As Apple effectively controls the digital music sales industry, this is a major disincentive to buying a competing player, say chief plaintiff Stacie Somers and her representing lawyer Helen Zeldes.
Who created this market?
Apple did. Apple created this download digital music market from scratch. Money was spend, time and resources used as well as taking a risk in loosing this investment if it did not succeed.
Is the reward for having succeed to now give away part of its rightly owned commodity to those who did not contribute to it in any way shape or form?
The story says: "Actual content sold climbed by about 14 percent to 1.35 billion, hinting that customers were buying more items overall but also spending an increasing amount on individual songs and music videos."
What the heck does this mean? Does anyone follow? Can someone translate?
I also think it's time for stockholders to band together and sue the plaintiffs and their lawyers for affecting the stock price and losing me money with bullshit lawsuits. These assholes push all the time to get something they don't deserve, it's time to push back
3) A versatile address book that syncs with my Mac address book
4) A calendar that syncs with iCal
5) A 3G video camera and modem
6) A great intuitive interface that is faster to navigate than an iPod
7) With my new Sony Ericsson stereo bluetooth headphones and $20 2Gig memory card, I have a great sounding music player that pauses when a phone call comes in.
HOWEVER!
I cannot play any of the music I purchased from the iTunes music store on it!
This is like me buying a book and only being able to read it in a specific location.
Come on Apple, un DRM ALL your music today, or I'm going to compete...
??? All Sony Sricsson phone support AAC, so any iTunes+ (non-DRM'ed) tracks you buy will play on it.
BTW you called yourself out at points 2 and 6. I also have a K800, and the interface absolutely SUCKS compared to the iPhone, and the radio is damn near useless.
The story says: "Actual content sold climbed by about 14 percent to 1.35 billion, hinting that customers were buying more items overall but also spending an increasing amount on individual songs and music videos."
What the heck does this mean? Does anyone follow? Can someone translate?
It means that the record companies actually sold more, they just didn't sell CDs. So while they are making more money, they will continue to complain that piracy is killing music sales, even though it in fact is not.
All Apple has to do is license fairplay DRM ACC's and this will all go away. The product will continue dominate reguardless.
That being said, Apple having by far the best solution out there does not make them above the law. If the roles were reversed and the zune and WMP were dominating the market (yes, the though made me laugh too) and making the same restrictive ties Apple is, you guys would be screaming for a anti-trust suit.
Basically the are suing Apple because they are too successful.
Next thing you know they will be suing the Japanese for selling better cars than the American makers.
Oh, and why haven't they sued Microsoft a long time ago for their monopoly on the OS market and the years of terrible software.
Grow up people. If you don't like Apple's products, buy the competitions. Oh, what's that, you don't like the design of the competitions? They are too hard to use. You don't like actually having to pay the artists?
This is just a thinly disguised attempt of the Music industry to try and sue back the market share that they lost to Apple. They can't compete in the open market so they resort to suing. What is this country coming to?
Al
Exactly, it's laughable. The 8-Track makers may have felt the same way about the CD players or why not horse and cart makers against the car makers ... wait ... bow and arrows really lost out to guns didn't they ... my heart went out to the Neanderthal hod carriers association, they hated those wheel guys!
It means that the record companies actually sold more, they just didn't sell CDs. So while they are making more money, they will continue to complain that piracy is killing music sales, even though it in fact is not.
No, it does not, necessarily.
"Sold more" what? Tracks? CDs? CD-equivalent tracks? If it was tracks compared to CDs, you could sell more but not have higher revenues. And, were these sold in jewelboxes or as downloads? If the latter, via what outlets, considering the record companies have barely any? Anyhow, how could that account for more revenue, considering it is only 10% of overall sales, while physical CD sales fell by about the same amount? And, don't tell me it was video -- that is a small proportion of overall revenues.
The bottom line is, this article is poorly/confusingly worded, and does not say very much.
All Apple has to do is license fairplay DRM ACC's and this will all go away. The product will continue dominate reguardless.
That being said, Apple having by far the best solution out there does not make them above the law. If the roles were reversed and the zune and WMP were dominating the market (yes, the though made me laugh too) and making the same restrictive ties Apple is, you guys would be screaming for a anti-trust suit.
Actually, anything bought on ZuneMarket can only be played on Zunes, period. Then there was Play For Sure, and then Rhapsody's protection scheme, etc.
I still find this suit ludicrous for the main reason that DRM isn't and has never been Apple's idea. Why not sue Warner and Universal for making non-DRM available via Amazon only?
3) A versatile address book that syncs with my Mac address book
4) A calendar that syncs with iCal
5) A 3G video camera and modem
6) A great intuitive interface that is faster to navigate than an iPod
7) With my new Sony Ericsson stereo bluetooth headphones and $20 2Gig memory card, I have a great sounding music player that pauses when a phone call comes in.
HOWEVER!
I cannot play any of the music I purchased from the iTunes music store on it!
This is like me buying a book and only being able to read it in a specific location.
Come on Apple, un DRM ALL your music today, or I'm going to compete...
Wasn't it the big Labels that insisted and still for the most part on DRM and not Apple? Don't most of the other online music stores use some form of DRM? Can songs purchased from iTunes be burned to a CD and then ripped as another format to be played on other MP3 players? The answer to all of the above is YES!
It was a lot of work and expense to put the iTunes store together. All the technical work as well as Steve Jobs negotiations with the record companies. I don't see why the sellers of other MP3 players should benefit from Apple's work. iTunes is an "iPod feature," not a general purpose store.
From a legal perspective, there is nothing wrong with a monopoly. Corporations only get into legal trouble where they use their monopoly abusively to lock out competition.
DRM restricts are intended to prevent anyone except for the purchaser to use the media (regardless of text, music, video, etc.). Apple took it one step further and decided not to license their FairPlay DRM wrapper technology claiming that it would lead to less secure DRM. This bullsh*t. By not licensing the FairPlay technology, Apple essentially is abusing their monopoly and locking out competition. This has to stop.
If the roles were reversed and the zune and WMP were dominating the market (yes, the though made me laugh too) and making the same restrictive ties Apple is, you guys would be screaming for a anti-trust suit.
Yes but Microsoft could not have been successful in MP3 market through making great products alone, they would have had to have used leverage from their current monopoly, which is why people would be "screaming for a anti-trust suit." .
From a legal perspective, there is nothing wrong with a monopoly. Corporations only get into legal trouble where they use their monopoly abusively to lock out competition.
DRM restricts are intended to prevent anyone except for the purchaser to use the media (regardless of text, music, video, etc.). Apple took it one step further and decided not to license their FairPlay DRM wrapper technology claiming that it would lead to less secure DRM. This bullsh*t. By not licensing the FairPlay technology, Apple essentially is abusing their monopoly and locking out competition. This has to stop.
Dave
And again, Apple explains on several places how to remove the DRM from your purchase. Whether or not you feel they should license FairPlay (which legally, they don't have to, it's THEIR IP) is a moot point.
And again, Apple explains on several places how to remove the DRM from your purchase. Whether or not you feel they should license FairPlay (which legally, they don't have to, it's THEIR IP) is a moot point.
And you also lose quality each and every time you do it.
Comments
As Apple effectively controls the digital music sales industry, this is a major disincentive to buying a competing player, say chief plaintiff Stacie Somers and her representing lawyer Helen Zeldes.
Who created this market?
Apple did. Apple created this download digital music market from scratch. Money was spend, time and resources used as well as taking a risk in loosing this investment if it did not succeed.
Is the reward for having succeed to now give away part of its rightly owned commodity to those who did not contribute to it in any way shape or form?
Only a thief would agree to that.
I think this lawsuit ignores the real issue at hand: the studio's stranglehold on music.
So basically, this is a lawsuit against Apple because many studios won't let them sell DRM-free music?
I think this lawsuit ignores the real issue at hand: the studio's stranglehold on music.
Are the non-DRM files from iTunes playable on non-iPod players? No, that is not the real issue.
What the heck does this mean? Does anyone follow? Can someone translate?
I also think it's time for stockholders to band together and sue the plaintiffs and their lawyers for affecting the stock price and losing me money with bullshit lawsuits. These assholes push all the time to get something they don't deserve, it's time to push back
Not a bad Idea...
Nah, it's more attributable to the 200+ point drop of the general market
A lot went down.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...A0Q&refer=home
The chart in the lower right corner shows that just about every major industry took a hit:
http://finance.google.com/finance
...which I prefer over an iPod as it:
1) Has a built in 3Megapixel camera
2) A very good stereo FM radio
3) A versatile address book that syncs with my Mac address book
4) A calendar that syncs with iCal
5) A 3G video camera and modem
6) A great intuitive interface that is faster to navigate than an iPod
7) With my new Sony Ericsson stereo bluetooth headphones and $20 2Gig memory card, I have a great sounding music player that pauses when a phone call comes in.
HOWEVER!
I cannot play any of the music I purchased from the iTunes music store on it!
This is like me buying a book and only being able to read it in a specific location.
Come on Apple, un DRM ALL your music today, or I'm going to compete...
??? All Sony Sricsson phone support AAC, so any iTunes+ (non-DRM'ed) tracks you buy will play on it.
BTW you called yourself out at points 2 and 6. I also have a K800, and the interface absolutely SUCKS compared to the iPhone, and the radio is damn near useless.
The story says: "Actual content sold climbed by about 14 percent to 1.35 billion, hinting that customers were buying more items overall but also spending an increasing amount on individual songs and music videos."
What the heck does this mean? Does anyone follow? Can someone translate?
It means that the record companies actually sold more, they just didn't sell CDs. So while they are making more money, they will continue to complain that piracy is killing music sales, even though it in fact is not.
That being said, Apple having by far the best solution out there does not make them above the law. If the roles were reversed and the zune and WMP were dominating the market (yes, the though made me laugh too) and making the same restrictive ties Apple is, you guys would be screaming for a anti-trust suit.
Basically the are suing Apple because they are too successful.
Next thing you know they will be suing the Japanese for selling better cars than the American makers.
Oh, and why haven't they sued Microsoft a long time ago for their monopoly on the OS market and the years of terrible software.
Grow up people. If you don't like Apple's products, buy the competitions. Oh, what's that, you don't like the design of the competitions? They are too hard to use. You don't like actually having to pay the artists?
This is just a thinly disguised attempt of the Music industry to try and sue back the market share that they lost to Apple. They can't compete in the open market so they resort to suing. What is this country coming to?
Al
Exactly, it's laughable. The 8-Track makers may have felt the same way about the CD players or why not horse and cart makers against the car makers ... wait ... bow and arrows really lost out to guns didn't they ... my heart went out to the Neanderthal hod carriers association, they hated those wheel guys!
Oh I absolutely LOVE this line....
"Customers who own the iPod must buy from iTunes if they want music in a protected format."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's not a single customer that wants the music they buy in a protected format.
Ha Ha, I was just about to quote that. That's the most ridiculous sentence. I mean, what customer doesn't prefer DRM'd music?
It means that the record companies actually sold more, they just didn't sell CDs. So while they are making more money, they will continue to complain that piracy is killing music sales, even though it in fact is not.
No, it does not, necessarily.
"Sold more" what? Tracks? CDs? CD-equivalent tracks? If it was tracks compared to CDs, you could sell more but not have higher revenues. And, were these sold in jewelboxes or as downloads? If the latter, via what outlets, considering the record companies have barely any? Anyhow, how could that account for more revenue, considering it is only 10% of overall sales, while physical CD sales fell by about the same amount? And, don't tell me it was video -- that is a small proportion of overall revenues.
The bottom line is, this article is poorly/confusingly worded, and does not say very much.
All Apple has to do is license fairplay DRM ACC's and this will all go away. The product will continue dominate reguardless.
That being said, Apple having by far the best solution out there does not make them above the law. If the roles were reversed and the zune and WMP were dominating the market (yes, the though made me laugh too) and making the same restrictive ties Apple is, you guys would be screaming for a anti-trust suit.
Actually, anything bought on ZuneMarket can only be played on Zunes, period. Then there was Play For Sure, and then Rhapsody's protection scheme, etc.
I still find this suit ludicrous for the main reason that DRM isn't and has never been Apple's idea. Why not sue Warner and Universal for making non-DRM available via Amazon only?
...which I prefer over an iPod as it:
1) Has a built in 3Megapixel camera
2) A very good stereo FM radio
3) A versatile address book that syncs with my Mac address book
4) A calendar that syncs with iCal
5) A 3G video camera and modem
6) A great intuitive interface that is faster to navigate than an iPod
7) With my new Sony Ericsson stereo bluetooth headphones and $20 2Gig memory card, I have a great sounding music player that pauses when a phone call comes in.
HOWEVER!
I cannot play any of the music I purchased from the iTunes music store on it!
This is like me buying a book and only being able to read it in a specific location.
Come on Apple, un DRM ALL your music today, or I'm going to compete...
Wasn't it the big Labels that insisted and still for the most part on DRM and not Apple? Don't most of the other online music stores use some form of DRM? Can songs purchased from iTunes be burned to a CD and then ripped as another format to be played on other MP3 players? The answer to all of the above is YES!
From a legal perspective, there is nothing wrong with a monopoly. Corporations only get into legal trouble where they use their monopoly abusively to lock out competition.
DRM restricts are intended to prevent anyone except for the purchaser to use the media (regardless of text, music, video, etc.). Apple took it one step further and decided not to license their FairPlay DRM wrapper technology claiming that it would lead to less secure DRM. This bullsh*t. By not licensing the FairPlay technology, Apple essentially is abusing their monopoly and locking out competition. This has to stop.
Dave
If the roles were reversed and the zune and WMP were dominating the market (yes, the though made me laugh too) and making the same restrictive ties Apple is, you guys would be screaming for a anti-trust suit.
Yes but Microsoft could not have been successful in MP3 market through making great products alone, they would have had to have used leverage from their current monopoly, which is why people would be "screaming for a anti-trust suit." .
I don't have a problem with this lawsuit.
From a legal perspective, there is nothing wrong with a monopoly. Corporations only get into legal trouble where they use their monopoly abusively to lock out competition.
DRM restricts are intended to prevent anyone except for the purchaser to use the media (regardless of text, music, video, etc.). Apple took it one step further and decided not to license their FairPlay DRM wrapper technology claiming that it would lead to less secure DRM. This bullsh*t. By not licensing the FairPlay technology, Apple essentially is abusing their monopoly and locking out competition. This has to stop.
Dave
And again, Apple explains on several places how to remove the DRM from your purchase. Whether or not you feel they should license FairPlay (which legally, they don't have to, it's THEIR IP) is a moot point.
And again, Apple explains on several places how to remove the DRM from your purchase. Whether or not you feel they should license FairPlay (which legally, they don't have to, it's THEIR IP) is a moot point.
And you also lose quality each and every time you do it.