Slashdot Log In
French Parliament Fights iPod and iTunes
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:28 AM
from the to-the-pain dept.
from the to-the-pain dept.
f00lforb00l writes "According to an article in New York Times, the French parliament is considering legislation which would require that the iPod also be able to use music from services other than the iTunes Store." From the article: "The outcome of the debate, which began as an update to French copyright law, is far from clear. But taken to one logical conclusion, amendments to the copyright bill could lead Apple, the market leader, to leave the French music business, said Jonathan Arber, a research analyst in London at the technology consultancy Ovum. 'My gut feeling is that Apple will simply pull out of France if these amendments get through,' Mr. Arber said. 'Weighed against breaking their business model for all markets, it doesn't make sense for Apple to continue operating with the iPod and iTunes in France.'" Update: 03/17 15:46 GMT by Z : A previous story covering this topic may also be of interest to you. Sorry, folks.
Related Stories
[+]
France To Force iTunes to Open to Other Players? 325 comments
JordanL writes "It appears that France is pushing through a law that some feel may force Apple to open iTunes to other players. From the article: 'Under a draft law expected to be voted in parliament on Thursday, consumers would be able to legally use software that converts digital content into any format. It would no longer be illegal to crack digital rights management -- the codes that protect music, films and other content -- if it is to enable to the conversion from one format to another.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Gee, that could be expensive.. (Score:2, Insightful)
-jcr
Re:Gee, that could be expensive.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Pulling out of France might not be too painful, but pulling out of the EU altogether? They're bound to feel that...
Parent
Re:Gee, that could be expensive.. (Score:2)
Re:Gee, that could be expensive.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I'm not really up on this sort of thing, but could not France then take its case to the EU, and petition the EU to bring a similar case?
No. Apple is not (as far as anyone has determined) breaking any laws. They won their case in France and the EU has no reason to think they are breaking the law. This is not about Apple breaking the law, this is about France passing a new law to specifically force Apple to do something they desire. It's like a town passing a law that says Bob has to stop wearing th
Re:Gee, that could be expensive.. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why the Maryland legislature laws against Wal Mart will ultimately fail.
Incidentally, doesn't the French legislature have more pressing issues like say getting rid of their ill-conceived 'right to work' laws?
Re:Gee, that could be expensive.. (Score:3, Funny)
Sacre-bleu! You mean I could get fired for being incompetent? Zees eez an outrage!
Re:Gee, that could be expensive.. (Score:4, Insightful)
At the risk of going off-topic.... It's even worse than that. Under the new law, you can only get fired if you are under the age of 26, have worked less than 2 years, and are incompetant. What's hilarious about the situation is the law was passed because companies refuse to hire people because they cannot fire them... so there are no jobs. Unemployment among people under 26 is at 23%. The government tries to give the kids a chance to prove themselves that would make companies eager to hire them.. and the kids riot...
The Law of Unintended Consequences has wreaked havoc in France with their unfirable 35-hour workforce. Unemployment a problem? Make it so you can't fire people! It sounds great, but like most of economics, something that seems good at level one does the exact opposite at level two. So unemployment has skyrocketed.
Parent
Re:Gee, that could be expensive.. (Score:4, Informative)
It's more like France passing a pro-consumer law to prevent vendor lock-in. Oh wait, it's not like that, it is that.
Parent
Re:Gee, that could be expensive.. (Score:5, Interesting)
And iTunes works with all music formats except the MS, so loading the things would be fairly easy....
Parent
Re:Gee, that could be expensive.. (Score:3, Interesting)
iPods yes, iTunes no. Many countries still can't buy from iTunes, France would go back on that list. French credit card and/or IP and you'd be rejected.
Re:Gee, that could be expensive.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gee, that could be expensive.. (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems like France is the perfect market. They have 20% unemployment for people under 30... what else are they kids gonna do? Riot?
surrendering a country is bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
My opinion is that pulling out of the france market :
1) is a serious blow : 2% of a market where you are the world leader must represent an awfull lot of money. The kind of money that would make sales/marketing people salivate.
2) Surrendering a country means, letting the competition gain a foothold/strong position where you (ipod/itunes) had a near-monopoly.
Do you think, you could re-enter the market at a later point ?
3) Brand recognition. If you stop selling ipod/itunes songs in france, will the french still think of Apple as cool ? Mmmh, maybee, maybee not...
4) You'll have to open the ipod anyway....a few people (I did) are buying alternative mp3 player because thay want to play open formats, have more interoperability...People won't like the fact that the music they bought can't be played on other places than their ipod (they just don't realize it yet).
Despite looks, a product that can't do half what the concurence does, can't be that cool...
5) would be funny to see what the EU would do about it (Yet, I'm still waiting to see what the EU does to microsoft...I fancy seeing microsoft have to pay a million $ a day till it behaves, it would be fun and a good lesson for others (rich people/corporations shouldn't be above rules)).
And I strongly feel too that :
Though they had a good start and people everywhere loves their product, I highly doubt that Apple will remain the uncontested leader in selling mp3 players/mp3 songs. Other big players/corporations (sony, microsoft, the music industry...) are interested in a (big) share of the juicy market and, one way of the other, they'll get what they want.
When the hipe around the ipod dies, what next ?
There is always a next big thing, you know
Just my 0.02 euros
Parent
Re:surrendering a country is bad... (Score:3, Funny)
No, it will be more desireable. The Apple will be the forbidden fruit!
Let's just get this out of the way... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let's just get this out of the way... (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, it's not much, but we gotta keep the stories coming around here you know!
Re:Let's just get this out of the way... (Score:3, Insightful)
"the French parliament is considering legislation which would require that the iPod also be able to use music from services other than the iTunes Store."
Guess what, folks? The iPod will already work with two non-DRM'ed formats that any music store is free to sell! One of them is even the de-facto standard for digital m
Before you make up your mind... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Before you make up your mind... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd have a different opinion, but then it would also be a different situation. What does this have to do with anything?
Re:Before you make up your mind... (Score:5, Interesting)
If Apple was actually abusing its monopoly the way Microsoft did in the 90s--e.g., punishing retailers who sold competing products like with Microsoft's coercive OEM deals--then this would have merit. But Apple hasn't done that (and doesn't need to, they're #1 fair and square). You're totally free to buy a competing product and service.
This is just the French hating Apple for being yet another American company taking over their precious little square of culture on the planet.
Parent
Apple will pull out of France (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Apple will pull out of France (Score:2, Funny)
And if they are imported into the US, we can rename them "FreedomPods" and "FreedomTunes".
It should be noted here.... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, Apple almost immediately surrendered, [pcmag.com] limiting the decibels with a firmware update so they could get the French market back again.
Re:It should be noted here.... (Score:3, Funny)
Somebody please, please put a bullet in that joke, and another in the moderator. When the Simpsons did it, it was funny. When the fucking slashbots repeat it ad nauseum for ten years, its just monumentally boring.
At least come up with your own French-baiting joke. The possibilities are rife.
Actually, the iPod would be *allowed*... (Score:2, Informative)
Interesting ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any music store that sells in DRM-free mp3 format is completely compatible with the iPod.
What you mean that the stores won't sell in anything other than locked microsoft formats? How is that Apple's fault?
its not any different than (Score:2)
control (Score:3, Informative)
100% wrong. The iPod supports MP3, AAC, WAV, and AIFF, in -addition- to Fairplay. Any company would not have to pay a single penny to apple to become "compatible" with the iPod if they offered their music in any single one of those formats.
retarded? (Score:4, Informative)
Vive le differance! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Vive le differance! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people don't see it as being locked in. They see it as actually getting what they wanted out of the device.
I've known several people who just couldn't figure out how to muddle through ripping their own CDs, or fighting wth an MP3 player that they just couldn't figure out, and which either had no control software, or crappy stuff. They weren't interested in figuring out how to download through peer-to-peer, and weren't interested in pirating music.
For those people, what they're paying for is a working user experience that does what they want. They're not interested in the geek perspective of "I could buy an MP3 player cheaper, and I'll be l337 cuz I got no DRM". They couldn't care less about ogg-freaking-vorbis and how it's unencumbered. They don't want to know about the formats of music, the bitrates, or the technical issues about which lossy compression is theoretically better. They want to hear music and not arm-wrestle with technology to get it.
You don't like the iPod? Fine, don't buy one. What Apple does is an exceptional job at is giving people a good user experience that you generally don't have to muddle with. You may pay a premium for it compared to a DIY solution, but if you can't DIY, the cost is worth it. Because saving $50 to find out you can't make it work, is not actually a savings. I knew several people who returned other players after Christmas to get an iPod variant.
I play my iPod shuffle 4-6 hours a day at work. I find the iTunes software to be amazingly easy and uncluttered. Sure, I rip my own MP3s from CD, so I'm not stuck with their proprietary format. I'm thinking of buying a larger iPod, or a second shuffle to keep more data with me music with me for longer trips.
The fact of the matter is, for those people who find it provides real value, the iPod family and iTunes are a good set of products. That's why they're so successful. They're not successful because they're hyped -- they're hyped because they're successful and people want them.
Parent
For sale... (Score:2, Funny)
not only apple... (Score:2)
NYT gets it exactly backwards. (Score:2, Interesting)
Good. Apple have been getting passes from the technical community on a few things. They've earned them. But they have no competition as targets for this kind of legislation, and someone had to fire the first shot. Good for the French.
Thank you (Score:3, Insightful)
Now about forcing Apple to license its DRM. Right or wrong aside I'm very much for that. Other companies have indicted that they are indeed interested in licesing Apple's DRM but Apple doesn't want to do that. If Itunes becomes the defacto distribution site for online TV and movies, which is actually very close to happening, then Apple should be forced to let other hardwa
Is this logical? (Score:4, Insightful)
The real question is why have DMCA like measures in the first place? They don't stop content from being pirated anyhow, and just assist the industry in nickel and diming us.
This sounds like a government solution to a government created problem, as Apple hasn't done anything to my knowledge to abuse their position. If the government is protecting DRM from being reverse engineered, they are the ones screwing up fair use and turning the market lopsided, and Apple is perfectly within their rights under the law.
Re:Is this logical? (Score:3, Informative)
well, let's put it this way.
The DMCA (and it's EU corrolary called EUCD - European Union Copyright Directive) both stem from the same WIPO treaty.
The Directive offers ample possibilities so as to state anything in state law. It's each government choice as to what will be in the local law.
The french government has been lobbied by Vivendi Universal (and friends) and decided to select the worst possible things in the law-to-be
Here's what the head of the cultur
not necessarily apples problems (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, this current issue is not an issue with Apple. The iPods only major restriction that if the file contain DRM, then the only DRM that will work is Apple's. The other major restriction, unfortunately, is the OGG files must be converted to supported format, but I doubt France is taking umbrage with this.
So the real problem is DRM, and the people responsible for the DRM are the record labels. They have pushed this solution, and they have help create these near monopolies. Ultimately it is up to them to relinquish some control. The consensus outline of the solution appear to be well known. A royalty tax on a variety of products and services. The royalties will be paid based on tracking data, just like radio. It will be harder, but with good watermarks and random sampling of the P2P networks, it would work. The source will still be CDs and online, with CDs often the better choice in terms of value.
Apple could play a role in this, but building such tracking into itunes. The labels could be more happy if Apple tacked another dime on the price and submitted to the central royalty bank. The only downside is that this might open the market up to independents.
Not just iPod (Score:3, Informative)
This is typical government sticking it's nose somewhere it doesn't belong. If Apple wants to lock their iTMS content to iPods, let them do it. If a consumer wants to crack Fairplay, using tools that would appear to be legal in France, once this legislation passes, let them do it. Or, at least, mp3 player companies should have to create, and provide, tools to convert files to a compatible format. Again, this only applies to France, such tools would be illegal in other countries.
What this law says (Score:5, Interesting)
2) A publisher/editor can force an artist to accept that his/her creation will be published with DRMs. ("vivendi" amendment, actually, four different amendments)
As you see, we have fucked up politicians here too. I would say we have slightly less corruption from the lobbies but far more incompetence.
Oy (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no problem with device and media companies using DRM, ethically speaking. It makes their products less attractive to me personally, but they're betting that people like me are in the minority there. So be it. The only real problem with DRM is when laws like the DMCA in the USA prohibit you from circumventing it, because telling you what benign things you can do with a product you already own (short of redistribution) is just draconian.
Latest iPod killer? (Score:3, Funny)
The real issues there... (Score:4, Interesting)
(Warning: What follows is precise fact. If you're waiting for the usual mentally retarded "yaah yaah the French are retarded" banter or the usual jokes about the "cultural exception", please read other messages.)
In 2001, the European Union adopted a directive called EUCD which, following from a 1996 WIPO treaty, required member states to legally protect DRM "technical protection measures". Concretely, the EU asked France to enact appropriate penalties against people circumventing DRMs.
In 2003, a law was drafted. Due to various circumstances, the law only came to Parliament in December 2005. The proposed law made circumventing DRMs, or even helping in circumvent DRMs, a felony punishable by up to 3 years in prison and/or up to a 300,000 EUR fine. The law was publicly justified by the need to protect the rights of the artists.
One major criticism is that the law and some proposed amendments could in essence endanger any "free software" capable of playing music, video or even DRM-encumbered text (PDF, anyone?) because it could be argued that giving the source code of a DRM was a help in circumventing it. Not everybody wishes to risk a maximal sentence of 3 years in prison for free software.
In December, the National Assembly famously adopted an amendment, the first in a series making p2p explicitly legal provided that Internet users paid a flat fee, against the wishes of the Minister of Culture. This started instant mayhem as the Minister tried to herd the Assembly back in his direction.
In March, Parliament began discussing the text again. The directive imposed DRMs in order to safeguard the rights of the artists. Parliament then voted for amendments that said that DRMs were ok and protected, but provided that they were interoperable, in order to allow concurrence in the marketplace of software and hardware players.
What this NYTimes article shows is that this bill was, in reality, not about the rights of the artists. It was about enacting criminal penalties for people who made concurrent products capable of reading the same contents. Now, some of those who pushed for the bill (makers of DRMs) are whining that their attempt backfired.
To be blunter: some companies made DRMs, and requested heavy felony penalties against circumventers. Well, they have now been served obligations of compatibility in exchange for some ability to prosecute circumventers. That's life.
Ah, by the way: in theory at least, French law prohibits "linked sales" to consumers - that is, tying the sale of a product to the sale of some other product, though this has wide exceptions.
Re:um iPod already does (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
A non-iTMS store that the iPod works with: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Help me fellow Slashdotters! (Score:2)
Creative/whatever users are free to buy music for their devices from other stores if they like.
Re:Vive la difference! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vive la difference! (Score:2, Interesting)
In a word, horseshit. There is nothing in EU law that makes such bundling illegal, unless you are also a monopoly. The fact that non-iPod players and music services exist proves that Apple are not a monopoly. They're not even a de-facto monopoly; not by a long shot.
This is political; the French don't like the fact that they can not impose their "cultural preservation" laws on iTunes
Re:So THAT's why the french are renowned lovers... (Score:3, Funny)
While listening to to their wax cylinders. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Overregulation reduces customer choice (Score:3, Insightful)
In related news, a free person is one whose every action is regulated by the government (slavery is freedom).
From wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
"a free market is an idealised economic model wherein exchanges are "free" of all coercive measures[citation needed], including such government interference as tariffs, taxation, and regulations, except those which allow for private property ownership in land, natural resources, and the broadcast spectrum,