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."
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."
You may reverse-engineer Fairplay for purposes of interoperability. It even says so in the DMCA.
That is true, I can definately develop and use software to circumvent a copyright protection mechanism for interoperability reasons. However, the DCMA strictly prohibits me from distributing any such tools that enable circumvention even if I intend them merely for the exempted reasons. The jury is still out on whether that clause will stand, or more accurately in what specific circumstances that clause will hold up in court.
Even if distribution is allowed, the DCMA is not the only law that stands in the way. In particular, there are several patents on Fairplay standard, and without a license, it is not possible to write, distribute, and use this patented technology. There are exceptions that allow you to do some of those three some of the time, but never all three at the same time. For example, patent law does allow for implementation and distribution for educational purposes, but then anyone who used my software for non-educational purposes (even personal use) would run afoul of the law. This is the approach that LAME takes in it's license, which protects the developers but pushes liability onto the users.
I am legally prevented from writing, distributing or using Free Software that can play music encoded with Apple's Fairplay DRM.
To clarify I meant that "I can't do all these three", not "I can't do any of these three". There are three things that make Free Software Free - the freedom to modify, the freedom to distribute, and the freedom to use. If any one of these things are prohibited in a piece of software then it is not Free Software.
> Doesn't anyone remember that the Statue of Liberty was actually a gift from France to the US?
Most of the French-bashers on the right wing are aren't terribly interested in helping out the tired or the poor, and are more interested in turning the rest of us into huddled masses yearning to breathe free. I don't think they give much of a damn about the statue or the ideals it stood for.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.