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.
Maybe to keep from violating the DMCA?
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
They won't, but I will: http://hymn-project.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=155 3
I don't get it.
Steve Jobs: Get these mother$@%@#$@ snakes off my mother%@$@#@@# OS!
sigfault. core dumped.
Here you go: http://hymn-project.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=155 3
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.
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.
Programming language handles file input, processing and output. News at 11.00.
Warhammer forums
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
Yahoo and MSN show results. Google does not. Good to see they're doing no evil.
;-)
Haven't you heard? Google CEO joins Apple Board.
Google have given up on 'do no evil' in favour of joining Apple
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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
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 was actually referencing a popular, sarcastic photoshop (http://www.pensitoreview.com/images/art-gop-fasci sm-poster.jpg)
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?
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
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!
So that's what that whoosh sound was.
If you're going to be elitist, it would help to be elite.
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
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.
<span style='voice: Mick Dundee' >
That's not a link, that's a link
</span>
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I recently heard about an amazing new concept called "link". Somehow stuff can be associated with a location, and activating this particular stuff will allow you to travel quickly to the associated location! I'm not yet sure if such a crazy idea is even possible, but it's a really exciting idea.
s m-poster.jpg
http://www.pensitoreview.com/images/art-gop-fasci
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
It works, and works well.
Also, it doesn't actually require any mucking about in python; it works out of the box, once python's installed. If you're mucking about, it better be to add 'faad -a dump_xx.decoded.aac dumpxx.aac' to the end of the dump process.
Meanwhile, the link in the forum linked by the engadget article is to rapidshare.de. I hate these things, and I assume most others do. Additionally, that zip doesn't have FAAD in it. So, I took the liberty of putting it in and hosting it myself. It's not offshore, and I'm nothing like anonymous, so the first Cease and Desist will get it off my site. If I get a lawsuit instead, you can be sure I'm going to grab the EFF's attention on the matter.
QTFairUse w/ FAAD
Enjoy!Python 2.4.3 (required)
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"!?