Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Norway Outlaws iTunes

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thu Jan 25, 2007 09:37 PM
from the run-out-of-town dept.
haddieman notes that while many people are getting more and more annoyed at DRM, Norway actually did something about it. The PC World article explains: "Good intentions, questionable execution. European legislators have been giving DRM considerable attention for a while, but Norway has actually gone so far as to declare that Apple's iTunes store is illegal under Norwegian law. The crux of the issue is that the Fairplay DRM that is at the heart of the iTunes/iPod universe doesn't work with anything else, meaning that if you want access to the cast iTunes library, you have to buy an iPod."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] "DVD Jon" Reverse Engineers FairPlay 299 comments
breun writes to bring us up to date on the doings of Jon Lech Johansen, known as "DVD Jon" after he cracked CSS encryption at the age of 15. As reported by GigaOM's Liz Gannes, Johansen has now reverse-engineered Apple's FairPlay DRM — but not to crack it. Instead Johansen's company, DoubleTwist Ventures, wants to license the tech to media companies shut out by Apple from playing their content on the iPod. And, soon, on the iTV. Johansen could end up selling a lot of hardware for Apple.
[+] Apple To Play Fairer With FairPlay? 153 comments
NewbieMonster writes "According to tech.co.uk, Apple is about to license its Fairplay DRM to Made for iPod accessory manufacturers. It's reported that Apple will also allow streaming of protected AAC content via USB. Could this signal a move to allowing other music players to access and play ITMS content?" From the article: "The expected announcements could signal a move on Apple's part to take some of the sting out of its Fairplay DRM which has come in for a great deal of criticism over recent months. It may also be a way of keeping Made For iPod makers onside, as the draw of the Microsoft Zune becomes stronger." Anyone noticed the draw of the Microsoft Zune becoming stronger?
This discussion has been archived.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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Good! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mrchaotica (681592) * on Thursday January 25 2007, @09:39PM (#17762628)

    Now, when are they going to outlaw all the other DRM-infested music stores? If "Fairplay" is unfair, then so is "PlaysForSure!"

    • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by flawedgeek (833708) <karldnorman@NoSpaM.gmail.com> on Thursday January 25 2007, @09:44PM (#17762680)
      The difference between fairplay and playsforsure is that fairplay *only* supports ipod, playsforsure is compatible with all sorts of hardware. I get the impression that Norway doesn't have a problem with the DRM itself, it's because it forces you to use specific hardware.
      • Re:Good! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Monsuco (998964) on Thursday January 25 2007, @09:51PM (#17762762) Homepage
        The difference between fairplay and playsforsure is that fairplay *only* supports ipod, playsforsure is compatible with all sorts of hardware. I get the impression that Norway doesn't have a problem with the DRM itself, it's because it forces you to use specific hardware.
        I think this is sorta right, however I think it more or less falls along the lines of apple dominates the MP3 player market and is using that to force out competition in the online music market.
          • Incorrect (Score:5, Funny)

            by Ahnteis (746045) on Friday January 26 2007, @01:27AM (#17764928)
            WMA can be licensed for all kinds of devices, and I suspect that Sony would be overjoyed to license the file format.

            Zune--probably, but the 3 people who own one haven't made much of a fuss yet.
          • by goombah99 (560566) on Friday January 26 2007, @02:12AM (#17765256)
            Every windowsOS device that runs quicktime plays apple fairplay drm. for example an OQO is a pocket itunes playing device. What do they mean fairlplay only plays on ipods. Conversely you don't have to buy fairplay music to play it on your ipod. You can buy or load MP3s.

            So I don't get it. You can play itunes/fairplay on tonnes of devices not made by apple. and you don't have to buy itunes software.

            Moreover here's a hypothetical. Suppose the itunes software had two buttons on it. One button was marked "load my ipod with some music I bought at the itunes store" and the other button was marked "load my non-apple music player with some music I bought at the itunes music store".

            Would that satisfy the norweigans? well itunes already has those features, just the buttons are marked differently. The second button is marked "convert my itunes music to something my non-apple player can play".

          • by zootm (850416) on Friday January 26 2007, @06:01AM (#17766306)

            So does that mean that Zune and Sony's Atrak and WMA are also banned?

            Zune hasn't been released outside of the US, but it seems pretty definite that it'd be affected by the same rule. ATRAC is an encoding format, not a DRM system; the difference being that it's not designed to stop other people reading it, it's just not used by other people. Also, ATRAC is implemented by other manufacturers; Sony did not say "no, you may not licence or use this because we want to be the only ones to use it".

            Well what about software that only runs on one operating system? After Ipods can run other operating system sso it's not the ipod that is doing the lock-in it's the operating system on the ipod.

            It's not the iPod which is in trouble, it's the store, and its policy of only being compatible with iPods (and the converse; iPods only playing music from one DRMed store). This is an artificial constraint, the only reason other companies can't run iTMS music on their players or provide DRMed music that plays on an iPod is that Apple won't let them. By contrast, operating systems only run one type of executable because executables are complicated and can be implemented in a variety of ways. It's not like there's anything stopping people writing software which allows someone to run programs from another operating system [wikipedia.org], or licencing things which cause compatibility problems [wikipedia.org] from their makers. By contrast, Apple have repeatedly sued those who have created systems allowing interoperability with iPods and iTMS.

            By that reasoning all windows software is windows only and must be banned.

            I'm afraid not.

                    • by zootm (850416) on Friday January 26 2007, @08:50AM (#17767496)

                      Apple: ... Here is a sample of the contract with the various labels where they demand we use DRM. Here is a report detailing the lack of standards in DRM. Here is a report detailing how Apple did not create this fucking mess in the licensing and protection of Music.

                      Judge: Not Guilty. ( aside - what a complete fucking waste of time ....)

                      Judge: Where in the contract does it say you cannot licence your DRM technology to competing music stores?

                      Apple: Nowhere, but you see we need to make mon...

                      Judge: Did it not occur to you that other music stores might have exactly the same restrictions placed upon them as regards providing content with DRM?

                      Apple: But..

                      Judge: So your position is that you, Apple, are being victimised by the music industry but no other online store is, so you alone need to be able to put DRM on the device?

                      Apple: Oh. I suppose it is.

                      Judge: Open your DRM tech so other companies can sell DRMed music for the device, or stop trading in our country. This is a ridiculous double-standard.

            • by 7Prime (871679) on Friday January 26 2007, @05:00AM (#17766022) Homepage Journal

              AAC has nothing to do with FairPlay, Apple, or anything else, for that matter. AAC is a completely open format that was meant to replace the MP3 (and should, but old habits die hard), Apple didn't want to use Vorbis because it requires a lot more battery power to encode... and people already bitch about battery life. FairPlay could theoretically be inserted into any number of file formats, it's just that Apple only uses AACs for music transfer.

              So, again, neither of the As in AAC stands for Apple, it's an MP4 compression container file, that Apple bought in to... and most of the other companies are too busy with WMA and MP3 that they haven't bought into it yet. It's like saying that HD-DVD is a Microsoft format... no, it's a Toshiba format, in which Microsoft now uses.

      • Re:Good! (Score:5, Funny)

        by ePhil_One (634771) on Thursday January 25 2007, @09:53PM (#17762786) Journal
        it's because it forces you to use specific hardware.

        You can use the Nano, the Shuffle, the Mini, the Photo, the Video, etc. And not just Apple iPod's, but Hp iPod's too. Not to mention bot PC's and Mac's, which Plays4Sure can't. What is specific about that?

            • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Mr2001 (90979) on Friday January 26 2007, @12:50AM (#17764620) Homepage Journal

              My HP ink cartridge only works in my model of HP printer. Should that also be illegal?
              Yes, it probably should be illegal for HP to make their printers only work with ink cartridges from HP--or at least it should be legal for competing companies to make HP-compatible cartridges.

              Or hitting closer to home on your exampe, the ECU in my Ford only works in a Ford Exporer. So it should be illegal for Ford to sell that ECU? That doesn't make sense.
              No, it doesn't, but that's because you're missing the point.

              What's stopping a competing company from making aftermarket ECUs? Nothing, I suspect. Ford hasn't done anything to stop third parties from making parts that fit in a Ford, nor have they done anything to stop competing auto companies from making cars that accept Ford parts.

              Apple, OTOH, has done exactly that.

              The reality of the situation is that the DRM is not there to prevent competition as its primary purpose. [...] but that the actual primary reason for the DRM is to satisfy the recording industry's conditions for playing ball with Apple.
              If that were true, then Apple would license FairPlay to other music stores and hardware manufacturers, wouldn't they? That's what Microsoft did with PlaysForSure, but Apple has reacted quite fiercely when competitors have tried to get in on FairPlay.

              One purpose of FairPlay is to appease the record company. The other purpose, which is arguably more important, is to enforce lock-in between iPod and iTunes. This promotes the iPod by (1) tying the most popular, best-known music store to a single line of players, and (2) encouraging iPod users to build up a library of songs that will become practically useless if they switch brands, effectively threatening iPod owners to keep buying Apple (except those who get all their music by ripping CDs rather than from iTMS).
      • Re:Good! (Score:5, Funny)

        by Stormwatch (703920) <[rodrigogirao] [at] [hotmail.com]> on Thursday January 25 2007, @10:04PM (#17762924) Homepage
        playsforsure is compatible with all sorts of hardware.
        Except the Zune.
      • by grimJester (890090) on Friday January 26 2007, @12:55AM (#17764650)
        I'm just watching BBC World, where a guy called Torgeir Waterhouse from the Norwegian Consumer Council talks about this. When asked about competitors like Microsoft and the Zune, he said they are all illegal under Norwegian law. They only went after iTunes first because it's largest.
        • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by TheGavster (774657) on Thursday January 25 2007, @10:29PM (#17763176) Homepage
          Norway isn't asking Apple to take extra steps to interoperate with competitors' hardware, they're asking them to take less steps to prevent interoperability. There is a difference between dictating that the music be offered in an arbitrary codec and dictating that the music be offered in a form usable by a player supporting the codec that is used.
            • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

              by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Thursday January 25 2007, @10:34PM (#17763232) Journal
              It's really simple to explain.

              See, they have this nation over there called Norway, bunch of Democratic Socialists, and the people that live there, they have all sorts of gadgets and music distribution networks and formats and whatnot, and they think that it sucks when all these different companies decide to screw the end user and try to make them pay over and over to listen to the same bunch of songs by the same bunch of retired or dead musicians, or force them to buy their hardware upgrade from the same company so they don't lose their music library.

              So they made it illegal to do that to people.

              You can talk all you want about the value of these business relationships and the investments and monopolies till you're blue in the face, but it's really kind of irrelevant. The Norwegians decided that these sorts of arrangements amount to unfair business practices, so unless Apple wants to play by their rules, it appears Apple is free to go peddle their shit somewhere else.
                • Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2007, @12:11AM (#17764262)
                  Norway isn't in the EU.
                • Norway != EU (Score:5, Informative)

                  by theolein (316044) on Friday January 26 2007, @01:58AM (#17765166) Journal
                  Norway isn't in the European Union. I'm pretty sure Apple would lobby pretty strongly to get its way in the EU, but Norway, and the Norwegian market being pretty small, I don't think Apple thinks its worth it, and would rather lose that market.

                  In essence, as a Mac and iPod user, I don't like this, but in principle it should apply to everybody, including Microsoft's Zune, which isn't even compatible with Microsoft's own Plays For Sure brand, and that name is terribly ironic.

                  Still, I don't really care. If I can't listen to music because of DRM, then I'll make my own or go and watch a Bach recital or something (until Microsoft/Sony/RIAA or whatever make playing music in public illegal unless you pay them for it)
          • Re:Good! (Score:4, Informative)

            by Kalriath (849904) on Thursday January 25 2007, @11:04PM (#17763526)
            Correction to this, the Windows Media Rights Manager software is licensed at NO CHARGE to virtually anyone willing to use it. All you need to do is prove who you are to Microsoft (by means of using a code signing certificate to sign a dummy executable) and sign an agreement which pretty much amounts to "don't redistribute the rights manager, and don't do bad things like install spyware using the rights manager's 'Acquire License' feature". The only actual requirement is that they'll only give it to you for use on a Windows 2003 Server (which, incidentally, comes bundled with Windows Media streaming services licensed for use with about 6 billion clients.) And to play WMDRM music, they only charge you $0.10 per unit to incorporate the DRM decrypter into your device (annual maximum $400K)

            Apple wont even allow THAT.
            • Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Mr2001 (90979) on Friday January 26 2007, @01:02AM (#17764732) Homepage Journal

              So what? That tying-down aspect still exists, nevertheless. I guess the only relevant difference here is that the subtlety caused the Norwegian government to overlook it.
              I'm sorry, this is ridiculous. "PlaysForSure compatible hardware" is not a single line of devices. You might as well complain that CDs are unfair because they only play in CD players.

              Everyone else here is capable of noticing the difference between "this song plays on any player from any company, as long as it incorporates technology XYZ (which anyone can license)" and "this song only plays on players from one specific company". If you can't make that distinction, you have my pity, and I hope you're still able to become a functioning member of society despite this handicap.
            • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

              by HAKdragon (193605) <hakdragon AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday January 25 2007, @11:22PM (#17763744)
              It makes me wonder though, is the Zune store illegal in Norway too???

              While I wonder the same thing, the Zune store is currently only available in the US.
              • Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2007, @05:03AM (#17766034)
                Just to sort out a misunderstanding: "Norway Outlaws iTunes"

                The iPod is not banned here in Norway, it is available like any other player on the market. iTunes is also prefectly legal. However, the consumer-alliance has after negotiations with Apple, required that "the locks" will be open by the end of september. Apple have untill the first of march to come with their answer. If they refuse, Norway are "prepared to remove iTunes from the market".

                -kosmonaut
            • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

              by x2A (858210) on Thursday January 25 2007, @11:39PM (#17763922)
              "Hello, thats what DRM is all about"

              Since when?! DRMed CDs, DVDs, HD-DVDs, BluRays... they play on a multitude of different devices, from different companies. Windows doesn't limit what hardware you can run it on, and all the other 3rd party software that only runs on Windows? Well that's the people who write the software's decision.

              Norway has outlawed iTunes because you don't have the choice of what hardware from what company to listen to it on. It's Apples' players only.

              • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

                by kripkenstein (913150) on Friday January 26 2007, @02:17AM (#17765292) Homepage

                Windows doesn't limit what hardware you can run it on, and all the other 3rd party software that only runs on Windows? Well that's the people who write the software's decision.

                Look at it this way: 3rd party software that only runs on Windows is exactly like DRMed music that only runs on iPods - it is the content manufacturer's decision to limit the platform. 3rd party developers could choose to use cross-platform tools; the RIAA could choose to sell music without DRM, that would work on any mp3 player (and actually the latter is much simpler).

                DRM is the RIAA's fault, not Apple's (even if Apple do benefit from it). To see why this is true, consider the case of Norway from TFA: if they require iTunes to 'interoperate' with all mp3 players, or Apple must not do business in Norway, then the simplest way to comply would be to... sell music without DRM. The reason Apple can't do that is the RIAA.
            • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Fordiman (689627) <fordimanNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday January 25 2007, @11:52PM (#17764042) Homepage Journal
              "I mean c'mon Microsoft get a pass for operating systems 90%"

              Really? Since when? Does 'Monopoly Suit' mean 'pass' in your world?

              Hell, most of the developing world is /avoiding/ MS completely, and a number of European and American city governments are in the process of migrating away from them.

              Meanwhile, Apple's 80% market share of iPod/iTunes zombies notwithstanding, it's the only DRM maker that doesn't license out its format. It's not the former that's got Norway up in arms, it's the latter.
                  • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

                    by x2A (858210) on Friday January 26 2007, @01:13AM (#17764824)
                    "How hard would it be for a recording company to copyright all of the hash values for every common LAME/Nero/WinAMP encoding option set?"

                    Impossible. Firstly - do you know how many combinations that is? Just with VBR files, you have each different value for the lower bitrate AND upper bitrate bounds, multiply by each of the quality bias values, multiply by stereo (joint vs seperate) options, multiply by frequency options (44100, 48000)... THEN you could just drop or raise the volume of the whole track by 1%, and get completely different codes for each of those combo's... then 2%... or increase the bass by 1%... in the end, you're probably talking about so many different values, that you'd get hash colisions with a file that isn't that copyrighted material, which would prove the whole system flawed.

                    Secondly - you'd have to publish (in some form or another) all of those codes to show you created them.

                    So no, it's not funny at all that they haven't tried it.

  • by User 956 (568564) on Thursday January 25 2007, @09:41PM (#17762656) Homepage
    haddieman notes that while many people are getting more and more annoyed at DRM, Norway actually did something about it.

    It sounds like they've decided it's either Norway or the Highway.
  • by Dachannien (617929) on Thursday January 25 2007, @09:43PM (#17762672)
    Bah! If I want to play Wii games, I have to buy a Wii. Outlaw the Wii.

    • by Encrypto (1054956) on Thursday January 25 2007, @10:06PM (#17762940)
      There's a solid technical reason why Wii games only run on a Wii. Technical incompatibility of DRM-locked music, however, is a purely artificially imposed barrier to interoperability. It's gratuitous incompatibility.

      Imagine that every car manufacturer operated a chain of gas stations. All cars could run on the same fuel, but every brand of car had a bizarrely shaped fuel intake that would only accept the corresponding bizarrely shaped nozzle. You could only fill up a Toyota at a Toyota gas station, a Ford and a Ford station, etc.

      Further, if you dared to try to create adapter for universal fueling, you'd be thrown in jail and fined tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for violating the laws the big car companies paid politicians all around the world to pass, to protect there little lock-in schemes.

      You could either go along with such BS, and happily sing the tune the car companies want you to sing ("If you don't like it, you can don't have to buy a car! No one's forcing you! Just by a bicycle and shut up already!"), or you could cheer along the efforts to end protected for deliberately imposed incompatibility and improve things for consumers instead.
      • by AusIV (950840) on Thursday January 25 2007, @10:25PM (#17763130)
        The argument could be made that if Nintendo would just license the right specifications, other companies could build consoles that play Wii games. My computer for instance would probably be capable of emulating the Wii architecture, but if someone created and distributed a Wii emulator, they would certainly get a DMCA takedown notice, and likely face a law suit. While I don't feel your argument of Wii games only running on Wiis is completely valid, I agree with the rest of your analogy.

        The thing that irritates me the most about DRM is that it's illegal to circumvent. I have no problem with companies choosing to use DRM, and I have no problem with companies pursuing pirates in court. But when the DRM limits legitimate uses of the media and customers are stripping the DRM solely so they can use it on another platform, I have a problem with legal action being taken against them. Granted, if the DMCA didn't protect DRM there would be commercial investments dedicated to fighting DRM and it wouldn't last long at all, but I still don't feel consumers ought to have to worry about using their media the way they want to.

  • Oblig (Score:3, Funny)

    by mastershake_phd (1050150) on Thursday January 25 2007, @09:43PM (#17762674) Homepage
    If iTunes is illegal, only criminals with have iTunes.
  • by dogbrt (913020) on Thursday January 25 2007, @09:45PM (#17762696)
    Kenya Kenya Kenyaaaaa....
  • Heads exploding (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris@beDEGASau.org minus painter> on Thursday January 25 2007, @09:57PM (#17762836) Homepage
    Gaaa!

    Norway == socialists == doubleplus good

    DRM == doubleplus ungood

    iTunes == Apple == doubleplus good

    Norway outlaws iTunes? What is a good gay socialist Mac user going to do? What is the right side to be on?

    Ok, trolling is fun and all, but seriously.

    I think it's a load. People have the right to be stupid. Without that as Right 0 no other "Right" can be read as anything other than "You have the Right to ____ unless we, the anointed elite, think decide your exercise of it is dumb." It's why the 1st Amendment is safe so long as -both- Noam Chomsky and StormFront were free to rant and rave but didn't survive John McCain & Russ Feingold.

    I'd never buy from the iTunes store because I think the deal offered is one sided, shortsighted and stupid. But I'll defend Steve's Right to try to sell it and your Right to freely enter into a license agreement with him.
  • by Albanach (527650) on Thursday January 25 2007, @10:04PM (#17762928) Homepage
    It's not so much that you need an iPod to enjoy your itunes purchases, but that you are locked into future hardware purchases from Apple

    If you buy many albums from the iTunes sture you can enjoy them and all is rosy. Then two years later the battery on your iPod has died, so you look at what's available. You think there are some nice offerings from creative or sandisk but, trouble is, you can't listen to any of your existing purchases. Your locked to Apple.

    It's well boyond time that other players were allowed to license Fairplay, and that other music providers be allowed to sell Fairplay encoded tracks.
      • by Albanach (527650) on Thursday January 25 2007, @11:24PM (#17763762) Homepage
        And if plays for sure had the market share that iTunes has, I'm sure they would be the target of this.

        The thing is they don't. Apple might not be used to being in a controlling or dominant position in a market, but they sure as heck better get used to it.

        Microsoft do license plays for sure and may indeed be forced to license their new codec as a result of legislation similar to this.

        For those that suggest you can reript to another lossy codec, or burn to CD - if microsoft had 90% of the downloaded music market and suggested you do that, you'd be up in arms. Just because it's apple doesn't mean they can do no wrong.
  • by AutumnLeaf (50333) on Thursday January 25 2007, @10:06PM (#17762958)
    What I found interesting about this article is that it seems to advocate one choice is better than no choice, and implies Norway is harming its citizens and consumers by depriving them of a monopoly.

    This tends to be the self serving argument monopolists use when justifying their actions. "By enhancing the user experience by bundling a product the user experience is enhanced. Depriving them of our monopolistic business model harms them."

    In my view, choice is never bad. Competition is good. Apple won their market share by out-innovating the rest of the pack. But history is full of examples of the stagnation occurs once a market is consolidated. So I think other players should be allowed to work with iTunes.
  • by JonasH (183422) on Thursday January 25 2007, @10:49PM (#17763388) Homepage
    This headline (and the one at PC World) is quite misleading. Norway has not outlawed ITMS. It has simply been found that ITMS is not following the law in Norway. This means that ITMS has always been illegal. You can blame Apple for not checking the law in the market they were entering (or checking, but deciding that the law doesn't apply to them).

    Consumer protection laws can sometimes be a big pill for corporations to swallow, but if Norway is anything like Denmark, which is quite likely, they usually end up having to follow the rules, rather than getting the rules changed to suit them.
  • Next on the block... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sethstorm (512897) * on Thursday January 25 2007, @10:51PM (#17763412) Homepage
    It'd be a longshot, but maybe they could extend that to their practices regarding OS X and their hardware? Repackaging it in a desired format with spare parts gets you in trouble these days if you sell it, much less the hardware binding. They'd not need to ban OS X, just remove the restrictions on interoperability and hardware use.

    Of course, fanboi's will come far and wide to dispute this- but not all of us like their products in "Ivory Tower" white as a majority, in non-ATX forms, or even the architecture they bless. I'll take a clone or a custom built machine, and run whatever, however - economics be damned.

    Hopefully at least the iTMS ban holds up and works.
  • by I'm Don Giovanni (598558) on Friday January 26 2007, @04:09AM (#17765814)
    According to the above posts, Norway is pissed that iTMS's DRM locks you into Apple hardware, and is therefore illegal (nevermind that iTMS songs do play on any Mac and Windows computer via the iTunes app).

    But what about video game consoles? If one wants to play "Gears of War", one is locked into Microsoft's Xbox 360 hardware. Same for any console wrt games exclusive to that console. Is Norway going to outlaw video game consoles as well?
    • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Thursday January 25 2007, @09:55PM (#17762816)
      But is Norway violating users rights by not letting them use DRM?

      "Not letting them use DRM" would be a Hell of a lot better than what Norway's actually doing, which is giving Microsoft's "PlaysForSure" DRM (which is just as proprietary!) preferential treatment.

        • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Thursday January 25 2007, @10:10PM (#17762998)
          It's not preferential. Other companies can make products that interoperate with PlaysForSure.

          Really? Then show me where I can get a software player not made by Microsoft capable of playing PlaysForSure Media! In particular, show me where I can get one that works on operating systems other than Windows!

          Just because some companies are in compliance with proposed new regulations and some aren't doesn't mean that making new regulations is "unfair".

          The only "fair" regulations would be ones that outlaw DRM entirely. To do what they've actually done -- especially when done in the name of "protecting consumers" -- is a farce!

          • by DogDude (805747) on Thursday January 25 2007, @10:45PM (#17763338) Homepage
            Really? Then show me where I can get a software player not made by Microsoft capable of playing PlaysForSure Media! In particular, show me where I can get one that works on operating systems other than Windows!

            My Sansa connects to Winamp because of Playsforsure.
          • by EXMSFT (935404) on Thursday January 25 2007, @11:03PM (#17763508)
            Umm... Until the ill-fated Zune (my, isn't THAT cynical of me), Microsoft never made their own music player. So I have no idea where you got you're info, but it's quite incorrect.

            It's not a farce. They're pushing to enforce consumer choice. Isn't that what the /. minions were crying about just a few years ago in US v. MSFT?
            • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Thursday January 25 2007, @11:24PM (#17763764)

              Microsoft never made their own music player. So I have no idea where you got you're info, but it's quite incorrect.

              Go re-read my post, and you'll see you missed the keyword: "software." I'm not complaining about the Zune, I'm complaining that I can't legally write myself an alternative to Windows Media Player that works on Linux and plays "PlaysForSure" media!

              It's not a farce. They're pushing to enforce consumer choice.

              The only way to actually do that effectively is to outlaw DRM entirely, because DRM is inherently antithetical to choice.

          • by MojoStan (776183) on Friday January 26 2007, @12:08AM (#17764232)

            It's not preferential. Other companies can make products that interoperate with PlaysForSure.
            Really? Then show me where I can get a software player not made by Microsoft capable of playing PlaysForSure Media!

            In particular, show me where I can get one that works on operating systems other than Windows!
            I don't think one exists, but I don't know if software companies are prohibited from obtaining PlaysForSure licenses for software players on other operating systems. Nullsoft, MusicMatch, and Amazon could obtain PlaysForeSure licenses for their Windows software. I have seen no evidence that Flip4Mac has been prohibited from obtaining a PlaysForSure license for their Windows Media Components for QuickTime [flip4mac.com].

            In contrast, other software companies are prohibited from licensing FairPlay. Some companies want to license FairPlay so that their software can play iTunes Store media, but Apple refuses to license their DRM.

            That said, I'm not sure if I agree with Norway's decision to ban FairPlay. This might be excessive regulation.

    • Re:And... (Score:5, Informative)

      by eebra82 (907996) on Thursday January 25 2007, @10:01PM (#17762888) Homepage
      I don't like that comparison. For starters, Gillette don't have much of a choice since there is no standard format for razer blades. In addition, there are replicated blades available on the market for a lower price. iTunes, on the other hand, uses common software but has intentional limitations set to it.

      Also, when you are in a dominant position as an online music store, you kind of have advantages over all of the competition, so what they're doing is more related to what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer.

      Last but not least, you must remember that newly formed laws on computer software cannot be compared to the laws of items.
    • Re:Oh, F'ing please (Score:5, Informative)

      by mrchaotica (681592) * on Thursday January 25 2007, @10:42PM (#17763306)

      1. Buy song on iTunes
      2. Menu: Advanced => Convert selection to .mp3

      I'm sorry, this is only a problem for morons.

      Obviously I must be a moron then, because when I tried that this message popped up:

      "Doctor My Eyes" could not be converted because protected files cannot be converted to other formats.
    • by I'm Don Giovanni (598558) on Friday January 26 2007, @01:35AM (#17765014)
      Vista's "SUPER DRM" doesn't lock you into any particular hardware. That DRM is required for HD-DVD and BR playback, but any HD-DVD and BR player as well as OSX Leopard also implement that same DRM and can therefore play those discs. So there's no hardware lockin, unlike with iTMS DRM'ed songs, which only play on Apple's hardware as far as portable players are concerned.

      (If you widen your view beyond portable players, then iTMS isn't *that* locked in since iTMS songs do play on regular Macs and Windows computers via the iTunes app).