Slashdot Mirror
iTunes v6 FairPlay DRM Cracked
luaine writes with an Engadget article claiming the cracking of iTunes v6 FairPlay DRM. From the article: "[A] new app called QTFairUse6 looks like it can now be used (with some amount of difficulty) to dump iTunes version 6.0.4 - 6.0.5 files of their chastely protection." At present this is a Windows-only tool for those who are "not afraid to get [their] hands dirty with a little python." Engadget does not provide a link to QTFairUse6, and neither will we. We've run several DRM stories recently, but it's been 19 months since Cracking iTunes' DRM with JHymn.
Any why won't you provide a link to the software?
...the power of Python.
Funnypics
You don't need a special software tool if you own a Mac. This is a fairly old trick - and time consuming - but it works pretty well. If you have the license for the piece of music (if you're on one of the five computers licensed to listen to the track), you can open it without problems in iMovie, save it as an AIFF file (uncompressed audio), and then import it into iTunes as an mp3 or whatever you choose. It works pretty well - and it's a bit of a lifesaver if your wife happens to crash her Windows box on a regular basis, forcing a reformat and reinstall about once every six months.
"Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
Here you go: http://hymn-project.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=155 3
burning to a cd and ripping dosen't quite for that..
Gone!
iMovie works by decompressing and recompressing the music, resulting in a loss of quality. Apparently, this new software works by extracting the compressed stream after it has been decrypted, giving it the distinct advantage of being lossless.
Of course, it doesn't do me any good, since it only works in Windows...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Sure, everybody will link to the tool that cracks Windows Media DRM, but when it's time to crack FairPlay people start getting self-righteous.
As much as I hate DRM, by buying the music from iTunes in the first place you are clearly stating your position that you will tolerate DRM. It's like buying a Ford and ripping the Ford emblem off the car and thinking that you're "sticking it to Ford." I have news for you: Ford (Apple) is laughing all the way to the bank.
Yahoo and MSN show results. Google does not. Good to see they're doing no evil.
I think this was tried before.... and the response from Apple was that if the file was downloaded, it was paid for. So, deleting the DRM, while not in Apple's best interest, isn't exactly the same as the WMA subscription problem, where songs that are "rented" could be owned. Let's face it, if you really want something for free, there are lots of places to get it... I just don't see the point of removing the DRM from a paid for iTunes file, because FairPlay does seem pretty generous with what you are allowed to do with it.
iTunes wasn't cracked. Fairplay DRM was cracked.
:(
And it wasn't even that. According to this forum entry, all the hack does is tie into the audio "output" side of iTunes and skim off the decoded AAC stream, writing it to a file. One step above grabbing it at the sound card, but certainly not a crack of the DRM itself.
What's astounding is how many people seem to consider this "a step in the right direction," when it's really a "step in a totally different direction that will do nothing for actually breaking the DRM itself." Then again, maybe I shouldn't be *too* surprised....
Complain to the executives that mandate DRM on all purchased media. Why do so many people act as though Apple invented DRM?
FairPlay wasn't cracked.. this python script attaches to iTunes.exe..... reads the memory when you play a track and creates a dump for the AAC file... its a very nice scripts... but again... nothing was cracked
Apple is the biggest vendor of DRM-laden music and video files today. It doesn't matter if they invented the technology; by foisting it upon its customers, Apple opens themselves to criticism.
That's the part that makes it worthless.
Music from iTunes is already compressed a fair bit. Yes, you'll lose some fidelity, but the copy to CD and re-rip has always been there if you're not too picky but seriously DRM-phobic.
But other than single-track purchasing, the whole point of the ITMS is convenience. If you want music a single click away it's there. If you want it a click away, but are willing to go through hoops to remove the DRM you kinda lost the convenience part, so what's the point?
If you wanted cheap music, at least an ablbum at a time, borrowing or buying used CDs, ripping them yourself then returning ( or re-selling ) them is an option. If you look at the price of a used CD, minus the price you get selling it back the next day, it's going to be cost competitive with ITMS purchase. Heck, splitting the price of a new album with 2 friends and you all rip it before selling it is going to be a better price. Illegal, yes, but no more so than de-DRMing
So if that's an option, why would you buy from ITMS in the first place if you're going to go through pains to de-DRM it? Poor impulse control? If you can get it for the same price ( or cheaper ) by getting the CD and ripping yourself AND less hassle than removing DRM, why not do just that?
Which is why I think any DRM removal that is more than a single click just silly.
Not quite. It grabs the audio when it is decrypted, but not yet decoded. I.e. it grabs the raw AAC frames. These can then be inserted into a proper container file and tagged with metadata. This process needs to be automated, but it should be soon.
The good thing about this approach is that, unlike capturing the audio, it accesses it before the AAC stream has been decompressed, meaning that you don't have to recompress it, adding artefacts.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Don't tell anyone *looks over shoulder* I found this site... you can find darn near anything here... it's called Google.
Here's a link: www.google.com
-
ADA COMPLIANCE MESSAGE:
For the Humour-impaired:
This was a joke.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
I was always one of the people who never really cared that iTunes music was DRM'd. I figured that (shortsightedly) I would always use an iPod or burn CDs. I was wrong. When I go running, I like music so I take my iPod- but I dont like extra weight so I dont take my wireless phone. So, despite spending about $1000 at the ITMS, I am considering getting a Chocolate, so I can have my phone and MP3 player with me in one package. (I would have gotten a RokR, but seriously, why would I spend a ton of money for a phone that holds 100 songs?!?!) If I get a Chocolate, would it be wrong to convert my DRM'd iTunes music so I could use it with the Chocolate? Should I just eat the $1000 I spent at ITMS? (Please save the sarcastic comments about how I shouldn't have bought DRM'd music- I admit it, I was an idiot to do that...) And another point, I am not a marketing expert, but if they made a white iPod phone with at least a few gigs of memory, do they not realize that they would sell a ton ofthem? Why cant they just make an iPod phone? 90% of college kids would buy them.
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
I wonder if it's possible to create a sort of virtual CD-writer that'll trick iTunes into thinking it's burning to a CD but it's really just writing it somewhere on your HD.
sigfault. core dumped.
Is it wrong? No.
Is it illegal? Probably.
Was it really dumb to spend $1,000 on DRMed music? Yep.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The GPL exists to protect rights; DRM exists to take them away. Duh.
Wired had a good print article on that a few months ago. Summary: you have to get a cell carrier to distribute the phones, and none of them want to let you upload music to your phone for free instead of making you pay to send it through their data network.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Why cant they just make an iPod phone? 90% of college kids would buy them.
Blame the wireless providers that want their version of lock-in.
Seriously, why don't we have a phone market like Europe? I shouldn't buy my phone from Verizon Wireless -- I should buy my phone at Target and then pick a compatible provider for that phone. No contracts, no provider lock-in.
If we had that sort of market nothing would stop Apple from making a CDMA iPod phone for VZW/Sprint or a GSM iPod phone for T-Mobile/Cingular.
Fat chance in hell the cellular providers give up their device lock-in until regulation forces them to do so.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Landline phones in the US used to be rented from your telephone provider. If you wanted another phone, you had to call them and they would be out sometime "between 8am and 6pm." Most people under 30 don't believe this, and even to me, looking back, it seems ridiculous.
I hope that very soon kids will look at us the same way with the same disbelief and say "wait, you mean you had to get your cell phone directly from your wireless provider?!?!?"
Yes, you can get a cell phone and manipulate it in the same way that in the old days you could get an "illegal" extra landline phone, but this is rare.
Anyhow, you are right in your post. But keep in mind that songs for the Chocolate are $1.99 if you pull them right out of the air onto your phone, but 99cents if you buy the songs from your computer and wire them onto the Chocolate. So I am hoping we will see an iPod phone someday, i.e. and iPod with a phone, not a phone with sort-of-an-iPod-that-only-holds-100-songs like the rokr was (is? Are they still making that thing?)
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
and the headline never stated this. It says "iTunes v6 FairPlay DRM Cracked". Jeez, most people don't read TFA but come on, at least read TFH.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Landline phones in the US used to be rented from your telephone provider.
You are talking to somebody whose Grandmother and Father worked for Ma Bell. I know all about those days!
Yes, you can get a cell phone and manipulate it in the same way that in the old days you could get an "illegal" extra landline phone, but this is rare.
How? VZW won't even activate a phone for you nowadays unless you get it from them. Even a completely unlocked CDMA phone direct from Motorola. If you get the phone from them it's crippled to their network (even if you pay full price for it!).
Anyhow, you are right in your post. But keep in mind that songs for the Chocolate are $1.99 if you pull them right out of the air onto your phone, but 99cents if you buy the songs from your computer and wire them onto the Chocolate.
What if I already have the mp3s? Can I transfer them over for free? My experience with VZW tells me that I probably can't.... but I've been wrong before.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Hey, we Americans don't want any of that Socialist crap like they have in Europe! We're all about capitalism here, and free markets with businesses unfettered by government regulation! If the market wanted unlocked, non-crippled phones, we'd have them. But the market has decided, and it wants crippled phones!
Pah! Those Europeans and their "free choice" crap... Next thing you know, they'll be talking about how they need more than two political parties to choose from!
http://clusty.com/search?query=QTFairUse6
/files/31103061/QTFairUse6-1.0.zip.html on rapidshare.de, but that would be wrong.
I would also provide a link to
Pi Ran Out
How badly can a song REALLY degrade even if you compress it with *cough* *choke* *wheeze* mp3? *gasp* (eh, not for me, thank you very much; if I go lossy I go ogg) Not much, really, actually. It's certainly tons better than copying to audio tape.
Once you do it, you lock in that DRM-free quality level forever and it never degrades again.
Of course you can use APE or FLAC and bypass the loss of quality altogether.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
There is nothing fundamentally insecure about DRM except for the fact that it needs to be decrypted on the client. So a tool like this is taking advantage of the insecure aspect of DRM by waiting until the client decrypts the audio. Cracking the encryption algorithm just shows that there is a weakness in the algorithm (or in the protection of the keys, as seen in the WMA case).
The solution to stopping pure digital copies (ie not digitial -> analog -> digital) is to do all of the DRM and audio/video decoding in hardware (your private key is generated and stored in the sound card and can't be retrieved). Portable devices can use schemes like this, but computers won't unless somebody decides to break backward compatibility.
Which is why it's important for as many honest people as possible to download this and check it out. Then the criminals might just slip under the noise floor.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
And no, Apple shouldn't license FairPlay to RealNetworks (or whatever they call themselves these days).
However, much like the Fair Use clause in copyright law, the proponents of DMCA invariably choose to overlook this clause in the DMCA. DVD Jon is in the clear when it comes to the DMCA because of this clause, only it seems that no cases have been defended citing this clause. I do not worry at ALL about ripping DVDs for use on my PocketPC and posting about it on here because that clause specifically allows me to use DeCSS to bypass DRM for the purpose of interoperability with other software (Windows media Player on PocketPC 2000), and it allows me to use DeCSS (and derivatives) to view DRMed video on alternate software such as Linux. Note that it does NOT allow me to bypass DRM for the purpose of violating copyright law, but making backups and transcoding and/or timeshifting (e.g., bypassing HDCP when I buy an HDTV) are all specifically excepted from liability/prosecution under the DMCA.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Back in 2003, Itunes music store probably WASN'T making money -- but it's no longer 2003.
There's a reason Apple won't license their DRM to other music stores -- and it's not because they lack the technical expertise to do so.
If it's the only reason the iTMS uses DRM is because of "the executives", then why don't labels get to choose whether or not they want DRM on songs they sell through iTunes?
RIAA is the one insisting on DRM.
In the UofK I can get myself most of the non chart (read non-crap) CDs for £5 in my local HMV, the fact that iTunes charges £7 for a DRMed version of the album without the little shiny jewel case seems a bit silly and I'm amazed how thick the ipod generation seems to be.
Not all artists who publish via the iTMS are part of the RIAA. (or their labels, or whatever is the best description).
i am a soviet space shuttle
Depends on how you interpret / how far you want to trust the DMCA's Reverse Engineering exception.
Not at all. The DMCA makes illegal the distribution of tools that can be used to break encryption used in copyright protection schemes, not creating or using said tools.
I did this. I bought an unlocked GSM phone and moved my SIM card to it. Worked fine, but was quite expensive and required some research to get the proper North American dual band phone (tri-bands with two European bands and one of the two North American bands are much more common and typically sold as "world phones"). Try convincing your friends (the ones who haven't lived in Europe long enough to buy a cell phone there) that this is the way to go when they get a new phone "for free" every few years. (Indeed, one of the big reasons I finally did it was that my locked phone broke a month out of warranty with seven months left on my stupid contract. I'm currently trying pre-paid + VoIP.) So, yes, it won't happen due to the will of the general public.
this.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
This is true, to an extent. You are almost always going to want to use a lossy codec on your portable player. However, there's really no reason that you should store the music in your library in the same format, when you have a hard drive that's many times the size, and easy to expand, and gets upgraded more frequently. (If you have a flash-based player, then your HD is definitely going to be far larger; if you have a HD player, it might or might not.)
:-/
What I'd like to see is a system where the music is storted on the computer in the library in a lossless format, and then when you sync your player, if it can fit on as lossless, then that's how it goes. (There are a lot of people running around with half-full or less iPods!) If it can't, then it would start to compress it using the codec of your choice.
Obviously, this could increase sync times a lot -- if you had a player that was filled to the gills as lossless, and then you wanted to add more music to it, you would need to clear the player, and add all the music on as compressed files. (Or at least some of it.) But I don't think this is a deal-breaker; you could do the updating as a batch process at night, when most people just leave their player sitting on its charging cradle.
Computers are fast enough now that I really don't think that the performance hit you'd get during copying, caused by the on-the-fly lossless to lossy transcoding, would really be that big a problem. It's a pretty easy process to multithread, meaning that you can easily take advantage of modern architectures (you have separate threads for at least the decoding and reencoding of each file, and you do multiple files at the same time). In a few more years, we'll probably get to the point where the process would be I/O rather than processor-bound anyway, if chips keep getting faster and computers keep getting more cores. (Unless they start using faster hard drives or memory in portable players.)
Anyway, so I'm not disagreeing with you; people are always going to want to get the most from their investment in a portable player. However, in some cases, getting "the most with what you have" might indicate using a lossless codec instead of a lossy one (if you have a player big enough to fit your music losslessly); I'm just proposing that we make software that's intelligent enough to do the optimization.
Although you do have a point; most people think 128kbit MP3 sounds good, so they might not care.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Actually, if you wanted to crack the drm this would be a big first step. Now you have the encrypted text (the original file) and the clear text (the AAC frames). That should make it much easier to break the encryption.
>The GPL exists to protect rights; DRM exists to take them away. Duh.
you're kidding, right?
DRM, whatever its form, exists to protect the rights of publishers. remember, the same laws that give people fair use rights also give publishers the right to profit from their creations. but people have proven conclusively that they won't honor copyright laws when it comes to music and movies, directly impinging on publishers' rights. and so the media companies keep racheting-up their technological schemes, trying to protect their publishing rights. yes, their schemes sometimes (often) encroach on our rights in the process. but, that doesn't mean that's the *intent* of DRM.
and if people treated source code the way they treated music, the GPL (which also, yes, protects publishers' rights) would be considered as quaint as the 'copyrighted' flag in MP3s - we'd all look at it and chuckle, as we copied the source for our own GPL-violating uses.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Always a fun topic.
I always wondered what would have happen to some of the world's major religions if copyright law in its current convoluted form existed at the time of Moses. Would the Ten Commandments be copyrighted? Would Gutenberg have had to pay royalties? Would he have had to pay God? Check or money order? Would churches now have to get a volume license to relate the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah? Would Cain and Abel have gotten 'points'? Gross or net? And when Cain killed Abel, who bought up his rights from his estate?
If the first letter of Paul to the Ephesians was read out loud to the Ephesians by someone other than Paul without Paul consenting in writing, could Paul sue for damages? Or does this qualify as fair use?
If God liked DRM, would the first Bibles be like a big sheaf of blank pages, and when you pay your licensing fee, the words magically appear (only partially illegible due to compression loss)? Or would he just temporarily blind you every time you looked at it until you paid.
Along the same lines, you know how people like to quote scripture? Would God give you a case of laryngitis if you tried to quote scripture without accepting a EULA first? Does the fact that God is omniscient and knows what you're thinking constitute a 'rootkit'?
DRM, always a fun topic.
Better yet, let's just merge all companies into one.
Because getting your iTunes downloads to play on stuff other than your iPod, without spending time burning a CDRW, is not criminal. You've paid for it, after all.
Does wanting to format-shift my paid content easily constitute dishonesty? If you think so, I would kindly say, "Fuck you."
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
You know, some people look at DRM, the 'AAs and a missguided interpretation of the law based from user forums and people with something to gain and come to some strange conclusions. They think that because you bought one thing you cannot use it with, as, or by something else.
This notion, if applied to any other object you legaly own and use in the privacy of your own person could make it "wrong" to bake a cake with the surgar you just purchased for sweetening your breakfast cerial. Or more to the a simular end, It might make it "illegal" to crush your vitamins and drink them from your orange juice in the morning because the bottle says clearly they intended them to be swallowed whole with water. Simply absurd!
I wonder if people realize this when they try to support the idea of "you can only do what someone else wants you to do after you paid for something?" Can i joins in on saying "Fuck You"!?