DVD Jon's DoubleTwist Unlocks the iPod

An anonymous reader writes, "On the 5-year anniversary of the iPod, Fortune Magazine has an article called Unlocking the iPod about Jon Lech Johansen's new venture. Slashdot briefly covered DoubleTwist earlier this month, and those of you who complained that he was not enabling iPod competitors to play FairPlay files will be happy to learn that according to the Fortune article he will also be going after the hardware market." From the article: "As [Johansen] and Farantzos explain DoubleTwist in a conference room they share with several other companies, he points to a sheet of printer paper tacked on the wall that has a typed quote Jobs gave the Wall Street Journal in 2002: 'If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own.' As Johansen sees it, Jobs didn't follow through on this promise, so it's up to him to fix the system... Johansen has written [two] programs...: one that would let other companies sell copy-protected songs that play on the iPod, and another that would let other devices play iTunes songs."

iTunes is the real concern..

[Channard]

.. at least, it is for me. I bought some music from iTunes a while ago, when my iPod was still working, and - oh the irony - lost it when I switched over to a Mac Mini. So what did I do? I tried to download the music in question, since I'd paid for it, right? Apparently not - once you've downloaded music on iTunes, you don't get to download it again. What a waste of money.

Re:DMCA

[Cemu]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the limiting of consumers' ability to listen, in private, to what they've legally acquired on whatever device they choose a violiation of the copyright act?

Re:niave

[mei_mei_mei]

Hacking DRM may not be legal, but it is right.

Re:Jon Lech Johansen has it wrong...

[MBCook]

And a complete pain. Tell that to someone who has bought say 20-50 CDs worth of music off iTunes (not me, I just have the free album that came with my iPod).

"You can use whatever player you want. All you have to do is waste 50 blank CD-Rs (or a CD-RW)) by copying your music to CD then back. Best of all, after you've wasted all that time, you'll have to waste space by using lower compression just to get it to sound about the same."

The fact is, I'd have a hard time switching off the iPod if I wanted to unless the new player supported AACs. I've got about half my music collection ripped off of CDs into AAC and I would not want to do it again just to switch.

But then again, I'm quite happy with my iPod. I don't think too much of iTMS, but I like having physical property (the CD), not a licence to some bits.

Re:DMCA

[TubeSteak]

Umm.. but he's living in California and that's where his new startup company is incorporated.

Here's what the previous /. linked article said about his whereabouts:

Twenty-two-year-old Johansen moved to San Francisco to work with Monique Farantzos, who had contacted him after reading a Wall Street Journal profile of him last fall. The two now live in the Mission District and devote their time to DoubleTwist Ventures, which is Johansen's first major attempt at commercializing his hacking. They haven't raised any outside money because they have already found at least one (undisclosed) paying customer.

What I'm more interested in is how he plans to provide the backend authentication scheme that lets you authenticate and deauthenticate certain computers from your DVDJohn-iTunes account. There's a lot of 'other' stuff going on beyond just converting files to FairPlay.

Re:DVD Jon's not going about it right

[vertinox]

If DVD Jon was smart, he'd write software that would unlock FairPlay, allow the user to copy it to another device, and then lock it down again (through FairPlay or whatever else).

Pardon me, but what happens if the device you own doesn't support any DRM whatsoever?

Why do you, bums, still use iTunes, etc.?

[mi]

All of these lamentations about Apple cheating and *AA "suing its customers" — what is your problem? It is Apple's own device, and it is *AA's customers. If you don't like these companies, then stop using the darn things.

The "Joe Sixpack" you pretend to be concerned about may be excused, but you — your real concern — may not. You — the /.-crowd — know full well, that the DVD you are buying can not be put online for everyone to donwload (whether it is, actually, stealing, or merely copyright violation is irrelevant). You knew, iTunes will limit your downloads and sharing abilities...

So, why do you buy these things from these corporations and other entities you so dislike? Was life really so miserable before DVDs and portable digital-audio players? It was not. And now, despite all of the above-listed limitations, it is only better...

Re:iTunes is the real concern..

[MBCook]

That's why you are supposed to have multiple backups (not that I do). But what are the chances for the average person of losing both the backup and the main drive at the same time?

Like I said, Apple is nice (and I think they should be REQUIRED to let you redownload things by law). But to not have any backup is foolhardy.

Re:Brilliant!

[SilentChris]

And what of the copy to another device? How exactly do you dictate what happens to it?

As I mentioned, it would lock itself each time with whatever DRM happened to be on the device. He doesn't need to make it impossible to pirate -- just difficult enough that people will only copy files to devices they own. Same as Apple -- their rules are pretty open. You could always burn CDs from the iTunes store and recode to MP3. (And brother, don't tell me about lost quality. You got subpar quality when you bought it from the iTunes store in the first place.

If you do something illegal with the tools, that's your problem. Same could be said of owning a car. Or a gun. Or a freaking two by four for that matter.

I don't know where you live, but there's mafia around here. If a gunshop is consistently selling to the family, the police raid them. If a used car salesman continually sells them black cars with tinted windows, to the family the police raid them. If your tools -- the "car or gun or two by four" or whatever -- are continually used to commit piracy like DVD Jon's, you're going to get fingered. Regardless if you committed the act or not.

What's the difference?

[seanthenerd]

Sorry if this is offtopic.

If I buy a CD, I can stick it in my computer and rip it into iTunes. That's legal, right?

If I buy a DVD, why can't I do the same thing? Rip it into iTunes, put it on my iPod, import it into other programs and play with it, etc.

Is there a fundamental difference between video content and audio content?! Why? Is it just that CDs were invented before DRM? That when CDs were standardized, the technology didn't exist to import and "get at" that audio content - technology that for the media companies "necessitated" DRM?

So, back to the question: Is it legal to import CDs? (I hope so.) Is it legal to import DVD's a la DVD Jon's software? (I assume the media companies would say no.) Why?!

In this brave new world of DRM, the rules are made by what The Companies technologically let you do, rather than what the laws actually decree. I am sure that once CDs go by the wayside, all content (audio, video, commercial software) will be DRM'd and authenticated to "make sure" that you cannot distribute it in any way once it gets to you - no matter what media is used to get it to you. I'm not looking forward to it.

Re:DMCA

[spiritraveller]

My understanding of the DMCA is that it outlaws reverse engineering DRM ***with the purpose of violating copyright***, but it does not outlaw reverse engineering for purpoes of interoperability.

What DVD Jon is doing is actually helping content owners "protect" their content on Apple's devices. Previously, if a company wanted to sell music for the iPod outside of the iTunes Music Store, they could not sell it with DRM. They could only sell it as MP3s, or perhaps as non-DRMed AAC files.

His actions could possibly violate a patent (if Apple, in fact, has a patent on its DRM system), but it doesn't violate copyright, so I don't believe it violates the DMCA.

Re:DMCA

[klaun]

However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can. That means no changing it so it suddenly plays videos if it didn't before. You can, they likely won't hurt you, but the device itself has an agreement somewhere built into it.

I do not concede this point at all. I'm definitely not agreeing to anything when I buy an iPod. Now, I know some folks (and courts) want to say that opening an iPod package or using an iPod signifies my consent to some onerous licensing agreement... but I feel (hope?) that eventually sanity and rationality will win out on the whole idea that vendors/manufacturers can modify the implied agreement (hallowed for, literally, millenia) that is embodied in the sale of a good, after the fact.

If I pay for something and someone gives it to me, I'm free to do with it whatever I please. Why does a manufacturer by virtue of manufacturing something have a right to modify that? Suppose that a manufacturer used a third-party to put items in packaging. Would that third party now have the right to incorporate a shrink wrap license that was binding into the packaging? If not, why not? Generally, their is at least one reseller in between myself and the manufacturer. They are generally not a party to the shrink wrap license. So when I paid the reseller for the iPod, what was I buying from them? If I'm buying a "right to use" (as licensed) from Apple, why did I pay a third party who is not a party to the license? Why didn't I have to pay Apple? If opening a package is significant of intent to enter into a contract (of which you were unaware prior to opening the package), what else might be? Walking into a room? Watching a television program? I hope that the miriad contradicitions embodied by this whole power grab will eventually cause it to fall under its own weight.

Re:DMCA

[Knuckles]

doesn't this constitute a blatant violation via reverse-engineering of the Fairplay DRM?

I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I quite likely misunderstand something here, but page 5 of the DMCA [copyright.gov] contains this:

2. Reverse engineering (section 1201(f)). This exception permits
      circumvention, and the development of technological means for such
      circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a
      copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and
      analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability
      with other programs, to the extent that such acts are permitted under
      copyright law.

Re:DMCA

[Firehed]

There aren't terms governing what you can and can't do with your iPod, only the software that enables you to use it. The most they can do is say that your warrantee will be void if you use it in a way that wasn't intended. Apple can't tell me whose music I can or can't use any more than Sunbeam can tell me what brands of bread I put in the toaster I bought from them.

re-purposing my purchased media

[yakkowakkodot]

The earlier poster has a good point. iPods and iTunes are based on the concept that you get music by either buying it from the iTunes store, downloading a legal mp3, or Ripping a CD, which used to be a haxt00r thing, now it's commonplace. Even W does it, well, he has someone do it for him, I'm sure.

But the DVD content. I got the latest Weird Al album, iTunes lets me copy the music. It's a duodisk, so I can flip the cd, it's now a dvd. I don't have a DVD player on my computer, so I copied the relevant (videos) DVD file onto a CD at a friend's computer, took the copy home, then converted that to Quicktime on my computer for viewing..

None of these things are going anywhere outside of my house, let alone the internets. Did I break the law, which ones, and at what point?

I've gotten iTunes music before, too. Immediately converted them to non-DRM content. (using one of Jon's earlier programs.)
Didn't share them. Lawbreaker? I still have the original m4a's. Last played: over a year ago. I listen to my non-DRM'd copies.

Re:DMCA

[ronanbear]

The nano doesn't even include iTunes anymore. To make smaller packaging they don't include a CD. There isn't a EULA until you download software from the internet. There's nothing to stop you installing Linux on the iPod and using it with whatever player you want.

Breaking fairplay on downloaded songs is a different matter but installing software to allow DVD Jon's DRM of choice isn't a problem as long as you don't weren't that attached to your warrenty or being able to get update the firmware on the iPod.

Re:iTunes is the real concern..

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really purchase the right to "own" it?


And a very good question that is. When I "buy" a song from iTunes, what am I actually buying? Am I buying that file? Am I buying the right to listen to that particular Bob Dylan album? If it's the former, then how can they claim to block my right to do what I wish with my file? If it's the latter, then why are there artificial restrictions on listening to that album?

I posit that I would be buying nothing, which is why I have neither an iPod nor an iTunes account.

Re:DMCA

[Bing Tsher E]

Hardly anybody is a lawyer on Groklaw, either. It's founder is a mere legal clerk.

Re:DMCA

[killjoe]

Even more sarcastic answer:

You didn't buy the records, you bought the right to listen those recordings. Because you now have the right to listen to them the producer is obligated to transfer the recording to the media of your choice.

Re:DMCA

[sadler121]

I would think the RIAA would like what DVD Jon is doing (for a change). The RIAA is pissed at Apple because Jobs forces them to negotiate so their songs can be sold for $.99. We could see the RIAA put money behind DVD Jon if Apple decides to sue him. The reason being is that if other players can now play songs from the iTunes music store (or another online music store can sell songs with FairPlay DRM) that takes Job's negotiating power away. The RIAA can now use the tier pricing they want to implement but can't because of Job's stronghold on the market.

**waits for some Apple zealot to mod me down for criticizing Steve Jobs**

Real's iPod attempt vs DT

[jmorris42]

> DT isn't even the first, Real was looking to license their reverse engineering results.

What Real was trying was totally different and could NOT have been stopped by a patent fight. Real was trying to add a module to an iPod to support THEIR closed garden DRM scheme. And as should have been obvious to a small child, Apple thwarted it by continually changing the firmware/software in the iPod. Real produced code implementing Real's DRM schemes was totally legal and immune to a patent fight though.

This is different. If I'm reading this right DT would produce FairPlay encoded tracks. Apparently Apple really was stupid enough to produce a system that didn't sign every track with a public key known only to Apple (or not even DVD-Jon could have done squat to break it open) so an iPod won't be able to tell the difference between an iTunes store produced track and a Walmart.com track. Obviously Apple has patents on FairPlay (yea, patenting DRM, crypto, being cool enough to have Steve bless it, exactly what is non-obvious but they certainly will fight) along with DMCA and any other legal (or not) anti-competitive tricks they can think up.

All of Apple's anti-competitive tricks probably won't be enough legal noise to stop anyone of even moderate means though. There isn't a single thing in FairPlay that isn't self evident to anyone with half a clue so it would only be a matter of someone being willing to spend the cash to push the case to a win. The actaul payload behind the DRM is a standard. While AC3 IS encumbered with patents (that would probably stand up) they aren't owned by Apple and are available under RAND terms.