Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple DMCAs iPodHash Project

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the if-google-is-a-verb dept.

Media (Apple) 453

TRS-80 writes "Apple has sent a DMCA takedown notice to the IpodHash project, claiming it circumvents their FairPlay DRM scheme. Some background: Apple first added a hash to the iTunesDB file in 6th-gen iPods, but it was quickly reverse-engineered. They changed it with the release of iPhone 2.0 and a project was started to reverse the new hash, but wasn't successful yet. My guess is Apple used the same algorithm as FairPlay for the new hash, so Apple could use the DMCA to prevent competing apps like Songbird and Banshee from talking to iPods/iPhones. BTW, don't tell Apple, but the project uses a wiki, so the old page versions from before the takedown are still there."

cancel ×

453 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (5, Insightful)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 5 years ago | (#25836815)

Just another reason not to buy the ipod/phone. Double if you are not using a mac.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (2, Interesting)

SoCalChris (573049) | more than 5 years ago | (#25836931)

I have an older ipod that's been having problems lately. It freezes a lot, and absolutely sucks at playing audio books that didn't come from audible.com or itunes.

I'll be looking to replace it soon. Does anyone make an MP3 player that uses a dock connector like the ipod's, so that I can use it with some of the ipod accessories that I already have? For example, my car radio has an ipod connector that charges the ipod, and lets me control it with the radio controls. I'd like to keep that functionality, except with a different player.

If no one makes a player that uses the dock style connector, why not? Can you patent a connector so that no other devices can use it?

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (2, Insightful)

Change (101897) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837007)

The Creative Zen Vision:M player used the same connector, but with a different pinout.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837407)

I was going to get one of them, only Creative wasn't sure if it was discontinued or not. Also, it was much more expensive than the equivalent Apple product for the screen/storage size - the exact opposite to the situation when I bought my Zen Xtra all those years ago. Next time I'll make sure whatever I get can play flac/ogg etc but at the time the 80gig Apple had no sensible competition.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (3, Informative)

xRizen (319121) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837689)

iPod + Rockbox can play vorbis/flac.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (5, Informative)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837035)

You're locked in dude.... The iPod connector is, as far as I know, licensed to 3rd party accessories manufacturers. No way in hell, is Apple going to license it to a competitor.

And, yes, a connector can be patented without any problem. After all it is a physical device, where you can give schematics etc....

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837065)

Since the connector is a functional element and not a design one, they probably can patent it. Even if they can't, I can understand why a company would choose to roll their own connector rather than try to reverse-engineer all the functions of Apple's.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837081)

Sandisk's Sansa e200 series [sandisk.com] of players have a similar connector, though I've never tested to see if it is actually the same or not.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (4, Informative)

JiffyPop (318506) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837209)

It is the same plug, but the pinout is different. It was a few years ago when my wife wanted a music player, and someone had plugged in a Sansa to an iPod accessory on the demo table at Best Buy. Fried the screen on the Sansa if I remember right.

My memory is a bit fuzzy. Can someone else verify this?

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (2, Insightful)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837333)

Apple was very smart in creating their specific dock connector and then upselling it to other companies.

There's no reason a standard USB interface couldn't have been decided upon by various media players that allowed digital playback and user interface to be exposed in both directions, but instead we have the iPhone dock connector in cars and on stereos.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (2, Informative)

rootofevil (188401) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837417)

pin density is one factor that certainly weighed on that decision.

how would you create video out from a USB port? the radio/headphone adapter? artist/song/albumart along with audio out for the dock devices?

in the early days, firewire+usb?

face it, without a specialized connector, none of that is possible. unless you make the ipod a host, in which case your battery life will suck and syncing with a computer will be an adventure.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (5, Informative)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837359)

Buy a used iPod (not refurbished and not from Apple), run Rockbox [rockbox.org] on it, and don't purchase anything else from the iTunes Music Store. Apple doesn't make any money from you on that. That's how I've acquired 3 out of my 4 Apple products (the other was a gift).

If you want to avoid it on principle, I don't know of any competing player that uses the same dock standard, but even so, if you are rejecting on principle, do you want to encourage others to accept Apple's dock connector? As I recall, it is patented and has to be licensed from Apple - you don't want to encourage more people to pay licensing fees to Apple, do you?

3.5mm stereo minijack or stereo RCA all the way. No encryption, no DRM, just analog goodness. Sure you need an additional wire for power, but that's rarely a problem.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25837483)

Well, technically buying a used ipod could make Apple money. Maybe the seller was selling the ipod in order to buy a new one. But even if not, it prevented someone else from buying it, thus perhaps forcing another potential buyer to buy a used one. Also, using an ipod regularly is free advertising for Apple, so that could cause potential sales.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837773)

That's quite the fine line you walk.

I don't really buy it either, as I would guess that a lot of people who sell used Apple products are going to use the proceeds to buy new Apple products (so participating in the Apple market ends up making more dollars available to Apple).

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (4, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837063)

Just what is the point of having ipod? Why can't the competitors to apple just sit down and devise a common method for syncing the device to a media player? Get amazon & other drm free media stores involved to also provide a standard interface to purchase and install the music into a media player, and you've got the makings of an apple killer.

I think there may be a more general rule for these situations. If you have an established proprietary leader, the only way to dislodge is for the competitors to come together create an open standard. I'm not sure if that's always the case, maybe its just my rose colored vision at work again, but its sometimes true. Feel free to discuss.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (1)

tripdizzle (1386273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837149)

These arent bad, I have owned one for 3 years with no problems: https://store.archos.com/product_info.php?id=66 [archos.com] Mounts just like a usb hard drive and you just copy your music to it. Works with windows and linux.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837357)

For my uses, that would be great, but I'm talking about something that would work as slickly as the ipod/itunes combo does. So your great aunt can just connect it and the new music will automagically appear on the device.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (1, Interesting)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837279)

Not quite what you're after, and MTP [wikipedia.org] may not be truly open, but it is freely licensable by everyone and anyone. There's also support in Linux via libmtp.

Creative dumped their own protocol in favour of it, so it can't be that bad.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837291)

Well, that's good. I have an older creative zen extra, that only works in windows xp with a crazy driver. I didn't realise at the time of purchase that it didn't just work as a usb drive.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (3, Insightful)

Beorytis (1014777) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837343)

...just sit down and devise... an apple killer.

Seems to me that although the technical details got them started, Apple's continued dominance has more to do with sexy industrial design and slick marketing aimed at nontechnical consumers. One thing that can be killed is the iPod trademark. Every time you use the word "iPod" as a common noun, you dilute the trademark a little more: I don't own an iPod.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837413)

Yeah its a little of both. I've dealt with my non tech friends when they've bought a non apple music player and struggled to figure out how to load it with music (even though it was a simple usb type drive). I think if the ease of the experience was the same, people would gravitate towards the cheaper solution. The ipod dilution helps, it would also help to introduce more people to amazon's drm free music store. It works nicely and its even cheaper than itunes. It helps to ween them off apple little bit by bit.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (1)

tayhimself (791184) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837473)

This all sounds great and I use free software as much as possible (until recently anyway), but the ipod works really well. The integration with itunes, not managing your library, getting podcasts, etc isn't rocket science but it works as expected.
I am not an apple fan boy but I finally gave in and bought an ipod this year because I liked what my friends had, the others looked horrible and plasticy, and I love my macbook to death. Mine is mostly used for podcasts and npr.
Speaking of things working as expected let me share something cool. When you reduce the column width for the date/time column in nautilus it truncates whatever can't be displayed. On OSX it starts dropping the least significant bits of time off. Kinda neat.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (1)

Omega996 (106762) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837475)

what are some real alternatives to the ipod/phone?
This isn't a troll - I'm seriously wondering. I have a Touch, and i'd replace it with something less restrictive, if I could find something that didn't look and behave like a cheap-ass taiwanese ripoff of a japanese product. I kind-of/sort-of looked at Zunes, but it doesn't seem to be any better WRT lock-in than apple's products, and i don't see the point in trading one manufacturer's DRM for another.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837701)

You're not going to have much luck asking Slashdot that kind of thing. Most people around here thing a bullet-point feature list defines a device completely.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (2, Insightful)

BrentH (1154987) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837683)

Problem is, no other manufacturer offers me a 160GB drive with good batterylife (40hrs+). Apple does.

And don't start the 'do you really need that?' talk. No, I only really need food. Offer me a player like that for good money (got my 160GB iPod for 250 euro) and you have a deal.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (1)

BrentH (1154987) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837715)

And btw, it works excellent with Ubuntu and gtkpod (thanks to the writers of that app!), no problems of any kind, and I cross-use it with iTunes on Windows and OSX. It just works, in any OS.

Re:All the more reason not to buy an ipod/phone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25837739)

Yeah. I don't support App£e, Micro$oft, MAFIAA or any other pro DRM suckers.

Neither should you. Money talks.

frost piss (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25836829)

Is it cold in here?

Not for long (3, Insightful)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25836831)

By pointing out the older versions on Slashdot, odds are good that Apple will demand they purge the pages from the database.

Good job, timothy.

Re:Not for long (2, Informative)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25836937)

By pointing out the older versions on Slashdot, odds are good that Apple will demand they purge the pages from the database.

www.archive.org [archive.org] is your friend. As of now the alternate pages are still up.

Re:Not for long (2, Insightful)

collinstocks (1295204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837287)

Not long before they demand that the internet archive purge the pages, too.

Re:Not for long (5, Insightful)

De Lemming (227104) | more than 5 years ago | (#25836951)

By pointing out the older versions on Slashdot, enough geeks will duplicate those pages before Apple has a chance to take action. Remember the Streisand effect [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Not for long (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837707)

In fact, can a helpful geek with the requisite wget-fu post the command we must use to fully mirror them on our PCs? thank you.

Re:Not for long (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25836971)

No, odds are that apple won't even be able to submit the dmca to anyone since the wiki's host will be down before long.

Re:Not for long (1)

T3hD0gg (908064) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837051)

Don't blame Timothy! He's just a little kid. He doesn't know any better!

Steve Jobs' lament: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25836869)

Mama, just killed a man,
Put a gun against his head, pulled my trigger, now hes dead,
Mama, life had just begun,
But now Ive gone and thrown it all away-
Mama, ooo,
Didnt mean to make you cry, If Im not back again this time tomorrow-
Carry on,carry on,as if nothing really matters-

Too late, my time has come, Sends shivers down my spine-
Bodys aching all the time,
Goodbye everybody-Ive got to go, gotta leave you all behind and face the truth-
Mama, ooo, I dont want to die,
I sometimes wish Id never been born at all

EU legislation in favour? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25836919)

I believe the EU legislation that's closest to the DMCA explicitly allows reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability. Perhaps someone should just make a Swedish mirror? :)

Re:EU legislation in favour? (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837309)

The DMCA provides exclusions for interoperability as well. :)

Microsoft and Apple (4, Insightful)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25836935)

And how are Microsoft and Apple different again? Oh, one screws a larger group of people than the other? And that makes it okay why?

Re:Microsoft and Apple (3, Informative)

nsayer (86181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837203)

And how are Microsoft and Apple different again?

Here'e a list:

Apple's products are vastly superior to Microsoft's.
Microsoft has been convicted of anti-trust violations in federal court. Apple has not.
Apple's monopoly power is in the portable music market. Microsoft's is in the desktop operating system market.

How's that for starters?

And that makes it okay why?

Did anybody say it did?

Re:Microsoft and Apple (3, Insightful)

blhack (921171) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837481)

Apple's products are vastly superior to Microsoft's.

How so? I have run windows xp and several different linuxes on my laptops and desktops, as well as having used Mac OS pretty extensively. Windows XP wins hands down every single time. What are you using your Mac for that makes it so superior to a windows machine?

Microsoft has been convicted of anti-trust violations in federal court. Apple has not.

Courts are now the deciders for quality of tech?

Apple's monopoly power is in the portable music market. Microsoft's is in the desktop operating system market.

Apple's monopoly power is also in the hardware-that-is-allowed-to-run-Mac-OSX department.

Microsofts policy is "Here, do whatever you want with this so long as you buy it".
Apple's policy is "We are licensing this to you. You have no rights to use it for anything other than what we explicitly declare and you better not fucking try to develop for it because we will sue you in to oblivion."

How, seriously, is Apple any better than anything else?

Re:Microsoft and Apple (5, Insightful)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837553)

Apple's products are vastly superior to Microsoft's.

Value judgment. I think that the Mac OS is much more secure and stable than Windows, but how do you judge the Zune against the iPod? There's no objective criterion there.

Microsoft has been convicted of anti-trust violations in federal court. Apple has not.

True, but irrelevant. They both engage in business tactics that screw their customers. If Apple were bigger, they'd probably get slapped around the same way Microsoft did.

Apple's monopoly power is in the portable music market. Microsoft's is in the desktop operating system market.

Again, true but irrelevant. They both engage in business tactics that screw their customers.

My argument is that they both smack around their customers. I'm wondering why geeks give one a pass while they rabidly fight the other.

Re:Microsoft and Apple (1)

evilbessie (873633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837719)

Because one is shiny and the other is vista.

Re:Microsoft and Apple (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25837597)

And how are Microsoft and Apple different again?

Here'e a list:

Apple's products are vastly superior to Microsoft's.
Oh really.

Microsoft has been convicted of anti-trust violations in federal court. Apple has not.
Apple's monopoly power is in the portable music market. Microsoft's is in the desktop operating system market.

How's that for starters?

So what.

And that makes it okay why?

Did anybody say it did?

Heard of that time when Microsoft locked down everything it had, fucked and censored its own fans and customers and had the most obnoxious followers on the planet?

That's right. You didn't.

Re:Microsoft and Apple (1)

Baorc (794142) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837211)

Because they screw a larger group than the other...?

Re:Microsoft and Apple (1, Insightful)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837353)

Because some geeks are more in love with Apple than with Microsoft.

Apple is pretty evil too in their business practices, and anyone who denies it is just as much of a fanboy as those who deny Microsoft has ever done anything wrong either.

Re:Microsoft and Apple (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837539)

Can you properly define "evil" for the purposes of your comment?

Re:Microsoft and Apple (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25837405)

There is a subtle difference between the approach taken by Apple as compared to Microsoft. Sort of like the difference between a womanizer and a rapist.

When Apple's customers get used, they are at least convinced it's what they wanted.

Re:Microsoft and Apple (4, Funny)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837489)

And how are Microsoft and Apple different again?

Microsoft's lawyers are way lazier, that's the difference.

Which leads to a question (5, Interesting)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 5 years ago | (#25836939)

Why hasn't the EU screwed apple already? The itunes-ipod abuse is like 10 times worse than IE-windows, yet nobody seems to be doing anything to stop this abusive non-sense.

Re:Which leads to a question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25837019)

Because the EU lives in a magical land with fairies and leprechauns!

Not to mention the the EU also likes the warm-and-fuzzy feeling that Apple gives them. No, that's not a hummer and no this isn't a flame.

Re:Which leads to a question (4, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837313)

Why hasn't the EU screwed apple already? The itunes-ipod abuse is like 10 times worse than IE-windows, yet nobody seems to be doing anything to stop this abusive non-sense.

One reason is because Apple does not have a monopoly. It's ok to mildly abuse your customers if they can go to one of your competitors.

ITMS is far from the sole provider of online music, and Apple is far from the sole provider of "mp3" players.

Re:Which leads to a question (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837383)

IE-Windows is only harmful to web developers. Windows-All PC Hardware, not so much. While they've taken some legal shit for the former (though moreso with WMP than IE, if memory serves), it's the latter that really got them in trouble.

Re:Which leads to a question (5, Informative)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837411)

Maybe it is because people actually like the iTunes -> iPod setup.

Meaning, you are not required to buy an iPod or iPhone. Also, you are not required to buy iTunes. There are plenty of other options to choose from. In MS Windows case, all of the vendor applications were written for Windows, so you really had no choice...

Take 'em down boys (2, Funny)

JBG667 (690404) | more than 5 years ago | (#25836945)

http://www.omm.com/sanfrancisco/ [omm.com]

BTW, the lawyer's name is Ramage - quite appropriate in my opinion.

tr.v., rammed, ramÂming, rams.

      1. To strike or drive against with a heavy impact; butt: rammed the door with a sledgehammer until it broke open.
      2. To force or press into place.
      3. To cram; stuff: rammed the clothes into the suitcase.
      4. To force passage or acceptance of: rammed the project through the city council despite local opposition.

Nissan (1, Interesting)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 5 years ago | (#25836949)

I just bought a new Nissan, fully loaded, except the iPod connection package. The dealer was curious as to why I specifically didn't want it, especially he knows I'm into all kinds of technology and gadgets. My reply: "I would never use a device that locks down what I put on it."

The "lockdown" is new... (1)

BlueScreenOfTOM (939766) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837499)

You could always buy a used 5th Gen iPod. I have a 5.5 Gen and I don't have a single AAC file, but I've still got over 30 GB of music on it. I can plug my iPod into any Windows or Mac and copy any music off of it whenever I want with no restrictions (admittedly with the help of some freeware which reads the iTunes index files). The iPod is just a hard drive that stores it's MP3s with a funky naming scheme in a hidden folder.

This "lockdown" is relatively new if you use plain old MP3s instead of AAC. And part of the reason I bought an iPod was because every audio device made in the last 5 years seems to have a nifty direct interface...

Re:Nissan (5, Funny)

ActionDesignStudios (877390) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837551)

Wow, dude. You're like, a total badass. Fight the power!

Re:Nissan (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837579)

That Nissan of yours has just a *few* more proprietary parts than your iPod... just sayin'. iPods play unlocked content just fine, you know.

Oh Apple, how could you!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25836973)

Apple this is just so wrong of you, you make me so mad, well, um, oh who am I kidding. I love you Apple. You are the apple of my eye. I love you truly my sweet sweet ipod/iphone/itunes/ijobs provider. Forsake me not.

XOXO

Your fanboy,

CmdrTaco

P.S. that quip about you being lame was just a joke, my baby

Banshee just got ported to Mac OS (1)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 5 years ago | (#25836995)

...coincidence? Something tells me no.

Rampage (1)

Qubit (100461) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837023)

I first read Apple's lawyer's name as "Rampage"...then when I looked more closely I noticed that his name was just "Ramage".

Pity. It would be so appropriate.

Re:Rampage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25837059)

Think "buttrammage".

control freak (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25837025)

I bet Steve Jobs is really fun to live with - what kind of obsessive control freak is he?

I want an iPod touch (1)

13bPower (869223) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837085)

I really want an iPod touch, but if it won't work with Banshee than I will not buy one. What a PITA, I thought they worked.

Re:I want an iPod touch (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837351)

I don't want an MP3 player that does not present a filesystem.

Why can't I use my hardware? (2, Insightful)

wikki (13091) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837103)

Why are companies so intent on trying to lock people out of their hardware? I have stayed out of the portable MP3 market for years, but recently got a used 5th gen IPOD off of craigslist. Luckily it works fine with Amarok, and other Linux apps.

I just don't understand what they gain by locking out a certain group of users from their Ipods.

The main reason I got an iPod was because I knew I could use it in linux.

Re:Why can't I use my hardware? (4, Informative)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837171)

FYI, if you install Rockbox on your ipod you can use it to play oggvorbis and flac files too. That's what I do myself, and it's also the reason I'd never get a new ipod.

Re:Why can't I use my hardware? (2, Interesting)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837371)

I did this myself, and it's specifically the reason why I grabbed a 5.5 gen iPod rather than the newer (and easier to find) 6th gen "Classic" variety. I can play my collection in Ogg Vorbis and update it with rsync. I love their hardware, but they won't let me do what I want with it.

Re:Why can't I use my hardware? (1)

berend botje (1401731) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837317)

I have an iPod mini, the built-like-a-tank aluminum one. Love it to bits, gets used every day. And it syncs great on Linux, I use Rhythmbox, but Banshee (and others) do a fine job also. However, the battery gets a little tired and I have been looking at an Ipod Touch. Nifty little device. Except, there is no way to sync it if you don't run iTunes. And as that won't run on Wine, I'm out of luck. Or, rather, Apple is out of luck. No sale.

Re:Why can't I use my hardware? (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837457)

If you have an iPod mini and don't mind seeing its guts, there is a nice DIY [geektechnique.org] on the web for converting it to use flash memory rather than a hard drive. While you have it open pop in a new battery and you are good to go for quite a while. Battery life will be improved as well.

Re:Why can't I use my hardware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25837673)

Why are companies so intent on trying to lock people out of their hardware? Absolute fucking arrogance, that's why. At least in Apple's case.

Oh look. (2, Interesting)

cloakable (885764) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837159)

Apple are exploiting a monopoly in one market (iPhone/iPod) to establish a monopoly in another (iTunes).

Hopefully the EU will commence some asskicking.

Re:Oh look. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25837567)

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on portable media players.

Re:Oh look. (0, Redundant)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837639)

If every unique brand makes its holder a monopolist, then every single company that makes a product is a monopolist.

You are not only stupid, you're an idiot.

What have are they gaining? (1)

bugg_tb (581786) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837185)

What are they gaining by adding the hash and stopping people working it out? I've got an old Ipod but I will need to upgrade sometime and I use linux. I like ITunes but I wouldn't install Windows for it, so that would then make me go looking for a different Mp3 player. I'm sure the hash will get cracked, but I don't see whats the big deal.

Thank you Apple (2, Funny)

1053r (903458) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837235)

I've been considering buying a non-iPod for my next Mp3 player, but wasn't sure. Now Apple has done the nice thing for me and solidified my decision -- Any suggestions on what my next non-evil Mp3 player should be?

Re:Thank you Apple (1)

human spam filter (994463) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837401)

I just bought a Creative Zen X-Fi.. I'm waiting for it to arrive and I'm crossing my fingers that it will work nicely with Amarok.

Re:Thank you Apple (1)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837699)

I agree with other respondents: almost anything, but my (older, discontined) Creative Zen M works beautifully with Amarok, has a radio, plays both video and audio for longer than my 5g ipod, and the video converter (windows only, so far, though you can fake it with ffmpeg) actually works, rather than spending 2 hours crunching only to say it can't convert the file, the way iTunes always seems to. Too bad the Zen looks like a 1980's remote control, but if you're primarily interested in how well it works, rather than how it looks, it's a nifty device.

Why do people still deal with Apple? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25837245)

What is it about Apple products that make people willing to put up with all the crap they do to lock customers into everything. They do more bullying and steering of their customers through proprietary formats and schemes than any other company I know of.

Is having the newest Shiny Thing(tm) really worth putting up with Apple?

Re:Why do people still deal with Apple? (1)

berend botje (1401731) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837381)

Yeah, for the most part it is. The thing is, the products are really slick and Just Work. There is a sense of ease, of comfort even.

That's to say, they won't sell me the iPod Touch I so very much like to have, as I have no way to sync it on Linux. Too bad, both Apple and I are losing here.

Anyone had any luck running iTunes on Wine? The installer crashes furiously here.

Re:Why do people still deal with Apple? (1, Informative)

socketwiz (792252) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837471)

I have an iPhone and their DRM scheme doesn't affect me at all. I pay $0.99 for each song and I'm able to play it on my computer and my phone. If I want to use the song in a home movie or something, I simply burn it to a CD, then import it to my movie project. I can then use my song basically anywhere I choose.

Re:Why do people still deal with Apple? (5, Insightful)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837645)

I just by the CD...

At a minimum of 10 songs average on a CD, I can usually get it for the equivalent of $9.99 myself. It's uncompressed and doesn't need to go through a second lossy conversion to get it back onto CD...

I can rip it to what devices I like at whatever bit-rate I like to as many devices I like...

My friends and family can borrow it and listen to it...

If I get bored with it, I can sell it and with the money I make put it towards the cost of another CD...

I can sit and read the sleeve notes while sitting on the toilet... ...and having saved money by buying a reasonably priced phone and music player, I can put the money towards a nice shiny hifi on which I can enjoy my nice shiny CD in all it's full uncompressed beauty...

So stick your iPhone and DRM where you think the sun shines out of...

Congratulations Apple (1)

Daniel Weis (1209058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837293)

You have now given me a renewed interest in helping this project attain its goal.

This might be on purpose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25837595)

After all, they can't help any open-source projects directly, or the record labels would take their content and go home. Without content, the iPod is worthless. Maybe this is a sneaky means to get people to work out the new hash? The labels make them take "measures" against you using the content you paid for, so they half-ass the enforcement of said measures until they have sufficient footing to challenge them directly...

The new version of iTunes sucks too (4, Informative)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837303)

I was unimpressed with the new version of iTunes, too. Turning off links to the Music Store no longer works either, unless you use this hack [macosxhints.com] .

Just say NO, bought a Zen (2, Interesting)

Front Line Assembly (255726) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837339)

I must say that I bought a creative zen because I hate using ipods. You can't just copy files over to them and back to your computer. Oh no no, you must use itunes and authorize machines etc., and if you screw up there goes your collection.
Of course the zen isn't as "sexy" as the ipod, but SFW? It's in my pocket playing music, and astonishingly it works! And I can freely copy music here and there, and share with friends (which is legal where I live, thank you very much cd/dcd/mp3 player taxes).

Re:Edirol R09 (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837593)

I never wanted a music "player". I wanted a recorder. For one thing, I make my own music. For another thing, I listen to .wav format, not MP3. For another thing, my average track is 45 to 90 minutes long and doesn't originate from a CD rip. When I want to hear relatively mainstreamish, low-fi things, I have internet radio for that. But most of my listening time is spent on things where I have some involvement in its production, and usually in a situation where I or my client or my partner controls the copyright. Sure there are better pocket-sized recorders than my Edirol, but I have what I need and it's pretty danged good; at least as good as my studio mixer or my DAW. And the built-in mics are okay (just okay).

Re:Just say NO, bought a Zen (1)

Omega996 (106762) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837655)

If someone is retarded/stupid/ignorant enough to keep an entire collection of music or video only on a portable media player, then that person deserves to lose it. That's akin to keeping important personal documents on a laptop, never backing it up, and then decrying the fact that all of that personal information is lost forever when the laptop was stolen after being left at a local $coffeenazi shop.

How's the interface for the Zen, or playlist management using whatever software you have? That's more important to me than whether i can give copies of my music to my friends.

Re:Just say NO, bought a Zen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25837663)

It's in my pocket playing music, and astonishingly it works!

And this differs from most people's use of the iPod in what manner?

I mean, my used iPod Classic plays music. I feed it music, it plays music. Done. Fancy? Special? Outlandish? No, no, and no. It plays music. That's all I particularly care about it. Sure, my next music player may not be (with things like this, probably will not be) an iPod, but that will hopefully be a long way off, given that, well, this one is still playing music. Which is its job. Which is why I'm not frothing at the mouth over this.

Seriously, if you hate hate HATE it, don't buy it. Then you wouldn't have any reason to complain. Or, as is the case with you, to preach to the choir and brag about your l33t non-Appleness.

Unusual tagging... (2, Insightful)

Kabuthunk (972557) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837399)

Why is this article tagged "outbreak of stupidity"? In reality, it should be tagged "same ol', same ol'". An outbreak of stupidity would imply that wasn't already the norm.

Dear Apple (1)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837409)

Thanks, I will never be buying any of your products.

I'll stick with building my own systems, and installing Linux, and I'll use digital music players that support Ogg-vorbis.

It is quite obvious that you do not want any customer you cannot control.

MediaMonkey? (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837415)

I've been using the latest version of MediaMonkey which supports iPhone 2.0/2.1.
The moment I found out, I was hella happy; dTunes (not iTunes) has it's advantages but it isn't as integrated as "Mobile Player"
dTunes for one, doesn't support categorization of any sort, let alone any of the advanced features such as play/stop via the mic "squeeze" switch.

The web site was not about breaking Fairplay. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25837445)

It is worth pointing out that the letter that the lawyers sent claimed that the web site contained information about breaking the DRM found in iTunes, but that is not the case.

The web site contained information on how to be able to *read and write* the iTunes database, to allow you for example to use your iPod from Linux and update the song list.

What happened is that recent versions of the firmware and iTunes now use a secret hash that they compute over the *directory listing*. If the hash does not match, then the iPod/iPhone refuses to load the database. So this is effectively a mechanism to prevent third-parties to upload un-DRMed songs to the iPhone/iPod and had nothing to do --as the lawyer claimed-- with breaking the DRM in the files themselves.

You have to wonder if these lawyers or Apple are not in overstepping some legal boundaries, they could be liable for lying.

Not a DMCA takedown notice (5, Insightful)

KeithIrwin (243301) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837581)

Interestingly enough, that's not a DMCA takedown notice. It's just a threat dressed up to look like a takedown notice. You can tell because it doesn't allege copyright infringement.

Notice, for instance, that the "DMCA Certification" part at the bottom says "I hereby state, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the activities identified above are not authorized by Apple, that the information in this notification is accurate, and that I am authorized to act on behalf of Apple in this regard."

What it doesn't say is that the works in question are owned by Apple or anything else which in anyway makes a copyright claim.

What it does allege is that they're violating the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA. There is no takedown procedure for violating the anti-circumvention provision because there is no safe-harbor. If you create an circumventing device, you have violated the DMCA and you can't escape liability by following takedown notices.

The further reason that it isn't a DMCA takedown notice is that what they ask to remove is not something that the receivers have a legal obligation to take down. Information about the workings of Apple's cryptographic schemes, whether or not they comprise an means which effectively controls access to a work, are not unto itself a device which circumvents their schemes, and, as such, is not in violation of the DMCA.

Although Mr. Ramage writes "The DMCA explicitly prohibits the dissemination of information that can be used to circumvent such technology." that's very simply not true. The DMCA outlaws the creation of circumventing devices, but it does not outlaw exchanging information about how to create one. This, along with the research exception, is why DRM and other security research can still happen and has only rarely been hindered by the DMCA, and even then only by the specter of lawsuits.

Beyond that, Apple's hash scheme quite certainly doesn't apply for DMCA protection for one simple reason: it isn't a scheme which, under the definitions of the DMCA, "effectively protects a copyrighted work." There are two distinct reasons why it doesn't qualify. First, it doesn't protect copyrighted files. It only protects the database which is not copyrighted and not eligible for copyright since it is not a creative work. Second, the hash protects it against modification, not reading. As such, it does not "effectively protect a copyrighted work" because the legal definition refers only to protecting something from being read in an unauthorized manner, not from being written.

So, this might have been a valid takedown notice if:
1) The hash in question were an effective measure under the legal definition
2) It were protecting copyrighted information
3) The DMCA outlawed the dissemination of information which could lead to creating circumvention devices
4) There were a safe-harbor provision allowing service providers to avoid liability

Except that the actions so far also all fall under the interoperability exception. Given that their only goal is to allow other programs to work with the iPod, this falls very, very squarely under interoperability exception.

So, there would also have to be a fifth condition;
5) There were no interoperability exception.
As it stands, this notice has no legal standing, and if it were sent to me, I would ignore it. Hopefully the lawyers with whom this project consults will come to the same conclusion.

Now, what Apple could do instead would be to assert copyright over the disassembled/decompiled versions of the source code which appeared on the web page. I would argue that that approach would also be legally invalid, but at least it wouldn't be so obviously so. It could at least lead to some fairly subtle legal arguments.

This notice, on the other hand, is just factually and legally incorrect.

Mod Parent UP (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837747)

Mod parent up "informative" and "bloody fascinating".

new term (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25837711)

I want to coin a new term for this DRM crap:

Vendor Lock In - User Lock Out

Is this one of the first non-euphemistic terms for DRM?

DMCA allows reverse engineering (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 5 years ago | (#25837713)

for compatibility. So I don't think Apple has a case.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>