iOpoly?
---
What is it about DRM that makes IQs drop so sharply?
First things first: iTunes is free! How is a company being a "monopolist" (i.e., charging "unfair" prices and reaping "unfair" profits) when it is giving the thing away for free?!? (The fact that you pay for the files is irrelevant — the software is free and by definition can therefore not be"monopolistic.")
As for the iPod, it is essentially nothing more than a portable hard drive, and is, even if clumsily, usable as such without iTunes.
Second, there is simply no monopoly in the market for "storing music software on music hardware." iPod/iTunes has competitors. The fact that Apple is kicking those competitors' iButts does not make it a "monopolist" or its trade practices "unfair."
If you don't like the terms of the contract that Apple is offering for download of audio and video via iTunes/iPod, then simply don't do business with them. Leave the courts out of it.
---
Why is this difficult concept for so many people? Possibly because some folks, including some libertarians, have trouble distinguishing between property rights and contractual rights. Many people only think in terms of absolute ownership of property — what the law call "fee simple." The idea that you can buy something, but with "strings attached," is counterintuitive and even abhorrent to some.
Thus, for example, a person may buy a house in a planned community, subsequent to a voluntary contract restricting his ability to fly flags in his yard, then suddenly declare, contrary to that same voluntary contract, that "my property is mine" and demand his "right" to fly the flag anyway. And what does Congress do about it?
So too with DRM: "I bought it, it's mine, and if Apple gets in my way then it's a 'monopolist' and I will sue for my 'rights.'" The fact that the original purchase was entirely voluntary and the terms fully disclosed upfront is blanked out.
Simply preposterous.
Apple Computer Inc. said Friday it is facing several federal lawsuits, including one alleging the company created an illegal monopoly by tying iTunes music and video sales to its market-leading iPod portable players.This is, of course, utter nonsense.
The case, filed July 21, is over Apple's use of a copy-protection system that generally prevents iTunes music and video from playing on rival players. Likewise, songs purchased elsewhere aren't easily playable on iPods.
The plaintiff is seeking unspecified damages and other relief. The court denied Apple's motion to dismiss the complaint on Dec. 20.
First things first: iTunes is free! How is a company being a "monopolist" (i.e., charging "unfair" prices and reaping "unfair" profits) when it is giving the thing away for free?!? (The fact that you pay for the files is irrelevant — the software is free and by definition can therefore not be"monopolistic.")
As for the iPod, it is essentially nothing more than a portable hard drive, and is, even if clumsily, usable as such without iTunes.
Second, there is simply no monopoly in the market for "storing music software on music hardware." iPod/iTunes has competitors. The fact that Apple is kicking those competitors' iButts does not make it a "monopolist" or its trade practices "unfair."
If you don't like the terms of the contract that Apple is offering for download of audio and video via iTunes/iPod, then simply don't do business with them. Leave the courts out of it.
---
Why is this difficult concept for so many people? Possibly because some folks, including some libertarians, have trouble distinguishing between property rights and contractual rights. Many people only think in terms of absolute ownership of property — what the law call "fee simple." The idea that you can buy something, but with "strings attached," is counterintuitive and even abhorrent to some.
Thus, for example, a person may buy a house in a planned community, subsequent to a voluntary contract restricting his ability to fly flags in his yard, then suddenly declare, contrary to that same voluntary contract, that "my property is mine" and demand his "right" to fly the flag anyway. And what does Congress do about it?
So too with DRM: "I bought it, it's mine, and if Apple gets in my way then it's a 'monopolist' and I will sue for my 'rights.'" The fact that the original purchase was entirely voluntary and the terms fully disclosed upfront is blanked out.
Simply preposterous.
Posted by Kip on
31 December 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.