Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media (Apple) Businesses Media Your Rights Online Apple

Apple DMCAs iPodHash Project 453

Posted by timothy
from the if-google-is-a-verb dept.
TRS-80 writes "Apple has sent a DMCA takedown notice to the IpodHash project, claiming it circumvents their FairPlay DRM scheme. Some background: Apple first added a hash to the iTunesDB file in 6th-gen iPods, but it was quickly reverse-engineered. They changed it with the release of iPhone 2.0 and a project was started to reverse the new hash, but wasn't successful yet. My guess is Apple used the same algorithm as FairPlay for the new hash, so Apple could use the DMCA to prevent competing apps like Songbird and Banshee from talking to iPods/iPhones. BTW, don't tell Apple, but the project uses a wiki, so the old page versions from before the takedown are still there."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple DMCAs iPodHash Project

Comments Filter:
  • by SoCalChris (573049) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @04:28PM (#25836931) Journal
    I have an older ipod that's been having problems lately. It freezes a lot, and absolutely sucks at playing audio books that didn't come from audible.com or itunes.

    I'll be looking to replace it soon. Does anyone make an MP3 player that uses a dock connector like the ipod's, so that I can use it with some of the ipod accessories that I already have? For example, my car radio has an ipod connector that charges the ipod, and lets me control it with the radio controls. I'd like to keep that functionality, except with a different player.

    If no one makes a player that uses the dock style connector, why not? Can you patent a connector so that no other devices can use it?
  • by Vexorian (959249) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @04:28PM (#25836939)
    Why hasn't the EU screwed apple already? The itunes-ipod abuse is like 10 times worse than IE-windows, yet nobody seems to be doing anything to stop this abusive non-sense.
  • Nissan (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Rinisari (521266) * on Thursday November 20, 2008 @04:28PM (#25836949) Homepage Journal

    I just bought a new Nissan, fully loaded, except the iPod connection package. The dealer was curious as to why I specifically didn't want it, especially he knows I'm into all kinds of technology and gadgets. My reply: "I would never use a device that locks down what I put on it."

  • Oh look. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cloakable (885764) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @04:41PM (#25837159)

    Apple are exploiting a monopoly in one market (iPhone/iPod) to establish a monopoly in another (iTunes).

    Hopefully the EU will commence some asskicking.

  • by Macthorpe (960048) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @04:49PM (#25837279) Journal

    Not quite what you're after, and MTP [wikipedia.org] may not be truly open, but it is freely licensable by everyone and anyone. There's also support in Linux via libmtp.

    Creative dumped their own protocol in favour of it, so it can't be that bad.

  • by Front Line Assembly (255726) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @04:53PM (#25837339)

    I must say that I bought a creative zen because I hate using ipods. You can't just copy files over to them and back to your computer. Oh no no, you must use itunes and authorize machines etc., and if you screw up there goes your collection.
    Of course the zen isn't as "sexy" as the ipod, but SFW? It's in my pocket playing music, and astonishingly it works! And I can freely copy music here and there, and share with friends (which is legal where I live, thank you very much cd/dcd/mp3 player taxes).

  • by Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @04:55PM (#25837371)
    I did this myself, and it's specifically the reason why I grabbed a 5.5 gen iPod rather than the newer (and easier to find) 6th gen "Classic" variety. I can play my collection in Ogg Vorbis and update it with rsync. I love their hardware, but they won't let me do what I want with it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 20, 2008 @05:01PM (#25837445)

    It is worth pointing out that the letter that the lawyers sent claimed that the web site contained information about breaking the DRM found in iTunes, but that is not the case.

    The web site contained information on how to be able to *read and write* the iTunes database, to allow you for example to use your iPod from Linux and update the song list.

    What happened is that recent versions of the firmware and iTunes now use a secret hash that they compute over the *directory listing*. If the hash does not match, then the iPod/iPhone refuses to load the database. So this is effectively a mechanism to prevent third-parties to upload un-DRMed songs to the iPhone/iPod and had nothing to do --as the lawyer claimed-- with breaking the DRM in the files themselves.

    You have to wonder if these lawyers or Apple are not in overstepping some legal boundaries, they could be liable for lying.

  • by Simon Rowe (1206316) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @05:33PM (#25837967)

    Just another reason not to buy the ipod/phone. Double if you are not using a mac.

    And don't forget to tell them, I've left the following feedback on www.apple.com:

    I was given a nano when I left my last work place. I used it for a while but it is now gathering dust. Why? because you expect me to use iTunes to transfer songs to it. You've designed it so that I can't use my media manager of choice (amarok) on my OS of choice (Linux). I fail to see why people get so excited about your products, you just want to lock customers into your over-priced hardware and badly-executed software.

  • by mycroes (1176405) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @05:56PM (#25838321)
    The iFuse project that aims to support some of the iphone and ipod touch features under linux got about the same message, from the same dickhead lawyer. Basically they told him to go fuck himself (they didn't try to make it polite), because he has nothing to do with apple. Someone should revoke this guy's license...
  • by syousef (465911) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @09:00PM (#25840469) Journal

    I've got plenty of examples to give you but here's just some:

    - I bought the Battlefield 2 booster packs and despite trying for a few hours on separate days to try to get myself registered and running, I was unable to do so. The software installed but since I couldn't register I couldn't access any of the content. Fortunately the store I bought them from does take back faulty software so I was just out for the expense and frustration of trying to get it running.

    - I've had numerous games refuse to run because I use drive imaging software (daemon tools). These games will not run even if the software is disabled. The drive imaging software must be completely removed. To do this legally the only practical way is to have a separate computer is required to play games.

    - It is illegal for me to backup my disks. This means if I want to play a game on the train, I have to select it and find the CD before I go out for my morning commute. If I want to use my remote control flight sim it gets even sillier. I have to select which version since each has a separate fake usb r/c radio which also acts as a dongle - google Realflight. (To change minor versions for the R/C sim I must be net connected, and the company's servers must be working since they no longer offer offline patches).

    - MS Flight Simulator X requires after the first 2 installs that you call Microsoft and beg for a new registration key.

    - I don't buy DRM crippled music so I haven't been bitten there, but for DVD I have no choice and so if I want to watch a movie legally I'm forced to take an original disk , worth $30 on the train. Don't even get me strated. (Copying DVDs even for your own backups is illegal here). I don't even want to think what will happen to my DVD collection when my infant son starts wanting to use the DVD player.

    Shall I go on? I have plenty more examples, but time typing them out isn't so plentiful.

  • by larry bagina (561269) on Thursday November 20, 2008 @11:22PM (#25841471) Journal

    psystar's antitrust complaint against apple was rejected. But I'm sure you know what a monopoly is, unlike that judge guy.

APL hackers do it in the quad.

Working...