Slashdot Mirror
Apple Defeats RIAA and France In Same Day
gnat writes "The subheading of the CNN article says it all: 'Four largest record companies defeated in behind-the-scenes battle to charge different prices for songs; downloads still 99 cents'. This comes the same day as France backed down on the posturing over demanding iPod interoperability." From the France article: "Apple, which did not return repeated phone calls, and other DRM holders doing business in France, are likely elated. While the law must still be voted on, the alterations in the legislation signify willingness by some in the French government to honor the rights of companies that don't wish to share their technology with competitors. Senate debate on the bill begins Thursday."
*sighs*
Why didn't the submitter go with the more trollish (and lets face it, the comments will decsend to this level in a few seconds) headline the inquirer took: French committee surrenders on DRM law
Let's all remember that while we would normally blindly follow Apple's lead in this, it is a Free software issue as well as being an Apple (yay) vs France (boo) issue.
Like Microsoft (with word documents, SMB, etc), or Adobe (with encrypted PDFs), Apple should not persecute F/OSS users for attempting to interoperate with their products.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Being a bass player, I'm concerned about what's left over for the musician. Very concerned.
Weren't all the commercials and marketing schemes out there to make me feel guilty for the musician when I illegally share music? Perhaps they should have been showing me pictures of an executive in his Lexus
My work here is dung.
Apple settled the price thing a day earlier, on Monday, actually.
/ 2314248
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/01
apple still get to rip off the uk
99 cents 79 pence
we should be paying 55p a track in the uk.
France has a long history of industrial protectionism. Their entire televesion system was designed to be different from everyone else's to promote their local industry.
So, as much as I dislike DRM, I think theirs was just such a move.
You can't take the sky from me...
Can we get Apple to deal with Iran as well...?
in the UK at 17.5 percent which is included in the 79p. The difference is nowhere near as extreme as you make out.
I wonder if Apple can deal with all the Poodles in Paris as well and their poop... ugh.. its a mine field in this city! If you want to share some Frenchly Annoying to anyone, you should check out www.sayitfromfrance.com quite funny! And you can share some poodle cards with friends (or enemies) :-)
I know that it isn't fashionable to not cheer on /. when Apple wins something, but in this case they clearly won against consumer rights, so maybe, just maybe, this time around we shouldn't cheer for Apple.
/. blurb, head over to arstechnica:5 .html
...
For a very good overview about the subject and a much better article than the one in the
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060501-671
"The legislation in question originally contained consumer-friendly provisions that would force technology companies to make their DRM schemes interoperable. This would have a potent effect on the dominance of Apple and iTunes, of course, since the Cupertino company has so far proved unwilling to license its Fairplay technology to anyone else. The non-interoperable nature of Fairplay has been crucial to the success of Apple's online music store, which has leveraged the popularity of the iPod to become the biggest seller of digital downloads on the Internet.
* Previously, "information needed for interoperability" covered "technical documentation and programming interfaces needed to obtain a copy in an open standard of the copyrighted work, along with its legal information." Now this has been changed to "technical documentation and programming interfaces needed to obtain a protected copy of a copyrighted work." But a "protected" version of the work can't be played back in a different player, which means interoperability won't be attained with this clause.
* Previously, the only condition for receiving information needed for interoperability was to meet the cost of logistics of delivering the information. Now, anyone wanting to build a player will have to take a license on "reasonable and non discriminatory conditions, and an appropriate fee." When using information attained under such a license, you will have to "respect the efficiency and integrity of the technical measure."
* DRM publishers can demand the retraction of publication of the source-code for interoperable, independent software, if it can prove that the source-code is "harmful to the security and the efficiency of the DRM."
Jobs: *hands fold together in front of him* Excellent...
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
99c ... good, the record companies don't get their foot in the door to use price to play games with popularity.
... bad, instead of being a law that would have been a small wall aaginst the rising tide of DRM, it's become part of that flood.
Franch law
Not everything that's good for APple is good for Apple's customers.
So how is this news again?
This isn't the first time, nor likely the last.
This may be great for apple. Yah. Rah. W00t.
But I don't see how any kind of DRM lock-in is a win for the consumer. Even from lovable, fluffy, Apple.
Apple = Closed restrictive standard. France = Forced interoprability. (good for us bad for apple) Music companys = Greedy. Apple = defending there price point. (seen by many as "defending the consumers") Um.. is slashdot trying to blow up fanboys' heads by putting this in one story? If so good.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
I for one welcome the victories of Apple. Perhaps now the fruity one will help us prevail in our long struggle against the EVIL Gatesballmonstermicrosoft!! Down with tyranny!! Jobs will be our V FOR VENDETTA!! REMEMBER REMEMBER THE 3rd OF MAY!
But seriously, Apple's ethics are far and away better than most American corporations. Bushy et al should be proud that Apple is on the case and PUNISH that nasty bedwetter Gates and company. Nasty leetle Microserfs.
Any Apple fanboy defending the company's refusal to open its format is a hypocrite. They are the same people that bitch about Microsoft keeping their Office documents closed. The biased on this site has become nausiating.
was that in return for France's cooperation, Apple is changing it's name to Pomme.
Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."
Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country ever to lose two wars when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.
Thirty Years' War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
War of Devolution: Tied; Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War: Tied.
War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie. Deluded Frogophiles the world over label the period as the height of French Military Power.
War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.
American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting".
French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.
The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
WWII: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with Dien Bien Flu.
Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare -"We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Eskimos.
War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.
Oops,..make that Groundkeeper Willie (source: Wikipedia)
US version of DOOM 3 is much better but I never managed to finish the "Iraq" level. Had to enter the Dick code to play "Iran".
Everyone pirate Alizee music videos so that they have more money for tissues!
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/Digital Music News
Paul Resinkoff has a very good commentary on Apple's negotiations.
Snip:
Looking through the business lens of Apple, any other result would be foolish. Apple is ultra-protective of its consumer, and that approach has resulted in rich dividends. The major labels, on the other hand, have a highly contentious and acrimonious relationship with many music fans and artists. Sure, generalizations can be dangerous, though the characterizations are not too far off. And why would Apple want to take cues from the labels, who have alienated a large number of buyers while stumbling in the digital transition? Jobs feels strongly that a uniform price point is the path towards customer satisfaction, and nothing is going to disrupt the sacred iPod+iTunes cow. Certainly not the labels, especially following waves of consumer adulation and affirmation for the Apple digital strategy.
I read this guys site on a regular basis. Always a good source of interesting news and commentary on Digital Music...as for my take. In the end, until then Labels stop acting like they are the reason music exists and become more of a service for artists they will continue thier slow death spiral. The music and artists will always be there so will the fans. Do we really need a label to make that connection anymore? $.99 dowloads across the board is perfect in my books. And an advantage for the independant artist and small labels that service them. Higher percentage of that $.99 goes directly to the artist. That is why the labels want special treatment. To differentiate themselves from independents. Why would an established artist release to a major and get $.02 of that $0.99 as opposed to $.72? That is the real danger labels see in the future, that they will be become a disadvantage to the artist. Though right now major labels still have huge marketing budgets and "star" making power.
But that is changing.
Watch...I will connect you directly with artists from SE Wisconsin, all on or soon to be on iTunes, no major label needed and this alone will generate a few sales for the following bands:
Soul Amp (mine) http://soul-amp.com/
The Dammitheads http://ourdamnwebsite.com/
Hayward Williams http://haywardwilliams.com/
Hayward is not on iTunes yet but is slated to be soon.
"War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe."
Germans? GERMANS? That'd be the dread Das Qaeda at work again, presumably. And as for surrendering to Muslims, that would a> presuppose that the french were actually at war with an entire religion and b> hadn't actually recently enacted laws that those of us who are Shoulder-to-Shoulder with the great Satan daren't for fear of offending our muslim population (cf, hijabs)
"Ja, eez dat s'posed to be hard or somezing? Vee defeated zem in like 20 minutes wiz pillows unt a squirting gun"
But seriously folks, we shouldn't be celebrating Apple's win over anyone who wants interoperability. No wonder Apple wants to see the headlines lumped together with the RIAA. Like "Captain America foils evil plot by Dr. Doom [then punches the retarded 10-year old next door]".
Not cool, Jorbs, not cool...
Just google "french military victories" and "feel lucky"...
That kind of anti-Apple talk won't play well around these parts. No matter how right you are.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
Let me be clear: Apple negotiated with record labels, not the RIAA
Saying Apple beat the RIAA is like saying a prosecuter beat the NRA when it convicted someone of possessing an illegal firearm.
We so want a digital music boogey man, we give the RIAA far too much power and credit for things it has nothing to do with. Look, I don't like them anymore than anyone else here, but understand something, the RIAA doesn't negotiate record deals. They don't sign artists, they don't set the prices of music. They earn their money by colelcting fees from record companies, not selling music.
Even though Apple now seems fasionable around this parts (theres no day that at least post doesn't appear about Apple, and i really don't see the point of having posts about new Apple comercials) one thing that seems to be missing is how Apple likes to control what their user base does.
:-) ). I would even go as far to say that Mac OSX is easier to use then Linux (or other Free Software OS) by the regular user.
Granted, Mac OSX can be called a real operating system (instead of a glorified window manager like it was in past), and it is even better than Windows (well, that part isn't really that hard to accomplish is it?
Nevertheless this issue with France made clear that Apple doesn't want their products to be used with other products. They go as far as easing interoparability of their systems with other products, but not the other way around. Even accepting the argument that their products give you more freedom of use because you don't loose time configuring a lot of things or trying to understand how they work, this is as long as you work with their products as Apple intended them to be used (and this can even change along time, as the EULA of the iTunes Music store clearly states).
And i find the argument of "stated promoted piracy" laughable, to say the least. I would love to see someone from Apple saying with a straight face that all the iPods out there only carry "legally purchased music"...
the rights of companies that don't wish to share their technology with competitors.
We are talking about proprietary formats here, remember ?
What is next ? "Apple's right to own software patents ?"
Plus, the French law has been changed in senate. It now no longer requires interoperability, which was the only GOOD thing this pack of law had (from a OSS point of view)
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Well, I suppose Apple hasn't broken the law. . . Unless you count breaking a legal agreement with Apple Corps. Thrice.
The 4 cent Apple figure is PROFIT, while the record label share they give is GROSS. After all the expenses that go into making a record, and all the people that get paid out of that share, i doubt the record label profit is much higher than 4 cents.
Geez, I never thought I'd see a misleading article attacking record labels on Sladshdot...............
"Who hasn't defeated France?"
That would be the British, when the French were helping us fight for our freedom fuckface.
Jobs: "The french aren't backing down?"
Secretary: "No, Mr. Jobs."
Jobs: "Release the hounds."
*insert image of rabid, leashed lawyers snarling and running on all fours towards a jumbo jet labeled "Air France"*
How does this effect Microsoft in the EU rulings, because if I remember right, France was a big pusher for Microsoft to open it's technology.
the songs still cost $1.00 each, not $0.09 each.
That France Surrenders?
a man, a plan, a canal, panama
war against Vietnam:Lost ;-)
war against Iraq: Lost (twice)
war on poverty:Lost
war on drugs:Lost
war on terror:Lost
In less than 60 years... lol
BTW, during WWII USA didn't came to France to help the french but to protect themself from : 1) the Nazis 2) the Communists... This makes a subtle difference.
War in Indochina
So how did the American master-race get on in Indochina?
All this whining just because they said no to your Iraq
adventure -- perhaps you imperialist wankers should listen
to them more often
Wow...you seem to have a quite weird/twisted view of european history...
:D
;))
:D
:D and the bretons). I hope you are thriving/'ll thrive in the future and I am/would be delighted if we cooperate/would cooperate in the future.
> French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.
I actually found this line funny...but....hey, I'm french !
As a lover of ancient times, I will use this opportunity to greet our nice and friendly italian neighbours (that were a little abused in this topic), whose history I really admire (the roman republic/empire, it's 1000 years of history, it's impact on modern society).
I send greetings to some our other friends in europe : the germans (you rock !, it has been a happy ride togther these past 50 years in the EU) and the citizens of the united kingdoms (well, it hasn't really been as happy a ride together in the EU...but...you know what, we love you all the same...you have your good points too
Mmmmh...looks like we lost a lot of war in the past....mmmhh...
Oh well, whatever...sometimes losing is better than winning
Though I have great respect for napoleon's genius (among all the things he did, quite a few of 'em were done right),
I'm actually happy that he lost in the end and that the European countries aren't anymore under a french hegemony (can you imagine the whole europe having to eat smelly cheese, eat frogs and snails ? )
Same thing goes for our ex-colonies... As a french, I'm quite happy to see you independant : It's the way it should be (don't tell the corsicans
Show me the legal agreement that they've broken.
Oh, wait, you can't. Because it's confidential and outside of a few leaks, has never been released. So really, you're just speculating.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
And if you've watched Stephen Colbert's recent White House press dinner speech, you'll note the only person in the room who had the balls to do that was a French descendant.
It's all sort of silly, anyway... Germans and French share the same common ancestry. The history of warfare in general is that everyone loses... look at the American wars throughout history. We lost most of them. Korea? Vietnam? Moghidishu? We didn't do jack in WW1 and in WW2 we entered the European theater late and fought against outnumbered Hitler Youth and reserve troops while the great bulk of German troops, especially the most veteran and well equipped divisions, were defeated by Russia.
Anyway, point being, it's fun to laugh at France, but maybe this is more of a story of how corporations exert political control than anything.
Funny stuff. But you should give credit where credit is due, ya cheese eating plagiarist. http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
Apple didn't have a choice. You either include DRM or the RIAA won't deal with you. If the RIAA won't deal with you then you don't have an online music store that's going to make any money.
Apple didn't change the "rules" about how you use your music. You can go to the store, buy a CD and do whatever the heck you want with it just like you always could. Now if you buy DRM'd music from Apple's online store then there are some rules in place, but they are among the must user friendly out there. You can share your music with other PC's on your home network. Granted there is a limit, but the average consumer doesn't have 5 PC's. If you make some kind of mistake and authorize too many PC's and can't deauthorize one or more of them for whatever reason then you do have the ability to reset your authorizations. You can burn the files to CD as many times as you want. There is a limit to the number of times you can burn a play list that contains DRM's music. I believe that limit is 10, but if you need to burn more than that the solution is pretty easy. Use another program to burn additional copies of the CD. Alternatively you could delete the play list and recreate it. DRM is a fact of life forced on Apple by the RIAA. If you don't like the rules, go buy the CD instead. Apple offers a service. You can get only the tracks you want, almost instantly, at $0.99 cents a track and in exchange for that service you agree to some rules. They don't force you to buy their music.
Apple didn't sue the students for posting rumors. Apple sued the student for knowingly soliciting and publishing trade secrets and profiting from it. Think Secret does sell advertising on it's website and does turn a profit. California is one of approximately 44 or 45 states that have adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. That statute makes it wrongful to acquire or to publish without authorization information you know or have a reasonable basis to know is a trade secret. I don't agree with their tactics but to say that Apple simply sued a student for posting rumors is a vast oversimplification made for the purposes of furthering your argument.
A company acting in it's own self interest so it can turn a profit? Blasphemy! I know, let's do away with all private and public companies and let the central government plan everything to do away with this evil notion known as "profits". Oh wait, that's been tried several times and each and every time it's been tried it's failed, innocent people have died and human rights have been trampled on. Not that pure unregulated capitalism is any better, I'll take regulated capitalism with social safety nets in which companies and people are mostly free to ... gasp ... act in their own self interest and try and turn a profit and where consumers are free if they don't like a particular company to .... gasp ... not buy their products.
What do you think about the recent Apple events?
1. We surrender! ************* 99%
2. Eat this, RIAA! ************ 1%
3. CowboyNeal 0%
C'mon guys, you can do better than that.
war against Vietnam:Won every battle until tiring of the filthy country
war against Iraq: Won Winning
war on poverty:No Decision
war on drugs:Standstill
war on terror:Winning
Um, not quite, but close.
The earliest copyright-type of protection I know of is the Stationer's Log, which was used in England in Shakespeare's day, and it existed to protect publishers against other publishers. A publisher would buy a manuscript from a writer, and then register it in the Log, so that another publisher couldn't then publish their own version of it. The author had pretty much no rights whatsoever, but there was protections for the author in other ways. This was a time where most authors, poets, etc. were supported by wealthy patrons.
Around the time of the American Revolution there seems to be a change in the way copyright-style protections are being considered - the focus moves to the artist or creator, rather than the publisher. If you look at the American Constitution, there's a section that has the original version of this in the United States (I'm not sure how it manifests itself in Britain and Europe), and it's a limited span. This is very progressive for its day, as there's still patronage going on. The important thing in my mind is the recognition of the creator's rights to their work, something taken for granted in other industries.
Now, as time goes on and patronage disappears, the copyright span becomes longer, and this is logical, if you think about it. Without patronage, all that is left to support the artist is the artist's work. Controversy over copyright span after death aside, if you look at the Berne Convention just as a document outlining creator's rights, it really is quite logical and adaptive, and suitable to the here and now.
(Please note, I'm not talking about the DMCA here. The Berne Convention is quite old and fine-tuned, and it shows. It's a very elegant and logical document. The DMCA is brand new, trying to deal with new technologies that the legislators are still coming to grips with, and it shows too. Given time, I think it may develop into a very good piece of legislation that fits the technology, but it's not there yet by a long way.)
In my mind, the big problem right now isn't the creator's rights, but how they have been co-opted. It's not so big an issue in print publication, but look at who actually owns the rights to music and film. The film studios and record labels have basically co-opted the creator's rights by getting the artists to sign their rights away, and then exploiting those rights, cutting out the creators in the process. In many ways, it's a situation where what should be a just and fair system has been co-opted and abused beyond belief.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
In the old scheme of things, there was great profit in making great hit singles. The hit singles sold the albums, and got the airtime. This has been the death of variety in music, and imho here is where a lot of the responsibility for the declining cd sales lies.
I think that flat charging for music sounds great, it actually gives an incentive to music producers to make good quality albums. After all, selling the whole album will give a lot more money than just selling the hit single.
Is this deliberate by apple or just a side effect of their .99c marketing?
You have cited the SECAM standard as an example of "industrial protectionism".
... c'm'on, every single gov would preffer their own industry to succeed ;-)
I suggest you to read the SECAM history :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SECAM
SÉCAM development predates PAL.
So I am affraid your post was only "french-bashing" ! Yet and again...
And even if it was pushed for "national pride" reason, who can blame them ? I mean, read the story about Concorde at JFK or the A380 story about US airport beeing reluctant
Until now there was no software patent in France, but thanks to US and some europe software giants we are about to "evolve" to be in the same dirt US are : joy-of-pattent-everything (which includes joy-of-beeing-a-lawyer subsystem).
Bravo!
Another cheese-eating Brit
War^H^H^HPolice action against North Korea - tie.
War against Grenada - win
War against Panama - win
War against Somalia - we got "tired of the filthy country"
War against Taliban in Afghanistan - win (well, for at least the 25 percent or so of the country we control)
War against Germany/Italy/Japan - win, with the assistance of the french...
and so on
Almost new. Never been fired. Been dropped once.
Please remain calm, change is sometimes good.
++good, infact.
03 05 06 bb speech malreported slashdot rectify.
Why shouldn't Apple keep control of their encryption scheme? It exists exactly so they can exert a little control on how the music is used. I'm not saying the intent is right, but insofar as the RIAA and the music licensors wanted it, it works.
To put it another way, Fairplay belongs to Apple, while the music you purchase belongs to you; the CD format belongs to Philips, while the music CD you purchase belongs to you.
GPL Deconstructed
should be '99 Problems' by Jay-Z.
.99 at the old' ITMS.
Still
--pete
I am legally prevented from writing, distributing or using Free Software that can play music encoded with Apple's Fairplay DRM. Therefore it is a Free Software issue. It may be one that you don't care about, but it is one. That said, Free Software and DRM Software are inherently incompatible as DRM is an encryption scheme that requires you to both widely distribute the key and keep it secret at the same time. The only way to do this is by obscuring the key in software or hardware. Therefore, the only way to implement DRM as Free Software and follow the letter of the law, is if the keys are in hardware, and there is no way to do so while following the spirit of the law. So the only solution to the Free Software issue is no DRM.
:)
It is also a free market issue - unlike most other media formats and DRM schemes (CSS, HDMI, WMA) which can be licensed by any party under RAND terms, Fairplay is not available for license. This is helping Apple to create a monopoly, by sheltering it from competition due to legal restrictions, rather than basing it's success solely on the merit of the product (which is does have).
Lastly Microsoft didn't get to be a monopoly (in it's OS) through illegal means. Like all other OSes at the time, they lived and died with the system it was written for. The IBM PC had the advantages of people wanting to use the same machine as at work and later of low costs due to commoditization. The other PC's couldn't compete with this, and thus died. Microsoft rose to dominance because the IBM PC rose to dominance. Everything else (even their very real illegal acts) is noise.
Frankly, I have always thought our antitrust laws were pretty stupid. We give companies huge amount of anti-competitive powers through "IP", and practically unrestricted mergers, and then wait until they inevitably become monopolies (or oligopolies) to enforce a bunch of hollow antitrust laws that do little more than waist time in court. Why wait until someone is a monopoly to start caring about promoting a free competitive market?
Lastly, and most importantly, it is a consumers rights issue. If I have legally obtained documents, I will view them as I please - whether the person trying to restrict me from doing so is a monopoly or not is of no consequence.
</rant> (haven't had my cherios this morning
Apple negotiated with record labels, not the RIAA
The RIAA is the cartel of Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. Apple negotiated with the cartel of Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. If Apple negotiated prices with the RIAA it would be too obvious that the record labels cooperate to fix their prices. Now it's just conicidence they sit in tha same room and talk to Apple at the same time.
Yes, Apple negotiated with the RIAA, not individual record labels.
First of all, the bill was probably diluted out of fear for yet another uprising of French youth. After all, if they rose up against a job bill what would happen to the government that screwed with thier music?
Secondly, Apple's use of DRM is helping the anti-DRM crusade. In a bit of DRM judo, Apple has basically hijacked music DRM from the industry that meant to controll it and is using that power to dictate exactly how the online music market is to be run. Eventually studios will wake up and realize that they would be fine selling music without DRM, and indeed it's the only way to break free of Apple's grip over distribution. Then we'll not need DRM anymore as studios just sell FLAC and MP3 online, what we all wanted in the first place. Also at that point you'll be able to use any player you like again and not just iPods (so extra pressure on teh labels to move to a DRM free model will eventually come from Microsoft).
So smile when Apple mentions FairPlay, 'cause they are the ones saving you from the REAL DRM world we might all have been living in without them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple is good, and France is Evil. Got it.
I'm pretty sure that Apple is the one paying for maintaining servers, consuming bandwidth, etc. I doubt that there's really all that much profit in there.
so $.99 for a song is victory?
.05-.48 for the other 99.999999999%
for whom?
certainly not the consumer.
$.49 for good music would be appropriate with
but then only the artist could make money, not the coke-addled jackass at BMG
Who hasn't defeated France?
I believe Brazil has never defeated France. Well, does it matter the fact they never engaged in a war?
So say we all
So, what does this have to do with tiered pricing? Well, let me tell you. Generally, the record industry likes to promote acts that it more or less owns. (This is one of the reasons rap is so heavily promoted, even though rock is more popular music. There is generally less investment on behalf of the label and a much higher take in their coffers when you buy a rap album). Anyway, because they generally don't promote quality, just what will make them the most money, most of what you see and hear on the radio, on MTV, are not the best quality music. But when you go to the record store, the CDs are around the same price for all new releases, whether it is from that obscure punk band, or the newest Celene Dion. In fact, the obscure release is often MORE expensive, because it won't sell as much volume. Maybe it's the difference between 14 and 18 bucks. Passing that psychological $15 barrier right there shy's some people away from trying something new. (What is it about having to break a bill that makes you feel like you're paying a bit more than you'd like?)
So, now look what the established music industry in all of their foolishness, want's to do. Instead of charging you a little less, and encouraging you to buy their RIAA stamped and approved crud, than what you might pay for an indie or obscure release at your local record store, they actually want to charge you MORE. MORE, for generally WORSE music. And not a 4 dollar difference on two cd's, two collections of songs, no. We're talking 2 dollars PER SONG. Now, I don't know about you, but there is a lot of music out there that I DO like and enjoy that isn't this nonsense that the RIAA tries to feed us. A lot of it can be found on iTunes. So, if I have a choice between 1 song, and 3 songs, what am I going to do? Of course, buy the 3 songs! I don't think Apple really cares how I spend my money there as long as I spend the 3 dollars. But the RIAA have this mentality that people owe them something. I wouldn't be surprised if they sued you for choosing the 3 songs instead of the one, claiming you owe them for the difference or some nonsense.
My point though, is that this plan of charging more for their crap, which is popular because their big money made it popular, is going to backfire. It is only going to encourage people to spend their money elsewhere, to explore new artists and new musical avenues. I think iTunes has done a good job of promoting some of the more obscure artists out there. If this can turn people away from the cookie cutter, mindless crap promoted by the industry, and back towards quality artists and quality music, it should be embraced.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
wiki secam
Why SÉCAM in France?
Some have argued that the primary motivation for the development of SÉCAM in France was to protect French television equipment manufacturers. However, incompatibility had started with the earlier decision to uniquely adopt positive video modulation for French broadcast signals. In addition, SÉCAM development predates PAL. NTSC was considered undesirable in Europe because of its tint problem requiring an additional control, which SÉCAM and PAL solved.
Nonetheless, SÉCAM was partly developed for reasons of national pride. Henri de France's personal charisma and ambition may have been a contributing factor. PAL was developed by Telefunken, a German company, and in the post-war De Gaulle era there would have been much political resistance to dropping a French-developed system and adopting a German-developed one instead.
In other word, yes it was a questionof national pride, but no not against the US, more against the "north-east" neighbourgh which only 7 years before they had a war with... Not much to do with protectionism IMO. Would you , as an US ressident , have accepted the PAL standard ? Well apparently NO, sicne you use NTSC.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Actually, Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay defeated the Paraguyan army in the War of the Triple Alliance 1864-1870. http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/tango/triple1864.ht m p aigns/brzedit.html
Brazil also played a small part in the Allied victory of WWII - http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/3351/cam
"But this one goes to 11!"
Germany, England... Apple?!? Who can't defeat France in one day. Besides they usually just surrender.
I know that, I grew up in Brazil, I know some brazilian history. I meant that Brazil and France have never engaged in a war *against each other* (maybe my knowleged in history is better than my english).
Anyway, a point in favor of the french is that Brazil got its independence by the hands of Dom Pedro I (a portuguese prince), whose family (the Royal Portuguese Family) was fleeing from nothing less than the French. Napoleon, if I'm not mistaken.
So say we all
"Around the time of the American Revolution there seems to be a change in the way copyright-style protections are being considered - ... The important thing in my mind is the recognition of the creator's rights to their work, something taken for granted in other industries."
I thought that the parts of the Constitution allowing for copyright primarily have the interests of the public in mind, not the author. Copyright is granted as a practical way to encourage the progress of the "useful arts and sciences", not out of a particular belief that someone has the right to own an idea. I seem to remember hearing that Thomas Jefferson allowed this clause really only as the lesser of two evils (the restriction of ideas, versus fewer monetary incentives to create).
In that sense, copyright should be tuned to be as minimally protective as it can, while still being strong enough to ensure that there are adequate incentives. A lot of provisions of the Berne Convention don't make a lot of sense in that light. Take, for example, the idea that you don't have to register a work with the Library of Congress; anything is copyrighted as soon as it is written. If a work has some economic value, someone can take the minimal time and effort required to register it. Allowing protection for "unregistered" works mostly seems to allow for abuses, like limiting distribution of copies of an incriminating memo or forwarding a copy of a letter. We haven't had significant patronage since the 1800s, but look at how often copyright has been extended through the 20th century. And, is there anything to show for it? Were these extensions responsible for any significant number of new works?
The law shouldn't be about allowing people to secure the maximum amount of money from a work. It should be about allowing them to secure enough money that it is economically viable to make useful works.
The same issue applies to corporate strategy. If you've seen a text on "corporate strategy", it is all about figuring out how to charge the consumer as much as possible. If you think of a transaction, if you sell me an item you value at $A, and I value at $B > $A, we've created $(B-A) of value in the process. Simple economics says, if there is a competitive market, you'll sell at a price slightly over $A - if you'll don't, I'll find someone else who will. The consumer pockets most of the value, minus a modest profit. If you have a monopoly, you'll try to figure out what my $B is, and pocket the entire profit. Either way, you make enough of a profit that you're willing to keep selling. But when the question comes as to who should get most of the added value, I would argue it should be the consumer. This leads to a higher standard of living. Saying that the seller should keep all the value created improves profits, but it doesn't improve the standard of living.
Ah, okay. My money would be on Brazil if it ever did happen..
I lived in Rio de Janeiro for a while also, but only know a little history of Brazil...
"But this one goes to 11!"
"It seems you have to run a virtual PC enviro to get anything done."
Tell that to the millions of film makers, musicians, recording engineers, photographers, publishers, etc. that use Macs every day. Please, get a clue.
Karma Schmarma
Anybody ever think it may be good to have apple end up in a monopoly on this?
The industry is clearly unable to push them around now. Later, they may have more power...
Either apple gets power over the industry or their monopoly is split; during which there will be a great opportunity to change the way the music business works.
To some extent apple has caused some change in the industry as a result of their success.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I just installed gnupod (perl scripts for writing to AND READING FROM!) ipods. I have a free shuffle that I got as a gift and I love being able to copy files there AND BACK if I so choose. I tried itunes as a music file-copy app but right after I found I couldn't easily get my songs BACK, I forever (really) gave up on itunes.
;)
what's cool is that gnupod works even on windows with cygwin! I spent a few hours documenting it (screen captures) and I'll upload those since there aren't good instructions on how to do this. but it IS do-able.
but what I found most funny - is that there is a --france switch on the gnupod program. has something to do with keeping volume low. in france they don't like loud music?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Remember the fiasco with the earbuds causing hearing loss - that's probably what the --france switch is for. I just downloaded a bunch of 'french for beginners' podcasts and they're some kind of m4a mpegs - I think they are for ipods? Anyways, I can't find a debian repository for faad and the source won't compile for me. Anybody know another way to convert these to mp3 or something other than faad that can convert these to wavs?
Well you are partly right in that the loss of the anti-DRM suit hurts us consumers, but the win over the RIAA and scaled pricing helps us. What they call "scaled pricing" would just turn quickly into "charge as much as you possibly can so us business executives get even richer," and keeping at $.99 is a victory for us. How many songs do you think they would realistically charge less than $.99 for? "Great! I can now buy that Fabian song for only $.79! what a bargain!"
And it's hard to blame just Apple for the DRM stuff. Yes, they have pushed it which is wrong, but if they don't the record companies would drop them in a second. So in my opinion the true score is now "RIAA 1 Consumers 1"
Now Apple just has to beat Apple!
Still, I think the iPod should be more decoupled from iTunes. Shame on the French from chickening out on this one.
No, it is not a free market issue, and there is nothing that requires Apple to license it's technology...
Nor is Apple attempting to prevent people from developing, (maybe even licensing) competing technologies...
By your (flawed) logic MacDonalds is a monopoly, because they won't license the use of the "Special Sauce".
And you may as well lump Pepsi in there, because they won't license me the damn Colonel's 11 secret herbs and spices.
Actually I have to apologize, those are bad examples, after all the herbs and sauce are integral parts of those companies core business.
So this is a free market issue (as you mean it) because Apple isn't doing what you want?
And since when has Free meant that you aren't allowed to dispose of your creations as you see fit. Closed source is a choice, not apostasy, no matter how many times RMS says it is.
F/OSS as an extremist position is no more rational or appealing than any other extremist viewpoint, you know, Manson, Jones, Hitler...
You zealots are giving me a recurring nightmare, it's like a scene from Schindler's list as the entire development group shuffles off camera through a wrought iron gate inscribed with the words "Quellenprogramm macht Frei."
Yes,
n gland
but don't forget the Norman conquest (1066 and all that). The French successfully invaded england and never left...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_E
so that would have to count as a resounding success for France -even if the Normans included a lot of Vikings who had settled in France.
The Brits might not readily admit it, but they have been mostly ruled by European royalty ever since.
Even Queen Elizabeth II is of german descent:
The House of Windsor, previously known as the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, is the Royal House of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . (from wikipedia)
According to Wiki, Brazil defeated France during the 1958 World Cup!
Well...you would have to explain me, how come France is still the largest country in western Europe?? Also a few point to enlight your brains: - "romans" were not "italians" though they share the same capital, Rome. Just check the size of the Roman Empire with today's Italy. And also don't forget how "Mighty Rome" ended... - Germans: it's not really that they want to invade France every 50 years, it's just the only excuse they found to flee their awful wives. - French revolution: don't forget the many battles won against english/dutch/austrian coalition between 1790 and 1795. Algerian war: that's the "funniest" point...look: 1/: France lost 30 000 personel in this war - Alegerian FLN and population lost 300 000 personel. 2/: France had nothing to do in Algeria, except maybe protecting and find a better issue for french citizens that lived there. 3/: "decolonization" was the big trend at this time, and lots of french citizens didn't not agree with this war and french soldiers to stay there. Public opinion was against it. Does it remind you of anything? I'll help you, it begin with a "V" and end with an "N". I'm sure you've seen a movie or two about it. To finish with this clueless topic. I don't think americans should bragg too much on the topic of "war" at this moment. I would love to see a good issue in the Irak situation, but it doesn't seem to get better at this moment. Technical and military superiority doesn't solve everything in this little world...I'm sorry for the Bush administration. And then we will have Iran just next to it soon...I wish you good luck "brave" Private Anonymous Coward...
Poor France, they usually defeat themselves. They have made many poor choices as a nation lately. These choices affect their technology scene. Whether it's making it hard for businesses to fire people, or encouraging everyone to be secular and non-religious, France is slowly but surely taking all the life and excitement from their culture. Let's face it, if you go to visit France, most people spend their whole time visiting cathedrals and the museums - which mostly show off their fascinating national past - which was all Christian. The more they leave that, the more they become just another American suburb with McDonalds and Starbucks.
Anyone ever count how many wars the US has started, funded or participated in since WWII?
I think it's around 40.
But the big ones - Vietnam (US loses), Gulf War (US wins), Gulf War II (US wins the war but loses the 'peace').
You know, war just isn't easy.
A French descendent was the only one with the balls to stand up? There's a big line of people who would stand up and say that in that room. The only difficulty was GETTING IN THAT ROOM. And that gate was controlled by Tom Curley (head of the AP) and the Bush administration.
Give me a fucking break.
And if France is so goddamn great, what's Colbert doing here?
I respect Colbert, but using him and what he did as a prop for all French is ridiculous.
And btw, my last name is French too! I guess that makes me a French descendent.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Ahhh! At least! The great ancient moronic military joke from the great american Anonymous Coward. If you are so proud of your military accomplishments, why do you hide yourself as a AC? Fucktard.
The French
It's also worth pointing out that the RIAA does not allow _any_ music to be legally sold online without some form of DRM, and is pushing it onto CDs now as well.
Fairplay is actually the most permissive DRM the RIAA allows online resellers to use. Every other DRM solution restricts the rights of the user more. Apple stood up to the RIAA and drew a line in the sand: "We will compromise up to here, and no more".
If you have content, which you wish to sell through the iTunes Music Store, you don't have to use Fairplay - you can choose not to use any DRM. Apple are saying "This is the only DRM we will accept", which is why the iPod can play MP3s as well (if they were really strict, they wouldn't allow that). About the only reason Ogg isn't supported is that, frankly, there's no market.
There is no "Free-as-in-speech(-or-beer)" DRM solutions; yes, you can license WMA, but it's not cheap at all. The whole problem with DRM is that it is a "security-via-obscurity" approach that is 100% incompatible with "Free-as-in-speech".
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
Who are you people, and what have you done with the real slashdot?
;-)
Slashdot was started by the French, but some kids came by and took it away from them.
Sorry, I couldn't resist, your question was just begging for that response given your overall theme.
Not every good label is an RIAA label; eMusic and Bleep.com sell lots of great non-DRM independent music.
-Stu
I'm consistently amazed at the ignorance of media companies and cell phone companies to drastically overestimate the prices that consumers will pay for various media types.
It's not that long ago that cell phone companies were proposing selling music on cell phones (not ring tones, mind you, but rather singles downloads) for between $2 and $3 a pop. Music companies are now moving towards the same model. I simply find myself amazed at the sheer ignorance of such a move (do these companies do market research? If they do, are the companies reputable?).
I've always figured that they've banked on two groups:
(1) The Young! They're stupid! They have disposable cash!
- of course, on the other hand, they have the sense to shop for the album on amazon and then rip it, or go to their local record store in their local college town.
(2) The Old! They're rich! They also have patience, and can wait to get to the album when it costs less...
Congrats to Apple for drawing the line on consistent, consumer-ready pricing for another year or two. Until the idiots in charge of licensing screw it up again..
Again, premature news. What happens is that the Senate Commission for cultural affairs has proposed amendments that would significantly reduce the scope of DRM "interoperability", as well as remove some guarantees that were obtained for free software, both of which were adopted unexpectedly by the National Assembly and against the opinion of the Assembly's own commission.
Given the history of that text, one can not exclude other unexpected events. The Senators are not in any way forced to adopt the amendments proposed by their commission.
Things have already gotten pretty weird, with an opposition Senator, Michel Charasse, defending positions more or less opposed to what his fellow party members defended in the Assembly.
Thus, any final opinion on the issue is premature. And if I were Apple, I would not be gloating over victory yet: the argument that Apple was against the legislation has been used as a proof that the proposed legislation would only benefit extra-european monopolies...