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.
Steve Jobs Required to Provide Deposition in 2005 iTunes Antitrust Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The only problem is that in order to utilize Fairplay, they had to reverse engineer it.
It's that reverse engineering that is the problem since there is no way that Real could have obtained the technology in any other way (since Apple did not license it to anybody).
The fairplay wrapper - both the encoding and decoding, is closed source.
Why don't you list the types of console video game files currently in use, then list the types of music files currently in use. See which list is longer.
A better analogy would be like Sony only allowing you to listen to a CD on your PS3 as long as the CD is from Sony Music Studios, or only being able to watch Blu-Rays from Sony Pictures.
-Apple DRMed music required to play on anything else? silly, this is a waste of time.
-Apple blocks 3rd parties from producing something else that play on an iPod? I CAN see there being a valid argument against them. How did RealPlayer accomplish this? What changed to break this?
-If RealPlayer broke the DRM and created something that looked like a valid signed file, and Apple simply patched the exploit, then no. RealPlayer is wasting time.
-If Apple removed something purposely to break an existing feature then I see there possibly being marrit to this.
-Apple blocks 3rd parties from producing something else that play on an iPod? I CAN see there being a valid argument against them. How did RealPlayer accomplish this? What changed to break this?
-If RealPlayer broke the DRM and created something that looked like a valid signed file, and Apple simply patched the exploit, then no. RealPlayer is wasting time.
-If Apple removed something purposely to break an existing feature then I see there possibly being marrit to this.
Look, nobody is complaining you can't play a vinyl record on a CD player. That's what you're saying with your X-Box/PS3 example.
However, you should be able to play an MP3 on an MP3 player. And that's what Apple has been preventing. And Apple knew people wouldn't accept this, because they abandoned the DRM for quite a while now.
No they weren't. Fairplay was never intended to be a licensed solution that anybody could just use as a DRM platform. It was intended to be for Apple's devices just like the lockout chip that was incorporated into the NES. Just because company B clones that chip, doesn't mean that Nintendo cannot change the hardware down the line and fix the holes in the part that was compromised
Fairplay is Apple's IP. Not Real's. Real has no justification for utilizing Apple's IP any more than I have the right to commercially sell an Xbox disc to run my own games using Microsoft's protection schema even if I use the same medium (DVD's) without being a licensee of Microsoft.
ETA: Apple and Real were not selling MP3's. They were selling content wrapped up in a proprietary DRM enclosure. Interoperability was never implied by anybody except Real, and they were never in any position to imply it since they did not have any ownership of Fairplay.
RM was the issue, but that was contractual with the studios and not something anti-competitive. DRM naturally has that consequence - its supposed to not be interoperable with anything out there. It's supposed to be a closed loop.
As I mentioned in my first post if Apple allowed you to convert from DVD to FairPlay (which is like what you mentioned above) it would be shot down by lawyers as illegal due to reverse engineering of the DRM system, likewise with this Fairplay and Creative lawsuit.
If you reverse engineer a DRM system you did not design no matter the motives you are legally in the wrong. DVD Jon just wanted a DVD player on his Linux box but that did not stop the DCMA trying to get him arrested and extradited to the US on charges when he made his own decoder.
It does not matter what they did once you reverse engineer a system you do not own (especially a DRM system) you are placing yourself in a dangerous situation.
Edwin
I'd also love to see a precedent against DRM set. It's purely anticompetitive. Apple may not have DRM on music anymore, but they certainly do on movies and ebooks. I want nothing more than the freedom to buy my digital media from any vendor that sells it and use it on any combination of devices I may own.
You are right that it was the labels requiring the DRM, with movies it's the studios, and with eBooks its the publishers so they are definitely partly to blame, but it's Apple (and others like Amazon, Sony, etc) that chose to make their DRM'd products proprietary and platform specific, which is where it becomes anti-competitive. There's no reason a DRM'd iTunes file shouldn't be able to play on a non-Apple device.
What I'm saying is I bought an Xbox knowing that it only played Xbox games. I didn't buy it with the expectation that it should play every type of video game out there.
The consumer here made a conscious choice to buy a DRM-encoded file from Real. If he was concerned with compatability, he should have purchased a DRM-free version of the file or purchased a CD to create digital tracks without DRM.
The consumer was free to buy his media from any number of sources or use any number of MP3 devices to play it. This is yet another frivolous lawsuit which, in all likelihood, is a money grab and, at worst, is a consumer crying to the courts because he or she wants companies to bend over backwards to serve them as opposed to them doing a minute's worth of research prior to making a purchase.
The only good thing that might come out of this is the current DRM issues with eBooks. Amazon, Sony and Apple all have unique DRM methods that happen to tie their content to their hardware. Unlike music (when it was happening) only really Apple had a good DRM solution (by the time others got on board, it was already moving to the dump DRM mode.
Maybe, just maybe, this lawsuit will set things in motion to unify the DRM among the three major players in eBooks. Or move to remove the DRM all together.
Maybe, just maybe, this lawsuit will set things in motion to unify the DRM among the three major players in eBooks. Or move to remove the DRM all together.
bogus
Apple only did what was required by their contracts with the record labels. Every music service and device maker out there did the same things.
It was never an issue of only being able to use music bought in iTunes. It's was DRM content wasn't compatible. There was that one initiative the smaller players brought forth to use the same DRM, but that went up in smoke too. If anything, Apple used their power for the better good. They bullied the music industry into dropping DRM that has benefited everyone... even their competitors such as Amazon.
Now their practices with IOS might not help them portray themselves as the defenders of shared content... but hey.
Apple only did what was required by their contracts with the record labels. Every music service and device maker out there did the same things.
It was never an issue of only being able to use music bought in iTunes. It's was DRM content wasn't compatible. There was that one initiative the smaller players brought forth to use the same DRM, but that went up in smoke too. If anything, Apple used their power for the better good. They bullied the music industry into dropping DRM that has benefited everyone... even their competitors such as Amazon.
Now their practices with IOS might not help them portray themselves as the defenders of shared content... but hey.
Last edited:
Are you thinking about PlaysForSure? That wasn't a product of the mp3 player's makers, it was a Microsoft invention. You are right, it crashed and burned since it was not very interoperable and quite buggy.
So, Apple were required by contracts to block DRM music from other sellers but they weren't required to block non DRM music? I'd love to see that contract...
Apple was doing what's good for Apple, not what was good for consumers.
If only Apple get to sell music that can be used on the iPod then they would make money on every purchase = Good for Apple.
If a song or album isn't available on iTunes, but available in another store, then the consumer wouldn't be able to play it on his iPod = Bad for the consumer.
Well, yes and no. Anti-trust laws really only come into play when one can make an argument that a particular company has the marketshare to force the market in a particular direction, including putting competitors out of business. This is where this particular case gets sticky. Because, at the time, the digital download of music was a tiny fraction of the overall music industry sales, it is easy to argue that Apple didn't have anywhere near the market influence needed to constitute implications of anti-trust behavior.
Even ignoring the greater music industry, there were a lot of digital music competitors to Apple six years ago, far more than there are today. Given that, it would also be easy to argue that Apple didn't have a sufficiently dominant position, even in the digital music submarket of the overall music industry. Of course, this has changed, since then.
The basic premise here is to allow companies to defend their marketshare by whatever means necessary, so long as there is adequate competition to allow the market to make a choice if one company acts in a way that is harmful to the consumer. It is once a single company (or group of companies - i.e. price setting through collusion among companies that would otherwise be competitors) has sufficient marketshare and influence to be able to control the market regardless of competitors, that is when the primary force of the anti-trust laws come to bear.
While it may be true that there are laws regulating anti-trust activities even before a company has a market dominant position, the courts have demonstrated fairly consistently that they are not inclined to enforce them very strongly.
The problem here is that Apple specifically took action to prevent music from other sources, such as Real Media from being able to play on the iPod.
DRM is a separate issue from that, although it pays into it, as this is how they accomplished it.
Bottom line is if it is a compatible format, such as .mp3, .aac, etc. then it should be able to play it, regardless of DRM.
DRM is a separate issue from that, although it pays into it, as this is how they accomplished it.
Bottom line is if it is a compatible format, such as .mp3, .aac, etc. then it should be able to play it, regardless of DRM.
As far as I know, Apple has never blocked Non DRM'ed music. Apple's was never under any obligation to support any other format either - such a requirement is stupid.
Apple doesn't care about non DRMed stuff nor was this case ever about that. Why brig it up? Creative was selling DRM stuff too.
ETA:
Can you please cite the law that states that Apple has to license other companies DRM? Despite the fact that this was not what was going on in the case? While you are at it can you please cite the law that requires companies to license out their IP to other companies especially their competitors..
Remembered in this case, Apple was protecting it's own property from a third party. Creative/Real had no rights to Fairplay. Apple never licensed it to them at all. The only way that Creative/Real's scheme could work is if they broke into code that was closed source. Yes it may have enabled some degree of interoperability, but that was never the intent of Fairplay.
DRM is a separate issue from that, although it pays into it, as this is how they accomplished it.
Nonsense. DRM is intended to be restrictive and limiting. Otherwise it is moot.
Last edited:
Except, of course, it's not that simple. Sure, of course Apple was looking out for the bottom line. If they didn't, well, then they probably wouldn't still be around. But let's consider some possibilities. From a strategic standpoint, Apple could have made the iPod capable of playing music from every licensable form of DRM out there. If they had done that, then even if the iPod had become the ubiquitous device that it is today, what leverage would Apple have had with the music industry? Answer: none. If Apple had tried to push the RIAA around, they would simply have pulled out of iTunes with the full confidence that consumers would simply get their music from some other music store to play on their iPods.
By contrast, because Apple chose to play things close to the vest, so to speak, and rely exclusively on FairPlay, when they gained a market dominant position they were able to push the RIAA for better terms on and, ultimately, remove of, DRM.
Did this strategy help Apple? Yes. Did it end up help all of us? Yes.
My main point is that a company like Apple can look out for the bottom line and try to do what's best for the consumer - in the long run, even if it looks self serving in the short run - at the same time.
Do I think that Apple always gets it right? No. Do I like every decision that they make? No. Do I think that they are passionate about trying to make great products and serve their customers as best they can AND have good profits? I sure do.
does Real still exist? I always found this company disgusting and could never understand why anybody would work for something as baehhh as this company.
What do they actually do now besides the lawsuit?
What do they actually do now besides the lawsuit?