BPI wants Apple to license FairPlay

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) has called upon Apple Computer Inc. to take steps toward interoperability by licensing its FairPlay DRM technology to other manufacturers.

FairPlay is the name given to the Digital Rights Management (DRM) protection that controls how a user can listen to and make copies of tracks purchased from the iTunes music store. You can transfer a song from iTunes to an iPod and listen to it, but you cannot do the same with a Creative Zen for example.

"We would advocate that Apple opts for interoperability," BPI chairman Peter Jamieson told the House of Commons Select Committee for Culture, Media & Sport inquiry into New Media and the Creative Industries. The tie between iPod and iTunes is gold for Apple as each plays a major part in the success of the other. iTunes and iPod hold over three quarters of their respective markets. Such a large share in the market is making the record companies uneasy.

"It's not particularly healthy for any one company to have such a dominant share," Jamieson said. He acknowledged the dominance of Apple in the market and how iTunes is driving legal music downloads, but he said that Apple should be prepared to license its FairPlay technology to other companies.

Source:
PC Pro

Written by: James Delahunty @ 7 Jun 2006 14:44

Advertisement - News comments available below the ad

15 comments

sssharp

If this actually passes then every new concept should(by law of course) become available to all companies. Xbox games playable with consoles made by Sony, XM heard on Sirius made recievers, Dishnework watched on DirectTv etc. All concepts allowed for all companies the chance to profit from a new device or idea. Prices should fall with competition but companies would complain their heads off in the complaints of raking in only 6 billion dollars instead of 11 billion.

7.6.2006 17:22 #1

dfjdk

This idea isn't good for consumers, if you ask me. The record companies don't like Apple, which plays by its own rules, selling (as opposed to renting) songs for only 99c each. Only by virtue of its popularity can they pull this off. I think this is an attempt to weaken Apple and benefit the rip-off subscription services.

7.6.2006 22:09 #2

Ghostdog

Apple should be forced into interoperability since both the iPod line and iTunes are such dominant actors in their respective fields. It�s not really a monopoly but such a strong position in the market can harm competition.

8.6.2006 02:02 #3

gogochar

Why mess with a perfection like Apple? Jealousy is why!

8.6.2006 09:16 #4

wetsparks

If you want to go by the BPI's logic, then since M$ has such a dominant position in the PC market, they need to give Apple several billion dollars every year to help balance out that market inbalance until Apple gets a bigger share.

8.6.2006 15:14 #5

Mr-Movies

I personally don't like Apple but they should be able to control any of their own efforts and market them as they please, isn't this a free world? How would you like it if you spent mega bucks developing new technology and then were FORCED to give it away at a loss to your efforts, not me. This is big money pushing big money,BPI is out of line. Why Apple is even popular is beyound me I wouldn't pay to download a degraded quality tune for a $1 each, what a scam, but people buy into it so good for Apple.

9.6.2006 07:24 #6

vudoo

Well this would be a great idea. One reason is that there would be more video services for the iPod and this could lead to more competition. It return there would be more movies to choose from on the video ipod. Remember Music is not the only thing to consider here in the iPod world.

Digital content has a potential to make tons of $$ however DRM is being used to bully the other companies.

9.6.2006 12:36 #7

duckNrun

dfjdk: Since when has ANYONE EVER owned a song they have purchased from iTunes? If you owned the songs you bought from iTunes you could then do whatever you want to with them, such as use them on a seperate mp3 player orlisten to them on more than 5 computers. If you owned them Apple couldn't 'update' the rules of it's DRM and thereby change the conditions you can use them in at the time you purchased them.

With DRM no one OWNS ANYTHING period!

I really hate it when fanboys start spewing the filth from 'the party line' without giving any origional thought about what they are actually saying!

:-)

9.6.2006 14:50 #8

ianroyal

they want licensing, which means apple would still get paid, so they wouldn't be giving it away. they wouldn't be selling as many i-pods, but they'd be selling way more music.

it'd be like a satellite radio reciever that could get either xm or sirius(or both), while still paying both companies. how would that be bad for consumers?

9.6.2006 16:15 #9

2ndclass

Why would Apple allow other mp3 players to play songs from iTunes? Then people would just stop buying iPods and buy better Creative, iRiver etc players

9.6.2006 19:45 #10

duckNrun

Well thats the rub now isn't it. Apple makes a pittance on the songs the sell (due to the RIAA demanding the lion's share regardless of server and bandwidth costs) and so Apple really benefits from iTunes driving the iPod sales. And of course once you have invested X amount of money in songs that cannot play on another device you certainly are not going to just be like "oh well... let's start over from zero!" and so you are a loyal apple customer forever... regardless of whether you want to or not since most people are not just going to throw out $1000+ dollars of music to switch!

And before anyone start to say about burning them to disc and then recompressing them into a different format e.g mp3 PLEASE read up on what happens to the already LOW bitrate quality of songs being sold after you uncompress them and then recompress them yet again.

Cheers!

9.6.2006 22:08 #11

rickster9

What a joke. Think BPI has plans for its members to set up competition with Apple and then of course, quit licensing the material to them? Get a grip...the industry has had many a chance to change their business model and has done everything in its power to not do so. Live with it now!

11.6.2006 18:34 #12

AIM2Shame

People have seemed to missed the simple fact of this is all about fair use nothing else.

You purchase music, you should be able to do anything with it just not listen to it on your ipod.

God dam....

13.6.2006 05:46 #13

rickster9

It's not just about fair use in BPI's case. Their members, who license the material to Apple, would like nothing better than to sell the product themselves rather than through someone else. Remember Apple's refusal to increase the download fees as requested by the studios including BPI members? Right now they have no other means ...but make DRM available to them, and they have a tried and tested solution.

ARRRRRRR

15.6.2006 10:28 #14

juniorken

I never understood why people buy these kinda files anyway... Why not ripping a legal cd using good mp3-software and proper settings? If I buy a cd why shouldn't I be able to listen to it on the device that I want + make copies of it for my own personal use? Why should I get and pay for audiofiles with a minor quality? And why should there be only one company running the whole system? They won't change their price-settings/quality unless they have some competition...

27.6.2006 03:38 #15

AfterDawn: News