Report: Norway says 'nei' to iTunes DRM, again

There's more rumbling in Europe about Apple's iTunes Store, and this time, it comes from Norway, where, according to Reuters, a consumer agency has announced plans for legal action against Apple and what it says is unfair copyright restriction.

"I want (Apple) to make their services interoperable so that you can play music bought on iTunes on other devices, including mobile phones," Norwegian consumer ombudsman Bjørn Erik Thon told Reuters on Tuesday. Consumer agencies in Norway have been making this complaint for at least two years.

Songs purchased from the iTunes Store, except for a limited "iTunes Plus" selection, can be played only on handheld devices from Apple, in addition to Macs and PCs. Other music-enabled cell phones and music players, like Microsoft's Zune, are incompatible.

Early last year, the Norwegian government declared iTunes illegal for the same reason, and provided an October 1, 2007 deadline--a year to the day later, the threatened shutdown hasn't taken place.

Numerous other European government groups have taken action against iTunes, a phenomenon that has been virtually invisible in the United States until this point--though that's changing, as this week, there has been a stateside showdown between Apple and the Copyright Royalty Board.

A French attempt to behead iTunes' digital rights management, or DRM, failed in 2006. Similar efforts from countries such as Sweden and Denmark also made little headway.

[MaggieRed]

I know this is not the favor topic here, since we often engage in pure Apple bashing, but aside I wonder if these legal failings are due to the fact you can rip the songs to a disc which removes the DRM then you can do what you wish afterwards.

Personally, I wish Apple didn't do the DRM thing, I don't know what influence the RIAA/MPAA have on Apple, but it must be something to a degree. I thought that there was light at the end of the tunnel when Steve was pushing the studios for DRM free material. Maybe something or someone else is controlling the situation here.

[catch23]

Steve Jobs shed some crocodile tears, then went back to being the largest pusher of DRM, and making a boat load of cash off of it. If you call that a light at the end of a tunnel, it is most definitely a train headed your way.

[nouser]

How much do Norwegian consumers contribute to Apple's iTunes success? I'd bet it's so little at to be lost in the static and I would not be surprised if they will soon contribute zero.

Apple is required to protect most of their music with DRM by the record industries. Apple has asked the recording industry to eliminate DRM requirements and been soundly told to go pound salt. If the Norwegian government wants to attack the problem then they need to attack the source, and not the channel.

In as much as they don't contribute enough revenue to pay for the legal fight, I'd shut down their iTunes service immediately.

[blsith]

Here's the point they are making. The DRM is not licensed so other players can use the music bought on iTunes. You have to buy an Apple player to play the music bought. Thus it's anti-competition for the content and the player.

Some folks take offense at that.

[Thomas, David]

I to, know this is not a 'favorite' topic of discussion, but one thing is clear to me. This is ignorance risen to a new level. DRM is required by the music, and video industries. This entire argument is even focused at those two industries! Why is that?!

The only purpose this would serve, is to undermine the iTMS, iTunes, and Apple media products. It won't change the simple fact that the entertainment industry requires that most of their content be encoded with DRM for digital media.

Does this not raise any eyebrows? What they are claiming to accomplish is certainly not indicated by their aim.

[Thomas, David]

Dang typing ... correction of a sentence to my post makes sense.

"... This entire argument is even ..." should read " ... This entire argument isn't even focused at those two instures!"

[catch23]

When Indy artists asked Apple to release they music DRM free, Apple said no.
Who is pushing what?

The only purpose this would serve is to allow customers choice when they get their next device. I know many people here in the states that say 'I'd love to play my iTunes on my phone' or would like to get non-Apple player, but converting their libraries is too challenging(or time consuming).

Would it be best to junk DRM as a whole? Yep, put it isn't happening. This is a reasonable next step.
And if your wondering why they are targeting Apple, it is because Apple can lease MS's DRM at any time. So can anyone else. Apple built closed walls, and now will pay for it.
PS. the Zune marketplace should also get nailed in this.

[daves_done]

"This is ignorance risen to a new level. DRM is required by the music, and video industries."

Just because something is required in a license agreement doesn't make it legal. DRM violates fair use and companies are starting to realize this. That's why CD's are/have been, with a few exceptions (see the Sony's embarrassing root kit debacle), DRM free and also why DVD and Bluray movies are being released with 'digital copy' so you can rip the movie to a portable player. I don't agree with the digital copy because I think it's still to restrictive. Anything that keeps me from using media that I purchase in a way that I wish FOR MY OWN PURPOSES violates fair use. I believe it also violates the right of first sale.

If Apple really cared they'd grow a pair and sell DRM free music like Amazon.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Your comments would be valid if it were not for the existance of Amazon's service that sells DRM-free MP3's of the very same content that iTunes has. The music companies get their money either way.

DRM is an endangered species. iTunes really needs to take a look at the number other companies that are coming up with DRM-free offerings. They could be left behind unless they adapt to a changing world.

[BNUX]

I confess I am a very pleased user of iTunes and I do not understand all the implications, but is this not a little ridiculous?

I like that iTunes Music can be more versatil to other players and formats, but when I buy a music on iTunes I know the limitations. And I understand that music is made by someone and that someone want some royalties and garantiees that the music can me comercialized on a safe way. If I do a job, lets say build some software, I have three solutions, that I remember, that I can live from it. I sell my software, I give my software and live from support services, I give my software and live from comercial ads that I play on my software. In the music world I can not see any solution unless the first. I can not see the musitian give support to is music or I do not enjoy the idea to have ads on the middle of my music. :-)))

So I could be a little limited here, I apologize for that, but I can not understand the Norway politicians unless this is all a way to intentionally attack Apple iTunes image. But this is not my field.... so... I will stay happy buy music for 9.99? on iTunes store when I before iTunes had to pay some value like 20? for the CD.

Like the cartoon Obelix say about the Romans, I say from Norway... " This crazy Norway people" :-)) With no offense to them, only to offend if they hunt or skin baby seals!!! ;-)

[eBob1]

The answer is simple: Don't by DRM-encumbered media. I only buy MP3's from Amazon. If the MP3 isn't available, I just buy the CD and rip it myself.

[eBob1]

The answer is simple: Don't by DRM-encumbered media. I only buy MP3's from Amazon. If the MP3 isn't available, I just buy the CD and rip it myself.

Most posters here are actually hitting upon half of the problem, that the music industry requires Apple to use DRM. Though they are now allowing other channels to sell DRM-free music in an attempt to reduce Apple's control over the distribution - kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. However, the other half of the equation is the fact that consumers want what they want, when they want, the way that they want. They feel no obligation to play by any rules. If they want to buy music to play on an MP3 player other than the iPod, then find another source. It's like wanting to buy a Chevy with a Toyota fuel injection system installed, then sueing GM when they can't give it to you. Buy your music from Amazon or Walmart or Best Buy. If you prefer the iTunes store then realize that Apple makes just enough money from the sale of songs to maintain that remarkable store; their profit comes from the sale of iPods - the two are inter-related. The store is an accessory and benefit of purchasing an iPod, not a source of music for everyone in the world - only iPod users. Babies cry when they don't get what they want; adults use the legal system as there way of crying!

[DrtyDogg]

"Though they are now allowing other channels to sell DRM-free music in an attempt to reduce Apple's control over the distribution - kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face." More like Lord Jobs dictates the pricing, so the only control the record companies have is to dictate the format.

[gsekse]

Norway is perfectly capable of blocking iTunes if they wish, it is an issue between the government and it's people. Apple is perfectly within it's corporate rights to sell their product in anyway it's see fit or to sell it as per the rights owner's direction. Since obtaining music for any hardware is available in many ways, there is no monopoly here.

[quadj]

The one thing that I don't understand is that all of the major record companies allow other music stores (like Amazon) to sell music without DRM. However, they don't let Apple do the same. Therefore, isn't it obvious who Norway should be going after? Instead of forcing Apple to open up the store, shouldn't they be forcing the record companies to let Apple remove the DRM from the music? Since they already allow it for others, it would be next to impossible for them to justify why they couldn't do the same for Apple. In my opinion, if Norway would go after the record companies, then there would be no other outcome from that case but to force them to let Apple remove the DRM just like all the others. I think the record companies lost their bargaining power as soon as they let others sell music without DRM.

Norway, please focus on the part of the problem that has the best chance of being fixed.

[McDaveH]

Now you're talking. I'm not sure this applies to Norway as I don't know if Amazon MP3 is available there yet (I believe it's available elsewhere in the EU) but music studios colluding with retailers like Amazon with a view to shift marketshare away from Apple definitely falls under EU competition law (cartels) and the book should be thrown at them.

You could argue that iTunes doesn't/won't stock MP3s* so they aren't in direct competition but this is surely splitting hairs.

McD

* as it's out-dated tech from circa 1990 (MPEG1 layer 3 audio vs MPEG4 part 3 Advanced Audio Coding) a bit like thinking you're buying Blu-ray but ending up with a video CD - Apple won't do that to you.

[ausernamenoonehaschosen]

Some folks are missing an even greater point. They want apple to provide their DRM encryption secrets to other PMP companies so that they can have their players decrypt and play apples DRMed songs. What people need to understand is Apple is under obligation to bolster and fix their DRM if ever the DRM is cracked and the exploit is made available to the public widespread (and yes I know it does exist to a small degree, but not enough to have the RIAA or MPAA to breath down apple's neck to fix the problem ti would seem; and in fact apple has updated the DRM in newer iTunes releases). Apple can't provide these DRM secrets since it will simply increase the chance of others exploiting it and making public cracking tools available. Apple, if they provided these DRM secrets, would be constantly modifiying the DRM, which would cause all sorts of problems.

[davidsmi]

While it is nice a goverments to look after citizens like this it is really up to us.

I've never bought music tied to one store that has DRM - and I won't ever. I'd rather not have the music then pay for it - and then a few years latter not be able to play what I paid for.

[McDaveH]

What & miss out on all those years of listening? It is a few years later for me and there's no problem. No competitor has even come close to iPod/iTunes integration (sorry - 'walled garden'). The truth is interoperability is more of a distraction than a benefit, while it offers a stack of choices it precludes you from the best one.

McD

[tech_crazy]

All BS. There is no reason why Apple cannot create DRM that it inter-operable with others's. If not, it should atleast create a version of iTunes (or some other software) that can play on ANY device - not just iPhones, iMacs and PCs. Apple can NOT lock purchased music to particular devices. That is a blatant violation of the Personal use part of the Home Recording Act. Not only that, the personal use also allows you to create multiple copies of the same thing, without any restrictions on the number, as long as it is for personal use. I make copies of my CDs for use in the living room, bathroom (yes), car, work .... Quite a few DRMs out there restrict the number of copies you can make. That too is a clear violation.

And Apple's making an excuse of asking the music/movie industries to not require DRM is an excuse for not creating inter-operable DRM and hence cover up it's disguised monopoly.

Look at DVDs - they are encrypted with CSS. But guess what, the DVD copy control association licenses it to its members and they can thus use it in their products. Otherwise, a DVD would play only in say, dedicated DVD players and that too of specific brands. That would have been just outlandish. We don't see that, do we? We have CSS decoders on dedicated DVD players, portable ones, car ones, PCs ....

Norway is absolutely right - Apple cannot lock purchased music to particular devices. If I legally bought the music, I should be able to play it on ANY device of MY choice, not Apple's. Period.

[McDaveH]

Apple could use this model but others (MS playsforsure) have tried - and failed. Why would Apple trade in their successful business model for a failure? That would be crazy.

You can make as many copies of your DRM'd file as you want - it's a file. The Home Recording Act doesn't stipulate interoperability of the media. Regardless why would you try to enforce US legislation in Norway? That would be crazy.

CSS was cracked years ago and has been rendered useless, why would any DRM system emulate that failure? That would be crazy.

tech_crazy you truly are crazy! Though, just like Apple's 'locked' system, you didn't claim to be otherwise.

McD

[mectron]

At leasgt some countries see DRM for what their are: ILLEGAL.

Know US based criminal organisation such as the MPAA/RIAA are no legal right of any kind to force Apple to put maleware (DRM) in the songs they sell. If all the goverment arround declare DRM illegal it will vanish, competition will kick in, price will drop and piracy will drop to single digit level. Piracy is hight because of many factor. but DRM is the main one. Game, movie and music is so much easier to enjoy when there is no DRM (ake: pirated) then all the illegal restriction of DRM... i love spore, but i will never let EA install maleware and rootkit on my machine.

[Seaspray0]

Apple is required to put DRM on the music it sells on itunes because of the music industry. But here's the glitch. Since itunes represents the majority of music sold, it is now a monopoly. Since you can't play the DRM encoded music on any other music player (only ipod), then that is an abuse of monopoly because it errects barriers against other mp3 manufacturers. Until apple licenses the DRM decoding software to other mp3 players, they are going to be looking at legal action. You've seen all this before when microsoft prevented OEM's from putting shortcuts on the desktop to Netscape. The result... the government almost broke up the company. I can see a similar fate for apple if they continue down this path. Did you really think apple isn't greedy? Just watch and see for yourself.

[McDaveH]

You're not comparing similar scenarios. AFTER establishing it's monopoly MS abused that position by engaging a tactic designed to hamper Netscape. Apple's iTunes Store has always had DRM since before it created the online music market. It's wrong to transpose the action posthumously. Apple is therefore not in violation of abusing it's monopoly position because it when the action was invoked (prior to a single sale) it didn't have one.

Observers and abstainers may note the monopoly was the result of the action but that goes by the name of success and, though unpopular, that's not illegal.

McD

[Wookiee-1138]

Um Ya Ya!

They might be sissy warriors compared to us Celts, but they've got the right idea.