Navio to Reverse Engineer iPod/iTunes DRM

[SiliconAddict]

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

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

 

[EricNau]

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

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

 

[SiliconAddict]

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

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

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

 

[SiliconAddict]

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

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

 

[Evangelion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see any issues here.

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

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

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

 

[Evangelion]

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

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

 

[caveman_uk]

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

Maybe that's what Apple says now but is that the endgame?

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

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

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

 

[twilson]

Is Apple really up for anti-trust, monopolistic practices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's my take on it, anyway.

 

[wnurse]

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

ironically, customers don't want any type of DRM

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

 

[Evangelion]

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

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

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

true.

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

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

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

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

 

[wnurse]

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

*hardware, not software

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

 

[Photorun]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[coreybox]

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

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

Thus he violates the EULA.

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

 

[Evangelion]

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

Thus he violates the EULA.

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

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

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

 

[shamino]

Well, to my knowledge, reverse-engineering is still legal. How can the EULA deny rights that are legally mandated?

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

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

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

 

[BillyShears]

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

 

[SeaFox]

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

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

 

[Evangelion]

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

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

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

 

[Evangelion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[haunebu]

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

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

 

[Tupring]

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

It's a conspiracy.

 

[dubbz]

It's a conspiracy.

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

 

[mkrishnan]

It's a conspiracy.

And a rumor, to boot.

 

[Tupring]

Likewise if you have music that you are only allowed to play on your desktop, but the technology allows you to burn CD copies of it, which is not a right you have under the purchase license.

If I ever decide to actually purchase music (which is very unlikeyly) it is and always will be my right to make as many copies of it as I wish

 

[Tupring]

I find it insulting and unacceptable that I can purchase music but Apple will dictate how I can listen to that.

That's why you just download your music for free, anything else would just be wrong.