Latest iPod Suggests that Apple Still Loves DMCA-Assisted Lock-in
from the all-about-control dept
Back in January, we noted that despite Steve Jobs's posturing on the music DRM front, Apple remains a big supporter and user of DRM and DRM-like schemes throughout their product lines. Over at the EFF blog, Fred von Lohmann suggests another potential example. The new iPod Shuffle has no buttons; the controls are on the included headphones. And if these folks are right (and there seem to be some doubts), the new shuffles won't work with the remote controls of any existing third-party headphones because the iPod looks for a special "authentication chip" that so far is only embedded in the headphones Apple bundles with the shuffle. This would be irritating to me personally because I hate earbuds and so if I bought a shuffle the first thing I'd want to do is swap out the Apple-supplied earbuds with third-party headphones.Fred suggests that the purpose of this "authentication chip" is to trigger liability under the DMCA if anyone tries to reverse-engineer the chip. That's possible, but it's far from clear that that's what's going on. We don't know exactly what the chip does, but it seems unlikely that they'd embed enough computing power in the chip to do real crypto. And if there's no crypto, it becomes harder—although certainly not impossible—to invoke the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions. Unfortunately, there's so little case law on the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules that we don't really know how it would apply in a case like this. And that uncertainty may be all Apple needs to discourage third parties from building unauthorized accessories. b>Update: It looks like we were right to be skeptical about the DRM angle. Fred updates to point to a Boing Boing report that there's no authentication in the new headphones. Which means that a DMCA claim probably wouldn't apply to third-party headphone makers.
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
(...silence...)
(Or is it a channel for stuffing things into?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (...silence...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No DRM according to Mac Rumors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No DRM according to Mac Rumors
It's the apple way, or no way.
(And I am writing this on a mac)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No DRM according to Mac Rumors
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but I can't see what a chip inside the headphones could achieve for this purpose without involving some kind of DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No DRM according to Mac Rumors
You mean like the 'Made for Vista' fiasco didn't protect users from buying underpowered machines that could not run Aero at all? That is all these stickers ever do, promote sales to users who cannot understand device specifications and instead rely on MARKETING (any approval sticker is a marketing driven tool). It will do exactly what it is intended to do -- get people to buy Apple earbuds when they are not sure if anything else will work or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False.
The chip is to standardize the communications interface with the iPod. If you are a company and want to spend the time and money to recreate the functionality of the chip, you can.
There is no DRM or authentication. Read here for more: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/03/third-party-headphones-do-require-apple-supplied-chip.ars
This kind of "journalism" really makes me question the integrity of Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False.
Good thing it isn't "journalism" then douchebag. It's a blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False.
Hmm. So far, you accused us of saying stuff we did not. Claimed that we were practicing bad "journalism" when we don't do journalism, and pointed to an Ars Technica piece to suggest we were wrong (though, it seems to support exactly what Tim said) And... Tim Lee, who wrote this post, also is a writer for Ars Technica.
What was your complaint about our integrity again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction. The chip is there to require third party vendors to pay apple for creating a device the interfaces with apples device. So now, apple get as bite of the money OTHER companies make when selling products. Did you even read the article?
Best,
-KevinC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The chip is not "required" It's the same story as all of the other "Made for iPod" accessories that work with the dock connector. If you want to reverse-engineer the chip and create your own, then you can. Apple provides the chip and licensing to third parties so that they don't have to make their own, and to add a "Made for iPod" label that helps sell their product.
The point is: there is no authentication of DRM involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The article states, "Apple is requiring third-party headphone makers to include an Apple-supplied chip to add inline controls compatible with its latest iPod shuffle." and the title is: "Third-party headphones do require Apple-supplied chip".
You'll notice that this article is a biased by the fact that they say, "Apple-supplied chip" as opposed to "chip purchased from apple". (and other things)
No, I don't believe it has anything to do with drm either. It is there to make sure that the shuffle will not operate without the chip in the headphones and for no other reason.
With regard to 'if you want to reverse-engineer the chip and create your own, then you can'...this is also from the afore mentioned article: '"The 'authentication chip' is there so that Apple's lawyers can invoke the DMCA to block [reverse engineering] efforts"' Best, KevinC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Marc : your reading skills are WeirdHarold levels of inadequate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy to circumvent
I bet the purpose of this is to prevent people playing music from their ipods to their cars or other systems without using yet another apple product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
okay i tried hard enough to give some BS weird harold response i give up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If that's truly the case, then I don't see what this has to do with DRM or the DMCA. It seems more like a design decision that takes advantage of existing technology to reduce the size of the device rather than anything else.
If you don''t like it, then don't buy a Shuffle. There are plenty of non-Apple flash-based players available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, that's the whole idea; To give people something that will wear out easily and need to be replaced, so that they can sell you another copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, check your facts before posting nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If no controls are on the device...
Crap, I'm defending this bullshit company. >:(
I'm not an Apple fan, but wasn't there a player that bombed because all it did was play without allowing user control?
I can see if this chip is a feature of controls, but I hardly doubt it could be used in a DRM set up.
Logistically, it would be damn near impossible to support DRM via the headphones and would certainly allow a much easy bypass to the software stored on the machine.
Come on, people. Think.
Personal note: If this chip is Apple's way to ensure product quality, then customers should stand up and complain. But they won't. Instead, they'll continue buying the products while whining about the restrictions.
Serves each of them right for buying the product in the first place, especially in knowing about the chip. Idiots.
'Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This whole chip issue is irrelevant to me because I already have a 4th gen nano (was a gift).
It's amazing anyone buys from such a proprietary/DRM driven company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Headphones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brilliant !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nice work ipod
[ link to this | view in chronology ]