Financial Times on Apple/Real/DMCA Morass

drpickett writes "The Financial Times are carrying an editorial by James Boyle concerning the nascent battle between Apple and Real. Good comments on the DMCA issues. Article sort of portrays Apple as a bunch of close-system types who got the 5% market share that they deserve for shunning interoperability. No mention is made of Real as the poster child for closed formats and cheap spyware tactics." And no mention noting what Real and Apple are really fighting over: who gets to profit from the destruction of the users' freedom.

Comments

Pudge?!

[krel]

And no mention noting what Real and Apple are really fighting over: who gets to profit from the destruction of the users' freedom.

Ah come on now, that's kind of unfair, isn't it?

Re:Pudge?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah come on now, that's kind of unfair, isn't it?

It's worse than unfair. It's the sort of gross, intentional mischaracterization that makes Slashdot look to outsiders like a pack of rabid dogs.

I fully understand why folks get all up in arms about DRM. There are certainly issues of monopoly, consumer protection, fair use, and fair trade to deal with. But know this: You do not have a constitutional right to use someone else's work however you like. In fact, the creator/owner of a work has a constitutional right to do whatever the hell they want with it. The sooner we all grok that, the sooner we can have an intelligent discussion on the subject.

If I write a song, I have every right to charge $100 for giving you the right to listen to it. Indeed, I have every right to charge you $100 for the right to listen to it just once! You have exactly the same rights regarding any song you might create. We each also have the right to protect our own works against copyright infringement. Importantly, protecting our own works (via commercial license, GPL, Doberman Pinscher, or electric fence) does not destroy a right or freedom that anyone else enjoyed.

This is an important thing for the FOSS community to understand deeply, because we generally release stuff under the GPL or similar license, and we fully expect people to abide by that license. The GPL's teeth come from our legal IP infrastructure. To reject the notion of the legitimacy of intellectual property is to reject the foundation of the GPL.

Apple and Real are fighting because Real has just peed in Apple's very nice, private, swimming pool.

Re:Pudge?!

[patheticloser]

Actually, we do have fair use rights that pertain to songs you might create, even if you'd like to charge us $100 for one listening (hypothetically, of course). The battleground is where the lines are drawn and where your copyright ends and my fair use rights begin.

For example, if you charge me $100 to listen to your song once, but then I parody your song, that is my fair use right, and you should not be able to drag me to court to use your song in this way without payment.

As far as Apple pissing on Real, let's not forget that iTunes and iPod can play non-DRM content like mp3, so it is disingenuous for Real to complain too loudly that Apple's system is closed.

Re:Why can't people see what Real is really trying

[jht]

I figure it this way: If Real wants to put their music on the iPod, they're free to sell their songs in one of two formats that are guaranteed compatible:

- Unprotected MP3 files
- Unprotected AAC files

All Real has to do is that simple action, and not only will the songs transfer just fine, but users could even use iTunes to manage them! How transparent is that?

What? You say Real wants to just wrap their DRM with Apple's DRM? Oh well, never mind. Screw them.

Apple's built a closed ecosystem, but one that supports both major consumer desktop platforms, and can support externally-created files. So I really don't see a problem here. If you want to have totally unencumbered files, you can either buy CDs and rip them (because all the iTunes encoders are DRM-free), or buy them online from Apple - if you choose to do that, though, you pay a little less and get DRM-encumbered tracks that are not quite as good as a real CD would provide.

Of course, then you can run those tracks through Hymn, but that's besides the point.

What exactly is positive about it?

[Paradox]

Nobody thinks that Real is defending anything but its own interest. Nevertheless, despite that greedy motivation, what they are doing here is positive.

What exactly is positive? Real isn't campaigning to open the format. They're campaigning for their corporation to be let in on a slice of the pie.

I wonder how they will look like in the future when they will sue some hacker's ass because they have broken their stream format to make a free player (as in speech).

Umm... why do they need to do any such thing? You could open "Lispy-named's Music Store" right now. You could put MP3s and AACs on there.

The DRM only gets put on for purchased music. It is not intrisic to the iPod. The iPod is already open to competition. Feel free to make a service that sells music for it.

What's happening here is that Real wants to force Apple to support Real's DRM and proprietarty format. No one in the open source world stands to gain anything from this.

Author misses the point.

[catwh0re]

After reading the article, I feel the author had missed the point on why there is a problem at all.
From his perspective it's just about apple clamping out another provider from supplying DRM songs.
Missing entirely on why people purchase iPods over competitor products. Likewise, why they purchase simple across the board DRM from iTMS, instead of more complicated, often per-song DRM from competitors.

Now follow that with the fact that Apple has an obligation to the record companies, probably promising sales to allow the 99c licensing price, this can't be threatened by 3rd parties trying to bolster their own market share, Apple have to answer to record companies, and must from that already defend their strategy to them. (Real, despite selling the same product, have made no attempt to allow iTMS's greater library of music to play on their players. -That- would be more choice.)

Probably the most important topic which the author missed was that Apple under no circumstance should be looking through their products to 'keep open' the technological backdoor that Real has made into the iPod. Apple should not have to engineer it's constantly updating firmware to support a 3rd party who reveals no details on how they broke into the iPod (other than "using publicy available information").
My point being, when the iPod gets updated (and future versions which already come with new firmware), Apple may even without deliberate direction 'break' the hack which Real has engineered to let their DRM'd songs play on the iPod.

Real has placed itself in a dangerous position of defensive catch up, if i purchased discount songs from Real (Something I can't do on my mac computers as Real's service is Windows only, Real vs Choice.) and my iPod would play them for a short while until i updated my iPod (to do things like work with a belkin photo reader or Voice recorder, or the new one-click shuffle feature), then I'm going to be angry with Real for providing a poor avenue to get their music on the iPod, not for Apple for continuing their product developement.

Real would always be playing catch up, with every round of iterations invalidating the previous round of music downloaded. No one is going to throw away their iPod and buy a portable real player, simply because it plays $10 worth of real's music.

In short the iPod presents enough choice for consumers, it plays raw audio in AIFF or WAV format and DRMless MP3 music files, if any of these competitors were worth their salt, they'd produce a DRM free file which the iPod would happily play. As well as most other players, with exception to Sony's offering which only plays ATRAC.)