Slashdot Mirror
Real Networks Hacks iPod; .rm & Real Store for iPod
alphakappa writes "According to Cnet, Real Networks is expected to announce on Monday that it has found a way to make its songs play on the iPod. Now songs bought from the RealPlayer Music Store can be played on the iPod. Earlier Real had made it possible for songs bought from iTunes to be played on RealPlayer by transparently starting the iTunes authentication in the background. However since Apple has not licensed the technology to make file formats playable on the iPod, the latest Real initiative could be construed as reverse engineering. How would this fare under the DMCA? Or is it just for the tiny ones?"
If they can figure out how to play their format on the iPod, I say more power to them.
"Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
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'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.
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
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.
That's a cleanroom implementation, and is usually used when you want to copy the functionality of someone's work and not run afoul of copyright laws.
The key in the cleanroom approach is that you already know how the copyrighted work... works. That would be after any reverse engineering, or if you happened to somehow have copyrighted sourcecode or schematics, etc.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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.
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...
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.
Do you understand that the iPod is not vendor locked? Its just that the iTMS is product-locked to the iPod. You can put MP3s, WAVs, AACs from any source on the ipod so long as they're not DRM'd in a way besides FairPlay. So all those stores have to do [to be compatible with the iPod] is not insist on some DRM (which is exactly what the whole slashdot community has been demanding of Apple anyway...).
"Stumble before you crawl"
"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!
I think you kinda mist the point of the parent...
I think, what the poster was trying to say, was that Real, if they really wanted some of the iPod market, could simply sell non-DRM'ed tunes.
Which really would be a victory for the consumer
"Dave, I stand still--the conclusions jump to me!" - Bill McNeal, NewsRadio
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.
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.
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
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!
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.)