Apple heated over Real's Harmony

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 96
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    I've got an iPod full of songs, not one of which came from the Apple iTMS. But then again, I AM CANADIAN!



    BLAME CANADA!!



    LOL



    http://www.lyricsxp.com/lyrics/b/bla...k_parents.html
  • Reply 62 of 96
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by cowerd

    Please explain how Harmony circumvents security technology (DCMA violation) or modifies Apple software?



    I'm sorry is this one for me?



    ok assume that it is for me:



    in the user agreement apple goes on to say:



    The security technology is an inseparable part of the Products. The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products,



    Real allows its employees to circumvent apple's fairplay technology so that it's own software runs on apples hardware.



    On the ipod box in really small print:



    "Use is subject to acceptance of included software licence"



    Therefore you must agree to the ipod software license to operate the ipod.

    Real circumvents Apples ipod OS security technology "



    on the ipod included license agreement:



    you may not ...decompile, reverse engineer, modify or create derivitive works of apple software..."



    The REAL solution would be a derivitive of the ITMS AAC tracks. Therfore a violation of the ipod licence.



    Real is creating a situation where ipod users are breaking their licence agreements with apple.



    I don't have any reference material handy to get precedent in the california case law. That is for the high priced Apple trial lawyers to do. They can call me if they need help



  • Reply 63 of 96
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    ^^



    I was actually hoping for facts rather than a regurgitation of a shrink-wrap sftware license (You do know that shrink-wrap licenses of this sort are not legally binding, and are actually in some sort of legal limbo).



    BTW clean room reverse engineering IS legal.



    Real's solution doesn't use any Apple software. All it does is change the DRM on Real AAC encoded DRM files to mimic Apple AAC encoded DRM files. And it happens through Real's software (which only runs on a PC--for now).



    And it doesn't circumvent Fairplay. That's what HYMN does. Real does not allow you to remove the DRM from Apple AAC encoded tracks. That would be illegal. Legally, Real are more likely in violation of their own agreement with IC providers for their own music store, i.e. they're circumventing their own DRM. But then what are the chances of Real suing themselves.
  • Reply 64 of 96
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by cowerd

    BTW clean room reverse engineering IS legal.



    Real's solution doesn't use any Apple software. All it does is change the DRM on Real AAC encoded DRM files to mimic Apple AAC encoded DRM files. And it happens through Real's software (which only runs on a PC--for now).





    This is legal? Why? And why are shrink-wrap licenses not legally binding?



    In InternetLand everything you say is bullshit until proven otherwise. Please...some proof.



    I'm not very familiar with US laws or even my own country's laws (Canada) but it all seems to me like the justice system is very archaic and in need of a huge revision. Looks like things related to software and the internet have outpaced it and people can find loopholes too easily. Maybe Justice System 2.0 should be considered.
  • Reply 65 of 96
    macsrgood4umacsrgood4u Posts: 3,007member
    I have no songs currently on my iPod from iTMS. All come from my CD collection. I reside in the U.S. What does iTMS have to do with the REAL situation? This is all about allowing REAL's downloaded songs from Rhapsody (via Harmony software) being transferable to an iPod, isn't it?
  • Reply 66 of 96
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Anyhoo, I kinda agree now that Apple can just forget bringing this to court and just scare users from buying non-iTMS songs by saying that putting Harmonized songs onto the iPod voids the iPod warranty. And then Apple can update the firmware to cause some Real Headaches (hehe).



    I imagine most people that buy iPods will keep using the iTMS because it's the best service around. The few that wander off will just void the warranty and customer service support...and will just have to buy a new iPod if something goes awry. More money for Apple.
  • Reply 67 of 96
    banchobancho Posts: 1,517member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacsRGood4U

    I have no songs currently on my iPod from iTMS. All come from my CD collection. I reside in the U.S. What does iTMS have to do with the REAL situation? This is all about allowing REAL's downloaded songs from Rhapsody (via Harmony software) being transferable to an iPod, isn't it?



    I have a few songs from iTMS on my iPod. Mostly stuff where I don't want the whole album or just spontaneous purchase. I poke through it a lot though.



    For the most part I buy used CDs off Amazon/Ebay and rip em to whatever bitrate I like. The iTMS is nice but it still needs a few things to make me willing to buy whole albums. I would like to see songs at higher bitrate and with full inserts available in some nice format to look at/browse. Anyway, that's a bit beside the Real (bad pun) argument.



    Real is trying to get a foothold in online music sales and is pissed that Apple won't let them into the iPod. They try sneaking in and that is all well and good for now. If Apple changes Fairplay again as they did last time then people using files from Real may not be real ( ) happy.
  • Reply 68 of 96
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    Quote:

    This is legal? Why? And why are shrink-wrap licenses not legally binding?



    In InternetLand everything you say is bullshit until proven otherwise. Please...some proof.



    First learn to use google. Its your friend. That way you can be skeptical all by yourself.



    Reverse engineering with specific reference to DCMA

    http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise48.html

    DCMA clause allows reverse engineering for purposes of interoperability. If you think reverse engineering is bad and should be illegal then you can kiss goodbye to SAMBA, DAVE, any word processor that open .doc, most 3D program export and import functions, game add-ons, etc.



    EULA's

    http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/Re...0-04161DDP.pdf: warning .PDF
    Quote:

    The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here is a sale and not a license...This license provision conflicts with the first sale doctrine in copyright law, which gives the owner of a particular copy of a copyrighted work the right to dispose of that copy without the permission of the copyright owner.



    Doctrine of First sale is upheld against EULA licensing. UCITA has change legal rulings on EULA and now some are upheld and others not. Legal rulings on EULA are inconsistent at this time. Increased "legality" of EULA has come through increasing Congressional intervention, as has changing copyright laws to benefit copyright owners.
  • Reply 69 of 96
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by cowerd

    First learn to use google. Its your friend. That way you can be skeptical all by yourself.



    Reverse engineering with specific reference to DCMA

    http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise48.html

    DCMA clause allows reverse engineering for purposes of interoperability. If you think reverse engineering is bad and should be illegal then you can kiss goodbye to SAMBA, DAVE, any word processor that open .doc, most 3D program export and import functions, game add-ons, etc.



    EULA's

    http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/Re...0-04161DDP.pdf: warning .PDF

    Doctrine of First sale is upheld against EULA licensing. UCITA has change legal rulings on EULA and now some are upheld and others not. Legal rulings on EULA are inconsistent at this time. Increased "legality" of EULA has come through increasing Congressional intervention, as has changing copyright laws to benefit copyright owners.




    Sooo, if Apple reversed-engineered Real codecs and allowed Real media files to 'interoperate' with QuickTime and Mac and Windows users could use the free QuickTime to play Real media files and Real was in deep doodoo because they wouldn't be able to sell their Real Player, it would be ok because it's legal?



    I do think reverse engineering should be illegal and I don't mind kissing Samba, Dave, .doc importers, etc. goodbye. While these are all useful, I could do without them.
  • Reply 70 of 96
    3.14163.1416 Posts: 120member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    Sooo, if Apple reversed-engineered Real codecs and allowed Real media files to 'interoperate' with QuickTime and Mac and Windows users could use the free QuickTime to play Real media files and Real was in deep doodoo because they wouldn't be able to sell their Real Player, it would be ok because it's legal?



    Quite possibly, yes. There may be patent issues involved though.



    Quote:

    I do think reverse engineering should be illegal and I don't mind kissing Samba, Dave, .doc importers, etc. goodbye. While these are all useful, I could do without them.



    Wow. Do you have any understanding of the history of the PC? The only reason IBM doesn't have a complete monopoly on computer hardware is because Compaq reverse engineered the PC BIOS. I can't believe you're willing to allow corporations to effectively write their own laws and dictate that any use of a product they don't like is illegal.
  • Reply 71 of 96
    3.14163.1416 Posts: 120member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TednDi

    "Use is subject to acceptance of included software licence"



    Therefore you must agree to the ipod software license to operate the ipod.




    Maybe, maybe not. I can say "by responding to this message you agree to pay me $1000", but that doesn't make it true.



    Quote:

    Real circumvents Apples ipod OS security technology "



    How? The security technology prevents you from copying protected files. Real is not providing a means to do that. They are *using* the security technology, not circumventing it.
  • Reply 72 of 96
    Some of these posts are pretty silly. What are ITMS customers gonna say when Apple's changes to FairPlay disable the music that they legally purchased? How can we assume that Apple can just update the firmware to block Real's files only? If Real's impelentation is good, the files should look the same as Apple's to the iPod. Would ITMS customers tolerate having update the DRM on every one of their music files and on their iPod every couple of months? That legal talk that is heavily quoted here sounds to me like it's saying that you can't tamper with or circumvent DRM on files that you DL from ITMS. They are trying to prevent the DRM from being stripped. This would allow them to be freely traded on P2P networks; obviously a very bad thing. That is NOT the same as emulating their DRM to transfer locked-up music files to the iPod.



    The open/closed iPod thing is just a misunderstanding. If you are talking about DRM'ed music that the major record companies want to sell you, it is a closed platform. If you are talking about rip's of CD's/tapes/LP's that you already own or legal downloading services that do not use DRM, it is open. Two totally different things that need to be talked about separately.



    Some day soon, there will be a standard DRM scheme that all makers of iPod-like devices and DRM download store owners will follow out of self-interest, Apple included. How would we deal with five different CD formats that are not interoperable? We would listen to tapes, that's how.



    By the way, I for one will not support either Apple or Real because I just don't like DRM. I like eMusic.com because I can download top quality, DRM-free VBR mp3's that I can do what I like with for a monthly fee that ends up being much less than 99 cents a song. Of course, you won't find Brittany or Justin or J-Lo there. I consider that an extra added bonus!



    Free the tunes. DRM is lame. Support independant music. Peece.
  • Reply 73 of 96
    banchobancho Posts: 1,517member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by funkfeend

    Some of these posts are pretty silly. What are ITMS customers gonna say when Apple's changes to FairPlay disable the music that they legally purchased? How can we assume that Apple can just update the firmware to block Real's files only? If Real's impelentation is good, the files should look the same as Apple's to the iPod. Would ITMS customers tolerate having update the DRM on every one of their music files and on their iPod every couple of months? That legal talk that is heavily quoted here sounds to me like it's saying that you can't tamper with or circumvent DRM on files that you DL from ITMS. They are trying to prevent the DRM from being stripped. This would allow them to be freely traded on P2P networks; obviously a very bad thing. That is NOT the same as emulating their DRM to transfer locked-up music files to the iPod.



    The open/closed iPod thing is just a misunderstanding. If you are talking about DRM'ed music that the major record companies want to sell you, it is a closed platform. If you are talking about rip's of CD's/tapes/LP's that you already own or legal downloading services that do not use DRM, it is open. Two totally different things that need to be talked about separately.



    Some day soon, there will be a standard DRM scheme that all makers of iPod-like devices and DRM download store owners will follow out of self-interest, Apple included. How would we deal with five different CD formats that are not interoperable? We would listen to tapes, that's how.



    By the way, I for one will not support either Apple or Real because I just don't like DRM. I like eMusic.com because I can download top quality, DRM-free VBR mp3's that I can do what I like with for a monthly fee that ends up being much less than 99 cents a song. Of course, you won't find Brittany or Justin or J-Lo there. I consider that an extra added bonus!



    Free the tunes. DRM is lame. Support independant music. Peece.




    This has already been done once during an update to iTunes and iTunes handles the update transparently for files purchased from iTMS. The problem comes in if you have bought any music from Real's store. Apple would not need to update these files since they were not purchased fom Apple and the responsibility would technically be Real's.
  • Reply 74 of 96
    Some food for thought-

    Scource: http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,33405,00.html



    The rights of software developers and copyright owners are colliding this week in a Seattle courtroom as RealNetworks tries to prevent a rival from getting a piece of its lucrative streaming business.



    Today's the Day. When Redmond-based Streambox developed an application that hacks through RealNetworks' security layer and allows users to save RealAudio and G2 streams into formats such as MP3, RealNetworks cried foul.



    Last month, the company filed a lawsuit accusing Streambox of unfair competition and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), among other things.



    On Wednesday, Streambox posted its response to the RealNetworks' suit, which will be used to fight a temporary federal injunction issued last week in Seattle. The restraining order applies to three applications developed by Streambox: Ripper, VCR, and Ferret. Another hearing is set for Friday to determine whether the injunction should stick.



    "This case is about a company that, in a manner contrary to the laws of the United States, is hijacking very popular RealNetworks' products and using them in ways that content owners did not intend," said Alex Alben, vice president of government affairs at RealNetworks.



    Bob Hildeman, CEO of StreamBox, said the suit came about because RealNetworks sells software that does virtually the same thing as Streambox applications, and Real doesn't want a competing product on the market.



    "The issue is about file conversion, not copyrights," Hildeman said. "RealNetworks has licensed and marketed a similar product that converts from Real to WAV [sound files]. That product is two hundred bucks; our product is 35 dollars.



    "I guess you can't blame Real for wanting to own it all, but we provide an alternate system. I think competition is good. The whole thing is just odd to me," Hildeman said.



    Alongside MP3, RealAudio is the most widespread format on the Net for music listening. Unlike MP3, RealAudio files have security built in so that distribution is controlled by the content owner, who can decide whether their song or event can be downloaded, streamed, or simply previewed.



    In its complaint, RealNetworks claims the Streambox software can illegally disable Real's copy protection system. Using the RealProducer server software, content owners have the option to disable the record function for RealPlayer Plus users. But the Streambox software allows anyone to record a Real stream, regardless of the content owner's wishes.



    "Under the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act], there are special provisions and penalties for any party who intentionally breaks someone else's copy protection. So that, in and of itself, is illegal," said Alben. "I don't believe these products are widely used today, but we think it is very important to demonstrate that RealNetworks technology protects the security of content in our formats and that we nip this type of illegal product in the bud."
  • Reply 75 of 96
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member


    < Biatch's Slapps REAL's FACE! >



    love it!!!
  • Reply 76 of 96
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bobdapoet

    "Under the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act], there are special provisions and penalties for any party who intentionally breaks someone else's copy protection. So that, in and of itself, is illegal," said Alben. "I don't believe these products are widely used today, but we think it is very important to demonstrate that RealNetworks technology protects the security of content in our formats and that we nip this type of illegal product in the bud."



    But that doesn't apply to this situation. No one is breaking copy protection here. Real is making their copy protection compatible with Apple's. That would be more like if Real created a iTunes mockup that accessed the ITMS, bought and downloaded files, decrypted them, and saved them as normal MP3's. That kind of program is undeniably illegal.
  • Reply 77 of 96
    Quote:

    This has already been done once during an update to iTunes and iTunes handles the update transparently for files purchased from iTMS. The problem comes in if you have bought any music from Real's store. Apple would not need to update these files since they were not purchased fom Apple and the responsibility would technically be Real's.



    Sounds like the makings of an arms race to me. My guess is that it will continue until a court intervenes and tells the two sides to play nice, like with IM. Samba is such a perfect example of Apple doing the same thing that Real has done. I noticed nobody has engaged that point in this forum. Apple's business plan of using their music store to sell iPods can only work in the short term. It's just a matter of time before they will have to compete on the basis of value instead of artificial barriers, which I think they can do. Does Steve?
  • Reply 78 of 96
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by funkfeend

    Apple's business plan of using their music store to sell iPods can only work in the short term. It's just a matter of time before they will have to compete on the basis of value instead of artificial barriers, which I think they can do. Does Steve?



    I think you'll find Apple's business plan just a leetle bit more comprehensive than that. And I think you will find that the short term is not that short. These are just the very first skirmishes in long long battle.
  • Reply 79 of 96
    I have a thought about an approach Apple could take (but probably won't just for kicks and giggles)



    Suppose they modify the firmware so that down the road some _fraction_ of Real songs work, but not all, that they work for a while, but then fail, or only work intermittently. You could probably combine this in some way the key to unlock it interacts with metadata, like playcount or something. Then, if done cleverly enough, people would moan about how Real didn't completely work with Apple, rather than Apple being a monopolist ("Hey, if they really understood the system, it would work, it's not our fault their songs break.")
  • Reply 80 of 96
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ebby

    But that doesn't apply to this situation. No one is breaking copy protection here. Real is making their copy protection compatible with Apple's. That would be more like if Real created a iTunes mockup that accessed the ITMS, bought and downloaded files, decrypted them, and saved them as normal MP3's. That kind of program is undeniably illegal.



    Wrong...Apple has intended for their AAC-Protected format to only work with iTunes and iPods. Real is circumventing that. The situation is very real.
Sign In or Register to comment.