Slashdot Mirror
France To Force iTunes to Open to Other Players?
JordanL writes "It appears that France is pushing through a law that some feel may force Apple to open iTunes to other players. From the article: 'Under a draft law expected to be voted in parliament on Thursday, consumers would be able to legally use software that converts digital content into any format. It would no longer be illegal to crack digital rights management -- the codes that protect music, films and other content -- if it is to enable to the conversion from one format to another.'"
It appears that France is pushing through a law that some feel may force Apple to open iTunes to other players.
French = Freedom. I think that's already been established by the US Congress.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
The article only mentions that Apple would have to allow people to convert their songs into other formats. Does that also apply to Microsoft and other companies? If it applies to all digital media, then this law will effectively end all digital rights management!
I wish I had access to the draft of the bill in question (along with a good English translation) -- the article suggests several things which may or may not be true.
One of these suggestions is that Apple may have to stop running iTMS France in order to avoid compliance. However, it also states that other online stores would have to provide songs in a form that allows them to be played on the iPod.
Now I'm assuming that the primary music labels from outside of France would prefer to simply no longer license their works for digital download in France than allow providers to distribute music in an unencumbered format (such as MP3). Which would mean that the only way French law could permit other online music stores to provide music in iPod format would be for them to be allowed to use Fairplay.
This would mean that either Apple would be forced to license Fairplay to any online music store in France, or these companies will be permitted to reverse-engineer it. They would likewise need to be able to access a users Fairplay key.
In which case, the only way Apple may be able to avoid this whole mess would be to pull not only iTMS out of France, but the iPod as well. And I don't see Apple doing this.
The only way I see around this would be for all of the online music stores in France -- Apple's iTMS included -- to come up with a common, France-specific music DRM format. And while the added flexability would be of benefit to French digital music consumers, I'm not sure if having nation-specific DRM formats is going to be all that great of an idea.
Yaz.
This will more seriously affect services like Napster that work on the subscription basis.
Why keep up your subscription if you can download all the music you want and then keep it .
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Fnac is a quite powerfull culture oriented retail group that has setup their own music file format. The point is that FNAC is one of the biggest music product seller in France. It has been proven by testers that Fnac salespersons were "not pushing at all" the Apple products and trying to push the products that were compatible with the online Fnac music store !
The law is just adding more anti-trust principles on digital music, so that corporate trust can not force people to by their own product and can not force the the people to by only at their shop.
Thanks for the background info. The intent here sounds good, but I'm still confused as to what Fnac would be forced to do. Offer non-DRM AAC or MP3 versions of songs customers purchase from Fnac, which the copyright holders won't let them do? Offer FairPlay-encrypted DRM versions, which Apple won't let them do? Link to the iTMS?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
You're misunderstanding Mr. Guez. He is against the law (note his affiliation), and he is arguing that if this law is passed, ordinary people will have the ability to illegally send the non-DRM'd content around the world, and thus Apple would close its French iTunes store. To him, this is a reason why the law should not be passed. In the original story, the previous paragraph explained this.
Alright, yes, if this law passes, it will become easier to remove DRM encryption, because the tools to do so will become legal and therefore the tools will become more readily available. So, sure, it would become easier to illegally redistribute copyrighted materials. I can't see why Apple would close the French iTMS for this reason, though. If France actually made it legal to redistribute the songs, then Apple might have a problem.
Short quotes from wire stories should not be taken out of context to criticize the story's author.
I don't believe I took anything out of context. I did quote the previous paragraph as well.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
France is a democracy which means that the people are the boss.
Actually France is a republic (the "Fifth Republic", to be exact), though many would argue the goverment is actually socialist (less so now than fifteen years ago, but much more so than the U.S.)
Yes, I'm nitpicking. But France and the U.S. are not democracies and the people do make the laws. (if it were to go to a public vote, sharing copyrighted mp3's as well as many other vices would most likely be legalized in any democracy.)
BTW, France is certainly not a "free" country, in that citizens don't have guaranteed rights that Americans supposedly have (like rights to a fair trial and freedom of speech.) Of course that's purely on paper, in actual practice the French have much more latitude to "go against the grain" and act out against the government (both foreign and domestic) as well as multinational corporations than their American counterparts... Which speaks more to national character than government policy. The French see themselves as rebels, and that's a good thing.
From my (admittedly weak) understanding of the law, it means that Fnac would have to offer their songs in a format that iPods can play as well, since iPods don't support the WMA format. Since Apple won't let them have FairPlay, that means a nonencrypted MP3 or AAC format.
There seems to be some confusion in the article between iTunes and the iPod. The law would not affect just Apple, but all online music retailers and digital music players. But since Apple is the leader in both, it gets singled out.
My guess is that Apple may be forced by the recording industry to close iTMS France (after all, Steve Jobs has gone on record as saying that DRM isn't the answer), but eventually returning after a backlash from French artists and music purchasers.
I can add to this that the DADSVI is making very angry open source supporters, most of little artists, consumers association, ect.. out here in France, as it's would make DRM protections impossible to circumvent without the risk of an infringment of about 750 Euros (users of VLC or any media players using DevCSS would have some serious problems...).
But it also aim to permit interoperability (and you see here the problem : how can we make DRMised contents to be interoperable, as DRMs are made to stop interoperability ? )
At first vote in december, an amendment was passed to permit P2P use but the government had forced the parliement to discuss it again, and now this part of the law is totaly 6 feets under... But now, use of P2P to download copyrighted music/films/whatever could cost you 38 euros.
Last but not least, copy exceptions for research and teaching wouldn't be totally permitted...
Added to this the fact that the minister Donnedieu de Vabre (nicknamed "launderer minister", "the sinister of inculture" or "Ptipimousse") want this law to pass without been discussed correctly and tried to make a propaganda site (lestelechargements.com, using Dotclear but at a cost of... 180000 euros, and no real possibility to comment or discuss !), and you could understand why some of us are very angry here...
(sorry for the possible fault, but I'm french and mad about all of this, so it doesn't help ^^)
Actually, you're not even close to what it is. This is an amendment (dunno if it's an english word) to a law they are trying to pass, very close to the DMCA. This is there to shut up the people so they look quite positive overall with the entire thing. They they'll remove it just before getting it voted and it'll pass without the crap you're talking about.
Don't be mistaken, the music industry has a big influence in France as well, and they'll not give up on that one. Proof is the damn thing was supposed to be voted in December but the parliament is opposing much more resistance than the majors suspected.
--
XviD review
Write boring code, not shiny code!
If people want iPods and their DRM'ed music format, then I say good luck to all parties concerned - Apple have identified a marketplace for such products & customers are prepared to pay for them.
Personally, although I use an MP3 player quite regularly, I won't buy an iPod because I won't be locked into using a proprietary music format using proprietary software on Windows only - I'd much rather have a less-featured MP3/OGG player that I can mount as a new drive in either Windows or Linux and copy across the tracks I rip from my music CDs.
The point I'm trying to make is that this is entirely a consumer decision, not legislative. It's up to the potential customer to keep him/herself informed before making any purchases and if you don't like certain aspects of a product, then don't buy it - it's that simple.
At this moment in time, I can rip any DVD or CD I currently own to play on whatever device I like and I'm therefore perfectly happy with the "fair use" I get from my movies & CDs - if what I am doing is against the law by circumventing DRM then so be it; if & when I'm caught doing it, I'll happily fight my case but my personal feeling is that it would never stand up in court where I own a legal copy of the original media.
By allowing governments to take control of this kind of issue leaves them open, at a later stage, to corporate lobbying & bribery. Plus I don't want the "Nanny State" removing me of even more of my own decision-making process as a well-informed, intelligent citizen.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
How is this any different from any other closed proprietary system?
Im not saying im against it, im all for it. But if they do this, shouldnt they
also say MS must allow office for example to run on any OS?
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.