29 Jul 2004 | Grimcoin said...

I do find it interesting the mixed response this has generated on the 'net. If this was any other company, there would be a clear outcry of 'How DARE they?!' but because this involves Apple somehow the fierce (blind?) loyality of the followers find it acceptable that Apples making a sizable fuss.

When I purchase an ipod,or any piece of software/hardware it seems obvious that I own that item, and therefore shouldn't I be able to do whatever I like to it? If I created a program to allow me to play .ogg files on it, that again seems reasonable. If I gave that program to other people, who again, have bought their device, whats the issue?

Real are clearly in the right, and I hope this opens a few more eyes about the issues that the DMCA is causing over in America. (This case is clearly not a DMCA violation) Car mechanics can't work on some series of cars (without buying a hugely expensive license/tool) because to do so would mean breaking the encryption on the cars cpu and that is now illegal. Hnnng!

29 Jul 2004 | David Bisset said...

The real question here is: who cares? :-)

I posted about this today as well:
http://www.flex-mx.com/archives/001195.html

The DMCA part is the only thing making this interesting. Harmony really doesn't give Real an edge for iPod owners, like myself. Real's Music Store doesn't look superior - in either price or selection - to warrant a typical Joe to care about Harmony. It's just as good, maybe even easier, to buy from the iTunes store.

Regardless, I *still* transfer everything in mp3, regardless of what legal source I buy music from. It ensures a lot. :-)

29 Jul 2004 | Jeff Croft said...

Grimcoin-

I'm not an Apple apologist, and I'm not even really on Apple's side of this issue. That said, I don't understand how Apple is preventing you from being able to "do whatever you like to it". You want to create a program to listen to .ogg's? Go ahead. YOu want to create a Windows Media DRM compatibility interface? Go for it -- you'll make millions. I don't think Apple has a problem with that at all.

What they seem to take offense to is that Real apparently reverse-engineered FairPlay, a closed-source system. While you and I may not necessarily agree, Apple seems to see this as an infringement on their intellectual property. They are, effectively, saying that Real has stolen their technology and are attempting to profit from what they learned when they opened up a box that was to remain closed.

I think it's fairly comparable to the DeCSS DVD-encryption situation. Just because you (or someone) has figured out how to break the encryption and copy DVDs doesn't mean you have the right to.

I believe, if Real had, instead, created some kind of plug-in for the iPod that would allow it to play Real-formatted files, Apple wouldn't have raised a big stink about it. Instead, they found a way to create, for all intents and purposes, FairPlay-enabled AACs without paying the license fee required for the proprietary technology (Granted, Apple wouldn't let them license it, but that's not my point here).

Like I said, I'm not necessarily on Apple's side -- I just think you're misunderstanding their beef. It's not that they want to prevent you from using the iPod however it most benefits you -- they simply want to protect their trademarked, closed-source system (FairPlay) from being stolen or reverse-engineered.

30 Jul 2004 | Michael Pate said...

I have been trying to decide on an MP3 player for months. And I had just about decided on one of the new iPod models. But now, I am wondering if I want to buy a product from a company that is so enthralled with the DMCA?

30 Jul 2004 | Grimcoin said...

The fact that Apple is complaining about reverse engineering is my point. If someone far more clever than I were to create a wmv 'upgrade' for the iPod you would have to reverse engineer the software/hardware to do so, how else could you do it on a closed platform? Software innovation is built on iterative development of previous works. By trying to stop this they are guaranteeing (unfairly in my eyes) no competition on their platform. Why can I use generic printer cartridges for my printer, but not a new firmware for my ipod?

"Just because you (or someone) has figured out how to break the encryption and copy DVDs doesn't mean you have the right to."

Why not? When you buy a DVD what do you own, really,what have you paid ~15 for? Do you actually own that DVD? Can you do with it whatever you want?
Why am I not allowed to make a thousand copies and use it as wallpaper throughout my house? Why can I not transcode it into a xvid to keep on my laptop for train journeys to save battery life, or why can't I print every frame out and turn it into a giant flickbook for my own use? DMCA paints everyone with a 'your a criminal' brush just because something criminal is possible. People who break the law will continue to be a step ahead of encryption methods due to the public nature of the key to unlock the encrypted data, be it DVD or music file, so why make everyone with a fair use a criminal too?

30 Jul 2004 | ek said...

Michael, buy whatever works best for your needs.

Grimcoin, the problem is distribution, particularly distribution for a profit. Real didn't crack FairPlay as an intellectual exercise, they did it to try to make money selling FairPlay encoded music.

By trying to stop this they are guaranteeing (unfairly in my eyes) no competition on their platform.

What does fairness have to do with anything? It's their platform and if they want to keep it closed that's their prerogative. If the market deems that a bad thing, the product will eventually become marginalized (or the company with change their, ahem, tune).

30 Jul 2004 | David Schontzler said...

Real is making their DRM compatible with Apple's DRM. The DMCA explicitly allows for making stuff compatible.

Anyhow, I hope Apple loses this one. The whole "hacker ethic" accusation is especially appalling.

I'd say more, but I'm too tired.

30 Jul 2004 | Graham said...

How to manage projects using MT:
http://www.inspirednonsense.com/archives/design_tools/manage_your_projects_with_movable_type_part_i.php

30 Jul 2004 | stp said...

I'm thinking Apple missed the boat by not licensing Fair Play to others in the first place. Jobs himself has said that the music store is not a big money maker, but instead a big marketing tool intended to help sell more iPods. If that's true, they shouldn't care who sells the songs, just so long as they keep selling iPods. More people selling Fair Play songs equals more people wanting iPods to play 'em on. Everybody wins. I just hope that in the end, cooler heads will prevail.

30 Jul 2004 | Darrel said...

All DRM is shit. Any company (including Apple) that 'depends' on it is doing a disservice to the consumer.

To be fair, Apple only embraces the DRM to win over the RIAA. Without that, iTuned never would have been.

I have a feeling that this case has less to do with Apple being against other formats, but more to do with saving face with the RIAA. The RIAA needs to know that Apple is distributing a device that adheres to the RIAA's demands (DRM) and any ability for other's to reverse engineer the software means there is little true DRM in the device.

Apple is between a rock and a hardplace on this one. Piss of the consumer, or piss of the RIAA. They really can't win this one.

30 Jul 2004 | Carl said...

All DRM is shit.

Care to elaborate? What's SHIT about it? And what do you expect the music industry to do when people are constantly STEALING its product? They have to lock their doors somehow.

30 Jul 2004 | Jeff Croft said...

All DRM may be shit. The fact that Apple keeps the iPod closed may be shit. It all may be shit, bt it's reality. There would be no iTunes, no Napster, no Real Store, no legal music downloads online at all if not for DRM. You might hate it, but it was a necessary evil. It's here to stay. Get over it.

Grimcoin:

You're saying you SHOULD have the right to copy your DVD if you buy it. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is that you DON'T have that right, whether you SHOULD or not. It's illegal. Just hte same, I believe it's illegal, under the DCMA, for Real to reverse-engineer FariPlay (but I'm no lawyer, so I could certainly be wrong). I'm not trying to say that it SHOULD be illegal -- only that I believe is IS illegal, whether it SHOULD be or not.

There's a road in my town where the speed limit is 30. I think it's absurd. No on lives on the road. It should be 45, at least. But it's not. Just because I think it SHOULD be 45, doesn't ive me the legal right to GO 45. If I do go 45, I'm risking getting a tgicket.

I love open source ideals and the whole "power to the people" attitude, but the fact is that some of you aren't living in the real world. What SHOULD BE and what IS are no always the same thing. The courts are going to deal with what IS in this case.

30 Jul 2004 | David Schontzler said...

I don't see how infringing upon my fair use is a necessary evil. Treating customers like criminals isn't the way to go.

30 Jul 2004 | ek said...

Goodness gracious, no one's treating anyone like a criminal here until they become one by illegally distributing and/or stealing music.

What exactly about FairPlay is so onerous that it's making criminals of us all?

30 Jul 2004 | Darrel said...

"Care to elaborate? What's SHIT about it? "

It's a disservice to the consumer. It assumes the consumer is a cheat. A thief. A pirate. It only makes it more difficult for the consumer to install/use/transport their purchased product. It does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent the pirating that they believe it prevents. DRM makes the vendor look like a fool while assuming the customer is a deadbeat.

"And what do you expect the music industry to do when people are constantly STEALING its product? "

Start competing on convenience, price, and variety. The bottom line is that technology, for the most part, has made the recording industry giants irrelevant. THey know that, but they're not going to go down without a fight.

If they truly wanted to stay in business, they should embrace the cheap distribution channel the internet is and sell more for less.

People have ALWAYS shared music. This is nothing new.

"They have to lock their doors somehow."

They could come to terms with the fact that piracy has always been here, and always will be, and instead focus on the paying customer for a change (this goes for the software industry as well).

"It's here to stay. Get over it."

It's not here to stay. It comes, and in a matter of months, it's gone...someone has figure out how to get around it. Again, it's a futile battle.

"All I'm saying is that you DON'T have that right, whether you SHOULD or not. It's illegal."

Actually, it's not. Or, at the very least, it's very very grey right now. Ultimately, you SHOULD have the right to copy it, and, of course, should NOT have the right to distribute it illegally...especially for profit. THAT is piracy. P2P is sharing, not technically piracy. The RIAA is against sharing. The solution to that is NOT DRM, but rather making the price attractive enough where people find it easier to just pay for it.

Downloading an album from iTunes for $10, then to burn to a disk, then import back in as MP3 so I can listen to it where I want when I want is NOT worth the price. If they gave me an album of DRM-free MP3s for $5, hell, it'd be a no-brainer to pay for that.

"What SHOULD BE and what IS are no always the same thing. The courts are going to deal with what IS in this case."

Or, rather, powerful lobbyists and Orin Hatch will attempt to decide... ;o)

30 Jul 2004 | JF said...

It's a disservice to the consumer. It assumes the consumer is a cheat. A thief. A pirate.

Enough of them are that it's forced the industry to do something about it. Billions and billions have been lost. I just don't get how some people can blame an industry for trying to keep people from stealing from it. They're just protecting what is theirs to rightfully protect.

The other way to protect is to sue, but when they do that the public is up in arms about the big guys suing the little guys. What do you expect them to do? If they can't sue to reduce stealing, they have to implement technology that helps prevent it in the first place. Or do you have a better idea?

It does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent the pirating that they believe it prevents.

Nothing? Absolutely nothing? If you believe that it's really done nothiong, maybe they should try harder and get even more strict with their DRM. Or would that just be even worse for you? Again, what do you expect them to do when they are being fleeced?

30 Jul 2004 | ek said...

Whenever I read stuff like Darrel's post above or hear the blather that comes out of the mouths of people like Bill O'Reilly I always wonder: do they really believe that inanity or are they just bs-ing to satisfy some ulterior motive?

This is one of those times when a person being less than candid would actually bolster my belief in humanity.

30 Jul 2004 | JF said...

The bottom line is that technology, for the most part, has made the recording industry giants irrelevant. THey know that, but they're not going to go down without a fight.

Irrelevant? How so? Where do you think the iTunes music store GETS its music? Where do you think radio GETS its music? Where do you think the record stores GET their music? Who signs the bands? Who fronts/pays for the producers to make the albums? Who fronts/pays for promotion? Who fronts/pays for the music videos? Who fronts/pays for their tour buses so they can get around and bring their live music to your ears? Who arranges the tours? And who takes the risk of doing all this for a band that might never make it?

30 Jul 2004 | Darrel said...

Enough of them are that it's forced the industry to do something about it.

That would be a valid argument if, in fact, sharing music was as damaging as the RIAA claims it is, and, of course, if DRM actually prevented piracy, which it doesn't.

I just don't get how some people can blame an industry for trying to keep people from stealing from it.

Pirates steal. P2Pers are stealing nothing from the RIAA other than hard-to-establish-POTENTIAL-sales. Again, the solution is not DRM, but to turn those potential sales into real sales. In a capitalist society, we tend to do that via lower pricing, better product, and offering more value/convenience...none of which the RIAA seems to be interested in right now.

Or do you have a better idea?

I think I've stated that clearly, haven't I? Give up on fighting piracy through technology, pay attention to customers, and give them better value for their money.

The only reason (well, the MAIN reason) that the Open Source movement is succssful, is because the commercial software industry is pretty crappy right now. More expensive products are being sold with more bugs and less support. No wonder people are flocking to OS options.

Nothing? Absolutely nothing? If you believe that it's really done nothiong, maybe they should try harder and get even more strict with their DRM.

If they are complete idiots, then yea, I guess your logic would make sense.

The reality is that digital media is what it is. For every DRM implemented there is someone that can break it.

This is one of those times when a person being less than candid would actually bolster my belief in humanity.

It's a blog EK. People speak their mind. Just because you have a differing opinion does not invalidate mine. If you want to invalidate it, try expressing an opposing viewpoint with something to back up your argument instead of petty comparisons to Bill O'Reilly.

Irrelevant? How so?

It's a middle-man distribution industry. Artists do not NEED a recording company to distribute it's wares.

It's similiar to what has happend to the travel industry. It's been gutted. There's still a need for travel agents, but now most of us can also book our travel directly with the vendor. No need to use the middleman.

As more artists understand this, and as more services like iTunes embrace the independant artists, the less and less the recording industry will be of relevance. Instead of embracing this shift, the industry has been fighting it.

Where do you think the iTunes music store GETS its music?

From the labels, including places like CDBaby, which is merely a intermediary to get independant artists on the service.

Where do you think radio GETS its music?

FM radio has long been irrelevant. ;o)

Where do you think the record stores GET their music?

From distributors. From Sony to Bob's Record Label On The Corner.

Who signs the bands?

That's what is great about the internet. A band doesn't NEED to be signed to distribute their wares.

Who fronts/pays for the producers to make the albums?

Many large labels' contracts are less than ideal for this type of thing. Again, though, technology has reduced the cost of this aspect as well.

Who fronts/pays for promotion?

This is the one area where the labels could still be useful. Again, though, most of the promotion is to promote albums for the label's profit...not necessarily the artists'.

Who fronts/pays for the music videos?

Again, 'fronting' money is just a loan.

Who fronts/pays for their tour buses so they can get around and bring their live music to your ears?

Often, the artists. Tours are one area where artists can actually earn a decent amount of money.

There is NO DOUBT that the big labels are VITAL to pop stars. The only way to become an instant millionaire as a musician is to be overexposed in as many markets as you can as fast as you can and to pump out merchandise as fast as you can.

Metallica, Madonna, etc...These artists need labels to sustain their level of income. However, this is done at the sacrifice of the thousands of other artists who are passed up.

The RIAA is fighting less to prevent piracy and more to prevent a much larger market. It's harder to sell smaller quanitities of individual product to a wider market than it is to sell a handfull of albums to a highly targetted demographic.

Who arranges the tours?

Again, often this is the artist.

And who takes the risk of doing all this for a band that might never make it?

Well, with new technology, AGAIN, the risk isn't as high. It takes a lot less to record an album these days and you can deliver it online with almost ZERO distribution costs (ok, you gotta pay for bandwidth...) No overstocks. No high-priced studio time paid by the hour...

30 Jul 2004 | JF said...

Again, 'fronting' money is just a loan.

You think the average "about to get signed" band could get a loan from a bank? Loans are necessary which makes the record industry very relevant.

30 Jul 2004 | Darrel said...

You think the average "about to get signed" band could get a loan from a bank? Loans are necessary which makes the record industry very relevant.

How much does it take to record an album with today's access to digital technology and post them on the internet? I know a lot of bands that have done this without a dime from the big labels.

I think this is an interesting take on the situation:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030724.html

30 Jul 2004 | ek said...

Wow, so you actually are serious — that's scary.

You're also really full of yourself, which is funny.

But then, if I'm remembering correctly, you have the ability to breed, which is again scary.

Time for me to delete this entry from my brain.

Seacrest out!

30 Jul 2004 | Darrel said...

You're also really full of yourself, which is funny.

We're online here, EK. Were we in a bar, I'm sure I'd be a bit less vehement in my opinion and you'd be a bit more civil.

Provided we weren't both drunk, of course. ;o)

Anyways, I'd love to actually debate a topic with you someday rather than have you simply insult me and leave the discussion.

30 Jul 2004 | Darrel said...

ek's debate style:

opponent: This is my opinion and why I believe this

ek: That's stupid. What about x, y, and z issues?

opponet: Here's my thoughts on issues x, y, and z

ek: Wow, you're really stupid. I'm leaving this stupid debate. Stupid stupid-heads.

(Just having fun with you, EK)

BTW, I reread the thread and came across this comment from you:

If the market deems that a bad thing, the product will eventually become marginalized (or the company with change their, ahem, tune).

That's exactly my point. The market has deemed DRM an annoyance and continues to use P2P much to the RIAA's chagrin. As such, the RIAA can either become marginalized, change their tune, or sue sue sue and hope that their buddy Orin will pass some laws in their favor.

31 Jul 2004 | Slow Joe said...

Why is this page layout broken like this?

31 Jul 2004 | Slow Joe said...

But then, if I'm remembering correctly, you have the ability to breed, which is again scary.

Is an ad hominem attack the best the great EK can do? The ability to debate something without resorting to something crass and abusive like this is the mark of a good debater.

02 Aug 2004 | LNJ said...

OK, well, I've been reading these and it is time for me to chime in...

I have spent some time with the daughter of the drummer from Supertramp. She and he weren't against music swapping and P2P. For all Bob cared, P2P and music swapping brought MORE fans to his shows and that is where he made his money.

The RIAA is slow to pick up on this fact. Becuase of Metallica most people think that the artists are being ripped off and are losing money becuase of this. Truth of the matter is that a CD cost about $12 bucks to buy (these days) but the artist are only seeing about a dollar of that.

Fine, so the artist is losing some money, but an artist can make a million a day on tour. How long does it take to sell a million albums? For old bands and bands that mostly tour to sell there stuff, do you think they give a shit about album sales?

I saw The Boss this last fall and those tix we $100 a pop. You think Springstein is making his money from album sales? At $100 a seat, I'm sure that Bruce wopuld rather play to a sold out stadium than sell a million records.

The RIAA needs to realize that people will find ways to chare music. The "Blank Tape" tax had very little support and that was based on the same claims, yet 20 years (or so) later, those same arguements are being used to take out P2P swappers and others. Where was the thought that went into arresting and charging a 12 year old girl? Is that good PR for the RIAA?

While here, I might as well comment on the point... iTunes is iTunes and if anyone is trying to infringe on that business, I don't see why Apple shouldn't protect itself. Lord knows, if I was selling something and someone came in and was blattently and openly trying to sell/steal my idea with the EXACT same thing, only with a different name, I would sue the hell out of them to protect myself.

The way I see it and I use iTunes and have sampled Harmony and as I see it, Harmony is an itune rip off and copy.

If you created something that was new and unique, would you want someone to come in and copy and steal it? I thought not! Let's imagine that you invented a car, patented that car, and sold that car on the basis that is ran on piss and someone else came out with a car that ran on urine... wouldn't you do what was needed to protect yourself and your product?

02 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

If you created something that was new and unique, would you want someone to come in and copy and steal it?

I wouldn't personally. As a consumer, I'd want the market to do that, though. ;o)

Reverse engineering is how a lot of systems compete. Without it, you'd see a lot more monopolies out there. This is good for business, not so good for consumers. That's not that Apple shouldn't sue...they have to, but I'm not against them loosing this one.

02 Aug 2004 | LNJ said...

Darrel-

OK, so I create something unique and/or new... do I nessisarilly have a monopoly on things?

In the case of iTunes, I know that it may seem it, but it's not... really. There are other formats and MP3/Digital music players on the market. iTunes and iPod may be the best and the best known, but the doesn't mean that Apple has a monopoly, they just have the best advertize and/or product.

02 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

OK, so I create something unique and/or new... do I nessisarilly have a monopoly on things?

No.

In the case of iTunes, I know that it may seem it, but it's not... really.

iTunes has a monopoly on iPod compatible DRM files.

03 Aug 2004 | LNJ said...

Yes, but I can play MP3 files on my iPod and in my iTunes, so where is the monopoly? How is Apple or iTunes monopolizing anything if various formats can be used?

The only arguement that I have heard that seems reasonable is that other formats don't compress into the iTunes or iPod like the "suggested" format, but what am I REALLY losing? 4%? 8%? overall... who cares? I use iTunes and iPod and I had had NO problems and I use other/alternative formats....

Again, where is the monpoly or qualms besides Harmony stealing from Apple?

BTW... for those interested, I am a PC user and I probably will be for a long time, but iTunes and iPod have left me with ZERO complants, so why do I need Harmony if it is not offering a better product? All it's doing is stealing!

03 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

so where is the monopoly? How is Apple or iTunes monopolizing anything if various formats can be used?

I'm just saying that I don't find reverse engineering to be an entirely bad thing. Without it, the consumer suffers.

so why do I need Harmony if it is not offering a better product?

Competition can be a good thing for the consumer.

03 Aug 2004 | LNJ said...

Competition is a great thing... as long as the competing product was brought about in a fair, legal, and hounest mannnor.

There is a difference between creating a product and stealing a product. My problem with reverse engineering is that it is stealing a product. Knowledge isn't come by hounestly and then that knowledge is exploted. Not only do I think it is stealing, I try to stay away from companies that use those practices. I guess it is integrity. Or maybe faith that some people still do the work for themselves.

Competition is great for the marketplace, but what if all coffee houses and cafes started serving Starbucks brand coffee all over the world. Starbucks beans and roasting process were figured out and EVERY cafe copied that. Is that compeition then? How do those other cafes, giving us the same thing only NOT the original, service us or the marketplace? Other cafes exists and do well precisely because they are NOT Starbucks. They offer an OPTION to Starbucks, NOT Starbucks with a different name.

03 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

There is a difference between creating a product and stealing a product.

Oh sure...the issue is if reverse engineering is stealing or or not.

You think it is. I think it can be, but isn't necessarily when the sole purpose is to make a product compatible with the market leading system. Real didn't steal ipods, or Apple's DRM. They made their DRM compatible with the market-leading iPod.

I try to stay away from companies that use those practices

Well, good luck with that. Reverse engineering is a very common practice in a lot of industries. ;o)

I think you're assuming that all reverse engineering is is an attempt at stealing another companies hard work. It certainly can be that, but often it's simply to make a product compatible with the market. If one product/company owns a market (basically a monopoly) it's next to impossible to compete in that same sphere without being compatible.

How do those other cafes, giving us the same thing only NOT the original, service us or the marketplace?

Look at some examples in the past...IBM clones, co-opting LP formats, etc.

These eventually helped the market place by developing a standard that all vendors could base their product on.

Your anology would make more sense if it were based on the coffee cup and all vendors had to design their own cup format and their own cup holders and cup packaging and cup dispensers, etc. Startbucks, being the market leader could always produce their product at a lower cost because of their volume ability. If every coffee vendor had to design a uniqe coffee holding vessel, it'd be nearly impossible to compete.

03 Aug 2004 | LNJ said...

Look at some examples in the past...IBM clones, co-opting LP formats, etc.

Fine, let's look at them....
IBM clones.
Starbuck clones.
McDonald clones.

What's the one thing they had/have...? Originality. Burger King doesn't have a Big Mac. Pete's Coffee doesn't have a Frapacino. Apple, ect. don't have IBM's 5150.

They are competeters in a marketplace. They may be selling the same thing, or something very similar, but there are and were differences. Differences in marketing and packaging. Preformance and specs. A different product.

IBM clones didn't set out to give people ACCESS to IBM machines. Starbucks clones didn't go out and find a way to give people Starbucks coffee under a different name. McDonald clones don't sell Big Macs.

That's what Harmony is doing. Giving people access to Apple's product.

As for reverse engineering... I'm not against it, as a whole. I am against it when it is lawless. Meds are reverse engineered and if they weren't, there would be no generic meds and things could get even more expensive. I use generic drugs, if and when I need them. The thing is... there are laws and rules and regulations that go into that.

My disagreement with reverse engineering is the problem of stealing. If I went out and broke down a Twinkie and sold my own brand of Twinkie, no one in the world disagree what I did was wrong. People would recognize that I was selling Twinkies and Twinkies exist and how could I...?
In dealing with digital media and the digital medium, well... all of a sudden that is ok. All of a sudden reverse engineering is creating a market, not stealing from others.

My point is that Hostess and IBM and Starbucks and McDonalds, etc. all compete in a market that created and cultivated around and becuase of them, not by stealing from them.

04 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

Actually, your generic meds example is perfect.

As for IBM...they got 'ripped' off. People made clones that ran IBM software. It's just the opposite of Real making software that runs on the iPod.

You consider it stealing/immoral. I don't see it quite that black and white.

Anyways, a timely link re: the futility of DRM:

http://www.macnn.com/news/25695

04 Aug 2004 | LNJ said...

Thanks for the link Darrel. It was informative and well written.

I guess that we can agree that we have different opinions or we can keep this up for eternity. Thanks for your views.

04 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

I guess that we can agree that we have different opinions or we can keep this up for eternity.

Well, without our esteemed EK, it's just not as fun anymore. I guess we'll have to politely come to an agreement that we disagree on some points. ;o)

And thank you for your views.

04 Aug 2004 | David Schontzler said...

There is a difference between creating a product and stealing a product. My problem with reverse engineering is that it is stealing a product.... Not only do I think it is stealing, I try to stay away from companies that use those practices.

Then you better stop using your computer. You probably have to stop using your car as well, and likely some other products you may have.

Reverse engineering isn't stealing a product. RE is a very helpful and necessary practice. Companies like AMD wouldn't be around without it.