Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media (Apple) Media Music Government The Courts News

iTunes User Sues Apple Over Lock-In 975

Posted by michael from the good-luck-you'll-need-it dept.
GregChant writes "It seems like Apple can also be at the receiving end of a lawsuit, too: Californian Thomas Slattery filed suit against Apple because 'Apple has turned an open and interactive standard into an artifice that prevents consumers from using the portable hard drive digital music player of their choice'. With over 200 million songs sold, and Apple controlling over 80% of the hard drive digital audio player market, is this just a case of someone just trying to cash in on Apple's success? Or is this genuinely an issue of buyer lock-in and monopolistic practices?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iTunes User Sues Apple Over Lock-In More

iTunes User Sues Apple Over Lock-In

Comments Filter:

  • Bogus (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Thursday January 06, 2005 @11:16AM (#11275382) Homepage Journal
    Bogus. One has to wonder if this is an effort by some company to force Apple to open up the iPod without having to pay Apple to license it like HP has. Somebody somewhere is always trying to get something for free.

    The reality is that Apple has placed copy protection on the songs sold through the iTMS as the mandate of the record industry just as Napster and Microsoft has with their music formats. If you will remember, iTunes came out before the iTMS and any songs sold through the iTMS. Therefore, if you obtain your music somewhere else other than the iTMS, if you chose to use iTunes (nothing that says you have to use iTunes either) you can use any portable hard drive music source that runs OS X or Windows. There is nothing saying that you cannot do this on any device you can find that will runs those alternatives. Apple is not forcing anybody to purchase songs from the iTMS. Quite the contrary, they have made iTunes flexible enough that it can play .mp3, AIFF, WAV, MPEG-4 and AAC along with an Apple lossless format.

    • Re:Bogus (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Thursday January 06, 2005 @11:19AM (#11275442) Homepage Journal
      Oh, and of course the other obvious alternative this guy could choose is to burn the songs he purchases to CD and then get any bloody portable CD player he wants to play his songs (even those purchase through the iTMS).

      • Re:Bogus (Score:3, Informative)

        by Alzheimers ( 467217 )
        Oh, and of course the other obvious alternative this guy could choose is to burn the songs he purchases to CD and then... ..rip the newly made CD into a more widely compatible digital format, such as MP3, then get any bloody Digital portable he wants to play his songs...

    • Re:Bogus (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The reality is that Apple has placed copy protection on the songs sold through the iTMS as the mandate of the record industry just as Napster and Microsoft has with their music formats.

      Indeed. However, even if the RIAA didn't require DRM, Apple would still be pushing DRM [eff.org]. From the EFF:

      On a panel a few weeks ago, I asked the head lawyer for Apple's iTunes Music Store whether Apple would, if it could, drop the FairPlay DRM from tracks purchased at the Music Store. He said "no." I was puzzled, because I assu

      • Apple's idea of DRM (Score:5, Insightful)

        by aphor ( 99965 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @12:11PM (#11276238) Journal

        What nobody seems to realize is that Apple wants to take on the role of 'the [music/show/media] business' by providing next generation tools and services to link artists with consumers. They BELIEVE in DRM, but they believe they can mediate the degree and kind of DRM better than the music/film giants.

        If you look at how the puzzle is taking shape, an artist will be able to create art using Apple tools (Garage Band to Logic), market them using Apple services (iTMS), and sell them to Apple customers (which is just about EVERYONE when it comes to music and iPods). This is all planned to be COMPLETELY independent from the music industry. What works for music now will work for video later. Apple is a product development company via VERTICAL INTEGRATION. They find basic components that aren't being fully exploited (like DSPs), and they cobble together whatever else is available to force that component to serve user experience in (hopefully) some life-altering way. That is what "Insanely Great" means to Apple in practical terms.

        DRM is a tool to incite artists to want to put their work out through iTMS instead of the traditional routes.

      • Re:Bogus (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Octagon Most ( 522688 )
        "I assumed that the DRM obligation was imposed by the major labels on a grudging Apple."

        There's no grudging involved. It's a business relationship. And in a business relationship it is not beneficial to say, We would screw over the other party in a second if we could. Apple should not say that they would love to remove all DRM since that would place them in an antagonistic position with the record labels they have to rely on for content. I suspect they would indeed eliminate the DRM if they could sinc

    • Re:Bogus (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 06, 2005 @11:29AM (#11275600)
      Contrast

      "Apple has unlawfully bundled, tied, and/or leveraged its monopoly in the market for the sale of legal online digital music recordings to thwart competition in the separate market for portable hard drive digital music players, and vice-versa," the lawsuit said.


      with

      "Microsoft has unlawfully bundled, tied, and/or leveraged its monopoly in the market for the sale of operating systems to thwart competition in the separate market for Internet browsers, and vice-versa," the lawsuit said.


      or

      "Microsoft has unlawfully bundled, tied, and/or leveraged its monopoly in the market for the sale of operating systems to thwart competition in the separate market for media players, and vice-versa," the lawsuit said.

      • Re:Bogus (Score:3, Funny)

        by j.bellone ( 684938 )

        But you need to remember that Apple are the good guys; Microsoft is the devil. That's how Slashdot is run.

      • Re:Bogus (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rabbit994 ( 686936 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @12:35PM (#11276635)
        What really got microsoft screwed was you couldn't remove their built in shit. You can with apple. Don't like iTunes, Put it in the trash, BAM GONE. Don't like Safari, put it in the trash, BAM GONE. Want to use Firefox? Download and be on your way If you don't like apple stuff, you can always replace it with your own and get rid of theirs. (Though their built in stuff is 100x better then microsoft which is why most people end up using the built in stuff and don't replace it)
      • Did the on-line digital music market exist, significantly, before apple created it? um no. Did apples dominance of the digital download market make the ipod popular. No the reverse.

        apple entered two different markets and rose to dominance in both. They did not levergae a monoloply in one market to gain in another.

        moreover it's dubious they have a monopoly. It all depends upon how you define the market. Does apple have a monopoly on digital music players. No, if you consider CD players. Does apple h

      • Re:Bogus (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jo_ham ( 604554 )
        Apple is not a monopoly in the online music business or the mp3/aac player market.

        Sure, they have a giant market share, but they are not a monopoly.

        That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    • Re:Bogus (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @12:17PM (#11276339) Homepage Journal
      You have got the completely the wrong end of the stick. All the points you make are true, but not relevant, since the plaintiff isn't complaining about iTunes/iPod locking you into iTMS (which it doesn't), he's complaining about iTMS locking you into iTunes/iPod.

      The BBC coverage of the story [bbc.co.uk] makes the distinction clearer.

      The essence of the complaint is that once you have bought music from iTMS, you can't play it back on normal MP3 players, only on an iPod. The allegation is that this is illegally extending Apple's monopoly of selling downloads into a monopoly on portable music players, not the other way round.

      • Re:Bogus (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dr.badass ( 25287 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:23PM (#11281620) Homepage
        The essence of the complaint is that once you have bought music from iTMS, you can't play it back on normal MP3 players, only on an iPod.

        This is, of course, stupid, as you already know this when you buy music from iTMS in the first place. Just as you would know that software you buy for a Mac won't run on a PC.

        If you think of iTunes' m4p files as software, I think this is pretty clear. If you think of them as "music", then it's hard to see how Apple has a monopoly, as they don't have exclusive rights to the majority of what they sell.

        If "music" is the product, you can buy it elsewhere (and elsewhere online), but if "music for iTunes & iPods" is what they're selling, and I think it's always been pretty clear that this is the case, then it isn't an open market, and they have no reason to make it into one.

    • Re:Bogus (Score:4, Interesting)

      by AstroDrabb ( 534369 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @12:55PM (#11276944)
      One has to wonder if this is an effort by some company to force Apple to open up the iPod without having to pay Apple to license it like HP has. Somebody somewhere is always trying to get something for free.
      But the thing is, is that Apple will not license FairPlay. They didn't license FairPlay to HP so that HP could use it in their _own_ players. Apple just allowed HP to re-sell iPods. There is a huge difference.

      If Apple would just license FairPlay, people/companies wouldn't be complaining. As it is now, Apple wants to keep FairPlay locked up to lock customers into the iPod and iTMS. I really don't see how this is any different that what MS does that gets all the Apple fans screaming against MS.

      • iTMS = optional (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MattHaffner ( 101554 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @02:44PM (#11278491)
        If Apple would just license FairPlay, people/companies wouldn't be complaining.

        No argument here. But I don't think all the complaining is "fair". Some is. Some is just sour grapes. Tough luck for now, I seyz.

        As it is now, Apple wants to keep FairPlay locked up to lock customers into the iPod and iTMS. I really don't see how this is any different that what MS does that gets all the Apple fans screaming against MS.

        The iTMS is an optional service offered to users of iTunes and/or iPod. That's it. Users of iTunes and/or iPod have a myriad of non-Apple ways to load music into the app and/or device.

        If you want full control over your digitally downloaded media, you'd better go knock on the RIAA and MPAA's doors, not Apple's. It's been well documented that Jobs brought the music industry to this point kicking and screaming. Requiring Apple to police the use of their DRM iTMS files on every 3rd-party device is asking way too much (at least for now, likely). What happens if a licensee of FairPlay slips up and allows the DRM to be more easily defeated that it is now? What happens if they do it deliberately?

        You'll have to cite a similar MS situation that we non-MS users have yelled and screamed about. I can think of many non-similar situations:

        * Marketing a supposedly "compatible" office suite on another platform when said company is in full control of the closed document standard and having it not be 100% compatible. They certainly work better together now, but the damage was done long ago when they didn't so well. Should we fault them? Maybe not as a money-making company. But Apple offers no deception about how you can get music on your iPod and what the optional iTMS works with (and doesn't).

        * Leveraging OS dominance in the browser wars coupled with poor standards adherence. This would have never been a big issue if they would have bothered making IE feature compatible cross-platform or make it render emerging standards *well*. They didn't. Should they have? Well, this year certainly will tell with Firefox on the rise. Compare to iTunes. Apple made them *identical* on both platforms. iPod works *identical* on both platforms. If people switch to Apple machines because of using iTunes and iPod, it's not because of enhanced features or performance on OS X vs. Windows.

        * There are plenty of other examples where the dominance of Windows is guaranteed in the near term because of exclusive, closed apps/file types/"standards". Access and Outlook come to mind immediately, but I'm sure others can cite many others from the enterprise sector. You can't compare this to an optional service that is "locked" into using Apple's technology.

        And yes, even as an iTunes/iPod user I'd like to use my music purchased from iTMS more freely than I can now--*legally*. I'd like to share my iTMS albums over iTunes with my co-workers, for example, but I can't right now. Their machine would have to use up one of my authorization slots. I'd like the option to convert to other formats without going to CD.

        But the fact is, I can't grouse about the way Apple has implemented all this. Technically, it is fantastic and nearly bug-free. The features provided are innovative and have lead me to use my music in ways I never did 5 years ago. I haven't usually found MS technology to work this well or be so inspiring, even when I'm using Windows.

  • Um, hey.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by WhatAmIDoingHere ( 742870 ) * <sexwithanimals@gmail.com> on Thursday January 06, 2005 @11:16AM (#11275389) Homepage
    I agree with this guy. Locking us in. Where do I sign up for the free money?

  • Support freedom of music! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Thursday January 06, 2005 @11:17AM (#11275400)
    "Apple has unlawfully bundled, tied, and/or leveraged its monopoly in the market for the sale of legal online digital music recordings to thwart competition in the separate market for portable hard drive digital music players, and vice-versa," the lawsuit said.

    Mr Slattery called himself an iTunes customer who "was also forced to purchase an Apple iPod" if he wanted to take his music with him to listen to.

    While I cannot comment on the legality of them bundling and tying the device to their store I can certainly say that the less tech savvy are forced to use an iPod if they would like to listen to their iTunes music on the go.

    The second you download your first album and you realize that you can't play it on a portable device other than a CD player you wonder if you shouldn't just go out and get that iPod so that you can continue to get your music legally... Most people would think it really sucks to pay $10 for an album and then not be able to listen on the go without burning to a CD and then re-ripping to WAV>MP3.

    It's not that I didn't expect this to happen with Apple though. They have always promoted lock-in. For now it is working as a benefit. Will they continue to be the leaders in the market though? Only time will tell if people begin to shy away from being forced into using their formats and their hardware. Sadly, in this day and age I have little faith in the consumer and their knowledge and desire to have freedom of choice.

    I know it is bad form to go against Apple on Slashdot (especially with the editors apparently being paid off to put iPod on the front page at least once a day) but why can't we all be against them promoting a format that locks you into their hardware? Aren't we all for open standards that works across multiple platforms? Just because their device is sleek, sexy, and "the in thing" we should all just stop and pay homage? Maybe once MSFT opens the DOC format or switches it over to XML then Apple can open up AAC and we can all be happy?

    Me? I'm going to stick to downloading and listening to my *free* and *legal* music from etree [etree.org], FurthurNET [furthurnet.org], etc, and convert it over to MP3 to listen on the go. I just wish that everyone else would too. At least I know I am not supporting *multiple* monopolies when I listen to the freely distributable music that I do.

    YMMV.

    • Re:Support freedom of music! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Altus ( 1034 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @11:23AM (#11275502) Homepage

      but in order for this to be monopolistic wouldnt apple have to have a monopoly on the digital music market?

      its not like iTunes is the only place to get music... there are plenty of other online sources with different DRM that might suit this customers needs. hell he could just buy CDs like people used to back in the day from that small organization... what were they called... the record companies?

      Even if apple has a monopoly on MP3 players (which they dont) they let you get your music from anywhere you want. This lawsuit is completely frivolous.

    • Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything here. There are alternatives, plenty of them, to iTunes and the iPod. Consumer ignorance does not equal anti-competitive behavior.

      "Honestly, judge, I was forced to buy and iPod! Oh the misery!"

      Give me a break.
    • For me this seems more like someone who, after diving into a clearly empty pool, is complaining that they didn't take the time to read the signs warning them that there was no water in the pool.

      The only thing you can not easily do with iTunes is to listen to the songs on a non-Apple mp3 player. And, for those who are even slightly tech-savy this is a fairly non-trivial thing to do. It takes 1 CDRW and about 8 minutes a CD. Or you can use whatever software is available to crack the DRM.
      • And, for those who are even slightly tech-savy this is a fairly non-trivial thing to do. It takes 1 CDRW and about 8 minutes a CD.

        I believe you meant "trivial"...

        And for me, I use a "virtual" CD-R that writes to an .iso file. (GREAT burn times w/no coasters!) You can then turn around and rip MP3's from the virtual CD (GREAT rip times with no read errors!). Yes, it's the same PIA, but it makes it a little less painful...

    • Apple can open up AAC and we can all be happy?

      Interestingly enough I buy most of my music in AAC format, but not from Apple. The standard is open and much nicer than mp3 in my opinion. Files have the same quality with smaller file sizes; drastically smaller for files that are just speaking (like audio books). All my files work just fine with itunes, and play fine on ipods (although i do not own one myself). If Apple were to cheaply license Fairplay, I would be happier about the state of the industry

    • Re:Support freedom of music! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ahillen ( 45680 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @11:37AM (#11275714)
      Apple can open up AAC

      What do you mean with "open up AAC"? The files from iTunes are restricted because Apple chose to (or, on behalf of the music industry, had to) add DRM to AAC. That has nothing to do with AAC itself. If you mean "open" in the sense of open standard without licensing fees, this is beyound Apple's abilities, since they don't own AAC. They just licensed it from Fraunhofer et. al.
    • and convert it over to MP3 to listen on the go

      You mean like you can with iTunes by burning/ripping a CD? Either way you're transcoding.

      Get off your high horse about this people. For legal downloadable music, DRM is entrenched and here to stay. I say be glad that the dominant form is this lenient and easily "breakable". This guy truly had NO CHOICE whatsoever in the matter. He really couldn't do ANYTHING but purchase an iPod. People truly make me sick sometimes...

    • Re:Support freedom of music! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by metamatic ( 202216 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @12:23PM (#11276425) Homepage Journal
      The second you download your first album and you realize that you can't play it on a portable device other than a CD player you wonder if you shouldn't just go out and get that iPod so that you can continue to get your music legally... Most people would think it really sucks to pay $10 for an album and then not be able to listen on the go without burning to a CD and then re-ripping to WAV>MP3.

      That's nothing... if you go out and buy a copy of Half-Life 2, suddenly you find you have to buy a Windows PC to use it! Sure, maybe you can go through the hassle of Linux and Wine and Cedega and whatever, but it really sucks.

      I should sue Microsoft! Oh, wait...

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @11:17AM (#11275405)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Or better yet (Score:3, Funny)

      by Swamii ( 594522 )
      if(vendor == MSFT)
      {
      throw new SlashbotAngryFitException();
      }
      else
      {
      Slashbots.Fud.Spew();
      while(true)
      {
      Defense defend = new Defense();
      defend.ToTheDeath(vendor);

      ButtKiss praise = new ButtKiss();
      if(RMS.IsScragglyOldHippy)
      {
      praise.BendOverFor(RMS);
      }

      if(GPL.IsFashionableForGeeksToDefend && GPL.NeverRead && GPL.IsViral)
      {
      praise.KissArse(GPL);
      }

      if(Linux.Creator == Linux && Linus.IsHumble && Linux.IsFashionableForGeeksToUse && MSFT == TEHSUX

    • Re:a test... (Score:4, Funny)

      by teslar ( 706653 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @12:03PM (#11276100)
      if (vendor == apple) { slash.bots =: defendDeity } else if (vendor = microsoft) { slash.bots =: postFlamebait }

      "And thus, in AD2005, because of one line of unchecked code, Slashdot began flaming all vendors apart from Apple. What seemed irrelevant at first had huge implications for mankind as it paved the way for Apple's domination of all things electronic, with all major non-Apple vendors being virtually extinct by the second decade of the 21st century. As we saw in the introduction, it was Apple who first introduced self-regulating computers in an effort to relieve the user from the chores of setting up and configuring his machine. It is because of Apple's "you don't need to know how it works" policy and its success at making the machines do exactly what the user wanted, without any requirement for the user to have any knowledge whatsoever about the machine's working, that we today do not understand how Our Masters operate.
      But before we review this in more detail, we will be concentrating on the Google Grid [robinsloan.com] in the next chapter"
      -Excerpt of Chapter 5 of 'From Internet to World-Ruling Self-Conscious Network of Computing Machines: The History of Our Overlords. Volume 1: Towards Automation: The Beginnings.'
      Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2037

  • This is ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kjones692 ( 805101 ) <the.cyborganizerNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday January 06, 2005 @11:18AM (#11275414)
    If you feel limited by the choices offered by the iPod, why not get a different portable media player?

    If you feel limited by the choices offered by the iTunes Music Store, why not use a different online music store?

    This would only be a "lock-in" if, say, the iPod was the only portable media player that ran on a Mac, or if the iTunes Music Store was the only way to buy music online through a Mac... but I don't think it would even be then, because if it's that important to you, you could always go buy a Windows box.

    • If you feel limited by the choices offered by the iPod, why not get a different portable media player?

      If you feel limited by the choices offered by the iTunes Music Store, why not use a different online music store?

      Sure. Just tell me how I can get the music I legally purchased licenses for at iTunes converted over to any other music store, and I'll cease using iTunes.
      Or did you want me to throw away the music, and pay the MAFIAA fees again, after I already have purchased my license to listen?

      That's w

      • Re:This is ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JHromadka ( 88188 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @12:17PM (#11276327) Homepage
        Sure. Just tell me how I can get the music I legally purchased licenses for at iTunes converted over to any other music store, and I'll cease using iTunes. Or did you want me to throw away the music, and pay the MAFIAA fees again, after I already have purchased my license to listen?

        First tell me how to convert the legally purchased Windows game I have over to another operating system.

    • Re:This is ridiculous. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bwy ( 726112 )
      because if it's that important to you, you could always go buy a Windows box.

      amen.

      ...Or you don't have to buy anything at all. Or, you could start your own company and offer an alternative. Or, find a small company that already does, and support it. Or, find an open source project and support it.

      Or, a person could just quit whining, and be glad that courts of law are not defining what products he is allowed to buy or what products a given company is allowed to produce or how they work. Is that

    • You don't have to be a monopoly to act like one... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Otto ( 17870 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @12:21PM (#11276392) Homepage Journal
      They use monopolistic and unfair market practices by tying the use of the iTunes Music Store in to owning an iPod. Two different markets, really. One is online music sales, the other is portable music players. Both of these have competition in other fields, but tying them to each other such that using one means you almost have to have the other is indeed illegal.

      This could be avoided entirely by Apple simply licensing their implementation of Fairplay to other portable music player manufacturers. They have thus far refused to do that.

      I don't expect them to sell non-DRM'd music, and I don't expect them to sell anything other than AAC. But players like iRiver and the Zen and such would love to support the iTunes Music Store. Building in AAC support they can do on their own. Building in Fairplay and DRM support they must license from Apple. Either that or they have to go the Real Player route and DIY the thing. Which leaves them open to Apple breaking compatibility at any time.

  • BS (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Custard ( 587661 )
    BS. Don't like iTunes/iPod, buy a Nomad or Dell Jukebox or something. Apple has no responsibility to make iTunes and iPod work wih anything else. In fact, they would have more of a monopoly if iTunes worked with other players, because then even if you couldn't afford an iPod you could still use iTunes for music purchasing and syncing.
    • Last I heard iTunes did work with other players.

      Or did you mean the music store?

      Rio [rioaudio.com] has a whole lineup of iTunes compatible flash players... except it seems to only be compatible on the Mac side. Strange isn't it?

  • Of course you're locked in, its Apple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zapp ( 201236 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @11:19AM (#11275431)
    You mean like how if you want to run OSX, you're stuck with their overpriced (yet sexy) hardware?

    SURPISE people: Apple makes its money through hardware. OSX is only there to bring in sales for the computers, and iTunes is only there to sell the iPods.

    What'd he expect? Its not like they don't make it clear that the iPod and iTunes go together.

  • What's next? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nakhla ( 68363 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @11:20AM (#11275457) Homepage
    Hmmmm...what's next? Suing all of the major record labels because they release their music on CDs? After all, I'm *forced* to buy a portable CD player of I want to take my music with me. Hmmm...maybe Sony should be implicated in this as well!
    • That's an asinine analogy and you know it. You can buy a CD from any label, major and independant, and it will work with EVERY CD player.

      Apple is trying to protect iTunes by keeping iPod owners from buying from other sources. It'd be like if Sony CD players only played CDs released by Sony.

    • Actually I was planning on suing GM because I bought some gasoline, and now I have to buy a car to use it!
    • Ummm... Sony IS one of the major record labels.
  • You can burn the music to a CD. And if you want it on your non-iPod player, you can - though admittedly with generational loss - rip that CD to MP3 or any other format.
    • It sure is a kludge if you have to burn it to a CD and then rip it to get a usable standard music file. Is there some sort of utility that fakes things with a "virtual CD" so you don't have to be reefing on a CD-RW for this?

  • Inconvenient, maybe, but no lockout (Score:3, Insightful)

    by azpcox ( 88971 ) <[moc.oohay] [ta] [xocpza]> on Thursday January 06, 2005 @11:21AM (#11275477)
    So I download musinc from iTunes, burn it to a CD, then rip it as an MP3. That doesn't sound like lock-in to me -- it sounds like Apple had to accomadte the demands of the labels in order to even begin to sell the music in the first place!

    What is monopolistic is not even being able to burn a CD or even change the encoding of a particular piece of music because of DRM, such as WMA.

  • Dumbass (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Azureflare ( 645778 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @11:24AM (#11275519)
    What do you expect apple to do? Allow you to directly export to mp3 from the m4a's you downloaded off the iTunes store?

    Sorry, but the problem isn't with Apple. I'm sure they'd love to be able to do that and keep these dumb lawsuits from appearing. The real problem is the music industry, who probably told apple they couldn't do that (i.e. export to mp3 from iTunes).

    If you have gripes with the iTunes store, you need to take it up with the music industry, they're the one calling the shots. It's amazing Apple was able to get cd burning in there, don't be an idiot and ruin it for the rest of us.

    IMO this guy reminds me of the idiot shining a laser at a plane flying over head... You get way more attention than you were expecting.

    The only way the iTunes store could possibly export audio from it is to convert to wma, but then they'd have to license Microsoft technology, and that's just... wrong.

    • No, but they could license their implementation of (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AzrealAO ( 520019 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @12:03PM (#11276104)
      They could license their implementation of Fairplay to other portable MP3 player manufacturers like iRiver and Creative.

      But they won't do that, because iTunes is designed from the get-go to drive iPod sales through this AAC/Fairplay lockin.

      To get the best experience you need iTunes, an iPod, and a Mac. You have to jump through hoops, degrading the audio quality of the music in the process to use the music you've purchased through iTunes on anything else.

      These barriers are in place specifically to drive people to get an iPod. They are anti-competitive by design. Whether the iTunes/iPod combination provides a sufficient market dominance to be ruled a monopoly and subject to Anti-Trust law, is a matter for the courts to decide.
    • The issue is that Apple will not license their DRM to play on anything other than apple computers and apple ipods. Therefore, if you want to be legal, you have to use apple's hardware to play itunes-purchased music.

      Windows Media DRM scheme, while more oppressive in most ways, is licensed to several different portable players (i believe).

      This, to me, has been the most obnoxious part of apple's DRM since the beginning. Overall, it's pretty lenient, but it does lock the music buyer into apple's hardware from

  • Ridiculous (Score:2, Interesting)

    by het3 ( 68871 )
    "Mr Slattery called himself an iTunes customer who 'was also forced to purchase an Apple iPod' if he wanted to take his music with him to listen to."

    He can burn CDs of his music from iTunes. Even the claim that Apple has turned an "open and interactive standard" into something proprietary is ludicrous, as AAC is not an open standard.
  • Nobody is forcing him to use iTunes Music Store, iTunes, a Mac, or an iPod. They're all choices, and your are responsible *yourself* for making sure you make an informed choice based on the information Apple provide (and they do provide reasonable information).

    This crud about open standards is ludicrous, too.

    -psy

  • So let me get this straight.

    It's OK for Apple to use copyright law to restrict how people can use the music they sell to people, but it's not OK for the RIAA to do the same?
  • While I profess ignorance of the nuances of EU competition law (the European name for what Americans call 'Antitrust'), I know enough to understand how a bundling claim works. One of the essential elements of an anti-competitive bundling claim is a monopoly position. In order to win, one would have to argue that Apple is a monopolist in either:

    1) Online Music Distribution

    2) All Electronic Music Distribition, or

    3) All Music Distribution.

    While Mr. Slattery's lawyers might make some headway in assertin

  • Everyone is always complaining that the iPod only plays iTunes music. Apple seems to do little to discourage this perception. But, the iPod plays THE standard - mp3 files. In that sense it is no more exclusionary then the Microsoft-type players. I use iTunes extensively and one of the first things I do once I buy a group of songs is burn them to CD, for both backup and to play in my car. Once they are on CD I can do whatever I want with them - convert to any format, load into an iPod or ANY OTHER media
  • I think this is an interesting first step in trying to establish a legal precedent against DRM - in that you make the case that if one firm grows to have a significant market share, and you can show that the reason for that is that the DRM related to the product makes it too hard to look at other options out there, then they have formed not just a monopoly (which by itself is not illegal), but an illegal monopoly.

    Of course, the same argument can be made about other devices and standards. But I don't think

  • The answer is... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mogrify ( 828588 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @11:43AM (#11275797) Homepage
    ...both. DRM is certainly "bad" in that it limits you from doing whatever you want with your content, and in that it is manipulated by vendors to lock you in to products and services. Rather than shopping around for the best player, the best music store, the best music app, the best OS, etc., you have to buy into whatever system the manufacturer provides for you. And it squashes competition and gives rise to ridiculous things like Sony's ATRAC.

    But... I think we can all agree that being able to legally download music online, in some form, is a very good thing. And the fact is that, without DRM, this wouldn't be happening at all. No major industry copyright holder such as a record company or a movie company would ever agree to make their content available online without some form of DRM-like control.

    So you can either give up on the whole idea of online music stores, or you can accept DRM as a necessary evil. You can even just burn your tracks to CD and rip them in whatever codec floats your boat. DRM is certainly immoral in a "free as in speech" sort of way, and it contributes to the general glut of competing and incompatible codecs, but it's here to stay.

  • Didn't see this in the 4 & 5 posts, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sebastopol ( 189276 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @01:34PM (#11277549) Homepage
    Is the Music apples sells through iTunes exclusive? I mean, can REAL.COM sell the same music? If not, then Apple is monopolizing, if so, than I agree with other posters: just buy a different MP3 player, the same you would if you wanted to play Xbox and PC games.

  • iTMS is a serious waste of money.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by smcdow ( 114828 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @05:46PM (#11281179) Homepage
    I use a Squeezebox [slimdevices.com] for playing music through my stereo. It's a nice gadget, and it uses great (open source) driver software called SlimServer.

    Now, I actually like iTunes. It slurped up my previously ripped MP3 collection with no problems. I like the design, layout, and semantics of iTunes. It's really a nice app.

    What's more, is that the SlimServer software has some integration with iTunes. Pretty cool. You can set up playlists in iTunes and then use SlimServer to play it through your stereo via the SqueezeBox. Way cool, really.

    So, my wife heard a song on the radio that she liked, so we fired up iTunes and got an account on iTMS. Very nice integration, I must say. We found the song she liked, paid our $0.99 and downloaded it. It was an extremely smooth and appealing experience. But after getting the song, we found that we can use iTunes to play it through the computer's speakers, but when we try to play it through the SqueezeBox -- nothing!! It won't work.

    I dug around, and finally found this [slimdevices.com]:

    Please note that music purchased from the iTunes Music Store ("Protected AAC" (.m4p) files) is encrypted and cannot be played back with Squeezebox until Apple provides the necessary hooks to enable this. In the meantime, it is possible to burn your iTunes Music Store songs to CD and re-rip them as unprotected .m4a files.

    This means that I paid $0.99 for a worthless stream of bytes!! I'm not gonna spend time to download, burn, and re-rip. That's stupid. I can go buy the damn CD, rip it, and then immediately sell it to Cheapo [cheapotexas.com], and be out only a little money (as opposed to the total loss that iTMS offers). Thankfully, I downloaded only one song and wasted only a buck.

    iTMS looks really nice, and you gotta hand it to Apple -- it's a nicely integrated product. I like iTunes, and I'll probably continue to use it. But, until I can play music on my own players, I will not be wasting any more money on iTMS.

  • Who does he work for? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PMuse ( 320639 ) on Friday January 07, 2005 @03:56PM (#11290426)
    No "disgruntled iTunes customer" hires three law firms to file his suit (Braun Law Group P.C. of LA; Katriel Law Firm of DC; and Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP of NY).

    Somebody open a pool on what company is bank-rolling this!

Slashdot Top Deals

"You tweachewous miscweant!" -- Elmer Fudd

Close