There's a distinct possibility that Apple's DRM CRAP might go down the chiottes in France, and Steve Jobs is seriously worried.
Until now, his iTunes iPod auto-loader has reigned supreme, passed off as a digital music download service. But a new French law would effectively nullify Apple DRM, meaning people could use Apple downloads on anything they wanted, and innovation and competition would be enabled instead of stifled.
While the controversy rages, "L'amendement à l'article 7 du projet de loi droit d'auteur imposant la fourniture des informations essentielles à l'interopérabilité fait couler beaucoup d'encre, notamment de l'autre côté de l'Atlantique, où il est perçu par certains comme une attaque contre Apple," posts Christian Paul on his blog.
"J'ai souhaité donner quelques explications sur les motivations qui nous ont conduit, Patrick Bloche et moi, à proposer cet amendement lors de la « deuxième lecture œcuménique » de l'article 7. Vous les trouverez, en anglais, ci-dessous.
His 'explanatory press release to Americans' says, "the amendment to article 7 of the law on author's rights - which requires that information essential to interoperability be provided – has produced a great deal of comment, notably on the other side of the Atlantic where it is seen by some as an attack on Apple…
"I had wanted to explain the reasons which led Patrick Bloche and myself to propose this amendment during the second reading of article 7." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interoperability : freedom for consumers and innovators By Christian Paul
The recent adoption of provisions for DRM interoperability in the French "droit d'auteur" (~copyright) law raised eyebrows in the US and caused an alarmed reaction from Apple Inc.
I would like to explain why we proposed that. First: we want to protect consumers' freedom of choice and privacy. We oppose the idea that the seller of a song or any other kind of work can impose on the consumer the way to read it, forever, and especially in consumer's home. It is essential to assure that the consumer can choose whatever device she likes, just as she can use her favorite hi-fi today and does not have to buy a new one for each vendor.
Second: we want to keep the market free and open. Instead of legally enforcing artificial monopolies, we prefer to create an environment where every innovator has a chance. To do so, innovators need some information on how to interoperate with existing devices. To assure that small innovators can enter the market, we do not want this information to be expensive. As we are discussing an essential freedom here--the one to create and innovate--we estimated that the only acceptable price is: without charge.
Third: we want to protect free (as in freedom) software developers. Many of them are individuals coding for fun, not for profit. Getting information required for interoperability without charge is key to them. They must also be able to publish the source code of software interoperating with any DRM. We have put this last guarantee in law.
Let's put it more simply: Can we allow a couple of vendors to establish monopolies tightly controlling their clients and excluding competition? I think that no American can wish for that. Neither Apple, nor Microsoft, nor anyone else is threatened by this law if they intend to play fairly with competitors and consumers. If Apple wants to remain a big player, it will have to innovate and continue providing exciting new products. This is a good news for consumers, who will get better, cheaper competition. And it is also a great news in the long term for Apple.
(Thanks, Guillaume, and thanks for the translation, Liz)
Also See: CRAP - Apple and its C.R.A.P., March 4, 2006 his blog - Interopérabilité : communiqué de presse explicatif à l'attention de nos amis américains, March 23, 2006
