“This morning one of Europe’s highest courts handed Microsoft a stinging defeat in its hard-fought antitrust case, dismissing nearly all of the company’s appeal of a landmark 2004 decision by the EU and upholding $689.7 million in fines,” Peter Lattman blogs for The Wall Street Journal.
“The next dominator in the sights of European antitrust authorities? Apple’s iTunes. Beginning Wednesday, the EC will hold antitrust hearings into the music-pricing structure for Apple’s online store. In April, the commission accused Apple and four major record companies of unfair practices. The accusation centered around European consumers being charged differing amounts for iTunes songs depending on the country in which they buy them, in violation of EU antitrust laws. If the regulator finds evidence of an antitrust violation, it can fine the companies up to 10% of their annual global revenue,” Lattman reports.
“So why does the iTunes store charge some Europeans more than others to download a song? In an April WSJ story, Apple blamed the music companies. ‘Apple has always wanted to operate a single pan-European iTunes Store accessible by anyone from any member state,’ said an Apple spokesman. ‘We don’t think Apple did anything to violate EU law,'” Lattman reports. “An EU spokesman also blamed the record labels, two of which are owned by European companies, for this situation. He told the WSJ in April that regulators considered Apple to be more a victim than a culprit. ‘This is an arrangement imposed on Apple by the record companies,’ the spokesman said. ‘The main focus of our attention is the major record companies.'”
Full article here.
As stated above, the problem is the music cartels, not Apple.
EU targets Apple…
What they don’t like glossy screens either?
Just kidding, since it’s such a joke around here.
‘This is an arrangement imposed on Apple by the record companies,’ the spokesman said. ‘The main focus of our attention is the major record companies.'”
Oh good, about time the RIAA got to deal with their behind the scenes manipulations.
Stupid labels. You can’t use Steve jobs as a proxy.
MDN – are you just practicing “yellow journalism” with that headline.
iTunes is the target – not specifically Apple. As you so state in your comment.
If so then – well done. I fell for it.
Classic example of the old saying to be careful what you wish for. You wanted them to come down on Microsuck and they did. Now the consequences will be that the EU will get their grubby little socialist hands into everyone else’s business now too.
The Labels set up this byzantine system to make it easier to cover their tracks while they steal revenue from the artists and other creatives.
That’s why it’s so funny to hear them say they are fighting piracy so the creatives can be properly reimbursed when, in reality, they are fighting piracy so they can steal more money from the music makers.
Apple is as much of a victim as the customers.
The cost to maintain a store for each country compared to one Pan European store higher.
In reality I think Apple would be happier operating one Worldwide store so, everything could be licensed globally. This would increase the available releases in every country.
But the money grubbers don’t want this cause it reduces their control on what we listen to and watch.
‘This is an arrangement imposed on Apple by the record companies,’ the spokesman said. ‘The main focus of our attention is the major record companies.'”
Then why is the title of this article “EU targets Apple…”
when clearly that is not who they are targeting?
Jobs is in London
Must be big if the top dog is here.
Expect some surprises.
Way to go comrade!
Maybe we should have the EU set the pricing for all commercial commerce!
Let’s hope Apple can show their fair intent vs. the pricing of the music industry at large.
Let them eat QUICHE!
“An EU spokesman also blamed the record labels, two of which are owned by European companies, for this situation. He told the WSJ in April that regulators considered Apple to be more a victim than a culprit. ‘This is an arrangement imposed on Apple by the record companies,’ the spokesman said. ‘The main focus of our attention is the major record companies.”
So why isn’t the headline:
“EU targets Music Labels after stunning victory over Microsoft in antitrust case!”
So why isn’t the headline:
“EU targets Music Labels after stunning victory over Microsoft in antitrust case!”
Because WSJ knows Apple in the headline creates more readers.
It should be possible to purchase any track from any iTunes store in the world, no matter where you live. One thing that Apple can do that has nothing to do with labels, is to allow someone to send a gift certificate to someone in another country.
Falkirk: Then why is the title of this article “EU targets Apple…”
when clearly that is not who they are targeting?<i>
From the article:
<i>… In April, the commission accused Apple and four major record companies of unfair practices. …
The bold words seem to suggest that the commission does target Apple, doesn’t it? Furthermore,
… The accusation centered around European consumers being charged differing amounts for iTunes songs depending on the country in which they buy them, in violation of EU antitrust laws. If the regulator finds evidence of an antitrust violation, it can fine the companies up to 10% of their annual global revenue.
Which companies? Those accused, of course. It doesn’t say “companies except Apple.”
So, the headline is not wrong at all. Apple is being targeted even though the EU spokeperson admitted Apple to be more of a victim than a culprit.
If a portion of a company contract is later proven by the law courts to involve illegal activity, then the companies cannot be taken to those same courts for violating that portion of the company contact.
Apple need only wait until the forced country-by country label contract is illegal then set up a pan-European itunes store with common content and pricing.
I find it interesting that everyone says Apple is a just an innocent victim. I guess that is true. After all, I did see that video where the head of the RIAA held a gun to Steve Jobs head while screaming that Apple will sell music across Europe for a different price in every country.
At least that’s what it sounds like I should have seen.
Lots of things have different prices between different countries in the Eu!
The difference here is that Apple are online. If Apple are being dragged through the courts, then maybe Amazon should be too.
The record companies have most to lose.
The problem is that if you are in one European state iTunes doesn’t let your purchase songs from another state, this is a particular problem if the other state has a lower price.
Imagine if Texas iTunes tracks were cheaper than California, but because you lived in California iTunes didn’t allow you to buy the Texas tracks. Would you be happy with that?
Fact is, it’s illegal to operate within the EU this way … if you offer a price in one state you have to sell to citizens of every European state.
MDN Magic Word: fine. As in Apple will be fined by European Commission.
@Dr Mcr
Amazon France will sell their products to customers in Spain, Amazon Germany will sell their products to customers in UK … iTunes doesn’t let you purchase tracks from other European states, which is illegal.
If it’s the fault of iTunes limitation or the policy of record labels, Apple are going to have to do something.
“Now the consequences will be that the EU will get their grubby little socialist hands into everyone else’s business now too.”
When did the EU become socialist? I thought we all agreed the whole world was safely on the road to corporatism? G-buzz! Gimme a heads-up or something. You want me to end up in Gitmo?
Down with people! Down with small businesses! Particularly independent record companies! Hurray for multinational corporations! Long live Milton Friedman!
And can we also try and use some of the intelligence that Apple users are supposed to have and remember that the music industry maintains these arrangements by maintaining a complex structure of rights societies in every individual European Union nation-state.
This forthcoming case will finally allow the EU to pursue the establishment of a single pan-European set of rights societies bound by a common approach to copyright and IP law across the continent.
“Classic example of the old saying to be careful what you wish for. You wanted them to come down on Microsuck and they did. Now the consequences will be that the EU will get their grubby little socialist hands into everyone else’s business now too.”
good i hope they slap the record labels around more than they did MS….
MW: “moral”. which has too many good uses here for me to write them all…..
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if – behind the curtains – Apple is secretly helping the EU with damaging information on the practises of these record labels. Breaking up their hold on the EU-market and creating a pan-European music market serves Apple as much as the EU itself.
And by persevering against M$ (unlike in the US where corruption lets M$ of the hook) Apple may be convinced that the EU will actually indeed go against these lables if they got good enough evidence. Great opportunity for Apple.
Vanillacide: Imagine if Texas iTunes tracks were cheaper than California, but because you lived in California iTunes didn’t allow you to buy the Texas tracks. Would you be happy with that?
Invalid comparison.
In the US, a copyright holder of a creative work is the same in every states. Apple needs to sign only with one label to distribute the work everywhere in the US. OTOH, sometimes the same creative work is owned by different entities in European countries, so if you download a song in the UK from the French store, to whom does Apple pay the royalty? The copyright holder where the download takes place (the UK) or the one where the store is (France)? Will the EU laws protect Apple from the lawsuit by the UK copyright holder if Apple pays only the French copyright holder? Strangely, everytime I ask someone who is adamant that Apple is at fault these questions, I get no straight answer.
It will either be status quo or a standard iTunes pricing across the EU. And a lot of free publicity along the way. It’s a no-lose situation for Apple.
@ ‘../.’
No, you’re wrong.
Vanillacide is right but used the wrong comparison. A more accurate comparison would be if he’d used NAFTA. So let’s say you lived in Montana and needed prescription drugs that were cheaper across the border in Canada. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, you could freely order them, or drive across the border and collect them, right?
Oh yeah, that’s right, the US doesn’t really adhere to that part of the agreement does it. So that’d make you part of the ‘do as I say, not as I do‘ brigade now wouldn’t it?
Typical blinkered American – and I’m from New York.