Norway et al. against the iPod/iTunes

[diablojota]

Well, at the moment, you can still buy music from iTMS, then burn it to a CD. Then you can reencode this as an mp3, thus allowing the media to be placed onto any mp3 player.
If Apple where to start slipping with regards to quality, that is when there are many, many firms who'll be able to jump in and compete at that point. For example, Sony would be primed to go if that were to occur, and they would have access to the record labels, as they own one of the largest. Microsoft will also have the capital to go after this goal as well.
Apple would never boycott the record companies. That would be suicide if they were the monopoly. Why bite off a source of 2 streams of revenue? That would mean that their iPod line would stop selling, as well as their iTMS songs.
There won't be an opportunity for Apple to be alone in this arena. Microsoft will be there to keep Apple innovating, and on its toes. Even though microsoft suffers from the inability to develop quality and easy to use products on their first go, they can throw tons of money into a project and eventually catch up.
For Apple to maintain its dominance, they will have to stay at the forefront. Steve Jobs, while an amazing executive, can't keep up with every little part of the process. The corporate culture at Apple won't allow for shoddy products to be released.

[lbj]

So let me get this straight...

You think it's ok to sit around and dream up wild, albeit plausible, scenarios and then punish someone for those activities that have yet to happen and may, in fact, never happen?

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I really think a crime has to occur before a sentence is handed out.

In the thirty year scenario, you see MS, Sony, Google, etc all drying up and being unable to develop a product or service to compete against the allmighty Apple?

And I'm the one talking crap?

[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.

[lbj]

And my point is exactly this, you would have to let them become a monopoly first, before you took them to court.

You cannot just fantasize "it" may one day become a monopoly, and therefore sue them over something that has yet to happen...sue them over something that would with 99% likelihood never happen.

[Tommo]

But in this case you don't, certainly in the UK. The courts take action to prevent companies gaining a monopoly, the is not a lot you can do once they have. That was the original reason Microsoft bailed out Mac years ago so as to keep another OS/computer player in the market place.

[jh2112]

Laws set precedents, lbj. This legislation is not just about Apple.
And the article did not mention taking anyone to court. This is tabled legislation not a court case.
Imagine if you needed a different tv/decoder for each tv channel you watch...

My 'Don't talk crap' comment was with regards to your comment 'I am not a big fan of preemptive strikes' Not the rest of your argument. Please try not to take my comments out of context.

Although my far fetched future is hypothetical, the world learnt a lot from the legal shennanagins (not to mention the virus and spyware infested, bug ridden, low quality software of old,) with Microsoft. Monopolies are not a good thing. Period. The consumer loses every time. Whether it is bad service, shoddy quality, whatever. If there is no other way to get the product/service required then what choice do you have? None, except to go back to that same company for more of the same. I'll take choice over no choice every single time.

Personally, I prefer that my government looks to the future and prepares and makes Law for any and all eventualities. Laws are not always put in place for what is happening today. As I originally wrote 'a preventative measure'

[lbj]

And that is where we disagree.

I want my government interfering less in my life and less in the lives around me. I have an extreme amount of confidence in basic market forces.

More confidence, in fact, than I do in government...any government. To me, pure market forces are far "nobler" on average than the minds and intents of men in power.

The world learned nothing from the "monopoly" of MS that it hadn't already learned 100 times before. And don't construe any of this to suggest I support monopolies. I don't. And that's one area that you and I agree... monopolies are bad.

Companies trying to become monopolies position themselves at the lowest price-point to drive their competitors out of business. I would hardly consider the pricing of iPods to be loss-leaders. In fact, they are the highest costing MP3 players on the market, and always has been. Is this how a monopoly forms? By charging more than anyone else? That's even more innovative than the iPod itself. Way to go Apple!

I still don't understand the 'don't talk crap" comment. And I was certainly not deliberately taking your comment out of context. How can you say I am talking crap when I'm merely stating my opinion about not liking preemptive strikes? Have I stated elsewhere on this board that I'm a huge believer in them?? I guess you are saying my opinion is crap because that's the only explanation I can find for your statement otherwise. And that's ok. There is certainly no love lost between the two of us.

You and I have very fundamentally divergent viewpoints on government and the roles they should play in daily life. We also disagree on market forces. I'm not going to change your mind and you will not change mine. If you want the final word, be my guest. I'm done with this.

Except to say I hope iTunes pulls out Norway and France if both countries insist on their cases.

There. Now I'm done.

[diablojota]

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.

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.