EU Countries Call Out iTunes DRM 457
seriouslywtf writes "Europe is upping the pressure on Apple to open up its restrictive DRM that ties iTunes to the iPod. Norway ruled last year that the iPod-iTunes tie-in was unreasonable and gave Apple a deadline to make a change to its policies, but was unsatisfied with the response they got. Now France and Germany have joined forces with Norway, making it a lot harder for Apple to just walk away from those markets. From the article: 'France's consumer lobby group, UFC-Que Choisir, and Germany's Verbraucherzentrale are now part of the European effort to push Apple into an open DRM system, with more countries considering joining the group. However, the company has been under some fire over the last year due to those restrictions, first with France and then Denmark looking to open up restrictive DRM schemes (including, but not limited to iTunes) ... Norwegian consumer groups were unimpressed by Apple's response. Norway has now given Apple a new deadline of September of this year to change its policies, and the pressure on Apple will likely grow in the months leading up to the deadline.'"
Priorities (Score:2, Insightful)
Bout time. (Score:4, Insightful)
But in the US, we get the "PERFORM Act" (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this a great country, or what?
Sigh.
-S
Why Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, no user is actually tied - just burn a playlist on to a CD and copy the MP3's to any device.
Should Wallmart be forced to allow K-Mart to sell goods via the Wallmart checkout systems?
"Open DRM" is a contradiction in terms (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong solution (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM, by definition, causes vendor lock-in. If DRM schemes were licensed under a fair and non-discriminatory policy then they would not work, because anyone who wanted to get around them would be able to get the specification. You could even legally create an open source application which did all of the rights checking inside #ifdefs so if someone defined the IGNORE_DRM symbol then they could compile a version that decrypted the DRM'd content but didn't apply any restrictions. This wouldn't even be illegal, since they would be distributing the version that respected the DRM and end users would be applying the modification.
The correct solution, then, is not for lawmakers to go after Apple, but for them to go after DRM in general. Except on books [pingwales.co.uk], where it makes perfect sense.
Does this even make sense? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No Pressure At All (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WHy is this a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fair Use; get it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Summary without the hyperbole (Score:1, Insightful)
The government of Norway is still not satisfied iTunes DRM, and has given Apple until September to change iTunes. Also, consumer advocacy groups in France and Germany are pushing for Apple to change the iTunes DRM.
So one EU government (out of 27), has issued an ultimatum to Apple. Consumer lobby groups in two other EU nations are also advocating against iTunes DRM.
Re:So, they want to get rid of iTunes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That easily takes 15 minutes per cd (burning and ripping), and results in quality loss (as 128kbit AAC is good enough, but re-ripping to another format is a bit much).
The time aspect alone makes this route prohibitive...
Re:Wrong solution (Score:3, Insightful)
I figure in some random interval unit of time (5 years, maybe?) someone will come along and successfully dethrone the iPod as the default MP3 player. When this happens, consumers are going to be in for a bit of a shock when they realize that none of their AAC files will play (out-of-the-box, anyway) on their shiny new non-iPod player. The same will happen for people who buy Zunes.
And when that happens, the market is going to decide very strongly against DRM, either by switching to a non-encumbered or less boneheadedly-implemented service or, if none exists, by going back to buying everything on CD. (The music industry is not going to be able to kill the CD anytime soon.)
As far as I'm concerned, rulings like this one against Apple mostly serve to enshrine DRM as it's currently being handled, which I fear means that we'll end up stuck with this annoying control-freak DRM model.
Simple solution: Decriminalize breaking the DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of forcing Apple/et al to open up their standards, simply make it legal to break that very DRM if it isn't open. You will very quickly see applications for sale to do it (come out from the shadows) and the Apples of the world will be motivated to change to an open standard.
mhhmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
i fail to see how this should warrant forcing apple to license fairplay or allow the ipod to play wma-drm files. there are plenty of options out there, apple does bully the market. it is certainly not their fault that nobody has come up with a competitive music store and/or player that people want. if they pulled a microsoft and started telling the labels that they can only sell through itunes, that would be a totally different story.
Re:So, they want to get rid of iTunes? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it.... (Score:1, Insightful)
if you don't like our laws, nothing forces you to sell on our market.
I'm getting tired of all these whining on "you're jealous of our success" (which is by the way not yours, as American, but apple's), "don't buy it if you don't like it" and so on.
The beginning argument, "don't buy it if you don't like it" is as stupid as "if you're innocent, you've nothing to hide, so let us search your home".
In Europe, we make efforts to protect the consumer/citizen. As a consumer, I like this spirit. (However, I agree, sometime, we totally miss it)
Re:Is the "lock in" really that strong? (Score:3, Insightful)
9. Purchase of Apple Content
b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following Usage Rules, and you agree to use Products in compliance with such Usage Rules.
Usage Rules
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
That is clearly a 'no getting around the DRM' clause. Are you suggesting that all users of the iTunes store should commit an illegal act to relieve Apple of the burden of illegally abusing their iPod monopoly?
The point is - music you buy from iTunes is only playable on either your computer (a limited number, to boot) or an iPod (admittedly unlimited). The European courts look unfavourably on any kind of lock-in, and they want iTunes music to be playable on any device, legally, because you bought it, and Apple are denying you the right as a consumer to use it how you like.
There is no way you should be forced to spend upwards of 200 dollars to use something you spent 99 cents on.
It's amazing really - the bulk of these comments are "Why should Apple let you play iTunes music on any other player", when almost exactly the same people have been saying "Microsoft have to give their full Windows API to EVERYONE otherwise it's monopoly abuse". Why shouldn't Apple have to a) give out how they code their DRM to allow others to make DRM music that is compatible, and b) give out their DRM specs so manufacturers can code their MP3 firmware to be able to play iTunes music?
I love a good bout of hypocrisy.
Re:So, they want to get rid of iTunes? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are devices that can play iTunes DRM-coded songs that Apple don't make? Last I heard Apple were suing anyone who tried to get non-iPods to play iTMS music, and iPods to play non-iTMS (DRMed) content?
An honest complaint? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But in the US, we get the "PERFORM Act" (Score:5, Insightful)
They are? It sounds to me like they are just trying to make digital music player makers, distributors, etc. license each others' DRM schemes to increase DRM interoperability. If they were saying that "DRM is unfair to the people", they could just ban it. That would also address both of their complaints (iTunes songs don't play on non-iPods, iPods don't play DRM-encumbered songs bought elsewhere) as people would use the MP3 format for songs, and it plays on everything.
Re:I don't get it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, there's a different between iTMS and my printer: if I can't get ink-cartridges, my printer ceases to be useful. If I can't get iTMS songs for my iPod and iTunes, I still have my vast library of already-purchased music *and* I can use that old standby method that has supplied almost all of that music already: buy the damn CD and rip it. So really, Apple is comparatively clean in this behavior. Again, I would love to see them drop the DRM, assuming it's even up to them, but I can't get upset at Apple specifically when so many other companies pull much worse crap in this same vein and aren't ever targeted by politicians.
Re:I don't get it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a good reason why screws are and drill bits are available in different sizes. Some jobs warrant larger screws (shelves that carry more weight, etc.)
Typically the user will decide the size required and drill a hole and buy a screw to match. The user _wants_ differing sizes sometimes.
Now, what is the reason I would _want_ to pay for some music that only works on a subset of playback machines? Or want to pay for a music player that didn't play any of my existing collection?
The people making screws in different sizes are not deliberately limiting what the user can do with them. It's the nature of them that creates a limit. Conversely, the nature of digital data is that it can easily be copied to other devices. It takes interference from the manufacturer to create artificial limitations. This is where the problems lies.
Re:WHy is this a problem? (Score:1, Insightful)
Somewhere, the spirit of P.T. Barnum has a big grin on his face.
Re:Apply to one, apply to all (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But in the US, we get the "PERFORM Act" (Score:5, Insightful)
In which get right means what? To be even more restrictive? Do you see that or you just have a lot of good faith in the companies and lobbies pushing for DRM?
Enjoy it, and pray for the next DRM schemes not to be much worse. Personally, I'd rather have a government which cleans garbage which is bad for the consumers off of the market.
Re:Is the "lock in" really that strong? (Score:3, Insightful)
1 a : to hem in b : to make a circuit around
2 : to manage to get around especially by ingenuity or stratagem
Just because Apple haven't asked you to stop, doesn't mean it's not illegal. It's also not illegal because of state/federal/European law regarding personal copies - you agreed to terms and conditions when you bought the music and if you fail to follow them youYou have circumvented copy protection - if you perform the actions you outline, you end up with a close to exact copy of what you had before yet without any copy protection. That seems pretty textbook to me.
Let's just say for a brief moment that you might be right: if the circumvention is that 'trivial', and it's not illegal, and Apple don't have a problem with it, then why are they taking every measure possible to avoid providing information about their DRM to their rivals? Surely if circumvention is trivial and Apple don't care, where is the issue with providing documentation to rivals for their DRM?
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many arguements below that make the case that you have the RIGHT to buy music without restriction and that the music companies MUST sell it that way. My questions is, why? They own the rights to the product, they have the right to dictate how they want to sell it. The only real right you have is to NOT buy it.
If you want the laws changed to that you have the explicit RIGHT to platform shift, get the law changed. Like it or not, according to the DCMA, there are cases where you don't have that right.
If you want music that is unencumbered by DRM, buy it from somewhere that sells it that way. Buy CDs that don't have copy protection, if you stumble on one that does, return it as defective.
Re:But in the US, we get the "PERFORM Act" (Score:3, Insightful)
The Europeans want Apple to make its DRM more widely available. Who wants DRM? Not consumers. What consumer says "ohh, I love DRM, give me more of that"? Nobody. At best consumers tolerate DRM.
DRM is there because record labels want it. The Europeans want it to be easier for labels to use DRM. How is that pro-consumer?
As for the whole lock-in argument, I don't buy it. Apple does not lock anybody in to the iPod. If you don't want DRM files, don't buy them. Buy a CD or go to eMusic or Magnatune or any other place that sells DRM free music. The labels whine that they don't have a broad-based DRM system. That's the labels' problem, not Apple. If the labels want a Master DRM System, then they need to partner up with somebody who will offer that. Oh wait, they tried that with MS. Didn't work.
Or the labels need to forget DRM and start selling DRM free files. It's not Apple's fault that the labels are scared to sell DRM free files.
The way I see it, the Europeans legislators have been just as bought off as the American legislators. "Open DRM system," pro-consumer? Ha.
because it's a SAMPLE! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Translation: (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm as strong proponent of liberalism as you can get, but even Adam Smith realized that liberalism is not a good in itself, but because it serves the interest of the whole, and that market forces sometimes cannot deal with an absence of competition (i.e. a monopoly). Remember, the key point in liberalism is not market forces, but competition
Having said that...
I agree that in that case, Apple should be left alone. Why?
Not because I kinda like Apple and own a mac, not because I think the whole iPod/iTMS thing is actually consumer software engineering as it should be (reliable, easy, does what you want), not because FairPlay is the least bad of the DRM systems (even though it doesn't run on Linux, and, hey!, it's still DRM cr*p), not because I think Apple is not charging more for iPods than they would in a real market (they are).
Simply because Apple's superdominant position is the only thing in that market that's keeping the MAFIAA in check. If you were to try to improve the deal in favor of the consumer by forcing Apple to license its DRM, you would put the MAFIAA back in the driving seat, and that would be even worse for the consumer (which those organisations are supposed to defend). As it is, the labels seems to be realizing that the only way to undermine Apple is to sell plain mp3, and if/when that happens, it will solve the whole mess.
Those guys should really start piling pressure on the labels instead.
eMusic Subscriptions (Score:2, Insightful)
And that part is really good (the fact you keep the music forever). Still, I found the subscription to be tiresome. I don't buy music every month. I tend to buy 5CDs one month, and then none for the next two months. I don't like the fact that eMusic is basically pushing me into the same type of contract I hate having with my cellphone provider.
If they went back to unlimited downloads for a monthly fee, I might consider it. If they went à la carte, I might consider it. What they have now doesn't fit my needs enough.
Protectionism (Score:3, Insightful)
This action is more about protectionism, and scoring a few cheap political points with the anti-American populous by going after a visible U.S. corporation, than about protecting consumers. If the E.U. really wanted to protect consumers, they would simply ban all DRM, and the problem would be solved! Of course, then they would piss off big European media companies like Vivendi, who are looking to create a DRMed locked-in European digital music monopoly.
Re:So, they want to get rid of iTunes? (Score:3, Insightful)
eMusic carries what they can. If you're upset you can't find your favorite artist on eMusic, the culprit is 90% of the time going to be the label the artist is on doesn't want eMusic to sell the songs due to lack of DRM.
It's getting really old hearing people bitch about how eMusic has no good music, like they're the ones responsible for that. You can't have lots of Top-40/Major Label artists and no DRM at the same time. Pick one or the other. Because it's going to be awhile, if ever, before you can have both.
The sound quality of samples vary, but usually the samples average 160-256kbps. You then say iTunes quality is better, yet the bitrate is only 128kbps. Don't bother arguing about the AAC vs MP3 thing. I agree AAC is better quality. But if you think 128k AAC is better than 200k MP3 I have a bridge in the East I'd like to sell you.
One thing that I don't like is the samples are encoded a different bitrate than the songs themselves. But since, overall, the average bitrate for songs is 180-220kbps VBR, I'm not too worried about getting a lousy song after a good preview. Albums encoded at 128kbps are marked on the album page, as well as albums where not all tracks available for download.
Probably because you are not the type of consumer who likes subscription models, you should go to Audiolunchbox instead. You can buy per-track there, although individual credits are sold in packs. But the catalogs are pretty much the same, and a subscription is not required.
Re:What nonsense! (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course I have been to Europe. And I have never actually watched Fox News except for YouTube clips. But of course, in your mind everyone who disagrees with the utter unquestionable moral superiority and infailability of lily white European socialism must be some stereotypical redneck of your imagination.
Europe is NOT full of monopolies because the EU actively fights against them (example: Microsoft) and all other kinds of trade barriers within the EU.
Or rather, Europe fights against foreign monopolies (example: Microsoft). But that isn't progressive, every place is keen to punish foreign competition in order to give advantage to its own companies. But I don't see it fighting against France Telecom, or Lufthansa, or huge media conglomerates like Vivendi. Look at the downright nasty things Airbus has done to force countries into purchasing Airbus planes (like threatening to vote against full E.U. membership to countries who don't purchase Airbus planes... or making disaster relief funds for tsunami stricken countries contingent on purchasing Airbus planes). The E.U. can be outright predatory when it comes to promoting its own interests.
Of course the E.U. cracked down on Microsoft. They are a visible U.S. company, Europe would like a big piece of that cash pie, and so it promotes E.U. self-interest while scoring cheap points on the anti-American front. Protecting the consumers has nothing to do with it.
The BBC and many other national public broadcasters are NOT monopolies because there is plenty of competition!
And Microsoft isn't really a monopoly either. You can choose MacOS, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc., etc.. Microsoft was accused of competing "unfairly". Well, if forcing all people who own a TV to pay a licensing fee for a television station they may or may not choose to watch is not unfair competition, I don't know what is. Could you imagine if every computer was forced to purchase a Microsoft license, regardless if you decide to run Microsoft products or not? It would be considered scandalous!
This happens to be the case in Norway as well - for reasons of protecting our language from the massive English influence on the commercial TV-stations.
Or rather, behavior that is considered right-wing xenophobia in North America is considered perfectly reasonable in Norway (at least, that is the impression I gather from your statement). If someone would be proposing the same sorts of "language protection" in the U.S., they would be considered more along the lines of David Duke or Jean-Marie Le Pen.
And as far as Norway is concerned this is about Norwegian consumer protection laws that far better than anything the US has ever seen - they actually protect the consumer! Think democractic socialism where consumers actually have rights.
U.S. consumer protection laws don't have any bearing on the legitimacy of European consumer protection laws. In both places, the consumer protection laws seem to be designed around giving the power-elites more power - With the power elites in Europe being the government autocrat variety, and the power elites in the U.S. being the big business variety. In both places I am highly skeptical of them actually protecting the consumer.
The only thing that protects the consumer are consumers. When the government "protects" the consumer, it turns into a rent seeking scheme where companies bribe politicians in order to avoid government crackdown, and those who remain honest and don't bribe politicians are the ones most likely to suffer. If the E.U. was really concerned about protecting its citizens, it would ban DRM outright - That would be a completely political/national/economicly neutral and universal way to make sure the customer would be protected from lock-in.
Norway is a great friend of the US - and loves America! The population has nothing but great respect for the US.
Norway isn't a frien
Re:What nonsense! (Score:1, Insightful)
The cost of the penalty in anti-trust trials is insignificant compared to the cost of the prosecution - it's not something countries do to make money.
I hate DRM but .... (Score:2, Insightful)
Log story short, this drm lock is chosen by the customers because they see a perceived benefit in it. Its just the same as going the windows or the OSX route - they get a locked down system and they use it because they like it better than a open or free system. If any, the governments should be targeting to change the mindset of the people. The boycotts should be called by the actual users. Anything else is against the rules of the open market.
BTW, the whole issue reminds me of the binary modules in the linux kernel episode.
For the record I haven't bought a single DRMed file and won't for the rest of my life. But I stand by apple here, they built the ecosystem and they should get to choose the rules by which they operate it. Its the same with Microsoft's monopoly, and I don't see any government asking them to open up the windows source.