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."
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.
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...
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...
Downloading music does not affect sales.
It's affected sales to me. I stopped buying cd's when napster first came out, and haven't since. I bought two songs on itunes, but eventually uninstalled it because it is so pathetically slow in windows.
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.
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.
The difference is Microsoft really does want to control what you see and hear and how you see and hear it. Apple released a DRM scheme that was trying to be as fair to both parties as legally possible. The RIAA (and their controlled labels) would have never cooperated with their ITMS if they had offered completely 'open' songs.
Now that someone has broken their 'fair' DRM it is another example the RIAA will use to try and further tighten their control over any kind of music distribution. If MS claims that their WMA offers the most superior protection against sharing then which do you think RIAA wll mandate?
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
It hasn't for me. I've purchased 835 songs from iTunes in the last year since it's been active, compared to zero albums during the Napster heyday.
I'm probably different from you; I enjoy music immensely. Songs often remind me of certain periods of my life, good or bad. They bring a smile to my face or, sometimes, and adverse reaction.
Regardless, I choose to reward the artist*, rather than blatantly "steal"** from them.
* - Yes, it may possibly support RIAA also, but the artists signed those arcane contracts, not me.
** - Fuck off, it _IS_ stealing. Let's see you work your job for 6 months and have someone come along an take all the great ideas for themselves, leaving you with no recognition. Would you be pissed?
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
True, and I don't suggest anyone try to extrapolate the whole industry from my experience alone.
However, a little common sense tells me that there are lots of people like me in the sense that if something is available just as conveniently, and free, they will not be as likely to spend money for the same thing. And I think this will become more and more true as digital files become the preferred media for music.
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!
That't not true. The bits belong to me. If this weren't the case, then all I'd have to do is buy a 'license to use' and if I should ever lose my copy I could download another (after all, I'd already paid to use it). However, this is not true. At iTMS if you lose your copy, you have to pay to download another copy. You're paying for the bits. Otherwise, Apple would not force you to buy a license to use data that you already have a license to use.
Vandals... hardy. I can do whatever I want with my bits. After all, no one seem to complain when I shoot my harddrive.
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.
I'm of the mind that the genie can't be put back - that open hardware will prevail, DRM will fail, and that alternative means of funding digital works will emerge such as variations on the street performer protocol, where it's the SCARCE act of creation that is funded, rather than the zero marginal cost of reproducing abundant old data.
--
Power to the Peaceful
Those 2,000 CD's you own are part of the problem if any of them are produced by RIAA member companies. The only thing that's going to really get their attention is a total boycott (including purchase or downloading).
Once they realize that they no longer have a market of any kind, they will start trying to find ways to work with the users.
Total boycott.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
> "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"
Hmm. Since iTunes already allows the user to burn a CD, effectively removing the DRM, how then is this software not following the rules? I already have the keys to the music file. Therefore I have the right to an unencumbered copy.
Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
Amen brother. The problem is in polite conversation (and slashdot too, for that matter) "I know a guy..." trumps statistics every time.
Download my free songs!
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.
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??
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).
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.
*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...
...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
You appearently don't understand it any better. A contract requires some meeting of the minds. The fact that most people click through "read this and agree" proves that doesn't happen as a rule, and does only as an exception.
When people buy a song either on CD or off iTunes, most people, almost all people, and even some lawyers, are buying the song, not permission to play it. The fact that you think otherwise is insignificant, and only interesting as data point in the results of music industry propaganda.
Look it up, "song" referes to object of music, not the permission to play music. The fact that the language allows for such distinctions and we don't use them indicated the music industry is full of shit. (And on the cusp of a VERY painful lesson.)
It was Apple's decision to not support WMA. What, you think Microsoft doesn't want WMA supported on the iPod? That's crazy talk. Apple won't support WMA because they want AAC to be the standard, so they can charge a royalty to everyone who encodes with it. See also the iPod's lack of support for OGG-Vorbis. Certainly no one outside of Apple is hindering their support for this feature--it's a completely open standard! But supporting open standards isn't compatible with their business objective.
Non-DRM'ed WMA is supported on many, many more platforms than AAC. Nearly all mp3 players support it. Not sure about DRM'ed WMA, because I've never owned any. Can't say as I've ever purchased music in this format.
US CODE TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 106. - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works 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.
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.
US CODE TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use says it is not infringment to make fair use, thus you don't need any licence at all to make fair use. It gives a non-exhaustive list of examples of fair use. It gives a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider in determining fair use.
And rather signifigantly, fair use rights are NOT granted by that law. If you check the congressional record they specificly stated that we already had fair use rights and that that law was merely an attempt to write down those existing rights. They specificly said that law was not intended to expand or restrict or alter fair use rights in any way.
Not only are fair use rights NOT granted or defined or restricted by copyright law, but if you look back at the various supreme court cases mapping out the extent of fair use, the fact is that it's fair use that restricts the extent and reach of copyright. The term "fair use" never even appeared in copyright law before 1976. We had fair use before that, and where fair use treads copyright restrictions are swept away.
There is no such thing as a "licence to use". Doesn't exist.
Ordinary "use" rights remain with the public. You don't need any sort of licence to read a book you bought or to play a song you bought.
As for contracts, I don't know if iTunes even has one, or if it's even valid, or what's in it. But assuming there is, it cannot grant some non-existant "licence to use". The most it could do is attempt to impose a clause against making fair use. And even if it does, and even if it's a valid clause, it would still be strictly a contract issue, not copyright.
No, I'm not a lawyer, but I HAVE been reading the law and many court cases. You're the one tossing around a "licence to use" with absolutely no basis. I defy you to find it anywhere in US copyright law.
I will certainly admit the RIAA and MPAA want the law to recognize a "licence to use". I will certainly admit the RIAA and MPAA are putting out a missinformation campaign to convince the public and congress that's what the law already says. If that's what everyone thinks that's what the law says then it becomes very easy to get the law re-written to "fix" the law to actually say that.
"Licence to use" is a myth, part of a campaign to get copyright law changed.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Yes, but you haven't played DRM WMA9 files on a Mac.
Because, for the 1000th time IT DOESN'T SUPPORT THEM!
While I agree with you in principle, the CDs that you burn just don't sound right and I'm not even talking about mp4 => CD => (mp3|aac|whatever) just mp4 => CD
When iTunes first came out I bought 2 full albums that I knew I had access to original store bought CDs. Going from iTunes => CD just sounds off, generally (to me) in the highs and lows, almost as if they have over compensated.
Of course it's all subjective, but to me listening to mp4 using line out from a PowerBook into the stereo sounds much better than playing a CD burned from the same source.
Well, let me see here. I'm no lawyer, but I play one on slashdot (and I read Groklaw) :P
:/
... There are plenty of others who have described rather well how this works, so I will not dwell on it.
..." Specifically, there are something like four factors the judge takes into consideration, such as whether it was for NON-profit educational use (profit is VERY broad here, even ads on your webpage might count), whether you use a large portion of the work in relation to the whole, and how it affects them financially. I think I left out a factor, so Google it by all means.
If you're a real lawyer, or can provide credible evidence that what I say is wrong, by all means, be my guest; I'm just explaining things as best I understand them from all the reading I've done on the subject.
For one, you don't need a damned license (a license is permission, a contract is a mutual agreement/exchange of value) to play this music. Or at least you weren't supposed to. There's a clause in USC 117 (copyright law) that says that ephemeral copies aren't supposed to be infringing. Of course, case law hasn't exactly made any good use of it, even though it should have... Especially when it comes to EULAs, when one might be led to believe that they're signing a contract to give up rights for permission they're not supposed to need... Sadly, the courts have upheld a number of EULAs
The problem is that they have DRM, and the DMCA has those anti-circumvention restrictions. In other words, they're leaving us with "rights" that we no longer have the power to exercise. The librarian of congress apparently has some power to craft exemptions here (perhaps we should be lobbying there, more?). The only such relevant exemptions I can remember were posted to Slashdot a while ago... I understand it to mean that we can crack DRM for obsolete platforms, but I advise you to read their statements in the original--there are, no doubt, nuances concerning this that may be important if you intend to rely on these exemptions.
Now then, what's worse is that depending on how you crack the DRM, you could, at least theoretically, run across problems with patents and with trade secrets. At least with trade secrets, you have to be a party to them to begin with in orter to run afoul of them. That is, unless you get the information on the DRM under an NDA, you shouldn't worry too much about this. At least, not that I know of. I do remember it coming into play with DeCSS, but I don't remember specifics. As for patents, they're even worse, in that you don't have to know of the patent's existence to run afoul of it...
For another, I'm assuming you get some kind of click through EULA. This makes it a contract, not a license, since they've obtained your consent to all those crazy restrictions. SOME EULA restrictions (notably "you can't benchmark our product") have been shot down. SOMETIMES. There are judges split between "freedom to contract" and others who think it better to overturn "unfair" terms. You cannot depend on such things.
There are other issues, in particular the "first sale doctrine" that tries to limit folks imposing contracts after a sale has been completed. While I wish this were extended a bit more, mostly judges seem to be remiss to invoke this unless they don't let you SEE the terms you're agreeing to until it's too late to RETURN the product (making your disagreement futile). MS has some rather clever lawyering that, in effect, has long force us to pay the "windows tax"
Lastly, "fair use" is an "affirmative defense" to copyright infringement. What that means is that by asserting it, you say that "Yes, I DID infringe on their copyrights, BUT
Mind you, some of the more common mythical provisions do NOT exist. 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. The "10%" myth might be a semi-sensible restriction under th
> 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.
Apple happens to be run by a geek who understands the fundamental reality of the situation. So long as we still have trusted computers, uncrackable DRM isn't possible. If the iTunes player can read the data out it can be reverse engineered to discover the method and the keys. Only if we, the purchasers of hardware, allow the trust relationship to be inverted will that change. When you hear someone speak of "trusted computing" you must always ask the question of WHO is going to be the one trusting the machine. Right now it is the owner, but certain forces would like to change that.
Democrat delenda est
Is that the same mentality that tells you your credit card in your wallet belongs to you? Read the fine print, the issuer owns the card. Just like Apple owns the music.
Bullshit. If it's on my hard drive, which is a physical platter that I purchased at retail, then it's a physical thing that exists in the real world and it's mine.
... My name is Bill Gates. Linux is on my hard drive, which is a physical platter that I purchased retail, so it is a physical thing that exists in the real world and it's mine. I don't like the NT kernel any more so I'm going to make some modifications to my Linux here and sell it. And I'm not going to give you, or anyone, the source...
You're kidding, right?
When you click on "I Accept" in a EULA, you have probably already bought the software. You are not in a position where you need to agree to the contract as part of the sale. It's already yours, before you click on "I Accept."
Furthermore, when you click it, you're not really communicating with anyone. The entity "on the other side of the click" is just your own computer. You can't "lie" or commit fraud against your own computer -- it doesn't make sense, at least until we have strong AI and then your computer won't be your property anyway, thanks to the 16th Ammendment. ;-)
iTunes Music Store is different. You are communicating an assertion to someone when you agree to the contract, and they refuse to do business with you, unless you do it. Prior to your agreement, you haven't bought the music music yet. You don't even have it, so how could you argue that it's yours?
Unlike shrinkwrap EULAs, it might really be a license.
EULAs were a joke, but click-to-download agreements are a whole other situation. That's why it's important to Just Say No to this crap, and do business with their competitors. It's why I still buy music CDs, instead of licensing files.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I've stopped and thought about whether I should actually burn a new mix CD, since I believe iTMS limits you to the number of times a track can be burned?
You can put a purchased/protected AAC in a playlist, and burn it ten times. After the tenth time, you have to rearrange or edit the playlist, and then you can burn it another ten times.
Lather, rince, repeat. It's essentially unlimited burns; the ten-burn limit is simply to deter folks who want to mass-produce bootlegs, IMO.
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
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.
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.
Yep, using Mplayer OS X, not Media Player 9 (which won't play WM9 Video)
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
The DRM restrictions on iTunes music are designed to prevent casual copyright infringment. You can make a couple of copies for personal use but that's it. The DRM won't stop a dedicated infringer from making and distributing mass copies; but it will stop an honest end-user from making one additional copy for personal use (let's say he has a number of different places he listens to music). By the terms of the contract, I suppose he's being dishonest, but there is zero harm being perpetrated here.
I also wonder whether a contract like the one you enter into when you sign up with iTunes, that attempts to revoke some of your fair use rights, is actually even legal? I know that a contract that requires one party or the other to break a law in the course of fulfilling the contractual obligations is null and void, but I'm not so sure when it comes to giving up certain rights.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Isn't that what csoto is talking about - that you have more "rights" with Apple's ACC DRM as opposed to the other DRMs where you may or may not have the "right" to burn a CD? Once you have it on a CD, there is no DRM.
DRMs are bad, 'cos they are restrictive. Apple's DRM is a lot less restrictive than any other DRM out there. To say that Apple's ACC DRM is bad and WMP DRM is good, is not what the data sez.
To say that ACC DRM is "restrictive" because it can only play on an iPod is redefining "restrictive" in the context of DRM, and is simply not correct. Burn it on a CD - rip it into MP3/whatever. Play it on your fav CD/MP3 player whereever. Legally.
Besides, by your logic, it could just as easily be argued that WMA is "restrictive" because it does not allow me to play it on (by far) the most popular MP3 player which accounts for ~ 50% of the MP3 portable player market?
And if you really care about the fidelity of the music you listen to, buy an iPod and quit yer moaning.
cheers- raga
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the way the original DeCSS worked is that it included a key that was leaked from a (Russian? German?) DVD player manufacturer, and simply used that key to decrypt... anything.
~ Aero
The record companies are the owners of the songs.
Wrong. They are the copyright holders. "Intellectual property" isn't actual property, you know.
However they decide to release the music on CD's or on an on-line store and do so under a specific license.
No they don't. When I buy a CD, I don't buy a license to listen. I buy the actual copy.
Admit you're breaking the law and violating the contract you agreed to when you bought the music.
My contract is with the shop I bought the CD from, and contains nothing about copyright (why would it - it's already illegal to make unauthorised copies).
But just don't waste your time and everybody else's trying to pretend that you have a right to rip tracks from CD's and put them on P2P networks, just because "they wouldn't have gotten that revenue anyway".
Straw-man argument. He didn't say anything of the sort. If you can't attack his arguments successfully, make up an argument you can attack successfully, right? Classic troll.
He stated that copyright infringement is not theft. It clearly isn't. His later statements about how copyright might not be such a good idea are orthogonal to this fact.
If you can't disambiguate his points, consider mine:
Now, if you disagree with any of those points, feel free to argue against them. Please show the benefits of a system other than the one I describe, and if you base your arguments around creators of original works deserving more, please explain why we should grant them the privilege of restricting the actions of others (as I stated before, I believe it's useful to grant them these privileges, you will have to explain why what I describe isn't enough).
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.
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?
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.
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.
I have no intention of "playing pirate" (though I do find equivocating copyright infringement with nautical larceny amusing), but I was curious about this.
I ran strings on the original file and found both my email address and name I signed up with. I did not find the same data in the file after it was processed by playfair
This is not to say there isn't a watermark on the files, but I tend to think there isn't.
I thought about posting this anonymously, but that would lend credence to the view than transcoding my own legitimately purchased property is somehow not fair use
"The general contract of the method run is that it may take any action whatsoever." -- Java 2 API
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?
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.