Reuters is reporting that an angry iTunes customer is suing Apple, claiming that he is forced to buy an iPod if he wants to listen to his music on the move. Thomas Slattery, from California, filed the lawsuit for unspecified damages over the inclusion of Apple's "Fairplay" Digital Rights Management system in tracks bought over iTunes. "Fairplay" encodes files in the AAC format, and downloaded songs cannot be transferred to MP3 players - except Apple's own iPod.
The suit alleges Apple has broken anti-trust laws by only allowing its songs to be played on its own player. The majority of MP3 players support rival Microsoft's WMA format which also has DRM. The WMA standard is also used by most online music stores, including Napster. Apple is believed to hold as much as 87% of the digital music player market, with more than six million iPods now sold.
It alleges that "Apple has turned an open and interactive standard into an artifice that prevents consumers from using the portable hard drive digital music player of their choice, even where players exist that would otherwise be able to play these music files absent Apple's actions". Mr Slattery described himself as an iTunes customer who "was also forced to purchase an Apple iPod" if he wanted to take the music he had bought with him.
View: Apple | Apple iTunes
The suit alleges Apple has broken anti-trust laws by only allowing its songs to be played on its own player. The majority of MP3 players support rival Microsoft's WMA format which also has DRM. The WMA standard is also used by most online music stores, including Napster. Apple is believed to hold as much as 87% of the digital music player market, with more than six million iPods now sold.
It alleges that "Apple has turned an open and interactive standard into an artifice that prevents consumers from using the portable hard drive digital music player of their choice, even where players exist that would otherwise be able to play these music files absent Apple's actions". Mr Slattery described himself as an iTunes customer who "was also forced to purchase an Apple iPod" if he wanted to take the music he had bought with him.
View: Apple | Apple iTunes
Cont...
However, VU's statement seems to comprehensively scotch the rumours - which seemed unlikely in the first place, given that the Vivendi Universal group is still climbing its way out of crippling debts, and that the firm's own videogames division has been underperforming badly for a couple of years.
The report came in the wake of Electronic Arts' surprise purchase of almost 20 per cent of Ubisoft's stock late last month, in a move which has been categorised by the French publisher's board of directors as "hostile".
Infogrames CEO Bruno Bonnell this week said that his company could be prepared to help Ubisoft fight off any hostile takeover attempt by EA, while reports indicate that the French government is also watching the situation closely.
This guy shouldn't win the suit, but at least it brings to light how bad lock-in can be.
But i believe this argument has nothing to do with that. This guy is basically saying he has to have an ipod to make his purchased music portable! Now MS do own an online music store but you can buy off this online music store, play your tunes in wmp, and any other microsoft product, but more that that you can actually play them in the majority of the other devices out there wheather its made by samsung (mine), creative, Rio and many others. Microsoft havent gone around making people buy their own device before they can go portable. Nor do they "modify" there drm so they block competitors out. This is like a guy going into a shop and buying a cd that will only work on a sony portable walkman for example.
Im not a law student nor have i ever studied law but in my opinion this guy has a good argument. Unless of course the songs he downloaded were explicitly sold to him with some kind of warning that they may only be played on apples device if he wanted to play music on a DAP.
It doesnt help apple that they blocked out real either, in fact it helps his case!
This guy shouldn't win the suit, but at least it brings to light how bad lock-in can be.
yeah he should win the case. And any one that sues MS for the same should win too. I should be able to play any format on any player.
I don't think what Apple is doing is illegal, even though I do hate DRM, and this is a great example why.
As I said before, Windows Media Player is available for the Mac OS, only it can't play protected content. VLC (or any similar program such as mplayer) won't help me here, as they can't play protected content either. Only WMP has the ability to decrypt it. If I bought music from any WMA music store, I simply would be unable to play it on anything but Windows/WMP or a WMA enabled device unless I burned it to CD and re-ripped it. The same goes for iTunes (Except since the DRM is weaker for iTunes songs, I could run it through Playfair or whatever the hell they're calling it these days to remove the DRM altogether.)
Normally i wouldn't comment on this but i have because i dont believe apple would allow a competitior to make a device that is compatible with itunes
And this is the problem. Almost every codec (with the exception of MPEG 1, OGG Vorbis/Theora, and FLAC and probably a few others) has a license fee and a patent attached to it. The developer of the portable media player must pay said fee.
There is, at the moment, no open standard for DRM. Why would anyone want to make it? Microsoft makes WMA, pushes it by making WMP the default on their OS desktops, so people rip WMA and must use it to play more. They come out with music stores, license it, make a lot of money that way. Apple (obviously) does not want to use WMA, and wants people buying from iTMS to get an iPod. So they make FairPlay and tack it on to AAC. Nothing is forcing them to license Fairplay to others, as someone else could just use AAC/MP3.
Over the years, I've begun to see this happen. People are locked into file formats, (.doc), locked into music formats (.mp3,.aac,.wma) hell, even IM services (AIM, MSN, Yahoo, ICQ.). You're not going to beat lock-in in court, the only way to do it is by active choice. Use RTF, OpenOffice, or AbiWord for documents. Use Ogg/Vorbis for audio, Theora or MPEG 1 for video, and Jabber for IM.
It's the only way.
No, they don't. But they still get money by locking you into WMA. Even though you (kinda) have a choice of what hardware to play on, you're still restricted.
So... They don't have to. Just make WMP10. Then PlayForSure devices would work with Macs.
There are already numerous players compatible.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93548
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93548
And yet, every one of the devices at playsforsure.com work with every protected song at the stores listed at the said address... when they say the devices work with itunes, they mean that they can play non-protected AAC files. That's not compatibility with the store service.
This is why people need to research things before diving into them, and in this case it wouldn't have required more then a very quick search on whatever search engine you so desire. But I guess that wouldn't have the possability of netting this character some easy money.
Be more precise. You said that Apple won't let any other competitor be compatible with iTunes. This is iTunes compatibility. If you won't to refer to the store, refer to the store.
The quote you're referring to wasn't by me.
Which makes your attempt at rebuttal even more useless. I was clarifying to someone. You took it off on a tangent.
To me, you are absurd. The iPod existed before the iTMS. Many people around the world own iPods without iTMS. I have owned one for over two years without using the iTMS. What the hell does a store have to do with whether or not a device can connect to an application?
It's not like that at all. The devices actually PLAY and ARE COMPATIBLE.
So? Because they have their own software, it's incompatible?
I repeat: be clear. Many people prefer iTunes library layout, navigation, ease of use, and features. I could clearly see why people prefer to use iTunes rather than using whatever software comes with it.
Who said they did buy songs? Who says you have to buy songs? I'm talking iTunes compatibility. Millions of users and players have never bought music online but still have digital jukeboxes and music devices.
I would disagree this person is very much a person with a brain. He is putting the whole DRM scheme of things right in front of a judge (which is something we need) in an attempt to protect our rights as comsumers. He is also putting the right kind of scrutiny on Apple.
From my last reading these two statements are facts:
Itunes Music Store is the #1 online music store
iPOD is the #1 protable music player
And in both markets Apple holds a sizable monopoly. Just like MS got in big trouble for putting IE into Windows Apple will get in loads for this. This scheme also means that a customer who makes investments in a music library may never be able to use it portably if he later chooses to do so, for whatever reason.
This is a very good case because we are quickly loosing all of our rights as consumers. With the passage of the DMCA and other bills everything is converting to a "license" not "sold" system. Companies like Apple and MSN Music are attempting to move music into that license category.
I say Apple should loose and DRM should be very harshly questioned and restricted.
If you actually look at what was posted, it makes perfect sense. One user stated that the iPod was the only MP3 player compatible with the ITMS, and you clarified by letting him know that you can plug the devices in and move regular MP3s back and forth. But since the whole point of the ITMS is the "MS" part (ironic, I know), true compatility doesn't exist until you can play the iTunes-downloaded music files on the MP3 players NOT made by Apple. That was my point.
My quote you're replying to has NO relation to this segment... but what I said was that technical compatibility with the file structure is NOT 'compatibility' with the ITMS. In this case, the one feature that would make it COMPLETELY compatible is not availible, and in an arugment over whether other mp3 players work with iTunes music, like this article's original topic, a Creative player or two being able to connect to the playlist feature is not the same compatibility as being able to play protected music.
The true purpose of the ITMS is not to be a Media Player. "Player" never appears once in the title of the software. As another example, the ITMS is a grocery store and the Creative players are 3rd party shopping carts. You can bring them into the market, and put items you already own into them... but you can't put any items from the store into them, so you're locked into buying the store's own, more expensive shopping cart if you want to buy items from the store. Is that compatibility?
Last edited by 67385 on 07 Jan 2005 - 12:15
He could of just as easily used Napster or RealPlayer..
Someone wants some money!
I don’t think this user should be awared any damages, but I hope this gets enough ink to let everyone know about the racket Apple is running.
Unlike PlayForSure services which do a pretty good job explaining what you can do with the content.
So far, I've purchased over $80 worth of tracks from the iTMS. Each one is transcoded to MP3. Ironically enough, I am also an iPod owner, but the freedom of MP3s let me use any player I want.
With iTunes, you may not have a choice of portable player directly but you don't have OS platform lock in and you can play your songs on any mac or PC you wish. You can also use alternative services such as Magnatune or eMusic and you can always use a portable CD player with burned CD's.
Which do you think is more dangerous? OS lock in or player lock in?
What if MSFT ceased to be and all windows versions stopped working? How would you play your songs?
Why can't I play songs purchased through napster on a mac?
Wrong. I but through iTunes Music Store, I unDRM my files, I remove the "M4A coating", and put it on a MMC, and listen to my tunes on my N-Gage...
Have you got any proof of this on the player side? And im not counting the new portable media centers, they are basically an os.
Microsoft charging companies to make there players wma compatable just doesnt make sense to me? PAYING THEM to on the other hand sounds like more of a business move. A Good one!
I unDRM mine as well. It isn't that hard to do. If anything, I hope that this argument drags DRM/fair use/ and the DMCA into public debate. DRM is bad for consumers.
Sure, I want to download from Napster so I had to go by a PC with Windows on it.
if MS is trying to get all these other companies to buy their license for wma. it's a good thing for us, as I've been noticing here in the neowin forums, WE ALL WANT CHOICES, the more wma licenses out there the more options and choices for the type of music players. I don't see apple doing this....
Sure we can re format and take this out and re-rip and so forth the itune music, but not everyone is as tech knowledgeable as we all are here in the neowin community. All the average Joe and Jane sees is itune = 1 player from one company . . . while all other stores gives you more options on more players from more companies.
Mac users don't have a choice but that is not the fault of Apple but rather the fault of MS and their partners for refusing to develop a version of WMP which supports the stores and the DRM.
They are being idiots and are missing a business oportunity. I personally would never buy from a WMA store but part of that has to do with the crappy player MS put out. If they fixed their player and offered the service to mac users as well, they could increase their marketshare.
Remember when iTunes was mac only and US only? They still were doing better than those WMA based stores that existed back then because mac users steal less.
Last edited by 18285 on 06 Jan 2005 - 20:33
And what if Apple stops selling iPOD and goes under? once your battery dies (or some other problem) you would be up the creek.
More options are good for consumers, period. CDs still are the #1 way music is sold simply because u get virtually limitless choice in how you enjoy it. Online music will never replace CDs until that becomes also a reality. On the PC side MP3 offers that near limitless choice, but of course music stores don't support it.
This is a great case because DRM needs to be in court and it needs to be opened to serious public scrutiny...
in a world where McDonalds loses 20 million for making their coffee too hot, anything is possible
And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't iTMS the only online store that supports the iPod?
Maybe iPod users should sue these other online stores.
What? Because the other online stores are unable to get their music to work on iPods? As mentioned above by jagedEdge Real's store USED to support iPod, but only because they cracked Apple's technologies. As soon as Apple made a firmware revision it stopped working. It is APPLE that is preventing competition in any variety here, not other companies being purposely incompatible.
I'm sure other stores would just LOVE to have their music work on the iPod, being the most popular music device, but all the time their music doesn't work on the iPod they are losing all the iPod-owning customers..
No, they should sue Apple if anything... For not letting them purchase music from anyone but Apple (Apple refuses to license FairPlay, a technology they acquired by purchasing the developer).
They see the current popularity of the iPod as a way to push the iTunes music store, and if the iTunes music store is successful (as it seems to be), then that guarantees future iPod sales (because no other player is compatible with iTunes).
I think is the other way around iPod is what made the itune store popular. if it didn't no one would've care enough about the itune store. the only reason people buy from it, it's because the only way they can get music into their new cool looking iPod. I hate to say it (because there are other cool looking music players out there) but the ipod is so nicely designed that I bet anyone would've still bought them even if there were no itunes store.
I think is the other way around iPod is what made the itune store popular. if it didn't no one would've care enough about the itune store. the only reason people buy from it, it's because the only way they can get music into their new cool looking iPod. I hate to say it (because there are other cool looking music players out there) but the ipod is so nicely designed that I bet anyone would've still bought them even if there were no itunes store.
Which came first? The iPod or the music store? Answer:iPod. Why were PC users buying iPods if there was no iTunes for windows? Why were people outside of the US buying iPods long before iTMS came out?
The iPod became a success despite the fact that the iTMS was lagging other stores in availability in other countries. Look at the stats, they speak for themselves.
Did iTunes availability on windows help the popularity of the iPod? Yes of course it did? Did iTMS availability cause the iPod to become the most popular player out there? No. It did contribute to it but it was not the main cause for it.
I bought an iPod back in 2002 which was before iTMS launched for mac users in the US. iTMS only launched a little over a month ago in my country (Canada).
Who wants a 128 kbps file anyway? I'd rather get the cd and encode it to whatever I want.
MS is doing this, but with more resticted DRM though "technology partners" like Napster. Let the guy buy an ipod and try to use Napster, or buy a Rio and try to use an itunes Music Store file. When you buy a products, and want to purchase music online, you are picking your poison.
Also, Microsoft DOESNT make media players.
This is the best news I heard all day, and I gotta agree with "Ideas Man"
If this was microsoft, everyone would bitch, but nooooo apple is fine when they abuse there monopoly.
Not only that, Apple moan about Microsoft abusing there monopoly, but as soon as they got a chance, they do the same!
If anyone's seen the South Park episode parodying Starbucks, the message fits here too. Microsoft isn't a multi-billion-dollar company because they're worse than everyone else [or "eval m$"], they got their position through hard work and quality. Punishing them through lawsuits for "monopolistic actions" when the major competitor does the SAME THING but doesn't sell as much... you get a very hypocritical court system. You get the impression that the people (or countries) deciding to sue the company with more money is only after one thing.
You are completely wrong. MS produced a format, which they license to anyone who wants to use it (much like Sony is hoping to do with BluRay). It is Apple's choice to not support the WMA format. Microsoft and Napster would love to have iPod support, but Apple does not allow it.
That is the heart of this suit; Apple is deliberately not supporting a media standard in order to force users to buy their own goods (yes, WMA has enough market presence to be considered a standard now). How hard would it be to add WMA support to the iPod; it would take a simple software update.
Microsoft IS hell, and Bill Gates IS the dark lord!
Since a compagny is supposed to tell you what the limitations are BEFORE you buy something, otherwise how in the hell should a person know he wont be able to play his purchased music on another machine.
I also keep wondering how many people have fallen for this cheap stunt apple pulled.
Ow well... i think will see what happens....
From the iTunes Music Store Terms of Service:
That is still a big difference from what it should have stated..!
You won't be able to play this music on any other MP3-Player, OTHER then the iPOD.
Being able to or being allowed to is in my eyes a big difference.
Compared to the WMV format, where you can only download from MSN Music, Musicmatch, MusicNow, F.Y.E., Napster, or Wal*Mart... and only play them on the players made by RaveMP, Rio, SanDisk, RCA, iRiver, Creative, or Samsung. All in all, you only have a handful of stores and a little more than 20 players, excluding hard drive variances. And while you're ensured quality with iTunes because Apple manages every player and song file, Microsoft only runs MSN music... every other store and player are all relatively independant. Who would YOU choose?
DeepThought, I would choose iTMS and iPod, and I did.
Otherwise we can all start multiple companies, and tell our costumers... Nah.. thats not our job.. it`s there`s... and they will say the same thing.. and everyone will be screwed over, and there`s will be nothing you can do about it..!!
no offence, but what you said was like a big crock of ****..!!! Although i do see where you are comming from.
"sknnr.nl", I appreciate that you see where I'm "comming" from, but to be honest I'm not entirely sure what you said, except for reiterating my point that Apple is holding a monopoly by having the most popular music store and player, and the fact that they don't let any other store sell for their player or any other company make their player work with iTunes music.
In reply to you, sknnr.nl, the iPod does come with documentation that states it works with the iTunes Music Store. It's similar to the PlaysForSure program, except only iPods and computers that can run iTunes 4 are currently supported.
DeepThought, Apple technically does have competition. One could argue that they're in a market of their own by only supporting their own products, but really, it wouldn't work all that well. Clearly, Napster, MSN Music, etc. are all competing against Apple's iTMS. They're just losing because the iPod is so popular.
In legal terms, this anti-trust suit won't fly. But courts have been known to make dumb decisions.