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.
I believe the EU legislation that's closest to the DMCA explicitly allows reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability. Perhaps someone should just make a Swedish mirror? :)
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 hasn't the EU screwed apple already? The itunes-ipod abuse is like 10 times worse than IE-windows, yet nobody seems to be doing anything to stop this abusive non-sense.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
http://www.omm.com/sanfrancisco/
BTW, the lawyer's name is Ramage - quite appropriate in my opinion.
tr.v., rammed, ramÂming, rams.
1. To strike or drive against with a heavy impact; butt: rammed the door with a sledgehammer until it broke open.
2. To force or press into place.
3. To cram; stuff: rammed the clothes into the suitcase.
4. To force passage or acceptance of: rammed the project through the city council despite local opposition.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world > > Those who understand binary and those who don't
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.
Apple are exploiting a monopoly in one market (iPhone/iPod) to establish a monopoly in another (iTunes).
Hopefully the EU will commence some asskicking.
No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
I've been considering buying a non-iPod for my next Mp3 player, but wasn't sure. Now Apple has done the nice thing for me and solidified my decision -- Any suggestions on what my next non-evil Mp3 player should be?
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?
I was unimpressed with the new version of iTunes, too. Turning off links to the Music Store no longer works either, unless you use this hack.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
I must say that I bought a creative zen because I hate using ipods. You can't just copy files over to them and back to your computer. Oh no no, you must use itunes and authorize machines etc., and if you screw up there goes your collection.
Of course the zen isn't as "sexy" as the ipod, but SFW? It's in my pocket playing music, and astonishingly it works! And I can freely copy music here and there, and share with friends (which is legal where I live, thank you very much cd/dcd/mp3 player taxes).
It's not that hard to mirror said content outside the US..
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
It is worth pointing out that the letter that the lawyers sent claimed that the web site contained information about breaking the DRM found in iTunes, but that is not the case.
The web site contained information on how to be able to *read and write* the iTunes database, to allow you for example to use your iPod from Linux and update the song list.
What happened is that recent versions of the firmware and iTunes now use a secret hash that they compute over the *directory listing*. If the hash does not match, then the iPod/iPhone refuses to load the database. So this is effectively a mechanism to prevent third-parties to upload un-DRMed songs to the iPhone/iPod and had nothing to do --as the lawyer claimed-- with breaking the DRM in the files themselves.
You have to wonder if these lawyers or Apple are not in overstepping some legal boundaries, they could be liable for lying.
Wow, dude. You're like, a total badass. Fight the power!
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.
Uh, no, actually it explicitly prohibits trafficking in "technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof," not necessarily all information. You can persuade a judge that Congress meant to restrict speech in addition to those other things, but don't say it "explicitly prohibits" speech, because it obviously doesn't.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The iFuse project that aims to support some of the iphone and ipod touch features under linux got about the same message, from the same dickhead lawyer. Basically they told him to go fuck himself (they didn't try to make it polite), because he has nothing to do with apple. Someone should revoke this guy's license...
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!
pin density is one factor that certainly weighed on that decision.
We are in 2008. Why would you even need to have a separate pin for everything ?!?
We have very nice, completely standardized connection such as :
- USB (specially since the On-The-Go and Pict-Bridge standards where the same physical connector can switch between master and slave depending on needs).
- FireWire (which has the advantage of allowing several masters on the same bus and device sharing both master and slave role - just like SCSI. And has overall much better latency and bandwidth once you factor all possible overhead)
They are almost ubiquitous. Today it's hard to find a device which is NOT USB-enabled. (although not all FireWire connectors you may encounter are 6pins with power. 4pins data-only are popular on some portable device).
And they can easily do pretty much everything you cited and much-much more.
Audio/Video (+controls for it) over FireWire is just a piece of cake, the standard was created with that purpose in mind.
how would you create video out from a USB port?
- If the device is a master and is PUSHing video OUT, video-over USB was among the first standardized stuff, with USB-to-VGA dongle being very popular. It's already a very popular method to get 2ndary output from device which lack a VGA or DVI out. Or get a 3rd output.
- If the device is a slave and you are PULLing video FROM device, then a USB video device is perfect for it, just like thousands of Webcams, video receiver, etc. There's even an emerging standard called UVC - USB Video Class (Before UVC, every webcam USB chip used a different protocol requiring several different procols).
Given the sensitiveness of analog to electronic noise, digital video out makes A LOT of sense. And given that hosting the electronics for a DVI/HDMI/miniDisplay port would unnecessarily increase the costs of the device, the USB-to-VGA or UVC is the best compromise.
the radio
You must be joking. Just look at the crazy amount of USB FM+TV+DVB+DAB receiver dongles.
There's a custom version of the OpenMoko sold with such an USB receiver contained in a spacer between the battery and the original cover.
If you want a radio *emitter*, see next question about audio.
headphone adapter?
Still keeping with the everything over USB :
- USB audio is an absolutely standard protocol.
In fact dozens of headphone made for laptop/skype don't plug into the audio in/out ports, but instead plug into an USB port.
As USB Audio does both input and output, it doesn't matter which is master which is slave, you can establish an audio link over USB.
Now, plain analog audio has had a standard for many years : the simple 3mm Jack. For a quick and easy analog access you should leave an audio jack on the machine.
For even more practical solution, you could go for a 3 or 4 ring jack instead of a classical stereo one, and carry video, s-video and/or mic.
Put a LED on the bottom of the connector and it can also work as a nice digital out (Sony's MiniDisc already used hybrid optical+analog contacts for quite some time).
Put them in line with the usb at very specific distance one from each other and you have a perfect connector with both analog and digital.
The only reason not to do this is because by letting normal audio connection (jack), the constructor lose the incentive for users to buy the more expensive USB-based peripherals.
artist/song/albumart along with audio out for the dock devices?
That is just plain stupid.
All this meta-data you cite is never going to be transmitted by lots of dedicated pins.
Normally such kind of data is just emitted over a serial connection. (Even before the age of USB, Sony MiniDisc already used a serial link to transmit this. Audio goes through analog+optical jack, meta-data
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Actually, a standard USB interface couldn't possibly provide such functionality because one end must be the host and the other the peer, but your suggestion requires that the media player be able to function as both
Yes, it can. It's called On-The-Go and is already used by lots of devices.
(Mainly smartphones and cameras).
Any USB interface which deviates from this practice is by definition non-standard.
OtG is an official supplement of USB 2.0. And OtG device can interact without any problem with plain USB slaves or USB masters.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]