France Copyright laws?

[Duemellon]

Okay, i'm interested, but confused. What's going on with it?

[DaHood]

I assume you're talking about the iTunes deal....

Basically France wants to force music providers, Apple in particular, to leave their DRM open to each other so music will play on any player. Naturally Apple doesn't like this because they want to maintain exclusivity with iTunes and iPod. There was supposed to be a compromise offered by France but I haven't heard the details.

[Duemellon]

I thought it was a bit more complex than that reading up on it but I'm confused...

See, if I understood, France first passed a law saying that media was protected from being played on unauthorized players. This meant that someone who made a design or song, could limit what tools can be used to view it with to ensure it wasn't being stolen & re-presented in an unauthorized form.

Derivitave work, however, had a special clause.

Then someone came along & said this was far too limiting because it meant a computer had to get company-specific media decoders to play material which limits accessibility as well as discourages entreprenuership into free software developers or even small-time developers.

After all, if WMP couldn't play any songs from BMG anymore, MS could simply buy them up. However, ZoomPlayer folks couldn't even fathom competing with MS for that stuff. Any means to find a way to circumvent this could be interpretated as an attempt to pirate it.

There were some other arguments.

So, after reviewing that, France came up with some clauses saying that alternative players could come out, & that's where the Apple/iPod thing came in. They were happy with the original rule but not the current.

Or I could just be completely lost in this thing going on...

Either way I'm interested in it because it's a case-study on how to approach information exchange in this 'net reality we're in & can't wait to find out if they come up with something creative or oppressive to innovation.

[slopechz]

Check this out:http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8IIKJC00.htm?sub=apn_tech_down&chan=tc

[DaHood]

I thought it was a bit more complex than that reading up on it but I'm confused...

See, if I understood, France first passed a law saying that media was protected from being played on unauthorized players. This meant that someone who made a design or song, could limit what tools can be used to view it with to ensure it wasn't being stolen & re-presented in an unauthorized form.

Derivitave work, however, had a special clause.

Then someone came along & said this was far too limiting because it meant a computer had to get company-specific media decoders to play material which limits accessibility as well as discourages entreprenuership into free software developers or even small-time developers.

After all, if WMP couldn't play any songs from BMG anymore, MS could simply buy them up. However, ZoomPlayer folks couldn't even fathom competing with MS for that stuff. Any means to find a way to circumvent this could be interpretated as an attempt to pirate it.

There were some other arguments.

So, after reviewing that, France came up with some clauses saying that alternative players could come out, & that's where the Apple/iPod thing came in. They were happy with the original rule but not the current.

Or I could just be completely lost in this thing going on...

Either way I'm interested in it because it's a case-study on how to approach information exchange in this 'net reality we're in & can't wait to find out if they come up with something creative or oppressive to innovation.I think you have a better grasp on the situation than you think you do. But iTunes is at the heart of the matter since it controls the majority of file based music sales. The article slopechz posted sums it up and that's what I was looking for.

I still don't know the details of how this is to be implemented nor do I understand fully how it's going to play out but I think it could be a good thing for competition. I would like to see iTunes available to rival players and rival music sales companies available to iPod. It only seems fair to me, as long as the DRM is able to protect the music as intended. I am however not a fan of DRM. I'm just trying to see it from the legal standpoint. In the end hopefully it will be the consumer that wins.

[markalot]

Apple is not a French company and they're making money. France is mad, France passes laws that say if you invent something cool and create something that millions of people like to use you must share this invention with everyone else.

It's the typical socialist attitude.

The law states that companies are expected to share the required technical data with any rival that wants to offer compatible music players and stores.

"Any artist's work that is legally acquired should be playable on any digital device," Culture Minister Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres told lawmakers before the vote.

That will spur invention. :rolleyes:

[DaHood]

Apple is not a French company and they're making money. France is mad, France passes laws that say if you invent something cool and create something that millions of people like to use you must share this invention with everyone else.

It's the typical socialist attitude.



That will spur invention. :rolleyes:They're not asking Apple to allow companies to copy their software. They're asking them to allow other companies to compete. Rival companies would no doubt have to come up with their own designs and yes that would spur invention.

If Apple doesn't like it, they don't have to do business in France, which may very well happen.

[markalot]

They're not asking Apple to allow companies to copy their software. They're asking them to allow other companies to compete. Rival companies would no doubt have to come up with their own designs and yes that would spur invention.

If Apple doesn't like it, they don't have to do business in France, which may very well happen.

How do you see that as competition? If apple is forced to let other devices play their format then we all lose out. Apple makes money off of iPods, not the music. France is saying that yea, you have a great idea, but because you're so ppular your trapping music on your devices and now you have to set that music free so other devices can play it. So here comes some dirt cheap device that plays iTunes music, there goes the iPod sales, there goes the business.

This idea that music needs to be free is silly. The music is free and you can buy it on a number of formats, but to get it for just 99 cents a song you get DRM and the iPod. I don't see anything wrong with that.

And don't forget you can burn that iTunes song onto a CD.

Why is France worried about this?

[DaHood]

How do you see that as competition? If apple is forced to let other devices play their format then we all lose out. Apple makes money off of iPods, not the music. France is saying that yea, you have a great idea, but because you're so ppular your trapping music on your devices and now you have to set that music free so other devices can play it. So here comes some dirt cheap device that plays iTunes music, there goes the iPod sales, there goes the business.

This idea that music needs to be free is silly. The music is free and you can buy it on a number of formats, but to get it for just 99 cents a song you get DRM and the iPod. I don't see anything wrong with that.

And don't forget you can burn that iTunes song onto a CD.

Why is France worried about this?Free? You have to pay for the music. Whether or not Apple makes money on the music is up to Apple. If they have to raise prices to make a profit then so be it. And as long as the iPod is the best player, it will sell. You apparently have little faith in the product.

The product bought at iTunes store is music. What would have happened if Sony and Philips had not decided to standardize the CD format? How is this any different. I suppose cd manufacturers should have their own formats and their own players, then sign artists as they see fit. Then you will have to choose what player you want based on the availability of the music.

I'm well aware that you can burn a cd from iTunes music. I'm also aware that the quality is not the same as a store bought cd.

[markalot]

Free? You have to pay for the music. Whether or not Apple makes money on the music is up to Apple. If they have to raise prices to make a profit then so be it. And as long as the iPod is the best player, it will sell. You apparently have little faith in the product.

The product bought at iTunes store is music. What would have happened if Sony and Philips had not decided to standardize the CD format? How is this any different. I suppose cd manufacturers should have their own formats and their own players, then sign artists as they see fit. Then you will have to choose what player you want based on the availability of the music.

I'm well aware that you can burn a cd from iTunes music. I'm also aware that the quality is not the same as a store bought cd.

The quality isn't as good weather or not you burn it onto cd.

So you're telling me I have little faith in the iPod and in the next breath you lament the success of walmart (maybe not you)? Apple is selling a package. Cheap music combined with cool device. It's a package. Te get me concerned about Apple you're going to have to show me how lack of competition is hurting the consumer.

ITunes
MusicMatch
EMusic
CD's
etc, etc,

Were is the problem looking for a solution?

So ok, let's take away the package from apple. What do you think they'll do next? Maybe try an sue everyone for patent infringement? You tell me how any business can make money if they have to give away their ideas or let others piggy back on top of them.

[DaHood]

The quality isn't as good weather or not you burn it onto cd.True but I guess what I should have stressed is that every time you convert from format to format you create loss, and referring back to your original argument about being able to burn to CD I'm not sure we're talking about the same point so I'm a bit confused by it all.

So you're telling me I have little faith in the iPod and in the next breath you lament the success of walmart (maybe not you)?I would never lament about the success of Walmart. I hate Walmart. And I don't know what connection you're trying to make here.
Apple is selling a package. Cheap music combined with cool device. It's a package. Te get me concerned about Apple you're going to have to show me how lack of competition is hurting the consumer.
ITunes
MusicMatch
EMusic
CD's
etc, etc,

Were is the problem looking for a solution?I know they're selling a package. I question whether they should be able to do that. What if the same had applied to record stores in the past? I am not a fan of DRM anyway. And at the same time I see a rock and a hard place with the music providers and artists stuck in the middle. I realize they want to protect their sales from old Napster style file sharing. If there must be DRM, I am arguing that the DRM should not prevent you from utilizing the music as you see fit within some reason. Hypothetical Example: Why should I have to buy a CD player from BMG to play music that I bought from BMG?
So ok, let's take away the package from apple. What do you think they'll do next? Maybe try an sue everyone for patent infringement? You tell me how any business can make money if they have to give away their ideas or let others piggy back on top of them.They'll make money by being the best, something they're already doing. As you posted there are other services available so why is Apple as a whole the biggest success? They're successful because they have the most popular and I believe the best players. Especially if you consider that they are not making money on their music sales, I bet they could sell even more iPods and make more money if people could use them with other services.

Don't get me wrong about Apple. I love them. I own three Apple computers and two iPods. I also bought an Apple computer for mom so that's four that I've bought in three years.

In fact I think I'll retract and agree with you on at least one point. Apple should probably not be forced to do this. I think they should do it on their own. And I think it would be a success for Apple and the consumer.

I still say that France is free to do as they please. It's their country. Apple is free to pull their music sales business out.

[markalot]

I would never lament about the success of Walmart. I hate Walmart. And I don't know what connection you're trying to make here.


Walmart is successful because people want cheap, not quality.


I'm really amazed you don't see whats wrong with what France is doing. Apple has a produce and they have a right to sell it. There is nothing anto-competitive about ITunes and the iPod. You don't have to go there for music.

[DaHood]

Walmart is successful because people want cheap, not quality.I understand now. But I also think that the 'cool factor' is a big seller, otherwise the other players would do just as well, as would the other music sales companies. This now begs the question: Why is Apple more successful than Musicmatch in music sales? :confused:
I'm really amazed you don't see whats wrong with what France is doing. Apple has a produce and they have a right to sell it. There is nothing anto-competitive about ITunes and the iPod. You don't have to go there for music.Be amazed no longer. I got your point, and we can criticize but we can't tell France what to do. I guess what I was really getting at is what I've always believed, that if they would, (now that Apple is such a success in this business format) open the store to other players, and open iPods to be able to use other stores, they could create even more success in iPod sales. As far as making money on the music sales, they may have to increase the prices a bit. If they're not making money on music sales then other providers charging the same must not be making money either. So I wonder how MusicMatch is surviving in the music sales business? I bought MusicMatch when it first came out. I still think it's an excellent piece of software which came out years before iTunes. I started using iTunes because it was the only choice at the time doing what they were doing. I bought an iPod because it was the only choice to use with iTunes. But now I think is the time to open things up. And again, I agree that forcing Apple to do so is probably the wrong way to do it.

[markalot]

Be amazed no longer. I got your point,

I'm amazed you could even read that.

Apple has a produce and they have a right to sell it. There is nothing anto-competitive about ITunes

anto-competitive produce? Something about vegetables? :o

[DaHood]

anto-competitive produce? Something about vegetables? :o
Yes. France should force zucchini growers to share their seeds with each other.

[justmaybetiger]

This is a good step, but for me, it leaves the big question hanging: will Apple and Microsoft have to license their players to free and open source software authors? The problem is that anti-copying software always comes with a licensing condition that requires implementors to design their players so that users can't modify them. It's like requiring everyone who licenses your internal combustion engine design to weld the hood shut.

Free and open source software (FOSS) -- collectively authored programs like GNU/Linux, Firefox, Sendmail, Apache and VLC -- has proven itself to be an important new way of producing valuable goods and services. From Amazon to Google, from the US military to the Mac OS, everyone who uses computers relies on FOSS to keep them running. What's more, FOSS upsets the dominance of incumbents in the marketplace, letting new entrepreneurs, non-profits, individuals and educational institutions compete with entrenched giants.

But the cornerstone of FOSS is that it should be modifiable by its users. Even though most of us will never write a line of code (no more than most of us will service our car-engines), the ability for all users to choose to understand, modify, improve upon and distribute the software they use is fundamental to FOSS.

Now, given that all anti-copying software requires that users can't modify it -- because you could change the "don't copy this" routine to a "allow this to be copied" routine -- and given that FOSS requires user-modifiability, how will the French Parliament resolve it?

An analogy: Apple iTunes is like a blacksmith who puts a toll-box at the head of a major road. Unless your horse is shod with his shoes, you may not pass. The French Parliament might require Apple to let horses wearing Microsoft shoes to use its road, and that's great -- if you're on horseback.

But if you're in a car, you're screwed. FOSS is an entirely different industrial production system that Apple and Microsoft crippleware can't accommodate -- will the French Parliament outlaw it because of that? Do the blacksmiths get full employment for life, even if it strangles the automobile in its cradle?

http://www.altbergs.net/ccsticker.jpg (http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/21/france_will_let_msft.html)

[back2vinyl]

I don't think the issue is the inability of the iPod to play files other than mp3 and ACC, it's that protected files bought from Apple's music store can only be played using iTunes and on iPods. Apple could license it's fairplay DRM system to other music providers and player makers, but it has chosen not to.

[markalot]

I don't think the issue is the inability of the iPod to play files other than mp3 and ACC, it's that protected files bought from Apple's music store can only be played using iTunes and on iPods. Apple could license it's fairplay DRM system to other music providers and player makers, but it has chosen not to.


Not true. You can burn the songs onto a CD with NO loss of quality, zero, zip, nada. Anyone can play CD's and they'll sound just as good as your original AAC files. Apple actually went out of their way to allow it, even though the record labels protested.

There is nothing wrong here. France is stupid.

[markalot]

This is a good step, but for me, it leaves the big question hanging: will Apple and Microsoft have to license their players to free and open source software authors? The problem is that anti-copying software always comes with a licensing condition that requires implementors to design their players so that users can't modify them. It's like requiring everyone who licenses your internal combustion engine design to weld the hood shut.

Free and open source software (FOSS) -- collectively authored programs like GNU/Linux, Firefox, Sendmail, Apache and VLC -- has proven itself to be an important new way of producing valuable goods and services. From Amazon to Google, from the US military to the Mac OS, everyone who uses computers relies on FOSS to keep them running. What's more, FOSS upsets the dominance of incumbents in the marketplace, letting new entrepreneurs, non-profits, individuals and educational institutions compete with entrenched giants.


FOSS backbone is programmers like me who have real jobs. While the FOSS ideal is great it would never survive without the backing of closed source software. Don't get me started. Google makes money because thousands of talented programmers volunteered their time to write the software that google uses.

I think FOSS is great, but it's more faith based than factual.

[purple_octopus]

This is a good step, but for me, it leaves the big question hanging: will Apple and Microsoft have to license their players to free and open source software authors? The problem is that anti-copying software always comes with a licensing condition that requires implementors to design their players so that users can't modify them. It's like requiring everyone who licenses your internal combustion engine design to weld the hood shut.

Free and open source software (FOSS) -- collectively authored programs like GNU/Linux, Firefox, Sendmail, Apache and VLC -- has proven itself to be an important new way of producing valuable goods and services. From Amazon to Google, from the US military to the Mac OS, everyone who uses computers relies on FOSS to keep them running. What's more, FOSS upsets the dominance of incumbents in the marketplace, letting new entrepreneurs, non-profits, individuals and educational institutions compete with entrenched giants.

But the cornerstone of FOSS is that it should be modifiable by its users. Even though most of us will never write a line of code (no more than most of us will service our car-engines), the ability for all users to choose to understand, modify, improve upon and distribute the software they use is fundamental to FOSS.

Now, given that all anti-copying software requires that users can't modify it -- because you could change the "don't copy this" routine to a "allow this to be copied" routine -- and given that FOSS requires user-modifiability, how will the French Parliament resolve it?

An analogy: Apple iTunes is like a blacksmith who puts a toll-box at the head of a major road. Unless your horse is shod with his shoes, you may not pass. The French Parliament might require Apple to let horses wearing Microsoft shoes to use its road, and that's great -- if you're on horseback.

But if you're in a car, you're screwed. FOSS is an entirely different industrial production system that Apple and Microsoft crippleware can't accommodate -- will the French Parliament outlaw it because of that? Do the blacksmiths get full employment for life, even if it strangles the automobile in its cradle?

http://www.altbergs.net/ccsticker.jpg

FYI -- If you don't include a link (http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/21/france_will_let_msft.html), you run full risk of Content Chick chewing your ass out. I've seen it happen, it's not pretty.

[purple_octopus]

Maybe it was an attempt at an ironic joke...
It would have been a lot funnier if CC had caught it before I said anything. Maybe I should go delete my post. :D

[Duemellon]

I agree Apple has the right to make iPods only compatible with their format.

I agree it's Apple's right to sign exclusive deals with artists to produce on their systems using their format.

I do not agree with Apple having the right to prevent someone else from using their format using a different device or to create media that could be used on their device if they came across the technology through independent & legal technology.

What part of the "format" can you really copyright as being unique anyway? They surely can't prevent people from creating mp3s as that's a common format now. They can't prevent people from making ACCs either. How can they prevent someone from making their devices accept other material if there's a 3rd party or private individual willing to figure it out? Why should they be able to limit their format to only their machine?

It's like forcing someone to only listen to a radio station on a Sanyo, use Tide only in a Whirlpool, or only let tall basketball players legally wear Nike.

[DaHood]

How can they prevent someone from making their devices accept other material if there's a 3rd party or private individual willing to figure it out?
Because of the Digital Millenium Act (http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf) they can.

[Duemellon]

Because of the Digital Millenium Act (http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf) they can.But, I was pointing out the ridic-ness of it all.

It's just stoopid crazy intellectual protectionism leaning in favor of big-money enterprises. The oppression of small-budge inventors is supported by laws. Competition is needed for capitalism. We're changing from capitalism to monopolism.

[slopechz]

But, I was pointing out the ridic-ness of it all.

It's just stoopid crazy intellectual protectionism leaning in favor of big-money enterprises. The oppression of small-budge inventors is supported by laws. Competition is needed for capitalism. We're changing from capitalism to monopolism.
I don't understand why more people don't get this. As much as I would like an IPOD or a Mac, I refuse to buy Apple products for that very reason.

[back2vinyl]

Not true. You can burn the songs onto a CD with NO loss of quality, zero, zip, nada. Anyone can play CD's and they'll sound just as good as your original AAC files. Apple actually went out of their way to allow it, even though the record labels protested.

There is nothing wrong here. France is stupid.

Right. What I'm saying is that France wants Apple to make fairplay available to other vendors who make portable devices so they can play protected ACC files. This law affects Sony's DRM system as well, but since they have no sales to speak of, nobody cares. I personally don't have an issue with how Apple restricts use because everyone knows the limitations when they buy songs off of iTunes. If the terms of use are unacceptable, the music is available on a CD at a traditional store.

Sure, I'd like completely unfettered use of the ACC files I've bought, but I've found the limitations imposed acceptable. However, if I couldn't burn a CD, I'd stop buying music off iTunes store.

[weeone]

But, I was pointing out the ridic-ness of it all.

It's just stoopid crazy intellectual protectionism leaning in favor of big-money enterprises. The oppression of small-budge inventors is supported by laws. Competition is needed for capitalism. We're changing from capitalism to monopolism.
Yeah, I agree. If Apple gets away with "protecting" these files for use only on apple products, it could be used as a precedent for monopolism cases with a much larger impact on the economy.

[DaHood]

I don't understand why more people don't get this. As much as I would like an IPOD or a Mac, I refuse to buy Apple products for that very reason.Bingo. I got caught up in the idea of supporting France on this law because of this. Apple should allow this, but France is out of line in forcing them to do it.
Yeah, I agree. If Apple gets away with "protecting" these files for use only on apple products, it could be used as a precedent for monopolism cases with a much larger impact on the economy.If in fact they do become a monopoly or approach becoming a monopoly then antitrust laws would have to come into effect. I hope they see the light before that happens.

[weeone]

Bingo. I got caught up in the idea of supporting France on this law because of this. Apple should allow this, but France is out of line in forcing them to do it.
It's not out of line for French economy (which is in the toilet as it is).

[DaHood]

It's not out of line for French economy (which is in the toilet as it is).I don't suppose it would help of Apple pulls their business out of France.

[weeone]

I don't suppose it would help of Apple pulls their business out of France.
To be honest, I don't know how that would effect things, but considering the French contribution to technological commerce, I don't think they would want to burn that bridge, right ? What do I know. The door would be wide open for one of Apple's competitors in that case it seems.

[DaHood]

I would like to see DRM gone altogether, but I realize that's asking for too much.

[justmaybetiger]

FYI -- If you don't include a link (http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/21/france_will_let_msft.html), you run full risk of Content Chick chewing your ass out. I've seen it happen, it's not pretty.
I'm greatly surprised I had the coordination to make a post in the first place...

[slopechz]

Stumbled across this today.http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=962882006