Slashdot Log In
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.
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.
DVD Jon's DoubleTwist Unlocks the iPod
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 377 comments
| Search Discussion
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)
http://www.mil.gov.int.edu.org/ [edu.org]
Re:Cool Jon! (Score:4, Informative)
mixing metaphors like there's no tomorrow (Score:5, Funny)
(http://shockandblog.com/blog)
DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.spacewalrus.com/)
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Informative)
(http://seenonslash.com/ | Last Journal: Friday May 11 2007, @04:02PM)
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.tzs.net/)
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).
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Funny)
(http://del.icio.us/jvz | Last Journal: Sunday December 03 2006, @12:45PM)
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.firehed.net/)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
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:
Stores can not advertise "sale" of an iPod or have a "buy" button next to a song.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
(http://mysite.verizon.net/tkrotchko/)
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.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.lazylightning.org/)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)
(http://shockandblog.com/blog)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Tuesday August 28, @07:41PM)
Funny, I've never seen "imprisoned" spelled with a slash.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday February 25 2006, @11:02PM)
Here's what the previous
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.
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.mobydisk.com/)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Funny)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://spiritraveller.blogspot.com/)
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.
iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.geoffreyspear.com/)
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The license they keep is the authorisation database, informing them that I am entitled to have and be playing that song. Since this is a quintessential part of the service, yes, it does.
They're not holding my backup. Remember, they're holding the "product" that I license, since I never own it, remember? And this one goes out to all those "copyright infringement is not theft! you don't lose anything by copying! it costs no more, it takes no more space, no-one loses anything!" - they hold the product because that is their service. They're not holding your individual backups for you. This argument is fatuous, at best.
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://joe-baldwin.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday September 02 2006, @11:58AM)
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:4, Informative)
http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2006/09/
http://digg.com/apple/Itunes_Lets_People_Re-Downl
A call/e-mail to apple's tech support may be in order for you.
Note that I've not verified this but I'll take Wil's word on it. In any case it's worth a try.
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, how quickly the tables turn for Apple.
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.gavserver.com/)
iTMS already has a 'backup'; the server-side copy that they're selling to everyone else. And you'd be a fool not to believe that they archive every single user's buying history (Heck, probably even what songs you sample) for marketing/later resale. All's that missing is a connection between the two (which, given other posts in this thread, apparently already exists if you call in person to ask for it).
What is stopping developers (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Monday March 21 2005, @03:37PM)
niave (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
(http://tumbleweed.smugmug.com/)
Re:niave (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. And yet, imagine if there was a company which *did* keep promises. Those promises, over time, might actually MEAN something.
Hmmmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:niave (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
DVD Jon's not going about it right (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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.
Brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)
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
And what of the copy to another device? How exactly do you dictate what happens to it?
Look. Jon is simply giving people The Tools to do whatever they would wish to do with their purchases. If you do something illegal with the tools, that's your problem. Same could be said of owning a car. Or a gun. Or a freaking two by four for that matter.
The best thing to be taken from DVD Jon's work is (Score:5, Insightful)