Harold, I read all your links and they basically say the same thing: people don't like that iTunes songs don't work on other players and that iPods don't play songs from other stores.
I see nothing wrong or illegal in making sure that the music player I make only plays music bought in my store and vice versa. I risk becoming irrelevant if the market doesn't like it, but that's my strategy and my problem. If that were illegal, all the printer manufacturers would be sued to allow all cartridges to work with them, regardless of who made them. Likewise with cartridge razors and all the businesses that rely on "refills". The problem here is that everyone and their uncle owns an iPod. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. Just to be clear: I hate DRM, I abhor technology that doesn't follow standards, I only bought my first Ipod a few months ago because my Archos Jukebox was getting ancient and I don't buy songs from iTunes or anyone else. I'm a Linux hippie. I rip songs from my CDs to Flac. I don't own a Mac and I think that Jobs can be a bloody bastard when he wants to, which is fairly often, and that his opposition to DRM comes from market greed and not from the goodness of his heart. But I still think I'm right: DRM came from the RIAA, not from Apple. Cheers, Eugenio Harry C. Johnson wrote: > --- In [email protected], Eugenio Perea <euge...@...> wrote: >> Not that I believe everything that Jobs says -far from it- but this >> little piece he published on Apple's site a year ago, calling for an > end >> to DRM, would seem to support my case. See: >> http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ > > Yeah, I don't buy it. First some background. AAC and DRM are totally > different. AAC files can be DRM-free and many different music players > can play those files, including my treo. My understanding of DRM is > that it is sort of like an encryption applied to the contents that you > can only play with the appropriate key. > > So here is the scenario. The 'free' napster is getting closed down and > there are millions of people who have shifted to a paradigm of finding > songs on the internet and who now don't have that service available. > Apple gets in bed with the RIAA and others to distribute their music > on the internet provided it is protected from wanton copying by means > of DRM and the music companies can make money off of the distribution. > This relationship is potentially exclusive but I don't have any direct > evidence of that other than Apple being the only one who had > permission at the time. Apple sets up an iTunes internet store and in > a brilliant move that is purposefully confusing to customers, the > iTunes software which they say will support any media player. Yes, the > software and the store share the same name though they are distinct. > Of course the iTunes software will support any media player BUT Apple > REFUSES to license its DRM to any other players. Its important to > note. They explicitly refused. > > Now Grandma downloads iTunes for free and installs it on her computer. > Then Grandma (hypothetical non-tech savvy person) goes off blithely > downloading songs just like she did with napster and all for a low 99 > cents per song. She is happy. Grandma goes out and buys one of those > Rio mp3 players so she can take her music with her to the gym and > guess what... no dice. She can't play all those songs she has been > downloading. She does a little checking, maybe calling the iTunes > store and they inform her that while the iTunes software can support > other media players, the music you buy from the iTunes store will only > play on an iPod. What does Grandma naturally do... she takes her Rio > player back and buys an iPod. > > This happened to a couple of my friends early on and neither of them > questioned why iTunes wouldn't let you play songs on other players. > BTW, it also worked in reverse, the iPod software would not let you > download songs to your iPod from other music services and Apple > invoked the DMCA against real networks for providing iPod software > that would allow iPod users to listen to music from the RealMusic service. > >> What legal action would cause Apple to "allow" DRM removal? > > Fortunately some people questioned why Apple only allowed iPods to > play iTunes songs. They checked into it and found that other players > had requested a license for Apple's DRM (basically the encryption key) > and Apple refused. So they sued Apple to break the non-competitive > link between the iPod and iTunes. If Apple removes the DRM, then any > player can be used to play songs from iTunes, satisfying the lawsuits. > It was either that or license their DRM, which I think they did for > the Zune, no? Jobs is basically responding like a kid who's been told > he is going to be grounded for a month if he doesn't do something. > He's doing it and claiming it was his plan all along. bleh. > > And just to be clear. This was a BRILLIANT move by Apple. Just a > little too sleazy. > > Anyway, here's some links I have found: > > http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1489832/20040730/index.jhtml?headlines=true > > http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2185283/eu-commissioner-slams-itunes > > http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/01/04/lawsuit_demands_end_to_ipod_itunes_monopoly_cd_sales_plummet.html > > http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/11/07/ipod.itunes.lawsuit/ > > http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/2006/02/07/northern-california-judge-gives-green-light-to-monopolization-suit-against-apple/ > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
