European Commission Objects to Apple iTunes Business Practices
April 3, 2007 1:32 PM
comment(s) - last by
The EC claims iTunes treats customers unfairly and that record labels are to blame
After a long series of investigations, the European Commission (EC) today decided to formally object to Apple and its iTunes business in European countries on anticompetitive practices. According to the EC, it has sent a Statement of Objections to Apple, indicating that the way Apple does business with its iTunes online store is in violations of EC treaty rules. Additional complaints were sent to major record labels operating in the European Union.
The problem lies in the way that major record labels deal with the iTunes online store, allowing only limited access based on the location of the customer. Prices vary across locations and across borders, and customers in one zone may not be allowed to purchase music that's available in another zone. Worse yet, some customers end up paying higher prices simply because of their geographical location.
European Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd publically stated that the EC
sees the agreement between record labels and Apple as a violation of trade treaties
. "Our current view is that this is an arrangement which is imposed on Apple by the major record companies and we do not see a justification for it." An official statement from the EC indicated that customers were having their credit cards scanned for location information and if for example the customer was located in Belgium, they could only purchase songs designated to Belgium.
The report states, "Apple and major record companies contain territorial sales restrictions which violate Article 81 of the EC Treaty. iTunes verifies consumers' country of residence through their credit card details. For example, in order to buy a music download from the iTunes Belgian on-line store a consumer must use a credit card issued by a bank with an address in Belgium."
An important note in the EC's statement said that while this charge is an indication of treaty violations, it is not a charge of monopolistic practices.
"The Statement of Objections does not allege that Apple is in a dominant market position and is not about Apple's use of its proprietary Digital Rights Management (DRM) to control usage rights for downloads from the iTunes on-line store," concludes the report.
Before the EC sent its formal charge to Apple, the life-style computer company already faced a number of allegations about the iTunes store. Earlier this year, a number of agencies in several European countries
joined forces to threaten legal action towards Apple
if it didn't change the way the iTunes store operated. Groups in Denmark, Germany, France, Norway and Sweden complained that
Apple's DRM format is too restrictive
and did not allow users to play music on players of their choice.
In February of this year, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said that despite the restrictions placed on songs downloaded from the iTunes store,
he would rather see Digital Rights Management (DRM) completely abolished
. "Through the end of 2006, customers purchased a total of 90 million iPods and 2 billion songs from the iTunes store. On average, that’s 22 songs purchased from the iTunes store for each iPod ever sold,” Jobs said. While it's difficult to ignore that iTunes does effect sales of iPods, consumers have been against DRM-enabled music from the get-go. Even
Microsoft chairman Bill Gates took a stab at DRM
late last year.
With the EC's latest charge on Apple, it will be interesting to see how things shape up between Apple and major record labels. While the RIAA is still going after college students and other end users, the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) may be going through some changes
thanks to updated a new FAIR USE act, which calls for reduced restrictions for both consumers and hardware developers. The dynamics between Apple, record labels and government agencies is no doubt a complex one. Despite Apple's troubles,
the iTunes business is still a roaring success
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: Before you all start..
4/4/2007 3:13:42 PM
I don't what part of which it is you study, but I study it's economy as well. I'm sure the EU does nice cute things in various realms of human life, ie, good diplomacy (it sure got angry with Iran this past week!) and peacekeeping (A+ performance in Darfur, and those Belgian troops in Kosovo were real heros, eh?). But economic success it absolutely is not.
The single market *does* exert a good amount of control over it's participants economies. Switzerland, for example, has had to adopt almost the full set of rules as a full EU state member (and even has to contribute to the budget) in order to participate in the single market. Additionally, with the unified currency, the monetary policy applies to them all whether they like it or not.
The term socialism I use, I think, correctly, as the government in the EU treats business in general as a second-class citizen. It regulates it, it tells it how to operate, what it can and can not do in a wide variety of instances, it taxes them heavily when it befits them and willingly disregards its property rights when voters decide they don't like something. Thats just the business operation side; on the employee side, they regulate hours worked and implement much more restrictive (on business) labor laws that effective legislate away the concept of "right to work". I don't know how many businessmen from France have complained that the very popular culture there looks upon successful businessmen as criminals, and with the work-police gustappo going around checking to make sure nobody worked 1 minute past their 35hr cap, the system treats management in the same way as car thiefs and other felons.
Again, that IS socialism, that IS central planning; the government in Europe (not just the EU itself but individual states as well) controls every detail it can manage to, likely with the belief that more government is preferable to less.
The alternative would be free markets operating without government intervention except in cases of market failures (which almost never happen) and to correct externalities (through licenses or limited, specific taxation to correct for infringed property rights or the damage to the public property). Europe comes no where close; most recent example is the light bulb. The communist/fascist approach is to ban socially unacceptable things, like dancing in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. The free-market approach is to devise a carbon tax so that people pay to use inefficient technology. You see which route the EU took.
Some places, like the UK with light labor laws or Germany that has kept its unit labor costs down, manage to avoid some economic problems. Most of Europe, unfortunately, has no saving grace to make up for its problems like Germany and the UK have, and that's reflected in precisely what economic theory predicts for socialist economies; high unemployment, low growth.
As an aside, I don't write off the EU; men like Sarkozy understand the problems, and hope to fix it (if he is elected). In fact, most politicians know precisely what they need to do, they just don't know how to get re-elected again if they were to do it.
I've been stating facts and events right out of the news, so I'd like to see how you could see the EU in a radically different light other than failure with only somewhat bright hopes for a better future (but still a current-day failure).
RE: Before you all start..
4/5/2007 8:07:41 AM
Without wanting this to sound like a personal attack, be honest. You don't have an economics degree, judging by nearly all of your posts I've seen on here. You don't even understand the concept of socialism and you sure as hell don't understand the economy of the EU. (incidentally I do also do economics as part of my course, at a fairly basic level, mind)
I've read your post and, unfortunately it is factually incorrect in the main and has nothing to do with the subject in hand, for that reason I'm not going to bother addressing the points you made, as, in your own words I'd be 'feeding the troll'.
RE: Before you all start..
4/6/2007 5:53:05 PM
Actually, he hasn't shown much of a lack of understanding in socialism or economics as far as I've seen, and yes, I've taken courses in economics, and especially in microeconomics (meaning the economy within a country or given region).
Let us remember, the EU is not a country but a union of countries. Each individual nation has it's own laws, constitution equivilant, and leadership. The EU attempts to bridge all the different laws, currancies, and practices to make it a more uniform and compatible whole (i.e. you can use the Euro anywhere in any EU nation and don't have to bother with constantly exchanging your currancy).
With that said, for the EU to demand of a company that it cannot engage in different business practices with
different, soveriegn, independent nations
, is a bit socialistic in nature. Each country has its own business laws, irregardless of the EU!, and it's own taxes, so demanding absolutely identical business practices by any company in all EU members is rather ludicris.
Of course, I have not studied how the different companies based in say France as treated by the EU on their pricing of products that they sell in France verses those they sell in Norway (subtracting out distribution costs and such), but I doubt the EU demands such fidelity elsewhere. That does not mean what it's doing is anti-American! But, it seems a reflection of a "this is the internet, no countries or regions exist on it, the internet is it's own self contained location" mentality, and a case of the EU trying to overstep its bounds of power.
In summery, each country must be tailored to price wise by a company for effective business (likewise a company tailors its practices differently in every state in the United States due to different State based laws and taxes!), so it seems the EU is very wrong in this matter from a rational and economic standpoint (unless it is true that the internet modifies these facts and negates them, then the EU is right and Apple is entirely wrong for discrimination).
"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997
Proposed FAIR USE Act to Limit DMCA Restrictions
March 7, 2007, 3:51 PM
Steve Jobs Makes Case for Abolishing DRM
February 7, 2007, 10:19 AM
Dutch Agency Joins Battle Against Apple iTunes
January 26, 2007, 1:11 AM
German, French Groups Still Want iTunes Changed
January 24, 2007, 12:51 PM
Bill Gates Takes a Jab at DRM
December 15, 2006, 4:25 PM
Google's Gleaming Glass HQ Gets Mountain View Snub, LinkedIn Gets the Love
May 7, 2015, 6:58 AM
Tech's Tax Day Fortunate Few: Qualcomm, Xerox, GE, et al. Pay Little or No Taxes
April 15, 2015, 11:30 AM
LinkNYC Terminals to Blanket New York City With Free WiFi, Free Calls, and Ads
November 17, 2014, 6:50 PM
Microsoft is Open-Sourcing Most of .NET, Adding OS X and Linux Support
November 12, 2014, 8:27 PM
Home Depot Lost 53 Million Emails, Blames Windows, Buys Execs New Macs
November 9, 2014, 5:00 PM
Former NSA Lawyer: If Google, Apple Encrypt User Data, They’ll Wither on the Vine Like Blackberry
November 6, 2014, 12:15 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information