Your point does have some validity, but ultimately falls apart because Apple does not have a monopoly in the digital music space. It's much too soon to tell. Beyond that, the companies united behind the RIAA are the ones with the real monopoly power, even if Apple could gain 95% of the MP3 player market.
The big problem with MS's anti-competitive behavior was that they were already a monopoly, and were illegally using that monopoly power to dominate a new market. Even if Apple controlled 95% of the MP3 player market, they still wouldn't control the music rights.
I actually wonder if Real didn't approach Apple with threats of this hack, and tried to make Steve "an offer he couldn't refuse". What would you do if someone tried to blackmail you into giving up part of your business?
So far, Apple hasn't sued Real. They've given a preliminary legal saber rattle, which should't be shocking. It will be interesting to see what Apple actually does.
What would be really whack is if Apple sued under DMCA because they (hypothetically) might maintain that the Fairplay DRM protects the iPod (from music from unauthorized vendors) as well as the iTMS music. I hope they don't do this. I doubt they will, but who knows? What Would Darl Do?
Anyway, your points are well taken. I agree that Apple will need more allies (more like HP and Motorola) in this DRM format battle, but Real isn't one of them. I consider Real to be not much better than SCOG/Caldera.
Apple doesn't have to be quite as careful as, say, Microsoft in the realm of anti-competitive behavior. Although Apple clearly has the lead in this new area, it's much too early to say that they have an undisputed monopoly. And so long as RIAA has the stranglehold that they do, I think it will be hard to argue that Apple can have a monopoly. If Apple were to force an exclusive licensing deal from the RIAA denying all other online music vendors music to sell (when monkeys fly out of all our butts), then sure. It'll be safe to say they have a monopoly.
Really, quite honestly, Apple should have cooperated with Real when they had the chance. They could have shaped Real's offering and made sure they retained some kind of control. Right now, if Apple went any further with its threats, if I were Real I wouldn't just continue......I'd publish the results of the reverse-engineering.
Like a few others, I see this as mostly a turf war between to big companies, one who's products I like and one who's products I detest. Neither company is lily white, but one company does have a better track record as far as serving the customer goes. And one company has a truly malodorous record.
So, I'm biased towards Apple. But I suspect that Apple doesn't have much of a legal case here, and if the hack was sweet enough (applying a psuedo-fairplay wrapper to Real's music), then Apple might not be able to easily break it with an update. That's if the Real engineers were Real hackers.
Lastly, if you were Real and you'd publish the results. ..we'll, damn, you're a great guy (or gal). I toast your health! More likely is that Real will try to license the results. Hopefully, this would force Apple to license Fairplay (the true fairplay, not the Real fairplay, heh heh) to other vendors, ultimately giving the consumer more choice and going a long way to winning the DRM format wars. It would mean less lock in to the iTMS, which means that iTMS would have to compete without the same proprietary protection. They'd have to compete on ease of use (I think it's fair to say they're way ahead on that), price (mostly up to the record companies for now), and selection.
That's what I'm really interested in, selection. I'd rather not buy anything from a scummy company like Real, but if I had greater choice of music, where ever it's coming from, then I'm the big winner.
This has never been established either way. There is another company with a product called Fairplay with a very old outdated website, which has given rise to this speculation.
The site is copyright 2001 and is still "under construction" with many areas "coming soon".
Furthermore, the technology described in the Veridisc whitepaper (PDF) is very different than what we know as iTMS Fairplay.
Veridisc serves as a gatekeeper for all media and software files that allows the originators to maintain control over distribution and revenue. In its simplest form, Veridisc resides on a computer and uses an entry code mechanism to permit convenient audio/video play and links users to complimentary information and merchandising opportunities.
Granted, Apple could have bought or licensed the underlying technologies.
Lastly, the whitepaper seems to have been written in 2000, going by the fact that all the cites in the bibliography are from 2000.
I've written to Veridisc in the past (when Apple first introduced iTMS) and have never heard back from the company, so I wonder if it's a going concern, or if the website is just an orphan.
If this is the case (and from what I've read, I suspect you are correct), then Apple does not really have a legal claim to bring against Real, and their only real recourse is technical.
If Real did their job correctly, then future iPod updates won't be able to break the added functionality. If Real did a sloppy job, then it will be easy for Apple to shut them out with the next update.
Honestly, I don't think there is much Apple can do (assuming that Real has made a good Fairplay wrapper and documented their clean room practices), but I understand why Apple has to fight this anyway.
An ideal solution from the consumer perspective is that this would force Apple to license the fairplay technology to other companies. Thus, consumers would have more choice, iTMS would have to compete on merits, and Fairplay would win out over MS DRM.
On the otherhand, I doubt I'll be buying any music from Real, but this has nothing to do with their hacking the iPod. I just think they suck.
Like the grandparent post, I think that ultimately Apple's case is pretty weak, unless Real actually cracked anything. And even there, Apple's case is not so clear cut, because there are exceptions for software interoperablility.
Still, I understand why Apple is taking the stance it is taking. From the company's perspective, they've got to preserve the thing they got going on. What if they let it go and then MS buys Real? (and a million other what ifs). Anyway, we'll see what Apple actually does to answer this challenge from Real. So far all they've done is a little legal saber rattling.
But ultimately, you're correct. Under the U.S. legal system, especially today with the big media companies writing the legislation, there's no telling how this might shake out.
It is illegal to pull a trailer that weighs more than your car is rated for.
I can think of various conditions where adding a trailer hitch to your car might be illegal as well. For instance, if you bolted it to a plastic fender and then tried to actually pull a load, you could get cited.
So, beyond merely being merely a bad analogy, your analogy falls completely apart if we accept the premise. Try to think it through next time you want to invent an analogy.
Let me know the next time you have a seance where you channel Steve Jobs. I've got some questions for him and he's not returning any of my calls.
On second thought, maybe I shouldn't put too much trust in your psychic abilities. After all, your prediction about Apple Zealots modding you down has been so far proven incorrect. As of this writing, the mods seem to have just ignored you.
Excellent brag! I'm glad to hear someone else as psyched about their gadget as I am about my iPod. No one should be snooty about their mp3 player, so tell those snooty Apple types to suck it.
Because HP is soon to be selling iPods, you really need to let them know how much you love the 140, so they won't stop making them.
Most of all, thanks for not whining. I know this is slash dot and all, so I should expect lots of whining, but it gets old. You told it straight up, and I appreciate it.
Yeah, yeah, we've heard all about what you want from an iPod ad naseum. It gets boring, but whatever.
What is curious. ..well, actually it's ridiculous. ..is that you think that people wanting something different than what you want is somehow wrong, or as you put it, "uncool". That people have the nerve to actually purchase what they want rather than what you think is best for them!
Different people have different needs. If your needs are satisfied by the iRiver, fine, wonderful, go buy one. Asking others to subsidize your purchase or to reward a company that offers features that they don't want or need is absurd, not to mention self-serving. This doesn't drive competition.
It's really not cool dictating to others what they should buy based on your wants and needs. Maybe you're the coolest guy in the world in other things, but here you are definitely not cool.
If I ever have a wedding, I'd probably avoid this at all costs... I'd rather not have a bitter feeling of being ripped off and manipulated every time I looked at my wedding photos.
Of course I imagine most photographers are real people and are willing to talk about this stuff... but I'm rather shocked to hear that the copyright isn't transferred
You've hit on the most important point. This is something you can discuss and negotiate with the photographer beforehand, the keyword being beforehand. If the photographer is unwilling to discuss it, you can always go elsewhere.
However, this wouldn't be my primary consideration in choosing a photographer. You're (theoretically) documenting a one time event, and you don't want to take too many chances that you'll get unacceptable results. I'd go with an experieced photographer who's style I like without transfer of copyrights over an inexperienced one who's style I didn't like, but who would give me the copyrights. This might seem like an obvious choice given the hypothetical, but judging by some of the posts here, many slashdotters would go with the second choice.
I also think it needs to be said that photographers make a decent living through hard work, but they aren't getting rich of those copyrights. It's a revenue stream that helps keep them in business. If you want them to give up the revenue stream, expect to compensate them in other ways. By the way, I know of no millionaire wedding photographers.
Obviously, he was pulling numbers out of his ass to illustrate a point, but his point still stands. And I don't see how you can predict what tools a great hacker might prefer by looking at what tools the majority uses.
Sure it's possible. But is it probable? No. I think the simple explanation is the right one in this case. Sal is a crook, and a pretty stupid one at that.
When did Sal change his story to fit in Vince as the bad guy? I'm not entirely sure, but I think it was after the report came out that Sal had defrauded Vince.
On the face of it, it might seem ironic, but there is a long tradition of mac hacks of various mac technologies (res edit, for example). The difference today is that mac hackers and tweakers have much more to explore and much more potential power.
I have the suspicion that you are right and that most of the other posters are barking up the wrong tree.
Here's a possibility: Real's program loads their DRMed files onto the iPod. Perhaps in the act of loading, it strips the DRM or mimics Apple's DRM. In the first case of stripping away the DRM, Real might take the position that loading the music is a one way move. Of course, we no otherwise, since an iPod is just a Firewire HD (among other things). Also, it should be pretty easy to fool the program, and load the music files onto other devices.
In the second case, mimicking Fairplay, Real would need to reverse engineer. But as you pointed out, this is not giving users any new uses of iTMS music files. It's not unDRMing files bought on iTMS. The reverse engineering is for program interoperability, and thus allowed under the DMCA.
There's a lot of confusion and misinformation out there concerning rights, digital or otherwise, so it's not suprising that a lot of people are going to be showing of their ignorance.
I've been thinking about this too, for mostly the same reasons as everyone else, but you hit on the one reason I hadn't yet read. I want to wear cheap sunglasses!
I'm curious, but what material is the bubble that you live in made from? And what measures are you taking to filter your air and water? I really need to know because I've become very concerned about my Precious Bodily Fluids.
Slashdot Mirror
Your point does have some validity, but ultimately falls apart because Apple does not have a monopoly in the digital music space. It's much too soon to tell. Beyond that, the companies united behind the RIAA are the ones with the real monopoly power, even if Apple could gain 95% of the MP3 player market.
The big problem with MS's anti-competitive behavior was that they were already a monopoly, and were illegally using that monopoly power to dominate a new market. Even if Apple controlled 95% of the MP3 player market, they still wouldn't control the music rights.
I actually wonder if Real didn't approach Apple with threats of this hack, and tried to make Steve "an offer he couldn't refuse". What would you do if someone tried to blackmail you into giving up part of your business?
So far, Apple hasn't sued Real. They've given a preliminary legal saber rattle, which should't be shocking. It will be interesting to see what Apple actually does.
What would be really whack is if Apple sued under DMCA because they (hypothetically) might maintain that the Fairplay DRM protects the iPod (from music from unauthorized vendors) as well as the iTMS music. I hope they don't do this. I doubt they will, but who knows? What Would Darl Do?
Anyway, your points are well taken. I agree that Apple will need more allies (more like HP and Motorola) in this DRM format battle, but Real isn't one of them. I consider Real to be not much better than SCOG/Caldera.
Apple doesn't have to be quite as careful as, say, Microsoft in the realm of anti-competitive behavior. Although Apple clearly has the lead in this new area, it's much too early to say that they have an undisputed monopoly. And so long as RIAA has the stranglehold that they do, I think it will be hard to argue that Apple can have a monopoly. If Apple were to force an exclusive licensing deal from the RIAA denying all other online music vendors music to sell (when monkeys fly out of all our butts), then sure. It'll be safe to say they have a monopoly.
Dubya? Is that you?
Oh, yeah?
And what format are you going to use for the ppv, Mr. Entrepeneur?
=)
Like a few others, I see this as mostly a turf war between to big companies, one who's products I like and one who's products I detest. Neither company is lily white, but one company does have a better track record as far as serving the customer goes. And one company has a truly malodorous record.
So, I'm biased towards Apple. But I suspect that Apple doesn't have much of a legal case here, and if the hack was sweet enough (applying a psuedo-fairplay wrapper to Real's music), then Apple might not be able to easily break it with an update. That's if the Real engineers were Real hackers.
Lastly, if you were Real and you'd publish the results. .
That's what I'm really interested in, selection. I'd rather not buy anything from a scummy company like Real, but if I had greater choice of music, where ever it's coming from, then I'm the big winner.
The site is copyright 2001 and is still "under construction" with many areas "coming soon".
Furthermore, the technology described in the Veridisc whitepaper (PDF) is very different than what we know as iTMS Fairplay.
Granted, Apple could have bought or licensed the underlying technologies.
Lastly, the whitepaper seems to have been written in 2000, going by the fact that all the cites in the bibliography are from 2000.
I've written to Veridisc in the past (when Apple first introduced iTMS) and have never heard back from the company, so I wonder if it's a going concern, or if the website is just an orphan.
If this is the case (and from what I've read, I suspect you are correct), then Apple does not really have a legal claim to bring against Real, and their only real recourse is technical.
If Real did their job correctly, then future iPod updates won't be able to break the added functionality. If Real did a sloppy job, then it will be easy for Apple to shut them out with the next update.
Honestly, I don't think there is much Apple can do (assuming that Real has made a good Fairplay wrapper and documented their clean room practices), but I understand why Apple has to fight this anyway.
An ideal solution from the consumer perspective is that this would force Apple to license the fairplay technology to other companies. Thus, consumers would have more choice, iTMS would have to compete on merits, and Fairplay would win out over MS DRM.
On the otherhand, I doubt I'll be buying any music from Real, but this has nothing to do with their hacking the iPod. I just think they suck.
Like the grandparent post, I think that ultimately Apple's case is pretty weak, unless Real actually cracked anything. And even there, Apple's case is not so clear cut, because there are exceptions for software interoperablility.
Still, I understand why Apple is taking the stance it is taking. From the company's perspective, they've got to preserve the thing they got going on. What if they let it go and then MS buys Real? (and a million other what ifs). Anyway, we'll see what Apple actually does to answer this challenge from Real. So far all they've done is a little legal saber rattling.
But ultimately, you're correct. Under the U.S. legal system, especially today with the big media companies writing the legislation, there's no telling how this might shake out.
It is illegal to pull a trailer that weighs more than your car is rated for.
I can think of various conditions where adding a trailer hitch to your car might be illegal as well. For instance, if you bolted it to a plastic fender and then tried to actually pull a load, you could get cited.
So, beyond merely being merely a bad analogy, your analogy falls completely apart if we accept the premise. Try to think it through next time you want to invent an analogy.
Let me know the next time you have a seance where you channel Steve Jobs. I've got some questions for him and he's not returning any of my calls.
On second thought, maybe I shouldn't put too much trust in your psychic abilities. After all, your prediction about Apple Zealots modding you down has been so far proven incorrect. As of this writing, the mods seem to have just ignored you.
Excellent brag! I'm glad to hear someone else as psyched about their gadget as I am about my iPod. No one should be snooty about their mp3 player, so tell those snooty Apple types to suck it.
Because HP is soon to be selling iPods, you really need to let them know how much you love the 140, so they won't stop making them.
Most of all, thanks for not whining. I know this is slash dot and all, so I should expect lots of whining, but it gets old. You told it straight up, and I appreciate it.
Yeah, yeah, we've heard all about what you want from an iPod ad naseum. It gets boring, but whatever.
.well, actually it's ridiculous. . .is that you think that people wanting something different than what you want is somehow wrong, or as you put it, "uncool". That people have the nerve to actually purchase what they want rather than what you think is best for them!
What is curious. .
Different people have different needs. If your needs are satisfied by the iRiver, fine, wonderful, go buy one. Asking others to subsidize your purchase or to reward a company that offers features that they don't want or need is absurd, not to mention self-serving. This doesn't drive competition.
It's really not cool dictating to others what they should buy based on your wants and needs. Maybe you're the coolest guy in the world in other things, but here you are definitely not cool.
You've hit on the most important point. This is something you can discuss and negotiate with the photographer beforehand, the keyword being beforehand. If the photographer is unwilling to discuss it, you can always go elsewhere.
However, this wouldn't be my primary consideration in choosing a photographer. You're (theoretically) documenting a one time event, and you don't want to take too many chances that you'll get unacceptable results. I'd go with an experieced photographer who's style I like without transfer of copyrights over an inexperienced one who's style I didn't like, but who would give me the copyrights. This might seem like an obvious choice given the hypothetical, but judging by some of the posts here, many slashdotters would go with the second choice.
I also think it needs to be said that photographers make a decent living through hard work, but they aren't getting rich of those copyrights. It's a revenue stream that helps keep them in business. If you want them to give up the revenue stream, expect to compensate them in other ways. By the way, I know of no millionaire wedding photographers.
Obviously, he was pulling numbers out of his ass to illustrate a point, but his point still stands. And I don't see how you can predict what tools a great hacker might prefer by looking at what tools the majority uses.
Sure it's possible. But is it probable? No. I think the simple explanation is the right one in this case. Sal is a crook, and a pretty stupid one at that.
When did Sal change his story to fit in Vince as the bad guy? I'm not entirely sure, but I think it was after the report came out that Sal had defrauded Vince.
If you can't bother to google this, at least post it to Ask Slashdot, the appropriate forum. =)
On the face of it, it might seem ironic, but there is a long tradition of mac hacks of various mac technologies (res edit, for example). The difference today is that mac hackers and tweakers have much more to explore and much more potential power.
I have the suspicion that you are right and that most of the other posters are barking up the wrong tree.
Here's a possibility: Real's program loads their DRMed files onto the iPod. Perhaps in the act of loading, it strips the DRM or mimics Apple's DRM. In the first case of stripping away the DRM, Real might take the position that loading the music is a one way move. Of course, we no otherwise, since an iPod is just a Firewire HD (among other things). Also, it should be pretty easy to fool the program, and load the music files onto other devices.
In the second case, mimicking Fairplay, Real would need to reverse engineer. But as you pointed out, this is not giving users any new uses of iTMS music files. It's not unDRMing files bought on iTMS. The reverse engineering is for program interoperability, and thus allowed under the DMCA.
There's a lot of confusion and misinformation out there concerning rights, digital or otherwise, so it's not suprising that a lot of people are going to be showing of their ignorance.
Maybe someone gave you the hairy eyeball.
I've been thinking about this too, for mostly the same reasons as everyone else, but you hit on the one reason I hadn't yet read. I want to wear cheap sunglasses!
2. Join the Army and get sent as cannonfodder in the desert
He'd be the most important guy on the squad after the medic. He'd never walk point. He'd never have to dig his own foxhole.
His piss would be golden!
I'm curious, but what material is the bubble that you live in made from? And what measures are you taking to filter your air and water? I really need to know because I've become very concerned about my Precious Bodily Fluids.
Tell you what. You go construct the solar still, and I'll stand guard over you from this foxhole.
The small fire cannister from the French rat package helps illuminate the serviette at night, when using it as a white flag.