Apple has benefited heavily from open-source software over the years, and it has earned a warm spot in the hearts of open-source advocates, despite its heavily proprietary stance.
With BluWiki, however, Apple appears to have gone too far.
In November 2008, as CNET's Tom Krazit wrote on Monday, Apple wrote to the BluWiki administrators to have iPodHash, an open-source program that attempts to enable iPods and iPhones to sync with music software other than Apple's iTunes, removed from the Web site. Apple argues that iPodHash violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by actively seeking to circumvent Apple's iTunes copyrights.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, however, begs to differ. It has launched a lawsuit against Apple, as PC World reports, and seeks a "declaratory judgment action to vindicate the free-speech interests of Internet readers and publishers," according to the EFF's complaint (PDF).
After all, this isn't really about DMCA circumvention, as the EFF's Fred von Lohmann declares. It's about a Web site's right to allow others to post information related to legal, fair use-protected actions. Frankly, it's ultimately about the right to open information, and, tangentially, about open-source software.
Von Lohmann explains:
This is the first time I've seen a company suggest that simply talking about reverse engineering violates the DMCA. All of the previous cases have been cases that involved actual successful reverse-engineered tools.
Apple, in its sometimes-rabid desire to control everything to do with its brand and technology, appears to have overstepped its legal authority in the BluWiki case. Apple argues that it's about much more than the right to have online discussions about reverse engineering, suggesting in a letter to the EFF (PDF) that the iPodHash software could be used to break Apple's FairPlay copy protection system.
I love Apple's technology. I love its brand. I could do without its heavy-handed attempts to protect technology that its own recent actions suggest is heading toward extinction, with DRM-free music now the norm on iTunes.
Apple is a great company because it makes compelling, beautiful products. It's not Apple because it beats up on administrators of discussion forums. At least, I hope not.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
I had to suppress a smirk last week when I saw a kinder, gentler DRM (digital rights management) rear its ugly head over on Slashdot. The open-source world has long hated DRM, but perhaps open-source DRM is somehow blessed?
Marlin, a new open-source DRM scheme, is alleged to be different, as noted in PC Pro:
The co-chairman of the Marlin Developer Community claims the open-source system is far less oppressive than those from rivals such as Apple and Microsoft, allowing users to share content between any Marlin-enabled device in the home rather than on specific machines. "It works in a way that doesn't hold consumers hostage," Talal Shamoon told PC Pro. "It allows you to protect and share content in the home, in a way that people own the content, not the devices."
"Far less oppressive." Boy, that inspires confidence! It's not nearly as terrible as DRM normally is.
I personally don't mind DRM if it's the cost of enabling business on the Web. Some argue that DRM is a slippery slope, and they may be right. But I think there's enough value in free distribution that DRM is unlikely to hold up the Web for long.
Still, if we must have DRM, an open-source system seems best. Marlin isn't the first time open-source DRM has hit the market. Back in 2006, Sun Microsystems was talking up its own open-source DRM approach. Unfortunately, it never caught on. Nor did SideSpace's open-source DRM back in 2003.
Will Marlin be different? Maybe. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Applying a Band-Aid to a gaping head wound, Electronic Arts has decided to apply more liberal protections to its hit game Spore.
As reported in The Wall Street Journal, the game maker plans to expand the number of machines allowed under its digital rights management plan:
In a statement, Frank Gibeau, EA game label president, said the company was "disappointed" by the misunderstanding around its digital rights management software and that it would expand the installation limit from three machines to five. He added that EA is also expediting the development of a system that will allow customers to "deauthorize" computers and move the game to new machines, without the need to call the company.
CNET's Jennifer Guevin had noted that the Spore DRM provisions, instead of protecting against piracy, had actually encouraged it. Consumers rebelled against the restrictions. This new policy may relieve some of this piracy, but I concur with Dave Rosenberg's argument that EA still needs to learn the difference between a user and a customer:
If there is one thing that open source has taught us, it's that there are "users," and there are "customers." Odds are that all of your customers will be users first, taking your software for a test-drive and then deciding if they want to pay for it. It's all about getting people to consume your software.
As such, EA really should be thinking differently, allowing unfettered access to the game itself for users--though likely in a crippled form--and then allowing customers to buy their way into the game to get enhanced functionality. This model has worked in open source. EA should be examining its applicability to gaming, too, rather than simply providing a bigger cage in which to imprison customers.
When I see things like Microsoft's newest Zune, I actually feel pity for the company. Where Microsoft is good, it's great. But where it's an also-ran, it stinks. The Zune is a product that never should have been born. It adds nothing to the industry.
Except a nifty "community website":
The Redmond-based company also announced an online community website for the range, dubbed Zune Social. The beta site allows users to interact with one another and to create user cards, highlighting their favourite and currently playing tracks. However, cards can?t be traded.
The "community," which goes by the name of "John" when he's not online, awaits the social with bated breath.
... Read more- prev
- 1
- next
