What is Digg?77 Comments
- d1gg1rl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28"If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own!" Steve Jobs in March 2002
http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/03/04/jobs/ - rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Wouldn't it be great if our US politicians had the balls that our European brothers have to stand up to bad business practices, monopolies and other oppressive organizations.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17In 2002, Steve Jobs said, "If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own."
In 2006, France said, "The consumer must be able to listen to the music they have bought on no matter what platform."
http://www.songbirdnest.com/nivi/blog/jobs_france - zweben, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Because the "Microsoft way" is making them a lot of $$$$$ that they aren't used to seeing.
- Monkeman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11This is exactly what people have been predicting will happen and what really should happen. Sure, Apple can get off fine blowing off France, but can they get off fine blowing off the eight or nine countries that follow France in challenging Apple?
Then again, most of their market is probably in America, and America's congressmen aren't going to do anything about it. So I guess they can blow off whomever they want. Still doesn't hurt to try, though, especially if it results in similar DRM-related suits against other companies. - r3becca, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I hope this trend(?) starts catching on in other countries.
Nice work France and Denmark :) - malliemcg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12As I see it Apple have several options open to them -
1) Open up "FairPlay" to other providers of devices and services - to allow for all to compete with the "same" product
2) Remove DRM restrictions - probably not an option due to record company licencing arrangements.
3) Take their bat and ball and go home.
I hope that they open up "Fairplay" there is no good reason for it to remain tied to apple nor should the iPod be kept out of the other DRM'd music stores. While I wish that DRM was purely optional, I can see the fear that music execs have of unDRM'd music - baseless as it may be. As a consumer as long as it works and I can play/use it on anything I own I'll be happy.
I do feel however that DRM restrictions should time out and be removed after a period of time - weather authorised computers automatcially fall off the DB or something else (i have not thought it through completely) there should be a mechanism to allow for people who for whatever reason (i am talking iTunes here) no longer have access to an authorised computer can add more computers over a period of time. - Dido, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Informative article b.t.w.
But yes, times have changed. It seems that Apple is copying the "Microsoft way". - SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Death to DRM and all who facilitate and support it
- MattH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Microsoft opens its DRM if you are willing to pay the licencing fee .
- diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Apple needs to open the store up, I mean come on... Its a damn monopoly.
- iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Yes imagine if you had to have a Paramount DVD player, and an Warner Bros DVD player, and a FOX DVD player, ***** ain't going to happen. iTUNES got in the rut stealing the spotlight when people's hands were forced (e.g. Napster shut down, fear of God from the RIAA, something new) doesn't mean they sell one hell of a good product... hell if you want to use this analogy then Microsoft Has the best operating system out there, since it's over 90% of the marketshare.
- Nick42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6What makes you so sure that Apple's DRM was "imposed" by the record companies? Apple just about breaks even on the iTMS, but they make huge margins on iPods. As it stands, once you buy a significant amount of music from the iTMS, the DRM imposed on you forces you to keep buying iPods forever if you want to keep listening to your own music on a portable player. Unless of course you want to spend a ton of money to rebuy all that music in a different format or you're willing to put up with the hassle and loss of quality from burning/reripping.
Locking out all the other players is starting to sound like a pretty good business plan for Apple, isn't it? - Walking.Dude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"I think it also has to do with record companies telling apple that if apple wants to sell there music, they have to lock it down, so that if you ever buy a diff rent mp3 player you have to pay for your song again"
I don't think the RIAA is preventing Apple from licensing Fairplay. Every article I've ever seen about it pegs Apple as the culprit here. Apple uses DRM as an excuse to lock-in iTunes Music Store to iPod. They certainly have the right to do it, but let's not pretend Apple is the poor innocent company here being forced to make money.
Realistically, iTMS has a near monopoly on legal digital distribution. If Apple licensed Fairplay to other stores, that would probably change. But, given Apple's player dominance, I can't believe they haven't licensed it yet. I'm actually wondering why Apple hasn't done that so far. Forget other players...license it to other stores. They could still command 5-7 cents a song and their costs would be absolutely zero. And I'm betting most people would still use iTMS as that is integrated into iTunes.
Heck, Apple could even allow other stores to integrate into iTunes, becoming a kind of Amazon for digital music and video distribution. I think Apple is being shortsighted in not opening it up a little. Can you imagine if Wal-Mart, Amazon, and Real could all of the sudden sell iPod compatiable tracks? - geoboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Actually, a much better analogy would be having to buy a Walmart brand DVD player to play movies you bought from Walmart, and a K-Mart brand DVD player to play movies you bought from K-Mart, etc. etc.
- GamerSDG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I told every one this was going to happen someday next weeks headline "Apple's ipod downfall of 2006"
- malliemcg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Ever considered that in a democracy the politicians are there to represent the will of the people and protect them and their rights.
The application of the bill of rights in the US to businesses and people as the definitive answer to everything is somewhat narrow minded and lacking in scope - well that is how I as an outsider see it.
It is the governments mandate to implement legislation to protect rights of their people, they are not there to look after businesses (in as much as business is important to their GDP/GNP) the PEOPLE are the ones the government are there to look after and legislating fair business practices that serve the people well is most certainly an applicable use of governmental legislation.
M - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6He slipped up, he meant all other Apple devices you own.
- crazyc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Denmark has a long tradition of protecting consumer rights, so this doesn't come as a big surprise to me.
Those claiming that this is a case of government interfering with the rights of business people, I can only agree. The question is: Do you, as a consumer, wish to scrutinise every EULA or contract that you have to agree to, even for minor purchases? We have a special law in Denmark called "Forbrugeraftaleloven" - a law specifically designed to uphold certain consumer rights.
These rights can not be overruled, even if the consumer agrees to do so. This means that even if you are presented with a 20 page contract before purchasing e.g. a phone, you can sign it knowing that there are some rights which you have - even if the contract states that it does not recognise them.
This is something which I, as a consumer, am very grateful of, and often when reading Digg I see many "nightmare" examples of consumers agreeing to contracts, which they do not know the full extent of. Does this make them stupid? According to some Digg users: Yes.
My personal opinion is that in my hectic everyday life I don't want to have a lawyer by my side everytime I have to install a piece of software - wouldn't you like to have the same certainty that companies can't "trick" people into doing whatever they put in the contract?
I see this proposal to be very much in line with the current consumer protective legislation of the Danish government. - barrys, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Why not just bypass buying music all together?
usenet?
limewire?
ftp's?
bittorrent?
***** paying for music, atleast when you steal it, you can use it on more than one friggin kind of MP3 player. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I hope Denmark does this. DRM CRAP has to be thrown out. Users WILL pay reasonable, un-inflated prices for products, and would prefer to use current day technology to pay direct to the creator and ultimate ip holder. Thank You France.
- veracon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm Danish, this sounds great to me.
Gotta hate DRM. - QpoX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Norway is also on the way with Denmark and France...
Cheres from .DK :) - iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4yeah it would be different, because you license the operating system, it's closed source, and you don't own it. With the music, you "supposedly" own the copy, and have rights (fair use, etc.) - DRM takes those rights away. Until itunes supports higher bitrates, and removes the DRM, I'm using allofmp3.com or alloftunes.com - thanks.
- MattH, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6DRM interoperbility doesnt mean NO DRm it means you can buy your copy protected music from whatever service you like and play the content on what ever music player you like (even the iPod) it actully will give the customer more choise in copy protected music and therefore may even reduce piracy
For More info on DRM interoperbility check out the Coral Consortium while your there check out the Member list .
http://www.coral-interop.org/ - emilheinsen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ Koktakee
Listen, I live in Denmark, and the taxes we pay (not 50% for all of us, only those who make more money that the average, the low tax is about 45%) actually makes it possible for ANYONE to go to ANY hospital (not the private ones though) and get all the medical attention they need, we have one of the highest living standards in the world and almost no one live in poverty... So Think Different! - iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4DVDs were not DRM laden, they were encrypted, big difference.
Now the Terminator 2, WMA HD DVD, was DRM laden, which required you to use Media Player, and required an internet connection to apply and decrypt the WMV movie, and you can see how many of those prospered. iTUNES is going to go a slow death once other competing companies can get the labels to allow them to have non-drm style songs out there, and then when that happens, iTUNES will have no choice to remove the DRM themselves. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6i'm still trying to figure out why apple hates this so much. i think maybe that apple doesn't loose either way. we loose the shackles of the DRM imposed on apple by the record companies... or it stays the same. they just have to watch. they just got through arguing with the record companies about price. no DRM means a price war...
- neocitron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6digg your post... very good... Apple should open up FairPlay to other manufacturers... make it standard.
- damonic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Does anyone seriously think that Apple or Microsoft is going to open their DRM? Its a lot cheaper for them to tell France and Denmark to ***** off. Two small countries that Apple and MS couldn't care less about really aren't going to change the legal music downloads. LONG LIVE WWW.ALLOFMP3.COM!
- eddyc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Seems more of a socialist move than a tyrannical one to me, by the way governments have been dictating the way people do business for years, the laissez faire capitalist ideal just ends up being unfair , i.e. people buying music that can only be played on ipods, its kinda like buying paper that will only work with certain pens or a certain printer, the music is the product not the music+ipod combination.
- deut, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I agree. I'd happily buy off iTMS if it wasn't for the ***** DRM. (I have an iRiver and an iPod) and the fact that at £0.79 per track (that's $1.37995 at today's rate!), its a f'ing rip-off.
Until these bozos change their monopolistic practices, I'll stick with allofmp3. - bigGdelta1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3nothing was said about free content. France just wants the DRM to be compatible so that you don't have to use Itunes to buy content for your ipod and visa versa. Imagine if every movie studio had their own video formats and to watch a Sony movie you had to buy a Sony hd dvd..........wait a minute..damn.
- blaineg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Why would you buy from iTunes what you can buy from allofmp3.com for way cheaper? You can buy a full album for what you can buy one song for on iTunes, plus no DRM
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Apple is evil
- DigitalBrian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You are so wrong about Denmark, APPLE would never tell them to ***** off, why?
1. They are concidered a guinea pig for new technology, often they get the hardware months before the US.
2. Denmark is one of the top countries when it comes to technology.
No Jobs & Co is not going to ask them to ***** off. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The ultimate ip holder is the artist. Remember the artist? I know today record companies own the ip, but I did use the word "creator" in there. Record companies aren't really the creators, are they? If you read the first half of the sentence you didn't quote it helps too. Let me explain to say that the artist should be using current technology to sell their music direct to their fans. That is what technology is for.
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You have to think a little deeper at the effects of digital rights mageament being pushed by RIAA, MPAA, and your government. Their motive is control. Their objective is every part of your electronics and entertainment hub. If you support the companies that push these ideas, your future will be heavily restricted and costly.
- rakslice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It seems clear that the large US recording industry cartel is only happy when the public is moving toward DRMed music. But still, it's defeatist to say that DRM-free online music sales would never fly... after all, DRM-free CDs still account for the vast majority of music sales.
- fortezza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3>If you honestly think Apple's business model is wrong, then please explain why over a billion purchases have been >made and why they have an 80(ish)% market share.
If you honestly think the Japanese mafia's business model is wrong, then please explain why over a billion purchases have been made and why they have an 80(ish)% market share in Japan. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It is actually the "iTMS downfall", the iPod itself will still be worth having. Most music on them is probably DRM free anyway.
And besides, it's only France that are doing anything at the moment. Denmark is a rumour. - malliemcg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't think this legislation would lead to gateway legislation to forcing OS X onto PC generica.
Music is what you are purchasing when you buy a CD, iTunes Track, Bigpong WMA Track etal - and as the record companies are shoving down everyones throat, you are not purchasing the music, but rather a licence to listen to the music - this legislation is merely ensuring that you can listen to your licenced music on anything you want anywhere you want.
Currently music on the iTunes music store is tied to iPod if you want to use it in a portable fasion.
When you buy a mac, and it comes with OS X you are purchasing a licence to run OS X on a Mac. When you purchase a iTunes track you are purchasing a piece of music that can be played on computer, burned to CD or even streamed via that wireless stereo connector jobbie.
People understand (for the more part) that operating systems are generally tied to the hardware they come on/with. (OEM's like Dell it is) but a music track, they think of CD's which work in Sony players, panasonic players etal all the way through to yumcha no name players who implement the CD spec. - nine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1when is someone going to point out that these interoperability laws AREN'T doing away with DRM, they are just calling for an "interoperable" DRM.
There are really a lot of questions that go along with that. These laws would seem to imply that no only must iTunes work with any portable music player, but so must yahoo, napster, and all the other windows-only music stores. Of course, they'll need to support Mac's first, and linux too (after all, isn't a laptop a perfectly valid portable music player?)
Will this require mobile phone operators to open up their music sales?
Who's DRM is going to be the "standard"?
How will it be licensed?
If there is no standard, what DRM formats will players and sellers be required to support?
If I open up Nine-Music, with Nine-DRM, will every portable music device manufacturer be required to license my DRM format? what will this do to the cost of players, and of the music?
Personally, I think the whole thing is stupid. The only way it can be reasonably made to work is with an open-source, license free DRM system, which won't provide the level of protection that the **AA's require.
but that's just my opinion - fortezza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is a huge difference between a good ( morally ) business model, and good ( effective at generating sales ) business model. My point, you could make a lot of money doing something very bad, such as selling junk bonds to little old ladies and then running away with their money. Sure, you made a lot of dough, but is it something that is good for society? How does it stack up against 'good' business ethics? Simply stating that they made a lot of sales does not make what they do right from where I am standing.
It's like the people who say that the US is right because they have the bigger army, more missles, etc. No, that does not make them right, though it may make them win the conflict.
Hopefully that clears up my point. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dutch have nothing to do with this.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So iTunes is never going to die a slow death, cos there is no chance in hell that the music companies will let a "significant amount" of DRM-free music out there for sale on a store.
So that makes it a bit of a moot point really. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"£0.79 per track (that's $1.37995 at today's rate!)"
Okay are you going to post one of these everytime the exchange rate changes?
What the price is compared to another country isn't important. You should be comparing it against prices of CDs in the UK. CDs are about £9.99 over here. In US they are about $9.99 i think, so which one looks the best value now?
£9.99 vs. £0.79
or
$9.99 vs. $0.99
It seems pretty obvious to me. - Izzie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2iPod success (money income that made apple rich) relies on itunes offering a large catalog. this catalog exists only because copyright holders agreed to its existence due to built in DRM.
- spade, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2If this occurs then iTunes will die, not because of lack of support from users, rather studios who control the music, movies, TV, etc. would serve up anything except through their own stores. That way they are the gate keepers of their own content. Of course this has been done with Studios early days having to give up control of Movie Theaters (forced by the US govt.). In a strange twist companies will require tech companies to play by their rules and enforce an even more restrictive DRM. Any manufacturer unwilling to do so will not be allowed to play certain formatted DRM's on their machines, PC's, cell phones, PSP's, and technologies of the future.
This brings the second happening if the studios are unable to hold onto the gatekeeping duties. Traditional store outlets, the Amazons and Walmarts of the world would simply monopolize what is left of Apple, leaving a few major stores doing the same thing as iTunes once did. Why, people like shopping in one place. How many of you really compare book prices on more than three sites, if that many. This is what will occur in France, however they are missing the bigger picture, as Walmart isn't in the buisness of "Think Different." (see below)
Apple's content monopoly, (I mean c'mon, other companies are not even trying are they?) at the present time is needed. It does need to be replaced with something in the future, but what the French and the Dutch fail to see is a very American problem. Apple is trying to redefine and challenge traditional broadcasting in the United States. The cable and telephone companies hold a stranglehold far greater on content than Apple's iTunes. I applaud Apple in this regard, and hope that the day of IPTV is close upon us. The issue is not playing music on any device, the question is can I watch, listen, and play when I WANT. Think Different indeed. Down with Comcasts and AT&T's of the world, free the Bandwidth, not the music. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2And how does what France/Denmark are proposing help you "pay direct to the creator and ultimate ip holder".
To do that you'd have to abolish ALL kinds of music store and pay the money directly to the record companies. And I'm sure more people would be-grudge that especially when they see how much the record companies would still charge, even though all the shipping etc. wouldn't be required. And do you think the record companies would sell the stuff un-DRM'd, I don't think so, they are even trying to shoehorn it into CDs for christ's sake. -
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is