Apple blasts French bill aimed at opening iPod + iTunes
In its first public comment on the issue, Apple Computer blasted an effort by French lawmakers aimed at forcing the company to enable its iPods and iTunes Music Store to work with digital music products from other companies and vise versa.
In a statement republished by the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) early Wednesday morning, Apple said the French move will result in "state-sponsored piracy" by encouraging French users to seek out illegally copied music.
"If this happens, legal music sales will plummet just when legitimate alternatives to piracy are winning over customers," Apple said in the statement. "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."
A spokesman for the Cupertino, Calif.-based company reportedly declined to comment beyond the prepared statement.
On Tuesday, lawmakers in the National Assembly, France's lower house, voted to approve the proposed law by a vote of 296-193. The legislation now has to be debated and voted by the Senate -- a process expected to begin in May.
Analysts who provide coverage of Apple speculated on Tuesday that the company might simply abandon the French market with its music products rather than comply with a law that could prompt similar efforts by other governments.
In a statement republished by the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) early Wednesday morning, Apple said the French move will result in "state-sponsored piracy" by encouraging French users to seek out illegally copied music.
"If this happens, legal music sales will plummet just when legitimate alternatives to piracy are winning over customers," Apple said in the statement. "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."
A spokesman for the Cupertino, Calif.-based company reportedly declined to comment beyond the prepared statement.
On Tuesday, lawmakers in the National Assembly, France's lower house, voted to approve the proposed law by a vote of 296-193. The legislation now has to be debated and voted by the Senate -- a process expected to begin in May.
Analysts who provide coverage of Apple speculated on Tuesday that the company might simply abandon the French market with its music products rather than comply with a law that could prompt similar efforts by other governments.
Comments
In a statement republished by the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) early Wednesday morning, Apple said the French move will result in "state-sponsored piracy" by encouraging French users to seek out illegally copied music.
"If this happens, legal music sales will plummet just when legitimate alternatives to piracy are winning over customers," Apple said in the statement. "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."
A spokesman for the Cupertino, Calif.-based company reportedly declined to comment beyond the prepared statement.
On Tuesday, lawmakers in the National Assembly, France's lower house, voted to approve the proposed law by a vote of 296-193. The legislation now has to be debated and voted by the Senate -- a process expected to begin in May.
Analysts who provide coverage of Apple speculated on Tuesday that the company might simply abandon the French market with its music products rather than comply with a law that could prompt similar efforts by other governments.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
"Free movies for iPods should not be far behind in what will rapidly become a state-sponsored culture of piracy."
As I read that, I was inclined to intrepret the statement to mean that Apple would oppose "free movies" on iPods. If that's the case, is this an indication that Apple is on the path of a movie download service and a Video iPod? Apple has not indicated if they will offer such a service, but the sentence from their statement could mean that the service is planned.
It is interesting that Apple pointed out that they would likely make money thru iPod sales, but that the music download business (which unlikely makes them much money) would suffer.
Do the current downloads of US TV programs have DRM attached? I live in Japan where we only get the Pixar shorts; do they count TV shows as movies in this statement?
So in other words, Apple seems to be welcoming this move, in a twisted kind of way? Or what...
By the way, Apple does not currently operate an iTunes music store in France. They only operate one in Luxembourg, which isn't affected by French laws.
Yes I also see this law as the worng way to go. But just because Apple is a dominent player on the market for music download doesn´t mean they should dictate everything. The french government feels the right way to ensure the rights of its citizents the right to choice is by opening all DRM formats to all players, but still keep the restrictions wrt number of players, CDs and computers you can transfer your music to. Remember the same law makes it illegal/more expensive to remove DRM.
THis press release by Apple is an attempt to rally the music industry (and presumable the movie industry as well) behind them in the protection of a very lucrative market for Apple.
What would happen if Apple was forced to pull iTunes out of France? Sure, at first glance you're likely to say so what, big deal Apple will stop selling songs to .02%(*) of their market (so long as you don't live in France I guess)
(*) Totally made up percent purely for discussion purposes.
But, are we correct in assuming the pull out only deals with FUTURE sales? What about all of the sales iTunes France has made already? Those songs are DRM protected right?
See where I'm going here...
If Apple is 'forced' to pull iTunes Music Store out of France what exactly will happen to all those songs purchased in France? Will the French law allow Apple to have servers continue to operate that 'authorizes' those older song purchases that occurred in France? What if France doesn't allow it... Does Apple have a way of letting the French people continue to play their iTunes paid for music without the need of network based authentication?
On the flip side what if, out of spite, Apple chooses to turn off the authorization services to France even if France allows the servers to remain? I for one wouldn't put it past em...
Sure "its only France" and I have no real love or hate the country but if it can happen in France it can happen elsewhere...
While I was once with the 'not too upset' with Apples form of DRM crowd... I'm starting to rethink my position and side with the only good DRM is a non-existant DRM clan.
Dave
Originally posted by Bergermeister
Any reason for a double posting of the initial post?
It is interesting that Apple pointed out that they would likely make money thru iPod sales, but that the music download business (which unlikely makes them much money) would suffer.
Do the current downloads of US TV programs have DRM attached? I live in Japan where we only get the Pixar shorts; do they count TV shows as movies in this statement?
yes, tv shows are drm'd, as are music videos. you can play them through iTunes or QuickTime player (or any device that supports those two full apps), but that's it. you can back them up to offline media, but they retain the drm. for example, i wanted to edit a music video with an overlay for part of a valentine's day gift, and try as i might, i could NOT get the video to allow me to even composit it WITH anything else. i wasn't even changing the video itself, i just wanted something at the bottom saying "Happy Valentine's Day." oh well.
'Free' seems like a rather poor choice of word. It reads almost as though Apple is opposing 'freedom' ('free' as in speech), or at the very least opposing 'free' legal downloads (which its store currently offers).
Also, IMO, there is a big difference between "state-sponsored culture of piracy" and AppleInsider's earlier 'quote', "state-sponsored piracy". Apple's original wording implies a culture of piracy that uses state laws to support itself whereas AppleInsider's 'quote' seems to imply piracy itself being more directly supported by the state.
http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,...rss.technology
(i now like my previous posts on this topic even more)
o
Originally posted by AppleInsider
"If this happens, legal music sales will plummet..." Apple said[/url][/c]
Really Apple? How's that then? Are you actually saying that people only buy legitimate music because it is controlled by proprietary DRM, and as soon as it's controlled by licencable DRM instead, people won't want it any more?
The statement from Apple is very disappointing. One would have hoped for a more considered and considerably more intelligent response. I'm not surprised that Apple aren't happy about the proposals, but really, there are many problems with this law, so I expected a better thought-out response than this.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Wow! Apple have sunk to new lows (or risen to new highs, depending on how you look at it) of reality distortion.
Really Apple? How's that then? Are you actually saying that people only buy legitimate music because it is controlled by proprietary DRM, and as soon as it's controlled by licencable DRM instead, people won't want it any more?
The statement from Apple is very disappointing. One would have hoped for a more considered and considerably more intelligent response. I'm not surprised that Apple aren't happy about the proposals, but really, there are many problems with this law, so I expected a better thought-out response than this.
No, the sales or DRM'ed music in general will plummet. Not because people won't buy it, but because it won't be available for sale in the first place.
The DRM isn't put there by a online distributer to let the music play nicely everywhere, it is put in as a contractual obligation to the labels to limit how far the music can be distributed. If the distributer can no longer meet the label's restrictions, they can't sell the music anymore. This won't just affect iTunes, it will affect every online music distributer that has a DRM clause in their contract.
This is basically a case of the French government cutting the nose off to spite the face. The problems aren't with the music stores, but with the labels and this does nothing to convince the labels to change their stance at all.
Originally posted by Hiro
No, the sales or DRM'ed music in general will plummet. Not because people won't buy it, but because it won't be available for sale in the first place.
The DRM isn't put there by a online distributer to let the music play nicely everywhere, it is put in as a contractual obligation to the labels to limit how far the music can be distributed. If the distributer can no longer meet the label's restrictions, they can't sell the music anymore. This won't just affect iTunes, it will affect every online music distributer that has a DRM clause in their contract.
Except this bill has got absolutely nothing to do with allowing removal of DRM, in fact it provides stiff penalties for doing so. DRM will still be there, so the labels will still be happy.
"Secondly, the implications of opening up DRM codecs to ?interested parties? potentially undermines the whole ethos of DRM as a tool for protecting content. If DRM source code becomes open source then why bother wrapping content in DRM at all as it will be easily breakable. If this becomes the case then you can expect to see record labels seriously reconsidering their digital strategies.
If the French parliament is hoping that an industry standard DRM will come into being, the likely result is a Balkanized situation as we see in the mobile space (with OMA 2 mired in controversy) or probably Microsoft becoming the de facto standard. Remember that the majority of Europe?s 200 digital stores are already WMA based.
Understandably Apple are furious;
'The French implementation of the EU Copyright Directive will result in state-sponsored piracy,'
There is a very real threat that the legitimate digital stores will become embroiled in conflicts over implementation of interoperability and the net result is that the illegal sector prospers. Or even that iPod owners and other device owners simply focus on what they do to get most of their content on their devices: ripping CDs."
Although I wish DRM would disappear, I understand the need for it given the predisposition of people to just copy stuff from friends and others. So given that DRM will stay, I agree with Mulligan's analysis.
And altho Mr.H says there are stiff penalties for piracy, I just can't see any police force spending their time enforcing these rules. Especially in France where they have enough trouble with unions, racism, and riots.
Originally posted by mark2005
If DRM source code becomes open source
Yes, that would be a serious problem and render DRM worthless. But that isn't what the bill is about. It is about openly licensing the code. This is not the same as making the code open-source.
The bill provides stiff penalties (3 years in jail and/or ?300,000 fine) to anyone who makes or distributes software that is capable of circumventing DRM. This would not rely on the Police for enforcement, as you can bet that if the bill passes and someone licences some DRM and then open-sources it, they would be taken to court by a major music label quicker than you can say "RIAA".
If it would also force all online music stores to provide compatibility with Mac OS, well, then that's something different.
Apple doesn't make much selling music. Apple makes money selling iPods. If iPods worked with all online music stores might Apple sell more iPods? After a period of time, might Apple also sell more songs?
Apple has the lion's share of mp3 player sales and song sales. I really don't think this bill should worry Apple. I think this bill should worry iRiver, Microsoft's music store and all the other minor players.
Then again I could be totally wrong headed in my thinking.
Originally posted by rickag
As long as several online music stores are incompatible with Mac OS I'm adamantly opposed to the French bill.
If it would also force all online music stores to provide compatibility with Mac OS, well, then that's something different.
Well, you've kind of answered yourself there. This bill would enable people to make PlaysForSure decrypter for Mac OS. Flip4Mac would probably do it. If that happened, then all content from PlaysForSure stores would be playable on Mac OS.
Originally posted by rickag
Apple doesn't make much selling music. Apple makes money selling iPods. If iPods worked with all online music stores might Apple sell more iPods? After a period of time, might Apple also sell more songs?
Apple has the lion's share of mp3 player sales and song sales. I really don't think this bill should worry Apple. I think this bill should worry iRiver, Microsoft's music store and all the other minor players.
Then again I could be totally wrong headed in my thinking.
Exactly. I very, very strongly believe that this would actually be good for Apple, and ultimately lead to more iPod sales, and more iTunes music sales. The fact that Steve is such a fucking control freak really holds Apple back sometimes.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Exactly. I very, very strongly believe that this would actually be good for Apple, and ultimately lead to more iPod sales, and more iTunes music sales. The fact that Steve is such a fucking control freak really holds Apple back sometimes.
Nah. I understand Apples rationale.
First Joe buys an iPod, like most digital music player customers.
Then the iTMS came around. "Great. Now I can buy music online for my iPod.". Joe buys Madonnas "1000 greatest huts"
Now his iPods battery gives up and Joe thinks "Hmm. I really liked my iPod. But the unchangeable battery irks me. I would love to be able to just pop 2 AAA batteries in that sucker. Maybe I should get another type of player, maybe not"
Now there is two versions. The current, where Joe realise he can´t play his $990 iTMS investment if he bought a non-iPod player and the possible future where it wouldn´t matter. The latter would of course give him more choice and be of the benefit of the customer.
The opposite is true for Apple. As the dominant leader of both internet music and player sales they benefit from the current lock in.
So of course it would hurt Apple if the current situation changed. Just like MS would be hurt if EU succeeded in making the Word format open and a benefit for the customer!
Even if Apple did want to support this bill, they have their hands tied by the media companies who produce the content that Apple sells.The music industry would sooner stop selling to Apple, for breach of contract if they removed DRM.
I have always been with the approach that it is the music industry that has created this mess in the first place. They set the rules, yet let everyone else work out how they can do business, yet still please this cartel. If DRM is to work out then the following needs to be true:
- ownership by the industry and not by a software or hardware company with conflict of interest
- be mandated to work on ALL hardware and OSs - compatibility must be mandated by the government, since after all they are the ones who allow DMCA type laws to exist.
Note you can't let the market decide when we all act like drug users to a product.
Originally posted by rickag
Apple doesn't make much selling music. Apple makes money selling iPods. If iPods worked with all online music stores might Apple sell more iPods? After a period of time, might Apple also sell more songs?
I think Apple sees things differently: if iPod doesn't support other music stores' formats, iPod users will be more likely to use iTMS.
Adding support for another DRM and format would be like dismantling the sty to keep more swine. It'd make more room for pigs, but they'd have no reason to stick around.