New French copyright law
p2p news / p2pnet: France has approved a copyright law which drastically eases the pain for anyone judged to have been file sharing. Penalties for "illegally" downloading music will now be little more than a parking fine, says the International Herald Tribune.
The new law might also compel Apple Computer to make iTunes downloads playable on devices other than merely iPods.
On the other hand, though, it might not because buried in it is a provision through which Apple, et al, could persuade record labels and artists to agree that if their music is sold on iTunes, it can’t be converted to other formats.
Since to all intents and purposes iTunes is the only significant corporate download application, a nod or two from Steve Jobs will carry a lot of weight.
"Additionally, rivals seeking to make their devices compatible with songs from iTunes must convince a newly created regulatory authority that interoperability will not infringe on patents or other rights belonging to Apple," says IHT, going on to quote IP lawyer Dominique Menard as saying:
"Since American companies tend to patent everything, I am sure Apple can find a way to stop giving away information about their proprietary format."
Consumer groups in Norway, Denmark and Sweden have meanwhile given Apple until August 1 to explain why iTunes can’t be played on devices other than iPods and, "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development … released a report on Friday warning that difficulties in transferring digital files among devices hindered the development of content," adds rhe story.
"Lawmakers in Poland and Switzerland are likely to discuss the issue while updating national copyright laws this year."
And, says Agence France-Presse, in the US, Americans for Technology Leadership, which boasts Microsoft among its members, calls the new French law an, "attack on intellectual property rights" of all companies.
"While the final version is slightly less severe than the earlier draft, it still illustrates France’s complete disregard for intellectual property," AFP has the group’s Jim Prendergast saying.
"Government-led theft of intellectual property is wrong, whether we’re talking about iTunes or Champagne."
Prendergast said the French law could set a bad precedent that chills technological innovation, adding:
"Already we have seen other European countries attempt to regulate Apple in the same way the French lawmakers originally proposed.
"Once government regulators take away a company’s intellectual property rights and dictate that they must allow competitors to benefit from their creations, they break the cycle of innovation that benefits consumers by destroying the incentive companies have to create new and better products."
Also See:
International Herald Tribune – France approves ‘iPod law’ on music downloads, June 30, 2006
The New York Times – Bush Says Report on Bank Data Was Disgraceful, June 27, 2006
broad and secret – New York Times ‘ treasonous’, June 26, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
July 1st, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Once government regulators take away a company’s intellectual property rights and dictate that they must allow competitors to benefit from their creations, they break the cycle of innovation that benefits consumers by destroying the incentive companies have to create new and better products…
This should read:
Once government regulators modify a company’s intellectual property rights to allow competition, they enforce the cycle of innovation that benefits consumers by destroying the incentive companies have to unfairly dominate others and force the entire evolution of society to occur in the manner that suits them most, requiring them to create new and better products.
July 1st, 2006 at 1:49 pm
The French, Apple and almost everyone else ignore the basic purpose of copyright. Let’s go over them.
Copyright has one purpose: Create an incentive for creators, and this is THE MORE IMPORTANT PART, so that the public has access to more works made by the creators.
If the purpose were not to include THE MORE IMPORTANT PART, “so that the public has access to more works made by the creators” the the purpose would make no sense at all.
DRM clearly violates the purpose of copyrigt, the MORE IMPORTANT PART.
This new French laws, obviously did not give any importance to THE MORE IMPORTANT PART of the purpose of copyright.
Incredibly, no one, when writing about copyright and its many collateral issues never considere the purpose of copyright as I have describe it.
Interestingly, no one has anyone made a survey among creators (not corporations that pay for or somehow acquire or grab the works of creators) with these simple questions:
- What is more important, that you get an incentive to produce or that your work is enjoyed by the people?
- How do you prefer to see your work, DRM laced or free from DRM?
- Should busineses decide for you if DRM is place on your work?
- Should laws decide for you if DRM is place on your work?
- Would like your work digitally distributed free to those that cannot or will not pay for it?
Let’s get back to the basics!
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
July 1st, 2006 at 2:35 pm
“On the other hand, though, it might not because buried in it is a provision through which Apple, et al, could persuade record labels and artists to agree that if their music is sold on iTunes, it can’t be converted to other formats.”
Great, but how will this woks out?
What if the record company says yes to Apple but one of the other three parts (performer, songwriter) says no?
And what if the song is “owned by several owners as a result of an estate division and one of them says no?
Frankly, this is just another dumb and buried layer of complexity to the rights of authors.
Now authors worldwide need to know French copyriright law.. or get simplified verbal (always verbal) and always wrong explanations from their publisher.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
July 1st, 2006 at 6:15 pm
nterestingly, no one has anyone made a survey among creators (not corporations that pay for or somehow acquire or grab the works of creators) with these simple questions:
- What is more important, that you get an incentive to produce or that your work is enjoyed by the people?
- How do you prefer to see your work, DRM laced or free from DRM?
- Should busineses decide for you if DRM is place on your work?
- Should laws decide for you if DRM is place on your work?
- Would like your work digitally distributed free to those that cannot or will not pay for it?
ufortunately, no one cares what the artists think or feel… Scratch that… no one who matters cares what the artists think or feel.
He who holds the $$ makes the decisions, or in the case of music, he who owns the rights makes the decisions. Artists don’t own the rights to their own creations, and the gov’t isn’t going to care because they are owned by the corporations. The corporations will do whatever is in their best interest at the moment, and not look at the big picture, hence DRM and all the lawsuits.