Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Steve Most]

Just saw this article and wanted to know what it means for us.
I can't understand what the big deal is. Record or download something, convert it to mp3 and there you go. What am I missing? I've been using Media Center with my iPod and with TiVo and it is great. - - Steve

Apple to investigate RealNetworks related to iPod
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08:57 a.m. 07/29/2004  
NEW YORK, July 29 (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL) on Thursday said it is investigating RealNetworks Inc. (RNWK) for releasing software that allow users to transfer songs purchased on the RealPlayer Music Store service to Apple's iPod.
 
"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the implications," Apple said in a statement.
 
Apple said that once its iPod software is updated, it is highly likely that RealNetworks technology will cease to work with current and future iPods.

[IanG]

I don't think this has any bearing on MC.  There's more info here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3925897.stm

Ian G.

[JimH]

I believe what Real is doing is this:

Real sells a protected file in some protected format, maybe AAC.

To upload to iPod, they convert the format to Apple's protected AAC.  They may even use this format for all the files they sell.

I'm just guessing here, but I don't think they are converting to MP3 to play on iPod.  That would strip off protection and the record labels would probably not allow it.

[kiwi]

I'm pretty sure that the issue with Real is that they are using their protected files on the iPod, not Apples.  While Apple would probably like people to be using iTunes, they probably don't care too too much as long as people are using files purchased at the iTMS.  I believe the MC probably doesn't really do anything to the files when it puts them on the iPod.  

Real on the other hand has found a way to use the iPod for files from their own music store.  Apple doesn't like that very much at all.

That's at least my take on things.

kiwi

[IanG]

As I understand it, Apple's case is that Real have reverse engineered Apple's copy protection software.  What happens to a file once it's been protected isn't an issue.

Ian G.

[DocLotus]

There are three possible ways to get your stuff to work on some else's stuff...

1: Hack it... Hacking is bad & very illegal.

2: Reverse engineer it... Reverse engineering basically means you found a way to copy it which is also usually illegal.

3: Blind engineer it from scratch... Blind engineering means you created a totally new way to do the same thing without infringing on some one else's patents.  This is exactly what happened with AMD processors.  They are very different from Intel processors yet they still perform all the required functions to run on a Win-Tel computer.

Which one did Real use... only Real & the courts will know for sure ?

[meehawl]

Reverse engineering basically means you found a way to copy it which is also usually illegal.

If reverse engineering was "usually illegal" then we would not today have the IBM PC compatible market.

It is a tragedy for the US IT industry that the DMCA attempts to criminalise reverse engineering when encryption is involved.

This simply means that crypto-related reverse engineering will be done outside the US, which will be reduced to putting pretty front-ends on interoperable software utilities developed in the rest of the world.

[DocLotus]

Hi meehawl;

It was perfectly ok to copy the original IBM PC as IBM deliberately built their first PC's with off the shelf material that anyone could use.  In fact, IBM made the whole architecture open source and encouraged others to copy the PC basics as they knew full well that was the only way it was ever going to take hold if any standards were going the accepted.

Remember, this was the time of Apple dominance.  There were 10,000 software packages for the Apple but what could run on an IMB PC you could count on two hands.

The group that developed the IBM PC in Boca Raton Florida was a pretty wild group compared to the IBM of that timeframe.  They were working on a shoestring & a prayer.

I was involved with PC's back then (1980 & 81) and the IBM PC did not sell very well at first; in fact, it almost failed.  It was not until LOTUS Development brought out a little spreadsheet program called LOTUS 1-2-3 (in 1981) that suddenly every bean counter in the world had software that would run on the IBM PC.  Then Word Perfect came out and all the secretaries had a real word processor that they could use.

The combination of LOTUS 1-2-3 and Word Perfect made the IBM sell and turn into the success it finally became.

[meehawl]

It was perfectly ok to copy the original IBM PC as IBM deliberately built their first PC's with off the shelf material that anyone could use.  In fact, IBM made the whole architecture open source and encouraged others to copy the PC basics

On the contrary, while there were lots of MS-DOS compatibles using the same off-the-shelf components, making an unlicenced IBM compatible was very, very difficult. The IBM BIOS meant that 100% compatibility was not possible without the core BIOS routines. IBM's BIOS was painstakingly reverse-engineered by San Jose's Phoenix Software and then re-sold willy-nilly, thus making it possible for a flood of 100% compatible IBM PC clones, not workalike machines, to dominate the market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM-PC_compatible#Origins

In creating the platform, IBM used only one proprietary component: the BIOS. Columbia copied the IBM PC and produced the first 'compatible' (ie compatible to the IBM PC standard) PC in 1982. Compaq Computer Corp. produced its first IBM PC compatible (which was also the first sewing machine-sized portable PC) a few months later in 1982 — the Compaq Portable. Compaq could not directly copy the BIOS as a result of the court decision in Apple v. Franklin, but it could reverse-engineer the IBM BIOS and then write its own BIOS using clean room design.

http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.asp?p=29470&rl=1

Phoenix's method for legally duplicating the IBM PC BIOS was an ingenious form of reverse- engineering. It hired two teams of software engineers, the second of which had to be specially screened to consist only of people who had never before seen or studied the IBM BIOS code. The first team did study the IBM BIOS and wrote as complete a description of what it did as possible. The second team read the description written by the first team and set out to write from scratch a new BIOS that did everything the first team described. The end result was a new BIOS written from scratch with code that, although not identical to IBM's, had exactly the same functionality.