Why Apple Doesn’t Like the French: Bill Passes to Open iTunes
A bill that would open up music-playing technology and tunes to compatible players threatens Apple’s domination in the online market. The French law that would push Apple Computer to make the iTunes playable on devices that compete with the iPod passed through France’s lower house of parliament Tuesday and now moves to its senate.
Apple issued a response statement Wednesday: “The French implementation of the EU Copyright Directive will result in state-sponsored piracy. If this happens, legal music sales will plummet just when legitimate alternatives to piracy are winning over customers. iPod sales will likely increase as users freely load their iPods with ‘interoperable’ music which cannot be adequately protected. Free movies for iPods should not be far behind in what will rapidly become a state-sponsored culture of piracy.”
Under the French law, digital content providers must share details of their rights management technologies with rivals. iTunes, which are protected under Apple’s FairPlay DRM technology, would be downloadable onto alternate devices if the bill passes into law.
DRM technologies are meant to establish the ground rules under which consumers can use the music. They limit the number of copies the user can make (to one or more computers), the number of portable players to which the songs can be copied, and how extensively sharing can occur.
CNET.com reported that Gene Munster, senior analyst for Piper Jaffray, said Apple could choose to withdraw iTunes from the French market rather than change its business. “We believe Apple is more likely to drop out of the French market than open up its FairPlay DRM to allow iTunes to play on competing MP3 players,” he wrote. “While this sounds like a drastic move, we believe it would not materially impact business. We estimate that approximately 20 percent of iPod and iTunes sales occur outside of the U.S. The French market alone is likely less than 2 percent of iPod and iTunes business.” Also according to CNET, an Apple spokesman said he could not comment on what action Apple might take if the measure becomes law in France.
A report from BusinessWeek said that other companies besides Apple will suffer the effects of the law. “Sony and Microsoft could feel the effects of the French law as well. All three use proprietary technology for digital rights management, the protection of content against unlawful copying. In the longer term, though, the French legislation is a warning shot for the music business.”
Not only could the European Commission question Apple’s monopoly, but other countries could also pass similar laws.
BusinessWeek also reported Wednesday that Apple’s stock was down $2.18, more than 3%. “Apple doesn’t break out iTunes or iPod sales by region, but reported a $174 million operating profit on sales of $1.2 billion for its European division in its most recent quarter. It has sold 14 million iPods worldwide.”
On Tuesday, two deputies from the ruling Union pour Movement Populaire (UMP), the party behind the legislation, issued a statement stating they hope other countries in Europe will follow the French example. “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.”
BusinessWeek source Francois Laugier, a lawyer with the San Francisco law firm Ropers Majeski Kohn and Bentley said, “Apple’s best allies in any fight against this law may lie with French Socialist and Communist legislators who may oppose the law simply for the purpose of opposing those who favor it.”
“If it passes the Senate,” Laugier said, “there are members of those parties who have suggest that they would like to take the law to the Conseil Constitutionnel, or the constitutional council, the highest legal authority in France on matters relating to constitutional law. I’d start lobbying the politicians who favor bringing it before the council. The provisions of this law that affect Apple are actually very small, and the council might strip them from the bill, or modify them.”
Whatever Apple decides to do with its French connection, it definitely does not favor any provision that would cause its monopoly to crumble.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
In case you didn’t get the analogy, DRM is like a gate in front of a driveway. It may suck, but circumventing it is not fair use.
Except it’s not a gate in front of a driveway. It’s a gate in front of the only onramp to the highway, and that gate is essentially controlled by one company. And btw, they make you drive their car in order to go through it.
There is no defeating of copy protection when the copy is allowed according to the terms of the said protection.
You are entitled to back up the songs you purchase on the iTMS on audio-CDs, for your own fair perusal. No circumvention here whatsoever.
There is no defeating of copy protection when the copy is allowed according to the terms of the said protection.
Well, according to Oskar, the iTunes terms state explicitly that you are not allowed to circumvent DRM.
And according to YOUR OWN STATEMENT above, recording your iTMS music to a CD does exactly that. In fact, you use it as an argument for why Apple’s DRM isn’t anti-competitive, since you can then play those songs on a “very wide range of systems and peripherals.”
You can’t have it both ways.
I believe it’s the DMCA, RIAA and MPAA that Beeblebrox actually wants to go against. That’s another debate, and his own struggle.
Let’s get back to the iPod/iTMS discussion.
You are not allowed to circumvent the iTMS DRM. Correct.
But…
The iTMS DRM, unlike some other DRMs out there, allows you to back up your songs on audio-CDs.
So…
Backing up your iTMS songs on audio-CDs is not circumventing the iTMS DRM.
Lionel, I just realized that you’re not in the USA. If that’s the case, then the DCMA does not apply to you, but the DCMA overrides Apple’s TOS and makes it illegal to circumvent DRM.
And thankfully, it’s not just my struggle. There are more and more people unwilling to bow to our corporate overlords and let them rewrite laws in order to protect their own interests. It’s very sad to me if this is not your struggle as well.
Except it’s not a gate in front of a driveway. It’s a gate in front of the only onramp to the highway, and that gate is essentially controlled by one company. -Beeblebrox
The point is that music files, like driveways, can normally be trespassed/copied due to fair use laws. HOWEVER, the owner of said music files or driveway can always put an impediment in the way that would prevent fair use - DRM code, or a gate.
You mutated the analogy a little to express the fact that in the case of music files, there really isn’t much of an alternative (other than perhaps buying CDs). I agree that alternative music stores aren’t as readily available as alternative driveways to pull into, but the principle remains exactly the same. The fact that iTMS has few competitors does not in any way mean it’s okay to break their DRM.
The fact that iTMS has few competitors does not in any way mean it’s okay to break their DRM.
That’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not one company should be allowed the only keys to the gate and whether a company can use that advantage to stifle competition.
Again, it’s a fundamental difference in philosophy that we’re simply not going to agree on. And I’m fine with that.
My main objection in both of these threads is the utterly preposterous double-standard that Apple-apologists are applying to Apple vs Microsoft. And I think we both agree on that.
Yes, I agree about the double-standard and I doubt we’ll settle these philosophical differences. Oh well.
I currently have no iPod, and no iPod competitor either.
Again—even in the USA—, backing up your iTMS songs on audio-CDs is perfectly lawful. The iTMS DRM system is sales-savvy enough to allow iTunes users to actually listen to the music they purchase. You don’t have to circumvent or hack anything.
Select the songs you want, make a playlist with them, and click the “Burn to disk” button in iTunes.
Again—even in the USA—, backing up your iTMS songs on audio-CDs is perfectly lawful.
No it isn’t. While Apple may allow exceptions for circumventing DRM, the DCMA does not. And the DCMA trumps Apple’s TOS. In fact, the RIAA and MPAA are now trying to enforce this provision more tightly, arguing that the fair use allowance you describe doesn’t even exist.
Btw, is that enough stupid acronyms for ya?
Maybe the RIAA and MPAA are trying to do what you say, but they have not succeeded yet, have they ?
Just for the record, I don’t support the DMCA. I think it’s sufficient to prohibit circumventing one’s DRM in a contract, and deal with violaters through contract law (which means pretty much just getting fined by a civil court, not going to federal prison). It’s not hard to imagine that the DMCA could pervert contracts like you describe.
From what i have read in this Ars Technica article, the “content-related industry” is saying that making copies of CDs should not be considered fair use, but it is not saying that backing up one’s legally purchased digital music onto audio-CDs should be deemed illegal.
Quote from the “content-related industry” joint-reply to the triennal review of the effectiveness of the DMCA (emphasis mine):
“Myriad online downloading services are available and offer varying types of digital rights management alternatives. For example, the Apple FairPlay technology allows users to make a limited number of copies for personal use. Presumably, consumers concerned with the ability to make back up copies would choose to purchase music from a service that allowed such copying.”
Maybe the RIAA and MPAA are trying to do what you say, but they have not succeeded yet, have they ?
According to the MPAA and RIAA, the DMCA already provides this prevention of fair use. They are asking that the provisions be enforced.
but it is not saying that backing up one’s legally purchased digital music onto audio-CDs should be deemed illegal.
Lionel, the title of the article you link to is called:
“RIAA et al. says CD ripping, backups not fair use.”
The very, very specific passage you cite, out of an entire article saying the exact opposite of what you’re arguing, has to do with making copies of the digital music file itself (Apple allows up to five or seven, I don’t remember which), not burning a CD of said music. In fact, the RIAA argues in that same document that if you want a CD backup, just go out and buy the CD.
“Presumably, consumers concerned with the ability to make back up copies would choose to purchase music from a service that allowed such copying. Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices.”
And in this passage, the RIAA is arguing that even IF Apple allows you to copy the file in their TOS, that it’s not fair use IF the copyright holder (in most cases, the record lables themselves) do not authorize you do to so, which clearly they do not.
“Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even “routinely” granted, see C6 at 8, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization.”
Honestly, Lionel, why are you defending this bullshit?
They are talking about the copying and backing-up of “physical” music CDs, the ones you may purchase in “physical stores”.
They stated that some legal—and agreed-to by the copyright holders—DRM systems, such as the Apple FairPlay technolology, allow you to make copies of your legally acquired digital music.
So backing up your iTMS music to CDs is perfectly legal. I’m neither defending nor attacking this state of fact. It may change in the future—who knows?—, but as of now, this is how it is:
You Americans still have the right to select FairPlay tracks in iTunes and click “Burn to disk”. Enjoy !