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."

16 of 620 comments (clear)

  1. Hacker tactics? by k98sven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Hacker tactics? by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, what's called `hacker tactics` in programming is not considered immoral, illegal or anything bad in others. Want to work out a recipe? Just eat a sample and scribble down what you can taste in it. Want to see how a car engine works? Open the bonnet and have a look, or buy a service manual. Same for radios, tvs, etc. Want to play like Charlie Parker? Dream on. I mean, listen to him, transcribe them, play them back yourself, slowly at first.

      Just because big business and their bed fellows in government want to protect their profits doesn't mean we should take their regressive nonsense any more seriously. I don't remember any of the originators of programming, whether it be hardware or software, attempting to impede progress.

    2. Re:Hacker tactics? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yes, yes. We must uphold the example of Real, and their heroic achievements in the field of reverse engineering. We must blindly ignore the portion of their own license which states


      2. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS.
      a) You may not: (i) permit other individuals to use the Software except under the terms listed above; (ii) modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble (except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by law) or create derivative works based upon the Software or Documentation; (iii) copy the Software or Documentation (except for back-up or archival purposes); (iv) rent, lease, transfer, or otherwise transfer rights to the Software or Documentation; (v) remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Software or Documentation; or (vi) use the MP3 encoder in real time broadcasting (terrestrial, satellite, cable or other media) or broadcasting via the internet or other networks, such as, but not limited to, intranets. You also may not use the RealJukebox MP3 encoder in pay-audio or audio-on-demand applications. Any such forbidden use shall immediately terminate your license to the Software. The recording, playback and download features of the Software are intended only for use with public domain or properly licensed content and content creation tools. You may require a patent, copyright, or other license from a third party to create, copy, download, record or save content files for playback by this Software or to serve or distribute such files to be played back by the Software.
      b) You agree that you shall only use the Software and Documentation in a manner that complies with all applicable laws in the jurisdictions in which you use the Software and Documentation, including, but not limited to, applicable restrictions concerning copyright and other intellectual property rights.
      c) You may only use the Software for your private, non-commercial use. You may not use the Software in any way to provide, or as part of, any commercial service or application. Copies of content files, including, but not limited to songs and other audio recordings, which are downloaded or copied using the Software, and which are protected by the copyright laws or related laws of any jurisdiction, are for your own personal use only and may not be distributed to third parties or performed outside your normal circle of family and social acquaintances.
      d) You may not use the Software in an attempt to, or in conjunction with, any device, program or service designed to circumvent technological measures employed to control access to, or the rights in, a content file or other work protected by the copyright laws of any jurisdiction.
      e) The Software embodies a serial copying management system required by the laws of the United States. You may not circumvent or attempt to circumvent this system by any means.
  2. Everybody who's willing to defend Apple by mst76 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Everybody who's willing to defend Apple by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How would Real react if a third-party created software that took their audio files and did this? I bet they wouldn't be talking about *choice* then.

      They sued. They got injunctions. That's how.

      (A long while ago, there was a little program called StreamBox that did nothing but download Real rtsp streams onto your hard drive. It was later modified to download streaming WMA as well. And this isn't some crappy faux soundcard - nor a proxy server. It acted like the client, and downloaded the file. As such, it only worked in real time (since the servers only streamed audio at that rate).)

      And the Streambox guys did it by reverse-engineering the protocol. Heck, I remember an even older program (XFileGet) that did a similar thing, but broke when Real changed protocols. Funny now that the shoe's on the other foot.

  3. Bottom line... by dourk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Who are the consumers going to be pissed off at when their Real-purchased music quits working on an updated iPod?

    --
    Wake up.
  4. Choice? Quality? by CelticWhisper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. Hypocrisy? by indros13 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Given Real's proprietary and clunky format and their resistance to third-party players of their file format, does anyone else find it a little odd that they're talking about "compatibility and choice" now?

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  6. Re:It's about the music..... by mblase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    Oh, please. Apple is a publicly-traded business. They've always been about making money.

    I love Apple dearly, but let's face it: the whole reason they've locked down their FairPlay DRM exclusively to iTunes and iPod is because they control both. If people only buy music from iTMS, they're more likely to buy iPods; similarly, if other companies licensed FairPlay for their music stores, they could use it in other portable music players so people could use iTMS and play those songs on non-iPod players.

    Apple exists to make profits, and the iPod is currently their key profitmaker. They want to lock as many people into it as they can. Since they're not a monopoly, they're legally allowed to do so, and since they do it so darned well, nobody really complains. But it's lock-in nonetheless.

  7. Re:It's about the music..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple has worked damn hard to get the record labels to get on board with this while giving end users reasonable liberties with the music they paid for.

    This is the "Great Lie" of the pro-iTunes crowd. There's no substantial difference between iTunes and services like Real, and the RIAA has been very clear they aren't playing favorites. (And if they did give anyone a special deal, they could be anti-trust trouble.)

    This effort by Real undermines this process and will only serve to make record labels more unwilling to participate in electronic delivery and dissemination of media

    Why would the record companies care if a song is sold through Apple or through Real? It's all the same money to them.

  8. Re:It's about the music..... by kemapa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    How this got modded up is beyond me... I guess it's just apple fanboyism, which really scares me in this case. First of all, you didn't stay on topic. The topic is not "Is Apple supportive of musicians?" or "Let's list all the things we love about Apple". Second, rather than focusing on the fact that Apple is going after Real for doing the same things that many slashdotters do on a daily basis, you try to make Apple look better by pointing out how bad you think Real is.

    Anyway, let us focus on the real issue here, which is Apple accusing Real of using hacker tactics and going ape over the whole thing. Now, many of the Apple fanboys are going to say "Ohhh noooo, but Apple is not in the wrong because they should be able to determine what files can play on their products and what files can't!!!11!" I absolutely agree. When the iPod leaves the factory, Apple should (and does) have complete control over what music files it can play. When the iPod gets from the store into my house, however, it is my turn to have control. If Real offers me a way to put music on my iPod that I couldn't put otherwise, then it is my *right* as the full owner of the product to do with it as I please. I could throw it in the garbage if I want to, piss on it, or simply load some music from Real's network. It's mine.

    And lastly, Apple does not really care about the music. I'm sorry to crush your dreams that Apple is a loving, caring corporation. It is in the business to make money. It does the things it does in order to get people like you to cheer it on and praise it and buy its products. So no, apple never really cared about the music, it just looked like it cared so that you (and others) would support it financially by buying Apple products.

  9. Why does Apple have a problem with this? by Orbix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  10. Hit them with DMCA - see how they like it ;- by Zweistein_42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  11. Re:Compatibility, choice and quality by Captain+Nick · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Man, I have just a little guilty hope of seeing Real's ass kicked in this showdown. Legal issues aside - after all these years of Real's shady business practices, screw 'em. If someone had released (and maybe they did) an alternate Real streaming server that was cheaper and could still play in Real's player back in the day, they'd be pissed too.

    Eh, just blowing off steam, I know I'm preaching to the choir on this one.

  12. Some people don't seem to understand... by hethatishere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  13. Re:I keep waiting for Real... by chris_mahan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oh, but it *is* ok. The court in Norway exhonerated him of all charges..

    --

    "Piter, too, is dead."