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?"
If they can figure out how to play their format on the iPod, I say more power to them.
"Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
I hope that apple will stop this one in its tracks. The big dogs need to play by the rules just like how the RIAA forces all the little people to. I personally think that Real just madea big mistake and that this will have big fallout for them.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
...because apple doesn't want them to?
After all, the DMCA wasn't designed to protect copyrights -- it was designed to prevent competition.
is that when you buy something on the iTunes music store, IIRC, you agree to their licensing scheme, ie not breaking the DRM. However, you can get an iPod without ever agreeing to a licensing scheme at all. You don't have to install Apple's software if you choose not to, you can still(with a little bit of poking around) get music onto the device.
The DMCA allows reverse engineering for compatibility, so maybe Real does have a case here.
Does the RealPlayer music store also have spyware, like when they bundled New.net in with RealOne? Call me crazy, but I percieve that's not the sort of thing which *Apple* would ever do.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Does the Real store have any songs that the iTunes store doesn't? Have there been a lot of Real customers clamoring for this?
This sounds like total PR BS from Real - they are just mad that Apple (rightly) gave them the brush-off earlier, and they are under the mistaken impression that Apple or iPod users give a hoot about RealMedia format. I mean, if you have an ipod and use iTunes already, what possible reason could you have for wanting to put
No such thing as reverse engineering of patents. They are public disclosures to begin with.
...the rules get changed.
I don't want Real to get hurt -- that serves no purpose. I just want the DMCA weakened or repealed. If damage done to Real helps to bring that about, well and good! -- but otherwise, it's quite unkind to wish for another to be harmed.
As far as I'm concerned, far from a big mistake, Real did the right thing; think of it as civil disobediance on a corporate scale. Let's just hope some good comes of it.
Bear with me, as this is probably all IANAL cack, but, if Apple don't eventually sue Real, or do and lose, this means that it will be a legal confirmation that "converting" DRM information from one format to another is not circumvention, and thus legal.
.m4ps between FairPlay and, I dunno, let's call it OpenPlay.
.m3p player. And possibly Windows Media as well.
In which case, if the community were to create an open, free software DRM spec, it would then be possible to create free software that could legally, and without violating DMCA/EUCD smunge
So, provided the player code is distributed in a form which respects the DRM information therein, it would also not be a violation of DMCA/EUCD.
Thus we would have a legal FLOSS
Of course, my reasoning is probably rubbish, based on assumptions and caveats and legal cases that haven't yet happened.
It was just an idea.
Apple doesn't license their protected formats, true; but if Real wants to sell us a nice, standard MP3 or uncompressed WAV file, the iPod would happily play it.
What.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
I don't see how that's a major PR victory, that's just not being evil assholes.
We're already screwed if we think it's a PR win when someone *doesn't* wave the big stick of DMCA.
Didn't I see something about the use of the DMCA to prevent mod chips in game systems? If so, how does your Real efforts square with that?
It was last November when Steve Jobs admitted that Apple made no money from the iTunes Music Store, and that pretty much all the money goes to the labels. Sure, in the six months since some more economies of scale may have kicked in, but we've heard nothing to contradict this yet:
Apple will always have the advantage in the music store -> iPod battle because the iPod needs iTunes, and iTunes has the music store built in. So Apple remains the first stop for people looking for something to play on an iPod, by definition.
Meanwhile, we're supposed to believe that Apple are somehow worried because Real have taken a bite into this profit-shy business in order to give people another way they can put music on an iPod, thus allowing Apple to maybe ship more units? I can't quite imagine Steve Jobs crying into his breakfast cereal over that one.
Of course, Apple have an opportunity here: the opportunity being the chance to extract license fees for putting Real's software on the iPod. They can wave around the threat of the DMCA and an expensive lawsuit for a while. Then they can pull out the carrot of integration: giving Real the chance to put their player on the iPod without having it break every time the iPod software was updated. Meanwhile Apple get some nice pocket-change in licensing fees, and the chance to deflect some WMA heat by waving the banner of a more open music-playing platform.
Charles Miller
The more I learn about the Internet, the more amazed I am that it works at all.
> maybe it was simply a matter of fooling the ipod into thinking Helix DRM was PlayFair DRM
maybe opening up rar files with gzip is simply a matter of fooling gzip into thinking that rar files are gzip files. uhh, not.
my money is on real having read DVD-Jon's code to find out how to write FairPlay files.
Well, IANAL either, but my understanding is that if Apple doesn't sue Real, there isn't legal confirmation of anything. Of course, if Apple sued and lost, that would be a precedent case for a certain type of DRM circumvention to be allowed. However, I'd expect Apple to win if they sue.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
It'd be good if this lead to a test in court of the validity of shrinkwrap licences
More likely, Apple will release a iPod update with COOL NEW FEATURES L@@K which oh yeah, btw, breaks compatibility with real-purchased songs.
So then your iPod will not play your Real purchased library, until Real reverse-engineers it again, and who knows how long that'd take. So you'd have perhaps hundreds of dollars of songs on your iPod that you couldn't get to for an indefinite period of time; and Apple would just shrug their shoulders when you complain.
--
$tar -xvf
Really, this is neat, interesting and fun. But being able to play Real's DRM'ed files on the iPod is a pretty minor problem for Apple. I 'm waiting for the other shoe to drop-- that is, how long before someone adds a capability to their MP3 player to play iTMS files on that device? That will hurt Apple (negating their lock-in advantage), and help consumers (no more lock-in). Which will help Apple, as more buy iTMS stuff and aren't worried about lock-in.
'course, if everyone just sold plain MP3s, we wouldn't have to deal with any of this crap.
For one, Real wouldn't need to reverse-engineer Fairplay if they would simply convert their songs to MP3 format. The iPod has always played MP3s, so no reverse-engineering is required. Also, the iPod by default doesn't let you copy music back out of it onto a computer. Thus, a normal user is not going to be able to upload the songs to a p2p or something like that, because the songs only exist as MP3 on the iPod. A savvy user can break this scheme by downloading a program that will pull the MP3s off the iPod, but a savvy user is going to find a way to break any DRM anyway.
Secondly, what are the legal implications of converting one DRM scheme to another? If the DRM schemes aren't compatable, then whose to say that the rights you have with a file encoded with one DRM scheme will apply when you convert the file to another scheme? Do all the schemes impose restrictions unilaterally? If not, then Real's technology actually currupts the DRM (possibly less restrictions) for the sake of making the file work on more players. That might be great for Real, since they can say "we write the restrictions, and you can use this file anywhere you want", but it might not be all that great for other content providers who want to duplicate Real's technology so they can get their content on to more devices. They would have no way of knowing if their DRM gets enforced the way they want it to because the don't know what device the file is intended for.
I guess I can summerize the last paragraph with the question: is Harmony's DRM-conversion technlogy lossless conversion?
Now Apple's AAC page does indeed reveal that AAC is a consortium design effort and they don't own it.
t horization. html
It doesn't, however, say anything about the FairPlay DRM. Indeed FairPlay is listed as an Apple trademark, and Apple claims it as their own technology. There is no mention of this being licensed, so that would imply that they do own it.
See:
http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/au
Now there is much speculation that FairPlay was licensed from Veridisc, since that company was developing a DRM system called "Fairplay". However the only evidence of this is speculation from web pundits who have done a search on "Fairplay" and come up with Veridisc's web site. There is no press release from either company on a license agreement - one would have thought Veridisc would want to shout about this. There's also, apparently, no record of any payments being made to Veridisc by Apple for a license fee, or purchasing the company, in their accounts.
is that Apple controls the hardware (iPod) AND the software (iPod firmware and iTunes). Real is always just one update away from getting their compatibility knocked out. So Real may start playing a cat and mouse game where Apple keeps locking them out and Real keeps trying to break back in.
This could do more damage to the Real brand, by promoting a particular aspect of their software that is behaves inconsistently.
Not quite true. The chipset supports WMA decoding, but Apple would have had to write some user interface (plus maybe some other interfacing code) to enable it, which they didn't bother to do. Omission is a whole different ball game from restriction.
You can play lots of formats on an iPod. All Real (or anyone else) has to do is remove any DMA restrictions on their AAC files and the job is done. Now, if they are saying that they process their files so that they are protected AAC (FairPlay) and will play on the iPod then there might be an issue.
If Real was saying that you could take FairPlay protected tracks purchased from iTMS and play them on some other device then they would likely have a very serious problem. Simply saying that they can now "process" files purchased from their store to play on an iPod is meaningless. Of course, their sources could dry up if it turns out that they are unprotecting their tracks, but that wouldn't be Apple's problem.
The real point is that if a standard is open, you don't have to reverse engineer.
If its proprietary, you have to reverse engineer.
And the law of the land says you can reverse engineer for interoperability.
Real wants to Interoperate with the iPod.
Hello? McFly?
Just because you're trying to defend apple at any cost doesn't mean that you can pretend new laws exist to support your somewhat bizarre world view.
Seriously. not flaming, but you seem emotionally encumbered by apple. Get over it.
If this turned into a legal battle one potential outcome would be Real discontinuing its player for OS X, which would leave Mac users unable to view a significant amount of web content. And unlike on Windows, the player for OS X isn't that bad, certainly much better than Windows Media Player for Mac, and completely free of spy and nagware.
:) I love Apple, like the iPod, and think iTunes is a product that deserves to succeed. Conversely, I hate Real -- but also hate the draconian laws that might lead to their defeat. In the end, I think I might have to side with Real on this one.
On the other hand, as long as there's money to be made by supporting Macs, they probably will -- especially with so many of Apple's users in the media industry. So maybe this is a non-issue.
This is a complex moral battle for me
I don't know if you've actually read 1984, but it makes an interesting point. In the book, it was not The Government of The Corporations censuring information, it was the people censuring themselves. This is much like what is happening today.
As far corporations having little public oversight, you should know that in free market economics, the public has ultimate oversight over everything. For example, if the public at large decided they didn't agree with Wal-Marts practices, they would stop buying products from them. As a result, Wal-Mart would either amend their practices, or go out of business. And don't say that information about Wal-Mart is censured, because anyone who isn't living under a rock can't even go outside without hearing about how bad Wal-Mart is.
As far a lawyers deciding that a corporation was an entity, that was meant to allow corporations to be sued. If they weren't an entity, they'd have no liability at all! I know you'd rather be able to sue them and not allow them to defend themselves, but it simply doesn't work that way.
As far as corporations not having a "natural lifespan, a brain, or a moral sense", you should know that corporations are run by people, and those people have at least two of the things you mentioned above. Assuming a corporation were run by people with moral sense, the corporation itself would have those properties as well.
The real problem with corporations is investors. If a corporation's CEO doesn't increase marked share, and profits, shareholders remove them and get someone else. As a result, many corporations and up being run by the most evil, unscrupulous people shareholders can find. Of course, most shareholders don't pay attention to the companies they invest in except to note their profits and share price. Many mutual fund owners don't even know where their money is invested, they only care that the fund performs well. I think Steve Jobs had it right when he said that their share price/ market share/ profits weren't really important. That sure hurt Apple's stock price though. Responsible investment all the way.
1. What has always been illegal, should stay illegal. You should not be able to profit off others copyrighted works without properly compensating them. That being said, by extending copyright protection to protect against any reverse engineering without regard for why they might be doing it is just plain stupid. All it does is make people who are just trying to exercise their fair use rights into criminals. Crime organizations (or a slightly motivated college student) can easily circumvent (or find the information needed to circumvent) the protection. 2. Apple has played both sides of this argument (if you are to take into consideration Steve Jobs keynotes) Apple has gone after HYMN (or playfair) under the umbrella of the DMCA. Yet, Steve Jobs said when he introduced the iTunes music store, that in his pitch to the record companies he stressed that "DRM doesn't work".