Apple Inc.  Prior to March 2009, digital music files with digital rights management were available for purchase from the iTunes Store, encoded in a proprietary derivative of the  AAC format that used Apple's FairPlay DRM system. These files are compatible only with Apple's iTunes media player software on Macs and Windows, their iPod portable digital music players, iPhone smartphones, iPad tablet computers, and the Motorola  ROKR E1 and SLVR mobile phones. As a result, that music was locked into this ecosystem and available for portable use only through the purchase of one of the above devices,  or by burning to  CD and optionally re-ripping to a DRM-free format such as MP3 or WAV. In January, 2005, an iPod purchaser named Thomas Slattery filed a suit against Apple for the "unlawful bundling " of their iTunes Music Store and iPod device. He stated in his brief: " Apple has turned an open and interactive standard into an artifice that prevents consumers from using the portable hard drive digital music player of their choice. " At the time Apple was stated to have an 80\% market share of digital music sales and a 90\% share of sales of new music players, which he claimed allowed Apple to horizontally leverage its dominant positions in both markets to lock consumers into its complementary offerings. In September 2005, U.S. District Judge James Ware  approved Slattery v. Apple Computer Inc . to proceed with monopoly charges against Apple in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. On June 7, 2006, the Norwegian Consumer Council stated that Apple's iTunes Music Store violates Norwegian law. The contract conditions were vague and " clearly unbalanced to disfavor the customer " . The retroactive changes to the  DRM conditions and the incompatibility with other music players are the major points of concern. In an earlier letter to Apple, consumer ombudsman Bjørn Erik Thon complained that iTunes' DRM mechanism was a lock-in to Apple's music players, and argued that this was a conflict with consumer rights that he doubted would be defendable by Norwegian copyright law.   , tracks on the EMI label became available in a DRM-free format called iTunes Plus. These files are unprotected and are encoded in the AAC format at 256 kilobits per second, twice the bitrate of standard tracks bought through the service. iTunes accounts can be set to display either standard or iTunes Plus formats for tracks where both formats exist. These files can be used with any player that supports the AAC file format and are not locked to Apple hardware. They can be converted to MP format if desired. As of January 6, 2009, all four big music studios ( Warner Bros., Sony BMG, Universal  , and EMI ) have signed up to remove the DRM from their tracks, at no extra cost. However, Apple charges consumers to have previously purchased DRM music restrictions removed .
Apple Inc. Criticism of Apple Inc. Accusations of anti-competitive behavior Prior to March 2009, digital music files with digital rights management were available for purchase from the iTunes Store, encoded in a proprietary derivative of the Advanced Audio Coding| AAC format that used Apple's FairPlay DRM system. These files are compatible only with Apple's iTunes media player software on Macintosh|Macs and Microsoft Windows| Windows, their iPod portable digital music players, iPhone smartphones, iPad tablet computers, and the Motorola Motorola ROKR E1 |ROKR E1 and Motorola SLVR| SLVR mobile phones. As a result, that music was locked into this ecosystem and available for portable use only through the purchase of one of the above devices, Is Apple Playing Fair? Navigating the iPod FairPlay DRM Controversy or by burning to Compact disc| CD and optionally re-ripping to a DRM-free format such as MP3 or WAV. In January, 2005, an iPod purchaser named Thomas Slattery filed a suit against Apple for the unlawful bundling of their iTunes Music Store and iPod device. He stated in his brief: Apple has turned an open and interactive standard into an artifice that prevents consumers from using the portable hard drive digital music player of their choice. At the time Apple was stated to have an 80\% market share of digital music sales and a 90\% share of sales of new music players, which he claimed allowed Apple to horizontally leverage its dominant positions in both markets to lock consumers into its complementary offerings. In September 2005, U.S. District Judge James Ware judge|James Ware approved Slattery v. Apple Computer Inc to proceed with monopoly charges against Apple in violation of the Sherman Antitrust . Suit Against Apple Over iPod, iTunes to Proceed |author-Donna |author-Higgins |publisher FindLaw Legal News |date 2005-09-22. On June 7, 2006, the Norwegian Consumer Council stated that Apple's iTunes Music Store violates Norwegian law. The contract conditions were vague and clearly unbalanced to disfavor the customer . The retroactive changes to the Digital Rights Management| DRM conditions and the incompatibility with other music players are the major points of concern. In an earlier letter to Apple, consumer ombudsman qqBjørn Erik Thon complained that iTunes' DRM mechanism was a lock-in to Apple's music players, and argued that this was a conflict with consumer rights that he doubted would be defendable by Norwegian copyright law. Author Thon |author-Bjørn Erik |iTunes terms of service vs Norwegian marketing law. English transcribed: The Consumer Council reacts to the observation that iTunes DRM entails that the files can only be played on a few players, mainly Apple's own players. They furthermore believe that the terms of service's point 9b, where the customer among other things must agree not to circumvent or change such technical hindrances, is in conflict with the copyright law 53a. Copyright holders are by the copyright law entitled to decide if the work is to be made available, and in principle also how it is made available. Copyright can in my opinion not give the copyright holder right to demand all kinds of conditions when sold to consumers in generality.Norwegian original: Forbrukerrådet reagerer på at iTunes Music Stores DRM medfører at filene kun kan spilles på et fåtall spillere, hovedsakelig Apples egne spillere. De mener videre at tjenestevilkårenes punkt 9b, hvor kunden blant annet må samtykke til ikke å omgå eller endre slike tekniske sperrer, er i strid med åndsverksloven 53a. Rettighetshaverens enerett etter åndsverksloven gir anledning til å bestemme om verket skal gjøres tilgjengelig, og rettighetshaveren kan også i utgangspunktet bestemme måten dette skal skje på. Opphavsretten kan etter min mening ikke gi rettighetshaveren rett til å stille enhver form for betingelser ved salg til forbrukere As of|2007|05|29 , tracks on the EMI label became available in a DRM-free format called iTunes Plus. These files are unprotected and are encoded in the AAC format at 256 kilobits per second, twice the bitrate of standard tracks bought through the service. iTunes accounts can be set to display either standard or iTunes Plus formats for tracks where both formats exist. These files can be used with any player that supports the AAC file format and are not locked to Apple hardware. They can be converted to MP format if desired. As of January 6, 2009, all four big music studios Warner Bros., Sony BMG, Universal Music Group|Universal , and EMI have signed up to remove the DRM from their tracks, at no extra cost. However, Apple charges consumers to have previously purchased DRM music restrictions .
A
Criticism of Apple Inc. Accusations of anti-competitive behavior
A
Advanced Audio Coding|
R
Macs and
Macintosh|Macs and Microsoft Windows|
A
Motorola
R
and
|ROKR E1 and Motorola SLVR|
A
Is Apple Playing Fair? Navigating the iPod FairPlay DRM Controversy
A
Compact disc|
R
"unlawful bundling "
unlawful bundling
D
"
D
"
A
judge|James Ware
D
.
R
Act.
. Suit Against Apple Over iPod, iTunes to Proceed |author-Donna |author-Higgins |publisher FindLaw Legal News |date 2005-09-22.
D
"
D
"
A
Digital Rights Management|
R
Bjørn
qqBjørn
A
Author Thon |author-Bjørn Erik |iTunes terms of service vs Norwegian marketing law. English transcribed: The Consumer Council reacts to the observation that iTunes DRM entails that the files can only be played on a few players, mainly Apple's own players. They furthermore believe that the terms of service's point 9b, where the customer among other things must agree not to circumvent or change such technical hindrances, is in conflict with the copyright law 53a. Copyright holders are by the copyright law entitled to decide if the work is to be made available, and in principle also how it is made available. Copyright can in my opinion not give the copyright holder right to demand all kinds of conditions when sold to consumers in generality.Norwegian original: Forbrukerrådet reagerer på at iTunes Music Stores DRM medfører at filene kun kan spilles på et fåtall spillere, hovedsakelig Apples egne spillere. De mener videre at tjenestevilkårenes punkt 9b, hvor kunden blant annet må samtykke til ikke å omgå eller endre slike tekniske sperrer, er i strid med åndsverksloven 53a. Rettighetshaverens enerett etter åndsverksloven gir anledning til å bestemme om verket skal gjøres tilgjengelig, og rettighetshaveren kan også i utgangspunktet bestemme måten dette skal skje på. Opphavsretten kan etter min mening ikke gi rettighetshaveren rett til å stille enhver form for betingelser ved salg til forbrukere
A
As of|2007|05|29
D
(
A
Music Group|Universal
D
)
D
removed