Slashdot Mirror

The article ignores the fact that Apple has licensed FairPlay from Veridisc. It was not created in-house. Now, they may have negotiated themselves an exclusive license for some period of time, and more power to 'em, but this is NOT "Apple imposing an Apple-proprietary standard" as some would have us believe.

Veridisc serves as a gatekeeper for all media and software files that allows the originators to maintain control over distribution and revenue. In its simplest form, Veridisc resides on a computer and uses an entry code mechanism to permit convenient audio/video play and links users to complimentary information and merchandising opportunities.

Veridisc serves as a gatekeeper for all media and software files that allows the originators to maintain control over distribution and revenue. In its simplest form, Veridisc resides on a computer and uses an entry code mechanism to permit convenient audio/video play and links users to complimentary information and merchandising opportunities.

First, the full Apple statement, since it's not referenced in the summary:

"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and other laws. We strongly caution Real and their customers that when we update our iPod software from time to time it is highly likely that Real's Harmony technology will cease to work with current and future iPods."

- Regarding the DMCA: you can't fault Apple for using a law on the books - passed by Congress (unanimously by the Senate), and signed into law by President Clinton - to protect its own business interests. If you don't like the DMCA, or aspects of copyright law in general, work to change the law(s), but don't fault companies or individuals for conducting themselves within the bounds of those laws while they are in force.

- What Apple says regarding breakage is true. Some might argue that any breakage would be intentional; however, you can certainly also agree that otherwise benign changes to the iPod or its firmware may indeed break Real's reverse engineering. Intentional or no, this would still leave customers who have purchased songs via Real out in the cold, which ultimately, to the average customer, reflects poorly on Apple and the iPod (moreso than on Real). Does Apple, or its customers, really want an environment where any changes to the iPod to add functionality or features can break customers' music that they've ostensibly legitimately purchased?

- The word "hackers" was successfully co-opted long, long, long ago ("a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system"), so don't fault Apple's (currently correct and appropriate) use of the word, and save us the tiresome lectures.

That said, yes, Apple could sublicense Fairplay, as they have done with Motorola. But still, it means both parties must agree, and doesn't excuse Real.

Others remember the continued arrogance and mistakes regarding OS licensing long ago. "Apple could potentially become the Microsoft of online music," they say. But this could only potentially happen by cannibalizing iPod sales. The iPod would be akin to the "PC"; the iTunes Music Store would be "Windows". (Remember: Microsoft never made computers). But for Apple, the iTunes Music Store is a break even proposition: its sole purpose from a business perspective is to drive iPod sales and adoption, and, to a lesser extent, adoption of other Apple products. Apple's iPod and hardware margins are to-die-for in the computer industry, while the iTunes Music Store, even after having sold 100 million songs, only recently made a "small profit". Additionally, Apple maintaining control over the whole process from end to end is one of the things that makes the iTunes/iPod experience so friendly and pleasing. This may no longer be true with other manufacturer's products.

I'm not arguing against for or against licensing here, only pointing out that it's more of a difficult situation than people make it out to be. The iTunes Music Store and the iPod, for Apple, are inextricably connected, at least currently. Allowing the iPod to work with other online music stores can be argued to hurt Apple's iTunes/iPod strategy, while allowing the iTunes Music Store to work with other players definitely hurts iPod sales. Sure, you can make all sorts of contrary arguments, but there are valid arguments just as contrary to those. All that said, Apple

It appears as though Apple still merely Licenses FairPlay from Veridisc, rather than own it outright.

FairPlay Explained ... from the company (not Apple) that created it.

I tried to create a content provider account, but I get an error when trying to register.

Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80004005'

anyone else have any luck?

Veridisc Registration Page

According to Forbes, Apple developed it themselves:

"Apple has over the last year been quietly developing a digital-rights management software technology called Fairplay. What it does is allow you to do things that generally you're already allowed to do with CDs."

Admittedly a non-technical description.

I think it's far more likely that Apple simply bought ought this "VeriDisc" company. Going by their web site (now accessable via IP address only) they haven't done anything since 2001...

I'm highly suspect of anyone who claims that Apple "licensed" FairPlay from a company which now no longer seems to exist...

• Yes, Apple's music files are encoded in AAC.
• Yes, AAC is an open standard, in that it is publically documented (for a reproduction fee to ISO), just not a free one, patent-wise or royalty-wise.
• Apple's AAC files are then protected with DRM using Apple's FairPlay (if this FairPlay is related to VeriDisc's FairPlay is unknown, Apple lists FairPlay under their Apple's copyright).
• If folks had bothered to read the article the DRM opportunity is pretty much what it was about, not the AAC format. FWIW FairPlay could be applied to mp3's too.
• As DRM goes FairPlay is pretty liberal and there have been few problems (Cory Doctorow's consistantly forgetting to un-license machines aside)
• Can FairPlay be broken? Probably, there are ways at getting to the AAC files via Apple's freely distributed QuickTime architecture (this is what iTunes uses).
• There's also the trivial exercise of using iTunes to burn a CD then re-ripping the music. Of course the music has then been lossily encoded twice, with different encoders, so it's sorta like listening to a copy of a tape of a FM broadcast.
• Ultimately though at US$1 a song & US$10/album most folks appear willing to own the music legitimately. Furthermore Apple has made it absurdly simple to share music locally via their iTunes software so most dorm & office style needs are handled that way.
• Of course, the article pretty much ignores if Apple wants to be in the Music or IP licensing business at all. They only gave MS their previous Apple-IP license when their mutual lawsuits seemed deadlocked for eternity. The Mac licensing program cannibalized their own sales before it was killed off, their FireWire licensing plan shot itself in the foot, there doesn't even seem to be much co-branding like used to happen with special speakers and such for Macs. These days Apple seems pretty intent on only doing things that directly support selling, or at least evangelizing, Mac hardware.

FairPlay is actually owned by Veridisc so it may not be up to Apple to choose who to licence it to (if at all).

http://64.244.235.240/explained_contentprovider.as p

This is wrong. Er, sorry, WRONG.

FairPlay doesn't belong to Apple, but to Veridisc, and anyone can get a licence, just the same for AAC. And Apple won't earn a dime on it.

check it out on Veridisc website

> The only thing the Zen doesn't do is sync up with iTunes...

That's a deal-breaker for me. I've used lots of jukebox programs on the Windows side, and I hated them all. Library management is their weakness. I was forced to revert to Winamp 2.x (no library management then) because the jukebox programs were useless. And on the Mac side (where I spend 90% of my time, there hasn't really been much effort put into jukebox/MP3 programs since we've had iTunes for so long--which does implement library management properly.

MPEG-4 AAC is not a "propietary Apple format." It's an MPEG standard just like MPEG-1 Layer 3 ("MP3"), and you are dumb.

As far as the protected AAC files from the iTMS, other online music stores could if they wish license the same FairPlay DRM technology Apple uses.

So MPEG-4 AAC is not proprietary, and neither the AAC format nor the DRM technology is specific to Apple.

> and play a propietary Apple format [sic]... which doesn't bother me one bit to be honest

Bothers me, more than a bit. I like the iTunes music store and don't want to have to transcode all the music I've bought there. I also don't much care for the WMA stores and the way their DRM works. It's not as straightforward to me as Apple's "Authorize/Deauthorize Computer" options.

> battery problems

Ooooh, battery problems. Oh, no! By the time the battery dies, I'll be ready for a bigger iPod. I'll probably get one of those $50 replacement batteries anyway, just because $50 is good for a FireWire hard drive, but I wouldn't mind buying a new iPod in three years.

> and a lower cost

This is really all there is. This is what it's all about for all you cheapskates. Go ahead and buy the cheap player if that's all that matters to you. To me, these plastic POS's are just as crappy as my friend's Compaq laptop--flimsy, plastic, and feels like it was assembled by 8-year-olds in a Mexican sweatshop. I'll take my metal iPod and aluminum laptop and you can play with a player that looks like a toy to match your flimsy plastic computer.

AAC is open and free to implement, but Apple has a patent on the DRM stuff they added on top.

Actually, no they don't, they licensed the DRM wrapper whole from a company called VeriDisc. Veridisc would be the one who still owns the technology.

So that won't be free and they aren't licensing it to anybody.

What makes you so sure about that? You're very possibly right, but has anyone tried to license the iTunes Fairplay drm features for use in a non-iPod mp3 player? If not, how do you know Apple is unwilling?