Slashdot Mirror
Buying DRM-Free Songs From the ITMS
mirko writes "Jon Johansen ("DVD Jon") has published a small program which allows the acquisition of DRM-free file from Apple's iTunes Music Store. He explains that his program works by bypassing iTunes which adds the DRM itself at the end of the transfer. His program, pymusique, is Windows-only compliant but it'd be easy to port it to other platforms."
The site is hammered, the Coral Cache is working fine though.
Links for the lazy:
Source Code: pymusique-0.3.tar.gz
Debian Package: pymusique_0.3-1_i386.deb
Windows: pymusique-setup.exe
Wouldn't it be ironic if iTunes downloads increased after this? I'm now tempted to join and buy music through them, because now[1] I can do what I want with it once I've bought it.
[1] Until iTunes closes this loophole
Note to ACs: I won't mod you up, even if you are being funny or insightful. So take a chance! It's not real life!
thats how long this will work for until apple fixes it.
This guy never stops, does he? Long may you run, DVDjon. I salute you.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Enough with the iTunes... can't this guy hack Napster or Windows Media encryption?
'Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?'
I'm using the songs legally, but to do what I want I have to burn the 99-cent songs to an audio-CD, then rip them back into iTunes as mp3s, *then* copy the mp3s to the CD.
Sam
from The Register: iTunes pyMusique.
If anyone can hear me, slap some sense into me But you turn your head, and I end up talking to myself
Now I can use my Backsteet Boys and Hanson tracks as I please!
http://www.sandstorming.com
I'm afraid that the long history of people breaking DRM controls (especially by this person) can only lead to one logical conclusion...
Content owners must sue every single person in the world. The RIAA and Apple will likely start with engadget.com for writing a story about it then move on to Slashdot for linking to a story about it and then round it out with everyone that read either of the stories or clicked on any of the links.
I'm going to hire an attorney now.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Did you read the article? Or even its title? This is about BUYING drm files from iTMS, not downloading them for free. It is quite cool, as the DRM makes it a big hassle for purchasers to listen to the music on their own equipment.
RIAA music isn't free
How is this relevant? It is not free if you are buying it by the cassette, the CD, or by iTMS with AND without this DRM-remover.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Correct me if im wrong, but you`re only able to download the songs after youve paid for them yes?
at which point the drm is added to stop you doing other things with it.
I used Hymn to remove DRM from some songs so I could move them to an older model Creative MP3 player. It seemed to work fine for me.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
It's not about making the music free. It's making sure that users have fair use of something they bought. You still have to buy the songs. Did you read the article? Methinks not.
While I understand why Apple does the protection for the songs. If you buy a song you should be able to do with it as you please. I belive that apply only does the protection due to the threat of the recording industry on them. IMHO music should be free as in free beer. Being a Musician myself i give away all my music for free, i do make money at showes but not in my recorded music. But if you pay for a song you should be able to do what you wish with it. Hopefully apple will look and see that there is a real demand for this and change their ways. But a mostlikely situation is they will attempt to shutdown/patch the loopholes to protect their own backs. If the Author reads /. we appreciate your work well atleast I do.
string sig = llGetSig("dimentox"); llSay(0,sig);
DRM-FREE!!! Music NOT!!!! FREE !!! DRM-Music It is my understanding that the DMCA prevents cracking protected material, this is preventing material from being protected before it happes.
Well it's not free, is it - you still have to pay to download the music. Once you've payed for it though, you can do with it what you want.
I can see that the software solution is a lot simpler, but this was possible a long time ago...
Allowing you to put music that you've purchased into the format of your place and play it on the device of your choice is illegal?
You're either an idiot or an employee of Apple or a mole for the RIAA.
Most individuals happen to be walking around with built-in DRM removers. They have TWO of them, in fact (double the fine paid!): one on each side of the skull.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
It's only illegal because the DMCA is a retarded piece of legislation. You're still BUYING the music, it just isn't encumbered after you buy it. This is basically what people want, the freedom to do as they wish with their music (which DOESN'T necessarily include giving it away over P2P).
With the first link, the chain is forged.
> This is illegal. It isn't cool or important. RIAA music isn't free,
> and it isn't anyone's right or obligation to make it free.
It's not making it free. It is making it so that I can do what I want with the music I bought with my own money.
I buy iTunes music, I can morally do whatever I like with it. it's mine. I own it. I can burn it to CD, listen to it on as many computers as I like, give it to my neighbour, my irc buddies, the world.
Apple has no moral right to stop me doing so, and DRM is an attempt for them to assert what is not theirs.
This simple allows me to do what I should be able to do with MY music.
small distinction: this is still paying for the music, so it is not stealing... it is breaking a user agreement, so it is still "illegal" but not as bad... maybe.
Grey area = nerds think they can do whatever they want.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
So, violating GPL by copying stuff without complying with the license is bad and wrong.
but
Buying songs from iTunes without complying with the ToS is big and clever because music must be free?
I don't think this made anything free, it just made it so that you can actually use what you bought the way _you_ want to not just the way someone else allows.
It bears pointing out that this is the essence of purchase: you pay for something, then you own it, which implies that you can do with it what you want.
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
Advice to the programmer, Get A Lawyer.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I've been an iTMS user since its inception and I've yet to feel encumbered or feel a lack of freedom. I read the agreement and understand the restrictions. I agreed. Simply put to those who use this sort of software, why do you purchase from iTMS? You know, or should!!, the restrictions imposed.
Bwaling's Law: Any time there is an article about DRM or downloading music, as soon as someone mentions the word "free", someone will whine about everyone stealing music for free. Even if the word "free" is in an unrelated context (as in: "The songs are free from DRM restrictions" or "I downloaded the Free Willy soundtrack".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the DRM also what tells the iTMS that you own the song? If you strip out the DRM before it even gets attached wouldn't you also be giving up your ability to re-download the song for free if you accidentally kill your library? While I'm not a fan of DRM, one of the only good things about it is that it acts as insurance if you lose your songs. This method of removing it also removes your insurance.
But you still have to buy the tracks - he's just produced a tool to let you download the tracks you buy in a format you want.
It is cool, and it is important. It's another way of telling record companies that we don't want DRM'd music. It's a message to itunes that they failed to produce the product we want, so somebody went out and "fixed" it.
Another way to send a message, and a better way in my opinion, is to buy music recordings from artists who distribute open, DRM-free music. Let's reward the people who get it right the first time.
Is it illegal due to the DMCA or are they other reasons ? (this is not rethorical, I am curious)
Is that the excitement from Slashdotters at the prospect of legal DRM-free downloads that I hear? No, it's Apple's lawyers going absolutely ape.
How could Apple do something this stupid?
Whether you like it or not, DRM is the cornerstone of iTunes acceptance among the music industry. Without DRM, there is no way iTunes would even exist.
The first rule of security is that the client is untrustworthy. For Apple to put all of the security of their DRM scheme on the client side is astoundingly dumb. I expected much better of them.
- Old Man of the Mountain ---- "I want to disturb my neighbor"
For really DRM-free songs, check out jamendo.com : It's Creative Commons plus P2P plus Ogg Vorbis !!
Why must trolls like you reply to EVERY thread on Slashdot anymore, questioning the news content?
This guy is using free speech (and in this case, free coding) to an express a valid opinion that while iTMS is a good start, the content shouldn't be encrypted. He's not forcing it down your throat and neither is anyone here. Pirates will plunder any way they please. But to us who pay for the content, we'd like to get our money's worth.
I'd say it's hella news. This is a huge security hole that Apple left in their product. It's just like any security advisory that could have been posted, but instead he posted an example exploit.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
I haven't used the program, because using other software to access iTunes is against Apple's EULA. Same reason I don't use JHymn, and put up with the slight loss in quality from following the Apple-approved (or at least winked at) "mix, burn, rip" method of removing the DRM.
But...
Having iTunes encrypt the song after downloading is crazy. If that's what Apple's doing, that's like a bank teller handing you the cash drawer, asking you to remove the money you withdrew, and never counting the bills after you hand it back. I'm not inclined to "rip off the bank", so as to speak, but Apple really needs to do the encoding on the server instead of in the client.
Of course client-side security is the Achilles Heel of DRM anyway, but still...
I don't purchase from iTMS. However, I would strongly consider it if it would let me listen the music I bought on my own equipment without file format conversion hassles.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I agree with this post. Mp3 seems to be the only format supported everywhere. I've bought and won over 100 songs from itms.
.EXCEPT the songs I've bought off of Itunes music store.
My Tivo allows easy playing of all the songs in my itunes collection which is cool
My car plays mp3 Cds. This is cool. Except it can't play the songs I bought from the Itunes music store.
Yes I know I can burn them too plain music CD. But in the car i tend to like to have one CD filled with songs and just leave it in there.
When the DRM starts tripping you up, it gets annoying.
I heard about this program last night from a friend. It appears that there is a Linux version (there are .debs for Ubuntu Hoary), but it doesn't work on my computer. I tried downloading the Windows version today before I got here.
/. trolls for my troubles with downloading it today. Thanks a lot, guys. I mean really, you've made my life so much more fun.
And now I can blame a bunch of
However, I do like the idea of ITMS access without the DRM. I'm currently forced into Winblows to un-DRM my massive ammounts of iTunes music. So, I've got an 80 min CD-RW, iTunes, and an entire day to work on it, in between translating some sentences from English into Latin. At least I've got the portable hard drive to put these files on before I burn them off to MP3 CDs--that way I have a near-universally playable hard copy of the iTunes music I've bought.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
As a librarian, I'd love to see a special ToS for libraries. That way, I wouldn't have to steal or hack to get music to my patrons. I would be willing to pay a premium for the songs. It seems like I would be covered under the current ToS, but I would have to keep track of how many times things were burned, listened to, et cetera. I wish I could tell them how many patrons we had, and just work a deal.
Apple's DRM is so danged innocuous that I haven't run into it, ever -- aside from the inability to attach a song to an e-mail and send it off to my sisters. There's not one thing I've ever actually tried to do with the files that's been blocked by the DRM. A minor interface quirk -- the way it uses checkboxes in more than one way depending on context -- caused me a minor headache once, and that's the only problem I've really had with iTunes or its store. (Oh, that and the fact that not that many books get made into CDs, at least for my running tastes.)
You have a burning (pun intended) need to produce more than 10 copies of the same exact playlist as a CD? That must be it. Yeah.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Either Apple will put an end to this (very likely) or the RIAA will get pissed and make Apple increase download prices (because, of course, that is what the RIAA is there for. To raise the prices of crap whenever they feel like it)
I thought pyMusique was working on Linux as well....
Did you read the blurb?
He's not getting the music free. It's preventing the DRM from being added to the file.
I think being anti-DRM is very Slashdot. Arbitrary software restrictions on things that prevent *potential* mis-use hinder everyones' rights. It hasn't worked well before (copy protection in the 80s) and it obviously doesn't work well now. More frustrating is the push for legislation to make it illegal to break DRM.
Though I am amused that Apple chose an inherently flawed method of having the client add the DRM, most likely in order to save server resources. Could adding the DRM on the server-side be that problematic?
I started to mod you down but decided to reply instead.
This is not stealing, you are still paying for the music at a rate of about $15.00 US per album.
This is about doing what you want with something you legally purchased and now own.
The media industry is so concerned with losing control of their business that they are pissing people off and driving away business.
Its no different than when Disney fought against vcr's in the 70's now a substantial portion of their revenue comes from video.
Umm, why not sign up for the napster free trial.
download to your hearts content.
convert the protected WMA to mp3.
I did it and got about 9gigs of music on a saturday and sunday. It was all converted by Monday.
I mean, screw the RIAA right.
PS I openly admit to being a thief.
Can you immagine trying to encrypt 1 millions songs a day? Its going to take some serious hardware. Noone knew that itunes was going to fly so I'm betting they tried to make it cheaper by having the client encrypt the songs.
Apple seems to not care overly much about the DRM as long as most people are using it.
do not by the music. that's why i buy CDs and not download music because i do not like being limited by the DRM.
by the way, let say i do not like the GPL license. should i:
1. not use GPL software
or
2. use, and violate it because i do not like it.
a lot people find the GPL license "viral" and disagree with it. but we still expect people to respect it and follow it.
Eventually, Apple will probably be able to identify the accounts of everyone who uses this software. If you actually use the iTunes music store on a regular basis, is it really worth risking your account - and possible legal action - just to get a few DRM-free songs?
But you can get software to strip off DRM and that is more useful because yyou just get music from where ever and then just strip the DRM genius
dont you think there are more important things to hack than stealing music from apple?
they already let you burn the songs you want to a CD, that removes the DRM anyways.
why dont you unlock the DRM on educational
videos?
Posting without reading for comprehension should be illegal, but sadly it isn't. Not so sadly is the fact that this bypassing of DRM is not illegal, at least to my knowledge. Can you show me the law that states that it is illegal to alter data that you paid for because I think I may have to stop using my PC.
Right, which is exactly why the music companies are selling you a license. You can do whatever you want with the license, but the music is still restricted by the license.
kc8apf
I tried to RTFA, but the first link was written in German, so I learnt very little about subject.
Could someone translate what DVDjon has to do with Asterix?!?
I'm an iPod owner, who has avoided iTunes since launch due to my hatred of DRM. Tonight, I shall buy my first albums from them.
I'm hoping that when they dissect the log files from iTunes over the next few days they'll see an awful lot of non-iTunes client downloads. Whilst Apple can't condone this, it would be nice if they could go to the record labels and say without DRM we sold x many hundre thousand more tracks.
An other interesting point is this. The argument for DRM is that without it we'll all start copying music amongst ourselves. Surely if this was a case, with Apple leaking de-DRM'd music into the world, P2P and other piracy should immediately ramp up now (and I suspect it won't).
Forgive me for not reading up or searching for this before I type this but what about DRM mp3's? Is their such a thing and if not why hasnt anyone thought of them? I use the ITM for purchasing music and yes like most I hate the whole .mp4 files I'm buying. But lets face it your not gonna find a online music retailer that ISNT going to provide some kind of protection in the files you are purchasing, if they didnt then the music companys wouldnt let them sell them to begin with.
So your gonna have to deal with protection on songs you purchase, I just wish their were more formats that HAD and were SUPPORTED like mp3's.
Made a mirror, doesnt include the images on the site. Site was very slow for me so i thought id make this mirror in case it didnt stay up. http://files.photojerk.com/endgadget/www.engadget. com/entry/1234000267036571/
>>
Alan
It is hard to be more incorrect:
The term "stealing" cannot apply to iTunes usage. The software allows copying of files from a server, not theft.
Even if you use the odd claim that copying without paying is theft, you are incorrect in this claim, as well. The DRM-remover described here requires the users to pay, as usual, for the download files.
There are amazing things that can be learned from reading the article. Or even reading the title, where the word "buying" can be found.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I buy iTunes music, I can morally do whatever I like with it. it's mine. I own it. I can burn it to CD, listen to it on as many computers as I like, give it to my neighbour, my irc buddies, the world.
Cool. I bought Windows. I bought a debian CD set. Cool. does that mean I can do whatever I like with those too? copy them freely, give it away to people, incorporate the code into my own apps a release them in a binary form without providing source code?
no?
didn't think so. hypocrite.
Breaking a User Agreement is *not* illegal. It may be grounds for Apple to sue you. However, the agreement is not a law, and hence breaking it is not against the law.
It *may* be a violation of the DMCA, which is a law. In that respect, it may be illegal.
and slap my name on it, and claim that
i wrote it?
after all, its 'my music' now that i own it
and i can do whatever i want
But does the DRM have anything to do with the fact that my older CD players will not play any CD where I burn a mix from a playlist? I'd really like an answer to this one :) If so, I may check out DVDJon's program.
It is frustrating to have bought songs from iTunes, and be limited where I can play them. I understand the wanting to squash piracy, but when people who are above-board are punished, it is frustrating
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
its allarming to read the first bunch of comments and find they're very superficial.
:)
Its easy to understand why apple decided to encode drm on client side to anyone with little experience on server side encoding of files for delivery in real time. Doing it on the user side is expensive in the first place, even for such a giant, plus their proprietary client-format-everything made it pretty bulletproof... until now
they really must hate you now Jon! BIG UPS to you guys for reversing this interesting fact out!
Did you read the "Asterix in Civil Court" graphic novel? It's the one where the bard Cacaphonix is replaced with a guy named "DRMfix" who carries around a boombox playing "stolen" Kazaa and iTMS music files.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
It's another way of telling record companies that we don't want DRM'd music. It's a message to itunes that they failed to produce the product we want, so somebody went out and "fixed" it.
They provide a service, and if you don't like it you are free to use another. The reason for a DRM is so you don't pass on the music to someone else for free, because once 1000 people get copies of the song you bought for $.99 the artist only gets 1 royalty payment - and that is unfair.
Music is not open source.
A
In his country, it isn't illegal. What he has done allows people in, say, America to exercise their rights of fair use, which IS legal. This is important as corporate and government actions are effecting the rights of citizens. Ben Franklin, a publisher, would have recognised this. The most important tool during the American revolutionary war was the press and free access to information; this is why freedom of speech, press et al are in the FIRST amendment. DRM in all it's forms restricts access to information. If people are willing to PAY for music, they DO have the right to control it as they see fit (and I don't mean sharing it, I mean access it however they wish) this is called fair use.
South by SouthWest is cool and all, but not everyone wishes to listen to the music that *you* enjoy, just as not everyone wishes to listen to the same political personalities that you do.
You have _now_ been informed, bwalling. Chew on that a bit.
This is probably because Apple doesn't really want to DRM the music it sells. It makes them look stupid, and it hurts the sales. It's the content owners that make them do it, so there's no wonder they do it only half-heartedly. Apple will most definitely go after all the DRM-removal programs that appear, and chase them off US soil (or even Indian soil), but it's not in their best interest to extinguish them completely.
"Allowing you to incorporate GPL code you've downloaded into the proprietary app you want and release it with any license you see fit is illegal?"
"you're either an idiot or an employee of the FSF or a mole for Stallman"
hypocrite. You download the music with the restrictions put upon it by the copyright owners. If you don't accept that, then you must accept Microsoft and SCO have full reign to use GPL works as they see fit.
Does this guy have a "Your 10th lawsuit defense is free" coupon book with his lawyer or something?
Everybody knows that US law governs the entire world -- just ask Dmitri Skylarov.
This is some kind of record. The very first word of the article (its title) is "buying". Somehow, he missed it, and went off on a rant about getting music without buying it. I wonder if Bwaling started at the END of the article before he started bawling.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
he is acting in bad faith towards apple.
apple has acted in good faith towards
digital music internet people.
face it, theres an agreement in the itunes
program, and he broke it.. not because
he is fighting for freedom, but because
he is too lazy to burn a song to a cd
and rip it back.
yeah im sure what he did is legal
theoretically. but morally, what he
is doing is rather cruel.
now apple has to spend a bunch of
man hours reprogramming itunes to counter
this hack. hours they could have spent
making new and better programs instead.
thanks alot DVDjon, maybe in your dream
of the future nobody programs anything,
its just one big hacker war.
> It bears pointing out that this is the essence of purchase: you
> pay for something, then you own it, which implies that you
> can do with it what you want.
I bought some debian CDs. Can I do what I want with the code on those CDs? say... sell it to microsoft so they can incorporate any & all of it into their products?
No?
Hypocrite.
Thanks to WIPO, it doesn't matter if you're outside US shores. If your country signed the Berne Convention, you're hosed.
Article 11 - Obligations concerning Technological Measures
Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.
From TFA "he's done something that will so seriously provoke Apple and the recording industry that he may have to go into hiding" Why? It's no more provocative than DeCSS, both allow you to have access to your own paid for content on the platform of your choice. I expect the same defence will apply.
You're right, this thing is not breaking DMCA. It's only breaking Apple's EULA. Besides, since the content that you pay for, that actually comes down the wire, is not encrypted, I doubt the HYMN is actually breaking DMCA either. Too bad IANAL.
Why doesn't this guy just put an advert out asking to be bent over a table and shafted with a giant vegetable.
I mean sure you pissed them all off, so go get out the red rag and shake it some more.
Christ, i'm no apple fan, but all this will accomplish it to "fix" the broken thing by apple and cause the **AA to ask for even stronger laws and then have the US strongarm the rest of the world into accepting them!
Don't you have to spend a lot of time by running a sound recorder app, starting it, playing the song, and then ending it after the Nap WMV stops playing?
Did you get any sleep? Or name any of the songs? Winamp used to allow such automated conversion, but they crippled it quickly.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
can you do whatever you want with her?
oh wait, she said no anal.
are you going to decide in your sonorous nerd
voice that you have a god give right to
do whatever you want, since you 'own her'???
psychotic assholes. the lot of you.
Why burn the files to a disc when you can just write it to a file? A lot of cd burning software comes with an option to 'burn' to an ISO (in Nero if you select 'virtual image recorder' as the burner).
heh, read the article? they didn't even get as far as reading the entire headline... "Buy DRM-Free songs..."
I'm not entirely convinced that legality is the issue (home-taping/burning and modification by the purchased user, if AFAIK "fair-use"). It is more the fear (and in some respects rightly so) of the RIAA and Apple of the said purchased media being deseminated.
Pure and simple, distributing copyrighted material (whether you burn CDs using iTMS tunes or you break the DRM) is illegal. However, what you do with your purchased music in private (e.g. for yourself, on your own computer) is your business, so long as you are not deseminating it to those who didn't buy it, or you are not using the said copyrighted material for public performance. Electronic media, in terms of copyright, does not disallow personal backups, remixing for fun (no profit), or any sort of arbitrary modification. You own that file, albeit, not the media therein (the music in this case).
In the cases of fair-use, home-taping has been defended (likewise photocopying library books for personal/academic/private use). There are certain rights that extend to the public over what they own.
In the case of DVD Jon and others, what they see that they are doing (and arguably they are) is cleverly extending the capabilities of the end-user in lines of usage. When exploited for desemination, profit, and piracy, it is not the process or tool that is wrong, but the use. The tool does have legitamate, legal uses (playing purchased media on your Linux box, for example).
I personally think PyMusique, Hymn, and the FairPlay mechanisms for VLC are legitimate and can (and should) be used for Fair Use. If exploited, like any other tool, for illegal ends, then the people infringing on copyrights should be prosicuted (albeit the RIAA has been in recent years more proactive is fining grandma and various 12-year olds that busting pirating rings).
I have been using Hymn for months now, for fair-use purposes. I buy from iTMS (when you ride the Boston T every morning and evening, your iPod is your best friend) and I frequently get gift cards from family. I and my fiance think it is great, however, if she buys something and I buy something and we want to make a mix CD for our car when we go on a trip, something that allows extended fair-use would be great.
I personally, and I don't think I am alone, think what DVD Jon is doing is great because it is useful to the consumer (although as a side effect, the pirate). The consumer can better enjoy the beniefits of the purchase.
This will probably be corrected by iTMS with a subsequent version of iTunes and I have no problem with that. Apple is there to make money from their sales (so preventing piracy is a good motive) and they have to protect the fidgety record labels who are still uncomfortable with digital media, although CDs themselves are not secure in any regard. Those (like DVD Jon and myself) who see a need as a consumer to modify their legitamately purchased music to use it on all computers/OS they have, should make an effort to archive their media in forms they can use, with the technology at their disposal, and if the DRM system is changed, keep up or enjoy what they already bought.
Somebody mentioned subscription services, and I don't think that subscription services are only legally de-DRMed if you currently subscribe to the service, e.g. it is blantantly illegal to rip and crack a storehouse of music and continue to use them once you no longer subscribe. However, with these models, fair-use would apply to burning CDs for your car, ripping tracks and making MP3s for your iPod or whatever. It is when the use is exploited and people are not being pais is when you have a problem.
It will until our Chinese masters decree it no longer to be so.
That was classic intercourse!
if you only use laws as a guide for morality,
you are truly a disturbed individual.
now please vacate this thread so we can all bitch about and leave you in blissful ignorance.
Maybe I'm just not 1337 enough to see the connection, but was does http://www.comic.de/reporter/hildesheim/galerie6.h tml have to do with Jon?
... this is why we need closed-source, encrypted, tamper-proof, proprietary protocols. If any yahoo can look it up or just sniff the network, this is what we get: upset applecarts. Onward DRM! Onward TCPA! Onward Microsoft!
/this patriotic stuff always chokes me up.
(this message brought to you by the masochistic consumers association of America, aka "tie me down, beat me hard, and steal my wallet")
yes, we have no bananas
So you don't think the record industry will force Apple to put stonger DRM on ITMS?
So you paid for the song - you knew the deal when you signed up, You agreed to it, abide by it.
If you want free as in beer, or free as in speech music, go make some or go find someone who is.
Apple's DRM lets you do lots more than Copy protected CD's (which you can't read in a computer) and WAY more than full trusted computing.
OK, this is stupid. If you want DRM free mp3 files, or any other format, buy the CD. Then do as you wish. Even works with iTunes and iPod. If you want the simplicity of downloading the song, instead of running out to the music store, comply with what you agreed to when you purchased the music.
The industry will never suffer acts like this to go on. The industry likes copy protection, and this will only serve to either kill the industry, or force Apple to make encryption server side.
Personally, I have ZERO qualms about the licenses on my iTunes music. So what you had to buy an iPod to use it? I wanted one anyway. My DRMed music plays just happy dandy on my Powerbook, my iPod, and my windows machine at work. I can burn essentially an unlimited number of CDs for the car. What more do I, joe user, need to do with this music that the DRM does not let me?
This
Whilst Apple can't condone this, it would be nice if they could go to the record labels and say without DRM we sold x many hundre thousand more tracks.
.01% of total sales. Almost all consumers appear to be happy with the current arrangement. "
If you believe that argument is valid, then you should have no trouble with the much more likely corollary:
Apple goes to the the labels and says "The site sold X songs without DRM. This represents less than
- Tony
If I use DVD Jon's software, where do I have to agree to Apple's EULA? Maybe if you've already used Apple's music store you've agreed to it, but the rest of us haven't.
You cannot burn those to MP3 CDs. You must first burn them as regular audio cd music, rip those back to MP3 format, then you can burn them to a MP3 CD.
It is a overy convoluted process that should not be required in the first place. Just watermark the damn song when written to a MP3 CD. I just to play the music I am legally entitled to in my car. Jumping through hoops is not a valued expenditure of my time.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
...since I can burn AACs to CD for play in a normal CD player. Should I expect that AACs will only play in iTunes and iPod? No, the user has a reasonable expectation that the program will make CDs in whatever format the program is configured to make them in.
Clearly its just a nod to the DRM needs of the music industry to prohibit AAC->mp3 conversion in a single step, although you'd think that Apple *might* be able to get away with it if they would allow only direct transcodes to mp3 for songs burned to CD that belong the same album and only once.
All you're going to get through this process is unencumbered AAC files, which still don't play on as many players. Sure, it's faster than burning/ripping, but I really don't see the point in breaking my contract with Apple just to save me that bit of time.
This is a much better "security" story than "DRM" story. Apple clearly blew it in the security department here.
Your mileage may vary, but mine is constant.
connecting to the iTMS with a program other than iTunes is a violation of the agreement, and likely nullifies your purchase/ownership. Using this program to "buy" music is probably no more legal than downloading the music off of Kazaa.
If you're going to engage in legally questionable practices, why not just get the songs for pennies at allofmp3 rather than buying them for a dollar each, and skip the DRM entirely?
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
speak in plain english. apple bends over backwards to revolutionzie
online music, then someone decides they are too
lazy to burn a cd and rip it, so they break
the agreement they have with apple, causing
apple to have to spend a bunch of time and
money rewriting the program.
who wins? NOBODY
no matter how many fancy words you string
together, you are full of shit. the guy
is being a jerk, and disrespecting
apple. who cares if its legal or not.
I am not a fan of DRM but Apple has gone and put themselves on the line to convince the recording industry that there is a happy medium. You can install iTunes on what like 5 computers now. You can burn virtually unlimited CD's, can have it on your iPod etc.
iTunes was one of the first times I have seen what I consider a fair and reasonable DRM. The industry and Apple get their cut. I don't have to buy a full CD if it is one good track with 12 shitty ones. And I can play it in my car, at home on stereo, or on my iPod.
This is only going to make the naysayers in the business world want to clamp down even more.
Thanks a lot! I already looked on Google, and found about 60 pieces of crapware/nagware.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
and you have no moral right to
break an agreement you make with apple
because you are too lazy
to burn songs to a CD
The page provides links to a windows installer as well as Ubuntu .deb packages (and, naturally, the source). In fact, it uses python and GTK+, so it is rather more Unix- than Windows-native.
From Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use Overview
Actual text of the lawIt goes on to describe what it means by transformative, etc. and even includes examples in later pages of fair use. This doesn't even technically qualify as Timeshifting, as came up with the Sony Betamax case.
No, what you are doing with stripping copyright protection is transforming the work as a whole and transcribing it into another form that is more portable. Think of it like scanning an entire novel into pdf format.
Argh! You just aren't getting it!
FREE as in _FREEDOM_. This doesn't not allow anyone to download music from iTunes without paying for it. What it does, is allow you the freedom to use the music how you'd like. For those of us who'd prefer to not be tied to only listening to this music on an iPod or with iTunes, (maybe a media PC in the living room?), this is GREAT news.
Nobody is advocating stealing anything from Apple.
Well, actually, property rights aren't absolute, and most of us are ok with that. If you buy a knife, does that imply that you can do with it what you want: say, stab somebody?
Obviously that's a silly example, but there are tons of others, not all of which involve the criminal law.
I'm totally against DRM because it restricts fair use rights, but I'm not a big fan of the "property rights are absolute" fervor that so often shows up on Slashdot.
they just want whatever they want, like
screaming 3 year olds, and make
up a bunch of reasons why its ok for
them to ignore their own hypocrisy.
Yea, the loss of the ID3 tags and cover art really bothers me when using this technique to convert to MP3. One interesting thing I did notice though:
I bought an entire album from iTunes, made an audio cd, uesed CDEX to rip it. The best part is the album information was found in the CDDB! Of course, this is useless when entire albums are not bought.
Does anyone know exactly how the CDDB works? I mean how does the cd in my drive get matched with a list of posibilites from the CDDB server? The first few albums that I bought from iTunes (and created audio CDs) did not match anything in the CDDB. Does this mean that these albums are starting to match entries in the CDDB because people are submitting info for them from audio CDs they created from iTunes? Or will they match the info created from the store bought CDs?
What's interesting is that for some reason, the RIAA forces DRM on Digital downloads because they think people will copy the music. Where, in reality, if people really wanted to copy the music, they would shell out for the CD, where they would get much better quality, and are free to do with it as they please. Having DRM in digital music downloads only stops Joe Listener from being able to listen to the music as they want to, and doesn't stop any pirates from distributing the music to the entire world for free.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I've always got crunk to his albu--what? That's Lil Jon? Nevermind...
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Why not buy from DRM-free online music stores like Bleep?
Hope hes ready to get his takedown notices..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
instead of ganking me
there are more important things to work on
this guy is too lazy to burn to a cd,
so he hacks the DRM. sorry, this is
a stupid waste of time and has nothing
to do with freedom.
i payed for you, i can do what i want!
This all started because people were stealing music on Napster. They were downloading songs, not to sample them or get electronic copies of songs they already owned, but because they didn't want to pay for them.
So, the industry freaked out and now we have DRMs on everything.
I'd like to remind you that when you sign up to use iTunes, you agree not to do anything to interfere with the DRM, but of course, those agreements don't really mean anything, do they?
Convoluted process:
1. Burn music to CD.
2. Rip music back.
Microsoft provide server software to DRM music, But I don't see Apple touching anything that's even been near Microsoft.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Actually, you can do with it what you want. You can't redistribute it, though, unless you comply with the license. In this case, the license is throwing out your rights to prevent "piracy." That shouldn't be acceptable.
think about it.
The only way out of the DRM mess the RIAA, MPAA and Congress has foisted on us is to get them to put the screws to the public.
Then, and only then, will people rouse out of their slumber and get pissed off.
There is no downside to what he has done.
Nobody is stealing, because you have to pay for the music.
This makes the music worth $.50 instead fo the $.25 it was previously. You're still getting ripped off...$1 for 128kb/s music...what a joke.
It makes some people more likely to use iTMS
For nervous nannies like yourself, it makes no difference.
Please stop posting.
Bleep would be nice if they had music and a web site. The page is horridly designed: light green letters on a light green background. The "let's make this site look like a piece of bleep" idea. Every music artist I searched for came up "no matches". While iTMS and Napster have a lot of holes, they do have a substantial catalogue. And their web designers have moved beyond basic design goofs.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
hypocrisy is only something that pointy haired
bosses and jocks are guilty of.
these people are smart, intelligent folks, therefore
nothing they do is wrong. by definition.
Point 1: This isn't 'RIAA' music, this is Apple's music.
Point 2: This isn't making music 'free'. This stops DRM being added to music files downloaded from Apple. One can't download the files without paying for them.
Point 3: This isn't illegal. DRM isn't being circumvented, DRM isn't allowed to come into the picture at all.
Point 4: One can do the same damn thing by burning the music files to rewriteable cd's, then ripping them to mp3s. Surely you're not suggesting ripping cd's to mp3s is illegal.
Point 5: Using Bittorent, to download any damn file, is just asking for trouble. Once you start accessing p2p programs, you just know some freakin' legal accountant somewhere is keeping track of your activities, legal or otherwise, just waiting for an excuse, any excuse, to pounce.
Unless there is a hack that deletes the files from Apple's servers when they are downloaded, it is impossible to steal using these iTMS and related programs.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I know most people would find the parent funny. I for one wish I had a "Scary" mod option right now.
FYI - In the iTunes burning options, you have a choice of burning a Music CD, a Data CD, or an mp3 CD.
Just thought you should know.
gpl was created out of respect for other people. exactly what you lack when you cause apple this f@#$ headache. you want freedom? give me 50 bucks so i can buy a dvd burner. after all, you are restricting my freedom by not giving me 50 bucks.
They put the copy protection on there to keep from making copyright infringement too easy. It's their compromise; they didn't want to close the "CD hole" because too many people would want it, but the CD hole is too small to rip vast quantities of music and put them on the file sharing networks.
Which, unfortunately, means inconvenience for a minority of users like you. That's your problem: CD players are ubiquitous, and MP3 CD players are relatively rare. So they're hoping for a sweet spot where they keep illegal copyright infringement to a minimum (but not preventing it entirely, which would involve draconian measures) while allowing fairly wide (but not universal) use of the music you've bought.
Arguably this is a violation of your fair-use rights, but to give you your full fair use rights would allow other people to infringe the copyrights at will, which at the very least is unfair to you (since you pay for your music) and at worst is cause for them to shut down iTMS entirely. Then you'd have to go back to buying physical CDs, which is rather more of a hassle.
(Slashdotters, of course, know that any hole can be enlarged into an infinite hole. I'm surprised nobody has created a "CD RAMdisk" which iTunes will burn to then automatically re-rip it as MP3. Apple and the record companies are hoping that while enlargement of the hole is possible, relatively few people will do it.)
Whether it's the right compromise I cannot say. Certainly it takes only one copy of a song to make it onto P2P to make it universally accessible, so as long as they're selling CDs iTMS could be completely draconian and not change total file sharing one drop. I'm not trying to justify it; I'm merely trying to explain the tradeoffs in their minds that mean that you can't easily burn your MP3 CDs. Cold comfort, I guess.
you are too lazy to burn CDs and rip them back, so instead you break an agreement with apple, causing them to have to spend a lot of time and money fixing their DRM. thanks alot, i guess the rest of us wanted apple to keep working on improving technology, maybe giving more to charity, cleaning up toxic landfills... but your freedom is all thats important i guess. more than anything. because god, it would kill you to spend a few minutes burning and ripping a cd.
why dont you scream at stallman about his horrific user interfaces hamper my freedom? this is basically a user interface issue people are too lazy to burn a CD and rip it.
RIAA Okay, so you want to actually pay for your music, huh?
Customer Yep! Here's my money $$$
RIAA All right, slap the cuffs on him Officer. He's obviously trying to our steal music, even though he's paying us for it.
Putting DRM on music seems to me as though the RIAA was actively and publicly declaring every customer they have a Thief and a Criminal.
So why does the RIAA treat its customers like Criminals anyway? If you're willing to pay for your music instead of download it for free, the RIAA should be bending over backwards to give you what you want. They should be kissing your feet!!
What if Wal-Mart started accusing each and every customer they had of stealing AFTER they had already purchased their goods and had a receipt. They would go out of business pretty damn fast, is what would happen.
The RIAA needs to learn that a good business is supposed to cater to their customers
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Deep down, secretly, I bet Apple could give a rat's ass about DRM. They have do to it to appease the industry. And they're going to have to close obvious holes pretty quickly. But ripping and re-encoding is a) slightly obscure to the average iTMS user, b) annoying, and c) (at least in theory) degrades the music quality so that it's unappealing to discerning ears and tech/audio-philes for whom (a) is not a factor.
There's also nearly no way to prevent "hacks" like WireTap that just grab the audio stream without completely munging up the way an OS handles the audio stream. They can only do so much and Apple is not stupid enough to know that. They are the best buffer we have right now between the (wanting-to-try-to-be-legal) consumer and the greedy idiots controlling music distribution.
Maybe I'm optimistic, but I feel like something like what Apple is doing now had to happen to break open the digital purchansing flow. There's no turning back now. If "good" DRM gets more and more expensive to develop, implement, manage, and enforce, it might just become a poor(er) business model. Someone will hopefully push the "innovation" and get us beyond this hacked system we have now.
If you want to listen to the music on your own equipement, then *gasp*, buy the CD.
Others have already pointed out how to resolve the perceived inconsistency.
I'd like to add, though, that when you dig into the mechanisms you find that there is a legal inconsistency, and a moral inconsistency, at the root of the matter.
The moral inconsistency is with regard to the copyright holder's (presumed) intent:
In the case of music and other "content industry" files, the (presumed) intent of the copyright holder is to sell the material for money or other benefits.
In the case of the GPL the (presumed) intent of the copyright holder on the base material was to freely distribute the material, obtaining less direct benefits (satisfaction, reputation, improving humanity's situation, external support of the code, access to other code on the same terms, etc.)
The GPL is used, rather than public domain, to head off a scenario where someone would write a fix or upgrade, copyright THAT, and keep the original author and the rest of humanity from using it - at all, without restrictions, and/or without paying a fee.
The underlying conflict, both in law and possibly in morality, is that distributing outside the license terms violates the intent of the author. This means that arguments against the content industry's restrictions potentially could be turned against the GPL and other open-source licenses.
But one of the beauties of an open-source license is that most SUCCESSFUL attack on copyright restrictions shouldn't damage the original point of the license. If you weaken the ability of copyright owners to control copying, you also weaken the ability of the creators of derived works to block the original authors and the rest of humanity from replicating their fixes and improvements. So the original point of the GPL - not to force disclosure, but to block attempts to lock up the free software base against improvement and reverse-engineering - may still be maintained.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
What if Wal-Mart started accusing each and every customer they had of stealing AFTER they had already purchased their goods and had a receipt. They would go out of business pretty damn fast, is what would happen.
Actually, lots of stores like Costco and Sam's Club ask to see your receipt and check your buggy when leaving. Isn't this the same thing? "Thanks for shopping--oh, lemme make sure you didn't rob us real quick"
The simple reason is that, although you can personalise each DRM'ed download on the server, it's expensive to do so.
I haven't researched Apple's solution; however, I have personal experience of implementing a Windows Media-based DRM solution in my previous job. (I don't agree with DRM, and won't purchase any DRM-protected media, but it was nonetheless an interesting assignment, and I discovered a lot about how it works.) With that in mind, here is my tentative analysis.
Apple are probably using one of the edge-cache services like Akamai to reduce server load and bandwidth fees. In order for this to work, the data that each client downloads must be the same - otherwise, it can't be cached.
Although it is possible, and even desirable from a security standpoint, to apply the DRM to each file as it is downloaded, the increased server load and bandwidth probably makes this economically and logistically unviable.
It may be judged as stupid that Apple has not applied even basic, generic encryption to what they send over the wire. However, since they would have to supply the enemy (a.k.a. the customer) with the encrypted content and the means to decrypt it, it would not deter a determined hacker. Then again, nor can DRM.
The parent writes, "The first rule of security is that the client is untrustworthy." The first rule of DRM is, by contrast, "We give the client the encrypted content, the keys, and the decoder, and hope that he won't work out how to use them."
The lesson that you should take away from this is that DRM is snake oil. It can never work. But it is being sold to and bought in gallons by the entertainment oligopoly mastodons who have repeatedly proven that they don't get the internet. It's basically useless for all parties concerned. We get inconvenient restrictions; they think that they are getting copy protection but are actually being sold a river.
As an aside, even if Palladium/NGSCB becomes prevalent and required for downloading DRM content, it seems unlikely that each resource will be custom-encrypted against the customer's Palladium/NGSCB public key. And even if it were, there would be likely be ways to extract the raw data at some point. I doubt that we will see truly uncrackable DRM for a long time to come. In fact, I doubt that we will ever see it.
If your comment title says 'Re: Foo', I'm not likely to read it.
Inject code into the iTunes client to bypass the DRM wrapping.
Place it here: http://pub10.bravenet.com/forum/831600272 Make the file name and version as the first words. and don't forget to tell us about your favorite butterfly.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
it would be nice if they could go to the record labels and say without DRM we sold x many hundre thousand more tracks.
This is just a wild guess, but I'm betting that the number of non-iTunes-downloaded tracks is going to be a teeny tiny percentage of the music tracks downloaded from Apple's servers. Call me crazy, but I don't think the overall market to which iTMS caters really care or are even aware of iTunes DRM.
blog
More likely they'll see who was downloading these unDRMed files in breach of contract and ban them all.
but he said "give to my neighbour". I'd read it as give as in "here, borrow my hammer" give.
Easy to read as "here's a copy of my hammer", though a little weird in meatspace.
In any case, the moral side is either:
1) We agreed that copyrights are a good thing
2) We didn't agree that the extensions were a good thing.
#1 he would break the moral rule, #2 is that the moral rule has been broken by the content producer.
Why else would Hymn have been allowed to stand this long otherwise?
It does not "break" he encryption, it uses it like any other player to extract the song.
This other way sounds even a bit more convienient, although possibly easier for Apple to shift how the songs are transferred and not allow iTunes to play them until they have been DRM'ed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You cannot share an iTunes library at a place like work and let other people listen to purchased songs.
Otherwise I am fine wioth the DRM as well (though happy I can remove it with Hymn as needed) and only use Hymn so other people can listen to shared music at work - music which they might well buy after (as I have done with others shared music).
I wish Apple would change the sharing so iTunes locally de-DRM'ed any file a remote system wanted streamed. Yes it would be a hole in the DRM, but as we've seen there are plenty already!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Good thing this software came out then. ;p
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Because you can't copy a donut and distribute over the internet --- yet.
You cannot morally or legally do 'whatever' you like with music purchased from iTunes Music Store. Here is what many people are forgetting/ignoring:
When you purchase something from iTMS for $x, you are entering into a contract wherein you agree to their terms of service in exchange for that pricing and product. If you or Apple wanted to relax those terms of service, you would have to pay $x+y for those terms of service (ignoring for the moment that it is not your legal right to modify the terms of service...only to choose not to pay). So Apple has made certain arrangements with the content copyright holders to offer music for $x with the current terms of service. The TOS even allow you mechanisms for LEGALLY producing copies of the music that do not contain DRM.
If you use a tool to download your purchased music bought for $x but circumvent their TOS to complete the transaction, you have violated your end of the contract. Simple. It may very well not violate DCMA, but this does not make it legal or moral because you are still in violation of contract.
Enjoy the fact that Apple provided this service for $x in the first place, that you have the ability to pretty easily play iTMS music on practically every device you own. Lament the fact that people's USE of DVDjon's software is going to probably result in lawful and moral lawsuits against people who violated their contract with Apple, and likely result in our having to pay $x+y for the right to legally download the same music we currently download for $x.
Here's Apple's Terms of Service, followed by their terms of sale.
Notice they say NOTHING about actually accepting the DRM on your end. Nor that you're supposed to actually use the iTunes client to receive the files.
http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/legal/terms.ht ml
http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/legal/policies .html
Terms of Service
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
At least not when you register for an account using Pymusique. It does not require you to click to agree to the EULA. So in addition to getting the DRM free tracks, that the itunes store actually sells (which the itunes client then DRMs) you don't sign anything that would make this fair use illegal. Of course Apple will be working very hard to block this client...
"I Just Want You To Hurt Like I Do" - Randy Newman
hope springs eternal - nice to see such idealism but it's a streach to imagine that any businessman will believe that people in general have had an epiphany of "do the right thing" and that they'll now pay for things on the honor system. Might as well try to convince the grocer they'll get more business if you just let ppl walk out w/ groceries and put money in the box as they leave, instead of the currently detestible process of having to stand in line, scan groceries, collect cash and hand out exact change with a receipt. But we can always dream.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The law you are looking for (in the US anyway) is the Digital Millinium Copyright Act and it does make it illegal to circument any measure designed to prevent piracy. You don't have to be planning to use the data illegally to be in violation.
Sad but true. http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/dmca1.htm
Why would you come here and bother everyone with a comparison that doesn't even work?
Nobody said this was big and clever. I'm sure DVDjon cares less about dvd or music rights than he does about open source rights, but that's another argument.
The supporters or PyMusique (or whatever other hack) either like it because 1: they dont have morals, or 2: DRM is a conflict of interest, and its presense violates fair use within copyright law.
Obviously buying music from apple is not going to help produce better protection for consumers, weather you get it with DRM or not.
Next time you have something to flame, bring a bigger gun. (btw, when did we start handing out 'insightful' for posts that are only controversial or unfounded?)
Parent is FUNNY, but not very informative.
I guess today is a passable day to die.
"Personally, I have ZERO qualms about the licenses on my iTunes music."
Fine. Then use it that way.
And dont' worry about the guy who strips off the DRM. Its not your business or worry.
If you use iTunes the way apple wants you to, great. If bobby, or billy, or suzie wants to pay for music and strip off the DRM, its not anybody's business. They're not stealing, they're simply using what they bought the way they want it.
Some of you guys (and girls) and such nannies, you think you have to worry about what other people do with their own stuff in the privacy of their own lives. Its weird.
Its this same line of thinking that allows the government to censor stuff because some broken down broad showed her boobie on TV.
I don't want people like you in charge of anything, or allowed to speak out on anything, because you have a real need to control.
Legal(in russia, very likely legal for people in germany too, even if the labels are trying to propagate otherwise), UNENCUMBERED BY DRM, cheap and in the format of your choice(mp3, ogg, "itunes" aac, wma, ... )
Possible downside: The big labels aren't getting any of the money because they are still refusing to cooperate with the russian agency that collects the the license fees from allofmp3.com.
I've used JHymn (a very nice java version of Hymn) but ONLY to be able to listen to my iTunes-purchased music on my Roku Soundbridge, NOT to distribute it. Prior to the Roku I was totally fine with the encryption and didn't find it obstructed fair use. Which leads to a question.
If I unlock my own music to facilitate my own use and don't share any of it, have I committed a wrong?
That doesn't make it wrong, but technically, you're breaking the law by "bypassing a technological mechanism to access protected content" or some such verbiage.
And yes, that does appear to be in conflict with the doctrine of "fair use".
DVD Jon rocks!
Hey! Has anyone found a P2P community yet where people are sharing non-drmed itunes songs? ;)
Those things are relatively secure. There's a clerk manning the control station, who helps with problems and keeps an eye on the customers, and the machines have very sensitive scales to make sure that the total weight of your groceries matches the database. Now, some very very light products like greeting cards might be able to get around these scales, but only a small quantity. It's too much of a hassle to steal the groceries.
"A group of words expressing something other than their literal intention. Now that... is... irony!" - Bender
This is nice and all, but don't you guys realize you're hurting the chances for the music industry to finally fully adopt online music buying?
It's like you guys bitch when they don't embrace, then they start doing it, and you guys bitch and find ways to break their copy protection. If you don't like the DRM, don't buy the online music. Doing stuff like this just makes legal online music downloading look like it will always fail, because hackers will continue to keep cracking it.
Your car stereo just doesn't support AAC files. That has nothing to do with the DRM. My Alpine unit support WMA and MP3, but not AAC. I can rip un-DRMd files from my own CDs, and the unit still won't play them.
It's not the DRM in that case. It's AAC vs MP3.
Yes, you laugh at such silly ideas (as well you should), but I can almost guarantee you there are entertainment execs thinking those exact thoughts at this very moment.
I feel ill....
They might not read Slashdot at all, but if they do it first thing in the morning, I cant imagine their face when they see the Story .... I would love to see that...
And they want to kill it. This is the same crowd that won't buy an iPod cause it doesn't have a Clear-Channel tuner. They don't want independents and amateurs to be on the same level as their beloved Top 40. This means suddenly a lot of the beta-adopter crowd won't know what's cool and hip and GASP they will have to make their own decisions on style! The only way to ensure the manufactured pop star remains is with the controlled distribution model
The app is called virtuosa. There was a version that treated protected wma's the same as unprotected wma's. It has since been fixed as finding the correct vpl is difficult. The version that can be used to convert music had a bug that didn't load track numbers but I'll get to that later.
/. account.
Basically this is how it worked for me.
Download the latest version of Virtousa. I think it is version 5.Something.
Scour the internet for the wma_dec.vpl file that trats protected wma's the same as unprotected wma's.
Here is the part about keeping the track numbers.
After you have downloaded your music from napster, load it all into virtousa. This may take a bit as virtousa neeeds to get the license for the music.
After all your music is loaded, exit virtousa and copy the broken vpl file over the existing one (back up the existing one for good measure).
Restart virtousa and convert to your hearts content. I noticed the program takes a bit to start the conversion so if it doesn't start immediately don't get too bugged out. I also noticed that it hangs if I try and convert more then about 100 tracks at a time or so.
Enjoy the free music and stop trying to rationalize your theft. Life is better when you admit to yourself exactly what you are anyway.
Good luck, and if you can't find the vpl make a throwaway email and I will send it to you.
Don't say all AC's are assholes, some of us just don't want a
I don't like butterflies, one of them killed my little brother and game me herpes. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
If someone put a licence on their software that said if you use the software you have to refrain from ever speaking ill of it to anyone else, would that stand?
Maybe the license is not what you think it is. It is a manifestation of some particular, very limited rights of an author. You can humorously claim that you have more rights than you really do, but writing that in a license doesn't make it so.
We can debate policy and law about what an author should be able to dictate to consumers, in licenses or otherwise. You cannot avoid setting limits, the only question is where the limits are. It is perfectly acceptable to set limits to where the GPL is in bounds, while prohibition (through any mechanism) of DRM circumvention is out of bounds. Indeed, this was (arguably) the legal state of affairs in this country from the dawn of the information age until the DMCA passed.
By the way, the DMCA is a very, very bad law, that we need to never take our eyes off repealing. It has been met with civil disobedience on an almost unprecedented scale. Rather, it was simply ignored, and its so putrid that most interested parties are afraid to see it enforced, because it would create a backlash.
Licenses happen at the whim of the government. And the government's job is to promote the progress of the arts and sciences. It may actually be the right position to take: that an author can't use a license to command his consumers follow his elaborate scheme for consuming his media (on pain of criminal and civil penalties etc.) any more than he can use a licence to force consumers to wear red clothes or send him love letters. Meanwhile why wouldn't many other uses of a license, from the GPL to the whole spectrum of normal closed source licenses, still stand?
For that matter we can discuss whether or not the license - more accurately things like the shrinkwrap EULA - is enforceable at all. As it is, it is perilously outside what most common law considers to be a valid contract, with the informed consent of both parties, etc. Indeed, until UCITA started gaining speed (UCITA makes the DMCA look as pure as a Dr. Seuss book) it wasn't clear that licenses are any more than proactive, hopeful, if egotistical word-games played by content creators.
From that perspective the GPL is basically a simple defense against the kinds of madness that more open-ended and fully enforceable licenses can create. If you take this perspective it is totally consistent, and indeed necessary, to advocate both for GPL use and a restoration of sane, pre-UCITA policy with respect to licenses.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Not a troll -just the truth.
You are operating under the erroneous assumption that Apple supports DRM. The do not. Apple does not like DRM and Apple knows that the customers do not like DRM. There is no way in hell Apple is going to go to the RIAA and say that customers appear to be happy with DRM.
Apple wants to sell MP3s and Apple has been wanting to sell MP3s from the beginning.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
For a long time they have alienated the music consumers. Today almost all music consumers think that RIAA are evil. A lot of the music consumers are using this as a moral justification for copyright infringement: "They are evil, so it isn't that bad if I do something bad to them."
And a lot worse for RIAA is that artists are getting increasingly aware that they are being fucked by the big labels. More and more artists are distributing their music outside the established RIAA channels.
Probably this is what RIAA is most afraid of: If/when a significant number of artists start selling their music outside the traditional music industry, the traditional music industry will collapse as consumers and artists alike find out that they can do better without the outdated distribution and control models of the traditional music industry.
It's cross-platform. The articles are bogus, there is a nice Python distribution and the software's site even has Debian packages.
I didn't care about the DRM much thanks to Hymn/JHymn, but I had been putting off signing up for iTMS because I didn't feel like rebooting to Windows to buy my music. (I don't even bother downloading MP3s via P2P due to lack of clients for for Linux for the more useful P2P networks. BitTorrent is the exception here, but it isn't suitable for music downloading.)
Now I can buy music from Linux. YAY.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
It simply doesn't matter whether Apple or the labels sell more or fewer songs without DRM -- it's their right to license their music any way they see fit. It's a property right, theirs to use even if you, with all your experience in music licensing, could probably think of a more profitable way to do it. That's why the whole argument about whether record stores did better or worse after Napster is silly: because it doesn't matter. The music business is the industry's to run into the ground if they want and has nothing to do with the fact that no one has a right to reproduce their music without their permission. Apple will and should hold you to whatever agreement you made with them when you signed up for iTunes because that is their right -- no matter what happens to sales or piracy.
Maybe so, maybe not. If you want to be safe, create a new account for your pymusique purchases (pymusique can do this, apparently) and let Apple shut that one down when the time comes.
Keep your regular account to yourself.
-renard
Laurie Duncan actually read the ToS and checked
It would appear that Laurie Duncan is new to the Internet.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Its a valid comment. When I worked for OfficeMax all the ink cartridges were stored behind the customer service counter, customers had to bring up a slip to get what they needed when they checked out. At the time I left, they started changing over to haveing the ink cartridges directly out on the shelf. It turns out the the increase in sales, made up for the increase in theft.
Here's how I think iTMS should work:
-All the songs on the iTMS servers are encrypted with separate keys.
-You buy a song, they give you the encrypted mp3 and the key, which gets added to your database.
-Everytime you go to play the song, it loads up the mp3 and the key, mashes them together, and somehow music comes out of it.
-Maybe your database should be encrypted or something so that programs/viruses could rip off your keys.
I don't like the concept of DRM'd music, but this is how I'd do it if I were them.
One word: Linux
Until now there has been no way to purchase iTunes music under Linux. As such I haven't used the store.
Even if pymusique didn't bypass the DRM, I'm glad it exists so I can actually purchase music from within Linux.
In theory... I get "Login Failed" when I try to use pymusique so far. I'm going to attempt to use the Windows standalone build from my laptop to see if it's a general "pymusique is broken" problem or if it's a specific problem with my installation of the necessary libraries, etc.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Actually, Apple sells AAC files, I believe. Not MP3 files.
I've always been amazed at the fixation on super loud bass. When ever I walk into most electronics stores, that's the firs thing I hear, and I usually end up having to listen to it until I leave. Of course, the most eggregious offenders are the boomcar fairies.
Thank you; that is my point. If someone doesn't like DRM, they shouldn't bother buying it.
The thing is, as far as Apple having a strong DRM I really don't see how this is any different than Hymn. Just like Hymn, a very small number of people will use this and most people will keep using the store as-is. I don't think it's that much of an issue for them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I Quote: Do you think that Apple's restrictions are really that ridiculous?"
You are missing some important parts to their TOS. Under 9c:
"Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time."
And later under 13b:"...Apple and its licensors reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the Service at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for the removal of or disabling of access to any such Products, content or materials under this Agreement. Apple may also impose limits on the use of or access to certain features or portions of the Service, in any case and without notice or liability."
No, I'm not using iTMS, but if I did, I'd be burning backup, DRM-free, MP3s. (Or Oggs for those of you who are cooler than me)
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
i don't care if you don't like the gpl and don't want to use it at all, but your commentary reflects a lack of knowledge about the license you are complaining about. perhaps you should actually read the gpl before you post...
as an end user you are free to do with the code as you wish. you can modify it and use it personally or in your business without releasing source. if you distribute your modified software to others, then you have to release your modified source.
you are not obligated to release your gpl program for free [as in beer]. you can charge for it, but you still have to make the source available.
i don't understand what "money to work around the gpl" means. you have money to spend on proprietary , closed source licenses? rich?
you'll have to try harder than that...
sum.zero
______________________________
i don't license music.
i purchase cds.
Secondly, the GPL is not a ToS. The GPL in no way restricts your use of software; it simply restricts the distribution of it (and in fact it actually restricts said distribution less than normal copyright law, which would apply if there were no GPL in place). Do not confuse the GPL with a EULA.
I don't believe in EULAs anyway. I didn't sign jackshit, so there is no contract.
Moll.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Apple likes DRM, otherwise they'd only sell one of any mp3.
hildi has been posting nonsense throughout this thread and is better ignored.
sum.zero
Props to John for another quality contribution to the scene!
I know in high school they do all this "one person can ruin your privileges" bullshit, but this is the real world with real customers. Treat everyone like a guilty party in a high school, and you may hear some whining parents, but if you do that in the business world, you're screwing yourself over because the customers can bite back.
Even besides that, DRM on paid-for music just doesn't make logical sense. If someone is going to buy your music instead of getting it for free elsewhere, there's not much chance they're one of those 'evil pirate' people. DRM may not bother all customers, but it will bother some. Why create headaches for paying customers? Are you really so afraid they're going to maybe give it to their friend? Is your DRM going to stop that in the first place?
As StarWreck said, the only logical thing to do in a situation where you have people infringing your copyright so easily is to make it as easy and painless for the paying customer as possible. Don't restrict them. Don't hold a knife to their back. Don't threaten them. Just treat them like you would anyone else that walked up to you with money.
originally from the far side, iirc.
sum.zero
If you haven't ever used your Apple ID with iTMS before, pymusique won't work. You have to click through an additional agreement within iTMS beyond the normal Apple ID one when you first register.
This is why I was getting "login failed" before.
The account creation system in pymusique also does not work.
Once you've confirmed your Apple ID as iTMS-enabled, pymusique will work fine. I can purchase music from Linux now! (As an added bonus, no DRM.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
By the way, Wal Mart has tags on everything they sell that will BEEP when you try to exit without paying. That's just like saying "all our customers are criminals so we won't disable the tags until they pay for them". The only difference is that with music tracks, they keep the DRM on the product after you've bought it because they don't want you to distribute it freely to everyone you know. What is wrong with that? You can still use it on multiple computers and burn as many personal-use CD's as you want.
The only way the RIAA will get the picture is for artists to start self-releasing their songs. Until the artists do this there will never be an RIAA-blessed way to purchase downloadable music without DRM involved. Artists need to quit signing contracts with the RIAA companies already!
What does the RIAA provide artists? Promotion and startup costs (among other things). Artists, like people, would rather "get rich quick" than work up to it slowly. The RIAA companies say things to make them sign their rights away to them in exchange for promotion and covering the cost of cutting the CD's etc.
So what needs to happen is more low-cost promotion agencies to pop up and fulfill this function for the artists. The cost of production can be significantly lower if the artist simply chooses to distribute online only...maybe create a few thousand cd's if they want for tours and such.
Once a few big name artists are persuaded to self-release with $onlineSite then the floodgates would be open IMO.
Copy protection/DRM is not only not new, it's not workable. It will always be cracked. The business model needs to change to one that works, and benefits everyone. A business model that leaves all control in the hands of the seller is not workable. Treacherous Computing (of which iTunes is one example) in general suffers from this. There ARE workable models that would eliminate most piracy; the ijuts will not embrace them ever, because they are clearly stupid and suicidal. Five years ago no one knew who they were; now everyone hates them. Eventually RIAA's competition will win out when someone else comes along with a better idea.
Six score characters.
Brevity being wit's soul
I have enough space.
Clerk: iTMS allows obtaining music legally, at an almost reasonable price. ...That's good!
...That's bad!
...That's good!
...That's bad!
...That's good!
...wha?
Homer:
Clerk: The music comes with DRM.
Homer:
Clerk: You can still listen to it on five computers and burn CDs.
Homer:
Clerk: The DRM enforces software lock-in to iTunes.
Homer:
Clerk: There is software that can remove the DRM.
Homer:
Clerk: The software provokes the RIAA and undermines authority.
Homer:
Clerk: That's bad!
"There are hundreds of game theorists at the gates, sir, and they want to hold an election!"
Grey area = nerds think they can do whatever they want.
I am, and I do.
Here's an alternative that doesn't require breaking the terms of service.
Sniff the packets as the file is being downloaded with iTunes. You are still using itunes to access the service, only now you can re-assemble a DRM-free file.
Lemon Curry ????
Only to morally and financially bankrupt college students.
Some of us actually prefer to PURCHASE the songs we listen to. It's the next best thing to jabbing a nice sharp object into Britney Spears' ass, namely the support of quality music.
I think the recording industry is shooting themselves in the foot. CDs experienced record sales after Napster came out. When they shut Napster down, CD sales plummeted. They blamed it online music file sharing, but Napster was bigger than anything else, so they have it reversed. I refuse to buy CDs anymore, I'm worried the next time I pop one into my computer it will install software that will keep me from ripping any CD. Maybe it won't work in my old car CD player or my CD player clock-radio either. Screw it, it ain't worth the trouble. Besides I still haven't gotten my $10 settlement from them over-charging me for CDs.
Lets look what DVD-Jon has accomplished during his lifetime. That guy should be awarded with an oscar or the nobel price, just because (can you say that in english?)
if you steal a car in the middle of the night, it's harder for the car lot security to catch you.
It really seems to me that this is based on what a lot of consumers consider their "right to steal".
not cool.
Would you really we rather we didn't have the iTunes Music Store?
Y E S !
Apple likes FairPlay as it locks you forever into using an iPod to play song collection on the move, unless you want to burn and rerip all your music.
Or maybe Apple didn't want to put the DRM in in the first place, and now that it's been broken, there's little reason to keep it in place?
Sigs are like bumper stickers.
the music industry shills are in full force in this topic.
This tool is for CUSTOMERS. WHO PAID! What are you complaining about? if all they wanted was to steal music.. well. theres several thousand versions of every song ever made floating around drm free and totally free on the many p2p apps around.
You already got these peoples money. You have NOTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT! Any complaints will only serve to further piss off legitimate customers who actually want to PAY for your music.
God damm... Get a clue already. Your monumental stupidity is getting old.
See, thats the thing; with the digital age (or whatever the hell you want to call it...) copying things is so much easier to do. Not so much years ago, but anyways.
It's all based on trust in the digital world [thats rather cliche, I know]. The industry can't trust people to *not* copy and give away the songs; hence we have DRM.
But people don't like DRM because people want their fair use rights without having to jump through hoops, which I think is fair.
We've got to come to a better solution for this mess. Sometimes I ponder on what a 'trust' model industry would be like; we eliminate DRM and essentially let people pay to download songs and do whatever the hell they want with them according to the fair use laws we already have. If you break your fair use rights, then you get sued into oblivion for breaking that trust.
But then again, there are so many problems with that model I can already see now. The sad truth is that we can't trust people. You just can't. How would you know when someone was breaking their fair use rights without DRM? Put unique ID tags on mp3s, and keep track of which ID goes to which individual?
Maybe we need to revamp the whole concept of IP. I don't know. I wish minds smarter than mine would arise and solve this mess soon though. And by that I mean I wish someone other than the -AA.
As for Apple, I hope this doesn't put them into a bad mojo with the music industry, which it will. I wish Apple in this case could just do nothing and ignore this but thats not gonna happen since the music industry will be up in arms over this.
Isn't it ironic, that DVDJon, in his fight for our rights (or whatever it is that he's doing) or whomever else, when they do things like these; often in the end make it harder to slay the beast?
We need a different way to kill this Goliath. Making programs and things like these isn't the pebble that will bring that b*tch down. We've got to rethink this.
Try not to let life get in the way of living.
Even a hypothetical argument needs to be remotely realistic.
Congratulations on being WILLFULLY STUPID.
The poster obviously meant anything other than commiting copyright infringment, just as he can "do whatever he wants" with his hammer other than splattering someone's brain with it.
Someone who commits copyright infringment is guilty of copyright infringment and any discussion of DRM a load of crap.
Someone who does NOT commit copyright infringment is innocent and any discussion of DRM a load of crap.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
No they don't. They want to sell you files that only play on an iPod. MP3's will play on anything. WMA's will play on most everything. AAC's can be made to play on anything. AAC's with apples DRM can only play on an iPod. This is what apple wants.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
You need a better understanding of copyright law. There is no such thing as a "licence to play" or a "licence to use" or whatever you think it is. And just because the publishing industry deliberately missrepresents the law does not change what the law actually is.
Under copyright law there are licences to create more copies and distributing them and for public performance. In a nutshell that pretty well covers what rights it is even possible to licence. All other uses are unrestricted by copyright. You do not need any licence at all for an unrestricted use.
Guess what? Virtually all sales of copyrighted works in fact come with no licence at all. You sure as hell didn't receive any licence when you bought a book. If you have not been given a licence to create more copies or distribute them or for public performance then you have not been given any licence at all. You do not need a licence to read a book, yhat is an unrestricted use. You do not need a licence to play music, that is an unrestricted use. You do not need a licence to resell a book to a used book store, that is an unrestricted use.
Sure you need to buy a copy of a book before you can read it, and you need to buy a copy of a song before you can play it, but none of that involves any licencing at all.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
If the file is downloaded and then DRM is applied, does that mean the file comes through the network socket in unprotected format? If so, could you use a tool like tcpdump to copy the socket traffic to a file? In that case you could actually use iTunes to download the song and not violate the TOS.
The tcpdump output file may have to be post-processed, but that can be done without violating the law or the TOS.
Actually, Apple sells AAC files, I believe. Not MP3 files.
Didn't I just explain that what Apple wanted to sell and what Apple is selling are two different things? That Apple battled with the RIAA over not being able to sell what they wanted to sell?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
What "battle" are you talking about? iPod and iTMS follow the RIAA spec for such services to a tee.
You've made a half-dozen posts claiming that Apple is opposes DRM and the RIAA's goals. I'd like to see one citation for that claim.
From here it looks like Apple and the RIAA are comfortable business partners.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Have you ever heard of fair use rights?
Was anyone else astounded to read that DRM gets added AFTER the download? This is a bit like encrypting passwords on an end-system but transmitting them in the clear. This is in-effect a man-in-the-middle vulnerability. Apple are very clever, I can't believe they overlooked this.
I think this time is a great time for the indies and represents a leveling of the playing field. Go and check out emusic.com. They have a great catalogue and very reasonable pricing structure. The music is DRM-Free as well.
Expand your musical horizons and lose the shackles as well.
The online-community has a great opportunity to vote for artistic integrity and digital music the way we like it.
This will only make Apple and others make even MORE restrictive DRM systems in the future. It will also prompt law makers to make TOUGHER laws. This mofo is an idiot if he thinks this helps the community at large because he is sowing the seeds a less free information regime.
Universities already have to deal with p2p and other large uses of bandwidth and so most places have a bandwidth shaper set up. Blocking a set of protocalls or ports is a really poor long-term choice for a network manager but putting hard limits in the software is just as bad a way to deal with the bandwidth problem. The good system is to use a QoS system and put a reasonable limit on the traffic for each user.
Apple may have good reasons to limit their music sharing product in this way, but consideration for universities is not one of them.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
One thing a lot of people have missed in this whole debate is that not all record companies are members of the RIAA. The iTunes store actually has a lot of great bands signed to indipendent labels. Alternative Tentacles, and Epitaph records offer mp3/real files from their websites, emusic, and iTunes downloads too. Apple and the RIAA do not own the copywrite to any of the music I choose to listen to, and so I doubt they could successfully sue me for breaking the DRM.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Its great now that we have a rudimentary interface for iTunes that will work with linux. It would be great to see this being used to create a fully fledged and open source iTunes client for linux and other operating systems. As much as I avoid DRM'd music like the plague - I can't help but feel that regardless of DRM, there should be in existance a client that brings the iTunes resource to linux.
Marketing pymusique as an open source/linux "iTunes" would be a much better initiative to make apple "notice" the requirement to have iTunes on other platforms. Not that thats going to happen in my wildest dreams though.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Apple likes DRM, otherwise they'd only sell one of any mp3.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Thanx for playing, but you are the weakest link. Goodbye.
Apple is rejecting DRM and in thisSteve Jobs interview with Rolling Stone he explains that DRM is just stupid and the Music industry is clueless about computers. I don't have a specific link, but Apple did in fact fight the RIAA against having any DRM at all on iTunes. Apple has less oppressive DRM because Apple fought against DRM.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Yes, after Apple was forced into using DRM they obviously tied it to the iPod. When someone won't let you have anything other than lemons, you make lemonade.
Apple has been rejecting DRM and Steve Jobs gave an interview interview with Rolling Stone he explaining that DRM is just stupid and the Music industry is clueless about computers. I don't have a specific link, but Apple did in fact battle the RIAA against having any DRM at all on the music download service they wanted to create.
The business Apple currently has is not the business they wanted to create.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
What "battle" are you talking about?
The negotiations when Apple and the RIAA when Applse first decided to open a music download store.
iPod and iTMS follow the RIAA spec for such services to a tee.
Perhaps you missed the praise heaped on Apple for having the least oppressive DRM? Perhaps you missed the fact that iTunes is absolutely slaughtering all of the other Music servives crippled with even more oppressive DRM?
That is because every single online service other than Apple is operating under the exact same oppressive RIAA terms and specifications.
Yes iTunes is operating under "RIAA specs", DIFFERERENT RIAA specs. Apple fought against having any DRM at all. Apple was about to walk out of the negotiations because they would not accept the RIAA's DRM specs. The RIAA could not afford to let Apple just walk out. They were already on thin ice for all of the member corporations entering a noncompete conspiracy (noncompete on DRM terms and other oppressive terms) and imposed uniform and oppressive terms to control the download market, and they could not afford to ALSO abuse their power to impose a Windows-only market. So they split the baby in half. The RIAA allowed a crack in their consipracy to prohibit any competition or deviation on DRM terms. They allowed Apple to have slightly less oppressive terms. And while Apple was fighting against any DRM at all, with this deal Apple at least walk away with more favorable terms than anyone else. In a free market a noncrippled product will always outcompete a crippled product, and a less crippled product will outcompete a more crippled product. With their more favorable terms Apple was able to absolutely STOMP all of the other competing download services.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
How about this and this.
There were also stories directly addressing Apple's negotiations with the RIAA, but It was a couple of years ago and can't dig up the exact refference at the moment. Apple's DRM position is well doumented in many places, and the outcome of the Apple-RIAA negotiations are obvious. Everyone is busy praising Apple for having the least oppressive DRM and iTunes has pretty well crushed all competing services. That is because Apple fought for and got different terms from the RIAA than anyone else was able to get. Apple was about to walk out of negotiations over it.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
As stated in the rolling stone article, Apple's position is "Imperfect DRM is good enough". It takes a huge leap to go from there to saying that Apple actually opposes DRM.
Plus, If Apple does not want to support DRM, why are they selling it? You need to go back and rethink your statements, or at least spare the boldface and repeated comments when you are hypothesizing.
Everyone is busy praising Apple for having the least oppressive DRM
IMO, everyone is repeating baseless propaganda. Has there been a comparison made? The RIAA was fairly adamant that they weren't giving Apple a special deal and that the playing field was level.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
The download link on nanocrew.net takes you the a site from the EFF, where the file cannot be found anymore. Has the EFF taken it off line?
Plus, If Apple does not want to support DRM, why are they selling it?
Because the alternatives were (1) be completely denied the ability to enter the online music market at all by the RIAA, or (2) try to fight the RIAA in court for he right to sell the format they wanted to sell.
Neither of which are exactly appealling options. Rather than try a court fight, and rather than closing up shop and going home, they reluctantly settled for dealing with a somewhat less crippled product.
IMO, everyone is repeating baseless propaganda. Has there been a comparison made?
I'm not familiar with the details of the other services' DRM off hand, but I would think there would be some signifigant reason for one service to so overwhelming steal the market (over 70% according to Neilson ratings) leaving over a half dozen competitors to fight for less than 30% between them.
I had the impression that iTunes is, or at least was, the only service with essentially unrestricted burning to CD at no extra charge. I certainly remember comments about other services did not allow burning or that there were nasty fees for it. If it's a myth then it's one heck of a prevelant myth.
Considering the slaughter I wouldn't be supprised if the RIAA extended Apple's terms, or most of those terms, to the other services to keep them from dying off completely. Allowing a single retailer (Apple) to monopolize the market on that side of the business would be a threat to their own power position.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Can't wait 'till there's laws to make loud bass illegal.
Goddamn fuckers can be heard from miles.
I should buy a 50KW tweeter to blast THEIR ears when they pass by me...
Seriously, VINYL???? Hahahahahaha!!!!!
:)
You, sir, have demonstrated that you have no FUCKING CLUE what you're talking about. Vinyl sounds good, yes. On a super-expensive system, it even sounds BETTER than CD. But it is NOT better QUALITY. Vinyl sounds better because it smooths, or "warms" the sound. That effect sounds good to the human ear. People like it. But the signal to noise ratio on vinyl is atrocious. Many times lower than that of CD.
Agree with your last statement though, about the idiot audiophiles who buy into that crap. Hey, it makes 'em happy!!
This isn't insightfull. This is a textbook straw-man arguement. You are making a stupid position up, and assigning that position to me, then poking holes in it.
I made no claims as to what Apple is going to do, or what their motivations are. I posted facts. When you buy something from iTMS, you buy whatever Apple says you bought, and they can change it at any time for any reason. Today those terms are pretty generous. But Apple doesn't own the content they sell, so they aren't the only one who has a say in what those terms are.
A cynic would interperate a "change at any time for any reason" clause of an agreement as "this is what the agreement says while you are reading it, but when you close the window it might say something else." So in other words, the agreement gives Apple some rights, but you don't have any. That is all I am claiming.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I'm an iPod owner, who has avoided iTunes since launch due to my hatred of DRM.
I hope you mean you've been avoiding the iTunes Music Store. Because iTunes itself supports WAV, AIFF, MP3, AAC, Apple Lossless and a few others, and the fact that it also supports DRMed AAC from the music store doesn't take away its other great qualities as an iPod feeder (or as a desktop jukebox).
You're a moron. If apple dissapeared tomorrow you could still use iTunes to play any purchased songs.
Besides which, they are not your songs in the first place. You didn't buy them. You bought a license to listen to them according to restrictions that were stated in advance. Don't like the restrictions? Then don't buy the license. Duh.
Usenet ~is~ music. DRM hasn't made it there.
Enjoy.
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand". -Milton F.
I think the enforcability of the EULA would be week. To most, it is some black stuff on the screen that you see when you are on your way to hit the "Accept" button, which almost everyone treats as a kind of "Next" during the install.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The issue here is that you've threatened one's liberty (and life, for that matter), and this is what you'll be tried upon, not upon doing what you want with your knife
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler