work with. It doesn't give anyone the right to enjoy my work without compensation, unless I choose to let them.



    AB SO LUT LY!!!
  • Reply 19 of 74
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,949member
    oops!!
  • Reply 20 of 74
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,797member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nagromme


    I don't like the RIAA, nor most of the junk on the radio either, but to be clear: are you suggesting that people only steal music they don't like?



    I blame piracy on selfishness and dishonesty.



    If you (hypothetical, not you personally) don't like music, you won't pirate it, and you won't buy it.



    The music people steal--and buy--is music they like.



    If you like it enough to have it in your collection, pay for it. You don't have some "right" to someone else's creative product for free, just because you don't like the contract they signed, or the price they choose.



    And if it sucks so much, why would you want to steal it?



    There's some missing logic there. If I create a song, or a movie, or a software program, or whatever, I have the right to sell it in whatever way I wish, through whatever business relationships I choose, at whatever price I name. If that price keeps most people away, that's my choice--or the choice of those I have elected to work with. It doesn't give anyone the right to enjoy my work without compensation, unless I choose to let them.



    Very well said.
Sign In or Register to comment.