ZOMG Itunes declared "illegal" in Norway...

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Yes, apple is a company not a country. Needless to say, I meant company not country. It's pretty obvious from the context, I would have thought.

You seem like the type of person that would be confused about that.

I don't know anyone who would be confused about the differences between a company and a country. seems like childishness on your part to focus on an obvious error. are you so desperate to score cheap points? I would guess that points to some insecurity on your part.

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

My point is that you haven't established that the move against Apple by Norway is an act of economic nationalism. It isn't an act of economic nationalism just because you say or think it is. There is no evidence in the OP's linked article that Norway's actions (on this issue) are motivated by so-called economic nationalism.

I claimed that perhaps this case is justified and not economic nationalism, but left the door open to that interpretation in the future.

No, it isn't irrelevant. You are implying that European so-called "economic nationalism" is a grave gathering threat to USA companies. I am saying get real. People are actually dying from your country's brand of 'economic nationalism', which employs the military to do it's dirty work. People are dying in Iraq right now. 100,000 of them dead. In the present - not in a history text book. All so America gets cheap oil at the pump. :roll:

Of course it's irrelevant. If we're talking about growing economic nationalism in Europe,

I'm widening the scope of the conversation to economic nationalism in general. That way we get to compare USA economic nationalism (it's use of the military to achieve it's objectives, the invasion of Iraq, the 100,000 casualties) with this so-called European economic nationalism. I'm interested in the positive and negative consequences. E.g., on the one hand, Europeans get wider choice of companies from which to download music. On the other hand, 100,000 Iraqi civilians are brutally killed in their own country.

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
talking about Iraq is irrelevant, just like talking about the concentration camps set up in the Australian desert where children are raped, traumatized, and murdered is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Are you going to bring up Iraq if we are talking about lasagna recipes? I would not bring up France's organization of the Rwanda genocide if we were talking about recipes.

This prattle might make sense if you got to decide the scope of the conversation. But you don't.

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
This is a threat more than to just American companies. It's a threat to any company which is viewed as foreign - even European companies. Perhaps you heard of Mittal Steel?

You really are ignorant. People are dying right now due to European policies.

Maybe you should spend less time reading gossip about your Queen Elizabeth II and educate yourself.

More childish personal digs. I wonder why. Maybe you have a very small penis.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I don't know anyone who would be confused about the differences between a company and a country. seems like childishness on your part to focus on an obvious error. are you so desperate to score cheap points? I would guess that points to some insecurity on your part.

I don't know anyone either, but there's always a first. I think that you taking an obvious joke so seriously must point to some insecurity on your part.

I'm widening the scope of the conversation to economic nationalism in general. That way we get to compare USA economic nationalism (it's use of the military to achieve it's objectives, the invasion of Iraq, the 100,000 casualties) with this so-called European economic nationalism. I'm interested in the positive and negative consequences. E.g., on the one hand, Europeans get wider choice of companies from which to download music. On the other hand, 100,000 Iraqi civilians are brutally killed in their own nation.

European economic nationalism is not limited to this case involving Apple. It has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, continuing to this day. And let us not forget, the Iraqi deaths are also a responsibility of many European nations.

The death of even 100 million people pales in comparison to the actions of European nationalism. I can't even believe that you can even attempt to try to make some sort of comparison. What's next, denying the Holocaust?

This prattle might make sense if you got to decide the scope of the conversation. But you don't.

I guess that you don't have much experience discussing topics with others. You don't bring up lasanga if you are talking about Iraq. It's irrelevant.

More childish personal digs. I wonder why. Maybe you have a very small penis.

Does that apply to you, too?

p.s. I've expanded the scope of this argument to include the type of underwear Queen Elizabeth II wears.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Isn't the purpose of restricting files from iTunes to iPods to create a monopoly? Seems pretty obvious...

Is iTunes the only source of music available? No.
Is iTunes the only source of digital music available? No.
Is iTunes the only source of digital music available on the internet? No.

Is Apple's iPod the only digitial music player available? No.

Where are you finding a monopoly in any of this? Nevermind that for a true monopoly, you must have government interference in the market.

Can Apple sell music without DRM? Not without getting sued by the RIAA.

Should Apple be forced to license other companies' DRM schemes in order to offer DRM-encoded tracks for use in non-iPods, when Apple already has it's own DRM technology? I say no.

Should Apple be forced to license it's own technology to other MP3 player manufacturers? In other words, should a company be forced to provide its own technology to competitors? I say no.

If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, than you should
1) Look up the definition of "monopoly" and/or
2) Consider the chilling effect on innovation and business and reconsider.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: tk149
No, you can't play Region-encoded DVD's on any other Region-protected DVD player, except for the region the DVD is encoded for. (e.g. you can't play a region 1 DVD on a region 2 player).

That's not a 1:1 relationship though, as many vendors make many DVD players (including software players) that can decode DVDs and play them. Region marking and DVD encoding isn't the same as a completely closed proprietary technology.

I merely was pointing out that theNEOone's argument by analogy was prima facie invalid. I see your point though, but the argument stands. DVD player manufacturers must pay licensing fees to the DVD patent holders. DVD technology IS proprietary (i.e. controlled by the owner). The only difference between DVD and Apple DRM is that Apple doesn't license out their technology. Should a company be forced to share its own technology with others?

/side rant
The DVD patent holders REQUIRE DVD player manufacturers to region encode their players (yes, there are 'hacks' to get around this). If a manufacturer wants to make DVD players, the company must obey the licensor's rules.

If you think about it, if manufacturers weren't forced to put region-encoding restrictions in their players, why on earth would they? It'd be a good selling point if they could openly advertise that their players could play any DVD on the planet. You'll only see the smaller, "off-brand" manufacturers make this claim, probably because they're based in China and can fly under the radar.

That being said, screw DRM.
Who's the real victim? Us, the consumers.
Who's the real villain? Who's forcing Apple (and everybody else selling music and movies online) to use DRM?

If the government truly believed in a fair deal for the consumer, they'd go after the real villains and eliminate DRM altogether. Who's paying the politicians?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I see...this is how Europeans will attempt to destroy brilliant American ideas!

Not fair since they didn't develop it...so they attempt the legal means.

the japanese invented analog HDTV decades ago, but the FCC effectively outlawed it by declaring that any HD service had to work within the channels already around for SD analog tv. which is impossible, of course.

so, we do the same bullsh!t.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Auryg
Every single person's analogy was wrong in this thread. If GM made gas that only worked on GM cars, you would have a good analogy. The funny thing about monopoly litigation-nobody cares unless you're big. Duh. Apple got too big for it's own practices.

that's not a good analogy either, considering that any CD i buy works just fine on my ipod once i convert it (a brain dead process).

it'd be more like... if every car company had retail gas stations (but no refining), and the gas station from each car company's gas only worked in that car company's cars, but the refineries also had extensive and readily available retail gas stations. only difference being some mechanism that you had to fill your tank all the way when at the refining company's station, but only part of the way with the car company's.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

people buy an ipod, invest in a heap of music from itunes, then aren't able to shift their music to a non-apple mp3 player.

the average ipod owner has only like 20 itms songs. that isn't much of a barrier.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: tk149 Nevermind that for a true monopoly, you must have government interference in the market.

no, you don't. you just need a variable cost of very little compared to a fixed cost of rather a lot. because once someone builds out that first last mile network, no one will be able to deliver a similar product on a competing last mile network because it won't be profitable. you'll have a defensible monopoly position, and only a disruptive technology is going to change that. disruptive technologies don't come along very often.

telephone service is a perfect example. once one company has a last mile setup to your house, no one else is going to bother building one out because they'll never recoup their investment. it took cell phones and the adaptation of a separate, non-competing last mile network into a competing network (cable VOIP) to offer decent competition (of course, government action resulted in the forced leasing of lines to CLECs in the late 90s, but you'll just ignore that).

i love how ayn rand worshippers will always claim that only government interference creates monopolies, rather than economic realities.

 

[dieselstation]

Originally posted by: AgentJean

Yes, it is because of Porn that we have the internet and VHS tapes. It will also be the reason why HD-DVD kills off Blu-ray.

you give porn too much power. While porn may have held all the power back then.. nowadays.. it's not THAT influential. When was the last time you actually BOUGHT porn on a disc? in fact, when was the last time you got your porn without using the internet?

Nowadays.. HD is more influenced by the movie industry. not porn.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Good for Norway. Technology format monopolies are bad, no matter what company owns them.

Yep, Norway has balls and loves freedom.

U.S. only loves Corporations and greed, hates freedom now.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Perhaps this case is justified, but we will be seeing more and more actions of economic nationalism from European countries against foreign companies.

the legal action isn't due to apple being a foreign country. it is an action against a company that is refusing to play by the "rules of the game". Apple's copy protection mechanisms lock other companies out of the market, which is obviously not beneficial for consumers.

Apple is not a country. It's a company.

I'm simply stating that economic nationalism is on the rise in Europe and that this may or may not be a case of it. It's been pretty bad in the last year or so.

Yes, apple is a company not a country. Needless to say, I meant company not country. It's pretty obvious from the context, I would have thought.

My point is that you haven't established that the move against Apple by Norway is an act of economic nationalism. It isn't an act of economic nationalism just because you say or think it is. There is no evidence in the OP's linked article that Norway's actions (on this issue) are motivated by so-called economic nationalism.

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

btw how does this alleged European economic nationalism rate against the USA's military nationalism, responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 human beings in Iraq?

Irrelevant, but European economic and military nationalism is responsible for the genocide of hundreds of millions of people. Nothing in recent history can really compare. You really need to educate yourself.

No, it isn't irrelevant. You are implying that European so-called "economic nationalism" is a grave gathering threat to USA companies. I am saying get real. People are actually dying from your country's brand of 'economic nationalism', which employs the military to do it's dirty work. People are dying in Iraq right now. 100,000 of them dead. In the present - not in a history text book. All so America gets cheap oil at the pump. :roll:

NO BLOOD FOR OIL RAWR!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
No, it isn't irrelevant. You are implying that European so-called "economic nationalism" is a grave gathering threat to USA companies. I am saying get real. People are actually dying from your country's brand of 'economic nationalism', which employs the military to do it's dirty work. People are dying in Iraq right now. 100,000 of them dead. In the present - not in a history text book. All so America gets cheap oil at the pump. :roll:

<----------------- Searches for cheap Oil

I don't see it.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: aidanjm


people buy an ipod, invest in a heap of music from itunes, then aren't able to shift their music to a non-apple mp3 player.

one of the few well-founded and quite interesting arguments made.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: aidanjm


people buy an ipod, invest in a heap of music from itunes, then aren't able to shift their music to a non-apple mp3 player.

one of the few well-founded and quite interesting arguments made.

Which is why there is a Federal Lawsuit now.

A bit late after the horse has left the barn.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: tk149 Nevermind that for a true monopoly, you must have government interference in the market.

no, you don't. you just need a variable cost of very little compared to a fixed cost of rather a lot. because once someone builds out that first last mile network, no one will be able to deliver a similar product on a competing last mile network because it won't be profitable. you'll have a defensible monopoly position, and only a disruptive technology is going to change that. disruptive technologies don't come along very often.

telephone service is a perfect example. once one company has a last mile setup to your house, no one else is going to bother building one out because they'll never recoup their investment. it took cell phones and the adaptation of a separate, non-competing last mile network into a competing network (cable VOIP) to offer decent competition (of course, government action resulted in the forced leasing of lines to CLECs in the late 90s, but you'll just ignore that).

i love how ayn rand worshippers will always claim that only government interference creates monopolies, rather than economic realities.

If the 'monopoly' in your example raises its price enough, how long do you think their 'monopoly' will last? If they're not charging monopoly prices, then they're not exerting monopoly power. Ergo, not a monopoly. That is the true economic reality.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: aidanjm


people buy an ipod, invest in a heap of music from itunes, then aren't able to shift their music to a non-apple mp3 player.

one of the few well-founded and quite interesting arguments made.

Which is why there is a Federal Lawsuit now.

A bit late after the horse has left the barn.

Basically. Worse, as a happy customer, I find myself conflicted.

Frankly, I am too lazy for ______ and __________, and in the end, am too damn impatient to wait so I am fine with paying for it. As long as the artist gets some part of the cut, I'm fine with $.99 /song. Of course I always make sure to buy the artists CD at a concert instead if I get that chance.

The fact is that I do feel that I am stuck to their player but don't really care right now, which in all truth is rather sad I guess I've come to terms with my own humanity. THe fact is that my conclusion after all these discussions seems to be:

People find ways to get things even if it is deemed 'illegal.' With any DRM-out there, including Apple and MS', you'll be locked in, so we must agree that all DRM is all bad but also accept our humanity with honesty.

shaiyyyyyyyyyyyyt....I used allofmp3 just like everyone else


That said, itunes, so far, has given the public the best showcase of quality content and great usability of any service out there. The provide the content, the provide the medium, and they provide great usability. If anything, the public is really the ones responsible for this, and should be responsible to fighting to fix it. That said, the public seems have decided that some DRM is acceptable in the way that they find the search for applications for both osx and windows acceptable.

On the bright side there are services like magnatune ( http://magnatune.com/ ) which I also support, that offer a great service, but probably aren't financially viable in such an aggressive market as is the internet.

At the end of the day, if I ever leave ipods I'll remove the drm from my music (too lazy to do it now) and move on, but although I somewhat disagree with myself for now, I'll stick with itunes

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: tk149 Nevermind that for a true monopoly, you must have government interference in the market.

no, you don't. you just need a variable cost of very little compared to a fixed cost of rather a lot. because once someone builds out that first last mile network, no one will be able to deliver a similar product on a competing last mile network because it won't be profitable. you'll have a defensible monopoly position, and only a disruptive technology is going to change that. disruptive technologies don't come along very often.

telephone service is a perfect example. once one company has a last mile setup to your house, no one else is going to bother building one out because they'll never recoup their investment. it took cell phones and the adaptation of a separate, non-competing last mile network into a competing network (cable VOIP) to offer decent competition (of course, government action resulted in the forced leasing of lines to CLECs in the late 90s, but you'll just ignore that).

i love how ayn rand worshippers will always claim that only government interference creates monopolies, rather than economic realities.

If the 'monopoly' in your example raises its price enough, how long do you think their 'monopoly' will last? If they're not charging monopoly prices, then they're not exerting monopoly power. Ergo, not a monopoly. That is the true economic reality.

until a disruptive tech comes along. no one will enter the market because they know that the existing monopolist can drop prices down to dumping levels to defend the monopoly. no one will ever bother investing in new infrastructure or even spend money on a business plan because they will never ever recoup. so the prices remain at monopoly.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: tk149 Nevermind that for a true monopoly, you must have government interference in the market.

no, you don't. you just need a variable cost of very little compared to a fixed cost of rather a lot. because once someone builds out that first last mile network, no one will be able to deliver a similar product on a competing last mile network because it won't be profitable. you'll have a defensible monopoly position, and only a disruptive technology is going to change that. disruptive technologies don't come along very often.

telephone service is a perfect example. once one company has a last mile setup to your house, no one else is going to bother building one out because they'll never recoup their investment. it took cell phones and the adaptation of a separate, non-competing last mile network into a competing network (cable VOIP) to offer decent competition (of course, government action resulted in the forced leasing of lines to CLECs in the late 90s, but you'll just ignore that).

i love how ayn rand worshippers will always claim that only government interference creates monopolies, rather than economic realities.

If the 'monopoly' in your example raises its price enough, how long do you think their 'monopoly' will last? If they're not charging monopoly prices, then they're not exerting monopoly power. Ergo, not a monopoly. That is the true economic reality.

until a disruptive tech comes along. no one will enter the market because they know that the existing monopolist can drop prices down to dumping levels to defend the monopoly. no one will ever bother investing in new infrastructure or even spend money on a business plan because they will never ever recoup. so the prices remain at monopoly.

this is true, and it's interesting how new market entities seem to evolve that have monopolistic-effects without the need to enact pressure on competition.

apple's itunes and AT&T can both be looked on as monopolies but they sometimes don't need to exert pressure on the market to keep competitors at bay. Their sheer size dwarfs ambition without a need to actively lobby against upstarts. the new AT&T's coverage maps, for example, are enough to prevent companies from challenging it, even if they can offer service in AT&T's areas. Same thing goes for itunes since they offer the "whole Package" of store-to-ears which many companies can't even dream of funding.

 

[Tobolo]

Originally posted by: AgentJean

Originally posted by: Kreon
wow...

What can I say, Europe just owned Apple!

France tried to force Apple to release the DRM for itunes.
Apple threaten a total pull out of france. France in a traditional French war tactic surrendered.

It's only a matter of time till Apple tells Norway to go frack themself with a Frog.

What does noraway care? They aren't getting much if any from Apple anyway?

 

[foghorn67]

Forget Norway. More like Bore-way,
(for this that get this=winnar)