If You Add DRM To Circumvent DRM, Is It Circumvention At All?
from the follow-the-logic dept
Earlier this month, we wrote about "DVD Jon" Lech Johansen's latest effort to reverse engineer Apple's FairPlay DRM so that others could offer copy-protected downloadable music that would play on the iPod, basically in an attempt to get rid of the walled gardens of music we discussed earlier today. Plenty of people wondered if Apple would sue, but in a Fortune article, Johansen makes it pretty clear that he did everything according to the law. Specifically, they didn't "circumvent" the copy protection, but reverse engineered it, creating a clone. As he says, they're not removing DRM from anything, but actually adding DRM to other content -- and that appears to be legal by the letter of the law. The Fortune article, though, raises plenty of questions about whether or not that will keep Apple from suing and (perhaps more importantly) whether or not anyone will seriously be willing to license the cloned DRM and risk pissing off Apple or being sued themselves. Considering that it really would be easier to follow the eMusic path of offering unencumbered MP3s rather than this convoluted path of adding DRM to get around DRM restrictions, hopefully there really isn't a big need for this DRM to route around DRM. Still, if it does go to court and is found legal, it raises questions about where the borderline is between circumvention and reverse engineering. If you reverse engineer copy protection, but then open up more rights using it, which does it fall under?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://www.coral-interop.org/
Check out the Member List (Comcast is also member)
http://www.coral-interop.org/main/membership/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ading DRM to get around DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blinding Insanity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Coral Consortium
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kind of odd. I kind of hope this goes to court just to establish legal precedent. Can anyone tell Apple to sue, and then lose on purpose? (just kidding).
In any case, public policy considerations inform copyright law more than many realize. The DMCA is more flexible than its critics suggests.
I note that DMCA critics generally interpret any ambiguity in the circumvention/exemption provisions as barring activities not clearly falling under them. This is just pessimistic, and unfortunately, has shirked reverse engineering activity more than DMCA case law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uh, Noel, that's a blatant misrepresentation and you should know better. Most DMCA critics do NOT interpret any ambiguity as barring activities.
Instead, they point to the very, very, very REAL chilling effects that those ambiguiities cause. While it's great that Jon is willing to take the chance, just think of how many others did not. That's a huge blow towards progress and a huge blow against a market that should be much, much bigger than it is.
As a supposed "free marketeer" I still don't quite get why you're so against the free market in this case, instead preferring gov't bound monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it exists!
The RIAA, Apple and everyone else have missed a huge moneymaker/appeasement oppertunity. If someone or some company could hack up a website that offered unlimited downloads of a standard format for say somewhere between $10 and $30 a month I think that the RIAA would sleep better and consumers would be much happier and be able to get what they when they want it. Home computing (especially with the introduction of Windows Vista) is heading this way in my humble opinion."
ever heard of emusic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Applying a DRM wrapper is not circumvention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Applying a DRM wrapper is not circumvention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM this, DRM that, its jsut confusing people, the average user they want is going to get so frustrated that it doesnt work on anything else but their ipod that they will stop buying it online and pirate, the easy way to get their music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple can always claim DVD Jon is selling software based on unauthorized reverse engineering of their software. And this is using trade secrets of Apple etc...
Plus I would not be surprised if it did not infringe upon a few dozen well chosen Apple patents either.
And in any case I'm not sure how much legitimacy the _copy_ has faced to Apple's original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if you ask apple...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]