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?"

18 of 456 comments (clear)

  1. Makes you think... by another_henry · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This really shows up how stupid the DMCA and similar laws are. What possible reason could there be why Real shouldn't be allowed to do this?

    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."
    1. Re:Makes you think... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What possible reason could there be why Real shouldn't be allowed to do this?

      It really only depends how Real was able to do it. There are three avenues Apple can sue them if they choose. 1) Breach of License, 2) IP violations, 3) DMCA.

      1) In order for Real to get rm files to work on an iPod, there had to have been some serious internal hacking of an iPod. Mostly like the Real teams bought a few iPods for this purpose. Apple like many other manufacturers may have no reverse-enginnering clauses built into their license agreements. In doing so, however, Real may have broken any license agreement they had when they bought the iPod.

      2) If I remember correctly, in order to reverse engineering to be legal, there has to be separation between the two teams that work on the engineering. The two teams cannot have direct communication with each other except for specifications:

      The first team may break down the device but can only describe the functionality of the device like an API to the second team. (When the left button is pressed, the device should . . .) The second team designs the device based on specifications from the first team.

      If Apple can show that there was no Chinese wall between the two teams or that the reverse-engineering could not have happened without breaching the separation, they may have a case. 3) And of course, if there is any encryption was cracked, then the DMCA is relevant. I'm not condoning this use, only stating the obvious.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  2. What possible reason...? by bani · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...because apple doesn't want them to?

    After all, the DMCA wasn't designed to protect copyrights -- it was designed to prevent competition.

    1. Re:What possible reason...? by jeffasselin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      he fact that ISP's can avoid complicity with just a few steps in crimes that are associated with the internet is awesome.


      Yeah, it's quite awesome how easily they can now hide and cower everytime someone says "copyright violation". Just the hint of something "bad" and they remove it from view. We wouldn't want to have anyone say bad things about corporations, now would we? We wouldn't want freedom of expression to be free from the interference of anyone with enough cash to pay a lawyer to send a onepage letter to an ISP and easily remove anything they don't like from the internet, now would we?

      That "protection" is bullshit, because it gives the power of censure to the ISPs, which means to anyone who complains and has some cash.
      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    2. Re:What possible reason...? by Pendersempai · · Score: 5, Insightful
      In this case, Real would be in violation of the software license on the iPod, and would not be infringing on the DMCA.

      How the fuck are these mutually exclusive? Are you a real lawyer, or do you just play one on T.V.?

      The fact that the DMCA burdens fair use is not just "a bit of a bummer," it's the total failure of our legislature. As a previous poster stated, the DMCA does not protect copyright: all it takes is a SINGLE CIRCUMVENTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, and then the song is an unencumbered mp3 ready to be shared with everyone. There IS NO IMPETUS to traffic in a true circumvention device when you can traffic in the copyrighted material instead. Therefore the only circumvention devices taht are truly restricted are ones that have lawful (non-infringing) purposes! All the DMCA does is protect frightened corporations from free market competition.

      In other words, it screws the electorate to prop up the corporations. Isn't this a bit backwards? Shouldn't the corporations exist to serve the people, a la Adam Smith? Else why have them?

      Finally, how do you expect elections to fix the sorry, broken excuse for a law if you "hate the sheer disgust associated with [it]"? That sheer disgust is what gets the politicians to listen, or what votes them out if they don't.

    3. Re:What possible reason...? by Vindicator9000 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If you go to a store to buy it, do you really have to agree to a license to buy it

      Yes, under current law. If hardware contains software, and the manufacturer sees fit to place a license on the software, and there's no way to get around the software, then you have to agree to the license to use the hardware.

      I seem to recall a /. story from a few months ago where someone bought a Windows preloaded Dell computer with the intention of using Linux on it. When the person turned it on with his Linux install disk in the drive, he was presented with an un-circumventable software licence agreement screen, which basically stated that by agreeing, he was agreeing to the licenses of all the preloaded software on the machine. Presumably the only way to get past it to load Linux was by clicking OK

      The person at Dell support couldn't figure out why the guy wouldn't just click OK, even though the tech couldn't tell him what was in each individual license that he was supposed to blanket-agree with. Ultimately he ended up sending the computer back.

      We need legal precidence on the legality of software license agreements, and exactly what obligations that all parties are under. Until this happens, we're going to continue to see unresonable and silly licenses.

  3. The difference between this and PlayFair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. store content by Heywood+Yabuzof · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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 .rm files on your ipod (or your computer, for that matter)? It's not like having your own mp3s or even ogg files (that would be interesting, but unlikely to happen anytime soon) that you created yourself that you want to use on your portable media player of choice. Who is out there creating RealMedia files for themself? Nobody. And if you are buying songs from the RealMedia store, then it's highly likely that you don't have an iPod anyway. I'm sure Real would like to see that change - fat chance.

  5. Re:Get your IP law straight by dfghjk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No such thing as reverse engineering of patents. They are public disclosures to begin with.

  6. Much better is if... by cduffy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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.

  7. Re:Apple Stick it to them by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you understand that the iPod is not vendor locked? Its just that the iTMS is product-locked to the iPod. You can put MP3s, WAVs, AACs from any source on the ipod so long as they're not DRM'd in a way besides FairPlay. So all those stores have to do [to be compatible with the iPod] is not insist on some DRM (which is exactly what the whole slashdot community has been demanding of Apple anyway...).

    --
    "Stumble before you crawl"
  8. Re:Apple Stick it to them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think you kinda mist the point of the parent...

    I think, what the poster was trying to say, was that Real, if they really wanted some of the iPod market, could simply sell non-DRM'ed tunes.

    Which really would be a victory for the consumer

  9. Re:Get your IP law straight by MarkedMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  10. Apple have got to be laughing at this. by carlfish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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:

    So now we have it on record: the music store is a loss leader. Jobs said Apple would pay its dues to the RIAA, then seek to make money where it could, from its line of hardware accessories. When the conversation turned to rivals such as eTunes and Napster, Jobs said: "They don't make iPods, so they don't have a related business where they do [make money]". (The Register)

    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.
  11. Re:Possibly legal, not Exactly Reverse Engineering by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    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.
  12. Update by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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 .sig.tar
  13. The bigger story is yet to come by fname · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. What is it? Nothing that I can see they've said. by lp-habu · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I must be missing something.

    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.