Slashdot Mirror
New Tool Cracks Apple's FairPlay DRM
goombah99 writes "PlayFair is an integrated utility that removes the DRM from AAC music files protected by Apple's FairPlay encryption. Information is limited, but the source code is on SourceForge.net and it appears to actually remove the encryption itself and not simply hijack the QuickTime audio stream as earlier methods did. The cracking operation can only be done on songs the user has already has valid licenses for and requires either an iPod or a windows computer for key recovery. If you choose to redistribute these songs you will be violating the contract you bought them under: better hope they aren't watermarked or you might end up paying for releasing one in the wild. To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard."
1) My computer, my data, my choice. DRM snake oil providers can deal with it. The future won't tolerate the crap these copywrite perverters are trying to enforce, may as well wake up now before it's too late.
2) Downloading music does not affect sales. DRM is only there to appease the record industry, still scared shitless that artists can have direct contact with their fans who still provide them with income. This cuts them out as the middleman. Like the landlord of times before us, they will be replaced or burnt to the ground. Again, deal with it.
3) The previous two paragraphs are both 'revolutionary' premises. Vandals these coders are not.
Wouldn't it be wonderfull once the WMA standard becomes available everywhere? All online music stores will use it because it will be so secure. On-demand video companies will spring up from this new found industry standard. Portable players and home stereo systems will all support it. Every media file on your computer will fall under one standard.
And then a code monky from Argentina will be codeing at 3am and have a Mountain Dew inspired breakthrough, and WMA will be broken wide open forever.
Software companies continue to forget the days of dongles, code wheeles, and manual page/paragraph/word lookups. All it will do is annoy real consumers.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
That's not much of a crack now, is it?
To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard.
Well, obviously Bill Gates wrote the crack.
The problem with incredibly clever people is inevitably they come up with something you don't want. Who's to say they weren't WMA or even (shudder) RIAA proponents, bent on showing the public can't be trusted and DMCA is the right approach?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
but it's not as if WMA can't also be cracked.
ALL technological barriers can be subverted. It just takes the proper motivation, be it economic, political or otherwise.
I'll stick with purchasing tracks on iTMS. I love my iPod, iTunes and the quality and economical service Apple provides.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
This thing proves brags that the "information wants to be free" concept will doom absolutely any music protection scheme, because somebody's bound to figure out how the thing works. They're right, and FairPlay has just bit the dust as a secure format.
Of course, you have to credit Apple for trying to build what they have, and maybe they'll be able to weather this storm because afterall, DVDs are still standing despite the existance of DeCSS. Maybe this will blow over and iTMS can stay in business... but this certainly isn't going to help.
I already have a removal tool for WMA. Just waiting for it to become a standard. ;)
The fairplay system allowed for FAIRPLAY, it is seen as the best DRM scheme online and yet somebody has to crack it? What for other than to get bragging rights and make AAC look inferior to WMA with its security protocols?
Jonathanjk.com
Since this is Apple its wrong.
If it was Microsoft or some other company ITMS users would flaming it up and laughing at how bad they suck.
Why is SourceForge allowing this kind of project on their site? This is purely a copyright-protection defeating program, and what's more, it's defeating one of the most liberal copyright-protection schemes in existance.
I'd hope SourceForge will be smart enough to delete this program rather than risk losing the site over it...
To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard
Why can't I do whatever I choose with the music I pay for? What if I want to put it on my other solid-state mp3 player, in mp3 format? This is a good utility.
~Berj
Serioulsy, how long is it going to take for a crack to come out for the Windows Media DRM? If they broken Apple's, it won't be too long. I would be it will happen inside 6 months...
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
Micrsoft DRM *won't* be cracked?
If *anything* is crack fodder after this...
But seriously, the first thing to crack is what people actually use. So, good job crackers.
Anyway, how is unlocking something you've paid for being a vandal?
To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard.
If DRM is offensive to you, than FairPlay is no better than WMA.
If you don't particularly mind DRM, then what's your complaint about WMA? I think it is the iTunes contract you like, and not FairPlay itself.
Then I'm glad your opinion doesn't count for anything. I like and respect what Apple is doing with iTunes as much as the next person, but they haven't been getting my money because I have no way to play their music on my platform of choice. I personally don't care what the license/contract/whatever is that I have to agree to; if I pay someone to listen to music, then I'll use whatever tool is available to hear it wherever I darn well want, whether the store approves or not. It's my song, morally if not legally.
WMA the standard because "FairPlay" is cracked? Sure, and DivX will become the standard DVD format because CSS was cracked.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Anyone who didn't see this coming.. i don't know what you were thinking.
Apple chose the "cheap bike lock" model. Instead of trying to absolutely lock down their digital music distribution, they put an [i]impairment[/i] to fully free use of the music, but one which they knew would eventually be broken. This is a rational thing; if you KNOW that someone, if they REALLY wanted to, would be able to break your encryption, what's the point of trying to make the encryption really strong?
The trick is, you wait for the inevitable crack program, then attempt to prevent people from distributing it.
Of course the interesting thing is, now Apple's going to go after the people who made this tool, and hundreds of Slashdotters will most likely deride it as an unconsiable use of the DMCA, then announce they are boycotting Apple and dumping the iTMS for, say, Napter2... which uses WMA, whose DRM is even worse...
Yes, totally. Similarly, I think anybody who writes notes in the margins of college textbooks should be put in prison. There's nothing in the license of the textbook that allows them to do that, and for all we know they're just going to sell them back to a used bookstore later, allowing other people to cheat on their classes and ruin the American education system! When will this fair use madness end?
Thanks, I know I can count on /. for answers within 1-2 minutes. Unlike usenet.
I don't see them as vandals any more than the DeCSS authors are. As you said yourself this only allows people to access data they already havea license for. Now the fact that some of them will distribute copies is their bad act, not the tool's authors' bad act. And not only would it be a contractual breech but it would be copyright infringement plain and simple. I hope people that do that get caught and prosectuted as they should. But I don't support calling the tool's makers "vandals".
Your point about WMA is good though. This may just have that effect. Unless someone "breaks" WMA too.
I agree that redistributing the results would be both unethical and illegal. But last I hear prior restraint was still frowned on by the courts.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
It's a good thing.
Contrary to the knee-jerk reaction (and incidentally, also contrary to the blurb), I think that this tool is a blessing. Since it only works on songs that you have a valid license for (ie stuff you bought), it removes the burn-to-cd step from the "buy from ITMS, burn to CD, re-rip to MP3" process for those of us who don't have an iPod. I've bought quite a bit of music from the store, and I relish the opportunity to use it on my Lyra. This, I think, was the developers' intention with this tool-- not infringement. This is the only use I will have for this tool. Others may use it improperly or illegally, but that does not mean I should be denied access to the tool.
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
The DRM on WMA will take longer to crack. What this means is that we'll have this neat pressure situation where all the content companies will demand to use WMA rather than, say, RealAudio or FairPlay because WMA is "unbreakable". And of course this means that by the time WMA DRM is finally cracked, all the other formats will be dead and WMA will be the unchangeable standard.
sorry for that here is the real link:6 CDEA1EF D77ECBBFFBF2D76B6DD8B3|/
ed2k://|file|playfair-0.2.tar.gz|444241|52
If it's watermarked, then that's fair enough. If you choose to breach copyright law then that's your fault. I do disagree with your stance on calling these people vandals. They've just made it possible for me to use my purchase in the way I see fit. I.e. any kind media shifting I desire. They've also made my life easier maintaining access to the those files years down the road. I have no intention of breaking the copyright laws where I live, so I couldn't care less if the files are watermarked...
Well, on second thoughts: what happens if I let somebody check their email on my computer and they steal the files and then release themselves? I guess watermarking becomes a problem.
I smell another DeCSS incident coming..
- ickna http://www.ickna.com
one of the most interesting things about this project is the authors were actually on crack while they wrote it. it was a test of whether drugs could induce creativity for breaking encryption.
To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard.
And yet you do them the service of propagating news of their work through Slashdot, to people (like myself) who have oft wondered about the feasibility of cracking Fairplay, yet otherwise would not have known.
Good job.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
This is exactly the reason why we need hardware based DRM as soon as possible. Software based DRM just doesn't work and its proven to the pioneers in the industry over and over again.
No DRM means i'll never be able to oneclick download the games i'd like to play, it means that i'll never be able to just watch the movies running in the cinema on my home theature for a couple of bucks and in this case that I can't just get the music iIlike within seconds.
I REALLY don't want to walk to stores anymore for music.
Likewise I really don't want to have the CD-ROM in my drive for every game I play.
What are the odds that Microsoft has paid for the crack. This would certainly be in Microsoft's best interest.
Apple bought VeriDisc. They didn't license FairPlay; they own it.
This will become useful for those people who buy music from iTMS and who have more computers / AAC devices than what AAC DRM allows.
:)
... the problem with copied music would be a lot less. Hell, if music was free to download at 64kbps mono (for example) then everyone can preview the music (the argument for file sharing) and then choose to buy the high quality version, or just use the naff version. File sharing is the Radio of the 21st century. Adapt or die.
Hopefully it won't be used by people to create AAC albums for download, that will lead to harsher DRM in the future that may be even harder to remove.
If Apple had any sense, then they will have watermarked the AAC files in some way to identify the owner of the file (okay, the owner of the license to play the music contained within the file) - this was probably a requirement to get iTMS off the ground to be honest. If you use this software to remove the DRM and then share the files, don't be surprised if you get in trouble for it down the line!
It is a bit hard to enforce strictly the right for the music owner to play the music they own on any device in the house or on their person, or in their car, whilst preventing the copying of said music to another person's computer/car/etc.
Especially as that creation, the CD-R, bypasses a lot of the issues
Now if only music was cheaper in the shops, and the artist got a fair proportion of the proceeds
Having this available is like a selling point for ITMS. I've been rather resistant about buying songs there because they place restrictions about what I can do with my own data on my own machine. (and no, I'm not talking about selling them).
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
With this, if you move out of the country (i.e. Canada, for all you bush-hating hippies), all your honestly-bought itunes won't become useless.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
The cracking operation can only be done on songs the user has already has valid licenses for and requires either an iPod or a windows computer for key recovery.
Is this article a cleverly disguised troll?
If anything the creator(s) of PlayFair are doing the responsible thing, and not allowing the user to perform a so-called cracking operation on a song they haven't licensed/paid for.
I don't think Apple has anything at all to fear from people distributing their AACs and cutting into the iTMS profits. If people wanted to hunt down and download music files for free they would be doing that in the first place, instead of going to the iTMS; people use the iTMS out of concience or convenience already.
No, I think what Apple has to fear is that now that fairplay's been cracked, the RIAA will freak out, go "YOU TOLD US TEHY WOULDNT BE ABLE TO COPY TEH FILES", and pull apple's music licenses.
Ok, then does this mean that I can finally remove the DRM from the Audible.com files that I PURCHASED and cannot play on MY non-DRM MP3 player? I use the almost-useless little Otis player because I have to (or buy an iPod, which I can't afford) and I'd much rather have these files in an MP3 (or OGG) format. I do not have a Mac or an iPod so I hope they generalize this for the rest of us.
Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.
Just give it some time and WMA and all the other competing technologies will be cracked as well and the playing field will be level again. I don't think this will have any effect, long term, on what file format becomes the much-hyped .mp3 replacement.
Slashdot, it really whips the apples llama in the ass to think different in soviet russia.
3. Profit!
Imagine a beowulf cluster of ml_ipod plugins.
I can now go iTunes using my Windows XP box that doesn't even have speakers, buy music tracks, run them through this DRM remover, and then play them back on my Linux machines at home and at work?
If this actually turns out to be the case, I'll be sending Apple (iTunes) about $20-50/month for the forseeable future.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
Everything can be gotten around. It would be crappy if this could cause Itunes to lose steam. (If they had any). Music should be like TV... the shows are free, but you have to watch the commercials. (looking at my cable bill) it seems I have to pay for the commercials, and I have to pay for Tivo to skip the commercials.
Eh, screw it all. If I had the money and the willpower I would boycott it all, but after 12 hours of work, being able to pick up the remote and watch the shows I want to watch, or use Itunes and listen to the music I want to listen, has made me fat and lazy!! But I love it though....
On a itunes related note, my wife asked if I wanted an Ipod for our anniversary, I said no I wanted an Ibanez artcore guitar. In two years the ipod maybe dead, or obsolete, but with the guitar it will sound great for a lifetime. Besides making my own music is more fun then listening to someone else's!
having DRM built into copyrighted works is like having a car with a built in speed limiter that didn't let you go over the speed limit.
these people are not vandals. what if they sat on this until the whole industry DEPENDED on the idea that it was secure? AND THEN they released the exploit? they should be hired by apple.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard
By the intro blurb, I could not tell who said this.. no matter.
Programming a utility which circumvents Apple's DRM in Fairplay - or whatever it actually accomplishes - does well to show the weakness of that implementation, and is therefore valuable in two ways --
by proving false that any "security" is provided, and
this will get Apple to improve its implementation, and demonstrate if it really cares enough to do so.
Unfortunately, I won't hold my breath waiting for Apple to invoke the DMCA here against any "criminals" who use it; that's bound to happen soon enough.
If Apple doesn't want WMA to become the standard, let Apple get its act together with a demonstrably good implementation of the DRM idea, one which can't be cracked.
These programmers are no more vandals than Dmitri Skylarov, and Apple should realize that they're doing them a favor - for FREE.
The breif descriptions says the following:
Most of the heavy lifting for this program is done by the mp4v2 and mp4ff libraries.
Does this thing reencode the files? If so, how is this any sort of breakthrough? We could already do that.
To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard.
Fuck you buddy. No one has the right to tell someone what they can or can't do with something that they have purchased. If I wanted to ulock an AAC file with the intention of converting it to Ogg or MP3, that's my business.
Please explain to us how one can vandalize something that he or she owns. I'm sure we'd all like to hear your explaination.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
SCO were the ones who had a lock on the crack market right now?
From Merriam-Webster:
One entry found for vandal.
Main Entry: vandal
Pronunciation: 'van-d&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin Vandalii (plural), of Germanic origin
2 : one who willfully or ignorantly destroys, damages, or defaces property belonging to another or to the public
Since I bought the music, it does not belong to the public. If I choose to remove the DRM that keeps me from doing what I want with my private property, that's not vandalism. Worst case: I just voided my song's warranty
My lack of God, it's Trotsky!
I don't understand. I'm as pro peer-to-peer sharing as the next slashdot reader. Since I discovered the joys of kazaa (and Poisoned since switching to my Mac) I've discovered music that i never would have heard otherwise, and this has led me to spend far more in CDs than I would have/can afford. But I also see that iTunes music store is great, it means that those who actually want to pay for music aren't restricted to doing so by buying CDs, when I pay for music I do so because I want the artist to earn from their work. If you wanted to there isn't a single song on iTunes you couldn't get over a p2p network. All this will do is turn the record companies against the iTMS and damage a great service. And seriously, it's not like the FairPlay liscence is all that restrictive, making ten copies of a downloaded album? I think that's fair!
The cracking operation can only be done on songs the user has already has valid licenses for and requires either an iPod or a windows computer for key recovery.
Let's emphasize this part. You still have to go through the trouble of downloading it, compiling it, and using it on your own songs. I don't see many people doing this just to share them over a P2P network.
There would be a problem if this was something that could decrypt other's songs. If you do a search there are people sharing m4p files on filesharing networks (mainly because they just share their music library) and so the ability to then download those files and decrypt them would be more serious. As it stands with this program, I have to go through that for my own files, which I wouldn't go through the trouble of doing unless FairPlay got in my way, which it doesn't.
Even then, however, I suspect it would not be a major concern. Apple expected this kind of thing and has a philosophy that most people will pay for their service regardless of if they can get it free elsewhere--simply because they will pay for quality and service.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Over at ExtremeTech, they have a great article right now that compares OGG/WMA/MP3/AAC codecs and their conclusion is that AAC is the best overall codec in terms of quality. Codec Shootout
So, Perhaps, AAC needs to be "broken" in order to prevent an inferior codec standard from gaining too much momentum. This already happened with MP3. Personally, I like the idea of OGG, and it received a strong 2nd place finish in the report.
-- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
Very good point, and one I was going to make before I saw that you had already posted it.
I think it's the Apple fanboy in him talking and not his logic.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
This program wasn't released. It escaped into the wild and was quickly recaptured.
Try following the download link... SourceForge has apparently decided to pull the program. All you'll get is a 404 Error from whatever mirror you select.
This program is going to be quite the hot patato. It's DeCSS all over again... No USA web provider is going to be willing to host it for very long since it's going to be clearly on the wrong side of the DMCA.
I don't know where the author gets that, or why it needed to be included. Nobody's property is being destroyed, damaged, or defaced, and the authors certainly aren't sacking Rome! Ok, maybe the guy who uses this to decrypt a file he bought and put it on Kazaa, he could be some sort of "IP vandal", but c'mon... software is what it is. Don't fling invective words around.
As for WMA becoming the standard... who says nobody can crack Microsoft's DRM? Hell, somebody has cracked just about everything MS ever came out with, whether it was really necessary or not.
Personally, I don't care either way. I'm not buying sub-CD quality music anytime soon, and even if I was none of this DRM junk plays in Linux.
Well, what are we waiting for? Let's diff two cracked AAC's of the same iTune bought by different people to see if there's any encoding!
But is that a bad thing?
What if sales of music in this format increase, because people are more likely to buy songs they can use as they please instead of buying songs that have annoying DRM restrictions on them?
The bad assumption here is that by removing DRM, people won't want to buy a product, because they'll just copy it instead of paying for it. The problem with that assumption is it ignores the fact that copying itself has a cost, even if it's not a financial one: You both have to have a copy of what you want to make a copy of, and you then have to actually distribute that copy to whoever actually wants it.
Or you could just go to a central store of digital copies, pay your paltry 99 cents, and get your own copy. For most people, 99 cents is worth the convenience of having whatever they want on demand.
Before you start thinking this won't work, look at DVD sales nowadays. VHS tapes were priced to cost many, many times more than the price of a rental. Rentals were attractive. DVD's are priced at about $20-$30 each. Result? Even though people could fairly easy copy DVDs if they REALLY wanted to, it's just "easier" to walk into Best Buy and plop down the $20 - so much so that many many more people buy DVD's than used to buy VHS tapes.
For most people, trying to find and download a copy of something off the internet just isn't worth the $20 to buy the copy at Best Buy, or the $20/month to have Netflix mail it to you.
Very little of the cost/value of content is the content itself - most of it is the distribution. Efficient distribution can distribute content at prices low enough to be competitive with comparatively inefficient illegal distribution while still creating enough revenue to pay content providers.
paintball
This little game of drm/crack is quite interesting in light of this thought:
So you want the music industry to play fair, lower prices (a lot), and treat the artists well. Okay, say we're in some other universe and you get this wish. The music industry is the perfect paragon of what you think it should be. Low prices for cd's, no sky high exec salaries, artists treated well. Fine.
Continuing in our new universe, do you honestly think that all of the sudden all filetraders will graciously stop trading and support the newly benevolent music industry? Not a chance in hell. People will keep taking what they can get for free so long as the perceived chance of being caught is low.
Say the filetraders in this new universe were struck to all of the sudden play by the rules. Great. Utopia. But that won't ever happen. War is FAR more horrific than filetrading and the human race has failed to get remove is thus far. i don't hold out much hope of the trading or cash-grabbing stopping.
The music industry brought you the "digital" age of music enabling them to get it to you cheaper and faster, but forgot that you too can now trade them cheaper and faster. Why now all the trading? Got news for you, been going on for years with tapes....but just like the music industry, you can't move them about as fast or easily.
Well, I'm used to the slashdot hypocrisy.
- CSS cracked. All hail DeCSS! Those dirty corporate bastards can suck on this! Now I can do "fair use" with all those movies I rent from blockbuster!
- Apple's DRM cracked. "To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard."
Bah. The standard of what? The standard of what your overpriced iPod plays? Well that's always going to be AAC only, because Jobs said so, is it not?
Morons. Lets forget that MP3 already IS the standard, and has been so for nigh on a decade without Steve Job's official seal of approval.
Argue if you must. You know it's true. There are dozens of mp3 players. Everything plays mp3s these days, my DVD player, my car stereo, my phone.. What plays AAC? The iPod. One line of devices from one manufacturer under delusions of "we control the art world" grandeur.
Analogy: mp3 = elf, the binary standard linux uses by default. AAC = XBox Executable, a proprietary binary format that only runs on one company's line of devices (the xbox).
Fuck AAC, WMA, RA and every other proprietary MP3 clone.
Bah, of course if it was WMA cracked, would you be complaining that AAC might "become the standard?"
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
All this really does is cut out the 'Burn to CD, Rip back' steps. The music still needs to be purchased, and the buyer still has to be involved and aware of their actions. I'm not saying there aren't people that wouldn't do this, just that those types determined to share already have ulterior methods.
In fact, there's nothing saying that it also translates it automatically from AAC into MP3. So you'd still need another step for most non-iPod uses anyway!
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
If you don't like the terms of use, don't buy it. Simple enough - that applies to all consumer goods, not "all consumer goods except those favoured by the /. crowd".
Tell me again why this is an issue? If the major artists & labels use DRM, you have three options:
1. buy their music & put up with the DRM
2. don't, & spend your money on independant artists and labels instead.
3. buy no music
But no, many of your are clamouring that your preferences should override the property rights of the content owners, & any contract you enter with them.
Those calling for restrictions on contractual terms of use are pirates in the worst sense - you're not violating copyright (which in itself isn't theft, mind you), you're violating human rights.
I doubt this will have much of a negative impact on Apple. For the masses, A 128 KB/s AAC with its DRM mysteriously stripped out is still less appealing than a 192 KB/s MP3 from Kazaa/BitTorrent/eMule/whatever. iTMS doesn't offer any exclusive content, so there's no reason to expect these files to start running wild through the internet.
People download from iTMS because of convenience, legality, data integrity, etc., not because they are too stupid to find the same music for free.
domain combinatorics
And will continue to do so since they offer the most out of the music i want, i get to choose the format i want it in, i get the cover art, i get a hard copy and i shop when its the sales anyway so i don't have to pay allot.
Jonathanjk.com
That's the option key. It does roughly the same kinds of things as "alt". The shortcut will be to hold down command ("Apple button") and option and hit the letter. Good luck.
but of course i never have understood why just the fact that people enjoy something you create is not enough of a reward to justify its creation.
I can't eat your enjoyment.
I really do not get this movement against copyrights. I know the concept suffer from serious abuses and I'm against it as much as most people here however copyrights are a necessity, artist need to be paid for their work and iTMS was providing a very good compromise between fair use and copyrights. I think its a sad day when clueless geeks cannot understand the need to protect ones work from abuse. Like it or not, people not respecting copyrights are discouraging many newcomers to actually try to sell their music and therefore create, their need to make a living does surpass your need for free entertainement. Was 99 that much? Man people can be so cheap sometimes...
I understand the need to crack the DVD encryption scheme so it can be used on Linux, that's fair use, I understand someone wanting to break the WMP DRMs since they do not allow fair use but the fairplay DRM was a pretty permissive one. Man you can even burn it on CD the number of time you wish if you change your playlist every 10 burns, where is the copyright abuse there, plus you can then rip each of those CD if that truly is your pleasure.
I am against abusing consummer but I am also against abusing creators and that is exactly what playfair is providing and that sux...
You knew it was DRM protected when you bought it.
From the terms and conditions:
"You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following Usage Rules, and you agree to use Products in compliance with such Usage Rules"
and
"You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules"
If you want to do whatever you want with your music, buy CDs.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Why is this crack a bad thing? It's quite simple. It isn't like it lets you use music you own in ways that you should be allowed to. You agreed when you downloaded the music from iTMS that there would be limitations to your use inherent in the AAC format. A crack that lets you break the encryption is just a way for you to renege on your agreement with Apple. It isn't a free-your-data machine; it's a breach-your-contract-with-Apple machine.
by ExtremeTech. Sorry.
-- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
Look, I don't like it when people do this sort of thing either - but it's not like these tunes aren't already out on Kazaa anyway. How is one more potential source for illegally shared music going to subtantially alter the current situation?
Will the vast majority of iTunes users even try this out? I think that's highly unlikely, given that you have to already own the song in order to remove the DRM.
#DeleteChrome
You can just burn the songs to an audio disc and re-encode them to MP3 or something else. iTunes will even burn and encode the songs for you. If you don't care about the album cover it shouldn't be that much of a hassle.
These guys didn't do anything special. The libraries they used have been out and available in a simple command-line form for quite awhile. They apparently just made it more accessible to the public. The libs are available at http://www.audiocoding.com/. I've played with the command-line version before and it works fine.
FairPlay DRM keeps me from buying music from iTMS. I already have three computers. I'm not going to lose my rights to play music that I've purchased just because I decided to format a hard drive. This program can only be a good thing and I look forward to a mac version.
My Blog Sucks.
> I stopped buying cd's when napster first came out, and haven't since.
Really, that's interesting.
Because I stopped buying CDs when the prices started topping 20.00, being a student and all I couldn't really afford it. Before I had money again I vowed that I would no longer support the RIAA by purchasing a CD that came through a major record producer. I purchase from iTunes every once in a while when I really want a song, but I can't play those songs on my linux box that runs to the builting speakers in my house.
George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
Here's a link to the playfair cypher which, despite it's age, does not have a quick solution. The only conputerized solutions I've seen are "shotgun hill climbing" algorithms that sometimes find and answer and sometimes need to be restarted. This cipher was actually considered impossible to break for a very long time.
Although Sourceforge have pulled the .tar.gz mirror, you can still login into the CVS and get it:
/ playfair login
/ playfair checkout playfair
cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot
cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot
That's true only if all DRM is concidered offensive. FairPlay, in the way Apple is using it, conveys more allowed use than the other forms of DRM, which makes it possible for somepeople who dislike WMA to like FairPlay.
So like.. how do I use it? On Windows? Or is it linux-only?
I see a bunch of C++ source files, I'm assuming if I had the right compiler I could make something of them.. or not?
~ Aero
Yeah, but the whole point of buying a Mac is that you don't need to RTFM. I'm not a usability expert, but having a goofball symbol that's not actually printed on the key seems rather dumb.
Why is everyone making such a big deal out of this? The capacity to remove DRM is already there. Buy a song, burn it onto a CD, reimport it as an MP3. OH MY GOD!!! SOMEONE MADE A HARDER WAY TO REMOVE DRM!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!
See also the MacSlash discussion on FairPlay.
So let's be rational about this. The tool removes DRM from AAC files purchased from iTunes Music Store. Is this about fair use or piracy? Probably both, but it could be used solely for fair use. Scenario: you have an mp3 player (iPod was a bit too pricey), but you bought a song on iTMS so that you could play it on your computer in iTunes. Now you decide that you'd like to play that song on your mp3 player (which has AAC support, by the way). Is this fair use? I think so (but who's a lawyer around here anyway?). There is one hangup to this scenario, though. Do you have to agree to some terms of service before you buy from iTMS? And if so, do these terms of service say that you can't attempt to beat the DRM? In that case you would have a different problem related to breach of license, but you still have not violated copyright law.
Others will argue that breaking this DRM is civil disobedience, and is a necessary and responsible part of the protest against the music industry's scheming evils. That is a foolish plan of action, especially because all of the copyleft licenses rely on copyright law to guarantee freedom. Disregarding copyright law erodes the freedoms granted by copyleft, which is a very bad idea.
"To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard" Please read this: The antithesis between lack of property and property, so long as it is not comprehended as the antithesis of labour and capital, still remains an indifferent antithesis, not grasped in its active connection, in its internal relation, not yet grasped as a contradiction. It can find expression in this first form even without the advanced development of private property (as in ancient Rome, Turkey, etc.). It does not yet appear as having been established by private property itself. But labour, the subjective essence of private property as exclusion of property, and capital, objective labour as exclusion of labour, constitute private property as its developed state of contradiction -- hence a dynamic relationship driving towards resolution. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/ma nuscripts/comm.htm
Activists United
I had no problem getting it ten minutes ago, and that would be ten minutes after you posted. I got it on the second try, but there's been other times I had to try two mirrors.
Don't scream about it too much. I agree with what people have said about DeCSS, DVD is not dead. All this means to me is I can use iTunes on my shiny new powerbook (to PAY for digital music) and still maybe use it on my linux desktop, like I can play my dvds.
You can still get the previous version, which was released a scant 5 days ago. It's nothing special, just a clever way to get at the private keys that breaks the PKE scheme.
I mean, all "hacks" on DRM of this nature (single authority source, encrypted carrier, hardware or firmware enforcement) will be exactly the same technique. The question is how do you get at the unencrypted scheme or your session keys... this is an example of how to do that under Fairplay w/iPods.
Point being, at some stage you have to store a decryption key somewhere, and all you need to is intercept it or extract it. It checks your iTunes for it's user key, or generates the one the iPod would (eventually) use. Apparently using this and MD5 hashing of information from each protected song, you get a session key which can decrypted the DRMS atom (AES if you were wondering... figures). And that's it.
I wouldn't really call it hacking... it's reverse engineering and re-implementation of Veridisc's algorithm.
Point is, I was waiting for someone to finally hunker down and pick it apart. Now I know... so if I ever run into a situation where I need the unprotected stream, I can get it, but you're not going to see me giving these unprotected streams to my friends... I paid for them! I just need to increase my value.
Now I can use the AAC streams in my car (got a laptop rigged up... OGGs, MP3s, and now iTunes... heee heee!)
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
You apparently dont understand contract law. When you contract for something you can indeed give up rights if that's what the contract says. There are of course certain rights that cannot be contracted away (such as the right to sue or silly things like killing yourself or giving up your first born).
Mod me up!
a yf air/playfair-0.2.tar.gz
http://belnet.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/pl
"To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard."
Yeah right - and if WMA had been cracked, you'd be rejoicing and singing from the rooftops about how Apple had a more secure format and how it should be the number 1 DRM method.
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
Some people say they want hardware based DRM, then recoil at that suggestion.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
How did this get modded flame bait? Fred is right on. Since when are licenses defined in statue? (except for the statutory licenses, which is maybe what the gp is thinking of?) Whatever, all us /.s are idiots.
Soooo.... That's why you posted the story to Slashdot?
Personally:
- Vandal -- someone who spraypaints his name on
somebody else's property
- Inventor -- someone who invents the spray can.
The two shouldn't be confused.This only works if you already have a key, so you aren't stealing anything, it just makes it possible to get better use out of music you paid for. Such as putting it on your slimserver etc. I don't think that the availability of such a tool is going to cause people to go hunting for protected aac files to crack, and if you are going share them, you could just rip them as mp3 (yes i know lesser quality yada yada). I think this tool is useful for people that do buy iTunes an i for one will probably buy more now that i can get better use out of them.
Think of it as the same thing as cracking a game you already bought so that you don't have to put the CD in the drive every time you want to play it.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Fine, then you are a leach, and in reality you are the minority. Surveys have shown that downloadable music actually has a positive impact on sales of popular albums and a negative impact on unpopular albums. The net result is only a slight decline in music sales on the order of like 1 in 5000 cd's.
Personally I bought one album from Itunes and was immediately annoyed that I could not play that song on Linux. Now with this crack, I can, which means that I'm actually going to buy stuff through Itunes. So in the end, this will result, at least for me, in more money going to the music industry.
Bill Gates was actually one of the people who physically wrote the software for the Tandy 100 portable computer. Neat hack, actually...those little suckers were being used daily by Associated Press reporters up until a few years ago. Supposedly it was the last time he did any substantive programming.
This does not change the fact that Gates, Allen and Ballmer bought QDOS from a little computer company in Seattle for $20,000 and subsequently built their gigabuck empire on its back. And that the vast majority of Microsoft's "innovations" were clever buys from little software companies like Loma Prieta (FrontPage) and Bungie.(Halo)
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
then we will just crack WMA! have these people learnt nothing from history? repressed people ALWAYS find ways to free themselfs, it's human nature.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
It is interesting to note that "Playfair" is the name of a cryptosystem invented in 1854 and heavily used (and frequently broken) in World War I.
Varients were still in use (and still being broken) for low grade cyphers in World War II.
I would be very surprised if the developers of FairPlay and PlayFair were unaware of this link.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
This link works for download. Most mirrors seem to have the file removed :(
This has been around for a while (second link).
When you download a song from iTunes, the encryption is unique to your account. What this software does is duplicate the procedure by which an iPod determines the session key that would have been used to encrypt said downloaded song (for the purpose of decrypting OUTSIDE the iPod). This only works with the key you registered with iTunes... otherwise the server encryption (and the iPod decryption, and thus this hack) wouldn't match up.
You can't derive a session key if you don't know the user key that was used to make it. So unless someone divulges their iPod key or user key to you that they registered the iTunes store with, you can't break the encryption of the songs they downloaded.
Instead, you could try to brute force it (astronomical cost). Or hack into the iTunes server (high risk). Good luck.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I love iTunes, but I could never get the downloaded songs to work on my iPod. For whatever reason, iTunes will let me copy the songs to my girlfriend's iPod, but not mine. I've looked through all the options to see if I could direct a purchase from one iPod to another, but I never figured it out. Checked online too, never found a solution. Now I can purchase tunes and actually listen to them at work!
He's wrong. Why not stop and think for a second before moderating based on politics?
Microsoft causes cancer. OOOOOH +1 INSITE FALL!!1!!
Turn your brains back on, guys.
People won't go around cracking AAC files like mad. If they want illegal copies, they'll just dl them off Soulseek. It's not liek you can't already get everything free already. the only use for this is to play legally purchased music outside of itunes.iPod.
avoid riaa stuff at all costs. here's some amazing music to check out via p2p or via what few links i've bothered to dig up. what follows is a nice selection of pop and rock from some outstanding bands on some very fine record labels. support these artists, or artists like them--unencumbered by the riaa. support these labels. they do wonderful things. these are great songs from great albums.
aislers set, the - mission bells from (suicide squeeze/slumberland) aislers set on epitonic
ballboy - donald in the bushes with a bag of glue from silver suits for astronauts ep (sl)
barcelona - i have the password to your shell account from moshi moshi: pop international style (march) barcelona on epitonic
beulah - popular mechanics for lovers from the coast is never clear (velocette records) beulah on epitonic
boyracer - tell me where my hands should go from to get a better hold you've got to loosen your grip (555 recordings) boyracer on epitonic
bugs in amber - roller coaster ride from rocketship letters (sign language)
camera obscura - suspended from class from underachievers please try harder (merge)
can i be she-ra? - pizzacato
carissa's wierd - sofsticated fuck princess please leave me alone from songs about leaving (sad robot) more songs
catch, the - empty your pockets
cinerama - your charms from the flirt compilation
currituck county - the collision from unpacking my library (teenbeat)
decemberists - red right ankle from her majesty the decemberists (kill rock stars)
east river pipe - my life is wrong from (merge/sarah) east river pipe on epitonic
evening lights, the - in a day from landscape cdep (shelflife) more songs
faint, the -
I would argue that OggVorbis is also a standard, if not for market acceptance than because the format is well documented: anyone can make an OggVorbis ripper or player. WMA and FairPlay, like DOC files are not standards, but products. You couldn't create a product that creates or plays these files, as you don't have access to data defining the files. Hence, by definition, neither can be considered "standards."
The ______ Agenda
... it will be now.
... so thanks for cracking this, assholes. Sure, you could have just ripped your CDs to MP3, or downloaded MP3s from your file sharing network of choice, but instead you decided to bring down the only legal download option with DRM actually acceptable to most people. Now the music industry will only respond with something even more heavy-handed, and the arms race that hurts Joe Consumer and benefits no one but DRM developers will go on ... Our European friends may have to wait even longer for their own iTunes.
If you share all your downloaded songs on Kazaa, eventually they will trace it back to you.
This is the one advantage music downloading has over, say, hard media (CD/DVD) or broadcast distribution. And it's why copyright and digital distribution ultimately *are* compatible, even if every copy-protection scheme that can be created can also be cracked.
Which is great, but personally I could have done without every song I download being tagged with my identity
I hope SlimDevices can use this to convert from protected AAC files to regular AAC files suitable for SqueezeBox use. That would seal the deal on this device (expensive, yet cool, and it can play regular AAC files already)
I got an account on iTunes and downloaded a song. It turned out to be a poor compressed version of the song. I - therefore - feel that is isn't the real song, but a poor derivitive copy.
From what I understand, there is not copyright claim on derivitive works. Therefore, this key breaking program is a non-issue.
I'll still buy CD's, thank you, for the stuff I really want to listen to
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
Vandals...hmmmm....you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does........
very intsightful
Pee. Nis.
Yah, I suppose my workers really want to work for free too, they are just too embarrassed to ask for less...
IANAL, but how sure are you of this? I mean, if Fairplay is being used to allow iTMS songs to by played on other devices, wouldn't it fall under Sect. 1201 (f) Reverse Engineering exception of the DMCA? (interoperable software)
The "Insert Quote Here" line is almost as predictable as inserting an actual quote.
So is anyone working on a way to get the system key from a Mac? I don't have an iPod, nor do I feel like installing and authorizing iTunes on my Windows machine.
Only right now might 'fairplay' offer more features than other digital control schemes. But it is implemented in mutable and upgradable software. Will the next version--- a forced upgrade --- include more restrictive controls in a year?
You are bargaining from a position of weakness, after giving their software full control over your music collection. If you don't think they've been tempted to exploit that, you're a fool.
To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard.
That's your own damn opinion. No need to damage an otherwise good story submission with it, Slashdot already has comments for just that purpose. Next time you'd like to tell me what you think of a story you're submitting save it for when the story is actually posted and make a comment about it.
Slashdot should be editing these comments out of the story submission but the editors are just as guilty. It makes me long for a kuro5hin that's more geeky and slightly less arrogant.
Id much rather people had the freedom to write software like this than we all sit around and play along with DRM because its the law. To me DRM represents one of those stupid javascripts people employ on websites to stop you 'right-clicking', now imagine if by-passing that was illigal!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
All this discussion of rights and DRM and whatnot is very interesting. But the real question is has anyone tried it? Does it work as advertised? Or does it just eat your files?
Download my free songs!
Yeah, you view the authors as vandals, but you'll try to help get them a mention on Slashdot. That will surely discourage them from trying any such vandalism in the future!
:P
Good thinking, Mr. Morality.
--
Okay, I got Linux installed. So where's the free beer everyone keeps talking about??
> Unfortunately, if that happens it will only bring
> the age of gov't mandated hardware DRM
That's definitely the way things are headed.
Software DRM is doomed from the beginning - you can always intercept the data after it gets decrypted or alternatively gain access to the decryption keys (like in this example) - since they have to be stored somewhere.
Hardware based DRM schemes won't ever be completely secure either but they're going to be a lot trickier to crack than software ones.
Yes there is.
.ogg files too -- for the discriminating tastes.
Audio Lunchbox
Slashdot Story About Audio Lunchbox from March 19.
They sell
I've been circumventing the security since the iTunes music store came out. All you need is a CD burner. Burn your purchased music to audio CD then rip that CD back into itunes as MP3s without any security. This news changes nothing.
You have people who hate all DRM and who love Apple. So now people are actually arguing in favor of DRM just because they love their Apple computers so much. Don't be so blind! Let's imagine if Micrsoft had the same license as Apple with this DRM. Everyone would be cheering for this program. I know people don't like it when they are shown to be hypocrites, and I will probably be modded to oblivion, but if DRM is evil, then it is just as evil when Apple does it as it is when anyone else does.
"you just payed for the ability to listen to it"
... listen to it. If I loan it to a friend, what am I loaning him? I'm loaning him the... ability to listen to it.
Sure, but what other use is there for a song except to listen to it?
I mean, if I crack the DRM, all I can do is
You can't do anything else with the song except listen to it. So I'm puzzled if I'm the only person entitled to listen to it? That doesn't make sense. How could possibly enforce a license like that. DRM can't do it.
and all of the ones you have ever used on any network. I will bet my life that somewhere along the line you benefitted from reserve engineering like this. It could have been you connected to a Samba server or watched a DVD on Linux or at a minimum you have touched an IBM "compatible" PC. Its compatible because Compaq and other reverse engineered the IBM Bios. Maybe you bought 3rd party ink for your printer? Or maybe you downloaded a game crack because a game flat out wouldn't work with your computer because the software is fucked?
Or maybe your just an Apple fanboy who thinks that users shouldn't have the right to do what they want with files they already own? People have already been burning and then re-ripping their Itunes songs for a long time now, this just let's them avoid the loss of the quality. Nothing new here and your calling them vandals and scoundrels is uncalled for.
1. It is not like you can use it do steal songs from the iTunes store. THAT would be a problem.
2. It sounds like an app. that would not be used by the general population. Like the various patches that allow you to download FROM the iPod (which I believe are a greater threat to RIAA, as they actually allow massive selections of mp3's to be easily swapped) the casual user will likely not know, or care the app. exists.
(from dictionary.com)
Vandal (van'dl)
1. vandal One who willfully or maliciously defaces or destroys public or private property.
2. A member of a Germanic people that overran Gaul, Spain, and northern Africa in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. and sacked Rome in 455.
As these people obviously have not maliciously defaced or destroyed public or private property, I can only assume, then, that the repeated references to them as "vandals" means that the FBI has identified the coders as coming from an obscure Germanic sect, whose culture was believed lost.
Which leads to a conundrum. If we don't arrest these people, then we are validating the viewpoint that the DMCA is far overreaching. If we do arrest these people, then we are destroying the remnants of a lost civilization important to our shared cultural heritage.
Declare a law overly broad, or destroy a valuable culture? What is Ashcroft to do?
The ______ Agenda
big deal.. it decodes an AAC then reencodes into AAC (without DRM) or presumably another format (mp3). When you reencode a lossey format into another lossey format, with an intermdiate step of going to a lossless format (ie wav), you lose data.. quality deteriorates. This is just automating the process of burning to a CD then ripping to an MP3.
Not impressed.. or maybe I'm wrong?
mike
That is such a stupid claim, my car dealer said AAC was better, there!
Why don't you refer to a pro audio site?
You know, nothing is worst than a computer site to judge audio, mostly because its the same people thinking that their klipsh pro crap sounds good, no ear no judgement.
I'm an audio pro and I can tell you any compression suck, lossy that is, but as far as they go AAC does sound better than WMA. And I judge that using a very professionnal monitoring system which I sincerly doubt those guys have (its not only the speakers its the whole setup and most importantly the way its been put togheter and oriented).
Why there is so much hypocrisy around? When Apple is in question, everything is suddenly good, including DRM.
When I purchased a song, then I have right to listen it as I want. How can I listen DRMd AAC under Linux or with portable player which doesn't have Fairplay support?
Then you say that you don't need anything beside Itunes, right? Why don't you use players approved by DVD consortium for watching DVDs then?
" and economical service Apple provides"
At $1 a song, that makes a CD worth what.... $8-16 if purchased via Apple.
I guarantee you I can but the CD more inexpensively, it comes with no DRM, and better sound quality.
Or are you one of those buffoons who likes to argue that 128kb AAC is equal to CD quality. That would be cute. Wrong. But cute.
To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard."
Ummm, only until some crazy person cracks WMA. If it took them what - a year (?) to crack Fairplay, how long will WMA take?
Another year or so?
It's not a question of IF, it's simply a matter of when and how.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
sorry for the tone of my previous post but it really angers me when I see someone pointing out expert that aren't when it comes to audio, its my trade and I am very picky when it comes to it.
Its not because has the same opinion than you that it validate yours...
Songs bought and downloaded from iTMS are watermarked with your account information. Checking out the source for the song with a simple text editor I was able to clearly see my name and email address used for purchasing from the store. I don't know yet if these are stripped when playfair strips DRM, but it's worth verifying before you start playing pirate again.
Besides, CD quality is still better audio.
==========
support the arts!
www.smadness.com
I live close to the Central Library for my borough. It has a lot of the most recent CDs and a very thorough collection of music. I go there sometimes with my laptop and just take out CDs and rip 'em. This is illegal, surely, but I don't think MPAA will ever catch me. The library's DVD collection isn't that good, so I don't do that yet, but I encode all the videos I borrow from Blockbuster for their "Rent all you can in 30 Days" deal.
Loser.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It really ought to be printed on the key.
*sigh* One thing that I've noticed in the business world is that more often than not, perception is reality. In other words, how something is perceived is more important than how it actually is. (For example, how many of you have bosses who don't want to use Linux because it's known as the "hacker's OS", and as such see it as being dangerous because it's used by hackers/crackers?)
The reason I bring this up is because this tool, however benevolent the reasons for creating it are, may end up causing more problems than it solves. Apple went to a lot of trouble to create a DRM scheme that was most acceptable to both users and record companies. You know FairPlay-protected AAC files are easily transferred to another media already (burn to CD). I know it. Not much fuss was made about it.
Now we have a tool that gets rid of that intermediate step. Is the end result the same as what we used before? Pretty much. Except now, the RIAA has something to point to and scream, "See those hackers! They'll even break liberal encoding to steal music! This is why we need tougher DRM!" It doesn't matter whether this was REALLY the case... all they have to do is PERCEIVE it as such a threat, and to them, it becomes truth. Granted, this may or may not be the case, but like I said... perception is reality. How many people outside of the tech community are going to get to see this as anything but a piracy tool?
I really hope it doesn't come to this. I really do. Like a lot of people here, I understand this tool was probably created with the best of intentions. Unfortunately, we also need to remember what they say the road to Hell is paved with...
Just my $.02...
"This is purely a copyright-protection defeating program"
This is a POWERFUL program. Not only does it strip out the DRM, it destroys the copyright.
When Disney hears, they'll resurrect Sony Bono just to pass a new law!
To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard.
Vandals? Really? Wow, because the first thing that came to my mind is: wow, I can unencrypt MY files and put them on my MythTV box, or trascode them to use in my cars mp3 player or send them through my Slimplayer. People are getting a little weird about DRM. Vandals is probably the most ridiculous thing I've hear yet. Itunes is great, but if we are going to continue to have fair use we are going to have to stop buying in to all the hype and realize that using a product we bought isn't criminal. I'm a fucking consumer, not a pirate.
Quack, quack.
...sure, I'm all for fair use--for me. My definition doesn't include me and a couple million of my closest friends.
All the Kazaa-using pirate assholes and those cracking Fairplay are doing is making my life harder and as time goes on, interfering more and more with what can be considered fair use.
You all need to consider what is cause and what is effect here. Was there DRM before Napster? Nope. So this is all a reaction to your sleazoid thievery and it just royally pisses me off.
As DRM goes, Fairplay is by far the best of a bad lot. Its compromises I can live with. What are you assholes going to make Apple come up with next?
DONT USE IT! there are p2p apps for people like you .seriously, this is just spoiling it for the rest of us that like itunes and dont have issues with it. No one is forcing you to use itunes. if you are going to pirate music use Kazaa or something like that.
I see no benefit form this other than to hurt itunes. If you dont like the licence, boycott it dont break it for everyone else. This is akin to idiots who dislike starbucks and go around destroying things since, if they dont like it, no one else shoudl be able to use it.
I like itunes, i have no problems with it, dont mess it up for me. just leave it alone if you dont liek the terms. Hey if enough people dislike it, maybe they will change things (though enough people like it that you are in the minority)
The jerk that wrote this is a childish intolerant moron.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
I don't see why this is necessary when the CD trick has already been around for such a long time. Thus, I'm somewhat mixed to the motive of such a title... its probably between bragging rights and revolutionary action.
It's been done. As far as I am concerned anyway. You can remove the DRM in purchaced WMA's in napster by using Jetaudio. Heres the tut from a post (by HMyers012683) in the napster forum:
:D) try here I won't tell from who I will not give out software to people I think are going to break the law.
How to unDRM the WMA file using Jetaudio.
***How Jetaudio works*** Jetaudio loads the key. If the key is not a temp key, It intergrates the key with the file. Leaving the file decrypted.
1. find a copy of jetaudio v5.1.10.3124 not 6.0 (or contact me it is freeware/ completely legal to share
*new* 1.a Do not update to 6.0
2. create New folder in "My Music" named unDRM'd
3. Start Jetaudio
4. Hit Conversion tab at top of player
5. ON convert screen hit add files... tab
6. Search "my music" folder for the music that was purchased
7. After selected hit open button
8. Set output format to WMA- Windows Media Audio
9. Hit config... button next tooutput type
10. set profiles to 128Kbps Stereo
11. make sure protected content is unchecked
12. hit OK
13. hit start on convert screen
14. when complete hit close on convert screen *******This only works with purchased music*********
Anyway, I've done it, it seems to work, I'm happy.
"Unfortunately, the proponents of DeCSS failed to convince the courts that it should be legal to destribute."
Fortunately, the market, hackers, and the enterprise have rendered this court decision so irrelevant that its laughable.
When will these people learn that if you can hear it, you can crack it? Is anyone here at Slashdot at all surprised by this? Why is it that the RIAA and Apple will act shocked by this news everytime?
If I buy it, it will be because I can put it where I want it. If these people continue to play games with DRM they will:
1) Spend WAY too much money trying to reengineer a 'non-crackable' standard.
2) Piss off a present and future customer the first time he/she wants to copy the song to a non-compliant device.
3) Discourge yet another generation from actually buying music rather than downloading free versions of it. Free as in beer, free as in freedom (DRM-free).
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
ALL of my songs are free from pepsi caps and no one knows ANYTHING about me other than the internet cafe IP address.
All other account info is fake. no credit card.
free itunes music, no DRM, thanks pepsi
You seem to have forgotten this tasty morsel
If it somehow found a way (legally) into my house and onto my hard drive, it belongs to nobody else but me, and as long as I keep it for myself, I'm allowed to do whatever I damn well please with it.
fs
I don't think your argument about algorithms being as secure as AES and the like stand at all. They could use an RSA algorithm and still be hacked. The weakness is not in the encryption, as this tool clearly demonstrates. The weakness is that the key has to be stored somewhere. When it's found, the key is used to do the decryption, which is a a no-brainer if you know the algorithm. The strength of those algorithms (AES, RSA) is the secrecy of the private key. However, for the local iTunes and the iPod to play the music the key MUST be stored somewhere. They finally found it, deciphered it (because this key probably isn't in plain text, but isn't encrypted with another key or it just gets cyclical and redundant with no benefit), and wham, here we are.
Uncrackable systems are not possible in an automated environment (iTMS and iTunes are essentially automated, requiring no human interaction to decipher a file). Uncrackable systems are not possible period because even with human interaction, your human becomes the weakness. Humans are greedy, power-hungry, and can be bought to give up their key. In an instant, security is instantly and completely comprimised.
"You can't use PlayFair without violating the contract you agreed to."
Its not a contract, its a EULA, and EULAs are meaningless drivel, with no legal bearing, that manufacturers use to scare ignorant people away from exercising their rights.
The fact that you think Apple is doing us a "favor" makes you, ummmm, addlebrained.
Yes, well, I'm sure the aristocracy that had been exploiting the populace for centuries thought the same when the poor masses rebelled. Or maybe not, because they used the term 'revolutionary' as if it meant 'criminal'. In any way, it's all in the eye of the beholder, it would seem. But we can safely say that it's a good thing their rights were trampled on and disgarded and abolished, or most of us would still be serfs.
The IFPI/RIAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality).
Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
What do you want? A cookie?
It's because of behavior like this that the RIAA has any ground to stand on at all.
That was really cute how you 'yadda-yadda-yadda'd right over the part where he said legally.
...damn trolls
fs
They're Jutes, at best. Or possibly Ostrogoths.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
No heavy mathematical processing has to be done to remove the DRM from a WMA file. If you can listen to it, you can decrypt it. All it takes is the algo, and the key.
Happy Hacking.
Interesting. Good point. So why was this allowed in reporting the story?
This belongs in the comment section, to be moderated fairly, like my little opinion and other people's comments.
I suggest you read Slashdot
You know,
You are right. This is nothing to be impressed about! If the format goes from lossy to lossy, all you have is a crappier version of an iTunes song. You can still get the real thing from the actual site.
You have to remember, that Apple knows people can get songs for free. They came right out and said that they aren't worried about people giving them away, they were aiming for the market of people who wanted something without all the hassle. To me, the extra steps are things I would rather not have to do. I think this doesn't even phase Apple. They won't even blink.
--If I said something interesting it probably wasn't correct
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Wipe My Ass
So when you're dragged into court, you'll be represented by the law firm of Merriam & Webster? The judge will be laughing at you, not with you.
It is just as illegal. Actually, more so. Downloading copyrighted music is simple a copyright infringment. (at the moment) This means it falls under civil law.
However, creating a tool like this circumvents a copyright protection scheme. This is a criminal act punishable by up to 5 years in prison or $500,000, under the DMCA of 1998. (section 1201)
As an aside you mention if Apple had it's way...Even at the risk of appearing as an Apple apologist...Apple didn't want DRM at all. They struck a deal with the RIAA. Essentially the RIAA said, NO DRM, NO MUSIC. Apple said, okay...we'll put in a little DRM. I wish I could find the quote from Steve Jobs but he essentially said, "DRM is stupid, users want control of their files and rightly so, DRM will kill the market."
To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard
So? The DRM on WMA will probably be broken just as easy.
The Easynews mirror (what I normally use) didn't have it. It might not have synced over yet. UNC had it. I just wrote a Gentoo ebuild (cribbed it from another ebuild, really) for it, and it grabbed it from the Belnet mirror.
Speaking of the ebuild, here it is:
# Copyright 1999-2004 Gentoo Technologies, Inc.
z "
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header: $
# Short one-line description of this package.
DESCRIPTION="Playfair enables fair use of iTunes Music Store downloads."
HOMEPAGE="http://playfair.sourceforge.net/"
SRC_URI="mirror://sourceforge/playfair/${P}.tar.g
LICENSE="GPL-2"
SLOT="0"
KEYWORDS="x86"
IUSE=""
DEPEND=""
S=${WORKDIR}/${P}
src_compile() {
econf || die
emake || die "emake failed"
}
src_install() {
einstall || die
}
Dump it in /usr/local/portage/media-sound/playfair, make sure PORTDIR_OVERLAY is set in /etc/make.conf, and issue emerge --fetchonly playfair && (cd /usr/local/portage/media-sound/playfair; ebuild playfair-0.2.ebuild digest) && emerge playfair to install.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
People are so ga-ga over Apple and iPods that they take on blind faith the Apple and RIAA corporate view. They really believe deep down that Apple is doing us a favor with iTunes and that anything that changes that equation, particularly from people who want more control over what they bought is somebody who must be stopped because they threaten the magic that apple has given them.
If you think about it, these people are like superstious savages who thank god for the blessing of rain and sun, and will sacrifice virgins to volcanos to keep their god (Apple) happy. Think about it. These are educated people who buy into this weird corporate view hook, line, and sinker becuase they think the Apple and iPod set them apart and make them better.
Its a religion. There's no arguing with religious fanaticism, either.
I own about 25 CDs, plus another 30 iTunes albums that I previously would have never bought had I not been able to hear them first.
I wouldn't even know how to spell scratch if a buddy hadn't downloaded this guy named Rob Swift a while back. Now I own 2 of his albums and 2 albums of a band (Xecutioners) he's a member of. That's not even counting Qbert and a bunch of other guys in that genre I own CDs of. In fact, that's a whole genre I probably would never have heard of, nor bought CDs of, were it not for Kazaa.
Actually now that I think about it, I wouldn't own 6 Snoop CDs or a host of other rap CDs were it not for Kazaa.
Allow me a Snoop-ism for RIAA: "eat a dick".
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Somewhere down the line record companies started getting the idea they had a right to a living and stopped earning it.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
And the name of the game is keeping Apple and the RIAA happy, because they control what we listen to.
Look for upcoming iTunes/iPod software update in the next month or so. Apple itself could care less about someone breaking AAC, but RIAA has freaked out and is forcing an update to "strengthen" the DRM in AAC.
Here's a BitTorrent for it: http://btiteam.bttracker.co.uk/download.php?id=347 &name=playfair-0.2.torrent
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
You correctly point out that you have bought and own the digital music and are not damaging anyone's property but your own, if that:
Since I bought the music, it does not belong to the public. If I choose to remove the DRM that keeps me from doing what I want with my private property, that's not vandalism
I agree.
Goombah, a loud old troll, would try to convince you that the song belongs to the artist who wrote it, the company that owns the artist and the software firm who thinks they own your player. If you accept this slavish reasoning, you own nothing and anything you do to the things you posses is vandalism.
The greedheads all argree that you should be raped. They only fight over who ge's to keep your money.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Unless there are rules that people follow, it becomes unprofitable chaos and then nobody gets to park (or listen to MP3s).
That said, I don't see how this can hurt Apple. For file sharers, AAC->CD->AAC may involve more quality loss but do file sharers care? Apple may make noises to protect its property but I doubt if this is the end of iTMS.
BTW, I considered getting a Squeezebox but didn't because I have a large number of iTMS-purchased AAC files, so I guess I'm a potential user. However, what I would probably have done is convert iTMS AAC->AIFF->FLAK. Even for the number of iTMS files I have we aren't talking about a huge difference in the size of my library. I have a lot more CD-ripped tracks than iTMS-purchased tracks. So I guess even for this purpose this tool is of limited use.
Amy
so where's the torrent?
> That's not much of a crack now, is it?
Dunno, sounds good enough for me. If I could do the whole transaction without booting Windows (Wine would be good enough) I might actually subscribe to iTunes. You see I have this little problem. I think.
More importantly I think thus:
I have CDs that are getting on 20 years old and they still play. By all indications, if properly cared for they can be passed on when I exit this reality. I have serious doubts about still being able to play DRMed music files. Follow me on this. Yes I can archive them to removable media. Yes I can supposedly transfer them to a new computer.... right now. But considering the pitiful sales figures that even iTunes is reporting (and they are the biggest!) I would seriously doubt they will still exist in their current form in 20 years. And even that is ASSuming they will still want to help me rekey a new machine twenty years from now to access obsolete AAC files encoded with a master key they might no longer have access to, shit happens you know. And NOBODY has broached the subject of whether iTunes licenses are inheritable property.
Now with this unlocking program I could use iTunes to buy the songs I want, in known good high quality rips and still be able to store them away on archival grade CD-R, safe in the knowledge I will be able to play them in 20 years or pass them down. This is fairly attractive.
Now if they would only offer a better selection of formats. I would really like something like flac, because quality matters to me. I don't just play music on crappy little computer speakers, I have a real stereo/home theater system in the living room. Sorry, but if I'm still going to have to go buy the CD the song is on, I'll just use gnutella for the low quality PC version. Plus I can convert a good format like flac down to mp3 for portable gadgets, computers, etc. AAC files can be played on a couple of software based players and exactly ONE brand of portable player. And reencoding a lossy format is usually not a good idea. MP3 -> ATRAC does fairly good, but then my MD is normal MD not MDLP. Haven't tried it but AAC->MP3 probably isn't very good.
Democrat delenda est
Well, we'll just have to crack that then won't we? They will not take our free Internet away from us.
If you think this is a negative thing, you are not siding with artists, you're siding with the record industry.
Do they deserve your sympathy?
They have given people back the freedom to use the music thay have purchased as they see fit. This is *FAIR USE* it is the music industry that are vandals and thives, implementing a concerted campaign to steal our rights to use the products we purchase while pretending that they are being harmed by unrelated online theft. Do you really thing your cracked DRM'd copy matters a damn when anyone can rip the CD? Give me a break, copyability is not the issue at all. The evidence does not support the industries position and the facts make them look positively ridiculous. *ANYONE* can go rip any tune today from any CDROM, one uncracked mp3 later and you've got the equavalent of what they're so scared of. We have rights that are being undermined and the industry's protections including those enshrined in law are extremely artificial and strengthening with every law passed and court case prosecuted.
It is not vandalism to protect consumers against unreasonable proprietary restrictions, particularly those that tie us to vendor specific platforms or even force multiple purchases of the same art. These developers are heroes and the activities of those corporations they fight against should be branded criminal but unfortunately are not. If congress did their job to uphold our constitution and rights instead of fostering corrupt lackeys like Orrin Hatch then this would not be a problem and user's rights would be physically guaranteed. Instead we have idiots like the senator from Disney continually trying to sell us all down the river for a few campaign dollars. When one individual stands up to help the situation fools like you call them a vandals, you should show more respect to people fighting and coding for freedoms and your rights to the information you have purchased.
Must read for all of us libertarians and others:
. html
is part 4 (with links to the other 3 parts)
William Stone III explodes the Myth of Intellectual Property in a series of articles entitled
Law Versus Reality
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/tle265-20040404-09
Part 1
quote from the article:
I've argued that information shares none of property's unique characteristics, therefore information cannot be treated as identical to property.
Help achieve Liberty in your lifetime - join the Free State Project - http://www.freestateproject.org
Without this, ITMS is a kludge. In order to get a useful file, you have to burn the songs to CD and then rip them BACK into your computer into a usable (non-crippled) format. That is kludgeville.
Sometimes I wonder,
might the ease to break "protections" be a kind of marketing strategy.
Remembering the beginning days of Windows, everybody had the new version,
used the new version, but hardly everybody bought the new version. (At least in private use).
Everybody uses something, everybody knows how to handle it, a desicion criterion...
Giving something away for free might wake up some people control monopolys.
Distribute something easily breakable you don't have that risk and still all rights and possible
claims of damage and more.
Sometimes I wonder.
You have forgotten fair use. For example, the Supreme Court ruled that it is part of fair use for me to timeshift a television program. That means that REGARDLESS of what the copyright holder says I may or may not do, I can timeshift their program and they have no legal recourse. At least, they have no legal recourse under the Copyright Act. Now, unfortunately, they have legal recourse under the DMCA, because even though I am allowed by fair use to timeshift, I am technically prevented from doing so by DRM technology, and to circumvent that technology, even in the exercise of my fair use rights, is to violate the DMCA. So they can get me for that, if not for copyright infringement.
My GPL software is protected from being co-opted by commercial abusers by copyright law, not by technical measures. If it ever came down to me suing for copyright infringement, the truth is guaranteed to come out through discovery. There is no technical measure necessary or possible to protect my rights.
You are confused and also wrong.
The R I A A Pushes DRM on me; The Silent Music.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
[nt]
> If DRM is offensive to you, than FairPlay is no better than WMA.
FairPlay is pretty obviously aimed at doing exactly what it does now, including not limiting CD burning and all the rest. Apple made it as restrictive as they were going to, and since they were the first they had the hardest job of convincing the labels and the RIAA that what they wanted was fair.
WMA is clearly a Microsoft profit center first and foremost, and as such is clearly aimed at being able to control every aspect of your usage, so that any license restriction request (by any media provider), no matter how arbitrary and bizarre, can be accomidated.. Want to make a media file that can only be played on alternate tuesdays between the hours of 3 and 4 AM, Pacific Standard Time? It's in the APIs. You can even make it check a central time server, to guard against people changing their computer's clock.
You can say that all DRM is the same. That's fine. All killing is the same, including self-defense, war, murder, accident, and possibly abortion. Are any of these more or less obnoxious than any of the others? Discuss.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Why are the people who call Bush a dictator the same ones who want to take away our guns?
Did you just make this up?
Why are the people who put straw man arguments in their signatures the same ones who deal in child pornography?
"you just payed for the ability to listen to it."
Accordingly, if I decide I no longer like itunes, since I have paid for the right to listen to it (as you say) then I am entitled to extract the data into another format which will let me listen to the music with someone else's software.
Is Apple legally entitled to restrict what device and software you can use to listen to music? Last I checked, even the DMCA doesn't permit a manufacturer to restrict which device/software you use for your personal enjoyment of copyrighted material.
Anyways, itunes is fun -- I enjoy using it. I hope Apple doesn't let this crack upset them since as long as they keep their service interesting and competitive, people won't be inclined to want to try something else. The value of a product is what should drive consumer choices afterall; not artificial technical barriers.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
My question is, with the community so quick to leap all over this program (despite the incredibly lenient terms apple puts on AAC files), who has done a code audit to see that this isn't doing something ELSE to systems? This would be the perfect way to introduce trojans into your system. Up there with the "download this file to make your cdrom into a cd-writer!"
Yeah, they're just calling the developers vandals because they are pro-Apple nazis.
The DMCA is not there to "enforce the contract when you purchase a DVD". Contracts are already covered under Tort law. (And among other things, Tort law does not allow you to impose additional conditions on a purchase after consideration has been given.)
The DMCA outlaws publishing decryption techniques so that copyright holders can effectively demand a second payment from consumers (a "license fee" that you have to pay as part of buying an approved player of that material), and as an end run around fair use laws (including region encoding lockout - preventing people from viewing material they have legally purchased).
So, despite its name, the DMCA expressly has NOTHING TO DO WITH COPYRIGHT. It does nothing that normal copyright laws didn't do. It doesn't stop real commercial pirates (like those found all over Asia), nor does it protect people from taking the final material decoded and republishing it. (Despite the lack of reconstruction filters, a single A-to-D/D-to-A on a decent consumer player does far less damage to a video or audio stream than the original codec in terms of blockiness and frequency response; it's multiple iterations that cause noticable degradation.)
The answer, in my opinion, is to repeal the DMCA. And simultaneously to link serious anti-Pirate measures in China to their ability to import to the U.S. to get them to crack down on the flagrant abuses happening there. Our copyright conglomerates are crying crocodile tears over this stuff, but the Hong Kong entertainment industry has been decimated because of companies openly making and distributing knock-off copies.
We do need to get serious about real piracy. But peer-to-peer is no more piracy than taping songs off the radio.
A crack would imply it breaks the encryption scheme. However, seeing as it only works on music someone has legally purchased, it's clear to me that this relies on having access to the decryption keys. So it sounds as if they simply reverse engineered the decryption protocol. Not an easy task by any means, but it's not as interesting as something like DeCSS which involved determining both the decryption keys and decryption algorithm.
Right as you are, as far as my feelings on the matter go, please try to go easy on the rest of them. Some people have a taste for the sharp prose, and those people will drill through a lot of thick crud to mine a little bit of truth or meaning out of the reading experience. They will also chew on thorny text and swallow coffee that is too hot: for the edifying experience.
For your sake and mine, I want to turn you on to the rest of them. The soft-headed comfort seeking couch potato wage slaves of the post-industrial free world do have potential, but you need to candy coat their medicine if you want them to swallow it. I believe they want to get better. I think that life itself is like a bitter pill, and they need help--coaching, cajoling, prodding, herding--before they will accept the fact that one should swallow the truth as quickly as you get it in your head. Be a facilitator.
The idea of a copyright is to make immaterial things behave like material things. The more people you tell the news to, the more news there is to go around. Songs work the same way. Apples and shiny rocks and teevees are all gone once they are given away. A song is not a shiny rock and it does not matter how many times people say it. The idea of a copyright is to make a song behave like a shiny rock. It takes imagination to treat a song like a shiny rock, but sooner or later we all have to wake up and stop pretending because our imagination will make us very unhappy if we let it.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Stealing = taking something with the intention of permenantly depriving its owner of possession
Copyright violation = making an unauthorised COPY of something
YOU CANNOT STEAL SOMETHING BY MAKING A COPY.
Read Pynchon.
Your first three paragraphs are quite true, but have no bearing at all on what I was saying. I was saying that the claim those companies make that 'It is just the same as stealing from a shop' (actual quote) is false.
It does not matter what kind of contract they have with the musicians, nor if they are owners, nor if I or anyone else agreed to the licence. The *statement* is false. If I go to a shop, see some vase, let's say, and I copy that vase at home, can the shop or the owner accuse me of stealing his vase? No. (at least not icn the jurisdiction I live). I *could* be breaking copyright or some patents, yes, but I would not be charged with stealing it from the shop.
The RIAA claims one could, if one does exactly the same, but instead of a vase, with one of their CDs. THAT is what is absurd, and what I was arguing.
The problem with your line of reasoning, is that it starts from the established point of copyrights that we have developped into today, and do not try to see outside the framework that is now almost considered a natural right. but it isn't, and, in fact, it never was. It's very clear (whatever the Supreme Court says about it) that the founding fathers meant it to be a right of limited scope and duration, to *stimulate* new and innovative works, and then bring it to the public good.
This, clearly, has been perverted and corrupted in a system that has virtual no limitations anymore, and which main goal is the squeeze as much money and profit out of it by and for the middle-man; corporations that have huge profits but hardly create anything innovative themselves, and, in fact, try their best to stiffle innovation when they feel threatened.
You think 'asking to reform' will do actually amount to anything, since it would mean they practically vanish from the scene? Me thinks not. I think the chance of that happening is as big as it was if the serfs would have 'asked' the aristocracy if they would please give up their powerbase.
This line of reasoning shows an apparent lack of sense for reality.
Unjust laws are most often overruled by breaking them en masse, and what's more, I do not think that that is an immoral act on itself, on the contrary. Far from me to entice anyone in doing something illegal, but I still can say what I think (unless Free speech has been abolished too?), and I think that the law, as it was original conceived and intended was just, but what it is and has become today is unjust and immoral, and should not be used to make ppl guilty, let alone criminalised, when they are disregarding those perverted laws.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
The GPL does not restrict any rights that you have naturally under copyright law. You can "copy for fair use" the GPL source code all you want, put it on every machine you own, print it out, etc. The reason you cannot use it in a closed-source program and then sell or distribute the program is that you are violating copyright, not the GPL. The reason you can distribute the program with source code that is also GPL covered, is that the GPL explicitly says that if you follow those rules you are allowed to violate the copyright.
Instructions (If you need anything besides the link to the patch, so help you god):
download and extract playfair-0.2.tar.gz
Download the patch file at: playfair.0.2.rename.patch
Extract playfair-0.2.tar.gz and put file playfair.0.2.rename.patch into the directory playfair-0.2/src
Apply the patch by doing the following:
# gzip -d -c playfair-0.2.tar.gz | tar xvf - .. ./configure && make install
# cd playfair-0.2/src/
# patch -p1 < playfair.0.2.rename.patch
# cd
#
NOTE: You need to be root to do the "make install"
Since when did Slashdot decide that someone who renders DRM useless is a vandal? Especially when it requires the user to have a legitimate right to use the DRM protected data!
What is going on is very simple: we have a new round of businespeople trying to understand the data and software business. I'll shorten the lesson up for them as I lived though the last two rounds of "copy protection":
PROTECTING DIGITAL DATA FROM DUPLICATION IS A FOOL'S PURSUIT. Stating that is is IMPOSSIBLE TO BREAK THIS PROTECTION is very shortsighted and will come home to roost when someone with the ability has a need to de-DRM data.
We went through this whole iteration of stupidity in the mid-80s. Ultimately, copy protection failed. Every couple of months someone would come out with a new and unbreakable copy protection scheme - which is a lot like what is going on in the DRM world now. If you even go look at the newspapers of the day, you'll find articles advocating changing laws to make cracking copy protection extra-double secret illegal.
Fortunately, the business people will figure it out: copy protection, drm and so on is incredibly unprofitable because it does not have value to the buyer. In fact, it reduces the value of the purchased product substantially.
-- $G
Try the Belgium mirror, it still has the file (and if the file was recently released, it may just not yet have made it to all of the mirrors, it's fairly normal to get 404s on some Sourceforge mirrors shortly after a file's release).
I'm in the process of converting my >100 songs as an insurance policy. Suppose Apple's music store, ten years down the road, goes belly up? If I've authorized 3 computers and one dies, I'm screwed. I doubt the RIAA will give Apple or its users carte blanche rights to use the songs without any limits.
This is also great for people like me with audiobooks that take up lots of space. I've always wanted to convert them to a lower bitrate but FairPlay doesn't let me.
DeCSS only violated DMCA due to a subtlety, having to do with the "without authorization" wording of DMCA. All CSS-protected DVDs have their copyrights held by a very small group of companies, who are able to be unified in their stand that they do not grant authorization.
Movies are relatively expensive to make, which is why the group is so small.
Music is a whole other business. There are thousands and thousands of copyright holders. Only a few hundred are even RIAA members.
Does iTMS' selection only include RIAA members? Maybe, but [speculation begins here] I would guess not, because that would make their music selection so small that they would just be another smalltime player, like mp3.com was. The music supply is just too fractured and balkanized for one one group to really dominate.
And if it's not a small unified group, then there's a very good chance that quite a few of the copyright holders do (or are will to) grant authorization to bypass the technological measure that limits access to the copyrighted work.
If that is the case, then it becomes very hard to argue that a Fairplay-removing tool is primarily intended to remove the protection without authorization. Much harder than it was in the DeCSS case, anyway.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
First, regarding fair use. Fair use is not a right. Fair use is not an entitlement. Allow me to quote US Title 17, section 107:
Read that again. And again. And over and over until you finally understand that what it says is that fair use is not an infrinement of copytight. It doesn't give you the unalienable right to timeshift. It doesn't grant you unlimited power to convert things into whatever format you want. All it says is that those things (and things later ruled to be protected, such as timeshifting) are not illegal. If the content provider uses some technological measure to prevent you from doing any of those things, that's perfectly legal. They just can't sue you or have you arrested for doing them.Now, maybe fair use should be a protected right, but it isn't. And pretending it is doesn't help.
You also said:
Well, those DVDs are protected by copyright law, too. But they're also protected by stupid DMCA-sanctioned technological measures. If you felt like creating some super DMCA protected GPL-DRM that went through and added GPL notices to every file in a project as soon as the linker saw your file, go for it. Just don't expect anybody to actually use it. Unfortunately, it's a bit late to use start touting DMCA protections as a reason to not buy DVDs.
It is printed on the key.
Vandalism? Let the apple-lover whining begin!
Seriously, how does it matter whether Apple or Microsoft corners the online music market? Either one is about as bad as the other.
What we all need are proper open standards.
Okay, so FairPlay:
And this is supposed to be bad how, exactly?
iTunes customers will still have to pay; filesharing will be unaffected; and iTunes users will have more options in how they play their songs. Apple won't like it, since to them iTunes is only a way to sell their overpriced little toys ... But it won't have any appreciable impact on iTunes sales, methinks.
The problem with DRM'ing music (aside from the fact that DRM-as-content-protection is a ricockulous business plan with no engineering merit whatsoever) is that record companies sell oodles of unwatermarked, non-DRM'ed CD's. Files don't wind up on Kazaa because some clever 13-year-old h4x0r3d your encryption; they wind up their because a chimpanzee could rip files off a CD.
You don't know what you're talking about. Playfair isn't a GUI. It's a command-line utility. How about you actually look at it before making declarations on what it is?
I think this will be an interesting litmus test: FairPlay is, as far as these things goes, a fairly unobtrusive DRM scheme. It works well, and, perhaps more importantly, it works transparently: the one of two times I've delved into copy-protected WMA files (not that this constitutes an exhaustive sampling, I'm aware), I'm always quite aware of the fact that the files are protected, and there's always some sort of hurdle to jump through to make it work properly, at least on the first play through.
So, what I'll find interesting here is to see how much of an effect on things this PlayFair program has. My personal views on the matter is that Apple has hit upon the right balance with iTMS: it's cheap, it's easy, and it's convenient. I can see the potential value of things like PlayFair for purposes of format shifting for personal use, but I kind of think that the "legal" way of obtaining songs through iTMS will remain easier and more convenient, and that the price is low enough that it's not going to be chasing users to their favorite P2P program. But then, I also have some lingering faith in the overall goodness of human nature, so who am I to judge?
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
free itunes music, no DRM, thanks pepsi
Yeah, it was "free" all right.
Tell me, how many 99+ cent pepsis did you have to buy for every free song you won? Unless you were able to cheat, you bought 3 pepsis for every 1 free song, on average.
Also, did you spend more money than normal on pepsi?
Damn smart promotion...
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
"To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard."
Way to save your ass from litigation for posting a link to drm breaking code. Um, yeah, I believe the same... (looks out for RIAA stormtroopers)
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
w00t! hehe! w0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000t! hehe!
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Your comment violaYour comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.ted the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.
The /. community applauds when somebody cracks a DRM scheme, whines when individuals get sued, cries foul play when an ISP is asked for download records, and sneers at suggestions that the music industry is losing money to P2P.
/. plan for preventing 13-year-olds from stealing all their music from other 13-year-olds? Or should we just file this away as trivialities that won't matter when the grand socialist order sweeps away capitalist greed?
What exactly is the
...then it didnt deserve to become the standard.
of course, I don't really believe WMA is any more secure, and it will just be a matter of time before they crack that too.
It looks like only a small part of the file is in memory in unencrypted form at any given time, but of course you are right. The only reason why there isn't a convenient Ripper available yet is that WMA plainly isn't important enough.
If any DRM format ever becomes the standard, it will be ripped open quickly, some way or the other. Maybe someone will find the parts of memory to have an eye on, or the Media Player source code is leaked, or maybe it is just a simple method that suffices.
A tool that converts licensed files into MP3 by way of a virtual sound card, complete with file naming and batch mode? Piece of cake for three competent geeks with a week's supply of mountain dew. So making MP3s out of encrypted files is not a problem.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Only the state of Maryland and possibly Virginia has a law (UCITA) that allow EULA's to have any legal standing. Whether the aforementioned "contract" constitutes a EULA is a whole different issue. In my opinion, it does not. Purchasing software and discovering that it will not install afterwards without a click-thru agreement is non-binding due to Doctrine of First Sale. However, agreeing to a contract before downloading music may well be binding.
-Hope
Those are the ONLY rights a copyright holder has available to licence to anyone.
Unfortunately, the exemption of 17 USC 117 that allows ephemeral copies in RAM seems to apply only to computer programs, not to sound recordings. However, fair use may still apply in some cases.
As for contracts, I don't know if iTunes even has one
I know the credit card processing companies have contracts; each purchase is a promise to pay the amount listed on the invoice. More to the point, are you looking for this contract, which I found with this query?
"Licence to use" is a myth
No, it's a reimplementation of an approximation of copyright in terms of contract law.
Hey.... has anyone successfully compiled this badboy under windows/cygwin? I can't get it to do it's thing...
The "delete this in 24 hours" bit is BS, as are pretty much every single one of the disclaimers you may see in "warez" sites.
I've read that the 24-hour rule somehow derives from exemptions in copyright law for libraries and archives, and that the warez sites consider themselves libraries that lend copies for 24 hours.
Now then, concerning "abandonware," it's probably not legal, either.
Again, the library provisions may come into play. It's also possible to make decent arguments for fair use of a work whose copyright owner no longer wishes to exploit it, giving abandonware sites a potentially better legal footing than warez sites.
However, there is the matter of "standing" -- what that means is, if all the right's holders are gone, there's no one with standing to sue you for infringing such copyrights.
And if a copyright owner delays too long in informing an alleged infringer of such standing, the laches doctrine may prevent the copyright owner from collecting damages for infringements that occurred before the copyright owner sent a cease and desist letter.
I am not a lawyer; I'm just tossing out ideas like an armchair para.
I don't think that iTunes users signed a contract with Apple
By giving Apple a credit card number through the iTMS, an iTMS purchaser accepts a contract with Apple Computer.
"I'm an audio pro and I can tell you any compression suck, lossy that is, but as far as they go AAC does sound better than WMA. And I judge that using a very professionnal monitoring system which I sincerly doubt those guys have"
An audio pro once told me I need $100 speaker cables . An audio signal is not much more than 20KHz, and requires only thick copper and good connecotrs. He, like mots audio pros, however, claimed he could here the difference.
since users clearly cannot be trusted.
What if the next version of WMA encryption were as secure as AES?
Umm.... Currently AES comes in 192 and 256 bit flavors and supports higher. But remember, they have to be sufficiently week such that a computer or (DVD-type) player can decode them on the fly. (That's the reason DVD's only have 40 bit encryption.) Given that they will have to have a single master key for everything. (DVD's have many master keys, knocking the 40bit down to something a few bits less. 36 maybe?) It would be possible for a group to simply brute force the key. Given that Distributed.net Has been doing this with RC5 implementations on many computers (i know how long it would take them in comparison, but computing power will catch up.) They could crack the master key in a couple years. Less if more people got involved, or if they made special hardware for it. Therefor, if they used that and enough people helped out, they could make it infeasable to use any encryption at all. Hell, it would probably take them a week at most to find every single DVD master key by brute force.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
What's the point? You still have to buy the song before you can remove its DRM. So, the DRM has served it purpose.
Karma Schmarma
Playfair was a famous cipher a century ago. Makes it a great name for a program now, in addition to its obvious play on "Fair Play".
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If you don't particularly mind DRM, then what's your complaint about
It's a microsoft internal standard as opposed to an open standard?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Number one point. Just like DVD most of these protection system leave linux systems in the dark. Then they complain when they get snaped. As what was found with DeCSS. It is perfectly permitable to use these content breaking programs to Make backups or to let it work with a unsupported platform. Note this does not mean you are allowed to use it on file sharing networks or giving it to you friends.
There is a far better system called watermarking. Mark the file given to each user with a user dependant mark with a partical tag so You know who they are watch the filesharing network and start catching people. This will kill the problem faster than any other methord to make filesharing toxic. Note makeing a tool to remove watermarking would be against the law. Why there is no legal use for removing watermarking. This system is being overlooked. Now there is no reason why file cannot contain two watermarks one opensource so that fileshareing programs can see what files they should not be sharing and a closed soure one that catchs the people who remove the opensource one. This allows files to the taged as permited to be shared as well. Ie sample tracks.
But only for the good writers! linux.editme.com
Did you sign a contract or licensing agreement?
All iTunes Music Store customers agree to this contract.
Disabling DRM on a song on an album you've purchased is akin to removing warning label from the mattress you bought. This whole piracy argument is FUD and I'm surprized (and disappointed) that the Slashdot community seems to be a little conflicted about this.
If someone *really* wanted to pirate the music there are easier (probably cheaper) ways. We all know this. So ask yourselves, what problem does this solution really address? All I can see is Fair Use. Did the Slashdot editor ever stop to think that *maybe* this software was developed by someone who got tired of being artificially limited to their means of playback? Couldn't it be something that simple?
Quack, quack.
"Fairplay are doing is making my life harder and as time goes on, interfering more and more with what can be considered fair use."
Your argument boils down to "Please don't exercise fair use because it interferes with fair use".
My response is this: ha ha ha ha ha corporate tool. Go buy a CD... they're cheaper, they sound better, and you don't have to worship a corporate massa.
I consider it a citizens duty to destroy DRM that doesn't allow me to exercise my fair use rights. EULAs are for the weak minded those that worship at the corporate alter.
Sheep. Go say "baaaah" sheep.
Well WMA includes proprietary audio codecs. Apple's music is based off AAC... also proprietary but at least it's an industry standard so to speak.
On the up shot WMA is free to use.. or at least inexpensive. Free encoder, too. AAC is a little pricier and you'll need to pirate the encoder if you want to use it.
Jesus. I just download all my shieat in MP3 like everyone else. If I've got access to the lossless CD audio (yes, not perfect, but...) then I'll just make a copy. At worst compress it with a lossless format. Otherwise just fuck it, too much trouble.
Distribution license does not equal EULA. They are completely different things.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
just a thing about good cabling, it is indeed very important but only if the rest of the gear involved is of a very good quality, someone telling you you need 100$ cables to power 100$ speakers (I'm not saying that is what you use, its just an example) is, like you said, hearing stuff, however, if you do have a very good monitoring system, pro studio stuff, the cables become the weak link and buying very well balanced an very well shielded cables with a small gauge and matched impedance do make an audible difference. The idea is that the impedance between both cable must be near perfectly matched, like the speakers they are connected to, any difference will be audible. Think of it like a video monitor, if you have the most perfect monitor, of an incredible resolution and color calibrated, but you connect it to your source with a very cheap cable you will see the difference, ghosting, flicker, noise, the same applies to audio, but since people standards in audio are pretty low (you can't blame them considering the price at which a good monitoring system goes) compared to video, most of the time it doesn't make any obvious difference.
"So I think it's sensible to worry."
Not really. I think this will come to a head, and the consumer will eventually win.
Its like copy protection back in the good old days of the IBM PC. It got worse and worse until people got fed up and stopped buying.
With DRM, hardly anybody is using it. I'm hoping they make DRM so restrictive that nobody will want to buy the stuff. At that point, things will change. Today, we're just a bunch of geeks complaining.
But when Uncle Bobby and Aunt Suzie can't tape the Digital Signals from Digital Cable onto their Digital VCR, then heads will roll at the FCC for pushing this crap down our throat. People will insist on the same rights they have today. Rip perfect copies from CD's to make compilation CD's. Be able to loan CD's to friends so they can enjoy.
The hard DRM will squeeze, the quicker the people will react and our stupid knee jerk government will "ban" DRM.
It will take another 5 years, but its coming. Wait and see.
"Those are the ONLY rights a copyright holder has available to licence to anyone. If he isn't granting one or more of those rights then he isn't licencing anything."
I would think that this is too restrictive an interpretation of the code. Wouldn't a law that presumes to so enumerate "only" those rights run afowl of the 9th Amendment? I mean, my reading of the 9th amendment is pretty broad, but I would think that a law couldn't enumerate rights at the expense of others and a law that extends to the copyright holder certain rights does not deny them a greater field of rights to grant?
i.e., if as the copyright holder I choose to grant the rights listed in Title 17 that doesn't prohibit me granting the right to others to modify or resell the copyrighted work, does it? I'm thinking of open/copylefted music which is permitted (i.e., licensed) for all use, alteration and distribution provided creation/origination is acknowledged. I mean, technically, that's neither fair use, nor is it specifically provided for in Title 17, but I would think just because it's not specifically provided, it does not therefore deny.
I'm no law student, heck no. But I'd argue that if I had to.
yes. that's all I'm going to say in all comments from now on.
The ability to remove the DRM from songs downloaded at iTunes can only help AAC become more dominant (although may not help Apple sell iPods). Why?
1. More players can play non-DRM music than DRM music: Customers who didn't want to trade in their older player for an iPod can now become iTunes customers.
2. Non-DRM music lasts longer: You can only transfer DRM music to 3 different computers, so by the time you upgrade your computer 3 times (3 - 6 years for most of us), you no longer can listen to music you legally paid for on your computer. Customers are more likely to buy music if they get to KEEP it!
Why does the music industry treat its customers like Criminals? The record labels should be Praising God that you are getting the music legally instead of downloading it for free. Putting DRM on music does absolutely nothing but discourage consumers from purchasing it, if DRM were to disappear there would be a legal downloading heyday and the Record Executives would make billions extra per year... hell, the artists might get a few bucks too.
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard.
WMA? Oh yeah. We know that will never be cracked.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
It's too bad that private property rights are slowly being eroded in Western Civilization. Own a house? Great, now try painting it hot pink with purple spots. Toss in a few random turrents to the roof and find out how fast your home owners association tosses your ass into court. Or maybe you just decide not to pay your owners assiociation fees for a bit. Doesn't matter if you own the house without a mortgage, you'll still get evicted.
Here's a good one that I've seen. Part a motor home in front of my parents house, and it will get towed with 48 hours. And that's on a public street. The shitty part is, there is no way to get out of the home owners assiciation, ever. You never really "own" your house.
Just because you "own" something, doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. It may be government regulation, or a quasi-government group that may have a regulation against it, but chances are, if someone doesn't like what you are doing, they can probably find a way to stop you.
To take your car example. Paint polka dots on it, and park it on your drive way. Someone may complain that it lowers property values, and you probably have a clause in your homeowners association that states you cannot do anything that lowers your neighbors property values. They can force you to re-paint it. AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE. Or the Chia Pet. If it's not secured properly, then the government can say it's not road worthy. You're now shut down. Or they they may have some rule saying that vegitation has to be covered during transportion (though the intent would probably have been for commercial vehicles, they could make it stick for chias). Now you have to add that part of your hood back in.
Now, I'm not saying it's right. Personally I hate the fact that you can never leave a home owners association. I understand the reasoning behind them, but if you piss off some of the powerful people in your neighborhood your life becomes a living hell. What can you do though? You can't get a restraining order though since you live close to them, you can't leave the association since they are tied to your land title.....you have almost no recourse but to move...
I've lost my point...:)
Now, if that makes sense to anyone, could you please explain it to me? I think I've confused myself.
Hmmm... I have downloaded it and mounted my ipod until /mnt/IPOD and then tried to run it on a .m4p file. The resulting file was not able to be played by faad or itunes. Anyone else had any luck?
> To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard.
Good job, genius; you've now proved to the entire Slashdot readership that you're a moron. Might want to limit the editorialization in future submissions.
If the Apple AAC DRM being cracked pushes people towards WMV, then that's fine. I give it six months to a year from the time when someone with sales figures worth mentioning (i.e. demand for product) actually starts using WMV with DRM until it's cracked. There's simply more impetus to crack iTunes's DRM right now because nobody gives a rat's ass about the guys selling WMV.
As for the implications of the story itself, frankly, this is *more* likely to make me shop at the iTunes store. I can't play DRMed files (in ANY format) on my hard-drive-based car MP3 player and I'm not going to spend money for a downloadable file that I have to burn to CD and re-rip just to use. I rarely want just singles anyway, so at that point, what's the goddamn point buying a downloadable version? Give me something I can strip the restrictions off of and slap onto the hard drive under my seat, and we might talk. If six, seven, maybe more years of MP3 haven't killed the music industry, this sure as hell isn't going to.
I guess I'm preaching to the choir here, so I'll address this to the record companies: the real answer is for you to see the writing on the wall and do something INNOVATIVE for a change to keep yourselves operating. You can keep whining to your paid-for politicians and getting more restrictive laws passed, but the consumer backlash will kill your business long before the laws could turn the tide.
The file-sharing genie is out of the bottle and no amount of legal measures will ever get it back in. Embrace it by using it as a marketing tool like you do radio, music videos, etc. or you're basically going to whine yourselves into irrelevance.
</soapbox>
I've downloaded about 275 songs from iTunes Music store. But I've come to the decision that I will no longer download music for one reason. And its not because of DRM. I can actually live with Apple's DRM. I don't notice it.
I will stop downloading because I no longer want to own music that is in a format other than its original format. Let me be the one to decide what to encode my music to make the files smaller. Not Apple or Microsoft. If you let me purchase my music in WAV or even FLAC, I'll continue to support your store, but if you insist on keeping all downloads in AAC or WMA formats, I will no longer be a customer.
And if CD's go away, I guess I just won't buy music anymore.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
The fourmilab page is a truly important essay (The Digital Imprimatur by AutoDesk founder John Walker), but be warned, it is 193kB.
If you get tired, skip down to the *But, but* part.
gewg_
Someone who goes to the trouble of using MD5 and AES doesn't think they are making a cheap bike lock.
Melissa
My computer, my data, my choice.
Data acquired under the terms of a contract, sunshine.
Personally, I hate it when any company treats their customer base like potential theives. I feel that will digital music eventually gave the consumer more freedom by allowing them to share music files with each other that in the longterm it gave the music companies more power. Standardizing digital music eventually will lead to the end of used music purchases. Since nothing is tangible how can someone sell it back or return it? Hate that new album you bought and downloaded? Tough. Want to make a mix album for a friend? Too bad. Now the big five music corporations can sell us copy-protected files that absolutely comes in no tangible forms. Great. They win in the longrun. Sure AAC may get cracked now. But I am sure they will fix that and that another crack will come out so on and so forth. Do we really want to play this cat and mouse game?
DRM folks are talking about "closing the analog hole"--so that isn't farfetched.
The thing is, it is farfetched. They were actually trying to pass a law saying ALL DSPs would have to have watermarking detection in them. Which sounds somewhat reasonable, until you think about it.
Some guys (whose webpage I can't find at the moment) started a blog of devices that have DSPs in them that would have to comply. Forget sound cards, temperature sensors, car instruments, and all the obvious stuff. Take hearing aids, for example, if you want farfetched.
Also, it would inherently limit the maximum speed and/or introduce latency to DSPs because of the checking. And since they're still nowhere near fast enough at the resolutions/frequencies we want them, the DSP industry wouldn't stand for it, nor would (by extension) the telecom industry, who pretty much dwarf the content industry.
Imagine if no one could have CDMA cell phones any more because any DSPs we could make fast enough were illegal? Get real. That's farfetched.
Step One: Buy music from iTunes store. Step Two: Burn said music to CD. Step Three: Import CD into library. Outcome: Standard mp3 encoded non-drm files. Easy to do, no messing with other programs, and undeniably legal.
Karma: Can there be a void?
.. -. - . .-. .-. --- -...
Wrong. You can use your purchased songs on any number of iPods and three computers (Mac or Windows) at any given time. You can de-authorize any computer in order to get back a license. In your scenario, you can easily play those tunes, legally, on all of your gear.
Learn a bit more before you go bitching...
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
Playfair isn't evil, it's a tool. An axe isn't evil, it's a tool. If someone uses the axe to cut a chunk out of a peron's head, that's not the tool's fault. I haven't tried Playfair yet but it sounds pretty standard. It lets you convert music you legally purchased from iTunes or have converted on your iPod to a format that can be played in something different. I don't like iTunes to listen to music, I like Winamp. What's wrong with wanting to play music I bought in a different program? When you buy music, it even tells you there are 3 legal uses, 2 computers and one portable device. As long as I follow those rules, how am I breaking the law? I still only have the file on the right number of devices, I just made it so I can play it in another program.
How did you obtain the drm key? I couldn't find this documented anywhere. I've got it compiled, but I don't know where to go from here.
Life is but a mist upon the horizon.
Here's a copy on edonkey, it appears many sourceforge download sites are pulling the file:6 CDEA1EF D77ECBBFFBF2D76B6DD8B3|/
ed2k://|file|playfair-0.2.tar.gz|444241|52
Thanks for your commentary; your references appear all in order and generally conform to what I understand to be correct.
I do, however, remember reading an article on SecurityFocus about how EULAs are far more binding than we'd like, based on the case law as of the time when that article was written. It wasn't that long ago, so I do fear that one could not depend on EULAs being held unenforceable, either in whole or in part.
I also remember hearing how if you make any effort to bypass the contract, you could still be considered bound by it, as you were using the work without the contract you were supposed to have. What I'm saying is that the judges might find it inequitable that you "cheated" to get out of the contract, and would still bind you to it. The worse part of this is that due to the excessively narrow bits about ephemeral use (which appears to have been originally crafted to mean that mere use of software doesn't require license [permission] from the copyright holder), a judge may still decide that you DO need the contract, and cannot "weasel out" of it on those grounds.
Personally, I find that arguement absurd and very much against what I believe is the plain reading of Sec. 112, but I cannot say that I would be all that willing to depend on it in court, especially were they to argue that their EULAs are 'ordinary' and thus cannot be excessive. Mind you, IANAL, I just read copyright law, Groklaw, etc. sometimes because I need to know about some of these stupid laws, these days.
Would everyone here be complaining if it were WMA that was cracked?
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
This page shows how its done... You can figure out if the cap is a winner before buying.. Although you'll look a little odd doing it as the article points out..
Thank goodness apple gave us emacs so we can search binary files to find that email address. I pulled up a couple tunes and searched and...there it was.
This means that the itunes server is adding this to every song that is downloaded.. Talk about overhead.
>Yeah, it was "free" all right.
:)
:(
ah... I love the smell of sarcasm in the evening.
>Tell me, how many 99+ cent pepsis did you have to buy for
>every free song you won?
Well, none of mine were 99 cents. Cheapest would be 1.10, ranging up through 1.37... depending on where I bought it. Then there was the 1 litre bottle we found... at 2.07.
> Unless you were able to cheat, you
>bought 3 pepsis for every 1 free song, on average.
On average my wife and I came out at 1 song in 2.12 bottles. (yes, I'm a geek, I kept track.) Now that was partially skewed by the fact that once I learned the 45 degree angle trick I was able to avoid a number of "participant" caps as we called them, when buying at the gas station or similar, from a cooler. But the majority of my pepsi purchases over those weeks were from vending machines at work and so didn't have that assistance. She also collected a few from coworkers that were big pepsi fans, but don't get this whole "online music thing" and so had no use for the caps.
>Also, did you spend more money than normal on pepsi?
Yes. But then we spent less money than normal on Coke and coffee/tea/chai. (ha! like that wasn't part of the master pepsi plan?) In the end I don't think we inflated the total cost too much in the quest for free tunes. In the end though, I think it might have bitten pepsi in the arse... I'm totally burnt out on pepsi... won't be drinking any more for a long time... certainly not through the summer any.
>Damn smart promotion...
Yep. I'm just a little annoyed that some of the music I'd really like to download isn't available.
All this news trying to crack (or cracked) apples DRM, I've heard no news about people trying to crack MS's DRM. I wonder why?
OK let me break it down for ya. At the end of the day, slashdot is a business. See the Microsoft banner ad up there? Well, the more riled up you get by a story's counter-bias, the more posts and page loads slashdot gets. And by page loads, I mean ad impressions.
Nothing sells like scandal, and so, yes, Wu, Slashdot is trolling its own readership.
VideoLan can already decode/play back M4P iTunes-purchased files. It stores the system's key in the \Documents and Settings\\Application Data\drms\ folder -- you can copy that folder to other computers that aren't authorized via iTunes, and still play the M4P's with VideoLan. And since VideoLan supports streaming, you can set it to output the raw AAC into a new MP4 container. The only downside is that it's realtime, and that you have to do each file one at a time. But I wrote a Visual Basic app to loop through a directory recursively and call VideoLAN to convert each M4P file.
Hopefully someone takes this new code and makes a windows version, that can do process large amounts of files at a time...
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
Don't just mod things up because they slam things you don't like. Lumpy the wonder tard has no fucking clue.
1. Anyone who is good at reading the install scripts - How do we "remove" playfair? (especially since it doesn't seem to get a good decoding done - the resulting files all crash whatever app tries to play them. Maybe wait a version or two...)
2. Now this might be pretty basic, but does anyone have a favorite unix scripting tutorial so that I can learn how to script things like this to run on multiple files?
When I first read this my inital response was ok good. But the more i pondered the more I realized three things to keep in mind a) yes DRM is futile, people will crack any scheme eventually. b) i don't really mind paying 99 cents for a track. Yes it's sort of restrictive, but when you buy it you should know this. c)WMA good? they're all lousy....
It is free if you buy pepsi anyway. I didn't pay any extra for it.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
tjeez al the fuzz about wma versus aac, don't buy drm shit... drm is from the record companies, i want the 5 greedy ones to go down in the drain together with the riaa don't buy drm shit... never, nada, and if aac is crackable then is wma... the format may be encrypted like hell, i can still buy myself a state of the art souncard optical input/output spdif filters & the whole shabang, so i can still copy the shit... have phun & stw
As in contrast with...your totally nonsensical bullshit, you mean? ;-)
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I've seen a few people here use FairPlay(tm) as if it's an act you engage in. People, this is just a Product Name. Confusing it with FAIR USE, as defined in LAW is very dangerous.
Granted, the company behind FairPlay(tm) sure wouldn't mind it if you started to believe that the stipulations behind their method were actually laws, but the truth is a different matter entirely.
"A better one would be a store that made you promise not to copy the vase before letting you see it..."
Irrelevant. Then they *still* couldn't say you stole the vase; they could only say that you broke your contract.
So, whatever the RIAA says about it, it is *not* just the same as stealing a vase out of a shop.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Just do that, and done with the pesky watermarks. There won't be a huge quality loss because of this.
To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard.
Well, and if Apple produces a DRM system with gaping holes, then from the point of view of the music industry, that's exactly what should happen. Or do you think people aren't also hard at work cracking WMA?
If Apple wants to be a provider of DRM, then they better do it right or they don't do it at all.
Make up your minds - either those that circumvent DRM are heros or they aren't, but it shouldn't be decided on the basis of how much we like the company that came up with the DRM.
Having said that, I have noticed that where Apple is concerned, the two seem to get reversed:
DRM - bad, Apple DRM - Good!
Shrinkwrap licences - bad, Apple shrinkwrap licences - Good!
Closed source - bad, Apple closed source - Good!
Well, obviously IANAL, and even not from US, but I would argue, you cannot interpret *your* law correctly:
Wouldn't a law that presumes to so enumerate "only" those rights run afowl of the 9th Amendment?
Copyright "rights" are not "natural" rights, and are not given in your Constitution. They are specifically granted by Congress, and as such I believe must be stated explicitely and are not subject to 9th Amendment.
I'm thinking of open/copylefted music which is permitted (i.e., licensed) for all use,
As has been stated by parent poster, this not requires permission...
alteration and distribution
Title 17, 106(2):
" to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; "
provided creation/origination is acknowledged.
This is regulated in Title 17 section 106A, and also is a contractual condition for granting rights stated above...
I totally agree with you about iTMS.
The main reason why iTMS succeeded where so many other online music services failed is its relatively painless implementation of DRM. You can play it on up to 3 computers (and they can increase that number anytime if they want), you can freely burn songs to CDs and sync to your iPod as many times as you want.
All DRM algorithm will be cracked eventually. The longetity of any given DRM algorithm will probably always be significantly shorter than the copyright term of the material it protects. Using DRM to prevents copying will **always** fail eventually. A better strategy would be to provide contents with a more convinient buying/replaying experience than casual copying, at a reasonable price and with the least restrictions possible.
Personally, I think DRM is being horribly misused by the misguided entertainment industry. DRM can be made consumer-friendly if it's merely viewed as a method to **slightly** inconvinient the consumer so that they would **think** about the consequences before they start copying, but doesn't entirely prohibit copying (as iTMS's DRM demonstrated). This is the position Apple takes with iTMS.
This **minor inconvinience** to the casual copying process existed in the analog age purely by the nature of analog materials: they degrate each generation, and the copies are usually on a less convinient recoradble media (e.g. tapes). Consumers have always been able to copy CDs to tapes, but we still bought CDs because it's a more convinient playback expriences than tapes (until CD-R became affordable). Likewise, most of us began listening to MP3s not because it's free, but because it's more convinient than CDs.
In the same token, the entertainment industry can focus on delivering a more convinient experience than P2P. Why use Kazaa to search and download 20 copies of the same song just to make sure you have the right, complete version without clicks and pops when you can get a perfect copy for 99 cents? Why search on P2P for days or even months for a rare remix if an online music store guranteed to carry all the remixes readily downloadable at high bandwidth? How about directly downloading to your phone or portable player at a kiosk via Bluetooth? What if you can download any of your previous iTMS purchases to your phone over-the-air, anytime you want? (Say, iTMS can take a cut of the GPRS fee incured.) People make copies primarily to enjoy content in a form that's more convinient to them. If you can deliever contents with a more convinient experience with the least restrictions at a reasonable price, people will gladly pay for it instead of copying it. iTMS and NetFlix are such examples.
Pop entertainment today is largely disposable anyways, so it should really be treated and priced accordingly. If I can download the same song to several devices directly (including computers, portable players, phones, or even car stereo), I wouldn't care to make a copy because: 1) I probably have it on another device, 2) I can download it again, 3) even if I had to pay to download it again, it's only 99 cents. This would also mean that I'll be more likely to be voluntarily binded to the online music service I'm using instead of going to P2P alternatives.
Betweeen the extremes of totalitarian copy restrictions of RIAA/MPAA and the all-for-free mentality of P2P, there's plenty of room for a comfortable middle ground of all of us. iTMS is the first time anyone who care enough about both sides of the arguements to take such a position. Apple deserves every praise it received.
If it's reasonably priced and more convinient than copying, most consumers will glady pay for it rather than copying it. If it's grossly overpriced, people will find whatever means to copy it no matter how hard it gets. It's a simple case of consumer economics.
For example, how many of you have bosses who don't want to use Linux because it's known as the "hacker's OS", and as such see it as being dangerous because it's used by hackers/crackers?
I never understood this logic. In the same way that spies are likely to have the best hidden cameras and tiny guns, Hackers are likely to have the strongest systems and the most flexible OS. Just because you don't like what they do doesn't make their equipment inferior.
The ______ Agenda
Mp3 is the standard according to billions of people. What planet do you live on?
DRM is rubbish, pure and simple.
So you think that you can hold a concert at the [substitute your favorate local concert place] and do the Madonna, Britney Spears or other current artist's works? Good luck, you will be sued. You do not have a "right" to use their works without permission. Not even in a church - a number of churches were sued in the 1960's to stop them from using Sound of Music songs that were played at the end of the service.
You want to use them, you have to pay, unless you fall into the fair use. I would have thought Church would be a fair use, but evidently not. They are a "corporation" it would seem. Watch out... Donald Trump may take over as minister! Altar boy - YOUR FIRED!
I'd add that what's obsolete is scarcity. Record companies are based on the scarcity of obtaining music. They are simple distributors. DRM is just a method to create a new "artificial" scarcity where before it was intrinsically linked to the physical media. Their model is dead and anything that attempts to recreate this model is a step backwards. The fact that anybody in the world (at least those with computers, Internet, etc..) has access to any song in the world (yes those that have been ripped...) is a fantastic boon to culture. There have always been and there will always be artists and art lovers. There has not always been an RIAA.
yes and one can still burn all this to a audio cd and re rip it back to MP3/OGG/ etc. If one can hear the music one can decrypt and copy it. its that simple.
The xxAA will still be thoroughly convinced that you're ripping them off to the tune of eleven copies, and that there are no "ifs", "ands" or "buts" about it.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
- 'K' in Men in Black.
13 year olds are ALREADY doing that, though they call it 'sharing their beloved music with friends'.
/. plan, but no plan still beats the plan of the RIAA to sue 12y-olds.
I doubt their is any such thing as a
Feel free to make a post that actually tries to argument a viewpoint with rationality, instead of just making a sneer based on emotions and personal opinions.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
What about those of us that purchase iTunes music, and want to share it on a LAN? Without a utility like this, other users are not able to listen to my music without being the authorized buyer. That makes no sense. If I was playing a CD, does that mean that no one else in my office can listen to that music unless they have purchased that song? With this utility, I can now share that music on a LAN the way it should be.
If I don't cross the line every once in a while, how will I know where it is?
You can be an Apple fanboi all you want and love love love the pretty lickable interface, but it is more restrictive in almost all aspects - other than perhaps no DRM'd WMAs on a Mac
The problem with the word "restrictive" is that you are using it across distinct categories. Sure, Fairplay DRM'd files only play on Windows 2000 and XP machines with iTunes, Apple computers with iTunes, and iPods, but nowhere are Fairply DRM'd AAC files as restrictive as "no burn" WMA DRM'd files.
What many people mean by "restrictive" has no meaning across the categories of "fair use" and "device-playable", which is where the fuzziness of your thinking occurs. A more useful concept would be DRM consistency or DRM coherence.
Fairplay DRM as implemented by iTMS is consistent across all versions of its files. WMA DRM'd files are not. The extreme end of fair use restriction for WMA DRM'd files is MUCH MORE restricteve than the fair use restriction of Fairlplay AAC files available on iTMS.
blog
Yes I see. Perhaps the example I used was already covered. However, the original post did state that the rights of the copyright holder were explicitly enumerated in the Title 17 code and were *no broader* than the 6 listed therein. I disagree, and to refine my disagreement, I would argue to a judge that there is a constitutional precedent in the form of the 9th amendment.
My argument is that such precedent can and should be interpreted as a broader statement of the framers' intention- to wit, they didn't want congress drafting laws that grant only certain rights at the exclusion of others. Or put another way, the constitution (which is the norming norm for legality and efficacy of any US law, whether it fits the definition of 'natural right' or not)... under this interpretation, the constitution demands that laws err on the side of extending freedoms, not limiting them. If as a copyright holder I were brought to court to defend my copyright, and if I had granted rights that fall outside those enumerated by the law, I would argue that the law's language (especially in the original poster's interpretation) is too restrictive a burden on the owner of the copyright and violates the spirit of the constitution. I would cite the 9th as proof of that spirit. ARE there any lawyers reading these posts? Maybe one of them would comment on this.
As for the statement "copyright 'rights' are not 'natural' rights", I respectfully disagree. I feel confident that creations covered by copyright could be declared property of the creator and therefore subject to the property rights extended to citizens. And there's little doubt the framers of the constitution sought to protect property rights. Without getting all libertarian on your ass, remember, before the revision, the declaration of independence said we are endowed with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Property. Despite the change (I consider it a good change), I think there is considerable court precedent that acknowledges property rights and considers them constitutionally protected.
yes. that's all I'm going to say in all comments from now on.
Original poster makes no mention of distribution for profit (or non-profit) of said hard disk platter.
Which is the point of this whole argument. You're allowed to make as many copies of a copyrighted product as long as you do not distribute them, under the nebulous-but-still-present fair use notion. The word "Copyright" has no bearing on this piece of software, as long as its users do not distribute the songs they de-DRM. (I know- fat chance)
The abbreviation "DMCA", on the other hand, clots it squarely on the head.
So you think that you can hold a concert at the [substitute your favorate local concert place] and do the Madonna, Britney Spears or other current artist's works?
Apparently someone can't read. I said:
US CODE TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 106. - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works [cornell.edu] grants six exclusive rights to copyright holders, but they really only amount to 3 different rights. The right to make copies, the right to distribute copies, and public performance.
You do not have a "right" to use their works without permission
Sure I do. I just can't give a public concert. I can "use" (play or perform) it all I like alone in my bedroom, or at a party I throw with my friends and family and aquaintences, and I can reasonably do so when walking down a public street or chilling on the beach.
There is no such thing as a right to "use". There are only copying and distribution and public performance rights, and those rights have all sorts of exceptions and fair use holes poked in them.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
...it's copyright. Do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you can't even spell the name of your enemy?
This is what I don't understand. How can so many people on Slashdot simultaneously crow about the defeat of music copyrights while at the same time upholding software copyrights via GNU?
:P
It's not like the GPL could exist without copyright, folks. Your work, your right to choose. If you cut a song, you can decide who listens to it, and who profits off of it. If you sell to a record company, YMMV.
There's nothing more to it than that! People seem to think music should be free as in speech. It is. People think that music will be free as in beer, it's not. Nor will it ever be totally free. Recording an album costs money. If the author chooses to give away their music, then great. If not, you have to respect that. If you ever work on an open source project, you're doing the exact same thing.
For all this talk of the record companies wanting their cake and eating it too, all I see is a bunch of people who seem to think it's morally right to let them defy someone's copyright, and so they think it should be legally allowable.
This is hipocracy. Don't fall into it.
So, in that light, this PlayFair thing is bad. Yay, congratuations. You've.. umm... championed the end of iTMS, the only decent music store we've seen to date that has a reasonable selection.
Thank you. You've... really... released my cruel iron fetters and sent me into blissful, albeit musicless, freedom.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
All this discussion of the concept of PlayFair - have any of you tried it? So far every track I have tried it on causes iTunes to crash when I attempt to add it to my iTunes library. Hopefully this is a temporary problem, and I have heard of others having some success, but at the most it's very unfinished. Not there yet.
--- What?
As for the statement "copyright 'rights' are not 'natural' rights", I respectfully disagree. I feel confident that creations covered by copyright could be declared property of the creator and therefore subject to the property rights extended to citizens.
:-) but maybe you should read again this passage from your Constitution, that is a base for all the patent and copyright law...
Well, I'm affraid, you are falling for this (quite) new fashion of "intelectual property" mantra...
Certainly, I'm not going to compete by chanting "information want's to be free"
Hint: limited (or even unlimited) monopoly does not constitute a property...
You can walk into a retail store and pay money for software and walk out with it, without having agreed to anything other than handing over the money. (Try doing that with a rental car sometime. You can't. They will make you sign a rental agreement prior to giving you access to the car. Try doing it with the software that my company sells: you have to sign a sales agreement prior to being given the software.)
When you walk out of the retail store to your car, that box that is in your hands belongs to you. The CD inside the box is yours. It's not any different then buying a toaster, and there still aren't any laws that say otherwise.
Ok.. there's one little catch. Copyright law says that even though you own that CD, there are some things that you are not allowed to do with your property, because someone else holds the copyright on the information.
Well, that's the crux of the issue. AFAIK, the argument in favor of your position is this: if you want to run the software from your hard disk instead of running it from the distribution media, then you have to copy it. That would be copyright violation. Therefore, in order to prevent the act from being violation, you have to get permission to make a copy, and the EULA is the means of obtaining that permission.
Even if that point is conceded (and I'll fight it below), it doesn't change the fact that you own that CD, and you bought it, and it is your property in every way that a toaster is your property. There still haven't been any laws passed that change this basic principle of property, nor does it match "common sense" expectations. Try to find a law, if you don't believe me. The closest thing you'll find is copyright law, but even then, you'll see that the laws just talk about rights and restrictions, not ownership itself. I invite you to cite any real support -- any laws on the books for USA or any common law country -- for the position that, without a contract at the point of sale, ownership of the property was not transferred. If you can't find evidence to support that position, I recommend you be more sceptical. Software companies boldly asserting it, doesn't make it true.
Now, onto the installation issue... my argument is that copying the software from the distribution media to your hard disk, without any sort of permission from the copyright holder, is not copyright violation. It is fair use.
In USA, unless a particular activity is specifically exempted by copyright law, fair use is judged by these criteria:
The purpose and character of the use: The purpose of installing the software is to be able to conveniently use it. Oftentimes these days, the software isn't even directly executable or usable, in its existing form on the distribution media. If you could run the software directly from the CD, then the holder might be able to argue that you didn't need to copy the software in order to get value from it. That's often the case with cartridge games for dedicated gaming systems, for example. But it hasn't been true for a vast majority of personal computer software, since about the mid-1980s.
The effect on the market: When you copy software from distribution media to your hard disk, you are not reducing the market value of the software. This act does not cause the copyright holder to lose any other potential customers. There is no negative economic impact.
And that no negativ
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Yeah, yeah, I know I'll get dismissed as another Apple yes-man. Okay, I own some of their kit, and I think they do a lot of really good things (and fewer bad ones than most companies, though still too many). But let's be realists here. Apple are just the middlemen between us and the record labels. They have to find some common ground.
Before they stepped in, there really wasn't any at all; we wanted no restrictions at all, and the labels wouldn't risk putting any worthwhile music in electronic form. Apple worked out a compromise, one that seems to suit both parties really well. Their restrictions are strong enough that most labels have made a lot of music available, and weak enough that we don't mind paying for it. They're clearly not encouraging piracy (hence the 'Don't Steal Music' stickers &c), but they recognise that fair use is important to people.
So what now? Well, I suspect that Apple themselves couldn't care less about people unprotecting their files. If anything, the immediate effect will be greater sales to people like me (who were previously wary of buying files with an unknown future and no real escape route, but who'd now be looking to buy stuff -- if the iTMS was available here, but that's another rant!). Of course, their pride will suffer a little, but they can't have been blind to this possibility.
But Apple's not the problem here; the problem is the labels. If they think their music up on the iTMS is now completely unprotected and likely to be shared with millions of people, they'll demand action, and Apple will have only two choices: do what they say, or lose large chunks of the iTMS catalogue.
I don't think it's quite as bad as that, though. For one thing, the geek world is a fairly small one compared to the number of people buying music online; and I'd imagine that a good number of them don't use the iTMS anyway. Most people will be unaware that they can unprotect their files, or won't have the technical knowledge or motivation to do so. (There's not even a GUI tool yet.) And for another, you can only unprotect your own files; I think this crack is more about fair use rights for files you've bought than about sharing files (I expect very few people will go to the trouble of unprotecting files simply so other people can use them).
What matters now is how scared the record labels get, and what Apple can do to reassure them and persuade them that further restrictions aren't a good idea. After all, they'd probably be bad for them as well as for us.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
You still haven't defended the position that Apple's "Fairplay" should not be tampered with.
I'm saying Fairplay isn't.
I'm the there's little doubt the framers of the constitution sought to protect property rights
Actually I think you will find it quite facinating enlightening to read the writings of Jefferson and Madison about copyright and patents. Here's somethign Jefferson wrote about inventions, but it applies equally to writings:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody." - Thomas Jefferson
The actual foundation of US law is that all works are initially in the public domain. No one has any inherent right to to stop anyone else from copying. It is the public's rights to do anything and everything that is broadly protected by the 9th and 10th amendments. All rights, including the right to copy, are reserved to the people except to the extent explicitly enumerated in the constitution.
Copyrights and patents are a form of monopoly. A monopoly imposed not by natural right, but imposed by force of the government. A monopoly enforced at gunpoint.
One of the primary causes of the US revolution was numerous opressive monopolies imposed by England. Really nasty monopolies. The framers of the constitution were violently opposed to monopolies. And I mean that literally, they went out and KILLED people over it, chuckle.
But they also recognized that patents and copyrights can serve a useful purpose. They can provide people an incentive to create more and invent more, and to get those creations and inventions to the public. They concluded that monopolies were evil, but that a strictly limited form of monopoly could serve the public good. They therefore wrote Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8 of the constitution:
The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
It is not a property right. For one thing property rights never expire. Copyrights and patents are constitutionally required to expire because their actual purpose is to benefit the public by getting more works and inventions into the public domain. All such works originate in the public domain. Congress has the power secure "copy rights" from the public where they initially lie and temporarily turn them over to copyright holders and inventors. Only a limited selection of rights are taken away from the public, and only for the purpose of benefiting the public, and only for a limited time.
The idea of "intellectual property" and that copyrights and patents exist for the benefit of the author/inventor turns the foundation of our legal system on it's head. It's all ass-backwards.
It's a
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"and I want itunes to stay where it is"
Why? The only thing that it has going for it is a nice shiny face. Other than that, it is slightly more liberal in the way it removes my fair use rights, but doesn't address core issues of how I need to use these songs in a way that Apple or the RIAA may not have thought of.
Not to mention that 128kb is a pathetically low bit rate for those of us who actually like music.
"I REALLY don't want to walk to stores anymore for music."
Someone with your physique and lack of aerobic fitness should be doing a lot more than walking to stores.
You're a mess physically, you eat too much, and you think youre fit because one time in college you did 100 sit ups.
You have issues my friend, and trying to get by with less exercise is one of them.
Yes. Yes, you're right. Well, between you and the other guy, by now it's clear that I'm done.
yes. that's all I'm going to say in all comments from now on.
I didn't mean to 'finish you', chuckle.
I got a bit carried away because of the frustration in other cases (not you) where people buy into the new "property" mindset and refuse to accept the actual legal foundation of US copyright. People who somehow believe it is tanamount to no copyright at all. All the peices just spewed out at once LOL. It's a pleasure to effectively undo the copyright lobby's disinformation.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I still own a lot of old vinyl records. Am I stealing if I download an album I already own in a different format?
I do own 95%+ of my music as I have no problem supporting a band that I enjoy. It is like tipping the waiter or street musician. I would rather send the band $10 directly instead of having $0.10 filter through to the band via the label.
I do not like paying twice for the same recording and thus I feel no wrong by freely downloading songs I own on vinyl. (of which many are not available)
I could be wrong, usually am.
Hey, leave comments about my mother out of this!
http://sourceforge.net/projects/playfair/ returns "invalid project" and the link in the "Too Downloads" section reads : http://sourceforge.net/projects/deleted-105982/
It's ridiculous to call the people who posted this as vandals. Apple hasn't figured out a way of *really* protecting digital content, and so why what's the difference between it being posted on the internet for many to use, or someone breaking it themselves. Where should we draw the line? Should we say only allow the posting of the method and not the source code? Good old security by obfuscation.
To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard."
Goomba99, you are a petty man. Instead of whining to the world about WMA being a standard, why don't you go write your own open source application to do this?
There is nothing I hate more than to see shit-stick teenagers with no skills of their own bashing on other people's work when they have contributed NOTHING to the scene.
Go learn to code and stop being a canker sore to those who actually do something for the community.
No, copyright doesn't force you to give up the changes you make. Neither does anyone else.
Copyright does prohibit you from making copies of your derived work. So, if you change, e.g., GNU ls, you are not allowed to distribute the derived work, according to copyright law.
Now, what the GPL says, is that if you want to distribute that modified version, you must pay. Not with cash, but with the source code. If you want, you can lock the modified version in a safe and that's absolutely OK. Even if you use if every day.
UnFuq does the exact same thing for WMA files. If you have rights to play them, you can turn your WMA's into un-encrypted WMA files.
Search for UnFuq.exe (or perhaps it's spelled with a "ck".)
WMA becomes the standard.
Wouldnt piracy of AAC help establish it as a standard?
I mean, GIF was a pirated form of compression from Compuserve...
Mp3 was also a pirated form of compression from Fraunhoffer AG.
Its kind of like metcalfs law... the more people that use your widget the more valuable your widget is...