Slashdot Log In
Universal Wants a Slice of Apple's iPod Pie
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Nov 29, 2006 07:36 PM
from the pay-to-play dept.
from the pay-to-play dept.
vought writes "According to a Reuters report, Universal is now taking the precendent set by Microsoft's Zune and moving to force Apple to include a royalty payment with each iPod.
In the words of Universal Music's Doug Morris, 'These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it. So it's time to get paid for it.' Does Microsoft's precedent mean the start of a slippery slope that will add a 'pirate tax' to every piece of hardware that touches digital music?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
To Doug Morris... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the regretful, embarrassing, yet immortal words of Dick Cheney...... " Go F$@% yourself ".
I personally take offense at the allegation that there is *any* stolen music on my iPod or any of my computers. All of my music has been purchased on CD or the iTunes Music store as it is on most of the peoples iPods and computers that I know of. Your allegation suggests that you actually do not know about your potential customers, their desires, technology or most disturbingly, the music industry itself. Apparently, you also don't seem to be able to understand that you need to out-compete the piracy industry by offering a quality product at a reasonable price and in a manner that is easy for people to pay for. Marketing 101 tells us that the way to make money is to create a product people want and then remove any barriers that will prevent people from *willingly* giving their money to you in exchange for those goods or services. The iTMS has shown you how it is done, yet you get in bed with Microsoft who apparently cannot design a device that will compete in the same arena with the iPod, then you force people to buy points that they can then exchange for music *and* you want a slice of the hardware market. If you want into that market, why not create your own hardware? To do anything else is leveraging your monopoly to extort money from another industry and the last time I checked, that behavior is illegal.
So, quit whining about all the pirates and do something constructive that adds to your product or services rather than placing restrictions on your product that makes it less appealing to the end user or customer. Oh, and while you are at it, you might want to put more energy on finding good musical talent for the music industry. Its out there, but you need to stop focusing on engineered pretty boy and girl acts and put more effort into finding and promoting real talent.
Re:To Doug Morris... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Fuckin' A Right! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have too easy a time imagining this 'fee' increasing every year, every time you buy a new music-related device.
So yeah...they pull this off and I will have ZERO ethical issues about copying every bit of music I can find. Greedy fucks.
Parent
Re:Fuckin' A Right! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Fuckin' A Right! (Score:5, Insightful)
They charge a piracy tax, so we pirate.
They sue, we move to dismiss: "We've already paid for the licence to do this your honour"
-nB
Parent
Re:Fuckin' A Right! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not a good thing in disguise. Why? Because that music tax would only go to RIAA-owned artists. Every other musician would get entirely fucked over.
Parent
Re:Fuckin' A Right! (Score:5, Informative)
There is an interesting argument here [theregister.co.uk] that even Universal's artists might not get a cut from that money - namely, if their contract with the label doesn't explicitly stipulate a cut from licensing electronic devices, they're all fucked over. At least if the current behavior (i.e. iTunes licensing splits) are something to judge by.
Parent
I don't have music on my iPod (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Your straw man is on fire. (Score:5, Insightful)
When Apple paid Creative, it was for the use of Creative's patents. I don't necessarily agree with the judgment, but that's what it was about. So you're right, that certainly doesn't give me any moral or ethical -- much less legal -- right to go out and steal stuff from Creative, at least not unless you espouse a somewhat extreme form of IP anarchism.
Anyway, the difference between that deal, and the Zune deal (or the Canadian 'media tax') is that Creative's deal with Apple doesn't make any comment about the actions of the users. It's purely between Apple and Creative. What Universal is saying in demanding its pound of flesh, is that users are criminals, and therefore the users should be made to pay for their criminal behavior, before they even do it. That's fundamentally different from a patent licensing deal.
In short, Universal is engaging in collective punishment -- trying to extort money from everyone who buys an Apple product, because they assume they will all be used for piracy. Since I'm going to get punished in that case either way, whether I pirate or not, then I might as well pirate.
Parent
Re:Your straw man is on fire. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Universal wants more money for their music
2) Apple (who really doesn't profit much on iTMS itself) tells them to fuck off
3) iTMS user can no longer buy tracks legally, so they go pirate it instead
Now, Universal, instead of getting some money for their music, gets zero dollars.
Nice.
Parent
Re:Fuckin' A Right! (Score:5, Insightful)
Would it be too much if it meant that, having already paid the price of your piracy, that you could not be sued for subsequent pirate activity?
I believe this is the situation in Canada. They pay the tax, yes, but then the Canadian music industry cannot go after any of the Canadian pirates. So in theory, you could just go out and download every song they ever published. I bet it's the recording industry who would think they got the short end of the stick on that one!
It won't work that way in the U.S. of course. In the U.S., we will end up paying the tax on anything even remotely capable of pirating music (which is soon going to be everything in your house from your computer to your door mat), and you will be emminently sueable (soon to be jailable) if you actually do pirate anything. They'll charge you coming and going, even if you never touch anything they make, and imprison you if you dare not pay them. Because here in the U.S., we hate the idea of government-owned business, but we love the idea of business-owned government.
Parent
Re:Canadians not-sued (Score:5, Informative)
Being Canadian and all, I have read about this law for the "media tax" and so on, basically they compared downloading music to going to the library and making a photocopy of a book or its pages and so on. But what they explicitly said was wrong was "advertising" your shares. Or basically saying openly "Hey I have music, come download from me!". That is illegal.
So basically, you can download but you can't share.
Parent
Re:Fuckin' A Right! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Fuckin' A Right! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Fuckin' A Right! (Score:5, Interesting)
The levy is a fee paid to the recording industry to subsidise the industry for the loss of revenue taken from duplicate media sales to compensate the industry for *fair-use* backups of media for personal use. Really a coup for the music industry because they're getting paid every time you exercise your rights, and they still get to take you to court if they can fake enough evidence about your downloading.
But this new one is fantastic, because if Apple accedes to the music industry's wish (and I personally hope they will as quickly as possible), it hopefully (IANAL) creates an circumstance where you have already paid damages to the music industry, and hopefully double jeopardy means they can now not take you to court and say "well you took our music but we weren't compensated" because they will have been (for any music published by Universal at least). Thus making their entire catalog free for download by anyone, anywhere, who owns an iPod.
This is different from the Zune, which pays money to the publisher simply as a gratuity for the favour of their songs being available on the Zune music purchasing outlet. The establishment in this case is not being compensated for copyright infringement.
Parent
Re:Fuckin' A Right! (Score:5, Funny)
Ears, you missed ears....
Parent
Re:To Doug Morris... (Score:5, Interesting)
FWIW I was in a band signed to a UK indie label during the 80's which was had licensing deals with pretty much every major label around the World. Then came the 90's and slowly but surely the CD's started disappearing off Tower Records' shelves. Then came the 00's and we get our own section on iTunes.
Needless to say if I'd bought my first MP3 player in the 00's I would have gone straight to iTunes and bought my albums from there, but instead I bought my first MP3 player in the late 90's and had to resort to grabbing un-licensed MP3's of my songs from wherever I could find them, basically because I didn't have the orginal CD's (my entire record collection is just that, records, and stored back in the UK) and I couldn't find CD's in used record stores.
If the record labels had got their shit together to build their own kickass online record store, and made their own kickass players so people could listen to them, Apple wouldn't have seen an opportunity and created iTunes and the iPod.
So FUCK YOU Universal, and every other label that starts crying about lost revenue.
Parent
Re:To Doug Morris... (Score:5, Interesting)
If I'm paying the "pirate tax" to help them recover the "losses" they have from piracy, there's no problem then, right? If they are still going to sue my guts if I have pirated mp3s on my ipod, then why I am paying extra money with the purchase of an ipod? I'm paying them protection money and they still come after me? If they are going to act like the mob, they should at least do it properly...
Parent
Re:To Steve Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, today the playing field isn't tilting toward Microsoft; it has only manged to sell enough Zunes to eat into PlaysForSure players in week 1; it has since dropped off the charts.
Anyone who thinks Universal can pull its content out of the iTMS and be the victor is smoking crack. The iTunes Store isn't selling everyone their music; its only selling to a small segment regularly. Everyone else is buying CDs or using the iPod to listen to their own music. The iPod has no lock with iTunes Music, you can fill it any way you like.
The labels somehow think that consumers should repurchase their entire music library in electronic form, and when PlaysForSure stores and the iTunes Store didn't, they were puzzled. What is happening is that a small minority of people are paying for music in the iTunes Store, far more than are using any other online system (apart from piracy of course).
If Universal pulls out of the only system that works, it will be left to watch its sales slow down right when online sales through iTunes are the only growing market left for commercial music.
Apple can't afford to be too arrogant, but neither can Universal. Right now, Apple is handing Universal the vast majority of the profits it collects from iTunes sales. If Universal poisons the deal, they're only screwing themselves. The iPod and iTunes aren't going away, and the Zune isn't going to funnel any money to Universal at all.
In the big picture, Universal is desperate for sales, and iTunes is the only system offering something that works. Apple is building that into a movie business, too.
How Original Content Will Change Entertainment [roughlydrafted.com]
Steve Jobs has connections in music, movies, and TV - how long before Apple begins commissioning original programming? Here's a look at the music, movie and TV business, and why Apple's involvement in each is far larger than the mainstream media seems to understand.
Parent
Re:To Steve Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I doubt that Universal would be dumb enough to cut off Apple if they refuse so I'm going to assume it's a bluff. And you can be fairly sure that if they are that moronic, there'd be an explanation in the next New Music Tuesday mailing about Universal calling every iPod owner a pirate, and how Apple defended them by not giving in to their piracy tax. When they come begging to get back into iTunes, Apple would probably negotiate a better profit for themselves in the process.
Of course, that's all speculation on my part, but I don't think Apple can really lose here unless they actually give in, in which case they're sure to. AFAIK, Microsoft made the offer to do this (though that could very well be wrong), and probably did so simply to try setting a precedent that works against Apple.
No matter how it works out, it means that I won't be buying Universal music ever again. If a piracy tax works its way into iPods, then it completely legitimizes it in my eyes (only for the labels receiving the tax, of course, not that the artists will see a cent of it). If Universal content gets pulled, I could care less as I won't buy music with DRM. And simply for the fact that they assume I'm a pirate, I'll ensure that I'm not supporting them in any way. As it is, I'd only buy indie albums since I won't fund the RIAA either, and moves like this are NOT persuading me otherwise.
Parent
Re:To Doug Morris... (Score:5, Interesting)
And who's going to lead the lawsuit?
Actually, Apple should lead it. After all...
That sounds more like he's defaming Apple than he's defaming iPod owners, although that comment leaves plenty of room for both. And, of course, Apple makes a pretty stupid target for this kind of statement, having developed the most successful legal music download service there is. (I'm putting iTMS ahead of eMusic, AllofMP3 and the like because iTMS successfully charges more per song, has better selection (than eMusic), and is of unquestioned legality (compared to AllofMP3).)
Or maybe, instead of a lawsuit, Apple should just reconsider whether they want iTMS to sell music released by a record company that defames them and their customers. How much does Universal make from iTMS, I wonder?
Parent
Let's Play "Spot the RIAA Plant" (Score:5, Interesting)
Other possible RIAA plants (this story only):
- #17043086 [slashdot.org] (User: Man in Spandex)
- #17043272 [slashdot.org] (User: LO0G)
- #17042814 [slashdot.org] (User: seriv)
- #17043858 [slashdot.org] (User: j-beda)
- #17043038 [slashdot.org] (User: Jerry Rivers)
- #17043474 [slashdot.org], #17043550 [slashdot.org] (User: pandrijeczko)
On a side note, the quote in the summary, "These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it,. So it's time to get paid for it," is not from the Reuters press release. [reuters.com] It originally appeared in the Billboard article announcing the Zune launch, [billboard.com] and was discussed on slashdot [slashdot.org].Parent
Re:Let's Play "Spot the RIAA Plant" (Score:5, Informative)
I got onto his foes list by calling him on his bullshit statements. He claimed that the RIAA is a global company. It's not (hint, one of the A's stands for America). He claimed that the RIAA had 4 members when they have hundreds. Pointing out that he was wrong on those two comments got me accused of being an RIAA shill and onto his foes list.
In light of that, maybe you should take his comments about RIAA shills with a little salt... an ocean or two ought to do it.
Parent
Pirate Tax (Score:4, Interesting)
In the proud tradition of /. analogies (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, I had no idea that Microsoft cut that shady deal. Now the Universal seems to have quite literally declared they should have a right to both have their cake and eat it, too. They want you to both pay for the music and pay for not paying for it.
I don't own a media player, but now I know that if I ever get one, it won't be a Zune.
Parent
Shoplifters do not steal from the CEOs pockets ... (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, shoppers do pay for stolen merchandise. It is part of the retail markup. Like returns and warranty work, the accountants probably have an account for losses due to theft, a percentage of sales based on historical averages goes into the account, actual losses are charged against the account, and there are probably tax deductions. So shoplifters are not stealing from the CEOs pockets, they are stealing from the taxpayers who partially subsidize the losses via tax deductions and the shoppers who pay slightly inflated prices.
Parent
Re:Seriously (Score:5, Funny)
"ADSL modems! They all know they are being used to download illegal mp3s (well, and porn)"
"Monitors! Everybody knows people use them to find songs to download illegally"
"Mice! Everyone knows that they are mainly used to download songs illegally"
"And don't even get me started on chairs, food and houses. They are only being used to maintain themselves so they can download more music!"
Parent
Sounds good if you legalize file sharing (Score:5, Interesting)
If they charged a fee for each device and let us have free, legal file sharing (since we paid for the content with our device fee) it sounds semi reasonable.
Of course that's not what they are talking about so...
Re:Sounds good if you legalize file sharing (Score:5, Interesting)
What happened in Canada is exactly what could happen here.
They started charging a pirate tax on media, so some clever people figured out that as long as they were paying the tax and being branded a pirate, that gave them a legal right to download. The courts apparently agreed.
Amazing that the idiot proposing this doesn't know it.
Parent
Re:Sounds good if you legalize file sharing (Score:5, Interesting)
The iPod is a media player, so look at how it relates to other media players. When you buy a TV, does part of the purchase price go to Paramount just in case someone watches a pirated version of Indiana Jones on it? Does every movie theater built in the USA have to pay construction fees to movie companies (I'm not talking proceeds of ticket sales, I'm talking about a fee just to build the damn theater) because it's possible a future owner might show a pirated film there?
If this Universal casehas any merit, it should extend to everything just to point out how ridiculous it is. Eg, every hammer sold should include a fee to De Beers because that hammer can be used to break a window and steal one of their diamonds. Likewise every diamond purchased should include a fee to Home Depot, because that diamond can be ground to make diamond dust, which can be used to saw through locking gates and bars and to steal hammers. Rinse lather repeat.
Parent
just say no (Score:5, Insightful)
Universal Music, Here is My Reply (Score:5, Insightful)
YES! This makes PERFECT sense! (Score:4, Interesting)
Riiiight. So umm... despite the fact that there's absolutely zero proof, a general assumption is being made... which spreads to ALL digital-music listeners... and say that they want money.
So... going by this theory, cable companies should charge everyone who watches TV because they all steal satellite signals?
YES! Everyone on earth is a digital thief, so let's make a profit off of it!
Re:YES! This makes PERFECT sense! (Score:5, Insightful)
I RTFA looking for this juicy little quote and couldn't find it anywhere. Am I blind or did the submitter make up a quote for Mr. Morris?
Parent
Re:YES! This makes PERFECT sense! (Score:5, Informative)
The quote is not from the article but something Doug Morris has been quoted as saying.
It seems to have come from a Nov 10 Billboard piece:s p?vnu_content_id=1003380831 [billboard.com]
http://billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.j
Parent
So nay container that can hold illegal goods ..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Braindamage? (Score:4, Insightful)
Either you fight the pirates and try to sell your music via the iTMS or you get a royalty payment and let your music be available for free.
I'm fed up with the *AAs trying to tell me that I owe them money. I don't. I go see the GOOD movies in theater (there's one coming out every eon or so, maybe you need to check that?) and when I want to watch something, well I have Blockbuster and NetFlix.
Music-wise? Most of the bands they produce suck, and I'd much rather go to a concert, and find the occasional song playing on a radio station than buy a CD or DRM files, because they just want a constant money stream. My wallet says no, and I live just fine without music. Ever walk outside without an iPod plugged into your ears? Sometimes a good hike without music does you good.
The *AAs are beyond a pain in the ass, they're thieving not just people, but businesses as well, and I sure hope that Apple takes them to court for diffamation on that one.
Re:Braindamage? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, what did the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics [aiaa.org] ever do to you? (ducks)
Parent
Doug Morris, Flamebait (Score:4, Funny)
Tag: Asinine (Score:5, Interesting)
What kind of environment do you have to be raised in that instills a sense of entitlement so absolute that it reduces onlookers to standing agape in stunned silence?
These people need to be kept away from sharp objects and heavy machinery until they grow up.
Schwab
Fast forward to 2007 (Score:5, Funny)
Steve Jobs: No.
Doug Morris: We asked Microsoft for $1 for each Zune sold, and they said "Yes".
Steve Jobs: They were desperate. We're not. By the way, how has the Zune deal been working out for you?
Doug Morris: So far, we've gotten $52.
Re:Fast forward to 2007 (Score:4, Funny)
Apple: We are disinclined to acquiesce to your request.
Univeral: Huh?
Apple: No.
Universal:
Parent
iTMS Sales (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not $1000 dollars per iPod? (Score:5, Insightful)
What seems likely is that Morris is demanding an approximation 3% tariff on the sales price like the 3% tariff the industry **already** receives from the sale of all recordable CDs marked "for music." As with Morris proposed "iPod" tax, the public receives nothing in return for music CD-R tax which was supposed to compensate the recording industry in return for not suing equipment manufacturers over Home Recording. As history shows, The Audio Home Recording Act did nothing to squelch the industries thirst for litigation, so there is no reason to think that giving in to an "iPod" tax will do anything along those lines.
If UMG wants to "tax" iPods, they need to give something up in return--like submitting to compulsory licensing for download as they have to for radio station playback and Jukeboxes.
Tax Free? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not going to argue with that, but what I will say is I can't but think of the precident in the UK with the BBC. Theoretically I have already paid for all the content the BBC produces. Therefore I should own the copyright to it? Then why the hell are the BBC DVDs I buy copyright BBC Worldwide? Why don't I own the copyright to the BBC DVDs I bought? Is anyone aware of a case of the BBC suing someone for copyright infringement who has a TV license*?
Times like this I try to forget what the law says and ask what is fair. I also remember that the copyright holder has the right to do whatever they like with their product** - I have no need to use it if I am not happy with their terms. i.e. am I actually that worse of because Joe Blogs has released XYZ piece of music under terms that I feel are unacceptable, than I would be if Joe Blogs had never produced that piece of music at all?
Can we have the next slashdot poll as what encourages you to buy music - be it hearing a song on the radio, from an mp3 copied from a friend, from a CD borrowed from a collegue etc. I know I have never bought Music without listening to it via some free method first. To shut down all avenues of free music would stop me dead.
* Yes there were a few cases a while ago, but this was before the BBC had the whole lost Dr Who episode debacle.
** Your own definition of Fair rights of course must stand up in court.
And how would they make that happen exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Supply and demand applies here:
85% of all MP3 players are iPods.
After briefly debuting as the 7th most popular MP3 player, the Zune dropped to 13th most popular.
Universal gets three choices here:
Put up (only sell music through the Zune store as that is, let's face it, the only influence they have) and deal with only having the 13th most popular MP3 player market to go after... Not going to happen.
Shut up... Also not likely to happen.
Neither... They'll whine loudly, whilst sensibly not daring to cut their noses off to spite their faces, and occasionally create hype inducing headlines.
The previous MP3 taxes on hardware got through five plus years ago when MP3s were something weird the kids do. Passing laws to fine people who don't get a vote is really easy. In the half decade since, huge numbers of middle Americans have bought iPods and they're a part of mainstream society. The ignorance and "aren't l33t pirates bad!" claim doesn't work so well when middle American voters realize it suddenly applies to them and they'd be voting to make their toys more expensive.
So, Zune is such an embarassing joke it can hardly be called a trend setter, Universal won't dare actually boycot iTunes in order to make a point and MP3 players are so popular that the laws that got snuck through in the past now get soccer moms outraged. They can't affect it through business models or laws... Game over.
In much the same way, I want endless women. However, I control such a small part of the dating market that even if I boycot women, I doubt it'll bother them half as much as it'll bother me. I can't get a law passed that forces women to like me because it'd be political suicide for politicians. So, much like universal, that leaves me whining loudly about how things should be and yet nothing actually changing.
Evolve or Die (Score:4, Interesting)
And they are 'doing without' in droves. People are buying Wiis and DVDs and getting cable TV and video off YouTube. They are loosing market share and blaming piracy. Blaming the unnameable is truly the last bastion of an industry that is dying. It means that, at AGMs, the directors will have an excuse for bad
profitability, when inaction is their only excuse. If you hold shares in a large music company, time to ask them what product they plan on releasing when they have become irrelevant due to their inaction.
Years ago, they could have made a cheap, effective, simple service. Instead - everyone copied music, found what they like and bought CDs because they felt like they should support the artist. Record sales went up. Then Napster got a sued, Audiogalaxy got shutdown, and the punters should no longer try before they buy.
RIAA continues to sue... people continue not to buy.
It's time to wake up record companies. It's not too difficult. iTunes will save your ass. If you leave it 2 more years - iTunes will own you ass. You will have to bend over and lick Apple's boots. Do you realise that you are 1 freakin step away from having someone like Apple set up a service to post produce 100000 punters Garage Band files and then release them? The only thing you have is radio stations who you collaborate with. The advertising revenues for these are not going too well. Do you feel you owe it to them to ensure they join you in a symbiotic slide into oblivion?
I have bought my last 2 years worth of music though iTunes. I don't need a CD. I don't need all
the wasted plastic and paper. I don't need to waste resources to have music. I don't need the stores,
the transport, the manufacturers. Sound only needs to be touched and felt in 1 way - through bass
pounding in your chest... not through yet another breaking CD container.
Wait Till it Goes to Court (Score:4, Interesting)
For starters this seems like a violation of the anti-trust statutes. Universal knows they have no legal means to compel apple to pay them money for every iPod sold so instead they are trying to blackmail them into doing so by threatening to stop selling apple their songs. Whether or not the iPod is used to play/possess illegal songs is totally irrelevant. Refusing to let apple sell their songs on iTunes won't stop ipods from being used for illegal music, in fact it would likely increase it. This is nothing but a clear cut case of a company using it's monopolistic practices to extort money, exactly the sort of thing the anti-trust laws were designed to prevent. At least MS could come up with a non-laughable (just a bit of a snicker) claim that their bundling practices were for the consumer's benefit, Universal has no such case.
More interestingly what happens when the RIAA sues someone who had illegal music on their ipod and they argue in court that the ipod surcharge gives them the right to do so? While I'm skeptical that such a claim could succeed one never knows. Also, even if the poor victim of the lawsuit loses this point it puts Universal in an interesting position. In order to successfully sue people using their ipods to play illegal music they must admit apple wasn't purchasing *anything* with the surcharge. That makes it even harder to claim that the surcharge was part of a valid business deal rather than something they coerced using monopolistic power.
--
I know one thing for sure though. The second I find myself paying a surcharge on a device I purchase to the RIAA I will make a point of not purchasing music for that device. At the moment I buy songs from itunes not too infrequently but if I've already paid $5 to the RIAA I will always search for an illegal copy first. Maybe in the long run they will realize people have an innate sense of fair play. If you don't insist on DRM and sell songs for a reasonable price people will choose to pay money so the artists are compensated but the second you pick someone's pocket claiming you need to be paid for what you were going to steal people will stop feeling bad about stealing from you.
the whole idea is silly (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not apple's job to help the riaa and their artists recoup their losses due to piracy. That's like placing a tax on crowbars because people break into cars with them.
Why must people be so stupid?
Letter to Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: The iPOD tax
I have purchased Apple products for years and I currently have 6 Macs in my house. I do not pirate (steal) music and in fact have bought a number of complete CDs from iTunes - as well as physical CDs from elsewhere. If you cave into the RIAA, I will take my business elsewhere.
ME