After DeCSS, DVD Jon Releases DeDRMS

An anonymous reader writes "Jon Lech Johansen, who reverse engineered FairPlay back in January, and wrote the decryption code that was later used by an anonymous developer to create the playfair utility, has released a similar utility: DeDRMS. It's only 230 lines. T-shirts anyone?"

Comments

Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[brunes69]

Not that I have anything against C#, I actually find it quite nice, just stuck me as odd that someone would write a cracking toolin it. These things are traditionally written in C ( for speed ).... like DeCSS was.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Rikus]

I'm guessing it will be rewriten by plenty of people in various different languages. C, perl, python... fortran77?
I don't even have a C# compiler.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[harlows_monkeys]

These things are traditionally written in C ( for speed )

You are assuming that C# is slow. That is not a good assumption.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[sosume]

Since this code is easily converted to c++ (or VB) using one of the various tools available, this won't gain much or any speed under .NET.

BTW he *could* have included some comments ;)

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Deraj DeZine]

Maybe Microsoft sponsored his efforts to screw over Apple?

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are implying it is. That is not a good implication.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was able to access the README before the server went down:

Compiling:

* With MonoDevelop [1]: Open DeDRMS.cmbx and click F8.
* With mcs [2]: mcs -out:DeDRMS.exe *.cs
* With csc [3]: csc /out:DeDRMS.exe *.cs

[1] http://www.monodevelop.org
[2] http://www.go-mono.com
[3] http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/technologyi nfo/howtoget/

Usage:

* DeDRMS.exe file.m4p

Notes:

DeDRMS requires that you already have the user key file(s) for
your files. The user key file(s) can be generated by playing
your files with the VideoLAN Client [1][2].

DeDRMS does not remove the UserID, name and email address.
The purpose of DeDRMS is to enable Fair Use, not facilitate
copyright infringement.

[1] http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
[2] http://wiki.videolan.org/tiki-read_article.php?art icleId=5

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Anonymous Coward]

Things like that were traditionally written in C because it's easy to manipulate memory and pointers, which is useful for making things like encryption/decryption easier to write.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Deraj DeZine]

No, not insightful.

Funny.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Sam H]

Using C# makes sense to me. It provides Rijndael and MD5 in System.Security.Cryptography out of the box. These cypher and hash algorithms are at the core of the DRMS encryption scheme. The same code in C would either use obscure libraries or 1000 extra lines of code.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Dahan]

Maybe because the .NET class library includes a Rijndael (AES) class.

Still don't see any support for getting the decryption keys from a MacOS X system though :(. I don't have an iPod or iTunes for Windows, just iTunes for Mac.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[t_pet422]

I don't even have a C# compiler.

Install the .NET Framework (run Windows Update). It will install one at %WINDIR%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322\csc.exe
You can compile this with csc /out:DrDRMS.exe *.cs

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[lambent]

That's the same exact thing. Those crypto functions are included in C# as either extra libraries or 1000 extra lines of code.

It's not magical, or fundamentally different in any way.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[SpaceLifeForm]

Note to those that have remained faithful to fighting the darkside: Don't read that code.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the libraries are not "extra" -- it's impossible to get .NET without them. In fact .NET itself relies on the crypto stuff.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[mibus]

The majority of the work looks like it's done in the Win32 CryptoAPI anyway, which would most likely be C++.

So whether it's C++ or C# or C is pretty moot.

(Actually someone posted the source above in a comment, looks pretty clean! Without having used C# or .NET at all before I think I have a pretty good idea of how the program does its magic). That to me is a decent sign of a decent language / API, which is often more important than speed.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think my Slackware came with Windows Update. Where can I download it?

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[omicronish]

Install the .NET Framework (run Windows Update). It will install one at %WINDIR%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322\csc.exe You can compile this with csc /out:DrDRMS.exe *.cs

And if you're on Linux, you can download Mono and compile with mcs DeDRMS.cs.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Cthefuture]

You are assuming that C# is slow. That is not a good assumption.

Maybe they weren't assuming anything but had actually done testing?

I don't know about that, but I have in fact done testing and C# is slower at almost everything when compared to C/C++ and it gets really bad at the high end.

Try making the equivalent (in terms of performance and memory usage) of a C++ std::vector in C#.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[solid]

I don't know about that, but I have in fact done testing and C# is slower at almost everything when compared to C/C++ and it gets really bad at the high end.

I don't know what 'benchmarks' you used to come up with that conclusion. There was a previous /. post about programming language benchmarks and the study's results are nicely tabulated.

In this study, C# came in 2nd place overall among many common programming languages, after VC++. It even destroyed gcc C in trig calculations, though, got slaughtered by gcc C's 'double' math tests.

Even with that said, the difference in speed between C# and VC++ for DeDRMS decryption on a reasonably new computer would be so small that the time taken to port the code from C# to any other language would be better spend picking you nose.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a cracking tool. You have to have a legitimate copy of the song from iTunes. That is, if you haven't paid for the song this tool does you no good. It just removes the DRMS protection from something you've legitimately paid for. Hurrah.

One thing I noted in looking at the two files in iTunes: The file was still flagged with my email address, but no longer had my name under "Purchased by"... It looks like the file is still tracable to the account that bought it. Take that into account before sharing them. It shouldn't take much work to fix that last bit, and it would be a worthy addition to this program.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[iamacat]

And for the most obvious users running MacOSX the answer is...?

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Shakrai]

One thing I noted in looking at the two files in iTunes: The file was still flagged with my email address, but no longer had my name under "Purchased by"... It looks like the file is still tracable to the account that bought it. Take that into account before sharing them. It shouldn't take much work to fix that last bit, and it would be a worthy addition to this program.

Worthy addition to this program? Why the hell is that? As it stands this program is for fair use. There's no reason to remove your e-mail address tag from the file unless you want to share it with others. And despite what many people seem to think sharing your music with the entire World on Kazaa or IRC is not fair use.

Gosh it's actually respectable as it stands right now. Why don't we go and flush that down the toilet and make it about piracy?

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think mono is available from fink (or in the process of being made available).

There is also rotor from Microsoft, which is supposed to compile under MacOS X.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Cthefuture]

Thanks for the link. I always like to look at what other people have tried. However, I highly doubt those results. Besides, C++ still came out on top.. eh?

For one thing they don't really test anything useful as the tests are just tight loops of very basic math stuff. His C code doesn't even compile with the VC++ compiler because he's using C99 syntax (Microsoft's compiler is not C99 compliant). And even when I fixed those problems there where a lot of warnings due to questionable variable usage. The C++ version isn't even written in C++, I wonder why there are even two separate files. Not a good start and makes me seriously question this programmers abilities.

Just a quick glance at the code suggests at least the trig benchmarks are more a test of the standard math library rather than the language. C# is going to use the same version as C/C++.

His timing methods are also questionable. Using CPU time can be highly inaccurate. It's much better to use the high precision timing functions.

I will need to take a more detailed look and do some testing of my own to see if these results are valid. Off the top of my head I will say there seems to be something screwy going on because I've never seen properly written code run faster in C#. It's just not possible. C and C++ are so close to the hardware that when written properly it is near impossible to make it faster without going to assembly. The best C# can hope for is something close to C/C++, but never better.

I'll make another post if I get time to take a more detailed look but I'm not optimistic about these tests being worth anything. Try the Language Shootout (or the win32 version) benchmarks for broader benchmarks where a lot of them have actually been looked at by programmers that know what they are doing. If you know what you are doing then you might want to really try them, don't just go by the results on the pages because some of them are skewed because the run times are way too short to be meaningful.

Again, I ask you to design a vector class in C# that uses the same or less memory than C++ and performs the same or better. It's not even close to possible.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what 'benchmarks' you used to come up with that conclusion. There was a previous /. post about programming language benchmarks and the study's results are nicely tabulated.

I actually read through those numbers and wanted to believe. I wrote a code very close to this decryption thingie (Also Rijndael, and also using the MS crypto lib), and lo and behold, just starting up the application took almost 15 seconds. Then running through each crypto iteration was incredibly slow (this was a mixed C and C# app. I dont know if mixing the code had anything to do with it). I was doing almost 1.5 million files, and once I realized this thing was going nowhere, I stopped, grabbed a free C version of the Rijndael algo implementation, and got the speed I was expecting. Im not quite sure how they come up with those numbers on those tests, but let me tell you, I wont be touching that C# thing for quite a while.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[AstroDrabb]

It even destroyed gcc C in trig calculations, though, got slaughtered by gcc C's 'double' math tests.

From the article:
compiled using gcc within the Cygwin bash shell emulation layer for Windows.

A much more fair comparision would have been gcc under a *nix environment instead of the Win32 port. This "benchmark" also didn't take into consideration slower startup times, pauses due to garbage collection or code being JITed. All in all, this benchmark is useless. Though from personal experience, I do agree that C# and Java both have very good performance on modern hardware to make their use a much better alternative over lower level and error prone languages like C/C++. Java and C# both showed good numbers, except for that strange regression in Java's Trig functions.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[zbaron]

So it is. Thats the first C# code i've seen. I was wondering why something that looked very like Java had a .cs extension. Does the C# spec call for having a capital beginning each method name or is that just the coding style that Jon uses?

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't want to get me angry fool. You'll be surprised at how much of a tyrant I can be.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if I have a friend who wants the song, I want to be able to give them a copy of it and not have to worry about my future or present wallet being screwed.

If I can't share a copy of the music or media I purchased with a group of real life friends (I'm avoiding the whole p2p thing here), then something is seriously wrong. The bottom line is that people will share amongst thier friends, thats human society. And we shouldn't be penalized for that, thats horribly wrong. Thats why I would want my identification taken out of the song, it is a worth addition, because otherwise we are endangering ourselves by exposing ourselves to lawsuits, lawsuits which exist because the current copyright laws don't take into consideration our natural human tendancy to share.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Shakrai]

If I can't share a copy of the music or media I purchased with a group of real life friends (I'm avoiding the whole p2p thing here), then something is seriously wrong. The bottom line is that people will share amongst thier friends, thats human society. And we shouldn't be penalized for that, thats horribly wrong.

If "share a copy" == "loan them your CD" then you shouldn't be penalized for that and nothing is wrong with it. If "share a copy" == "burn a copy of your CD" || "share a copy" == "strip the DRM out of your mp4 file and give them a copy" then you are stealing something for your friend and that isn't right "Human Tendencies" (what you meant to say I think) or not.

Of course you should be penalized in line with the crime you committed. RIAA shouldn't get to sue you for $20,000 per song -- that just isn't right. But that's another debate.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Lord Kano]

I think that he should have said C for portability.

LK

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[reanjr]

Mixing C and C# would have absolutely KILLED the performance. Not knowing that fact, I do not think you are qualified to be doing any kind of benchmarking with C#.

Boxing and Marshalling (what you would have using in this case, though boxing I think the greater of two evils) are the two major performance killers in .NET from what I can tell.

I'm not claiming either is better than the other in this case, just that you can not rely on your tests to give you any kind of accurate results.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[reanjr]

ummm... Why would the platform the app was compiled on matter? It's still gcc. It's going to compile to the same exact bytes as if you used gcc on Linux. Unless I am totally missing something. Is gcc totally rewritten for Cygwin?

Startup times are only relevent to benchmarks for certain types of apps. When testing language differences in performance, they are inconsequential. Testing between platforms with certain types of apps, on the other hand, it would be very important.

Oh, and garbage collection in all but some weird situations runs during otherwise idle time and should have a very minimal effect on app performance.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Anonymous Coward]

`fink install mono`

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Portable.NET (google for it). I find it often works much better than Mono (and it has proper System.Windows.Forms support out of the box).

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Alphix]

If "share a copy" == "loan them your CD" then you shouldn't be penalized for that and nothing is wrong with it.

Not true...there are many countries in the world, and I know that in least one (Sweden) where it is perfectly legal to copy music and give to your "family and close friends" [*]. On the other hand I agree that there doesn't seem to be any convincing argument as to why you should remove your identification details from the file...but it's hardly illegal (in my country...yet).

[*] For those who know Swedish, the original term is "närmaste familje- och vänskapskretsen" and the information is based on the current copyright laws - SFS 1960:729, "Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk", Chapter 2, paragraph 12 and also the work that led up to the current law ("förarbeten") and subsequent verdicts from the supreme court.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course you should be penalized in line with the crime you committed."

Dude. Copyright infringement isn't a crime. It doesn't matter how much the RIAA, the MPAA, you or your fellow trolls want it to be otherwise, it is a civil tort.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Dahan]

And how does that get me decryption keys for my songs?

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[NanoGator]

"I don't think my Slackware came with Windows Update. Where can I download it?"

Kazaa.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[mst76]

> I don't think my Slackware came with Windows Update. Where can I download it?

http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/
Since you you Slack, you have to take care of the dependencies yourself :-).

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Gopal.V]

C# is not that slow for crypto stuff. I've been working on the DotGNU Portable.net VM for some time .

The Crypto api is implemented in C (for obvious reasons) and plugged into the engine. It should only have a slight degradation in performance due to the dynamic lookup of these methods. MD5's just about the same speed as one written in C (ok, maybe 97% is not 100 ... but it's damn near enough for me).

For the non believers have a look at MD5 Code Or Ripemd160 Or Sha512

Looking over the DeDRM code , there doesn't seem to be any places where a performance hit due to array bounds checks are there . (that's coz he's using BlockCopy).

I'd have run this on DotGNU by now (ie it builds and runs, and no todo's around the things it uses) , but I don't have something to deDRM :)

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[essreenim]

Yes, why invent the wheel when you can reinvent
it.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[essreenim]

You are asserting its not. This may or may not be a good assertion. You may now induce my lack of
deciseiveness on the matter.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[the unbeliever]

VideoLan client for the mac.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, C is dead. Don't get me wrong, it was great back in its day, you know, like the 80's. But lets be real, it's a crappy language. For anyone that writes code, and is honest with themselves, they'll admit it takes 4 times as long to write something in C than in a higher level language. C is all about building solutions to the language to allow you to solve your problem.

It's like this, you want to fly to New York. You can buy a ticket and get on a plane (C#) or you can build a ticketing system, build the airplane, learn to fly, build the airports, build an air traffic control system, etc. etc. etc. (C)

You have to spend SO much time in C building support into the language to do what you want to do (can anyone say DYNAMIC ARRAYS, or hell, just being able to tell how long an array is!) I prefer spending my time trying to solve MY problem, not solving the problems of the language I'm programming in!

Ok, so everyone stop using C/C++ right now. I said stop! You don't have to use C# though, you can use D, http://www.digitalmars.com/d/

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[beleriand]

Most likely the app will use the Standard C Library in some way (eg. memcpy, malloc..)
On windows/cygwin these functions are implemented in cygwin1.dll, which your program will be linked with. In linux it will be linked against glibc, so the platform does matter.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Dahan]

Doesn't work: "mp4 error: drms_init( priv ) failed"

Like I said, the code to retrieve the keys currently requires an iPod or a Windows system. I'm wondering if anyone's working on figuring out how to retrieve the keys on an OSX system.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[nr]

Dont think so, It's as easy to do in C, API calls for Rijndael and MD5 are available in libcrypto.[so,a] (OpenSSL) which should be available in most default Linux OS installs.

Dunno about Java 1.5 platform, if they ship crypto API's as default.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[CodeMonkey4Hire]

I have written implementations for the rijndael algorithm in [proprietary] assembly, verilog, c, and c++ and if I could have just used a library call*, I would too. Can't blame the guy. It takes the focus away from the all of the complicated math and puts in onto the new work he has done. *the c/c++ implementations were for understanding the algorithm and checking data from verilog and assembly runs. I know that there was code that I could have downloaded off the internet somewhere, but I prefer to use features of the core language when possible. C# is very rich, like Java (because it is so very much like Java, except to the people who get religious about one or the other). I agree with many of the other posters that it is better to have a language that is easier to program in and better structured to prevent errors when writing in it. (C# has a great debugging feature - you can get the exact line number of the error. It is part of the Exception object. Forgive my ignorance if this is in Java too).

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I care what language he used, but;
Is he even allowed to write a GPL program in C#, with M$ rather trict rules of not making open source programs with their tools? Or am I braindead, and dont have the straight story?

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, so your that senior programmer I hear so much about. :-p

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Shakrai]

Dude. Copyright infringement isn't a crime. It doesn't matter how much the RIAA, the MPAA, you or your fellow trolls want it to be otherwise, it is a civil tort.

That's debateable. Shoplifting isn't a civil tort now is it? If you consider "copyright infringement" to be stealing (I'm not saying that I do) then it does rise to the level of crime, albeit a minor one.

In any case I was agreeing with your basic ideal if you had read my post. Suing people for tens of thousands of dollars or locking them up is clearly going overboard. At best they should be able to sue you for the value of the CD * how many people you gave it to + court costs. If I shoplift a loaf of bread from Wally World they can't sue me for $10,000 (well they could try but they'd lose and wouldn't waste their time). The worst that will happen to me is I'll be convicted of shoplifting (and punished based on the local state laws -- i.e: in Texas I'll be shot -- most other places given community service) and forced to pay restituion for the goods that I stole (a buck or two in this case).

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[mwilliamson]

Golly gee wiz, seems to have compiled just fine under mono on my fedora box.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[metlin]

The unfortunate thing is, whether or not its illegal, people have been convinced that it is.

Like an earlier poster indicated, in a lot of countries, sharing music with friends and family is not wrong - its perfectly acceptable and you cannot be litigated against for that. However, its only here in the US that we are told sharing is wrong. Hey kids, be greedy.

Its like books - I buy one, I can lend it to friends and family to read (okay, maybe not the perfect analogy, but you get the idea). I can make copies for myself, if my Mom wants to have parts of it, I can photocopy that and send it to her. I wonder when the publisher's cartel in the US is going to make sharing and lending of books illegal.

And coming to your example of a loaf of bread - did you know that you can be pardoned in Brazil for stealing food if you are hungry and penniless? :) Wonder where things like mercy, sharing and compassion went in the American laws. The way of the dodo I suppose.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[timts]

so we can put away the against M$ thing and check out the nice code first. :D

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[AstroDrabb]

ummm... Why would the platform the app was compiled on matter? It's still gcc. It's going to compile to the same exact bytes as if you used gcc on Linux. Unless I am totally missing something. Is gcc totally rewritten for Cygwin?

gcc was written for *nix. It does not produce the same exact bytes. Linux executables are different then Win32 executables. I would seriously doubt that Cygwin and it's libraries have been as tuned and optimized as native libs under *nix. Testing gcc under cygwin under Win32 would be like me compiling and running a Win32 app under Linux using Wine. Wine's implementation of Win32 has not been around as long as native Win32 and in many cases is not as efficient.

Oh, and garbage collection in all but some weird situations runs during otherwise idle time and should have a very minimal effect on app performance.

Huh? If you have an active application, just when would those idle times come? For example, a server application written in Java/.Net, you would notice GC. On your average desktop running MS Win XP with 256MB of memory running a larger desktop app written in Java/.Net you would notice the GC do to lower available memory. I run a lot of Java and .Net applications and do notice the slight stutters from GC, especially on server applications that are extremley busy.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[drauh]

Mono is available from fink. So, I ran "mcs DeDRMS.cs" and "Compilation succeeded". Guess what:

> file DeDRMS.exe
DeDRMS.exe: MS Windows PE 32-bit Intel 80386 console executable

not much fuckin' use.

Re:Curious how he wrote it in C#.

[Crazy Eight]

...Thats why I would want my identification taken out of the song...

If you only want to give it to "real life friends" then you really shouldn't be concerned about giving them your email address as well.

ok...

[bdigit]

so whats it do? Yes I see the code and you say its similar to fairplay but how?

Re:ok...

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely no idea, but I doubt it has anything to do with any of these: http://www.google.com/search?q=drms&num=7

Re:ok...

[Sonicated]

so whats it do? Yes I see the code and you say its similar to fairplay but how?"

Playfair links to non-GPL code (MPL) where this is pure GPL, the only other code it uses are the .NET class libraries which are licensed under the LGPL.

Re:ok...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the code it reads

public static void Main( string [] Args )
{
FileStream fs;
M4PStream m4p;

if( Args.Length != 1 )
{
Console.WriteLine( "Usage: DeDRMS file.m4p" );
return;
}
[...]

file.m4p ?

Re:ok...

[caspper69]

the only other code it uses are the .NET class libraries which are licensed under the LGPL.

I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground, but I highly doubt Microsoft's .NET Class Libraries are licensed under the LGPL.

Re:ok...

[FrYGuY101]

C# != .NET

Think Mono

Re:ok...

[FrYGuY101]

Mono changed the licence from LGPL to MIT...

From here:

Licensing

The class library is being licensed under the terms of the MIT license. This is the same license used by the X11 window system.

Re:ok...

[Sonicated]

I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground, but I highly doubt Microsoft's .NET Class Libraries are licensed under the LGPL.

And you are correct. However Mono's class libraries are licensed under the LGPL. Jon developed this code using the Mono runtime, Mono's C# compiler (mcs) and the Monodevelop IDE.

Oh, did I mention that Mono is really cool? :)

Re:ok...

[FrYGuY101]

Err, I'm sorry. That should be: .NET != Microsoft's .NET

Mono also refers to C# with the .NET moniker

Re:ok...

[FrYGuY101]

No, they aren't. They're licenced using the MIT licence now... They did use the LGPL, but no more...

Re:ok...

[sweetooth]

It's not under the LGPL, and I don't even believe that it has been put out under Microsofts Shared Source license (yet). Even the Mono implementations aren't released under the LGPL they are licensed under the MIT X11 license with exceptions. Which you can read about in the Mono FAQ at go-mono.com

Written in C#

[sweet cunny muffin]

Wow. This is written in C#. I wonder if we can get .NET banned now that we can prove it's used for illegal purposes :)

Re:Written in C#

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it pronounced? I always thought the # meant rap, as in C#

Re:Written in C#

[ryepup]

Cause banning the tool would stop it. Really.

Re:Written in C#

[dAzED1]

I could be wrong, but I think he was being sarcastic. Like, while p2p services have illegal things happen on them, people kill the p2p. Gosh, I guess I could be wrong...doubt it though.

Re:Written in C#

[mrpuffypants]

I actually like the irony of a Microsoft pushed technology being used to kill an Apple-pushed technology THEN getting GPL'd!

Re:Written in C#

[RPoet]

# is the "hash" symbol. C#, while written out as "C Hash", is pronounced "Cash", reflecting the reason Microsoft invented it.

[This notice inserted to assist the humor impaired: This post may contain attempts at humor.]

[ObKarmaProtection: "Well, this will probably send my karma to hell, but ..."]

Re:Written in C#

[jrockway]

It's called "see sharp" because if you ever have to code in it you'll want to keep something sharp in sight so death is only a stab away :) Hahaha.

Re:Written in C#

[ikkonoishi]

Think music notation

Thus c# = c sharp

Re:Written in C#

[satanami69]

I thought it was just a quick way to write c++++, since the # looks like four +'s in a square.

Re:Written in C#

[Lemmy Caution]

You know, of the people I know who have for love or money had to work with C#, exactly zero of them have complaints about it. According to all accounts I've heard, it's a well-thought out language that's easy to work in.

D may be the next iteration, but let's give props where props are due.

Re:Written in C#

[shrykk]

Heheheh. Someone in UF described it as "C Shudder"

Re:Written in C#

[tempest303]

let's give props where props are due.

You mean to the Java folks, then?

buh-dum ching! Thank you, I'll be here all weekend! Try the buffet!

That said, C# does seem cool... basically Java++. Now if only MS would make a legally binding document saying they won't sue the Mono guys... :-P

Re:Written in C#

[Deraj DeZine]

There was a humor notification in his post for a reason. Any guess as to what that reason was?

Re:Written in C#

[jrockway]

I've never used C#. It's M$-sponsored, and I don't really like M$. I know that Java is less Free, but I really like the language. I feel that it's very clean and well-deisgned. The default API is also well thought out and I really enjoy using it. Just because I like Java, though, doesn't mean you have to like it :)

I also like the fact that pretty much anyone can run my program. If this weren't the case, then Windows users would be pretty much out of luck if they wanted my program. I'm not going to port it.

I'm sure C# people think the same about Mono. It's "cross-platform". "It's great that Linux users can run my program", I'm sure they think. They weren't going to port it to Linux either ;)

Oh well, when there are choices, there will be arguments about an individual's choice. It's better this way, I suppose.

Re:Written in C#

[km790816]

Unlike the reason Sun created Java, which was to increase love and understanding in the world and had nothing to do with turning a profic...and the reason IBM is pushing Linux...because they think it spawns a world of open friendship, not because they make a mountain of cash consulting.

Evil Microsoft, trying to make money. How dare they!

I can't believe these comments still get modded as funny.

Re:Written in C#

[Anonymous Coward]

> exactly zero of them have complaints about it.

Checked Exceptions?

Re:Written in C#

[77Punker]

D? Hell yeah! Let's get some double-D size in here! ;-)

Re:Written in C#

[FryGuy1013]

No no no you've got it all wrong!

It's c# as in chess notation, i.e. C-pawn forward, checkmate. So it's pronounced checkmate. Just what microsoft wants to do to all the other languages that try to compete with it.

Re:Written in C#

[sokodude]

You guys are all wrong - its c-sharp - the musical term

Re:Written in C#

[Snollygoster]

I don't know c# and when I saw the code apart from the using keywords on top it looks exactly like Java. OMG what a rip-off.

Re:Written in C#

[Talonius]

Are a pain in the ass and bring little real benefit to the table?

Even if you rethrow, come on. If this is that big of a deal to you then add them yourself. Write a compiler preparser that will ensure you have caught and dealt with required exceptions. There's plenty of sample source available for such a tool and for all the bruhaha about them not being in C#, you'd think it would already exist.

This interview has some wonderful explanations as to why they are not included.

Re:Written in C#

[Anonymous Coward]

Or 2 +: one on the upper left, one of the down right.

Damn. Which hacker at Microsoft thought about this? He had brains.

Re:Written in C#

[Da Fokka]

Your glimpse must have been very brief. There are more differences than the 'using' keyword:
- Properties
- Proper delegates and event raising/handling
- Redefining of operators
- Better way of using threads
- The possibility to write 'unsafe' code (which disables bounds checking and allows pointer use) for those tight loops that need to be extremely optimised.
And I know it isn't a language feature but I have yet to see an IDE that's as productive as VS.NET.

Re:Written in C#

[sweet cunny muffin]

If it's by looks alone then Java is a rip off of C++.

Re:Written in C#

[Anonymous Coward]

A better explaination is that Microsoft could never be arsed to document error conditions, so they just left that feature out. (the .net framework calls native code stuff where the errors werent' documented either). So you can do it for your code, but you can't do it for their code.

Re:Written in C#

[ThousandStars]

had nothing to do with turning a profic...

I'm not sure what "turning a profic" means. Can I have it done professionally and legally in Amsterdam?

I can't believe these comments still get modded as funny.

And I can't believe it when some grammar/spelling comments get modded funny.

Re:Written in C#

[jridley]

No, # is an octothorpe.

C# - cock-tothorpe.

Re:Written in C#

[tunah]

A sharp symbol has vertical and sloping lines, C# has horizontal and sloping lines.

Re:Written in C#

[DroopyStonx]

I agree 100%. It's sad to see all these ignorant morons blasting C# just because it's a Microsoft technology and pretty much a clone of Java. If anything, this is one of the few GOOD things that Microsoft has actually done.

Pretty much anyone and everyone who bashes it doesn't have an honest to god FACTUAL reason why it "sucks" so bad, that's the funny part.

I've worked with both extensively, and while Java definitely has the upper hand in being truly cross platform, C# and the .NET framework is a million times easier to work with.

People really need to start taking their heads outta their asses before rambling off about something they don't know about.

Re:Written in C#

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhh... Yes, you do. Moron.

Re:Written in C#

[iamacat]

C# is allright, unless you have to write both Java and C# versions of the same library, in which case you'll have nothing but choice words for Microsoft, Sun and their lawsuits. .Net class libraries and especially System.Windows.Forms on the other hand... yuck! Just try to write a resizable form and compare the process with visual constraints of Interface Builder/MacOSX.

Re:Written in C#

[Talonius]

I rather doubt that. I've seen generic COM errors bubble up to .NET; there'd be nothing preventing Microsoft from doing the same. You'd get more of the same however; this function, every function, throws Exception! Or perhaps InteropException!

True the framework is huge in and of itself, and it is built on top of the Win32 - partially. (They're working to rewrite the portions of the Win32 API still directly used and will be for some time. Not ALL of the .NET Framework is a proxy for the Win32 API, however.) So now - take this huge framework, where objects work closely with other objects and consider the number of exceptions that would have to be handled by "Hello World."

*shrug* I won't argue it. I believe all pertinent points are covered by the interview I linked to above.

Re:Written in C#

[Anonymous Coward]

M$. Real mature.

Like me saying Linu$ $ucks for making Linux. Cute.

Re:Written in C#

[tzanger]

I always liked calling C# coctothorpe, myself.

Re:Written in C#

[Tobias Luetke]

This is not funny, thats actually the original thinking behind it. # = two rows of ++

Re:Written in C#

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot-"m$ sux"=about:blank

Re:Written in C#

[Anonymous Coward]

i assume that it was two +'s offset like so :

+
+

extend the right and bottom bars of the top + to get :

+-
|+

extend the left and top bars of the bottom + to get :

++
++

which is your #. making c# just an extended version of c++

Re:Written in C#

[ClubStew]

Oh, you mean like VB.NET or the other 20-some languages that target the CLR? Oh wait, you wouldn't even know what that is since - if it comes from Microsoft - and must be crap and it must be evil, right?

Jump off the bandwagon and think for yourself once in a while.

Re:Written in C#

[c0d39uru]

if it comes from Microsoft - and must be crap and it must be evil

Yep, you've pretty much got it.

Re:Written in C#

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly -- MS didn't want to have every method 'throws COMException' (that would be really embarssing), and they didn't or couldn't catch the all the COM stuff and throw a native exception. I don't think the offical reasoning holds water, and I'll bet a dollar that they will have checked exceptions in the framework code when most of is native.

I don't think its that big of deal, just mentioned it because its about the only thing Java folks have to argue about.

Re:Written in C#

[falsified]

For those in the USA that doesnt realise that there is a world outside of your state, # ISNT pound.

Here it is. So we can use it here. Kind of like how some people say "lorry" and others say "truck". I don't care if people in the UK use it for their currency, much like you don't care what I had for dinner tonight. (A ham and swiss sub sandwich.)

Re:Written in C#

[FryGuy1013]

It was a joke.. in flavour of the parent. Lighten up.

Re:Written in C#

[Alcohol Fueled]

Ahhhhh! Its almost like a bad eBay rating!

"slow language!! c++++, language was just ok... will not code again!!!!"

Re:Written in C#

[Anonymous Coward]

why not c+=2 ???

Re:Written in C#

[16K Ram Pack]

I think you are right to state this point, that people are currently giving IBM huge creds for their behaviour over Linux.

I'm glad IBM are fighting SCO, but I don't for one minute believe it's altruistic.

The question is, which model do you want? The "companies make money out of hardware/consulting" or "companies make money out of software" (OK it's usually a mixture). The IBM model means they make a profit with more opportunity for openness, which can give everyone more opportunities.

Re:Written in C#

[Anonymous Coward]

By special /. decree, the parent post, km790816 is henceforth to be known as Mr Grumpypants

Re:Written in C#

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pretty much anyone and everyone who bashes it doesn't have an honest to god FACTUAL reason why it "sucks" so bad, that's the funny part."

Are you saying that it is not a fact that C# is a Microsoft technology? I don't understand your point at all.

Re:Written in C#

[Anonymous Coward]

Your html is strong, young Jedi.

Re:Written in C#

[BlackHawk-666]

So close, but no biscuit, it's called checkmate like in chess, but is actually named after a brand of condoms. It's MS's funny way of implying that you are now fucked, but in this post Aids world they are reassuring you that even thought you are fucked you are not going to get a virus from it.

Re:Written in C#

[jrockway]

Not really. C++ is a hack, OO was new and experimental when C++ was being created. OO matured and java used OO from the ground up. The two languages are QUITE different (think templates vs. interfaces, friend classes vs. packages, etc... they're different).

Re:Written in C#

[evil_tandem]

inane...

i've never tried 7up. it comes in a green can, and i've never really been a fan of green cans.

i prefer coke.
the part i'm going to leave out is i'm not sure i like coke more than 7up because i've created an opinion based on my inability to get over that damn green can...

i guess i don't get the point of the comment

Re:Written in C#

[metlin]

You are right.

And people forget that until a while ago, IBM were the evil monopolistic corporation and Microsoft was the underdog who fought the behemoth.

Funny how times change so quickly.

Re:Written in C#

[Anonymous Coward]

Then explain to me why the Java SDK/runtime is available on multiple platforms directly from Sun, for free, why C# is only available for Windows from Microsoft and Visual Studio is not free. Unless you have some type of Windows platform, you will have to create your own implementation. Microsoft cares only about itself, when you get to the heart of it. Need I go on?

I can't believe comments such as yours get any mods, unless... ehhh no conspiracy theories here.

DeDRMS

[gnu-generation-one]

"In practice, the goal of maximizing publication regardless of the cost to freedom is supported by widespread rhetoric which asserts that public copying is illegitimate, unfair, and intrinsically wrong. For instance, the publishers call people who copy "pirates," a smear term designed to equate sharing information with your neighbor with attacking a ship. (This smear term was formerly used by authors to describe publishers who found lawful ways to publish unauthorized editions; its modern use by the publishers is almost the reverse.) This rhetoric directly rejects the Constitutional basis for copyright, but presents itself as representing the unquestioned tradition of the American legal system.

The "pirate" rhetoric is typically accepted because it blankets the media so that few people realize that it is radical. It is effective because if copying by the public is fundamentally illegitimate, we can never object to the publishers' demand that we surrender our freedom to do so. In other words, when the public is challenged to show why publishers should not receive some additional power, the most important reason of all -- "We want to copy" -- is disqualified in advance.

This leaves no way to argue against increasing copyright power except using side issues. Hence opposition to stronger copyright powers today almost exclusively cites side issues, and never dares cite the freedom to distribute copies as a legitimate public value."

Misinterpreting Copyright

Re:DeDRMS

[Anonymous Coward]

You could have least said that those words came from RMS, other then just giving the link ;).

Mod PARENT up, do it for RMS!

Re:DeDRMS

[Deraj DeZine]

RMS wills it!

Re:DeDRMS

[Gaijin42]

While I think the analogy of copying something to attacking ships is certainly not a good analogy, the current publishers are using the term in 100% accordance with the meaning originally used by authors.

The rightfull owner of a copyright protected work is calling someone who copies and or distributes that same work without their permission a pirate. In both cases.

Re:DeDRMS

[moonbender]

Originally, the actual authors complained about publishers distributing their work lawfully. Nowadays, the publishers (and not the actual authors, who have sold away their copyright) complain about other people who illegaly distribute their work. Thus, it is almost the reverse.
Although I agree that your argument is correct, too - however, the legal owner isn't necessarily the rightful owner: some people will say that selling away copyrights shouldn't be possible, and certainly not rightful.

Re:DeDRMS

[matthewcharlesgoeden]

I have always found this quote humorous.

Do you really think the evil media hounds thought-up the word "pirate" to smear do-gooders?

I have my doubts and I would like to seem some factual trace to where the publishers coined the term.

Oh, by the way, I agree with the premise of the article but it is typical RMS. He is using rhetoric to attack evil people who use rhetoric.

Re:DeDRMS

[zangdesign]

I still maintain that you would have more effect by cutting off the source of publishers income by boycotting them entirely and anyone who associates with them.

1. It denies them the claim of piracy by not using the product in the first place.
2. It avoids the always tricky legal and ethical questions since a boycott is always legal (unless you're an Arab nation trying to boycott anything made in Israel - special case).
3. It forces the producer of the information to negotiate very quickly - drying up the revenue stream tends to force one to renegotiate terms.
4. Legitimate business using alternate revenue streams can arise, since the threat of boycott for those means already tried still exist.

I'm sorry, but if I work to collate or create or provide information or a creative work (even in digital format), I expect to be paid for that work or for the information, with real currency. Goodwill doesn't feed the cats and it has an expiration date.

If the information were something that was saving lives, then I *might* feel differently, but this movies and music. No one ever died because they couldn't listen to the latest Britney $pears album.

Re:DeDRMS

[Saeger]

I expect to be paid for that work or for the information, with real currency.

Then in the future you better make sure that you get paid upfront for the scarce (and sometimes NOT so scarce) WORK of creation, since you can't depend on artificial scarcity enforcement without a global police state.

If you've previously earned some goodwill/respect/whuffie, I'm much more open to funding your future efforts, and even *gasp* paying for that effort indirectly by volunteering to buy a non-scarce token copy of your OLD WORK.

--

Re:DeDRMS

[black mariah]

No, it's not the copying that publishers care about. You could make 5,000 copies of everything you own and keep them in your basement for all they care. It's DISTRIBUTION that they care about.

The term pirate has a very specific meaning when it comes to software. It refers to someone that unlawfully copies a work then redistributes it, usually breaking some kind of copyright protection in the process. I'm sick of stupid pedantic fucks whingeing on about this. Words can have more than one meaning, if you haven't noticed.

Re:DeDRMS

[netsharc]

Speaking of RMS, only after about 2 minutes reading the comments do I realize that the tool is called deDRMS, and not deRMS.. I was wondering what sort of joke it was having a tool that would crack "RMS" protected content.

Re:DeDRMS

[Anonymous Coward]

Factual trace?

What, were peg-legged-parrot-wearing-eye-patched hooligans stealing 8-Tracks on the high seas, or something to that effect?

Right.

Damnit, it was all those monks copying the bible by hand. Pirates! Amen, brother.

Re:DeDRMS

[Anonymous Coward]

You got to be one hell of a moron to equate software piracy with sea pirates. It's simply the same word that has loosely similar meanings but refers to two different activities in reality. Saying people refer to copying software and music as "piracy" because it's as bad as sea piracy is pure stinking FUD.

What's next? You'll say people call Microsoft's OS Windows because it breaks like real windows? That we shouldn't boot computers because booting someone in real-life is harmful? That master/slave hard-drives were named after human slavery practices?

What a load of BULL SHIT! If this is what comes out of gnu, they're no better than Microsoft.

Re:DeDRMS

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, but I had a lot of Apple ][ software that was "Cracked by CaptianAhab -- Call the PiratesNest BBS 555-1212". Close enough to 8-tracks?

Like "hacker", self-identification probably had more to do with the modern use of the term rather than some sort of linguistic consipracy.

Re:DeDRMS

[Anonymous Coward]

Damnit, it was all those monks copying the bible by hand. Pirates! Amen, brother.

Actually, those monks did hit legal difficulties, that ultimately led to a civil war in my home country (Ireland). The ANTI-copyright forces led by St. Columcille won against the Irish High King (who had come up with what may be the first recorded copyright law in history).

Interesting that such a "heinous criminal" merited a sainthood, eh?

Interesting that undreds, maybe thousands, of men, DIED FIGHTING AGAINST THE TYRANNY OF COPYRIGHT, eh?

Re:DeDRMS

[fucksl4shd0t]

NOt that I totally disagree with you, but for many of us there is no dollar figure we can put on our time to justify demanding money in exchange for that time. Sometimes, the fact that the time was spent is more important than how much money we can make off of it.

In any case, if you really expect to be paid for your creative work, don't go into music.

Boycotting the record industry right now is more important than ever, not solely because of their attack on P2P, but because the musicians upon which they built their empire have always been under siege from the labels themselves. Find other ways to support the musicians you like, but if it were me, I'd let the poor fuckers starve if they continue to support the record labels. You know, capitalism being what it is and all. ;)

Re:DeDRMS

[CaptnMArk]

The traditional meaning of the "pirate" (in software) is some who copies the software and then sells it for money

Re:DeDRMS

[Anonymous Coward]

"whingeing"?

holy jesus nuthairs, you managed to add TWO fucking letters to that word. good job, needlecock.

Re:DeDRMS

[nickco3]

The term pirate has a very specific meaning when it comes to software. It refers to someone that unlawfully copies a work then redistributes it, usually breaking some kind of copyright protection in the process. I'm sick of stupid pedantic fucks whingeing on about this. Words can have more than one meaning, if you haven't noticed.

Yes, they frequently do. However, it is a major win for the copyright cartels to associate, in the public mind, copyright infringement with the rape and pillage of a ship. Who will be worthy of the tougher crackdown? Someone that's a filthy pirate or someone who merely infringed someone else's copyright? George Orwell tried to warn us about language corrupting thought and this is a good example of it in action.

Re:DeDRMS

[hughk]

Not quite correct, hence the anti-copying measures. If you can bypass the copy-prevention, then you may potentially be responsible for distribution even if you have just made a backup copy. This is why explicitly breaking copyright protection is all you need for getting into trouble.

Re:DeDRMS

[Anonymous Coward]

"I was wondering what sort of joke it was having a tool that would crack "RMS" protected content."

Multiply it by one over root two...

Re:DeDRMS

[Joe Enduser]

DeRMS?

I already hacked a perl version

~s/GNU\/Linux/Linux/

It's just that and a razor

Re:DeDRMS

[black mariah]

Actually, just one.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=whing ing Typos suck.

Re:DeDRMS

[gnu-generation-one]

"No, it's not the copying that publishers care about. It's DISTRIBUTION that they care about."

Why should we (the society) care about what publishers want? Copyright is for the benefit of the public, so that they get both art, and the ability to copy it. Hence the copy right.

Publishers are a side-issue. We pay them (in terms of temporarily giving up our right to copy their work) for an expectation that they will produce work which is useful to us. And the price we're paying is getting steeper and steeper.

What happens when the price gets too great? When it's demanded that you give up the ability to run a general-purpose computer, and in response all you get is the same quality of books and films that you've had for years? Would you be willing to pay that?

We're giving up our rights to copy, and in return we're not getting any increase in useful art. Exactly who is it that's saying this is a good deal?

Ummm....wow

[DJ-Dodger]

I didn't expect it to be written in C#. No wonder it's so short.

Re:Ummm....wow

[isny]

I could do it in one really long line of C. Without comments.

Re:Ummm....wow

[Anonymous Coward]

talk is cheap. JUST DO IT. you are remembered by your actions in life, not your bullshit.

Re:Ummm....wow

[RPoet]

I didn't expect it to be written in C#.

NOBODY expects it to be written in C#!! Its chief weapon is surprise ... surprise and fear ... fear and surprise ... Its two weapons are fear and surprise ... and ruthless efficiency ... Its three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency ... and an almost fanatical devotion to Redmond ... Its four ... no ... Amongst its weapons ... Amongst its weaponry ... are such elements as fear, surprise ... I'll try posting some other time.

Re:Ummm....wow

[arcanumas]

NOBODY expects it to be written in C#!!

As in: Nobody expects the holy inquisition ?

Re:Ummm....wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Go on then. Oh, and each semi-colon counts a line.

Re:Ummm....wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... Spanish....

Re:Ummm....wow

[Anonymous Coward]

What tipped you off? It was the "ruthless efficiency" bit, wasn't it? It is kind of a stretch for a language that gets compiled to bytecode and uses garbage collection, but they're nowhere near as bad as they used to be.

Now if it'd been written as a bash script or something, ruthless efficiency would've been Right Out.

Re:Ummm....wow

[Jon Abbott]

Although I realize this was an homage to Monty Python, I think you still could have safely said that Microsoft's chief weapon is spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt. :^)

Wow

[theo2520]

I applaud this guy's efforts, and his courage. He's broken a couple of high-profile propritary systems in a short period of time - wonder how long before he has more lawyers on him than dogs have hairs.

Nice achivement, and in python, but..

[Rtsbasic]

Wait for the lawyers to hear about this one, they're going to have a field day..
Also, what sort of DRM does it remove? AAC? "Trusted Computing"?

Re:Nice achivement, and in python, but..

[Rtsbasic]

Ok, my bad - didn't know C# could be so simple, looked like python at first glance.

Re:Nice achivement, and in python, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how this is any different compared to DeCCS. We all know how procesutor succeeded in that one.

Re:Nice achivement, and in python, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

C# is a pretty clean language, all in all. One of those things that MS got it right by successive approximation.

Re:Nice achivement, and in python, but..

[Rtsbasic]

Yes, but my point was they still had a damn good go at outlawing it. Why would it be any different this time?

Re:Nice achivement, and in python, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there is already a ruling based on similar case which can be used as a reference.

Re:Nice achivement, and in python, but..

[arcanumas]

NO, wait untill he shows up in court.

Judge: You again!?
Jon: Uhm, yeah.. sorry...
Judge: I guess the DVD people just won't leave you alone..
Jon: No, it's Apple's DRM now.
Judge: Damn you kid!!

Re:Nice achivement, and in python, but..

[Rtsbasic]

But it will still be dragged through the courts, and that will take time - look at how long the DeCSS case took to get a ruling. In the mean time something that is potentially useful is looked upon as evil.

Re:Nice achivement, and in python, but..

[fucksl4shd0t]

Um, you did notice the curly braces, right? You know, those { } things that you never see in python?

You're obviously a witch, and should be burned. Tell me, have you ever tried to teeter-totter with a duck?

Re:Nice achivement, and in python, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] after all, we're all alike

Re:Nice achivement, and in python, but..

[jabbadabbadoo]

My experience is that I'm more productive in C# than on Java. The reason in not so much the language, but the fact that the .NET class library is lightyears ahead of the JDK. They stole what was good and ditch the stupid parts (like the overused decorator pattern which dramatically slows down productivity and gains little or nothing in flexibility)

This just in!

[mrpuffypants]

Real, Inc.'s Realplayer now natively plays back iTMS purchases! It's Magic!

Oh dear

[Realistic_Dragon]

Perhaps for his next trick he will stand outside RIAA/MPAA headquaters holding a 6 foot neon sign that says SUE ME AGAIN!

I hope that eventually someone incorporates this code into a iTunes client for Linux, as it would be nice to be able to buy music from iTMS but I have no desire to buy a Mac.

Re:Oh dear

[spektr]

Perhaps for his next trick he will stand outside RIAA/MPAA headquaters holding a 6 foot neon sign that says SUE ME AGAIN!

The RIAA manager will recognize him as a loyal customer and give him a friendly nod before he goes to work...

Re:Oh dear

[ArsenneLupin]

I hope that eventually someone incorporates this code into a iTunes client for Linux

Nope. It's obvious that his main goal is not to help the Linux community, but rather to get sued by the RIAA. He just destroyed the Linux/interoperability defense by writing the piece of code in C#

Re:Oh dear

[goMac2500]

You don't have to buy a Mac. Apple makes a client for this little known operating system called Windows. ITMS songs also work on a little known media platform called QuickTime. Its magic!

Re:Oh dear

[sapporo]

I use Linux because it's like owning a chainsaw compared to owning a pen knife.

Well, I use MacOS X because it's like owning a pen chainsaw.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Mono.

Looks like his webserver was written in C#!

[TheBurningDog]

seriously however... anybody have a mirror of the code?

Re:Looks like his webserver was written in C#!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was fortunate enough to load the page during the 1 minute that the server stayed up.

Now let's see how long my little mirror stays up!

http://fire.prohosting.com/xonerate/dedrms.txt

Re:Looks like his webserver was written in C#!

[Anonymous Coward]

See also this mirror. It ought to work a bit better than the failing web server linked to in the story.

Re:Looks like his webserver was written in C#!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid junk filter doesn't let me post this. Why oh why? Code after filler...

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and

Re:Looks like his webserver was written in C#!

[Anonymous Coward]

My God...it's full of Java.

Re:Looks like his webserver was written in C#!

[reub2000]

ed2k Link: DeDRMS.cs

Re:Looks like his webserver was written in C#!

[RPoet]

And also full of ProHosting's advertising JavaScript code, so you'll have to edit it by hand before it will compile.

Re:Looks like his webserver was written in C#!

[isorox]

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

A real geek would write

In the beginning,
the Earth was without form,
and void.
_
But the Sun shone upon the sleeping Earth
and deep inside the brittle crust
massive forces waited to be unleashed.
_
The seas parted
and great continents were formed.
The continents shifted, mountains arose.
Earthquakes spawned massive tidal waves.
Volcanoes erupted
and spewed forth fiery lava
and charged the atmosphere
with strange gases.
_
Into this swirling maelstrom
of Fire and Air and Water
the first stirrings of Life appeared:
tiny organisms, cells, and amoeba,
clinging to tiny sheltered habitats.
_
But the seeds of Life grew,
and strengthened, and spread,
and diversified,
and prospered,
and soon every continent and climate
teemed with Life.
_
And with Life came instinct,
and specialization, natural selection,
Reptiles, Dinosaurs, and Mammals
and finally there evolved a species
known as Man
and there appeared
the first faint glimmers of
Intelligence.
_
The fruits of intelligence were many:
fire, tools, and weapons,
the hunt, farming, and the sharing of food,
the family, the village, and the tribe.
Now it required but one more ingredient:
a great Leader
to unite the quarreling tribes
to harness the power of the land
to build a legacy
that would stand the test of time:
_
a CIVILIZATION!

Re:Looks like his webserver was written in C#!

[Anonymous Coward]

A real geek would write

Yeah, but then again, it would be a copyright violation ;-)

Re:Looks like his webserver was written in C#!

[Jon Chatow]

Well, actually, the original text was a copyright violation too - it's the King James authorised version, which is still under perpetual UK Crown Copyright (it never expires) - it's the intellectual property of Her Majesty's Government (and, under the Berne Convention, thus also copyrighted in the US). They don't go chasing people though, because there's no real reason to.

Just to be difficult... ;-)

T-shirts anyone?

[Big Nothing]

Lawsuits anyone?

Source code, ideas, communication

[JoshuaDFranklin]

I am sure this will trigger another round of lawsuits, hopefully with the net effect of more education of the public and legal community as to the nature of source code as speech (that is, a method of communication).

This code shows with more simplicity than ever before how the FairPlay DRM scheme works. This can be used by programmers to add support for applications (i.e., GStreamer) to play encrypted files with a key produced from an iTunes username/password. It can be used by researchers to see any weaknesses in FairPlay and develop better methods. Unfortunately it can also be used by those who want to destroy the iTunes Music Service.

Interestingly, I believe the ideas could also be used to create files encrypted with a particular iTunes login, though perhaps I'm misunderstanding the scheme.

Re:Source code, ideas, communication

[Deraj DeZine]

it can also be used by those who want to destroy the iTunes Music Service.

eg. Microsoft.

Re:Source code, ideas, communication

[torokun]

Code is very different from speech. I'm aware that a lot of 'slashdotters' think they are the same thing, but they're not. And yes, I am a coder.

Speech cannot be run on a computer. Code can. Speech usually communicates information and instructions to another human. The primary purpose of code is to do something on a computer. It's _functional_. Its pedagogical function is totally secondary.

But in the end, the real difference is that we probably want to treat code differently in a legal sense, because code can do fundamentally different things than speech can.

We even distinguish between defamatory speech and non-defamatory speech. Is it that inconceivable that we would distinguish between code and speech?

Re:Source code, ideas, communication

[Anonymous Coward]

What if there was a programming language that was directly inherited from the English language?

You can run it on a computer. You can also write it on a napkin and pass it around.

How would you define free speech? If you let a programming language like that go, then you should be able to do it with any language perhaps?

And if not? Wouldn't it be a direct violation of Free Speech?

Re:Source code, ideas, communication

[Daimaou]

I must say that I completely disagree with your assessment. I believe speech is a vehicle for communication, and that free speech would be more accurately referred to as free communication. I also believe most others, including law, would agree with me.

There are other vehicles of communication that also enjoy the same protected status as speech. A few examples would be music, paintings, pictures, and even pornography to some extent. So this would indicate that it is not speech itself that is protected, but rather the more encompassing concept of communication, which can come in many forms.

Writing computer code is another form of communication. Yes, it can be compiled and run on a computer, and it is also near impossible for the untrained eye to discern its meaning, however, the same could be said of sheet music.

I am a coder as well, and I do not feel that my ability to read and write code should be considered any less of a communication medium than verbal or written speech. Take the source code at hand as an example. I clicked on the link to the code, read it, and now understand how it works. Why should this C# code be considered any less of a communication vehicle than if he wrote a dissertation in English explaining his work in detail? The fact is that it shouldn't. He communicated with many of the Slashdot crowd ideas and concepts that are readily understood by those working in his field of expertise. Is this not communication?

True, code would be considered a different kind of communication, just like speech, art, music, photography, etc., but it should enjoy the same lawful protections extended to other forms of communication.

Re:Source code, ideas, communication

[ForThePeople]

OMG! Let me start by saying "Almost all executables are created using a programming LANGUAGE " a.k.a. "code"!

Sure the compiler converts(translates) this into something understandable by a machine but that understanding in itself implies language. So if its still language that came from a human, whether translated or not and whether translation was made by a machine, it is still speech.

Let me finish by saying I wish people would understand that anything that degrades our rights in even the slightest amount no matter the purpose will result in a very bad future and restriction on fair use definately degrades our rights.

Re:Source code, ideas, communication

[GSloop]

Very insightful. No mod points here, or you'd get them.

Thanks!

DeDRMS?

[capz loc]

What does DVD-Jon have against Dr. Richard M. Stallman? Is this the utility that reverses changes made by RMS-Lint?

Re:DeDRMS?

[LostCluster]

Is this the utility that reverses changes made by RMS-Lint?

Doubtful... seeing that project was an April Fool's Joke.

Re:DeDRMS?

[Deraj DeZine]

I find it ironic that, of all people, YOU are trying to point out humor to the parent poster.

Uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm assuming this removes drm on Apple AAC files. What would be more useful is removing DRM on those damnable WMF files.

But this is pretty useful too. Means playing in linux is a possibility.

Re:Uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

WMF (Windows Metafile) have no DRM. In fact I haven't seen a WMF file being used since the good ol DOS days, when Office's clipart came in that format.

I assume you mean WMA or WMV.

Re:Uh...

[a CanofPropane]

You know how to make playing the files in linux REALLY easy... burn the songs to a CD and then rip them to mp3 format... gets rid of protection and the mp4.

DeDRMS art...

[Saeger]

Looks like DeDRMS will be next up for free speech protection in the tradition of the DeCSS Gallery. I just love it when DRM control freaks get their global domination panties in a wad.

DeDRMS? I wrote a song about it. Want to hear it? Hear it goes... *da dum da dum*... slash asterisk bla bla asterisk slash... *da dum da dum*... Using System; *bah bum bah bum*...

--

Dammit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mirror anyone?

Re:Dammit.

[reub2000]

Yes:(xMule)
DeDRMS.cs

Re:Dammit.

[Anonymous Coward]

your link got fucked up. just post it in plaintext.

Re:Dammit.

[reub2000]

ed2k://|file|DeDRMS.cs|7389|55cbf56c77d2bf0cc9b050 a3de139753|/

Re:Dammit.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are the first person sharing this on the edonkey p2p network then rest assured, we will be able to find your IP address and we will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

Sincerely,
Steve Jobs

Re:Dammit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. Him and the other jillion people that'll be sharing it in about 5 minutes.

Host it on Freenet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's host this program on Freenet, it is a project that make's the best use for what Freenet was made for.

Re:Host it on Freenet?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Let's host this program on Freenet, it is a project that make's the best use for what Freenet was made for.

Yes, great idea. Let's make sure that ideas like Freenet and the illegal piracy of music are inextricably linked in the mind of the public.

Dumbass.

Re:Host it on Freenet?

[epiphani]

You shouldnt have to.

Re:Host it on Freenet?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. DeDRMS can be used for Fair Use, not just "illegal piracy" - which, by the way, is a misleading term anyway; you really mean "copyright infringement"

2. At least it's better than associating Freenet with child pornography, like it is now!

Re:Host it on Freenet?

[imsabbel]

But it so small. only 120 lines. How are you supposed to find it between all those kiddi-porn and nazi files?

Re:Host it on Freenet?

[RPoet]

You know, instead of saying "we" should do it, you could have just done it. It's very easy. So I did it for you.

CHK@XTn8vik~xxqsIJzLcDFUlPQqrw4NAwI,griuDFoqruNU 09 1-2Qj8Ew/DeDRMS.cs

(Watch out for the space inserted by the slashdot code, remove it)

Re:Host it on Freenet?

[black mariah]

1. 'Piracy' is a term that is used to describe, in fewer words, the illegal redistribution of copyrighted material. It is SYNONYMOUS with copyright infringement. This is why being a pedantic assclown is never a good idea. Eventually you're going to run across a word that has two meanings, and your puny human brain will implode trying to parse it.

Re:Host it on Freenet?

[spiritraveller]

You just posted a Freenet link, which you admit that you inserted into Freenet. And your name is not "Anonymous Coward".

Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

Re:Host it on Freenet?

[Frogbert]

Well he could be lying, there is no real proof that he did actualy insert it, he could be lying to get attention... or karma.

That said this is freenet we're talking about so there will be no real way to verify that he did put it on for another 6 months whilst someone downloads it.

Re:Host it on Freenet?

[RPoet]

There's nothing wrong with the picture. Distributing the file is not illegal, so I did. And it's not like I need anonymity for it.

Re:Host it on Freenet?

[MikeCapone]

1. 'Piracy' is a term that is used to describe, in fewer words, the illegal redistribution of copyrighted material. It is SYNONYMOUS with copyright infringement. This is why being a pedantic assclown is never a good idea. Eventually you're going to run across a word that has two meanings, and your puny human brain will implode trying to parse it.

"Piracy" is a word that has many meanings and a pejorative sub-text, "copyright infringement" is precise and neutral.

grey is the new black!

[mattkime]

FairPlay is the new CSS!

Dilbert has something to say on this very subject:

[Realistic_Dragon]

http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/d ilbert2004042261455.jpg

A somewhat odd view... does anyone know which big music firm United Media (the Dilbert owners) is affiliated with?

blah

[Anonymous Coward]

For the junk filer:
jhsvjklhajskdvhakjsdhvalkjsdhkajdhfasd hsfvhasdhvf asdf asdf asdf asdf sdf asdhvashdvasdf asdf asd sdf coipx vxjzlk sdhvaasd fasd fadfg fiobvxcoizv jcxoixz jxzc sdhvaf cmdrtaco sucks akljdkls asd asd fvx sdhvas gh hh hhf dd sdf sf sd
hdvash jk k fgh jgdvvcbbn cv c dhvc c vb fg hdrghdfg fg dg df g dsf
ashdva sdfgsgewrr benrtnrt er er revr dv shdva aioajdoi jfasdioj v;xjf kldasjkl;vasj sdhva sjkdfsdkvn alkn lkan alksnsdflk nsfnvlad dhvahsdva aisovaiouvoivoiua ioua auao iuasi us shdva asivoa jvhbusa ui hiuahsiuhfsa ha ahsdjkfahkdj lfhalksjdfhalk askjda
vhasdvhasdjhvaksjdhva a kjas lkjdakljf svhasdhvaskjhvlaskjdvhas a kljs djklakslj af
asvhajkshvjkshas dhasdjvkhasdv akjdfjadf asds s d fsd fsad fads asdfas asdf asdf sdfs vxcvxcvzxcvx ss dfsdxvc dfa bioub oiu zklxcvx nsm,m,fns,m
sdfas ikj oixj movnxmcvnxcvo sdoifjs dfsddafgdfg kamlxcvbjio zkcnvzlk nxclk xcivx as df sdf asdf asd vi xoizjvzcvn socso s asd addfsdfahtgh fghdfgh df gd d

using System;
using System.IO;
using System.Text;
using System.Security.Cryptography;

class M4PStream
{
private Rijndael alg;

private BinaryReader br;
private BinaryWriter bw;
private byte [] sbuffer;

private string AtomDRMS = "drms";
private string AtomMP4A = "mp4a";
private string AtomSINF = "sinf";
private string AtomUSER = "user";
private string AtomKEY = "key ";
private string AtomIVIV = "iviv";
private string AtomNAME = "name";
private string AtomPRIV = "priv";
private string AtomSTSZ = "stsz";
private string AtomMDAT = "mdat";

public M4PStream( FileStream fs )
{
br = new BinaryReader( fs );
bw = new BinaryWriter( fs );
sbuffer = br.ReadBytes( Convert.ToInt32( fs.Length ) );

alg = Rijndael.Create();
alg.Mode = CipherMode.CBC;
alg.Padding = PaddingMode.None;
}

byte [] NetToHost( byte [] Input, int Pos, int Count )
{
if( BitConverter.IsLittleEndian )
{
for( int i = 0; i < Count; i++ )
{
Array.Reverse( Input, Pos + (i * 4), 4 );
}
}

return Input;
}

int GetAtomPos( string Atom )
{
byte [] Bytes = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes( Atom );

for( int i = 0; i < (sbuffer.Length - 3); i++ )
{
if( sbuffer[ i + 0 ] == Bytes[ 0 ] &&
sbuffer[ i + 1 ] == Bytes[ 1 ] &&
sbuffer[ i + 2 ] == Bytes[ 2 ] &&
sbuffer[ i + 3 ] == Bytes[ 3 ] )
{
return i;
}
}

throw new Exception( String.Format( "Atom '{0}' not found", Atom ) );
}

uint GetAtomSize( int Pos )
{
byte [] Bytes = new byte[ 4 ];
Buffer.BlockCopy( sbuffer, Pos - 4, Bytes, 0, 4 );
return BitConverter.ToUInt32( NetToHost( Bytes, 0, 1 ), 0 );
}

byte [] GetAtomData( int Pos, bool bNetToHost )
{
uint Size;
byte [] Bytes;

Size = GetAtomSize( Pos );
Bytes = new byte[ Size - 8 ];
Buffer.BlockCopy( sbuffer, Pos + 4, Bytes, 0, Bytes.Length );

return bNetToHost ? NetToHost( Bytes, 0, Bytes.Length / 4 ) : Bytes;
}

public void Decrypt( byte [] CipherText, int Offset, int Count,
byte [] Key, byte [] IV )
{
MemoryStream ms = new MemoryStream();

ICryptoTransform ct = alg.CreateDecryptor( Key, IV );
CryptoStream cs = new CryptoStream( ms, ct, CryptoStreamMode.Write );
cs.Write( CipherText, Offset, (Count / 16) * 16 );
cs.Close();

ms.ToArray().CopyTo( CipherText, Offset );
}

public byte [] GetUserKey( uint UserID, uint KeyID )
{
byte [] UserKey;
BinaryReader bruk;

string strHome =
Environment.GetFolderPath( Environment.SpecialFolder.ApplicationData );
bool bUnix = Environment.OSVersion.ToString().IndexOf( "Unix" ) != -1;
string strFile = String.Format( "{0}{1}{

Re:blah

[Anonymous Coward]

Redundant? This was the first post of the code, you crack-addled cockgobbler.

Re:blah

[Anonymous Coward]

Aye, we're gonna need mightily big T-shirts for this one...

Re:blah

[Mr. Piddle]

Is that what C# looks like? No wonder people call it a complete Java rip-off. I'd bet that there are C# programs out there that would compile under javac with little effort!

Re:blah

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

You forgot an important part, which may have also gotten you past the lameness filter:

/*****
* DeDRMS.cs: DeDRMS 0.1
****
* Copyright (C) 2004 Jon Lech Johansen <jon-vl@nanocrew.net>
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public license as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
* Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
****/

Re:blah

[Anonymous Coward]

*cough*

Is that what Java looks like? No wonder people call it a complete C++ rip-off. I'd bet that there are Java programs out there that would compile under Mingw with little effort!

While it's easy to pop one off at C#, you have to allow for most new programming languages being derived from something else. Ideas are constantly being distilled you know...

Re:blah

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely :)

You are getting modded up.

Re:blah

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn stupid thing - I thought I was able to post anonymously? I just had my modpoints undone - sorry - ahhh well, the intent was there.
Hopefully some1 will assist this guy - his posting of the header was important to the sourcecode.

Re:blah

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only did the AC forget the licence, they are in violation of Jon Johansen's copyright by not fulfilling the the terms of the GNU GPL.

Re:blah

[BlackHawk-666]

They'd all be tripped up by the Main () function ;->

This boy's mother...

[FreeLinux]

should have taught him that: When you play with fire, you get your fingers burned.

So far he has won and avoided jail. But, if he continues to push his luck, like this, some corporation is going to bury him.

Re:This boy's mother...

[datadriven]

... Or get him a job with the NSA

Re:This boy's mother...

[Anonymous Coward]

His mom probably taught him that, just like your mom taught you that.. but his mom taught him another lesson: don't give up

What he is doing is the right thing, if some company buries him, at least he died trying and didn't give up

Re:This boy's mother...

[pla]

So far he has won and avoided jail. But, if he continues to push his luck, like this, some corporation is going to bury him.

Why? It seems to me like he has an almost uniquely good position from which to produce tools like this - Namely, the courts found let him off for an almost identical tool.

Legal systems have a lot of problems, but they hate admitting errors; in this case, that stubbornness works in our favor, for a change. Finding him guilty (or in favor of industry-group-X in a civil suit) would require admitting they made a mistake in the last round. That simply will not happen.


Also, no one else seems to have pointed this out, but Jon didn't get inspired by PlayFair; rather, PlayFair based its work on Jon's own contribution to VideoLan, which had the ability to crack FairPlay a few month ago.

Re:This boy's mother...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's in Norway. The courts there are not as easily bought as it's US counterparts. You will get defended without cost (at least in comparison with the US), so people actually can afford going to court.

Perhaps if capitalism didn't leak into the US court, more people in the western world would have a chance to defend themselfs agains ruthless monopolies and the "legit mafia" of the US.

And oh, as a Norwegian I find the case against Jon one of the best uses of my tax money yet.

Re: This boy's mother...

[Black Parrot]

> So far he has won and avoided jail. But, if he continues to push his luck, like this, some corporation is going to bury him.

I think it's called "getting even". US corporations got him treated like a criminal for doing something that wasn't illegal where he lives, now he's getting some back.

Re:This boy's mother...

[Anonymous Coward]

So far he has won and avoided jail. But, if he continues to push his luck, like this, some corporation is going to bury him.

Do you realize what you just said? Not "the law", not "the government", not "Justice", but "some corporation"! Since when did corporations have power of enforcement?! Oh, that's right, since the DMCA. But that still doesn't make it right!

nothing to see here folks:

[ejaw5]

Drms = ~0.707(D)

Re:nothing to see here folks:

[Anonymous Coward]

Ouch--but I guess I should have seen that coming :).

Re:nothing to see here folks:

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to take issue with this.
You assume that D is sinusoidal, which was never given.

We don't even know if D is periodic.

Therefore:
D=sqrt((Integ -inf -> inf [D^2])/(2*inf)) ;)

Re:nothing to see here folks:

[base3]

Therefore: D=sqrt((Integ -inf -> inf [D^2])/(2*inf)) ;)

But that would make a lousy filename in just about any operating system :).

Re:nothing to see here folks:

[alexburke]

Troll my ass; mod parent up! That's good stuff. :)

Re:nothing to see here folks:

[base3]

Thanks :).

Re:nothing to see here folks:

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll my ass

Hey, alexburke's ass... I hear your Mom's going out with Squeak!

P.S: Linux sucks.

Re:nothing to see here folks:

[SuperFrink]

I thought I might be the only one thinking Root Mean Square.

Re:nothing to see here folks:

[Anonymous Coward]

So Jon has written a program to convert Drms (0.707(D) back?

Drms= .707 (D)
DeDrms = 1 (D)

So, in reference to another /. post, is .707 prime or perfect?

What will the Dairy Farmers Think?

[andersen]

What will the dairy farmers of the world think when they discover their Dairy Records Management System has been compromised? I will never drink milk ever again!!!

Re:What will the Dairy Farmers Think?

[JediTrainer]

Their videos are already being pirated!

Re:What will the Dairy Farmers Think?

[Cow Jones]

What will the dairy farmers of the world think when they discover their Dairy Records Management System has been compromised?

BTW, ever tried to find the list of Open Source licenses on the OSI homepage?

Re:Since it is only 230 LOC

[orzetto]

Tried, but the lameness filter is DMCA-enforcing.

OT: Sig comment (don't care don't read don't mod)

[GreyWolf3000]

If you make a reference to Guybrush Threepwood in your comment I always mod it up. Go Monkey Island!

Guybrush Threepwood? That's the silliest name I've ever heard.

--Mancomb Seepwood.

Bitch Bitch Bitch

[Famatra]

This guy is a hero for standing up to coroprations, unlike you who can only bitch on Slashdot about how other people get all the glory and your stuck there picking your ass all day long.

If you are really concerned about him going to jail, then do something about it rather then bitch about *him* doing *his* part.

Re:Bitch Bitch Bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a most peculiar thought process. Oh, that's right this is Slashdot. Never mind.

Re:Bitch Bitch Bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man he's raging against the machine what with that contract violation there.

I'm obviously not understanding something here..

[Sarth]

DVD Jon, of obvious fame, is hailed as a hero for letting your average Joe (or Jon), go out to their local store, and buy a DVD and play it on their linux boxen, right?

I can sorta understand that, as far as I know, DVDs don't state at the time of purchase that you have to have X or Y, just that you have to have the disc. Fine.

So, when you buy something from the iTMS, it STATES that you have to have X or Y. It clearly states the restrictions that you agree to. This is not a hard concept, so why is it felt that a technological solution is required to 'fix' it?

Something that just struck me... DVD Jon isn't in the Americas, but iTMS isn't selling to those outside (maybe Canada, I'd have to check). So ... what part of this equation am I missing?

Information wants to be free!

[Anonymous Coward]

begin-base64 644 fp2
LyoqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqK ioqKi oqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq
KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKi oqKioqCiAqIERlRFJNUy5jczogRG VEUk1TIDAuMQogKioqKioqKioq
KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKi oqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKi oqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq
KioqKioqKioqKioKICogQ2 9weXJpZ2h0IChDKSAyMDA0IEpvbi BMZWNoIEpvaGFuc2VuIDxqb24t
dmxAbmFub2NyZXcubmV0Pg ogKgogKiBUaGlzIHByb2dyYW0gaX MgZnJlZSBzb2Z0d2FyZTsgeW91
IGNhbiByZWRpc3RyaWJ1dG UgaXQgYW5kL29yIG1vZGlmeQogKi BpdCB1bmRlciB0aGUgdGVybXMg
b2YgdGhlIEdOVSBHZW5lcm FsIFB1YmxpYyBMaWNlbnNlIGFzIH B1Ymxpc2hlZCBieQogKiB0aGUg
RnJlZSBTb2Z0d2FyZSBGb3 VuZGF0aW9uOyBlaXRoZXIgdmVyc2 lvbiAyIG9mIHRoZSBMaWNlbnNl
LCBvcgogKiAoYXQgeW91ci BvcHRpb24pIGFueSBsYXRlciB2ZX JzaW9uLgogKgogKiBUaGlzIHBy
b2dyYW0gaXMgZGlzdHJpYn V0ZWQgaW4gdGhlIGhvcGUgdGhhdC BpdCB3aWxsIGJlIHVzZWZ1bCwK
ICogYnV0IFdJVEhPVVQgQU 5ZIFdBUlJBTlRZOyB3aXRob3V0IG V2ZW4gdGhlIGltcGxpZWQgd2Fy
cmFudHkgb2YKICogTUVSQ0 hBTlRBQklMSVRZIG9yIEZJVE5FU1 MgRk9SIEEgUEFSVElDVUxBUiBQ
VVJQT1NFLiAgU2VlIHRoZQ ogKiBHTlUgR2VuZXJhbCBQdWJsaW MgTGljZW5zZSBmb3IgbW9yZSBk
ZXRhaWxzLgogKgogKiBZb3 Ugc2hvdWxkIGhhdmUgcmVjZWl2ZW QgYSBjb3B5IG9mIHRoZSBHTlUg
R2VuZXJhbCBQdWJsaWMgTG ljZW5zZQogKiBhbG9uZyB3aXRoIH RoaXMgcHJvZ3JhbTsgaWYgbm90
LCB3cml0ZSB0byB0aGUgRn JlZSBTb2Z0d2FyZQogKiBGb3VuZG F0aW9uLCBJbmMuLCA1OSBUZW1w
bGUgUGxhY2UgLSBTdWl0ZS AzMzAsIEJvc3RvbiwgTUEgIDAyMT ExLCBVU0EuCiAqKioqKioqKioq
KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKi oqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKi oqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq
KioqKioqKioqKi8KCnVzaW 5nIFN5c3RlbTsKdXNpbmcgU3lzdG VtLklPOwp1c2luZyBTeXN0ZW0u
VGV4dDsKdXNpbmcgU3lzdG VtLlNlY3VyaXR5LkNyeXB0b2dyYX BoeTsKCmNsYXNzIE00UFN0cmVh
bQp7CiAgICBwcml2YXRlIF Jpam5kYWVsIGFsZzsKCiAgICBwcm l2YXRlIEJpbmFyeVJlYWRlciBi
cjsKICAgIHByaXZhdGUgQm luYXJ5V3JpdGVyIGJ3OwogICAgcH JpdmF0ZSBieXRlIFtdIHNidWZm
ZXI7CgogICAgcHJpdmF0ZS BzdHJpbmcgQXRvbURSTVMgPSAiZH JtcyI7CiAgICBwcml2YXRlIHN0
cmluZyBBdG9tTVA0QSA9IC JtcDRhIjsKICAgIHByaXZhdGUgc3 RyaW5nIEF0b21TSU5GID0gInNp
bmYiOwogICAgcHJpdmF0ZS BzdHJpbmcgQXRvbVVTRVIgPSAidX NlciI7CiAgICBwcml2YXRlIHN0
cmluZyBBdG9tS0VZICA9IC JrZXkgIjsKICAgIHByaXZhdGUgc3 RyaW5nIEF0b21JVklWID0gIml2
aXYiOwogICAgcHJpdmF0ZS BzdHJpbmcgQXRvbU5BTUUgPSAibm FtZSI7CiAgICBwcml2YXRlIHN0
cmluZyBBdG9tUFJJViA9IC Jwcml2IjsKICAgIHByaXZhdGUgc3 RyaW5nIEF0b21TVFNaID0gInN0
c3oiOwogICAgcHJpdmF0ZS BzdHJpbmcgQXRvbU1EQVQgPSAibW RhdCI7CgogICAgcHVibGljIE00
UFN0cmVhbSggRmlsZVN0cm VhbSBmcyApCiAgICB7CiAgICAgIC AgYnIgPSBuZXcgQmluYXJ5UmVh
ZGVyKCBmcyApOwogICAgIC AgIGJ3ID0gbmV3IEJpbmFyeVdyaX RlciggZnMgKTsKICAgICAgICBz
YnVmZmVyID0gYnIuUmVhZE J5dGVzKCBDb252ZXJ0LlRvSW50Mz IoIGZzLkxlbmd0aCApICk7Cgog
ICAgICAgIGFsZyA9IFJpam 5kYWVsLkNyZWF0ZSgpOwogICAgIC AgIGFsZy5Nb2RlID0gQ2lwaGVy
TW9kZS5DQkM7CiAgICAgIC AgYWxnLlBhZGRpbmcgPSBQYWRkaW 5nTW9kZS5Ob25lOwogICAgfQoK
ICAgIGJ5dGUgW10gTmV0VG 9Ib3N0KCBieXRlIFtdIElucHV0LC BpbnQgUG9zLCBpbnQgQ291bnQg
KQogICAgewogICAgICAgIG lmKCBCaXRDb252ZXJ0ZXIuSXNMaX R0bGVFbmRpYW4gKQogICAgICAg
IHsKICAgICAgICAgICAgZm 9yKCBpbnQgaSA9IDA7IGkgPCBDb3 VudDsgaSsrICkKICAgICAgICAg
ICAgewogICAgICAgICAgIC AgICAgQXJyYXkuUmV2ZXJzZSggSW 5wdXQsIFBvcyArIChpICogNCks
IDQgKTsKICAgICAgICAgIC AgfQogICAgICAgIH0KCiAgICAgIC AgcmV0dXJuIElucHV0OwogICAg
fQoKICAgIGludCBHZXRBdG 9tUG9zKCBzdHJpbmcgQXRvbSApCi AgICB7CiAgICAgICAgYnl0ZSBb
XSBCeXRlcyA9IEVuY29kaW 5nLkFTQ0lJLkdldEJ5dGVzKCBBdG 9t

Re:Information wants to be free!

[joe_bruin]

offtopic? maybe redundant. i've verified the contents of this file, and it is good. i wonder if the mods did so before modding down.

Troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about C# has to do with his webserver buckling under the load?

Re:Troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here...

Inevitable

[ajs318]

If you attempt the impossible -- and make no mistake, copy-prevention is physically impossible, not just difficult -- then you will fail. You might be able to fool people into thinking you have succeeded, for a short while; but, sooner or later, your lies will catch up with you. All copy-prevention technology is pure snake oil, and can never work. It will always be defeated. Once a single CPT-free version has been created, then every penny anyone ever invested in that particular copy-prevention technology is wasted.

Re:Inevitable

[Mike Hawk]

Yeah, and my house has glass windows. But I still put a lock on the door.

Re:Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'll bet you took the tires off, too.

Why people are afraid of lawsuits???

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone will sue Jon because of this, judge will just throw the case out based on previous ruling in the similar case.

Both DeCCS and DeDRMS are about accessing the content which you have purchased.

Re:Why people are afraid of lawsuits???

[peu]

May be DVD Jon is an immune proxy for this kind of software...

C#, Mono, and making it do something

[rowanxmas]

So I am mildly interested in C#, being a Java developer. I primarily use Linux, but I do some Windows at home. Can someone tell me how to get mono working on either platform?

I would really like to port my Java stuff to GTK#, since it might be faster, but whenever I try to install mono I get errors like: MSVR70.dll was not found

and on Linux it seems to just be dependency hell, since we are still on RH9 at work.
Well, any tutorial links( my googling has not turned up anything useful...) will be much appreciated, then I can start DeDRMSing some stuff.

Re:C#, Mono, and making it do something

[Anonymous Coward]

My experience tells me: It's probably easier to just port it to Java. It can be done in an hour or two :)

Re:C#, Mono, and making it do something

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and when you're done -- post the code (base64 or whatever) here :P

Re:C#, Mono, and making it do something

[barfoos]

This is completly offtopic:
but if your into making your java guis faster, you should have a look at eclipse, which manages this point quit well.

Re:C#, Mono, and making it do something

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't really help you with the problems with installing the mono client... but this is what I did (with my win2k box)

www.go-mono.com -> c# compiler -> downloads page

get the file mono-0.31-win32-1.exe

run it, click okay a couple times...

get a copy of the code....

mcs DeDRMS.cs

and you have an exe that's command-driven.

command is : DeDrms.exe myfile.m4p

Re:C#, Mono, and making it do something

[cduffy]

Re installing Mono on Linux, you might do well to use the GARNOME packages; that way, you're building everything from source to be installed under its own prefix, and thus avoiding dependency hell.

Re:C#, Mono, and making it do something

[damiam]

apt-get install mono

Re:C#, Mono, and making it do something

[rowanxmas]

I would, and have looked into it and written some code that way. However I am using Piccolo for my graphics, and while there is an SWT port, it just doesn't work as well. But, since Piccolo has a .NET version I would like to make a GTK# version that uses Cairo and stuff.

Re:C#, Mono, and making it do something

[rowanxmas]

Hah, you know what...

I totally forgot that it creates an exe on windows. I was trying to do "mono DeDRMS" and gettting errors. I should try this out.

Re:C#, Mono, and making it do something

[Bri3D]

Or you could just use the C# compiler from the .NET framework 1.1. The command is %WINDIR%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322\csc.exe . You specify the output file name with /OUT:

Re:C#, Mono, and making it do something

[Anonymous Coward]

How? By removing e's?

use english

[grusapa]

BinaryReader bruk; bruk = new BinaryReader( File.OpenRead( strFile ) ); UserKey = bruk.ReadBytes( Convert.ToInt32( bruk.BaseStream.Length ) ); bruk.Close(); "bruk" http://66.70.46.80:5555/find?lang=no&dict=NOUKMX&w ord=bruk Jon det er litt letter for engelske folk å forstå koden din når den er på engelsk da.. Jeg vet ikke om det er et c# ord eller, om det er en trykkleif.

Re:use english

[RPoet]

Bruk is Norwegian for "use", yes, but I think by "bruk" in this case he meant to abbreviate "BinaryReader UserKey".

Jeg er også norsk, og vet at Jon ikke er så dum :)

Re:use english

[zangdesign]

It all reads like "bork bork bork" to me ...

Re:use english

[Anonymous Coward]

English mother f*****, do you speak it!?!!

Re:use english

[MalleusEBHC]

What?

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[CylanR77]

Who says that "Dilbert" has sold out? You? Just because the strip portrays a view of downloading content that you find disagreeable, doesn't mean that the RIAA's got Scott Adams in their pocket.

It could just be that the man believes that you ought to pay for what you use for entertainment, if the creator of that entertainment wants payment.

pretty cool...

[cybin]

this is pretty cool, and a technical achievement... but why bother stripping the DRM from your m4p files? just make a functional iTunes clone that doesn't care about the DRM :)

or maybe i'm wrong... is it up to the player software to enforce the DRM? i thought i read somewhere that the iPod just ignores it...

Re:pretty cool...

[base3]

The iPod contains the encryption keys when the DRMd files are copied to it with iTunes.

Re:pretty cool...

[The Fanta Menace]

Maybe if Apple had made an iTunes for Linux, it might have been a while longer before things like this popped up. Look at Real: it took several years before anyone bothered making another player for their files on Linux, since they already provided one.

Speaking of which, did anyone actually reverse engineer Real's format, or does mplayer just use their shared libraries?

Re:pretty cool...

[TravisWatkins]

No, it's not up to the player to enforce the DRM. When you purchase a song from iTunes you are given the DRM'ed file, an md5 hash of the file, and two keys. Not sure what the other key is for, but one is the encryption key. You put that with the song and you get a DRM free song. Thats exactly what this does. PS - Reverse engineering the iTMS is fun!

Re:pretty cool...

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC the "older" Real formats were re-engineered, but the newer ones still use(d) the shared libraries.
Could have changed since I last checked, though...

Re:pretty cool...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the original formats weren't reverse-engineered exactly. They were fairly standard codecs, so once people realized which codecs were being used, it was pretty straightforward to play the files, as source code for decompression was already readily available. The only thing that had to be reverse engineered was the headers at the beginning of the file.

After that, real started using more proprietary codecs (sipro, g2..)

Re:pretty cool...

[evilviper]

did anyone actually reverse engineer Real's format, or does mplayer just use their shared libraries?

The older versions are native, thanks to ffmpeg/libavcodec. The newer codecs use the Linux Libs and/or Win32 DLLs.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[LostCluster]

None.

United Media is a Scripps Ventures company, part of the E.W. Scripps empire.

Scripps operates some Newspapers, TV stations, and cable networks, and a well-known spelling bee. They trade under ticker SSP on the NYSE, and no major media companies show up on their major holders list on Yahoo.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[Jonathan]

It could just be that the man believes that you ought to pay for what you use for entertainment, if the creator of that entertainment wants payment.

Yes, remember that Adams is a man who sells content for a living -- you may think his model is flawed, and Creative Commons, etc. is the wave of the future, but there's no reason to assume that it's United Media's opinion rather than just Adams'

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Anonymous Coward]

How this kind of restrictions can be legal, even in the US?

Would be ok for Microsoft to disallow any other browser than IE to be used with Windows? How about dissallowing usage of any other media players beside MS media player?

Re:OT: Sig comment (don't care don't read don't mo

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you haven't read the rules for moderation. He cannot moderate this thread because he has already posted to it.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[the_mad_poster]

You know, I saw that this morning, and I thought it was actually a pretty good wrap up (well, for what a comic can do anyway) of several of the main positions in the debate.

First, there are all the people who go snag copies of music because they're too a) lazy, b) stupid, c) cheap, or d) all of the above to either go buy a copy or just not buy it at all (don't give me shit: you think it costs too much or has too much filler, blah blah blah... don't buy the fucking thing, don't be a little baby about it). Then, there's the theiving nature of all the execs in the industry ripping off the artists. There's also the problem of overproduction, and the mentality of major artists that they have to make money but no, no... they're still doing it for the art.. really.

I thought it was a very good bit of satire, all around.

SCO says...

[ambienceman]

"Woah woah...GPL? That'll be $699 please"

Re:SCO says...

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? The program doesn't have Unix code in it. It's written in C#.

Re:SCO says...

[RPoet]

And SCO said ... Nothing, you idiots, SCO's dead!

Neat

[dtfinch]

The code looks so simple, as though .Net did all the work for him. Does this make .Net illegal under the DMCA?

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that basically what you're missing is that 'they' can't tell you what you can and can't do with their products after you purchase them.

Replace 'they' with any manufacturer.

I could buy an apple that said "not for use as food." And I could then proceed to eat that apple - they have no say in what I do with it. If, for some reason, I should injure myself by eating that apple, they warned me and wouldn't be held liable. That's it. Laws come into play when I throw that apple and kill someone with it. Or try to sell it, claiming it is a pair.

Now, the argument here is that it is illegal to decrypt the 'protections' a company puts on their music. And it is here where it gets smelly realy, really quickly.

Sure, it might be the law, but it is written to be a pretty shitty law. (DMCA, etc). No, that's not an excuse to break the law, but it is one to cause sympathy for someone who does. There are very legitimate reasons for breaking the DRM on these files. There are also very illegitimate ones. Piracy comes to mind. You know, real piracy. Not some 14 year old girl that wants to give her friend some songs, but the people who mass produce and sell these songs on the black market.

The black market being, by the way, about every outdoor market I've been to in Asia or South America.

And you're right. DVD Jon shouldn't fall under any US laws. But the RIAA et al. will surely find a way to change that. Bastards.

Another apple defender

[Anonymous Coward]

First, dont' worry, Apple could care less about this kind of stuff; it doesn't allow people to pirate tunes, it only lets you make FAIR USE of tunes you already bought.

That's an okay thing to do.

Even if something wacky happened, don't worry, your iPod will still work even if Apple gets out of the music business.

Oh wait... not your DRM's tunes. If you move it to a new computer... shit. Maybe you out to get a copy of PlayFair so that you can move your tunes without Apple's permission.

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Slack3r78]

I don't see the point you're trying to make. DVDs may not explicitly state that you have to do X or Y, but with CSS encryption combined with the DMCA, they might as well.

I think DVD Jon's being totally consistent here - if you pay to listen/watch/whatever something, you should have the right to do so on whatever platform or medium you choose, and not be limited by some artificial restriction imposed on you by the media companies.

So now people with Linux boxes can play their legit iTMS songs on their Linux boxes. Personally, I'm not bothered by this. There are other, easier ways for people to pirate music if they really have their heart set to it, so opening up a way for people to use something they've paid for in a way they see fit, while it may technically violate the license, is nothing I see worth getting up in arms over.

Let me get this straight...

[asscroft]

This same guy wrote DeCSS, FairPlay and DeCRMS....

wow. what a brilliant ballsy sun of a bitch.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

By "FairPlay" I assume you meant "playfair". He wrote the decryption code that playfair uses, but it was an anonymous American developer who put the playfair utility together.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[scottj]

Actually, you've got it a bit wrong. You didn't even need to RTFA to know that "the decryption code that was later used by an anonymous developer to create the playfair utility." Jon didn't write playfair. Somebody else did. This is Jon's version of playfair.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

He also didn't write DeCSS, just got in trouble for having it on his webserver.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he put DeCSS together using code from others, just like the playfair author put playfair together using code from DVD-Jon and others.

Lots of reasons:

[Anonymous Coward]

"but why bother stripping the DRM from your m4p files?"

Here's a few really good reasons:

1) You want to play it outside of iTunes and your iPod.

2) You don't want to be dependant on Apple telling you where you can listen to music

3) If Apple shuts down iTMS, you want to move your old bits to a new computer.

If I really thought about it, I could come up with 10 more good reasons, but then, I'm not always defending apple no matter what, so perhaps that lets me think more clearly.

Or different.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you just wait for the open source comic GNUBert. It's about a wacky engineer who lives in his office and is afraid of taking a bath. Hilarity ensues!

Re:Since it is only 230 LOC

[wan-fu]

Yes, the lameness filter is blocking from posting, but an AC has already posted the code. It starts by quoting Genesis and later on some Shakespeare to get around the filter. Just look for that thread.

Slashdotted... Here's a mirror of the code

[sailor420]

http://hrothgar.mine.nu/dedrms.txt

A temporary mirror to the code. It wont be up more than a week, so dont bookmark it.

Re:Slashdotted... Here's a mirror of the code

[Anonymous Coward]

Another mirror: http://www.weasel.net/dedrms.txt

First Amendments kick ass!

--Weasel

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[chocochip]

None. It's owned by E.W. Scripps. Newspapers, television stations, and cable networks (DIY, Fine Living, Food, HGTV, Shop at Home).

Did anyone "prime" it yet? & In not related ne

[CharonX]

Did anyone compress the source and translate it from hex yet?


In not related news:
The RIAA seeks to ban Gzip and large prime numbers as they are methods to circumvent copyright protection...

The above post contains no code.

[MillionthMonkey]

I might expose myself to legal liability under the DMCA if I were to use my +2 karma bonus to publicly point out that a copy of the DeDRMS code may be found buried in the parent AC post (currently at 0, and NOT posted by myself) that I am replying to. The DMCA would expressly forbid such a reply informing others of the existence of such a post.

Therefore, I wish to state emphatically that the parent contains no C# whatsoever and should not be moderated up as Informative, cut, pasted, compiled, or disseminated.

Re:The above post contains no code.

[Saeger]

If pointers to info are 'illegal' (*cough*2600*cough), then I would also like to state that you cannot buy weed at the park. If pointers to pointers are safe, then I would like to say that it's safe to dereference my friend Joey for the same pointer to the park.

--

Re:The above post contains no code.

[MillionthMonkey]

If pointers to info are 'illegal' (*cough*2600*cough), then I would also like to state that you cannot buy weed at the park. If pointers to pointers are safe, then I would like to say that it's safe to dereference my friend Joey for the same pointer to the park.

Ah, but if you recall, 2600 was enjoined by the court from providing hypertext links to DeCSS, although they were still allowed to publish the URLs themselves because of First Amendment concerns. (You had to cut and paste them into the address field yourself- no HREFs.)

I, on the other hand, can't get rid of the hypertext link underneath my post that says "Parent".

Re:The above post contains no code.

[Anonymous Coward]

I, on the other hand, can't get arid of the hypertext link underneath my post that says "Parent".

Indeed, but you can still choose to reply to another post, and thus make the "Parent" link not to point to the offending data.

Don't give up so easily the little control you have on your post.

Re:The above post contains no code.

[MillionthMonkey]

Indeed, but you can still choose to reply to another post, and thus make the "Parent" link not to point to the offending data.

What would be the point of that? Then nobody would find it!

Re:The above post contains no code.

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

You are not linking to the parent post. Slashdot is putting a link after your text. Therefore, you are not liable for linking to the parent post. If, however, I put my own link, then I would be liable.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[damiangerous]

Exactly. There was a strip along the same lines a while back. Wally said something like "everything should be available free on the internet and creators should make their money from tips." Someone, I don't remember who, replied, "Great idea, we should try that with engineers."

Get it now

[Nom du Keyboard]

Remember W.A.S.T.E.
Remember PlayFair
Remember the bitTorrent sites

If you want it, get it now.

Interesting how this news comes out on a Sunday, when the lawyers should all be out at play.

Re:Get it now

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember W.A.S.T.E.

Yeah ... need a mirror to download it? I know of dozens. http://waste.sf.net for one

Remember PlayFair

Yeah ... need a mirror? :)

Remember the bitTorrent sites

Yeah ... need a mir... ok this is getting ridiculous.

If you want it, get it now.

Toothpaste ... out of tube. Relax.

Re:Get it now

[Nom du Keyboard]

Remember W.A.S.T.E.
Yeah ... need a mirror to download it?
Yada, yada...

AC obviously doesn't appreciate the value of a single, trusted download site, verses all the little variations and tweaks the slip in when a master site is gone.

And finding a good mirror is not always the no-brainer he/she/it/they imply.

Plays havoc on distributing bug fixes as well.

Re:Get it now

[Anonymous Coward]

*rolls eyes*

now you're just flat out being stupid. take the tin foil hat off and breathe. it will be okay.

btw, all those things you mentioned... they'll still be alive and kicking 5 years from now, but by then we'll have better technology to share files with, so it's moot either way.

Re:Get it now

[Anonymous Coward]

single, trusted download site, verses all the little variations

Never heard of MD5SUM eh?

Re:Get it now

[Nom du Keyboard]

Never heard of MD5SUM eh?

Quit being inane. Of coure I've heard of it. A lot of initial download sites don't bother with it, which means there is no authentic MD5 fingerprint.

And when another mirror site doesn't match that value, where is the problem? Impossible to figure out.

Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[autopr0n]

I mean, really. Why do you need much speed in anything other then a 3d game or some high-end server stuff that's going to be running constantly (like a web server or database).

Not to mention C isn't much faster then C# and java for most tasks these days.

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, really. Why do you need much speed in anything other then a 3d game or some high-end server stuff that's going to be running constantly (like a web server or database).

Ummm, so your programs don't eat up all your memory and CPU. Just because it's not a server or a game doesn't excuse sloppy inefficent code. You might as well be running windows xp(tm)

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, really. Why do you need much speed in anything other then a 3d game or some high-end server stuff that's going to be running constantly (like a web server or database).

It's specifically this kind of attitude that makes me have to run a 3ghz pentium4 overclocked with 2 gigs of ram... just to run a word processor. Programming has gotten SO lazy these days. Just imagine if most code was ASM optimized just how BLAZING fast your systems would really be. But no. I like waiting.

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just imagine how much our software would would actually do if everyone wrote in hand optimized ASM. Say goodbye to handy things like instant messaging and video players - we'd still be trying to get basic email clients and such to work. Sorry, but programmer time is much more valuable than a few bucks for hardware upgrades.

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[GnuVince]

Fast is not always good. There are applications you can upgrade, add code, etc. while it's running! The reason why we use so-called slower languages (because languages aren't slow per-se; implementations are fast or slow) is because they often allow us to do much more complex things much more easily. Try to code a regular expression in Assembly, you're still gonna be at it in 2 years. Computers evolve and we now demand more from them, and if it costs a little CPU time, well so be it.

And if you're so smart and good and not lazy, go ahead and write the Assembly version of this program. Now, make sure it can work on all platforms you can get .NET or Mono on (this means Windows, Linux, Mac, Sparcs, x86s, motorollas, alphas, etc.), otherwise it's not as useful.

If you want someone that seems to agree with you, read recent interviews of Chuck Moore. Even the guy who wrote C doesn't use it anymore; Dennis Ritchie uses Aleph.

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's specifically this kind of attitude that makes me have to run a 3ghz pentium4 overclocked with 2 gigs of ram... just to run a word processor.

I think you are exaggerating a little bit--I bet your word processor would run just fine on a 1gz, 256mb computer.

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sloppy inefficient code can be written in any language, asshat.

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[Anonymous Coward]

vi runs just fine on a 386. Why don't you just use that?

Oh, because you want all those point-n-click bells-n-whistles features...

Well, those cost cpu cycles. Sorry.

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't use StarOffice. Problem solved.

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[dspasovski]

Yes, but compare today's word processors with those from 20 years ago, when C/ASM was commonly used. The release schedule was same as now, maybe even longer -- and the project complexity then was far less than todays. Simply, there was more time, and less competition.

When you have to release something yesterday, optimization is the last thing you think of as a programmer - which is a sad fact of today's software industry...

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[Doppler00]

Wrong! If everything was written in asmembly the resulting code would be such a mess, it's likely that it would run several magnitudes slower than something written in Java. 99% of the time, slowdowns are a result of poor algorithms, NOT compiler types.

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you would like .kkrieger then, a 96KB FPS game (bound to get 128KB in the final version). http://www.theprodukkt.com

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[Omega1045]

Hey, poorly written, memory eating code can be very easily written in C (and you might not even know it). In C# (or Java) your application will not eat extra memory as garbage collection takes care of the issue. And C# does get compiled down to machine code.

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is obvious you know very little. There is not much reason to code in Assembly when you have decent C Compilers. Ask yourself; what language are your interpreted languages developed with?

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dennis uses Aleph? Perhaps you are thinking of the old Alef language from Plan9, but that is dead! ComputerHistory.org says it is his favorite language, It was removed for the 3rd release of Plan 9, which was about 4 years ago, and replaced by a new threading library for C.

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[E_elven]

>I mean, really. Why do you need much speed in anything other then a 3d game or some high-end server stuff that's going to be running constantly (like a web server or database).

OR WRITING BYTECODE INTERPRETERS FOR YOU LOT.

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[E_elven]

Er, hand-optimizing ASM and hand-written optimized ASM are two entirely different things.

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[NanoGator]

"I mean, really. Why do you need much speed in anything other then a 3d game or some high-end server stuff that's going to be running constantly (like a web server or database)."

Well in the Linux world it's nearly a must, at least in a general sense. If people rely on other little apps to work to make theirs run (i.e. automation via scripts), then the last thing you want to do is call something a thousand times only to have it grind the computer to a halt.

(Note: The reason I specified Linux as opposed to say Windows is that the Open Source Community does a lot of sharing, from what I understand. Clarification if I'm wrong is gratefully appreciated.)

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[maxwell demon]

Because you must be ready before the RIAA/MPII agents come in to get you.

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[Phurd Phlegm]

Just imagine how much our software would would actually do if everyone wrote in hand optimized ASM. Say goodbye to handy things like instant messaging and video players - we'd still be trying to get basic email clients and such to work. Sorry, but programmer time is much more valuable than a few bucks for hardware upgrades.

Certainly you don't have to write in assembler to make tight, reasonably efficient code. I can't imagine when programmers got the idea that it's reasonable for a user to ever wait to see the result of a mouse click or keystroke, but I regularly see delays of tens of seconds when using Micro$oft Outlook (it's the standard at work).

I got a lot faster response in 1988 using RMAIL inside Emacs on a 20MHz 68020 than I get with a 2GHz machine today. I refuse to believe that we couldn't have a video player if companies exercised a little thought and discipline.

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[OrangeTide]

Generally faster to write is more important than faster to execute (within reason).

On the otherhand I can write C code faster than I can write C# code (faster than most people can write C++ or C# code actually).

The idea that you should use a language with features to help support development is a sound idea. But in practice I see little improvement in time to market over C when I look at C++, C# and Java. And C is actually not that hot either.

Let's turn the argument around. We shouldn't write sloppy and inefficent code. Would writing things in pure assembly be more efficent? It might make more effiecent use of your cpu and memory, but it would make less effiecent use of your time.

Seeing as an hour of my time is worth more than my computer if I were to sell it used on ebay, I'm not so sure people should spend more than a minimum effort optimizing something unless it's going to give back to them.

Of course we could use the Steve Jobs argument. If something takes 20 seconds less time to execute because you optimized it, and if 1 million people used the software once a day. In a year you'd save 3 lifetimes worth of seconds.

20 seconds wasted / 1 day's use of program *
1000000 programs (1 for each person) *
1 lifetime / 2366820000 seconds *
365.26 days / year =

3.07 lifetimes wasted per year

So there is a pretty good argument for optimizing code. (if you can claim that taking 20 seconds longer to do something is "wasted" time). I don't think we have to even work out the numbers of how much time would be "wasted" by a software team of reasonable size if they spent time to optimize the code to remove those 20 seconds. Even if you took 3 times longer to write it, you still wouldn't approach the amount of time a million people take using the software.

But I'm not sure how well that argument works in a free market economy. Your competitors will release software sooner and it will be less effiecent and if consumers don't priorities effiecency then you will be putting effort into something people aren't willing to pay more for. People say they want thier software fast, cheap and reliable. But the spending we see doesn't fit with what they are telling us.

If most of us would only pay for good software, and only for good software. Then programmers will write more good software. (and those who don't will go out of business). It's not that programmers are no longer capable of of writing good software anymore. It's just that consumers have stopped giving us an incentive to do so.

With Open Source software of course the rules are different. Then it boils down to honor, respect and personal pride. Almost all OSS authors have a strong desire for thier peers to respect them. One way of doing that is to spend the extra time writing higher quality software. Of course not all open source software is well written, so please don't think I'm trying to say everything is black and white.

Re:Why do you need speed for a cracking Util?

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who spent literally YEARS programming in assembly at the OS level, I say bull. I've endured far too many bubble sorts that should have never been written in assembly language because even a Shell sort is 3 times as much code and the programmer would rather waste time re-inventing a more "efficient" bubble sort than re-invent a more "efficient" Shell or heapsort.

That plus when I first saw the code coming out of IBM's Pascal/VS, I was astounded. Not only was it maxing out registers to the point that the code was virtually unmaintainable by hand, but every time you changed the source, it re-optimized the entire module top-to-bottom.

It's time we killed off the "assembly==more efficient" myth once and for all.

But it WOULD be nice if programmers were forced to do all their work on '386's, just to keep them honest. Software shouldn't be the product of repeated blows by blunt objects. No matter WHAT language or OS you use.

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Sarth]

Interesting..

I see a blaring difference between a DVD, which does not say 'Thou shalt not', and the iTMS, which does. That, to me, is the key difference. Informed consumers, implied (or explicit) consent to the purchasing guidelines thusly set forth. ymmv, obviously.

My main fear, is that the Big Five will use this, to either show that 'digital distrubution of music is an unsound business model', or something along those lines. BEST case situation now, we come out of this with a much heavier DRM than we have now. End result, only those willing to bend the rules come out ahead -- just like it is now. Thanks, Jon. Much

I'm still curious, though.. DVD Jon can't legally buy from the iTMS, but hes created a tool that lets him listen to iTMS music that has been obtained. Does that strike anyone else as odd? When was the last time you developed a tool that gave you absolutely no benefit?

Almost like me...

[dark-br]

I hope that eventually someone incorporates this code into a iTunes client for Linux, as it would be nice to be able to buy music from iTMS but I have no desire to buy a Mac.

s/desire/money/

Re:Almost like me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop thinking that you can't afford a Mac. Start thinking of how you can afford one.

Re:Almost like me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pillage the local Mac store ?

Site Down?

[Nom du Keyboard]

Looks like the site has been killed, /.'ed, or otherwise died. Why is this no surprise?

Re:Site Down?

[danielblair]

It's Slashdotted!!! Here is MY MIRROR!!! USE IT AND TRY AND MIRROR TO OTHER PLACES SO EVERYONE DOESN'T GO DOWN!!!

http://www.realcoders.org/dedrm/DeDRMS_cs.cs

-Daniel Blair

OT: macs

[legLess]

I hope that eventually someone incorporates this code into a iTunes client for Linux, as it would be nice to be able to buy music from iTMS but I have no desire to buy a Mac.
--
I use Linux because it's like owning a chainsaw compared to owning a pen knife. Not always necessary, but much more fun

I use OS X because, compared with the pen knife of Windows and the chainsaw of Linux, it's a samurai sword. :)

DeDMCA

[Esion Modnar]

Now that would be even way cooler than DeDRMS. Followed by DeRIAA, DeMPAA, and DeSCO.

Would pay money for all of those.

Re: DeDMCA

[Black Parrot]

> DeSCO

You know the old song: "Desco, desco sc0x".

Re:DeDMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

How about DeTomaso then?

It works, but......

[Anonymous Coward]

It works, but you have to open the file with VLC first so the key for it is in the documents and settings\application data\drms directory.

Not really a cracking tool...

[ThePyro]

This tool seems to require that you already have your key stored in a file somewhere. This code just uses that key along with .NET's built-in cryptographic services to decrypt the data and write it back to the file. Seems like getting your hands on the key in the first place would be the hard part...

Re:Not really a cracking tool...

[Chester K]

This code just uses that key along with .NET's built-in cryptographic services to decrypt the data and write it back to the file. Seems like getting your hands on the key in the first place would be the hard part...

VLC will extract your user key and save it into your home directory when you use it to try to play a FairPlay-protected file from an authorized system.

Re:Not really a cracking tool...

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting the keys is easy using the VideoLAN Client.

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[taylortbb]

[i] but iTMS isn't selling to those outside (maybe Canada, I'd have to check)[/i] nope, Apple doesn't sell up here in Canada. We get to browse the iTunes store and listen to music samples but not actually buy anything, but then again, up here music downloading is legal so were not begging for it.

Re:Source code as speech? Wrong

[DAldredge]

Since OBL likes to use humans as the control systems of his weapons I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[The Fanta Menace]

Laws come into play when I throw that apple and kill someone with it. Or try to sell it, claiming it is a pair.

Yes, that's because it's only one apple.

Freenet mirror

[RPoet]

Freenet mirror:

CHK@XTn8vik~xxqsIJzLcDFUlPQqrw4NAwI,griuDFoqruNU 09 1-2Qj8Ew/DeDRMS.cs

(Watch out for space inserted by the slashdot code, remove it)

Re:Freenet mirror

[carpe_noctem]

Wow, freenet mirror? I think it might be faster to wait until tomorrow for when the slashdotting ends....

Re:Freenet mirror

[Almost-Retired]

Now thats a real stinking attitude fur ya. By tomorrow the cease and desist letters will have been delivered air-mail special delivery. Get it now from any one of at least 3 copies I've seen go by.

I'm like a lot of linux folks, I hate to be enjoined from doing something that used to be legal 50 years ago. To be told that I have to go out and buy a Mac just so I can download whatever crappy music they happen to *think* this old fart should like just tells me to forget it altogether.

There's some very good music out there that cannot get published (use the Hiwaymen before they started dieing off for an example) because the older established artists couldn't buy air time to get heard today. Hell, the only way Willie gets any ink is to duet with Toby! And Johnny had 3 or 4 good ones on American IV, only one of which got any airtime. The Man Comes Around was the best one, but its never been heard on the air.

My point is that I OWN those cd's, and once I've paid for them I should be able to do as I please with the contents with the exception of giving away copies, thats patently sick bird and righteously should get your butt into hot water.

But these fsckers now think that they have a God Given Right to a Per Performance Fee. Its not gonna happen if I can help it, so I'll be voting this May, and this November, for people who claim to want to protect the users rights to make copies, in any format, as long as its for his own use.

You would do well to do the same research, balanceing that against that same persons record of protecting the Bill of Rights here in the USA.
Those are more important by far than this, but chances are that someone who protects the Bill of Rights, will also be in our camp on this subject.

Cheers, Gene

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[joeljkp]

"Would be ok for Microsoft to disallow any other browser than IE to be used with Windows? How about dissallowing usage of any other media players beside MS media player?"

Sure, if they wanted to. But Microsoft's a bonified monopoly, and therefore, it's different.

If Be wanted to exclude any other browser from BeOS, well, that's their prerogative. Just don't expect many sales.

Re:OT: macs

[FrYGuY101]

Great. I can see Microsoft's new slogan now:

Windows: The best OS for surgeons

Ok, Carp?

[Hal The Computer]

So you're saying that Microsoft is trying to corner the market on carp? Oh those tricky, tricky bastards.

Microsoft(TM): Where do you want to fish today?

#: pound? hash? rap?

[xski]

No wait, I heard is was the 'rap' symbol.

CODE MIRROR HERE

[blixel]

Enjoy

SharpDevelop

[renelicious]

This is a little offtopic, but since its written in C#, for those of you what don't have Visual Studio and don't want to mess with the command line tools (or don't have Mono on Linux) SharpDevelop is a great C# development product. Its GPL. Again a little of topic, but its always good to pimp your favorite software.

Yes, there's also a Linux version.

Re:SharpDevelop

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

For those of you who don't have VS.NET but do have Windows, Microsoft's own compilers without the IDE are free (though of course not Free).

MS .NET SDK 1.1

What good is code if you can't compile it? I get the feeling that most of you who are passing the code will never use it....

If Apple were smart...

[goMac2500]

They'd make iTunes work under WINE. As a side note I am sick and tired of people complaining that Apple does not let iTunes Music Store songs work under other media players. They do. Any media player can play iTunes Store music using the QuickTime API. All you have to do is write a plugin to interface with QuickTime. I wrote a QuickTime based media player a few years ago. Guess what? I started it up today and it played iTunes Music Store songs just fine. NO modifications. Its my own media player, yet it plays DRM'd music fine, no special un-DRMing.

Re:If Apple were smart...

[Anonymous Coward]

So cough it up smartass.....

Re:If Apple were smart...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right. The most sophisticated thing that guy's ever written is likely to be the troll you just replied to.

Re:If Apple were smart...

[Compenguin]

> Any media player can play iTunes Store music using the QuickTime API. All you have to do is write a plugin to interface with QuickTime.

Too bad they only implement the QuickTime API on Mac and Windows

Re:If Apple were smart...

[foniksonik]

Ah but the problem is that no one can sell a device or software, or even distribute one apparently, that uses the plugin API without a license from Apple. At least one project I know of was killed by Apple for this very reason. Soooo you can roll your own or... there is no or.

If I'm wrong please reply.

Re:If Apple were smart...

[goMac2500]

You obviously can't sell a device without QuickTime. That is a con. There is no royalty for using the QuickTime API on Mac or Windows however. Its been this way forever.

Re:If Apple were smart...

[goMac2500]

D'oh. I meant sell a device WITH QuickTime. Damn typo. :)

Re:If Apple were smart...

[bot24]

But then you have to have a copy of QuickTime installed. I hate that thing! It steals the mime-type associations in your browser. Click here to download(or listen to) a_file.mid...Oops! Were did the page that I was browsing go? All I can see now is this ugly grey bar. It changes the background music embed stuff too. It even makes a little icon in your system tray.

Re:If Apple were smart...

[foniksonik]

Not the Quicktime API, the Hardware Plugin API, I believe... this had to do with circumventing the iTunes Sharing restrictions... a guy made a plugin that simply forwarded out past the local network and allowed sharing directly through iTunes again... here's the link:

http://icommune.sourceforge.net/history/

Re:If Apple were smart...

[goMac2500]

This is the iTunes plugin API. This person reverse engineered this API, which allows different actual imput and output (mp3 players) sources for iTunes.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[CdBee]

There's some sort of karma in the fact that you downloaded that cartoon to make the point...

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[gbjbaanb]

remember that Adams is a man who sells content for a living

Which is why all the people now busily slashdotting the dilbert web site are reading the comic for free :)

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[mst76]

> DVDs don't state at the time of purchase that you have to have X or Y, just that you have to have the disc.

DVDs state at the time of purchase that you have to have a DVD player (and usually even a DVD player of region X). All DVD players needed a license from the DVD consortium, until the DeCSS crack. What's the difference with iTMS?

Hero?

[negacao]

He's a hero?

Google for "the truth about DeCSS John".

Then tell me he's a hero. He's not, he's a thief.

Re:Hero?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, because stuff on the Internet written by Anonymous Cowards is obviously the truth and nothing but the truth.

Once you become famous it's inevitable that some people will post crap about you on the Internet.

libdvdcss, which is used by most, if not all, Open Source DVD players contains code contributed by DVD-Jon (check the libdvdcss AUTHORS file). Not to mention that he actually fights for his rights in court, unlike Anonymous Cowards. That makes him a hero to me.

Re:Hero?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your search - "the truth about DeCSS John" - did not match any documents. You probably meant Jon rather than Jon, but that makes no difference. Oh, leaving out the quotes brings up a lot of results. Postings by people who don't like Jon. Anonymous postings. Well, anonymous postings on the internet - they must be true!

Re:Hero?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't confuse reality with the hype, that's all.

Because of his legal troubles, there was a concerted Public Relations effort, by EFF and others, to paint a halo around dvd-jon's forehead. Thus a windows-using "cracker" became a fair-use-loving "linux developer". If you wanna live your life believing PR bullshit, go ahead.

Also, he never really cracked CSS -- he or someone just found a private key -- the real cracking was done by academics at MIT or somewhere and that's the code that is usually used now days.

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Sarth]

DVDs state at the time of purchase that you have to have a DVD player (and usually even a DVD player of region X). All DVD players needed a license from the DVD consortium, until the DeCSS crack. What's the difference with iTMS?

Two things. You stated that DVDs state that you need a DVD player. In this case, a piece of hardware. DeCSS does not change that fact, the technological restriction as stated on the package holds true.

The second part, being that the Big Five hate the concept of digital media, and we're playing right into their hands, giving them *exactly* what they want. DVD was already fairly well established as a format, an accepted means of transfer. Digital music is NOT, and we're really fscking up its chances because we don't like the way the games being played. If you don't like how the games being played, go home. Don't ruin it for those of us that are enjoying it.

I don't use C# soI am waiting...

[Joey7F]

...for the prime number equivalent.

Thanks,

Joey

Inevitable? So what? Who cares?

[werdna]

make no mistake, copy-prevention is physically impossible, not just difficult

This is like observing that perfect algorithmic encryption, other than a one-time pad is impossible. So what? Who cares? Of course, I can't create a lock-and-key on my house that will keep all thieves out, all the time. So what? Who cares?

Whether or not my door can be physically manufactured to bar you forever from entry, makes it not one whit more legal for you to do so. All locks are rated, not in terms of their binary perfection, but rather in terms of the time and cost to defeat them. So what? Who cares?

You might be able to fool people into thinking you have succeeded, for a short while; but, sooner or later, your lies will catch up with you.

I suppose there are folks who are naive to think they live behind perfect locks. So what? Who cares? Where is the lie? What does it matter that technological solutions can be defeated? They are helpful, and substantially helpful to keep generally honest people honest, and stupid people (who represent most users) out. Smarter, less honest people, can of course get in any time. So what? Who cares?

For those smarter, less honest people, we have laws. Some will be smart enough to circumvent all of them and go free. Most will not.

Security is not a question of binary perfection. It is a question of doing as well as you may. Likewise with digital rights management.

There has always been piracy of musical content. Always. Some good, some bad. So what, who cares?

Just like DeCSS, playfair will be available to the less honest, smarter of us, or rebuilt by those who understand how it works. Those who think that this fact is useful have missed the point. These facts do not help our cause. To the contrary, it only helps those who insist that technology regulation, such as DMCA is required, and prevents the repeal of very bad laws.

Darn, I wish the smarter and less honest of us were just a little bit smarter about the ways of the world. For the smarter, honorable and ideologically motivated of us, such as Mr. J., we should excoriate, not praise, this sort of thing.

Our problem is that our arguments prove too much -- we demonstrate the "necessity" of the DMCAs, certainly to the satisfaction of the governments who will enforce them. The problem is NOT that there exists DRM, the problem is that the DRM is implemented and legally enforced in a manner that limits the scope of good new technology. It is that problem that WE, the technologists will have to solve -- hard or impossible it may be -- because the RIAA and MPAA certainly have no incentive to do so.

Here is a GOOD MIRROR!!!!

[danielblair]

Here is a GOOD MIRROR OF THE CODE!!! USE IT! MIRROR IT! AND POST OTHER MIRRORS!!!!

http://www.realcoders.org/dedrm/DeDRMS_cs.cs

Have Fun Everyone, and remember, please mirror this mirror, and post your new mirrors!

-Daniel Blair

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Hatta]

I see a blaring difference between a DVD, which does not say 'Thou shalt not', and the iTMS, which does. That, to me, is the key difference. Informed consumers, implied (or explicit) consent to the purchasing guidelines thusly set forth. ymmv, obviously.

So you do everything corporations tell you to do? You've never stood on the top rung of a ladder? Or taken a double dose of ibuprofen? Never used a beach ball as a flotation device? Once you buy it, it's yours and no one can justly tell you what to do with it. Not that the justice system is ever just, mind you.

My main fear, is that the Big Five will use this, to either show that 'digital distrubution of music is an unsound business model', or something along those lines. BEST case situation now, we come out of this with a much heavier DRM than we have now. End result, only those willing to bend the rules come out ahead -- just like it is now. Thanks, Jon. Much

Rules are for suckers. If something is morally wrong, good people won't do it anyway. Rules aren't going to stop the dirty ones. So the only reason to have rules is to stop moral people from doing something that's not morally wrong.

Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.

Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience (1849)

Here is a GOOD MIRROR!!!!

[danielblair]

It's Slashdotted!!! Here is MY MIRROR!!! USE IT AND TRY AND MIRROR TO OTHER PLACES SO EVERYONE DOESN'T GO DOWN!!!

http://www.realcoders.org/dedrm/DeDRMS_cs.cs

-Daniel Blair

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[Have Blue]

Actually, I thought panel 7 was mocking the idealist position of "CD sales and rampant copying are both irrelevant, real artists make music because they enjoy it". Personal fulfillment is a poor substitute for paying heating bills (and putting food on the table).

Re:Inevitable? So what? Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble is, all of your arguments re: "See? The DMCA was necessary!" could just as easily have been applied to any number of Jim Crow laws and other legal atrocities.

Sometimes, it's necessary to demonstrate the absurdity and futility of a bad law in order to make the lawmakers (and judges) understand why it's bad. They clearly aren't interested in listening to citizens' complaints alone. Without a means of civil disobedience at our disposal, we're just voices in the wilderness, drowned out by the voices of the **AA lobbyists who FedEx company checks to Washington, DC on a regular basis.

P.S. Trebor sux! :-P

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[mst76]

You stated that DVDs state that you need a DVD player. In this case, a piece of hardware.

A DVD player consists of hardware and software. In a standalone player, they're integrated. On a computer, the software part is installed separately. If you buy a DVD-rom drive, the box will state that it works under Windows. If you buy OEM, you're responsible for the software yourself (and pre-DeCSS, there was no Linux player).

The second part, being that the Big Five hate the concept of digital media, and we're playing right into their hands, giving them *exactly* what they want. DVD was already fairly well established as a format, an accepted means of transfer. Digital music is NOT, and we're really fscking up its chances because we don't like the way the games being played. If you don't like how the games being played, go home. Don't ruin it for those of us that are enjoying it.

As long as the courts haven't decided that Jon broke any laws, he can do as he pleases.

You're counterproductive....

[acamas]

Everybody here seems to be glad about this hack. I'm not...

Please think about it:
1) Apple's DRM Fairplay is rather fair - at least compared to other DRMs. Every "normal" user that simply wants to listen to the music, that he or she bought legally, can do it. You can even burn it on CD and listen to it in your car. The only thing one can criticize it that the only mobile digital music player you can use is the iPod.
2) The music industry still doesn't like digital music. Few days ago I read about the music industry demanding higher charges than 99cents, which in my opinion are quite fair as well.

It was probably not very easy for Apple to convice the music industry of Fairplay being safe enough (think of all their competitors' DRMs). So what will happen now?

a) Apple will be forced to shut down their Music Store
b) Apple will have to update all their songs, the iPod-Software and iTunes. I guess, the new DRM will be more strict....

So what do we get from PlayFair and DeDRMS? A quite reasonable product will be gone.

And you can be sure, this development won't help the music store expanding to the rest of the world, either.

Re:You're counterproductive....

[acamas]

Hi anoymous coward!

Please come off your illusion, before being primitively insulting:
- The music industry wants money for the music they're selling. They won't survive giving you music for free.
- If someone publishes music, that can be spread easily and without protection, they won't tolerate it.
- This has nothing to do with Apple. They don't want DRM, their primary goal is to sell iPods. The music industry wants DRM, and they won't let Apple sell music without DRM.

Believe me, Fairplay will be updated. Having all devices and (legal) media under control, this will be rather easy for apple (at least compared to DVDs). The music industry will put pressure on them otherwise.

Re:You're counterproductive....

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello faggot. You love to have cock inserted in your anus. Just admit it and go home you homo.

Re:You're counterproductive....

[toriver]

Apple's DRM Fairplay is rather fair - at least compared to other DRMs.

That's like saying the Nazi work camps were better than the death camps. They were still concentration camps. (As were the American camps for Japanese-Americans, but that's a different story.)

Re:You're counterproductive....

[maxwell demon]

Well, they could give you the music for free and let you pay for its maintenance.

Or they'd make money with training (a lot of modern music obviously needs training to be able to actually like it).

Or music hardware sellers could develop music to be delivered with their hardware.
With open source music, they wouldn't have to write it new, but could just adapt existing music.

:-)

Re:Inevitable? So what? Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

"See? Those dumb niggers are getting uppity again! Time to enforce the Jim Crow laws!"

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[the_mad_poster]

Oh, I agree completely with that interpretation too. I like to play computer games, but odds are pretty good nobody is going to pay ME to do it. So, I have a real job and I play computer games in my own time.

Actually, same goes for programming. The PHBs ask for stupid things at work, so I do the programming I enjoy on my own time just because. I don't expect to get paid for it, that's what my 9 to 5 is for. I just like doing it.

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Anonymous Coward]

OH! If only I had mod points. +7, definitely (and another +1 for your sig).

Question

[Billly Gates]

What is DeDRMS?

A video format copyright prevention scheme?

Jon is my new hero

Bad/slow code?

[CheshireCat]

It looks like it searches the entire file for the atom identifier to find each atom. Does the container format not have a way to find the first atom, or a table listing all of their positions (the first seems more likely / better designed). It would be more sensible, then, to read the size of each atom and skip to the next one to see if it's the one you want.

Or maybe he just wanted to make it as simple and short as possible...

Re:Inevitable? So what? Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

Another example: if people in the US hadn't voted with their right feet, we'd still be stuck with Federally-mandated 55 MPH speed limits on empty rural Interstates that are perfectly safe at 80+.

Obedience to bad laws is not a particularly-moral act.

Re:Uh...and you loose quality

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and you loose lots of quality in the process. The already bad quality mp4 files will be recompressed to even worse mp3. No thank you.

Linspire's LSongs coded the GUI...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jon coded the core plugin!

making sure nobody will get it

[Bender Unit 22]

Yes, that way we are sure that nobody will be able to get it.

What this does

[EvilGrin666]

For those of you that don't know. It removes the protection from a .m4p file (Downloaded with iTunes) . So basically you end up with a Vanilla AAC file.

Re:What this does

[mrpuffypants]

....which you can then re-import into iTunes, right-click on and say "convert to MP3"

Re:What this does

[danielsfca2]

> ...which you can then re-import into iTunes, right-click on and say "convert to MP3"

...which would make someone an idiot for transcoding music (Hello shitty sound!), and a bigger one for not knowing that AAC is better at any given bitrate anyway.

Non-idiots will use this program to create unencrypted AACs which they will then leave in that format and play on the many media players that support AAC.

If you wanted a shitty-sounding MP3 why not just use Kazaa in the first place?

Re:What this does

[Jon Abbott]

So basically you end up with a Vanilla AAC file.

As long as I don't end up with a Vanilla Ice file, I'll be fine.

Re:What this does

[3terrabyte]

Thank god there are still SOME people out there that understand the probelms of transcoding, and willing to explain it to deaf ears, one person at a time.

Probably a waste of time, considering these are the same people that use crappy ripper/encoders because they're 3 times faster

Re:Inevitable? So what? Who cares?

[flossie]

The difference is, that locksmiths are considered to be professional artisans. It is not illegal for people to know how to break the locks on your house, to possess the tools to do so, or to instruct others in the techniques required. A crime is only committed when someone actually tries to break the lock on your house.

The DMCA is not equivalent to the laws preventing house-breaking. Under the DMCA, it is not even legal to teach someone else how to circumvent the lock. Big difference.

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Scarblac]

So, when you buy something from the iTMS, it STATES that you have to have X or Y. It clearly states the restrictions that you agree to. This is not a hard concept, so why is it felt that a technological solution is required to 'fix' it?

Because, regardless of what it says on the box, it's none of their damn business to tell me what to play it with. Period.

DeSCO

[Stalke]

Here's pseudo-code for DeSCO:

i=1;
while (i==1)
ping www.sco.com;
end

It works best when implemented in a distributed environment like SETA@HOME and other brute force distributed computing efforts.

DUMBSHIT MODERATORS

[Anonymous Coward]

"Offtopic" is not a synonym for "I don't understand the topic of this post, therefore it can't be related to the topic of discussion."

DeSCO

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Now that would be even way cooler than DeDRMS. Followed by DeRIAA, DeMPAA, and DeSCO.

I thought Linus already WROTE DeSCO.

And Netcraft Confirms... (was: Re:SCO says...)

[Anonymous Coward]

It is official; Netcraft confirms: SCO is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO community when IDC confirmed that SCO market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by Accelerating GNU/Linux Adoption in Fortune 1000 companies by filing their lawsuit against GNU/Linux distributions.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood; the only prop to the entire edifice is from licensees who sought to use the lawsuit to their own advantage.

All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among OS know-nothings who get licenses from SCO out of fear. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.

Fact: SCO is dying

Trouble installing .NET Framework

[Ziktar]

Where's the RPM for "Windows Update" again?

Re:Trouble installing .NET Framework

[wasabii]

www.go-mono.com

Re:Trouble installing .NET Framework

[Gopal.V]

bash$ yum install pnet-compiler pnet-interpreter
You'll find it in linuks.org :)
And enjoy the really fast encyrption routines from DotGNU (they are written in C and built into the engine)

offtopic questionb about freenet

[lightspawn]

CHK@XTn8vik~xxqsIJzLcDFUlPQqrw4NAwI,griuDFoqruNU09 1-2Qj8Ew/DeDRMS.cs

(Watch out for the space inserted by the slashdot code, remove it)

Why do you need to post it as text? Isn't there a freenet URI/URL/whatever scheme?

(I'm not that familiar with freenet; but aren't all P2P apps that don't allow you to post a link to a file kinda lame?)

Re:offtopic questionb about freenet

[RPoet]

What you just saw was a Freenet "URL", which obviously has nothing much to do with web URLs as we know them. If you run freenet locally, which most people do, you can most likely press this link, but that depends on your running the Freenet demon on the standard port.

Re:offtopic questionb about freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

yup, "Freenet demon" is accurate

Let me tell you about my tent.

[Weaselmancer]

Reminds me of a story. Let me tell you about my tent.

I like going to SCA events. While we're there, we camp. And that means having all of our expensive gear in our tents, all our food, and our booze. Some of our gear can run in the thousands of dollars.

At my favorite event, we camp near the edge of the camp. And idiots from the local village sneak over the fence and rip us off every so often.

So I made a tent with a locking door. I built a yurt, and built into the frame a full sized, 1/2" thick, wood and iron reinforced door. With a working brass good-enough-for-your-house lock.

And while camping one year, a neighbor made fun of me for my efforts. "There's no way that would keep a determined criminal out," he said. It was still a canvas tent, albeit with a wood lattice frame. You could cut a hole through the canvas and break the lattices, easy. The door was too thin, you could kick it down. The lock could be defeated.

And I explained to him that the point was not to be burglar proof, just more burglar resistant than my neighbors.

At that moment, he was enlightened.

Weaselmancer

Re:Let me tell you about my tent.

[pavera]

Of course, the anology fails miserably in the case of copy prevention.

The village thieves = file sharers
The tents = various DRM vendors

So, if the purpose of creating DRM is to keep your "house" (read copyrights) more protected than your neighbor's, well then all you've done is put yourself out of business because the thieves (file sharers) will all migrate to your neighbor's tents which are less secure.

Thus, no one will buy your DRM, because Apple, MS, Real, all of them will know if they use xyz DRM to distribute their files, no one will purchase from them, so they say lets use abc DRM, it works ok (read 230 lines of code can break it) and people will come to us to purchase music/movies/books/whatever else.

Thus, being more secure than your neighbors when it comes to DRM is simply saying "Hey, we don't really want to be in business, we don't like to sell things to customers".

This I feel is why iTMS has been so successful thus far, yeah the files are DRM, but you don't notice that, it is basically completely seemless, and you can burn cd's of the songs. Most of the other services don't allow burning or they only allow 1 copy to be burned or some other goofy thing. Making the DRM completely seemless like that of course makes it so the DRM can be broken with sub 300 lines of code.

You can't have both, hard to break security means people have to jump through hoops to get at the data. (IE the data center I work at, passcode entry, card entry, and hand scan entry at 3 different doors, just to get into the ante-room where you get another handscan that is much more picky, all of which set off the alarm after 3 repeated misses. All of the doors are time release on the way out, so getting out takes a good 3 minutes, anyway if someone wanted to steal something from inside there it would be a mission impossible type ordeal.

This is the vision that the RIAA and MPAA have for digital distribution... username/password, credit card, age verification, no deDRM software on your computer check, no file sharing programs on your computer check, no media players besides the one we sold you for 49.99 on your computer check, running an OS that we approve of check, and if you successfully pass all those tests ok now that we've charged you 4.99 you can listen to brittany spears again, if you fail any of those tests, they lock down your computer and send out the feds.

Re:Let me tell you about my tent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analogy isn't really accurate or you fail to take it far enough.

What if the lock would only allow you (the owner) to enter the yurt 10 times. Would you still buy it? Maybe, but you'd use a different word for it. Instead saying "I own a yurt that I use at SCA events" you'd say "I rent a yurt at SCA events". Which is really the crux of the matter. Apple claims to sell music, but most people believe that ownership gives them absolute rights over their property.

What if you lost the key? Is it illegal to pick your own lock, or kick your own door in to get your stuff out?

Imagine that your yurt is stored in the garage and the lock on your home breaks. If it's inconvenient to go to the hardware store you may remember that you have a lock set on your yurt and move it to the front door, planning to replace it before the next SCA meeting. You probably wouldn't be too happy if the manufacturer sued you for installing it in an unlicensed location.

Re:Let me tell you about my tent.

[evilviper]

The village thieves = file sharers
The tents = various DRM vendors

Ooooo. This sounds like fun. Let me try...

DRM is like a car on stilts. File sharers are like ants on a turnstyle.

Sooner or later, the stilts are going to break, and the ants are going to be dizzy... Then all that will be left are a million monkeys.

Re:Let me tell you about my tent.

[Weaselmancer]

Of course, the anology fails miserably in the case of copy prevention.

Well, somewhat.

But it wasn't really my point to make a perfect analogy. The poster's article just reminded me of a story. There are similarities, though.

I agree with the original poster, for the most part. Yes, copy protection is snake oil. Just like the lock on my yurt is snake oil.

What I disagree with is this:

Once a single CPT-free version has been created, then every penny anyone ever invested in that particular copy-prevention technology is wasted.

If that's true, then why do all new games still use these busted copy protection shcemes? You still see games released with SafeDisc. Even though if you have the right hardware, it's no big deal to copy them. And don't even get me started on stuff like FlexLM. There's books worth of info on how to bust it, and most expensive cad/engineering stuff uses it still.

The answer is simple, and it's a similar situation to my yurt.

Having even flawed protection is much better than none, and will stop the casual copier. Much like how my easily defeated lock will stop the casual thief.

You and I know that there's always a way to get a digital copy. But because it's difficult to do, that'll stop some people. And business sees those people as future sales, since the copy protection stopped them. So the flawed system keeps getting used.

That was really the only point I wished to make. Even a crappy lock has value.

Weaselmancer

YES!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! It's a reference to the Spanish Inquisition sketch!!!

YAY! YOU GOT IT!!!

You, sir, are an idiot.

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Raunch]

>I don't see the point you're trying to make. DVDs may not explicitly state that you have to do X or Y, but with CSS encryption combined with the DMCA, they might as well.

The point would be the difference between these two situatuins:
When you buy a DVD you do need specific hardware that is not mentioned and that you never agreed to needing, that the DVD actually implies (if not purports) to not need. This is a Bad Thing.

When you buy a iTMS song (you buy nothing, you license it), you agree to certain restictions about how you can use the song you have LICENSED. So, them providing you with a format which you can only use in the way that was specified in the license is perfectly within their rights.

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[main()]

> Or try to sell it, claiming it is a pair.

Arf arf. Claim it's a pair of apples?! But that's nothing like an... oh nevermind.

Re:OT: Sig comment (don't care don't read don't mo

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you haven't read the rules for moderation. He cannot moderate this thread because he has already posted to it.

How appropriate. You post like a cow.

DRM WMA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the program to do the same for protectd WMA files? :-)

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[stienman]

'they' can't tell you what you can and can't do with their products after you purchase them.

And I suspect what many people are missing is that 'they' can tell you what you are allowed to do with copies of their copyright works.

'They' also claim that the only way they can offer these copies of these works for such a low price is by restricting users. You can't re-sell the copy, this is a license to use the copy for a single purpose for a single user, and when the user dies the license dies with them. When I say intended, I simply mean within the law - broadcasting a movie purchased for home use is illegal, for instance. Showing it to a group inside your home is fine. This is a different area of copyright law.

However, and this is the sticking point - the gaping hole in the copyright law - many claim that they should be able to purchase the work and then use it for its intended purpose and follow all rights and rules pertaining to the license except the one telling them how they use it for its intended purpose. This is the vehicle they use to take the work and actually view/listen/read/etc

So a blind person may employ a book reader (be it a person, computer, etc) to read a book, which is a copyrighted work. This is called fair use. Not fully applicable, though, as the book seller doesn't have a shrink wrap license when the item is sold.

The DVD is a shade of gray away. Linux users wanted to be able to view their DVDs on Linux. They created software that allowed them to do so. As in the book example, there is no license applied when the DVD is opened or purchased. However, a cheap dvd player/tv combo is under $100. DVD makers can easily make the argument that basic DVD playing requies a minimum investement in hardware, and therefore there is no compelling need to enable Linux DVD playing, nor is there a need to permit this kind of fair use. If they want to watch DVDs, then they should have no reason to break the encryption - it's cheap to do so using completely legal methods.

In this case, however, there's a license. The songs are cheap. But even more so than with DVDs, there is no 'cheap' solution allowing customers to listen to legally purchased iTunes tracks. They must have a computer compatable with the system, and if they want portable tunes they have to have an ipod. In this case all Aple could claim against this utility is that the minimum cost of listening to their product is $500, and that their license bind customers to this level of entry into the playing field.

So what does 'fair use' mean? Does it mean that the customer has the power to use any means they choose to use the copyrighted work for its intended use, be it a computer, pen and paper decryption, loading it on another portable player, etc? Or does it mean that as long as the distributer of the copyright provides reasonable means to enjoy the work then the distributer can legitimately restrict users from using their work in a more flexible way? If so, what is reasonable? Can that be based on convenience, cost, accesability, etc? This is the area where all these 'de' programs are aiming. The more we get, the better defined this area will become - which is a good thing.

-Adam

Re:Inevitable? So what? Who cares?

[werdna]

Sometimes, it's necessary to demonstrate the absurdity and futility of a bad law in order to make the lawmakers (and judges) understand why it's bad.

And as a guy who has actually lobbied against technology regulation, I am here to tell you that the present "demonstration" does not evidence badness of the technology regulation. Indeed, content people use precisely these circumstances, and again, I am here to tell you it persuades, to evidence that they need the regulation as well as technology to survive.

I am well-versed in the arguments against. I am simply telling you that they do not move legislators to repeal technology regulation, and tend to the contrary, to get them to consider even stranger more desperate bills like last year's spate of "stupid Hollings bills."

Consider this -- How, exactly, does showing that you can pick a lock prove the absurdity and futility of laws making it a crime to own a lock pick? Sure, I can find counterarguments, and you can too, but none that would make men change a vote. And I'm a pretty good advocate as these things go.

This doesen't help.

P.S. Thanks for the litref :)

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[cpu_fusion]

Exactly. There was a strip along the same lines a while back. Wally said something like "everything should be available free on the internet and creators should make their money from tips." Someone, I don't remember who, replied, "Great idea, we should try that with engineers."

We have that already... it's called open source. ;)

Increase my karma, please

[null etc.]

Everyone on this thread seems to be getting modded as 4 or 5, so: me too, please!

Not everywhere . . .

[werdna]

No, possession of lock picks actually triggers criminal responsibility in some -- certainly not all -- states. Unlicensed possession in others.

And there are plenty of crimes for which mere possession is a crime. The analogy wars fail, at least, to provide a clear and persuasive response.

(I have pointed out in the past that mere possession needn't constitute a crime everywhere in lobbying against this legislation. I'm here to tell you that the argument does not win the day, at least when you measure votes in Congress.)

This is how to compile it for FREE

[$exyNerdie]

Follow the steps to compile and run it:
(1) Get the source code (at your own risk) and save it as DeDRMS.cs
(2) Download and Install the NET Framework SDK for FREE (reqiures Windows 2000, Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP).
(3) Use the included compiler csc.exe to compile the source code into executable code. Use this on command line (dos prompt) C:>csc DeDRMS.cs OR C:>csc.exe DeDRMS.cs
(4) It will create DeDRMS.exe in the same folder where you saved DeDRMS.cs.
(5) Profit or Jail??

Re:This is how to compile it for FREE

[Autumnmist]

It compiles fine for me, but I get this error. Bizarre.

Exception: Could not find file "C:\Documents and Settings\username\Application Data\drms\03294E03.001".

One other thought . . .

[werdna]

Can you identify a single, lawful use of playfair?

Re:One other thought . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

"playing music on my damn platform".

It's not as if you don't need the key to decrypt the file.

Re:One other thought . . .

[BCoates]

Not having to worry about losing my DRM key or a random "software update" breaking my DRM and locking me out of my music.

Burining to CD in a manner of my choice instead of jumping through hoops.

Re:One other thought . . .

[Otto]

Can you identify a single, lawful use of playfair?

Making it possible to transcode the song into an MP3 in order to put it onto an MP3 player other than an iPod (and without wasting an audio CD to do it).

Making it possible to transcode the song into any other format in order to achieve compatibility with any other music playing device at all, for that matter. No need to limit it to MP3 players, really. Essentially, M4P's are only playable by iTunes and the iPod. Other programs that can play them now *all* use the code that DVDJon came up with, in one form or another. Apple hasn't licensed that ability to anybody. RealPlayer can now play M4P's, in fact... They're probably violating the GPL, now that I think about it...

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Ralph Yarro]

I'm still curious, though.. DVD Jon can't legally buy from the iTMS

Nice to encounter a Slashdot poster with the necessary expertise to give advice on Norwegian law. Could you provide some of the necessary cites to help educate the rest of us? TIA

So what?

[brunes69]

- It' s also impossible ot get Windows without SSl libraries you could link against that contain AES

- It's also (nearly) impossible to get a Linux distro with OpenSSL libraries that contain AES you could link against

Using C# is not saving you any coding here; at best it is saving you from having to link yourself.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You insensitive clod! What if I'm stuck with Solaris, Tru64, Irix, HP-UX, or Darwin? Where would I find the OpenSSL libraries then?

I'm only being sort of funny. I'm sick of people who think that the only two operating systems of merit are Windows (or WINE) and Linux. Granted you're going to have a hell of a time compiling Mono under anything on that list other than Solaris.

Or for those of you on a Linux box

[dethl]

1. Get and compile Mono (emerge mono for those of you with Gentoo). 2. In the command line, type: mcs DeDRMS.cs 3. Then type: mono DeDRMS.exe There ya go!

Re:Or for those of you on a Linux box

[GiMP]

Or with debian:

apt-get install mono binfmt-support
mcs DeDRMS.cs ./DeDRMS.exe

Re:Or for those of you on a Linux box

[Anonymous Coward]

4/27/2004 ...in other news, the web site "Slashdot" was taken down by federal law enforcement officers yesterday due to...

Binary available here!

[Anonymous Coward]

Compiled Binary for Windows 2000/NT/XP
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~astern/DeDRMS .exe
7.00 KB

C# Source
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~astern/DeDRMS.cs
7.21 KB

Andrew
astern at s f s u dot edu

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Sarth]

Hm. Perhaps legally was not the correct term? What term would you suggest, in light of the following (I'm always looking for a bit of enlightenment?)

iTunes Terms of Sale

By all means, allow me to help you find the interesting parts.

U.S. SALES ONLY Purchases from the iTunes Music Store are available only in the United States and are not available in any other location. You agree not to use or attempt to use the service from outside of the available territory.

Lets not forget...

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.

Okay. So this is what you're telling me that DVD Jon agreed to? He always struck me as being smart enough to read, so does that imply otherwise, or is it simply a matter of the nuclear genie?

Sad, really. People here talk about Apple Apologists.. I wonder about the OSS Appologists, though.

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[SiliconEntity]

I think that basically what you're missing is that 'they' can't tell you what you can and can't do with their products after you purchase them.

Maybe they can't tell you, but what if they ask you to observe certain restrictions in exchange for what they're giving you, and you agree? You don't feel bound by your word? You think it's okay to make a promise and then break it just because you feel like it, and they can't stop you?

Or maybe you think that some President, or Legislature, or King has the power to pass a proclamation and suddenly you are not bound by your promises, you can lie and falsify and break your word, and you have no moral obligation because the King said so? How could some politician or government official acquire this kind of moral authority, that at a stroke he can absolve all his subjects of the ethical necessity to honestly keep their word?

I would think this kind of authority would come only from a Higher Power. Show me where in your moral code it says that it's okay to break your promises as long as you can get away with it?

Compiled Binary available here

[Anonymous Coward]

I have mirrored the code and a binary version for Win platforms.

Compiled Binary for Windows 2000/NT/XP
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~astern/DeDRMS .exe
7.00 KB

C# Source
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~astern/DeDRMS.cs
7.21 KB

Andrew
astern at s f s u dot edu

Mod Parent Up

[fupeg]

It is a major flaw in C# that has been "spun" as a by-design feature. The only design justification for it is that it makes it easier for VB programmers to switch.

Apple can bite me

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw that.

On Windows Apple can write a directshow filter so quicktime can be called by anything already written for Windows multimedia playback.

Why should I have to rewrite my playback components so Apple can have a pop-up ad telling me to buy quicktime plus?

Microsoft provided a standard interface that at one point Apple and Real both used, now it's set up that everyone must go download those piece of crap programs known as RealPlayer and QuickTime player.

ALL TO SHOVE MORE ADVERTISING AT YOU.

Re:Apple can bite me

[Lehk228]

you never installed Klite codec pack did you? It comes with a good QuickTime codec and a Fair RealPlayer Codec(Streaming flaky)

Re:Apple can bite me

[goMac2500]

Ummmm... The "Register" pop up is for QuickTime player, not QuickTime. It only pops up for the QuickTime player. Using the API doesn't show any nag dialog, and gives you access to all the features of QuickTime Pro in code. I can import and export all I want using my own code WITHOUT QuickTime Pro.

Re:Apple can bite me

[iMacGuy]

That's because he just copied the QuickTime binary into it (this is the same reason it has "3ivx support").

DeRMS

[moosesocks]

Thought the headline read "DeRMS".

I'm sure most of the people up at MIT would love a DeRMS program.

This is a mistake.....

[rspress]

This is a mistake but I must ask anyway. Is there a way to compile this to run under OS X?

If so what would be needed. Would Xcode work? Convert it under Unix and compile it with gcc?

OK you may not flame me for asking a stupid question.

Re:This is a mistake.....

[TrashGod]

Mono is available from Darwin Ports,, among others.
Not that I've tried it:-)

Re:This is a mistake.....

[rspress]

Thanks for the heads up. I could not find it via fink but as you stated it was there on Darwin ports. I will give it a try.

Thanx again!

You do have a right - like burning a CD maybe?

[iamacat]

Relax, iTMS already lets you do anything you would want by burning a CD-RW and ripping it again. Save your energy from obnoxious forms of DRM, like software copy protection.

And if you find a way to eliminate the extra inconvinient step, just enjoy it quietly, don't break the copyright law and don't encourage other people to break it. This way both you and Apple will be happy. Shhhh...

If you don't like their file protection scheme

[Diabolus777]

Why do you buy from them?

Boycott and spread the knowledge instead of relying on other people to do the right thing.

Comments Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not one comment in his code. My college professors would never let me get away with that.

Anyone managed to get this to work yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I compiled it with Mono's mcs on my Win2K box, and it gives me the message (for example):

C:\iTunes\ALICEI~1\Dirt>dedrms "05 Rooster 1.m4p"
Exception: Could not find a part of the path "C:\Documents and Settings\administrator\Application Data\drms\03293A28.001".

There are no "drms" folders anywhere on my machine, hidden or otherwise. Similarly, that file (03293a28.001) doesn't exist anywhere.

Any workarounds?

Re:Anyone managed to get this to work yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

you need to run videolan to get they key. i decrypted one of my files but ir eally cant test it since i'm still using itunes to play it so i dont know if the decryption was really taken off.

Re:Anyone managed to get this to work yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell is "videolan"?

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[theLOUDroom]

First, there are all the people who go snag copies of music because they're too a) lazy, b) stupid, c) cheap, or d) all of the above to either go buy a copy or just not buy it at all

Bullshit. There are three options:

1. Listen to RIAA music and pay
2. Listen to RIAA music and not pay
3. Don't listen to RIAA music

Now, if you're a true music lover, option 3 is just out of the question. I could happily go the rest of my life without ever listening the newest Backstreet Boys album, but there's no way in hell I'm going to not listen to say Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix.

So now the choice is between #1 and #2. So, one might decide to think about the consequences of choice #1 vs. #2. Sure, you're supposed to pay, but some people actually care where that money goes. How out of control would the RIAA have to get before you stopped giving them money?
-Would they need to start physically assaulting artists who don't sign with them?
-Would $5 of every purchase need to go towards the clubbing of baby seals?
-What if they used 100% of their profits to sponsor domestic and international terrorism?

You see, there's the law, and then there's what's right. The RIAA's business model consists of creating artificial scarcity and monopolizing distribution channels as well as buying off politicians.
They are criminals.
The only reason they're not in jail is because they stole a small amount of money from a large number of people, and corporate crime is not taken seriously here.
No matter how much they've stolen from you via their actions, the most you're ever going to see is $20.

What would be interesting to see is a fair turnabout of that judgement, where the most they can ever get from some file-sharer is $20.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. There was a strip along the same lines a while back. Wally said something like "everything should be available free on the internet and creators should make their money from tips." Someone, I don't remember who, replied, "Great idea, we should try that with engineers."

We have that already... it's called open source. ;)

That was a burn if I ever saw one :P

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Anonymous Coward]

(and usually even a DVD player of region X)

Unless you shop carefully, and then install a firmware from someplace where the region codes are not legal.

Re:Inevitable? So what? Who cares?

[Famatra]

You miss the point entirely, i think.

The point is that trying to shore up the artifical barrier that is copyright with protection schemes is tilting at windmills, it will not work.

Since it will not work it is time to stop wasting time dicking around and locking people up in jail and instead get on with the task of coming up with a business model that works.

With technologies like Freenet coming online, unless you outlaw P2P the business model of scarce information is dead.

How about

[Z-MaxX]

this image. 8-)

Ah! I was wondering when round 3 was soming

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahahah ok so THIS is round number 3 and ya all wonder why Unix is my platform of choice (MacOS X/FreeBSD biased-LONG story...basicly FreeBSD saved me from getting tossed out of school something about homework).

Replying to first post

[Anonymous Coward]

... so people will actually see this.

I compiled it on my Win2K box and got the following message:

C:\iTunes\ALICEI~1\Dirt>dedrms "05 Rooster 1.m4p"
Exception: Could not find a part of the path "C:\Documents and Settings\administ rator\Application Data\drms\03293A28.001".

Upon surfing Johansen's site, I found the following readme that the Slashdot submitter failed to mention:

Compiling:

* With MonoDevelop [1]: Open DeDRMS.cmbx and click F8.
* With mcs [2]: mcs -out:DeDRMS.exe *.cs
* With csc [3]: csc /out:DeDRMS.exe *.cs

[1] http://www.monodevelop.org
[2] http://www.go-mono.com
[3] http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/technologyi nfo/howtoget/

Usage:

* DeDRMS.exe file.m4p

Notes:

DeDRMS requires that you already have the user key file(s) for
your files. The user key file(s) can be generated by playing
your files with the VideoLAN Client [1][2].

DeDRMS does not remove the UserID, name and email address.
The purpose of DeDRMS is to enable Fair Use, not facilitate
copyright infringement.

[1] http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
[2] http://wiki.videolan.org/tiki-read_article.php?art icleId=5

2004-04-25 == Jon Lech Johansen ====

So it sounds like you have to run some lame-ass VideoLAN doohickey before DeDRMS will work.

Gee, tres impressive. Tell you what, Jon... call me when you have a standalone M4P2MP3.EXE ready to go. Right now, all of the circumvention hacks for iTunes are way more of a hassle than just burning your tracks to CD and re-ripping them to MP3.

Re:Replying to first post

[Chupa]

It's impressive how you can call up so much indignance over something that cost you nothing.

Whenever you get through whining, you might like to know that you only run VideoLan *once*, to get the key for your account/computer. Then all tracks you have purchased with that account can be decoded with that key. VideoLAN is not something you have to run once for every file.

Re:Replying to first post

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, fine, but that's not what Jon's own readme says. It's telling me the key is generated by "playing the files," in his own words. That made me think I need to play each track. If that's not the case, then I apologize for being mistaken.

I haven't tried the VLC client yet, but will give it a shot.

Re:Replying to first post

[parksie]

Why on earth you'd want to transcode from .m4a to .mp3 is totally beyond me (think quality losses). The only thing you should need is to strip out the encryption.

Re:Replying to first post

[Anonymous Coward]

Very few devices play .m4a or .m4p files, including the .mp3 player in my car.

At 192 kbps there's no perceptible quality loss, at least not to me, and that's all that matters, isn't it?

PLEASE MOD PARENT UP... README OMITTED FROM STORY

[Anonymous Coward]

No text

Why C# can outperform C/C++

[ca1v1n]

Remember that research that found that emulating the underlying hardware with a sufficiently intelligent userland dynamic profiler was usually faster than running directly on the underlying hardware? The dynamic profiler can optimize like no compiler will ever be able to do with static analysis. It's a similar principle to what Transmeta does with their x86 emulation. Modern Just-In-Time Compilers use dynamic profiling to accelerate things, and they're getting quite good. It's certainly quite possible to design a C# vector class that's both more memory and processor efficient in most cases than C++. Here's how:

1) Record in the virtual machine/JIT every time a vector gets resized.
2) Based on the pattern of resizing, speculatively allocate for new vectors/resizes as much memory as they'll ever need, or at least as much as they'll need any time soon.
3) When you guess wrong about a speculative allocation, adjust your speculation.

C++ doubles the amount of space allocated for a vector (or queue, or list, or stack, or dequeue, or binary heap, etc) whenever a resize exceeds the amount already allocated, unless you know enough to tell it to do otherwise. This keeps the amortized cost of increasing size by one constant. C++ doesn't benefit from profiling like C# does because there's no virtual machine that can change what binary code is actually sent to the processor. You could hack vector profiling together yourself, but it would be slow. Of course, this doesn't really help C# if you're never resizing your vectors, but that doesn't mean C# can't do better than C, even if C++ will have it beat. If you've ever done much benchmarking of the C++ STL, you know that it's usually faster than otherwise identical code written with arrays, which shouldn't be possible, since the array access code can be done fairly easily in assembly without virtual function table lookups and such, but nonetheless is quite real.

The trick to this whole scheme is doing the speculation quickly and accurately. We may not be to the point yet where JIT code reliably outperforms statically compiled code in less space, but there are an army of extraordinarily intelligent grad students out there writing dissertations on the topic, and I assure you they'll make it happen.

Re:Why C# can outperform C/C++

[Cthefuture]

It's certainly quite possible to design a C# vector class that's both more memory and processor efficient in most cases than C++. Here's how:

You mean you've implemented this in C#? Or are you saying what you could do?

Sorry but there's no way to do it in the current C# implementation. You can't even get access to the memory allocators. There is no C# data structure that can tightly pack data in memory while still being dynamic. The best you can do is an array of struct's which is about as efficient as C/C++ but is absolutely not dynamic without causing a ton of overhead (eg. there is no realloc in C#).

If you can do it in C# then show me some code.

C++ doubles the amount of space allocated for a vector (or queue, or list, or stack, or dequeue, or binary heap, etc) whenever a resize exceeds the amount already allocated, unless you know enough to tell it to do otherwise.

You're talking about the default vector allocator. STL is extremely dynamic, you do not have to use to the default allocator if you don't want you. You can be extremely flexible here for whatever you need and design anything you want.

If you've ever done much benchmarking of the C++ STL, you know that it's usually faster than otherwise identical code written with arrays, which shouldn't be possible, since the array access code can be done fairly easily in assembly without virtual function table lookups and such, but nonetheless is quite real.

Actually, I have, and you're wrong. So me an example and I'll show you why your array code is slower than the C++ version.

Virtual function lookups?! Do you even know how the STL is designed or how C++ works? Now I'm not sure why I bothered with the rest of what I wrote above.

Re:Why C# can outperform C/C++

[Anonymous Coward]

you want speed? use the intel compiler.

and after you're done,

please shut the fuck up.

Re:Why C# can outperform C/C++

[richy k]

1) Record in the virtual machine/JIT every time a vector gets resized.
2) Based on the pattern of resizing, speculatively allocate for new vectors/resizes as much memory as they'll ever need, or at least as much as they'll need any time soon.
3) When you guess wrong about a speculative allocation, adjust your speculation.

Very true, indeed. The only thing that is missing in this analysis is this: why can all this not be done with a static compiler when you design your class such as to record usage patterns and resize based on previous resizes?

Well, the answer is: it can. You can design a class Vector<T> in C++ which behaves exactly the way you describe. The Holy Standard doesn't even demand allocation in powers of two. What you describe may even be the internal implementation of a perfectly valid std::vector<T>. If it hasn't been done already it is most likely because it is too clever. A simpler allocation in powers of two is extremely robust to worst cases caused by weird usage patterns.

Re:Why C# can outperform C/C++

[zero_offset]

You mean you've implemented this in C#? Or are you saying what you could do?
Sorry but there's no way to do it in the current C# implementation.

He described changes to the JIT... in other words, he is proposing something for use by C#, not necessarily something written in C# itself.

Re:Why C# can outperform C/C++

[maxwell demon]

C++ doubles the amount of space allocated for a vector (or queue, or list, or stack, or dequeue, or binary heap, etc) whenever a resize exceeds the amount already allocated, unless you know enough to tell it to do otherwise.

This statement is quite wrong, sorry.

It's the least wrong for vector, where size in all implementations is indeed multiplied by a constant factor (which is implementation dependent and may happen to be 2 in your implementation). However, the standard doesn't explicitly require it, it only requires amortized constant time for push_back. Multiplying size with a constant factor is an easy and portable way to do so, but there's nothing in the standard which precludes using advanced tricks (e.g. playing with the virtual memory page tables instead of actually copying data, as long as the as-if rule doesn't get violated, and of course also using runtime profiling). And of course, there's no need that the allocation pattern from the program's view is the same as the actual memory allocation pattern (as simple example, take a pool allocator, but allocators based on runtime statistics are certainly allowed, too).

Now, for deque and list you are as wrong as you can be: The standard not only doesn't demand it, but isn't even designed for that pattern. Deque allocates blocks of constant size, and list allocates all nodes independently.

And for stack and queue, you're wrong in another way: They are not containers themselves, but merely adaptors. That is, they use their memory as efficiently/unefficiently as the underlying container used (which may be any standard sequence container, or a custom container with the required interface).

And finally, given that C++ can be compiled to .NET, with C++ you always can get the best: If the VM really can outperform the native code, compile to VM. If not (and be it just because your platform has a bad implementation of the VM), compile it native. Therefore C# cannot outperform C++ just because of the VM: If the VM is faster, just compile your C++ code to it.

Re:Why C# can outperform C/C++

[ca1v1n]

For portability reasons, implementing vector with a non-integer multiplier is a bad idea, and for efficiency reasons, using a multiplier larger than 3 is a bad idea. This doesn't stop you from tweaking things yourself, but this is once again something that you're better off letting a VM do for you, since it will almost always guess at least as well as you at little expense, and will save you lots of time and debugging. Some of the tricks you described sound almost like reimplementing the VM inside your application, in which case you're better off using one that's already written and heavily optimized.

As for the containers and adapters, deque requires amortized constant time push_front and push_back as well as random access. While you could reimplement page tables in your deque class, that's certainly an ugly way of doing it. The standard is written loosely enough to describe the scheme you describe, but it's typically implemented with something resembling a vector under the hood. List may have been intended to be implemented as a traditional C-style linked list, and again the standard leaves a lot of freedom to implementors, but it's typically implemented with array-like memory under the hood. The standard only requires that inserts take amortized constant time, and random access is not allowed, so there are a lot of tricks you can do with this. By doing it with arrays/vectors, you reduce memory needs (at least for doubly-linked lists) and most importantly, preserve spatial locality that keeps your cache hit ratio extremely high. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the vector-like list implementation is common and fast. Stack and queue generally use whatever deque uses. Sure, you can tweak this yourself, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

That's the point of the end of the sentence you quoted "unless you know enough to tell it to do otherwise". Usually you don't, and most of the time when you do, the performance gain is meager compared to a smart compiler, VM, and JIT.

I completely agree with you about C++.NET. I was contrasting VM languages with non-VM languages, and I still think of C++ as a non-VM language. I think of the VM as providing a huge win for 99% of all application development.

Re:OT: Sig comment (don't care don't read don't mo

[mog007]

A slashdot reader not reading the rules?

You must be new here.

The needs of the many

[Anonymous Coward]

outweigh the needs of the few.... or the one....

Just as Spock sacrificed himself, we need people to sacrifice themselves to lawsuits for the benefit of those who oppose copy protection. Our DeCSS friend is one of those people. What we need to do is post his code to thousands of independant web and ftp servers.

If we get a few thousand webmasters to host all sorts of anti-DRM tools and to ignore all cease and desist letters, I believe it will become too much work for the tyrants who are really depending on scare tactics.

Also, everybody here MUST download every decent anti-DRM tool they can find, even those they have no intention of using. In essence, a library. We need to make it hard for our enemies to pry our anti-DRM tools from our hands. As of now, the only way they will do this is to get people to remove these tools from web servers.

In fact, if we get an underground mailing list put together and get some volunteers, we could have copies of new anti-DRM tools emailed to subscribers as they are released.

But all this public disobedience will not prevail unless there are a hundreds or maybe thousands who are willing to succumb to lawsuits. And if they are going to sue everyone who does this, we need to make sure the damage is done, and is done well.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[strider_starslayer]

I have to agree with the others in this thread, this simple comic provides a LOT of different points of view leading to the downfall of it's subject 'pop singer', only one of which was illegal downloading (Though they did mention it twice; however I think that that was to set up that he has to explain the exact same situation to every individual he meets)

It's a comic so several factors are being blown out of proportion to point out what's stoping true artists from producing music in this day and age.
1- People download there crap; when your a tiny flash in the pan that only has the POTENITAL to make it big, this could be a major problem (in the comic this is blown out of proportion to say that EVERYONE downloaded his CD and he diden't sell a single copy)
2- The producers rob you blind in order to 'promote' your music (This is blown out of proportion because he made no money off CDs so the producer stole all his existing money; though artists are often forced to pay exuberant bills for there productions in advance in the hope that they sell well)
3- There is saturdation in the market making it so that live performers don't gather the audiences they could; since there lost in a sea of a 'cookie-cutter' musicians (blown out of proportion to say that he could NEVER perform live due to lack of venue)
4- Often real life stops artists who can't live off there music from producing music (Blown out of proportion to say that he had to burn his gutar to keep warm)

I, for one, welcome our new JIT Compiler overlords

[ca1v1n]

Remember the Unix philosophy, "Worse is Better"? The idea was that by writing lots of small things that do one thing each and do them well, the performance hit that comes from linking them all together is less than the speedup from hardware advance in the time it takes for the monolithic developer to get everything right. As a pleasant side effect, the bugs are a hell of a lot easier to fix, and if some component is horribly broken and the maintainer won't fix it, you can rip it out and replace it with something that has similar functionality.

The reason you need a 3GHz P4 with 2GB of RAM is that so many developers have taken to linking together things that are much more like entire monolithic applications just to integrate very simple functionality.

The introduction of modern programming languages like C# and Java allows us to effectively turn back the clock 30 years on code bloat, since the important stuff is now part of the language and can be handled intelligently by the compiler without everyone writing their own differently broken implementation. If you read his code, you'll note that Rijndael is a part of the standard libraries. Because of that, he managed to write the whole thing in 210 lines of whitespace-heavy code, and the bytecode compiler will link in the bare minimum to run the program, and the JIT will cache of that only what is actually running, incurring a significant performance hit if and only if something exceptional happens, in which case performance is probably not a serious concern anyway.

That said, it is most certainly possible to write bloated C# code, but in my experience, you always win when you let the language/compiler do something for you, instead of writing your own or using external libraries.

CORRECTION -- IT WORKS

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone pointed out below, you only have to run the VideoLAN client on your machine once, after which DeDRMS works properly on all files.

Appy polly loggies for the unnecessary flame.

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[strider_starslayer]

Bhuddists are told to 'walk the middel path' that means ocassionally having to do things you siad you would not do before in order to maintain your 'balance' on the middel path.

Taoists are told to 'do what is most natural' 'enjoy life' or 'do what feels right'; if that means breaking your word to a faceless organization, or even a loved one- then it it what you should do (In taoist theroy if you allwase follow what feels most 'right' you will never have regrets later)

Rasputin's special form of christianity relied on the concept that in order to understand gods will you should be as evil and wrong as you can be in life, ask for forgiveness on your deathbed, and the come one step closer to understanding gods unlimited love, because he will forgive you

Regular christianinity states that you should worship no god other then the one god, and that worship of a false god is a crime, if your dedication to certain media players because of there ability to play your DRMed information starts bordering on what others might call worship- it would be most safe to avoid those players; and hence remove the DRM so that your songs can be used in other ones

Many sects of judaisim have very strict notes on what constitutes 'work' on the sabbath- including the number of keytypes on a keyboard; if playing your music constitutes as work then you need to either go without music or convert them to something that will not constitute work (on a day which is not saturday though)

There are, I am sure many more examples; but these are the most glaring ones that poped into my mind.

Another crack?

[sonofuse]

Ya gotta love this guy. What else can I say... Before long M$ will hire you Jon for a million or so a year just to keep you dormant.

Re:Another crack?

[gurumeditationerror]

Before long M$ will hire you Jon for a million or so a year just to keep you dormant.

If you wanted him to stay quiet enough to pay that kind of money wouldn't you be more likely to have him knocked off?

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[the_mad_poster]

If you actually believe that people are justified in ripping off songs, you're just an idiot, plain and simple. You don't like the business, or you don't like the music, you don't buy the product. It doesn't really get any simpler than that. They're asking a price, they're getting that price. You can't steal things just because you personally think that price is too high. Do you steal Gucci off the racks? Do you steal Porsches from dealerships? Do you steal Nikes from department stores? All of those things are overpriced only because they can fetch the prices they do from stupid consumers with more money than brains. I'm sure each of those companies have more than a few skeletons in their closets, and, hell, Nikes production frequently gets outsourced to child labor sweatshops. I'd say that's a bit worse than the RIAA ripping off some dumbshit band that didn't bother to read the fucking contract it signed.

Give it a rest. You can't justify stealing music based on what the recording industry is doing right now. You either support it, or you don't. Dumbass consumers keep paying exhorbitant prices for rehashed bullshit. That's their perogative. If you don't like it, just don't buy it. Give the "oh, I'm just fighting the good fight by ripping off copyright" bullshit a rest. You're not. You're just violating copyright. Nothing more.

Incidentally, I haven't purchased more than half a dozen CDs at retail in the last 3 years. I've given almost nothing to the RIAA recently, so don't talk to me about "when" I'll stop sending them money.

Nice code

[mattgreen]

Heaven forbid a cracking utility's source code actually be readable! I dare say the code is beautiful as it is and a testament to higher-level langauges. I am also pleased that someone like DVD Jon would use it instead of clinging to old technology (C) with shallow hopes of maintaining an 'elite' image.

Acoustical Version?

[kyoko21]

So how long will we have to wait before someone sings this into an acoustical version that *maybe* will be a top 40 hit? Well, maybe not top 40, but a lyrical version would still be great. :-)

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Our founding fathers believed in civil disobedience, which is why England doesnt rule America anymore.

Now since we all hate the DMCA, if we break it we might be able to change it, BUT we have to be prepared what will come at us first.

You're naive

[achurch]

By saying Apple's DRM is good, you're falling right into the content companies' "trap" (scare quotes because I'm not convinced it was intentional, though the result is still the same). This is the same way many bad laws get passed: proponents of the bad law propose a law that's several times worse, wait for the backlash, then "fall back" to what they wanted to push through in the first place--and most people will agree that it's an improvement and let it go.

Distribution of copyrighted material is already illegal. DRM can always be circumvented. People will probably be willing to pay reasonable prices for songs online if they're guaranteed quality and the freedom to do what they want with the file, though I'll grant that payment methods are still a mostly unresolved issue. Hence there's no need for DRM, and even DRM as "fair" as Apple's is an improper infringement on users' rights. (Unless you believe content really belongs to the creators rather than to the culture--but that's not the stance the Framers took.)

I'm reminded of an old saying I heard about negotiation tactics: "If you want Australia, ask for the world and give away five continents."

Re:You're naive

[meringuoid]

"If you want Australia, ask for the world and give away five continents."

I find that 'If you want Australia, help out some rogue Kryptonians and ask nicely' usually works just as well.

Re:You're naive

[acamas]

I doubt, that there will ever be music without DRM legally available. File sharing makes it in my opinion too "dangerous" for the music industry. Maybe (and I hope that, too) we'll see something like free or "donation music" (in a greater amount than today), but the majority of successfull songs will probably simply stay paid.

This procedure you're talking about, where a bad law gets passed because a worse one was proposed is in my opinion simply called "compromise" and hence something very important in politics. The fact, that there could be a "worse" DRM comes from the music industry. The users (me too!) don't want any DRM. In this situation, there would be no legal digital music available.

But having FairPlay there's a compromise: The majority of users (obviously not the people here, but millions of songs have been sold up to now) and the majority of music labels/artists (e.g. not Metallica) are content (not glad) with it. And at least it works.

Sorry, but saying, that copyrighted material is illegal is not correct (at least not for Germany). Is there a law prohibiting copyright? The only thing we have in Germany is the users' right to make a backup copy. This is possible with FairPlay.

Just to make my point clear: I'm not at all a friend of DRM. I'm glad about DeCSS to watch movies using linux. I patched my DVD drive to free it from its region code restrictions. But regarding FairPlay: if you think, that it's not the best solution, it's in my opinion still a step to the right direction! Noone stops you implementing a fairer solution, if you can manage to bring the users and the music industry together. But please do not torpedo this first step.

Re:You're naive

[k3v0]

Warp records has an online service named Bleep asking reasonable rates for variable bit rate mp3 encodings of songs. They have no DRM at all. I have purchased a few Aphex Twin songs and I enjoy listing to them without restriction.

A music service for Mac, Windows, Linux

[goMac2500]

Some music stores sell these "CD's". I recommend people give them a try. In my experiance, they have worked great on all platforms. Best of all, these "CD's" have an extremely high bit rate. These are surely the wave of the future.

Re:A music service for Mac, Windows, Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, it's "CDs", not "CD's". Please do a Google search for Bob the Angry Flower and his wonderful explanation on how to properly use apostrophes.

Secondly, more and more of the major labels are shipping crippled discs which do not always play properly in car stereos or non-Windows PCs. While I appreciate your sarcasm, the joke's on you if you truly view the compact disc format as being immune to all of this technical mumbo jumbo that gets discussed here on Slashdot.

Re:A music service for Mac, Windows, Linux

[68kmac]

You haven't been to Europe lately, have you? Over here, they sell these things that look like CDs but aren't.

I'm talking about copy-protected CDs that won't play in your computer's CD-ROM drive. For the third time now, I actually had to import a CD from the US just to get it without what should better be described as a protection against listing to it.

Hey, MI, just because I prefer to listen to my music on my computer doesn't mean I plan to share it with strangers on a P2P service. I mean, I paid for it, so why do you think I'm going to give it away for free?

bye, Dirk

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you should buy music from the riaa. Because if you don't, it means you are stealing from them.Well, at least it appears that way in their financial reports...
They deserve your money no matter what. It's expected. If so many records aren't being moved...it's pirates. Even if you don't actually steal, there will still be more legislation, crackdowns, etc, regardless. If you don't buy, you might as well be stealing to them.

and by the way, I can sit on my fat lazy ass and steal music. That makes it a little different than all those acts of theft you mentioned that involve moving fast or something else I'm not good at.

How Do I Use This?

[Anonymous Coward]

I run this program and get an error:

Exception: Could not find a part of the path "C:\Documents and Settings\user\Application Data\drms\03B6BD12.001".

How do I get the drms directory created????

Here for version w/o needing VideoLAN key

[Anonymous Coward]

W/o the video lan key dedrms doesn't work. This version works using the standard itunes key.

http://pessoal.onda.com.br/rjamorim/stuff/

A MP4 stream processor <<<------ m4p2mp4.zip

w/src

So which DRM does it decode?

[shodson]

So this undo Apple's FairPlay DRM? Or Microsoft's DRM? Quicktime? I couldn't really tell which DRM scheme it De-s.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Scott Adams has *never* made any bones about being in his line of work for the money... period.

I recall his comments on the retirement of Bill Watterson, to the effect that though he supported Mr. Watterson's artistic integrity, he was still really happy that another competitor for newspaper space was gone.

what the

[zpok]

Still not sure where I stand on this. On the one hand, I'm part of a label and once a musician of sorts, otoh I don't like restrictions on bought stuff and used to copy my records on tape.

But what definitely does tick me off is...

Hey you revolutionaries, where's the anti-Real hack? Where's the WMA hack?

Go for the most reasonable DRM first, right? Cool.

Re:what the

[Antity-H]

Hey you revolutionaries, where's the anti-Real hack? Where's the WMA hack?
What about the shift key in WM Player ?

Re:what the

[zpok]

What does that do? I remember other stuff in combination with shift, but not with WMP.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[MightyYar]

And yet Dilbert makes Scott Adams and his publisher a ton of money, even though:

• You can freely get it online (he makes it available, in fact!).
• It is in a DRM-free form that can be digitally copied an infinite number of times with no loss in quality.

Maybe there is a lesson here for music content owners?

Re:OT: Sig comment (don't care don't read don't mo

[Anonymous Coward]

How appropriate. You post like a cow.

I've spoken to apes more polite than you!

Re:OT: macs

[fucksl4shd0t]

I use OS X because, compared with the pen knife of Windows and the chainsaw of Linux, it's a samurai sword. :)

I use linux because it doesn't require years of careful study under a Master in order to work. Just pull the chord and the body parts start falling around me. YYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[fucksl4shd0t]

Normally I'm not a spelling nazi unless you're a spelling nazi correcting someone's post and you yourself have spelling issues, however i before e except after c

I read 'theiving' as 'the iving', thinking your typo was not putting a space in there. Had to read the sentence three times before I figured it out.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[fucksl4shd0t]

Now, if you're a true music lover, option 3 is just out of the question.

That's funny, I'd tend to think that if you were a true music lover, you wouldn't support the record labels that enslave the musicians that make the music you love so much. Seeing as how sharecropping is legal, when it's applied to musicians anyway, I suppose my view is just a tad off.

Fact is, if you are downloading RIAA-protected music, and especially if you're sharing it, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Love music? Buy a fucking guitar or something, but don't start getting preachy about what 'true music lovers' do. That judgemental attitude is as much a part of the problem as the behavior you're trying to deplore.

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[fucksl4shd0t]

The DVD is a shade of gray away. Linux users wanted to be able to view their DVDs on Linux. They created software that allowed them to do so. As in the book example, there is no license applied when the DVD is opened or purchased. However, a cheap dvd player/tv combo is under $100. DVD makers can easily make the argument that basic DVD playing requies a minimum investement in hardware, and therefore there is no compelling need to enable Linux DVD playing, nor is there a need to permit this kind of fair use. If they want to watch DVDs, then they should have no reason to break the encryption - it's cheap to do so using completely legal methods.

So, it is then acceptable for someone to create a product and then require that you purchase at your cost another completely irrelevant technology in order to use the product you paid for? The issue here is that there are plenty of us who don't have TVs, who don't want/need a DVD player just to watch a frickin' movie. I've got a monitor. It may or may not plug into a DVD player. I'm not willing to put a dvd player in here at any price.

Furthermore, I've got tons of hard drive space. It's awfully convenient for me to just wade through a directory or two looking for the movie I want and then click it and watch it than it is for me to go to a bookshelf of some sort, read through all the titles that are smacked together, luckily in alphabetical order, put the dvd in the dvd player (and deal with the dvd that's already there that my frickin' wife left in there), and then watch. What's better living? Why does someone owning a copyright give them the power to dictate to me that I can't use my legally-purchased content in a fashion that's in accordance with copyright law? (yeah yeah, I know, DeCSS violates DMCA, but DMCA is antithetical to the purpose of copyright and the fair use protections built into it, making DMCA itself illegal, far as I can tell)

In any case, someone owning a copyright isn't a good enough reason to hold back the tide on this one. People made money off music before there was copyright, and people have always made music that they didn't intend/expect to get paid for. We'll survive the RIAA, but the RIAA won't survive the RIAA.

Re:I, for one, welcome our new JIT Compiler overlo

[eyeye]

That said, it is most certainly possible to write bloated C# code

You dont need to - the 20MB .net runtime automatically adds bloat for you!

Is it astroturfing day on slashdot or something - some other guy was saying java doesnt use much memory... LOL

(ok some java apps are really good but by and large they are big and clunky)

"piracy" has meant IP infringement for a long time

[Nugget]

It is misinformed to accuse modern-day publishers of promoting the use of the word "piracy" in order to spin public opinion on copyright infringement. Use of the word "piracy" for infringement of IP dates back to at least 1771 according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

2. fig. The appropriation and reproduction of an invention or work of another for one's own profit, without authority; infringement of the rights conferred by a patent or copyright.

1771 LUCKOMBE Hist. Print. 76 They..would suffer by this act of piracy, since it was likely to prove a very bad edition. 1808 Med. Jrnl. XIX. 520 He is charged with 'Literary Piracy', and an 'unprincipled suppression of the source from whence he drew his information'. 1855 BREWSTER Newton I. iv. 71 With the view of securing his invention of the telescope from foreign piracy.

[Reference]

Re:Inevitable? So what? Who cares?

[Otto]

All locks are rated, not in terms of their binary perfection, but rather in terms of the time and cost to defeat them. So what? Who cares?
The analogy doesn't hold up though... In the case of DRM, the company wants to make a door that you can open as long only as you're wearing that companies special gloves, which cost you something to purchase (either in cash or in rights, depending on your point of view).

But not everybody has the same size hands. Some people lost their arms in the war, or some people have different numbers of fingers, or some people want to open entirely different doors.. Or some people simply don't like gloves. The point being that once the method for creating those gloves has been determined, and someone has figured out how the gloves work, then they can pretty easily open the door, get inside, and use a screwdriver to remove the hinges. Bam, now the door is open, and the hinges are all bent so the company can't get the door back on. It's broken for good. ... ...

Okay, so maybe you can take bad analogies too far. :)

Anyway, DRM is fundamentally unlike anything physical in this world. They want people to be able to experience a thing but be unable to copy that thing. This is simply impossible because of the nature of experience. All of our mediums for holding experiences like music or video or whatever have been expressly designed to be copyable. They have to be. Otherwise they would only be able to make one and then they couldn't sell many of the same thing over and over again.

So trying to make an experience that cannot be copied on a medium that was designed to be easily copied is more than a bit stupid, don't you think? It can't be done. Not because encryption is tricky, or because nobody's found the right way to do it, or even because they're just trying to make it "hard enough". It's because there's a fundamental inconsistancy between the neccessities of the design of the medium and the purposes to which they are trying use that medium for. And the design of the medium itself is based on fundamental human perceptual abilites and it cannot realistically be altered to fit these purposes.

This is why it cannot be done. You cannot do the impossible. That's why we call it "impossible". Some people think that people call things impossible lightly. Well, that's true, but hey, we really mean it this time, yeah? :)

Re:I, for one, welcome our new JIT Compiler overlo

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually pretty impressive that the dotnet runtime is only 20mb or so.

Think of it this way- How big is glibc, Gtk, Qt, X11, and all the other standard libraries needed for pretty much every desktop linux system? A lot more than 20mb.

the Gnome libs alone are close to 100mb on my system.

Hell, Java runtime is about the same size as the dotnet runtime and you don't hear anyone complaining about it, even when every java app feels bloated and slow.

Why is that the first thought?

[emkman]

Why do all these people want to sue him? They should all want to hire him. Save both parties alot of money.

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Ralph Yarro]

Sad, really. People here talk about Apple Apologists.. I wonder about the OSS Appologists, though.

I'm not an apologist for anyone, nor have I accused you of being an apologist for anyone. Your resort to ad hominem attacks does you no credit at all.

I was surprised and intrigued by your willingness to state as fact what is and isn't lawful in Norway, nothing more nothing less. Your follow up post has, however, left me confused. Are you saying that these "Terms of sale" make it illegal in Norway for someone to use the iTunes service or are you speculating that they do, perhaps regretting your previous categorical statement, or are you no longer commenting on that side of things at all?

Needs wildcard support

[Anonymous Coward]

For windows, needs wildcard support, since the shell is lame enough not to expand it for us.

Needs an option to remove a few other attributes (including the email address of the purchaser).

We need a few folks to buy and decode the same song and check them for deltas to see if there are any other unique markings for each downloader. I certainly would put them in there if I was writing the system.

Seems to work as advertised, though. Bravo.

Re:Needs wildcard support

[TheDanish]

Just use "for" for expanding wildcards.

Mini-howto:
Make directory "here" and batch file "foo.bat"

Put single line into batch file:

for %%f in (*.m4p) do DeDRMS "%%f"

Run the batch file.

DRM stripping can be done with iMovie

[Anonymous Coward]

With all the hoopla about open source programs to strip DRM from music bought at the iTunes music store, no one has mentioned that the same (or similar) can be done with Apple's own iMovie. If you import a protected song into an iMovie project, iMovie will transcode the .m4p into an .aiff file that you can find in the Media folder of your project. The .aiff file is a normal aiff file, no DRM.

Re:DRM stripping can be done with iMovie

[Dahan]

If you import a protected song into an iMovie project, iMovie will transcode the .m4p into an .aiff file that you can find in the Media folder of your project.

The hoopla is that these utilities let you do it without transcoding. Of course you can decrypt the m4p to a PCM file: use iTunes to burn it to an audio CD; the iMovie trick you mentioned; or one of the utilities that uses QuickTime to do the conversion. However, if you prefer that one song not take up 50 megs or so of disk space, you'd have to recompress it and lose some quality. m4p2mp4, playfair, and DeDRMS get you a non-DRMed compressed AAC file with no quality loss.

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[tormentae agent]

You know, real piracy. Not some 14 year old girl that wants to give her friend some songs, but the people who mass produce and sell these songs on the black market.

...and say "Arrrr!"

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Sarth]

sigh. Reread my response, up near the top -- the part where I said that perhaps I used the wrong term, and asked for your help in choosing one more accurate to the situation.

That request still stands, and I offered, in order to help us sort out what would be the best term to use, the agreement that one must agree to to purchase music from the iTMS (clicking cancel backs you out of the process - this is displayed as the second screen in the process, prior to choosing an identity, or entering any payment data.

I believe, that using common sense, as I doubt either of us are trained in law, American or otherwise (I may be wrong, feel free to correct me on this point), that we can both agree that DVD Jon, has either not read, ignored, or simply broken many of the clauses in the aforementioned agreement -- so, what do we call this... oversight, of his?

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[PhilHibbs]

Do you steal Gucci off the racks? Do you steal Porsches from dealerships? Do you steal Nikes from department stores?

The difference is that there is competition for all those goods. The RIAA is a cartel that controls the market for commercial music. Yes, we could all go out and find independent music that we like, but the truth is that our culture is fat and lazy and we all want to listen to the music that our friends and idols are listening to. Exploiting that craving through a cartel is illegal.

And no, I don't illegally download music either, and I haven't bought an RIAA CD in over three years, so I'm sitting right next to you on the moral high-ground. Nice view from up here, isn't it? :-)

I can copy...

[jotaeleemeese]

... I can't distribute without permission.

Great.

[jotaeleemeese]

But most people are not stinking socialites that can afford the price and lack of freedom.

What a load of tosh.

[jotaeleemeese]

Computer code is the way we request that a computer performs a task.

We don't do it in plain English (or Spanish, Russian, Mongolian or whatever) because we lack the technology (still) to do so.

If in the future it is possible to program a computer or any other machine with a normal conversation then how the hell are all the ridiculous copyright and patent laws are going to be applied?

As things stand computer languages are a necessary nuisance to allow people express in a succint and understandable manner their own ideas about how ro solve problems.

This is perhaps one of the purest forms of speech, which should be mantained unecumbered of patents and covered by fair copyright laws.

Re:What a load of tosh.

[torokun]

That's the point. Even if we could program computers with English, telling a computer to do something could have very different legal ramifications than telling your sister to do something....

Another poster made the point that music can also be considered speech. The point is really that we have a limited right to free expression of our ideas. It's limited to when those expressions are not harmful to other people... Now, finding the boundaries of what is harmful are tough, but sometimes the medium is a factor.

It's clear that publishing your speech in a newspaper _could_ be more harmful than simply saying something on the street, because the medium is different -- it has a broader reach. Similarly, code could be much more powerful than some other types of expression. An exploit or code that beats some DRM could have a lot of effects that normal speech couldn't. Therefore, the law may treat it differently, just as it treats other media differently...

Re:What a load of tosh.

[MarkCollette]

It's not a technological limitation that keeps us from programming in English. It's limitations of English itself, specifically in linguistic ambiguities.

Common language constantly makes references to implicit social values and histories, with the assumption that the receiving party shares those same values and histories. Many times that is simply not true, and so we have confusion. Of course that would not be acceptable for a computer.

So, even if we could program in English, then it would still be a precise subset that we would have to constrain ourselves to, which pretty much describes many existing programing languages.

Example:
Bob made a tasty snack
Does this mean:
Bob, himself, created a snack, which was tasty
Or does it mean:
Someone snacked on Bob, and felt Bob was tasty

GPL

[kiwioddBall]

When I click on the link I get a .CS file that says I should have received the GPL license with it - I certainly didn't!

Is having this link on Slashdot agaisnt the GPL?

That would be all great....

[jotaeleemeese]

.... if we had reasonable copyright laws.

Is it reasonable that descendants benefit for generations from the work of a distant ancestor? No, I don't think so.

Is it reasonable that companies don't fullfill their social responsibility by releasing into the public domain works they produced generations ago?

Is it fair that companies buy laws to extend and extend and yet again extend the length a copyright is valid?

Without knowing the context the holier than thou approach you advocate would appear reasonable. Once you know the context your reasoning looks pretty naive to the level of almost stupidity.

Re:That would be all great....

[the_mad_poster]

No, no, trust me. You're off your rocker as well.

See, what you're doing, like so many other little whelps out there who don't want to admit that they're just lightweight crooks, is attempting to justify your position as if it were some sort of civil disobedience. However, since there's a perfectly viable option that all you folks who think you're such big martyrs can use to put an end to all this: STOP CONSUMING THE FUCKING MUSIC ALTOGETHER, which allows you to destroy the Evil Empire (TM) without breaking any laws (my... GOD... you mean we can act like INTELLIGENT, INFORMED CONSUMERS!? HOLY SHIT! I'd have NEVER thought of something like THAT!), your actions indicate you are either lazy, cheap, stupid, or any combination of those three. Civil disobedience is great when it's the only way to make your point. However, since you could just stop buying the shit altogether (which means you are NOT entitled to listen to the music), it's NOT the only option, and if you take it, you're just another little brat breaking copyright laws. Oh, you don't like the copyright laws? Well wah, wah. Seems like the majority of the people out there don't mind them since they keep supporting them by purchasing copyrighted works. Since the world isn't run for you personally, I guess you'd better either figure out a way to educate people about why those laws are so bad, or shut up and accept that most people don't care. Maybe they are bad, and maybe people are stupidly supporting them, but that's a WHOLE different issue.

If people want to buy the music, then the music is fairly priced as far as the market is concerned. If the people are only buying that music because they're uninformed, then instead of breaking laws just because you're not willing to pay for the music, why don't you try to inform folks instead?

Again, I say: you're breaking the law because you're cheap, and nothing more. You're no different than the crooks in the RIAA, but by all means, go ahead and tell yourself that you are.

By the way, as a means to lower the rate of muggings, I'm going to start proactively beating up people on my own and stealing their posessions. Sure, I'm victimizing the victim, but it'll sure teach those muggers a lesson when there's nothing left to steal!

Once you know the context your reasoning looks pretty naive to the level of almost stupidity.

Oh yes, you're right. My reasoning... that you can easily defeat these horrid people by simply turning your back to them, is soooooo stupid. You're right, making intelligent, informed decisions as a consumer is stupid. From now on, I'm just going to steal everything that I don't feel like paying for, even if I don't need it, just because that's what SMART people like you do.

Oh Dear God The Humanity!

[localman]

Before getting all angry and/or sad about DeDRMS, remember this:

Every song that you could unprotect with this tool is available online already unprotected for free (illegally). They're also for sale, legally, unprotected at your local record store. If you buy them used you might even get them less than 99 cents, uncompressed, unprotected... at which point you could do illegal stuff like put them up on a P2P network.

The point is that this tool doesn't allow you to do anything new. It just carries over to online music stores the same abilities we've had for years now. Heck, maybe without the DRM annoyances people will be more apt to buy songs on the music store, since they now directly compete with what is available already elsewhere.

Why is it people get so worried up about this (playfair, etc)?

Cheers.

Good first steps and bad first steps

[achurch]

I have no problem with taking steps to resolve issues. What I do have a problem with is this kind of thinking:

This procedure you're talking about, where a bad law gets passed because a worse one was proposed is in my opinion simply called "compromise" and hence something very important in politics.

That's exactly the way the politicians want you to think. By considering the "better" bad law on XYZ as a compromise, you've (perhaps unconsciously) accepted their argument that XYZ is something that needs to be implemented/changed/whatever--when this may not be the case at all! Consider this analogy: a police officer stops you at a roadblock and tells you to hand over your wallet because the police department is running low on money and it's the citizens' responsibility to help. When you argue, the officer reluctantly gives way and lets you go after taking "only" $20. Would you consider that a reasonable compromise? Especially if you'd just heard a news story about a raise in police officer salaries?

There are times when compromise is an appropriate first step, and times when it isn't. If the content companies are willing to work in good faith to find a solution that's appropriate to modern society (read: information sharing--it's not going to go away), then I'm all for that. If they're going to keep on suing their customer base and squeezing their artists, I don't see why I should cooperate with them.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[adamofgreyskull]

It was on my Dilbert desk calendar on the 16th December last year...my birthday :o)

The PHB says they should do the same with engineers and the final frame is Wally (and Alice IIRC) walking away from the meeting with a cup of coffee saying "Why is it my ideas only sound good when they apply to other people?" or something to that effect.

Re:Inevitable? So what? Who cares?

[ajs318]

But my point is that no matter how hard you make it for someone to defeat the copy-prevention, somebody will succeed -- and then they will begin distributing unencumbered versions.


An analogy {because we all love them}:
Recording companies == emperor
DRM == special fabric spun out of gold which only pure and wise people can see
Jon Johansen == little boy who cries out "What is the king doing in the buff?"

What worries me most

[BlackHawk-666]

is that over the course of my natural life I will have more than 3 PCs, and this technology is only licensing me to have it on 3 PCs. That means that some 6-9 years down the line (I change PC every 2-3 years) I will have used my DRM encrusted music on all 3 PC's that I am licensed to use and will need some way to authenticate it to the next one.

Now, project yourself forward 20 years. Will these same profit chasing record companies be willing to provide infrastructure to allow you to move your DRM encrusted music from PC to PC throughout the rest of your exepcted life, and that of your descendants who will inhereit this media? Sure, they'll be happily putting out more music, but are they protecting your previous investments? In the year 2039 when I should be just about ready to breathe my last breathe will I be able to hear all my old favorite albums or will I cark it listening to gangster rap on the radio because my rightfully paid for music isn't authorised for use on my new funky media player.

This DRM stuff is OK for playing todays tunes, but I worry about the longevity of the media.

Re:What worries me most

[acamas]

At least for the Mac I can say that you can have 3 Macs at the same time. You can deregister a Mac and register another one at any time. So who needs to play his/her music on 4 Macs at the same time?

Re:What worries me most

[KamuZ]

How is thins going to be supported in other countries? For example, here in Mexico, there are some major problems with software, because of piracy companies don't bring these technology here, most of you could say "cool!" but if this happens in a near feature, there will be countries that could be locked in "old technology" and we will not have access to new services, just like iTunes, i mean, i'm willing to pay for this kind of service, but i can't use it in Mexico, i want to buy videogames, but there are almost none, just Microsoft games, and a few from other companies and is spanish from spain, not Mexico. What happens when biggest companies start switching to this and leaving non-drm products behind? presonally id on't want to look for hacks in this technology for enjoy content... MY content... don't get me wrong, i don't like DRM, i don't want it to happen, at least not in this way...

Re:What worries me most

[iMacGuy]

Then deauthorize your PCs before selling them. (It's 5 as of iTunes 4.5, not 3)

Written in Db

[Morosoph]

The Register had something or two to say about D-flat.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[theLOUDroom]

If you actually believe that people are justified in ripping off songs, you're just an idiot, plain and simple.

If you think it's that black an white, you're the idiot.

You can't steal things just because you personally think that price is too high. Do you steal Gucci off the racks? Do you steal Porsches from dealerships? Do you steal Nikes from department stores?

Nope, but they don't have a monopoly on the last 100 years of clothing, car and shoe production. And of course, downloading an album that you would never have bought doesn't deprive the RIAA of money, unlike stealing a Porsche.

You don't like the business, or you don't like the music, you don't buy the product.

Yep, and just miss out on the last 100 years of our musical history. That's a GREAT idea. Especially since a lot of those Vietnam-era protest songs are becoming quite relevant given our current military situation. Why would andbody ever want to listen to "American Woman" or "Fortunate Son"? Who cares if music that was an intergral part of the social the movement of the 60's could teach Americans about the previous generation's mishaps, it's copyrighted and there's no way you can listen to it without supporting and illegal corporate cartel.

so don't talk to me about "when" I'll stop sending them money.

And why the hell shouldn't I do that? Maybe if you you don't want to talk about it, you shouldn't come on slashdot and be an arrogant asshole. Nobody asked you for your opinion.
You're essentially trying to dismiss one of my arguments by saying "I don wanna talk about it."
Cry me a river. God forbid you acutally think about what that money goes for once it changes hands.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[theLOUDroom]

That's funny, I'd tend to think that if you were a true music lover, you wouldn't support the record labels that enslave the musicians that make the music you love so much.

Yeah, cause who cares about missing out on the last 100 years of our musical history, that is currently own by corporations. [/sarcasm]

don't start getting preachy about what 'true music lovers' do.

It's pretty safe to say that if you're willing to give up listening to the previous 100 years of music, music isn't an important part of your life.

That judgemental attitude is as much a part of the problem as the behavior you're trying to deplore.

Actually, the ability to make value judgements is quite important. Without it you're stuck with moral relitivism and you get exactly nowhere.

Re:I, for one, welcome our new JIT Compiler overlo

[eyeye]

You talk big for a snivelling scared AC.

I suppose you are one of those people who sits in their chair cheerleeding wars but doesn't want to see the results or even allow others to discuss them. If I wanted to shock I would have linked to pictures of dead maimed iraqi children.

Re:I, for one, welcome our new JIT Compiler overlo

[eyeye]

The 20MB .NET windows runtime includes a network transparent windowing system(X), and two different fully featured windowing toolkits?

You are comparing apples and oranges. If you want to bring those things into it then how big is Windows (Since you need to have it installed to run c# windows apps!).

*slowly backs away from the crazy man*

But if you run it on mono ...

[maxwell demon]

... will it still properly decode stereo files?

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[the_mad_poster]

Congratulations, you're the 2 millionth person to respond to one of my posts without bothering to digest it first. In fact, it looks like you didn't even READ it.

So, I'll repeat: I have not purchased more than 2 full price CDs per year for the last three years so don't give me crap about when I'll stop sending them money. Gee, now if everyone was so concerned about the RIAAs smear tactics, legal and political strongarming, and price gouging/fixing, and they all did that, how long do you think it would take before the whole thing collapsed around them? They're a HUGE organization. The infrastructure of the thing places extreme demands for capital. If you pull that capital out from under them, it'll be like pulling the support structure out from under a skyscraper. The thing'll collapse in an instant under its own weight.

Miss out on WHAT? Oh, boo hoo. You can't live without the music. Well, then buy it. Stop being such a crybaby. Better yet, DON'T buy it and make sure you let everyone else understand WHY you're not buying it. Let them know that the only reason they have to pay $20 for twenty cent discs of plastic is because they're WILLING to and if they stop, the price will have to come down one way or another. Let them know that they keep hearing the same songs again and again because it WORKS and if they stop buying the songs that get overplayed, they'll be forced to change the way the raffled airtime system works. Oh, but you're one of the new breed that can't fathom "suffering" without your precious music to make your point. God forbid you should make the wholly enormous sacrifice of not buying RIAA sponsored bullshit for a while.

The only thing you people who rip off songs manage to do is give the RIAA FUD material. While some of us have simply stopped purchasing their garbage, you're out there ripping it off so they have a scapegoat. Congratulations, you completely missed the point. Did it never occur to you that if there wasn't a crime occurring, it would be that much harder to manufacture court "victories" to legitamize their position in the eyes of John Q. Public?

You're not doing anything except helping them villify the evil public that's ripping off those poor, hardworking musicians. Give it a rest. You're just as big a part of the problem as the RIAA itself.

Maybe this is obvious to some

[Revolution 9]

How do I install/use this on an Apple computer?
Oh wait, I have no use for it. I really don't get why this is a big deal. I can listen to iTMS files on my Powerbook, on my Windows machine, and on my iPod. I can burn them to a CD or an MP3 CD. Exactly how many people really have a reason to take advantage of this utility?

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Overzeetop]

Yeah, but it runs into that buy vs license grey area. Physical signatures on a contract delineating the rights and responsibilities of both parties, agreed to without coersion on the part of either side? The ability to make and ratify modifications agreed to by both parties?

It may be "data", but it still looks like a sale.

That said, If you're using linux or Win, why are you shopping iTMS?

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[theLOUDroom]

Miss out on WHAT?

100 years of musical history.

The only thing you people who rip off songs manage to do is give the RIAA FUD material.

The RIAA can make the same claims whether you download or not.

I have not purchased more than 2 full price CDs per year for the last three years so don't give me crap about when I'll stop sending them money.

You're still giving them money. If everyone in the country buys a CD per year, they'll still have plenty on money to keep buying new laws, suing college professors, etc.

Did it never occur to you that if there wasn't a crime occurring, it would be that much harder to manufacture court "victories" to legitamize their position in the eyes of John Q. Public?

Did it ever occur to you the it would be much hard to start a war if it weren't for all those WMDs in Iraq? .....oh wait THERE WEREN'T ANY!
Money talks and bullshit walks. As long as they have the cash, they'll get whatever they want.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[the_mad_poster]

Wow.. Iraq... yes, I equate wars to getting ripped off at The Wall all the time. You really are a dumbass after all.

I'll try and beat this through that thick chunk of bone that theoretically houses a brain... theoretically... one last time:

As long as they have the cash, they'll get whatever they want.

THEN DON'T BUY FROM THEM AND EITHER FIND ANOTHER, LEGITIMATE SOURCE, OR DEAL WITH NOT HAVING THE MUSIC YOU LIKE. It's not your music, you can't make it your music on your own terms, get over it. If I make something, and I sign it away to some big, evil conglomerate, then I'm a dumbass, and that's my fault. That doesn't give everyone else a free ticket to rip it off.

It really is that simple. Just like anything else, if you don't buy it, you don't support it. You cannot justify stealing it just because you don't want to pay for it. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head to sign contracts. Stupid bands did that of their own volition. Nobody is forcing it to continue. The entire system is being supported voluntarily, and if you don't like it, you just remove yourself or you can go a step further and educate people on the situation. Boo hoo. You're a cheap little bitch. I don't care, go ahead and keep patting your back over your heroic copyright infringement. You're an idiot, and you're just as much to blame for the problem overall as anyone else. If you ever grow up and stop acting like a little kid (wah wah.. I don't like the terms of the deal, so rather than just walk away, I'll just steal their stuff instead), you'll realize that.

And, incidentally, if every person in the U.S. bought only one CD, on average, per year, at $20 a pop, that would be more than a five fold cut in their profits. At their current size, there is no way that they could sustain themselves AND fork out tons of money for litigation and pocket lining without either falling on their face in the process or drastically restructuring.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[Anonymous Freak]

In comment 8973003, the_mad_poster wrote:

And, incidentally, if every person in the U.S. bought only one CD, on average, per year, at $20 a pop, that would be more than a five fold cut in their profits. At their current size, there is no way that they could sustain themselves AND fork out tons of money for litigation and pocket lining without either falling on their face in the process or drastically restructuring.

Amen, brotha! When the RIAA started their Gestapo tactics, I did just that. In the past four years, I have bought four CDs. (Three from one label, one from a second.) I have also kept track of CDs that I would have bought, if I wasn't boycotting. I have sent letters to the labels, and the bands, informing them of my protest. Telling those whose albums I did buy, in essence "Your album is so good, you were the only one I bought. I may have bought more of your albums if you weren't signed with an RIAA-affiliated label." And those whose I did not buy "Sorry, the RIAA sucks. You've lost business because of the RIAA's practices."

I also broke my Metallica CDs and sent them to the members of the band back when the whole Napster mess was going on. (I actually did use Napster to find new music. I bought one of Metallica's older CDs specifically because I listened to a couple of the songs from Napster, and decided I liked them.) I wrote a very politely worded letter telling them that I disagree with their actions so much that they had lost me as a fan. Never did get a reply. (No, I haven't re-bought their CDs, yes, I still change the station whenever one of their songs comes on; well, that doesn't happen much since I stopped listening to commercial radio...)

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[theLOUDroom]

Wow.. Iraq... yes, I equate wars to getting ripped off at The Wall all the time. You really are a dumbass after all.

Wow! What a classy way to totally miss the point of my example. I was obviously claiming the the RIAA is violating UN resolutions.[/sarcasm]

Nobody held a gun to anyone's head to sign contracts. Stupid bands did that of their own volition.

Yes, I'm sure all those bands in the 60's could have easily bought their own presses. Do you have absolutely no concept of history?

Nobody is forcing it to continue.

Maybe you should actually read something about the subject before opening your mouth.....

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[the_mad_poster]

Maybe you should actually read something about the subject before opening your mouth.....

Funny thing about monopolies with a product nobody needs... it's still a totally voluntary purchase. Despite the fact that you are totally clueless (shouldn't you be watching American Idol reruns about now?), I don't think even YOUR vapid, pointless existance (how else could you explain it if you think that living without a Foghat CD is too painful to even consider) wouldn't come to an end if you just helped those of us who actually THOUGHT about it put them out of business by NOT BUYING FROM THEM.

Oops, you still haven't overcome that one funky little problem that blows away all of your claims that your activity is anything more than the boring antics of a common criminal: you could just stop buying them.

Oh wait wait.. I forgot.. you WANT those last 100 years of music, you're just not willing to PAY the market price for it, so, again, it's obviously alright that you just rip it off. My bad, I forgot that paying for things is old and cliche and not paying for things that are overpriced is "stupid" since you can always just rip them off. Ha ha. Silly me. What an idiot I am for suggesting that the real problem is dumb consumers willing to pay a hyperinflated market price. I should have realized when I first crossed you that you'd think education was a stupid way to go about changing things since you obviously have never tried anything of the sort.

Why, yes. I am slinging personal insults at you now, mainly because I think you're just a yipping little kid who doesn't want to play fair anymore than the RIAA does.

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[Anonymous Coward]

You say, "It clearly states the restrictions you agree to."

What chance do I have to negotiate the terms of that "agreement"?

If the answer is "none," and my only option is to accept it or walk away, then as far as I am concerned, it is not a valid "agreement" under the law. For all you know, I had a similar half of the "agreement" written up in paper which I stuffed in a shoebox in the corner, which I gave you little or no chance to negotiate, too.

The making of an "agreement" presupposes that parties to the agreement had an equal opportunity to negotiate its terms. If that opportunity was lacking, then it is not a valid agreement.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[3terrabyte]

Wow, even after all these years, I still change the channel when a Metallica song comes on.... Glad to hear I'm not the only one

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[theLOUDroom]

Funny thing about monopolies with a product nobody needs... it's still a totally voluntary purchase.

Nobody NEEDS music. It's not a basic need. Neither is that computer you're sitting in front of.

Despite the fact that you are totally clueless (shouldn't you be watching American Idol reruns about now?), I don't think even YOUR vapid, pointless existance (how else could you explain it if you think that living without a Foghat CD is too painful to even consider) wouldn't come to an end if you just helped those of us who actually THOUGHT about it put them out of business by NOT BUYING FROM THEM.

Sounds like I've got a true intellectual on my hands. READ

Oops, you still haven't overcome that one funky little problem that blows away all of your claims that your activity is anything more than the boring antics of a common criminal: you could just stop buying them.

And you could just stop using your computer. You don't NEED it.

What an idiot I am for suggesting that the real problem is dumb consumers willing to pay a hyperinflated market price.

Yes. You have a choice between blaming a market-raping corporate cartel and 13 year-old Brittney-listeners.

Why, yes. I am slinging personal insults at you now, mainly because I think you're just a yipping little kid who doesn't want to play fair anymore than the RIAA does.

Because the only thing that's fair is playing by rules the RIAA has bought and paid for?

"The people's good is the highest law." -Cicero

Re:I'm also not understanding something

[doodlelogic]

At what point did Canada cease to be part of the Americas?

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[the_mad_poster]

Oh, you'd like me to be civil. No problem. Makes the post shorter anyway, even if I don't get to have the fun of tossing mud at you.

Your "point" about thirteen year olds buying CDs: if the kid has the money to keep buying them, the kid ought to be responsible enough to know whether he/she finds the CD worth what he/she paid for it. If it's the parents buying it for him or her, they'd better damn well know the same thing. So, just in case you were suggesting that 13 year olds with enough money to keep buying CDs can't be held responsible for their buying decisions: rubbish. If the kid has the money, the kid should have the responsibility to decide if they think it's a good value or not.

Which computer? The ones at work that my employer provide for me to do my job? The one I use to code for a living? Or, one of the three Frankenputers here at home that I built myself? One of the three I built myself because I think all the major suppliers overprice their junk? Or, was that just an irrelevant comparison since I'm not griping about the Big Evil Computer Industry and I'm not stealing computers? Since I don't feel that I ripped myself off on any of these computers, I feel no need to stop using them to make a point about my own pricing to myself. That was completely and totally irrelevant.

Yes, yes, the RIAA buys laws. Yippy. Which means you're now talking about corrupt politicians which is a completely different problem that doesn't involve only the RIAA. Since the RIAA has not managed to pass a law that says you HAVE to buy from them, you could just NOT BUY from them to make your point. Apparently, however, you have chosen to rip them off. This gives them a legitimate gripe about people "stealing" from them and only gives them credibility in the eyes of the public and politicians. Brav-o. There's nothing quite like legitimizing your enemy's corrupt activity by participating in your own corrupt activity because you just don't want to ignore them. Way to go. That's sure to work. Yea. Right. Sure. It's done a whole lot up to this point, hasn't it?

Again, I say: just don't buy them. Ripping them off only proves that 1) you want the music and 2) you're not willing to pay for it. There are no inferences or hidden conslusions here. You just don't want to pay, and that's that. If you really wanted to stop them, you'd just tell them all to shove off and you'd stop consuming their tripe altogether. All you want is free music. On that note (oh, i'm so punny..), I'm washing my hands of this moronic discussion.

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[metlin]

Nobody NEEDS music. It's not a basic need. Neither is that computer you're sitting in front of.

Don't be ridiculous. You're comparing an item of entertainment value with an item of convenience. And today, computers are not even items of convenience, they are tools in our lives - akin to pen and paper, hammer and chisel. There is a big difference.

And you could just stop using your computer. You don't NEED it.

Yes he does. Its like telling a car mechanic that he does not need his tools. Sure, there are alternatives. So what would you rather have him do? Flip Burgers?

Yes. You have a choice between blaming a market-raping corporate cartel and 13 year-old Brittney-listeners.

Thirteen year old listeners have something called -P-A-R-E-N-T-S- who can tell their kids whats good music? How about good old classical music, for a change? But oh no! Daddy dearest is busy flaming away on Slashdot, so will let baby listen to whatever she wants.

And blame it all because he's helpless.

Because the only thing that's fair is playing by rules the RIAA has bought and paid for?

Well, its *their* money - that *they* acquired from bands that *chose* to be with them - that *you* paid for and helped grow. So, if you do not like it, do not listen to their music. Plain and simple. Yeah, it sucks. But hey, welcome to Capitalism!

"The people's good is the highest law." -Cicero

Bah! Idealism never helped anybody. Get real.

Btw - what was the point of the whole Washington link?

VERY naive: Case In Point

[lysium]

This procedure you're talking about, where a bad law gets passed because a worse one was proposed is in my opinion simply called "compromise" and hence something very important in politics. The fact, that there could be a "worse" DRM comes from the music industry. The users (me too!) don't want any DRM. In this situation, there would be no legal digital music available.

The parent poster is actually correct, and is not being cynical. Case in Point: The transit authority of New York City pushed for an unwarranted fare hike. They proposed raising the fare 100%. The blacklash was furious; shortly thereafter, they proposed a "mere" 50% increase instead. The public was so releaved that the increase was allowed without further complaint. Commuters were interviewed as actually saying "At least the price isn't being doubled. What a relief."

If you do not think modern governments are clever enough to exploit people this fashion then you really are too naive to live in a democracy.

===--===

Re:Dilbert has something to say on this very subje

[theLOUDroom]

Again, I say: just don't buy them. Ripping them off only proves that 1) you want the music and 2) you're not willing to pay for it.

Or 3) You're perfectly willing to pay for music, but you know that by giving the RIAA money, you're making the situation worse for both artists and fans.

On that note (oh, i'm so punny..), I'm washing my hands of this moronic discussion.

It wouldn't be so moronic if you would actually read and comprehend what I'm saying. Rather than attempting to argue with option 3, you just ignore it and claim it doesn't exist. That doesn't leave you much room to say anything insightful. It's like a little kid sticking their fingers in their ears and going LALALALA!

nothing quite like legitimizing your enemy's corrupt activity by participating in your own corrupt activity

It's more like Chris Rock's sketch where he says:
"I'm not saying he killed her, but I understand."

Negotiations are about power

[Wesley Everest]

Yes, it's called negotiations and compromise. But why is it that the starting points of negotiation are what they are? Why don't we start with "information wants to be free" with every creative work being in the public domain vs. "authors need to be paid" with unlimited copyrights (and no DMCA) -- then we could adopt the compromise of having limited 14 year copyrights like we had when copyright law was first written.

Why do we need to accept 75+ year copyrights and the DMCA+DRM as a compromise? Because negotiations are all about power. The first thing you do before entering any negotiations is try to increase your power and decrease your opponents power. This puts you in a better position, making the compromise much more in your favor.

If this were all a simple matter of trying to maximize benefit to the consumer (citizen), then we'd try allow the most amount of free copying of creative work as possible without significantly diminishing the quality of the collective creative works of our society. We'd also try to do this without limiting the rights of citizens, except when absolutely necessary and then only to a small extent. In such a scenario, we'd probably have no DRM or DMCA and only crack down on those profiting from unauthorized copying. Alternative business models would be strongly encouraged, and probablymost existing publishers would go out of business.

But that's not what's going on. As tihngs stand, music consumers are not a powerful, organized force. The RIAA, on the other hand, *is* a powerful, organized force. How many dollars in campaign contributions came from large corporations that want to protect their old business models? How many dollars came from music consumer advocacy groups?

How many lawyers are employed by the RIAA vs. how many lawyers are paid to expand the public domain and resists DRM laws?

Ok, now imagine a society where music-consumers are as organized and as powerful as the RIAA, and artists are organized and powerful. Hell, imagine consumers and artists are organized and the RIAA is not. In such a society, the DMCA would be seen as some crazy fringe idea -- probably crazier than "everything is public domain" ideas are seen now.

Ice Ice Baby

[rsadelle]

Collaborate and listen.

And how does that conduct . . .

[werdna]

comply with your license?

Re:And how does that conduct . . .

[Otto]

License be damned... I have the right to listen to music that I paid for and no amount of BS legal mumbo jumbo stuck in a EULA is going to change that.

If they have a problem with it, let them sue someone converting their purchased music to MP3. We'll see how long that lasts in court.

I get your point

[werdna]

My answer, "so what? who cares?" was intended to observe that piracy has always been present, and likely always will be. The fact that someone will defang copypro technology doesn't make it useless, the fact that someone will steal and redistribute content doesn't make the content valueless. For those people, we have laws to shut things down.

But for honest folks, the copypro does a fine job of preserving the marketplace. If the market doesn't desire it, they will respond in kind and remove it -- as happened with copypro code-wheels and disk-based protection on computer games in the 80s. If the market is basically indifferent, and just wants convenient and inexpensive access to a broad range content, then outlfits like iTMS will prosper.

Um ... "no loss in quality"?

[Anonymous Coward]

JPEG degrades. PNG doesn't. Raw doesn't either, but it's a PITA. There are also other (non-free) lossless compression algorithms.

Re:Um ... "no loss in quality"?

[MightyYar]

JPEG is very analogous to MP3, which is also lossy. My point was that COPIES are just that - perfect digital copies. You don't need 600dpi RAW format for a friggin' comic strip, and you don't need 1440kps CD-AUDIO for most pop music. Scott Adams doesn't use DRM and yet still does quite well. DRM for mp3s is equally pointless.

You're supposed to write in to the FSF for it...

[Anonymous Coward]

You insensitive clod!

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[iMacGuy]

DVDs can be purchased without a DVD player. However, it's impossible to purchase an iTMS FairPlayed song without having iTunes installed.

Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here.

[iMacGuy]

Laws are there to allow determination of whether someone is being moral, and because it's very unlikely that someone who has violated the laws is smart enough to avoid capture. Also, that doesn't consider immoral people in the justice system; if there were no impartial rules, they could count anything as punishable (such as in Christianity where God is supposed to be absolutely moral and can validly punish anyone for anything).