Slashdot Mirror
French Parliament Fights iPod and iTunes
f00lforb00l writes "According to an article in New York Times, the French parliament is considering legislation which would require that the iPod also be able to use music from services other than the iTunes Store." From the article: "The outcome of the debate, which began as an update to French copyright law, is far from clear. But taken to one logical conclusion, amendments to the copyright bill could lead Apple, the market leader, to leave the French music business, said Jonathan Arber, a research analyst in London at the technology consultancy Ovum. 'My gut feeling is that Apple will simply pull out of France if these amendments get through,' Mr. Arber said. 'Weighed against breaking their business model for all markets, it doesn't make sense for Apple to continue operating with the iPod and iTunes in France.'" Update: 03/17 15:46 GMT by Z : A previous story covering this topic may also be of interest to you. Sorry, folks.
It should be noted here that Apple have allready pulled the ipod from france due to decibel limits.
However, Apple almost immediately surrendered, limiting the decibels with a firmware update so they could get the French market back again.
My pics.
Well, I'm not really up on this sort of thing, but could not France then take its case to the EU, and petition the EU to bring a similar case?
Pulling out of France might not be too painful, but pulling out of the EU altogether? They're bound to feel that...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Any music store that sells in DRM-free mp3 format is completely compatible with the iPod.
What you mean that the stores won't sell in anything other than locked microsoft formats? How is that Apple's fault?
James P. Barrett
the ipod can use all kinds of music from all kinds of places other than the itunes music store. it just can't play other store's DRM. talk to the other stores and have them release their music as non-DRM mp3 or AAC and the ipod will play it just fine.
MORTAR COMBAT!
EXACTLY - if sellers were willing to actually TRUST the people who purchase their music, instead of forcing DRM down their throats, this wouldn't be an issue. Apple's DRM is slightly less obtrusive than others out there, but DRM sucks, period. ANYONE could sell mp3s or non-drm'ed AAC files and they would play on the ipod just fine. The only music I've EVER purchased in digital format was from the band Manowar, which sells un-drm'ed mp3s directly from its website.
So let me get this straight. They want to dissallow breaking DRM via DMCA like measures, but force companies to open up their DRM for anyone to use. It seems like some sort of bad compromise is being attemped between having DMCA like measures and making sure there is healthy competition.
The real question is why have DMCA like measures in the first place? They don't stop content from being pirated anyhow, and just assist the industry in nickel and diming us.
This sounds like a government solution to a government created problem, as Apple hasn't done anything to my knowledge to abuse their position. If the government is protecting DRM from being reverse engineered, they are the ones screwing up fair use and turning the market lopsided, and Apple is perfectly within their rights under the law.
Call me a jackass, but if Apple pulls out of France, can't people still easily get iPods and iTunes? I mean, with the EU, goods move fairly freely (I think) across borders, and people move between countries often. Traveling from France to a neighboring nation isn't like trying to get the 2000 miles from the tip of Florida to Canada. So won't the French, who want an iPod, just roll through the Chunnel, and buy one?
And iTunes works with all music formats except the MS, so loading the things would be fairly easy....
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
That said, this current issue is not an issue with Apple. The iPods only major restriction that if the file contain DRM, then the only DRM that will work is Apple's. The other major restriction, unfortunately, is the OGG files must be converted to supported format, but I doubt France is taking umbrage with this.
So the real problem is DRM, and the people responsible for the DRM are the record labels. They have pushed this solution, and they have help create these near monopolies. Ultimately it is up to them to relinquish some control. The consensus outline of the solution appear to be well known. A royalty tax on a variety of products and services. The royalties will be paid based on tracking data, just like radio. It will be harder, but with good watermarks and random sampling of the P2P networks, it would work. The source will still be CDs and online, with CDs often the better choice in terms of value.
Apple could play a role in this, but building such tracking into itunes. The labels could be more happy if Apple tacked another dime on the price and submitted to the central royalty bank. The only downside is that this might open the market up to independents.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
1) Interoperability must be assured by the providers and reverse-engineering toward this goal is authorized. (Article 7.)
2) A publisher/editor can force an artist to accept that his/her creation will be published with DRMs. ("vivendi" amendment, actually, four different amendments)
As you see, we have fucked up politicians here too. I would say we have slightly less corruption from the lobbies but far more incompetence.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Most people don't see it as being locked in. They see it as actually getting what they wanted out of the device.
I've known several people who just couldn't figure out how to muddle through ripping their own CDs, or fighting wth an MP3 player that they just couldn't figure out, and which either had no control software, or crappy stuff. They weren't interested in figuring out how to download through peer-to-peer, and weren't interested in pirating music.
For those people, what they're paying for is a working user experience that does what they want. They're not interested in the geek perspective of "I could buy an MP3 player cheaper, and I'll be l337 cuz I got no DRM". They couldn't care less about ogg-freaking-vorbis and how it's unencumbered. They don't want to know about the formats of music, the bitrates, or the technical issues about which lossy compression is theoretically better. They want to hear music and not arm-wrestle with technology to get it.
You don't like the iPod? Fine, don't buy one. What Apple does is an exceptional job at is giving people a good user experience that you generally don't have to muddle with. You may pay a premium for it compared to a DIY solution, but if you can't DIY, the cost is worth it. Because saving $50 to find out you can't make it work, is not actually a savings. I knew several people who returned other players after Christmas to get an iPod variant.
I play my iPod shuffle 4-6 hours a day at work. I find the iTunes software to be amazingly easy and uncluttered. Sure, I rip my own MP3s from CD, so I'm not stuck with their proprietary format. I'm thinking of buying a larger iPod, or a second shuffle to keep more data with me music with me for longer trips.
The fact of the matter is, for those people who find it provides real value, the iPod family and iTunes are a good set of products. That's why they're so successful. They're not successful because they're hyped -- they're hyped because they're successful and people want them.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Well...I'm french, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt.
:D
My opinion is that pulling out of the france market :
1) is a serious blow : 2% of a market where you are the world leader must represent an awfull lot of money. The kind of money that would make sales/marketing people salivate.
2) Surrendering a country means, letting the competition gain a foothold/strong position where you (ipod/itunes) had a near-monopoly.
Do you think, you could re-enter the market at a later point ?
3) Brand recognition. If you stop selling ipod/itunes songs in france, will the french still think of Apple as cool ? Mmmh, maybee, maybee not...
4) You'll have to open the ipod anyway....a few people (I did) are buying alternative mp3 player because thay want to play open formats, have more interoperability...People won't like the fact that the music they bought can't be played on other places than their ipod (they just don't realize it yet).
Despite looks, a product that can't do half what the concurence does, can't be that cool...
5) would be funny to see what the EU would do about it (Yet, I'm still waiting to see what the EU does to microsoft...I fancy seeing microsoft have to pay a million $ a day till it behaves, it would be fun and a good lesson for others (rich people/corporations shouldn't be above rules)).
And I strongly feel too that :
Though they had a good start and people everywhere loves their product, I highly doubt that Apple will remain the uncontested leader in selling mp3 players/mp3 songs. Other big players/corporations (sony, microsoft, the music industry...) are interested in a (big) share of the juicy market and, one way of the other, they'll get what they want.
When the hipe around the ipod dies, what next ?
There is always a next big thing, you know
Just my 0.02 euros
So I guess the latest iPod killer is... the French?
My opinion would be no different. It's ridiculous and stupid of the French to force a company to make its product interoperate with other products just for the hell of it. A company has every right to sell a product, then sell a product or service that works with that product. What, is France going to force Microsoft to sell Office for Linux now? Or Halo 2 for the Gamecube? Does HBO now have to air "The Sopranos" on Fox? Does Sony have to sell XBox 360 games?
If Apple was actually abusing its monopoly the way Microsoft did in the 90s--e.g., punishing retailers who sold competing products like with Microsoft's coercive OEM deals--then this would have merit. But Apple hasn't done that (and doesn't need to, they're #1 fair and square). You're totally free to buy a competing product and service.
This is just the French hating Apple for being yet another American company taking over their precious little square of culture on the planet.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Sacre-bleu! You mean I could get fired for being incompetent? Zees eez an outrage!
At the risk of going off-topic.... It's even worse than that. Under the new law, you can only get fired if you are under the age of 26, have worked less than 2 years, and are incompetant. What's hilarious about the situation is the law was passed because companies refuse to hire people because they cannot fire them... so there are no jobs. Unemployment among people under 26 is at 23%. The government tries to give the kids a chance to prove themselves that would make companies eager to hire them.. and the kids riot...
The Law of Unintended Consequences has wreaked havoc in France with their unfirable 35-hour workforce. Unemployment a problem? Make it so you can't fire people! It sounds great, but like most of economics, something that seems good at level one does the exact opposite at level two. So unemployment has skyrocketed.
This is not about Apple breaking the law, this is about France passing a new law to specifically force Apple to do something they desire. It's like a town passing a law that says Bob has to stop wearing that stupid hat.
It's more like France passing a pro-consumer law to prevent vendor lock-in. Oh wait, it's not like that, it is that.
(Note: contrary to 99% of the people answering here, I read the proposed law, as well as the debates on this text.)
(Warning: What follows is precise fact. If you're waiting for the usual mentally retarded "yaah yaah the French are retarded" banter or the usual jokes about the "cultural exception", please read other messages.)
In 2001, the European Union adopted a directive called EUCD which, following from a 1996 WIPO treaty, required member states to legally protect DRM "technical protection measures". Concretely, the EU asked France to enact appropriate penalties against people circumventing DRMs.
In 2003, a law was drafted. Due to various circumstances, the law only came to Parliament in December 2005. The proposed law made circumventing DRMs, or even helping in circumvent DRMs, a felony punishable by up to 3 years in prison and/or up to a 300,000 EUR fine. The law was publicly justified by the need to protect the rights of the artists.
One major criticism is that the law and some proposed amendments could in essence endanger any "free software" capable of playing music, video or even DRM-encumbered text (PDF, anyone?) because it could be argued that giving the source code of a DRM was a help in circumventing it. Not everybody wishes to risk a maximal sentence of 3 years in prison for free software.
In December, the National Assembly famously adopted an amendment, the first in a series making p2p explicitly legal provided that Internet users paid a flat fee, against the wishes of the Minister of Culture. This started instant mayhem as the Minister tried to herd the Assembly back in his direction.
In March, Parliament began discussing the text again. The directive imposed DRMs in order to safeguard the rights of the artists. Parliament then voted for amendments that said that DRMs were ok and protected, but provided that they were interoperable, in order to allow concurrence in the marketplace of software and hardware players.
What this NYTimes article shows is that this bill was, in reality, not about the rights of the artists. It was about enacting criminal penalties for people who made concurrent products capable of reading the same contents. Now, some of those who pushed for the bill (makers of DRMs) are whining that their attempt backfired.
To be blunter: some companies made DRMs, and requested heavy felony penalties against circumventers. Well, they have now been served obligations of compatibility in exchange for some ability to prosecute circumventers. That's life.
Ah, by the way: in theory at least, French law prohibits "linked sales" to consumers - that is, tying the sale of a product to the sale of some other product, though this has wide exceptions.