FairPlay v2 Reversed, Playfair Back Online

Obvious by thebra · 2004-05-11 03:51 · Score: 5, Redundant

"How will Apple respond?"
With FairPlay v3.

Re:Obvious by green+pizza · 2004-05-11 03:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

>>How will Apple respond?
>With FairPlay v3.

Of course! Apple has to show the RIAA and record labels that they're trying to prevent "unauthorized decryption" of the .m4p files from the iTunes store.

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.
Re:Obvious by nosphalot · 2004-05-11 03:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Obvious by Tackhead · 2004-05-11 03:59 · Score: 2, Funny

> > "How will Apple respond?"
>
> With FairPlay v3.
I give 2:1 odds and 500 quatloos that says v3 is cracked within 48 hours.
Anyone care to take 10:1 and 50 quatloos that says it's less than 24?
Re:Obvious by garcia · 2004-05-11 04:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Obvious by Bander · 2004-05-11 04:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!
Re:Obvious by Planesdragon · 2004-05-11 04:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Obvious by athakur999 · 2004-05-11 04:22 · Score: 5, Funny

I'd say Apple will respond by paying someone to get the story submitted to Slashdot with a link to the offending website, thereby ensuring no one will be able to download it.

--
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
Re:Obvious by Shisha · 2004-05-11 04:27 · Score: 2, Troll

I will actually respond, even though I have mod points at the moment. I was tempted to just mod you down and I'll explain why:

- Your post doesn't actually say anything but an opion that you don't support with anything.

- One can't really argue with a statement that contains nothing to dispute. That's why it's so tempting just to mod it down.

- I'll try to argue this time. Next time I'll just mod rubbish posts down when I can, it's the moderators job.

I guess you're trying to imply that Apple is evil because they're trying to make as much money as they possibly can. What _exactly_ is wrong with that? In fact they're obliged to try to make money by their shareholders. They're not killing childern / whales / trees in the process as far as I know. In fact the least ethical thing they're doing, as far as I'm aware is playing along with RIAA in helping to protect their copyrighted material. I don't think there's anything wrong with trying lo limit the number of devices a music file can be played on. It may not be convenient, but it's not exactly the same ballpark as RIAA trying to stop me playing DVDs I own on a Linux computer.

Have you noticed how every high street shop actually cooperates with RIAA as well by selling their CDs?
Re:Obvious by Abjifyicious · 2004-05-11 04:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
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.
Re:Obvious by pla · 2004-05-11 04:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

Don't forget that it continues to make the community look bad.

To which community do you refer? FSF people? GNU people? EFF people? Free-and-Open source (in general) people? Whitehats? Greyhats? Blackhats? Music lovers? Anti-corporate people? Slashdotters?

Put simply, it doesn't really matter how you answer. When something threatens corporate profits (you can see that I at least fall into the last category above), they spin it so we all manage to come out looking bad. Cracked DRM? Damn those anti-corporate open-source hippy weed-smokin' bastards! Leaked Windows source code? Damn those anti-corporate open-source hippy weed-smokin' bastards! A new worm that only affects Outlook or MSIE? Damn those anti-corporate open-source hippy weed-smokin' bastards!

We can't win the PR war, because "they" have a PR budget, and we do not.

Don't bother with DRM, RIAA sponsored music, and certainly don't bother with breaking it. Just ignore it and support free music.

While good in theory (and a stance I almost fully agree with), we all have a few RIAA-signed groups we enjoy. As a better choice than supporting DRM'd downloads, just buy the CD (preferably used so the RIAA doesn't actually profit from the sale, although on the down side, the artist doesn't get any money that way either). Then rip to whatever format you like.

Of course, the RIAA has already started working to plug that particular hole (via broken CDs), but so far have failed miserably. Aside from the overall pathetically weak nature of the DRM on CDs so far, broken CDs have failed for the only reason the RIAA cares about - Profit. The general poublic may have no idea about the trampling of their fair-use rights, but they do get annoyed when they buy a CD and it won't play in their car.
Re:Obvious by nolife · 2004-05-11 04:35 · Score: 3, Informative

MS probably does not have to make money selling music from the store itself. They will license the technology to the player makers and encoding places (chah ching!), ensure the decoding can only happen on recent versions of Windows (chah ching!) using IE (chah ching!) and probably tied into passport and MSN (chah ching, chah ching!). Hell, it might even tie into the XBox (chah ching!) and MS embedded devices (chah ching!).
Being a monopoly has its advantages.

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Re:Obvious by theLOUDroom · 2004-05-11 04:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Obvious by falcon5768 · 2004-05-11 04:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

consider yourself bitten troll.
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."
Re:Obvious by Kplusplus · 2004-05-11 04:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

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"
Re:Obvious by ajayvb · 2004-05-11 04:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have no problems with free music. I do listen to some artistes who put out their own mp3s for downloads, and are not out to gyp the listener.
But honestly, stop this free music spiel. What if some guys I like work with RIAA- affiliated labels? (think 60s-70s classics)
I will do the obvious -
a) P2P illegal downloads
b) sell my soul to the devil and buy it on iTMS, or on ebay, or on my trips to India, where you can buy them for cheaper ($4-$7).

Personally I think iTMS has the big drawback that you don't get CD inlays. I love the artwork, and lyrics, credits etc. that come with purchased CDs.
Re:Obvious by nine-times · 2004-05-11 04:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Obvious by kemapa · 2004-05-11 05:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?
Re:Obvious by forevermore · 2004-05-11 05:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Playfair is the equivalent of a Windows OS keygen.
And here I thought that the authors were going out of their way to show that they're about fair use, not copyright infringement (even going so far as to NOT remove the purchaser's information from the files, just the DRM). I mean, what good is it if I want to buy a song from the iTMS, but then (since I don't really use Windows or MacOS) want to share that song out via MythMusic, or listen to it in RhythmBox.

--
Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
Re:Obvious by b1t+r0t · 2004-05-11 05:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

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).
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
Re:Obvious by Planesdragon · 2004-05-11 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?
Re:Obvious by needacoolnickname · 2004-05-11 05:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?
Re:Obvious by Durandal64 · 2004-05-11 05:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah, Apple looks reall "fair" to slashbots right now. But they're slowly but surely tightening the noose. More and more files will be flagged as not-burnable to CD, more and more restrictions will be placed.
There are no non-burnable files on iTMS. The same contract applies to every song. You can make 7 burns of the same playlist, and authorize music on up to 4 additional computers. And Apple hasn't tightened the noose; it's loosened it, probably in response to PlayFair. They allowed for authorization on 2 additional machines, but took away 3 burns (oh boohoo, like I'm going to burn the same playlist 7 times). Apple's working a compromise between the music lovers and the RIAA, and so far, it looks like their model is working well. "Tightening the noose" my ass. Get your facts straight. I hope I can see the moderation of your post in the meta-mod panel just so I can make sure whatever imbecile modded you as "insightful" never gets mod points again.
Re:Obvious by d34thm0nk3y · 2004-05-11 06:23 · Score: 2, Informative

When did the parent say anything about pirating music? He said the OPPOSITE! He said he would pay a buck if it was unencumbered with DRM. That sounds like exactly the market forces we WANT on our side, right?

You obviously think DRM is OK, that is fine for you. Many of us think it is very bad, and boycotting is the only way we have of telling anybody. It seems pretty retarded to say don't boycott because at least this DRM isn't that bad. You just wait...

BTW, any DRM war will be won by the hackers and script kiddies. As the restricions become tighter there will be more people willing to work on these projects and spread them throughout the net.
Re:Obvious by Kombat · 2004-05-11 06:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Obvious by theLOUDroom · 2004-05-11 06:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Obvious by ratsnapple+tea · 2004-05-11 06:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Obvious by theLOUDroom · 2004-05-11 06:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

Remind me again how Apple (or anybody) is forcing you to buy music with DRM included?

That's stupid.
Of course no one's FORCING you to buy something.
Even if there was only one place left on the planet to get food, technically you aren't being *forced* to buy food there, as you could always "choose" to starve to death.

I've got an idea, why don't you show me a site where I can legally download major-label music WITHOUT DRM?

Then there would be a real alternative.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:Obvious by zurab · 2004-05-11 09:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

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.

Maybe... by Plaeroma · 2004-05-11 03:55 · Score: 5, Funny

...Apple should hire the guys, as they are obviously at least as good as the guys they have now.

Re:Maybe... by bizpile · 2004-05-11 03:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

...Apple should hire the guys, as they are obviously at least as good as the guys they have now.

I'd say they are better, its much harder to reverse engineer than to engineer.
Re:Maybe... by wizarddc · 2004-05-11 04:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-11 04:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not necessarily. Engineering takes more creativity.

With reverse engineering you can watch the machine do its work, examine the input and output and compare them, etc. You have something to work with and you know when it is right...because it works.

The original engineers had to create something out of nothing...
Re:Maybe... by selderrr · 2004-05-11 04:12 · Score: 2, Informative

They did not "reverse engineer" FairPlay. They just added some hooks into quicktime to catch the audiostream after its was decrypted but before it is send to your audio card.

Nothing totally insane going on here.

--
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
Re:Maybe... by yabos · 2004-05-11 04:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Cause then people would bitch that it's automatically updating itself without permission.
Re:Maybe... by gb506 · 2004-05-11 04:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?
Re:Maybe... by csirac · 2004-05-11 04:21 · Score: 3, Informative

Never mind. I'm a moron.
Re:Maybe... by wizarddc · 2004-05-11 04:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

How is this different? by palndron · 2004-05-11 03:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:How is this different? by Just+Some+Guy · 2004-05-11 04:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you break the GPL, you are committing copyright infringement. If you use this tool, you may not be committing copyright infringement.
We can and should be upset with people using this to distribute cracked files, but there is no clear reason why using it to, say, play back legitimately purchased files on a Linux machine is morally or legally wrong.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:How is this different? by Raven42rac · 2004-05-11 04:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

The difference is you buy iTunes. All these programs allow you to do is to do what you want with your own music. I have an iPod and iTunes, so I have no real use for such a program. Some people may want to purchase songs then convert them to some other format for various other applications. Different music players, etc. If I were to use a copy of Photoshop that is illicit, I would be a pirate. If I reencode my songs from iTunes that I already bought, that is my own business, IMHO. But the iTunes DRM is unobtrusive to me anyway. You can always burn the songs to cd/dvd then reencode them to whatever you want.

--
I hate sigs.
Re:How is this different? by Walkiry · 2004-05-11 04:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Usually because breaking the GPL doesn't try to limit your fair use rights, unlike Digital Restrictions Management. GPL (roughly) says you have to make any changes you make to the code in a product public, doesn't aim to restrict what you can do in your house with your downloaded code.

--
---- Take the Space Quiz!
Re:How is this different? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-05-11 04:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

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"?

Have you ever visited the planet Earth?

It's not about stealing, it's about exercising your right to fair use, on the songs you purchase from Apple. It's a *right* you have, you hear? this simply prevents Apple from trampling on *your rights*.

No doubt some people will use it to steal and share, but then, you can buy laser printers, yet the KKK have the right to print their racial slur with the same hardware you use. Would you like it if laser printers couldn't be bought easily anymore just to fight a minority that misuses the product?

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:How is this different? by CelloJake · 2004-05-11 04:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think the difference is that the cracking of DRM is justified by the fact that the copyright laws protect certain actions which DRM restricts, under the guise of preventing other infractions of the copyright code.

On the other hand, violating the GPL is by definition a violation of copyright law, assuming the GPL is a valid license (which I believe to be true).

While most people who use the DRM breakers will be breaking copyright laws in their actions, there are uses of it that are not inherintly violating the copyright laws (except for the DMCA, intrinsicly) which would be impossible without them.

-Jacob
Re:How is this different? by jpavel · 2004-05-11 04:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm sure that there will be many comments to this story pointing out how the free software community is hypocritical, demanding enforcement of and adherence to the GPL, etc, while willfully circumventing the copyright measures of commercial companies; they will say that this is inconsistent, and shows base minds that just want everything for free (monitarily).

But there is consistency, just not with respect to copyright law. The belief that one should be able to use a good one has purchased in an unencumbered, "fair" manner, I--and many others here--believe stands on higher ground than copyrights. It is the definition of "fair" that is the gray area on which our current legal and technological battles broil. And this is why we can support the GPL while decrying measures like FairPlay, CSS, DRM, etc: the copyrights in only _some_ cases are at odds with our position on fairness.
Re:How is this different? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-11 04:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

Imagine that every book you bought came in a different crypto script and you needed real, microsoft or apple glasses to read each different type of book - effectively a corporate tax on reading. Would you accept this? Would you call a person who circumvented this device a "criminal" with double standards?

No.

It has been proven time and again that there ARE economic models to make money that don't include vendor-lock-in. In fact not only is vendor lock-in anti communistic, it is anti competition and that makes it anti-capitalist.

Fuck DRM, fuck every sniveling executive whose job relies on just being a middle man who takes his little "tax" off everything that real people produce. These people are worthless to a communist society, and they are usless to a capitalist society. They are the dead weight every way you measure it and as far as I am concerned I am not going to let them slowly seal up cultural production across the globe into their little cabals.

Why would ANY society want that to happen? The ONLY society I can imagine that happening in, is one that is run by the self-same people who stand to make a profit off it. And that worries me, because I think there are deals being cut between big media and government for kick-backs. And we need to crush that type of non-citizen corporate lobbying. Why does a corporation have a right to lobby, or even meet with elected representatives? Only citizens should be allowed to meet with government, and only AFTER an elected rep has meet hundreds of citizens for hundreds of hours should he be ALLOWED (we own them remember) to talk policy with a PAID lobby employee of a company.

It doesn't seem all that wrong until you *really* think about what is going on. We need radical democracy to smash all these cretins off the face of the political landscape and start anew; with old-school right wing libertarians and old-school liberal humanists fighting it out for the CITIZENS. There is always corruption, but back in the early days of each democracy of the world there were people *who could not be bought*, I don't think any modern democracy can make that claim anymore. And it makes me sick.
Re:How is this different? by mw2040 · 2004-05-11 04:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

The GPL says (in a tiny over-simplified, sure to get me in trouble with RMS nutshell): Take this, use it, have fun. If you make it better, let us know how. Or we'll take you to court.

The general slashdot take on this (and I'm in agreement) is that its a morally and legally responsible request to make.

Apple is saying: You can only use this music you bought in ways we approve of. You don't own it, you're just renting (licensing agreement). Yes, people agree to the license before hand, but slashdotters feel that fair use... such as the ability to listen to iTMS music under Linux or on a non-iPod MP3 player... is such a fundamental right that it can't be abridged even by a mutually agreed upon contract. An analogy would be if you and I, without any duress, entered into a contract wherein you agreed to never vote again if I give you $1. Voting is such a fundamental right that the contract is invalid, even though we both agreed on it.

Now, people can argue that the GPL is not a valid (legally... maybe morally although I'm not sure how) contract or that the iTMS license trumps fair use, and thats fine. But, the argument that the average slashbot's view on contracts is "gimme free stuff" is just RIAA-level "you're a pirate" FUD. Its just that we think one type of contract is fine and the other interferes with more basic rights.

And thats not even touching on the DMCA and whether code in and of itself can be a crime.
Re:How is this different? by palndron · 2004-05-11 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

But by doing this are you not breaking an explicit agreement with Apple made at purchase?

My understanding was/is that you agree to Apple's terms when you purchase from the iTunes store. And using this utilities to circumvent Apple's stuff breaks that agreement.

So isn't this like saying
"Well, sure I agreed to those terms to use the service, but I don't agree with them because I think I should have fair use regardless of contracts/agreements so I am going to just break the agreement."

So it is ok to break this agreement?
Why wouldn't you just use other services? This is choice here is there not?

--
a man, a plan, a canal, panama
Re:How is this different? by karmatic · 2004-05-11 04:27 · Score: 4, Informative

One, EULAs have never shown to be legally binding.

For example, take a video game. Do you need to agree to the EULA to run it? Of course not:
1- Minors can't enter into contracts. Can only people 18+ buy games?
2- They are amending the terms of sale, after the sale has taken place. This is not legal.
3- Contract laws require that you actually receive something in exchange for what you are offering. Now, the theory behind the EULA is that your computer (and through extension, you) makes a copy when you run it, as such, you need a license to copy. However, Copyright law specifically allows fair use, which allows you to do more than the EULA anyway, and copyright law lets you make copies anyway. As such, you are literally getting nothing in return.
4- Click-through agreements have never been shown to count as a legal agreement
5- What if you just skip it altogether?

The reality is, the companies who use EULAs are abusing the system, and trying to treat a license like a contract. It is not. A license doesn't have any of the above issues (the GPL is, for example, a license).

For example, copyright law says that you may not distribute copies. However, a license can say "you can go ahead and distribute copies, but only if you do X, Y, and Z". A license giveth, a license does not take. As such, minors can use licenses, too.

For example, suppose I were to were to write some sheet music, and give it to you. Copyright law is fairly specific about what you can do with it. For the most part, it just means you can't distribute copies. Now, suppose I placed the text "You may make and distribute copies, provided this copyright notice is present on all copies". This is a license. It gives you rights you do not normally had. You do not need to "enter" into any agreement at all. If you don't want to use it, you don't have to.
Re:How is this different? by Brian+Blessed · 2004-05-11 04:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you use this tool, you may not be committing copyright infringement.

Not only using it, we're talking about the legality of distributing this program. People need to understand how fundamental this is, and stop saying idiotic things like "it's the nicest DRM around, so it doesn't seem right to break it".

It comes down to whether we have the right to distribute software that we have created (from scratch).

- Brian.
Re:How is this different? by MoneyT · 2004-05-11 04:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

1) Minors can't buy from iTMS (see need for credit card). The only way they could buy is if they have an allowance system, under which, the parent is legaly responsible for the music. The contract is with whom ever owns the card the accoutnn is registered to.

2) The terms are not amended after the sale. You have to agree to these terms BEFORE you buy the music.

3) You do recieve something in exchange, you recieve the music in exchange for $.99 and giving up the right to use unauthorized programs to make copies of said music.

4) No, they haven't, but certainly terms you agree to before a sale have been.

5) You can't.

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Re:How is this different? by R.Caley · 2004-05-11 05:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

How is AAC -> MP3 for personal use inherently different than broadcast television -> VCR for personal use?
Why do you imagine I think it is. So far as I know recording TV to tape for personal use is not recognised as fair use, except i the limited case of time shifting (ie when you erase the tape after watching it, rather than creating a copy to keep).
[...]since you've actually purchased the product, and therefor have more right to use it as you see fit
You have purchased a copy, but not a dispensation to copy. Consider the case with a paperback: you have purchased thebook, and have every right to use it to hit your dog or prop up a wonky table, but you don't (neccessarily) have the right to copy the contents.
To come at it from another direction, there are specific rules allowing people to copy and format change for purposes of preservation (eg from old rotting film stock or things printed on acidic paper). The existance of such specific exceptions would seem to imply that the general case is not allowed.
Again: I'm not making any kind of ethical argument here, just pointing out that unless there has been a case which settled this issue, it's probably not a good idea to assume that it is fair use.

--
_O_ .|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Re:How is this different? by drinkypoo · 2004-05-11 06:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

3) Just what is "the music"? If you received "the music" that says to me the copyright. What Apple says you get for your ninety-nine cents is a single digital representation of a song which can be listened to with certain specific hardware, and the right to burn it to as many CDs as you like, provided the same set of songs (aka playlist) containing it is not burned more than seven times. The question becomes, what do you have the legal right to do with the file once you have downloaded it? If it were a tape or CD then the law is explicit and clear on those matters. You have the right to make backup copies and you have the right to use devices which circumvent access protection methods (the copyright bit on a CD) to do so, ensuring your rights. But since no such law has been written to protect your rights WRT digital downloads, arguably you have no rights. On the other hand, the status is even more up in the air once you've burned the track to a CD, at which point you can (apparently) make copies of it with legal impunity, as long as they are for legal, personal use.
4) That's nice, but you cannot contractually sign away your rights. If the law grants you the right to make copies of something (again, this has not been shown to the best of my knowledge when it comes to digital downloads of music) then even if you sign a form which says you won't do that, not only are you still allowed to do so, but you cannot be said to be in breach of contract for doing so because you have a legal right. On the other hand you have no explicit legal right to, say, sell the track to someone else, so doing that would be a breach of the terms of the contract unless explicitly allowed by the terms of sale.
5> I don't know about itunes in particular but in some cases if you have the appropriate registry keys set (or other equivalent where appropriate) the system believes you have already agreed to the EULA and will never display it. The question then becomes, is adding those entries equivalent to clicking yes? I cannot answer it, of course, as IANAL.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

shame ... by eatmadust · 2004-05-11 03:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

I would much prefer WMA and WMV to be hacked! I find that much worse than Apples iTunes!

GPL by millahtime · 2004-05-11 03:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

Can playfair be protected under the GNU GPL and be illegal in the US (under the DMCA) at the same time?

--
Evolution or ID?

FiarPlay name change? by Power+Everywhere · 2004-05-11 03:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've read on several other Mac news sites (Macintouch, MacMinute, MacSlash) that FiarPLay is now called hymn (for hear your music anywhere). Why didn't Slashdot note this, or has there been a fork in the project?

--

BLING BLING. Meet the architecture that's changing everything.

Though there's less and less point... by Kjella · 2004-05-11 03:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

...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

How will they respond? by xwinter · 2004-05-11 03:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:How will they respond? by swb · 2004-05-11 04:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Personally I think iTunes was about as reasonable an online music setup as we're ever likely to see, barring some significant change in the business tactics of the music industry.

Doing something to make Apple's apparent respect for the industry's "IP rights" look less than sincere appears to be kind of foolish, and a great way to damage what is a pretty reasonable setup. Price increases or a desire by the industry to embrace a more draconian DRM structure that doesn't allow for an easy copying loophole like iTunes' just seems short sighted.

Apple's rock and hard place by Dark+Paladin · 2004-05-11 03:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:Apple's rock and hard place by clichekiller · 2004-05-11 04:11 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

AFAIK you don't have to have a .MAC account in order to purchase from their music store. Is there some other reason that you will stop buying/playing your music when your .MAC account runs out?

--
Sir, there is a dragon outside with an armful of armor. He's inquiring if we offer free refills.
Re:Apple's rock and hard place by tdemark · 2004-05-11 04:12 · Score: 2, Informative

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.
.Mac has absolutely nothing to do with iTMS.

If you somehow got the idea that your music is permanently tied to the email address you used when you bought the song, you might want to click on the "Account" button above the content when browsing the store. Note the "Edit Account Info" link that allows you to update your email address.

- Tony

with fair play v3? by joNDoty · 2004-05-11 03:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Hire the guy! by Hack'n'Slash · 2004-05-11 03:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

Personally, I think Apple should hire the person(s) that keeps reverse engineering it. Then they get a knowledgeable staff member, and don't have to worry about a new version being cracked... At least for a little while. :)

More info by arvindn · 2004-05-11 04:01 · Score: 3, Informative

from Macworld

Silly. by GigsVT · 2004-05-11 04:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:Silly. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-11 05:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

DRM and copy protection are as effective as the 'war' on drugs. its about time we get lawmakers into office that see this.
Re:Silly. by goldspider · 2004-05-11 07:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Locking doors hasn't been all that effective at keeping people from breaking into houses either. Does that mean we should just stop locking our doors?

DRM, copy protection, etc., while never 100% effective, provides a minimal level of protection against people without the inclination to seek out ways to circumvent it. It does a poor job at keeping out people dead-set on getting what they want without paying for it, it makes it more worthwhile for most people to just pay for it.

Without DRM or copy protection, even casual users would be able to get their digital products without paying for it, and with next to no effort. Any profit to be made from the product would be flushed down the toilet.

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Re:Silly. by GigsVT · 2004-05-11 08:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

If your key was liable to disintegrate at any time and the only ones that could replace it legally was the company you bought the house from, then your analogy might be more valid.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.

big difference by green+pizza · 2004-05-11 04:01 · Score: 5, Informative

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"?

There's a big difference here...

PlayFair decrypts .m4p files into plain .m4a/AAC files. The reason people use PlayFair is to allow the use of iTunes-purchased files to be played back without having to use an iPod or iTunes. Sure this could lead to increased piracy, but so does buying a CD at Walmart.

PlayFair still requires the music to be purchased in the first place. Apple's files (at the RIAA and record labels' demands) are still encrypted, even after "purchase".

PlayFair users are generally working with their own, purchased files. They are not dipping into some secret Apple server full of encrypted, unsold songs.

iTunes buyers simply want more freedom. They're using PlayFair to achieve this.

Encrypted music the next big thing? by Ghoser777 · 2004-05-11 04:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

We have DRM'd music, what about Public-Private Key Encrypt'd music? Won't it ultimately come down to that, where the key's are owned by a company and you have to be connected online to listen to your music? It must be depressing to sell any type of software online... wait till nanotech does the same thing to the "real world" that dd and cp have done to the electronic world. My guess is either capitalism will fall, or liberty... at that point where you can replicate matter with ease, I doubt they can coexist.

Matt Fahrenbacher

--
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."

Not similar at all... by Otto · 2004-05-11 04:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

Someone violating the GPL is using other people's work without giving them credit or compensation. It's copyright infringement.

Someone decrypting FairPlay'd songs has a whole host of reasons to do so, including using those songs in a fair use manner. You have to *buy* the songs before you can decrypt them.

Example: Say you want to convert the M4P's into MP3's for compatibility with your portable player. iTunes won't let you do that, without the tired hack of burning and reripping an audio CD. But if you FairPlay, you can decrypt the songs into M4A's and then iTunes will convert them to MP3's for you just fine. No (sane) laws have been broken, and it's perfectly ethical to do this. You're not giving away the music, you're just converting it to another format for compatibility with other devices. That's fair use, as I see it.

And frankly, getting iTunes store music, decrypting it, and sharing it isn't going to happen. Nearly everything you can get at the iTunes Music Store is *already* out there on the P2P networks. It's not like this creates more copyright infringement.

--
- 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.

Re:Not similar at all... by Otto · 2004-05-11 05:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

And with respect to all those arguments claiming that you're just converting formats for personal use, it's nieve. The RIAA doesn't care about what you say anymore than you care about what they say. The power to work around a DRM is a power which we can abuse, and they have no reason to trust us not to abuse it.

a) The word is spelled "naive".
b) Naive it may be, but it's true nevertheless. What's the point of putting decrypted songs on the P2P networks? They're all already there, and in better quality than 128kbps AAC too.
c) The power to work around a DRM system is not a power that they have the ability to take away, so whether they trust people with it or not is irrelevant.

where do you want to draw the line?

I'm perfectly satisfied with the line as it stands. They can keep trying to protect things with DRM, we can keep breaking them. Until they finally understand that it is not possible to create an unbreakable DRM scheme, it'll likely stay this way.

Structured society is all about trading certain rights for benefits

Yes, and that's why we have laws in place to define those rights. Fair use is something we, the people, do have, and I will not trade it away for anything.

This isn't about encryption or breaking DRM or even copying music. This is about taking the music I paid for and using it in the way that I want to use it. Are you seriously suggesting that I no longer have the right to listen to music I purchased on a portable player? Because that will be the main use of this software. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant, because it's still true.

--
- 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.
Re:Not similar at all... by ratsnapple+tea · 2004-05-11 07:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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.

Re:Apple will respond... by d4rkmoon · 2004-05-11 04:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think so also. As the couple of Slashdot articles in the past have stated, the more media coverage, the more your profits go up. Interestingly enough isn't it. Personally, I still think that iTunes was one of the better deals out there versus all those stupid excuses for companies tryin to imitate them. All we ask for is music that we'll buy that actually is worth what we pay for. Heck, what's the last "album" that you can remember worthwhile to pay for? Not many are out there when it comes to Top 40s.

--
-- Friends don't let friends buy Nokia.

If you don't like the terms of the iTMS service by Master+Switch · 2004-05-11 04:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:If you don't like the terms of the iTMS service by The+Darkness · 2004-05-11 04:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't use them. Buy your music from other providers. The music is owned by its creators and its distributors.
Bull! The music is owned by the public but the artists or whoever shafts them are granted by us a (supposedly) time limited monopoly on that work during which they can make money. This is incentive for people to actually create things.
Disney, et al. have perverted this system so that an artists grand-children can milk money from their works. They have also worked hard to mislead people about copyright. In your case they have succeeded.
If you want free music, buy from artists who choose to give their music out freely. Respect the property rights of others.
No argument.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those that need closure

Emulate? by Steamhead · 2004-05-11 04:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Is there a way to emulate an iPod so those of us who don't have one can decrypt our songs?

Nonsense by Otto · 2004-05-11 04:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Next to none of its use will be for piracy. Why? Because the music is already out there. It's not like iTMS has anything special that isn't already shared. Okay, they do have the iTunes "Exclusives" that show up every once in a while, but beyond that I seriously doubt most people will be buying music and sharing it with the world. Hymn (as I see it's now called) will be mainly use for compatibility reasons. You should see the Apple forums, where the majority of questions are about how to play back iTunes Music Store songs on this or that MP3 player..

--
- 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.

Re:Also, it is legal in India. by Niles_Stonne · 2004-05-11 04:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Are YOU in India?

--
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.

And don't forget... by TomatoMan · 2004-05-11 04:15 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

And don't forget that FairPlay purposely leaves in the Apple ID used to purchase the song. So if people DO start putting their .m4a's up on Kazaa, tracing them back to the owner for major bustitude is trivial. Every file retains its signature. This should limit the appeal to pirates, at least the ones who don't put the files through a second process to remove it. And those guys will pirate things anyway no matter what format they're in.

I just wish I had either an iPod or a windows machine capable of running iTunes so I could use it. My G4s and linux boxen can't do it. And iPods are still way too expensive for me, so I guess I'm stuck with the CD -> mp3 method for now.

--
-- http://frobnosticate.com

more info by xandroid · 2004-05-11 04:16 · Score: 5, Informative

According to MacWorld...

new version, and they're calling it a complete re-write (now fully GPL compliant, too)
new web host (in the US, surprisingly, and ballsy too: Babu (creator) says "This [host] is well aware of the DMCA and DRM issues and is very much willing to defend us in case Apple threatens to bring down the site")
now preserves the iTMS header files, including the user's Apple ID ("This proves that our purpose is for fair use and not for piracy and should help us in our legal battles")
"hymn" stands for "hear your music anywhere"
and the new site's not even slashdotted yet!

(Not really karma whoring, just adding the info that was in my submission... bah.)

--
$ echo "ceci n'est pas une pipe" | sed -Ee 's/(eci n|pas )//g'

No... by Otto · 2004-05-11 04:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Keeps with Copyrights by seven5 · 2004-05-11 04:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

What everyone wants by nuggz · 2004-05-11 04:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Apple's Response by Brian+Blessed · 2004-05-11 04:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

with FSF India providing legal support. How will Apple respond?

The registered address of the hymn-project.org domain is in India, but for its "A" record I currently get the following:

OrgName: United Layer, Inc.
OrgID: LAER
Address: 1019 Mission Street
City: San Francisco
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 94103
Country: US

So perhaps there remains a danger that Apple will simply DMCA this place as per usual.

- Brian.

Reactions by RavenZ · 2004-05-11 04:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Reactions by dabraun · 2004-05-11 07:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Apple was not the first to market with an online music store. There were several WMA format stores out there before anyone had even heard of iTunes. PressPlay was one of them.

As to your comparison of the quality of AAC vs. MP3. No online store with major label music has ever used the MP3 format so the comparison is silly. WMA is on the same par with AAC. Some would argue WMA is better.

The DRM system for WMA files is certainly far more versatile and far more secure than AAC. It allows the content owner to set up a wide variety of lisencing terms rather than the one-size-fits-all approach of iTunes. No one has a working crack - though the burn/rip approach works as long as the content owner allowed burning (which they generally do unless the songs are being given out as a free time limited promo - i.e. download this album for free, it will be playable for 2 weeks)

David

Nope by Otto · 2004-05-11 04:21 · Score: 5, Informative

Playfair actually decrypted the music directly, it didn't intercept it in Quicktime.

The key to decrypting iTMS files lies in its keyring. See, when you get "authorized" by Apple to play your purchased music, a key gets downloaded to your machine. This key is used to decrypt your music. The key is stored inside a keyring, and the keyring is encrypted using other information specific to your machine (Windows key, chunks off the BIOS, etc, etc).

The method to decrypt the keyring was reverse engineered, giving you the key, giving you the ability to decrypt the songs directly.

Simple.

--
- 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.

Fight for Fair Use Legally... Support the DMCRA by EvanKai · 2004-05-11 04:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you believe that the DMCA is trampling your rights under Fair Use, please get involved in supporting the EFF and the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA, H.R. 107).

If we don't let our representatives know we are watching how they vote on this, Big Media will crush this legislation. If the /. community would spend a fraction of the time lobbying against laws like the DMCA as we do bitching about the companies that sue using it, PlayFair (and any other DRM cracker) would already be legal.

But but but... by localman · 2004-05-11 04:41 · Score: 4, 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 conveiniently forgot a word... by garcia · 2004-05-11 04:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

You forgot the most important word in that sentence... "legally".

Microsoft sold the stock long ago by SuperKendall · 2004-05-11 04:49 · Score: 2

There goes that theory.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:looks like its time. by aristotle-dude · 2004-05-11 04:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Fairplay does not deny your right to fair use. You are free to burn a copy to disk just as you are free to photocopy portions of a book under fair use or tape record from the radio.

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.

Oh Come on. by OS24Ever · 2004-05-11 04:53 · Score: 3, Informative

This argument needs to go to sleep and fast.

Burn protected AAC to CD Media.

Rip with VBR --r3mix -b112 with lame or your favorite encoder.

Play on whatever you want.

And the 'compression' argument doesn't hold water unless you have a $10k set of speakers to listen to it on powered by a McIntosh analog amp. And if you have that you're just a cheap a$$ bastard for not buying the music. ;)

I burn all sorts of CDs and listen to them in my cars, my stereo, etc. I can't tell the difference between it and my lossless compressed burns when they are side by side. Granted I've not paid for a song I have and tried it but if you decompress a 128k AAC and a flac compressed one and play them on the same stereo they sound no different

--

As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

Re:Oh Come on. by Spectra72 · 2004-05-11 05:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Oh is that all you have to do? How convenient.
Re:Oh Come on. by Chris_Jefferson · 2004-05-11 05:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

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
Re:Oh Come on. by Frizzle+Fry · 2004-05-11 05:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Oh Come on. by vwjeff · 2004-05-11 06:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Burn protected AAC to CD Media

Yes I could do that but it is just one more step I must do in order to play the music I purchased on my non-ipod player. I purchase music online because it is convenient. This is not convenient.

I'm sad to say that Apple may once again lose to Microsoft. Microsoft's DRM hasn't been cracked yet. If this continues the major labels may decide to back Microsoft and shun Apple.

I do not have any problems with Apple's implementation of DRM except only supporting the iPod. I love the ITMS. Finding the music I want is much easier for me than some other sites I have used.

I'm torn between supporting Apple, a company I respect, or using another music service where I can get my music cheaper and supports my portable player.

Kinda funny by kilbo · 2004-05-11 04:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Support Hymn? Buy more iTunes songs!! by SuperKendall · 2004-05-11 04:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

You want to show some support for Hymn? One way is to buy some iTunes songs, to show that increasing freedom of music only leads to more sales! If everyone from /. went and bought a song or two, that would show a nice jump.

I plan to buy a CD or two this week to show that just because I can free up my music doesn't mean I'm going to stop buying or shipping my music out to everyone on the planet.

You can also fill out a form to let Apple know you'd like Hymn to stay around and it will increase you purchases there.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Interesting Change by localman · 2004-05-11 04:57 · Score: 4, Informative

One change mentioned on the page (if anyone actually read it) is that the new version strips the DRM, but leaves intact the Apple User ID who originally purchased the song. That is pretty cool - as it give them some legal justification. If people share stuff they can be ID'd. This is perfect for me, as I just wanted to be able to play my songs on whichever computer I use but wouldn't share them with anyone other than my wife. (Which for all I know, might be illegal, but WTF is with that?)

Cool

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors by johndeerejedi · 2004-05-11 04:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:On whose behalf? by garcia · 2004-05-11 05:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

More Apple-related hypocrisy by Sanity · 2004-05-11 05:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

You are legally allowed to yield your fair use rights when entering into a contract, which everyone who uses the iTunes service does.

Not if they are drunk, or a child, or any one of the multitude of other things which make click-through agreements legally suspect.

How come all it seems to take is the mention of Apple, and all the things slashdotters normally hate, such as DRM, and restrictive click-through agreements that prohibit reverse engineering, suddenly become the best thing since sliced bread?

obligitory steve jobs quote by cygnus · 2004-05-11 05:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

found here:

When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content.

...

And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it.

apple *expects* this stuff to get hacked lickety split, people. they aren't even trying to protect it that much...

--
Just raise the taxes on crack.

Mirror in US, on University connection by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-11 05:21 · Score: 4, Informative

The site is becoming slow. I have a fast Internet2-enabled University connection, so anyone can download quickly from these. This has enough bandwidth for all of you. :)

It's probably a DMCA-banned circumvention device, but these are my last days on ResNet. *sniff*

Here's a mirror:

UNIX-style source: http://128.220.38.69:8071/hymn-0.6.0.tar.gz

Windows binaries: http://128.220.38.69:8071/hymn-0.6.0.zip

Mac binaries (with GUI): http://128.220.38.69:8071/hymn-0.6.0.dmg

You can check my MD5SUMs against the official ones, http://hymn-project.org/download/MD5SUM .

Not buying the music? by MacDork · 2004-05-11 05:50 · Score: 4, Informative

And if you have that you're just a cheap a$$ bastard for not buying the music. ;)

Last I heard, you had to actually purchase the music and have a iTMS account for Fairplay to work. It won't work on that AAC file you grabbed off of Kazaa, because you don't have a valid key to begin with. This is clearly a fair use issue, not one of copyright infringement.

I just burned my ability to mod this discussion, but that had to be said.

Taking away our rights hurts everyone by Anita+Coney · 2004-05-11 06:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

A little too close for comfort by thatguywhoiam · 2004-05-11 06:18 · Score: 2, Funny

Cracked DRM? Damn those anti-corporate open-source hippy weed-smokin' bastards! Leaked Windows source code? Damn those anti-corporate open-source hippy weed-smokin' bastards! A new worm that only affects Outlook or MSIE? Damn those anti-corporate open-source hippy weed-smokin' bastards!

And I for one welcome our new anti-corporate open-source hippy weed-smokin' bastards.

--
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.

3 Machine limit is why i use by gsfprez · 2004-05-11 06:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

because i'm pretty savvy at getting rid of my 9-18 month old macs on eBay, i'm often turning over my computers.

twice now, i've had a machine leave me without deauthorizing it. once because i forgot to, and once because it died on me totally (iBook repair program).

So i have yet 1 machine that is authorized - and rather than do an XP-like "mother may I" call to Apple to pay for music i've paid for - i'd rather just run this app, move my music to whatever machine i've got - and keep buying more music.

there are lots of good reasons for this - few are bad - and since my ID is still attached - its not like i could easily get away with using it on a P2P anyhow.

I use iTunes because it works better than p2p, and will keep on doing so so long as Apple doesn't stop me from using what i've bought.

--
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.

Re:PPC Emulator for x86 runs Mac OS X !!! by phillymjs · 2004-05-11 06:35 · Score: 3, Funny

Due to the nature of emulation, PearPC is quite slow (the client will run about 500 times slower than the host).

So PearPC is written in Java, then?

Ba-ZING!

It's about the history. by MisterSquid · 2004-05-11 07:15 · Score: 2, Informative

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?

It's a simple matter of history. For the past 10 years, Microsoft has behaved atrociously in any market where they have had a stake. They have run roughshod over consumer interests, antimonopoly laws, and have singlehandedly destroyed free market competition.

While no one can be sure, many of those who mod pro-MS DRM (or pro MS anything) negatively are relying on their historical knowledge of MSs behavior. Apple generally have not abused the markets in which they compete (though they have been known to do so: e.g. Final Cut Pro, though that is debatable given Adobe's letting Premeire languish).

So, long story short, people mod pro-MS posts negatively and pro-Apple posts positively because they recognize that the two companies are DIFFERENT. It's not only what you say, but of whom you say it, and let's be realistic. Given the chance, MS would almost certainly use any DRM scheme it controlled in a way that abused its monopoly position. Apple doesn't have a monopoly it can abuse. Its lead in digtial music sales is independent of its horrifyingly low desktop market share.

In context-sensitive debates involving IT, it does matter if you are talking about IBM, SCO, Apple or, Microsoft. Funny that you can't seem to understand that people use what they know when deciding whether to moderate up or down.

--
blog

Show me the money by SuperKendall · 2004-05-11 07:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

There's really nothing else that Apple can do. If they ignore PlayFair, the RIAA will surly pull the plug on iTunes.

Except for one thing - iTunes is making a LOT of money for the RIAA and associated companies! As iTunes grows in use and popularity, Apple has much more of a stick to brandish and show music companies that even with tools like Hymn, sales can continue to grow. I think that was Apple's plan all along, to start with the least restrictive DRM possible and then relax it further as time went on and the music companies became more comfortable with the whole thing (witness the recent relaxation of number of computers to five instead of two) - they only dislike Hymn because it accellerates the time table faster than they would like.

The RIAA could possibly pull the plug (not sure what the contracts are like) but will they do it if they throw away a ready cash flow in the process? You can argue other things they have done have hurt sales, but only from a theoretical standpoint - iTunes represents a very concrete flow of money that I'm not sure the RIAA would have the gumption to shut the valve on.

So now the question is - is Apple willing to undergo the expense of a legal battle they are pretty sure they will lose and not even agree with, or are they strong enough to tell the music companies they cannot fight it from the start?

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

GOOD! by zpok · 2004-05-11 07:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

I really like this. Even more now that they leave the ID info intact.

This program is made to circumvent DRM, but not to pirate. As such it allows fair use as stipulated under copyright law

IANAL but I don't like this trend of locking in the user more and more. There was never any real action against people taping their LP's in the time when my back didn't hurt that much after sex.

I'm actually from the other side (involved with a label) I and don't think pirating stuff is in some weird way noble and nice, but like almost everybody on that side of the fence, I do like music - a lot more than most Britney Spear copying idiots I'm sure - and I do buy the stuff, and I can't foretell on what equipment I'll be wanting to play it on in a couple of years time. So the more options I have, the happier I am.

That doesn't mean I want Apple to support every music format possible, I like their focus on ease of use... When I was a kid I also had to find out how my cassette player and mixing desk had to be hooked up in order to copy. But nobody was actively trying to make my life difficult either.

On that: Apple needs to show it's "concerned" and needs to be seen to try and do something about this - it's a lawyer thing, else they don't uphold their part of the bargain - but really, do you think deep down they really care? There isn't a company that's more into music than Apple. They know very well what reality looks like and how consumers think.

--
I think, therefore I am...I think.

Why not crack WMA DRM? by agent2 · 2004-05-11 08:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Congratulations, someone cracked the iTunes DRM. Honestly, good job. I wouldn't have been able to do it. But what would really be nice is if someone cracked the DRM on WMA files. Then, of the few songs that you can't purchase from iTunes, you could buy them from a WMA based music store and play those songs on any computer/music player too.

See, WMA is even more restricted. WMA-only music players using Windows operating systems.

The cracked iTunes DRM now allows for purchased music on ANY device capable of playing a music file. Complete compatability

"Protection" is stripped... by Cinematique · 2004-05-11 08:38 · Score: 2, Informative

But your iTMS account name still remains coded in the hymn-altered file.

Slashdot Mirror

FairPlay v2 Reversed, Playfair Back Online

117 of 621 comments (clear)