It is sad to see a company I admire (for their previous stance and commentary on the rights of the consumer) use a tactic that I would expect from a snake like the RIAA. Shameful! I hardley think it poses the threat that Apple suggests...and it really does make it look to Windows users that we are "tied" to our master in ways that limit our interoperability. Hardly a situation where one can "Think Different."

I like my Emac but really get tired of Apple's paternalistic crap sometimes.

What is really sick is that usually Apple uses the threat of pulling a resellers Authorization to officially sell Macs (being a former reseller). And while that is low...using the DMCA is shocking! This is something I NEVER would have thought I'd see from Apple...champion of free speech and consumer rights! Did you hear that? My stomach just turned.

IMO this is a good thing. The DMCA is about criminalizing competition more than copy protection. DeCSS, for example, doesn't affect copying, because DVD encryption is still applicable regardless of the copy of the physical media. What DeCSS did do, and what it has in common with this Apple situation, is break an artificial monopoly. This case is good because it contributes to evidence that the DMCA is mainly used to block free and fair competition in the market.

I guess this is "revoltin" if you consider breaking the iDVD license to be "providing innovative improvements on Apple's technology." iDVD is licensed only for macs sold with superdrives. Apple has to pay licenseing fees for the software. They offer it as free download by rolling the license fee into the hardware. In effect you really are *stealing* measurable dollars from apple by doing this, since they pay the license fee and you didn't buy anything from them.

Edited by author 08-29-2002 02:59 PM

...Apple must pay a royalty to the dvd consortium for each copy of the software. Since the software is a free dowload, Apple is paying the royalty on copies that people can actually use, i.e. computers that ship with the hardware to do so.

So instead of paying $1 each time someone downloads iDvd, they pay for each burner. Since they actually get revenue for the burner, that's a much better proposition for them.

(from a reader comment on Scott Rosenberg's Salon blog.)

I'm pasting this for perspective's sake. I still consider Apple's act a poor reflection of the DCMA, but not as clear-cut an Evil Act as some might think. Software patches -- "cracks" count as such, and this is actually an example of a reverse-engineering crack -- should not be illegal.

That said, I'm not sure what Apple's best recourse would've been if the DCMA hadn't been enacted. Perhaps some alternative business model that didn't depend on the assumption reverse-engineering wasn't legal....

Food for thought.

Given the difficulty in making money from an iDvd patch, can we hope now that a free version gets unleashed? Maybe Apple's distasteful actions could backfire and benefit everyone, and maybe teach Apple (who I generally support) a thing a two.

Edited by author 08-29-2002 03:43 PM
I can certainly see Apple's reasons for doing this; it makes financial sense -- if not PR sense.

But if making iDVD work with external drives isn't a clear case of reverse-engineering for the purposes of interoperability then what is?

Here's my question: Why does Apple pay a royalty to the DVD consortium for each copy of the software? This document suggests licensing is a one-off fee. What aspect of the software is covered by the $1/unit license fee? Perhaps there's a clause I'm currently unaware of (let me know) but AFAIK the only element would be CSS, which the DVD-CCA licenses seperately.

Burning DVDs doesn't require CSS, though, since DVD players are supposed to be able to play un-CSS'd DVDs. Most commercial discs are CSS'd but doing it is optional. So yes, you could include that feature, and maybe Apple has (I don't own it to see for myself) but why would anyone want to do that? If you're burning a disk on your iMac, then surely it's either for yourself or your friends -- you don't need or want it to be protected, right? (And if you did, you'd want something better than CSS, but I digress)

Seems like a poor excuse one way or another; either it's not the real reason, or it is, but they were foolish to go with that "screw the consumers and get screwed by the DVD consortium" business model in the first place.

Edited by author 08-29-2002 07:21 PM
Oh come on, Cory. The only way you can acquire a legal copy of iDVD is to purchase a Mac with a DVD burner. Chances are, if you've got an internal DVD burner, you're not going to need to buy an external one, too. Anyone trying to use iDVD on an external burner is therefore almost certainly using a copy that is, how do I put it, acquired through creative means. This is a piracy issue.

[ On edit ] Apple would also have to pay royalties for the MPEG-2 compression that iDVD uses.

...or you could buy it for $19.99 from Apple's online store. Not that creative...

That's an upgrade, Canis (from iDVD 1, if I'm not mistaken). Superdrive required -- says so right on the page (small print).

mcwetboy: The only way you can acquire a legal copy of iDVD is to purchase a Mac with a DVD burner.

So? I own iDVD and I have the right to sell it to whomever I please. Doctrine of first sale. Just because Apple can't see the difference between hardware and software doesn't mean software should have special protections. Hypothetical case follows:

DVD burner goes past warranty and dies. I have a legal copy of iDVD. I try to sell it knowing there's a cheap patch out there that makes it work with any DVD burner. Nope, not anymore thanks to the DMCA. Now I'm stuck with software that's attached to one product.

Will this happen very often, probably not. Its the principle that counts. Apple 1, Consumers 0.