EU Launches Antitrust Probe Into iTunes 318
Macthorpe writes "ABC News is reporting that the EU has started an antitrust probe into the way that Apple sells music on iTunes. As you can only purchase from the store of the country where your credit or debit card is registered, the price differences and availability differences between iTunes stores for different EU countries constitute a violation of EU competition laws which forbid territorial sales restrictions.'Apple spokesman Steve Dowling said Monday the company wanted to operate a single store for all of Europe, but music labels and publishers said there were limits to the rights that could they could grant to Apple. "We don't believe Apple did anything to violate EU law," he said. "We will continue to work with the EU to resolve this matter."'"
Once again we see the problem of the old system (Score:5, Insightful)
Region coding, DRM, lawsuits...they are all just desperate ploys--putting fingers in the dike of inevitable change.
Re:Once again we see the problem of the old system (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's how economies grow.
Back in the 1950s, companies had whole rooms full of people punching adding machines. In the 1900s, it was all done in longhand. Today, a single person with a spreadsheet can do more math in 10 seconds than all the clerks in the world could do a hundred years ago. A six-man construction crew with backhoes and dump trucks can do more work in a week than a hundred ditch-diggers and dirt-carriers could do in a year
EU Fines (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not saying that none of these fines are unjustified but I am saying that, if I may opine, the EU has been issuing a lot of fines. With this recent Apple one, it does seem as though Apple had no choice and if they aren't given an alternative to losing their contracts with record companies for the sake of running one Europe encompassing store, then I don't blame them. On the surface, the EU Commissions seem to be discouraging big businesses from selling things like XBoxes, PS3s or iTunes inside all of the countries. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I guess time will tell
Re:EU Fines (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's entirely possible. I could conceive very corrupt practices being in place causing the need for these fines and that would explain the number of them immediately after the EU formed. However, I read stories about delayed launches of Xboxes or PS3s and it's all in the name of the consumer ... or is it? I mean, you could be saying, "Thank god that they're protecting the consumer from price fixing" y
Re: (Score:2)
You must be very very young my dear. Having lived a bit longer and experienced the alternative, where national governments and companies fixed import taxes and regional prices the way they wanted, I can assure you: If companies have their go, consumers get raped all the way to the bank.
Re:EU Fines the Holy Grail (Score:4, Funny)
eldavojohn: Man.
King Khazunga: Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?
eldavojohn: I'm 24.
King Khazunga: What?
eldavojohn: I'm 24. I'm not very very young.
King Khazunga: Well I can't just call you "my dear".
eldavojohn: Well you could say "eldavojohn".
King Khazunga: I didn't know you were called eldavojohn.
eldavojohn: Well you didn't bother to find out did you?
King Khazunga: I did say sorry about the "very very young my dear", but from behind you looked...
eldavojohn: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior.
King Khazunga: Well I am king.
eldavojohn: Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.
Re:EU Fines (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever looked into the situation. It has been years since the EU ordered the different music licensing cartels across Europe to offer a single, pan-european license and those record company groups have ignored them. Now they're demanding Apple charge the same amount in different countries, when Apple pays a different amount in different countries, because the EU has done nothing about their previous edict. It is idiocy. Should Apple raise prices in some places and lower them in others to cover costs and effectively subsidize pricing in some countries with money from customers in other countries? Does anyone believe Apple will still be selling any music in poorer countries when they're forced to raise prices drastically above what CDs cost in those countries?
If the EU wants to be one big economic cluster, great. Pass some fricking laws forcing the record companies to charge one flat license fee for Europe and pass some laws requiring all EU countries to tax music the same. Then if Apple is still charging different prices (something they don't want to do in the first place) you can threaten them with legal action.
Re:EU Fines (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has the spin angle of claiming to work with the EU to force the music cartels to open up.
Re:EU Fines (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference now is that the internet breaks down borders, making the complexity of the old system and the resulting differences in prices readily apparent. So, yes, the EU needs to come to grips with technological change and make companies comply with EU rules. I understand why Apple is named in the suit. They are the number one seller of digital music, but the brunt of the legal action should be directed at the music rights-holders. They are the ones that need to bring cross-border consistency to their system of royalties and pricing. There is no reason to believe that Apple would oppose this in any way. Having a single EU deal would greatly reduce the complexity of running iTunes.
Case in point. When Apple first opened its iTunes store in the UK, a consumer group filed a complaint about price gouging. They were comparing the difference in prices with France, if I recall. The assinine thing about the complaint, though, was that Apple's price for digital downloads was cheaper than any other major player in the UK at the time (considerably so if I recall). The point is they complained that *Apple* was price-gouging, when the underlying cause of the problem was that ALL music being sold in the UK was more expensive. iTunes just made the price differences more absurd since the internet does not care about political lines on a map or differences in legal systems.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Let it go. Apple is a corporation, it does not love you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I seriously doubt Apple would care. The labels would, obviously. Don't know what would happen to the deals between Apple and the labels in such a case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Alternatively, Apple will have to allow any consumer in any EU member country to shop from any of the EU country stores.
In, which case they are almost certainly breaking copyright law in the country of the downloader.
Actually, that is not clear. ;-) ).
I can travel to france, buy a french cd and bring it back to germany with me. Perfectly legal. I bought the cd in france under french copyright law.
Now, if the server stands in france, a french credit-card-handler is used for payment, am i buying my digital music in france? If yes, it's a great day for all people, because then there will be vast competition within the EU (and allofmp3.com would be legal
Re: (Score:2)
this is the situation in europe. The countries are all 'states' within a unified europe, akin to the united states of america. European "countries" share a currency (except a minority) and share a common legal platform.
Quite why a digital downloaded product has such a differential is beyond me - the iTunes servers are offsho
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
this is the situation in europe.
Ok... now explain what's *wrong* about it. In fact, given the increased taxation in California compared to Nevada, I'm mildly surprised that situation doesn't already exist.
I think Apple should be able to charge whatever the hell they want in whatever locale they want. Just giving a little analogy w
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:EU Fines (Score:4, Informative)
Also, from a legal point of view; EU member states have a trade agreement that used to be called the "common market". This means that a consumer in Italy, should not be prevented from buying a product at the same price as a German or a Brit. This is why Europpeans can shop around the EU looking for the cheapest prices for products - e.g. Italians buying Mercedes in Germany, Brits buying fags (cigarettes. please!) from France and Spaniards buying mobile phones from the UK.
Any company that prevents cross border trading, is breaking the law. The problem with iTunes, is that it does not allow a Brit to buy at French prices and so on because the user is registered in their home country and is forced to buy at the domicile prices. This restriction only happens on digital products because physical products can easily be purchased in the country of ones choosing by showing up and buying the stuff over the counter.
I don't see this as an Anti-USA argument - it is an EU problem with the subsidiuaries of Apple, such as Apple UK and Apple DE etc not co-operating and profiteering in an illegally segmented market.
hope that helps,
rd
Re: (Score:2)
It's only harassment of American companies be
Re: (Score:2)
just think of the outcry if Apple charged 57% more for iTunes for customers that live in California versus those that lived in Nevada and had a different prices for each USA state.
Just imagine if the US had laws that allowed the record companies to license music for different prices in different states. I'd say if the US was so stupid as to do that, then they're getting what they deserve, just as the EU is getting what they deserve for not actually enforcing their edict to require record companies to provide a single price for licensing in all of Europe.
The countries are all 'states' within a unified europe, akin to the united states of america.
In this regard, no they're not. In the US you register a copyright with the federal government and it applies to all of the US
Since no ones seems to grasp what this is about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I have looked into the situation, but you obviously haven't, since you completely fail to understand what this case is all about. Apple can charge whatever the hell it wants in each individual country. Want to charge the two euros per track in france and four in germany? Fine.
What the commission is complaining about, and what may very well be determined illegal under EU law, is restricting the sale of French priced tracks only to people with credit cards issued in France. That's what the case is about. If iTunes France wants to charge half the German price, that's fine, but they are not allowed to stop people with German issued credit cards logging on and buying tracks. The EU garuntees free movement of goods, services and people between its member states. Shutting out consumers based on where their cards are issued may well be in violation of this.
Now, you may disagree, and think that imposing this restriction is not in violation of EU law. Fine. But you are grossly misrepresenting the situaton by claiming the EU commission wants Apple to charge the same amount in every country.
Incidently, I agree with the commission on this one. I think refusing to process a credit card tranaction because the card was issued in a different EU state is probably a violation of the single market regulations. In the end, of course, that will be for the courts to decide.
Re:Since no ones seems to grasp what this is about (Score:5, Informative)
This is called "due diligence" to prevent contributory copyright infringement charges leveled against Apple.
So here's the problem. The right to copy a song onto your personal computer in France is considered, under EU law, a different service than the right to download that same song onto your personal computer in Germany because the right to copy it (copyright) is enforced separately in each country. So if Apple did not restrict the sale of a song from the French store to people with a French credit card, then sure a German could purchase the copyright with their German card, but assuming they are in Germany, it would be illegal for them to actually download the song in Germany, because their license to copy only applies in France and they aren't in France.
Your mistake is trying to equate a download with a CD, when those two things are treated completely differently by EU law. Under EU law, you cannot transfer a copyright (download license) in one country to another, while you can transfer a copy itself (CD).
The EU commission is bringing charges against Apple for selling what EU law defines as different services, for different prices. The problem is most of the people involved only understand things in terms of analogies, like CDs and don't understand that the problem is with EU law and the recording industry's exploitation thereof. Apple has exactly zero power to solve this. If they did as you suggest, they'd simply be misleading people into thinking they had a legal right to download a song, when they almost certainly did not, and as a result Apple would be liable for damages because of their knowingly profiting from this illegal behavior.
It is entirely probable that it is a violation, technically. The problem is that accepting payments from foreign cards is also probably illegal. The EU has created a situation where selling music downloads online, is probably illegal no matter which way Apple chooses to do business. All of this, however, would be a moot point if the EU would simply enforce their own edict that requires the recording companies to offer to sell Apple and everyone else a single license at a single price that applies across Europe, so that the copyright license in Germany and in France were the same service. Right now, under EU law, they are not.
Re: (Score:2)
This strikes me as being the case for free trade and common markets. People don't really act like they believe in free trade; it's protectionism for me and free trade for you. Workers in a democratic society give up a lot when they agree to give up the protection of tra
Re:EU Fines (Score:4, Informative)
As an aside to the Americans who think this is an example of EU socialism bashing a successful American company, consider this: what would your government do if Apple had different stores for each state, or for people of different races, each with varying music and pricing? I doubt you would be so accepting.
Re: (Score:2)
what would your government do if Apple had different stores for each state, or for people of different races, each with varying music and pricing?
Apple doesn't, but most retail stores already do. The cost of living in Iowa is much different tha
Re: (Score:2)
You should probably compare like for like, it's more logical.
Re: (Score:2)
You're getting it wrong. There's no penalty for regional pricing. That's common practice over here
Re: (Score:2)
The last time I checked, EMI, BMG and Vivendi Universal were European companies. They have been charging different prices across EU countries long before Apple opened the iTunes store. The EU, apparently, did nothing about this. Apple has to cut deals with these companies to get content. Apple is a big player in digital music, but it is still only a tiny player in terms of the
Re: (Score:2)
If the EU demands that Apple harmonize its pricing, then Apple breaks its agreement with the record companies, so the agreement will have to change. Now you might say that the musi
Easier than taking on Iran (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the nicer "guarantees" about living in the US is that if you get stranded somewhere, or in a bind, the US Government will do all it can to get you out... regardless of why you were there. Whenever a revolution or violence starts up in some country, the first thing you hear about is how the US is trying to find and evacuate all US citizens to someplace more stable.
If
Good! WTO next? (Score:4, Insightful)
For once the EU seems to be applying one of the more useful laws they made. It always seemed wrong to me that you could blatently discriminate customers on the basis of their nationality. I don't think a judge is going to buy the "record labels made me do it" defence. IANAL, but I just cannot see how that's going to be an excuse.
I wonder if the WTO could also go after them for charging different prices to US and non-US customers. I know there are many other web stores that do that so that's probably allowed. I understand why a marketeer would like to have different prices for different areas but it is just hampering price transparency and free trade.
Within the US would you be allowed to charge someone from, say, NY a different price than someone from NJ? (apart from tax & shipping?) Would any US judge care if you said the record labels made you do that? I think they just price differentiated because they thought they could get away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is it allowed to have different prices for the same product in different states, but also for the same product in different counties, different cities, different blocks, or different addresses in the same block. This works, as long as people are able to shop around and freely purchase at the lowest price. The problem then is the contractural r
Re: (Score:2)
The problem then is the contractural requirement that iTunes customers can only purchase from the iTunes store for their own country.
But there's no requirement to purchase from iTunes at all, and Apple doesn't have a monopoly on 1) music, or even 2) online music. This can onlt be considered a monopoly if you restrict the domain of competition to iTunes itself, which is of course an Apple product. Not to mention which, one can easily burn/re-rip anyway to get music in whatever format you desire. To me,
Re: (Score:2)
W.R.T. your assertion of pricing differently based on "differen
Re: (Score:2)
Why, exactly? Don't you think that there could be a legitimate basis for charging someone a different price based upon one's place of residence? A country might possess high tariffs against a good or service, high taxes on that good or service, or it might not be as economically feasible to sell your product there due to any other number of factors. To suggest that such economically-sound d
Re: (Score:2)
If the EU wants the music labels to set a standard EU price, expect that price to be higher than what it currently is in lower income countries in Europe. Sure the UK might get a price break, but music will be less affordable than it currently is in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever been to New York?
Re: (Score:2)
This is allowed, just not tolerated by most consumers. They'll raise a stink about it, but there is nothing legal to prevent differential pricing by location.
The EU is trying to normalize standard-of-living and currency value across all member nations, and pricing regulations are one of the methods they use.
It's not about preventing discrimination per se, but about n
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What about a gallon of gas? It costs more in California than in the midwest. Supply and demand, availibility, pipelines, etc can acco
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you Slashdot! (Score:2)
I get into work, and voila!
Thank you slashdot - you've saved me some legwork.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Last night, I had dinner at a friend's house. The family is from Italy. They had purchased for a nephew (in Sicily) an Itunes card and sent it over. He had just called yesterday wondering why he couldn't use the card in Italy. I told them that I had no idea as I would never purchase from Itunes, but that I'd investigate.
/. has the story I need and the answer.
I get into work, and voila!
Thank you slashdot - you've saved me some legwork.
He should be able to go to the iTS of [whereveryouare] and claim it there.
Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, fuck the RIAA.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The ball is clearly in the court of the record companies.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that the "right thing" that Apple should do? While having a fractured and confusing jumble of iTMS's is not the perfect solution, if the alternative is no iTMS, is that really any better for the citizens of the EU? Or are you suggesting that they just sell whatever music wherever, and get sued by all the music copyright holders? What other choices do they have? Send a bunch of lobbyists to try and get legislative changes? Is that a good solution?
The record companies are the ones who really should change their priorities. And the EU should be hassling them. If Apple shuts down iTMS Europe, then the EU is just going to end up stuck with the same problems with whatever store tries to take its place.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And what better way to pressure labels? Add declining CD sales to the EC ban on regional price enforcement for online sales, and you'll observe that the labels won't let iTMS 'pack up and go'. They'll concede.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that these copyright holders would have to sue Apple in the EU. Sueing someone for obeying the "law of the land" isn't exactly the best of ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck the R I - double A
Fuck the M P - double A
Fuck the suits in the BSA
Fuck 'em all for the DMCA
Good (Score:5, Informative)
DVD zoning (Score:2)
Oh, of course, DVDs are different.
Re:DVD zoning (Score:5, Informative)
Re:DVD zoning (Score:4, Funny)
Bloody clever, you fucking bastards...
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean And that's my $.02, or £.0000000001
Call the waaaahhhhhmbulance (Score:2)
Yeah, and I can't buy anyhthing from iTMS Japan either. That's not Apple's fault, it's the fault of the record labels (and the media industry in general) that they want to carve up territories like that.
However, I suppose they do have a point in that according to EU laws, the same songs should be available in all of EU (I'll guess they aren't), and maybe the whole EU area should be treated as one region (with half a dozen primary languages). Again, if the music companies are telling them to restrict certai
Re: (Score:2)
Where does the money go? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm torn on this.... (Score:2)
I think the EU is silly for how it tries to legislate things, and often causes itself undue issues.
Who am I supposed to be snarking at on this topic?
Apple "pushing DRM"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask him back about the time the iPod was released if he wouldn't rather have an open format which didn't restrict which player you could play your music on after you bought it, and didn't keep you from moving the music around and I am fairly willing to bet you would get a different answer. Or let people use iTunes more easily with non Apple players... Se
Re:Apple "pushing DRM"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask him back about the time the iPod was released if he wouldn't rather have an open format which didn't restrict which player you could play your music on after you bought it, and didn't keep you from moving the music around and I am fairly willing to bet you would get a different answer. Or let people use iTunes more easily with non Apple players... See where I'm heading?
Just who is responsible... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot Loves Apple! (Score:4, Interesting)
The bad, the good and the ugly. (Score:2)
The case - European Comission (EC) v. Apple v. RIAA - in my head immediately was associated with good old movie.
The bad, the good and the ugly.
Badness of EC with all its accounting fraud mess is certain. Goodness of Apple is questionable, but in the party it definitely stands out. RIAA is part of deal since Apple here is retailer only (though still as retailer may bear responsibilities before consumers). And "ugly" is only descriptive adjective I can find for RIAA.
Lots of misunderstandings here (Score:5, Informative)
2) Its not about DRM. Locking to players may or may not be OK in the EU, but its a different issue.
3) Its not about having the same price. No-one says you have to sell for the same price everywhere.
4) Its not about Apple being forced to do things by the record companies. It doesn't matter who wanted it or didn't.
5) It is not the same as buying stuff in Japan and the US, because, you see, Japan and the US are not part of a single market established by treaty and with a transnational body, the Commission, regulating conduct of companies.
What is it about then?
It is unlawful in the EU to restrict imports and exports from one country to another, because that is in restraint of trade and anti competitive. You can sell it for 600 in Germany and 300 in France. But what you cannot do is prevent the Germans from buying the stuff in France.
Consequently, it makes no difference what the record companies or Apple think or say to each other. Apple cannot enter into an agreement to restrict sales from its UK sites to UK cardholders. If it did sign such an agreement, it is unlawful. It will have entered into a conspiracy to commit anti competitive behaviour. Along with whoever it signed the agreement with. They will both be fried for it. If it just did it off its own initiative, only it committed the unlawful acts. If it really did.
So please guys, stop blaming the record companies and exonerating Apple, its all irrelevant. We have, allegedly, one or more parties engaged in anti competitive practices which are unlawful in the EU. If so, one or both are going to get busted. Whoever instigated it is irrelevant.
If you want to get a better handle on it, think violating FTC rules on interstate commerce in the US.
Re:Lots of misunderstandings here (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, suppose you're Apple. BMG agrees to license you to make a copy of a Frank Sinatra song within France, providing you pay the $0.30 every time you do so. They agree to let you make a copy of the same Frank Sinatra song within Germany for $0.40 every time you do so. The act of making a copy is the act of allowing a person to download it and is dependent upon where the person doing the downloading is located. EU law enforces copyright separately in each country and just because you licensed the right to make a copy in France for $0.30 each copy, that does not grant you any right to do the same thing in Germany at any price.
So you offer these songs for sale, with one Website per country and one price per country. Now, because of billing you are given extra information about the likely whereabouts of the downloader. If a person goes to the french store and uses a German credit card, the courts are likely to rule that you (Apple) should reasonably know they are actually in Germany. This means if you let them download the song after paying for a license to make a copy in France, while you know they are probably in Germany, you're just committed an act of copyright infringement and failed to perform due diligence.
So what exactly do you expect Apple to do? According to EU law the right to make a copy in Germany is different from the right to make a copy in France. If you allow the download with the credit card you've broken copyright law in Germany. If you don't you're running afoul of the EU competition laws. Either way you're breaking the law somewhere.
To further confuse matters, the record companies have nothing stopping them from providing you with a license that applies in all EU countries as a single license. They just don't want to and while the EU commission ordered them to do so, they ignored the order. Can you see where I might consider both the record companies and the EU the problem here. The record company can solve this by offering the license needed. The EU can solve this by forcing them to do so. Apple and all the other services, however, have no ability to force anyone to do anything. They could choose to close up shop in the EU entirely, or they can break one of the two laws.
Re:Lots of misunderstandings here (Score:5, Informative)
Only because BMG says it doesn't grant the right. The EU says nothing on the matter. BMG can say 'We sell this licence which is good for all EU territories. In Germany we sell it at $0.40. In France we sell it at $0.30.' That would be legal. Of course savvy Germans would then buy the cheaper French licences, which is the point of having the single market and the single currency.
If the licence sold in France is not valid in Germany, that is entirely the record company's doing. Hence this investigation into these companies, and Apple for contributory infringement of the EU citizens' rights.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is, they are terrified of the EU Competition Directorate taking an interest in them. Quite right too.
An excellent principle, but... (Score:2)
If I were Apple I would want one store - worldwide. Good luck with that.
EU Launches Antitrust Probe against major music c (Score:5, Informative)
The EU position is defensible (Score:2)
Companies that distribute for media companies, produce players and software, etc that enforce various region-based ma
Important development (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand Apple would not be able to run the music shop if they hadn't agreed to operate in this way due to refusal from the record companies.
I assume that Apple knew full well that the current way was illegal and started operating like this anyway. They were either prepared to pay some fines as part of the cost of doing business, or they believed that by the time the EU started fining them they would be in a much stronger position to force the record companies to agree to operate legitimately. The last reason is IMO quite morally acceptable, but still illegal.
Rock and a hard place... (Score:2)
Apple didn't have much of a choice. If they would have followed the law, they would have been in breach of contract and brought to court in a lawsuit. But by following their contracts, they end up in court in violation of some anti-business law.
Really sucks to be them.
Stop blaming the contract (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:good old EU (Score:5, Insightful)
Realizing that the UK is getting ripped off yet again the EU tries to do something about it
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about CAP [wikipedia.org] and not about itunes, aren't you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with being a large part of the market. It's if you abuse that monopoly that deserves prosecution. Like when Microsoft threatened OEMs not to sell competing products on their computers or face raised Windows license fees. Because Windows owned the market, OEMs had to play along.
Apple doesn't do that with the iPod. Stores can sell whatever they want. Consumers have chosen the iPod, and a few Euro-socialists want to feel clever by hating succe
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:good old EU (Score:5, Informative)
What Apple has been doing with iTMS in Europe is so flagrantly in breach of the principles underlying the single market I'm frankly amazed it's taken the commission this long to get round to investigating them. I'd love to know who's been giving Apple their legal advice - I assume they're going to try to run an argument that they're providing a service rather than selling goods and therefore aren't caught in the single market rules - and will be very interested to see how this one turns out. We've not had a good free movement of goods case for a while...
Re:good old EU (Score:5, Insightful)
Having to run multiple, mutually exclusive stores is probably a dead loss for Apple all around. There's the massive duplication of effort in making each store run and managing the inventories, there's the effort of barring people in one region from using the store for another region, and there's the dissatisfaction from customers who can't get the music they want if it's only for sale in another region.
Apple runs the iTunes store as a value-added service for the iPod. The more music that's available, and the easier the stuff is to obtain, the more value it adds. How could it possibly hurt Apple to run a single store for everyone in the world, with all the music equally availble to everyone?
Given the track records of the players in question, I doubt that an investigation will find that Apple were the ones who went to the negotiating table saying, "hey, let's waste a lot of resources and piss off a lot of customers by making a patchwork of regional stores, offering different inventories at different prices in each one, and making people in one region wait six months longer to get access to their store than their neighbors 50 kilometers away!"
Re:good old EU (Score:5, Informative)
The coverage by the Belgian/Flemish national news service [vrtnieuws.net] says indeed that the price differences are reportedly required by the labels, and that (according to the Financial Times) the probe specifically targets EMI, Sony and Warner, who have two months to formulate an answer. And if the Commission doesn't like their answer, it reserves the right to confiscate 10% of the labels' revenue (from Internet sales, presumably). It doesn't say anything about sanctions against Apple.
Re:good old EU (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple can try to defend itself using other tactics
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple can try to defend itself using other tactics, but invoking the contract with the labels won't stick for sure. The EC regards only how the product is presented to the consumer, it does not deal with how the company came to get hold of it. From the EC point of view, Apple is enforcing regional discriminatory pricing for goods, which is something strictly forbidden by the Rome Treaty.
They can use discriminatory pricing, but they can't forbid me, a Portuguese, from purchasing a song from the German iTMS. Not that I could do that, they speak gibberish out there ;-)
But the thing is that Apple want to lose this case. They'd much prefer to run a single store with every song available everywhere in Europe. It's a lot less administration and they don't like having to explain why songs are available in the UK but not in Ireland (no free single of the week for us either).
The record labels mostly don't care either. They get paid either way. It's the distributors that are the ones at fault. If Apple could have they would have started selling music worldwide from day
Ah, good old Slashdot (Score:2)
Despite the image based on what US-based news outlets report to you, the reality of things [europa.eu] might be somewhat different. EU based companies aren't getting away scot free, it just happens that sales restrictions across member state borders and blatant disregard for the law are a few of those things that the union doesn't look upon very kindly.
Re: (Score:2)
Though this post is flamebait and not really true in the case of technology companies, the EU does subsidize farming and Airbus. Before someone brings it up: the US subsidizes farming too, but that doesn't make it right. Moral relativism is dumb.
This case isn't about subsidies anyway, it's about obeying a (relatively silly) law in Europe stating that people are a
Re: (Score:2)
Oh the humility!
Re: (Score:2)
Or, what part of "does not allege the Cupertino, Calif.-based company is in a dominant market position." did you not understand?
Re: (Score:2)
(*less than the number of civil servants for a medium sized city; I'm not denying that they generate tons of superfluous paperwork for the member states...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this posting [slashdot.org] mentions bayer, siemens, heineken, thyssenkrupp and kone being fined for price fixing by eu. all of them are eu companies.
seems that american corporations whine about eu fining them and you just repeat their whining. now that is an extremely immature thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)