DVD-Jon Breaks iTunes Encryption For Linux Users

Key exchange ? by Jesrad · 2004-01-05 13:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

How long before people start exchanging their keys ? Now that the key can be had and used under virtually any platform, in an easily copied or transmitted file format, the copy-protection is effectively cracked.

--
Maybe we deserve this world ?

Re:Key exchange ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 13:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

fuck exchanging keys. just exchange the damn mp3s using kazaa or emule.
Re:Key exchange ? by Nasarius · 2004-01-05 13:58 · Score: 1

What's your point? It's not like much of what iTunes has is exclusive. It's all distributed on P2P anyway, it's just a pain to get that way. I don't see this as having any real consequence besides allowing users to play the files how they want without re-encoding it in another lossy format.

--
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Re:Key exchange ? by lynxuser · 2004-01-05 14:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

While exchanging keys sounds good, in theory, I believe the keys are limited to 3 PCs through the DRM. As well, they would need to be sent with the AAC DRM files that you want others to use, this sounds like a security risk to me. Finally, I suspect that Apple enabled some sort of hash, linked perhaps to your MAC address (or some other hardware) that would keep the key different for every single PC.

--
I read Slashdot in Lynx, I am a real geek.
Re:Key exchange ? by Jesrad · 2004-01-05 14:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

You are not thinking on the same scale as me. This reverse-engineering of the iTMS' AAC copy-protection means more people will share the music they buy with relatives / people they know, at a small scale. I don't think this marks the "end of the music industry" in any way, it will probably have no impact on the market, apart from letting Linux users listen to music they'd buy from the iTunes Music Store, which means more potential customers.

--
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Re:Key exchange ? by salimma · 2004-01-05 14:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

RTFA - You need to exchange the key *and* the file itself, as the key is tailored to each computer. iTMS reps could then easily block computers with said Windows Product IDs.

This hack is, OTOH, useful for 'fair use' - for people who dual-boot Windows and Linux. As well as dedicated music pirates who would re-share the unlocked files as plain AAC.

--
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
Re:Key exchange ? by Anonymous+CowWord · 2004-01-05 14:05 · Score: 1

Yeah.. just a matter of time before .zip files with key+song start appearing on p2p's (assuming my understanding of this article is correct).

And unlike the previous arguments (e.g. I don't want to pay RIAA, they overcharge, etc.) this time it IS stealing with no excuses. I guess this will be a true test of whether or not in internet based model without DRM can survive. I for one hope that I am wrong and that people will respect fair pricing (let's no get into $0.99 is too much per song, I don't think it's *that* much. Definately way better than CD prices in most cases where you get 2 good and 10 crappy songs for $15)

--

Disclaimer: My opinions are my own and do not, in any way, reflect the opinions of my employer or university.
Re:Key exchange ? by Jesrad · 2004-01-05 14:09 · Score: 1

Won't happen in such a widespread form, given the way the copy-protection works. You have to first authorize the computer you want to play the files on. Then you get a valid key for this very computer, that won't decrypt the files on any other computer. This definitely rules out bundles of .m4p and key.

But I still think it will happen on a small scale, though for the immense majority of the iTMS customers it will be useless (not using VLC, having less than three computers to play the files on, too much technical hassle, etc...).

--
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Re:Key exchange ? by ejito · 2004-01-05 14:20 · Score: 1

And unlike the previous arguments (e.g. I don't want to pay RIAA, they overcharge, etc.) this time it IS stealing with no excuses.
It was copyright infringement. There's still no physical loss preventing sales with another potential customer. Any moral and legal problems would be exactly the same as before.
let's no get into $0.99 is too much per song, I don't think it's *that* much.
Most of my music has around 13-18 songs per CD (One had 22. They sold their cd for 10 bucks. I like punk.), unless it's by Goa or classical artists (which sell their CD's for quarter price of a "normal" CD anyways). I don't see how it's an advantage; it's the same price as a typical CD in stores. Not every artist has your so called 10 bad songs for every 2 good ones.

One dollar definitely isn't the best they can do -- well, unless you spend millions trying to invent your own proprietary music formats and pay people to maintain it.
Re:Key exchange ? by damiam · 2004-01-05 14:30 · Score: 2, Informative

I don't see how it's an advantage; it's the same price as a typical CD in stores.
No, it's not. Albums on iTunes are (with a few rare exceptions) $10. 95% of in-store albums cost quite a bit more than that.

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:Key exchange ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:35 · Score: 0

No, it's not. Albums on iTunes are (with a few rare exceptions) $10. 95% of in-store albums cost quite a bit more than that.
I guess so, if you happen to live in Japan.
Re:Key exchange ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:43 · Score: 0

or the United States.
Re:Key exchange ? by B'Trey · 2004-01-05 14:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Even if the price is the exact same, being able to purchase by tune is still a major win for the consumer. Even my favorite artists have tunes that I don't particularly care for. They're not necessarily "just filler," or bad songs but they don't appeal to me. There are other artists that I'm not really a fan of but I like one or two songs. The bottom line is that this puts choice in the hands of the consumer, and consumer choice is a good thing.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:Key exchange ? by ejito · 2004-01-05 14:52 · Score: 1

I shop at independent music stores. Normal prices are around 10-14 bucks for standard pop. My CDs, which I was making a point for (if you read my post again), actually costs anywhere from 5-12 dollars. I also stated that my CDs typically have more songs. Punk music is dominated by short songs which are then piled into one CD. Rare is there any CD which has less than 10 songs.
Re:Key exchange ? by ejito · 2004-01-05 14:57 · Score: 1

So we're praising consumer choice and will leave it at that? I'm not trying to say iTunes is a bad service, I just don't believe their model of doing things is worth the hype it has. I'll wait until someone comes out with a legit service that truly serves the customers.
Re:Key exchange ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:02 · Score: 0

And, coincidentally, punk music is also dominated by shitty unoriginal songs
Re:Key exchange ? by WIAKywbfatw · 2004-01-05 15:06 · Score: 1

WTF? IMHO most TLAs and ETLAs are a BOBS.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Re:Key exchange ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:26 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Real geeks read /. with telnet to 66.35.250.150 port 80.
Re:Key exchange ? by seanadams.com · 2004-01-05 15:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

That doesn't make any sense.

If he's using the key to decrypt the file, presumably the raw AAC stream can be extracted.

I.e. you could do lossless conversion of m4p -> m4a. You'll have the same exact data minus the DRM, free to use with any AAC-compatible device or software you want.
Re:Key exchange ? by S.Lemmon · 2004-01-05 15:31 · Score: 1

Pointless - if an open source program like video lan can decrypt and play the file, it could just as easily be rigged to save it out in any unencrypted format you choose.

Also, any hardware tie-ins (as a few others mentioned) are null and void because that depends on the player actually bothering to check it.

It's why Open Source and DRM don't really mix. The end user has to be given everything needed to decrypt the file in order to ever play it. DRM just counts on closed client software to obscure the process - at least until MS gets their way and moves decryption into the PC's hardware itself.
Re:Key exchange ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:47 · Score: 0

ok sorry this was blatant flamebait. whatever you want to listen to.
Re:Key exchange ? by seanadams.com · 2004-01-05 15:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

sorry, I didn't exactly read your entire post. I stopped at "dedicated music pirates" the saw the rest of that sentence later.

I think you should consider that there are MANY practical reasons why a legitimate owner (licensee?) of iTMS music might want to strip the DRM from their files.
Re:Key exchange ? by IM6100 · 2004-01-05 17:16 · Score: 1

Once they start cracking and hacking, are they a legitimate owner in the language of the license? Have they voided the licence and ceased to be legitimate owners?

Just asking.

--
A Good Intro to NetBS
Re:Key exchange ? by IM6100 · 2004-01-05 17:20 · Score: 1

If, that is, you wander into Sam Goody and pay full price for every album.

A lot of us buy albums used in used stores, on eBay, and places like that. I rarely pay as much as $10 for an album, and I get a lot of music that I like. On pressed CDs, with the inserts and artwork, etc. What I buy has the same resale value, aprox., as what I paid for it. If I spent ten bucks on a nebulous 'CD' through the iTunes service, what do I have? Bits on a hard drive that I can decompress into a format I can burn on a CDR. Wow. That has a lot of sales appeal to me.

--
A Good Intro to NetBS
Re:Key exchange ? by seanadams.com · 2004-01-05 17:40 · Score: 1

Once they start cracking and hacking, are they a legitimate owner in the language of the license? Have they voided the licence and ceased to be legitimate owners?

It is not "cracking and hacking" except in the most respectable sense of those words, and it certainly should not be illegal.

It's simply using what you've paid for as you see fit.
Re:Key exchange ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 01:39 · Score: 0

"This hack is, OTOH, useful for 'fair use' - for people who dual-boot Windows and Linux. As well as dedicated music pirates who would re-share the unlocked files as plain AAC."

Can you batch convert to MP3?

I'd like to find some better online stores for music, but anything that's not MP3 isn't any use for those of us with handheld MP3 player devices.
Re:Key exchange ? by and+by · 2004-01-06 01:45 · Score: 1

Well geez, I wonder how GnuPG could ever be secure then.

If a given DRM scheme (essentially encryption) is based on a strong algorithm, it doesn't matter whether the code is open; it would still be secure.
Re:Key exchange ? by RHS+Bomber · 2004-01-06 02:51 · Score: 1

The article says that the key is derived from the hard disk serial number, Windows Product ID, BIOS version and CPU name and the key has to be distributed with the file to play on another platform.
If Apple added the credit card number that was used to purchase the AAC file to the key, then I'll bet people would think twice about sharing their protected AAC files on Kazaa.
Re:Key exchange ? by salimma · 2004-01-06 02:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

If Apple added the credit card number that was used to purchase the AAC file to the key, then I'll bet people would think twice about sharing their protected AAC files on Kazaa.

Getting your Windows Product ID blacklisted is probably enough of a hassle. Clearly Apple has this information as well - otherwise how do they lock the files you purchase in the first place?

And anyway, pirates would rather share the non-protected files. Once you could unlock the AAC stream for playback it should not be hard to then save it to a file, unencrypted.

--
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
Re:Key exchange ? by salimma · 2004-01-06 03:01 · Score: 1

If he's using the key to decrypt the file, presumably the raw AAC stream can be extracted.

Yes, I'm just pointing out the hazard anyone silly enough to actually share their keys would potentially face.

--
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
Re:Key exchange ? by Lars+T. · 2004-01-06 03:04 · Score: 1

Yeah, that way the RIAA knows exactly how many copies were made from that specific download, and can ask Apple who did it. You'ld better make sure to keep to fair use only.

--
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Re:Key exchange ? by binarytoaster · 2004-01-06 03:38 · Score: 1

Finally, I suspect that Apple enabled some sort of hash, linked perhaps to your MAC address (or some other hardware) that would keep the key different for every single PC.

Or, if you had RTFA'd, you would KNOW, not "suspect", that the keys are linked to (among other things) your Product Activation hash key and your system disk serial number.

Those two alone are enough to track down *any* PC (running XP, obviously, but there are two other methods.)

I believe the keys are limited to 3 PCs through the DRM.

No. That is entirely an Apple thing. Apple will only *give* 3 computers their unique keys. After that, you have to "Deauthorize" a computer, which means Apple takes away that key.

Now that I think about that, an exploit occurs to me. Apple allows you to download those files that you have purchased an infinite number of times (it's even made easy by iTunes' "Advanced->Check for Purchased Music" option) - it would be pretty simple to share keys. Just authorize your computer, get the key, download all music protected by that key (I'm not actually sure if every time you download music, it's encoded BY YOUR SPECIFIC KEY, but it seems likely - which means all three systems have to download the music again) then deauthorize the computer after saving the key.

Obviously, you would only do this with people you trust with your credit card, as you have to have the password to a given Apple account to authorize your computer against it. But it would be a way around the 3-computer limit.
Re:Key exchange ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 04:02 · Score: 0

real geeks use `netcat'.
Re:Key exchange ? by TALlama · 2004-01-06 04:25 · Score: 1

WTF? IIRC, DRM INRFPT.

--
- The Amazina Llama
Re:Key exchange ? by S.Lemmon · 2004-01-06 04:51 · Score: 1

No, you're missing the point completely. using GnuPG you *want* the person on the other end to decrypt it freely - just no one else. What the music industry wants is completely different. They want the person on the other end to only be able to decrypt it when, where, and how often they choose.

The problem is if you can decrypt it even once, you have an unencrypted copy. DRM counts on a closed client to restrict what you can do with it at that point.
Re:Key exchange ? by B'Trey · 2004-01-06 15:34 · Score: 1

Giving consumers the option of purchasing a single song, and a song of their choice - not one the studio has decided to release as a single, is one of the most profound changes in the music business that has ever occurred. How does this not serve the customer? The only thing you've mentioned is price. This is a new service, and I fully expect price to come down. The only other possible issue I can think of is DRM, and that's quite a thorny issue. I don't see the studios abandoning DRM any time soon, even if it's arguable that they should do so. If you're waiting for someone to sell songs with no DRM, you may have a long wait. The best we can hope for is a combination of their getting a tad bit smarter and consumer hacks like the one Jon-DVD just came out with to allow iTunes to be played under Linux.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

How long... by 3Suns · 2004-01-05 13:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

Awesome, I was waiting for this. Definitely a reason to consider iTunes now.

How long until someone writes a command-line AAC2mp3 converter?

--

-3Suns

~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted

Re:How long... by Doppler00 · 2004-01-05 14:01 · Score: 2, Informative

Why would you want to re-encode an AAC to an MP3? AAC already has superior quality. Just removing the encryption (for personal use) would be nice.
Re:How long... by moosesocks · 2004-01-05 14:06 · Score: 5, Informative

It could be done with AppleScript under OS X. Simply tell itunes to play a given song, tell any old sound recording app to dump the computer's sound output to a WAV, convert to MP3 using LAME, and then grab the song's info via. AppleScript and put it into an ID3

The downside here is that you're losing quality encoding to MP3 (remember that AAC is also lossy). Unfortunately, there is no way to preserve full-quality without retaining the original file format.

Either way, I frown upon this sort of piracy. $.99 is pretty darn cheap (Note here that I have no objection to using this to play your OWN files under linux if it is the operating system of your choice. Just keep it to yourself)

--
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Re:How long... by Hi_2k · 2004-01-05 14:06 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Personaly I'd prefer something higher quality, like OGG, with better liscencing terms, like OGG, and maybe some easy third party support

--
When life gives you crap, Make Crapade.
Sluggy Freelance.
Re:How long... by SlightOverdose · 2004-01-05 14:16 · Score: 1

Or just stick with AAC, which is arguably better quality than Vorbis as 128k.
Re:How long... by Nasarius · 2004-01-05 14:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

Exactly. That's why if you want me to buy music online, you had better be distributing it in a lossless format (FLAC, SHN, APE, whatever...I don't care as long as I can get the original WAV).

--
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Re:How long... by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · 2004-01-05 14:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Either way, I frown upon this sort of piracy

What sort of piracy? I didn't see anything in your comment that described piracy.

Neither piracy nor copyright infringement for that matter.
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:29 · Score: 0

I have a portable device that only plays mp3 files. 'Nuff said.
Re:How long... by WindBourne · 2004-01-05 14:30 · Score: 1

Unless you do not have an aac player, in which case is it easier to convert everything to a standard format (mp3, wma, ogg).

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:32 · Score: 0

You're aware that the iTMS engineers are encoding many tracks from the original masters, as opposed to the CDs, right? Meaning that at least in theory, iTMS tracks can actually be closer to the original than the CD.
Re:How long... by Alan+Partridge · 2004-01-05 14:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

The "original WAV"?

And just what - pray tell - would that be? You do realise that decimation to a 16bit 44.1Khz PCM file is merely a part of the mastering process? Most recordings these days start out an AWFUL lot bigger than that.

--
That was classic intercourse!
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:45 · Score: 0

Well good sir i imagine that the "original WAV" would be the song as presented by the artist on their CD.
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:48 · Score: 0

Except I STILL can't play them in anything portable other than an IPOD. An ipod is good, but it SUCKS in a car (not integrated), and SUCKS in my living room (small display, no remote). I have MP3 players that work great in both places though, and I'm not about to replace them. It's easier to just pirate, I get the product I want then. No way I'm giving somebody money for something I don't want.

And I'm typing this on my powerbook.
Re:How long... by SlightOverdose · 2004-01-05 14:53 · Score: 1

True- But all good media players (Including XMMS and Winamp) support AAC either natively or with a plugin. The only limitation at the moment is there are no high quality open source encoders (Faac sounds like shit. No offense to the authors, but it can't match Quicktime AAC).

I had this argument with someonce over Vorbis. He was of the opinion that Mp3 is the only format you should ever use because others may not always be supported bla bla bla. It's the same reason why idiots still use Mpeg1 when Vp6 or Wma9 are better quality at a quarter the bitrate.

(No, I didn't forget DivX/Xvid- Vp6 and Wm9 can hit DVD quality at 1000kbit, something Xvid could never do. Once Theora is complete it should be about as good. And before you start with the Microsoft bashing, There are open source Wm9 Encoders and Decoders.)
Re:How long... by shaitand · 2004-01-05 14:55 · Score: 1

That's great an all if you want the file in the itunes format. Converting the AAC to something else however certainly entails loss from that which will without a doubt end up lower quality than the original. I want to be able to convert the original to the format of my choice, and play it on the player of my choice, in the OS of my choice. WITHOUT someone having to figure out how to crack the DRM.
Re:How long... by Alan+Partridge · 2004-01-05 15:19 · Score: 1

But we are repeatedly told by Apple that they routinely make their AACs from masters, not from CDs.

if the CD is not the distribution method, why be constrained by it's format?

--
That was classic intercourse!
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:20 · Score: 0

Why not get an iPod? ;-)
Re:How long... by ruiner13 · 2004-01-05 15:22 · Score: 1

why not just right-click on the file and choose "convert to MP3"?

--
today is spelling optional day.
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:24 · Score: 0

200 dollars more than comparable Portable mp3 solid state players, and more than 3 - 400 dollars more than a good mp3/cd player.

Some people just want to play lots of music. 60 bucks is all you really need.
Re:How long... by seanadams.com · 2004-01-05 15:27 · Score: 1

The downside here is that you're losing quality encoding to MP3 (remember that AAC is also lossy). Unfortunately, there is no way to preserve full-quality without retaining the original file format.

Now quite.

Now you can extract the un-encrypted AAC stream, thereby allowing you to play the compressed file on any AAC-compatible device or software, sans DRM.
Re:How long... by Zork+the+Almighty · 2004-01-05 15:31 · Score: 4, Informative

Uh, Xvid has gotten a lot better than you give it credit for. See Doom9's latest codec comparison.

--

In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Re:How long... by DeeKayWon · 2004-01-05 15:46 · Score: 1

And before you start with the Microsoft bashing, There are open source Wm9 Encoders and Decoders.)
Where?
Re:How long... by Meowing · 2004-01-05 15:47 · Score: 1

why not just right-click on the file and choose "convert to MP3"?

Oh, so that's what the single mouse button is about, copy protection! It's all so clear to me now.
Really, if you try the "convert to MP3" thingy on a protected AAC file, you get a dialog box saying "'Foo' could not be converted because protected files cannot be converted to other formats."
The easiest way to convert is to burn the tracks to CDDA, then import to iTunes as MP3.
At any rate, it sure is amusing to watch all the "fight the man!" BS being tossed around here. Apple's view toward DRM is "we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content." -- they fully expected this.
Re:How long... by iammaxus · 2004-01-05 15:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why do people insist on things like this... I would really like to find the person who could honestly tell me that they enjoy a 192+ kbps encoded (mp3pro, aac, wma) any less than the cd. Can anyone really hear any loss during regular use? People just like to _know_ that they are listening to a completely, totally, 100% original even though they would probably never know. And like the others who responded to this comment, what's the point when these files are generally being encoded directly from masters which yields _better_ results than what you want (a 100% copy of the cd)
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 16:07 · Score: 0

ffmpeg
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 16:15 · Score: 0

Eeesh! As if WAV wasn't big enough for you people!
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 16:18 · Score: 0

ROFL. But did you miss the "lossy" part in lossy compression?
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 16:20 · Score: 0

You, my good friend, are an idiot. It's just that simple. Oh yeah, and get yourself some decent headphones please.
Re:How long... by LunarOne · 2004-01-05 16:38 · Score: 1

According to itunes, they give the impression that you can burn the songs to CDs to play in any CD player. Once that is done, can't one just rip the CD's into MP3?

--

Read my sig if you like, but I'll never see yours, thanks to Discussions, Viewing, Disable sigs...
Re:How long... by SlightOverdose · 2004-01-05 16:53 · Score: 1

Xvid is still very good- but it still has trouble encoding complex scenes even when given over 2mbit, especially at full frame (720x576 for PAL). It's not that Xvid is lacking, it's just that there are new codecs coming out that are technically superier to anythig mpeg4 can produce.

VP6 and WM9 are better than VHS quality at 500kbit. If in doubt, get Winamp5 and have a look at some of the vp6 streams. at 300kbit, they are crisp and clean even when viewed full screen.

At 1mbit, vp6 and wm9 have no trouble matching DVD quality video.
Re:How long... by SlightOverdose · 2004-01-05 17:00 · Score: 2, Informative

ffmpeg.sourceforge.net
Re:How long... by Lifthrasir · 2004-01-05 17:20 · Score: 1

well, with mp3 anyway, even if you encode at 320kbps, the frame length doesn't match up to a frame on a CD. so if you are listening to a live performance where the CD is divided into tracks, but sounds like one long performance, when converted to MP3 has annoying 1/2 second gaps between tracks.

--
No beer, no TV make Lifthrasir something something
Re:How long... by the_2nd_coming · 2004-01-05 17:20 · Score: 1

then get a new mini-iPod after Tuesday.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Re:How long... by shaitand · 2004-01-05 17:28 · Score: 1

Yes but you loss quality first when you burn to cd, then you rip, and lose quality YET AGAIN when you convert to mp3. And worse yet, your starting with a lossy format that is already of reduced quality.

In same cases the original file is encoded from the master and in some cases not. In some of the cases where it's taken from the master it could be better quality than the cd version. But even then when you burn it to a cd you have lost quality compared to a cd taken directly from the master.

And even from an original cd you lose quality when encoding to mp3 (or ogg). There is really no way around it, unless you can play the original file the result is something of lower quality.
Re:How long... by IM6100 · 2004-01-05 17:33 · Score: 1

Depends on what you listen to. I like acoustic piano music sometimes. It's music that is very real, by which I mean that since there's a directly listenable reference, (i.e. real piano music played live) and it's easy to discern a corrupted recording. I have music that I just don't enjoy listening to unless I'm sitting in the 'golden spot' between my Klipch tower speakers. Too much of the experience is lost listening to it any other way.

If the music you listen to never existed outside a studio, it's all relative and there's no 'real' sound to worry about.

--
A Good Intro to NetBS
Re:How long... by IM6100 · 2004-01-05 17:36 · Score: 1

Oh, so that's what the single mouse button is about, copy protection!

Soon, the Mac user who dares plug in a two (or three!) button mouse won't just have Macintosh aesthetes on his case, the DMCA squadron will be after him as well!

--
A Good Intro to NetBS
Re:How long... by hetfield · 2004-01-05 17:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Why would you want to re-encode an AAC to an MP3?"

So I can put it on my mp3 player that doesn't and never will know how to decode AAC. As of right now, I have to burn the music to cd, then rip it to mp3. It would be nice to skip a step.
Re:How long... by iammaxus · 2004-01-05 18:00 · Score: 1

I agree that the problem is in relativity. While if you heard two side by side recordings, as im sure Anonymous Coward was imagining, it isn't terribly difficult to tell unless it is very very high bitrate, but in most cases you cannot tell when just listening to the encoded piece itself. I also agree about piano and symphonic music in general, once you have heard it live, nothing sounds even close. Maybe those 5.1 channel DVD-Audio discs......
Re:How long... by Rysc · 2004-01-05 18:24 · Score: 1

sure... and suffer the lower quality inherent in recompression.

--
I want my Cowboyneal
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 18:30 · Score: 0

Just a friendly reminder that not every problem is solved by the purchase of an Apple product. In fact, most problems aren't solved this way.
Re:How long... by the_2nd_coming · 2004-01-05 18:48 · Score: 1

oh ok, I understand...get an eMac then.

but seriously. if you have a problem with the best product on the market, and would rather waste your time and money with something that sucks to use, yeah, get that what ever else you want.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Re:How long... by Lost+Race · 2004-01-05 19:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

MP3 frames are something like 25 ms in duration. That's 0.025 seconds for a complete frame. An extra partial frame to pad out the end of a track would be less. That is nowhere near 1/2 second -- if you have 1/2 second gaps between tracks it's your encoder (or maybe your player, or possibly your CD ripper) inserting the extra blank space.
You might hear a single 100% silent frame between songs as a "click" (maybe, if you listen carefully) but in reality there would never be a 100% silent frame inserted, and most decoders are pretty good at covering up inter-frame glitches.
Re:How long... by Lost+Race · 2004-01-05 19:04 · Score: 1

Mod parent up! The problem is not AAC, the problem is encryption, and Jon has kindly fixed that problem for us. Thanks, Jon!
Re:How long... by gid13 · 2004-01-05 19:13 · Score: 1

Um... He (yay masculine assumption) isn't complaining about the sound quality of compressed audio. He wants lossless because he wants to make another generation copy and put it on an mp3 player. I don't really know, but a 128kbps mp3 of a 192kbps AAC might really suck. If you look up a few posts, it's right there.
Re:How long... by jtcm · 2004-01-05 21:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Can anyone really hear any loss during regular use?

Frankly, yes.

I can most certainly hear the difference between mp3s and non-lossy formats, but only on high-end speakers.
--
this is my real sig.

--
@ASP.NET's parent-teacher meeting: "Little Johnny.NET is very bright, but he doesn't play well with others."
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 21:29 · Score: 0

Why would you want to re-encode an AAC to an MP3? AAC already has superior quality.
Maybe because MP3 players play MP3 and not AAC, and because MP3 is the de-facto standard for 99% of all solid-state music players, fuckwad.
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 21:35 · Score: 0

So...if sat in front of said high-end system, you could identify more than 50% of the formats correctly if played a random selection of songs encoded randomly without pre-listening?

i.e., take 20 tracks, say, all the way from straight-to-digital masters in a variety of formats (classical, techno, rap, jazz, etc.), to remasters or restorations of old favorites (perhaps like Paderewski's Aeola recording restorations, or early Al Jolson recordings)?

Oh, you do not get to pick the system, but it should be fed by a computer, not from a CD player (with MP3/WMA/AAC playback capability).

You're telling me you can tell the difference between artifacts introduced by your analog setup (amp, preamp, speakers), the DAC process, artifacts in the recording, and MP3/AAC/whatever reformatting?
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 21:52 · Score: 0

On2's VP6 is a smoothing codec, similar to Real's RV9. It's not "crisp and clean" at all, and that's by design. I've done over 100 movies, plus hundreds of hours of methodical encoding tests, and I like VP6 more than anything else, but it just doesn't preserve high definition details at lower bitrates like XviD, and it never will.

XviD is absolutely beautiful. VP6 is amazing, but the encoding speed penalty isn't worth it for my purposes.
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 23:17 · Score: 0

Hi, I'm an anonymous Coward. And I can hear the difference between an mp3 and a wav file. Listen to the high frequenzies, the hihiat and other cymbals. Nad the vocals. The tend to get a "flanger" like effeck when decoded. Also, the bass frequenzies get somewhat diffuse.

But, I AM a pro sound engineer :)
Re:How long... by nemesisj · 2004-01-05 23:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

I can consistently determine the difference between a CD and 192kbps in a double blind test environment. If it's a genre of music that I really like, and a band I know well, I can even do pretty well between a 256kbps MP3 and a CD.

This is on medium to low quality speakers.

If we're talking about headphones, I can tell every time between the CD and any lossy encoding method.

You obviously don't listen to music for detail, which is ok, that's fine, but stop sounding stupid saying that noticing fine detail in music is impossible.

--

$45 per U Colocation Special
Re:How long... by gunnmjk · 2004-01-05 23:51 · Score: 1

A guy down the hall from my dorm apparently recorded every song in his library from cd to his computer as 64kbps WMA. To top it off, he wouldn't use computer speakers, but speakers from his boom box. Sure, the music was good to listen to, but it was degraded as hell and just really bugged an audiophile like me. But he didn't give a damn either way. I guess some peoples ears are just more sensitive.
Re:How long... by slim · 2004-01-05 23:56 · Score: 1

$.99 is pretty darn cheap .. but $.99 plus a longwinded conversion ritual just to get it onto a non-Windows-non-Mac system is not cheap to anyone who values their time.
Re:How long... by TheVidiot · 2004-01-06 00:17 · Score: 1

Amen brother, if I'm downloading an album, then I want my uncompressed bits when I burn to CD. Why? Why the hell not?
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 00:53 · Score: 0

It's almost impossible not to hear the click. Even if it was less than 10 samples wide.
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 01:12 · Score: 0

Like anyone gives a fuck what apple says.
Re:How long... by gnu-generation-one · 2004-01-06 01:41 · Score: 1

"Why would you want to re-encode an AAC to an MP3?"

Because you have something which plays MP3s?
Re:How long... by tuffy · 2004-01-06 01:50 · Score: 1

The trouble is, Apple is selling lossy tracks for about the same price as buying the actual CD. So, in effect, I'm paying the same for less audio, with no artwork and I have to provide my own storage for it. The upside is convenience, but I'd be happier if I could have my one-click audio purchasing and still have lossless audio.

--
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Re:How long... by aonaran · 2004-01-06 02:47 · Score: 1

This gets my vote for best product on the market in the HDD MP3 player category.

iRiver iHP-120

Much more useful to me than an ipod.
Why? does your iPod have these features:
- plays .ogg .asf and .wma formats
- records .mp3 from live sources via external microphone (included) or optical input. (Belkin voice recorder for the iPod is NOT the same thing and it does cost extra)
- optical output
- Upgradeable for future formats
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 03:00 · Score: 0

I agree completely with this. The difference between ogg encoded -q 9 at VBR and FLAC (or even musepack) is just not audible to the human ear, and certainly not sufficient to justify the much greater size of the 'lossless' format. When what is being 'lost' by MP3/OGG/MPC isn't actually detectable, then nothing is 'lost' at all! Except the extra 50MB of disk space usage...

I've even conducted blind listening (erm?) tests on non-tech friends to test this and none can ever distinguish between FLAC or WAV and a good lame VBR MP3 or -q9 ogg file. There is often the opinion though (which I share) that ogg and musepack are 'crisper' than MP3.
Re:How long... by Dr.+Evil · 2004-01-06 03:09 · Score: 1

I'm not a pro sound engineer, and while I never believed what people have said about high bitrate MP3s in the past, listening to some very particular segments of guitar rifts a couple months ago, the artifacts are very, very evident. All the power gets sucked out, it just makes you think "wow, what's wrong with this guitar... oh wait, it's the recording..." A cassette tape, while hissy and noisy did a better job.
So I figure that anyone who does have a trained ear can probably not avoid hearing the difference between a high bitrate wav, a high bitrate badly recorded MP3, a properly recorded low bitrate MP3, a low bitrate wav, a high bitrate well recorded MP3 and so forth.
I've only noticed the problem in the high end though. If your hearing is shot, you might not pick it up. I can still hear the sync of a North American T.V., some people say they can't, so if that's any benchmark of high-frequency hearing, it may provide some explanation as to why some people can't hear the difference.
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 03:23 · Score: 0

Making lossy copies from a good source as opposed to a bad source is *better*, the problem is that *better* isn't good enough.

FM radio sounds better than AM radio, but that doesn't make it good enough for critical listening.

I hope my simple example makes some sense to you.
Re:How long... by cayenne8 · 2004-01-06 03:39 · Score: 1

Yeah..but, you're going to lose quality again by doing this..
For me...I want the song in its best possible form...and then I'll rip it to mp3, ogg vorbis or flac depending on my needs. That's why downloading in lossy format just isn't an option I want to pay for at this time...

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 03:52 · Score: 0

Just who do you think you are claiming $0.99 is "cheap"? I doubt that's a fact! I find it by no means "cheap". In the case of a CD it's $15 for 15 numbers. In some cases more, in some cases less whereas a CD can be easily backed up. Is it really that cheap? I think it's not...
Re:How long... by AstroDrabb · 2004-01-06 03:57 · Score: 1

$200+ for a device that only has 2GB? No thanks. For $199 I can get a Neuros player that is 20GB and can play OGG and MP3. The code for the Neuros is also Open Source, unlike the proprietary software that comes with the iPod. Doe Apple realease Linux software for their iPod? Or would one have to use unofficial software? I personally would rather support a company that wants to let their users work in the environment that they choose by either making the code Open Source or putting out an official client.

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:How long... by AstroDrabb · 2004-01-06 04:00 · Score: 1

This is a good player, though a little pricey IMO. I think the Neuros has the same features and cost much less.

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:How long... by AstroDrabb · 2004-01-06 04:02 · Score: 1

How in the world is it piracy to do what you want with a product that you purchased? Taking a downloaded song and removing the DRM is not piracy. Taking a downloaded song and giving it to tons of people or putting on p2p is piracy. STOP CONSIDERING FAIR USE PIRACY

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:How long... by Rhys · 2004-01-06 04:07 · Score: 1

A diamond is forever...

Unless it's man-made. Oh wait.

--
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
Re:How long... by ivan256 · 2004-01-06 04:19 · Score: 1

You must have a totally different definition of medium to low quality for speakers than the rest of us. Either that or you're listneing to something that was crapily encoded dispite the high bitrate.

Sure, it's easy to tell with headphones, but unless you're spending over $300 on your computer speakers and listening in a real quite room, or you encoded at 256k with a totally shitty encoder from 8 years ago, you shouldn't be able to tell the difference between encoding artifacts and shitty speakers...
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 04:19 · Score: 0

Either way, I frown upon this sort of piracy.
Wait a minute... what piracy? They're talking about converting a file, not sending it to other people.
Re:How long... by the_2nd_coming · 2004-01-06 07:10 · Score: 1

thats nice...to bad the iPod has 31 % of the market and the other hard drive players together amount to about 8%.

heh, the iPod controls like 90% of the HDD player market.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Re:How long... by the_2nd_coming · 2004-01-06 07:19 · Score: 1

oh yeah...i Forgot to mention, the iPod has a user interface that will not make you stop and look at the thing.

but many Geeks don't care about user friendliness and ergonomics.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Re:How long... by axis-techno-geek · 2004-01-06 08:05 · Score: 1

...music online, you had better be distributing it in a lossless format...
Even a WAV file is a form os lossy compression since anything above 22,050 Hz cannot be recorded (Nyquist Theorem), not that you can hear it directly, unless your a dog or a very young child, it does create overtones.
To get as close to lossless as possible, sell your computer and buy a good linear tracking record player and some LP's (even this employees a form of analogue compression) ;)

--
This is not the sig line you are looking for... -- Old Jedi Sig Line Trick
Re:How long... by Lifthrasir · 2004-01-06 08:46 · Score: 1

1/2 second was a rough number - based totally on guesstimation only. the tracks i'm talking about are ripped with EAC then encoded with LAME and played back with WinAmp. If you tell it to crossfade between tracks it covers up the glitch(but sounds like arse). Without the crossfade you can hear a significant pause between tracks.
nb i ripped all of my music collection as FLAC's, and this format doesn't have this problem. It's not my computers fault as there is no pause between the FLAC's, which are significantly larger than their MP3 counterparts.

--
No beer, no TV make Lifthrasir something something
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 09:18 · Score: 0

Can anyone really hear any loss during regular use?
You know, chief, there are people who still listen to vinyl for the superior sound quality. or then there's DJs, some of who still use vinyl. make them listen to an mp3 or a ogg or a aac or a wma or any more of your "you can't possibly tell the difference!?!!" and i'm sure you have your computer cords tied around your neck, with the plugins in your bloody ears.
STFU. Your experience != anyone else's experience.
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 11:56 · Score: 0

It looks like a piece of medical equipment. I do not find it attractive at all.
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 13:55 · Score: 0

Don't you know about "Golden Ears" ? Special people used to emperically measure audio quality for players, speakers, cables etc. Some people are extremely sensitive to and/or good at processing musical noise.
Re:How long... by DeeKayWon · 2004-01-06 14:39 · Score: 1

WMV9 isn't on the Video Codecs list. Just WMV7 and 8.
Informative my ass.
Re:How long... by the_2nd_coming · 2004-01-07 00:42 · Score: 1

it looks nothing like medical equipment...I do not even know where you came from with that one.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-07 03:11 · Score: 0

Because CD is as good as it gets.

16-bit actually only gives a 15-bit range due to dithering (removal of pattern noise in the LSB by adding white noise). This gives a dynamic range of about 90 dB. The noise floor of most normal listening rooms is at about 30-40 dB, with some going down to about 20dB. This gives us, at best, a listening range of 20dB to 110dB. Believe me, you don't want to listen to those noise levels over an extended period of time.

Currentley, the mix that uses the greatest dynamic range, is a classical mix with a dynamic range of 78-79 dB. So there is no need for more then 90dB.

As for the sampling frequency, it's is well within boundries stated by the sampling theorem and human hearing. There is no problem. Granted, it leaves little headroom for desinging the analog filters, but is still manageble.
Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-07 03:17 · Score: 0

Sounds above 22,050Hz creates overtones (also called higher order harmonics) above 22,050Hz, so they are irrelevant.

And please, LPs are about the worst analog format ever. If you truly care about music, don't use LPs, us CDs. LPs have worse dynamic range then CDs and a lower frequencey range.
Re:How long... by nemesisj · 2004-01-07 08:56 · Score: 0, Troll

I guess so on the speaker definition. When I meant medium quality, I meant around $2-300 speakers.

I was using LAME and a couple of other encoders that I can't remember off the top of my head to encode things for tests.

--

$45 per U Colocation Special
Re:How long... by ciroknight · 2004-01-19 17:54 · Score: 1

Seems to me like it'd be really easy.

Write a driver that emulates a CD-Burner. When you click "Burn" in iTunes, it simply creates an ISO image of the songs you want to burn. Then from there you have a cleanup program that turns the ISO back into MP3's.

--
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush

This is a wonderful breakthrough by lynxuser · 2004-01-05 13:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

I am quite excited about this. VLC has always been my media player of choice, now the ability to play AAC DRM files in it just ups its ante.

While booting to Windows is a slight disappointment, I am sure DVD-Jon will remove that step ASAP.

--
I read Slashdot in Lynx, I am a real geek.

Re:This is a wonderful breakthrough by ircShot_guN · 2004-01-05 14:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm not sure how DVD-Jon can remove that step.

iTunes runs on windows and Mac OS, so either way you are going to have to boot into either of those two to actually get the songs in the first place.

iTunes (or similar) for GNU/Linux is what I am really waiting for.
Re:This is a wonderful breakthrough by ruiner13 · 2004-01-05 14:18 · Score: 1

"I am quite excited about this. VLC has always been my media player of choice, now the ability to play AAC DRM files in it just ups its ante."Urm... if i read correctly, it doesn't do that. It converts it into a format other than AAC, so there will still be a drop in sound quality due to re-encoding (unless you keep it raw, i guess). when they port the actual AAC drivers to linux, knowing the key will be more useful.

--
today is spelling optional day.
Re:This is a wonderful breakthrough by WhiteDragon · 2004-01-05 14:27 · Score: 1

no, it stays aac, not re-encoded, it just extracts the key from your windows system so the aac file can be played on any o/s

--
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
Re:This is a wonderful breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:27 · Score: 0

Let us know when you get it.
Re:This is a wonderful breakthrough by ircShot_guN · 2004-01-05 14:36 · Score: 1

I would do, but slashdot doesn't tell me the contact details of an Anonymous Coward.
Re:This is a wonderful breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 16:36 · Score: 0

I meant in a journal article linked in your sig.
Re:This is a wonderful breakthrough by the_2nd_coming · 2004-01-05 17:23 · Score: 1

WINE you fool!!!

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3

Windows Only??? by Blair16 · 2004-01-05 13:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Does anybody else see something wrong with Apple having a program that only works on Windows and Macs? You would think they would be a little bit more understanding of those of us running "alternative" OSes.

--

Chaos will always win out over order because chaos is more organized

Re:Windows Only??? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 13:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Does anybody else see something wrong with Apple having a program that only works on Windows and Macs? You would think they would be a little bit more understanding of those of us running "alternative" OSes.

Yeah, it's not like Apple has a vested interest in one operating system over another!

Oh wait...

Guys, Apple is no more altruistic than Microsoft. Apple is only cool because they are the underdog. Don't be expecting Apple to be something they aren't. That's where Linux and Open Source comes in.
Re:Windows Only??? by enosys · 2004-01-05 14:03 · Score: 1

Oh come on! Is there something wrong with Adobe not having a linux version of Photoshop? There's nothing inherently wrong/evil with what they're doing. If you really care a lot about this then vote with your money and avoid buying stuff from whoever doesn't support your favorite OS.
Re:Windows Only??? by cmdrbuzz · 2004-01-05 14:04 · Score: 1

That would be because QuickTime only runs on Mac and Windows.
When Apple ported QuickTime over to Windows, they had to port almost all the ToolBox routines over as well.
Which meant that any developer could port their Mac Application to Windows, just by using the QuickTime ToolBox routines.......
So Apple asked them not to do it......
Take a look at EZcleaner, they broke Apples plea, and ported over to Windows by using the QuickTime DLLs.
Re:Windows Only??? by Areeves · 2004-01-05 14:26 · Score: 1

Dude, Windows IS an "alternative" OS in Apple's point of view.

--
I read at -1 So you don't have to.
Re:Windows Only??? by buddydawgofdavis · 2004-01-05 14:33 · Score: 1

Bird of a feather... Apple is more closely aligned with MS than "alternative" OSes.
Re:Windows Only??? by EvilSporkMan · 2004-01-05 14:45 · Score: 4, Informative

QuickTime only runs on Mac and Windows.

scott@allyourbase scott $ emerge -s quicktime *** You are not in the portage group. You may experience cache problems *** due to permissions preventing the creation of the on-disk cache. *** Please add this user to the portage group if you wish to use portage. Searching... [ Results for search key : quicktime ] [ Applications found : 3 ] * media-libs/libquicktime Latest version available: 0.9.2_pre1 Latest version installed: 0.9.2_pre1 Size of downloaded files: 644 kB Homepage: http://libquicktime.sourceforge.net/ Description: A library based on quicktime4linux with extensions * media-libs/openquicktime Latest version available: 1.0-r1 Latest version installed: 1.0-r1 Size of downloaded files: 312 kB Homepage: http://openquicktime.sourceforge.net/ Description: OpenQuicktime library for linux * media-libs/quicktime4linux Latest version available: 1.5.5-r1 Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ] Size of downloaded files: 2,060 kB Homepage: http://heroinewarrior.com/quicktime.php3 Description: quicktime library for linux
What?

--
-insert a witty something-
Re:Windows Only??? by JazFresh · 2004-01-05 14:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Check out the Google Zeitgeist. Only 1% of all hits were from Linux machines. Given that, do you really think it's worth Apple's time to cater for 1% of the Internet population?
Not all those hits could have been from personal Linux machines, as opposed to those at universities or workplaces, so the real figure of personal Linux machines is probably less.
Or maybe you were talking about Amiga support, which I'm sure made up most of the "Other" category. :)
Re:Windows Only??? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:48 · Score: 0

Unlike everybody else, I'm not going to say Apple has no motivation to. They've got as much motivation to port it to Linux as they do to Windows, I say.

Have you considered asking nicely and then waiting patiently?
Re:Windows Only??? by MoneyT · 2004-01-05 15:04 · Score: 1

Correction then. Apple supported quicktime only runs on windows and mac. And since Apple sells the experience as part of the deal, they aren't going to use someone elses attempt.

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Re:Windows Only??? by BerntB · 2004-01-05 15:05 · Score: 1

Guys, Apple is no more altruistic than Microsoft. Apple is only cool because they are the underdog.
Microsoft is not hated because they are unethical bastards, but because they are unethical condemned criminal monopolists that killed lots of competition by using that monopoly.
To add maiming to injury, Msoft seems to have bought the president administration to not even get a slap on their wrist after being found guilty!!
I half believe that the Open Software movement hadn't been half as strong if it was possible to compete with a monopoly. Now it is more or less the only game in town -- if you don't want to support criminals by working on their systems and hence make them more popular.
(-: Besides, it's probably against the law to be altruistic, unless you can convincingly claim to the share holders that it's a publicity stunts... :-)

--
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
Re:Windows Only??? by cmdrbuzz · 2004-01-05 15:05 · Score: 1

QuickTime (from Apple) is only available for Mac and Windows
Anything other than Apple Software using the QuickTime trademark would not really be real QuickTime....
NB: The quicktime4linux lib doen't work with much, it only works with Uncompressed content....
Re:Windows Only??? by EvanED · 2004-01-05 15:08 · Score: 2

Because there are as many people using Linux as there are Windows?

The motivation to port to Windows comes so that the enormous market share Windows has can be tapped. I don't know figures, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Apple has a larger market share on desktops than Linux, so there's actually not much motivation there at all.
Re:Windows Only??? by Pendersempai · 2004-01-05 15:22 · Score: 1

So what? The fact is, they are cool. I don't care why.
Re:Windows Only??? by IM6100 · 2004-01-05 17:39 · Score: 1

Shouldn't you be out at the coffeehouse at this hour of the night, finding out what's fashionable and what clothes you should wear tomorrow?

--
A Good Intro to NetBS
Re:Windows Only??? by IM6100 · 2004-01-05 17:48 · Score: 1

And since Apple sells the experience as part of the deal,

Yeah, but anybody can sell a big piece of brushed metal. Perhaps even shaped in an attractive 'frame' with velcro to attach it to the screen.

--
A Good Intro to NetBS
Re:Windows Only??? by tliet · 2004-01-05 18:03 · Score: 1

From the herionewarrior.com/quicktime.php3 page:

CODECS

Be aware of one thing: Quicktime for Linux won't read any of the movies you download from the internet. Quicktime is a wrapper for many different kinds of compression formats. What you knew as "Quicktime 4", "Quicktime 5", "Quicktime 6", are really different distributions of compression formats. The codecs we support are mainly uncompressed.

Uhm, I would not qualify this as a complete QuickTime solution running in Linux. QuickTime is almost an OS in itself (it contains many Mac OS toolbox routines) and indeed needs tons of codecs to function properly with all the media created with it.
Re:Windows Only??? by gosand · 2004-01-06 02:41 · Score: 1

Guys, Apple is no more altruistic than Microsoft. Apple is only cool because they are the underdog.
No, Apple is cool because they are their own entity. They aren't the underdog to MS, they aren't anything to MS - they are in a different game all by themselves. They are doing their own thing, and have been for a long time.
I personally don't care for their computers, but that is just me. I respect them for doing it their own way and sticking to it.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Re:Windows Only??? by Rich0 · 2004-01-06 03:33 · Score: 1

Nonetheless - most trailers that I download work just fine on mplayer on linux for me. I'd actually prefer to watch them on my windows box, but for some reason my quicktime install is corrupted there and I can't get it to work even by wiping the software clean off the disk (gotta love registries, DLLs, codecs, etc...). Then again, I haven't tried all that hard since as I mentioned before I can play just about anything with mplayer...

I'm not sure off the top of the head which codec it is justing, but "it just works". This is on gentoo...
Re:Windows Only??? by 3.1415926535 · 2004-01-06 12:30 · Score: 1

Could it be using /usr/lib/win32/QuickTime.qts (A Windows exectuable)?
Re:Windows Only??? by Rich0 · 2004-01-06 15:00 · Score: 1

Why indeed - such a file does exist, and is accessed by mplayer when playing a quicktime stream...

I guess that explains it.

From the article... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 13:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

Norwegian programmer Jon Lech Johansen, who broke the DVD encryption scheme...

It was my understanding that DVD-Jon (as we're calling him now) did *not* actually break the DVD encryption scheme, but collaborated with some anonymous hackers who did. I think his involvement was more on the order of making it more accessible to the tyro. Could someone clear this up once and for all?

Re:From the article... by Luke+the+Obscure · 2004-01-05 14:16 · Score: 3, Informative

It looks like DVD-Jon speerheaded the whole thing, but other people were involved.
For the very very long story go here. It's one of the legal declarations from the case.
Re:From the article... by cheekyboy · 2004-01-05 14:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes, it was another russian pair I think....

But we let it be kept secret, infact the real secret is that the Xing Player KEys/code was used, buy had to be faked to look like it was reverse engineered.

In any case, TOO LATE NOW, its out of the bag, and no traces left, the way it was meant.

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.

Macworld Keynote by gss · 2004-01-05 13:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wonder if Jobs will say anything about this in tomorrows Macworld Keynote. I kind of doubt it.

What does this guy do for a living? by cacheMan · 2004-01-05 13:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

What do any of these people do with free time to break encryption schemes, contribute to oss, and build robotic girlfriends? I'm serious, how do you earn a living and still have time to do things like this?

Re:What does this guy do for a living? by JanneM · 2004-01-05 14:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Have you perhaps heard of "free time"? Or "hobby", perhaps? Most people do not work 60h+ workweeks, you know; they prefer to have a life outside work as well.

--
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by Frisky070802 · 2004-01-05 14:07 · Score: 5, Funny

I think he's a professional defendant, or wants to be.

--
Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by gss · 2004-01-05 14:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Ha, hacking away to break an encryption scheme is not exactly what I would call "having a life".
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by asavage · 2004-01-05 14:09 · Score: 5, Informative

He was 15 when he broke the DVD encryption and now he is still only around 19. He doesn't need to work for a living yet.
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:20 · Score: 0

They just buy a house with less than 10 bathrooms, a small cheap car, don't buy designer clothes and generally have their spending priorities in order, so they can spend less time making money for their boss.
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by glitch23 · 2004-01-05 14:26 · Score: 5, Funny

Who ever said they earned a living?

--
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by D.A.+Zollinger · 2004-01-05 15:04 · Score: 1, Troll

He was 15 when he broke the DVD encryption and now he is still only around 19. He doesn't need to work for a living yet.

That is going to be one hell of a resume when he finally decides to get a job. I can see it now:

Boss: Hello everyone, I would like to introduce you to our new intern Jon. When he was 15, Jon wrote a program that allowed him to watch DVDs on Linux, and when he was 20 he wrote a program that allowed him to listen to music downloaded from Apple's iTunes on Linux.
Jon: Hi!
Boss: Too bad none of you slackers have ever done anything worth mentioning.
Mike who sits next to the copier: I've done something important!
Boss: Oh yea? What's that?
Mike who sits next to the copier: I've replaced the toner when the copier ran out. Paper too!
Boss: (muttering) Someone in HR hates me. I just know it.

--
I haven't lost my mind!
It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:08 · Score: 0

I had to start working for my existance when I was 14, so you must have been born with a silver spoon. Speak for yourself.
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:14 · Score: 0

It's called college. Some parents are willing to pay more early in life so they can get a cushy retirement home off of their children's (on average) higher-paying job.
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:20 · Score: 0

I had to start working for my existance when I was 14, so you must have been born with a silver spoon. Speak for yourself.

There are places where children as young as 5 go off to the sweatshop for twelve hours each day to help feed their family. 14 is younger than many of us started work, but relatively speaking, I'm not sure you have much of a case. Lemme put it this way: if you have Internet access now, don't complain too much.
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by seanadams.com · 2004-01-05 15:21 · Score: 1

Because it stimulates the mind.

Now you go grab a beer and watch TV.
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by TheSunborn · 2004-01-05 15:37 · Score: 1

Parents? College is free, and the state also pay you something like 500$/Month to study :}

Atleast that is the way in denmark, and I don't think sweden is that different.

Martin Tilsted
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by TheSunborn · 2004-01-05 15:48 · Score: 1

substr(post,sweden,Norway)
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by mjolner · 2004-01-05 15:48 · Score: 1

Sweden is the same, and I think Norway, too. ;-)
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by macjohn · 2004-01-05 16:36 · Score: 1

Why are all the civilized countries in Europe?

--
--Hi. I'm in Portland and it's raining. This appears to be a permanent condition.
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 17:08 · Score: 0

Because America understands economics.
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by shaitand · 2004-01-05 17:22 · Score: 1

"and I don't think sweden is that different."

Great but what does that have to do with Norway where Jon is from?
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 17:24 · Score: 0

Never say America when you mean U.S. It pisses the Canadians (rightfully IMNSHO).
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 22:20 · Score: 0

Jon Johansen got a full-time job in IT with a salary well above average when he was 16. I am not sure if he is still employed, or studying. But he must be quite well off, compared to most other 20 year old men.
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by JW+Troll · 2004-01-05 22:30 · Score: 1

too bad your open-source spell-checker missed that one - it's actually dependent. Parent's basement. Unhealthy fear of light, etc.

--
just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 23:13 · Score: 0

BWAAAAHAAAAHHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAA!!!!!1111!!!!11!!

Joke or Irony, I'll scorch that sentence!

Yeah, right... 800 000 homeless human beings living in your wonderful country would probably negate that statement of yours!

And BTW, capitalism/greed/zero-sum economy is all about growing - think about that the next time you watch an ad for a slightly modified cellphone at a "competitive price" on your brand new Sony. And have you noticed how time has actually speeded up; it's not a feeling, it's a fact. Believe me. Trust me. Love me. Everything I tell you three times is a truth.
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by Troed · 2004-01-05 23:32 · Score: 1

Jon never broke CSS ("DVD encryption"). I can't believe that people _here_ don't know better than that. He wrote a GUI.

--
it's in my head
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by nilenico · 2004-01-06 00:30 · Score: 1

...we wish it was like that in Norway...Denmark has a student loan system that is way friendlier to the student than Norway.
Yes, college/university is free (except for private colleges). We also get student grants/loans which we use party on during our student years. everyone is eligible for it regardless of your parents' income. and you don't start paying back until after you've graduated. don't know the current percentage, but the ratio between the grant and the loan keeps changing in favour of the loan (in my time it was about 30/70 if I recall).
Danish students always had much higher grants than us, the cheats!

--
.sig? No.
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by Frisky070802 · 2004-01-06 02:18 · Score: 1

I stand corrected. Very funny!

--
Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by holt · 2004-01-06 04:34 · Score: 1

You do realize that those "grants" are really just loans that you pay back in the form of much higher taxes, right?
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by chmod000 · 2004-01-06 07:36 · Score: 1

Right you are. IIRC, he has never actually identified the two fellows who DID break the encryption. I don't think that the three of them had ever met anyplace except online. Possibly they still haven't.

--
Aptal soru yoktur; sadece merakli aptallar vardir.
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 08:42 · Score: 0

Well, you could always emigrate to a lower-tax country... many youngsters from Nordic countries do.
Re:What does this guy do for a living? by Slime-dogg · 2004-01-06 09:32 · Score: 1

Yeah, doesn't he live in one of the most socialist countries on Earth?

--
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.

iTunes on Linux by ZWarrior · 2004-01-05 13:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

Somehow I think that this is an example of the way software restrictions will continue.

Programmers will code the security so that the app only works one way, and some user will break it s it works elsewhere as well.

We need to have more thought put into coding so that apps will work more platforms, and also be aware that it is envitable (sp?) that somebody will crack it.

I broke a lot of digital clocks as a kid because I wanted to know what made them tick! I still got new ones, and broke them as well.

--
Here I come to save the da... *thud*
I gotta get me a shorter cape.

Re:iTunes on Linux by goldfndr · 2004-01-05 14:05 · Score: 2, Funny

I broke a lot of digital clocks as a kid because I wanted to know what made them tick! I still got new ones, and broke them as well.

I'm sorry it never dawned on you that the ticking must've been coming from something else.

--
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
Re:iTunes on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:13 · Score: 0

No, the programmers need to give up trying to "secure" a trusted client.

This isn't information security, it's obfuscation. If Apple didn't want me to copy the music, they probably shouldn't have let me listen to it on electronics I own.
Re:iTunes on Linux by eXtro · 2004-01-05 14:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, there needs to be a compromise. Apple doesn't give a rats ass about a secure trusted client, iTunes and iPods supported and still support mp3 way before iTunes and copy protection was around. What they do care about is being able to legally sell songs online. To get the labels on board they have to make an honest attempt at copy protection, which they did. They also have to try and balance consumer rights, which they also did.

Of course depending on your point of view it might not seem like it. The record companies probably feel that there should be no way to rip the secure content to MP3 or burn it to CD. Some consumers probably feel that only making 10 CD copies (or whatever it is) of a purchased playlist is a huge burden.

So it's a technical contest. Apple secures things, hackers unsecure things. Eventually if the RIAA companies see the light they'll realize that the money spent on securing things is really just being pissed away and things will change.

--
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
Re:iTunes on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 16:29 · Score: 0

Apple secures things

It has nothing to do with security. There's no security in a system that gives the safe keys away to the very same people that aren't supposed to get inside of it. It's about market control.

To get the labels on board they have to make an honest attempt at copy protection, which they did.

An honest attempt at copy protection would be to realize that it can't be done, and to get to work on adding some legitimate value to what's being sold.

The record companies probably feel that there should be no way to rip the secure content to MP3 or burn it to CD.

But there always will be. Show me a system (based in mathematics, not in law) that allows me to hear something but prevents me from recording it. It's not a battle between "consumers" (whatever the hell those are) and the industry - the outcome has already been decided.

Apple doesn't give a rats ass about a secure trusted client

Exactly. They designed a half-assed "copy-protection" scheme, and convinced a bunch of idiots over at the RIAA that it was "secure". It implicitly trusts the client (by storing the key there) - the very same client it's protecting the music from.

I suppose all of that was a great deal easier for Apple than convincing them of the cold, hard reality: anything that can be seen or heard can be copied, and there's nothing short of an electronics prohibition that can change that.

So it's a technical contest.

It's a pissing contest.
Re:iTunes on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 22:19 · Score: 0

ROTF. I needed that, thank you.
Re:iTunes on Linux by jcrosby · 2004-01-06 04:28 · Score: 1

Java is one solution to the portability problem.

With hardware accelerating at an exponential rate and the JDK's improving with each release, a virtual machine hosted application begins to make more and more sense. Complaints about Swing interfaces being slow are becoming a thing of the past with the improvements in JDK 1.4, not to mention SWT.

The Code by sr180 · 2004-01-05 13:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Link from the article to directly download the code: http://developers.videolan.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi /vlc/modules/demux/mp4/?cvsroot=VideoLAN

--
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!

Does iTunes music store work under Linux anyway? by Nailer · 2004-01-05 13:59 · Score: 1, Interesting

I have an ipod, and use it together with the nifty GTKPod, Grip and beep to get my music onto the Pod and play tunes off it.

But I'm in Australia, and we don't have iTunes music store yet.

It it possible to use iTunes music store under Linux? Is it just a web site, with files you need iTunes to play, in which case I can use VideoLAN instead? Or otherwise?

In a worse case scenario, does iTunes work under Winex or Codeweavers Wine?

But by ITR81 · 2004-01-05 13:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

But I think all Apple needs to do is update QT and update it's DRM.

Seems like this crack can be patched.

I doubt Apple will call DVDJohn but I bet the RIAA will.

Re:But by exhilaration · 2004-01-05 14:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

I doubt Apple will call DVDJohn but I bet the RIAA will.
It's Jon, and he'll tell them that their American threats don't mean jack in Norway.
By the way, I sure hope that he has no plans to visit the U.S..
Re:But by awing0 · 2004-01-05 14:12 · Score: 1

That will just start an arms race, perhaps even increasing the amount of people working against Apple.

--
Cthulhu Saves.
Re:But by awing0 · 2004-01-05 14:15 · Score: 1

Yeah, just like no one cared when he released the DeCSS code.

--
Cthulhu Saves.
Re:But by jared_hanson · 2004-01-05 14:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

According to my understanding, his first "crack" would be possible to patch as it exploited the functionality of QuickTime that made an unencrypted AAC stream (or PCM stream?) out of the protected one. It then dumped this to a file absent of DRM.

His new crack actually writes the decryption key out to a file. This key is written out using Windows and is apparently derived from hardware serial numbers, such as that on the hard drive. This key can then apparently be used to decrypt the protected files on any OS. I haven't given this a shot yet, but it should be interesting to find out.

Personally, I don't care all that much, as I use iTunes on OS X and an iPod to listen to most of my music. However, I would like to serve up my protected AAC to my squeezebox, and this just might allow for on the fly transcoding to a PCM stream from SlimServer.

It would be pretty tough for Apple to go and make another DRM scheme that avoided this without breaking backwards compatibility.

--
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
Re:But by shaitand · 2004-01-05 15:04 · Score: 1

Yup, what was it 20million songs they've sold out there that would no longer function if they took your advice?
Re:But by seanadams.com · 2004-01-05 15:40 · Score: 1

However, I would like to serve up my protected AAC to my squeezebox, and this just might allow for on the fly transcoding to a PCM stream from SlimServer.

I just got home from helping set up our booth for the Macworld expo (which starts tomorrow - free passes here!). After checking slashdot, I found a message on my machine from Dean, telling me to go check slashdot.

We're just now learning about this hack of course, but basically it looks like iTunes DRM has been broken wide open now.

Of course, we've already known of a different way to play iTMS drmed files on squeezebox, at least on Mac/Win, but I can't tell you how because that would be trafficking in a circumvention device. Anyway...

What's excellent about DVD-Jon's discovery is that this allows people who have legitimately purchased iTMS music to play it on squeezebox or any AAC compatible device/software. I expect it will also be easy to simply batch process all your iTMS files into unprotected AAC without having to re-encode.

Like I said this is news to us too. All I can say right now is that it's VERY unlikely we'll support DRMed AAC out-of-the-box, for obvious legal reasons (and some philosophical ones). However it's practically certain that within the week someone will have a command-line iTMS decoder that works on all platforms.

Thanks Jon - just in time for the biggest Mac event of the year!
Re:But by BancBoy · 2004-01-05 17:33 · Score: 1

"His new crack actually writes the decryption key out to a file. This key is written out using Windows and is apparently"
... Wait... Windows is a tool to violate DRM and circumvent copyright protection? Windows violates the DMCA? Release the hounds!

--
[UID-HeinzIntel]
Re:But by jared_hanson · 2004-01-05 18:08 · Score: 1

Interesting you already knew how to play the DRMed files on your box. I hadn't heard anything except for the original crack Jon put out. I didn't look to much into that one, because it seemed kinda contrived, but it looks like it was a stepping stone to get to this point.

I'm definately looking forward to being able to stream my protected AAC files to the Squeezebox without jumping through reencoding hoops. Hopefully someone will come out with a nice unix command line util quickly, or I might have to jump into it myself, and I've already got too many unfinished coding projects.

I understand your hands are tied on supporting the playback of these files, which is unfortunate. I'm just looking for a solution to playback my legitamately purchased music though. This throws a wrench in Apples 3-computer-limit deal, but I never understood that much anyway. I see the Squeezebox of more of an iPod, or perhaps less so since it doesn't store the files, and there's no limit on the number of iPods that can play .m4ps.

Anyhow, I also wanted to thank you guys over at Slim Devices for a great product. I really like the Squeezebox. Have fun at Macworld, wish I could be there.

--
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
Re:But by Jeppe+Salvesen · 2004-01-06 03:40 · Score: 1

Actually, isn't this slightly different? I haven't tried iTunes, but I assume you can re-download if you accidentally delete a song?

If that's the case, there's no need to perform a backup. So then we're down to whether DRM is allowed at all under Norwegian Law.

--
Stop the brainwash

DVD-Jon is a terrorist! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:00 · Score: 5, Funny

When will the this commie bastard be stopped from stealing money from corporations?????

Re:DVD-Jon is a terrorist! by Paddyish · 2004-01-05 15:34 · Score: 1

When will the this commie bastard be stopped from stealing money from corporations?????
As soon as someone plants an American almanac in his luggage, so the FBI can declare him an 'enemy combatant'.
(Then he can easily be 'disappeared')

Is this guy an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Get in trouble. Long, laborious litigation. What was solved? Nothing. Consumers don't have more rights. It's still a pain in the ass to decode DVDs, and now he's on a bunch of corporate sharks' bad sides.

Then, he decides to go and pull this shit AND be vocal about it. Kid, seriously, grow up. Yes, it's very nice that you're demonstrating your "freedom". How about learning some common sense with that, Jones? You just got out of major litigation, now you want to swim back into it? Even a guy who jaywalks knows to avoid the police immediately after getting fingered.

Let's see, which of the following choices would've had the best effect:

* Immediately releasing a hack just after litigation.
* Releasing it anonymously.
* Waiting until the temperature settled, then quietly sneaking this past Apple and opening a bunch of doors in the process.

I vote the last one.

Re:Is this guy an idiot? by leehwtsohg · 2004-01-05 14:15 · Score: 3, Informative

unless you really think you are innocent
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:28 · Score: 0

No, he isn't.

Just because you choose not to assert your freedoms doesn't mean he shouldn't.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by GoofyBoy · 2004-01-05 14:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

>Kid, seriously, grow up.

What is wrong with him doing this and staying like this forever?

I mean, he should stop doing something just because "other people who know better" say that he should stop?

Should he stop becuase he could get into civil legal problems? That doesn't stop lots of "adults".

Should he stop because its "wrong"? Maybe some one could tell me where this is ethically wrong becuase I don't see it.

I say that he should keep doing what he likes to do and accept the consequences until he feels he shoudn't anymore and not what other people say.

Because in the end its his life.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by Chops · 2004-01-05 14:32 · Score: 1

Get in trouble. Long, laborious litigation. What was solved? Nothing. Consumers don't have more rights. It's still a pain in the ass to decode DVDs, and now he's on a bunch of corporate sharks' bad sides.

Maybe he just has the courage of his convictions. Certainly I think that both DeCSS and this should be legal, I just don't have the skills to make them, the time or inclination to try, or the stones to do it knowing I'll get shit on for it.

Good for him.

Let's see, which of the following choices would've had the best effect:

* Immediately releasing a hack just after litigation.
* Releasing it anonymously.
* Waiting until the temperature settled, then quietly sneaking this past Apple and opening a bunch of doors in the process.

I vote the last one.

Are you kidding? He's telling these cocksuckers that he's not afraid of them. No given DRM scheme will last forever, which is why the fear of breaking the ??AA's expensive new laws is what they're mainly counting on. Seems to me he's got quite a good handle on what the best effect is.

Why did you put freedom in quotes like that?
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by AKnightCowboy · 2004-01-05 14:33 · Score: 1

What was solved? Nothing. Consumers don't have more rights. It's still a pain in the ass to decode DVDs
Well, maybe if you're stuck using Linux, but if you're on Windows it's painfully easy to decode DVDs. Fire up DVD Shrink, re-author the tracks from your favorite DVDs, burn to a DVD-R with Nero. I had 4 movies copied from the video store within 2 hours of putting my DVD burner in. There's nothing complicated about it.
BTW, even under Linux there's no excuse if you're using MythTV. MythDVD will rip and encode movies into DivX format (or even just save the raw vob files) without the user needing to understand complicated things like DeCSS.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by WankersRevenge · 2004-01-05 14:39 · Score: 0

Waiting until the temperature settled, then quietly sneaking this past Apple and opening a bunch of doors in the process.

Which is why you are an anonymous coward, and he is not ;p
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by crush · 2004-01-05 14:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Get in trouble. Long, laborious litigation. What was solved? Nothing. Consumers don't have more rights.
Rights only exist because they are fought for and then defended -- it's like trademarks and patents, you've got to be aggressive about defining the legal boundaries. Jon Johanssen has helped to make it clear that it is not a crime to have ported DeCSS to GNU/Linux.
Then, he decides to go and pull this shit AND be vocal about it. Kid, seriously, grow up. Yes, it's very nice that you're demonstrating your "freedom". How about learning some common sense with that, Jones? You just got out of major litigation, now you want to swim back into it? Even a guy who jaywalks knows to avoid the police immediately after getting fingered.
And even a guy that has some idiot give him a ticket for "walking on the sidewalk" and wins the court case may even decide to go and commit the crime of driving a car afterwards. Seriously dude, do you ever stop to think about what you say?
Let's see, which of the following choices would've had the best effect: * Immediately releasing a hack just after litigation. * Releasing it anonymously. * Waiting until the temperature settled, then quietly sneaking this past Apple and opening a bunch of doors in the process. I vote the last one.
Let me guess, you run pirated copies of software don't you? For users of Free Software that want to allow artists to profit fairly from their endeavours and for businesses to fairly sell music, software, art and information to those Free Software users, there is no advantage in the "last one". The only thing that will help us is challenging these ridiculous laws in the courts again and again. That's what Jon Lech Johanssen is doing.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by JoeShmoe · 2004-01-05 14:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Troll or clueless, I can't tell because as AC there's no post history.

Consumers, at least in Norway, do have more rights. They have the right to use DeCSS to decrypt DVD video to video on the player of their choice. They also, presumably, have the right to publish and obtain the DeCSS program.

Now, back in the land of the free, we have no such rights...why? Because we pussed out. We decided not to pursue our DeCSS case and let stand a lower court ruling that banned it. Oh yeah, this was much better than what Jon did, namely stand up for himself in court.

I'm not so naive to believe that Jon was selfless in his act (he was part of or closely associated with warez groups who were keen on cracking DVD encryption to allow for perfect all-digital rips rather than having to use analog loopback to capture card). But even if DeCSS has a seedy or sordid history no one wants to talk about, the point stands that DeCSS does have legitamate uses and that is where Jon's defense was founded.

When you have precedent set, you don't hide it in your desk and call it a day. You use that precedent to try and set new precedent that is even broader in scope. Jon has stood up to the might of Norway's MPAA/Attorney General equivalents, who now have major egg on their face. How likely do you think they will be to pursue another half-baked case against Jon? Jon is probably bulletproof against anything but real criminal behavior. As soon as the words "fair use" are uttered, I can't imagine there would be a government attorney crazy enough to get struck by lightning twice.

Releasing it anonymously would have only started a witchhunt that could have harmed a lot of other people, people who shouldn't have to be lightning rods for this same kind of treatment. But putting his name on it, yes, he is risked another trial but as I said, it is rather unlikely.

In this world full of people who puss out and settle for lesser charges (cough)Mitnick(cough) I think it's incredible that someone has the guts to put himself at risk to stand up for something. I only wish someone were that brave here in US courts.

-JoeShmoe
.

--
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by zulux · 2004-01-05 14:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is this guy an idiot?

Jon is a noble-hearted man who is standing up to tremedous odds and tremendous risk to fight for somthing that is good.

'round here, we call people like that heros

--
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by GlassHeart · 2004-01-05 14:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Millions of people jaywalk, and millions more drive their cars faster than the speed limit. What has that done to silly (in some places) jaywalking laws or absurd (in some places) speed limits? On most US roads, it's a well known rule of thumb that police would generally not bother drivers who speed by under 10 miles per hour over the limit.
On the other hand, a frail man deliberately picked up a handful of salt, which was at the time a monopoly product of the British Empire. He was arrested for it, but this and other actions that fly in the face of "common sense" eventually freed India from British colonization.
How about that woman who was arrested for sitting in the front of the bus, when everybody knows that black people need to sit in the back?
I'm not saying DVD-Jon is anybody resembling Gandhi or Parks, or that his cause is nearly as important. What I'm saying is that many changes come from a small number of people noisily breaking unjust laws, rather than a thousand people quietly breaking it.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by damiam · 2004-01-05 14:45 · Score: 1

Get in trouble. Long, laborious litigation. What was solved? Nothing. Consumers don't have more rights. It's still a pain in the ass to decode DVDs, and now he's on a bunch of corporate sharks' bad sides.
It was impossible before to play DVDs on Linux, or to rip them and make backups for your own purposes. Now, it's possible (although dubiously legal in the US). That's what was solved.

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by iabervon · 2004-01-05 14:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, he's really smart. He's publicly claiming responsibility for doing something right after practically the same thing was found not to be illegal in his country. So Apple (or the RIAA) goes to Norway, and tells them to stop him, and Okokrim tells them that not only do they not want to prosecute, but they have legal precedent that what he's doing isn't a crime.

Sure, the litigation may have not accomplished much, but it did resolve that under current Norwegian law, it's perfectly fine for him to do what he's just done again. It would have been a bad idea for him to wait at all before bringing this to the attention of the public, because then he might be found out after laws are changed.

I bet he's glad now that he got an appeals court descision in his favor, instead of get the original court...
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by OS24Ever · 2004-01-05 15:08 · Score: 1

And we can all tel Jon only had the Ghandi-esq views at heart by breaking this encryption.

I don't buy it. Maybe once with the DVD encryption to write a linux player, but what purpose does breaking DRM on a leagally purchased music file only to let it be played by anything (so to speak) get? It's not like you could take steps to be able to play it on a Linux machine to begin with.

But now, with broken encryption people like him have given congolomerants like the RIAA and MPAA something to fear, and since their fear = them destroying something, how long before iTMS get's pushed out or less artists sign up?

--
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by be-fan · 2004-01-05 15:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Huh? The whole point is to allow Linux users to use the music that they legally purchased on the platform of their choice. Its exactly the same as the DeCSS stuff.

I use Linux as my primary desktop. DeCSS allows me to do the same things Windows users do, play DVDs on the platform of my choice. Every time I watch a movie on my monthly flight from Atlanta to Washington DC and back, I owe that to DeCSS.

iTMS is cool. There is no reason that only Windows and MacOS users should get invited to the party.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by shaitand · 2004-01-05 15:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

You could play a DVD before decss to if you were willing to loop the feed back through a capture card and settle for a second rate piece of shit to play on your first rate operating system. Or you could play the original first rate DVD on your second rate operating system. DeCSS allowed you to play your first rate DVD on your first rate operating system.

This does the same, you don't have to convert the file now thanks to Jon. You don't have to use a sound recorder and then convert the file it records to another format and loss quality with each step until you might as well be listening to radio with bad reception or over a phone. You can play the ORIGINAL AAC file (still lossy but at least it's what the second rate os users are getting).

Artists generally don't support the things the RIAA have done. The RIAA is against things like filesharing not because they think it's greatly impacting CD sales, but because it represents an advertising medium that they have NO control over and therefore artists don't have to sign with them to get the advertising. It basically obsoletes the RIAA. If artists don't need the RIAA anymore, they can sign up iTMS directly and advertise on P2P networks.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by linzeal · 2004-01-05 15:25 · Score: 1

Bravo. Here! Here!

--
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by GoofyBoy · 2004-01-05 15:33 · Score: 1

>but what purpose does breaking DRM on a leagally purchased music file only to let it be played by anything (so to speak) get?

To allow what you bought to be played on anything.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by linzeal · 2004-01-05 15:44 · Score: 1

er, "hear, heh.

--
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by ChaosDiscord · 2004-01-05 15:53 · Score: 1

Let's see, Jon has been completely acquitted on the previous charges and it seems likely that attacking him in court on this issue will fail just as badly. So, he's relatively safe. Furthermore, he's still young, he can probably afford the in court.
What's the up side? Fame. He becomes known as someone who can break DRM systems. That suggests a high level of technical competance. While his efforts will turn off some potential employers, it will appeal to many very interesting employers who value skill.
As a happy side effect the world gets some potentially useful software (that may very well be illegal in the United States, but will remain available in Jon's home country).
Doing this now was an extremely smart move. Doing it anonymously would have been the stupid action.

--
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by Macka · 2004-01-05 16:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Should he stop because its "wrong"? Maybe some one could tell me where this is ethically wrong becuase I don't see it
It's wrong if it negatively impacts those of us who are waiting for iTMS to become available in countries where we can't get it yet. That's my worry. Apple has to make new licensing agreements for each country they want to offer the service in. How will this impact future negotiations? We don't know yet. But it sure as hell isn't going to have a positive effect. If because of this kids meddling the hundreds of thousands of iTunes users and iPod owners (like me) in the UK who desperately want iTMS don't get it, then DVD-Jon is going to make himself a lot of enemies over here.
Because in the end its his life
It's not just his life .. his actions affect others too !!
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 17:00 · Score: 0

Around here, heros get eaten. Ever try the south-western on white?
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 17:07 · Score: 0

Actually it was very possible to do it. People were fucking babies and wanted 23467234 choices of dvd software to playback dvds. So they cracked it, released it and all the players have it.

I guess when free software makers don't want to pay licensing to use the decss format this is what happens. They couldn't live with 1 program playing dvds and waiting patiently for the others to as well...
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by rale,+the · 2004-01-05 17:58 · Score: 1

Perhaps just maybe he wants his name to become (well, stay) well-known. It wouldnt surprise me at all to find companies happy to hire 'the guy who cracked dvds and itunes'.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 18:53 · Score: 0

So, right and wrong are determined by how convenient a thing is to you? And I suppose you don't care how much more convenient it is for Jon and others to listen to music now, do you? If it's inconvenient for you, it's wrong. Great.

And I love how it is "meddling". How come Apple isn't "meddling" when they add DRM to those pristine, easy-to-use .wav files that they start out with? And don't say 'because they own them', 'cause Jon owns his copy and can do as he likes with it for personal use. At least that's what HIS country has decided. I wish mine would. But don't blame Jon because you live under a repressive government. If you really wish to do something, clean up in your own backyard.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by defsdoor · 2004-01-05 23:07 · Score: 1

Now, back in the land of the free, we have no such rights...why? Because we pussed out. We decided not to pursue our DeCSS case and let stand a lower court ruling that banned it. Oh yeah, this was much better than what Jon did, namely stand up for himself in court.

What you actually did was overrule your individual rights in favour of protecting corporations - because the corporations control your politics.

The USA is and will forever be a corrupt regime because no one in your political climate can survive to stand for real rights, standards and morals. The scary thing is that from the outside the USA looks laughable, but on the inside everyone thinks everything is fine and dandy.

I can't see a way out of this mess anywhere on the horizon either - all those in the game benefit from the game.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 00:13 · Score: 0

No, there must be a risk of loosing your life for being a hero.
This is not the case hear.
Go read the definition.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 00:25 · Score: 0

"It's wrong if it negatively impacts those of us who are waiting for iTMS to become available in countries where we can't get it yet."

I didn't realize there are people like you who think that when a corporation does something, its a blessing, a benefit to you.

Oh my boy.

You're doing them a *favor* by buying it.

And frankly, go buy the CD used for $7-9 on Amazon if you want cheap music with DRM.

You want iTunes because you like the "look and feel" of the store?

I thought I led an empty life...you take the cake!
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 00:26 · Score: 0

he was part of or closely associated with warez groups who were keen on cracking DVD encryption to allow for perfect all-digital rips rather than having to use analog loopback to capture card

I attended the first trial. Why didn't this show up?
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by Grishnakh · 2004-01-06 05:54 · Score: 1

'round here, we call people like that heros

'Round where? You must not be in the USA, because here we call people who stand up for their rights against rich corporations "idiots", as you just noticed.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by babyrat · 2004-01-06 06:07 · Score: 1

You just got out of major litigation, now you want to swim back into it?

He just got out of major litigation which he won hands down...People can litigate for any reason - you think IBM should stop being involved with Linux because they got sued by SCO?
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by zulux · 2004-01-06 06:29 · Score: 1

'Round where? You must not be in the USA, because here we call people who stand up for their rights against rich corporations "idiots", as you just noticed.

WTF - I am in the USA. Sure there's a bunch of cluster-fuck politicians in the backpocket of coporate industey - but this is still the freest socity in the world.

Our limits are trivial as compared to Euorpean limits - in huge swaths of Europe saying somthig struipd like "Hitler was a nice guy and only helped free the Jews" will get you thrown in the slammer. For a long time.

Hell you can't even sell nazi crap on large chunks of Europe.

--
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by Grishnakh · 2004-01-06 07:11 · Score: 1

Haha... You really believe that the USA is the freest (sp?) society in the world? We appear to have freedoms, but in reality the freedoms that really matter are eroding daily. Try saying "bomb" in an airport now. Try making a website and posting the source to DeCSS on it. Your comment about Europe is a strawman argument; no one here claimed it to be a bastion of individual freedom.

If you want real freedom, I imagine there's other countries where there's far more freedom than here, like Russia. Of course, that comes at the cost of a crappy economy, but that's not what the discussion is about here.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by zulux · 2004-01-06 07:34 · Score: 1

Haha... You really believe that the USA is the freest (sp?) society in the world?

Yep.

America invented the Internet. Freenet. Email. Movies. Recorded Music. Satelites. PGP. Tele-phones. FAX. We are the censors worst nightmares.

Americans and Western civilisations developed the technologies that allow free flow of thoughts and ideads from anyone to anyone.

Just as Gutenberg's printing press helped spark the free echange of thoughts and ideas, the internet will do the same ten time over.

I can communicate any thought and idea to just about anyone - regardless of "laws" or "censors". I am free.

--
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Re:Is this guy an idiot? by Thuktun · 2004-01-06 10:05 · Score: 1

Then, he decides to go and pull this shit AND be vocal about it. Kid, seriously, grow up.

He has the right to choose how to spend his time. If he wants to play Don Quixote to the MPAA and RIAA giants, that's his choice. It's arrogance to declare "grow up" or "get a life" when one doesn't approve of someone else's vocation or avocation.

What's The Point? by Pave+Low · 2004-01-05 14:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

iTunes isn't available for Linux, and it probably never will ever be.

So where would a Linux user get purchased music from iTunes from? From his Windows or Mac computer. This is a what passes for win for Linux users??

It seems to be a cute exercise, but not a very useful thing, unless you hate Apple's horrific, evil DRM oh so much.

--
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.

Re:What's the point? by OutRigged · 2004-01-05 14:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not everyone likes to pirate music. Some people would love to buy a song on iTunes and be able to listen to it on Linux.

--
RaGe
We're all just noise on the wires..
Re:What's The Point? by Talez · 2004-01-05 14:28 · Score: 1

I'm hardly ever an advertiser or a believer in crazy Linux zealot excuses but there is one important and completely valid reason for this to exist.

People who have come over from Windows to Linux with a fairly large library of iTunes tracks. It would be much easier to grab the keys for their entire collection and then just use the music on their Linux box than burning and re-encoding (with subsequent quality loss).
Re:What's The Point? by jared_hanson · 2004-01-05 14:42 · Score: 1

Believe it or not, there are some of us who hate Microsoft, but at the same time enjoy having an easy to use operating system. That being said, we are also dorks who enjoy mucking with the internals of our OSs. Such people, myself included, use Linux and Mac OS X extensively. I buy music from iTMS and play it back on a Mac. Now I can play it back on Linux as well.

I can't wait to hook this into my HTPC so that I can play back all my iTMS music without first reripping to MP3, which is a lossy process but, until now, was my only option.

This is a very useful thing, congrats to Jon.

--
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
Re:What's the point? by jared_hanson · 2004-01-05 14:47 · Score: 1

Wouldn't it just be easier to download it off of Kazaa?

Well, its a lot easier for me to purchase off of iTunes Music Store. (I don't need any BS about giving money to the RIAA. I listen to what I like and that includes a lot of indie bands.)

This lets me listen to my music from whatever OS and computer I'm sitting at (I don't run Windows). It also allows my to keep my music in "pristine" condition by not doubly ripping in lossy formats.

--
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
Re:What's The Point? by plj · 2004-01-05 14:52 · Score: 1

Or, maybe you've 2 boxes, one with Mac OS X or Windows and the other with linux, and you'd like to use the Linux box as your jukebox but still shop iTMS. This is as I would do (well, theoretically - I'm European, so I can't use iTMS, and I also consider 128 kbit/s to be a rather low bitrate).

Or, may be one day you can run iTunes under Wine, but altough you can use iTMS with it, you'd rather rely on native (and more lightweight) jukebox such as JuK.

And note! All this without quality penalties of re-encoding.

--
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
Re:What's The Point? by spitzak · 2004-01-05 14:54 · Score: 1

I own an Ibook and I really don't mind that I have to use it to purchase music from iTunes. The reason I don't purchase music from them is because I cannot transfer it to my Linux box and play it there.
Re:What's the point? by spitzak · 2004-01-05 14:56 · Score: 1

Maybe because we actually think that pirating music is bad!

But, but, but, the poster sputters, Linux users are all thieves and pirates! Oh, no, your world view is being distorted! What will you do! Arrgh!!

Unfortunatley for you, many Linux users are in fact quite honest and would like to purchase things legally, if the idiots selling them would just allow it.
Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:12 · Score: 0

"Burn it to CDRW and rip the sucker again"

Yeah...start with crappy 128kb encryption (Oh wait, its APPLE encryption...its SUPERIOR!), and then turn it into a .WAV which is a shadow of the real music, and then throw away a bunch of bits AGAIN when you turn it into MP3.

And for this you pay $10 an album?

I go to amazon and buy used for $9 (shipped), and get full quality. You go to Apple (with SUPERIOR APPLE COMPRESSION!), and pay $10 for a shadow of the music that you have to decode to CDRW and then reencode into another lossy format.

I mean, did you drink some Apple Kool-Aid?

You're getting $4 of music for $10, and act like its shit from god's ass. The human race is doomed.
Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:23 · Score: 0

Yup, have iTunes on small XP partition, I purchase burn and re-rip under linux so I can use the legally purchased files in my OS of choice. What a terribly hardened criminal I am, next think you know you'll tell me it's illegal to watch DVD's I purchased under gnu/linux (tipping hat to RMS) too.
Oh...no....wait a minute....
Re:What's the point? by mr100percent · 2004-01-05 15:27 · Score: 1

Apple actually got the masters on some of the albums, and ripped them directly, not even bothering to use CD, so they get superior quality over CDs in some cases.
Re:What's The Point? by shaitand · 2004-01-05 15:29 · Score: 1

There really isn't all that much special about purchasing from itunes. Someone delved into this and examined it with the lack hack from this same gentleman in norway to attempt to crack the format.

Although then it was simply cracking the format, not allowing the files to be played on linux.

Then it was pointed out that it should be relatively easy to write a program to allow you to purchase the files but it was academic since you couldn't play them on linux.

It's not academic anymore. Now you can play them on linux.
Re:What's the point? by 0x0d0a · 2004-01-05 15:34 · Score: 1

iTunes DRM is WEAK, man. Burn it to CDRW and rip the sucker again, it's as easy as jumping over a subway turnstile. Why are we wasting time with a pointless thing like this, why not crack WMP or something harder with a better payoff?

Because the method you are advocating is lossy, and there are a lot of Linux-using folks who might like to use iTunes.

--
May we never see th
Re:What's the point? by shaitand · 2004-01-05 15:35 · Score: 1

If you've bought the song, it's not pirating. You can't copyright media, you can only copyright songs and collections of songs and lyrics. When buy something that is copyrighted, you are buying whatever is copyrighted, in this case the song. NOT the package it comes in.
Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 16:15 · Score: 0

God - America really pisses me off.
Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 17:16 · Score: 1, Funny

All I hear is "I pirate music. I understand neither encryption nor compression. I read Slashdot." Jesus.

Or maybe... by raygundan · 2004-01-05 14:01 · Score: 2, Informative

Just AAC2AAC? Only without the copy protection. That way we keep our compression loss to one generation.

Re:Does iTunes music store work under Linux anyway by exhilaration · 2004-01-05 14:02 · Score: 4, Informative

No, you need the iTunes client to play any files you buy from the iTunes store. And No, it doesn't (yet) work under Wine or CrossoverOffice.

Leave it alone by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Christ, he just barely got away with the DeCSS thing. He should keep a low profile. They know where he lives. He's advertising to be arrested again.

Re:Leave it alone by exhilaration · 2004-01-05 14:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

He's trying to play media that he legally purchased on Linux. This is exactly the argument that he used in his DeCSS defense. Until Norway passes a law making that illegal, he's perfectly safe.
Re:Leave it alone by ircShot_guN · 2004-01-05 14:22 · Score: 1

Actually, according to /.'s last story (RE the DeCSS litigation) he is on holidays.

Nice to see what some people consider a holiday; cracking file restriction algorthims.
Re:Leave it alone by plj · 2004-01-05 14:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

He's trying to play media that he legally purchased on Linux.

Really? That was the DVD-case, yes. But iTMS is not available in Norway, at least not yet. Where did he purchase those tracks from then? EBay? Yes, but... oh, wait...

Somehow, I still smell a lawsuit around here...

--
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
Re:Leave it alone by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:08 · Score: 0

You've got to hand it to him.

He got thrown off the horse, but he rolled as he hit the ground, and ended up completely free of injury. Rather than thanking his lucky stars and moving on to a desk job, he got right on the next horse.

Bravo, Jon.
Re:Leave it alone by thparker · 2004-01-05 15:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

He's trying to play media that he legally purchased on Linux.
Maybe I'm behind the times. I thought iTunes was still a U.S.-only service?
So how is Jon trying to play media on Linux that he's legally purchased when it can't be purchased in Norway? I'm just wondering.
Re:Leave it alone by /dev/trash · 2004-01-05 15:22 · Score: 1

Which is a fine arguement. Why did he release it to the public?
Re:Leave it alone by GlassHeart · 2004-01-05 15:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

He's trying to play media that he legally purchased on Linux.
He is? The iTunes Music Store is available only in the United States, and I believe he's in Norway.
(Apple uses the credit card mailing address to ensure you are in the US, but don't confuse your ability to get a US credit card with Apple having a legal right to sell you that song if you really aren't a US resident.)
Re:Leave it alone by shaitand · 2004-01-05 15:32 · Score: 1

He lost in the US. He lives in Norway, he won in Norway with DeCSS... twice.
Re:Leave it alone by 49152 · 2004-01-05 16:11 · Score: 1

"he just barely got away with the DeCSS thing."

Wrong!

He did not "just barely got away with it", in fact the courts told the prosecution that what they claim he did - is in fact perfectly legal. That does not sound like "just barely" in my ears.

Okokrim (the norwegian crime unit that investigates these kind of things) would have to be pretty thick to arrest him for a similar case when they just lost the previous case in two different courts.

Of course soon Norway and the rest of europe will ratify the new european DMCA equivalent and then this will in fact be illegal, but this has not happened yet so Jon is perfectly safe for now.
Re:Leave it alone by 49152 · 2004-01-05 16:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Depends on how he actually did it.

If all he did was point his browser at itunes.com and buy the song using his own credit card, then the norwegian courts would not give a rat's ass about Apple really not wanting to sell it to him.

Same thing goes if he bought it while actually beeing in USA (vacation or something).
Re:Leave it alone by Nucleon500 · 2004-01-05 16:39 · Score: 1

Altruism?
Also, probably to expand the precedent. It's about time the legal community recoginized that every single copying device, while it can be used to infringe copyrights, has very significant legitimate uses, and absoultely shouldn't be banned.
It will be interesting to see how he got files and keys to experiment with, however. But perhaps some interested party sent him an iTunes-laden computer from America. It's actually pretty likely, when you think about it.

--
Litigious bastards
Re:Leave it alone by localman · 2004-01-05 17:01 · Score: 1

It's amazing how many people let the fear of legal threats keep them from doing what they believe to be right. Not saying I'm much different... but it is sad how weak we all are.
Re:Leave it alone by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 17:12 · Score: 0

I would bet if he steps 2 feet in the USA he'll be arrested on the spot.
Re:Leave it alone by shaitand · 2004-01-05 17:30 · Score: 1

Probably so. When are you planning your next trip to Norway? What on earth makes you think he's any more likely to be coming here?

With the USA being a police state, and him winning in Norway I'd say it's just that much more likely someone would be wanting to go there rather than here anyway.
Re:Leave it alone by frission · 2004-01-06 02:23 · Score: 1

maybe he bought the $16,000 itunes song on ebay :)
Re:Leave it alone by Rich0 · 2004-01-06 03:29 · Score: 1

Definitely - most countries aren't big fans of the tendency of US companies to only want to sell to US citizens. Words like compulsary licensing tend to get tossed around when that happens...

Just look at DirecTV in Canada. DirecTV doesn't want to sell its product to Canadians. As a result the Canadian government makes it legal to descramble their transmissions and watch it for free...

What's the point? by mr100percent · 2004-01-05 14:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

What is the point here?
Ok, so you can play iTunes AAC files on *Nix PCs, provided you have the key. Wouldn't it just be easier to download it off of Kazaa? You can find cover art with google, and you can use SoulSeek to find high quality rips. That gets rid of two arguements right there.

iTunes DRM is WEAK, man. Burn it to CDRW and rip the sucker again, it's as easy as jumping over a subway turnstile. Why are we wasting time with a pointless thing like this, why not crack WMP or something harder with a better payoff?

Now calling Apple legal by Jon+Abbott · 2004-01-05 14:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

You know, ever since Apple has released OS X and their new sexy metallic machines (what's next? Gallium?), their legal department has been surreptitiously quiet. This development might make the "evil" side of Apple show itself again... It will be interesting to see if this development will affect their stance any on Quicktime for Linux...

--
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware

Re:Now calling Apple legal by Talez · 2004-01-05 14:30 · Score: 0

(what's next? Gallium?

Nah. The new G5s will be made of Palladium
Re:Now calling Apple legal by eXtro · 2004-01-05 14:45 · Score: 1

I don't know why this would affect their stance on Quicktime for Linux. From Apple's perspective they're looking at an expenditure of engineering resources and marketing resources to gain a slice of 5% more market share for a product that they don't really make money on. Apple itself has already said that they won't make significant money on the iTunes music store itself after paying for bandwidth and the cut for the record companies. They might sell a few more iPods but a significant portion of that 5% dual boot into Windows anyway. If they want an iPod they could've already bought one since they support MP3 anyway.

I'd like to see Quicktime for Linux, I just don't see a business case for Apple where they make more than their expenditures.

--
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
Re:Now calling Apple legal by fracex · 2004-01-05 15:36 · Score: 1

(what's next? Gallium?)

Oh, that would be good, I can see it now: "Turn down the heat, my computer case is melting".
Re:Now calling Apple legal by jpetts · 2004-01-05 17:00 · Score: 1

You know, ever since Apple has released OS X and their new sexy metallic machines (what's next? Gallium?)

Maybe, but only in places as cold as Norway: the melting point of Gallium is only 29.78 degrees Celcius...

--
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
Re:Now calling Apple legal by Lord+Kano · 2004-01-05 17:27 · Score: 1

From Apple's perspective they're looking at an expenditure of engineering resources and marketing resources to gain a slice of 5% more market share for a product that they don't really make money on.

Apple has less than 10% market share right now. Adding even half of that other 5% would be a significant gain.

I don't think that Apple will release Quicktime for Linux any time soon for the same reason that MS won't release IE for Linux. Linux is a competitor. It would add more momentum to that competitor. In the business world that would be foolish.

When Coke introduced their Vanilla variety, they didn't make a Vanilla kit that you could add to Pepsi.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by mental_telepathy · 2004-01-05 14:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

You would think they would be a little bit more understanding of those of us running "alternative" OSes.

That would be the way for apple to go if they were in it to make everyone feel good. But actually, they are in it to make money. And as you may have noticed, a lot of linux users don't like to pay for stuff. This is smart for Linux users, not so good for people trying to make money off of Linux users.

And of course, it could never be enough. port itunes to linux? Where is the Ogg Vorbis support? Got Ogg? Why doesn't it work with *insert random peice of sourceforge developed software here*

I know, nobody wants to hear that they are the prima donnas of the IT world. But I've got Karma to burn.

Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by windex82 · 2004-01-05 14:16 · Score: 1

Care to provide a study or other proof indicating I'm less likely to purchases? If anything I'm more likely to purchases something open source, Linux related or at least available for Linux as this case my be.

Id have no problem buying the cds from my favorite distro if they went that way, fortunately they don't so I don't have to pay anything. I payed for a boxed set of redhat 5 back in the day before broadband, and I'll continue purchasing things when they are easier to obtain by purchasing.

In fact the other day I was wanting to use iTunes, I would have rather payed the 99c to hear a song then have to download it a couple times to find the version that wont ruin my speakers. Unfortunately i checked out the iTunes site and found out I couldn't use it, so it was easier to download it.

Yes I know I'm just one example, but Ive got karma to burn as well =P
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by damiam · 2004-01-05 14:40 · Score: 1

Where is the Ogg Vorbis support?
Right here.

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by WindBourne · 2004-01-05 14:41 · Score: 2

That would be the way for apple to go if they were in it to make everyone feel good. But actually, they are in it to make money. And as you may have noticed, a lot of linux users don't like to pay for stuff.

SIGH. I think that you will find that Linux users are more than happy to pay for good products. Consider the loki games; I do not know of anybody who stole one of them. I, like many others, bought a number of them. In fact, had Loki managed their money better or simply started about a year later, they would probably still be around.
OTH, I do know a number of ppl on a popular platform that have no moral issue stealing software and/or movies. They rationilize it as the software company was convicted of being a monopoly and has been ripping them off for some time. Likewise the same for labels.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by WindBourne · 2004-01-05 14:43 · Score: 1

Use Walmart. They indirectly support Linux. I would guess that they just want to sell music rather than worry about politics.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by spitzak · 2004-01-05 14:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hey, I own an IBook and I would be buying ITunes right now if it was possible to play on Linux. Instead Apple has lost a sale, but I certainly use the Ibook to rip my CD's, since the resulting files do play on Linux.

Linux users are not cheap, it's just that nothing is sold for them. Your karma deserves to burn for that nasty insult.

I am employed writing $5000/copy software that is used on Linux, btw. Why are we able to sell that, when Linux users are "cheap"?
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by deadsaijinx* · 2004-01-05 14:53 · Score: 1

Downloaded three the other week. Now you know

--
YOU SUCK BALLS!
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by MoneyT · 2004-01-05 15:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

f anything I'm more likely to purchases something open source,

Do you really think apple would open the source for QT and iTunes?

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by zangdesign · 2004-01-05 15:48 · Score: 1

Yep, use Walmart and support a company that provides minimum wage jobs, low benefits, and drives out local competition. Also, check what percentage of the goods they sell are actually "Made in America".

--
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by antiMStroll · 2004-01-05 16:01 · Score: 1

"And as you may have noticed, a lot of linux users don't like to pay for stuff."
That certainly explains the massive world-wide Linux warez scene and apps "borrowed" from work. Oh wait....
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by WindBourne · 2004-01-05 16:22 · Score: 1

hummmm.
Yeah, so instead use AOL, IBM, Apple, MS, Adobe, Sun, or.... who are all 100% USA based?

Remember, this is simple reselling of music from the labels.

Personally, I would suggest going with independents, but I do understand that most ppl want the current rage.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by SlamMan · 2004-01-05 16:25 · Score: 1

I don't know anybody that bought loki games either. People usually just play their games on their win boxes or their consoles.

--
Mod point free since 2001
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 16:26 · Score: 0

yeah, based on your previous post concerning Linux, you proved the parents posting.
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by macjohn · 2004-01-05 16:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

You forget where the money is: it's in iPods, not in the music. They don't make any money on the music. But every platform they can hook to an iPod is a win. So doing a Linux port certainly doesn't hurt them and may help.

--
--Hi. I'm in Portland and it's raining. This appears to be a permanent condition.
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by ibullard · 2004-01-05 16:37 · Score: 1

Writing $5000/seat proprietary software for the movie industry doesn't make your point valid. Companies don't purchase music via iTunes, regular users do. Regular users don't purchase the software you develop, companies do.
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 16:58 · Score: 0

SIGH. I think that you will find that Linux users are more than happy to pay for good products. Consider the loki games; I do not know of anybody who stole one of them. I, like many others, bought a number of them. In fact, had Loki managed their money better or simply started about a year later, they would probably still be around. OTH, I do know a number of ppl on a popular platform that have no moral issue stealing software and/or movies. They rationilize it as the software company was convicted of being a monopoly and has been ripping them off for some time. Likewise the same for labels.

Same experience here. At work I'm the sole Linux user surrounded by a dozen Windows junkies. They are constantly copying MP3s, DVDs, software. One of them bought a scanner and a printer with a DVD tray so it can print "silkscreens". He now has a collection of several 100 pirated DVDs that look as good as the originals. None of them have paid for the Windows XP / Office XP software on their home computers and personal laptops. Nor any of their games including Playstation and Xbox games (yes they chip their consoles as well). Last week one of them was bragging about his new blackmarket satellite decoder box; these people don't know how to stop pirating.
On the other hand I've bought every Loki game. I've never pirated a single DVD or MP3. I have never pirated any software; why would I when it's already free? I'm the butt of all jokes around here because I don't pirate software. They think it's a big joke that I'm so honest.
I have a very different perspective than the original poster that "Linux users don't like to pay for stuff".
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 17:30 · Score: 0

Linux users are not cheap, it's just that nothing is sold for them. Your karma deserves to burn for that nasty insult.

you own an iBook and run linux and your saying your not cheap? haha
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by IM6100 · 2004-01-05 17:42 · Score: 1

No, it explains the almost complete absence of retail-box Linux software. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is the state of affairs at this point in time.

--
A Good Intro to NetBS
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by IM6100 · 2004-01-05 17:45 · Score: 1

Hey, Apple 'released the source' for the Darwin core of MacOS X. Which is pretty much the equivalent of Microsoft releasing the source for 'KERNEL32.DLL' (and nothing more).

--
A Good Intro to NetBS
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by phorm · 2004-01-06 04:14 · Score: 1

it's in iPods, not in the music .So doing a Linux port certainly doesn't hurt them and may help.

True for Apple, most definately. However not true for the RIAA, which for some reason already seems to equate linux users or other elites with "piracy"
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 04:35 · Score: 0

the original poster did not say that Linux users are cheap - they said a 'lot' of linux users don't like to pay for stuff (or perhaps can't afford to pay for stuff).

I certainly fell into this classification when I started using Linux (way back in '93) I couldn't afford to buy Windows and a compiler, and a word processor so I used Linux and TeX.

I would suspect that cost (coupled with the a certain amount of non-copyright infringing ethics) is a factor for a lot of linux users. Thus you have a large portion of users that won't (can't) spend money.

If nothing is sold for them how is your company selling something for them? Just wondering...
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by spitzak · 2004-01-06 05:15 · Score: 1

In '93 you could have easily gotten a copy of Windows and a copy of Microsoft Word for free, so cheapness could not be the only reason you went with Linux.

We are selling high-end special effects software. Not something the home user buys. As you may know, most special effects software is available for Linux.
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by spitzak · 2004-01-06 05:40 · Score: 1

Oh, I didn't buy a PowerBook instead, huh? I'll bet you are the same poster who asks why people buy expensive Apple stuff when PC clones are so much cheaper!

And I paid for that copy of Linux you know. Paid for 3 updates, joined Mandrake club, and paid for a subscription to LWN.
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by AstroDrabb · 2004-01-06 08:34 · Score: 1

I thought Walmart uses DRM'ed WMA files that don't work under Linux? I know that the "test" example from Walmart played fine in MPlayer, though I don't think that had any DRM.

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:I just might ruffle some feathere here.... by windex82 · 2004-01-06 10:21 · Score: 1

Shesh, at least quote what I said correctly... and I'll even bold what you chose to cut out that applies to apple in this case. The rest were just other examples of things I'm more likly to pay for.

I'm more likely to purchases something open source, Linux related or at least available for Linux as this case my be.
*NOTE* I even said that this case was for the "at least available for" part of the comment you choose to cut out and ignore.

So, if you continue reading, Apple opening the source isn't what I was getting at. I'ts making the iTunes service available to linux.

Apple's DRM is more user friendly by GerbilSocks · 2004-01-05 14:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

At least Apple's version of DRM would go virtually unnoticed by casual listeners of music. iTunes DRM was designed to deter heavy pirates, but in all fairness, their DRM scheme is the best of the bunch. There are several ways to circumvent iTunes DRM, but at least DVD Jon's implementation just means it's less of a hassle for the said casual user.

Re:Apple's DRM is more user friendly by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 17:51 · Score: 0

You are wrong. Apple's DRM deters neither "casual" nor "serious" piracy. Obviously if you want a copy, it's easy enough to burn a CD.

Apple's DRM is simply designed to make it more convenient to listen to your music only on Apple products. It has nothing to do wioth copy protection in the usual sense. This should be quite obvious from the fact that you can easily extract to AIFF or CD, but you can't transfer the original compressed stream to any non-apple but AAC-compatible product.

WMP by SJ · 2004-01-05 14:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

So if this guy is so great, has he broken Windows Media yet?

Re:WMP by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:09 · Score: 0

Microsoft already broke it. From day one.
Re:WMP by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:24 · Score: 0

Amen.
Re:WMP by Abjifyicious · 2004-01-05 15:46 · Score: 1

I believe people have already cracked the Windows Media format. I don't remember where I saw that though, so I could be wrong.
Regardless, keep in mind that the iTMS has more marketshare than every other online music store put together. Maybe he could have cracked Windows Media, but he decided to attack the iTunes DRM instead simply because it would have a greater impact.
Re:WMP by ymgve · 2004-01-06 04:59 · Score: 1

Windows Media was cracked. (search for 'freeme' on google) Then Microsoft issued a 'patch' that changed the encryption scheme, and after that nobody has cared to create a new crack.
Re:WMP by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 06:01 · Score: 0

Based on my experience with it, I had thought that Windows Media was already broken.

Wait by pHatidic · 2004-01-05 14:08 · Score: 5, Funny

So can we change his name to iTunes-Jon. Or better yet how about iDVD-Jon. Kinda catchy, actually.

Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:39 · Score: 0

Or maybe just iJon so we can pre-empt any further scheme-hacks.
Re:Wait by jafac · 2004-01-06 06:18 · Score: 1

iDVD-Jon?
Maybe if he did one or both of two things:
- Break the 90-minute limit in iDVD. (figures, just about all of my movie projects end up at around 1:45 for some reason. . . )
- Break the internal-superdrive limitation in iDVD. (not that that matters to me now, because after two years of screwing around, I finally broke down and bought a new Power Mac).

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Itunes. by DAldredge · 2004-01-05 14:08 · Score: 1, Informative

Due to a series of drive crashes I lost what music I bought from iTunes but, due to the way itunes works, I am unable to download the music again.

Why? It isn't like I bought a digital object, I just bought a string of bits.

Re:Itunes. by Have+Blue · 2004-01-05 14:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

You *did* buy a digital object. That was the original difference between Apple's store and the other DRM implementations: You have complete freedom to do anything you want with the file with the Finder. You just need authorization to use (play, burn) it in iTunes. You are free to, and Apple recommends that you, copy the file for backup purposes.
Re:Itunes. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:54 · Score: 0

Being able to re-download songs would be a nice feature to have, but I don't think Apple is obligated to do it. You should have made a backup. Your virtual house burned down. You didn't insure it. Tough luck.
Re:Itunes. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:18 · Score: 0

Why didn't you write them to CD or otherwise back them up?

Honestly, I do have some sympathy for you, but I think your loss is largely your fault.
Re:iTunes. by Abjifyicious · 2004-01-05 15:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you get in touch with Apple tech support, inform them of your plight, and politely ask them to let you redownload the songs, they will authorize your account to download new copies of the song files.
Re:Itunes. by geoffspear · 2004-01-05 15:38 · Score: 1

This is why you should make backups.

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Re:Itunes. by shaitand · 2004-01-05 15:43 · Score: 1

That's ok, what you've purchased is NOT merely a digital copy of a song, that's just the package. What you've purchased is the RIGHT to one copy of the copyrighted work, which in this case is the song. Now your perfectly legal to redownload your songs off of Kazaa, if ever questioned about it there are records proving you purchased the music.
Re:iTunes. by DAldredge · 2004-01-05 16:00 · Score: 1

I would, but for the past 36 hours I have been unable to submit the feedback from via the apple web page. I will 'unpause' my vmware sesion in the morning and try again.
Re:Itunes. by DAldredge · 2004-01-05 16:53 · Score: 1

No.

The loss is Apples. I will not buy anything else from itunes.

I keep hearing about all this Apple 'Ease of Use(tm)', but I do not see it.
Re:Itunes. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 17:15 · Score: 0

It's your loss not theirs. Do you sue HP when your hard drive dies and you lose your lifes work? No. Back your shit up and stop blaming other people. I do feel bad for you but take some responsibility please.
Re:Itunes. by Technician · 2004-01-05 17:44 · Score: 1

Unfortunately the records show he bought the DRM'ed version customised for his machine. The one on KaZa is not the same copy. It's kind of like buying a PC without the Windows install disk, but a recovery disk. Having a hard drive failure does not make it legal to use a full retail version of Windows instead of the recovery disk. It's possible the Kaza download might not stand up in court. Get a good laywer. It could go either way.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:Itunes. by shaitand · 2004-01-05 18:04 · Score: 1

No, but it DOES make it legal to use the OEM Version because that is what you purchased.

I will try this one more time, and it's certainly not what you'll hear from record or software companies.

Although they have no obligation to replace your media, the media is only part of what you purchased. You purchased the right to one copy. In the case of windows you've purchased a license which has additional restrictions which may or may not actually be valid (it has yet to be tested in a significant court). That license entitles you to an OEM version of windows running on a pc. It does NOT require you to use the original media to install it.

In the case of a song there is no license, copyright law applies, and under copyright law you are explicitly entitled to 2 copies, one of them for backup purposes. You are not neccesarily restricted to two copies. And again, no part of copyright pertains to media, it pertains to the copyrighted work. In fact if you read the copyright law, where it says you are entitled to a backup copy it lists examples of media on which this might be kept which may or may not be identical to the original media.

Media is irrelevant. The one catch is that PERFORMANCE is NOT irrelevant. Even if you consider the DRM to be part of the copyrighted work you obtained there is nothing which requires you to have the COMPLETE copyrighted work. You could have the first 30 seconds of the song and that would be ok, as long as it's the same song, from the same recording (a "live" edition is different, remixed is as well even though the same performance because the remix is a seperate work of art created using the original under it's own copyright) likewise you could have the complete song without the DRM.

If you own one of those old big black cd things, and you later buy the same album on cd (and not remixed, remastered is ok if they merely digitized the original), all you've done is bought the right to another copy that may or may not be needed (since copyright law doesn't specify beyond two copies one way or the other). You could have replaced your record with a burnt cd from a friend , again so long as it was the same recording and not covered under a different copyright.

In short, the nobody had to pay filing fees for another copyright, you don't have to pay for another copy.

P.S. Yes, windows retail and OEM versions are covered under seperate licenses, AND seperate copyrights. They are NOT the same thing. The full retail version of windows has nothing to do with your right to the OEM version which is installed on your computer.
Re:Itunes. by DAldredge · 2004-01-06 07:31 · Score: 1

No. But HP doesn't have an copy of my lifes work either.

Apple does have an identical copy sitting on their servers.

This is not ease of use, nor is it consumer friendly. As such, I will stop giving them my money.

So what's the secret? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:09 · Score: 0

So, what's the secret to iTunes DRM? What is the encryption algorithm and how are the keys stored and how did DVD-Jon figure it out? We want details! I looked at the code and it was a lot of big tables and bit twiddling code... no way for a mere mortal like me to deduce anything.

Re:Thanks for pissing in the bath water, Jon by vegetablespork · 2004-01-05 14:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's because any DRM scheme, no matter how permissive, is the camel's nose under the tent for much more intrusive schemes. Love the username, BTW.

--

Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

uhh why? by SirPhreak · 2004-01-05 14:11 · Score: 0

burn a cd --> rip to mp3

easy, simple.

don't waste your time.

--
------------------------------ SirPhreak - "It's Thinking..."

Re:uhh why? by awing0 · 2004-01-05 14:19 · Score: 1

I'll probably get modded redundant, because a million others will tell you the same thing. The AAC file is lossy compression already, by burning and ripping into mp3, you lose more quality, a lot more. Just because you put it on CD doesn't magically transform your music back into CD quality sound.

--
Cthulhu Saves.
Re:uhh why? by OutRigged · 2004-01-05 14:22 · Score: 1

Decoding from, and then re-encoding to mp3 degrades the quality of a song signifigantly. A good example of this is recompressing a jpeg file.

Save an image as a jpeg, then open that file again, saving it as bmp or png, then once again open the file, and save it as a jpeg. The new jpeg will look quite bad. The same thing happens to mp3s when they're re-encoded, or any other lossy format for that matter.

--
RaGe
We're all just noise on the wires..
Re:uhh why? by SirPhreak · 2004-01-05 14:31 · Score: 1

tushay

--
------------------------------ SirPhreak - "It's Thinking..."
Re:uhh why? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:41 · Score: 0

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=touche
Re:uhh why? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:21 · Score: 0

No! It uses SUPERIOR APPLE AAC compression which is the specialer compression! Apple said so, and listening test from a magazine I can't remember said it was better and anyway, its better than MP3. I remember reading that. And I can't tell the difference with the fantastic Apple SUPERIOR ear buds between a CD and 128kb lossy compression so of course that's what counts. But more importantly, Apple says its good enough. So that's good enough for me.
Re:uhh why? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:26 · Score: 0

looks to me like you've been 0wned

linux users pay for things? by highwaytohell · 2004-01-05 14:11 · Score: 1

This is all well and good, but you can still download mp3's for free, and as far as i know, most linux users that i know of still download mp3's and don't pay a cent. Either that or if they like the music enough, will go ahead and buy the CD. Its a nifty crack, don't get me wrong, but i doubt the majority of linux users will take a stab at it.

Re:linux users pay for things? by spitzak · 2004-01-05 14:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

I damn well would have purchases several dozen songs from Itunes if they would have played in Linux. Unfortunately they don't. And I DON'T download music because most of it is a copyright violation, and despite your narrow-minded prejudices I'm afraid you will find that I and many other Linux users are very honest and would gladly buy things legally if we could.
Re:linux users pay for things? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:04 · Score: 0

Try this or that - apparently legal, no DRM, and much more reasonably priced
Re:linux users pay for things? by highwaytohell · 2004-01-05 16:09 · Score: 1

firstly, its not a prejudice. I am sure you have downloaded mp3's. I am sure you have not paid for every last bit of music you have bought. ANd i never said that all linux users are in violation of copyright law. I said a lot of linux users do download music, just as alot buy music, just as a lot make music. I gladly buy my cd's. I know what its like to be a struggling musician, however i also know that getting your music around for free is a huge part of becoming a success, That is how Metallica gained popularity, through bootlegging. I honestly wish there were more people like you in the world, maybe i'd be able to make a living out of what i love, but the fact remains, that bootlegging/copying in all forms happens.
Re:linux users pay for things? by spitzak · 2004-01-06 05:50 · Score: 1

Actually, no, I have not downloaded any MP3's. All the ones I have have been ripped from my (and my girlfriend's) CD's on an iBook into iTunes and then rsync'd over to my Linux box.

I was interested in the iTunes music store because I could preview the music, and because I could be pretty certain that the file I downloaded would be a good copy of the complete song (this is as far as I know untrue of the file sharing networks). However the fact that the files were not MP3's is a total stopping point. Yes I immediately figured out that if I wasted 30 cents and a good deal of time I could burn a CD and re-rip them, and I figured there would be software methods to avoid the cost of the CD, but really I have no guarantee that these would work and that stopped me from ever typing my credit card info into iTunes.

The DRM is definately hurting their sales.

If this turns out to be straightforward... by ChangeOnInstall · 2004-01-05 14:13 · Score: 1, Interesting

...I'll be opening an iTunes account very soon, where previously I would not have considered it. The two primary computers where I listen to music are Linux PCs at work and at home. I'm unwilling to burn AACs to a CD and then re-encode them (with additional loss) into MP3s or Oggs.

I just hope Apple gets the message and removes all DRM from their music. At that point, I'd encourage others who do not have technical knowledge to buy music using the service as well.

I take it that it is the RIAA that mandates the DRM though and not Apple?

--
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)

Re:If this turns out to be straightforward... by pato+perez · 2004-01-05 14:26 · Score: 2, Informative

Apple can't remove DRM because that's part of their deal with the music companies. They had to fight pretty hard to get the the terms they did--which were remarkably liberal (unlimited burning to CD, not expiration, can be used on multiple computers) compared to what was available before.
It's in Apple's interest that DRM be as unrestrictive as possible, since it means more music for people to play on their iPods, which indirectly helps market their iPods. It wouldn't surprise me if they go after people who break their DRM, to maintain good faith with their music industry partners, but not because it's any skin off their nose.
Re:If this turns out to be straightforward... by GlassHeart · 2004-01-05 14:51 · Score: 1

I'm unwilling to burn AACs to a CD and then re-encode them (with additional loss) into MP3s or Oggs.
Since you don't currently have an iTunes account, have you actually tried to do this and found the quality unacceptable? Are your audio equipment and environment actually good enough for you to hear the difference?
I just hope Apple gets the message and removes all DRM from their music
It's not "their music". Apple gets the message just fine, which is why you can copy the purchased song to two other computers, stream music in the local subnet, and burn a song any number of times (just not using the same playlist more than ten times to make it more tedious).

Re:Thanks for pissing in the bath water, Jon by Gilesx · 2004-01-05 14:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah damnit! He ruined it! I was really really happy paying the same price for 0s and 1s as I would for a product that I could hold in my hands, had pretty artwork and a case and better overall sound quality. It was sooooo cool that I could only play my 0s and 1s in 3 different places - it made me feel like I was part of an "elite music club" and was much better than CDs that *anyone* can borrow and enjoy - I mean after all, music shouldn't be enjoyed by everyone, just those with money to burn, right?

Now what am I going to do? :(

--
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.

Sounds cumbersome for swapping by Bakafish · 2004-01-05 14:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

Not that I would advocate such use. But this requires the key to be distributed with each file. Keep in mind that said key is *known* by apple, and directly tied to your account, it isn't something I would recommend sending out into the wild. On the other hand, using it on your own equipment to get around that creepy three machine registration limit seems like a good thing. If anything ever happened to Apple and your registered machine bit the dust, being able to back up a valid copy of your key seems like a good thing.

The thing is that AFAIK VLC isn't set up to manage multiple key+file pairs. So it is useful for *your* library, but not various files downloaded off the net. For that reason, I doubt they will go after him.

My question is, how does the iPod decrypt the file without a key? Or is it simply using the parent boxes key? It seems to me that if that's the case it should be trivial to recover the key from an iPod directly, no PC required (Just a Mac :-)

Re:Sounds cumbersome for swapping by Wesley+Felter · 2004-01-05 15:56 · Score: 1

But this requires the key to be distributed with each file.

Nope; you could strip the DRM when you serve the file. How long will it be until P2P file sharing apps have this feature built in?
Re:Sounds cumbersome for swapping by Bakafish · 2004-01-05 17:07 · Score: 1

But that's not what this software does. He has another program that pulls the unencrypted AAC file out of a Windows PC's memory, and dumps it raw to a headerless (not directly playbackable) file. But that is real cicumvention, and would be unlikely to be integrated into any software that had DMCA exposure. It is important to note that the actual encryption used by Apple has not yet publicly been compromised.
Re:Sounds cumbersome for swapping by slim · 2004-01-05 23:35 · Score: 1

My question is, how does the iPod decrypt the file without a key? Or is it simply using the parent boxes key? It seems to me that if that's the case it should be trivial to recover the key from an iPod directly, no PC required (Just a Mac :-)

Hypothesising here, but maybe the transfer from desktop to iPod is not simply a file transfer, but a decrypt-and-transfer: i.e. the music files are not encrypted by the time they reach the iPod.
Re:Sounds cumbersome for swapping by Abjifyicious · 2004-01-06 10:50 · Score: 1

That's what I originally suspected myself, but I later found that it's not true. If you pull the song back off of the iPod after the transfer, it's still encrypted.

THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION by exhilaration · 2004-01-05 14:15 · Score: 3, Funny

We must immediately invade Norway and effect a REGIME CHANGE in order to prevent any future threat to this great country. GOD BLESS AMERICA.

- Dubya

Re:THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:34 · Score: 0

Ah. Slashdot wit.
Re:THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION by shaitand · 2004-01-05 15:08 · Score: 1

NO NO NO, first we have to bomb Norway for 10yrs, the bigger more expensive and essential the buildings the better.

Of course we have to buy more bombs to replace the ones used during these 10yrs and bombs aren't cheap, that should help the economy. But while in our benevolent fashion we have control of this evil country after we do invade we can sell their natural resources and out of the kindness of our hearts setup contracts using the funds from the sale with US contracters and suppliers to rebuild everything we've been bombing for 10yrs!!! Woot, plan in advance to get us out of the next recession. Let's go again boys!
Re:THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 17:11 · Score: 0

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Re:Does iTunes music store work under Linux anyway by robwills · 2004-01-05 14:16 · Score: 1

Just use a gift certificate... there are plenty of sellers on eBay. It's not such a ripoff, especially for the convenience.

This is dangerous ground we tread on by grioghar · 2004-01-05 14:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

On one side of the coin, this is definately great news for everyone not running Windows or OS X who still want to listen to their DRM'd AAC files. Now, there is some portability to these files, and the ability to cue them up in VLC.

On the flipside, when some music industry execs look at this and wonder why they can't control their content, there are a number fingers going to be point at the OSS community because of it.

Where do we draw the line at control? The **AA industries wants to control their content, and we (I use "we" very loosely) want to have control over that which we've purchased. But who truly owns the bits? A series of 1s and 0s? Who's allowed to make the rules?

I know who I WANT to make the rules, me, of course. But I also know who legally gets to make the rules at this point. Them. I don't want the music industry to get pissed off and take my iTunes away. I've found a legal, beneficial means to aquire my music. I want MORE options, not less because of wary industry execs who don't want to have their content cracked.

And let's not even bring the DMCA into the picture here...

--
Can you ping me now? Gooood! | Manhappenin.Net - Things to do

Re:This is dangerous ground we tread on by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:29 · Score: 0

it's not dangerous..it sends a message.

"if you make a linux version, your shit's a lot less likely to get hacked"

the decss was primarily to play dvd's on linux..

this is to play itunes on linux....

so....make a linux version..or we'll crack it so we can make our own.

someone might actually figure this out.
Re:This is dangerous ground we tread on by base3 · 2004-01-05 14:56 · Score: 1

Actually, the message it sends is "If you make a Windows version, your shit's a lot more likely to get hacked."

--
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Re:This is dangerous ground we tread on by shaitand · 2004-01-05 15:54 · Score: 1

You know what happens if the music industry keeps coming up with new protections and they keep getting rampantly cracked no matter what they do in what arena, be it legal, technical or otherwise?

Eventually, they'll give up. It's expensive developing technical measures, or buying them, it's expensive taking 12yr olds to court. It's expensive having the worst reputation of ALL ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIES. It's very very expensive.

At some point it becomes more expensive than their percieved losses. At some point they either bury themselves with these expenses paving the way for the destruction of their obsolete models and for new players who aren't intersted in repeating their mistakes. Or they just give the hell up. The expense is already causing them to give way and that's why we are seeing things like iTMS. Does this mean we should let it drop there?

In case you haven't noticed, copyright issues are raised every few years, just far enough apart to make it seem a new fight. And everytime we settle somewhere inbetween, but that somewhere inbetween is always a little bit in the wrong direction, more restrictions, less freedom, less rights for the people. At what point did we decide that compromise didn't mean things being a little MORE free rather than a little LESS free?
Re:This is dangerous ground we tread on by localman · 2004-01-05 17:08 · Score: 1

I want MORE options, not less because of wary industry execs who don't want to have their content cracked.

I hear you -- but I think it's kinda funny how we're scared of them. They're the ones that should be scared. Corporations exist to make money by providing people a product or service that they are willing to pay for. We humans don't need a justification to exist, they do. We are the ones in charge.

However it all got turned on it's head somewhere and the average American seems to think that the corporations are the citizens with rights, and we are just consumers. We better hope they're kind to us! We better not complain and upset them or they'll stop being so nice!

I wonder how and when that change in thinking took place... I wonder how it could be turned around?

Cheers.
Re:This is dangerous ground we tread on by Gobiner · 2004-01-05 20:16 · Score: 1

Who makes the rules? Our legislature makes the rules. If you want to make the rules, tell your legistlator what you think the rules should be. I can't say if this approach works (I'm cynical when it comes to our law making system) but that's how it's supposed to work.
Re:This is dangerous ground we tread on by TiggsPanther · 2004-01-05 21:54 · Score: 1

On the flipside, when some music industry execs look at this and wonder why they can't control their content, there are a number fingers going to be point at the OSS community because of it.

Where do we draw the line at control? The **AA industries wants to control their content, and we (I use "we" very loosely) want to have control over that which we've purchased. But who truly owns the bits? A series of 1s and 0s? Who's allowed to make the rules?

It's an interesting set of questions, but one that would make sense if the Industries just took a closer look at things.

They can't control their content because (most of...) the programmers are on "the other side".
And as to who owns the bits? - well that's a tricky question. But in this age of worms, viruses, malware, and OS holes and exploits, I know full well that I prefer to have final say on how the 1s and 0s run on my machine.

It was fine when entertainment only came on physical media, and could only play on standalone players. Sure, some "restrictions" were still annoying, but in a way you were stuck with it.
These days it's data, and it's on computers. And the Industry doesn't seem to realise that it's suddenly a completely different ballgame. People like to decide how things work on their machines. Especially the geek-types.

The average User merely prefers to have the choice on who things work. The techie often tends to demand it. And many of them have the technical knowhow to crack, reverse-engineer, and similarly work around any restrictions placed by a third party.
Especially seeing that the restrictions tend to carry extra overheads. For me it's not that the DRM stops me being able to "share" files, or download them on P2P, or whatever. It's the fact that you get tied to one player, or one platform.

Now if there were legitimate codecs with legitimate ways of using your keys in any player you choose, and on any OS then they'd reduce the amount of people desperate to crack it. There's always be someone, but there'd be less of them. 'Cos if your "secure filetype-X" would play out of the box on anything going, you'd have less people looking for a way around it.
Tiggs

--
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
Re:This is dangerous ground we tread on by carou · 2004-01-05 23:25 · Score: 1

Eventually, they'll give up

No they won't. They will not stop unless they actually go bust.

iTunes encryption was about as permissive as it gets. Now that's broken, the media companies will naturally start pushing a more restrictive system. Eventually, there will be hardware-based DRM with legal backing to enforce its inclusion in all end-user machines. The technology already exists, and iDVD Jon pulling this kind of stunt will only spur the government into getting it adopted. He is hastening the death of the general purpose computer.
Re:This is dangerous ground we tread on by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 02:43 · Score: 0

this is definately great news for everyone not running Windows or OS X who still want to listen to their DRM'd AAC files.

Here's a question... if you're not running OS X or Windows, how did you get ahold of those DRM-AACs?
Re:This is dangerous ground we tread on by kalgen · 2004-01-06 04:00 · Score: 1

I don't want the music industry to get pissed off and take my iTunes away. I've found a legal, beneficial means to aquire my music. I want MORE options, not less because of wary industry execs who don't want to have their content cracked.

Two hundred years ago, people in this country were willing to die to defend their freedoms and rights. These days, people are unwilling to even sacrifice their music.

I guess that just shows how much even slashdotters care about such things. Good luck getting Joe Average to do so!
Re:This is dangerous ground we tread on by shaitand · 2004-01-06 06:26 · Score: 1

iTunes was NOT and IS NOT as permissive as it gets, as permissive as it gets is no DRM. If the RIAA won't stop until they actually go bust, the answer is for us to not stop until they go bust either. It's not like their existance is beneficial in some way.

Now that's it's broken the media companies may push a more restrictive system, and then that system will be broken as well and so on and so forth until they do go bust or give up.

Hardware based DRM may or may not be pushed through, it faces some serious oposition from alot of big business as well as little guy players. The hardware manufacturers don't want to do it, and the RIAA will be in for a fight when it fights the likes of Dell, IBM, Apple who have some serious lobbying power and lots of money in their pockets.

If it is pushed through there will be a black market and contraband, music will STILL be pirated and nonpirated versions will be out. There will cracks to bypass the hardware DRM as well. It's not as if their techs are brighter than the rest of the world you know. Their technical capabilities do not exceed those of the hackers and crackers of the world united, trying to restrict copying via technical measures is a losing battle.

Eventually they will wither away or accept that they must protect their copyrights with the law and not technology, thier attempts at vigilante technological enforcement will fail, just like those of every other copyright holder who has walked that street and just like all their attempts to date.

It is NOT inevitable they will win.
Re:This is dangerous ground we tread on by WM_NCDESTROY · 2004-01-07 12:26 · Score: 1

If you're really curious about how and when corporations acquired all the rights (and none of the responsibilities) of people, there's a good article which talks about that(in the context of a more recent case) here:

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Also wikipedia has a comprehensive article on the subject:
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

This is, to my mind, one of the worst things that happened in the 19th century. It paved the way for a lot of the problems we encounter today with corporations controlling everything. As for how it could be turned around, your guess is as good as mine. (a good start would be to get rid of Bush and his cronies, but don't think the Dems are much better when it comes to this subject, they know which side their bread is buttered on)

--
posted via satellite

Sticking it in their face by OYAHHH · 2004-01-05 14:18 · Score: 0

Now,

That's what I call sticking it in the entertainments industry's face.

Obviously DVD Jon has just been waiting to stick it to whom-ever he can.

"I've just been acquited, I think I'll yank their chains again".

--
Caution: Contents under pressure

Slightly Off Topic... by Luke+the+Obscure · 2004-01-05 14:19 · Score: 5, Funny

I can't wait until all Slashdot comments are nothing but long strings of esoteric acronyms.

Re:Slightly Off Topic... by leviramsey · 2004-01-05 14:50 · Score: 1

I can't wait until all Slashdot comments are nothing but long strings of esoteric acronyms.

ROFL DOFL WOFL.
Re:Slightly Off Topic... by Maserati · 2004-01-05 14:54 · Score: 1

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

--
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Re:Slightly Off Topic... by Thing+1 · 2004-01-05 16:28 · Score: 1

ICWUASCANBLSOEA

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:Slightly Off Topic... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 20:38 · Score: 0

You leave Electronic Arts out of this. The fact that YOU can't be bothered to run hardware that shouldn't be in a dumpster is no reason for THEM to bend over backward to code in an '80s language. THEY'RE not locking you out -- YOU'RE locking you out.

And very funny about posting in an acronym, someone hand this guy a fucking medal.
Re:Slightly Off Topic... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 06:21 · Score: 0

stfu noob

Re:Does iTunes music store work under Linux anyway by Nailer · 2004-01-05 14:19 · Score: 1

No, you need the iTunes client to play any files you buy from the iTunes store.

Well, apparently not any more: now I can also use VideoLAN as well as the iTunes client. What I'm asking is, can I download stuff from the iTms using software other than iTunes?

Why? by hayden · 2004-01-05 14:20 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You would think they would be a little bit more understanding of those of us running "alternative" OSes.

You make the mistake a lot of people do with regards to Apple. Through expensive ad campains Apple have managed to implant this image of a cool, hip, happening, free thinking company.

In actual fact they are the very picture of an evil corporation. They are just as bad as MS or IBM in it's day but they got the crap kicked out of them. Rather than learning from this (as IBM and SGI seem to) they've gone the cynical, rationalist way.

Expect Apple to sue or get DVD Jon imprisoned.

--
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.

Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:06 · Score: 0

Ever interviewed with Apple... Know someone that works there?

you would know that the company is not built like others. The management chain and the worker chain communicate very effectively. ideas are encouraged from the lil guy who works at the Apple store to Steve Jobs. Don't criticize Apple for "possibly* wanting to protect *their* format. If I leave my door open to my house... that doesn't give you the right to come in and take my iPOD.

And this leads me to another point... Why is it that all these companies are evil? They are out to make money. I will never argue with Apple trying to take money. As long as I feel that I got a good deal then I am happy. With Linux... I sadly did not feel I got a great deal... I ended up less productive because of an over-abundance of options. Apple gives me UNIX, an eye-candy GUI, and very usable Apps. Thank you Apple for making my life(on the computer) productive again.
Re:Why? by 0x0d0a · 2004-01-05 15:41 · Score: 1

Rather than learning from this (as IBM and SGI seem to) they've gone the cynical, rationalist way.

I agree with all of your post except the bit about SGI learning from their mistakes. Last I heard, SGI had finished going through the meat grinder and was simply lying limply on the coutertop. Has this changed?

--
May we never see th

Transcoding is BAD. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:22 · Score: 0

Hasn't anyone told you?

Irony? by Mattwolf7 · 2004-01-05 14:22 · Score: 1

25 June 2003 - VLC runner up for Apple Design Award 2003

Apple gave them a design award...

Also I noticed Videolan Web Stats Only the 5th day of January

December Hits: 21144279
January Hits: 10434135

Already half of last months traffic!

Re:Irony? by Sam+H · 2004-01-05 21:03 · Score: 1

Already half of last months traffic!

That is mostly because of the VLC 0.7.0 release.

--
God, root, what is difference ?
Re:Irony? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 21:56 · Score: 0

They did a new release (vlc 0.7) January 3rd.

Ever been to Norway? by filtersweep · 2004-01-05 14:23 · Score: 1

Workers have ten times the rights as US workers. They have all sorts of odd holidays (like Ascension Day) in addition to the regular ones. I was just there over Christmas for a few weeks, and it seemed many people have about 2 weeks off- not to mention sabbaticals, 6 weeks vacation, STD (short term disablity) for stubbed toes... and taxes... did I mention taxes?

--

Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.

Re:Ever been to Norway? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:56 · Score: 0

Workers have ten times the rights as US workers. They have all sorts of odd holidays (like Ascension Day) in addition to the regular ones. I was just there over Christmas for a few weeks, and it seemed many people have about 2 weeks off- not to mention sabbaticals, 6 weeks vacation, STD (short term disablity) for stubbed toes... and taxes... did I mention taxes?

Well ... all of that would certainly explain why Norway isn't on the International Business Radar.
Re:Ever been to Norway? by _Sprocket_ · 2004-01-05 14:58 · Score: 1

Well ... all of that would certainly explain why Norway isn't on the International Business Radar.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. After all, China is. And that is no worker's paradise (propoganda aside).
Re:Ever been to Norway? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:36 · Score: 0

> Norway isn't on the International Business Radar.

They are. They have oil.

But I'm sure they spend much of their six week vacations worrying that they don't have the opportunity to work in sweatshops making substandard walmart clothing for impoverished Americans.
Re:Ever been to Norway? by lewp · 2004-01-05 15:39 · Score: 1

Norway sure sounds like a nice place. If only it were real...

--
Game... blouses.
Re:Ever been to Norway? by 49152 · 2004-01-05 15:58 · Score: 1

>Norway sure sounds like a nice place. If only it were real... Well, our taxes are very real ;-)
Re:Ever been to Norway? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 02:35 · Score: 0

> I'm not sure that's a bad thing. After all, China is. And that is no worker's paradise (propoganda aside).

exactly. nor Taiwan, India, Mexico, Bangladesh, etc., etc.

It's fun to blindly promote unfettered man-eat-man capitalism, so long as you don't have to live with all of its effects.
Re:Ever been to Norway? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 14:30 · Score: 0

Turns out treating people well isn't such a stupid proposition. Norway's productivity is the highest in the world -- GDP per person per hour is higher than in the US.

One of the problems with living in the US is that we get a really distorted picture of what works. I've lived in Europe and the US and life is generally much nicer in Europe. (I'm not complaining -- there are lots of good things in this country, but the "we're the best in the world" syndrome is way off target.)

An important part of this is that the law is not in the pocket of a rich elite. So the little guy gets to play his DVD using whatever equipment he pleases. I'll trade that for having my tax money go to missiles and "homeland security" any day.

Cheers,
Dave

Agreed by L10N · 2004-01-05 14:24 · Score: 1

It is odd to me that with iTunes Apple has made it available to their historic "cross-town rivalvy" and yet have not made iTunes available for use in some other OSes. You'd think they'd even have packages for .deb's and .rpm's.

And how ironic would be it they decided that there wasn't enough linux users to be worth the effort. You'd think they would have hard feelings about that sort of thing.

--
"What we do in life echoes in eternity." Maximus Decimus Meridius

Re:Agreed by ceejayoz · 2004-01-05 15:02 · Score: 1

Apple has an incentive to make iTunes for Mac - it's one of the incentives to buy a Mac, plus iPod sales. Thus, they make money.

Apple has an incentive to make iTunes for Windows - it's a huge market to sell iPods to.

Apple has little to no incentive to make iTunes for Linux - similar / smaller market share than Apple, so they're not gonna make much selling them iPods.

They're a company that's in it to make money, not promote an ideology.

LOL! er... stfu. n/t by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:24 · Score: 0

PCMCIA

Re:LOL! er... stfu. n/t by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:36 · Score: 0

EIEIO.

Re:Does iTunes music store work under Linux anyway by Nailer · 2004-01-05 14:25 · Score: 0

OT: I'm not sure why the parent is marked as informative. Though I'm grateful for his answer, he apparently didn't actually read the article, not did he answer my question.

Oh boo hoo, you retard by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:28 · Score: 0

"Due to a series of drive crashes I lost what music I bought from iTunes but, due to the way itunes works, I am unable to download the music again."

And while taking a hit off your bong, you fumble fingered your CD and scratched it and it wont play no mo'. Oh poor you. Well just call up Universal or subpop and have them send you a new CD. ...oh wait because of the way reality works they wont send you the music again.

Just consider it a lesson learned. At least its EASY and legal to back up a digital AAC file.

put down your bong.

Re:Grab the files! by ydrol · 2004-01-05 14:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Quick, get the files before Apple C&D's VideoLAN!!!! No rush. Thats what p2p is for !!

Re:I hope it has DMA restrictions... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:28 · Score: 0

Do you commonly respect other people's opinions and wishes? Bad habit, that.

Feh... by Big+Sean+O · 2004-01-05 14:34 · Score: 1

Apple's deal with the labels had to include DRM. I'm guessing Jobs doesn't care if it gets cracked, especially when I've read that iTMS only exists to get people to buy iPods (which is on par with Gillette giving away the razors to sell the blades...).

I mean, consider how easy it is to copy MP3s off someone else's iPod: Mount the iPod, open the hidden folder on the iPod drive with terminal (IIRC, it's plain old directory that starts with a period), and hey presto, start draggin' folders. How simple is that?

Apple's Legal team is probably spending more time worrying about Apple Record's law suit. Sosumi indeed...

--
My father is a blogger.

Re:Feh... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:22 · Score: 0

Jobs is, I believe, on the record as saying that he believes DRM has no future.

Re:Article text by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:37 · Score: 0

Exclusive Norwegian programmer

What's this phrase supposed to mean? He eschews C or Python, and only programs in Norwegian? (Heck, I didn't even know there was a compiler for it.) Or maybe they meant he only programs, and never does anything else? Or he refuses to program if he happens to be outside of Norway? (Maybe not a bad idea, considering his legal situation.) Or he just refuses to talk to l4m3rZ?

Did they mean "reclusive"? Or was it supposed to be a superlative, like "excellent" or "bitchin'"?

Maybe DVD John sould just move into a courthouse n by aardwolf204 · 2004-01-05 14:38 · Score: 1, Funny

Maybe DVD John sould just move into a courthouse now

--
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al

Linux is steady by thufir · 2004-01-05 14:38 · Score: 1

Your linked stats unfortunately don't tell the same tale you just did.

All that those numbers show is that linux has remained at 1% from the beginning of your links all the way to the end.

This number has remained steady. Steady != Dying.

Because the exact number is not known, and the value presented is ~ rounded to 1%, the data you provided is useless for either side of this argument.

BTW: IE 5.5 & 6 work fine under crossover-office (and most probably under any recent version of wine). This nullifies your other numbers/argument.

Have a nice day troll :P

Re:Does iTunes music store work under Linux anyway by damiam · 2004-01-05 14:43 · Score: 1

No. At least, not as yet.

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.

For a laugh search for Jenny on iTunes by Stonent1 · 2004-01-05 14:44 · Score: 1

Do a search on iTunes for "Jenny" (you know... 867-5309) You'll see the Governator on one album cover. It is an old work out CD. Listen to a few samples. I was cracking up. "Now strech...KEEP YOUR ARMS STRAIGHT! And 1 and 2 and DON'T ARCH YOUR BACK!)

Re:OT: WTF?? by Jon+Abbott · 2004-01-05 14:46 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Heh... Even your sig has an acronym in it!

--
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware

Re:I hope it has DMA restrictions... by benjamindees · 2004-01-05 14:46 · Score: 1

respect... the fact that they dont want their stuff to be played on linux. Is that so hard for some people?

Yes.

--
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"

This is the perfect time. by stuartkahler · 2004-01-05 14:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'd bet he started working on the iTMS project a long while ago. He's just been acquitted twice for doing the same thing with DVD encryption. Now that he has rock solid precedent, he can practically walk into court without a lawyer if the recording industry sues him. He's got a great big whoop-ass stick, and it's time to use it.

In Norway, that is... Americans are still screwed.

Re:This is the perfect time. by rune.w · 2004-01-05 15:31 · Score: 1

[...]Now that he has rock solid precedent[...]

Sorry dude, but I think you're a bit wrong here. Cases like this one don't become precedent till they reach the Supreme Court, which didn't happen. Some lawyer with enough nerve can start a new lawsuit against him on a similar basis and get a completely opposite verdict. True, it is more likely that a judge may consider the precedent previous acquital, but s/he would not be obliged to.

Precedent: maybe. Rock solid: far from it. Still, I wouldn't go to the U.S. if I were him.
R.

Re:Article text by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 14:48 · Score: 0

Every song on iTunes Music Store has been available on the Peer to Peer networks within four hours. All the DRM does is frustrate legitimate consumer

I never got this line of logic. I have 3 Macs, a PowerMac at home and work, and a PowerBook for the road, I also have an iPod. Having a laptop makes it easy to mirror my music files to all three.

I've bought 153 songs from iTMS, and not once have a said CURSE YOU DRM, now have have to burn an music CD first. The DRM on iTMS is very non restrictive. I can burn songs for firends, I can burn songs for myself. I can play it on all my Macs.

If the RIAA forces Apple to include commercials, what excuses will the Mac zealots come up with? 'It's a good compromise'?

Nod, I just hate those CDs filled with commericals.

These terms may be tightened at any time, Johansen himself noted recently.

Or they may be expanded at anytime.

Wasn't me by The+Tyro · 2004-01-05 14:50 · Score: 5, Funny

making it more accessible to the tyro

I had nothing to do with it... I wasn't there... you can't prove anything.

--
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.

no way to preserve full-quality without retaining by way2trivial · 2004-01-05 14:54 · Score: 1

um-- what if you kept the wav?
it can be done- it just sucks

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random

DVD-Jon Breaks iTunes Encryption For PUBLICITY by ayersrj · 2004-01-05 14:54 · Score: 1

It's getting to be a bit blatant that he does this simply for publicity now. It's not like Apple's DRM is that restrictive. Just burn to a cd, and rip. It's the way to back up files anyhow.

He's not doing it for Linux like he said he was for DVD, that's obvious because he tried on Windows first... In fact, I wonder if he was even decoding DVD's for Linux now a days.

I wish we could try that here by SHEENmaster · 2004-01-05 14:55 · Score: 1

He's just trying to prove that he has the right to do this. I may not be a norwegian lawyer, but I suspect that having the supreme court of Norway declare this not a crime is the only way that the legal right to play media that you own.

The answer is not to keep a low profile, that's equivalent to surrender. He did nothing wrong, and he needs to secure the rights of others to do the same thing before it's too later.

--
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.

Re:Does iTunes music store work under Linux anyway by Jaysyn · 2004-01-05 15:03 · Score: 1

If you import mp3s into your library are they no longer mp3s?

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.

We now go to a live interview by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:06 · Score: 0

Interviewer: "DVD" Jon, you were just cleared AGAIN. What are you going to do now?

Jon: I'm going to break more proprietary encryption schemes!

I love... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:06 · Score: 0

I love watching Apple fanatics gnash their teeth and moan about "Ooooooh, this will RUUUUUIN iTunes".

Its like watching a circus under the tent.

Does Apple really care? by crunchly · 2004-01-05 15:08 · Score: 1

I thought I heard that the iTunes Music Service wasn't really making much money for Apple and that it's real value is to sell more iPods. If that is the case, does it affect Apple at all? It seems that for most people, iPods will still be a desirable product, partly because of the associated iTunes Music Service and its ease of use.

In any case, I imagine that Apple will have to do something about it as they will surely be under pressure from the RIAA.

Re:Does Apple really care? by 0x0d0a · 2004-01-05 15:25 · Score: 1

Mmm...I dunno. Keep in mind that Apple spends marketing money and at least some money running, administering, and expanding the service. Even if the service is break even, it's better than losing money.

I suspect that you're right that the RIAA (well, member publishing companies) make out like bandits on the deal.

--
May we never see th

Re:Does iTunes music store work under Linux anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:10 · Score: 0

Grip and beep

[Insert joke about lonely geeks and Ellen Feiss here]

balls by MrSpiff · 2004-01-05 15:10 · Score: 3, Funny

"this guy got balls the size of dorian fruit" - some guy in Freedom Downtime

mp3 players by krokodil · 2004-01-05 15:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

I bought portable mp3 player (not iPod) just to discover that I could not send to it melodies I've purchased via iTunes.

So apple wants me do buy iPod. But it is too expensive for my daughter (I got her now $140 player with 256Mb RAM).

So I hope, some day there will be program to unlock
my purchased AAC files to be able to listed then on my mp3 player. I think this is fair use and should be permitted!

Re:mp3 players by Mikeydude750 · 2004-01-05 15:53 · Score: 0

Actually...the AAC won't limit you from copying the file to the player...but rather, the player won't support AAC.

As for "unlocking" it...you can always burn it to a CD, if you're willing to take the quality loss(but when you convert it to an MP3, you can minimize the damage by ripping to 320 kbps[or however high your MP3 player will go])...
Re:mp3 players by uberdood · 2004-01-06 01:45 · Score: 1

Too expensive? Let's do some math. Your daughter's player holds 256 MB of data. Cost $140. My player holds 40 GB of data. Cost $449. Your player cost 54 cents per meg. My player cost 11 cent per meg. I submit your player is too expensive on a per meg basis.

--
"Population 1,656"
Re:mp3 players by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 10:17 · Score: 0

I submit that your player is too expensive on a per battery replacement basis.

Native client for Linux by SnapperHead · 2004-01-05 15:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can't understand why Apple doesn't port iTunes to Linux. If that where the case, I would use it more then I do now. Its a pain in the ass having to reboot just to do it.

--
until (succeed) try { again(); }

Re:Native client for Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

Apple and other companies like them don't release software to linux because of people like DVD-Jon. All they see of the community are people who are willing to break into software in order to save a buck and then claim that they are doing it in the name of freedom. Until the Linux community stops behavior like DVD-Jon's, software like iTunes will never be available.

Besides, as it has been said before. Why try to sell software on Linux when someone will just write a free version. In a community where most people use the OS because it is free, which software program do you think will be more popular?
Re:Native client for Linux by lpontiac · 2004-01-05 17:05 · Score: 1

I can't understand why Apple doesn't port iTunes to Linux.

Just a wild guess: they don't believe the profit would be greater than the cost.
Re:Native client for Linux by SnapperHead · 2004-01-06 08:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Apple and other companies like them don't release software to linux because of people like DVD-Jon. All they see of the community are people who are willing to break into software in order to save a buck and then claim that they are doing it in the name of freedom. Until the Linux community stops behavior like DVD-Jon's, software like iTunes will never be available.

I agree for the most part, breaking the encryption doesn't help. However, how is someone supposed to develop a free source version if no other company is going to ? Sure, its in the name of freedom. I want to make x work with y. The best example I can think of, is take a VCR and a TV, both of which have different adapaters and don't work together. You make your own cable to connect them . Those 2 products where never intended to work together, but what should stop you from tring or doing it ? You OWN those 2 products, they are yours. You have the freedom to do what you choose . (Within reason, I mean, just becuase you own that shovel, it doesn't give you the right to smack someone in the head with it) If you legally purchased an ACC song, why can't you make it work in a OS that doesn't support it. I am not talking about giving it to all your friends, you personally.

Besides, as it has been said before. Why try to sell software on Linux when someone will just write a free version. In a community where most people use the OS because it is free, which software program do you think will be more popular?

I use Linux for a number of reasons. Free, being the first and general reason. Open source, in my book this is important. If something doesn't work, I can in theory fix it. Better overall security, people are ALWAYS looking through the source code tring to find a way to break it. Things tend to get fixed quicker this way.

Just becuase there is a free version of xyz app, doesn't mean that I will use it. I have bought MANY Linux apps in the past. Kylix vs kdevelop is a much different world. Kylix works very well, and worth the purchase. (Too many they don't make it anymore)

Linux is gaining a lot of new ground everyday. You can walk into wal-mart and buy a cheap Linux based computer. Why should those people not be able to use iTunes ?

Here is a good example ... why should anyone buy MS office ? Open office is a free download.

--
until (succeed) try { again(); }

Nope by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:15 · Score: 0

"iTunes DRM was designed to deter heavy pirates"

EEEEEEYK! WRONG.

iTunes does nothing to deter "heavy" pirates because they go to the store and buy the CD and then make copies.

iTunes is meant to deter casual piracy. Or do you think the Mob lines up with their powerbooks and says "Hey Luigi! Download the latest Matchbox20 album and then we'll use dis norwegian ding to do some heavy pirating!!"

Think it through, junior.

Re:Nope by GerbilSocks · 2004-01-05 16:13 · Score: 0

"iTunes does nothing to deter "heavy" pirates because they go to the store and buy the CD and then make copies." Not all songs listed on iTunes are available in stores or even on CD, for example iTunes/AOL Sessions or Exclusive tracks. "iTunes is meant to deter casual piracy." How does allowing unlimited CD burns not apply here? Seems with casual piracy, you can make as many copies as you want. What Apple does is to limit CD burns to no more than 10 CDs per playlist, so the profiteering pirate cannot make more than 10 CDs each time without having to rearrange the playlist. Think it through, junior.
Re:Nope by Nucleon500 · 2004-01-05 16:34 · Score: 1

If Exclusive tracks aren't available in stores, then they provide a good way to measure "heavy piracy." I won't check, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find these Exclusive tracks on P2P networks. iTunes, in its present form, doesn't deter any kind of piracy at all. Think it through.
I think the reason the RIAA allowed iTunes to exist was to build infrastructure and public acceptance for DRM. Now there's tons of hardware and software that can support DRM, and even on Slashdot there are people defending it. Suffice it to say that I personally view this as a bad thing.

--
Litigious bastards
Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 00:32 · Score: 0

Don't tell these guys... they think if Apple does it, its "special".

Microsoft is doing the same exact thing and they're "evil".

Re:Does iTunes music store work under Linux anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:16 · Score: 0

iTunes doesn't change the format of anything unless you tell it to, so they're still MP3s if that's what you imported. If you go to Advanced and click "convert to AAC", then they'll no longer be MP3s (though I don't think it actually deletes the original MP3), but otherwise they stay the same.

punishing innovation by jwachter · 2004-01-05 15:20 · Score: 1

I wonder when the Slashdot community will come to its senses on this issue. Apple created an extremely useful, innovative and (for all its flaws) flexible way for us to purchase music we like online. What is our response? To lionize an individual who will doubtless make it more difficult for Apple and others to create similar innovations in the future. When Apple (or some other company) shops the idea of an "iTunes Movie Store" to the studios, they'll point to the broken AAC DRM, say "These systems are inherently insecure." and perhaps walk right out of the room.

The fact is that, if it weren't for @ssholes like Johansen GOING OUT OF THEIR WAY to screw up legitimate business plans, these systems would DEFINITELY be secure enough.

So, thanks DVD-Jon, for making cheap, flexibile digital media sales even more difficult for innovative companies to make a reality.

Jonathan

Re:punishing innovation by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 16:57 · Score: 0

Apple seems very eager to take advantage of open source software all the time but doesn't support Linux for ANY of their desktop end user applications. I, for one, fully support any effort by Apple, or otherwise, to support Linux for these so-called "innovative" applications. Good work Jon.
Re:punishing innovation by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 17:09 · Score: 0

What Jon has done is a victory for fair use. Every blow that the pay music sites take brings us one step closer to a day when the RIAA doesn't exist, and artists sell their own music.

http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/index.html

The smart people don't buy DRM'd crippled crap that the current music sites sell. But if you are using iTunes, you should be able to use the songs in what ever way you want.
Re:punishing innovation by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 17:41 · Score: 0

It's funny how all the fair-use I-own-it-so-I-should-be-able-to-do-what-I-want-wit h-it types suddenly change their tune when it's Unka Steve who wants to slap the chains on.

"Thank you, sir, may I have another?"
Re:punishing innovation by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 22:46 · Score: 0

obviously you're an idiot, and a troll, but I can't help but reply. Apple's 'innovation' consists of adding DRM to Kazaa and charging people to use it. That's not exactly a brilliant idea.
Apple's DRM isn't 'flexible,' unless you consider a loosening of your chains to be complete freedom.

Pretty much totally OT by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:20 · Score: 0

Oh come on! Is there something wrong with Adobe not having a linux version of Photoshop?

Totally off topic here... and my comment doesn't even really relate to yours... but...

Personally I'd like to see Photoshop for Linux. (Well, the lite version anyway. I wouldn't be able to fork out the $500+ (or whatever it is) for the regular version. But I'd happily pay $59 - $99 for a decent quality (and decent looking!) image editing program for Linux... even if it wasn't OS.)

I do use the Gimp - and I'm all about Open Source and all - but sometimes it's just not as good.

And I don't like WINE. In my experience it's difficult to use and extremely unpredictable. (i.e. the same program may or may not run two times in a row under WINE. At least that's my (admittedly limited) experience with WINE.)

I don't like ImageMagick either. I'm not sure what Toolkit it uses (Tcl/Tk?) but it's ugly as sin. But ImageMagick's command line tools are real useful for scripting. convert, import, etc..

I'm sure I've tried other Image Editing programs in Linux but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

I can't even find a basic image viewer that I like. You know, simple to use, ultra light weight, no-frills-just-let-me-simply scroll-through-my-digital-camera-images Image Viewer.

GQview, gThumb, Eye of Gnome, Eletric Eyes, XV, K(anything), ... my God - they all SUCK! The only one that I even kind of like (gThumb) doesn't behave like a "normal" image viewer should behave. (Of course that is totally subjective to what *I* think is normal and I understand that.) But I expect an image viewer to let me somehow (and I don't even care how - whether it's PGUP/PGDOWN, Left/Right mouse, Z/A, Up/Down Arrow, whatever) but somehow let me scroll through my images without loading a "playlist" first.

Fortunately for me, my image viewing/scanning/editing needs are small enough that I willingly subject myself to the less than great quality of Linux imaging tools.

So if anyone knows of some "killer" imaging apps, by all means, let me know!! BTW - I prefer Gnome so like ... Gnome/GTK stuff would be best for me.

Re:Pretty much totally OT by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 18:46 · Score: 0

let me scroll through my images without loading a "playlist" first.

I present you with feh. I'm nearing the end of the process of finding Linux equivalents of all the Windows programs I used to use regularly. I was mourning the loss of Irfanview as my image view until I found feh. It's 95% as good as Irfanview[1], which makes it a damn sight better than other open source offerings.

Feh is used from the command line. If you had a folder (for this example "img004") that had some images in it, you'd type "feh img004/*" to open the viewer. The "v" key toggles full screen, and spacebar/backspace traverse the folder images. It can do some other really neat stuff, too.

[1] Irfanview is far and away the best image viewer for Windows. Feh can't open tiff images and it doesn't have some of the configurability that Irfanview has (which isn't suprising, as Irfanview is very configurable).
Re:Pretty much totally OT by tkg · 2004-01-06 02:58 · Score: 1

I know you said you don't like k(anything), but have you tried kuickshow? No need to load a play list. Just load an image and scroll through all images in the current directory with the mouse wheel(or pgup/pgdn if you prefer). I find it a very useful viewer.

UserAgent by sjbrown · 2004-01-05 15:21 · Score: 1

I could make a similar argument (you know, the kind with no hard data to back it up) by saying that the real figure of personal Linux machines is probably more, because Linux users are more likely to have UserAgent strings that are either:

spoofed to look like Win32
not recognized by Google's Zeitgeist

(seriously, where did that 4% come from, cell phones and OS/2?)

Breaks ? How about, allows to use by cyberfunk2 · 2004-01-05 15:21 · Score: 1

This isnt really a breaking of the crypto.. the files are still crypted so far as I can see. It's more akin to figuring out how to play the files when you already have the rights. If it was breaking the encryption that implies a unprotection of content, a la DeCSS.

People say this won't hurt Apple, but it will by digitalgimpus · 2004-01-05 15:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

The claim is because Apple doesn't make money off of iTuness it won't hurt... but it will.

Steve Jobs clearly stated on more than one occasion that iTunes has done wonders for moving iPods (a big business, and growing).

iTunes got the Music industries backing because it was secure... if that trust is lost, after the contracts end, iTunes has no more content.

That means no more iTunes, and that lowers the sale of iPods.

All that can be good, can be used for evil.

Radiation can kill, and it can save lives. Without water we die. With to much, we drown.

iTunes is the same way.

You know you can choke to death on an Apple? If that NT computer that controls the Machines in the hospital goes down... you could die too.

It's all subject to success, and failure. Perhaps that's life.

My only beef is that DVDJohn is intentionally ruining the first digital success of legal Music, what could have been quite an industry. Apple already went to Windows... I would have bet, Linux was in the works. Apple needs the Open Source community, and knows that.

Re:People say this won't hurt Apple, but it will by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 16:06 · Score: 0

It's not Johansen's job to prop up Apple's business. If iTMS cannot survive in the real world, then it will not.

My only beef is that DVDJohn is intentionally ruining the first digital success of legal Music...

Intentionally? He said his intention was fair use; can you prove any different?
Re:People say this won't hurt Apple, but it will by evilviper · 2004-01-05 16:20 · Score: 1

iTunes got the Music industries backing because it was secure... if that trust is lost, after the contracts end, iTunes has no more content.

Umm, you mean like the way no studios put out anything on DVD once the encryption was cracked?

Studios are run by idiots, but dumb as they are, they won't give up their cash cows for anything.

So, before they enter into a new field or format, they demand perfect encryption, and an absolute guarantee that nobody will be able to do anything with it that they don't want to allow... Then, once it's making money, even if the encryption is as bad as CSS, they will keep making money off of it, despite their previously stated ideals.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:People say this won't hurt Apple, but it will by Wesley+Felter · 2004-01-05 16:27 · Score: 1

There's a big difference between DVD and iTunes: DVD players are not field-upgradeable, but iTunes is. RIAA could force Apple to release a new version of iTunes with a new DRM system every month to stay ahead of the crackers.
Re:People say this won't hurt Apple, but it will by Nucleon500 · 2004-01-05 16:50 · Score: 1

iTunes got the Music industries backing because it was secure...
No. For starters, iTunes was insecure from the very start - CDs are easy to copy, and software -> soundcard audio path isn't secure, and of course there's the analog hole. Pirates can't be bothered to listen for clicks, they don't care about the difference between 128 kbps AAC and 128 kbps AAC -> 160 kbps MP3.
iTunes got the industry's backing because, by having essentially no limits, and by pushing hardware, iTunes is helping the industry push DRM to the unwashed masses. This recent slight increase in the convenience and quality of DRM-free iTunes music won't interfere with that goal at all. In fact, it will further it, because those who are resigned to DRM can now say, "Why are you worried? It will be cracked in a month anyway!"
That may not always be the case.

--
Litigious bastards
Re:People say this won't hurt Apple, but it will by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 17:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

I would have bet, Linux was in the works. Apple needs the Open Source community, and knows that

Dont be naive. Apple needs the open source community all right (where else would it have gotten 90% of OS X's source code), but it needs Linux in particular to remain difficult to use on the desktop. By refusing to support Quicktime and iTunes on Linux, Apple is safeguarding their slim market share of the desktop market. The day Apple releases end user desktop software for Linux in any form will be the same day Microsoft apologizes for calling Netscape engineers "weenies".
Re:People say this won't hurt Apple, but it will by evilviper · 2004-01-05 17:08 · Score: 1

DVD players are not field-upgradeable

It is very rare that I come across a DVD-player that is not firmware upgradable.

Besides, aren't you forgetting that the Apple music store exists only to sell iPods? iPods would be just as hard to upgrade than DVD players.

RIAA could force Apple to release a new version of iTunes with a new DRM system every month

If Apple takes a stand and says they aren't willing to force their customers to upgrade, there's no doubt in my mind that the RIAA will cave in short order. As I said, their ideals are nothing next to a buck. They've got a cash cow, and they aren't going to let go.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:People say this won't hurt Apple, but it will by localman · 2004-01-05 17:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

iTunes got the Music industries backing because it was secure... if that trust is lost, after the contracts end, iTunes has no more content.

You know, I think Jobs said in some recent interview that Apple told the execs it was going to get cracked. He said that Apples best and brightest had researched the problem and that any DRM would get cracked eventually. He told them the solution was to offer a compelling product. Which they've done.

The fact is that Apple is competing with free P2P directly and still doing well. Because they offer better searching, better UI, better download speed and consistent high quality. That's what they're selling -- not music. Nobody in their right mind would pay for music these days.

You may be right though, that the execs never really got it and that they'll pull the plug. But where will they be then? They'll have lost the last potentially profitable outlet for their music. In a few years CD sales will be nowhere, DRM will all be cracked, new securely anonymouse P2P will be common, and they'll be screwed.

If they just offer what we all want: iTunes like service and quality for a fair price (without DRM -- whether they like it or not) they'll be fine.

Cheers.
Re:People say this won't hurt Apple, but it will by Paddyish · 2004-01-05 18:22 · Score: 1

My only beef is that DVDJohn is intentionally ruining the first digital success of legal Music
My only beef is that the RIAA is raping fair use.
Re:People say this won't hurt Apple, but it will by Halo1 · 2004-01-05 22:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Apple has told the labels from the start that iTunes is not unbreakable, in fact they are convinced you cannot make anything unbreakable.
Quote from Phil Schiller, VP worldwide product marketing Apple
A second part of this is we fundamentally think that an attempt to create an unbreakable system is foolish.
There's also an article somewhere where Steve Jobs says more or less the same (and says he told the labels so), but I can't find it currently.

--
Donate free food here
Re:People say this won't hurt Apple, but it will by Rhys · 2004-01-06 04:24 · Score: 1

One does. Not one of the big boys, but hey, they aren't evil.

http://www.magnatune.com

--
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!

Next headline by Ignorant+Aardvark · 2004-01-05 15:27 · Score: 1

"DVD-Jon Sued By Lawyer-Craig"

--
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable

Re:Thanks for pissing in the bath water, Jon by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 15:33 · Score: 0

You sir, are clueless. I've purchased MORE music since the ITMS began than I did in the previous 7 years. It is an awesome service in that I don't have to leave the house to buy music that I want. Go buy your damned CD's that contain track after track of crap just so that you can get one good song. You were modded insightful. You should have been modded ungrateful.

Nice try, but.... by Kjella · 2004-01-05 15:40 · Score: 1

Christ, he just barely got away with the DeCSS thing.

...the courts basicly swept the floor with the prosecution. First they took one loss. Then they took another loss which came about a month before it was expected, because the appeals court told them to shove it. They didn't even dare to appeal the case to the Supreme court, even though they could.

Also, note that the Supreme court is the chief authoroty on interpreting the law. Even if they felt that both the previous courts applied the law wrong, it would have been natural to appeal. They didn't even try to make the court interpret the law in such a fashion that DVD-Jon could be found guilty.

So in my opinion, the precedent is rock solid. I doubt they'll even risk yet another embarrasing, total and utter defeat like this.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:I hope it has DMA restrictions... by strider3700 · 2004-01-05 15:41 · Score: 2, Informative

I write commercial software. Our software doesn't (yet) work on linux/mac/windows... I would love for someone to find an easy way to get my software to as many different OS's as possible. Seriously if anyone was to port our product to a mac, or windows they would have a thank you letter and a job offer on their way. The difference between us and some of the other software products out there is we don't want lock in on a single system. We get more revenue from customization and support then we get from new sales However most of the profit in the customizations and support comes from new sales. Eventually the customer settles in and become a steady low support stream and thats about it. The more systems we can run on the more chances we have at getting a customer. The only reason we don't run on every OS/hardware configuration possible is the fact that it's non-trivial to port to all of these. It has nothing to do with our desire to support one OS.

Now other mp3 player can support Apple's AAC.... by didiken · 2004-01-05 15:43 · Score: 2, Informative

So now give other RIO or Samsung MP3 players no excuse that they can't support Apple iTMS.

Of course by Kjella · 2004-01-05 15:45 · Score: 1

But this requires the key to be distributed with each file. Keep in mind that said key is *known* by apple, and directly tied to your account, it isn't something I would recommend sending out into the wild.

Yes, because we all know that average residential PCs never ever get hacked, right? I don't anyone has tried to prosecute over leaked serials either. There's simply too many plausible defenses.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

I sympathize, but... by Weaselmancer · 2004-01-05 15:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

I do sympathize, but I have to disagree with your logic.

It's a Slashdot axiom, but I'll repeat it here: If your business plan relies upon unbreakable encryption, it's a bad business plan.

That being said, I don't see how this is going to destroy iTunes. Yes, copyright violations are possible using these ideas. But I think you'll find that anyone who is using iTunes in the first place (rather than just nabbing whatever they want from P2P) is going to be the kind of person who wouldn't commit a copyright violation through iTunes, either.

Weaselmancer

--
Weaselmancer
rediculous.

Re:I sympathize, but... by 42forty-two42 · 2004-01-06 02:11 · Score: 1

If your business plan relies upon unbreakable encryption, it's a bad business plan.

On the contrary - what about all those companies using SSL? The problem is with breakable encryption, which all DRM is.

He doesn't get it! by k4hg · 2004-01-05 15:57 · Score: 1

"We're about to find out what Apple really thinks about Fair Use," Johansen told The Register via email.

Apple isn't in the music business. They don't care about the copy protection. That put in the minimal DRM they have in order to satisfy the recording industry, but anyone that wanted to, using only Apple software, can burn a normal audio CD with the track on it. Frankly, this is easier than the "crack" that this gentleman offers...instead of needing to manage a bunch of different keys, you just burn a CD.

iTunes is a way for Apple to sell more iPods, the publicity Jon generates helps Apple's cause!

Re:He doesn't get it! by k4hg · 2004-01-05 19:32 · Score: 1

Did they say anything when DVD-Jon made an announcement about extracting the unencrypted ACC stream?

I'm sure Steve Jobs did not lie to the recording industry about the security provided by iTunes, which is in reality nothing. You download a song, place it in a playlist, hit burn to get an audio CD, when the CD ejects push it back in, select the track, hit "Convert to MP3", and you have the song in unencrypted MP3 format. You never needed any software other than iTunes to accomplish this! This was explained on many Apple fan sites a day or two after iTunes was released...lots of people thought it was an oversight by Apple and would be plugged immediately. It wasn't...Apple was well aware, and you can still use this method today.

The encryption is there as a bone to the recording industry, just a sort of very low speed-bump. That the recording industry accepted this shows that Steve Jobs convinced them they could never win with iron-fisted tactics, the path to success was to make it easier for people to pay a nominal fee and own their music, that for them to steal it.

So yes, Apple will be silent on this, because they never intended to have airtight control over the music. Buying a tune in iTunes for a dollar is easier than the machinations to get this new key system to work...in fact it is easier than using P2P...that is why iTunes will continue to succeed in changing music delivery when all the others failed before them.

encryption vs. DRM (-1, Pedantic) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 16:10 · Score: 0

If your business plan relies upon unbreakable encryption, it's a bad business plan.

There are plenty of solid business plans relying on unbreakable crypto; consider RSA Security or any of the VPN companies. But unbreakable DRM is another matter...

Linux users... by Kjella · 2004-01-05 16:13 · Score: 1

And I DON'T download music because most of it is a copyright violation, and despite your narrow-minded prejudices I'm afraid you will find that I and many other Linux users are very honest and would gladly buy things legally if we could.

Well, it's sending out two conflicting signals. On one side, you didn't pirate Windows instead, which leads to believe you have some ethics and is willing to purchase, not pirate. On the other hand, you didn't want to pay for an OS like Windows or OS X either, which in general indicates low ability or willingness to pay for stuff.

Overall though, it's a tiny market with not *that* many good customers, isolated speaking. Nerds (face it, Linux is nerdish) overall don't make great trendsetters, so it's not an important segment either. iTunes is busy trying to get the "trendy" people to use it, so the mass market will.

Not to mention I don't think they can do the pretense of DRM on Linux. On Mac/Windows they can blame the eeeeeeevil hackers breaking the proprietary system(tm), but you can't really accuse someone of "hacking" the underlying GPL system. So unless they throw proprietary hooks all over to make some "secure" audio path, it won't happen. That it is completely broken and ineffective on other platforms would be irrelevant in this case - they can't not try.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:Linux users... by Nucleon500 · 2004-01-05 17:39 · Score: 1

I think that's an unfair generalization - Linux users have no trouble paying for things (Even when they don't have to - e.g., shrinkwrapped RedHat.) As Microsoft is fond of saying, the initial cost isn't as important as TCO, or the value. There's technical value in Linux. Speaking for myself, cost never entered into my decision to use Linux - Windows would have been cheap anyway, because it comes with computers, I'm a dependant, and next year it'll be cheap through the university. Besides technical issues, my biggest problem is giving money to a group which takes a "leadership position" towards things I don't want - DRM, software patents, etc.

--
Litigious bastards
Re:Linux users... by spitzak · 2004-01-06 05:37 · Score: 1

I paid for my copy of Linux, you know.

Re:Breaks ? How about, allows to use by Wesley+Felter · 2004-01-05 16:13 · Score: 1

In order to play the file you have to decrypt the content. Tomorrow there will be another patch that lets you write the decrypted data to an M4A file; you can bet on it.

Re:Dogmuck tastes like sweets. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 16:22 · Score: 0

Look at the guy's posting history, its obviously a troll account. I doubt he gives a shit.

Understood its just... by L10N · 2004-01-05 16:22 · Score: 1

I understand and agree with you., It is kind of funny though if you take a step back from the pragmatic goals of a business especially with the history of Apple. Basically they are treating a computing community with the same "harsh" pragmatism that Microsoft has show them. There choice can be justified from business practice where dollars and cents are the bottom line but some businesses consider moral and ethical concerns occassional and had Apple done the same it sure would have made a story line.

Ah well...

--
"What we do in life echoes in eternity." Maximus Decimus Meridius

AAC != ENCRYPTION by gidds · 2004-01-05 16:36 · Score: 1

Sorry for stating what may be obvious to many people, but it looks like the message hasn't reached everyone yet...

Plain AAC files are not encrypted. They're very like MP3s, really - licensed in a similar fashion (AAC is the audio layer from MPEG-4, just as MP3 was from MPEG-1). Just more advanced, with better quality for a given bitrate. The format isn't owned by Apple or limited to them in any way; there's no need to have a key to play it, or any other restrictions. If you rip songs to AAC yourself, or find .m4a files on the net, then this is what you're getting.

There are also encrypted AACs, which wrap the plain AAC in a FairPlay wrapper. This what you get when you download files from the iTunes Music Store (if it's available in your country, grump, grump), or if you find .m4p files on the net. Presumably, what the article is referring to is the ability to decrypt the .m4p file and extract plain AAC from it.

Anyway, I'll just repeat the point to make it blindingly obvious: you can wrap AACs in an encryption layer, but plain AACs are NOT encrypted. Thank you for your time.

--

Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

Re:AAC != ENCRYPTION by Technician · 2004-01-05 18:01 · Score: 2, Informative

Presumably, what the article is referring to is the ability to decrypt the .m4p file and extract plain AAC from it.

Well close but not quite. The article is dealing with playing encrypted AAC files, not removing the wrapper. The article is about getting the key and the wrapped file both to a Linuz box so it can play it. It is not about unwrapping the file to an un-encrypted file for playback anywhere.

--
The truth shall set you free!

Well, until the next greyhat writes a Win worm... by PaulBu · 2004-01-05 16:37 · Score: 1

... which does nothing but gradually making IE report itself as Mozilla/Linux. Immediately all the big companies (at least one who check out netcraft regularly) will start producing Linux apps...

Not that I would condone this antisocial behavour, but the next logical step for a worm would be to install Lindows instead of W* (while preserving all user's files and settings, of course!)...

Hmm, sick...

Paul B.

GUI-Jon by tepples · 2004-01-05 16:38 · Score: 1

It was my understanding that DVD-Jon (as we're calling him now) did *not* actually break the DVD encryption

That's why a lot of the Norwegian sites have begun to call him GUI-Jon for "graphical user interface".

Re:GUI-Jon by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 03:59 · Score: 0

Wait. Isn't GUI-Jon that old Jedi from The Phantom Menace?

Re:Does iTunes music store work under Linux anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 16:39 · Score: 0

No, You're wrong. You need and player that supports Quicktime to play the files.

Online stores by tepples · 2004-01-05 16:52 · Score: 1

If your business plan relies upon unbreakable encryption, it's a bad business plan.

So what about the business plan of any online store, especially the ones that ship physical goods to my house? They rely on a presumption that a man in the middle cannot decrypt HTTPS traffic and deduce credit card numbers.

Re:Online stores by TiggsPanther · 2004-01-05 21:18 · Score: 1

There's a difference between an encrypted session and an encrypted file.

One would assume that encrypted sessions mainly rely on taking longer to break than the time of the session. Oh and, one would hope, periodically changing the keys[*]. If the encryption gets broken, you change your keys, notify all the recent customers, and limit the damage to a small time-window.
With a file, that's it. Someone breaks the encryption and that file's in the open for good.

[*] - Even then, you're not relying on unbreakable encryption. You rely on strong encryption, try to minimise the chances of it being broken, and have plans of what to do if (and when) it gets cracked.
This is feasible in realtime communications. But as soon as you deal in static files you're fighting a losing battle if encryption is your main "advantage".
Tiggs

--
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."

JPEG is different by tepples · 2004-01-05 17:01 · Score: 1

Save an image as a jpeg, then open that file again, saving it as bmp or png, then once again open the file, and save it as a jpeg. The new jpeg will look quite bad.

Actually, if you use the same quantizer settings for both JPEG passes, you might not get much loss. I can see two fundamental differences between JPEG and MP3, AAC, Vorbis, and other common lossy audio codecs. First, JPEG uses a static quantizer, meaning that the content of a block does not determine how much detail the quantizer removes, unlike in lossy audio codecs. In addition, JPEG uses a non-overlapped transform; this produces block edge artifacts but ensures that errors in one block do not propagate to other blocks, unlike in lossy audio codecs. These characteristics combine to produce EnJPEG(DeJPEG(jpegfile)) == jpegfile more often than one would immediately think.

Re:Thanks for pissing in the bath water, Jon by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 17:02 · Score: 0

If you don't own an iPod, then you are one of the proletariat and therefore you suck. Everyone knows Apple invented the MP3 player, all other players, whether they came before or after just dont have that je ne sais quas.

Re:Thanks for pissing in the bath water, Jon by tepples · 2004-01-05 17:14 · Score: 1

I mean after all, music shouldn't be enjoyed by everyone, just those with money to burn, right?

If you're poor, just turn on the 'coursing radio.

Re:Thanks for pissing in the bath water, Jon by Nucleon500 · 2004-01-05 17:27 · Score: 1

the RIAA won't let Apple continue distributing in an easily-pirated format. Hello? Files that can be burnt to CD-RW (and subsequently re-encoded) are very easily pirated. The RIAA doesn't like piracy (hence the lawsuits), but it's capitalizing on piracy as an excuse to push DRM to the masses.

--
Litigious bastards

What does Linux have to do with this? by mark-t · 2004-01-05 17:29 · Score: 1

Sure, he wanted to play the stuff that he legally bought using Linux, but really, the fact that it is intended for Linux is entirely superfluous to the accomplishment. In fact, statements like this will do nothing but further foster an anti-GPL and anti-Linux sentiment among certain corporations.

Now if they had simply said that the DRM had been cracked wide open and released as open source for anyone to use anywhere on any machine, this would be no less accurate, and would be less likely to cause friction between the RIAA and Linux, specifically.

Really, how does anyone ever expect to take us seriously if every time we do something in the name of freedom, we point at how it's "all for the cause of Linux", which does nothing but make us look like nutty hackers with no jobs and no life.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

You got ripped off man by SuperKendall · 2004-01-05 17:30 · Score: 1

You paid $9 for that crappy album that had only one good song? I bought the one track I liked and paid only a buck! And I don't waste shelf space for a whole sucky CD!

Good luck with that used CD, if you're lucky it's not even too scratched.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:You got ripped off man by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 03:42 · Score: 0

You actually listen to albums that can only produce one good song?

Do shiny and new objects attract and distract you?

Listen to what Apple has to say tomorrow by SuperKendall · 2004-01-05 17:35 · Score: 1

Keep an eye on Apple's home page tomorrow for a solution to your problem - and keep the receipt for your other player.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

The source of Apple cool by rtv · 2004-01-05 17:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Have you spent any time with Apple products recently? Some of them are really very good! That's where this 'cool' thing is coming from.

Unlike Microsoft, an illegal monopoly, Apple has pressure on it to produce good products. So do most companies, but they suck at it.

The iPod is not an underdog product, it's a great product. It's expensive as hell, but it's so great that people will buy it anyway. That's cool.

Re:I hope it has DMA restrictions... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 18:25 · Score: 0

Job offer? Hmm, sounds delicious- give me more information. What software? I want that job!

-1 tard by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 18:37 · Score: 0

anata ha tard de gozaimasu

Comments lie. Code never lies. by rs79 · 2004-01-05 18:46 · Score: 1

I've been programming in C since 1976. Either you understand the code or you don't. If you don't comments will not save you.

--
Need Mercedes parts ?

Re:Comments lie. Code never lies. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 20:49 · Score: 0

You have obviously never worked in a team, where people other than yourself maintain and work with your code.
Re:Comments lie. Code never lies. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 22:28 · Score: 0

Luckily not everyone is forced to work with idiots.
Re:Comments lie. Code never lies. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 22:55 · Score: 0

if you program with the variable names i use, comments will very definitely save you.

love,
os230
Re:Comments lie. Code never lies. by slim · 2004-01-05 23:27 · Score: 1

Luckily not everyone is forced to work with idiots.

Where I work we deliberately aim for C code that is as readable as possible to non C coders.

For example, a simple:

if(x) y(); ... wouldn't get though a code review, because although we C coders understand that a block containing a single statement is equivalent to a block, a novice might not.

The idea is that in 10 years' time, when everyone involved in the code may well have left the company, and C may well have gone the way of COBOL, an averagely bright person with a C reference will be able to grok the code in an emergency.
Re:Comments lie. Code never lies. by lordholm · 2004-01-06 01:05 · Score: 1

Of course, it is only stupid to comment something like:

i ++; /* increase i with 1 */

However, all functions should have a descriptive comment about the args, what it does and so on. All loops should have a comment about what it does, or if that is trivial: why it does it.

What I am trying to say is: comment the algorithm used in you code and what the code's purpose is, not what every line of code does.

--
"Civis Europaeus sum!"

Relevant Information by Otto · 2004-01-05 18:54 · Score: 5, Informative

After examining the code, here's basically how the iTunes encryption works:

Every user account for iTunes gets a "user key". This gets sent to the computer at the the time of "Authorization" and gets written to a file on the hard drive. But it's not written out plainly, oh no. Instead, it creates a "system key" using several bits of data from Windows and the hardware and such. This system key is what's stored in the file.

To playback a song, the system key is derived from the machine and used to decrypt the file on the drive. This gives the list of user keys that machine is authorized to play, and these will decrypt songs using the same account (yes, each song is encrypted at the time of download, with the user key for that account).

This crack essentially works out how the system key is derived. Using that, it gets the user key, writes it off to a file, and can then decrypt any of that users songs.

Note that when you transfer a song from iTunes to the iPod, it does the same basic thing. Decrypts the file using the system key and reencrypts it using iPod specific information, then sticks it on the iPod. The iPod then does the same process as iTunes to play the file, more or less, it's just using a different system key.

This crack could be patched by changing the method to derive the system key from the machine, but not once the user key has been derived and written to a file somewhere. Once you have the user key, that can be used to decrypt the songs, and you're essentially done. Since you have the song files, and the key to decrypt them, no patch in the world could possibly fix it. They could fix it for newly purchased songs, but to do that they'd have to change every users key and reauthorize them. And that potentially breaks the authorization for songs that have already been purchased. They could start a new key without removing the old ones, in order to maintain backward compatibility and not piss off everyone who has used iTMS up until now, and then release new songs using only the new encryption, but it's essentially a dead end. The whole concept behind iTunes encryption is that once a machine is authorized, it can play songs without any outside intervention. Meaning that it has everything it needs to decrypt the songs right there on that machine. Meaning that as long as this is true, it can be cracked again.

I knew it was only a matter of time. I give it another 2 weeks before someone takes the code out of the drms.c, drms.h, and drmtables.h files and produces an M4P->M4A converter. Everything really needed to do it is in there. You read in the file, call this code to get the system key, call the code to get the user key, call the code to decrypt the DRMS section, then rewrite the file with a normal AAC data section instead. Not too difficult, although interpreting Jon's code is a PITA to say the least. The guy writes C code that reads more like ASM. Frankly, looking at the code, I think he simply found the relevant part of iTunes/Quicktime with a debugger and converted the relevant machine language straight into C with no major adjustments.

--
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Re:Relevant Information by sacrilicious · 2004-01-05 19:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Note that when you transfer a song from iTunes to the iPod, it does the same basic thing. Decrypts the file using the system key and reencrypts it using iPod specific information, then sticks it on the iPod. The iPod then does the same process as iTunes to play the file, more or less, it's just using a different system key.
Ah. This explains two aspects of ipods that I've found odd up til now: the fact that only itunes can be used to move files to them, and the fact that files can't easily be moved from ipods back to main computers.
The whole concept behind iTunes encryption is that once a machine is authorized, it can play songs without any outside intervention. Meaning that it has everything it needs to decrypt the songs right there on that machine. Meaning that as long as this is true, it can be cracked again.
Yup. I think DRM is fundamentally harder than encryption between two peers because DRM is trying to prevent the recipient of data from using that data in ways other than intended, whereas two-peer encryption is focused on trying to prevent outsiders from gaining access to the data at all. DRM forces the vendor to include the decryption keys SOMEWHERE.

--
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Re:Relevant Information by IamTheRealMike · 2004-01-06 01:32 · Score: 1

Frankly, looking at the code, I think he simply found the relevant part of iTunes/Quicktime with a debugger and converted the relevant machine language straight into C with no major adjustments.
If true that'd be a pretty serious accusation. Reverse engineering is allowed under most western laws - copyright infringement is not. Translating from assembly back to C simply changes the form, not the content of a work and iirc this is simply not legal.
Of course, it's hard to prove. Maybe too hard. But if Jon has made heavy use of dissasembled code he could be in for a rough ride.
Re:Relevant Information by Otto · 2004-01-06 05:10 · Score: 1

Well, I hadn't really thought about it in those terms. It's just that the use of big tables of random seeming numbers and the odd coding style sorta lends itself to thinking that. I suppose it's possible it was a straight hack, but damn, I wouldn't want to have to come up with that code without using a debugger on the existing binary code.

--
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Re:Relevant Information by Otto · 2004-01-06 05:19 · Score: 1

Ah. This explains two aspects of ipods that I've found odd up til now: the fact that only itunes can be used to move files to them, and the fact that files can't easily be moved from ipods back to main computers.

Actually, you can use several programs to stick songs on an iPod. EphPod, AnaPod, XPlay, there's lots of them. iTunes is just the only one that can stick *protected* songs on the iPod at present, for that reason.

And moving a song back off the iPod is trivial, really. It's just a concious design decision by Apple not to include that feature in iTunes. many of these other programs do it. Here's a little utility I wrote that does nothing else by copy songs off an iPod: http://otto.homedns.org:8888/itunes/iPodCopy.zip

Yup. I think DRM is fundamentally harder than encryption between two peers because DRM is trying to prevent the recipient of data from using that data in ways other than intended, whereas two-peer encryption is focused on trying to prevent outsiders from gaining access to the data at all. DRM forces the vendor to include the decryption keys SOMEWHERE.

Right. DRM is fundamentally *impossible* to make uncrackable with current technology, for the simple reason that the goal is to provide access to the material in one way while restricting access to it in another. Like you can listen to it, but you can't convert it. For current hardware, there's no real distinction between levels of access. It's a stream of bits. If you can access the bits to hear them, then you can copy them as well. There's no way for the bits to know if they are being listened to or copied. Software solutions must rely on encryption schemes and use proprietary decryptor programs so that there is some way to control when it's decrypted. But since you have to have access to the key to do that, it can be bypassed. The only way to make DRM work is to radically alter the actual hardware, and then you simply open up the door to hardware hackers who can rewire the thing to bypass your scheme. But that would effectively close the door on a lot of the hacking, since there's fewer hardware hackers than software ones, and a hardware hack isn't as easy to distribute over the internet as is the resulting decryption program of a software hack.

--
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-01-05 18:55 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

If I was DVD-Jon I......... by nighty5 · 2004-01-05 18:57 · Score: 1

wouldn't be so eager to start cracking media files.

I mean, his just been let off on the DVD fiasco, his got some guts now going after the music industry by cracking the AAC format.....oh well :)

iTMS = Immediate Gratification @ $0.99/song by NeoBeans · 2004-01-05 19:25 · Score: 1

I agree that if you buy used, iTMS can't compete on price. However, it does offer one thing: immediate gratifciation.

I can't count how many times I've found a song quickly and easily on iTMS that I couldn't find at a local used CD shop. Truthfully, I haven't used eBay for hunting down music, but that's mainly because I want my music NOW. :-)

Re:iTMS = Immediate Gratification @ $0.99/song by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 00:18 · Score: 0

"However, it does offer one thing: immediate gratifciation."

Adults are usually willing to wait 2-3 days to get a CD. Perhaps you don't have enough things going on in your life that you need such immediate gratification?

Re:Does iTunes music store work under Linux anyway by darnok · 2004-01-05 19:44 · Score: 1

I'm in Australia too, and I'd be quite willing to pay US99c a track for iTMS access if the local record companies would only get their acts together and make such a thing available to us.

Hopefully, the (expected) forthcoming availability of free AAC files for the download will spur them on a bit. After all, I'm quite happy to pay for AAC DRM files *now*, but I expect that many people will be much less prepared to pay a few months down the track when AAC DRM files are as "free" as MP3 files are now.

The Oz (and other, non-US) record companies have a window of opportunity to provide a good service that would get people signed up and paying, and it's suddenly shrunk by a lot. If they can provide a good enough customer experience, they'll get people paying even after these files are available "for free" - iTMS seems to be that "good enough service", so they'd better get moving or kiss that potential revenue goodbye.

Makes me curious by xant · 2004-01-05 20:07 · Score: 1

How many lossy re-encodings would it take before you have nothing but gray noise? 10? 100? 1000? Someone should set up a script and find out.

--
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.

Norwegians don't get speeding fines in US by ringe82 · 2004-01-05 20:10 · Score: 1

On most US roads, it's a well known rule of thumb that police would generally not bother drivers who speed by under 10 miles per hour over the limit.

I was pulled over for speeding by 25 miles this summer. The police officer asked for my (Norwegian) driving license and asked: "What's this? Are you Norwegian?" To which I said yes. Then he told me to take it easy, gave me my driving license back and left.

This also happened to four of the other five Norwegians I was there with.

I love the US.

Wonder how it became so that the only part of US that is not free is the people.. Uh, the US..

Re:Norwegians don't get speeding fines in US by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 21:59 · Score: 0

Umm...it could be like...

"OK, so I write you a ticket. Where will you be in two weeks? Back in Norway?" methinks - John Ashcroft is an asshole, and he's on my side, but not even he is going to force someone from Norway to the US just to appear in traffic court to fight a speeding ticket...

No, the cop did the least bad thing.

Look at all the problems getting that Einhorn dude "extradited" back to the US (the US essentially black-bagged him from France a few years ago, IIRC, because France wasn't going to extradite him), and he actually killed someone, with his bare hands.

We will strike back by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 20:16 · Score: 0

Oh. Don't try that! We will just eat ERTESUPPE, cross the Atlantic in vikingships, lower our pants and FART YOU DOWN!!
WE WILL WIN, you "infidels"!!

Re:We will strike back by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 21:13 · Score: 0

See, they have WMDs too. :-)

So the slashdot headline is a lie? by Snaller · 2004-01-05 21:09 · Score: 1

He doesn't break anything, since you require a valid key - it just allows you to use it under another operating system?

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating

His source code is free speech and now GPL'd. by openmtl · 2004-01-05 21:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

I thought Jon with the DeCSS was initially a 1-trick pony given the compromised XING keys helped DeCSS on its way but looks like he is really something else.

The fact still remains, those 1000 lines of code represent his (and others) thoughts and ideas and be they English or C they are free speech. Thats probbaly why there are no comments - the code is the comment.

This time he has used GPL v2 license. DeCSS was NOT originally for Linux but was for Windows and was not GPL'd. Thus from free speech point of view DeCSS was tainted. This time he has at least used the correct license if he expects the code to stay free.

By appreciation, we make excellence in others our own property. - Voltaire

--

Never arrested before by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 21:54 · Score: 0

Well he was never arrested before. However his computer was taken by Okokrim for the investigation.

MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 22:39 · Score: 0

MOD PARENT UP

Heh by Salsaman · 2004-01-05 22:41 · Score: 1

I wish I had mod points to give you a +1 insightful.

When is this guy going to learn!? by EmagGeek · 2004-01-05 22:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

One would think that he would have learned about anonymity by now - that maybe it ISN'T such a good idea to plaster your name all over the place when you start breaking laws (yes, this is technically against the law, at least in the US, at least right now)...

I'm not sure I'd want Apple coming after me when I break their latest big hit...

Re:When is this guy going to learn!? by vidarh · 2004-01-06 02:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Perhaps because this ISN'T against the law in Norway, and he is a Norwegian resident, located in Norway, and can even point to successfully getting off in the DeCSS case? If anything the public prosecutors in Norway are unlikely to be stupid enough to try to go after him again for doing something the court has explicitly made clear is legal.
Re:When is this guy going to learn!? by EmagGeek · 2004-01-06 03:45 · Score: 1

If it's not against the law, why did they go after him in the first place?
Re:When is this guy going to learn!? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 05:05 · Score: 0

When are you going to learn that just because someone stands up and is willing to fight, it doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid? Maybe he's just a winner.
Re:When is this guy going to learn!? by skajake · 2004-01-13 01:42 · Score: 1

He didnt break it, he just made it more useful and atratcive to potential customers like me. Duh.

--
~ Maintainer of the Skajake Projects

Re:Jon wrote 1000 lines of code with no comments by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-05 22:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

dude, it's only a thousand lines. it's a one-shot program. he had no intention of going back and adding features for the next version, or improving on it in any way - it's for one single purpose! no need for comments here, move along now.

Re:Jon wrote 1000 lines of code with no comments by Lucky_Norseman · 2004-01-05 23:28 · Score: 1

All comments are property of SCO.

Hacked WaveOut driver by foobrain · 2004-01-05 23:42 · Score: 0

Why not write some kind of WaveOut driver that, instead of playing it through your speakers, save whatever is sent to it to some file? You can then reencode it in another format (and even use it in that el cheapo MP3 player)...

This way the DRM would be useless :P

Re:Hacked WaveOut driver by Zelatrix · 2004-01-06 12:38 · Score: 1

That would be 'vsound'. Can use it to capture Real Audio streams.

Bullshit. by jotaeleemeese · 2004-01-05 23:46 · Score: 1

The day car makers use the DMCA to forbif you fixing your own car you are going to be saying the same nonsense as above again.

Some people just don't deserve freedom...

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Jon is not ruining anything at all by PotatoHead · 2004-01-05 23:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

He is clearly interested in Fair Use. The folks doing the ruining are the MPAA.

They want to destroy Fair Use. Apple struck a deal to get things moving. If Apple suffers over this, it won't be because of Jon, it will be because of the MPAA.

Personally, I applaud the guy. He is doing the right thing at the right time. This whole action is going to get a lot of people thinking. I believe in Fair Use, as do a lot of people --even if they do not know what it is legally. Morally they do and that is what counts in the end. If enough people continue to express their counter view, the law *will* change.

Remember, we all get older. Our chance at the law will come. Should we all just lay down and forget things until that time?

No, because we should not have to --for me that is reason enough.

--
Blogging because I can...

Re:Jon is not ruining anything at all by Accipiter · 2004-01-06 02:49 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure the MPAA doesn't care in the least about iTunes getting cracked.

The RIAA on the other hand...

--
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

I totally second that! by PotatoHead · 2004-01-06 00:01 · Score: 1

Learning to use OSS taught me a lot about software. Today I am 100 percent legal and intend to stay that way.

You know, the money saved on OSS can easily leave room for a few software purchases each year. I would gladly pay for those if they were offered.

It is *damn* nice not to have to make all sorts of justifications for the software I use. You would think software companies would be just craving enlightned customers that actually understood the value of their work...

go figure.

--
Blogging because I can...

Re:Thanks for pissing in the bath water, Jon by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 00:28 · Score: 0

"I've purchased MORE music since the ITMS began than I did in the previous 7 years"

II wouldn't brag about that... iTunes is a terrible deal for the consumer all around. It isn't even a little tempting.

You just think you're on the cutting edge of something... you're not.

Re:Does iTunes music store work under Linux anyway by IamTheRealMike · 2004-01-06 01:27 · Score: 1

No, you need the iTunes client to play any files you buy from the iTunes store. And No, it doesn't (yet) work under Wine or CrossoverOffice.

Right. People make a lot of noise about wanting iTunes[MS] on Linux, but the fact is we've had zero people actually trying to make it work on Wine. When it first came out there were a few attempts to run it by end users, but so far nobody has sat down and hacked out the code necessary to make it work.

This tells me that probably the number of people who *really* care about this is reasonably small, they just make a lot of noise. Otherwise out of all those people who wanted iTMS, one or two of them would have sat down and hacked code.

Is anybody going to prove me wrong? I'm happy to give some tips, you know. You might want to start with the installer: it requires an unusual form of COM activation in order to start MSI (service-based). We don't implement this in Wine yet, but it wouldn't be hard to add.

Anybody?

Re:Jon wrote 1000 lines of code with no comments by IamTheRealMike · 2004-01-06 01:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

Is it the output of a disassembler cobbled back together into C?

Yeah, I think this almost certainly is. Huge amounts of bit manipulation, lots of magic numbers, meaningless variable names. No type safety? No comments?

I've seen code like this before, when people have disassembled Windows DLLs back into C then tried to submit it to Wine.

I'd say Jon is treading on very slippery slopes indeed with this code. It might be possible to show that it's been simply generated from the original code which is almost certainly copyright violation - laws against that certainly exist in Norway.

Re:Jon wrote 1000 lines of code with no comments by jdmuir · 2004-01-06 02:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Don't you remove comments for job security?
He's just thinking about his future!

Re:Jon wrote 1000 lines of code with no comments by vidarh · 2004-01-06 02:31 · Score: 1

I'd hardly say the variablenames are meaningless. Their meaning may be obscure, but looking at it, most of them don't exactly look like randomly chosen strings. They are made worse by partial hungarian notation, though.

As for all the bit manipulation, what do you expect? It's crypto code.

The magic numbers are likely various keys hardcoded into the algorithm, and wouldn't be a problem.

This doesn't mean the code can't be problematic, but I don't think it's in any way obvious that he is treading on a slippery slope here.

Jargon by guacamolefoo · 2004-01-06 03:11 · Score: 1

Best funny jargon I've seen on /. (saved it to a local file for just such an occasion as this):

============
If I were a CIO or CTO debating the TCO of *nix vs. Win2K to a CEO, would IBM vs. SCO be the TKO that stops the CEO from approving A/P to pay my PO for RH's LGX?

FWIW, even if OSS is FAIB, if the DOJ considers *nix IP with a TM, then it basically becomes SCO's LIC, meaning our OSS becomes a CSS OS, which would RSTBO.

AIBO going w/ an ASP that manages our OS? BTA, we might end up w/ a BOFH giving us ZA, which WWAD PMS.

AFAIK, INMP if SCO wants to be ITM by enforcing its supposed IPR - *nix IP should be PD or GNU, like BSD just on GP, IYKWIM. I keep asking myself in this situation - WWLD?

Oh, BTW - IITYWIMWYBMAD?
============

--
Lots of petrified grits

Re:Jon wrote 1000 lines of code with no comments by Ciampino · 2004-01-06 03:27 · Score: 1

Dude, he's a teenager. The code I wrote at that age was similar. Worse, in fact, because it was the mid-80s, I had a C64, and I was hacking in BASIC. At least his code is neatly formatted...

I wish I could break encrypted stuff... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 03:33 · Score: 0

Is there anything cooler then breaking the encryption for publicity?

Shelf space by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 03:46 · Score: 0

Shelf space for a cd? Are you joking with me boy? You won't like me when I get pissed off...

I have stored conservatively 1000 cd's into a 2x3 foot space in my closet.

As for reselling CD's, I'll bet I can get more selling a used CD than you can selling a used iTune.

Oh wait... you're not *allowed* to sell a used iTune. Sucker. Did I say $4 worth of music? You paid $1 for a radio quality song and then try to convince yourself you got a good deal.

But you call everybody else a dumbass, but corporations and banks own you. ha ha ha ha

Complete freedom.... to do what apple wants by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 03:49 · Score: 0

"You have complete freedom to do anything you want with the file with the Finder"

What if I want to sell my iTune music to somebody.

What if I want to give my iTune music to somebody?

What if I want to move it to a new computer in 5 years. A non-apple computer.

You have the same freedom a dog on a leash does... all the freedom you want, as long as you don't go beyond that leash.

Re:Complete freedom.... to do what apple wants by Have+Blue · 2004-01-06 10:47 · Score: 1

Then you burn it to an unrestricted CD.

Speaking of retards by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 03:54 · Score: 0

"At least its EASY and legal to back up a digital AAC file"

As opposed to the difficulty of backing up a CD?

He only took a hit of bong. You, apparently, are smoking crack.

Sucker by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 03:58 · Score: 0

" It's your loss not theirs."

No, he only lost a few crappy songs he would have disposed of again.

Apple lost a customer.

I noticed in the iTune fanatic world, Apple is doing people a favor selling their songs through iTunes. So that explains that when people criticize it, folks like you go crazy. Its like I'm attacking your entire belief system.

Sit back. Relax. Deep cleansing breath.

The customer is always right. What apple is doing is exactly the same as Wal Mart, Buy.com, or other services. There's nothing "special" about apple. They sure have a great mindshare. They make nice hardware (I bought an iPod!), but there is no difference betwen apple and any other manufacturer.

Now I know that deep down you don't believe that. You think it sets you apart to be part of apple. So do people who drive VW Beetles, or do anything that's out of the mainstream.

But its true. Apple is the same as everybody else. Its okay to think that. Its not an attack on you or apple.

You'll feel better when you know and believe that simple little fact.

Trolling with sympathy? by phorm · 2004-01-06 04:08 · Score: 1

for people who dual-boot Windows and Linux. As well as dedicated music pirates

Well, you must have "stopped" reading sometime before the music pirate section and then picked up again. Dual-boot is stated as a legitimate use, and others are more-or-less implied. While it is wrong to think in a "legal" sense that people will use such a thing for piracy, thinkly with "common sense" dictates that at least a few idiots to use this technology for less savory uses. If you look at everything from A-Bomb to Z, many things created in good intention are often abused.

Piracy? by phorm · 2004-01-06 04:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

I frown upon this sort of piracy

It's not piracy until you sell/give the re-encoded file away to somebody else. Until then it's fair-use (hint: think of devices that play Mp3 but not AAC).

Re:Jon wrote 1000 lines of code with no comments by ivan256 · 2004-01-06 04:32 · Score: 1

I was recently looking at some code I wrote my freshman year of college for the senior level computer graphics class I (stupidly) took... It does all those nasty things and more. There isn't a comment to be seen either, just line after line of equations and pointer arithmetic in loops.

His code could just as easily be an example of of inexperience in working with others and in writing reliable code as from a decompiler.... Actually, it's cleaner then most decompiler code I've seen.

The lack of well named variables probably comes from a lack of true understanding of why it does exactly what it does. It's structure *is* probably derived from him looking at the disassembly.

Point of correction by X-Nc · 2004-01-06 05:13 · Score: 1

> C may well have gone the way of COBOL

Ahem, COBOL is still alive and kicking quite well these days. There's still more new COBOL (i.e. non-legacy maintenance) code being written than any other language but C. Plus the ANSI/ISO standard for COBOL was updated in 2002 giving COBOL as good (or better) object capabilities than C++.

COBOL isn't sexy. It's not "kewl". It's very misunderstood; most people only know it from code written before 1970. It is, however, still the best language for the task it was designed for.

Programming languages are tools. Each has strengths and each is best suited for specific jobs that require those strengths. I have always hated programming language elitism. Whenever someone says such-and-such language is the greatest or so-and-so language sucks I can instantly tell that this person doesn't have much of a clue about programming or application development. Would you hire a carpenter whose only tool was a hammer to build your house?

--
-- If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.

Re:Jon wrote 1000 lines of code with no comments by ivan256 · 2004-01-06 05:20 · Score: 1

Crap. Replying to myself...

I *don't* write code like that anymore! Just wanted to throw that out there...

results: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-06 07:04 · Score: 1, Informative

I tried it, but only 10, 25, 50, 100 reencodings, all at 128KB/s with bladeenc.
At 10x it sounds definitley worse, you can easily tell the degraded version from the original on the cheapest equipment.
At 25x ghost-noises increase, some instruments become very faint and vocals develop strange echoes.
At 50x it starts to become painful to listen to the song, noises are sometimes louder than the music, overshadowing it completely.
At 100x noises get so loud you can't understand the vocals, and only the most basic of notes manage to come through. Nevertheless, the song is stillt easily recognizable. It stopped beeing enjoyable somewhere between 10 and 25.

All the best,
rob

Good call by PotatoHead · 2004-01-06 09:47 · Score: 1

I was up about 22 hours when I wrote that. Big nasty winter storm, here in Portland, mixed with a broken water main and a neighbors leaky basement = a very long night.

(Just got up)

--
Blogging because I can...

Re:Jon wrote 1000 lines of code with no comments by 3.1415926535 · 2004-01-06 12:21 · Score: 1

Ahh, if only we could all live in your bug-free fantasy world!

Re:Article text by kiwipeso · 2004-01-06 13:13 · Score: 1

The article was an exclusive. However, I think it would be pretty rare to program in norwegian, or indeed any language except english.

--
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer

Its easy to laugh at you guys.. by rofthorax · 2004-01-06 17:32 · Score: 1

I hate to mention this, but aren't we talking about a encrypted audio format that is also compressed at a lower quality than what can be had at CD-quality.. Not only are you paying for less, you are getting less.. These are probably the same people who buy DVD-RAM Video Camcorders, note these camcorders use MPEG compression which is ten times more lossy than DV-CAM's that use MJPEG (JPEG per frame, no bidirectional compression, etc..). Just like the guys who purchased color palm pilots.. And the advertising/marketing/sales people win yet again pulling more than just wool over your eyes.. Might as well have the bear rug as well..

--
Just say no to license servers!!

Slashdot Mirror

DVD-Jon Breaks iTunes Encryption For Linux Users

584 comments