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.
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.
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.
The speculation in the parent post is woefully uninformed. Apple does not own the file format. AAC is a consortium-built, industry-standard audio format. Apple does not even own the DRM. It is licensed from FairPlay. See Apple's AAC page to get a clue.
> 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%
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
"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!
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
No Apple does not own AAC - but Apple does own FairPlay.
This is why FairPlay is listed in Apple's Trademark List
Now Apple's AAC page does indeed reveal that AAC is a consortium design effort and they don't own it.
t horization. html
It doesn't, however, say anything about the FairPlay DRM. Indeed FairPlay is listed as an Apple trademark, and Apple claims it as their own technology. There is no mention of this being licensed, so that would imply that they do own it.
See:
http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/au
Now there is much speculation that FairPlay was licensed from Veridisc, since that company was developing a DRM system called "Fairplay". However the only evidence of this is speculation from web pundits who have done a search on "Fairplay" and come up with Veridisc's web site. There is no press release from either company on a license agreement - one would have thought Veridisc would want to shout about this. There's also, apparently, no record of any payments being made to Veridisc by Apple for a license fee, or purchasing the company, in their accounts.
is that Apple controls the hardware (iPod) AND the software (iPod firmware and iTunes). Real is always just one update away from getting their compatibility knocked out. So Real may start playing a cat and mouse game where Apple keeps locking them out and Real keeps trying to break back in.
This could do more damage to the Real brand, by promoting a particular aspect of their software that is behaves inconsistently.
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!
I think Apple may need the roof tiles changing in "steve-o's" office about now.
Not quite true. The chipset supports WMA decoding, but Apple would have had to write some user interface (plus maybe some other interfacing code) to enable it, which they didn't bother to do. Omission is a whole different ball game from restriction.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 : )
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".