US government supports Apple stand on French law
By Marc Perton 
posted Mar 23rd 2006 6:30PM
posted Mar 23rd 2006 6:30PM
In what's shaping up to be the biggest
Franco-American battle since US lawmakers renamed their favorite side dish "Freedom Fries," the US government
has now declared its support for Apple in the company's dispute with France over DRM interoperability. US Secretary of
Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, questioned about the case on CNBC, declared
that he would "compliment [Apple] because we need for companies to also
stand up for their intellectual property rights. At issue is a draft law that would
require Apple and other companies to open up their DRM to competitors or allow consumers to do so on their own, so that
music purchased in an online music store could be played in any manufacturer's digital audio player. Earlier this week, Apple referred to
the French bill as part of a "state-sponsored culture of piracy." While Guiterrez didn't say whether
the US government would do anything specific on Apple's behalf, he did say that it's a good policy to "have the
government work with other governments." We assume this will continue to escalate, and it'll only be a matter of
days before French students start burning iPods in the streets and Americans retaliate by torching Archos Gminis. And
it looks like the cafeteria in Cupertino will have to start serving iToast for breakfast.
Surprise, surprise.. the government supporting squashing the common mans' fair use rights.
As long as I still get my SpaghettiO's nobody gets hurt.
Is this the same law that will potentially make the awesome VLC illegal ? IE.. the one with the dreaded "vivendi-Universal amendment?"
Does anyone know if those two laws are one and the same ? If so, then this law seriously ought not to pass... I hear that it'd basically kill Mplayer/VLC/et al in France... and while I dont much care about what they get quite honestly, I'm chilled by the implications.
#3, I don't think they're the same.
This law is ridiculous on its own, though. It infringes on a company's right to conduct business how it chooses. Just last year France investigated Apple for anti-trust violations in connection with iTunes but couldn't find any indication of breaking competition law. If people don't like the "walled garden" of iTunes, they can join other music services.
just a quick analogy. Imagine a government forcing Sony to make its Playstation 2 play Xbox games. Would anyone think that's a choice the government should make?
MMMMMMMMM iToast
Forget France, just do what I do, pull out.
the big fault is that they just should've been called belgian fries from the beginning, since they were invented/made first in belgium
Im convinced the majority of engadgets posters are now on the payroll from apple.
Everyone is up in arms over HDCP, slagging sony for using dodgy DRM and overall constantly on the fight for fair use, and as soon as there's a glimmer of light you slam them because they have the balls to go up against your darling apple.
I think this is the best thing to happen and if more countries get behind it then there will be fair use. Think about it: if you're not a geek and you want to be law abiding, you buy an ipod like everyone else, all your cd have anti copying protection, and to put things on your ipod, you need to install itunes which happens to have iTMS built into it.
Two years down the track youre ready for a new player and really like the samsung offerings, but cant buy it because you dont want to repurchase all your music.
#4 That is a terrible analogy, its more like saying you need to rebuy a game to play on a dell if you bought it for a compaq. Its not like theres any difference in coding needed between mp3 players as there is between ps3 & xbox360
Funny. I didn't realize that it was Apple who created the music they sell... oh wait they dont.
So what rights are they talking about?
How about the right to buy an mp3 player and be able to use your music from other stores without having to go exclusively throught the company that made your mp3 player in the first place.
This will definitely open up competition and maybe bring down song prices.
#4
Your quick analogy doesnt work because the technology on the PS' and XBOXs are different.
However, an MP3 is an MP3 is an MP3. They are very interchangeable.
How would you like it if you bought a Toyota car and were only able to fill it up at Toyota gas stations???
the analogy may not be perfect but the point stands: the government shouldn't dictate what media should be played on consumer electronics.
Apple isn't violating any competition law--there are about a dozen other online music stores in France, some of which are "open." Yet 60% of the market still chooses to go to iTunes.
I'm not arguing against "fair use" or open platforms--I'm arguing that it should be up to the consumer and not the government.
The difference here, of course, is that Microsoft basically told Apple to "knife that baby" (QuickTime) so they could own the next round of digital.
Since Apple wisely told them to piss off, then proceeded to win the next round of digital, perhaps we should let private companies interface with consumers as they wish.
Instead of companies (like, um...Microsoft) pushing around consumers and other companies, at the same time.
Apple is a CLOSED SYSTEM. For good reasons.
So, get over it, and take your money elsewhere.
You're all bitching because they won, and because they're the best.
The market told me so.
And it just gets worse next week...
#8 Hmm, the right to buy an mp3 and play it on any player? I just the checked the constitution, couldn't find it.
#9 How would i like it? I probably wouldn't buy an toyota then. Just like you shouldn't buy from itunes if you're not happy with the situation.
Quite frankly, apple should be free to put whatever restrictions it wants on the music it sells. I don't have to like it (and i don't) but maybe if some other company could create a decent mp3 player and take some market share, it would force apple to open up.
This whole kerfuffle boggles me.
Does this same law mean that Blu-Ray content producers will be REQUIRED to support HD-DVD aswell?
Did anyone expect VHS players to play Betamax?
If anyone's interested, I don't think my favourite CD was released on Tape. I'M OUTRAGED! I bought it on CD, and now I can't hear it on my 10 year old Walkman? I demand vengeance.
This law is ridiculous. It's not like they didn't tell you in advance that you have to use an iPod to hear it OFF your computer.
It's good to know at least some people in this country have common sense. ITunes is one of the most annoying music sites to pirate. To make one of their songs a common MP3 you have to burn a CD with the music, then rip it off the CD. Most people are too lazy for this and apple knows it.
Is this bad. If you're a pirate, yes. But why on earth should Apple cater to pirates. They created a system to maximize their potential to earn money. They are a business after all. What right does France have to destroy this system? The fact remains, if you don't like it, go somewhere else for music. The fact that so many people use Itunes gives credelance to Apple's business practice.
Dear lord we have a lot of idiots on this site. Look, Apple created a software and MP3 player that will allow you to use the music you get from the store (ie those discs we called CDs) or any other recorded audio file (like AIFF) and play them through your computer and through the iPod. Its not a closed system, its an enforced DRM by the content providers in which Apple is playing by their rules under their contract with the record companies. If France, or many of the morons here, don't like it then DON'T buy an iPod or use iTunes. Apple doesn't have a monopoly, their not the content providers and they're not the only gig in town. Go to a Russian site if you want stripped DRM MP3s, buy an iRiver or Samsung player if you can't stand mp4 files, but stop acting likes its France's right to tell Apple how they should write code and act on their contractual agreements with the content providers.
France is the entity which should deserve the most ire in this story, since its their socialistic lawmakers whom want to force a private company to hand over the keys to their profit generating machine to other competitors because someone doesn't like the way Apple is playing with their toys.
To make a long comment, short... stop whining.
Even PC game analogy is too narrow. Music is like music, and movies are like movies. They pre-date computers by decades and have an intrinsict existence regardless of the encoding scheme or whatever technology they sit inside. They have had dozens of different physical storage mediums over the years, but the concepts of ownership, both for the copyright holder and the consumer who has a copy, haven't changed much (at least in my lifetime).
Enter DRM, and everything changes. A new paradigm is being forced upon the consumers. What France is trying to do is define an existence for digital music with *law* that is consistent with past expectations, whereas Apple wants to define it with *software* according to its own agenda. Many industries are heavily regulated for to the public good, why should music be any different?
I agree with #12 for the most part so I won't buy from Apple's iTMS...or Apple in general. If only the general consumer would realize that there are much better MP3 players that don't require you to buy from them specifically.
In short, good job Apple/iTunes for making some damn good money. Bad job consumers for being their bitch.
#14
France is fighting for their consumers. They are saying that when you buy music you are supposed to buy music as it is advertised. Companies don't tell comusmers clearly that they are buying an Apple's version of the song.
I love the ipod and I'm pro-Apple except for their copyright feature here. I don't like the fact that I can't listen to an itunes song on another pc.
"Apple isn't violating any competition law--there are about a dozen other online music stores in France, some of which are "open." Yet 60% of the market still chooses to go to iTunes. "
Because 59% of the market doesnt know any better!
What does that 59% of the market call an mp3/pmp player? an ipod. There pumped full of advertising and iTMS is preinstalled. Do you really think these people that barely know how to use a computer think they can use anything else?
In any other industry if you play on the ignorance of the consumer you get fined, why should it be any different?
Microsoft got blasted for preinstalling wmp and iexplore in windows products. Everyone knows you can just install a competitor but the majority just sticks to it because they don't know any better.
Im not saying get rid of iTMS, or dont preinstall it.. but the government had a good idea with the flat fee and no drm, and you intelligent people just dont get it. Why are we moving towards a world where you need to buy media for every single device you own? HD-DVD, UMD, DVD, MP3? Why is industry dictating what the consumers actually want? Why don't more people try and educate against misleading marketing?
Because of you fanboy. Because of you.
Letting the market decide works for those of us that have a choice -- it's the reason I don't own an iPod, for instance -- but what about those that don't? People who receive iPods as gifts, or choose to buy it simply because they think it's the best at the moment, but expect to get something else for their next player? It's fair for them to have to re-buy all of the music they actually paid for, when a "pirate" switching players doesn't have any trouble at all?
I support France's position here simply to give everybody an easier way to transcode music they legally bought so they can continue to use it. It's no surprise the US Govt is siding with Apple, I'm sure Sony and others have plenty of lobbyists that know this could be a blow to DRM's future, and I hope it is.
Well, I want to use my T-mobile phone on the AT&T network. If that doe not happen, I want to go to France and complain about it!!! When ever you subscribe into a wireless phone service, it is a closed" system. You can't use other provider's network when you reception is poor, should the law mandates that AT&T's or Cingular's network service be available to T-mobile users? If you don't like the reception, change the carrier, simple as that. For anyone that doesnt understand is a moron.
The EU is trying to do the same thing to Microsoft's Intellectual Property, but since Microsoft is EVIL no one cares.
Yes, many industries are heavily regulated for the public good.
The public cannot take pollution out of the air/water/bio system after its been put in. Good places for science, the peer review method, and accepted standards to be enforced by the government.
But I'm sorry - I missed where the government should enforce standards on my choice of entertainment, or its delivery. Especially when there is a choice available in the marketplace. Here, and in France.
Yes, you can agree that the anti-trust action against Microsoft was well founded and still chalk this thing up to French nationalism.
Some of you are totally off the map on this one. Sorry!
The thing i dislike the most about apple users in general is that even if its wrong they defend apple.
They been getting jereked with old technology housed in attractive packaging and paying for 4 year old harwdare at high prices. Go apple fans go-fucking loosers-
"However, an MP3 is an MP3 is an MP3. They are very interchangeable."
iTunes doesn't sell MP3s. no major store sells MP3s. eMusic and Bleep are the only ones i can think of that sell MP3s. and yes. they are interchangable.
somehow i've managed to fill my iPod with music without ever being 'locked in' to the iTMS. ripping from CDs i already owned... or the aforementioned MP3 stores. if the iPod *ONLY* played .m4p i could see this being an issue. but that simply isn't the case. i was never once forced to purchase from iTMS in order to fully enjoy my iPod(s).
"If only the general consumer would realize that there are much better MP3 players that don't require you to buy from them specifically."
i see this mentioned time and time again. it simply is not true. it is a lie. the iPod and the iTunes application existed WELL BEFORE there ever was an iTMS. do people not realize that?
for the 9,000,000th time. having an iPod does not mean you HAVE to use the iTMS.
BTY, I cant play my vinyl LPs with an 8-track player and Ill sue!!!! Where is the French law when you need it ?
I have to agree with some about the apple bias here at engadget. Still I disagree with the french law.
I own an iPod and I won'tbuy from iTunes. Why? Because I don't want to be locked into only buying iPods in the future. I also have a PDA and a Phone capable of playing MP3s (WMA OGG ...) and I want to be able to move my media around. I'm also no fan of the iTunes player interface, so on my PC I don't use it to play music (it's sole purpose is to load up my shuffle for my bike ride)
If Apple are up front about "if you buy from iTunes then you can only play it on an iPod" then buyer beware. We are all responsible for our choices. Sure I'd *like* Apple to open up to letting other players play music from iTunes, but I don't think a Government should force them to.
That said if the government says that it's OK for you to re-encode legaly purchaced music then I'm fine with that. It's what I do with my CDs.
"They been getting jereked with old technology housed in attractive packaging and paying for 4 year old harwdare at high prices."
do you have links to this 4GB Nano competitor from 2002 you speak of? i am very interested as surely they must sell quite cheap on eBay these days. being 4 years old and all.
Engadget, please take "Fairights" off this blog. This guy uses profanity and has no class!!!!
This is a joke. Why don't these activists apply their efforts to something useful, like human rights issues around the world? There are places in the world where people can't even speak freely.
People know exactly what they are getting when the buy an iPod, use the iTMS, etc. There is no deception and we're not talking about access to essentials like food, water, or shelter.
To burden a government and waste taxpayer money worrying about something like this is ridiculous. I fail to see how this is the "next big humanitarian crisis" that needs to be solved.
Apple choosing to bundle itms and ipod is their company's choice, just like its microsofts choice whether they want to share their application programming interfaces with other companies. that's why microsoft won against the DOJ in the monopolization case.
hmm, actually i think microsoft lost, i think they were required to make it easier for other companies to make software for windows. but obviously the apple fanboys will tell you their is a clear difference between microsoft restricting what their software will work with and apple restricting what their software will work with.
One more thing: The French should make the HD-DVD format interchangeable to Blue-ray-DVD. Otherwise, HD-DVD is going to be a CLOSED system and we dont want that do we? The whole world's economy is going to depend on the French!!!
agree with #17
you guys all think this world would be
perfectly functional if we just let market forces do their work. sadly its not the case.
Yes, there is a clear difference between Microsoft using its market power to muscle other companies into submission
AND
Apple using its market power to force Microsoft into submission
The difference being - an excellent product (for most people), compelling advertising, ease of use, etc.
And Microsoft "won" the DOJ case...because the DOJ changed hands after the election.
Read some of the testimony. All Apple did was offer a way to sell music online, and let you OWN IT.
Whiners.
Yes, Sam.
Some of us think that certain areas of the market should be left alone...
...others regulated.
And if monopolies arise, that's a different story.
Don't be so black and white with everything. Allow the "gray area" to exist!
hey 31,
you know that broadcom announced a chip that can play blu ray and hd dvd and it will let hardware manufacturers play both in one piece of hardware. bluray and hddvd are not secretive formats, they will let anyone make hardware that works with them. The problem with the drm, is that apple and microsoft don't let anyone make hardware for their content. that is the anticompetitive part. it is not a problem that the government need to concern itself with, unless the firm being "anticompetitive" has market power, and like microsofts case with windows, apple has a lot of market power with mp3 players and mp3 content.
if they didnt have the market power it would not matter, because they would go out of business shortly with their business plan. with them as big as they are now and with the first mover advantage, it will take longer for them to lose their business, but if they keep the music and hardware linked they will lose their market share eventually.
DRM sucks. I think anyone will agree to that, however, Apple's DRM is definitely the lesser of two evils in my opinion.
No one is locked into purchasing songs from only the iTunes music store, nor do they have to play songs purchased from the ITMS on an iPod. People have options:
1. Buy AAC files from the ITMS burn them to a CD. Rip that CD and save the files in any format you see fit. I agree that this is a bit of a hassle, but come on, people are not locked in.
2. Buy a CD, rip it, and skip using the ITMS altogether.
3. Find another service that offers mp3s and use it, but be warned their DRM is probably far more restrictive than Apple's.
4. Buy AAC files from the ITMS, burn a CD, rip it, and save the files in whatever new format you choose. Then upload those files to your mp3, music player, of preference, whether it's an iPod or whatever else.
In closing, yes DRM sucks. In a perfect world it wouldn't exist. Apple has made the best of a bad situation with their DRM. Their DRM is easy to bypass if that is what the user wants to do. This in turn gives the user the choice. The bureaucrats/politicians in France are like the bureaucrats/politicians elsewhere. They have no idea what they are talking about.
everyone is coming up with their own analogy of ipod-drm "closed systems" like phone networks, consoles, etc or other examples where the french should be kicking up a fuss but arent.
why would u boast about this? are u proud that u live in a world that is becoming so restricted?
33, i was being sarcastic about microsoft winning the doj case, they lost and then they ended in a settlement.
and the quality of a product has nothing to do with whether their is a monopoly that should be broken up.
and despite your hatred for microsoft, their should be no difference in the eyes of the doj for what the company's name is.
i sort of hope apple doesnt open the ipod or itunes cause i want them to fail just like they did in the pc market. their share of the pc market was very big in the mid 80's they had great marketing, but they aligned the hardware and software together and the more free market of microsoft making software and lots of companies making hardware won out. the same will happen with mp3's once parents of little rich kids realize that there is alternative hardware to ipod's and that that hardware can be used with many different sevices, not just one.
people like options. apple doesnt get that.
God some people on this site are truly moronic in the worst fanboy way ever.
People, honestly why are you trying to defend apple and their DRM? Is it because you get pay checks in your mail from Steve?
I can only see benefit from this law, as DRM schemes are draconic and should not exist to the degree apple has gone too. Can't you guys see the benefit as consumers from this? This can potentially open up the market so you CAN buy a creative player and use songs from iTMS on it, or vice versa. What is wrong with this?
The analogies to vinyl, consoles and so on are irrelevant. Because all mp3 files are the same, just some of them have a lock that prevents you from using them else where.
Sat apple released a CD player long ago, and a store that sold music CD's. But the catch was, those CD's were locked to the apple CD player so they wouldn't work anywhere else. Would you complain about that? I know I would.
To those saying you can burn a CD off with iTMS songs and re encode it - why on earth should you be FORCED to do that? Do you guys even account for the loss of quality when your doing this? So you buy a lossy format song, and then you re encode it for further loss. Great!
I guess those that get iPods can't tell the difference between a song encoded at 96kbs and 192kbs.
Vive la France!!
I'm with the frogs on this one, using DRM to create a monopoly sucks. We would never have the video/DVD rental market that exists now if every video had to be played on the one (and only one) vendor's player.
Apple should give up on this one. I ain't going to let them brickwall me into giving them a monopoly on my personal digital life, just like I won't let Microsoft do it with my work digital life.
Now it's true that the French have a peculiarly paranoid view of culture - kinda the opposite of the Chinese Cultural Revolution - but on this one they are right on the money.
I dont get all this MS bashing and Applephilia...
Next time Steve Jobs starts up a $39 billion dollar foundation for the improvement of mankind I'll think about defending Apple and iTMS.
However, seeing as how Apple is nothing more than a middle man I would think that the music companies' (who actually own the distribution rights to their music) rights have more weight than Apples.
If I pay $1 for a song I should be able to use it on other computers of mine. And if they will argue that that allows for people to share files, again, then maybe they should get to work on something that doesn't assume I am a criminal.
Ben-
We offered up reasoned discussions on this topic, you, and whiners like you, offer grand generalizations, contempt for people "who don't know any better" etc, and general name calling.
Oops. I call people names too.
Whiners.
And yes, Apple does, in general, rule over everybody and everything.
There. I finally said it.
And no, I don't work for them.
"10. the analogy may not be perfect but the point stands: the government shouldn't dictate what media should be played on consumer electronics."
I'd rather have the government do it than A COMPANY.
Sheesh, reading this comments space it's clear the retardation of today's people is staggering. They take it up the pooper from corporations and, yes, governments, and defend the whole process in the holy name of capitalism and consumerism.
Whatever happened to looking out for people? Healthy egotism?
The indoctrination has been quite successful, sadly.
#19 Pete said: "France is fighting for their consumers. They are saying that when you buy music you are supposed to buy music as it is advertised. Companies don't tell comusmers clearly that they are buying an Apple's version of the song.
I love the ipod and I'm pro-Apple except for their copyright feature here. I don't like the fact that I can't listen to an itunes song on another pc."
Wrong on both counts. Apple's Terms of Service defines the product, and points out that the DRM is part of the product. By definition, they are telling you it is an "Apple version." Read it here:
http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/legal/terms.html
It is linked from within the iTunes application.
Secondly, the license also tells you that you can play an iTMS song on up to a certain number of devices which includes players and computers. Nothing prevents you from copying an iTMS song from a Mac to a PC or vice versa, and authorizing that computer to play the file.
So, in fact, the music IS being sold "as advertised."
Addendum:
Ponder this:
You have an iPod for a few years, you buy music from iTunes.
You find a better product and move over to it. OH SHIT I CAN'T PLAY ANY OF MY MUSIC I BOUGHT THESE PAST YEARS!
I guess I'm retarded.
I went from paying $15.99 for a CD, to $9.99 on iTMS.
Damn that market - finding new ways to lower prices and distribute goods!
If only there was a black hole of piracy, or a monthly subscription model that LOCKS YOU INTO the good will of the company controlling your "collection".
Damn Apple for keeping the concept of purchase, and ownership alive.
We should all wish for some magic, government mandated, neutral uber system of payments, royalties and copy protection. That works on everything, everywhere, from all companies, in all countries.
Instead, I'll just enjoy my effortless, forget about it, iPod experience.
Next.
This is so simple.
I'm buying music, not a format.
I bough a song in iTMS, I lost my iPod.
Now I can't listen to the music I played unless I buy my a new iPod.
Some people are saying that it's like your music is not published on a tape.
When you buy a cd you can take your music of the cd and make a copy, put it on a tape, move it to every single portable player.
If you buy the same thing online you can't do anything with it, expept put it on your iPod.
It would be similar if all CD's from sony would only be playable in a CD player from sony.
I think the US-goverment has gone 360 and lost there freedome thinking.
Let's take a little bit of the public-freedome and give it to the companies.
iTMS is the biggers online music store and because of that, they do have a bigger responsibility.
@ houseaddict #14
I'm an American, and don't have anything against the French. The French have their own problems they have to deal with, (lots of Riots every 50 years or so).
Look I don't like or agree with Apple's DRM either, but they do STATE very clearly, that if you buy from iTunes, you have to own an iPod. If your going to get in BED with Apple you already know how the player-plays. However... there "IS" an alternative to buying music from iTunes. Just look over a few counties over to the right. They are offering music for $0.10, with NO DRM in it at all.
www.allofmp3.com
The guys at Engadget can't win. You accuse them of being bias towards Apple, than get mad and say they are in bed with Microsoft. Who are they really sleeping with... Oracle?
It's Apple's music store and their Ipod. They can do whatever the hell they want with it.
Solution....download the track's, burn to CD, slot back into your computer, rip with CDEX, then do whatever the hell you want with 'your' music, not perfect, but buggered if my screwed by concerts ears can tell the difference.
DRM is only valid for people don't know what total recorder is or who can't operate itunes burning features.
DRM is evil!
Now if only we could get the record companies to stop producing such crap.....
You CAN play your ACC files that are DRMed on your non apple Player. Just rip them to CD, then rip them back on your laptop. There, finished, done. They are MP3 now. Open format.
so what ever happened to burning your iTunes songs to a cdrw with cdtext and then ripping it into whatever software you want in whatever format you want to put it on whatever device you want? there are even virutal cd burners out there so you could burn it to an iso at like 200x or more, then mount the iso as a virtual cd and rip as fast as you can encode. sure there's a quality loss going from one lossy to another, but you could always just get it in the lossless format to start with. yeay analog loophole!
Has anyone actually read the law?
The DRM crap is just a distraction from the real nastiness of this law.
The law was called the "Universal Vivendi" law because it was effectively written to that company's demands. As a result, it makes it illegal to participate in P2P downloads or to write software that could be used to disseminate copyrighted materials, including DVD playback. You have to get a license from a central agency to do so.
It has no chance of passing, given other laws that have made it this far.
What I could figure out is here:
http://www.friday.com/bbum/2006/03/21/france-drm-p2p-and-the-ipod/
The way i see it is like this:
If I buy a CD or a Record I can take it home and play it on whatever brand of hifi, walkman, deck I choose. BUT if I download an mp3 from iTunes I can only play it on an iPod - at least without have to go through the major hastle of buring it to cd and then ripping it back onto my computer, as I understand it - doing that for a dozen or so tracks is a pain, for a couple of hundered it would be a nightmare.
Can you imagine buying a CD and only being able to listen to it on a Sony walkman?
It could be potentially beneficial for Apple since there are alot of people who refuse to buy an iPod because it locks them to one system (ok technicaly no, but not without going through a big fuss).
#43 - Wow....unbelievable. First of all you cannot buy music from iTunes. You buy music from the iTunes Music Store. Now, if you should want to buy another generic mp3 player, all you have to do is burn your bought music to a CD / DVD then rip it to mp3. Are you that dense?
#45 - First of all, learn to type. Now, you're right, you want to buy music and not a format. When you buy from iTunes Music Store, Yahoo!, Real, ect., you are buying music. But, the RIAA will not let them sell you this music if it doesn't have some type of DRM. Personally, I don't give two hoots about DRM because it hasn't stopped me from doing what I want with the music I buy. You always have the choice to burn a CD/DVD and then rip it to mp3.
Sung alla Balmer doing 'developers, developers, developers'...
Fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy!
Okay, hopefully that's enough 'fanboy' for everyone. =)
I despise the current DRM attached to any of the formats available for digital download. I do however know that if I don't like the iTunes DRM, I'm free to buy from another store. I also know that the iPod is one of thousands and thousands of other players. That said, I don't buy/rent music from ANY online music store because I like the music to be mine once I buy it. Call me old school but that's just how it goes. We are at a crossroads and it makes me sad that in the very near future none of us will actually own anything that we *BUY*. This should get you motivated to speak with your $$$ and not just your mouth.
I do own an iPod because it's easy to use and it's well designed yet it contains NO RENTED music or music that anyone call tell me HOW to enjoy.
I think the market should speak what the people want.
-Submit your vote$-
"If I buy a CD or a Record I can take it home and play it on whatever brand of hifi, walkman, deck I choose. BUT if I download an mp3 from iTunes I can only play it on an iPod - at least without have to go through the major hastle of buring it to cd and then ripping it back onto my computer"
Christ, are you people fucking high? If you download an AAC from iTunes you can play it on up to 5 Macs or PCs using free software. You can burn it to a CD freely. You can put it on an iPod. That's choice, albeit somewhat limited.
Here's a better question: if you're happy with your iPod and iTunes (THE SOFTWARE, not the MUSIC STORE), why would you go buy another product? Just to make a statement? I don't think so. If you wanted to make a statement on DRM, copyright law, etc, you probably wouldn't have bought an iPod in the first place.
FACT is, there are choices. Don't like Apple? Hate DRM with an unbridled passion? Fine, don't buy an iPod and continue buying CDs. And that statement is NOT meant to be derogative!
I happen to like my iPod. I like iTunes. I don't see any other reason to buy portable audio hardware from another company. And if hardware ever came along that made me ditch the whole iPod iTunes ease-of-use, I'd just get my digital music downloads elsewhere.
What's funny is, this whole thread has turned from being commentary on French law to a debate on what Apple hardware and software can and cannot do. While not having a monopoly at all, that alone should show you that Apple definitely has a solid bit of mindshare.
Going back to French law: I hate DRM, but I can say that there are reasons to have it. I wish there weren't, but there are. Having said that, I've never one run into a situation where I felt Apple's FairPlay DRM was at all restrictive. But that's just one person's experience.
Remember that it is not Apple that dictates the DRM requirements, but the record companies! If they could get away with anything (and they usually do) you wouldn't even be able to rip content off of a CD.
Can we get this thread back on French DRM law and OFF of Apple? Granted, Apple is a good company to apply the discussion to, but I think a whole lot of people are forgetting that HD DVD and Blu-Ray are on their way with some SERIOUS DRM schemes!
"Looks like the government supports monopolies"
-- Its their own product and they should decide what it plays on or not. Not the French government
"....and as far as im concerned, apple isnt being the only one being crapped on, so im gonna be very curious to see how many moron apple fanboys start spamming this news item with their "anti-france, long live iTunes DRM music" crap."
Thats because Apple is the only one standing up to them
"Now, if you should want to buy another generic mp3 player, all you have to do is burn your bought music to a CD / DVD then rip it to mp3. Are you that dense?"
Wow, so I get to compress an already compressed format. Why don't I just swap my headphones for a pair of galvanized buckets while I'm at it, just to further enhance the sound quality.
Man, this topic had "hot potato" written all over it...
I might be one of the biggest Apple fan boys as I have been using Apple computer since ust after I could walk and my Dad brought home an Apple IIE from work. With that out of the way I might also be friends with some huge pirates of music and video. I have tons of money so I generally buy any music and movies that I want to have for more than a week.
That being said I fuc***g hate any and all copy protection. Sure some can get full quality copies of media but if a movie or music artist is taltented enoughh they will warrent their fans to pay for the content.
The current sphere of piracy is bread by the horrible crap the the media studios put out. Piracy has been around since the begining of communication, maybe the current growth is due to the crap that people put out. Don't peg me as one of those bastards that think that nothing good has come out day cause I love a lot of new music. I'm just saying that if artists are good enough, people will pay for them. I know I will, and do.
I guess the Apple apologists here would favor companies locking down the content they sell so that there's absolutely no copying allowed outside of 1 or 2 authorized devices. How about companies not allowing any ripping or copying of digital media? In the not too distant future computers and digital devices will be locked down tighter than a drum. For all intents and purposes fair use would be limited to playing media on 1 device and only 1. Of course that means there's no fair use.
I just burned the music I bought on Apple store onto a RW media and then ripped the burned CD again... a bit cumbersome but it is possible to convert the music right?
Steve Jobs is quite the hypocrite. In 2002 he said "If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own." He said it himself, but now that it's making HIM money, he doesn't want to give it up.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/03/04/jobs/
Funny. US government support for Apple is a sure way to help the french to pass the proposed law.
BTW, "intellectual property rights" are BS.
The comment by the cavalier-seul American government that "it's a good policy to "have the government work with other governments."" really must be sarcastic; In Europe we start laughting (in the best case) with this hypocritic comment. It is rather funny to see how many Americans take that right away as an attack on the US (not unlike some extremist muslims). It's about time people think about "intellectual property" and patents they way the US sees them (heck, the US even grants patents on certain deseases and tests, even outlawing thinking about the test) Carefull what you wish for with DRM and patents.
Wouldn't it be easier if you bought rights to certain amount of copies of a song/album, regardless of their formats? Say you buy the 10-pack rights of Prince's Purple Rain allowing you to get 10 copies (1 wav-cd, 1 atrac, 1 aac for the ipod, 1 mp3 for the pc, and a backup copy/master+ 5 copies you can give away).
#59, IP rights are so important to America that they're written into our Constitution. You need IPR to foster creativity, progress, r&d, innovation and et cetera.
As for the law, the thing with Apple's system is that it is not a monopoly. This isn't about competition and France has admitted that. If there were serious anti-trust claims, believe me, the EU would be zealously pursuing them.
My mistake, I meant to direct the IP comments to #61's post-script.
To all the idiots out there who stood up for the French government a few days ago and are now bashing it I've got one thing to say, "SHAME OOOONNN YOU". I guess you got your seal of approval to now bash a government simply because it interfers with people's rights to do whatever they like with the music they own. Immature and idiotic at best, just like those "Freedom Fries". Grow up already . We all know that if the U.S. government went after Apple you'd all be cheering it as yet another victory. But then again perhaps I'm not surprised because from what I've seen most Americans don't mind the NSA listening in on their conversation as long as it's "for upholding democracy and freedom". How ironic.
I'm off my soap box. Carry on.
So many emotional posters without facts.
It's not illegal to have a monopoly. It's illegal to abuse a monopoly.
If there were still doubts on who is good or bad in this case it just got obvious. Apple no harm if you shut your shops in Europe and move back over the ocean. Bye Bye
Apple is the only thing keeping these record companies from turning music into a monthly rental marketplace horror show.
The companies know that most consumers...buy about one CD a month. Some more, some less.
If they can get you to think..."Hey. It's (Microsoft DRM) like cost of only one CD a month..." then they got ya.
Later, you're paying $30 a month in five years. You get the idea.
It also helps when Al Gore is on your Board, and you can call in favors from the Eliot Spitzers of the world to keep these 20th Century Record companies in check.
And believe me, they need to be slapped down.
'nuff said.
Sidenote:
This law will NOT make VLC illegal anymore (Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres et Vivendi still *wants* VLC to become illegal, but the Assembl?Nationale didn't want to exaggerate).
First, this amendment vivendi was about P2P-Software. Vivendi demanded that any P2P-Software become illegal, Cazenave and Carayon sous-amended it so that P2P-Software stays legal when made for research purposes, for collaborative work, or for sharing files whose authors agree to sharing them.
VLC will not be illegal (IMHO) because last modifications of the law, made against the government's will, say that software can circumvent Digital Restrictions Management and such stuff for interoperability. VLC is doing this for interoperability
All over compressed music and video. My opinion, about the only thing its good for is if you want to listen before you buy the real thing.
Maybe Im wrong but I want to listen and watch at highest quality That's why I spent good money on a play back system and HDTV.
Apple sells 14 million ipod, apple sells one billion songs, each ipod owner bought 8 songs.
Maybe this is more about the protection schemes imposed by the major music and movie studios. By the way aren't there all ready laws in place for this pirating thing around the world. Maybe Im old fashion but when I buy, it belong to me.
If the industry can come up with universal formats like the CD, and DVD why can they not come together to form a single DRM standard that any manufacturer can make players for and all record companies can sell songs with.
How are so many people (including Apple) ranting about the wrong thing, there is no mentioned in the proposed law of getting rid of copy protection, rather just interoperability, which as I see it as one of the iPod hordes, suits me fine, allows me to choose from what online store I buy my music from, and would allow me to choose what kind of service I was after, so shock horror, maybe if I wanted to subscribe monthly, I could without Steve Jobs, telling me, I really don't want to!
However unless this law requires all the other non-apple OSX-compatible players and stores to be compatible, it is hypocritical.
And this, my friends, is why I will never EVER buy an ipod, regardless of how 'sexy' the latest models look.
The Nano looks sweet as hell, but i'll be damned if im forced into using that POS (im my opinion) itunes.
To hell with that.
And Henri Crohas is laughing....on the go!
this is kinda about money, apple want to have a monopoly on their music and players, i own an ipod and the interface is very good, although if thersa lot of music ont heir its a little hard to find, i like itunes as well, but i'd like to able to code to what format i wanted, i can buy cds in shops and copy them how i want, yet if i buy music online i can't give it to friends etc. same with dvds, it is an international law that the user is responsible for the content and how it is used - i.e. no unauthorised copy, lending etc. surely apple are guilty of underestimating the consumer and his right to abide by or break the law. Also if apple opened up itunes to surely it could provide some switchable music format system, not to mention the increased revenue from opening up itunes. also people who have lots of music and freely download music (e.g. on p2p networks) have been proven to buy more music on CD, fact, whilst this is not the same of evryone, if i can buy a CD for 3 and have a hard copy or several itms m4a's at 7, that i can't burn to CD, i won't bother with the iTMS.
Regardless of ethics and laws, I will never ever buy DRM'd music. Moreover, I'll never purchase music unless it's in a losless format.
I'm something of a collector and only DRM-free losless formats give you the freedom to listen to your music on any device in it's full, original glory.
Ideally I'd like to be able to purchase FLAC (free losless audio codec) music directly from artists. It is the artists afterall that deserve and need the fanancial support. I wish we didn't need Apple or the record companies at all.
#69. "So many emotional posters without facts.
It's not illegal to have a monopoly. It's illegal to abuse a monopoly."
Tell that to AT&T.
MP3 is a defined format. Adding DRM to is corrupts that format. As it does to WMA. Technically Apple are not selling MP3 files, or MP3 only players, but this has been lost in the branding phase.
They sell a service for their hardware.
They are not selling you a CD - which is open format.
France are entitled to have their own laws and Apple will have to change, or withdraw.
Personally I hope their DRM becomes more available - If they licence it it'll encourage the other manufacturers to get working on better marketing or lose out to Apple forever - Long live competition!
Apple have a sucessful brand - it all integrates and is seamless - ideal for the majority of consumers.
Me - I used to love them, but now I pay less for more - and it bugs me iPod is the generic name for a DAP (Digital Audio Player) - but like Hoover beforehand and many other brands, the leader defines the market.
Added to that the Media industry all use Macs, as it was the initial industry won over by the Apple GUI - the other DAP producers needed to be on top of their game to break through - but they're all fighing and producing worse products - every one is looked at as a potential "iPod Killer" - Apple must be laughing all the way to the bank. Every review is another advert.
I don't understand why everyone so keen to take sides here - the eventual outome of this could mean more variety for the consumer. Have a look at this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4837834.stm
Happy Friday everyone.
Just for the record, there was never a public spat with France over the 'freedom fries' issue. Why? Because in France, everyone knows fries come from Belgium.
Just want to make sure everyone knows about Anapod.
I own an Ipod and I have never purchased anything from iTunes. In fact I refuse to even use the iTunes software, because it happens to be one of the worst, most unintuative pos programs I've ever encountered. I have recently switched to Anapod Explorer (http://www.redchairsoftware.com/anapod/) and it is wonderful. Much better than iTunes. This is not a music store. All it does is allow you to transfer songs to and from your iPod easily without iTunes screwing things up. Buy your music from somewhere else and skip iTunes all together.
I'm surprised how many people (customers) do not support this law ^^ It doesn't state that Apple can't use their DRM (which I agree is one of the easiest and customer friendliest) but only, that other portable MP3 player manufacturers have to have the ability to use the same DRM!
Think of a worst case scenario. Apple goes bankrupt. Who will garantee, that after the last iPod you bought broke you still can get portable players to listen to your music?!
For the ones who get so angry about this law... it's their right to decide a law like that! They have to live with the possibility that Apple might say no and leave France! Certainly not the intention but might happen...
I don't see the big deal, the iPOD is so succsessfull because it is wokring so well together with the iTMS and not because it's so restrictive, I don't see a big problem for Apple in opening their DRM for other manufacturers. On the other hand I agree that it should be adressed by looking into whether Apple is missusing their monopoly on the market or not and sue them rather to make a law which might proove bad for all the customers in the country.
57. Sung alla Balmer doing 'developers, developers, developers'...
Fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy, fanboy!
Okay, hopefully that's enough 'fanboy' for everyone. =)
I despise the current DRM attached to any of the formats available for digital download. I do however know that if I don't like the iTunes DRM, I'm free to buy from another store. I also know that the iPod is one of thousands and thousands of other players. That said, I don't buy/rent music from ANY online music store because I like the music to be mine once I buy it. Call me old school but that's just how it goes. We are at a crossroads and it makes me sad that in the very near future none of us will actually own anything that we *BUY*. This should get you motivated to speak with your $$$ and not just your mouth.
Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant, ignorant...
You do realize that once you buy the song from iTunes that you can burn onto a CD and play it on your computer, in your car, in your house, on your walkman, etc??????????????????
Nevermind that it is much cheaper to buy a whole record through iTunes vs. on a CD at a record store (usually about $5-6 dollars cheaper) it is ultimately more flexible.. You are not renting the music. You own the music, and have more variety to listen to it than ever before. I have personally not bought a CD at a music store in over two years. If you want to spend an extra money on buying a whole CD when all you really wanted was 2-3 songs off the CD, then go right ahead.
This is the problem with people like you. You speak about things you do not understand and you mock those that ultimately smarter than you because they understand the technology and its strengths.
I am not advocating for DRM, but it is here to stay. Like it or not. At least with music it is fair. Wait until you see what they are going to do with Blu-Ray and HD-DVD....
Ok let me get this straight.
People complain that because of DRM they can not play iTMS file on another player.
The analogy: music is like petrol, It does not matter if I buy it from BP or Shell: my car runs on both.
But.... that is not TRUE. Music has turned into a FORMAT and so has VIDEO.
I never heard ANYONE complain that bought a 8-Track or Minidisc that they could not play their FORMAT on another machine (same goes for Betamax/VHS etc.).
They knew they bought a format and there is no reason to assume it will work on anything else.
In fact: it is like expecting from a car manufacturer that you can use petrol, diesel, alcohol etc.. all with the same car!
Also there is something like progress: yeah difficult concept, I know.
Sometimes you can't be backwards compatible with older technology. No ONE complained that they could not play their records on a CD-player (once: again it wasn't just music: it was a FORMAT).
Bottomline: demanding that Apple has to make their iTMS music compatible is just BS.
You have a choice to buy the format that you like.
And no guarantees that MP3 or iTMS music can be played 30 years from now. Just like you're records.
Get over it. Move on. Smell the coffee
#57: "Christ, are you people fucking high? If you download an AAC from iTunes you can play it on up to 5 Macs or PCs using free software. You can burn it to a CD freely. You can put it on an iPod. That's choice, albeit somewhat limited."
"albeit somewhat limited" kind of kills the "choice" thing, you know?
No one wants DRM or similar limitations on what they can do with their music. Apple's version is less draconian than some, but it's still DRM.
That said, there's always JHymn plus iTunes 5...
As a french guy on this international forum I would testify that this law has been hugely criticized by open source communities, bloggers association, artists and so on, not because of the interoperability clause but because it is the result of Majors on the french market that lobbied strongly the government : these majors like Virgin, Universal or EMI did miss the technical turn of digital formats and let P2P, Apple and some others to share the market. They decided the government should help them to protect their interests and their lack of financial investment on the download platforms.
As a french citizen I totally disagree when Major industries make vote some laws for their private interests. The interoperability clause was invented for Virgin megastore and fnac.com so they can take a bit of Apple's cake. So please, leave the french citizen out of a process they strongly fought since december and failed to prevent.
As a french guy on this international forum I would testify that this law has been hugely criticized by open source communities, bloggers association, artists and so on, not because of the interoperability clause but because it is the result of Majors on the french market that lobbied strongly the government : these majors like Virgin, Universal or EMI did miss the technical turn of digital formats and let P2P, Apple and some others to share the market. They decided the government should help them to protect their interests and their lack of financial investment on the download platforms.
As a french citizen I totally disagree when Major industries make vote some laws for their private interests. The interoperability clause was invented for Virgin megastore and fnac.com so they can take a bit of Apple's cake. So please, leave the french citizen out of a process they strongly fought since december and failed to prevent.
@ 50 and others...
Sure, it's Apple's music store, but why should a consumer be forced to forever stick with Apple? If someone decides they want nothing more to do with iPods, the music should be easily transportable.
iTunes/iPod is a nascent monopoly (for the average consumer anyways). Monopolies suck, and anti-DRM laws are A-OK by me, though not being French, it doesn't really affect me.
OMG.
Engadget just jumped the shark.
Wow, this is an excellent debate, and very telling of people's misunderstanding of intellectual property laws and fair use rights. my stand: the french law is great, and many of you who oppose it don't fully understand its effect. Does anyone - ANYONE! - support the Digital Millenium Copyright Act? I didnt think so. Well, very simply, the french law is the anti-DMCA. It explicitly restores those user rights lost to DMCA-like legislation. It eliminats the penalty for doing what each us has every right to do as owners of a copy of a copyrighted work. Remember the days when you could buy a single copy of a work, make a backup copy, play it on this device or convert it to be played on that device and so on? Well, clearly the french do. Its called fair use, and all they are trying to do is resucitate it. You buy one copy of a song and you can listen to it whenever, wherever, on whatever. Isnt that what we all want? Think about it. This law is right.
Another Apple related Engadget blog post, another set of iPod fanboys.
Here are some funny moments:
Thill / 85 : "This is the problem with people like you. You speak about things you do not understand..."
and later comments
"You are not renting the music. You own the music, and have more variety to listen to it than ever before."
then you have iDiot fanboys like 'The Hague' with comments like "Yes, there is a clear difference between Microsoft using its market power to muscle other companies into submission AND Apple using its market power to force Microsoft into submission
The difference being - an excellent product (for most people), compelling advertising, ease of use, etc."
lol, so because Apple made "an excellent product" that makes it OK for them to "use its market power to force another comany into submission?" umm yeh, dumbass fanboy.
The best statement to come from 'The Hague' was "I guess I'm retarded" especially when he said "All Apple did was offer a way to sell music online, and let you OWN IT."
I wonder why so many people think they actually 'own' any music, regardless of it was purchased on CD or from an online music service. You've never owned your downloaded or store bought music and DRM insures that, plus the other IP factors before DRM even existed.
btw Jan Alberts, your blog, like your thought process, is shit. lol @ "France is trying to steal Apple's intellectual property"
Except, that if this were to apply to Sony's Connect store, everyone would be supporting the French parliament here rather than defend Sony. Because that's not cool. Because it's not StevieJ the frogs are attacking.
If you're going to be on one side or the other, you have to be consistent. So, if you're defending iTMS here, you're by extension supporting Sony's Connect store (which is less and more restrictive than iTMS).
So which is it fellow Cabana Boys? Take that nose out of the crack and think for a minute.
know what i find ironic? The fact that apple is fighting against their piracy of the music bought off itunes, which isnt even theirs in the first place, yet apple had to steal (pirate) ideas from xerox to get where they are today i mean hell when they started they hung a pirate flag at their headquarters, so wtf apple whats with the double standards!, ive yet to see you pay xerox restitution.
I've been reading some more of the comments and I just want to clear some things up. First, this law does not apply exclusively to Apple. That would be retarded. No doubt as iTunes has crushing dominance in the market, they have the most to lose if the law is enacted (in iPod sales that is. iTMS sales might actually increase as a result.). Second, no one is trying to "steal" Apple's intellectual property. Their IP is not even in question. The music copyrights belong to the artists and labels. Apple merely sells copys of songs, like a record store. And, finally, the law actually provides even greater protection against piracy than before. Clear?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4837834.stm
Is it true that french radio stations have to broadcast at least 40% in french?
I wonder if they will try to force the providers to sell % french music.
"Ponder this:
You have an iPod for a few years, you buy music from iTunes.
You find a better product and move over to it. OH SHIT I CAN'T PLAY ANY OF MY MUSIC I BOUGHT THESE PAST YEARS!"
-------
Sorry, but people who buy songs from the iTunes store will not be listening to "Candy Shop" or "L.O.V.E" five years from now...
It's like all those Spice Girl and Hanson CDs in the basement of many of the posters here....