As an iPod user myself, I found this bit of news a bit disconcerting. Basically, Apple Computer has updated its iPod software so that songs purchased from RealNetworks' online music store will no longer play on some iPods. Apple basically updated the iPod firmware to block the playing of songs downloaded from RealNetworks. The move could render tunes purchased by many iPod owners via RealNetworks unplayable on their music players.
RealNetworks has marketed its music store as the only Apple rival compatible with the iPod, following RealNetworks discovery of a method to let its customers play their downloaded tunes on Apple's iPod.
Apple criticized RealNetworks' workaround, called Harmony, calling it "hacking" and warned that songs purchased on RealNetworks would likely "cease to work with current and future iPods."
Interestingly, many rabid iPod fans have come to Apple's defense, essentially supporting the notion that you should only be able to download music from Apple's online music store using iTunes software. Personally, when it comes to technology I believe in a free open market away from proprietary technology. This is much better for the consumer in the long run. The more a product becomes a common commodity (what Apple fears), the lower the cost for the consumer. So if downloading songs becomes a commodity that you can download from one of any of a dozen music download websites, then the price will go down due to competition.
This reminds me of the inkjet printer companies that put chips in their ink cartridges to prevent aftermarket ink cartridges from working. Then at least one company (Lexmark) tried to sue under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act). Lexmark lost the lawsuit and of course now aftermarket ink cartridges continue to thrive. I somewhat understood and had sympathy for the ink jet printer companies. They lowered the price point on their printers to the point where many were actually losing money and only making a profit from the ink cartridges.
But Apple has no excuse. I paid >$350 for my iPod which I'm sure had a profit margin for Apple.
Apple should have no right to control what type of music I decide to put on my iPod. Again, I bought and paid over $350 for my iPod, PERIOD! So it's mine! So take your stinkin' paws of me iPod, you damn dirty APE/APPLE!
Technorati
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Digg
Hmm, yes, this really stinks, doesn't it? RealPlayer, as a somewhat more open system, allows me to play my iTunes music (as well as many other formats). But now I wonder if I should just stop using iTunes altogether! Suppose I purchase a song from iTunes but they have sabotaged it so it doesn't work on RealPlayer?
Al B. 12/15/04
Now that is silly...
If I buy a book, it's mine to read, burn, or cut into pieces, give or resell. But it's not mine to plagiarize, or to steal the content to reprint on my own.
If I buy a house in a covenant community, I can't paint it bright red and green, or build a 100 ft tower on top.
There are usage rights associated with any property we buy. If you don't like them, don't buy it in the first place.
There is a flaw in your logic.
Unlike your examples (covenant community), I am not renting or leasing my iPod and it is not "property" in the truest sense of the word. There are specific laws governing "property" such as condos, houses, cars, etc. They have their own tax laws, etc.
Owning an iPod is equivalent to owning a tape recorder. Imagine if tape manufacturers Maxell or TDK said to us in the 1980's & 1990's, "Sorry, but you can't record copyrighted radio programs, backup your CD collection to these taps, or record anything on these tapes unless we approve of it first."
I used to record radio to tape all the time or backup my CD collection for playback in my car which only had a tape player. It falls under the Fair Use Act.
Yes, I can't steal music, but that's part of copyright law - not Apple's own made-up "law" which says I can only download music from iTunes.
Show me one example of an actual product that you buy and is not a lease, rental, or service (such as cable with a cable box) where the manufacturer can control what you do with it.
I own the iPod. If I want to throw it through a window, I can. And if I want to store .mp3 files, .AVI files, or anything else to the iPod hard drive, that's my prerogative. Apple is free to make their iPod "proprietary" to block RealNetworks - that's their prerogative. But I don't agree with it. And if I hack my iPod to work with RealNetworks, that's my prerogative as well.
Prove me wrong.
Think about any ink cartridge, for example, HP ink cartridge that has a warranty. Bad ink cartridge, color bad, light ink which appears watery, what-ever, they give you another one. That's the way a warranty works. You buy a recycled ink cartridge, with no HP warranty. It may work momentarily, but then you get these same messages, remove cartridge. Why should my printer shut down after purchasing a recycled ink cartridge? But then if you buy an HP ink cartridge, your printer is up and running again. Or until that time HP thinks you have printed long enough, even if you have plenty of ink. HP forces you, according to HP predetermined usage, in order for your printer to work, to buy their ink cartridges, or HP will shut your printer down.
Don't focus on the ink cartridge, focus on the fact HP, and other printer manufacturers, stop your printer from working, because of some silly game they are playing of cheating customers before the ink runs out, or wrong ink standards, or what-ever. I say, go ahead send these stupid messages, but don't stop my printer from working. This is anti-competitive, and in violation of anti-trust laws.
To be perfectly clear
Hewlett Packard recycles their ink cartridges by promoting that HP cartridges be returned for recycling, using a self addressed, stamped envelope. Allowing HP, through their “refurbishing and reselling” effort to conserve resources, using the various recycling facilities of manufacturers around the world contracted by HP. Thus, the mere fact that there also are other recyclers available to refurbish, and recycle ink cartridges, but except for lower cost, and the free choice of the consumer, HP has restricted the consumer the full use, and the operation of HP printers.
Smith and Roberson’s Business Law, ninth edition. West Publishing. Chapter 43; ANTITRUST.
“Characterizing a type of restraint as per se illegal therefore has a significant effect on the prosecution of an antitrust suit. In such a case, the plaintiff need only show that the type of restraint occurred, she does not need to prove that the restraint limited competition.....Tying arrangements. A tying arrangement occurs when the seller of a product, service, or intangible (the "tying" product) conditions its sale on the buyers purchasing a second product, service, or intangible (the "tied" product) from the seller....Because tying arrangements limit buyers' freedom of choice and may exclude competitors, the law closely scrutinizes such agreements.”
Hewlett Packard has, unbeknownst to customers who purchased HP printers (tying product), tied as a condition, the purchase of new HP ink cartridges (tied product), or HP recycled ink cartridges, through the use illegal anti-competitive consumer practices.
After all, what are we talking about, it's a ball point pen refill morphed into a printer ink cartridge. It’s a recycled auto part! Again, I say Hewlett Packard, and the rest of the conspirators, play your silly games by cheating consumers on ink cost, and supplies. I say go ahead! But don’t stop me from the use of my printer.