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.
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."
This probably involves re-encoding songs to AAC, as well as some jumbo-mumbo with DRM. I really doubt they managed to hack iPod per se, just marketing smoke and mirrors for obvious practices.
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
I'd like to introduce you to Apple's legal team. Please assume the position.
--Residential Interior Design
...because apple doesn't want them to?
After all, the DMCA wasn't designed to protect copyrights -- it was designed to prevent competition.
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.
What if Real didn't reverse engineer the iPod but, rather, simply came up with a file format that is identical to Apple's own? This would be perfectly legal as long as Real licensed things properly (unlikely that Apple would allow this, however).
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
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.
Rebuffering...
and
Cannot find stream
and
Would you like to upgrade to Real 9?
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.
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
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.
Real Media on an iPod can mean only one thi--- BUFFERING... 0%... 13%... 27%... 34%... 58%... 72%... 88%... 97%... 100%... --ng to consumers: More choice!
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Apple should not think of Real as any Real threat :)
Let 'em use the 'pod and win a major PR victory for not invoking the DMCA.
OT: If I could change the battery I would have bought an iPod, instead, as a backpacker I was forced to go to Sony's MiniDisk palyer/recorder, which I then fell in love with, despite the ATRAC3 Format, wich has evil DRM.
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.
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
Watch the misery on the faces of the RIAA as the true market value of A Song emerges through the mechanism of market forces! Sure, there will be a bit of legal manoevering but sooner or later there will be competition. I'm guessing it'll level off at about 10c/tune but that might be a bit high.
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.
If i remember correctly, there was an article a while back about the ipod being able to play all audio codecs, however Apple purposely disabled all other formats due to licenseing costs. I would like to hear apples reaction to this.
There are several third-party apps that provide all the functionality of Itunes that allow for syncing to the Ipod and even have ratings and volume adjustments and all those itunes features and Apple has never said anything about any of those. They obviously have to have some idea of how the Ipod database works to get those apps working, its probably just the same thing here going on with Real. I don't see why this should cause any DMCA violations.
When Apple changes the iPod's firmware, your Real songs will no longer play on the iPod.
Which is just a bit less bad than what will happen to your Napster-DRM'd music once Napster goes up, its servers no longer authorize newer/updated computers, and your purchases go down the tubes!
The next pasture is always greener
So all they reverse engineered is how FairPlay finds keys to do AES?
I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.
Great. Now I need a firewall on my Ipod to stop fifteen RealNetworks processes calling home every time I use it.
...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.
> BUFFERING... 0%... 13%... 27%... 34%... 58%... 72%... 88%... 97%... 100%
You should be so lucky
BUFFERING... 0%... 13%... 3%... 1%... -5%... 72%... 21%... 97%... 10%... 107%... 4%
As I see it, since Apple doesn't make money on iTMS, but on the sales of iPods, they should be extremely happy with this happening. More people being able to use iPod == more income for them.
But of course the IP lawyers will not allow simple business logic to stop them when they smell a case:)
-Lars
Bender: What better way to celebrate our success than by me showing Bubblegum this globetrotters uniform I made myself.
BubbleGum: Let me see.
Bender shows him his uniform.
BubbleGum: Hello lawsuit *rubs palms*.
Jonathanjk.com
RealMedia on an MP3/AAC player?
With all this lawyer talk, it seems nothing is sacred. I'm still waiting for the lawyers to show up once the toddler manages to find a way bash the square peg into the round hole.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
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.
It would be nice if AAC* & FLAC were used by everyone. They are open and don't suffer the same quality loss as WMV or ATRAK. The only issue of course is DRM compatibility.
The real question is what would it take to get companies to use compatible technologies, especially when the online stores have an invested interest in a particular player? No one will use someone else's DRM especially if it means paying money to someone else.
*AAC - Advanced Audio Codec, it is to MPEG 4 what MP3 is to MPEG-1 and MPEG-2.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Reverse Engg is absolutely nothing illegal. Its a part of hacking, not cracking. Wikipedia quotes: Reverse engineering (RE) is the process of taking something (a device, an electrical component, a software program, etc.) apart and analyzing its workings in detail, and after that to reconstruct a new device/program/etc. that does the same thing, without actually copying anything from the original. Reverse-engineering is commonly done to avoid copyrights on desired functionality, and may be used for avoiding patent law, though this is a bit risky: patents apply to the functionality, not a specific implementation of it. Reverse-engineering things (like software) for the purposes of interoperability (i.e. supporting file formats etc.) is mostly believed to be legal, though patent owners often aggressively pursue their patents.
Maybe they are, but for the most part I've been ignoring Real Networks since 1999. Their players suck at stability, and for linux they are broken at best. If someone hands me over a .rm-file (or any of its variants) I usually end up saying "You've got to be kidding me, right?".
It's not so much the fact that I don't like the company, it's the fact that I dislike the way their software behaved at the time. It was constantly crashing, refused to play most of it's own files referring only to some cryptic error number nobody even bothered looking up. It was back to mpeg back then, and I didn't regret it really.
At the moment, I don't know how their software behaves, but from what I've heard things haven't changed that much. So I will happily lead an .rm-less existance, enjoying my xvid, divx and mpeg2.
But since the only part of that division making a profit is the part selling iPods, they may be happy to see other companies rushing to make their tunes play on the 'Pod.
Or not.
Matt...
Save the Bottom Line
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.
"Since the only division of Apple making any serious money is iPod/iTunes, I do not think Apple will play nice."
Perhaps you failed to notice that PowerBook and iBook shipments were up 37 per cent and 26 per cent year on year, representing 21.5 per cent and 13.6 per cent of revenue.
That's a third of Apple's revenue that comes from notebook sales. The iPod represents 12.3 per cent of Apple's revenues. Software is around 10% for Apple, as are perhiperals (iSight etc). So the iPod isn't "making the serious money" for Apple. Indeed, the profit margins on iTunes are very, very slim indeed.
Of course, either you're saying that Apple are lying in their latest financial report, or you just can't be bothered to do research and make some pretty stupid assumptions. I'm guessing the latter.
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...
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.
The iTunes division reported a slim profit last quarter. Apple are not going to let _any_ profit to disappear, so they probably will fight 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.
Of course, Real's software and technology sucks but in the end it's about one company who has a bad product (Real) trying to grasp on to a superior design platform (iPod) to try to push their own profit while driving up the sales of their competitor's device. It is funny to note that Real hates Apple and tries to belittle the ITMS/iPod while attempting to latch on to the iPod's obvious market share and popularity at the same time.
Worthy of note would be that it's entirely possible that Real's "hack" is to convert their music data from the proprietary format to something without DRM like MP3.
Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
"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"
so, does this mean that Real is guilty of INDUCEing users to commit a violation?
Delicious!
karma: ouch!
The only thing .rm is good for is previewing music @ amazon.com ! I also hate their software and anyway: you have to find their free-of-charge player first...
Hmm. I did not think of it this way. Maybe you are right. Since they dragged their feet on supporting the iPod on Windows(which had similar justification) I have a feeling they may not like this either.
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.
are such a bunch of lowly, below-the-belt hitting thugs. Why(how) the fuck are they still in business is a fucking wonder.
My only observation is that they've been dragging their miserable existance through miscellaneous Microsoft monopoly-related restrictions (antitrust lawsuits and such involving windows media player).
Sadly most of the poor dopes who are dumb enough to get suckered into downloading their malware are often too inexperienced to remove all the stolen associations and rectify the other fucked-up un-invited changes it inflicts. This is what this company thrives on. This iPod hack is a startling analogy to this, only taken now to the hardware level.
This parasitic existance that defines their work ethic is not only absurd but disgraceful. Please, with my blessing, die a painful, slow, harrowing death. May those in the descision-making wings of the Real corp. be forever haunted by the spectre of this great failure that you have spawned, and die unemployed and destitute.
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
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.
Is that Real is willing to sacrifice their DRM in favor of reencoding it and potentially opening the track up to a unDRM'd state.
This could create a market for hacked RM files on P2P trades. Good job Real.
And that supoena over there? That's from Apple.
They didn't appreciate the threat from 3 months ago.
Funny to see this under Apple...it should be filed under YRO. (Those who aren't interested in reading a mini-rant should check out this +5 Informative article:
:(
Real Proof - Apple users should be scared as f*** of letting real anywhere near their computers).
The reason I say this is because I just had a "fun" experience ove the weekend where Real One player deleted songs off my computer. I have a large inventory of mp3's that I legally ripped from CDs that I own. I recently bought a Palm T3 handheld, which comes with Real Player pre-installed.
I figured "why not" and installed Real One player. Made sure to un-check all the "Please contact me with special messages" and "please update me automatically" options...
Everything went great...for about 10 minutes. I was playing an mp3 and the sound was kind of fuzzy. So I stopped the playback to check some settings. When I went back to continue playing the songs, I received the dialog box "the song file you're requesting cannot be found!"
Ummm...wtf? I was just listening to it 30 seconds ago. I browsed to my network share where I keep my mp3's...it was gone. So, I jumped up to check actual server itself...it was for real...the file had disappeared from the harddrive! (incidentally, it's a RH 9 box running a samba share - maybe its some sort of bug in samba? Probably not (read on)).
Now, keep in mind that I had been playing these mp3s WinAmp and even Windos Media for over a year with no problem.
I lost 3 songs of which I had legally ripped from my own CDs, plus about 10 j-pop songs that I had downloaded only because they're not available in the US yet...something fishy is going on here.
The sad thing is that I actually prefer using their plugin for watching video clips, but now I'm thinking of switching to Windows Media...
Too late in the year for a basketball joke.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Since the only division of Apple making any serious money is iPod/iTunes
/. tradition..
To keep with
1. Sell services at a loss to stimulate hardware sales.
2. ???
3. Profit
Possible ???:
So what is going to happen when the iPod hardware reachs saturation?
a. Apple keeps making slightly different models to keep the lemmings buying new hardware. Questionable but might add a few years.
b. They close down iTMS because they have no money left
c. They raise the price of the music or value add something to iTMS to maintain it running.
They HAVE to change SOMETHING to sustain this venture. None of which is going to be good for the iTMS/iPod current or potential userbase. Basically, it can only get worse/more expensive. WAKE UP!!
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Actually, 17 USC 1201(a) deals with access controls. 1201(b) deals with copyright protection, such as copy protection (access is not a right under copyright; reproduction is). 1202 deals with copyright management information.
So both of y'all need to read the entire law, and not just the bits that strike your fancy.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
"If you write a book, should anyone be allowed to use that text as they desire, selling their own copies of it for profit? Why is this any different?"
It wouldn't be different if it was exactly the same, but this creation isn't. If just similarity was illegal, then we would have only one murder mystery book, one science fiction book, one cook book, one math book, one.....
and etc
Nope, you are allowed to write your own book, even if it is similar to others, all the way to a similar plot line, similar characters, etc. Write a sci fi novel with a spceship, a captain and crew, exploring space, interact with space dudes, and etc. Totally legal and proper and useful, society seems to like "more". We don't have just one kind of ice cream, although "ice cream is ice cream", it's cold sweet stuff in a bowl.
Real has said they created a similarity, not that they made a copy. It's a "works-alike", not an "'exactly' is-alike".
That's their claim anyway, near as I understand it.
Linux is a unix "works-alike", not a unix "is-alike".
Ample precedent out there to argue the matter that way and have some good solid ground to stand on.
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
the ipod can play non-DRMed AACs, can't it? I bet real just recompresses their RMs as you load them onto the iPod, and counts on music files being unretrievable from the iPod (that's the impression I've got -- that data is retrievable from the device in USB/mass storage mode, but that audio media are not. correct me if I'm wrong.). There's no real need for copy protection.
Before they fire up the lawyers, I hope they at least consider the possibility that maybe they should care more about enhancing the usability of the iPod rather than using its current status as leader to create a dependence on Apple only legit downloads.
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.
First of all, Real cannot "do whatever they want with the iPod." The DMCA would prevent them from hacking the iPod's DRM features, for instance. Secondly, patents needn't be reverse-engineered as they are publicly disclosed. Thirdly, originality is a requirement of *copyright*, which, together with trade secret protections, are the area of IP concerned with reverse engineering. Finally, if Apple could show that Real's hack was based on some access to confidential information about the iPod, and that the hack employs code/features that are copyrightable and that are substantially similar to Apple's copyrighted materials, the hack would still give rise to liability. Since we're talking about Real, I'd say the likelyhood of something sleazy happening is quite high.
You are too narrowly defining the scope of 'program'.
Remember these terms?
A radio program.
A television program.
etc.
From M-W: 2 a : a brief usually printed outline of the order to be followed, of the features to be presented, and the persons participating (as in a public performance) b : the performance of a program; especially : a performance broadcast on radio or television
"2 b" is what's relevant here.
Love,
dictionary nazi windex
If that doesn't scream "circumvention of a copyright protection device" I don't know what does. Yay! Two big companies duking it out over the DMCA!
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.
I really hope your post was meant as joke nazi post. The DMCA is clearly reffering to computer programs, and computer programs only. It says, in part:
a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program
"that program" being the computer program just mentioned
and:
to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs
"other programs" clearly being a refference to other computer programs, as mentioned 3 words earlier.
And as far as I know privately playing a single song never qualifies as a "program".
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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?
RTFP.
Read the post please - the first sentence of the article in question explicitly mentions a "computer program".
So a television program isn't a program for the purposes of that article.
Both Nintendo and Sony have sued companies that reverse engineered their cartridge technologies (Nintendo) and various software functions (Sony on the PS). In all situations where it went to court, they lost.
Now these were pre-DMCA so who knows, but I do not see how Real is circumventing copy protection and that the DMCA applies at all in this situation. If you read the article, you will see that Real is actually adding the copy protection to achieve compatibility.
This is a copyright issue, pure and simple. And it is between FairPlay (the DRM that Apple licenses) and Real, not Apple and Real. If Real did a clean room implementation, the conversation is over and Real can continue.
Let's see how many errors were in that post...
- apples -> Apple's
- it's owners -> its owners
- cease and desit -> cease and desist
- Ignorent little Bastards -> Ignorant little bastards
- curtousy -> courtesy
- persuit -> pursuit
- surprized -> surprised
- collaberation -> collaboration
I won't even bother to try to fix your punctuation or lack thereof.Thank you for your "ignorence".
-PM
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
whereas ACC files are listenable, I find that realmedia file are awful
Let Real have access, I wont be buying anything from them.
CJC
The real networks logo will display instead of an apple during bootup. You'll also notice that somehow the engraved logo on the back of your iPod also changed from an apple to Real.com.
You'll get "news" notifications during the songs (real format or otherwise) which actually consist only of upgrade information to the real software. Even if you just upgraded.
You'll notice that, despite being an iPod, Real somehow became the default player for all media formats on your iPod. The interface will be clunky and will no longer use the clickwheel but only two buttons and the lock switch, and you won't be able to figure out how to restore the default settings on your iPod. And it won't play AAC files.
Songs will stop midway through until you pay for a RealPass.
You'll constantly get buffering messages, even though the iPod is reading from the hard drive.
Menu options will crowd the top of the display that read, "FREE AOL SOFTWARE" and "FREE OFFERS FROM REAL"
You'll discover that you didn't really download the free version, but that somehow you paid $29.95 even though you don't remember using a credit card.
I would suspect this would be the easiest way for windows users to circumvent DRM on audio files as well. It wouldn't take much effort at all for someone to write a virtual soundcard device driver for windows that allowed any digital music played into it to be recorded as a straight up wav or mp3 or whatever. Just don't call it a DRM circumvention tool, call it an audio development/debugging tool, people will figure out how to use it and post instructions on bypassing DRM with it elsewhere.
11*43+456^2
Actually, reverse engineering is illegal under the DMCA when it is used for bypassing play control. Keep in mind that it is 100% legal to copy the encrypted information off of a DVD disc. You can do it in Windows Explorer, actually. What is illegal is to break the encryption scheme so that you can play the DVD. Therefore the DMCA does not outlaw copying, it outlaws playing. In this way copyright owners have control of how, when, how much, and in what format you play your media, granting them new rights.
Don't feed the trolls, people.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
They have said that they make a "small" profit off the iTMS and with 70% of a very small but fast growing market, they will want to protect that lead as much as possible by restricting access. When the market is 10 times the size they WILL be making money off the iTMS. Until their market share drops below 50% they won't even think of opening the iPod. What company in their right mind would sacrifice a market advantage of over 20%? They will sue REAL with everything they've got.
WDYM 'overrated'? 65% of the $1 Apple asks per song goes to the record company (in a deal negotiated by the big 5 record companies, united in the RIAA), of which only 7% ends up with the artist. That means 35% is left for covering operating expenses. Apple can't lower the price very much without making a loss on the iTMS. Loss leaders aren't a business model Apple's into.
No text included
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.
Since the only division of Apple making any serious money is iPod/iTunes, I do not think Apple will play nice.
Actually, I've recently discovered that Apple makes quite a bit of other products, including both wired and wireless computer mice!
On a whim, I also decided to purchase the Apple Powerbook, an oddly-named device which serves to bridge the gap between mouse and iPod.
Out of curiosity, just how dumb does the equipment need to be? Can you directly copy a commercial DVD onto a dual-layer consumer blank with only hacked firmware, or do you need special media or a commercial press?
But our buddy Jon Johansen (of DeCSS fame) reimplemented it in 210 lines of C# code:
http://www.nanocrew.net/blog/apple/huntingplayfair .html
Thanks Jon!
is that Real aren't decrypting anything they don't have a right to. Their software removes the Real encryption {their stuff, their common-law property right to decrypt it} and applies Apple-style encryption.
However, in some ways this is more worrying, as it calls into question the validity of digital signatures. If, say, Bill can send a file to Pat and make it look as though it came from Linus, where does that leave everyone? (Of course, the likelihood is that all iPods have the same "public key", so Apple needs only one "private key" for signing; and all iPods have the same "private key", so Apple needs only a single "public key" for encryption. This means that only one or maybe two key pairs have been compromised and not the whole algorithm. Alternatively, there may be a finite number of keypairs, more than one.)
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
This is only the case right now because in order to produce blanks (and recorders) you have to license the various patents that cover DVD media. Once those patents expire, the consumer electronics manufacturers will have a little more leeway.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Just becasue you've invested a lot of money in something in itself doesn't give you the right to prevent other people taking advantage of it. If a law has been broken, then it would be relevant to assessment of damages, but until then, it's just tough. For instance, was the WordPerfect company happy that MS reverse engineered their file format and made WinWord able to import and export it? That's what enabled MS to roll over them and take over a market that WP had owned. But there wasn't anything they could do about it.
I think Apple may need the roof tiles changing in "steve-o's" office about now.
If you would have RTFA you would have noticed that Real's store uses 192kbit AAC, NOT .rm.
Cheers.
The DMCA makes reverse engineering for interoperability explicitly legal. There are a lot of ignorant companies out there suing under the DMCA, but I doubt apple would be one of them.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I would think that with an ipod, the agreement is totally implicit from the get-go, since I doubt there's a EULA popup the first time you turn it on (I could be wrong). Legally, at least in the US, I would think that our current court system would tend to agree that the EULA holds regardless of who owns the software, or what terms they obtained it under (it would hold true for pirated software as well). In other countries, YMMV. Unfortunately, we have no legal precidence either way on whether EULAs are legal or not in their current common forms.
I would also maintain that the ipod license is not for the hardware, but for the software that resides on it.
Seriously tho, the real problem that I'm trying to address is the fact that many people have begun to think something along the lines of how the only way you can get music on the iPod is from iTMS, which is not true. iTunes just provides a convinent music store which provides seamless integration with the iPod, and is obviously easier than buying the album and ripping it.
There's nothing worse than Slashdot for information about legal issues. People spout off without actually knowing what they are talking about but don't bother to tell everyone they are talking out of their ass.
Reverse engineering is not an illegal activity. And something created through the process of reverse engineering is not illegal, even under the DMCA. So what makes some reverse engineered products illegal?
a) They use too much of the original products copyrighted design, software, documentation, etc. This is what "clean room reverse engineering" is designed to avoid... and it does so successfully 100% of the time. Yes, its a guarantee that you will not infringe on the original work's copyright if you use this process.
b) They use trademarked design elements or logos from the original product. The latter is easy to avoid, the former is not so easy, and is something Apple talks about all the time. But I don't think that is something to be concerned about in this case.
c) They might infringe on patents owned or licensed by the producer of the original product. The clean room process can not help you here. You have to use patent lawyers to review the other company's patent portfolio and other patents related to the product. You might have to redesign your product to avoid infringing on the patent. There's a danger in reviewing patents though (treble damages if you screw up) so many companies take the "head in the sand" approach and completely ignore patents unless they hit them in the face. I don't think Apple has any patents in this area but I'm not really sure.
d) Violation of trade secrets. To avoid this, just don't use any former employees or internal documents from the original company. Be sure not to use corporate spies. This one shouldn't be an issue.
e) Contract violations. Be sure that you haven't agreed to any contracts with the other company that said you won't compete with them or reverse engineer their products (the latter clause may not be enforceable but it's not something you want to depend on).
f) DMCA violation. This is what everyone is talking about. If the product has little use except for bypassing the other company's copy and access controls (even for legitimate purposes) they can claim you are manufacturing and distributing a copy control circumvention device. The DMCA specifically says it is not intended to force everyone to implement everyone else's controls, but in practice this is a difficult legal determination to make. However I don't see how that applies to this case because no controls are being bypassed... Real's controls are equivalent to Apple's. (Unless Apple wants to claim that the controls were not to prevent copying but to prevent compatible players. In that case they are violating anti-trust law.)
So there you have it from a non-lawyer who has some chance of having a clue.
Do tell me how much an iPod costs in Australia? You can't simply say $690 AU = $490 US > cost of iPod. The iPod appears to cost about $650 AU. So I'd say the iRiver player is probably about the same cost. Who's to say he didn't include sales tax in the price he listed.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Ironically, in a follow-up press release from Real, the first available song will be "I Fought the Law" but someone forgot to tell Mr. Glaser the second line of the song: "... and the law won."
>If not, then I have no right to use it at all,
>since the agreement is the very thing that gives
>me the right to use the software in the first
>place.
Why would you need sich agreement to start with? Nothing prohibits USE of something just because there is copyrights involved! In addition, most countries laws allow for such copying needed to use something (such as copying into RAM) so that is not really an issue (not sure about your exact country though). So you would not need any license any more than you need one to read a book, look at a painting or using your new vacum cleaner.
>I would think that with an ipod, the agreement is
>totally implicit from the get-go, since I doubt
>there's a EULA popup the first time you turn it
>on
Correct me if I am wrong, but iPod is not a computer software, is it? it is a music player, no? When if at any time do you get to agree to anything when buying it?
The DMCA does not make reverse engineering illegal.
The relevant sections are about copyright, not reverse engineering.
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.
Your .sig:
Microsoft is to OSS as Evian is to tap water.
I don't quite understand. Everyone knows Evian is simply "Naive" spelled backwards, which describes the situation well.
But what does "Tfosorcim" mean?
This points up that EULAs aren't really compatible with the contract law theory that underpins them. Company A sells product to Customer B, who clicks a EULA and is therefore is encumbered by its terms (if EULAs are considered valid). Customer B sells the used item to party C. Party C, not having agreed to any EULA, reverse engineers the product and publishes the spec.
Company A sues....whom? On what grounds? B never reverse engineered. C never agreed to a EULA or knew of its existence. The only ways out are
a) EULAs are not valid
b) Everyone selling used items containing software is comitting fraud (selling what they don't own).
c) Used computing devices require, like real estate, an abstract of title before being sold.
Conclusions (b) & (c) are insane.
The IPOD provides a viable music distribution business model and DRM solution that the market has accepted. Enter Real - After Napoleon Glazer THREATENS Steve Jobs and Apples proprietary music distribution system http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/16/094454. php Real desides TO HACK THE SYSTEM to sell and profit from such ? What next - REAL HACKS QUICKTIME since the Real Player Virus has so many iterations that it rarely works and reverse engineers it and markets it ? What is REAL NETWORKS ? Technology Company - Content Aggregator, Content Distribution Network, Confused ? Or is Real Networks just another company run by a delusional management team that has YET TO MAKE ANY MONEY as they chase down Anti-Trust issues as if would generate revenue ? What bothers me is that I see a clear pattern - Real asks for protection to get their sub-standard technology on the same footing as media players that actually work - then when they are not allowed to 'sponge' off others work they just hack the system. Personally we had a situation where we actually were told Real was going to copy our system - re-compile the code in a different language - then not have to pay us. That deal never happened because we felt that Real was acting in bad faith - and above that the ego of management was way out of line with the intention of those attempting to utilize our technology that I am sure Real will attempt to hack. While I am a minor shareholder as a matter of business - Shareholder should look closely at the business ethics and perception of Real Networks in the market place - perhaps that is why they are NOT MAKING ANY MONEY - or for that matter providing the market with products that consumers will pay for. Rhapsody is a subscription service - and while it is based on a system Real aquired - the idea that Real had to poach business and hack a system to sell content is concerning. To me it gives a whole new meaning to the word anti-trust. Above that if the Labels pay close attention - if Real is allowed to hack - reverse engineer DRM solutions - so should everybody else - and we should not have to pay for it. I guess Real is safe - since NOBODY would want to hack REAL NETWORKS TECHNOLOGY to attempt to generate a profitable prduct offering. Though I guess under Mr. Glasers business model -I can re-compile and redesign Helix to create .RM files and offer the system to others. Finally Real starts to make some actual, profitable revenue and as usual comes out ready to piss off somebody successful and wise enough to know better. Mr. Jobs - protect the value of my Apple stock - and the purtiy of itunes - DON'T LET REAL NETWORKS SELL THEIR MUSIC TO YOUR iPOD CUSTOMERS. Mr. Glaser - Figure out what your company IS - and how to increase your profits without creating legal problems while continuing to tarnish the company reputation. To the Labels - IF this is allowed - DRM will mean nothing if labels support such HACKS - I would of thought that your legal agreements would prevent such poaching - and by allowing such every decent hacker out there will soon breach the protection provided by APPLE for your IP - mark my words, if the Record labels support the reverse engineering of a DRM solution to allow another to profit from sales - then anybody will be able to offer content FOR SALE and playback on devices for which AGAIN you will lose control. At the end of the day - Real again shows its true colors.
shit, however, if as one poster pointed out, it is 192kb/s that is actually FAR BETTER QUALITY than APPLE's MEASLY 128kb/s second. They are both AAC so who's got the poor quality. 128kb/s while good enough for a portable device is not archive quality, or anything that would be anywhere near acceptable on a better than average - very good hi-fi.
Go ahead by bad quality music for what is usually more expensive than the actual CD. Me I never touch anything which isn't the equivelant of a 192kb/s MP3 (which would be roughly a 160 kb/s AAC)
I don't think that you need them, I'm only stating that they exist, and that the US government hasn't yet ruled on their legality. I am of the opinion that they are largely unnecessary, but I merely said that I wasn't sure that the US court system would agree with me. I feel that your vacuum cleaner analogy holds up fairly well logically, but I don't think that the average tech-undeucated justice would be able to discern the similarity.
Correct me if I am wrong, but iPod is not a computer software, is it? it is a music player, no
Both. It is a music player device that contains music player software. If there is a license agreement, I imagine that it would probably be in the manual somewhere - I've noticed that computer software often includes the EULA in documentation, even if it has a click-through license elsewhere.
When if at any time do you get to agree to anything when buying it?
This is why they are terribly unfair in their current implimentation. Anecdotally though, I have heard cases where manufacturers have taken back opened products because the user didn't agree with the license upon reciept.
I agree, it's really annoying (not to mention dangerous).
Hey, here's one:
The only time reverse engineering is illegal under the DMCA is when it is used for making infringing copies.
You are, indeed, quite incorrect.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/14/apple_q3_r esults/
DeCSS is illegal even if you never even intend to use it. Hosting a hyperlink to it is also illegal.
Yes, but that's not because it was reverse engineered. It was because it allowed access to a protected work.
SourceForge used to host a project called "PlayFair". It no longer does due to legal issues.
But this was because it allowed people to access protected works. Not because it used reverse engineering.
A Russian programmer was imprisoned for giving a presentation on the flawed security of Adobe's encrypted PDF format.
And acquitted
University Professors have been warned that an academic presentation would result in legal action via the DMCA.
But those threatening to do so backed down and retreated as soon as they were challenged.
Third-party print cartridges have been outlawed by the DMCA (no infringing copies are even possible in this case).
No they haven't. The copyright office has said as much. There is merely a temporary injunction on them while the legal dispute continues. In this casem I suspect they are making infringing copies of the cartridges.
Yes, but that's not because it was reverse engineered. It was because it allowed access to a protected work.
First: That's not what you said. You said that reverse engineering was only illegal when it was actually used to make infringing copies, not that it simply allows one to do so.
Second: DeCSS is the result of reverse engineering.
But this was because it allowed people to access protected works. Not because it used reverse engineering.
Same as above.
And acquitted
Incorrect. The charges were dropped with restrictive agreements by Sklyarov and Elcomsoft.
But those threatening to do so backed down and retreated as soon as they were challenged.
Not due to the weakness of their case so much as due to the bad publicity of suing a professor (as well as fear that they could lose the case).
No they haven't. The copyright office has said as much. There is merely a temporary injunction on them while the legal dispute continues. In this casem I suspect they are making infringing copies of the cartridges.
The case is still pending. However the copyright office can say whatever it wants with no effect. It's the court that matters.
The fact is, some instances of reverse engineering that would otherwise be legal are illegal under the DMCA.
c) Used computing devices require, like real estate, an abstract of title before being sold.
Just wait; in 2010 the Fritz chips in your hardware will be registered to your personal GUID (issued to you by the World Gov-- Trusted Computing Group). Then you wil have to call the TCG to request an un-registration form whenever you want to sell your computer, your car, your VCR or your kid's Furby II.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
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.
...Amazon.com?
They have these things called CDs...
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Does anyone give a damn, anything that says Real in front of it is automatic crap and shouldnt be played by anyone with any self respect.
Apple makes far more money selling iPods than selling songs. If Real wants so badly to create even more of a market for iPods, Apple should let them go right ahead, and just laugh all the way to the proverbial bank.
Except microsoft thought of that, the drm'd file can specify that only "microsoft signed" drivers can be used to play the song. Good luck brute forcing the signature on a driver.
if Apple doesn't sue Real, there isn't legal confirmation of anything.
IANAL but I work in the distribution end of the entertainment industry so I've had to pick up a more or less working understadning of copyright law.
if that understanding is correct, if Apple chooses not to sue, it does set a precedent. Not suing can be used by lawyers as a de facto acceptance of the practice, which in turn can be construted to be evidence that it isn't illegal. This is why Disney sues elementary schools that paint murals with Mickey Mouse; if they didn't, and someone made a hentai Minnie Does the Matterhorn film, Disney would have established a precedent that using their characters without permission is fine with them, and would have a much harder time in their lawsuit.
When the DMCA was written and adopted, it was acknowledged by the government as likely overbroad and that it would be up to the courts to work out the exact issues. So if Apple chooses not to sue, the courts then likely find that what Real did was not reverse engineering - they just don't work that out until the next time someone gets sued for a similar feat of reverse engineering.
So this is the Hobson's choice the DCMA visits upon Apple - either file an expensive lawsuit that will likely have backlash from industry intelligencia, or let it go and possibly open the door for all sorts of reverse engineering down the road - which is certainly good for consumers and engineers, but gives Apple less protection over its profit margins down the road, and could even lead to a class action lawsuit on behalf of the shareholders for not taking "vigorous" enough steps to protect intellectual property.
(Whether those protections are valid or not is left as an excercise to the reader, because it's sort of beside the point in terms of this discussion.)
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
One possible reason is that Apple would have to pay license fees to Real Networks to be able to play real media. Right now the iPod does not play any proprietary formats apart from Apple's own. The trouble with licensing any proprietary format is that Apple would find it hard to dump the format later if Real decides to up the licencing fees, or if Real decides to change the licensing terms - Once you have users with real media on the iPods, it would be tough to bring out an iPod which does not play those files. IMHO, a sensible strategy from apple - do not bother with proprietary formats at all. (Unless they are your own, of course). For the rest, it plays AAC, MP3 and plenty of open formats.
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
Couldn't you load an unsigned driver that blows away the portion of the OS that checks signatures?
Smashing the stack isn't just for h4x0rs anymore...
My other car is first.
No no, that's not until 2291 when the New Earth Government legalizes no-holds-barred fighting!
(Yeah, yeah... too much UT...)
My other car is first.
Post is here.
Quoted post:
- 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.
Karl Lillevold, a Real Sr. Codec Engineer, has made this post over at hydrogenaudio.org: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?sho
- 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.
First: That's not what you said. You said that reverse engineering was only illegal when it was actually used to make infringing copies, not that it simply allows one to do so
The primary purpose, was to make a copy of a DVD. The movie studio lawyers spent a lot of time arguing this point. In fact, it was difficult to use DeCSS without making a copy.
Second: DeCSS is the result of reverse engineering.
Indeed it was. This is not, in itself, the reason it is illegal though.
Incorrect. The charges were dropped with restrictive agreements by Sklyarov and Elcomsoft.
Did zdnet get it wrong then
Not due to the weakness of their case so much as due to the bad publicity of suing a professor (as well as fear that they could lose the case).
They had no case! Not only was it reverse engineered with permission from the creators, it was not actually used for protection of any copyrighted work.
The case is still pending. However the copyright office can say whatever it wants with no effect. It's the court that matters.
Don;t you think the court may consider the copyright office's opinion on the matter as fairly significant?
The fact is, some instances of reverse engineering that would otherwise be legal are illegal under the DMCA.
Well, that is true. I'm sorry if my statements were misleading. Perhaps I was a little too vague in my general statement about where reverse engineering was illegal, but the basic point still stands. Most of the time, it is perfectly legal.
Most EULAs allow you to resell a product only under the terms of the original EULA. You can't sell GPL software without offering the source code just because somebody got it from the FSF and gave it to you "without a license."
English is easier said than done.
Fritz chips? Do you really think chess will become that popular by 2010?
English is easier said than done.
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.
They seem to want to become the endall beall solution for Internet media: releasing Helix Player under GPL
Actually endall beall would suggest the use of a BSD license not GPL. You can't be everything to everone if you rule out closed source companies. The selection of GPL suggests something a little less universal, but it also suggests that the Linux desktop is of interest.
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.
The primary purpose, was to make a copy of a DVD. The movie studio lawyers spent a lot of time arguing this point. In fact, it was difficult to use DeCSS without making a copy.
The primary purpose of DeCSS is to *play* a DVD you already own.
Did zdnet get it wrong then
I must have missed Slashdot that day. Reading the story, it's interesting that *intent* was a big factor, which contradicts other cases (such as the DeCSS case against 2600).
Perhaps I was a little too vague in my general statement about where reverse engineering was illegal, but the basic point still stands.
You were very specific and very wrong. The act of reverse engineering *can be* illegal and *actual* copyright infringement is not necessary for it to be illegal. That's what makes the DMCA so terribly bad.
Most of the time, it is perfectly legal.
That's true. I was only pointing out that you were wrong, which was interesting after complaining about those who get it wrong.
Thus we would have a legal FLOSS .m3p player.
Yeah, but can it play ogg? How 'bout mp3?
sure, or you could load a driver that "watches" your sound driver grabbing all of it's output and sending it to a file.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
How could one private company choosing not to sue another be "legal confirmation" that something is allowed under US law? Do you think you and I could set up little shell companies, do stuff to each other, and then not sue each other over it to "prove" that the things we did are thus legal?
I'd rather be lucky than good.
I can't seem to find a single mention anywhere of one of the major limitations of iTunes for Windows: It requires Windows XP. Older versions of Windows are not supported.
Given the enormous numbers of Windows '98 and Windows ME users still out there - this could be a huge score for Real.
Does anyone know if Harmony requires XP? Or if it requires a previous working install of iTunes? (which would effectively mean the same thing)
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
If I buy a used computer with Windows 2000 Pro on it, am I not subject to the same license agreement as the original buyer?
Somehow I doubt it. If you aren't offered an opportunity to decline an agreement then you can hardly be said to have accepted an agreement, no?
IMHO, the whole shrinkwrap EULA situation is based on seriously dubious legal grounds as it is, even for new stuff that you buy. I mean, how many of us have "agreed" to a EULA just by busting open the shrinkwrap despite the fact that the Terms and Conditions you are agreeing to are contained within the shrinkwrap and not at all readable before the seal is broken?
How on earth can you contend in a court of law that a person has agreed to Terms and Conditions that they were unable to actually read until after they had already "agreed" to them by breaking the shrinkwrap?
Joseph Heller would be proud of how the software industry approaches this matter if he were still with us today.
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
I have the suspicion that you are right and that most of the other posters are barking up the wrong tree.
Here's a possibility: Real's program loads their DRMed files onto the iPod. Perhaps in the act of loading, it strips the DRM or mimics Apple's DRM. In the first case of stripping away the DRM, Real might take the position that loading the music is a one way move. Of course, we no otherwise, since an iPod is just a Firewire HD (among other things). Also, it should be pretty easy to fool the program, and load the music files onto other devices.
In the second case, mimicking Fairplay, Real would need to reverse engineer. But as you pointed out, this is not giving users any new uses of iTMS music files. It's not unDRMing files bought on iTMS. The reverse engineering is for program interoperability, and thus allowed under the DMCA.
There's a lot of confusion and misinformation out there concerning rights, digital or otherwise, so it's not suprising that a lot of people are going to be showing of their ignorance.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
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".
Yes, but the zeros and ones are still being transmitted on the bus "in the clear". So even if you can't do it in software, you could build a piece of hardware that pretends to be a sound card whose hardware is widely documented -- something like, say, an SB16 -- but has a whole load of RAM, or maybe even a hard drive, instead of a DAC. The signed driver will not know the difference between your fake sound card and a real sound card.
There will always be some vulnerability that can be exploited, unless the record companies take to selling drugs which allow you to listen to music still encrypted and have the decryption done right in your brain. Even that method is defeatable, otherwise I'd have applied for a patent on it.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
i'm willing to put money on the point that wordperfect would now use the DMCA to stop this happening - unless MS bought the judge...
GPL is different though. GPL grants a license to copy, albeit limited by certain conditions. The customer gains rights without giving anything in return. It only comes into play when someone who does not have copyright starts distributing copies. Without GPL distributing such copies would be illegal anyhow.
EULAS are a trade-this-for-that arrangement: in exchange for making a copy (into your RAM & hard drive) you agree to {not reverse engineer | not benchmark | offer your firstborn}. A customer of a used product won't be breaking a seal-with-fine-print or clicking the 2,000-word click-thru EULA, so the manufacturer cannot claim breach of contract. The manufacturer can only claim inadvertent copyright infringement, because the cutomer of the used product thought he was within his rights to use what he bought (which is ordinarily legal, unlike distributing copyrighted works), whereas in reality (if you accept the validity of EULAs) he had bought an item that was not usable as it appears, but had encumbrances, the rights given up by the EULA by the first customer.
The situation resembles a conflicting claim to title (from back taxes for example) on real estate. Someone buys property and--surprise!--someone else has a claim on what you bought. That makes bankers, who are floating a lot of credit on these deals, nervous. This is why your local county court house has a stack of deed books. Who bought what from whom is spelled out and recorded very carefully, and a paralegal traces the transactions back to...well far enough that you don't have to worry about it...and prepares an abstract of title. That way the guy in the bow-tie writing a check for $150,000 won't be so nervous.
Hence my comment that used electronics will need an abstract of title.
Done already - for example Total Recorder, which as a user I've been very pleased with. However, that doesn't help you when the player refuses to play to an unsigned driver.
And, eventually, the various companies are looking to make the decryption be done in the sound card, or ideally the speaker, so that you can't get it in the clear until the last possible second.
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.
Almost. bnenning already pointed out 17 USC 117 The actual reason EULAs work is that under the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, the installer "effectively controls access" to the program, decrypting the encrypted .cab files (or whatever else other operating systems may use) in response to an "I Agree" click.
Basically what Apple is trying to do is control the hardware and software an lock out any other competition. When MS does this, people have a hissy fit. When Apple does it, Apple fanboys charge to cause and blindly stand up for Apple.
Did you even read any of the stories on this topic? Real is selling music from the Real Music Store that can be played on more then 70 devices, including the iPod by being compatible with "fair" play DRM, Windows Media DRM and Real DRM. Nothing illegal in that.If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Once those patents expire
Once, or if? Watch various industries, led by big drugs and armed with the Eldred v. Ashcroft precedent, lobby Congress for a Cher Patent Term Harmonization Act that extends the patent term to life plus 70 to match that of copyrights.
I think you actually agree with me. I'm not claiming that EULAs are valid. I offer that as a conceit and show that it is ridiculus. And yes, a EULA term that says, "Don't buy music from Real Networks," is another ridiculus consequence of EULAs' legal theory. The terms can be totally capricious because they never really were agreed to.
Real responded with people breaking their encryptation and adding real support to their own players quite badly. With legal threats, etc.
I'm guessing them just using the Real player itself isn't going to change things much. They're still going to hear the music or see the video or whatever.
Point is, they're not going to hear the music along with watching their high end machine brought to its knees by Real-installed spyware and bitching coming from Real's player if they use a player that isn't Real's own, but supports Real's files.
DeCSS had legitimate uses, too. Such as adding DVD support to programs without having to pay a massive licencing fee and not having to pay for one of those lame ass DVD player programs. But it got shot down.
I guarentee if it were a consumer doing it, they'd either be sued pantsless without warning, or issued C&Ds.
Funny how that works, isn't it. Since we all know that large companies are completely without sin.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Libertarians would repeal DMCA ... along with many regulations that prevent big biz from screwing people in other ways. Libertarian policy is logical and non-hypocritical, but also dangerous in its simplicity.
... in the other direction.
Greens oppose DMCA as a law that takes away from the "common good". It's complicated and meddlesome, trying to stop corporatism without destroying capitalism.
IMO, it's very interesting when these two philosophies can agree on something. Too bad the Remoblicrats also agree about copyright law