Why Apple Doesn’t Like the French: Bill Passes to Open iTunes

by Darcy Richardson Mar 24, 2006

A bill that would open up music-playing technology and tunes to compatible players threatens Apple’s domination in the online market. The French law that would push Apple Computer to make the iTunes playable on devices that compete with the iPod passed through France’s lower house of parliament Tuesday and now moves to its senate.
Apple issued a response statement Wednesday: “The French implementation of the EU Copyright Directive will result in state-sponsored piracy. If this happens, legal music sales will plummet just when legitimate alternatives to piracy are winning over customers. iPod sales will likely increase as users freely load their iPods with ‘interoperable’ music which cannot be adequately protected. Free movies for iPods should not be far behind in what will rapidly become a state-sponsored culture of piracy.”
Under the French law, digital content providers must share details of their rights management technologies with rivals. iTunes, which are protected under Apple’s FairPlay DRM technology, would be downloadable onto alternate devices if the bill passes into law.

DRM technologies are meant to establish the ground rules under which consumers can use the music. They limit the number of copies the user can make (to one or more computers), the number of portable players to which the songs can be copied, and how extensively sharing can occur.

CNET.com reported that Gene Munster, senior analyst for Piper Jaffray, said Apple could choose to withdraw iTunes from the French market rather than change its business. “We believe Apple is more likely to drop out of the French market than open up its FairPlay DRM to allow iTunes to play on competing MP3 players,” he wrote. “While this sounds like a drastic move, we believe it would not materially impact business. We estimate that approximately 20 percent of iPod and iTunes sales occur outside of the U.S. The French market alone is likely less than 2 percent of iPod and iTunes business.” Also according to CNET, an Apple spokesman said he could not comment on what action Apple might take if the measure becomes law in France.

A report from BusinessWeek said that other companies besides Apple will suffer the effects of the law. “Sony and Microsoft could feel the effects of the French law as well. All three use proprietary technology for digital rights management, the protection of content against unlawful copying. In the longer term, though, the French legislation is a warning shot for the music business.”
Not only could the European Commission question Apple’s monopoly, but other countries could also pass similar laws.

BusinessWeek also reported Wednesday that Apple’s stock was down $2.18, more than 3%. “Apple doesn’t break out iTunes or iPod sales by region, but reported a $174 million operating profit on sales of $1.2 billion for its European division in its most recent quarter. It has sold 14 million iPods worldwide.”

On Tuesday, two deputies from the ruling Union pour Movement Populaire (UMP), the party behind the legislation, issued a statement stating they hope other countries in Europe will follow the French example. “These clauses, which we hope will be taken up by other countries, notably at the European level, should prevent the emergence of a monopoly in the supply of online culture.”

BusinessWeek source Francois Laugier, a lawyer with the San Francisco law firm Ropers Majeski Kohn and Bentley said, “Apple’s best allies in any fight against this law may lie with French Socialist and Communist legislators who may oppose the law simply for the purpose of opposing those who favor it.”

“If it passes the Senate,” Laugier said, “there are members of those parties who have suggest that they would like to take the law to the Conseil Constitutionnel, or the constitutional council, the highest legal authority in France on matters relating to constitutional law. I’d start lobbying the politicians who favor bringing it before the council. The provisions of this law that affect Apple are actually very small, and the council might strip them from the bill, or modify them.”

Whatever Apple decides to do with its French connection, it definitely does not favor any provision that would cause its monopoly to crumble.

Comments

  • It’s rather unfortunate that Apple is playing the now overplayed “piracy” card whenever a law is passed that helps consumers by threatening the monopolistic practices of big media companies.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Mar 24, 2006 Posts: 2220
  • I just hope there’s a dialogue about this and not just drawing of lines.

    Benji had this to say on Mar 24, 2006 Posts: 927
  • Atlas Shrugged.

    The easy and most reasonable response is to unburden France with iPods and iTunes Music Store.  There.  No more problem.

    What's the Frequency Kenneth? had this to say on Mar 24, 2006 Posts: 11
  • I just hope there’s a dialogue about this and not just drawing of lines.

    All of Apple’s arguments as relayed above are complete nonsense.  If anything, allowing other companies to license technology and DRM would lead to less piracy, giving consumers more choices and more compatibility.  It certainly doesn’t follow that it would lead to piracy run amock.

    And it’s very telling that Apple would rather take it’s ball and go home rather than face any kind of real competition to iTMS or the iPod.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Mar 24, 2006 Posts: 2220
  • > And it’s very telling that Apple would rather take it’s ball and go home rather than face any kind of real competition to iTMS or the iPod.

    It’s not a matter of taking their ball and going home.  It’s a matter of not allowing 2% of the market to dictate terms on the other 98%.

    As I posted elsewhere, I think DRM is bullshit, so I don’t buy it.  However, they should have a right to sell it, and the iPod, on their terms.

    What's the Frequency Kenneth? had this to say on Mar 24, 2006 Posts: 11
  • However, they should have a right to sell it, and the iPod, on their terms.

    That’s true, UNLESS they have a monopoly.  As with Microsoft, controlling such a dominant share of the market changes the rules.  You can’t then tell your licensees, for example, that if they don’t include your browser that they can’t get your OS.  At that point you’re abusing your position in order to get rid of competition.  It’s wrong when Microsoft does it.  It’s wrong when Apple does it.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Mar 24, 2006 Posts: 2220
  • Letter to Tony Blair to bring a similar law into the UK?; written, posting it tomorrow.

    Luke Mildenhall-Ward had this to say on Mar 26, 2006 Posts: 299
  • At that point you’re abusing your position in order to get rid of competition. -Beeblebrox

    Beeb, apart from using the pejorative “abusing,” has there ever been a business that didn’t take advantage of their position in order to be more successful? Hell, the fact that Apple has an installed userbase alone is a “position” that they take advantage of with each new release.

    Of course, the complaints only arise concerning successful companies, as they are the ones (apparently) most deserving punishment. As I said in the “Apple to Split…” story, I’m perfectly willing to stay consistent: I don’t think MS deserved an antitrust lawsuit either.

    By the way, WtFK, I’m surprised you mentioned Atlas Shrugged. It’s the first thing that came to my mind when reading this story.

    Oskar had this to say on Mar 26, 2006 Posts: 86
  • Of course, the complaints only arise concerning successful companies, as they are the ones (apparently) most deserving punishment.

    Complaints don’t arise concerning UNsuccessful companies because unsuccessful companies aren’t usually monopolies.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Mar 26, 2006 Posts: 2220
  • Just saw this on Boing Boing and it’s too priceless not to share.

    Steve Jobs in 2002: “If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own.”

    France in 2006: “The consumer must be able to listen to the music they have bought on no matter what platform.”

    Sounds like the same thing, no?  Apparently it isn’t since Jobs now considers his statement in 2002 as tantamount to allowing piracy to run amock.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Mar 26, 2006 Posts: 2220
  • Jobs is without a doubt a hypocrite, but a smart one, considering all the millions he’s making. We can feel good about having integrity, but he’s still laughing his way to the bank grin

    Oskar had this to say on Mar 26, 2006 Posts: 86
  • You don’t buy songs on the iTMS using an iPod. You buy them using a computer, be it a Mac or a Windows PC.

    As for every piece of digital data that you care for, songs purchased on the iTMS have to be backed up. You back them up on audio-CDs.

    Files on audio-CDs, as they are, or after you have converted them into the audio-format of your choice, can be played on a very wide range of systems and peripherals.

    Lionel Chollet had this to say on Mar 26, 2006 Posts: 23
  • Jobs is without a doubt a hypocrite, but a smart one, considering all the millions he’s making.

    Yes, because there’s no greater measure of intelligence than how much money you make.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Mar 26, 2006 Posts: 2220
  • As for every piece of digital data that you care for, songs purchased on the iTMS have to be backed up. You back them up on audio-CDs.

    Well, thanks to the companies that you are defending, this is actually ILLEGAL.  According to the DMCA, it is unlawful to intentionally defeat any form of copy-protection, even for purposes of backup.  Illegal.  As in, you will go to fucking jail.

    According to the RIAA and the MPAA, there is actually no such thing as “fair use”.

    Yay.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Mar 26, 2006 Posts: 2220
  • Beeblebrox - I think you’re confusing the issue. When downloading iTunes, you agree to their TOS, which includes (I believe in section 8) that you cannot circumvent the DRM. So even without the DMCA, you’re violating a contract you made.

    Fair use applies to situations like pulling your car in someone’s driveway to change directions - you aren’t trespassing, it’s simply fair use. But if the property owner puts a gate in front of their driveway, you may not drive through the gate and claim it was fair use.

    In case you didn’t get the analogy, DRM is like a gate in front of a driveway. It may suck, but circumventing it is not fair use.

    Oskar had this to say on Mar 26, 2006 Posts: 86
  • Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >
You need log in, or register, in order to comment