DRM & the French

This was originally posted as a comment on The Mac Observer, as a response to some of the other comments there about an article on the proposed French legislation to open proprietary DRM to allow device independence.

"Bosco" wrote : I bet those communists at the RIAA...

Hmmm, and there was me thinking they were a bunch of capitalists representing another bunch of capitalists trying to protect their profits - or did the definition of "communist" change while I was in the bathroom?

"Bosco" wrote ...would sell their own mothers to keep me from sharing the music I love.

Music that is owned by someone else, and for which you have purchased a license to use under a specific set of conditions...even if you have bought the CD. You have the right to share that music with others in a private manner (invite them round to listen to it), but not the right to give that person a copy of the music - remember, you don't own it. You can give them your CD if you wish, but you are not allowed to keep a copy at that point.

The real problem is that DRM can force you to pay multiple times for different licenses for the same thing.

These would allow you to use it on different technology platforms. Currently, with non-DRM'd digital content, you can legally make a backup copy, rip it to your PC/Mac, copy it to a portable device, copy it to your PC/Mac at work, copy it to a memory stick to listen to it on your phone...etc...etc...

With DRM'd content, these rights may go away very quickly. Apple have allowed many of the above to be done using their DRM'd digital content, and have even given a get-out clause by allowing the content to be de-DRM'd (yes, I know, it's not "CD quality" when you burn it to a CD, but you didn't pay for that license - get over it), which is why so many people don't mind buying it (about a billion tracks at the last count).

Theoretically, using the middle-man of a CD, all iTMS audio content can be played on just about any audio player out there. In fact you have the same rights as you have if you buy the content on CD (yes, I know, it's not "CD quality" when you burn it to a CD, but you didn't pay for that license - get over it).

The fact that you have to copy it to a CD first is, for most people, a matter of inconvenience. Get over it. The exception are those who don't have access to a CD-RW and can't afford a Rewritable-CD. Hmm, that's probably not a large proportion of the population who are currently worried about DRM.

The evils of DRM are going to manifest themselves when the content you think you own is played on your nice new HD tv at a crappy quality and in low definition, because the license (what you actually paid for) specifies that it isn't allowed to play it in High Definition.

The content license you paid for is HD, but your TV doesn't have *that* security chip in, so unless you pay for one that does, you get low quality, or it doen't even play.

The reason for this? The license provider doesn't trust you. They think you are going to copy the content in a way that breaks your license agreement by using a device that pretends to be a HD TV with a digital decoder, but is really a hard-disk, then you could upload it to the internet and share it with a billion other people.

I haven't read the law being proposed, and so am going by what I have read on the internet, which is always 100% correct and factual. But from what I have seen so far, the French are basically saying that all providers of DRM'd content would need to be willing to license or open the DRM decoder.

Manufacturers of digital content players would then be able to license any DRM decoder that they are willing to pay to have. That way, their players can play any content that is compatible. This would mean that Creative would pay Apple so that their players are able to play Fairplay content, and Apple would have to be willing sell them a license if they want to be able to sell Fairplay content in France.

The compulsion comes from the proposal that a court can be petitioned to force the DRM content provider to open their DRM if they are unwilling to license it for a reasonable rate.

This does not force Apple to make the iTunes application compatible with any other player (and therefore break the wonderful ease of use combo of the ipod/itunes/itms trio), nor does it seem to force them to make the iPod compatible with anything else. It does mean that people who have bought Fairplay content, then buy a player from another manufacturer could continue to legally use their Fairplay content without going through the inconvenience of conversion to another format via a burned CD.

Of course, if the Fairplay license regards the player as not being an iPod, then it will have to count against the number of devices you're allowed to play the content on.