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."

Comments

More Details

[OctaneZ]

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

[bLanark]

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

Re:Wouldn't it be ironic

[harlows_monkeys]

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

You could do what you wanted before, with Hymn.

Re:Wouldn't it be ironic

[mecro]

You could do this before. The simple way to defeat the apple DRM is to burn your songs onto a Virtual Drive (daemon tools) or onto a real CD, then rerip them to a high quality mp3. With iTunes and a decent drive, it takes less than 5 minutes, and is completely DRM free.

Re:Wouldn't it be ironic

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

A user comment in TFA mentions a potential legal difference.

PyMusique captures the paid for track before the DRM gets put on.

Hymn strips off the DRM after the track is downloaded.

Hymn appears to violate the DMCA to the letter of the law because the DRM is in place at the time Hymn performs it's functions.

PyMistique most likely only violates the TOS because the user isn't using the iTunes application, the client component that puts the DRM on the downloaded file. The file is simply downloaded as iTunes sends it (without DRM).

Either way, the user would have paid for the song. They are simply making a choice to maintain their "fair use" rights.

Re:Wouldn't it be ironic

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Hymn appears to violate the DMCA to the letter of the law because the DRM is in place at the time Hymn performs it's functions.

I don't think this is actually true. Hymn does not break any encryption, it merely uses your legally obtained encryption keys to remove the DRM. This is a very fine point, but based upon my reading of portions of the DMCA, Hymn seems to be in the clear if you can explain it properly to a jury.

Re:Wouldn't it be ironic

[JeffTL]

DMCA or any other copyright law doesn't matter here -- in fact, the illegality of this is in a body of law far more simple than intellectual property: contracts. When you get an iTunes Music Store account, you agree (in the Terms of Sale, an addendum to the Terms of Service), that: "You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules." This looks to be circumventing the software. (IANAL and this is not legal advice)

Re:Wouldn't it be ironic

[bcattwoo]

This is a very fine point, but based upon my reading of portions of the DMCA, Hymn seems to be in the clear if you can explain it properly to a jury.

Yeah, good luck with that. You would be very lucky if one of the jurors knew what the hell you were talking about. On the other hand, when the prosecutor (or plaintiff) gets up and says you stole music, they will all nod their heads and you're done.

I wonder if we have moved beyond the days of when a trial by a jury of your peers is really a good thing. I find the thought processes of most of my peers scary.

Re:Wouldn't it be ironic

[Loconut1389]

youre still breaking the law doing that...
in a handful of states (or more?) it's illegal to have anything hanging from the rearview mirror (or at least anything sizeable enough to distract the driver or block vision).

just can't win eh?

Re:Wouldn't it be ironic

[cyberformer]

The problem is that you're not tried by your peers: Lawyers like to disqualify anyone who knows anything about the case, and anyone who wants to can make an excuse and get out of jury service.

Juries werent a great idea anyway: If you put twelve people in a room, a lot of them will just agree out of groupthink. It would be better to separate the 12 into smaller groups (say, 3 of 4) and declare a mistrial if they don't come up with the same verdict.

Re:Wouldn't it be ironic

[Alsee]

An excellent point, and one I would like to emphasize. Ok, lets assume this *is* in fact a violation of the iTunes terms of Service. Well, so what? What are the consequences for choosing to violate the Terms of Service?

I've read those Terms of Service, and unless I am mistaken the only consequence is that Apple may, if they choose to do so, decline the sale or cancel your service. Period. If I missed something then I welcome anyone to jump in and cite the text I overlooked or missunderstood.

If I sign a contract saying that I will have your house painted by the end of the week or I owe you $1000 in damages. well... I'm perfectly free to choose not to paint your house if I have no objection to the alternative of paying you $1000. Maybe I just won the lottery and I want to fly to Hawaii this weekend. Ok, here's your $1000 in damages goodbye and have a nice life. All perfectly legal.

-

3..2..1

[MrLint]

thats how long this will work for until apple fixes it.

Re:3..2..1

[FF3451]

What will be more interesting is HOW they fix it. If they are passing the files down "clean" at the moment and then the iTunes client applies DRM to the tracks...

Can you imagine the huge amount of processing that would be required to apply DRM server-side instead, which I should imagine is the only way to prevent the use of this method?

Re:3..2..1

[ray-auch]

It is fascinating that it seems they are only doing it client-side after the transaction - if so it is clearly a massive design flaw (and I'm suprised it took so long to find).

There are ways they could reduce the server load and make it a bit more secure though - eg. blanket encrypt/drm everything on the server and have the client rip that off and apply the personalised drm. Then you'd have to go fishing around in the client for keys etc.

They could also add some form of security handshake to the client & the protocol to identify it as a valid apple client.

By far the biggest problem they have is how to fix this without breaking their massive installed client-base. That is where I think things get interesting.

Re:3..2..1

[Alan Partridge]

Don't forget that Apple's approach to DRM (and it's the pragmatic one) is to make it good enough to keep the record industry onside and bad enough to keep the punter onside. If/when Apple manages to make the iTMS strong enough to not fear the wrath of the music industry, they might change their policy on iTunes DRM.

Re:3..2..1

[Electroly]

There is a HUGE difference between what Apple does and what AllOfMP3 does. Apple uses Akamai to essentially mirror the raw data files. There's no computation here. Zero. AllOfMP3 has huge server farms devoted to encoding music on-the-fly. While it is conceivable that Apple would be able to do a similar thing with adding the DRM (which assuredly would be a lot less work than encoding), they'd have to invest a great deal of money in processing servers. I don't know how this would interact with Akamai's services -- it's conceivable that they would need processing servers at each Akamai border point, which could add up to expensive pretty quickly.

Re:3..2..1

[cyngus]

There are ways they could reduce the server load and make it a bit more secure though - eg. blanket encrypt/drm everything on the server and have the client rip that off and apply the personalised drm. Then you'd have to go fishing around in the client for keys etc.

I don't see how they could "pre-encrypt" the files. If you did someone could just break this blanket encryption and then use this program to get the "pre-encypted" files and decode them. Adding a handshake is better, you could have iTunes present a certificate file as validation and then initiate transfer of an unencrypted file over a secure connection. However, this can be broken too. The only real solution is to custom-encrypt each file server-side. Not a fun solution if you're trying to keep costs down.

Re:3..2..1

[SethS]

So let's say they fix it with server-side DRMing (which does seem like the most secure method)... where does that leave ALL their customers? Everyone would have to upgrade their iTunes immidiately. Now wouldn't that make for some unhappy customers!

Re:3..2..1

[famebait]

They knew from the start that persistent users could remove the DRM by burning and re-ripping anyway, so I'm not surprised they didn't put lots of energy into hampering more complex exploits.

DVDjon is my hero

[Junior J. Junior III]

This guy never stops, does he? Long may you run, DVDjon. I salute you.

Re:DVDjon is my hero

[stebe]

I celebrate the guys entire catalog.

Re:DVDjon is my hero

[Anonymous Coward]

Jon Johansen is not the hero for open source software as he likes to describe himself lately.

http://www.chscene.ch/ccc/decss/decsstruth.txt

Re:DVDjon is my hero

[ryanvm]

With a name like DVDjon, it's not like he had much career choice.

It's the same as Lou Gehrig dying of Lou Gehrig's Disease. You would have thought that he would have seen that one coming.

I have an idea...

[MadBiologist]

Enough with the iTunes... can't this guy hack Napster or Windows Media encryption?

Re:I have an idea...

[A Drake Man]

No, that would take real talent. :) The iTunes protection is weak and has been since the beginning. It's more like a deterrent than anything, just to keep honest people honest.

When you consider that the thing DVD Jon is best known for wasn't even his own work, it's not surprising that he keeps pecking at the low man on the DRM totem pole.

I love ITS but ...

[SamSeaborn]

I love ITS and the whole iTunes thing, but it does bug me that I can't easily make a CD of mp3 files that I can play in an mp3-compliant CD player (like in a car).

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

Re:I love ITS but ...

[CoffeeJedi]

that's because Apple wants you to buy an iPod for your non-cd digital music, not your mp3cd player
(granted... i drank the kool-aid and am saving up for an iPod now, but still............)

Re:I love ITS but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey sam you do realize in itunes you can burn a cd as an mp3 you just have to change it in preferences

Another little article

[ilithiiri]

from The Register: iTunes pyMusique.

Wahoo!

[sandstorming]

Now I can use my Backsteet Boys and Hanson tracks as I please!

Only Logical Conclusion

[bigtallmofo]

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.

It is cool, however

[AtariAmarok]

"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"

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.

Re:It is cool, however

[dominator]

The DMCA doesn't apply to Europe. Should he travel to the USA, he might end up like Dmitri from Elcomsoft, but right now, he's likely safe.

Re:It is cool, however

[Jafafa Hots]

I wonder... if the DRM is applied to the file AFTER you have downloaded it, and you simply bypass the process that adds the DRM but after you have legally purchased and downloaded the DRM-free file, would this really violate the DMCA? After all, you aren't defeating copy protection, you're simply not adding it to a clean file that you've already legally downloaded.

Re:It is cool, however

[eraserewind]

Sues them for buying a song from their one of their members?

Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters?

[Phil246]

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.

Hymn?

[sesshomaru]

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.

Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters?

[Alchemar]

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.

Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters?

[LanMan04]

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).

Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters?

[GundamFan]

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.

Contrast with GPL violator story

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Contrast with GPL violator story

[M.C. Hampster]

Except that the only reason the GPL has any teeth is BECAUSE of copyright. If you get rid of copyright, then how can you distribute free code and ensure that the users of the code release their changes back to the community? If copyright was done away with, at least in regards to code, what stops me from modifying the Linux code, compiling and selling my modified version without releasing the source?

Re:Contrast with GPL violator story

[Gubbe]

In a word: Yes.

In more words: The GPL promotes freedom. It encourages to copy, develop further and distribute those developments, thus advancing culture and public good in the process. It restricts only the ability to take someone else's work and lock it up for private gain.

DRM does the opposite. It discourages sharing and free enjoyment of culture, restricting our ability to enjoy what we bought in order to control and subjugate us.

Sure, both can be simplified to mere license issues, but I honestly don't believe that it is hypocritical to show respect for GPL while at the same time disrespecting music industry ToS.

It's all in the values and what people believe in. For some it's freedom, for others it's money and for you, it seems to be the need to squeeze everything down to black and white issues without thinking what lies behind people's actions and opinions.

Re:Contrast with GPL violator story

[etymxris]

Except that the only reason the GPL has any teeth is BECAUSE of copyright.

This is true.

If you get rid of copyright, then how can you distribute free code and ensure that the users of the code release their changes back to the community?

You can't.

GPL was created because Stallman was a programmer who did not believe in copyright. If you are such a person, no one has a right to distribute the code you give them, unless you explicitly grant them this right. Now, Stallman could have released his code under BSD or public domain. But he went one better. By GPLing his code, he created the root of a poison tree that no proprietary software vendor could build upon. The GPL is only necessary because of copyright. Destroying copyright is better than protecting the GPL.

Re:Contrast with GPL violator story

[squiggleslash]

I disagree that the two are comparable.

The GPL doesn't have to be agreed to in order to obtain content licensed under the GPL. If you don't, you don't have the right to redistribute copies of the software you received. But you still have fair use rights.

The iTMS system, on the other hand, requires you agree to the ToS just to obtain the music, and that ToS does remove certain rights you'd otherwise have.

So, to me, the GPL is a fair legal document to agree to. The iTMS isn't. If the entire world goes GPL or uses the same principles, no harm is done. If the entire world goes iTMS and uses the same principles, the world will be a worse place and people, in the end, will end up with less rights.

I don't think you should be obliged to agree to a contract or license simply to listen to music you choose and have copies yourself. This is not to suggest that (a) I think that if you've agreed then you should violate that contract - at least, not for music or (b) there shouldn't be some framework that requires people who listen to music produced on the assumption that the legal framework of copyright that exists today can ensure the artists can compell listeners to contribute to the costs in some way shouldn't contribute to the costs in some way (geez, is that a fucking awful sentence or what?) I have no time for pirates (first entry, sub-definition 3).

Apple's Fairplay may not be the worst DRM in the world, but it exists, and it does hamper legitimate usage of music. Rather than employ the hacks DVD Jon is proposing in this article though, I'd rather people simply avoid the store.

Re:Contrast with GPL violator story

[etymxris]

Some may release their code under the GPL with that understanding. But I don't support the GPL because it protects the authors' rights. I support the GPL because it uses the restrictions of copyright against the entities that stand to gain the most from these restrictions.

Re:DRM broken anyway

[chrisgeleven]

AAC is lossy just like MP3 is. Transcoding (which is basically what happens here) hurts the quality A LOT.

Sure they might sound fine on your $5 earbuds or speakers, but for those of us who have quality headphones/speakers the difference is really easy to pick out.

How useful to people who choose to use iTunes?

[mytec]

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

[AtariAmarok]

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".

the DRM is the thingamajig

[macpell]

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.

Re:the DRM is the thingamajig

[Mwongozi]

You can't re-download a song for free if you accidentally delete it, you have to buy it again. It's not like this is a big secret, Apple warn you and suggest several ways of backing up your music.

Re:The way it should be.

[varmittang]

I'm sure Apple couldn't give a crap if music has a DRM or not, but its the RIAA, the monkey on Apple's back, that doesn't want something like this to happen. Its the RIAA that wants control.

Seriously?

[oldmanmtn]

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.

Re:Seriously?

[nine-times]

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.

Re:Seriously?

[Alsee]

I doubt the music industry that provides Apple with their product would be happy to hear that the DRM scheme was never intended to be more than just window dressing.

Well that is exactly what Apple TOLD the RIAA in the first place.

Apple TOLD the RIAA that they wanted to sell a noncrippled product. Apple TOLD the RIAA that DRM was never going to work. Apple TOLD the RIAA that they never expected it to work. Apple TOLD the RIAA that DRM would never be anything more than window dressing.

-

I don't

[AtariAmarok]

"Simply put to those who use this sort of software, why do you purchase from iTMS? "

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.

Re:I don't

[poot_rootbeer]

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.

You'd still be downloading AAC-encoded files, just without DRM included.

I'd be VERY surprised if you owned any hardware that can play AAC, but not DRM'ed AAC, natively. You'd still need to subject yourself to those file conversion hassles.

I agree.. DRM is a pain. mp3 everywhere!

[acomj]

I agree with this post. Mp3 seems to be the only format supported everywhere. I've bought and won over 100 songs from itms.

My Tivo allows easy playing of all the songs in my itunes collection which is cool .EXCEPT the songs I've bought off of Itunes music store.

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.

Gimme a library license, Apple!

[abesottedphoenix]

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.

windows only?

[__aahlyu4518]

I thought pyMusique was working on Linux as well....

Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters?

[Limecron]

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?

Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters?

[1Oman]

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.

Its computational cost

[acomj]

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.

Re:Its computational cost

[ray-auch]

So encypt them all once and trans-crypt in the client.

Securely identify the client as yours before you transmit.

Not going to be uncrackable but would have been a lot harder to get round than this.

Re:Its computational cost

[Convergence]

From an Athlon XP 2500 running 'openssl speed aes':

The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes
aes-128 cbc 40374.59k 41316.13k 42083.38k 41993.47k 42237.07k
aes-192 cbc 35109.10k 36010.80k 36434.73k 36583.09k 36474.95k
aes-256 cbc 31374.07k 31896.19k 32164.51k 32317.72k 32333.49k

At 4mb per song, my desktop machine has a raw encryption rate more than suitable for a million songs a day.

Re:Its computational cost

[2nd Post!]

What exactly would the point be?

Steve Jobs has stated as much that copy protection doesn't work, and that piracy is a social problem.

Given that stance, making music easy and making music affordable seems to have worked. We already have Hymn, for example, showing us that music can be decrypted. What would the point of making the music more secure? You don't sell more music by making it more secure, you sell more music by making it easier to find, making it easier on the ears, or by making it cheaper.

Re:Its computational cost

[ray-auch]

If apple really said that, and made no attempt to authenticate / validate the client in the transaction, then I think they have a problem.

I also think that there is a difference here - I believe that Apple will be contracted to deliver an encrypted track, and the user is contracting to buy an encrypted track. If the setup is such that the user can change the transaction to buy an un-encrypted track (that the seller isn't authorised to sell) then that is different to the user cracking the encrypted track later.

Also, it possibly changes the legality for the user - DMCA may not apply as there is no encryption being cracked because it is never applied. It may be a breach of site EULA or a fraudulent purchase of course - but not DMCA. The RIAA will be upset at that.

In terms of obviousness, I would put it at the same level as trusting data from a client-side shopping cart:

* some people have fallen for it
* it saves work on the server
* it isn't obvious to the layman why it is a bad idea ("but it's a hidden field, so the user can't see it")
* but it ought to be obvious to any serious ecommerce developer

if you don't like the license agreement

[xxavierg]

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.

Re:if you don't like the license agreement

[BearJ]

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.

Yet more and more CDs are coming copy protected, and won't play on some CD players. You also can't rip them for use on your MP3 plater.

Not limited by DRM eh? Think again.

Re:if you don't like the license agreement

[slim]

Yet more and more CDs are coming copy protected, and won't play on some CD players. You also can't rip them for use on your MP3 plater.

So don't buy those either: and if you do buy one by mistake, take it back to shop for a refund -- since it is not fit for the purpose you bought it for.

If we quietly work around stuff like this (with stuff like Hymn and ever-cleverer CD copy protection defeaters), then there's no incentive for the industry to get back to giving us the usable product we want to pay them for.

Re:if you don't like the license agreement

[Steve525]

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.


Except, as far as I understand it, you can use GPL software anyway you want, without having to worry about the licence. As long as you don't distribute it, that is. You see, the licence doesn't try to take away the fair use rights you have. What the licence does say, is that if you go beyond what is permitted by fair use, (i.e. modifying and redistributing), you have to play by the GPL rules.

What DRM tries to do is take away your fair use rights. I suppose you could argue that you are agreeing to a contract when you download/click a EULA, etc., but I think that's bunk. The reason that's bunk is we've already agreed to a contract that gives them the monopoly rights over the distrubution of their material. That agreement is copyright law and it lays out the rules over what is theirs and what is ours. They shouldn't get to leverage their monopoly rights to get even more out of the bargain. They are essentially saying, "You need to abide by the former contract when it benefits us, but we don't need to abide when it doesn't".

Now there is a case we're I'm OK with DRM. That's when it comes to rentals (or rental-like, such as pay-per-view). Here you are not making a purchase, but you are instead being lent material for a set time (or # of uses). It's OK under these circumstances to place restrictions on how I use something, since I did not outright purchase it. (Even here, though, we need to be careful, or we could find ourselves in a world where everything becomes pay-per-view/listen, if the technology allows it). In the case of i-tunes, you are clearly making a purchase.

Having said that I don't approve of this piece of software. The reason I don't approve of it, is because it interacts with Apple's store, and Apple has a right to restrict what software interacts with their store. However, software such as Fairplay I think is OK, because that software only interacts with data on your computer.

Unlike Hymn...

[ThePyro]

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?

Re:Unlike Hymn...

[Spy Hunter]

If it is true that the music store transfers the song with no encryption applied, you could make a better application that would still allow you to use iTunes to browse the music store and purchase the music. It would simply capture the song as it is being transferred normally between iTunes and the music store. Apple would be powerless to detect this.

Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters?

[DinZy]

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.

That's precisely what I'll be doing this evening.

[goldcd]

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).

Re:DRM broken anyway

[fmaxwell]

I have $90 earbuds because I like bass, but I bet you I can't tell the difference.

That's probably true. Most people who listen to high-SPL, boosted bass through headphones have significant hearing loss.

I don't like bass. I don't like treble. I like music. I like accuracy. Boosting the bass to unnatural levels is like coloring an Ansel Adams photo.

Problems getting to site? Mirror here...

[agoodm]

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

Re:Advice

[hugesmile]

Get A Lawyer

This is DVD Jon we're talking about. He has a lawyer. He already hacked DVD's, got arrested, charged, sued, and won.

For the unfamiliar: His DVD hacking software (DeCSS) was deemed illegal because it allowed you to bypass the protection put onto DVD's (so that you could store the digital content onto a hard drive or make a backup copy). He ultimately won that case. This was HUGE for the rights of YOU AND ME, akin to the original case that allowed us to use VCR's to record TV shows!

Asterix... didn't you read?

[AtariAmarok]

"Could someone translate what DVDjon has to do with Asterix?!?"

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.

this is crap

[mogabog]

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

Re:Napster is far better, and free

[MyLongNickName]

PS I openly admit to being a thief.

No. Post your name, address and phone number. THEN you will be openly admitting to being a thief.

Re:Napster is far better, and free

[stemcell]

We *were* members of the free napster trial. It ended a couple of years ago when they got they shiiiiiiiiiit sued out of them.

Stemmo

Damn

[jayhawk88]

Does this guy have a "Your 10th lawsuit defense is free" coupon book with his lawyer or something?

What's he done wrong?

[Jaseoldboss]

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.

Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters?

[khrtt]

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.

Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much

[michrech]

Being as I don't use iTunes, I have always wondered. Once someone burns a full CD of songs from iTunes, what is to stop them from making copies of *that* CD through normal software (roxio, nero, (insert linux/bsd/OSX software))?

Re:Why not?

[flanman]

The reason that nobody uses MP3 as a DRM'd format is that MP3 does not support DRM in its spec.

AAC+ (from Apple) and wma (from Microsoft) are designed to support DRM in their header information (as I recall)

On a side note, from a quality perspective AAC+ is also superior to MP3 at comparable bit rates. At a smaller file size.

Why burn to a disc? (was Re:I love ITS but ...)

[Laebshade]

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).

Not legality, but implications

[celseven]

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.

See?

[the bluebrain]

... 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")

Re:DRM broken anyway

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Telling people on Slashdot the way they like to listen to music is wrong through bad analogies is like being a pedantic dick. Oh wait I'm reading an Apple story, situation normal, nothing to see here folks.

Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much

[rokzy]

nothing.

this is just bitching about DRM for the sake of bitching.

no control whatsoever is not going to happen - Apple should be praised for its reasonable mesaures and all effort should be focused on defeating, for example, the retards who make PC games that won't run on PCs with legal CD copying software and/or hardware.

Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much

[Gonarat]

The problem with DRM is that even if it is "innocuous", it still restricts what I can do with something that I purchased. If I spend $0.99 for a song, I want to be able to be able to listen to it from any of the computers I use or in the car (all legal uses) without having to jump through hoops. Now, I have the technical knowledge to work around the DRM, but one shouldn't need to be technically savy just to fairly use a purchase.

This will only lead to Retribution

[bpb213]

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?

Re:This will only lead to Retribution

[bitkari]

The industry likes copy protection because they are afraid.

Opponents of DRM do not like the way it leverages control to record labels, how it makes portability more awkward, and generally removes the enjoyment of the media that they wanted to listen to in the first place.

DRM is not the only way.

Warp Records use plain MP3 files in their online music store and prefer to rely on the fact that if their customers like the music, they will buy it.

Re:That's precisely what I'll be doing this evenin

[tdemark]

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

He is referring to AAC files.

[Shivetya]

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.

Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much

[jizmonkey]

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?

Still need to transcode to get MP3s out of it

[djaj]

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.

This is actually disappointing

[niola]

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.

Re:This is actually disappointing

[Woodblock]

Except every few months Apple changes what "Fair and Reasonable" means. They've decreased the limits on how many times you can burn a play list and removed the ability for an iPod to play Real's files, among other changes.

I would be more willing to evaluate an iPod and iTunes if I knew exactly what I was signing up for. Right now it is "DRM plus whatever Apple wants you to have" and that is a situation that is so heavily weighted in their favour that I'd rather not sign up to, essentially, borrow music from Apple without knowing the terms in advance.

People need to wake up. When people say "DRM is bad because it gives a corporation too much power and take away too much from the user", they can't also say "Yeah, but Apple is good."

Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters?

[Twanfox]

Fair use. I don't think this means what you think it means.

From Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use Overview

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work.

Actual text of the law

It 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.

Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much

[DaHat]

When you buy from iTunes or just about any other online music store that uses some form of DRM, your purchase is bound by a service agreement in which you agree not to bypass the DRM.

If you want to be able to do damn near anything you want with the music you buy, then I suggest going down to the store and buying a non DRMed audio CD and rip it yourself, then you can have it in any format you want and be free of service agreements. On the other hand, if you want the convenience of being able to buy tracks online from a well known and reputable store, then you are going to have to face the facts that you have agreed to play by their rules with regards to DRM.

Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters?

[tweakt]

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.

What's interesting is

[CastrTroy]

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.

DVDjon?

[game kid]

I've always got crunk to his albu--what? That's Lil Jon? Nevermind...

DRM

[dynayellow]

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.

Re:DRM

[Alsee]

This all started because people were stealing music on Napster.
because they didn't want to pay for them

Excuse me? There was a conspiracy to DENY THEM ANY OPTION TO PAY FOR DOWNLOADS.

For over half a decade the RIAA members conspired to prohibit any online market at all. It should have been apparent before Napster that they could sell downloads, and it was blatantly obvious during and after Napster that it was not only possible but that there was a huge demand for MP3 sales. And instead of serving that demand, they conspired to impose a market vacuum.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and markets abhor a vacuum. It was that very artificial vacuum that caused the P2P explosion. The RIAA created their own worst enemy. When you engage in abuses to surpress or manipulate a market it's not so unusual to get bitten in the ass when the market adapts and responds to that abuse.

And after half a decade of conspiring to deny any competition at all for the online market, they conspired to deny any competition on terms or on DRM in the online market. They conspired to impose uniform and oppressive DRM terms to control the online market.

The RIAA needed Apple on board to avoid antitrust issues for imposing a uniform and oppressive and Windows only market, and the RIAA slightly broke their conspiracy to impose DRM and uniform DRM terms. Apple did not want any part of the DRM nonsense and was about to walk away from the table. So the RIAA let Apple have slightly less oppressive terms. These different terms were a crack in their conspiracy to impose DRM and DRM terms, and natural market forces responded to that crack. And in free market, a better more desireable product always outcompetes crippled competition. iTunes' less crippled product handily outcompeted all of the other DRM crippled products. And in a genuine free market, in a market free of conspiracy between RIAA members not to genuinely compete, any label that offered a less oppressive DRM terms would outcompete other labels, and any label that offered a noncrippled DRM free product would handily outcompete any label attempting to sell any sort of DRM crippled crap.

Absent RIAA memeber noncompete conspiracy, absent antitrust violations, we would indeed not be in this DRM mess. We would be buying MP3s right now.

-

Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much

[jht]

Absolutely nothing. But if you re-rip them to a computer, you will start noticing a little degradation - it's pretty much inevitable when you take songs originally encoded with a form of lossy compression and then rip them again into another lossy file.

I've been using jHymn on my iTMS purchases since it became available. I don't share my music with others, or do anything against the "rules" with my files - except, of course, for removing the DRM. I just feel better about keeping my purchases around without it.

Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters?

[AC5398]

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.

Moot.

[baudilus]

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.

Re:Moot.

[graikor]

If you'd actually used the CD Burning engine of iTunes, you'd be aware that the mp3 CD option will only burn tracks that are already in mp3 format. Any purchased tunes (m4p) or tunes you've ripped in AAC format (m4a) will not appear on an iTunes mp3 CD, despite the fact they might be in the playlist you are burning - it might make sense to convert them, but iTunes will not do any temporary data conversion for this purpose*.

The data CD option will allow m4a tracks to be included, but since they are in AAC format, most mp3 CD players can't read them. You can change your preferred ripping format, and convert m4a songs to mp3 format pretty easily with a right-click menu, but protected files can't be altered.

*: The latest version of iTunes has a feature for the iPod Shuffle that allows conversion of high-bitrate files to lower-bitrate files during the transfer to the Shuffle, but I don't believe it changes the actual format for them.

Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much

[rworne]

Not really. There's been a steady creep towards more onerous DRM as time goes on from iTMS.

First was the restriction of streaming libraries to local subnets.
Second was reducing the number of CDs burned from a playlist from 10 to 7.
Third was changing from 5 concurrent listeners to 5 different listeners per day.
Fourth was the recent reports that iPhoto albums, iMovie movies and Keynote presentations that use iTMS songs refuse to play on other systems.

The only loosening of restrictions was changing the number of authorized computers to listen to a DRM'd file from three to five.

Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters?

[StarWreck]

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 ... not treat them like criminals.

Because...

[MattHaffner]

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.

Re:Because...

[David Horn]

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.

It's 128kbps. It's unappealing to the discerning listener anyway.

Re:Because...

[EggyToast]

Parent is right in that Apple doesn't seem to really care about the DRM, and it shows in the DRM itself. it's surprisingly lax. You can copy it to 5 computers at a time and burn 7 playlists.. from each computer. So you can make 35 copies while staying within the DRM rights. Why would anyone need that many copies?

I've been very happy buying music from the iTMS. I download the music, plop it on my iPod, burn it to CD as a backup and file it in a big CD wallet. When you download, they say "Please burn a backup so you have your own copy in case anything happens to your computer."

Maybe if I had 10 computers and wanted to mirror my music collection across all 3, I'd be more concerned about it. With iTunes, though, you can simply turn on "share this computer's music" and it lets you stream to any networked computer, without the need to copy the files in the first place. I actually prefer doing that.

I could go about numerous ways to decrypt the DRM, but they've never affected the way I listen to music. I only know they're there because people who don't use the iTMS complain about them.

I understand the complaints against the restriction, but there's a fine line between obvious restriction, and restriction that's pretty much never encountered by the user.

Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much

[geoffspear]

What happens when Apple goes out of business?

Well, first of all, your music won't magically stop working (you're thinking about when Napster goes out of business).

Sure, eventually you won't be able to get a new version of iTunes that works in Microsoft's new version of Windows that comes out after Apple's dead to play your existing music. But guess what... that version of Photoshop you just bought for your Mac will be worthless, too, and it costs a lot more than a song on iTunes. The "Apple might go out of business, and I won't be able to buy a new Mac after that" argument doesn't really hold water.

What are you going to do with your MP3s if an electro-magnetic pulse wipes out all of your hardware? What if the sun explodes?

I've got your hypothetical argument right here buddy.

Re:Because there is nothing there.

[vitamine73]

They *have* music! just because it's not mainstream and you don't know the artists (many of which have international carreers btw! - all the ninjatunes artists for example) doesn't mean it's crap.
You don't have to like the music they sell! But you can't say there's no music there either!

Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much

[MoneyT]

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.

Legal issues mainly.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.

Cache and bandwidth considerations

[ThreeDayMonk]

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.

Re:Cache and bandwidth considerations

[Helvick]

This message needs to be repeated, and repeated often.

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."

As you say, DRM is inherently snake-oil. It's an attempt to fool the uninformed that there is a way for content owners to give them something without actually giving them full access to it. Without hardware specifically restricting what creative people can and will do very few implementations will give any half way competent attacker any serious issues.

The only way it can be strongly secure is if the hardware protects private keys in a totally controlled manner and at the same time does not allow end user access to the secure store for those keys in any way. That is what NGSCB\Palladium is supposed to do "ideally" but it has to be flawed in an edge only implementation (where there is no centralised control of some keys). Specifically the problem is what happens when the consumer needs to move their content around - either the NGSCB device(s) allow for key export and import (and thereby expose the media access keys to discovery) or a decision is made to deny the user the ability to ever move DRM'ed data between devices. Now the content owners probably could care less about that but the hardware vendors who will want users to regularly upgrade their devices must care (they want users to upgrade regularly) and they are the folks who have to implement NGSCB. Bit of a catch 22 there. It's something that consumers might fall for once but they'll avoid any product that burns them in that way like the plague in the long term - a classic short term business strategy with no future.

The alternative approach is to recognise that the edge only solution is unworkable and that you have to centralise some user identity and key management in conjunction with NGCSB and thus allow devices to be enabled selectively. That is the general approach taken by MS's DRM which relies on a registration process built on their .NET Passport thing with all content encrypted to the user's primary key before it is sent to the user. Apart from the distribution problems this causes (and which perfectly explains iTunes behavior as you explain) the problem there is that MS's cavalier attitude to .Net Passport accounts demonstrates the fundamental problem with this: Users cede their rights to the content to the provider in perpetuity. The astounding thing is that while the best reason for doing DRM this way is to ensure end users can be kept somewhat happy (by giving them some way to continue to have access to material they have purchased in the past) MS have completely botched it by linking it to an "identity management" system where they arbitrarily delete inactive accounts. Users are not generally aware of this or why it's a problem but they are learning slowly as they discover how hard it is to move their content onto new systems when they upgrade. In MS's case their policy of aggressively disabling "inactive" .Net passport accounts effectively denies end users ongoing legitimate access to content they own when they (MS) arbitrarily disable "idle" accounts. If anyone has any doubts about this then purchase some MS DRM'ed content using a newly created .Net account, leave the account inactive for 2 months without touching it then try to gain access to your content on a device that hasn't been registered. The software only implementations of MS-DRM have been cracked a number of times so this isn't too much of a headache for any disgruntled user right now but with a "good" NGSCB platform the MS DRM approach would allow them to regularly steal content from users who's only mistake was to move content to a newer media device. Once again comsumers may agree to get burned by that once through ignorance but once it happens to them they will never use it again - once again a short term self defeating business strategy. Or at least so it

Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much

[mmkkbb]

Moby material after 1997 is crippled with or without DRM. Yuck.

Re:DRM broken anyway

[MyDixieWrecked]

I like music, too. In fact, I like loud music, and I'm sure I have some significant hearing loss after the last 3+ years of free/cheap shows I've been going to at least every other week.

It doesn't matter how much hearing loss you have (unless you're up to grandpa level), there are certain types of music that completely degrade when you do audio compression on them. Some good examples are metal like At The Gates that has heavy guitars and drums and bass in the front, but then has a second guitar riffing over it. When you mp3 them, even at higher bitrates (high as in 160, 192), you lose the riffing a little. It starts to blend in with everything else. The same goes for types of electronica like AphexTwin. All his little twidly tinkering over the weird ass background effects get lost when encoded. And on some tracks, I've noticed that loss even at 256kbps mp3s. I've never played with VBR since it was first introduced and most software mp3 players would fuck up on them.

yeah, transcoding will REALLY degrade the music, even on things that wouldn't normally degrade when encoded.

I especially like your Ansel Adams reference.

Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much

[ReverendLoki]

You know, there are times you just know you're gonna regret making a post long before you're finished writing it, but what the hell...

this is just bitching about ... for the sake of bitching.

<flamebait>

Yeah, I mean, the water in that fountain's just as good as the water in this one, so what if they have to use a seperate one to drink from?

And they have no reason to complain about living in those ghettos, why can't they just be happy with the housing they've got?

</flamebait>

yeah, extreme, incendiary examples, I know, and I do feel shame for having used them. But, for some, all this DRM encroachment is a matter of principle. It wouldn't be bad if there was some sort of choice in the market - if some major labels were willing to sell w/o DRM encumbrance, but the way things are heading, we're looking at all major label electronic releases having some sort of DRM attached.

Even if the bitching and complaining doesn't give us DRM-free music, at least it might help ensure that future DRM is less of a pain in the ass.

Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much

[xtracto]

I au contraire will advice you to go to allofmp3 and buy your music in a lossless format (or a very good ogg) without DRM or any other thing.

Don't you guys realize...

[bonch]

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.

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[andreyw]

Hurting the chances? Why? Because the corporate fat cats and megalomaniacs don't get their chance to screw the customer and line their pockets in the progress?

I already JHymn my music, simply because I don't want to depend on the commercial viability of iTunes to simply liesten to my 'tunes. If Apple or iTMS goes belly up, I want to be able to listen to my music. If Apple chooses not to support Linux or eComStation, I want to be able to listen to my music. Since I paid real non-Monopoly money for it, that I earned with my own sweat, I think I deserve the right to PLAY my music without ridiculous restrictions imposed on me.

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[bonch]

Because the corporate fat cats and megalomaniacs don't get their chance to screw the customer and line their pockets in the progress?

How are they screwing the customer? Nobody is putting a gun to the customer's head to force you to buy this DRM music online. Go back to buying CDs then.

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. Regardless of how you feel about DRM, it's not going to put online music in a good light at the labels.

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[Blakey Rat]

You miss the point. If you don't like Apple's terms of service (and yes, the DRM is in there, and yes using iTunes on a supported OS is in there), then don't buy from the Apple iTunes store!

Let's say for a moment that you're against putting DRM on music, which seems to be the case. 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. But instead, you're giving money to a company that sells DRM with every product.

Do you think that Apple's restrictions are really that ridiculous? They are, basically: 1) before you can play the music file on another computer, you must enter your iTunes username and password and 2) you can't burn more than 7 copies of the same playlist. (You can delete and re-create an identical playlist and burn another 7 copies.) Do you consider that ridiculous? I think they're very reasonable... in fact, even if you want to do illegal activities with the music, they don't restrict you once. (If you want to illegally sell CDs, you can just burn one and then use iTunes to duplicate that CD as many times as you want.)

Look, the fact is:

1) If you don't like DRM, you're being a goddamned hypocrite by supporting a music store that uses it.

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.

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. 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.

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[BenFranske]

The only online music buying I'm interested in is lossless and DRM free. This is why I continue to buy CDs and not buy music online. I can rip the CDs and encode them with FLAC for a lossless file that I can play on a variety of devices and OSs. I get a physical backup of the music as a bonus. Why would I pay just as much for a DRM laced and lossy file from an online store? When the industy starts offering FLAC compressed WAV files for less than what a CD costs then I'll start buying.

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[Rocko's Modurn Life]

Height of laziness.

I buy off iTunes, then I burn to a CD. That's right a CD. A hard copy. It's like making a backup.

Honestly, I can't get everything I listen to on mp3 or acc (or insert acronym here) but I can find it on CD. So I add my digital files to my CD collection but I keep my digital files on my iPod because it is easier than lugging around 30 gigs.

But you know what I do after I burn my CD, I re-rip to iTunes as an mp3. Circumventing DRM? No, I'm ripping my CD.

Ridiculous how much complaining is done about DRM. If I couldn't burn to CD, you'd have a point but it is your music that you bought with your money knowing full well how it would act when you bought it. But all this is irrelevant because we should all backup our digital files, especially those we paid for.

And get off your moral soapbox about the music industry, if you want to support the artist and screw the industry, see the artist live and pirate the music but don't expect the industry to support artists they can't make money from.

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[starman97]

I cant give away my music to my friends.
I can give away or sell my used CD's

I cant lend DRM'd music to someone.
I can lend a CD.

If the future of music is DRM, then these
activities will no longer be legal.

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[joeljkp]

I used to think like this (and sometimes still do). I even cooked up a little analogy:

These DRM-cracking P2P-downloading "freedom fighters" are forgetting that they were the origins of this problem to begin with. It's like an all-you-can-eat buffet at the local restaurant. It charges $10 per person to eat, but you and 10 of your friends come in every day, pay for one plate, and use it to feed everyone. But not only do you expect the restaurant to continue to do business with you, you expect them to lower their restrictions because of your exploits!

But a new analogy has crept into my head (forgive its over-the-top comparison): those black individuals in the US South in the 1950s and '60s. They could have simply not done business with with the city bus system, or the lunch counters that didn't allow their presence. But by confronting the situation, and edging their way just into the place where they were not supposed to be, they ignited a sweep of change that completely altered the situation.

Now, I'm not arguing that the freedom to break copy protection on your music files is on the same moral level as the civil rights movement. I do, however, consider the continued violation of the DCMA in these ways a valid method for fighting it.

Every time a major crack is announced, the public sees yet another example of large corporations trying to control the behavior of their customers, which is something that people inherently don't appreciate. The goal here is to show the publishing houses and such that, unlike the buffet, they cannot continue to do business by simply locking people down even harder, or banning them from the premesis. They will have to innovate a new way of doing business that does not rely on the infringement of its customers' freedoms.

This is, of course, a pretty radical goal, and one which I'm not completely sure I support. But I have moved beyond the stage where I would boycott iTunes because of its DRM. Instead, perhaps cracking it to allow for legal fair use and then making Apple completely aware that your business depends on your ability to do so would be a better solution?

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[mikeplokta]

Cool! You mean that I just have to enter my iTunes username and password on my Sony Clie (runing Palm OS), my iRiver MP3 player, my Linux box, and the computer I'm going to own in 20 years' time running an OS that hasn't even been conceived yet, and it will play my DRMed iTunes music? Why did no one tell me this before?

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[Ogerman]

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

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[Nogami_Saeko]

Doesn't iTunes keep silently cranking up the digital restrictions with every new version they release?

-First it was only allowing people on your own subnet to listen to low-quality streams of your music.

-Then they changed it to only 5 people at a time could listen to low-quality streams.

-Now only 5 people PER DAY can listen to the same low quality streams.

Welcome to DRM! Where your rights are eroded by the software you use.

So before you go calling people hypocrites, maybe you should take into account that people are also seeing their rights for using MUSIC THEY PURCHASED being slowly eroded over time...

N.

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[h4rm0ny]

So then what? If I download from p2p or copy from friends, I'm a criminal. If I break the DRM, I paid for it fair and square but I'm still a criminal.

Downloadable music is the future. We buy our books online, hardware, medicine, news, advice, electricity and phone services. If something can be delivered directly as information like music then it certainly will be. It all ends up on our MP3/Ogg players so why stick to CD's as the transport mechanism?

Downloadable music is the future. The only choice is whether it's DRM'd or if we can keep ownership. Keep refusing the DRM and you will get the music unecumbered. Accept DRM and you will lose it.
A decade from now, DRM will become moral or immoral. But first there is a fight to decide how society will regard it and this has nothing to do with right or wrong - only which faction wins.

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[FangVT]

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)."

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[allgood2]

This has nothing to do with DRM. iTunes, the application, introduce Rendezvous music sharing, which works with any music that can be played by the iTunes app, including mp3, wav, aac, etc. Rendezvous initially had very little limits, anyone else with iTunes or a similarly enabled Rendezvous application could stream any music you marked for sharing.

This caused some pause in the Music Industry, but caused an even bigger ruckus in the Educational Market, since many a university bandwidth was being ate up by music streaming. Tons of Universities complained, I know most of the CSC at my campus block it if they have that level of control.

Apple then placed limits on it, very similar to the multi-user limits embedded in FileMaker (also owned by Apple), 5 simultaneous users. Then months ago, that limit was switched to 5 daily users.

Now I see no benefit in 5 daily users, unless they are trying to guarantee personal use vs office level radio station. I still believe 5 simultaneous users was more fair. But in all honesty, automated music streaming was a feature Apple added, not a right of your music.

You can still share and stream your music without the limits if you set up your own music server. Obviously more effort than clicking a checkbox in an application, but the same effort that was required before Apple put the checkbox in the iTunes preferences.

The limit applies to all music that you would use iTunes for, including non-DRM music. But has absolutely nothing to do with DRM, as opposed to application functionality.

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[Blakey Rat]

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?

No feasible alternative? I would counter that the following two alternatives are feasible:

1) Don't listen to the music if you don't like how it's distributed.
2) Listen to the music on the radio, but don't buy a copy of it.
3) Buy a copy of the music on CD, assuming there's a CD out with no DRM.

No feasible alternative, my ass. Only if you're a spoiled brat with "I want it now now now CDs take too long give it to me now I have to own it now" attitude.

Who owns your computer? ... I'm talking about what you do with your personal physical property in the privacy of your home.

Irrelevant. The fact is that I accepted terms of service for iTunes which would be morally wrong for me to break. If I didn't agree with those terms of service, I had ample chance to simply not create an iTunes account. Or I can cancel my iTunes account at any time if the terms change so that I no longer agree with them. But both using iTunes and breaking their terms of service is morally wrong.

DRM doesn't work and there is no way that it even theoretically can work. ... But IANAL so don't base anything upon that speculation.

Again, irrelevant to my argument. I'm not arguing that DRM is or is not "right" and I don't much care. I'm saying that agreeing to do something, and then not doing it is morally wrong.

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.

If the artists (you know, the copyright holders of the music) don't want to deal with the RIAA, they don't have to. Nobody is holding a gun to your favorite artist's head forcing them to sign with an RIAA label.

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[Rocko's Modurn Life]

Then do you back up your Mp3s to 8-track, then back to a WAV file, then back to a cassette tape after that? I bet those music tracks sound AWESOME, especially since they started off lossy to begin with.

What? If you're going to reply and be sarcastic at least use some logic.

I know the files are lossy, I don't mind. They sound just find to me.

I am also aware I may be removing different types of data by moving from aac to CD format to mp3. I have done it a number of times and they sound just fine to me.

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[mr_zorg]

You're assuming that the lossy AAC files you buy from iTunes started out as a CD. My understanding is this is NOT true. AFAIK, iTunes starts with the master tapes and encodes the files at "better than CD" quality. Lossy, yes, but theoretically less so that a 16bit/44.1KHz CD...

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[BobPaul]

Doing stuff like this just makes legal online music downloading look like it will always fail, because hackers will continue to keep cracking it.

Hackers will continue to keep cracking it but online music is not doomed to fail (nor will it look that way).

Pirates long ago copied Tape Cassettes and more recently CDs. It's in a large part due to the number of music CDs sold each year that are ripped to MP3 and traded online that online music is a must. If songs are available legally online, even at a cost to the consumer, consumers will be more likely to seek out legal music (provided they can use the music how they need to and/or it isn't grossly more expensive) iTunes, for example, would be ideal if it didn't prohobit users from listening to music with third party MP3 players...

Ripping an audio CD and posting the MP3s on Kazaa is way easier than installing a Python based iTunes substitute with it's 5 or required python libraries, but for people who would rather purchase music from iTunes than Walmart, this complicated solution that could allow them place the music onto a non-Apple branded MP3 player might look like a pretty nice solution. It's at least easier than recording from the Wave-Out with SoundForge or Nero WaveEdit or something...

No, online DRMs will continue to be cracked, but this won't hurt online music sales in the long run. More likely it will put downward pressure on prices as lower prices will help consumers choose legal over illegal means.

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[KitFox]

These DRM-cracking P2P-downloading "freedom fighters" are forgetting that they were the origins of this problem to begin with. It's like an all-you-can-eat buffet at the local restaurant. It charges $10 per person to eat, but you and 10 of your friends come in every day, pay for one plate, and use it to feed everyone. But not only do you expect the restaurant to continue to do business with you, you expect them to lower their restrictions because of your exploits!

In my case, I'd liken it more to going into an all-you-can-eat restaurant by myself, ordering their buffet for $10, and then being told "Oh, and you have to eat it while supported upside down by this special chair, and you can only use these straneg corkscrew-shaped spring-loaded chopstick-like things to eat it. And don't try to get around this because the chair can detect if you're really upside down in it." Well, I think for the sake of my sanity, I'd probably go and bypass the detection on the chair and chopstick-like-things and eat it sitting upright with my own fork knife and spoon thank you.

I think one of the best analogies I have ever seen on this, in fact, is the following (paraphrased):

It would be like going to McDonalds, and buying food, and discovering that the food is packaged in special "Food Rights Management" containers. These containers are set up so that you cannot get the food out of them without a special unlock key. These keys are built into three specific models of one brand of car, and can also be purchased as a special table at your house. The key device must be in place for the duration of the consumption of the food, otherwise the FRM packaging will close back up again. And yes, when unlocked with the key, you can choose to extract the food to another packaging, however the FRM will pre-puree it for you if you do so, so you still have the food, and it is still edible and technically tasty, but just not QUITE as good.

Now, you can't have any other kind of car, and you can't eat it in the park, and you if you go to your neighbor's house to eat it, you can eat it at their table after you log in with their table, but they can't eat at the same time.

So, somebody manages to find a way to get the food out of this FRM packaging without it being turned into a tube of goop, and suddenly you can eat it in any car, or at the park, or at the same time with your neighbor.

"But this makes it easier for criminals to steal it and put it on P2P!"
Yeah, but so do CD's. So why are you treating everybody as a criminal just because they COULD be? Should we now treat everybody who has a gun as a criminal because the guns make it easier for them to rob a store if they chose to? Should everbody with fingers be a criminal because a fist makes it easier to perform criminal assualt and battery?

People really go to the easiest thing to do for their money. If it's easier to spend $0.99 and get the track and use it the way you want, then they will do that. If it's EASIER to do what they want to do with it if they spend hours trying to figure out a P2P network and find the right song that hasn't been screwed up and sounds halfway okay and such, then people will do that instead.

It's not about the money completely, it's also about ease of use. As an example, it is entirely possible to drive in a nail with a free rock, and it will get the job done. But if you want to drive in 20 nails, it's much EASIER to spend $9.99 on a hammer and use that instead, and more efficient. Then at the same time, if the hammers cost $99.99 instead, people probably would opt to use the free rock to drive them in, because the cost now overshadows the benefit.

How to get it right: Make it easier to do it the right way than to do it the wrong way. If there were less restrictions on the music that we could buy, then it would just be a heck of a lot easier to spend the 99 cents and get the music than to go throught he hassle on P2P and such. As long as it is EASIER to go on P2P and do what you want,

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[the_proton]

Can you stop talking crap now?

When iTunes 4.0 was released, introducing the Sharing feature 5 people could connect simultaneously and stream from your machine. There was also an option to connect to any IP address and use the iTunes sharing from that.

A huge number of sites sprang up listing people's computers with iTunes sharing running on it. Up to 5 people could connect to these machines and listen to music at once.

Shortly afterwards, Apple released iTunes 4.0.1 which sends all iTunes sharing data with a TTL of 1 to ensure that it stays on the local network and won't pass through a router.

There has always been a limit of 5 simultaneous users. There is no limit to 5 daily users and never has been. In fact, iTunes will automatically disconnect a user that's been idle for more than 30 minutes if a 6th user tries to connect: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=930 49

- proton

Re:Don't you guys realize...

[Golias]

I cant give away my music to my friends.
I can give away or sell my used CD's

I cant lend DRM'd music to someone.
I can lend a CD.

If the future of music is DRM, then these
activities will no longer be legal.


Step 1: Burn the songs from iTMS to a CD.

Step 2: Lend and/or give that CD to your friend.

Step 3: There's no step 3.

In other words, nothing you just said about DRM'd songs from iTMS is true, and you are full of shit. Everybody who moderated you up is doing so in ignorance.

Re:That's precisely what I'll be doing this evenin

[Alsee]

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.

-

Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters?

[Husgaard]

The problem is that RIAA doesn't get it.

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.

Re:Napster is far better, and free

[Anonymous Coward]

Gregory K. Spath
528 South West Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
gspath@freefall.homeip.net
7172458563

Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much

[Alsee]

Apple should be praised for its reasonable mesaures

Wrong, what Apple should be praised for is their desire and attempt to sell NON-DRM MUSIC. If you actually check the facts and the history you'll see that Apple wanted, and still wants, to sell non-crippled music. That they battled against the RIAA on this.

What Apple is "guilty" of is caving to the abusive practictices of the RIAA cartel. And you can't really place a heck of a lot of blame on someone who declines to get into an ugly and expensive legal battle. What Apple should have done is sued the RIAA for abusing their copyrights in an attempt to control formats. In fact at the time the RIAA was already on extremely dangerous antitrust ground as they had in effect imposed a Windows only market. The RIAA was accutely aware of just how closely the member companies were skirting antitrust law in conspiring to impose uniform and oppressive terms to control the only market. One of the rather comical aspects of this is that during the negotiation process their lawyers set a rule that no two studio heads were allowed to be in the same room at the same time because any direct agreement between them would have resulted in INSTANT ANTITRUST CONVICTION. No ifs ands or buts about it, their lawyers said they'd be nailed to the wall for what they were doing if there was ever any evidence that the studio heads directly agreed to what they were doing. The RIAA were despesperate to get Apple on board to ward off antitrust prosecution. That is the reason they made an exception to the uniform and oppressive terms they conspired to imposing on the online market. Apple was fighting against any DRM at all, and they were going to just walk out. The RIAA needed Apple and they didn't take the small Apple market seriously, so they offered Apple slightly less oppressive terms than anyone else. Which is exactly why Apple's iTunes has absolutely STOMPED every single other online music service. In a free market a noncrippled product (or merely less crippled product) simply exterminates any attempt by anyone else to sell crippled crap.

Apple does not want to use DRM at all and they have absolutely no objection to removing or defeating it other than the fact that headaches and battles they get for it from the RIAA.

-

Not any different than hymn

[SuperKendall]

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.

restrictive

[phriedom]

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)

Re:restrictive

[Xyde]

I suppose you think Apple have a master plan of roping millions and millions of users in, only to change the usage rights so you can only play each song once. Apple have changed the policy once, and it was changed to be LESS restrictive. Your tinfoil hat is making your head overheat by the looks of it.

The RIAA will never be part of the solution

[beanlover]

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.

Me too! + Oblig. Simpsons Ref.

[Marran Gray]

Clerk: iTMS allows obtaining music legally, at an almost reasonable price.
Homer: ...That's good!

Clerk: The music comes with DRM.
Homer: ...That's bad!

Clerk: You can still listen to it on five computers and burn CDs.
Homer: ...That's good!

Clerk: The DRM enforces software lock-in to iTunes.
Homer: ...That's bad!

Clerk: There is software that can remove the DRM.
Homer: ...That's good!

Clerk: The software provokes the RIAA and undermines authority.
Homer: ...wha?
Clerk: That's bad!

Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters?

[firew0lfz]

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.

Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters?

[Alsee]

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.

-