Monday Releases Cause Crashes

The two big releases yesterday, Apple's Security Update and the DRM-canceling PlayFair, are causing problems. The Security Update appears to break cvs over pserver under some conditions (hangs for a long time, then quits with a malloc error), and ryanw writes, "according to the SF.net forum for playfair, the 'iTMS DRM stripping tool' destroys your purchased songs: the resulting files crash iTunes, the iPod, and QuickTime." Those who follow the rules -- wait a few days to install Apple's updates, and make backups of your iTMS files -- will be unaffected.

Comments

Er...ooops.

[System.out.println()]

I really need to learn to wait a few days before installing things. I'm so impatient.

Even worse, I check a dozen or so Mac sites several times daily, (yes I need a life) so I probably get every update within 8 hours or so of release, if that.

Re:Er...ooops.

[HTH NE1]

I really need to learn to wait a few days before installing things.

But the coal mines of software updating need canaries like you. ;)

Re:Er...ooops.

[System.out.println()]

*chokes*
*sputters*
*death gurgle*

(jk, btw... I don't use any of the service that the update breaks, and I have tried to deDRM my iTMS songs)

Re:Er...ooops.

[MacAdmin]

I can feel your pain, I am doing the same thing.

that'll theach you...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to install version 0.2 of some guy's software

Re:that'll theach you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but it fixes many bugs found in 0.1

Hmm

[gkelman]

I check everyday for updates as a matter of course and installed yesterday's security stuff. Luckily
being in the UK I _still_ can't buy music from iTunes, and I don't have an iPod so no problem really.

Annoying that they don't check these things more carefully.

Re:Hmm

[System.out.println()]

The security update is the only one worth complaining about - Come on, did you expect a copyright circumvention program to work perfectly?

Re:Hmm

[Endive4Ever]

Actually, I expected a loud FUD campaign from Apple to emerge within hours.

Which, it appears, has happened.

The fact that it's bundled with 'Bad News' about an Apple update release sorta 'shields' it's credibility some.

Re:Hmm

[gooser23]

NOBODY expects a copyright circumvention program to work perfectly! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the DMCA.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

Re:Hmm

[System.out.println()]

Is that from a song or something? I saw a bash quote like that a while back....

PlayFair 0.2

[ZackSchil]

The way PlayFair snags a decryption key doesn't always work, but it tries to decrypt the song anyway. If it finds a bad key and uses it, of course the files are going to come out as garbage! If you swap headers of an m4a file and an m4p file, QuickTime, iTunes and the iPod all crash while reading it also. It does not, as the post suggests, even touch your purchased songs. All decryption is made on a copy. Just more fear mongering.

I have, however, had no trouble decrypting my songs under Mac OS X. They work perfectly.

Re:PlayFair 0.2

[obijywk]

I had trouble with PlayFair at first too (on my Linux machine)... the same thing happened to me - if PlayFair doesn't find a valid key for your song, it goes ahead and creates a messed up file anyway. These files crashed every player I tried them in. After I moved my key into ~/.drms, where PlayFair could find it, the decrypted files came out fine.

I guess PlayFair needs some improved error checking. But I think it's great... now I can listen to my iTunes songs on my linux machine!

Re:PlayFair 0.2

[ZackSchil]

Upon further inspection, I've come across a few strange things. Only my more recent iTunes Music Store purchases decrypt correctly. The older ones make garbled files that iTunes tries to play for a minute, then crashes.

Re:PlayFair 0.2

[prockcore]

If you swap headers of an m4a file and an m4p file, QuickTime, iTunes and the iPod all crash while reading it also.

You know, an enterprising hacker would take this as a sure sign of buffer overflows being present in QuickTime.

Then again we all know hackers only use windows so there's nothing to worry about.

Re:PlayFair 0.2

[ZackSchil]

I got to the bottom of the freezing issue!!

Just delete the folder ~/.drms between each decryption. I wrote a GUI for Mac OS X that integrates with iTunes and I just had to make it delete the .drms folder between encodes to make it work properly.

Oh, and sorry for replying 2 times to my own post :)

Re:PlayFair 0.2

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it crashes doesn't mean it's a buffer overflow.

Re:PlayFair 0.2

[Da Killa]

Can I have it???

Re:PlayFair 0.2

[alternatekev]

I've been contemplating putting a package together of the compiled binaries and some iTunes applscripts.. if you have a cocoa UI for it though, it'd be nice to release it to us degenerates who want to use our music as we want....

Brilliant move combining those two stories

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant move combining those two entirely seperate stories into one article.

You just know some ignorant tinfoil-hat wearing /.ers are going to assume that the stories are related somehow, and that the Apple Security Update somehow sabotaged playfair. Sheesh.

Re:Brilliant move combining those two stories

[bfg9000]

You noticed the coincidence too, eh? The missing piece is the fact that Steve is a 33rd Degree Freemason and was roommates with a former director of the CIA in college. Throw in the strange map of Area 51 that is steganographically hidden within the default desktop picture, and I think the facts speak for themselves.

Steve is building an army of mind-controlled minions set to overthrow the alien beings who have taken over Western Civilization and are currently raising us for food.

Of course, give me a G5 PowerBook and I'll overlook all that.

Re:Brilliant move combining those two stories

[feloneous cat]

You just know some ignorant tinfoil-hat wearing /.ers are going to assume that the stories are related somehow, and that the Apple Security Update somehow sabotaged playfair.

Despite my appearance in the aluminium chapeau, I assure you that I was neither confused nor in any way inferred that the two stories were linked.

Now if those damned bugs would just come out from under my skin, I could convince the Docs...

Re:Brilliant move combining those two stories

[FredFnord]

> Of course, give me a G5 PowerBook and I'll overlook all that.

Don't be ridiculous. We'll just harvest you a little early...

-fred

Re:Brilliant move combining those two stories

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's just ONE story and a rumor. The story is about PlayFair and iTunes (link provided to forums on SF). The rumor is the security update problems (no link to ANY documentation concerning this). By combining the rumor with the story, the rumor picks up credibility with needing any supporting evidence!

Re:Brilliant move combining those two stories

[horigath]

Steve is building an army of mind-controlled minions set to overthrow the alien beings who have taken over Western Civilization and are currently raising us for food.

Wait, this is a bad thing? This means that not only will we get nice computers, but we won't be eaten by the alien beings (although I'm surprised that you don't correctly identify these as lizards).

Re:Brilliant move combining those two stories

[bfg9000]

You know too much. The Council has been informed.

Re:Brilliant move combining those two stories

[Anonymous Coward]

So strange... I thought Freds slashdot uin was 80655...

Apple protects fair-use

[valmont]

The nerds behind PlayFair are doing nothing but harm the very thing they seek to protect: Fair Use. Apple *already* allows you to make an unlimited amount of regular Audio CDs from music you purchased on iTMS. Apple already allows you to listen to your music on any computer running their free iTunes software. THAT *is* fair use. Why go thru the trouble of breaking encryption? just so you could listen to your music on linux? if you're going thru all that trouble then why not create a few audio CDs from all your purchased music, so you could listen to it on your stereo and in your car, AND RIP UN-DRM'ed MP3s onto your linux box?.

This is all just silly. Why don't "freedom fanboys" either get a clue or stick to WMA, rather than bashing Apple on their attempt to make the RIAA play nice and bragging about circumventing a DRM scheme that has always been loose in the first place.

i still buy most my music off of amazon, i'm a big fan of physical goods in the mail.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[hawkbug]

I agree with you - I have no interest in unencrypting my iTunes files. However, some people would argue that by burning a CD and then creating an mp3 from it, you are losing a lot of quality. My ears aren't the greatest, but I sometimes think I can tell a difference between an mp3 created in that fashion vs the original iTunes download. But then again, maybe it's just my imagination - either way, that's how I convert my music - by burning it to CD first.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[NotoriousQ]

Sigh....did we not already talk about this? iTUNES -> CDAUDIO -> MP3 is extra loss. ITUNES-> CDAUDIO -> AAC also possibly extra loss. The CDAUDIO is same quality, but not portable, and I do not have an iPod, or disk space to hold the uncompressed ripped cd's. That is why I am also a big fan of physical goods in the mail.

So point by point:
THAT *is* fair use
It is also fair use to break their encryption. One fair use does not stop another. DMCA may make it illegal though, but that is a different story.

Why go thru the trouble of breaking encryption?
To avoid the loss incurred by ITUNES -> CDAUDIO -> MP3/AAC/OGG/LOSSY and still keep the file size low.

just so you could listen to your music on linux?
Yes. I have no non linux/bsd machines. I had to use my roommate's windows machine to download songs from iTunes via Pepsi promo.


if you're going thru all that trouble then why not create a few audio CDs from all your purchased music, so you could listen to it on your stereo and in your car
Swapping CD's is a pain.

AND RIP UN-DRM'ed MP3s onto your linux box?
Extra loss incurred. See above.

get a clue or stick to WMA
WMA is not any better. I already have a clue.

rather than bashing Apple
I have no problem with apple. They can do what they want, I can do what I want via fair use.

DRM scheme that has always been loose in the first place.
Not loose enough for what I am trying to accomplish.

i still buy most my music off of amazon, i'm a big fan of physical goods in the mail.
Ditto, however this is getting to be more annoying as the cd's are becoming more copy protected every day.

For the people who stumbled into this discussion late, see the previous discussion

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[pudge]

Apple already allows you to listen to your music on any computer running their free iTunes software. THAT *is* fair use.

Uh. I have five Macs in my house. I can only play music *I purchased* on three of them. It is quite clear: I am being denied my fair use rights. There's really no debating it. What to do about the problem is all that is under debate.

Why go thru the trouble of breaking encryption? just so you could listen to your music on linux? if you're going thru all that trouble then why not create a few audio CDs from all your purchased music, so you could listen to it on your stereo and in your car, AND RIP UN-DRM'ed MP3s onto your linux box?

You argue people should use DRM circumvention instead of DRM circumvention? You're quite confused. One method is no more or less legal or justifiable than the other. Both of them are methods to circumvent DRM, and in my case, perfectly legal, since the existing files prevent me from exercising my fair use rights.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Reducer2001]

Swapping CD's is a pain.
Eject, remove, insert, play. Have we gotten this lazy? Most music players have an eject button in the GUI and Mac's have one on the keyboard.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[valmont]

interesting points

Could you please define not portable? When you use iTunes to burn an AUDIO CD, you get a real audio CD, that can be played on any CD player. My GF buys a lot of music off of iTMS and makes lots of CDs which she plays just fine in her car. I must be misunderstanding what you mean by "not portable".

Please also define for my slow brain what you mean by "extra loss". You mean audio quality loss? See, I believe this is where you and I disagree. From personal experience, and that of a few other people, creating an Audio CD from a bunch of purchased iTMS AAC music doesn't appear to yield any loss in quality (which I believe, we agree on), and ripping MP3's or AAC's from that same CD does not either seem to yield any loss of quality either. The quality of the result from Audio CD ==> MP3/AAC process, will of course depend on what compression settings your ripping software is set to. This would apparently be where you and I disagree.

I'm sure you are already aware of this and mainly making a point, but there is absolutely nothing legal about getting rid of DRM from music you purchased from iTMS. Most threads I've read about "Fair Use" and Copyright law seem to ignore one simple thing: When you download music from iTMS, you know ahead of time, what the rules are. You agreed to them when clicking "Accept" on the EULA screen iTunes threw at you upon installation. Apple offers you a contract, you accept it by using their service. It is that simple. All musings about "Fair Use" and "Copyright", from this point, are mainly scoped to whether or not Apple and the RIAA have a "moral right" to apply their DRM scheme, whether or not, from a consumer standpoint this is fair, and whether or not, as a consumer, you should choose to use their services and products. If you do choose to use those services, there is absolutely no law you can invoke to justify bypassing their DRM scheme. The only case where you'd have legal recourse would be if you were never warned in advance, if said companies never provided you with the information you needed as a consumer to make an educated choice as to whether or not you should use their services. Such as when certain CDs are sold with DRM built-in, yet advertised as AUDIO CD, which defines a precise digital format which those CDs technically don't conform to.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Lars T.]

So what exactly does de-DRMing the AAC file give you that the original version doesn't? Unless your non-iPod player plays non-DRMed AAC, all you get is the ability to share AAC files with thousands of friends you don't know. The change to any other format is still as lossy as before.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[valmont]

Creating CDs off of iTMS music is a feature Apple has managed to negotiate with the RIAA. You are not messing with the encrypted file, you are not doing anything illegal. The fact that people might start creating MP3s from their newly created CDs is something the RIAA has been willing to live with, as it is a step that is cumbersome enough to limit the amount of rampant piracy originating from iTMS goods, yet convenient enough to decently promote Fair Use applications of this scheme, where, as i've mentioned in another post, "Fair Use" is no applicable legal concept in this case, as usage of iTMS is subject to a set of clearly-defined rules, which are part of a legally-binding contract, to which you "Agreed".

You, as a consumer, have all the information you could possibly need, PRIOR to using their service, as to whether or not you would want to use their service. Apple has given you all the information you need as a consumer to make an educated choice for your purchase.

All further musings about Fair Use are about the "morality" of this situation, and the only recourse you have is to vote with your feet: If this service does not fit your needs, you should simply not use it, and instead, buy music off of amazon, or support your local music store, or support indie music.

There is nothing legal about "breaking a DRM scheme".

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Patrick Lewis]

I have a home jukebox that does play AAC files. It is linux based, so I can't really use iTunes. It would be really nice to put my purchased songs on the server and be able to play them. I could have done the M4P->CD->MP3 route, but this is much nicer.

Just one (non-infringing) example.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had any understanding of the process, you would get that going AAC->MP3 does cause a quality loss.

Whether or not you care is another question, but denying that it happens just shows you don't know what you are talking about and therefore should probably keep quiet.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Endive4Ever]

I think many people would maintain there is nothing illegal about 'breaking a DRM scheme.'

It seems like somebody decided that enough Mac fans have infiltrated Slashdot and that it's time for them to come out of hiding and start Steve's Holy Fight. Or something. It just seems so astroturfy here these days whenever Apple comes up.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[bjackson]

If you're really that concerned about the minimal audio quality loss going from AAC -> MP3 you should be buying your songs on CD / SACD / DVD-Audio and not downloading them in the first place...

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[valmont]

uh, franlly, i don't really care "how the process works". i'm just relating personal experience and that of people close to me. As far as i'm concerned, I can buy a bunch of DRM'ed AAC off of iTMS, create an audio CD from those tracks, listen to the audio CD and not notice any drop in quality, then rip that CD back into a bunch of MP3s using the same compression settings as the ones i use when ripping normal CDs i buy from say, Amazon, and still not notice any audible loss in quality. I just use the iTunes default settings throughout the whole process.

i do know, that by definition, MP3 is a compressed format, i know there is some loss of data, that's what compression algorithms do, they get rid of data you don't need, but from my limited understanding, this does not affect audible quality. People create AUDIO CDs from MP3s and MP3s back from those AUDIO CDs all the frickin' time, then they give said AUDIO CDs to a friend because they were listening to it in the car and: "hey that's pretty cool, can i have it", "sure, just grab it, i'll burn myself another". I've never heard of any audible loss. You're welcome to prove me wrong.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[pudge]

Creating CDs off of iTMS music is a feature Apple has managed to negotiate with the RIAA.

Yes, and? You are saying people should use it to circumvent the DRM. The purpose of the CDs is to have CDs, not to re-rip it back to the computer. The fact that it is more acceptable to Apple or the RIAA has no bearing on me.

You are not messing with the encrypted file, you are not doing anything illegal.

Copyright has nothing to do with the file itself, but the content. You were talking about fair use, which means copyright. What you are talking about now is the DMCA, which is only tangentially related. Your posts might make more sense if you didn't conflate these distinct issues.

"Fair Use" is no applicable legal concept in this case, as usage of iTMS is subject to a set of clearly-defined rules, which are part of a legally-binding contract, to which you "Agreed".

There's no reason to suppose that such a contract would be legally enforcable. It says "You shall be authorized to use the Products on three Apple-authorized computers at any time" (note: it does not say I shall not use it on more than three, which is a relevant distinction), but then it allows you to make as many CDs as you wish, without any such restrictions. Again, the relevant laws are about the content, not the specific form the content is in.

And yes, it also says, "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" and "The security technology is an inseparable part of the Products." But so what? Some employment contracts say I agree to not join another company in the same business for a period of six months, after leaving the current company. Some software contracts say I can't make backup copies. Such contractural provisions are often found to be unenforcable.

And the words of the policy show how Apple is being hypocritical. "Products" is defined as "sound recordings and related artwork," which is about the content, not the format. They let you convert it, legally, to another format. And now the security technology is inseparable from the Product, even though they give you a method to, in fact, separate them? They prove in their own terms that they are, in fact, separate things, despite their assertion to the contrary.

The real issue with the security circumvention is not related to the contract, but to the DMCA. If I am allowed to do it under the DMCA -- which is debatable -- then the contract provision here is unenforcable, because my Fair Use rights override it.

All further musings about Fair Use are about the "morality" of this situation, and the only recourse you have is to vote with your feet

Your default assumption is that using PlayFair is somehow wrong. You've not backed that up, so your assertion that people should avoid iTMS rather than circumventing the DRM in order to exercise their rights under Fair Use are uninteresting.

There is nothing legal about "breaking a DRM scheme".

In the absolute sense, I suppose that's true; but it is also true there's nothing ILlegal about it. Yawn.

The bottom line is that you have no argument whatever in regard to Fair Use or copyright. You have a marginal, though unproven, argument about the DMCA, but the DMCA -- should it be found to apply, which is merely guessing on your part -- is most likely unconstitutional, and surely someday will be overturned as such (OK, I am an optimist).

At some point, the courts will likely recognize that if you have the right use to the information, then you have a right to use the information. It's quite detestable, as a matter of law, that Steve Jobs stands on stage and asserts, over and over again, that "the music belongs to you," but then say you can't take steps to listen to it within the well-established boundaries of Fair Use.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Snowspinner]

So let me just get this straight. Because Apple won't support your choice of OSes, and it's fair use to break their DRM, even though copyright law actively defines that as not being legal, and thus, by definition, not being fair use?

And you guys wonder why you're reviled by so much of the tech sector?

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy to prove you wrong -- just compare the waveforms. Also, in my limited experiments with this, it sound very degraded, but that's just me.

Besides, if this technique produced a "good" copy, there's no way RIAApple would let you do it. They're happy to have people flood the filesharing networks with crap.

The fact that you don't care doesn't mean anything. Lots of people love listening totally crapy 64Kbps MP3s and 4th generation mixtapes that have sat on the floor of their car for 5 years. Only a tool would say those are good copies though.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[ItMustBeEsoteric]

If what you're worried about is playing them on a Linux box, not on a portable mp3 player, why don't you use a loseless codec for the recompression?

If that's your only complaint, that CDAUDIO-->mp3/aac/ogg whatever is lossy, use FLAC or something like it.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[log0n]

I'd mod you down but I'd rather share my thoughts instead.

Download music isn't a right, it's a privilege. Where do you get this sense of all-encompassing sense of entitlement?

What you're doing is rationalizing your process for circumventing this privilege of downloading music. You *choose not to support* or use the system Apple makes available for the product that you want to use, and somehow you think your intentional non-compliance justifies the right to 'fair use' how you see fit.

Just because something exists doesn't mean you have limitless access, control or influence with it. Cope.

You don't want loss imposed by transcoding between DRMAAC->CD Audio->mp3 (ogg,whatever). So then don't transcode; use the system that was designed for the format. Or, buy the CD or single that you're interested in and have a hard copy that bypasses all this DRM. Or better yet, don't buy anything - not for idealist Anti-DRM reasons, but because you realize that what you want to purchase isn't available for what you intend to do!

Swapping CDs is a pain? I see where the sense of limitless entitlement comes from.

Apple can do what they want. You can do what you want as well. But when it comes to who sets the rules for DRM AACs, it's Apple. If you don't like the rules they've set, there's no law that forces you have to buy/use a specific product that has rules you have fundamental disagreement with. Seek a legal alterative that works how you want it to work, or learn to cope with doing without.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Anonymous Coward]

The object of the game is to reduce the number of CD's hanging around ones home, not increase them.

I've been converting my collection for a while now, I also have purchased around 200 iTMS tracks.

I converted them all last night, no problems, all you need is a little bit of smarts to figure out what's going on.

Now I can play my purchased music on my Squeezebox, which was originally why I bought it.

I don't perceive this as bashing apple, don't get me wrong, I'm all for stamping out the free-loaders on Kazaa etc. Fair Play DRM has mostly worked well for me. I just want to use my Squeezebox to listen to music that is being streamed from a machine that is already registered with iTMS.

I imagine the folks at slimdevices will eventually figure this out, but until then ...

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Anonymous Coward]

Compare the waveforms?? God you're fucking dense. Read what he wrote again. THERE IS NO AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE. Audible. For 99% of the people, on 99.99% of sound equipment, with a decent bitrate the second time around, this is absolutely true. Maybe with your "golden ears" and super high end equipment you can hear a difference. Fine. Maybe you're just using a shitty encoder the second time around. But for the rest of us, a double-blind listening test results in no perceived difference. NONE.

Of course the waveforms are different. Each compression step is taking out STUFF YOU CAN'T HEAR ANYWAY. DUH!!!

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[NotoriousQ]

Lazy? Yeah maybe. But then again, how does one randomize CD's. I might not want to listen to the whole album at the same time. And changing CDs every 4 minutes is a pain. Not to mention, having no way to randomize them.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[NotoriousQ]

What about the ones I have received via Pepsi route. All the other music that I (which is extremely little) have has gone through the CD route.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[NotoriousQ]

Copyright law says nothing to the fact. In fact copyright law says nothing about the encryption as such.

In fact stripping encryption off itunes format is very much analogous to ripping CDs.

The only thing that makes it illegal is DMCA, which is a poor law that goes against the concept of fair use.

I guess the proper question to ask is are you depriving anyone by changing formats? The answer is no. I already paid for my listening to that track at that quality through my Pepsi purchases, and changing formats does not "rob" anyone of their fair compensation.

And what do you mean by the tech sector, and what do they have to do with iTunes.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[NotoriousQ]

That is the solution. It is the one I adopted given the fact that my music collection is small. However the generated files are 20-40 MB. which is a lot more than the 3-4 MB file. Still better than a wave which is at 40-80 MB.

This approach will not work for an extensive library, and if I ever get an mp3 player, the size will be extremely important.

But yes, your solution is the only decent one that stays legal.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[NotoriousQ]

Well, there is a big question of whether or not fair use is a right. For example, it is a (court-determined) right that I can time-shift or record TV. Why should it not be a right that I can change the formats.

Yes, I have "signed" an agreement with apple that I will only use iTunes, but that does not mean that th e contract is legal. In fact if it is found to contain terms that infringe on my rights, then those terms may be struck out by the courts. That is in fact if Apple decides to sue me in court, which they will not, since I am not sharing those files, and hence not violating their copyright.

However, I could end up in jail for violating DMCA, but then again, I already watch DVDs on my linux machine, so hell, I am already a criminal.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Reducer2001]

They have CD players that can hold hundred's of CD's.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[NotoriousQ]

Audible difference is in the ear of the beholder. At 128kbps I can hear the distortions on mp3s, but not in ogg or aac. If reencoding makes it a bit worse, it can be an annoyance to a lot of people (like my father, who is a semi-audiophile).

If you want to hear what the problems sound like, encode a cd in AAC on whatever bitrate you can bearly hear distortions. I bet 64 will do, but 32 will do definetily. Then reencode it to MP3 (or AAC but keeping the lossy format will probably lessen new distortions introduced), and listen again an compare. I bet you will hear the difference. (Oh and sorry to insult your musical hearing, no offense meant)

Oh, and since my father is an audiophile, and an amateur musician, he gets random CDs all the time from friends. He can definitely tell if the CD has gone through the 128 kbit MP3 or worse. Although he listens to a lot of instrumental music, which I believe makes artifacts very apparent.

I can not prove you wrong about your hearing, and your lack of interest in high quality music. But consider this: There are people out there who do not buy CDs because 44000 samples per second does not sound right to them, and thus they will only settle for analog media. There are plenty more people who can tell the difference with lossy codecs, and there are plenty who care to minimize the damage.

I do it because I am a loss freak, I do not like losing data more than I have to. My jpegs are at highest quality, but not bitmaps, because I do not have that many gigabytes of storage. My music is in highest quality oggs, because I can not have the space for the waves/FLAC. My itunes files are in flac (gone through the cd method), and are currently occuping some 120 MB more than they have to. (I have only about 5), and now I can get the same quality files without sacrificing the space.

Yes, I know it is not much space, but what if I were to have more files than that.

Anyway, I am ranting, and I believe that I have gotten my point across for others to hear.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[NotoriousQ]

Do they take the player with them when they travel. I can take that much by taking my 9" laptop. I wonder if those people lug all 100cds with them too.

And yes, people travel on planes as well, so one can not just through huge containers into the back into the car.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[carou]

I think many people would maintain there is nothing illegal about 'breaking a DRM scheme.'

Then they'd be wrong. The DMCA clearly applies to this situation (in the USA at least).

It may or may not be moral or immoral, the DMCA may or may not be a bad law or a good law. But as things currently stand, there's no question of it being legal.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[carou]

You could have used one CD-RW.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Snowspinner]

I dunno, I think the Digital Millenium Copyright Act probably deserves to be counted as a part of copyright law.

I mean, there's plenty of good arguments for the use of PlayFair. But fair use isn't one of them. Because fair use is a legal category. When talking about legal categories, you cannot simply ignore the laws you don't like.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[bjarvis354]

Actually, the point is that lossy format to non-Lossy media to lossy format = really bad sounding music.

Look. You have a right to pay Apple and the RIAA for their lossy product, and think you came out on top. But don't deride people for objecting to submit to this idea on the precept that it does not matter because the majority has spoken.

My "golden ears" can tell a difference...but that is probably because I got replaced those iPod ear buds that sound like shit to me, but not for 99.99% of the PodPeople.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[bjarvis354]

He is not ignoring DMCA. He is questioning if it would stand up in court.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[bjarvis354]

What I do is:

* Buy CD
* Rip using Flac
* Encode to Ogg
* Play on Karma

No DRM. Plenty of Fair Use. I even get to keep the songs I paid for if the original CD gets trashed.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[NaugaHunter]

I am being denied my fair use rights. There's really no debating it.

Technically, it is debatable. You can set iTunes on a single machine to share its music, including purchased, with any Macs on the same network. The main reason Apple allows authorization on multiple machines is for fair use when traveling or at an office, and your main server wouldn't be available.

Whether or not this is convenient for you is a personal matter, but the technology already exists to share your music with any computer you could carry CDs back and forth to, without having to authorize/de-authorize.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[pudge]

You can set iTunes on a single machine to share its music, including purchased, with any Macs on the same network.

Limited in number.

Whether or not this is convenient for you is a personal matter, but the technology already exists to share your music with any computer you could carry CDs back and forth to, without having to authorize/de-authorize.

If I limit the number of Macs. It's the same problem. You've not highlighted any interesting difference.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Delphiki]

You mean the number of macs you can share to are limited in number? If that's your problem, I'm fairly sure that fair use doesn't allow you to use a file or piece of media in as many different places at once as you want.

Besides which, contract law supercedes copyright law, so if the license agreement limits your fair use, you have no legal argument from copyright law.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Snowspinner]

I think it would, what with the largely having stood up in court and all.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[NotoriousQ]

I do not believe that it has really been tried before. Dmitry was a victim, but he never was tried. He settled AFAIK. Bruce Perens wanted to be a self-martyr, but had to back down (no one blames him).

There were a few cases of publishing DeCSS, and I think 2600 lost. However, there is noone who has been tried for decrypting something they paid for.

I do not believe that will stand up in court. Meanwhile I will continue breaking the law, hoping that I will not be the one who gets the belt.

So I do not chose to ignore the law, I chose to break it. This is similar to jaywalking. Most people know it is illegal, and most people do it, because it is convenient, possibly necessary, and no one expects to be convicted/ticketed for it.

The reason why I chose not to include DMCA as a part of the copyright law, due to the fact that it does not define what copyright is, but only the extra protections specific to copyrighted materials. But your grouping may be different. Yet the spirit of copyright remains the same, and DMCA does not change it.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Apparissus]

"...Most threads I've read about "Fair Use" and Copyright law seem to ignore one simple thing: When you download music from iTMS, you know ahead of time, what the rules are. You agreed to them when clicking "Accept" on the EULA screen iTunes threw at you upon installation. Apple offers you a contract, you accept it by using their service. It is that simple. ..."

Apple's contract may, or may not, claim to prohibit you from exercising your fair use rights in their entirety (and converting media to be played on alternate technology, as in removing debilitating encryption to enable private playback on your linux box, non-iPod, family dog, whatever, _is_ covered under fair use -- see court rulings following the introduction of the VCR); however, as this is a right guaranteed you by US copyright law, even agreeing to give up that right in contractual obligation to Apple cannot take it away. You may feel free to present me with a contract in which I agree to forever give up my right to free speach and peaceful assembly, and when I proceed to sign it and then publicly laugh at you, you can take me straight to court...and the judge will laugh at you, too.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[blob.DK]

You, Sir, is a winer.

You are not being denied anything at all.
You can only listen to *your* music in one place at a time, right ? So, use the iTunes sharing and *your* music is available everywhere, right ?

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Anonymous Coward]

You're such a lazy bitch... people used to have to dig rocks out of pits and be whipped while building statues for whoever the local ruler was... they were happy to get a piece of moldy bread and a cup of water that didn't have ox shit in it...

and you're sad because you have to swap CDs... boo hoo...

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[gowen]

There are people out there who do not buy CDs because 44000 samples per second does not sound right to them, and thus they will only settle for analog media.

Well, there are certainly who *claim* that. And there are people who claim that they can detect which brand of battery is in their guitar effects pedal, or which brand of Mini-Disc the sound has been recorded onto (despite the fact that this last thing is completely impossible. Digital data is digital data).

We have a collective name for such people.

We call them "liars."

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[NotoriousQ]

I would not be surprised if their audible difference is a mass delusion. However the 128kbps mp3 / cdaudio difference is much more audible, and average people can distinguish it. Just look at any codec listen test comparison, and you will see that people consistently say that 128 kbps mp3 sounds worse.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[gowen]

However the 128kbps mp3 / cdaudio difference is much more audible, and average people can distinguish it.

Oh, I don't deny it. I can hear artifacts on 128kps mp3, especially on instrumental jazz and classical music. Can't pick them out quite so well on my Dead Kennedys albums, though.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[John Harrison]

Steve himself has claimed that music from iTMS is superior in quality to what you get on a CD, because it is ripped from masters instead of from a CD. The masters have better sampling, so the resulting AAC file can be better than CD quality. Now when you burn that to a CD you are by definition getting a "CD quality" file, which according to Steve, is already worse than what you downloaded from iTMS. You then rip that file from the CD to create an MP3, which is another lossy process.

So you go through two lossy processes to get an MP3. If you don't think it is true, think rinse and repeat ten times and tell me if your songs sound the same after the tenth iteration.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[pudge]

You, Sir, is a winer.

I am in no way affiliated with Dave Winer. You take that back!

You are not being denied anything at all.

You're incorrect. It's quite clear to everyone who has eyes and ears. While it is technically true I am not being denied my rights, it is true that so-called "anti-circumvention" technologies like Apple's FairPlay DRM deny me the exercise of my rights. I have the legal right to play a song I purchased on as many computers in my home as I wish, but Apple's DRM prevents me from doing so. This denial of the exercise of my rights couldn't be more clear.

You can only listen to *your* music in one place at a time, right ?

Do you mean, in regard to fair use rights? Where'd you get that (false) idea?

So, use the iTunes sharing and *your* music is available everywhere, right ?

No, it is only available to a limited number of computers (and this limitation is about content protection, not about technological limitations).

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[djdavetrouble]

Where have you been over the last 20 years? If there is something to be cracked someone will crack it. Its not about Apple, or Windows, or respect for who is doing the right thing and protecting fair use. What it is about is people don't like buying things with locks on them. What it is about is showing that it is virtually pointless to do it in the first place, since it just provides one more bump in the road. Flex LM? Cracked. Alias Wavefront? Cracked. Maya? Cracked. Any commercial software package released in the last decade? Cracked. Adobe E-Books? Cracked. Encrypted DVD video? Cracked.

There is even a way to go read a book if you don't actually own it. (Sit in barnes and noble, go the library, etc.)

you can't lock information down.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[blackmonday]

I'll bite on the troll - You're not being denied any rights because you agreed to the terms of use when you bought the songs. If you don't like the terms, go buy the CD and rip it. Or try this new fandled thing called rendevous sharing in iTunes, and you can play all your songs over the network without even copying the files over. You can even do it over any Windows machines.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[ptudor]

You can set iTunes on a single machine to share its music, including purchased, with any Macs on the same network.

Have you ever tried? Why is that when I attempt to remotely play Rendezvous-announced iTMS audio files I am instructed and required to authorize my computer?

Only iPods are unlimited. If I have fifty iPods, every single one can play my FairPlay m4ps. But only three computers can play the music I've bought on my PowerBook.

I still think it's hilarious that one of the parents could suggest circumventing FairPlay DRM is wrong, then go on to explicitly detail how to circumvent the DRM, albeit in a slightly lossy fashion.

Is DRM good or bad? Does any DRM preserve my rights as an individual music fan?

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[pudge]

I'll bite on the troll - You're not being denied any rights because you agreed to the terms of use when you bought the songs.

No, you're missing the point. As explained elsewhere in this thread, the terms don't actually deny my fair use rights, they deny me the *exercise* of those rights, making a not-so-veiled appeal to DMCA provisions. I still have the right to listen to the music on more than three computers, but not the right to circumvent the copy protection; the copy protection is *therefore* denying my right to listen to it on more than three computers.

Whether or not I agree to the terms is irrelevant, since I did not surrender my right, but merely (in theory) accepted the limitation of it. And then there is the question of whether or not my agreement to the limitation of my rights is legally enforcable. I'd guess it isn't, but in this case it doesn't matter much, because the DMCA protects it anyway, in theory. So the question is whether the DMCA is constitutional when used to limit our rights.

And on top of all this, Apple's own terms are inconsistent. They say the security technology is an "inseparable" part of the product, that you are not allowed to remove it from the product, but they give you permission to separate it from the product (via burning to CD)! They do not say this separation is an exception to the no-separation rule. They simply act like burning to CD is not a separation, when it clearly is.

So, if they give you a way to separate the DRM from the music (despite saying you can't do that), then what justification do they have for claiming that separating the DRM from the music is either a DMCA violation, a contract violation, or a copyright violation? As to the latter, they have none. As to the middle, their case is extremely weak. As to the former: their case is still strong (as recent cases have held the content is not at issue, but whether the DRM is broken is at issue), but seriously weakened by the fact that they provide a way to remove the DRM.

Or try this new fandled thing called rendevous sharing in iTunes, and you can play all your songs over the network without even copying the files over.

You are missing something ... you are still limited using sharing. Nothing is different about that method that is significant to this discussion.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[NaugaHunter]

No, but I'll admit I was wrong. The first Help topic I went to from iTunes mentioned nothing about a limit, but further research found that it does indeed require authorization for music it knows was purchased, and the 3 computer limit applies. This is probably because it streams the encrypted file in answer to the record companies question about how it would prevent simple intercepts.

Personally, I don't think circumventing FairPlay is any more wrong than normal CD copying is or isn't, depending on intent and use. However, being able to share with two computers with virtually no effort is a step above what buying a normal CDs gives you, while still giving you everything normal CDs give you.

As for the lossy argument, IANAA(udiophile), but either CD's are inherently less lossy, as lossy or more lossy then AAC. If less lossy, then there is virtually no loss as it should hold everything the AAC had which can be later pulled back. If more lossy then it is still standard CD quality, and whether it matters becomes a matter of the beholder. And if as lossy, it's probably a moot point.

DRM doesn't preserve any of your rights as a fan, it restricts your available actions as a consumer in a misguided attempt to protect the distributor's revenue stream.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Frizzle Fry]

If you don't have the attention span to listen to an album for more than four minutes, maybe that's the problem rather than any technical issue. Do you also rip your dvd's onto your computer so that you can watch movies three minutes at a time without having to swap discs?

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Frizzle Fry]

Whether the loss of sound quality is audible will also depend on what equipment you are using. You may not hear the difference today, but what if in the future you decide to spend some money on higher quality audio equipment on which the difference is audible? Are you going to buy everything you burned from iTMS tracks again on regular cd's? Or are you going to just have worse quality than you otherwise could have, if you had just bought it on cd in the first place? This may not be a concern for you (because there is no chance you will ever buy high-end audio equipment or because you aren't likely in a few years to want to listen to the music you purchased today), but I think it is for some people (for exmaple, college students who like to buy music online and currently have crappy audio equipment, but will buy better stuff once they have a real job), and people seem not to think about it.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[ptudor]

DRM doesn't preserve any of your rights as a fan, it restricts your available actions as a consumer in a misguided attempt to protect the distributor's revenue stream.

Right, right. I was answering my own question (bad) with another question. I'll fix that in the next draft of the post... oh wait. And AAC-to-AudioCD-to-MP3 is the lossy part there, the DRM circumvention.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[dave1212]

If you had any understanding of the process, you would get that going AAC->MP3 does cause a quality loss

Of course it does.
..but going back to AAC should provide no loss, as it would choose the same frequencies. He didn't say she was ripping back to MP3. I rip most of my CDs in AAC (.m4a, .mp4) and would expect (as aac is not vbr afaik) the same sound if I went aac->aif->aac.

Silly discussion for anyone caring about their sound, the purchased songs are too low of a bitrate for my speakers.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Anonymous Coward]

No, my ears are 100% tin, not gold. However, having grown up on hissy LPs, digital distortion is VERY noticible to me. Reencoded MP3s sound like ass, and I doubt I'm all that unique in thinking so.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if Steve said it it must be true. Just like all those times he told us that Apple made the fastest computers. (and that time he said he'd still respect me in the morning)

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't hear this previously, but Jobs' assertion that these files are superior in quality is almost certainly nonsense. Most digital masters are sampled at 48kHz; CDs are at 44.1kHz. The difference is provably outside the normal range of human hearing (if this is puzzling, do a web search on "Nyquist sampling" and/or "psychoacoustics).

Compression, on the other hand, is very definitely audible on good stereo systems, by people with good ears, or both, depending on the codec and especially the sample rate.

I believe the AAC files available on iTMS are 128kbps, which - by itself - would be indistinguishable from the originals (CD or studio master) to most people. But when you decode AAC->CD and then re-encode that file as MP3 (a process properly termed "transcoding"), the audio degradation is cumulative. It's even noticeable if you use the same codec -- try ripping a file from an original CD into AAC, expanding it (burn it onto a CD-RW), and then repeat that several times. Even if you have AAC set to something ridiculous like 256kbps you will start to hear the difference after only a few rounds. Using different codecs (AAC->CD->MP3) means using different psychoacoustic assumptions, so this effect gets worse more quickly.

In short, practically speaking a single round of AAC->CD->MP3 won't bother most people, but it will be noticeable to some. And if you look at each purchase as adding to your collection (with the goal of realizing the long-sought promise of a universal, age/wear-proof master digital music library), then stuff like this starts to matter quite a bit.

-H

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[NotoriousQ]

No, dvds tend to last more than a few minutes. Now if they were music video dvds, then yes, I would consider ripping them, and then randomizing them.

And as for music, I do not like listening to the whole album at the same time. I prefer my songs randomized, and it has nothing to do with my attention span.

Besides, what does attention span has to do with anything regarding how I use my media. My media, and I chose to listen to it the way I want.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally I think you are probably the smartest slashdot editor, but this whole thread has bumped my opinion of you down several notches. Your arguments are completely ridiculous.

Under fair use, I have the right to make a personal copy of a book I own. Your "complaint" is analogous to me saying that the book publishers are denying me the right to copy my book by putting it in this paper-and-ink format which is not easily copied without a lot of effort. How dare they deny me the right to copy my book with the click of a single button! See how stupid that sounds?

You may have the right to listen to your own songs on any computer, on 100 computers at the same time, as long as you are the one using all of them. Nobody's arguing that. But your assertion that FairPlay DRM denies you that right is patently absurd. It doesn't deny you anything. It doesn't fucking prevent anything. You, of all people, should know of the many methods by which you can make legal copies of your music on Apple's own terms. Just because you want the "right" to do it at the click of a button doesn't mean you get to. They didn't design the technology to work that way, boo hoo. Your rights are still fully intact. You should have done the research before purchasing and making a free choice as to whether you wanted to deal with the constraints of the product that was offered.

In case you still don't get it (and I'm assuming this is the case, based on your multitude of replies to all the logical people in this thread), here are some more analogies:

I have a right to be notified immediately whenever a coworker sets up a new meeting, regardless of where I am - at work, at home, at the beach, etc. Dangit, this fancy Palm-Pilot thing only syncs with meetings when I'm at my computer in the office. I'm being denied the exercise of my rights!! (no, they just didn't build that technology/feature into the product; or -- gasp! -- actively decided NOT to)

I have the right to open up my iBook and put in a zippy 80 GB 7200 RPM drive. But then Apple won't honor their warranty, they're denying my rights to do anything I want with my own property!! (no, you agreed to their warranty terms when you bought it. take it or leave it, bub; life is all about choices and tradeoffs)

I have the right to drive 150 mph on a private roadway, but my Geo Metro won't go that fast. They're denying me the exercise of my right! (duh)

I have the right to make a personal backup copy of this nice painting I bought, but my paint set doesn't automatically duplicate it. They're denying me the exercise of my right! (double duh)

In summary, just because a product isn't built with the capability to do something you have the right to do, doesn't mean the producer is denying you that right. It means they made a design decision and (in Apple's case) marketed the product that way. They didn't try to pass it off as anything but what they gave you. The consumer always has the respoinsibility to choose the product that best fits their needs. In most cases the ideal product (non-DRM legal song downloads, a 100-mpg car, 50 GHz G10, etc) does not even exist. So you make a compromise or choose not to purchase.

Try to find something a little more important to get worked up about. :)

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[pudge]

Your "complaint" is analogous to me saying that the book publishers are denying me the right to copy my book by putting it in this paper-and-ink format which is not easily copied without a lot of effort. ...

But your assertion that FairPlay DRM denies you that right is patently absurd.

You're quite wrong. I am not complaining that the "security" technology exists, I am complaining that it is illegal for me to remove it. I am complaining that it is illegal for me to use playfair, under the DMCA, and under the terms of service. It is not FairPlay that denies me the exercise of my rights, it is the legal situation preventing me from removing it. It's true that I sloppily blamed the DRM in the post you replied to, but I quite clearly clarified it later; I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the legal status of the DRM, not the technology itself -- considering the obvious fact that it can be removed with playfair! -- but apparently not.

I know the difference is subtle, and hard to grasp -- even for an Anonymous Coward who touts his logical skillz -- but it's important. Your entire argument against my argument here is missing my actual point.

Re:Apple protects fair-use

[pudge]

im reel good with my quoting. oops. Trying again:

Your "complaint" is analogous to me saying that the book publishers are denying me the right to copy my book by putting it in this paper-and-ink format which is not easily copied without a lot of effort. ...

But your assertion that FairPlay DRM denies you that right is patently absurd.

You're quite wrong. I am not complaining that the "security" technology exists, I am complaining that it is illegal for me to remove it. I am complaining that it is illegal for me to use playfair, under the DMCA, and under the terms of service. It is not FairPlay that denies me the exercise of my rights, it is the legal situation preventing me from removing it. It's true that I sloppily blamed the DRM in the post you replied to, but I quite clearly clarified it later; I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the legal status of the DRM, not the technology itself -- considering the obvious fact that it can be removed with playfair! -- but apparently not.

I know the difference is subtle, and hard to grasp -- even for an Anonymous Coward who touts his logical skillz -- but it's important. Your entire argument against my argument here is missing my actual point.

Dont know if this is related

[goombah99]

I did the update and then had spinning-wheel-of-death four times in a row while trying to run an unrelated program installer and simultaneously burn a DVD. Had to do these operations sequentially to get them to work. (why was I doing both: I was simply multi-tasking my monthly maintainence chores.)

Re:Dont know if this is related

[rritterson]

Blue Screen of Death sounds like something Peter Jackson would use in post production.

Spinning Wheel of Death sounds like something pat sajak cum satan would use in hell with humormous but sometimes painful results.

Quicktime Problems

[artlu]

I am seeing problems when clicking movies that usually opened in quicktime. However, I can open quicktime fine without doube clicking on a movie first. Is this caused by the update?

Aj

Remove Playfair?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Remove Playfair?

[absurdhero]

The crashing is because it can't find a key. Read some of the other posts explaining how to fix that. As for uninstalling it, download the source code, and in the Terminal, go to that directory. Then type: make uninstall

Re:Remove Playfair?

[BrianEnigma]

The Makefile that the configure script produces looks pretty standard.

make uninstall

should do the trick if you want to remove Playfair.

Re:Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and say they'll think:

"Apple needs to fix this"

Followed by

"I wonder if a fix is availible"

Followed by checking Apple's web site for a fix.

Re: scripting

[Anonymous Coward]

2) why unix scripting? Use folder actions/applescript.

PlayFair Works!!!

[alatesystems]

It really does work. The crashing is caused by it not acquiring the key and decrypting it incorrectly with no error checking. This is what you have to do(the only way I know how, because I don't know how to compile it on windows).

Download it on *nix and do ./configure, make, make install(if you're root).

On windows, download VLC. Run it and open your encrypted m4p file.

Now, in c:\documents and settings\username(whatever you're logged in as)\application data\drms, you have the key file. Copy that key file to your ~/.drms dir(create it) on the *nix box.

Then on the *nix box run ./playfair whatever.m4p new.m4p.

WHAM! It now works. It grabs the key from your ~/.drms and decrypts it to new.m4p. It works! I've tried it. This is great. Now I can actually buy music(Until apple "fixes" this).

If someone could compile this on windows it would cut down this process to 2 steps: 1. Run VLC with the file. 2. Run playfair.exe in.mp4 out.m4p

Thanks,
Chris Benard

It DOESNT mess with your iTunes songs!

[da_dho]

Firstly, this tool never touches the original so unless you deleted the original before testing the new one, you are fine. For Example: /usr/local/bin/playfair Secondly, the tool works fine most of the time. At least the mac version, but likely the pc one too. For me, its spits out 3/4 properly drm'd songs then spits out the rest garabage that crash iTunes/Quicktime. Try it yourself people, all you need is a mac with an ipod hooked up to it or just a windows pc.

Re:i did the update...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh mo-ods, are you reading? Parent post is a full offtopic paste (hence a "trollpaste") from an old k5 story, with no bearing on the subject. While modding the caller-out -1 Troll, you might do well to mod parent -1 Offtopic as well.

Re:Remove Playfair? (script)

[Anonymous Coward]

Save everything after this (start at #!/bin/bash), and chmod +x it.
Run with ./saved-file m4p m4a
This finds all m4p files in current dir (copy them first!) and saves the files in no-drm/.
Also, run playfair first (and have /usr/local/bin in your path) to get your key.

#!/bin/bash

DIR=no-drm

usage () {
echo "Usage: $0 suffix newsuffix [converted-dir]"
exit
}

if [ "$1" == "-h" ] || [ "$1" == "--help" ]; then usage; fi

if [ -n "$1" ] && [ -n "$2" ]; then
SUFF1=$1
SUFF2=$2
else
usage
fi

if [ -n "$3" ]; then
DIR=$3
fi

mkdir -p $DIR

for FILE in *.$SUFF1; do
BASE=`basename "$FILE" .$SUFF1`
playfair "$FILE" "$DIR/$BASE.$SUFF2" 2>&1 > /dev/null
done

Of course that would be accurate

[Pfhor]

except Steve really did not go to college.

Just cvs over pserver?

[Anonymous Coward]

The breaking of cvs over pserver is hardly a critical flaw for the vast majority of users. If I hadn't already installed the update that little bug wouldn't stop me.

As for iTunes DRMS stripper problems, why does that get posted in the same article as problems with the patch? Or is the patch issue not worth an article on its own?

Alright who are you?

[ravenspear]

Who the hell is still using CVS over pserver?

Re:Alright who are you?

[Anonymous Coward]

We use it at work. We're on an isolated network so there are no security concerns. We also use telnet and rlogin instead of ssh. I bet that pisses you off.

CVS over pserve broken?

[XbainX]

I installed the security update this morning on my 15" AlPB and I use CVS over pserver at work and have seen no problems.

Just did a commit and an update for the hell of it, works fine...

Re:CVS over pserve broken?

[dgatwood]

Likewise. Sounds like the problem (assuming there is a problem, i.e. assuming it wasn't just one person installing on a dying hard drive) is difficult to reproduce, which doesn't usually lead to a quick fix....

If anybody -does- experience this problem, it might help the relevant folks fix it if they knew more about the circumstances. Anybody?

An open note...

[djtripp]

... to all the people who think Apple's DRM is bad, and stripped thier M4p's (Nelson voice) HA HA

What Luck!

[aflat362]

I just bought a brand new PowerBook and got it yesterday. Being the good computer owner that I am, I of course ran the updates to get me up to speed. Damnit!

https

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it really necessary to link to an SSL server to read a forum post? I don't think so.

Crashes!?!?!

[nullhero]

How come everytime that Apple has an update people report that there have been crashes. I have updated Mac OS X since 10.2.2 when I bought the machine and never once had it...okay I lie it did crash - ONCE! - but that had nothing to do with any update file that I installed. I'm still not sure why it crashed considering it hasn't crashed since the ONE TIME CRASH!

I'm just emphazing that little fact because my Windows Box at work crashed two to three times a week...I mean 2 TO 3 TIMES A WEEK!!

Anyways, the DRM on the iTunes is really relaxed because I've never had a problem with converting the AAC files to MP3's (for those of my friends who don't use AAC files - since none of the MP3 players support them but iPod does.)

Later

It's a real shame.

[kiwioddBall]

Its a little sad that a forum that generally celebrates Apples acheivements has a whole pile of posts on how to correctly configure the tool that will easily destroy them.

I can appreciate it from the technical point of view, but perhaps a post on what this is now going to do to Apples future fortune now that AAC is not secure is more appropriate, especially as Apples growth recently has been on the back of achievements in the audio area.

Re:It's a real shame.

[Lord of the Fries]

No, I disagree. I love Macs. I own the latest and greatest iLamp at home. I have purchased quite a few iTunes songs with it. But it just absolutely frosts me that I cannot use those songs on my Linux boxes at work. That is the one thing I'm thrilled with FairPlay about. If xmms could play my iTunes songs, I'd not of ever given it a second look.

(PS: It also pisses me off that I cannot view Quicktime movies on my Linux box at work either).

Re:It's a real shame.

[kiwioddBall]

Yeah, I'm sure its great for you, but you've missed the point entirely.

Now that Apple AAC is an insecure format you won't be able to download the songs anyway because the songs are now easily decrypted. How long before someone puts the code onto the front end of iTunes and decryption occurs automatically?

The only reason Apple provides the downloads is because of DRM. Now that there effectively isn't any, they will have to withdraw because there is no protection for the RIAA or the artists income.

Re:It's a real shame.

[TiggsPanther]

No, I think you (and the entire Industry) have missed the point.

People (especially the geek-types who are likely to code around things) are not going to have choices forced on them about exactly how they can play their purchases.

Why am I going to pay for a format which won't play on my software or platform of choice, and only plays on a portable device which costs an arm and a leg - when I already have 2 cheapass players which play MP3s fine.
Plus, by the time ITMS finally shows up in the UK, my Windows/Linux timesharing will probably have flipped around. And damned if I'm going to buy music that I can't play on my own system.

Pleasing the record companies by adding DRM is only one side of the marketing coin that Apple (or anyone else) should have to deal with.
They have to do things that make it easy for the geeks.
If Joe Average-User finds out that their music purchases only work on certain hardware, they'll either buy the gizmo or go with out. But if Joe Coder is faced with the same problem, they're more likely to try and find a way to get it to work on what they want.

Oh, and not forgetting Joe Cheapass who'd buy it if it was convenient, and hit P2P otherwise.

I know it's simply not what the corporate-types want to hear. They want control, and the ability to charge one person several times for the same piece of music.

Hell, it's been happening for years. Look at consoles and DVDs. For well over a decade there have been people who have simply refused to bow to any sort of enforced lockin. The problem is that they've tied their DRM into a certain platform. And anyone who already has their preference of software or hardware player is either going to avoid ITMS, or circumvent the FairPlay.

All Apple really have to do is release Linux ports of iTunes and/or official input plugins for WinAmp[*]/XMMS/whatever-else-people-use, and also allow more hardware support.
I know it's unlikely, but if they absolutely have to put in DRM restrictions, make sure that hardware/software restrictions aren't there as well. 'Cos if I really have to limit myself to 3 locations to play a song, I damn well want more choice of what those 3 places can be.

[*] I mean come on. Would an on official Apple-released in_fairplay for WinAmp be too much to ask?

Tiggs

Re:It's a real shame.

[leperkuhn]

Do you really think the iTunes music store is going to be shut down? Come on.

Also, if AAC was insecure it would be broken WITHOUT THE KEY. You have the key, you can unlock it.

Rendevouz

[Anonymous Coward]

cant you just stream the music between all five macs. Saves disk space too.

Re:Rendevouz

[lobsterturd]

With iTunes? It doesn't work, it asks you to authorize your computer when you try to play an iTMS file.

Why new copies?

[bay43270]

Why does PlayFair make copies of the song? That's nice for portable players (where the codec can't be replaced), but I'd like to see the music players ignore the DRM all together. That way I don't have to make new copies of my files after I buy them. After all, most of us are just trying to solve the same problem: We either have too many computers (more than three) or we run an unsupported platform (linux). A tool that leaves the DRM in place might not be looked down upon as badly either.

but it DOES work

[Anonymous Coward]

if you read the forum, then you'd realize it DOES work, you just need to have your key's in the correct place. without the right key, playfair tries to decode the file using any key it finds, which means the wrong key, which means the decoded song breaks...If you run it correctly, it works perfectly.

Re:but it DOES work

[Anonymous Coward]

boobs

Re:but it DOES work

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed.

Fair use and the iTMS

[nsayer]

1. People keep talking about "Fair use." It's a moot point. Fair use is what you can do with intellectual property that you posess (note I did not say "own") WHERE THERE IS NO OTHER GOVERNING AGREEMENT. When you started up iTunes, you clicked through a license that spells out what you may do with the songs you purchase. That is the difference between the iTMS and a CD - CDs don't have shrinkwrap licenses.

If you are in the United States, giving PlayFair to someone else or posting it on a web site probably violates the DMCA: It is not authorized by the rights holder, and it defeats an effective means of copy control.

Using PlayFair to decode your purchases to use on machines that don't have iTunes (such as Linux machines) probably is legal under the reverse engineering for compatibility sections of the DMCA, but that law is very full of contradictions and has not been fully tested in the courts.

I have a suggestion for the PlayFair authors: As you decrypt each song, put the account information in a hidden or comment section of the output file. Anyone using PlayFair to simply use their purchased content themselves would not be hurt by this, and it would provide an additional deterent against putting decoded content up on $P2P_NETWORK_DU_JOUR. It would bolster your eventual defense in court that you were not making a tool for piracy.

Re:Fair use and the iTMS

[Auckerman]

"When you started up iTunes, you clicked through a license that spells out what you may do with the songs you purchase. That is the difference between the iTMS and a CD - CDs don't have shrinkwrap licenses."

You have fallen victim to a false way of thinking. You are suggesting, the mere moving of a mouse pointer over a button and clicking is the same as signing a contract. The idea that you "license" software is absolutely NOT supported by US law. Do you license books? A license is needed for distributing copyrighted works. The mere use of copyrighted works is pretty much not covered by copyright law (save for public broadcast, which is treated in a similiar way to distributing).

What the software industry has effective done is used the word "license" in the context of 'use' so many times, that people have started to add it to their vocubulary and associated their USE of software with COPYING of software. They are not one and the same.

In the case of TMS, you can't "license" files, even if my previous statement is wrong. What exactly are you licensing? The ability to use it? You have that without the license. The ability to capture the audio and burn a CD? US law lets you do that to. You're even allowed to make a copy and give it to your gradmother.

Don't let coporations trick you into thinking use and copying are one and the same. They aren't. Copyright law should not be extented to use. By using the word license in both contexts for years, copyright holders have slowly been merging the two definitions into one in the minds of the public, so that one day people will say "well of course you need a license to use that" as you seem to have just done.

By clicking reply you agree that you will not copy or paste any of the above or use it in any way.

(stupid isn't it?)

Re:Fair use and the iTMS

[nsayer]

Your click license misses a big point: There are many ways to use your text that do not require clicking 'reply'. I could make a new comment without hitting 'reply' that used your text. And yes, it was as stupid (as are most reducto ad absurdum arguments). But quite a bit less so than the iTunes license agreement or countless other click-through licenses in use today.

But that's a tempest in a teapot.

If a book came in a sealed container that had a license agreement, then yes, you would be licensing the book. That license could restrict you from any number of things. Contrary to your assertion, this is indeed a concept supported by US law. It's called a "contract." There is a genuine meeting of the minds so long as you have the opportunity to back out of the agreement without cost or obligation before you indicate your acceptance of it (by clicking 'next' or breaking the seal or whatever).

I challenge you to cite any case law that says otherwise.

Re:Fair use and the iTMS

[Auckerman]

"It's called a 'contract'."

Contracts, after the acceptance of item, aren't valid. That's the problem. How can one distribute an item with the IMPLIED acceptance of a contract before the contract is accepted? Why are people expected to KNOW the contents of a contract BEFORE the exchange of an item? They can't and it's absured to think they will. It's absurd to accept MONEY before the contract is accepted. Contracts don't work that way.

Which is exactly why someone can't mail you a book and have a license around that book saying if you don't that book back you now owe them some money.

This is especially bad in an age where if you DON'T accept the contract, you don't get your money back because the person who sold you the item says the contract is with the maker of the item and the person who makes the item says to get your money back from the person who sold you the item. Making a nice legal vacuum whereby you lose money and the ability to use the item.

In the case of iTunes, you download the software, which is freely and non-contractually distributed by Apple to you, then if you want to USE the item that you now possess, somehow magically you MUST accept the contract. If you don't accept the contract, then you can't use it? What an odd way to think. Non-accept of the contract means just that, you don't accept ANY terms of the contract, including the part of the contract that says you can't use the item if you don't accept the contract and therefore you keep ALL the rights you had before they tried to force the contract on you.

Contracts are NOT onesided (some States make a VERY strong point of this). They can't even take certain rights away (Warrenties, for example, depending on the State), even if that contract was pounded out in good faith and physically signed in perfect view of both legal teams. Contracts CAN'T take way my right to use an item I have. Period.

Re:Fair use and the iTMS

[nsayer]

If all you say is true, then it should be trivial for you to find some actual case law that supports your position. I await more than your mere argument of your assumptions with baited breath.

Re:Fair use and the iTMS

[MoneyT]

Very wrong. You can downlaod and use iTunes without agreeing to any contract other than the basic software EULA present in the software, which is provided to you BEFORE you install, and which if you disagree to, imposes no costs on you. You can eve use the music store freature of iTunes.

Now, if you want to BUY music from the music store, then you have to sign up with the music store, and BEFORE you do that, and BEFORE you pay money, you are presented with a contract regarding the use of products which you buy from the store. If you do not accept those terms, you can not BUY from the store, but you lose no money. If you do accept those terms you can buy from the store, but you are then bound by that contract which was presented to you PRE SALE

Re:Fair use and the iTMS

[Auckerman]

Do you expect to find positive statements of the non-existence of this twisted version of contract law? The burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders to find postive proof of it's existence.

Re:Fair use and the iTMS

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but the principle you're talking about is called "contract(s) of adhesion." I know of exactly one case that has so far been decided on this point, ProCD vs. Zeidenberg, which was at the Federal appellate level in the 7th circuit.

It is also worth noting that this decision is widely considered to have been incorrectly decided, according to every one of the dozen or so books on technology law I've read through. (The first one that comes to mind is Kaner&Fels' book on software law; couldn't find a link to the book but see Dr. Kaner's page for information.)

So no, there isn't a whole lot of case law on the books on this point, but as far as I can tell it is fairly controversial. (Personally, I think ProCD was decided incorrectly, too, but again, IANAL.)

If Apple's AAC is hacked then it's dead.....

[riversky]

and the world goes to WMA or something like that. Why the hell ruin Apple's one chance at creating a new industry...Music and film downloads!!!

pserver

[Onan]

Uh, pserver is unencrypted, and using it is actually _more_ work than doing it the Right Way (over ssh). There's just no good reason for anyone anywhere to use it.

So, yeah, I'd consider breaking pserver to be a valid security enhancement.

Stop Your Whining, You Guys!!

[bfg9000]

I just installed the patch and I don't know what you're all whining about! Everything's working per

Pay!

[pcgeekjoet]

To all those retarded freaks out there, to "download" songs do the following: Buy an Audigy II LS (cheapest... $50) Install software. Subscribe to Rhapsody for $9.99 / month Record soundcard input There you go! Your own MP3 files without buying Pepsi. By the way, diet Pepsi really has seven calories!!! For the amount you pay in Pepsi + tax, it equals $59, the same you would pay for a subscrption to Rhapsody and the sound card. Any questions?

You have no fair use "right"

[cmason32]

Fair use is not a right; it is a defense against an infringement claim.

Re:You have no fair use "right"

[pudge]

Yes, it is a defense against an infringement claim, but the defense is that you have a right to use the work in a certain way. That's the whole point.

lawsuits

[minus_273]

hmm how long before the moron who wrote this AND sf.net get sued. I more ocncerend about Sf.net since this is a DRM circumvention program that doesnt really have any other use. Intersting is the fact ath sf crew review software projects before apporving them, so it means they a are not just hosting this, but a party to it. Sucks for sf.net more than anything else wonder if it will impact OSDN and ./ and freshmeat. I dont see the RIIA and Apple letting this one slide by.

Re:lawsuits

[minus_273]

how is discussing the legal ramifications of the software in the topic off topic? weird

Simple.

[ZxCv]

How come everytime that Apple has an update people report that there have been crashes.

Because, typically, Apple users expect things to Just Work(tm). So, when things don't Just Work(tm), most Apple users will complain loudly.

Conversely, most Windows users don't have such an expectation. So when an update comes along that does break something, I imagine not nearly as many Windows users are inclined to complain loudly about it.

Of course there will be a small number of users that are adversely affected by an update, whether it is for Windows or OS X. What really stands out sometimes is just who complains louder. And like I said, because of their high expectations, I think Apple users are far more inclined to complain about things breaking.

FWIW, I have never had a single problem with OS X updates, and I've installed every single one issued by Apple from 10.1.1 up to the current 10.3.3. And in 8 years of updating Windows, I've only had a single problem with an OS update (though it did require a complete reinstall).

Once it's mine, it is a right.

[scruffyMark]

I buy a tune. It's mine now, and I can make any private use of it I want to. That is a right. That includes changing the format to anything I want, listening to it on any device I want, or printing it out as extended ascii and hanging it on my bathroom wall if I feel like it.

Infringing on copyright, sure, that would not fall under fair use - I can't share the copies with people who haven't got a right to own them, I can't try to pass the thing off as my own work. But that only covers transferring the data, not my own private use of it.

Re:Once it's mine, it is a right.

[MrMickS]

I buy a tune. It's mine now, and I can make any private use of it I want to. That is a right. That includes changing the format to anything I want, listening to it on any device I want, or printing it out as extended ascii and hanging it on my bathroom wall if I feel like it.

*yawn* read the terms and conditions when buying a DRM protected tune from iTMS. When you buy a tune from iTMS you are agreeing to bide by these terms and conditions. Anything else, include your misinformed rant above, is just bluster.

No, but..

[poemofatic]

it *does* mean that they don't give a shit about input validation, which is pretty much the same thing.

Surely it does allow it.

[scruffyMark]

Yes, it does. As long as it's always just you using it, yes. If I really like roundelays, and I want to listen to a song I bought on seven different stereo systems, each half a verse behind the other, that's my right.

And, more importantly, it's my right to listen to the music on any brand of device I want. If I can figure out a way to get NetBSD on RISC-Toaster to recognize a sound card, it's my right to use a tune I bought as the "toast is ready" theme song.

As for contract law vs. copyright law - that may be the case, but (a) I can't sign away rights. No matter how many slavery contracts you sign, you can't sell yourself into slavery. (b) It's up to Apple to verify their contract, or to designate someone to verify it. (c) The issue of whether clicking "I Agree" confers a contractual obligation is currently very unclear indeed.

Re:Surely it does allow it.

[NaugaHunter]

(a) I can't sign away rights. No matter how many slavery contracts you sign, you can't sell yourself into slavery.

IANAL, so I don't know the term to describe your facetiousness, but by your reasoning all NDAs and gag-orders would be useless, since they'd interfere with your right to free speech. And while simply clicking 'I Agree' may be unclear software license acceptance, actually authorizing payment after clicking probably is a little clearer as acceptance of terms for a contract.

All fair use arguments pretty much imply personal use, with a fuzzy area about family use in the same house. And while you may have the 'right' to listen to your music however you want, no one is required to make it easy. Can you use a CD on that RISC-Toaster of yours? What's that? You'd have to rip it by hand? Kinda like what you'd have to do for iTunes? How 'bout that.

And for your first argument, the same thing applies: whatever 'right' you may have to listen to 7 copies at once, they certainly aren't going to give you an extra 6 CDs when you buy one. So you'd still have to set it up yourself.

Re:Surely it does allow it.

[pudge]

IANAL, so I don't know the term to describe your facetiousness, but by your reasoning all NDAs and gag-orders would be useless, since they'd interfere with your right to free speech.

You are conflating two things. Gag orders are not about you willingly signing away your rights, but you being ordered by a court, regardless of your will. And yes, many times, NDAs are held to be unenforcable, depending on what the right is. Certainly a company has the right to make you agree to some things, but the line is often whether those things are clearly in the company's interest. Example: the company can tell you that you can't reveal its trade secrets to competitor at any time after termination, but not that you can't work for a competitor upon termination (depending on jurisdiction; I think some states do enforce such contractural agreements, while others do not).

And while simply clicking 'I Agree' may be unclear software license acceptance, actually authorizing payment after clicking probably is a little clearer as acceptance of terms for a contract.

The difference, in this argument, is irrelevant. The argument is that the contract is unenforcable because I have my fair use rights regardless of what the contract says.

All fair use arguments pretty much imply personal use, with a fuzzy area about family use in the same house.

No, they really aren't. It's well-established that in the home, fair use rights are very broad.

And while you may have the 'right' to listen to your music however you want, no one is required to make it easy.

That's beside the point. It is not about them making it easy, it is about them prosecuting me for exercising the right.

Can you use a CD on that RISC-Toaster of yours? What's that? You'd have to rip it by hand? Kinda like what you'd have to do for iTunes? How 'bout that.

Was this supposed to be an argument for or against something? It seems like it is, but it doesn't actually say anything that relates to what anyone else has said, since no one is arguing the contrary of this, and this doesn't contradict anyone else's arguments.

And for your first argument, the same thing applies: whatever 'right' you may have to listen to 7 copies at once, they certainly aren't going to give you an extra 6 CDs when you buy one. So you'd still have to set it up yourself.

Yes, which is what I wish to do with the music I buy from iTMS, which I am told if I do, I am violating a contract and some sort of moral code. I contend the contract is unreasonable and unenforcable (in large part because it is inconsistent with its own definitions)

Re:Surely it does allow it.

[NaugaHunter]

I will concede that fair use allows what you want to do. I will not concede that anyone has to make it easy for you. Apple has iTunes share up to 3 computers* immediately after purchase with no extra effort, which is more of a fair use concession than you get from a single CD. More than that and you'll have to do the work yourself, the same as you would for any other source. iTunes Music Sharing is a feature they probably could have left off with less controversy, but it's there and it works as it does.

As for whether you're violating the contract, I would agree that if you somehow patched iTunes to share with all of your computers, or otherwise removed the restriction, you would be within your fair use rights, DMCA issues notwithstanding.

However, I still feel your initial claim of being denied fair use by iTunes sharing limit is erroneous, because it actually allows a small fair use ability beyond normal CDs, and any fair use achievable through effort from CDs is achievable by just a little extra effort. In essence, they are denying excessive use of a feature you never had before. Inconvenient maybe, but hardly despicable.

*I verified the limit for purchased, it was in a different Help topic than where I initially looked that simply stated sharing was possible but made no mention of any limits. The limit is 3 for purchased, 5 for non-purchase, probably for bandwidth/performance considerations.

Re:Surely it does allow it.

[pudge]

I will not concede that anyone has to make it easy for you.

And I will not concede I ever asked anyone to. I merely want to be able to do it without being accused of violating the law for circumventing anti-piracy measures which are there to prevent illegal use, not my legal use.

However, I still feel your initial claim of being denied fair use by iTunes sharing limit is erroneous

My point was never about sharing, but about the fact that I can only play the music on a limited number of devices (regardless of whether it is shared), unless I circumvent the copy protection, which is what I am told is illegal. This is all about the battle between the DMCA and fair use.

Re:Surely it does allow it.

[NaugaHunter]

So in essence we agree, as I never really meant to say it was illegal or should be, just that I felt it was a bit much to attack Apple for how little they did instead of acknowledging what they've done as a first step. While it would be nice for there to be no software limits, at this point it was impossible for Apple to get that to fly.

On the other hand, I don't consider burning a CD and then using the music elsewhere 'circumvent[ing] the copy protection', since you are implicitly allowed to and that functionality is built in. By definition circumvention is getting around something - holding the shift key was more of a circumvention then what is required in iTunes. I consider the built in sharing as a bonus, and all other physical restrictions with sharing the music virtually identical to the restrictions on a standard CD.

Re:Surely it does allow it.

[pudge]

I felt it was a bit much to attack Apple for how little they did instead of acknowledging what they've done as a first step

They've gotten enough kudos from others, so I choose to attack Jobs for lying to us when he said we own the music and implied we can use it any way we wish.

While it would be nice for there to be no software limits, at this point it was impossible for Apple to get that to fly.

I understand that, but it is meaningless in regard to whether or not criticism is warranted. They chose to get into this business and are responsible for what they do in it, whether they "had no choice" or not.

On the other hand, I don't consider burning a CD and then using the music elsewhere 'circumvent[ing] the copy protection', since you are implicitly allowed to and that functionality is built in.

I think you mean "explicitly." But that is missing two things. The first was the original context: I was told that I should just make a CD and then rip it, that this would somehow be more acceptable than removing the DRM. The second picks up where that leaves off: if Apple can claim that the DRM is inseparable from the product, then ripping the burned CD would constitute a de facto separation beyond that which is explicitly allowed (burning alone), though I'd still argue it's clearly allowed under fair use.

all other physical restrictions with sharing the music virtually identical to the restrictions on a standard CD.

I can, legally, make as many perfect copies of a CD as I want, for personal use. How is that 'virtually identical' to the 3-copy limit of iTMS?

Re:Surely it does allow it.

[NaugaHunter]

On most things I think we see where each other is, and we'll just go in circles with our slight differences. Just one point I'll comment on:

I can, legally, make as many perfect copies of a CD as I want, for personal use. How is that 'virtually identical' to the 3-copy limit of iTMS?

You can legally make as many perfect CD copies of songs you've downloaded, so I'm not sure how the 3-computer sharing limit enters into this. The only limit is you have to adjust the list every 10 burns or something like that, a minor inconvenience for anyone for whom burning the exact same list more than 10 times in a row actually is a personal use. By 'virtually identical' I meant that after burning they have no DRM and you will have the ability to do whatever you would have with a purchased CD. Sharing restrictions are entirely separate from burning.

Re:Surely it does allow it.

[pudge]

You can legally make as many perfect CD copies of songs you've downloaded

No, it is lossy.

By 'virtually identical' I meant that after burning they have no DRM and you will have the ability to do whatever you would have with a purchased CD.

Again, no. According to the terms, if you rip it back tp AAC/MP3 from the burned CD, you will be separating the product from the DRM. According to the terms, this circumvention would be indistinguishable from merely stripping the DRM from the original file. The terms don't say you can't strip the DRM from the file, it says you can't separate the DRM from the music. Yes, they allow you to burn a CD (though they do not explain how this is NOT separation), but upon ripping it back you will have in effect the same separation that has been explicitly forbidden (even though worse, since it is now lossy).

Re:Surely it does allow it.

[NaugaHunter]

OK, from the Terms of Sale:

CONTENT USAGE RULES Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.

You shall be authorized to use the Product only for personal, non-commercial use.

You shall be authorized to use the Product on three Apple authorized computers.

You shall be entitled to burn and export Products solely for personal, non-commercial use.

Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners of any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition or artwork embodied in any Product.

You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.

The delivery of a Product does not transfer to you any commercial or promotional use rights in the Product.

All I can say is that it is open for interpretation. Taking the hardline you are correct - you can't reimport. But taking a loose interpretation, you're not allowed to use the "Product" - the DRM enabled file - on more than 3 computers. But you are "entitled to burn and export Products solely for personal, non-commercial use" - which can be interpreted the other way, that once it's exported you have full fair use rights.

I'm not going to argue this any more - as far as I'm concerned, they've written it in such a way that it can be legally argued both ways. They put in the standard limits boilerplate, but having the 'personal use' line leaves room for a reasonable legal defense.

As for the lossy argument, either AAC is more lossy than CDs, they are less lossy, or they are equally lossy. If equal, it's a moot point. If AAC is more lossy then it's also a moot point. If CDs are more lossy than yes, the resulting file will be more lossy than the original, and not what you paid for, but not more lossy than a CD would have been. I can respect that this isn't perfect, and there are valid complaints, but it is a start.

Re:Surely it does allow it.

[jdb8167]

You can legally make as many perfect CD copies of songs you've downloaded

No, it is lossy.

No, burning a CD is pretty accurate conversion of an already lossy format (AAC) to a lossless format CD-Audio. Unless the AAC to AIFF conversion has bugs, the resulting AIFF audio should be the same as the original AAC audio with only a single generation of lossy compression artifacts.

Re:Surely it does allow it.

[pudge]

burning a CD is pretty accurate conversion of an already lossy format (AAC) to a lossless format CD-Audio. Unless the AAC to AIFF conversion has bugs, the resulting AIFF audio should be the same as the original AAC audio with only a single generation of lossy compression artifacts.

"Pretty accurate" is a synonym for "lossy." No, it is not exact, as you are extrapolating. And yes, all conversions have bugs. And more to the point, when I then convert it to any other compressed format later under the terms of fair use, that, too, is lossy.

Re:Surely it does allow it.

[pudge]

All I can say is that it is open for interpretation. Taking the hardline you are correct - you can't reimport. But taking a loose interpretation, you're not allowed to use the "Product" - the DRM enabled file - on more than 3 computers.

See the definition of "Product" in the Terms of Service: "products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork." When they say "[t]he security technology is an inseparable part of the Products," they are talking not about the specific files, but the content, the "sound recordings."

But you are "entitled to burn and export Products solely for personal, non-commercial use" - which can be interpreted the other way, that once it's exported you have full fair use rights.

This particular thing has nothing to do with fair use rights. You have those regardless of whether you export it. First, you have the right to use it for personal, noncommercial use even before you export it ("You shall be authorized to use the Products only for personal, noncommercial use"). Second, you would have that right even if it were not enumerated. And third, as I attempted to clarify before, the DRM does not take away your fair use rights, it prevents you from fully exercising them.

I think what you're saying is that separating the content from the DRM, which they allow you to do, allows you to fully exercise those rights, but there is no legal distinction -- because the Product is defined as the recording itself, not the specific file and its format -- that I can see between an AAC file that you've removed the DRM from directly, and a burned track of the file on the CD that you rip back to the computer. In both cases, you are separating the Product from the DRM, which is explicitly disallowed. Yes, in the latter case, you are doing something that is explicitly allowed to do the actual separation, but by ripping it back, you are performing a de facto separation, one that is not supported, one that is indistinct from the process of merely removing the DRM from the original file (except that you may have some lossyness).

I'm not going to argue this any more - as far as I'm concerned, they've written it in such a way that it can be legally argued both ways.

It's not so much that it can be argued more than one way, it is that they left inconsistencies in the document that make it so that you open yourself to violation for exercising your fair use rights, even if you separate the DRM from the Product in an allowable way. And further, they undermine their potential enforcement by giving conflicting definitions (saying the DRM is inseparable from the product, and then giving you permission AND ability to separate them).

As for the lossy argument, either AAC is more lossy than CDs, they are less lossy, or they are equally lossy.

When you translate from one format to another, unless there is a 1:1 relationship, or one is a perfect superset of the other, there will be loss ("more" and "less" lossy don't really apply). In this case, I believe CDs are a perfect superset of these particular AAC files (because the bit and sampling rates match up sufficiently), however, the AAC file must be extrapolated out to the CD format. Any errors in calculation in the extrapolation will mean unrecoverable loss. And more to the point, ripping it back (which is the whole point of this) and converting it to *any* compressed format, including AAC, will necessarily mean loss from the original.

Re:Surely it does allow it.

[Delphiki]

(a) I can't sign away rights.

Were you high when you wrote this? Almost all contracts involve signing away some right or another. Whether it's the right to certain property (sales contracts), the right to free speech (NDAs), all sorts of rights in your average EULA..

You can't sell yourself into slavery because slavery is illegal. There's nothing illegal about you NOT decrypting or making extra copies of songs you've purchased.

(c) The issue of whether clicking "I Agree" confers a contractual obligation is currently very unclear indeed.

Can you site any precedent for your statement that clicking I Agree is not necessarily a valid way to establish a contractual obligation? There is a statement of terms, a way to accept or reject those terms, and a transfer of value by each party.

Sourceforge (n/t)

[scruffyMark]

no text

It also modifies /etc/hostconfig in Panther Server

[csoto]

Mac OS X Server

As did a previous update (I forget which one), it conveniently set a couple of previously-enabled subsystems to -NO-, including MySQL. So, if your PHP/MySQL website suddenly stops working, this is the first thing to check.

Otherwise, no big deal.