TMO Reports - French DRM Law Could Have Worldwide Impact
by , 1:10 PM EST, March 24th, 2006
TMO recently had the opportunity to discuss the proposed French law to regulate copy protection and digital rights management (DRM) with intellectual property expert William Hart from the New York office of Proskauer Rose LLP. The bill passed the French lower house on March 21, and is now on its way to the upper house for approval. The intent of the law is to protect digital copyrights and ensure interoperability between devices, but it could also force companies like Apple, Sony and Microsoft to share proprietary digital rights management technology with each other and anyone else that asks.
TMO: Once this bill gets through the French Senate, do you expect it to have any real impact on copyright and intellectual property protection?
Hart: The bill raises any number of questions, and could have an impact not only within France, but in the rest of the world, as well. To understand the significance of the issue, you have to realize why encryption exists in the first place.
Given the ease with which digitized works can be spread and reduplicated and transmitted to potentially millions of unauthorized users, there was a strong need to protect author interests by using technological measures to prevent unauthorized access and copying of these digital files.
In addition, and based upon international treaty imperatives, participating countries are required to provide adequate legal remedies against defeating or circumventing those encryption measures.
I am not aware that the treaty imposes any obligation to make the technologies used by one company compatible with another. So, if the French legislation, as enacted, requires 'open' systems or ones which require sharing of the encryption and decryption protocols among various manufacturers of devices and software, there is certainly the potential to expose that technology to unauthorized intrusions/access.
By doing so, you invite the very risk that the technology and companion laws on anti-circumvention were designed to prevent- widespread, unauthorized access and copying of content.
TMO: Currently, music purchased from Apple's iTunes Music Store isn't directly compatible with every player on the market. The same can be said for other services, like those offered by Sony and RealNetworks. How viable is the idea that any digital music device can play DRM-protected songs, regardless of which online store they are purchased from?
Hart: I suppose, from the consumer's point of view, they would like to be able to play the tracks obtained from iTunes on other devices and/or use their iPod to play tracks obtained from sources other than an iStore.
In theory, that's great. But, in practice, it is problematic for any number of reasons. For example, if I release a song via a secure system with the knowledge that its further copying is subject to paying me royalties, the approach works. But, if the "secure" system is no longer secure, because a law says that whatever content is made available on it also has to be playable on other systems, which may or may not have any security, the whole concept of security is lost. It's like locking the front door, and leaving the windows open.
TMO: How do you expect companies like Apple, Sony and Microsoft - all of whom have their own proprietary copy protection technologies - to react to the law? Are they likely to comply, take some kind of legal action to protect their copy protection schemes, or simply pull out of France?
Hart: One obvious answer would be to make fully compatible systems. I don't know what the anti-trust law issues are, but assuming that some industry 'standard' could be adopted -- that would be the easy way, in theory, to deal with this issue.
Of course, that means that every manufacturer of an MP3 playback device might have to sign on to a technology license and pay a royalty for use of a technology. And then, the hardware manufacturers will complain, right?
Right now, I suppose one of the "selling" points for the various technologies is not only how secure they are, but how flexible they are to change and updating, with the addition of features. I don't know that if there is one worldwide compatible system whether that can be possible - perhaps it means some device that acts as an interface between different systems - but, without getting out of my depth, technologically, I think we still have one fundamental problem: If the device is going to output to another device which does not implement a protection scheme, we are again leaving the windows open while locking the door.
TMO: What about throwing more technology at the issue? Do you see an opportunity for software developers to create technologies that are compatible with competing DRM schemes?
Hart: There may some answers in open-source technologies which keep part of the encryption secret, and part of it open for others to use. That might mean that you could download the software to play the song on your other device, but the device would still require some recognition or payment before it would allow you to play- and if it doesn't we are back to the same problem, aren't we?
TMO: Earlier you mention France's international treaty obligations. Can you elaborate on that?
Hart: It is theoretically possible that if France is violating its intellectual property treaty obligations that it could suffer trade consequences through official channels. I had this experience in a matter I worked on in a Scandinavian country, which - we said, and the US government agreed - was not living up to its intellectual property treaty obligations. As a result it was listed on a USTR Watch List, which is not a good thing for a country doing business in the international market.
TMO: Piper Jaffray financial analyst Gene Munster speculates that the new law will have little impact on Apple. Is he right, or is there big trouble ahead for Apple?
Hart: I think the issue may focus on Apple right now, but it is a "tip of the iceberg" problem for DRM generally. Every content owner and supplier has to be concerned about this, not just in reaction to the French step at issue here, but in the larger sense of how it can make its content available to the broadest audience possible, yet not put that content at risk to the digital duplication nightmare.
I just happened to be wearing my tin foil hat this morning because I think my neighbor is trying to hack my brain waves with his ham radio antenna. Anyway, being well protected from outside influences I suspect a conspiracy on the part of of the music/video industry who are really behind this bill.
However I can see a lose/win-win/lose situation here.
If DRM is removed then the music industry loses, but they can make up for it by forcing a price increase and blame it on piracy. Those of us who are honest enough to purchase music will win because we can play the music/video on a number of devices, but we will lose because the cost of music.
Why so much concern about "compatibility"? The iTunes music store sales are sold for playback in iTunes software, available on either windows or macintosh. Apple just happens to have the only player that will also play those purchases, but when I buy a track, I understand that it's being purchased for use on my "authorized computer".
Same with purchases from other online music sellers. I don't expect that files purchased from yahoo's music store will play on my iPod, but I do expect that they will play on my "authorized computer".
Don't want to listen to them only on your computer? Don't buy your tunes online, then. Buy the physical media instead. But don't complain if you choose not to do so.
This is typical of the french to do thing their own crooket way. They will always defy American ideology and for that matter any other country that they don't agree with.
Just look at the fact that when you are in france, they expect you to speak french or they talk bad about you behind your back.
- bewildered look
- loud-mouthed frustration that the rest of the world isn't sensible (read: like home)
- thinking that the universal language is US English, spoken loud and slow.
How to recognize strangers in the US?
- they adapt, but you WILL recognize them when they try to be polite about the food...
- they speak English or Spanish. "What, other languages? Oh, yeah, I heard that in Belgium (isn't that the capital of the Netherlands?) they speak German or something, the poor people..."
- they are as polite as possible because they're scared shitless of US customs, police and just about any person in a uniform.
Now, on the topic. It surprises me a bit that the one thing that could conceivably be a good thing about this law (interoperatibility) is badmouthed and all the other $#!% is ignored.
You do realize that if this law is adopted in your country, you won't have the legal right to make a copy of your DVD's anymore. Not copies for friends, your personal backup. Now that's a scary and dangerous precedent.
BTW: I currently live in France and LOVE it. The people are wonderful and France IS actually one of the richest and most successful countries in the world. The thing that irks most US people is that they indeed do some things differently and have a different approach to friendship. A good friendship can stand a good row versus I'm your friend so please don't say anything I don't want to hear, don't hurt my feelings please. The French can't believe the US is so touchy feely about just about everything. They think you seriously miss balls. And I think they may have a point. If you can't argue with your friends, with who can you argue? Just FYI most French don't particularly like US foreign policy (and can tell you in detail what they don't like) but have good feelings about the US in general.
I've lived in various parts of the world, visited the states countless times and while my US-rest of the world comparison is of course a joke (OK, maybe funnier if you're not an American), it is founded on lots of observational evidence, GOD! nothing funnier than an American tourist in distress. "Why can't they just speak English like anybody else..."
Microsoft does not make a mp3 player and their buggy wma/drm is trying to be everything for all the other mp3 manufactures and in some case is the cause for low sales--ask Napster.
http://today.reuters.com/business/n
ewsarticle.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=
2006-03-01T025759Z_01_N28388431_RTR
IDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-SUMMIT-NAPSTER-D
C.XML
Microsoft a billion dollar company has invested millions in MSN music only to make low profits they are even expanding in to Europe. Without an MP3 player there is no money to be made selling just wma(s). Bill Gates just doesn't get it.
Apple recently sold a BILLION songs from iTunes store.
Real's CEO begged Apple to allow Real's songs to play on the ipod. Steve Jobs refused.
Real's CEO hacked Apples DRM to allow their songs to be played on the ipod.
Jobs warned that Apple/iTunes would change their software to circumvent this.
Real's CEO was peeved again.
Microsoft and Real recently reached a TRUCE with Microsoft promoting Reals technologies on their site.
This french law is government-sanctioned theft, bottom line. Apple has the right to sell, use, and produce whatever proprietary technologies and encryption it wants to. The company also has the right to charge whatever it likes for those products. Individuals then have the option of paying what Apple chooses to charge for the services it offers, or they can find someone else to supply similar services for less cost, or they can create their own innovations and business ventures to compete with Apple. By saying that the government can force a company to share the products of its effort, money, and time with companies, whose only claim on such is the fact that they do not possess the ability to compete on their own, is to say that any individual has the right to steal any property simply because they feel entitled to it. It is saying that the french government can, any time it chooses, appropriate a company's product for free distribution amongst competing companies.
Apple has a responsability to fight this legislation, as do all companies who innovate and produce products of their own. If the french government carries on this daylight robbery I very much hope that more companies than simply Apple will realize the danger to their proprietary products and pull such products off of french shelves.
The problem isn't DRM, it's the vendor lock-in that proprietary DRM currently imposes. Witness the hissy fit over blu-ray and HD-DVD, it's all about shutting out the compettition, not royalty rights.
First off: governement sanctioned theft? The people that are going to illegaly distribute files can easily circumvent the DRM that Apple and other owned-song networks provide. People seem ot forget that Apple, and many other download services, allows users to burn the songs to an audio CD a few times. Once it's on an audio CD, there's no more DRM protection. In fact, it's even less protected than those commercial discs where you had to run a marker around the rim. So really, there's no change in piracy capabilities with or without this law.
Second: One of the underlying problems, which is part of the issue often ignored, is availability. Apple locks in exclusive deals with some labels. This means that those of us who don't have an iPod have to buy the song from iTunes, then burn it to a CD, then rip it to MP3. Basically, it means I have to pay a fraction more because I didn't want an iPod. The French law would save non-iPod users a little time and a few cents for blank CDs. Of course, if I didn't have a CD burner, I'd be out of luck.
This law is really just a convenience thing for non-iPod users. For iPod users, it means you can finally get the design and expense of an iPod combined with the rent-a-song services such as Napster whose DRM is such that the user essentially pays one fee to rent the songs they download.
DRM in all it's forms is illegal becasue it prevent the comsumer to fully enjoy the content he PAID FOR. The only reason DRM is tolerated is because the Digital Mafia (RIAA/MPAA and it's members) is using the justice system like a puppet. Lucky they have not been able the corrupt the French. DRM as been provent 100% un-effective in all cases. IT DOES NOT WORK. So why stupid currupted company like Appel. Sony etc.. are insisting on acting like low lever common crook?
BAN DRM PLANET WIDE it is the only solution, it also will have the nice side effect of opening competition... so a sound track could sell for what it worth: about 35 cents... not the grossly infalted price that we see today ($1.00+)
While I totally believe that author's rights should be protected, I don't think that it should come at the cost of our Fair Use rights.
Recorders are legal and making backup copies is legal. It is unreasonable and not legal under fair use law to make a system in which I CAN NOT make a legal backup solely for my own uses.
What is amusing is that they aren't making it any harder for criminals, but rather lumping in good customers in the same bin as IP thieves. And then they wonder about why people are finding other ways to spend their money.
Heck, if I won the lottery right now, I would NOT buy the one thing I want which is a home theater setup what with HDMI NOT capable of outputting 1080p and with HDCP making most current monitors incapable of displaying ANY HD material. It's crap.
I'm not a criminal. I pay for the software I use. And because I want a streamlined setup, I and other payers would be the one's penalized. Criminals will have filters and other devices which totally defeat the system and allow for complete theft with near no effort.
I, for one, like Apple's DRM. It restricts use within the narrow confines, but there is an out so that you can burn a track to CD and from there, you can do with it what you like. I OWN my tracks. I've played my tracks in the car, on my 'puter, on my home stereo. No extra fees and no theft.
If these guys don't stop treating the PAYING customers as criminals...well, who knows, maybe BOOKS will come back into vogue...
Guest wrote: DRM in all it's forms is illegal becasue it prevent the comsumer to fully enjoy the content he PAID FOR.
LOL
Nice try. Buying a CD does not give you the right to use that music in your movie.
Buying a DVD does not give you the right to play it in a theater and charge people to watch it.
Buying a book does not give you the right to photocopy it and sell the copies.
EVERY type of media has restrictions, whether or not there is DRM on it or not. Paying for it does not give you the right to do whatever you want with it.
Not that I'm defending DRM software...most of it is too restrictive. But the idea that you have the right to do WHATEVER you want is just wrong.
CloseViewName:Intruder- TMO Mac SpecialistPosts: 2923Joined: 07 Jul 2004 Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:04 pmSubject:
Everybody keeps talking about "Fair Use Rights" and "Fair Use Laws" and this is against "Fair Use Laws."
Here is the only "law" governing "Fair Use" in the U.S. that I can find. It is part of the copyright act, Title 17, section 107, and it is only applicable to the US.:
Quote
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
I'm still trying to find the part that says you can do what you wish with copyrighted material you have purchased. Haven't found it yet.
CloseViewName:BoscoPosts: 999Joined: 03 Jun 2002 Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:09 pmSubject:
Quote
Intruder wrote: Everybody keeps talking about "Fair Use Rights" and "Fair Use Laws" and this is against "Fair Use Laws."
Here is the only "law" governing "Fair Use" in the U.S. that I can find. It is part of the copyright act, Title 17, section 107, and it is only applicable to the US.:
Forget facts. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, "Facts are stupid things.". This debate is all about what we feel we should be able to do since the greedy musicians all make millions of dollars on concert tours and selling their t-shirts. The music should be free, or if not free, then we should have the option of paying what we feel it's worth. I don't see why if I get tired of a song on a CD in a day, I should have to pay $1.99 for it. That's ridiculous. I bet those communists at the RIAA would sell their own mothers to keep me from sharing the music I love.l
Since this story broke I read countless hateful comments on various forums that are incredibly aggressive and intolerant. What message does it send to the rest of the world?
I call this racism, but the racists argue that the French are not a race. Whatever... in the end it's the same thing as racism for all that matters.
Trying to define which are part of a race and which are not what racism is all about. By the racist definition, it's not racism if it's not aimed at someone who is part of what they call a "pure-race"? I guess that hateful comments are ok when someone is half-black/half-caucasian?
... and guest you think your incomprehensable words are any less ignorant than the apparent racism you have seen everywhere about this subject? Give a coherent argument and state facts and examples before you sound off and maybe you will be more worth listening too and less a waste of digital paper.
CloseViewName:Guest Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:40 amSubject:
Quote
Bosco wrote: I bet those communists at the RIAA...
Hmmm, and there was me thinking they were a bunch of capitalists representing another bunch of capitalists trying to protect their profits - or did the definition of "communist" change while I was in the bathroom?
Quote
Bosco wrote: ...would sell their own mothers to keep me from sharing the music I love.
Music that is owned by someone else, and for which you have purchased a license to use under a specific set of conditions...even if you have bought the CD. You have the right to share that music with others in a private manner (invite them round to listen to it), but not the right to give that person a copy of the music - remember, you don't own it. You can give them your CD if you wish, but you are not allowed to keep a copy at that point.
The real problem is that DRM can force you to pay multiple times for different licenses for the same thing.
These would allow you to use it on different technology platforms. Currently, with non-DRM'd digital content, you can legally make a backup copy, rip it to your PC/Mac, copy it to a portable device, copy it to your PC/Mac at work, copy it to a memory stick to listen to it on your phone...etc...etc...
With DRM'd content, these rights may go away very quickly. Apple have allowed many of the above to be done using their DRM'd digital content, and have even given a get-out clause by allowing the content to be de-DRM'd (yes, I know, it's not "CD quality" when you burn it to a CD, but you didn't pay for that license - get over it), which is why so many people don't mind buying it (about a billion tracks at the last count).
Theoretically, using the middle-man of a CD, all iTMS audio content can be played on just about any audio player out there. In fact you have the same rights as you have if you buy the content on CD (yes, I know, it's not "CD quality" when you burn it to a CD, but you didn't pay for that license - get over it).
The fact that you have to copy it to a CD first is, for most people, a matter of inconvenience. Get over it. The exception are those who don't have access to a CD-RW and can't afford a Rewritable-CD. Hmm, that's probably not a large proportion of the population who are currently worried about DRM.
The evils of DRM are going to manifest themselves when the content you think you own is played on your nice new HD tv at a crappy quality and in low definition, because the license (what you actually paid for) specifies that it isn't allowed to play it in High Definition.
The content license you paid for is HD, but your TV doesn't have *that* security chip in, so unless you pay for one that does, you get low quality, or it doen't even play.
The reason for this? The license provider doesn't trust you. They think you are going to copy the content in a way that breaks your license agreement by using a device that pretends to be a HD TV with a digital decoder, but is really a hard-disk, then you could upload it to the internet and share it with a billion other people.
CloseViewName:Guest Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:15 amSubject:
Everyone knows but ignores the fact that Apple makes pennies off of each song sold, and it’s the labels who reap the profit. But people keep cynically thinking that Apple’s statement was meant to just protect the iTMS and lock-in. So ask yourself about motive (like the police do).
1. If Apple shut down selling music on iTMS tomorrow worldwide, which music player do you think would sell the most for at least the next five years? Or if there were a single DRM standard for every music download store and player in the world, which music player do you think would sell the most? (By the way, see www.daringfireball.net for the answer.)
2. Then where will all those iPod owners get music to put on their iPods (besides eMusic and ripping CDs)?
3. So will there be more piracy or less?
Apple cares more about the convenience and just works aspect of the iPod/iTunes/iTMS system than it does about lock-in, because if DRM disappeared, Apple's iPod/iTunes would still beat up on everyone else. This interoperability thing is just an invitation for a degraded user experience and uncertain legal liabilities due to the engineering difficulty of making it work. Which will lead to users going back to mp3s to avoid DRM altogether, or lead the labels to ban downloads (which will send people back to p2p), respectively.
And those who claim that it's not a problem to have one vendor's DRM put on many different players from other vendors should just look at the WMA world (or for a different perspective, the Windows world). It's not a just works world over there. It's a world full of problems. In consumer electronics, it results in people choosing the thing that just works (iPod), and poor sales. (In the computer world, it results in pain and suffering, as Windows users have been locked-in.)
And those who say that when iPod users buy Fairplayed songs from Real or Urge that don't work right on their iPod, those users won't call Apple to complain, they are the truly naive.
1) the French are wonderful. It's mainly the anglo-saxons who don't get them, the rest of the world know what a sense of humor is.
2) French law isn't to protect the customers, it isn't about iTunes either. It is actually the first attempt to make DRM legal. It is extremely worrying. Not because everything should be free, but because you shouldn't pay twice for the same product. And you should be able to make backups.
So while you're discussing this nice piece of lobbying you're totally ignoring the rest.
The whole point of copyright is that it gives buyers certain rights and obligations.
DRM is about protecting copyright holders.
But its use today and laws like this pave the way to binding content to a specific carrier or technology. Which means that in the end you don't buy the right to content anymore, but the right to use that content on device X and not on device Y. And to make any attempt to get content from device X to Y punishable. AND make any attempt at copying for your own use punishable. This law already forbids the copying of DVD's for personal use.
Yes, iTunes DRM is pretty painless. Yes, iPod and iTunes make for a good experience. But once more it's not about that. Your rights have already changed since iTunes started selling tracks. Who's to say they won't again? Forget one second that this is Apple we're talking about. That's clouding the issue. It's really NOT about Apple. Apple didn't change your rights a year ago, that was on - let's say - request of the content providers, the labels. And Apple has already had to fight more than one battle to keep things as they are afterwards, price wise and rights wise.
Enough RIAA members have stated already that ripping your CD's into iTunes actually IS unlawful AND should be (if you have enough lawyers you don't have to make sense). Before this law passed, we could laugh that away. Now, not anymore. The precedent is set. Copy your DVD and get a fine. THAT's what this law is about.
Europeans on this website: start writing your representatives, because Chirac is going to lobby this heavily in the rest of Europe. You don't want this, and not just because you have an iPod.
Think for a moment what experience you want your kids to have when enjoying culture. When I was a kid, I'd love to make mixes on cassette for friends, girlfriends etc. With laws like this you won't even be able to do that for yourself.
Disclaimer: I've been an Apple fan since before the Mac so don't even try and pull a Turd...
Remark on Frenchie bitching: really guys, grow up. Not nice, extremely stupid and totally besides the point. It's a french law, made by politicians, influenced by lobbying from over the world. As such it says NOTHING about the individual frenchman or even the country as a whole. Or am I to presume your country has wonderful politicians who actually can find their own arse in one go?
CloseViewName:Guest Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:47 amSubject:
Quote
Guest wrote: When I was a kid, I'd love to make mixes on cassette for friends, girlfriends etc. With laws like this you won't even be able to do that for yourself.
With the laws that existed at the time (and that still exist), you shouldn't have been doing this anyway. Or is it OK to do something just because you can? I'm not saying I agree with the laws that make this kind of distribution illegal, and definitely not being an apologist for the RIAA'ists here, just pointing out a fact that seems to be ignored.
DRM will make it more difficult to break the law in this way (you'll need to download a cracked piece of software and strip the DRM first), and laws like the DMCA mean they can be enforced in new and more frightening ways.
CloseViewName:LaurieF- TMO Forum ModPosts: 3497Joined: 15 Jun 2001 Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:57 pmSubject:
You'll find on further investigation that this is incorrect - for example, Sony is a competitor of Apple's (it's a matter of degree, of course, but a competitor it is), and the proposed law will apply equally to it, and any other company that has a proprietary DRM attached to its music.
lets face it you can burn a cd and then re import any tunes you want from anywhere you get them just by dragging the aiff files into i tunes amd letting it reconvert it into a mp3
rental plans like googles and napster (own nothing have everything) are the monkey wrench in that modus operandi supposedly i-tunes restricts you to 5 cd copies of any play list from the music store but i have never had i-tunes refuse to convert an mp3 or 4 to an aiff "on the fly"
I'm not sure but i do not believe the aiff format carries the restrictions forward. I always add a "bonus " track to any playlist so i can change the list if i hit a burn limit
you would have to "authorize" a cd burned from an i store purchased album if you tried to play it on your buddies mac (that has never happened to me). only an idiot or a politician would not be able to figure out how to get any music onto his i pod that could be burned to a disk. any fool who would pay good money to buy music he can only hear at his desktop or worse pay for cellphone minutes as well as for the song to "stream" or download will not be saved from himself by either the French legislature or that of any other country. if a man uses a zerox machine to copy the latest harry potter book does zerox have to stop selling copy machines in that country?or worse publish the plans and specs for the copier so the competition does not have to hire an engineer? this is a tempest in a teapot and the next level of french government will quash it if jobs sends them all a pod and they see that in fact they can get their music from where they want it to their pod .you would think the way the press spins it that the only way to get a song on your i-pod is to buy it from the apple store.
The thing i want to know is why the movie and tv companies don't realize that i am waiting to buy back episodes of "paladin" and just like us old geezers forked up the cash to replace our old buffalo Springfield albums(too expensive to put on the shelf for limited local market but sells a load world wide with no physical disk) there's a gold mine in the old cans on their stock room shelves. copy plans are stupid anyway because in order for us to hear the song it has to go "analog" at some point and can be redirected and re digitized. Apple is smart keeping the songs too cheap to steal jobs is right the record company's are "greedy" and gates and his crowd (larry ellison included) dont get that we humans have enough monthly bills with gas electric and cable already we don't want to be a digital renter class for applications or music.
From what i've read the French account for less than 2% of the iTunes market. Apple should shut the French iTunes store and let the French law makers suffer the outrage of their voters.
CloseViewName:Guest Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:52 pmSubject:
"You'll find on further investigation that this is incorrect - for example, Sony is a competitor of Apple's (it's a matter of degree, of course, but a competitor it is), and the proposed law will apply equally to it, and any other company that has a proprietary DRM attached to its music."
Sony's DRM is a flop because its music services are a flop.
The same goes for every other music DRM that doesn't belong to Apple.
It doesn't matter if it applies equally to Sony. Do you really think they'd rather hang on to their neglected and worthless DRM, than get their foot in the iPod's door?
I'm sure EVERY company that this law would effect, aside from Apple, would be ecstatic if it passed. The faster they can get rid of their own DRM and trade it for something iPod-compatible, thus something with a hope in hell of turning a profit, the better.
CloseViewName:Guest Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:48 amSubject:
Interoperability is the true issue, no conspiracy for this point of the law (microsoft or Apple are US companies anyway so where's the difference for french politicians). I'm very surprised here because every consumer should be happy with the interoperability thing. that is just the right to dispose (not in an illegal way as sharing it illegally) of the product you just bought. Problems have been reported here in France of a guy who bought DRM protected music (not from apple) and his computer crashed and he lost his licence keys. So much for his music. Total loss. Is this normal ? the files were there, but no way to read them. Pro DRM should start adressing this kind of issues, because it's always the same, you have to pay, and pay...
But, speaking as a senior executive in a DRM Company, you cannot standardise security without weakening it significantly. You don't want Open Standards in security - it's like publishing a blue print of the security system in your house.
