Today Virgin Mega has filed a complaint against Apple. This French online music store claims that Apple's refusal to license its Fairplay technology for its iPod is damaging competition. This complaint comes shortly after Real introduced its "Harmony" software, which enables music purchased from its store to play on Apple's iPod. How is it damaging competition when no other portable audio player can hold a candle to Apple's iPod (market share & ease of use)? I feel that if a company made the product it should be allowed to license it to whomever they want (under legal circumstances). It's pretty screwed up when other companies start filing lawsuits demanding that Apple licenses its copy protection technology just so they can make more money off Apple's hard work.
French online music store Virgin Mega has filed a complaint against Apple Computer, claiming that the company's refusal to license the copy protection technology used in its iPod is harming competition.
The action was filed with the French Competition Council in June and disclosed along with several other legal matters on Thursday as part of Apple's quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. According to the filing, the online store, part of the Virgin family, is seeking various unspecified "interim measures," pending a decision on the merits of the case. A hearing on that request is expected in either October or November, Apple said in the filing.
An Apple representative declined to comment further on the Virgin dispute. A Virgin representative was not immediately available for comment. A number of media companies, most prominently RealNetworks, have called on Apple to open up its FairPlay digital rights technology so that other digital music services can securely transfer files onto Apple's iPod player. FairPlay blocks people from making unlimited copying of songs but also makes sure that the iPod doesn't work with any other kind of copy-protected formats.
News source: C|Net News.com
French online music store Virgin Mega has filed a complaint against Apple Computer, claiming that the company's refusal to license the copy protection technology used in its iPod is harming competition.
The action was filed with the French Competition Council in June and disclosed along with several other legal matters on Thursday as part of Apple's quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. According to the filing, the online store, part of the Virgin family, is seeking various unspecified "interim measures," pending a decision on the merits of the case. A hearing on that request is expected in either October or November, Apple said in the filing.
An Apple representative declined to comment further on the Virgin dispute. A Virgin representative was not immediately available for comment. A number of media companies, most prominently RealNetworks, have called on Apple to open up its FairPlay digital rights technology so that other digital music services can securely transfer files onto Apple's iPod player. FairPlay blocks people from making unlimited copying of songs but also makes sure that the iPod doesn't work with any other kind of copy-protected formats.
News source: C|Net News.com
According to information received by the Kaspersky Virus Lab, Brador was probably written by a Russian virus coder. The Trojan was attached to an email with a Russian sender and Russian text inside. The author was offering to sell the client part for the Trojan to all interested parties, which means that there is a real chance that the backdoor may be bought by somebody who will use it commercially (bot network creation, for instance).
"PDA users face a real danger and we can be sure that the computer underground will snatch at the chance to attack PDAs and mobile phones in the nearest future," added Eugene Kaspersky, "malware development for mobiles is passing through the same stages as malware for desktops: we will probably see a serious outbreak of viruses for handhelds sometime soon."
Kaspersky Labs has already updated the antivirus databases with protection against Brador. A detailed description of Brador is available in the Kaspersky Virus Encyclopedia.
i find it sad that a company like apple can work so hard to get to where it is at in the digital music world and then all these other companies think they can use that to their own advantage. not only that, but demanding that they have the right to do this.
'tis a sad world we live in.
Or a version of Windows that only works with Microsoft Office?
Or only works with programs written with Visual Studio?
Or only lets you use Internet Explorer and no other browser?
I mean, just imagine if Microsoft released a player that only worked with their music store... they'd be torn to shreds.
How could they do it.... that can't be legal!!!!
your argument has no real ground. apple is not preventing the other companies from selling open formats that play on their ipods (aac/mp3). nor are they preventing the person from buying the file and reencoding it or from buying the actual cd and encoding it in aac so that it will play on an ipod.
arguing that apple doesn't have the right to keep this tech to themselves is like saying the writer of a song has no right in not allowing someone else to make money off of that song. has no right in keeping code to a program they wrote to themselves.
what apple should do here is offer to let a company use their drm tech for the small price of 99% of the profit made from every file sold. that way the companies can't complain apple isn't offering it
anyway, now apple knows how it feels to be a monopoly. theyve sued others for unfair bussines practices and hten it happens to them. at least microsoft never accuses someone of abusing their monopolistic statis
STV
Completely wrong.
Apple has committed the following crimes in my book:
1) Misleading customers, by not advertising that A) The music they sell *only* works on their player. And B) The player they sell *only* works with music bought from their store.
2) Unfair use of monopoly status to affect a different market. They have, for some unfathomable reason, the best selling portable audio device on the market. That part is fine and dandy.
Now they enter a new market, selling music online, and actively block competitors in that new market from being compatible with the iPod.
This isn't at all like Microsoft including Internet Explorer with Windows.
This is like Microsoft BLOCKING Netscape/Mozilla/Opera/Etc. from working on Windows at all.
It's absolutley outrageous. And I hope others in this market follow suit (no pun intended).
STV
2) Microsoft affected the hardware market by not supporting the PowerPC architecture with Windows. I don't see you complaining.
Yes, they do.
Not true.
Every analyst beleives this market is just beginning and accounts for less than 3% of its future value. No rational person would say that you can have a monopoly of a market when it hasn't begun to develop yet.
2) i think that reason that they didnt support the PowerPC architecture with Windows was because no one was really using that type of system at home and there wasnt a geat demand for it. remember, i could also say the same thing about apple not porting OS X to the x86 architecture, but i wont (until you force me to).
STV
2) Microsoft affected the hardware market by not supporting the PowerPC architecture with Windows. I don't see you complaining.
Wrong again.
1) Anyone can make an x86 compatible processor. And Microsoft doesn't make one nor were they the first. They originally did make Windows NT for the Alpha, MIPS, *and* PowerPC architectures, but dropped them one by one as they simply weren't popular enough to warrant further development.
1B) You can't use any AAC file on the iPod. Only Apple AAC files. For instance, AAC files from Real's store do not work (unless you use Harmony, of course).
2) Microsoft didn't design x86. And they didn't make x86 only work with Windows.
If you want a comparable scenario, I'll try to come up with one.
Imagine, if you will, that Intel was to release a 64-bit capable Pentium 4 (far-fetched idea, eh?).
Now imagine that this chip works fine with current 32-bit OSes, and so it sells in hundreds of thousands of systems.
But then Intel announces a hidden "feature" of these new chips... The only 64-bit OSes they'll run have to be bought from Intel, and Intel alone. It could be a specially modified, market up version of Windows, or their own custom Linux distro with "on-chip DRM" that prevents you from pirating the OS. Of course, it also prevents you from running 64-bit Windows. Or any other Linux distro.
That's the closest thing I can think of that more or less makes sense in modern computing terms.
Of course, you're talking about vastly different products with vastly different circumstances.
Surely, the DVD player that only plays DVDs burned/pressed on Sony DVD media is a better analogy.
But then Intel announces a hidden "feature" of these new chips... The only 64-bit OSes they'll run have to be bought from Intel, and Intel alone. It could be a specially modified, market up version of Windows, or their own custom Linux distro with "on-chip DRM" that prevents you from pirating the OS. Of course, it also prevents you from running 64-bit Windows. Or any other Linux distro.
That's the closest thing I can think of that more or less makes sense in modern computing terms.
And that's a completely different and incorrect analogy.
Apple produced a device that only worked with Macs. They produced a service that only worked with Macs and iPods. There was no open system to begin with.
Then they opened it up to Windows users.
The iPod and iTMS have been getting more and more open from a closed system that was always advertised that way.
There was no "hidden" feature to lock anyone in... They did not lock out customers who had an expectation of openness...
Not at all... Maybe if Sony was the one licensing the content... But in this case, what you are upset about is getting inside of the protections that Apple has created for materials it has licensed from other content owners. I don't see how a completely made up scenario mirrors that at all.
Please show me where.
Sorry, should've specified... The player they sell *only* works with legally purchased downloadable music from their store.
Well since you've asked them all it's hard to argue. But I'll try
Less than 3% of its future value? Where did you get that idea? Given inflation, growth of our species, and long-term economic trends, most any market that exists to day is only worth 3% of the value it may have at some unspecified future point in time.
I'm a rational person, and I'm saying that Apple has a near-monopoly on the market for hard-drive based portable music players. I actually haven't seen a recent marketshare number, do you think you could find one for me that indicates otherwise?
This has nothing to do with protecting the content that Apple has licensed (or rather, sells licenses for).
Real's Harmony, for instance, does not bypass any restrictions on Apple's FairPlay technology. It does not allow you to circumvent their DRM, nor does it even have anything to do with Apple's FairPlay-encoded files.
All it does is allow files downloaded from Real's store to be transferred to the iPod just like any other AAC portable audio player. This use of Real's licenses completely falls within the copy restrictions set forth in that license.
All over the place... Look for yourself. More importantly, where do they say anything that indicates that you should be able to use whatever you want.
That is still incorrect. Try again.
Don't be an ass munch. About 3% of the population of the US has an mp3 player. Far less than that have purchased digital music online. This is an immature market. Worldwide, with a few exceptions, the numbers are much worse.
Compare existing music sales in various forms to those generated online.
It's not rational to claim that Microsoft did nothing wrong with IE, but I'll play along.
Apple has 50% of the HD based mp3 player market. This market is still just beginning to develop.
Blah, blah, blah... I didn't know I was talking about Harmony.
Let's use your scenario... There are a few different DVD standards. Sony produces one, but they say these DVDs only work with our media on our machines. Despite the alternatives, and knowing full well this is a closed system, you and 50% of the market decide to buy into th Sony model because of some preference...
A year later you want to be able to play some other media or to be able to play your Sony DVD in another player... Why? What expectation do you have? You had alternatives. There are other DVD standards which have the same content on them. You could have chosen that other option.
let me give it a try.
The player they sell *only* works with legally purchased downloadable music from their store (AAC), ripped from CD (Apple AAC, MP3, WAV, AIFF, or apple lossless), MP3, WAV, AIFF, or Apple Lossless file.
is this better?
STV
That is still incorrect. Try again.
Well, Harmony changes this, but Apple has promised to break Harmony the first chance they get. At which point, the iPod will again only be able to play AAC files with Apple's DRM.
Let's use your scenario... There are a few different DVD standards. Sony produces one, but they say these DVDs only work with our media on our machines. Despite the alternatives, and knowing full well this is a closed system, you and 50% of the market decide to buy into th Sony model because of some preference...
A year later you want to be able to play some other media or to be able to play your Sony DVD in another player... Why? What expectation do you have? You had alternatives. There are other DVD standards which have the same content on them. You could have chosen that other option.
Well, Harmony is the only example, currently, of Apple actively trying to prevent competitors from interoperating with their hardware.
Your crude DVD example doen't even make sense.
The thing is, most people who buy MP3 players have no clue what DRM is. They just know which one is prettiest, and thus why Apple has sold so many iPods. They assume that all "MP3 Players" are created equal, aside from physical size, memory capacity, and perhaps battery life.
However, that clearly is not the case.
Furthermore, those like my friend next door purchased their iPods before the iTMS launched. And before anyone knew anything about FairPlay, or the fact that the iPod would only play Apple's AAC files and no one elses AAC files. Now he's forced to use iTMS if he wants to download music. Wheras, if he purchased an iRiver device like I did (after getting fed up with my first-gen iPod), he would be able to use every single service except Apple's.
From my perspective, that's a much better side of the fence to be on.
Last edited by 30311 on 06 Aug 2004 - 00:54
if that is irrational to you, then certainly you can see where apple may be worse than microsoft in this case. at least you can use other browsers on windows.
STV
Yeah, STV, I disagree with you on most things, but you are on the ball on this one and 3daysdown is still running in circles for some assinine reason.
But you also forgot Audible format.
You can still use other stores and other devices can't you?
Explain to me how Apple is forcing you to use the iPod and iTMS. Please, please, please... because right now, I can't stop laughing.
1) thanks
2) i dont think that he is running in circles, it is just that he is having a hard time explaining something to you. there is something wrong with the way both of you give and send information (only between both of you). it is almost as if he is using an incompatible audio format that you can barely recognize and vice-versa (please dont take this as an insult because it was not meant as one).
STV
Explain to me how Apple is forcing you to use the iPod and iTMS. Please, please, please... because right now, I can't stop laughing.
apple is not forcing me. it is forcing its users to use either a physical store to buy CDs or their own digital music store (iTMS). i personally, use napster for buying singles and physical stores to buy CDs. i also use my Pocket PC to listen to my music files.
STV
That's not the issue.
The issue is, that if you buy (or have bought) an Apple music player, the ONLY downloadable music you can buy is from them.
That's what the iPod supports. That took me 10 seconds to find. How is that misleading customers? Please show me were they state it supports all formats of music you will ever encounter... It's up to you as the buyer to do that research before hand, Apple has no obligation except for those formats.
1B) The iPod supports .AAC. Real doesn't use AAC for it's online store just like Apple doesn't. The files are AAC underneath, but since they are wrapped up in DRM for protection, they are no longer standard AAC files and as such are no longer guaranteed to play on all players. The iPod plays standard AAC and MP3 files no problem, as Apple states.
You can't say Apple has a monopoly on the hardware side of things when I don't see any shortage of competitors. Every store I go into that sells iPod's (sometimes difficult to even find) has at least 20 other players having nothing to do with it. Still is plenty of choice.
And nothing is illegal about having a monopoly. These are some things that Apple could do, which would be similar to what MS did: To a store selling hardware, "If you want to carry the iPod, we ask that you remove all competing MP3 players, or you stop selling iPods" or to the record labels, "If you make your music available on any other store, we will drop you from our store". These are actions that would obviously be abusive to consumers, but since they don't do such a things, nothing is preventing any companying from stepping up and trying to achieve the position that Apple is in.
Not from my perspective, and I don't see why I or Apple should be held responsible for your ignorance.
From what I hear most often, people think all mp3 players are like the iPod.
Of course, it does.
And... So he had no epectation that Apple was offerign anything, and he knew that existing stores using WMA didn't work, but he bought it anyway. Exactly like my Sony DVD analogy.
This was known before the iTMS. Did it say on the box: supports WMA, WMA DRMed, and AAC with Helix DRM? No, it did not.
Stay on your side of the fence then. That's my point. You still have plenty of choice, and if you don't like the Apple choice, don't whine about how it's "unfair."
Last edited by 9953 on 06 Aug 2004 - 01:18
1B) question: who is deviating from the AAC standard? apple, real, or both
So... They never said it was open. You can buy something else.
NEITHER
that seems fair. the only problem that I have is that apple isnt really "shunned" for things like this, but if microsoft were involved almost everyone and their mother would be complaining.
choosing apple is a choice. and choosing other stores is a choice too. in the end, i think that this will hurt them in a big way.
STV
then why does real have to do somethingto make their AAC format work with the iPOD? is it because of the differing DRM systems that eac have in place?
STV
You're not even a customer. I'm a customer and I don't feel forced to do anything. I prefer it.
The people who are claiming "unfairness" are non-Apple customers. They want their Apple device to be a Microsoft device... Or they want their stores (which sell Microsoft formatted materials) to be popular on an Apple device... That's not unfairness... That's sore grapes and jealousy.
The files iTunes encodes as a Jukebox ARE standard AAC files.
i am not sure if you have read some of my other posts on this subject, but i refer to it at "apple's AAC format" because they seem to treat it like it is theirs.
STV
I think that Apple and everyone else in that industry should work together to develop interoperable standards that protect each competitors intellectual property while still giving users a choice. They should at least be willing to license FairPlay to other companies so that they can sell music in compatible formats.
I don't have the time to argue with you futher. But let me leave you with my original question:
If Microsoft did the same thing Apple has done, and released an MP3/WMA player that would only work with DRM specific to their own music store, would you defend them? Of course, they would also have to integrate their music store with WMP, which comes with every copy of Windows. And that store would only work with Microsoft's portable player.
Somehow.... Somehow I think not.
Because Microsoft claims to be a platform developer that enables other developers.
Apple claims to produce a vertical easy to ease product which is seemless from end to end.
This is the same issue as Macs running OS X and no other machines being able to run it.
You are simply applying your Microsoft-influenced perspective on a company that never claimed or even aimed to produce the kinds of products you want. Which is why you don't choose them. But that doesn't give you a reason to whine about it and say Apple should be more like Microsoft. Apple can be like whatever it wants to be.
The reason this is not analogous (to IE) at all is Microsoft created an open platform. They got beat on their own platform by an app that could threaten the whole platform. They then closed the platform around their own product.
Apple has never claimed to be an open system. Apple hasn't done anything to make it more difficult for competitors to succeed on its platform. They were always locked out.
Last edited by 9953 on 06 Aug 2004 - 01:17
The people who are claiming "unfairness" are non-Apple customers. They want their Apple device to be a Microsoft device... Or they want their stores (which sell Microsoft formatted materials) to be popular on an Apple device... That's not unfairness... That's sore grapes and jealousy.
i dont feel jealous about this. my pocket PC works fine for me. im just saying that others might want apple's iPOD to support other formats. i dont have one now, but if apple does get off its hih horse and actually inlcudes support for WMA, then I will save to buy one. but at this point, for me, it is about apple practically getting away with something that microsoft has been accussed of doing.
STV
No, they don't. You and others just don;t know what you are talking about.
Apple always refers to AAC as a part of the MPEG-4 standard.
I wish they would. It's much better than essentially giving away their media format when all other media companies recognize the value of their tech. Microsoft is doing jsut the opposite: attempting to monopolize the media format war, not by winning it, but by flooding the market with a product that they sell for below cost.
Start a revolution and reignite an industry and a market of copycats by making the products seemlessly interoperable and desirable?
Sounds good for consumers to me.
Apple claims to produce a vertical easy to ease product which is seemless from end to end.
This is the same issue as Macs running OS X and no other machines being able to run it.
The reason this is not analogous (to IE) at all is Microsoft created an open platform. They got beat on their own platform by an app that could threaten the whole platform. They then closed the platform around their own product.
Apple has never claimed to be an open system. Apple hasn't done anything to make it more difficult for competitors to succeed on its platform. They were always locked out.
even though this is an opposing view point, i have no choice but to agree on this level of the discussion. all that I quoted (from your post) looks true, sounds true, and walks true (well maybe not walks, but i hoppe you get the idea) it must be true.
this is only part that i disagree with, but not enough to really waste time to debate it. as you can see and probably agree, this is getting a bit boring.
STV
Sounds good for consumers to me.
that makes sense as well. im not saying that what apple is doing is completely bad. what you have pointed out, is the reason why the iPOD is succeeding and why it is doing as well as it is. 3daysdawn is just pointing out a con to using their player.
Apple always refers to AAC as a part of the MPEG-4 standard.
i do know what I am talking about. i know that it is indeed a standard and that they try to push that across. what i am saying is that they "TREAT" it as if it were theirs, not that they say that it is theirs.
STV
Go ahead... You end up sounding like a crappy reporter who doesn't know sh1t, but if you want to project some characterization about Apple that they and others don't feel they actually hold to despite sounding like someone who is misinformed, not informed at all, or is just spreading FUD, have at it.
THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT PERSONAL ATTACKS. please keep to the discussion. just because you dont agree with me doesnt mean that you ahve to lash out. i have agreed with you and disagreed with you. everyone has different opinions and this is my opinion and the quote is yours, cant we just leave it at that and agree to disagree?
STV
If I attacked you, it would be a whole lot worse.
That was personal advice.
If I attacked you, it would be a whole lot worse.
That was personal advice.
it just seemed that way to me. sorry if i took it the wrong way.
advice noted.
STV