The proposed legislation that originally aimed to open up a music service's DRM to support all MP3 players has been weakened even further after the French constitutional council declared the major elements of the proposed legislation unconstitutional. The council released a 12-page document which concluded that this law would have effectively stripped companies using DRM of their intellectual property rights.
Under the new revision by the council, companies running DRM locked services could still be forced to make their music compatible with third party digital audio players, however the DRM provider will have to be compensated for sharing their copy-protection technology. The council has also removed the lowering of fines relating to illegal file sharing.
While the law was approved by the French Senate and National Senate just a month ago, it was brought under review by the council following the demand by over 100 members of the National Assembly. It can now take effect under its revised date or be brought before the Parliament one final time by the government.
|
The decision affects Apple's market-dominant iTunes Music Store by undermining the government's original intention, whi ch was to force Apple and others to sell music online that would be playable on any device. Apple's iPod is the only portable music device that can play music purchased on iTunes, which lead rivals to complain about anticompetitive practices. Although the ruling could still require companies like Apple to make music sold online to be compatible with other handheld devices, it said that the companies could not be forced to do so without receiving compensation. The council also eliminated reduced fines for file sharing. The full c|net article can be read here. |
This proposed legislation seems to have taken a huge step back from its original state in which Apple would have been forced to make music from its iTunes store compatible with all MP3 players on the market. Now if the revised legislation goes ahead, chances are that Apple will be unaffected by the change, thanks to all the revisions and amendments. For example, if the new legislation does not enforce a maximum fee that a DRM provider can charge to license out its DRM technology, Apple could easily just set such a high licensing fee that no third party could afford to pay Apple to buy a license to use its DRM technology, in which case it would be like the law has had no effect.
Source: c|net News - Digital Life
