Slashdot Mirror
Parts of French 'iPod Law' Struck Down
idobi writes "Parts of the French 'iPod law' have been struck down. The French Constitutional Council found certain aspects of the law to be troubling and a violation of copyright... not the copyright of artists, but companies' copyright of their DRM software." From the article: "In particular, the council eliminated reduced fines for file sharing and said companies could not be forced, without compensation, to make music sold online compatible with any music device. The law, which had been approved by the French Senate and National Assembly last month, was brought for review by the council following the demand of more than 100 members of the National Assembly. The council's review of whether the law fits within the French Constitution's framework is one of the final steps before a law is promulgated. Now it could take effect as altered by the council, or the government could bring it once more before the Parliament."
DRM exists as software and should thus be afforded the same rights as other software. What the French gov't could have done is something similar to what Europe did with the wireless signals. Propose a mandatory format for sellers of digital music to use. This would not limit companies or peoples ability to write and protect their own formats, but it would essentially force the hands of manufacturers to use this format in France. It would break any would be monopoly. Part of the role of government is to foster trade and communication. Allowing the formats to be dictated by corporations essentially removes this power from the government and hands it to a private entity. Its the same difference between forcing MS to make the word file format open or mandating that word processors be able to save and open in a standard format. The first infringes on the rights of MS while the other gives MS a choice to comply. Stealing the works of a monopoly whether it be Apple, MS or IBM is not the best way to do things because it does discriminate. France should have set some sort of standard for the exchange of digital music and all this fuss would have been avoided.
When all else fails, try.
The fact that DRM might by copyrightable seems disturbing.
:)
Does that mean I can pirate DRM? How long before rights management has it's own DRM. And then we need DRM for the DRM of the DRM
What the French gov't could have done is something similar to what Europe did with the wireless signals. Propose a mandatory format for sellers of digital music to use.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. DRM is not a format, it is essentially a way to handle encryption keys. Should the government choose - say - AAC or WMA as the mandatory format for online music sellers, it would still not ensure interoperatbility. The problem is not in the fact that iTMS sells AAC files, the problem is in the way they are encrypted and in the way the encryption keys are distributed. I can imagine one potential way to ensure interoperability - Apple (and other vendors) could be legally obliged to issue keys to vendors of other portable players. Just as the iPod has its "own" key repository, I think in theory - say - Creative could have a similar repository on their players. I think you could imagine a law that would require every vendor of DRM-encrypted multimedia to deliver keys to any bona fide player vendor. Such a law would satisfy both the major music corporations and the player manufacturers (not to mention us the users, proles of the digital age).
OK, I'm used to it now. It never was "iTunes Law" for starters (ie, it was not focalizing on iTunes, iPod or iPod at all), but well... I'm trying to reply fast enough so the average Slashdot reader will know this article is full of shit, just like the whole law. The fines aren't reduced, they just say you can fine someone for "stealing" someone's work, so it's back just as before assimilated as counterfeiting (3 years of jail, 300kEUR of fines max). They also removed each and every exception to DRM circumventing (no interoperability exception, and that's bad for F/OSS here in France -- yeah, VLC is a french video player and they are pretty pissed). This law (badly transcribed from the EUCD european directive, which is itself the European DMCA) is actually worse than the DMCA. The good news is the Government is pretty fucked up too (they wanted to fine downloaders while avoiding to alienate the 10M french downloaders), and that it's actually such an authoritatian law that it won't last long (the next year, we'll have a new President and Government and if they want to win the elections, they'll have to promise to remove this piece of shit). This Government is so fucked up and corrupted anyway, nobody here is surprised.
I share your concern, but not quite the way you put it.
Modern versions of computer-based DRM are simply software implementations, and are completely copyrightable under any modern body of copyright law. The philosophy here is that every batch of code is an "expression" of the underlying ideas, and that "expression" should be protected against unauthorized copying, derivation, etc. No real surprises there.
(Aside: I happen to disagree vehemently with this notion. I believe that software needs some kind of copying protection, but I don't buy this line about "expression" for most software works. But that's a discussion for a different thread.)
Also incorrect is the comment in the summary that the iPod law somehow violated "companies' copyright of their DRM software." That's completely wrong. The issue has nothing to do with the copyright over the DRM software. Is anyone "copying" the DRM software? Is anyone "deriving" it, or "publicly performing" it? The article makes no reference to the DRM software. In other words, the submitter is wildly off-track in mentioning it.
Fortunately, the submitter did choose the right buzz-clip to describe the meat of the issue: "[T]he council eliminated reduced fines for file sharing and said companies could not be forced, without compensation, to make music sold online compatible with any music device."
Now, here's what's wrong with that, and here's why you should be troubled.
The iPod law "forced" no one to do anything. Apple to take any action to maintain compliance with French law, nor was it threatened with criminal penalties for not opening iTunes to other MP3 players. Apple could have responded by doing nothing, and the law would have been A-OK with its inaction.
Rather, explicitly permitted users to engage in format translation - in order to transfer their iTunes music to a non-iPod MP3 device. If you want to use the word "force," then the law merely stopped forcing users to follow Apple's business model. As a consequence, Apple may have felt compelled to change iTunes in undesirable ways for its own business reasons, but that's completely different from a "forcing" law.
The disturbing thing here is the French Constitutional Council's summary of this law. By using the term "without compensation," they're characterizing it as an uncompensated governmental taking - a limitation of the copyright over music sold via iTunes. That's completely bogus.
Copyright is a property right offered by a government. Artists only enjoy the rights associated with copyright because the government provides them; no one is "entitled" to any particular right under copyright. In other words, government is free to extend or restrict the scope of copyright as it sees fit. Even under the U.S. Constitution, artists are entitled only to have some form of copyright protection available; they have no right to any particular form over any other.) Also, copyright law is a "social contract" between artists and the public - which the government should have very broad power to define, and adjust as necessary.
A useful analogy here is zoning law. You have a strong property right to the use of your land. However, a local government may restrict your use of it through zoning law - it may even re-zone your land to declare your current use illegal. This modification of your property rights is not a "taking." (Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co.) You are not due any compensation. Rather, your property rights as a whole are protected from uncompensated seizure, but some specific details of your property rights are subject to state law.
Now, why is this troubling? Apparently, the French Constitutional Council has exercised its power to declare a law unconstitutional on a very flawed understanding of intellectual property law. The likely basis is political pressure: it sought to redress the per
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
I think you could imagine a law that would require every vendor of DRM-encrypted multimedia to deliver keys to any bona fide player vendor.
Ah, but there's the rub -- who's a bona fide manufacturer? Every chump and competitor who comes along? How about Mr. Knock-off Manufacturer who would then have the "keys" to your entire customer base? What about the small guy? How small is too small? So many issues involved when you're forced to share your technology with anyone who asks, but not to just anyone (because then that would just enable anybody to defeat the DRM essentially). It seems like the simplest solution here is to maintain the status quo but not prosecute DRM-stripping or -defeating utilities for personal use.