DailyTech - Apple iTunes Faces French Legislation

Submit News

Gadgets Apple iTunes Faces French Legislation
Johnny Parker (Blog) - March 23, 2006 3:18 PM

22 comment(s) - last by oTAL.. on Mar 31 at 12:36 PM

A new law in France might decide the fate of iTunes.fr

The future of the Apple iTunes music download service is looking bleak in France. On Tuesday the lower house of the French legislature passed a bill that would place Apple in a very sticky situation. The law requires that online music retailers must release the codecs and DRM for the media the sell -- which in turn is supposed to allow all media players to play all media from any retailer.

Although this bill is not specifically targetted at Apple, the Apple iTunes software is clearly the largest current violator of the bill if it becomes ratified. Apple has yet to comment on what they will do with iTunes in France if the bill gets approved by the upper house. Analysts claim that releasing these codecs would result in "state-sponsored piracy."

Apple must now choose between sharing their secret encryption, or pull out of the French music market. Currently, France accounts for less than two percent of Apple's iTunes revenue.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

As much as

By creathir on 3/23/2006 3:34:06 PM , Rating: 2

As much as I despise Apple...
This law is terrible.
It provides NO protection to propietary technology. Apple has every right (as silly as they are) to use their own format on their own device. It is their right...
All that will come from this, is a pullout of iTunes from France...
My question is, are the French lawmakers going to require all requests to the iTunes website be blocked? How could a law like this be enforced?
- Creathir

RE: As much as

By lemonadesoda on 3/23/2006 4:54:28 PM , Rating: 2

No. You don't understand the issue.

Quite simply, Apple DOES NOT OWN the music that you "buy" (or is that "license to play") from iTunes.

By paying for the music, YOU should have the right to use it whenever (and ON WHATEVER) you want. Apple has no legal right to restrict YOUR use.

This has nothing to do with "state-legislated-piracy", which is a con word, coined by Apple itself.

If I were the french government I would sue Apple (or Apple's lawyers) for defamation.

It's this kind of "spin" that I particularly detest about Apple. Even though I think they have great products, they are not above the law, nor law-makers.

Quite simply, if Apple doesn't want to release the CODEC, it doesn't have to. But then iTunes needs to sell music in a transferable format. Transferable formats can still contain DRM.

Parent

RE: As much as

By oTAL on 3/23/2006 4:59:13 PM , Rating: 2

Damn.. you beated me by 2 minutes... I still think my answer was better though! =p
I'd still like to rate yours up... it's a shame you can't rate after you post... guess it make sense, in a way....

Parent

RE: As much as

By creathir on 3/23/2006 5:10:28 PM , Rating: 2

You DO have the right...
You can buy your music from someone else...
Or heck, burn the thing to CD...

When you click "I accept" on their terms of use, you are LEGALLY agreeing to whatever the heck they deem fit.

YOU have NO rights when you are buying a product at your own free will.

The only right you have is that the product will be as described. (Which it is)

I cannot stand Apple (hence, I use Napster) but I do feel that you are totally incorrect in your assertion. Why should Apple HAVE to release their product to the rest of the world? That is what gives them their "edge"...
It is just as with their operating system.
Should they release an "open source" version of that?
How about Windows? It does not work on PowerPC computers.

Where does it end?

This is a TOTAL overstepping of the French government. As much as I HATE Apple, I have to take their side on this one.
- Creathir

Parent

RE: As much as

By KCjoker on 3/23/2006 5:48:57 PM , Rating: 1

Exactly right. Apple spends millions developing and marketing a great product now they're supposed to let competitors have it for free. This is complete BS wether it's MS, Apple or whoever. Since France only accounts for 2% I bet Apple just tells France See Ya!

Parent

RE: As much as

By SunAngel on 3/23/2006 6:46:48 PM , Rating: 2

It sounds to me you have your head on straight and all.

However, DRM is a two edge sword. While it protects the artist's copyrights, at the same time it restricts the artists' exposure to the market. What I mean is if Fionna Apple only released here music on iTunes, owners that enjoy here music are forced to purchase an iPod.

This is, in effect, the creation of a hostage-monopoly, also known as hostage-buying (where a consumer is forced to make a forced secondary purchase as a result of a first purchase). We have the same issue with Microsoft's operating system; however, its' overwhelming support worldwide allows its' monopoly to exist. Back to Apple ITunes store.

What we have is an intervention by the French government to correct/head-off a possible impairment to a fair market. I expect other countries of the EU to follow suit, which in turn will force Apple to divulge it DRM. I predict, in several years, the multitude of DRM schemes currently today will be replaced by a single DRM scheme managed by a clearing house either created or contracted out to a third party DRM specialist, like First4Internet (once they get their shit right).

Do not think Apple is going to sacrific any amount of its revenue to protect the confidentiality of its DRM. DRM is do-do. If the record company feels that DRM is nolonger protecting its property, believe you me, they will kill the online store market business model quickly.

Parent

RE: As much as

By TomZ on 3/24/2006 8:36:42 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
While it protects the artist's copyrights

I agree with your overall post, but I think that the idea that DRM protects artist's rights is a little off. Clearly, DRM protects the profits of the record companies, period. Everyone knows that record companies pay the artists the smallest amount of money they can get away with, regardless of actual record sales.

Parent

RE: As much as

By masher2

(blog) on 3/24/2006 4:39:37 PM , Rating: 2

> "Everyone knows that record companies pay the artists the smallest amount of money they can get away with"

Come now, Tom. Statements like this are beneath you.

"Everyone knows" is a code phrase for "I can't prove it, but I hope you won't notice...."

Parent

RE: As much as

By Plasmoid on 3/23/2006 9:21:46 PM , Rating: 2

Your argument is perfectly valid for America but not everywhere is a corporate paradise where the buyer must beware.

The fact is currently Apple is selling you "music", which in fact turns out to be encrypted. You go to buy something to decrypt and LOW AND BEHOLD you have to buy Apple...
Thats anti-competitive. With Apple having a the dominany share by far of the market, thats Monopolistic.
Buy somewhere else you say... well some songs are exclusive to iTunes
Buy on cd you say... well some cd's come with nasty rootkits.

Apple is simply being monopolistic in many ways. Thats fine in America where this kind of thing is accepted and defended by the law but elsewhere you cant sell Music and then deliver what is restricted, encrypted representations of it and expect to get away with forever.

If Apple goes bust tomorrow, and takes its codec's with it then suddenly all that music i bought is looking less valuable. They have the key it and they have no obligation to keep supplying me with it.

I dont know what apple is going to do... looking back to how they lost out to IBM and Microsoft i guess they will defend their right to close shop until they find themselves holding only a niche end of the market. Meanwhile the windows media alternative which is relatively open to anyone will take over and history will repeat itself.

I dont see why Apple are so stead fast against sharing the codec under specific circumstances. There are other shared codecs that work fine under in that way.

Parent

RE: As much as

By oTAL on 3/23/2006 4:56:31 PM , Rating: 2

I think iTunes is creating a sort of monopoly for Apple, since the only player that can read music bought at this store (by large the most popular) is the iPod. This law would mandate apple to allow other players to read AAC or allow music to be sold in other formats - such as MP3. I think it is a very good law.
Imagine if MS was holding both the "most popular store" AND "most popular player" titles in their hands. Everyone would be screaming MONOPOLY off the top of their heads. The problem is that there is actually better hardware out there, but some circumstances, and one of them is certainly iTunes, are holding back the competition. That sort of situation always harms the consumer and limits its choice.

Parent

RE: As much as

By creathir on 3/23/2006 5:12:57 PM , Rating: 2

You are under the premise that this is a monopoly (50%-60% of the market share is NOT a monopoly)
Also, you are NOT FORCED to use iTunes on the device (MP3s and WMAs work just fine)
Sure you are forced to use an Apple iPod... but you know what, get your content from someone if you want to use another player. Apple is not twisting your arm to use iTunes. You do not have to use an iPod.
- Creathir

Parent

RE: As much as

By oTAL on 3/23/2006 5:18:57 PM , Rating: 3

Let me put this way then. You have an Apple iPod, loaded with AAC songs you legally bought. Why shouldn't you be able to buy a competing product and migrate all YOUR songs to the new player? The thing is that the most confortable, unrestricted ppl are the pirates....

Parent

RE: As much as

By creathir on 3/24/2006 1:12:47 AM , Rating: 2

Because you signed away that right when you agreed to buy your music from iTunes.
You agreed to it. You were not forced to buy AAC songs. You were not forced to buy the iPod. You CHOSE to buy the songs. You CHOSE to buy the iPod. In this hypothetical case, you CHOSE wrong. (At least in my opinion)
Apple has every right to protect their hardware. Look above, you will see what I mean. Apple does not have a monopoly on something in which you do not have to have. The phone companies, they had a monopoly. The giant railroad companies, they had a monopoly. Apple lacks this. Apple has a product in which they promote by offering a content service. It would be out of their interests to offer the content for every other device out there. (They make little to no money on each of those songs they sell.)

Their bread and butter is the hardware sales of the iPod.
When you filled up that iPod with AAC protected songs from iTunes, you did so by your own choice. You could have bought CDs and converted them. You could have downloaded illegal MP3s. Just because Apple offers content for sale does not mean it has to be offered to every platform. If this were the case, once again, they should not be allowed to have Apple OSX only on their hardware. Microsoft should not be allowed to have only Office on Windows, or Windows only on x86 computers.
Your premise is flawwed.

Apple, is right in this case...
These socialists in France just need to take a seat and let the freemarket govern itself.

Notice: Windows based devices are doing just fine (the spread is just so vast due to the number of devices...)

Eventually, Apple will be forced to compete with other hardware vendors with iTunes. Not because of some rediculously liberal government in France, but because their rear's are being handed to them in the free marketplace.

- Creathir
- Creathir

Parent

Here's an idea...

By Scorpion on 3/23/2006 8:49:21 PM , Rating: 2

...Don't Buy an iPod!!! If you want transferable control over your music, buy it from some where else and put it on another Portable music player. Problem freakin solved. Just one of the 1,000 reasons I don't buy Apple, own an iPod, or use iTunes.

RE: Here's an idea...

By Questar on 3/23/2006 10:34:15 PM , Rating: 2

Please tell us where you legally buy music (short of physical cds) that doesn't have DRM.

Parent

RE: Here's an idea...

By drxploder on 3/24/2006 12:51:16 AM , Rating: 2

I think he means that you can buy a player and transfer the songs to another player from a different company.

i.e. buy a creative player (with playsforsure) and buy songs from napster then, buy an iriver and xfer music to the iriver.

Parent

Not surprising

By masher2

(blog) on 3/24/2006 7:49:37 AM , Rating: 2

France stopped believing in freedom long ago. For another example of this, see the riots they're now having...all because of a legal measure which would allow employees to actually be fired if a company no longer needs them.

Of course, that applies only to people under age 26, and only within the first two years of employment. The rest of the workforce still enjoys its guaranteed employment for life.

RE: Not surprising

By oTAL on 3/31/2006 12:36:59 PM , Rating: 2

I'm sorry, but I don't think you knwo what you are talking about... Although a polemical measure it has its reasons and a valid background. Both sides have a valid point and stating that "France stopped believing in Freedom" is just ignorant, seeing as France as far more social freedom than, for example, the US. Right now, most Europe is more socially evolved than the US. I know it's pretty hard for americans to accept that their promissed land... the land of freedom... is now partially controled by lobbys and radicals. It is nonetheless the truth.

Parent

Huzza

By phisrow on 3/24/2006 1:12:49 AM , Rating: 2

While it may not be the best possible law(I don't have enough french to parse the actual text of it) I think the premise of the law is really very important and I hope we'll see more like it in the future.

There have always been regulations(both in law and in convention) about what sorts of contractual terms are or are not enforceable. Some rights you can waive, some you can't. Not infrequently, the fine print demands that you waive more than you can, in the hopes that you won't know what your rights actually are. Since, with DRM, technology is, in effect, a new form of contractual restriction, it stands to reason that not everything goes in DRM restrictions, just as not everything goes in contracts.

Now, as it happens, the law doesn't affect me much, as I'm an american who will deal only with physical CDs or DRM free downloads(little plug for emusic.com here); but if the French have decided, by legislative process, that certain sorts of restrictions just cannot be made I wish them all the best.

It is unfortunate that defining certain sorts of DRM restrictions as unacceptable happens to, for technical reasons, require disclosure and interoperability(which may be considered to threaten certain companies property); but since it is the technology which imposes the restrictions, it must be the technology which is regulated to prevent certain unacceptable restrictions.

An analogy would be labor law. Under law, there are certain conditions that you just cannot agree to work under. Certain levels of exposure to toxins, certain hours, certain dangers from machinery, etc. Now, you could argue: "Laws that regulate conditions could damage companies human resources. They have every right to use their resources as they choose." or "If people don't like the conditions, they can just get another job." but, as history seems to demonstrate, certain deplorable conditions persist despite these arguments until otherwise rectified.

Now, I'm not suggesting that not being able to convert 20 bucks worth of ITMS songs to WMA is tantamount to workplace exposure to toxins; but the regulatory framework is similar. As technology moves forward more and more of the conditions of our lives will be controlled by technical means. We must decide what conditions we will and will not allow, that means regulating the technology.

Consumer Choice

By kelmon on 3/24/2006 2:36:49 AM , Rating: 2

I don't often agree with the French but I really do on this one and I'm very pro-Apple. However, it is worth remembering that this applies not just to Apple but also other forms of DRM, particularly that used by Windows Media Player. I have no problem with DRM being used as a means to protect the rights of the artists, but I do have a problem when that DRM and the licensing that goes with it prevents me from obtaining and enjoying my digital content in a way that I choose. I should, for example, be free to listen to music that I have bought from the iTunes Music Store on a device other than an iPod. Equally, I should also be able to listen to music encoded in Microsoft's DRM on my iPod. In this respect I can access the content that I have bought in a way that suits me and I can also purchase it from whomever is offering me the best value for the product that I want.

Apple, it has to be noted, are probably the main offender here since Microsoft seems to allow every MP3 player maker to license their DRM but Apple let's practically no one license their FairPlay DRM, and that sucks big time. However, the door definitely swings both way and I want to see Windows DRM licensed to run on Macs so that digital content can be accessed on whatever platform the consumer chooses. Heck, I don't have to buy a Sony CD player in order to play a Sony CD so I don't see why this sort of protectionism should exist in the digital world either.