Slashdot Mirror
Real Networks Hacks iPod; .rm & Real Store for iPod
alphakappa writes "According to Cnet, Real Networks is expected to announce on Monday that it has found a way to make its songs play on the iPod. Now songs bought from the RealPlayer Music Store can be played on the iPod. Earlier Real had made it possible for songs bought from iTunes to be played on RealPlayer by transparently starting the iTunes authentication in the background. However since Apple has not licensed the technology to make file formats playable on the iPod, the latest Real initiative could be construed as reverse engineering. How would this fare under the DMCA? Or is it just for the tiny ones?"
It's highly unlikely that this is 'true' reverse engineering. If I recall correctly isn't that when there are two groups, one group documents and the other codes? In this case I'd very much expect the same people who programmed also did the infomration gathering and legally that's always been a bit grey.
See the BBC article on this
The program mimics Apple's copy protection software, so Real says it has not infringed Apple's intellectual property rights by developing it.
Sounds like copyright circumvention to me. Maybe Real will get their comeuppance for their old spyware years after all.
I have no idea why people who haven't even read the legislation keep making comments that are plain incorrect.
The only time reverse engineering is illegal under the DMCA is when it is used for making infringing copies.
I'm glad I'm reading this stuff finally, and I recommend that you all buy a quick primer (if they exist) on intellectual property. If you had, you'd know that the DMCA only prevents reverse-engineering of copy-protection methods. It does not prevent reverse-engineering of patents, and it does not remove the originality clauses of older IP laws. Therein, the DMCA will still allow Real to do whatever they want with the iPod.
The only problem that I might see is a license violation for every user that installs these songs onto their iPod. After all, the iPod has a software license, I'm sure, that limits use, and it will be interesting to see if Real is breaking that contract. I don't know how they are binding the Helix copy protection to the iPod without installing software on top of the iPod, but if they have found a legitimate work-around, I congratulate them.
The Political Programmer
or infringing copyright. presumably apple's argument is that they've put a lot of money and effort into their delivery system, and they protect that investment through the DRM. once someone comes along, and reverse engineers it, they can take advantage of apple's hard work and make a profit, thereby reducing apple's earnings.
i don't particularly agree with this, but i reckon this is what apple's take on it would be.
But then only if the user is reverse-engineering a copy-protection method. You are still allowed to make copies of a copyrighted work as long as the material is new to you (I know, I know, with exceptions, but as long as you can prove that you have done a reasonable level of work to bind yourself to the material, a near replica can still bear its own copyrights). Take the case of a photo. It's fairly easy to recreate a photo that bears a striking resemblance to an older photo. If I go to Mount Rushmore and take a few snaps with my camera, and it turns out that a photographer in Rapid City has the same shots, he can not sue me, as long as I have taken my steps to create an original work.
The Political Programmer
That's not quite correct. It only needs to bypass a copy control measure, and not fall under the interoperability clause.
Also from chilling effects:
The resulting program must only interoperate with the reverse engineered software, however, and cannot interoperate with the technologically protected content (movie, book, video game, etc.) itself.
Seems that Real must have run afoul of this at some point in their quest to work with Apple's DRM.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
So all they reverse engineered is how FairPlay finds keys to do AES?
I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.
The speculation in the parent post is woefully uninformed. Apple does not own the file format. AAC is a consortium-built, industry-standard audio format. Apple does not even own the DRM. It is licensed from FairPlay. See Apple's AAC page to get a clue.
Real uses 192kbps AAC wrapped with their own Helix DRM (realplayer 10 says it's "RA10," but I don't think such a codec exists). Apple uses 128kbps AAC wrapped with their PlayFair DRM. Both places sell for 99c for each track.
:)
Considering both use AAC, maybe it was simply a matter of fooling the ipod into thinking Helix DRM was PlayFair DRM. And even though Real's choice of AAC seemed strange way back when RP10 was released, I think now it's starting to become clear why they chose that...
Strategically, this doesn't seem out of place with what Real's been doing recently. They seem to want to become the endall beall solution for Internet media: releasing Helix Player under GPL, making RealPlayer able to play QT, ITMS, and WM in the same player, and now this.
Here's RealNetworks press release about this system (called Harmony). They also announced that a public beta version of RealPlayer 10.5, which contains this technology, will be available here tomorrow (Tuesday).
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
>In this case, Real would be in violation of the
>software license on the iPod,
WHat makes you think that Real have aquired a license (I think the article said they had not) and then broken/violated it? If they do NOT have it or have agreed to it, they can't possible violate it.
The most famous example is CSS, the system used on DVDs. This doesn't prevent copying (someone with equipment dumb enough can make a straight copy of a DVD without breaking CSS, indeed when the patents on DVD expire it's quite possible electronics manufacturers will start producing equipment to do exactly that. What CSS prevents is unauthorized access to the content, so that only licensed players can (legally) play DVDs, which in turn means that the studios can ensure that all legally available players implement certain restrictions, such as region encoding.)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I can guarantee you, without question, that they purchased at least one iPod over at Real, since they had to test write their software for it (requiring testing, etc.). Everyone using an iPod agreed to the software agreement involved in its use. Real is fucking screwed here, and I cannot believe they did something this dumb.
There are some companies you can piss off, and Apple isn't really one of them here.
"Stumble before you crawl"
"Dave, I stand still--the conclusions jump to me!" - Bill McNeal, NewsRadio
The only time reverse engineering is illegal under the DMCA is when it is used for making infringing copies.
Who modded this guy +5 informative??? He's wrong.
TITLE 17 CHAPTER 12 Sec. 1201. (f) says:
Reverse Engineering. -
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
To break that apart:
circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program
It ONLY applies to decrypting a program! And only to specific protions of the program at that. Any circumvention relating to music or any other sort of file is still criminal!
sole purpose of [] interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs
For the sole puprose of getting programs to talk to each other.
to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title
That is NOT a positive statement saying non-infringment is legal. It is a negative statement narrowing what is legal - to additionally exclude anything involving infringment.
So what it really says is that if Microsoft were to encrypt they webserver software, you could decrypt the rerquired portions of that software for the purpose of getting Netscape and Opera browsers to work to be able to communicate with it (so long as you don't infringe their software copyright while you're at it).
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Yes, as a backpacker I won't have much access to power sockets on my travels.
How about the Belkin battery pack?
Slashdot looked deep within my soul and assigned
me a number based on the order in which I joined
I reckon the libertarian party is a lot more likely to eliminate unnecessary expansions of government than the greens or any "left wing" group.
1.) one could say that apple 'reverse engineered' BSD to hack in the entire OSX interface. so screw apple if they have a complaint about someone else building off their work.
One could say that, but then one would be wrong. Apple didn't attempt to reverse engineer the BSD sources-- they already had the sourcecode, along with a license giving them the legal right (but not the obligation) to modify and redistribute the OS.
Apple did not see fit to apply an open source license to the ipod. Consequently, a great many reverse engineering schemes might be regarded by the federal courts as a infringement.
Software licenses "work" because the act of installing a program (or even of loading a program into memory) itself violates the prohibition on duplicating a copyrighted work. If the user agrees to the license, he is allowed to perform these rather prosaic tasks, but his legal rights in other areas may be further restricted.
This is NOT a violation of the DMCA. They are not offering a tool to decrypt AAC...they are encrypting the music, just like Apple does. There is nothing in the DMCA that says they cannot encrypt files.
In addition, check out the verbage of the DMCA, which allows this:
1201(f)(2) - Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
Looks to me there is not much Apple can do about this one
Since the explicit stated goal of the reverse engineering project is interoperability, no offence has been committed.
;-) Pat can make sure that the file "super_new_kernel_2.7.tar.bz2" came from Linus, and not from Bill or Ken. Pat can send a reply that only Linus can read, but once Linus has received it, then Linus is automatically granted the ability to control who may or may not read it.
/dev/dsp, which is not beyond the wit of a competent C programmer -- just write a dummy "sound card driver" that snarfs data into a file, and process it later.}
But Open Source and DRM -- at least, not the corporations' idea of DRM -- don't sit well together. The power to control what works and what does not work lies with the eventual user (who has the source code and the decryption key), not the supplier. A user could lock out certain suppliers, but not the other way round. So, say, picking some names at random
The only reason why Apple's, and Microsoft's, proprietary DRM systems "seem" to work {there are holes you could get a bus through, sideways. Mic trained on speaker? Analogue line-in? Logic analyser on PCI bus listening out for digital data meant to go to sound card? USB protocol analyser prtending to be USB sound card?} is because the source code is hidden from the users. The security is entirely dependent on the idea of making it difficult -- not impossible -- for the user to decrypt the file other than by running a particular program, supplied by the content vendor, which has a limited user interface that restricts its functionality. Hell, you don't even need the full source code; just the right portion will do.
My point is, once you give a user the source code to the player and the encryption key, then the user is in charge. {Of course, even a closed-source player running under Linux -- assuming anybody would tolerate such a thing -- would be vulnerable to a hijack of
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Real sells AAC files using a slightly different DRM scheme. But the important thing here is how the iPod works for encrypted files.
Basically, it reads the AAC file to get a user identifier. This user ID is equated with a key stored in a file on the iPod itself. This user key allows it to decrypt the encrypted AAC file, which it then plays.
So if you have an encrypted AAC file (these use AES encryption, I believe), then all you have to do to get the iPod to play it is to a) put the key in the right place and b) suitably munge the AAC file so as to enable the iPod to work out which key it needs to use. Part A is simply a matter of putting the key into the right file, part B is messing with several key headers in the "M4P" file itself.
In other words, it's not particularly difficult to take an AES encrypted AAC file, to which you know the key, and munge the file to get it to play on the iPod without actually decrypting the thing and without transcoding.
That's if they wanted to preserve the file's encryption. If they didn't much care, they could just as easily decrypt the thing and write out an M4A file, unencrypted. The iPod could play that just fine too, without messing with the iPod keyring file.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The libertarian party endorses the plan set forth by the founders: congress may provide for limited forms of IP where appropriate. The DMCA goes well beyond this prescription, and for that reason I believe they would repeal it.
No Apple does not own AAC - but Apple does own FairPlay.
This is why FairPlay is listed in Apple's Trademark List
>Yes, under current law.
.... Would that be valid? You can only remove the paper by agreeing mind you!!!
Ehh, you mean th elaw says that the store has to present me with a license in the shop if I want to buy an iPod???? If you don't agree to any license when you buy the iPod, then there is none, regardless of if there is any software on the iPod or not. Just as I don't have to agree to any license when I buy a TV set, despite it most certainly have software somewere on some components.
>Presumably the only way to get past it to load
>Linux was by clicking OK
As far as I see, that is someone forcing you into accepting an agreement, such agreements are generally not enforcable. Imagine me visiting you and placing a piece of paper on your kitchen table stating that if you remove it you agree to
Argh. This meme has got to die. From 17 USC 117:
In other words, you are not violating copyright simply by running a program that you've bought, and thus you don't need a license to do so.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Read your copyright law again.
Title 17 USC, Chapter 1.
Sec. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
In other words, loading a program in memory does not, as you put it, "violate the prohibition on duplicating a copyrighted work".
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I believe that this would fall under the same category as the Sega v. Accolade case back in 1992. For those of you too lazy to RTFA, the gist of the judgment is that it was ruled legal to reverse-engineer a piece of hardware, and if necessary, use a copyright screen to boot said hardware, even if the developer doesn't hold a license. As long as they're not stealing Apple's software, then they aren't breaking any laws in writing code that allows the iPod to play RealMedia files.