Slashdot Mirror
Apple DMCAs iPodHash Project
TRS-80 writes "Apple has sent a DMCA takedown notice to the IpodHash project, claiming it circumvents their FairPlay DRM scheme. Some background: Apple first added a hash to the iTunesDB file in 6th-gen iPods, but it was quickly reverse-engineered. They changed it with the release of iPhone 2.0 and a project was started to reverse the new hash, but wasn't successful yet. My guess is Apple used the same algorithm as FairPlay for the new hash, so Apple could use the DMCA to prevent competing apps like Songbird and Banshee from talking to iPods/iPhones. BTW, don't tell Apple, but the project uses a wiki, so the old page versions from before the takedown are still there."
Just another reason not to buy the ipod/phone. Double if you are not using a mac.
By pointing out the older versions on Slashdot, odds are good that Apple will demand they purge the pages from the database.
Good job, timothy.
And how are Microsoft and Apple different again? Oh, one screws a larger group of people than the other? And that makes it okay why?
Why are companies so intent on trying to lock people out of their hardware? I have stayed out of the portable MP3 market for years, but recently got a used 5th gen IPOD off of craigslist. Luckily it works fine with Amarok, and other Linux apps.
I just don't understand what they gain by locking out a certain group of users from their Ipods.
The main reason I got an iPod was because I knew I could use it in linux.
What is it about Apple products that make people willing to put up with all the crap they do to lock customers into everything. They do more bullying and steering of their customers through proprietary formats and schemes than any other company I know of.
Is having the newest Shiny Thing(tm) really worth putting up with Apple?
One reason is because Apple does not have a monopoly. It's ok to mildly abuse your customers if they can go to one of your competitors.
ITMS is far from the sole provider of online music, and Apple is far from the sole provider of "mp3" players.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Why is this article tagged "outbreak of stupidity"? In reality, it should be tagged "same ol', same ol'". An outbreak of stupidity would imply that wasn't already the norm.
Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
That Nissan of yours has just a *few* more proprietary parts than your iPod... just sayin'. iPods play unlocked content just fine, you know.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Interestingly enough, that's not a DMCA takedown notice. It's just a threat dressed up to look like a takedown notice. You can tell because it doesn't allege copyright infringement.
Notice, for instance, that the "DMCA Certification" part at the bottom says "I hereby state, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the activities identified above are not authorized by Apple, that the information in this notification is accurate, and that I am authorized to act on behalf of Apple in this regard."
What it doesn't say is that the works in question are owned by Apple or anything else which in anyway makes a copyright claim.
What it does allege is that they're violating the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA. There is no takedown procedure for violating the anti-circumvention provision because there is no safe-harbor. If you create an circumventing device, you have violated the DMCA and you can't escape liability by following takedown notices.
The further reason that it isn't a DMCA takedown notice is that what they ask to remove is not something that the receivers have a legal obligation to take down. Information about the workings of Apple's cryptographic schemes, whether or not they comprise an means which effectively controls access to a work, are not unto itself a device which circumvents their schemes, and, as such, is not in violation of the DMCA.
Although Mr. Ramage writes "The DMCA explicitly prohibits the dissemination of information that can be used to circumvent such technology." that's very simply not true. The DMCA outlaws the creation of circumventing devices, but it does not outlaw exchanging information about how to create one. This, along with the research exception, is why DRM and other security research can still happen and has only rarely been hindered by the DMCA, and even then only by the specter of lawsuits.
Beyond that, Apple's hash scheme quite certainly doesn't apply for DMCA protection for one simple reason: it isn't a scheme which, under the definitions of the DMCA, "effectively protects a copyrighted work." There are two distinct reasons why it doesn't qualify. First, it doesn't protect copyrighted files. It only protects the database which is not copyrighted and not eligible for copyright since it is not a creative work. Second, the hash protects it against modification, not reading. As such, it does not "effectively protect a copyrighted work" because the legal definition refers only to protecting something from being read in an unauthorized manner, not from being written.
So, this might have been a valid takedown notice if:
1) The hash in question were an effective measure under the legal definition
2) It were protecting copyrighted information
3) The DMCA outlawed the dissemination of information which could lead to creating circumvention devices
4) There were a safe-harbor provision allowing service providers to avoid liability
Except that the actions so far also all fall under the interoperability exception. Given that their only goal is to allow other programs to work with the iPod, this falls very, very squarely under interoperability exception.
So, there would also have to be a fifth condition;
5) There were no interoperability exception.
As it stands, this notice has no legal standing, and if it were sent to me, I would ignore it. Hopefully the lawyers with whom this project consults will come to the same conclusion.
Now, what Apple could do instead would be to assert copyright over the disassembled/decompiled versions of the source code which appeared on the web page. I would argue that that approach would also be legally invalid, but at least it wouldn't be so obviously so. It could at least lead to some fairly subtle legal arguments.
This notice, on the other hand, is just factually and legally incorrect.
According tho this, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2006-07-30-emusic_x.htm) In 2006 ITMS had nearly 70% market share of the digital download music market. EMusic was in second at 11%. For all intents and porposes, that makes it a monopoly. There is nothing wrong with having a monopoly. But when you have a monopoly, it is not OK to use it to dominate another market, or to lock your customers into your services.
Is that so?
Me, I know a number of people who don't run Windows at home. I even know some who don't run Windows at work. I'm not sure what industry you work in, but even if you have to use Windows at work, no one is forcing you to at home. You can avoid it other than for your job. And frankly, work is work. There are lots of things you can't avoid at $work, unless you change jobs.
And here's Nissan abusing trademark law.
That's not even the worst. I'm sure as hell never buying a Nissan.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!