Ah, but Apple does not only distribute the content. As part of their distribution agreement, they are supposed to protect this music from illegal trade. Thus, Apple does 'own' the content they distribute to a point. The boundaries are that they are supposed to do what they can to prevent piracy for the record labels. For the most part, Apple does own the songs, and they would be held accountable for any misuse or quality issues that may arise, not the record label.
By combining iTunes with only the iPod, they have 'locked' the DRM for limited use, thus reducing the chances of piracy (without going through the extra steps). If they let every other mp3 hardware producer use their DRM, it could potentially leak, thus increasing the chances of someone breaking the DRM.
Basically, Apple is not the solely the distributor. They are obligated to the record labels to prevent illegal distribution of musical content to the best of their abilities.
Sorry if I used 'their' in a way that was not clear. It's a contract that Apple is bound to uphold. Transaction Cost Economics 101.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tommo Firstly diablojota, my whole opposition to your arguement is summed up in the phrase 'their iTMS songs'. They aren't the property of Apple. Apple are just a distributor/publisher in exactly the same way that rcord companies are and these should be available for anyone who has purchased them to listen to without being forced to either buy an iPod or go through extra steps so they can play them on whatever MP3 player they happen to own.
This does nothing to harm the quality of the Apple product. iTunes is the Apple product not the music it sells through it.
Secondly lbj, those arguements might seem far fetched, but would everybody, here especially have the same opinion if it was the Microsoft iPod and their online music store or would they be heading for the courts to fight Redmond's monopoly yet again. I think it would most likely be the latter. |