Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

QTFairUse6 Updated Hours After iTunes7 Release

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the escalating-arms-race dept.

Nrbelex writes "Mere hours after iTunes 7's release, QTFairUse6 has received an update which enables it to continue stripping iTunes songs of their 'FairPlay' DRM. Some features are experimental but at least it's proof that the concept still works."

3 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. Why iTunes works by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    iTunes works not because you can't copy the song or because of DRM. It works because of two simple reasons:

    1. price
    2. easy to use

    Fairly simple. 99 cents is a sum that convinces people it's more convenient to click and pay than to fire up a filesharing system or phone 'round with their friends. It downloads quickly and it's guaranteed to work with your iPod, no need to wonder what format or how to transfer it, the software is built to fit.

    That's what makes it popular and that's why people pay for it. I bet a sizable sum that most of them didn't even notice yet that it contains DRM. Simply because nobody bothered to try to copy it instead of simply clicking and paying the buck.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Re:Let the law suits begin by Jerf · · Score: 5, Insightful
    When you play the law game, the argument of the form "Look, there's a definition of X in the dictionary, under which X didn't happen. Therefore, I didn't do X. Ha-ha! Got you!" works about as well as I've made it sound. You really don't get to pick definitions; you can do some limited advocacy if you can find some evidence, but you aren't going to get away with arguing that because one of the definitions of murder is "something very difficult or dangerous", you therefore didn't commit murder when you shot that guy that was annoying you, on the grounds that it was quite easy and involved no danger to you.

    The DMCA is pretty clear on what it means by circumvention:

    `(3) As used in this subsection--

    `(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

    `(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
    If you think you can convince a judge that this isn't textbook circumvention, hey, go for it. But saying it'd be an uphill battle is putting it lightly. Especially if you go in there claiming that it's somehow impossible for a "mere memory dump" to constitute circumvention, when it is clearly one of many types of transform wherein you put a protected work in one end, and get an unprotected work out the other.

    (Do not confuse this post with DMCA advocacy. I strongly disagree with outlawing technologies and actions; I think the law in this area should merely concern itself with results. But I also think you can't fight against something you don't understand; you just make yourself sound like an idiot. You need to understand there is a distinction between what the laws says and what you wish it said. Understanding the DMCA better is a necessary step in fighting it.)
  3. Re:Why you are all wrong by ambrosen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, the European Comission does consider that there is a right to purchase things free of conditions, and in the case of any transaction that looks like a sale, it is a sale, and the constraints the seller can put on the purchaser are very limited.