France DRM Law Gutted In Committee

[Billy Boo Bob]

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.

You gotta push the music biz execs, then. I'm sure they told Apple (and the others)... "Lock in some DRM or don't sell our stuff. Your choice."

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?

Exactly. What's the French next step? Forcing Apple to open OS X to run on any PC? Force all the PC-only game developers to make a Mac version? Where does it end?

That's as bad as that crazy lawsuit that guy was filing because he had to buy an iPod to use his iTMS music. Well, if I buy iLife for GarageBand, Apple's forcing me to buy a Mac to use it. Give me a break.

 

[Highland]

You gotta push the music biz execs, then. I'm sure they told Apple (and the others)... "Lock in some DRM or don't sell our stuff. Your choice."

We all have to push everyone.

Exactly. What's the French next step? Forcing Apple to open OS X to run on any PC? Force all the PC-only game developers to make a Mac version? Where does it end?

Firstly, I didn't say that, aLbAn did

Secondly, That's NOT the same thing. We're talking about CONTENT here. Not an OS. We're talking about music, videos and digital books. This isn't about forcing a business to spend thousands of man-hours to rework their code, it's about NOT putting things in place to STOP people using the content on devices that aren't their own. MASSIVE difference. I hope you can see that. DRM is all about controlling markets and pushing certain products. There's no way you can twist it into something that benefits honest consumers except maybe the "oh, but it stops piracy" argument, which we all know is complete and utter BS.

 

[MacMyDay]

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.

I can't argue with that, but has anyone actually been fined that much? It's like those fines you see that basically say "Highest Possible Fine: XXXX". It generally means you won't even get 10% of that, but it tries to act as a deterrent.

 

[Billy Boo Bob]

Firstly, I didn't say that, aLbAn did

Heh. Oops. Sorry. I forgot to replace the name as I copied/pasted the bracketed QUOTE bit.

Secondly, That's NOT the same thing. We're talking about CONTENT here. Not an OS.

The way I see it, it's all copyrighted material. It doesn't matter how long it takes to make it, or how much work it takes. Doesn't matter if you listen to it or use it hands on. It's all about the copyright. DRM protects the copyright.

Granted, it might not be exactly the same, but there's some parallels here.

Now, I'm not a fan of DRM, either. But in this case, I think the music biz screwed up by not insisting on a single, shared DRM for all from the start. It should have been a business decision, not become a legislated requirement.

 

[Highland]

Heh. Oops. Sorry. I forgot to replace the name as I copied/pasted the bracketed QUOTE bit.

No probs

The way I see it, it's all copyrighted material. It doesn't matter how long it takes to make it, or how much work it takes. Doesn't matter if you listen to it or use it hands on. It's all about the copyright. DRM protects the copyright.

Granted, it might not be exactly the same, but there's some parallels here.

Hmmm kinda of. I understand where you're coming from, but I think there's more at stake here. It's not about a computer company trying to link up hardware sales with a small online store, it's the future of IP for the entire world. This is such a big deal.

I changed my tune from "DRM is ok sometimes to protect IP" to "all DRM is evil and usless" after reading this:
http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

It's long, but such as good read.

Now, I'm not a fan of DRM, either. But in this case, I think the music biz screwed up by not insisting on a single, shared DRM for all from the start. It should have been a business decision, not become a legislated requirement.

Definitely. I can't see it happening now though.

And... if there was one DRM, it'd be cracked in a matter of days. I'm shocked that Fairplay 2 (iTunes 6) still isn't cracked. The concept of DRM is completely flawed (please refer to Cory's presentation!).

 

[aLbAn]

Heh. Oops. Sorry. I forgot to replace the name as I copied/pasted the bracketed QUOTE bit.

The way I see it, it's all copyrighted material. It doesn't matter how long it takes to make it, or how much work it takes. Doesn't matter if you listen to it or use it hands on. It's all about the copyright. DRM protects the copyright.

i agree. it does not matter whether we are talking about an OS, another application or music data; it's all about the consumer buying a license to use that data. as you all know, every piece of software has something called a license agreement. this means, that although you are free to use the software in any way you see fit, it does not mean that you actually own the content. if you would own the content, then that would mean that you were the copyright holder.

on the subject of making a universal DRM system: i don't see it happen any time soon. there will always be several systems or options to choose from. think about the amount of different flash-memory cards: nowadays a printer has more connections and options for flashcards than it has for different kinds of paper. incredible.
now, some people think that this is a good thing because they are offered a freedom of choice. in practice, i think this is just all incredibly annoying.

we could just try to push a universal DRM system, but which one is it gonna be then? this would actually increase the chance of creating a monopolizing company in the DRM business. is that desirable?

 

[Billy Boo Bob]

On the subject of making a universal DRM system: i don't see it happen any time soon...... .......we could just try to push a universal DRM system, but which one is it gonna be then?

Oh, it's definately too late for that. And DRM has been in use long before iTunes and iPods... I had a home unit Mini-Disc recorder ages ago (I guess they had just come out), and there was DRM in play when using the digital/optical connections (first time I ever saw that in use, too). You could copy analog all day long, but not digital to digital, which would give you a perfect copy of the source.

 

[aLbAn]

Oh, it's definately too late for that. And DRM has been in use long before iTunes and iPods... I had a home unit Mini-Disc recorder ages ago (I guess they had just come out), and there was DRM in play when using the digital/optical connections (first time I ever saw that in use, too). You could copy analog all day long, but not digital to digital, which would give you a perfect copy of the source.

ahh minidisc, those were the days
the funny thing was, that every pro minidisc recorder (i used those in the studios i worked in) never had this copy protection. also, there used to be converter-boxes that eliminated the protection signal from the digital datastream.

sorry, off-topic post

 

[Highland]

You guys are talking about SCMS (Serial Copy Management System). DAT had it too. It'd only allowed one generation of digital copies from the master on prerecorded material (your own recordings were fine). Now that IS fair use. It was also only found on consumer DAT and MD recorders (as stated), not pro gear.

That's an example of doing it properly.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned much here is the fact that DRM will actually force people to pirate music/videos/whatever. Why? Because after being burnt by not being able to do certain things with legitimately purchased music, the user will turn to a "free" alternative... free in every respect. Free to be played on all their devices.

Seriously, this is a battle I don't think DRM can win. With each new tech advancement (Rootkit anyone?), the content owners are turning all their loyal and honest customers away as well as giving their critics more fuel.

 

[Gasu E.]

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.

He makes perfect sense in that he doesn't like DRM, therefore he is buying fewer iTunes. That's the way the market is supposed to work; if you don't like something, vote with your wallet. He's not making moral judgements, speculating wildly about what the markets will/will not do. He's making a simple statement about how he will act given DRM. The actual market behavior will be the aggregate of the behavior of individuals. And Apple will either maintain its current position or not, based on what actually happens in the market.

 

[Gasu E.]

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.

This seems to me a non sequiter. My comment wasn't a response to the French law; it was a response to the particular scenario of hypothetical future behavior by Apple described by an earlier correspondant.

But now that you point this out, it seems a given that government intervention in a marketplace is more likely than not going to cause inefficiencies and stifle innovation. Therefore government intervention should be reserved for cases of proven aggregious consumer harm. The "MP3" player market is still too young and embryonic for this to be the case. By all means, the government should go after Apple once they are a real monopoly with real monopoly power that they use to customer disadvantage, rather than continually churning out newer and better products that increase consumer choice. The government has the power to address monopolistic abuse at any time, and there is no reason now to fix some hypothetical future situation, especially one unrelated to global warming, disease, the end of the world as we know it, etc. Fortunately, sanity prevailed (for once) in the land of the mandatory 35 hour maximum work week.

 

[boncellis]

Either common sense prevailed or economic interests prevailed.

Funny, because those might be the last two things I associate with the French.

I would have liked to see the effect of this should Mr. Jobs deliver a keynote in Paris later this year. Had the law gone through, would Apple have moved the Expo from Paris to, I don't know, London?

 

[whooleytoo]

But now that you point this out, it seems a given that government intervention in a marketplace is more likely than not going to cause inefficiencies and stifle innovation. Therefore government intervention should be reserved for cases of proven aggregious consumer harm. The "MP3" player market is still too young and embryonic for this to be the case. By all means, the government should go after Apple once they are a real monopoly with real monopoly power that they use to customer disadvantage, rather than continually churning out newer and better products that increase consumer choice. The government has the power to address monopolistic abuse at any time, and there is no reason now to fix some hypothetical future situation, especially one unrelated to global warming, disease, the end of the world as we know it, etc. Fortunately, sanity prevailed (for once) in the land of the mandatory 35 hour maximum work week.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Yes, it is (or rather, was) to some extent a pre-emptive move by the French, designed to prevent vendor lock-in. If possible/practical, isn't that a good thing? In this case, isn't it better to prevent, than to allow and punish?

In any case, I'd have considered Apple locking out Real's Harmony technology to be anti-competitive, and possibly an abuse of a (near) monopoly in the music player market.

Everyone country in the world tampers with its markets to greater or lesser degrees, the US 'school of thought' favours self-regulation, believing the less tampering the better. The European model is based more around 'self regulation is no regulation', and the view that companies need policing. Admittedly, the French system seems to be towards the extreme end of Europe.

All that said, I was still in favour of this law. It would be better for me (were a similar law to be introduced here), I would buy more songs, and I believe it would foster compeitition and growth in the digitial music industry.

The digital music industry isn't just a battle of piracy vs legal downloads, it's also 'free and listen anywhere' vs 'pay and be limited'. Interoperability would go a long way to enticing potential customers away from piracy.

Incidentally, does anyone know the Slattery vs Apple anti-trust suit in the US is progressing?

 

[min_t]

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...

So let's say you purchase 10 songs ($10 total) a year from iTunes. You could...
1. burn to cd and share with everyone 6+users.
2. burn mp3 cd and share with everyone.
3. buy songs on 2 machines, now you can share with 8 users, total cost $20.

Instead you buy cd's at $10.00 (being generous) each.
The 10 songs you wanted are all different artists, so that's $100.

Where exactly are you benefiting?

 

[Highland]

A few questions for everyone defending this decision (and DRM):

1. How does DRM benefit users?
2. How does DRM benefit society?
3. How does DRM benefit artists?

If it's not a positive for those three groups, then it's not something we should want. There's a lot of detailed arguments and speculation here, but this is the crux of the matter.

And again, please read this document: http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

 

[DRMBothersMe]

DRM is a viable way of ensuring that those who pay for the right to usecontent, get to use it. DRM also enables legal downloading in instances where downloading would otherwise mean a free-for-all for those who don't want to pay for a license...Fair enough...

DRM - like many things in life - may look good in principle, but in practice, is it subject to abuse. At one time, Napster allowed end-users to abuse media producers. It's payback time. With proprietary DRM, media providers are now abusing us. While never overt, iTunes restrictions tend to favor Apple's right's over ours.

What are some examples where Apple could be more friendly?

1. If you lose a song after you download it - too bad, so sad. It would not cost Apple much - if anything - to allow you download songs if you lose them. www.audible.com allows this type of purchase for downloaded audio books.

2. Please don't change the rules as you go along Apple!!! Paragraph 20 of the Terms of Service Agreement says:

"Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update, revise, supplement, and otherwise modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional rules, policies, terms, or conditions on your use of the Service. ... Your continued use of the iTunes Music Store following will be deemed to constitute your acceptance of any and all such Additional Terms."

Honestly. How many of you knew about this clause?

 

[Highland]

"Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update, revise, supplement, and otherwise modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional rules, policies, terms, or conditions on your use of the Service. ... Your continued use of the iTunes Music Store following will be deemed to constitute your acceptance of any and all such Additional Terms."

I did

And it's common for most DRM agreements. They basically say "we can change the rules whenever we like". It means that you might own a license for a song (yes, you do "own" the license) for over 20 years, then the content provider might suddenly decide that you can't play it on x device or use it in x way. This has never been possible in the past. You buy a CD, you can use it in a CD player until the disc falls apart. With fair use, you could potentially keep the CD alive by reburning copies for yourself, all legally. Some DRM schemes include self destruct mechanisms that remove the files after a certain period of time (BigPond movies in Australia has this).

Most arguments have two compelling sides, but honestly, this is not one of them.

One of the strongest arguments against DRM is the fact that no current DRM scheme can survive long term as the cypher, cypher text and key are always distributed as part of the content and/or player application. It's a flawed concept. All current DRMs can and will be cracked. It doesn't look like any new schemes will be able to get around this either.

 

[Highland]

1. If you lose a song after you download it - too bad, so sad.

It's also worth noting that if you aren't completely aware of the iTMS authorisation system you could potentially run through your 5 authorisations pretty fast. ie:

1. Sally buys an iBook & an iPod (or PC and iPod).
2. Sally buys loads of songs from iTMS.
3. Sally buys a new MacBook Pro and copies all her songs across.
4. Sally repeats step 3 every few years.

I'd say that 90% of the people buying music from iTMS or any other online store are unaware of the authorisation system. This means that the whole thing is one big ticking time bomb. People are going to find out that their entire music collection they've purchased isn't "licensed" for their new computer, and they can't do a thing about it.

What do you think will happen at that point?

I'll tell you. Class action suits everywhere and reversal of DRM on music.

 

[gman71882]

pffft... didnt have a chance. tsk tsk tsk

 

[gman71882]

It's also worth noting that if you aren't completely aware of the iTMS authorisation system you could potentially run through your 5 authorisations pretty fast.

I'd say that 90% of the people buying music from iTMS or any other online store are unaware of the authorisation system. This means that the whole thing is one big ticking time bomb. People are going to find out that their entire music collection they've purchased isn't "licensed" for their new computer, and they can't do a thing about it.

What do you think will happen at that point?
I'll tell you. Class action suits everywhere and reversal of DRM on music.

Do you have any idea how the ITMS authorization actually works???
Once all 5 computers are authorized you have the option to deauthorize all of them and Start over.
They already thought of that... so no worries!!!!
UNLESS YOU HAVE MORE THAN 5 COMPUTERS @ ONE TIME THEN IT'S NOT AN ISSUE

 

[Highland]

Do you have any idea how the ITMS authorization actually works???
Once all 5 computers are authorized you have the option to deauthorize all of them and Start over.
They already thought of that... so no worries!!!!
UNLESS YOU HAVE MORE THAN 5 COMPUTERS @ ONE TIME THEN IT'S NOT AN ISSUE

I didn't realise that was possible. It helps, but Apple are going to need to make that pretty damn clear. That still doesn't change the main points in my argument. DRM can not survive long term, and I don't think it will.

Edit: Just had a look for the option... where is it?

 

[Doctor Q]

I didn't realise that was possible. It helps, but Apple are going to need to make that pretty damn clear.

Apple has a web page with all the details.

It's also explained in iTunes itself. Press command-? and search for "deauthorization".

 

[Billy Boo Bob]

I didn't realise that was possible. It helps, but Apple are going to need to make that pretty damn clear. That still doesn't change the main points in my argument. DRM can not survive long term, and I don't think it will.

Edit: Just had a look for the option... where is it?

You can de-auth any one computer at a time within iTunes. This is suggested and recommended if you are selling your computer or even reformatting and re-installing the OS (which the auth would see as a new computer). You don't have to use up your once-a-year auth bomb just to turn the auth off for one machine and turn it on for another. The menu in iTunes is Advanced/Deauthorize Computer... (Then, the "View Account" button).

If you have a number of user IDs authorized you'll need to de-auth each one at a time (have to enter the pass again for each account to de-auth). Unfortunately, it doesn't show you how many, or which accounts are currently auth'd on one machine. However, if you click on the account button (upper right while in the store in iTunes), and supply an ID and password, it will tell you how many different computers are currently auth'd to play music for that one given account.

It would be nice, at least, to tell you which accounts are currently auth'd on a machine before you reformat or sell, so you know which ones need to be de-auth'd before you wipe it out (unless someone who knows wants to chime in with a way to do that ).

 

[aLbAn]

A few questions for everyone defending this decision (and DRM):

1. How does DRM benefit users?
2. How does DRM benefit society?
3. How does DRM benefit artists?

If it's not a positive for those three groups, then it's not something we should want. There's a lot of detailed arguments and speculation here, but this is the crux of the matter.

And again, please read this document: http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

i'm not defending this decision, but i would nevertheless respond to this:

1. DRM does not benefit users.
users will not ever see a price drop due to a more or less successful copyprotection system. that is simply not how a profit-based business works.
the limited transferability of the data could also be a major nuisance.

2. DRM does not benefit society.
making something more complex and less flexible won't ever benefit anyone, right? also, the few people who actually benefit from DRM are maybe 0.0001 percent of society. probably even less. (remember, we are not talking about the fact whether these people deserve the money -even more than they already have- , we are discussing the benefit for society as a whole).

3. DRM does not benefit artists.
my guess is that artists will not really benefit from that little extra cash flow.
an interesting point is, that DRM is most effective with music from well-known artists, because these will probably get pirated the most. but these people do not really need the small increase on their huge paychecks.
more obscure artists -who could actually use the money- will not benefit at all from DRM, simply because they don't get downloaded illegally a lot. there have even been reports that piracy actually improves the public exposure of unknown artists....
looks like a bit of a trade-off to me.

 

[Highland]

Yet another point against DRM

DRM increases tech overheads. The battery life on your iPod is reduced due to the extra work involved in decoding files with DRM. More CPU power is used when decoding music and videos wrapped in DRM, and more importantly, the recent trend of embedding DRM onto motherboards and in in TV sets and monitors (HDCP) will mean more expensive hardware that also uses (even if it's only a bit) more power.

Crap.