Apple makes their mp3 players. Apple owns their own onine store. If you don't like one or the other, don't buy it!
By what right do French politicians claim to change Apple's products and policies? Oh right, they don't believe in private property. Gee, I wonder if state meddling in priate business practices has anything to do with their unmployment rate. Hrmm...
Last I checked, record companies still own 'their' music and can sell it via any online store they want. Hell, they could even give it away. It isn't like Apple is the friggin record company bogarting all the music! Hey, they could even sell mp3s with no DRM whatsoever. Imagine THAT!
PS: Apple would be stupid to abide by this asinine law. France has no monopoly on the french language or french packaging or french fries for that matter. Anyone in France could buy their iPods from Belgium and Apple would still warranty it.
It strikes me that many in France that use iTMS likely have legitimate ways to get credit cards/mailing addresses from any of their neighboring countries, and likewise, the effort to order an iPod or go to a neighboring country to buy one wouldn't be terribly great either.
So likely even if Apple gave France the finger they'd retain a good deal of their core market there; hell it'd probably guarantee half of Paris bought iPods just for the "rebel chic."
Apple makes their mp3 players. Apple owns their own onine store. If you don't like one or the other, don't buy it!
By what right do French politicians claim to change Apple's products and policies? Oh right, they don't believe in private property. Gee, I wonder if state meddling in priate business practices has anything to do with their unmployment rate. Hrmm...
Last I checked, record companies still own 'their' music and can sell it via any online store they want. Hell, they could even give it away. It isn't like Apple is the friggin record company bogarting all the music! Hey, they could even sell mp3s with no DRM whatsoever. Imagine THAT!
Anybody supporting this law is a class 3 moron.
It's a conservative government in power too. The Green's and Communists were against it.
The only ONLY thing this is about is French pride and French business. The french government wants french money to go to french companies and stay within france.
That's all this about.
Random French music store can't do as well as American company because of difference in product.
Well then make it legal for French music stores to sell the same product as American ones!
This doesn't change what any player can play this just allows other companies to sell their stuff in itunes format.
This isn't useful to the consumer because I strongly doubt that ANYONE will sell songs for better prices or easier restictions than apple.
No French company will go "Bonjour! Buy any song in iPod downloadable format for $0.50 and once you buy it, it's yours! Put it on as many computers as you want, do with it what you like!"
This benefits them, not us.
Unless your into buying the same thing for what most likely will be a slightly jacked up price.
So apple can and should pull out if it's gets passed, before they can steal the encoding to itunes songs.
And they have not licensed it to Flip4Mac (the current makers of the official Microsoft-recommended Windows Media Components for Mac OS X). I was hopeful they would, but I become less hopeful as time passes.
If anything, maybe this law will encourage MS to actually have an open licensing policy, instead of one that seems to be aimed at preserving their desktop operating system monopoly.
Thanks for the link.
Why I am not surprised by this? Anyway, yes, this bill would force MS to change its licensing policies.
FOLKS!!! The iTMS store for France operates out of Luxembourg. Last I checked, Luxembourg is a sovereign country and won't be affected by this law. Apple does not have an iTMS store actually operating from France.
The location of the store is irrelevant. Apple would still be subject to any retailing laws in france if it wants to sell music in france. What this means is that they would have to block access from any french domain.
Solution: Creative delivers a better iTunes/iPod seemless solution and garners contracts with the music industry equal or surpassing that of Apple.
Perhaps people should rethink what they really don't like: they are becoming slaves to their own material needs.
Creative Technology certainly make popular products, but do they really garner contracts with the music industry? I ask out of actual unawareness of the existence of a Creative music downloads store.
There are a lot of problems with Creative Technology's digital music products, especially when it comes to integration. Not only is their solution not seamless, it's unseemly. I refer specifically to the vanishing libraries situation.
Creative Media Explorer simply doesn't compare to iTunes. Anyone who believes Creative Media Explorer is a superior product to iTunes has either misunderstood or isn't aware of iTunes' features, stability, and simplicity.
Of course, there are other software options (for Mac and Linux), but these are not Creative's own solutions.
I understand that I am informing rather than contradicting you in stating that Creative delivers an inferior iTunes/iPod solution - you state yourself that you have never used (had actual experience with) digital music products.
It's only slightly less of a stretch to call iPod/iTunes a material need. A desire, certainly, but that's what keeps the consumer industries going.
Creative Technology certainly make popular products, but do they really garner contracts with the music industry? I ask out of actual unawareness of the existence of a Creative music downloads store.
I think you misinterpreted mdriftmeyer's post. I thought he was saying that currently Creative don't have a full solution, but there's nothing stopping them developing a full end-to-end solution that competes fully with iTunes+iPod.
What I've not worked out yet in this debate is which end of the sale has to provide interoperability?
Say I buy a song on iTunes France. It doesn't play on my Creative player. Who do I complain to? On first reading the answer would seem to be Creative.
Vice Versa, I buy a song on Napster France but it doesn't work on my iPod.
Or I buy a DRM'd CD but it doesn't work on my CD player.
Or I buy a Region specific DVD but it doesn't work on my DVD player.
If it's the device manufacturer that has to support all these DRM schemes then they are going to have to support every DRM scheme that comes along. That seems to be how they want this law to work.
On the other end of the sale, it would force iTunes, Napster etc to sell songs in a format compatible for any player available. Great. But how do you supply a song for a player that only supports mp3?
The aims of the law are well founded but it's completely impossible to implement.
The only ONLY thing this is about is French pride and French business. The french government wants french money to go to french companies and stay within france.
That's all this about.
Random French music store can't do as well as American company because of difference in product.
Well then make it legal for French music stores to sell the same product as American ones!
This doesn't change what any player can play this just allows other companies to sell their stuff in itunes format.
This isn't useful to the consumer because I strongly doubt that ANYONE will sell songs for better prices or easier restictions than apple.
No French company will go "Bonjour! Buy any song in iPod downloadable format for $0.50 and once you buy it, it's yours! Put it on as many computers as you want, do with it what you like!"
This benefits them, not us.
Unless your into buying the same thing for what most likely will be a slightly jacked up price.
So apple can and should pull out if it's gets passed, before they can steal the encoding to itunes songs.
Ah! I didn't want to touch on that, because whenever we get into one of these political debates, we get nasty to each other.
BUT, now that you have brought it up, I agree to a point.
France has shown that it is perfectly happy to defy all international rules, including those of the EU itself, to protect it's own industries?even if it doesn't have much of one yet.
I have thought that this is at least partly to stump Apple. If this were a French firm, it's possible that it wouldn't have happened, or, at least not in the way it did.
I would bring this up in the ARs discussion, but the hysterics there would be even greater if I did.
I think you misinterpreted mdriftmeyer's post. I thought he was saying that currently Creative don't have a full solution, but there's nothing stopping them developing a full end-to-end solution that competes fully with iTunes+iPod.
I've been saying, for a while, that the only thing, other than laws, perhaps like this one, that could possibly stop Apple's rise, would be if a Creative would do the same thing Apple has done.
Creative's new product line, while still lacking a controller as good as the clickwheel, is the closest device to an iPod I've seen.
But, it might be too late. Creative is just too small to do what is necessary.
Only MS, itself, really stands a chance. And, stands a chance doesn't mean that they can do it. It means that if anyone can, it's them. Not because of any genius, but simply because MS's money tends to outlast the competition.
What I've not worked out yet in this debate is which end of the sale has to provide interoperability?
It is hard because the reporting of this has been so, so bad. No journalists seem to understand the difference between DRM (e.g. FairPlay) and Codecs (e.g. AAC). Take, for example, this quote from the Miami Herald:
"Under the bill, companies would be required to reveal the secrets of hitherto-exclusive copy-protection technologies such as Apple's FairPlay format and the ATRAC3 code used by Sony's Connect store and Walkman players."
ATRAC3 is not a copy-protection/DRM scheme. It is a codec.
As every single report I've read has said something along the lines of "the bill forces companies to licence their DRM to others", I'm going to take it that that is what the bill actually says. I don't believe the bill has any stipulations about codecs.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Say I buy a song on iTunes France. It doesn't play on my Creative player. Who do I complain to? On first reading the answer would seem to be Creative.
Vice Versa, I buy a song on Napster France but it doesn't work on my iPod.
Or I buy a DRM'd CD but it doesn't work on my CD player.
Or I buy a Region specific DVD but it doesn't work on my DVD player.
If it's the device manufacturer that has to support all these DRM schemes then they are going to have to support every DRM scheme that comes along. That seems to be how they want this law to work.
On the other end of the sale, it would force iTunes, Napster etc to sell songs in a format compatible for any player available. Great. But how do you supply a song for a player that only supports mp3?
The aims of the law are well founded but it's completely impossible to implement.
As I understand it, the bill is aiming for the former scenario. This is 100% possible to implement.
What I've not worked out yet in this debate is which end of the sale has to provide interoperability?
Say I buy a song on iTunes France. It doesn't play on my Creative player. Who do I complain to? On first reading the answer would seem to be Creative.
Vice Versa, I buy a song on Napster France but it doesn't work on my iPod.
Or I buy a DRM'd CD but it doesn't work on my CD player.
Or I buy a Region specific DVD but it doesn't work on my DVD player.
If it's the device manufacturer that has to support all these DRM schemes then they are going to have to support every DRM scheme that comes along. That seems to be how they want this law to work.
On the other end of the sale, it would force iTunes, Napster etc to sell songs in a format compatible for any player available. Great. But how do you supply a song for a player that only supports mp3?
The aims of the law are well founded but it's completely impossible to implement.
I've been bringing these questions up at ARs.
No one seems to know exactly how this proposed law will work. They seem to have concentrated on vague statements of intent, and put most of the work into the penalty phase.
I brought up these scenarios, among others:
Let's say that I have three music players, one playing DRM's WMA, another playing Apple's Fairplay DRM'd AAC, and the last playing Real's DRM'd AAC.
I go to a music site and want to buy songs.
Are they required to supply me with a version that will play on each player I have? If so, do I get charged as though I bought just one version, or do I get charged for each version?
The other question is the players themselves, as you pointed out.
Will these have to contain upgradable firmware, so that the manufacturers can send upgrades every time a new format of DRM comes out? What about the tens of millions of units that are already out there?
As I understand it, the bill is aiming for the former scenario. This is 100% possible to implement.
Really? you think so?
Forcing device manufacturers to support all kinds of DRM is the least likely to work IMHO. Say I invent a new DRM scheme which takes an OGG file and encrypts it with my version of DRM.
My DRM scheme involves climbing the Eiffel tower and reading the password I've scrawled onto the very tip.
By law all device manufacturers would have to implement my DRM scheme in order to play my music.
I think the latter, forcing stores to offer songs in multiple formats, is more likely. At least that way only one Apple employee need climb the Eiffel tower in order to implement my DRM.
Aegis, that's some bass ackward logic. Not only do the politicians likely not care which way is more efficient or feasible; There's a smaller chance in hell that they know.
Forcing device manufacturers to support all kinds of DRM is the least likely to work IMHO. Say I invent a new DRM scheme which takes an OGG file and encrypts it with my version of DRM.
My DRM scheme involves climbing the Eiffel tower and reading the password I've scrawled onto the very tip.
By law all device manufacturers would have to implement my DRM scheme in order to play my music.
I think the latter, forcing stores to offer songs in multiple formats, is more likely. At least that way only one Apple employee need climb the Eiffel tower in order to implement my DRM.
You are overdoing it, you know.
The problem is simply the question of how it is decided. Is every new DRM scheme going to be considered equally valid? Can an individual come up with a scheme that MUST be supported, or only companies with valid license deals with a content provider.
There have to be some minimum requirements for entry. It might not be easy to decide what they are, but they will exist.
Forcing device manufacturers to support all kinds of DRM is the least likely to work IMHO. Say I invent a new DRM scheme which takes an OGG file and encrypts it with my version of DRM.
My DRM scheme involves climbing the Eiffel tower and reading the password I've scrawled onto the very tip.
By law all device manufacturers would have to implement my DRM scheme in order to play my music.
I think the latter, forcing stores to offer songs in multiple formats, is more likely. At least that way only one Apple employee need climb the Eiffel tower in order to implement my DRM.
The awful analogy you've used notwithstanding, that's not what the bill is about (as far as I can tell. I could be wrong). It's about forcing you to licence your DRM scheme to people. It is not about forcing people to licence it from you.
i.e., if this bill comes to pass, people will not be forced to licence FairPlay from Apple. But Apple will be forced to licence it to anyone who wants to use it. Big difference.
I think you misinterpreted mdriftmeyer's post. I thought he was saying that currently Creative don't have a full solution, but there's nothing stopping them developing a full end-to-end solution that competes fully with iTunes+iPod.
Comments
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/21..._let_msft.html
Apple makes their mp3 players. Apple owns their own onine store. If you don't like one or the other, don't buy it!
By what right do French politicians claim to change Apple's products and policies? Oh right, they don't believe in private property. Gee, I wonder if state meddling in priate business practices has anything to do with their unmployment rate. Hrmm...
Last I checked, record companies still own 'their' music and can sell it via any online store they want. Hell, they could even give it away. It isn't like Apple is the friggin record company bogarting all the music! Hey, they could even sell mp3s with no DRM whatsoever. Imagine THAT!
Anybody supporting this law is a class 3 moron.
Politicians are sticky-fingered meddling boobs!
So likely even if Apple gave France the finger they'd retain a good deal of their core market there; hell it'd probably guarantee half of Paris bought iPods just for the "rebel chic."
Originally posted by strobe
Oh for crying out loud...
Apple makes their mp3 players. Apple owns their own onine store. If you don't like one or the other, don't buy it!
By what right do French politicians claim to change Apple's products and policies? Oh right, they don't believe in private property. Gee, I wonder if state meddling in priate business practices has anything to do with their unmployment rate. Hrmm...
Last I checked, record companies still own 'their' music and can sell it via any online store they want. Hell, they could even give it away. It isn't like Apple is the friggin record company bogarting all the music! Hey, they could even sell mp3s with no DRM whatsoever. Imagine THAT!
Anybody supporting this law is a class 3 moron.
It's a conservative government in power too. The Green's and Communists were against it.
That's all this about.
Random French music store can't do as well as American company because of difference in product.
Well then make it legal for French music stores to sell the same product as American ones!
This doesn't change what any player can play this just allows other companies to sell their stuff in itunes format.
This isn't useful to the consumer because I strongly doubt that ANYONE will sell songs for better prices or easier restictions than apple.
No French company will go "Bonjour! Buy any song in iPod downloadable format for $0.50 and once you buy it, it's yours! Put it on as many computers as you want, do with it what you like!"
This benefits them, not us.
Unless your into buying the same thing for what most likely will be a slightly jacked up price.
So apple can and should pull out if it's gets passed, before they can steal the encoding to itunes songs.
Originally posted by jegrant
Really?
They won't license it to Linspire OS -
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS3080897910.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19789
And they have not licensed it to Flip4Mac (the current makers of the official Microsoft-recommended Windows Media Components for Mac OS X). I was hopeful they would, but I become less hopeful as time passes.
If anything, maybe this law will encourage MS to actually have an open licensing policy, instead of one that seems to be aimed at preserving their desktop operating system monopoly.
Thanks for the link.
Why I am not surprised by this? Anyway, yes, this bill would force MS to change its licensing policies.
Originally posted by Robin Hood
FOLKS!!! The iTMS store for France operates out of Luxembourg. Last I checked, Luxembourg is a sovereign country and won't be affected by this law. Apple does not have an iTMS store actually operating from France.
The location of the store is irrelevant. Apple would still be subject to any retailing laws in france if it wants to sell music in france. What this means is that they would have to block access from any french domain.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Solution: Creative delivers a better iTunes/iPod seemless solution and garners contracts with the music industry equal or surpassing that of Apple.
Perhaps people should rethink what they really don't like: they are becoming slaves to their own material needs.
Creative Technology certainly make popular products, but do they really garner contracts with the music industry? I ask out of actual unawareness of the existence of a Creative music downloads store.
There are a lot of problems with Creative Technology's digital music products, especially when it comes to integration. Not only is their solution not seamless, it's unseemly. I refer specifically to the vanishing libraries situation.
Creative Media Explorer simply doesn't compare to iTunes. Anyone who believes Creative Media Explorer is a superior product to iTunes has either misunderstood or isn't aware of iTunes' features, stability, and simplicity.
Of course, there are other software options (for Mac and Linux), but these are not Creative's own solutions.
I understand that I am informing rather than contradicting you in stating that Creative delivers an inferior iTunes/iPod solution - you state yourself that you have never used (had actual experience with) digital music products.
It's only slightly less of a stretch to call iPod/iTunes a material need. A desire, certainly, but that's what keeps the consumer industries going.
Originally posted by jdbartlett
Creative Technology certainly make popular products, but do they really garner contracts with the music industry? I ask out of actual unawareness of the existence of a Creative music downloads store.
I think you misinterpreted mdriftmeyer's post. I thought he was saying that currently Creative don't have a full solution, but there's nothing stopping them developing a full end-to-end solution that competes fully with iTunes+iPod.
Say I buy a song on iTunes France. It doesn't play on my Creative player. Who do I complain to? On first reading the answer would seem to be Creative.
Vice Versa, I buy a song on Napster France but it doesn't work on my iPod.
Or I buy a DRM'd CD but it doesn't work on my CD player.
Or I buy a Region specific DVD but it doesn't work on my DVD player.
If it's the device manufacturer that has to support all these DRM schemes then they are going to have to support every DRM scheme that comes along. That seems to be how they want this law to work.
On the other end of the sale, it would force iTunes, Napster etc to sell songs in a format compatible for any player available. Great. But how do you supply a song for a player that only supports mp3?
The aims of the law are well founded but it's completely impossible to implement.
Originally posted by ecking
The only ONLY thing this is about is French pride and French business. The french government wants french money to go to french companies and stay within france.
That's all this about.
Random French music store can't do as well as American company because of difference in product.
Well then make it legal for French music stores to sell the same product as American ones!
This doesn't change what any player can play this just allows other companies to sell their stuff in itunes format.
This isn't useful to the consumer because I strongly doubt that ANYONE will sell songs for better prices or easier restictions than apple.
No French company will go "Bonjour! Buy any song in iPod downloadable format for $0.50 and once you buy it, it's yours! Put it on as many computers as you want, do with it what you like!"
This benefits them, not us.
Unless your into buying the same thing for what most likely will be a slightly jacked up price.
So apple can and should pull out if it's gets passed, before they can steal the encoding to itunes songs.
Ah! I didn't want to touch on that, because whenever we get into one of these political debates, we get nasty to each other.
BUT, now that you have brought it up, I agree to a point.
France has shown that it is perfectly happy to defy all international rules, including those of the EU itself, to protect it's own industries?even if it doesn't have much of one yet.
I have thought that this is at least partly to stump Apple. If this were a French firm, it's possible that it wouldn't have happened, or, at least not in the way it did.
I would bring this up in the ARs discussion, but the hysterics there would be even greater if I did.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I think you misinterpreted mdriftmeyer's post. I thought he was saying that currently Creative don't have a full solution, but there's nothing stopping them developing a full end-to-end solution that competes fully with iTunes+iPod.
I've been saying, for a while, that the only thing, other than laws, perhaps like this one, that could possibly stop Apple's rise, would be if a Creative would do the same thing Apple has done.
Creative's new product line, while still lacking a controller as good as the clickwheel, is the closest device to an iPod I've seen.
But, it might be too late. Creative is just too small to do what is necessary.
Only MS, itself, really stands a chance. And, stands a chance doesn't mean that they can do it. It means that if anyone can, it's them. Not because of any genius, but simply because MS's money tends to outlast the competition.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
What I've not worked out yet in this debate is which end of the sale has to provide interoperability?
It is hard because the reporting of this has been so, so bad. No journalists seem to understand the difference between DRM (e.g. FairPlay) and Codecs (e.g. AAC). Take, for example, this quote from the Miami Herald:
"Under the bill, companies would be required to reveal the secrets of hitherto-exclusive copy-protection technologies such as Apple's FairPlay format and the ATRAC3 code used by Sony's Connect store and Walkman players."
ATRAC3 is not a copy-protection/DRM scheme. It is a codec.
As every single report I've read has said something along the lines of "the bill forces companies to licence their DRM to others", I'm going to take it that that is what the bill actually says. I don't believe the bill has any stipulations about codecs.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Say I buy a song on iTunes France. It doesn't play on my Creative player. Who do I complain to? On first reading the answer would seem to be Creative.
Vice Versa, I buy a song on Napster France but it doesn't work on my iPod.
Or I buy a DRM'd CD but it doesn't work on my CD player.
Or I buy a Region specific DVD but it doesn't work on my DVD player.
If it's the device manufacturer that has to support all these DRM schemes then they are going to have to support every DRM scheme that comes along. That seems to be how they want this law to work.
On the other end of the sale, it would force iTunes, Napster etc to sell songs in a format compatible for any player available. Great. But how do you supply a song for a player that only supports mp3?
The aims of the law are well founded but it's completely impossible to implement.
As I understand it, the bill is aiming for the former scenario. This is 100% possible to implement.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
What I've not worked out yet in this debate is which end of the sale has to provide interoperability?
Say I buy a song on iTunes France. It doesn't play on my Creative player. Who do I complain to? On first reading the answer would seem to be Creative.
Vice Versa, I buy a song on Napster France but it doesn't work on my iPod.
Or I buy a DRM'd CD but it doesn't work on my CD player.
Or I buy a Region specific DVD but it doesn't work on my DVD player.
If it's the device manufacturer that has to support all these DRM schemes then they are going to have to support every DRM scheme that comes along. That seems to be how they want this law to work.
On the other end of the sale, it would force iTunes, Napster etc to sell songs in a format compatible for any player available. Great. But how do you supply a song for a player that only supports mp3?
The aims of the law are well founded but it's completely impossible to implement.
I've been bringing these questions up at ARs.
No one seems to know exactly how this proposed law will work. They seem to have concentrated on vague statements of intent, and put most of the work into the penalty phase.
I brought up these scenarios, among others:
Let's say that I have three music players, one playing DRM's WMA, another playing Apple's Fairplay DRM'd AAC, and the last playing Real's DRM'd AAC.
I go to a music site and want to buy songs.
Are they required to supply me with a version that will play on each player I have? If so, do I get charged as though I bought just one version, or do I get charged for each version?
The other question is the players themselves, as you pointed out.
Will these have to contain upgradable firmware, so that the manufacturers can send upgrades every time a new format of DRM comes out? What about the tens of millions of units that are already out there?
Hairy, hairy!
Originally posted by Mr. H
As I understand it, the bill is aiming for the former scenario. This is 100% possible to implement.
Really? you think so?
Forcing device manufacturers to support all kinds of DRM is the least likely to work IMHO. Say I invent a new DRM scheme which takes an OGG file and encrypts it with my version of DRM.
My DRM scheme involves climbing the Eiffel tower and reading the password I've scrawled onto the very tip.
By law all device manufacturers would have to implement my DRM scheme in order to play my music.
I think the latter, forcing stores to offer songs in multiple formats, is more likely. At least that way only one Apple employee need climb the Eiffel tower in order to implement my DRM.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Really? you think so?
Forcing device manufacturers to support all kinds of DRM is the least likely to work IMHO. Say I invent a new DRM scheme which takes an OGG file and encrypts it with my version of DRM.
My DRM scheme involves climbing the Eiffel tower and reading the password I've scrawled onto the very tip.
By law all device manufacturers would have to implement my DRM scheme in order to play my music.
I think the latter, forcing stores to offer songs in multiple formats, is more likely. At least that way only one Apple employee need climb the Eiffel tower in order to implement my DRM.
You are overdoing it, you know.
The problem is simply the question of how it is decided. Is every new DRM scheme going to be considered equally valid? Can an individual come up with a scheme that MUST be supported, or only companies with valid license deals with a content provider.
There have to be some minimum requirements for entry. It might not be easy to decide what they are, but they will exist.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Really? you think so?
Forcing device manufacturers to support all kinds of DRM is the least likely to work IMHO. Say I invent a new DRM scheme which takes an OGG file and encrypts it with my version of DRM.
My DRM scheme involves climbing the Eiffel tower and reading the password I've scrawled onto the very tip.
By law all device manufacturers would have to implement my DRM scheme in order to play my music.
I think the latter, forcing stores to offer songs in multiple formats, is more likely. At least that way only one Apple employee need climb the Eiffel tower in order to implement my DRM.
The awful analogy you've used notwithstanding, that's not what the bill is about (as far as I can tell. I could be wrong). It's about forcing you to licence your DRM scheme to people. It is not about forcing people to licence it from you.
i.e., if this bill comes to pass, people will not be forced to licence FairPlay from Apple. But Apple will be forced to licence it to anyone who wants to use it. Big difference.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I think you misinterpreted mdriftmeyer's post. I thought he was saying that currently Creative don't have a full solution, but there's nothing stopping them developing a full end-to-end solution that competes fully with iTunes+iPod.
Thanks for interpreting what I said correctly.