RSSApple uses DMCA as a weapon against an open source iTunes hack
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published November 26, 2008, 5:15 PM
A simple effort by an open source developer to make his iPod's data legible by a Linux-based program, could balloon into a test of copyright so important that the fate of global trade agreements could hang in the balance.
In the fall of 2007, as a way of protecting the link between its iPods and iPhones and the iTunes music store databases (iTunesDB) stored on those devices, Apple began employing a hashing algorithm. The result was that transactions between a device and the music store were masked, with a side benefit being that iPods could only conduct transactions through iTunes using only Apple's software -- which is a big problem for computer users with Linux.
For example, users of a third-party iTunes work-alike for Linux called YamiPod discovered their late-model iPods would not work with their software, while older models worked just fine. The issue here isn't really so much trying to set up a competitive store to Apple's, but rather to make database transactions work for Linux users.
Within a few weeks, Apple's scheme was cracked, and the details of the scheme made it appear downright laughable, almost like using plastic traffic cones to block an entrance.
This year, Apple reworked the hashing scheme to make it more difficult to crack. And that effort, in a sense, was successful; this time, instead of a few weeks to crack, it took several. As independent engineer Sam Odio wrote on his blog at the time, "Apple changed the hashing scheme. And here we are to reverse it yet again."
Last November 11, Apple sent Odio a takedown notice, indicating that the "reversing" to which he referred could be construed as a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and characterizing Odio's project as an assault on FairPlay, Apple's DRM system.
"FairPlay is considered anti-circumvention technology under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act," wrote attorney Ian Ramage. "The DMCA explicitly prohibits the dissemination of information that can be used to circumvent such technology." Ramage went on to ask that the information be taken down; when it wasn't, the next day, he sent a new message with this threat: "Failure to do so will result in legal liability."
Yesterday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation announced it would represent Odio in court, if necessary. In Odio's defense, senior staff attorney Fred von Lohmann is preparing to argue that the iTunesDB file stored on individual users' iPods no more belongs to Apple than does every Web page that has ever appeared in Safari.
"The iTunesDB file is not authored by Apple, nor does it appear that Apple has any copyright interest in it," von Lohmann wrote yesterday. "Instead, the iTunesDB file on every iPod is the result of the individual choices each iPod owner makes in deciding what music and other media to put on her iPod. In other words, the iTunesDB file is to iTunes as this blog post is to Safari -- when I use Safari to produce a new work, I own the copyright in the resulting file, not Apple."
The contents of that database reflect the choices of its user, regardless of the format it is produced in, von Lohmann goes on to argue. And as such, those choices could conceivably be constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. What's more, he points out, a DMCA exception has already been written into law for the express purpose of permitting individuals to make contents interoperable between technologies or devices they own.
But von Lohmann -- probably knowingly -- touched upon an issue in US law that has come up from time to time, and may yet be unresolved: the issue of who, truly, owns a database. Like an episode of TV's "Law & Order," the first half of the story is about one thing, until the second half twists the story to become about something else entirely.
In both US and European law, there's a concept called sui generis database protection (from the Latin meaning "unto its own"), which is the idea that a database is essentially the intellectual property of the creator of the database technology. So any attempt to reverse-engineer the format to get at the contents, under this concept, would be a rejection of the principle.
European law currently makes provisions for this principle, which was necessary given that so many EU member countries had different legal definitions of a database's IP -- to the extent that software publishers were unwilling to publish in countries foreign to their own. US law, on the other hand, largely rejects this principle, but only to a certain extent. The guiding principle for America is a 1991 Supreme Court case, Feist v. Rural Telephone (two publishers of telephone directories), in which it was determined that the contents of a database were not protected by copyright if those contents failed a certain standard of creativity. It's not a creative process, in other words, to compile a list of who lives where; so if a competitor's list was literally scanned from the pages of the other directory, it may be a violation of something, but not copyright law. In other words, no "authorship" took place.
There have been many legal challenges to Feist since that time, including legislation still being considered though never passed by Congress that would deem it a crime to copy a published database for the purposes of doing harm to its publishers, or for otherwise doing business with the database that was unauthorized by its publishers. Consider such legislation a new concept of "circumventing" copyright law: making copying data for unauthorized purposes illegal despite the state of copyright.
Pressure on lawmakers to pass such a law comes from groups such as the World Trade Organization, which are looking for guarantees that database technology imported into the US not be circumvented by users looking to get at databases' contents.
So a valid argument could be made that Apple has no specific claim to copyright of the data in a user's iTunesDB, so if that user tried his own means to get at that data, Apple could not claim harm. But the EFF's von Lohmann is making a very dangerous attachment to that argument: specifically, that the contents of an iTunes database reflect users' personal choices and tastes, and are thus considered expressions.
If they are expressions, as von Lohmann suggests, then Apple could very well turn the whole argument on its ear, employing the Feist standard to suggest that expression implies authorship, and if the database is truly authored...it fails the Feist test for exception to copyright. As ridiculous as this may sound on the surface, a legally plausible argument under current US law could be concocted for one company's claim of copyright over a database because some other party authored its contents.
There's a very good possibility that the name "Odio" could join the name "Feist" one day, as one of the pinnacle cases of US copyright law. And since we know how that process works already, we could be talking about this case well past 2012.
Apple is pure Evil and no better that Microsoft when it comes to protecting their profits amd putting profit over everything.
Even if it means you and I the end user lose.
BTW: I own no Apple products and do not ever plan to.
Score: 0
Talk about a bold, epic opening paragraph!
Score: 0
You want to know how to stop hackers dead in their tracks? Just study Apple's security moves. If antivirus companies paid attention to Apple's brilliant security policies and practices, there would be no more viruses.
Score: 0
-_-
Score: 0
So move the code to a country that doesn't support DMCA (read: any other country on the planet except the US) and have a nice life.
Problem solved.
Score: 0
Just don't move it to Canada, where the 'enlightened' folks have also passed their own version of DMCA.
For you see, only refugees who have contributed nothing and who have run from another hell hole selectively take credit for what their adopted country has done, and make excuses for the things they disagree with.
Right, Palmetto bug?
Score: -1
Really?
When did that happen?
Gringo Amerikanski - doesn't have a clue what happens outside their own street let alone their own country. :) :) ;)
Harper (the Prime Minister - just so you know who he is) alluded to copyright reform in the Speech from the Throne.
Nothing is "passed".
Parliament isn't even in session.
It is quite likely that given his position (minority government because we don't trust him to do much - he's a Conservative after all), nothing will pass.
Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear (as hard as that is for a racist bigoted good ol' boy ignoramus like yourself).
Now, if you'll excuse me I gotta get back to "The Good Life" in God's Country... (you know, the one youre so terminally jealous of)
Oh, I almost forgot: isn't today Thanksgiving, so named for the ceremony inaugurated by a bunch of refugees and societal rejects thanking Their God for helping them stay alive in a land they fled to in an effort to escape a society that essentially considered them pariahs?
Happy Thanksgiving, foxyre! I'm glad to see that you're so proud of your forbears. (snicker)
Score: 0
You know what is really funny?
Here is a wetback immigrant attacking someone who was BORN in Canada and is also a Canadian citizen as he rants against the US and things Canadian.
Hers's a thought Palmetto Bug (or c0ckroach for those of you not familiar with the term), go back to Jamaica and contribute to your illustrius culture instead of claiming all that Canada has accomplished WITHOUT YOU and quit b!tching about what others are doing in spite of your leeching off the system.
Ya mon, tell us what its like to be a "Canadian"! LOL!
Why don't you tell us about the astounding contributions to Canadian society that you have made that you are so quick to take credit for as you attack others? Or better yet, compare Jamaica's stellar contributions to either the US or Canada...
A rascist? You are the one who constantly blames the US and takes credit for other's accomplishments as you totally ignore your own illustrious heritage.
And just listen to the ignoramous criticize the Pilgrims as he is so totally ignorant of the shared history of the colonization of US and Canada!!! What a ignorant wank!!!!
And listen as he claims: "ceremony inaugurated by a bunch of refugees and societal rejects thanking God for helping them stay alive in a land they fled to in an effort to escape a society that essentially considered them pariahs?" And this from the latest c0ckroach to flee.
Sounds to me like you are talking about your Santa Ria chicken god in the land of squalor from whence you crawled to sponge off what the Canadian society has to offer! No wonder you support the socialists, as YOU stand to get something for nothing based on the contributions of others.
So here we have the real coackroach: a wetback who immigrates as he trashes other more productive immigrants who have actually contributed to and made a much better society from the squalor from whence he came! And simply by virtue of association, he elevates himself over America solely on the basis of what OTHERS have done - you know - the other societal rejects who settled BOTH Canada and the US!
But he is right about one thing! He is not of those 'rejects', as they have actually accomplished something greater from whence they came. While this Jamaican leech simply takes credit for other's accomplishments as he trashes those who have provided for the benefits from which he sponges.
Congrats c0ckroach! I love to listen to such an egotistical ingrate trash Canadian and US accomplishments as you leech off the benefits provided by the others you denigrate - like a true c0ckroach!
And since you think the rest of the majority of Canadians so heinous, go back to your little piss pot of a home where the cultural contribution to the world consists of little more then bongs, abject poverty, and a one off bobsled team that not even Jamica could sustain!
Score: 0
Responses were deleted by BetaNews for offensive content. Some non-offensive replies to those responses may also have been removed.
Score: 0
You could also make the argument that Apple has not released iTunes for the Linux crowd and that ties them into either their own system Apple OS or that of a competitors Windows for the sake of purchasing songs.
Apple was already on the hook for making people purchase a Mac to use their iPod when they first came out.
Score: 0
iTune is an opt IN product! Not some opt out service you are forced to use!
It is a service Apple started to provide content for their iPod.
All of this 'open' talk is fascinating!
Yup, if BMW makes a particular radio an option for their car, they are mean and evil if they do not make it available for every other brand of car.
You folks need to get a clue.
You want iTunes, get an Apple compatible product. Gee, having the repsonsibility for making a choice is just SOOOOO difficult.
Score: 0
Why the foxfyre racist is allowed to continually make racial slurs at people all the time I don't know. Other then it is a pathetic voice that shows how shallow the other side truly has become towards the ever growing masses that are voting opposition lawmakers out of office every term.
However I will say that I agree that the iPod product makes a wonderful UMS MP3 and Mpeg device, if you simply use it that way and rid yourself of itunes and any purchased media all together. Its dam near perfect for any ripped mp3s, Downloaded mp3s, or ripped or downloaded avi mpeg files. I have never looked back at itunes since making the ipod 100% UMS and just using it as a HD. I can drag and drop the files anywhere (even copies for friends) as I would any usb HD, and they play just fine. I even have a device that plugs into the back of it so it has a wider screen on the other side. (added battery life as well)
Point is Apple is Not required for the purchased device to work well. much in the same way the iphone was easily modded to work as it always should have, the ipod is the same. Cut the apple store out of your life and you will be all the better for it.
Score: 0
ROFLMAO!
You nitwit, I simply return the favor!
You have a group of about 4 idiots here who have continually blamed all of the worlds problems on the US and absolve themselves! So its rascist to simply point out a few of the precedent setting and continuing issues that they have so completely and utterly failed to adequately address or contain - as they worry about internal issues in the US?
And here you have one wacko who ROUTINELY attacks the US while posing as a Canadian, and who n fact is simply a transplant to Canada after the US 'took a bit too long to let him in' and has done nothing to create that which he selectively takes credit for - as selectively trashes the other Canadians in his new found refuge! And he attacks me from that position despite my having dual citizenship with Canada and the US from birth. Of course, you neglect to reference the historical posts to which the reply refers.
...Note the irony, or are we going a bit too fast for you?
I don't have any issues with the other countries, with the exception of the EU courts trying to extend their influence and control over trade POLICY in lieu of the institutions that Should be doing so, via their efforts to manage foreign companies (eg Intel and AMD).
Score: -1
Responses were deleted by BetaNews for offensive content. Some non-offensive replies to those responses may also have been removed.
Score: 0
But can they sue you if you legally buy the radio and then wire it in such a fashion as to work in a different automobile?
Score: 0
What next. Digital camera manufacturers will tell us we don't own the photos on our cameras because the data is stored in a proprietary system? We don't own the toothpaste in our toothpaste tubes because it's injected through proprietary process?
Score: 0
Not quite.
I think the point here is that, yes, the information in the database does indeed belong to you, but the method protecting it from being manipulated isn't yours.
You first have to break the outer casing to get to the gooey centre as it were. In this case, the outer casing is protected by law.
Much like swan eggs in the UK.
Score: 0
Why do you even bother to try to explain this to the whiny self-absorbed self-entitled crowd?
Score: 0
Meh, it's worth a try.
I always hope for a different outcome, but it won't happen.
Score: 0
Paul that is the commonly accepted definition for "insanity".
...doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome...
LOL!
Score: 0
MnnnnnnnnnnnggggggCUCKOOmmzoiizigarrrrrrrrrgh
Score: 0
CHEAP WHOLESALE:
Nike Jordan\Air Jordan shoes, Air force ones sneakers, Nike SB,Nike dunk shoes
We are very professional supplier of Adidas shoes Wholesale,Cheap Gucci shoes,Prada shoes For sale,Wholesale Nike shoesTimberland shoes,and many other Nike Shoes,JordanS shoes are reviewed, listed, and talked about here.
Air Jordans,Nike Jordans Wholesale Nike, wholesale nike shoes,Jordan Shoes,wholesale t-shirt,wholesale Jordans,brand t-shirt,jeans,Wholesale handbags,Wallet, Jacket, Hoodies.
BrandDaze.com:Wholesale Air Force Ones,Wholesale jordan sneakers,nike sneakers,cheap Jordan,Jordan shoes,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Nike Air Jordan Shoes.
Nike Shoes,Air Jordan And Nike Jordan Shoes Are So cheap to Buy!
Cheap Wholesale Shoes International Trade Co.,Ltd Form China!
Score: -1
Why do you continue to breath air? quite frankly you should be glad we do not allow addresses to be posted cause your head would quite likely find itself separated from its comfortable placement for things you have called people in these forums.
Viva La Vida
Score: 0
apple should create a new hash or blocking mechanism then; stop leaning on government.
Score: 0
exactly
Score: 0
apple should come up with a new hash then, stop leaning on government.
Score: 0
...or they could simply post the same insight multiple times and intimidate the folks who want to use iTunes -
...as evidently Apple has so much revenue already that they do not need nor want the additional income.
It makes much more sense to use already existing law. ...Assuming, of course, that Apple's marketing strategy makes any sense to anyone.
Score: 0
exactly
... oh wow... i just had a déjà vu moment
Score: 0
If Apple would just offer iTunes for Linux, this problem would not even exist. The person is simply trying to use Apple's music store with Apple's music players. Doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.
Score: 0
And again, for the nth time on this forum, iTunes is Apple's proprietary product.
They are free to do wharever enlightened or utterely stupid thing they like with it.
If you don't like it, or it doesn't work with your system, why do folks keep wanting to use it?
What is amazing is that here we get to listen to so many fanboys whine about iTunes and say how dastardly and stupid it and Apple is.
But the problem is NOT trying to keep people in, it is a case where MANY are trying to gain access to it! Apple is in effect turning away people who want to give them their money.
Definately not the smarted business strategy ever devised, but they are certainy entitled to do it.
If Apple was forcing people to use it, that would be one thing. But here we have the opposite! Where people are clamoring to get in!
So, it if we reframed the argument and said that all of the folks from El Salvador and Guatemala want to enter the US (the few not already here illegally ;-), is the US obliged to accept them?
Such ire and angst over low-fi #@$% MP3s and equivalants. LOL!
Score: 0
This is the same thing as buying a car that only runs on one brand of gasoline of the manufacturer's choice. You do not have the right to use another brand that costs less $$$$ at the pump. See how far they get with this rip-off, before the JUST US Dept files a deluge of anti-trust lawsuits against the companies involved with this scheme.
Most of the commercial ammunition was INVENTED by the big gun makers. They won't sue each other for manufacturing their own versions of the other guy's calibers! Everybody does it.
The entertainment MAFIA and Silicon Valley GEEKS (are the only ones) besides drug dealing gangsters, who think that they are entitled to a MONOPOLY...
Score: 0
CHEAP WHOLESALE:
Nike Jordan\Air Jordan shoes, Air force ones sneakers, Nike SB,Nike dunk shoes
We are very professional supplier of Adidas shoes Wholesale,Cheap Gucci shoes,Prada shoes For sale,Wholesale Nike shoesTimberland shoes,and many other Nike Shoes,JordanS shoes are reviewed, listed, and talked about here.
Air Jordans,Nike Jordans Wholesale Nike, wholesale nike shoes,Jordan Shoes,wholesale t-shirt,wholesale Jordans,brand t-shirt,jeans,Wholesale handbags,Wallet, Jacket, Hoodies.
BrandDaze.com:Wholesale Air Force Ones,Wholesale jordan sneakers,nike sneakers,cheap Jordan,Jordan shoes,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Nike Air Jordan Shoes.
Nike Shoes,Air Jordan And Nike Jordan Shoes Are So cheap to Buy!
Cheap Wholesale Shoes International Trade Co.,Ltd Form China!
Score: -1
Having a popular device seems to be "going to their heads."
Score: 0
"almost like using plastic traffic cones to block an entrance."
You got your parking space back then.
Score: 0
haha hes not trying to circumvent DRM hes attempting to to break the process that itunes uses to put music on new ipods so that he could make his 3rd party open source linux program work with newer ipods. Hes doing it to help all ipod owners that run only linux or would like to have a native linux app instead of a windows app running on wine. "The issue here isn't really so much trying to set up a competitive store to Apple's, but rather to make database transactions work for Linux users." That has nothing to do with DRM, apple had no problem the last time they did it, so why should they care now?
Score: 0
"apple had no problem the last time they did it, so why should they care now?"
They did. That's why they changed the hashing algorithm.
Score: 0
Nothing new here.
This is exactly what was done in regards to CSS 7 or 8 years ago.
ANY attempt to circumvent DRM is prohibited by the law. Its that simple.
Score: 0
Isn't Fair use rights also a law. That law in fact was established well before the DCMA. At no point was fair use made illegal so shouldn't it out rank any law that was created later than it? It's even simpler than you first thought.
Score: 0
This has nothing to do with Fair Use. This is a case regarding the reverse engineering of the iTunes database, to which Apple holds the copyright.
The argument will be whether or not Apple owns the information stored within that database, and thus whether or not it can block access to that information through a proprietary means of access.
It's really not as simple as either of you seem to be trying to imply.
Score: 0
The material is licensed by the owners of said material to iTunes!
The material did not just happen to wander into iTunes where it was kidnapped and made available for distribution!
So, assuming that the material was legitimately made availble via iTunes to begin with, your objection is moot.
Score: 0
I made no objection other than the application of Fair Use, and was merely making an assumption based on the article of one way in which it may be looked at. That part was an opinion, not an objection. But then, I am all too well aware of your inability to respond to the actual post or statements in question as proven in the last thread, so it's not a terrible surprise to me.
So you've got the nuances of the First Sale Doctrine, how "sui generis" can or can not be applied to personal data, and how personal collections can or can not be viewed as personal IP nailed down 100%, right?
No, you don't. It's not possible. Even the lawyers and judges have trouble with these issues (but you are so much smarter than they are, right?) So suggesting that the case is simple, or that you have all the answers is beyond absurd. But again, that's exactly what you are.
Oh, and for God's sake, please don't try to label me as an Apple fanboy/hater. I really couldn't care less and my previous comments would stand regardless of the parties involved. I've noticed it's one of your favorite ways to marginalize someone's contributions to this forum by placing these labels on them. Not surprisingly, the majority of them actually seem to apply more to you than those you are labeling.
Score: 0
My responses are to the thread and other posts in general as well as to whatever small point you might try to make!
Deal with it, you just aren't that important!
And Apple is a licensed reseller of copyrighted material. And as the DMCA deals directly with copyrighted material - and the law doesn't give a sh!t how many times the copyrighted material has changed hands - its still copyrighted and protected by the DMCA - your point is moot.
You are an idiot who is still incapable of figuring out that the real cost of a $14.95 per month subscription, regardless of how much or how little it is used, is $14.95 No more, no less. The rest is your fantasy...
And this forum is dominated by fanboys. Just post a thread about Apple and watch those who claim not to care about Apple swarm all over it as they trash Apple and push Windows or Linux, the system that will take over the desktop any minute now. And watch the Apple zealots and anti-MS folks push their preferences everytime MS is mentioned. And just mention HDDVD or PS3 or BluRay or AMD and Intel and watch as the zealot fanboys crawl out from the crevaces!
They marginalize themselves. All I do is acknowledge their efforts.
I really don't care about which platform you use. They all have strengths and weaknesses. So I play devil's advocate and simply counter the wacko emotional claims.
Bottomline: use the one that suits your circumstances best. Unfortunately, this site seems unable to support an intelligent discussion about the pros and cons without it becoming an emotional circle jerk based upon emotional vested interests!
Still confused? Review the precedent setting deCSS case and the verdict that was rendered! But be careful, don't let too many facts get in your way.
Score: -1
Really?
What part of "Your objection is moot" didn't apply to me you retard?
How amusing.
Forget it. You are obviously incapable of having a rational discussion, as proven by your inability to stop yourself from bringing up the ludicrous Zune subscription (and still getting the price wrong...) that you simply refuse to comprehend was actually the easiest of questions to answer. (dvferret got it right, apparently he's even smarter than you are)
Your ego is truly obnoxious. It wouldn't be so bad, if you actually had a clue, but when it comes to anything Microsoft/Apple-related or apparently anything in the legal domain, you're a complete idiot.
Seriously..."use the one that suits your circumstances best" doesn't even apply tot his article in the least. It has nothing to do with the case, the article, or the majority of the comments that are not your own or responses to them. You are the one constantly throwing around the fanboy accusations and derailing thread after thread with this asinine "mine's bigger than yours" pissing contest.
Hey, if you're not replying to me, here's a hint: Don't use the reply button. One as "erudite" as yourself should be able to understand that basic function...
Score: 0
Fair Use is a doctrine, not a law. It can be used as a guideline for future decisions. Even if it were a law, subsequent laws could supercede it. You have it backward, the older law gives way to the newer law, not the other way around.
Score: 0
Responses were deleted by BetaNews for offensive content. Some non-offensive replies to those responses may also have been removed.
Score: 0
Score: 0