What is Digg?186 Comments
- alextiming, on 10/12/2007, -8/+103Ya for France! Down with ALL FORMS of DRM!
- Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+96This is kind of FUD. The French law would not remove DRM from these files, resulting in restriction-free MP3s. Rather, it's to get Apple to allow other manufaturers to use the FairPlay decoder in their devices.
In the end, the files would still have DRM, but more devices would be able to play them. - 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -8/+83I agree. This new French proposal DOESN'T promote piracy. Only a pirate can promote piracy. And frankly, DRM isn't an issue for the real pirates anyway. What this law may do is help balance the books somewhat for those up us who AREN'T pirates (like me) but who still want to exercise our right to move purchased media from one of OUR devices to another of OUR devices and/or backup the media we've purchased.
Good for you, France! I wish more U.S. lawmakers had similar common sense in this area. - Ignathius, on 10/12/2007, -4/+48"Kind of ironic that they call it FairPlay when it only works on one device."
you mean like the Universal Media Disc, that only works in 1 device? - Psykus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+45Kind of ironic that they call it FairPlay when it only works on one device.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35They're calling all the customers thieves by default.
- NeoKamek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30Just like the RIAA and MPAA...
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31My apologies, elranzer. I meant to "thumbs up" your comment but accidentally hit "thumbs down" instead.
And you're right, of course. This law wouldn't force Apple (or anyone else) to stop using DRM. What it would do is force Apple to license their DRM technology.
Assuming that Apple really is claiming that the new French lay is equivalent to "state-sponsored piracy" then knowing that Apple can continue to employ DRM makes their claim more than a little misleading. - dvdcr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30See, apple is not different from any other corporation. ***** apple too...
And yes, undigg this apple fanboys. - welvis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19This could be where the tides start to turn. Just yesterday someone posted the BluRay boycott website, and now this. Apple shows total contempt for the end user in their statement. The French are trying to give honest consumers the protection they deserve. I'm very interested to see how the public at large will react to Apple's statement.
- bondo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23"No one is forcing people to buy iPods or buy music from iTunes here. Your comparison regarding segregation is moot."
here here - I will never buy an Ipod or buy from ITunes for this very reason. Go France - serve it to em with garlic!! - Falconwing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18You guys are missing the most relevant part of the new French law - that it criminalizes the distribution of software that can be used for piracy, with a penalty of 300,000 Euro fines and 3 years in prison (which is extremely harsh in European terms - it's felony scale).
Yes, that means DirectConnect, BitTorrent, ...DivX encoders, maybe MP3 ditto, ... FTP... IRC clients... god knows. Put literally, anything that can transfer files between computers. In effect, they've outlawed the Internet as we know it. - 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19P.S. In my previous comment, where I wrote "French lay," please insert "French law." Although to be honest 'French lay' seems a great deal more entertaining. ;)
- pedershk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11No, it's not about protection of intellectual property. Whats at stake here is consumer rights - and basic ones at that. For the same reason that several European governments have now passed laws that require all government entities to use open formats, it makes sense that companies are required to use file formats that doesn't hamper competition. When Apple controls the whole food chain, from distributor to retailer to consumption (device), they are, by definition, a monopoly, or at least on the way to becoming one. One of the clearest principles of European Union law is the international free flow of goods and services. Locked-in proprietary formats clearly hampers that free flow.
Have you ever read the iTunes terms of service? One of the things it says is that Apple can at any time revoke your right to use music you *HAVE ALREADY BOUGHT*. AND they can put additional restrictions on what you can do with it. This is made possible only with the DRM technology employed. Several European countries (Sweden and now Norway) are now forcing Apple to change these terms.
American companies need to come to terms with the fact that European law generally protects the *INDIVIDUAL*, not the companies. - drakino, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13DRM is affecting you. Burning an AAC DRM file to CD then ripping it as an MP3 is decreasing the quality of music you bought. I have yet to buy a single online music track with any form of DRM. I do so because to get DRM music back to a universally playable MP3, quality is lost somewhere. Where as if I buy a CD (from a non RIAA artist), I can have full control over the quality when moving it off the shiny disc to my MP3 players.
And good for the French that has a government willing to stand up to corporations for their tax paying population. Here in the US, we just get to deal with law after law being passed by our paid representatives giving corporations more power and the people less, (DMCA), or a law breaking president who believes the rights established at the founding of the country no longer apply.
Oh, and while this gem is below, I'll respond to it here as well.
"The reason apple limits its software to ipods is because only ipods can decrypt the drm."
Hmm, gea, the Apple developed DRM called FairPlay only works on Apple built iPods? What an amazing statement. Not sure how that statement can help to reinforce Apple's position. The online music space is just a mess right now. It would be like needing a Sony CD player to play any Sony-BMG released CDs, and a Pioneer CD player to listen to some other companies music. If it is online music, it should be playable on any digital music player, not just one made by Apple, or Creative or whoever. - wbowen05, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14WTF this has got to be one of the dumbest statements I have heard from a company in my life. FYI, it will actually increase the number of iPod users and actually decrease the number of people who crack DRM based music, because now they won't have to.
- drlog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12In a TRUE market economy (none exist), letting the market sort it out would result in a lot of monopolies. We NEED a government to step in and say "no, you cant do that". Just look at Internet explorer and the mess that happened because the US govt. didn't do enough.
Ahh, that's my rant for today:) - carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13bingo, APPL is much better at hiding it that most companies, but they are still a openly traded company, and as such, are beholden to their stock holders way the hell before they have to make the consumer happy
if it so happens that they have to make consumers happy to get the profits they have to get for their share holders, then they'll do it. if they can make cash by going after anyone trying to cut into their profit streams, they'll do that to. the law makes them - truthmachine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11" Let the market sort things out, don't resort to socialist lawmaking."
Americans are so effing clueless. We're talking about *France*, which had a socialist president for 14 years. The French like socialism because it gives them fewer work hours, longer vacations, better health care, lower infant mortality rates, better transportation, and a host of other advantages over Americans. Americans have been indoctrinated into thinking that socialism is some sort of boogeyman, but it's just a political and economic system in which policies are based upon the interests of society as a whole rather than those few who have stolen and inherited most of the wealth. In the U.S. the bottom 60% of the population owns about 5% of the total wealth, and the top 5% of the population owns about 60% of the wealth. That's how things "sort out" when society doesn't assert itself through government, letting the lawyers, lobbyists, and spoiled fratboy cheerleader drunk driving coke shorting C students run things. - Radiantwave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Innocent until proven alive...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"Apple has a moral right to deal with their customers on any terms it wants"
"the right to contract, on which our very civilization is based"
Parent has got to be the ***** funniest thing I've read in a while... - DoubtfulSalmon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11YEAH! Way to go Apple. If you want to do business in a country, start by making a public statement about their government sponsoring piracy! Smart move Mister Apple Public Relations Man.
Man, making statements like that in international politics (and they have crossed over from simple marketing in to politics by speaking this way) pretty much guarantees that the French will go "Right, ***** those stinking American capitalist pigs - law passed".
It's funny how history repeats itself. Remember about 10 years ago, the Australian Prime Minister at the time called the Malaysian Prime Minister "recalcitrant" in some sort of statement to the press. Bloody hell, didn't that one turn in to an international incident! Now Apple have gone and done exactly the same thing, with a foreign people who have a far greater tendency towards recalcitrance when it suits them - far more so than those peace-loving Malaysians!!!
LOL! This is great. If this goes the way I think it's gonna go, I'm gonna have to stop hating the French! - maverick999, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14I agree. DRM is useful for some things, but to call it piracy? I'll bet they probably end up just turning off the French music store...
- msoule, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I agree Heroic, DRM will fail when consumers reject it. I have had 3 iPods and never put a single DRM'd song on any of them. I don't need a law to protect my rights.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Those fat, lazy, retarded Americans, living in Amerikkka, electing their goofy cowboy President, with his Republican croonies taking their bribes deserve this. Maybe they'll finanlly open their eyes next time around. Good thing I live in... Oh wait?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+21Hrmm, found somethign funny as hell with like 90% of the latest news story ive seen as of late, about 'Piracy'
Replace the word 'Piracy' with 'Common Sense'
examples:
Apple: French Law Is 'Common Sense'
Apple calls French law 'state-sponsored Common Sense'
U.S. presses China for new anti-Common Sense drive
Apple: Music without DRM is Common Sense!
Apple Says France's Copyright Bill Promotes Common Sense; Legal Music to Plummet
Microsoft and Ebay team up to fight Common Sense!
Microsoft Targets Common Sense at Online Auctions
Eight lawsuits filed in the name of anti-Common Sense
You can search digg for 'Piracy' to see the real names of the stories
-------------------------
http://www.findacritter.com - truthmachine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Nonetheless, governments should stay out of this."
Ok, fine, then the government should stay out of enforcing intellectual property laws, with no prosecution of pirates and reverse engineers.
Sorry but the media companies want it both ways, and you're their patsy. - Cojawfee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9No, piracy is me having to illegally download some song that I got legally on iTunes because my Zen Microphoto doesn't play .m4a.
- lmlloyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Here is what I really love. When big tech companies go into a large potential market like China, they are quick to say "we don't like the policies of their government, but we have to abide by them, because that is the local law." Turning over people to the government for practicing free speech, building in special chips so the government can get access to their computer, whatever. These companies will bend over backwards to accommodate the rather draconian policies of the Chinese government in the name of obeying the local law.
But a government in a smaller market passes a law that actually requires them to open their formats, and oh my god they scream like a stuck pig, and do everything they can to keep from obeying the local law. This isn't just Apple, but Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and everyone else. They are all the same. They use the laws to benefit them, with no concern whatsoever for their actual customers, and flaunt the law the second it is inconvenient. Any of you Apple fans that rail against MS for their closed formats and vendor lock-in need to look no further than this story to see how your beloved company is no different. They are all for openness, and the government cracking down on anti-competitive practices when it is to their benefit, but as soon as that sword cuts the other way, they are quick to talk about how the government just doesn't "get it" and should stay out of their business. - flameboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Does this mean you also dont think governments should break up monopolies or regulate utilities? I'm sorry to inform you that social laws are necessary to restrict capitalism and protect the people.
"Apple has a moral right to deal with their customers on any terms it wants" - No, they really dont, and I dont really think you'd want them to have that right.
This happens to be a very progressive law, and a step in the right direction IMHO. - birdwatcher3000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8It is obvious that companies like Apple wish to manipulate the market so that something bought from their stores can only play on their machines. "Piracy" is just an excuse they use to justify their reasoning.
It should be clear by now that for as long as there is a lock somewhere, someone will eventualy find a way to crack it. And we are not talking about my father and mother here (who can't even turn on a cell phone). We are talking about end users who know what they are doing. If they have enough knowledge to surf the net and buy mp3s from online stores they surely can look around and find new ways to "bypass" whatever any "Apple" throws at them.
When are companies going to realise that end users require freedom of choice. Locked or not it will be pirated in the end. - truthmachine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6HeroicLife is utterly full of crap. The survival of civilization does not depend on the DMCA. The French law simply says that, if corporations like Apple want to use the force of government to prevent people from sharing songs without paying for them, then they have to allow people to use the songs they *buy* on the player of their choice. It's called "fair use", a principle that has long been recognized in the law.
- 4tygames, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12socialist lawmaking?
That's stretched a bit. I applaud the French Government for taking action on this matter. The government needs to make sure that companies are not going out of their limits to a monopoly. Monopolies are bad, but in truth, a monopoly over the competition is every company's goal. Apple definitely has a monopoly over the mp3 market. Competition is best for the consumer. - mliving, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Steve Jobs is now an official MOUTH PIECE for the RIAA and MPAA. State-Sponsored Piracy... next we'll hear that France is aiding terrorist in stealing American Intellectual Property which is having an effect in IRAQ and therefore the US MUST invade France.
With statements like: "IPod sales will likely increase as users freely upload their iPods with 'interoperable' music which cannot be adequately protected," Kerris said. "Free movies for iPods should not be far behind." Now OPEN MUSIC is an inoperability issue. *****!
If Apple claims that removing their "custom" locks on music files would actually increase the sale of iPods then what's the problem? Oh yeah ANYONE could sell, trade or share music. Now that's the real reason Apple is so miffed.
Viva la France! - cocopuff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You know, there's little point arguing this. Essentially it was the RIAA/MPAA that insisted on Apple DRMing content before those organisations would give the okay for content to be licensed over. Apple was skeptical about it, but quickly realised that in agreeing, they benefited from the resulting closed standard. Purchased content that will only play on Apple portable players will ultimately boost sales of Apple portable devices. This was the exact thinking that killed Apple in the late 80s. At that time they refused to open the Apple OS to IBM machines and their various clones (Compaq, Dell, etc.) for fear that it would eat into sales of Apple hardware. What happened? Bill Gates stepped in and gave them Windows and the rest was history. Apple nearly got killed off, but for Steve Jobs' reemergence.
People ultimately vote with their [insert unit currency here], and all the debate in the world won't change that. The moment another player steps up with technology that gives consumers the flexibility they demand *while* satisfying content producers and backers that it is as piracy-resistant as can be, that will be the next company to eclipse Apple.
Apple does need to step back from its current place in the world and realise that they piss off customers when they charge for hardware à la carte ($39 bucks a pop for basic peripherals that should logically be in the $399 original box). And they piss off customers when they make it impossible to change a battery or keep an expensive and beautiful device from looking like ***** after a month of normal use. And they piss off customers with their premium content market. Purchased iTunes media content should reside in a library (like Audible content); it should be available in different degrees of quality giving customers a choice between bandwidth/space and audio/video quality (like Audible content); and it should be compatible with different types of players which does not necessarily compromise the necessary DRM (again like Audible content.)
If Apple iTunes doesn't figure this out, some competitor soon will. People "put up" with this ***** from Apple because iPods are still *the* hot item to have, and let's face it, they are quality devices. I love my iPod. But I hate Apple's greedy money-grabbing business methods. The moment a competitor steps up (and this will happen) I will have zero problem transferring my monetary votes their way. Apple is setting itself up for a fall if it cannot learn from its own recent history. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Except that seamless end user experience is exactly what got Microsoft into the roaster. There was plenty of other competition on the market, it just couldn't compete."
Only because Microsoft used their EXISTING market to crowbar their way into another market and cut out the competition. With iPod/iTMS, Apple did no such thing. They created the whole experience from scratch as a closed business model. Keeping it closed is NOT monopolistic.
For the above comparison to work, Apple would have had to:
1. Create the iPod/iTMS as an OPEN system for ALL MP3 players.
2. Gain 50% market share.
3. Close the system to iPod > iTunes ONLY.
As it happens it went:
1. Create iTunes/iPod CLOSED System.
2. Gain 80%+ market share.
The latter example, is called SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS MODEL, where as the first example is ANTI-COMPETITVE/MONOPOLISTIC BUSINESS MODEL/PRACTICE.
As I've said before, understand what Anti-competitive and monopolistic are actually there to prevent before crying "abusing market position". - redsrule2500, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Apple is retarded, this is in no way 'supporting piracy'
- mkjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Apple promoted piracy with there foolish DRM policy. Many users simply cant use iTunes as they do not have an iPod but another brand of MP3 player. I personally use a smartphone with a 1gb flash card and would love to use the biggest and best online music store without having to do on-the-fly conversion to Mp3 or having to burn music to disk and re-rip it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12"contributing to the destruction of private property and the right to contract, on which our very civilization is based."
***** that. - loftx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4To everyone who's been saying "let the market sort it out" and similar comments - you might want to learn some basic economics. Copyright law grants a monoply for a limited time - since only one producer can produce the content and it's not easily substitutable, the monopolist (usually the production companies) can dictate the price (and the product including DRM). More competition from "the market" solves nothing as the markets still buys the content to distribute at monopoly prices.
The idea of copyright law which results in the monopoly is designed to make sure there is a plentiful supply of work entering the public domain - a bit like communism - as opposed to allowing content producers to profit from their work.
Remember every time you legally download copyrighted work you're supporting communism :-) - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Hehe, turn that around with Microsoft and any other OS. Oh yes, hypocrites at their best.
- EyeDye, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10I can never remember, is Apple the first or second "A" in RIAA?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What do you EXPECT Apple to say? They just got bitch'slapped badly by the French Government, so they are acting like anyone that has just gotten bitch-slapped. They claimed it didn't really hurt them, and then try to mock their opponent who just bitch-slapped them. The problem with that is that everyone who saw the bitchslapping already knows what really happened.
This is very similar to the Microsoft trial here. - frequencyone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3France understands! Why can't we? Apple is being just plain foolish.
- ericpp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Balderdash!
Just come up with an open DRM format that all players can use and allow iTunes users to download in that format. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You mean they have better MARKETING. Not better products.
And just curious...where did you stand on the Microsoft monopoly trial? They just make a better OS as far as almost EVERYONE is concerned. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'd want to keep a monopoly, if I made one.
Why should every other company that can't make a decent music store/player get a free ride on the back of Apple's success.
If you want it, you have to earn it. All the other manufacturers are just leeches. They've tried numerous "iPod Killers" and haven't made a dent in the iPod/iTMS market share, so they want to take it by force.
Somehow it doesn't seem right.
Everybody knows that buy music from iTMS, they have to use iTunes and an iPod.
Stop crying and live with it! Or make an innovative product that people actually want, there's an idea. - tonyspencer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>>Capitalism gets ***** up BECAUSE of socialist interventionism. Don't try to turn that any other way. An industry left alone maximizes profit, and resource utility, as it should, as opposed to being inefficient and stagnant.
Wow, without getting too much into the pros and cons of capitalism, the big problem is that you can't trust most corporations. Even the US has laws to control them. Think Enron, WorldCom etc. There's a big list of names here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_scandals
>>Why are monopolies actually bad?
Because they stifle innovation, and promote lawbreaking to maintain their position. Do you think you would have had video on Windows without QuickTime? Indeed Windows without Mac OS... Vista without Mac OS X? It would have been XP with a few tweaks.
Or look at the number of patent suits Microsoft lost/settled, because they thought they were big enough to just steal technology (and then laughably pass it off as their own "innovation").
However, as falconwing pointed out, the law isn't about Apple bashing. One, it applies to all online music services. Two, it makes it illegal to write or distribute P2P software (not to use it though) with very hefty penalties. So the French are saying you have to make the music playable on any device, and if that means getting rid of DRM, so be it. But France will be safe, because there will be no piracy in France, so you can do that.
Of course, that won't happen in real life, but hey, what politician has ever understood the internet? But at least the software will be American, used for pirating American stuff...
And by the way, 3 years in a US jail is a picnic compared to 3 years in a French jail. And 300,000 euros fine is about $360,000. - MonkeyFit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@ mockworld
By your very definition of a monopoly, Windows is not one. Windows does not maintain exclusive (100%) control of the market. They control a vast majority of it, but still do not control all of it. You are not restricted to buy Windows. You could certainly buy a mac with OS X, or even get a linux distro. The reason Windows controls so much of the market, is because they've created a product people want. Most of the big PC manufacturers don't put linux on their computers because it is still to complicated for the average Joe (You can't call someone on the phone with questions about most linux distros). They don't put OS X on their PCs because Apple won't allow them. Windows has made computers easy for the masses, just as iPod has made DAPs easy for the masses. And if you try to say Macs are easy, most people also consider price a big selling point. You can get a $400 Dell with an LCD monitor that does what most basic users want it to (surf the web, word-processing, maybe playing some media). Compare that to Apple's entry level PC, the Mac Mini, which starts at $599 and doesn't even include a monitor. Coming back to my main point, Windows is not a monopoly unless you consider iPod to be one, considering both enjoy an overwhelming share in the market. -
Show 51 - 100 of 186 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is