Anyone else following the Apple vs Real Networks drama?

[V. Barbarino]

I think this is a great! Real is taking a beating. They had to take down their own petition after people started trashing their company.

In my opinion, Real should not of cracked the Ipod and Itunes. Wait till all those people in a few months try to use them on the ipod when Jobs updates the software and Real is locked out again..

For those out of the loop, here is todays article about it..

http://news.com.com/Apple+partisans+...l?tag=nefd.top

[endymion]

I'm kind of on the fence about this one. I think that the DMCA is evil but I have used it against other companies myself so I guess I can't talk.

Here's where I think Real is screwing up: they are loss-leading with those track prices, even more steeply than Apple was in the first place. So they are losing money with the explicit goal of hurting Apple. So what happens when Apple comes after them for actual damages? They lose even more money, and for what? If I had any stake in Real Networks then I would be pretty upset because I don't see a way out of this for them other than losing more and more money until they just don't have any money to bleed out any more.

[V. Barbarino]

I see what they did no different than a hacker.. They hacked Apples software, so now Apple is going to crush them just with sheer public out cry. Apple has loyal fans.

Real should be locked up for hacking, plain and simple, but Apple is taking the high road, but both companies don't want to see a legal precedent set that could kill each other depending on what the court says.

[endymion]

It's this whole concept of it being 'wrong' to reverse-engineer another company's product that bothers me. I think that the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause that makes this whole thing illegal is just stupid.

The iPod is a little computer. Real Networks made some unauthorized software for that little computer. Apple's fault for making such a useful little machine, no? If Microsoft told you that you are flat-out not allowed to run software from company X because Microsoft just doesn't want you to, then you would be fairly irritated.

Real is attacking Apple using their own technology and loss-leading to do it, which is exactly what Netscape was doing when they handed you a non-Microsoft web browser to use in Windows. We (mostly) all agreed that Netscape should be able to do that at the time. So what is the difference here that makes Apple right and Real wrong?

I mean, I side with Apple obviously. I'm a die-hard Powerbook freak and I am never more than about five feet away from my iPod and even then only when it's charging. Real is in clear violation of the DMCA from where I'm standing, I just don't agree with the DMCA itself.

But, like I said, I have gone out and sued other companies under the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA. I've nailed people for reverse-engineering my software. I don't have a leg to stand on here.

[V. Barbarino]

then what about the Norwegin guy who reversed engineered the DVD copying software? is that legal? In your argument, you are saying that becuase ipod built a better mouse trap, real is allowed to hack into it???

[endymion]

You won't pin a position on me because I don't even know what I think about this. The DMCA is only there in the first place to protect the revenues of technology companies like mine, because technology companies have plenty of money for lobbying. It has nothing to do with the least harm or the greater good, it's just a license for a tech company to go out and sue people into submission.

I sell web applications that are based on a big pile of Perl code. If you purchase a license for one of my applications and I give it to you and you install it on your server, then you see that its' screwing up and you go and fix it, then you just reverse-engineered my software and I can sue you. You don't have to be selling it or even sharing it with anybody else. I don't have to show damages, I can just sue you for kicks for a statutory penalty. You have to admit that's just stupid. If there were a law that said that you're on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars for breaking the factory seal on your carb in your Mustang then you would think that was an obviously unjust law.

And yeah, the case against 321 Studios over the DVD copier is just beyond stupid. 321 didn't even crack CSS, their product doesn't defeat CSS at all. They took a totally legitimate player and coupled it with a recorder. So they are bypassing CSS entirely, they aren't cracking it.

The height of stupid in this realm is the copy protected CD's that you can defeat with a Sharpie marker. Look up the penalties under the DMCA for circumventing that stupid copy protection with a marker. Hugely disproportionate penalties.

The reason for all of these stupid laws existing in the first place is that huge companies like Microsoft and IBM and industry consortiums like the RIAA and the MPAA have massive amounts of money to spend on lobbyists. No other reason. Purchased legislation, with the explicit purpose of improving the bottom line for the companies who sponsor the legislation. Our entire country is for sale and the DMCA is one of the signs.

[Abraham Abromowitz]

I'm happy that Real is getting their Just deserts! I love Apple.

Shalom and Love

[V. Barbarino]

the #1 joke is the shift key to deactivate the security on cds... they actually wanted to sue the princeton grad who published it on the web.

i wonder who got fired for allowing their million dollar security to be defeated by holding down the shift key..

[endymion]

Holding down that shift key is a DMCA violation. Part of why I think that the whole thing is just stupid.

[pod]

Real sucks anyways. Their products have been shoddy since day one. Terrible codecs. I do not have any Real products on my system. If i am to play RM files, I have "Real Alternative" which is a jury rigged old copy of windows media player when they allowed it to play real files.