Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media (Apple) Media Music The Almighty Buck

Real Responds to Apple's Hacking Claims 620

Posted by michael from the she-said dept.
ack154 writes "An article on VNUNet gives a sharp response from Real regarding Apple's recent claims of Real using "hacker tactics" to allow music from the Real store to play on the iPod. Real states: 'Compatibility, choice and quality are critically important to consumers and Harmony provides all of these to users of the iPod and over 70 other music devices including those from Creative, Rio, iRiver and others.' The article goes on to outline what they say is a 'clear precedent' for what they have done. And in case you were under a rock it all seemed to start here earlier this week."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Real Responds to Apple's Hacking Claims More

Real Responds to Apple's Hacking Claims

Comments Filter:

  • I keep waiting for Real... (Score:4, Funny)

    by craenor ( 623901 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:04AM (#9843793) Homepage
    To make the, "How do you like them Apples?" crack...

  • Hacker tactics? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:04AM (#9843795) Journal
    Sure. Reverse-engineering is a hacker tactic.

    So?

    That doesn't make it illegal. Rather it is specifically allowed by law.
    (Yes that even means the DMCA, for interoperability purposes.)

    What a stupid attempt at guilt-by-association.

    • Re:Hacker tactics? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Threni ( 635302 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:11AM (#9843883)
      Yeah, what's called `hacker tactics` in programming is not considered immoral, illegal or anything bad in others. Want to work out a recipe? Just eat a sample and scribble down what you can taste in it. Want to see how a car engine works? Open the bonnet and have a look, or buy a service manual. Same for radios, tvs, etc. Want to play like Charlie Parker? Dream on. I mean, listen to him, transcribe them, play them back yourself, slowly at first.

      Just because big business and their bed fellows in government want to protect their profits doesn't mean we should take their regressive nonsense any more seriously. I don't remember any of the originators of programming, whether it be hardware or software, attempting to impede progress.

    • Re:Hacker tactics? (Score:4, Funny)

      by pHatidic ( 163975 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:15AM (#9843921)
      I remember when I tried to reverse engineer Microsoft Windows. First the window popped up saying "Quit Attempting to Reverse Engineer Windows!"

      So I kept going, and then this other window popped up saying, "We have deleted all your .jpg's and if you continue your attempts to circumvent our EULA we're going to delete your paris hilton video as well."

      Moral of the story: Don't try to reverse engineer the OS that stores your valuable data.

    • The chances of pulling off a reverse engineering project without encountering long, expensive and often successful claims from the target IP owner are next to nil. There are many, many risks associated with clean-room techniques. For example, when the company undertaking the clean room project develops specs for the product being reverse engineered, how much access to the target product is too much? When those specs are handed off to the clean room team, how close are the specs to actual access to the ta

    • common misconception (Score:5, Insightful)

      by morcheeba ( 260908 ) * on Friday July 30, 2004 @11:11AM (#9844602) Journal
      The DMCA allows an exception "solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other that this section" 17 U.S.C 1201(f)(3). (emphasis mine)

      The judge in the SCC/Lexmark case read this very narrowly [maushammer.com] and said that since the algorithm came on a chip, it was non-exempt hardware instead of software. This case isn't allowing software/software interoperability (like Wine [winehq.com] offers), but it's data/software interoperability. Big difference; if the DMCA allowed that, then DVD-playing would be legal (same interoperability, except in reverse)

    • Gift horse / mouth (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fleener ( 140714 )
      Leave it to Apple to complain when the functionality and usefulness of its product is expanded at no cost to them. Darn these increased sales! Make it stop!

    • Re:Hacker tactics? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jeremy Erwin ( 2054 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @11:48AM (#9845077) Journal
      Yes, yes. We must uphold the example of Real, and their heroic achievements in the field of reverse engineering. We must blindly ignore the portion of their own license [real.com] which states


      2. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS.
      a) You may not: (i) permit other individuals to use the Software except under the terms listed above; (ii) modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble (except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by law) or create derivative works based upon the Software or Documentation; (iii) copy the Software or Documentation (except for back-up or archival purposes); (iv) rent, lease, transfer, or otherwise transfer rights to the Software or Documentation; (v) remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Software or Documentation; or (vi) use the MP3 encoder in real time broadcasting (terrestrial, satellite, cable or other media) or broadcasting via the internet or other networks, such as, but not limited to, intranets. You also may not use the RealJukebox MP3 encoder in pay-audio or audio-on-demand applications. Any such forbidden use shall immediately terminate your license to the Software. The recording, playback and download features of the Software are intended only for use with public domain or properly licensed content and content creation tools. You may require a patent, copyright, or other license from a third party to create, copy, download, record or save content files for playback by this Software or to serve or distribute such files to be played back by the Software.
      b) You agree that you shall only use the Software and Documentation in a manner that complies with all applicable laws in the jurisdictions in which you use the Software and Documentation, including, but not limited to, applicable restrictions concerning copyright and other intellectual property rights.
      c) You may only use the Software for your private, non-commercial use. You may not use the Software in any way to provide, or as part of, any commercial service or application. Copies of content files, including, but not limited to songs and other audio recordings, which are downloaded or copied using the Software, and which are protected by the copyright laws or related laws of any jurisdiction, are for your own personal use only and may not be distributed to third parties or performed outside your normal circle of family and social acquaintances.
      d) You may not use the Software in an attempt to, or in conjunction with, any device, program or service designed to circumvent technological measures employed to control access to, or the rights in, a content file or other work protected by the copyright laws of any jurisdiction.
      e) The Software embodies a serial copying management system required by the laws of the United States. You may not circumvent or attempt to circumvent this system by any means.

  • Real talking? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:04AM (#9843799)
    Compatibility? Did you say choice for consumers?

    How about opening the .rm format so I can use any player to play it?

    • Re:Real talking? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kenthorvath ( 225950 )
      Didn't they already do that with the helix project?

    • "Hello, pot? This is kettle." (Score:5, Insightful)

      by beldraen ( 94534 ) <chad,montplaisir&gmail,com> on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:34AM (#9844157)
      Beat me to it, AC. That they locked RM is the thing that irritated me the most about Real and why I have long since dumped them. Make no mistake at what they said: Consumers should be given a choice, not people. Consumers are required to buy something to be consumers, people do not. What's going on is that they want rights for their business to not be reduced, only people's rights; thus, a captured market with no recourse but to be dependant on the businesses. If we're going to live in a DMCA world, then Real should have its butt raided by the FBI.

    • Re:Real talking? (Score:4, Funny)

      by MarkGriz ( 520778 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:46AM (#9844279)
      "Compatibility? Did you say choice for consumers?"

      You must have missed the asterisk.
      • *provided it increases our revenue

      Don't think that applies to .rm

      Anyhow, I don't see what Apple is making a fuss about. Anything that drives more Ipod sales is good for them. Sure they may lose some money in music sales to Real, but so what. The real money is in the Ipod sales anyway, especially with the margins they are getting due to the demand for them.

      The same can't be said for companies stuck in the music-only or player-only side of the market, who are operating on thin margins to begin with.

      • Re:Real talking? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Durandal64 ( 658649 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @12:41PM (#9845843)
        Do you honestly think that Apple created iTMS to be an iPod seller for its entire span of existence and that Apple never intended it to become appreciably profitable on its own? Give me a break. The iPod is helping iTMS get off its feet and turn into a money maker. Come on, if there was no money to be had in online downloading, do you think that big names like WalMart, Coca Cola and Microsoft would be hopping onboard?

        No, the iTMS will eventually grow to become a nice contributor to Apple's bottom line. But it isn't quite there yet, which is why Apple's keeping the iPod + iTMS killer combination going. Right now they feed off of each other. Apple doesn't want some punk-ass like Real coming in and reverse-engineering their stuff to take sales away from iTMS because they want iTMS to grow. When it's grown up and making good money, then they will probably start talking about licensing. But the market's too young at this point. Apple is waiting for its bazillion or so competitors to die out before they talk about strategic alliances.

  • Everybody who's willing to defend Apple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mst76 ( 629405 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:06AM (#9843825)
    Everybody who's willing to defend Apple in this case, ask yourself, were you also willing to defend Lexmark [slashdot.org] when they sued an after-market toner maker? This case doesn't seem all that dissimilar to me.

    • Re:Everybody who's willing to defend Apple (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:13AM (#9843906)
      Actually, I'll defend Apple for a different reason.

      If Real was soooo hung up on offering you *choice*, why wouldn't their product simply strip ALL kinds of DRM data and place a happy *choice enabling* MP3 onto the iPod?

      How would Real react if a third-party created software that took their audio files and did this? I bet they wouldn't be talking about *choice* then.

      • Re:Everybody who's willing to defend Apple (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Because if they had no DRM, they'd have no deals with the RIAA members to sell their music.

        They'd be limited to indy and public domain stuff, which despite what slashbots will tell you, won't make them a dime.

        Which is what Apple is after. If you have an iPod, and want to legally download songs for it (without jumping through lame assed burn to cd and rerip hoops), they want iTunes to be the only way possible to do so.

        I'm 100% behind real. Imagine if the only way to get movies for your Sony DVD player w

        • Re:Everybody who's willing to defend Apple (Score:4, Informative)

          by OmniVector ( 569062 ) <see my homepage> on Friday July 30, 2004 @11:56AM (#9845218) Homepage
          wow. what a moron. apple never claimed their OS was open souce. they said the base system, darwin, (made by opendarwin) is what their system is based off of. at least if you're going to lie, tell one that's hard for people to debunk.

          yeah. apple's SO closed. that's why they use ppc, an open architecture (unlike x86) openfirmware (an open bios implementation), standard component protocls and connections like pci, pci-x, agp, usb, firewire, ide, sata and more. that's why they've now switched completely to DVI monitors instead of ADP. that's why their filesystem, hfs+, has a fully working read/write implementation in linux.. because you know they CLOSED the format of course! (yeah right) more like they opened the documentation on it. that preferences system they use.. it's also know as xml, not some binary registry file. i'm sorry, but apple's only form of lock-in is that no other major manufacturers make ppc mobos and ppc chips besides apple and ibm on a wide enough scale to get high enough performance for os x.

          lockin. yeah right.

        • I hate that the same business model killed Commodore, yet Apple survives.

          Sorry to wander off-topic, but I watched Commodore's demise from rather closer that would be considered prudent, and I see very little similarity between Apple's business practices and Commodore's.

          Commodore died due to non-existent marketing and aggressively incompetent management. They were used to "fire-and-forget" products that required no end-user support or continuing R&D. The Commodore-128 (and arguably the C-64) was t

      • Re:Everybody who's willing to defend Apple (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot&worf,net> on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:32AM (#9844128)
        How would Real react if a third-party created software that took their audio files and did this? I bet they wouldn't be talking about *choice* then.

        They sued. They got injunctions. That's how.

        (A long while ago, there was a little program called StreamBox that did nothing but download Real rtsp streams onto your hard drive. It was later modified to download streaming WMA as well. And this isn't some crappy faux soundcard - nor a proxy server. It acted like the client, and downloaded the file. As such, it only worked in real time (since the servers only streamed audio at that rate).)

        And the Streambox guys did it by reverse-engineering the protocol. Heck, I remember an even older program (XFileGet) that did a similar thing, but broke when Real changed protocols. Funny now that the shoe's on the other foot.

        • Re:Everybody who's willing to defend Apple (Score:5, Insightful)

          by zurab ( 188064 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @02:26PM (#9847067)
          And the Streambox guys did it by reverse-engineering the protocol.

          You mean reverse-engineering a public [sourceforge.net] RFC standard [ietf.org] RTSP [rtsp.org] protocol [dmoz.org]? Anybody from Programming 101 can write a small app that catches a stream and writes data to a file, especially when the protocol to request the stream from the server is a public standard. Now, that does not mean the codec is a public standard, nor does it have to be, for you to simply capture the stream to a file.

          It's sad how everything pro-Apple gets modded up +5 insightful; I am pretty sure if the story was about Microsoft/HP/Lexmark/[insert standard "evil" corporation] products or DRM, the +5/+4 range comments would all be "OMG, how could they do this to us... DMCA/evil corp must be stopped... write to your reps... etc. etc."

          And no, the (alleged) fact that Real is "evil" with their software, or that their software sucks, has little or nothing to do with the principle of this matter. Real is not defended here, but a principle of reverse-engineering is a bigger issue. I could care less about Real! If it was not Real but it was some "angel" corporation that descended from heaven last week, what difference would it make in what Apple is doing (well, they technically haven't done anything yet, but what pro-Apple posts keep justifying anyway)? Nothing, the principle of the matter would be exactly the same - either you can reverse-engineer, or you cannot.

    • Why does Apple have a problem with this? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Orbix ( 238630 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:24AM (#9844034) Homepage Journal
      My main question is this: Why does this bother Apple? Everything I remember reading said that Apple was either making very little or potentially losing money on the iTunes music store, rather using it as a means to sell more iPods. If this is the case, you'd think that Apple would be thrilled that someone else was giving consumers a reason to buy one of their products...
      • Why does this bother Apple? Everything I remember reading said that Apple was either making very little or potentially losing money on the iTunes music store, rather using it as a means to sell more iPods

        Because Apple DOES make a profit on iTMS, albeit a small one. It's all about economy of scale. Right now they have a big share of a small market. In 10 years, it's going to be a huge market, and they do not want to be marginalized in it. 70% of 150 million songs is not a lot of profit, but in 10 years

      • Re:Why does Apple have a problem with this? (Score:4, Funny)

        by Bricklets ( 703061 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:34AM (#9844153)
        Doesn't iTunes need at least approx. 1 million downloads a week just to break even (can some verify whether this number is true or not)? If downloads go down because of Real's Music Store or because of Real licensing Harmony out to third parties, that will significantly hurt Apple's bottom line via loss of iTunes sales and/or potential licensing revenue.

  • Not up to Real to decide what iPod supports (Score:3, Insightful)

    by yabos ( 719499 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:07AM (#9843833)
    Since there isn't any explaination of exactly what they do we can't say for sure that they cracked the iPod to get their songs to play, but, Apple makes the product and who is Real to say that they must support Real files as well?

    If they have reverse engineered the Fairplay DRM, or used the PlayFair code to somehow encode their files as legit FairPlay DRM'd files then there's probably(most definately) something wrong(legally) with what they have done.
    • Yeah, Apple probably is investigating DMCA provisions because the only thing I think Real could have done is encode songs in AAC, and use the iTunes authentication mechanism to allow playback w/DRM on the iPod.

      I could see Apple being pissed about Real trying to sell a service based on using Apple's Fairplay DRM. If Real figured out a way to store MP3's on the iPod (as in no DRM), I couldn't see them getting mad at all.

    • Ford car hacked to run on alcohol, ford complains (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:29AM (#9844085) Journal
      What do you say? Fuck off ford? Drop dead ford? Who gives a damn what ford would say about what I do with my car. If I setup a business to buy regular cars and hack them and sell them on, or setup a business that sell parts to hack existing cars then that is all 100% legal and is pretty normal business practice. The only people with a right to say what you can and can not do with a car are the people who elected goverment to enforce certain rules. (any car model on the road has to be tested, hack a car enough and you got to have it tested as well)

      Similiar Apple has no business controlling what others do with their hardware. If people want to replace the software on it so it can be used with another service then that is their right. Just like ford can't say anything about you converting a petrol powered car to a gas powered car apple should keep it mouth shut. Anyone defending apple is a sucker for advertising. Just because Apple had that 1985 ad doesn't mean it is really a freedom company. Carefully read Mac owners posts and you will see that Apple is just an MS without the money but a "cooler" image.

      Just replace apple with MS and see if you think the same about the story.

  • Compatibility, choice and quality (Score:4, Informative)

    by thirteenVA ( 759860 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:07AM (#9843842)

    Compatibility, choice and quality are critically important to consumers...

    In regards to real player these attributes are best defined as:

    Compatibility: Real files only play in real player

    Choice: Choose between real player basic (spyware laden) or real player premium (less spyware laden)

    Quality: Only the highest quality spyware included in RealPlayer

    • Last I checked, Real has no spyware with the player and the features of it that can be considered iffy can all be shut off and are all shut off by default. Also AdAware and PestPatrol both seem to skip over Real. Now why is it spyware again? Oh sure, bitch att them cuz the free player is so damn hard to get too but don't try to say they are spying.

    • Re:Compatibility, choice and quality (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Captain Nick ( 741204 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:27AM (#9844078) Homepage
      Man, I have just a little guilty hope of seeing Real's ass kicked in this showdown. Legal issues aside - after all these years of Real's shady business practices, screw 'em. If someone had released (and maybe they did) an alternate Real streaming server that was cheaper and could still play in Real's player back in the day, they'd be pissed too.

      Eh, just blowing off steam, I know I'm preaching to the choir on this one.

  • Bottom line... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dourk ( 60585 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:08AM (#9843847) Homepage
    Who are the consumers going to be pissed off at when their Real-purchased music quits working on an updated iPod?

  • Choice? Quality? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CelticWhisper ( 601755 ) <celticwhisper@NOspam.gmail.com> on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:08AM (#9843853)
    This from Real, the company who, not even 5 years ago, had a player so bogged down with spyware and other junk that it had become a four-letter word to practically the entire tech community? Real, the company whose player had auto-starts and other background automation that was nigh impossible to disable?

    I think they need to examine their own products before they accuse Apple of denying choice and quality to the customer, in so many words.

    Just my $0.02 worth.

  • Hypocrisy? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by indros13 ( 531405 ) * on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:09AM (#9843855) Homepage Journal
    Given Real's proprietary and clunky format and their resistance to third-party players of their file format, does anyone else find it a little odd that they're talking about "compatibility and choice" now?

  • if we stripped the DRM out of their music files so we can play them on whatever player we like.

  • That reminds me ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cpct0 ( 558171 ) <slashdot&micheldonais,com> on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:12AM (#9843889) Homepage Journal
    Wasn't DeCSS all about choice to use DVD on Linux and they got badly beaten anyways? ... probably just my overactive imagination again >_

    I don't really care about the choice anyways, they can always do what they want, I will never use anything from Real... but if they get away with it, it will be yet another proof that there are two levels of laws.

  • DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NutscrapeSucks ( 446616 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:13AM (#9843898)
    Apple is stretching by threating to use the DMCA. Since this only works with Real's service, there's no copyright infringement going on, so copyright law should not apply. The intent of the DMCA was to protect copyright holders, not the middlemen.

    This is very different than DeCSS, where there was obvious infringing uses.

    • Re:DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Pofy ( 471469 )
      >This is very different than DeCSS, where there
      >was obvious infringing uses.

      What infringing uses? To watch a DVD you own?

    • Re:DMCA (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ath ( 643782 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:33AM (#9844148)
      You don't understand the DMCA. You violate the law when you circumvent copyprotection mechanisms. No copyright infringment is required. That's covered by a different law.

      Of course, it does not matter because Real is not circumventing copyprotection. In fact, Real is adding the DRM copyprotection to their own AAC files.

  • Real is not installing firmware on your iPod (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mst76 ( 629405 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:19AM (#9843971)
    It seems there is quite a lot of confusion about what Read exactly did. Some people are under the impression that Real is installing custom firmware on the iPod. According to a poster who claims to be an engineer from Real [hydrogenaudio.org], they did not change anything on the iPod or in iTunes. All they did was maskerading the files from their own music store (which are 192kbps AAC with their own DRM) as Fairplay AAC files.

  • Does the mean... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by farzadb82 ( 735100 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:19AM (#9843973)
    "In fact, the DMCA is not designed to prevent the creation of new methods of locking content, and explicitly allows the creation of interoperable software."

    Does this mean that if Real wins their case, we have a HUGE loophole in the DMCA, whereby we'd be allowed to reverse engineer DRM, if the content is re-encoded with your own DRM ? - I wonder how the RIAA and MPAA will feel about this. Sucks to be them I guess!

    • Sucks to be them I guess!

      Yeah, it sucks to have billions of dollars and own the majority of the content that people pump into their brains every day. I mean, how do these people sleep at night?

      Oh yeah, I forgot. Very comfortably, on a large pile of money. With many beautiful ladies.

  • OHHH SNAP (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shimbee ( 444430 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:20AM (#9843993)
    take that Apple. you just got SERVED.

    seriously though. Real makes a good point: they aren't disabling apple's copyright protection of the music. If anything, they are adding newly protectable content.

    booya!

  • Too bad they were singing a different tune... (Score:5, Informative)

    by DmitriA ( 199545 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:23AM (#9844019)
    5 years ago when they went after [slashdot.org] StreamBox.

  • Choice? (Score:3, Informative)

    by mapinguari ( 110030 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:23AM (#9844026)
    I figured I'd give Real the opportunity to show me this choice, but Real's website tells me:
    Downloads are only available on PCs running Windows 98 and up and with:

    Internet Explorer 5.5, or newer

    Netscape 7.0, or newer

  • Hit them with DMCA - see how they like it ;- (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zweistein_42 ( 753978 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:24AM (#9844040) Homepage
    I'd _love_ Apple to hit Real with DMCA related lawsuit. Not because I think what Real is doing isn't great (unlike most of their other activities), or that DMCA is a "Good Thing" (tm), but on the contrary -- until commercial companies themselves start getting hit with too-relaxed DMCA definitions (as opposed to individuals), their lobbying efforts will likely keep the law on the books. If the content industry big shots start getting tangled in zillions of IP/copyright related lawsuits, perhaps the laws will be moderated to the point they make some sort of sense...

  • Some people don't seem to understand... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hethatishere ( 674234 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:30AM (#9844103)
    Apple is pissed for several reasons. First and foremost because the iPod isn't just a music player, it's a bundled music solution, since techies love that word. You get a fantastic sexy little jukebox and the elegance of having it work with iTunes, nearly transparently.

    I doubt it's "competition" Apple is all that concerned about since Real wont steal too many customers on their own. It's bundling. What do you think Microsoft will pressure PC companies into shipping instead of iTunes? Yeah, something that claims "compatibility" with all systems.
    Apple wants everyone to experience the elegance of the integration with iTunes and the iPod. They want you to synch your music with iTunes, and buy your music with iTunes. Then being so impressed with how nice and impressed how everything works go out and buy a Mac. Think Trojan Horse, only it's a mid-to-long term strategy for Apple.
    Apple is also undoubtedly concerned about having to support Real's song delivery system since people having trouble getting music onto their iPods will blame Apple. Real's notoriously secretive UI-unfriendly software will undoubtedly
    I agree with Apple opening up the iPod. But I also believe the style in which Real did this was totally disgusting. I had little respect for Real before this, and even less afterwards. No matter how much they claim the moral ground this is an act of desperation. An act that while is a movement in the right direction for the industry was riddled with pettiness and beligerence. And is clearly being done to save a company that created it's own destruction with it's inferior software and horrible policies towards it's users.

  • Holy ad hominem attacks, Batman ! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LordPixie ( 780943 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:48AM (#9844317) Journal
    The number of posts that state "OMG, REAL HAS SPYWARE IS EVIL coupled with "OMG, APPLE MAKES FRUITY CONSUMER APPLIANCES AND IS AWESOME" is really disgusting. For Pete's sake, people. Take an objective look at the situation.

    Real has done a lot of crappy things over the years. Apple has done plenty of good things over the years. That does not mean that Apple is automagically right, and Real is wrong. I've come to expect a pretty significant bias in regards to the average SlashDotter, but this is waaaay beyond that.


    --LordPixie

  • Compatibility, choice and quality (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mordaximus ( 566304 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:53AM (#9844388)
    Interestingly, two of these three words were used to make the name Compaq. A company that 22 years ago reverse engineered IBMs BIOS to give us the clones we all enjoy today. I shudder to think where we would be if the DMCA existed in 1982. Seems to me 'hacker tactics' got us where we are now. So in a way, I support Real's position.

    Cue [Buffering...] jokes.

  • Do you know what Real is doing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ath ( 643782 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @10:55AM (#9844418)
    Too many people are posting stupid things (like usual) without knowing jack about the facts.

    Real took publically accessible information or did a clean room reverse engineering of the iTunes authentication and DRM. That is 100% legal under all laws because they did it 1) to allow for interoperability and 2) they are not circumventing the Fairplay copyprotection, they are actually adding it to the Real files.

    Apple can complain all they want, but unless Real violated a patent on the Fairplay DRM software or actually stole copyrighted code to implement their version of the Fairplay DRM, Apple can go fuck itself.

    Just to be clear, I have 2 iPods (a 3G and a 4G) and am a periodic customer of iTunes. Anything I buy, I immediately remove the DRM using Playfair. I will never comply with any law which seeks to restrict my fair use rights, especially the DMCA. Yep. I'm a violater. In more ways than one. But I buy all my copyrighted stuff. Once.

    However, do you really think any iTunes customers give a crap if people can also use other, non iTunes, music stores? If you wanna use Real's service on your iPod, enjoy!

  • I feel so dirty... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by enrico_suave ( 179651 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @11:11AM (#9844603) Homepage
    for pulling for Real on this one...

    e.

  • From a support standpoint (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gamgee5273 ( 410326 ) * on Friday July 30, 2004 @11:15AM (#9844656) Journal
    I would not want to be Apple or Real if this situation ever comes to pass because something will break - and where does the fault lay?

    Arguably, since Real isn't licensing FairPlay, I would point the finger at them.

    Let's play hypothetical: Apple comes out with iPod mini 2.0 with a 6 GB drive and loads of new touches and features in the firmware. Joe Windows-User has bought more than few albums on Real's store and is interested in upgrading from his old Rio player. He knows his songs from Real are "compatible" with the iPod, so he goes and buys himself a mini 2.0. He goes home, hooks up the iPod and goes to install his songs - and they don't work.

    Where does he go for support? Apple never worked with Real to make those songs work, thus Apple won't care. Will Real just sit and point the finger at Apple for "disabling" the iPod, even though Apple may not have purposefully done anything to disable Real's music? Will they change Harmony to work with the new iPod and then allow their users to download new copies of the songs with the new Harmony code in them to make sure they work?

    It strikes me that Real has to count on their buyers never upgrading their iPods, or using them with anything other than Real's jukebox app, for this to work with no issues.

    As a support professional, I would be telling my boss to stop this before things get too messy. I'm not pro-DRM, and I don't agree with Apple's "hacker" statement or invocation of the DMCA, but I can see some practical issues here that always arise from making a machine do something the vendor didn't intend and I wouldn't want to take the phone calls on the support lines once the fit hits the shan...

  • The REAL issue (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Writer ( 746272 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @11:46AM (#9845041)

    I think what the fuss is really about is that Real wanted and alliance with Apple [slashdot.org], without being very friendly about it by threatening to seek to team up with Microsoft if Apple refused, and Apple refused them anyway [slashdot.org]. Now Real has forced the issue. It seems that the CEO of Real Networks, Rob Glaser, is being very abrasive in his business dealings. Real has already been criticised [slashdot.org] for some of their questionable practices by consumers and doesn't seem to be a reputable company to be involved with.

    If Real can crack the iPod, then someone should be able to make tools for converting unprotected .rm formats to .mp3 because that doesn't circumvent any copy protection and shouldn't be subject to the DMCA according to Real's argument. Does anybody know of any?

  • Qucktime (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gerardrj ( 207690 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @12:45PM (#9845888) Journal
    I'm wondering how much overtime the Quicktime team will be putting in to make a codec for all of the RM protected media files. Then QT could save them to disk, allow encoding, transcoding, etc. Apple then sells the encoder for a lower cost than Real, or just gives it away.

    The QT team has created or written a tremendous number of codecs now, think: animation, video, cimepak, DV, Pixlet, etc. They have, or with $4.5B in the bank, can hire the best of the best in the fields to reverse engineer and recode. I'd say two weeks to a working internal prototype, one month until they have a rev 1.0 product.

    If Real tried to sue, they and Apple could just come to a mutual agreement to stop cloning each other's technology. If not, Apple could certainly argue in court that Real themselves publicly stated that such actions were vital to the marketplace: case closed.

    Real's primary (only) source of income is the Real encoder and the Real player. If Real really wants to play this "compatibility" and "open" game, they had best look under their feet to check what ground they are standing on before they walk too much farther down this path. Turnabout is fair play, and it would only be fair for Apple to put Real in their own position.

    Yea... I think in this case Apple shouldn't use the courts, they should definitely fight fire with fire.

  • Isn't this GOOD for Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by panZ ( 67763 ) <matt68000@hotmail.com> on Friday July 30, 2004 @01:14PM (#9846226)
    It has been widely publicized [macnn.com] that [google.com] Apple does not profit much from the iTunes Music Store and it is more of an enabler to selling iPods with a hefty profit margin. If this really is the case, isn't it a good thing that the iPod can use more formats? I'm sure Apple is just using this press to make noise for itself but they seem to be contradicting themselves in grand public fashion. (This from an iPod, powerbook and iMac toting, .Mac, iTMS using Apple lover)

  • Too bad it's not Mac Compatible (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vivekb ( 111127 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @01:45PM (#9846594)
    From Real's statement:
    Compatibility, choice and quality are critically important to consumers and Harmony provides all of these to users of the iPod and over 70 other music devices including those from Creative, Rio, iRiver and others

    Too bad Harmony is only compatible with Windows.

  • Real should get real! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rspress ( 623984 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @04:51PM (#9848412) Homepage
    No matter what side of the debate you are on it is clear that real reverse engineered Apples fairplay. Real tried to get Apple to open up fairplay and let them compete with Apple in the music store business....when Apple said no, the released their hacked version. It is plain and simple. It is funny that real is complaining so much, the have pretty much ignored the Mac platform and updates to real player for the Mac have come slow and in some cases not at all.

    Some say that it is all about money...you are correct, Real is stealing from Apple and undermining Apples deal with the record companies....this can only help real in the long run. It is too bad if Real were a little more patient and waited till Microsoft came out with their music store they would have had a good shot at a legal fairplay license with Apple. Apple is beginning to license it to other companies and those that "play fair" with Apple will get a slice of the pie. Real did not and will lose because of that....If they record companies pull their support from Apple the only one to win from that happing is Microsoft and that won't be good for anyone!

  • Here is why compatible DRM is interesting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) * on Friday July 30, 2004 @05:21PM (#9848629) Homepage Journal
    There is a loophole in the DMCA [cornell.edu]. I'm not talking about the interoperability exemption. I draw your attention to how "circumvention" is defined. Read it.

    If you can create a DRM system that is compatible with someone else's, then you can muddy the issue of whether or not a tool that bypasses that DRM, is primarily intended for "circumvention."

    Here's how it works. "Circumvention" is defined as bypassing a tech measure that limits access, without authorization from the copyright holder. For example, if you bypass CSS on a DVD whose copyright is held by Disney, and you don't have Disney's permission, then you have "circumvented" CSS. Likewise, if you bypass the DRM on a Metallica song that you bought from iTMS, without getting permission from Metallica's record label, then you have "circumvented" Apple's DRM system.

    The catch is this: look at who you're having to get permission from. It's not the party who invented or implemented the DRM system; it's the party who holds the copyright on the content. If you hold the copyright, then you can give yourself permission.

    For example, if you hold the copyright on a movie, and somehow get that movie onto a CSS-scrambled DVD, then when you DeCSS it, you are not circumventing CSS. You are bypassing it, but since you're doing it with authorization, it is not circumvention.

    If such bypassing is something that you often do, then it makes perfect sense for you to somehow obtain a tool to help you do it. In fact, if you're a hacker, then you're going to write a computer program to do it, the very first time. The use of this tool by you, is not prohibited by DMCA. Is trafficking in this tool prohibited by DMCA? Hmm... not so simple to say.

    It is assumed that all music sold by iTMS has its copyright held by parties who do not grant authorization to anyone, to bypass the DRM. But if anyone can implement that DRM, not just parties who have contractual agreements to have their music sold through iTMS (I'm talking about the "bad guys" in Slashdot groupthink here -- you know, the RIAA), then the assumption breaks down. To put it in layman terms: Cracking tools would not clearly be intended for copyright violation. They would have substantial non-infringing use.

    Well, how substantial it is, depends on the market sizes, I guess. If just a few hackers are DRMing their own music, judges are going to laugh at how substantial that is. But if it gets into the mainstream... holy crap. Is Real a mainstream player? DUH!!!

    Having the capacity to create DRMed content that is compatible with someone else's DRM system, has the potention to neuter DMCA's ability to apply to that DRM system. Real's action here, is a direct (though possibly unintended) threat to FairPlay. Apple now has to pay close attention to just what this Real software does. Does it just preserve DRM on files whose copyright is held by RIAA-members? Or might it do something else? Whatever the case may be, it's out of Apple's control, thus pretty scary. FairPlay is at risk of losing the DMCA protections that prohibit cracks.

Slashdot Top Deals

The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam

Close