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!

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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...

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

[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!

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...

[barefootgenius]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[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.

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.

Great!

[bhunachchicken]

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

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.

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.

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?

"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...

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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 )

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"