Slashdot Mirror
Real Responds to Apple's Hacking Claims
ack154 writes "An article on VNUNet gives a sharp response from Real regarding Apple's recent claims of Real using "hacker tactics" to allow music from the Real store to play on the iPod. Real states: 'Compatibility, choice and quality are critically important to consumers and Harmony provides all of these to users of the iPod and over 70 other music devices including those from Creative, Rio, iRiver and others.' The article goes on to outline what they say is a 'clear precedent' for what they have done. And in case you were under a rock it all seemed to start here earlier this week."
I've been watching this whole thing unfold for some time now and paid attention to the overtures Real was making to Apple some time ago. Basically issue here is that the folks who designed the iPod and the iTunes music store really cared about the music, whereas Real is concerned with making money by delivering media rather than caring anything about the media per se. Let me repeat that for the folks at Real........It's about the music.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
To make the, "How do you like them Apples?" crack...
Sure. Reverse-engineering is a hacker tactic.
So?
That doesn't make it illegal. Rather it is specifically allowed by law.
(Yes that even means the DMCA, for interoperability purposes.)
What a stupid attempt at guilt-by-association.
Compatibility? Did you say choice for consumers?
.rm format so I can use any player to play it?
How about opening the
Everybody who's willing to defend Apple in this case, ask yourself, were you also willing to defend Lexmark when they sued an after-market toner maker? This case doesn't seem all that dissimilar to me.
Since there isn't any explaination of exactly what they do we can't say for sure that they cracked the iPod to get their songs to play, but, Apple makes the product and who is Real to say that they must support Real files as well?
If they have reverse engineered the Fairplay DRM, or used the PlayFair code to somehow encode their files as legit FairPlay DRM'd files then there's probably(most definately) something wrong(legally) with what they have done.
Compatibility, choice and quality are critically important to consumers...
In regards to real player these attributes are best defined as:
Compatibility: Real files only play in real player
Choice: Choose between real player basic (spyware laden) or real player premium (less spyware laden)
Quality: Only the highest quality spyware included in RealPlayer
Who are the consumers going to be pissed off at when their Real-purchased music quits working on an updated iPod?
Wake up.
This from Real, the company who, not even 5 years ago, had a player so bogged down with spyware and other junk that it had become a four-letter word to practically the entire tech community? Real, the company whose player had auto-starts and other background automation that was nigh impossible to disable?
I think they need to examine their own products before they accuse Apple of denying choice and quality to the customer, in so many words.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
if we stripped the DRM out of their music files so we can play them on whatever player we like.
Wasn't DeCSS all about choice to use DVD on Linux and they got badly beaten anyways? ... probably just my overactive imagination again >_
I don't really care about the choice anyways, they can always do what they want, I will never use anything from Real... but if they get away with it, it will be yet another proof that there are two levels of laws.
Apple is stretching by threating to use the DMCA. Since this only works with Real's service, there's no copyright infringement going on, so copyright law should not apply. The intent of the DMCA was to protect copyright holders, not the middlemen.
This is very different than DeCSS, where there was obvious infringing uses.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Apple makes a lot more money selling iPods than they do selling songs on the iTMS.
-Tom
I just don't see too many people running out to purchase iPods so they can use Real's online music store vs. Apple's. I love my iPod, and I bought it because I would not have to convert my entire library (48GB) to a different format to maximize usage. Hell, my iPod isn't even filled to capacity (yet)!
No matter what Real does I feel that most people are aware of their love affair with spyware. So one could assume that most people would pass on purchasing a song from RealNetworks to use on their iPod.
I just want MP3s and an MP3 player - I don't want DRM and I won't by anything with DRM in it. Both Real and Apple can sod off for all I care.
----
Let's see, we've got a music service that no one uses and a spyware-ridden player that users detest. Let's make a desperate grab at the most popular player on the market so as to save our sorry, mismanaged asses from bankruptcy.
./ will be on our side, because we'll talk about open and compatible formats, even though neither we nor Apple have one.
Oh and BTW, everyone on
Great business plan guys! Give Robby G a raise.
Is this rock and roll, or a form of state control?
5 YEARS ago? How much has changed in the world of digital music in 5 years?! Real is no angel, but let's not ignore the fact that they HAVE listened and their current player is much better then their old offerings.
It seems there is quite a lot of confusion about what Read exactly did. Some people are under the impression that Real is installing custom firmware on the iPod. According to a poster who claims to be an engineer from Real, they did not change anything on the iPod or in iTunes. All they did was maskerading the files from their own music store (which are 192kbps AAC with their own DRM) as Fairplay AAC files.
Does this mean that if Real wins their case, we have a HUGE loophole in the DMCA, whereby we'd be allowed to reverse engineer DRM, if the content is re-encoded with your own DRM ? - I wonder how the RIAA and MPAA will feel about this. Sucks to be them I guess!
And this blurb would be wrong. The iPod and iTunes both still support un DRM'd Music. Ihave over 5 gigs of un DRM'd MP3's on my PowerBook with no issues.
Gorkman
take that Apple. you just got SERVED.
seriously though. Real makes a good point: they aren't disabling apple's copyright protection of the music. If anything, they are adding newly protectable content.
booya!
I thought this had been reported often enough by now.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
that real would refer to the IBM compatibles from compaq. What they did not bother to mention the amount of hardware conflicts, and all the other hassles that it created. It took a while to straighten thing out. But look at windows now. A desperate atempt to create a same computing experience across a huge variety of different hardware. Apple Macs not really better but it provides a consistent and predictable behaviour which i believe is only achievable tru maintaining control over both hardware and software
/. and are experts they just want something to work. Not spend time figuring out how it works.
We have to remember not all ipod owners frequent
Ipod and apple name and reputation is at stake here and Real is going under anyway, so its like a i'm dragging u down to hell with me situation here.
Shame on you real!
5 years ago when they went after StreamBox.
But Apple thought it would be better if the iPod could do less. So their engineers pulled a bunch of all-nighters to make sure that the iPod couldn't play just any music a customer might have laying around. They called this DRM.
Sure, because we all agree that the iPod would be better without an easy, integrated way for people to legally obtain the music they want to listen to.
Is this rock and roll, or a form of state control?
My main question is this: Why does this bother Apple? Everything I remember reading said that Apple was either making very little or potentially losing money on the iTunes music store, rather using it as a means to sell more iPods. If this is the case, you'd think that Apple would be thrilled that someone else was giving consumers a reason to buy one of their products...
I'd _love_ Apple to hit Real with DMCA related lawsuit. Not because I think what Real is doing isn't great (unlike most of their other activities), or that DMCA is a "Good Thing" (tm), but on the contrary -- until commercial companies themselves start getting hit with too-relaxed DMCA definitions (as opposed to individuals), their lobbying efforts will likely keep the law on the books. If the content industry big shots start getting tangled in zillions of IP/copyright related lawsuits, perhaps the laws will be moderated to the point they make some sort of sense...
- To err is human; but to really screw up, you need a computer
And, if you're being honest with yourself, you'll admit that there would not be a Real music store today if there hadn't been a (successful) iTMS.
Similiar Apple has no business controlling what others do with their hardware. If people want to replace the software on it so it can be used with another service then that is their right. Just like ford can't say anything about you converting a petrol powered car to a gas powered car apple should keep it mouth shut. Anyone defending apple is a sucker for advertising. Just because Apple had that 1985 ad doesn't mean it is really a freedom company. Carefully read Mac owners posts and you will see that Apple is just an MS without the money but a "cooler" image.
Just replace apple with MS and see if you think the same about the story.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Apple is pissed for several reasons. First and foremost because the iPod isn't just a music player, it's a bundled music solution, since techies love that word. You get a fantastic sexy little jukebox and the elegance of having it work with iTunes, nearly transparently.
I doubt it's "competition" Apple is all that concerned about since Real wont steal too many customers on their own. It's bundling. What do you think Microsoft will pressure PC companies into shipping instead of iTunes? Yeah, something that claims "compatibility" with all systems.
Apple wants everyone to experience the elegance of the integration with iTunes and the iPod. They want you to synch your music with iTunes, and buy your music with iTunes. Then being so impressed with how nice and impressed how everything works go out and buy a Mac. Think Trojan Horse, only it's a mid-to-long term strategy for Apple.
Apple is also undoubtedly concerned about having to support Real's song delivery system since people having trouble getting music onto their iPods will blame Apple. Real's notoriously secretive UI-unfriendly software will undoubtedly
I agree with Apple opening up the iPod. But I also believe the style in which Real did this was totally disgusting. I had little respect for Real before this, and even less afterwards. No matter how much they claim the moral ground this is an act of desperation. An act that while is a movement in the right direction for the industry was riddled with pettiness and beligerence. And is clearly being done to save a company that created it's own destruction with it's inferior software and horrible policies towards it's users.
Something intelligent here.
My favorite thing the Real guy said was while he was mentioni[Buffering.....0%]
[Buffering.....7%]
[Buffering.....11%]
[Buffering.....32%]
[Buffering.....7%]
[Buffering.....40%]
Ah forget it.
Well actually, reverse engineering is explicitly illegal in the USA--that's what part of the fuss over the DMCA is.
Secondly, if Apple can claim either trade secret or copyright, then Real is in the wrong even without the benefit of bad law.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Works for me. Sure it's a workaround, but nice just the same.
The chances of pulling off a reverse engineering project without encountering long, expensive and often successful claims from the target IP owner are next to nil. There are many, many risks associated with clean-room techniques. For example, when the company undertaking the clean room project develops specs for the product being reverse engineered, how much access to the target product is too much? When those specs are handed off to the clean room team, how close are the specs to actual access to the target product? Is anyone in the clean room lying about their background? To be perfectly safe, I would imagine that the clean room team would have to be composed of people who don't own an iPod, and have never used or touched an iPod. Try proving that in today's world. Real says they did it by the book, but there are tons of ways to prove them wrong.
Beat me to it, AC. That they locked RM is the thing that irritated me the most about Real and why I have long since dumped them. Make no mistake at what they said: Consumers should be given a choice, not people. Consumers are required to buy something to be consumers, people do not. What's going on is that they want rights for their business to not be reduced, only people's rights; thus, a captured market with no recourse but to be dependant on the businesses. If we're going to live in a DMCA world, then Real should have its butt raided by the FBI.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
Apple should just go and add .rm compability to the Quick Time player. When Real complains, they could just say, "Hey, we used reverse engineering".
... Um, no, because no record label would license out their music in an unprotected format.
I'm neither an Apple fan nor a Real fan (ha!), but Apple is most definitely in the right here. Sorry to all the zealots out there disappointed to learn that Apple is just another corporate whore like the rest and not the ultra-hip, non-conformist underdog you thought, but they have an obligation to protect their property, intellectual or physical, and they have a right to do with their products what they wish.
Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff tha-- MICRO$OFT IS THE DEVIL!!1
Real is probably in a lot of trouble here since they obviously reverse engineered some code from the iPod for their benefit without Apple's permission. I would hate to be a lawyer for Real at this point because it's basically like saying, "Yes we did violate the Terms and Conditions of the iPod, but we had a good reason to" - this generally doesn't stand up too well in court!
The DMCA can be applied if Real circumvented Apple's copyright protection mechanisms - regardless of whether it was for interoperability. It is a violation of the DMCA to not only do it yourself, but then also to distribute the means to do it e.g. the DeCSS case with Jon Johansen.
A few of you may remember the article The Way the Music Died in which I wrote that our company cStream (http://www.cstream.com was allowing people to stream full previews of songs while purchasing songs of higher quality in MP3 format.
Personally, whenever I buy a song on iTunes or BuyMusic I burn it to a CD and then rip it into MP3 format. Then I don't have to worry about losing the license to the file if I decide to purchase a new music player or a new computer.
Perhaps he'll go start selling sugared water.
May we never see th
The number of posts that state "OMG, REAL HAS SPYWARE IS EVIL coupled with "OMG, APPLE MAKES FRUITY CONSUMER APPLIANCES AND IS AWESOME" is really disgusting. For Pete's sake, people. Take an objective look at the situation.
Real has done a lot of crappy things over the years. Apple has done plenty of good things over the years. That does not mean that Apple is automagically right, and Real is wrong. I've come to expect a pretty significant bias in regards to the average SlashDotter, but this is waaaay beyond that.
--LordPixie
First off, Apple not wanting competition has nothing to do with their objection to Real doing this. Real is not competing, they are riding on the coattails of another company's success. If Real was competing, they'd be selling a portable player that played MP3 and Real Media files. Any competition was over when the prospective customer for that player chose an iPod instead.
Secondly, Apple makes a pittance from iTMS sales. iPod sales are where the money is. "But wait," you say, "Then wouldn't Apple be all for anything that might sell more iPods?" No, and here's why:
Apple's user experience is due to them controlling "the whole widget," as they say-- hardware and software. If Real wedges some of their own software into the iPod, that could cause problems for Apple.
Do you think Real will go out of their way to inform iPod-owning customers of their music store that their iPod implementation is nothing but a hack, liable to be broken (either purposely or accidentally) at any time by future iPod upgrades from Apple? Doubtful.
Who's going to look bad if Apple had no qualms with Real's hack and then a future iPod firmware revision broke it? Apple, not Real.
Who's to say Real's hack won't end up frying some percentage of the iPods on which it is installed? Will Real be paying to get those repaired? Nope. Will Apple bear the brunt of a shitstorm from pissed-off people who fried their iPod and were rightly refused free warranty service by Apple because they broke the terms of their warranty/EULA? Yup.
To sum up, Real would be reaping all the rewards of this unauthorized "joint venture," and Apple would be taking all the risks. Any increase in iPod sales as a result of Real's hack opening up the iPod could be very quickly offset by negative publicity, if the the Real hack proved problematic. All it takes is a couple assholes with a grudge and a blog, and next thing you know big media spins it into some kind of defect in the iPod that is Apple's fault.
For Christ's sake, the iPod has been out for almost three years now and a CNN article from two days ago implies that it ONLY plays songs purchased from the iTMS. These people are more concerned with getting the article out than getting the details right.
Real is nothing but a bunch of parasites who make crappy software, I'm all for Apple fighting them over this.
~Philly
Amazing since the DMCA explicitly permits reverse engineering to ensure interoperability. Try again.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
Interestingly, two of these three words were used to make the name Compaq. A company that 22 years ago reverse engineered IBMs BIOS to give us the clones we all enjoy today. I shudder to think where we would be if the DMCA existed in 1982. Seems to me 'hacker tactics' got us where we are now. So in a way, I support Real's position.
Cue [Buffering...] jokes.
Real took publically accessible information or did a clean room reverse engineering of the iTunes authentication and DRM. That is 100% legal under all laws because they did it 1) to allow for interoperability and 2) they are not circumventing the Fairplay copyprotection, they are actually adding it to the Real files.
Apple can complain all they want, but unless Real violated a patent on the Fairplay DRM software or actually stole copyrighted code to implement their version of the Fairplay DRM, Apple can go fuck itself.
Just to be clear, I have 2 iPods (a 3G and a 4G) and am a periodic customer of iTunes. Anything I buy, I immediately remove the DRM using Playfair. I will never comply with any law which seeks to restrict my fair use rights, especially the DMCA. Yep. I'm a violater. In more ways than one. But I buy all my copyrighted stuff. Once.
However, do you really think any iTunes customers give a crap if people can also use other, non iTunes, music stores? If you wanna use Real's service on your iPod, enjoy!
Music from Real's music store is encoded as an AAC file with a DRM wrapper.
All this software does is take RealDRM and replace it with equivalent AppleDRM.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Yet, no one was ever forced to purchase an iPod.
That has nothing to do with the legality of you playing whatever music you like on a device.
I'm amazed that *anyone*, even the most ardent Apple apologist, is defending Apple on this point. Yes, Apple made a GUI for a POSIX environment that idiots can use, and Real made a lousy media player. That doesn't mean Apple has a halo and Real carries a pitchfork. Apple's trying to wedge themselves into a monopoly, and Real is telling them "Nope, this here is a free-market econonmy."
May we never see th
Why would Apple complain? This is certainly not going to cannibalize iPod sales (profitable) - it'll, if anything, increase them - and while it might reduce iTMS sales slightly, Apple makes minimal amounts of money off of those anyway.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Where does everyone get this idea that you can only play DRM'd files bought from iTMS on the iPod?
You can buy an iPod and just rip your own stuff. That's what I do and it works great. I'm in Canada, so no iTMS for me, but it really hasn't bothered my music listening habits. I buy the CDs I want, then keep 'em in a wallet as high-res backups, and use the iPod for everything. It's No Big Deal. No store, no DRM, nothing. Hell, you can even turn off the store icon in iTunes so you never have to sully your eyes with that godless RIAA-0wned enterprise.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
The DMCA allows an exception "solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other that this section" 17 U.S.C 1201(f)(3). (emphasis mine)
The judge in the SCC/Lexmark case read this very narrowly and said that since the algorithm came on a chip, it was non-exempt hardware instead of software. This case isn't allowing software/software interoperability (like Wine offers), but it's data/software interoperability. Big difference; if the DMCA allowed that, then DVD-playing would be legal (same interoperability, except in reverse)
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
for pulling for Real on this one...
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
I disagree with you. Once I fork over the cash and complete the transaction for my iPod, I can do whatever I want with it. If I want to hack it and put (God forbid) Real encoded songs on it, I can do that since I paid for it! Saturn can no more tell me that I have to use Saturn gas, or Saturn rims on my car, than Apple can tell me what I can do with my iPod.
Cracking the iPod open and extending the playback options for Real's downloadable music store is what this is all about. It's called backing the winning horse.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
Arguably, since Real isn't licensing FairPlay, I would point the finger at them.
Let's play hypothetical: Apple comes out with iPod mini 2.0 with a 6 GB drive and loads of new touches and features in the firmware. Joe Windows-User has bought more than few albums on Real's store and is interested in upgrading from his old Rio player. He knows his songs from Real are "compatible" with the iPod, so he goes and buys himself a mini 2.0. He goes home, hooks up the iPod and goes to install his songs - and they don't work.
Where does he go for support? Apple never worked with Real to make those songs work, thus Apple won't care. Will Real just sit and point the finger at Apple for "disabling" the iPod, even though Apple may not have purposefully done anything to disable Real's music? Will they change Harmony to work with the new iPod and then allow their users to download new copies of the songs with the new Harmony code in them to make sure they work?
It strikes me that Real has to count on their buyers never upgrading their iPods, or using them with anything other than Real's jukebox app, for this to work with no issues.
As a support professional, I would be telling my boss to stop this before things get too messy. I'm not pro-DRM, and I don't agree with Apple's "hacker" statement or invocation of the DMCA, but I can see some practical issues here that always arise from making a machine do something the vendor didn't intend and I wouldn't want to take the phone calls on the support lines once the fit hits the shan...
Leave it to Apple to complain when the functionality and usefulness of its product is expanded at no cost to them. Darn these increased sales! Make it stop!
No, they didn't. You have to use their actual Real player to play any Real format. Helix by itself is just a stock media player that doesn't know about Real's proprietary stuff.
It's like Microsoft open sourced Windows but the OSS version will only run OSS applications, not anything Win32. It's Real using the community to develop a media player for OSS platforms.
You might like or dislike that, but as for them opening up their formats, that's BS.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
I think what the fuss is really about is that Real wanted and alliance with Apple, without being very friendly about it by threatening to seek to team up with Microsoft if Apple refused, and Apple refused them anyway. Now Real has forced the issue. It seems that the CEO of Real Networks, Rob Glaser, is being very abrasive in his business dealings. Real has already been criticised for some of their questionable practices by consumers and doesn't seem to be a reputable company to be involved with.
If Real can crack the iPod, then someone should be able to make tools for converting unprotected .rm formats to .mp3 because that doesn't circumvent any copy protection and shouldn't be subject to the DMCA according to Real's argument. Does anybody know of any?
Wrong. I can reverse engineer any product as long as I don't break any laws while doing it. Those would laws be patent violation, breaking encryption or access control method (DMCA) or distributing copyrighted material. Simply examining how something works is not and I suspect will never be illegal. And trade secrets are things that only one party knows. If you put your trade secrets in a product or they are easily deduced by examining the product, those are no longer trade secrets.
They are just using the trick playfair (now hymn) used... figure out how to ask the iPod for your user keys, try all of them until one decrypts the priv atom in a m4p file, and decrypt the data stream with the key therein. It's just standard AES (128-bit Rijandel). The trick was figuring out how keys are managed. And lucky for Real, all that groundwork was already done for them. Then they could just pull your user keys from your iPod and encrypt your downloads with those on THEIR music site. Easy peasy.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
It's the same ridiculous bullshit you dumb Apple fanboys are always spouting. Everything Apple does is good, everything anyone else does is suspect.
Apple products are generally pretty good; I like them. Apple as a company is ethically neutral, ie. amoral, or possibly even immoral as it seems many companies are. In fact, that is probably an apt description, as they are doing something wrong and probably just don't care. It's just all about money in the end.
Why do you folks look at legal wranglings from Apple differently than those from everyone else? Answer: because you are pathetic "Ooh, shiny!" type people, and can't disassociate your love of Apple products from Apple the company.
Christ on a crutch... Apple is just another company trying to make money. They don't give two shits about you. Buying products from them is purely a business transaction. Sheesh!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I don't know what all the hoopla is about anyway. There are only two formats I use and they are MP3, and iTune/iPod lossless formatted. I've heard Real's player, and their formats, and frankly, they suck. They suck bad.
Most anyone who gets a decent pair of headphones, or a good amp and speakers, and listens to them will discover that they really do suck. For a voice book or something like that, I suppose they're acceptable. But when I can play that same book in iTunes or on the iPod, why bother with Real???!!!
Why would you want to listen to iTunes stuff on Real Networks player is beyond me??!!!
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
I doubt that Apple is truly concerned about Real. The bigger threat, and an obvious one, is Microsoft using Real's actions as a justification for an MS hack of the iPod. MS will not allow Apple to dominate the portable music space without putting up a tremendous fight.
Consider this - in the next release of Windows (whenever the hell that will be), MS includes a small utility that lets you take your Windows Media files and place them on the iPod. MS has a great deal more clout with the RIAA / MPAA than Apple does, and is in a much better position to negotiate contracts. After exclusively securing lots of artists and albums, MS then integrates a "Microsoft Music Store" product into Windows (probably with a link on the desktop) - and thus the end of the iTunes music store, and the door is now open for an MS-inspired iPod competitor. After all, if you can purchase music from MS and it runs on the iPod, why not purchase a cheaper music player from MS?
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
I've been trying to understand myself why Apple would make such a stink about this and what they have to benefit from putting REAL under fire for DMCA violations.
:)
My thoughts - this isn't about selling songs it's a matter of codec -vs- codec. The ITMS is Apple's first major attempt at saturating the internet with the quicktime codec. It is my opinion that they see this opportunity as a way to put real to bed and position quicktime as a bigger player. If they choose to update the iPod firmware to prevent converted REAL files from playing that may in turn leverage REAL customers away from Rhapsody and over to the ITMS thus growing their user base and making quicktime & (AAC) a more popular format.
Apple clearly has the upperhand in this dispute as the iPod is practically a household name now and REAL is furious because of their vulnerable position.
Also note that after REAL begged, Apple gave REAL the green light to use AAC in their player and did they return the favor? NO they didn't, who's playing fair here is the REAL question...
I'm wondering how much overtime the Quicktime team will be putting in to make a codec for all of the RM protected media files. Then QT could save them to disk, allow encoding, transcoding, etc. Apple then sells the encoder for a lower cost than Real, or just gives it away.
The QT team has created or written a tremendous number of codecs now, think: animation, video, cimepak, DV, Pixlet, etc. They have, or with $4.5B in the bank, can hire the best of the best in the fields to reverse engineer and recode. I'd say two weeks to a working internal prototype, one month until they have a rev 1.0 product.
If Real tried to sue, they and Apple could just come to a mutual agreement to stop cloning each other's technology. If not, Apple could certainly argue in court that Real themselves publicly stated that such actions were vital to the marketplace: case closed.
Real's primary (only) source of income is the Real encoder and the Real player. If Real really wants to play this "compatibility" and "open" game, they had best look under their feet to check what ground they are standing on before they walk too much farther down this path. Turnabout is fair play, and it would only be fair for Apple to put Real in their own position.
Yea... I think in this case Apple shouldn't use the courts, they should definitely fight fire with fire.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Actually, what irritated me was a lot of independant music and video was released in RM and I couldn't convert it to MP3 or video so I could play it on other devices. There is a lot of good material that has been lost in the world all because of the feared evils of copying.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
as this is post is well into the 100's of posts i doubt it will be read but becasue i'm pig headed here goes anyway: Several months ago (not sure when) Real said that they where going to change their ways, and adopt a google-ish point of view: 'try to do no evil.' To this they have helped out the helix project, released real 10 codecs, and re-tooled their webpage to make finding and downloading their free player eaiser (guys you still need to work on that one). And now they are tryign to make thier format play on every player out there. This is the wisest move possible for a company trying to make money. This way they do not need to dump money into hardware design and manufacturing, for their own portable player. Also if you had a format that could be played on all portable players and therefor be easily "traded" between these players (as players will eventually get wifi or bluetooth or whatever soon to allow for song trading with the need of a desktop or laptop). This will help to insure that your format is the one choosen by the public. For i would not trade a song with some who used songs i could not play on my device. So they are beign very smart, and at teh same time giveing us choices but not shoving siad choice down our throats. i say bravo to them, but thi does not make up for the evils of your past Real, and the question remains can a leapard really change it's spots?
It has been widely publicized that Apple does not profit much from the iTunes Music Store and it is more of an enabler to selling iPods with a hefty profit margin. If this really is the case, isn't it a good thing that the iPod can use more formats? I'm sure Apple is just using this press to make noise for itself but they seem to be contradicting themselves in grand public fashion. (This from an iPod, powerbook and iMac toting, .Mac, iTMS using Apple lover)
--Let's hack root on 127.0.0.1 --panZ
Too bad Harmony is only compatible with Windows.
Sorry to wander off-topic, but I watched Commodore's demise from rather closer that would be considered prudent, and I see very little similarity between Apple's business practices and Commodore's.
Commodore died due to non-existent marketing and aggressively incompetent management. They were used to "fire-and-forget" products that required no end-user support or continuing R&D. The Commodore-128 (and arguably the C-64) was the last such platform meeting that description. It was designed, manufactured, and sold -- end of discussion. You could return it under warranty if it was DOA, but that was about the extent of their "support."
Then they bought Amiga, and suddenly found themselves not only with the finest personal computer system the world would see for the next 15 years, but an honest-to-$(GOD) computer system that demanded end-user support and continuing R&D to keep it up to date and moving forward. Commodore could never figure this out. They couldn't understand why people didn't just buy the thing and then leave them alone. They had an amazing computer, but what they really wanted to sell was consumer electronic equipment. Commodore's technical staff was first-rate, but was continually sabotaged by an executive management team (Irving Gould, Medhi Ali) that simply didn't want to be bothered.
Apple's management understood and understands computer system design and enhancement. Commodore's didn't. And so, Commodore died, and (effectively) took the Amiga with it.
Sorry about the off-topic rant.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I mean, isn't that what companies in the tech sector, like Real, claim is so great about their sphere? Isn't innovation the Holy Grail of the tech world? So, Real, take your guys off trying to gang-hump iTunes and start brainstorming for your own Great Idea that everyone else in the world will come rushing to. You know, at one point Real had a serious head-start on everyone else in terms of streaming audio. Real should have been the ones to create the iTunes music store and the software and maybe even the iPod, but they squandered their lead. Now they want to latch on to the company who beat them at their own game? Too late. Get over it, stop embarrassing yourselves and move on to something else.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
First, that would only make sense the other way around - it would undermine the process if Real found a way to get Apple's media easily working on a non-locked-down player (not to mention which this is possible anyway). Getting more music to work on the ipod doesn't undermine anything from a DRM standpoint.
And competition is a good thing. If this undercuts apple from a market share standpoint 1) that's good, because it means Real brought something to the table to compete with apple, and 2) it means that customers are still getting record-company-approved music from Real. Note this isn't about piracy, as one can encode pirated music and play that on your ipod anyway. This is about getting another DRM'd format working on the ipod, which record companies can't but love. In other words, this is in no way bad for the industry OR consumers. It's only bad for apple's monopoly.
I know the pro-apple crowd here thinks that only Apple can bring music to the masses, but their (admittedly very good) first foray into music only buys them time. Expecting all other companies to hand them a permanant monopoly is absolutely mindless. Expecting all content to be explicitly tied to a specific hardware platform is pretty dumb; expecting the opposite (as you and Apple do) is indefensible.
Disclaimer: I'm an apple owner. But it doesn't mean I have to rubber-stamp everything the company does.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
No matter what side of the debate you are on it is clear that real reverse engineered Apples fairplay. Real tried to get Apple to open up fairplay and let them compete with Apple in the music store business....when Apple said no, the released their hacked version. It is plain and simple. It is funny that real is complaining so much, the have pretty much ignored the Mac platform and updates to real player for the Mac have come slow and in some cases not at all.
Some say that it is all about money...you are correct, Real is stealing from Apple and undermining Apples deal with the record companies....this can only help real in the long run. It is too bad if Real were a little more patient and waited till Microsoft came out with their music store they would have had a good shot at a legal fairplay license with Apple. Apple is beginning to license it to other companies and those that "play fair" with Apple will get a slice of the pie. Real did not and will lose because of that....If they record companies pull their support from Apple the only one to win from that happing is Microsoft and that won't be good for anyone!
If you can create a DRM system that is compatible with someone else's, then you can muddy the issue of whether or not a tool that bypasses that DRM, is primarily intended for "circumvention."
Here's how it works. "Circumvention" is defined as bypassing a tech measure that limits access, without authorization from the copyright holder. For example, if you bypass CSS on a DVD whose copyright is held by Disney, and you don't have Disney's permission, then you have "circumvented" CSS. Likewise, if you bypass the DRM on a Metallica song that you bought from iTMS, without getting permission from Metallica's record label, then you have "circumvented" Apple's DRM system.
The catch is this: look at who you're having to get permission from. It's not the party who invented or implemented the DRM system; it's the party who holds the copyright on the content. If you hold the copyright, then you can give yourself permission.
For example, if you hold the copyright on a movie, and somehow get that movie onto a CSS-scrambled DVD, then when you DeCSS it, you are not circumventing CSS. You are bypassing it, but since you're doing it with authorization, it is not circumvention.
If such bypassing is something that you often do, then it makes perfect sense for you to somehow obtain a tool to help you do it. In fact, if you're a hacker, then you're going to write a computer program to do it, the very first time. The use of this tool by you, is not prohibited by DMCA. Is trafficking in this tool prohibited by DMCA? Hmm... not so simple to say.
It is assumed that all music sold by iTMS has its copyright held by parties who do not grant authorization to anyone, to bypass the DRM. But if anyone can implement that DRM, not just parties who have contractual agreements to have their music sold through iTMS (I'm talking about the "bad guys" in Slashdot groupthink here -- you know, the RIAA), then the assumption breaks down. To put it in layman terms: Cracking tools would not clearly be intended for copyright violation. They would have substantial non-infringing use.
Well, how substantial it is, depends on the market sizes, I guess. If just a few hackers are DRMing their own music, judges are going to laugh at how substantial that is. But if it gets into the mainstream... holy crap. Is Real a mainstream player? DUH!!!
Having the capacity to create DRMed content that is compatible with someone else's DRM system, has the potention to neuter DMCA's ability to apply to that DRM system. Real's action here, is a direct (though possibly unintended) threat to FairPlay. Apple now has to pay close attention to just what this Real software does. Does it just preserve DRM on files whose copyright is held by RIAA-members? Or might it do something else? Whatever the case may be, it's out of Apple's control, thus pretty scary. FairPlay is at risk of losing the DMCA protections that prohibit cracks.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.