The RIAA vs. Steve Jobs(weblog.rogueamoeba.com)
weblog.rogueamoeba.com
The RIAA vs. Steve Jobs
https://weblog.rogueamoeba.com/2023/03/24/the-riaa-v-steve-jobs/
122 comments
Intimidation is what these copyright monopolists are all about.
> We knew recording was useful, but the app’s ability to apply audio effects anywhere on the Mac carried much less legal peril.
Look at this. Innocent software developers, intimidated by these nebulous "legal perils" of copyright infringement to the point they felt afraid of marketing a perfectly reasonable and legal feature.
I can't possibly be the only person deeply offended by this. We don't need their blessing to record anything. We should be free from their tyranny but it binds us to this day.
> We knew recording was useful, but the app’s ability to apply audio effects anywhere on the Mac carried much less legal peril.
Look at this. Innocent software developers, intimidated by these nebulous "legal perils" of copyright infringement to the point they felt afraid of marketing a perfectly reasonable and legal feature.
I can't possibly be the only person deeply offended by this. We don't need their blessing to record anything. We should be free from their tyranny but it binds us to this day.
This is why open source software and non-walled garden systems are so vital. With open source software and hardware where you can install your own software, all it takes is one developer somewhere in Russia or China who is not afraid of the RIAA's intimidation, and all of us will have access to the recording in a way that cannot be taken away. We must defend open source software and fight against walled garden promoters (like Apple) to secure our right to general purpose, freedom-respecting computing.
> somewhere in Russia or China who is not afraid of the RIAA's intimidation
I can't be the only one that sees the irony in developed western democracies relying on Russia and China to protect liberty and freedom.
I can't be the only one that sees the irony in developed western democracies relying on Russia and China to protect liberty and freedom.
[deleted]
the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?
Not always... a single issue "friend" isn't generally enough to stay that way and bigger issues can prevail.
While I appreciate a lot of the hardware and hard work that comes from China, I think their government makes them adversarial to the point where the US should seriously work on shoring up domestic production and alternative supply chains. China has been working hard to make the US unnecessary for their own. Not many countries can really exist without at least their neighbors, but it's very concerning. Similarly with alignments with Russia going through.
Not that I advocate for the military interventions going on right now for the most part... I just think the US govt and industry have become so short sighted to the point that long term harm is inevitable.
While I appreciate a lot of the hardware and hard work that comes from China, I think their government makes them adversarial to the point where the US should seriously work on shoring up domestic production and alternative supply chains. China has been working hard to make the US unnecessary for their own. Not many countries can really exist without at least their neighbors, but it's very concerning. Similarly with alignments with Russia going through.
Not that I advocate for the military interventions going on right now for the most part... I just think the US govt and industry have become so short sighted to the point that long term harm is inevitable.
the enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy: no less, no more.
Yes, and that's why they're trying to own our computers before they even leave the factory. They want a world where only the programs they approve can be executed. That's literally the only way that copyright can be enforced in the 21st century. In other words, they are the antithesis of everything hackers stand for. Computers are too powerful and subversive for them, they need to control it. Governments have similar aspirations. They want to contol access to cryptography software.
While I do agree: "keep your hands off my computer", There's a huge difference in wanting to close down a computer and wanting cryptography software banned.
Government don't care if you use open or closed source software, in fact it probably welcomes hackable (as in easy to tinker with, more moving parts that they could easily extract data from) open computers more.
Government don't care if you use open or closed source software, in fact it probably welcomes hackable (as in easy to tinker with, more moving parts that they could easily extract data from) open computers more.
> This is why open source software and non-walled garden systems are so vital.
Are there people organizing to develop, deploy, run and provide “AI on demand” for free to people?
Like Wikipedia but for AI.
How much money would be needed? How many volunteers? Who wants to build this?
Are there people organizing to develop, deploy, run and provide “AI on demand” for free to people?
Like Wikipedia but for AI.
How much money would be needed? How many volunteers? Who wants to build this?
> Are there people organizing to develop, deploy, run and provide “AI on demand” for free to people?
Stable Horde, though its p2p rather than centralized nonprofit https://stablehorde.net/
Stable Horde, though its p2p rather than centralized nonprofit https://stablehorde.net/
Even better! Is there a marketing team?
Very few open source projects have a marketing team.
I think you just met them:)
Don't we have LLaMA? The quantized version is runnable on top end consumer hardware, which is within reach for many people if a bit expensive. You can also use it on a rental GPU unit from something like vast.ai or another commercial vendor. AI on demand for free is not a viable economic proposition for now, lest you create a way to vouch for legitimate users and purposes, but at that point most people would rather pay a bit. Maybe in a few years it will become economical.
It's not legal to use LLaMA for commecial purposes. We need an open source alternative. Not something that was leaked.
Isn't this already built with https://huggingface.co/ ?
Settle down, Richard.
You really think Open Source is going to solve the problem? I love the FOSS as much as the next man, but it's not some holy panacea for all of our freedom-loving woes. RIAA doesn't have to sue the developer in Russia, they can just take the legal fight to the consumers (and they HAVE done so).
You really think Open Source is going to solve the problem? I love the FOSS as much as the next man, but it's not some holy panacea for all of our freedom-loving woes. RIAA doesn't have to sue the developer in Russia, they can just take the legal fight to the consumers (and they HAVE done so).
How would they tell? RIAA has no right to check your computers. I doubt it would be possible to outright ban the software from existing or being installed since it has totally legal uses too.
I think open source is more important and relevant than ever, especially in an era when LLMs are controlled by a select few. But we can both say “Nu uh” and “yes huh” at each other and it won’t really advance the discussion. Do you have specific examples?
Every time the doomsday of AI is heralded by some folks here , they go "but-but, Open Source is the solution!"
No, regulation is the solution. Learn about politics, learn the local and federal laws and get on the horn with people if you're so concerned.
No, regulation is the solution. Learn about politics, learn the local and federal laws and get on the horn with people if you're so concerned.
> No, regulation is the solution. Learn about politics, learn the local and federal laws and get on the horn with people if you’re so concerned.
I have a degree in political science, completed about half of law school before deciding I didn’t want to leave technology, have worked in and around government for most of the last 25 year.
Transparency—and open source plays a big part in this—in the answer. Regulation can be important to, but if there isn’t transparency in the field (even if not for all models, though that will be important) and particularly for anything adopted for important use in administering policy and pressure from the open source community on proprietary vendors, the dangers of AI are magnified.
Yes, I know people tied to the big vendors are selling the idea that opacity and regulatory restrictions are the answer, and I’m telling you read Adam Smith:
The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers.
That’s why you hear that story.
I have a degree in political science, completed about half of law school before deciding I didn’t want to leave technology, have worked in and around government for most of the last 25 year.
Transparency—and open source plays a big part in this—in the answer. Regulation can be important to, but if there isn’t transparency in the field (even if not for all models, though that will be important) and particularly for anything adopted for important use in administering policy and pressure from the open source community on proprietary vendors, the dangers of AI are magnified.
Yes, I know people tied to the big vendors are selling the idea that opacity and regulatory restrictions are the answer, and I’m telling you read Adam Smith:
The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers.
That’s why you hear that story.
I didn’t say anything about the doomsday scenario, nor that open source is a solution.
didnt they try that with youtube-dl ?
though they were able to partially take down the repo it was brought back after the legality ot their claim was analyzed.
though they were able to partially take down the repo it was brought back after the legality ot their claim was analyzed.
That's the perils of using a proprietary service beholden to the law of the US. Ideally you would want redundant services in different jurisdictions to circumvent takedown requests like this. It is crucial to have control of your infrastructure, even if it may be mirrored elsewhere.
The problem is that it's extremely risky as a platform operator to stand up for blatant abuse of copyright infringement tools under the current model, especially when you do anything at scale.
Basically if you operate any website, as long as the DMCA request you get is reasonably properly filed, you are required to process it or else you risk legal liability.
It's a goddamn mess and when you're operating on the scale of say, Google, you don't have the option to risk that liability and hire people who can examine those claims. No, what you do is blindly process all claims and just hope that people counterclaim the bad ones.
It's why for example GitHub sticking it's neck out for 1201-related violations (where they manually investigate any anti-circumvention related takedown) is such a big deal. They are running a risk by doing that where if they tell the RIAA (who usually files these requests) to go fuck themselves, that they could be forced to eat crow in court, but they're doing it because well... the RIAA abused that part of the DMCA to file a dodgy claim against youtube-dl[0].
Improper DMCA claims are technically punishable as perjury but the actual process is so draining that it's super rare to see someone convicted for it.
[0]: The RIAA assumes that youtube uses actual encryption to protect people from downloading them. They're wrong - YouTube doesn't use widevine or anything like that for regular uploads (movies are a different case, they do use widevine), they have their own rolling cipher which is just a plaintext javascript file that your browser fetches when loading YouTube. Youtube-dl contains a python reimplementation of that cipher. Fully legal insofar as section 1201 is concerned, but the RIAA filed it under that anyway (because they'd have no actual standing to file a regular DMCA claim for basically blatantly reusing Google code, since the RIAA isn't Goole).
Basically if you operate any website, as long as the DMCA request you get is reasonably properly filed, you are required to process it or else you risk legal liability.
It's a goddamn mess and when you're operating on the scale of say, Google, you don't have the option to risk that liability and hire people who can examine those claims. No, what you do is blindly process all claims and just hope that people counterclaim the bad ones.
It's why for example GitHub sticking it's neck out for 1201-related violations (where they manually investigate any anti-circumvention related takedown) is such a big deal. They are running a risk by doing that where if they tell the RIAA (who usually files these requests) to go fuck themselves, that they could be forced to eat crow in court, but they're doing it because well... the RIAA abused that part of the DMCA to file a dodgy claim against youtube-dl[0].
Improper DMCA claims are technically punishable as perjury but the actual process is so draining that it's super rare to see someone convicted for it.
[0]: The RIAA assumes that youtube uses actual encryption to protect people from downloading them. They're wrong - YouTube doesn't use widevine or anything like that for regular uploads (movies are a different case, they do use widevine), they have their own rolling cipher which is just a plaintext javascript file that your browser fetches when loading YouTube. Youtube-dl contains a python reimplementation of that cipher. Fully legal insofar as section 1201 is concerned, but the RIAA filed it under that anyway (because they'd have no actual standing to file a regular DMCA claim for basically blatantly reusing Google code, since the RIAA isn't Goole).
Rampant MP3 copyright violation motivated and enabled some awful owner&user-hostile design, from which we're still suffering.
I don't like anything about the RIAA, but a lot of computer users don't have the high ground either.
I don't like anything about the RIAA, but a lot of computer users don't have the high ground either.
> Rampant MP3 copyright violation motivated […]
There was a singular reason for this: UX. The IP mob absolutely despised anything different to their existing business model, and were too boneheaded to recognize the opportunity to make something good. Most of all, they hated that they needed to change. It took decades, but now only niche enthusiasts download music, even though it’s as easy now as it was then.
The same thing could be said about TV streaming, of course, although they’ve done a worse job on the technical side.
There was a singular reason for this: UX. The IP mob absolutely despised anything different to their existing business model, and were too boneheaded to recognize the opportunity to make something good. Most of all, they hated that they needed to change. It took decades, but now only niche enthusiasts download music, even though it’s as easy now as it was then.
The same thing could be said about TV streaming, of course, although they’ve done a worse job on the technical side.
This is classic victim blaming.
RIAA not liking what users do caused RIAA to do user-hostile design, from which we're still suffering. Bad users, bad!
RIAA not liking what users do caused RIAA to do user-hostile design, from which we're still suffering. Bad users, bad!
Thankfully Spotify came out and it reduced music piracy far more than all the RIAA lawsuits combined by simply offering better service than both RIAA (who wanted to sell albums only) and pirate sites (that didn't offer discovery features and there was no quality control).
As GabeN said - piracy is a service problem.
As GabeN said - piracy is a service problem.
> that didn't offer discovery features and there was no quality control
Pirate sites generally had better quality than iTunes (which was 128kbps for way too long), and were often ripped from a better sounding source or master because the people uploading albums were dedicated fans of the material. One great example is the soniclovenoize uncensored stereo version of "We're Only In It For The Money".
Pirate sites generally had better quality than iTunes (which was 128kbps for way too long), and were often ripped from a better sounding source or master because the people uploading albums were dedicated fans of the material. One great example is the soniclovenoize uncensored stereo version of "We're Only In It For The Money".
Don't know about iTunes, but some music on pirate sites was only available in 128k or below. I'm so glad that I don't have to hunt for quality releases on those sites any more.
Spotify doesn't have this problem.
Spotify doesn't have this problem.
Spotify is infamous for paying artists poorly, but not being on it is risky for an artist due to its popularity. I don't know that it's fair to say it solved the problem, at least from the perspective of artists.
For the vast majority of the artists record studios also paid poorly, if at all. And even for the greatest names, you'd better have a very experienced agent and a team of shrewd top crack lawyers or the studios would surely rip you off.
The recording industry was always a very shady business.
> pirate sites (that didn't offer discovery features and there was no quality control)
Remember what.cd?
Remember what.cd?
Copyright violation? Copyright should not even exist in the first place. It's the 21st century. There should be nothing to "violate".
In my eyes the main issue is political standing, which we had very few.
When in France the RIAA equivalent came up with a plan to add a tax to all digital storage media, because it could be used for piracy, the tax was applied an we all ponied up. Why ? because they make money, deal with politicians everyday and make sure the wheels are well lubrificated when they need them to turn.
For a very long time the computer industry had none that, and/or wanted contents right holders on their side, with not enough negociation power.
Now I feel we're on the other side with Apple straight telling legislators to turn a blind eye because they need their semi-monopoly to keep printing money.
When in France the RIAA equivalent came up with a plan to add a tax to all digital storage media, because it could be used for piracy, the tax was applied an we all ponied up. Why ? because they make money, deal with politicians everyday and make sure the wheels are well lubrificated when they need them to turn.
For a very long time the computer industry had none that, and/or wanted contents right holders on their side, with not enough negociation power.
Now I feel we're on the other side with Apple straight telling legislators to turn a blind eye because they need their semi-monopoly to keep printing money.
> When in France the RIAA equivalent came up with a plan to add a tax to all digital storage media, because it could be used for piracy, the tax was applied an we all ponied up. Why ? because they make money, deal with politicians everyday and make sure the wheels are well lubrificated when they need them to turn.
RMS has suggested a similar tax on internet users in exchange for legalizing file sharing [1].
The idea of taxing something associated with the consumption of creative works in order to fund the creators instead of the direct sale of copies model is one of the more popular ideas among those who try to actually figure out how creators should be funded in an age where anyone can make unlimited copies for essentially no cost.
[1] https://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.en.ht...
RMS has suggested a similar tax on internet users in exchange for legalizing file sharing [1].
The idea of taxing something associated with the consumption of creative works in order to fund the creators instead of the direct sale of copies model is one of the more popular ideas among those who try to actually figure out how creators should be funded in an age where anyone can make unlimited copies for essentially no cost.
[1] https://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.en.ht...
I think it could have been a sensible approach if it stopped at "something associated with the consumption of creative works".
Sadly it (is ?)was way broader than that and you'd have a tax on hard drives sales whatever you would do with them. Imagine needing two extra hard-drives for your home NAS to store your family pics and videos and something like 2 to 3% of the price goes to some artists that _might_ be impacted by piracy some way or another.
https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Propriete-litteraire...
Sadly it (is ?)was way broader than that and you'd have a tax on hard drives sales whatever you would do with them. Imagine needing two extra hard-drives for your home NAS to store your family pics and videos and something like 2 to 3% of the price goes to some artists that _might_ be impacted by piracy some way or another.
https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Propriete-litteraire...
> The idea of taxing something associated with the consumption of creative works in order to fund the creators
... usually ends up as a barrier to creators, because the funding goes to established creators or industry cartels, reinforcing their existing advantage over upstarts and independents.
... usually ends up as a barrier to creators, because the funding goes to established creators or industry cartels, reinforcing their existing advantage over upstarts and independents.
Indeed, the big problem with the tax approach is deciding how to distribute the money.
The government could do it via grants to creators, but then you've got the government playing a major role in determining what art gets created, which would not doubt in the US end up a partisan thing. Yuck!
Another approach would be to track downloads and distribute the money based on popularity. That at least gets away from having the government decide what gets funded.
The government could do it via grants to creators, but then you've got the government playing a major role in determining what art gets created, which would not doubt in the US end up a partisan thing. Yuck!
Another approach would be to track downloads and distribute the money based on popularity. That at least gets away from having the government decide what gets funded.
> get lost
From Daring Fireball:
According to https://twitter.com/adamcurry/status/1639396942345117696
His actual words were “fuck them”.
From Daring Fireball:
According to https://twitter.com/adamcurry/status/1639396942345117696
His actual words were “fuck them”.
That's so 90s. Nowadays, ask GPT to write the most dense obscure legalese supporting your contention, at least 100 pages of A4 paper, no margins, font size 9. Have fun emailing that pdf.
“We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.” is one short alternative.
https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/arkell-v-pressdram
https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/arkell-v-pressdram
My favorite legal response: http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/response041408.pdf
It's longer, totally demolishes the complaint, and contains the line:
""" Not only am I unintimidated by litigation, I sometimes rather miss it. """
It's longer, totally demolishes the complaint, and contains the line:
""" Not only am I unintimidated by litigation, I sometimes rather miss it. """
This one was from Canada, and it's full of gems like
" In the modern-day vernacular, people often refer to a criminal case “being thrown out”. Obviously, this is little more than a figurative expression. Cases aren’t actually thrown out, in the literal or physical sense. Nevertheless, in the specific circumstances of this case, the Court is inclined to actually take the file and throw it out the window, which is the only way to adequately express my bewilderment with the fact that Mr. Epstein was subjected to an arrest and a fulsome criminal prosecution. Alas, the courtrooms of the Montreal courthouse do not have windows."
" To be abundantly clear, it is not a crime to give someone the finger. Flipping the proverbial bird is a God-given, Charter enshrined right that belongs to every red-blooded Canadian"
[ https://tinyurl.com/ycy98p3v ]
" In the modern-day vernacular, people often refer to a criminal case “being thrown out”. Obviously, this is little more than a figurative expression. Cases aren’t actually thrown out, in the literal or physical sense. Nevertheless, in the specific circumstances of this case, the Court is inclined to actually take the file and throw it out the window, which is the only way to adequately express my bewilderment with the fact that Mr. Epstein was subjected to an arrest and a fulsome criminal prosecution. Alas, the courtrooms of the Montreal courthouse do not have windows."
" To be abundantly clear, it is not a crime to give someone the finger. Flipping the proverbial bird is a God-given, Charter enshrined right that belongs to every red-blooded Canadian"
[ https://tinyurl.com/ycy98p3v ]
That’s not really jobsian, though.
Steve would have been extremely familiar with the music industry and their legal reach, starting all the way back in the 80s when Apple Corps sued Apple Computers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi
I think you forget we used to pay the RIAA every time we purchased a writable CD medium, just in case we might use it to store copyrighted material.
Yes, the legal system we have in place is mostly about bullying and you have every reason to be offended
Yes, the legal system we have in place is mostly about bullying and you have every reason to be offended
This is not technically true in the US.
Stand-alone devices that were meant only to allow you to record audio did require special “audio CDRs”. But CD writers that connected to your computer could use “data CDRs” that could still be used to record standard audio CDs
Stand-alone devices that were meant only to allow you to record audio did require special “audio CDRs”. But CD writers that connected to your computer could use “data CDRs” that could still be used to record standard audio CDs
[deleted]
I highly recommend this tool to any mac users out there. I use it daily- it makes sampling any inbound audio stream simple and would be much less productive without it. My only complaint is the ACE driver is frequently updated which sometimes causes ableton live to puke if it’s open when the update happens.
Thanks Steve and Eddie. I gladly accept this as encouragement to start using Audio Hijack Pro with Apple Music.
Shame though that they caved and seem to have disabled a video equivalent on macOS.
Shame though that they caved and seem to have disabled a video equivalent on macOS.
That's still how they work nowadays, that's a legal mafia.
A legitimate use case can change legal standing.
It may be worth noting that Apple themselves did sort of break "record whatever you want" on iOS, just a few years after this suppsed conversation. It may or may not have been intentional: they removed shared memory access from iOS, which broke JACK (and some other similar systems) on that platform. Some other developers did eventually find a different way to accomplish a similar goal, but it had nothing in common with the solutions available then (and now) on macOS and forced a significant code fork for anyone trying to design inter-application audio routing on Apple platforms.
You do realize the security implications of “shared memory access” don’t you?
Yep, the same implications as on all the *nix related systems (and others) that have had this property for more than 40 years and still have it.
The entire model behind iOS is that each application should be completely sandboxed
That's a bit of a simplification. The sandbox is deliberately not completely water-tight - the real point is to be able to ask the user "do you want app A to interact with app B in <one of a well-known set of ways> ?"
Before a certain version of iOS, that set of ways including communication via shared memory. Now it no longer does.
Before a certain version of iOS, that set of ways including communication via shared memory. Now it no longer does.
Yes and since Shortcuts there is a third party arbitrator that lets you script multiple apps and does the orchestration.
Even before that, there are various extension mechanisms that allow an app to say “I want to share information with compatible apps” and the user gets to choose which app to share the blob of data with.
The other side is that an app gets to publish extensions that are run out of process of the app that it is receiving the data blob from.
Even before that, there are various extension mechanisms that allow an app to say “I want to share information with compatible apps” and the user gets to choose which app to share the blob of data with.
The other side is that an app gets to publish extensions that are run out of process of the app that it is receiving the data blob from.
The problem with inter-app audio routing is that it's not about sharing a data blob.
Still, other people have found ways to do it without shmem, so in some sense it doesn't matter all that much.
Still, other people have found ways to do it without shmem, so in some sense it doesn't matter all that much.
How exactly would Apple have "disabled" Audio Hijack Pro in 2005?
Nothing like Gatekeeper existed back then, and if code signing was a thing it certainly wasn't in widespread use. Even kernel extensions were completely unsigned until the release of OS X Mavericks in late 2013.
Edit: To be clear, I'm sure it would have been technically possible for Apple to kill Audio Hijack. However, I think it would have required either enormous engineering effort (e.g. replacing third party kernel extensions a decade early) or a completely unprecedented policy change (blacklisting a specific hash or bundle identifier, of an app that wasn't malware). I don't think there's an alternate timeline where Apple would have done either of these things, whatever happened in that meeting with Steve Jobs.
Nothing like Gatekeeper existed back then, and if code signing was a thing it certainly wasn't in widespread use. Even kernel extensions were completely unsigned until the release of OS X Mavericks in late 2013.
Edit: To be clear, I'm sure it would have been technically possible for Apple to kill Audio Hijack. However, I think it would have required either enormous engineering effort (e.g. replacing third party kernel extensions a decade early) or a completely unprecedented policy change (blacklisting a specific hash or bundle identifier, of an app that wasn't malware). I don't think there's an alternate timeline where Apple would have done either of these things, whatever happened in that meeting with Steve Jobs.
Apple could have done any number of things to do that. You're thinking about this from the limited perspective of how Apple could have done it that RA couldn't have worked around (code signing) but that isn't remotely required.
All Apple needed to do was to push an update which breaks the software.
if (process == "AudioHijack") { dont_stream_audio();}
AudioHijack would find some way to work around that, as I'm sure they can, the RA team is wicked smart but their software would be broken for a day/week/month until they did and then Apple would analyze their workaround (using their exponentially greater manpower and better understanding of the system and find a way to break it again.
Cue cat and mouse game. The thing is in that scenario, Apple loses nothing when RA fixes their software (they can just tell the RIAA they're trying -- and they are!) but every time Apple breaks Audio Hijack they would be eating away at the userbase and inserting doubt into potential purchasers. Am I going to spend $65 on something which my OS manufacturer clearly doesn't want me using and is probably going to break in a month or three for an indeterminate amount of time.
You're seeing this as "can apple unequivocally disable this software" but that is the wrong question, even today it's not true (I can disable gatekeeper/SIP/etc if I'm determined enough and if I want i'll just run Ashai) but the real game here is Apple making it more difficult to use it and the REAL game would have been Apple instilling doubt in existing customers and potential purchasers.
Anyway I'm glad Apple didn't do that, RA produces some great software.
All Apple needed to do was to push an update which breaks the software.
if (process == "AudioHijack") { dont_stream_audio();}
AudioHijack would find some way to work around that, as I'm sure they can, the RA team is wicked smart but their software would be broken for a day/week/month until they did and then Apple would analyze their workaround (using their exponentially greater manpower and better understanding of the system and find a way to break it again.
Cue cat and mouse game. The thing is in that scenario, Apple loses nothing when RA fixes their software (they can just tell the RIAA they're trying -- and they are!) but every time Apple breaks Audio Hijack they would be eating away at the userbase and inserting doubt into potential purchasers. Am I going to spend $65 on something which my OS manufacturer clearly doesn't want me using and is probably going to break in a month or three for an indeterminate amount of time.
You're seeing this as "can apple unequivocally disable this software" but that is the wrong question, even today it's not true (I can disable gatekeeper/SIP/etc if I'm determined enough and if I want i'll just run Ashai) but the real game here is Apple making it more difficult to use it and the REAL game would have been Apple instilling doubt in existing customers and potential purchasers.
Anyway I'm glad Apple didn't do that, RA produces some great software.
> All Apple needed to do was to push an update which breaks the software.
Windows 3.1 famously refused to run on top of Digital Research's DOS.
> DR-DOS has problems running windows today, and I assume will have more problems in the future." Allchin replied: "You should make sure it has problems in the future. :-)"
https://www.theregister.com/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_inc...
Windows 3.1 famously refused to run on top of Digital Research's DOS.
> DR-DOS has problems running windows today, and I assume will have more problems in the future." Allchin replied: "You should make sure it has problems in the future. :-)"
https://www.theregister.com/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_inc...
The code used to enforce MS-DOS was disabled in the final release. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code
After what they were doing was discovered, sure.
> Beta testers of Windows found that if they were using DR-DOS, this was detected and false error messages were generated.
Microsoft's encrypted code to disguise what it had done was unravelled by Geof Chappell in England, who commented at the time that "the only error' is that the user is running Windows with someone else's version of DOS."
https://web.archive.org/web/20081005102243/http://news.bbc.c...
> Beta testers of Windows found that if they were using DR-DOS, this was detected and false error messages were generated.
Microsoft's encrypted code to disguise what it had done was unravelled by Geof Chappell in England, who commented at the time that "the only error' is that the user is running Windows with someone else's version of DOS."
https://web.archive.org/web/20081005102243/http://news.bbc.c...
True, but by then the damage was already done; as far as the software development community and tech-savvy public was concerned, per the beta releases, Windows 3.1 didn't run on DR-DOS. This hugely harmed sales, which is much of the reason why Microsoft eventually had to pay Caldera (the new owners) $280 million in a settlement.
> Am I going to spend $65 on something which my OS manufacturer clearly doesn't want me using
It was actually much cheaper back in the day, not that it matters much to the argument.
It was actually much cheaper back in the day, not that it matters much to the argument.
Yeah I figured someone would call that out :)
My memory is not good enough anymore to remember how much it was and the button for the wayback machine is too far away to use that.
My memory is not good enough anymore to remember how much it was and the button for the wayback machine is too far away to use that.
There are a lot of bundle identifier checks in macOS/Mac OS X, including in the system frameworks. Apple could have targeted the AHP bundle id to break things. Of course, RA could have changed the bundle id or done other hijacking to make it work again, but it would be a cat-and-mouse game that Apple would probably win in the end, because RA customers would continually experience breakage on OS updates.
Also, the "audio hijacker" was located in a well-known system directory, so Apple could just nuke that directory.
That's assuming Apple really wanted to break AHP. It's unclear how much motive Apple had to follow the RIAA request even before the now famous meeting.
Also, the "audio hijacker" was located in a well-known system directory, so Apple could just nuke that directory.
That's assuming Apple really wanted to break AHP. It's unclear how much motive Apple had to follow the RIAA request even before the now famous meeting.
Right, and Apple also could have introduced Gatekeeper and co six years earlier than they ultimately did, just for their friends at the RIAA! But it all seems pretty far-fetched. I don't think I believe the alternate scenario would have ever happened.
What about it is far-fetched?
Contemporaneously to this story, Apple disabled screen capture of DVD movies and introduced PT_DENY_ATTACH (preventing debugging of the DVD player) at the behest of the MPAA.
Contemporaneously to this story, Apple disabled screen capture of DVD movies and introduced PT_DENY_ATTACH (preventing debugging of the DVD player) at the behest of the MPAA.
Back then there was occasional software-specific code in many OSs, famously simcity was addressed by name in win95. So it would not be unprecedented for an os to specifically recognize certain software by name. This lives on today in graphics drivers being optimized for specific games. Inside the black box that is proprietary software, they can do whatever they want.
Sure, but arbitrarily blacklisting a specific app, for reasons other than malware? I guess Apple could have done that, but—correct me if I'm wrong—in 2005 I think that would have been completely unprecedented, and certainly trivial to bypass.
It seems like a pretty odd request to make of Apple, as opposed to contacting Rouge Amoeba directly.
It seems like a pretty odd request to make of Apple, as opposed to contacting Rouge Amoeba directly.
> It seems like a pretty odd request to make of Apple, as opposed to contacting Rouge Amoeba directly.
A lot of these associations were much less sophisticated about how they viewed technology. It wasn't unreasonable for something like the RIAA to view apple as being responsible for the actors on its platform. It is odd, but not uncommon.
A lot of these associations were much less sophisticated about how they viewed technology. It wasn't unreasonable for something like the RIAA to view apple as being responsible for the actors on its platform. It is odd, but not uncommon.
The RIAA being dumb about technology is absolutely on brand. I just don't think I believe the counterfactual that Apple would ever have done anything.
"Blacklisting" apps was essentially what antivirus was all about in those days.
They might have disabled the OS features it depended on to operate, though I have the impression attempting to do that might have made the Mac worse for professional audio production using any software.
I'm not positive about Audiohijack back then, but I know SoundFlower (which shares development history) worked via a kernel extension. Kernel extensions literally have full read/write access to kernel memory. I'm not sure how you'd restrict something like that.
Make Kexts a chore to use and discourage everyone from making them as they have recently done?
That would mean offering a replacement for kexts, which has in recent times been a multi-year project Apple still isn't fully finished with.
They would move the audio processing out of kernel memory, as they did with decrypted secure video.
Zak, why’d you stop submitting links 10 years ago ?
The same way that Microsoft was messing with Quicktime on Windows.
Can you fill me in on that?
tl,dr: Microsoft deliberately introduced bugs into their platform to destabilise Quicktime. The reason I bring it up here is because if Apple so desired they could engineer their platform in a way that prevented RA's software from functioning.
---
It's interesting that this isn't better known because Microsoft's tactics through the 90s would make HN users screech. Microsoft had taken aim at a number of businesses and technologies which they saw as competitive threats - the results of which go a long way to explain why we have such limited choice in computing platforms/technologies versus the early 90s. Amongst many important technology providers, they didn't just fall over, they were pushed.
This article covers some of it, but there is so much more: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/5F0C866C-6DD...
In summary:
Quicktime was one of the many technologies that Microsoft targeted due to being seen as a competitive threat to their business objectives.
Microsoft made this known to Apple and industry partners via threats that they followed through with. This included deliberately engineering under the hood problems for Quicktime, presenting fake error messages, silently usurping file associations, stealing code from quicktime to build competitor products, and using their monopoly to force partners to rip quicktime out of their products. (This list is not exhaustive.)
---
It's interesting that this isn't better known because Microsoft's tactics through the 90s would make HN users screech. Microsoft had taken aim at a number of businesses and technologies which they saw as competitive threats - the results of which go a long way to explain why we have such limited choice in computing platforms/technologies versus the early 90s. Amongst many important technology providers, they didn't just fall over, they were pushed.
This article covers some of it, but there is so much more: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/5F0C866C-6DD...
In summary:
Quicktime was one of the many technologies that Microsoft targeted due to being seen as a competitive threat to their business objectives.
Microsoft made this known to Apple and industry partners via threats that they followed through with. This included deliberately engineering under the hood problems for Quicktime, presenting fake error messages, silently usurping file associations, stealing code from quicktime to build competitor products, and using their monopoly to force partners to rip quicktime out of their products. (This list is not exhaustive.)
> How exactly would Apple have "disabled" Audio Hijack Pro in 2005?
Would the courts have cared about the technical details?
Is "That is currently impossible" ever a reason to not do something a court orders you to do?
Would the courts have cared about the technical details?
Is "That is currently impossible" ever a reason to not do something a court orders you to do?
> Would the courts have cared about the technical details?
It is unlikely that a court would have done anything; we had that court case in the form of VCRs, and sanity prevailed.
(IANAL, but the court case that set precedent for "it's not illegal if it has substantial legitimate uses, even if it also allows copyright infringement" seems applicable)
It is unlikely that a court would have done anything; we had that court case in the form of VCRs, and sanity prevailed.
(IANAL, but the court case that set precedent for "it's not illegal if it has substantial legitimate uses, even if it also allows copyright infringement" seems applicable)
Most Rogue Amoeba software requires an "ACE" extension incompatible with Activation Lock.
Either you're confused, or I am. System Extensions like ACE require that Apple Silicon users switch to "Reduced Security"¹ rather than "Full Security". It doesn't require disabling Activation Lock².
¹ https://rogueamoeba.com/support/knowledgebase/?showArticle=A... ² https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208987
¹ https://rogueamoeba.com/support/knowledgebase/?showArticle=A... ² https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208987
Quote from your second link:
> On a Mac with Apple silicon, the security policy must be set to Full Security, the default setting.
> On a Mac with Apple silicon, the security policy must be set to Full Security, the default setting.
It may be difficult to imagine, but in 2023, the simple right to record video on your computer was not well-established.
Loopback and Audio Hijack were two of my most used apps on macOS. Wish I could still be using them today, but my Mac broke...
[deleted]
Rogue Amoeba's software is great but I can't be the only one who finds it absurdly expensive
Pretty much the whole Mac software system. Especially the small things are crazy. Just one example: saw a $30 screenshot app which can also share and upload?! There are better open source apps that does the same and more for free.
People usually defend it as “quality” though but that’s very subjective imo.
People usually defend it as “quality” though but that’s very subjective imo.
If you're talking about Cleanshot X (https://cleanshot.com/), I'm using that multiple times a day for providing support on Lunar (https://lunar.fyi/) and my other apps through:
To do that without Cleanshot, I would have to go through an image editing software like Pixelmator, which I use sometimes for more complex tasks, but it's many times slower than select region of screen to screenshot, annotate, Cmd-C, Cmd-V
It saves me way more time than what amounts to $30.
It definitely is relative, if you don't have this kind of need or workflow, $30 seems like too much for screenshots.
* One nitpick I had with it was that the resulting screenshots were not size optimized, so I created a free app that optimizes the app in the clipboard directly: https://lowtechguys.com/clop
- annotated screenshots* of the app UI (e.g. on https://lunar.fyi/faq#bad-ddc)
- instant web links to optimized videos of screen recordings, that I can easily paste in an email
- the Mac recording is usually an uncompressed MOV which you have to spend time and battery to recompress using ffmpeg and upload somewhere
To do that without Cleanshot, I would have to go through an image editing software like Pixelmator, which I use sometimes for more complex tasks, but it's many times slower than select region of screen to screenshot, annotate, Cmd-C, Cmd-V
It saves me way more time than what amounts to $30.
It definitely is relative, if you don't have this kind of need or workflow, $30 seems like too much for screenshots.
* One nitpick I had with it was that the resulting screenshots were not size optimized, so I created a free app that optimizes the app in the clipboard directly: https://lowtechguys.com/clop
It looks like there is actually a market segment for «luxury» software. I wouldn't buy it either, but I'm not sure I've any strong opinions about it.
If it puts food on the table of someone that might be not writing bleeding edge algorithmic software, but take cares of reliability, system integration, UI designs and UX patterns of a scoped problem to solve, I'll have hard time to be against it.
If it puts food on the table of someone that might be not writing bleeding edge algorithmic software, but take cares of reliability, system integration, UI designs and UX patterns of a scoped problem to solve, I'll have hard time to be against it.
Which free apps accomplish the same and more than the mentioned $30 app?
I annotate screen grabs daily as part of my job and never found anything that comes close to CleanShot X. Would love to hear what's new and worthy on the market!
I annotate screen grabs daily as part of my job and never found anything that comes close to CleanShot X. Would love to hear what's new and worthy on the market!
OK, I can see now how you might think the pricing of Mac applications for professionals is crazy.
I asked for a Photoshop alternative for a commercial setting and you basically linked me to a Gimp.
It's like when people ask for an alternative to a managed MS Office 365 service and somebody replies with "just use LibreOffice" lol.
No mate, no. No way!
I asked for a Photoshop alternative for a commercial setting and you basically linked me to a Gimp.
It's like when people ask for an alternative to a managed MS Office 365 service and somebody replies with "just use LibreOffice" lol.
No mate, no. No way!
This is why they've been in business for 20 years.
I know a lot of people who refuse to buy it out of principle
And yet, "they've been in business for 20 years."
But what is the "principle", other than stinginess?
But what is the "principle", other than stinginess?
Well, everyone has their own set of principles. For me, I find it great that the Mac ecosystem still has this whole cottage industry scene, with a lot of small companies making money selling their products, instead of focusing on selling their companies.
Stinginess is a very good principle. The only people I've met who seem to look down on it are people from hyper capitalist countries like the US. In Europe we generally value stinginess
You know, Steve may have been the architect of modern digital jails but by comparison to what we have today, he looks almost Stallman like! I'm kidding but also kind of not.
Absolutely not. He was the trailblazer for walled gardens and locked down systems. He only fought back when it cost him profit. The iPhone pretty much paved the path for systems where the user isn’t allowed to do as they wish and software producers have to go through the one and only distribution path.
Yes, because before ios there were no locked down systems like game consoles since the early 80s…
Clearly the joke didn't come off. As I said he was the architect of digital jails, it is just that nowadays the folks we have are so much worse.
But yes, under his watch he made the most locked down operating systems and distribution system we had ever known.
But yes, under his watch he made the most locked down operating systems and distribution system we had ever known.
So you never heard of game consoles where as far back as the original NES, Nintendo only allowed third parties a limited number of games each year and required them to use their manufacturing facilities for cartridges?
He fought against RIAA/MPAA overreach on DRM but yeah when it came to his app store there was no ripping, mixing, and burning to be found.
Where is my video rip/mix/burn? Mostly killed by blu-ray's "bag of hurt" but Apple is also to blame with its anti-video-recording DRM and HDCP annoyances.
one is the consumption of media the other is worldwide interactive media that is unregulated and has the opportunity to abuse the individual.
So the RIAA didn't have any legal standing and instead used "influence/intimidation" to which Steve stood up?