Apple Defeats RIAA and France In Same Day 311
gnat writes "The subheading of the CNN article says it all: 'Four largest record companies defeated in behind-the-scenes battle to charge different prices for songs; downloads still 99 cents'. This comes the same day as France backed down on the posturing over demanding iPod interoperability." From the France article: "Apple, which did not return repeated phone calls, and other DRM holders doing business in France, are likely elated. While the law must still be voted on, the alterations in the legislation signify willingness by some in the French government to honor the rights of companies that don't wish to share their technology with competitors. Senate debate on the bill begins Thursday."
Re:Apple continues to rip off the UK (Score:5, Informative)
Re:France backs down? (Score:3, Informative)
Apple does not idly persecute F/OSS users, but your quote did not include the rest of my sentence:Apple most certainly persecutes [macslash.org] F/OSS users who attempt to interoperate with their products.
If you choose to buy from ITMS you know exactly what you are getting
You're quite right here - people should know what they're getting, but many don't. I wouldn't expect a linux user to start buying from iTunes, but think about people with large ITMS music collections who want to convert to linux (from windows naturally).
I don't mean to be harsh but we are talking about a recreational item here it's not like iTunes music and iPods serve a vital purpose.
You're right that itunes is a recreational item - I guess that means you agree that the deCSS authors should be prosecuted too.
Re:France backs down? (Score:3, Informative)
Consumer groups should be issuing warnings to the public about DRM systems.
We should be writing to consumer groups to ask them to issue these warnings.
Apple shouldn't be doing what they're doing.
Digital Music News' - Resinkoff on Apple (Score:2, Informative)
Paul Resinkoff has a very good commentary on Apple's negotiations.
Snip:
Looking through the business lens of Apple, any other result would be foolish. Apple is ultra-protective of its consumer, and that approach has resulted in rich dividends. The major labels, on the other hand, have a highly contentious and acrimonious relationship with many music fans and artists. Sure, generalizations can be dangerous, though the characterizations are not too far off. And why would Apple want to take cues from the labels, who have alienated a large number of buyers while stumbling in the digital transition? Jobs feels strongly that a uniform price point is the path towards customer satisfaction, and nothing is going to disrupt the sacred iPod+iTunes cow. Certainly not the labels, especially following waves of consumer adulation and affirmation for the Apple digital strategy.
I read this guys site on a regular basis. Always a good source of interesting news and commentary on Digital Music...as for my take. In the end, until then Labels stop acting like they are the reason music exists and become more of a service for artists they will continue thier slow death spiral. The music and artists will always be there so will the fans. Do we really need a label to make that connection anymore? $.99 dowloads across the board is perfect in my books. And an advantage for the independant artist and small labels that service them. Higher percentage of that $.99 goes directly to the artist. That is why the labels want special treatment. To differentiate themselves from independents. Why would an established artist release to a major and get $.02 of that $0.99 as opposed to $.72? That is the real danger labels see in the future, that they will be become a disadvantage to the artist. Though right now major labels still have huge marketing budgets and "star" making power.
But that is changing.
Watch...I will connect you directly with artists from SE Wisconsin, all on or soon to be on iTunes, no major label needed and this alone will generate a few sales for the following bands:
Soul Amp (mine) http://soul-amp.com/ [soul-amp.com]
The Dammitheads http://ourdamnwebsite.com/ [ourdamnwebsite.com]
Hayward Williams http://haywardwilliams.com/ [haywardwilliams.com]
Hayward is not on iTunes yet but is slated to be soon.
Re:France backs down? (Score:3, Informative)
Why let facts get in the way of a good rant?
Apple has absolutely no restrictions on the number of times a song can be burned. What they restrict is the number of times a playlist which contains "protected" songs can be burned.
Can you honestly give a valid personal use reason why you would need to burn the same playlist of somebody else's music more than 10 times?
- Tony
Re:France backs down? (Score:2, Informative)
Tell me, is it just because you are a whiny open source-guy who cries "But I DON'T WANNA use .doc!" anytime someone isn't as hip as you?
Re:France backs down? (Score:2, Informative)
Unless you use OpenOffice, NeoOffice/J, or to a lesser extent, TextEdit.
If you want to buy movies, then you have to buy DVD.
Unless you want the VHS copy (still available) or UMD.
You don't like iTunes? Go buy the CD.
Or buy the CD through iTunes for cheaper and burn the disc as MP3s (which iTunes allows)
Re:France backs down? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:France backs down? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Add This Defeat to the Military History of Fran (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Close, but not quite... (Score:5, Informative)
The earliest copyright-type of protection I know of is the Stationer's Log, which was used in England in Shakespeare's day, and it existed to protect publishers against other publishers. A publisher would buy a manuscript from a writer, and then register it in the Log, so that another publisher couldn't then publish their own version of it. The author had pretty much no rights whatsoever, but there was protections for the author in other ways. This was a time where most authors, poets, etc. were supported by wealthy patrons.
Around the time of the American Revolution there seems to be a change in the way copyright-style protections are being considered - the focus moves to the artist or creator, rather than the publisher. If you look at the American Constitution, there's a section that has the original version of this in the United States (I'm not sure how it manifests itself in Britain and Europe), and it's a limited span. This is very progressive for its day, as there's still patronage going on. The important thing in my mind is the recognition of the creator's rights to their work, something taken for granted in other industries.
Now, as time goes on and patronage disappears, the copyright span becomes longer, and this is logical, if you think about it. Without patronage, all that is left to support the artist is the artist's work. Controversy over copyright span after death aside, if you look at the Berne Convention just as a document outlining creator's rights, it really is quite logical and adaptive, and suitable to the here and now.
(Please note, I'm not talking about the DMCA here. The Berne Convention is quite old and fine-tuned, and it shows. It's a very elegant and logical document. The DMCA is brand new, trying to deal with new technologies that the legislators are still coming to grips with, and it shows too. Given time, I think it may develop into a very good piece of legislation that fits the technology, but it's not there yet by a long way.)
In my mind, the big problem right now isn't the creator's rights, but how they have been co-opted. It's not so big an issue in print publication, but look at who actually owns the rights to music and film. The film studios and record labels have basically co-opted the creator's rights by getting the artists to sign their rights away, and then exploiting those rights, cutting out the creators in the process. In many ways, it's a situation where what should be a just and fair system has been co-opted and abused beyond belief.
France pushing Protectionist standards ? (Score:2, Informative)
I suggest you to read the SECAM history :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SECAM [wikipedia.org]
SÉCAM development predates PAL.
So I am affraid your post was only "french-bashing" ! Yet and again...
And even if it was pushed for "national pride" reason, who can blame them ? I mean, read the story about Concorde at JFK or the A380 story about US airport beeing reluctant
Until now there was no software patent in France, but thanks to US and some europe software giants we are about to "evolve" to be in the same dirt US are : joy-of-pattent-everything (which includes joy-of-beeing-a-lawyer subsystem).
Re:France backs down? (Score:3, Informative)
I have burnt and re-encoded, and I can't tell the difference between my re-encoded MP3s and the original AAC. YMMV, of course. But to say "unacceptable" is definitely not true for me.
But, it is a PITA.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
False (Score:4, Informative)
Why SÉCAM in France?
Some have argued that the primary motivation for the development of SÉCAM in France was to protect French television equipment manufacturers. However, incompatibility had started with the earlier decision to uniquely adopt positive video modulation for French broadcast signals. In addition, SÉCAM development predates PAL. NTSC was considered undesirable in Europe because of its tint problem requiring an additional control, which SÉCAM and PAL solved.
Nonetheless, SÉCAM was partly developed for reasons of national pride. Henri de France's personal charisma and ambition may have been a contributing factor. PAL was developed by Telefunken, a German company, and in the post-war De Gaulle era there would have been much political resistance to dropping a French-developed system and adopting a German-developed one instead.
In other word, yes it was a questionof national pride, but no not against the US, more against the "north-east" neighbourgh which only 7 years before they had a war with... Not much to do with protectionism IMO. Would you , as an US ressident , have accepted the PAL standard ? Well apparently NO, sicne you use NTSC.
Re:It is a Free Software Issue. (Score:2, Informative)
That is a lie, pure and simple. You may reverse-engineer Fairplay for purposes of interoperability. It even says so in the DMCA. Apple is not required to give anyone the specs, but they also cannot prevent you from reverse-engineering them.
Re:Add This Defeat to the Military History of Fran (Score:2, Informative)
but don't forget the Norman conquest (1066 and all that). The French successfully invaded england and never left...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_E
so that would have to count as a resounding success for France -even if the Normans included a lot of Vikings who had settled in France.
The Brits might not readily admit it, but they have been mostly ruled by European royalty ever since.
Even Queen Elizabeth II is of german descent:
The House of Windsor, previously known as the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, is the Royal House of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . (from wikipedia)