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?
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
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
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.
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...
> it's defeating one of the most liberal copyright-protection schemes in existance.
What about actual copyright law?
Why can't I do whatever I choose with the music I pay for?
Because when you pay for it, you agree to a set of restrictions on what you can do with it. Don't like those restrictions? Buy it somewhere else.
You probably shouldn't click this.
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
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!
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.
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
Hardware DRM works?
You mean like the PS2 (whoops, there's a modchip there) and the XBOX (whoops, there's a modchip there too)
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!!!!
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
Honestly, this is borderline, but I can understand the logic behind it. What happens if it turns out the trolls are right, Apple does die, and you need new hardware? Or play your AACs under Linux? Or any number of other scenarios that could call for legitimate fair use?
Here's the thing you and many others are missing - PlayFair only strips the DRM if you already own a legal copy. If you read so much as the single paragraph summary on their site, you'd see that in order crack the DRM, PlayFair extracts your key from either your iPod or your iTunes software. So if you don't already have legal access to the music, you're not going to be able to strip the DRM.
Yes, it can be used as a piracy tool, but really the argument for this isn't really any different than the one for DeCSS. This can be, and very much is, a tool for fair use.
Maybe this will blow over and iTMS can stay in business
Hell, Apple never wanted to incorporate DRM in the first place. They don't care it was cracked. They expected it. The only thing that is going to cause trouble is the RIAA. I guarantee to that the RIAA imposed a contract allowing them to shut down iTunes unless Apple "fixes" the broken DRM.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I am tired of this argument; if the Music Companies were selling the right to listen to the music then I could exchange my old scratched up CDs for new ones for a buck or less. The fact that this requires 18$ alone is reason enough to shaft them at every opportunity. They have screwed with their markets and their consumers for too long, and the market is sticking it to them at every possible opportunity. Music Companies are going to sit on their catalogs and screw their artists and customers until they are forced by the market to change. This is an instrument of change. People need to remember that we get to make and change the laws; ones cast in stone went out with Hammurabi.
andy
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 can't speak to the feasability of cracking WMA itself, but you seem to be romanticizing things a bit. True, all encryption technologies can be subverted. However, there are plenty of examples in which it is mathematically unfeasable to do so, and no amount of clever hacking tricks can change it. What if the next version of WMA encryption were as secure as AES? It's certainly not likely, but I wouldn't say it's impossible either. I understand that there are fundamental differences between DRM and plain encryption, but the point is that uncrackable systems are possible.
We can't just rely on "someone" to eventually crack everything we don't like. Microsoft has a lot of smart people working for them, as does Apple. Apple will fix their encryption, and MS will improve theirs. What we have to do is get to the root of the problem with DRM; namely that fair-use rights are being blocked, and the standards are proprietary and strategically limited in availability. I don't think these problems are impossible to solve either.
I would actually encourage an open-source DRM implementation, perhaps as part of OGG media. If a free alternative were available to publishers, that fixed the fair-use problems, I can certainly see that it might be adopted.
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
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).
Ditto.
I agreed to not give this music to other people, I agreed not to steal music by uploading this to other people. I can do the following with this music too:
1) Burn it
2) Listen to it on Linux from my iPod. Not quite iTunes but hell, ain't nothing on Linux that compares to iTunes yet(juk is coming a long way though!).
3) Listen to it on the go
4) Listen to it fro Windows
What did I lose? Well, a little bit of space because of the DRM, but other than that? Nothing. I can play it on my big stereo system at home, in the car, burn it on a CD. It's just more difficult to give it away. Darn. Guess my friends will have to shell out the $0.99 for songs! I guess I better LEND THEM THE MONEY.
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.
Interesting link though;)
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
Absolutely - and this will likely follow the same path that DeCSS did. Sourceforge has actually already pulled it, but's out, and it will be mirrored in places outside of the US' jurisdiction where such software is legal.
It's a shame that as a country that prides itself in its freedom, when it comes to information, we're rapidly becoming one of the least free nations on earth, thanks to the media lobbies. With any luck, the US will come up with a DVD Jon of our own in the near future - someone willing to fight it out and get the DMCA at least partially struck down.
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.
What if the next version of WMA encryption were as secure as AES? It's certainly not likely, but I wouldn't say it's impossible either. I understand that there are fundamental differences between DRM and plain encryption, but the point is that uncrackable systems are possible.
This is nonsense. Encryption systems may be practically uncrackable. Encryption systems that have to decrypt the "protected" contents for you so that you can listen to them will never be in the least bit secure. If you can hear it you can record it. There is no getting around this. The entire idea of DRM is, on the face of it, futile.
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?
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.
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.
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." ---
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
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
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
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.
I don't know exactly how buying music from iTMS works, so I am going to make my comments slightly general.
When you buy something, you accept that as bought, it might have restrictions. For example, if I buy a used Honda, I accept that it cannot fly. However, I do not have to agree to the restriction "This vehicle will not fly." If I wanted to modify it to turn it into some sort of flying machine, then I am free to do so.
When you liscense something, you agree to restrictions. If I liscense a used Honda, the lisecne might prohibit me from modifying it or turning it into a flying machine.
When you buy things at retail, they are actually yours to do with. Of course, you're not allowed to do anything illegal (like creating coppies of a CD and distributing it to people, because that is a breach of copyright), but you're not agreeing to anything more. This is the right of first sale. You buy it. It is yours. Do what you want with it.
When you buy things online, though, I am not sure things are that simple. I would think that you can agree to additional restrictions. For example, Apple could say that you are liscensing both the files and the keys to decode them and that you are not allowed to modify the files. Running PlayFair would then be prohibited by the lisecnse under which you are using the files under.
So to answer the grandparent poster's question, why can't you do whatever you choose with the music you pay for? Because you might not have actually bought the files. If you only liscensed them, there may may be additional restrictions. There is a difference between paying for and buying, and the files might not be yours in a legal sense to do with what you please.
Of course, there might be other issues like "is a contract that you click through but do not sign actually enforceable," but I think this is enough to understand why you might not be able to do some things with the music you paid for.
So, in summary, accepting how things are is not the same as agreeing to keep them that way, and paying for something does not have to mean buying it. I hope this helps.
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.
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." ---
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
You can outlaw recordering equipment; or legislate that it include watermark-detection technology.
Printers are getting built-in currency detection, old-fashioned analog VCR's are getting their own copy protection--macrovision isn't uncrackable, but it's annoying at least--the DRM folks are talking about "closing the analog hole"--so that isn't farfetched.
Clearly DRM is hard, but with tamper-resistent security subsystems being built into new machines and such, it's not obvious to me who wins this arms race; certainly I wouldn't go so far to say that "The entire idea of DRM is, on the face of it, futile."
At the very least, DRM is likely to make things that should be easy very annoying, and force us to do things furtively that we should be able to do openly. So I think it's sensible to worry.
--Bruce Fields
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.
So you mean it's liberal enough to allow me to play files in Linux?
If you want to play stuff in Linux, I bet you're not going to use iTunes which only runs on Mac/Windows. Therefore, since iTunes doesn't meet your needs you should go and find something which does, rather than advocating cracking the software.
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
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.
e rson smarminess. Fuck that. We're no brighter than the rest of the populace. I know jack-all about the effect of p2p downloading other than through personal experience. Often there are subjects I'm more knowledgeable about, and I hope my posts reflect that. By the BS like that espoused by this AC ("surveys have shown?") are just too much too bear.
Find, great, good. I'm so glad that someone has a study now that contradicts the RIAA party line. And I'm sure the Slashdot community has vigorously studies the methods used by the investigators; to make sure there is no bias, that there methods are sound and so forth. Because we all know that the RIAA studies presented were complete BS, b/c they had an agenda. Let's disregard all that. No we have a study that proves our point of view.
This is such unadulterated BULLSHIT! When the RIAA had studies, everyone on Slashdot loved to disregard the studies (biased or not) and instead touted their anecdotal stories. Hey guess what? No one f'in knows if p2p networks increase or decrease record sales. My gut feeling says that they do, although the RIAA clearly exaggerates its effect. And if p2p increases sales, then why are nearly all the big money musicians against it? I guess they're not as smart as the Slashdot crowd and the RIAA has managed to brainwash them with their biased studies, and they really believe that p2p might hurt their incomes. Poor stupid bastards.
The outright arrogance of 90% of the posts (not necessarily 90% of posters or readers; rather, the vocal plurality) on Slashdot is overwhelming. It's always tinged with the idea that since-I'm-a-techie-I'm-smarter-than-the-average-p
Enough. Just because you're passionate about a subject doesn't mean you know what the hell you're talking about. Post some links, provide some critical analysis, but please don't parrot the same Slashthink BS that permeates Slashdot.
DRM is unfeasible from a security standpoint, even though you can make it difficult on the average Joe.
If you do a full-fledged security analysis, the system is "secure" if the cost of breaking the system is less then the value the system protects. DRM systems will be designed to protect billions of dollars of content. Billions of dollars will be able to crack any remotely feasible DRM scheme. Once cracked, the content can be freely copied by all.
Sure, you can cut down the number of crackers and you might even make it unfeasible, but you can never make it impossible.
All the outlawing and penalities and such just raise the price, but in the end, you can only fine one person so much (life in jail, all assets, that's it), and that's all the system needs to be broken with.
Dear God! You mean to tell me that your floorplan is exactly the same as mine? That you ripped off every decorating idea I spent years and years perfecting? The inhumanity!
Wait... I'm confused. You've found a way to build houses for free, and I'm supposed to be angry? No, I'm not. I'm overjoyed. Now everyone can a comfortable home, and it's absolutely wonderful if they thought my design was worth copying.
Your analogy is deeply, fundamentally broken. I don't even know where to begin trying to fix it. No matter what analogy you could use relating music copying to physical items, any loss incurred by the creator--time, money, ego, whatever--is absolutely overwhelmed by the brute force of the simple fact: The copiers are creating new stuff at no cost!
If we could provide quality housing for anyone, for free, simply by ripping off the design you put your blood, sweat, and tears into, it's absolutely worth hurting your feelings.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Nope, I'm happy that you can enjoy the design I've perfected over all these years. You're not reducing my ability to enjoy me house (unless I'm a capricious, elitist bastard who only likes things if other people don't have them), and frankly I'm flattered that you like my house so much you want to live in the exact same design.
I mean, seriously, what have I lost? Nothing.
In any case, as another poster has already pointed out, I'm basically too stunned at how cool it is that you can copy a whole house for free to care about the money.
I think you need to consider that 'scarcity' is what determines price. With instant, flawless copying, there is no scarcity. Therefore, we need to come up with a new way of distributing and, indeed, creating such things, not create silly laws to artificially recreate scarcity.
Read Pynchon.
Value to whom? The copyright holder?
IMHO a decent bit of music has value even if a copy is given to every person on earth.
I don't understand why people are so desperate to protect the record label hegemony. People will not stop making music even if Sony-EMI-Time-Warner-Bertlemann-Whatever goes bust. Therefore, the innovation incentive for allowing copyright - an essentially man-made notion - to exist falls away and there is no reason to retain it in this particular sphere.
Read Pynchon.
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?
.. -. - . .-. .-. --- -...
The compressed file formats trade size by making more significant and less obvious compromises, but are nonetheless in the same class: a limited, digitized realization of a continuous source. Increasing download bandwidth and further research will likely yield future formats which rival CD quality for all practical (and conceivable) purposes. Of course, by then we'll have 24bit, 192kHZ DVD-audio (in, ironically for the present discussion, the AAC format), and you'll still complain that the newest generation of super-high-fidelity compressed music isn't "original". If you want your music "original", go hear it in person.
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.
You're really a very silly person, you know.