Once Again, Scandinavia proves themselves to be smarter than us.
Ah, clear skies…Universal Health Care…6 weeks vacation…Great looking furniture…Ikea…
As if Scandinavia needed yet another reason why they have it so good. Still, they keep pumping out bullet points on the ‘pros’ column: Norway has just declared iTunes illegal. More specifically, they feel that proprietary DRM is bad for competition. And if DRM isn’t proprietary, there’s little value in it for the media and device manufacturers. So, good for Scandinavia and European consumers, albeit perhaps bad for Apple.
In related news, eMusic…the wonderfully DRM-free AND affordable MP3 web site site has just added Tom Waits to its library. Now I can afford his latest album!
21 Comments
This is a bit heavy handed, don’t you think? I understand it’s not convenient that their music doesn’t play on other players, but should a government step in and declare what format Apple should use or not use? And if DRM is bad for hardware competition, we’d probably see an accompanying decline in music player purchases since people don’t like their choices, right?
“This is a bit heavy handed, don’t you think?”
Well, I find DRM a bit heavy handed as well.
“And if DRM is bad for hardware competition”
It is bad. The iPod is the market leader for a variety of reasons, but one is certainly because of iTunes. A relatively easy, highly integrated and first-to-market music store. Once your library consists of DRMed AAC files, you’re likely not going to be able to even look at other MP3 player options.
Granted, Apple can compete on design as well, so I’m not too worried about Apple in this case.
I think the people of Norway (or any country for that matter) would be better served by rethinking copyright laws. My understanding is DRM is a tool for helping companies/artists protect what is legally theirs. If this statement is correct, attacking the protection of copyright is not the same as attacking the antique copyright law itself. Therefore, it doesn’t look like Norway is facing the real problem.
However, I don’t think in practicality DRM matters much, because consumers with crack software will win, but for a country to come out and declare it illegal seems like a waste of time. Can’t they spend some of their North Sea rev on something else?
My overarching point is: is it really necessary for a government to step in just because consumers are mad their music files are aac? Is it something to applaud? Aren’t those consumers allowed to buy something else or nothing at all if they don’t like the whole package (music, player, and drm together)? I don’t believe that consumers are so ignorant that they don’t realize what they’re getting into when they go with Apple. I use Apple and my biggest problem is how bad the hardware is. Should I go get Norm Coleman to declare bad Apple hardware illegal?
“for a country to come out and declare it illegal seems like a waste of time”
Seems like the easiest way to get companies to rethink the heavy handed use of DRM is to simply say you can’t sell to our market unless you do. Money talks. ;o)
Apparently, the music industry has already begun to see the light:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/21/yourmoney/music.php/
“is it really necessary for a government to step in just because consumers are mad their music files are aac? Is it something to applaud?”
I think it’s good when consumer protection is given some emphasis. IP laws of late–especially in the US–have done nothing but take away consumers’ rights.
“Should I go get Norm Coleman to declare bad Apple hardware illegal?”
In many places it *is* illegal to sell faulty product to consumers. Lemon laws are just one example. Yes, you should bother your elected officials if companies are ripping you off.
“Seems like the easiest way to get companies to rethink the heavy handed use of DRM is to simply say you can’t sell to our market unless you do. Money talks. ;o)”
Ok, you support the most blunt instrument for opposing DRM, and are happy to hand over the reins to a gov. But are all consumers in Norway happy that they can’t use iTunes to put music on their iPods? If it’s now illegal to sell iTunes in Norway, how will those consumers be helped? Do their preferences matter? My guess is there are more consumers with iTunes & iPods than iTunes & Zunes. They don’t matter under your plan.
Yes, money talks. I hope, for your argument’s sake, that the Norwegian market is big enough to talk.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/01/countries_gdp_a.html
Good article link. Thanks. First, you and I both agree that DRM sucks. But your unabashed support of the Norwegian gov intervention is what I disagree with. I went into your article, and noticed a theme: it was essentially saying that consumers don’t like DRM, that consumers get around it anyway, and that records companies might actually have more reach if they deliver songs in open formats. This is the market talking, not uncle sam protecting the minions.
But the best part of the article is when Frenchman, Jacques Attali, disagrees with your Norwegian cheers:
“Jacques Attali, the French economist, author and music aficionado, endorsed the idea of removing barriers around digital files, but warned that it was not government’s place but the market economy’s to do so.
Attali forecast in his newest book that all recorded music will be free in the next several decades. Consumers will instead pay for live performances, he predicted. He said that the business model of digital music should reflect the old radio model: free online music supported by advertising.”
Makes sense to me. What doesn’t make sense is that someone from France thinks gov is not the answer to this “insidious” problem.. jk. Needless to say, I agree with Jacques. Let the market figure it out. Then everyone’s vote counts.
As for being for or against consumer protection, that’s a straw man. It’s not like Apple is selling asbestos-laced songs or something. Well, I take that back. You could make an argument that listening to Justin Timberlake’s new album can cause health problems.
Ben a few questions -
Do you agree that after you purchase something that item belongs to you — meaning you own it?
Do you agree that you should be able to resell an item or give it away after you purchase it?
I think some of traditional free market theory falls down because we are talking about a nontraditional item. We are talking about a dynamic item such that the seller has the ability long after the sale to change the qualities of the item. (For example, at any arbitrary time Apple can reduce the number of times you can burn a song.) So you purchased the song — but you don’t own it, you can’t resell it and possibly can’t burn it. Can you imagine if 3 months after you purchased a CD the manufacturer knocks on your door and replaces your copy with one that doesn’t work? This easily falls within the category of faulty products and lemon laws.
And if the US were to take a similar stance to Norway, I think the money would surely talk.
Casey, I agree with you that this is not your average item (and hence, I hear your desire that it “should” be like an average item). There are lots of rules around it. Because of the more onerous rules, I don’t buy iTunes myself.
You know I prefer the market to gov intervention, but your statement that the free market “falls down” because of iTunes’s complicated purchase agreement simply isn’t accurate. Lots of products, and software products particular, have complicated purchase agreements. For example, if you buy a text book, are you allowed to photocopy it and sell the copy? Under your logic, once I own it, I should be able to do anything with it, including copy it and resell it, or better yet, put my name on it as author and resell it. After all, I own the book!
As you know, many software products have complicated licenses like this. When you buy an Oracle db, you’re not allowed to install it on more than a couple CPUs, even though you bought the damn install disk! There are tons of annoying rules around Oracle DBs. But since good ‘ol Norway hasn’t declared this illegal, the market has responded instead. Compared to 1998, there are many DBs that now compete (quite successfully) with Oracle and their yucky license agreements, including the popular MySQL (and it’s free - see a pattern?). Can you believe that all of this happened without gov intervention?
Imagine for a minute if Norway, and then the US, had made it illegal to limit the number of CPUs in Oracle license agreements, would we have more or less DB options today? Clearly, the sucky CPU-limiting license has opened the door for many more DBs. By leaving it alone, we get more competition, more choices.
iTune’s is competing in a free market. And judging by iTunes’s revenue, you and Darrel hold the minority opinion. It appears most consumers are more than happy to put up with the onerous DRM in order to listen to songs they like. According to your summary of how awful life is under iTunes DRM, we should see customers abandoning Apple in droves. Apparently, you overstate the severity of the problem.
Your wrong on “faulty products and lemon laws” too. If you downloaded a Britney Spears song and it turned out to be Madonna, that’d be a faulty product. If you sign a purchase agreement to abide by the iTunes DRM, and then complain about the purchase agreement you just agreed to, you’re a lemon customer.
Letting the ‘market figure out’ requires a fair and well balance market. At least in the US, things like the DMCA have slanted the game in favour of industry over consumer to a large enough extent that it’s crazy to believe that the those in charge of the market will ever need to change simply based on the consumer.
Since software was brought up as an analogy, on top of that, we have little-to-nothing in the way of consumer protection laws when it comes to software.
As such, I’m all for gov (ie, us) stepping in.
Free Market theories work well on paper. No so much in real live when they things get a tad more complicated. ;o)
Darrel, you play both sides of the argument here. You tell me that industry will never change to meet the needs of the consumer because they tilted DMCA in their favor, but you post an article that says the industry is changing to meet the needs to the consumer (which proves my point, btw). Seriously, which side of the argument do you want to be on?
As for consumer protection, please summarize how DRM actually harms consumers, either by putting their security or safety at risk. If you were talking about soiled spinach, dangerous autos, faulty car seats, loan sharks, or hey, how about Sony’s rootkit hack, you then have a leg to stand on. But why do I need to be protected against the .aac filetype? If anything, it protects the seller from theft. It doesn’t harm the buyer.
Darrel, I gave you an example of the market at work with the Oracle DB scenario and DBs like MySQL gaining traction. How is that not the market bringing about several options? When you think “free market”, are you thinking anarchy or something? If so, then that’s a straw man. I don’t get your point about it only working well on paper. Lots of things operate in a market fashion: food, housing, clothing, autos, entertainment, higher ed… Do we not live in a market-based economy?
You talk about “those in charge of the market” not changing to meet consumer needs. I’ll go back to my DB analogy. Under your idea of how markets work, then Oracle, Microsoft, Sybase, MySQL, Postgres, whatever other DB company, are all in collusion. Is this how you see markets?
The Oracle analogy also works well because they limit the number of CPUs, similar to how .acc limits the number of burns-to-disk, right? In my analogy, better (freer) options emerge (MySQL). Darrel, do you not think mp3 or other freer options will emerge or reemerge in reaction to the onerous iTunes DRM? I thought you were insinuating that with the article you posted. Please clarify.
You also haven’t addressed my point about iTunes sales vs. DRM dissatisfaction. Why are iTunes sales so successful even though everyone hates the DRM? Why are we not seeing a resurgence in CD purchases?
“but you post an article that says the industry is changing to meet the needs to the consumer (which proves my point, btw)”
It proves your point, albeit almost a decade after the market told the industry what they wanted.
If the government hadn’t ALREADY interfeared with things like the DMCA, the RIAA would have had no choice. They would have had to accomodate the wishes of the consumer. Instead, they did everything BUT accomodate the consumer…kicking and screaming all the way.
So, I suppose you could say the market will correct itself. But it’s taken years and years. Apaprently, Norway wants to speed things up a bit. ;o)
But this is the way it’s always been. Money always trumps what’s best for the consumer.
It’s a fallacy to assume the general buying population can possibly know enough about these industries to make fully educated purchasing decisions.
“please summarize how DRM actually harms consumers”
It restricts my fair use rights to product I buy.
“If anything, it protects the seller from theft.”
No it doesn’t.
“Do we not live in a market-based economy?”
Absolutely. But it’s not a FAIR market. And there probably is never such thing.
I’m OK with your ‘the government shouldn’t interfere’ but only if you truly mean it. If the government shouldn’t interfere, then there shouldn’t be the DMCA. There shouldn’t be copyright laws. There shouldn’t be the FDA and the like.
Of course, we need some regulation. That’s how society works. We entrust members of our society to do the research and analysis for us. It has to be that way.
“Why are iTunes sales so successful even though everyone hates the DRM?”
DMCA. RIAA extortion tactics. Insane and lopsided penalties. No other choice. Etc.
Also, the iPod is a damn fine MP3 player. ;o)
“Why are we not seeing a resurgence in CD purchases?”
It’s a pain in the ass issue. It’s a pain in the ass to buy my files DRMed but it’s a hell of a lot less painful that getting in my car, driving to the store, looking for a CD, hoping they have it, waiting in line, paying twice the cost, driving home, then ripping it.
The market HAS spoken regarding DRM. File trading increased daily. People want their media now, and DRM free. In a true free market, the industry would have to accept that and adapt. Instead they’ve been suing grandmas and bribing congress.
(And thanks for the dicussion, Ben…I don’t think we’ve had a thread this long on Mnteractive in a long while… ;o)
Good stuff Darrel. I agree with your intentions, but disagree with your implementation. There are so many examples of industry-specific regulation causing less competition, and greater monopolization. Typically, this happens because industry ends up writing the legislation. This is reason #1 why I prefer market decisions to gov decisions. Second, there are people who are perfectly willing to accept iTunes DRM. Under a market based process, they’ll get their needs met too.
““If anything, it protects the seller from theft.â€
No it doesn’t. ”
Again, this supports my point that Norway’s intervention is a waste of time.
“DMCA. RIAA extortion tactics. Insane and lopsided penalties. No other choice. Etc.”
This is not why iTunes sell. iTunes sell well because people are willing to part with their money (or their parents’ money) to use it. Like you say, the convenience of it is worth the trade-off. It is incorrect to say each of those purchasers has been extorted.
If DMCA isn’t correct, then fix DMCA. That’s my point all along. It appears to me that DMCA was essentially an attempt at “digital” copyright legislation. Getting mad at DRM is misplaced.
I think you and I see “the market” differently. Your complaints about going and buying a CD vs. using iTunes is the market at work. You moving to eMusic to buy Tom Waits instead of using iTunes is the market at work.
Along those lines: “But it’s taken years and years. Apaprently, Norway wants to speed things up a bit.” Actually, the market gave you eMusic, before Norway made iTunes illegal. So, in this case, the market has responded faster.
Hey, good discussion. Glad we’ve been able to avoid Godwin’s Law.
“There are so many examples of industry-specific regulation causing less competition, and greater monopolization. Typically, this happens because industry ends up writing the legislation. ”
I think we’re in complete agreement here.
I’m arguing that perhaps more legislation could even the playing field. I think you’re arguing less could even the playing field. In the end, either method would probably work…it’s just the current situation is what is bad.
“It is incorrect to say each of those purchasers has been extorted.”
They’re under the threat of extortion if they choose the more convenient and DRM free method out there (bittorrent and the like).
“If DMCA isn’t correct, then fix DMCA. ”
I think that’s what Norway wants to do. ;o)
“Actually, the market gave you eMusic, before Norway made iTunes illegal. ”
That would be a valid point if one could shop for the same music on both services.
“They’re under the threat of extortion if they choose the more convenient and DRM free method out there (bittorrent and the like).”
1) In the U.S., extortion is illegal. You exaggerate. If you steal my car, I have the right to take you to court. If I took you to court, would you say I was extorting you? Just for fun, do you have any data regarding how many songs are copied compared to how often someone is “extorted”? After all, this must be a really big problem, right?
2) You bring up bittorrent. I get the feeling that your real complaint is that nobody should be able to charge for a digital file. Or if they do, then I buy it, copy it a 100 times, and give away a copy to my friends. That’s essentially how you think things really ought to be, right? Or to put it another way, tell me how you’d write DMCA (when you describe how the two parties interact, please use someone like Mason Jennings aka. a real person as your example, instead of a faceless bloodthirsty record company that represents Britney Spears).
“That would be a valid point if one could shop for the same music on both services.”
Back to the database example: under your logic, you must be angry that you can’t get Oracle DBs for free since MySQL is willing to simply give theirs away. Should we declare it illegal? And just because Tom Waits gives his music away on MP3, does that somehow oblige Britney Spears to as well? All Norway has done is blocked a transaction of two willing participants: Apple and a Norwegian teen who loves Britney Spears.
Call it what you want, but the industry has basically been using legal bullying as their business strategy these past several years rather than ‘adjusting to market forces’. That’s my main beef. If they refuse to play the ‘free market’ game then I have nothing against governments jumping in.
“Or to put it another way, tell me how you’d write DMCA ”
I wouldn’t. We already had copyright laws in this country. I’m not a big fan of giving the copyright.
“Back to the database example”
The analogy is weak. Both DBs are relational and use SQL, no?
“And just because Tom Waits gives his music away on MP3, does that somehow oblige Britney Spears to as well?”
a) Tom Waits doesn’t give his music away and b) The label owns Britney’s distribution rights.
“All Norway has done is blocked a transaction of two willing participants”
Maybe. Or maybe the’ve paved the way for other countries to do the same. Afterall, these are governments OF the people…it’s nothing more than the market responding. I’m guessing these people were perhaps less than willing, given that they elected representatives that enacted this. ;o)
Oops…incomplete sentence there.
I’m not a big fan of giving the copyright…holders even more power over the consumer. Fair use is a valuable concept, IMHO.
I haven’t read all the comments yet, but the debate looks familiar!
http://digg.com/apple/Norway_declares_iTunes_Illegal_3
Wow, I strayed from the list too long and joyously discover a lively debate about copyright and DRM again!
To set some things in context, The original intention of copyright laws (in the U.S. at least) was to strike a balance, over time, between the (commercial) benefits of author creation and the interests of the public domain to benefit from the greater society’s ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
Traditionally, copyrights (Europe) carried the characteristics of real property rights, that do not expire, and can be passed to heirs just like land, etc. The Founders wanted to strike a balance between ownership and the progress of useful arts in constructing the U.S. approach.
DRM, good or bad, is a reaction to prolific piracy in the digital age. When you buy physical property, you’re entitled to do whatever you want with it. In the case of a book, you can resell it, mark it up, or burn it. The content of the work, the “expression,” if you will) is protected, however. So, in essence, it is a license to use, not outright ownership. Physical world= personal property. Intellectual/creative expression=intangible. They are different and are treated differently. DRM merely abides by federally-granted rights of an author or holder of the rights to creative work.
So, Darrel, to your points generally, People don’t create creative works for the benefit of you as an individual consumer. Or, more correctly, they aren’t compelled to by law to do so. they reserve the right to. To assert otherwise would imply an economic or geopolitical system that is not the world we live in (sorry, I’m not an expert on civics or government so I can’t comment much here). To shift the right of companies, owners/authors of creative works to control the licensing of their work to the general public makes copyright obsolete. (From a captialist perspective, it threatens trillions of dollars of commerce, not just for record/media companies, but also for independent creators who are smart enough to retain their copyrights and market themselves accordingly). In a DRM world, the people who want to break the rules and copy, steal, or otherwise illicitly obtain intellectual property of others will find a way to do so, with or without DRM.
Fair use in a traditional sense is a legal defense for copyright infringement. If there are any commercial ramifications, then it probably wouldn’t hold up, in a very general sense. Expanding that doctrine legally may be worth discussion.
If you want to do away with copyright (and DRM), at least in the U.S., you’d better start at the top and come up with a plan to amend Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution. Otherwise, let the market take care of DRM.
(BTW the new Tom Waits release from emusic is fantastic–and yes, affordable!).
“Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution. Otherwise, let the market take care of DRM.”
The market SHOULD take care of DRM. But it can’t do that when those who own DRM are able to manipulate the market via government legislation. Free markets only work when truly free (which are few and far between…)
As for the constitution:
“To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;”
That *is* what copyright law is for. We’ve already esstablished that. It works (as best as it can not-withstanding obscene changes to it by the likes of Disney). In otherwords, we had a decent system. No need for DRM and no need for the DMCA in it’s current form.
My main gripe is the fact that with electronic media, the industries want to abolish any concept of fair use. I’m not saying fair use should include stealing a CD minting 20,000 copies and selling them on the streets of NYC. I’m not even saying sharing them online with 1,000 people sans permission is fair use. I’m saying let me have my media in a format that *I* can use without having to jump through absurd hoops and/or having to re-purchase each time I want to shift hardware.
All that said, I concede that the market is having an effect, finally. It took 10 years and lots of frivilous lawsuits, but it is working. That does show the power of the market. I see Norway just speeding that process up.
Thank you Ben for saying all the things I wish I could have said over the years and many slashdot discussions I’ve had on this topic.
Although I would like to take my iTunes purchased songs and play them on a Zune or some other device someday (ie, an open standard) I feel that Apple has done enough to provide me with “fair use” while still ensuring the user experience that keeps me “in the Apple system.”
I have the capability to authorize my songs many computers, I haven’t lost my files becuause of a hard drive crash or computer upgrade… When I divorces, I copied and split my library fine with my ex-wife with no problems.
Further- I can burn anything onto CD and have unfettered access to it.
Ben is right- I’m aware of the DRM restrictions that come with iTunes, but it’s simply the best experience and easiest to use. That’s why I choose this method. 99 cents is a decent enough price for me to get my “fair use” out of a track.
On a personal note, I don’t understand the need to meticulously maintain every single song you’ve ever purchased. I get blasted a lot on slashdot when I say that because people assume I just have bad taste in music, but maybe I just don’t put that much *stock* in music? If I can listen to a song for year or two (I’m going on 4 years now with my iTunes purchased songs), and then Apple turns into some kind of evil empire or something and totally locks out my music, I’ll just think “eh, well that was a good run, on to some other service.” and feel just as fine.
This leads to someone eventually saying “well, say you’ve spent 100 dollars in songs over the years.. won’t you be upset?” To which I reply “for music? I pay more than that dining out in one weekend, but I got four years out of that music and I’m satisfied with with.”
Those that think I’m dumb for being willing to walk away from my library, that’s fine, but it’s my money not yours.
Those that think I’m only willing to walk away from my library because I just buy *britney spears new roxorz greatest hitz!* are also mistaken. My latest purchase was a digital copy of Pink Floyd albums. But just because it’s good music doesn’t mean I’m going to make the government pry it from my “cold dead hands”
And in conclusion, who’s to say I haven’t already burned, bought, or otherwise backed up any songs I really feel like I need to have forever? (I have)
…but in real conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I would prefer open standards for digital music…. dangit- this is starting another topic…
On open standards, I often hear “why should Apple care about making their system work with other devices?” and that’s followed with “I can’t play my cassette tape on my CD player…”
To which I reply: “yes, but you can play your CD in any CD player.” Apple doesn’t need to ensure their format works on any device. They can take and enhance the digital audio format to work best with their system, but it should be able to work across the board.
The best example I can think of is audio CDs that also include music videos or some media on it so that when you put in your computer you can view the media (enhanced format for a particular type of device) but the CD still plays in all players regardless of who makes it.
So.. even though I’d like Open Standards, I’m still willing to play ball with Apple’s system under the restrictions they put on me because it simply works best and I’m willing to work within those restrictions.
Since I ramble on a bit (obviously), here’s a slashdot post that sums up my point of view nicely:
This is tangentially related, but I can’t resist. Ned Phelps, the latest Nobel winner, sums up the European mentality regarding entrepreneurship, business, markets, etc. The quote below is relates to why I took issue with Norway hopping into the fray, when the market would do just fine.
Here’s the article and quote that I like:
from http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009657