French law affects copyright, DRM, Apple (Macworld UK)

Posted Jul 13, 2006 18:10 UTC (Thu) by Richard_J_Neill (subscriber, #23093) [Link]

As long as the DRM can be broken, it doesn't matter about it being closed source. It's DMCA-like provisions which are the real problem. Otherwise, you just run your DRM'd media under a virtual machine, and trap /dev/dsp.
Or, even better, just support artists who use Creative Commons.

Posted Jul 13, 2006 20:31 UTC (Thu) by ecureuil (subscriber, #3507) [Link]

The article is a bit misleading.

I doubt that the new French will have much effect on the Linux Desktop.
The Law is quite complex but basically it tackles two problems : fixing
the penal system against peer-to-peer downloading. After much conflict in
the Parliament, the Law stipulates a fine of 49 euros; for downloading and
150 euros; for uploading. It is not clear (and maybe will be explained by
the
Constitutional Court) if the fine is global (the act of downloading) or
calculated by item downloaded. The first solution seems more plausible
(the second one would be ruinous) and therefore the fine is very low and
will not be a deterrent against users of peer-to-peer networks.

The second topic was the implementation in French Law of the European EUCD
directive which is similar to the DMCA which protect by a system of fines
DRMs After also much conflict in Parliament and a very good lobbying of
the French OpenSource community, DRM are enshrined in French Law but with
a new concept that was absent in the original European text ; they must be
interoperable. Interoperability was much fought against by the different
record lobbies and the final version has been watered down from what the
OpenSource community obtained at some point. The new governmental body
that will supervise interoperability between DRM will be closed to
non-commercial open-source developers. It is more designed to push Apple
to license its DRM system to the smaller French musical online stores than
anything else. There is also a loophole in the text that says that if an
author agrees to prohibit interoperability then the DRM producer is not
obliged to license its code to others. If Apple gets the record companies
to sign a contract stipulating that they agree that what they sell on
Itunes store should not be listened on any other devices than Ipods than
they will be safe.

All in all, the law is an half empty glass. It is hard to know if the new
interoperability body will have much work but it will create a legal
incertainty for DRM and for business models using DRMs and is one more
nail in the DRM coffin. The fact that interoperability has been enshrined
in the Law for the first time is a interesting change and even if
the provisions for interoperability in the Law are not satisfactory at
least it is a beginning.

Posted Jul 14, 2006 17:44 UTC (Fri) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link]

Newsforge has an article with better coverage of the parliamentary maneuvering and the addition and removal of amendments by the various parties. It certainly sounds as if the proponents were so underhanded as to be comparable to some members of the U.S. Congress.

EUCD.INFO, a French organization opposing the law, has an enumeration of its failings, as well as general coverage, both in English. It also points to a Wikipedia article, but since it covers a controversial subject, keep your skepticism handy.

Posted Jul 14, 2006 17:46 UTC (Fri) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link]

I wonder about NDAs. Many programmers sign them, read the documentation, and produce compiled binary code. But binary code is not unreadable, merely difficult.

Is there really anything in an NDA that specifies how difficult the resulting program must be to read?

Go ahead and sign the NDA, then write the program as an easily decompiled Java class file. Or a Perl script. A C program with very long and descriptive variable names and full debug info "accidentally" included.

If the NDA contract can sue for not sufficiently obfuscating the code, then where are the limits? If Java class files with verbose symbol names violate the NDA, then why not compiled binaries that didn't bother to use an encrypted jump table with self-modifying call trampolines?