Slashdot Mirror
Apple's iTunes DRM Cracked?
joekra writes "The author of DeCSS is back in the spotlight with a new application called QTFairUse. The new application attempts to convert DRM'd AACs to non-DRM'd AACs on Windows machines. MacRumors has done some limited testing on it and has found it doesn't yet work as advertised... but they do offer a look into how it works."
You mean he wrote a VB GUI for the crack, right?
Not everything can be free. Do you expect to get paid for a days work?
Noone is asking for all the music to be distributed freely. People just want to use their personal private property which they bought and paid for in whatever way they see fit, such as playing their songs on a non-Apple, non-Microsoft platform. What's the problem with that?
And if Apple is forced to end their service because everyone just steals the music, then what will be left with? I will tell you. Microsoft will push a DRM-based protection scheme which is based on hardware and locks out non-Windows users.
I'm sure Microsoft will attempt to push a hardware based scheme anyways. I'm sure it will lock out non-Windows users. So what? Apple's DRM attempts to lock out non-Apple, non-Microsoft users.
Bullshit. You can already do that within iTunes. Just burn to a CD.
Bullshit. Apple's DRM doesn't attempt to lock out anything. Burn it to a CD, and you can do whatever you want with it.
Oh sure, if I want to listen to my music on linux I have to waste my time burning it to CD and then re-ripping it - because Apple has excluded non-Apple, non-MS platforms from playing the AAC files.
People should make choices and be responsible for those choices. Computers should NOT make choices in peoples' places.
There's no evidence that Apple would never release iTunes for Linux. Likewise, Windows didn't get iTunes support until recently. That's just a limitation of resources, and nothing to do with excluding certain people.
We'll see. I'll be waiting.
Furthermore, what you just said reveals your REAL reason against the DRM.
I revealed my REAL reason for being against the DRM in my original post. My REAL reason for being against DRM is because I want to do what I want to do with my purchased property. I want to play it on the old laptop I have in my car under the seat. I want to play it on any MP3 player. I want to play it on the box hooked up to my home entertainment system. And I want to do it without begging someone for permission to use my private property in the event that I need to reinstall some software.
Not some political stance about Apple locking out other platforms (which is clearly untrue), but that you're too lazy to burn the songs to remove the DRM.
All DRM is precicsely about locking people out of things. That is the entire point of DRM - to lock people out of everything except what is explicitly desired by some central controlling entity.
but that you're too lazy to burn the songs to remove the DRM.
Sure, I can remove the DRM now. But will I be able to in the future? The manufacturers aren't coming up with DRM so that it can be cracked.
Apple fixes, but RIAA says game over.
Big whoop. Try listening to some music that hasn't been enslaved by the RIAA.
Now, people like me who like iTMS and use it legitimately can't use it anymore. I'd call that a negative impact.
People like you who like iTMS need to see the bigger picture.
We want the RIAA to say "game over" to DRM. Then if they want to stay in business, they can offer their paying customers music in an un-crippled format that lets us play it however we want. Just like the pirates have.
I think the word you're looking for is "Duh."
Oh, come off it. I said I wanted to email it to him -- of course I didn't because I knew it wouldn't work. The point is that this is something that I should be able to do. Why? Because it's good for their business. Because I could do it with the freely available tracks that they are trying to replace.
There simply isn't a non-invasive approach that can still tell how many times you've used said goods, and where, and keeps track of it legally.
Exactly. We are in complete agreement. So if this is so obvious why are companies falling over themselves to appear invasive to their customers?
Firstly, you didn't pay for iTunes. You paid for the song(s). If you think they are an inferior product, stop buying them.
Duh. That's what my post was about. I am not going to buy any more.
If you feel that you can jump on Kazaa and download a song, then that is your right. But you forked over your $.99 and, as a geek, you really have no room to talk as to how you were 'hoodwinked' into buying something inferior.
I'm not saying I was "hoodwinked". I was basically giving Apple a chance. I tried their product. They did a good job, but not good enough. It's not as good as what's available for free.
At this point I equate your rant to a child screaming for a piece of candy, then complaining about it when the candy got on his clothes. "They need to make better candy," the child would say.
God forbid a customer express to a company what they want. That would be... what? Part of the free market or something?
My point is that Apple (and more importantly the RIAA) could compete with the free/illegal download services simply by providing better service. Just sell unencumbered mp3's at a high bitrate with great searching features and download speeds. People will pay. People pay for KaZaa. People pay for the iTunes store _not_ because it's legal, but because it's fast, easy, and always sounds good.
If they dropped the DRM they could avoid the inevitable backlash that's 1-2 years down the road when everyone's songs stop working when they switch computers. I doubt most people buying the songs realize just how restricted they are. I did, but wanted to see how it played out in the real world. Unfortunately I ran into the limitations early. When other people do I doubt they'll be much happier than I am.
Cheers.