[Macworld]

Post your comments for EFF berates Apple over open-source iTunes project here

[dreyfus]

Maybe they should just read section two of the iTunes software license agreement - especially the part dealing with reverse engineering. If they misuse their own freedom approach, just to instruct others on how to violate licenses and tamper with others intellectual property, then they should not really be astonished if they are approached by lawyers.
An "anti-competitive tie-in device"? There are at least 300 different MP3-players on the market - the majority of those can be mounted as a volume under Linux. If there is anything anti-competitive here, than it is Apple loosing out Linux users. Limiting the own business is anti-competitive? Interesting. Are all these camcorder, DSLR and sound interface (just to name a few) vendors not supporting Linux... anti-competitive as well? I was a MS victim half of my life, and I am all against anti-competitive behavior. People who think that theft is justified, just because they are too dim to buy a device that plays well with their choice of OS, do not fight anti-competitiveness or support fair use - they are just a nuisance.

[redfox]

Apple isn't likely to prevail in court on this one. The DMCA doesn't apply because they can't show any attempt to circumvent copy protection of the content in question. The users on BlueWiki are simply trying to play their legally purchased music with their legally purchased ipod. Apple won't be able to show intent to do otherwise. Apple can't even point to the ITunes "terms of use" as there's no evidence that the BlueWiki posters have ever used ITunes and so they never agreed to the terms of use. Unlike software, hardware is owned by, not licensed to the user -- Apple has no legal way to force owners of hardware to use their own personal property in a specified fashion simply for the sake of corporate profitability, not unless they can prove the owners were using it to break the law.

Apple is simply being an "ugly monopolist," acting in fashions that antitrust law has already found illegal in relation to Microsoft. This reminds a lot of the ugly DeCSS battles of yesteryear. The movie industry lost that battle and Apple will lose this one as well.

[jpellino]

They reverse-engineered iTunes without launching it? Doesn't pass the smell test.
They could really impress us if they could engineer a player/ software platform that could compete.
The EFF originally had much bigger fish to fry. They seem bored.

[akira34]

DSLR and camcorder manufactures don't FORCE you to use their software if you want to connect their devices to your system... Apple does... There are applications available for all platforms, Linux included, that allow you to interface with DSLR media as well as camcorders. Many of them are actually included in the software available for installation while you setup a Linux distro. Plus, you have more options available to you through a few simple searches.
A quick example is found by doing a simple search for 'digital camera' on sourceforge.net's web site... You get over 1500 results... Another search for 'camcorder' yields 11 projects/results.
Basically, every other company (other than apple) won't fight people looking to make software work with their devices. Especially when it comes to the Linux community. If anything, they realize that it's to their benefit to have these geniuses creating software.
Maybe apple's just upset that the Linux community is encroaching on their tiny market share (of the computer industry) and have to over react at every turn.
While the other manufacturers MIGHT not actively support Linux, they're not shutting down people trying to get their items to work with it. There IS a difference... A rather large one in fact.

[dreyfus]

redfox said:

Apple isn't likely to prevail in court on this one. The DMCA doesn't apply because they can't show any attempt to circumvent copy protection of the content in question. The users on BlueWiki are simply trying to play their legally purchased music with their legally purchased ipod.

I did not talk about DMCA - it has clearly nothing to do with DMCA, unless Apple is writing any data to these hash tables that is indeed used for protection/verification. As they have not yet been able to decrypt that data - they do not know either. These people have bought an electronic device that clearly states on every box that it will only work with iTunes, and that it will only work with OS X or Windows. My cablebox of provider A does also not decrypt content from provider B - that is because devices are made for a specific purpose and are sold for this purpose. The "legally purchased iPod" does contain licensed software which does not belong to the buyer. Disassembling that in violation of the license is at least a contract/license violation. If courts would see that as something trial-worthy is a different question.

redfox said:

Apple can't even point to the ITunes "terms of use" as there's no evidence that the BlueWiki posters have ever used ITunes and so they never agreed to the terms of use. Unlike software, hardware is owned by, not licensed to the user -- Apple has no legal way to force owners of hardware to use their own personal property in a specified fashion simply for the sake of corporate profitability, not unless they can prove the owners were using it to break the law.

There is licensed software on the iPod and this software is writing these database tables. No iPod buyer has any ownership here. If BlueWiki users have never used iTunes, they had no mean to create these tables and decrypt them. One or the other is a lie. iTunes is free software - there is no corporate profitability involved. No iPod user has to buy music from iTunes, you can buy/rip DRM-free software from literally anywhere. You just cannot tamper with the included software (which is licensed only) to make it work under configurations that are not supported (there is legal information included on each and every iPod except for the Shuffle). You cannot do that with pretty much any device on the market.

redfox said:

Apple is simply being an "ugly monopolist," acting in fashions that antitrust law has already found illegal in relation to Microsoft. This reminds a lot of the ugly DeCSS battles of yesteryear. The movie industry lost that battle and Apple will lose this one as well.

Microsoft was selling music and players and was fined for it? That was not even an issue in the MS trials. Apple is not a monopolist (they have maybe 70% is the US and far less anywhere else) - there are several hundred competing products on the market and Apple is making truthful statements about the devices purpose on the packaging. People deliberately buy them for other purposes, rely on others to violate licenses to make it possible and cry foul when it does not work out... If the EFF thinks that Apple is doing something unlawful here (which is highly doubtful, as not being a monopolist they can use as many proprietary and closed file formats as they like) - then they are free to seek a legal clarification. If they had a case, they would.

[redfox]

> They reverse-engineered iTunes without launching it? Doesn't pass the smell test.

Nonsense. Nobody is interested in reverse-engineering ITunes -- in fact, the whole point here is to have as little to do with ITunes as possible.. They are working to reverse-engineer a FILE on the IPOD device called the ItunesDB. Altough Apple mis-names the file ITunesDB, it simply indexes the locations of the songs on the IPod, so IPodDB would be a better name. There's nothing in the ITunesDB that intrinsically links the file to ITunes in any way more than any other software that may be able to manipulate it. In addition, the file is completely unrelated to Apple's "Fairplay DRM," despite Apple's bogus claims. The ITunesDB indexes DRM-free AAC and MP3 content as well, so there's no relationship whatsoever between ITunesDB and DRM.



The EFF has an excellent summary of the arguments against this on its website. Read it, and you'll find Apple simply doesn't have a case here.

http://www.eff.org/d...-dmca-violation

[redfox]

> I did not talk about DMCA - it has clearly nothing to do with DMCA

Apple sure thinks it does. Read their cease-and-desist letter.

> There is licensed software on the iPod and this software is writing
these database tables. No iPod buyer has any ownership

Apple can't license the DATA, only the instruction code. The ITunesDB is data; not code. It's relationship to ITunes is like that of a PDF file to Adobe's Acrobat software. And anyway, my point was that the ITunes Software License is irrelevant because we're not talking about data that's part of ITunes. This data came with the IPod. The only software license agreement that matters is whatever license agreement (if any) Apple supplied with the ipod itself.

> If
BlueWiki users have never used iTunes, they had no mean to create these
tables and decrypt them.

Wrong, the ITunesDB comes with every Ipod whether it's talked to Itunes or not.

> rely on others to violate
licenses to make it possible and cry foul when it does not work out...

Wrong on both counts. The DMCA specifically allows circumvention for the purposes of interoperability, so there's no evidence that any license are violated. Second, the only reason why BluWiki is crying foul is that apple is attempting to violate their constitutional first amendment right to DISCUSS ITunesDB. Apple is allowed to do that.



As I said, Apple has no case here on so many levels. They're attempting to use intimidation to muscle in on first amendment freedom of speech, and they're never going to prevail in court on this one.

[dreyfus]

akira34 said:

DSLR and camcorder manufactures don't FORCE you to use their software if you want to connect their devices to your system... Apple does... There are applications available for all platforms, Linux included, that allow you to interface with DSLR media as well as camcorders. Many of them are actually included in the software available for installation while you setup a Linux distro. Plus, you have more options available to you through a few simple searches.

This is only partially true. Camera manufacturers do not force you, because it has no merit for them. They have no means to compete with Avid, Adobe, Apple et al anyhow when it comes to software, and putting these restrictions in would damage their business. If it would suit them, they would do it in a heartbeat. Several camera-specific RAW libraries are not available under Linux at all - they use one and the same conversion routine for several similar models. Results are nowhere near to what you get from fine-tuned support using the licensed SDKs in most Windows and OS X applications. Camcorder support (especially for newer high end formats) under Linux is actually zero. Does not hurt, as there are no suitable NLEs either. There are plenty devices on the market that only work with manufacturer supplied software, nothing is illegal about it. If Apple does want to maintain a brand image and control over the user experience (part of the product value) they can disallow tinkered solutions, that only exist to enable unintended use. If something does not suit your requirements - don't buy it.

Quote

Maybe apple's just upset that the Linux community is encroaching on their tiny market share (of the computer industry) and have to over react at every turn.

Over react? These people violate a license agreement and discuss/instruct how to violate it on the Internet. Sure, they should show some appreciation for the thieves... Linux users (desktop) do not pay - ask any vendor that started commercial software projects in the past... Apple does not even want these customers.

Quote

While the other manufacturers MIGHT not actively support Linux, they're not shutting down people trying to get their items to work with it. There IS a difference... A rather large one in fact.

There is indeed a large difference - the vast majority of these projects work on data and format descriptions provided by the hardware manufacturers - they do not start off with license violation and reverse engineering, using freedom as a stalking-horse for dispossession.

[context]

They have been called thieves a couple of times in this discussion. What are they stealing? Will their mods allow them to steal iPods or music from the iTunes store?

[dreyfus]

redfox said:

> I did not talk about DMCA - it has clearly nothing to do with DMCA

Apple sure thinks it does. Read their cease-and-desist letter.

Yep, but I did not say that they are necessarily right about it. On the other side, I am not 100% confident about it either. The newer iPod/iPhone models do have encrypted video output - if any of the data in these tables relates to it, or could even be used to circumvent protection, I do not know. For sure older iPods did not have that "feature".

Quote

Apple can't license the DATA, only the instruction code. The ITunesDB is data; not code. It's relationship to ITunes is like that of a PDF file to Adobe's Acrobat software. And anyway, my point was that the ITunes Software License is irrelevant because we're not talking about data that's part of ITunes. This data came with the IPod. The only software license agreement that matters is whatever license agreement (if any) Apple supplied with the ipod itself.

Quote

Wrong, the ITunesDB comes with every Ipod whether it's talked to Itunes or not.

These statements are 100% self-contradictory. If the database comes with every iPod, than it is not user created data, but part of the software. If it is not on the iPod upon delivery, iTunes was used to create it. In either case - decrypting it is in violation of the license.

Quote

Wrong on both counts. The DMCA specifically allows circumvention for the purposes of interoperability, so there's no evidence that any license are violated. Second, the only reason why BluWiki is crying foul is that apple is attempting to violate their constitutional first amendment right to DISCUSS ITunesDB. Apple is allowed to do that.

The DMCA provision for lawful circumvention for interoperability is only applicable, if there is no infringement on other parts of the title. Without knowing the contents of the database - this cannot be answered. And only knowing this answer would determine, if the discussion would safely be covered by the first amendment (which would only apply if the source of the information is indeed legal). The big question mark here is - why did Apple refer to the DMCA, if the database really contains no data at all that can be used for copyright circumvention? Stopping/hindering Linux interoperability for no reason seems illogical ? as not even the cheaper and DRM-free offers by Amazon could stop iTunes' success (and there is interoperability there).

[Heart_Man_2000]

If Apple is such a horrid company, why buy any of their products? For all the effort going into this stuff, why not redirect the effort and build your own mp3 player and then publish the circuit diagrams and construction details. Then you'd be free to do with as you wish.

[alandail]

The file is encrypted, so nobody outside Apple knows for sure what's in the file until it's unencrypted. How can people presume to know for sure if the file has anything to do with fairplay or not. There certainly should be something on the iPods that tells them they are authorized to play fairplay protected songs for a given iTunes account.

[Damager]

Exactly, alandail.
The DMCA isn't the Digital Music Copyright Act - its the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It doesn't have to be music (or video or literature or art etc) in the encrypted DB file for it to be illegal to circumvent the encryption - it just has to have the encryption in order to demonstrate that its usage is controlled in some manner and attempting to reverse engineer that encryption for the purpose of getting at the contents is specifically an attempt at circumvention of those controls.

If people want to get hung up about the contents of the file (which at the very least is likely to include proprietary intellectual property), then (and this is obviously pure speculation) Apple could place within it a section of licensed copyrighted material such as even a single artwork cover from any in its library (not YOUR library) and you wouldn't know until you've circumvented the encryption and found it. If this is the case, would all the efforts to facilitate operations of iPod integration on Linux immediately cease out of respect for the DMCA then? In essense, that last part is all that Apple is trying to achieve, without getting to a point where someone has already breached the DMCA. In my mind Apple's stance can be likened to a restraining order for the purpose of preventing a crime taking place and the EFF can be described as taking the place of the bully, in this matter.