Norway outlaws iTunes

[Zrow]

http://blogs.pcworld.com/digitalworld/archives/2007/01/norway_outlaws.html


The basic premise is that iTunes's DRM doesn't allow for their music to be played on anything other than an Apple device, therefore monopolizing the digital music industry.

So let's just "open" the market by regulating the hell out of it, good plan. I mean, is there anyone who thinks this is a good idea?

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, because iTunes sucks.

 

[a6m5]

I never gave a thought on the subject to be honest. Looks like the bigger picture is Digital Rights Management in general.

I don't have a good understanding on the subject, but my take right now would be that there aren't any wrong doing on the iTunes or Apple's part. If you don't like iTunes, there are other ways to listen to music.

 

[Touring Mars]

Norway banned 'The Life of Brain'.

'Nuff said...

But seriously, it seems a bit over the top... If you buy a song from iTunes, you can burn it to a CD (perfectly legally) and then rip the song into mp3 format (again perfectly legally) and hey presto, you can play the mp3 on anything you like... atleast I'm pretty sure you can...

 

[Gen.]

Not with all that DRM you can't.

 

[Danoff]

http://blogs.pcworld.com/digitalworld/archives/2007/01/norway_outlaws.html


The basic premise is that iTunes's DRM doesn't allow for their music to be played on anything other than an Apple device, therefore monopolizing the digital music industry.

So let's just "open" the market by regulating the hell out of it, good plan. I mean, is there anyone who thinks this is a good idea?

How that constitutes a monopoly is beyond me.

 

[V1P3R]

Huh... I'm actually stumped on this one. I'd figured by now everyone was so brainwashed that it was a default accepted site and way to get music. I haven't used iTunes to buy anything from there but I don't see why it's a problem at least it works unlike "play for sure" which ironically doesn't play at all...

 

[TopHat]

Wow. Norway is buggin' out. Really.

 

[kennythebomb]

They need to ban Sony, in the spirit of the law, for being proprietary in most of their devices.

 

[Duke]

"Monopoly"? Who are they kidding?

We've owned several iPods for almost 3 years, somehow full of music, and we've never once bought a song from the iTunes store. We've also never illegally d/led music. So somehow we've managed to get around this "monopoly" without any trouble.

 

[wfooshee]

Just an example of governemt officials having no clue how the things work which they're trying to regulate.
Locally, there is a dog track which holds All-In Texas Hold-Em poker tournaments. There was a brief movement to ban the tournaments because you can wager "everything you have" on a single hand. When it was explained that the wager could actaully be only all the chips they had in their stack, the word was, "Well. OK. That's different." Technically, they were actually arguing that an all-in bet was more than the 2-dollar tickets you buy in paramutual wagering, but even then, they didn't understand that the buy-in for the tournament was the wager, not anything that happens at the tables.

 

[Sage]

The basic premise is that iTunes's DRM doesn't allow for their music to be played on anything other than an Apple device, therefore monopolizing the digital music industry.

Let’s see – by the same logic, Apple doesn’t allow their operating system to be used on anything other than an Apple device, therefore… Apple is monopolizing the OS market! OMFG!!1! It’s been happening all this time and nobody realized it!

I hate politicians. Especially socialist ones.

 

[Freddie]

I'm glad this doesn't affect me. I own a regular MP3-player capable of playing .wma, .wav and .mp3-files, with the added feature of actually being useful as a portable drive at the same time.

As I understood it, there had been complaints that music bought at the iTunes-store couldn't be used in other MP3-players. The politicians are only indirectly the source of all this because they constructed a law that said whatever we bought could be used as we (the consumers) saw fit (within reason, obviously). It's a series of laws, regulations and rules that are decades old, and is designed to give the consumers a fair bit of rights.

To top it off, it's actually neither the consumers or competitors who are suing Apple, but rather a supervising organ (Forbrukerombudet, or in english: Consumers' Union) designed by the government departements to enforce said sets of laws!

That's my take on it, anyhow. There has oddly, been no mention of it in the media, yet.

Edit: The formulation of the law is that it is the music (or rather, the right to listen to it at any given time on any device) that you purchase, rather than the file containing the music. The law also gives the consumer the right to use, copy and take backups of said piece of music the way the consumer likes. However, the copyright infringement protection or whatever iTunes used prohibited this, and that is what this really is all about. The iPod was the only device on the market using this technology (i.e. a monopoly), and that's why iTunes is getting banned in Norway.

Mind you, Norway is not alone. The Norwegian "Forbrukerombudet" is getting support from the german "Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband" and the french "UFC Que Choisir", both being the pillars of the EU, so how this will affect Apple, only time will tell. Source (in Norwegian)

 

[kennythebomb]

That's my take on it, anyhow. There has oddly, been no mention of it in the media, yet.

SO YOUR iTUNES DOESN'T GET THE NEWS ANYMORE, HUH?

Apple has a monopoly on the media! Look out for trendy see-through plasticky mics for the news reporters.

 

[Touring Mars]

Looks like Apple are going to lead the charge to get rid of DRM, which can only be a good thing for us consumers Article...

If you buy a song from iTunes, you can burn it to a CD (perfectly legally) and then rip the song into mp3 format (again perfectly legally) and hey presto, you can play the mp3 on anything you like...

Not with all that DRM you can't.

I tried it with an album I purchased on iTunes, and it does work. The songs were protected .aac format, but I have successfully converted them to unprotected .mp3 files using the method I described above... there's nothing illegal about that, it's just a bit of a hassle and will cost you the price of a blank CD in order to do it...

With a little help from Specialized, I also know that you can even send someone the protected file, but they'll be unable to play, burn or copy the file, whereas the owner of the file (i.e. me) can burn and rip to an unprotected format.

 

[Sage]

Looks like that BBC article didn’t link to the original, uh, whatchamacallit:

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

 

[exigeracer]

I tried it with an album I purchased on iTunes, and it does work. The songs were protected .aac format, but I have successfully converted them to unprotected .mp3 files using the method I described above... there's nothing illegal about that, it's just a bit of a hassle and will cost you the price of a blank CD in order to do it...
.

I think they are counting on people not knowing how to burn CDs properly. I am pretty sure that the common burning software people use (Windows Media Player and iTunes) don't let you burn the protected files in the first place. If you download something like one of the Nero applications, I'm sure that you can easily get around any of those regulated file types. I'm also betting that there are audio editing programs that can do that too, completely eliminating the need for a burned CD.

Or you could just buy them from a site that hosts them as mp3...

 

[Touring Mars]

The point of the ban on the iTunes store, however, is that they say you can't play iTunes mp3's on anything other than iTunes or an iPod, which isn't actually the case.

An iTunes-purchased song is a protected.aac file which can be burned to a CD (about 6 or 7 times I believe) perfectly legally using iTunes itself, but the file cannot be opened in conventional audio editing software or played using any other software (as far as I know anyway). But once you have the song on a CD, you may then do with it as you wish (except for share it, of course - which would constitute copyright infringement), including ripping the audio CD into conventional mp3s which will play on anything. As far as I am aware, that is not illegal either.

 

[DuckRacer]

Well, while Jobs is "pressuring" the record labels, if they still want their DRM he won't be doing anything more about it. So I wouldn't exactly call it "leading the way".

The songs were protected .aac format, but I have successfully converted them to unprotected .mp3 files using the method I described above...

protected.aac file

Also, I'd like to be a snob and clear this up. Unprotected AAC files are .m4a files, with protected files (iTunes) being .m4p (p for protected obviously). There's also an .m4b format that's suited for audiobooks (b stands for bookmarkable).

 

[DuckRacer]

Wait. What the hell?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/riaa-misreads-jobs-open-letter-on-drm-thinks-hes-offering-to/

The RIAA thought Jobs' letter was about him wanting to license FairPlay (Apple's DRM), when he didn't offer it at all.

 

[Kylehnat]

I tried it with an album I purchased on iTunes, and it does work. The songs were protected .aac format, but I have successfully converted them to unprotected .mp3 files using the method I described above... there's nothing illegal about that, it's just a bit of a hassle and will cost you the price of a blank CD in order to do it...

And since you want that CD for your car anyway, it really costs you nothing but about 10 minutes of your time. I buy from iTunes all the time, and have never had a problem getting those songs onto a CD, and then onto my MP3 player.

 

[Touring Mars]

Wait. What the hell?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/riaa-misreads-jobs-open-letter-on-drm-thinks-hes-offering-to/

The RIAA thought Jobs' letter was about him wanting to license FairPlay (Apple's DRM), when he didn't offer it at all.

That's an interesting article and the discussion it generated below is quite revealing as well...

I probably should reword one of my previous posts, since I'm not against the concept of protecting files per se - I agree with a couple of the posters in that link who think that DRM has helped to bring about the explosion in the online music market. What I'm against (and I think everybody is) is simply that some forms of DRM impose limits on how you can handle your own property, making legally-purchased downloads far less versatile than a good old-fashioned CD.

(It's also interesting to note the outright hostility the pro-DRM posters are receiving on that site too - they make a good point and, generally speaking, their post quality is higher than the average, plus they are merely stating their opinions... Some people are now so used to illegal mp3 downloading that the very concept of actually paying for music is enough to raise their hackles...)

 

[livemusic]

What's the bitrate of iTunes' songs?

 

[Touring Mars]

You know, that's a good point - I hadn't considered the fact that you don't get a choice (I think)... the last album I downloaded was at 128 kbps...

 

[livemusic]

But are all songs on iTunes at 128kbps? I'm considering buying songs online, but that bitrate is too low.

 

[Touring Mars]

But are all songs on iTunes at 128kbps? I'm considering buying songs online, but that bitrate is too low.

I don't know... I don't remember getting a choice...

 

[DuckRacer]

But are all songs on iTunes at 128kbps? I'm considering buying songs online, but that bitrate is too low.

Yes, they're all at 128kbps. That said, the quality IMO is excellent.

Also, I think EMI (one of the Big Four record labels) is listening.

Report: EMI in talks with online retailers to possibly sell MP3s without copy protection
By Associated Press
Friday, February 9, 2007 - Updated: 04:49 AM EST

NEW YORK - Music company EMI Group PLC - home of The Rolling Stones and Coldplay - has been talking with online retailers about possibly selling its entire digital music catalog in MP3 format without copy protection, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday, citing numerous people familiar with the matter.
The MP3 format, which can be freely copied and played on virtually any device, would allow consumers to play music purchased from any online store on any digital music device.
Currently, music purchased at Apple Inc.’s iTunes Store, for example, is wrapped in Apple’s proprietary version of Digital Rights Management technology known as ”FairPlay” and can only be played on the company’s iPod devices. Songs purchased from rival online stores that carry different DRM technology cannot be played on iPods. That has caused some to wonder whether it might be hampering sales.


According to the people familiar with the matter, London-based EMI asked the retailers to submit proposals by Thursday telling the company what size advance payments they would offer in exchange for the right to sell EMI’s music as MP3s, the Journal reported.
One of the unidentified people said EMI would decide whether to forge ahead with the strategy based on the size of the offers. A decision about whether to keep pursuing the idea could come as soon as Friday, the Journal said.
When asked about the report, EMI spokeswoman Jeanne Meyer told The Associated Press, ”We’re not commenting on speculation.”
Earlier this week, Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs called on record labels to abandon their requirement for online music to use DRM, which is designed to limit unauthorized copying. Jobs said such restrictions have done little to slow music piracy and eliminating them would open up the online music marketplace.
One person familiar with the matter told the Journal that several major music companies have recently floated the idea of scrapping copy protections, but none appears to have gone as far as EMI, and some maintain that copy-protection software is critical to stop piracy.
EMI is the world’s third-largest music company by sales and home to acts ranging from The Beatles to the Beastie Boys. But some of its performers - notably including The Beatles - do not yet sell their music in any digital form.
EMI has experimented with releasing singles in the DRM-free MP3 format. In the past few months, the company has released tracks by Norah Jones, Lily Allen and the band Relient K.
Meyer said Thursday night: ”The results of those experiments were very positive, and the fan feedback has been very enthusiastic.”

http://business.bostonherald.com/technologyNews/view.bg?articleid=181990&srvc=biz

 

[DuckRacer]

Now, how do you like them apples.

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/04/02/its-official-drm-free-music-from-emi/

It's official: DRM-free music from EMI

Posted Apr 2nd 2007 8:24AM by Dave Caolo
Filed under: Apple Corporate, iTS, iTunes

Beatles fans, it looks like the wait is still on. Engadet is live blogging the Steve Jobs/EMI press event in London today, and they've just mentioned the official press release from EMI which reads, in part:

"EMI Music launches DRM-free superior sound quality downloads across its entire digital repertoire."

We'll have more details after the jump, so stay tuned!
So far, we know that EMI's entire catalog in iTunes will be DRM-free, and that the iTunes Store is the first online outlet to sell these new downloads (score!). Steve Jobs is calling DRM-free music "...the next step forward," and notes that DRM-free music in iTunes will be encoded at 256kbps AAC, and sell for $1.29US per song.

Stay tuned to TUAW for more on this throughout the day!

So, for an extra 30¢, you get higher quality music with no DRM. 👍

 

[livemusic]

Good news, finally a good quality bit-rate. 👍

 

[DuckRacer]

iTunes 7.2 is available and is now offering DRM-free tracks. 👍