Cracking iTunes' DRM with JHymn

comforteagle writes "Howard Wen has interviewed 'FutureProof' of the JHymn project, a DRM removal application for iTunes song files laden, or 'crippled' as some say, to prevent filesharing. FutureProof tells us how Apple's DRM works, how to rip it out using JHymn, how they build on the work of 'DVD' Jon Johansen, and how to upgrade to that brand new iShuffle safely."

Comments

I love this shit

[Lisandro]

I hope stuff like this teaches companies no one wins with DRM. Not themselves, as they're made look incompetent when DRM is cracked ("Protected CDs" rippeable pressing CTRL?), and certainly not their customers.

If it's digital, and the end user can see / hear it, it can be copied. Perfectly. Deal with it, and make it interesting to buy instead of pirating.

Re:I love this shit

[Lisandro]

Given. So why bother a paying user if your product is going to be pirated anyway? It's a battle you can't win; you might as well accept it as a price of doing buisness. I've been saying this for games aswell, where "no-cd" patches are simply necessary in order to play the game without it becoming an annoyance.
You just can't keep digital media from being pirated. It's as simple as that. Try a different aproach.

For example, i like buying CDs. I like having a nice, pressed, shiny CD with a good looking booklet. I like buying books, and i like buying DVDs.
I also download a lot, even though i usually end up buying what i really like. I would buy a lot more, but the thing is, music/dvds and even books are still way too expensive. Why not lowering the price, knowing that you'll still make a profit? (no, i don't beleive $20 for a CD is reasonable)

Re:I love this shit

[shark72]

"So why bother a paying user if your product is going to be pirated anyway? It's a battle you can't win; you might as well accept it as a price of doing buisness."

Accepting it is not the same as not taking measures to reduce it. Ask any retailer; they'll tell you that there's always going to be a certain amount of shoplifters, but rather than simply give up trying to fight it, retailers put anti-shoplifting measures into place. These, too, can bother paying users, but retailers have evidently done careful analysis to understand that it's worth the tradeoff. Case in point: Costco (or whatever your local club store is) has chosen the route of inspecting your reciept on the way out, rather than just simply giving up and "accepting" shoplifting. Perhaps Slashdot users know better, but I doubt it. It's a complex situation that cannot be resolved with simple bromides such as "piracy will happen, so give up on DRM."

"I also download a lot, even though i usually end up buying what i really like. I would buy a lot more, but the thing is, music/dvds and even books are still way too expensive. Why not lowering the price, knowing that you'll still make a profit? (no, i don't beleive $20 for a CD is reasonable)."

Huh? CDs haven't been $20 in years, and prices have been falling rapidly. The average price of a new CD dropped 4% last year, to $12.95. The record companies are way ahead of you on this one.

I've lost you on the "knowing you'll still make a profit" part, though. The record industry gets by with pretty shitty margins in general, and many CDs lose money.

Why crack it?

[Sheetrock]

If you didn't want DRM, you'd buy the CD. It seems like a lot of hassle to set up an account, buy the music, download the music, crack the music, then convert the music to get to the same end result.

Admittedly, without the thrill of "fighting the man", but in this case "the man" is giving you virtually everything you asked for (inexpensive music you can try before you buy with the ability to download exactly what you want and make mix CDs, which you could then rip as well without needing this tool.) Now Apple is going to have to crack down again.

What does this win us? The music industry can point to this as another example of why the restrictions need to be in the hardware and the hardware manufacturers are already in their pocket as far as the next generation of motherboards are concerned. Thanks to the pirates, those of us who buy the stuff again have to pay with further restrictions.

Re:Why crack it?

[garcia]

If you didn't want DRM, you'd buy the CD. It seems like a lot of hassle to set up an account, buy the music, download the music, crack the music, then convert the music to get to the same end result.

I wasn't aware you were able to get custom made mix CDs at stores with tracks numbering in the 100s of thousands. Cool.

Obviously iTunes is popular because some people don't like to spend $13+ on an entire album when they only want one song. They want to make their own mixes and still not have DRM on them I guess.

Re:Why crack it?

[bogie]

" If you didn't want DRM, you'd buy the CD. It seems like a lot of hassle to set up an account, buy the music, download the music, crack the music, then convert the music to get to the same end result."

Why should I buy an entire CD when I can buy the two or three songs I want via a brillant interface that's better than any other online music service? And its not a hassle. One-time setup of account, 99c a song and a quick run of Jhymn is hardly a hassle.

"but in this case "the man" is giving you virtually everything you asked for (inexpensive music you can try before you buy with the ability to download exactly what you want and make mix CDs, which you could then rip as well without needing this tool.) "

So circumventing Apple's DRM one way is okay but another way isn't? Wow, great logic. Let me ask, if I record to a tape from my audio out of a DRM file is that illegal as well? If the end result is the same what's the difference? Who is being harmed when the end result in a unencrypted file in EVERY SINGLE CASE. What because your taking the extra step of going DRM-CD-RIP and someone else goes DRM-RIP your method is somehow better for Apple? In what way? Why are you even suggesting Burning and Ripping? Are you one of those people who upload all of your Itunes music to P2P? Oh no wait, that's what you Apple defenders are constantly accusing us paying customers of doing.

"What does this win us? The music industry can point to this as another example of why the restrictions need to be in the hardware and the hardware manufacturers are already in their pocket as far as the next generation of motherboards are concerned"

Or they could point to the built in loophole of ripping from CD which rendered Apples DRM useless from day one.

"Thanks to the pirates,"

Excuse me? Pirates? Who? The people who PAID APPLE for each and every song and use a program which ONLY works if your the one who purchased the music in the first place? Yea those bastards!

The Pirates are on P2P sharing songs they never bought. The people using this tool aren't pirates. Get it straight already. And get over your holier than thou, how you dare use a product in a way other then intended attitude. You've benefitted more from reverse engineering and people using products in ways not intended then you could possibly imagine.

Re:Why crack it?

[fingusernames]

Who said rockstars need to have their every whim catered to? Who drove the cost of music videos through the roof? Who demands artists pay $20,000/hour for some "big name" producer to hit a few buttons in Pro Tools? Who demands artists pay thousands an hour for studio time? Who created this bloated, overinflated, cookie cutter music market where it's ridiculously expensive to get exposure? Who helped create the radio station conglomerates like Clear Channel and Infinity? Who created this situation where it's prohibitively difficult for non-affiliated artists to get more than small, local exposure?

Uh, the people who paid, still pay, and continue to pay for it? Big-evil-corporations exist because people pay them money. Nobody needs music on CDs/records/tapes, or encoded in mp3s. Nobody has a right to it. The only rights involved are those of the creator and of those to whom he delegates his rights.

Nobody forces an artist to sign a contract with a big label. They do it of their own free will, generally because of greed. They aren't content with having their "real" jobs, playing at local venues when they aren't working to pay rent, perhaps growing popular through word of mouth. They want to "hit it big" and think they need the power of an agent/label/distributor/so-on. Such is their right.

That a work of art should have protection against copying was an obvious and fundamental enough concept that our ancestors enshrined it in the Constitution of the United States as an explicit obligation of the Congress to enforce, over two hundred years ago, when music was sold via lyric sheet. The mental product of your fellow man has value, and is worthy of legal protection. Regarding DRM, finding some clever way to open a vault and remove the gold within makes it no less theft. Finding clever ways around DRM to extract the protected work within makes the act no less theft.

Nobody has the right to music, or software, cable TV or for that matter health care. Something that requires the labor of another is not a right. To believe otherwise is to believe that others must labor uncompensated (see: slavery) for oh-so-special you. If you don't like the price being charged, if you don't like the terms of the sale (usage restrictions), don't buy it, and don't steal it. Something that is worth stealing is worth protecting. You know that, they know that.

It's very simple. If enough people cut restricted/expensive music out of their lives entirely, the market will adapt.

Larry

Re:Why crack it?

[laughingcoyote]

Artists and such could follow such an open-source model. The FSF might be against that, but I don't work for them, and I have no problem with that concept.

Also, artists could be paid based on number of downloads. If a million dollars are available, and my song is downloaded 999,999 times to your 1 time of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, I get the 999k and change, and you get a buck. It is possible to get pretty accurate statistics through random sampling, ask TV about Nielsen ratings. Networks can also be sampled more widely. Not perfect, but very close (and really, the imperfections would amount to no more then current clerical errors on cue sheets). As to where the money would come from, it would come from a "pool" from the flat rates paid, or under collective license model, under a tax on (media/bandwidth/CD burners/take your pick). That pool would be divided according to popularity (so no, your version of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star does -not- weigh in equally with Nickelback's new single. Unless you get the same number of downloads.)

And of course, artists would still be able to perform live. There is certainly something about seeing Dave Matthews live that downloading a videotape of the performance doesn't even begin to capture, as is true of many other artists. Not everything can be digitized, but this model would be very fair to both producer and consumer for those things which can be.

And not everyone downloads this stuff. Some people prefer to go to Best Buy and purchase their shiny new CD/DVD/shrinkwrapped software package. Those people will not be going away anytime soon. But in the meantime, some of us don't. And every successful company in the world learns this-it's a cliche, but most cliches get that way because they're correct.

The customer is ALWAYS right.

When your customers say "We want this", you have several choices. You may find a way to deliver what they want, in the way they want it, at the price they want it, and make money. If you do this, your business will succeed. You may decide it's impossible, close up the shop, and go home to try something else. Or you may tell your customers that they're wrong, and try to push on them what they don't want rather than give them what they do. In that case, you should spend time researching bankruptcy lawyers, you'll need one pretty soon.

Currently, the "IP industries" are telling us-their customers-that not only are we wrong, we are thieves. I wonder, if I get into law school specializing in bankruptcy now, how soon I can graduate? There'll be a need pretty soon. Treating your customers like criminals is not, anywhere that I've seen, advised for someone who wants to run a successful business. And don't kid yourself that this is theft. This is an intangible. Theft is walking into the store and walking out with an item (a physical one) for which you did not pay. What's going on here is more akin to walking in and talking to the salescperson for a while, but not buying anything. You cost the company money, granted (they pay those salespeople, and they could've been selling to someone interested), but by the logic of the **AA's, that company should be able to sue you. For causing them-not real damages, but imaginary, potential damages.

Re:You know...

[Zork the Almighty]

But the penalties for real stealing are much less than fake stealing.

Re:You know...

[Leo McGarry]

In other words, it's harder to rationalize stealing from a real store than it is to rationalize stealing from an online-only store.

It's got nothing to do with either law or morality. It's just got to do with how far you're willing to delude yourself. Is that it?

FairPlay LIMITS sharing, doesn't prevent it

[Queer Boy]

FairPlay limits filesharing, it doesn't prevent it. Computers just have to be on a local network and they can listen to all your music whenever you want. I forget how many as Apple has INCREASED the number of people you can share with since they came out with FairPlay.

You can also burn any iTunes track to CD. Only limit is you can only burn 5 copies of a playlist before you have to change the songs in the playlist. Which means if you or your friend spring for the cost of a CD, you can share any song you like, as many times as you like, with whomever you like, just like other physical media.

I think that's a super middle-ground. Steve Jobs has discussed MANY times that DRM will be cracked, but FairPlay is pretty good. Apple puts a sticker on all their iPods that says, "Please don't steal music." Please point me to a better approach to DRM or filesharing scheme. Yes, DRM sucks, but it's not going anywhere if you want to use downloaded RIAA music.

iTunes set the best standard

[augustz]

I love folks complaining about "crippled" iTunes songs.

They forget that Apple has SET THE STANDARD for sensible DRM that is reasonable for the consumer.

I've been around a long time, and have seen plenty of stupid stuff. Divx (in the DVD space) moved things back, lawsuits and claims about the mp3 format itself, a joke.

But I've also got a sense of history. Before apple came along legal online music was GHASTLY.

You think iTunes is "laden" and "crippled" with DRM? People have forgotten that before apple came along there was a fragmented music space with DRM that meant you couldn't move songs between computers, burn them to CD's, and stores run by companies that were no fun to do business with. Subs, if you canceled, your music vanished.

For most folks, fairplay is actually fair. Most people don't end up playing on more then five computers. Unlimited burns of a song, and seven burns of a specific CD are reasonably fair. The authorization process isn't terribly painful.

Remember, the RIAA used to claim on their dumb soundbyting site that making a tape copy of a CD was copyright infringment. And they were probably right, it was.

The one big issues with iTunes are lack of open source support (tricky, but they should do better here) and the lock-in to iPods as the portable music player for the service. The issue is that software needs to provide the DRM. Luckily for apple they've got a reasonable ipod product. This lockin will have to evolve though of course, open source and linux are not supported so far.

But from a DRM perspective, they really moved the industry forward. If the media companies had their way we'd be stuck with Sony's ATRAC format.

So, complaints and props to apple.

Re:apple zealots - start your engines

[Mononoke]

Ok, I'll bite.

If it weren't for Apple's DRM on the music sold through the iTMS, there would be no iTMS. No way to buy that one track you like. No way to support the artists that deserve the support. None at all.

Your turn.

Shill or just don't care about your rights?

[sulli]

With Apple DRM, Apple can take away your use privileges whenever it feels like it. Sure they're being "reasonable" now, but soon enough they will tighten the noose, just like TiVo is doing with ads over fast forward and blocking you from saving the Sopranos.

If you give up control, you get what you deserve.

Re:Nothing, just as he's done for months now

[mrchaotica]

When Hymn first came out (under a different name) they released iTunes 4.6 almost right away which would not see files that the old Hymn had converted - by recognizing one aspect of the converted files that was particular to Hymn generated files.

Hymn released a fix in short order

Yeah, it was really annoying that Apple did that -- the entire reason for that uniqueness was to discourage copyright infringement by putting up a big red flag saying "this song was came from ITMS." Combined with the fact that it (still, hopefully) leaves the Apple user ID the hope was that Apple would sue copyright infringers (like the RIAA, only with an accurate way to tell who's infringing). Instead, Apple forced them to remove the feature, which was stupid because it was in Apple's own best interests to have it there in the first place!

I wouldn't call it a "fix;" I would call it a "regrettably necessary workaround of Apple's stupidity."

I don't feel like using DRM cracks for this use is at all like P2P, since it's just streaming the song and not transferring it...

Just FYI, there are several programs (for example, Leechster) that allow people to download from iTunes shares instead of just stream. It's still not in the same league as Kazaa, since you have to be in close physical (or logical, in the case of VPNs) proximity to use it, though.

"Sensible DRM" Sensible to Who?

[asv108]

I love reading posts from Apple fanboys who fail to see the problem with a DRM standard that locks playback to portable devices that our produced by the same company that distributes the music. Apple's "sensible" DRM locks playback to software and hardware made by Apple computer. Sure, you can permit playback on multiple iTunes installations, but that does not free your music playback from the products of ONE company.

Now if Apple licensed Fairplay playback to device manufactures and software developers, that might change people's opinion but as it stands now, Apple computer has a monopoly of fairplay enabled music playback. I would suggest that Apple open Fairplay, but as we all know, the concept of DRM is simply PKI turned upside down. Its a game of digital hide and seek or "security by obscurity," so it is simply not possible to open source any software based DRM scheme.

Lets look at this situation from another angle, if Microsoft was the leading online music retailer and used a format that could only be played back on Microsoft hardware and software products, would people be defending them? The hypocrisy and denial of Apple fanboys on /. is so blatant, its not even amusing anymore.

Re:I'd BUY songs on iTunes if they were DRM free

[rollerbob]

People always seem to use the CD-R burning argument in Apple's defence. If you take these steps, you've got a library full of paid-for music that's been compressed twice. Yuk.

If you buy music from iTunes, none of your music is of archival quality. For that, you need to store your music as AIFF of FLAC files.

In an ideal world, where everyone has lots of bandwidth and storage, people would buy their music online in FLAC format, which they can do whatever they like with: burn to CD, convert to MP3 etc. Sadly, that's not the direction we're going in.