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."

11 of 894 comments (clear)

  1. Wouldn't it be ironic by bLanark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  2. Contrast with GPL violator story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  3. Seriously? by oldmanmtn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"
    1. Re:Seriously? by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, what did you think, they encrypted all their music files once, and every user has a single unique key that will magically encrypt only the songs they've purchased? Or that they kept a separate encrypted copy of every song for every user? Or when the music starts downloading immediately (and quickly) did you think they were encrypting the 5 MB song on the fly for every download?

      Really, it's not that Apple's stupid. It's more likely that they never intended to make an utterly unbreakable system. As you mentioned yourself, the only reason Apple really cares about the DRM is that the music industry happy. In pretty much all of this copy protection for software/entertainment, there are three groups:

      1. the distributor, who wants the copy protection to be as restrictive and unbreakable as possible
      2. the user, who wants the copy protection to be as loose as possible, but will require at least that the copy protection is loose enough that it won't inhibit their fair use
      3. the hacker, who's going to break the copy protection no matter what.

      ...and this situation is no different. The distributor isn't going to get their unbreakable encryption. What the RIAA should really want the DRM to do is:

      • be loose enough that normal users won't feel an immense desire to break it
      • make sure that breaking it is enough of a PITA (or seemingly dangerous) so that the normal user won't bother.
  4. if you don't like the license agreement by xxavierg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:That's precisely what I'll be doing this evenin by tdemark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    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 .01% of total sales. Almost all consumers appear to be happy with the current arrangement. "

    - Tony

  6. Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much by jizmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You don't think that being prohibited from sharing a song with a family member is a problem? Isn't that the quintessential "fair use"?

    Or what happens when your Mac breaks? I can still listen to the Queensryche CDs I bought in junior high (if I wanted to). At the time I had a brand-new Sony DiscMan that took four double-A batteries, lasted a couple hours, had awful sound, and cost about $130 new. My family's computer was a CompuAdd 286.

    What happens when Apple goes out of business? Sony is still is business, but CompuAdd went belly-up ages ago. Apple's market share has been shrinking since the mid-1980s (and I say that as someone typing this on a PowerBook).

    Assuming you don't have a BMW /w iPod adapter, can you listen to your CDs in your car without burning them in uncompressed, WAV format? What happens when you decide you want to move to Linux? Or what if you decide you'd rather have an MP3 player with a built-in radio?

    These days, you can't even stream unencrypted songs to other computers in your household with iTunes. How do you know that Apple won't take away more rights in the future?

    What if the artist decides he doesn't want his album distributed (e.g. Beach Boys' original Smile, Prince's Black Album), but you want other people to hear it?

    --
    With great power comes great fan noise.
  7. Because... by MattHaffner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much by MoneyT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you're mac breaks, pesumeably you have a backup, or even better, have the file on another computer (you do know you can transfer the files right?). What happens when your Queensryche CD breaks?

    As for what happens when Apple goes out of business, well, DRM authorizations are localized, and there are already programs to move your authorization manualy. Presumably, if Apple were to go out of business, they would either open the DRM, issue a universal authorizer program, or someone else would step in.

    As for listening to them in your car, sure, you can throw them on to AAC players (like the iPod) and pipe them through AUX inputs or FM transmitters or any of the other methods that people have used to add audio devices to their cars for years.

    What happens when you want to move to linux? You use iTunes via WINE or you reencode the music into another format. Yes, you may have to do work to move from system to another, just like I have to do work to get my CDs to MiniDisc or my VHS to DVD.

    If you'd rather have an MP3 player, then you need to make them MP3s, what if all of my music is MP3s and I'd rather have an UberCompressedHighQualityFormat player? I have to reencode the music.

    As for streaming music, here's a novel idea. If you don't want to use the iTunes encryption, don't use iTunes. I must have missed the point where iTunes was an essential element for streaming music.

    If the artist doesn't want his album distributed, what prevents you from playing it for your friends? That's right, nothing.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  9. Re:Don't you guys realize... by Ogerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why are you supporting a music store (iTunes) which that puts DRM on every song they sell? I would imagine that, if you really did not like DRM, you would do everything in your power to discourage its use.

    Maybe because there's no feasible alternative at the moment? Maybe because he likes some artists who only distribute on iTMS? Maybe because he wants to play the AAC files he legally obtained on his Linux workstation?

    Do you think that Apple's restrictions are really that ridiculous?

    Who owns your computer? You or Apple? What right do they or anyone else have to tell you what you're allowed to do with your own personal property? I'm not talking about P2P or anything outside of your own computer. I'm talking about what you do with your personal physical property in the privacy of your home.

    2) In addition, you're liable to hurt us people who don't mind the DRM, and in fact appreciate Apple's service, because cracking the encryption will more likely than not cause the RIAA to demand greater restrictions in the future.

    DRM doesn't work and there is no way that it even theoretically can work. By necessity, DRM is the equivalent of placing your key under the doormat and expecting that nobody will use it without asking first. So what if the RIAA demands "stronger" DRM schemes than what Apple has implemented. It will only drive away customers. People like you will wake up and begin to care, perhaps. Which is really fine, because we don't need the RIAA anymore anyhow. Ever consider the fact that many iTMS artists are not RIAA member signed?

    And incidentally, this does not appear to be a case of any encryption being cracked. In fact, it may not even be considered illegal, even under the bogus DMCA, because the data is merely being intercepted *before* DRM is applied to it. And it's not some form of wiretap because it's your own computer. But IANAL so don't base anything upon that speculation.

    You play it off as if fighting DRM is some great act of civil disobiedence which will liberate us all from some fantasy corporate-controlled nightmare world.

    If corporations are trying to define what you can legally do with your own personal property, then yes, there is reason to be concerned. And it is not a fantasy that abusive corporate control of the music industry has been detrimental to everyone minus the big-wig execs and a handful of top artists who managed to wrangle the system.

    You have to realize that you're in a small minority, and you have to respect the rights of others who don't hold the same views.

    Minority? Hardly. Maybe minority among Apple fanboys, but not among the majority of the population. Do you realize why MP3 is so popular? It's not because it's technically the best. It's because it is completely open. The free market has decided that most people don't like DRM. BTW, what "rights" is the original poster disrespecting of people who don't agree with him?

    ..putting down cluestick and stepping off soapbox

  10. Re:Don't you guys realize... by FangVT · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm just saying, everyone bitches that they embrace an "obsolete business model." So they test the waters with a new one, and people just crack it.
    And by cracking it they're just saying, "The new one you've chosen is obsolete out of the gate. Please try again (without the DRM)."