Real Networks Hacks iPod; .rm & Real Store for iPod 456
alphakappa writes "According to Cnet, Real Networks is expected to announce on Monday that it has found a way to make its songs play on the iPod. Now songs bought from the RealPlayer Music Store can be played on the iPod. Earlier Real had made it possible for songs bought from iTunes to be played on RealPlayer by transparently starting the iTunes authentication in the background. However since Apple has not licensed the technology to make file formats playable on the iPod, the latest Real initiative could be construed as reverse engineering. How would this fare under the DMCA? Or is it just for the tiny ones?"
Not Exactly Reverse Engineering? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not Exactly Reverse Engineering? (Score:5, Informative)
The key in the cleanroom approach is that you already know how the copyrighted work... works. That would be after any reverse engineering, or if you happened to somehow have copyrighted sourcecode or schematics, etc.
Possibly legal, not Exactly Reverse Engineering? (Score:2, Insightful)
In which case, if the community were to create an open, free software DRM spec, it would then be possible to create free software that could legally, and without violating DMCA/EUCD smunge
So, prov
Re:Possibly legal, not Exactly Reverse Engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, IANAL either, but my understanding is that if Apple doesn't sue Real, there isn't legal confirmation of anything. Of course, if Apple sued and lost, that would be a precedent case for a certain type of DRM circumvention to be allowed. However, I'd expect Apple to win if they sue.
Re:Possibly legal, not Exactly Reverse Engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL but I work in the distribution end of the entertainment industry so I've had to pick up a more or less working understadning of copyright law.
if that understanding is correct, if Apple chooses not to sue, it does set a precedent. Not suing can be used by lawyers as a de facto acceptance of the practice, which in turn can be construted to be evidence that it isn't illegal. This is why Disney sues elementary schools that paint murals with Mickey Mouse; if they didn't, and someone made a hentai Minnie Does the Matterhorn film, Disney would have established a precedent that using their characters without permission is fine with them, and would have a much harder time in their lawsuit.
When the DMCA was written and adopted, it was acknowledged by the government as likely overbroad and that it would be up to the courts to work out the exact issues. So if Apple chooses not to sue, the courts then likely find that what Real did was not reverse engineering - they just don't work that out until the next time someone gets sued for a similar feat of reverse engineering.
So this is the Hobson's choice the DCMA visits upon Apple - either file an expensive lawsuit that will likely have backlash from industry intelligencia, or let it go and possibly open the door for all sorts of reverse engineering down the road - which is certainly good for consumers and engineers, but gives Apple less protection over its profit margins down the road, and could even lead to a class action lawsuit on behalf of the shareholders for not taking "vigorous" enough steps to protect intellectual property.
(Whether those protections are valid or not is left as an excercise to the reader, because it's sort of beside the point in terms of this discussion.)
Re:Possibly legal, not Exactly Reverse Engineering (Score:5, Informative)
But Open Source and DRM -- at least, not the corporations' idea of DRM -- don't sit well together. The power to control what works and what does not work lies with the eventual user (who has the source code and the decryption key), not the supplier. A user could lock out certain suppliers, but not the other way round. So, say, picking some names at random
The only reason why Apple's, and Microsoft's, proprietary DRM systems "seem" to work {there are holes you could get a bus through, sideways. Mic trained on speaker? Analogue line-in? Logic analyser on PCI bus listening out for digital data meant to go to sound card? USB protocol analyser prtending to be USB sound card?} is because the source code is hidden from the users. The security is entirely dependent on the idea of making it difficult -- not impossible -- for the user to decrypt the file other than by running a particular program, supplied by the content vendor, which has a limited user interface that restricts its functionality. Hell, you don't even need the full source code; just the right portion will do.
My point is, once you give a user the source code to the player and the encryption key, then the user is in charge. {Of course, even a closed-source player running under Linux -- assuming anybody would tolerate such a thing -- would be vulnerable to a hijack of
Your assumtions about what is legal are very wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Reverse engineering is not an illegal activity. And something created through the process of reverse engineering is not illegal, even under the DMCA. So what makes some reverse engineered products illegal?
a) They use too much of the original products copyrighted design, software, documentation,
What is it? Nothing that I can see they've said. (Score:3, Insightful)
You can play lots of formats on an iPod. All Real (or anyone else) has to do is remove any DMA restrictions on their AAC files and the job is done. Now, if they are saying that they process their files so that they are protected AAC (FairPlay) and will play on the iPod then there might be an issue.
If Real was saying that you could take FairPlay protected tracks purchased from iTMS and play them on some other device then they would likely have a very serious problem. Simply say
Makes you think... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they can figure out how to play their format on the iPod, I say more power to them.
What possible reason...? (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, the DMCA wasn't designed to protect copyrights -- it was designed to prevent competition.
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:2, Insightful)
NOTE: Bot
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:3, Informative)
>software license on the iPod,
WHat makes you think that Real have aquired a license (I think the article said they had not) and then broken/violated it? If they do NOT have it or have agreed to it, they can't possible violate it.
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:3, Informative)
There are some companies you can piss off, and Apple isn't really one of them here.
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just how? Certainly they never sign such. It'd be good if this lead to a test in court of the validity of shrinkwrap licences so beloved of software companies.
Update (Score:5, Insightful)
It'd be good if this lead to a test in court of the validity of shrinkwrap licences
More likely, Apple will release a iPod update with COOL NEW FEATURES L@@K which oh yeah, btw, breaks compatibility with real-purchased songs.
So then your iPod will not play your Real purchased library, until Real reverse-engineers it again, and who knows how long that'd take. So you'd have perhaps hundreds of dollars of songs on your iPod that you couldn't get to for an indefinite period of time; and Apple would just shrug their shoulders when you complain.
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:5, Informative)
One could say that, but then one would be wrong. Apple didn't attempt to reverse engineer the BSD sources-- they already had the sourcecode, along with a license giving them the legal right (but not the obligation) to modify and redistribute the OS.
Apple did not see fit to apply an open source license to the ipod. Consequently, a great many reverse engineering schemes might be regarded by the federal courts as a infringement.
Software licenses "work" because the act of installing a program (or even of loading a program into memory) itself violates the prohibition on duplicating a copyrighted work. If the user agrees to the license, he is allowed to perform these rather prosaic tasks, but his legal rights in other areas may be further restricted.
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:3, Informative)
Argh. This meme has got to die. From 17 USC 117 [cornell.edu]:
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:3, Informative)
Read your copyright law again.
Title 17 USC, Chapter 1.
Sec. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, under current law. If hardware contains software, and the manufacturer sees fit to place a license on the software, and there's no way to get around the software, then you have to agree to the license to use the hardware.
I seem to recall a /. story from a few months ago where someone bought a Windows preloaded Dell computer with the intention of using Linux on it. When the person turned it on with his Linux install disk in the drive, he was presented with an un-circumventable software licence agreement screen, which basically stated that by agreeing, he was agreeing to the licenses of all the preloaded software on the machine. Presumably the only way to get past it to load Linux was by clicking OK
The person at Dell support couldn't figure out why the guy wouldn't just click OK, even though the tech couldn't tell him what was in each individual license that he was supposed to blanket-agree with. Ultimately he ended up sending the computer back.
We need legal precidence on the legality of software license agreements, and exactly what obligations that all parties are under. Until this happens, we're going to continue to see unresonable and silly licenses.
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:3, Informative)
Ehh, you mean th elaw says that the store has to present me with a license in the shop if I want to buy an iPod???? If you don't agree to any license when you buy the iPod, then there is none, regardless of if there is any software on the iPod or not. Just as I don't have to agree to any license when I buy a TV set, despite it most certainly have software somewere on some components.
>Presumably the only way to get past it to load
>Linux was by clicking OK
As far as I see, t
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's quite awesome how easily they can now hide and cower everytime someone says "copyright violation". Just the hint of something "bad" and they remove it from view. We wouldn't want to have anyone say bad things about corporations, now would we? We wouldn't want freedom of expression to be free from the interference of anyone with enough cash to pay a lawyer to send a onepage letter to an ISP and easily remove anything they don't like from the internet, now would we?
That "protection" is bullshit, because it gives the power of censure to the ISPs, which means to anyone who complains and has some cash.
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, that is because the current trend towards "1984" is not coming from the Democrats or the Republicans. It is coming from the powerful corporations that have no term limits, no democratic votes, no national boundaries, and little oversight from the public.
We started down this slippery slope long ago when lawyers decided a corporation was an "entity" much like a human being, only without a natural lifespan, a brain, or a moral sense.
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a lawyer but I believe the whole corporation as an entity thing is there to protect consumers. If it wasn't an entity I don't think it could be sued.
1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
As far corporations having little public oversight, you should know that in free market economics, the public has ultimate oversight over everything. For example, if the public at large decided they didn't agree with Wal-Marts practices, they would stop buying produ
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:3, Informative)
I reckon the libertarian party is a lot more likely to eliminate unnecessary expansions of government than the greens or any "left wing" group.
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:5, Insightful)
How the fuck are these mutually exclusive? Are you a real lawyer, or do you just play one on T.V.?
The fact that the DMCA burdens fair use is not just "a bit of a bummer," it's the total failure of our legislature. As a previous poster stated, the DMCA does not protect copyright: all it takes is a SINGLE CIRCUMVENTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, and then the song is an unencumbered mp3 ready to be shared with everyone. There IS NO IMPETUS to traffic in a true circumvention device when you can traffic in the copyrighted material instead. Therefore the only circumvention devices taht are truly restricted are ones that have lawful (non-infringing) purposes! All the DMCA does is protect frightened corporations from free market competition.
In other words, it screws the electorate to prop up the corporations. Isn't this a bit backwards? Shouldn't the corporations exist to serve the people, a la Adam Smith? Else why have them?
Finally, how do you expect elections to fix the sorry, broken excuse for a law if you "hate the sheer disgust associated with [it]"? That sheer disgust is what gets the politicians to listen, or what votes them out if they don't.
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:5, Interesting)
They might think that if the thing is too open, bad things can happen. There is precedent. Think of video game consoles. In the late 70's, early 80's, video games were big. There were arcades all over the place, and Atari, Mattel, and Coleco were thriving.
In 1982, the market collapsed. People stopped buying games. (And I got laid off as my cool Intellivision programming job at APh (the company that designed the Intellivision for Mattel) went away).
Years later, when Nintendo was considering coming out with the NES, they did a thourough study of what had caused that market collapse, so that they could avoid it.
Their conclusion was that the problem was too many companies were making games. Originally, only Mattel could product Intellivision games. Only Atari could make Atari games, and so on.
Later, Activision and Imagic were able to make games, but that was cool, because those companies were full of ex-Atari and ex-Mattel and ex-APh people. Their games were good, and the market grew.
After that, dozens of companies figured out how to make games for these systems, and they were crap. Nintendo's conclusion was that consumers just got tired of going in, plunking down a lot of cash for a game, and finding that it sucked. They couldn't tell the good stuff from the junk, and so stopped buying.
So Nintendo decided that for the NES to be viable, they had to be able to determine who could program for it. Perhaps Apple has decided that the same thing applies to portable music players.
Re:What possible reason...? (Score:4, Interesting)
Second, it's "rein" in. Like a horse. A reign is a rule in terms of a king or a duke, not in terms of controlling a single individual.
Third, I liked ET on the atari. I had no problems beating the game. Sadly I think I may have actually been better at video games then. However, I absolutely hated Raiders of the Lost Ark, I never did manage to get the right angle on the bit where you parachute into a hole (yeah, I remember THAT scene from the movie) :P and thus I never could beat the thing. Also the tsetse flies were horrendous. To this day I don't know why ET flopped. There were plenty of crappy NES games in stores, but unlike the atari, enough people owned NESes and games were discounted far enough to where people would buy the crappy ones. Interestingly enough Kay-Bee Toys used to carry atari and NES games at the same time, and I can remember many cases where discounted NES games were cheaper than discounted Atari games, for no perceptible reason whatsoever. Perhaps Atari screwed themselves over some kind of minimum pricing agreements?
Re:Makes you think... (Score:4, Insightful)
It really only depends how Real was able to do it. There are three avenues Apple can sue them if they choose. 1) Breach of License, 2) IP violations, 3) DMCA.
1) In order for Real to get rm files to work on an iPod, there had to have been some serious internal hacking of an iPod. Mostly like the Real teams bought a few iPods for this purpose. Apple like many other manufacturers may have no reverse-enginnering clauses built into their license agreements. In doing so, however, Real may have broken any license agreement they had when they bought the iPod.
2) If I remember correctly, in order to reverse engineering to be legal, there has to be separation between the two teams that work on the engineering. The two teams cannot have direct communication with each other except for specifications:
The first team may break down the device but can only describe the functionality of the device like an API to the second team. (When the left button is pressed, the device should . . .) The second team designs the device based on specifications from the first team.
If Apple can show that there was no Chinese wall between the two teams or that the reverse-engineering could not have happened without breaching the separation, they may have a case. 3) And of course, if there is any encryption was cracked, then the DMCA is relevant. I'm not condoning this use, only stating the obvious.
Re:Makes you think... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe, if Fairplay were an open standard. But it isn't- it is a proprietary standard that Apple reserves the right to license to others and I see no basis for the legal system to NOT uphold this right. If someone desires this interoperability, there is a correct way to appoach it- they can license the technology. Of course, Apple probably wouldn't want any association with Real, so luckily they also reserve the right not to do
nothing to see here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:nothing to see here (Score:2)
Re:nothing to see here (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple Stick it to them (Score:3, Insightful)
Much better is if... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want Real to get hurt -- that serves no purpose. I just want the DMCA weakened or repealed. If damage done to Real helps to bring that about, well and good! -- but otherwise, it's quite unkind to wish for another to be harmed.
As far as I'm concerned, far from a big mistake, Real did the right thing; think of it as civil disobediance on a corporate scale. Let's just hope some good comes of it.
Re:Much better is if... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Apple Stick it to them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple Stick it to them (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you kinda mist the point of the parent...
I think, what the poster was trying to say, was that Real, if they really wanted some of the iPod market, could simply sell non-DRM'ed tunes.
Which really would be a victory for the consumer
Re:Apple Stick it to them (Score:3, Informative)
Mr. Glaser... (Score:5, Funny)
The REAL problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
This could do more damage to the Real brand, by promoting a particular aspect of their software that is behaves inconsistently.
See BBC (Score:2, Informative)
The program mimics Apple's copy protection software, so Real says it has not infringed Apple's intellectual property rights by developing it.
Sounds like copyright circumvention to me. Maybe Real will get their comeuppance for their old spyware years after all.
Possibility? (Score:2)
Re:Possibility? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Possibility? (Score:4, Informative)
This is why FairPlay is listed in Apple's Trademark List [apple.com]
Re:Possibility? (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't, however, say anything about the FairPlay DRM. Indeed FairPlay is listed as an Apple trademark, and Apple claims it as their own technology. There is no mention of this being licensed, so that would imply that they do own it.
See:
http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/au t horization. html
Now there is much speculation that FairPlay was licensed from Veridisc, since that company was developing a DRM
Re:Possibility? (Score:2)
The DMCA explicitely permits reverse engineering (Score:4, Informative)
The only time reverse engineering is illegal under the DMCA is when it is used for making infringing copies.
Re:The DMCA explicitely permits reverse engineerin (Score:4, Informative)
i don't particularly agree with this, but i reckon this is what apple's take on it would be.
Re:The DMCA explicitely permits reverse engineerin (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The DMCA explicitely permits reverse engineerin (Score:5, Informative)
Also from chilling effects:
The resulting program must only interoperate with the reverse engineered software, however, and cannot interoperate with the technologically protected content (movie, book, video game, etc.) itself.
Seems that Real must have run afoul of this at some point in their quest to work with Apple's DRM.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The DMCA explicitely permits reverse engineerin (Score:5, Informative)
Who modded this guy +5 informative??? He's wrong.
TITLE 17 CHAPTER 12 Sec. 1201. (f) [cornell.edu] says:
Reverse Engineering. -
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
To break that apart:
circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program
It ONLY applies to decrypting a program! And only to specific protions of the program at that. Any circumvention relating to music or any other sort of file is still criminal!
sole purpose of [] interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs
For the sole puprose of getting programs to talk to each other.
to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title
That is NOT a positive statement saying non-infringment is legal. It is a negative statement narrowing what is legal - to additionally exclude anything involving infringment.
So what it really says is that if Microsoft were to encrypt they webserver software, you could decrypt the rerquired portions of that software for the purpose of getting Netscape and Opera browsers to work to be able to communicate with it (so long as you don't infringe their software copyright while you're at it).
-
But what about the display? (Score:5, Funny)
Rebuffering...
and
Cannot find stream
and
Would you like to upgrade to Real 9?
The difference between this and PlayFair (Score:4, Insightful)
The DMCA allows reverse engineering for compatibility, so maybe Real does have a case here.
Get your IP law straight (Score:5, Informative)
The only problem that I might see is a license violation for every user that installs these songs onto their iPod. After all, the iPod has a software license, I'm sure, that limits use, and it will be interesting to see if Real is breaking that contract. I don't know how they are binding the Helix copy protection to the iPod without installing software on top of the iPod, but if they have found a legitimate work-around, I congratulate them.
Re:Get your IP law straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Get your IP law straight (Score:2)
Re:Get your IP law straight (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Get your IP law straight (Score:2)
But say if the barrier was in the DRM, wouldn't that make reverse engineering to make the music play on iPod illegal because they reverse engineered the copy protection? And they would also now know how to break the DRM, and if they make public how they do it (they wouldn't anyway), then DMCA would come into effect, because they are giving information which can be used to "Deprive Artists of their IP Rights". Yet another rea
Re:Get your IP law straight (Score:2)
It does not prevent reverse-engineering of patents,
As far as I know, patents don't need to be reverse engineered, since their implementation is public (it's in the patent application). But knowing how it works doesn't give you the right to use it yourself (that's what patents do, after all), so there's no big profit in reverse engineering them anyway.
Perhaps you are confused yourself, with trade secrets in this case?
Re:Get your IP law straight (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish I had mod points. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Does the RealPlayer music store have... (Score:3, Insightful)
Real Media on an iPod can mean only one thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Real Media on an iPod can mean only one thing.. (Score:5, Funny)
You should be so lucky
BUFFERING... 0%... 13%... 3%... 1%... -5%... 72%... 21%... 97%... 10%... 107%... 4%
Apple should let them fail in public (Score:5, Interesting)
Let 'em use the 'pod and win a major PR victory for not invoking the DMCA.
OT: If I could change the battery I would have bought an iPod, instead, as a backpacker I was forced to go to Sony's MiniDisk palyer/recorder, which I then fell in love with, despite the ATRAC3 Format, wich has evil DRM.
Re:Apple should let them fail in public (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see how that's a major PR victory, that's just not being evil assholes.
We're already screwed if we think it's a PR win when someone *doesn't* wave the big stick of DMCA.
Re:Apple should let them fail in public (Score:3, Informative)
How about the Belkin battery pack [belkin.com]?
store content (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the Real store have any songs that the iTunes store doesn't? Have there been a lot of Real customers clamoring for this?
This sounds like total PR BS from Real - they are just mad that Apple (rightly) gave them the brush-off earlier, and they are under the mistaken impression that Apple or iPod users give a hoot about RealMedia format. I mean, if you have an ipod and use iTunes already, what possible reason could you have for wanting to put
Re:store content (Score:3, Insightful)
Competition (Score:3, Interesting)
all formats (Score:2)
Crappy quality anyway... (Score:2, Informative)
So all they reverse engineered is how Fai
Re:Crappy quality anyway... (Score:2)
Ipod malware anyone. (Score:3, Funny)
For the uneducated and uninformed... (Score:5, Informative)
Considering both use AAC, maybe it was simply a matter of fooling the ipod into thinking Helix DRM was PlayFair DRM. And even though Real's choice of AAC seemed strange way back when RP10 was released, I think now it's starting to become clear why they chose that...
Strategically, this doesn't seem out of place with what Real's been doing recently. They seem to want to become the endall beall solution for Internet media: releasing Helix Player under GPL, making RealPlayer able to play QT, ITMS, and WM in the same player, and now this.
Re:For the uneducated and uninformed... (Score:5, Informative)
According to the CNET article, the system will "change the song into Windows Media format if necessary," so in that case it sounds like it's doing a transparent reencode of the track, which isn't much different from burning it to CD and reripping it yourself, except they slap on some Microsoft DRM for you.
If you've got a palm OS 5 machine, it sounds like it'll stay as a Helix DRMed file, since those PDAs already had a native realplayer.
For the ipod: "Harmony also will automatically change songs into an iPod-compatible format. But because Apple has not licensed its FairPlay copy-protection software to anyone, RealNetworks executives said its engineers had to re-create their own version in their labs in order to make the device play them back."
Considering that Real and Apple players already used AAC to begin with, as long as they don't do any reencoding those players will probably have the best quality. That all depends though; seeing as how Real already knows how to manipulate itunes into letting realplayer play ITMS files, this might succeed by manipulating QT/itunes into reripping the original AAC file, though I doubt it; that would take too much time and I don't even know if it's possible.
Standarising formats (Score:2)
The real question is what would it take to get companies to use compatible technologies, especially when the online stores have an invested interest in a particular player? No one will use someone else's DRM especially if it means paying money to someone else.
*AAC - Advanced Audio Codec, it is to MPEG 4 what MP3 is to MPEG-1 and MPEG
Press release & Public Beta (Score:5, Informative)
Well, to be fair... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple doesn't license their protected formats, true; but if Real wants to sell us a nice, standard MP3 or uncompressed WAV file, the iPod would happily play it.
What.
so, does this mean that Real is guilty of (Score:4, Interesting)
so, does this mean that Real is guilty of INDUCEing [slashdot.org] users to commit a violation?
Delicious!
Apple have got to be laughing at this. (Score:5, Insightful)
It was last November [theregister.co.uk] when Steve Jobs admitted that Apple made no money from the iTunes Music Store, and that pretty much all the money goes to the labels. Sure, in the six months since some more economies of scale may have kicked in, but we've heard nothing to contradict this yet:
Apple will always have the advantage in the music store -> iPod battle because the iPod needs iTunes, and iTunes has the music store built in. So Apple remains the first stop for people looking for something to play on an iPod, by definition.
Meanwhile, we're supposed to believe that Apple are somehow worried because Real have taken a bite into this profit-shy business in order to give people another way they can put music on an iPod, thus allowing Apple to maybe ship more units? I can't quite imagine Steve Jobs crying into his breakfast cereal over that one.
Of course, Apple have an opportunity here: the opportunity being the chance to extract license fees for putting Real's software on the iPod. They can wave around the threat of the DMCA and an expensive lawsuit for a while. Then they can pull out the carrot of integration: giving Real the chance to put their player on the iPod without having it break every time the iPod software was updated. Meanwhile Apple get some nice pocket-change in licensing fees, and the chance to deflect some WMA heat by waving the banner of a more open music-playing platform.
Charles Miller
Re:Apple have got to be laughing at this. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure you're right. Apple has little motive to partner up with other music stores, but it also has little to worry about from other companies supporting the iPod. A greater worry for A
Re:Apple have got to be laughing at this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Should be under YRO (Score:3, Interesting)
Real Proof [jogin.com] - Apple users should be scared as f*** of letting real anywhere near their computers).
The reason I say this is because I just had a "fun" experience ove the weekend where Real One player deleted songs off my computer. I have a large inventory of mp3's that I legally ripped from CDs that I own. I recently bought a Palm T3 handheld, which comes with Real Player pre-installed.
I figured "why not" and installed Real One player. Made sure to un-check all the "Please contact me with special messages" and "please update me automatically" options...
Everything went great...for about 10 minutes. I was playing an mp3 and the sound was kind of fuzzy. So I stopped the playback to check some settings. When I went back to continue playing the songs, I received the dialog box "the song file you're requesting cannot be found!"
Ummm...wtf? I was just listening to it 30 seconds ago. I browsed to my network share where I keep my mp3's...it was gone. So, I jumped up to check actual server itself...it was for real...the file had disappeared from the harddrive! (incidentally, it's a RH 9 box running a samba share - maybe its some sort of bug in samba? Probably not (read on)).
Now, keep in mind that I had been playing these mp3s WinAmp and even Windos Media for over a year with no problem.
I lost 3 songs of which I had legally ripped from my own CDs, plus about 10 j-pop songs that I had downloaded only because they're not available in the US yet...something fishy is going on here.
The sad thing is that I actually prefer using their plugin for watching video clips, but now I'm thinking of switching to Windows Media...
This is not a violation (Score:3, Informative)
This is NOT a violation of the DMCA. They are not offering a tool to decrypt AAC...they are encrypting the music, just like Apple does. There is nothing in the DMCA that says they cannot encrypt files.
In addition, check out the verbage of the DMCA, which allows this:
1201(f)(2) - Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
Looks to me there is not much Apple can do about this one
The bigger story is yet to come (Score:4, Insightful)
'course, if everyone just sold plain MP3s, we wouldn't have to deal with any of this crap.
How this thing works... (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, it reads the AAC file to get a user identifier. This user ID is equated with a key stored in a file on the iPod itself. This user key allows it to decrypt the encrypted AAC file, which it then plays.
So if you have an encrypted AAC file (these use AES encryption, I believe), then all you have to do to get the iPod to play it is to a) put the key in the right place and b) suitably munge the AAC file so as to enable the iPod to work out which key it needs to use. Part A is simply a matter of putting the key into the right file, part B is messing with several key headers in the "M4P" file itself.
In other words, it's not particularly difficult to take an AES encrypted AAC file, to which you know the key, and munge the file to get it to play on the iPod without actually decrypting the thing and without transcoding.
That's if they wanted to preserve the file's encryption. If they didn't much care, they could just as easily decrypt the thing and write out an M4A file, unencrypted. The iPod could play that just fine too, without messing with the iPod keyring file.
Jon's at it again... (Score:4, Interesting)
But our buddy Jon Johansen (of DeCSS fame) reimplemented it in 210 lines of C# code:
http://www.nanocrew.net/blog/apple/huntingplayfair .html [nanocrew.net]
Thanks Jon!
To all you morons... (Score:3, Interesting)
Both Nintendo and Sony have sued companies that reverse engineered their cartridge technologies (Nintendo) and various software functions (Sony on the PS). In all situations where it went to court, they lost.
Now these were pre-DMCA so who knows, but I do not see how Real is circumventing copy protection and that the DMCA applies at all in this situation. If you read the article, you will see that Real is actually adding the copy protection to achieve compatibility.
This is a copyright issue, pure and simple. And it is between FairPlay (the DRM that Apple licenses) and Real, not Apple and Real. If Real did a clean room implementation, the conversation is over and Real can continue.
What REALly happens... (Score:5, Funny)
The real networks logo will display instead of an apple during bootup. You'll also notice that somehow the engraved logo on the back of your iPod also changed from an apple to Real.com.
You'll get "news" notifications during the songs (real format or otherwise) which actually consist only of upgrade information to the real software. Even if you just upgraded.
You'll notice that, despite being an iPod, Real somehow became the default player for all media formats on your iPod. The interface will be clunky and will no longer use the clickwheel but only two buttons and the lock switch, and you won't be able to figure out how to restore the default settings on your iPod. And it won't play AAC files.
Songs will stop midway through until you pay for a RealPass.
You'll constantly get buffering messages, even though the iPod is reading from the hard drive.
Menu options will crowd the top of the display that read, "FREE AOL SOFTWARE" and "FREE OFFERS FROM REAL"
You'll discover that you didn't really download the free version, but that somehow you paid $29.95 even though you don't remember using a credit card.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Roof tiles (Score:3, Funny)
Dilemma: Real Player for OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, as long as there's money to be made by supporting Macs, they probably will -- especially with so many of Apple's users in the media industry. So maybe this is a non-issue.
This is a complex moral battle for me
Older versions of Windows Supported? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't seem to find a single mention anywhere of one of the major limitations of iTunes for Windows: It requires Windows XP. Older versions of Windows are not supported.
Given the enormous numbers of Windows '98 and Windows ME users still out there - this could be a huge score for Real.
Does anyone know if Harmony requires XP? Or if it requires a previous working install of iTunes? (which would effectively mean the same thing)
Re:Sounds like (Score:2)
Maybe they are, but for the most part I've been ignoring Real Networks since 1999. Their players suck at stability, and for linux they are broken at best. If someone hands me over a .rm-file (or any of its variants) I usually end up saying "You've got to be kidding me, right?".
It's not so much the fact that I don't like the company, it's the fact that I dislike the way their software behaved at the time. It was constantly crashing, refused to play most of it's own files referring on
What are you talking about? (Score:2)
Perhaps you failed to notice that PowerBook and iBook shipments were up 37 per cent and 26 per cent year on year, representing 21.5 per cent and 13.6 per cent of revenue.
That's a third of Apple's revenue that comes from notebook sales. The iPod represents 12.3 per cent of Apple's revenues. Software is around 10% for Apple, as are perhiperals (iSight etc). So the iPod isn't "making the serious mo