France DRM Law Gutted In Committee

[whooleytoo]

um...
... this is bad news for you and me (the consumer), in case anyone misunderstood...

I agree. (It's strange how everyone is taking such a positive view on this when the original article is pretty pessimistic).

Many here have said the consumer has a choice, they don't have to buy from iTMS; and that's true, but consider this scenario:

Let's say you look at the DRM restrictions on iTMS, consider them fair (or at least, acceptable) and start buying music there. You build up a library of a few hundred songs over time. Then Apple announces a change in DRM policy (of its own volition, or forced to do so by the labels): The songs you've bought are unaffected, but any more songs bought from iTMS can (say) no longer be burnt to CD, and you can only play them on one Mac or PC.

(You might say Apple would never do this, but they have the power to change the restrictions pretty much as they choose, and have already done so once).

Now, what do you do? You don't want to buy any more from Apple. Do you buy from another music store? Well then your music won't play on your iPod. Do you buy a new music player? Then your hundreds of iTMS songs won't play on that player. Do you want the hassle of burning all those songs to CD, and ripping them again to the new format? Not to mention, by transcoding you're reducing a low quality audio file even lower.

Many customers would simply accept Apple's restrictions because of the hassle of switching, and this is the problem. Apple are trying to keep customers, not through innovation, but through artificial restrictions to make it difficult for the customer to leave.

 

[DRMBothersMe]

I agree that we have the right to not buy proprietary DRM products.

A year ago, I averaged perhaps 10 iTune songs a week. I liked the convenience and the price was right.

A year later, I think carefully about any iTunes purchase. I compare the 99 cent price and convenience against thge higher price and inconvenience of (once again) buying CDs. CDs now win more often.

Today, I might buy 10 iTunes songs a year. 99 cents a song is less attractive when the song has so many restrictions. For example, I have six media / web computers in my house (4 kids!!). I can no longer put iTunes on all of them even though I have legally paid for every iTunes song I have downloaded.

I am buying less iTunes content. And thanks to lower convenience of buying CD's, I am buying less music overall . Apple and the music industry as a whole would make more money from me with an open DRM strategy.

I am a buyer who is aware. There will be more of me as time goes on...

 

[Gasu E.]

I agree. (It's strange how everyone is taking such a positive view on this when the original article is pretty pessimistic).

Many here have said the consumer has a choice, they don't have to buy from iTMS; and that's true, but consider this scenario:

Let's say you look at the DRM restrictions on iTMS, consider them fair (or at least, acceptable) and start buying music there. You build up a library of a few hundred songs over time. Then Apple announces a change in DRM policy (of its own volition, or forced to do so by the labels): The songs you've bought are unaffected, but any more songs bought from iTMS can (say) no longer be burnt to CD, and you can only play them on one Mac or PC.

(You might say Apple would never do this, but they have the power to change the restrictions pretty much as they choose, and have already done so once).

Now, what do you do? You don't want to buy any more from Apple. Do you buy from another music store? Well then your music won't play on your iPod. Do you buy a new music player? Then your hundreds of iTMS songs won't play on that player. Do you want the hassle of burning all those songs to CD, and ripping them again to the new format? Not to mention, by transcoding you're reducing a low quality audio file even lower.

Many customers would simply accept Apple's restrictions because of the hassle of switching, and this is the problem. Apple are trying to keep customers, not through innovation, but through artificial restrictions to make it difficult for the customer to leave.

Nice hypothetical scenario. In other words, Apple could take advantage of its monopolistic position to cause harm to consumers. You forgot the part about the subsequent class-action suit in which Apple is ripped to shreds, forced to open up DRM and pay a substantial settlement.

Under normal rules of juriprudence, action takes place after the offence, not because it could happen hypothetically.

 

[Gasu E.]

I agree that we have the right to not buy proprietary DRM products.

A year ago, I averaged perhaps 10 iTune songs a week. I liked the convenience and the price was right.

A year later, I think carefully about any iTunes purchase. I compare the 99 cent price and convenience against thge higher price and inconvenience of (once again) buying CDs. CDs now win more often.

Today, I might buy 10 iTunes songs a year. 99 cents a song is less attractive when the song has so many restrictions. For example, I have six media / web computers in my house (4 kids!!). I can no longer put iTunes on all of them even though I have legally paid for every iTunes song I have downloaded.

I am buying less iTunes content. And thanks to lower convenience of buying CD's, I am buying less music overall . Apple and the music industry as a whole would make more money from me with an open DRM strategy.

I am a buyer who is aware. There will be more of me as time goes on...

And you are the only person in this thread taking an anti-DRM position that has made sense so far. Congrats!

 

[unfaded]

Another loss for the consumer.

 

[bretm]

Less choice for you and I as consumers for one thing.

Perhaps. But what right do you have to another choice? Tell ya what you do have. You have the right in this country to go out and build your own business. To go out and invent the next ipod. To go out and create another music store to compete with Apples. Nobody is stopping you. But if you want to use the force of government to ride the coattails of others successes like so many companies and people do then you're looking at the world as a socialist. And over music of all things! It's not even food water or shelter. Not that those are guaranteed to you either.

Somebody creates an industry of online music and players and now you want to crucify them. That certainly curbs my desire to go out and create the next great "thing" if I know the people and the government are just going to rape me and distribute it amongst others.

To be honest, I don't see why there isn't more competition out there. The ipod is snazzy, but it's a pretty basic device. And it has taken years to evolve. There are other players out there for less and they can't even make a decent web or software interface. Apple spends less on R&D than most companies per dollar of revenue. Some analysts say too little. Yet they keep cranking out the hits and they deserve the glory.

Oh, sorry it makes your music choces harder. Geez.

 

[bretm]

And you are the only person in this thread taking an anti-DRM position that has made sense so far. Congrats!

Why's he making sense? A CD is a physical medium and he doesn't have the right to make 5 copies for all his kids. He has the right to make a copy for backup or his own personal use. For example it is illegal to buy a CD, load it into iTunes, then give the CD to your buddy.

This is the reason iTunes has negotiated with the record companies to allow the music on 5 computers or whatever. So that people can't make this argument. But of course if you're going to argue that it's easier to illegally duplicate store bought CDs vs. iTunes purchased songs, I guess he wins.

EDIT: Oh, and I guess I shouldn't point out that he could've saved a lot of money by simply burning his iTunes albums to CD which strips all the DRM. He'd then have the same thing he bought at the store for about 33% cheaper.

This guys argument definitely doesn't hold water. Apple argues all day "burn all the CDs you want of your iTunes purchases." I guess some people don't know that.

 

[whooleytoo]

Under normal rules of juriprudence, action takes place after the offence, not because it could happen hypothetically.

But the French law isn't punitive action. They're deciding the laws under which all companies in the French marketplace must play, and these laws must (rather obviously) be in place before taking action.

 

[bretm]

I agree. (It's strange how everyone is taking such a positive view on this when the original article is pretty pessimistic).

Many here have said the consumer has a choice, they don't have to buy from iTMS; and that's true, but consider this scenario:

Let's say you look at the DRM restrictions on iTMS, consider them fair (or at least, acceptable) and start buying music there. You build up a library of a few hundred songs over time. Then Apple announces a change in DRM policy (of its own volition, or forced to do so by the labels): The songs you've bought are unaffected, but any more songs bought from iTMS can (say) no longer be burnt to CD, and you can only play them on one Mac or PC.

(You might say Apple would never do this, but they have the power to change the restrictions pretty much as they choose, and have already done so once).

Now, what do you do? You don't want to buy any more from Apple. Do you buy from another music store? Well then your music won't play on your iPod. Do you buy a new music player? Then your hundreds of iTMS songs won't play on that player. Do you want the hassle of burning all those songs to CD, and ripping them again to the new format? Not to mention, by transcoding you're reducing a low quality audio file even lower.

Many customers would simply accept Apple's restrictions because of the hassle of switching, and this is the problem. Apple are trying to keep customers, not through innovation, but through artificial restrictions to make it difficult for the customer to leave.

It's MUSIC! Do you have some right to license or own it forever? When you purchase a CD at the store do you expect it to last forever? Records certainly don't. Cassette tapes certainly don't. CDs don't either. DRM will change. iPods will change. Someday you won't be able to play you AAC audio on anything except your 20 year old iMac, which of course won't work. Should they replace them for you with another format? Nobody has replaced my scratched records with nice new AAC copies for my iPod. But I bought them! And my cassettes don't play on my CD player! Why not? Is that some sort of DRM?

You've purchased a piece of media whether it be DRM'd AAC, a Cassete Tape, a CD, or vinyl. You've given a little money so that you can listen to someone else's creation at your whimsy all you want.

But if you expect your purchase to guarantee it will work on every player, computer, system etc. forever forget it. You bought a copy of an original. A poster of the Mona Lisa if you will.

This freakin sense of entitlement people have is getting insane.

 

[Applespider]

I agree that we have the right to not buy proprietary DRM products.

I agree with that and I can see your point that in your situation, the DRM doesn't work well for you. For me, the price and convenience work well and I haven't had problems using my iTMS music in movies/DVDs etc so I've been quite happy.

I suspect that Fairplay will be licensed but when it suits Apple. Currently most music on an iPod is ripped from a CD which is quick and easy. As Apple move to video (whether selling online or creating an iPod which is better for watching video), that ease of ripping isn't going to be possible. While Apple are widely expected to set up a movie store, consumers are going to want a way to rip DVDs that they've bought in an easy, legal format. The movie studios have said they'd include an iPod-ready movie as part of the DVD extras but they're not going to do it DRM free and at the moment the only licensed (it's not open) standard is WMP which rules out Mac owners and iPods.

It would be nice to get of DRM entirely but human nature being what it is with most people preferring 'free' over paying, I don't think any copyright holder is going to go with it. They did the work, they deserve the payment. The problem is that those who want something free/cheaper can always (so far) work around it. Those who don't mind paying a fair price and can't be bothered with the technical hassle of working round the DRM, get frustrated by it. The number of CDs that I couldn't play on my work PC (pre-iPod) in case I copied them used to drive me batty - and all I wanted to do was listen to them - not share them!

 

[whooleytoo]

This freakin sense of entitlement people have is getting insane.

There's a very, very good reason for "this freakin sense of entitlement".

Because it's possible. Records, tapes and CDs were the best that technology could practically provide at the time, but all were prone to wear and tear Now, with digital media, there's no reason why the music I buy can't have an 'infinite life'.

After all, the company that owns iTMS has gone to great lengths to emphasise the fact that yes, we do OWN the music.

 

[Transic]

*

 

[MacMyDay]

The problem that the normal consumer has to understand is the issue of copyright. When we design something for a client, they do not own the right to copy it and give it to their friends - that's not what they're paying for. If that was the case, we may as well work for free, let clients stick our work on templatemonster and just sit around moaning all day about it. Not one client has ever had a problem with this. They accept that it's our work, and they have an indefinite license to it. The difference is that they don't have the ownership license, so they cannot just do what they want with it. Same applies with music, films and so on. You're not buying the ownership to it, otherwise you could stop them from selling it to other people; instead you're buying the rights to owning a copy of it, which is only allowed within their terms and conditions.

Whether you like it or not is not something the law and copyright takes much notice of, and if I found that after all the work we'd done, someone just handed it away to anyone they pleased, I assure you I wouldn't be too pleased either.

 

[whoooaaahhhh]

On another note...

I like cookies...






Sorry I had to break this thread up a little bit...people are getting crazy!

 

[DRMBothersMe]

Whether you like it or not is not something the law and copyright takes much notice of, and if I found that after all the work we'd done, someone just handed it away to anyone they pleased, I assure you I wouldn't be too pleased either.

Fair enough. Copyright owners deserve protection.

I am sure that we all feel that our Western democracies have risen beyond those ancient archaic regimes where you could lose your hand for stealing a loaf of bread. We have evolved beyond that, right?

But what kind of fair-mainded society allows a $250,000 fine for downloading a $10 song? That's on par with the penalty for armed robbery.

Sadly, I think DRM is cut from the same legislative cloth. It wouldn't hurt Apple - and others - to lighten up a bit. I think it is in their best interest, in the long run.

 

[bokdol]

Because it's possible. Records, tapes and CDs were the best that technology could practically provide at the time, but all were prone to wear and tear Now, with digital media, there's no reason why the music I buy can't have an 'infinite life'.

yes but no one is say you can't have your music forever depending on how long your computer last. remember you can make infinite copies you can put them on inifint machines. yet only play them on 5. and you can reset every year the 5 machines. so yes you could have your music aslong as you live. but like manythings you have to take care of it. also if your computer crashes, apple is not resposible to give you another copy. as nice as that is they really dont have to do that.

Less choice for you and I as consumers for one thing.

i am not understading how this becomes less choice. it has not changed. it is still the same as it was and is. it is not more, but it is also not less.

Let's say you look at the DRM restrictions on iTMS, consider them fair (or at least, acceptable) and start buying music there. You build up a library of a few hundred songs over time. Then Apple announces a change in DRM policy (of its own volition, or forced to do so by the labels): The songs you've bought are unaffected, but any more songs bought from iTMS can (say) no longer be burnt to CD, and you can only play them on one Mac or PC.

(You might say Apple would never do this, but they have the power to change the restrictions pretty much as they choose, and have already done so once).

i am unsure what you mean only because this seems like an extreme situation to happen. i understand your fears but this seems like an unlikely situation, and i dont understand how the ruling has anything to do with it.

and yes i would say apple would likley not do this becasue it would change their customer base. and yes they did change the restrictions, but for the better not worse. they allowed more computers not less.

to change the format to a more restrictive set would cause many consumers to complain. also it may cause loss of sales. stock holders and record comapnies would not like that. but the record companies and stock holders have a lot riding on itunes. to go such a drastic route would be odd and unthinkable. but i am not a stock holder or a record company exec. so i dont care about it.

But what kind of fair-mainded society allows a $250,000 fine for downloading a $10 song? That's on par with the penalty for armed robbery.

Sadly, I think DRM is cut from the same legislative cloth. It wouldn't hurt Apple - and others - to lighten up a bit. I think it is in their best interest, in the long run.

now this is something that makes sense. i agreefully that the penaty is to harsh. and the drm could be lightened. but i dont think either will happen. but thats is not a bad thing. well, the penalty is a bad thing as it is too huge for situations that sometimes is not in control of the user. ie: the grandparent that got sued for what the grandkids did. but the drm is something that most people can live with. but i can understand your situation because of how big your family is. i would even go on to say a 8 to 10 computer limit is not a bad thing. but beyond that i dont know... but i dont want my songs on other peoples machine anyhow. let alone having to type a password on those machines.

 

[ce34482]

Has anyone tried buying a track from one of the other stores? Will it play on your Mac? (If it doesn't play on my iPod, that's Apple's business.) But I'm guessing no and no one is saying that the other stores aren't playing fair. Real makes an application for the Mac. Microsoft, who has their own DRM, used to make an application for the Mac, and yet none of these work with their stores/their DRM. Am I right? Not licensing FairPlay and not creating Mac-friendly stores are business decisions made by these companies. Like it or not, they're free to do what they want. Even if they would do better business, they're free to do what they want. There's no law that says you have to do the best thing for you company. ;-) Competition between the companies and locking you into this and that are going to happen, it seems.

As for DRM ... it might be unfair, but you have to expect copyright owners to try to limit the mass distribution of their property. Besides that, it's the law in the US and weakening it in France isn't going to do anything here. The last time US lawmakers reacted to what the French thought on an issue, we lost "french fries".

 

[eatapc]

Good move by the French

i dont under stand how this prevents us from having choice. other then not being able to put itunes music on other players.

I agree.

When people here say that this hurts consumers, they have to define the period of time they're talking about. Almost any anti-business legislation will help the consumer in the short run. (Why not mandate a give-away of the operating system; won't that help consumers?) It's the long term we should be focusing on. Allowing businesses, big and small, to innovate and make a profit on those innovations has been proven to help consumers in the long run. Interference by populist politicians almost always sets in motion the law of unintended consequences.

The iTunes model is not monopolistic (yet). It ain't broke; don't fix it.

 

[Porco]

I hate DRM, it's stupid and bad and everything, yes.

But Apple didn't invent it. And as far as I can tell, if they wanted to sell music online like they have been doing the choice was either get the best, least restrictive DRM deal they could to keep the labels happy or give up. I'm glad they bothered to pour the time, money and effort into making the iTunes music store the best overall experience for buying music downloads so far.

The French proposals effectively said that all that time, investment and hard work should be for nothing because Apple's DRM sucks for people who don't want to buy an iPod. They were trying to move the goal-posts after the game had started - and that's why I think it's good that the proposals (as were) won't be realised.

I still hate DRM, I still think it's stupid and bad and everything. But I don't see why Apple should lose out just because they've done the best with the situation as it is. All this would have been was a market-share grab by Apple's rivals, it wouldn't have been a lovely happy-land where consumers didn't have to deal with DRM anymore.

 

[anonicon]

Speaking as an avid music buyer, anyone who buys DRM tracks because of ignorance or expedience pretty much gets what they deserve.

FWIW, I bought an iPod Photo over some pretty good competition because it had U.S.-based, walk-in tech support, a pretty nice GUI, and a lot of peripherals for expanding its use outside of the shirtpocket and headphones. Whether the French leave iTunes France alone or not in the future, I hope this case has opened up some people's eyes to the benefits of the iPod, and the benefits of not buying from the iTMS.

Chuck

 

[aLbAn]

I hate DRM, it's stupid and bad and everything, yes.

But Apple didn't invent it. And as far as I can tell, if they wanted to sell music online like they have been doing the choice was either get the best, least restrictive DRM deal they could to keep the labels happy or give up. I'm glad they bothered to pour the time, money and effort into making the iTunes music store the best overall experience for buying music downloads so far.

The French proposals effectively said that all that time, investment and hard work should be for nothing because Apple's DRM sucks for people who don't want to buy an iPod. They were trying to move the goal-posts after the game had started - and that's why I think it's good that the proposals (as were) won't be realised.

I still hate DRM, I still think it's stupid and bad and everything. But I don't see why Apple should lose out just because they've done the best with the situation as it is. All this would have been was a market-share grab by Apple's rivals, it wouldn't have been a lovely happy-land where consumers didn't have to deal with DRM anymore.

It may not be so complex if you think about it; let me give a typical example analogue of the problem:

suppose i bought a copy of Windows XP. now, also suppose that i really liked working with it (boo hiss). at a given moment, i buy a ppc-based mac, but only to find out that WinXP does not run natively on that system. i will now sue Microsoft because they refuse to produce a ppc-compatible version of their OS. does this make sense?

Of course not. in this case, iTMS is a platform independent service (more or less), and it is perfectly useable as it is, i.e. for buying and listening to songs. That is the intended function of the application. However, there exists an extra function within this program, namely the ability to transfer data to a portable device. is it then Apple's fault that they support only iPods? Of course not. firstly, it is impossible to support 100% of the existing DRM standards and all music devices, and no online music service is able to do this. Secondly, it makes sense to support the device(s) with the biggest market share. that would be Apple's iPod then....

In short: if you want to transfer your iTMS music to a portable device, buy an iPod. if you want to run windows, buy an x86-based system. if you want to use cheap diesel fuel, then don't buy a ferrari. i could go on like this

freedom of choice is a very important thing. but as a consequence of this, sueing Apple because they do not support a certain minority of mp3 players, is quite ridiculous.

 

[Highland]

i am not understading how this becomes less choice. it has not changed. it is still the same as it was and is. it is not more, but it is also not less.

Fast forward a few years.

Digital downloads are king. CDs aren't sold as much, and the labels are pushing anything with DRM, and not releasing music without DRM (why would they?).

This is a real scenario and it WILL HAPPEN. Soon! iTMS already has about 12% of the market in the US, so we'll be in this situation in only a few years.

So... that means you'll only be able to use matched players and music stores. This is the first time in history this has happened. Don't sugar coat it, this really is a very f**ked up situation. Anyone who can't understand that is either on the payroll from a label, or a complete idiot.

I don't blame Apple, but we all need to stand up against DRM in almost all forms it exists (especially HDCP). CSS was almost fair enough, but the newer, nastier DRMs really are an appalling abuse of power. Apple found a good middle ground, but we should all push for no DRM.

...well, this could go 2 ways: either you buy (and thus own) the data that enables you to play the song, in which case the data is yours to do with as you please,

Totally agree with that. Fair use should allow users to listen to music they've bought in their car AND on their computer AND on their portable player.

Btw, I'm an artist in the industry. I "suffer" from piracy, and I can tell you that it's not hurting the industry as much as they let you believe. What did hurt the labels was ignoring the need for digital downloads.

Listen to aLbAn, he knows where it's at

I'm REALLY sad that this decision has gone the way it has. For a second there I thought there was hope for the world (DRM in music is going to drive DRM in almost every field... count on it).

 

[d-fi]

Ok this was a bad result for consumers and i'll explain why

Everyone here is getting worked up about how this is about iTunes and Apple which is fine since this is MacRumors after all. But there was much broader implications about this legislation then just iTunes (Apple has just been getting all the media attention on this)

This was about all electronic media (video, music, print, etc) and how it's distributed. If this had of gone through how it was originally intended you wouldn't have had to worry about what device you had to download something. The provider would have had to provide something you could use, or provide a way you could convert it to something you could use. Maybe content owners would have come up with a universal DRM standard. If they had of had this kind of push it might have happened which would have worked as well (personally I'm anti DRM)

Now the following examples are some things you might have been able to do. (in France, the world later)

- Want to download a movie from any site to play on your mac, check

- Sony music site has an exclusive song on their site want to play on you iPod, check

- Want a content protected e-book that you can read on your mac, check

Now thats just a few examples of what you can't do now that you would have been able to do (in France, the world later) if this legislation had of gone through as it was intended.

I but i guess if you don't like these choices you can just buy a PC right?

(for the record i love my powerbook and OS X and wouldn't trade it for the world, but i would like more choice)

 

[Highland]

Good point regarding a universal DRM. That's almost the only acceptable form of DRM that would be fair to consumers. I'm sure it'd still limit fair use in some way, but it'd be better than the current situation.

Btw, I'm a massive iPod and mac fan. I love them both and believe that they are the best in their category.

This isn't about taking sides though... it's about losing rights as a consumer.

 

[the-fish]

I don't know which side to choose - freedom or Apple? I remember when they were the same thing. :-/