Real Worried About Apple Lawsuits 264
sebFlyte writes "silicon.com is reporting that Real is very worried that Apple will sue it over its Harmony technology that 'breaks' iTunes' FairPlay DRM to allow its music to play on the iPod. They acknowledged in an SEC filing that a lawsuit from Apple would potentially be very damaging to the company's bottom line, as it accepts that a court might not agree that the reverse-engineering is legal."
Reverse-engineering (Score:3, Interesting)
Why the DMCA sucks so badly (Score:5, Interesting)
as it accepts that a court might not agree that the reverse-engineering is legal.
Real makes a competing product. They want to be able to interoperate with the songs sold on iTunes. This should be an open and shut case. I cringe to think what sort of legal wrangling will go on.
I know that Real is no great champion, but we should support them if there is a possibility it will help to preserve what little bit of fair use we still have left.
Rightfully So (Score:1, Interesting)
If it comes to a lawsuit... (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, Apple may be afraid to test these waters because if they lose, every hacker and cracker on the planet will get free reign to develop their own reverse engineering project...
The funny thing about this (Score:3, Interesting)
So at least in the short term, this should positively impact Apple's business by improving iPod sales.
Long term, though, it reduces vendor lock-in. If you ultimately have lots of Real tracks on your old iPod, and they're compatible with both iPods and some other player (or at the very least, you can re-download the tracks in the appropriate format without buying them all over again), you're just as likely to buy that other player as a new iPod.
Re:Reverse-engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Reverse-engineering is legal. But not as legal as it once was, since the DMCA bans the circumvention of copyright protection devices, except for interoperability purposes.
Has a precedent been set in the software world that would apply to this?
Yes and no. There is a good amount of legal precedent from before, e.g. Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd, which held that reverse-engineering was legal, even though there was an EULA prohibiting it. This was even for a copyright-protection circumvention device. (a program which would copy copy-protected floppies)
But that ruling is from before the DMCA, and probably isn't as relevant anymore.
The thing is, the DMCA is rather new, so there isn't a lot of precedent defining exactly what qualifies as 'interoperability purposes'. Nor is the idea of a 'copyright protection device' very well defined yet. Which is why there are lots of eager lawsuits trying to strech this to cover everything.
I think Real could probably make a good argument that it's for interoperability purposes. But since it's not well-defined, they're right to be cautious.
In Europe, things are somewhat clearer. Council directive 91/250/EEC, article 6 also allows reverse-engineering for interoperability purposes, and defines those purposes somewhat better than US law.
It's worth mentioning that stopping reverse-engineering through copyright law is only possible if the subject material is copyrightable to begin with. And people tend to overestimate how much of a program is copyrightable. For instance, an API is either not in itself copyrightable (Computer Associates v. Altai) or, duplicating it is allowed through fair-use (Sega v. Accolade).
IANAL.
Re:Reverse-engineering (Score:2, Interesting)
So what you're saying is that reverse engineering is only just sort of legal.
What happens if you get caught?
Inquiring minds want to know...
</SATIRE>