Real and iPods: DRM interoperability via reverse engineering
Real just released Harmony for iPods as well as number of other devices:
Since Harmony is only depending on the iPod not to let the music move OFF the iPod, no reason they can’t use one DRM scheme (Real’s Helix DRM) to get the data to the real media player on the computer, and another scheme (Fairplay) to say “here, iPod, is an AAC file with fairplay. Play it but don’t let it be copied”. If the audio is in AAC at 192kbps to begin with (in the Real download service) there’s no transcoding of codecs or loss of quality. It’s really just the wrapper that is being changed, and the rules of how to use the audio.“With Harmony Technology, RealPlayer Music Store supports more than 70 secure portable media devices, including all 4 generations of the iPod and iPod mini, 14 products from Creative, 14 from Rio, 7 from RCA, 9 from palmOne, 18 from iRiver, and products from Dell, Gateway, and Samsung. Generally speaking, Harmony supports any device that uses the Apple FairPlay DRM, The Microsoft Windows Media Audio DRM, or the RealNetworks Helix DRM, giving RealPlayer Music Store support for more secure devices than any other music store on the Internet.”
It’s quite interesting. Apple has been a strong advocate of standards (AAC is a part of the MPEG-4 audio standard) but Fairplay has until now been a proprietary DRM standard.
The MPEG group (and a number of other groups) have been until now completely inneffective in creating the “one and only DRM standard”, and DRM is a notoriously hard problem especially when you try to implement it in software, which is always hackable without hardware support.
Real is pursuing what I consider a very legitimate and (they hope) effective approach in standards game; they approach the 3 major different DRM systems as defacto DRM standards and simply convert their tracks to the appropriate DRM standard, preserving the licensing limitations put on the media files they distribute, using the local DRM language of the device.
Although they reverse engineered the DRM’s on the players and did not directly license the DRM schemes, this is exactly where reverse engineering is often considered legitimate.
Apple may be able to beat it back. Real is not payingFairplay licensing fees. Although trans-drm’ing into Fairplay from real’s system can’t be considered a licensing violation (since it was reverse engineered), if any portion of the Fairplay is patented, then Apple will be able to use patent strategies (similar to how Microsoft defended the ASF format.)
There is a legitimate concern that a hybridized DRM system implemented through hacks and reverse engineering by warring business factions is potentially insecure. However, software DRM is always insecure (theoretically infeasible to implement a secure one), which is why Real was able to reverse engineer it to begin with.
In a pure business sense, Apple is (rightfully) concerned about having the iTunes-iTMS-iPod relationship broken. Many if not all PC users might use software that was more “PC” like harmony.
—-
I’m personally torn on this issue.
WHY APPLE SHOULD GET IT’S WAY:
I want Apple to win because I think they have the best political clout with the music industry and they were the first to break the market open with the labels while providing reasonable fair use permissions for consumers. If music industry trust in Fairplay, DRM, and Apple’s ability to defend it’s turf is eroded, the labels may get weirder again and generally start increasing restrictions on downloaded music.
WHY REAL SHOULD GET IT’S WAY:
I had always predicted that like any industry, several major proprietary DRM systems would come togther, be proved in industry, and then shake down to either a single agreed upon standard or a couple of leading but interoperable standards. This is a major step in that evolution, and the outcome of this skirmish has a lot to do with the eventual outcome of a bigger battle in the video DRM space.
And selfishly, I might finally get some Beatles tunes on my iPod if they come out on Harmony.
Please tell me what you think.
Comments(2)
