RealNetworks To Sell iPod-Compatible Songs

[MacRumors]

According to an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/26/technology/26real.html) in the New York Times, RealNetworks (http://www.real.com/) will debut a technology dubbed "Harmony" tomorrow which mimics the licensing rules of FairPlay, and provides compatibility with the iPod. After attempts by Ron Glaser, CEO of RealNetworks, to contact Steve Jobs to license FairPlay went ignored, Real moved ahead with development of Harmony through reverse engineering. Planning to incorporate the technology into its Rhapsody online music distribution system, Real also admits they have plans to license the technology to other companies, which could open the door for others to provide iPod compatability.

[Apple][Forever]

Hello lawsuit!

[zkmusa]

Does this violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)? I thought it was illegal to reverse engineer copyright systems?

[picklescott]

so... apple doesn't know yet?
it will play on the iPod because its an illegal copy of FairPlay?

heh... wonder what they had to do...


edit: whoa whoaa!!! they're going to license it, too?!

[djcobb44]

Real needs to make their service available to Mac users before they make thier Harmony DRM'd songs available. BUT, I'm sure Apple could easily break Real's software if they want to in their next version of the iPod's firmware.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

I've got a feeling that Apple's not going to take this one sitting down.

However, it's good to see how much other companies want to plug into the iPod. I remember when they first came out and tons of people thought Apple was off their rockers. Now they've got an item that tons of people are desperate to plug into in order to distribute music.

I think they've figured that the iPod is the reason for ITMS' success, even though Apple has repeatedly told them that online distribution is not a big moneymaker - the iPods are what make the jack. And they're making a lot of it for our favorite computer company. :D

[GFLPraxis]

Do they WANT Apple to sue them???

[musicpyrite]

Now if only other music making people would do something like this....

[broken_keyboard]

Can they do that? What are the laws about reverse engineering?

[mrxak]

I'm definitely anticipating a lawsuit here.

[quagmire]

Billy:Hey ma! What is that stench?

Ma: Well Billy that stench is a lawsuit.

[Kingsfoil13]

Remember when Apple tried to be compatible, and everyone (MS) gave them the cold shoulder? Then Apple went to superhuman lengths to be compatible anyway, and as a result got marginalized. As cruel as it is, clearly Steve learned which method works to keep your spot in the lead... hold it, take it, and let the herd follow if they want.

[BornAgainMac]

Yea, it sounds like they will be sued. But perhaps it will sell more iPods. I see no reason to buy from them unless they cut their prices down on their music. Even then, the music might not work in the future.

[narco]

It's like not inviting a lame kid to your party, yet he shows up anyway.

.narco

[gerrycurl]

i never liked any of real's products. They crashed all the time. I hope they die.

[Sun Baked]

Does this violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)? I thought it was illegal to reverse engineer copyright systems?People were able to design clones using the black box method, but as you say this does run afoul of the DMCA this time -- so some of the existing cloner law may not apply.

Even though you designed a clone copyright scheme designed to work with Fairplay, and allow others to sell content for a product, Apple may say you're threatening the integrity of Fairplay.

[jimsowden]

And they think rhapsody was taken over so easily by the ITMS because...

[raynegus]

Why won't Real go into a corner and die somewhere. They have always sucked and they still suck.

[wPod]

ha. . . wow so wait apple *doesnt* license something . . . then someone comes out with something that works in its place. . . and apple gets no money. . . has this happened before? does anyone at apple realize they will make money by licensing a product and letting others use and distribute it? now someone else is going to be licensing something that works and apple probably wont get much money if any!

[Lancetx]

Now we see exactly why Apple wouldn't license Fairplay to these clowns. This is just a desperate move on Real's part that will only result in a lawsuit. Apple will probably have an update to iTunes and iPod firmware within a week that will make Harmony useless anyway.

[Quobobo]

Jesus, you people are touchy. I for one think it's great that Real is willing to go to these lengths to ensure iPod compatibility. Not to mention that they actually put quite a bit of work into making RealPlayer a good OS X app (the same can't be said of another, much larger company with a competing media player...).

[Mudbug]

from what I understand of it, the DMCA (digital millenium copyright act) says reverse engineering of a digital format is against the law. I would imagine Apple would use this in their litigation if and when that happens.

[vknid]

It's like not inviting a lame kid to your party, yet he shows up anyway.

.narco

It's more like the kid begs you to let him come to the party, but you refuse. Then, he goes and photo copies your invitations and tries to sell them to other people.

....I hate that kid!

[jemeinc]

But if Apple has repeatedly stated that they make no (or very little) money on the iTMS, why wouldn't they take a wait & see approach to this ?... This will give more people options to get their music onto an iPod right ?... Could help sell even more iPods, which is really the goal of the iTMS anyway right?...

[mullmann]

Funny how the only company with any integrity in this whole business is Apple. Regardless of what one thinks about their decision to (try to) keep iPod/iTunes a closed platform, they've at least been consistently up-front about why they want to do that: it moves the merchandise. And their results have proven that out. Glaser at RealNetworks is running his mouth about Harmony being all about "user choice," and amazingly the consumer groups are eating it up. But there's nothing altruistic here: it's really all about Glaser trying to prop up the fortunes of his own lagging, also-ran music store. The majority of the populace doesn't care about the music store, they care about the music player. In that regard, they have a ton of choices available, and they're making theirs in droves: the iPod. Glaser's got the tail wagging the dog. And why aren't any of these people busy noticing that all this "consumer choice" is really just saying let's lock everyone into Microsoft's format? There's a world of downside to that outcome that Glaser and others just pretend doesn't exist.

[broken_keyboard]

from what I understand of it, the DMCA (digital millenium copyright act) says reverse engineering of a digital format is against the law. I would imagine Apple would use this in their litigation if and when that happens.

Sounds like an open and shut case.

I think there is too much emphasis these days on "open" this and "open" that. What ever happened to just picking the best product? Open vs closed is one factor, but there are those who hold it up as the primary thing, which it shouldn't be.

[reyesmac]

Thats what Apple gets for not letting other people make a little money off the iPod. More music available for the iPod means more iPod sales, since those files are only playable on the iPod. But since they also own the iTMS, I understand why they don't want everyone to have the codec.
The reason so many PC's are sold every year is because so many companies can make money off of the platform so you have thousands of companies wanting you to buy a PC. The same thing could happen with the iPod if other companies are allowed to participate in their success.
I can only hope that Quicktime will someday play real player files, thats one way Apple can get back at them.

[BornAgainMac]

What if Real just converted the user's purchased music to regular mp3s? Those play on the iPod. I don't see any problem for Apple because it doesn't affect Fairplay or reverse anything. Of course, they would have another more powerful enemy that would go after them for that.

[broken_keyboard]

What if Real just converted the user's purchased music to regular mp3s? Those play on the iPod. I don't see any problem for Apple because it doesn't affect Fairplay or reverse anything. Of course, they would have another more powerful enemy that would go after them for that.

I don't think the studios would like it... MP3 has no DRM.

[Kelvin]

What if Real just converted the user's purchased music to regular mp3s? Those play on the iPod. I don't see any problem for Apple because it doesn't affect Fairplay or reverse anything. Of course, they would have another more powerful enemy that would go after them for that. Because the labels would ditch them in a hot minute. No DRM = no labels = no music = no customers.

[~Shard~]

Although this may potentially lead to a lawsuit, I don't really have any problems with RealNetworks doing this - in the end it will result in the iPod being more attractive to some consumers and will no doubt help to boost iPod sales.

[Nermal]

This is great news, especially if Real sells to NZ before Apple does :)

[animefan_1]

Because the labels would ditch them in a hot minute. No DRM = no labels = no music = no customers.

They've got the 'no customers' part already done. :p

[eskatonia]

I don't believe the attitude of people on here. I'm sure there will be a lawsuit but I hope Real wins.

Reverse engineering for compatibility is one of the few allowable exceptions to DMCA. Real tried to do this the best way for Apple, licensing the technology. They were refused so they instead are trying to do a clean room compatible reimplementation. This is a perferctly legitimate business tactic and if they have been careful to reimplement it from scratch avoiding any copyrighted specifications or any patents they may well win.

If it wasn't for this sort of action there would be no personal computer industry as it was the reverse engineering of the PC bios by Compaq that allowed PC compatibles to be made and has lead to the huge advantages in performance and cost that have happened across the whole computer industry.

More iPod compatible music can only be a good thing right?

..unless you are an Apple stockholder and want them to have a monopoly.

[MacFan26]

I'm not suprised that Real is going to debut this service, who wouldn't want a piece of the iPod business, and considering how well other download companies have fared, it seems like this is one of the only competitive options out there. I am sort of suprised that they want to license it. This does sound like a lawsuit, and I'm wondering why any attempt to work with Apple was ignored. I'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear about this.

[animefan_1]

http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/

"The exception allows reverse engineering of computer programs if the reverse engineer lawfully obtains the program, seeks permission from the copyright owner, only uses the results of their efforts to create an interoperable computer program and does not publish the results."

Guess which part Real Networks didn't comply with. Hint: it's bolded

[snahabed]

I am confused. Let me get this straight.

Real plans to sell Harmony-encoded AAC files in its music store. As Fairplay stands now, Harmony can mimic Fairplay and thus the iPod could play these files.

At the same time, Real plans to license their technology so that iRiver's and the like can play their brand of protected AAC's. At the same time, all 100+ million songs purchased in iTunes will, since they have Harmony-compatible Fairplay, could be played on these other players, thereby unbinding people from iPods.

If my impression is correct, then I hope Apple sues the motherf***ers into oblivion.

[Sir_Giggles]

I'm hoping Apple doesn't bring on a lawsuit. Steve Jobs always said music should be free, music should be for the people, so if Apple does decide to bring forth a lawsuit under the stupid DMCA law, they're no better in their hypocrisy than the RIAA.

This act from Real does give more choice to consumers, and would, in a small way, only increase the dominance of the iPod. Real broke first, better than Apple breaking to support WMA *shudders at the thought*. Anyway, good news for Apple, even if it's in violation of DMCA.

[ValiumLolliPoP]

Many of you are missing the point. The iTMS is a BUSINESS which makes money. Albeit not a lot of money, it still makes a profit. Apple is and will be competitive with all their products and software including iTMS. Haven't you read the articles about starting a music store in Europe? About licensing music stores to colleges?

Apple has the iPod which if a PC user buys, he'll get itunes for windows. If an apple itunes user wants a portable mmusic player, he'll get an iPod. Does Apple want to make money on an iPod and then never make money from that customer again? Or does Apple want a customer to buy an iPod and then start buying music from it's iTunes store which is compatibile with their music player?

[Gherkin]

Wow, haha, I can't believe someone would vote negative on this story.

"Oh no, another company is making their music service compatible with iPods, which means I have more choice in where to get my songs and will make a potential iPod buyers decision easier as he knows the iPod is compatible with more services."

Let the companies bicker between each other over whether this is legal or not. This can only be good as it sells more iPods (which is the profitable part of Apple's music strategy).

[eskatonia]

I am confused. Let me get this straight.

Real plans to sell Harmony-encoded AAC files in its music store. As Fairplay stands now, Harmony can mimic Fairplay and thus the iPod could play these files.

At the same time, Real plans to license their technology so that iRiver's and the like can play their brand of protected AAC's. At the same time, all 100+ million songs purchased in iTunes will, since they have Harmony-compatible Fairplay, could be played on these other players, thereby unbinding people from iPods.

If my impression is correct, then I hope Apple sues the motherf***ers into oblivion.

Why? Are you an Apple stockholder? It's a win-win situation for everyone else. Other mp3 player owners can play itune music store songs on their hardware, ipod owners can buy compatible songs from other vendors. Unless you believe it is right that companies can use the DMCA to maintain artificial monopolies (not what it was intended for) then you should support this.

Apple will still sell plenty of ipods because of style and because they are the market leader but a bit of competition will force them to be honest and keep prices fair.

[edgar_is_good]

http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/

"The exception allows reverse engineering of computer programs if the reverse engineer lawfully obtains the program, seeks permission from the copyright owner, only uses the results of their efforts to create an interoperable computer program and does not publish the results."

Guess which part Real Networks didn't comply with. Hint: it's bolded

Hmmmmm, my understanding was that Glaser had sought to license the fairplay technology and was ignored. The details of what Glaser would have said to Jobs are anyone's speculation, but as long as the standard is "seeking" rather than "receiving" permission to reverse engineer, they may be ok...

[sw1tcher]

I for one think it's great that Real is willing to go to these lengths to ensure iPod compatibility.

Real isn't doing this because they like Apple or the iPod. Real's doing this because the marketshare for their music service is "real" low and by getting iPod owners to purchase iPod compatible songs through Real, they can increase their marketshare (and $$$). Real knows that there's no way for them to survive in the long run unless they can get their service to be compatible with the iPod (the dominant portable music player). Why do you think Jobs rejected a meeting with Glaser? It's because Apple's iTMS and the iPod are #1 and they don't want anyone to steal that away from Apple.

[Nermal]

I am confused. Let me get this straight.

Real plans to sell Harmony-encoded AAC files in its music store. As Fairplay stands now, Harmony can mimic Fairplay and thus the iPod could play these files.

Correct.

At the same time, Real plans to license their technology so that iRiver's and the like can play their brand of protected AAC's. At the same time, all 100+ million songs purchased in iTunes will, since they have Harmony-compatible Fairplay, could be played on these other players, thereby unbinding people from iPods.

No. Real is licencing their technology so that other music stores can sell iPod-compatible songs.

[snahabed]

Why? Are you an Apple stockholder? It's a win-win situation for everyone else. Other mp3 player owners can play itune music store songs on their hardware, ipod owners can buy compatible songs from other vendors. Unless you believe it is right that companies can use the DMCA to maintain artificial monopolies (not what it was intended for) then you should support this.

Apple will still sell plenty of ipods because of style and because they are the market leader but a bit of competition will force them to be honest and keep prices fair.

First of all, you better believe that Apple, if they don't sue Real into bankruptcy, will update Fairplay within a week to make it incompatible with Harmony. Therefore, songs bought in iTMS will not be compatible with other players.

Second, Apple made a decision to not license Fairplay technology. Why should another company be able to hack into Fairplay code, in flagrant violation of federal law, and reap tons of profit from the market position Apple has created for itself? Apple's position seems to be "we are keeping iPod, iTunes and Fairplay CLOSED until we are forced to open it, and if that situation happens, we want the OPTION to license it." Real is taking that insurance policy away, and not compensating Apple for it.

SUE THE BLOODY HELL OUT OF THEM.

[Porchland]

From the Times article: "Apple has basically locked in their users," Mr. Bernoff said. "We are not used to thinking of Apple as the monopolist, but in this market they are."

It is a monopoly in the classical sense, but antitrust law says a monopoly is OK as long as you come into it with fair means and maintain it with fair means. I'm sure some crack-smoking Microsoft coddler is going to come along and say Apple using iTMS to sell iPods is no different than Microsoft using Windows to push Internet Explorer.

The difference, of course, is that Apple started iTMS as a vehicle to sell iPods. Microsoft used its OS to horn in on the market-leading browser (Netscape Navigator) and push it out of the way.

Apple played by the rules and developed a market-leading product (the iPod), and it should be able to control the way the product is maintained. Imagine if a TiVo competitor came along and said, "hey, we're only five dollars a month and all you have to do is stick this card in the back to rewrite their proprietary software so we can take over the box."

Apple should file suit IMMEDIATELY in federal court to shut these jokers down.

[sw1tcher]

Why? Are you an Apple stockholder? It's a win-win situation for everyone else. Other mp3 player owners can play itune music store songs on their hardware, ipod owners can buy compatible songs from other vendors.

Correction. Other mp3 players *cannot* play iTMS songs unless you were to burn them to CD and then rip them to mp3 or something. Only the iPod can play iTMS songs. Real's just trying to increase the appeal of their own music service by offering songs that are compatible with the #1 portable music player out there --- the iPod.

[reyesmac]

If not for competition like this Apple would not have had to make their Macs look and act the way they do now. I think this will make them innovate more. The iTMS and the iPod are not exactly stale right now, but they have not changed a great deal. Now the might be forced to get creative and give the people what they are asking for to get their sales.
If downloading your music instead of going to the store for it is the future, it can only happen if everyone uses the same technology. Until everyone can use fairplay it will not be the standard music format it should be.

[animefan_1]

Hmmmmm, my understanding was that Glaser had sought to license the fairplay technology and was ignored. The details of what Glaser would have said to Jobs are anyone's speculation, but as long as the standard is "seeking" rather than "receiving" permission to reverse engineer, they may be ok...

I don't think it is. Glaser originally wanted a license to the DRM, not for permission to reverse-engineer it.

The fact that they reversed engineered Fairplay without seeking permission, may still be an issue.

[Wigletbill]

Yeah I am a stockholder, and I have another personal interest in the company too... I want to continue to use Apple computers for the rest of my life so I want Apple to be successful. I do think Apple should have been a bit more open with their codec, but that is their decision. I don't blame Real for doing this, the problem is that they are going to sell it to other companies so that Apple's copyrighted codec will run on third-party devices, thus, hurting the iPod. Is it a stretch to see iTunes recognizing an iRiver as a player? Probably... but it is still illegal in my eyes.
Personally, I like the control that Apple has over the product. They make the hardware and the software and that is why it works. Same thing with OS X. They know that this 'creative control' is what makes the Mac expierience what it is.
I do get tired of the Steve Jobs pissing contests. I wonder if I don't have a 60GB iPod because of it...

Just some thoughts. Whether they are well thought out or not. I'm tired.


________________________________________________________
"A Mac user voting for Bush is like... well it is just really @#$! up!"

[groovebuster]

I don't get why people are so upset? Real wanted to license FairPlay, Apple didn't even react. So they just try to find their own way now.

Guys, get a life. Apple is not the center of the universe. Remember the many times, when Apple just copied the ideas of little shareware programmers without asking and crushed their little businesses?

The computer business is ugly and Apple isn't any better than the other players. See things for what they are. "Apple = good, others = evil" is a little bit too simple for me and I really wonder why especially Mac-Users (they are supposed to be more educated, right?) are so ignorant about the the bad things "their company" is doing.

groovebuster

[coolfactor]

..unless you are an Apple stockholder and want them to have a monopoly.


They can never become the only company in the world with an online music store. There will alway be competition and someone trying to out-do them. That's what keeps Apple reaching for the next evolution.

It is this reason that Apple needs to keep a closed system. They have control and can deliver the exceptional product that Apple products are. Talk to almost any PC user, and you'll hear the word "good enough" when talking about their computer and its software. Apple doesn't surrender to "good enough" and thus we have the products we have. Look what licencing has done to Microsoft Windows? It's the most problematic operating system on this planet because it has to work with thousands upon thousands of hardware configurations. No operating system can reasonable handle that and continue to work well.

Rock on, Apple!

[SLAPSHOTW]

Doesn't anybody that's pressing for Apple to sue Real think that Real probably already looked into the legal ramifications of this? I support the iPod and iTunes 100%, and don't really know the technicalities of the DMCA, but I'm sure Real has very competant lawyers that gave them the go-ahead first. Why would they risk losing millions of dollars by implementing this, if they knew they would definitely lose a lawsuit?

-Matt

[animefan_1]

...Guys, get a life. Apple is not the center of the universe. Remember the many times, when Apple just copied the ideas of little shareware programmers without asking and crushed their little businesses?
groovebuster

What do you mean Watson? The software that Sherlock 3 was supposed to be copying? Even though Apple had already started working on it before Watson was even a line of code? Apple even offered the Watson developer a job...TWICE, which was refused/

Or Konfabulator? That little widget app which is similar to the Desktop Accessories from the original Mac? There were also Windows apps that had similar functionality before Konfab. Not to mentiont that you can use Java and Cocoa in Dashboard. No so with Konfabulator.

Before you continue spreading FUD, I'd suggest that you educate yourself on the things Apple had 'just copied the ideas of little shareware programmers without asking and crushed their little businesses.'

Two links to get you started:
http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/dashboard_vs_konfabulator

and

http://daringfireball.net/2004/07/konfab_confab

[snahabed]

I don't get why people are so upset? Real wanted to license FairPlay, Apple didn't even react. So they just try to find their own way now.

Guys, get a life. Apple is not the center of the universe. Remember the many times, when Apple just copied the ideas of little shareware programmers without asking and crushed their little businesses?

Did Apple reverse engineer Watson in order to create Sherlock?

Did Apple reverse engineer Konfab in order to create Dashboard?

Did Real reverse engineer Fairplay in order to create Harmony? There is PROBABLY a reason why Real is not officially commenting on how it found a way to mimic Fairplay (hmm, wonder why, duhhhhhh).

These are the questions. If there is evidence that can prove "Yes" to any of those questions, then legal action should be pursued.

Why should Real make money off of Apple technology when Apple has made it clear they want to keep their system closed for the time being and keep the option the open it up in the future?

[Sir_Giggles]

First of all, you better believe that Apple, if they don't sue Real into bankruptcy, will update Fairplay within a week to make it incompatible with Harmony. Therefore, songs bought in iTMS will not be compatible with other players.

SUE THE BLOODY HELL OUT OF THEM.

2 points you raised concern me.

First, if Apple updates Fairplay to make it incompatible through either a firmware or software update, that will really piss off some iPod users. I highly doubt Apple would resort to this tactic to continually stave off competition.

Second, if Apple sues, they go down a very slippery slope. This would scare off any, if not all developers hoping to support the iPod. Apple needs to licence their technology soon. True, Apple does have a comfortable lead in digital music, just like they did with the Mac, and look at their market share now. I think sueing is a bad business tactic, especially when the offender is ACTUALLY increasing sales of their profitable iPod. Let the iTMS compete on it's own merit.

[TWinbrook46636]

I don't get why people are so upset? Real wanted to license FairPlay, Apple didn't even react. So they just try to find their own way now.

So if I go to the store and see something I like but cannot have I should just steal it?

[nockamura]

Apple should let all the Real customers think they're gonna be able to use the iPod with Real's service, then they should break "Harmony" in the next iPod software update. This works because not only have these people supported Apple by buying expensive iPods, but now they are effectively forced to use iTMS for future songs. Would you rather stick with Real or with Apple (the company in which you've invested $300 by purchasing an iPod)? It's win-win for Apple.

[nagromme]

If Real gets away with this, it could help them become the (distant?) #2 store--and isn't that better than a Microsoft WMA store at #2? Meanwhile, iTunes will likely be secure at #1, and iPod sales--the real money-maker for Apple--will be helped slightly and harmed not at all.

If this turns out to violate Apple patents or agreements then they have no choice but to fight it. But either way, I don't see it making a big difference to Apple's future success. But Microsoft stands to lose--a little--by any success of Real's AAC efforts.

[BWhaler]

http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/

"The exception allows reverse engineering of computer programs if the reverse engineer lawfully obtains the program, seeks permission from the copyright owner, only uses the results of their efforts to create an interoperable computer program and does not publish the results."

Guess which part Real Networks didn't comply with. Hint: it's bolded

The key word is seeks. Notice it does not say "obtain."

[iMeowbot]

from what I understand of it, the DMCA (digital millenium copyright act) says reverse engineering of a digital format is against the law. I would imagine Apple would use this in their litigation if and when that happens.
It's way too early to be assuming this is a DMCA issue when Real haven't yet released their software. It depends very much on how they've implemented their DRM system.

DMCA is not civil law. There would not be a suit from Apple but potentially the Department of Injustice could file criminal charges at some point.

Apple might be able to sue if Real have been found to have done something wrong under DMCA (which would need a trial to happen first), or could sue if Real have stepped on patents. Apple would also need to be ready to show that there would be damages for anything useful to come of a suit, and Real have a great ready-made argument against that. Apple's damages would for the most part fall under the potential to lose iTMS sales, except that Apple already have allowed third party access through CD sellers and even the P2P networks. Apple are also open to countercomplaints from Real revolving around unfair competition, it could get nice and messy really fast.

Real are probably betting that Apple won't want this to drag on for years and years, and hope that Apple will either leave them alone or work out a licensing settlement.

[SeaFox]

http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/

"The exception allows reverse engineering of computer programs if the reverse engineer lawfully obtains the program, seeks permission from the copyright owner, only uses the results of their efforts to create an interoperable computer program and does not publish the results."

Guess which part Real Networks didn't comply with. Hint: it's bolded

The key word is seeks. Notice it does not say "obtain."

Wouldn't distributing the software be considered publishing it? I think this clause of the DMCA is for academic study and testing the security of the DRM, not for finding a backdoor into competetor's systems.

[Fuchal]

Release some of the 4G features in a new firmware for earlier ipods that also conveniently breaks Harmony. Perfect plan! :D

[iMeowbot]

Wouldn't distributing the software be considered publishing it? I think this clause of the DMCA is for academic study and testing the security of the DRM, not for finding a backdoor into competetor's systems.
Section 1201(f) (http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17usc1201.htm) is specifically written to cover Real's situation. Reverse engineering is allowed "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."

The security exceptions are separate, in 1201(g) and 1201(j).

[groovebuster]

Before you continue spreading FUD, I'd suggest that you educate yourself on the things Apple had 'just copied the ideas of little shareware programmers without asking and crushed their little businesses.'

:) Exactly that kind of reaction (btw, not only from you) was the reason for my post.

I don't need to educate myself, I think I am pretty well informed. And I don't need to defend Apple no matter what. Most of the ideas were developed long before anybody made a running business out of it. But that was not the point. The point was, that Apple integrated the stuff AFTER other people offered it already as a product and they knew exactly that these little companies would go out of business, when they would do that. I don't know any multi billion dollar company that bases its decisions on ethics... and as you can see, also not Apple.

Especially in the Konfabulator case it would have been better to contact the guy and tell him: Hey, we are planning something similar at the moment! Wonna join our development team?

Do you get my point now? AAC is an open standard and I don't see why Apple should have a monopoly on DRM in combination with AAC (which actually is MPEG4).

Especially the Apple users are crying for standards all the time and M$ is the evil in person by always pushing proprietary "standards" and not opening them up to others. As soon as Apple is in a strong position like that with their music division, these methods are all OK? Ever heard of "double standard"?

Apple has some great products, but this company is not a religion... a little bit more criticism once in a while wouldn't hurt, right?

groovebuster

[eskatonia]

Apple's position seems to be "we are keeping iPod, iTunes and Fairplay CLOSED until we are forced to open it, and if that situation happens, we want the OPTION to license it." Real is taking that insurance policy away, and not compensating Apple for it.

SUE THE BLOODY HELL OUT OF THEM.

In other words you do think that companies should be able to use the DMCA to maintain an artificial monopoly in a market place.

This is unethical and anti-competitive, I hope Real wins the lawsuit and I hope the DMCA is overturned in the US as unconstitutional so the rest of the world might back down from following this horrible mistake.

[mproud]

Guys, lawsuits often end in settlements. They may very well settle.

It's no surprise that Real is coming off as the weakest link here. I'm not sure what kind of common ground they can strike on, but if Apple can retain its iTMS share while increasing visibility, then Apple wins. It will be interesting to see how Real plays a part of the puzzle, because it really seems like they know they can't win without help, and if they're not going to get it from anyone (Apple, Microsoft, Sony...), they'll just have to piggy-back to survive.

So in what capacity can Real exist to make Apple money and gain a little profit themselves? That's what Real needs to figure out.

[youngr40]

oh - dear, but if it makes the iPod even more popular - good on em.

Why not just sell MP3's, iPod plays them without any worries - lol
:D

[matthewwithanm]

I don't get why people are so upset?

I know one reason...Real's software is crap. I want nothing more than for Real to stop writing software and websites to stop requiring it. It is bloated and buggy and worse than media player. Does anybody know of something like Real Alternative (http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm) for Macs?

God, Real. Please just die.

[jnasato]

AHAHAHAHAHA!!! Riiiiiiight... This is ridiculous, but I'm looking forward to seeing what Apple has to say about this.

[Nermal]

I know one reason...Real's software is crap

I don't like their player that much (although the newest one isn't too bad), but they have the best format for streaming. Windows Media is terrible, and QuickTime wasn't even intended for streaming in the first place. While other formats drop frames when the connection is too slow, Real's system has the intelligence to send lower-resolution frames, keeping the motion smooth. While I don't like the "closed-ness" of the format, I do believe that it's the best.

[RogueLdr]

Thats what Apple gets for not letting other people make a little money off the iPod. More music available for the iPod means more iPod sales, since those files are only playable on the iPod. But since they also own the iTMS, I understand why they don't want everyone to have the codec.
The reason so many PC's are sold every year is because so many companies can make money off of the platform so you have thousands of companies wanting you to buy a PC. The same thing could happen with the iPod if other companies are allowed to participate in their success.
I can only hope that Quicktime will someday play real player files, thats one way Apple can get back at them.

It would seem to me that the main reason that Apple would want to make the iPod stay tied to iTMS is that it is a very elegant, straightforward system. It seems very possible to me that the ease-of-use and maintenance-of-aim interface is a HUGE selling point for Apple. Other music stores hawking iPod compatibility would not help this point at all but rather hurt it.

You speak of the reason that so many PCs are sold every year. The reason that they do the iTMS is that it sells iPods like hotcakes. It doesn't do this by having every song, but by being user-friendly, non-subscription, and addictive in its buy-any-song-on-demandedness (a derivative of bein non-subscription). If every PC blew up in two months would Microsoft be making a ton of money off of Windows? NO. Windows only makes money for Microsoft because there are decent vendors for the hardware. There are relatively few good vendors for online music at the moment, so why should Apple diversify at this time?



Especially in the Konfabulator case it would have been better to contact the guy and tell him: Hey, we are planning something similar at the moment! Wonna join our development team?


The answer is it would have been better if the guy hadn't come from an Apple development team and didn't know that everything he was designing was derived from past Apple efforts in that direction and wasn't just trying to make every penny he could before Apple made the obvious step to do everything that Konfab was doing wrong, right.

[Analog Kid]

Wow! Now this is news! That took some balls on Real's part... It says a lot about the power of the iPod/iTMS brand. And it certainly gives Real some leverage in negotiations...

I'm not sure the DMCA applies in this case-- I haven't read through all the legalese but what I've seen pertains to cracking the protection for copywrited material. Real hasn't done that.

What Real has done is invent a DRM system that the iPod will eat.

The difference here is that Fairplay is still intact. If they'd reverse engineered Fairplay to allow other players to access the songs, that would violate the DMCA, I think. If they provide their own DRM so the iPod can play files protected under another system, the copywrited material has not been tampered with and the DMCA probably has not been violated.

It's the songs that are protected, not the iPod. There may be a case that the iPod application is copywrited and has been reverse engineered, but I think that's a weaker case... A lot hinges on whether the iPod player is considered "protected".

This sounds a lot like the AIM, MS wars over instant messaging. I don't think the DMCA ever came into play there. The courts did though... Put an injunction on the leading player (AOL) if I recall...

[leenoble]

If Apple are going to close this one out they'd better do it immediately or not at all. It's all very well us geeks and freaks who read up on these developments every day knowing what's going on but could you imagine the uproar from millions of iPod users who just use it because it's the best music player there is when they find out all the music they bought from Real suddenly stops playing and Real tell them it's because Apple specifically went out of their way to stop their music working the way they wanted.
It may well be too late already. The press could still be all over it if Apple cuts Real out of the equation now. I think the only right move now on both a technological and public relations front is to license FairPlay immediately.

[Jalexster]

So, Real is creating a DRM, that plays on iPods/FairPlay systems (Like iTunes/Quicktine), and will therefore make more iPod sales, because it is media that only works on iPods, and may work on other systems in the future.

However, FairPlay will still only work on Apple's products, and is therefore not threatened.

Ok, that seems fine. iTMS may have some competition, but thats ok, because the iPods will keep selling.

[Zaty]

I'm not capable of assessing if Real's move was illegal or not as I don't know American laws. However, Apple should carefully plan their next steps of their iPod/iTunes development. At one point in the not too distant future, one company, whoever it will be, will come out with out with a digital music player that is at least a fair match for iPod. So as longs as there is no real competition, Apple can and should keep the system closed but once competion surfaces, they should open it because many potential iPod/iTunes customers are PC users and they are in no way as bound to Apple products as longtime Mac users. Those people will ask themselves why should I be obliged to buy an iPod to be able to use the iTMS? So if Apple wants to command the digital music market for a few more years, they will have to open up the system sooner or later.

[cube]

Wouldn't distributing the software be considered publishing it?
Read the text again. The results is a specification which is used to make a program, not the program.

[hulugu]

I don't believe the attitude of people on here. I'm sure there will be a lawsuit but I hope Real wins....

Reverse engineering for compatibility is one of the few allowable exceptions to DMCA. Real tried to do this the best way for Apple, licensing the technology. They were refused so they instead are trying to do a clean room compatible reimplementation...

If it wasn't for this sort of action there would be no personal computer industry...

More iPod compatible music can only be a good thing right?

..unless you are an Apple stockholder and want them to have a monopoly.

This is actually quite good for Apple because it sells more iPods. See compatability means the one guy who doesn't like iTMS—the freak!—can stil buy an iPod. More and more iPods mean not only do current stores have to institute a kludge to compete, it means that futures stores may just abandon the kludge all-together and start selling iPod-compatible songs via a deal w/ Apple. Now, WMA doesn't have as much of a marketshare—steadily dwindling apparently—which makes AAC more attractive. This creates a positive feedback loop wherin people demand products that work with, or at least don't break their iPod/iTunes/iTMS/Quicktime system and maybe even begins to work with it. Now Quicktime is installed on all of these machines and now all of the sudden AAC/Quicktime is the defacto standard for digital music, and now Microsoft has to play ball.
This also means that the future 'iPod-killer' may be subject to these same requirements and Apple still sits in an awfully pretty seat.
Apple doesn't need a monopoly, the company just enough power to guide the course of the game.

[Analog Kid]

This is actually quite good for Apple because it sells more iPods. See compatability means the one guy who doesn't like iTMS—the freak!—can stil buy an iPod. More and more iPods mean not only do current stores have to institute a kludge to compete, it means that futures stores may just abandon the kludge all-together and start selling iPod-compatible songs via a deal w/ Apple. Now, WMA doesn't have as much of a marketshare—steadily dwindling apparently—which makes AAC more attractive. This creates a positive feedback loop wherin people demand products that work with, or at least don't break their iPod/iTunes/iTMS/Quicktime system and maybe even begins to work with it. Now Quicktime is installed on all of these machines and now all of the sudden AAC/Quicktime is the defacto standard for digital music, and now Microsoft has to play ball.
This also means that the future 'iPod-killer' may be subject to these same requirements and Apple still sits in an awfully pretty seat.
Apple doesn't need a monopoly, the company just enough power to guide the course of the game.

So, you're saying Real knows what's best for Apple better than Apple themselves?

If Apple thought this was a good plan, they would have licensed Fairplay. They obviously don't...

When someone else takes control of your company's marketing strategy, that's a Bad Thing. You can look at it as an outsider and rationalize how it doesn't mean utter doom, but for Apple this is a major problem and I'm sure they're not sitting in their conference room saying "heck, this will probably all turn out just peachy".

[dguisinger]

:) Exactly that kind of reaction (btw, not only from you) was the reason for my post.

I don't need to educate myself, I think I am pretty well informed. And I don't need to defend Apple no matter what. Most of the ideas were developed long before anybody made a running business out of it. But that was not the point. The point was, that Apple integrated the stuff AFTER other people offered it already as a product and they knew exactly that these little companies would go out of business, when they would do that. I don't know any multi billion dollar company that bases its decisions on ethics... and as you can see, also not Apple.

groovebuster

Groovebuster, whats your point? Grow up. A product can not stand still. Oh go cry about the fact someone had a good idea. Lets make a development enviroment that lets you make little tools that float on the screen and do custom stuff. You know what, they called it an API. Wow, API... usually APIs are provided by the OS. Its Konfabulator's fault for not finding more ways to make money, like the development enviroment itself, you know, to build the Konfab apps? They don't have one, they could have made one and charged money for it. Now that Apple is building a superior API into OS X, they cry foul. You know, if Konfab has a "Widget Studio" they could now make it output both Dashboard and Konfab widgets. If an API has a real purpose, it makes its way into the OS whether or not the OS provider can claim total responsibility for inventing it. The Konfabulator team focussed too much on the wiz-bang features and not enough on how to make money once the inevitable occured.

And 2:
I know you dont like it when companies step on share ware developers, but try this one on for size: Do you feel your Mac should be able to connect to the Internet? How about all computers? Did you know that through Windows 3.11 that TCP/IP support was available from a shareware company? Microsoft plowed them under by adding TCP/IP support to Windows 95, no one needed to buy that company's products anymore. But you know what? Today all modern OS's have TCP/IP. Hell, the 2 most popular OS's on the planet, OS X and Windows XP, come with their own built in browser, where HTML rendering is done in libraries joined into the OS. People (including myself) cried foul to MS integrating IE, and due to buggy programming they made a lot of bad security decisions.... HOWEVER integrating the browser into the OS at some levels (HTML rendering, help integration, web out of the box, etc) is one of the best things for usability and great document API sets ever provided to users and developers.

Now that I've made my point that some products need to get absorbed into OS's over time, I will gracefully say shut up and stop your complaining.

[dcentity2000]

Does this violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)? I thought it was illegal to reverse engineer copyright systems?

That's what I thought!

[bertagert]

Ok, there is something you guys have forgotten about if Apple were to allow this to happen.
Lets assume Real will be going out of business soon (this will more than likely happen).

When they do go out of business and Apple updates a few things on the ipod and itunes that don't jive with the hack that Real did, all those songs won't be playable anymore. Guess who the people are going to call that have Real 's formatted songs? Answer = Apple. Guess who will have a law suit because people can't play all these songs? Answer = People vs. Apple. Yes, the people won't have the ground to stand on but think of all the bad press that come of it.

Because of these reasons, Apple will shoot this one down real quick either in a ipod update or through the courts.

As for the question if Apple should allow others to sell FairPlay music:

Apple doesn't have a monoply on music purchases right now. They may be leading the way for online music but they, in no way, have a monoply for distributing music. Even if they stay numero uno for downloads for the next five years, they still won't be out pacing CD sales.

There really isn't a reason for Apple to open anything up right now. Maybe in another 3-5 years but not now.

On the other hand, I don't want to see anyone control how music is distributed whether that's Apple or Microsoft. So, for right now, Apple doesn't have to let anyone in. In the future, if they do become the source for music distribution, they damn straight better allow others in.

Hope that clears things up for you guys.

[Abstract]

Wow, haha, I can't believe someone would vote negative on this story.

"Oh no, another company is making their music service compatible with iPods, which means I have more choice in where to get my songs and will make a potential iPod buyers decision easier as he knows the iPod is compatible with more services."


We'll definitely have more places to get songs now, but this sounds wrong as hell. AAC is a file format that can be used by anyone, but Fairplay is Apple's. The people who are saying, "Apple will be selling more iPods, so everybody wins!" are wrong. Apple still needs to make SOME money from iTMS, and this will simply take away from iTMS revenue. And worst of all, nobody is going to become more interested in iPods because Buttcrackmusicstore.com is now selling AAC files with Harmony DRM.

Apple makes less profit from iTMS because of this, so Apple can probably sue because of this point alone.


Let the companies bicker between each other over whether this is legal or not. This can only be good as it sells more iPods (which is the profitable part of Apple's music strategy).

I hope you're not naive enough to believe that this will sell more iPods. Do you really think people are saying, "Wow, now that Real has created this new Harmony DRM, I can now shop at Napster (for example) and buy iPod compatible music!!" People who want an iPod are already looking at the iPod, whether they have iTMS, or whether they buy any music online or not. This won't sway them at all.

I'm not an Apple worshipper, and some of you know that, but this is wrong. I don't care who did what to whom in the past. In this particular instance, Real is wrong. I just hope the law finds this is true.

[iMeowbot]

When they do go out of business and Apple updates a few things on the ipod and itunes that don't jive with the hack that Real did, all those songs won't be playable anymore.
Any playability problems are exceedingly unlikely to be caused by iPod firmware changes. The DRM keys employed by iPod have a very straightforward format, and breaking that format would also break all the tracks people have bought from Apple.

A much bigger potential problem for if Real (or Apple!) gets out of the music sales business is what happens when people want to retire old computers. If the key servers are phased out, there would be no way to reauthorize those files to play on a new machine.

[ITR 81]

This what Apple should have done long ago.
License Fairplay to most if not all Music Stores so all of their music will play on iPods.

This will only increase iPod sells.

If there is a lawsuit and SJ wins I'm sure he will take over the company and use it to Apples benfit and to also increase their iTMS base some more.

[ITR 81]

I hope you're not naive enough to believe that this will sell more iPods. Do you really think people are saying, "Wow, now that Real has created this new Harmony DRM, I can now shop at Napster (for example) and buy iPod compatible music!!" People who want an iPod are already looking at the iPod, whether they have iTMS, or whether they buy any music online or not. This won't sway them at all.

I'm not an Apple worshipper, and some of you know that, but this is wrong. I don't care who did what to whom in the past. In this particular instance, Real is wrong. I just hope the law finds this is true.

Well think about the person with a Rio that DL's from Real or some other store. Well none of their music will play on the iPod in it's current form...well unless it's all DRM free MP3's.
So no matter how much they want a iPod it would mean losing all of their Real DRM music if they switched to the iPod.

I doubt anyone would switch to the iPod if it meant losing about $100 or more bucks worth of DL'ed DRM music. I know I wouldn't.

[Marsh451]

When Apple decided to make compatibility with the iTunes music store and the iPod a closed relationship, that was their decision. And once the ease-of-use and great quality of these products brings on success for Apple, they still have the right to keep it closed. Just because other companies want to hitch a ride a get a piece of the action doesn't mean that Apple is a big monster who is screwing over the little people by not letting other companies use what Apple has created. Why don't these other companies take their own chances instead of waiting for Apple to always explore the unmanned territory to make sure everything is OK.

[snowdog]

Isn't this the same company that made a threat to Apple that "either license the AAC with us, or we'll talk to Microsoft"?

I guess Microsoft doesn't want to play with Real either :D

[iMeowbot]

This what Apple should have done long ago.
License Fairplay to most if not all Music Stores so all of their music will play on iPods.
Huh. The more I think about this, the more I think that letting Real roll its own may be what Apple wants to happen.

At the annual meeting, Jobs' explanation for turning down Real is that they weren't a big player in the market and that it would be expensive to maintain Fair Play for use by multiple vendors. This is true, because it then would become Apple's responsibility to make sure that Fair Play encoding changes make their way out to other vendors and worked properly with updated versions of iTunes.

By letting Real go off and build their own key generation infrastructure and tools, Apple are let off the hook. Real can maintain their own little QuickTime plugin that deals with their own DRM, and do their own worrying about depositing the right magic numbers onto the iPod, and come up with their own fixes if their DRM is broken. As long as Real are careful to touch only the parts of the system Apple have to leave unchanged (i.e., to support iTMS tracks already sold), their stuff should keep on working and not get in the way of Apple's.

[Nermal]

Apple makes less profit from iTMS because of this, so Apple can probably sue because of this point alone.

Apple have stated that the iTMS is not intended to make money, it's intended to sell iPods.

[matthew24]

If I buy a CD, i want to be able to play it on any CD-player. Apple's policy concerning FairPlay is abusive and testifies of corrupt -monopoly- business practices.

I just can't believe that especially Mac-users do justify these practices.

I would really like to buy 192kb songs and I believe that Real is going to provide just that.

[virividox]

i dont think apple will take this lying down, although with this they could settle and maybe find a way to further dominate the market; maybe killing real isnt the best option here who knows, hopefully a creative solution arises that is good for both apple and the consumer; competition is a good thing

[sonyrules]

I dont think this is to bad, You can bet apple wont be happy, But they said them selfs, that the iPod makes them more money, So this would actually be a good thing. Beside the fact the Real is a crappy company

[GregA]

If they'd reverse engineered Fairplay to allow other players to access the songs, that would violate the DMCA, I think. If they provide their own DRM so the iPod can play files protected under another system, the copywrited material has not been tampered with and the DMCA probably has not been violated.Ahhh.. finally, I was hoping someone would bring some sense to this discussion. As you say, they haven't broken Fairplay - the article says they found how to load songs onto the iPod so Real's copy-protected songs will play on an iPod. They reverse engineered how Apple loads it's songs onto the iPod.

In reference to Real's strategy helping to make AAC a defacto standard, which ultimately helps Apple.... you said:
So, you're saying Real knows what's best for Apple better than Apple themselves?

If Apple thought this was a good plan, they would have licensed Fairplay. They obviously don't...

When someone else takes control of your company's marketing strategy, that's a Bad Thing. You can look at it as an outsider and rationalize how it doesn't mean utter doom, but for Apple this is a major problem and I'm sure they're not sitting in their conference room saying "heck, this will probably all turn out just peachy".Yeah.... you want to be in control of your strategy.... though that doesn't mean your strategy doesn't have some problems. Or that another company forcing your hand might not make things better in the long run.

On a personal level, I find Apple saying their format (AAC) is better because it is open is utter crap so long as nobody else can use it. When companies in this business were looking for a viable alternative to Microsoft, Apple told them to look somewhere else.

I would LOVE to see the iTMS, iTunes, and iPod each work with any other music store, music software, and music player. Then we would buy the best solution for our personal needs.... and if Apple makes the best music player, software, and music store it'll win. . .... Of course, if Apple doesn't have an Australian music store it'd mean I'd be able to buy music to use on iTunes.

[svenas1]

So, Real is creating a DRM, that plays on iPods/FairPlay systems (Like iTunes/Quicktine), and will therefore make more iPod sales, because it is media that only works on iPods, and may work on other systems in the future.

However, FairPlay will still only work on Apple's products, and is therefore not threatened.

Ok, that seems fine. iTMS may have some competition, but thats ok, because the iPods will keep selling.

Yes, the iPod will keep selling. But that is not the only part of the iPod experience. If, through Reals implementation, the useability suffers (what happens when you sync your iPod to iTunes the next time, after buying something from Real ? Can iTunes cope ? Does it overwrite the new files, try to import them ? Does it crash ?), what will people think?

Apple won't want people to get upset when plugging their iPods into their computers, and the whole simple syncing starts going weird. The iPod is one part of a product. You can't use it without synincg it to iTunes (unless you're a geek, of course ;-)). But if that part fouls up, you'll have one very unhappy customer - and rightly so.

This is a pain, and will create headaches for Apple, even if it does sell more iPods (not that they aren't selling enough..). The point is that Apple cares about the whole experience. Not just selling units.

[whooleytoo]

Could this be a bluff on Real's part? Hoping that this will force Apple to license Fairplay?

[eSnow]

Apple trying to establish a vertically integrated business model without letting in anyone at any point was silly to start with. It was neither user-friendly nor the best way to keep the competition at bay.

They should have allowed other companies to sell custom iPods over a year ago (doesn't someone find it strange that HP is still not selling HP-Pods?) and to rebrand the iTMS too. Laughing off Real in public like they did was a short laugh to satisfy Jobs ego. Now they are getting served.

I am not sorry for them. Apple is great when it comes to inventing things but a complete ass when it comes to sustain their initial achievements. They obviously need to suffer more to understand that in selling over the internet, you need to move from exclusively selling on your platform to licensing out and inviting others as fast as possible - see Amazon.

I hate Real and their ReallyCrappySoftware as much as the next guy, but if they open up FairPlay they protect my investment in iTMS-music I bought should Apple one day abandon the iPod or move it to a high-price segment of the market.

[svenas1]

Isn't this the same company that made a threat to Apple that "either license the AAC with us, or we'll talk to Microsoft"?

I guess Microsoft doesn't want to play with Real either :D

Yeah - lol !! The poor guys at Real !! oh my, what are they going to do if a lawsuit holds that 'Harmony' is illegal ? If Apple and MS won't have them around, maybe they can try to develop for Be or Amiga.

[DGFan]

from what I understand of it, the DMCA (digital millenium copyright act) says reverse engineering of a digital format is against the law. I would imagine Apple would use this in their litigation if and when that happens.

Does it? I am not so sure the DMCA speaks to this at all. By all appearances Real has copied the technology, not bypassed its copy protection mechanisms.

I would like to see the section of the DMCA that specifically outlaws what Real has done.

[Stella]

Excellent.

The more iPod compatible stores - the better.

Consumer choice.

[Shaun.P]

Isn't it widely known that Apple shouldn't even be in the music business? (Apple vs. Apple).

[jydesign]

It really frustrates me when the press paints the iPod as being a "closed" system for listening to music. This fails to paint the full picture, as it is only the iTunes Music Store that sells music in a format that forces a proprietary or closed-process for listening to iTMS purchased music on an iPod.

MP3 is an "open" format, if you don't like the limitations of iTMS, you can simply buy or convert your CDs to MP3 and they'll play on your iPod and just about any other relevant digital music player.

So, when articles suggest the iPod locks you into a proprietary system, they are both incorrect, AND being very misleading. Only iTMS does this.

It seems like we'll be going through a dark stretch where everyone tries to make digital music proprietary and hard to move around. This might actually boost CD sales again, as savvy users get sick of the download war - assuming the effort to copy-protect CD's doesn't accellerate too fast. Great thing is that Apple users already have a great, working, end-to-end solution for listening to digital music. Hearing Apple and monopoly in the same sentence does have a bit of poetic justice.

[jvaska]

Excellent.

The more iPod compatible stores - the better.

Consumer choice.

I second, third and fourth this statement.

As much as I can't stand Real (I have friends who work there and they tell me the most insane stuff too) I applaud them for being stupid enough to do this. Ultimately, it will get the doors open to others - although Real could be well and dead before then (a just reward for producing some of the lousiest software out there today).

[MacAficionado]

As much as I like Apple and my iPod, I think this is great. In many ways this is just like buying a CD, compressing to AAC and playing it on the iPod.

I do not understand what the fuzz is about with people that think this is ilegal or that think that having a mayor developer want to do business with Apple is bad. Yeah, they will be competing for online music sales with iTMS, but there are a lot of people out there that may not consider an iPod, because it can only play music from the iTMS. Now they can buy one and play music from a popular source.

You guys complain about companies wanting to develop for Apple, and you complain if they don't. What do you want, Apple to be marginalized more that it has been?

I think that RealPlayer is a great service and as soon as I get my DSL back I will probably pat the monthly fee to download movies and to watch the different sorts of media that they give you access to. I've seen this on a PC, and wanted it to be on the Mac.

Lets be more open minded people, if Apple blocks everybody from playing nice with their products, then nobody will develop for us.
:rolleyes:

[Stella]

Article on BBC regarding this
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3925897.stm"

Quote:
The program mimics Apple's copy protection software, so Real says it has not infringed Apple's intellectual property rights by developing it.

It says its engineers used publicly-available information in order to work out how to make files compatible with Apple's digital rights management (DRM) software, which is called FairPlay.

--

So, may it is the case Apple can't do anything about this - 'reverse engineering' from information in the public domain. You could certinaly get a good idea of Fairplay from Hymm.

Apple should let iTMS compete on its merits.. it has a great UI and makes it hassle free... easier than other stores.

[HenMaster6000]

WSJ Today-

"We have excellent lawyers and they assure me that we are 100% within all of the legal precedents and the letter and spirit of all laws," Mr. Glaser says. He says he has spoken to executives at all of the major recording companies, and they approve of the company's effort to end the online music format battles.

[DGFan]

WSJ Today-

"We have excellent lawyers and they assure me that we are 100% within all of the legal precedents and the letter and spirit of all laws," Mr. Glaser says. He says he has spoken to executives at all of the major recording companies, and they approve of the company's effort to end the online music format battles.

Of course the record companies approve. They don't like the power Apple has in the online music industry. Anything that undercuts that is a Good Thing(tm)

[gensor]

They will have a lawsuit filed by Apple against them. This will limit Real's ability to raise future capital as equity investors will see this pending litigation (that Apple will most likely win) as a huge uncertainty for Real financially. Real has just backed into a corner. They were in a check positon on the chess board and now it is checkmate . Real needs access to the capital markets because they only have $60 million of cash which is way too small for the competition in this market. Also, it limits their abitlit to sell the company with the an Apple lawsuit.

[wnurse]

[Forever']Hello lawsuit!

Unless they violate apple patents, not likely. Reverse engineering is perfectly legitimate. Apple can sue but it would be a waste of time and resources and they'd likely lose.

[mhouse]

[QUOTE=eskatonia]I don't believe the attitude of people on here. I'm sure there will be a lawsuit but I hope Real wins.

Reverse engineering for compatibility is one of the few allowable exceptions to DMCA. Real tried to do this the best way for Apple, licensing the technology. They were refused so they instead are trying to do a clean room compatible reimplementation. This is a perferctly legitimate business tactic and if they have been careful to reimplement it from scratch avoiding any copyrighted specifications or any patents they may well win.

If it wasn't for this sort of action there would be no personal computer industry as it was the reverse engineering of the PC bios by Compaq that allowed PC compatibles to be made and has lead to the huge advantages in performance and cost that have happened across the whole computer industry.

More iPod compatible music can only be a good thing right?

..unless you are an Apple stockholder and want them to have a monopoly.[/QUOTE

All of you folks who are posting stuff like this are kidding yourselves. Just like years ago with the PC industry, this equation is simple. There WILL be a monopoly of some kind, based on software. There is no getting around it. People will insist on compatibility.

And *please* stop the ridiculous citing of the PC industry as an example of successful interoperability. Come on! The PC industry is a m o n o p o l y folks, with Microsoft in total control of the only really profitable part of the industry: the software. They allow the hardware makers to scrap over the relatively tiny pile of money to made on hardware.

So please stop kidding yourselves. This will all shake down to one file type and one set of DRM eventually. And, in all likelihood, if Apple doesn't end up on top, Microsoft will win again. Then they will control the PC world and the music world.

Nice thought, huh?

[eskatonia]

All of you folks who are posting stuff like this are kidding yourselves. Just like years ago with the PC industry, this equation is simple. There WILL be a monopoly of some kind, based on software. There is no getting around it. People will insist on compatibility.

So please stop kidding yourselves. This will all shake down to one file type and one set of DRM eventually. And, in all likelihood, if Apple doesn't end up on top, Microsoft will win again. Then they will control the PC world and the music world.

Nice thought, huh?

for counter example see TCP/IP. Microsoft tried to dominate the internet with proprietry protocols and failed miserable. Compatibility can be achieved by open standards instead of a monopoly and maybe what Real is doing will make Fairplay become the defacto open standard.

[Neuro]

If Real starts selling AAC tracks at 160Kbit or higher, then Apple will be in trouble. 128 just isn't good enough with some recordings.

[SiliconAddict]

Ahhhh nothing like the smell of litigation to get you going in the morning. ;)

I want to know what the hell was going through the mind of the CEO of Real?!??! Other then DUHHHHHHH. Because for the love of god by the end of the day Apple's lawyers will be over this like a pack of lions on a impala. Apple’s lawyers are going to carve Real a new one after this. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. And I’m talking Real AND Apple. Apple should have licensed fairplay this Spring. This is how desperate people are to tap the iPod’s potential and Apple’s hanging themselves.

[wnurse]

So if I go to the store and see something I like but cannot have I should just steal it?


Reverse Engineering is not stealing. The code is not exactly the same.
Perhaps you are one of those that think Linus stole from Unix to create Linux or that AMD stole from Intel to create compatible chips. I know it's an emotional issue for mac diehards but common. Interestingly, Apple may well sue and then all our questions will be answered. Until that, i guess we'll all continue to be amateur lawyers (or armchair lawyers)

[SiliconAddict]

for counter example see TCP/IP. Microsoft tried to dominate the internet with proprietry protocols and failed miserable. Compatibility can be achieved by open standards instead of a monopoly and maybe what Real is doing will make Fairplay become the defacto open standard.

Please ref this? IP has been the defeacto protocol on Windows for years. NetBEUI a close second and its still a protocol I recommend for some users who don't need a routable protocol.

mhouse is 100% right. Standards don't mean jack **** if no one uses them. MS can win by default if the industry just adopts them and ignores the "standard"

[SiliconAddict]

Unless they violate apple patents, not likely. Reverse engineering is perfectly legitimate. Apple can sue but it would be a waste of time and resources and they'd likely lose.

One acronym.....DMCA

They win.

[wnurse]

It really frustrates me when the press paints the iPod as being a "closed" system for listening to music. This fails to paint the full picture, as it is only the iTunes Music Store that sells music in a format that forces a proprietary or closed-process for listening to iTMS purchased music on an iPod.

MP3 is an "open" format, if you don't like the limitations of iTMS, you can simply buy or convert your CDs to MP3 and they'll play on your iPod and just about any other relevant digital music player.

So, when articles suggest the iPod locks you into a proprietary system, they are both incorrect, AND being very misleading. Only iTMS does this.

It seems like we'll be going through a dark stretch where everyone tries to make digital music proprietary and hard to move around. This might actually boost CD sales again, as savvy users get sick of the download war - assuming the effort to copy-protect CD's doesn't accellerate too fast. Great thing is that Apple users already have a great, working, end-to-end solution for listening to digital music. Hearing Apple and monopoly in the same sentence does have a bit of poetic justice.

The reason the press says it's a closed system is supported by the solution you gaved for listening to ITMS purchased music. It's a techie solution. I'm a techie, i code for a living but i have my mom, my dad and a few brothers and sisters who could care less how a computer works or even about converting songs. You think they want to spend their time converting ITMS songs to MP3? Why you think ITMS is successfull in the first place when there are PTP networks with free songs available? All the people on the PTP networks are techies or people willing to invest time and effort. People who shop on ITMS don't want to convert their music. If they did, they'd go on a PTP netork which already has the music in MP3 format.

The press is right. ITMS is a closed system to the audience it was intended for.

P.S. Yes, i know techies might shop ITMS so as not to steal music and be sued but the majority of people who use ITMS are not techies and are not interested in becoming one or mimicking one.

[sinisterdesign]

It's like not inviting a lame kid to your party, yet he shows up anyway.

no KIDDING. Real, you just can't take a hint, can you? this party is for the cool kids, not the annoying rich kid that figured out where the party was an crashed it.

i can see steve sitting around reading news of this..."they did F~(%!#@ WHAT??!?"

Apple's legal team is salivating right now...

[mhouse]

for counter example see TCP/IP. Microsoft tried to dominate the internet with proprietry protocols and failed miserable. Compatibility can be achieved by open standards instead of a monopoly and maybe what Real is doing will make Fairplay become the defacto open standard.

Sure man, but this is not a "counter example." TCP/IP exists only because Microsoft does not care that it exists. There is no money to be made or marketshare to be lost. If TCP/IP somehow negatively affected Microsoft's utter dominance of the computer OS marketplace (as Netscape briefly did) then MS would develop their own version, tie it to Windows, and that would be the end of TCP/IP.

MS has a huge profit engine with Windows. The computer industry is utterly tied to it and as long as this is the case, MS could care less what open standards evolve that do not threaten this engine.

Apple, right or wrong, is trying to create a similar profit machine with iTMS/FairPlay/iPod.

The music issue (as we have seen) will be a money maker for someone. Right now, the profit is in the hardware (just like with the PC industry years ago) but once the hardware becomes commoditized, the profit will shift to the software end.

And, don't kid yourself, MS will never allow that money to flow away from their coffers if they can possibly help it.

The relevant question in any of these discussions is this: do you want a world with MS in control of both the OS market and the digtal music market or a world with Apple in control of the digital music market. Because, as I said before, someone *will* end up in control. I'd prefer it be Apple.

I'd love some pollyanna-ish world where open standards reigned, music was free, and gumdrops fell from the sky like raindrops, but it ain't gonna happen.

[Applespider]

Well think about the person with a Rio that DL's from Real or some other store. Well none of their music will play on the iPod in it's current form...well unless it's all DRM free MP3's.

Real are talking about starting to sell AACs so you can play them on your iPod but buy from them rather than iTunes. If you had a Rio, you wouldn't be buying AAC versions anyhow so you'd still have to repurchase to move them to the iPod

[JGowan]

It's like not inviting a lame kid to your party, yet he shows up anyway.Hell, it's like telling a lame kid to keep away from your girlfriend and yet you find them frenching in the coat closet. And then he "did" her.

[Fukui]

Please ref this? IP has been the defeacto protocol on Windows for years. NetBEUI a close second and its still a protocol I recommend for some users who don't need a routable protocol.

mhouse is 100% right. Standards don't mean jack **** if no one uses them. MS can win by default if the industry just adopts them and ignores the "standard"
Exactly. But I have a feeling once the iPod becomes a bigger product and has a larger installed base and rep, the DRM will get opened. At this point, both the iTunes store and iPod work together to sell eachother, and compatibility with the store is one thing that helps to sell the iPod, just like compatibility is what sells windows. I think after a certain amount of time, the iPod would be able to sell itself, but at this point, I think they want to establish thier business and market first (remember apple didn't even want DRM in the first place but the labels woudn't have it any other way); plus I think steve must get a fun sense of irony/pleasure for people scrambling to be compatible with his platform for a change...

[csimmons]

They should have allowed other companies to sell custom iPods over a year ago (doesn't someone find it strange that HP is still not selling HP-Pods?) and to rebrand the iTMS too.

A bit misinformed today, aren't we? :eek:

HP stated after the 4G iPod launch that the hPod will be shipping in September, with the 4G form factor; they said they were waiting for the initial 4G iPod release.

Also, why should HP rebrand the iTMS? They've been shipping iTMS with most of their HP and Compaq boxes since March, so what good would rebranding do?

[Armsreach]

Doesn't anybody that's pressing for Apple to sue Real think that Real probably already looked into the legal ramifications of this? I support the iPod and iTunes 100%, and don't really know the technicalities of the DMCA, but I'm sure Real has very competant lawyers that gave them the go-ahead first. Why would they risk losing millions of dollars by implementing this, if they knew they would definitely lose a lawsuit?

-Matt

C'mon Matt. This is Rob Glaser and Real Networks we are talking about.

[Armsreach]

...Apple is doing it again, the whole looking inward, not outward, that's hosed their marketshare and potential for proliferating as a standard, not just some product that people throw in with words like "betamaxed" and "dwindling market share."...

Apple's current market share numbers have more to do with not aggressively seeking the business market and their "Computers for the rest of us" early marketing than they have to do with their closed but extremely well oiled machine. Trust me, in the early days, had apple aggressively approached the corporate market and laid claim the world would be a different place now.

[niels]

After reading all the negative reactions here I am a bit surprised. Perhaps these reactions are due to the fact that quite a number of people don’t really understand what this is all about.

First of all, this is not an attempt to break the FairPlay DRM scheme. The software basically works like this: It takes a Real DRM protected song bought from the RealPlayer Music Store and decrypts it and encrypts it again in a way that is compatible with FairPlay. That’s all there is to it… no format conversions or loss of quality, because Real also uses AAC as the basis of their music store. If Real didn’t make any mistakes the resulting file should look exactly the same as a regular iTMS file.

How exactly did Real achieve this? Well, I don’t know, because I am not a employee of Real. But this is what I would do, if I were to create such a program. Thanks to DeDRMS and Hymn a.k.a. PlayFair it’s not that difficult actually. But first some background information on FairPlay:

If you rip a CD with AAC in iTunes it creates a MP4 container with a standard AAC audio stream. A FairPlay protected file is basically nothing more than a MP4 container with an encrypted AAC audio stream. If you have the key you can decrypt the encrypted stream using the Rijndael algorithm. That is all you need to play a FairPlay protected Everything is based on existing standards: AAC, the MP4 container format and Rijndael encryption. Nothing revolutionary here.

When you buy a song from the iTMS it encrypts the song using a randomly generated key. That key is stored in your account on the iTMS server. When you authorize your computer it will send all the keys in your account to the computer you are using. When you de-authorize your computer it will remove the keys from the computer you are using. So, when your computer is authorized it has the keys it needs to decrypt the encrypted files.

When you transfer a protected song from iTunes to you iPod it makes a copy of the key and places it on the iPod. The iPod basically contains a repository of all the keys it needs to play the protected files you moved to your iPod.

In reality it is a bit more difficult than I explained above. But everything you need has already been reverse-engineered. How to decrypt is known. How to access the keys on the iPod is known. How the access the keys from iTunes is known and Jon Johansen recently even released a program that allows you to contact the iTMS server to receive the keys directly from Apple. Every component that one would need to create such a program is known.

So, what would I do to make files compatible with the iPod? First of all you need a plain AAC file (Real uses DRMed AAC files, but since they created the DRM scheme, they know how to decrypt their own files and turn them into regular AAC files). Next you need to generate a random key and encrypt the AAC file with it and store it into a MP4 container. Creating a random key is simple. The encryption scheme is also a standardized scheme, so that should be pretty easy too. Storing the file in a MP4 container is also easy, because that is also a public standard.

The next thing you need to do is move the file to the iPod and store the randomly generated key in the key repository on the iPod. Since the iPod is little more than a mounted harddrive this shouldn’t be a big problem either. The only potential problem is the format of the key repository. Since we already know how to read keys from it, it shouldn’t be a big problem to solve though. And that is all there is to it. The iPod has the protected file and the key to play it. Of course, you can’t play the file in iTunes, but after reading the description on Real’s website it doesn’t look like they allow that either.


Finally, I you aren’t yet bored with this very long post, I also have an opinion on the legality of such an application. First of all, there are several ways to protect ‘IP’: trade secrets, copyrights, patents and trademarks.

Apple no longer can use trade secrets to protect FairPlay, because everything you need to know about it is already public knowledge. Once something becomes public knowledge, it can’t be protected by trade secrets anymore.

Apple has a trademark for FairPlay, which means Real can’t give it’s application the same name. Since Real uses the name Harmony for this application this isn’t an issue.

Apple doesn’t seem to have a patent on FairPlay DRM technology. Probably because the system they use is an pretty straight forward implementation of common DRM techniques. Nothing Apple invented, just stuff that Apple implemented based on existing techniques. So stopping Real using patents seems unlikely.

Copyrights are also problematic. Copyright only protects implementations of ideas, not the ideas itself. Two separate implementations of the same functionality is allowed by copyright law. Take for example Safari and Internet Explorer. As long as Real doesn’t use any source code that is owned by Apple they are not violating Apple’s copyrights.

Unlike utilities like Hymn a.k.a PlayFair and DeDRMS, the application Real built does not break the copy protection scheme used by FairPlay, it merely builds files that are compatible with FairPlay. So it doesn’t look like a DMCA violation. In fact the DMCA specifically allows reverse-engineering to achieve compatibility.

All that is left is that Real is messing up Apples plans to stay the sole supplier of legal downloads for the iPod. Although I love Apple, that is something they can’t prevent from happening. I’ve never seen a law that tells us that you can’t mess with Apple’s plans.

[whooleytoo]

Jesus, you people are touchy. I for one think it's great that Real is willing to go to these lengths to ensure iPod compatibility. Not to mention that they actually put quite a bit of work into making RealPlayer a good OS X app (the same can't be said of another, much larger company with a competing media player...).

That was my reaction too - they provide an extra option for iPod owners, and people's reaction is "Die Real, Die". And to think they call Mac fans extremists... ;)

[applekid]

I think RealNetworks has the right to allow their music to be playable on the iPod. It may be possible that Apple locks out Harmony songs, but that could be seen as Apple using its monopoly power in the downloadable music industry. Apple, do the right thing.

[cr2sh]

With Harmony Technology, RealPlayer Music Store supports more than 70 secure portable media devices, including all 4 generations of the iPod and iPod mini, 14 products from Creative, 14 from Rio, 7 from RCA, 9 from palmOne, 18 from iRiver, and products from Dell, Gateway, and Samsung. Generally speaking, Harmony supports any device that uses the Apple FairPlay DRM, The Microsoft Windows Media Audio DRM, or the RealNetworks Helix DRM, giving RealPlayer Music Store support for more secure devices than any other music store on the Internet.

The software seems to translate from DRM to DRM but never actually removes it... I don't think there's a foul there. Apple might be pissed but I think its the right thing.... :eek:

If there is a lawsuit... there's going to be a bunch of them.

[ObsidianIce]

Now i don't quite see how Apple has a monopoly
"Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service"

THe way i see it, their is a huge market for mp3 players, Apple just happens to have the most poplular one. also there are several Online music stores as well. So Apple not wanting to have rival companies able to play their music is simply competetion nothing monopolistic about it. I see no price gouging, the price in Ipods has been quite steady as have the prices on most mac products! every compnay is and should be allowed to work to maintain their marketshare by legal means. Real is the caompny that appears to be pursuing the non-legal means and should be dealt with accordingly....but that's just my opinion!

[½win½lin]

This is unlikely to have anything to do with the DMCA or EUCD.

Real are (or sounds like they are as it's not out as yet!) taking their copy-protected songs and adding in the necessary bits so that iTunes recognises the file as legally purchased.

They don't care how Apple's DRM works, that would be reverse engineering, all they need to know is what input data they need in order to get the correct output (i.e. allow the file to be played) and from this link news.com (http://news.com.com/Real+offers+new+tech%2C+song+store/2100-1027_3-5136275.html?tag=nl)
it appears they are using Apples own libraries and very much like they are trying to do the same thing for MS DRM too.

It does not involve bypassing the DRM, quite the opposite in fact, in requires the DRM mechanism to be present.

Regardless, I hope this succeeds - Real, as the underdog in the market now, are the ones working for the consumer to deliver a 'buy once - play anywhere' product.

It is exactly this inability to cooperate that delayed online music sales and allowed p2p to take root and flourish giving us a whole host of draconian legislation to boot. A whole load of incompatible DRM technologies will just lead to a repeat of the same thing in the digital music market. How long before you have to have a specific player to listen to a specific band? Sony Online exclusives sound good to anyone here?

[RocksInMySocks]

I was working under the impression that Apple's monopoly of FairPlay was the singular reason why the Majors allowed their content to be sold through iTMS. I haven't done much looking at iTMS alternatives, but is there another music service that allows one to "own" the song, severed from the online host? I'm surprised that the record companies would see the reverse-engineering (read: "compromise") of FairPlay as favorable.

[sinisterdesign]

If Real starts selling AAC tracks at 160Kbit or higher, then Apple will be in trouble. 128 just isn't good enough with some recordings.

:eek:
oooOOOoooo. i hadn't thought of that. i LOVE iTMS, but my biggest gripe is that 128kbps is the ONLY choice of quality. i'm looking to migrate to a 40GB iPod and i chose quality over quantity a while back, so if Real comes along w/ 160/192kbps downloads for $.99, i would seriously consider spending my dollar there (and i hate Real).

right now, my view is that unless it's an album from an artist that i REALLY like, i'll buy it from iTMS. i don't mind giving up a little sound quality for the lower price of the album. BUT if it's someone i really like, i'll still plunk down the cash for the CD for the ability to rip it at 192kbps AAC.

[niels]

½win½lin:
....it appears they are using Apples own libraries and very much like they are trying to do the same thing for MS DRM too.

It does not involve bypassing the DRM, quite the opposite in fact, in requires the DRM mechanism to be present...

What News.com describes here the method which Real uses to play PlayFair DRM protected files. This is something have been doing for a while now and has very little to do with the annoucement that they will be offering PlayFair compatible files on their RealPlayer Music Store.

The mechanism they discribe is actually pretty simple and has been done by others also. Basically it works like this. The PlayFair DRM is implemented in QuickTime. iTunes uses QuickTime to play the iTMS files. If you build an application that also uses QuickTime to play iTMS files it will work without you ever having to deal with the DRM, because that is all handled by QuickTime. Another example of such an application is the open-source Media Player Classic on Windows.


RocksInMySocks:
I was working under the impression that Apple's monopoly of FairPlay was the singular reason why the Majors allowed their content to be sold through iTMS...

I don't think the record companies really care about FairPlay. They only care about the end-results. They want to sell as much as they can and put certain restrictions on how the files can be used. iTMS with its FairPlay DRM is just one way to achieve that goal.

When Real allows users to play their songs on the iPod it actually helps the record companies achieve their goal. Sell more songs. Since Real's FairPlay-compatible files are still protected by DRM with all of the restrictions intact their is no downside for the record companies.

[dizastor]

Apple Legal has a seizure when rumor sites post images of upcoming products... I can't imagine how upset this will make them.

Apple should just buy real networks and close them down. RealPlayer is the suck.

[niels]

sinisterdesign:
oooOOOoooo. i hadn't thought of that. i LOVE iTMS, but my biggest gripe is that 128kbps is the ONLY choice of quality. i'm looking to migrate to a 40GB iPod and i chose quality over quantity a while back, so if Real comes along w/ 160/192kbps downloads for $.99, i would seriously consider spending my dollar there (and i hate Real).

Real is actually already selling 192kbps AAC encoded files for $.99. The only thing is they are not compatible with the iPod... something that is going to change very soon :)

[BlueSky]

Seeing Steve with Ipod on the cover of Newsweek marked a "peek" for Ipod and iTMS IMO... this is how usually things are.. same theory applies to trading stocks..

[jettredmont]

Thats what Apple gets for not letting other people make a little money off the iPod. More music available for the iPod means more iPod sales, since those files are only playable on the iPod. But since they also own the iTMS, I understand why they don't want everyone to have the codec.

Does Real have a large bevy of artists/labels iTMS doesn't?

Real "supporting" iPod doesn't mean there is more music available, just that you have a second choice in music supplier. That is not a good thing for Apple economically, and in Apple's view isn't a good thing for the consumer (because it fractures the marketplace, makes it possible for the RIAA to set up two tiers of music sales and rights, etc). The primary result of having two iPod music stores will be that one of them ends up getting a "better" deal on music for cheap, and the other ends up getting a much larger catalog of "premium" music. That's the antithesis of what Apple's done so far with the industry (forced a single-price/single-rights approach) and would be bad for the consumer ('cause now I'd have to go to two different stores to find the one song I want).

[stuepfnick]

This is a good step for Apple and helps protects them of their own conceitedness and will give the iPod even bigger market shares and opens the iPod to other companies as well! This is good news for customers and Apple itself!
Only the "Harmony" technology must work on macs and linux too.. not only windows... :rolleyes:

[dsyntax]

If Real starts selling AAC tracks at 160Kbit or higher, then Apple will be in trouble. 128 just isn't good enough with some recordings.

While this may be important to some audiophiles out there, I highly doubt enough people even know what their bit rate is, not to mention can tell the difference, to signifigantly hurt apple in this case. Of course it would be nice to offer the best for the cheapest, but I don't see any mass migration over to real because of this.

-Doops

[0 and A ai]

Pretty funny how those defending real are mostly macrumors newbies. damn trollers.

I don't think we'll see a lawsuit first. i think we'll see alot of firmware and software upgrades followed by a lawsuit if real keeps up.

[joeboy_45101]

I read the article on the New York Times, Real seems to have found some kind of technical loophole that allowed them to make their own songs work with the iPod. They don't seem to have violated any of Apple's copyrights in the process. Real's standard has nothing to do with reverse engineering FairPlay, from what I read. I don't see why Apple would be up in arms about this, this can only be good for business as it would sale more iPods. Maybe Steve should have thought this through.

[jettredmont]

No. Real is licencing their technology so that other music stores can sell iPod-compatible songs.

There is no difference. If Apple doesn't legally block Real from licensing Harmony to music stores, it will lose its ability to block them from licensing Harmony to music players.

[0 and A ai]

I read the article on the New York Times, Real seems to have found some kind of technical loophole that allowed them to make their own songs work with the iPod. They don't seem to have violated any of Apple's copyrights in the process. Real's standard has nothing to do with reverse engineering FairPlay, from what I read. I don't see why Apple would be up in arms about this, this can only be good for business as it would sale more iPods. Maybe Steve should have thought this through.

Then i'm sure apple will seal this loophole.

[mowogg]

Isn't it about time for Apple to buy Real and switch all the Real streams over to QT?
With Real on the ropes financially, it is likely that some entity would scoop them up for all the licenses they have for media streams. Apple could gain valuable market share against MS WM in the fight for online media dominance.
I highly doubt it would happen though. Apple doesn't seem able to have more than one iron in the fire at a time these days and migrating media AND wrestling with music licensing and content is most likely too much for their resources.

[tveric]

Don't know if anyone has posted this because I don't have time to read all 2 billion posts on this topic, but I did read a few that wondered how, exactly, Real is doing this. Check this link from Billboard:

http://www.billboard.com/bb/daily/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000585582

If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's the important part:

Real's solution to the compatibility problem is to give consumers two files of the same song when they purchase a track from the RealPlayer Music Store. The first is the normal file, designed for playback via Real's RealPlayer music management software. The second is a transparent, "optimized" file that is not seen in the music collection but resides on the user's hard drive. This second file is used specifically for transfer to a portable device.

The RealPlayer determines whether a device uses Apple or Windows Media DRM, and then converts the optimized file into the proper format to enable portability. "Users don't have to think about the format," says Sean Ryan, senior VP of music services at Real. "The proposition is: Buy it here; move it anywhere."

The Harmony technology still doesn't allow for tracks secured with Windows Media DRM to be directly transferred to the iPod, or for iTunes tracks to be transferred to Windows-based devices from the likes of Creative and Rio.


So, this seems like a real jerry-rigged solution. Their answer is to put TWO files on your computer of the same song - so there's no actual "compatibility" between their files and the iPod, or any other player. It just seems like any actual end user is going to be dealing with more problems than they're worth, especially considering they can already buy from the iTMS for the same money and with no extra files and no compatibility workarounds. Just my first thoughts.

[joeboy_45101]

Then i'm sure apple will seal this loophole.

Your probably right, but I don't understand why they would really want to do this. The iPod has become a cultural icon. Let's say that Real's music service somehow magically takes off and becomes super popular. Would Apple really want to piss off iPod customers by blocking the iPod's ability to play somebody else's music. It's none of Apple's business what I put on my iPod. But I also have less faith in Apple's ability to block any kind of loophole, they apparently can't get multiple on-the-go playlists and Audiobook speed adjustments to work on older iPods.

[technocoy]

thats what this is.

for those newbies or just piss-and-moners about the attitude of apple "zealots":

for years apple users were forced to sit in a corner with no support because people were led like sheep to the windows world, and now that apple is finally regaining ground (in one area or another) these little pick-and peck companies are once again trying to capitalize on something that apple has done well. i think we apple users have every right to be upset about a company that we are very proud of and many of us use as a staple tools in our lives getting the screw-over blackmail treatment.

the point here is that real was not invited. that does not make apple bad or a monopoly. this market is fresh, and still very much on the rise. businesses have every chance to compete. as long as apple still stands to profit in a large way in a growing market, i fully believe they have the right to keep the iTunes store closed. they are not ready to open it yet, and ANYONE forcing them to do so with blackmail tactics should be repremanded. this IS like the kid who asked and didn't recieve and then just decided to blackmail to get it. Apple WILL eventually open fairplay to everyone, but they are still the leader in a fresh, highly competitive market, and they shouldn't be forced to open their system until it becomes necessary and good for THEM.

this crap about apple screwing the consumer with rights management is crap as well. the ONLY reason there is rights management on the iTunes music store in the first place is the labels and the RIAA. apple wanted to bring something cool to the market, but needed permission in order to get there. the only way they could get that permission was to encode the files with copyright protection. don't cry foul apple for bringing you a good product. they did what they had to, and i for one think what apple has done is very non-restrictive in comparison to some.

and finally, one of the main reasons that apple's software and hardware is so nice and easy, and flawless (mostly) in operation is because they have COMPLETE control over the user experience and integration, which makes for a much better and effecient user experience. "it just works" comes to mind from the many converted friends and co-workers that i have personally helped to the other side. Steve is ALL about the experience and that is why they SHOULD and CAN be pissed about pouty-ass sneaky Real doing what they are doing. period.

that all being said,

i would like to see higher encoded songs on iTunes, and when the market ripens and apple stands to profit from it (because i want apple to profit, since i rely on their products and enjoy them tremendously) i think they should license their drm. they should NOT be forced (it's like being forced to give up your virginity) by anyone. period.

all statements made herein are the sole opinion of one technocoy, and are not paid for or endorsed by any part of apple computer corp® or MacRumors Forums or their subsidary members :)

PEACE!!

[autrefois]

Pretty funny how those defending real are mostly macrumors newbies. damn trollers.

Pretty funny how those defending Apple are ignoring well-reasoned, well-written, fact-based posts showing Real is almost certainly not breaking the law.

One can hate Real and yet defend their right to use legal means to compete with ITMS.

Somehow, I think only debating whether or not Real "sucks" (as some posts have done) or whether or not "newbies" are allowed independent thought (which you seem to question :)), will go nowhere.

[billyboy]

Apple want to control iTunes MS and iPod because it works. Let another outfit try to emulate the service and they dont get it quite right, and that impacts on the iPod. Real should just hand over everything to Apple and save themselves a humiliatingly slow bleed to death

[jdhuskey]

Apple will still sell plenty of ipods because of style and because they are the market leader but a bit of competition will force them to be honest and keep prices fair.

Do you pay any attention at all? Apple has, since the beginning, maintained the very best and most consistent prices at iTMS. As for the iPod, you get what you pay for: Quality and Style. Just look at the other players - they are all crap. I'm sure they work fine, but they're ugly and not at all easy to use. The 4th generation iPods are super slick with the mini's click wheel. And did you just overlook the fact that Apple dropped the price of the iPods by $100 on the 4th generation players?

I agree with several other posters here: Real has always sucked. They don't give a rat's a** about consumer choice. Real is just struggling. They need to be able to sell something to make money and Apple is kicking their butt. The way I see it, this is already healthy competition. Real can't keep up. The strong survive and the weak go away. I might feel sorry for them if they'd ever had a good, strong product that I'd ever liked, but that's just not the case.

[Stewie]

So if I go to the store and see something I like but cannot have I should just steal it?

No, but you can go home and make your own that is a likeness of what you saw in the store.

[MikeTheC]

Funny how the only company with any integrity in this whole business is Apple. Regardless of what one thinks about their decision to (try to) keep iPod/iTunes a closed platform, they've at least been consistently up-front about why they want to do that: it moves the merchandise. <SNIP> Glaser's got the tail wagging the dog. And why aren't any of these people busy noticing that all this "consumer choice" is really just saying let's lock everyone into Microsoft's format? There's a world of downside to that outcome that Glaser and others just pretend doesn't exist.

Amen! Lay it on, brother...

[JediL1]

If its this easy for Real to make their files playable on iPod, what will happen when Microsoft's Store comes with Harmony type technology (possibly licensed from Real).

What about when the portable music player market becomes so commoditized that there isn't much profit in selling players? Where will Apple's Music-Based profit engine come from?

Not bashing Real or Apple, just curious if anyone has some good answers.

[lssmit02]

Just a small point, but if (and that's a big if) Real did reverse engineer FairPlay, there is a possibility that it is permitted under the DMCA. Sec. 1201(f) allows you to reverse engineer an encryption system for the purposes of allowing interoperability. I'm not an expert on exactly how this provision is intended to work, but it may be the legal loophole used by Real to get around Apple's DRM encryption system.

If you're interested, the link to the DMCA is here (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html).

[Adurbe]

A lot of people seem to be bashing real's software, which in the past i grant you has been shoddy to say the least... but i must admit the new version is very nice indeed, its stable and plays rather well. Give the new version a try

On the DRM note if Apple licence it it will almost certainly become the standard, standards = profits, if they wait too long it wont only be real competing, imagine if ms make one too (i mean one that works with iPods)

[padrino121]

so... apple doesn't know yet?
it will play on the iPod because its an illegal copy of FairPlay?

heh... wonder what they had to do...


edit: whoa whoaa!!! they're going to license it, too?!


The iPod can play non DRMed files on it. I imagine they just enforce the DRM themselves on it without having anything to do with the AAC FairPlay DRM. That is completely legal and not much different in concept then running other software on your iPod, this one happens to allow Real's songs to play.

[TWinbrook46636]

No, but you can go home and make your own that is a likeness of what you saw in the store.

No, in the context of this thread:

Buy it. Take it apart. Copy the design. Return it. Then market the stolen design as my own.

If this is just Real coming up with their own DRM that is compatible with the iPod then fine. If they are talking about conversion software that allows songs purchased from the iTMS to be playable on other devices other than iPods/iTunes then Apple should sue.

I never saw a problem with licensing FairPlay to Real as the licensing fees could easily make up for lost revenue at the iTMS.

[ccuilla]

Okay folks. Calm down.

First of all, after reading the article, I am not certain that Apple has anything it can sue over. All that appears to be happening is that Real has come up with a clever way to make their DRM controlled songs work on the iPod. This doesn't mean that they have hacked or even reverse engineered FairPlay.

I am also unclear on what it means for Apple at this point. Perhaps nothing.

[niels]

padrino121:
...I imagine they just enforce the DRM themselves on it without having anything to do with the AAC FairPlay DRM...

This is something the record companies would never allow Real to do. The files created by Real are definately protected. From the descriptions I've read so far they are encrypted on the fly in a FairPlay compatible way when you transfer them to the iPod using RealPlayer.

lssmit02:
Just a small point, but if (and that's a big if) Real did reverse engineer FairPlay, there is a possibility that it is permitted under the DMCA. Sec. 1201(f) allows you to reverse engineer an encryption system for the purposes of allowing interoperability. I'm not an expert on exactly how this provision is intended to work, but it may be the legal loophole used by Real to get around Apple's DRM encryption system.

The DMCA does NOT prohibit reverse engineering at all. Reverse engineering is legal by default. The DMCA does prohibit the circumvention of FairPlay:

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

and

No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title

FairPlay would be the 'technological measure'. The song you bought in the iTMS would be the 'work protected'. Circumventions means:

to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner.

The questions are, did Real by reverse-engineering FairPlay do anything of the above? And does Real by offering a product that creates FairPlay-compatible files do anything of the above?

Unless Real illegally decrypted FairPlay files to find out how the process works, the answer is NO. Harmony in itself does not decrypt files bought from the iTMS. Nor does it bypass, remove, deactivate or impair the encryption on these songs. The Harmony technology in itself is NOT prohibited by the DMCA.

Even if Real did those things during the reverse engineering there is not a problem, because the DMCA specifically allows circumvention during reverse engineering of a program in order to achieve compatibility.

[MikeTheC]

So if I go to the store and see something I like but cannot have I should just steal it?

No, but if it's something you need you could build yourself (like, say a computer!)

Sometimes when I look at a catalog or go in a store, it gives me an idea that I can use and I will just make my own widget.

[bullrat]

Fantastic news. Go Real! Please license this everywhere and to everyone! My music, my way :p

[joeboy_45101]

This is something the record companies would never allow Real to do. The files created by Real are definately protected. From the descriptions I've read so far they are encrypted on the fly in a FairPlay compatible way when you transfer them to the iPod using RealPlayer.



The DMCA does NOT prohibit reverse engineering at all. Reverse engineering is legal by default. The DMCA does prohibit the circumvention of FairPlay:



and



FairPlay would be the 'technological measure'. The song you bought in the iTMS would be the 'work protected'. Circumventions means:



The questions are, did Real by reverse-engineering FairPlay do anything of the above? And does Real by offering a product that creates FairPlay-compatible files do anything of the above?

Unless Real illegally decrypted FairPlay files to find out how the process works, the answer is NO. Harmony in itself does not decrypt files bought from the iTMS. Nor does it bypass, remove, deactivate or impair the encryption on these songs. The Harmony technology in itself is NOT prohibited by the DMCA.

Even if Real did those things during the reverse engineering there is not a problem, because the DMCA specifically allows circumvention during reverse engineering of a program in order to achieve compatibility.

Not really, the iPod CAN play music without the help of FairPlay. MP3's personally encoded AAC, etc. The music files sold by Real could be grouped in that category. The iPod is designed to play both non-DRM music files and Apple FairPlay music files.

Real has done nothing wrong by making it's files play on the iPod. Apple cannot stop somebody from doing this, just as they cannot stop somebody from getting a version of Linux to run on the iPod. Once Apple has sold it to a customer that's it, Apple is no longer in control of how that product is used.

[niels]

joeboy_45101
Not really, the iPod CAN play music without the help of FairPlay. MP3's personally encoded AAC, etc. The music files sold by Real could be grouped in that category. The iPod is designed to play both non-DRM music files and Apple FairPlay music files.

Of course the iPod can play non-DRMed files, such as MP3 and plain AAC files. The thing is that the record companies would not allow Real to sell those non-DRMed files. Not even if Real would only allow us to use those files on the iPod. The record companies only allow on-line sales of their songs if they are protected by some kind of DRM.

This is how Real described it in their press release:

Generally speaking, Harmony supports any device that uses the Apple FairPlay DRM, The Microsoft Windows Media Audio DRM, or the RealNetworks Helix DRM, giving RealPlayer Music Store support for more secure devices than any other music store on the Internet. (Emphasis mine)

[krel]

By the end of the week, Rob Glasser will be spitting bloody teeth into a gutter and wiping his mouth on the tattered sleeve of a grungy brown jacket picked up from goodwill after glorious STEVE came in on a white horse and obliterated his company, murdered his wife and children, and reduced him to picking up cans and roaming the streets for scraps of food.
Rob Glasser and his entire extended family for generations to come will continue to feel the sting of what he's done here and now, and I hope that the word "regret" will never fully describe his nightmarish agony.

[joeboy_45101]

By the end of the week, Rob Glasser will be spitting bloody teeth into a gutter and wiping his mouth on the tattered sleeve of a grungy brown jacket picked up from goodwill after glorious STEVE came in on a white horse and obliterated his company, murdered his wife and children, and reduced him to picking up cans and roaming the streets for scraps of food.
Rob Glasser and his entire extended family for generations to come will continue to feel the sting of what he's done here and now, and I hope that the word "regret" will never fully describe his nightmarish agony.

Why doesn't Apple just buy Real. It's not like Real is out of their league. This would definitely strengthen QuickTime.

[jeffgarden]

From Cnet:

Indeed, lawsuits have been sparked by similar previous cases. In one famous example, Atari Games subsidiary Tengen created cartridges that worked with Nintendo's NES game machine in the late 1980s, when Nintendo was barring any other company from doing so.

Nintendo sued and won when it was discovered that Tengen had obtained part of Nintendo's software code from the U.S. Copyright Office and used it to make its games compatible.

RealNetworks has staunchly maintained that it has not illegally used any of Apple's copyrighted software code, however.

"We certainly feel we have all the licenses and rights to do what we've done or we wouldn't have done it," RealNetworks' Wolpert said.

[iPC]

1. announce you can
2. release product without it
3. call SJ one last time
4. profit

either apple looks dumb in this... or they suck it up and make more money. how hard is that to figure out? ****ing iziots....

[neon]

By the end of the week, Rob Glasser will be spitting bloody teeth into a gutter and wiping his mouth on the tattered sleeve of a grungy brown jacket picked up from goodwill after glorious STEVE came in on a white horse and obliterated his company, murdered his wife and children, and reduced him to picking up cans and roaming the streets for scraps of food.
Rob Glasser and his entire extended family for generations to come will continue to feel the sting of what he's done here and now, and I hope that the word "regret" will never fully describe his nightmarish agony.

that is without doubt one of the silliest posts i've read on this board.

[ValiumLolliPoP]

why was my post deleted? I don't like being censored.

[The Man]

Question is, would iPod owners buy songs through Real? Will Mac users get Real support? I think that iPod will still use iTMS if they want to buy music online unless other stores can provide what Apple doesn't (maybe subscription model). Also, if Real licenses their converter to other companies it would do nothing good cause most companies use WMA and conversion means quality loss. But the real battle is not between Real and Apple, but between Apple and Microsoft because most stores use WMA. Apple is fortunate that the #1 player is the iPod and thus their store attracts customers. Real stands alone in their format and is simply desperate: They don't sell any players. Real is no real problem to Apple. We should focus on Microsoft because WMA is everywhere. Apple has iPod and that's why a closed iTMS and Fairplay makes sense. If iPod market share dwindles down and more songs will be sold through Microsoft compatible stores, then things would change. Yet all Apple has to do then is make iPod WMA compatible through a firmware upgrade. In the end, iPod sales is what is important to Apple, not the iTMS.

[Surreal]

Saying something like, "apple should have let real..."

apple stated a reason. a logical reason at that.

get over it.

Real should be sued...becuase if they really wanted to compete, htey would have simply made their own technology, abnd not tried to make it ipod compatible. THAT is competition.

intellectual property. anyone remember that?

[whooleytoo]

I can't really understand the big fuss over this - consider the possibilities:

- Harmony doesn't work correctly (either initially, or after an Apple 'update'). In this case, it's irrelevant.

- Harmony works, but few people avail of it. Again, it doesn't matter much as it will scarcely affect Apple. In fact, it might help Apple as the iPod will be seen as a more open platform.

- Harmony works and lots of people start listening to Harmony songs on iPod. iTunes sales may suffer, but the iPod would benefit - and we know how much money Apple makes on both!

I actually think the second option is the most likely - I still can't see many people using Real's store instead of iTunes. But it's a good move for consumers, and here's hoping it rattles a few cages in Apple..

[Beck446]

You all are really doing a great job exposing the undercurrent of Mac-user hypocracy. You can convince yourself otherwise, but you all really just want to see Apple dominate this market with a monopoly. There are a lot of reasons for wanting to see this, including the simple fact that Apple hasn't monopolized a market in 20 years, not to mention some sort of vague pride in being the first iPod owners, believing in the iPod early on, telling your friends about it, following the industry, liking the rumors, ect.

But you all still just want to see Apple in a Microsoft like position. It's a fool's game, and what happened today with Real proves it.

[ericmooreart]

I love Apple but sometimes they can be short sighted. I saw this coming. More music sources will be great for the ipod especially with CD copy protection becomimg more and more popular. Many of my PeeCee friends wana get a pod but they complain about compatability, and the larger music selection they could get with one of those other "crappy" players.

I predict Apple will change a line of code or two that will kill Harmony in the next ipod update. I'll still buy the new ipod...But then Apple already knew that right?

[macnews]

Wow, a lot of heated discussion. I can see Apple being upset and maybe suing. Then again, it might mean REAL is more open to terms Apple might set up licensing Fairplay.

What I don't understand is Apple not wanting to license the technology at all. This goes counter to the open source idea they have been pushing, plus has shown to not really work in the past. Perhaps people have wanted to bully Apple in to their terms thinking Apple needed them. Clearly, the popularity of the iPod has shown they need Apple.

Either way, I see this as a positive. 1. It might signal other companies they need to work with Apple, not bully them. 2. If it is legal, it could open up the iPod and strengthen sales, holding off windows media player as the defualt standard. Like it or not, some standards will pop up. We just need to decide what they will be. In the past it has always been MS and someother, non-mac company. Why not Apple and MS, or just Apple, being the default?

[vienna]

I don't think this will hurt Apple at all. The people who like the iPod appreciate the ease of use and its elegance. Likewise the people who use iTMS. Until Apple's competitors provide similar features Apple is secure in it's position as the number one online music store with the number one digital music player. Real are just spinning their wheels, they still will not get any market traction because they aren't really competing effectively.

[BrianKonarsMac]

I don't think this will hurt Apple at all. The people who like the iPod appreciate the ease of use and its elegance. Likewise the people who use iTMS. Until Apple's competitors provide similar features Apple is secure in it's position as the number one online music store with the number one digital music player. Real are just spinning their wheels, they still will not get any market traction because they aren't really competing effectively.

iTMS, ease of use, and elegance, do not belong anywhere near each other. iTMS is the most bungled piece of crap ever, they need to hire an actual designer.

[thisbechuck]

Personally I think this is great. Apple said they don't really make money off the Music Store, and the only reason to have it is increase iPod sales. Real's system, since it will be iPod compatable, will be doing the same-- plus it's not like Apple is losing either money or marketshare. I wouldn't mind another option personally.

[Trekkie]

iTMS, ease of use, and elegance, do not belong anywhere near each other. iTMS is the most bungled piece of crap ever, they need to hire an actual designer.

If you're going to make some statement like that it'd sure help if you backed it up with some information on why you feel that way. Some how it's worked well enough for 100,000,000 songs to be sold and I personally haven't found it that hard to figure out...

[bonk]

iTMS is the most bungled piece of crap ever


uh... why?

[kangaroo]

You all are really doing a great job exposing the undercurrent of Mac-user hypocracy. You can convince yourself otherwise, but you all really just want to see Apple dominate this market with a monopoly. There are a lot of reasons for wanting to see this, including the simple fact that Apple hasn't monopolized a market in 20 years, not to mention some sort of vague pride in being the first iPod owners, believing in the iPod early on, telling your friends about it, following the industry, liking the rumors, ect.

But you all still just want to see Apple in a Microsoft like position. It's a fool's game, and what happened today with Real proves it.

It's a fools game? You mean Apple, as a major player in the computer/electronic industry and a publicly traded company, shouldn't try to dominate a business market, make money, and create a legacy?

At this time, Apple has achieved success with the iPod. The success is tenuous and due, in part, to the closed system which Apple has created/maintained. If you want an iPod and you want to <legally> download music you must use iTunes. The reverse is true. They reinforce each other & that's the logic of it. Harmony opens that closed system and makes an iPod optional. Apple is not going to sit back and allow Real to dilute marketshare in what is and will become <increasingly> a hotly fought market.

[JediL1]

Well, in the immediate future at least, people will continue to buy iPods. Their iPods will come with iTunes, so the vast majority of people will just use iTunes UNLESS:

1.) Real's new music store and jukebox are VASTLY superior in design/ease of use/features/ compared to iTunes (unlikely considering Real's previous efforts)

2.) Real acquires exclusive artists that will only have their music on their store. (Unlikely seeing how Record labels like money from different services).

3.) iTunes becomes extremely clunky and unusable (Unlikely)

4.) Real does an AMAZING job marketing itself

5.) Person has both an iPod and a windows mp3 player and wants to sync with both using one piece of software (biggest threat, especially if a WMA compatible player becomes extremely popular)

It seems that if a person is getting an iPod as their only mp3 player, there probably won't be a reason to use Real except for maybe an occasional exclusive song that you just use and download and then use iTunes the rest of the time.

However, if WMA mp3 players become popular, it may become pragmatic for people to use the Real jukebox in a household where there are iPods AND WMA players.

So the lesson here seems to be: Keep selling iPods, keep iPod market share high, use the profits to make iTunes and the iTMS better and it won't matter what Real does because they don't have the money to make their service as good as iTunes.

[Trekkie]

Personally I think this is great. Apple said they don't really make money off the Music Store, and the only reason to have it is increase iPod sales. Real's system, since it will be iPod compatable, will be doing the same-- plus it's not like Apple is losing either money or marketshare. I wouldn't mind another option personally.

I was really surprised when they said 'no' to Real. Maybe Real wasn't going to pay them anything per song or something like that and Apple wanted more money. I'm not sure why they would say no to Real unless they have something else secrative on the back burner that would partner them with soemthing different.

With all the rumor mongering about Microsoft and Best Buy getting together to push DRM'd WMA and Windows products this fall you'd think that Apple would be trying and laying the groundwork for a cross-platform cross-company head on fight with MS.

you have to wonder though if we're going to see something like the original Apple IIe/IIc being the kick ass product only to loose it to others

[cl0r0x70]

If Apple did sue, they would be squarely on the wrong side of this one.

Points to consider:
1) Real is not reverse engineering Apples protocols in order to "crack" or "render useless" the copyrights of the record labels in question. Quite the opposite, they are actually STRENGTHENING the copyrights of the labels by providing another source of legal downloads. It is an important legal distinction.
2) The law is far more ambivalent about #1 as evidenced by #3
3) Many of the programs that make Apple great really on the ability to reverse engineer their equivalent Windoze counterparts. They are entirely legal: Fire, Proteus, Trillian "reverse engineer" MSN, Yahoo, Aim, etc. Open Office "reverse engineers" MS Word, Excel, etc. Gnumeric "reverse engineers" Excel. The list goes on.
4) If legislation ever came into place that truly made reverse engineering illegal WHEN NOT attempting to circumvent copyright, then much of the Open Source community and Apple would be in serious, serious trouble.
5) Apple has nothing to gain by suing Real. Contrarily, Real has to play catch-up every time Apple shifts gears, which guarantees Real will always be a little behind the game compared to iTunes.

No worries on Apples part, I would assume.

[jwhitnah]

By the end of the week, Rob Glasser will be spitting bloody teeth into a gutter and wiping his mouth on the tattered sleeve of a grungy brown jacket picked up from goodwill after glorious STEVE came in on a white horse and obliterated his company, murdered his wife and children, and reduced him to picking up cans and roaming the streets for scraps of food.
Rob Glasser and his entire extended family for generations to come will continue to feel the sting of what he's done here and now, and I hope that the word "regret" will never fully describe his nightmarish agony.

I'm sensing some hostility here.

[jwhitnah]

At best, this will not take off. Even if the songs are cheaper or they somehow get better variety than iTMS, I would not bother to use it. Part of the whole experience is ease of use. Moving files to iTunes from Harmony or vice versa would be a pain. iTMS is hot because it is well organized, inexpensive and easy to use.

[e-coli]

:confused:

Whoa I smell a BIG FAT lawsuit brewing.

I bet Steve is scalding hot.

Bye bye Real.

Rule #1 of business: never get on Steve's REALLY bad side

[soniquev8]

I'm torn, I really hate copy protection to begin with, but I love Apple and the iTMS. I usually cheer for companies or organizations who reverse-engineer copy protection systems (DeCSS anyone?), but Real sucks.

However, I also think Apple should have been a little more open when Real came to them for licensing. But I can also see Apple's uncertainty... which would make them more money: the licensing of the DRM technology or keeping it to themselves? One idea that my have worked would be to license Fairplay to Real in exchange for Quicktime being able to play Real content. It would work for Real, but also for Apple because then people would have little reason to download RealPlayer anymore.

But then I think about the DMCA aspect of it. Is it really that serious? I mean, there are about a dozen pieces of software that can remove the DRM from iTMS AAC files... maybe Real just took one of them and (in concept) reversed it... adding the DRM instead of removing it.

As I said, I'm torn... but I think in the end the software will be the battleground. Which is easier to use? Which is faster? Which has more music? and overall, Which is cheaper? I'm betting on iTunes. Real has been in a slow, downward spiral for a couple of years now and this seems like a last-ditch effort on their part.

[Freg3000]

I think I missed most of it, but here is an interview with Rob Glaser on CNBC....he is answering the question about fearing a law suit from Apple, since this "by no means" was a partnership or collaboration.

http://homepage.mac.com/freg3000/Glaser.mp4

[dontmatter]

I am confused. Let me get this straight.

Real plans to sell Harmony-encoded AAC files in its music store. As Fairplay stands now, Harmony can mimic Fairplay and thus the iPod could play these files.

At the same time, Real plans to license their technology so that iRiver's and the like can play their brand of protected AAC's. At the same time, all 100+ million songs purchased in iTunes will, since they have Harmony-compatible Fairplay, could be played on these other players, thereby unbinding people from iPods.

If my impression is correct, then I hope Apple sues the motherf***ers into oblivion.

wait wait wait. This doesn't break fairplay, it just mimics it so real songs can be played on an ipod. Can itms now be played elsewhere? No way. THAT would be breaking the law.

[Jawbreaker]

Though I anticipate Apple suing in response to this development, I can envision a scenario in which they don't. Essentially, having more stores selling iPod-compatible music only serves to further the iPod's advantages in the marketplace. One of the problems with licensing, though, would be the question of how such a move would be spun in the media. If Apple had gone out earlier in search of partners and licensees for FairPlay DRM, headlines would have read something along the lines of "Apple enlists allies in effort to maintain market dominance." What we have instead with Real trying to gain access to iPod owners as a music market is a situation where one of Apple's competitors has gone to considerable effort and expense to work with Apple's solution. The story here is that iTMS's competitors are quite desperate to sell to iPod owners, and given that iPod is what makes Apple its money in music, this actually makes iPod's dominance even more evident. I'm not fully convinced that Apple is entirely upset that Real is providing a way for other music stores to simply break even while further driving iPod sales.

[leftbanke7]

This is what Apple should do. Licence FairPlay to everybody BUT Real. That would get ol' Robby Boy's panties in a bunch.

[jocknerd]

Is Fairplay used on the iPod? I thought that Fairplay was on the computer itself and that the iPod has no idea what Fairplay is. If thats the case, Real should have no problem with Harmony. Hell, their software could just convert their DRM'd AAC file to an non-DRM'd AAC file that gets uploaded to the iPod. Apple would have no argument at all. It would be just like uploading any AAC or MP3 file.

Now if Harmony is compatible with Fairplay and in a way that Fairplay can't be updated to break the compatibility without breaking existing compatibility with current Fairplay, then I just have to say that Steve f###ed up again. Got too greedy and didn't license his technology.

On the other hand, I think all DRM sucks. I no longer buy from iTMS and I won't buy CD's that have copy protection. I am not a criminal and I don't care to be treated as one.

[a_iver]

Wow, haha, I can't believe someone would vote negative on this story.

"Oh no, another company is making their music service compatible with iPods, which means I have more choice in where to get my songs and will make a potential iPod buyers decision easier as he knows the iPod is compatible with more services."

Let the companies bicker between each other over whether this is legal or not. This can only be good as it sells more iPods (which is the profitable part of Apple's music strategy).

Well, you have to think of it this way. The people here (or a good chunk of them anyways) like Apple a lot because of the products they produce. In my opinion Apple does a good job of making things user friendly, while still looking good. How would all these mac users feel if Apple went out of business some day. So we support Apple because they have a good history of making products. Other companies may create a better product every once in a while, which gives us the option. The option of of being selfish for our benefit (which is not a bad thing, don't get me wrong), or to support Apple because they have always been good to us in the past. It's like the old grandpas who go into department stores and always buy the same type of cleaner because it always seemed to work great in the past, regardless of whether or not there's a newer better product. Loyalty.

Sorry I drew out the message so long I just wanted to make sure everyone got it. It seems like a common topic here.

[Savage Henry]

Apple will not licence up Fairplay to the morons at Real: period.

Real are jokers if they think this is going to do them any credibility in the long run. Soon every other planet in the galaxy will be cracking wise about their mamas!

[Apologies to ep14 season 3 Futurama]

[iMeowbot]

Is Fairplay used on the iPod?
Yes, absolutely.
I thought that Fairplay was on the computer itself and that the iPod has no idea what Fairplay is.
Both use it. The iPod doesn't know how to manage keys, but it does know how to check a song against the keys that have been placed on it.

If the iPod didn't understand Fair Play, then the DRM would be kind of pointless, preventing playback on the host PC but not the iPod.

[d-fi]

I'm not opposed to having another source to buy music from i think thats a good thing personally, keeps apple on their toes. But Real would be about the last company i'd turn too knowing how well Real software works on both PC and Mac. I'm don't think i've ever heard of a person who likes any of Real's software.

I Suspect that you may be able to download Real music to your iPod but you'll have to use Real software to do it, and i know that if i can't play the music in iTunes. I'm not going to start Real player to listen to a few "special" :rolleyes: tracks. I want my music in one place in my computer and my iPod there is no point in buy from them if i have to use 2 different players when i'm at home.

[cr2sh]

One can hate Real and yet defend their right to use legal means to compete with ITMS.

From what I've read, this new software does little to actually compete with ITMS. Indeed it translates ITMS files to work on other mp3 players... but all that does is give people another reason to buy from ITMS.

Also, I can buy songs from REAL now and convert to play on my iPod... more of a reason to buy an iPod.

They way I see it, Apple has the top mp3 player and the top music store... in my mind its a perfect solution for the user, but not open enough. This software certainly creates more flexibility for music buyers (which will increase sales) but most of us want to see Apple KO the entire industry and this certainly doesn't aid that.

I'm not about to "give Real a try"... I've got WMP and QT... if its not offered in either of those formats I'm guessing its not worth viewing.

[iMeowbot]

From what I've read, this new software does little to actually compete with ITMS. Indeed it translates ITMS files to work on other mp3 players... but all that does is give people another reason to buy from ITMS.
That's exactly what Harmony does not do. It allows files encoded by Real to be played on both WMA and Fair Play devices. It doesn't allow music purchased from iTMS, Napster or elsewhere to be converted to play on other devices. Any tracks you purchase from Apple will still be locked out from non-
Apple players.

[svenas1]

I Suspect that you may be able to download Real music to your iPod but you'll have to use Real software to do it, and i know that if i can't play the music in iTunes. I'm not going to start Real player to listen to a few "special" :rolleyes: tracks. I want my music in one place in my computer and my iPod there is no point in buy from them if i have to use 2 different players when i'm at home.

To me this is the main reason why Apple will not like what Real did. Having two apps would completely spoil the ease of use of the iPod. Maybe not for the few people on these boards, but now that the iPod is such a huge thing, it should remain simple for everyone, not just computer people. This just creates endless possibilities for things to mess up. And Apple (& SJ) being the control freaks they are (I mean this in a good way ;-)) will hate to have to worry about Real messing with the iPod.

Say Real songs somehow don't play nice anymore and cause your iPod to crash a lot. What's Apple going to do ?? Bang on their doors and keep shouting : "Fix this now" until they're blue in the face ?? No way, if there is a problem with Apples most beloved toy, I bet they want to be able to take care of it immediately. Not wait until Glasers boys get their butts in gear.

[dontmatter]

Here's my view-first off, increased competition, yes, is a good thing, in general, but for apple, I want my apple computer as well supported as it can be, so I'd prefer they keep on top of the music market, so microsoft can't be such a bully. That said, the value of the ipod increases as sources of music increase, and it is apple's moneymaker. It just isn't so good that apple didn't liscence fairplay. But really, I don't think this is that big a deal-ipods still do great, and this isn't going to harm or help them that much-they're still compatible with 70% of music sold online, and that isn't such a huge part of people's collection, anyway. itunes, through the ipod and rendevous, is not going away, and this can prop up itms, so long as they keep the store relatively nice.

Now, for the part that's off topic, but has to go here because I can't access the vast majority of macrumors.com, and none of it by conventional means: I keep on getting this message : Warning: mysql_connect(): Host '192.168.1.4' is blocked because of many connection errors. Unblock with 'mysqladmin flush-hosts' in /home/macrumor/public_html/csspvt/cssdbinit.inc on line 8
Unable to connect to database

and I can't live without my rumors! you have no idea how hard it was for me to even get here, because I can't access most links from the one page I could reach, my user profile, anyway. help, anybody?

[Rower_CPU]

arn has been notified of the issue - he'll take care of it as soon as he can. :)

[MacFan26]

alright, maybe this is a stupid question, but is this service available yet, or at least to try out? As far as I know it's only in beta, to be released later this year.

[kiwi]

What is it that Apple would sue over? I don't see a problem but maybe I'm missing something. Now if someone did the opposite, and came out with their own unlicensed portable hardware device the size of an iPod that played iTunes DRM files, then I would understand a lawsuit.

[gensor]

and deliver a blow to Real. Then file a lawsuit. They won't be able to raise money with the lawsuit and they are already losing money with their $10 a month subscribption model.

[SandyL]

1. Reverse engineering is not illegal. MacOS X supports Windows Filesharing through Samba, an open source product created through reverse engineering.

2. The DMCA outlaws DRM circumvention. Real is not circumventing DRM. They are adding FairPlay DRM to audio files.

3. Real claims that they have not reverse engineered FairPlay. This claim is most likely true. Why on earth would Real reverse engineer something that was reverse engineered already 6 months ago?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/05/itunes_drm_cracked_wide_open/

4. Apple does not have any patents on FairPlay. FairPlay uses MD5 and AES, which are in the public domain.


If Real starts selling AAC tracks at 160Kbit or higher, then Apple will be in trouble. 128 just isn't good enough with some recordings.
Real's music store sells 192Kbit/s AAC tracks.

[iMeowbot]

alright, maybe this is a stupid question, but is this service available yet, or at least to try out?
The public beta begins tomorrow.
As far as I know it's only in beta, to be released later this year.
Right, final release after the beta.

[notmenotyou]

iTMS, ease of use, and elegance, do not belong anywhere near each other. iTMS is the most bungled piece of crap ever, they need to hire an actual designer.

who are you working for? just wondering, M$? Sony? or maybe Real? :confused:

[MacFan26]

The public beta begins tomorrow.

Right, final release after the beta.

Thanks :)

and deliver a blow to Real. Then file a lawsuit. They won't be able to raise money with the lawsuit and they are already losing money with their $10 a month subscribption model.

I don't think there's any way iTunes is going to rent music. Steve Jobs has said multiple times that people want to own their music, not rent it. Besides, most of the subscription services are the ones that don't work.

[rdowns]

Do you pay any attention at all? Apple has, since the beginning, maintained the very best and most consistent prices at iTMS. As for the iPod, you get what you pay for: Quality and Style. Just look at the other players - they are all crap. I'm sure they work fine, but they're ugly and not at all easy to use. The 4th generation iPods are super slick with the mini's click wheel. And did you just overlook the fact that Apple dropped the price of the iPods by $100 on the 4th generation players?



Let's be honest here. Apple moved the 20 and 40 GB models to new price points and took away items that had been standard in the previous version of those models. (dock, remote, case).

[rdowns]

A lot of people seem to be bashing real's software, which in the past i grant you has been shoddy to say the least... but i must admit the new version is very nice indeed, its stable and plays rather well. Give the new version a try

On the DRM note if Apple licence it it will almost certainly become the standard, standards = profits, if they wait too long it wont only be real competing, imagine if ms make one too (i mean one that works with iPods)

I agree with you, Real improved their player by leaps and bounds this release. As much as I love Macs and Apple (hell, I sold their technology for years) the zealots here can't see beyond their Apple logos. Jobs could walk on stage at the next expo, drop his pants and poop and call it iPoo. All we'd see in here is complaints that it wouldn't be available for 6-8 weeks or why isn't there a Pro version available.

[mojohanna]

Why? Are you an Apple stockholder? It's a win-win situation for everyone else. Other mp3 player owners can play itune music store songs on their hardware, ipod owners can buy compatible songs from other vendors. Unless you believe it is right that companies can use the DMCA to maintain artificial monopolies (not what it was intended for) then you should support this.

Apple will still sell plenty of ipods because of style and because they are the market leader but a bit of competition will force them to be honest and keep prices fair.
Lest we all forget the fact that the iPod is EXTREMELY profitable for Apple. Supply is tight demand is, well, overwhelming. Apple does not have to charge less for the iPod. Open the technology up to everyone else and guess what happens. Someone looks at a 30gig Nomad and a 40gig iPod. iPod is 2x as much. Apple looses sale. Creative takes a notch out of Apple's marketshare. Apple's stock dips, ball starts rolling downhill. Apple hits 12.00 per share and everyone starts talking of the demise of Apple and their 3% market share.
Until the demand for iPods slows down, Apple needs to defend the hell out of ITMS and iPod. They need more deals like HP. That will maintain margins, and grow marketshare.
We all want Apple to stick it to everyone out there in the windows world, but MS did not get as big and as dominant as they are today by sharing technologies that, IMO, have been clearly ripped off. They went after those companies and hit them leagally or bought the company and squashed the technology.
We can't have it both ways.........

[MarcelV]

I am very surprised with all the people that are wanting Real to collapse. First, what about competition, there's nothing wrong with, keeps Apple atop of everything and gives us more and better products. Do you really think Apple would have launched the 4G iPod this month if Sony wouldn't have launched their plans to introduce their PDE.
Second, Steve has mentioned over and over, the profit is in the palyer not the store. So, more outlets will give more choices for music, will sell more iPod's. Right? So, filing the lawsuit may work against him.
If it really works, it may open the eyes of Jobs Inc. to license FairPlay and guess what? You may see much more music for the iPod....
Don't forget the VCR lessons from the 70's and 80's. Best system, V2000 failed because no support of titles. Second best, Betamax, failed due to lack of movie titles. Worst system of all in video quality, VHS, won because a tremendous library of movie titles was available.

[e-coli]

Anyone think Apple will try a hostile takeover of Real? They have the stock price to do it.

Could get interesting.

[dernhelm]

I am confused. Let me get this straight.
Real plans to sell Harmony-encoded AAC files in its music store. As Fairplay stands now, Harmony can mimic Fairplay and thus the iPod could play these files.

At the same time, Real plans to license their technology so that iRiver's and the like can play their brand of protected AAC's. At the same time, all 100+ million songs purchased in iTunes will, since they have Harmony-compatible Fairplay, could be played on these other players, thereby unbinding people from iPods.


Simply because a Harmony-encoded AAC can play on an iPod, does not imply that a Fairplay-encoded AAC could play on an iRiver device. Harmony is not the same as Fairplay, it just looks enough like it to run on an iPod. I'm not saying that iRiver devices could not play Fairplay encoded files, just that the statements given here do not indicate that it is a given.

[AB2003]

‘‘(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program 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, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

Sounds to me like RealNetworks not "lawfully obtained" the right to use a copy of a computer program (iTunes/FairPlay). I don't see how RealNetworks is going to sell this one in a court of law.

[SandyL]

Sounds to me like RealNetworks not "lawfully obtained" the right to use a copy of a computer program (iTunes/FairPlay). I don't see how RealNetworks is going to sell this one in a court of law.
If only RealNetworks had legally downloaded iTunes from apple.com instead of breaking into Steve Jobs' office and stealing his computer :rolleyes:

Technically you don't even need iTunes or an iPod to add FairPlay support. FairPlay was reverse engineered over 6 months ago and an open source implementation has been available since.

Which is more likely?
1. RealNetworks reverse engineered FairPlay (hard).
2. RealNetworks had a look at an already existing open source implementation of FairPlay (easy).

[cl0r0x70]

‘‘(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program 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, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

Sounds to me like RealNetworks not "lawfully obtained" the right to use a copy of a computer program (iTunes/FairPlay). I don't see how RealNetworks is going to sell this one in a court of law.

Your quote actually PROVES the legality of reverse engineering Fairplay.

[Stage]

There is no reason to expect Apple to stand for this. They want a locked system so they will undoubtedly try to fix the iPod so Real can't hook into the DRM decryption system for the Real files. I wouldn't invest in any Real music for my iPod just yet...

[cr2sh]

That's exactly what Harmony does not do. It allows files encoded by Real to be played on both WMA and Fair Play devices. It doesn't allow music purchased from iTMS, Napster or elsewhere to be converted to play on other devices. Any tracks you purchase from Apple will still be locked out from non-Apple players.

That's a shame.... my idea was a lot better. :)

[dylanemcgregor]

Wow, I've read every post in this thread and I can't believe I'm going to be the first one to say this. I'm sure it has been said many, many times before...I wouldn't buy a CD player that only played CDs from one store (no matter how cool the CD Player was). I'm not going to do it for an MP3 player either.

Some day, (and I'm betting sooner, rather than later), you will be able to buy any MP3 player and then download music from any store out there...and that's the way it should be. (IMNSHO)

-Dylan

[JGowan]

I can only imagine REAL making any money if

1) THE BEATLES decided to go exclusively with them
2) REAL offers their music for less than 99¢
3) If they offer the music at 160kbps AAC (or greater.)

If I were an iPod user considering putting REAL's AAC files on my unit, I would be thinking:

1) I love the IPOD, why use REAL?
2) I love iTunes, why use REAL?
3) I love the iTunes Music Store, why use REAL?
4) If I buy REAL music, there's no doubt that Apple will lock those songs out the next time they offer a firmware update.

"Well, just don't upgrade your firmware" some might offer.

But I can guarantee you that Apple will be offering a buttload of incentive on the next firmware release... possibly:

1) Better battery-management software, even for 3G ipods (something they didn't include on the last firmware update), to bring 3G owners up to 12 hour charges like the 4G boys will have.
2) More games.
3) Software that will turn the iPod into a AirportExpress REMOTE CONTROL.
4) Other Cool Stuff.

At that point, I have to decide whether it's worth losing the $20 worth of REAL music I bought to get all the new great software from Apple, thereby getting locked out of my REAL purchases... OR... to keep my $20 worth of REAL music and lose out on the cool new Apple stuff.

I think most people would just cut their losses and download all the new great software and just keep buying songs from the iTunes Music Store.

[beatle888]

Trekkie's response to one posters comment on how iTMS' interface design sucks.

If you're going to make some statement like that it'd sure help if you backed it up with some information on why you feel that way. Some how it's worked well enough for 100,000,000 songs to be sold and I personally haven't found it that hard to figure out...


Trekkie its true. Ive thought that many times while i was at iTMS. More thought needs to go into the Graphic Design. Dont get me wrong, i thinks its great but sometimes i just shake my head when something appears as though some executive on a pc did the layout. But in defense of iTMS it is the best out there.

[JGowan]

Steve Jobs always said music should be free, music should be for the people,... Sir Giggles, you're living up to your name... I'm giggling my butt off on this. Where did you pull this information from? Your Royal Behind?

[Stage]

But I can guarantee you that Apple will be offering a buttload of incentive on the next firmware release... possibly:

1) Better battery-management software, even for 3G ipods (something they didn't include on the last firmware update), to bring 3G owners up to 12 hour charges like the 4G boys will have.
2) More games.
3) Software that will turn the iPod into a AirportExpress REMOTE CONTROL.
4) Other Cool Stuff.


I don't think Apple is going to offer us any candy to switch to the new Real bonking firmware. They'll just upgrade iTMS to make it incompatible with earlier iPod firmware.

[JGowan]

First, if Apple updates Fairplay to make it incompatible through either a firmware or software update, that will really piss off some iPod users.Boo-Radle-Hoo... If a person buys an iPod and then defects to the enemy, they deserve to get the Firmware hose. iTunes is THE BEST store for online music... REAL's store is a joke. If they go there, I have no problem with Apple pulling the DRM out from under them.

[ltgator333]

I have to go along with everyone who said that Real is about to be sued, but, I do not think this is a situation where Real gets they're pants sued off them. I think Apple's best move is to just sue Real into part of the profits of their reverse-engineered DRM (because afterall, it was reverse engineered to mimic Fairplay, which is to some degree Apple's work). I think if Apple does this everyone wins, because Apple and Real's DRMs will hopefully at this point be on the same page, and there's not many music stores that wouldn't want to be iPod compatible, so people will license Real's DRM, Apple will get part of the $, and more iPods will sell, yet more $ for Apple.
The other thought is, why not just leave Real alone, then start licensing Fairplay to others. Suddenly, Real's reverse-engineered DRM just looks like a risky, cheap imitation.

[Stage]

I think Apple's best move is to just sue Real into part of the profits of their reverse-engineered DRM (because afterall, it was reverse engineered to mimic Fairplay, which is to some degree Apple's work).

I can't imagine anyone's best move would be to get into business with Real! Even though I think Apple's closed system is a problem, I'd at least like there to be two mononpolies in the computer industry...

[Renny Ren]

Ok, I've seen pros and cons to this situation, and I haven't read all of the posts but I have a few ?'s. For the folks who say that Apple has a monopoly and that the Harmony's competition is good and legal...... ITMS has competition (even though minimal) from other online stores and the iPod has competition as well. Saying that Real should be able to sell songs that are compatible with iPods is like saying Playstation2 should be able to make a player that can play X-Box games. Both systems can play Madden, which would be equivalent to ITMS and Rhapsody selling the same CD's. When you purchase a PS2 game,you know that it will only play on a PS2, and when you purchase a song from ITMS you know it will only play on an iPod. If PS2 has an exclusive game, should Microsoft be able to make a system that will play it??? I just don't see Sony letting that one slide and saying that it's good for competition.
Maybe I'm not seeing something here, but it just doesn't sound right to me. If I am way off base here, please let me know.
Thanks,
R.

[chrisdude00000]

"A long time from now," he said, "people will look back at our announcement and say it was a great benefit for Apple."

It is not his company he has no say in it. If real wants to make their own player and music store and open it to everyone that is fine but the ipod is not their product. Apple feels that it would be best to keep it a closed system and that is apple's decision alone. That would be like sending your old dad to a retirement home and saying that since he didnt wanna buy you that house with his money or didnt give it to a charity we need to do something about it and put him in a home and spend the money the right way. Customers know that the ipod plays aac's from itunes only and mp3's and stuff from cd's. They bought it knowing that and if they want it to work a diffrent way they should make their own product or buy something else. Apple will do what they think best and if they sue real it is really their right to cause real is telling them how their product should work.

[niels]

For those interested, I’ve compiled some more background information about Real, Harmony and FairPlay.

What it doesn’t do

Harmony does not break the DRM scheme used by Apple. Harmony does not allow you to transfer your iTMS files into RealPlayer. Harmony does not allow you to convert iTMS songs to Helix DRM or Windows Media DRM files. Harmony does not allow your iTMS songs to be played on any other device other than your iPod.

What does it do

The only thing the Harmony technology lets you do it transfer the songs you bought on the RealPlayer Music Store onto you iPod, in a format that is both DRM protected and understood by the iPod. In other words it allows you to convert Helix DRM protected files to FairPlay compatible DRM protected files.

First of all, Karl Lillevold, senior codec engineer at Real has confirmed my original theory on how Harmony works.

As you know, the RealNetworks music store sells songs in 192 kbps AAC (as opposed to iTMS at 128 kbps). When transferring your purchased songs to the iPod, the AAC itself is not touched, but the Helix DRM is transmuxed to the DRM used by the iPod, i.e. fully protected and without trans-coding. If you then transfer the file back to your PC (for instance with Anapod), you get an M4P file, that is a protected MPEG-4 AAC file.

Secondly, the windows version of the beta is now available on real.com, which I’ve installed and played around with a bit.

Basically it works like this: Just like the iTunes Music Store and iTunes, you use RealPlayer to buy songs from the RealPlayer Music Store. It isn’t as user-friendly as iTunes, but if you disregard the differences in user-interface design it basically works in the same way. When you buy a song using RealPlayer in the RealPlayer Music Store you’ll get a Helix DRM protected .rm file with a 192 Kbps AAC stream inside. This file is stored on the hard drive of your computer and can only be played by RealPlayer.

When you connect you iPod to your computer and start RealPlayer, the iPod will appear as a device in the Burn/Transfer tab. You can select the device and copy tracks onto it. The tracks you can copy are regular MP3 files, regular AAC files and RealPlayer Music Store files.

When you transfer a RealPlayer Music Store file onto your iPod using RealPlayer it will transparently decrypt the file and encrypt it again using a FairPlay compatible algorithm. The FairPlay compatible file is then copied onto the iPod.

The AAC stream inside the Helix DRM protected file is not touched by RealPlayer. Which means that the FairPlay compatible file will contain the same 192 Kbps AAC stream as the Helix DRM protected file.

So, it is now confirmed that:


The files sold by Real are 192 Kbps AAC protected by Helix DRM
You need to use RealPlayer to buy the songs and transfer them to your iPod
The RealPlayer application does the conversion to FairPlay compatible DRM
The file placed on the iPod by RealPlayer uses FairPlay compatible DRM
The file placed on the iPod is also 192 Kbps AAC
If you somehow transfer the file of the iPod, you can’t play it in iTunes


Can Apple stop Real?

Yes, and it is actually pretty easy to do. The FairPlay DRM files sold by Apple are always in 128 Kbps. The FairPlay compatible DRM files used by RealPlayer are 192 Kbps. Apple would also need to release a new firmware for the iPod that checks the bitrate of the DRM protected file. If it is anything else than 128 Kbps, it is not an official song sold by Apple. Based on these criteria Apple could place a block in the firmware.

The drawback is that this would stop Apple from selling 192 Kbps songs in the future, because if Apple would also start selling 192 Kbps songs, they can no longer distinguish their own songs from RealPlayer Music Store files.

Can Real workaround a Apple blockade?

Yes, and this is also pretty easy to do. If the RealPlayer would re-encode their 192Kbps AAC stream to a regular 128 Kbps AAC stream the FairPlay compatible DRM file would be in disguisable from Apple’s own files. Apple wouldn’t be able to block these files without revising the DRM scheme and making every song sold to date incompatible with the newer firmware.

The reason Real is doing this

Real is a software company. It doesn’t make hardware MP3 players, so their Music Store depends on hardware devices made by other vendors. The RealPlayer Music Store uses their own Helix DRM format, so these other vendors must support Helix DRM if they want their customers to be able to play songs bought from the RealPlayer Music Store.

This is a big problem for Real, because up till now only one hardware player from Creative supports Helix DRM. So, up till today you could buy songs from Real, but you couldn’t do much with it.

Real had to make their music store compatible with more players. They either had to choose between Windows Media DRM or FairPlay DRM. They asked Apple permission to move to FairPlay, which would allow their files to be played on the iPod. Apple told them they weren’t interested.

As it turns out they kept their own DRM after all, and chose another way to solve their problem. The Harmony technology which transparently convert your Helix DRM files to Windows Media DRM or FairPlay compatible DRM.

The disadvantages for Apple

There are of course disadvantages for Apple. The most important one is that Apple is going to have to compete with the RealPlayer Music Store. iPod users can now buy their songs from somewhere else, which could mean that the iTMS is going to sell less songs.

In reality I don’t think this will be a big problem for Apple. Buying songs from Real isn’t as easy as buying songs from Apple. Transferring these songs to the iPod using RealPlayer isn’t as easy as using iTunes. And Apple has an incredible loyal user base who simply are not going to move to RealPlayer.

The advantages for Apple

The iTMS is a loss-leader. It doesn’t make any money, but it helps sell iPods. Selling iPods does make a lot of money. So it is in Apple’s best interest to sell as much iPods as possible. Now consider all those RealPlayer Music Store users who now use a different hardware player. Previously they couldn’t move the iPod without losing all their songs… now they can.

The advantages for the users

Choice is always good. It will force Apple to compete and innovate. And that is something they demonstrated to be very good at. They came very late to the market with their MP3 player and immediately turned it into a market leader. The same thing applies to the iTMS. With increased competition their products will get even better.

Apple should block Real or even better sue Real into oblivion

You can sue everybody for anything. If I don’t like how you look at me I can drag you into a courtroom and make you explain yourself in front of a judge. But when I do that the judge is going to be pretty pissed at me for wasting his time. In order to win in a court of law the other party needs to have broken the law. Looking cross-eyed at somebody isn’t breaking the law. It’s very likely Real isn’t breaking the law either. So suing Real won’t do Apple much good.

Blocking Real is also something they might not want to do, because this could turn things around. Imagine Real suing Apple for anti-competitive practices.

This is so unfair!

No, this is just business. When you release a product you can’t control how people use it or what other services other companies offer for it. GM can't force you to use only GM spare parts. Sony Music can't force you use only Sony CD players. Microsoft can’t force you to use only Internet Explorer on Windows. Likewise, Apple can’t force you to run MacOS X on your G5. Apple can’t force you to use Safari on MacOS X and Apple can’t force you to use only iTMS songs on your iPod.

Apple did have a choice in whether to cooperate or not with Real in making their songs compatible with the iPod. They chose not to work together with Real. That’s a fair choice. But it is also a fair choice of Real to make their song compatible with the iPod without Apple’s help.

[MacQuest]

It isn’t as user-friendly as iTunes, but if you disregard the differences in user-interface design it basically works in the same way.

"It's good enough"...
[as long as they don't know any better of course]

Not saying that you are one "niels", but isn't this the typical disclaimer for monopolysoft windrones apologists?

:rolleyes: ;) :D

[svenas1]

For those interested, I’ve compiled some more background information about Real, Harmony and FairPlay.

(lots of really interesting stuff)




Thanks, Niels. That was brilliant. Great info.

My question: why can't iTunes play the Fairplay DRM songs that come from a Real Store, if the iPod can ?

[bob_the_gorilla]

Frankly, it's dirty and underhand. I'd quite like the choice of higher-bitrate AACs to buy, but only if it was done in an open, above board way, and this just isn't. Whether it's technically legal or illegal I don't care - it's morally wrong to reverse-engineer and effectively pirate someone else's work. Whilst I'd have liked Apple to co-operate when Real approached them, I hope they sue the pants off Real now for this apparently desperate move.

I'm off to calm down.

[niels]

Svenas1: In order to explain why these files won’t play in iTunes I will need to explain how FairPlay works. I’ll try to be as clear and brief as possible.

How FairPlay works

Each song you buy from the iTMS is encrypted using a random key. The song can only be played if the key is known. Apple has a database of all the songs you purchased and all the keys that belong to these songs.

Each computer that iTunes is installed on has a unique id, the GUID. These ID’s are essential to make a distinction between two different computers. Each time you authorize a computer it sends the GUID to Apple which stores it in its database. When you de-authorize a computer it will remove the GUID from its database. This way Apple can track how many computers you authorized.

In addition, when you authorize a computer, iTunes will also receive a list of all the keys are needed to play the songs you bought. These keys are stored in it’s local key repository located somewhere on the hard drive. When you de-authorize the computer it will remove the keys.

So, an authorized computer is registered using its GUID in the Apple database, and all the keys it should need are located on the hard drive of the computer.

Now for a moment assume I have a copy of a song a friend of mine bought. When I try to play this song on my computer, iTunes will try to locate the key it needs. Unfortunately that key doesn’t exist on my computer, so I am not able to play it.

The iPod works a bit different. Just like your computer, it also contains a key repository. Each time you transfer a protected song onto your iPod it will copy the key from the iTunes key repository to the iPod key repository. Remember, this one-way. iTunes won’t let you copy the key from the iPod back into the iTunes key repository.

The reason why these key transfers are one-way is easy to explain using an example. Once again a friend of mine bought a song on the iTMS. This time he placed it on his iPod. If the key transfer was two-way, I could simply connect his iPod to my computer and copy the key onto my computer. From then on I would be able to play his file without even having to authorize my computer. So, in order for FairPlay DRM to work properly the key transfers must be one-way.

Why FairPlay compatible songs won’t play in iTunes

RealPlayer is using a trick. It does not use the whole FairPlay system, but only creates a FairPlay compatible file. It encrypts the song with a random key and places the file on the iPod and the key in the iPod key repository. Nothing more.

The main problem is the key. Even if you manage to get the song out of the iPod and into iTunes, iTunes does not know the key and iTunes won’t let you transfer the key from the iPod back to iTunes. Also, the key is not known in Apple’s database, so you won’t get it when you authorize your computer. The only one who knows the key is the iPod, so it will only play on the iPod. Basically, iTunes will treat the RealPlayer files as a files somebody else bought. Files you are not authorized to play.

[niels]

bob_the_gorilla
Frankly, it's dirty and underhand. I'd quite like the choice of higher-bitrate AACs to buy, but only if it was done in an open, above board way, and this just isn't. Whether it's technically legal or illegal I don't care - it's morally wrong to reverse-engineer and effectively pirate someone else's work.

Actually, reverse-engineering isn't dirty or underhand. It's common business practice that everybody uses, even Apple.

Take for example Samba. Samba is part of Mac OS X and lets you talk to Microsoft file servers. Without reverse-engineering Samba wouldn't exist.

Take for example AppleWorks. AppleWorks contains a Word conversion filter created by Dataviz. Dataviz used reverse-engineering to find out how the Word file format looks like.

Take for example GimpPrint, part of Mac OS X. GimpPrint contain hundreds of printer drivers. Most of these drivers were reverse engineered.

Or am I completely missing your point and are you saying that when Apple uses software based on reverse-engineering it is okay, but when others do it with Apple products it is bad?

[SandyL]

Whether it's technically legal or illegal I don't care - it's morally wrong to reverse-engineer and effectively pirate someone else's work.
MacOS X supports Windows Networking/Filesharing through Samba, an open source product created through reverse engineering. Apple is effectively pirating parts of Windows! </clueless zealot>

[svenas1]

Svenas1: In order to explain why these files won’t play in iTunes I will need to explain how FairPlay works. I’ll try to be as clear and brief as possible.

(insightful explanation)



Thanks, Niels. Very lucid explanation. Much appreciated !
S.

[whooleytoo]

Saying that Real should be able to sell songs that are compatible with iPods is like saying Playstation2 should be able to make a player that can play X-Box games.

I think the Real situation is actually the other way around - it's more like Sony making their PS/2 games also playable on an Xbox.

However, there still are differences - Real are a software and services company. In the analogy above they would be a games company trying to make their games playable on as many consoles as possible. And Apple would be a console & game maker - though unlike the game market model, Apple try and make money from the console, and sell the games cheaply to drive hardware sales.

Hence if Apple is financially affected at all by Real's announcement, it should be positively - more hardware sold. But it does mean Apple would have a little less control over the direction it's hardware takes.

[vienna]

Why FairPlay compatible songs won’t play in iTunes

RealPlayer is using a trick. It does not use the whole FairPlay system, but only creates a FairPlay compatible file. It encrypts the song with a random key and places the file on the iPod and the key in the iPod key repository. Nothing more.

The main problem is the key. Even if you manage to get the song out of the iPod and into iTunes, iTunes does not know the key and iTunes won’t let you transfer the key from the iPod back to iTunes. Also, the key is not known in Apple’s database, so you won’t get it when you authorize your computer. The only one who knows the key is the iPod, so it will only play on the iPod. Basically, iTunes will treat the RealPlayer files as a files somebody else bought. Files you are not authorized to play.

Could a key that Real uses to place songs on an iPod ever duplicate a key that Apple used, and if so would this cause a problem ?

[niels]

Vienna: A duplicate key would not cause any problems. But if Real did not do their job right there might be something else. Whether or not this will cause a problem is not known yet because exactly how Harmony transforms the file is not known. Unless proven otherwise I would not worry about this.

In my earlier explanations I omitted a lot of details. For example, when I said that Apple generates a random key and encrypts the AAC stream with it I was simplifying it a bit. In reality it is a bit more complex.

In the remaining text I will need to make a distinction between songs and files. I will use song for a piece of music for sale on iTMS and file for the actual file that is sent by the iTMS to one individual user. So two users can buy the same song, but they will receive two different files.

Each file based on the same song is encrypted with the same key. When you buy Song A from the iTMS it is encrypted with the same key as when I buy Song A from the iTMS. When another person buys again the same song, once again it is encrypted with the same key.
Song B uses a different key. Song C uses another different key, etc.

Besides the encrypted AAC stream, the file also contains the key that is used to encrypt the AAC stream. The trick is, the key is encrypted with a so called Userkey. It is the Userkey that varies for each individual file and that is randomly generated by Apple and stored in the database. The Userkey gets transferred to iTunes key repository when you authorize a computer and the Userkey gets transferred to the iPod key repository when you copy a protected file on it.

So while each file of the same song is encrypted with the same key and that key is stored in the file itself, you can only decrypt that key and the AAC stream if you know the Userkey.

Now the potential problem. To retrieve the Userkey from the key repository you need to know one very important thing: the Keyid. The Keyid is the identifier of the key in the repository and is also stored in the file. Basically, the Keyid determines for which file you want to retrieve the Userkey. Usually this is no problem, because Apple makes sure that each file you buy from iTMS has a unique Keyid.

If somehow Harmony would create a file with the same Keyid as a file bought from the iTMS you would have two files with the same Keyid, but with different Userkeys. That is a problem because now the player would not know which Userkey it would need to play each file.

Now before everybody gets worried. This all highly theoretical and depends on Real making a big mistake. I doubt their engineers forgot to take this into account, so there is most likely no problem at all.

[vienna]

niels: Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it.

[Doctor Q]

Please add my thanks to those of others, niels, for your excellent explanations.

[JoePike]

So, niels, do you work for Real or something? You seem to have a very informed and detailed grasp on this situation. That'd be funny, if Real sent one of their reverse-engineering chronies onto the Mac forums to calm the Apple crowd down. If so, you've done a decent job of it, but I still think the fellas over at Real can expect some litigation paperwork in the mail. Not that it matters anyway, because I just don't see the Real music store or any other online music distrubutor giving the iTMS any serious or threatening competition for market share. This is a minor problem for Apple, like being buzzed by an insect. Annoying none-the-less, and I'd imagine they'll swat the pest pretty soon here.

-Joe

[SandyL]

It's more likely that niels has just read the same 6 months old source code (http://developers.videolan.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/vlc/modules/demux/mp4/) that Real probably has read than that he works for Real.

[niels]

JoePike: You can put your tin foil hat back in the closet :) I'm not working for Real. In fact, I hardly use their software and the only time I talked to somebody from Real was with Karl Lillevold about a strange bug in their codecs.

SandyL is right. I'm just a geek with too much free time. Everything I know about FairPlay is from comments made by Jon Johansen, the VideoLan source code, DeDRMS source code, FairKeys source code, PlayFair source code and phpTunes source code.

[JoePike]

I was mostly just joking anyway. I assumed it to be something like you described, "too much free time". But, looking at the credentials you listed, it does look like you've put some hours into studying or even writing DRM code for one reason or another, so I thank you for your informed insights.

Also, speaking to an earlier point about the difference in bitrates between the iTMS and Real's online music shop, I think 192 does give Real somewhat of a leveraging point to get folks to use their service instead of Apple. The quality of 128 just isn't good enough for some of us, and lossless is probably overkill to an equivalent extent, due to size (bring on the 60 GB drives!). If Apple does decide to do nothing about this whole ringamaroo, legally speaking anyway, I hope this will at least serve to motivate them to bump up the bitrates on iTunes downloads. At that point there would be absolutely no sane reason for anyone to use Real instead of Apple for buying online music. Well, maybe if they happen to work for Real. :D The headache would start when deciding what to do with all the fine customers who downloaded songs before the changeover, who now want that same song at 192. (sigh.) It's always something.

-Joe

[Downdivx]

I don't know if anybody has tried this yet, but I just confirmed that it works on my Gen 2 iPod and windows machine!

[kingtj]

Yeah, Real sucks - but I don't think that's really the issue. I can respect what they're doing in this case. Basically, they're standing up and saying "Hey pal, if you won't officially give us the nod to let our music play on your device, screw it. We'll get it on your device anyway!" If you think about it, it makes some sense. I mean, any old MP3 will play on an iPod, right? Even a Windows .WAV file will play on it. All these guys want to do is enforce some legal way to sell their songs and keep the record industry execs happy, and still have the results play on the iPod. If Apple really believes what they've been preaching about being the company that "proved it was possible to legally sell digitally encoded music", then you'd think they'd be out there licensing the "FairPlay" DRM left and right to all takers. Otherwise, I think they can expect exactly what Real just did here....

I don't doubt this will generate a lawsuit. I just think the DMCA is utter B.S. and unfortunately, allows something like this to go to court. In a fair world, this case would get thrown out. Jobs can try his best to make it difficult to get legal music to play on his player (when it comes from anyone but Apple), but I don't think he should be able to get the *law* on his side to force people to stop trying to do it.


Why won't Real go into a corner and die somewhere. They have always sucked and they still suck.