Navio to Reverse Engineer iPod/iTunes DRM

[andiwm2003]

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

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

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

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

 

[dernhelm]

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

Attempting to control markets doesn't usually work well.

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

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

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

 

[SeaFox]

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

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

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

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

 

[puuukeey]

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

FAIR PLAY BLOWD

 

[Abstract]

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

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

 

[longofest]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[longofest]

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

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

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

 

[Quartz Extreme]

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

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

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

 

[andiwm2003]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[longofest]

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

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

 

[mdavey]

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

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

 

[longofest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[longofest]

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

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

 

[mkrishnan]

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

 

[JW Pepper]

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

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

 

[andiwm2003]

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

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

 

[longofest]

Getting to the heart of the matter

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

DMCA was signed into law in 1998 by Clinton, and was legislation that implemented two 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization treaties. In it, it contains this:

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

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

 

[longofest]

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

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

 

[longofest]

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

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

 

[kirk26]

Cool! This is very good news!

 

[iMeowbot]

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

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

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

 

[Photorun]

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

 

[longofest]

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

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

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

 

[illegalprelude]

If this was microsoft people would be screaming murder.

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

 

[inkhead]

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

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

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

Yeah the Yahoo music store interface sucks, but subscription is a nice option, I wish Apple would offer it. I'd pay even $50/month for all I could eat iTunes.