Slashdot Mirror
FairPlay v2 Reversed, Playfair Back Online
An anonymous reader writes "Two weeks ago Apple released iTunes 4.5. The minor changes Apple made to their Music Sharing Protocol (daap) were reverse engineered after just one day. According to a post in the Doom9 forums FairPlay version 2 has also been reverse engineered. playfair has
already been patched with the new code and is back online with FSF India providing legal support. How will Apple respond?"
Apple will respond by trying to shut it down of course. If they really wanted to be innovative, they would give the project their blessing. I predict, (you heard it here first) that is exactly what apple will do, provided of course that pigs fly and george bush decides to become a member of the Green Party.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
I do not want to get flamed, but honestly, when I read this stuff I wonder how everyone can get so pissed off when someone breaks the GPL yet be so supportive of someone doing this kind of work?
For all of the lofty talk in the community, is it at it's root support for whatever it takes to get "what I want, free"?
I just would like to know the difference between these things which to me seem similar.
Looking for a better understanding.
a man, a plan, a canal, panama
>>How will Apple respond?
.m4p files from the iTunes store.
>With FairPlay v3.
Of course! Apple has to show the RIAA and record labels that they're trying to prevent "unauthorized decryption" of the
There's really nothing else that Apple can do. If they ignore PlayFair, the RIAA will surly pull the plug on iTunes.
I'm waiting for Microsoft to start their MSN music store. I have a feeling MS will tell the RIAA what they can do with their wishes and desires. For one, MS will want to keep as much money to themselves as possible. They'll also want the RIAA to quick overreacting every time a weakness in DRM is exploited.
I would much prefer WMA and WMV to be hacked! I find that much worse than Apples iTunes!
I'd say they are better, its much harder to reverse engineer than to engineer.
...somewhere out there, someone will always have a pre-FairPlay vX copy. So for each time they fix it, they at best secure what is released between last time and now. Today that might not matter.
But if it comes down to "Sure, the last 30 years of music is bust, but we have protected the last 3 months worth" the DRM is essentially useless...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I don't think its a matter for Apple to decide. If the music labels that allow Apple to sell the music keep telling them to change the DRM, Apple has little choice. Without a product to sell, iTMS is pointless.
This is probably the excuse the music industry is waiting for to force Apple to raise their rates in the future. It is the old "Gotta make up for revenue lost to piracy" excuse. You have to admit, that while this does provide an avenue for fair use, a large percentage of its use is going to be for piracy.
Will I use the new Hymn/Playfair program? Oh, probably - my .Mac account runs out and I'm not going to renew, and it's how I bought my iTunes songs in the past.
So, now I'm kind of boned (maybe - probably not, but maybe) in the future. Yes, I can "rip to audio-CD-and-then-to-MP3", but Hymn will make it all a "one stop shopping trip" for my fairly large iTunes store collection (hey, they had a special on classical music and BB King - give me a break).
Apple really doesn't have much to worry about, since people have to buy the music first before they can remove the Fairplay protections. And even if a bunch of butt-munches start "sharing" their music with others, that means more AAC files out there, which means a better chance we'll see more MP3 players that include AAC support in the future.
So while Apple doesn't have to worry about Fairplay, the fact is that the folks they get their music from - IE, the RIAA and even independant musicians - might like to hear that Apple's not letting just anybody give away their music without paying for it. Apple might not care, but since the place where they get music does, Apple's obligated to at least "fight the good fight" to show "due process" or some such.
Yeah, I'll use it, I know Apple will work to shut it down, but it should all be good in the long run.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I don't think so. Apple did counter the reverse-engineering with a second version, but at this point I think they realize that it is not cost effective to spend money on a problem that cannot be fixed. It takes Apple too much time and money to develop a new system. They will have to choose to 1. ignore it 2. change their philosophy
Don't forget that it continues to make the community look bad. "See, we made this format so that people could legally download music for a nominal fee and they just keep breaking it so that they can pirate the tunes."
Don't bother with DRM, RIAA sponsored music, and certainly don't bother with breaking it. Just ignore it and support free music.
DRM, copy protection.. it's all the same stuff, and it's never worked. I don't know what makes people think it can work now, when it has failed for the last 25 years.
The only successful DRM has been to have a completely proprietary platform like Apple or SGI. You also get the side bonus of locking your customers into only buying your proprietary hardware upgrades.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Please don't be so naive, at least in public.
Apple is not fighting this because they are evil, they are doing it becasue if they don't, record labels will be less interested in working with the iTunes Music Store.
If you must blame someone, blame the RIAA. I agree that it's sad that Apple is playing along with the bastards, but if they aren't seen as vigorously defending the "right" of the labels to make egregious profits, they could stand to lose a critical revenue stream.
Bander
What we need more of is science!
Plus they seem to be the best of show in reverse engineering, which would give Apple an insight on how they are doing it and what they could do to prevent it, or at least make it harder to do.
As a side note, why can't Apple make it easy for their own client to download newer versions of the whole app, or at least the protocol code, automatically from the client? Downloading and updating seems so archaic nowaways. Upgrading directly from the client would be convienient and allows them to update their stuff with a lot of reliability amongst their userbase.
Th
Don't use them. Buy your music from other providers. The music is owned by its creators and its distributors. If you want free music, buy from artists who choose to give their music out freely. Respect the property rights of others.
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
Apple is evil. They just put a much more pretty face on it than Microsoft or IBM does/did.
I give this post 7.75 minutes before it is moded down because the mods won't respond, they just mod down.
Are YOU in India?
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
Cause then people would bitch that it's automatically updating itself without permission.
Have you ever heard of the marketing concept "all news is good news"?
Seems to me that the amount "loss" attributed to PlayFair is small - appealing only to a vanishingly minute portion of the iTunes customer base. Essentially a small, steaming pile of /.ers and like-minded folk who seem to have enough spare time to worry about the so-called "rights" trampling associated with a $.99 purchase.
While non-/.ers are happily chugging along under the rules of FairPlay, getting more than enough perceived value from their $.99 purchase, /.ers keep iTunes in the fore of their minds by continually wringing their collective hands over the DRM system.
And where is Real/Napster et al during these fiascos?
If they really wanted to be innovative, they would give the project their blessing.
How is that innovative?
Playfair is the equivalent of a Windows OS keygen. It might be an interesting academic exercise, but no more so than picking a lock or cracking encryption.
iTMS is actually more deserving of the title "innovative." And even that's not by very much. "Good business" is a better label.
What they really want is for the music they buy to be playable on the music playing devices that they own.
If someone is sharing music on P2P, I can virtually guarantee you that they ain't buying it from iTunes, and furthermore, this program will be of no use to them. You have to buy music to decrypt it. You can't decrypt other people's music.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I think it should be noted that: The software is now called HYMN for Hear Your Music aNywhere. The software has now made it so that while the DRM is stripped it KEEPS the AppleID inside of the song so that the original song can be traced back to its original owner if it were to show up on a p2p network. I think this is totally important and a GREAT stance for HYMN to take. While it allows fairuse of the songs to let us play them on Linux, 3rd party players, and Xbox Media Center, it still keeps copyright protection in mind. I'm really impressed with the developers for doing this.
Oh, I thought most people wanted cheap or free music. I wouldn't say everyone, because that is clearly not true.
It's free on the radio, why shouldn't it be free on the net.
Well, there are several opinions to that, so here's mine:
Fry this guy! Apple was the first to market with an online music store and is currently market leader. The Apple DRM system is probably the best out there when it comes to quality (AAC, much better than those crappy 128/192 KBps MP3s) and restrictions: Basically you can use the files on every computer in your household and iPod.
If you really want to hack a DRM system: Windows Media 9 is waiting for you and it will be the HD-DVD scheme both in coding and as DRM. Remember: If you break it now, make it to the press, the DVD Forum will not like using WM9. Clips are available here
What will Apple's reaction be? Well, the iPod has a lot of processing power (ARM core? Does anyone know the exact specs?) and it will survive the next generations of DRM change.
That may be one of the reasons, but then there's also the fact that their DRM only works with iPods. The whole idea behind the music store is just to sell more iPods. If there was no DRM, people could use their music on non-iPod players that support AAC, but as it is they're locked into buying iPods forever unless they want to re-purchase all their music.
Don't forget that it continues to make the community look bad. "See, we made this format so that people could legally download music for a nominal fee and they just keep breaking it so that they can pirate the tunes."
See, but that's stupid. People can already download music for free without playfair.
The only compelling reason for the existence of playfair is so that you can use the music you've legally purchased in whatever format you want. (Maybe you want to buy an Ipaq instead of an ipod for example).
THIS ISN"T ABOUT PIRACY IT'S ABOUT CONTROL.
It's like a "broadcast flag" for music. By claiming it's a pircacy issue, you only HELP the RIAA and hurt those who understand the big picture.
Life is too short to proofread.
you the reason us geeks have a bad name, because you defend your right to piracy as legal when time and again you have been told its not. The companies have to do something otherwise we will not only NOT be able to download music, but pretty soon maybe not rip albums, NOT because of Apple, but because of the RIAA using YOUR arguments as a example of why they need to lock down music.
which do you think looks better a) geeks paying to download and buying CDs, with the RIAA trying to argue that online music doesnt sell but the records showing they are wrong. OR b) geeks pirating music on p2p's online music failing and the goverment argeeing with the RIAA argument and thus allowing complete lockdown of all recordings with the rest of the world following suit. the CD format changed to a very propetary version that breaks old records and copy protects new ones, and the RIAA alowed to go through with their tech that breaks computers you try to rip with Dont think b couldnt happen, some of them almost did back in the napster days, the only thing that stopped them was they where pursuaded to try out online music, they failed but apple didnt. Do you really want Apples failure to signal the start of a user rights war that could drag in courts for decades?
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Breaking the DRM doesn't allow people to pirate the music. It's CD's and MP3's that make up the bulk of pirating. DRM or no, legitimately purchased AAC files don't make up any substantial portion of pirating anyways.
I would guess that approximately ZERO pirates have been twarted by DRM and LOTS of legitimate users have been annoyed by the restrictions.
Why are they (Apple|RIAA) so intent on DRM anyways?
Cheers.
You forgot the most important word in that sentence... "legally".
That "buck" arleady gives you music that you can play at home, in the car and while jogging, by using the iPod. You remember it, that thing that Apple markets as "the" cool thing to have.
yes, non-DRMed MP3s serve them extremely well by providing the pirates with perfectly ripped tunes that they know not to be purposely screwed over by the RIAA. AFter all it's not like you can't just give that MP3 to all your friends without having them need to pay for the artist's work( and a large "packaging" fee to the Label)
Yes, the community doesn't look bad for constantly hacking products to rip them off and make things freely available that shouldn't be after all, we do live in a communist society, everything should be free and doled out equally to all. Maybe we should have parades for the authors, after all they are heroes for stealing something merely because they couldn't have it.
yes, an iPod is an investment in a service since after all, it only plays iTMS music, it can't play a multitude of other non DRMed formats.
Yes, we should btite you since after all we shouldn't get in the way of your pirating things, its not like its illegal or anything.
-"I'm one of those Mac people that will break a bottle on the bar and hold it to your throat for bad-mouthing my system"
Seriously, I am not trying to be flamebait here. There is not much of a difference is there? Both are in business making money off of DRM now, correct? I know MS really is evil in much of what they do, and Apple has been a pretty decent company. But lets not all be hypocrites (cause that would never happen here).
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
Fair use does not gurantee you to the right to a perfect copy.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Who ever said anything without permissions? Think of it like norton downloading new virus def's. THey let you know when new stuff is available, and you click ok to download. Why have a check for player update in the client if you ahve to go outside of the client to get it. It seems like they could be streamlining their processes a bit, especially if they are trying to stay one step ahead of the reverse engineers and third party clients.
Th
I don't think it's sad that Apple is playing along with these bastards. I think the world will have to see dramatic reformation of IP laws, but it'll take baby steps.
So, it's true, Apple isn't single-handedly rewriting the American and international trade laws. They're just playing by the rules. However, it's the first widely successful example of an legal distribution model that distributes popular digital media. (I'm not going to count anything which didn't catch on or failed to provide popular music/movies/etc.)
It's a big step. First, it starts to bring into the main-steam what online distribution could look like, and what would be possible. Second, it brings IP issues to the public forum.
I'm not going to actually describe the strange IP issues that ensue, since I'm sure you're all aware of them, but as digital distribution becomes more common (through Napster-type-illegal or iTunes-type-legal), it makes average-every-day people have to think about some of the issues that would have been geek-only concerns a few short years ago.
When my technologically unsavy brother starts asking me "I can sell my old CD's, why can't I sell my old iTunes purchases?" it's a good sign of what's coming- because what's really needed is not new ways to bypass our current laws; we should be looking for anything that leads to a reformation of Intellectual Property laws that make sense in a world filled with computers, internet, mp3's, home networks, and DVD-R drives.
I think popular digital online stores will help get us there, especially if the stores insist on playing by the rules. Forcing people to play by the rules might just show them how rediculous the rules are.
Everyone here saying "but it only removes the copy protection, you still had to buy it" Same is true for CDs. Someone had to buy it somehwere. Didn't stop them from sharing them all over God's green earth. Expect the same with AAC files if this continues
I doubt Apple is seriously concerned about PlayFair. The purpose of a lock really is to keep honest people honest. It's just a minor inconvenience for someone determined to get at the contents. Apple just wants to make it trivial+1 effort to keep most people from breaking it because it's too much of a chore. That's why they let you burn it to a CD and re-import as MP3 or whatever, but not convert directly to MP3--to make it too much of a hassle for most users to massively violate the agreement.
Illegal fair use?
Fair use includes making a backup copy. I don't believe making a backup includes downloading one from the Internet (but that is open to interpretation).
Illegal copy I make for my wife?
Doesn't fall into the downloading category.
Illegal copy of music I already bought so I can take it in my car without worrying about car thieves stealing my only copy?
Illegal copy on my hard drive so when the less than immortal physical CD craps out I don't have to pay for a new copy at full price?
Again, doesn't fall into the downloading category.
Illegal monopoly on region codes (violates WTO)?
I don't see how this has anything to do w/this topic. We are talking about music not region coded DVDs/games.
Illegal price fixing (RIAA)?
They were found guilty and supposedly paid the price they deserved. The open debate about the severity of the fine is irrelevant.
I'm going to take this opportunity to show anything Apple does is rated absolutely great on Slashdot but anything similar Microsoft does is evil.
The Slashdot article about "Janus", found here, contains a similar discussion about DRM, but with a focus on Microsoft (since "Janus" is Microsoft technology).
There is a post very similar to the parent of my reply, stating that Microsoft is not the one pushing for DRM, it is the media giants (RIAA, MPAA). Of course, since it was defending Microsoft's DRM, it was not moderated very high. But the parent to my reply is rated +5 and says almost the same thing (but is defending Apple).
And there was a lot of Microsoft bashing regarding the proposed DRM, moderated very highly of course, which can be found here, here, and here. But if you bash Apple on Slashdot for their DRM, you will be moderated -1 in a few seconds.
I know this will get moderated straight to -1, but I am not attempting to start a flame war, I would actually like to start a discussion and have someone explain to me exactly why Apple DRM is wonderful but Microsoft DRM is wrong. Keep in mind that I am not trying to defend Microsoft's DRM, my position is that BOTH DRMs are bad. Anyway, my real question is, what makes Apple so perfect and Microsoft so wrong?
Oh is that all you have to do? How convenient.
Remind me again how Apple (or anybody) is forcing you to buy music with DRM included? I seem to have missed that part.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
Just raise the taxes on crack.
Yet you clearly have no respect for the Terms of Service you agree to when purchasing products from the iTunes store. You may disagree with the stated TOS. You may even believe that is illegal/unenforcable. That does not give you the moral justification to break that agreement.
If you want recognition and respect for your views on IP perhaps you should start from a better moral foundation. Rather than breaking your agreement, refuse to use iTunes.
And here I thought that the authors were going out of their way to show that they're about fair use, not copyright infringement
Kindly quote a source (legal or otherwise) that says you have a right to digital perfection when you engage your Fair Use rights.
As for your examples--which, AFAIC, aren't so much "Fair use" as simple "use" (i.e, you're not making a new work, you're using the work you were given in a fair manner), the problem lies more with the OSS you're using than the files you paid for, partially by agreeing to DRM.
If you can't put up with the 10% reduction in sound quality, why not just buy the acutal physical CDs?
That's exactly the problem. STOP FUCKING LISTENING TO MUSIC THAT ISN'T FREE. Paying for music just gives them more money to support restrictions, lawsuits, and overly wealthy suckass artists.
When is/was music ever free? Unless I am walking down the street and I hear someone playing some music it's not free and ya know what - that guy usually has a hat or a guitar case out asking for my money.
Stop paying the RIAA. That I can understand. Go to a show. Buy a CD there from a local band - but guess what - many many many of these bands have long long contracts with the RIAA companies so until the bands stop signing them and the contracts run out it's the RIAA that is going to get the money. The band gets squat no matter how much is sol, how much the price goes up and no matter how much you feel it's okay to steak just because you don't like the business practices of someone else.
Let me guess - you are reading this on a pirated copy of Windows because you refuse to pay for that too?
I don't understand this at all. If you argue that burning and ripping produces and almost identical copy, then why not just let people remove the protection from the original and skip the hassle of a burn/rip cycle?
Clearly there must be a difference between the copies, or else there would be no point not allowing stright copying but allowing burn/rip
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
This argument doesn't "need to go to sleep" becaue it's true. Apple is using DRM to sell more iPods. Yes, the fact that you can rip the cd's you made is a backdoor around it, and there's nothing they can do about it since people wouldn't download stuff if they couldn't put it on cds. But you are acting as if this ridiculously convoluted way of getting mp3s is a "feature", which it's obviuosly not since this story demonstrates that they don't want you removing the DRM.
And "The 'compression' argument" as you call it is a simple fact: this is going to lose sound quality. Your argument is equivalent to: I don't mind DRM because I can just hold a cassette recorder in front of my computer speakers and get a copy of the music I can listen to anywhere.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
"I am just bitter because these people who are out trying to break every DRM scheme will eventually make the RIAA and labels not want to put music online"
This is so childish, I have to ask:
1) If they won't sell music to us, how will they make money?
2) If they don't sell their music online, who cares? You're doing Apple and the RIAA a favor by buying the music online... more money, lower quality, no distribution costs to speak of.
Why do you always act as if you have no rights? You're in control. You have the money. They're not doing us a favor with iTMS. Don't act like they are.
Right now, under the laws of the United States, we have the right to make music compilations and give them to friends and family. There are no limits to how many times we can do this or how many people we give them to. DRM takes away that right away.
If you feel like turning over your rights to corporate America, then so be it. Fortunately, not everyone shares your view.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Therefore, they are forcing you to either...
1. buy music with DRM
or
2. pirate music without DRM
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "force". FWIW, nobody is "forcing" either of those 2 alternatives on anyone. People voluntarily choose to patronize those services.
Incidentally, you left off several other options, such as "buy a legal CD and rip it yourself." Nothing illegal about that.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
I have a hard time having sympathy for someone who knowingly buys something he knows he can't use, and then complains about it.
I knowingly bought tape deck and tapes, knowing that someday CD was going to be coming down the road.
Guess what? There's nothing stopping me from ripping old tapes to mp3 since I now carry an mp3 player instead of a walkman.
If you knowingly buy something that won't work for you, you give up all rights to later complain that it doesn't work based simply on your own stupidity.
When then you're REALLY stupid, because you haven't realized by now that just about ANY format you buy is going to become obsolete and you're either going to convert the info to another format or loose access to it.
Do you really think that in 40 years, you're going to still be able to play these files if you don't convert them to a more portable format? Or are you planning on having you own technological history meuseum in your living room?
Life is too short to proofread.
You're wrong. These are your choices:
1. Buy music with DRM.
2. Don't.
And that's ignoring your third choice, which is to keep doing whatever you were doing (legally!) before the iTMS came about. Which includes, for example, buying a CD and ripping it yourself. All Apple's done here is give you another way to purchase your music legally, should you so choose; no one's FORCING you to use it.
"Are you seriously suggesting that I no longer have the right to listen to music I purchased on a portable player?"
Of course you do, as long as that player is an iPod--just like it outlines in the iTunes Music Store contract you agreed to. What... you wanted to use your non-iPod player? Then why did you AGREE to the contract?
If you want to buy music and listen to it on your non-iPod player, no one's stopping you--there's plenty of stores where you can buy CDs to rip. The iTMS is a service, not a God-given right, and if you don't agree to the terms of the contract, nobody's forcing you to use it.
Apple DRM is not "wonderful," but there are obvious reasons why Microsoft's position is more unfavorable and negative as far as people's opinions, IMO:
- Apple's iTunes music store (and associated DRM) is a service that you may or may not use; there are many other music download services that you may or may not use also;
- the perception with Microsoft is that their DRM will be built into the OS whether you want to or not;
- Apple doesn't have a monopoly in any related markets, while Microsoft has been convicted of abusing their desktop OS monopoly power to destroy competition in other markets.
In general, technologies or abuses thereof that unfairly restrict people's rights should be more closely watched and scrutinized when implemented by a monopoly, as opposed to a company that merely competes for consumer dollar in a market. In a latter case, the market may well decide what technology and what use it will tolerate - good for competition; while in the former case the monopoly will be granted more de facto abusive powers, consumers will suffer from lack of choices, and will be guaranteed not to see any competition for their spending dollars.
Having said that, and on a side note, RIAA members (applies to MPAA also) are an oligopoly, which operate a cartel with the sole intention to guarantee revenue streams for their members, even if it means violating [anti-competitive, accounting, trade, etc.] laws, taking away people's rights, and lobbying and bribing the Congress for unfair and unconstitutional legislation like the DMCA.