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)
Actually, its quite the opposite. In order for someone to burn DVDs they need to use Apple's software iDVD.
That software is only licensed to be used if you purchase a machine with one of Apple's Superdrive.
This story is actually on of fighting software piracy. Of course you have to have a little more knowledge to know that because reading the "Slashdot spin" is going to have every company look evil for protecting themselves.
sin(6cos(r)+5A)
Company uses DMCA to prevent competition, film at 11.
On the contrary, now there is room for another company to come in and develop a DVD authoring application. Apple has stated that their free software is only licensed to buyers of Apple's SuperDrive.
For a user who adds some other company's DVD burner they have to use a competitors product.
sin(6cos(r)+5A)
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.
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
I'm sure that's Apple's intention, yes.
Agreed. How eager do you think Apple is to support the sale of their competitor's products?
I'm not disputing that. You're absolutely right, looked at from the right angle, iDVD isn't free - it's included for use with purchased and profit producing Apple DVD hardware.
Ah, but that's where you're wrong. They *are* entitled to make a profit on it if they wrote it to support only their hardware. For what it's worth, they ARE selling it for a profit. By making it compatible only with Apple DVD drives, they're guaranteed that they sell DVD drives for it's use. If you crack the software, you've circumvented that protection and deprived Apple of revenue. To counter the arguments I can already feel coming about "If it didn't support non-Apple drives, I'd never use it, so they're not losing revenue" this is akin to "It's ok to sneak into the movies if I wouldn't have paid for the ticket in the first place." The argument just doesn't hold water, sorry.
Presumably, their business model does allow them to make a profit, assuming that people don't illegally modify their code.
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
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
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
>> 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