Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Another Fairplay Threat?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Bad for users/buyers
If Jon is able to get this working, selling Fairplay DRM files from other sites, it will be bad for buyers. Right now Apple forces the record companies into a set price format (ie $.99 per song etc.). The record companies have already fought with Apple over this during the last contract renegotiations, wanting to charge more for some material. Apple won because they have a near monopoly on the market, but if other stores can sell iPod compatible music Apple's bargaining power is gone and prices will rise. Ug, I can't believe I just defended a monopoly.
If Jon is able to get this working, selling Fairplay DRM files from other sites, it will be bad for buyers. Right now Apple forces the record companies into a set price format (ie $.99 per song etc.). The record companies have already fought with Apple over this during the last contract renegotiations, wanting to charge more for some material. Apple won because they have a near monopoly on the market, but if other stores can sell iPod compatible music Apple's bargaining power is gone and prices will rise. Ug, I can't believe I just defended a monopoly.
bluebomberman said:
Yes, we all know the moral high-ground corporations take. Regardless of any moral principals involved, it is 'can we get away with it?', or even more disgusting, 'can we make enough profit to justify the legal settlement?'. It is truly a sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in; where the moral fiber of our country is solely based on the personal pursuit of wealth. Personally, I find this individual loathsome.
Macrumors said:
Earlier this summer, Jon joined with Monique Farantzos to create DoubleTwist Ventures, the company face to Jon's recent endeavor. Apparently,
Having read a few messages in this thread, why doesn't Apple simply BUY Doubletwist. That seems their basis for calling Steve, who didn't give the idea the time of day.
Doubletwist should make an offer to Apple. Apple might be precluded from even making/initiating the offer for anti-trust reasons. Doubletwist should not go down this road to a vastly inferior consumer experience.
Rocketman
The DMCA changed that, and until it's tested in court anything where encryption is used or even potentially used is not "safe" to reverse engineer in the US.k8to said:
B
balamw said:
Not "anything where encryption is used." But if something is encrypted, it can only be reverse engineered under 1201(f):
(f) Reverse Engineering. -
* (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
* (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
* (3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
* (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
But right now, the whole thing is a gray area in a world rule by black and white. How gray you might ask....
charcoal gray.
That was my point, until it's thoroughly tested in court (or repealed or modified) it remains up to interpretation, which makes most encryption/DRM reverse engineering related work in the US (somewhat) risky business.jimbo999 said:
DVD Jon may have found a way around this in that he's not currently trying to circumvent the access control, he appears to be trying to apply a compatible access control to files that would not otherwise have one.
B
Wouldn't it be ironic if the once closed iPod+iTunes ecosystem suddenly became open to every music store except the Zune Marketplace? Fairplay would effectively replace PlaysForSure, the only closed DRM would be the Zune's, and every other music player manufacturer would be left with no music store compatibility at all until they slowly die... And the mythic Apple vs Micro$oft war would rage once again.
As others have mentionned, I see 2 negative things with this:
As others have mentionned, I see 2 negative things with this:
- The software integration between iTunes and the other online music stores would probably not be ideal.
- It may open up the possibility of higher prices for certain songs. Some record studios may start selling some songs for more to the other online stores and stop selling those same songs on the iTMS.
All this talk is great. Only on macrumors can you see so many people ignoring the 800 lb. gorilla in the room - namely, the fact that a huge majority of users still get their music from sources other than buying it online. 83% don't buy music at least once a month from the itms. 5% of the music on ipods is from the store.
I know it's the in thing in these forums to profess love for the itms, and curse its competitors and would-be hackers, but the fact is, the store exists for one reason - to give Apple a legitimate entity to point to when the RIAA accuses it of producing devices that encourage piracy - namely, iPods. Don't get me wrong - I love that they did that, and the success of the store ensures I will be able to buy DRM-free mp3 players for quite some time.
But don't kid yourself into thinking that reverse-engineering of the Fairplay tech will make a rip of difference one way or the other. In case you haven't noticed, it's already easy to get DVD-quality movies and TV shows online for free. Yes, yes, I know, that's illegal, and we're all going to get sued by the MPAA and the RIAA and NCAA and AARP. Just let me know when I should actually start worrying about it.
I know it's the in thing in these forums to profess love for the itms, and curse its competitors and would-be hackers, but the fact is, the store exists for one reason - to give Apple a legitimate entity to point to when the RIAA accuses it of producing devices that encourage piracy - namely, iPods. Don't get me wrong - I love that they did that, and the success of the store ensures I will be able to buy DRM-free mp3 players for quite some time.
But don't kid yourself into thinking that reverse-engineering of the Fairplay tech will make a rip of difference one way or the other. In case you haven't noticed, it's already easy to get DVD-quality movies and TV shows online for free. Yes, yes, I know, that's illegal, and we're all going to get sued by the MPAA and the RIAA and NCAA and AARP. Just let me know when I should actually start worrying about it.
tveric said:
The moment you've got a life to lose if you're sued and you have your hds full of pirated movies, music and stuff would be a good point to start being worried. About that life of yours if you're having a job and a family and things like that. Could get nasty if you're having a criminal record and things like that, you know.
Just my thoughts.
Frogurt said:
Bear in mind, there is nothing inherently bad in a company having a monopoly, not even Microsoft. What's bad (and illegal) is when a company in such a position abuses its monopolistic power. I have to remind MS defenders of this fact as many of them don't seem to grasp the nuance here. MS wasn't in trouble for being a monopoly (rightly so--being one is not illegal.) MS was in trouble for abusing that power.
Speaking of MS defenders, is it my imagination or are there an awful lot of Macrumors newbies on the board now who seem to bash Apple pretty quickly and at every turn? What's that all about?
Occassionally it can be beneficial to have one company setting certain standards. However, the value of competition is that the stronger/better thrive (while the weak adapt or die out). If you have a monopoly, that disappears.inkswamp said:
The most important thing is that we don't create a system where the weaker stuff can survive because a monoply throws more money into it, while the better one can't make it.
How does this relate to everything? I don't know... maybe I lost the point... oh no here it is.
At the moment Apple competes as an entire ecosystem (iPod/iTunes/iTMS) against other combinations... and everything is still improving for consumers. So that's a good thing. Apple is using its muscle to force open some new markets, which again is good. I think we need Apple to do what it's doing with the iPod, for now, but it also needs the flexibility to know when to work with everyone (like MS does). I think they'll have to open up the iPod/iTunes/iTMS trifecta soonish, but they might not realise till it's too late.
And on a personal note - iPod/iTunes/iTMS is great if you've got all 3. If you don't have iTMS movies, where do you buy movies from? What about if you're a BIG movie renter, but never buy them - what choice do you have?
The single option both forces big change, and stops flexibility.
k8to said:
Really? Which jurisdiction you talk from? And what kind of IPR are we considering here? Have ya ever heard of the DMCA, which forbids reverse engineering except for very limited purposes?
If you don't really know legal issues, please spare us from such glib comments.
BRLawyer said:
Right, there are only billions of people who can watch DVD's on computers of their choice now because of his efforts who couldn't before, spawning all kinds of video editing, DVR, and high-quality conversion systems that couldn't have existed without his work.
He defeated a system designed to take away fair use rights from the citizenry and hasn't done anything productive? OK, if you don't care about your rights maybe you have a point.
geerlingguy said:
You'll be surprised at the number of people who use VLC, as it's an excellent DVD player that usually has some advantages over {Whatever DVD player came with your computer}, notably that you don't always get {Whatever DVD player came with your computer} to begin with, it's free, it works, it's reliable, and if you have a good DVD drive, it's multi-region.
VLC uses various libraries that were derived from DeCSS.
I wonder how many people would suddenly notice the DMCA if we started seeing thousands of people arrested and thrown in jail, as is theoretically possible, because they downloaded and used an unauthorized DVD player, like one of the Free Software programs such as VLC, to watch DVDs they own?
ClimbingTheLog said:
Yeah, right.
When Real Networks did something similar, they were accused by Apple of "using the same tactics of a hacker", and that wasn't intended as a complement. When I read that, my first thought was "Where is Woz when you need him?"
ClimbingTheLog said:
Billions huh? There are scarcely a billion personal computers out there, forget the linux numbers, they are in the low millions. And you honestly think that there are tons of people using Open Source just because we do? No, the masses are content to use Windows Media in all its crappiness to play all their DVDs. We, my friend, are few and far between.
The way I imagine Apple liscensing/opening up the iPod/iTunes/iTMS system would be for Apple to completely control what the user sees, how the user gets content, even if it doesn't control what the user gets. Like how you can choose which country to set the Music Store to, adding maybe an Amazon.com store to the list, Real.com, etc. But as a "reward" for opening itself up to competition, Apple would recieve a slight liscence fee, an teensy bit of the price of whatever's sold. This way Apple could control the look of the iTMS no matter where it comes from by supplying a template, a "user interface guideline" sort of thing for this new multi-store, and all media from Apple or Amazon or wherever could all happily coexist in iTunes. If the other companies want to sell to players other than the iPod, they can use their own system or work out a similar situation with Microsoft and fair play and such.
I don't really like leaving this in the hands of DVD Jon. Maybe Apple will wait and see what kind of response he gets and then take it from there, but I think Apple and especially iTunes still need to be part of the picture.
Maybe Apple could simply provide an easy "Add to Library" handle in iTunes, even if the stuff comes from some browser based store, you buy it and it goes to iTunes and thus the iPod. The whole multi-store thing is to me the ideal that I'd be willing to let go of.
I don't really like leaving this in the hands of DVD Jon. Maybe Apple will wait and see what kind of response he gets and then take it from there, but I think Apple and especially iTunes still need to be part of the picture.
Maybe Apple could simply provide an easy "Add to Library" handle in iTunes, even if the stuff comes from some browser based store, you buy it and it goes to iTunes and thus the iPod. The whole multi-store thing is to me the ideal that I'd be willing to let go of.
BRLawyer said:
It's currently the only way to get non-Disney movies onto an iPod and many other similar devices. It's also a way for users to get the videos they've paid for onto media devices that don't have a DVD drive. For the movie industry to say that they have to buy the movie again is completely ludicrous on their part.
His work allowed people to use the media and devices they paid for in the way that they want to use it. I would call that productive.
I know you probably don't agree with it but frankly, I think the movie industry is being too greedy here.
balamw said:
DVDJon is in the EU, which I don't think has such a law yet. The DMCA only applies to the US. Counterpart laws are in the works.
There might be some trouble if he decides to come to the US. Adobe had some Russian guy arrested when he came to the US for making a program that applied ROT13 to Adobe's "encrypted" files to make them useable.
iMikeT said:
I think that's a bit of an ignorant comment. It's taken him long enough to get around to doing so, so I don't think "quick" applies. He's been breaking encryption systems for maybe ten years now, I'm not sure if he's made any money on it so far.
Clive At Five said:
I doubt that licencing the format would have to mean that it allows competing players. The licensing contracts can be very specific such that it allows only encryptors, not decryptors, and be limited to certain circumstances.