France's National Assembly approves iPod DRM bill

By a margin of almost 100 votes, France's National Assembly has approved a bill that could force Apple and other companies to open the DRM used by their online music stores to other companies. At issue isn't DRM itself but interoperability. The law, if passed by France's Senate later this year, could require Apple to open its FairPlay DRM system to music players other than the iPod. If Apple refused, the law would allow consumers to use software to transcode the music into other formats, stripping the DRM in the process. The law would also apply to other DRM, such as Microsoft's PlaysForSure, but Apple has the most to lose, both because of its large share of the market, and because of its "razor-and-blades" business model, which closely ties the iPod to the iTunes Music Store. Apple has thus far refused to comment on the bill.

[Tonicboy @ Mar 21st 2006 1:24PM]

I think it will ultimately be a good thing for Apple if they open up FairPlay.

[Roopesh Sheth @ Mar 21st 2006 1:26PM]

This is awesome for anyone using any portable player. Interoperability is the wave of the future!

[David Tai @ Mar 21st 2006 1:28PM]

i like it, as a consumer.

i wonder if this will also be the case Europe-wide. after all, substantively not a huge difference between iPod's relationship with ITMS, and Microsoft's relationship with WMP. both try to tie consumers to a set of formats. one has fallen (sort of) in Brussels.

don't know how many people they are like me, but one reason i DIDN'T get an iPod is because i didn't want to be tied to iTunes and ITMS. i just wanted a cool player that can do everything. this might be a step toward that path. if i'm not abnormal, then Apple doesn't really have that much to lose. as long as it can convince customers that ITMS is a good music store.

[William @ Mar 21st 2006 1:30PM]

I wonder if French youth will riot over this, too?

[some_bloke @ Mar 21st 2006 1:32PM]

Simple Solution: Stop doing business in France.

Like it or not, the iTunes/iPod are part of an integrated business model which is sort of a new animal in the world of free market economics. Each one derives a good bit of value from the other and trying to legislate them apart is a major step back for everyone. Apple has repeatedly stated that the iTunes Music Store is basically a giant value-add to the iPod platform; Apple makes very little money on music sales. While the French have the right to make any law they please, Apple has no responsibility to do business in France.

[Dave @ Mar 21st 2006 1:34PM]

This is crazy. As a consumer, sure I love the idea of putting songs from any store in my iPod (As if i'd use Sony Connect or any other lame store!), but consumers complaining about not being able to use an ATRAC3 on their iPods sound as ridiculous as a consumer complaining that they cannot get their Photoshop CS WinXP version to run on Mac OS X. It's just a different platform, and although iPods probably can play other files if apple allowed it, there's no reason to have to expect Apple to support other formats. Apple-iTunes-iPod..... Apple working with Apple. I don't see why Apple should be expected to do it any other way. That's what we as consumers go into when we buy an iPod. There's no misunderstanding by the consumer.

[Julian Bond @ Mar 21st 2006 1:35PM]

Poor Apple (and Microsoft). All the options suck from their point of view.
1) License Fairplay to others (meaning Creative and Samsung) and obtain a license from Microsoft for PlaysForSure on the iPod. Which means giving up the hardware-software lock in.
2) Provide an official FairPlay breaker, perhaps only to France nationals. Which makes all the DRM worldwide moot
3) Prevent sales of the iPod and iTMS in France. In some ways, this is even worse for Microsoft and their partners. Special French XP and WMP? Optional MP3 only, France only downloads from all the WMA/PFS wholesalers and resellers?

Now what we really need is for this to become an EU wide issue instead of just France. Effectively making DRM impossible or forcing cross licensing of DRM across all the players.

There is an argument that DRM has allowed Apple to grow the PMP market and build new distribution routes such as iTMS because it has given them a temporary monopoly. But it still sucks. And perhaps that temporary monopoly is coming to an end.

[Andrew @ Mar 21st 2006 1:37PM]

Some bloke, seperating them is not "a major stepback for everyone." I　would say it is the exact opposite. All this does is give people more choices. It�s not like you can�t use Itunes anymore for your iPod if this were to happen.

You might be right Apple might not indirectly make a lot of money from music sales but they make a lot of money indirectly. Let�s say someone has an iPod now and buys $200 worth of music. Next year they go to buy a new mp3 player, do you think they are going to stick with an iPod so they can still listen to their music? I do...

[some_bloke @ Mar 21st 2006 1:38PM]

I just wanted to say that I am not trying to imply that interoperability is a bad thing. In fact, I think it would be wonderful for the industry AND consumers. Time and time again it has been proven that open systems and standards flourish while proprietary tech and closed systems wither.

The problem here is the music companies. They are already getting the overwhelming majority of the revenue from iTMS and they seem to want more (remember when the music executives ranted a few months ago about how they felt it was unfair they were not seeing any juicy Apple iPod revenue?). If Apple was forced to open up the iTMS DRM format, it would remove Apple's only motivation for having created the music store in the first place; to sell iPods. If Apple stops making money from iTMS, then why bother even keeping the doors open?

[Simon @ Mar 21st 2006 1:39PM]

As said before, this is egotistically misguided. Whether or not you agree with the law in principle, France is not a big enough market for anyone, Apple or Microsoft, to comply in order to continue doing business there. I can't help but think that the French legislature has a completely deluded assessment of their own worth.

[James L @ Mar 21st 2006 1:39PM]

I think Apple should just pull everything from France. So silly wasting time on such a non issue.

[Kane @ Mar 21st 2006 1:45PM]

"If Apple refused, the law would allow consumers to use software to transcode the music into other formats, stripping the DRM in the process."

You can do that in iTunes with a blank cd. Once burned to a cd and recopied to the computer as mp3 the drm is gone. I thought that was obivious, i guess the French will just tell more people about it.

[Robert @ Mar 21st 2006 1:53PM]

The population of France is approximately 20.5% that of the USA. Hardly insignificant. Also take into account the fact that like happened with legislation regarding smoking, plastic bags etc. where one EU country leads others will often follow. The population of the EU is approximately 150% that of the USA, and is due to increase when membership goes up to 27 countires in 2007. So it would seem from a cursory glance at the stats that this isn't something to simply scoff at.

[ChillyWilly @ Mar 21st 2006 1:54PM]

Apple should have figured out how to license the FairPlay for more devices than just the iPod. I understand why Apple didn't... market share concers for players other than the iPod using the same technology. But, in the end, open technologies have the consumer's best interest in mind... and on top of that, they get to collect royalties from other companies. And personally, I think the iPod would still be a big seller. And to think of how many more people would be using iTunes (and the various iTunes-like apps as well).

This is one of those "watch and wait" scenarios. It will be interesting to see how it all ends up.

[Andrew @ Mar 21st 2006 1:56PM]

Some Bloke, good point. They definitely would have less reason to keep the doors open because right now it is bringing millions of people back to iPods every few years. They probably wouldn�t close Itunes if all of the sudden it was non-proprietary, but I might agree that it would definitely be less up to date, less maintained etc etc.

However on the larger scale of things, I think getting rid of the ITMS format would be a good thing. Apple would just have to price their players lower to compete and I'm sure that if the Itunes music store started lacking because it wasn't so important to them anymore, someone out there would be willing to pick up the slack. And the difference would be that you could by music at that store and use it on any player/computer that you wanted to.

[Josh Warner @ Mar 21st 2006 1:58PM]

#6 - there is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

This law does not try to force Apple to support ATRAC3, FLAC, OGG, Monkey's Audio, WMA, or any other format as you seem to believe. At risk is the customer's choice to convert music he/she has legally bought to be playable on a different device.

Your Photoshop analogy is flawed because the customer cannot make a conversion between x86 and PPC machine code without having access to the program's source code and advanced cross-compilers. In the music world, a program like dbpowerAMP music converter can convert any non-DRMed audio file into (almost) any other format perfectly legally. This is called format shifting, and has been legal for years. Only recently have companies been able to create virtual monopolies that are hidden behind buzzwords like "integrated business models" (#5, you have been taken in by this).

Here is a valid analogy. Without DRM, with a modicum of effort any consumer could play any music file that they possess on any player currently on the market. This is not what the content providers want you to be able to do, because it breaks their "integrated business models," but it is what you SHOULD be able to do with whatever you buy. You don't think about this with respect to any other music medium - CDs, tapes, 8 tracks, LPs, DVD-As and SACDs all play in any and every player constructed to play them back without regard to who made the player or who sold the music. This is the way the consumer wants it, but the industry has lost sight of how people want to use their music.

I will accept no DRM in any music I buy. I only buy redbook CDs, and have never downloaded a single song from an online store. iTunes makes it easy, but what if they go under and some other business takes Apple's place at the top of the digital music market, selling their own players (incompatible with FairPlay and AAC) and their own DRMed music? All of the iPods and the billions of songs downloaded from the iTunes store would be useless.

In contrast, if this law were enacted every iPod would be able to play that company's music (convert it into a compatible, non-DRMed format) and every DRMed iTunes song would be able to play on that company's player using a similar method.

Do not get sucked in by these companies trying to tell you they need their "integrated" models. That word is synonymous with "monopoly" and "anti-competitiveness" in this context. This law needs to be passed, and soon - not just in France, but in the US and the entire world.

[Peter G @ Mar 21st 2006 2:04PM]

I agree, Apple will most likely kill ITMS in France because what they are asking for is essentially not possible. There is no interoperable DRM and music companies won't allow no DRM.

Note this would not open the market up as Play4sure would then need to play on Apple which won't happen either, so they would have to exit the market.

Incredibly lame.

[Mike B. @ Mar 21st 2006 2:07PM]

If I was apple i'd just look the french in the eye and say screw you.

Then I'd take my business elsewhere cause honestly...can france be that big of a business for itunes....is it worth compromising your other stores just for one flipping roll over country.

Stupid French People!

[Henry @ Mar 21st 2006 2:08PM]

Josh -- you really live in a fantasy world.

Apple's Fairplay was the only way to get the music industry off its butt and offer something legally. Jobs was able to convince them that some DRM is better than no DRM.

In the end, the music industry can decide to not offer legal downloads. And btw, it is illegal to download off P2Ps regardless of how many people do it.

And there's nothing "anticompetitive" about the iPod -- it already plays non-Fairplay DRM music. MP3s anyone?

[Jim F @ Mar 21st 2006 2:15PM]

Josh,

I think it's your argument that's flawed -- well, at least your conclusion that this law needs to be passed universally.

The market currently supports the DRM models - if consumers were educated and outraged by the DRM model then the model simply wouldn't make money.

You, as an educated an intelligent consumer, have made the decision not to support the DRM business model. Other consumers may have different needs and will make their decisions based on their own needs.

It is not the place of the French government, or any government for that matter, to meddle with the free market. Apple has produced a product and service that a lot of people want. You have identified the model as something you wish not to embrace and have protected your interests by not giving Apple your dollars. This is the responsibility of the consumer -- the individual. It is not the place of any government to "protect people from themselves" -- that only leads you down a path of restricted freedom.

[Eupfhoria @ Mar 21st 2006 2:16PM]

Razor-and-blades seems to be an incorrect model. A razor-and-blades model is "give them the razor and sell them the blades" whereas the Apple model is closer to "sell them the razor and give them the blades" where the razor is the iPod and the blades are the iTMS songs.

[Nathan G @ Mar 21st 2006 2:16PM]

Bye bye itunes France. There is no way apple will give up their golden goose. I agree that this should be a step forward for consumers but major corporations will just circumvent that.

I really think that similar laws to this will be passed in other countries in a few years. Consumers will eventually wake up and get pissed with all this DRM stuff.

I love the analogy i heard, DRM is like buying a brand new lawn mower from home depot then before you leave the attach a device that only lets you use it on wednesdays and sundays...

[Andrew @ Mar 21st 2006 2:24PM]

Some seem to think that this law would remove DRM. However, from what I understand, the bill only requires the opening of the format/DRM mechanism. The digital rights should be transferable from one format/DRM to another, I assume. This doesn't eliminate DRM. It shifts the focus from buying a file to buying a song, if the consumers� rights can pass from one format to another.

[Gil Amelio Jr. @ Mar 21st 2006 2:25PM]

Excuse me, but everyone is commenting on this like it's all happening on some rational planet. This is the Bizarro World of EGOs at war here. Frenchy french mania versus The Steve. Steve. Jobs.

Where am Bizzarro Number One to ruin things, Jimmy?!

[Alfredo Octavio @ Mar 21st 2006 2:29PM]

The French law doesn't say Apple has to open its DRM at all. It just says it has to give the technical documentation necessary to guarantee interoperability with other devices. Here is the technical documentation: Burn a CD with the music you bought from iTMS, follow the instructions from your device to import the music from CDs. That's it. Nothing in the law says that's not enough...

[Mark @ Mar 21st 2006 2:40PM]

Those Cheese-eating surrender-monkeys!
(as said by Groundskeeper Willie on "The Simpsons")

[Andrew Stone @ Mar 21st 2006 2:42PM]

I think a lot of people are missing the point...

The law, it seems to me, does not say "you can not put DRM protection on your music files".

Instead it seems to say "the music files, while protected, need to be compatible with players other than the iPod".

So the only way this would hurt Apple would be if people decided they only wanted to use half of the current iTMS / iPod combination that is required... for example, if somebody wanted to use iTMS to get their music, but wished to put it on a Sony or Rio or Creative player or whatever.

And that sounds like a good deal to me... it'd not only allow you to choose new company to buy your MP3 play from when you wish to upgrade after using iTMS for a year or so, but it'd force Apple to keep iPods competitive and priced well or else people will take their iTMS puchased songs elsewhere.

In the long run, my guess is it'd be likely to push apple towards making an all in one mp3 / phone + whatever else device, because lets face it, thats the future. Requiring an iPod to listen to your music keeps that future from being the best option if you've dropped some dough on music.

[Rich @ Mar 21st 2006 2:42PM]

I think most people here are missing the point somewhat. Jim F in particular seems misguided in what a 'free market' constitutes. A free market still has rules that you have to play by -- it's free as in 'free'dom of choice, not 'free' for all. Now, if someone breaks the rules that allow customers freedom of choice, then they should be taken to task by the legal system. Remember, we live in a democracy based free market economy. What you are describing is anarchy.

I think a lot of people are letting the fact that this law is a French law colour their judgement. Hey, I'm not raving about France as a nation myself (although their cheese is better than any the US of A can knock out) -- but it turns out that they were right about Iraq. Maybe they're right about this too!.

What the French lawmakers are asking is essentially possible already. With Fairplay (and others) you are able to burn a (limited) number of CDs. You could then rip this CD to another format. Obviously this is a big hassle. But, it is a logical step from here to say that you could transcode your Fairplay AAC track to a (for example) Plays4Sure WMA a predetermined number of times. This isn't breaking any DRM. This shouldn't upset the record labels any more than the existing DRM rules. Yet, this will give consumers freedom (that word again!) of choice when it comes to buying a new digital audio player.

[Poopmaster @ Mar 21st 2006 2:57PM]

A few points...

1) iPods play MP3s and Audible files. You can stuff your iPod full of these things and never touch the iTunes music store. So don't go whining about how it's not open, or Apple's forcing you to do this or that. Mp3s are open.

2) The French thought they could play off Saddam against the United States, profit from under-the-table oil sales, and import mass numbers of Islamists, too. The French always think of themselves as superheroes. Don't underestimate the nationalistic sentiment at work, here either. Poking a stick in Apple's eye is just another way for the French to stick it to Uncle Sam.

3) Without DRM, there will be no iTMS. Whine, complain, raise your fists, but there is NO way that the record companies will allow their products to be downloaded and then redistributed for free. You may think it sucks all day long, but they have a vested interest in selling that download. The p2p genie is not going back in the bottle.

4) Apple has basically two options (once the legal wrangling is over): use this as an opportunity to license Fairply and destroy PlaysForSure for good, or pull iTMS out of France.

[Nate @ Mar 21st 2006 2:59PM]

I hope Apple refuses to open up its FairPlay so that the French could use software to break the DRM. If that software is available in French, people here in the US could download it and use it to their benefit.

Although there is such software, like JHymn, it does not work with the current version of iTunes. I hope there will be more software to easily remove the DRM.

[Andrew @ Mar 21st 2006 3:01PM]

DRM is done for the interests of music companies and artists. If iTMS and other services couldn't offer some type of anti-piracy mechanism, the services most likely wouldn�t be allowed to sell the music in the first place.

If Apple/iTMS officially told users to burn an audio CD then rip the audio CD to transfer the songs, their official stance would be for consumers to remove DRM. Having an official stance like that would mean that the services don't offer an anti-piracy mechanism.

For that reason, it's in the services' best interest to open the DRM mechanism. Otherwise, they wont be selling music for very long.

[Matt @ Mar 21st 2006 3:11PM]

I think this is good news for everyone!

[Jim F @ Mar 21st 2006 3:12PM]

Rich,

I am not at all misguided as to what a free market economy constitutes. I am a firm believer in laissez-faire econcomics, the rights of the individual and extremely limiting the power of government. Although I do generally vote libertarian, I would say my ideals are closer to anarchism.

Apple is a private entity (not in the private vs. public corporation sense, but in the sense of Public Action -- the government -- vs. Private Action -- not the government). They sell a product (the iPod) and a service (iTunes Music Store) that work together and have all sorts of legal agreements with the music industry that I won't even begin got pretend to understand or know about in detail.

The bottom line is that they have entered into these legal contracts to deliver music a certain way, using certain technology, etc... The French government has greatly overstepped its bounds.

If the iPod/iTunes business model is indeed bad for consumers than it should be left to fail on its own.

However, it seems to be very successful, which says to me that it is meeting the needs of a great many consumers. It is not the place of any government to step in and say "No, your business is running too smoothly - and we're going to force you to do it with legislation!"

Consumers need to learn to educate themselves before buying a product and take some personal responsibility for doing so. If the Apple model did not meet the needs and wants of the market it would not be making money.

While forcing Apple to license their DRM to other manufacturers (which is how I read the engadget story) may seem like a great idea for the consumer, that is a decision the company needs to make on its own. If there was really a huge demand for such a thing to happen, then why is Apple still selling so many iPods and songs via ITMS? Consumers need to let their wallets do the talking instead of hoping that the government will swoop in and "protect" them.

As Thomas Paine put so eloquently, 'Government at its best is a necessary evil and at its worst an intolerable one.'

Or as I like to say in a less eloquent manner, there's no government like no government.

-- Jim

[Josh Warner @ Mar 21st 2006 3:32PM]

Jim -

Here is my problem with your argument.

I also completely support a free economy, preferably of the lassez-faire variety. However, DRM should never have been legal in the first place and would have been but a failed experiment from the start EXCEPT for government interference (I'm specifically targeting the DMCA, but it isn't the only citable example).

I guess the point I would make is thus: using the DMCA and laws like it (along with loads of lobbyist $$) the xxAA's have already introduced undue governmental influence into what should have been a lassez-faire system, and to return that system to a lassez-faire state more governmental action (or civil disobedience) will be necessary.

In support of my above statement that DRM would have failed without the government's support, consider this: the only reason DRM cracking tools (JHymn, DeCSS, etc) are not widely available and are in fact illegal in the US is because of governmental actions.
When you buy a car you can take it apart, resell parts of it, beef up the engine, jack it up or lower it, restore it to sell on Ebay, or many other things. These are all legal to do with your own property, but DRM prevents analagous acts from being done with files you buy. By analogy you should, LEGALLY, be able to get into any file you own and do what you like with it - be that removing the DRM or converting it into an equivalent format of your choice (what this law supports).

The point I want to present is that DRM has been allowed to fester by the government and would have failed otherwise, because consumers would have been able (legally!) to modify their files for their own purposes using existing non-digital precedents by analogy. The xxAA's have greased legislation like the DMCA through congress, and only legislation like this law will RESTORE the original, lassez-faire, system that I (and I think you as well) support.

[arkling @ Mar 21st 2006 3:42PM]

Umm, doesn't iTunes already basically let you remove the DRM ? I'm able to convert files to MP3 or burn them to CD's pretty much as I wish in iTunes. I think they're making a bigger deal of it than need be.

[Jim F @ Mar 21st 2006 3:49PM]

Josh,

You raise some very good points. I am obviously not a fan of the DMCA either, but I don't agree with your statement that "DRM should never have been legal." I would take the stance that there should no laws in any form passed in regards to DRM.

I don't think anyone in the music industry would have signed on to sell music online if DRM had not been developed. So DRM would have been developed (in some form) in order to facilitate a workable (profitable) business model in order to sell music online -- not because DRM actually increasing profits, but because that is the perception of the music industry.

I agree with you 100% that laws making cracking DRM illegal are what need to be repealed or ignored through civil disobedience.

However, I'm also of the opinion that the prohibition of DRM cracking tools has very little effect on the profits made by online music sales. Honestly finding older, complete albums online through illicit means can be hit or miss, depending on if it is an obscure or popular recording. Singles, sure, I can find the top ten hits by various folks all around, but if I want to find a specific album that never sold very well to begin with, good luck to me.

I'd personally rather spend ten bucks on a downloaded album simply for the convenience factor. My preference is always to support underground/indie artists by going to shows and purchasing CDs directly from them, but if I want to grab the latest Aesop Rock or why? album, I'll probably just drop the ten bucks and get it from iTunes.

I really do think that the vast majority of consumers would simply rather spend the nominal fee for a song or CD than try to go online and grab a torrent, lurk on IRC for DCC connections, decode yENC files from Usenet or hop on Limewire looking for music. If anything DRM stops you from downloading purchased music from your friend's computer directly onto your iPod -- it doesn't really curb music downloads from pirate sites.

Those of us who are tech-savvy enough to find the software and music and movies to download are in the minority -- most people don't want to deal with the hassle of all that and would rather just buy something.

Two wrongs don't make a right -- adding more legislation and regulation is not the answer here.

Jim

[MacroEQ @ Mar 21st 2006 3:57PM]

Yet again, the good people of France are having their name tarnished by their bureaucratic, interfering and out of touch government. It wasn't too long ago that France wanted to create a [Government funded] "search engine" to rival American ones (Google and Yahoo!) and also complained that the Internet (WWW) was too "Anglo Saxon".

I'm not a fan of Apple but I am on their side on this one because Apple are entitled to do whatever the hell they want with iTunes because it's their own damn product!

Expect yet another French government gaffe in the next few weeks... Watch this space.

[Bootes @ Mar 21st 2006 4:11PM]

Apple doesn't have to support other players, they just can't stop people from making the songs compatible with other players if they don't.

This makes perfect sense and is how it should be with all media. There is nothing actually stopping you from converting any music and video into a format that can be played by any multimedia device, except for DRM. This let's people break DRM to do what they should be allowed to do if the DRM doesn't let them convert the files.

[mcepat @ Mar 21st 2006 4:18PM]

awsome, screw you apple

Microsoft's solution works on tons of players and will be less affected

APPLE+IPOD+ITUNES=MONOPOLY of DEVICE AND MUSIC

once again, screw you apple!

1 billion suckers served at the itunes store

[Krizoitz @ Mar 21st 2006 4:56PM]

APPLE+IPOD+ITUNES=MONOPOLY of DEVICE AND MUSIC


Except you can import your own mp3's onto the iPod and rip your own CD's. Its only a monopoly if there is little to no other way of getting the music or using the player.

Man am I sick of all these whinny people who want to do whatever they want without regard to anyone else.

Repeat after me:
You do not have to buy music from the iTMS.

If you don't like the way it works GO SOMEWHERE ELSE FOR YOUR MUSIC.

[Rich @ Mar 21st 2006 5:14PM]

Oh well, I was going to say how nice I thought it was that an intelligent, well reasoned argument was unfolding on Engadget. There seems to be far too much 'fanboyism' on the site these days. A sign of popularity, I suppose.

And then came along MCEPat...

[crescentdave @ Mar 21st 2006 5:35PM]

First of all, the law has yet to be passed. Secondly, this is what the law is intended to accomplish: "French officials said the law is aimed at preventing any single media-playing operating system, such as Apple's iTunes or Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Media Player, from building a grip on the digital online music retail market."

Those in France's National Assembly supporting this legislation say "These clauses, which we hope will be taken up by other countries, notably at the European level, should prevent the emergence of a monopoly in the supply of online culture," Richard Cazenave and Bernard Carayon, National Assembly deputies from the ruling UMP party, said in a statement on Tuesday."
http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-03-21T203007Z_01_L2127100_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-MEDIA-FRANCE-COPYRIGHT-DC.XML

So yes, indeed, this movement is proposed to not only move through France's system, but be passed on to the EU, certainly cause for serious concern on Apple's part.

I'm of mixed feelings. Obviously, Apple wants to maximize it's earnings and it can't do so without restricting use of iTM to iPods. The same reasoning applies, in the long run, to Microsoft's DRM scheme. I guess it depends on what camp you fall into: user rights or corporate rights.

What I find striking, is how many americans support corporations over users. It's a commentary, of sorts, on the efficacy of advertising and the inculcation of corporate values in mainstream America.

Ultimately, I expect the market to vote with its pocket and engineer whatever changes are going to occur in this area.

[Jim F @ Mar 21st 2006 5:53PM]

I disagree with the logic that one can only support "the corporation" or "the user." Corporations exist to make money, and when looking at the retail sphere they exist to fill a consumer need or desire.

It is the right and duty of the consumer to support and purchase the products that they enjoy using. If the need to play iTunes DRM songs on a Creative Labs player or Microsoft DRM songs on an iPod was so great, neither product would succeed.

Corporations will produce products to take advantage of a gap in the market -- whether it be a product that doesn't exist or to replace one that has shortcomings.

If the iPod/iTunes product was one that consumers did not want I wouldn't see every other person walking down the street in Manhattan wearing white earbuds. The market has embraced the product and, for the vast majority of users the DRM issues are simply nonissues.

The people who seem to complain about it the most are also those who are technically proficient enough to easily circumvent it -- whether it be with one of the decryption programs mentioned elsewhere in the comments here or through the simple act of burning and ripping a CD.

Of course, I'm amazed at how many Americans support Government interference in our day to day lives, income taxes, public schools and narcotics prohibition. I guess I just don't think like most people.

[Sean DL @ Mar 21st 2006 7:02PM]

Well I guess we can say bye bye to 99 cent songs....Yes in the short run we may get 79 cent songs from Napster that you can PLAY ON YOUR IPOD~!

But now that the leverage that Apple had is gone, so is the power that kept the songs at 99 cents against the music industry bitching.

[smiling skull @ Mar 21st 2006 8:01PM]

and just how is it that Apple is a monopoly when there is PLENTY of competition out there??? it's not Apple's fault that no one can produce a better player than consumers want en masse. and the irony here is, a lot of you are calling Apple the monopoly in the same sentence in which you mention Microsoft!

Jim above said it best. Let the consumer decide. Most of us are voting Apple. The system works, their devices are excellent, and they are the most convenient. They should be able to keep their sh*t proprietary as long as they see fit! What's next, the French government deciding that Playstation owners should be able to play their legally purchased Playstation games on Xboxes (and vice versa)??

People, think. And stop being socialist idiots.

[is @ Mar 21st 2006 9:41PM]

Are people going mad on this blog?

YES - It would be a good thing for consumers. Although it would not be the 'revolution' some of you seem to think. Most of you forget that a sizable chunk of ipod owners are barely aware that there are other devices that can do the same thing - it's earned itself the inalianable privilage of being the generic brand name, like hoover in britain, or biro, or sellotape - my gran thinks that any mp3 player is an ipod. She is not alone.

But of course, on a utilitarian basis it would provide for the fraction of people who want to own a different mp3 player AND use the ITMS BUT dont know how to rip it onto a cd. And thus would undoubtadly be a good thing.

However

NO - France has no right to ask Apple to do this! Its called the razor and blades modal for a reason. Would you expect a razor company to allow their blades to be used with any other razor? Im not asking if you think its 'RIGHT', in an idealist sense, for them to do so, but would you EXPECT them to?

How about letting people bring their own food into a restraunt and sitting at THEIR table and have THEM serve it to you? Of course, within the analogy, apple actually lets you do this, but the point is clear enough - some of you guys have seriously overestimated what your consumer rights should be.

Bottom line is, if you wernt so lazy as to not want to go and actually buy the cd, or have it delivered to your door through amazon, then this wouldnt be an issue. You CHOOSE to use the ITMS??!?! It's not offering some product that you cant get any other way?!?!

Theres no monopoly here, theres a sucess story and a brat who wants to undermine it (the brat not being france, but those who think that you are apple are in some way tricking, taking advantage, or manipulating consumers)

[kelly @ Mar 21st 2006 9:44PM]

Apple should threaten to invade. France surrenders. Problem solved.

snarky comment aside, i really don't have an issue with apple's DRM. it's restrictive as any DRM scheme would be, but I think it's flexible enough that I'm not irritated by it, and they got the essentially evil music industry to buy into it. they figured out the DRM finagle, finding something users can deal with, acceptable to the industry, but isn't that restrictive that users are repulsed by and at a reasonable price. for that apple is being castigated?

apple was the early adopter that figured out the middle ground, and their market share will give them leverage to keep it fair as the music industry now has a big stake. until the music industry as a whole comes together and accepts a standard acceptable DRM scheme, that's not apple's problem. apple finding an industry acceptable solution for the issue shouldn't require them to share it, when the music industry can't define it themselves.

tail wagging the dog, the tail shouldn't be punished for figuring out what the dog's owner has had in their lap for many a year, the dog's owner is where your attention should be.

disclosure, not an apple fan, PC oriented (laptop and desktop at home and work) but I do own an iPod

[jump over it @ Mar 21st 2006 9:48PM]

Ah.. socialism. The French Government always has to control everything.

This has nothing to do with the consumers not getting ripped off, but everything to do with preserving the French culture.

The government can't stand that foreign companies(especially American) have control over how people listen to their music.
With this, it will significantly weaken Apple's influence on the market and France will continue to be a country that prides itself on: "father knows best" policies, high de-facto segregation towards frence muslims, and a hypocritical stance on foreign policy.

Gotta love the French.

[jj @ Mar 21st 2006 9:48PM]

After reading these posts, somehow, I have a feeling that some of the people who had posted their comments work for the music industry or hired by Apple to justify DRM. As a consumer who loves music, I think DRM is a pain in the rear end. As much as I don't like the French, I think they have something going in favor of consumers worldwide. I'm hoping that this anti DRM monopoly trend will spread throughout the European Union.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against Apple. I think Apple's iPod is a great product and their iTune Music store provides excellent service. I just want a little more flexibility with music files that I purchased. I believe that consumer should be able to play their legally purchased music files in any MP3 player they choose.

It is possible for people to burn copies of their DRM music file to a CD and rip them back into a DRM free music file but everytime you copy and reformat a music file, you are degrading the quality of the music. The music file you buy from Apple iTune store and other playforsure sites are not loseless. I prefer to retain as much music quality as possible. I shouldn't have to resort to this CD option in the first place. Again, having no restriction of music players that you want to play your music files from Apple, Microsoft, or Sony is good for the competition and good for consumers.

Don't let those puppets tell you otherwise. Even though the French government might have a hidden agenda behind this proposed law (these are arrogant, jealous people who want to knock down Apple and Microsoft which are American...if Apple was a French company, they probably wouldn't be doing this), the consumer will gain the most in fair play and consumer rights.

[Spiritek @ Mar 21st 2006 9:49PM]

I am surprised that there has not been more done about this in Australia, after the ruling against sony in the are mod chips legal High Court Case.

I just think it is anti competitive I love iTunes but can't afford an iPod or justify it since I am using my iPaq as a MP3 player......

Oh well until something is done with this (a copy of iTunes for PPC would make me happy :P) I guess I will just have to use those old CD-RWs