Apple Uses DMCA to Halt DVD burning 663
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.
After Goliath's defeat, giants ceased to command respect. - Freeman Dyson
Great (Score:2, Interesting)
What next? Nvidia sues end users over moving their video cards from their AMD to their Intel systems? WTF???
Uh....? (Score:1, Interesting)
I understand that the dealers are inclined to do what Apple wants. Since all your goods are belong to Apple and such, but really...couldn't they just tell Apple where to stick it aside from that? I mean what part of the DMCA disallows patching a driver?
They're just mad because then you could use iDVD and not buy a new computer to do it.
You're building market share. Take it and like it.
do they have a leg to stand on? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Great (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is this so hard for some of you to understand?
IVAGINAL (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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.
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.
Re:Same news, different day . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not even about competing with the corporation, it's about extending the corporation's software to support the hardware being sold. It's like MS saying that hardware developers can't offer a patch to allow their CD (or DVD) writers to function with XP's integrated CD burning. The only real difference is that Apple sells DVD-writers and MS does not.
Legally they have the right to do so but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Although, since the iTools are a big selling point of X, one could aruge that they are a part of the OS package and are therefore paid for. Then it really looks like a bait and switch, except the terms were there all along, buried in the EULA.
It's not like these people are trying to pirate anything, they're just trying to use the software they leaglly paid for (not counting the leeches who just bummed the disc from thier buddies).
All Apple is accomplishing is throwing more of thier karma capitol into the fire. The group of people this effects is small enough to not hurt Apple too much, even if they get pissed off and go elsewhere. My guess is that this is a knee-jerk reaction to what they percieved as a threat to thier control of the platform. A lot of people feel that such control is an necessary part of making the Mac different from other systems.
Before you call this a troll, consider this: What you you say if MS were to pull the same thing? (they dont make drives or editing software, it's just an illustration)
Re:Great (Score:2, Interesting)
iDVD not the only burner, and other Apple rants (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally, I'm not a big fan of some of Apple's actions, but I do like their products. If you notice the trend, Apple tends to sell products that help drive hardware sales. The iPod with only Mac support to start is a perfect example. Sure, they should allow iDVD to work with third-party drives, since I wouldn't expect most people to upgrade their computers just to get the Superdrive. And what if you *do* get that and want to upgrade it to a faster one 2 years down the road.
Of course, the other issue is support. To make plug and play work as (nearly) flawlessly as it does on the Mac, it's easier to support a single chipset than multiple ones. And even if Apple let manufacturers create their own drivers/hacks, Apple gets blamed if something doesn't work properly. I hate to say it, but with only a 5% market share you've only got so many resources.
Finally, a note on Mac pricing. Sure, they're a little more expensive. Sure, the OS X upgrades have been a little gauging. But you're not buying a computer and an OS, you're buying a system. You can either spend the time configuring Linux/Windows on your own to get all your hardware supported and everything working just right, or you can buy a Mac. I realize "It just works" is overused and cliche, but to a large extent that's how things have worked for me. Sure, I could into the guts of my system and hack, but I don't have to. Apple's brought *nix to the masses (well, 5%) and they've done it pretty darn well. If you crazy
If the DMCA applied to automobiles... (Score:2, Interesting)
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".
Re:This is Open and Shut, Really (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
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
?Apple protecting it's digital hub strategy (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's say a consumer is looking for a new stereo system. In part, their decision will come down to the usability of it's interface (digital tuner vs. knob, layout of presets...). Companies invest resources to make products easier to use.
Now lets say that stereos evolve so that the interface is software based. Apple releases a stereo system called istereo which has an amazingly intuitive interface (yet standard hardware components -as is generally the case today). Someone comes up with a way to get the software istereo portion of this product to work with non apple equipment. Now there is nothing to differentiate Apple's products with standard software-interface based hardware.
I think Apple's move has less to do with traditional software mod's than with the direction that Apple wants to -integrate- it's software with traditional hardware.
What's the difference between a software based interface that's tied to a particular product and a hardware based interface that's tied to the product?
You CAN use iDVD without an Apple superdrive (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Buy a mac that is capable of running iDVD (an older, non-superdrive mac will work)
2. Buy the iDVD2 upgrade cd from Apple for $29.95. No serial number is required.
3. Buy a Pioneer A-104 dvd burner from a third party reseller (OEM, non-branded version is around $350).
4. Install the Pioneer drive in place of your current cd drive.
Everyone wins - Apple gets their $30, you get the ease of iDVD without buying a brand new mac.
Of course, you have to use the Pioneer drive, but that drive gets pretty good reviews anyway.
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.