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, enough geeks will duplicate those pages before Apple has a chance to take action. Remember the Streisand effect?
Apple's products are vastly superior to Microsoft's.
Value judgment. I think that the Mac OS is much more secure and stable than Windows, but how do you judge the Zune against the iPod? There's no objective criterion there.
Microsoft has been convicted of anti-trust violations in federal court. Apple has not.
True, but irrelevant. They both engage in business tactics that screw their customers. If Apple were bigger, they'd probably get slapped around the same way Microsoft did.
Apple's monopoly power is in the portable music market. Microsoft's is in the desktop operating system market.
Again, true but irrelevant. They both engage in business tactics that screw their customers.
My argument is that they both smack around their customers. I'm wondering why geeks give one a pass while they rabidly fight the other.
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.
I just by the CD...
At a minimum of 10 songs average on a CD, I can usually get it for the equivalent of $9.99 myself. It's uncompressed and doesn't need to go through a second lossy conversion to get it back onto CD...
I can rip it to what devices I like at whatever bit-rate I like to as many devices I like...
My friends and family can borrow it and listen to it...
If I get bored with it, I can sell it and with the money I make put it towards the cost of another CD...
I can sit and read the sleeve notes while sitting on the toilet... ...and having saved money by buying a reasonably priced phone and music player, I can put the money towards a nice shiny hifi on which I can enjoy my nice shiny CD in all it's full uncompressed beauty...
So stick your iPhone and DRM where you think the sun shines out of...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.