Slashdot Mirror


DVD Jon's DoubleTwist Unlocks the iPod

An anonymous reader writes, "On the 5-year anniversary of the iPod, Fortune Magazine has an article called Unlocking the iPod about Jon Lech Johansen's new venture. Slashdot briefly covered DoubleTwist earlier this month, and those of you who complained that he was not enabling iPod competitors to play FairPlay files will be happy to learn that according to the Fortune article he will also be going after the hardware market." From the article: "As [Johansen] and Farantzos explain DoubleTwist in a conference room they share with several other companies, he points to a sheet of printer paper tacked on the wall that has a typed quote Jobs gave the Wall Street Journal in 2002: 'If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own.' As Johansen sees it, Jobs didn't follow through on this promise, so it's up to him to fix the system... Johansen has written [two] programs...: one that would let other companies sell copy-protected songs that play on the iPod, and another that would let other devices play iTunes songs."

88 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. DMCA by justinbach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this constitute a blatant violation via reverse-engineering of the Fairplay DRM? I'm not saying I disagree with his actions, I'm just asking the question...

    --
    I left my wallet in El Sigundo!
    1. Re:DMCA by Cemu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the limiting of consumers' ability to listen, in private, to what they've legally acquired on whatever device they choose a violiation of the copyright act?

    2. Re:DMCA by truthsearch · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not the most recent copyright act.

    3. Re:DMCA by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thankfully he's not from the United States so it doesn't apply to him or anyone outside of US borders.

    4. Re:DMCA by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think it would be funny if his inventions couldn't be sold in the US, but could be sold everywhere else. Maybe Kim Jong II would wear one, smug in his knowledge that the device is illegal in the US.

    5. Re:DMCA by strider44 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's currently living in the US though (in San Francisco, according to Wikipedia), so it could very quickly apply to him.

    6. Re:DMCA by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Umm.. but he's living in California and that's where his new startup company is incorporated.

      Here's what the previous /. linked article said about his whereabouts:
      Twenty-two-year-old Johansen moved to San Francisco to work with Monique Farantzos, who had contacted him after reading a Wall Street Journal profile of him last fall. The two now live in the Mission District and devote their time to DoubleTwist Ventures, which is Johansen's first major attempt at commercializing his hacking. They haven't raised any outside money because they have already found at least one (undisclosed) paying customer.


      What I'm more interested in is how he plans to provide the backend authentication scheme that lets you authenticate and deauthenticate certain computers from your DVDJohn-iTunes account. There's a lot of 'other' stuff going on beyond just converting files to FairPlay.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:DMCA by JonTurner · · Score: 4, Funny
      He's now living/working in the US.


      Funny, I've never seen "imprisoned" spelled with a slash.
    8. Re:DMCA by tranceyboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      there is legal room when you aim is to establish interoperability, the illegal comes when it's jsut meant to curcumvent, ie illegal uses.

      --
      "Too bad that bureaucrats' hunger for power is never matched by greater quantities of wisdom or intelligence!!--Could it
    9. Re:DMCA by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      In short, no. In long, I wish Slashdotters would actually read the laws that they assume 'protects' them before commenting on them. Sheesh, Im not even American and I bet I know more about American Copyright Law than most American Slashdotters, purely because I read it before discussing it. Hint - Fair Use is not as wide ranging as some on this site seem to believe, even leaving the DMCA out of the equation for simplicities sake.

    10. Re:DMCA by diamondsw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But it would apply to companies wanting to use it within US borders, wouldn't it? Given the multinational reach of companies these days, I see this as a major stumbling block. Also, considering the amount of reciprocity the US has with other economic trading partners, I would expect this to largely quash it in many other countries as well. If too much of a market is lost due to such legal ramifications, it still won't be realisticly useful.

      No, I don't agree with the law. But I'm seeing if this can feasibly work within the current legal structure.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    11. Re:DMCA by kinglink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      define legally acquired. No really do it. Do you mean buying it on a CD and using it on something you created yourself. Your fine.

      However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can. That means no changing it so it suddenly plays videos if it didn't before. You can, they likely won't hurt you, but the device itself has an agreement somewhere built into it.

      On the other hand do you mean the music you download from Itunes? Read the licensing agreements and other agreements regarding music you buy from it. I don't own either thing (Itunes song or an Ipod) But I'm sure both limits the way you're allowed to use the item.

      To my knowledge the Itunes song is licensed to you, for your use with itunes and Ipods. You arn't buying the song, you're buying a license to use it how they decide you can use it. Similar to Microsoft Windows (you might own the software and the CD key, neither really doesn't cost much, but the license to use Microsoft windows is what costs 100+ dollars, which is why your university might sell you it for 5 bucks. Because they sell you parts, but after you leave the school you lose the license. Again will they do anything? Probably not.)

      As someone else said, if we talked ethically and morally we could argue this, but this is part of a licensing agreement you agree to when you create your accounts or make your purchases.

    12. Re:DMCA by soft_guy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Since his inventions have been software, I think I would pass on seeing Kim Jong Il wearing one. Emporer's New Clothes and all that.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    13. Re:DMCA by MarkLewis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      None of the iTunes account authentication stuff applies as long as you're not using iTunes, which you wouldn't be if you used these new tools. According to the article, these tools operate directly on music files, they don't interact with iTunes at all.

    14. Re:DMCA by ocelotbob · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope. Interoperability is explicitly allowed. Much to the chagrin of some copyright nazis.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    15. Re:DMCA by spiritraveller · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My understanding of the DMCA is that it outlaws reverse engineering DRM ***with the purpose of violating copyright***, but it does not outlaw reverse engineering for purpoes of interoperability.

      What DVD Jon is doing is actually helping content owners "protect" their content on Apple's devices. Previously, if a company wanted to sell music for the iPod outside of the iTunes Music Store, they could not sell it with DRM. They could only sell it as MP3s, or perhaps as non-DRMed AAC files.

      His actions could possibly violate a patent (if Apple, in fact, has a patent on its DRM system), but it doesn't violate copyright, so I don't believe it violates the DMCA.

    16. Re:DMCA by klaun · · Score: 5, Interesting
      However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can. That means no changing it so it suddenly plays videos if it didn't before. You can, they likely won't hurt you, but the device itself has an agreement somewhere built into it.

      I do not concede this point at all. I'm definitely not agreeing to anything when I buy an iPod. Now, I know some folks (and courts) want to say that opening an iPod package or using an iPod signifies my consent to some onerous licensing agreement... but I feel (hope?) that eventually sanity and rationality will win out on the whole idea that vendors/manufacturers can modify the implied agreement (hallowed for, literally, millenia) that is embodied in the sale of a good, after the fact.

      If I pay for something and someone gives it to me, I'm free to do with it whatever I please. Why does a manufacturer by virtue of manufacturing something have a right to modify that? Suppose that a manufacturer used a third-party to put items in packaging. Would that third party now have the right to incorporate a shrink wrap license that was binding into the packaging? If not, why not? Generally, their is at least one reseller in between myself and the manufacturer. They are generally not a party to the shrink wrap license. So when I paid the reseller for the iPod, what was I buying from them? If I'm buying a "right to use" (as licensed) from Apple, why did I pay a third party who is not a party to the license? Why didn't I have to pay Apple? If opening a package is significant of intent to enter into a contract (of which you were unaware prior to opening the package), what else might be? Walking into a room? Watching a television program? I hope that the miriad contradicitions embodied by this whole power grab will eventually cause it to fall under its own weight.

    17. Re:DMCA by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So prohibition should be in effect because the amendment was repealed by a NEWER amendment?

    18. Re:DMCA by Knuckles · · Score: 2, Interesting
      doesn't this constitute a blatant violation via reverse-engineering of the Fairplay DRM?

      I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I quite likely misunderstand something here, but page 5 of the DMCA contains this:
      2. Reverse engineering (section 1201(f)). This exception permits
            circumvention, and the development of technological means for such
            circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a
            copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and
            analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability
            with other programs, to the extent that such acts are permitted under
            copyright law.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    19. Re:DMCA by Firehed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There aren't terms governing what you can and can't do with your iPod, only the software that enables you to use it. The most they can do is say that your warrantee will be void if you use it in a way that wasn't intended. Apple can't tell me whose music I can or can't use any more than Sunbeam can tell me what brands of bread I put in the toaster I bought from them.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    20. Re:DMCA by blugu64 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Crap I just realized that I spend way to much time on /. when I read an acronym and instinctively know the meaning.

      --
      "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
    21. Re:DMCA by popo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can. "

      You're talking about the EULA. The case is far from closed as to whether EULA's always
      constitute legal and enforcable "agreements". Let's say I was given my iPOD as an opened
      gift? Let's say I bought it on eBay? Let's say I'm 14 and I bought my iPOD and didn't
      understand the EULA (which, even if I did understand it, it wouldn't mean diddly-squat because minors
      can't agree to legally binding contracts). Hell, let's say I'm not particularly skilled with
      the mouse and I pressed the wrong button?

      And lets talk about due legal process for a second: What is legal due diligence when entering
      into any binding agreement? Well, you show that contract to your lawyer of course. Now consider that
      I've supposedly "agreed" to about 50 EULA's in 2006 so far...

      What would legal due diligence set me back if I were to *responsibly* enter all of these
      agreements? Let's say for the sake of argument its around $1500 per "contract". So
      I'd be looking at around $75k in legal bills (so far) this year, were
      I to have entered each of these contracts. Is this the expectation of the industry?

      Microsoft's EULA's state that upon disagreement with the EULA, products can be returned. And
      yet none of Microsoft's software retailers (to my knowlege) accept returns on software.
      So are these "agreements" being issued to consumers in good faith?

      But let's talk about something much more basic:

      THE EULA IS PRESENTED TO THE CUSTOMER AFTER THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN MADE.

      Tell me in what other industry a binding contractual agreement can be presented to a party
      after the purchase?

      My position: EULA's are rarely binding. And if you're afraid they are, just give all your
      software to your (under 18 year old) kid as a present.

      --
      ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    22. Re:DMCA by iamacat · · Score: 3, Insightful
      However realize when you buy an Ipod...

      When I buy an iPod (or a song on iTunes for that matter), its mine and I can use it however I please. If instead I am entering a contract that grants me limited access to software/hardware:


      • According to the law, it must benefit and contain obligations for both parties. In this case, Apple must either guarantee that I will not be locked out of access to the songs or provide a refund.
        • It must be signed by both parties at the inception
          • I will not pay sales tax.
            Stores can not advertise "sale" of an iPod or have a "buy" button next to a song.

    23. Re:DMCA by ronanbear · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The nano doesn't even include iTunes anymore. To make smaller packaging they don't include a CD. There isn't a EULA until you download software from the internet. There's nothing to stop you installing Linux on the iPod and using it with whatever player you want.

      Breaking fairplay on downloaded songs is a different matter but installing software to allow DVD Jon's DRM of choice isn't a problem as long as you don't weren't that attached to your warrenty or being able to get update the firmware on the iPod.

      --
      the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
    24. Re:DMCA by jbrader · · Score: 3, Funny

      No way man patents are evil. And I demand you refer to me as GNU/jbrader from this point forward.

      --
      You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
    25. Re:DMCA by tkrotchko · · Score: 4, Informative

      "However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can."

      No you're not.

      I just bought a 30G video iPod from Apple, and I didn't agree to that when I bought it. Nor was there anything in the packaging, and interestingly, I didn't have to agree to anything when I turned it on (no EULA was present).

      Further, people buying a used iPod didn't agree to anything like that either.

      So I think this statement is false.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    26. Re:DMCA by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hardly anybody is a lawyer on Groklaw, either. It's founder is a mere legal clerk.

    27. Re:DMCA by killjoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even more sarcastic answer:

      You didn't buy the records, you bought the right to listen those recordings. Because you now have the right to listen to them the producer is obligated to transfer the recording to the media of your choice.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    28. Re:DMCA by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny
      He's currently living in the US though (in San Francisco, according to Wikipedia), so it could very quickly apply to him.
      Easily fixed. Edit his entry on Wikipedia; have him living in Ingolstadt or something. Then the DMCA won't apply to him!
    29. Re:DMCA by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Not the most recent copyright act.

      No need for the word recent in there. It's not been a violation of any version of the copyright act. Fair use does NOT mean you have a RIGHT to do things like copy to other media or devices. Rather, it means that doing so does not violate copyright. The copyright holder has always been free to try to stop you by other means (contracts, technological means, etc).

    30. Re:DMCA by jZnat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Okay, I see your argument for piracy; what about for iTS music?

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    31. Re:DMCA by sadler121 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would think the RIAA would like what DVD Jon is doing (for a change). The RIAA is pissed at Apple because Jobs forces them to negotiate so their songs can be sold for $.99. We could see the RIAA put money behind DVD Jon if Apple decides to sue him. The reason being is that if other players can now play songs from the iTunes music store (or another online music store can sell songs with FairPlay DRM) that takes Job's negotiating power away. The RIAA can now use the tier pricing they want to implement but can't because of Job's stronghold on the market.

      **waits for some Apple zealot to mod me down for criticizing Steve Jobs**

    32. Re:DMCA by bjpowers39 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have repeatedly read the speculation that EULA's are not enforceable so I decided to check case law on the subject. A quick search shows that they have been upheld (at least in FL). Specifically, Salco Distribs. LLC v. Icode, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9483 (D. Fla. 2006) enforced a forum selection clause in some business software made by a company in Virginia. In order to do this, the federal court in FL had to find that the EULA was a binding contract. This is not exactly what is being discussed in this thread b/c the contract was between two businesses and the software company had really covered everything.

      On a more general level the court said "In Florida and the federal circuits, shrinkwrap and clickwrap agreements are valid and enforceable contracts." The court then cited several cases to make the point, with a major one being ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996). This one dealt with academic software being used in a commercial setting. The terms restricting use to academia was included in the EULA printed on the shrinkwrap, and is much closer to purchasing the ipod and using the itunes software. In that case, the court determined that the EULA was a binding contract.

      I could do more research to figure this out, however, I have a bunch of homework to do as well. Given that IANAL (merely a law student) you can and should take anything I say with a large grain of salt, however, I would not just dismiss EULAs out of hand. If enforcement of the EULA would be very painful or prohibitive, you probably want to really think about what you are doing. I am not saying it is good law or that this is the way that things should be, but I would not count of a defense of unenforceability on EULA contracts.

  2. iTunes is the real concern.. by Channard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    .. at least, it is for me. I bought some music from iTunes a while ago, when my iPod was still working, and - oh the irony - lost it when I switched over to a Mac Mini. So what did I do? I tried to download the music in question, since I'd paid for it, right? Apparently not - once you've downloaded music on iTunes, you don't get to download it again. What a waste of money.

    1. Re:iTunes is the real concern.. by geoffspear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And you didn't back up your purchased music files because...?

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    2. Re:iTunes is the real concern.. by jb.hl.com · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you email Apple they'll let you download all your music again through iTunes.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    3. Re:iTunes is the real concern.. by Sharkus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not strictly true. iTunes 7 willallow you to transfer iTMS songs on your iPod to another computer, have a look here: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=iTune sMac/7.0/en/2586x.html I'm also sure that it is possible to get Apple to let you download your purchased tracks again. I think you're limited to doing it once a year or some other very infrequent period. I'm trying to find the support doc that details this, as I have read it in the past.

    4. Re:iTunes is the real concern.. by berj · · Score: 4, Informative

      Think again... apparently you get a one-time get out of jail free card.

      http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2006/09/a pple_gave_me_b.html
      http://digg.com/apple/Itunes_Lets_People_Re-Downlo ad_all_Your_Music_Once_

      A call/e-mail to apple's tech support may be in order for you.

      Note that I've not verified this but I'll take Wil's word on it. In any case it's worth a try.

    5. Re:iTunes is the real concern.. by Senzei · · Score: 5, Insightful
      And you didn't back up your purchased music files because...?
      ...he didn't expect to need to? Considering you have to authorize a computer to play files to begin with why should there be any limits on the number of times you can download a file?
      --
      Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
    6. Re:iTunes is the real concern.. by Y-Crate · · Score: 2, Informative
      .. at least, it is for me. I bought some music from iTunes a while ago, when my iPod was still working, and - oh the irony - lost it when I switched over to a Mac Mini. So what did I do? I tried to download the music in question, since I'd paid for it, right? Apparently not - once you've downloaded music on iTunes, you don't get to download it again. What a waste of money.
      This is your fault for not reading the terms of service, which are quite clear that you are paying for the rights to the song and the bandwidth to download them once.

      When you are selling literally billions of tracks, letting everyone re-download their files over and over again is a great way to burn cash. Apple's bandwidth bill would be simply ridiculous if they permitted it. iTunes isn't like the new version of Windows Media Player which will let you back up your files, but not the licenses that go with them. You can put the files anywhere, on as many computers as you like and request that any computer they are on be authorized to play them, with a maximum of 5 computers authorized to actually play them at any given time. You can individually authorize and de-authorize computers at will, as often as you like, or manually de-authorize them all at once once a year if you reach the maximum number of authorized computers. Not the "You can only authorize 5 computers and if you want to change that you can only do it once a year" misinformation that is always talked about.

      iTunes has an integrated backup feature that will sync your entire library or just purchased files to CDs or DVDs.

      You are just another in a long line of customers that don't bother to pay attention to the terms they agreed to, only to be surprised when things don't turn out the way they want them to.
    7. Re:iTunes is the real concern.. by Mike89 · · Score: 5, Funny
      This is your fault for not reading the terms of service
      Heh, that's funny, because when it's Microsoft putting something shady in THEIR EULA, it's their fault. Not ours.

      Oh, how quickly the tables turn for Apple.
    8. Re:iTunes is the real concern.. by TheGavster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, because iTunes should keep a backup for you in perpetuity because your an idiot.

      iTMS already has a 'backup'; the server-side copy that they're selling to everyone else. And you'd be a fool not to believe that they archive every single user's buying history (Heck, probably even what songs you sample) for marketing/later resale. All's that missing is a connection between the two (which, given other posts in this thread, apparently already exists if you call in person to ask for it).

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    9. Re:iTunes is the real concern.. by MBCook · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's why you are supposed to have multiple backups (not that I do). But what are the chances for the average person of losing both the backup and the main drive at the same time?

      Like I said, Apple is nice (and I think they should be REQUIRED to let you redownload things by law). But to not have any backup is foolhardy.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    10. Re:iTunes is the real concern.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no reason why I or anyone else can't re-download a song I already purchased the rights to own.

      Did the cost of the song include coverage of the vendor keeping a copy of your license for you? What obligation do they have of holding your backup? If I lose my <insert CD title here> CD, does <insert company name here> have an obligation to replace it? Did part of my CD purchase cover <insert company name here> replacing it?

      I already purchased the rights to own.

      Do you really purchase the right to "own" it?

      Jim

    11. Re:iTunes is the real concern.. by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Did the cost of the song include coverage of the vendor keeping a copy of your license for you?

      The license they keep is the authorisation database, informing them that I am entitled to have and be playing that song. Since this is a quintessential part of the service, yes, it does.

      What obligation do they have of holding your backup?

      They're not holding my backup. Remember, they're holding the "product" that I license, since I never own it, remember? And this one goes out to all those "copyright infringement is not theft! you don't lose anything by copying! it costs no more, it takes no more space, no-one loses anything!" - they hold the product because that is their service. They're not holding your individual backups for you. This argument is fatuous, at best.

  3. niave by llZENll · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Basing your lifes work and new company on an obscure quote from 4 years ago seems a bit niave. If we held all companies responsible for promises from their CEOs no company would ever stand up to it.

    If Apple wants to DRM their music that is their choice. If people want to buy DRM music that is their choice. No one is forcing you to buy iPods, iTunes, or CDs, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Just because it's socially acceptable to hack DRM doesn't mean its legal or right.

    1. Re:niave by gardyloo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If we held all companies responsible for promises from their CEOs no company would ever stand up to it.

          Agreed. And yet, imagine if there was a company which *did* keep promises. Those promises, over time, might actually MEAN something.

    2. Re:niave by mei_mei_mei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hacking DRM may not be legal, but it is right.

    3. Re:niave by pandrijeczko · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Whilst I entirely agree with the core of what you are saying, the fact that DRM exists in any product you buy is deliberately obfuscated by clever advertising and marketing - for example, has any iPod advert ever mentioned that the music you buy to play on it has been restricted? No, instead you get silhouetted images of groups of people (at least in one advert I've seen) that kind of leads you to think the iPod is about "communities" of people whereas, in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. MP3s aside, *YOU* buy iTunes songs for *YOUR* iPod for only *YOU* to listen to...

      Personally, as someone who buys every DVD and CD that I like, music downloads have no interest for me and, as an honest buyer, I find it objectionable that I potentially will have DRM enforced on me even though I do not copy (for anyone else) the media that I own. Therefore DRM is evil and anyone who does their best to crack it or break it is someone I consider a hero.

      However, aside from my personal opinions of DRM, there are far too many dumb people out there with far too much money to spend. Those same people buy things because they are "cool" or because lots of other people have them, without looking in greater depth about things like the erosion of their rights as a consumer. Because marketing has also hidden this important fact from them, what DVD Jon is doing helps to bring DRM into the public eye and, at least, goes some way to making sure that they have access to all the facts, good and bad, about DRM. That's why what he is doing is so important.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    4. Re:niave by jmorris42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > People talk about him like he is the Computing Savior or something to Bill Gates' Satan, but he is just
      > really a different flavor of evil -- with better marketing.

      Can I get a big ol AMEN! And DVD-Jon has found the weakest link to attack Steve's dreams of empire. Left unchecked, Steve is on course to pretty much own media distribution. But this new product will have one of two results;

      1. DT passes legal muster. iTunes is dead and Steve's odds are zero. Hint: Walmart is one of iPods major retail outlets now. Walmart.com currently must content itself with selling PlaysForSure content. Open up FairPlay to em and watch kiosks appear in stores next to the iPod case. Nobody competes with Walmart; certainly not a company like Apple, long accustomed to insane margins.

      2. DT gets squashed like a bug. Doing so will almost certainly cause the media industry to realize have another look and hopefully see what it should have from day one, that Apple is attempting to build a monopoly on playback hardware and later leverage it to drive the existing media distribution companies out of business. Or again, the idiots in the recording and movie industries ARE pretty dimwitted.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
  4. It's called 'freedom' by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Funny

    Good thing we don't base our lives around things said in the Constitution in the 1700s, eh?

  5. Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... by Admodieus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You must not have that big of a music library if you don't realize something is very wrong with this. I should not have to pay for hundreds of blank CDs just to be able to transfer my music collection.

    --
    "It's a reverse vampire...they....they crave the sun!"
  6. DVD Jon's not going about it right by SilentChris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem isn't that he's writing software that allows people to copy music to other devices they own. As has been said, that's allowed.

    The problem is that he's writing software that allows people to copy music to device they DON'T own. To send the files over the net. To burn copies and sell them on the street.

    If DVD Jon was smart, he'd write software that would unlock FairPlay, allow the user to copy it to another device, and then lock it down again (through FairPlay or whatever else). If the user wanted to copy it to 5 devices that he/she owned, he would have to copy it manually to each one, and it would always lock afterwards. That way, he would get Apple/MPAA/etc. off his back. Heck, he could even make a worthwhile business out of it.

    Instead, he's created software that unlocks and stays unlocked. It just looks like a thinly-veiled tool for piracy.

    If you want to play the word game ("Steve Jobs said this") don't mince them, Jon. He didn't say we should create tools to totally strip DRM so we could then copy files across the net. Artists make enough money already, they won't miss it, blah blah blah -- fact of the matter is there are artists who *are* working to eat, and we have to respect copyrights at least a little for them. Otherwise may as well throw out capitalism in the digital distribution age.

    1. Re:DVD Jon's not going about it right by vertinox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If DVD Jon was smart, he'd write software that would unlock FairPlay, allow the user to copy it to another device, and then lock it down again (through FairPlay or whatever else).

      Pardon me, but what happens if the device you own doesn't support any DRM whatsoever?

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    2. Re:DVD Jon's not going about it right by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Informative

      ``The problem isn't that he's writing software that allows people to copy music to other devices they own. As has been said, that's allowed.''

      Not if it involves "circumventing technical measures" that prevent you from doing that. At least, where I live, the law is very clear in that it's illegal to circumvent such technical measures, even for the purpose of doing things that are otherwise allowed.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    3. Re:DVD Jon's not going about it right by thebigbluecheez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll bite. from the article: To let other sites sell music that plays on the iPod, his program will "wrap" songs with code that functions much like FairPlay. "So we'll actually add copy protection," he says, whereas the DMCA prohibits removing it. Helping other devices play iTunes songs could be harder to justify legally, but he cites the DMCA clause that permits users, in some circumstances, to reverse-engineer programs to ensure "interoperability." It would appear, based mostly on having read TFA, that his main focus is allowing music bought on other systems (sporting Plays-For-Sure, possibly) to play on iPods without defeating the encryption. Now that seems like a pretty fair way of going about things.

      --
      I like your Macs, but I don't like your Mac users. (with apologies to Gandhi)
  7. The best thing to be taken from DVD Jon's work is by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    {IANAL and other disclaimers here}
    The best thing about DVD Jon's work is that it proves, disturbingly and resoundingly, that the current *AA business model based on DRM is at best faulty, and at worst an attack on fair use and civil liberties. While that sounds a bit over the top, imagine a world where there were no DVD Jon's to show that the big corporations locks can be picked. Imagine a world where the emporer's new clothes were never laughed at?

    The point being that this only serves to help illuminate, in the minds of lawmakers, how feeble the current DRM schemes and laws really are, whether the work is ultimately found illegal or not.

  8. Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... by garcia · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's fairly easy to play DRM'd iTunes Music Store music on any MP3 player. All you do is burn an audio CD from the DRM'd files and then rip that CD into MP3s.

    It's fairly easy to further degrade shitty quality 128k AAC files from iTunes. All you do is burn an audio CD from shitty quality compressed DRM'd AAC files and then rip that CD into another shitty, lossy, and compressed audio codec of your choice (in this case MP3).

    Great idea.

  9. Hmmmm. by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Just because it's corporately and governmentally acceptable to encumber devices with DRM may mean it's legal, but it doesn't mean it's right.

    After all, "WE THE PEOPLE" grant "creators" the temporary right to restrict others from copying their work. We in no way, shape, or form grant a permanent right to restrict others from copying works. So, what happens at the end of "the temporary right"? I mean, will iPods suddenly allow us unrestricted use of legally purchased files?

    --
    We have always been at war with Eurasia!
  10. Heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are still some heroes still in the world of technology.

    Unfortunately, "DVD Jon" has a big target painted on his back. As soon as the large international multimedia corporations use their political influence to normalize intellectual property laws on both sides of the pond, they'll come after him. This isn't about copy protection, per se. It's about creating and preserving monopolies. It's about making huge piles of money outside the constraints of competition.

    DMCA type laws are a perversion of the rights balance between content producers and consumers. They should be abolished, not enhanced.

  11. Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... by MBCook · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And a complete pain. Tell that to someone who has bought say 20-50 CDs worth of music off iTunes (not me, I just have the free album that came with my iPod).

    "You can use whatever player you want. All you have to do is waste 50 blank CD-Rs (or a CD-RW)) by copying your music to CD then back. Best of all, after you've wasted all that time, you'll have to waste space by using lower compression just to get it to sound about the same."

    The fact is, I'd have a hard time switching off the iPod if I wanted to unless the new player supported AACs. I've got about half my music collection ripped off of CDs into AAC and I would not want to do it again just to switch.

    But then again, I'm quite happy with my iPod. I don't think too much of iTMS, but I like having physical property (the CD), not a licence to some bits.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  12. Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... by UncleFluffy · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's actually a lot easier than that. Use a faked-up sound driver that dumps the audio to a file. Works every time.

    --

    What would Lemmy do?

  13. Brilliant! by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If DVD Jon was smart, he'd write software that would unlock FairPlay, allow the user to copy it to another device, and then lock it down again

    And what of the copy to another device? How exactly do you dictate what happens to it?

    Look. Jon is simply giving people The Tools to do whatever they would wish to do with their purchases. If you do something illegal with the tools, that's your problem. Same could be said of owning a car. Or a gun. Or a freaking two by four for that matter.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Brilliant! by SilentChris · · Score: 2, Interesting
      And what of the copy to another device? How exactly do you dictate what happens to it?


      As I mentioned, it would lock itself each time with whatever DRM happened to be on the device. He doesn't need to make it impossible to pirate -- just difficult enough that people will only copy files to devices they own. Same as Apple -- their rules are pretty open. You could always burn CDs from the iTunes store and recode to MP3. (And brother, don't tell me about lost quality. You got subpar quality when you bought it from the iTunes store in the first place.

      If you do something illegal with the tools, that's your problem. Same could be said of owning a car. Or a gun. Or a freaking two by four for that matter.


      I don't know where you live, but there's mafia around here. If a gunshop is consistently selling to the family, the police raid them. If a used car salesman continually sells them black cars with tinted windows, to the family the police raid them. If your tools -- the "car or gun or two by four" or whatever -- are continually used to commit piracy like DVD Jon's, you're going to get fingered. Regardless if you committed the act or not.
  14. Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... by spirit_fingers · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are actually quite a few non-Apple players that support unprotected AAC. AAC is not an Apple-proprietary format. It's owned by Dolby and Apple is merely a licensee.

  15. Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ``It's fairly easy to play DRM'd iTunes Music Store music on any MP3 player. All you do is burn an audio CD from the DRM'd files and then rip that CD into MP3s. That's it.''

    Easy, perhaps, but time-consuming and labor intensive. Not exactly what you would be paying for when using iTunes, whose major selling point is convenience (at least, it's neither cheap, nor do you get great value).

    ``You might have to rip at higher bitrate to make sure you capture all the original audio information,''

    It won't help. The AAC files iTunes sells already aren't great quality (according to independent listening tests; of course, Apple will tell you different). You can never get back the information that was lost in the conversion to AAC, and you will be losing more information in the conversion to MP3, no matter what bitrate you use.

    ``but it's perfectly doable--and legal.''

    So are buying your music on CDs (which gives you higher quality and no DRM), buying it from AllofMP3 (AFAIK; IANAL; AllofMP3 lets you determine format and bitrate/quality, and does not impose DRM on you), and, in many places (but not the USA, AFAIK), copying music from a friend or downloading it off your favorite filesharing network.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  16. Serves 'em right. by ottffssent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure this makes me unpopular, but I'm going to say it anyway. Anyone who buys DRM'd music is either an idiot or ignorant, and it's a shame so few of them have learned their lesson yet. In this case, you're paying for a vague not-a-promise that you can probably listen to the music now and if you're really lucky you'll be able to listen in the future.

    If music really needed DRM to be a profitable business, I wouldn't still be able to buy CDs. So the only reason I can buy a CD and turn it into MP3s yet can't buy those MP3s to start with is because some jackass in a skyscraper either doesn't understand his own business or is trying really hard to pretend not to.

    That should get some discussion going.

    1. Re:Serves 'em right. by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anyone who buys DRM'd music is either an idiot or ignorant...

      Generalize much?

      In this case, you're paying for a vague not-a-promise that you can probably listen to the music now and if you're really lucky you'll be able to listen in the future.

      I bought a few albums from the iTunes store. They were encoded with the fairplay DRM. I bought them because they were a convenient way to get music I wanted, but that did not seem to be making its way into the used CD stores nearby. After downloading them, I burned them to standard CD format (removing the DRM) and I used a program to legally strip off the DRM restrictions using my valid key, and thus not breaking any encryption (no DMCA issues). ow at this point I have the music I want, on CD and AAC, with no DRM, exactly as though I had bought a used CD with no cover art in the the record store.

      Explain to me how this means I'll be "lucky" if I'm able to play these songs in the future. Explain to me how this method makes me any more of an idiot than the other.

      So the only reason I can buy a CD and turn it into MP3s yet can't buy those MP3s to start with is because some jackass in a skyscraper either doesn't understand his own business or is trying really hard to pretend not to.

      No, some jackass in a skyscraper figured out a way to sell the same music multiple times and to sell music via a cheaper medium, that would still result in that music breaking and needing to be repurchased, for the average consumer, the same way the average consumer needs to repurchase CDs as they break or as music players evolve.

  17. Why do you, bums, still use iTunes, etc.? by mi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All of these lamentations about Apple cheating and *AA "suing its customers" — what is your problem? It is Apple's own device, and it is *AA's customers. If you don't like these companies, then stop using the darn things.

    The "Joe Sixpack" you pretend to be concerned about may be excused, but you — your real concern — may not. You — the /.-crowd — know full well, that the DVD you are buying can not be put online for everyone to donwload (whether it is, actually, stealing, or merely copyright violation is irrelevant). You knew, iTunes will limit your downloads and sharing abilities...

    So, why do you buy these things from these corporations and other entities you so dislike? Was life really so miserable before DVDs and portable digital-audio players? It was not. And now, despite all of the above-listed limitations, it is only better...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Why do you, bums, still use iTunes, etc.? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All of these lamentations about Apple cheating and *AA "suing its customers" -- what is your problem? It is Apple's own device, and it is *AA's customers. If you don't like these companies, then stop using the darn things.

      Your commentary is all well and good, but it is not practical. The problems with DRM are problems with the law and problems with the industry. People act in their own interest. That might mean a person wants a particular song from a particular band so they endure DRM to get it. That might mean a band wants to be heard, so they pay money to give away their copyrights and accept DRM restricting their songs from being heard by future generations, in the hopes that the cartel that runs the industry will allow them to reach the mainstream audience.

      Sure, educated and enlightened people can boycott the mainstream, but that will not stop the problems DRM and an illegal cartel cause for society. Your argument is analogous to someone in prohibition era Chicago saying, "we all know the violence and corruption caused by booze smuggling organized crime is killing people, so why doesn't everyone just stop drinking?" People want to drink, and they want to listen to popular music and they want to get it instantly, online. Even if that means they download it from a file sharing network or they put up with DRM that prevents future generations from being able to hear the music they will. The solution is not to try to change society, but to change the laws so that they give society what it wants.

  18. Re:The best thing to be taken from DVD Jon's work by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ``The best thing about DVD Jon's work is that it proves, disturbingly and resoundingly, that the current *AA business model based on DRM is at best faulty, and at worst an attack on fair use and civil liberties.''

    Or, alternatively, it proves that DRM alone isn't going to stop people from doing illegal things with content, and we need to crack down on tools made to circumvent the DRM to protect the *AA's interests.

    And since the government holds the interests of the corporations over civil rights, it's the latter interpretation that gets used, and we get the DMCA, which is then globally enforced, because the USA is currently King of the Hill.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  19. Love is the real concern.. by Teun · · Score: 2, Funny
    I bought some CD's from Best Buy a while ago.
    OK.

    I lost them when I loved,
    Can you talk about it in public?

    So what did I do?
    Please tell us all about it!

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  20. But you are missing the rest of the quote! by eaddict · · Score: 3, Funny
    'If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own.'....
    'but the other devices you own will all be iPods.'

    Sort of the Henry Ford line of thinking:
    "You can have any color Model T you want ... as long as you want black."

    --
    "If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
  21. What's the difference? by seanthenerd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sorry if this is offtopic.

    If I buy a CD, I can stick it in my computer and rip it into iTunes. That's legal, right?

    If I buy a DVD, why can't I do the same thing? Rip it into iTunes, put it on my iPod, import it into other programs and play with it, etc.

    Is there a fundamental difference between video content and audio content?! Why? Is it just that CDs were invented before DRM? That when CDs were standardized, the technology didn't exist to import and "get at" that audio content - technology that for the media companies "necessitated" DRM?

    So, back to the question: Is it legal to import CDs? (I hope so.) Is it legal to import DVD's a la DVD Jon's software? (I assume the media companies would say no.) Why?!

    In this brave new world of DRM, the rules are made by what The Companies technologically let you do, rather than what the laws actually decree. I am sure that once CDs go by the wayside, all content (audio, video, commercial software) will be DRM'd and authenticated to "make sure" that you cannot distribute it in any way once it gets to you - no matter what media is used to get it to you. I'm not looking forward to it.

    1. Re:What's the difference? by AeroIllini · · Score: 4, Informative
      If I buy a CD, I can stick it in my computer and rip it into iTunes. That's legal, right?

      If I buy a DVD, why can't I do the same thing? Rip it into iTunes, put it on my iPod, import it into other programs and play with it, etc.

      Here's the answer to your question:

      A Redbook standard compliant CD (with the little CDAudio logo) does not have encryption or other protection placed on the music. The raw 44.1 kHz stream is encoded on the disk for all the world to read. Making a non-infringing copy of this stream for yourself and manipulating it is legal under Fair Use (and to a certain extent, the Home Audio Recording Act of 1992).

      An IEEE standard compliant DVD encrypts the video content with a symmetric key system (CSS), and then hides the key on a non-writable section of the disc. Breaking this encryption violates patent and/or contract law. The interoperability clause of the DMCA, which DVD Jon uses as his basis for the legality of his system, allows you to break the CSS encryption on DVDs in order to play them on your Linux box. However, the patent on the CSS encryption system allows the DVD Copy Control Association to only license the technology to companies that pay a licensing fee; creating an implimentation of CSS without paying the licensing fee violates patent law, and creating an incomplete version of the spec (for example, ignoring the Do Not Fast Forward flag) violates the contract you signed when obtaining a license. The reverse engineering is legal, but the implementation of the reverse-engineered technology is illegal, under different laws. Unencrypted DVDs are legal to rip, for the same reasons it is legal to rip CDs.

      That's the way it is, and the reason why ripping a CD is legal and copying a DVD is not legal. The question of whether this is how things SHOULD be is left as an exercise for the reader.
      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
  22. What the fuck? by Kaseijin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can. That means no changing it so it suddenly plays videos if it didn't before. You can, they likely won't hurt you, but the device itself has an agreement somewhere built into it.

    I didn't and it doesn't. Where do people get these ideas?


    To my knowledge the Itunes song is licensed to you, for your use with itunes and Ipods. You arn't buying the song, you're buying a license to use it how they decide you can use it.

    The transaction is nominally a sale and practically a lease. Continued use of a song requires an active account with the iTunes Store, which is subject to certain terms of service, which is not a license. Use on a desktop computer requires at least QuickTime and usually iTunes, which are subject to licensing agreements--the software, not the songs.

  23. How to convert a song from Freeplay to Non-DRM by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    #1 Download Audacity or some other F/OSS audio program that allows you to capture and edit sounds from your sound card.

    #2 Buy MP3 Freeplay Songs from Apple iTunes for your iPod or to play on iTunes.

    #3 Open up Audacity, select your sound card output as the source, check the volume. Get the record button ready on a new audio file. Hit the record button in Audacity and hit the play button on iTunes, when the iTunes program is finished playing the song, stop the recording and cut out the silence between the song playing and "Export" to MP3 or OGG or whatever format you wish to export to. (Might need the LAME library to make a MP3)

    #4 You now have a MP3 or OGG file without any DRM, quality may vary. Play it on your Non-Freeplay, Linux, OS/2, BeOS, whatever system or music player.

    If the RIAA and Apple throws a hissy fit about this, reference the MPAA verses BetaMax case and the RIAA verses Casette recorders case, and see how TiVO brought about digital rights to make recordings of TV shows, movies, songs, etc as long as you paid for access to them first or got them off a free broadcast.

    Remember as long as you own the rights to listen to a song, you have a right to a backup. This method does not remove DRM, nor does it crack it, in fact it does not even modify the original SafePlay file, all it does is make a standard audio file recording of the audio file you have the rights to listen to anyway. The downside is that it takes a long while to convert your collection over that way, but the upside is that it is not costly to do so.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  24. Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was about to explain the basics of data compression to you. But this is slashdot. You shouldn't be that stupid. Go do an internet search for "lossy compression." Find out what happens when you take the output of one lossy-compressed piece of data, then compress it again with a different lossy-compression algorithm.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  25. re-purposing my purchased media by yakkowakkodot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The earlier poster has a good point. iPods and iTunes are based on the concept that you get music by either buying it from the iTunes store, downloading a legal mp3, or Ripping a CD, which used to be a haxt00r thing, now it's commonplace. Even W does it, well, he has someone do it for him, I'm sure.

    But the DVD content. I got the latest Weird Al album, iTunes lets me copy the music. It's a duodisk, so I can flip the cd, it's now a dvd. I don't have a DVD player on my computer, so I copied the relevant (videos) DVD file onto a CD at a friend's computer, took the copy home, then converted that to Quicktime on my computer for viewing..

    None of these things are going anywhere outside of my house, let alone the internets. Did I break the law, which ones, and at what point?

    I've gotten iTunes music before, too. Immediately converted them to non-DRM content. (using one of Jon's earlier programs.)
    Didn't share them. Lawbreaker? I still have the original m4a's. Last played: over a year ago. I listen to my non-DRM'd copies.

    --
    Infinity is overrated, Infinity+1, now that's cool!
  26. Re:Cool Jon! by obsidianpoet · · Score: 4, Informative

    And to think, Steve Jobs did not have to spend one cent of Apples money to make good on that promise and the end result is still the same :)

    --
    "Gentlemen, You cannot fight in here, this is the War Room...." - Dr Strangelove
  27. You and you. by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    'If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own.'

    Thing is, lost in the transcription is that Jobs was talking to two people. To clarify:

    "If you [the consumer] legally acquire music, you [the copyright holder] need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you [the consumer] own."

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  28. Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... by UncleFluffy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was going to be equally condescending to you. But this is slashdot. Oh, wait.... Re-read the thread. I was responding to a suggestion that the best way of getting the raw data out of iTunes was burning to a CD. Uncompressing then putting the bits out to a WAV file introduces no more losses than uncompressing and burning the bits to a CD. If you compress a second time, the results are the same whether the data comes from a CD or a WAV.

    --

    What would Lemmy do?

  29. Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... by PenGun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course it is. What's happening here, I'm not used to 2 karma, is that all the idiots that bought into i-tunes and apple computers for that matter are way too dumb to hack the tunes free by themselves. Not surprising really. After all they were smart enough to buy a MAC, but of course MACs are for the "it just works crowd" .... it's gonna be blindingly stupid in there.

      That should get my karma back whrer it belongs.

        PenGun
      Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

  30. Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... by spirit_fingers · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sony and Archos both have models that play unprotected AAC files, as does Microsoft's Zune. There are others too. A good place to find more info on this is here:
    http://www.anythingbutipod.com/

  31. mixing metaphors like there's no tomorrow by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny
    Great news, this will only makes the iPod stronger!
    So what you're saying is, this is not an "iPod killer"?
  32. Old news - download jhymn by phatvw · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just get jHymn to strip the copy protection of your downloaded tracks, then convert them to whatever format you wish:
    http://hymn-project.org/jhymndoc/

    There is even a previous slashdot article...

  33. Real's iPod attempt vs DT by jmorris42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > DT isn't even the first, Real was looking to license their reverse engineering results.

    What Real was trying was totally different and could NOT have been stopped by a patent fight. Real was trying to add a module to an iPod to support THEIR closed garden DRM scheme. And as should have been obvious to a small child, Apple thwarted it by continually changing the firmware/software in the iPod. Real produced code implementing Real's DRM schemes was totally legal and immune to a patent fight though.

    This is different. If I'm reading this right DT would produce FairPlay encoded tracks. Apparently Apple really was stupid enough to produce a system that didn't sign every track with a public key known only to Apple (or not even DVD-Jon could have done squat to break it open) so an iPod won't be able to tell the difference between an iTunes store produced track and a Walmart.com track. Obviously Apple has patents on FairPlay (yea, patenting DRM, crypto, being cool enough to have Steve bless it, exactly what is non-obvious but they certainly will fight) along with DMCA and any other legal (or not) anti-competitive tricks they can think up.

    All of Apple's anti-competitive tricks probably won't be enough legal noise to stop anyone of even moderate means though. There isn't a single thing in FairPlay that isn't self evident to anyone with half a clue so it would only be a matter of someone being willing to spend the cash to push the case to a win. The actaul payload behind the DRM is a standard. While AC3 IS encumbered with patents (that would probably stand up) they aren't owned by Apple and are available under RAND terms.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  34. Where does this expectation come from? by nigel_q · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Perhaps someone can explain to me where this expectation of interoperability comes from with online (and specifically iTunes) music purchases... Apple makes it very clear that what they're selling you is for consumption using iTunes and iPod only. They even thrown in the ability to burn to a CD, at which point you can do whatever you want!

    Perpend:

    - nobody buys PS2 games and complains that they don't work on your XBOX
    - nobody buys DVDs and then complain that they don't work on VCR
    - nobody buys a CD at HMV and then complains that it doesn't fit into your ghetto old walkman
    - nobody buys MS Office for Windows with the expectation that it'll run natively on their PowerMac G5

    By the logic people seem to be applying here, there should be much outrage that there isn't the interoperability above, but if you ask about doing such thinks people claim that demanding such things is absurd. They'd probably pull out something like "Mechanically, they're different" or "Stop being an idiot, you buy PS2 games for PS2s, not XBOX!"

    Apple isn't any more or less clear about what they're selling than the above examples. Just because the "container" happens to be software rather than a physical objet like a CD doesn't mean that there should be an expectation of interoperability. If you feel it's too limiting and it doesn't meet your needs, don't buy from them!

    Who here REALLY believes that the game they bought for PS2 should be playable on their XBOX?