"The law wants different copy protection software programs to be able to communicate with one another, so that downloads from the Web can be transferred to any device, not just iPods or Walkmans, as long as the number of copies stays within limits set by media publishers."
My reading of the proposed law is that it says nothing of the kind.
What it does say, and I've gotten this from several sources, is that the proposed law allows people to legally strip DRM from content if that DRM is keeping them from using it personally on their own players.
The law, as I understand it, says absolutely nothing about forcing Microsoft or Apple to use generic DRM or providing content with more than one kind of DRM.
Unless there is a new, proposed version of the law within the last 24 hours, c|net's take on the proposed law means -- and what it implies for Microsoft and Apple -- is just plain wrong.
I can't say why Reuters wants to read this story this way, but I know why C/Net chooses to print it without investigation or comment. They've had a bee up their behinds about the iPod and Apple for years.
"The law wants different copy protection software programs to be able to communicate with one another, so that downloads from the Web can be transferred to any device, not just iPods or Walkmans, as long as the number of copies stays within limits set by media publishers."
My reading of the proposed law is that it says nothing of the kind.
What it does say, and I've gotten this from several sources, is that the proposed law allows people to legally strip DRM from content if that DRM is keeping them from using it personally on their own players.
The law, as I understand it, says absolutely nothing about forcing Microsoft or Apple to use generic DRM or providing content with more than one kind of DRM.
Unless there is a new, proposed version of the law within the last 24 hours, c|net's take on the proposed law means -- and what it implies for Microsoft and Apple -- is just plain wrong.
I can't say why Reuters wants to read this story this way, but I know why C/Net chooses to print it without investigation or comment. They've had a bee up their behinds about the iPod and Apple for years.
it broke down as such: " 38 Euros: Fine for downloading a copy written work, per work. " 150 Euros: Fine for sharing a copy written work with someone else. " 750 Euros: Fine if you have in your possession and/or use a software that bypasses copyright protection. " 3,750 Euros: Fine if you write software or provide information about bypassing copyright protection. " 30,000 Euros and 6 Months in Prison: Penalty for those making available software or technology that bypasses copyright protection. " 300,000 Euros and up to 3 Years in Prison: Penalty for making available any peer to peer software which "knowingly promotes piracy."
That the legislation that was suppose to open iTunes, didn't make it.
Source: Macdailynews which links: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://old.tuaw.com/2006/03/17/newly-proposed-french-law-does-not-penalize-apple/" target="_newWindow">http://old.tuaw.com/2006/03/17/newly-proposed-french-law-does-not-penalize-apple/</a>
Fabienne over at TUAW published an OPINION piece on the topic. But, based on other reading, I don't think her opinion is persuasive. The implications of the legislation, which is not yet final, would indeed be severe for Apple as the market leader.
it broke down as such: " 38 Euros: Fine for downloading a copy written work, per work. " 150 Euros: Fine for sharing a copy written work with someone else. " 750 Euros: Fine if you have in your possession and/or use a software that bypasses copyright protection. " 3,750 Euros: Fine if you write software or provide information about bypassing copyright protection. " 30,000 Euros and 6 Months in Prison: Penalty for those making available software or technology that bypasses copyright protection. " 300,000 Euros and up to 3 Years in Prison: Penalty for making available any peer to peer software which "knowingly promotes piracy."
That the legislation that was suppose to open iTunes, didn't make it.
Source: Macdailynews which links: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://old.tuaw.com/2006/03/17/newly-proposed-french-law-does-not-penalize-apple/" target="_newWindow">http://old.tuaw.com/2006/03/17/newly-proposed-french-law-does-not-penalize-apple/</a>
Fabienne over at TUAW published an OPINION piece on the topic. But, based on other reading, I don't think her opinion is persuasive. The implications of the legislation, which is not yet final, would indeed be severe for Apple as the market leader.
the French are sure on to something... its called socialism. typical French reaction. aren't they still busy trying to outlaw the English word for e-mail?
the French are sure on to something... its called socialism. typical French reaction. aren't they still busy trying to outlaw the English word for e-mail?
iTunes / Apple has a history of DRM changes without clearly stating up front to its customers.
iTunes started out as a good tool for sharing music at the office using Local Area Network... now they just limit it to 5 connections (maybe lower).
Before you can burn and copy it to so many times, and decrease that number when they release every major new version of iTunes.
I'm a big Apple fan. But I hate to see a GOOD product such as iTunes being degraded every upgrade. There are far better ways of improving anti-piracy measures without hampering ease of use.
If you're upset with the terms of the FairPlay DRM, don't blame Apple. It's the content providers who dictate that. If it weren't for a strong content distributor like Apple, the music companies would have us locked into a DRM that would be so restrictive, online sales would be a mere fraction of what they are because no one would want them.
It has been Apple that has stood up for us consumers, not the music industry giants. And the likes of Napster, Musicmatch and all the "also-rans" in digital music (even big M$), have no pull with the labels. You best be thanking Apple for what they have done.
This is not say that you should stop pushing for more liberal usage rights. We all want that. Just be smarter about where you place your criticism, perhaps you'll get somewhere if you do.
Apple's DRM is no worse than anyone else's. Streaming is fully available with Airport Express with iTunes, one of the least expensive devices available.
Seems to me that some people just MUST find something to carp about.
You shouldn't leave the most missed feature of iTunes.
You use to be able to listen to shared music on your home computer at the office.
But also don't forget Apple increased the number of computers that can be validated for the DRM-protected music. It use to be only three computers could be authorized for the same account. Now it's five.
For me that's more important, because there really isn't anything stopping me from making a copy of a CD that was made from DRM music.
iTunes / Apple has a history of DRM changes without clearly stating up front to its customers.
iTunes started out as a good tool for sharing music at the office using Local Area Network... now they just limit it to 5 connections (maybe lower).
Before you can burn and copy it to so many times, and decrease that number when they release every major new version of iTunes.
I'm a big Apple fan. But I hate to see a GOOD product such as iTunes being degraded every upgrade. There are far better ways of improving anti-piracy measures without hampering ease of use.
If you're upset with the terms of the FairPlay DRM, don't blame Apple. It's the content providers who dictate that. If it weren't for a strong content distributor like Apple, the music companies would have us locked into a DRM that would be so restrictive, online sales would be a mere fraction of what they are because no one would want them.
It has been Apple that has stood up for us consumers, not the music industry giants. And the likes of Napster, Musicmatch and all the "also-rans" in digital music (even big M$), have no pull with the labels. You best be thanking Apple for what they have done.
This is not say that you should stop pushing for more liberal usage rights. We all want that. Just be smarter about where you place your criticism, perhaps you'll get somewhere if you do.
Apple's DRM is no worse than anyone else's. Streaming is fully available with Airport Express with iTunes, one of the least expensive devices available.
Seems to me that some people just MUST find something to carp about.
You shouldn't leave the most missed feature of iTunes.
You use to be able to listen to shared music on your home computer at the office.
But also don't forget Apple increased the number of computers that can be validated for the DRM-protected music. It use to be only three computers could be authorized for the same account. Now it's five.
For me that's more important, because there really isn't anything stopping me from making a copy of a CD that was made from DRM music.
A law like this in the U.S. would be the end of online content
When the content providers finally agreed to start using all these online stores, they did it because they knew their works would be protected. If we ever got a law like this in the U.S. (and this will probably happen in France) then you'll see content providers shut down their services pretty quick. Especially the subscription services, pay $10 a month for all the music you can download, not a great deal for the music companies if you can strip the copy protection.
Exactly! There has to be some kind of DRM to prevent piracy. People who support ending DRM are risking throwing out the baby with the bath water. If they get what they want, the progress in having digital content downloadable online could end. We might even see regression. Then the people whining now will really have something to whine about.
DRM's do not prevent piracy. Even for children, it is very easy to do. DRM's only hurt paid consumers because they are the only ones that actually see it. DRM's create security problems, usage problems, etc and none apply to people that stole content.
Some game publishers are beginning to see this and are not including any DRM on their product. Galactic Civilization 2 has no DRM and is at the top of the sales charts.
Content publishers are not going to pull all content from a region just because they can't DRM a product, or there are specific DRM rules. A sale is a sale, and no matter how they spin it piracy does not take that big a chunk out of their pockets. People that steal; normally would not have bought the product at all. That is true online and offline. DRM's, security cameras, RF tags, etc. hasn't stopped anyone.
Would you support a DRM solution that prevented you from sharing your purchased media on the internet with anyone and everyone? (Most see this as reasonable.) Would you support a DRM solution that prevented you from sharing, even temporarily, your media with friends and family? (Some see this as reasonable.) Would you support a DRM solution that prevented you from sharing your media files with other devices you own and use? (Few see this as reasonable.)
Do you like the idea of having to purchase the same song more than once in order to listen to that song in your home, in your car, on your MP3 device and on your cell phone?
Let's be honest, DRM as it is used now, is not about preventing piracy. It's about protecting revenue streams. It's about forcing the people who actually purchase their media to accept the content brokers decisions about when/where/how the customers can use their media content.
This law is about giving consumers back their rights. It's about forcing the content providers to relax the controls they've imposed on paying customers. I highly doubt the French government wants to create a pirate haven... but they've decided the only way to force the content providers to change is to ban the current implementation of DRM... and that's no more ridiculous than the laws which gave content providers the legal stick to overrule all other fair use rights with some phoney DRM rule about usage. The content providers are not going to reform a system advantageous to themselves unless they have to. This law is merely a step down that path. All the rest of you nay-sayers are deliberately skirting the real issue.
All the law says is that the DRM must be interoperable.
What this means is that all portable music players must support the popular types of DRM such as WMA, FairPlay, etc.
To me, that's a win-win for the consumer and the music companies. Consumers can play their music anywhere, and music companies get more sales because consumers don't have to worry if the song they purchased will run on their favorite player/in-dash CD player.
A law like this in the U.S. would be the end of online content
When the content providers finally agreed to start using all these online stores, they did it because they knew their works would be protected. If we ever got a law like this in the U.S. (and this will probably happen in France) then you'll see content providers shut down their services pretty quick. Especially the subscription services, pay $10 a month for all the music you can download, not a great deal for the music companies if you can strip the copy protection.
Exactly! There has to be some kind of DRM to prevent piracy. People who support ending DRM are risking throwing out the baby with the bath water. If they get what they want, the progress in having digital content downloadable online could end. We might even see regression. Then the people whining now will really have something to whine about.
DRM's do not prevent piracy. Even for children, it is very easy to do. DRM's only hurt paid consumers because they are the only ones that actually see it. DRM's create security problems, usage problems, etc and none apply to people that stole content.
Some game publishers are beginning to see this and are not including any DRM on their product. Galactic Civilization 2 has no DRM and is at the top of the sales charts.
Content publishers are not going to pull all content from a region just because they can't DRM a product, or there are specific DRM rules. A sale is a sale, and no matter how they spin it piracy does not take that big a chunk out of their pockets. People that steal; normally would not have bought the product at all. That is true online and offline. DRM's, security cameras, RF tags, etc. hasn't stopped anyone.
Would you support a DRM solution that prevented you from sharing your purchased media on the internet with anyone and everyone? (Most see this as reasonable.) Would you support a DRM solution that prevented you from sharing, even temporarily, your media with friends and family? (Some see this as reasonable.) Would you support a DRM solution that prevented you from sharing your media files with other devices you own and use? (Few see this as reasonable.)
Do you like the idea of having to purchase the same song more than once in order to listen to that song in your home, in your car, on your MP3 device and on your cell phone?
Let's be honest, DRM as it is used now, is not about preventing piracy. It's about protecting revenue streams. It's about forcing the people who actually purchase their media to accept the content brokers decisions about when/where/how the customers can use their media content.
This law is about giving consumers back their rights. It's about forcing the content providers to relax the controls they've imposed on paying customers. I highly doubt the French government wants to create a pirate haven... but they've decided the only way to force the content providers to change is to ban the current implementation of DRM... and that's no more ridiculous than the laws which gave content providers the legal stick to overrule all other fair use rights with some phoney DRM rule about usage. The content providers are not going to reform a system advantageous to themselves unless they have to. This law is merely a step down that path. All the rest of you nay-sayers are deliberately skirting the real issue.
All the law says is that the DRM must be interoperable.
What this means is that all portable music players must support the popular types of DRM such as WMA, FairPlay, etc.
To me, that's a win-win for the consumer and the music companies. Consumers can play their music anywhere, and music companies get more sales because consumers don't have to worry if the song they purchased will run on their favorite player/in-dash CD player.
There's a fourth option for Apple that I feel no one has considered . . .
All Apple had to do was to provide its French customers exclusively with a collection of its iTunes catalog in the MP3 format in addition to providing the same catalog in the AAC format (MP3's with whatever DRM that may or may not be required as per the music labels desire, since the music labels seem to be ok with this new idea). And in the iTune's download interface for French users only, allow French users to choose whichever format they wanted - be it AAC or MP3. Beyond that, everything else would remain exactly the same. Apple would be in full compliance with the law and everything would remain exactly the same.
Doing things this way would accomplish several things. #1 - It would still prevent Apple's competitors from gaining direct access to Apple's iPod. If Apple's competitors wanted to create files to be able to sell files that worked seamlessly with the iPod, all they had to do was to provide those files in the MP3 format (ironically, something they can do right now). So, there's their interoperability. #2 - If the French government is complaining about the iPod doesn't play the songs of other music stores. Problem solved. All those other stores had to do was to provide their songs in the MP3 format according to the music labels desires (again, the iPod already plays MP3's, so no big deal, no change there). So overall, nothing would change, Apple would be in full compliance with the new law, and French users would get to choose whether they wanted their download files in the MP3 format or in Apple's AAC. The choice would be theirs. And may the best file format win. (Now there's real choice).
The consequence of Apple taking this approach is that nothing would even change. In all the ways that matters, Apple would be in full compliance with the new French law and there'd be nothing the French could do about it. The French can't specifically "force" Apple to give up selling AAC files specifically, but it can demand and force it to find a way to make its iPod somehow interoperable with other players in France. That answer is in making its iTunes catalog available to only French users in MP3 format (as well as providing those files in AAC). MP3 is a format the other player can play. The French can't force Apple to open up it's iPod hardware specs or to open up its Fairplay software specifically just so Apple's competitors can create and sell "AAC files specifically" which would play on the iPod, but it can demand that Apple chose "some kind" of interoperable format which the other manufacturers can use to access and play their songs on the iPod. Again, that format is MP3. (And again, ironically, it's a format the iPod already plays right now, so what). Therefore nothing would change. Ultimately, Apple's competitors would still not have direct access to either Fairplay or the IPod, yet Apple would be fully compliant with the new French law. AAC would keep rolling ahead like a locomotive and crushing every other format in sight in terms of sheer download numbers. Apple would be able to keep its French market customers and be completely unaffected by any MP3 sales made to any French users in terms of not being Fairplay protected, simply because any MP3 songs that were somehow shipped out of France all because they were not DRM protected would be rendered completely moot by the fact that you can do that now - any user can easily convert any AAC song into an other-player-readable DRM-less MP3 file by simply burning it to CD and then importing it back in as MP3. So why go through all the hassle and trouble of buying a DRM-less MP3 file via France? Problem solved. And iPod's would still continue to sell like hotcakes. Any users stupid enough to buy competing players such as the RIO or a Samsung model MP3 player, could still shop at the iTunes store, however on download they could only choose the MP3 format to download. But at least that format would work with their player. Problem solved. So what would happen if this same legislative problem spread to other countries? The answer is simple: Apple could employ the same solution and AAC and iPod would still keep rolling ahead like a locomotive, and unstoppable force.
There's a fourth option for Apple that I feel no one has considered . . .
All Apple had to do was to provide its French customers exclusively with a collection of its iTunes catalog in the MP3 format in addition to providing the same catalog in the AAC format (MP3's with whatever DRM that may or may not be required as per the music labels desire, since the music labels seem to be ok with this new idea). And in the iTune's download interface for French users only, allow French users to choose whichever format they wanted - be it AAC or MP3. Beyond that, everything else would remain exactly the same. Apple would be in full compliance with the law and everything would remain exactly the same.
Doing things this way would accomplish several things. #1 - It would still prevent Apple's competitors from gaining direct access to Apple's iPod. If Apple's competitors wanted to create files to be able to sell files that worked seamlessly with the iPod, all they had to do was to provide those files in the MP3 format (ironically, something they can do right now). So, there's their interoperability. #2 - If the French government is complaining about the iPod doesn't play the songs of other music stores. Problem solved. All those other stores had to do was to provide their songs in the MP3 format according to the music labels desires (again, the iPod already plays MP3's, so no big deal, no change there). So overall, nothing would change, Apple would be in full compliance with the new law, and French users would get to choose whether they wanted their download files in the MP3 format or in Apple's AAC. The choice would be theirs. And may the best file format win. (Now there's real choice).
The consequence of Apple taking this approach is that nothing would even change. In all the ways that matters, Apple would be in full compliance with the new French law and there'd be nothing the French could do about it. The French can't specifically "force" Apple to give up selling AAC files specifically, but it can demand and force it to find a way to make its iPod somehow interoperable with other players in France. That answer is in making its iTunes catalog available to only French users in MP3 format (as well as providing those files in AAC). MP3 is a format the other player can play. The French can't force Apple to open up it's iPod hardware specs or to open up its Fairplay software specifically just so Apple's competitors can create and sell "AAC files specifically" which would play on the iPod, but it can demand that Apple chose "some kind" of interoperable format which the other manufacturers can use to access and play their songs on the iPod. Again, that format is MP3. (And again, ironically, it's a format the iPod already plays right now, so what). Therefore nothing would change. Ultimately, Apple's competitors would still not have direct access to either Fairplay or the IPod, yet Apple would be fully compliant with the new French law. AAC would keep rolling ahead like a locomotive and crushing every other format in sight in terms of sheer download numbers. Apple would be able to keep its French market customers and be completely unaffected by any MP3 sales made to any French users in terms of not being Fairplay protected, simply because any MP3 songs that were somehow shipped out of France all because they were not DRM protected would be rendered completely moot by the fact that you can do that now - any user can easily convert any AAC song into an other-player-readable DRM-less MP3 file by simply burning it to CD and then importing it back in as MP3. So why go through all the hassle and trouble of buying a DRM-less MP3 file via France? Problem solved. And iPod's would still continue to sell like hotcakes. Any users stupid enough to buy competing players such as the RIO or a Samsung model MP3 player, could still shop at the iTunes store, however on download they could only choose the MP3 format to download. But at least that format would work with their player. Problem solved. So what would happen if this same legislative problem spread to other countries? The answer is simple: Apple could employ the same solution and AAC and iPod would still keep rolling ahead like a locomotive, and unstoppable force.
iTunes (Apple) has become dominant because they sell a better product. It's a better product because the software/hardware work together. Don't want it? BUY SOMETHING ELSE. All this worry about being too powerful, lets remember even giants fall: AT&T, Atari, AOL, even Apple has before. Consumers are fickle and will not stick around for sub-par services. That's why there is no Peugeot dealer on the corner next to the Toyota dealership.
iTunes (Apple) has become dominant because they sell a better product. It's a better product because the software/hardware work together. Don't want it? BUY SOMETHING ELSE. All this worry about being too powerful, lets remember even giants fall: AT&T, Atari, AOL, even Apple has before. Consumers are fickle and will not stick around for sub-par services. That's why there is no Peugeot dealer on the corner next to the Toyota dealership.
>All Apple had to do was to provide its French customers >exclusively with a collection of its iTunes catalog in the MP3 >format
If Apple owned the copyrights to that catalog, they might even consider doing that. But the problem is, they don't. The labels either own the copyrights, or own exclusive redistribution rights. Apple is almost certainly contractually obligated to enforce a DRM system in order to resell the product. Yes -DRM has conveniently helped Apple lock consumers into the iPod. But the point is, they cannot simply remove it on a whim, or even if pressured to by an ill-considered law.
Unless the French government nationalizes the music catalogs of the labels, a very drastic move indeed, the labels can simply halt all sales in France if they are not satisfied that their rights are being protected. My long-winded point being, that this is out of Apple's hands.
Man I hate when I hit "Reply To Story" instead of "Reply To Comment". This was supposed to be in response to Second Squirrel's interesting comments of the same subject.
You actually read that guy's case of diarrhea of the keyboard? I quit after the first graf when I realized that what he was saying was not only too long, but made no sense. As you observed, Apple is not the decisionmaker regarding DRM. Stripping files it contracted to protect of DRM and selling them as MP3s is not an option at all.
>All Apple had to do was to provide its French customers >exclusively with a collection of its iTunes catalog in the MP3 >format
If Apple owned the copyrights to that catalog, they might even consider doing that. But the problem is, they don't. The labels either own the copyrights, or own exclusive redistribution rights. Apple is almost certainly contractually obligated to enforce a DRM system in order to resell the product. Yes -DRM has conveniently helped Apple lock consumers into the iPod. But the point is, they cannot simply remove it on a whim, or even if pressured to by an ill-considered law.
Unless the French government nationalizes the music catalogs of the labels, a very drastic move indeed, the labels can simply halt all sales in France if they are not satisfied that their rights are being protected. My long-winded point being, that this is out of Apple's hands.
Man I hate when I hit "Reply To Story" instead of "Reply To Comment". This was supposed to be in response to Second Squirrel's interesting comments of the same subject.
You actually read that guy's case of diarrhea of the keyboard? I quit after the first graf when I realized that what he was saying was not only too long, but made no sense. As you observed, Apple is not the decisionmaker regarding DRM. Stripping files it contracted to protect of DRM and selling them as MP3s is not an option at all.
c|net - "French protectionists and reactionaries are smart, no seriously!"
Does this surprise you in the least? That c|net would try to characterize this JOKE of a legal ruling as some "masterstroke of French intelligence"...
HAHAHAHAHAH HA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAH HAAA HA!
Oh god... let me stop laughing for a minute. OK, now maybe somebody at c|net will care to grab a newspaper or something. Its idiot French policies like these that give the country staggering levels of unemployment, and a bunch of tantrum throwing children for citizens... the idea that you can sue your way to prosperity is about as dumb as they get...
You're right in the fact that protectionism is rarely a realistic economic policy. Globalization is inevitable; move with it or be rendered irrelevant.
However, I fail to see how requiring Apple to open its DRM is protectionistic.
I find it interesting how many anti-MS, pro-open source advocates are siding with Apple on this. Apparently open source is only good when it hurts Microsoft. Any other time and -- let's all rally around a cry to stamp out the godd*mn crooks and commies who want everything for free.
c|net - "French protectionists and reactionaries are smart, no seriously!"
Does this surprise you in the least? That c|net would try to characterize this JOKE of a legal ruling as some "masterstroke of French intelligence"...
HAHAHAHAHAH HA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAH HAAA HA!
Oh god... let me stop laughing for a minute. OK, now maybe somebody at c|net will care to grab a newspaper or something. Its idiot French policies like these that give the country staggering levels of unemployment, and a bunch of tantrum throwing children for citizens... the idea that you can sue your way to prosperity is about as dumb as they get...
You're right in the fact that protectionism is rarely a realistic economic policy. Globalization is inevitable; move with it or be rendered irrelevant.
However, I fail to see how requiring Apple to open its DRM is protectionistic.
I find it interesting how many anti-MS, pro-open source advocates are siding with Apple on this. Apparently open source is only good when it hurts Microsoft. Any other time and -- let's all rally around a cry to stamp out the godd*mn crooks and commies who want everything for free.
Let me see if I understand this all.. the French law - if applied to say, Airbus - would require Airbus to have all of their parts interchangeable with say, Boeing. That way the "consumer" can repair/replace their legally purchased jet parts with lower-priced, competitor manufactured replacement products. Makes sense. What's the big deal?
Let me see if I understand this all.. the French law - if applied to say, Airbus - would require Airbus to have all of their parts interchangeable with say, Boeing. That way the "consumer" can repair/replace their legally purchased jet parts with lower-priced, competitor manufactured replacement products. Makes sense. What's the big deal?
All of this proprietary DRM nonsense makes me glad that I just buy plain old non-copy-protected CDs, and play them in my stand-alone CD player. I'm not interested in becoming one of Apple's iPodBorgs.
Mozilla plans to release a beta version this year for Microsoft's upcoming Windows interface. It'll be a lot of work, but Mozilla doesn't really have a choice.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
The space agency powers down its last System Z machine, years after IBM stopped selling them for the mathematical calculation jobs for which NASA originally bought them.
A group calling itself Evil Shadow Team reportedly hacked into Microsoft's online store in India, stealing usernames and passwords of the site's customers.
My reading of the proposed law is that it says nothing of the kind.
What it does say, and I've gotten this from several sources, is that the proposed law allows people to legally strip DRM from content if that DRM is keeping them from using it personally on their own players.
The law, as I understand it, says absolutely nothing about forcing Microsoft or Apple to use generic DRM or providing content with more than one kind of DRM.
Unless there is a new, proposed version of the law within the last 24 hours, c|net's take on the proposed law means -- and what it implies for Microsoft and Apple -- is just plain wrong.
why C/Net chooses to print it without investigation or comment.
They've had a bee up their behinds about the iPod and Apple for
years.
My reading of the proposed law is that it says nothing of the kind.
What it does say, and I've gotten this from several sources, is that the proposed law allows people to legally strip DRM from content if that DRM is keeping them from using it personally on their own players.
The law, as I understand it, says absolutely nothing about forcing Microsoft or Apple to use generic DRM or providing content with more than one kind of DRM.
Unless there is a new, proposed version of the law within the last 24 hours, c|net's take on the proposed law means -- and what it implies for Microsoft and Apple -- is just plain wrong.
why C/Net chooses to print it without investigation or comment.
They've had a bee up their behinds about the iPod and Apple for
years.
" 38 Euros: Fine for downloading a copy written work, per work.
" 150 Euros: Fine for sharing a copy written work with someone else.
" 750 Euros: Fine if you have in your possession and/or use a software that bypasses copyright protection.
" 3,750 Euros: Fine if you write software or provide information about bypassing copyright protection.
" 30,000 Euros and 6 Months in Prison: Penalty for those making available software or technology that bypasses copyright protection.
" 300,000 Euros and up to 3 Years in Prison: Penalty for making available any peer to peer software which "knowingly promotes piracy."
That the legislation that was suppose to open iTunes, didn't make it.
Source: Macdailynews which links: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://old.tuaw.com/2006/03/17/newly-proposed-french-law-does-not-penalize-apple/" target="_newWindow">http://old.tuaw.com/2006/03/17/newly-proposed-french-law-does-not-penalize-apple/</a>
But, based on other reading, I don't think her opinion is persuasive.
The implications of the legislation, which is not yet final, would
indeed be severe for Apple as the market leader.
" 38 Euros: Fine for downloading a copy written work, per work.
" 150 Euros: Fine for sharing a copy written work with someone else.
" 750 Euros: Fine if you have in your possession and/or use a software that bypasses copyright protection.
" 3,750 Euros: Fine if you write software or provide information about bypassing copyright protection.
" 30,000 Euros and 6 Months in Prison: Penalty for those making available software or technology that bypasses copyright protection.
" 300,000 Euros and up to 3 Years in Prison: Penalty for making available any peer to peer software which "knowingly promotes piracy."
That the legislation that was suppose to open iTunes, didn't make it.
Source: Macdailynews which links: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://old.tuaw.com/2006/03/17/newly-proposed-french-law-does-not-penalize-apple/" target="_newWindow">http://old.tuaw.com/2006/03/17/newly-proposed-french-law-does-not-penalize-apple/</a>
But, based on other reading, I don't think her opinion is persuasive.
The implications of the legislation, which is not yet final, would
indeed be severe for Apple as the market leader.
to consumers,"
Wasn't this a warning at the Microsoft Antitrust trial? Oh yeah, it
was!
People are just realizing this now?
to consumers,"
Wasn't this a warning at the Microsoft Antitrust trial? Oh yeah, it
was!
People are just realizing this now?
iTunes started out as a good tool for sharing music at the office using Local Area Network... now they just limit it to 5 connections (maybe lower).
Before you can burn and copy it to so many times, and decrease that number when they release every major new version of iTunes.
I'm a big Apple fan. But I hate to see a GOOD product such as iTunes being degraded every upgrade. There are far better ways of improving anti-piracy measures without hampering ease of use.
Think Different, Apple!
Apple. It's the content providers who dictate that. If it weren't
for a strong content distributor like Apple, the music companies
would have us locked into a DRM that would be so restrictive,
online sales would be a mere fraction of what they are because
no one would want them.
It has been Apple that has stood up for us consumers, not the
music industry giants. And the likes of Napster, Musicmatch
and all the "also-rans" in digital music (even big M$), have no
pull with the labels. You best be thanking Apple for what they
have done.
This is not say that you should stop pushing for more liberal
usage rights. We all want that. Just be smarter about where you
place your criticism, perhaps you'll get somewhere if you do.
available with Airport Express with iTunes, one of the least
expensive devices available.
Seems to me that some people just MUST find something to carp
about.
You use to be able to listen to shared music on your home
computer at the office.
But also don't forget Apple increased the number of computers
that can be validated for the DRM-protected music. It use to be
only three computers could be authorized for the same account.
Now it's five.
For me that's more important, because there really isn't anything
stopping me from making a copy of a CD that was made from
DRM music.
iTunes started out as a good tool for sharing music at the office using Local Area Network... now they just limit it to 5 connections (maybe lower).
Before you can burn and copy it to so many times, and decrease that number when they release every major new version of iTunes.
I'm a big Apple fan. But I hate to see a GOOD product such as iTunes being degraded every upgrade. There are far better ways of improving anti-piracy measures without hampering ease of use.
Think Different, Apple!
Apple. It's the content providers who dictate that. If it weren't
for a strong content distributor like Apple, the music companies
would have us locked into a DRM that would be so restrictive,
online sales would be a mere fraction of what they are because
no one would want them.
It has been Apple that has stood up for us consumers, not the
music industry giants. And the likes of Napster, Musicmatch
and all the "also-rans" in digital music (even big M$), have no
pull with the labels. You best be thanking Apple for what they
have done.
This is not say that you should stop pushing for more liberal
usage rights. We all want that. Just be smarter about where you
place your criticism, perhaps you'll get somewhere if you do.
available with Airport Express with iTunes, one of the least
expensive devices available.
Seems to me that some people just MUST find something to carp
about.
You use to be able to listen to shared music on your home
computer at the office.
But also don't forget Apple increased the number of computers
that can be validated for the DRM-protected music. It use to be
only three computers could be authorized for the same account.
Now it's five.
For me that's more important, because there really isn't anything
stopping me from making a copy of a CD that was made from
DRM music.
People who support ending DRM are risking throwing out the baby
with the bath water. If they get what they want, the progress in
having digital content downloadable online could end. We might
even see regression. Then the people whining now will really have
something to whine about.
Some game publishers are beginning to see this and are not including any DRM on their product. Galactic Civilization 2 has no DRM and is at the top of the sales charts.
Content publishers are not going to pull all content from a region just because they can't DRM a product, or there are specific DRM rules. A sale is a sale, and no matter how they spin it piracy does not take that big a chunk out of their pockets. People that steal; normally would not have bought the product at all. That is true online and offline. DRM's, security cameras, RF tags, etc. hasn't stopped anyone.
Would you support a DRM solution that prevented you from sharing, even temporarily, your media with friends and family? (Some see this as reasonable.)
Would you support a DRM solution that prevented you from sharing your media files with other devices you own and use? (Few see this as reasonable.)
Do you like the idea of having to purchase the same song more than once in order to listen to that song in your home, in your car, on your MP3 device and on your cell phone?
Let's be honest, DRM as it is used now, is not about preventing piracy. It's about protecting revenue streams. It's about forcing the people who actually purchase their media to accept the content brokers decisions about when/where/how the customers can use their media content.
This law is about giving consumers back their rights. It's about forcing the content providers to relax the controls they've imposed on paying customers. I highly doubt the French government wants to create a pirate haven... but they've decided the only way to force the content providers to change is to ban the current implementation of DRM... and that's no more ridiculous than the laws which gave content providers the legal stick to overrule all other fair use rights with some phoney DRM rule about usage.
The content providers are not going to reform a system advantageous to themselves unless they have to. This law is merely a step down that path. All the rest of you nay-sayers are deliberately skirting the real issue.
What this means is that all portable music players must support the popular types of DRM such as WMA, FairPlay, etc.
To me, that's a win-win for the consumer and the music companies. Consumers can play their music anywhere, and music companies get more sales because consumers don't have to worry if the song they purchased will run on their favorite player/in-dash CD player.
People who support ending DRM are risking throwing out the baby
with the bath water. If they get what they want, the progress in
having digital content downloadable online could end. We might
even see regression. Then the people whining now will really have
something to whine about.
Some game publishers are beginning to see this and are not including any DRM on their product. Galactic Civilization 2 has no DRM and is at the top of the sales charts.
Content publishers are not going to pull all content from a region just because they can't DRM a product, or there are specific DRM rules. A sale is a sale, and no matter how they spin it piracy does not take that big a chunk out of their pockets. People that steal; normally would not have bought the product at all. That is true online and offline. DRM's, security cameras, RF tags, etc. hasn't stopped anyone.
Would you support a DRM solution that prevented you from sharing, even temporarily, your media with friends and family? (Some see this as reasonable.)
Would you support a DRM solution that prevented you from sharing your media files with other devices you own and use? (Few see this as reasonable.)
Do you like the idea of having to purchase the same song more than once in order to listen to that song in your home, in your car, on your MP3 device and on your cell phone?
Let's be honest, DRM as it is used now, is not about preventing piracy. It's about protecting revenue streams. It's about forcing the people who actually purchase their media to accept the content brokers decisions about when/where/how the customers can use their media content.
This law is about giving consumers back their rights. It's about forcing the content providers to relax the controls they've imposed on paying customers. I highly doubt the French government wants to create a pirate haven... but they've decided the only way to force the content providers to change is to ban the current implementation of DRM... and that's no more ridiculous than the laws which gave content providers the legal stick to overrule all other fair use rights with some phoney DRM rule about usage.
The content providers are not going to reform a system advantageous to themselves unless they have to. This law is merely a step down that path. All the rest of you nay-sayers are deliberately skirting the real issue.
What this means is that all portable music players must support the popular types of DRM such as WMA, FairPlay, etc.
To me, that's a win-win for the consumer and the music companies. Consumers can play their music anywhere, and music companies get more sales because consumers don't have to worry if the song they purchased will run on their favorite player/in-dash CD player.
All Apple had to do was to provide its French customers exclusively with a collection of its iTunes catalog in the MP3 format in addition to providing the same catalog in the AAC format (MP3's with whatever DRM that may or may not be required as per the music labels desire, since the music labels seem to be ok with this new idea). And in the iTune's download interface for French users only, allow French users to choose whichever format they wanted - be it AAC or MP3. Beyond that, everything else would remain exactly the same. Apple would be in full compliance with the law and everything would remain exactly the same.
Doing things this way would accomplish several things. #1 - It would still prevent Apple's competitors from gaining direct access to Apple's iPod. If Apple's competitors wanted to create files to be able to sell files that worked seamlessly with the iPod, all they had to do was to provide those files in the MP3 format (ironically, something they can do right now). So, there's their interoperability. #2 - If the French government is complaining about the iPod doesn't play the songs of other music stores. Problem solved. All those other stores had to do was to provide their songs in the MP3 format according to the music labels desires (again, the iPod already plays MP3's, so no big deal, no change there). So overall, nothing would change, Apple would be in full compliance with the new law, and French users would get to choose whether they wanted their download files in the MP3 format or in Apple's AAC. The choice would be theirs. And may the best file format win. (Now there's real choice).
The consequence of Apple taking this approach is that nothing would even change. In all the ways that matters, Apple would be in full compliance with the new French law and there'd be nothing the French could do about it. The French can't specifically "force" Apple to give up selling AAC files specifically, but it can demand and force it to find a way to make its iPod somehow interoperable with other players in France. That answer is in making its iTunes catalog available to only French users in MP3 format (as well as providing those files in AAC). MP3 is a format the other player can play. The French can't force Apple to open up it's iPod hardware specs or to open up its Fairplay software specifically just so Apple's competitors can create and sell "AAC files specifically" which would play on the iPod, but it can demand that Apple chose "some kind" of interoperable format which the other manufacturers can use to access and play their songs on the iPod. Again, that format is MP3. (And again, ironically, it's a format the iPod already plays right now, so what). Therefore nothing would change. Ultimately, Apple's competitors would still not have direct access to either Fairplay or the IPod, yet Apple would be fully compliant with the new French law. AAC would keep rolling ahead like a locomotive and crushing every other format in sight in terms of sheer download numbers. Apple would be able to keep its French market customers and be completely unaffected by any MP3 sales made to any French users in terms of not being Fairplay protected, simply because any MP3 songs that were somehow shipped out of France all because they were not DRM protected would be rendered completely moot by the fact that you can do that now - any user can easily convert any AAC song into an other-player-readable DRM-less MP3 file by simply burning it to CD and then importing it back in as MP3. So why go through all the hassle and trouble of buying a DRM-less MP3 file via France? Problem solved. And iPod's would still continue to sell like hotcakes. Any users stupid enough to buy competing players such as the RIO or a Samsung model MP3 player, could still shop at the iTunes store, however on download they could only choose the MP3 format to download. But at least that format would work with their player. Problem solved. So what would happen if this same legislative problem spread to other countries? The answer is simple: Apple could employ the same solution and AAC and iPod would still keep rolling ahead like a locomotive, and unstoppable force.
All Apple had to do was to provide its French customers exclusively with a collection of its iTunes catalog in the MP3 format in addition to providing the same catalog in the AAC format (MP3's with whatever DRM that may or may not be required as per the music labels desire, since the music labels seem to be ok with this new idea). And in the iTune's download interface for French users only, allow French users to choose whichever format they wanted - be it AAC or MP3. Beyond that, everything else would remain exactly the same. Apple would be in full compliance with the law and everything would remain exactly the same.
Doing things this way would accomplish several things. #1 - It would still prevent Apple's competitors from gaining direct access to Apple's iPod. If Apple's competitors wanted to create files to be able to sell files that worked seamlessly with the iPod, all they had to do was to provide those files in the MP3 format (ironically, something they can do right now). So, there's their interoperability. #2 - If the French government is complaining about the iPod doesn't play the songs of other music stores. Problem solved. All those other stores had to do was to provide their songs in the MP3 format according to the music labels desires (again, the iPod already plays MP3's, so no big deal, no change there). So overall, nothing would change, Apple would be in full compliance with the new law, and French users would get to choose whether they wanted their download files in the MP3 format or in Apple's AAC. The choice would be theirs. And may the best file format win. (Now there's real choice).
The consequence of Apple taking this approach is that nothing would even change. In all the ways that matters, Apple would be in full compliance with the new French law and there'd be nothing the French could do about it. The French can't specifically "force" Apple to give up selling AAC files specifically, but it can demand and force it to find a way to make its iPod somehow interoperable with other players in France. That answer is in making its iTunes catalog available to only French users in MP3 format (as well as providing those files in AAC). MP3 is a format the other player can play. The French can't force Apple to open up it's iPod hardware specs or to open up its Fairplay software specifically just so Apple's competitors can create and sell "AAC files specifically" which would play on the iPod, but it can demand that Apple chose "some kind" of interoperable format which the other manufacturers can use to access and play their songs on the iPod. Again, that format is MP3. (And again, ironically, it's a format the iPod already plays right now, so what). Therefore nothing would change. Ultimately, Apple's competitors would still not have direct access to either Fairplay or the IPod, yet Apple would be fully compliant with the new French law. AAC would keep rolling ahead like a locomotive and crushing every other format in sight in terms of sheer download numbers. Apple would be able to keep its French market customers and be completely unaffected by any MP3 sales made to any French users in terms of not being Fairplay protected, simply because any MP3 songs that were somehow shipped out of France all because they were not DRM protected would be rendered completely moot by the fact that you can do that now - any user can easily convert any AAC song into an other-player-readable DRM-less MP3 file by simply burning it to CD and then importing it back in as MP3. So why go through all the hassle and trouble of buying a DRM-less MP3 file via France? Problem solved. And iPod's would still continue to sell like hotcakes. Any users stupid enough to buy competing players such as the RIO or a Samsung model MP3 player, could still shop at the iTunes store, however on download they could only choose the MP3 format to download. But at least that format would work with their player. Problem solved. So what would happen if this same legislative problem spread to other countries? The answer is simple: Apple could employ the same solution and AAC and iPod would still keep rolling ahead like a locomotive, and unstoppable force.
product. It's a better product because the software/hardware work
together. Don't want it? BUY SOMETHING ELSE. All this worry
about being too powerful, lets remember even giants fall: AT&T,
Atari, AOL, even Apple has before. Consumers are fickle and will
not stick around for sub-par services. That's why there is no
Peugeot dealer on the corner next to the Toyota dealership.
product. It's a better product because the software/hardware work
together. Don't want it? BUY SOMETHING ELSE. All this worry
about being too powerful, lets remember even giants fall: AT&T,
Atari, AOL, even Apple has before. Consumers are fickle and will
not stick around for sub-par services. That's why there is no
Peugeot dealer on the corner next to the Toyota dealership.
>exclusively with a collection of its iTunes catalog in the MP3
>format
If Apple owned the copyrights to that catalog, they might even
consider doing that. But the problem is, they don't. The labels
either own the copyrights, or own exclusive redistribution rights.
Apple is almost certainly contractually obligated to enforce a
DRM system in order to resell the product. Yes -DRM has
conveniently helped Apple lock consumers into the iPod. But the
point is, they cannot simply remove it on a whim, or even if
pressured to by an ill-considered law.
Unless the French government nationalizes the music catalogs of
the labels, a very drastic move indeed, the labels can simply halt
all sales in France if they are not satisfied that their rights are
being protected. My long-winded point being, that this is out of
Apple's hands.
Comment". This was supposed to be in response to Second
Squirrel's interesting comments of the same subject.
quit after the first graf when I realized that what he was saying was
not only too long, but made no sense. As you observed, Apple is
not the decisionmaker regarding DRM. Stripping files it contracted
to protect of DRM and selling them as MP3s is not an option at all.
>exclusively with a collection of its iTunes catalog in the MP3
>format
If Apple owned the copyrights to that catalog, they might even
consider doing that. But the problem is, they don't. The labels
either own the copyrights, or own exclusive redistribution rights.
Apple is almost certainly contractually obligated to enforce a
DRM system in order to resell the product. Yes -DRM has
conveniently helped Apple lock consumers into the iPod. But the
point is, they cannot simply remove it on a whim, or even if
pressured to by an ill-considered law.
Unless the French government nationalizes the music catalogs of
the labels, a very drastic move indeed, the labels can simply halt
all sales in France if they are not satisfied that their rights are
being protected. My long-winded point being, that this is out of
Apple's hands.
Comment". This was supposed to be in response to Second
Squirrel's interesting comments of the same subject.
quit after the first graf when I realized that what he was saying was
not only too long, but made no sense. As you observed, Apple is
not the decisionmaker regarding DRM. Stripping files it contracted
to protect of DRM and selling them as MP3s is not an option at all.
HAHAHAHAHAH HA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAH HAAA HA!
Oh god... let me stop laughing for a minute. OK, now maybe somebody at c|net will care to grab a newspaper or something. Its idiot French policies like these that give the country staggering levels of unemployment, and a bunch of tantrum throwing children for citizens... the idea that you can sue your way to prosperity is about as dumb as they get...
But hey, right on c|net!
However, I fail to see how requiring Apple to open its DRM is protectionistic.
I find it interesting how many anti-MS, pro-open source advocates are siding with Apple on this. Apparently open source is only good when it hurts Microsoft. Any other time and -- let's all rally around a cry to stamp out the godd*mn crooks and commies who want everything for free.
Hypocrisy seems to rule this debate.
HAHAHAHAHAH HA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAH HAAA HA!
Oh god... let me stop laughing for a minute. OK, now maybe somebody at c|net will care to grab a newspaper or something. Its idiot French policies like these that give the country staggering levels of unemployment, and a bunch of tantrum throwing children for citizens... the idea that you can sue your way to prosperity is about as dumb as they get...
But hey, right on c|net!
However, I fail to see how requiring Apple to open its DRM is protectionistic.
I find it interesting how many anti-MS, pro-open source advocates are siding with Apple on this. Apparently open source is only good when it hurts Microsoft. Any other time and -- let's all rally around a cry to stamp out the godd*mn crooks and commies who want everything for free.
Hypocrisy seems to rule this debate.