Copyright Law, by way of France
It looks as if French copyright law will soon take a step forward and two backwards. This article discusses a proposed French law that would legalize the breaking of DRM (Digital Rights Management, the encryption that restricts how you copy most paid-for downloaded music) for the purposes of allowing the music to play on any digital player. While I am happy to see legality granted to people's right to do as they will with data they have paid for, this law also includes provisions against "illegal" sharing of music and the creation of software to enable such sharing. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that having a government intervene here in order to protect people's "right" to have music they buy from one vendor work everywhere.
No one is forcing people to purchase their music online from the iTunes Music Store (iTMS - the main target of this law, with over 80% market share in the music download business), just as no one is forcing them to buy iPods to play their music on. To dirgress for one moment, I would like to clear up an issue which many of my fellow Optimates understand, but which I feel the press, and the people who have their only contact with the subject from the press have routinely misrepresented. Apple's iPod music player will play music in a large number of formats (including the ubiquitous and non-proprietary MP3 format). One does not have to purchase one's music from Apple's iTunes Music Store in order to play it on one's iPod. There is no "lock in" with respect to what can be played on an iPod. This concept arises from the fact that Apple's download service offers its files in a proprietary format (which plays on iPods and with Apple's iTunes music software). Thus, if I purchase my music from the iTMS I will need to convert the format of those files in order to play them on a non Apple player.
I see very little legal problem with this. Personally, I purchase very little music from the iTMS for several reasons, one of which is the DRM attached to files and the need to degrade their already less than perfect sound quality further when using workarounds to circumvent that DRM. But I don't feel my rights are somehow being violated simply because one specific vendor offers music in a format that displeases me. I simply don't buy from them. That is how a market economy works. The role of legal regulation in such an economy is the creation of boundaries to curb excesses and warping of the system. Tailoring laws to try and thwart specific companies or products simply because the company is not offering the product in the way people would like sets an terrible precedent and is incredibly destructive to the system as a whole.
I would love to pin this on France alone, since my dearth of love for their approach to government is well known, but it appears that they are passing this law in an attempt to conform to EU copyright policy. I would like to hear people's opinions concerning copyright in a digital age. How can the concept of copyright, as it was initially concieved, be applied to an era in which technology has rendered the costs of reproducing and distributing information negligable? How can the rights to profit from one's work be balanced against the public good of maximum information availability? Is an ever increasing availability of information necessarily a good thing? If there are limits, what are they?
Fire away!
No one is forcing people to purchase their music online from the iTunes Music Store (iTMS - the main target of this law, with over 80% market share in the music download business), just as no one is forcing them to buy iPods to play their music on. To dirgress for one moment, I would like to clear up an issue which many of my fellow Optimates understand, but which I feel the press, and the people who have their only contact with the subject from the press have routinely misrepresented. Apple's iPod music player will play music in a large number of formats (including the ubiquitous and non-proprietary MP3 format). One does not have to purchase one's music from Apple's iTunes Music Store in order to play it on one's iPod. There is no "lock in" with respect to what can be played on an iPod. This concept arises from the fact that Apple's download service offers its files in a proprietary format (which plays on iPods and with Apple's iTunes music software). Thus, if I purchase my music from the iTMS I will need to convert the format of those files in order to play them on a non Apple player.
I see very little legal problem with this. Personally, I purchase very little music from the iTMS for several reasons, one of which is the DRM attached to files and the need to degrade their already less than perfect sound quality further when using workarounds to circumvent that DRM. But I don't feel my rights are somehow being violated simply because one specific vendor offers music in a format that displeases me. I simply don't buy from them. That is how a market economy works. The role of legal regulation in such an economy is the creation of boundaries to curb excesses and warping of the system. Tailoring laws to try and thwart specific companies or products simply because the company is not offering the product in the way people would like sets an terrible precedent and is incredibly destructive to the system as a whole.
I would love to pin this on France alone, since my dearth of love for their approach to government is well known, but it appears that they are passing this law in an attempt to conform to EU copyright policy. I would like to hear people's opinions concerning copyright in a digital age. How can the concept of copyright, as it was initially concieved, be applied to an era in which technology has rendered the costs of reproducing and distributing information negligable? How can the rights to profit from one's work be balanced against the public good of maximum information availability? Is an ever increasing availability of information necessarily a good thing? If there are limits, what are they?
Fire away!
posted by Chris @ 10:06 AM
3 Comments:
Between iTMS and the recent Sony Celine Dion debacle, I think maybe it's time to set up strictures as to how DRM can operate. Also, iTMS is the prime target because it's got 80% of the business and essentially reated the method by which music is bought online. Any of their practices which haven't already cemented themselves as industry M.O. will do so shortly, and so yes, the law primarily focuses on them.
What bugs me is the stubborn (almost militant) refusal from the music industry to move forward with their consumer-base. Studies have shown (and I'll link when I can find it) that the demographic of consumers who "illegally" download music from Kazaa and Limewire and the like purchase just as much music legally as they did before, and in many cases more. Not to mention that concert ticket sales have gone WAY up as people have been exposed to more variety than Clearchannel ever gave them before. More than theft, I believe the music industry is afraid of losing control over their customers. Entertainment is ridiculously fickle as is, obviously, but if the RIAA is to embrace the true free-market that iTMS and Limewire provide, then they lose quite a bit more control, at least in their immediate view. What they're failing to see is the financial upside this gives them. Instead of spending millions cerating the next O-Town, and even more moeny trying to convince people to like it, they can spend a fraction of that cost letting customers discover the next White Stripes, and then promote a hit from there. All DRM does is punish consumers who are legitimately purchasing the music for the crimes of those who aren't. That, and it doesn't work. The RIAA is best to move forward and take advantage of the marketing effect of the new technology, but as they're unlikely to do so on their own, I wouldn't mind any states that wanted to step in and do it for them.
France's intent to meddle with the music market for the purpose of benefitting the consumer at the expense of Apple can be considered unwise, in the same vein, as the broadcast flag and other things that the US Government is trying to push through that benefit the media conglomerates at the expense of the consumer can be seen as unwise as well.
I say "can be" for reasons that I will point out below. Here, I would like to point out that there is a long-running tradition in the technology world that states "the best way to combat technologies is with other technologies, not with laws". This has been successfully done with most existing "crippling" technologies, the most famous one being the bypass of the encryption on DVDs. That tool was called DeCSS. The same person that came up with DeCSS also came up with an iTunes client called SharpMusique that allows you to purchase tracks from iTunes, but does not deliver them encoded to you.
I ask Socratic, why does he not use SharpMusique? The most obvious answer is simple, even though it may not be correct, - he's never heard of it before this post. And this is the reason that I mention a paragraph ago - the state of affairs of the general consumer understanding how technology works and what kind of neat little programs and workarounds are available to get around technological restrictions is absolutely pitiful. The average dude and dudette do not want to know about the intricacies of DRM, they just want their music to play. It is precisely this sort of apathy from the masses that the governments in Europe, which are known for coddling their citizens, are pandering to. It is precisely this sort of apathy that the US companies are taking advantage of to lobby the US government (which is not known for citizen coddling) to pass laws that enforce DRM (the video broadcast flag, etc.)
Details on SharpMusique, for those that want to stop being apathetic and educate themselves a little bit:
This is not the same as the "burn to CD and rerip" process that inevitably loses quality. No reencoding happens, for the following reason:
iTunes _the program_ is responsible for putting DRM onto the files that you purchase, not iTunes _the store_. The reason for that is - the files are DRMed with a fingerprint that uniquely identifies your computer and your iPod. That means that each individual track is DRMed differently on the purchaser's computer, adn the iTunes Store only keeps copies of the unencrypted tracks.
There is a possible solution: iTunes the program can just send the fingerprint of your computer to the Store, the Store can run the encryption process and send the encrypted file back down to you. The reason, supposedly, for why that still hasn't been done, is this: the amount of resources that would've been necessary for that would've prohibitively cut their profit margin.
(think - for every download that happens, and they recently bypassed 1 billion, you'll need extra processing power crunching through the encryption protocol)
So, really, at the end of the day, the DRMing has to happen on your computer. So, SharpMusique just mimics all of the functions of the itunes store client, except it doesn't encrypt stuff when you download the song. The Apple Store will never know the difference.
The main reason that I don't use the iTMS has less to do with DRM and more to do with my enjoyment of owning a full quality (even before burning and re-ripping, you still get your iTMS tracks encoded), long lasting backup along with the liner notes, lyrics etc. CD prices have come down (a little, and the difference in price between an album from the iTMS ($10) and a physical CD ($10-$15) is worth the additional benefit of having that good physical copy. That way I can rip my music at whatever quality (and in whatever format) I like.
However, I agree completely that the average computer has very little idea of the implications of DRM laws like the broadcast flag. Because they are not educated about the issue, it seems to them like a trivial thing on behalf of which to exert political effort (an effort most people are unwilling to make for anything). Almost without fail, any sort of constraining technology will be broken wide open in a matter of weeks (if not days) and a device/program made available for circumventing the constraints. But that will not free the majority from those constrains.
The interesting thing about technologies like DRM are that they don't so much strip away rights that people already have, but rather choke off the creation of new possibilities that flow from technological innovation. I think that the reason that many technically literate people are so enraged by constraining legislation targeted at the internet, or computers and other devices is that they can see an amazing range of helpful innovations in each new technology which they then see prevented from gaining widespread use because of the fear (and power) of those who stand to lose in the face of innovation.
Many municipalities want to build citywide wireless networks, but are prevented when cable companies lobby to for preventative laws. Google Print, an amazingly good idea which has the potential to vastly increase the facility with which people can explore knowledge and literature has run into fierce opposition from publishers and authors (irrationally, and incorrectly) afraid that it will rob them of just compensation for their work. To know that something great is possible, and to see that greatness stifled by people's selfishness is a horribly frustrating experience.
Still, the question remains, what is the best way to guarantee that the creators of media are rewarded for their contributions, while not stifling people's access to the collective works of man? It is not just scientists who stand "on the shoulders of giants". Every author, every film maker, painter, video game designer, or musician got her start by becoming immersed in the works of those that came before her. Our race succeeds by sharing knowledge and it is to no one's benefit for the whole world to keep its own counsel.
Post a Comment
<< Home