France Considers Anti-DRM 'iPod Law'

Asklepius M.D. writes "According to the Washington Post, France is contemplating legislation designed to 'to force compatibility between digital songs and the different machines that play them.' Known colloquially as the 'iPod bill', it is opposed by Apple, the Business Software Alliance, and others who refer to it as 'state-sponsored piracy.' Two versions of the bill have already passed France's Senate and National Assembly. From the article: 'Under the proposed law, Apple Computer Inc., Sony Corp., Dell Inc. and other companies could have to reveal trade secrets of their software so that their songs can play on competitors' devices.'"

Comments

I love iPod/iTunes, but...

[DaveM753]

I despise DRM more. So, goodie for France!

Re:I love iPod/iTunes, but...

[Kihaji]

All this will do is cause those companies to package their media as software, with the player as required hardware to play, and simply state "Our player plays MP3's, oh, and we have additional software that you can add on"

Very good for consumers

[Embedded2004]

This would be extremely good for consumers. As a consumer I'd love for a law like that in my country. Obviously it sucks for companies like Apple.

Re:Very good for consumers

[eviloverlordx]

Unfortunately, it would never happen in the US. Not the way that corporations buy congressmen these days, anyway.

Re:Very good for consumers

[ivan256]

Is it good for consumers if it means that players and media are removed from the market?

This issue, like most things, isn't as black and white as people around here seem to like to think.

Re:Very good for consumers

[cyber-vandal]

Which is better, multiple competing standards or interoperability? Take a look at the Unix world or the US mobile phone market for examples of what a crap idea the former is.

Re:Very good for consumers

[Waffle Iron]

Is it good for consumers if it means that players and media are removed from the market?

Yes, because as soon as the players and media are removed from the market, the manufacturers and producers will realize that they have nothing to sell and aren't making any money. So their next move will be to turn around and put their products back on the market, but without the vendor lock-in.

Re:Very good for consumers

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes, because as soon as the players and media are removed from the market, the manufacturers and producers will realize that they have nothing to sell and aren't making any money. So their next move will be to turn around and put their products back on the market, but without the vendor lock-in."

Well those manufacturers and producers have other options as well. You'd probably end up with a few companies who excel at cheap manufacturing putting out commodity units without any economic incentive to improve them. Then you can have generic biege players to match your generic beige PC. Kind of like pre-iPod players but uglier.

Re:Very good for consumers

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Is it good for consumers if it means that players and media are removed from the market?

Ya gotta remember media would ever possibly be removed from the market if DRM was removed. As much as Apple would like you believe otherwise, this proposed law has nothing to do with removing DRM. It simply wants DRM to at least be interoperable so if you buy a device your media will play on it. Now as for players.... well removing proprietary players sounds good to me.

Re:Very good for consumers

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

Exacltly. Black and white is a universally accepted(open?) digital format.
This post is in black and white!
All issues can be black and white if you want them to be.

Re:Very good for consumers

[h4rm0ny]

Yes, because if the existing player vacate the market, then it will with absolute certainty be filled by others that are willing to play by the new rules. This is France, that's a very large pot of money that isn't going to be overlooked.

Go France! Let's hope it spreads.

Of course, that said, I quite happily purchase iTunes music on my Linux box and listen to them howsoever I like. ;)

Re:Very good for consumers

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Then you can have generic biege players to match your generic beige PC. Kind of like pre-iPod players but uglier.

Except the generic ones will work, and you won't have to buy the song four times so you can listen to it on the train, on the bus, while biking and at the gym.

Which is the fundamental goal of DRM.

Re:Very good for consumers

[laughingcoyote]

From TFA:

Both versions would decriminalize piracy and make it equivalent to a traffic infraction, with fines that computer companies say are so small they would offer no deterrence.

Let 'em withdraw, and vive le Torrent!

Re:Very good for consumers

[aristotle-dude]

How does this help mac users like me? I have an iPod because WMA based DRM devices do not work under OS X. This law would not force MSFT to write a version of WMP for OS X that supported DRM. All it would do is provide competitors access to iTMS.

Re:Very good for consumers

[Waffle Iron]

You'd probably end up with a few companies who excel at cheap manufacturing putting out commodity units without any economic incentive to improve them.

Or, maybe some would just skip silly the razor/blade business model and sell the players for at least what it cost to develop and produce them. Then those people who think that they need Apple-like bling could still get it (for a price) without saddling everyone else with stunted media formats.

Re:Very good for consumers

[jrockway]

Fuck Apple. They're the monopoly in this case, so they deserve the most punishment. I bought a number of songs from iTMS, and that was fine when I had a Mac. As the quality of OS X declined with each release (10.4.5 killed pubcookie on two production servers...), I decided to give up on Apple and bought a Dell running Debian (from which I type this post). Unfortunately, I can't play the music that I legally bought. I have to download music from BitTorrent, harming the artists and the record companies. If I had a choice, I'd pay for music, but I don't have that option anymore. CDs aren't an option, since I only want one song.

Sorry, Apple, but you need to be open. Selling music online legally is great. Discriminating against who you sell music to isn't. (For the record, iHave an iPod, so Apple wouldn't be "losing" anything by selling to me. Only gaining.)

Whatever, I don't like American music anyway. When will I be able to buy JPop and good digital classical recordings online? When will I be able to buy uncompressed 5 channel surround recordings? That sort of stuff would really excite me, and really open my wallet ;)

Re:Very good for consumers

[aristotle-dude]

Sorry but what does your rant have to do with MSFT providing support for non-windows platforms? This bill would do nothing to "force" them.

Re:Very good for consumers

[BrokenHalo]

and you won't have to buy the song four times so you can listen to it on the train, on the bus, while biking and at the gym.

There's nothing stopping people from buying CDs and encoding their own MP3s or AACs. As far as I'm concerned, that's the only way to go in any case.

Much as I like my iPod, the compressed sound is just not an adequate signal for playing through my fairly high-end stereo system at home. It's fine for circumstances where there's background noise and other distractions, but if I had to pay twice for every track, I would rather do without the iPod.

Re:Very good for consumers

[Anonymous Coward]

The law would be good for consumers if it forced the elimination of DRM, or a choice between copyright and non-legally-protected DRM.

It sounds like the real purpose of this law, in current form, is to ensure that there is interoperable DRM: interoperable shackles and chains for consumers to "solve" the interoperability "problem" that isn't an issue with non-crippled formats (like Red Book Audio CD).

The record companies may be happy over this prospect -- but people who buy music or who care about the public domain have no reason to be.

Re:Very good for consumers

[IntlHarvester]

If Apple wanted to licence "Plays For Sure" WMP-DRM, do you really think Microsoft would turn them down? I think you need to re-evaluate who is preventing Macs from supporting this.

Re:Very good for consumers

[plasmacutter]

this is like saying "if jews wanted to hire hitler out for security, do you really think hitler would turn them down?".

the only major commercial competitor to microsoft is apple, and quite frankly their tactics resemble those of the afore mentioned evil dead dictator.

By the way, their format is also trash, and I don't feel like giving the entire online music market to microsoft's terrible format.

Re:Very good for consumers

[grahammm]

What would be the state of the recorded music business now if vinyl (and 78s before that) from each label had only played on certain brands of record player? I suspect that it would never have taken off. Vinyl, cassettes and CDs (at least until the recent 'copy protected' ones) are universal and can be played on any player. So surely it would be best to keep the neutrality between the music publishers and hardware suppliers and not tie digital music sales to particular hardware.

Re:Very good for consumers

[Ilex]

It seems your anti Apple stance has got you modded down. You do however have a vaild point.

Unfortunately, I can't play the music that I legally bought. I have to download music from BitTorrent, harming the artists and the record companies. If I had a choice, I'd pay for music, but I don't have that option anymore. CDs aren't an option, since I only want one song.

You say that while you wish to pay the artist and the record companies you cannot, you are being forced to piracy because of the anti consumer measures built into the product you legally purchased.

This is how Digital Restrictions Management is fuelling piracy and reducing the income of the artists.

Personally I couldn't give a stuff about the record companies. They've had their day, it's over.

Their function was the recording and distribution of other peoples music. In the analogue physical world this is expensive but In the digital world anyone can record and distribute music, be it their own or anyone else's. Now the record companies only function are to take money from both the artist and consumer. DRM is their way of artificially imposing the restrictions of the physical world on digital media ensuring their continuation buy enabling them to buy at below market value from the artists and sell at an inflated price to you the consumer. The RIAA represents the rights of the artist like a Pimp represents the rights of prostitutes.

There are a lot of fair trade 'DRM-free' legal music sites appearing now and I hope they will prove the downfall of the majors or at least make them sit up and take notice that DRM is a foolish policy. Fair Trade Music can only work if people are willing to buy it and this where piracy hurts truly free music.

On the other side I can see that people really like a particular artist or track but they are affiliated to the music fascists. In this case you must make the choice between giving money to a corrupt cartel or piracy. IMO the major labels are stifling music. I would rather see more artists producing music at a lower salary rather than a limited number of 'lucky' ones who are getting all of the money. If you don't think it's fair then you don't love music so get out! Given this I feel that obtaining music through piracy is the lesser evil but that those who choose this path must remember that it is only a lesser evil and not the true solution that open fair trade music is.

Re:Very good for consumers

[IntlHarvester]

Hitler, thank you. The world's a better place

Re:Very good for consumers

[Steve001]

grahammm wrote:

What would be the state of the recorded music business now if vinyl (and 78s before that) from each label had only played on certain brands of record player? I suspect that it would never have taken off. Vinyl, cassettes and CDs (at least until the recent 'copy protected' ones) are universal and can be played on any player. So surely it would be best to keep the neutrality between the music publishers and hardware suppliers and not tie digital music sales to particular hardware.

There is a precedence for this: Quadraphonic. At its height there were seven incompatible formats for quad and this ended up killing the format.

The experience of quad is a reason that CD came out in a single format, although many formats were proposed. Unfortunately the lesson was not learned with video tape, resulting in a format war.

Unfortunately, in format war there are usually only losers. Although the losing company loses, the winning company loses too because of the cost of winning for war, money that could have been spent to improve the technology. Finally, many consumers lose because they chose the wrong format to go with.

Re:Very good for consumers

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously it sucks for companies like Apple.

Only because Apple's current business model is consumer-hostile. They have chosen a consumer-hostile model because they believe it will allow them to make money (more than once) off every living being that listens to music.

Once they adopt a consumer-friendly model, they will still make plenty of money (more than enough to keep the business profitable), and their clients will be happier too. They might have to adjust a few practices (oh noes!) and (gasp) let a few "potential sales" slip through the cracks...but they will live...and live well, at that.

I will admit that in this regard I am a utilitarian. I believe that the happiness of the huge numbers of consumers far outweighs the happiness of the handful of rich controllers. DRM has gotta go.

Re:Very good for consumers

[Steve001]

BrokenHalo wrote as part of a post:

There's nothing stopping people from buying CDs and encoding their own MP3s or AACs. As far as I'm concerned, that's the only way to go in any case.

I agree. It seems that downloaded compressed audio files have a limited life span. But by buying the CD, you have "bought it once, have it forever."

It also offers the advantage of having proof that you have purchased the music. When it comes to songs you ripped on your iPod, having the CD itself provides hard proof (better than a receipt) that you actually purchased the music.

Much as I like my iPod, the compressed sound is just not an adequate signal for playing through my fairly high-end stereo system at home. It's fine for circumstances where there's background noise and other distractions, but if I had to pay twice for every track, I would rather do without the iPod.

This is another advantage of buying the CD: You can choose your encoding method. You can even choose not to compress your music if you choose not to, not an option when you buy a compressed music file.

Of course, there is always the option of playing the actual disc. Unlike with many compressed formats, CD is not tied to a specific brand of player. and it will not be rendered obsolete via an "upgrade."

Re:Very good for consumers

[KDR_11k]

They should stop complaining. It's not like fines are an effective deterrent to corporations, either.

Re:Very good for consumers

[Qwavel]

This would help you a lot.

Right now there is no competition, so Apple can charge a premium. Lock-in is great for the vendor, terrible for the consumer.

If you were free to buy any player/device to play iTunes songs then Apple wouldn't be able to charge as much.

If you were free to use other music service (eg. Yahoo's music service is cheaper and for higher audio quality) then hopefully they would start to support the Mac platform and then iTunes would have to lower its prices.

Re:Very good for consumers

[aristotle-dude]

There is plenty of competition and Apple's entry into the market was late so are we to begrudge them for their success and forethought of supporting windows in addition to OS X? I'm a consumer and I'm happy that I have a music player that works on my platform of choice at home (os x) and on my platform at work (windows). People also have a choice to lock themselves into windows by using WMA based technology. You are also free to use eMusic and use those songs with any music player. Nobody is forcing you to use iTMS and the majority of the world still does not have an iTMS store and yet there are people in those countries with iPods.

I'm sorry but your argument does not wash. I bought an iPod years before they had an iTMS in the US let alone here in Canada and I used services like eMusic and purchased CD's to fill my iPod. I have also noticed that that all my co-workers that have an iPod rip from CD's they own rather than buying from iTMS. I'm the only one that buys form iTMS and I'm also the only mac user there with an iPod.

To me, platform lock-in for "music" is far worse than any lock-in for a portable music player. With a WMA device, you must have a computer with windows installed on it in order to manage your device. There is no choice for the consumer in this regard. How much does a computer cost to purchase and maintain versus a computer? How much space does it take? Let's say that you had an iPod, that you had purchased some songs on iTMS and you got tired of it and wanted to get something new and you were switching from OS X to windows for some crazy reason. All you would have to do is transfer that library to your windows machine and you would have access to all those songs on your new machine. If you really wanted to have those songs on your WMA player, you could just burn them to an AUDIO CD and rerip them in WMA.

Ok, try doing the reverse. in the reverse, you would have to keep a windows installation somewhere to manage your licenses and deal with all the hassles entailing that on top of having them imported into your mac. In that case, you have two computers and portable players but in this case, you cannot use your old player on your mac whereas in the reverse, you could still use your iPod if you decided to keep it on your windows machine.

Re:Very good for consumers

[Reaperducer]

This is France, that's a very large pot of money that isn't going to be overlooked.

You are either a self-important Frenchman, or have been brainwashed by one. This isn't the 19th century. The world doesn't give a crap what France thinks. China? Yes. The United States? For a little while longer, at least. But FRANCE? France could fall off the face of the Earth and it wouldn't matter. There are individual STATES in the United States with bigger GDPs than France. Sorry to break it to you, but 100 years ago France gave us great architecture and great food and some diplomatic language and philosophy that was useful. But it's been a century since France has done anything but stare at it's own belly button and contemplate how great it is. Don't believe me? That glow on the horizon isn't the dawn of a new age. It's yet another French city burning.

Mod me down, if you want. That felt really good.

Re:Very good for consumers

[h4rm0ny]

Mod me down, if you want. That felt really good.

Same here. It's good to start the day off with a good laugh.

not that i admire france

[circletimessquare]

but... i admire france for this

i feel like i have to go take a shower after saying that...

hey! i just said something very un-french ;-)

all is well again

Re:not that i admire france

[Anonymous Coward]

/. item mentions France, ...3...2...1 - idiot chimes in. Check.

Re:not that i admire france

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you didn't say anything un-french, but you just said something very US-american...

How is this anti-DRM?

[artifex2004]

People keep toeing Apple's party line that this is anti-DRM. It's not at all. It's anti-proprietary DRM.
You can have DRM, you just have to tell other industry players how to interoperate with it.

This is like saying the DVD Consortium is anti-DRM, because multiple companies belong.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[john83]

True, it's not anti-DRM per se, but it is open format, and that'll get substantial support here. Quick question time: Can anyone get hold of the format? If yes, can you legally write a programme to rip to another format?

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is like saying the DVD Consortium is anti-DRM, because multiple companies belong.

It would be anti-DVD Consortium too, since anyone who made a player would have the right to decrypt dvds.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[Kjella]

People keep toeing Apple's party line that this is anti-DRM. It's not at all. It's anti-proprietary DRM.
You can have DRM, you just have to tell other industry players how to interoperate with it.

But if you have DRM with tons of different implementations and universal converters it is almost certain somewhere it'll be broken. You can't simply soft-upgrade like iTunes has done many times over as Hymn etc. broke their protection, because all players, media centers and so on need to upgrade. The "value" of hacking a DRM system is proportional to how much content it protects. Telling them to have one universal DRM system is like telling them to put every egg in a giant basket.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[blincoln]

You can have DRM, you just have to tell other industry players how to interoperate with it.

If anyone can make a program that plays DRM-protected files, what's to stop someone from making one that outputs the file in an unencrypted format?

Furthermore, I assume Apple is concerned about losing their de facto monopoly on players that can play DRM'd music from ITMS.

Personally I think France's plan is awesome. Consumer choice is more important than protecting crappy DRM technology.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[artifex2004]

If anyone can make a program that plays DRM-protected files, what's to stop someone from making one that outputs the file in an unencrypted format?

But does this law cover software-only designs, or just hardware?
Everything I've been reading says hardware.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, this is not anti-DRM, it's anti-proprietary-formats. And if you look at who's opposing this, and who loves to put their products into formats that they hate to share... the lists are fairly similar.

Ironically, they could probably sell more music if they'd embrace open formats... but that runs counter to the conventional wisdom, even if it does square with actual sales.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[jd]

No, not really. Let's take the encryption component, for example. For that, you have two choices: you can filter your encrypted content into a universally sharable format that is encrypted using a public key encryption algorithm (such as RSA). You can then exchange keys using one of the standard key exchange algorithms. The recipient can then decrypt the content and re-encrypt it in its native format.

The second option is for the intended recipient to transmit a public key (well, not really public since only the content holder will receive it). The content holder then decrypts the content and uses the public key obtained to build an SSL tunnel to the recipient, which can then re-encrypt it natively.

Ok, that handles that part. Now we need the data format. This will contain one or more of DRM headers, DRM data, and content. Since the data is encrypted in transit, using keys only the two parties know, we don't need DRM protections, only the DRM information. By ripping out the DRM, then converting that information into XML or some other "universal" format, we can preserve the DRM information without needing the DRM to be active.

At the destination, the DRM meta-data is then parsed. Those elements for which no local definition exists would be dropped, and those elements not filled by the meta-data would be set to the most constrained values allowed. The protections may change, with such a system, but they should average out.

We now have a universal DRM exchange protocol that needs to know NOTHING about any foreign DRM mechanisms and therefore does NOT need to be patched as new formats come out, and does NOT need to be bloated with a multitude of foreign algorithms. All it needs is an industry-standard XML template, an implementation of RSA, an industry-standard public key exchange mechanism and optionally an implementation of SSL.

Total hardware complexity? One standard encryption chip and one moderate-sized FPGA should be sufficient. Two scraps of silicon, adding maybe a couple of grammes to the total weight. I can really see this killing the entire music industry... assuming the entire music industry is in fact a small piece of blue-green algae and the chips are dropped on it from an altitude of 30,000 feet.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[john83]

No, not really. Let's take the encryption component, for example. For that, you have two choices: you can filter your encrypted content into a universally sharable format that is encrypted using a public key encryption algorithm (such as RSA). You can then exchange keys using one of the standard key exchange algorithms. The recipient can then decrypt the content and re-encrypt it in its native format.

If some company can decrypt the data, and convert it into another format, this system you're proposing only works if you've some mechanism to control what that other company does with the data. Someone has to be able to read the music file somewhere, and unless they're prevented somehow (i.e. in law), they can remove the DRM.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[KillerDeathRobot]

Really though, the best DRM can ever do is deter casual infringers. The more savvy people will always find a way around DRM in the same way that a lock on your door can't prevent a determined criminal from getting into your house.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[jd]

Ok, the method works on the basis that the sender can convert the DRM formatted data into an un-DRMed version that is encrypted such that only the authorized recipient can decrypt it. The metadata used to describe what the DRM is actually protecting, how, and in what way, is also copied across in this way.

It is perfectly true that the recipient need not re-constitute the DRM scheme (using its own methods), so that would need to be protected by law. I don't see that being a significant problem, though. The French proposal would be entirely compatible with a law requiring that the receiving system rebuild DRM.

(In fact, the DMCA - evil though it is - would not conflict with my proposal, as it doesn't require anybody to reverse-engineer anything or know anything about the internals of anyone's protection system.)

Transfer of data via a secure but vendor-neutral channel is not a new idea - it is very unlikely every banking computer in the world runs exactly the same software! - however, I would venture to suggest that it's not a method developers of DRM for music or movies have considered at this time. If they had, I doubt there would have been nearly the fuss about the French proposal. For that matter, CSS might still be unbroken, as it was only because there was a monoculture that the breaking of one key meant the breaking of the whole system.

(Monocultures are vulnerable, precisely because an attack against one element will work equally against all elements. Biologists regard them as BAD, and I see no reason to differ when it comes to secure systems.)

I therefore contend that by creating monocultures - whether within a single platform or across all platforms - actually harms the corporations involved and invalidates their security measures. If they want true security, they NEED diversity and a secure DRM exchange protocol. Therefore, interoperability will be a Good Thing for companies, as it will strengthen DRM and reduce piracy, without impacting any consumer's ability to use whatever OS they choose.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[DragonWriter]

DRM ultimately relies on security-through-obscurity (complemented by security-through-heavy-handed-government-action, see DeCSS), because it relies on the authorized user of data being able to use the data stream without actually being able to access the data stream.

If authorized users also had information on how the system worked, they'd be able to get their DRM'd data out into the clear and do with it whatever they wanted.

This is like saying the DVD Consortium is anti-DRM, because multiple companies belong.

There is a difference between a group cooperating on one standard (who thus all have a motive to see it protected), and making competing players reveal to each other information about a system that relies on obscurity to maintain its key function.

Allowing the former is not anti-DRM. Mandating the latter is, or at least, anti-the-existing-systems-of-DRM. And by de facto mandating a common standard (as long as their are competing standards whose detaials must be revealed to the competition, partisans of one side will have a strong incentive to try to ensure that information about the other sides system that facilitates breaking it leaks), weakens DRM, because any crack developed will be universally useful. Now, that's a cost the DVD consortium was willing to accept because they weren't, the way the digital music sellers are, trying to control the whole distribution chain, and were relying on physical distribution where lack of interoperability would hurt everyone's sales, since B&M vendors have limited shelf-space.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[wpegden]

So...
you're in favor of outlawing music players with an optical line out? This is something which has a useful purpose (highest quality digital audio to a receiver), and is becoming universal in higher-end audi equipment. But, of course, it makes DRM largely irrelevant....

Any DRM scheme is going to involve LAWS that, to an ordinary person (I include my self), seem rediculous.

Of course, they wouldn't be the first laws for which that is true...

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[Lars T.]

If anyone can make a program that plays DRM-protected files, what's to stop someone from making one that outputs the file in an unencrypted format?

The exact same law you love so much.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[Kjella]

So? Imagine I'm on a trip and want to transfer some music from my laptop to my portable music player, which aren't natively compatible. There's no online authentication, you need a tool. Let's further assume the music player's DRM has been broken, but that the laptop's DRM hasn't. Instead I re-DRM it to my music player and un-DRM it there. The other system is broken by virtue of being compatible with a broken system. Since the general idea is that every system should be compatible with everything else, one weak DRM breaks all.

The only way you'd avoid that is if every DRM change had to go through an online server which would do the reencryption, and stop people from re-DRMing to that format once broken. Or throw a full song-and-dance number with constant new versions (no, we can't re-DRM to this version because another tool that's not aware of the most recent breaches could re-DRM it to a broken format). Every time you wanted to retract a single player you would have to upgrade all the tools for every player in the world.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[Omega Blue]

You are like saying anti-DRM is bad. No it isn't. DRM is bad. It's the collective effort of the music and movie industry to take away your rights and freedom. Hence, DRM is bad, anti-DRM, good.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[laughingcoyote]

And? Few points here:

1. ALL DRM will eventually be broken. It's simply an inevitability. If nothing else, a microphone, videocamera, or screen capture will -always- be capable of producing a DRM-free version of anything, and at that point it spreads virally. They're intending it as a speed bump that might deter a few copies-and they may be losing more customers then they're gaining with the frustration. I might use itunes myself rather than Bittorrent-but not with DRM on 'em, not even when I know how to break it! Someone else already did the work, thanks anyway...I might pay rather then get for free, but I draw the line at paying for an inferior product compared to a free one!

2. The scenario you are describing (transferring music from your laptop to your portable, and quite possibly being unable to do so) is something you absolutely SHOULD be able to do-and not just if you're very technically competent. France has recognized the simple fact that when a customer buys something, the seller has no right to snatch it back out of their hands, and is in the process of forbidding the practice. Good.

3. Eventually, the "copy" industries will die out. There used to be a market for those who would go up mountains and cart down chunks of ice, in fact such services were quite often used by the elite. Ice was difficult to make and people paid well for it. Of course, now that everyone's got an icemaker in their freezer, there's no longer a future in this business. I imagine that probably pissed off the people who depended on this for a living, and quite frankly I understand why it would, but that doesn't mean we should have outlawed or crippled icemakers.

Well, it's rather the same here. When printing and CD pressing equipment was massively expensive and the most the consumer could do was copy a tape at a time, people were glad to pay those who invested in the ventures to do these things on a large scale. Now we all have an information-making machine on our desktop, many of us more than one. Times change, technology changes, and the "copy" industries began to be obsoleted the minute the first PC hit the first desk. Adapt or die.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[blincoln]

But does this law cover software-only designs, or just hardware? Everything I've been reading says hardware.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but even if it were about hardware, it's a simple process to take the hardware documentation and use it to come up with a software (or software/hardware) system that doesn't enforce the restrictions.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[blincoln]

The exact same law you love so much.

I'm having trouble understanding the meaning of what appears to be a jab at me, but anyway. Depending on the law is exactly how non-DRM'd systems work. So I'm not seeing how adding DRM into the mix is any better. The people who refuse to pay for anything still will.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[jd]

I'm picturing that each DRM player would carry an X.509 certificate that has been produced by a "well known" party - in much the same way they do for use on secure websites. Authentication would then simply be a matter of each machine verifying that the certificate has been correctly signed. The certificates are then used to form your secure transport between the two DRM devices. Outside authentication or external tools would be unnecessary and cumbersome.

You are correct that my idea is that every system should interoperate cleanly, and you are correct that this means that you can eliminmate the DRM. I still feel it's an improvement over what we currently have, so if DRM is going to be a fact of life, we might as well have a system that's actually useful to users. Congrats on coming up with a neat way of breaking my system, btw.

No, my system wouldn't work if you went through an intermediate phase, as it relies on each device operating entirely on a native DRM scheme which may or may not differ from any other DRM scheme. Going through a clearing house would merely mean it gets re-DRMed twice for every transfer, at the risk of losing meta-data in that extra stage.

There is a way to do this, but it's an arms-race of a sort. The corporations producing the technology would need to develop better players and better media that was still backwards-compatiable. The older players would be able to get some of the data, but there'd be loss because of inferior formats, inferior compression and/or less space available.

This means that those wanting the "full" effect would need the latest players (and therefore the latest DRM). Copies made onto older players with broken DRM schemes would be inferior copies and therefore less attractive. This doesn't solve the broken DRM hole - it still exists - and the market won't bear a new digital format every month, but it would make bulk-copying for reasons of piracy a much more expensive deal even if the updates were once a year or every other year.

In the end, all DRM schemes can be broken. My scheme is merely a transfer protocol between two DRM schemes, so can actually be very strong, but the DRM itself is the weakest spot. For that reason, the pressure should be directed back on industry to evolve past the threat, rather than the existing approach which is to devolve the users into cabbages. They'll get along much faster if the corporations cooperate - with themselves and the technologically aware outside - so the obvious first step is to promote, or enforce, whatever cooperation the corporations can stomach without imploding.

(Well, you can afford to have a few implode. It might give the rest an incentive to do their work, rather than to pressure lawmakers to obligate the users to do it for them.)

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[Moderatbastard]

There used to be a market for those who would go up mountains and cart down chunks of ice, in fact such services were quite often used by the elite. Ice was difficult to make and people paid well for it. Of course, now that everyone's got an icemaker in their freezer, there's no longer a future in this business.

Mod up: +1 didn't use the buggywhip analogy.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[jeremie_z_]

So a "good" DRM system is either anti-competitive, or inefficient ?

That's the proof that DRM is completely pointless, and harmful for competition and business.. (plus the different harms and discomfort for consumers, and problems for computer security, etc.) protecting DRM by law is an aberration, that's why the french dispositions about a right to interoperate are a good thing in such a stupid economic environment.

Do you really think China will respect US firms' DRM? come on....

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[Znork]

"That's the proof that DRM is completely pointless, and harmful for competition and business.."

Copyright itself is harmful for competition, but that doesnt stop many supposed 'free market' supporters from embracing it.

And just listen to the rhetoric; "state sponsored piracy". That's like someone on social security yelling about theft if the government didnt want to give them money to build a pool.

The social benefit of intellectual property as is is starting to get seriously questioned. I'd suggest the DRM supporters keep their heads down and learn a lesson or two from french history about what happens when you let unmitigated greed steer your actions.

Re:How is this anti-DRM?

[Lars T.]

The problem is that you (and most journalists) don't understand what the law is about. It requires the use of DRM for things like web radios. It makes circumventing DRM a criminal offense.

Or come up with a standard

[MassEnergySpaceTime]

"Under the proposed law, Apple Computer Inc., Sony Corp., Dell Inc. and other companies could have to reveal trade secrets of their software so that their songs can play on competitors' devices." ... reveal trade secrets or come up with an agreed upon standard so that any song can be played anywhere else, similar to how CDs can be played on and brand CD players. In the latter case, there'd be no trade secrets to reveal.

Hmm, how about the unprotected mp3 format? Nah, that's too simple.

Re:Or come up with a standard

[fitten]

Yeah... that's what I was thinking... it can already be done with mp3, just not directly. You still have to have the proprietary DRM to download the music. But then, you burn a playable CD (at lower quality, though) and then rip the CD into mp3.

I personally don't think any company should be prevented from downloading music from them in a proprietary format as long as there is an (eventual) way to get it into mp3 from their software (even at a reduced quality, as long as the quality is no worse than a 'standard' 64kb mp3 quality).

Re:Or come up with a standard

[penguinstorm]

How about unencrypted AAC, which provides higher quality sound with smaller file sizes than MP3.

Half my library is in AAC format, as are a lot of less knowledgeable users. Why these silly electronics companies keep releasing players that only support MP3 & Microsoft formats I don't know -- I'd love to buy from Sony, but I'm sure as hell not going to re-rip my entire library.

Oh....wait...why does my Sony cellular phone play AAC tracks, while a Sony portable music player doesn't?

Kind of makes my head shake.

Great news!

[gnud]

This is great news!
In countries, like Norway, where I live, where DRM is not protected by law, this will allow hardware and software to support every format they want to. If it passes, of course. Vive la France!

Re:Great news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, this is (mostly) false news. And yes, I'm in France. This particular point about interoperability is part of a bigger set of laws that threaten most of our freedoms, our very own version of DMCA. This is bad news, and it's strangely amusing that US companies are afraid of this specific point, even though we, as customers, are afraid of everything else in the proposed law. If nobody wants it, lets reject it !

Still not sure...

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

...how this is good for France, since the businesses will just pack up and leave.

Re:Still not sure...

[Lord Kano]

...how this is good for France, since the businesses will just pack up and leave.

Other businesses will be happy to take their place. It's not like no one will EVERY do business in France because the law protects consumers more than businesses.

It's like the drug companies saying that if the US imposes price controls on medicines that they won't have a profit motive to sell the drugs here. Well, Canada has price controls and they're quite happy to sell their wares there.

LK

Re:Still not sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

"since the businesses will just pack up and leave"

Would such an unlikely event mean the end of France.... or would it mean plenty of marketplace ripe for plucking?

Hmmmm....maybe I should brush up on my Frnech.

Re:Still not sure...

[barefootgenius]

"since the businesses will just pack up and leave."
And be replaced by French business. The French music scene is quite large.

Re:Still not sure...

[Hinhule]

No they wount. That's one of the biggest markets in Europe.

Imagine the board meeting when the president of the company says:
"And sales in europe are down 10% due to us moving out of France instead of agreeing with their law, letting competitors get a major foothold in europe with a product that'll be percieved as better than ours because it's allows consumers more freedom in choosing music dealing vendor. Moving ON!"
I believe this would be the answer:
"It seems we put too much trust in you and promoted you to your level of incompetence, enjoy unemployment!"

Like others said, the companies will probably end up agreeing on some kind of system like the DVDs already use. Still DRM, just less locked in to a single brand.

Re:Still not sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

So how come the French don't already have players that are competitive with the iPod? If the French weren't buying home-grown players in great numbers prior to the iPod, we should they do so if the iPod is pulled off the market?

Re:Still not sure...

[Alarash]

...how this is good for France, since the businesses will just pack up and leave.

France is a multi-billion market for the music industry. Do you think Apple and others will just leave? Suffer a loss in income and profit, resulting in a drop of the market shares value? Will the shareholders agree? I don't know. Not to mention that if France passes this law, other countries will follow? Will Apple and others then close their business? I don't know...

Re:Still not sure...

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

Time will tell.

Re:Still not sure...

[Joey7F]

It's like the drug companies saying that if the US imposes price controls on medicines that they won't have a profit motive to sell the drugs here. Well, Canada has price controls and they're quite happy to sell their wares there.

LK

They will always sell drugs, the question is do they invest lots of money on development if the path to a return is hindered substantially?

--Joey

Re:Still not sure...

[zoephile]

Good, the French should show them the door.And remind them not to let the door hit them on the way out.

Re:Still not sure...

[Domza]

well, not if all the consumers move to France.

Re:Still not sure...

[HuguesT]

Perhaps you've heard of these guys.

Re:Still not sure...

[Lord Kano]

They will always sell drugs, the question is do they invest lots of money on development if the path to a return is hindered substantially?

This might be true if it hadn't already been shown that drug companies spend more money on advertising than research, in some cases nearly three times more.

LK

Re:Still not sure...

[Joey7F]

There are plenty of "drugs" that are never sold, that never get FDA approval. That money is already baked into the pie.

--Joey

OLD NEWS AND INACCURATE

[Anonymous Coward]

The bills have already been altered in such a way that not only will Apple NOT be hurt by the bill but will most likely benefit in the long run. The French public was so infuriated by the changes in the bill that they have already had public demonstrations protesting the French governments bending to big business. Do a little DD before posting such nonsense. This is OLD news.

Re:OLD NEWS AND INACCURATE

[pete6677]

Yes, but sensationalism sells papers, or rather page hits.

Vive La France !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If General Lafayette and French Foreign Legion handn't helped George Washington and the Continental Army during the Revolution, we'd all be speaking English right now.

Re:Vive La France !!!

[ClosedSource]

Funny you mention that. Remember that big uproar a few weeks ago about the US National Anthem being translated into Spanish? Yeah, we want to keep the official language of the US the one approved by King George! If wanted to speak something else, we would have had a revolution!

Re:Vive La France !!!

[Bloke down the pub]

we want to keep the official language of the US the one approved by King George! If wanted to speak something else

I thought King George spoke German.

But even if he spoke English, you bloomin colonials don't, strike a light, it's a luvverlee olliday wiv Maree...

Re:Vive La France !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought King George spoke German.

Kings George I and II did, but George III was a native English speaker.

Re:Vive La France !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that big uproar a few weeks ago about the US National Anthem being translated into Spanish?

  Yeah. That was really hilarious, since the US National Anthem was translated into Spanish in 1925 by the United States Department of Education. And the Mouthbreather Squad just noticed it last week!

  Even more funny was Lou Dobbs running that Aztlan bullshit he got from the CCC. (The Council of Conservative Citizens, a racist organization which grew out of the White Citizens' Councils that lobbied for Segregation back in the 60's) The Aztlan thing is sort of a crazy "Protocols of the Elders of the Barrio." Some bigots cherry-picked a couple of bits from some pamphlets printed by a 'Latino pride' student group, threw in a couple of mistranslations, and created this phantom 'secret plan' whereby the Mexkins are invadin' the US by illegal immigration, planning to give the southwestern US states back to Mexico! 'Cause that would totally work and stuff!
  Sure, it's ludicrous, but it plays on fears of The Great Brown Hordes, so it gets play in certain circles, and CNN's Lou Dobbs is apparently part of them.

Unfortunately

[jchernia]

This may only serve to help the record labels.

Consider that Apple was able to keep the price of singles down to $.99 in the last round of negotiations. If the record labels could have cut off Apple without losing the iPod market (which they couldn't because Fairplay is closed), they would have (and only sold to retailers willing to sell out their customers).

With a large marketshare behind them Apple was able to leverage buying power for its customers and drive down price. Other examples of this include Wal-Mart or CostCo.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

except apple is driving up the price of what is an estensibly free product.

home recording (private copy) was allowed, and so was the hand to hand exchange of tapes.

suddenly when it involves wires and silicon, and technology making it easier for people to exchange anything person to person, it's EVIL THEFT!!oneone....

no thank you.

Hard drive crash

[Phroggy]

My hard drive with all my music files crashed, and I can't transfer the songs from my handheld into a new computer?

There are two components to this: being able to actually copy the files onto another computer, and being able to play them. With the iPod, Apple does not currently provide a way to copy music from the iPod onto a computer; it can be done easily enough on Linux or using third-party software, but for the average user, it can't be done. Of course Apple's position is that if they allowed this, it would encourage piracy, and they're right, it would (if I had an iPod and Apple made it easy to copy songs from it, I would use it to share MP3s with other people far more often than I would ever use it to copy MP3s onto my own computer). Nevertheless, it would be nice if Apple added a way to copy music from an iPod.

To be fair, when you buy anything from the iTunes Music Store, you are advised to back it up on CD or something. I think they've tried to make it clear that copying to an iPod is not a replacement for backups. I've heard that if you call Apple and whine enough, they'll let you re-download all your purchases, which is nice of them, but really, backing up your data is your own responsibility.

The other issue here is playing the files on a different computer. Apple allows you to authorize up to five computers at a time, and normally you can deauthorize computers you'll no longer be using... but if the hard drive in an authorized computer dies, you can't deauthorize it yourself. If you don't use multiple computers, you can just ignore this problem until you hit your limit of five. Otherwise, if you call Apple and explain the situation, they can remove the authorization from your account. So it's really not a huge problem right now.

Re:Hard drive crash

[DaveM753]

With the iPod, Apple does not currently provide a way to copy music from the iPod onto a computer

iTunes software allows you to:

Burn downloaded iTunes songs onto a CD
Re-rip the CD back into iTunes as MP3 files
Once they're MP3s, you can copy and play them with any MP3 player.

I do this all the time, and listen to songs downloaded via iTunes on my Palm. It's a couple of extra steps, but it works just fine.

Re:Hard drive crash

[Phroggy]

When you reencode to MP3, you lose quality. Many people don't really notice, but please be aware that it's a concern for some people.

Re:Hard drive crash

[mytec]

...you call Apple and explain the situation, they can remove the authorization from your account. So it's really not a huge problem right now.

You can do it yourself from your account settings on iTMS. I think the limit is once every 12 months that you can deauthorize all the computers associated with your account.

Re:Hard drive crash

[Randseed]

Of course, it's precisely the issue of DRM that keeps me from buying the damned songs online in the first place. Here's a real life example: I heard Christopher Cross's "Ride Like The Wind" on the radio. For whatever reason, I liked the song and wanted to get the thing. Because I don't run Windows, I [b]didn't even bother to look at the legal sources.[/b] I just went to GnutellaNet.

Re:Hard drive crash

[Bloke down the pub]

Plus it seems a bit wasteful having to use physical CDs as an intermediate step.

Re:Hard drive crash

[Kjella]

Of course Apple's position is that if they allowed this, it would encourage piracy, and they're right, it would (if I had an iPod and Apple made it easy to copy songs from it, I would use it to share MP3s with other people far more often than I would ever use it to copy MP3s onto my own computer).

...but sharing MP3s physically with close friends and family would certainly be a whole lot closer to fair use than sharing it with 10000 "friends" on the Internet, at least if you were the original purchaser of the CD. Then again, if you shared MP3s that is a 10th "generation" copy, it falls quite well past fair use.

Re:Hard drive crash

[ben there...]

Because I don't run Windows, I didn't even bother to look at the legal sources. I just went to GnutellaNet.

I can just imagine some RIAA executive reading that and equating Linux users with music pirates. Arggghh!

So, just don't use iPod - jeez

[i am kman]

OMG - what's the problem here. It's just like France to step in to regulate the market and punish businesses simply because they make too great a product.

You have a merchant selling proprietary content for a proprietary device. If you don't like the model, just buy from someone else. It's really not that complicated. That's what capitalism is all about and why much of the IT world is rapidly moving towards open standards.

Next thing you know, France will force all the telcos to make sure all the ringtones and video games I download to my phone can run on all the other little phones. It's ridiculous!!

(Ok, Apple's iPod policy pisses me off too, but I have a CHOICE. Apple has always been extremely proprietary and controlling which is the main reason their stuff works so well).

Re:So, just don't use iPod - jeez

[aristotle-dude]

Yes you are totally right. Oh, wait.... Mac users like me cannot use WMA based devices because MSFT has never written software to support that format DRM'd on OS X. The same thing goes for Linux btw.

If Apple is proprietary, what does that make MSFT technology? Their software only works on windows and with devices certified by them with the "playsforsure" logo. Nice try there pal. You almost pulled the wool over their eyes.

With iTunes, you are not "locked" into one OS and you are not locked into using an iPod either. Burning to CD is always an option.

I like the fact that I can use my music and devices in both OS X and windows if I so choose. With WMA technology, you can only use windows and MSFT approved devices.

Re:So, just don't use iPod - jeez

[plasmacutter]

what about linux?

Re:So, just don't use iPod - jeez

[ben there...]

(Ok, Apple's iPod policy pisses me off too, but I have a CHOICE. Apple has always been extremely proprietary and controlling which is the main reason their stuff works so well).

So portable players didn't work well before DRM, when the predominant format for portable players was mp3?

(My old 32 MB Rio 600 seemed to have no problems playing mp3, and that was in the late 90s)

Re:So, just don't use iPod - jeez

[aristotle-dude]

Linux? There are services like eMusic, Magnatune and Mind Dawn which cater to linux. Quite frankly though, I tried the OS X client of Mind Dawn but I could not get it to render the pages as their servers seemed to be overloaded any time I tried to use it or it was just a poorly coded client.

There are two barriers to companies supporting linux with commercial software. The first one is the perception linux has with fanatics like RMS talking of how closed software is the spawn of satan. The second would be the lack of standardization of the desktop GUI toolkits and the lack of care these projects seem to have concerning backwards binary compatibility. For obvious reasons, many companies do not want to distribute their software as source but because of binary compatibility issues, they cannot reliably distribute one binary for all linux distros for the "end user". Open source is great and all but source is useless to the average consumer. They really don't give a flying rat's ass about source code but rather whether the software just works out of the box.

If anyone is wondering why Quicktime and iTunes is so popular, it is because it works out of the box (or download) without any fuss on 99% of windows and mac systems out there.

Re:So, just don't use iPod - jeez

[toddestan]

If Apple is proprietary, what does that make MSFT technology?

Proprietary. Who said it wasn't?

DRM is not for piracy, its for anti-competition...

[iSeal]

Fears of revealing trade secrets?

Does this not go against the most fundamental rule of designing good encryption and good security systems? That is to say, expose the inner-workings of the system to public scrutiny? Or are they afraid that this could open up their devices to competitors?

DRM. Is it about protecting music, or is it about preventing competition?

State sponsored copyright infrigment?

[Gadzinka]

There's one thing that I don't understand. How can there be "state-sponsored copyright infrigment" if the copyright itself is state-granted?

I know, that this might be shocking for some people, but copyright isn't a natural law. It is the state (mandated by the people) that sets the terms and conditions of copyright and if some author doesn't like it he can take his toys and go home.

Robert

Re:State sponsored copyright infrigment?

[kfg]

I know, that this might be shocking for some people, but copyright isn't a natural law.

Shhhhhhhhh! If people start thinking like that they might even jump to the conclusion that corporations only exist by grant of government charter as well; agreeing to obtain certain legal benefits in exchange for certain legal responsibilities.

And we wouldn't not that now, would we?

KFG

Re:State sponsored copyright infrigment?

[revery]

but copyright isn't a natural law

Some would argue that it is. Some would even argue that it goes back to a Judeo-Christian principle that a "laborer is worthy of his wages" and that a government is merely recognizing their responsibility to protect that right.

Some would also argue that I am smoking crack... but that's just part of the fun of arguing.

Re:State sponsored copyright infrigment?

[Vann_v2]

That is not a "Judeo-Christian principle." The most you could say is that it's a principle grounded in the Protestant work-ethic. But the idea of equating labor to wages is relatively modern.

Re:State sponsored copyright infrigment?

[Gadzinka]

Some would argue that it is. Some would even argue that it goes back to a Judeo-Christian principle that a "laborer is worthy of his wages" and that a government is merely recognizing their responsibility to protect that right.

I could more or less agree with that, but I don't see how you could put into this picture:

• People, for generations to come getting benefits from some work of art done by some guy they've never met; us, mere mortals, when we want to secure our heirs, we have to save money; if we want to secure our own future we have to give part of our wages for some kind of social security
  
• Authors of the works getting slavery wages while all benefits are ripped by someone who didn't labour. And said parasites ordering the authors to pay for packaging and breakage of electronic copies of the works, as confirmed by courts in many jurisdictions
  
• Parasites buying rights to lock me behind bars when I want to watch my lawfully bought movies on Linux, or dump said dvds to my harddrive for convenience of watching
  
• Other parasites saying me what I can and can't do with my legally bought gear, like my Xbox, which after modding is used by me almost exclusivelly as media center
  

No, I don't think it's a natural law, if it takes something that gets closer and closer to police state, to protect.

And believe me, I know how police state looks like, I grew in one.

Robert

Re:State sponsored copyright infrigment?

[Fros1y]

Actually,

European Copyright law has traditionally viewed copyright as an extension of natural law. In particular, rather than the utilitarian tradition of anglo-saxon copyright, continental systems have viewed it as an extension of the moral rights of authorship.

In that sense, it's more difficult to argue for principles such as fair use or mandatory licensing, attributes easily explained and rationalized within the anglo-saxon worldview.

Of course, international treaties are essentially hybridizing all of this law. From what I've seen, though, moral rights are more likely to be imported into our regime than fair use into "theirs." For instance, the Berne convention has a mandatory provision for a subset of author's moral rights, but only permissive grants of authority for national governments to establish fair use type rights, if they so choose.

Re:State sponsored copyright infrigment?

[revery]

I understand and basically agree with most of what you say. My point was pretty much limited to the concept of copyright as opposed to the current implementation. Copyright is a lot like taxes and tarriffs, you can only extend/increase them so much before people find it easier to just break the law. Lord Macaulay wrote/said some interesting things on the subject of copyright, things with which I readily agree. You can read them in full here and an excerpt here.

Here are a few more excerpts:

I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass [...] there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men.
[...]
Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot.
[...]
Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.

The only thing you said that I really disagree with is this: Authors of the works getting slavery wages while all benefits are ripped by someone who didn't labour. And said parasites ordering the authors to pay for packaging and breakage of electronic copies of the works, as confirmed by courts in many jurisdictions

I think the fact that the author had the right to sell their copyright is legitimate. The fact that they felt they had a better chance of making money with a parasitic label is regrettable, but I think it is their choice to make.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

Re:State sponsored copyright infrigment?

[Gadzinka]

The only thing you said that I really disagree with is this:

Authors of the works getting slavery wages while all benefits are ripped by someone who didn't labour. And said parasites ordering the authors to pay for packaging and breakage of electronic copies of the works, as confirmed by courts in many jurisdictions.

I think the fact that the author had the right to sell their copyright is legitimate. The fact that they felt they had a better chance of making money with a parasitic label is regrettable, but I think it is their choice to make.

Well, I don't agree with your disagreement ;)

The state has the right to intervene in contracts and their framing. And it uses (sometimes even abuses) it in regards to labour laws, monopoly/trusts etc.

In my country Copyright Act[1] says that one is allowed to reverse engineer, decompile, debug software to achieve interoperability. And couple of paragraphs down, there is a beautiful phrase: items of contracts contradicting paragraphs [here list, among items provisions for interoperability] are void.

If the Parasites have lots of money, control all channels of distribution, IMO the state has a moral right to intervene on the behalf of artists. And the copyright industry has such leverage, while it simultaneously tries to destroy alternative methods of distribution, so artists won't have a choice other than sign contracts with them.

And the Parasites do destroy alternative channels of distribution. You didn't think, that their crusade against P2P is to prevent people from exchanging some tracks from top 100? They now best, that people using p2p are the people buying most CDs -- they commisioned those studies. But they also know, that efficient p2p networks could give artists the means to avoid the middleman altogether, and they can't let this happen.

I think that the state could and should intervene in this madness. Unfortunatelly, the State are just people, normal people, usually more greedy than the norm. They're in the pockets of special interest groups for years...

Robert

[1] It's not really a copyright in Poland, the proper name is "Author's and Related Rights Act"

I guess France doesn't want iTunes

[Andrew Tanenbaum]

I think the obvious thing for Apple to do if this bill passes is to simply stop selling music on iTunes to people living in France. Is that what the French want? If not, they shouldn't pass this bill.

Re:I guess France doesn't want iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that blackmail?

Re:I guess France doesn't want iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea if Apple is in the business of giving up large sums of money due to a hissy fit. It's even better for France, then, since money spent to fill up people's iPods will go to French vendors and stay inside the French economy.

Re:I guess France doesn't want iTunes

[Andrew Tanenbaum]

No, it isn't. If France makes a law that outlaws iTunes as it stands today, then they can either adapt iTunes, or not sell songs to the French.

Re:I guess France doesn't want iTunes

[Starsmore]

Sounds like blackmail to me.

You do this thing we want you to do, or we do this to you.

This being the discontinuation of iTunes for France.

Re:I guess France doesn't want iTunes

[Andrew Tanenbaum]

Except that Apple doesn't need them to do anything. This is France trying to pass a law that makes iTunes illegal. If anyone is being blackmailed, it's Apple.

Re:I guess France doesn't want iTunes

[plasmacutter]

except apple did it first to the french public and other player manufacturers selling in france:

"you buy ipods or we lock you out".. or to put it in a message to other companies manufacturing the players..."enter our market and we sue your company into oblivion under the EUCD".

Apple started this game of dirty pool, of course they werent the first to start leveraging it, there are many other incumbents which benefit from this anticompetitive protectionism, but don't go painting apple as the innocent, theyre doing just as much arm twisting here.

DISCLAIMER: mac user since 2003, maybe not for long b/c of "Trusted Platform Modules" being shipped in intel macs.. (THANKS FOR SELLING US OUT APPLE!)

Stationers perpetual copyright in 1557 CE

[GodWasAnAlien]

The Stationers had a goverment sponsered publishing monopoly starting
in 1557 and lasting 137 years.

Of course this led to suppression and censorship.

So when the United States was founded, publishing monopolies were to be limited if not eleimitated entirely. The compromise was a 14 year copyright once renewable by 14 years by the author. The copyright purpose was explicitly to promote advancement.

Fast forward to now. Corporations have been given the rights of persons. Government granted publishing monopolies (copyrights) have being extened to be 120 years. And the most control and profit from these monopolies goes not to the original authors, but the media companies (the modern Stationers).

DRM attempts to go beyond any government limits, and establish complete control of publishing media.

Re:Stationers perpetual copyright in 1557 CE

[Reservoir Penguin]

You do realise that the only way to change this is not to engage in the cat-n-mouse game of "piracy" with the media cartels but to create original public domain works of art yourself? Go ahead, create, a lot of tools are availible to any ordinnary citizen.

For France..

[webteeth]

Being free is not worth what they'll leave behind.

Great!

[bhunachchicken]

I can't wait to download and read the bill in Microsoft Windows Word format when it's ready...

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

héhé

http://www.senat.fr/leg/tas05-088.html

You'll probably have to wait for the english translation though....

Why just music players?

[tktk]

I'd like NTFS drivers for all my OS's.

Oh, and gaming consoles. I could save money buying just buying one console but games from everyone.

Ok, I went overboard, but it's fun to imagine.

YA RIGHT

[Stoutlimb]

That makes as much sense as watching the RIAA pack up and leave if DRM is banned.

Waitamiunute!! Why don't we try??? Maybe that was their idea along...

Somehow I don't think it would be that simple.

E

Errata:

[kfg]

And we wouldn't want that now, would we?

And yes, I did preview. Srroy.

KFG

Forest through the fucking trees.....

[WhiteWolf666]

An alphabet soup of microsoft protocols, and they go after AAC players.

Good grief.....

Make it "industry wide", idiots. That it ONLY applies to music players makes me thing MS is behind the scenes, somehow.

The market, however, will remain...

[jabbo]

Do you honestly think that someone else won't fill the void?

That's the beauty of a properly functioning free market. DRM, abusive terms of copyright, and poor patent practices all attempt to break the free market. But it has survived in the past, and will continue to in the future.

Apple doesn't want to lose the French market, and they don't want to play fair with their competitors. Too bad. The French government giveth them rights, and taketh them away, as it suits the interests of the French.

GNU Media here we come!

[Ougarou]

Yeah! GNU/Linux media here we come.

Now if they could only force 3D hardware companies to reveal their "trade secrets". And then we'll export the code on T-shirts from France to the rest of the world.

Come to think of it, maybe Mark Shuttleworth can buy the FSF it's own free country! Think of what we could accomplish.

Re:GNU Media here we come!

[babbling]

No need to buy a country. We just need to organise for all free software people to move to a country with a relatively small population. Then we vote in the FSF.

What about Urge!

[Ucklak]

It's funny how no one has mentioned Microsoft, MTV, and the Urge! brand fit into this.
Talk about lockout.

I understand France's position on this but people still have a choice.
With Urge!, you only have 1 way and 1 OS to comply.

And when did MTV only require IE now to view their video content?

Re:What about Urge!

[glesga_kiss]

It's funny how no one has mentioned Microsoft, MTV, and the Urge! brand fit into this. Talk about lockout.

"France Considers Anti-DRM 'iPod Law'" is the article title. Urge is US-only. Maybe that's why? ;-) Of course, the "iPod Law" bit was undoubtably a creation of Apple's fabulous PR facilities, up there with the likes of "Patriot Act". It's all in the name...

I understand France's position on this but people still have a choice.

What choice? If you are an iTunes consumer and your when you iPod breaks or you fancy an upgrade, you are SOL. You have no choice but to buy Apple. This proposed law says that the manufactures should work together. To give YOU choice.

And when did MTV only require IE now to view their video content?

It's probably part of their contract that they have to use WMV with DRM on their whole operation, when they sold their soul to MS. If MTV has a soul, I believe it died about the time they stopped the whole "Music" part of that and ceased to be relevant.

Re:What about Urge!

[Ucklak]

What choice? If you are an iTunes consumer

You can have an iPod and not use iTunes. In fact, you can use Rhapsody and use your iPod.

In fact, you can use iTunes and use any other MP3 player for that fact. It just won't sync up as nice.

Re:What about Urge!

[glesga_kiss]

You can have an iPod and not use iTunes. In fact, you can use Rhapsody and use your iPod.

How is that any good for "an iTunes consumer" as I mentioned? You miss the point of this whole proposed law it seems. It's NOTHING to do with iPods. It's everything to do with iTunes and the increasing sales of downloaded digital media.

In fact, you can use iTunes and use any other MP3 player for that fact. It just won't sync up as nice.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Music purchased through iTunes is infected with DRM and can only be played on preauthroized machines. You need to crawl to Apple and hope they haven't changed their policy everytime you get a new PC. And you can ONLY use an iPod for portable aac + "fairplay" formats.

It's a monopoly. And it's Apples. Has your mind imploded yet or are you still in denial?

US law and companies...

[gzunk]

And just how different to the US imposing tariffs on steel imports to protect US manufacturers, providing "assistance" to US aerospace companies, preventing the purchase of Unocal by a chinese oil company?

Sure the French are protectionist, but you can't claim that the US isn't either - and until you can, the word "hypocrisy" rings a bit hollow.

Re:US law and companies...

[MosesJones]

Ah but then I'd be a Brit... please quote our recent protectionist measures.

Re:US law and companies...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is different in that this law is not made to protect local companies, but to protect consumers. Quite a difference, IMHO. The American government interventions are only harming consumers. Furthermore, this is a general law, that applies to all companies using DRM. Two of the three American government interventions you mentioned are only targeted at specific companies.

Not to mention that the three things you mention are all illegal under WTO-treaties, while the proposed French consumer law isn't.

"State Sponsored" Piracy?

[OzPhIsH]

First off, opening DRM so different music players can interoperate with these DRMed files has NOTHING to do with piracy. Having said that, I thought piracy, at least in this digital age, meant the illegal copying, trading, selling, "stealing," etc of digital information (bits). The concept of "State Sponsored" piracy just seems to be a huge oxymoron. If the state were actually saying that these are legal activities, wouldn't it cease to really be piracy? The fact that corporations are accusing governments of this kind of stuff makes my head spin. I thought the government was suppose to define what was illegal, and not corporations. Oh wait...

Re:"State Sponsored" Piracy?

[penguinstorm]

"The concept of "State Sponsored" piracy just seems to be a huge oxymoron."

So, increasingly, does the concept of France as a State.

It appears to be crumbling under its own French-ness.

A shame too. Such great wine. Such wonderful cheese. Such beautiful women.

this story is OLDER THAN DIRT (tm)

[swschrad]

geez, the mainstream press wore this one out in mid-April, and slashdot burned their server disk bald by May as well.

folks, the state department talked to France, and they backed down for a while. almost a month ago.

move along, nothing to see here. come on, get moving. OK, what you hanging around for, next bus to gitmo? it loads in two minutes......

I'm sure

[Anonymous Coward]

this law will rapidly extend to other states of the US.. like the SMS/email tax.

Trey Redicule!

[posterlogo]

I would always prefer in an ideal world for market forces to drive the way a company works. If a company's product or business model is not liked by the consumer, then it will not prosper. What France wants to do, is to single out and punish the most successful business in a given market, entirely because of its success and ubiquity. I wish Apple would open up their particular DRM methodology, but why the hell should they? They are selling iPod + iTunes as one product and most people continue to buy it anyway, even though there are other ways of achieving the same goal: to listen to online-purchased music on a digital player. I believe that is the major caveat for France: There is NO monopoly here because people can get the exact same music on any player they want (the easiest thing to do is to rip it off your CD). I feel that if the consumer truly feels cheated by Apple, then they should not be buying Apple products. It just seems like the French government wants custom offerings from the private sector without paying anything.

Re:Trey Redicule!

[plasmacutter]

I would always prefer in an ideal world for market forces to drive the way a company works.

but there is this thing called the EUCD which prevents other companies from working in ways they would like, and makes them beg apple for permission to interoperate when they should be free to indepdently engineer this interoperability.

I'm all for a free market too, but that free market does not exist right now, let alone with the proposed new regulation.

They should be scoffing at and refusing to implement the EUCD, not placing in more regulation, but if they are not going to do that, then in this case I think two wrongs do make a right.

Alas, I've heard this bill has been long since neutered, so you don't have to worry. Corps will keep up their robber barron policies, and consumers will of course have no say whatsoever, besides "refusing to buy the products" of apple, microsoft, heck everybody... and living in a cave writing with charcoal by the light of a candle.

Re:DRM is not for piracy, its for anti-competition

[ozzee]

DRM. Is it about protecting music, or is it about preventing competition?

I can answer that. When I spoke with an industry illuminary (to remain anonymous), and pointed out that any form of DRM is susceptible to piracy simply because of the nature of DRM. His answer to me was... no, you misunderstand, it's (DRM) not about stopping piracy, it's about making it difficult for average consumers to make copies. So, the good guy, who buys the music/video/whatever is who is being inconvenienced. Who in their right mind would buy a Ferrari with the gearbox stuck in 1st gear ? Apparently that's exactly what the music industry wants you to do.

So, I have only been buying music from non-RIAA affiliated artists with no Digital Restrictions Management. My favorite is Candyrat. Superb musicians can be found there. What would you do?

DRM has no limits

[Anonymous Coward]

Its encrypted for eternity, never to enter the public domain and benefit a future society ever, by design.

Do you understand the meaning of "natural law"?

[Kaseijin]

Some would argue that it is.

"Some" may so assert, but no coherent argument can be made for it. Nature has seen that whatever I say can be repeated, whatever I write can be transcribed, whatever I sing or play or paint or sculpt or otherwise reveal to another person can be reproduced.

Maybe a trusted third party could convert formats.

[EarthlingN]

I think thy might be asking for something thy can't have... Big music company exectives to get along?!?! Maybe we need a trusted third party, like a bank. One that could keep track of music/video/software licenses and convert between the different formats for you. ITunes is pretty close, and a few other games services, but they are download only, and format specific, and not really backed by any kind of guarantees. Why shouldn't data work the way money does? You could transfer songs between people and other "banks". You could access your stuff from anywhere on the network or from ATM-like things. Maybe Google or Apple (or France) will build that, if someone hasn't already. I'm pretty much too lazy to look. And I don't really like music. :)

Who owns the songs?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really look at what DRM is for and then consider that Apple is putting their DRM on music files that they only have the right to sell but don't own, it (to me) becomes obvious that Apple doesn't have the right to put DRM on music files. The same goes with the rest of the music industry. It's the artists that own the copyrights to their songs and they are the only ones that can put a license on those songs. The companies that sell the music only have the right to copy and sell, and they have to give a percentage to the artists.

I haven't bought any music CDs with DRM on them, but I sure wouldn't agree to any extra software license that was put on the CD unless it was from the artists themselves. And if I couldn't play the music because I didn't agree with the software license, I think some legal action would be taken.

Re:French Law and companies....

[Anonymous Coward]

Globalization is not a good unto itself. It levels the playing field between countries, making the poor nations richer and the rich nations poorer. The argument in favor of it is that in doing so, the amount of wealth generated increases the average wealth of all countries involved. However, that doesn't mean it always makes sense for a very rich country -- and it's up to them to decide if they can stomach the idea of depressed wages and increased outsourcing. The Protectionism vs. Globalization debate has good arguments on both sides, but snidely ridiculing nations that don't agree with your pet theory doesn't help your side of it look better.

Honestly

[Trogre]

Just distribute all content in DRM-free Ogg Vorbis and be done with it.

Why limit it to music?

[Stephen Samuel]

I haven't read the law, but I'm hoping that it doesn't just apply to music. It should also (obviously) apply to video -- but even less obviously (and more important) manufacturers should be forced to describe the format that the users' own data is stored in so that you can't have vendor lock in for things like databases, text documents, vertical applications, etc.

It's my data. I should be able to access it any way that I want.

Re:Why limit it to music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Write your own damn application, then. If you choose to store your data using a company's software, you agree to their terms. If you don't like it, don't use it.
You can access your data any way you want - but if you chose certain apps, you've chosen to lock it.
Your choice.

But I guess we must all agree..

[Frightening]

that at the end of the day, France is a wonderful country.

Re:But I guess we must all agree..

[jd]

I can almost forgive them a whole bunch of their sins for this. If they pressure the EU on limiting DRM or getting products to interoperate, that will help, too.

No.

[jd]

Analogue systems are far too important, far too valuable, to simply be banned. Furthermore, to outlaw a species of technology for the sole purpose of promoting another species of technology is absurd (and speciesist). Analogue technology is also very important, as it is proving to be far more durable and far more portable than digital systems. You absolutely want to be able to copy stuff into analogue formats.

How would my proposal work with this, though? You are correct that DRM schemes don't cross over into the analogue world. (Well, that's not 100% true, as there have been copy-protection schemes for tapes.)

The answer is that there would need to be an intermediate device that was authorized to receive the digital stream, and which could then transfer JUST the data (in converted form) to tape. The copy on tape would be unprotected, but it would be authorized to be unprotected.

Would manufactuers go for that? That would be a tough sell, but might be possible. They'd need to add to the DRM systems some means of restricting the number of copies, or something similar to that.

Also, isn't a "smart DAC" of this kind defeating DRM in the first place? No, because it's not about preventing someone making copies, it is about controlling and managing the process, and ensuring that the maximum rights are preserved in a copy. Where the copy can't preserve rights, then the manufacturer - not the user - needs to be SOL. The user should not be limited by the capability or imagination of a manufacturer.

In my descriptions, I pointed out that not all DRM information could be copied on all systems, and that such information will simply need to be dropped. The analogue tapes are merely the logical extreme of this. Furthermore, my descriptions are merely intended as proof that DRM, interoperability, competition and affordability are not mutually exclusive, but if done right can even complement each other very nicely. I don't agree with DRM in the first place, but if we're going to suffer with it, then damnit, I want to suffer from the very best.

Digital rights exerts a pressure. This can be a pressure on the user to conform to a certain behaviour, or it can be a pressure on corporations to evolve better solutions. Both will create positive feedback loops. If you try to constrain the user more and more, the userbase will stagnate and die. If you try to force progress, then users will increase their expectations as fast as companies can progress to meet them, with the slower companies simply being run over.

In the end, nothing is going to progress faster than it has to. Where there isn't a perceived need, an "itch" that has to be scratched or a market that could be better utilized, there will be no progress. DRM provides a need. The first impulse of the corporations is to kill that need, because progress is expensive, but banning things is cheap (for them). Interoperability provides another need, and again the first impulse is to kill it. Monopolies make for a lot of power and glory, whereas both competition and cooperation are expensive and draining of energy.

The laws on DRM and interoperability of media systems should (in my not-so humble opinion) be used to foist cooperative evolution in technology through both pressures. I want to hear screams and howls of pain and anguish from the USPO - not because software engineers broke in and took revenge, but because the volume of genuine, bleeding-edge, novel work they're having to go through has to be airlifted in by transport planes.

Re:No.

[wpegden]

I think maybe you didn't understand my post. An optical digital out is on the back of many stereos these days. (There is one coming out of my soundcard.) It can be sent to some digital receivers instead of using standard coax cables for better quality sound. However, since the optical output is digital, it can be used with a recording device to make a perfect copy of the digital original. This is existing technology. Question: what happens to this technology? Do you oulaw it? I have trouble finding a straightforward answer to this in your post. If you don't outlaw it, I defeat your DRM proposals.

Doesn't accomplish the purpose

[Penguinoflight]

For everyone who got lost reading through the parents' encryption catch-words, there's one thing that you must notice. This system is not possible to implement unless there is a internet connection to authenticate each time a file is played. This creates a few problems.

First, the content providers will need a better infrastructure to handle their content; of course, it is their current failure that causes the problems that france is trying to address, but they will not like having to fix their own problem, and will complain.

Second, everywhere you go, you will need a connection to access the content that you bought and paid for. The world is constantly becoming more connected, but this will still cause problems, especially if the free-drm scheme spreads to more important media types than just music.

Third, and most important is that multiple corporate groups will be carrying information on not only their own customers, but also their competitors customers. Any customers will be hit with multiple sales-pitches to switch from itunes to yahoo, or who knows what new service (or scam). Identity theft is a prevelant problem in the US, this is simply because corporations who have no interest in protecting their clients carry enough information to ruin them financially. It's hard to see this same problem with a open-drm system, but where there is opportunity for abuse, it will be taken.

Re:Doesn't accomplish the purpose

[jd]

Forcing content providers to provide, well, content is hardly a bad thing. :) If a provider creates an obligation for itself, which is witnessed, then it is a gentleman's agreement which (in the UK, at least) is as enforcable as any written contract.

But, yes, my system does force providers to constantly upgrade their technologies. All of their technologies. The pressure would be on them, and they would have to grow or die.

For the authentication, I'm thinking much the same system as for SSL. Each device would have an X.509 (or something similar) which is signed by a trusted third party. Authentication, then, is simply a matter of getting the certificate, checking that it is signed by a known certificate vendor, and checking that the signature has not been altered. It would then be up to the DRM code on the sender device to determine if the recipient is authorized. Some devices may track how many copies they've made and stop when they hit the upper limit indicated by the metadata. There's all sorts of ways it can be done.

(If the certificate contains the DRM scheme + version in use, then all devices can trade known lists of broken DRM schemes. Sure, some copying onto broken systems will happen, this kind of propogation is sloooow. On the other hand, it places the least constraint on users, and I consider that a far greater benefit than speeding up the random walk of the DRM lists, as those are inevitably going to be out of date all of the time anyway, so speeding things up won't buy you anything.)

Dupe? Oldnews?

[MilenCent]

At this moment, this story bears the tags dupe and oldnews.

An Old Stories search for France Apple DRM turns up dozens of hits, but only this story seems to have to do with France, so I doubt it's a dupe. The oldnews tag doesn't make sense either, considering that the article linked to the story was published on May 26. This is not the first time I've seen tags like this, either.

Maybe this is too meta, but I must wonder whether people are trying to game the tag system. Has anyone else noticed this kind of thing?

Re:French Law and companies....

[Anonymous Coward]

'then fair enough' my ass. France is an independent country. Surprised there are some still? ;-) The law they adopted prevents an american company make more profit. So what? Who the f_ck cares about an american company? Why should every single person in the world be interested in the economical development of the US?
Governments support local makers. after all, that's what they are there for. Since when is it 'wrong'? Huh?

Ok, my misunderstanding.

[jd]

Hey, it happens to the best of us. And to me as well. Hmmmm, that's a tough one. I dislike intensely solutions that cripple (or outlaw) technologies. It is better to make advances somewhere else. Of course, you do need to add a dash of common sense. Hydrogen bombs at Walmart would not be a good idea - at least, not until technology is a LOT more advanced and humans have socially matured somewhat.

Ok, where does the optical digital output fit into this? Well, IMHO it is a reasonable technology, therefore should absolutely NOT be banned or crippled through DRM, other technology or by law. In fact, I'm picturing a variant of exactly that to hook DRM-enabled devices together for authorized copying.

Does it defeat my meta-DRM scheme? The metadata would be lost, so any recording from the optical digital output would lack that information. It does break my scheme, yes, if you made your recording via a non-DRM device. In such a case, you've eliminated all protections at zero loss of useful information.

When copying onto a DRM device following my suggestions, the story is a little different. My scheme substitutes maximum restrictions, for each control table entry for which metadata isn't available, so recording onto such a DRM device would impose stricter limitations than the original digital copy. That would be fine for personal use (you just want A of the original - for the car, or whatever) but would be limiting for a pirate bent on mass production.

It would ease a LOT of restrictions and limitations on purely personal use. Yes, it's broken in that an exploit does provably exist, and all you need is one exploit. It would place limits on what pirates could use for mass production, which is supposedly what DRM is for in the first place, so it's not completely a failure. And it would be more effective at doing so than the crap we have at present, so it would be something of an improvement.

After that, I would say that it was up to industry to evolve faster than the pirates (which really don't exist as more than a tiny blip in things anyway). Since that means producing the best recorders and players (not the most inhibiting), the consumer benefits. In fact, the more consumers spend, the more they'll benefit. (Which is the exact opposite of current DRM approaches, where the more customers finance the R&D, the less they get, which is one reason why pirates exist at all.)

It's NOT about "trade secrets"

[jeremie_z_]

What the Assemblée's version of the text forced DRM makers to give publicly is NOT "trade secret", just "informations needed for interoperability", with such precision : "technical informations and programming interfaces needed to obtain a copy in an open standard of a protected work".

These informations should be made public for a competition to be free. If it isn't, then it's use for blocking competition. That's because they didn't disclose such informations that Microsoft was found guilty by the European Commission.

Now we understand that US Corporations don't want competition to be free, the just want to rule the market, by whatever mean.

Let's not worry, though, thanks to their lobbying (Apple Corp and the DoC pushed very hard on the french Senate), the new text just allow some kind of stupid commission to ask and say "please!" in order to _try_ to obtain thoses informations now.

Get comfortable, no one will be able to compete with US DRM. The "iPod law" (what a stupid name! are people able to pronounce "interoperability" or do they have to always speak in trademarks??) is going to be erased under Apple's pressure.

(more infos on http://eucd.info/index.php?English-readers )

Slashdotters running to Big Brother

[Anonymous Coward]

I tire of the sub-humans here on Slashdot all howling when an unrestrained government taps their phone lines, mandates that their e-mail be retained for future scanning, and keeps people who should have been killed on the battlefield in offshore internment facilities, but at the same time, howl for unlimited government intervention in markets.

These fucktards don't seem to understand that the government with the unlimited power to issue welfare checks and regulate DRM in media players will also issue itself the authority to regulate the shit out of hackers and security professionals, and monitor them every time they take a shit.

This is why I say that I will look forward to the day when a good portion of Slashdot posters are sodomized and killed in prison after being found guilty of violating a few of the obscure "laws" issued to regulate the shit out of their asses for "The Common Good".

Re:"State Sponsored" Piracy? (but you forgot..)

[plasmacutter]

You got to that part before me, but you left out the now well known fact that DRM doesnt stop piracy, only competition... so really it's more like "state sponsored enforcement of a truly free marketplace"

FAIL: tinkertool.

[plasmacutter]

get tinerktool, a free tool for OSX, open it, click "view hidden files/folders", browse your ipod, voialah.

ipod's music directory is not visible because, from what i can gather at a glance, songs are apparently hashed into the player for optimization of access/playlisting.

The directories are numbers and would make no sense to the average user, and if joe sixpack were able to see the directory he would likely mess with the names, etc, and the ipod would go bonkers and explode (more likely just lock up) because of unexpected errors.

this does not stop people from copying the songs, it is only the mac equivalent of "hidden folders" in windows. Learn to turn it off on apple computers and have fun copying your songs.

Re:FAIL: tinkertool.

[Phroggy]

That would be included in the "third-party software" I mentioned.

Re:FAIL: tinkertool.

[plasmacutter]

yes, but that is only because macos X doesnt hide folders necessary for system maintainance unless you install unix apps and know what you are doing... in which case tinker tool, which probably just executes a shell command like the one used to add the debug menu to in safari. that said, it is an easily checked box in windows... not a third party app there, unless you count the os as a third party app. btw I hope the rest of my post was illuminating even slightly.

This is about open competition

[Alain Williams]

We complain that MS keeps it's formats/protocols secret [ think: .doc format & smb formats ]. We complain because MS uses the secrets to maintain a monopoly position, keeping prices high, restricting user choice, etc.

We accept that proprietary formats/protocols are bad, so why can't you see that the Apple keeping the iTunes protocols secret is much the same thing ? If the protocols were open then the efects of competition would be good for the consumer: lower prices, innovitive delivery. The only loser would be Apple - which is why it is trying to keep it secret.

France is championing the consumer and encouraging competition. This is something that the EU is much better at that the USA [ think: patents ].

Why should the government get involved?

[Rearden82]

So the French government has made the country so prosperous and solved so many problems that they're now able to worry about things like how MP3 players store their files? Damn, they need to share their secret with the rest of us! I don't like the iPod's proprietary file storage format, so I bought a competing model that doesn't have that drawback. Problem solved, no government intervention necessary.

Re:Why should the government get involved?

[Coeurderoy]

Problem not solved, you can now put on your mp3 player music that you ripped from your CD, do it while you can, music that you downloaded illegally (well the "right to do illegal things" is one of the reason to dislike state involvment), that too you might want to do as long as you can without too much hassle and untill you are caught, although of course the artists are ripped off even more that they are by the majors anyway.
You can also listen to the minority of artists that are not vassals of the majors, this is actually a good thing, unfortunatelly it will help you to be excluded from your community.

So the question is: is it legitimate that Apple and Microsoft are the only authorized "gate keeper" for your music ? It is by the way very interesting to see that the medias are calling this the "iPod law" and not the "WMA 10 (or 11) law" leveraging the "positive image" of Apple/iPod rather than risk reinforcing the "hegemonistic image" of Microsoft.

In conclusion this is exactly what a government SHOULD do: create policies to protect competition and avoid situations where a powerful company can use one group (the artists) as hostage to control the public.

Re:Trey Redicule!/You fell in the trap

[Coeurderoy]

The law is not about Apple and the iPod but in general about letting a company use their power to avoid improving their products.

The CD is dead, in few years you will not be able to rip your music.
So the choice will be between letting go 70% of the music or choosing between iPod and Microsoft, And you will not choose based on quality or price but on vague branding perception (Apple) vs price (Microsoft based players) (and the price will be too high anyway because everybody will have to pay for the Microsoft DRM licence).

And people might be feeling cheated by Apple, but they still will want to listen to their artists and will have to pay apple because the majors are helping Apple and Microsoft by keeping the artists hostage.

Question to ask is

[Budenny]

Here is what we should be asking, and what I think the answers would be.

Q: If the iPod model were applied to ebooks and enewspapers, would it feel right? No.
Q: If all electronic publishing were to have 90% of the media market, and be done on the iPod model, would we be ok with that? No.
Q: If it was Microsoft with 90% of the epublishing market, using the iPod model, would we like that? No.

This is about freedom to (1) buy the content of my choice without being tied to any particular software for that purpose (2) to access it, read or play it, on hardware made by the vendor of my choice.

Think DRM stopping you from running Office under Wine. Think ebooks on a Sony reader which cannot be exported or read on anything else. Think what that giveaway line about 'Apple's music' implies. Its not Apple's, its mine, I bought it. This is about who has the power, the consumer or the supplier.

The intellectual contortions of the Apple lobby in trying to explain why something bad is good when done by Apple are ridiculous.

Pack your iPods, everyone!

[Inquisitor911]

Pack your iPods, kids! We're moving to France!

Must respectfully disagree

[Simonetta]

Unfortunately, I can't play the music that I legally bought. I have to download music from BitTorrent, harming the artists and the record companies.

    If you bought the music, you have a lifetime license to listen to the music regardless of the format of the recording. The artists and record companies are not harmed as long as money is going from you to them.

    When will I be able to buy JPop and good digital classical recordings online?

    Don't bother. Please continue buying CDs. Copy the one song or passage that you are interested in to an audio file format and then donate the physical CD to the local library. Over the next five years about 20 to 30 people will check it out. About two thirds will find nothing of interest. Most of the other people will find it of mild interest. They will make an MP3 copy of the album and maybe listen to parts of it once every few years, which is the equivalent of checking the disk from the library. The remaining few people will find the music exciting and buy more CDs of this type of music, thereby supporting the artists. Several people people enjoy the music considerably, and copy the CD without compensating the artists. But they will 'evangalize' the music to others who will buy the recordings. Donating CDs to the local library is good for the artists and the record companies.

This is Bull-loney

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like this is the only place you can buy digital music. If you don't like Apple's business model, get your music somewhere else. I don't own an iPod. I don't use Apples music store. I have no problem getting any music I want for my digital music player.

Way out of line

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't get my HP ink cartridges to work in my Epson printer. Hey France, there ought to be a law.

Yeah, baby!

[psuke]

I confess I'd especially love for podcasts to be playable on other kinds of portable players. I wonder if that's included in this bill?

Uh.

[Anonymous Coward]

MECha is the Mexican Ku Klux Klan and the Mayor of Los Angeles was/is a member.

Dobbs is right. "Mexican Americans" need to decide what country they support. If they support Mexico,
then I'm not sure they should remain here.

Sorry, we fought a Civil War over this. Is *is* very seious stuff. If "La Raza" types want to rumble,
then we must take them on. It is not a silly joke that namby pambys can just wave off.

Sorry.

Re:Uh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit! Mecha is a student group, and really no different from Hillel. The attempt to twist it into some kind of Brown Panthers to suit the bigots' political ends is what I was talking about when I mentioned "cherry-picked" quoting and deliberate "mistranslation."
  I'm a white guy from California, and I know damn well what Mecha is. You and Lou Dobbs are talking out your ass.

And why is the recipient complying with this?

[moultano]

In everything you've described, what motivation does the "recipient" have to reencrypt it? At every step you are counting on the software of the person recieving the file to say, "Yep, I'll do something my user doesn't want." How long do you expect that to last? All of the functionality you describe would be easy indeed to put in any player, but it would also be easy to put in decryptMyMusic.exe . At the very least you would need some kind of system to authenticate the recieving piece of software as one that the content holder recognizes as compliant, but we've seen how well that works with game copy protection.

TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

Can this please be modded down as Troll? Thanks.

Why don't we just...

[It's a thing]

Ban DRM completely?

Bear in mind...

[solistus]

Proprietary DRM is not really for Apple. It's for the record labels. Apple fights to protect its standard, sure, because it is dependent on record labels finding its copy protection sufficient to continue licensing them music. Steve Jobs would love to sell everyone unprotected mp3s, I'm sure, but the RIAA would never go for it. FairPlay was the DRM of choice - the RIAA's choice, not Apple's - from early negotiations on. I agree that it sucks and that consumers would be better off without it, but it's not gonna go away that easily. There's a pretty good chance that Apple will simply withdraw from the French market rather than risk seeing iTMS destroyed by compromised DRM.

Re:Bear in mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs would love to sell everyone unprotected mp3s, I'm sure

yep, just like he'd love to sell OS X to everyone on the planet even if they don't own a Mac...errr...wait...