[mikeash]

DeCSS is only illegal because it circumvents the copy protection system on DVDs. Absent that, there would be nothing allowing the DVD people to force companies to license CSS rather than simply cracking it.

As far as I know, Apple is allowed to lock things down by requiring keys, and other people are allowed to crack Apple's lockdown if they can.

[mr_donk]

That's my point. Isn't getting the private AirTunes key equivalent to the DeCSS case?

If Apple had just made a proprietary undocumented protocol, that'd be one thing, and I'd agree that Apple wouldn't be able to force licenses on people. Absent the private key, there wouldn't be anything to stop you.

However, they made a proprietary protocol, sold licenses to use it and implemented a key enforce the license. Isn't circumventing the private key equivalent to circumventing copy protection? They obviously intended to restrict it to licensees, the way the DVD people intended to restrict CSS to licensees.

Wasn't there some case where printer manufacturers were doing something to stop 3rd parties from making cheaper ink/toner? How did that go? Maybe it's a more apt comparison (for the record, I honestly don't remember how this case turned out, so I don't know if I'm helping or hurting my argument).

[mikeash]

The key long predates any licensing deals. In fact, the system used for licensing is different from the one that the key in question applies to. The AirTunes/AirPlay system has changed over the years, and the key that was extracted is for an older (but still supported) system than in used for third-party licensees.

I don't see how it would be covered by the DMCA like DeCSS is, as the encryption is not for a DRM system.

Even if it is, well, I think most of us will agree that cracking encryption for the purposes of circumventing DRM for legitimate purposes should be allowed. But of course that gets us into discussions of how things are versus how things should be.