Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

DVD Jon's DoubleTwist Unlocks the iPod

Posted by kdawson on Mon Oct 23, 2006 03:02 PM
from the making-good-on-steve's-promise dept.
An anonymous reader writes, "On the 5-year anniversary of the iPod, Fortune Magazine has an article called Unlocking the iPod about Jon Lech Johansen's new venture. Slashdot briefly covered DoubleTwist earlier this month, and those of you who complained that he was not enabling iPod competitors to play FairPlay files will be happy to learn that according to the Fortune article he will also be going after the hardware market." From the article: "As [Johansen] and Farantzos explain DoubleTwist in a conference room they share with several other companies, he points to a sheet of printer paper tacked on the wall that has a typed quote Jobs gave the Wall Street Journal in 2002: 'If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own.' As Johansen sees it, Jobs didn't follow through on this promise, so it's up to him to fix the system... Johansen has written [two] programs...: one that would let other companies sell copy-protected songs that play on the iPod, and another that would let other devices play iTunes songs."

Related Stories

[+] "DVD Jon" Reverse Engineers FairPlay 299 comments
breun writes to bring us up to date on the doings of Jon Lech Johansen, known as "DVD Jon" after he cracked CSS encryption at the age of 15. As reported by GigaOM's Liz Gannes, Johansen has now reverse-engineered Apple's FairPlay DRM — but not to crack it. Instead Johansen's company, DoubleTwist Ventures, wants to license the tech to media companies shut out by Apple from playing their content on the iPod. And, soon, on the iTV. Johansen could end up selling a lot of hardware for Apple.
[+] iPod Cracked, But Does it Matter? 370 comments
Bennett Haselton writes "The Associated Press is writing that "DVD Jon", known for breaking the copying restrictions on DVDs, plans to market a method for breaking the copy protection on songs purchased from iTunes Music. What's missing from the story is the fact that converting iTunes music into unrestricted formats like MP3 is already trivial. In principle it's impossible to prevent music from being copied anyway, because a user can always play a song through an audio output jack and use another device to record the sound; there are several other methods that work by reducing the same principle to practice. Bottom line: there's no reason yet to get excited about the iTunes-cracking technology (and, indeed, no reason to buy an iPod), when you can already convert songs this way." Bennett's full article on the subject is available below.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Cool Jon! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2006, @03:05PM (#16550936)
    Great news, this will only makes the iPod stronger!

    http://www.mil.gov.int.edu.org/ [edu.org]
  • DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by justinbach (1002761) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:06PM (#16550958)
    (http://www.spacewalrus.com/)
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this constitute a blatant violation via reverse-engineering of the Fairplay DRM? I'm not saying I disagree with his actions, I'm just asking the question...
    • Re:DMCA by justinbach (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @03:09PM
      • Re:DMCA by truthsearch (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @03:13PM
        • Re:DMCA by blugu64 (Score:3) Monday October 23 2006, @04:39PM
        • Re:DMCA by Bing Tsher E (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @06:24PM
          • PJ by Morosoph (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @08:48PM
    • Re:DMCA by Cemu (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @03:13PM
      • Re:DMCA (Score:4, Informative)

        by truthsearch (249536) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:17PM (#16551122)
        (http://seenonslash.com/ | Last Journal: Friday May 11 2007, @04:02PM)
        Not the most recent copyright act [wikipedia.org].
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:DMCA by Firehed (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @04:32PM
          • Re:DMCA by PunkOfLinux (Score:3) Monday October 23 2006, @04:36PM
            • Re:DMCA by Firehed (Score:2) Tuesday October 24 2006, @02:05AM
              • Re:DMCA by ultranova (Score:2) Tuesday October 24 2006, @10:14AM
          • Re:DMCA by teh kurisu (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @04:40PM
          • Re:DMCA by HTH NE1 (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @05:18PM
        • Re:DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)

          by harlows_monkeys (106428) on Monday October 23 2006, @07:45PM (#16554470)
          (http://www.tzs.net/)
          Not the most recent copyright act.

          No need for the word recent in there. It's not been a violation of any version of the copyright act. Fair use does NOT mean you have a RIGHT to do things like copy to other media or devices. Rather, it means that doing so does not violate copyright. The copyright holder has always been free to try to stop you by other means (contracts, technological means, etc).

          [ Parent ]
          • Re:DMCA by ajs318 (Score:2) Tuesday October 24 2006, @03:16AM
            • Re:DMCA by harlows_monkeys (Score:2) Tuesday October 24 2006, @10:51PM
              • Re:DMCA by Mr2001 (Score:2) Wednesday October 25 2006, @01:54PM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)

        by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice.gmail@com> on Monday October 23 2006, @03:40PM (#16551508)
        In short, no. In long, I wish Slashdotters would actually read the laws that they assume 'protects' them before commenting on them. Sheesh, Im not even American and I bet I know more about American Copyright Law than most American Slashdotters, purely because I read it before discussing it. Hint - Fair Use is not as wide ranging as some on this site seem to believe, even leaving the DMCA out of the equation for simplicities sake.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:DMCA by nolife (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @07:31PM
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kinglink (195330) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:47PM (#16551630)
        define legally acquired. No really do it. Do you mean buying it on a CD and using it on something you created yourself. Your fine.

        However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can. That means no changing it so it suddenly plays videos if it didn't before. You can, they likely won't hurt you, but the device itself has an agreement somewhere built into it.

        On the other hand do you mean the music you download from Itunes? Read the licensing agreements and other agreements regarding music you buy from it. I don't own either thing (Itunes song or an Ipod) But I'm sure both limits the way you're allowed to use the item.

        To my knowledge the Itunes song is licensed to you, for your use with itunes and Ipods. You arn't buying the song, you're buying a license to use it how they decide you can use it. Similar to Microsoft Windows (you might own the software and the CD key, neither really doesn't cost much, but the license to use Microsoft windows is what costs 100+ dollars, which is why your university might sell you it for 5 bucks. Because they sell you parts, but after you leave the school you lose the license. Again will they do anything? Probably not.)

        As someone else said, if we talked ethically and morally we could argue this, but this is part of a licensing agreement you agree to when you create your accounts or make your purchases.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)

          by klaun (236494) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:28PM (#16552262)
          However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can. That means no changing it so it suddenly plays videos if it didn't before. You can, they likely won't hurt you, but the device itself has an agreement somewhere built into it.

          I do not concede this point at all. I'm definitely not agreeing to anything when I buy an iPod. Now, I know some folks (and courts) want to say that opening an iPod package or using an iPod signifies my consent to some onerous licensing agreement... but I feel (hope?) that eventually sanity and rationality will win out on the whole idea that vendors/manufacturers can modify the implied agreement (hallowed for, literally, millenia) that is embodied in the sale of a good, after the fact.

          If I pay for something and someone gives it to me, I'm free to do with it whatever I please. Why does a manufacturer by virtue of manufacturing something have a right to modify that? Suppose that a manufacturer used a third-party to put items in packaging. Would that third party now have the right to incorporate a shrink wrap license that was binding into the packaging? If not, why not? Generally, their is at least one reseller in between myself and the manufacturer. They are generally not a party to the shrink wrap license. So when I paid the reseller for the iPod, what was I buying from them? If I'm buying a "right to use" (as licensed) from Apple, why did I pay a third party who is not a party to the license? Why didn't I have to pay Apple? If opening a package is significant of intent to enter into a contract (of which you were unaware prior to opening the package), what else might be? Walking into a room? Watching a television program? I hope that the miriad contradicitions embodied by this whole power grab will eventually cause it to fall under its own weight.

          [ Parent ]
          • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)

            by ronanbear (924575) on Monday October 23 2006, @05:16PM (#16552940)
            The nano doesn't even include iTunes anymore. To make smaller packaging they don't include a CD. There isn't a EULA until you download software from the internet. There's nothing to stop you installing Linux on the iPod and using it with whatever player you want.

            Breaking fairplay on downloaded songs is a different matter but installing software to allow DVD Jon's DRM of choice isn't a problem as long as you don't weren't that attached to your warrenty or being able to get update the firmware on the iPod.

            [ Parent ]
          • Re:DMCA by Tim C (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @06:08PM
            • Re:DMCA by IpalindromeI (Score:2) Tuesday October 24 2006, @09:38AM
            • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:DMCA by Lumpy (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @07:45PM
        • What the fuck? by Kaseijin (Score:3) Monday October 23 2006, @04:30PM
        • Re:DMCA by crabpeople (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @04:32PM
        • Re:DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Firehed (942385) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:38PM (#16552380)
          (http://www.firehed.net/)
          There aren't terms governing what you can and can't do with your iPod, only the software that enables you to use it. The most they can do is say that your warrantee will be void if you use it in a way that wasn't intended. Apple can't tell me whose music I can or can't use any more than Sunbeam can tell me what brands of bread I put in the toaster I bought from them.
          [ Parent ]
        • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)

          by popo (107611) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:42PM (#16552444)
          "However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can. "

          You're talking about the EULA. The case is far from closed as to whether EULA's always
          constitute legal and enforcable "agreements". Let's say I was given my iPOD as an opened
          gift? Let's say I bought it on eBay? Let's say I'm 14 and I bought my iPOD and didn't
          understand the EULA (which, even if I did understand it, it wouldn't mean diddly-squat because minors
          can't agree to legally binding contracts). Hell, let's say I'm not particularly skilled with
          the mouse and I pressed the wrong button?

          And lets talk about due legal process for a second: What is legal due diligence when entering
          into any binding agreement? Well, you show that contract to your lawyer of course. Now consider that
          I've supposedly "agreed" to about 50 EULA's in 2006 so far...

          What would legal due diligence set me back if I were to *responsibly* enter all of these
          agreements? Let's say for the sake of argument its around $1500 per "contract". So
          I'd be looking at around $75k in legal bills (so far) this year, were
          I to have entered each of these contracts. Is this the expectation of the industry?

          Microsoft's EULA's state that upon disagreement with the EULA, products can be returned. And
          yet none of Microsoft's software retailers (to my knowlege) accept returns on software.
          So are these "agreements" being issued to consumers in good faith?

          But let's talk about something much more basic:

          THE EULA IS PRESENTED TO THE CUSTOMER AFTER THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN MADE.

          Tell me in what other industry a binding contractual agreement can be presented to a party
          after the purchase?

          My position: EULA's are rarely binding. And if you're afraid they are, just give all your
          software to your (under 18 year old) kid as a present.

          [ Parent ]
          • Re:DMCA by courtarro (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @06:26PM
          • Re:DMCA by jZnat (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @08:27PM
          • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)

            by bjpowers39 (768740) on Monday October 23 2006, @10:33PM (#16555572)

            I have repeatedly read the speculation that EULA's are not enforceable so I decided to check case law on the subject. A quick search shows that they have been upheld (at least in FL). Specifically, Salco Distribs. LLC v. Icode, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9483 (D. Fla. 2006) enforced a forum selection clause in some business software made by a company in Virginia. In order to do this, the federal court in FL had to find that the EULA was a binding contract. This is not exactly what is being discussed in this thread b/c the contract was between two businesses and the software company had really covered everything.

            On a more general level the court said "In Florida and the federal circuits, shrinkwrap and clickwrap agreements are valid and enforceable contracts." The court then cited several cases to make the point, with a major one being ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996). This one dealt with academic software being used in a commercial setting. The terms restricting use to academia was included in the EULA printed on the shrinkwrap, and is much closer to purchasing the ipod and using the itunes software. In that case, the court determined that the EULA was a binding contract.

            I could do more research to figure this out, however, I have a bunch of homework to do as well. Given that IANAL (merely a law student) you can and should take anything I say with a large grain of salt, however, I would not just dismiss EULAs out of hand. If enforcement of the EULA would be very painful or prohibitive, you probably want to really think about what you are doing. I am not saying it is good law or that this is the way that things should be, but I would not count of a defense of unenforceability on EULA contracts.

            [ Parent ]
        • Re:DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)

          by iamacat (583406) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:43PM (#16552460)
          However realize when you buy an Ipod...

          When I buy an iPod (or a song on iTunes for that matter), its mine and I can use it however I please. If instead I am entering a contract that grants me limited access to software/hardware:


          • According to the law, it must benefit and contain obligations for both parties. In this case, Apple must either guarantee that I will not be locked out of access to the songs or provide a refund.
            • It must be signed by both parties at the inception
              • I will not pay sales tax.
                Stores can not advertise "sale" of an iPod or have a "buy" button next to a song.

          [ Parent ]
          • Re:DMCA by iamacat (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @04:45PM
            • Re:DMCA by jesboat (Score:1) Thursday October 26 2006, @10:57PM
        • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)

          by tkrotchko (124118) * on Monday October 23 2006, @05:24PM (#16553034)
          (http://mysite.verizon.net/tkrotchko/)
          "However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can."

          No you're not.

          I just bought a 30G video iPod from Apple, and I didn't agree to that when I bought it. Nor was there anything in the packaging, and interestingly, I didn't have to agree to anything when I turned it on (no EULA was present).

          Further, people buying a used iPod didn't agree to anything like that either.

          So I think this statement is false.
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:DMCA by DGregory (Score:2) Tuesday October 24 2006, @10:24AM
        • No, you're wrong by snowwrestler (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @05:48PM
        • Re:DMCA by TerovThePyro (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @06:52PM
        • Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit by ShimmyShimmy (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @07:27PM
        • iPod Software License by MacDork (Score:1) Tuesday October 24 2006, @08:50AM
        • Re:DMCA by Buran (Score:2) Tuesday October 24 2006, @12:29PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:DMCA by Mr. Underbridge (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @03:56PM
      • Re:DMCA by dr.badass (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @05:41PM
        • Re:DMCA by Bing Tsher E (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @06:29PM
          • Re:DMCA by dr.badass (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @09:21PM
        • Re:DMCA by killjoe (Score:3) Monday October 23 2006, @06:46PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia (6573) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:19PM (#16551160)
      (http://www.lazylightning.org/)
      Thankfully he's not from the United States so it doesn't apply to him or anyone outside of US borders.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)

        by strider44 (650833) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:30PM (#16551322)
        He's currently living in the US though (in San Francisco, according to Wikipedia), so it could very quickly apply to him.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)

          by commodoresloat (172735) * on Monday October 23 2006, @06:51PM (#16553968)
          (http://shockandblog.com/blog)
          He's currently living in the US though (in San Francisco, according to Wikipedia), so it could very quickly apply to him.
          Easily fixed. Edit his entry on Wikipedia; have him living in Ingolstadt or something. Then the DMCA won't apply to him!
          [ Parent ]
          • Wikiality by sadler121 (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @08:33PM
      • Re:DMCA by no_opinion (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @03:30PM
      • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)

        by TubeSteak (669689) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:32PM (#16551374)
        (Last Journal: Saturday February 25 2006, @11:02PM)
        Umm.. but he's living in California and that's where his new startup company is incorporated.

        Here's what the previous /. linked article said about his whereabouts:
        Twenty-two-year-old Johansen moved to San Francisco to work with Monique Farantzos, who had contacted him after reading a Wall Street Journal profile of him last fall. The two now live in the Mission District and devote their time to DoubleTwist Ventures, which is Johansen's first major attempt at commercializing his hacking. They haven't raised any outside money because they have already found at least one (undisclosed) paying customer.


        What I'm more interested in is how he plans to provide the backend authentication scheme that lets you authenticate and deauthenticate certain computers from your DVDJohn-iTunes account. There's a lot of 'other' stuff going on beyond just converting files to FairPlay.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MarkLewis (593646) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:00PM (#16551828)
          None of the iTunes account authentication stuff applies as long as you're not using iTunes, which you wouldn't be if you used these new tools. According to the article, these tools operate directly on music files, they don't interact with iTunes at all.
          [ Parent ]
        • and Kal-ee-forn-ya by jpellino (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @04:22PM
        • Re:DMCA by gsmraxe (Score:1) Tuesday October 24 2006, @04:59PM
      • Re:DMCA by diamondsw (Score:3) Monday October 23 2006, @03:46PM
        • Re:DMCA by jZnat (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @04:24PM
      • Re:DMCA by haggie (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @06:22PM
      • Re:DMCA by geekoid (Score:2) Tuesday October 24 2006, @12:59PM
    • Re:DMCA by Ubi_NL (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @03:20PM
      • Re:DMCA by strider44 (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @03:28PM
    • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)

      by MobyDisk (75490) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:23PM (#16551230)
      (http://www.mobydisk.com/)
      I think it would be funny if his inventions couldn't be sold in the US, but could be sold everywhere else. Maybe Kim Jong II would wear one, smug in his knowledge that the device is illegal in the US.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)

        by soft_guy (534437) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:52PM (#16551696)
        Since his inventions have been software, I think I would pass on seeing Kim Jong Il wearing one. Emporer's New Clothes and all that.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:DMCA by jbrader (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @03:59PM
        • Re:DMCA by d34thm0nk3y (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @06:43PM
      • Re:DMCA by MetaPhyzx (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @04:00PM
        • Re:DMCA by HTH NE1 (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @05:26PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:DMCA by Mikachu (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @03:35PM
      • Re:DMCA by joshsisk (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @03:48PM
      • Re:DMCA by burndive (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @03:57PM
    • Re:DMCA by tranceyboy (Score:3) Monday October 23 2006, @03:38PM
      • Re:DMCA by Ungrounded Lightning (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @03:58PM
        • Re:DMCA by ocelotbob (Score:3) Monday October 23 2006, @04:14PM
          • Re:DMCA by Ungrounded Lightning (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @06:52PM
            • Re:DMCA by sadler121 (Score:3) Monday October 23 2006, @08:44PM
    • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)

      by spiritraveller (641174) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:20PM (#16552138)
      (http://spiritraveller.blogspot.com/)
      My understanding of the DMCA is that it outlaws reverse engineering DRM ***with the purpose of violating copyright***, but it does not outlaw reverse engineering for purpoes of interoperability.

      What DVD Jon is doing is actually helping content owners "protect" their content on Apple's devices. Previously, if a company wanted to sell music for the iPod outside of the iTunes Music Store, they could not sell it with DRM. They could only sell it as MP3s, or perhaps as non-DRMed AAC files.

      His actions could possibly violate a patent (if Apple, in fact, has a patent on its DRM system), but it doesn't violate copyright, so I don't believe it violates the DMCA.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:DMCA by Kjella (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @07:03PM
        • Re:DMCA by spiritraveller (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @07:52PM
        • Re:DMCA by cgenman (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @08:15PM
    • Re:DMCA by Knuckles (Score:3) Monday October 23 2006, @04:37PM
    • Re:DMCA by Monsuco (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @05:49PM
    • Re:DMCA by TheNinjaroach (Score:1) Tuesday October 24 2006, @07:51AM
    • Re:DMCA by SomeGuyTyping (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @03:34PM
      • Re:DMCA by gb506 (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @03:41PM
    • Re:DMCA by blugu64 (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @04:43PM
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Channard (693317) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:06PM (#16550962)
    .. at least, it is for me. I bought some music from iTunes a while ago, when my iPod was still working, and - oh the irony - lost it when I switched over to a Mac Mini. So what did I do? I tried to download the music in question, since I'd paid for it, right? Apparently not - once you've downloaded music on iTunes, you don't get to download it again. What a waste of money.
  • by stecoop (759508) * on Monday October 23 2006, @03:08PM (#16550984)
    (Last Journal: Monday March 21 2005, @03:37PM)
    As you can see [wikipedia.org], Dvd Jon has done a lot of things. The biggest question I have is why are so many companies affraid of developing portable software? I mean this guy write 300 lines of code enabling Linux machines (via VLC) to what some types of media. Now why don't more companies want this freedom? My comment is to ask the EFF.
  • niave (Score:3, Insightful)

    by llZENll (545605) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:11PM (#16551032)
    Basing your lifes work and new company on an obscure quote from 4 years ago seems a bit niave. If we held all companies responsible for promises from their CEOs no company would ever stand up to it.

    If Apple wants to DRM their music that is their choice. If people want to buy DRM music that is their choice. No one is forcing you to buy iPods, iTunes, or CDs, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Just because it's socially acceptable to hack DRM doesn't mean its legal or right.
    • It's called 'freedom' (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Monday October 23 2006, @03:14PM (#16551084)
      (http://tumbleweed.smugmug.com/)
      Good thing we don't base our lives around things said in the Constitution in the 1700s, eh?
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:niave (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gardyloo (512791) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:16PM (#16551108)
      If we held all companies responsible for promises from their CEOs no company would ever stand up to it.

          Agreed. And yet, imagine if there was a company which *did* keep promises. Those promises, over time, might actually MEAN something.
      [ Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:niave by Cadallin (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @03:17PM
    • Re:niave by jshine (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @03:20PM
    • Hmmmm. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CyberLord Seven (525173) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:22PM (#16551208)
      Just because it's corporately and governmentally acceptable to encumber devices with DRM may mean it's legal, but it doesn't mean it's right.

      After all, "WE THE PEOPLE" grant "creators" the temporary right to restrict others from copying their work. We in no way, shape, or form grant a permanent right to restrict others from copying works. So, what happens at the end of "the temporary right"? I mean, will iPods suddenly allow us unrestricted use of legally purchased files?

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Hmmmm. by dr.badass (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @05:22PM
    • Re:niave by mei_mei_mei (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @03:26PM
    • Re:niave by RAMMS+EIN (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @03:27PM
    • Re:niave by vertinox (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @03:27PM
    • Re:niave by muenzer (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @03:31PM
    • Re:niave (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pandrijeczko (588093) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:32PM (#16551366)
      Whilst I entirely agree with the core of what you are saying, the fact that DRM exists in any product you buy is deliberately obfuscated by clever advertising and marketing - for example, has any iPod advert ever mentioned that the music you buy to play on it has been restricted? No, instead you get silhouetted images of groups of people (at least in one advert I've seen) that kind of leads you to think the iPod is about "communities" of people whereas, in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. MP3s aside, *YOU* buy iTunes songs for *YOUR* iPod for only *YOU* to listen to...

      Personally, as someone who buys every DVD and CD that I like, music downloads have no interest for me and, as an honest buyer, I find it objectionable that I potentially will have DRM enforced on me even though I do not copy (for anyone else) the media that I own. Therefore DRM is evil and anyone who does their best to crack it or break it is someone I consider a hero.

      However, aside from my personal opinions of DRM, there are far too many dumb people out there with far too much money to spend. Those same people buy things because they are "cool" or because lots of other people have them, without looking in greater depth about things like the erosion of their rights as a consumer. Because marketing has also hidden this important fact from them, what DVD Jon is doing helps to bring DRM into the public eye and, at least, goes some way to making sure that they have access to all the facts, good and bad, about DRM. That's why what he is doing is so important.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:niave by Pollardito (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @04:23PM
        • Re:niave by Achromatic1978 (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @07:39PM
      • Just think by jpellino (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @04:26PM
      • Why should it? by amake (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @06:18PM
      • Re:niave by Kjella (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @06:53PM
        • Re:niave by Achromatic1978 (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @07:43PM
    • Re:niave by chill (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @03:40PM
      • Re:niave by jmorris42 (Score:3) Monday October 23 2006, @07:08PM
    • Re:niave by soft_guy (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @04:01PM
      • Re:niave by Creepy Crawler (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @05:45PM
    • Re:niave by buddachile (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @04:01PM
    • legal/right by Tumbleweed (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @04:09PM
    • Re:niave by drew (Score:2) Wednesday October 25 2006, @11:21AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • DVD Jon's not going about it right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SilentChris (452960) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:18PM (#16551144)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    The problem isn't that he's writing software that allows people to copy music to other devices they own. As has been said, that's allowed.

    The problem is that he's writing software that allows people to copy music to device they DON'T own. To send the files over the net. To burn copies and sell them on the street.

    If DVD Jon was smart, he'd write software that would unlock FairPlay, allow the user to copy it to another device, and then lock it down again (through FairPlay or whatever else). If the user wanted to copy it to 5 devices that he/she owned, he would have to copy it manually to each one, and it would always lock afterwards. That way, he would get Apple/MPAA/etc. off his back. Heck, he could even make a worthwhile business out of it.

    Instead, he's created software that unlocks and stays unlocked. It just looks like a thinly-veiled tool for piracy.

    If you want to play the word game ("Steve Jobs said this") don't mince them, Jon. He didn't say we should create tools to totally strip DRM so we could then copy files across the net. Artists make enough money already, they won't miss it, blah blah blah -- fact of the matter is there are artists who *are* working to eat, and we have to respect copyrights at least a little for them. Otherwise may as well throw out capitalism in the digital distribution age.
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Monday October 23 2006, @03: