As some others have postulated, it does seem that tracks 'cleaned' with the old version of hYmn (playfair), do still playback fine. Tracks processed with recent versions of hYmn don't play, and display a message saying the machine isn't authorized to play the track, even though the original track is authorized to play on that machine, and the original track continues to play fine. Considering that the hex edit hack offered in another post here works, it seems that the file is just looking for that non standard ID tag. Maybe the next version of hYmn should just move the purchaser ID info to a standard ID tag, like 'comments' or something. Thus it would still have the info there, but not be detectable as different from a normal aac file.
IMO they're trying to make downloads so unattractive an option that most people either go back to illegal downloads or CD buying. In the case that it fails to stop legal downloads or increase CD sales, they still make a lot of money. It's a no-lose plan.
I think you misread this here, if people go back to illegal downloads they lose bigtime. The problem is they are trying to support a business model that has long been extremely wasteful, and corrupt. But because of they learned during the changeover from selling LPs to CD's that they can make money by reselling the same stuff to people by just creating a new superior format, they got greedy. When the reality hit record execs that by selling people a CD that they could rip and then do whatever they wanted with (even do their own conversions to new formats as opposed to buying again) they saw a huge present (AND FUTURE) money stream leaving them.
I'm not saying artists don't deserve to get paid, OF COURSE THEY DO! but the need for large record companies with their distribution chains will become less and less pressing, unless the RIAA is successful in crafting legislation somehow to make the government help prop up their business model. If they do maybe they will manage to squeeze a few more dollars from the people before they inevitable happens and they collapse under their own weight.
I heard it was football shaped and it's just for me to kick in space. Of Course the same source also said the world was biscuit shaped and just for me to feed my face, so they might have been confused.
As mentioned before, Jobs said in his pitch to the record companies that DRM doesn't work, and it will always be broken eventually. He didn't say that Apple wouldn't try to stop people from circumventing their own DRM though.
The DMCA, while trying to accomplish some lofty goals, is unfortunately a good example of a law written by people that had no clue about the technologies that they were trying to legislate. In some places it seems to be in direct opposition to Fair Use laws that are still in effect, and as with many laws, it reflects more the side that had the most money to spend on lobbyists.
So here we stand, about a year after iTunes debut, an easy solution to removing the DRM has appeared. Here is a 'test' if you will of the current laws and policies. Many more will follow.
This is where things get interesting as far as I'm concerned.
Will apple now change it's scheme to stay ahead of the programmers working to crack the encryption schemes?
Is the DMCA going to survive?
Do Fair Use rights trump the DMCA or visa-versa?
Are we moving to a more restricted use model for purchasing content?
To people who are picking on the author of this program, i think you are missing the point. Were it not him it would have been someone else. Not speaking from a legal point of view, but a human nature point of view, any DRM is a gauntlet thrown down, it's like Mt Everest, people climb it because it's there.
Personally I think there is a place for fairplay, and as long as we move toward the restricted rights model for purchasing content, these tools will only become of more value, and more sought after. When I found playfair I quickly tested it, and finding it did what it claimed to, I promptly removed the DRM from all the tracks I have purchased from iTunes (about 20 CDs worth) because the one thing that bothered me about iTunes was the thought that apple could get out of the music distribution business at some point and decide that FairPlay is no longer needed in quicktime, and I would be stuck with unplayable tracks. I like the fact that with playfair I have unencumbered copies of the tracks I bought that I can play on many platforms. I haven't shared any of my DRM removed tracks. I don't feel I am breaking any laws, I may well be, but that is for the courts to decide. And that is what is needed at this point.
YDL already responded to this vulnerability by backporting the changes from 2.4.23 to 2.4.22. If you are using YDL 3.0.1 with the kernel marked 2.4.22f, you don't have to worry about this particular exploit.
Slashdot Mirror
Living under a rock is looking better and better.
As some others have postulated, it does seem that tracks 'cleaned' with the old version of hYmn (playfair), do still playback fine.
Tracks processed with recent versions of hYmn don't play, and display a message saying the machine isn't authorized to play the track, even though the original track is authorized to play on that machine, and the original track continues to play fine.
Considering that the hex edit hack offered in another post here works, it seems that the file is just looking for that non standard ID tag.
Maybe the next version of hYmn should just move the purchaser ID info to a standard ID tag, like 'comments' or something. Thus it would still have the info there, but not be detectable as different from a normal aac file.
gee, what a surprise, Jobs picks style over substance. You have to admire his consistency anyway.
I'm not saying artists don't deserve to get paid, OF COURSE THEY DO! but the need for large record companies with their distribution chains will become less and less pressing, unless the RIAA is successful in crafting legislation somehow to make the government help prop up their business model. If they do maybe they will manage to squeeze a few more dollars from the people before they inevitable happens and they collapse under their own weight.
I heard it was football shaped and it's just for me to kick in space. Of Course the same source also said the world was biscuit shaped and just for me to feed my face, so they might have been confused.
The DMCA, while trying to accomplish some lofty goals, is unfortunately a good example of a law written by people that had no clue about the technologies that they were trying to legislate. In some places it seems to be in direct opposition to Fair Use laws that are still in effect, and as with many laws, it reflects more the side that had the most money to spend on lobbyists.
So here we stand, about a year after iTunes debut, an easy solution to removing the DRM has appeared. Here is a 'test' if you will of the current laws and policies. Many more will follow.
This is where things get interesting as far as I'm concerned.
Will apple now change it's scheme to stay ahead of the programmers working to crack the encryption schemes?
Is the DMCA going to survive?
Do Fair Use rights trump the DMCA or visa-versa?
Are we moving to a more restricted use model for purchasing content?
To people who are picking on the author of this program, i think you are missing the point. Were it not him it would have been someone else. Not speaking from a legal point of view, but a human nature point of view, any DRM is a gauntlet thrown down, it's like Mt Everest, people climb it because it's there.
Personally I think there is a place for fairplay, and as long as we move toward the restricted rights model for purchasing content, these tools will only become of more value, and more sought after. When I found playfair I quickly tested it, and finding it did what it claimed to, I promptly removed the DRM from all the tracks I have purchased from iTunes (about 20 CDs worth) because the one thing that bothered me about iTunes was the thought that apple could get out of the music distribution business at some point and decide that FairPlay is no longer needed in quicktime, and I would be stuck with unplayable tracks. I like the fact that with playfair I have unencumbered copies of the tracks I bought that I can play on many platforms. I haven't shared any of my DRM removed tracks. I don't feel I am breaking any laws, I may well be, but that is for the courts to decide. And that is what is needed at this point.
YDL already responded to this vulnerability by backporting the changes from 2.4.23 to 2.4.22. If you are using YDL 3.0.1 with the kernel marked 2.4.22f, you don't have to worry about this particular exploit.