Interesting article... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

PetroSketro · 07-03-2006, 05:06 AM

I read this this morning while at work.
I think it is annoying that France is being so strict with their copyright and downloading laws, sucks for their citizens (at least it's only 38e instead of $150,000 or whatever the DLing fine is now in the USA..

). I can't figure out whether or not it is good that they are screwing mac or if it is an infringment on Mac's rights as a corporation...
I personally think that Mac would be able to capitolize on mp3 sales if they switched to a multi-device format, right now they are only selling more ipods, and I couldn't imagine they're selling THAT many more because of it ...I just us an iRiver...

Discuss??

Martian · 07-03-2006, 06:47 PM

For starters, welcome to the TFP. Having said that, proper etiquette here is to quote the article along with linking the source. The way people who don't want to or can't follow the link for whatever reason can participate in the discussion as well.

For those mentioned, the article is as follows :

Quote:

The French parliament has passed a law that had initially threatened to outlaw the use of non-interoperable digital rights management (DRM) - a mechanism to control the use of music and other software.

The Dadvsi law has now enshrined the principle of interoperability for MP3 players and download services in French law, mandating that systems can now no longer use DRM to decide which devices consumers can play their music on - that is, Apple must provide technical information to allow songs bought from iTunes to work with rival music players and vice versa.

Apple's DRM, known as FairPlay, has been jealously guarded by the Mac-maker despite requests from major tech players to make it interoperable. To date, only Motorola has received a licence allowing it to use FairPlay on its iTunes-playing mobiles.

When the bill was first published, the iPod-maker had hinted it would withdraw from the country rather than comply with the legislation.

However, the law has been updated to avoid mandating true interoperability. Apple and other music e-tailers are allowed to continue using DRM if they do so with the explicit consent of the artists whose music they sell.

The Dadvsi law has also introduced fines for those caught illegally uploading or downloading music to the internet. For those making copyrighted works available on the web, the penalty will be €150; downloading them will merit a €38 fine. Whether that is per track or per instance is still to be determined.

French consumers will remain legally allowed to copy music for their own private use, although the number of copies a user can make will be determined by a newly created regulatory authority.

The authority will also be charged with judging any disputes and requests for technical information pertaining to DRM interoperability.

I'm not really surprised that the French government backed down when faced with Apple withdrawing from the country, although I'm not happy about it either. DRM is a method of controlling how the end user enjoys their music and that's not something I agree with at all.

Having said that, I do understand why the strict copyright enforcement. Whether downloaders want to admit it or not, downloading music is stealing. The music is someone's property and you're taking it without their consent. A lot of people are losing a lot of money because of it.

I don't know how Apple's profits break down from the iPod and iTunes, but I reckon they're going to continue to do what's most profitable. If they're making a lot of money off of the iPod, they're going to do what they can to continue to ensure a dominant market share. Maybe it isn't right, but it's capitalism. Such is the nature of the beast.

PetroSketro · 07-05-2006, 10:11 AM

Thanks for the welcome and the pointers.

I agree with you though, downloading music is stealing (i used to be a big 'theif', but now I find loopholes, i.e. Russian websites that sell music for pennies a song due to no international copyright laws)

Technology is becoming more and more of a propriety war. Companies are siding with companies and trying to make exclusive products. Dell deals only with Intel Chips, Apple works exclusively with HP PCs. It also works with products within a single company: If you buy an iPod, you must use iTunes. I bought a computer case for my girlfriend that only fit the same company's power supply (which was much harder to find as well as more expensive).

There is no doubt that this is capitolism at its best. It was just suprising to me how quickly Apple was ready to drop a major marketplace in Europe.

Martian · 07-06-2006, 07:21 PM

Apple has less to lose. France is one market in one region. I don't know how sales break down because I'm too lazy to do the necessary research. I can take a pretty good guess though that Apple makes the bulk of it's sales in the North American and Asian market. Losing one European country isn't going to hurt them too much.

France, on the other hand, isn't going to be so willing to lose Apple. Consider that all of Apple's hardware is imported, which means if Apple bails, they lose all the tariffs and tax revenues, along with a hit to their IT market. Imagine all the Apple specialists over there who'd be forced to go to Germany, Spain or Belgium for work. These are people who are no longer working and being taxed in France now. Granted, I can't imagine that would end up being too big a piece of the nation's revenue or IT market, but it's obviously enough to make the folks at the top back down.

Negotiations like this, be they on a one-to-one or international level, always follow one simple rule. The party who's willing to walk away is the one who'll win. It looks like in this case Apple was and France wasn't.

It makes sense for Apple to want to maintain market share with the iPod. Really, how many people in the grand scheme of things pay for songs? Your average, morally ambiguous consumer will generally take the cheaper option if quality isn't a major concern and with alternatives like the bittorrent or soulseek network flourishing it really isn't right now. Soft sales, therefore, become a capped market. The only people who are going to pay for copies of songs (especially for songs that are under DRM restrictions, when the free alternatives are not) are going to be those who can't afford or are not willing to be involved with shady activities. The rest of the world isn't as likely to care. Hardware, therefore, is where Apple will make it's sales. And by forcing the iPod, which is by far the dominant player at the moment, to be used exclusively with iTunes, Apple can control both sides of the equation. Giving away their proprietary controls uncouples one from the other and effectively destroys Apple's ability to control the market. For the end user, that'd probably be a good thing, but Apple is only really concerned about the end user when it affects their bottom line.

Again, such is capitalism. The worst form of market, except for every other that's been tried.

07-03-2006, 05:06 AM	#1 (permalink)
PetroSketro Upright Location: Tampa, FL/ In the axis	Interesting article... I read this this morning while at work. I think it is annoying that France is being so strict with their copyright and downloading laws, sucks for their citizens (at least it's only 38e instead of $150,000 or whatever the DLing fine is now in the USA.. ). I can't figure out whether or not it is good that they are screwing mac or if it is an infringment on Mac's rights as a corporation... I personally think that Mac would be able to capitolize on mp3 sales if they switched to a multi-device format, right now they are only selling more ipods, and I couldn't imagine they're selling THAT many more because of it ...I just us an iRiver... Discuss??

07-05-2006, 10:11 AM	#3 (permalink)
PetroSketro Upright Location: Tampa, FL/ In the axis	Thanks for the welcome and the pointers. I agree with you though, downloading music is stealing (i used to be a big 'theif', but now I find loopholes, i.e. Russian websites that sell music for pennies a song due to no international copyright laws) Technology is becoming more and more of a propriety war. Companies are siding with companies and trying to make exclusive products. Dell deals only with Intel Chips, Apple works exclusively with HP PCs. It also works with products within a single company: If you buy an iPod, you must use iTunes. I bought a computer case for my girlfriend that only fit the same company's power supply (which was much harder to find as well as more expensive). There is no doubt that this is capitolism at its best. It was just suprising to me how quickly Apple was ready to drop a major marketplace in Europe. __________________ "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with." -Crosby Stills Nash and Young

07-06-2006, 07:21 PM	#4 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	Apple has less to lose. France is one market in one region. I don't know how sales break down because I'm too lazy to do the necessary research. I can take a pretty good guess though that Apple makes the bulk of it's sales in the North American and Asian market. Losing one European country isn't going to hurt them too much. France, on the other hand, isn't going to be so willing to lose Apple. Consider that all of Apple's hardware is imported, which means if Apple bails, they lose all the tariffs and tax revenues, along with a hit to their IT market. Imagine all the Apple specialists over there who'd be forced to go to Germany, Spain or Belgium for work. These are people who are no longer working and being taxed in France now. Granted, I can't imagine that would end up being too big a piece of the nation's revenue or IT market, but it's obviously enough to make the folks at the top back down. Negotiations like this, be they on a one-to-one or international level, always follow one simple rule. The party who's willing to walk away is the one who'll win. It looks like in this case Apple was and France wasn't. It makes sense for Apple to want to maintain market share with the iPod. Really, how many people in the grand scheme of things pay for songs? Your average, morally ambiguous consumer will generally take the cheaper option if quality isn't a major concern and with alternatives like the bittorrent or soulseek network flourishing it really isn't right now. Soft sales, therefore, become a capped market. The only people who are going to pay for copies of songs (especially for songs that are under DRM restrictions, when the free alternatives are not) are going to be those who can't afford or are not willing to be involved with shady activities. The rest of the world isn't as likely to care. Hardware, therefore, is where Apple will make it's sales. And by forcing the iPod, which is by far the dominant player at the moment, to be used exclusively with iTunes, Apple can control both sides of the equation. Giving away their proprietary controls uncouples one from the other and effectively destroys Apple's ability to control the market. For the end user, that'd probably be a good thing, but Apple is only really concerned about the end user when it affects their bottom line. Again, such is capitalism. The worst form of market, except for every other that's been tried. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame