Apple Comments on Real

[MacBytes]

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: \'Stunned\' Apple attacks \'hacker\' Real (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040729095923)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

[Mudbug]

It's not like we didn't see this coming from a mile away...

[MacRumors]

Apple has issued a statement (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=9288) in response to the Real announcement (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/07/20040725235143.shtml) that they would be offering reverse-engineered iPod-compatible songs. Apple states:

We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod and we are investigating the implications of its actions under the DMCA and other laws

Apple also warns that the song compatibility may be broken in the future.

[jsw]

Yeah, it was inevitable. I'm still on the fence as to whether I'm in favor of letting the iPods play other vendor's music (like Real's). On the one hand, it's cool to be able to play whatever you want. On the other, it turns the iPod into just another player, and it might lead to other issues as 3rd party stuff ceases to work with each iPod upgrade. Plus, it makes DRM harder, which makes it harder for Apple to get iTMS titles.

[dizastor]

Sue them!
Take them out apple!

No one needs Real Player anyway

[Abstract]

I don't really care for any corporation, but since Real is so obviously in the wrong, I hope they get their ass handed to them in court.

[rice_web]

I don't really care for any corporation, but since Real is so obviously in the wrong, I hope they get their ass handed to them in court.

If they were in the wrong, Apple would have instead today announced a lawsuit. At this point, Apple probably can't find anything notably wrong with their actions, and therein only made this statement.

But I don't know the details of Real's process, so we'll just have to wait and see how it all unfolds.

[scottwat]

The big angry apple giant bears its teeth and crushes the puny RealNetworks. Maybe now everyone will move from real to quicktime streaming!!!

[davecuse]

I think Apple is clearly in the right here. I'm really a little shocked that Real would release something like this without first seeking some type of approval from Apple. Another brilliant business move from the notorious Real.

[fartheststar]

Sue them!
Take them out apple!

No one needs Real Player anyway

Desparate times call for desparate measures. (In case you're wondering, referring to Real, not Apple.) This is absolutely incredible.

I can see how Real would like to sell songs for the iPod, and I can see a time when it will be acceptable that you could buy songs from many online music stores and play them on your iPod (not necessarily in "any" format - eg: WMA) Fact of the matter is is that you need Apple's buy in... not just "reverse engineering" what they've done. That's nuts.

[scottwat]

If they were in the wrong, Apple would have instead today announced a lawsuit. At this point, Apple probably can't find anything notably wrong with their actions, and therein only made this statement.

But I don't know the details of Real's process, so we'll just have to wait and see how it all unfolds.

If the movie industry could sue over the deCSS stuff then this would be a huge case. Actually it's kind of scary for developers. So it is sort of bitter sweet.

[Metatron]

You bastards!!! The fact that it is a closed system is what makes the iPod the best there is.

Sue'em!!!!

[MacCoaster]

I mean, come on, Apple effectively got the PlayFair guys moving around. Of course Apple would use the DMCA against Real. Real was never licensed to use Apple's DRM technology.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Apple the only company using Apple's DRM? There is a problem with this, Apple has a monopoly on DRM for iPod; thus effectively locking you to use iTunes Music Store.

I'm not a lawyer, but could this be used against Apple if they do go to court?

[manu chao]

I think Apple is clearly in the right here. I'm really a little shocked that Real would release something like this without first seeking some type of approval from Apple. Another brilliant business move from the notorious Real.

If I remember correctly, Real's boss kindly asked Steve Jobs about access to the iPod and even went public went he did not even get an answer. But Apple just ignored him.

[jsw]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Apple the only company using Apple's DRM? There is a problem with this, Apple has a monopoly on DRM for iPod; thus effectively locking you to use iTunes Music Store.

I'm not a lawyer, but could this be used against Apple if they do go to court?

I'd think it'd be legally equivalent to not being able to buy PS2 games that weren't licensed by Sony, etc. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on music, just control of access to an Apple product, the iPod.

[Motha-Canuker]

death to real

all hail jobs!

[dizastor]

In other news Microsoft announced today that after a year of hard work and "the Longhorn smokescreen" they will be releasing Mac OSX Panther for windows instead. Codenamed Windows OSXP Panther, Microsoft admits to following in the footsteps of RealNetworks who recently made their way onto Apple's iPod using reverse engineering. "We knew Longhorn was *****, so we bought a copy of OSX reverse engineered it and recompiled it to run on windows, we think our customers will be very pleased" Microsoft also admits adding system instability, more frequent kernel panics, and a user favorite, the blue screen of death.

Steve Jobs was unavailable for comment since he had just sh@t on himself.

[macMaestro]

Good for them.

[jsw]

Desparate times call for desparate measures. (In case you're wondering, referring to Real, not Apple.) This is absolutely incredible.

I can see how Real would like to sell songs for the iPod, and I can see a time when it will be acceptable that you could buy songs from many online music stores and play them on your iPod (not necessarily in "any" format - eg: WMA) Fact of the matter is is that you need Apple's buy in... not just "reverse engineering" what they've done. That's nuts.

As you say, they're desperate, and that's dangerous - look at SCO.

However, you'd think they'd at least be smart enough to have a hack released anonymously instead of being so blatant about it.

Among other things, Apple's DRM strategy is weakened by this, which reduces iTMS song licensing (probably - labels would get scared), which would be bad for us. So I hope it gets crushed soon.

[Zaty]

I only hope Real doesn't get away with it. It would be horrible if you could legally hack and copy copy right-protected software by reverse-engineering it.

[whooleytoo]

Yeah.. death to Real! :o

How dare they threaten to release software for the Mac, that would let us (and PC users) have a greater choice of music services for our iPods.

WE WANT LESS CHOICE, NOT MORE!

Next week: Death to Adobe, Quark, Microsoft, Id, Blizzard...

</sarcasm>

[jouster]

Apple should stop worrying about this.

Legal action throughout most of personal computing's history would not favor Apple. From the very first time a company produced Altair compatible boards, judges have looked unfavourably on claims of intellectual theft. Making something compatible does not necessarily mean making it identical.

Apple should rather be pleased that even more people will now have a reason to buy an iPod. After all, it's well known that they do not make a profit on iTMS sales, and isn't the iTMS only around to drive iPod sales?

And it isn't like Apple never reverse-engineered anything either.

...It would be horrible if you could legally hack and copy right-protected software by reverse-engineering it.

How true, as Xerox discovered when Apple copied the GUI from them.

[mhouse]

If I remember correctly, Real's boss kindly asked Steve Jobs about access to the iPod and even went public went he did not even get an answer. But Apple just ignored him.

No, apparently you don't remember correctly. Glaser sent an email and when it went unanswered, he publicly threatened Apple by saying Real would be forced to moved to Microsoft-based DRM is Apple didn't "play ball." Not the way to do business.

I hope Apple reduces them to s smoldering heap.

[Laslo Panaflex]

Apple also warns that the song compatibility may be broken in the future.

Think of it, the day Real announces that they offer iPod compatible songs, Apple releases an iPod software update that block the Real songs from being played on the iPod. That would be great, becuase I mean, who is really going to buy anything from Real, PC user or otherwise.

[Shaun.P]

Who do Real think they are? The "Oh, we never got Apple's approval, so we did it anyway!" tactic just won't work in court. Your right, no-one needs RealPlayer. Basically, Apple IS the music industry, and they are not going to let any one get in their way.

[QuiteSure]

This is all such small potatoes. If you buy an iPod you'll install the prepackaged software which will be iTunes, and take it from there. How would you even FIND Real? There doesn't seem to be a logical connection between the iPod user experience and Real's music service.

[windowsblowsass]

How true, as Xerox discovered when Apple copied the GUI from them.
apple did not copy the gui they were developing there own and then bought the patents from xerox

[jsw]

Looking through some of the links at the site posted at the start of this thread, I found this one (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=9279), which I think is amusing. Here's a quote:

Jupiter Research analyst David Card said: "For all the general excitement about the iPod, it's still a pretty small market. It's totally a New York and Silicon Valley thing."

[Gee4orce]

Um, last time I checked Apple has a legal responsibility to maximise it's shareholder's investment. That means there has to be a sound business reason to licence it's technology to a 3rd party (technology that, after all, cost shareholder $$$ to develop).

Now, what would Apple have gained by licensing FairPlay to Real (or anyone else) ? At the very most it would have gained market domination of media format (AAC) and DRM technology, some licence fee revenue (possibly, but the margins are already so tight that Apple's barely profits from it's own online music store), and increased iPod sales (and iPods are selling faster than they can be made, as it is).

At the end of the day, there's no particular reason for Apple to open up the iPod to anyone else at the moment. Just because they are having a great party doesn't mean they leave the front door open for anyone to gatecrash.

No Real have got fed up being left out in the cold (anyone actually bought a track off their store ?), and have decided to forcibly break and enter the iPod party. Oh, and the iPod isn't 'closed' - it plays MP3 just fine thanks. Just that you need to use Apple's DRM - and Apple aint giving you it.

Apple's best move right about now could be to licence FairPlay to a competitor for Real, but one that somehow isn't directly competing with iTMS. Oh, and make sure Quicktimes wipes RealPlayer off the face of the planet.

[mustang_dvs]

I think the issue that has Apple so concerned here, is not so much that Real decided it was going to reverse engineer a manner of placing non-FairPlay DRM files onto the iPod, but that it had announced its intentions of licensing the reverse-engineered software technology (read: Apple's intellectual property) to other vendors.

I'm sure the fact that they had the gall to try and undermine Apple's DRM had Steve hot under the collar, but licensing the technology to do so was taking the issue two or three miles over the line. It would be like me buying a Ford Mustang, taking apart the engine, copying its design and then selling my own reverse-engineered copies at a fraction of the cost, to undermine Ford.

[mhouse]

How true, as Xerox discovered when Apple copied the GUI from them.

Man alive, is this bogus stuff still going around?

Apple did not "copy" anything from Xerox. Just a wee little bit of history... Xerox *invited* Apple to come look at what the PARC team was working on and Xerox had long since made it very clear that they had absolutely no interest in marketing either a GUI-based computer or a mouse.

Furthermore, Apple never took a PARC machine back to Cupertino and reverse-engineered it. They were simply allowed (again, allowed) to have look at what PARC had come up with and then went back to Cupertino and created their own, original version of GUI.

If Apple hadn't come out with the Mac, the industry might have been stuck with command-line interfaces for another five years at least.

What Real has done with the iPod is much more like what Compaq did with the IBM PC. I agree with others that Apple is unlikely to win any legal battle with Real over this issue. But Apple will win the war with Real if it chooses to. Apple, unlike IBM had years ago, has the option of altering the software and making Real's stuff instantly useless. An option which did not exist for IBM in the days before widespread use of the internet.

Apple can (and probably will) introduce iPod software that has "new features" and totally screw Harmony as many times as they need to until Real backs off or dies.

[scottwat]

I'm not so worried about other people having access to using their songs on the ipod. All you really need is a 10 cent blank cd-r and alittle time and patience. Apple's solution is so much more elegant, it would be crazy to go to another store if you own an ipod or a mac or just get the notion to buy songs and try out itunes. The big problem I see is the fact that Real is trying to steal essentially a product, maybe you would consider it a service, in the future licensing of the FairPlay DRM. I think Apple is still working on making sure there are no bugs or problems before it attempts to license the DRM, this could be an even bigger set back in the licensing. It is crazy for Real to attempt this. It boils down to theft of a unique product.

[jouster]

apple did not copy the gui they were developing there [sic] own and then bought the patents from xerox

...Apple did not "copy" anything from Xerox. Just a wee little bit of history... Xerox *invited* Apple to come look at what the PARC team was working on...


Just a wee bit more history: Xerox felt confident enough about their case to sue. They lost.

But given that this is about the iPod, I'll retract the GUI stuff. It isn't relevant here.


My point is that Apple will have a difficult burden of proof. It is not illegal to manufacture something that works with something else; what Apple will have to do is prove that the product involves the theft of proprietary information. Such proof is notoriously difficult to obtain, as SCO is finding out.

Naturally, Apple can and probably will block Real's scheme by technical means. But don't they then run the risk of alienating a whole slew of iPod buyers who have a lot invested in Real tunes? Where's the gain, given that iTMS does not make a penny of profit?

[The Man]

If you own an iPod, why do you want to buy from Real? There's one thing, though, that Real has and Apple doesn't: a subscription service. Some people may want this option, as it let them try out different music before actually buying the songs. Steve has said again and again that people want to own their music. Granted, but some want to get familiar with music first and then buy the music (and iTunes is a far better place to do this than listening to radio or watch MTV). Also, Real uses a higher bitrate AAC. So Apple should add these two things to its store (an optional subscription service and use a higher bitrate AAC) and only then can Apple really pose the question: Why would anyone go Real?

P.S. Apple wants Real out of the picture. Apple's QuickTime has become a bigger player in online video content. And Apple's iTunes/iPod success makes Real look like a little player. Real is getting really scared I would think.

[azdude]

Does Apple even need the DCMA here?

This isn't a DRM issue, it's the unauthorized hacking/reverse engineering/theft of a proprietary, closed technology that Apple may choose to license if they wanted it open.

[pdxdeano]

There are a few things that I have heard people saying that I would like to challenge by adding my two cents to:

1: Apple has a monopoly: No it doesn't!!! It's not even close to having a monopoly in either the music download or music player side. There are dozens of players and dozens of places to download music. This argument has absolutely no validity.

2. It provides people choice: Come on...does Real "Real"ly offer anything that people want and/or iTMS doesn't have?

3. It will spurr iPod sales: Maybe 2 or 3 but the bigger concern is if labels start to get spooked as Real begins licensing out it's Harmony software and pull their tracks from iTMS.

4. How good is Harmony: The only way Steve was able to get support from the industry was by creating a hack resistant codec. If Harmony is easily hackable, which it probably will be, then see #4.

Well that's about it for now.

:rolleyes:

[macphoria]

This was totally expected. Jobs made it clear to Glaser, after receiving that arrogant email, Apple was not interested in working with Real Network. Didn't Real Network expect this? That they were only wasting time and resources?

[azdude]

Naturally, Apple can and probably will block Real's scheme by technical means. But don't they then run the risk of alienating a whole slew of iPod buyers who have a lot invested in Real tunes? Where's the gain, given that iTMS does not make a penny of profit?

Firstly, iTMS does return a small profit now... that's been announced.

Secondly, this is about protecting proprietary technology from unauthorized reverse engineering. Any company would do that regardless of the market or product. Fairplay especially -- I'd imagine Apple is poised to license this technology themselves as another source of revenue. (Real licensing a hacked technology is beyond belief!!!)

[ZildjianKX]

There are a few things that I have heard people saying that I would like to challenge by adding my two cents to:

1: Apple has a monopoly: No it doesn't!!! It's not even close to having a monopoly in either the music download or music player side. There are dozens of players and dozens of places to download music. This argument has absolutely no validity.

2. It provides people choice: Come on...does Real "Real"ly offer anything that people want and/or iTMS doesn't have?

3. It will spurr iPod sales: Maybe 2 or 3 but the bigger concern is if labels start to get spooked as Real begins licensing out it's Harmony software and pull their tracks from iTMS.

4. How good is Harmony: The only way Steve was able to get support from the industry was by creating a hack resistant codec. If Harmony is easily hackable, which it probably will be, then see #4.

Well that's about it for now.

:rolleyes:

1. Apple has full control over the iPod... which is what is important to the argument here. I don't care how many music stores there are, I can't use anything on my iPod but ITMS.

2. Competition is good... How would a similar argument sound "Macs don't have anything that Windows doesn't offer, so who needs macs? You can check your E-mail fine on Windows." More choices is always better.

3. Do you really think tracks would be pulled from ITMS?

4. Apple's DRM was pretty easily hacked, and still is.

[shamino]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Apple the only company using Apple's DRM? There is a problem with this, Apple has a monopoly on DRM for iPod; thus effectively locking you to use iTunes Music Store.
You can alslo load unprotected music files in several open standard formats (AAC, MP3 and others.)

If Real (or anybody else) wants to sell music for the iPod, they can sell in an unrestricted format and nobody will even try to stop them.

And don't say this isn't realistic. There are many sites that legally distribute unprotected songs. (And I'm not even talking about legal gray areas like those Russian sites that recently made the news.)

The lawsuit has nothing to do with the iPod and has everything to do with reverse-engineering a DRM format - which is expressly forbidden by the DMCA. True, the law was probably intended to prevent people from removing protection, not to prevent them from adding it, but it's too late to rewrite it now. Why should the DMCA only be used to beat up on kids playing legally-purchased DVDs on Linux PCs?

[themadchemist]

This is a mistake. It's not iTMS that makes money, it's the iPod. Anything that promotes the iPod should be encouraged.

I think Appple might regret this in the future.

[jouster]

Firstly, iTMS does return a small profit now... that's been announced.



I missed that announcment. Can you link to it?


Secondly, this is about protecting proprietary technology from unauthorized reverse engineering. Any company would do that regardless of the market or product. Fairplay especially -- I'd imagine Apple is poised to license this technology themselves as another source of revenue. (Real licensing a hacked technology is beyond belief!!!)

Most certainly you are right. But the problem is not establishing that proprietary technology has a right to legal protection; that is beyond dispute. It is in proving that such technology or information was stolen for use in the compatible product that the difficulties lie.

Don't get me wrong - I think it's a cheeky and risky move by Real. But I do wonder if it is possible to see it as an opporunity for Apple; equally, I would hate to see them squander resources fighting a difficult legal battle.

[Abstract]

I'd think it'd be legally equivalent to not being able to buy PS2 games that weren't licensed by Sony, etc. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on music, just control of access to an Apple product, the iPod.

That's what I think as well. :)

Yeah.. death to Real! :o

How dare they threaten to release software for the Mac, that would let us (and PC users) have a greater choice of music services for our iPods.

WE WANT LESS CHOICE, NOT MORE!

Next week: Death to Adobe, Quark, Microsoft, Id, Blizzard...

</sarcasm>

You want this, but just because we want this, doesn't mean it's being done right. Even if the courts don't agree, it's still not right. The law doesn't dictate right and wrong --- your conscience probably does a better job than the courts.


And it isn't like Apple never reverse-engineered anything either.

....How true, as Xerox discovered when Apple copied the GUI from them.
Wow, I don't know a huge amount about computer history, but if it's true then I agree with you on both counts. But just because Apple did so in the past, doesn't make Real's actions more justified. I don't agree with Apple copying Konfabulator either, and its not right, but again, that's completely unrelated to Real's actions. Real is wrong in this case.

[azdude]

1. Apple has full control over the iPod... which is what is important to the argument here. I don't care how many music stores there are, I can't use anything on my iPod but ITMS.

"Monopoly" refers to a market, not a product! Sheesh! Suggesting that a company can hold a monopoly on their own product is ridiculous. Imagine Nokia being accused of having a monopoly on the use of and software for the 8290. Hah!


2. Competition is good... How would a similar argument sound "Macs don't have anything that Windows doesn't offer, so who needs macs? You can check your E-mail fine on Windows." More choices is always better.


Yes, but stealing proprietary technology is not. This is not a fight that has anything to do with the consumer... this has to do with intellectual property and corporate investment.


3. Do you really think tracks would be pulled from ITMS?


YES! If the labels don't believe that their intellectual property is safe on a system that has become compromised by hacked technology, they will terminate their agreement... plain and simple. Why do you think DRM exists? Why do you think Apple has taken so many steps to protect it? How is this different?


4. Apple's DRM was pretty easily hacked, and still is.

That doesn't negate their right and DUTY to protect it.

[jouster]

Yes, but stealing proprietary technology is not. This is not a fight that has anything to do with the consumer... this has to do with intellectual property and corporate investment.

But therein lies the problem: proving this is difficult. Real does not have to make its solution all that different from Apple's to 'prove' that it is not a copy. Compatibility on its own won't cut it.

[azdude]

But therein lies the problem: proving this is difficult. Real does not have to make its solution all that different form Apple's to 'prove' that it is not a copy. Compatibility on its own won't cut it.

Fair enough... Let's hope they can-- this is wrong. :mad:

[bitfactory]

If I remember correctly, Real's boss kindly asked Steve Jobs about access to the iPod and even went public went he did not even get an answer. But Apple just ignored him.

much like Real and everyone else ignored Apple for so many years. well, the shoe is on the other foot now - f' em... Real is trying to run a bad-PR game against Apple... they know Apple wasn't going to let them do this, and i doubt that "Harmony" even exists. they are trying to make Apple look bad to gain users over to their crap store.

all this to sell 99cent songs? who woulda' thunk it?

[animefan_1]

Yeah.. death to Real! :o

How dare they threaten to release software for the Mac, that would let us (and PC users) have a greater choice of music services for our iPods.

WE WANT LESS CHOICE, NOT MORE!

Next week: Death to Adobe, Quark, Microsoft, Id, Blizzard...

</sarcasm>

Nope. Harmony is only fow Windows users. Mac users still only have the iTMS (like that;s bad thing :rolleyes: )

[azdude]

iTMS generates a small profitI missed that announcment. Can you link to it?

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/07/20040714172326.shtml

[jouster]

all this to sell 99cent songs? who woulda' thunk it?

Heh, well, a hundred million 99c songs is a chunk of change!

much like Real and everyone else ignored Apple for so many years. well, the shoe is on the other foot now - f' em...

It doesn't work like this, however emotional it makes people feel. If it turns out that this might encourage a significant uptake of iPods, then Apple will have a hard time explaining to its shareholders why it is not maximizing their investment. Apple is pretty good at locking people into a proprietary hardware solution, but sometimes seems to be cutting off its nose to spite its face.

[.a]

apple's behaviour is the one i always hated by microsoft ... apple seems to be too arrogant and moonopole-style-like ... i just do not like this behaviour ... i allway prefered the small, intelligent company ...
well, as a true mac- and music-fan i will order a ipod anyway sooner or later :)
.a

[jouster]

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/07/20040714172326.shtml

Thank you.

Edit: Thank you as well, funky!

[The Man]

much like Real and everyone else ignored Apple for so many years. well, the shoe is on the other foot now - f' em... Real is trying to run a bad-PR game against Apple... they know Apple wasn't going to let them do this, and i doubt that "Harmony" even exists. they are trying to make Apple look bad to gain users over to their crap store.

all this to sell 99cent songs? who woulda' thunk it?

1st, I don't like DRM. 2nd, Real is wrong in their conduct (Everybody would cry faul if MS did this.) 3rd, I agree that this is simply payback by Real because Apple turned them down. 4th, Real can't stand the fact that Apple is getting so much publicity for its store and that QuickTime is gaining market share for internet video content and now Real wants to make Apple look bad.

[funkywhat2]

I missed that announcment. Can you link to it?


http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=18183434&selectedItemId=18183427

http://www.beaufortgazette.com/24hour/technology/story/1326209p-8492083c.html

EDIT: Whoops, someone already posted this.

[Viv]

There are a few things that I have heard people saying that I would like to challenge by adding my two cents to:

1: Apple has a monopoly: No it doesn't!!! It's not even close to having a monopoly in either the music download or music player side. There are dozens of players and dozens of places to download music. This argument has absolutely no validity.

2. It provides people choice: Come on...does Real "Real"ly offer anything that people want and/or iTMS doesn't have?

3. It will spurr iPod sales: Maybe 2 or 3 but the bigger concern is if labels start to get spooked as Real begins licensing out it's Harmony software and pull their tracks from iTMS.

4. How good is Harmony: The only way Steve was able to get support from the industry was by creating a hack resistant codec. If Harmony is easily hackable, which it probably will be, then see #4.

Well that's about it for now.

:rolleyes:

I think point three is the one we have to pay attention to here guys and gals.

Itms has the tracks we want from the labels on the basis that the labels feel safe they cant be hacked and put out for free.

Jobs sold them the idea of a safe download business, now if Real come along and screw with it who is to say that some dodgy company in a country that ignores DRM rules wont come along and do the same.

Look at all the shiiit that Hollywood have with DVD region encoding and the chinese players.

Viv

[Mr Poop E Pantz]

Where's the gain, given that iTMS does not make a penny of profit?

So why would Real want to sell songs and not make a penny of profit. If there is nothing to gain why would they bother going through all of this?

[Abstract]

But therein lies the problem: proving this is difficult. Real does not have to make its solution all that different from Apple's to 'prove' that it is not a copy. Compatibility on its own won't cut it.

Okay, are any of you guys lawyers, or are you all just talking out of your asses? Talking about the situation is one thing, but this pseudo-law is nauseating.

[bitfactory]

Heh, well, a hundred million 99c songs is a chunk of change!



It doesn't work like this, however emotional it makes people feel. If it turns out that this might encourage a significant uptake of iPods, then Apple will have a hard time explaining to its shareholders why it is not maximizing their investment. Apple is pretty good at locking people into a proprietary hardware solution, but sometimes seems to be cutting off its nose to spite its face.

it takes a 'significant' user base at Real's store to have to a 'significant uptake' in iPod sales. Apple is maximizing their investment - they are protecting their own online store.

maybe you can stand in front of the shareholders and explain why you want to share the online music store sales with Real.

[MacCoaster]

Ok, I'm going to reply to a few people who wrote in response to my concerns:

I'd think it'd be legally equivalent to not being able to buy PS2 games that weren't licensed by Sony, etc. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on music, just control of access to an Apple product, the iPod.
and...
You can alslo load unprotected music files in several open standard formats (AAC, MP3 and others.)

If Real (or anybody else) wants to sell music for the iPod, they can sell in an unrestricted format and nobody will even try to stop them.
and...
1: Apple has a monopoly: No it doesn't!!! It's not even close to having a monopoly in either the music download or music player side. There are dozens of players and dozens of places to download music. This argument has absolutely no validity.
I never said that it had a monopoly on music, music downloads or music player side. I'm saying that Apple has a monopoly over the DRM technology that works on the iPod. Apple can pick and choose who can have access to the iPod and protect their content. Apparently Apple has made it obvious that they only want iPod users to use iTunes Music Store.

No, monopolies aren't necessarily of markets, but oftentimes it is. I'm just referring to the iPod. Perhaps there is a better word than "monopoly," but I can't think of one.
I think the issue that has Apple so concerned here, is not so much that Real decided it was going to reverse engineer a manner of placing non-FairPlay DRM files onto the iPod, but that it had announced its intentions of licensing the reverse-engineered software technology (read: Apple's intellectual property) to other vendors.
That by far is the most intelligent argument I've heard against my concerns. I never realized that Real wanted to license the DRM to others. I don't think the DMCA is even necessary here actually. To be able to use FairPlay in one's product one must have a license from Apple to do so. Since Real's Harmony is allowing companies to bypass requesting licensing from Apple, thus depriving Apple. This is a legal problem and it seems that Real is in trouble with this.

[shamino]

Apple did not "copy" anything from Xerox. Just a wee little bit of history... Xerox *invited* Apple to come look at what the PARC team was working on...
Anybody who wants to comment on this should first read this interview (http://library.stanford.edu/mac/primary/interviews/raskin/parc.html).

Raskin's first-hand account explicitly states that:

The Macintosh project was under way before that visit to PARC
The Lisa project didn't start out as a GUI-based system
The Mac's GUI is not very much like Xerox's GUI.


WRT this last point, anybody who has ever actually used a Xerox system (like the Star) knows that the Mac's GUI differs radically from Xerox's. I've personally used their later "ViewPoint" OS and know this for a fact. Yeah, they both have bitmapped displays and windows, but that's about where the similarity ends.

Also of note, Jobs paid for that visit, by selling Xerox a private block of stock at a discounted price.

Another interesting article about Xerox PARC (which mentions Apple quite a bit) may be found here (http://www.quad4x.net/cswebpage/parc.html)
If Apple hadn't come out with the Mac, the industry might have been stuck with command-line interfaces for another five years at least.
Maybe. But I think others would have come up with the concept pretty soon anyway. There were graphical apps on the Apple II (like Music Construction Set) for quite some time.

IMO, development of a generalized GUI for a mass-market system was imminent at the time. If Apple wasn't first, it would've been someone else. The look and feel would be different, but the general concept would've still made it to market.
[QUOTE=mhouse]What Real has done with the iPod is much more like what Compaq did with the IBM PC. I agree with others that Apple is unlikely to win any legal battle with Real over this issue.
[QUOTE]But there are two big differences. There was no DMCA at the time Compaq clean-room copied IBM's BIOS ROM. And the BIOS ROM didn't involve any form of encryption (which, admittedly is only relevant in the presence of the DMCA.)

[jouster]

So why would Real want to sell songs and not make a penny of profit.

I did not mention Real's potential to make a profit.

If there is nothing to gain why would they bother going through all of this?

Who cares? They ARE going through it.

[jouster]

maybe you can stand in front of the shareholders and explain why you want to share the online music store sales with Real.

Because the potential profit to be made by increased hardware sales is far greater than that which would be lost by decreased song sales.

[shamino]

1. Apple has full control over the iPod... which is what is important to the argument here. I don't care how many music stores there are, I can't use anything on my iPod but ITMS.
So what? The iPod is not the market - it's just one product.

This is like saying that Ford is a monopoly because they're the only company making Mustangs.

[MikeLaRiviere]

I just want to straighten out the legality here. Real claims that it has produced iPod compatibility through "publicly available information." If this is true, Apple should not be able to sue Real under the DMCA. However, the DMCA does stipulate that reverse-engineering such a technology is illegal. Therefore, if Apple can prove (or if Real cannot disprove - we all know whom the burden of proof is really on) that Real reverse-engineered iPod compatibility, Apple has a solid case.

Unfortunately, writers are now calling Apple the "Microsoft of music"... and we all know how much the government hates Microsoft. Though I doubt it will happen soon, let's hope the government doesn't engage in any trust-busting against Apple. Further, others have pointed out two important points: 1) that Apple makes its money from iPod sales, not music store downloads, so Real compatibility will drive additional iPod sales, and 2) that users have no incentive to use Real's music store over the de facto best, iTunes Music Store.

What is really at stake here is not whether Apple will lose sales or market share; rather, it is the company's need to set a precedent of protecting its technologies, as it has not in the past (Apple unsuccessfully sued Microsoft for copying its OS GUI in the late Eighties). If the company hopes to become the Microsoft of anything, it must protect its property. (Yes, ninety percent of people on these forums hate Microsoft, but the success of its business model is undeniable.)

Mike LaRiviere

[jouster]

Apple can pick and choose who can have access to the iPod and protect their content.

Not so. Apple can pick and choose who can have access to the iPod using Apple's proprietary technology.

Anyone can come up with their own technology that interfaces in any way with the iPod. Apple's problem here, as I have consistently argued, will be to prove that an infringement has taken place, and this has been extremely difficult throughout the entire history of personal computing.

Edited for typos.

[shamino]

Itms has the tracks we want from the labels on the basis that the labels feel safe they cant be hacked and put out for free.

Jobs sold them the idea of a safe download business, now if Real come along and screw with it who is to say that some dodgy company in a country that ignores DRM rules wont come along and do the same.
This isn't relevant.

Real isn't offering to sell a service for removing DRM. They are selling a service to add iPod-compatible DRM.

Real's actions in no way change the likelihood of people pirating ITMS songs.

[azdude]

I never said that it had a monopoly on music, music downloads or music player side. I'm saying that Apple has a monopoly over the DRM technology that works on the iPod. Apple can pick and choose who can have access to the iPod and protect their content. Apparently Apple has made it obvious that they only want iPod users to use iTunes Music Store.

No, monopolies aren't necessarily of markets, but oftentimes it is. I'm just referring to the iPod. Perhaps there is a better word than "monopoly," but I can't think of one.

Then, what's your point? Apple has no monopoly over any market. Online Music, Digital Media Players, Computers (hah!).

If you don't like the fact that the iPod/iTMS is a "Closed System" (the term you're looking for), the only thing that anyone can do about that is not buy it. There are no legal repercussions for selling a closed system. None. Monopolies are illegal, not closed systems.

[azdude]

This isn't relevant.

Real isn't offering to sell a service for removing DRM. They are selling a service to add iPod-compatible DRM.

Real's actions in no way change the likelihood of people pirating ITMS songs.

The original comment that started this part of the debate was a concern that Real's Harmony would somehow not be as safe as "real" fairplay.

You're correct that Real's "fairplay encoder" (?) shouldn't make iTMS any less safe, as it doesn't *decode.*

[shamino]

The original comment that started this part of the debate was a concern that Real's Harmony would somehow not be as safe as "real" fairplay.
Maybe, but so what? This won't (as viv suggested) cause music labels to avoid selling through the ITMS.

If Harmony-encoded songs are easy to break, it may cause labels to avoid giving licenses to Real, but that (if anything) helps Apple.

[azdude]

Maybe, but so what? This won't (as viv suggested) cause music labels to avoid selling through the ITMS.

If Harmony-encoded songs are easy to break, it may cause labels to avoid giving licenses to Real, but that (if anything) helps Apple.

Which is exactly what my second sentence said. Sheesh.

[nationElectric]

Reverse-engineering is not theft, it's perfectly legal, and it's perfectly ethical. You figure out the behavior that a piece of code produces through careful observation, and then write your own code that produces the same behavior. You don't "steal" anything, you just mimic it.

If you've ever used your Mac on a Windows network (through a tool like DAVE or Apple's built-in network support) you've enjoyed the fruits of reverse-engineering. In fact, Apple licensed its windows support from the Samba project, JUST like Real is planning to let people license Harmony. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever seriously accused Apple or Samba of theft. Another popular example of reverse engineering is the third-party IM clients like Fire and (for Windows) Trillian. Again, nobody ever accuses them of theft, because it's understood that they didn't steal anything.

In response, Microsoft and Yahoo whine about "hackers" and periodically change their protocols to break compatibility with third-party tools like Samba and Fire, just like Apple is threatening to do... Microsoft and Yahoo are generally looked down upon for this behavior, and then the Samba or Fire teams spend a bit of time updating their products, and everyone's back on the same page again. The whole process is absolutely ridiculous, it's a big waste of time for everyone, it doesn't protect anything for anyone, and all it serves to do is to slightly inconvenience (and show a general hostility towards) a minority of users who'd enjoy an alternative but weren't given one through the "official" channels.

This is exactly the problem with these kinds of proprietary schemes, and this is just one of the many, many problems with DRM that seems so abstract and pedantic and "unrealistic" until... well, until something like this happens, and it becomes reality.

Get over it. Reverse engineering is perfectly acceptable, and despite Apple's flustered rhetoric they understand that perfectly well.

("Oh, my stars and garters! They're just a bunch of... hackers!" *swoon*)

[Viv]

The original comment that started this part of the debate was a concern that Real's Harmony would somehow not be as safe as "real" fairplay.

You're correct that Real's "fairplay encoder" (?) shouldn't make iTMS any less safe, as it doesn't *decode.*

The point is to the labels it looks as if Apple is losing control of their technology and software, and Apple has the labels entire stock out on the web.

If any Tom, Dick, or Harry can come along and do what Real has done then the labels have to ask themselves what else can be done? is our stock investment safe were these sudo legal hackers can get to it.

Is this the thin end of a wedge?

Viv

[jouster]

Reverse-engineering is not theft, it's perfectly legal, and it's perfectly ethical. You figure out the behavior that a piece of code produces through careful observation, and then write your own code that produces the same behavior. You don't "steal" anything, you just mimic it.

...[SNIP]...

Get over it. Reverse engineering is perfectly acceptable, and despite Apple's flustered rhetoric they understand that perfectly well.

("Oh, my stars and garters! They're just a bunch of... hackers!" *swoon*)

Glad someone else sees it this way. There will be responses saying, "...but...but...Real DID steal the code! They are evil!!!"

Well, good luck trying to prove it, Apple.

Incidentally, Reuters is now reporting it:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=5815496&section=news

[mrsebastian]

real can go [bleep] themselves trying to strong arm apple. break out the ravenous lawyers apple, but do take notice and do this yourself! it's obvious everyone wants the best audio player out there and they wanna play any format on it. create your own "harmony" and license the [bleep] out of it. better yet, make it so the only way to upload other media formats to ipods, is done through itunes. while your at it, make sure as part of the license agreement, there has to be a constantly available link to the apple store/ipod on their site. that may take a nibble out of itms sales, but i doubt it. once people see the ease of the ipod, itunes, and itms they'll never look back... [bleep] let's get this monopoly rolling!

[pascalpp]

Never thought I'd see the day that Apple would using FUD as a means of thwarting competition. Comparing RealNetworks tactics to the actions of a "hacker" is nothing but FUD.

The Whatis definition of FUD (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci214113,00.html)

[GFLPraxis]

How true, as Xerox discovered when Apple copied the GUI from them.

As I recall, Apple *looked* at it, thought, "Great idea, we should use that!" and wrote their own GUI using the mouse.

On the other hand, in this case RealPlayer didn't just look at FairPlay and write their own DRM, they REVERSE ENGINEERED it and copied it.

What Apple did is about the equivilant of going to a gallery, looking at the Mona Lisa, and sketching it on their own sheet of paper.

What RealPlayer did is equivilant to stealing the Mona Lisa, sticking it on a copy machine, and copying it like nuts.

[JohnStrass]

There are a few things that I have heard people saying that I would like to challenge by adding my two cents to:

1: Apple has a monopoly: No it doesn't!!! It's not even close to having a monopoly in either the music download or music player side. There are dozens of players and dozens of places to download music. This argument has absolutely no validity.

2. It provides people choice: Come on...does Real "Real"ly offer anything that people want and/or iTMS doesn't have?

3. It will spurr iPod sales: Maybe 2 or 3 but the bigger concern is if labels start to get spooked as Real begins licensing out it's Harmony software and pull their tracks from iTMS.

4. How good is Harmony: The only way Steve was able to get support from the industry was by creating a hack resistant codec. If Harmony is easily hackable, which it probably will be, then see #4.

Well that's about it for now.

:rolleyes:

Beyond iTMS content, iPod is still a great MP3 player; MP3 is still my favorite way to rip my CDs (easy to swap between computers). Maybe Real can just use the MP3 format with a bit of DRM in there

[MacCoaster]

Not so. Apple can pick and choose who can have access to the iPod using Apple's proprietary technology.

Anyone can come up with their own technology that interfaces in any way with the iPod. Apple's problem here, as I have consistently argued, will be to prove that an infringement has taken place, and this has been extremely difficult throughout the entire history of personal computing.
What do you mean, difficult? DMCA clearly states that reverse engineering for the sake of bypassing a DRM system is illegal. Isn't this what Real is doing, circumventing Apple's DRM to make their own DRM?
Then, what's your point? Apple has no monopoly over any market. Online Music, Digital Media Players, Computers (hah!).

If you don't like the fact that the iPod/iTMS is a "Closed System" (the term you're looking for), the only thing that anyone can do about that is not buy it. There are no legal repercussions for selling a closed system. None. Monopolies are illegal, not closed systems.
Ah, that must be it. "Closed system." Thanks, I see now why monopoly doesn't apply to Apple and their control over iPod. It only applies if Apple had near to or absolutely 100% control of music players, correct? As this was the case with Microsoft, IIRC, Edit #1.) for Windows and its integration of Internet Explorer.

Edit #2.) Oh by the way, monopolies are not illegal. There are plenty of monopolies (especially utilities) but they are regulated. The only types of monopolies which are illegal are the ones that of Microsoft, etc. in order to profit ridiculously more.

Thanks all!

[ZildjianKX]

"Monopoly" refers to a market, not a product! Sheesh! Suggesting that a company can hold a monopoly on their own product is ridiculous. Imagine Nokia being accused of having a monopoly on the use of and software for the 8290. Hah!

I never said Apple had a monopoly, I said the issue at hand was that the iPod is a closed product to outside music stores...

I'm not dumb... :eek:

[pbrennen]

if anyone has brought up the DMCA, i think the DMCA makes illegal the -circumvention- of DRM. this is the -copying- of DRM, which is more like a patent violation. apple has (i think) patented fairplay, and now real has reverse engineered, and presumably -copied- apple's DRM code. this sounds illegal. what's more illegal is that real wants to liscence this method of creating DRM to other companies. correct me if i'm wrong on any points.

[bitfactory]

Because the potential profit to be made by increased hardware sales is far greater than that which would be lost by decreased song sales.

what hardware sales?

Real has no audience. the iPod demand is currently outstripping supply - i don't get it. if Real had a successful online store and Apple didn't, i'd agree with you. but they don't... and Apple does.

this is a smart business move by Apple. Real knows Apple would just modify FP every so often to break "Harmony" - which is why i don't think it exists - this is just a PR-style campaign from Real.

[3.1416]

If you've ever used your Mac on a Windows network (through a tool like DAVE or Apple's built-in network support) you've enjoyed the fruits of reverse-engineering. In fact, Apple licensed its windows support from the Samba project, JUST like Real is planning to let people license Harmony.
Thank you. I'm glad a few people can see through the RDF. There's nothing wrong with reverse engineering. What Real did may or may not be illegal under the DMCA, but the DMCA is a travesty of justice and not worthy of any respect. While Apple certainly has a right to be annoyed with Real and express their opinion on the matter, that doesn't mean Real is in the wrong.

[pbrennen]

Isn't this what Real is doing, circumventing Apple's DRM to make their own DRM?
this doesn't sound right to me. real is reverse engineering DRM not for the purpose of circumventing it (real is not marketing a fairplay stripper a la playfair), but for creating a clone of fairplay that they will use for their own purposes. creating a DRM system for the iPod from the ground up seems legal to me, however i haven't read the iPod EULA. so it seems real is guilty of blatant copyright infringement. a device to violate the DCMA can be designed without infringing any copyright (see big black marker and sony CDs).

[gorkonapple]

Here's an easy one....Apple, I have a format that works on all MP3 Players including the iPod....it's called MP3! :P Oh wait...you wanted DRM in that?

:D

[gorkonapple]

I think Apple is clearly in the right here. I'm really a little shocked that Real would release something like this without first seeking some type of approval from Apple. Another brilliant business move from the notorious Real.

Reverse engineering, what Real did, is LEGAL.

[MacCoaster]

this doesn't sound right to me. real is reverse engineering DRM not for the purpose of circumventing it (real is not marketing a fairplay stripper a la playfair), but for creating a clone of fairplay that they will use for their own purposes. creating a DRM system for the iPod from the ground up seems legal to me, however i haven't read the iPod EULA. so it seems real is guilty of blatant copyright infringement. a device to violate the DCMA can be designed without infringing any copyright (see big black marker and sony CDs).
Except that it seems that when someone uses Harmony to protect their content, the iPod is fooled in thinking that it is FairPlay. Can anyone verify this?

[pbrennen]

Reverse engineering, what Real did, is LEGAL.so i could reverse engineer microsoft office, and sell it as blahTools, and i'd be fine? that doesn't sound right.

[gorkonapple]

Who do Real think they are? The "Oh, we never got Apple's approval, so we did it anyway!" tactic just won't work in court. Your right, no-one needs RealPlayer. Basically, Apple IS the music industry, and they are not going to let any one get in their way.


Real did nothing wrong which is probably why there isn't a lawsuit. Real reverse engineered it. Real has the power and money to do it. The only thing Apple can do is wait until it comes out and they find out if they actually used their code in their software. If that is what real did, then they have a case but if they wrote their own clean room software to produce a protected AAC file, then there's nothign Apple can do. Reverse engineering is LEGAL.

[pbrennen]

Except that it seems that when someone uses Harmony to protect their content, the iPod is fooled in thinking that it is FairPlay. Can anyone verify this?i thought the file carried information regarding its fairplay status (number of different pieces of hardware it's been transferred to) and that the devices are not aware. can an iPod tell the difference between a regular AAC and a fairplay protected AAC?

[nagromme]

Of course there are potential benefits of Apple opening up the iPod to other companies' copy protection schemes. And pitfalls too.

The main thing is, though, Apple needs to make such a move on THEIR terms. Getting licensing money from the arrangement, controlling the timing, etc.

I don't know that the time will be right for Apple to help out other music stores for a long while. So they have to go after Real for this.

[gorkonapple]

Does Apple even need the DCMA here?

This isn't a DRM issue, it's the unauthorized hacking/reverse engineering/theft of a proprietary, closed technology that Apple may choose to license if they wanted it open.

I will say it once more....reverse engineering is legal. End of story. If Real got a hold of some Apple code and used that, then their would be an issue.

[MacCoaster]

i thought the file carried information regarding its fairplay status (number of different pieces of hardware it's been transferred to) and that the devices are not aware. can an iPod tell the difference between a regular AAC and a fairplay protected AAC?
I believe it can. I don't own an iPod. Hence my asking if anyone could verify it.

[BWhaler]

In other news Microsoft announced today that after a year of hard work and "the Longhorn smokescreen" they will be releasing Mac OSX Panther for windows instead. Codenamed Windows OSXP Panther, Microsoft admits to following in the footsteps of RealNetworks who recently made their way onto Apple's iPod using reverse engineering. "We knew Longhorn was *****, so we bought a copy of OSX reverse engineered it and recompiled it to run on windows, we think our customers will be very pleased" Microsoft also admits adding system instability, more frequent kernel panics, and a user favorite, the blue screen of death.

Steve Jobs was unavailable for comment since he had just sh@t on himself.

great post. Great laugh.

[stevehaslip]

this is risky because apple need to keep the record companies happy and feeling secure but they also need to stop real, while at the same time not hold back the progress of the iPod. (the real money spinner)

[Chaszmyr]

This is a mistake. It's not iTMS that makes money, it's the iPod. Anything that promotes the iPod should be encouraged.

I think Appple might regret this in the future.


The iPod does make more money than iTMS, but iTMS still generates profits. If I recall correctly, iTMS costed about $10m to develop and implement, and Apple takes a share of about 30 cents per song. With 100 million songs sold, this would be a profit of 20 million dollars.

[jocknerd]

I don't see Apple going after Linux vendors for "hacking" their Mac. Apple needs to grow up and stop acting like a spoiled child. They wanted to milk their profits on the iPod for as long as possible. Well, the milking is coming to an end sooner than Apple wanted.

How can Apple tell me what I can or can't do with my iPod. If I want to copy my music to it, I can. If Real has found a way to put their drm based music on it, they should have the right. And I should have the right to play it.

I've been an Apple user for two years. I recommend their products as much as possible. But until they learn to play fair and not bring out their lawyers on a weekly basis, I still have some reservations about the company.

You blew it Apple. You could have licensed the technology. But you didn't. So others have figured out a way to use work with it. This will go down as another blunder in Apple's history.

[peteMG]

Even though Apple's lawyers are probably pawing at the door right now, just salivating at the thought of such a big juicy target, they should really just let Real. The iTMS isn't Apple's core business - the hardware is - and getting more companies to run unprofitable stores just for the benefit of saying "our tracks work on the iPod!" is good free marketing. However, the whole licensing-the-results-of-the-reverse-engineering thing is sketchy, because that makes the labels skittish, which could kill the iTMS, which would hurt the iPod.

Anyway, I don't think this whole mess will have too much of a net impact when it's all said and done - but it'll be fun to watch in the meantime! Especially since the SCO/IBM/Linux soap opera seems to be on hiatus.

[obeygiant]

The big angry apple giant bears its teeth and crushes the puny RealNetworks. Maybe now everyone will move from real to quicktime streaming!!!


in my experience Real Player has been better for streaming than QT.

[jocknerd]

so i could reverse engineer microsoft office, and sell it as blahTools, and i'd be fine? that doesn't sound right.

What do you think AppleWorks did. What about OpenOffice. They reverse-engineered the file formats.

What do you think Samba is? It allows your Apple computer to attach to a Windows network. Reverse-Engineered. Do you think Microsoft gave that information away?

This is the technology industry. Reverse Engineering is a way of life. If it isn't allowed, innovation is dead.

[rok]

you know what really irks me? it's that real and even the news keep harping on "oh, the ipod can only play apple's itunes music, and that's not fair..."

no, no, No, No, a MILLION TIMES NO!!!!!!

you know how you play non-iTunes Music Store purchases on an iPod? you go to the friggin' record store and do what you did before the iPod existed... YOU BUY THE CD AND RIP IT TO AN MP3.

THAT, my friends, is apple's counter to ANY argument about how "closed" the iPod is, or for a friend of mine who is still in OS 9 and is mad that Apple' is "making" him upgrade in order to buy songs. um, no. they're just telling you to do what you've been doing all along. sure, Apple's EASY WAY is also APPLE'S WAY, but how the heck is that unfair?

anyway, i know i am preaching to the choir here, but it bears repeating every once in a while. ;)

[Elan0204]

I think what Real did is really wrong. Apple wouldn't do business with them for a reason, and Real has shown what that reason is- they're a shady business that probably would have found some way to stab Apple in the back anyway. And it is one thing for Real to use this technology only for themselves, but to start making a profit from it by licensing it to other companies too, is outrageous. So now if Apple does decide to license FairPlay, they are going to have to get into a bidding war with Real to license their own technology.

[jocknerd]

I think the issue that has Apple so concerned here, is not so much that Real decided it was going to reverse engineer a manner of placing non-FairPlay DRM files onto the iPod, but that it had announced its intentions of licensing the reverse-engineered software technology (read: Apple's intellectual property) to other vendors.

I'm sure the fact that they had the gall to try and undermine Apple's DRM had Steve hot under the collar, but licensing the technology to do so was taking the issue two or three miles over the line. It would be like me buying a Ford Mustang, taking apart the engine, copying its design and then selling my own reverse-engineered copies at a fraction of the cost, to undermine Ford.
Dude, you got it wrong. A fair comparison would be a company producing a header for a Mustang engine and then licensing the header itself. Thats perfectly legal.

Apple has goofed. Greed got in the way again. There will be no licensing of Fairplay. Its history. Now the best thing to come out of all this would be to completely drop all DRM but thats up to the record companies.

[movabi]

So a format that has a monopoly is good? Seems like this isn't a good thing for anyone. What happened to being able to play all formats on a device? oh yes, that would be to convenient for consumers and mean loss of revenue for corporate giants. Nice. I'm no lover of real... but its not like apple is saint either. being forced to use one device, service, or format seems like a microsoft thing... one size fits all.

[jocknerd]

Lets say I develop a way to flash the firmware in the iPod and make it capable of playing other music formats (i.e. Ogg Vorbis or FLAC). Is this illegal? Probably is in this day and time. Especially when people are being thrown in jail for selling mod chips for Xbox's. But it should be perfectly legal. It is in every other industry. Imagine if companies couldn't make aftermarket parts for automobiles. We have to ask ourselves, what do we want the technology laws to cater to? The tech companies or the users. I prefer that the laws work for the user.

[rok]

So a format that has a monopoly is good? Seems like this isn't a good thing for anyone. What happened to being able to play all formats on a device? oh yes, that would be to convenient for consumers and mean loss of revenue for corporate giants. Nice. I'm no lover of real... but its not like apple is saint either. being forced to use one device, service, or format seems like a microsoft thing... one size fits all.

movabi, go back one page at the end and read my post and rethink your stance.

[pdxdeano]

I would like to clarify the use of the term "reverse engineering". Reverse engineering describes the process by which something is taken apart piece by piece in order to determine how it works...correct? So if Real reverse engineered Fairplat to create Harmony (as admitted by Real) doesn't that mean by definition they Had to use Apple code to do so possibly making Harmony illegal. If however they produced Harmony to mimick Fairplay that would be completely legal. Thought?

:confused:

[rok]

I would like to clarify the use of the term "reverse engineering". Reverse engineering describes the process by which something is taken apart piece by piece in order to determine how it works...correct? So if Real reverse engineered Fairplat to create Harmony (as admitted by Real) doesn't that mean by definition they Had to use Apple code to do so possibly making Harmony illegal. If however they produced Harmony to mimick Fairplay that would be completely legal. Thought?

:confused:

no, actually reverse engineering means basically taking an established end point, goal, or product as your finishing point, and then in a "clean room" development atmosphere, develop a process by which to achieve that goal, product or end point. you can assemble experts in the field to assist you, but you can't look at another product and how it's put together and operates in order to assist you in that endeavor. what ends up happening is that you develop an entirely new process which can be claimed as your own, which just so happens to result in the same product. it's not easy, or cheap, but it's also 100% legal and will hold up in a court of law.

any bets as to whether real did this much effort?

[kenaustus]

to see a lot of people who can be assumed to love Macs (isn't that why they are on this board?) go against Apple on this. The beauty of the Mac is that Apple controls the environment (hardware and software) and can therefore deliver something that is heads and shoulders above the competition. Same with the music environment (iPod/iTunes/Music Store).

Because Apple invested a significant amount of time, money and very innovative human resources they were able to deliver something for Mac users (and later Window users) that blew the competition away in the music market. It also made legal downloading popular, a major achievement, and in the process they even showed the competition "how to do it" if they wanted to invest their time, money and innovative human resources.

Now Real has come up with a hack that invades Apple's environment - probably a lot easier than going to the effort of developing their own fully integrated package. Apple is going to defend their proprietary to the max, primarily to scare others from trying to do the same thing. (I doubt that iPod users who love the integrated package will give a damn about Real's music store.)

I also believe that Apple will push hard on the legal side in order to avoid the can of worms that would develop if everyone came up with their own hack. Just look at the PC world and the mess it is in.

As for consumers, when they buy an iPod they KNOW what they are getting. iTunes, The Music Store and an iPod. That's it. If that's not enough then buy something besides an iPod. Don't buy an iPod and then say that Apple should do this, this and that.

Personally I hope Apple cuts Real off at the knees in the courts. I would hate to see Apple's offering prostituted by companies that are impotent when it comes to designing their own products, or by programmers who want to be famous, even if their offering is crap.

[sinisterdesign]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Apple the only company using Apple's DRM? There is a problem with this, Apple has a monopoly on DRM for iPod; thus effectively locking you to use iTunes Music Store.

I'm not a lawyer, but could this be used against Apple if they do go to court?

hypothetical: i make a great car. everyone wants to buy my car. i'm the only one that makes the keys that fit in my car. people HAVE to come to me to get the key. i don't have a "monopoly", i'm just protecting my own product. if the iPod was the ONLY player people could buy and they HAD to come to Apple to get it, then we're looking at a monopoly (i'm no lawyer here, folks). but people just buy the iPod b/c it's stylish & easy to use, not b/c it's the only game out there.

i would like to see Apple open up FairPlay, but at their own pace and under their own terms, not b/c some asshat decides he wants to be a player in the game, too and breaks the DRM to suit his needs. i think this was a smarmy buisiness practice on Real's part and like some others have said, i hope they get their butt handed to them and it cripples the company.

[MacCoaster]

hypothetical: i make a great car. everyone wants to buy my car. i'm the only one that makes the keys that fit in my car. people HAVE to come to me to get the key. i don't have a "monopoly", i'm just protecting my own product. if the iPod was the ONLY player people could buy and they HAD to come to Apple to get it, then we're looking at a monopoly (i'm no lawyer here, folks). but people just buy the iPod b/c it's stylish & easy to use, not b/c it's the only game out there.
Yeah, I realized that in an earlier post, that it required the market to be a truly harmful monopoly.
i would like to see Apple open up FairPlay, but at their own pace and under their own terms, not b/c some asshat decides he wants to be a player in the game, too and breaks the DRM to suit his needs. i think this was a smarmy buisiness practice on Real's part and like some others have said, i hope they get their butt handed to them and it cripples the company.
Apple already has the option to license the DRM technology to others. I see it as Apple not licensing it to Real because of their competitive (psh!) music store. Maybe that part is illegal, then again, I Am Not A Lawyer; but another user earlier pointed out that iPod/iTMS is really a closed system (thus far).

[ericdano]

Secondly, this is about protecting proprietary technology from unauthorized reverse engineering. Any company would do that regardless of the market or product. Fairplay especially -- I'd imagine Apple is poised to license this technology themselves as another source of revenue. (Real licensing a hacked technology is beyond belief!!!)

Well, isn't the Motorola Cellphone deal to be able to play AAC files the first step?

I personally think Apple is going to enlist the RIAA. Afterall, they are really the ones that should be scared. Would you like some company (IE: REAL) to sell your songs as "iPod compat" when it's not really licensing the technology as it should? Would it be "safe" for the labels to have REAL sell it in this "hacked" format?

I think not. I think Apple should go tell the RIAA to put some pressure on REAL as well.

[whooleytoo]

to see a lot of people who can be assumed to love Macs (isn't that why they are on this board?) go against Apple on this

Not at all ironic.

Real will be offering new Mac software. That's good news for Mac fans.
This will mean iPod owners can play songs from other music stores alongside songs from iTMS. That's good news for iPod fans.

While Apple are more likely to make money because of this than lose it (more iPod sales vs fewer iTMS sales), they'll object as it might mean they have less control over the iPod. Which is unlikely, as they can probably break Harmony's compatibility on a whim, if they choose to do so.

Even if you don't use Harmony, choice can only be a good thing. In fact, I'd love to see anyone put together a cohesive argument why the availability of Harmony hurts me, as a Mac and iPod owner. How could I possibly be better off if it didn't exist? Why is the lack of choice a good thing?

[Molson]

From MacMinute

RealNetworks has now responded to Apple's statement on its Harmony technology, which allows songs purchased from Real's online music store to be played on iPods. Real says that "consumers, and not Apple, should be the ones choosing what music goes on their iPod." The company goes on to say: "Apple has suggested that new laws such as the DMCA are relevant to this dispute. In fact, the DMCA is not designed to prevent the creation of new methods of locking content and explicitly allows the creation of interoperable software. We remain fully committed to Harmony and to giving millions of consumers who own portable music devices, including the Apple iPod, choice and compatibility."

"Harmony follows in a well-established tradition of fully legal, independently developed paths to achieve compatibility," Real says. "There is ample and clear precedent for this activity, for instance the first IBM compatible PCs from Compaq. Harmony creates a way to lock content from Real's music store in a way that is compatible with the iPod, Windows Media DRM devices, and Helix DRM devices. Harmony technology does not remove or disable any digital rights management system."

[ART5000]

I mean, come on, Apple effectively got the PlayFair guys moving around. Of course Apple would use the DMCA against Real. Real was never licensed to use Apple's DRM technology.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Apple the only company using Apple's DRM? There is a problem with this, Apple has a monopoly on DRM for iPod; thus effectively locking you to use iTunes Music Store.

I'm not a lawyer, but could this be used against Apple if they do go to court?

not neccessarily, in order to claim it as a monopoly Apple would have to have significant control over pricing, distribution of online songs, supplier control etc. others are selling songs online and have their own pricing schemes, distribution layouts etc.

Apple doesn't control the selling of songs online. They're the market leader.

[StarmanDeluxe]

Please note that I never swear. I don't know how. It's not in my genes.

With that in mind, **** Real.

Edit: Haha, swear filter that I had no idea existed. Now I do :rolleyes:

[Trekkie]

If I remember correctly, Real's boss kindly asked Steve Jobs about access to the iPod and even went public went he did not even get an answer. But Apple just ignored him.


Can you blame them? Real is a piece of junk and it's taken them years to come out with a decent OS X player (decent for REAL that is) and even now it's still 'beta'

When Apple has a hot product though, they push and shove their way in with their crappy products...

I don't want Real's junk or their music store on my systems

[Photorun]

you know what really irks me? it's that real and even the news keep harping on "oh, the ipod can only play apple's itunes music, and that's not fair..."

no, no, No, No, a MILLION TIMES NO!!!!!!

you know how you play non-iTunes Music Store purchases on an iPod? you go to the friggin' record store and do what you did before the iPod existed... YOU BUY THE CD AND RIP IT TO AN MP3.

THAT, my friends, is apple's counter to ANY argument about how "closed" the iPod is, or for a friend of mine who is still in OS 9 and is mad that Apple' is "making" him upgrade in order to buy songs. um, no. they're just telling you to do what you've been doing all along. sure, Apple's EASY WAY is also APPLE'S WAY, but how the heck is that unfair?

anyway, i know i am preaching to the choir here, but it bears repeating every once in a while. ;)

The problem is that the future will be, unless the dumbass rich, fat, record label execs and RIAA kill electronic downloads (I think they're so clueless if they could kill them, they would, but that's another rant), a musical download world, with many people downloading songs. There are people who are going to use services OTHER than Apple... I know that shocks you tremendously, but people do. Honestly I Apple kicks everyone's arse, I don't see why people would, then again, I don't get why ANYONE would want to buy a peecee, lack of taste, brains and class would be my guess. As long as Apple stays competitive they've got nothing to worry about. People tend to think clones in the mid 90s killed Apple, actually clones gave Apple a clue. Companies like PowerComputing made far more kickass computers that ran the MacOS for [gasp] FAR LESS!!! They also innovated more than Apple... yes, Apple, the company that made their OS. That's how ignorant, dumb, and arrogant Apple had gotten, they had lost all sight of being competitive, in both technology and price, it took a them finding they weren't only not the best selling computer that run their OS, in speed tests in MacUser (R.I.P.) they had their asses handed to them in speed tests, they were losing at their own game. Dumbass Jobs came along with this "mine mine mine" mentality and killed clones, for better or worse (or worse).

Healthy competition is a GOOD thing people, GOOD! What's the opposite of healthy competition? Microsuck and their strongarm BS tactics that the DOJ had a mountain of dirt showing how they illegally made it so there WASN'T competition against them (except Apple but they were busy shooting themselves in their foots), of course, the DOJ/Dubya were paid off by Microsuck they minute the new soulless US admin moseyed in.

Licensing out is one way and being competitive is another, both are healthy, expecting everyone to come to you in Apple's way is foolish and will only backfire. Hopefully Arn will leave this thread searchable so in a couple years when iPod/iTunes market share is diminishing I can give all your Apple Koolaid drinkers a very depressed (because I'll be sad at Apple's stupidity that many of your are advocating) I told you so!

[whooleytoo]

Real is a piece of junk and it's taken them years to come out with a decent OS X player (decent for REAL that is) and even now it's still 'beta'

Sounds a lot like OS X's early years!


I don't want Real's junk or their music store on my systems

Fair enough! But many others do want the choice.

[gopher]

This may sound like playing the devil's advocate, but we face a serious problem of many TV and news organizations only offering online videos of news events in Real and Windows Mediaplayer. Very few offer Quicktime based videos. This even though Quicktime Broadcaster is free from Apple. I honestly believe it would be better for Apple to embrace Real's search for better compatibility between the iPod and Real's software because the next step would be to have better website support from these media outlets that embed video on their website. It is a give and take world, and if Apple is willing to give a little, they'll be able to make Mac marginalization less. Real has a dominance in its own industry. Real's willingness to open its doors and asking Apple do the same should be something Apple should embrace, and not shy away from. Granted Real's tactics at doing this are a bit disingenuous, but the net result is the same. Real earlier offered a partnership with Apple and Apple didn't want it. Now they want to be on the iPod, and are willing to make inroads to do it. What good is a digital hub with only one spoke?

[gola]

Way to go REAL. Apple should have opened their DRM a long time ago. If this was microsoft technology, everyone on this list would have applauded real for their bold move.

[applebum]

You want to tell me why I'm wrong instead of being snarky about my avatar noobie?!?

You know as well as I do that he can't prove you are wrong any more than you can prove you are right. What you are saying is simply opinion, and you are entitled to that. I can't help wondering if there are some logical reasons that Apple is not licensing Fairplay right now:

A. In their negotiations with the record companies they agreed not to license it for a specified period of time?

B. They have managed to squeeze out some profit from an endeavor that was not supposed to be profitalbe. As a result, they want to pursue that further and see if they can make it even more profitable (such as with deals with Motorolla). Sharing Fairplay certainly means they have given up on getting a profit from ITMS. It also means they are willing to relinquish their hold on the marketshare.

As a stockholder, I am sure you are aware that the reason your stock price has gone up so well is because of the strength of the iPod and the ITMS. Anything that hurts the appearance of their market dominance with those 2 products will send the stock price crashing.

[gorkonapple]

so i could reverse engineer microsoft office, and sell it as blahTools, and i'd be fine? that doesn't sound right.


Sure...OpenOffice.org and others have reverse engineered the .doc format and now it can open Office Documents. It's legal.

[3G4N]

1. Apple has full control over the iPod... which is what is important to the argument here. I don't care how many music stores there are, I can't use anything on my iPod but ITMS.

I'm so tired of hearing this. I can go to ANY local music store and buy ANY music that comes on CD, and use it on my iPod. A huge selection, and purdy darn easy too. Jeez, people, are we so narrow minded to think that iTMS is the ONLY place to get music? Go make a straw man to knock down, why don'tcha?

[wPod]

i think they should be nice and swap with each other. . . real can work on iPods and AAC can work on other players. what does it matter? apple makes most of its money off the iPods anyway. . . and come one is anyone really going to buy a less supirior product!!!! if all formats are compatible then one week i could get free music from the McDonals/real promo, the next week from Pepsi/iTunes promo, the next week Walmart/M$ promo. . . then i never have to pay for music!!!! or apple should be smart and license AAC so everyone starts using it! that way it becomes a standard and apple makes money even when others are selling the songs!!!

[gwangung]

Um guys?

Remember Quicktime? A key technology for iTMS?

Who are the competitors to Quicktime? Windows Media Player and....Real.

Hm. What to do, what to do....

[liketom]

well what can i say !!! i am really shocked that Real have done this , i have a good mind to deleate all of Real's software from my macs and never mutter there name ever again .
hey that would be kinda good to do, all mac users boycott Real player! that would P!** them off good and proper


Tom

[pbrennen]

Sure...OpenOffice.org and others have reverse engineered the .doc format and now it can open Office Documents. It's legal.did they copy the rest of the code of microsoft office?

[Grover]

I'm curious about how much work Real even had to do. The Hymn Project figured out how to strip FairPlay pretty quickly. The file format is well documented on their web site. I can't imagine it would have been hard for Real's people to either pick it up from there or repeat the work in a "clean room" environment. Instead of stripping the DRM they'd be looking to emulate it but, who knows, that may be even easier.

I don't know how the DMCA applies in this case. I haven't read enough to understand exactly how FairPlay or Harmony work but it does seem to me that Real is looking to get their own files to interoperate with Apple's hardware. That's different from helping iTunes customers to remove DRM from their files. They may not have had to actually crack FairPlay to interoperate with it.

That may be why Apple hasn't yet threatened legal action.

[Swift]

They don't want their DRM to be cracked, as this will cause problems with the labels. They don't want to file a suit, even though the DMCA plainly forbids "reverse engineering" to get around copy protection, because hardware/software companies are not that keen about those provisions, because of the stranglehold it gives to Hollywood. So it's a pickle.

:rolleyes:

[morkintosh]

I think Apple is clearly in the right here. I'm really a little shocked that Real would release something like this without first seeking some type of approval from Apple. Another brilliant business move from the notorious Real.

to be fair they did seek apple's approval and were more or less told to go to hell (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/07/20040725235143.shtml)

[space2go]

Nice. Not that Real can ever atone for Flash but nice.
But I don't understand why they would want a converter to Playfair and open a huge backdoor into their DRM schemes.

[ZildjianKX]

I'm so tired of hearing this. I can go to ANY local music store and buy ANY music that comes on CD, and use it on my iPod. A huge selection, and purdy darn easy too. Jeez, people, are we so narrow minded to think that iTMS is the ONLY place to get music? Go make a straw man to knock down, why don'tcha?

Jeez... I only buy my music in CD format for a reason ya know. I personally don't like the ITMS... it never has the music I want, it has DRM, and the bitrate is too low, but great idea that could be fantastic.

But my statement was meant that Apple has a closed market on the ONLINE music stores for the iPod... ya know that hot new trend of the future?

[rvernout]

Sorry, my fellow Mac fans, but Apple can only sue Real if Real is breaking Apple's Intellectual Property (copyright or patents) or the law (DCMA).

Now, Real will introduce software that is able to produce AAC files containing Real's own DRM. From the outside these files will behave exactly the same as the iPod expects from Apple's iTMS AAC/DRM files. The behaviour of files is not the subject of copyright. If Apple was unable to patent the behaviour of their AAC/DRM files, Real is safe there too.

Real discovered what behaviour the iPod expects from a file by reverse engineering the iPod software. This seems legal, also under DCMA, because they didn't reverse engineer the software in order to break the code of iTMS AAC/DRM files or to promote illegal copying, but to be able to produce their own compatible AAC/DRM files. Reverse engineering for compatibility, even of patented software, is legal because we all like a free and fair market. Real doesn't need to copy or mimic the iPod software itself, so there is no chance on infringement on copyrights or patents there.

So as long as the DRM encoding software of Real doesn't copy code or use patented technology in their software or in the files' behaviour they're perfectly safe and legal. One may assume that Real's lawyers investigated this matter thoroughly (although you may never know if Apple comes up with some "surprise" patent).

Further, it will extremely be difficult for Apple to change their DRM such that Real's files will be rejected by the iPod like they announced, without rejecting already sold iTMS files.

If Apple is not providing serious base for their charges soon they may even be sued for illegally obstructing the free market by falsely discouraging Real's customers to buy, and may be held liable for damages by Real.

This case is a bit similar to a case that arose here in Europe last couple of years about the "Senseo" home coffee brewer and its coffee pads (sort of disc shaped tea bags, but filled with coffee). The brewer was patented by a well known coffee producer (Sarah Lee/DE) in cooperation with Philips, but it turned out that the coffee pads that it uses could not be patented because coffee pads as such were already known (although never succesful for lack of a proper brewer). So once that was clear all other coffee producers started to sell (much cheaper) coffee pads for the brewer, which was found legal by the courts (at least in most countries; in some countries it is still not sorted out). Of course the patent owner was pissed of by this, because he expected to have a monopoly, and make a lot of money on the coffee pads, and therefore had sold millions of brewers very cheaply, even given them away in promotional actions. Wrong bet..... :D Apple's strategy is much better, by selling expensive hard drives (iPods) and cheap songs.... :) Heck, they shouldn't care who sells the songs....

[bitfactory]

i say go ahead and let them do it... then every month release a FP update that breaks it. it's on Real to update their 'licensed' Harmony components.

this is why i still think Real is blowing smoke. their online store is gasping for air, and threats are their last resort... before killing that crap store.

[sockgap]

I hate Real and all their crappy spyware infested buggy products.
Their audio sounds like it's coming through a kazoo and their video is jumpier than a kangaroo on crank.

But Apple are acting like lamers here - they have no moral right to prevent other music stores from selling iPod compatible songs. Apple are trying to maintain an illegal monopoly which may land them in a heap of trouble with the Justice Department one day. Apple should calm down and let other music stores sell compatible music.

BTW there is nothing wrong with reverse engineering. It breaks monopolies and ensures there are parallel sources for the stuff we want.

[bitfactory]

I hate Real and all their crappy spyware infested buggy products.
Their audio sounds like it's coming through a kazoo and their video is jumpier than a kangaroo on crank.

But Apple are acting like lamers here - they have no moral right to prevent other music stores from selling iPod compatible songs. Apple are trying to maintain an illegal monopoly which may land them in a heap of trouble with the Justice Department one day. Apple should calm down and let other music stores sell compatible music.

BTW there is nothing wrong with reverse engineering. It breaks monopolies and ensures there are parallel sources for the stuff we want.

there IS a problem with reverse-engineering something if you are going to turn around and "license" it - which leads me to believe they are going to CHARGE a FEE to companies who license it. i doubt it's free.

i can't reverse-engineer Konfabulator, then turn around and charge ... oh.. wait a second...










(folks that was just a joke - please don't go on about Konfabulator).

[Doctor Q]

Has Real responded yet to the statement by Apple?

[kntgsp]

I hate Real and all their crappy spyware infested buggy products.
Their audio sounds like it's coming through a kazoo and their video is jumpier than a kangaroo on crank.

But Apple are acting like lamers here - they have no moral right to prevent other music stores from selling iPod compatible songs. Apple are trying to maintain an illegal monopoly which may land them in a heap of trouble with the Justice Department one day. Apple should calm down and let other music stores sell compatible music.

BTW there is nothing wrong with reverse engineering. It breaks monopolies and ensures there are parallel sources for the stuff we want.

I agree Apple should liscense the AAC format out to other companies, at least that way they make some money. Companies will just keep reverse engineering the code. However Apple won't get in trouble for monopolizing if they keep changing the format so that Real Player falls behind everytime they reverse engineer (which is what they will do), because Apple is essentially creating a new format, not preventing other companies from accessing the existing format. They won't be forced to make the iPod Real Player compatible either since it's an Apple product. No one has forced Microsoft to make Windows in Linux or Unix, nor have they forced the Powerbook to support windows.... It's the same principle of software support on hardware.

Good post by the way sockgap

Real Player blows anyways, it's like a virus, infecting every part of your damn computer. And the software is buggy, system hogging, and sounds like a friggin' kazoo (to quote sockgap). Even if Real Player offered Ipod compatible songs, and I used my PC for my iPod I'd STILL use iTunes because the software and support is so much better. Real Player is a joke!

I just got my new 12" powerbook 10 min. ago. I'm in apple heaven :)
________________________________________________________________
12" Powerbook 1.33Ghz 512Ram, 80GB HD, SuperDrive/ 4Gen iPod/ Blue mini/

[DarkNovaMatter]

I don't know, but I am not exactly agreeing with Real's quote about being able to play songs on the ipod. 1st considering many other players/software have iPod syncing capabilities- WinAmp has a plug-in to sync with the ipod, and many others- open source or not. Heck they could even do DRM'ed files (just that it would have to be decoded before sent to the port that the iPod is connected to). So either they want to sell songs that can be used in iTunes (they're not trying to make you use their software?, considering how much real hid the link for their free player?), or else the have less then great ideas for reverse engineering. Considering doing a complete black box type enviorment for reverse engineering, making your software decode your format to it can be sent to the iPod and sent through the port- I think I would find the black box methoud to be more work. :confused:

[rok]

My, what backwards sight you use, do you drive using your rearview mirrors ROK? Try looking FORWARD now or pull your head out, whichever or both is clouding your vision!

actually, no, i don't but thanks for asking.

and my vision is not clouded. but if you think for one second that killing off clones was a mistake (part of your post i didn't quote), then you are either delusional and want to return to the days of 1997 when i couldn't even get up-to-date zip drivers and the stock price was in the toilet, or else you worked for powercomputing. so that's why, despite the cute animation, you'll be getting ignored by me from here on out.

anyway, let's see, is apple the only portable player out there? no.
is the FairPlay DRM the only format that plays on the iPod? no.
is anyone forcing anyone else to conform to Apple's iTMS t use said iPod? no.

what EXACTLY is the problem here? you want apple to do what you want so the stock price goes up? (you did say you were a stock holder, right?) well, let's see, the last time steve made a decision you didn't agree with (killing clones or alliance with microsoft for several versions of office), it seemed to increase your stock investment 1000% before it split. ah, but i bet you didn't actually BUY any money when things were tight and apple needed investors, did you? no. you just decided to hop in and make some money.

cute.

[applebum]

Some people really need to learn the definition of a monopoly and also when it can be applied. Hint - the ITMS is NOT a monopoly, nor is the iPod.

That being said, many people keeps saying that this move by Real will help to increase the sale of iPods. One question - HOW?

Right now what we know is that Real will have a music store that will offer songs for a price that can play on the iPod. They are providing nothing different than the ITMS already provides. If that is the case, how does this help iPod sales? Are you saying:

1. That there are a whole bunch of loyal Real customers that have sworn not to buy an iPod until they can put their Real music on it?

or

2. That there are a whole bunch of people that have sworn not to buy an iPod until there are at least 2 stores selling music?

Personally I don't think either of those is the case, so I ask again, how does the news by Real suddenly convince people to buy an iPod? And, if we can't count on increased iPod sales, there is absolutely no reason for Apple to help Real out and license Fairplay. In fact it would only hurt them buy reducing purchases from ITMS.

[Stewie]

Who do Real think they are? The "Oh, we never got Apple's approval, so we did it anyway!" tactic just won't work in court. Your right, no-one needs RealPlayer. Basically, Apple IS the music industry, and they are not going to let any one get in their way.

I remember when Apple WAS the home computer industry. But they failed to open up let others play in the Apple pool. Now we get by with our 2-3% of the market. The iPod and iTunes will suffer the same fate if Apple fails to invite others to come and play with them.

Apples lead is only as big as it is due to lack of real competition, but once MS get it's online store and music players in the market, Apple will suffer, unless they get other to use and accept the fairplay(AAC) format.

[darkwing]

I'm loving it. You guys all decry Microsoft and their attempts to make all their stuff proprietary, and then take the "little guy's" side when someone tries to get around Microsoft, but when Apple does the same thing you switch sides. :rolleyes:

Steve

[TRiPod]

Has Real responded yet to the statement by Apple?
yes, head over to macminute.com

[Oirectine]

I don't really care for any corporation, but since Real is so obviously in the wrong, I hope they get their ass handed to them in court.

I disagree completely. They may be legally wrong considering the DMCA, but I believe the DMCA is a horrible law and in this case, Apple is dead wrong. I love Apple, of course (I just bought my G4 iPod 6 days ago, and I've owned an iMac, and I currently own a PowerBook, which I love). I understand they are doing this to protect their financial interests and because the law is on their side. But I think that the laws prohibiting competition and personal use, such as the DMCA, have gone too far.

[MacCoaster]

I disagree completely. They may be legally wrong considering the DMCA, but I believe the DMCA is a horrible law and in this case, Apple is dead wrong. I love Apple, of course (I just bought my G4 iPod 6 days ago, and I've owned an iMac, and I currently own a PowerBook, which I love). I understand they are doing this to protect their financial interests and because the law is on their side. But I think that the laws prohibiting competition and personal use, such as the DMCA, have gone too far.
Problem is, Apple has a legal responsibility for their shareholders to try to get as much profit as they can, and that includes using whatever law that allows as such.

I haven't a final judgment, but I think I'm on Real with this, but we'll have to see.

[Oirectine]

I'm loving it. You guys all decry Microsoft and their attempts to make all their stuff proprietary, and then take the "little guy's" side when someone tries to get around Microsoft, but when Apple does the same thing you switch sides. :rolleyes:

Steve

Yeah, that's right. Does anyone think people shouldn't be allowed to mod Xboxes that people have bought with their OWN MONEY? Also, SAMBA, which reverse-engineers Microsoft's own SMB protocols, and which APPLE USES, is also reverse-engineered.

[Blue Velvet]

In other news Microsoft announced today that after a year of hard work and "the Longhorn smokescreen" they will be releasing Mac OSX Panther for windows instead. Codenamed Windows OSXP Panther, Microsoft admits to following in the footsteps of RealNetworks who recently made their way onto Apple's iPod using reverse engineering. "We knew Longhorn was *****, so we bought a copy of OSX reverse engineered it and recompiled it to run on windows, we think our customers will be very pleased" Microsoft also admits adding system instability, more frequent kernel panics, and a user favorite, the blue screen of death.

Steve Jobs was unavailable for comment since he had just sh@t on himself.

Very funny lol :D

[Doctor Q]

Real's full response is here (http://www.realnetworks.com/company/press/releases/2004/harmony_statement.html).

[whooleytoo]

That being said, many people keeps saying that this move by Real will help to increase the sale of iPods. One question - HOW?

Right now what we know is that Real will have a music store that will offer songs for a price that can play on the iPod. They are providing nothing different than the ITMS already provides. If that is the case, how does this help iPod sales? Are you saying:

1. That there are a whole bunch of loyal Real customers that have sworn not to buy an iPod until they can put their Real music on it?

or

2. That there are a whole bunch of people that have sworn not to buy an iPod until there are at least 2 stores selling music?


More like 3. There are people who won't buy an iPod since it only supports one online music store; who'll buy another music player which allows them to choose.

or 4. There are people (like myself) who are tired of Apple's attempts to limit choice, such as refusing to license Fairplay, or not allowing any other music service to play on the iPod, or (as is alleged) disabling WMA support on the iPod.

[dizastor]

In other news Microsoft announced today that after a year of hard work and "the Longhorn smokescreen" they will be releasing Mac OSX Panther for windows instead...

Update:In another arrogant and monopolistic move, Microsoft has purchased SourceForge, the leading repository of opensource software. "Now that we have ported MacOSX to the Intel platform, we have decided that we need to own all of the open source code that it was built upon". In traditional fashion, Microsoft is expected to open massive security holes in the Darwin core that powers Microsoft's New operating system "OSXP Panther" by the end of the week.

In a related story, they have renamed "Rendezvous" to "Microsoft Manual Network Configuration Plus". Microsoft claims to have improved rendezvous by disabling that annoying "auto-detect" feature, however in the current gold master of OSXP manual configuration causes all of your stored passwords to be emailed to a 5000 person spam marketing list. Microsoft has plans to address this issue in Microsoft OSXP SP1 Available in Q4 2007.

[Nermal]

The big angry apple giant bears its teeth and crushes the puny RealNetworks. Maybe now everyone will move from real to quicktime streaming!!!

I hope not, QuickTime is terrible for streaming.

[bubbagump]

Did anyone else just see CEO of Real, Glasner on CNBC? Pretty much he just said that they are doing just what Compaq did and he pretty much said our programmers are good, so Apple bring on the firmware changes. This is just a publicity stunt by Real. They have nothing to lose. Anyway, CNBC just said Apple believes it has little legal recourse, but they will probably regularly change the firmware.

In any case, while I am an Apple fanboy and love Apple products, if this forces Apple to increase quality to 192 kbits/s on ITMS, I am happy. Blow Real out of the water and start selling ALAC downloads on iTunes, even with the sucky DRM! No one in their right mind would download from Real with the uncertainty of Apple changing firmware.

MrBubba

[nationElectric]

did they copy the rest of the code of microsoft office?

You're missing the point. Nobody's copying code from anybody. Not openoffice, not real, not anybody. Despite how the term "reverse engineering" may sound, you don't "dissect" someone else's code or take pieces of it or anything like that.

Anything -- whether it's a file, or a network technology, or a piece of software, or whatever, has to behave in certain, tightly-defined ways. When you hear someone talk about a "file format" or "network protocol" or "api" (application programming interface), that's what they're talking about -- the set of predefined rules that something must conform to. Let's continue with the MS Word example (for sake of argument, we'll use the word 2000 file format.) Microsoft defined a file format for all word 2000 docs, and they probably defined it before anyone began developing word 2000. After all, if you've got dozens or hundreds of developers working on a common application, you'd better be sure they're on the same page. And hey, it would be nice if your team working on the excel project, or whatever, also has a universal blueprint they can refer to if they want to add word doc integration to their project. So someone sits down and defines a set of rules that all word 2000 files must conform to. If a file does not conform to all of these rules, or conforms to a different set of rules, it's not a word 2000 doc, period. If your program is supposed to be reading or writing word docs and it doesn't conform to these rules -- to this file format -- it's broken.

Well, guess what? You typically can't patent a file format, or copyright it, or legally protect it in any way. Sure, you don't have to publish the internal documents you wrote that describe it, you don't have to tell anyone how it works, you can keep it a secret -- and that's exactly what many companies do. But people are free to come along and look at the files that ms word produces and guess at how they work. They can't examine the code that goes into ms word itself, but they can absolutely look at what it produces. And if they look closely enough, and if they're clever enough, and if they spend enough time guessing and experimenting, they can figure out what rules define a word 2000 file. Then you write your own code that conforms to those rules. It's a long and tedious process, and it's usually an imperfect one -- that's part of the reason why apps like openoffice or whatever tend to be a little flaky when importing or exporting word docs. But it happens all the time, everybody does it, it's perfectly legal, it's perfectly honest, and it provides a welcome alternative for what is usually a minority of users. (After all, if all you want is to create nice-looking word docs, you're most likely to create them in... word.)

That's what real is doing. Or planning to do, anyway.

Here's a simpler way to think of it: there's what a piece of software does, and there's how it does it. The what is the file format or protocol or api; the how is the code itself. You can't copy the how, but you can figure out the what and create your own way, your own how, to do it. Once you've done that, once you've written your own software, it's yours -- just like any other software. You're free to give it away or license it or to do whatever you please with it. Because it's yours; not microsoft's or apple's or anybody else's.

Here's a discussion on the subject:

http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=159957

... Notice how nobody steals or copies anything.

[SandyL]

I think the issue that has Apple so concerned here, is not so much that Real decided it was going to reverse engineer a manner of placing non-FairPlay DRM files onto the iPod, but that it had announced its intentions of licensing the reverse-engineered software technology (read: Apple's intellectual property) to other vendors.
By your faulty logic, Samba in MacOS X is Microsoft's intellectual property.

[SandyL]

Yes, but stealing proprietary technology is not.
You mean like stealing Microsoft's proprietary technology by shipping Samba with MacOS X?

That doesn't negate their right and DUTY to protect it.
Hymn (http://www.hymn-project.org/) is hosted on a server in the US and Apple has not launched a lawsuit. So much for their DUTY.

[SandyL]

To be able to use Apple's implementation of FairPlay in one's product one must have a license from Apple to do so.
Fixed that for you. If someone writes their own implementation they don't need a license from Apple because Apple doesn't have any patents on FairPlay.

[Savage Henry]

Hymn (http://www.hymn-project.org/) is hosted on a server in the US and Apple has not launched a lawsuit. So much for their DUTY.

I don't think Apple are going to risk a rash impulsive movement, they have far too much riding on the pod/tunes market for it to fail.

[SandyL]

any bets as to whether real did this much effort?
No, RealNetworks probably did not, since someone else already reverse engineered FairPlay over 6 months ago (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/05/itunes_drm_cracked_wide_open/) (the "publicly available information" Real keeps mentioning to the press). Note that the clean room approach isn't needed for the reverse engineering to be legal. Just makes it easier to prove "We didn't copy any of your code. We wrote our own code." in case of a lawsuit.

[dudemac]

I absolutly love apple, but here they are wrong. I can see history repeating itself again in this venture. I would love to think that everyone would want to buy apples DRM. But the truth is that we really need to have "open" standards when it comes to music. Period. I don't have to figure out which LP I can play on my stereo, the same goes with tapes, or CD's. We need an open standard and apple needs to be willing to work with everyone to get that to happen. Until then digital is still too crippled to be mass marketed. mp3 is popular because it works everywhere. too bad record labels have a bad taste in their mouth for it. But there should be no compromise on the users part.

[elmimmo]

Apple states:We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the [...] ethics of a hackerNow, was that a compliment or what? I am impressed that people are so fond of an Apple company relaying onclosed standards for the sole purpose of getting people locked on their piece of cake. I thought it was the quality of Apple products that people was fond of. You do not like Real Music Store, you do not buy from it. It's that simple. Live and let live.

[SandyL]

Way to go REAL. Apple should have opened their DRM a long time ago. If this was microsoft technology, everyone on this list would have applauded real for their bold move.
Harmony also supports converting to Microsoft DRM format ("Supports iPod and 100's of other portable devices"). Funny how we don't see Microsoft issuing press releases about those evil hackers at RealNetworks (however, they probably have a license from Microsoft since MS does not refuse licensing their DRM).

[SandyL]

I'm curious about how much work Real even had to do. The Hymn Project figured out how to strip FairPlay pretty quickly.
Hymn is just a wrapper around code that was released 6 months ago (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/05/itunes_drm_cracked_wide_open/) (see hymn FAQ (http://hymn-project.org/docs/hymn-manual.html#acknowledgements)). For all we know RealNetworks has been planning and working on this project for quite a while. When they requested a FairPlay license a while ago, it could have been just to cover their ass in case of a lawsuit: "Your Honour, we tried to license FairPlay, but our request was denied. So we had no other option than to write our own implementation".


I don't know how the DMCA applies in this case.
I don't think it applies at all. DMCA covers circumvention (removing) of DRM. RealNetworks isn't doing that, they're adding DRM.

[ValiumLolliPoP]

You're not getting it....


If you were apple and a consumer bought an iPod and started downloading only from your own music store. You now have sucked a consumer in and locked them into your company. Now that Real developed Harmony, the apple consumer can go to Real and apple will never see a penny from them again. So if you were apple, would you want a one time payment from that customer? Or would you want a lifetime of charges being made from that consumer when they buy apple's music?

[reyesmac]

If Apple offers licenses at a very high price and then Real tries to circumvent the fair-play can't they can be sued for trying to steal something that Apple sells?

[Loge]

Firstly, I don't see why would other vendors try to license Harmony from Real, if Real had just used publicly available information. Why not just use that same information and implement their own version? In any event, the responsibility for future support of the playability of these files is not Apple's.

The much stated view that ITMS is not a profit centre, unlike the iPod, and that if this move leads to more sales of iPods it will help Apple, is short-sighted. In a few years time, the iPod will be a mature product and most likely sell on much lower margins. The money then will be made on on-line music distribution which I expect will assume much greater significance at the expense of CDs. This has enourmous potential in terms of geographical spread and available content. Currently the margins are very thin on on-line purchased music because the strongest competition now is from the file sharing networks.

The distinctive of Apple's approach is the integration - iPod, iTunes and (where available) ITMS. This is a strong reason why people buy iPods over other players which are often cheaper and have extra functionalilty. This is broken by Real's approach. I understand that while their Harmony tracks play on iPods, they don't play in iTunes and users are force into manual synchronisation. Apple have a duty to their stakeholders to protect what they have created.

Another likely consequence is that, although some record companies have indicated publicly they support Real's approach, in private they will be mad at Apple for providing (in their eyes) faulty DRM. Expect them to lobby strongly for tighter DRM next time they negotiate with Apple.

[SandyL]

Firstly, I don't see why would other vendors try to license Harmony from Real, if Real had just used publicly available information. Why not just use that same information and implement their own version?
Ask Apple why they licensed their AAC decoder and encoder from someone else instead of developing their own (AAC spec is open) from scratch and you'll have your answer.

[virividox]

SUE THEM SUE THEM

[space2go]

If Apple offers licenses at a very high price and then Real tries to circumvent the fair-play can't they can be sued for trying to steal something that Apple sells?

Some people sell oxygen. I extract it from air for free using a biological device (i like to call it a lung(TM)). Now do i steal something from oxygen-vendors?
SCNR

btw Harmony does not circumvent Fairplay as pointed out in this very same thread quite often.

[pbrennen]

Here's a simpler way to think of it: there's what a piece of software does, and there's how it does it. The what is the file format or protocol or api; the how is the code itself. You can't copy the how, but you can figure out the what and create your own way, your own how, to do it. Once you've done that, once you've written your own software, it's yours -- just like any other software. You're free to give it away or license it or to do whatever you please with it. Because it's yours; not microsoft's or apple's or anybody else's.

Here's a discussion on the subject:

http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=159957

... Notice how nobody steals or copies anything.but it seems real has stolen the how! the impression i get is that they are using apple's "how" of implementing fairplay as the basis of their own "how" for implementing harmony. fairplay is not a what, it's a how.

[shamino]

I will say it once more....reverse engineering is legal. End of story. If Real got a hold of some Apple code and used that, then their would be an issue.
And that ceased to be true the minute the DMCA was passed into law.

It is ilelgal to reverse engineer anything that is, or even claims to be a copy protection technology.

This is why DeCSS is illegal, even though the CSS encryption does nothing to prevent disc duplication (and does everything to prevent third parties from manufacturing DVD players without signing patent-royalty contracts.)

[Michael Vance]

I hate companies that try to create and enforce exclusiver standards. I hope Realsoft succeeds.

[shamino]

there IS a problem with reverse-engineering something if you are going to turn around and "license" it - which leads me to believe they are going to CHARGE a FEE to companies who license it. i doubt it's free.
In the absence of explicit legislation like DMCA, this is perfectly legal.

This is why companies like Pheonix were able to make clean-room copies of the IBM BIOS and license it to motherboard makers worldwide.

[notrubcram1]

I only read the first couple of pages of posts, but it seems to me that many of you are very shortsighted. Undoubtedly, Real weighed its options before going ahead and announcing Harmony. If they broke the law, they surely know it and they know they will be caught.

But this is what it boils down to:

Lawsuits can take years to complete, and I guarantee that if Apple files suit, Real will push for continuance after continuance. Until a judge tells them to stop telling Harmony songs, they will milk the technology for all they can. If they are forced to cease five years from now and must pay restitution, then so be it, but it'll probably be under different management anyway.

A lot of business practices are utilized only to turn in a quarterly profit before the lead management hoofs it the islands and its tax havens.

[shamino]

Hymn (http://www.hymn-project.org/) is hosted on a server in the US and Apple has not launched a lawsuit. So much for their DUTY.
When did this happen? Last I head, Apple did pursue legal action to shut down their US server, forcing them to re-host in India.

Did it move back since then?

[Analog Kid]

Another likely consequence is that, although some record companies have indicated publicly they support Real's approach, in private they will be mad at Apple for providing (in their eyes) faulty DRM. Expect them to lobby strongly for tighter DRM next time they negotiate with Apple.

Nahh... nothing faulty about it. They don't care who sells their stuff as long as it's by their rules.

If the labels don't like the scheme, they wouldn't license their material to Real. If the rumors surrounding the Europe iTMS were true, I don't think they'd mind anything breaking down Apple's dominance.

[Analog Kid]

The more I watch this, the more I realize how bad this is for Apple. I don't think they can legitimately win a lawsuit. That means they're going to be saddled with supporting Real's hacked DRM from now until the end of time unless they just go ahead and license FairPlay.

If they break Harmony now, it looks bad, it looks petty, people are going to complain about being roped into iTMS (as we're already hearing on this forum), and they'll come out with Harmony II.

If they don't stop it now, they're going to get into a situation down the line where, for example, FairPlay gets cracked and they have to change DRM schemes. If they don't come out of that still playing Real's music, people are going to be really pissed that the just lost their music investment.

No, this is bad for Apple all the way around...

[HenMaster6000]

Real has been saying that they created Harmony not through reverse engineering but by using "publicly available means". What are those means? Does any one know or is willing to make a guess? I was thinking it might have been the Windows iTunes SDK that apple released a couple months ago. Thoughts? :confused:

[paulwesley]

Regardless of legality, in the realm of public relations Apple is working against a long precedent of interoperability between softare and hardware. This is in both computers where hardware makers allow other companies to run their software on their machines (OS aside...), and in the music industry where a stereo will play CDs made by any company. By limiting the only DRM format that the ipod will play to its own fairplay, and not licensing it to others, they are breaking this precedent of interoperability. "Closed system" No one else can play their own DRM format on the iPod, no one else can sell songs in Apple's

This works fine until it becomes a public relations liability... when Joe Public resent the lack of choice and starts buying other players, and visiting other stores. This seems to be the game Real is playing, and it will become a bigger deal when MS and Sony get in the market.

It seems to me that the only reason apple wouldn't level the playing field and license fairplay is that they are afraid they can't compete in the long run without the store helping out the player and vice versa. They are milking their advantage as long as they can, and hoping they can compete with the big players when this market becomes commodified...

I just hope it won't backfire on them. They can always license at any point, the tough part will be the timing. If MS starts selling players for half the cost and/or songs for $0.50 ... who knows...

[cheekyspanky]

In other news Microsoft announced today that after a year of hard work and "the Longhorn smokescreen" they will be releasing Mac OSX Panther for windows instead. Codenamed Windows OSXP Panther, Microsoft admits to following in the footsteps of RealNetworks who recently made their way onto Apple's iPod using reverse engineering. "We knew Longhorn was *****, so we bought a copy of OSX reverse engineered it and recompiled it to run on windows, we think our customers will be very pleased" Microsoft also admits adding system instability, more frequent kernel panics, and a user favorite, the blue screen of death.

Steve Jobs was unavailable for comment since he had just sh@t on himself.

Wouldn't it be more like Microsoft releasing Windows on the Mac platform after looking at the intricacies of the Mac and then altering Windows to make it work? As opposed to releasing OS X on their own platform...?

[dizastor]

Wouldn't it be more like Microsoft releasing Windows on the Mac platform after looking at the intricacies of the Mac and then altering Windows to make it work? As opposed to releasing OS X on their own platform...?

nope, it would be like Microsoft asking Apple to license them the OSX technology, and when Apple denies their request they go ahead and do it anyway.

[blufire]

I read (in articles when Real announced Harmony) that Real Networks' CEO had attempted to contact Steve Jobs several times about licensing FairPlay before going ahead with iPod compatibility in Harmony. Therefore I think Real is not COMPLETELY in the wrong. Furthermore, Apple reverse-engineered the original Mac OS and the mouse from Xerox PARC's project. "Better to be a pirate than to be in the navy." It's too bad that Apple can no longer afford to hold its rebellious principles in light of today's tangled legal system. :P

That said, I can understand Apple's reluctance to license FairPlay. The only reason Apple would feel threatened is because then people would have an alternative to the iTMS to purchase songs. And that circumvents Steve Jobs' strategy. iPod + iTMS = income. However, Apple COULD have at least replied to Real's CEO. sigh.

[bubbagump]

Well, if Apple really wants to lay the smack down on Real, I am guessing they could implement some sort of public key encryption thing, where by the very serial number of the iPod Apple could encode all purchases from ITMS for that iPod. Hence, without this encryption key, no one could break into the ITMS service. Oh, an I guess they could update the keys every few months with a new firmware upgrade, no there would be no chance of Real every breaking this. To kick this off, Apple would up the bitrate on all of their songs, with some marketing talk that one needs the new firmware to get the higher bitrate songs on to his or her iPod. This encryption would only affect play on the iPod, and not screw up anything else.

Or, Apple could just forget about this, up their bitrate, and pump out a lot of advertising, realizing no one have ever heard of Real outside of the geek community there days.

MrBubba

[jocknerd]

I absolutly love apple, but here they are wrong. I can see history repeating itself again in this venture. I would love to think that everyone would want to buy apples DRM. But the truth is that we really need to have "open" standards when it comes to music. Period. I don't have to figure out which LP I can play on my stereo, the same goes with tapes, or CD's. We need an open standard and apple needs to be willing to work with everyone to get that to happen. Until then digital is still too crippled to be mass marketed. mp3 is popular because it works everywhere. too bad record labels have a bad taste in their mouth for it. But there should be no compromise on the users part.

Totally agree with you. Music SHOULD use open standards. I'll go further. When I say open standards, I don't mean Apple's definition for AAC. I don't consider AAC to be open. If I want to write an encoder and use AAC, and I have to spend $20,000 to license AAC, its not open in my opinion. The only true open formats to my knowledge are Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, and a couple other lossless formats. MP3 is not even open. They were the first, but the Frauhofer Institute is now licensing MP3. So if it requires you to purchase a license, once again its not open. Ogg Vorbis is being used in most of the games today. And it runs on just about every platform. But wait, Apple doesn't want to support it. It seems that Apple went to bed with Dolby and want to push AAC and whatever this lossless format they've come up with.

I, for one, have stopped purchasing music off of iTMS. I just get an uneasy feeling knowing my music has digital rights on it. And I won't be buying any CD's that have copy protection on them either.

[scibry]

Let's wait and see what Harmony really is.

Meanwhile, look at how Apple has created perhaps the most successful $1 store of today.

[Artimus]

If it was Microsoft bullying someone like this you'd be on them like hyenas on a dead zebra. This is ridiculous. You pay 400 bucks and are then forced to only buy music from them. What happened to Apple's constant anti-Big Brother ideals? Gone. This is no worse than M$. :rolleyes:

[Viv]

Let's wait and see what Harmony really is.

Meanwhile, look at how Apple has created perhaps the most successful $1 store of today.

$1 store that made me laugh:-) thats freacking priceless, thankyou lol

Viv

[Viv]

If it was Microsoft bullying someone like this you'd be on them like hyenas on a dead zebra. This is ridiculous. You pay 400 bucks and are then forced to only buy music from them. What happened to Apple's constant anti-Big Brother ideals? Gone. This is no worse than M$. :rolleyes:

Ok too many beers but come on this is one extreme to the other, we have the leading design company at one end and we have the crapest of the crap companys at the other.

Real are crap with a capital Crap how can we tolerate them being on our IPods?

Viv:-)

[mustang_dvs]

By your faulty logic, Samba in MacOS X is Microsoft's intellectual property.

A moronic noob shooting their mouth off about something they know nothing about. What an original concept.

Samba (http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/SambaIntro.html) is an Open-Source implementation of the Microsoft-established standard known as the Common Internet File System (CIFS). Samba, which only operates on UNIX-based systems, allows *NIX OS's to interface with Windows clients and servers via the Server Message Block (SMB) protocol, a portion of Microsoft's CIFS standard. It doesn't compete with Microsoft's software in an MS OS and it didn't rely on Microsoft's codebase as a functional basis.

Unlike Harmony, which competes with Apple's own technology by relying on Apple's intellectual property, Samba allowed Microsoft to expand it's user base, by allowing it's servers and clients to work side-by-side with UNIX servers and workstations.

Furthermore, Samba is free... Real wants to charge a fee for other software and hardware vendors to use Harmony to perform and end-run around Apple's technology.

MacMinute: RealNetworks in discussion to license Harmony (http://www.macminute.com/2004/07/29/real)
CNN Money: Apple's Real Problem (Real's Licensing Plans) (http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/28/technology/techinvestor/hellweg/index.htm)

[mustang_dvs]

Furthermore, Apple reverse-engineered the original Mac OS and the mouse from Xerox PARC's project. "Better to be a pirate than to be in the navy." It's too bad that Apple can no longer afford to hold its rebellious principles in light of today's tangled legal system.

Once and for all: Apple didn't copy anything from Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center.

Yes, the Xerox Alto used a graphical interface and mouse, as did the later Xerox Star (aka the 8010), which also introduced the basic concept of the desktop metaphor and local ethernet-based networking. Xerox's GUI did not allow windows to overlap, users to manipulate objects and files within the OS via the mouse, nor did it provide a fixed menu bar. Furthermore, the Xerox's PARC OS systems were highly dependent upon the use of mouse button 'chording' and was not exactly what one would term 'user friendly.'

Yes, the broad concepts found in Xerox's developments did influence Jobs and the Lisa OS, and were a very basic influence on the Macintosh Operating System, but to say that they copied, stole or reverse engineered Xerox's work belies a basic misunderstanding of the facts.


Xerox Alto Archive (http://www.spies.com/~aek/alto/)
Xerox Alto OS (http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/alto.html) (with pictures)
Xerox PARC history (http://www.parc.xerox.com/about/history/default.html)
Other Alto Resources (http://www.digibarn.com/collections/systems/xerox-alto/)

[JGowan]

The more I watch this, the more I realize how bad this is for Apple ... If they break Harmony now, it looks bad, it looks petty ... No, this is bad for Apple all the way around...I don't think it looks as bad as you think it does. I said HIP HIP HURRAY when I saw Apple's retort to these goings-on. And when they gave REAL and REAL's customers fair warning about getting locked out of the ipod, I was so happy that they weren't going to be put over the barrel on this.

Whatever is said, REAL is playing dirty pool. Firstly, it was IDIOTIC for REAL to try and "negotiate" via an EMAIL and then was even trying to play hard ball even at that point (again, via an EMAIL!) How STUPID! Now for them to go ahead with this even though Apple is going to make sure that their cheese gets left out in the wind, it's just PATHETIC!

No,... I think it's Apple's DUTY to stand up and say NO! Say NO to REAL and say NO to their customers. REAL's attitude is "we're doing this with or without you" and Apple is RIGHT in saying "We'll just see about that"!

The last time I checked, Steve Jobs was still in charge of Apple Computer. Not some wannabe nerd from REAL.

:: seeing red!! ::

[superbovine]

Good thing Apple started out with making Blue boxes.

[vienna@unc.edu]

I see a lot of opinions about what people should be able to do with their own iPods. On the one hand I agree that if you own an iPod, then it is yours and you should be able to do as you wish with it. On the other hand most people knew when they bought their iPods that they only worked with one download service, and they bought them anyway. It's not even as though at the time of purchase that there was even the possibility of other online music stores becoming available to iPods in the future (unless you work for Real in which case you might have had insider info.). So with that in mind isn't complaining after the fact like 'moving the goal posts' - hey, it was good enough when I bought my iPod but it's not now.

Funny thing is that all the people who are complaining about being tied to iTMS, do you think you'll be better off using Real's alternative ?

The people who are complaining about the iPod being a closed system have a point but Real's Harmony does not open it. It only open's it to Real and potentially anyone that they license it to. If Real really believed that closed systems were a bad thing then they should give Harmony technology away as freeware so anyone could use it for anything without license fees.

As it is, Real just looks like a hypocrite who are attempting to piggy back off Apple's iPod success. I like Apple but I don't believe they 'walk on water' - but this Real thing just leaves a bad taste.

[NeoMayhem]

Apple needs to reverse engineer the real audio/video formats and make them opensource and part of quicktime. Then we can all laugh when real threatens apple. Hahaha...

[Windowlicker]

In other news Microsoft announced today that after a year of hard work and "the Longhorn smokescreen" they will be releasing Mac OSX Panther for windows instead. Codenamed Windows OSXP Panther, Microsoft admits to following in the footsteps of RealNetworks who recently made their way onto Apple's iPod using reverse engineering. "We knew Longhorn was *****, so we bought a copy of OSX reverse engineered it and recompiled it to run on windows, we think our customers will be very pleased" Microsoft also admits adding system instability, more frequent kernel panics, and a user favorite, the blue screen of death.

Steve Jobs was unavailable for comment since he had just sh@t on himself.

haha! how did you come up with that? you made my morning so much brighter :)

[Loge]

Anyone know what rights you get with these tracks purchased from Real? - I mean how many computers can you play them on, how many times you can burn to CD etc.

[SandyL]

When did this happen? Last I head, Apple did pursue legal action to shut down their US server, forcing them to re-host in India.

Did it move back since then?
Apple also forced them off the server in India, and shortly after that they moved back to a server in the US. About 3 months ago.

[SandyL]

A moronic noob shooting their mouth off about something they know nothing about. What an original concept.

Samba (http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/SambaIntro.html) is an Open-Source implementation of the Microsoft-established standard known as the Common Internet File System (CIFS). Samba, which only operates on UNIX-based systems, allows *NIX OS's to interface with Windows clients and servers via the Server Message Block (SMB) protocol, a portion of Microsoft's CIFS standard. It doesn't compete with Microsoft's software in an MS OS and it didn't rely on Microsoft's codebase as a functional basis.
There's no evidence that Harmony relies on Apple's codebase as a functional basis.

Unlike Harmony, which competes with Apple's own technology by relying on Apple's intellectual property, Samba allowed Microsoft to expand it's user base, by allowing it's servers and clients to work side-by-side with UNIX servers and workstations.
Which Apple copyrighted code or patented technique does Harmony rely on and thus infringe? Your failure to point this out makes you the noob shooting your mouth off about something you know nothing about.

[Windowlicker]

No Real have got fed up being left out in the cold (anyone actually bought a track off their store ?), and have decided to forcibly break and enter the iPod party. Oh, and the iPod isn't 'closed' - it plays MP3 just fine thanks. Just that you need to use Apple's DRM - and Apple aint giving you it.

i just went to the realnetworks site and were unable to even find a link to their music store :Q ....they wanna sell music? maybe better put the link on the front page if they want customers. now there's just a link for consumers and under the link are descriptions that include "music store".

the store is dead already. i'm curious to see how many tracks they get sold in one year ;D

[montex]

Real's attempt to hack the iPod is a desperate ploy by a dying company. It's sad, actually, watching them wither away. I may have felt differently about this if the Real video player didn't suck so bad.

[Windowlicker]

This is a mistake. It's not iTMS that makes money, it's the iPod. Anything that promotes the iPod should be encouraged.

I think Appple might regret this in the future.

remember a product named Windows? there was this kind of a situation in the 80's... if apple just lets things pass by, they'll be outta businezz in no time. (this was a pretty black&white point of view, but that's pretty much what I think)

[Windowlicker]

I hope not, QuickTime is terrible for streaming.

not really.. i'm on ISDN and the buffering system on QT works better than anything for me (winplayer or real).

[superbovine]

Apple needs to reverse engineer the real audio/video formats and make them opensource and part of quicktime. Then we can all laugh when real threatens apple. Hahaha...

why would you bother to reverse engineer something ****ty.

[rdowns]

Not at all ironic.

Real will be offering new Mac software. That's good news for Mac fans.
This will mean iPod owners can play songs from other music stores alongside songs from iTMS. That's good news for iPod fans.

While Apple are more likely to make money because of this than lose it (more iPod sales vs fewer iTMS sales), they'll object as it might mean they have less control over the iPod. Which is unlikely, as they can probably break Harmony's compatibility on a whim, if they choose to do so.

Even if you don't use Harmony, choice can only be a good thing. In fact, I'd love to see anyone put together a cohesive argument why the availability of Harmony hurts me, as a Mac and iPod owner. How could I possibly be better off if it didn't exist? Why is the lack of choice a good thing?

YOUR issue is the lack or availability of consumer choice. I don't think anyone would argue that more choice is a bad thing. I see no way that Harmony hurts a Mac/iPod owner. As a Mac and iPod owner, I like more choices.

APPLE'S issue is clearly a different one. They are concerned with their business and technology. As an Apple stockholder (650 shares), I don't like Real trying to crash Apple's party.

You have to wonder about Real's timing of this announcement. Just a day or two after it, they announced yet another loss. About $5 million IIRC.

[rdowns]

This may sound like playing the devil's advocate, but we face a serious problem of many TV and news organizations only offering online videos of news events in Real and Windows Mediaplayer. Very few offer Quicktime based videos. This even though Quicktime Broadcaster is free from Apple. I honestly believe it would be better for Apple to embrace Real's search for better compatibility between the iPod and Real's software because the next step would be to have better website support from these media outlets that embed video on their website. It is a give and take world, and if Apple is willing to give a little, they'll be able to make Mac marginalization less. Real has a dominance in its own industry. Real's willingness to open its doors and asking Apple do the same should be something Apple should embrace, and not shy away from. Granted Real's tactics at doing this are a bit disingenuous, but the net result is the same. Real earlier offered a partnership with Apple and Apple didn't want it. Now they want to be on the iPod, and are willing to make inroads to do it. What good is a digital hub with only one spoke?

The computer is the digital hub, the iPod is a spoke.

[rdowns]

apple makes most of its money off the iPods anyway. . . and come one is anyone really going to buy a less supirior product!!!!

WRONG! Apple still earns the vast majority of their revenue and profits from the Macintosh.

[wiz7dome]

I understand the argument about having more choice, but it seems that people forgot that iTunes reinvented the music download market. Its not as if iTunes became successful in an already successful market. People I know who are looking to buy an iPod are not asking themselves "Hmm....can I play songs from Walmart's download store?" Actually this is a rehash of the same arguments we heard when Buymusic.com was launched. "If you buy an iPod your not going to be compatible with all of the music download services" OK, except that EVERYBODY knows that every online music is playing catch up to iTunes.

I dont see the iPod anywhere being closed like some are reporting. Anybody can create an Mp3 file and play it back on the iPod. Real is indeed tring to "jump on the bandwagon" by end-zoning licensing Fairplay from Apple.

[Viv]

Is the new sony walkman compatible with other stores? we are all arguing about the IPod but did Sony go for compatibility with their player or their music catologue.

Viv

[whooleytoo]

YOUR issue is the lack or availability of consumer choice. I don't think anyone would argue that more choice is a bad thing. I see no way that Harmony hurts a Mac/iPod owner. As a Mac and iPod owner, I like more choices.


Judging by some of the passionate arguments here, some posters do seem genuinely upset at this new choice being made available.. strange.


APPLE'S issue is clearly a different one. They are concerned with their business and technology. As an Apple stockholder (650 shares), I don't like Real trying to crash Apple's party.

That's perfectly fair. But to be honest, I'd be gobsmacked if Apple's share price (or market share) suffers because of Harmony. In fact, I think Apple could benefit from the iPod being seen as a more open platform. The competition here could benefit both parties; and consumers too.

I absolutely love the convenience and selection of iTunes (even though I can't buy from it yet), and am on my second iPod; but there's no way I'm going to start building a collection of iTMS music with Apple keeping such tight reins on whose devices I can listen to it on. The Motorola deal is an impressive move in the right direction, but I still am at the mercy of Apple when they choose which select devices I can play with.

And I'm far from alone here. I believe a lot of people will refrain from online music stores until I can "buy once, play on any device". And these customers who are staying away from online music sales are hurting Apple far more than Real and Harmony, IMO.


You have to wonder about Real's timing of this announcement. Just a day or two after it, they announced yet another loss. About $5 million IIRC.

Absolutely agreed there - QuickTime is encroaching on it's streaming market, iTMS is dominating online music sales - and there are too many conflicting music formats/DRM standards. Unless something changes, I can see Real starting to fade PDQ.

[JGowan]

apple makes most of its money off the iPods anyway. . . and come one is anyone really going to buy a less supirior product!!!!

WRONG! Apple still earns the vast majority of their revenue and profits from the Macintosh.

He MEANT that of the ITUNES MUSIC STORE and the IPOD, Apple makes its real money from selling ipods, not music from the store.

It was pretty obvious because we've been discussing both for 9 pages and 200+ comments.

[whooleytoo]

Is the new sony walkman compatible with other stores? we are all arguing about the IPod but did Sony go for compatibility with their player or their music catologue.

No, and that's the main reason why it's going to flop.

[MacCoaster]

When I say open standards, I don't mean Apple's definition for AAC. I don't consider AAC to be open. If I want to write an encoder and use AAC, and I have to spend $20,000 to license AAC, its not open in my opinion.
Where did you read this? This is not necessarily true. Read the AAC FAQ (http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/licenseFAQ.html).

Do you charge use fees for AAC?
No. Royalties are due on the sale of AAC encoders and/or decoders only.
Seems like if you do free tools, you might not need be subject to the license.
Who needs to license MPEG-4 AAC patents?
An MPEG-4 AAC patent license is required for manufacturers or developers of complete (or substantially complete) end-user encoder and/or decoder products, or for manufacturers/developers of component encoder and/or decoder products that are provided directly to end-users.
This conflicts with the first question. This time it doesn't even say anything about requiring the program to be non-free.

If anyone could research this further, that'd be great. I know Real uses AAC, but did they license it from VIA Licensing?

[shamino]

AAC FAQ (http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/licenseFAQ.html).

Do you charge use fees for AAC?
No. Royalties are due on the sale of AAC encoders and/or decoders only.
Seems like if you do free tools, you might not need be subject to the license.

This paragraph is talking about recurring fees. It is saying that there is no charge to use AAC. People using AAC-based products don't need to pay ongoing royalties. People selling devices/software need to pay a per-unit royalty.


Who needs to license MPEG-4 AAC patents?
An MPEG-4 AAC patent license is required for manufacturers or developers of complete (or substantially complete) end-user encoder and/or decoder products, or for manufacturers/developers of component encoder and/or decoder products that are provided directly to end-users.

This conflicts with the first question. This time it doesn't even say anything about requiring the program to be non-free.
No conflict.

The second paragraph is talking about patent licenses. This is a one-shot fee for developing AAC-based tools. The first paragraph is talking about per-unit recurring fees for selling AAC-based products.

There's a one-shot fee (of $15,000) to get a patent license. Once you have that, you can make all the AAC products you want, owing royalties on the number of "channels" shipped, pricing, and whether your product is professional or not. (A "channel" is one audio channel. So a mono device has lower royalties than a stereo device, which has lower royalties than a 6.1 surround device.)

[broken_keyboard]

I have to come down on Apple's side here. They made a custom file format for the iPod and Real asked if they could license it and Apple said no.

Real can not now turn around and say that copying the format is not stealing, since they implicity acknowledged that it is Apple's property when they asked if they could license it. Their CEO even wrote an email!

[MacCoaster]

This paragraph is talking about recurring fees. It is saying that there is no charge to use AAC. People using AAC-based products don't need to pay ongoing royalties. People selling devices/software need to pay a per-unit royalty.

No conflict.

The second paragraph is talking about patent licenses. This is a one-shot fee for developing AAC-based tools. The first paragraph is talking about per-unit recurring fees for selling AAC-based products.

There's a one-shot fee (of $15,000) to get a patent license. Once you have that, you can make all the AAC products you want, owing royalties on the number of "channels" shipped, pricing, and whether your product is professional or not. (A "channel" is one audio channel. So a mono device has lower royalties than a stereo device, which has lower royalties than a 6.1 surround device.)
That's not my point. I fully understand that if I wanted to rip a CD to AAC, that's my right to via iTunes without having to pay royalties, as Apple has done that already. My point was in the first question the answer said "selling encoders/decoders"... note: selling. What about those free open source programs? That was my point. When I said "If you do," I meant, "If you program." Please tell me if you need any further clarification.

[space2go]

I have to come down on Apple's side here. They made a custom file format for the iPod and Real asked if they could license it and Apple said no.

Real can not now turn around and say that copying the format is not stealing, since they implicity acknowledged that it is Apple's property when they asked if they could license it. Their CEO even wrote an email!

How about another theory:
Real knew that what they were going to do was legal, knew that Apple might try and sue anyway and wanted to know what a license would cost to find the cheapest way to get their DRM'ed stuff to play on the iPod.

[manu chao]

To start with the basics:
- AAC is an open standard, everybody is allowed to use it.
- I guess everybody is allowed to modify the AAC file format in a way to add a DRM mechanism to it (Apple did it, and the Dolby Labs did not complain).
- When you buy an iPod you are (or let's say you should be) allowed to play any songs on it, from whoever you obtained them (assuming you obtained them legally).
- Apple is certainly not required to provide support for all file formats (e.g. WMF), but having a wide a choice certainly makes the iPod more appealling.
- You can right now play Fairplay-AACs on as many iPods as you like, in other words the owner of the iPod does not have to be owner of the songs. You can place any Fairplay-AAC on any iPod and it works.

So, why should Real not be allowed to place their own version of DRMed AACs on the iPod (violation of DRM patents notwithstanding)?

They just added a quirk to their DRMed AACs, so that they can be played on iPods as well, and not just with the RealPlayer, by allowing the song to be played even if no DRM control mechanism (as there is in the RealPlayer) is present, as it is the case on the iPod.

Apple could easily break this via technological means, but this would be akin to blocking all MP3s which have been created on a Windows maschine. They could do this, no legal barriers to that but I guess everybody would consider such a thing unfair and unneccessary.

[shamino]

That's not my point. I fully understand that if I wanted to rip a CD to AAC, that's my right to via iTunes without having to pay royalties, as Apple has done that already. My point was in the first question the answer said "selling encoders/decoders"... note: selling. What about those free open source programs? That was my point. When I said "If you do," I meant, "If you program." Please tell me if you need any further clarification.
I already wrote that.

If you make a free program, you won't have to pay royalties. But you will have to pay a one-time patent license fee.

The patent license is a flat fee, not a function of how much money you make selling your product.

The two paragraphs you quoted are referring to two completely different fees. One is tied to sales and the other is not.

[MacCoaster]

I already wrote that.

If you make a free program, you won't have to pay royalties. But you will have to pay a one-time patent license fee.

The patent license is a flat fee, not a function of how much money you make selling your product.

The two paragraphs you quoted are referring to two completely different fees. One is tied to sales and the other is not.
Ah. That's quite a set back for an open source project, no?

Thanks for the clarification.

[shamino]

To start with the basics:
- AAC is an open standard, everybody is allowed to use it.
Everyone can buy a license. It's not free, however. (Note that MP3 isn't free either - it is also covered by patent licenses. The only reason it's freely used is that nobody has bothered to sue shareware authors yet.)
- I guess everybody is allowed to modify the AAC file format in a way to add a DRM mechanism to it (Apple did it, and the Dolby Labs did not complain).
DRM doesn't change a file format.

You can add DRM to anything - even plain text - if you like. It's just a matter of encrypting some/all of the data and appending a certificate describing the license terms. Authorized players/viewers will respect the terms in the certificate. The encryption prevents the use of unauthorized players/viewers.

Apple could have put their DRM on top of MP3 if they wanted to. They chose AAC because it sounds better (and interoperability is no longer a concern once you've wrapped DRM around a standard format.)
- When you buy an iPod you are (or let's say you should be) allowed to play any songs on it, from whoever you obtained them (assuming you obtained them legally).
This is very misleading and incorrect.

Nobody is saying that Real can't distribute iPod-compatible songs. They can distribute non-DRM songs if they want and absolutely nobdy will complain. This entire argument is about their reverse-engineering Apple's DRM. But the iPod will not prevent you from playing non-DRM files (unlike players from some other vendors.)

Second, your claim that you should be able to play any songs on it is far too broad. Using this argument, you may as well say that Apple is evil for not supporting Ogg/Vorbis, or FLAC, or WMA, or some other unsupported CODEC. Every product manufactured has a limit to its feature set. Saying that there should never be a limit is rather naive.
- Apple is certainly not required to provide support for all file formats (e.g. WMF), but having a wide a choice certainly makes the iPod more appealling.
A wider selection is definitely better, but that's very different from saying it should be able to play everything you have.

From a product standpoint, there's more to it than just supporting what people ask for. Each new CODEC has development, testing and support costs. It may also cause hardware changes if the existing chipsets don't have enough power/memory to handle everything.
- You can right now play Fairplay-AACs on as many iPods as you like, in other words the owner of the iPod does not have to be owner of the songs. You can place any Fairplay-AAC on any iPod and it works.
... as dictated by the terms of the Fairplay DRM.
So, why should Real not be allowed to place their own version of DRMed AACs on the iPod (violation of DRM patents notwithstanding)?
Ummmm.... because Fairplay is Apple's intellectual property and others have no right to use it without a license?

Because reverse-engineering any DRM scheme is prohibited by the DMCA laws?
They just added a quirk to their DRMed AACs, so that they can be played on iPods as well, and not just with the RealPlayer, by allowing the song to be played even if no DRM control mechanism (as there is in the RealPlayer) is present, as it is the case on the iPod.
Maybe. That's what Real is claiming. It's not necessarily true. I haven't seen any technical analysis of Harmony-protected files yet.
Apple could easily break this via technological means, but this would be akin to blocking all MP3s which have been created on a Windows maschine. They could do this, no legal barriers to that but I guess everybody would consider such a thing unfair and unneccessary.
Or similar to changing undocumented APIs in OS updates in order to break programs that violate the rules. Which Apple has done many times in the past. And which most developers today approve of, because it kept Apple out of the trap of having to be backwards-compatible with broken code (one of the things that's hurt Windows over the years.)

[benpatient]

i see no difference between compaq reverse engineering the IBM PC and real reverse engineering Fairplay.

The results can be the same despite a totally different processes.

Do you know how AMD got into the x86 business?

yup.

If Real did a GOOD job building Harmony, then Apple won't be able to block out Harmony-only files...They're on a slippery slope even if they can...if a court rules that Harmony isn't violating a copyright (which they almost certainly would), then if apple makes a change to intentionally cripple a competitor's product, Real & Co. could sue apple!

That would be sad, and ironic.

[Manowatt]

what happen?

:confused:

[manu chao]

- When you buy an iPod you are (or let's say you should be) allowed to play any songs on it, from whoever you obtained them (assuming you obtained them legally).

This is very misleading and incorrect.

Nobody is saying that Real can't distribute iPod-compatible songs. They can distribute non-DRM songs if they want and absolutely nobdy will complain. This entire argument is about their reverse-engineering Apple's DRM. But the iPod will not prevent you from playing non-DRM files (unlike players from some other vendors.)

Second, your claim that you should be able to play any songs on it is far too broad. Using this argument, you may as well say that Apple is evil for not supporting Ogg/Vorbis, or FLAC, or WMA, or some other unsupported CODEC. Every product manufactured has a limit to its feature set. Saying that there should never be a limit is rather naive.
A wider selection is definitely better, but that's very different from saying it should be able to play everything you have.

I naturally meant "any songs HAVING A FILE FORMAT SUPPORTED BY THE IPOD", and AAC is a supported file format on the iPod and as you said before adding the DRM does not change the file format.


Ummmm.... because Fairplay is Apple's intellectual property and others have no right to use it without a license?

As I said patent issues notwithstanding, if Real is violating any patent rules then Apple can and should sue them (or negociate license fees).


Maybe. That's what Real is claiming. It's not necessarily true. I haven't seen any technical analysis of Harmony-protected files yet.

Can't anybody give them the benefit of the doubt? If not so they gonna be thrashed in court anyway.


Or similar to changing undocumented APIs in OS updates in order to break programs that violate the rules. Which Apple has done many times in the past. And which most developers today approve of, because it kept Apple out of the trap of having to be backwards-compatible with broken code (one of the things that's hurt Windows over the years.)

AAC is a standard (even if it is not a free one), if Real does not adhere to it fine, kick them out.
But should Apple refuse to let you play copy-protected CDs because they are not Red Book compatible, so you don't have to blame Apple if they crash your computer.

[iMeowbot]

Do you know how AMD got into the x86 business?

yup.
Nope. AMD had a second-source agreement with intel for many years. Up into the 486 generation, they were given access to the source materials. At that point intel decided they wanted all the business for themselves, but lost a court challenge intended to accomplish that. The instruction sets for later generations of 32-bit x86 processors really haven't evolved that much, and borrowing back and forth between intel and AMD has been about equal.

Really, by now intel had done more of the borrowing, since AMD's 64-bit revisions were rather substantial.

[iMeowbot]

what happen?

:confused:
Somebody set up iPod the bomb.

[Manowatt]

Somebody set up iPod the bomb.

I like to having funs!

;)

[HarbV7.0]

Somebody set up iPod the bomb.



All your iPod are belong to us! (http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase/video3.shtml)

[shamino]

i see no difference between compaq reverse engineering the IBM PC and real reverse engineering Fairplay.
Except that a lot of laws were rewritten in the last 30 years.

[iMeowbot]

All your iPod are belong to us! (http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase/video3.shtml)
http://homepage.mac.com/imeowbot/mr/zero-pod.gif

[dizastor]

haha! how did you come up with that? you made my morning so much brighter :)


Dimentia mostly. A little bit of schizophrenia as well.

[NeoMayhem]

File formats CAN be patented. That is why there is no legal way to encode things like gifs, mp3's aac's or mpeg2 for free in your apps. You have to license the technology to do it. Apple COULD sure real for this and probably should.

[neoserver]

Lets say I develop a way to flash the firmware in the iPod and make it capable of playing other music formats (i.e. Ogg Vorbis or FLAC). Is this illegal? Probably is in this day and time. Especially when people are being thrown in jail for selling mod chips for Xbox's. But it should be perfectly legal. It is in every other industry. Imagine if companies couldn't make aftermarket parts for automobiles. We have to ask ourselves, what do we want the technology laws to cater to? The tech companies or the users. I prefer that the laws work for the user.

But the mod chips for the Xbox are designed to circumvent copy-protection software and the Xbox Bios to allow you to do things that microsoft doesen't want you to do. (ex install Linux, make copies of games, etc)

[destroyboredom]

In case anyone is curious, if you actually want to download that REAL garbage you have to supply a credit card number and they start charging it $9.99/month if you don't cancel within the 14 day trial. Who's going to go that sh-t?

[SandyL]

File formats CAN be patented. That is why there is no legal way to encode things like gifs, mp3's aac's or mpeg2 for free in your apps. You have to license the technology to do it. Apple COULD sure real for this and probably should.
Apple doesn't have any patents on FairPlay. If they had, this would have been a slam dunk case.

[shamino]

Ah. That's quite a set back for an open source project, no?
It would, if you want to be perfectly legal.

On the other hand, how many free software projects have been sued over MP3 or GIF?

The open source community did invent free alternatives (e.g. Ogg/Vorbis and PNG), but getting the commercial world to support them is like pulling teeth.

[SandyL]

Is Real's iPod "hacking" legal? (http://news.com.com//2100-1030_3-5290814.html)
Code-crackers risk fines and prison time when they defeat copy-protection technology, but such draconian rules likely don't apply in the case of RealNetworks and its iPod "hack," legal experts said.

...

Legal experts say there's a big difference between RealNetworks' product and the work of code-crackers who have helped break through DVD copy protection, or who have previously helped strip FairPlay protection from iTunes songs.

Those underground programmers, at least in the United States, risk running into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which bars "circumvention" of digital copy protection. By contrast, legal experts note that RealNetworks is "hacking" Apple's technology in order to protect music in its own way, not to pirate or otherwise copy it without permission. This kind of reverse engineering for compatibility purposes happens routinely in corporate America, and is allowed as long as competitors aren't actually using copyrighted code, attorneys say.

"What the DMCA was meant to protect wasn't this," said Ken Dort, an intellectual-property attorney with Gordon & Glickson in Chicago. "In fact what (RealNetworks) has done is what people do all the time. They buy the latest, greatest widget of a competitor and take it apart."

Hopefully those who have never even read the DMCA and yet claims that it applies to this case will now shut up.

[dekator]

Sorry, if this has already been said...
I think Apple or their customers should thank Real for what Apple should've done in the first place: Open up the iPod. It will only make it more attractive. Having the iTunes music store as only option is a stopper. Sure, most people will eventually end up there anyway, 'cause it's easily the best solution out there. Also, it would be nice to see more players with AAC capabilities. Staying in a closed system won't work. Apple should know that.

[johanwelin]

Can't Real just go to sleep forever... Who needs their buggy programs.

[johanwelin]

Sorry, if this has already been said...
I think Apple or their customers should thank Real for what Apple should've done in the first place: Open up the iPod. It will only make it more attractive. Having the iTunes music store as only option is a stopper. Sure, most people will eventually end up there anyway, 'cause it's easily the best solution out there. Also, it would be nice to see more players with AAC capabilities. Staying in a closed system won't work. Apple should know that.

In theory, yes, but in practical terms no: Real's CEO is a man of Microsoft, which he showed some months ago when he used the most provactive language he knows. He can't even spell to diplomacy.

Microsoft is the winner in the end, sorry to say. I hope Apple and Real can get together before it is to...

[wowser]

Real Networks don't seem to care about anything but having a monopoly over their music formats, and now they are messing with Apple. Their software is the worst program i have on my Mac - absolute garbage

[shamino]

Hopefully those who have never even read the DMCA and yet claims that it applies to this case will now shut up.
The fact that the DMCA wasn't meant to block this doesn't change the fact that the law still prevents hacking a DRM. It doesn't matter what your intentions are.

The DMCA wasn't meant to prevent the development of free DVD player software either but it's still illegal.

BTW, have YOU read the DMCA, or are you just citing newspaper articles as if they are the final arbiter of law?

[scottwat]

Sorry, if this has already been said...
I think Apple or their customers should thank Real for what Apple should've done in the first place: Open up the iPod. It will only make it more attractive. Having the iTunes music store as only option is a stopper. Sure, most people will eventually end up there anyway, 'cause it's easily the best solution out there. Also, it would be nice to see more players with AAC capabilities. Staying in a closed system won't work. Apple should know that.

More Attractive? They can't keep the mini's in stock, they have over 50% market share even though the ipod has one of the highest price points. And quite frankly the only problem with closed systems is when there isn't enough options. With the ipod you have purchased music from iTMS or ripped MP3's from cd's or heaven forbid pirated MP3's. Thats all the options atleast 85% of customers would need. Sure it would be swell to play a .rm or an .OGG or some other obscure filetype but the simple fact is that in the current market there is too many choices. Harkening back to the days of AT&T's monopoly things worked dandy, but now there are ton's of teleco's in the US that wouldn't hold a candle to the reliability of AT&T's former glory. As far as I'm concerned the do one thing, do it yourself and do it better than anyone else idea has worked for the iPod!

[jared_kipe]

I think this may be a bad move on the part of Apple.

[SandyL]

The fact that the DMCA wasn't meant to block this doesn't change the fact that the law still prevents hacking a DRM. It doesn't matter what your intentions are.
The DMCA outlaws circumvention. Adding DRM isn't circumvention.

BTW, have YOU read the DMCA, or are you just citing newspaper articles as if they are the final arbiter of law?
Yes, I have read the DMCA. You obviously have not.

to `circumvent a technological measure' 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

[broken_keyboard]

If Apple loses this case (and I hope they don't) then they kind of brought it on themselves by getting caught up in the "open" hype.

If they had just made their own song file format and copyrighted it they would be fine.

[shamino]

The DMCA outlaws circumvention. Adding DRM isn't circumvention.
It outlaws a lot of things that are only tangentially related to circumvention. The relevant paragraph here is the one on reverse engineering, not circumvention:

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.
Please note the key phrase "sole purpose". Meaning there are no other legal reasons.

Reverse engineering a DRM system is ONLY permitted in order ot make sure that it is compatible with an operating system or other software packages. Reverse engineering a DRM for other reasons (including to make a new work-alike DRM system to apply to new documents ) is therefore not permitted.

In other words, I can reverse-engineer FairPlay in order to make sure that iTunes is compatible with an operating system I'm developing (would obviously have to be a Windows- or Mac-compatible one). I can reverse engineer it to figure out why my app crashes when iTunes is running. I can not reverse engineer it to make my own FairPlay player (even if the player respects the DRM terms) and I can not reverse engineer it to apply FairPlay to my own original compositions.

[SandyL]

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.
The program in this case would be iTunes or the software running on the iPod. There aren't any technological measures that control access to iTunes or the iPod software. RealNetworks can't have circumvented technological measures that don't exist. In other words, this does not apply.

Not to mention that Real most likely has not done any reverse engineering, in which case this is completely moot.

[savar]

How true, as Xerox discovered when Apple copied the GUI from them.

Holy schnikeys! Can there be a FAQ on the front page that tells people not to post bogus stories like this? This myth has been debunked a million times: Apple did not "steal" anything from Xerox PARC. Apple paid Xerox to give the Macintosh group a tour through some of their stuff...Xerox showed Apple the GUI stuff because Xerox didn't want it and they thought Apple might.

Now when Windows ripped of Macintosh, it was a completely different story! The lead programmer of Microsoft's Mac unit (Which Apple had enthusiastically supported in order to develop the original MS Office) wrote nearly all the GUI code for Windows 3.1, and based it on his priveleged access in the past to the Macintosh's internals. (He had to have inside access to write Office...Apple did have an agreement with MS not to use the Mac ideas for their owns software for 12 months or so... I've never understood why not longer, Apple was certainly paranoid about MS but not enough apparently. Whatever the case, Apple insiders felt kicked in the gut when they saw Windows.)

[Burns]

Don't know the technicalities of the case and don't really care. What i do know is that my past experience of real isn't impressive, i'd rather not have them: 1) steal some of iTunes' customers and 2) bugger up my new iPod with dodgy AAC music files.

Basically (when it arrives) I have an iPod and realise when i bought it that i would have to use iTunes. I still bought it cos i trust apple and know the selction on iTunes is adequate and well priced. :)

[friarbayliff]

Despite the legal implications, this whole squabble will probably boil down to a vain pass at getting in on the apple iPod and iTunes phenomenon. In the end, the failure of the Real music service will make this whole deal completely inconsequential. The consumers will ultimately decide who's right or wrong.