Scandinavian groups extend Apple’s iTunes deadline | iLounge News

2014 iPad iPhone iPod Buyers' Guide from iLounge.com

News

Scandinavian groups extend Apple’s iTunes deadline

Author's pic

By LC Angell

Contributing Editor
Published: Wednesday, June 14, 2006
News Categories: iTunes

Consumer rights protection agencies in Denmark, Norway and Sweden have extended Apple’s June 21st deadline to respond to concerns over the iTunes terms of service. The company now has until August 1st to address the complaints. “The consumer agencies in the three countries last week wrote to Apple alleging that customers had to relinquish fundamental rights such as the right to freely use legally bought products in order to download music from iTunes,” reports Reuters. “In the letter, the Scandinavian agencies claim Apple’s standard customer contract violated Norwegian law and were clearly unbalanced, disadvantaging the customer.”

« Apple cuts iPod nano, Hi-Fi prices in UK

Apple taking orders for Nike + iPod Sport Kit »

Related Stories

Comments

1

I don’t know if Apple will need much extra time to say that anyone can burn their songs to CD’s and then play them anywhere they want.

Posted by brted on June 14, 2006 at 1:55 PM (PDT)

2

The fundamental rights reportedly also include some paragraphs giving Apple carte blanche to modify any part of the terms of service at any time and having it apply retroactively to earlier purchases. When reading the Swedish ToS (written in Swedish, no less) the other day, I didn’t find any such language, but it’s me against three consumer agencies with trained lawyers, and it sounds just like the sort of potshot that’s going into any ToS or EULA these days.

Posted by Jesper on June 14, 2006 at 2:38 PM (PDT)

3

“I don’t know if Apple will need much extra time to say that anyone can burn their songs to CD’s and then play them anywhere they want.”

And it takes even less time to realise that this is not a valid solution to DRM. You wind up with a worse quality file, not what you paid for and are so heavily restricted from using as you wish.

Posted by Code Monkey in Midstate New York on June 14, 2006 at 3:40 PM (PDT)

4

“You wind up with a worse quality file, not what you paid for and are so heavily restricted from using as you wish.”

Well, no, you end up with exactly what you paid for. If that wasn’t what you wanted, why did you buy it?

And, once it’s on CD, it’s not more restricted than any other audio CD out there. In fact, it’s LESS restricted than some.

Posted by DingoJunior on June 14, 2006 at 7:06 PM (PDT)

5

@DingoJunior

Wow, just freaking wow. You actually believe there is no loss of quality?

I don’t pay for iTMS files because they’re already less than 20% of the quality of an actual CD file, you don’t make them sound any better by double transcoding (what it takes to wind up with a DRM free version of the song you started with).

You are in sore need of doing some reading on file formats, transcoding, DRM issues, etc. if you think it’s actually a good idea to burn and rip iTMS files.

Posted by Code Monkey in Midstate New York on June 14, 2006 at 9:13 PM (PDT)

6

I think what DingoJunior was getting at, is that you’re paying for the songs from iTMS. Lost sound quality and all. You’re not paying for CD quality DRM music, you’re paying for readily accessible AAC files with all the DRM and associated problems that come with it.

Don’t get me wrong, I hate DRM, but the fact is that consumers are getting exactly what they’re paying for, and the only reason DRM is surviving, is because consumers continue to pay for exactly that.

Posted by MixedCookie on June 14, 2006 at 10:07 PM (PDT)

7

Sorry, was meant to say: “You’re not paying for CD quality DRM -free- music.”

Also, DingoJunior didn’t once say that there was no loss in audio quality, nor do I believe he implied it. He merely stated that once burnt onto a CD, you’re pretty much free to do whatever you please with that CD.

Posted by MixedCookie on June 14, 2006 at 10:09 PM (PDT)

8

Don’t worry just another example of Code Monkey crap.
I don’t read every article (so I freely admit I may be mistaken) but I have never seen a post by Code Monkey which has anything positive to say about apple/ipod.
I just don’t know what he/she’s doing here - must be a really sad person.

Posted by bean on June 15, 2006 at 4:50 AM (PDT)

9

There is no lost quality.

When you buy an M4P from ITMS, you’re getting something with less quality than if you bought a CD in the first place - but that’s a decision you make when you decide to buy from ITMS instead of buying the actual CD.

When you then burn that M4P to a CD, there is no sound quality lost - playing the CD will result in exactly the same bitstream as playing the M4P.

If you then decide to re-encode to some compressed format from the CD you made, the result will be a file of lower quality than the original M4P you purchased, but again, that’s your choice. If you did the same from an original audio CD, you would also end up losing quality.

Posted by m.s. on June 15, 2006 at 5:16 AM (PDT)

10

“I have never seen a post by Code Monkey which has anything positive to say about apple/ipod.”

That’s because you aren’t looking. I never say anything but the blunt truth, and Apple, for all the things it does right, does plenty wrong. The iPod for all the things it gets right, gets plenty wrong. I have said plenty positive, I have written a 22 page guide on the smartlist system for managing iPods, but I also don’t hesitate to call a spade a spade.

Sorry that you are one of those people who believes they have to wrap their identity into a mythical and fallacious product image to enjoy life. I enjoy what’s actually worth enjoying, not finding ways of fooling myself that everything is perfect and we shouldn’t ever say anything but happy smiley things.

I want Apple to lose this DRM case because they should lose it. Not because I have some personal vendetta against Apple, but because Apple is completely wrong with not licensing fairplay. If you feel some need to defend a corporation’s goals to use their market share to screw you, the customer, that much harder with that much less lube, go right ahead, I’m going to take the stand that benefits *me*, and that’s the stand that if we’re going to have DRM then it must be universally avaliable, not necessarily implemented, but at least available, and Apple won’t do that until their hand is forced.

Posted by Code Monkey in Midstate New York on June 15, 2006 at 5:33 AM (PDT)

11

Code Monkey,
Apologies if I’m mistaken. I just must be unlucky I guess - I truly haven’t seen you post anything positive. By the law of averages this would seem to indicate that the majority of your posts are negative.

‘Sorry that you are one of those people who believes they have to wrap their identity into a mythical and fallacious product image to enjoy life.’

Aren’t you attributing something to me you have no way of knowing is true - you don’t know my motives for purchasing an ipod. Anyway, thanks for being sorry.

I don’t believe Apple are perfect, just not 100% bad. I also don’t agree with DRM - I just rip from CD’s (I have bought). However, it doesn’t bother me that Apple don’t licence fairplay - why should they? I’d rather no-one bought anything DRM’d, but that just isn’t going to happen. Like other people have said, everyone has a choice.

Posted by bean on June 15, 2006 at 12:11 PM (PDT)

12

why does apple need to licence Fairplay ? im shure that when the bottom line comes around they may need to, but atm, they dont. Real Media/any other im shure doesnt licence their’s, and only reason Microsoft does is cause they dont have a microsoft store, they rely on other’s to provide the retail backbone.

Posted by Hell-In-A-Handbasket on June 15, 2006 at 12:44 PM (PDT)

13

” and only reason Microsoft does is cause they dont have a microsoft store”

MS has had their own store for some time, they just don’t care because they realise what Apple never has: use our product, we make money, use someone else’s product, we make money.

Posted by Code Monkey in Midstate New York on June 15, 2006 at 4:05 PM (PDT)

14

Code Monkey, remember to take your meds at least one hour BEFORE posting here.  Take them with some food.

Posted by Dr. Richards on June 15, 2006 at 11:09 PM (PDT)

15

@Dr. Richards, Tell me, what exactly is the sin in pointing out some simple concepts?

1. Burning and ripping iTMS tracks is not an acceptable solution to a consumer who is actually informed. Since you do not achieve what the point of it is: to have the same quality song available on your non-iPod/iTunes player, it, under the laws of many countries, is an illegal restriction upon the consumer.

2. DRM is not going away, so instead of sticking our head in the sand and saying “Well, just buy a CD”, governments and consumers need to regulate the industry to come up with a genuinely fair solution. Without regulation it won’t be long before they figure out how to produce the unrippable CD, and then where we all be?

3. Microsoft has a business model that has proven to be magnitudes better than Apple’s. Being willing to license the parts of technology to anybody and everybody results in a scenario where you make money even when your competitors make the primary sale. Historically, Apple’s business model has given them early leads in markets when they were early out of the gate, but has lost them market share over the long term, there is no reason to believe the iPod/iTunes combo will be any different.

So, which of those three points is wrong, and which of them warrants the repeated personal attacks against me? If all you want to do is read about how great Apple is, there’s plenty of reading material out there, but if you venture into the comments and forums you’re going to be exposed to every viewpoint, and my viewpoint is that there is no corporation that should be viewed with any more admiration than you have for a cockroach: sometimes fascinating, sometimes amazing, but, ultimately, still just a cockroach.

Posted by Code Monkey in Midstate New York on June 16, 2006 at 4:31 AM (PDT)

16

Quote: “1. Burning and ripping iTMS tracks is not an acceptable solution to a consumer who is actually informed. Since you do not achieve what the point of it is: to have the same quality song available on your non-iPod/iTunes player, it, under the laws of many countries, is an illegal restriction upon the consumer.”

But you’re wrong, as has already been pointed out.

Burning ITMS music to CD results in EXACTLY the same quality as playing the music on an iPod.

You can then rip that, and maintain EXACTLY the same quality. Just use uncompressed or lossless compression.

You say your device doesn’t support that? That’s a problem with your device, and beyond Apple’s control.

You say lossy compression results in loss of quality? The exact same situation occurs if you buy a CD and rip that using lossy compression - you lose quality. Are you claiming that selling CDs is also illegal in some countries?

I will guess that you would claim to have no problem with someone selling songs using DRM free, openly documented compression, such as Ogg Vorbis. But that would result in exactly the same situation (in reverse) - iPod owners would need to convert to MP3 or AAC, and would therefore suffer quality loss. So do you claim that selling Ogg Vorbis files would be illegal in some countries?

What you appear to be preaching is a system which allows DRM crippled music to be played anywhere. Well, then it’s not DRM, so why not just sell straight AAC or MP3? A: because you wouldn’t have much decent content to sell.

The only logical conclusion to your invalid assumptions and incorrect conclusions is that your tirades are based on some personal opinion regarding MSFT vs. AAPL, and have nothing to do with the technology itself.

Enough with the red herrings.

Posted by m.s. on June 16, 2006 at 10:37 AM (PDT)

17

It is impossible to achieve the same quality even re-ripping to AAC, so you are absolutely wrong and if you don’t believe me, try making your claim over at hydrogen-audio (or even anywhere in the format forums here).

People like you shouldn’t be allowed to post because you’re claiming something completely the opposite of reality.

You simply cannot go from 128 kbit AAC to CDA and back to even 128 kbit AAC let alone anything else without a degradation of quality.

Each codec starts with a lossless source and according to codec specific algorithms picks and chooses what frequencies to compress and discards the rest. Because no two codec versions are identical, it is mathematically impossible that the same data that is compressed in the original iTMS file will happen to be *exactly* the same data required by any other codec (including your iTunes based AAC encoder) for its compression algorithms. You will always wind up with a worse quality file when transcoding.

The least loss occurs trying to go back to 128 AAC, all other formats will incur greater loss.

Posted by Code Monkey in Midstate New York on June 16, 2006 at 3:56 PM (PDT)

18

P.S. the red herring is someone too ignorant to understand step one of how lossy versus lossless compression schemes trying to hide that ignorance in accusing me of some sort of pro-MS agenda.

Posted by Code Monkey in Midstate New York on June 16, 2006 at 3:59 PM (PDT)

19

No one said anything about going AAC->PCM->AAC? Only a fool such as yourself would think that would be a useful procedure.

Posted by m.s. on June 17, 2006 at 3:41 AM (PDT)

20

“Burning ITMS music to CD results in EXACTLY the same quality as playing the music on an iPod.

You can then rip that, and maintain EXACTLY the same quality. Just use uncompressed or lossless compression.”

and

“No one said anything about going AAC->PCM->AAC?”

Does M.S stand for Moronic Schmuck?

Posted by Real Reply on June 17, 2006 at 2:26 PM (PDT)

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Shop for Accessories: Cases, speakers, chargers, etc.