hmm, I dont understand.Afaik Ipods were synced with Itunes,seems to me that one could put anything on Itunes,no matter where it came from.So if I synced my Ipod against my Itunes database,all songs should have been on the Ipod.
I believe this refers to the case going on right now [1] where RealPlayer Music that was sold in '05 or so as 'iPod Compatible' was locked out more than once by iTunes updates.
The thing is it worked (like PlayFair before it [2]) by circumventing/faking FairPlay, which was/is quite likely a violation of the DMCA. Apple patched the bugs and thus "excluded competitors".
So because Apple "excluded competitors" (who where breaking their encryption) they artificially keep the price of music high by stifling competition (ignoring record company contracts and the fact that Real had a 3% market share at the time).
You're right thought. Throughout the entire life of the iPod you've been able to play DRM free MP3s that you got through any method, legal or otherwise.
Don't forget, Real didn't have a good reputation. And they were breaking Apple's DRM so you could play files that had their DRM so it's the "they were fighting for people's freedom" card isn't very strong.
I see this as the same as when Palm faked USB IDs so the Pre would sync with iTunes. Someone else hacked their way into taking advantage of Apple's software and then got mad when the hack was removed and claimed "unfair competition". Sour grapes.
It's different in that DOS was an operating system for a general purpose computer, whereas the iPod was sold as a closed, non-interoperable consumer device. I'm not defending Apple's actions in the case (I'm not familiar enough with the details) but I don't think your analogy is sound.
The DMCA has no exemption for "fair use". Fair use is a specific term, the meaning of which does not include being able to play any audio on hardware with copy-protection.
More specifically, the DMCA (in the relevant provision) covers bypassing technology that prevents copying.
Copyright law covers copying itself.
So if you bypass some encryption to copy something, we have to look at two different areas of law, one for the bypassing, one for the copying.
Fair use provides some exemptions to the copying.
DMCA exemptions are promulgated by the Library of Congress, developed in consultation with the Copyright Office and after public notice and comment periods, and updated every three years. DMCA exemptions are not automatically renewed, so the exemptions can change radically every three years.
Public comments have frequently requested a catchall fair use exemption to the DMCA, ie, if the anti-circumvention tech was bypassed only in service of a fair use of a work, then there should be no violation of the DMCA.
Such an exemption has been rejected so far, but could be adopted at some point in the future.
The DMCA covers bypassing technology that prevents the copying of protected works. I don't think it was ever intended to cover bypassing the parts that prevent you from using it to protect your own works from copying.
This has actually been the subject of (depressing) scholarly research.
"Further, we conclude that the exemption proceeding is constructed not to protect noninfringing users, but to limit courts' ability to exonerate them via the traditional defenses to copyright infringement."
Actually the case law means that the DMCA has been judged to have have an exemption for fair use [1]. Because neither Real nor their customers were trying to gain unauthorised access to copy-protected materials, it seems unlikely that their behaviour would be considered anti-circumvention.
The MGE case is not the sort of victory you (and Ars) present it to be. It's actually remarkably narrow and doesn't gut the worst of the anti-circumvention provisions.
In simple terms, imagine a box with a padlock on it. The DMCA says, roughly:
* You're not allowed to examine the lock to figure out how to make a key for it.
* You're not allowed to make a key for the lock.
* If you somehow get a key for the lock, you're not allowed to use it.
* If you somehow get a key for the lock, you're not allowed to give it to anyone else.
* If you somehow get a key for the lock, you're not allowed to tell anyone else information about it that might let them make their own key.
The MGE case tried to claim, basically, that once someone else has already unlocked the box, it would be a DMCA violation to look inside. And the court of appeals just said "no, that's not something the DMCA forbids" while leaving all the other bits (you're not allowed to have/make/distribute/etc. the key) in place.
You needed iTunes to act as a conduit to get songs onto the iPod, but you could either sync it with one iTunes library, or leave it in manual mode and load songs from any iTunes.
It worked then exactly the same way as it does now[1].
You couldn't sync songs on the device back into iTunes though[2] - if you had it in manual, put some songs on it (from another iTunes library, a third party app or anywhere else) and then tried to sync it with your iTunes, it would remove everything on there before syncing over your iTunes library.
Apple DID let you sync raw MP3 and other non-DRM files, but only through iTunes.
Apple did not delete those to my knowledge, but it sounds like the allegation is that Apple deleted DRM'd files that were side-loaded through other programs like DVD Jon's Doubletwist.
That's how I remember it as well. You either had to load your music in via iTunes or buy it on the store. Any other way could wasn't very user friendly. (I'm assuming the suit is about 3rd party software attempting to directly sync with iPods, rather than use iTunes)
Did Itunes used to work differently?