Slashdot Mirror
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.
Ah come on now, that's kind of unfair, isn't it?
karma: ouch!
Real's worn they're scarlet letter, and I'm starting to wonder if they've worn it long enough. I'm syncing my portage right now, and I'm going to install Helix. I think it may be time to give Real a second chance.
Now, I'm not saying I'm going to be happy, but I've decided to at least give them a shot.
Just found out that they're player does not run on amd64 yet... Oh well, I'll try the binary version... No wait, that doesn't work either.
Oh well, I guess Real sucks... ;)
Rather than portray anyone as a villian, I thought the article did a good job of explaining why the DMCA is so bad, and why we shouldn't endorse government sanctioned monopolies of ideas.
Particularly I thought comparing software interoperability to knock off razor blades effective.
nt
Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
-3 Uninformed
AAC is not the same thing as the the FairPlay DRM layer.
Also, it's not toooo difficult to change the default encoder to one of several that Apple supplies (for free with iTunes).
You're probably voting for Dubya too I bet.
I wish I could moderate Pudge's comment. It deserves a nice big Flamebait.
Yes, DRM sucks. But we wouldn't have the iTunes Music Store without it. Do you really think that the labels would have allowed Apple to provide downloads of their music without some form of DRM?
No sig? Sigh...
This isn't about DRM, or the DMCA, or anything of the sort. All that's businesses posturing and playing grown-up. It's expected, even if it's tedious.
What Real is trying to do is shame Apple into doing their engineering for them. Apple has a tightly coded product that sells very well, but which profit margins are smaller on.
Real comes along, figures out how to slip Harmony into Apple's current system, then complans when Apple says, "We reserve the right to break compatibility with this 3rd party, closed source product that is directly in competition with our music store."
People need to stop confusing the issues. Real wants Apple to give them something for nothing. It's a concrete effort to not break compatibility with this product, which can be measured in man-hours and engineering dollars.
And what excatly does Apple get back in return? Has Real made any effort to make Apple's job easier? If Real wants to open the iPod to their format, then they can pay Apple to do so, or offer up the engineering hours to keep everything working.
Or hey, they could open up THEIR format to Apple. Now there's a thought.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
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.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I think a better question is whether Apple would have included DRM if the music labels didn't demand it. The answer is yes.
Apple is using DRM to control the marketplace, at the expense of users' rights and if it were any other company's DRM (say Circuit City with the other DIVX's or even DVDs) there would be a huge outcry.
Of course just because Apple is wrong doesn't make Real a company/adware vendor worth rooting for, but at the same time it's hard to get upset that a company is offering their product for half the price of their competition.
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
I thought that "freedom" is just another word for "nothing left to lose." Damn that Bobby McGee.
--mike
How about freedom to do whatever I damn well please within the law with the things I buy? How about the freedom to legally convert songs from the iTunes Music Store into a format that a non-Apple MP3 player can play? How about the freedom to sell music I bought the way I could with a CD (after all, they can limit the distribution through DRM to prevent me from playing the song once I sold it)?
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
No mention of Microsoft either, who obviously must have got the 90% market share they deserve by embracing interoperability!
And what excatly does Apple get back in return? Has Real made any effort to make Apple's job easier? If Real wants to open the iPod to their format, then they can pay Apple to do so, or offer up the engineering hours to keep everything working.
Exactly. I find it quite ironic that Real is so hell-bent on saying "open up". Just like they were so open with RealPlayer. "Got a Mac? Want to watch video? Wait...you want us to be compatible with QuickTime? Screw you." But now that the tables have turned and Apple has a commanding market share, Real cries "foul".
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
When the original Harmony story broke, I created a write-up explaining what Real had done and how it was legal under the DMCA.
The full write-up is available here.
The executive summary: Real most assuredly circumvented "technological access control measures" in the creation of Harmony. However, under Sec. 1201 (f)(1) of the DMCA this is explictly allowed if the sole purpose is previously unavailable interoperation with an independent software program.
Their circumvention allows the interoperation of the iPod with the Real music store. This interoperation is achieved by creating a copy of FairPlay on mp3s sold by Real. The consumer themself is not circumventing a thing.
Yes, Real sickens me as a company. But this situation should be about the law, not about company reputations.
- Neil Wehneman
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
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.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Instead of cracking Apple's DRM, Real could have just made a plug-in to iTunes that allowed Real content to be played in iTunes and allowed it to be converted (not sure that is able to be disallowed, but can be limited). That way you'd buy a song from Real's music store (and you can extend iTunes to allow access through iTunes, or do a standalone app) and you'd be able to download directly into iTunes and play Real's DRM'ed songs. Just like WMA can be played now. (Unprotected only as MS won't turn over its DRM keys either and can't be bothered to write a simple plugin for software from Apple.) Then allow the conversion to MP3 or AAC and you are off and running. Very cool would be if apple included the ability to convert to AAC with their DRM, but alas. Then it could play on the iPod. Does Real give away their DRM format? Does M$? No. Why should Apple. Any music service could provide the means to secure the purchased audio and allow conversion at point of use, just like Apple does. And then they'd play on the iPod as well.
It would, I repeat, be wonderful for Apple to include the ability to recode into AAC with DRM directly from iTunes. That would resolve all those issues for Real and MS directly removing their remaining excuses for their apologists. If Apple needs help with this feature, contact me and we'll do it for you. Same for Real. Same results, only legal w/o violating the DMCA.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Basically what the Harmony system does is convert the Real media files to AAC (unprotected) and insert them into the Ipods database. That isnt the issue here. What IS at issue is the insertion into the Ipods database. If Real were to make their downloads AAC, then you would have no reason to use their software on the PC, and their install base goes down. THATS the real battle going on here, Real want Realplayer installed everywhere, and they see Ipod compatability as a way to do it.
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.)
Apple is actually very much on the ball when it comes to interoperability. They may have closed off the iPod for reasons which should be obvious, but in other areas they have gone far beyond the call of duty.
For example, by adopting Unix they have opened up a whole new arena of open source, GNU, and X-windows software that simply would not have been possible had they gone the route of 'Be' for example.
Nearly all the standards adopted for data in Mac OS X are open, which encourages further interoperability. For example, Apple's video conferencing in iChat is based on open standards, and it's entirely possible for an enterprising windows devloper to make a chat client that can communicate - via Rendezvous - with iChat.
Apple long ago dropped the kind of "not-invented-here" attitude that characterized the Apple of the 90's. Continuing to portray them as closed-off is like prefixing their name with "beleaguered" - hackneyed, worn, and outdated.
-- thinkyhead software and media
The author had no idea why Apple wants to keep Real from overiding the proper method for loading music on to the iPod: iTunes. The author kept using poor examples -- such as razor blades -- to explain something that is more directly correlated to a void warranty.
Apple wants the iPod to work, so they design the iTunes MS to provide legal and copyright-protected music to iPod users. Real come along and says "We can load songs on the iPod, too -- only without Apple's permission."
So what happens when Apple wants to change their software architecture? Are they responsible for the Real music 'breaking?' Of course not! Real is responsible, but I bet you wont hear THEM saying that.
This author is off his rocker. No wonder he teaches at Duke...
I'm not popular enough to be different.
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
Just reading your comment here, this does not seem correct. "Previously unavailable" is not accurate; any Real song could have been converted to MP3 and played on the device.
Boyle's use of razor blades isn't an "example." It's an analogy. He's showing how absurd it is for a razor manufacturer to say to a generic razor blade supplier, "Your blades rip off my razor because you figured out how the razor works!" Boyle expects you to substitute Apple and Real for the respective parties; it isn't asking much.
And you kind of need to do that to understand the issue here, my friend. This isn't about "Apple wanting the iPod to work." That banality can be said about any manufacturer and its product. Obviously it's the burden of any third-party supplier to ensure compatibility. To make it harder, proprietary means are often used to lock others out, but only recently have we seen the malicious use of the DMCA to stop competition.
No, the issue here is the foolish extraneous restraints on trade that are foisted on the marketplace by the DMCA, which might allow Apple to sue Real. Those restraints pretend that there's extra legal protection owed to makers of mp3 players, printers, and other tech that razor makers don't deserve. But that's plainly nuts: it's a perversion of the free market, which depends on interoperability. And it's allowing Apple to wield the DMCA like a club.
That's a metaphorical club. But you knew that. The smart money on this one--for consumers, for society--is to stop backing the bullies with clubs.
The article is based on the false assumption that Apple is trying to protect its iTunes Music Store (iTMS) in itself. The idea is that the iTMS is an as-yet-untapped, but in the future huge, source of revenues, hence Apple's strong stance against Real. On the contrary, Apple sees no opportunity in making money out of digital contents, be it music of software. Its focus is on hardware and so has been for a while, to tell a long story short. True, they make great software, but only to sell (great) hardware.
As far as the iPod and Real are concerned, Apple wants to avoid, a) in the short term that Real's or somebody else's software interferes with the iPod's workings, a potential headache for Apple's customer support, and b) in the long term that Real or a third party highjacks the iPod to foster the success of an alternative to the iTMS, which in a second time -- and only then -- would turn customers away from the iPod by promoting and supporting alternative players.