Slashdot Log In
Apple Uses DMCA to Halt DVD burning
Posted by
pudge
on Thu Aug 29, 2002 07:58 AM
from the oh-well dept.
from the oh-well dept.
VValdo writes "According to news.com, Apple has warned one of its own dealers to stop handing out a patch to allow DVD burning with iDVD on non-Apple hardware." Mmmmm, laws.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Where's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to use Apple's software is worth using, it's worth compensating Apple for it's development. If you want to use a non-Apple DVD writer, that's fine - the OS will let you. Just grab one of the other award-winning, easy to use, and powerful DVD authoring apps out there that are free. Now, where did I see those...
Re:Where's the problem? (Score:3, Informative)
For the machine? Yes. For the development of iDVD? No.
iDVD is a great FREE tool for CD authoring, better than many EXPENSIVE tools out there. Apple didn't write it just to be nice, they wrote it to sell DVD burners.
Re:Where's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure that's Apple's intention, yes.
Agreed. How eager do you think Apple is to support the sale of their competitor's products?
I'm not disputing that. You're absolutely right, looked at from the right angle, iDVD isn't free - it's included for use with purchased and profit producing Apple DVD hardware.
Ah, but that's where you're wrong. They *are* entitled to make a profit on it if they wrote it to support only their hardware. For what it's worth, they ARE selling it for a profit. By making it compatible only with Apple DVD drives, they're guaranteed that they sell DVD drives for it's use. If you crack the software, you've circumvented that protection and deprived Apple of revenue. To counter the arguments I can already feel coming about "If it didn't support non-Apple drives, I'd never use it, so they're not losing revenue" this is akin to "It's ok to sneak into the movies if I wouldn't have paid for the ticket in the first place." The argument just doesn't hold water, sorry.
Presumably, their business model does allow them to make a profit, assuming that people don't illegally modify their code.
Parent
Re:Where's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
This is Open and Shut, Really (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's license agreement says that you are not to modify or patch iDVD or distribute any modified binary. Perhaps using the four-letter word in the cease-and-desist was a bit of overkill, but it doesn't change the fact that what they did was a violation of the iDVD license.
Parent
Re:This is Open and Shut, Really (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh, got it in one (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, they do. When your engine has a problem, it flicks on the "check engine" light and generates a code in the car's internal computer. These codes are not standard; they're custom to each manufacturer, and only a Ford repairman has the equipment and reference guide to interpret them. Your average non-branded mechanic has neither the technology nor the information to interpret those codes.
Now, there's some noise being made about this, and independent mechanics are pushing dealers to publish those codes so that they don't have a monopoly on maintenance. But so far, to my knowledge, they've been unsuccessful.
Just letting you know your example was more accurate than you thought.
Parent
Re:Heh, got it in one (Score:3, Informative)
Given my car is 6 years old, perhaps they've come up with a new "standard" to piss people off since then?
Re:Where's the problem? (Score:3, Informative)
Repeat after me:
You do not need a license to run software.
You do not need a license to run software.
You do not need a license to run software [cornell.edu].
Sorry, I just find it very annoying that software publishers have gotten this meme established so well.
do they have a leg to stand on? (Score:3, Interesting)
Think Different (Score:3, Funny)
It's funny how apple advertises with free speech heroes, but then use lawyers and an unfair law to stifle speech.
IVAGINAL (Score:4, Interesting)
DMCA Challenge? (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems way too odd for Apple. While I don't recall them ever stating an explicit opinion on the DMCA, we know that they've embraced MP3s without restrictions, don't put Product Activation in their OS (and recently started selling a 5-license Family Pack of OS X for $200), and Steve Jobs has publically stated that Piracy (in relation to Music, but it can be extended to all media) is a social problem, not a technological one, and technical efforts to combat it will fail. In short, they haven't been the biggest proponent of draconian copyright protection measures.
Now, they seem to be invoking the DMCA to protect what seems to be a small revenue stream: people who already have Macs without an internal DVD burner and want to use iDVD with an external burner. Apple would rather have them buy a new Mac. Truth be told, however, lots of people in this position will buy a new Mac anyway. In truth, the number of people who would use this patch is quite small. Does Apple really think acting belligerent with third-party hardware vendors will lead to increased sales? Furthermore, what right does Apple have to limit their software to working on only internal drives when we all know that there's no technological reason for it? That sounds fishy to me, but totally legal under the DMCA.
The Conspiracy Theorist (and unabashed Apple fanatic) in me wants to believe that Apple knows that this action wouldn't hold water in court, and is trying to find a third-party who is big enough to challenge it, and get the DMCA overturned, so it can protect its future (and much bigger) revenue stream coming from Digital Hub-type applications and devices!
Then again, the realist in me believes that Apple is all in favor of a liberal approach to copyright protection only as long as it can make more money that way.
Re:DMCA Challenge? (Score:3, Funny)
Roughly translated: You are free to reverse-engineer a copyright product (and use the method you develop) for the purposes of interopability. There is no "challenge" to the DMCA if it's already allowed under that law.
More likely is what former Apple employee Matt Deatherage (cool name) says:
While this doesn't seem to be a particularly smart business strategy, it seems more likely. Would you *really* buy another $3000 computer, or just try to find 3rd party software for your 3rd party DVD burner? There might even be software already bundled with it!
Sorry, wrong Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, this is something that Apple keeps waffeling about. Sometimes it thinks it's a hardware company, and wants file specs to be open. At other times it thinks that it's file formats are the crown jewels. (A silly attitude, if you ask me, but I'm not the one calling the shots.) The result is that Apple tends to offer the worst of both worlds, without reaping the benefits of either.
This action fits right in with the standard schitzo nature of Apple.
No, you're wrong! (Score:4, Interesting)
The Apple ][ BASIC file format was straight ASCII text. The
Microsoft reverse engineered much of Apple's ROM (a task made easier by the fact that they produced an earlier version of Apple BASIC), and sold this IP to other companies which made 100% compatible clones (Franklin, Laser 128). Nothing prevented any Apple II series programs from running on these clones, as they shared the same processors as the Apple IIs.
If Microsoft wanted to, it could have made code translators for AppleSoft Basic files, but it didn't see a need. Most ASCII basic files would directly translate. The
-- Len
Parent
If you ask me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple is using the law to prevent people from modifying it's software with a third-party patch that enables the software to do something it wasn't intended to do.
What's wrong with that? Picture the average Mac user who's gonna use this software. Now picture the same person when he burns a bunch of coasters, or the program keeps crashing, or something worse. Who's he gonna blame? Apple, because they made the iDVD software, right? Even though though it was the third-party patch that allowed him to run the software on unsupported hardware in the first place.
The fact is, unsupported means unsupported. It's as simple as that. You can bet your sweet ass that [insert company name here] doesn't want to hear about it when their Windows software doesn't work under Wine or Lindows. It's the same thing. Think of Wine as the "patch" that allows you to run the software in an unsupported environment.
I say cheers to apple for standing up for their rights.
A "crack", but how does the DMCA apply? (Score:3, Insightful)
Kjella
iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech) (Score:4, Insightful)
Wether or not you think apple should open it up to work with other DVD burners is irrelevant. Apple worte the software, bundled it with thier DVD burners, and sold it.
The only people who would have access to iDVD besides the people who bought a superdrive are the people who pirated it or people who used to have a superdrive, but now use another burner.
Apple put into the license agreement that you can only use the software on apple approved (read superdrive) dvd burners. Any other usage of the software is against the license agreement.
Everyone here cries foul when someone violates the GPL, and no one chastises the author of the software for it (recent xvid fiasco) but if it's another license, whoooo boy, watch out. the hypocricy comes out to play!
So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple put limitations on the FREE software. Apple Bad.
Apple produce the software to make the drives they sell more attractive.
So it's not unreasonable to protect the software, or to try to protect the software - otherwise it loses its purpose and they will simply drop it.
I think what grates with most people is the way they use the law (that
BUT. How the fuck else can they do it? I doubt they leapt straight to the 'cuff 'em' stage. If you use lawyers you use the law.
First sale. Period. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have every right under the doctrine of first sale to sell my CD-ROM of iDVD to anyone who wants it, just as I have the right to sell that goofy one-button mouse that I'll be replacing with a multibutton wireless model.
"Oh, but that's a violation of the license!" Judge Pregerson put it best in his Softman _v_ Adobe ruling: "The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here is a sale and not a license."
Those of you who argue that it is impossible to get a copy of iDVD without buying a SuperDrive-loaded Mac are incorrect. Buy my copy. Those of you who argue that Apple has the right to control how their product is used once they have sold it are incorrect. Those of you who argue that the restriction placed on iDVD use is in any way covered by the DMCA are incorrect.
None of that changes the fact that the company with more money can and will crush the company with less money -- or that the company with less money will fold instantly if its business model requires staying on good terms with the company with more money, which is the case in this particular instance.
It's all a stinking, festering shitpile.
Re:First sale. Period. (Score:3, Insightful)
2) As you can probably tell, the poster thinks EULA's are a bunch of hooey. Let's put it this way: They can either sell software like a book (i.e. on shelves in a store), and they have no say about what I do with it after I buy it, or they can make a contract with me specifying what I can do with their software (just like I have a contract for my apartment). They can't have it both ways, that is the whole point of copyright law, it supposed to give *all* the rules for the first method of sale. They can decide to exempt me from some rules, but they can't make up new ones. And unless I signed some piece of paper which both they and I have a copy of, I have a hard time saying that any contract was involved.
e.g. software stores should be set up like this: I go in, some guy explains to me the contract for a particular piece of software, what I can and can't do with it and what updates I am entitled to etc. I then sign it and he burns me a CD with the software that I made a contract for. All clean and nice eh? The bookstore model with a EULA is essentially a bait-and-switch.
Re:First sale. Period. (Score:5, Insightful)
The price for the software license came "bundled" into the total purchase price as well, there's no distinction that any reasonably sane person can determine here. I exchanged a sum of money for a drive, some software, cables, a manual, some styrofoam moulding and a cardboard box, and a portion of the sale value went to the manufacturers of every one of those items.
>> Invoking first sale for a piece of software that comes with your hardware is ludicrous
Keep your laws off my wallet. It's clear that you're out of your damn mind.
>> If I purchase a CD-R with Adaptec Easy CD Creator
Sure you did, and sure you can. You don't think adaptec collected a "license fee" from you on that transaction ? Stop speaking nonsense.
>> what price would YOU set for the standalone iDVD?
Whatever you wanted. We don't have a state-controlled economy yet. You could sell it for $2000 or offer to trade it for a sack of magic beans and a 1997 low-mileage subaru station wagon if you wanted to, and I could dicker you down to $1845 and a case of oriental-flavored ramen. The transaction would be perfectly legal in all cases.
>> Apple also wishes to ensure some quality of the user experience
Apple's wishes have no bearing on how I use things that I've legally purchased. If they don't want me doing things they might not have anticipated with their hard/software, or even things they explicitly disapprove of, then they'd better withdraw their products from the market.
Parent
Re:First sale. Period. (Score:5, Interesting)
"you cannot sell your copy of iDVD because you did not PURCHASE your copy of iDVD. It came bundled with the computer."
I did indeed purchase my copy of iDVD. For a price of $X I purchased one computer of model Y, a keyboard, a mouse, software, some cables, plastic bags, and a cardboard box. These components are priced collectively and shipped collectively and that doesn't have One Damn Thing to do with my right to break it all to pieces and resell each and every speck should I so choose. Or do you assert that I cannot sell the mouse that comes in the box, either?
"exactly how much would you sell iDVD for? Apple isn't selling it separately as a standalone product, so what price would YOU set for the standalone iDVD?"
I can sell anything that comes in the cardboard box Apple sends me -- or even the cardboard box. I don't quite understand why you're asking what price I'd set, as that's a matter to be agreed between me and the buyer. Do you ask GM how much you can charge for the 1973 Chevy Nova you're looking to get rid of because you don't want it?
"You can see that this gets illegal pretty darn quick. At the very least, the waters are murky."
Nothing is illegal. There is no murk. There is only a company asserting rights it does not possess, and a collection of people stridently demanding that their rights no longer exist.
"Invoking first sale for a piece of software that comes with your hardware is ludicrous."
Nope.
"If I purchase a CD-R with Adaptec Easy CD Creator, but I already have Easy CD Creator or some other software to burn CDs, or I'm running Linux - whatever - I can't turn around and sell Adaptec Easy CD Creator because I never purchased it."
The scenario you lay out is IDENTICAL to my own: you have lawfully come into possession of a piece of software you have no intention of using. You have every legal right to sell that to someone who does want to use it. So long as you do not retain a copy of the software, you have broken no laws.
"there aren't hardly ANY people that are just giving away iDVD because they aren't using it, to people who have other DVD burners. iDVD is available on warez servers and that's it. There's no eBay auctions going on for legit copies of iDVD or anything."
I fail to see exactly how the number of people choosing to exercise or not exercise their right of first sale has any bearing on the existence of that right. Further, I disagree with you about the potential market for unwanted iDVD. Every Mac sold with a SuperDrive comes with iDVD, but a nonzero fraction of people buying these machines are going to go directly to DVD Studio Pro for the power -- just as I laid out in my initial scenario. Heck, maybe I'll even throw in my copy of iMovie because I plan to use Final Cut Pro. At the moment, the market for unwanted iDVD is effectively nonexistent because everyone who owns a machine that can run the program has his own copy. The Enabler program that got Apple so spun up would have permitted people who owned formerly-incompatible machines to use the software, thus creating the very market Apple has successfully quashed, with vocal support from chumps like you.
The fact that you don't see that, that you're actually spending time arguing against your own rights and interests, just blows me away. That you think Apple's desire to ensure a quality user experience has one iota of relevance to what you do with your property leaves me slack-jawed and stupefied.
Parent
The facts (for a change) (Score:5, Informative)
I clearly recall a discussion recently where it was revealed that Apple do not pay any such recording licence fees on iDVD but instead on the SuperDrive in order to keep costs down.
By allowing people to distribute hacks to let their software work on other drives (which will have just the standard drive licences, not those associated with DVD encoding etc) Apple will loose their position with the DVD licencing authority and end up having to pay such licences for every copy of iDVD.
Yes, perhaps they should have done this but the fact is the software itself is free. Windows doesn't even come with DVD playback let alone authoring and I don't recall anything similar in a Linux distro.
Apple do offer DVD Studio Pro for $1000 that is fully licenced and will work with any mac-compatible DVD-R drive or alternatively pick up a copy of Roxio Toast 5 Titanium for $100.
Not everything in life is free.
Get used to it.
First version of this story did *not* mention DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020812/120170_1.html
This happened back on August 12th (a tad old to be "news"). Other World Computing's story back then was that Apple *requested* that they drop their software and support (because it violates the iDVD license).
There was *no* mention of the DMCA, and no need to invoke it as Apple's iDVD license is quite clear.
Note that the reference to the DMCA in the article is purely the quote of Other World Computing's president. There is no quote from any document they received from Apple.
Note too that this is the same silly news site that manufactured the "Apple + Sun = true love and Star Office for OS X" story.
Lacking any actual proof, beyond someone's say-so who has an axe to grind, reported on a flaky news site, I'm going to presume that Apple is innocent here.
After all, who would you believe, a company that has taken the RIAA to task over their anti-piracy excesses, or one who tried to capitalize on someone else's hard work in order to compete with them?
I am breaking with tradition, and ending with a quote not from Mothra, but from her friend, Steve Jobs:
"Apple strives to protect the rights of both intellectual property owners and consumers alike and believes there is a 'middle path' in digital music distribution which actively discourages the theft of music, while at the same time preserving consumers rights to manage and listen to their legally acquired music on whatever devices they own,"
Steve Jobs, 2002 Grammy Awards, as reported on http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020227/1/2jun2.html.
Stallman's Lemmings (Score:5, Interesting)
Many seem to argue that Apple has a moral obligation to allow anyone to reverse engineer any of their products and do with them as they see fit. Some appear upset because Apple is using open source in a commercial product, rather than simply making their own products open source. Others just seem to be on a sophomoric rant against all businesses, as if they are the first in human history to notice issues with unbridled self-interest.
What obligation does Apple have to pay attention to any of those opinions?
I really don't care what Apple does or doesn't do with iDVD -- the ongoing emphasis on copying music and movies plays right into the hands of the media corporations, obscures the true importance of this copyright debate, and diminshes the chances to defeat some really bad legislation -- but a quick check of my OS X license shows it contains the standard prohibitions of disassembly, reverse engineering, etc. Such language has been used in proprietary software licenses for decades. If you violate those terms, you risk Apple's reprisal. Offense should be taken only by those who believe open source/free software represents a moral crusade to eliminate all closed souce. To the contrary, open source and free software are interesting and effective development and distribution models. They are not something to "believe in".
Bad article, DMCA confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
With the very sketchy information available, it looks like Apple's actual objection may be conventional (pre-DMCA-style) copyright infringement, where copies of their software (or a derivative work of their software) is being redistributed by Apple dealers. If that is the case, then DMCA is probably relevant only because of the notification mechanism that it created.
DMCA was a pretty big law that covers a lot of topics, and some parts of it are worse than others. The anti-circumvention part is the really goofy part, and shouldn't be confused with the other more reasonable parts.
The notification part of DMCA may be a little iffy because of the guilty-until-proven-innocent abuse that it allows, but the basic idea and motivation behind it was sound and justifiable. (Unlike the anti-circumvention part, which is pure evil created with evil intent.) And then there's other parts that I've never even read, like the stuff about boat hull designs (?!), so I can't say if they're sensible or not. Journalists that are going to report about DMCA-related incidents, need to read up on it, so they don't misreport on it.
I know why Apple is doing this... (Score:5, Insightful)
But I do know why Apple is doing what they are doing. It's really simple, when you consider their hardware provider philosophy. Apples are marketed as being very easy to use, and being very reliable. They don't crash (or so they say). One of the principal reasons why the Microsoft OS's are much more crash-happy then Apple's OS's is because Apple doesn't attempt to make their OS compatable with every piece of hardware under the sun. They don't want third-party DVD burners because some of them won't work, and people with Apples will start complaining about how their systems are crashing.
I think that Apple is much more concerned with potential hardware compatibility issues than anything else, in order to protect the "sanctity" of their OS reliability.
What does this do? It drives out the upgraders. But Apple isn't marketing to the upgraders. They are selling new machines, not an OS like Microsoft does. They see little profit in attempting to reconcile old hardware with a new OS. And yes, while I know the hardware in this case (external DVD burners) is new, the system hardware is likely to be not new, and the DVD burners have not been waved over by Apple engineers.
This, by the way, is not evil. When I bought my Dell Dimension 8100 two years ago, Dell promised me an upgrade to XP for $20. I had to wait an additional six months or so after XP came out to get the upgrade, because Dell put a considerable amount of effort into patching the bios, etc. and updating their software package to ensure that upgrading XP wouldn't fsck my computer. As a result, I have a very reliable computer running XP, which is much more reliable than my HP notebook that came with XP preinstalled. I normally keep the machine on ALL of the time. Most of the time I reboot only because Microsoft Update tells me to (^_^).
Dell's acts here had a similar motiviation as Apple's (protect system reliability). As a user, I certainly preferred Dell's open-system approach, but Apple's closed-system approach is a viable model. If you don't like it, don't buy Apple. It's that simple.
MPEG Licensing (Score:5, Informative)
If people start cracking iDVD to work with someone else's drives then Apple end up effectively breaking their agreement with MPLA. Even though it's not their fault, their software is being used without the fee having been paid. Apple have to enforce the license or stop giving it away and sell it instead.
this is wrong, the DMCA is still bad law (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess a lot of the folks here saying this okay, this is Apple's right, etc., these people must be big Apple fans.
Well, I'm an Apple fan, and I think this is ridiculous. If you sell or give away a product that's perfectly capable of doing something that's useful to the recipient, and you purposely turn off, or don't enable, that feature for whatever reason, you must be nuts not to expect that someone will figure out how to turn it.
If someone suggested this with regular, non-software items, they'd be laughed out of the boardroom. "You mean if someone discovers that free Apple hammers can hammer ANY nail, not just $3 Apple nails, we sue them for telling how?"
The guy was supplying something that was useful for iDVD owners. Apple was witholding this useful feature because they thought it would make them more money. What obligation do we have to Apple to keep the secret? None. They don't have the obligation to make their products as useful as possible, but that doesn't mean we should be prevented from finding new uses for them.
I don't feel sorry for Apple in this case. Anyone who sells any item should know, someone out there will take it apart and figure out how it works. And then they'll tell everybody else.
Copyright law, including the overbroad DMCA, basically allows companies to profit from keeping these kinds of secrets. Many of these secrets are inside the very products themselves. This means people will find those secrets. Does this seem like a stable, self-organizing free market to you?
Patching iDVD? Hmm. That's NOT kosher. (Score:3, Informative)
That's the wrong place to apply a patch.
Find the right place to patch. (Wrapper the driver that comes with the hardware and stick the patch in the wrapper.)
Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)
That software is only licensed to be used if you purchase a machine with one of Apple's Superdrive.
This story is actually on of fighting software piracy. Of course you have to have a little more knowledge to know that because reading the "Slashdot spin" is going to have every company look evil for protecting themselves.
Parent
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is this so hard for some of you to understand?
Parent
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
How's this any different from Microsoft saying "If you throw away your PC and buy a new one, you can't use the software on that box?"
The DMCA allows, if I recall correctly, modifications to software to ensure interoperability. Here's software (iDVD) which doesn't work with a drive (external 3rd party DVD burner). Someone wrote software to make iDVD interoperable with the external drive. Perfectly legal.
In violation of an EULA? Well, that's up to Apple, the people using the patch, and all of us who haven't decided whether we believe EULAs are enforceable or not. Violation of DMCA? No. Can lawyers make your life hell even so? Certainly.
What it comes down to is this breaks Apple's business model for DVD burning. There's an easy solution: Stop giving away iDVD for free. Sheesh.
Parent
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
A - Microsoft doesn't manufacture PCs
B - Microsoft doesn't freely distibute Windows on a PC that they have sold
It's all in the license agreement. iDVD was made and given away for consumers that bought the SuperDrive. It is not Apple's responsibilty to ensure that every DVD burner has software to run it.
Apple does supply software that can use 3rd party burners as a seperate purchase: DVD Studio Pro.
Parent
Microsoft does manufacture PCs (Score:3, Interesting)
A - Microsoft doesn't manufacture PCs
then what's this? [xbox.com]
B - Microsoft doesn't freely distibute Windows on a PC that they have sold
The XBox operating system is based on a stripped-down version of Microsoft Windows 2000.
Besides, even if you don't count the XBox, what happens when hardware prices fall so much that the price of a Windows license becomes more than half the cost of a new computer system? Then who made most of the computer?
Re:Great (Score:3, Informative)
One is an end user making a patch to software they have bought, on their machine.
The other is a company distributing tools to alter the software of one of their competitors, in order to sell more of their competing product.
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
If you read the license it states that iDVD is freely distributed for AppleSuperDrives only. That means if you use the software on another drive you are breaking the license agreement and therefore "pirating" the software. Just because its on your harddrive doesn't legally mean you can do with it what you please.
Do I believe Apple is being totally fair? No. But do I believe they have the right to protect their software? Yes.
Thats what it all come down to.
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
UNTRUE. - was Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)
UNTRUE. Apple sells iDVD2 on it's website store for $19.99. It is listed as an upgrade version. The license is standard EULA but doesn't seem to require any prior existing copy of iDVD, and it doesn't check for one. It only checks for the SuperDrive while starting the application.
So, you can buy a SuperDrive, and Apple is happy to sell you the software. I fail to see the problem. In fact, I have a g4/400 powermac which I installed a DVR-104 SuperDrive into.
I then purchased the iDVD2 Upgrade software from Apple and it installed with ease, as expected.
I am using a computer that is out of warranty, so I don't worry about voiding any warranty. It works beautifully, if not a little longer at preparing video for burning onto the DVD disc.
So, that shoots down your piracy argument.
Parent
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
1. iDVD [apple.com] isn't DVD playing software, it's DVD creation software.
2. You're saying it's abuse to package software with a DVD-Burner that lets a customer actually USE it? That sounds pretty stupid to me.
Okay, here's a scenario. You make hard drives. You develop a bad ass new disk defragmentor (or whatnot), you package it for your drives. It's designed to only work with YOUR hard drives. A competitor comes along, decompiles your sofware and adds in support for their drives, then they start distributing their version of YOUR software (not open source) with their drives. Doesn't that sound a bit like they have hijacked your work?
That's pretty much what's going on here.
Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)
iDVD is part of the i-suite of provided FREE applications with the sole reason to boost sales of Macintosh systems and Apple hardware in general. They don't make a single penny on iDVD per se, but on the drives it supports - if somebody now makes iDVD work with third-party burners, they take away the only reason why it is provided at all (for free).
Parent
It's not a matter of legal rights (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we can all agree that Apple is within its rights (at least legally) to discourage this sort of thing: it's their software, and they don't want it patched to work on non-Apple hardware, since the whole point of the free software is to sell expensive Apple hardware. Fine, good.
But it's still an ethical crime -- this is a patch to Apple's well-written program to allow it to work on non-Apple DVD burners. You're still using Apple hardware to run iDVD in the first place, for crying out loud -- it may not be the latest and greatest machine (and if it's a slower processor, it may take ages to do the job), but it's still Apple's motherboard.
Saying "Apple sells hardware, not software" is just false, because they charge over $100 for the latest OS and $50 for AppleWorks -- those two just off the top of my head. Even if it were true, it's not a good reason.
Without meaning to paint Slashdotters with a broad brush, I think I can safely say we'd be in a unified uproar if HP or Compaq used the same reason to prevent third-party patches to their included CD or DVD-burning software, or to prevent Linux OSes from accessing the burner altogether.
And we'd be justified in doing so, because once you buy the machine and/or download the software, it's yours to do with as you please. If I have the moral right to back up my CD-ROMs and DVDs using my home computer, I have the same moral right to patch my DVD-burning software to run on any hardware I happen to own.
People Thought Apple Was a Kinder Master than MS (Score:3, Insightful)
No doubt. What is so twisted about software licensing and copyright as it is currently implimented is that, unlike every other piece of technology we buy (your car, your boat, your plane, your refrigerator), you're not allowed to take it apart and see how it works, or modify it to better suit your purposes.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
If you switch to Apple to free yourself of Micrsoft, rather than switching to free(dom) software [FreeBSD, GNU/Linux, whatever], you are merely trading one set of masters for another. Apple may seem to be the kinder master, but it is nevertheless a master. Now it looks like they might not be so kind, after all.
All the apple spinmeisters would have us believe we're somehow 'stealing' from Apple by not paying their inflated hardware prices, to which I respond "you can't have it both ways." Either the software is free (beer) and I'll use it as I damn well please, or it costs money and you'd better charge me a fair market price for it. But to give me something, and then threaten to sue if I don't use it precisely as you intended, is just utter crap.
That the DMCA allows this sort of nonsense is yet another concrete example of the despicable corruption at the top of the Corporate States of America on both the political and corporate side, and the ever greater price the rest of us are paying for allowing that corruption to continue.
Re:People Thought Apple Was a Kinder Master than M (Score:5, Insightful)
If you switch to Apple to free yourself of Micrsoft, rather than switching to free(dom) software [FreeBSD, GNU/Linux, whatever], you are merely trading one set of masters for another. Apple may seem to be the kinder master, but it is nevertheless a master. Now it looks like they might not be so kind, after all.
Stop spreading FUD. Someone taking action that limits my Freedom (even using your [FSF] definition) does not make them my master.
Apple & Microsoft are just using their freedoms, which FSF doesn't want them to have, to make money off of people--just like anyone else who's ever had a product, from medical supplies to slaves, has done.
I am not a coder. I only have one computer. I use nothing but widely-supported software, and I have no expectation from OSS to get better support than I do from MS. (RTFM? Bah.) In what way is MS or Apple my hypothetical master that OSS coders would not be?
All the apple spinmeisters would have us believe we're somehow 'stealing' from Apple by not paying their inflated hardware prices, to which I respond "you can't have it both ways."
You are stealing from Apple if you don't use the terms they give you for their software, as surely as you're stealing MS software if you don't pay for it and as surely as you would steal GPL'd software if you violated the GPL.
Apple chooses to be a hardware company, and use software to support that. They are open and up-front about this, so you don't (really) have room to complain. (You can note that the system is wrong / broken / evil, but I don't think that's complaning, that's working to try and change the system.)
Either the software is free (beer) and I'll use it as I damn well please, or it costs money and you'd better charge me a fair market price for it. But to give me something, and then threaten to sue if I don't use it precisely as you intended, is just utter crap.
Free (beer) means no cost, not Freedom (as in FSF/ "speech.") Free (beer) software can and does come with strings attached--it has been this way since the dawn of GNU.
Apple, apparantly, shows everyone who gets the iSuite hardware an EULA, that says (I won't say "clearly" about an EULA until they force term-by-term aknowledgement in plain English) that you can only use it with Apple hardware. If you don't like people getting sued when they use EULA'd software over terms that are in the EULA, then educate them about the dangers of not reading the licenses.
That the DMCA allows this sort of nonsense is yet another concrete example of the despicable corruption at the top of the Corporate States of America on both the political and corporate side, and the ever greater price the rest of us are paying for allowing that corruption to continue.
Get a sense of proportion. Alarmists like you seem to be keep any real change from getting done, because they struggle against any ethical-but-not-moral action as hard as they struggle against not-ethical-and-not-moral act.
The proper response to Apple's iSuite is to OSS it better. If this is not practical, then Apple gets to enjoy their lead until such time as it is, just like every other OSS competitor (MS, WP, etc.)
Advocate and build up if you like OSS. Attacking and tearing down only means that you're destroying the existing house to build one on a pile of sand.
Parent
Re:Same news, different day . . . (Score:5, Informative)
On the contrary, now there is room for another company to come in and develop a DVD authoring application. Apple has stated that their free software is only licensed to buyers of Apple's SuperDrive.
For a user who adds some other company's DVD burner they have to use a competitors product.
Parent
Re:Same news, different day . . . (Score:3, Informative)
Then Apple makes sure you can only take advantage of iDVD with a NEW entire system (not making the drives available for separate sale) and highballs their markup, so that they can undercut the price of "paying twice" - where their costs only consider paying once.
I've read many news articles - reviews, of the new iMacs, and the main thing they all said was that it was so easy to create DVD's and that they all reflected horror stories of friends trying to author DVD's on a PC, with great expense and no success. The reason why is this sweet deal Apple has with the MPEG licensing, and the convoluted way they've exploited it to maximize profit.
I really wonder why Apple's stock is so low. Because this plot is deviously brilliant.
Re:Oh, no! (Score:3, Informative)