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 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...?
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."
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
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.
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.
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...............
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
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.
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
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).
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
Please remain calm, change is sometimes good.
++good, infact.
03 05 06 bb speech malreported slashdot rectify.
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
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 Computers is allowed to use the name Apple on the condition it never enters the music business.
There's the speculation.
Neither you nor I has any idea what Apple Computer and Apple Records agreed to or not; even if they did agree to something like that, the whole disagreement could hinge on how they defined "music business" within the contract.
You're making it seem like it's somehow a cut-and-dried issue when in reality it almost certainly is not.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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
I don't think it's a good idea, but I'm not even sure it's possible.
For the record, I'm an Apple fanatic that pops wood whenever I see a Mac, and my butthole gets wet at every keynote.
What sort of monopoly are we talking about? A monopoly on music distribution? A monopoly on music players? In regards to Music distribution, Apple would need to wrest control of the content from the RIAA cartel. Certainly, Apple has helped destabilize the music cartel's control of music distribution, but those wheels were set into motion long before the iTunes Music Store (iTMS) by the original Napster and later filesharing technologies.
What's really going to kill the RIAA cartel is artists getting out from under their control. Apple has helped here to a degree, but the real empowerment to creators has, continues to, and will come from file sharing. I think that it's almost impossible for any one company to wrest control of the content from the content creators. If Apple is going to maintain it's dominance in paid online music distribution (or even if it's going to survive), it will need to accommodate the artists, not try to control them. If Apple, or anyone else, attempts to become the "new boss, same as the old boss", I have a feeling that many artists will just release their material as mp3s and accept that there will be a certain amount of unauthorized copying. That's if they strike out on their own and leave the RIAA fold.
If Apple is going to continue to thrive, they're going to have to partner with content creators, not own them.
As far as the iPod goes, I hope they will continue to dominate the market, but there is no guarantee and there is little chance that they will ever exercise a long term monopoly in this segment, despite their DRM lock in. The field is changing too fast, technology changes too fast. We haven't yet seen a true iPod killer, but that doesn't mean we won't. There's too much in play, too many nascent technologies, too many devices converging. (My best guess is that when we do see an iPod Killer, it's going to come out of left field, and no one will have seen it coming.)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
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)
Thanks to you, we're in negotiations with Taco now for a "Thanks for sharing" -1 mod category.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on