The legal war on DRM that prevents songs bought from Apple's iTunes Store from being transferred to non-Apple MP3 players has opened on a new front, according to the latest Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing by the Cupertino company.
The document reveals that an individual filed a complaint against Apple on Jul. 21, 2006, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging the link between the iPod and iTunes is unlawful and accusing the company of "unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power".
The litigant, Melanie Tucker, is seeking "unspecified damages and other relief".
Apple also revealed in the filing with the SEC that it had sought to have the case dismissed in November--a move the court rejected the following month.
It's not the first time the DRM which locks iTunes and the iPod together has prompted legal action. Apple is engaged in an ongoing legal battle with the French consumer group UFC-Que Choisir, which accuses the company of "deceit" over its interoperability with rival online song shops.
Apple also fell foul of Nordic regulators and French lawmakers, who had hoped to break the proprietary link between iTunes downloads and the iPod.
Apple's SEC filing shows the Mac maker is engaged in yet another legal spat with a company called PhatRat, which alleges Apple infringed its patents when it created technology to link iPods to Nike running gear.
Jo Best of Silicon.com reported from London.
Play video
The DRM protection that Apple uses does NOT prevent anyone from transferring the music purchased from the iTunes store from playing on other players than the iPod. Using iTunes, you simply burn a CD containing the music you want. Which is permitted.
Then rip that CD to your Mac or PC, then use iTunes to change the format to mp3, and download that mp3 file to any mp3 player without restriction. A little convoluted, but a lot fairer than any DRM scheme put forward by Microsoft.
A small waiver to the above, I have not done this myself, so am only reporting the process at second hand so the actual process may not be exactly as stated. I have no reason to doubt the source of the information. With your resources it should not be difficult to check my information and perhaps do a follow up.
Posted by Richard Dalziel-Sharpe on Saturday, January 06 2007 01:26 PM