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

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?

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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).

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.