Slashdot Mirror


How To Play Your iTunes Music On Other Systems

ptorrone writes "Engadget has a step-by-step for the non-uber geek on how to play your purchased music from iTunes on other systems. To be clear, this isn't a way to take music you bought and give it to someone else, this is so you can listen to your own purchased music on other systems or devices. In fact, your personal info is still in the file."

64 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. Sweet! by djhankb · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've purchased a bunch of em.
    My previous solution was to burn then to CD, then rip them using something else, like Grip under linux.

    my 2

    -H

    --
    --- #@$DF@#2%@^%3^&*$%FRHG%%[NO CARRIER]
    1. Re:Sweet! by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've purchased more music off of iTunes in the two months since I got my iPod than I have in the last 5 years. Apple has gotten about $70 dollars so far off of iTunes from my wife and I, which isn't bad considering my less than legit ways in the past...

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
    2. Re:Sweet! by Milo+of+Kroton · · Score: 2, Informative

      CDEX works well for it too, or if you can play it in some other players with a .wav output.

  2. Re:I have a way to do that too..... by euphonaesthesia · · Score: 4, Informative
    Same way. From the article:
    hymm started out as "Playfair" which was on Sourceforge, where you could grab the source / program. Then, Apple had requested for it to be removed, so PlayFair outsourced itself to India, where it was later removed, again. Now the application is called "hymn", or "hear your music anywhere". [...]
  3. Re:I have a way to do that too..... by Luscious868 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    hymn (the tool talked about in this walk through) is PlayFair. It's been renamed and a new author is working on it. Also, the latest release keeps your Apple ID in the file so if you have it on a P2P network your asking for trouble.

  4. strange name, eh? by maxbang · · Score: 3, Funny

    From the article:

    Now the application is called "hymn", or "hear your music anywhere"...

    I would have called it "hyman" because it makes more sense. Then again, if the program crashed on you, I guess you'd have a busted hyman, so I see where they're coming from on that.

    --
    I also reply below your current threshold.
  5. Cool... But... by thedogcow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a great way to do this legally... but... there is always someone that will circumvent the issue and find a loop hole to share music within iTunes.

    I really don't see illegal mp3/acc file sharing to be stopped. Ever.

    --
    Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
    1. Re:Cool... But... by DaHat · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is NOT a legal method!

      By purchasing songs from the iTMS you have contractually agreed NOT to bypass their DRM system in anyway other than those provided (ie burning to cd and re-ripping). Any other means, such as this is a violation of said contract and you are liable for any and all damages, regardless of if they are actual (ie 10,000 people didn't buy a CD because they got the song from you instead) or imaginary (ie they think 10,000 didn't buy a CD because they had the remote ability to get the song from you).

    2. Re:Cool... But... by arkhan_jg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      a) Terms Of Service are not a contract. They are terms which if you do not obey, they are grounds for terminating your business relationship. I.e. if apple catch you removing DRM from itunes tracks, they can refuse to sell you any more tracks. However, once they've (Apple) sold you something, first sale doctrine dictates that they cannot use copyright law to impose further restrictions. Specifically, use restrictions (i.e. you cannot do this with our product) are simply not enforceable post purchase. The music is not licenced, it is sold, and the only restrictions are those of copyright itself, i.e. you cannot distribute your copies to other people.

      b) even if by some legal juggling*, these TOS could be treated like a contract, i.e. you were considered to be licensing the music, not buying it, you cannot give up your legal rights by contract. No more than you can sign into slavery, or sign away your first amendment rights in the US. Such a clause would be, and has been judged to be an illegal clause, and thus stricken from the contract. Since fair use rights are not constitutionally granted rights, it would be less clear cut; but there is a strong precedent for fair use rights not being revocable by contract terms. But in this case it's a moot point, as there's emphatically not a contract post sale.

      c) There are in fact two offences you could be taken to court over. The first is copyright infringement. Your fair use rights are a defence to this charge, as long as you do not distribute copies to anyone else. Potentential to distribute has nothing to do with it, you have to actually be spreading those tracks on a p2p network. Therefore, making copies to play on another device would be legal.
      The second charge would be with the DMCA. However, it's not illegal to use a DRM-removal tool under the DMCA, only to write or distribute one. Therefore, stripping music you own of drm to use on another device is also fully legal.

      Ergo, despite what Apple and it's fans tell you, removing DRM from music you own is 100% legal. Distributing it to others without permission is 100% illegal. Since the article contains instructions on how to play your legally purchased music on other devices you legally own, that is a 100% legal action.

      * Note, in order for it be a valid contract, the seller has to have to have an ongoing relationship with you regarding the product post sale. If, on the other hand, they give you something, and you give them money, and you get nothing more from them after that other than their legal obligations like warranties (and you pay them nothing more for that particular product) it is a sale, and the contract is finished regarding that item, regardless of what the vendor would have you believe by tacking on EULA's, use clauses, licences or anything else. The only things that apply from that point on are the relevent laws of the land, and the vendor *cannot* restrict you any further than the law allows. And I will keep saying this till people stop spreading false information to the contrary.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  6. Why buy anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What is the need to buy music when we can all sing to ourselves and save money instead?

    la de la de la..
    *cat suffers heart attack*
    oh...thats why we buy.

  7. 4 cents by Bon+bons · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "hymm decodes the songs you have purchased using the key from your iPod and/or your operating system and make a new file which is not protected, it keeps the cover art and song data as part of the file. Since this is using your key, you can only do this for your songs, which I personally think is fair- they're the songs you bought, you should be able to put them on your other computers or devices."

    I don't know, even if that doesn't technically violate fair use, it comes really close. He [the author] is right though: they're the songs you bought, you should be able to put them on your other computers.

    1. Re:4 cents by reiggin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You did not buy them outright. You bought them with conditions attached. You licensed them for use with iTunes and iPod. Those are the terms you agree to after you install iTunes and the iTMS. You are violating those terms after you click on "I Agree."

    2. Re:4 cents by DaHat · · Score: 3, Informative

      WRAAAAAG! At times it feels like I'm the only one who recognizes that fair use does not apply when you have contractually agreed not to bypass the DRM... for further info, see some of my other posts in this thread.

    3. Re:4 cents by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You did not buy them outright. You bought them with conditions attached. You licensed them for use with iTunes and iPod

      Then how come iTunes supports CD burning? Are you only supposed to use iTunes to play those CDs?

    4. Re:4 cents by TwinkieStix · · Score: 4, Insightful
      WRAAAAAG! At times it feels like I'm the only one who recognizes that fair use does not apply when you have contractually agreed not to bypass the DRM... for further info, see some of my other posts in this thread.
      Contractually? I believe that it's a "license agreement" not a contract. That's a big difference. And these licenses haven't yet been tried by a court. License are intended for copyright - how I can distribute the program. If I pay for something, I own it, and nobody but the government can legally tell me what I can and can't do with it.

      Some of those things I can do:
      • destroy it
      • dispose of it in an environmentally friendly way
      • drive over it with my car
      • yell at it
      • take it apart and look at it
      • tell my friends that I have it
      • make backup copies of it
      Some of the things I can't do:
      • use it to kill people or physically harm them
      • copy it and distribute it without permission
      • use it to hurt the environment or some endangered specie


    5. Re:4 cents by elbarsal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I find it interesting that you are unable to cite any case law supporting your claims.

      OK, I'll bite, even though I'm not the parent poster.

      Take this with a grain of salt, because it's only an engineer's understanding of law from the professional practise exam.

      If you contractually agree to something that is legal and within your rights to agree to, and does not restrict "commerce", the courts are likely to interpret the wording of the contract in a strict sense - i.e. accept that you intended to waive your "fair use" and abide by the terms of the contract (maybe the Hedley Byrne case applies, if i remember right). This is similar to companies entering into an agreement for services, and the customer agreeing to the use of the product provided - terms that could include non-disclosure agreements and restrictions of the use of designs and such.

      It may be arguable that the terms of service are not a contract and as such are not enforcable under contract law, but that is an issue for the courts to decide, and in general, the courts are averse to trying to re-interpret agreements between two parties when the wording is clear, except in cases of "fundamental breach" (see Harbutt's Plasticine) where the service provided was so flawed as to render the contract invalid on the whole.

      Again, IANAL, but I did have to take a (limited) contract law exam for my engineering professional practise exam. This is Canadian common law - precedents can sometimes be applied to US cases. Is there a lawyer out there who can add anything, or correct me where my memory fails?

      ed

  8. Easier with VLC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    13 steps to play your songs?

    I prefer this 3 step procedure instead:

    1. Install VLC.
    2. Open your M4P file in VLC.
    3. Click play.

    That's it!

    1. Re:Easier with VLC by Dahan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      VLC will work on any machine playfair/hymn works on, seeing that playfair/hymn use the decryption code contributed to VLC by Jon Lech Johansen. Note the "Copyright (C) 2004 VideoLAN" at the top of the src/hymn/drms.c file, for example.

    2. Re:Easier with VLC by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have an even easier solution that works just as well as yours does:

      1. Open iTunes.
      2. Find your M4P file in the Purchased Music playlist.
      3. Click play.

      That's it!

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  9. It just works? by Bifurcati · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I find it ironic (though perhaps humorous!) that this hack is most simply implemented on a Windows platform. Note that on Mac et al., you have to have an iPod, and have it plugged in, because that's where the decrypted keys come from. On Windows, however, the key encryption has been reverse engineered somehow (I don't really understand this bit) and they're able to get the key directly from your computer. This hasn't been done on the mac, so you have to wait for the iPod to decrypt it for you.

    I just find it interesting that the DRM was most easily compromised by allowing iTunes for Windows! Is this just because of the sheer user base, meaning things get hacked together faster, or is it more profound, i.e., Windows is more easily hacked. Food for thought :)

    PS - I've just ordered by G4 Powerbook laptop (drool, drool), doing the switch from Windows. Faintly nervous, but all my friends (both of them...) are getting the Powerbooks and loving them!

    1. Re:It just works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's a flaw in Apple's implementation of iTunes on Windows, nothing in the least inherant about the Windows platform.

    2. Re:It just works? by scorpioX · · Score: 4, Informative

      On OS X, Apple added a special flag to the kernel execve() call that will not allow a debugger (gdb) to attach to a process that sets this flag. They did this specifically for DVD Player (at the behest of the MPAA) and for iTunes (maybe a condition of their contract with the RIAA?) so that people could not attach and get the decrypted key (or trace the encryption method). I suspect (but don't know for sure) that iTunes on windows does not have this "protection" and someone attached to it with SoftIce and got the key or RE'd the encryption method.

      The same "protection" was used in the OS 9 DVD player so that MacsBug could not attach to the player. But with that, DVD player just refused to run if it detected MacsBug was loaded.

    3. Re:It just works? by scorpioX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, re-compiling is certainly an option -- if you have the skills. Compiling the Darwin kernel is no easy task -- there are lots of dependencies. It can be done (I've done it for Darwin 6 - Jaguar), but it is not something a user would be able to do (unlike Linux). BTW: If anyone's interested, I found the blocking code in the Darwin kernel. Search for 'PT_DENY_ATTACH' -- it's in the ptrace() call. You'll need an Apple login ID to view it. (Free, but you have to agree to the terms of the ASPL.)

    4. Re:It just works? by Dahan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That's pretty interesting... Your earlier message says Apple added a flag to execve(), but Darwin's execve() looks standard to me:
      int execve(const char *path, char *const argv[], char *const envp[]);

      Having execve() do the protection wouldn't work anyways, seeing that gdb wouldn't call execve() with that flag set. I ktraced iTunes, and it's just calling ptrace(PT_DENY_ATTACH, ...) on itself, rather than having its parent do it. You could probably run iTunes under a debugger and set a breakpoint on ptrace() and skip over the offending call.

      On the other hand, while recompiling Darwin may not be "something a user would be able to do" (I've never tried), I'm sure someone who is knowledgable enough to reverse engineer iTunes' key generation scheme is also capable of compiling their kernel.

    5. Re:It just works? by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not modify the iTunes binary to NOP at the point it sets the flag? Simple, easy-to-undo hack that solves the problem.

      It certainly sounds more likely to work reliably than just hoping any potential user has an iPod.

      --
      ± 29 dB
  10. I have an easier method: by Polarism · · Score: 3, Informative

    Step 1: Use iTunes to burn a CD with whatever songs you bought and want to burn.

    Step 2: Use winamp to rip the CD to your computer.

    Step 3: Enjoy restriction-less CDs and MP3s.

    Then again, I stopped using iTunes now too..

    --
    All your base are belong to Google.
    1. Re:I have an easier method: by Hanji · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Step 4: Play music at loud volume and cringe at distortion caused by music being re-encoded twice into a lossy format.

      --
      A Minesweeper clone that doesn't suck
    2. Re:I have an easier method: by real_smiff · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This method (the one discussed in the article) is superior* because it doesn't involve transcoding.

      *from an audiophile (i.e. not legal) perspective

      --

      This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

    3. Re:I have an easier method: by EvanED · · Score: 2, Funny

      Then you're wasting space instead.

    4. Re:I have an easier method: by dpete4552 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I actually find it easier to just drag the file into Playfair and have it spit out a perfect non-DRM copy (ID3 tags and album art included) than it is to burn it to an audio CD, and then re-rip it to an mp3 and reenter any meta info that was lost in the process (e.g. album art).

      --
      http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
  11. Not necissarily by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 3, Funny

    Breaking a contract is not necissarily illegal (lets not even debate whether an EULA actually counts as a contract)

    The S in TOS stands for service. The contract stiplulates the penalty for breaking the contract: refusal of service. Basically they say we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who breaks our terms. The only thing Apple could do to you for breaking this "contract" is ban you. (of course the DMCA could possibly come into play somehow, but it is relatively untested)

    1. Re:Not necissarily by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Breaking a contract is not necissarily illegal

      Yes, it is. We even have a term for it: "breach of contract."

      The contract stiplulates the penalty for breaking the contract: refusal of service.

      Right. Which means if you run PlayFair or Hymn or I'mABigScriptKiddieLookAtMeWoo or whatever on one of your iTunes songs, you are no longer legally authorized to listen to any of your iTunes songs. You are, at that point, engaging in copyright violation, which if you do it enough is a felony!

      --

      I write in my journal
    2. Re:Not necissarily by DaHat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I will not debate you on the legality or binding-ness of a EULA as they have almost always been upheld by the courts.

      I suggest you check your facts though, as you will note from the Apple Terms of Sale which says:

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

      This does not mean that if you bypass the DRM of a song that you loose the 'right' to download any new songs but still retain the 'rights' to your existing ones, it means that if you bypass the DRM that you can have your 'rights' to the already purchased songs revoked! You not only loose access to the service but everything you 'purchased' from it.

    3. Re:Not necissarily by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that at this point you are no longer copying them since they are already on your computer. Copyright only deals with distribution.

    4. Re:Not necissarily by DaHat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On a Windows based machine:
      Step 1: Click on file
      Step 1: Press Control-C
      Step 1: Press Control-V

      I don't know about you... but I'd call this copying.

      If you use an application to do it and in the process of copying it strips DRM information it is still copying, regardless of if it is not distributed outside of your PC. And remember, copyright does not come into play on this as contract law (ie the agreement between you and Apple governing your purchase of songs) supersedes copyright law in this case.

    5. Re:Not necissarily by damiam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Playing a CD over the radio is distribution.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    6. Re:Not necissarily by arkhan_jg · · Score: 2, Informative

      The contract stiplulates the penalty for breaking the contract: refusal of service.

      Right. Which means if you run PlayFair or Hymn or I'mABigScriptKiddieLookAtMeWoo or whatever on one of your iTunes songs, you are no longer legally authorized to listen to any of your iTunes songs. You are, at that point, engaging in copyright violation, which if you do it enough is a felony!

      Simply not true. once they've sold you a track, the doctrine of first sale applies, and apple CANNOT impose greater restrictions than copyright law allows. Copyright law prevents you distributing copies (and a few other rights such as not pretending you wrote the music). Nothing else.

      It specifically does not prevent you playing those tracks back. If you violate your TOS with apple, they can refuse to sell you any more tracks, but they cannot prevent you using, decoding, transcoding, ripping, or even deleting your existing itunes tracks. They can sue you if you give them to others, nothing else. Once they've taken your money, and the sale is completed, the contract with them regarding that track is over.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    7. Re:Not necissarily by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Informative

      Copyright only deals with distribution.

      No.

      Copyright deals with half an assload of different things. Distribution is one of them, but only one of them.

      The biggies are reproduction, creation of derivatives, distribution, and certain public performances or displays. Read 17 USC 106.

      You may also want to read MAI v. Peak, and Utah Lighthouse v. Intellectual Reserve, which go into some detail as to how things already on your computer can be copied illegally without leaving.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    8. Re:Not necissarily by DaHat · · Score: 5, Informative

      The ultimate question is regarding distribution.

      This evening while looking for something completely unrelated I found an interesting page providing some case law regarding emulation at: http://www.worldofspectrum.org/EmuFAQ2000/Appendix B.htm

      Quoting from it:

      Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. George Frena. 839 F.Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla., 1993).
      George Frena, the sysop of the Techs Warehouse BBS, had 170 digitized images from both Playboy and Playgirl magazine posted to his computerized bulletin board system. The two magazines were commercial adult publications protected under copyright law. Playboy Enterprises, owner and publisher of both magazines, sued Frena for copyright infringement. The Federal District Court acknowledged Frena's claims that the uploading had been done by his users without his approval; however, it still found him liable for intellectual property violation. It ruled that Frena's users had illegaly copied the pictures by digitizing them; furthermore, Frena had infringed on exclusive vendor distribution rights by making the pictures available for download by his users. It also found Frena in violation of trademark law, since the infringing material contained registered trademarks belonging to Playboy Enterprises (the Playboy and Playgirl logos).

      This case established two things. First, courts can find against a defendant in an intellectual property dispute whether or not the defendant is aware of such activity. Second, intellectual property protection extends to all copies of a given work regardless of how they are made or the media on which they are presented.

      It would not be hard for a plaintiff to argue that in bypassing a DRM system, the resulting file could very easily end up being copied by potentially thousands and thousands of users, with or with out the knowledge of the original copier of the file give how most P2P apps work.

      There does exist the principal of "substantial non infringing use", however when a system exists to prevent rampant copying and is bypassed, it is not unheard of (and some would say not unreasonable) for a content owner/licensee owner (ie Apple) to fear unauthorized distribution and sue preemptively.

    9. Re:Not necissarily by arkhan_jg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oops, hit enter too quickly. The DMCA does not prevent you using a DRM-circumvention tool, but it does prevent you writing one in the US, or distributing it in the US.

      If it's hosted offshore from the US, then it's not illegal under the DMCA to download and use it on something you legally own.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    10. Re:Not necissarily by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What your parent is saying is that copyright law is a misnomer: it should be called distribution law. Sure, copying a file from one place to another, including with this program, is copying. However, it isn't distributing it, and thus title 17 has nothing to say about the actual copying (though the DRM removal would be a sticky issue).

      Whether this is true or not, who knows.


      I know. It's not true. Copyright law deals with copying AND distribution AND lots of other stuff besides.

      Copying a file as you describe is copying, and is perfectly capable of being illegal all by itself per 17 USC 106. Title 17 discusses copying quite a lot, in fact.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    11. Re:Not necissarily by zpok · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "You are, at that point, engaging in copyright violation"

      No, you are not. You might be in breach of contract, but you are not engaging in copyright violation. On the contrary. Copyright explicitly grants you the right to make copies on other media.

      IANAL but I know that much.

      BTW I am part of a record label and while I don't condone piracy, I think Fair Use is extremely important. I think FairPlay violates Fair Use. I don't think that's the end of the world, but if I can or must, I'll circumvent it.

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
    12. Re:Not necissarily by DaHat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Once again quoting from the Apple Terms of Sale...

      REFUND POLICY
      All Sales are final.

      If you violate the contract/agreement/etc midway through, it does not nullify past events. That's not unlike me breaking my lease and expecting my landlord to refund my last 12 months worth of rent. Such an idea is preposterous, and many such contracts have provisions for should either party break the contract. A cell phone contract is a perfect example, a customer of Verizon has agreed that should the customer break the contract, that they will pay a $175 dollar early termination fee.

      Breaking of the contract simply means that all granted rights under it become null and void (ie your 'rights' to the purchased music) and that future relations will require a new contract. Something either party can reject based on past experiances. Something either party can reject based on past experiences.

    13. Re:Not necissarily by Chester+K · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, it is. We even have a term for it: "breach of contract."

      A contract can never strip you of certain rights guaranteed to you, even if it specifically outlines you as giving them up. Fair use is one of those rights as recognized by the courts.

      --

      NO CARRIER
    14. Re:Not necissarily by k8to · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Private replay of works is not an action which is controlled by copyright. Full stop.

      You're referring to public performance, which it does cover. It also covers distribution.

      In the iTunes case, distribution was done with respect to the copyright and the license. If you later breach the copyright, it says you lose your rights as granted by the copyright. Sadly I'm not lawyerly enough to know what that means your legal status as to the files and private use of them is. However, you aren't either.

      Suffice it to say, to be legally sure, you'd probably have to consult a lawyer, and maybe a bunch of dissenting lawyers and the agencies they represent would have to consult each other and a judge and over a lawsuit.

      In practical terms, of course, I really doubt anyone will ever care about your private reproduction and media shifting, so it doesn't really matter.

      --
      -josh
    15. Re:Not necissarily by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interestingly enough, however, playing a song over the radio is not controlled by the sound recording copyright (the right which controls almost all other forms of distribution) but by the song writer's copyright.

      This is *only* true in the US.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    16. Re:Not necissarily by Wylfing · · Score: 2, Insightful
      >> Breaking a contract is not necissarily illegal

      > Yes, it is. We even have a term for it: "breach of contract."

      I've almost lost count of the number of times I've seen this misunderstanding. A breach of contract is grounds for a lawsuit, but it is in no way, shape, or form a crime or "illegal." In other words, the other party(-ies) to the agreement can take you to court if they think you've harmed them, and then a judge will decide whether you were justified in breaking the contract.

      So no, it is not illegal to break a contract. It is merely actionable by the (possibly) aggreived party.

      --
      Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
    17. Re:Not necissarily by Phillup · · Score: 2, Informative

      Breaking a contract is not illegal, but the legal system can be used by one party to seek recourse from the other party.

      Can be... not must.

      And, to the best of my knowledge... the government, or any other entity, has no standing to bring chages for breach of contract unless it is a party to the contract.

      It is a PRIVATE matter.

      Of course, IANAL... and YMMV... and void unless otherwise prohibited... etc...

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
  12. I beat all the DRM for everything by hartba · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just plug the headphone out into the line in of my computer and encode the songs to MP3 myself while I'm asleep. As long as you can get an audio output from a device, music DRM will never work. So what if it takes as long to record as my tape deck used to. I'm asleep, so I don't know the difference. Encoding music is easy, filling your iPOD full of illegal substances and getting it across the border is hard. Those dogs can smell anything. That's why you have to kick them in the throat. I'm not saying I'd do anything illegal... but I'd kill somebody, in front of their own mama to listen to itunes in my car and if anybody tried to tell on me, I'd gouge their eyes out.

    --
    60 percent of the time, my comments are right everytime.
  13. Hey William Hung! by AtariAmarok · · Score: 5, Funny
    "What is the need to buy music when we can all sing to ourselves and save money instead?"

    William Hung? Is that you?

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  14. Apple is only putting up a fictional fight... by utahraptor · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    After all, we all know that about 1% of people (maybe slightly higher on the mac side) are smart enough with even less people caring enough to want to use something like this, especially since it is anti-piracy minded. Apple is only appearing to be serious about this to keep the record companies in bed with them.

  15. Re:Title 17 Chapter 1 Sec 107 of the US Code by orangesquid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If apple's contract told you to rob a bank, would you?

    Some companies (especially ones with '$' in their name) are infamous for TOSs that severely overstep sane boundaries which may become legal boundaries (by precedent) if this winds up in court.

    --
    --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
  16. itunes is awesome, but... by chaos421 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    i really like itunes. the layout is great, and the integration of itunes music store is fantastic because of the ease of use, speed of download, etc. it is slightly annoying that the songs are encrypted. if my other mp3 player could read these files, i wouldn't have any complaints. perhaps the solution is to send e-mail/letters to your favorite mp3 player company and request they release firmware upgrades for your players so that the itunes format is supported.

    1. Re:itunes is awesome, but... by wnorris · · Score: 2, Informative

      perhaps i'm unclear... are you suggesting to write to sony, dell, et al and ask them to support m4p files? It's not that they don't want to... who wouldn't want to have a piece of apple's pie? - iTMS is by far the largest online music store around. the problem is that apple hasn't released the specs on fairplay, so these other manufacturers physically can't create a player that will play m4p files.

  17. Re:Title 17 Chapter 1 Sec 107 of the US Code by EvanED · · Score: 3, Interesting
    That's all well and good. I'm not saying that the TOS wouldn't be struck down in court. I'm just saying that, in the present discussion, your post is a red herring. Read what you quoted sec. 107 in response to:
    By purchasing songs from the iTMS you have contractually agreed NOT to bypass their DRM system in anyway other than those provided (ie burning to cd and re-ripping). Any other means, such as this is a violation of said contract and you are liable for any and all damages, regardless of if they are actual (ie 10,000 people didn't buy a CD because they got the song from you instead) or imaginary (ie they think 10,000 didn't buy a CD because they had the remote ability to get the song from you).


    Where does the above say anything about copyright law? Your response to me would have been an appropriate reply, but fair use, as I said, doesn't belong in the discussion, at least until you've dispensed with the TOS discussion. (And quoting the law would probably still be overkill at that point.)
  18. Re:I have a way to do that too..... by real_smiff · · Score: 4, Interesting
    > hymn (the tool talked about in this walk through) is PlayFair. It's been renamed and a new author is working on it. Also, the latest release keeps your Apple ID in the file so if you have it on a P2P network your asking for trouble.

    It seems like only a small step to remove the Apple ID from the decrypted file, hmm? I'm not advocating piracy but.. someone has to say this, 'cos it's what's going through plenty of people's minds.

    --

    This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

  19. Re:PFT. by TheGavster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is it no less a waste of time to burn iTunes songs to CDs and rip them? If anything, decoding this way is more in the spirit of Fairplay than burn and rip, as it maintains the ownership info.

    --
    "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
  20. Burn, Rip? by pclinger · · Score: 2, Informative

    Is it just me, or can't you just burn the cd, then rip it into mp3? Is this against the iTunes EULA? Or do people just not want to do this because they feel they are going to lose some minor amount of sound quality doing this?

    --
    /. editors made it impossible to link to file:///c:/con/con in my sig. Please just type it in
  21. Re:Not necissarily; DMCA provisions by David+Hume · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not necissarily Breaking a contract is not necissarily illegal

    Merely breaking a contract is not "illegal" if by "illegal" you mean "criminal" (as opposed to incurring only civil liability). However, violation of the DMCA may (or may not) be "illegal" -- i.e., criminal. The DMCA, and particularly 17 U.S.C. sec. 1201(b) provides in pertinent part:

    (b) Additional Violations. -

    (1)
    No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -

    (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;

    (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or

    (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.

    17 U.S.C. sec. 1201(b) (emphasis added)

    It appears the software in question violates section 1201(b). I suspect the DMCA takedown notice is on the way.

    However, it does not appear there is any criminal (as opposed to civil) liability. 17 U.S.C. sec. 1204(a) provides in relevant part:

    Sec. 1204. - Criminal offenses and penalties

    (a) In General. -

    Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain -

    (1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and

    (2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.

    17 U.S.C. sec. 1204(a) (emphasis added). Because the author of the software at issue doe not appear to be acting "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain," it looks like there is no criminal liability.

    On the other hand, the potential civil liability is substantial. 17 U.S.C. sec. 1203(c) provides in relevant part:

    (c) Award of Damages. -

    (1) In general. -

    Except as otherwise provided in this title, a person committing a violation of section 1201 or 1202 is liable for either -

    (A) the actual damages and any additional profits of the violator, as provided in paragraph (2), or

    (B) statutory damages, as provided in paragraph (3).

    (2) Actual damages. -

    The court shall award to the complaining party the actual damages suffered by the party as a result of the violation, and any profits of the violator that are attributable to the violation and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages, if the complaining party elects such damages at any time before final judgment is entered.

    (3) Statutory damages.

  22. Re:I have a way to do that too..... by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Funny
    Since it's just PlayFair, does this mean we can count this as a duplicate against the editors?

    It's a "howto". It explains that you 1) install the app 2) drag and drop protected iTunes files into it. It's newsworthy, in spite of this being the third or fourth time this app has been mentioned, because now it's got a new name (hymn). If you recall the earth-shaking story a few weeks ago that Darth Vader was going to have a new costume in the next SW pre/se/quel, though we didn't actually have an image or description, you know how low the bar is.

  23. Re:I run ful time in linux, you insensitive clod by AnEmbodiedMind · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple don't support KDE except to release changes to KHTML back to the community as required by the GPL.

    There is presumably no good business case for building an iTunes for Linux.

    They are a company, not a charity.

  24. Some contracts are illegal by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For instance, I know someone who rented an apartment which has no window in the bedroom for escape from fire. But it is in a very nice place at below average rent, so he puts up with it. Legally, that apartment should not have been rented at all.

    I rented an apartment whose lease had an illegal clause concerning a cleaning deposit. I ignored it and signed it anyway, and when time came to leave, and they tried to enforce it, I took them to small claims court and scared them so much I got an additional several hundred dollars out of them to dismiss it in such a manner that they were not on record of having even come to court.

    Illegal contarcts can not be enforced. Whether or not the iTunes contract is illegal or has illegal clauses is another matter.

  25. GUI by ahoehn · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you hate the command line, like I do, you can download a GUI wrapper for the Windows version of HYMN at http://stilleye.com/hymn.net/

    --
    Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
  26. Re:PFT. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting
    make it illegal

    Who said anything about making it illegal? If I buy a hard-to-find song on my wife's iMac, and I want to hear it on my Linux box, I'll happily do what it takes to make that happen. I keep hearing the tired suggestion to "just burn it to a CD, then rip it into an MP3. Get this: I can get music for free from the radio. I pay for it so that I can get good sound quality. Transcoding from one lossy algorithm to another does not fall within my definition of acceptable quality.

    Some people will use these tools to share music without authorization. Some of us will use them to listen to the music that we paid for when and where we want to listen to it.

    I'm not out to rip anybody off. I just want to hear some tunes. Understand?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?