Real Worried About Apple Lawsuits

sebFlyte writes "silicon.com is reporting that Real is very worried that Apple will sue it over its Harmony technology that 'breaks' iTunes' FairPlay DRM to allow its music to play on the iPod. They acknowledged in an SEC filing that a lawsuit from Apple would potentially be very damaging to the company's bottom line, as it accepts that a court might not agree that the reverse-engineering is legal."

Comments

wow....

[enrico_suave]

is this the first time I'll be rooting FOR Real?

(not to spite apple, but to support reverse engineering of course!)

Re:wow....

[badasscat]

is this the first time I'll be rooting FOR Real?

Neither side is acting in particularly good faith on this issue.

BUT, before all of Slashdot flies off the handle on this "story", I think it's worth pointing out that this is an SEC filing, and it is every company's responsibility, in fact under the law, to state all possibilities that may negatively affect a business, however remote those possibilities may be. I don't think it's any secret to anybody that Apple could sue Real, and that there is at least a chance that Apple would win (because you just never know what can happen in the courts). Given that, Real must disclose this information to investors.

The news here seems to be that Real is "admitting" to something that seems to be common sense. But Real has to admit that they're at risk of a lawsuit, and that there's a chance that they would lose - to do otherwise would be fraud. It would be withholding information in order that people would continue buying their stock.

If you are not used to reading these SEC filings, even the healthiest of companies can seem to be in pretty dire straits once you get to the "risks" section. These are worst-case scenarios, presented basically to cover the company's ass from class action lawsuits and SEC investigations should the unthinkable happen. That doesn't mean anything listed as a risk will happen, or even has a good chance of happening. It's kind of the same as putting a warning label on a 9 volt battery that says "warning! eating this battery may cause injury!" I mean, duh. But they have to put that label on there or you just know that one idiot who eats that battery and gets sick is going to sue.

Re:wow....

[value_added]

If you are not used to reading these SEC filings, even the healthiest of companies can seem to be in pretty dire straits once you get to the "risks" section.

To be fair, if you are used to reading SEC filings you'd know that all risks are described using deliberately vague may or may not language referring to adverse effects, not unlike (to put thing in a /. context) the boilerplate Microsoft uses when politely describing gaping holes in their OS as vulnerabilities that could allow elevation of privilege.

Re:wow....

[Zico]

Exactly. Seeing as CmdrTaco was around when Slashdot's parent company went public, I'd assumed that he's seen a number of SEC filings before. I'm actually surprised to learn that he's a big enough idiot to think that the Risks section of a company's SEC filing is big news.

Re:wow....

[Stalemate]

for real?

Re:wow....

[Marc2k]

"warning! eating this battery may cause injury!"

For the record, yes, you're right. But seeing as we're talking about SEC filings needing to cover worst-case scenarios which are highly improbable, and in many ways out of their hands (though not necessarily with regard to this particular case, yes Real could stop selling DRM circumvention), I think a more appropriate warning label might be,
"Warning! Note that while statistically improbable, this 9V battery may at any time quantum-tunnel through your body!"

Re:wow....

[Registered Coward v2]

BUT, before all of Slashdot flies off the handle on this "story"

Too late - that occurs right after fp.

Re:wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but for the record: you don't eat 9V batteries, you simply press the head of one onto your tongue. No need to consume battery acid to get your electro fix.

Re:wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a minor point, but only *publicly traded* [or soon-to-be] companies are required to make these sorts of filings with the SEC

Reverse-engineering

[Valiss]

Is reverse-engineering software necessarily illegal? Has a precedent been set in the software world that would apply to this? Is there a lawyer in the house (or a law student with too much time)?

Re:Reverse-engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

No, just plenty of high school students with too much time who think Groklaw is an online law library.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[pauljlucas]

Is reverse-engineering software necessarily illegal?

No, it isn't. The story submitter is confused. The last line of the summary should have read something like:

... as it accepts that a court might find that Real violated the DMCA.

I.e., Real cracked the DRM. How they did it is irrelevant be it reverse-engineering or reading tea leaves.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[mnemonic_]

Is reverse-engineering software necessarily illegal?

I doubt it, since SAMBA, linux's NTFS support, countless device drivers and many other hacking efforts have involved reverse engineering software. Those projects still thrive, so either corporate lawyers are being nice (hah!), or it's completely legal.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[Henry V .009]

Yes. This is a DMCA issue, not a reverse-engineering issue.

For Real's actions to be legal under the DMCA, don't they need Library of Congress permission or something like that?

Re:Reverse-engineering

[slashjames]

The courts recently ruled that reverse-engineering hardware (Lexmark printer catridges, garage door openers) is legal and the DMCA doesn't apply for purposes of interopability. If you approach the potential case of Real getting sued by Apple about Rhapsody, it's the same concept: reverse engineering software (vs hardware) for purposes of interopability. Should be cut-and-dried, but who knows which way the courts will go.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[Yoje]

Is reverse-engineering software necessarily illegal? Has a precedent been set in the software world that would apply to this?

Well, the Nintendo vs Tengen case pops to mind (pretty similar actually), where the Atari/Tengen reversed-engineered the lock-out chip so they wouldn't have to be limited by Nintendo's strict release rules.

It was found out though that it wasn't pure reverse-engineering, but they lied to the patent office to get the details on the Nintendo chip, so they got sued for copyright infringement and breech of contract (since they were still making games). Without those two factors, it might have been less likely to go in Nintendo's way.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[oliverthered]

There's a legal process called Abstraction,
Filtration, Comparison that happens when someone claims that reverse engineering violates copyright.

The process is basically as follows:

For a copyright violation someone must have copied to code, so the source code is the only thing that relates to reverse-engineering and copyright.

First of all all trivial bits of the code are ignored
The two code bases are then checked for common areas of code.
Then the code in the common areas that is their due to necessisity is removed.
and the code that's left is used as the basis of the copyright infringement.

It's also a good argument for GPL not being able to prevent dynamic runtime linking. (Since GPL is based on copyright)

Re:Reverse-engineering

[oliverthered]

Have real really broken DRM i.e. all files are clean, or have they just implemented the same DRM in a different way? If your still leaving exactly the same restrictions that were there in the firstplace then your not providing software to crack anything. I should imagine this would make a huge difference to a possible DMCA violation.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[Hope Thelps]

I.e., Real cracked the DRM. How they did it is irrelevant be it reverse-engineering or reading tea leaves.

It's about the reverse engineering exception under the DMCA. This concerns why it was done (interoperability) not how it was done.

DMCA 1201 (f) (1) provides:

(f) 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.

This would appear to permit circumvention of a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work for the purposes of achieving interoperability (such circumvention otherwise being banned by secion 1201 (a)(1)(A)). That appears to be what Real have done. So it IS about the legality of reverse engineering in this particular scenario.

Note: I'm not saying that they are legally in the clear, just that reverse engineering (as the term is used in the DMCA) IS what they are talking about.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[lordkuri]

How they did it is irrelevant be it reverse-engineering or reading tea leaves.

not true, read...

`(f) 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.

The DMCA specifically exempts RE for the purpose of interoperability. If Apple sues them, I believe their lawyers would be guilty of barratry. Any judge that ruled in Apple's favor should be thrown off the bench for outright ignoring a specific allowance in the law for this instance.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[k98sven]

Is reverse-engineering software necessarily illegal?

No. Reverse-engineering is legal. But not as legal as it once was, since the DMCA bans the circumvention of copyright protection devices, except for interoperability purposes.

Has a precedent been set in the software world that would apply to this?

Yes and no. There is a good amount of legal precedent from before, e.g. Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd, which held that reverse-engineering was legal, even though there was an EULA prohibiting it. This was even for a copyright-protection circumvention device. (a program which would copy copy-protected floppies)

But that ruling is from before the DMCA, and probably isn't as relevant anymore.

The thing is, the DMCA is rather new, so there isn't a lot of precedent defining exactly what qualifies as 'interoperability purposes'. Nor is the idea of a 'copyright protection device' very well defined yet. Which is why there are lots of eager lawsuits trying to strech this to cover everything.

I think Real could probably make a good argument that it's for interoperability purposes. But since it's not well-defined, they're right to be cautious.

In Europe, things are somewhat clearer. Council directive 91/250/EEC, article 6 also allows reverse-engineering for interoperability purposes, and defines those purposes somewhat better than US law.

It's worth mentioning that stopping reverse-engineering through copyright law is only possible if the subject material is copyrightable to begin with. And people tend to overestimate how much of a program is copyrightable. For instance, an API is either not in itself copyrightable (Computer Associates v. Altai) or, duplicating it is allowed through fair-use (Sega v. Accolade).

IANAL.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[squiggleslash]

I hope you're correct, but I'm reading more than you are, and I'm bothered by it:

...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.

What other programs are we talking about? Are FairPlay files "programs" for these purposes, or am I reading the above incorrectly?

Re:Reverse-engineering

[Hope Thelps]

If Apple sues them, I believe their lawyers would be guilty of barratry.

If you re-read the section you will note that it only applies to circumventing technological measures that control access to a particular portion of that program, not to measures that control access to pieces of music.

Whether you like that argument or not, arguing it is not barratry.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[AuMatar]

WHen you link, you create a copy in RAM, and thus copyright applies. Thats why various EULAs etc can apply to the act of running a program- running creates a copy.

Yes, it sounds ridiculous. Don't blame me, blame the courts.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[Hope Thelps]

For Real's actions to be legal under the DMCA, don't they need Library of Congress permission or something like that?

No. The DMCA does not say "everything is illegal unless you have permission from the Government". That's in Patriot III.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[oliverthered]

-10 Troll, but hell it's the weekend.

'When you link, you create a copy in RAM'
1: I don't link the user does, that's why it's called runtime and dynamic, because it doesn't happen at compile time.
2: I've never seen an instance where a copy in RAM actually counts, since that comes under fair use.
'Thats why various EULAs'
3: EULAs are not copyright they are EULAs and the GPL is not an EULA is is a copyright[left] license.
(Personally I never read a EULA and follow the my local copyright and fair use laws since it's not the Job of companies to create new laws)

Think! because their are GPL versions of OpenGL drivers does that mean that every application that uses GPL must also be licensed under GPL? .. Oh, and don't forget presenting the work of another as your own tends towards trademarks but my also come under copyright law, so I could never wrap up a GPL library and sell it as my own.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[DongleFondle]

Is there a lawyer in the house

First of all, you're new here aren't you?

Secondly, no. There are no lawyers. But there are about 600,000 geeks that think they are.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[pauljlucas]

Real has not obtained, lawfully or otherwise, a the right to use a copy of the computer program Apple uses to implement their DRM. Hence, the entire DMCA subsection does not apply.

This cited subsection of the DMCA provides for an individual person who lawfully obtained a program or product (usually through purchase) the exception that s/he may reverse-engineer it so s/he may increase interoperability with other programs or products that s/he also owns.

Said person could not distribute, sell, or profit from said reverse-engineering. If s/he does, then s/he's in violation of the DMCA for circumventing the protection and the method s/he used to do it (in this case, reverse-engineering) is, once again, irrelevant.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[pauljlucas]

As I already pointed out, the cited section in the DMCA allows a special exeption for individual fair-use, i.e., you bought it, you can do whatever the hell you want with it including reverse-engineer it to make it work with other stuff you also own.

But Real has not lawfully obtained the program Apple used for their DRM in the first place and Real certainly can't turn around and profit from their labor.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[larry bagina]

iTunes and the iPod software, perhaps. Of course, both of them play non-DRM files as well (mp3, aac, wav, aiff) which ARE documented and "readily available", so from that POV, Real didn't need to reverse engineer in order to achieve interoperability.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If you approach the potential case of Real getting sued by Apple about Rhapsody, it's the same concept: reverse engineering software (vs hardware) for purposes of interopability.

Not if Apple has an intelligent lawyer it's not. It's about Real selling music to people and including software attached to that music that (without informing them) violates a licensing agreement they have with Apple and makes use of Apple's servers (without authorization) to technologically enforce the terms of Real's license with it's customers in a for profit enterprise. They are open to criminal and civil charges for "unauthorized use of computing resources" and may fall afoul of many state laws designed to stop spyware, malware, and cracking.

Thus far Apple has ignored them, but it is certainly a liability and they are open to lawsuits from Apple, their customers, or even a criminal case

Re:Reverse-engineering

[Hope Thelps]

Real has not obtained, lawfully or otherwise, a the right to use a copy of the computer program Apple uses to implement their DRM. Hence, the entire DMCA subsection does not apply.

The section only says that theyhave to have legally obtained a copy of the program that they are circumventing. That they will have done if they purchased an iPod for this purpose. I suspect they did.

This cited subsection of the DMCA provides for an individual person

Not just wrong, but laughable. The word "individual" is one you added on your own. The word used in the Act is "person". Legally a company is, of course, a person.

Said person could not distribute, sell, or profit from said reverse-engineering.

Again, this is something dredged up from your own fevered imagination.

There are very good arguments for saying that this section will not help Real, but not the nonsense you're producing here.

Regardless, the point of my post was that, contrary to what you originally said, they are indeed talking about the legality of reverse engineering. Again, as noted in my original post, that does not mean that they are legally in the clear.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[pyrrhonist]

No. Reverse-engineering is legal. But not as legal as it once was...

So what you're saying is that reverse engineering is only just sort of legal.

What happens if you get caught?

• Do you just sort of pay a fine or pay with Monopoly money?
• Go to jail on alternate tuesdays and thursdays?
• House arrest, but you get to carry the ankle bracelet instead of wearing it?
• Get branded invisible like on the Twilight Zone?

Inquiring minds want to know...

</SATIRE>

Re:Reverse-engineering

[falcon5768]

no it wont be cause in this case DMCA does apply as music files are explicitly what the DMCA is suposed to protect.

In this case Real will lose because nothing legaly says you HAVE to let other services use your product if you dont want them to. And the enduser can add their own MP3s to the device if they wanted to.

IF anyone knows about reverse-engineering and the legality of it, its Apple. After all had Apple had better lawyers in the past Microsoft wouldnt exist as it is today.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[arodland]

1. That was the point. Read the thing you're supposedly replying to; it refers to "the act of running a program" -- what the user does.

2. "That comes under fair use?" Arguably, but the people who write EULAs claim otherwise, and the point of the grandparent was how EULAs justify themselves.

3. Nothing beyond this point parses as anything resembling an english sentence.

-10 Troll indeed. Or at least -10 Lazy, Ignorant, and Incoherent.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[benjamindees]

WHen you link, you create a copy in RAM, and thus copyright applies.

Yes, but if interoperability and use are absolute defenses against copyright infringement, then none of that matters.

I'm sure Real made plenty of copies of their ipod firmware as they were hacking it. And I'm sure the people who hacked the Lexmark cartridges made copies of whatever (Lexmark logo or whatever) they were sued over.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[Orrin Bloquy]

IANAL, too. However, section 12 (interoperability) is worded clearly enough. The gist of it goes something like this: If Real reverse engineers Apple DRM to make iTunes AAC play in RealPlayer or convert .ram audio to iTunes AAC, ***but doesn't share or publish the cracked algorithm***, Apple isn't in a position to bitch. Their corporate secrets are being kept, and the reverse engineering is strictly within the context of interoperability. It reads pretty clearly that there's an acknowledgment of the fact that businesses will compete in the same arena and RE each others' formats to do so.

OTOH, if the VLC team does exactly the same thing and continues to distribute source, they're well and truly fucked.

Businesses will use DMCA like a mallet against each other for a while, but the real intent of its DRM context is to kill competition from open source applications. Remember that Unisys was trying to convince people that not only did you need a license to encode compressed LZW GIFs/PDFs/TIFFs, but they were spreading FUD about needing a license to decode that compression as well. No IP lawyer took it seriously. Unfortunately, DRM under DMCA is going to be constitutionally tested within 5 years, sent to a SCOTUS consisting of computer illiterate geezers and Bush appointees. Industry will insist that if DRM can't be constitutionally protected, the turrists have won already.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you're in the 6th circuit, then reverse engineering for interoperability is legal (Lexmark v SCC). If you're in the 2nd circuit, it is illegal (MPAA v 2600).

Apple v Real would likely be heard in the ninth circuit (california/washington). The ninth circuit would probably follow Sony v Connectix, which allowed reverse engineering, but since the 9th circuit has never specifically ruled on section 1201 of the DMCA, you can't really be certain what they might do.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[monkeydo]

3: EULAs are not copyright they are EULAs and the GPL is not an EULA is is a copyright[left] license.

So, what does the "L" in EULA stand for? Ah, yes it's a license agreement.

(Personally I never read a EULA and follow the my local copyright and fair use laws since it's not the Job of companies to create new laws)

Sure it is. In fact, contracts probably compose the single largest body of law anywhere.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[dnoyeb]

What about the restriction that it won't play in RealPlayer?

Re:Reverse-engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

** Caution Troll alert **

User posts points that appear to be facts but it really is twisted interpetations and opinions. When pressed for links or references, will provide absolutley nothing other then "search Google". Any atempt to discuss or counter this users opinions will result in the user again pushing his same opinions (still claiming them as common facts), asking you for references and call you a blind follower and unable to comprehend anything if you do not agree with him.

Proceed with caution.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[pyrrhonist]

Obviously "satire" is a synonym for "troll". Oy, mods on crack.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Caution, anonymous coward calling other people trolls. If you have a point, or want clarification or a reference to back up any given fact, ask it. Otherwise you're the troll here. Anyone who looks at my posting history can see for themselves. Where's your history, coward?

Re:Reverse-engineering

[oliverthered]

Since the restriction doesn't enforce copyprotection or add to the security of the product I wouldn't expect it to be covered by the DMCA.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[oliverthered]

'Sure it is. In fact, contracts probably compose the single largest body of law anywhere.'

What a load of crap, here's my license.

By replying to my post who agree that I can come around your house with a shot gun and shoot you?

Since:
1: You don't have the ability to negoitiate the 'contract' I wouldn't call it a contract.
2: You don't sign the contract I wouldn't call it a contract.
3: You don't get to see the 'contract' before purchising the product I wouldn't call it a contract.
4: I cannot remove you right to life, even if you sign a contract to the contry I wouldn't call it a contract.

Contracts work within the law and don't make up their own laws.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[oliverthered]

1. That was the point.

So I can't run anthing on linux that is not GPL because Linux is GPL?

2. but the people who write EULAs claim otherwise.
They can claim all they want, it doesn't make it legally binding.

3. Nothing beyond this point parses as anything resembling an english sentence.

That's my point, you don;t understand.

Re:Reverse-engineering

[oliverthered]

Have you actually read the GPL?

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

Marketing Speak

[pete-classic]

Harmony brings discord, Fair Play accused of playing unfair. We're adrift in a sea of marketing.

-Peter

Re:Marketing Speak

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fun to charter an accountant
And sail the wide accountancy,
To find, explore the funds offshore
And skirt the shoals of bankruptcy!

It can be manly in insurance.
We'll up your premium semi-annually.
It's all tax deductible.
We're fairly incorruptible,
We're sailing on the wide accountancy!

Re:Marketing Speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Your haiku needs formatting:

Harmony brings discord
Unfair Fair Play
Adrift in a sea of marketing

Re:Marketing Speak

[pete-classic]

Ha! I very nearly ended my post with an invitation to re-render it as a haiku!

Way to go, AC!

-Peter

Re:Marketing Speak

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be 5-7-5. You have 6-4-9. That doesn't work.

Idiots...

[Piranhaa]

Well why don't you just annouce it on Slashdot, and maybe Apple won't hear!

Re:Idiots...

[wo1verin3]

Its in a SEC filing and has been on other news websites, they didn't just learn about it here.

Re:Idiots...

[tnk1]

Holy Toledo! If I hadn't seen this on Slashdot, I'd never have realized those fools at Real were up to no good! Thanks Slashdot! Love, -Steve

Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[El Cubano]

as it accepts that a court might not agree that the reverse-engineering is legal.

Real makes a competing product. They want to be able to interoperate with the songs sold on iTunes. This should be an open and shut case. I cringe to think what sort of legal wrangling will go on.

I know that Real is no great champion, but we should support them if there is a possibility it will help to preserve what little bit of fair use we still have left.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[One Louder]

Real *can* interoperate with iPods and iTunes.

Apple isn't preventing interoperation - you're still welcome to publish music as MP3s, and iPods will work fine with them.

Don't want to do that? Tough shit - it's your choice to publish using DRM, and Apple has no obligation to support you.

Don't they see the hypocricy of complaining that somebody else's DRM is preventing you from applying your own DRM?

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[shotfeel]

Exactly. IIRC what Harmony does is wrap songs downloaded from Real's online music service in Fairplay DRM. They do that so you can play songs purchased from Real on an iPod and they can still enforce their DRM scheme.

As you said, its not like an iPod can't play non-DRM'd audio (other than wma and ogg vorbis).

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[saider]

Don't want to do that? Tough shit - it's your choice to publish using DRM, and Apple has no obligation to support you.

Unfortuneately, nobody will license Real any music if they are going to put it in an unsecured format. Real is making a competing product (their DRM scheme) and they should be allowed to reverse engineer FairPlay to interoperate the #1 music device on the planet.

Apple does not have to support them or do anything. But they also cannot prevent someone from doing some clean reverse engineering.

In the end, this will mean more songs out there, which will hopefully sell more iPods. Remember, iTunes is all about selling iPods.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple doesn't have to support anything. Real is providing the support so their DRMed music will use the DRM scheme used by the iPod.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Real makes a competing product. They want to be able to interoperate with the songs sold on iTunes. This should be an open and shut case.

First, Real announced this to the press in order to get free press because they are in danger of disappearing from the public consciousness. It is marketing. Next there is basically no doubt that the reverse engineering itself is legal, their statements to the contrary are FUD. Where they are on very shaky legal ground is by including technology hidden in music files that uses another company's servers without authorization from that company, without informing the individual user whose machine is connecting, in violation of that user's licensing agreement with Apple, and doing so for profit.

This falls afoul of any number of recent anti-cracking laws, some of which carry stiff criminal penalties. So far Apple has taken the high ground and neither cut off any users for violating their licenses, nor taken Real to court. All they have done was made statements that they certainly weren't going to insure it kept working and ignored them. If Real's piggybacking ever becomes a serious amount of bandwidth expect Apple to not only shut them down with technology, but also sue for reparations and to get a court order to stop the behavior.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[Anonymous Coward]

Real makes a competing product. They want to be able to interoperate with the songs sold on iTunes. This should be an open and shut case.

Not so. Real's Harmony does not interoperate with iTunes Music Store songs. Harmony adds hacked FairPlay DRM to songs purchased From Real's music store, so that they'll work on the iPod, with the DRM intact.

It's not about fair use at all, it's about Real being as shady as ever.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[bill_mcgonigle]

Real makes a competing product.

Ah, that's the crux of the matter. They don't make a competing product.

Apple has an end-to-end DRM-encumbered digital music system. iTMS to iPod, via iTunes, a PC and an Internet. They spent $x to do this and it's going onto year 4 in a couple months.

Real has half a digital music system. They wish they had a whole one because they think they can make some money if they did, so they're attempting to use half of Apple's system to make it seem like they have a whole system, without investing nearly what Apple did in the game.

Apple has no incentive to help Real do this so they're not playing ball. So, Real cries to the press like a whiney bitch about how Apple took its ball and went home.

As others have said, Real could easily load .mp3 or .aac files onto the iPod, but they want an end-to-end DRM-encumbered system which they don't have.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[Amouth]

i agree and even looking from Apples view it would be unwise to sue. First people would get op'ed at Apple when right now jsut about everyone likes them, and maybe if real songs play on ipods it could increase sales. yes it could be bad in reflect to iTunes but hasn't apple mainly been a hardware company.. I know that if i were apple i would rather have everyone holding an ipod and use diffrent services than a bunch of players and a bunch of services that don't play nice together.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unfortuneately, nobody will license Real any music if they are going to put it in an unsecured format. "

eMusic sells music in MP3 format.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[One Louder]

Unfortuneately, nobody will license Real any music if they are going to put it in an unsecured format.

That's not Apple's problem - that's Real's problem.

Why should Apple bend over for some random company because some unrelated cartel has restrictive license terms? They've already got enough issues with that same cartel - and their agreement probably calls for them to legally pursue anyone that attempts to defeat their DRM.

Real can make their own player if they like, and compete with Apple if they can. Apple came from behind with the iPod, so it can be done. But they want all the benefits of Apple's efforts with none of the investment.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[ArbitraryConstant]

The issue is that Apple has refused to license their DRM to Real for the purposes of interoperability. They both want to use DRM, but iPods only support Apple's DRM. Apple doesn't need to support them, it doesn't even need to license the technology, but -- from the wording of the DMCA and from recent court cases -- it appears Real has the right to go it alone if they want to.

They're not complaining. There is the possibility that Apple will sue them, and they are legally required to disclose that.

When it's against the law to keep silent, I don't think it's fair to call it "complaining".

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

So Real may end up getting sued under the DMCA for misusing Apple's DRM so that Real can DRM their own stuff, which would in turn make it illegal for people to get at Real's content due to the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.

DRM is only as useful as it is because of the DMCA, and the DMCA is now getting in the way of a DRM implementation.

How ironic, and how just.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[geekee]

"Don't they see the hypocricy of complaining that somebody else's DRM is preventing you from applying your own DRM?"

The hypocrisy is that MS gets sued for leveraging their monopoly and the same people who say that's good say that it's ok for Apple to use a closed DRM format to allow iPod mp3 player monopoly to help out iTunes.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[muuh-gnu]

> they should be allowed to reverse engineer FairPlay to interoperate the #1 music
> device on the planet.

The Ipod isn't the #1 music device on the planet.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[saider]

Why should Apple bend over for some random company because some unrelated cartel has restrictive license terms?

Nobody is asking Apple to do anything. In fact, if Apple would do absolutely nothing, then there would be no problem.

Real is trying to compete in the iTunes download-a-song market, not the iPod media player market. Furthermore, they are trying to set up a market where music download services are decoupled from the media player market. Yes, "Real can make their own player", but this model would only serve to lock in customers to a particular company's player. Real wants to be able to offer people music downloads that will play on _any_ player. This is a more competitive market and will be better for the consumer, rather than the each-company-locks-in-its-users model.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[Grym]

It seems to me that the consensus (whatever that is worth) is that what Real has done with Harmony probably is legal. At the same time, I can't agree that Real deserves our support. What Real is doing might be legal, but it's completely lame. With Harmony, Real has just further proves that its marketing strategy is one of mediocrity and hypocrisy.

Real only respects DRM and copyright measures when it suits them. Try and reverse engineer their player or format, and you'll get smacked with a cease and desist letter in no time. And yet reverse engineering Apple's product is just fine. Real tries to champion this as a benefit for its customers, but aren't those the same customers that Real itself tricks into installing spyware?

-Grym

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you please repost and put in some type of tags to seperate what you think is true and what can be verified be someone other then yourself?

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[superpulpsicle]

I can see people are sympathetic for Apple. But they are locking themselves in a corner again. Remember, that's how Apple lost the OS wars 20 years ago since it didn't want to play nice with M$ or anybody.

Just because you made the initial investment, doesn't mean you are the beneficiary of it forever. That's not how business works, that's definitely not how corporations work. I seriously don't think Steve Jobs know that.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What are you having trouble verifying? I did not include any new facts that have not been discussed here on Slashdot many times before.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[Moofie]

...or Apple may just completely ignore them, like the totally irrelevant player Real has always tried to pretend like it's not.

Lots of things "may" happen. Get back to me when something DOES happen.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[Moofie]

Apple HAS done absolutely nothing, except decide not to accomodate Real. Apple has no incentive, nor desire, to accomodate Real. Why should they?

Real might have a leg to stand on if they even bothered to make their service available to Mac users.

Re:Why the DMCA sucks so badly

[Moofie]

Apple opts not to license the secured WMA that other music stores use. They also have not yet opted to license FairPlay to other people. However, they have taken no action whatsoever to force labels to do exclusive deals with iTunes.

They've engaged in exactly zero predatory and/or anticompetitive licensing behavior.

It's silly to compare the Apple monopoly to the Microsoft monopoly. All you have to do to not buy Apple stuff, is not buy Apple stuff. You can still do whatever you want. That's becoming more true of Microsoft's monopoly (their grip is weakening), but that has not always been the case.

You know..

[Deltaspectre]

I wouldn't mind if Real had to keep low for a while or even got shut out of business after what they've been like the past few years...



insert funnies here
But then I'll just be like the rest of slashdot and say Go Apple!
I must calculate these moves carefully....
GO GOOGLE!

Re:You know..

[Deltaspectre]

Seems the slashdot standpoint is for Real now...

Curses

If Real is so worried...

[pauljlucas]

...about a lawsuit from Apple, and if such a lawsuit would so dramatically affect their bottom line, why did they go ahead and break the DRM in the first place?

Can't they find another way to make money?

Re:If Real is so worried...

[wankledot]

Because (believe it or not) Real wants to provide something for its customers. They want to sell songs, and they want to make them work with the iPod, since there are tons of iPods out there. By supporting a popular product, they expect to sell more songs. QED. (And they should be able to, IMO, and even according to the law. This type of reverse engineering is specifically protected by the DMCA.)

"Can't they find another way to make money?"

Same could be said for Apple. Can't they make money from the iPods and be happy? No company should be kept from selling something legally simply because the competition doesn't want them to.

Re:If Real is so worried...

[geekee]

" ...about a lawsuit from Apple, and if such a lawsuit would so dramatically affect their bottom line, why did they go ahead and break the DRM in the first place?

Can't they find another way to make money?"

That's like telling someone wanting to make an Office suite compatible with MS Office to find another way to make money instead of reverse engineering the .doc, .xls, .ppt formats.

Re:If Real is so worried...

[pauljlucas]

Premise:

Because (believe it or not) Real wants to provide something for its customers.

Argument to support premise:

They want to sell songs, and they want to make them work with the iPod, since there are tons of iPods out there. By supporting a popular product, they expect to sell more songs.

The argument you gave has to do with Real selling songs and making money. It says nothing about their customers. Unless Real (or you) can show that they've been petitioned by lots of people pleading with them to make songs bought from their store work on the iPod, there's no evidence that Real isn't simply trying to be merely opportunistic and tap in on the money from a large market.

Re:If Real is so worried...

[pauljlucas]

That's like telling someone wanting to make an Office suite compatible with MS Office to find another way to make money instead of reverse engineering the .doc, .xls, .ppt formats

No it isn't because reverse-engineering MS Office formats doesn't break the law since MS Office formats aren't (yet) encrypted. No encryption to break, no DMCA violation.

Re:If Real is so worried...

[jericho4.0]

It's implicit in the argument. If people purchase a Real product over an iPod, they've delivered something for a customer.

Of course Real is being opportunistic and trying to tap in on the money from a large market. That's how one runs a buissness.

Re:If Real is so worried...

[mdarksbane]

That's all well and good, except for the fact that there are plenty of ways to sell songs that work on an iPod without breaking Fairplay.

Like, oh, that old thing called mp3?

They may have had good reasons to break harmony, but it's not like AAC is the only thing that the little boxes can play.

Re:If Real is so worried...

[vertinox]

Can't they find another way to make money?

Well that was the point of DRM.

Re:If Real is so worried...

[DrXym]

When you say "break the DRM" what you actually mean is reverse engineer the format so that RealPlayer users are be able to play songs that they bought legally on iTunes in the first place.

See also Playfair, Hymn etc.

Re:If Real is so worried...

[pauljlucas]

Of course Real is being opportunistic and trying to tap in on the money from a large market. That's how one runs a buissness.

Or one could innovate and create or revolutionize a market which is pretty much what Apple did. There are innovators and there are wanna-bes. Real is a wanna-be.

Re:If Real is so worried...

[wankledot]

*sigh*

You're essentially saying that anyone who makes a consumable product for a non-consumable device that they themselves do not make is a wannabe. Real wants its products to be available on a certain device (iPod). The same way that a record store wants to sell CDs that work on a regular CD player. Is the record store being a wannabe by not selling their own CD players?

Are you incapable of admitting that Apple is wrong and Real is right?

Re:If Real is so worried...

[pauljlucas]

When you say "break the DRM" what you actually mean is reverse engineer the format...

No, it's not what I actually mean. Again, the method used for breaking the DRM is irrelevant.

... so that RealPlayer users are be able to play songs that they bought legally on iTunes in the first place.

You've got it bass ackwards: what Real did was make it so that songs purchased from Real can be played on the iPod. This has nothing to do with the RealPlayer.

But even if you got it right, it's still illegal because while you can crack the DRM for your own personal use, Real can't do it for you. The former is granted a special exception in the DMCA; the latter is not.

Re:If Real is so worried...

[pauljlucas]

You're essentially saying that anyone who makes a consumable product for a non-consumable device that they themselves do not make is a wannabe.

Right. Rather than think of something new and innovative, just try to cash in on a lucrative market somebody else created.

The same way that a record store wants to sell CDs that work on a regular CD player. Is the record store being a wannabe by not selling their own CD players?

First, it wouldn't be the record store. It would either be the CD manufacturer or the record label. Second, a CD player was designed to be able to accept any CD, so your analogy is flawed. The iPod was designed to play encrypted music only if it was encrypted by Apple. Real is free to negotiate with Apple for the legal right to use their DRM. Either they didn't (in which case, shame on them), or they did, but Apple said no. So then Real broke the law because they didn't get what they wanted. Boo hoo for Real.

Are you incapable of admitting that Apple is wrong and Real is right?

In all my posts on this, I haven't said or even hinted at whether I think Apple is right or wrong (or whether I think the DMCA is right or wrong). That's irrelevant to the news story at hand which is only about Real basing their business model on a very-likely illegal strategy.

Re:If Real is so worried...

[wankledot]

"So then Real broke the law because they didn't get what they wanted. Boo hoo for Real."

What law has Real broken? The DRM has been reverse engineered expressly for interoperability. There is no law being broken here. And the DRM wasn't even reverse engineered to break a copyright at all! In fact, it was reverse engineered for the purposes of CREATING DRM, not breaking it. (or at least, the appearance of it.)

"That's irrelevant to the news story at hand which is only about Real basing their business model on a very-likely illegal strategy."

You seem stuck on the fact that Real broke a law (although I see you are now qualifying it as "likely"), care to tell me which one? They didn't "break" FairPlay for the purposes of getting around a copyright. In fact, Nothing Real is doing breaks anyone's copyright. Apple did not patent all DRM on all portable devices. Because Real's implementation of FairPlay is cleanroomed, Apple (or whoever they license FairPlay from) has no claim that their copyright was violated. "The iPod was designed to play encrypted music only if it was encrypted by Apple. Real is free to negotiate with Apple for the legal right to use their DRM" Oh, this is fucking rich. You're actually saying that when you buy an iPod, you agree to only play encrypted music from Apple? Where did I agree to that? And what legal basis to Apple has to limit how its product is used. You're barking up the wrong tree here, the iPod's ability to play DRM'd music from another source is not limited by any law or contract that any user agrees to. Do I have to ask Apple to put a file on the iPod with a format it was not designed for? No. Does Real? No.

Answer this: If I can flip one bit of a protected WMA file in order to make it work on my iPod, can Apple sue me for playing it on my iPod? Can they sue me for "breaking" WMA's DRM? Can Microsoft?

So again, which law has Real broken? You'll notice from this story and many others that almost everyone who knows what they are talking about agrees that Real is pretty much in the clear on this one.

"In all my posts on this, I haven't said or even hinted at whether I think Apple is right or wrong."

You've said repeatedly that Real is doing something illegal. (Implying that suing Real would be OK since they are breaking the law.) So I'll ask you straight up: Does Apple have the right to sue Real.

Re:If Real is so worried...

[ArbitraryConstant]

"Or one could innovate and create or revolutionize a market which is pretty much what Apple did. There are innovators and there are wanna-bes."

Apple has its share of wannabe moments.

PowerPC, which they helped create, isn't good enough so they have decided to use soemthing else. They didn't create the MP3 player, or the online music store, but they jumped in anyway. Their OS wasn't good enough, their efforts to create another one failed, so they bought a UNIX even though UNIX has been around longer than Apple itself. The list goes on.

And, I would remind you, Real revolutionized highly compressed audio back in the day.

Apple isn't special. They have to follow the leader sometimes, just like every other company out there.

Re:If Real is so worried...

[pauljlucas]

The difference that sets Apple apart is that when they get into something, they're not just another "me too" company with some crappy product that is barely distinguishable from all the others that are already on the market. Other music players are crap compared to the iPod; other music stores are crap compared to the iTMS; OS X is Unix, yes, but the UI is so far ahead of what Linux desktop have been trying to do for years.

So, yes: Apple is special.

Re:If Real is so worried...

[ArbitraryConstant]

"The difference that sets Apple apart is that when they get into something, they're not just another "me too" company with some crappy product that is barely distinguishable from all the others that are already on the market.

Other music players are crap compared to the iPod"

Are they? Depends on your criteria. Other music players variously cost less, have support for more formats, have a better battery life, and so on.

"other music stores are crap compared to the iTMS"

Again, depends on your criteria. Allofmp3 gives you a choice of format, gives you better quality (including lossless), doesn't have DRM etc. That puts it ahead in my books.

"OS X is Unix, yes, but the UI is so far ahead of what Linux desktop have been trying to do for years."

But it is behind in many other ways. It has poor performance compared to Linux, in particular Linux has better responsiveness on single-CPU systems and that significantly impacts usability. Linux also, dare I say it, runs on generic hardware. That is an issue that impacts usability because some options are not affordable with MacOS X (eg you must buy a second CPU to get a second display).

Apple is only special if we define the terms of the comparison to favor Apple. Otherwise, they are exactly like everyone else: good at some things, bad at others.

doesn't mean much

[Russ Nelson]

The SEC filings are very much a CYA activity. If anything bad happens to a company, and you didn't list it and you knew about it, that's considered a fraudulent cover-up. You can still get sued if you warned people about a problem, but you can get used worse if you didn't.

So don't make much of this disclosure. Any non-zero risk will be listed.
-russ

Real

[oudzeeman]

Well, I think that Appl...BUFFERING [12%]...

Re:Real

[Valiss]

Man I wish I had mod points! Thanks for making me laugh.

Re:Real

[Anonymous Coward]

you have a very low standard for "funny."

Re:Real

[Corsican Upstart]

So true! Very funny...

Re:Real

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually laughed out loud at this. Very funny.

Re:real

[Anonymous Coward]

capital letters are your friend, isnt it really fucking annyoing trying to read this really really really long sentence because of no capital letters and/or proper punctuation and the like? i think it is because capital letters are there for a reason. all slashdot fuckers, use capital letters.

Re:Real

[Nimloth]

When I read your comment, two things happened in my (apparently) tired mind:
1. I laughed and thought "that is SO how Real is OMGWTFBBQ!".
2. I waited a bit for the rest of your comment to load...

I need more sleep :(

Re:Real

[Anonymous Coward]

you have a "stick" up your ass. :P

Re:Real

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to 1997! Y'all are clowns.

Re:Real

[Anonymous Coward]

I "agree."

Don't get too worked up

[jratcliffe]

This is pretty standard language for a 10Q, basically you outline all your risks, and you try to be comprehensive, so that, if you do end up losing a court case around Harmony, shareholders don't coming running, screaming that they weren't informed about the risks.

Re:Don't get too worked up

[Otter]

Yeah, we get a story like this every few weeks -- an SEC filing contains some boilerplate about far-fetched risk, and it's spun into "news".

It was explained in Cryptonomicon, so you'd think the nerds would get it, but apparently not.

No no no, it was *sarcastic*

[AEton]

"Oh yeah, we're real worried about an Apple lawsuit."

Re:No no no, it was *sarcastic*

[jav1231]

Or maybe, "We're Real: Worried about an Apple lawsuit!"

I'd be real worried, too.

[Tackhead]

"Nothing to hear for you, see? Please move along."
- SJ-421, Reality Field Manipulation Detachment

Rightfully So

[Kanpai]

It seems to me that now that apple's getting a real taste of success and getting more and more attention from people who normally wouldn't give a shit that now they're determined to hold onto it as hard as they can, and frivilous lawsutis seem to be one of their methods. Nor do i think that Real has a chance with this - it's APPLE's mp3 player, they reserve teh right to control what technology one can play on it. I'm all for real on this one, but i think they may be getting in over their heads.

Re:Rightfully So

[chez69]

what happens when I buy it? should apple tell me what I can do with it? hell no. according to your logic, If I buy a sony TV, the movies sony sells should be the only movies I can watch on it

Re:Rightfully So

[Skye16]

Um...no they don't? They can before sale, but after I buy it, it's mine, and I control what is played on it. If I want to make it work with an 8-track, that's my perogative. If I want it to double as a miniature lawmower (don't ask how), I'll fucking do it. Why? Because it is mine. That's what happens when you buy things.

Re:Rightfully So

[shawnce]

If Sony sold such a TV then yes, they could legally and technically attempt to make it only play their movies. Of course they would have to tell you about the products features up front.

Re:Rightfully So

[bstempi]

I couldn't disagree more. It is not Apple's MP3 player, but Apple's product. It's the USERS'S MP3 player, and the user reserves the RIGHT to go elsewhere to purchase music. All Real is doing is providing the user with an alternative. Sounds pretty cut and dry to me. Apple can grow up.

Re:Rightfully So

[nunchux]

...hell no. according to your logic, If I buy a sony TV, the movies sony sells should be the only movies I can watch on it

Right, because Sony would never pull something like that. Now excuse me as I watch the new Spider Man 2 UMD disk I bought for my Sony PSP.

Re:Rightfully So

[Skye16]

They should not legally be allowed to tell you that you cannot modify their TV to play whatever it is that you want. Technically, they can try their hardest, and good luck to them, but the fact that we're even thinking of making it illegal for the owner of a product to not do with it as they wish is terrifying. What next, screwdriver or wrench manufacturers suing the end user for using their product as a (bad) hammer?

Re:Rightfully So

[Chosen Reject]

You hit the nail right on the head.[/pun] I agree. Go even further and you get providers of raw materials telling you what you can and cannot do with those materials.

"I bought lumber but Home Depot said I can't use it to make a fence, I have to use it to make a whole new portion of my house so that I'll also have to buy drywall and other such things."

Just because someone takes those materials a slight bit further (say Sony creating a TV) doesn't mean they suddenly have those rights. Now if I explicitly leased/rented/borrowed it from them that is a different story, but if a purchase is made, then the owner has changed. And every owner has the right to do with the things that he owns whatever the trash he wishes (excluding times in which those wishes interfere with others' rights, like hitting someone with a hammer).

Re:Rightfully So

[Anonymous Coward]

look, apple hasn't filed suit ... so under any light your `grow up' comment is ill considered. doesn't anyone rtfa?

furthermore, it isn't so clear cut. Apple has *never* said you can't get music elsewhere (just use .mp3 or whatever). The question is, should Real be able to offer files with Apples DRM on them. This is really not obvious.

Re:Rightfully So

[needacoolnickname]

That makes sense. But you didn't create what Real did, they did. They are trying to sell something to you so that you can do it. They are not giving you directions on how to do it or the tools to do this, but are doing it for you.

So if you want to write something that will make Real songs play on your iPod go ahead. Real just needs to be upfront and say that their songs are incompatible with the iPod because of their DRM scheme.

Business as usual.

[RandoX]

I guess what Real will have to decide is whether potential sales will be worth the risk of a lawsuit. It's a risk/reward situation, just like any other business decision.

Public image

[Anonymous Coward]

..And even though I think reverse engineering is good and fine, I might find my self rooting for apple simply because real has done nothing but annoy me for as long as I've known about the company.

For what it's worth.

Re:Public image

[Anonymous Coward]

And what has apple done for you worth throwing away your rights to fair use?

Because they sure as fuck have never done anything for me.

Does anyone know...

[Michael_Munks]

What law makes reverse engineering illegal? Does it break a patent? Or violate DMCA? ? Thanks.

Re:Does anyone know...

[Overzeetop]

The desire to corner a market and the legal cash to backup the desire. Laws are always up for interpretation when there's enough money involved.

How about...

[concept10]

...breaking Real's technology to remove the consistent malware that is throught Real Player. (I know it has been done, some one has built Real Player without the cruft.)

I don't understand this from the perspective that Real wouldn't like it if other companies are trying to use thier software other than what it is intended for. They just want some of Apple's marketshare and they will cry and moan until they accomplish this.

We're worried

[ackthpt]

Dear SEC: "We're worried that the shot we fired across their bow will be interpreted the wrong way."

What? This is a page out of the SCO play-book? Rambus play-book?

"Hello, Bernie Ebbers? You busy? We'd like some ideas on how to run our business."

Just a thought

[colmore]

Couldn't someone make a utility that just converts DRMed files to mp3 on the fly as they're being transferred to an iPod (using a custom music store to iPod applet)? Sure users could use it to get around DRM, but that's not hard with ANY format for people who are willing to go around the steps in the manual.

Frankly I'm surprised gtkpod can't do this with ogg yet.

and Apple should be worried about the Beatles

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking 20 year old contracts binding you not to get involved in music won't be good for the bottom line either

but hey lawsuits is what America likes doing !, the legal industry is the biggest cash contributers in the world to American politics so nothing is going to change until everyone is either dead or in court

see you in court or hell !

Re:and Apple should be worried about the Beatles

[Kelson]

Next up, it's Apple vs. Apple! Who will win? Be sure to tune in for our live coverage, available on iTunes for only 99/session!

Re:and Apple should be worried about the Beatles

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply put, boo fucking hoo. I'm tired of hearing about the stupid Beatles' label and their pointless problems with Apple.

Re:and Apple should be worried about the Beatles

[Delirium 21]

the legal industry is the biggest cash contributers in the world to American politics...

Well, Congress exists to *make laws* and laws are what lawyers' work is all about.

Re:and Apple should be worried about the Beatles

[Fear the Clam]

Agreed. Like some baby boomer with a gray ponytail might confuse a Beatles record with an iPod and suffer harm by, like, totally blowing his mind. Right.

Seriously, who, besides Beatles dorks even *knows* what label they're on? No one cares. It's The Beatles. It's not like (Beatles) Apple has done anything lately.

Real is a Linux hero.

[Anonymous Coward]

When Apple and Microsoft failed to support Linux, Real did.

Real has always treated Linux seriously.

Well, I'm confused..

[Cujo]

I play non-DRM'ed mp3s on my iPod mini all the time. What am I missing?

Re:Well, I'm confused..

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I think Real wanted to sell DRM'ed files that would work with the iPod, rather than just mp3's since, of course, they aren't write-protected.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Well, I'm confused..

[gstoddart]

I play non-DRM'ed mp3s on my iPod mini all the time. What am I missing?

According to Real, the ability to play a different form of DRM'd files on the iPod while still keeping it DRM'd.

Non-DRM'd mp3s, as you point out, will just play fine.

Re:Well, I'm confused..

[Cujo]

I see. That makes sense.

I can also see why Apple would object (takes business away from ITMS), but it could be construed as unfairly stifling competition as well.

Re:Well, I'm confused..

[Anonymous Coward]

The part where the RIAA would never let anybody, including Real, sell unprotected music.* So, they had to come up with a protection scheme. On the iPod, your file format choices are either MP3 (unprotected) or Apple's version of AAC, with DRM.

Real reverse-engineered Apple's FairPlay DRM, and doesn't want Apple to sue them for doing it, since Apple no longer has a monopoly on where iPod owners legally get music.*

*Of course, there are ....international... options, such as http://www.allofmp3.com/

These days...

[Kelson]

It seems like a lot of people are "real worried about Apple lawsuits."

Re:Boobies

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too boobies are boobgreaet

If it comes to a lawsuit...

[It doesn't come easy]

On one hand, a lawsuit would be helpful in testing the DMCA's reverse engineering rules for their legality in a manner that would not involve a flame war of company against pirate, since the case would be between two well established businesses.

On the other hand, Apple may be afraid to test these waters because if they lose, every hacker and cracker on the planet will get free reign to develop their own reverse engineering project...

They aren't "worried"

[fishbowl]

Corporations don't make statements like this without an ulterior motive. This is Real's way of calling Apple out. Dropping a glove at their feet, so to speak.

Re:They aren't "worried"

[FLAGGR]

Uhm, no it isn't. It's an SEC filing. They legally have to state risks for their shareholders, to avoid class action lawsuits. SEC filings from every company are always doom-and-gloom.

Re:They aren't "worried"

[fishbowl]

>It's an SEC filing.

Then it's worded in terms of risk assessment, not "worry."

They do make money another way...

[Anonymous Coward]

They inundate you with ads. Want to access their pages? Ads. Want to see a video or clip? Well, first you get a page with more ads then the actual link. Click the link, get an ad. At the end of the clip? Another ad. Flip to another page, it's ads galore.

One must wonder, with all of their touted subscribers, why do they focus more on selling ad space than actually making some for the consumer?

Not to get offtopic, but really: what is Real's actual relevance in the market today?

Re:They do make money another way...

[pauljlucas]

They inundate you with ads.

And for that, I'd love to see them go down in flames.

Re:They do make money another way...

[Anonymous Coward]

The real player for linux is ad-free, for now!

mandatory disclosure

[sum.zero]

in sec filings you have to list all the potential harms to your business, even if you believe that there is virtually zero chance of it actually happening.

don't be too alarmed about this.

sum.zero

real

[know1]

when i was on windows, i hated real purely for the fact that they felt the need to keep a background process open on my computer even when their application wasn't launched, which for a media player i found a bit cheeky (i don't think it does on linux, but can't check now as i have it open anyway, correct me if i'm wrong) . however, if it wasn't for the fact that they have a linux version, there would be a whole lot of stuff on the net i wouoldn't get to see, mainly the radio which is far better than the normal airways because i can cut out chart shows and the like. i know that a lot of people go "grah real media format sucks, kill it" and if thats the case then maybe so, i don't know the finer technical viewpoints, but the one that really needs to be given the chop is windows media. i know there are workarounds for codecs for them and such, but it's a royal pain in the arse. at least real is available on all formats. all streaming sites please, use anything other than wmv.

The purpose of the DMCA...

[Anita Coney]

Isn't the purpose of the DMCA to protected copyrighted materials? How does Real allowing the iPod to play MORE DRM material violate the DMCA?

I realize that Apple's business model is to get people to buy iPods and use iTunes. But is the purpose of government really to protect business models?

Re:The purpose of the DMCA...

[line.at.infinity]

That's what I was thinking too.

If Real circumvented measures taken to protect copyrighted content, then they are probably violating the DMCA. If what they were circumventing wasn't really there for protecting copyright in the first place but to prevent interoperability, then Real might not be guilty.

Re:The purpose of the DMCA...

[gstoddart]

Isn't the purpose of the DMCA to protected copyrighted materials? How does Real allowing the iPod to play MORE DRM material violate the DMCA?

Because, in order to get the iPod to play Real's DRM'd stuff, they had to circumvent Apple's DRM, figure out how it works, and then make their stuff work on Apple.

So you break a lock (metaphorically) so you can install your own lock I think is the gist of the possible argument.

Re:The purpose of the DMCA...

[Anita Coney]

But they are not circumventing Apple's DRM to get to copyrighted content. Thus, there is no DMCA violation.

Re:The purpose of the DMCA...

[gstoddart]

But they are not circumventing Apple's DRM to get to copyrighted content. Thus, there is no DMCA violation.

Truthfully, I don't think the DMCA cares why you circumvented it --- it merely outlaws the act of doing it.

I suspect there will need to be more court precedents before we really know.

Cheers.

Re:The purpose of the DMCA...

[nsayer]

But they're not actually circumventing FairPlay.

FairPlay protects songs. It doesn't protect iPods.

Re:The purpose of the DMCA...

[cahiha]

But is the purpose of government really to protect business models?

It can be, if we, the people, decide we want government to do that.

However, whining on the part of companies is not sufficient reason for the government to protect their business model.

Re:The purpose of the DMCA...

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Right, so the act of circumvention probably won't be illegal.

But any tools (including code) developed to do so, will be.

So they can't circumvent unless they can do it without making any circumvention tool (even internally, even if it is going to be destroyed, even if it only exists in RAM, etc) in the process.

The DMCA makes it de facto illegal to circumvent because even when it is legal to do so, the tools are illegal.

An intentional bug (or "anti-loophole") in the law that makes it much stricter than it seems.

Concerns You WON'T Find in Real's 10Q...

[Cr0w T. Trollbot]

...even though you should.

• Every single computer user in the world hates our software. This could negatively impact our profits.
• ...buffering...buffering...buffering...
• At night our engineers have recurring nightmares of carniverous iPod's hunting them down and tearing out their livers. This has harmed employee morale.
• ...buffering...buffering...buffering...
• Every full moon, our Board of Director's is required to pledge fealty to Bill Gates and sacrafice a yak to him. Should we be unable to find a yak one month, Microsoft would be able to crush us beneath their little toes.
• ...buffering...buffering...buffering...
• This form 10Q contains spyware. For a 10Q that doesn't contain spyware, click HERE.
• Did I say "click HERE"? Hahaha, actually I meant click HERE.
• No, HERE
• ...buffering...buffering...buffering...

- Crow T. Trollbot

Re:Concerns You WON'T Find in Real's 10Q...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know this joke is really getting old, since this is no longer the case with real player. But hey if you want to continue to look like a friggin idiot go ahead. Why don't you open up windows media player sometimes, now that does do the buffering bit.

Real worried?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's real worried? I'm certainly not worried in the slightest.

Apple's evil just like the rest of them

[Enoch Lockwood]

Ahahaha! Take that you Apple zealots. How does it feel to wake up and realize that the company you've been rooting for is just as evil as Micro$oft?

I've said it before and I'm saying it again. The only good software producer is the one that signs to the GPL and Free Software revolution.

Plan:

[iamjoltman]

1. Announce could get sued by Apple
2. ???
3. Profit!(?)

Where are the Apple Astroturfers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are you guys? Is Apple marketing still working on the proper response? Little hold up in the focus group? Still trying to finesse the "freedom" and "DRM" issues?

unbreakable AND irreparable...

[moviepig.com]

...Real is very worried that ... a court might not agree that the reverse-engineering [Apple's DRM-encryption] is legal."

Would this imply that, even if I lose my housekey, I'm not allowed to pick the lock? And, would it further suggest that, when I bought the lock, part of what I paid for was the vendor's assurance that they'd sue any crook who picked it? Seems like that'd be a lock in name only. Guess I could post a sign saying, "Warning: Premises protected by First Circuit Court of Appeals"...

Oh boohoo

[mikeophile]

Anyone remember Streambox?

I don't think Real was whining about the DMCA then.

Reverse Engineering

[merkhet]

The problem at issue here is not really the reverse engineering. This is somewhat different than having someone figure out the secret forumla to Coca-cola and reproducing it for their own profit. The DRM that they are breaking is merely a method of allowing for the file to play on an iPod. It might be a little more analogous to getting a locksmith to copy a key for you. The physical act of copying the key or having possession of the copied key may not be illegal but the act of using the key to enter into another person's house might be... The real question is whether or not Apple has the right to enforce the types of files that it allows on its iPods. (I think that they do, but then again, I'm not comfortable with the idea that people can tell me what I can and cannot do with my own hardware...)

Re:Reverse Engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

They have the right to enforce the types of files that they allow on their iPods. Noone disputes that. The question is, once I buy an iPod, do they have the right to enforce what files I play on MY iPod.

Re:Reverse Engineering

[faedle]

I think that they do..

And, based upon Nintendo's fairly successful lawsuit against Atari/Tengen et. al. over this exact same issue (vendor hardware locks used to only allow "authorized software" to run), I think the courts would agree that Real is in the wrong.

Re:Reverse Engineering

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

whether or not Apple has the right to enforce the types of files that it allows on its iPods.

Actually, the easy to answer question is, "does Apple have the right to decide who, and under what conditions people may access it's authentication servers." Right now all users agree to a click through license that forbids them to connect (via itunes) and authenticate Real's music, but thus far they have not enforced the license, and most of their customers don't even know the Real music is causing them to violate the license. That part should be a slam dunk for Apple if it ever goes to court.

Taunting Apple?

[sapgau]

The question for Real's investors is if doing this is worth the risk.

It doesn't sound very bright. They're trying to sneak in their product as a competitor's clone, they feel there might be trouble and carry on anyways?

What happened to relying on their own technology and competing at that level? Maybe LICENSING apple's technology? I really wonder if this unnecessary risk taking is part of Real's corporate culture.

:-/

Re:Taunting Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd imagine behind the scenes at Real and Apple, there are probably ongoing negotiations with licensing. And the fact that Real is notifying that to the SEC, that those negotiations are not going well.

Re:Taunting Apple?

[nutshell42]

Maybe LICENSING apple's technology?

This is *Apple* we're talking about. Do you really think that if they handed out licenses we wouldn't have seen official iPod-compatible shops (well apart from iTMS) by now?

hahaha

[carguy84]

truly hilarious

Which begs the question

[Mr. Cancelled]

... So why are they doing it?

They acknowledged in an SEC filing that a lawsuit from Apple would potentially be very damaging to the companies bottom line, as it accepts that a court might not agree that the reverse-engineering is legal.

That statement alone's damaging IMHO, as now when they continue pushing this technology, Apple can come back in a year (when it might actually be turning some form of profit for them) and sue saying "You clearly understood that this was wrong over a year ago, and yet you continued to break ther law for your own gains".

I mean, WTF?? That's a business plan?

Easy solution: Countersuit!

[Spy der Mann]

The moment Apple files a lawsuit, countersuit for monopoly - settle in court, and everyone happy.

Ta-da!

Re:Easy solution: Countersuit!

[parmadil]

Since when is Apple a monopoly?

Re:Easy solution: Countersuit!

[geekee]

" Since when is Apple a monopoly?"

Since when is Microsoft a monopoly?

Original /. article on harmony...

[DigitalBubblebath]

here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/26/104225 7

He was such a nice boy...

[egriebel]

Yeah, I can really sympathize with those Real guys. I feel bad for them they're such good sports, and likeable too! Weren't they the original "do no evil" people? ]:-)

Apple vs Real

[rm999]

I consider what both companies are doing as wrong, so I don't know who to root for.

On one hand, Real is making it easy and accessible to its customers to break Apple's proprietary codec. Apple spent time and money to make the files only play on their players, and Real is trying to use the files without permission. Oh, and I'm still pissed about that who bloated Real Player thing :)

On the other hand, what Apple is doing is very akin to something that M$FT would do. They have a virtual monopoly on music players and online music downloads (to avoid starting an obvious argument, I will stress that I know what Apple has is not an actual monopoly, but imo it basically is. There are alternatives, but many people do not know this.) What Apple is doing is unfairly using this monopoly to sustain the monopoly, something MSFT is notorious for. If I buy a song from iTunes, I should be able to use it on any player. This is a basic sentiment of slashdot - freely using what is yours. Your dollar spent on that song should give you a license to use it however you want to, not a license to go out and buy a 300 dollar iPod just to listen to it.

I think Apple will win this fight and Real was foolish to get into it. Reminds me of MP3.com's downfall.

Re:Apple vs Real

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What Apple is doing is unfairly using this monopoly to sustain the monopoly, something MSFT is notorious for. If I buy a song from iTunes, I should be able to use it on any player. This is a basic sentiment of slashdot - freely using what is yours. Your dollar spent on that song should give you a license to use it however you want to, not a license to go out and buy a 300 dollar iPod just to listen to it.

First I don't buy your argument that Apple has a monopoly (virtual or otherwise) on digital music players. They have about a 70% share. Given that, you might say that Apple is unfairly using it's near monopoly to tie the itunes music store to the ipod and leverage that near monopoly. Now take a look at their competition. It is made up of a dozen manufacturers who are selling mp3/wma players all of which equally tie the user into using a different player, a player bundled with basically every computer sold due to a real monopoly (legally found to be such and legally found to be abusing that monopoly). Yeah, yeah two wrongs don't make a right, but you have to admit, Apple doesn't have a lot of choice if they want to survive in the market.

Finally, you claim that if you buy a song you should be able to play it on any player, not just the ipod. The thing is, you can. Apple's DRM has a legal way to export to cd, which then plays in any cd player and which can them be re-encoded into another format for another player. They make it annoying, but legal. Neither Real nor Microsoft have that same feature on their DRM, as far as I know.

Mind you this whole piece is FUD trying to gain sympathy for a dying company after Apple has basically ignored them and done nothing about their weird hack, even though it violates the license agreement each user has with apple and it has a competitor using Apple's own servers to authenticate a for-profit enterprise that competes with them. Apple has really taken the high road here and deserve some credit for it.

Re:Apple vs Real

[Mr2001]

On one hand, Real is making it easy and accessible to its customers to break Apple's proprietary codec. Apple spent time and money to make the files only play on their players, and Real is trying to use the files without permission.

You've got it backwards. Real wants to make files from their own store play on Apple's player, by converting them to Apple style DRM files (instead of unrestricted MP3s, which is what they'd do if they really cared about their customers.. but I digress).

Also, don't forget that just because a company spends time and money to keep you from doing something, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to do it anyway. For example, if Ford spent months engineering a specially shaped gas tank opening to force customers to buy gas from Ford-owned stations, you'd still have every right to file it open and buy gas from the corner store - it's your car, and you should be able to fill it up however you like.

Similarly, it's your iPod, and you should be able to fill it with music from anyone who can supply it to you. If Apple wants you to come back to them for a "refill" of music, they can compete fairly by providing a better selection or lower prices... and if they can't compete fairly, they deserve to fail as their customers switch to other music stores.

Re:Apple vs Real

[geekee]

"Similarly, it's your iPod, and you should be able to fill it with music from anyone who can supply it to you. If Apple wants you to come back to them for a "refill" of music, they can compete fairly by providing a better selection or lower prices... and if they can't compete fairly, they deserve to fail as their customers switch to other music stores."

Customers can't switch to other stores because no other store can sell mainstream music that plays on iPod.

Re:Apple vs Real

[TheoMurpse]

Apple spent time and money to make the files only play on their players, and Real is trying to use the files without permission.

I think you are misinformed. Real isn't worried about being sued because Real made iTunes music playable on some non-existant Real MP3 player. Real is worried about being sued because they came up with a way to have Real's DRM music playable on the iPod.

Re:Apple vs Real

[Mr2001]

Customers can't switch to other stores because no other store can sell mainstream music that plays on iPod.

Exactly... because Apple has chosen to compete unfairly.

Breaking News: Apple Sues Real

[aldheorte]

Breaking news: Apple will sue it over its Harmony technology that 'breaks' iTunes' FairPlay DRM to allow its music to play on the iPod. Apple points out that, as reported on a popular site called Slashdot, Real acknowledged in an SEC filing that a lawsuit from Apple would potentially be very damaging to the companies [sic] bottom line, as it accepts that a court might not agree that the reverse-engineering is legal.

Re:Breaking News: Apple Sues Real

[Anonymous Coward]

And you read this where?

Re:Rightfully So... Microsoft Too?

[Myriad]

It seems to me that now that Microsoft's getting a real taste of success and getting more and more attention from people who normally wouldn't give a shit that now they're determined to hold onto it as hard as they can, and frivilous lawsutis seem to be one of their methods. Nor do i think that FOSS has a chance with this - it's their OS, they reserve teh right to control what technology one can play on it. I'm all for FOSS on this one, but i think they may be getting in over their heads.

Hmmmmm.... careful, that knife cuts both ways you know.

Clean room implementation

[Nichotin]

As long as it is a clean room design, it should be legal for Real. Courts may think otherwise though.

Rinse, lather, and repeat

[richdun]

So I know might risk the savage wrath of the Slashgods here, but I really can't find myself feeling sorry for Real. Reverse engineering is wrong if you're just trying to copy off the other guy - innovate and make something better than the other guy for a change.

Apple built a product (iTunes + iPod) that a lot of consumers love (marketshare speaks much louder than OGG support, open-ness, etc.), and Real wants a piece of that because very few are using their service. Why is it that we think just because it involves a computer or teh intarweb that it should all be fair game (or fair play, to pull a pun)?

If I create a product that is easier to use, looks good, and appeals to more consumers than everyone else's product, why should I have to share? I mean, if in the mean time I was running around telling the music companies that they could only use my service or could get some sort of incentive to not allow other services (i.e., the allegations behind much of the Wintel monopoly) that'd be one thing, but it appears that nothing of that sort happened.

Apple sets a great example IMHO of how a tech company should do things. No, they aren't always the fastest, most compatible, free software and open source (two things I happen to like) loving people, but when people (consumers) have a choice, they choose iPod in a very large landslide. Don't try to beat Apple by making them open FairPlay, or support more non-DRMed standards on the iPod, or whatever. Beat them by doing something better. Remember, iPod was a relatively late comer to the digital music scene, and yet it did things so much better than everyone else it quickly took a huge lead.

If only more companies would try to serve their markets by simply doing things better the other guys, not trying to copy or out-price or out-market them (though admittedly, Apple has fallen for this in the past), maybe we'd have more innovation and progress in technology these days instead of trying to figure which DRM scheme will make the most content providers happy and make the decision for the next gen DVD wars. I want to do with my music whatever I want like any of you, but I (and millions of others) don't mind being a little restricted if it means I get to use a great product. Consumers still drive this economy more than companies - if we don't like what they offer, don't buy it.

Apple is isolating itself...

[stanleypane]

It would seem to me that apple is trying to make technology that will only play music which is geared for it's device. The only thing that's new here is the fact that the music is being distributed in a digital format with a DRM.

It would appear to me that while Apple is ahead of the game right now, in the long run they are going to isolate themselves from the market in the same manner Microsoft did with WMA files and the likes. I just don't understand why everyone rally's behind Apple with their iPod and the fact that people are forced to use iTune's. I like Apple's product line, but it will be a cold day in hell before I buy an iPod.

Re:Apple is isolating itself...

[Anonymous Coward]

#1, the DRM Apple uses is quite easily stripped off the songs, if you're so inclined, by either the burn-and-rerip method or with the use of a software tool.

#2, if you don't like Apple's DRM, fine. Buy CDs, rip them to MP3, and enjoy them. That's what I do on my iPod. The only songs I have from the iTMS are free ones I got through their Pepsi promos.

Re:Apple is isolating itself...

[stanleypane]

#1: Most folks don't know enough about technology for those methods the become prevelant. In fact, I'm willing to bet 90% of Apple's iTunes customers don't even know what DRM is until it screws them.

#2: Buying a CD makes the entire on-line presence of Apple completely pointless.

As you said, If I don't like Apple's DRM bulls**t, I won't use their services. This is exactly what I think others will begin to do. Hence, Apple is isolating themselves. IMHO, of course.

Re:Apple is isolating itself...

[Kelson]

Mainly, Apple's DRM is a lot less stringent than others have tehnded to be (assuming, of course, you have an iPod). They actually look like they made an effort to compromise between music publishers that don't want you to do anything but play the track on one computer (and maybe a player), and consumers who want to be able to burn mix CDs, play tracks on more than one computer, etc.

If you consider any form of DRM to be oppressive, then there isn't much difference between FairPlay and anything else. If you want choice in players, it won't work for you either. But it's a compromise that works for a lot of people.

Re:Apple is isolating itself...

[joelsanda]

I just don't understand why everyone rally's behind Apple with their iPod and the fact that people are forced to use iTune's. I like Apple's product line, but it will be a cold day in hell before I buy an iPod.

There is no forcing anyone to use iTunes. You don't have to wait for hell to freeze over to learn about the product, however. The restriction is on music purchased from iTunes, not on must loaded on to the iPod. Don't like the DRM on iTunes? Don't buy the music - copy it over from CD or another source without DRM.

typical response

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooohh!! Its APPAL!!! DMCA is good!!! It's used for APPAL!!

Notwithstanding all the reverse engineering that has been done for Linux/BSD/Samba & other OSS favorites.... /. jerks

Sounds Like

[csmacd]

Sounds like they're channeling Orwell. War is peace. Love is hate.

Re:Sounds Like

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was more like The Sphinx from Mystery Men...

The funny thing about this

[Kelson]

Harmony makes it possible for Real to sell tracks online that are compatible with the iPod. It competes with the iTunes Store, but the end result is more music available for the iPod, which increases the iPod's value. Meanwhile, Apple has admitted that they don't make much money off of the iTunes store, but it does help push iPod sales (by making it more useful).

So at least in the short term, this should positively impact Apple's business by improving iPod sales.

Long term, though, it reduces vendor lock-in. If you ultimately have lots of Real tracks on your old iPod, and they're compatible with both iPods and some other player (or at the very least, you can re-download the tracks in the appropriate format without buying them all over again), you're just as likely to buy that other player as a new iPod.

So if Real is violating the DMCA

[Fizzlewhiff]

Will people go to jail? I'm thinking back to the Russian guy who cracked the Adobe files.

You've got to be kidding

[geekee]

"Apple built a product (iTunes + iPod) that a lot of consumers love (marketshare speaks much louder than OGG support, open-ness, etc.), and Real wants a piece of that because very few are using their service. Why is it that we think just because it involves a computer or teh intarweb that it should all be fair game (or fair play, to pull a pun)?"

So then you must agree that it's good for Microsoft to use closed file formats for Office and that Lexmark should be able to sue competitors for refilling their ink cartridges. Also, cracking the DVD encrpytion scheme to make a Linux DVD player must be wrong too.

"If I create a product that is easier to use, looks good, and appeals to more consumers than everyone else's product, why should I have to share? I mean, if in the mean time I was running around telling the music companies that they could only use my service or could get some sort of incentive to not allow other services (i.e., the allegations behind much of the Wintel monopoly) that'd be one thing, but it appears that nothing of that sort happened."

Apple shouldn't be required to share, but if someone reverse engineers their product to make something that is compatible, do you really believe Apple should have legal grounds to sue?

Re:You've got to be kidding

[richdun]

"So then you must agree that it's good for Microsoft to use closed file formats for Office and that Lexmark should be able to sue competitors for refilling their ink cartridges. Also, cracking the DVD encrpytion scheme to make a Linux DVD player must be wrong too."

Well, I don't think it's "good" for MS to close Office formats, because I personally like choice, but if that's what they want to do, let them. As a very minor MS shareholder (less than 100 shares), I must say it is good for business, since their biggest Office customer base is in the business world, who will pony up for the licensing fees and such need to equip their workforce with Office with little care about whether OO.org or others are compatible (yes, there are some exceptions, but Office is still one of their biggest moneymakers - and the copies sold in BestBuy and such aren't what is keeping that going). Same thing with Lexmark (though even as a native Kentuckian I have to admit that I tend to favor HP printers anyhow).

The point I was making though was that we often look at a product or service or whatever that one company has developed, successfully marketed, and sold well and want in on it. We want to be able to use the money, time, and resources they've put into it to our advantage and launch our product to piggyback theirs - only without all the need for actually developing the market. Why does anyone care if Office uses closed standards? Because it's so widely used - people use it, know how it works, know its name, and are familiar with its formats. If you don't like Office, and you aren't the only one, then make something better, develop it, market it, and sell it. But don't tell MS they have to use open standards just so you can feed off their already developed market (albeit in this case there are arguments that this was not a fairly gained market - so it's not the greatest example, but hopefully you get the point).

I know it may sound a bit optimistic, even too idealistic, but until we get the whole money-less thing from Star Trek figured out, it's what we're going to have to live with. You shouldn't be able to copy someone else's work or product or format so that you can make a profit off of their market - that's the whole point behind copyright/patent/trademark laws.

Be original, make something better. Compatibility is great in a utopian society, but we live in one that is far from that. If companies can't rely on the revenue from the products they develop to sustain their R&D, we'll quickly run out of innovations.

Clippy Rides Again

[Doc Ruby]

In other news, I got a cease & desist letter from Apple today for leaving a straightened paperclip in the "eject" pinhole of my Mac floppy drive. Clear violation of the DMCA, reverse engineering, and aftermarketing. I'm a hacker terrorist! Stop me before I eject again!

Re:Clippy Rides Again

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

No, I think you got a letter asking you to cease and desist using a Mac that still has a floppy drive. Geez.

Analysis of DMCA and Real's Harmony

[Landaras]

Back in July of 2004 I wrote up an analysis of Apple's DMCA claim against Real. The full article is available here. Here's the last part of it (after I give definitions and background).

*****

As mentioned above, Real has claimed that, with their Harmony software, downloads from the Real music store will now be usable by the iPod. Real accomplished this by reverse-engineering FairPlay, so that Real can now create a level of DRM that is indistinguishable from FairPlay by the iPod. Until a few days ago, only music purchased from iTMS could have any form of DRM on it and be playable on the iPod. With the creation of Harmony, the iPod will no longer be able to lock out Real's DRM'd music, creating (something resembling) a true competitor to iTMS in the form of Real's store.

Realizing this, Apple has quickly and angrily accused Real of using the "tactics and ethics of a hacker" in creating Harmony.

Apple's statement should be summarily ignored. They are using ad hominem attacks with terms that carry misleading connotations. It could be argued that Real "cracked" the FairPlay DRM, but even that is misleading. The right to reverse-engineer is protected by law, and as such what Real did is legal.

Or rather, would have been definitively legal several years ago, before the passage of the DMCA. In fact, "Apple said it is investigating the implications of Real's software strategy under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (news.com article).

Now that statement by Apple is worth investigating. What does the DMCA say as to Real's reverse-engineering of FairPlay?

The sections that pertain to this case are Sec. 1201 (a)(1)(A), Sec. 1201 (a)(2)(A), and Sec. 1201 (f)(1). These sections are somewhat long and legal, but I will quote only what is necessary and break the verbage down into "normal english." Their relevant parts are, respectively

• No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
• 
  and
• No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
• 
  and
• 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.

The first excerpt says that if there is some "technological measure that effectively controls access to a work", it is now illegal to circumvent that measure. To borrow from the Fair Use example above, if someone purchased a music compact disc that had some technological measure on it that kept them from copying it to their hard drive as mp3s, it would now be illegal for them to circumvent that technological measure.

The second excerpt says that you cannot create or distribute tools or software that allows circumvention of technological anti-copying measures. To continue the Fair Use example, it is illegal for someone else to create a method to turn a protected purchased disc into mp3s, or to give that method to others.

The third excerpt

So what, its just an SEC filing

[dysk]

Companies try to make as exhaustive a list of risks as they can when compiling their SEC filings, as that ensures that investors won't sue the execs for not disclosing the risks.

To put it into perspective, their "worry" about being sued by Apple is one paragraph in 15 pages of disclosures, including entries like "Our mobile products will not be successful if consumers do not use mobile devices to access digital media." and "Any development delays or cost overruns may affect our operating results."

Ethics of a hacker

[www.sorehands.com]

The tactics and ethics of a hacker is a good thing. The tactics of an Apple lawyer is another.

They may be using the term "hacker" in the sense that the mainstream press has been using it -- not the actual definition of a hacker. Maybe they just don't know better.

Re:Ethics of a hacker

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it doesn't matter anymore.

sell songs, and and have them work with the iPod?

[oliverthered]

Last time I checked the IPod still palyed mp3's, if real really wanted to 'sell songs, and and have them work with the iPod' then they could have distributed mp3's without even having to do anything with DRM.

Nonsense

[Danuvius]

They acknowledged in an SEC filing that a lawsuit from Apple would potentially be very damaging to the companies bottom line, as it accepts that a court might not agree that the reverse-engineering is legal.

That statement alone's damaging IMHO, as now when they continue pushing this technology, Apple can come back in a year (when it might actually be turning some form of profit for them) and sue saying "You clearly understood that this w

From what I recall SEC filings have to consider every possibility. I believe SCO's filings have in there the possibility that they'll lose their Linux IP battle. (Though they are yet to give any other hint that they are even aware of that potential.)

A statement in a SEC filing does not speak of grave and presumably imminent danger--it speaks of ANY danger conceivable by a legion of paranoid lawyers and their monkey overlords!

That's one way to make it happe

[jpsowin]

a lawsuit from Apple would potentially be very damaging to the companies bottom line

That's certainly one way to make the lawsuit happen...

Admitting guilt?

[ChrisF79]

Doesn't it seem odd for a company to express concern over getting sued? Seems close to an admission of guilt to me.

Re:Admitting guilt?

[shark72]

" Doesn't it seem odd for a company to express concern over getting sued?"

Not to those of us who've read plenty of SEC filings in our day. The short answer is that if you're a publicly traded company, you have to disclose your risks and liabilities, or you run the risk of being sued by your shareholders.

"Seems close to an admission of guilt to me."

It is simply an acknowledgement that they are (a) doing stuff that is pissing off Apple, and that (b) Apple is sue-happy.

If Red Hat is so worried...

[Anonymous Coward]

...about a lawsuit from SCO, and if such a lawsuit would so dramatically affect their bottom line, why did they go ahead and back Linux in the first place?

Can't they find another way to make money?

A very punny statement

[mcmediaman]

You know, if you read the headline straight through, including the category, it reads like this:

"Apple Real Worried About Apple Lawsuit"

Pardon me.

[Spy der Mann]

I meant "monopolic PRACTICES".

Re:Pardon me.

[parmadil]

Monopolistic practices aren't a crime unless committed by a monopoly. While Apple does have a dominant market share in the MP3 player market, they're far from a monopoly; hence, by definition, they cannot be prosecuted for monopolistic practices.

i know other worried parties.

[Anonymous Coward]

i bet deadmoo is really worried right now.

OK, except...

[jpellino]

that Apple got there by making a clearly superior product and applying DRM to satisfy the copyright holders.

Making that equivalent with your typical MSFT strategy for sewing up a market is way out in left field.

You can use your iTunes anywhere you want. Burn, re-rip. Thinking that Apple is going to do this for you is unreasonable.

Apple needs to enforce the DRM so that it maintains its consistent potection of the holder's requirements.

Real's claim to want interop really really really badly is hardly a reason for Apple to allow them to monkey with the DRM.

Its an Apple iPod, not a general purpose PC.

[crovira]

I think that Apple has every right to restrict its use to what it was designed to do. Its designed to play iTunes and MP3s (and a few other formats, but not OGG :-)

And given the prepondrance of Walkman work alikes, which cost Sony their monopoly after a certain number of years, they have evey right to do so.

Now Sony did not 'control' the content, they did not want to, back then they weren't yet a media company, but if they had been, they would have sued the pants off (and beyond) of anyone who'd infringed.

If Real was smart they would start a competing player and run their own scam (copy protection) and stop trying to ride on Apple's iPod coat tails.

In breaking the iPod DRM (reverse engineering with the purpose of breaking it) they are no better than the cracker's who slash at Microsoft's Windows. (DMCA politics makes STRANGE bedfellows.)

Re:sell songs, and and have them work with the iPo

[wankledot]

That's all well and good, but they didn't have any legal obligation to do that, nor are they breaking any laws by working with the iPod the way they are now.

Apple has the right to break Real's way of doing it, and Real has the right to make their songs play on the iPod. The question of whether Real should have done it another way when it comes to customer choice, fair use, open source ethics, etc. etc. is beside the point. Apple should not be suing them, and hopefully won't.

Parser Error

[Anonymous Coward]

When I first read the title, I thought: Well, sure, I'm a little worried about Apple lawsuits (who isn't nowadays), but no, I'm not REAL WORRIED ABOUT APPLE LAWSUITS or anything...

Real - Boo Hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

No one should shed a tear for Real. I've despised them since most of the Real content on the web went from free to subscription based.

I hope apple beraks them....

I worked for PL Robertson manufacturing

[crovira]

and you could be sued for making a Robertson screwdriver and/or screws without a proper product licence.

The end-user could do whatever he wanted, including suicide with one of their screws and/or screwdrivers, but he'd be liable for the misuse of the product.

Anybody remember when Apple used Torq wrenches on Macintosh cases? Is the same principle. As long as its not something commonly available, Apple's covered.

Personally, I'd sooner Real didn't exist and QuickTime was wider spread, but that's just me.

Re:wow....Wrong statement of law ... Asteroids

[ziani]

" . . . it is every company's responsibility, in fact under the law, to state all possibilities that may negatively affect a business, however remote those possibilities may be."

Not quite. It is every company's responsibility to state all facts that a reasonable investor might consider important in deciding whether to invest.

The required level of disclosure is certainly something less than "all possibilities . . . however remote [they] may be." Under this type of standard, a company would have to disclose the possibility of an asteroid hitting the corporate headquarters, or the possibility of the CEO's having a heart attack and an infinite number of other "possibilities".

To be fair (and at the risk of stating the obvious), Real's disclosure is right on the money. Given the current state of the law and the spectre of even a threatened DMCA action, any new technology that requires reverse engineering (especially one that goes straight for Apple's market) makes its author vulnerable, and disclosure in this case is warranted.

Obligatory Grammar Check

[boatboy]

We are really worried about apple lawsuits.

Re:Obligatory Grammar Check

[SloJohn]

Real is a corporation, and they, as a corporation, are worried about a lawsuit. We really shouldn't be.

They're not very worried.

[tqbf]

If they were, they wouldn't have done it.

The fact is that Real's move garnered them lots of press attention, and in light of that, they are now obliged to disclaim the possibility of a lawsuit in their filings.

It's probably not that they think Apple is going to sue them out of existence. It's that, if they DIDN'T disclose that, even a minor legal tussle with Apple could be the basis for a shareholders lawsuit.

title...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is real worried?

yuk yuk yuk...

ok, mod me down.

I'd be more worried about MSFT lawsuits

[WillAffleckUW]

after all, they have the stronger claim to the iPod patents, according to the messed up morons at the USPTO ...

SEC filings are full of paranoid stuff like this

[Anonymous Coward]

i've seen some pretty crazy shit in SEC filings by some companies as part of the "we're covering our asses here" section that talks about potential future scenarios in which their earnings wouldn't meet expectations

i'm pretty sure that i saw warnings about things like meteors striking the earth, destroying the company's headquarters and means of production, first contact with extraterrestrials, volcanoes and tsunamis (especially popular this year) ...oh, and apple lawsuits. those are actually pretty common :)

Real wouldn't sue anyone right

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure if I started a company that cracked Real's pay-per-view service they wouldn't sue me...right?

Real Is Better

[meehawl]

make something better than the other guy

Real is better. Apple caps its downloads at 128Kbit/s and limits to a single device, Real offers higher-quality 192 Kbit/s, and cross-platform transcoding interoperability. Real also offers subscription plans, which Apple does not (or cannot, due to current technology limitations).

Re:Real Is Better

[richdun]

Well, Apple doesn't limit to a single device - each file can work on up to 5 computers and as many iPods as you can manage to sync with those computers, plus CD burning - but you are right. From a technical standpoint, Real is better on those points - but it hasn't developed a winning portable player, the one thing that has really pulled iTMS into dominance. Sometimes you can do better than the other guy on a couple points, but he may still have the "better" all-around package (that, of course, is subjective, but you get the point).

Media Center

[meehawl]

Couldn't someone make a utility that just converts DRMed files to mp3 on the fly as they're being transferred to an iPod

Yes, they have. It's called Media Center.

Real shouldn't be worried

[IntergalacticWalrus]

After all Apple has something more important right now to sue... if you know what I mean. Hey speaking of which Safari works great for browsing slashdot on my PC.

BS

[geekee]

"Ah, that's the crux of the matter. They don't make a competing product."

Real competes with iTMS. You may as well argue that MS has a right to add hidden features to their OS to make their office suite better. Apparently as a monopoly, they don't. Apple has a monopoly on mp3 players. So which is it. You can't arbitrarily decide monopoly laws based on whether or not you like a company.

Re:BS

[bill_mcgonigle]

Real competes with iTMS.

They don't offer an end-to-end DRM digital music solution. That's what iTMS has and Real wants. "They'd like to compete", yes.

You may as well argue that MS has a right to add hidden features to their OS to make their office suite better.

They've been doing this for years.

Apparently as a monopoly, they don't.

Because they were found guilty of abusing their monopoly position.

Apple has a monopoly on mp3 players.

I thought they had 60%?

So which is it. You can't arbitrarily decide monopoly laws based on whether or not you like a company.

A monopoly isn't illegal. A court can find that the monopoly position has been abused and impose restrictions on the operation of that monopoly.

Apple is the SCO here, not Real

[geekee]

" Dear SEC: "We're worried that the shot we fired across their bow will be interpreted the wrong way."

What? This is a page out of the SCO play-book? Rambus play-book?"

  Dear SEC: "We're worried that the shot we fired across Lexmark's bow will be interpreted the wrong way." - signed third party ink cartridge refiller.
Could be a similar statement.

Sounds more like a line out of a legitimate company's playbook. Apple is acting more like Rambus and SCO than Real. Apple is the one complaining that Real is using their proprietary technology. Sounds like SCO whining about Linux.

I don't think the DMCA applies

[geekee]

I thought the DMCA prevented selling tools to circumvent copyright protection. Clearly, this is not what Real is doing.

Not a DMCA issue

[geekee]

" Anyone remember Streambox?

I don't think Real was whining about the DMCA then."

This has nothing to do with the DMCA. Apple doesn't have a case any more than SCO has a case against Linux. Real reverse engineered Apple's DRM without using Apple source code. Real is not using this technology to circumvent any copyright protection.

MS is a perfect analogy

[geekee]

"Making that equivalent with your typical MSFT strategy for sewing up a market is way out in left field.
"

MS was sued in the US for using Windows to leverage IE. Apple is now using their monopoly on mp3 players to leverage iTMS sales. Real isn't "monkeying" with the DRM. They reverse engineered it, and they want to sell iPod users songs with the same DRM format (which Apple refused to license to them because they are trying to leverage their monopoly).

Re:MS is a perfect analogy

[jpellino]

Do you remember the demos of what it took to extricate Explorer from Windows?
Lots of hard work by some hefty nerds.

What does it take to play your iTMS/Fairplay music on anything else?
Burn a CD.

In theory they're both leverage. In practice they're very different.

What a load of crap.

[geekee]

"In breaking the iPod DRM (reverse engineering with the purpose of breaking it) they are no better than the cracker's who slash at Microsoft's Windows. (DMCA politics makes STRANGE bedfellows.)"

So you think reverse engineering DeCSS was wrong? Do you think it's wrong for OO to reverse engineer .doc, .xls .ppt? Did you think it was wrong for Compaq to reverse engineer IBM's BIOS to create the first IBM PC clone?

It's like raaaiiiiiinnnnnn....

[benjamindees]

The real question is whether or not Apple has the right to enforce the types of files that it allows on its iPods. (I think that they do, but then again, I'm not comfortable with the idea that people can tell me what I can and cannot do with my own hardware...)

Ha. See what a joke the "property" analogy of computer hacking is? Now we're to the point that fuzzy-minded nitwits think that my iPod is actually Apple's, and that they can prevent me from "hacking" it to put whatever the hell I want to on it.

That whole line of legal reasoning is flawed and always has been. "Hacking" is not "breaking and entering," it's communication, more analogous to speech. Whether speech rises to the level of "breaking and entering" or not depends on whether there's some actual physical action involved to trespass actual physical property that you don't own.

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get... Who's really worried that Apple's gonna sue them?

I don't understand this whole streaming thing..

[Neoncow]

Why does streaming in Windows media player and real suck so much?

When I open .mov files, Quicktime will start to download the file and only starts playing when it has enough so I can watch the whole video. Do they have a patent on this or something?

I mean, I hate waiting for Quicktime to load (and no, I don't want tho pro version), but watching a video without the freaking buffering every six seconds is worth it.

Oh and just to clarify, I am clueless and genuinely curious. And I was recently had to usea low bandwidth connection and was trying to show someone a video that turned out to be a streamed video..

Lame ass solution

[geekee]

"There is no forcing anyone to use iTunes. You don't have to wait for hell to freeze over to learn about the product, however. The restriction is on music purchased from iTunes, not on must loaded on to the iPod. Don't like the DRM on iTunes? Don't buy the music - copy it over from CD or another source without DRM."

Why do people get modded up for saying that it's reasonable that the only alternative to mainstream online music from Apple for iPod is buying CDs. Too bad Apple doesn't follow the "Don't be evil" rule. Then others could sell music online for iPod, and consumers would have more choices.

Re:Lame ass solution

[joelsanda]

Why do people get modded up for saying that it's reasonable that the only alternative to mainstream online music from Apple for iPod is buying CDs. Too bad Apple doesn't follow the "Don't be evil" rule. Then others could sell music online for iPod, and consumers would have more choices.

That's "the only alternative" for all legal online music stores. It has nothing to do with Apple, and actually, since Apple was late to selling online you could argue that, historically, the trend was started someone else.

You're comments certainly apply to Apple, but also to all other online retailers as well.

Finally, you're presuming the restritions on iTunes music playing only on the iPod is Apple's restrictions. I don't think we know that's for certain.

One thing that's always true, though: no one forces anyone to purchase iPods and use iTunes. Don't like it? Don't use it. But you're criticism of the most succesful digital music store and player (both in revenue, customers and units sold) as a "lame ass" solution makes your comments a little suspect. The market obviously disagrees with your conclusion.

Apple has even bigger problems: iPod

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

While we are on the topic of patents and lawsuits, it looks like Apple has bigger problems. Apparently Microsoft has patented some elements that the iPod uses. In other words, MS patented a device similar to iPod before Apple conceived of the iPod. I don't think this will result in any lawsuits but I'm sure Apple will think twice before suing MS in the future...

Apple has NOT sued Real

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Glancing the posts show that many people readily condemned Apple, but really, do people notice that despite the initial response, Apple hasn't said a beep about Harmony much less sue Real? If Apple wants to sue, wouldn't this happen already. Harmony is so '04.

IMHO, Apple is better off doing what they are doing now: occasionally breaking Harmony (not that I praise Apple for it... just being pragmatic). It's the best campaign against Real. The more people buy Real+Harmony, the more people get pissed at Real when Harmony breaks and the more people go to iTMS to buy the 'real' thing (no pun intended, in quotes because real here means the Apple-approved method, not the tunes).

Semantics

[meehawl]

Apple doesn't limit to a single device

What we have here is a failure to communicate fully. I should, of course, have written "limited to a single type of device". For that is what I ment - the single-brand player lockin. There are plugins to enable iTunes to function with others devices (I am aware of some Archos and some Rio plugins), but these are not supported by Apple and prone to failure at every iTunes point upgrade.

Re:Semantics

[richdun]

Ah, understood. Was hoping that's what you meant, but wasn't sure. Sometimes the marketing hype can confuse even the most astute of us (I've read I don't know how many articles on tech news sites claiming that iTMS songs are incompatible with Windows, when what they meant was Windows Media).