macnn.com — Senior advisor Torgeir Waterhouse of the Norwegian Consumer Council has responded to Apple CEO Steve Jobs' open letter concerning digital rights management and free music, which the executive published earlier today.
Feb 6, 2007 View in Crawl 4
theophanyFeb 7, 2007
@juheimbu:"If he really believed that DRM was bad for their customers, and if he had Apple's customers' best interests in mind, he would have argued, loudly and in the press, with the Big4 from the start."Not true. When the iTMS started out in 2003, there wasn't a huge amount of consumer interest in the iPod like there is today. It's only in the past 2-3 years (since the introduction of the iTMS) that we've seen the astonishing numbers that Apple has put up. Jobs had no choice in accepting the Big 4's deal to sell DRM music, unless he didn't want to sell music online.Keep in mind that when the iTMS opened, Napster had been shut down approximately two years prior; the threat of piracy and lawsuits from bands and artists was still a very real concern for the Big 4. I can't imagine that Steve Jobs, liberal as he is, would be that bothered with it. They'd still be getting money, why should they care about how many people share their songs with friends?The point is, Jobs had no clout with the press until the iTMS got big. iPod has always been a contender, but it wasn't until the iTMS came out that they (Apple) started dominating. That they've sold 2b songs is a testament to that; but when you think about how many people have iPods and how much music people have on them, then there shouldn't really be anything to cry about.Personally, I like being locked into an iPod. It's just the best MP3 player on the market. With the resolution of conflict between Apple Corp and Apple Inc, it can only get better. iPod is the standard against which all other MP3 players are measured; is it that bad that people are locked into the player by using iTunes?
bachtnFeb 7, 2007
As I said before, DRM is to keep the Labels happy. If Apple didn't agree to the DRM mandate, there would be no legal online music store right now. Our only option would be to drive to a brick and morter and buy a CD, unless you want to pirate off the internet, than you might have the RIAA suing your @ss. The DRM restriction can easily be removed, such as simply burning to a CD. I honestly cannot tell any lost of quality from this process and I suspect it is the same for the vast majority of people. If you are truely an audiophile, you would not buy 128K bitrate songs from itunes in the first place. Lets be honest, burning music to a CD is so easy even a Caveman can do it, this is no obstacle there. This is why people use iTune, buy only songs you like, burn only the songs you like and in the order you like. For me this is much easy then drive to a Walmart, buy a CD album that you only want 1 or 2 songs. This waste time, money, gas, and not to mention the impact those deposible packages has on the environment. I know Apple is a business, and that they are there to make money, but I think they understand that looking out for costumers is good business practice. I commend Apple for standing up to the Labels, keeping prices uniform, and persuade them to agree to the LEAST restrictive DRM. If Apple really are serious about locking iTunes/iPod, there is a lot more they can do with the DRM than these silly restriction in Fair Play. The only ipod/itunes "Lock" is its ease of use. I guarantee you that if someone comes up with a better store and player, people will switch.Now Jobs is ready to stair down the Record Labels with this public manifesto. This takes a lot of guts, and I don't think any other company could have done this. If anyone is serious about DRM free music, you would back him. Isn't this what everyone wants. If you ready want DRM free music, start at the source. Why can't the Noweigen Govenment just tell the Record Labels that they are breaking the law because they force their distributors to DRM schemes. Very simple. They lose credibility when they go after Apple, and not the Record Labels. Its seems like politics and just protective European businesses. Telling Apple to fix this issue is like the government Telling BestBuy you have to deal with micrsoft antitrust issues. Even though Microsoft is the source, you are the one selling the software in your store. Rediculous.
macparrotFeb 7, 2007
Give it a rest geekee. We get it, you hate Apple and Steve Jobs.I won't ask why because I'm not all that interested in delusional people.Steve Jobs said he would sell non-DRM music files if the copyright holders would allow it. If they do and he doesn't, feel free to rant away. Apple has absolutely no reason why they should license FairPlay. They made it and their iPod dominance the old fashioned, by earning it with a decent (not as great as some might claim, but still pretty good) player and management software. So because all the other makers can't manage to do the same thing, you want to punish Apple?Apple has done nothing to prevent competition, Apple has done nothing to keep other companies from doing the same thing they are doing. A consumer goes into a store, there are MP3 players there, many not made by Apple. They are free to choose from a plethora of players and many different content providers. Other than being succesful, what did Apple do to prevent anyone from choosing the player they want?
plgonzalezFeb 7, 2007
no... but its the most popular target because of the ipod
babbleFeb 7, 2007
> Except that the Big4 aren't the ones selling the DRM-encumbered music. It's Apple. Jobs can't blame the labels when the ultimate decision to sell the > music with DRM was Apple's in the first place.That's like saying automakers only put seatbelts in their cars because they want to; they're required to. The labels require Apple to include DRM. Absent DRM, the labels won't license Apple to sell their content. Yes, FairPlay is Apple's own DRM implementation, but that came after months of negotiations with the labels over what that DRM would (and wouldn't) allow. Apple, for its part, has gone on record stating that they WANT to sell DRM-free music, and they'd like the labels to stop requiring DRM. You didn't read the original open letter posted to Apple.com, did you?
aristotle0dudeFeb 8, 2007
The RIAA wants to see Apple license Fairplay because right now, Apple has them by the balls. The RIAA is using puppets to pressure Apple into licensing not because they are concerned about consumer rights or choice. They want to control negotiations for future changes to licensing terms by reducing Apple's influence through the strategy of divide and conquer.Right now, windows consumers have a choice of services and players. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to buy an iPod or to use iTMS regardless of whether you own an iPod. The labels would like to be able to chip away at Apple's influence so that they could bully everyone around and force things like variable pricing and variable usage rights on songs. All of that variation would be in favour of the labels, not the consumer.It seems as if everyone has forgotten what the download market was like before iTMS. Even if you purchased songs from those other services, you were not guaranteed the right to even burn the song to a CD-R. When iTMS came over to windows, all that changed and it gave the other services the guts to push for similar wide ranging universal rights for all songs and albums on those other services just like iTMS.
bugsy187Feb 8, 2007
Europe: defending sane business practices in the modern world.
jonask84Feb 12, 2007
Enjoy your iPhones!