This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2011/12/28/apple-on-copyright/.
Posted in Apple, DRM, Europe at 7:31 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Bad Apple is doing bad things in HADOPI land using blackmail (allegedly claiming it “it would pull its business out of France” unless its demands were met)
According to the following Cablegate cable, Apple uses a baclkmail tactics (threatening withdrawal) to affect — for the worse of course — copyright law in France. Quoting the relevant parts: “In press statements, Apple said that the French copyright law amounted to “state-sponsored piracy” and that it would pull its business out of France. This declaration had an unfortunate impact. It heartened claims by free-software advocates and politicians who said that the opening up of DRM would benefit makers of DRM systems by enabling them to prosecute competitors as facilitating piracy. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez’s press comments saying that while he needed to take a look at the legislation, he supported protecting intellectual property rights were widely interpreted to be supportive of Apple, and French pro-interoperability groups reacted disapprovingly. The Odebi League, a citizen’s action group defending the rights of Internet users, told Apple to “mind its business and not meddle into the French legislative process” and pointed out that “if Apple wishes to do business in France, it has to respect the rights that the French enjoy.” Some senators said they regretted that Apple did not appeal to them directly and interpreted it as a lack of interest.”
Shame on Apple.
Here is the Cablegate in ite entirety:
=> ↺ Cablegate
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 003153
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
DEPT FOR E, EB, EB/IPE, EUR/WE
DEPT PLS PASS USTR FOR JSANFORD/VESPINEL/RMEYERS
COMMERCE FOR SJACOBS, SWILSON
DOJ FOR CHARROP, FMARSHALL, RHESSE
COMMERCE PLEASE PASS USPTO
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KIPR ETRD PGOV FR
SUBJECT: FRANCE'S DIGITAL COPYRIGHT BILL: SENATE VOTES TO SOFTEN
INTEROPERABILITY BUT LOW PENALTIES REMAIN UNCHANGED
REF. PARIS 01847
¶1. This is an action request. See paragraph 13
¶2. (SBU) SUMMARY. The French Senate approved in the early hours of
May 11 the GOF draft law on digital copyright, in a format which
leaves unchanged the National Assembly's decriminalized penalty
regime, the principle (if not the requirement) of interoperability,
and the so-called "Vivendi Universal Amendment" criminalizing
peer-to-peer software publishing. The draft law adopted by the
Senate largely takes the sting out of interoperability by laying out
general guidelines -- which no longer require Digital Rights
Management (DRM) vendors to divulge industrial secrets to their
competitors -- and creating a new independent authority to decide on
the scope of interoperability and the "right to the exception for
private copy." The newly adopted text, known as the Law on Author's
Rights and Related Rights in the Information Society, generally
abbreviated as DADVSI in French is a step that would bring France in
line with the 2001 EU Digital Copyright Directive.Over the next
month, the text will likely go to a reconciliation conference at the
end of the month, and be signed into law before the summer. END
SUMMARY.
Senate Approval And Next Steps
¶3. (SBU) The DADVSI draft law was adopted by the French upper house
on May 11, with 164 votes in favor, 128 against, and 37 abstentions.
All the votes in favor came from representatives of the right of
center government UMP party. The text will now go before a joint
committee of both houses of the French Parliament to be reconciled,
and for final approval under the current Government "fast-track"
emergency procedure, which requires only one reading by both houses.
Upon completion of the legislative procedure, the draft bill will
be submitted to President Jacques Chirac for signature some time
before the summer. France, which had tabled implementing
legislation in November 2003, is the last country, with Spain, to
transpose the EU Copyright Directive.
Exceptions to Exclusive Copyrights:
¶4. (SBU) Exceptions to exclusive copyrights, for public libraries
and archives, will now have to fulfil the "three-step test," i.e.
that they be confined to special cases, not conflict with a normal
exploitation of the work, and not unreasonably prejudice the
legitimate interests of the right holder. Education and research
have been added to the restrictive lists of exceptions in the
Senate, following the threat of a campaign of civil disobedience "in
any way they deemed useful and relevant" by over 2000 members of the
French scientific community.
¶5. (SBU) The more traditonal exception for private copy, an
essential feature of French "droit d'auteur," which allows French
residents to freely make copies of works (except software) for their
private use (and that of their family and friends) has also been
refreshed. The number of copies allowed as part of that exception
will now be decided by a new high regulatory authority, in charge of
outlining the contours of the private copy exception as well as the
new interoperability principle. The new authority will also work
hand-in-hand with the already existing Copyright Commission, which
sets the rates and conditions for the "tax on private copy" meant to
address the losses incurred by copyright holders. This tax is levied
on blank media (audio and video cassettes, CD, DVD, as well as
memory and hard drives in portable media players). While most of
this tax goes to rightholders, a quarter of it, representing some 40
million euros a year (USD 50 million), is used to finance cultural
events and festivals throughout France.
Penalties Remain Unchanged
¶6. (SBU) The system of "gradual sanctions", i.e. decriminalized
fines, has been confirmed by the Senate as "fair and balanced" --
despite efforts by one Senator and former Minister of Trade and
Industry, Gerard Longuet, to switch from what he described as
"organized indifference" to stiffer sentences. Culture Minister
Donnedieu de Vabres reiterated on this occasion that the purpose of
the bill was not to go after offenders but to ensure the protection
of works. As a result, non-commercial downloads are subject to the
lowest fine in France's Penal Code (38 euros), the equivalent of a
traffic ticket, instead of the original three years' imprisonment
and 300,000 euro fine proposed earlier by the GOF. These heavy
penalities in the first GOF draft bill created a major outburst in
the National Assembly, eventually leading to the adoption of the
radical "global licence." In the words of one Socialist and
technologically savvy member of the National Assembly, it would be
wrong "to describe the eight million people who have downloaded
music from the Internet as delinquents." On May 11, the Culture
Minister announced that an "index" of all protected works would be
set up to enforce the three goals of the bill: respect of copyright,
private copy and interoperability.
Softening Interoperability
¶7. (SBU) The Senate has proposed largely weakening the National
Assembly's radical ideas on the DRM technology. Two amendments in
the National Assembly's version had stated that providers of DRM
systems should provide the necessary technical documentation to ANY
party needing it to ensure that interoperability, including the
source code. This was interpreted as a direct attack on Apple's
iTunes platform and their iPod players.
¶8. (SBU) In press statements, Apple said that the French copyright
law amounted to "state-sponsored piracy" and that it would pull its
business out of France. This declaration had an unfortunate impact.
It heartened claims by free-software advocates and politicians who
said that the opening up of DRM would benefit makers of DRM systems
by enabling them to prosecute competitors as facilitating piracy.
U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez's press comments saying
that while he needed to take a look at the legislation, he supported
protecting intellectual property rights were widely interpreted to
be supportive of Apple, and French pro-interoperability groups
reacted disapprovingly. The Odebi League, a citizen's action group
defending the rights of Internet users, told Apple to "mind its
business and not meddle into the French legislative process" and
pointed out that "if Apple wishes to do business in France, it has
to respect the rights that the French enjoy." Some senators said
they regretted that Apple did not appeal to them directly and
interpreted it as a lack of interest.
Creating A New Regulatory Authority
¶9. (SBU) The Senate bill proposes a new regulatory authority to
examine the question of private copies and interoperability. This
new seven-member High Authority, modelled along the lines of
France's independent regulatory bodies in the electricity and gas
sectors (CREG), and in the telecoms and electronic commerce sector
(ARCEP), replaces the much-decried "college of mediators" initiated
by the National Assembly. Its responsibilities, much like its
guidelines, have been left as open as possible to allow for the fast
pace of technological change. At the same time, prodded by
embattled Culture Minister Donnedieu de Vabre and Villepin
administration, the Senate Cultural Affairs Committee developed a
text designed to meet as little opposition as possible from the
National Assembly once in the joint committee for conciliation.
These considerations explain the current text's willingness to pass
the difficult decisions on to the new authority.
Previous Support For Interoperability and Copying
¶10. (SBU) Public discussion of DRM and its effect on the private
copy exception have been particularly vivid in France. French
consumer associations initiated and often won court cases where DRM
restricted private copying -- a sacrosanct exception under French
copyright law.
Over the past three years, French consumer organizations have
initiated a number of court cases dealing with complaints of
consumers about CDs and DVDs that could not be copied and ripped
because of technical protection measures in place. In dealing with
the cases, French courts had developed the argument that the ability
to play a CD or a DVD on different devices constituted an essential
characteristic of a CD or DVD, and that producers of such devices
could be held liable for misleading the consumer in case of
incompatibilities. This first step towards establishing the right
to interoperability was confirmed earlier this year, when a Paris
Court of Appeals concluded that DRMs must respect the private copy
exception.
NEXT STEPS
¶11. (SBU) Next steps include the drafting of implementing
regulations, which would also give the GOF (and stakeholders) an
opportunity to tweak the legislation, particularly regarding
penalties and sentencing. This is expected to take place over the
summer. The GOF will draft and implement these by decree. Other
possibilities for modification, according to lawyers, include a
constitutional challenge, which could come on any number of
articles. We understand that the Commission will eventually examine
all the EU member-states' transpositions of the directive at some
point over the next year. Finally, the GOF notes that the law has a
"review clause" of 18 months, requiring the government to provide
the Parliament with an evaluation of its efficacy.
COMMENT AND ACTION REQUEST
¶12. (SBU). France is one of the last countries to fulfil its
obligation to transpose this 2002 EU Directive. In making only a
minimal effort, many Senators seemed to be acknowledging how quickly
technology had moved since then 2002, and during the debates, French
Parliamentarians underscored the irony of a belated implementation
of a directive which the EU Commission is reportedly already in the
process of re-examining. In our conversations over the last weeks
where we raised our serious concerns over the quality and direction
of this controversial bill, French government officials and
observers had sought to reassure us and other stakeholders. We were
told (see reftels) that the Senate version would address many if not
most of industry's concerns. Senate legislative staff was thought
more pro-business, more technologically savvy, and less ideological.
Industry observers, many of whom where involved in a low-profile but
intense effort to reshape the bill with key amendments were
optimistic as well. Working with French industry allies, they
proposed close to 300 amendments. However, with the President and
Prime Minister under political siege, the government and the
majority party were in a hurry to get this complicated and
troublesome bill off their to-do list. By placing the bill on a
legislative fast-track, the government could be assured that the
conciliation conference would be over quickly. This political
pressure resulted in some improvements, such as interoperability,
where industry analysts are somewhat relieved at the results, but a
number of crucial elements remain unchanged, notably the lack of
deterrent penalties.
¶13. (SBU) COMMENT AND ACTION REQUEST. The next six months will
provide some limited opportunities to fine-tune the bill, notably in
the drafting of implementing regulations, which the GOF can issue by
decree. Other options would be to raise examination of the
legislation in light of other EU member state transpositions as well
as WIPO and TRIPS commitments. Post would appreciate Washington's
cleared interagency guidance, including any legal analysis regarding
the legislation's impact. End Comment.
Stapleton
If there was threat that Apple “would pull its business out of France,” let them. Better yet, boycott the company in France. █
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend
=> Techrights
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (3851b).