What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
148 Comments
- openingshots, on 10/12/2007, -3/+57You have to read all the stories about this. As it turns out, France is not picking on Apple. France's laws allow for the enforcement open competition in all industries in their country. This is all about France not wanting monopolistic companies doing business in their country with no real compitition.
- 1911wolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+37It isn't just Apple. People like to pick apart items to form it around their view and in this case everybody is forgetting that this isn't about just Apple. It's a draft law that would require all companies to open their DRM code to all other companies. Apple, Microsoft, Real, they'll all be forced to open their code to each other. As usual, this will be ignored by 99% of digg members who seem to have trouble writing a basic sentence.
- openingshots, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32Only 15% of potential buyers own a portable music player. iPod has 80% of that. So that means that Apple only has 12% of the potential market share. There is lots of room for growth. These stats are from Gartner Group.
Also, what does the iPod market share have to do with licensing Freeplay? - mikm, on 10/12/2007, -10/+37If Microsoft was the company providing something that only played on a "mPod" every Apple fanboy would be up in arms.
- Nerys, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Here is what I set to this politician
I am rather disappointed that you would support apples complaint.
DRM is immoral and should be illegal. It serves no purpose except to steal the property of legitimate end users. It is quite simply legalized theft.
It has absolutely no effect on piracy. What DRM is good at is Removing competition (bad for consumers) and Removing the rights to our property (both hardware and content)
DRM places consumers in a position of subservience to the whim of the content providers and is enforced in hardware.
DRM is bad for consumers. DRM is bad for Artists and DRM is bad for the future of digital content in the United States future.
DRM Combined with the DMCA is a complete and total removal of ALL "fair use" rights to the content consumers legally purchase. Not only that but this combination also means we NEVER have any rights to the content we purchase legally. they can "alter" the terms of the agreement anytime they want without using law or asking for our permission simply by changing the mandatory behavior of the software and or hardware without our consent or agreement.
This quite literally means I could pay money for content today with specified rights over what I can and can not do with that content and tomorrow those rights can be revoked legally and with no recourse on the side of the consumer.
If you really stop and THINK for just a minute. Logical plot out the purpose functions and intention of DRM you will see there is no upside to it. there is not a single reason why it should exist "except" to prevent competition and the theft of consumer property. Remember it does absolutely nothing to inhibit piracy in any way shape or form.
Here is a scenario for you to consider.
I buy an ipod. I spend $1000 in the Itunes music store over the next 5 years to buy my music instead of buying CD's
In 5 years the ipod line is getting boring and I want the new XYZ mp3 player that was just released but when I goto buy it I find out my $1000 music investment is now useless. Apple just STOLE my music from me with an ultimatum. Stay with the IPOD or we take back the music you legally paid for.
Now an easy solution is to buy CD's now I can "RIP" these CD's to any format I want to put on ANY player I want.
So what happens when they stop making CD's ? or they figure out how to DRM Audio CD's ? (remember its illegal to bypass DRM with the DMCA in effect) SO now to use what I legally paid for I have to become a criminal ?
ITs already happening with video. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will not output full resoltion over analog and all manufacturers who license AACS (mandatory) must agree to STOP making players with ANY analog ports within this decade.
so by 2010 everything VIDEO in HD will be Digital only and mandatory application of AACS and HDCP will be in place. they can not completely circumvent Fair Use and dictate terms to me about how I can view and interact with my legally purchase video content and I can not do anything about it because the DMCA makes this a crime.
This is not right. The providers should not be able to dictate such terms to legal owners of content.
I applaud France for having the "guts" to do this and hope they can hold out for the long haul and get other countries to follow suit and protect there citizens rights.
I am saddened that My government has taken such an anti consumer stance.
Please research this issue. THINK about it. Think about the NORMAL things you do every day.
Use a Tivo. Put your CD on your mp3 player. Backup your DVD so the kids can trash a 20cent discs instead of your $30 original. Watch a Movie in the car instead of in the house. Record something VCR style to watch later. Record some songs off the radio. Record a radio talk show etc.. etc..
with DRM and the DMCA and an all digital enviroment ALL of these action become ILLEGAL unless the content provider "decides" to permit them. The only way they will do that is for a PRICE.
Please reconsider you stance. Support your Citizens not a few greedy corporations!
Chris Taylor
Levittown PA
http://www.dmcpa.info
Some Definitions that you might not be familiar with
DRM - Digital Rights Management
DMCA - Digital Millennium Copyright Act
RIP - The act of extract the content from a cd or dvd to a computer readable format for conversion to another more usable format
HD-DVD & BluRay - New HD resolution formats for movies
HD - High Definition
AACS - the new encryption scheme for HD Video disc formats
HDCP - a new encryption scheme to lock down the content IN the cable itself to prevent interception of the decoded video signal going from the player to the Display unit (TV/Monitor)
Also note HDCP means anyone who currently has an HDTV with component only or no HDCP support will have to "toss them" in the trash and buy new TV's in order to WATCH HD video discs in their homes. there is no way to "update" a TV to support these new protocols. - billydisaster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27What is France doing about Microsofts software monopoly"
You obviously haven't been following the case against MS brought by the European Union.
I don't get the fanboys on this one, why is it good for me to only be able to play music on one manufacturer's product? Go France, stick it to Apple. - SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Weird, the US is fighting to reduce freedom? what a crazy world. When the US Gov does something, do the opposite.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+32If I'm not mistaken, Apple currently has an 80% + marketshare in mp3 players.
- horseloverFat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19here's Cory Doctorow's (BoingBoing) thoughts on the French Anti-drm law -
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/22/apples_hypocritical_.html
As Steve Jobs explained to Rolling Stone in 2003, iTunes DRM doesn't stop people from making and sharing unauthorized copies of their music:
"None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content. . . . . [There is] this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet --- and no one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it."
Cory writes-
"If Apple doesn't think iTunes stops "piracy," then why include it? Because it lets them send legal threats to competitors like Real when they make players for their own DRMed music that run on Apple devices. Real's effort to put a Real player on the iPod wouldn't have helped anyone commit "piracy" -- nor would the French law. All it would do is give iPod owners the option to buy their crummy DRM-crippled music from someone other than Apple, maybe getting a better price or better features or both." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -21/+39state-sponsored piracy my ass. Why not license the technology out like Microsoft. This is the reason Apple isn't where Microsoft is today!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22who doesn't like picking on the french? ofcourse the US govt. would back anyone going up against France. Ofcourse if this was MS there would be like a million apple fanboys going off. Apple can shaft it's customers in so many ways($9.99 movies anyone) just like MS has been for years...opening up the music store is what's beneficial to the customer in the end since there will actually be competition which would then lead to lower prices
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20jump to the rescue, apple fanboys!
RTFA morons and see that what france is doing is forcing apple to allow other manufactures to make itunes compatable players. how can this possibly be considered a bad thing in a free capitalistic society? well only if you want to hold on to your monoply that is.
this law, would mean other companies could let their players play the music you bought on itunes, and also allow other companies to sell itunes format songs. this also cuts both way with other drm, MS is going to be under the same rules.
it's just apple fan boys at work. good on france i say, and ***** off america. - oneeyedelf1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I can't believe that anyone is for Apple on this. Apple's music store format just isn't a customer friendly format. I mean this is a "web2.0 ish site" which is all about giving the user options and Apple is taking them away. You buy the music but it comes encrypted and locked down tighter than a principle's ass. Btw I cant read the picture code(to sumbit comments) and have to get my roomy to read it for me. Cant digg think of anything better.
- towsonu2003, on 10/12/2007, -13/+22how the hell is this news?? of course it will. USA is angry at France for not playing its Iraq game + USA is in love with IP-type laws (patent, restricted access, RIAA, and the like). It's like their motto... -lame
- tyme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8file this under "more proof the US government doesn't understand technology"
apple doesn't have to give out IP to make this possible, just use an open format for the files...
meanwhile, go join mp3tunes.com, and sideload.com - DarthTater, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8So, if microsoft doesn't adopt a standard they are blamed of monopolistic practices, but if apple does something similar is ok?
I guess that's what people call double standards ... ;) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10opening shots..it is actually less than 15% that own iPods. Factoring in the millions that have bought more than one and less than 10% of Americans own an iPod. Probably closer to 7-8%.
I have to say, I have worked at a college in NY. As a research professor I have lots of down time and hate staying n the office so I wander the campus talking to people that I know through my former side job as a DJ at one of the main clubs that they go to. Anyway, this week I saw my very FIRST iPod on campus.
Yes, I know that is unusual. But this notion that EVERYONE on a college campus is walking around with an iPod is WRONG.
Most students like to actually SOCIALIZE and not keep to themselves all day by shutting the world out with their headphones. - kualla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"The oft-derided French are seen standing up for their citizens against corporate rip-offs, while the bought-off U.S. congress joins forces with industry fat-asses and their lobbyists to criminalize people who merely want to USE WHAT THEY PAID FOR."
I think that comment above says it best, especially the part in caps. People are paying for this music and don't want to have troubles getting their music to play because of some ***** DRM protection that can easily be cracked anyways, but is rather just an annoyance. I don't even need to know how to reverse engineer the DRM code, simply load up AUDACITY and I got a DRM-less copy :p - bartoncls, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6There are a few things that are being mixed up in these discussions. First, the French don't want to take down Apple at all. It's about the freedom of choice of customers! What Apple does is not legal, it is even not legal in Belgium! We have laws here that could easily force Apple to stop their DRM, but our government has more important things to tackle at this moment.
The DRM discussion shows the difference in culture between Americans and Europeans. E.g. in the States it is plain normal that a mobile phone is locked to a certain provider. Here in Belgium this is not allowed at all. Customers should have the freedom to switch from provider keeping their mobile phone.
It's so funny America states "we are a free country" while customers are locked-up to certain companies and don't have the freedom to switch to other companies. Companies are put above the people in the States while in Europe there is more social thinking (consider social security in Europe versus the States).
I don't have anything against US, in fact I've been living and working there and it's a great country! But this discussion should be considered objectively! This isn't a battle between France & United States! This isn't a battle between the French government and Apple! It's a battle between customers and DRM! - Oliver666, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Apple was the Microsoft of the seventies and eighties, do your homework in history. Apple isn't the nice company around the corner. They have a better OS of course, but they are even more bad-ass than Microsoft.
- pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Duh! K street was consulted and it was determined that it would provide consumers with more choice and actually open a market to competition. Thus it is an immoral act that the French are trying to get away with. It must be time to go back to eating Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
- Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That's funny... at *my* university (a NY state-sponsored university), EVERYONE can be seen with the trendy white earbuds, usually attached to an iPod. Even better, I've noticed some people using the offiical Apple white earbuds with non-Apple players and even CD players. It's like all they care about is being seen with the white earbuds...
- sdaf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8limpingjaret: "opening up the music store is what's beneficial to the customer in the end since there will actually be competition which would then lead to lower prices"
Well, the thing is that if there were many suppliers for the different online stores, prices would probably go down. Now there's one big cartel supplying movies. It's their way or the highway, I'm pessimistic about them dropping prices because popularity rises (remember they wanting to price popular songs higher on itunes). - prammy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Except Ford does not make gasoline. And Hondas and Chevys will take the same gasoline as Fords do.
- darkvad0r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think you missed some comments MrAssMan, like the ones saying things like:
"That french law is not against apple, it's all about opening the market for fair competition"
I would go on but I have other things to do, I'd suggest you to read again the comments ;) - JustinPM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Companies can license Plays For Sure, as it shows up on many different devices. No one can license Fairplay.
- Nerys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"DRM was never supposed to prevent compitition, just prevent theft."
Man you really dont have a clue. Preventing competition was the SOLE intent and reason for DRM. Preventing copyright infringement is NOT something DRM was made for or is able to do. (note its not preventing theft copyright can not be stolen!!)
DRM has ONE PURPOSE by intent. Prevent Competition. its Secondary Purpose is to Steal your property rights.
It has no other purpose. By Design it CANT have any other purpose.
Nothing can prevent copyright theft because copyright theft is imaginary. it can not exist.
if you meant to say it prevents copyright infringement your still wrong it does no such thing.
As fot the burn it to CD and then RIPIT. This is illegal. you are bypassing the DRM. The DMCA (and the EU has similar laws in most countries now) says this is illegal.
Your "license" (a falacy) says you can burn a CD it does NOT say you can RIP that CD to another format. the downloaded song is already LOW quality this DOUBLE conversion will just make it even worse ! no thanks.
Corporations have the ability to COERCE people into actions without many of them realizing they are doing so. they have the power to push you in a direction in such a way that by the time you REALIZE what is happening it is too late.
THIS is one of the few GOOD reasons for government to exist. to PROTECT us individually from this power we can not possibly defy on an individual basis.
The Government needs to uphold what is RIGHT. not what they WANT not what they THINK is right but what actually IS right and or wrong.
Slavery and Segregation are both WRONG - the government banned these things AGAINST the wills of the majority of the majority of the population.
Do you disagree with the fact that slavery and segregation are wrong ?
DRM is wrong. Its illegal in my book because its THEFT of property. (MY property)
People are being given this NEW illusion that is only recently being pushed and forced onto us. that we dont OWN our own property that we buy (music movies etc..)
Music and movies are no different that cars and houses. they are your PROPERTY
License are illegal and immoral so are terms and EULA's
these have and should (until recently) only applied to IP Rights.
IP Rights and PROPERTY Rights are 2 different things. The corporations are trying to MIX IP and PROPERTY rights to be one and the same and enforce them with Terms and laws that steal our property.
When I sell a photograph to someone it becomes there property. they can and should be allowed to do ANYTHING they want with it so long as it does not violate the terms I apply for the IP RIGHTS side of the contract (the only part I can morally dictate) for there own personal usage its there property.
When it becomes non personal its no longer a property rights issue its an Intellectual Property Rights issue. THIS I should be allowed to dictate.
Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/ - RandomBedHeadEd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Nope. RTFA. This legislation is not aimed at Apple specifically; they're just making the biggest headlines because they have the most to lose from the government's weakening of DRM.
- koguma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hope Apple is forced to drink their own Kool-Aid. I hope they ARE forced to open it up. You could then download your iTunes compatible music and vids from French online stores!
- DoubtfulSalmon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Unsecured wireless access points cause aeroplane hijackings!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7That is a JOKE, right? If it was Microsoft they wouldn't be picked on?
Were you in a coma during the Microsoft trial in the late 90s?
Same EXACT thing. No one forces anyone to buy an iPod, and if you don't, you don't need to use iTunes, and vice verse. I wouldn't install that crap iTunes on my computer if you paid me. Meanwhile, no one forced anyone to buy a Windows PC and if you didn't, you didn't have o have any of their bundled software like Internet Explorer.
They are either BOTH monopolies or neither are. And Microsoft WAS picked on. - kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Great quote. Leave it to Cory to sum it all up.
- koguma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yes, but iTunes gets shoved down your throat when you install pretty much any Apple software package. Installed Quicktime lately? iTunes tags along and needs an uninstall right after..
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What is the point of listing that chart? First, it shows that the two iPod shuffle models own the market, and its only flash based players. Are you really saying that a combined 46.4% of flash based portable music players is something to be brushed off? Clearly, half the people out there like iPods, and don't mind iTunes that much, according to your chart.
- thecontinental, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"the thing that you do not understand is the fact that our own US government is trying to stop the french government from allowing competitors to apple to enter the french market and this is why it is wrong"
Please, show me where that is happening. Show me how letting Apple retain their intellectual property is creating a monopoly? Just because Apple iTunes/iPod is the most popular dosen't mean they hold a monopoly. How about another company creating a BETTER service and BETTER mp3 player come in and knock Apple off their ass? The opportunity is there. That my friend is free enterprise, not state sponsored socialism. - DoubtfulSalmon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Uhm, dude... If Yoda is so smart, why proper sentences cannot he make? Wanna try re-releasing your rant in English (or is your rant DRMed, and it's supposed to look that way?)
- koguma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In other news, digg now offers a "Check Spelling" option. You would also need the "Check Grammar" and the "Reality Check" button.
- youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Can any of you apple fan boys clearly explain to me how you consider MS a monopoly but not apple?
I can run windows on almost any hardware, I can run a ton of software in windows and I can run software that directly competes with MS's bundled software in windows.
I can play music from other sources on an ipod but I can't use music purchased from itunes on other hardware which means if I want to take advantage of apple's media offerings I have to have an ipod which I can only buy from apple.
So again who has the monopoly here?
And for the record I don't think either company has a monopoly but I find it funny how the apple fan boys are quick to yell monopoly when talking about MS but fail to see the heavier restrictions apple has on their hardware.
I also fail to see how apple opening up their drm would be a detriment to their business. If other manufactures are allowed to make devices that play music from itunes wouldn't that mean more people purchasing music from them? If apple creates the best mp3 player then why would they fear competition?
Can any apple fan boy argue that competition does not benefit the consumer? Or does apples success mean more to you? - trowa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the thing that you do not understand is the fact that our own US government is trying to stop the french government from allowing commpetitors to apple to enter the french market and this is why it is wrong:
1. it violates the concept of national sovreignty
2. it would allow Apple exsclusivity in the market making a monopoly
you don't seem to get my point continental. - prammy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You can search for Quicktime standalone, which is what I use since I don't want iTunes on every computer I have quicktime player on.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3people act like apple invented something here.
and has to protect their investment.
Apple invented the ipod(i know arguable), NOONE says the ipod has to work with other peoples stores.
noone says apple has to share the blueprints for the IPOD.
Apple did not invent the music store
apple did not invent the mp3
apple doesnt own or create the music they sell
Apple invented a drm wrapper.
Drm was never ever meant to prevent compitition even though it is used most for that.
Apples store should be open and they have zero IP to protect unless you concider DRM IP.
It is amazing the number of capitalists here that dont seem to understand that. Apple is creating a monopoly using DRM. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3welcome to the usa
of the company
by the company
and FOR the company.
smartest thing the french have done for the net in 5 years. DRM was never supposed to prevent compitition, just prevent theft. - scotty79, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why don't apple just go away and leave European markets alone? We like swapping music with friends and using different players, so only minority of people will buy their stuff anyway. In good old days when you produced some machine government was forcing you to use standard components and publish full specification of nonstandard ones. So anyone could build them and therefore be able to produce cheaper alternatives so you couldn't monopolize market. What happened to good old days?
- PBz13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Can anyone provide a link to congressional emails. I would really love to partake in a major petition/campaign against this BS. I am actually an admitted fan of Bush (just cause he like to kick a$$ like I do) but this is insane. Washington has NO idea what they are talking about (I know, what is new).
Why has there not been an organized campaign against this DRM BS already. I never in my life thought I would wake up one day and agree with France but Viva La France...even if this is just them being bought off by Virgin so that they can just TRY to compete.
I own and have owned many iPods but locked music that I have bought and paid for and only want to play on my 360 for example is complete insanity. - ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What right does the government have to get involved with this?
- IchiroBoston, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's actually very strange to me, because I would love DRM free music
but I feel that it is wrong for a government to FORCE the
industry.
It's almost too much of a PITA to even run a
business. We dont need the gov to make it even harder. - Hubris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You make a great argument. It seems so many capitalists return to the 'the market will decide' mantra. We wouldn't need any government in a true capitalist country...because everything would be decided by the people by voting with their wallets. Of course, the protection that government regulation gives would be gone too.
What capitalist-fanboys don't seem to understand, is that corporations would stomp on any right....any freedom...any person to make a buck. Government standards are there to offer certain amount of protection to the people. Consumer cannot be expected to withhold financial support for a product they desire (especially in a near-monopoly situation with no alternative) simply to try force the company or market to do as they wish.
France might be pushing the boundaries by limiting how companies can restrict consumers where the consumers can't or won't stand up for themselves. This won't happen in the US - not because everybody expects the market to sort things out, but because like Gutierrez, most US politicians are in the pocket of big business and will gladly allow business to do almost anything they desire....for a price. - m.sandstorm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In the article it says:
"If this happens, legal music sales will plummet just when legitimate alternatives to piracy are winning over customers," it said.
Are they refering to the fact that if Apple closes its iTunes store, then sales would drop? Or, if they open up the store to other mp3 players? I can't see how the latter could be true cause if the iTunes store is opened up to other players then wouldn't that increase sales since more people an access it? - mistshadow2k4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So what? As a US citizen myself, I have to ask, how the hell is it the US's business in the first place? If I were Freench I'd be telling the US politicians to keep their noses in their own damn country.
- diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's an American-business product. United States governments has every right to keep it protected from French law.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 149 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