Navio to Reverse Engineer iPod/iTunes DRM [Archive]

MacRumors

Nov 23, 2005, 09:13 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Playlistmag.com (http://playlistmag.com/news/2005/11/21/ipoddrm/index.php) discusses the efforts of a company called Navio. The company, which specializes in digital-rights managment, has announced plans to reverse engingeer Apple's FairPlay Digital Rights Management (http://guides.macrumors.com/FairPlay) format that is used to protect songs sold from the iTunes Music Store.

The plan is to allow other online stores to sell FairPlay encoded songs to allow playback on the popular Apple iPod.

Schaaf described Navio as "DRM-agnostic," adding that the company was only providing the technology that its customers are asking for. "Whether it's Helix, WMA or FairPlay, our customers indicate what kind of DRM encoding they want and then we provide them with a solution," he said.

Navio is not the first company to do this. RealNetworks Harmony technology accomplished the same feat, and despite some sparring with Apple (http://www.macworld.com/news/2004/07/29/applereal/), continues to provide iPod compatibility.

Quartz Extreme

Nov 23, 2005, 09:17 AM

Uhm, isn't this illegal?

mkrishnan

Nov 23, 2005, 09:19 AM

I'm actually surprised Apple has not pursued DMCA-related litigation against Real....

topgunn

Nov 23, 2005, 09:20 AM

Remember that the point of iTunes is not to sell music. The point of iTunes is to sell iPods.

ibook30

Nov 23, 2005, 09:20 AM

Uhm, isn't this illegal?

Probably violates end user license of itunes to actually use it, but perhaps just offering it is ok,, does sound strange that one can offer software openly to undo DRM.

Stella

Nov 23, 2005, 09:24 AM

longofest

Nov 23, 2005, 09:26 AM

The legal situation is tennuous, but not explicitly illegal. Messing with DRM is possibly illegal under DMCA, but they aren't necessarily circumventing it, just reverse-engineering it. I'm sure their lawyers would say that the spirit of the law was to protect copyright of the protected material, not to support an iPod monopoly, and they would have a point.

Reverse engineering itself is perfectly legal, as long as they don't come up with the same exact copyrighted code that Apple uses in its Fairplay implementation. See the case law of Intel vs. AMD to verify the legitimacy of reverse engineering.

kwajo.com

Nov 23, 2005, 09:29 AM

these sorts of reverse engineering cases are very tricky, I for one would never bother with it. it seems to me that if you really wanted a good business or to make your mark you owuld spend all your time coming out with something actually new and innovative, not a re-engineered version of something that already exists. come on people, take a chance!

bbyrdhouse

Nov 23, 2005, 09:35 AM

I wish apple would just license out Fairplay - even if to a select few ( and just moto doesnt count ).

Personally I like to use other music stores - but can't because they aren't compatible with Macs. This is what Apple are afraid of - losing market share in iTMS and MP3 player.

If this was microsoft people would be screaming murder.

This unwillinness to license out Fairplay will return to haunt them - has done in the past, and will again in the future in similar situations.

I agree. Apple would be better served in the long run to liscence FairPlay. The Ipod and mp3 player will continue to rise in popularity. There are still millions who do not own an MP3 player at all. And portable video WILL continue to gro as well. Pretty soon somebody else will come up with a player that will be pretty cool looking and will be multiplatform. I realize that there are many other players on the market now and some of them are pretty cool, but for now anyway "iPod" is synonomous with MP3. But it won't always be that way.
In my opinion Apple should be ahead of the curve and at least begin to liscence Fairplay as a trial run with some other stores.

P.S. Why is it that Apple was pressured into having teired pricing (=higher prices)for their music when Wal-Mart's music store sells for $.88

iMeowbot

Nov 23, 2005, 09:40 AM

Uhm, isn't this illegal?

No, but attempts by Apple to stop it very well could be illegal at this point. That's the down side of big market share.

syklee26

Nov 23, 2005, 09:42 AM

I can hear grumblings from Apple legal departments already....

enjoy eating Turkey in your office.

Seasought

Nov 23, 2005, 09:43 AM

If this was microsoft people would be screaming murder.

No, if this was Microsoft they would be murdered. Gates gestapo's elite big brother death squad.

andiwm2003

Nov 23, 2005, 09:43 AM

Probably violates end user license of itunes to actually use it, but perhaps just offering it is ok,, does sound strange that one can offer software openly to undo DRM.

how does it violate the end user licence of itunes when the whole point is to not use itunes?

at least that's how i read it: you buy your songs in a different store and a different program loads them onto the ipod. no apple software involved. and i can't imagine that there is a end user license saying what data you are allowed to load on the ipod and what program you may use to do that.

dernhelm

Nov 23, 2005, 09:56 AM

If this was microsoft people would be screaming murder.

Microsoft is a monopoly, and as such, must exercise restraint in using its monopoly power. Apple does not have a monopoly, and has a much wider range of things it can do and remain within the law.

I hear the "if MS were doing this, we'd be screaming bloody murder" argument all the time, but Microsoft is simply legally bound (because of their monopoly) in ways that other companies are not. You can consider Apple's refusal to license FairPlay as knuckleheaded, or short-sighted. But you cannot characterize it as illegal, or even unethical. (Although I consider any kind of DRM that restricts my own fair use rights as unethical - but that is another story).

Lord Blackadder

Nov 23, 2005, 09:57 AM

DGFan

Nov 23, 2005, 10:00 AM

Uhm, isn't this illegal?

Probalby not. It is doubtful the DMCA would apply to this. The DMCA would likely make it illegal to sell something that can remove the DRM from existing songs. Selling something to add DRM to songs wouldn't fall under the provisions of the DMCA.

However, as someone else mentioned, it may violate Apple's terms of use of iTunes depending on how the reverse-engineering is done (an EULA provision against reverse-engineering was upheld recently - in the Diablo2 case - but the situation there was very, very different).

mkrishnan

Nov 23, 2005, 10:02 AM

how does it violate the end user licence of itunes when the whole point is to not use itunes?

I think the issue is less *you* using the product and more *the creator* and whether the fact that the technology is being created by reverse engineering can be interpreted as "circumvention."

The DMCA explicitly calls technology which circumvents DRM illegal, from my understanding. So technology that strips DRM is illegal -- which is why that DVD copying software was pulled from the maket. Reverse-engineering is trickier... normally, it's legal unless it results in patent or copyright violation.

But in this case, I think it depends on the extent to which the technology can be used to circumvent limitations in the existing DRM... for instance, if you had purchased music from Brand X, and you are allowed to use that music on N computers and devices, but you put it on more than N devices because some of them are storing the song via this DRM-breaker, then the technology allows you to "circumvent" the DRM restrictions. Likewise if you have music that you are only allowed to play on your desktop, but the technology allows you to burn CD copies of it, which is not a right you have under the purchase license.

So if, say, this technology were used to let Walmart songs go on an iPod, the claimant would be Walmart and not Apple, because Walmart's rights are impinged, not Apple's. But if the technology were used to let iTunes songs go on a WMA device, then I think Apple would have a circumvention case.

But lawyers can twist all of that! :D

Sirus The Virus

Nov 23, 2005, 10:06 AM

This is probably illegal. But I really don't like DRM at all. It will be interesting to see what becomes of all this.

Stella

Nov 23, 2005, 10:17 AM

My point is that just because its Apple they shouldn't 'get away' with controlling markets from a public point of view. It should be viewed as a negative.

Attempting to control markets doesn't usually work well.

But yes, microsoft are very much under the microscope - they couldn't possibly get away with it - remember earlier in the month when they were stopped from mandating that only WMA is used for media players ( for WMA licensees ).

Microsoft is a monopoly, and as such, must exercise restraint in using its monopoly power. Apple does not have a monopoly, and has a much wider range of things it can do and remain within the law.

I hear the "if MS were doing this, we'd be screaming bloody murder" argument all the time, but Microsoft is simply legally bound (because of their monopoly) in ways that other companies are not. You can consider Apple's refusal to license FairPlay as knuckleheaded, or short-sighted. But you cannot characterize it as illegal, or even unethical. (Although I consider any kind of DRM that restricts my own fair use rights as unethical - but that is another story).

zelman

Nov 23, 2005, 10:18 AM

an EULA provision against reverse-engineering was upheld recently - in the Diablo2 case - but the situation there was very, very different.

the diablo 2 thing (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/diablo2/news.html?sid=6132467) for those of us who hadn't heard.

iMeowbot

Nov 23, 2005, 10:30 AM

Microsoft is a monopoly, and as such, must exercise restraint in using its monopoly power. Apple does not have a monopoly, and has a much wider range of things it can do and remain within the law.
Apple are now big enough in the music market to be subject to antitrust rules. The ability to shut out competition or control prices, and control of at least half of a market, is enough to qualify as a monopoly in the US court system.

shamino

Nov 23, 2005, 10:38 AM

The legal situation is tennuous, but not explicitly illegal. Messing with DRM is possibly illegal under DMCA, but they aren't necessarily circumventing it, just reverse-engineering it.
Read the text of the DMCA (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html) (Chapter 12 of Title 17 of the US Code). Although you are right regarding its sprit, the letter of this law is overly broad.

Reverse engineering is discussed in section 1201 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201), subsection f. Reverse engineering a DRM scheme is only permitted
.. for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention ...
Note that it talks about interoperability of programs, not of documents. So you can reverse-engineer FairPlay if it's necessary for your app to interoperate with iTunes. But it's not permitted if the purpose is for you to create your own FairPlay-encoded documents.
Reverse engineering itself is perfectly legal, as long as they don't come up with the same exact copyrighted code that Apple uses in its Fairplay implementation. See the case law of Intel vs. AMD to verify the legitimacy of reverse engineering.
This is not true for DRM software. The DMCA creates an additional restriction that doesn't exist for any other kind of software.

shadowfax

Nov 23, 2005, 10:41 AM

My point is that just because its Apple they shouldn't 'get away' with controlling markets from a public point of view. It should be viewed as a negative.

Attempting to control markets doesn't usually work well.

I don't interpret this as controlling a market. they are controlling their own hardware and their own interface. Steve Jobs and Apple have a vision for how they want customers to use their iPod, and letting shoddy POS stores try to work with the iPod would ruin the trouble they went to to build the user experience.

This is classically Apple, and it's all that they've ever done under Jobs. It's why they aren't licensing OS X. They're designers, and holistic designers at that. I'm not saying they're not jerks, but they're not trying to control the market.

I don't see any issues here. I think that Apple will play them the same way that they played Real. You can't reverse engineer a format because it can't be EXACTLY the same (or it's a copyright violation) and Apple is not bound to support the format.

So only the dumbest users in the world will buy songs in this format, that may or may not work on their iPod.

andiwm2003

Nov 23, 2005, 10:45 AM

I think the issue is less *you* using the product and more *the creator* and whether the fact that the technology is being created by reverse engineering can be interpreted as "circumvention."

.......................................

my comment was directed toward the post saying reengineering would violate the EULA. the EULA is for the end user, meaning me. if i don't use itunes i don't violate the itunes EULA whatever it may be. so the end user is absolutely safe.

the creator of course is only in trouble if he violates apples copyright of the itunes software. even if he stripps the DRM of the music he is in no trouble WITH APPLE (assuming the music is not from itunes), only with the music labels. as long as the labels go along with it there is not much apple can do. probably firmware updates to the ipod to prevent the music from running on an ipod. but that would be bad for customer relations.

for the music industry it is good to have somebody out there breaking apples monopol as to what can be loaded onto an ipod. it gives them a much better position if they can (at least in theory) sell their music to millions of ipod users without itunes. thats why the music industry will not go against navio.

Wonder Boy

Nov 23, 2005, 10:47 AM

"customers indicate what kind of DRM encoding they want and then we provide them with a solution"

ironically, customers don't want any type of DRM

shadowfax

Nov 23, 2005, 10:50 AM

Apple are now big enough in the music market to be subject to antitrust rules. The ability to shut out competition or control prices, and control of at least half of a market, is enough to qualify as a monopoly in the US court system.
Check out the previous article on MacRumors. Apple is #7. They don't have anything close to 50% marketshare in the music market. Of course, they do in the digital music market, but who cares? that market is quite small and still relatively irrelevant. there's a big difference between havind a monopoly in such a small, even special-interest market as that and having a monopoly on, say, public transit or oil supply in the US, or, of course, a monopoly on world operating systems. People don't depend on the digital music market, and it's still a sub-market of a larger market that provides the same thing, music, to customers. Apple is not anticompetitive or monopolistic in controlling their hardware and software platforms, they are competing with the other music sellers, primarily the physical music sellers.

macFanDave

Nov 23, 2005, 10:50 AM

Navio happens to be located in Cupertino!

I have a feeling that Apple won't be needing lawyers to stop Navio's criminal behavior. Steve Jobs will have a little chat with Ray Schaaf of Navio out in the parking lot after work, and that will be that.

mkrishnan

Nov 23, 2005, 10:55 AM

tutubibi

Nov 23, 2005, 11:01 AM

"customers indicate what kind of DRM encoding they want and then we provide them with a solution"

ironically, customers don't want any type of DRM

Their customers are record publishers and they definitely want DRM.

iMeowbot

Nov 23, 2005, 11:03 AM

Check out the previous article on MacRumors. Apple is #7. They don't have anything close to 50% marketshare in the music market.
That's not the market where they have the monopoly. It's the digital music player market where Apple have their monopoly power.
Of course, they do in the digital music market, but who cares? that market is quite small and still relatively irrelevant.
Fair competition has nothing to do with the total size of the market. Are you at all familiar with the ongoing SCC v Lexmark saga? Antitrust action is still ongoing against Lexmark, and they don't own the overall printer market. They do, however, own a large piece of the market and have been attempting to shut out competitors.

Kelmon

Nov 23, 2005, 11:11 AM

I have to agree that I really wish Apple would open the iPod so that 2 major things can happen:

1. So that I can purchase music for it from any online store that I want and therefore introduce competition between stores.

2. So that I can play the music that I have purchased through any software that I want.

I'm thinking that the impact of #1 won't be that great since iTMS is already fine but a bit of price competition would be nice. The biggest impact would be from #2 and I'm particularly thinking about devices such as the Roku SoundBridge and the XBox 360. I find it insulting and unacceptable that I can purchase music but Apple will dictate how I can listen to that.

g4cubed

Nov 23, 2005, 11:18 AM

shamino

Nov 23, 2005, 11:26 AM

Probably not. It is doubtful the DMCA would apply to this. The DMCA would likely make it illegal to sell something that can remove the DRM from existing songs. Selling something to add DRM to songs wouldn't fall under the provisions of the DMCA.
Adding FairPlay DRM to files is not a violation. Developing software to add FairPlay is not a violation. Reverse engineering iTunes or the iPod's DRM software for the purpose of developing this software, however, is prohibited.

The burden of proof, of course, would be on Apple to prove that their FairPlay-applying software was developed using knowledge gained from reverse engineering and not through other means. This may be difficult.
However, as someone else mentioned, it may violate Apple's terms of use of iTunes depending on how the reverse-engineering is done (an EULA provision against reverse-engineering was upheld recently - in the Diablo2 case - but the situation there was very, very different).
This is an extremely interesting case. The EFF has a page (http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/) on this case.

The initial decisions by the Missouri courts ruled that click-thru licenses are enforceable without UCITA adoption. They also ruled that there were DMCA violations, because the bnetd server can be used to bypass the Diablo CD key restrictions.

The ruling was upheld (http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/20050901_decision.pdf) by the 8th Circuit court. One of their key arguments is that the bnetd server doesn't validate CD keys or check for duplicate keys - meaning the program can be used to enable piracy.

Whether this is applicable to the FairPlay debate is arguable. In the Blizzard case, the program created (using reverse engineering and EULA violation) could be (and was) used to enable piracy. If the Navio software can only be used to apply compatible DRM to new documents, and not remove DRM from existing documents, then the precedent from the Blizzard case should not be applicable.

The ruling about click-thru licenses is much more disturbing, but this is still a matter of state law, not federal. I strongly disagree with the Missouri court's conclusion that the UCC makes them legally binding - the UCITA was drafted specifically for the purpose of making them binding, which implies that they are not in its absence.

DCBass

Nov 23, 2005, 11:28 AM

These guys are small fry. Apple should not be over-concerned. Rather, they should consider licensing FairPlay.

Right now the iPod is huge, but they should plan ahead to the day when they are again mainly reliant on computer sales. The iPod dominance can't last forever.

Agreed. Sure, iPod's are raking in the dough right now, but this won't last forever. iTunes, if Apple plays their cards right, has a much bigger future than the iPod ever will.

Given that, Apple should probably begin licensing out Fairplay sometime soon. They're already clearly the market leader in sales and brand recognition for online music. If they don't, coupled with their fast growth in the coming years (i'm sure of it), Apple will be seen as the new microsoft.

Blech... got a sour taste in my mouth after typing that.

johnnyjibbs

Nov 23, 2005, 11:28 AM

finalcoolman

Nov 23, 2005, 11:37 AM

How about letting to use other MP3 players with iTunes? I'd love to use my Sony player with songs purchased from the Music Store. I love iTunes but I HATE the iPod. Oh the dillema.

dashiel

Nov 23, 2005, 11:38 AM

Remember that the point of iTunes is not to sell music. The point of iTunes is to sell iPods.

that's the company line, but it's not true, or at least it's now completely accurate. the point of of itunes is to increase adoption of the ipod which in turn will increase sales on itunes. apple is already turning a slight profit on itunes at the anemic sales figures (compared to physical sales of CDs). as the user base increases and downloads increase apple's overhead goes up marginally, but their revenue increases exponentially. apple's major cost is bandwidth and servers; bandwidth is cheap and i suspect they get a pretty good deal on servers :)

DGFan

Nov 23, 2005, 11:40 AM

Adding FairPlay DRM to files is not a violation. Developing software to add FairPlay is not a violation. Reverse engineering iTunes or the iPod's DRM software for the purpose of developing this software, however, is prohibited.

There are arguments that can be made on both sides of that issue. It will take a few cases to hammer that out.

The burden of proof, of course, would be on Apple to prove that their FairPlay-applying software was developed using knowledge gained from reverse engineering and not through other means. This may be difficult.
This is an extremely interesting case. The EFF has a page (http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/) on this case.

The initial decisions by the Missouri courts ruled that click-thru licenses are enforceable without UCITA adoption. They also ruled that there were DMCA violations, because the bnetd server can be used to bypass the Diablo CD key restrictions.

The ruling was upheld (http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/20050901_decision.pdf) by the 8th Circuit court. One of their key arguments is that the bnetd server doesn't validate CD keys or check for duplicate keys - meaning the program can be used to enable piracy.

Whether this is applicable to the FairPlay debate is arguable. In the Blizzard case, the program created (using reverse engineering and EULA violation) could be (and was) used to enable piracy. If the Navio software can only be used to apply compatible DRM to new documents, and not remove DRM from existing documents, then the precedent from the Blizzard case should not be applicable.

The ruling about click-thru licenses is much more disturbing, but this is still a matter of state law, not federal. I strongly disagree with the Missouri court's conclusion that the UCC makes them legally binding - the UCITA was drafted specifically for the purpose of making them binding, which implies that they are not in its absence.

Just one additional note: the court applied the cd-key argument in the context of deciding whether the EULA should be ignored because it was an unconscionable contract.

FoxyKaye

Nov 23, 2005, 11:44 AM

Bully for them - FairPlay is a bunch of nonsense anyhow. Between the folks reverse-engineering it to make their stuff compatible with iPods and the Hymn/JHymn projects, someday Apple's going to wake up and smell the coffee. DRM is just another layer for folks to hack and no more - it's not going to stop piracy, and in fact just makes it more of a PITA for people to use the music they've legally purchased.

iMeowbot

Nov 23, 2005, 11:46 AM

Hey Navio, say hello to Apple's lawyers! That said, I thought Real had to back out of the Rhapsody deal. I thought Apple threatened legal action and that was the end of it. Never realised you could still buy Real songs and play on iPod.
Right. All Apple did in the end was to posture and make idle threats. That's about as much as they could do without opening themselves up to much potential hurt.

inkswamp

Nov 23, 2005, 12:14 PM

The DMCA is such a sham. If this had been a hacker working out of his own bedroom, you can bet the authorities would be all over his ass for it, but since it's a business doing it, then it's no big deal I guess. :mad:

JW Pepper

Nov 23, 2005, 12:32 PM

Do not forget that the DMCA is only applicable in the USA. America does not have jurisdicition outside of its own borders.

longofest

Nov 23, 2005, 12:40 PM

Do not forget that the DMCA is only applicable in the USA. America does not have jurisdicition outside of its own borders.

Only partially correct. For instance, if you take a Madonna song with DRM protection, move to Mexico, and then strip it, DMCA still applies because of where the DRM was applied to the song.

In this case, Navio is located in Cupertino, CA, so the argument is mute anyways.

Quartz Extreme

Nov 23, 2005, 12:54 PM

From the iTunes software licence agreement:
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/itunes.html

Except as and only to the extent expressly permitted in this License or by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof.

From the iTunes Music Store Terms of Service:
http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/legal/terms.html

You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings, videos and related artwork, include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors. You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.

Stridder44

Nov 23, 2005, 12:57 PM

How about letting to use other MP3 players with iTunes? I'd love to use my Sony player with songs purchased from the Music Store. I love iTunes but I HATE the iPod. Oh the dillema.

Any particular reason why?

Quartz Extreme

Nov 23, 2005, 12:59 PM

How about letting to use other MP3 players with iTunes? I'd love to use my Sony player with songs purchased from the Music Store. I love iTunes but I HATE the iPod. Oh the dillema.

What don't you like about the iPod(s)?

What's not to like?

JW Pepper

Nov 23, 2005, 01:04 PM

Only partially correct. For instance, if you take a Madonna song with DRM protection, move to Mexico, and then strip it, DMCA still applies because of where the DRM was applied to the song.

In this case, Navio is located in Cupertino, CA, so the argument is mute anyways.

I don't agree, if I am in Mexico I am subject to Mexican laws not American laws. Otherwise we are al citizens of the World and subject to the laws of all countries no matter where we are and that would be absurd.

Going slightly OT the USA has just applied to extradite a Man from England Babar Ahmad who is said to be, and may indeed be a member of al-Qaeda or he may not, I don't know. He is accused of posting a web site procuring funds for terrorists activity. If he has committed any crimes it would be in England that those crimes have occurred not the US. Some middle eastern countries have laws against Christianity, so they might want to prosecute US Christian web site owners for heresy. Clearly they would not have jurisdiction and it is only by taking an extreme position that you can see the absurdity.

Having said all that, clearly Navio, whilst they are based in America they will have to be mindful of US laws.

longofest

Nov 23, 2005, 01:22 PM

I don't agree, if I am in Mexico I am subject to Mexican laws not American laws. Otherwise we are al citizens of the World and subject to the laws of all countries no matter where we are and that would be absurd.

Going slightly OT the USA has just applied to extradite a Man from England Babar Ahmad who is said to be, and may indeed be a member of al-Qaeda or he may not, I don't know. He is accused of posting a web site procuring funds for terrorists activity. If he has committed any crimes it would be in England that those crimes have occurred not the US. Some middle eastern countries have laws against Christianity, so they might want to prosecute US Christian web site owners for heresy. Clearly they would not have jurisdiction and it is only by taking an extreme position that you can see the absurdity.

Read closer to what I said. It has to do with the origin of the content. Because in this theoretical situation, you took a US-purchased song that was protected with US-DRM, but simply went out of the country to strip it, you would still be liable to the DMCA. However, you wouldn't be liable to Sweden's DRM law (I don't even know if they have one... just making up an example) because Sweden had nothing to do with the process.

EDIT: As far as your example of extraditing the guy from England who gave money to the website. I am not familiar with the case, but he would have broken US law if the website or organization that he gave too was based in the United States. So even though he is a British Citizen, since he went to a US-based terrorist organization and gave supported them, he is accountable to US law. This is at least what international law says. You do not have to be on the soil of a country to commit an offense against it.

BillyShears

Nov 23, 2005, 01:24 PM

Other online music stores can offer MP3s or non-protected AACs if they want to be played on the iPod.

Of course the record companies won't like that.

But the iPod has market penetration. So the record companies can't flat out tell Apple to piss off if they get into a disagreement (as they have re: variable pricing). Apple has the upper hand. People aren't going to buy music they can't play on their iPod.

So this non-licensing is beneficial to Apple's negotiations with the record companies.

(But suppose the record companies got pissed enough at Apple to allow other services to use non-DRM music files just to gain iPod compatibility!)

longofest

Nov 23, 2005, 01:30 PM

From the iTunes software licence agreement:
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/itunes.html

From the iTunes Music Store Terms of Service:
http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/legal/terms.html

These are in reference to iTunes and iTunes Music Store, not Fairplay. So, in other words you cannot reverse-engineer iTunes, and you cannot reverse-engineer the iTMS. However, it does not apply to the DRM, unless I'm missing something...

EDIT: The ITMS terms of service might be constricting for them, but they can totally bypass the iTunes terms of service.

andiwm2003

Nov 23, 2005, 01:30 PM

Read closer to what I said. It has to do with the origin of the content. Because in this theoretical situation, you took a US-purchased song that was protected with US-DRM, but simply went out of the country to strip it, you would still be liable to the DMCA. However, you wouldn't be liable to Sweden's DRM law (I don't even know if they have one... just making up an example) because Sweden had nothing to do with the process.

............................................

you are not correct. if i leave the us i'm free to do what i want with my songs. i'm only bound by the laws of that particular country. if this country allows me to strip the DRM i can do it.

what you say would mean i'm still bound by american traffic laws when i leave the US. that is particularly funny when you think about driving in UK:D

dernhelm

Nov 23, 2005, 01:31 PM

My point is that just because its Apple they shouldn't 'get away' with controlling markets from a public point of view. It should be viewed as a negative.

Attempting to control markets doesn't usually work well.

Actually, in the computer industry it has usually worked out quite well for companies in the short and even in the medium term. Witness Microsoft, IBM, and even Sun. None of these companies embraced any kind of openness in the early stages of there existance. They all attempted to control their market from the beginning, and each company succeeded for a relatively long period of time. Certainly long enough to make huge gobs of money before the market changed out from underneath them.

Long term is a different story, but who really looks out more than 1-2 years anyway? Among the three I listed, Microsoft has survived the longest at a high level, mostly because of their "cash cow" monopoly and illegal behavior. But all three did quite well using market controlling behavior for many years, thank you.

I will grant you that open source has changed that landscape some, and the challenge for Apple is to figure out how their business model fits into the current landscape and how it can adapt to where the markets go in the future. But it is far from obvious that "openning everything up" is a winning business model either (witness Java, which Sun still has yet to parlay into any bottom line profits).

SeaFox

Nov 23, 2005, 01:33 PM

puuukeey

Nov 23, 2005, 01:40 PM

anything to take down the DRM. apple has created amazingly simple hardware and software and the DRM is just this constant nucense. its like it's intended to feel like I'm using system 7. I'm going to do what I want anyway but I have to install extra software, restart my computer, trouble shoot blah. then I get to listen to my song

FAIR PLAY BLOWD

Abstract

Nov 23, 2005, 01:40 PM

Remember that the point of iTunes is not to sell music. The point of iTunes is to sell iPods.

Thats ridiculous. Nobody buys an iPod so that they can use iTMS (which is what you were referring to in your post). In fact, you don't even need an iPod to use iTMS. All you need is the iTunes player software itself, which isn't what you meant from your post.

longofest

Nov 23, 2005, 01:41 PM

you are not correct. if i leave the us i'm free to do what i want with my songs. i'm only bound by the laws of that particular country. if this country allows me to strip the DRM i can do it.

what you say would mean i'm still bound by american traffic laws when i leave the US. that is particularly funny when you think about driving in UK:D

No, you're taking what I'm saying too far. Obviously not ALL laws are applicable across state boundaries. In the case of laws that are specific to a country or region like traffic laws (funny analogy by the way:p ), then the laws do not traverse borders.

I should be more clear: Most of my argument on the DMCA/DRM is bound by the copyright issue. Copyrights in the US held elsewhere when there is some kind of binding circumstance. in this case, it was buying the music in the US that binds the laws of the US to the CD.

Don't apply what I'm saying here to my previous post about the British guy. That's a totally different situation...

longofest

Nov 23, 2005, 01:44 PM

Quartz Extreme

Nov 23, 2005, 01:45 PM

These are in reference to iTunes and iTunes Music Store, not Fairplay. So, in other words you cannot reverse-engineer iTunes, and you cannot reverse-engineer the iTMS. However, it does not apply to the DRM, unless I'm missing something...

http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/legal/terms.html

You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings, videos and related artwork, include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors. You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.

andiwm2003

Nov 23, 2005, 01:46 PM

No, actually it is 100% correct. The DMCA is an American law and can only be enforced in American borders, that's what sovereignty is all about. He may (perhaps) now be considered a criminal in the United States, but he cannot be picked up by the FBI in Mexico. The Mexican authorities would have to arrest him and extradite him, and the U.S. and Mexico do not have an extradition agreement last I heard.

Note that in some countries file sharing is completely legal. People who get RIAA/MPAA letters can just have a good laugh and throw them away pretty much.

i think the point that longofest doesn't get is that you are only bound by the DMCA when there are international treaties between the US and the other nation.

Or when you are dumb enough to bring the DRM free music back to the US. But as long as you use the music according to the laws of the other nation in this other nation you are fine.

A problem for you comes up when you sell this hacked music files via the net. Because then you are selling illegal stuff in the US. Or when you buy DRM stripped music as a tourist outside the US and you bring it back home into the US.

But in all of these cases the offense happens in the US and that is where you violate the law.

But I hate to break the news: US law ends at US borders. (I think child abuse is one of the few exemptions were they can get you for a crime committed abroad.)

edit: i'm typing to slow. LONGOFEST already posted new stuff which makes most of the above outdated.
I'm still quite sure that without an international treaty you don't violate US law when you adhere to the local law in the other nation. Only when your hacked files get somehow transferred into the US you violate the law.

longofest

Nov 23, 2005, 01:51 PM

http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/legal/terms.html
You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings, videos and related artwork, include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors. You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.

Thanks for posting more of the quote. Yeah... Looks like they have their bases covered. Navio might be able to argue that the license is illegal because it has become monopolistic due to Apple's unwillingness to license Fairplay (no, Motorlla does not count), but it would be a hard sell, and definitely a lot to bet their money on.

mdavey

Nov 23, 2005, 01:55 PM

I should be more clear: Most of my argument on the DMCA/DRM is bound by the copyright issue. Copyrights in the US held elsewhere when there is some kind of binding circumstance. in this case, it was buying the music in the US that binds the laws of the US to the CD.

No, that is not the case. Firstly, DMCA is not copyright - it goes further than copyright. You are correct (in implying) that the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention of 1910, the Universal Copyright Convention of 1971 and the Berne Copyright Convention of 1971 (among others) are observed in most countries and that by claiming copyright in one country that observes one of the formentioned conventions, you are claiming copyright in all the countries that observe that convention. However, you are incorrect in asserting that the DMCA is binding when not on US soil.

longofest

Nov 23, 2005, 01:55 PM

i think the point that longofest doesn't get is that you are only bound by the DMCA when there are international treaties between the US and the other nation.

Or when you are dumb enough to bring the DRM free music back to the US. But as long as you use the music according to the laws of the other nation in this other nation you are fine.

A problem for you comes up when you sell this hacked music files via the net. Because then you are selling illegal stuff in the US. Or when you buy DRM stripped music as a tourist outside the US and you bring it back home into the US.

But in all of these cases the offense happens in the US and that is where you violate the law.

But I hate to break the news: US law ends at US borders. (I think child abuse is one of the few exemptions were they can get you for a crime committed abroad.)

edit: i'm typing to slow. LONGOFEST already posted new stuff which makes most of the above outdated.
I'm still quite sure that without an international treaty you don't violate US law when you adhere to the local law in the other nation. Only when your hacked files get somehow transferred into the US you violate the law.

Thanks for catching my edit :). My point is that you have broken US law, but you won't be breaking any laws of the nation you are currently in. So, it is up to the US to encourage the nation that you reside in to pick you up and extradite you. Some countries we have extradition treaties with, some we don't. So you are partially right on the treaty thing. But it would still be against US law if you got that US-copyrighted work that has DRM on it and stripped it.

longofest

Nov 23, 2005, 01:57 PM

No, that is not the case. Firstly, DMCA is not copyright - it goes further than copyright. You are correct (in implying) that the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention of 1910, the Universal Copyright Convention of 1971 and the Berne Copyright Convention of 1971 (among others) are observed in most countries and that by claiming copyright in one country that observes one of the formentioned conventions, you are claiming copyright in all the countries that observe that convention. However, you are incorrect in asserting that the DMCA is binding when not on US soil.

See other posts that clarify my point. I've been more disjointed today than I like to be. It is binding in the US still, but you would have to be extradited, etc... Just see the posts, I'll screw up if I try to summarize here...

mkrishnan

Nov 23, 2005, 01:59 PM

I think it's also important to consider that the DMCA was created in large part to bring the US into compliance with WTO rulings.... Many of its unsavory aspects are, unfortunately, the way things are likely to go in many nations as time progresses, if they have not already become that way.

JW Pepper

Nov 23, 2005, 01:59 PM

You have just made my point. He is STILL BOUND BY US LAWS! He is still considered a criminal by the US, and therefore they US authorities can ask the Mexican authorities to arrest him and extradite him to the US for prosecution. Obviously, we are blowing it out of proportion for DMCA, but the point is still made. He is not free and clear of US law just because he did it outside of the US borders.

I dissagree, what I do in Mexico has nothing to do with the US, they have no jurisdiction there. It would be like collecting for Noraid in the US, would be an offence to do so in Great Britain, but US citizans are free to donate to Irish Terrorists without fear of the British Government, I don't like it but it is how it is. The British Government has no jurisdiction over what US citizens do in their own country.

andiwm2003

Nov 23, 2005, 02:00 PM

Thanks for catching my edit :). My point is that you have broken US law, but you won't be breaking any laws of the nation you are currently in. So, it is up to the US to encourage the nation that you reside in to pick you up and extradite you. Some countries we have extradition treaties with, some we don't. So you are partially right on the treaty thing. But it would still be against US law if you got that US-copyrighted work that has DRM on it and stripped it.

that is pretty much where i think you are wrong. when a chinese company violates a US patent it does not violate US law unless they sell the products to the US. Only after China enters the WTO the company violates US law.
As long as they sell in China they are legally safe, even on a vacation in florida. That is at least my understanding. But that should best be clarified by a lawyer. Is there a lawyer around???

longofest

Nov 23, 2005, 02:04 PM

Okay guys, I looked up DMCA. See link here: http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

DMCA was signed into law in 1998 by Clinton, and was legislation that implemented two 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization treaties. In it, it contains this:
Article 12 of the WCT provides in relevant part:
Contracting Parties shall provide adequate and effective
legal remedies against any person knowingly performing
any of the following acts knowing, or with respect to
civil remedies having reasonable grounds to know, that
it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement
of any right covered by this Treaty or the Berne
Convention:
(i) to remove or alter any electronic rights
management information without authority;
(ii) to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast
or communicate to the public, without authority,
works or copies of works knowing that electronic rights
management information has been removed or altered
without authority.
Article 19 of the WPPT contains nearly identical language.

So, the DMCA is actually derived from international accords. So, we might be fighting over nothing. Interesting discussion though. I'm enjoying it :)

longofest

Nov 23, 2005, 02:07 PM

I dissagree, what I do in Mexico has nothing to do with the US, they have no jurisdiction there. It would be like collecting for Noraid in the US, would be an offence to do so in Great Britain, but US citizans are free to donate to Irish Terrorists without fear of the British Government, I don't like it but it is how it is. The British Government has no jurisdiction over what US citizens do in their own country.

The British gvt could give the info the FBI, which could pick up the guy and extradite him. Thats how practically all International Terrorism investiagions go now adays, and it is well within the law. However, the FBI could also refuse to extradite or pick him up if they feel the info is not credible and they felt that britain was being poopheads...

longofest

Nov 23, 2005, 02:09 PM

that is pretty much where i think you are wrong. when a chinese company violates a US patent it does not violate US law unless they sell the products to the US. Only after China enters the WTO the company violates US law.
As long as they sell in China they are legally safe, even on a vacation in florida. That is at least my understanding. But that should best be clarified by a lawyer. Is there a lawyer around???

May be right on the WTO thing, but you are now talking about Patent vs. Copyright. Two very different things, and not governed by the same bodies.

kirk26

Nov 23, 2005, 02:15 PM

Cool! This is very good news!

iMeowbot

Nov 23, 2005, 02:17 PM

Do not forget that the DMCA is only applicable in the USA. America does not have jurisdicition outside of its own borders.
Any country that has signed into the WIPO copyright treaty has promised to do the same under Article 12.

[edit: oh a whole 'nother page turned up while I was out :) ]

Photorun

Nov 23, 2005, 02:22 PM

I was thinking "why doesn't someone reverse engineer Windows Media Format with DRM" then I remembered nobody cares about lousy formats, only the good ones. It goes hand in hand why someone wouldn't want to use toilet water in their iced tea. Still though people are saying Apple can't sue, they should and/or do something. I don't see how they don't have a legal case, though I guess that depends on someone's view of "legal."

longofest

Nov 23, 2005, 02:43 PM

Any country that has signed into the WIPO copyright treaty has promised to do the same under Article 12.

[edit: oh a whole 'nother page turned up while I was out :) ]

Yep... just quoted DMCA a couple of posts ago and linked to it.

illegalprelude

Nov 23, 2005, 03:06 PM

If this was microsoft people would be screaming murder.

I could not agree with you more. Its ok for Apple to want to protect their property and hold as much as the market because apple is "the underdog and it loves us" but when Microsoft does it "WE Must Unite and burn down the beast!!!"

inkhead

Nov 23, 2005, 03:23 PM

Chacala_Nayarit

Nov 23, 2005, 03:26 PM

(Although I consider any kind of DRM that restricts my own fair use rights as unethical - but that is another story).

Me too. So what do I do with iTunes AAC DRM songs? Make audio CDs, and then copy then rip them back to iTunes in non-DRM formats. :D

inkhead

Nov 23, 2005, 03:28 PM

Who cares what itunes user agreement is? Good luck getting a court to hold up that they can't reverse engineer it. First of all in California the court's going to side with consumers and probably not Apple, this issue has already been played out in courts, and not in favor of Apple either.

Besides "ethically" Steve Jobs has to see the logic behind and open DRM format. My guess is he's torn between locking you into itunes profits and having a open-drm type standard. I mean he's preached countless times about the "consumers" interest, and it's in the consumers interest to have options.

These are in reference to iTunes and iTunes Music Store, not Fairplay. So, in other words you cannot reverse-engineer iTunes, and you cannot reverse-engineer the iTMS. However, it does not apply to the DRM, unless I'm missing something...

EDIT: The ITMS terms of service might be constricting for them, but they can totally bypass the iTunes terms of service.

wongulous

Nov 23, 2005, 03:42 PM

I hope they do reverse engineer it. I'm sorry to say it I love my iPod, but I love Yahoo's all you can eat music.

I currently record a couple hours of my customized radio station to mp3 (off yahoo) and then play it back on my iPod.

Yahoo music has some cool features, and since I paid $80 for a whole year of all I can eat music I've saved quite a bit... I spend $3800 last year off itunes, only to have two disks fail (my own fault) and lose my entire music collection. The idea that I couldn't redownload what I already paid for pissed me off.

Yeah the Yahoo music store interface sucks, but subscription is a nice option, I wish Apple would offer it. I'd pay even $50/month for all I could eat iTunes.
You're assuming that just because Navio is attempting to reverse-engineer FairPlay, that they'll be successful, and Apple won't once again stop them with either a more difficult workaround, legal threats, or an injunction and other court litigation doohickeys, and even then, that Navio will sell the product, and that Yahoo will buy it, within your one year of subscription to it.

And then you're supporting unethical reverse-engineering of Apple's technology, violation of iTunes/iTMS EULAs, *and* violation of the DMCA laws (and indirectly, international copyright standards), simply because you have some ridiculous grudge that you blew $4k on iTunes and then made the stupid mistake of not having a backup?

So irrational it hurts.

DGFan

Nov 23, 2005, 03:55 PM

You have just made my point. He is STILL BOUND BY US LAWS! He is still considered a criminal by the US, and therefore they US authorities can ask the Mexican authorities to arrest him and extradite him to the US for prosecution. Obviously, we are blowing it out of proportion for DMCA, but the point is still made. He is not free and clear of US law just because he did it outside of the US borders.

But what you're ALL forgetting is that the criminal part of the DMCA (section 1204) wouldn't apply to simply removing the DRM from a song you bought. You would have to be doing it for "commercial advantage or private financial gain" which probably means distributing it in some way.

So the basis of your disagreement is kind of moot for normal people.

DGFan

Nov 23, 2005, 04:03 PM

And then you're supporting unethical reverse-engineering of Apple's technology, violation of iTunes/iTMS EULAs, *and* violation of the DMCA laws (and indirectly, international copyright standards), simply because you have some ridiculous grudge that you blew $4k on iTunes and then made the stupid mistake of not having a backup?

So irrational it hurts.

First, since when is reverse-engineering unethical? It was a big contributer to the computer revolution (think BIOS).

Second, there's no guarantee that they're using iTUnes/iTMS to do the reverse-engineering. It's possible they're just doing it by looking at an iPod so the EULA wouldn't apply.

Third, it's *far* from clear-cut that the DMCA would apply. Remember, allowing others to create DRMed files is not the same thing as circumventing DRM. I think the much stronger argument, based on a reading of the statute, is that the DMCA would not apply.

SiliconAddict

Nov 23, 2005, 04:03 PM

Hello DMCA.

shamino

Nov 23, 2005, 04:51 PM

Any country that has signed into the WIPO copyright treaty has promised to do the same under Article 12.
But not all countries have signed into this.

Which is why businesses in some countries can manufacture copies for sale without permission of the international copyright holder.

swingerofbirch

Nov 23, 2005, 04:53 PM

dejo

Nov 23, 2005, 04:58 PM

shamino

Nov 23, 2005, 05:00 PM

But what you're ALL forgetting is that the criminal part of the DMCA (section 1204) wouldn't apply to simply removing the DRM from a song you bought. You would have to be doing it for "commercial advantage or private financial gain" which probably means distributing it in some way.
Not quite.
Section 1204 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1204) specifies the maximum penalties for someone who does it for "commercial advantage of private financial gain". Subsection (b) exempts certain non-profit organizations.

The absence of a specified penalty is not the same as being immune from prosecution.

Breaking DRM for personal non-profit use is not mentioned and will probably depend on case law, should anybody actually be sued.

Developing and releasing software to break DRM (whether commercial or not) is similarly gray, and probably more likely to end up being illegal when tried in court.

shamino

Nov 23, 2005, 05:02 PM

Instead of reverse engineering Fair Play would it be legal for another music store, take Napster for example, to come out with a firmware upgrade for the iPod that lets it play whatever format music Napster sells alongside the Fairplay music?
Sure they could. An iPod is a computing platform, just like your Mac.

But they're going to have one heck of a job writing such an upgrade if they plan on retaining compatibility with iTunes and iTMS purchases. And Apple could very easily start making changes to iTunes that render it incompatible with a Napster-iPod.

I suppose this wouldn't be a problem for those who want to use their iPod exclusively as a Napster playback device, but how many people would really want that?

swingerofbirch

Nov 23, 2005, 05:06 PM

I spend $3800 last year off itunes, only to have two disks fail (my own fault) and lose my entire music collection. The idea that I couldn't redownload what I already paid for pissed me off.

OUCH! SO SORRY! I lost my entire CD collection on an airplane once, but I hadn't spent almost $4,000 on it.

That would really piss me off too, not too mention all the other documents you would have lost.

Audible.com has always been great about letting you redownload what you have purchased.

I don't know if you have tried, but Apple's customer service can be exceptional at times. If you find a caring person in customer service, and sweet talk and sob story your way through they might arrange something for you. They have a record, of course, of all the music you purchased. Say something like, could I pay a one time fee to redownload the music I lost. For legal reasons they won't let you pay for it, but they might let you do it for free.

This happened to me once when I downloaded an audiobook from iTunes and I couldn't find it. I wrote them an email saying I couldn't find it on my computer, and they said they would for one time only grant an exemption and make it available for me as a download.

Also, when you call them, tell them how much you love Apple and you're an iPod lover and tell all your friends about it and how you've been using Apple products for over 20 years. I hope maybe some of that advice could get you your music collection back!

Meyvn

Nov 23, 2005, 05:42 PM

I'm sure their lawyers would say that the spirit of the law was to protect copyright of the protected material, not to support an iPod monopoly, and they would have a point.

Are you insinuating that Apple doesn't have the right to control the playback formats its own product accepts?

iMeowbot

Nov 23, 2005, 05:59 PM

But not all countries have signed into this.
You'll find that a lot more countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_party_to_the_Berne_Convention_by_name) have at least signed onto Bern (the one that matters) than some may think.
Which is why businesses in some countries can manufacture copies for sale without permission of the international copyright holder.
It's illegal in virtually all the countries where bootleg manufacturing actually happens.

EricNau

Nov 23, 2005, 06:26 PM

I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS! :confused: WHAT DOES IT MEAN? :confused:

NicP

Nov 23, 2005, 06:35 PM

Heres an idea, if you want ipod compatiable files SELL THEM AS MP3S!!

Copy protection dosent do jack anyway, all you need is 1 person to rip it (if all else fails you can always record the analog audio) and seed it on a p2p network and then more and more users get it and distribute it between each other.

It would be much more logical to develop some kind of watermark to store in the mp3s that could identify the original user. The the lables could also stop copyright works from being searchable in p2p programs.

None of this would eliminate piracy completly, but it would make the casual pirate lean towards doing the right thing. All the drm is doing is making it a pain in the ass for regular consumers and encouraging them to download illigal DRM-free files, people who pirate stuff dont suffer any effect at all.

DGFan

Nov 23, 2005, 07:29 PM

Not quite.
Section 1204 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1204) specifies the maximum penalties for someone who does it for "commercial advantage of private financial gain". Subsection (b) exempts certain non-profit organizations.

The absence of a specified penalty is not the same as being immune from prosecution.

Breaking DRM for personal non-profit use is not mentioned and will probably depend on case law, should anybody actually be sued.

Developing and releasing software to break DRM (whether commercial or not) is similarly gray, and probably more likely to end up being illegal when tried in court.

I was responding to the people who were talking about getting extradited and criminal penalties. This wasn't about people getting sued.

mkrishnan

Nov 23, 2005, 07:41 PM

I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS! :confused: WHAT DOES IT MEAN? :confused:

It means that we save so much time, because our iPods Just Work™, that we have to put all of that time to good use, and we have decided as a group that the best use would be to debate the DMCA in such an annoying fashion that eventually the First Amendment will be repealed. :D

Seriously, what do you / don't you understand? This company plans to develop software that emulates Apple's technology for playing protected music in iTunes and on iPods. The purpose is so that other stores can sell iTunes compatible songs, such as RealNetworks tries to do. Presumably the same tech development could easily be used to put iTunes songs on other players, which would also be a potential "market" for Navio.

We've just been debating whether Apple will have to bother stopping them, or whether the sucky nature of other services and the shaky nature of this technology (since Fairplay could be updated and the songs could stop working) would be enough for Apple to protect itself. And also what Apple should do in the long run, since it seems like such monopolostic, protectionist policies as the private Fairplay are unnecessary given how good their product is.

EricNau

Nov 23, 2005, 07:46 PM

It means that we save so much time, because our iPods Just Work™, that we have to put all of that time to good use, and we have decided as a group that the best use would be to debate the DMCA in such an annoying fashion that eventually the First Amendment will be repealed. :D

Seriously, what do you / don't you understand? This company plans to develop software that emulates Apple's technology for playing protected music in iTunes and on iPods. The purpose is so that other stores can sell iTunes compatible songs, such as RealNetworks tries to do. Presumably the same tech development could easily be used to put iTunes songs on other players, which would also be a potential "market" for Navio.

We've just been debating whether Apple will have to bother stopping them, or whether the sucky nature of other services and the shaky nature of this technology (since Fairplay could be updated and the songs could stop working) would be enough for Apple to protect itself. And also what Apple should do in the long run, since it seems like such monopolostic, protectionist policies as the private Fairplay are unnecessary given how good their product is.

I just don't get the part about emulating Apple's technology for playing protected songs on iTunes. What would that change? How are Apple's Songs protected? Are they trying to open up an online music store similar to iTMS? I can already put songs not bought on iTunes, onto my iPod? I just don't get it. :confused: Sorry :o
I don't even know - is this a good thing, or a bad thing?

Thanks

mkrishnan

Nov 23, 2005, 08:10 PM

I can already put songs not bought on iTunes, onto my iPod? I just don't get it. :confused: Sorry :o

You can put songs not bought at iTunes, and not bought at another online music store, on an iPod and on iTunes now. But if you buy a copy-protected song from Napster, say, then there is no way to put it on an iPod, unless you burn it to a CD and re-rip it, or otherwise disable the existing protection. Because Napster uses its own protection on its songs. And Napster doesn't want you to use that solution, first, because it's a PITA, and second, because then the song is no longer protected, and you can share it with whomever you want.

What this software does is really more of a back-end feature. It lets Napster easily sell songs that can be converted into the Apple protection scheme, so that they can go on an iPod, but still are protected.

Dunno if it's a good or bad thing. I guess it's potentially bad for Apple's iTunes dominance. But good for consumers, as long as it works in a straightforward manner. And Apple doesn't suffer too much, because the iPod is what people want (including Napster), and that's Apple's cash cow.

EricNau

Nov 23, 2005, 08:19 PM

You can put songs not bought at iTunes, and not bought at another online music store, on an iPod and on iTunes now. But if you buy a copy-protected song from Napster, say, then there is no way to put it on an iPod, unless you burn it to a CD and re-rip it, or otherwise disable the existing protection. Because Napster uses its own protection on its songs. And Napster doesn't want you to use that solution, first, because it's a PITA, and second, because then the song is no longer protected, and you can share it with whomever you want.

What this software does is really more of a back-end feature. It lets Napster easily sell songs that can be converted into the Apple protection scheme, so that they can go on an iPod, but still are protected.

Dunno if it's a good or bad thing. I guess it's potentially bad for Apple's iTunes dominance. But good for consumers, as long as it works in a straightforward manner. And Apple doesn't suffer too much, because the iPod is what people want (including Napster), and that's Apple's cash cow.

I get it now! :D Thank you!

longofest

Nov 23, 2005, 09:33 PM

Are you insinuating that Apple doesn't have the right to control the playback formats its own product accepts?

It really depends upon market position, doesn't it? Look at Windows? You could say the same thing about Windows. Your argument says: Doesn't Microsoft have the right to chose which Media player was installed as default in the OS? But the courts disagreed due to Microsoft's monopoly on the market.

Since Apple has a monopoly on portable music players, they are in a very similar position that Microsoft was in, and it is only a matter of time before they receive the same kind of antitrust attention that Microsoft or any market-dominating company receives.

I'm an Apple fan. I have a PowerBook 867, PowerMac 2x1Ghz QS, and a Quad order that I'm about to place once I graduate this fall (grad gift :-D). However, I'm not blind to the fact that every company that comes to market dominance ends up getting some legal short-end of the stick.

BobMcBob

Nov 23, 2005, 09:36 PM

I'm surprised Apple can't (or isn't) doing more to prevent it. It seems like there could be lots of tricky things they could do to make it more difficult to reverse engineer. It makes me wonder if they don't mind that much, or if it's actually that hard to stop. They control the iPods. They control iTunes.

EricNau

Nov 23, 2005, 10:53 PM

Since Apple has a monopoly on portable music players, they are in a very similar position that Microsoft was in, and it is only a matter of time before they receive the same kind of antitrust attention that Microsoft or any market-dominating company receives.

In no ways does Apple have a monopoly. Their market share is at only 80%, which is a lot, but it means it still doesn't have 20%. There are atleast 5 very popular companies out there that offer something of similar quality* for about half the price.

*hardware, not software ;)

SiliconAddict

Nov 23, 2005, 11:44 PM

I hope they do reverse engineer it. I'm sorry to say it I love my iPod, but I love Yahoo's all you can eat music.

I currently record a couple hours of my customized radio station to mp3 (off yahoo) and then play it back on my iPod.

Yahoo music has some cool features, and since I paid $80 for a whole year of all I can eat music I've saved quite a bit... I spend $3800 last year off itunes, only to have two disks fail (my own fault) and lose my entire music collection. The idea that I couldn't redownload what I already paid for pissed me off.

No offense dude and I'm sorry if this comes off as pissy but it’s your own dang fault for not backing up your files. I'm dead serious. I have my tracks on my desktop. Once a month I drop the files onto my home server and then every 6 month I do a backup of my home server and drop the backup tapes in my safety deposit box. Now not everyone has 60/80GB backup drives available to them but if you spent almost 4 grand on files you sure as heck could have spent the $100-$150is on a DVD burner and backed those files up.
My point being is that Apple isn't responsible for the files once it's out of their hands. (Actually if you get a bad download they will actually credit you for the file to try and download it again.) Just as the makers of CD content aren't responsible to replace your CD's when you house, God forbid, burns down.

SiliconAddict

Nov 23, 2005, 11:47 PM

Me too. So what do I do with iTunes AAC DRM songs? Make audio CDs, and then copy then rip them back to iTunes in non-DRM formats. :D

And lose quality along the way. iTMS’s 128-bit AAC’s are already at such a low quality most people who can actual hear a difference will not consider this an option.

EricNau

Nov 23, 2005, 11:53 PM

And lose quality along the way. iTMS’s 128-bit AAC’s are already at such a low quality most people who can actual hear a difference will not consider this an option.
Can you tell a difference? (I can't)

SiliconAddict

Nov 23, 2005, 11:58 PM

It really depends upon market position, doesn't it? Look at Windows? You could say the same thing about Windows. Your argument says: Doesn't Microsoft have the right to chose which Media player was installed as default in the OS? But the courts disagreed due to Microsoft's monopoly on the market.

Since Apple has a monopoly on portable music players, they are in a very similar position that Microsoft was in, and it is only a matter of time before they receive the same kind of antitrust attention that Microsoft or any market-dominating company receives.

Umm dude. I think you are a tad mixed up. There is nothing illegal or unethical with having a monopoly. In fact the US government doesn't give a rip about any one company having a monopoly. Its what you do with said monopoly is where the government comes into play.
If Apple hasn't used their domination of the market to gain some oddball advantage over the competition (Say Licensing Fairplay to those who promise never to distribute content to Microsoft?) then there isn't anything the gov can do other then start an investigation on behalf of all the pissing and moaning companies who can't create a music store / music player as slick as the iPod.
Actually even though Apple does appear to have a solid lock on things all it will take is the RIAA to strangle Apple's licensing and poof goes iTMS's advantage. All the while they give MS, Napster, Music Match exclusive rights that is . . .wait for it. . . using WMA's DRM that the iPod doesn't support.
There ARE things that can break Apple. Apple has nothing in their possession that guarantees them a sure lock on the market. Doubtless when MS and co goes complaining to the DoJ they will spin another story but at the end of the day Apple is still vulnerable to the competition.

SiliconAddict

Nov 24, 2005, 12:00 AM

Can you tell a difference? (I can't)

I wasn't able either until I got a pair of high end Sony in ear buds. . Yah. I can tell now. I really am amazed at the quality difference between the buds that come with the iPod and in ear ones. I can hear the stinking echo of the recording room in some of the tracks I have.

Evangelion

Nov 24, 2005, 01:51 AM

I don't interpret this as controlling a market. they are controlling their own hardware and their own interface.

And you could say that Microsoft is controlling their own software and interface. I really fail to see any difference in MS's behavior of shutting competitors out and Apple's behavior in shutting competitors out. Well, the difference is that Microsoft has 90+% market-share in their market, while Apple has about 80-85% market-share in this particular market. Is that 5+% enough to change the rules entirely?

Steve Jobs and Apple have a vision for how they want customers to use their iPod, and letting shoddy POS stores try to work with the iPod would ruin the trouble they went to to build the user experience.

Bill Gates and Microsoft have a vision on how people use their computers, and allowing people to use other OS'es would ruin the trouble they went to build their hegemony.

Seriously: what's the difference here? In they manage to reverse-engineer FairPlay, you are NOT in any shape or form forced to use their "shoddy POS store", you can keep on using ITMS. But if someone wants to use their store instead of ITMS, who are you to say no?

I'm not saying they're not jerks, but they're not trying to control the market.

Oh yes they are! If you believe otherwise, you are living in la-la land!

I don't see any issues here.

I CAN see the issues. Whether those issues are important enough remains to be debated, but they are there.

So only the dumbest users in the world will buy songs in this format, that may or may not work on their iPod.

Well, that's their choice, isn't it?

Evangelion

Nov 24, 2005, 01:57 AM

It's rather interesting really... How do you guys interact with Windows-networks with your Macs? You use Samba. How can Samba interact with Windows's SMB-protocol? It's because the Samba-team reverse-engineered the protocol.

Yet, now that someone else is reverse-engineering Apple's stuff, it's suddenly bad and it should be stopped. If you think like that, then you should stop using Samba, because Samba does it's thing because of that evil reverse-engineering! How can you support reverse-engineering when Samba is concerned, but condemn it when FairPlay is concerned? Isn't that double-standards?

caveman_uk

Nov 24, 2005, 03:07 AM

Remember that the point of iTunes is not to sell music. The point of iTunes is to sell iPods.
Maybe that's what Apple says now but is that the endgame?

The iTMS is fairly low margin and most people that buy iPods don't use the iTMS for the majority of the music on them. If the point was to sell more ipods then it would make sense to license FairPlay to all the music stores. But Apple doesn't...it protects a (currently) low margin music store. Currently the iPod is promoting the iTMS. Not the other way around - regardless of what Apple says.

Maybe Apple sees controlling the main online DRM system as more important in the long term. iPods will not continue selling forever. But controlling the online music, video, on-demand movie and maybe TV markets will be a lot more lucrative in the long term.

Remember Steve Jobs is quite capable of saying one thing whilst doing/thinking the other. He dissed flash based music players....right up to the point he introduced one.

twilson

Nov 24, 2005, 06:04 AM

Apple are now big enough in the music market to be subject to antitrust rules. The ability to shut out competition or control prices, and control of at least half of a market, is enough to qualify as a monopoly in the US court system.

As far as monopolistic goes, I don't think they can be attacked from that angle. Nothing they are doing has changed in any way shape or form from the original implementation of iTMS/iPod when they weren't a monopoly.

If they had licensed Fairplay, and the whole iPod-iTMS thing was 'open' in the beginning they could be attacked if they closed the system later once they had the monopoly.

But iTunes has always been a closed system, and has only ever worked with the iPod. So they have done nothing unethical to attain their position, so why should they have to give it up.

Look at this from the perspective with MS and IE. They locked the browser into their monopoly Operating System at the expense of the competition (e.g. they win the browser the war, by default).

Apple isn't being monopolistic/anti-trust in it's behaviour, it is just retaining the control over the empire they have built.

At the end of the day, more fool everyone for buying into what they knew to be a monopoly. The consumer can't have it both ways.

That's my take on it, anyway.

wnurse

Nov 24, 2005, 07:05 AM

"customers indicate what kind of DRM encoding they want and then we provide them with a solution"

ironically, customers don't want any type of DRM

The customers Navio was talking about is not regular joe consumer. Have you seen navio advertising to you?. Think before you speak. The customers they are talking about is other corporations that want to sell music for the ipod.
Unlike you, they too want DRM.

Evangelion

Nov 24, 2005, 07:12 AM

As far as monopolistic goes, I don't think they can be attacked from that angle. Nothing they are doing has changed in any way shape or form from the original implementation of iTMS/iPod when they weren't a monopoly.

Sure they could. It does not matter that have their tactics changed or not. What matter is that non-monopolies can do things that monopolies cannot. If Apple is a monopoly, then there might be things that it could no longer do, even though they did the exact same thing back when they weren't a monopoly.

If they had licensed Fairplay, and the whole iPod-iTMS thing was 'open' in the beginning they could be attacked if they closed the system later once they had the monopoly.

true.

But iTunes has always been a closed system, and has only ever worked with the iPod. So they have done nothing unethical to attain their position, so why should they have to give it up.

Because non-monopolies can do things that monopolies cannot. Note: I'm not saying that they are a monopoly.

Apple isn't being monopolistic/anti-trust in it's behaviour, it is just retaining the control over the empire they have built.

Well, you could say that MS was just "retaining control over their empire" when they bundled IE with Windows. And look what happened.

wnurse

Nov 24, 2005, 07:16 AM

In no ways does Apple have a monopoly. Their market share is at only 80%, which is a lot, but it means it still doesn't have 20%. There are atleast 5 very popular companies out there that offer something of similar quality* for about half the price.

*hardware, not software ;)

You are not serious are you?.. you do realize that when microsoft only had 80%, they were still considered a monopoly, right?.. u do realize this right?.

Photorun

Nov 24, 2005, 08:13 AM

You are not serious are you?.. you do realize that when microsoft only had 80%, they were still considered a monopoly, right?.. u do realize this right?.

Actually they weren't. I worked in the software indudstry then, very early to mid 90s, i.e. while Apple stumbled along with Performas and about 60 versions of their supposed PowerMacs (why did we need a 6320, 6330, 6332, ugh, damn Amelio) and, at the time, no where did anyone consider Microsoft a monopoly, not legally, not even inside the tech industry scuttlebutt.

Mind you these were the days before the internet so Microsuck hadn't been doing that whole "oh, uhhh, Explorer is PART of Windows, yeah that's it" in fact, they weren't even doing they mafia tactics of "either you put Windows on your machine or we'll sink you!" Hell, their lawyers were even helping them buy up all the competition (with better product) to shut them down. This was even before over in Redmond (I lived in Seattle at the time) their engineers were saying, of Windows 95 mind you, "it's not done until Lotus (Notes) won't run!" As in, they were almost going at it with morals, optimism, free market, human sense, not the Satanic, "screw you," lackluster quality with bloated OS and really nothing of value shoveled on the masses like chum that either people have come to know and hate or at least tolerate for reasons not even a shrink could deduce.

Interesting to add there was Apple's OS 7, Microsoft's (godawful) 3.1, and, at the time, people were convinced someone else would step up, maybe IBM's (vastely better than M$'s 3.1) OS2 or Sun's SGI or even another player. Microsoft had 82% of the market but to everyone... the press, the market, the lawyers, the industry, it was considered still anyone's game. Then Microsuck, really under the direct guidance of Gates, figured out how to use unfair licensing tactics, legal mafia-like hitmen, ways of insuring people would be locked into their stuff without choice, and some of the biggest marketing hype campaigns to sway the not-so-smart-about-computers at the time public (to their credit, Apple has/is failed miserably about getting the word out on their vastly superior products)... and that was also (mid 90s) about the time Microsuck stopped actually innovating, or rather, once the slippery slope of people mindlessly buying their atrociously bad product, why really make it any better? When I look at XP on the machines it's soul is no different than Windoze95, can't say the same thing about OS X to Classic!

And that kids is my Thanksgiving story, pass the weird can shaped cranberry whatsits.

coreybox

Nov 24, 2005, 11:17 AM

my comment was directed toward the post saying reengineering would violate the EULA. the EULA is for the end user, meaning me. if i don't use itunes i don't violate the itunes EULA whatever it may be. so the end user is absolutely safe.

The original reverse-engineerer would of had to purchase a song from the itunes music store inorder to get a song to reverse engineer.

Thus he violates the EULA.

Wouldn't that be enough to make the entire program illegal?

Evangelion

Nov 24, 2005, 11:54 AM

The original reverse-engineerer would of had to purchase a song from the itunes music store inorder to get a song to reverse engineer.

Thus he violates the EULA.

Wouldn't that be enough to make the entire program illegal?

Well, to my knowledge, reverse-engineering is still legal. How can the EULA deny rights that are legally mandated? It reminds me of the case where a maker of spyware complained that anti-spyware-companies were violating the EULA of their "product", since it contained a part that denied others from classifying the product as spyware.

What next? We will get viruses that contain an EULA saying "you are hereby denied the right to remove this virus from your computer"? EULA's are not gospel that must be followed to the letter. In fact, in most jurisdictions they are not valid at all (IIRC).

shamino

Nov 24, 2005, 12:53 PM

Well, to my knowledge, reverse-engineering is still legal. How can the EULA deny rights that are legally mandated?
This is what I used to think, but it doesn't seem to be true anymore.

Two states (VA and MD) have made UCITA into law, which makes shrink-wrap and click-thru licenses legally binding - making EULAs binding. And case law (like the Blizzard/Diablo case) have made click-thru licenses binding in some states (MO and CA, and possibly elsewhere) even without UCITA.

It is morally repugnant, and quote possibly a perversion of existing laws, but for the moment, you can not assume that EULAs are not binding. At the least, you can expect a legal battle if they decide to enforce it.

BillyShears

Nov 24, 2005, 02:08 PM

Apple already supports the MP3 and AAC standard on their MP3 players. If other stores can't get deals to distribute files as MP3, that's their problem. It's not as though there's anything technically wrong with what they're doing. In fact, some bands offer their music for download in MP3 format. The problem isn't that Apple isn't letting other stores put their music on iPod, it's that the record industry won't let the stores do it. That's who they should be complaining to.

SeaFox

Nov 24, 2005, 06:40 PM

And you could say that Microsoft is controlling their own software and interface. I really fail to see any difference in MS's behavior of shutting competitors out and Apple's behavior in shutting competitors out. Well, the difference is that Microsoft has 90+% market-share in their market, while Apple has about 80-85% market-share in this particular market. Is that 5+% enough to change the rules entirely?

Well, you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Microsoft could control their software/interface just like Apple controls their software/interface, yes. But Microsoft's software/interface is Windows Media Player, which means it's automatically installed on over 90% of computers. Whereas iTunes only comes automatically installed on all Macs (<5%) and HP computers (for now). So all those other people who are using iTunes and have made it so popular had to make the conscious decision to go download iTunes (or get it to play a Quicktime movie, or buy an iPod).

Evangelion

Nov 25, 2005, 01:32 AM

Well, you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Microsoft could control their software/interface just like Apple controls their software/interface, yes. But Microsoft's software/interface is Windows Media Player, which means it's automatically installed on over 90% of computers. Whereas iTunes only comes automatically installed on all Macs (<5%) and HP computers (for now). So all those other people who are using iTunes and have made it so popular had to make the conscious decision to go download iTunes (or get it to play a Quicktime movie, or buy an iPod).

In Microsoft's case, I was talking about IE. MS was slapped because they bundled IE with Windows. And in Apple's case, they have dominant position in mp3-players and music-downloads. And both only work with their own solutions. If they want to keep things under total control, they WILL be facing antitrust-problems, just like MS did. It's just a question of when is their market-share big enough to warrant that. Right now it seems to be something like 80-85%. MS got slapped when they had 90+% market-share. I feel that Apple can't really get any more market-share without running in to antitrst-problems.

Now, if iPod worked with other systems besides ITMS, there would be no problems. But if iPod gain more market-share and it will only work with ITMS, the other music-stores will have valid arguments for antitrust-hearing. Like it or not. Apple would be having a dominant position in the mp3-player-market, and their players would only work with their own store. That means that they are shutting competitors out, and they would be using their monopoly-product (iPod) to boost sales in their other businesses (ITMS). MS did the same thing with IE: they used their monopoly-product (Windows) to boost their other product (IE). Antitrust-law says that you can't use your monopoly as a leverage in other markets.

Evangelion

Nov 25, 2005, 01:34 AM

This is what I used to think, but it doesn't seem to be true anymore.

Reverse-engineering is still legal, it does have some restrictions though.

Two states (VA and MD) have made UCITA into law, which makes shrink-wrap and click-thru licenses legally binding - making EULAs binding. And case law (like the Blizzard/Diablo case) have made click-thru licenses binding in some states (MO and CA, and possibly elsewhere) even without UCITA.

I believe outside of USA EULA's have no legal validity.

It is morally repugnant, and quote possibly a perversion of existing laws, but for the moment, you can not assume that EULAs are not binding. At the least, you can expect a legal battle if they decide to enforce it.

IIRC, if the EULA tries to take away rights that are protected by law, they cannot be considered to be valid.

haunebu

Nov 25, 2005, 06:02 AM

I'm tired of buying music that I cannot transfer and play on my mobile phone. For that reason alone I don't buy music from the iTMS anymore.

A DRM'd song is pretty much worthless to me.

Tupring

Nov 25, 2005, 11:52 AM

P.S. Why is it that Apple was pressured into having teired pricing (=higher prices)for their music when Wal-Mart's music store sells for $.88It's a conspiracy.

dubbz

Nov 25, 2005, 12:02 PM

It's a conspiracy.

;)

Likely because W*M is huge. They supposedly sell so many CDs that they're in a good position to put real pressure on the record companies.

mkrishnan

Nov 25, 2005, 12:13 PM

It's a conspiracy.

And a rumor, to boot. ;)

Tupring

Nov 25, 2005, 12:26 PM

Likewise if you have music that you are only allowed to play on your desktop, but the technology allows you to burn CD copies of it, which is not a right you have under the purchase license.If I ever decide to actually purchase music (which is very unlikeyly) it is and always will be my right to make as many copies of it as I wish :D

Tupring

Nov 25, 2005, 01:14 PM

I find it insulting and unacceptable that I can purchase music but Apple will dictate how I can listen to that.That's why you just download your music for free, anything else would just be wrong. ;)

Tupring

Nov 25, 2005, 01:31 PM

How about letting to use other MP3 players with iTunes? I'd love to use my Sony player with songs purchased from the Music Store. I love iTunes but I HATE the iPod. Oh the dillema.Yeah, remember when iTunes came with plugins for mp3 players before the iPod existed?

photomaniac

Nov 25, 2005, 04:06 PM

Actually they weren't. I worked in the software indudstry then, very early to mid 90s, i.e. while Apple stumbled along with Performas and about 60 versions of their supposed PowerMacs (why did we need a 6320, 6330, 6332, ugh, damn Amelio) and, at the time, no where did anyone consider Microsoft a monopoly, not legally, not even inside the tech industry scuttlebutt.

Mind you these were the days before the internet so Microsuck hadn't been doing that whole "oh, uhhh, Explorer is PART of Windows, yeah that's it" in fact, they weren't even doing they mafia tactics of "either you put Windows on your machine or we'll sink you!" Hell, their lawyers were even helping them buy up all the competition (with better product) to shut them down. This was even before over in Redmond (I lived in Seattle at the time) their engineers were saying, of Windows 95 mind you, "it's not done until Lotus (Notes) won't run!" As in, they were almost going at it with morals, optimism, free market, human sense, not the Satanic, "screw you," lackluster quality with bloated OS and really nothing of value shoveled on the masses like chum that either people have come to know and hate or at least tolerate for reasons not even a shrink could deduce.

Interesting to add there was Apple's OS 7, Microsoft's (godawful) 3.1, and, at the time, people were convinced someone else would step up, maybe IBM's (vastely better than M$'s 3.1) OS2 or Sun's SGI or even another player. Microsoft had 82% of the market but to everyone... the press, the market, the lawyers, the industry, it was considered still anyone's game. Then Microsuck, really under the direct guidance of Gates, figured out how to use unfair licensing tactics, legal mafia-like hitmen, ways of insuring people would be locked into their stuff without choice, and some of the biggest marketing hype campaigns to sway the not-so-smart-about-computers at the time public (to their credit, Apple has/is failed miserably about getting the word out on their vastly superior products)... and that was also (mid 90s) about the time Microsuck stopped actually innovating, or rather, once the slippery slope of people mindlessly buying their atrociously bad product, why really make it any better? When I look at XP on the machines it's soul is no different than Windoze95, can't say the same thing about OS X to Classic!

And that kids is my Thanksgiving story, pass the weird can shaped cranberry whatsits.

very well said!.... and what a great ending :)

Tupring

Nov 25, 2005, 04:15 PM

...what you say would mean i'm still bound by american traffic laws when i leave the US. that is particularly funny when you think about driving in UK:DI couldn't stop laughing at that one.

EricNau

Nov 25, 2005, 05:10 PM

I look at XP on the machines it's soul is no different than Windoze95, can't say the same thing about OS X to Classic!
That is so true. Well said. :)

Tupring

Nov 25, 2005, 06:01 PM

No, you're taking what I'm saying too far. Obviously not ALL laws are applicable across state boundaries. In the case of laws that are specific to a country or region like traffic laws (funny analogy by the way:p ), then the laws do not traverse borders...The DMCA is a law that applies to the country of region of the United States, so according to you, it does not traverse borders...:D :p

shamino

Nov 28, 2005, 04:26 PM

... in fact, they weren't even doing they mafia tactics of "either you put Windows on your machine or we'll sink you!"
You forget. At the time (before the first DoJ suit), they were using per-processor licensing. PC makers would pay for their Windows licenses based on the number of computers sold, regardless of whether those computers were purchased with DOS (and later Windows) on them. Which led to customer complaints when people got no discount for ordering systems without DOS.
... This was even before over in Redmond (I lived in Seattle at the time) their engineers were saying, of Windows 95 mind you, "it's not done until Lotus (Notes) won't run!"
The "(Notes)" is an incorrect insertion. The phrase "It's not done until Lotus won't run" was actually a reference to 1-2-3, which seemed to break with each and every release of MS-DOS.
Interesting to add there was Apple's OS 7, Microsoft's (godawful) 3.1, and, at the time, people were convinced someone else would step up, maybe IBM's (vastely better than M$'s 3.1) OS2 or Sun's SGI or even another player. Microsoft had 82% of the market but to everyone... the press, the market, the lawyers, the industry, it was considered still anyone's game. Then Microsuck, really under the direct guidance of Gates, figured out how to use unfair licensing tactics, legal mafia-like hitmen, ways of insuring people would be locked into their stuff without choice, and some of the biggest marketing hype campaigns to sway the not-so-smart-about-computers at the time public ...
Yep. And OS/2 was their first (and probably biggest) victim. Technologically superior to its competition, and just as compatible with legacy (meaning DOS/Win16) applications as MS's contemporary next-gen products. Nevertheless, MS managed to kill it.

Threatening magazines with withdrawal of huge ad campaigns was one of their biggest tactics. One columnist (William Zachman) was even forced to leave his job with Ziff-Davis because he wouldn't stop writing pro-OS/2 columns.

I also remember that IBM was forced to pay 50% more than everybody else for pre-load Win95 licenses, because they wouldn't bundle MS Office with new systems (choosing instead to bundle Lotus SmartSuite.) When Win98 came out, MS didn't give IBM the distribution media until the day of the software's release, so IBM couldn't start shipping it to customers on the same day all the competition did.
When I look at XP on the machines it's soul is no different than Windoze95, can't say the same thing about OS X to Classic!
I'm not going to mention the concept of a software product's "soul", because I don't know what you mean by it, but WinXP is radically different from Win95.

Win95/98/Me are all based on an MS-DOS undercarriage. They are, in a very real sense, the 32-bit successor to Windows 3.1.

WinXP, on the other hand, is based on the Windows NT core (just like Win2K is). It carries the legacy of all prior versions of WinNT, but has none of the MS-DOS baggage. (FWIW, WinXP is based on the same NT5 kernel that Win2K is based on.)

The similarities between the Win95/98/Me series and the NT/2K/XP series is purely superficial.