Bad News for Apple

by on January 24, 2007 · 14 comments

From the Financial Times:

Apple was dealt a blow in Europe on Wednesday when Norway’s powerful consumer ombudsman ruled that its iTunes online music store was illegal because it did not allow downloaded songs to be played on rival technology companies’ devices. The decision is the first time any jurisdiction has concluded iTunes breaks its consumer protection laws and could prompt other European countries to review the situation. The ombudsman has set a deadline of October 1 for the Apple to make its codes available to other technology companies so that it abides by Norwegian law. If it fails to do so, it will be taken to court, fined and eventually closed down. Apple, whose iTunes dominates the legal download market, has its proprietory system Fairplay. Songs and tunes downloaded through iTunes are designed to work with Apple’s MP3 player iPod, but cannot be played on rival devices.

Although I applaud the goal of increasing competition in the legal download market, I don’t think having Norwegian bureaucrats overseeing Apple’s software development process is a good solution. But as I’ve pointed out before: this should be a surprise. Regulatory schemes like the DMCA (and the EUCD in Europe) frequently have unintended consequences. And often, those unintended consequences are often cited as a justification for enacting more regulations to mitigate the harms caused by the previous round of regulation.

What we need, instead, is deregulation: Congress should repeal the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, so that companies are free to reverse-engineer Apple’s products in order to build compatible devices.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Tim, I’m curious, do you want to repeal Section 1201 to facillitate reverse engineering that would result in interoperable products, or to facillitate tinkering. The reading of DMCA cases in your paper suggests the latter.

    I ask because many of the cases you talked about set out quite clear guidlines on why acts of reverse engineering were not protected by Section 1201(f)- 1)because the resulting product infringement the Copyright Act or 2)because the intent of the DRM system was broken by the finished product (the interoperable product enabled unauthorized uses). Fewer DMCA cases than you suggests have have declared the act of reverse engineering illegal under Section 1201.

    If you want to repeal the DMCA because you think Section 1201(f) prevents reverse engineering for interoperability, your arguments don’t support that. Reverse engineering happends EVERY DAY in the industry! On the other hand, if you merely want to safeguard tinkering, your arguments are less concerned with innovation than they would be if you were worried about reverse engineering for interoperability.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Tim, I’m curious, do you want to repeal Section 1201 to facillitate reverse engineering that would result in interoperable products, or to facillitate tinkering. The reading of DMCA cases in your paper suggests the latter.

    I ask because many of the cases you talked about set out quite clear guidlines on why acts of reverse engineering were not protected by Section 1201(f)- 1)because the resulting product infringement the Copyright Act or 2)because the intent of the DRM system was broken by the finished product (the interoperable product enabled unauthorized uses). Fewer DMCA cases than you suggests have have declared the act of reverse engineering illegal under Section 1201.

    If you want to repeal the DMCA because you think Section 1201(f) prevents reverse engineering for interoperability, your arguments don’t support that. Reverse engineering happends EVERY DAY in the industry! On the other hand, if you merely want to safeguard tinkering, your arguments are less concerned with innovation than they would be if you were worried about reverse engineering for interoperability.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    Noel,

    When a major vendor releases an MP3 player that can play iTunes songs and doesn’t get sued by Apple (or successfully defends itself against a lawsuit by Apple), then I’ll believe you that 1201(f) is an adequate safeguard for lawful reverse engineering. The iTMS has been on the market for nearly 4 years, and as far as I know, no such product has been released, despite the fact that it would be an extremely popular feature.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    Noel,

    When a major vendor releases an MP3 player that can play iTunes songs and doesn’t get sued by Apple (or successfully defends itself against a lawsuit by Apple), then I’ll believe you that 1201(f) is an adequate safeguard for lawful reverse engineering. The iTMS has been on the market for nearly 4 years, and as far as I know, no such product has been released, despite the fact that it would be an extremely popular feature.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Tim,

    You’re talking about two things: technical barriers and legal barriers. You also assume MP3 player firms have to reverse engineer iTunes for their customers to get premium content. These are not the types of arguments to set on top of a narrow reading of the case law.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Tim,

    You’re talking about two things: technical barriers and legal barriers. You also assume MP3 player firms have to reverse engineer iTunes for their customers to get premium content. These are not the types of arguments to set on top of a narrow reading of the case law.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/ enigma_foundry

    You’re talking about two things: technical barriers and legal barriers.

    No, Noel. Tim’s point is that the technical barrier is easily overocme, as any regular reader of Ed Felten’s blog would know. That is a fact.

    However, when a software engineer like Dmitry Skylarov gets arrested because he figured out how to break a copy protection scheme and present his results, we have, essentially, an example of DMCA removing our freedoms. There is no such thing as a trivial removal of the freedom of speech.

    That is what DMCA is:a ‘legal’ means of removing freedoms.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    You’re talking about two things: technical barriers and legal barriers.

    No, Noel. Tim’s point is that the technical barrier is easily overocme, as any regular reader of Ed Felten’s blog would know. That is a fact.

    However, when a software engineer like Dmitry Skylarov gets arrested because he figured out how to break a copy protection scheme and present his results, we have, essentially, an example of DMCA removing our freedoms. There is no such thing as a trivial removal of the freedom of speech.

    That is what DMCA is:a ‘legal’ means of removing freedoms.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    Noel, as you yourself have noted, Jon Johansen has already reverse engineered FairPlay and has the necessary libraries available for any vendor wanting to license them. So why haven’t any of the MP3 player vendors signed up? Do you really doubt that worries about liability under the DMCA is a major factor?

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    Noel, as you yourself have noted, Jon Johansen has already reverse engineered FairPlay and has the necessary libraries available for any vendor wanting to license them. So why haven’t any of the MP3 player vendors signed up? Do you really doubt that worries about liability under the DMCA is a major factor?

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Real Networks is sitting pretty…

    Also Tim, why is it even necessary for any firm to reverse engineer FairPlay. An MP3 maker can simply negotiate its own licensing deals with music labels. So to say that the DMCA deters innovation, because it may prevent an instance of reverse engineering of a popular product/service is a bit off.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Real Networks is sitting pretty…

    Also Tim, why is it even necessary for any firm to reverse engineer FairPlay. An MP3 maker can simply negotiate its own licensing deals with music labels. So to say that the DMCA deters innovation, because it may prevent an instance of reverse engineering of a popular product/service is a bit off.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    Real sells an MP3 player that can play iTunes songs? That’s news to me.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    Real sells an MP3 player that can play iTunes songs? That’s news to me.

Previous post:

Next post: