France Considers Anti-DRM 'iPod Law' 189
Asklepius M.D. writes "According to the Washington Post, France is contemplating legislation designed to 'to force compatibility between digital songs and the different machines that play them.' Known colloquially as the 'iPod bill', it is opposed by Apple, the Business Software Alliance, and others who refer to it as 'state-sponsored piracy.' Two versions of the bill have already passed France's Senate and National Assembly. From the article: 'Under the proposed law, Apple Computer Inc., Sony Corp., Dell Inc. and other companies could have to reveal trade secrets of their software so that their songs can play on competitors' devices.'"
I love iPod/iTunes, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Very good for consumers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Very good for consumers (Score:2)
This issue, like most things, isn't as black and white as people around here seem to like to think.
Re:Very good for consumers (Score:2)
Re:Very good for consumers (Score:2)
Ya gotta remember media would ever possibly be removed from the market if DRM was removed. As much as Apple would like you believe otherwise, this proposed law has nothing to do with removing DRM. It simply wants DRM to at least be interoperable so if you buy a device your media will play on it. Now as for players.... well removing proprietary players sounds good to me.
Re:Very good for consumers (Score:2)
Re:Very good for consumers (Score:2)
This post is in black and white!
All issues can be black and white if you want them to be.
Re:Very good for consumers (Score:2)
Yes, because if the existing player vacate the market, then it will with absolute certainty be filled by others that are willing to play by the new rules. This is France, that's a very large pot of money that isn't going to be overlooked.
Go France! Let's hope it spreads.
Of course, that said, I quite happily purchase iTunes music on my Linux box and listen to them howsoever I like.
Re:Very good for consumers (Score:3, Informative)
From TFA:
Both versions would decriminalize piracy and make it equivalent to a traffic infraction, with fines that computer companies say are so small they would offer no deterrence.
Let 'em withdraw, and vive le Torrent!
Re:Very good for consumers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Very good for consumers (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, Apple, but you need to be open. Selling music online legally is great. Discriminating against who you sell music to isn't. (For the record, iHave an iPod, so Apple wouldn't be "losing" anything by selling to me. Only gaining.)
Whatever, I don't like American music anyway. When will I be able to buy JPop and good digital classical recordings online? When will I be able to buy uncompressed 5 channel surround recordings? That sort of stuff would really excite me, and really open my wallet
Re:Very good for consumers (Score:4, Insightful)
You say that while you wish to pay the artist and the record companies you cannot, you are being forced to piracy because of the anti consumer measures built into the product you legally purchased.
This is how Digital Restrictions Management is fuelling piracy and reducing the income of the artists.
Personally I couldn't give a stuff about the record companies. They've had their day, it's over.
Their function was the recording and distribution of other peoples music. In the analogue physical world this is expensive but In the digital world anyone can record and distribute music, be it their own or anyone else's. Now the record companies only function are to take money from both the artist and consumer. DRM is their way of artificially imposing the restrictions of the physical world on digital media ensuring their continuation buy enabling them to buy at below market value from the artists and sell at an inflated price to you the consumer. The RIAA represents the rights of the artist like a Pimp represents the rights of prostitutes.
There are a lot of fair trade 'DRM-free' legal music sites appearing now and I hope they will prove the downfall of the majors or at least make them sit up and take notice that DRM is a foolish policy. Fair Trade Music can only work if people are willing to buy it and this where piracy hurts truly free music.
On the other side I can see that people really like a particular artist or track but they are affiliated to the music fascists. In this case you must make the choice between giving money to a corrupt cartel or piracy. IMO the major labels are stifling music. I would rather see more artists producing music at a lower salary rather than a limited number of 'lucky' ones who are getting all of the money. If you don't think it's fair then you don't love music so get out! Given this I feel that obtaining music through piracy is the lesser evil but that those who choose this path must remember that it is only a lesser evil and not the true solution that open fair trade music is.
Must respectfully disagree (Score:2)
If you bought the music, you have a lifetime license to listen to the music regardless of the format of the recording. The artists and record companies are not harmed as long as money is going from you to them.
When will I be able to buy JPop and good digital classical recordings online?
Don't bother. Please continu
Re:Very good for consumers (Score:2)
Re:Very good for consumers (Score:2)
Re:Very good for consumers (Score:2)
Right now there is no competition, so Apple can charge a premium. Lock-in is great for the vendor, terrible for the consumer.
If you were free to buy any player/device to play iTunes songs then Apple wouldn't be able to charge as much.
If you were free to use other music service (eg. Yahoo's music service is cheaper and for higher audio quality) then hopefully they would start to support the Mac platform and then iTunes would have to lower its prices.
not that i admire france (Score:3, Funny)
i feel like i have to go take a shower after saying that...
hey! i just said something very un-french
all is well again
How is this anti-DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can have DRM, you just have to tell other industry players how to interoperate with it.
This is like saying the DVD Consortium is anti-DRM, because multiple companies belong.
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can have DRM, you just have to tell other industry players how to interoperate with it.
But if you have DRM with tons of different implementations and universal converters it is almost certain somewhere it'll be broken. You can't simply soft-upgrade like iTunes has done many times over as Hymn etc. broke their protection, because all players, media centers and so on need to upgrade. The "value" of hacking a DRM system is proportional to how much content it protects. Telling them to have one universal DRM system is like telling them to put every egg in a giant basket.
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:5, Informative)
The second option is for the intended recipient to transmit a public key (well, not really public since only the content holder will receive it). The content holder then decrypts the content and uses the public key obtained to build an SSL tunnel to the recipient, which can then re-encrypt it natively.
Ok, that handles that part. Now we need the data format. This will contain one or more of DRM headers, DRM data, and content. Since the data is encrypted in transit, using keys only the two parties know, we don't need DRM protections, only the DRM information. By ripping out the DRM, then converting that information into XML or some other "universal" format, we can preserve the DRM information without needing the DRM to be active.
At the destination, the DRM meta-data is then parsed. Those elements for which no local definition exists would be dropped, and those elements not filled by the meta-data would be set to the most constrained values allowed. The protections may change, with such a system, but they should average out.
We now have a universal DRM exchange protocol that needs to know NOTHING about any foreign DRM mechanisms and therefore does NOT need to be patched as new formats come out, and does NOT need to be bloated with a multitude of foreign algorithms. All it needs is an industry-standard XML template, an implementation of RSA, an industry-standard public key exchange mechanism and optionally an implementation of SSL.
Total hardware complexity? One standard encryption chip and one moderate-sized FPGA should be sufficient. Two scraps of silicon, adding maybe a couple of grammes to the total weight. I can really see this killing the entire music industry... assuming the entire music industry is in fact a small piece of blue-green algae and the chips are dropped on it from an altitude of 30,000 feet.
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:2, Insightful)
If some company can decrypt the data, and convert it into another format, this system you're proposing only
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:2)
It is perfectly true that the recipient need not re-constitute the DRM scheme (using its own methods), so that would need to be protected by law. I don't see that being a significant problem, though. The F
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:2, Insightful)
you're in favor of outlawing music players with an optical line out? This is something which has a useful purpose (highest quality digital audio to a receiver), and is becoming universal in higher-end audi equipment. But, of course, it makes DRM largely irrelevant....
Any DRM scheme is going to involve LAWS that, to an ordinary person (I include my self), seem rediculous.
Of course, they wouldn't be the first laws for which that is true...
No. (Score:2)
How would my proposal work with this, though? You are correct that DRM schemes don't cross over int
Re:No. (Score:2, Interesting)
Ok, my misunderstanding. (Score:2)
Ok, where does the optical digital output fit into this? Well, IMHO it is a reasonable technology, therefore shou
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:2)
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:2)
And? Few points here:
1. ALL DRM will eventually be broken. It's simply an inevitability. If nothing else, a microphone, videocamera, or screen capture will -always- be capable of producing a DRM-free version of anything, and at that point it spreads virally. They're intending it as a speed bump that might deter a few copies-and they may be losing more customers then they're gaining with the frustration. I might use itunes myself rather than Bittorrent-but not with DRM on 'em, not even when I know how to b
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:2)
You are correct that my idea is that every system sh
But I guess we must all agree.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:But I guess we must all agree.. (Score:3)
Doesn't accomplish the purpose (Score:2)
First, the content providers will need a better infrastructure to handle their content; of course, it is their current failure that causes the problems that france is trying to address, but they will not like having to fix their own problem
Re:Doesn't accomplish the purpose (Score:2)
But, yes, my system does force providers to constantly upgrade their technologies. All of their technologies. The pressure would be on them, and they would have to grow or die.
For the authentication, I'm thinking much the same system as for SSL. Each device woul
And why is the recipient complying with this? (Score:2)
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:2)
Copyright itself is harmful for competition, but that doesnt stop many supposed 'free market' supporters from embracing it.
And just listen to the rhetoric; "state sponsored piracy". That's like someone on social security yelling about theft if the government didnt want to give them money to build a pool.
The social benefit of intellectual property as is is starting to get seriously questioned. I'd suggest the DRM s
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
If anyone can make a program that plays DRM-protected files, what's to stop someone from making one that outputs the file in an unencrypted format?
Furthermore, I assume Apple is concerned about losing their de facto monopoly on players that can play DRM'd music from ITMS.
Personally I think France's plan is awesome. Consumer choice is more important than protecting crappy DRM technology.
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:2)
But does this law cover software-only designs, or just hardware?
Everything I've been reading says hardware.
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:2)
Maybe I'm missing your point, but even if it were about hardware, it's a simple process to take the hardware documentation and use it to come up with a software (or software/hardware) system that doesn't enforce the restrictions.
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:2)
The exact same law you love so much.
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:2)
I'm having trouble understanding the meaning of what appears to be a jab at me, but anyway. Depending on the law is exactly how non-DRM'd systems work. So I'm not seeing how adding DRM into the mix is any better. The people who refuse to pay for anything still will.
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:2)
Re:How is this anti-DRM? (Score:2)
If authorized users also had information on how the system worked, they'd be able to get their DRM'd data out into the clear and do with it whatever they wanted.
Or come up with a standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm, how about the unprotected mp3 format? Nah, that's too simple.
Re:Or come up with a standard (Score:2, Interesting)
Half my library is in AAC format, as are a lot of less knowledgeable users. Why these silly electronics companies keep releasing players that only support MP3 & Microsoft formats I don't know -- I'd love to buy from Sony, but I'm sure as hell not going to re-rip my entire library.
Oh....wait...why does my Sony cellular phone play AAC tracks, while a Sony portable music player doesn't?
Kind of makes my head shak
Great news! (Score:3, Informative)
In countries, like Norway, where I live, where DRM is not protected by law, this will allow hardware and software to support every format they want to. If it passes, of course. Vive la France!
Still not sure... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Still not sure... (Score:2, Insightful)
Other businesses will be happy to take their place. It's not like no one will EVERY do business in France because the law protects consumers more than businesses.
It's like the drug companies saying that if the US imposes price controls on medicines that they won't have a profit motive to sell the drugs here. Well, Canada has price controls and they're quite happy to sell their wares there.
LK
Re:Still not sure... (Score:2)
They will always sell drugs, the question is do they invest lots of money on development if the path to a return is hindered substantially?
--Joey
Re:Still not sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
And be replaced by French business. The French music scene is quite large.
Re:Still not sure... (Score:2)
YA RIGHT (Score:2)
Waitamiunute!! Why don't we try??? Maybe that was their idea along...
Somehow I don't think it would be that simple.
E
The market, however, will remain... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the beauty of a properly functioning free market. DRM, abusive terms of copyright, and poor patent practices all attempt to break the free market. But it has survived in the past, and will continue to in the future.
Apple doesn't want to lose the French market, and they don't want to play fair with their competitors. Too bad. The French government giveth them rights, and taketh them away, as it suits the interests of the French.
Re:Still not sure... (Score:2)
France is a multi-billion market for the music industry. Do you think Apple and others will just leave? Suffer a loss in income and profit, resulting in a drop of the market shares value? Will the shareholders agree? I don't know. Not to mention that if France passes this law, other countries will follow? Will Apple and others then close their business? I don't know...
OLD NEWS AND INACCURATE (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OLD NEWS AND INACCURATE (Score:3, Insightful)
Vive La France !!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Vive La France !!! (Score:2)
Unfortunately (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider that Apple was able to keep the price of singles down to $.99 in the last round of negotiations. If the record labels could have cut off Apple without losing the iPod market (which they couldn't because Fairplay is closed), they would have (and only sold to retailers willing to sell out their customers).
With a large marketshare behind them Apple was able to leverage buying power for its customers and drive down price. Other examples of this include Wal-Mart or CostCo.
Hard drive crash (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two components to this: being able to actually copy the files onto another computer, and being able to play them. With the iPod, Apple does not currently provide a way to copy music from the iPod onto a computer; it can be done easily enough on Linux or using third-party software, but for the average user, it can't be done. Of course Apple's position is that if they allowed this, it would encourage piracy, and they're right, it would (if I had an iPod and Apple made it easy to copy songs from it, I would use it to share MP3s with other people far more often than I would ever use it to copy MP3s onto my own computer). Nevertheless, it would be nice if Apple added a way to copy music from an iPod.
To be fair, when you buy anything from the iTunes Music Store, you are advised to back it up on CD or something. I think they've tried to make it clear that copying to an iPod is not a replacement for backups. I've heard that if you call Apple and whine enough, they'll let you re-download all your purchases, which is nice of them, but really, backing up your data is your own responsibility.
The other issue here is playing the files on a different computer. Apple allows you to authorize up to five computers at a time, and normally you can deauthorize computers you'll no longer be using... but if the hard drive in an authorized computer dies, you can't deauthorize it yourself. If you don't use multiple computers, you can just ignore this problem until you hit your limit of five. Otherwise, if you call Apple and explain the situation, they can remove the authorization from your account. So it's really not a huge problem right now.
Re:Hard drive crash (Score:2, Informative)
iTunes software allows you to:
Burn downloaded iTunes songs onto a CD
Re-rip the CD back into iTunes as MP3 files
Once they're MP3s, you can copy and play them with any MP3 player.
I do this all the time, and listen to songs downloaded via iTunes on my Palm. It's a couple of extra steps, but it works just fine.
Re:Hard drive crash (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hard drive crash (Score:3, Informative)
You can do it yourself from your account settings on iTMS. I think the limit is once every 12 months that you can deauthorize all the computers associated with your account.
Re:Hard drive crash (Score:2)
Re:Hard drive crash (Score:2)
Re:FAIL: tinkertool. (Score:2)
So, just don't use iPod - jeez (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a merchant selling proprietary content for a proprietary device. If you don't like the model, just buy from someone else. It's really not that complicated. That's what capitalism is all about and why much of the IT world is rapidly moving towards open standards.
Next thing you know, France will force all the telcos to make sure all the ringtones and video games I download to my phone can run on all the other little phones. It's ridiculous!!
(Ok, Apple's iPod policy pisses me off too, but I have a CHOICE. Apple has always been extremely proprietary and controlling which is the main reason their stuff works so well).
Re:So, just don't use iPod - jeez (Score:4, Insightful)
If Apple is proprietary, what does that make MSFT technology? Their software only works on windows and with devices certified by them with the "playsforsure" logo. Nice try there pal. You almost pulled the wool over their eyes.
With iTunes, you are not "locked" into one OS and you are not locked into using an iPod either. Burning to CD is always an option.
I like the fact that I can use my music and devices in both OS X and windows if I so choose. With WMA technology, you can only use windows and MSFT approved devices.
DRM is not for piracy, its for anti-competition... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this not go against the most fundamental rule of designing good encryption and good security systems? That is to say, expose the inner-workings of the system to public scrutiny? Or are they afraid that this could open up their devices to competitors?
DRM. Is it about protecting music, or is it about preventing competition?
Re:DRM is not for piracy, its for anti-competition (Score:2)
I can answer that. When I spoke with an industry illuminary (to remain anonymous), and pointed out that any form of DRM is susceptible to piracy simply because of the nature of DRM. His answer to me was... no, you misunderstand, it's (DRM) not about stopping piracy, it's about making it difficult for average consumers to make copies. So, the good guy, who buys the music/video/whatever is who is being inconvenienced. Who in their r
State sponsored copyright infrigment? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know, that this might be shocking for some people, but copyright isn't a natural law. It is the state (mandated by the people) that sets the terms and conditions of copyright and if some author doesn't like it he can take his toys and go home.
Robert
Re:State sponsored copyright infrigment? (Score:2)
Some would argue that it is. Some would even argue that it goes back to a Judeo-Christian principle that a "laborer is worthy of his wages" and that a government is merely recognizing their responsibility to protect that right.
Some would also argue that I am smoking crack... but that's just part of the fun of arguing.
Re:State sponsored copyright infrigment? (Score:2)
Do you understand the meaning of "natural law"? (Score:2)
Re:State sponsored copyright infrigment? (Score:3, Interesting)
I could more or less agree with that, but I don't see how you could put into this picture:
Re:State sponsored copyright infrigment? (Score:2)
Here are a few more excerpts:
Re:State sponsored copyright infrigment? (Score:2)
I think the fact that the author had the right to sell their copyright is legitimate. The fact that they felt they had a better chance of making money with a parasitic label is regrettable, but I
Re:State sponsored copyright infrigment? (Score:2, Interesting)
European Copyright law has traditionally viewed copyright as an extension of natural law. In particular, rather than the utilitarian tradition of anglo-saxon copyright, continental systems have viewed it as an extension of the moral rights of authorship.
In that sense, it's more difficult to argue for principles such as fair use or mandatory licensing, attributes easily explained and rationalized within the anglo-saxon worldview.
Of course, international treaties are essentially hybridizing all of th
Stationers perpetual copyright in 1557 CE (Score:5, Insightful)
in 1557 and lasting 137 years.
Of course this led to suppression and censorship.
So when the United States was founded, publishing monopolies were to be limited if not eleimitated entirely. The compromise was a 14 year copyright once renewable by 14 years by the author. The copyright purpose was explicitly to promote advancement.
Fast forward to now. Corporations have been given the rights of persons. Government granted publishing monopolies (copyrights) have being extened to be 120 years. And the most control and profit from these monopolies goes not to the original authors, but the media companies (the modern Stationers).
DRM attempts to go beyond any government limits, and establish complete control of publishing media.
Great! (Score:2, Funny)
I can't wait to download and read the bill in Microsoft Windows Word format when it's ready...
Why just music players? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, and gaming consoles. I could save money buying just buying one console but games from everyone.
Ok, I went overboard, but it's fun to imagine.
Forest through the fucking trees..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Good grief.....
Make it "industry wide", idiots. That it ONLY applies to music players makes me thing MS is behind the scenes, somehow.
What about Urge! (Score:4, Insightful)
Talk about lockout.
I understand France's position on this but people still have a choice.
With Urge!, you only have 1 way and 1 OS to comply.
And when did MTV only require IE now to view their video content?
"State Sponsored" Piracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"State Sponsored" Piracy? (but you forgot..) (Score:3, Insightful)
this story is OLDER THAN DIRT (tm) (Score:2)
folks, the state department talked to France, and they backed down for a while. almost a month ago.
move along, nothing to see here. come on, get moving. OK, what you hanging around for, next bus to gitmo? it loads in two minutes......
Trey Redicule! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Trey Redicule!/You fell in the trap (Score:2)
The CD is dead, in few years you will not be able to rip your music.
So the choice will be between letting go 70% of the music or choosing between iPod and Microsoft, And you will not choose based on quality or price but on vague branding perception (Apple) vs price (Microsoft based players) (and the price will be too high anyway because everybody will have to pay for the Microsoft
Re:Trey Redicule! (Score:2)
but there is this thing called the EUCD which prevents other companies from working in ways they would like, and makes them beg apple for permission to interoperate when they should be free to indepdently engineer this interoperability.
I'm all for a free market too, but that free market does not exist right now, let alone with the proposed new regulation.
They should be scoffing at and refusing to implement the EUCD,
Honestly (Score:2)
Why limit it to music? (Score:2)
It's my data. I should be able to access it any way that I want.
Dupe? Oldnews? (Score:2)
An Old Stories search for France Apple DRM turns up dozens of hits, but only this story seems to have to do with France, so I doubt it's a dupe. The oldnews tag doesn't make sense either, considering that the article linked to the story was published on May 26. This is not the first time I've seen tags like this, either.
Maybe this is too meta, but I must wonder whether people are trying to game the tag system. Has anyone else noticed this kind of
It's NOT about "trade secrets" (Score:2, Informative)
These informations should be made public for a competition to be free. If it isn't, then it's use for blocking competition. That's because they didn't disclose such informations that Microsoft was found guilty by the Euro
This is about open competition (Score:2)
We accept that proprietary formats/protocols are bad, so why can't you see that the Apple keeping the iTunes protocols secret is much the same thing ? If the protocols were open then the efects of competition would be good for the consumer: lower prices, innovitive delivery. The only lose
Question to ask is (Score:2)
Q: If the iPod model were applied to ebooks and enewspapers, would it feel right? No.
Q: If all electronic publishing were to have 90% of the media market, and be done on the iPod model, would we be ok with that? No.
Q: If it was Microsoft with 90% of the epublishing market, using the iPod model, would we like that? No.
This is about freedom to (1) buy the content of my choice without being tied to any particular software for that pu
Re:I guess France doesn't want iTunes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I guess France doesn't want iTunes (Score:2)
You do this thing we want you to do, or we do this to you.
This being the discontinuation of iTunes for France.
Re:I guess France doesn't want iTunes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why should the government get involved? (Score:2)
You can also listen to the minority of artists that are not vassals of the majors,
Re:GNU Media here we come! (Score:2)