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."
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
.. 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.
And you didn't back up your purchased music files because...?
...he didn't expect to need to? Considering you have to authorize a computer to play files to begin with why should there be any limits on the number of times you can download a file?
Did the cost of the song include coverage of the vendor keeping a copy of your license for you?
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.
What obligation do they have of holding your backup?
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.
Yes, because iTunes should keep a backup for you in perpetuity because your an idiot.
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).
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.
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?
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.
{IANAL and other disclaimers here} The best thing about DVD Jon's work is that it proves, disturbingly and resoundingly, that the current *AA business model based on DRM is at best faulty, and at worst an attack on fair use and civil liberties. While that sounds a bit over the top, imagine a world where there were no DVD Jon's to show that the big corporations locks can be picked. Imagine a world where the emporer's new clothes were never laughed at?
The point being that this only serves to help illuminate, in the minds of lawmakers, how feeble the current DRM schemes and laws really are, whether the work is ultimately found illegal or not.
``The best thing about DVD Jon's work is that it proves, disturbingly and resoundingly, that the current *AA business model based on DRM is at best faulty, and at worst an attack on fair use and civil liberties.''
Or, alternatively, it proves that DRM alone isn't going to stop people from doing illegal things with content, and we need to crack down on tools made to circumvent the DRM to protect the *AA's interests.
And since the government holds the interests of the corporations over civil rights, it's the latter interpretation that gets used, and we get the DMCA, which is then globally enforced, because the USA is currently King of the Hill.
I'm sure this makes me unpopular, but I'm going to say it anyway. Anyone who buys DRM'd music is either an idiot or ignorant, and it's a shame so few of them have learned their lesson yet. In this case, you're paying for a vague not-a-promise that you can probably listen to the music now and if you're really lucky you'll be able to listen in the future.
If music really needed DRM to be a profitable business, I wouldn't still be able to buy CDs. So the only reason I can buy a CD and turn it into MP3s yet can't buy those MP3s to start with is because some jackass in a skyscraper either doesn't understand his own business or is trying really hard to pretend not to.
'If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own.'.... 'but the other devices you own will all be iPods.'
Sort of the Henry Ford line of thinking:
"You can have any color Model T you want... as long as you want black."
If I buy a CD, I can stick it in my computer and rip it into iTunes. That's legal, right?
If I buy a DVD, why can't I do the same thing? Rip it into iTunes, put it on my iPod, import it into other programs and play with it, etc.
Is there a fundamental difference between video content and audio content?! Why? Is it just that CDs were invented before DRM? That when CDs were standardized, the technology didn't exist to import and "get at" that audio content - technology that for the media companies "necessitated" DRM?
So, back to the question: Is it legal to import CDs? (I hope so.) Is it legal to import DVD's a la DVD Jon's software? (I assume the media companies would say no.) Why?!
In this brave new world of DRM, the rules are made by what The Companies technologically let you do, rather than what the laws actually decree. I am sure that once CDs go by the wayside, all content (audio, video, commercial software) will be DRM'd and authenticated to "make sure" that you cannot distribute it in any way once it gets to you - no matter what media is used to get it to you. I'm not looking forward to it.
If I buy a CD, I can stick it in my computer and rip it into iTunes. That's legal, right?
If I buy a DVD, why can't I do the same thing? Rip it into iTunes, put it on my iPod, import it into other programs and play with it, etc.
Here's the answer to your question:
A Redbook standard compliant CD (with the little CDAudio logo) does not have encryption or other protection placed on the music. The raw 44.1 kHz stream is encoded on the disk for all the world to read. Making a non-infringing copy of this stream for yourself and manipulating it is legal under Fair Use (and to a certain extent, the Home Audio Recording Act of 1992).
An IEEE standard compliant DVD encrypts the video content with a symmetric key system (CSS), and then hides the key on a non-writable section of the disc. Breaking this encryption violates patent and/or contract law. The interoperability clause of the DMCA, which DVD Jon uses as his basis for the legality of his system, allows you to break the CSS encryption on DVDs in order to play them on your Linux box. However, the patent on the CSS encryption system allows the DVD Copy Control Association to only license the technology to companies that pay a licensing fee; creating an implimentation of CSS without paying the licensing fee violates patent law, and creating an incomplete version of the spec (for example, ignoring the Do Not Fast Forward flag) violates the contract you signed when obtaining a license. The reverse engineering is legal, but the implementation of the reverse-engineered technology is illegal, under different laws. Unencrypted DVDs are legal to rip, for the same reasons it is legal to rip CDs.
That's the way it is, and the reason why ripping a CD is legal and copying a DVD is not legal. The question of whether this is how things SHOULD be is left as an exercise for the reader.
You must not have that big of a music library if you don't realize something is very wrong with this. I should not have to pay for hundreds of blank CDs just to be able to transfer my music collection.
I was about to explain the basics of data compression to you. But this is slashdot. You shouldn't be that stupid. Go do an internet search for "lossy compression." Find out what happens when you take the output of one lossy-compressed piece of data, then compress it again with a different lossy-compression algorithm.
There are actually quite a few non-Apple players that support unprotected AAC. AAC is not an Apple-proprietary format. It's owned by Dolby and Apple is merely a licensee.
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.
All of these lamentations about Apple cheating and *AA "suing its customers" -- what is your problem? It is Apple's own device, and it is *AA's customers. If you don't like these companies, then stop using the darn things.
Your commentary is all well and good, but it is not practical. The problems with DRM are problems with the law and problems with the industry. People act in their own interest. That might mean a person wants a particular song from a particular band so they endure DRM to get it. That might mean a band wants to be heard, so they pay money to give away their copyrights and accept DRM restricting their songs from being heard by future generations, in the hopes that the cartel that runs the industry will allow them to reach the mainstream audience.
Sure, educated and enlightened people can boycott the mainstream, but that will not stop the problems DRM and an illegal cartel cause for society. Your argument is analogous to someone in prohibition era Chicago saying, "we all know the violence and corruption caused by booze smuggling organized crime is killing people, so why doesn't everyone just stop drinking?" People want to drink, and they want to listen to popular music and they want to get it instantly, online. Even if that means they download it from a file sharing network or they put up with DRM that prevents future generations from being able to hear the music they will. The solution is not to try to change society, but to change the laws so that they give society what it wants.
DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)
Funny, I've never seen "imprisoned" spelled with a slash.
Parent
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, how quickly the tables turn for Apple.
Parent
Re:iTunes is the real concern.. (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Parent
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)
Parent
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.
Parent
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?
Parent
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.
Parent
The best thing to be taken from DVD Jon's work is (Score:5, Insightful)
The best thing about DVD Jon's work is that it proves, disturbingly and resoundingly, that the current *AA business model based on DRM is at best faulty, and at worst an attack on fair use and civil liberties. While that sounds a bit over the top, imagine a world where there were no DVD Jon's to show that the big corporations locks can be picked. Imagine a world where the emporer's new clothes were never laughed at?
The point being that this only serves to help illuminate, in the minds of lawmakers, how feeble the current DRM schemes and laws really are, whether the work is ultimately found illegal or not.
Re:The best thing to be taken from DVD Jon's work (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, alternatively, it proves that DRM alone isn't going to stop people from doing illegal things with content, and we need to crack down on tools made to circumvent the DRM to protect the *AA's interests.
And since the government holds the interests of the corporations over civil rights, it's the latter interpretation that gets used, and we get the DMCA, which is then globally enforced, because the USA is currently King of the Hill.
Parent
Serves 'em right. (Score:5, Insightful)
If music really needed DRM to be a profitable business, I wouldn't still be able to buy CDs. So the only reason I can buy a CD and turn it into MP3s yet can't buy those MP3s to start with is because some jackass in a skyscraper either doesn't understand his own business or is trying really hard to pretend not to.
That should get some discussion going.
But you are missing the rest of the quote! (Score:4, Funny)
'but the other devices you own will all be iPods.'
Sort of the Henry Ford line of thinking: ... as long as you want black."
"You can have any color Model T you want
What's the difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I buy a CD, I can stick it in my computer and rip it into iTunes. That's legal, right?
If I buy a DVD, why can't I do the same thing? Rip it into iTunes, put it on my iPod, import it into other programs and play with it, etc.
Is there a fundamental difference between video content and audio content?! Why? Is it just that CDs were invented before DRM? That when CDs were standardized, the technology didn't exist to import and "get at" that audio content - technology that for the media companies "necessitated" DRM?
So, back to the question: Is it legal to import CDs? (I hope so.) Is it legal to import DVD's a la DVD Jon's software? (I assume the media companies would say no.) Why?!
In this brave new world of DRM, the rules are made by what The Companies technologically let you do, rather than what the laws actually decree. I am sure that once CDs go by the wayside, all content (audio, video, commercial software) will be DRM'd and authenticated to "make sure" that you cannot distribute it in any way once it gets to you - no matter what media is used to get it to you. I'm not looking forward to it.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the answer to your question:
A Redbook standard compliant CD (with the little CDAudio logo) does not have encryption or other protection placed on the music. The raw 44.1 kHz stream is encoded on the disk for all the world to read. Making a non-infringing copy of this stream for yourself and manipulating it is legal under Fair Use (and to a certain extent, the Home Audio Recording Act of 1992).
An IEEE standard compliant DVD encrypts the video content with a symmetric key system (CSS), and then hides the key on a non-writable section of the disc. Breaking this encryption violates patent and/or contract law. The interoperability clause of the DMCA, which DVD Jon uses as his basis for the legality of his system, allows you to break the CSS encryption on DVDs in order to play them on your Linux box. However, the patent on the CSS encryption system allows the DVD Copy Control Association to only license the technology to companies that pay a licensing fee; creating an implimentation of CSS without paying the licensing fee violates patent law, and creating an incomplete version of the spec (for example, ignoring the Do Not Fast Forward flag) violates the contract you signed when obtaining a license. The reverse engineering is legal, but the implementation of the reverse-engineered technology is illegal, under different laws. Unencrypted DVDs are legal to rip, for the same reasons it is legal to rip CDs.
That's the way it is, and the reason why ripping a CD is legal and copying a DVD is not legal. The question of whether this is how things SHOULD be is left as an exercise for the reader.
Parent
Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Why do you, bums, still use iTunes, etc.? (Score:5, Insightful)
All of these lamentations about Apple cheating and *AA "suing its customers" -- what is your problem? It is Apple's own device, and it is *AA's customers. If you don't like these companies, then stop using the darn things.
Your commentary is all well and good, but it is not practical. The problems with DRM are problems with the law and problems with the industry. People act in their own interest. That might mean a person wants a particular song from a particular band so they endure DRM to get it. That might mean a band wants to be heard, so they pay money to give away their copyrights and accept DRM restricting their songs from being heard by future generations, in the hopes that the cartel that runs the industry will allow them to reach the mainstream audience.
Sure, educated and enlightened people can boycott the mainstream, but that will not stop the problems DRM and an illegal cartel cause for society. Your argument is analogous to someone in prohibition era Chicago saying, "we all know the violence and corruption caused by booze smuggling organized crime is killing people, so why doesn't everyone just stop drinking?" People want to drink, and they want to listen to popular music and they want to get it instantly, online. Even if that means they download it from a file sharing network or they put up with DRM that prevents future generations from being able to hear the music they will. The solution is not to try to change society, but to change the laws so that they give society what it wants.
Parent
Re:Cool Jon! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
mixing metaphors like there's no tomorrow (Score:5, Funny)
Parent