Slashdot Mirror
Apple Uses DMCA to Halt DVD burning
VValdo writes "According to news.com, Apple has warned one of its own dealers to stop handing out a patch to allow DVD burning with iDVD on non-Apple hardware." Mmmmm, laws.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Apple the next microsoft.... Oh, yeah, here's some great technology, but if you don't use it with our hardware, and our software, well then we'll get nasty on your ass... Oh and by the way, you also void your warranty...
What next? Nvidia sues end users over moving their video cards from their AMD to their Intel systems? WTF???
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
If you want to use Apple's software is worth using, it's worth compensating Apple for it's development. If you want to use a non-Apple DVD writer, that's fine - the OS will let you. Just grab one of the other award-winning, easy to use, and powerful DVD authoring apps out there that are free. Now, where did I see those...
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
Seems like Apple has now joined those with the germ....I was getting close to considering apple cool for its unix factor, oh well I'll wait another 10 years for the next recovery of cool facotedr I guess.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
I'm not familiar with the mac systems, but how the hell is this circumvent copy protection? While Apple obviously has these folks by the balls (since they primarily sell macs), I would think that this threat would be empty if somebody else decided to do it. Anybody have more info?
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Company uses DMCA to prevent competition, film at 11.
It's the same old story, the DMCA is used to stop the use or development of technology that would compete with that of the original corporation, doesn't require the original corporation to change and improve their tech to stay competitive, yet we're to believe the well-compensated politicians that the DMCA doesn't inhibit innovation?
Feh.
Or don't think too different, or our lawyers will beat you to a pulp.
It's funny how apple advertises with free speech heroes, but then use lawyers and an unfair law to stifle speech.
The first most obvious problem is that apple should be 'giving away' the software with there DVD drive not giving you the software expecting you to buy there DVD drive.
If I buy a car from ford, ford expect me to get the car fixed and repaired using only ford authorised mechnics and parts (which they make money on?).
A lot of people will do this, and it keeps the resale value of the car higher.
But, there's nothing to stop me using anyones parts and getting anyone to fix the car.
(n.b. I know there's certian things you need to be authorised to do to cars in places like france)
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Please not Apple provides professional DVD burning software: DVD Studio Pro, allowing you to burn on any drive for $1000.
Are they within their rights? Sure. Is this wrong? Perhaps.
-Stu
Just a stupid question : could Microsoft use the same trick to disallow linux on the XBox ?
The DMCA was the wrong club to use in closing this loophole.
iDVD is a nifty, free application that you get from Apple as a "reward" for buying an Apple-supplied DVD burner (the Superdrive). It just so happens that you get the Superdrive by buying a Mac that includes one. They don't sell it as an aftermarket accessory.
That's no surprise - as we've all debated to death here, Apple is not a software company or a peripheral company. They're a hardware vendor, and selling computers is how they make enough money to justify writing cool apps like iDVD and high-octane operating systems like MacOS X. If you patch their software (and not all Apple software is Open Source, just the core OS) to allow it to work with hardware they didn't intend it to, you're looking at Apple losing potential hardware sales.
There are other DVD authoring programs on the market, I'm sure - just not free ones from Apple. Oh well. If you want to use iDVD, buy a Mac with a Superdrive. Otherwise, buy your authoring program separately - that doesn't bug me at all.
However, using the DMCA warclub was stupid on their part. While effective, the DMCA is just the tool that pisses off folks like the Slashdot community - and in Apple's quest to boost market share and gain presence in the geek community those are good people to have on your side. OWC is a Apple dealer - a quick "come to Jesus" call from their Apple sales rep over the issue probably would have been sufficient to shut it down.
Bad PR move, Apple.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
This seems way too odd for Apple. While I don't recall them ever stating an explicit opinion on the DMCA, we know that they've embraced MP3s without restrictions, don't put Product Activation in their OS (and recently started selling a 5-license Family Pack of OS X for $200), and Steve Jobs has publically stated that Piracy (in relation to Music, but it can be extended to all media) is a social problem, not a technological one, and technical efforts to combat it will fail. In short, they haven't been the biggest proponent of draconian copyright protection measures.
Now, they seem to be invoking the DMCA to protect what seems to be a small revenue stream: people who already have Macs without an internal DVD burner and want to use iDVD with an external burner. Apple would rather have them buy a new Mac. Truth be told, however, lots of people in this position will buy a new Mac anyway. In truth, the number of people who would use this patch is quite small. Does Apple really think acting belligerent with third-party hardware vendors will lead to increased sales? Furthermore, what right does Apple have to limit their software to working on only internal drives when we all know that there's no technological reason for it? That sounds fishy to me, but totally legal under the DMCA.
The Conspiracy Theorist (and unabashed Apple fanatic) in me wants to believe that Apple knows that this action wouldn't hold water in court, and is trying to find a third-party who is big enough to challenge it, and get the DMCA overturned, so it can protect its future (and much bigger) revenue stream coming from Digital Hub-type applications and devices!
Then again, the realist in me believes that Apple is all in favor of a liberal approach to copyright protection only as long as it can make more money that way.
is for apple to allow OEM's to bundle a crippled version of iDVD which will only work with the manufacturers drive (like so many OEM cd burner software bundles). Apple could then licence each manufacturer/bundler to make extra money on the software, rather than buying it directly from Apple. After all, the margins on hardware aren't that great, and no-one is going to buy a brand new Mac just for the superdrive, especially if you just got one a few months back.
Another possible solution is for Apple to release their own external FireWire DVD-RW superdrive product and bundle iDVD with it.
There is other software that will work with 3rd party external drives, Final Cut Pro does as far as I know (but I could be wrong).
Also, couldn't Apple allow the sale and installation of Apple branded SuperDrives a Apple stores and authorised dealers as upgrades for G4 Macs? It's not as if there is a shortage of these drives at the moment. That way they could sell them at whatever cost they wanted.
I know these are not great solutions, the best solution would be for Apple to allow this kind of thing to happen and not cripple their software in this way, but hey, it's probably not going to happen.
You are correct. iDVD is NOT a *free* program to just give to everyone. iDVD is part of the SuperDrive package. If you do not purchase an Apple SuperDrive, then you do not have rights to iDVD. You can purchase an internal SuperDrive after the fact form Apple to put in your Tower, and guess what, you get iDVD. OWC was freely distributing Apple's software, which was NOT free. On top of that, Apple must pay a licensing fee for every DVD encoder it ships. If Apple didn't bundle iDVD with the SuperDrive, but just gave it away freely, they would have to pay a licensing fee (you wouldn't, they would) for every copy shipped/downloaded. Imagine, they sold 20,000 SuperDrives, but 50,000 copies of iDVD were distributed? They'd be paying for other people *free* access to encoding DVD's. If you want to hack, hack. If you want to encode DVD's without proper authorization, encode. But wehy do you expect Apple to pay for you to do this? Jeesh...
If you ask me, I say this is a good use of the DMCA. That's right, a good use.
Apple is using the law to prevent people from modifying it's software with a third-party patch that enables the software to do something it wasn't intended to do.
What's wrong with that? Picture the average Mac user who's gonna use this software. Now picture the same person when he burns a bunch of coasters, or the program keeps crashing, or something worse. Who's he gonna blame? Apple, because they made the iDVD software, right? Even though though it was the third-party patch that allowed him to run the software on unsupported hardware in the first place.
The fact is, unsupported means unsupported. It's as simple as that. You can bet your sweet ass that [insert company name here] doesn't want to hear about it when their Windows software doesn't work under Wine or Lindows. It's the same thing. Think of Wine as the "patch" that allows you to run the software in an unsupported environment.
I say cheers to apple for standing up for their rights.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
Comment removed based on user account deletion
IANAL, but patching a program to create a derivative work which has the ability to write to other CD-burners is extremely similar to a "crack" like you find in the warez community for crippleware demo versions. How the DMCA applies to this I don't understand, then again I get the impression you can apply it to almost anything.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
iDVD is an application that comes bundled with apple SuperDrives. It is not freely available (update patches are, but the actual application is not).
Wether or not you think apple should open it up to work with other DVD burners is irrelevant. Apple worte the software, bundled it with thier DVD burners, and sold it.
The only people who would have access to iDVD besides the people who bought a superdrive are the people who pirated it or people who used to have a superdrive, but now use another burner.
Apple put into the license agreement that you can only use the software on apple approved (read superdrive) dvd burners. Any other usage of the software is against the license agreement.
Everyone here cries foul when someone violates the GPL, and no one chastises the author of the software for it (recent xvid fiasco) but if it's another license, whoooo boy, watch out. the hypocricy comes out to play!
If there was any vestige of hope that Apple, originator of the infamous "look-and-feel" copyright law suits, was a "good guy," it has quashed it by abusing the DMCA. Apple developed iDVD to make Macs more attractive, so it released it free of charge. It hoped that people would use it on SuperDrives.
Other World Computing didn't circumvent a copy-protection scheme, it circumvented a business model. You know, like writing a Perl script for use with the freely distributed Cue Cat, or a Java program to administer an AirPort base station. I bought an AirPort, because it was cheaper than anything comparable at the time. I'm sure Apple expected me to buy a couple of Macs to go with it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Can I have some of the crack you're smoking?
Just because Apple provides iDVD for free doesn't mean it's Free in the speech sense. You are NOT allowed to modify it, which is exactly what has happened here and why the DMCA has been invoked.
-- The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Apple pays for an MPEG 2 liscence for iDVD. iDVD is on the restore disk. If apple allowed this hack to be distributed they would have to pay a liscencing fee for every restore disk w/ iDVD rather than just the Macs that come with a superdrive.
I think this is the first legitmate use of the DMCA in history. Apple should be applauded for the proper use of such laws - not berated for suspected misuse.
___________________________
I'm not a geek, but I play one on TV.
You should consider reading the article, or maybe even some of the more intelligent comments posted above. None of what Apple has done in this case deserves this sort of moronic knee-jerk reaction.
Think - you develop Cool Gubbins(tm) to sell at $200 and to market it you develop the Cool Gubbins(tm) App which you give away free just to raise interest. If another vendor develops a Handy Widget(tm) which does the same job, they are just benefiting from the first companies efforts if the App is ported. Let them write their own, or do your own at home.
This is a theft issue, even if some morons see it as a "They're evil 'cos they won't give us stuff for free" issue. If you like what Apple does, don't try and put them out of business.
They make most of their money on hardware. As DVD writable drives become PC, er, mass-market devices their costs are going down. What Apple doesn't want is people bypassing the profit-drenched Apple DVD drives for whitebox DVD drives, at least not yet.
Maybe in a couple of years when DVD writables achieve a more ubiquitous status and can be bought for the same $79-129 price that most whitebox CDR drives can be had for, Apple will modify their stance for upgraders and the like. But if they hold their ground until DVD writable prices are low enough, it will become an included and not extra-cost option in Macs and the bitching about third party drives will be moot, since everyone with a Mac will have an Apple one anyway.
Why do APPL care if a third party supplies software that allows their users to save iDVD projects to an external drive ? I am sure there are plenty of Mac users out there with no superdrive access. It's just beyond me, and makes me wonder what's is at stake here ? A way to sell more hardware or a really IP issue ...?
iDVD is licensed for free to anyone who has purchased a Mac with a SuperDrive. So, it's not exactly free; it's sort of included with the price you pay for the computer. This patch allows it to be used on other Macs that were not purchased with the SuperDrive, so Apple is not getting money for the drive to pay for the software.
The solution here is to start offering the software commercially for a fee, and still bundle it free with SuperDrive-equipped Macs. That way, anyone who wants to use it with another drive can buy the software, and anyone who doesn't pay for it is simply pirating it.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
However, this article snapped me out of my "Stephen Jobs field effect" judgement fog
It's called the Reality Distortion Field, or RDF.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Apple provide software for FREE. Apple Good.
/.ers dont like) and lawyers (who no one likes) to do it.
Apple put limitations on the FREE software. Apple Bad.
Apple produce the software to make the drives they sell more attractive.
So it's not unreasonable to protect the software, or to try to protect the software - otherwise it loses its purpose and they will simply drop it.
I think what grates with most people is the way they use the law (that
BUT. How the fuck else can they do it? I doubt they leapt straight to the 'cuff 'em' stage. If you use lawyers you use the law.
Let's say I buy a Mac with SuperDrive and it comes with a copy of iDVD on CD-ROM. Let's say further that I want the high horsepower of DVD Studio Pro rather than the adequate-but-underpowered iDVD.
I have every right under the doctrine of first sale to sell my CD-ROM of iDVD to anyone who wants it, just as I have the right to sell that goofy one-button mouse that I'll be replacing with a multibutton wireless model.
"Oh, but that's a violation of the license!" Judge Pregerson put it best in his Softman _v_ Adobe ruling: "The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here is a sale and not a license."
Those of you who argue that it is impossible to get a copy of iDVD without buying a SuperDrive-loaded Mac are incorrect. Buy my copy. Those of you who argue that Apple has the right to control how their product is used once they have sold it are incorrect. Those of you who argue that the restriction placed on iDVD use is in any way covered by the DMCA are incorrect.
None of that changes the fact that the company with more money can and will crush the company with less money -- or that the company with less money will fold instantly if its business model requires staying on good terms with the company with more money, which is the case in this particular instance.
It's all a stinking, festering shitpile.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
The fact is that any software or hardware utilizing DVD technologies has to pay a licence fee.
I clearly recall a discussion recently where it was revealed that Apple do not pay any such recording licence fees on iDVD but instead on the SuperDrive in order to keep costs down.
By allowing people to distribute hacks to let their software work on other drives (which will have just the standard drive licences, not those associated with DVD encoding etc) Apple will loose their position with the DVD licencing authority and end up having to pay such licences for every copy of iDVD.
Yes, perhaps they should have done this but the fact is the software itself is free. Windows doesn't even come with DVD playback let alone authoring and I don't recall anything similar in a Linux distro.
Apple do offer DVD Studio Pro for $1000 that is fully licenced and will work with any mac-compatible DVD-R drive or alternatively pick up a copy of Roxio Toast 5 Titanium for $100.
Not everything in life is free.
Get used to it.
[)amien
They don't make a single penny on iDVD per se, but on the drives it supports - if somebody now makes iDVD work with third-party burners, they take away the only reason why it is provided at all (for free).
I think we can all agree that Apple is within its rights (at least legally) to discourage this sort of thing: it's their software, and they don't want it patched to work on non-Apple hardware, since the whole point of the free software is to sell expensive Apple hardware. Fine, good.
But it's still an ethical crime -- this is a patch to Apple's well-written program to allow it to work on non-Apple DVD burners. You're still using Apple hardware to run iDVD in the first place, for crying out loud -- it may not be the latest and greatest machine (and if it's a slower processor, it may take ages to do the job), but it's still Apple's motherboard.
Saying "Apple sells hardware, not software" is just false, because they charge over $100 for the latest OS and $50 for AppleWorks -- those two just off the top of my head. Even if it were true, it's not a good reason.
Without meaning to paint Slashdotters with a broad brush, I think I can safely say we'd be in a unified uproar if HP or Compaq used the same reason to prevent third-party patches to their included CD or DVD-burning software, or to prevent Linux OSes from accessing the burner altogether.
And we'd be justified in doing so, because once you buy the machine and/or download the software, it's yours to do with as you please. If I have the moral right to back up my CD-ROMs and DVDs using my home computer, I have the same moral right to patch my DVD-burning software to run on any hardware I happen to own.
Apple's license agreement says that you are not to modify or patch iDVD or distribute any modified binary. Perhaps using the four-letter word in the cease-and-desist was a bit of overkill, but it doesn't change the fact that what they did was a violation of the iDVD license.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
If I buy a car from ford, ford expect me to get the car fixed and repaired using only ford authorised mechnics and parts (which they make money on?).
Actually, they do. When your engine has a problem, it flicks on the "check engine" light and generates a code in the car's internal computer. These codes are not standard; they're custom to each manufacturer, and only a Ford repairman has the equipment and reference guide to interpret them. Your average non-branded mechanic has neither the technology nor the information to interpret those codes.
Now, there's some noise being made about this, and independent mechanics are pushing dealers to publish those codes so that they don't have a monopoly on maintenance. But so far, to my knowledge, they've been unsuccessful.
Just letting you know your example was more accurate than you thought.
I agree -- my post was pointing out the obvious, not berating Apple.
However, your comparison of a plagarized Master's Thesis is inaccurate. The patch software DIDN'T plagarize, it was an add-on to the software. Similar to further research. "Hey! You can also do this just by adding this!"
I got the impression from the story that Otherworld Computing was selling a 3rd party add-on/patch and NOT patched versions of iDVD. iDVD was still separate and this program was run to make a change. There is a world of difference.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
If they only wanted users of thier drives to use it, they should have only distributed it with thier drives. They made it part of the iTools suite, giving it to everyone who buys X. To pull this now is getting close to a bait and switch, but since it was free (as in beer), the injury is minimal.
Although, since the iTools are a big selling point of X, one could aruge that they are a part of the OS package and are therefore paid for. Then it really looks like a bait and switch, except the terms were there all along, buried in the EULA.
It's not like these people are trying to pirate anything, they're just trying to use the software they leaglly paid for (not counting the leeches who just bummed the disc from thier buddies).
All Apple is accomplishing is throwing more of thier karma capitol into the fire. The group of people this effects is small enough to not hurt Apple too much, even if they get pissed off and go elsewhere. My guess is that this is a knee-jerk reaction to what they percieved as a threat to thier control of the platform. A lot of people feel that such control is an necessary part of making the Mac different from other systems.
Before you call this a troll, consider this: What you you say if MS were to pull the same thing? (they dont make drives or editing software, it's just an illustration)
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
One small problem- AFAIK, iDVD does not come on a seperate CD-ROM. It comes bundled on your recovery CD-ROM. So how exactly do you go about selling your copy of iDVD? You could make a copy of the CD, but that's piracy, since you you still have your original. And it's pretty well accepted that piracy is illegal.
If you want to hack iDVD to do whatever you want, feel free. But I don't particularly see a problem with Apple asking one of it's retailers to not commercially distribute a patch that does so.
I find it highly ammusing that everybody wants software for free, but then gets into an uproar when the developer tries to have some control over how the software is used. If you have that much of a problem with it, buy some other DVD-authoring software that works with 3rd party drives. Why is this such a big deal?
The dry fish swims alone.
No really. It is not possible to legally get a free copy of iDVD without the purchase of a Super-Drive equipped Macintosh. You cannot download it for free off of Apple's servers. Of course, you can buy it from the Apple Store but if you notice the system requirements, it says
So, Apple has it spelled out pretty clearly (IMHO, and I am willing to bet that it is also somewhere in the EULA but perhaps not as clearly...any iDVD owners wish to clarify?) that iDVD is only for use with a super-drive equipped Macintosh.Now, is this a DMCA issue? It probably shouldn't have been. I would bet that Apple could have probably just asked nicely* and Other World would have stopped...I base that on this quote:
IMHO, Apple is not in the wrong here as far as protecting themselves. But they probably shouldn't have used the DMCA to do it. They could have probably done it much more gracefully and in a way that wouldn't piss off the*of course, I am often a naive fool, so maybe asking nicely wouldn't have worked in the real world...
Cheers. :)
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
This is actually a good move on Apple's part, because it's going to help sheild them from the wrath of the MPAA, should the hammer ever fall that way. Apple is using the DMCA to protect itself from the same, and I can't blame them for it.
This is not so much an issue of wanting control of the hardware as an issue of putting up the appearance that they're trying to fight the wholesale duplication of DVDs. Call it a legalistic "Don't Steal Movies" disclaimer.
Tangental to the subject: why bother with DivX? Most of the rips I've seen are horrible quality, a new DVD costs between $15-25 and is usually loaded with special features. Given that a movie is a significantly different experience than a collection of songs from one artist and costs significantly more to produce, I'd say that the money spent on DVDs is well worth it.
blog |
There are plenty of other solutions (Toast, for instance) that allow you to create DVDs. iDVD just provides a nice package to make it simple. Technically, iDVD can (and should) be decoupled from the hardware. Apple has chosen not to, and there's nothing really wrong with that. I don't think it will have the desired effect, but it's not my decision. I would think that you get them hooked on the software, so when they do upgrade they'll stick with the platform.
/. people would buy the hardware, Apple can bring you a decent gui front end to make your life simpler. One day I got tired of mucking with my config.sys and my autoexec.bat and bought a Mac. Things have been much easier since the.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of some of Apple's actions, but I do like their products. If you notice the trend, Apple tends to sell products that help drive hardware sales. The iPod with only Mac support to start is a perfect example. Sure, they should allow iDVD to work with third-party drives, since I wouldn't expect most people to upgrade their computers just to get the Superdrive. And what if you *do* get that and want to upgrade it to a faster one 2 years down the road.
Of course, the other issue is support. To make plug and play work as (nearly) flawlessly as it does on the Mac, it's easier to support a single chipset than multiple ones. And even if Apple let manufacturers create their own drivers/hacks, Apple gets blamed if something doesn't work properly. I hate to say it, but with only a 5% market share you've only got so many resources.
Finally, a note on Mac pricing. Sure, they're a little more expensive. Sure, the OS X upgrades have been a little gauging. But you're not buying a computer and an OS, you're buying a system. You can either spend the time configuring Linux/Windows on your own to get all your hardware supported and everything working just right, or you can buy a Mac. I realize "It just works" is overused and cliche, but to a large extent that's how things have worked for me. Sure, I could into the guts of my system and hack, but I don't have to. Apple's brought *nix to the masses (well, 5%) and they've done it pretty darn well. If you crazy
Before you all get too worked up over this, please read this:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020812/120170_1.html
This happened back on August 12th (a tad old to be "news"). Other World Computing's story back then was that Apple *requested* that they drop their software and support (because it violates the iDVD license).
There was *no* mention of the DMCA, and no need to invoke it as Apple's iDVD license is quite clear.
Note that the reference to the DMCA in the article is purely the quote of Other World Computing's president. There is no quote from any document they received from Apple.
Note too that this is the same silly news site that manufactured the "Apple + Sun = true love and Star Office for OS X" story.
Lacking any actual proof, beyond someone's say-so who has an axe to grind, reported on a flaky news site, I'm going to presume that Apple is innocent here.
After all, who would you believe, a company that has taken the RIAA to task over their anti-piracy excesses, or one who tried to capitalize on someone else's hard work in order to compete with them?
I am breaking with tradition, and ending with a quote not from Mothra, but from her friend, Steve Jobs:
"Apple strives to protect the rights of both intellectual property owners and consumers alike and believes there is a 'middle path' in digital music distribution which actively discourages the theft of music, while at the same time preserving consumers rights to manage and listen to their legally acquired music on whatever devices they own,"
Steve Jobs, 2002 Grammy Awards, as reported on http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020227/1/2jun2.html.
If the DMCA applied to automobiles, there would be a lot of criminals amongst us. Everyday there are people modifying their vehicles, and there are companies that provide kits to do it. Now I'm in no way a "shop-jockey", but I do believe that some of these kits modify the electronics components as well. Are the auto manufaturers going to be sueing everyone left and right now, too? And what about modifications I do to my home? Because the builder has copyrighted the design, will I be in legal trouble under some broad term in the DMCA for remodeling it? The idiots who came up with this law, and those that passed it, need the big proverbial stick up-side the head.
I'm surprised, but then, not too surprised, at the number of posts here that castigate Apple as "evil" for doing this. They are in keeping with the widespread notion that "belief" in open souce/free software gives you a right to steal with impunity. I doubt that's what Stallman had in mind.
Many seem to argue that Apple has a moral obligation to allow anyone to reverse engineer any of their products and do with them as they see fit. Some appear upset because Apple is using open source in a commercial product, rather than simply making their own products open source. Others just seem to be on a sophomoric rant against all businesses, as if they are the first in human history to notice issues with unbridled self-interest.
What obligation does Apple have to pay attention to any of those opinions?
I really don't care what Apple does or doesn't do with iDVD -- the ongoing emphasis on copying music and movies plays right into the hands of the media corporations, obscures the true importance of this copyright debate, and diminshes the chances to defeat some really bad legislation -- but a quick check of my OS X license shows it contains the standard prohibitions of disassembly, reverse engineering, etc. Such language has been used in proprietary software licenses for decades. If you violate those terms, you risk Apple's reprisal. Offense should be taken only by those who believe open source/free software represents a moral crusade to eliminate all closed souce. To the contrary, open source and free software are interesting and effective development and distribution models. They are not something to "believe in".
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Apple Computer has been in favor of copy protection and incompatibility since the days of the Apple ][. Study the file formats used in the apple disk for apple programs (e.g., *.bas) and compare them with the file formats used at the same time on CP/M systems. Apple's formats were non-portable, with no technical advantage gained from that. Their strange floppy disk formats can be defended on the grounds that they allowed more info to be packed onto each disk, but the same defense doesn't work for their proprietary file formats.
To be fair, this is something that Apple keeps waffeling about. Sometimes it thinks it's a hardware company, and wants file specs to be open. At other times it thinks that it's file formats are the crown jewels. (A silly attitude, if you ask me, but I'm not the one calling the shots.) The result is that Apple tends to offer the worst of both worlds, without reaping the benefits of either.
This action fits right in with the standard schitzo nature of Apple.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
With the very sketchy information available, it looks like Apple's actual objection may be conventional (pre-DMCA-style) copyright infringement, where copies of their software (or a derivative work of their software) is being redistributed by Apple dealers. If that is the case, then DMCA is probably relevant only because of the notification mechanism that it created.
DMCA was a pretty big law that covers a lot of topics, and some parts of it are worse than others. The anti-circumvention part is the really goofy part, and shouldn't be confused with the other more reasonable parts.
The notification part of DMCA may be a little iffy because of the guilty-until-proven-innocent abuse that it allows, but the basic idea and motivation behind it was sound and justifiable. (Unlike the anti-circumvention part, which is pure evil created with evil intent.) And then there's other parts that I've never even read, like the stuff about boat hull designs (?!), so I can't say if they're sensible or not. Journalists that are going to report about DMCA-related incidents, need to read up on it, so they don't misreport on it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The problem with this is that standing on the sidewalk, you do NOT receive the same benefits as those ticket paying customers. You get a reduced benefit, namely sound quality, stage view, drink service, etc.
With iDVD, you get FULL benefit of the software once you've illegally modified it. There is no degredation of your benefit based on the fact that you're illegally using it.
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
I'm a PC user. I once owned an Apple ][c back in the day (loved it and even upgraded it to 1 Meg of RAM), but when I first tried the Mac (the original Mac) I hated the keyboard so much that I walked away and never went back.
But I do know why Apple is doing what they are doing. It's really simple, when you consider their hardware provider philosophy. Apples are marketed as being very easy to use, and being very reliable. They don't crash (or so they say). One of the principal reasons why the Microsoft OS's are much more crash-happy then Apple's OS's is because Apple doesn't attempt to make their OS compatable with every piece of hardware under the sun. They don't want third-party DVD burners because some of them won't work, and people with Apples will start complaining about how their systems are crashing.
I think that Apple is much more concerned with potential hardware compatibility issues than anything else, in order to protect the "sanctity" of their OS reliability.
What does this do? It drives out the upgraders. But Apple isn't marketing to the upgraders. They are selling new machines, not an OS like Microsoft does. They see little profit in attempting to reconcile old hardware with a new OS. And yes, while I know the hardware in this case (external DVD burners) is new, the system hardware is likely to be not new, and the DVD burners have not been waved over by Apple engineers.
This, by the way, is not evil. When I bought my Dell Dimension 8100 two years ago, Dell promised me an upgrade to XP for $20. I had to wait an additional six months or so after XP came out to get the upgrade, because Dell put a considerable amount of effort into patching the bios, etc. and updating their software package to ensure that upgrading XP wouldn't fsck my computer. As a result, I have a very reliable computer running XP, which is much more reliable than my HP notebook that came with XP preinstalled. I normally keep the machine on ALL of the time. Most of the time I reboot only because Microsoft Update tells me to (^_^).
Dell's acts here had a similar motiviation as Apple's (protect system reliability). As a user, I certainly preferred Dell's open-system approach, but Apple's closed-system approach is a viable model. If you don't like it, don't buy Apple. It's that simple.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
I understood the reason that Apple stop people distributing these cracks is that Apple have to pay a licensing fee for the MPEG2 encoding algorithms used in iDVD. Since they effectively give away the software there is no way to track sales and pay the fee. So Apple struck a deal to pay based on sales of the SuperDrive instead - since iDVD can only be used with the SuperDrive.
If people start cracking iDVD to work with someone else's drives then Apple end up effectively breaking their agreement with MPLA. Even though it's not their fault, their software is being used without the fee having been paid. Apple have to enforce the license or stop giving it away and sell it instead.
look like a childs game. Apple has not only proprietary software, but hardware as well. Jobs has done what is making Gates green with envy..
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A - Microsoft doesn't manufacture PCs
then what's this?
B - Microsoft doesn't freely distibute Windows on a PC that they have sold
The XBox operating system is based on a stripped-down version of Microsoft Windows 2000.
Besides, even if you don't count the XBox, what happens when hardware prices fall so much that the price of a Windows license becomes more than half the cost of a new computer system? Then who made most of the computer?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Saying "Apple sells hardware, not software" is just false, because they charge over $100 for the latest OS and $50 for AppleWorks
Apple's primary competition charges $300 for the latest desktop OS (Windows XP Professional) and $400 for its office suite. At those prices, Apple is practically giving them away, no?
Will I retire or break 10K?
[Only a habitual user of freebase cocaine would believe that] it really costs $19.95 to ship a CD.
What does it cost to produce a glass master and replicate the run of CDs? What does it cost for jewel case? What does it cost to print paper manuals and boxes? What does it cost to hire wage earners to put the CDs and manuals in the boxes? What does it cost to handle the payroll and benefits of said wage earners? What does it cost to insure the business? What does it cost to ship them and insure them?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I never claimed that I did. Though I notice that some people have modded me down simply because they didn't agree with me or think I'm a troll. I don't worry as I have plenty of good karma and I know my position is correct.
The fact is, I am a Mac user and have been with Apple since the days of the IIe. The reason this DMCA thing upsets me so much is that Steve Jobs should know better than to order this kind of thing. Not only that, but as a Mac user, I am always glad to see 3rd party options and competition between vendors on my platform because it *drives prices down*. When Apple uses the DMCA against its own 3rd party providers, it sends a message of "don't bother porting your hardware to the Mac" and that is why I am upset. I may love Apple and the Mac, but I'm not afraid to criticize them when they deserve it.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Was thinking of getting one of those milky plastic ones. I thought Jobs had mellowed with age, I guess not.
No use buying hardware from an evil RMS type. Who knows what's next? Must use Apple speakers, one button mouse, 'approved' software?
A "free" version bundled with their hardware which works only with their hardware (on which they've paid a licensing fee)... and a $29.95 version which works with third-party hardware and on which they'd pay a licensing fee per-SOFTWARE_copy?
They could pay the licensing fee out of that, make a little money, make their dealers and third-party add-on providers and customers happy... seems like a win-win-win-win scenario to me.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I call bullshit!
.BAS file format was incompatible because those files were compiled for the 65C02 processor and called AppleSoft specific "tokens" that resided in AppleSoft BASIC in ROM. Essentially, this code is the same concept as Java bytecode, in that the ASCII coded BASIC programs were pre-compiled into calls for ROM based tokens. This used less disk space for the program, and translated to faster execution as it would remove the ASCII parsing step.
.BAS files would need a 6502 -> 80x86, big ->little endian conversion and a token library to mimic Apple's.
The Apple ][ BASIC file format was straight ASCII text. The
Microsoft reverse engineered much of Apple's ROM (a task made easier by the fact that they produced an earlier version of Apple BASIC), and sold this IP to other companies which made 100% compatible clones (Franklin, Laser 128). Nothing prevented any Apple II series programs from running on these clones, as they shared the same processors as the Apple IIs.
If Microsoft wanted to, it could have made code translators for AppleSoft Basic files, but it didn't see a need. Most ASCII basic files would directly translate. The
-- Len
I'm not sure where I stand regards to Apple's idvd demand (especially using DMCA as the reason), but I just started thinking about their digital hub strategy and sort of understand where they might be coming from. Here's an example:
Let's say a consumer is looking for a new stereo system. In part, their decision will come down to the usability of it's interface (digital tuner vs. knob, layout of presets...). Companies invest resources to make products easier to use.
Now lets say that stereos evolve so that the interface is software based. Apple releases a stereo system called istereo which has an amazingly intuitive interface (yet standard hardware components -as is generally the case today). Someone comes up with a way to get the software istereo portion of this product to work with non apple equipment. Now there is nothing to differentiate Apple's products with standard software-interface based hardware.
I think Apple's move has less to do with traditional software mod's than with the direction that Apple wants to -integrate- it's software with traditional hardware.
What's the difference between a software based interface that's tied to a particular product and a hardware based interface that's tied to the product?
If Apple has to pay this fee on the SuperDrive, don't manufacturers of third-party DVD-Rs also have to pay this fee? And if they have paid their fees, just like Apple has, what's the problem with using iDVD with the third-party drives?
Also, if Apple was able to avoid paying the fee on iDVD because it pays the fee on the SuperDrive instead, why does it have to pay the fee for DVD Studio Pro? If I purchase a Mac w/SuperDrive, plus a copy of DVD Studio Pro, Apple has paid the fee for me twice; but if I purchase a Mac w/SuperDrive plus iDVD, Apple has paid the fee for me once.
Sounds like handwaving.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I guess a lot of the folks here saying this okay, this is Apple's right, etc., these people must be big Apple fans.
Well, I'm an Apple fan, and I think this is ridiculous. If you sell or give away a product that's perfectly capable of doing something that's useful to the recipient, and you purposely turn off, or don't enable, that feature for whatever reason, you must be nuts not to expect that someone will figure out how to turn it.
If someone suggested this with regular, non-software items, they'd be laughed out of the boardroom. "You mean if someone discovers that free Apple hammers can hammer ANY nail, not just $3 Apple nails, we sue them for telling how?"
The guy was supplying something that was useful for iDVD owners. Apple was witholding this useful feature because they thought it would make them more money. What obligation do we have to Apple to keep the secret? None. They don't have the obligation to make their products as useful as possible, but that doesn't mean we should be prevented from finding new uses for them.
I don't feel sorry for Apple in this case. Anyone who sells any item should know, someone out there will take it apart and figure out how it works. And then they'll tell everybody else.
Copyright law, including the overbroad DMCA, basically allows companies to profit from keeping these kinds of secrets. Many of these secrets are inside the very products themselves. This means people will find those secrets. Does this seem like a stable, self-organizing free market to you?
was that Softman never ran the Adobe software he was selling, and never consented to the click-thru license. That meant that the EULA never had a chance to be in force, so the transaction between Softman and Adobe defaulted to being under copyright law.
So change that physical software on the CD then.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Steps:
1. Buy a mac that is capable of running iDVD (an older, non-superdrive mac will work)
2. Buy the iDVD2 upgrade cd from Apple for $29.95. No serial number is required.
3. Buy a Pioneer A-104 dvd burner from a third party reseller (OEM, non-branded version is around $350).
4. Install the Pioneer drive in place of your current cd drive.
Everyone wins - Apple gets their $30, you get the ease of iDVD without buying a brand new mac.
Of course, you have to use the Pioneer drive, but that drive gets pretty good reviews anyway.
1) All you succeed in doing is pointing out how little sense copyright makes in the context of digital information. Certainly if I can buy and own something I can sell it. But what if I have copies of it in archival backups, maybe even on read-only media? Shouldn't non-use of those copies be enough avoid copyright infringement after I sell? Making backup copies is fair use right?
2) As you can probably tell, the poster thinks EULA's are a bunch of hooey. Let's put it this way: They can either sell software like a book (i.e. on shelves in a store), and they have no say about what I do with it after I buy it, or they can make a contract with me specifying what I can do with their software (just like I have a contract for my apartment). They can't have it both ways, that is the whole point of copyright law, it supposed to give *all* the rules for the first method of sale. They can decide to exempt me from some rules, but they can't make up new ones. And unless I signed some piece of paper which both they and I have a copy of, I have a hard time saying that any contract was involved.
e.g. software stores should be set up like this: I go in, some guy explains to me the contract for a particular piece of software, what I can and can't do with it and what updates I am entitled to etc. I then sign it and he burns me a CD with the software that I made a contract for. All clean and nice eh? The bookstore model with a EULA is essentially a bait-and-switch.
The articlementionned that the patch was screwing around with Apple's own iDVD.
That's the wrong place to apply a patch.
Find the right place to patch. (Wrapper the driver that comes with the hardware and stick the patch in the wrapper.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
>> you did not PURCHASE your copy of iDVD. It came bundled with the computer
... I can't turn around and sell Adaptec Easy CD Creator because I never purchased it.
The price for the software license came "bundled" into the total purchase price as well, there's no distinction that any reasonably sane person can determine here. I exchanged a sum of money for a drive, some software, cables, a manual, some styrofoam moulding and a cardboard box, and a portion of the sale value went to the manufacturers of every one of those items.
>> Invoking first sale for a piece of software that comes with your hardware is ludicrous
Keep your laws off my wallet. It's clear that you're out of your damn mind.
>> If I purchase a CD-R with Adaptec Easy CD Creator
Sure you did, and sure you can. You don't think adaptec collected a "license fee" from you on that transaction ? Stop speaking nonsense.
>> what price would YOU set for the standalone iDVD?
Whatever you wanted. We don't have a state-controlled economy yet. You could sell it for $2000 or offer to trade it for a sack of magic beans and a 1997 low-mileage subaru station wagon if you wanted to, and I could dicker you down to $1845 and a case of oriental-flavored ramen. The transaction would be perfectly legal in all cases.
>> Apple also wishes to ensure some quality of the user experience
Apple's wishes have no bearing on how I use things that I've legally purchased. If they don't want me doing things they might not have anticipated with their hard/software, or even things they explicitly disapprove of, then they'd better withdraw their products from the market.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
You're wrong. Repeatedly wrong. Allow me to explain:
"you cannot sell your copy of iDVD because you did not PURCHASE your copy of iDVD. It came bundled with the computer."
I did indeed purchase my copy of iDVD. For a price of $X I purchased one computer of model Y, a keyboard, a mouse, software, some cables, plastic bags, and a cardboard box. These components are priced collectively and shipped collectively and that doesn't have One Damn Thing to do with my right to break it all to pieces and resell each and every speck should I so choose. Or do you assert that I cannot sell the mouse that comes in the box, either?
"exactly how much would you sell iDVD for? Apple isn't selling it separately as a standalone product, so what price would YOU set for the standalone iDVD?"
I can sell anything that comes in the cardboard box Apple sends me -- or even the cardboard box. I don't quite understand why you're asking what price I'd set, as that's a matter to be agreed between me and the buyer. Do you ask GM how much you can charge for the 1973 Chevy Nova you're looking to get rid of because you don't want it?
"You can see that this gets illegal pretty darn quick. At the very least, the waters are murky."
Nothing is illegal. There is no murk. There is only a company asserting rights it does not possess, and a collection of people stridently demanding that their rights no longer exist.
"Invoking first sale for a piece of software that comes with your hardware is ludicrous."
Nope.
"If I purchase a CD-R with Adaptec Easy CD Creator, but I already have Easy CD Creator or some other software to burn CDs, or I'm running Linux - whatever - I can't turn around and sell Adaptec Easy CD Creator because I never purchased it."
The scenario you lay out is IDENTICAL to my own: you have lawfully come into possession of a piece of software you have no intention of using. You have every legal right to sell that to someone who does want to use it. So long as you do not retain a copy of the software, you have broken no laws.
"there aren't hardly ANY people that are just giving away iDVD because they aren't using it, to people who have other DVD burners. iDVD is available on warez servers and that's it. There's no eBay auctions going on for legit copies of iDVD or anything."
I fail to see exactly how the number of people choosing to exercise or not exercise their right of first sale has any bearing on the existence of that right. Further, I disagree with you about the potential market for unwanted iDVD. Every Mac sold with a SuperDrive comes with iDVD, but a nonzero fraction of people buying these machines are going to go directly to DVD Studio Pro for the power -- just as I laid out in my initial scenario. Heck, maybe I'll even throw in my copy of iMovie because I plan to use Final Cut Pro. At the moment, the market for unwanted iDVD is effectively nonexistent because everyone who owns a machine that can run the program has his own copy. The Enabler program that got Apple so spun up would have permitted people who owned formerly-incompatible machines to use the software, thus creating the very market Apple has successfully quashed, with vocal support from chumps like you.
The fact that you don't see that, that you're actually spending time arguing against your own rights and interests, just blows me away. That you think Apple's desire to ensure a quality user experience has one iota of relevance to what you do with your property leaves me slack-jawed and stupefied.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
The license for iDVD is restricted to being used with Apple's SuperDrive. They made sure to enforce that within their software.
And someone else made sure to remove that feature which IMHO is their right to do providing they OWN that copy of iDVD.
Your comparison with Microsoft is flawed. Microsoft sells software, Apple sells hardware. IDVD exists to promote sales of Apple Superdrives, period.
Really? Then what's OSX? Hardware?
Apple's intentions may have been to only allow iDVD to be used with Apple hardware, but so what? They don't have the right to tell me what to do with my computer just because their marketing department is too inept to realize that giving away iDVD for free was a dumb idea.
UNTRUE. Apple sells iDVD2 on it's website store for $19.99. It is listed as an upgrade version. The license is standard EULA but doesn't seem to require any prior existing copy of iDVD, and it doesn't check for one. It only checks for the SuperDrive while starting the application.
So, you can buy a SuperDrive, and Apple is happy to sell you the software. I fail to see the problem. In fact, I have a g4/400 powermac which I installed a DVR-104 SuperDrive into.
I then purchased the iDVD2 Upgrade software from Apple and it installed with ease, as expected.
I am using a computer that is out of warranty, so I don't worry about voiding any warranty. It works beautifully, if not a little longer at preparing video for burning onto the DVD disc.
So, that shoots down your piracy argument.
actually, you're mistaken.
While it's listed as an upgrade version, it installs without hesitation when no prior version is found. I bought it and am very satisfied.
The original iDVD would run with no SuperDrive installed. The iDVD2 software checks when the application is started.
iDVD purpose is to increase the value of Apple systems whose revenue Apple depends on. It is not to provide anyone with quality dvd editing software. If someone wants to upgrade their system with a third party burner they should look for third party software. According to the article, OWC bundled this add-on to sell their DVD drives instead of licensing a third party alternative. In essence, they stole iDVD just to add value to their drives. Obviously, Apple has every right to put a stop to it.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
they are *charging* for what they *used to give away* ... system software to run on their hardware.
Major Mac OS upgrades (7.1 -> 7.5 -> 8.1 -> 8.6 -> 9.1 -> 10.1 -> 10.2) have not been free of charge since System 7 was released back in mid-1991.
Now they are charging for *any* software needed to add *any* 3rd party hardware to their hardware.
Not exactly. You can use any Mac platform DVD software with the third-party drives. Apple is charging for its own DVD software. Just buy a SuperDrive and have your Apple dealer install it for cricket's sake. If you misrepresented your SuperDrive ownership in order to obtain a license to Apple's DVD software, that's your problem.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Because, if it goes with the burner, and someone else makes it work with another burner andthen sells a machine without the appl eburnere, they haven't made their money on the distribution have they?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
So fine, OWC can have thier customers stand on the sidewalk by writing their own Burning software. Sure you don't get all the nice benifits of iDVD, but them's the breaks. But selling the machine with a crack is akin to opening the back door to let your friends in free of charge
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Roughly translated: You are free to reverse-engineer a copyright product (and use the method you develop) for the purposes of interopability
You left off the last part: "Provided, that you have tons of money to hire attorneys to represent you in a court of law."
Will I retire or break 10K?
In the vary early days of SCSI, this made sense. The command set was not standardized, and drivers needed to be written for specific models of drives. However, it didn't take long for the drive manufactures to defined and implement the Common Command Set, and generic drivers became easy to write.
Compare to both Linux and Windows. Both of these provided generic drivers for various classes of SCSI device, and so you did NOT need any special software to use a bare-bones drive.
It was fairly easy in a debugger to get around Apple's brand check. They had left debugging symbols in their HD setup program, so you could just set a breakpoint on "strcmp" and watch for one where it was comparing "APPLE" to "QUANTUM" (or whatever your drive was) and change the return value to say it matched. :-)
More than any other single computer manufacturer, Apple's hardware and software is associated with content creation and production. In addition to Apple simply protecting license agreements it may have on Superdrive and DVD burning software, I see it also as a bone thrown to the big gorillas to let them know that Apple's on their side.
Remember "Rip, Mix, Burn"? Apple needs to make doubly sure that at some point in the future, the Macintosh itself isn't ruled by some court to be a circumvention device. It needs both the PR and legal record to show that it has acted in good faith WRT copyrighted material.[1] Apple may be behaving evilly here, but it's within a much larger context of what individual entities must do to survive in a legal framework that is horribly bent.
For what it's worth, I personally think that OWC is completely within its (moral) rights to distribute whatever patch it wants, DMCA or no. Instructions are instructions are instructions, compiled, in C++, in Applescript, or in english. If you bought a computer, it's yours to run whatever you want on it. If you wrote a program that does something on a computer, and someone else wants to use that same program, you can give it to them. It's very simple. The DMCA is a travesty.
--------
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
If all it takes to make the practice of running apps via emulation or other workaround is a statement in the EULA saying 'This software is only for use with ', then won't this have dire effects for VMWare, WINE, Win4Lin, console emulators, etc. etc. ?
If it was that easy 'This software is only for use with a computer not more than 1 year old', 'This software is only for use with Intel CPUs' 'This software is only for use by people with yearly income over $60,000' 'This software is only for use by people we don't currently dislike', then the 'tech' world would be a very different place.
DVD region-coding is a similar issue - This disc is only for use in ,
However, you paid for the disc, you own it, and you should be able to play it anywhere you like. In many countries, DVD region coding is illegal and constitutes an illegal barrier to trade.
If I legally obtain a copy of iDVD, then i am within my rights to modify it, and use it in whatever way i see fit. Even if I break the law by doing this, it has nothing to do with Apple.
I am also well within my rights to reverse engineer and distribute a patch for iDVD, and as long as the patch itself, or the methods i used to create the patch infringes no copyright or patents.
I cannot distribute patched copies of iDVD, of course, but hacking iDVD to work with my own burner, and subsequently distributing a patch to allow others to do so with their iDVD is perfectly legal.
If Apple is not paying the license fees for software they are distributing that is capable of encoding DVDs, then they are the ones who are breaking the law, or quite obviously running the risk of breaking the law by doing this.
The idea that they can control who purchases or owns the software based on what hardware is currently in these peoples posession is laughable.
'You may not purchase this gasoline if you don't own ACME brand car'
'You may not own a DVD disc if you do not also own a licensed player'
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
Serious efforts to ward off the threats posed by the DMCA, the RIAA, etc., don't get any help from /. posters who seem bent on exercising the phony "right" of the post-adoloscent crowd to avoid paying for property that other people are trying to sell.
You don't get to pick which laws to obey unless you're willing to risk arrest and trial. Laws are broken for a lot of reasons. But, whatver the reason, it is still breaking the law. The one that applies here is that a lot of people don't want to pay for software/music/ movies or whatever. Technology gives them the means to engage in theft, so they're doing just that. They point to the selfish behavior of large corporations and their ability to influence politics as if they are the very first people on the planet to discover that money wields power. Their perversion of the open source/free software ideology gives them some words to mouth off with when someone wonders where they get off exhibiting such fundamental disrespect for the laws others live by.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Companies have every right to produce good products and innovate. They have no right to prevent someone else from making the next best thing. DVD Enabler gave people a choice they didn't have before, and now Apple is taking that choice away, restricting the freedoms of people who use those external DVD writers. The software may hurt their business, but Apple have no right to go after people that sell it. My advice: make something better, Apple. Remember your formative years! Don't turn into Disney.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
What about those of us with powerbooks? The superdrive is not available on a powerbook. So, the only way for me to burn a DVD is with an external FireWire drive. I find this really interesting, as Apple pushes (or at least, they used to) the PowerBook as a mobile editing workstation. In fact, that's one of the reasons I bought mine.
But FWIW, I tend to use DVD Studio Pro anyways, when I'm at work on a G4 tower.
I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
Apple is a hardware company. The only reason they make software (Mac OS X, the iSuite, etc.) is so their hardware is not useless (yea, yea, you're begging to get modded down for bad puns on that.)
Apple makes iDVD as a component of their DVD-Burner enabled machines. As such, it is not MEANT to be used in any other manner. If you buy an external burner, use another program. Why? Because iDVD wan't meant to work with it.
Once again, this software (iDVD) is meant ONLY for use with an Apple Macintosh which was built with the ability to burn DVD disks. It is perfectly legal for someone to develop an alternative and sell it, or even give it away.
The reason the DMCA applies here is because when you apply this patch, you are actually circumventing a security feature in this software (even though it is merely one to secure Apple some hardware sales, heh).
And for those who compare Apple to Microsoft for supposed "lock-in" tactics used here, think of it like this: The deal is, if you buy a DVD burner from Apple, they include the ability to create DVD content for free. They DON'T force you to buy some other product, citing that this computer "has the ability". It's included.
One more thing I would like to mention: iDVD isn't just the "ability" to burn a DVD; iDVD actually lets you create menus and divide movies into chapters, etc. just like a DVD you'd buy from the store (LOTR for example).
Maybe a few of you people should read Apple's iDVD site before you assume this means "no 3rd party DVD burners allowed".
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?