Slashdot Mirror
Buying DRM-Free Songs From the ITMS
mirko writes "Jon Johansen ("DVD Jon") has published a small program which allows the acquisition of DRM-free file from Apple's iTunes Music Store. He explains that his program works by bypassing iTunes which adds the DRM itself at the end of the transfer. His program, pymusique, is Windows-only compliant but it'd be easy to port it to other platforms."
The site is hammered, the Coral Cache is working fine though.
Links for the lazy:
Source Code: pymusique-0.3.tar.gz
Debian Package: pymusique_0.3-1_i386.deb
Windows: pymusique-setup.exe
Wouldn't it be ironic if iTunes downloads increased after this? I'm now tempted to join and buy music through them, because now[1] I can do what I want with it once I've bought it.
[1] Until iTunes closes this loophole
Note to ACs: I won't mod you up, even if you are being funny or insightful. So take a chance! It's not real life!
This guy never stops, does he? Long may you run, DVDjon. I salute you.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Enough with the iTunes... can't this guy hack Napster or Windows Media encryption?
'Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?'
from The Register: iTunes pyMusique.
If anyone can hear me, slap some sense into me But you turn your head, and I end up talking to myself
Did you read the article? Or even its title? This is about BUYING drm files from iTMS, not downloading them for free. It is quite cool, as the DRM makes it a big hassle for purchasers to listen to the music on their own equipment.
RIAA music isn't free
How is this relevant? It is not free if you are buying it by the cassette, the CD, or by iTMS with AND without this DRM-remover.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Correct me if im wrong, but you`re only able to download the songs after youve paid for them yes?
at which point the drm is added to stop you doing other things with it.
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?
I used Hymn to remove DRM from some songs so I could move them to an older model Creative MP3 player. It seemed to work fine for me.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
It's only illegal because the DMCA is a retarded piece of legislation. You're still BUYING the music, it just isn't encumbered after you buy it. This is basically what people want, the freedom to do as they wish with their music (which DOESN'T necessarily include giving it away over P2P).
With the first link, the chain is forged.
So, violating GPL by copying stuff without complying with the license is bad and wrong.
but
Buying songs from iTunes without complying with the ToS is big and clever because music must be free?
I've been an iTMS user since its inception and I've yet to feel encumbered or feel a lack of freedom. I read the agreement and understand the restrictions. I agreed. Simply put to those who use this sort of software, why do you purchase from iTMS? You know, or should!!, the restrictions imposed.
Bwaling's Law: Any time there is an article about DRM or downloading music, as soon as someone mentions the word "free", someone will whine about everyone stealing music for free. Even if the word "free" is in an unrelated context (as in: "The songs are free from DRM restrictions" or "I downloaded the Free Willy soundtrack".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
How could Apple do something this stupid?
Whether you like it or not, DRM is the cornerstone of iTunes acceptance among the music industry. Without DRM, there is no way iTunes would even exist.
The first rule of security is that the client is untrustworthy. For Apple to put all of the security of their DRM scheme on the client side is astoundingly dumb. I expected much better of them.
- Old Man of the Mountain ---- "I want to disturb my neighbor"
I don't purchase from iTMS. However, I would strongly consider it if it would let me listen the music I bought on my own equipment without file format conversion hassles.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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!
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.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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
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.
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.
Whilst Apple can't condone this, it would be nice if they could go to the record labels and say without DRM we sold x many hundre thousand more tracks.
.01% of total sales. Almost all consumers appear to be happy with the current arrangement. "
If you believe that argument is valid, then you should have no trouble with the much more likely corollary:
Apple goes to the the labels and says "The site sold X songs without DRM. This represents less than
- Tony
Or what happens when your Mac breaks? I can still listen to the Queensryche CDs I bought in junior high (if I wanted to). At the time I had a brand-new Sony DiscMan that took four double-A batteries, lasted a couple hours, had awful sound, and cost about $130 new. My family's computer was a CompuAdd 286.
What happens when Apple goes out of business? Sony is still is business, but CompuAdd went belly-up ages ago. Apple's market share has been shrinking since the mid-1980s (and I say that as someone typing this on a PowerBook).
Assuming you don't have a BMW /w iPod adapter, can you listen to your CDs in your car without burning them in uncompressed, WAV format? What happens when you decide you want to move to Linux? Or what if you decide you'd rather have an MP3 player with a built-in radio?
These days, you can't even stream unencrypted songs to other computers in your household with iTunes. How do you know that Apple won't take away more rights in the future?
What if the artist decides he doesn't want his album distributed (e.g. Beach Boys' original Smile, Prince's Black Album), but you want other people to hear it?
With great power comes great fan noise.
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.
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.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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.
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.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
RIAA Okay, so you want to actually pay for your music, huh?
Customer Yep! Here's my money $$$
RIAA All right, slap the cuffs on him Officer. He's obviously trying to our steal music, even though he's paying us for it.
Putting DRM on music seems to me as though the RIAA was actively and publicly declaring every customer they have a Thief and a Criminal.
So why does the RIAA treat its customers like Criminals anyway? If you're willing to pay for your music instead of download it for free, the RIAA should be bending over backwards to give you what you want. They should be kissing your feet!!
What if Wal-Mart started accusing each and every customer they had of stealing AFTER they had already purchased their goods and had a receipt. They would go out of business pretty damn fast, is what would happen.
The RIAA needs to learn that a good business is supposed to cater to their customers
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Deep down, secretly, I bet Apple could give a rat's ass about DRM. They have do to it to appease the industry. And they're going to have to close obvious holes pretty quickly. But ripping and re-encoding is a) slightly obscure to the average iTMS user, b) annoying, and c) (at least in theory) degrades the music quality so that it's unappealing to discerning ears and tech/audio-philes for whom (a) is not a factor.
There's also nearly no way to prevent "hacks" like WireTap that just grab the audio stream without completely munging up the way an OS handles the audio stream. They can only do so much and Apple is not stupid enough to know that. They are the best buffer we have right now between the (wanting-to-try-to-be-legal) consumer and the greedy idiots controlling music distribution.
Maybe I'm optimistic, but I feel like something like what Apple is doing now had to happen to break open the digital purchansing flow. There's no turning back now. If "good" DRM gets more and more expensive to develop, implement, manage, and enforce, it might just become a poor(er) business model. Someone will hopefully push the "innovation" and get us beyond this hacked system we have now.
If you're mac breaks, pesumeably you have a backup, or even better, have the file on another computer (you do know you can transfer the files right?). What happens when your Queensryche CD breaks?
As for what happens when Apple goes out of business, well, DRM authorizations are localized, and there are already programs to move your authorization manualy. Presumably, if Apple were to go out of business, they would either open the DRM, issue a universal authorizer program, or someone else would step in.
As for listening to them in your car, sure, you can throw them on to AAC players (like the iPod) and pipe them through AUX inputs or FM transmitters or any of the other methods that people have used to add audio devices to their cars for years.
What happens when you want to move to linux? You use iTunes via WINE or you reencode the music into another format. Yes, you may have to do work to move from system to another, just like I have to do work to get my CDs to MiniDisc or my VHS to DVD.
If you'd rather have an MP3 player, then you need to make them MP3s, what if all of my music is MP3s and I'd rather have an UberCompressedHighQualityFormat player? I have to reencode the music.
As for streaming music, here's a novel idea. If you don't want to use the iTunes encryption, don't use iTunes. I must have missed the point where iTunes was an essential element for streaming music.
If the artist doesn't want his album distributed, what prevents you from playing it for your friends? That's right, nothing.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
The simple reason is that, although you can personalise each DRM'ed download on the server, it's expensive to do so.
I haven't researched Apple's solution; however, I have personal experience of implementing a Windows Media-based DRM solution in my previous job. (I don't agree with DRM, and won't purchase any DRM-protected media, but it was nonetheless an interesting assignment, and I discovered a lot about how it works.) With that in mind, here is my tentative analysis.
Apple are probably using one of the edge-cache services like Akamai to reduce server load and bandwidth fees. In order for this to work, the data that each client downloads must be the same - otherwise, it can't be cached.
Although it is possible, and even desirable from a security standpoint, to apply the DRM to each file as it is downloaded, the increased server load and bandwidth probably makes this economically and logistically unviable.
It may be judged as stupid that Apple has not applied even basic, generic encryption to what they send over the wire. However, since they would have to supply the enemy (a.k.a. the customer) with the encrypted content and the means to decrypt it, it would not deter a determined hacker. Then again, nor can DRM.
The parent writes, "The first rule of security is that the client is untrustworthy." The first rule of DRM is, by contrast, "We give the client the encrypted content, the keys, and the decoder, and hope that he won't work out how to use them."
The lesson that you should take away from this is that DRM is snake oil. It can never work. But it is being sold to and bought in gallons by the entertainment oligopoly mastodons who have repeatedly proven that they don't get the internet. It's basically useless for all parties concerned. We get inconvenient restrictions; they think that they are getting copy protection but are actually being sold a river.
As an aside, even if Palladium/NGSCB becomes prevalent and required for downloading DRM content, it seems unlikely that each resource will be custom-encrypted against the customer's Palladium/NGSCB public key. And even if it were, there would be likely be ways to extract the raw data at some point. I doubt that we will see truly uncrackable DRM for a long time to come. In fact, I doubt that we will ever see it.
If your comment title says 'Re: Foo', I'm not likely to read it.
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.
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.
Comment of the year
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.
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.
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
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.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I Quote: Do you think that Apple's restrictions are really that ridiculous?"
You are missing some important parts to their TOS. Under 9c:
"Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time."
And later under 13b:"...Apple and its licensors reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the Service at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for the removal of or disabling of access to any such Products, content or materials under this Agreement. Apple may also impose limits on the use of or access to certain features or portions of the Service, in any case and without notice or liability."
No, I'm not using iTMS, but if I did, I'd be burning backup, DRM-free, MP3s. (Or Oggs for those of you who are cooler than me)
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I 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?
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
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.
..putting down cluestick and stepping off soapbox
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?
A Call for Open Standards
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.