RealNetworks To Sell iPod-Compatible Songs

[groovebuster]

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

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

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

groovebuster

 

[coolfactor]

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

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

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

Rock on, Apple!

 

[SLAPSHOTW]

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

-Matt

 

[animefan_1]

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

 

[snahabed]

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

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

Did Apple reverse engineer Watson in order to create Sherlock?

Did Apple reverse engineer Konfab in order to create Dashboard?

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

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

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

 

[Sir_Giggles]

did you think this through?

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

SUE THE BLOODY HELL OUT OF THEM.

2 points you raised concern me.

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

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

 

[TWinbrook46636]

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

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

 

[nockamura]

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

 

[nagromme]

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

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

 

[BWhaler]

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

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

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

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

 

[iMeowbot]

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

It's way too early to be assuming this is a DMCA issue when Real haven't yet released their software. It depends very much on how they've implemented their DRM system.

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

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

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

 

[SeaFox]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Fuchal]

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

 

[iMeowbot]

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

Section 1201(f) is specifically written to cover Real's situation. Reverse engineering is allowed "for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention."

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

 

[groovebuster]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

groovebuster

 

[eskatonia]

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

SUE THE BLOODY HELL OUT OF THEM.

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

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

 

[mproud]

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

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

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

 

[youngr40]

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

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

 

[matthewwithanm]

I don't get why people are so upset?

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

God, Real. Please just die.

 

[jnasato]

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

 

[Nermal]

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

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

 

[RogueLdr]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Analog Kid]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[leenoble]

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

 

[Jalexster]

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

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

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