Jon Johansen Breaks iTunes DRM Yet Again 1286
ikewillis writes "Remember earlier today when Apple released an update supposedly blocking the hole in iTMS recently discovered by Jon Johansen? News.com reports that he has already worked around the update, and iTMS can now be accessed from non-Windows/MacOS X systems using the new version of his PyMusique software. You can view his blog entry on the issue (ironically titled So Sue Me). More power to you, Jon!"
So sue him? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So sue him? (Score:5, Informative)
He's likely acting as a front for another group doing the grunt work who doesn't want the legal exposure.
Given the current legal precedent he's acquired in Norway, it's highly unlikely Apple will be able to prosecute.
Re:So sue him? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news, I will no longer be going to court for any speeding tickets I get. Since I already went once, and was cleared of charges, it obviously means I can do so again and again.
Yes, let's lump them together. (Score:5, Informative)
Using this tool might be a problem with Apples ToS and whatnot, but creating the tool is purely a legal issue. And that issue has been clearly settled under norwegian law. There is currently no norwegian law prohibiting you from creating a tool to break any copyright protection mechanism. You have the right to access any "secret" key in your hardware or software. That is why he can do so with impunity. Apple could sue, but they would lose as the law stands today. The public prosecutor knows it and won't do it.
Kjella
Re:Yes, let's lump them together. (Score:4, Insightful)
And he is surely acting in breach of his contract with iTunes, albeit this would be a civil rather than criminal matter. Would Norway not consider this a contract law claim?
He doesn't access the system nor has he a contract (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming (and I wouldn't even dare to hazard whether this is or isn't so) it is illegal to acces iTunes with "unauthorized" software they'd need to have a log of _him_ connecting to the service. As for "breaching" his contract with iTunes, who says he actually engaged in one by making use of their services.
It's like someone built a very large wall with 1 door in it, offering a service to people who want to look at what's behind the wall and making those people use that door (i.e. Apple). Then someone else comes around, looks at the wall (or listens to stories of people describing the wall) and says: "Well, here is this periscope like contraption, that you can use to look over the wall if you should choose to."
But of course, IANAL.
Re:Yes, let's lump them together. (Score:5, Informative)
Because it took the first case to set the precedent. Until then the law hadn't been tested. Now it has.
Precedent and common law (Score:4, Informative)
The rest of Europe, including Norway, basically uses civil law [answers.com], in which in the end only the written law counts.
Re:Yes, let's lump them together. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the most classic display of public 'Disobeyance of Authority'. DVD-jon is like an evangelist or something. iTunes, I dont believe is the target, nor were the MPAA when he cracked DeCSS. Its more of classic CIVIL DISOBEDIANCE. I mean, something has to be done here. I'm not talking in the near future, but the slightly more distant. People have to stand up against the copyright enforcers. I mean, that's what we're here for right? We love linux, We love not getting told what to do constantly because we are smart enough to think for ourselves.
DRM and iTunes or Microsofts or anybody's is becoming a ****ing nuisance. Digital technology just enables people to do this stuff. Its the way things are, and there will come a time when we are really going to have to confront intellectual property and its owners instead of just pissing around and wondering if Apple Legal are going to send him a letter tommorrow or not.
He can get away with it, so he's doing it. To force their hand. To force all of our hands eventually. I mean, checkout what Lessig [lessing.org] is doing. Checkout the Creative Commons [creativecommons.org] and what it really means. We have to be free to do this stuff eventually.
Or else the world is going to fall into contradiction.
which I spose it is,
read this site:
http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes
Re:iTunes homebrew? (Score:5, Insightful)
Our friends at the RIAA want to stop the rampant copyright infringement, right? Here's how:
1. Stop suing the people you want as your paying customers.
1a. Stop suing little old ladies that may not be your customers, but generate massive public sympathy when covered in the media.
2. Change iTMS and friends to do digital watermarking, instead of digital restrictions management.
All of a sudden, everybody's happy! The RIAA keeps their income and can still go after the worst copyright infringers (after politely asking them to cease and desist), Apple sells more iPods because people like me are less worried about draconian DRM methods, society gets the fair use rights they are owed, and judges can finally focus on dealing with white collar criminals rather than thousands of 13-year-olds who are nothing but music fans.
Interestingly enough (Score:5, Informative)
With iTunes 4.7, Apple changed it so that watermarked but unprotected files wouldn't play.
The solution? Remove the watermark.
By breaking the ability to use iTunes music fairly (for example, in a device other than an iPid), Apple essentially forced the authors of Hymn to make their software more suitable to piracy.
Re:Interestingly enough (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:iTunes homebrew? (Score:5, Insightful)
Include with the CD a one-time-use download link for cell-phone ringtones.
Include with the CD a DVD of video clips.
Include with the CD a CD of watermarked MP3s, at high bitrate.
Include with every purchased CD a sticker of the band or whatever.
The question is, though, does the RIAA want to stop piracy, or does the RIAA want to sell more records? The RIAA should be concentrating more on the latter than the former, IMO. That's where the money is; it doesn't really matter from an economic standpoint how much piracy there is, as long as they are selling the records, however from a dogmatic and philosophical point of view RIAA is in the business of "protecting its product". Where portection equates to restriction on consumers, and they wonder why consumers don't buy as many CDs as they used to (not to mention the number of new CDs released is dramatically falling).
Re:iTunes homebrew? (Score:4, Insightful)
FOUL: "Boxen" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So sue him? (Score:5, Informative)
The laws protecting the customer are far stronger here, and the seller cannot impose rules on the buyer without explicit (hand signed) acceptance of EACH clause on a written contract.
Yes, you guessed it, even Microsoft's EULAs have been proved to be largely unenforceable (for example) in Italy.
So Gandhi was wrong... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So sue him? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So sue him? (Score:4, Interesting)
IAAL (in Europe but not Italy) and can state for a fact that this is not the case in all of Europe, and I very much doubt it is in Norway or Italy.
Think about it. What is a contract? It's not a piece of paper, it's any legally enforceable agreement between two or more people. Every time you buy anything, that's a contract. And any time you buy anything online there will be sellers' terms and conditions to agree with, regarding payment and delivery if nothing else. So either this person is wrong, or online commerce does not exist in Italy (and nor does any business not in which written docs are not exchanged).
I can believe that many EULAs are invalid under European consumer protection laws, but they're not invalid simply because they don't make you sign a document. (Indeed the point of most consumer protection laws are to protect you even if you do sign that document, since they recognise that the individual consumer isn't in much of a position to dictate terms to megacorp.)
Re:So sue him? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So sue him? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So sue him? (Score:5, Funny)
LK
Re:So sue him? (Score:4, Informative)
"Sosumi" was the name of the sound, and it came from the equally amusing battle between Apple Computer and Carl "Billions and Billions" Sagan.
It seems Apple code-named the Power Mac 7500 "Sagan". Not that they were going to call the shipping unit by that name mind you, but just internally they needed to call it something, so they named it after the great scientist, probably out of respect.
In any case, somebody with Carl's crew found out about it and got torqued, and filed a lawsuit. Apple, after an initial WTF? reaction, obliged, and changed the name to the supposedly innocuous "BHA". Turns out that BHA stood for Butt Head Astronomer, at which point more saber-rattling was heard in the Sagan camp.
In any case, the System Software released with the Power Mac 7500 included a new sound, "sosumi." I don't recall it having anything to do with Apple Music.
Re:So sue him? (Score:5, Informative)
the 7100 was "Sagan" (the 6100 was "Piltdown Man" and the 8100 was "Cold Fusion") [link] [ideotrope.org]
sosumi the system sound was included in system 7, several years before the 7100 was ever created (that shipped with 7.5) [link] [answers.com]
Re:BHA SAGAN?!?! NO! Crystal Quest Sound EFX ! (Score:5, Informative)
"Stolen" is a strong word with specific legal meaning. If the sound originates from the game (and I'm not actually questioning it), I can readily see it as fair use, considering the related lawsuits and legal precedence, but I'm not a lawyer. Janet Jackson sampled my Mac system sound, and used it in one of her songs. My startup sound for the Mac was also used in the movie Jurassic Park (when they rebooted the park's computers).
Furthermore, if my ears are correct (and they usually are) one of the sounds in that game was "stolen" from Peter Gabriel.
If you weren't being so juvenile, you might be more persuasive. Try removing the hyperbole and begin using proper grammar.
You, alone, know the truth? Well, I'm responsible for Sosumi, the System 7 beeps, and the startup sound (which all remain in use today). I don't actually remember where or how I obtained the original sound. Most of them I created such as the startup sound and others, some I obtained such as the monkey sound that made by a friend's wife.
Personally, I felt having my startup sound used (or "stolen" in your words) by Steven Spielberg to be a form of flattery.
Are you a representative of Mr. Buckland? What is your interest in this matter? I'd like to hear from him instead.
Re:So sue him? (Score:5, Interesting)
Check it out: www.apple.com -> view source -> search for "sosumi"
Re:So sue him? (Score:5, Funny)
DRM company: "Take that!"
DVDJon: "OK, I'll just try holding down the shift key, and..."
DRM company: "Damn, you're good!"
Re:Apple is the least of his worries... (Score:5, Insightful)
Johansen's app doesn't help to steal music, but allows non-Mac users to BUY it from iTunes. Apple doesn't like it, but it's debatable if even they have been injured in a legal sense.
Re:Apple is the least of his worries... (Score:5, Interesting)
What he is doing is helping people bypass Apple's terms of service on iTMS (i.e. no Fairplay DRM, no restrictions to 3 machines, etc.)
Re:Apple is the least of his worries... (Score:5, Informative)
A Name! (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder, did he work around it that quickly, or was he anticipating Apple's fix and already knew another way around it?
Re:A Name! (Score:5, Informative)
The only way for Apple to actually fix this hole is to handle DRM encryption server side, unless you consider the problem is unresolved due to the fact that DRM is a fundamentally flawed concept.
Re:A Name! (Score:5, Interesting)
PyMusick could send the same public key, iTMS would send it the same song, and PyMusic could decrypt the song with its private key, yielding the same unencrypted, DRM-free file. Adding public key cryptography does nothing to solve the problem.
They could use private key cryptography, but the key would have to ship with every copy of iTunes, where it could be discovered through disassembly of the encryption algorithm. This is the exact approach KaZaA used, and it was reverse engineered, but 3rd party KaZaA clients were halted thanks to the DMCA.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
exactly true (Score:5, Insightful)
The best minds in the world fuck up cryptography and security when they have decades of time to work and peer all the review they can handle.
Along comes a company that wants to do DRM. They could do use a very strong cipher but the chip that does that costs $0.05 instead of $0.03. They could open it up to peer review but they want it secret and they want it by the end of next quarter. They could have the code audited for security but that would take an expensive consultant.
Whoops. Now the cipher can be brute-forced a few years down the road. Whoops, their implementation drops bits of the key when the user does a chosen-plaintext attack. Whoops, there's a buffer overflow in in the firmware of the DRM chip. Now it can be reprogrammed to dump the unencrypted audio stream onto the hard drive.
Big business is never going to change the way it thinks. Their decisions will be based on what will give them good margins this quarter and next, not what will keep them secure for years to come. DRM is in a terrible position because it has to go in consumer electronics, where these pressures are at their worst.
Hur Hur Hur, private key="secret" (Score:5, Insightful)
And uh, where exactly is this private key going to be hidden on a users own machine that they can't find it? This is exactly the fundamental flaw of DRM everyone keeps talking about. If the client can decrypt it, the client can be hacked. For software clients this is no longer even a question. For hardware clients, we're just not sure yet
Note: Things like Palladium which would try to take away a user's "root access" to their system *might* create a platform that could make hard DRM possible, but that's all thoery until it hits the field. (And it's questionable whether customers will swallow that particular cactus bulb. Some folks speculate the only reason many products *cough*DVD*cough* survive today is because customers know they can get around supposed restrictions.)
Re:A Name! (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting (Score:3, Funny)
2. Make software that breaks new version of iTunes
3. Released version that breaks old iTunes
4. Wait for iTunes users to be forced to upgrade
5. Immmediatly release version that breaks new iTunes
6. Impress people
7. ????
8. Profit!
Hire they guy.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Blog Message (Score:5, Informative)
Good for him... (Score:5, Funny)
Any other company would have just had him killed already.
Re:Good for him... (Score:4, Funny)
Just develop a Linux version (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just develop a Linux version (Score:4, Informative)
The largest barrier is that they probably just don't want to do it. It doesn't seem economically sound to me to do so either.
Re:Just develop a Linux version (Score:4, Insightful)
Except for that pesky "economic incentive" thing.
You're suggesting that Apple port iTunes to appease...
1) Linux desktop users, who...
2) aren't buying Apple hardware or Mac OS X or iPods, and...
3) are willing to accept 128kbps AAC files with DRM, and...
4) are already openly and actively circumventing said DRM,and...
5) are already using pymusique to buy from them.
In other words, an absolutely tiny market that is basically opposed to everything else they do, that is already buying.
There's just no reason for Apple to care, no matter how "easy" you seem to think it would be.
Better story (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no fan of DRM, but it's about time SOMEBODY finally has the right goal in mind. Make legitimacy more convenient. I've been paying $10 a month for nearly 2 years now to Rhapsody. Since then, I've made 0 (zero, just in case any of you thought it was a typo.) MP3 downloads. Why? Their subscription service is significantly faster and easier. Okay, subscription's not for everybody, but the price is right and the service beats P2P.
Believe it or not, the *AA can compete with free. I'm looking forward to the day that this is more widely understood. I really want the instant gratification of buying content on-line.
Re:Better story (Score:5, Insightful)
As you say, the ability to conveniently obtain the music you want has driven your MP3 download count to nothing. Removing the DRM from the bought tracks would only strengthen that impulse, as well as extend it to people like me who won't buy unless there is no DRM (though I also won't be buying until the price is at least halved - the current rate remains exorbitant, even compared to CD prices where I live, and downloading shared music is legal here).
Maybe Apple doesn't really care if DRM is broken? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Apple really doesn't want to have to use DRM on it's iTunes downloads, and they write patches that are supposed to fix loopholes and these patches are easily defeated...
Is it conceivable that Apple doesn't care if the patches are easily circumvented? "Yeah, we'll fix something we don't really want, and if you happen to break it, you outfoxed us *wink wink nudge nudge*
Just a thought.
I'll bet they do (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's my theory, anyway.
And I'm never wrong.
Re:Maybe Apple doesn't really care if DRM is broke (Score:4, Insightful)
Breaking the DRM? (Score:4, Informative)
And no, I didn't RTFA
Jeez... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. DVD Jon lives in Norway, where the majority of this stuff, including the release of DeCSS which breaks DVD encoding, is illegal. The court case failed.
2. Nobody broke Apple's DRM. All this does is retreive the music before the iTunes client adds the DRM. How is this possible? Apple's iTunes client adds the DRM because it needs the client to generate the key. Doing it any other way would likely be a tremendous processor increase on the iTunes servers.
3. Apple can sue DVD Jon if they choose, but it will likely do no good.
The way I see it, there's only one safe path for Apple. They should release an iTunes client for Linux along with a statement that any further attempt to block their DRM will be followed up with a lawsuit. Sure, the lawsuit part is either a bluff or a waste of time, but at least they eliminate the "It's just so we can run on Linux" argument.
A lawsuit for what? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't sue someone for connecting to a public server, especially if the intent of use is perfectly legal. You pay for a song, then what does it matter how it is transferred?
Hmm... site down. (Score:4, Funny)
Obligatory "All your bases..." remark (Score:4, Funny)
iTune Dept: Somebody set up us the PyMusique
iTune Dept: We get signal.
Steve J.: What !
iTune Dept: DVD Jon website turn on.
Steve J.: It's you !!
DVD Jon: How are you gentlemen !!
DVD Jon: All your iTune are belong to us.
DVD Jon: You are on the way to bankruptcy.
Steve J.: What you say !!
DVD Jon: You have no chance to survive make your time.
DVD Jon: Ha Ha Ha Ha
iTune Dept: Captain !!*
Steve J.: Break out every 'LandSharks'!!
Steve J.: You know what you doing.
Steve J.: File suit.
Steve J.: For great PROFIT.
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your problem is a business model that is becoming increasingly obsolete. Your solution is not to blacklist pirates, but rather to adapt to a market where people legally buy and download music from the Internet rather than purchasing it at physical record stores. If you can't compete in that market, then it's nobody's fault but your own that your business fails as a result.
Failed businesses are nothing to be ashamed of. But you need to do a cost-benefit analysis of each option in front of you. Among them are continuing as you are, adapting to the new marketplace, pursuing your blacklisting system (which only affects pirates, not lawful downloaders), and bailing out.
And remember: Shit happens.
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:4, Informative)
Here you go:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=83129&thres
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:4, Insightful)
The used music store in my town is thriving. People buy used CDs, "listen to them" for a while, and then sell them back for a fraction of what they paid. The store makes money over and over again on the same merchandise, and even more money when people find music they like and keep the CD. And it's all perfectly legal! For the store owner, anyway. (And for now...)
Companies won't let us "Get over it" (Score:4, Insightful)
In the long run, that is a false option. More and more CDs are copy protected and eventually there will be no more cds made, just as they no longer make LPs. Both the content industry and electronics companies have a vested interest in restricting you from exercising your legal rights under copyright law.
Digital Rights Restriction, such as Apple's ironically named "FairPlay," prevent consumers from exercising their right to copy their music to playback the device of their choice.
Consumers have a number of legal rights that DRR'd music prevents them from exercising, including the right to re-sell their used music. The Doctrine of First Purchase says that you can re-sell copyrighted material without needing permission from the rights holder. This is why used bookstores are legal. And this right to resell still applies to music and digital files, hence the reason that used CD stores are legal.
Consumers have a legal right to re-sell their downloaded music, too, but Apple and other vendors of Digital Rights Restricted music make it technically impossible for consumers to exercise their legal rights under copyright law.
So, it isn't a matter of "Just by a CD or get your music 'somwhere else' and shut up." Fighting the indiscriminate appropriation of consumers legal rights by companies use Digital Rights Restriction technology is an important moral and legal issue
Re:Companies won't let us "Get over it" (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, your "rights" are not being violated by DRM.
Re:Companies won't let us "Get over it" (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed that is one the problems with Digital Rights Restriction, and the DCMA. The DCMA allows companies to Rights Restrict copyrighted works in perpetuity, granting them an illegal end run around the constitutional limits of copyright terms.
In the mean time, it is important that traditional copyrights activists use the correct terminology to describe this restriction on consumer rights, Digital Rights Restriction.
Until we are able to discuss content control systems by an accurate name, we will never be able to have an honest discussion of the issues involved.
Re:Companies won't let us "Get over it" (Score:5, Insightful)
To turn it back on you (forwards to the rest of the world). Copyright's are exclusive rights of the copyright holder including the right to:
1) To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
2) To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
3) To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
4) To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
5) To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
6) In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
So, anything not in this list I'm allowed to do no questions asked. In fact, the only way a copyright holder could (possibly) get me to give up further rights would be to get me to agree the work is being rented, leased etc. rather than being sold [cornell.edu]. (...A dirty trick if pulled off successfully...)
Consumer rights under copyright:
1) First Sale [wikipedia.org], the right to resell something once you're done using it.
2) Fair use [stanford.edu], the right to freely use portions of a work for criticism, parody and the like.
3) Archival [copyright.gov], the right to make backup copies of purchased works.
4) Reverse Engineering [chillingeffects.org], the right to take apart and understand a purchased work.
Perhaps you can see why I think pretending these rights don't exist is coercive at best...
Re:Companies won't let us "Get over it" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Companies won't let us "Get over it" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Companies won't let us "Get over it" (Score:5, Funny)
Wow. All this brand new vinyl I bought the other day must be a figment of my imagination. Time to lay off the acid...
Re:Companies won't let us "Get over it" (Score:5, Insightful)
True. It is. Personally I couldn't care less if they locked up all the music in the world. I am much more worried about the bigger picture, as you say. I don't know if I fight enough. But I write, and I try to inform. But no one listens. Quite frankly, not many of us are fighting the onslaught. No one cares, because they can still sit back in their vinyl chair and watch boobies from satellite with their 55" TV they bought at 22% interest from Best Buy.
Ask anyone not a regular reader of Slashdot what they're doing to send Orrin Hatch a clear message to leave our computers alone. They'll look at you as if you're eyes just fell out. Ask them if they're fighting Trusted Computing. They won't have an inkling of what you're on about. Ask them if they hate the draconian licensing scheme of Windows XP. They don't care. Ask them what the perpetual copyright is doing to our Public Domain... Ask them why we are constantly giving up our individual rights for the rights of a faceless corporation. As long as the mob has their reality TV and buckets of beer, they won't lift a finger.
I wish more of us were proactive. I wish I did more, honestly. The world is in need of some no-doze because the planet's spiraling out of control.
I can only hope the line that wakes up the unwashed masses isn't too far down the road. But, in the smaller picture... it's just music. I don't necessarily give two monkeys about it anyway.
Re:Companies won't let us "Get over it" (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? Today, the iPod may be your device of choice, but what if, tomorrow, a company comes out with a much, much better device. Will you still be happy? You won't if you bought Rights Restricted songs from Apple. Your songs will live and die on that iPod like a caged animal and your investment will forever be tied to Apple's largesse--and the life-span of your iPod. Your argument is like a person in a locked room saying he chooses to stay in the room of his own free will, not realizing that he can't open the door should he ever decide to leave.
The term "Digital Rights Management" is a misnomer. It doesn't let you, the consumer, manage anything. The proper term is Digital Rights Restriction because the technology restricts the ways you are allowed to use your music in ways that copyright law does not allow rights holders to restrict you. You are legally allowed to resell copyrighted material, including digital media like CDs and DVDs. DRR prevents you from exercising your legal rights.
Re:Companies won't let us "Get over it" (Score:5, Insightful)
And before that, it was called "Copy Protection." The language we use to discuss the issue of content control frames the discussion. There is no reason to let the content industry frame the issue with the misleading term "management" just because it works for them. The Orwell inspired name for Microsoft's total system lockdown, "Trusted Computing" is a fine example--and it is the one that Stallman is calling into question with the counter term "Treacherous Computing". Tomorrow the industry may try to say their Rights Restriction technology is Consumer Media Choice technology, and we shouldn't let them get away with that, either.
However, in the case of content control systems Digital Rights Restriction more accurately describe the technology from a consumer perspective. This technology doesn't let consumers manage anything, it manages them by restricting their rights to use their digital media.
Re:Companies won't let us "Get over it" (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now there is not a choice unless you want to pay thousands extra to purchase a single brand closed solution that might ultimately fail or be shut down which would lead to all that music being unusable. You can have the data, you just can have access to it.
I buy CD's because usually they are cheaper for me than buying indivdual songs (everything I listen too is worth buying the whole album.). I take them home, rip to a 256 or 320kbps VBR MP3 and stack the CD along with the thousands of others that I have. It sits there collecting dust because I have a harddrive player in my car, I stream whatever I want to work and I own a portable mp3 player. I have never used P2P to share my music, I checked out some of the stuff on napster about 5 years ago and it was all crap quality so it wasnt worth my time.
Now lets say they stop making CD's. Where does that leave me ?
Lets say they update the itms and/or ipod firmware to only play songs encoded with the "new" codec, where does that leave you ?
You wanna trust them with your data, go ahead. Me ? I am going to keep fighting. If I purchase something I own it and should have the right to do what I want with it.
I would also point out that Jon's work isnt to make the songs work on other mobile devices, thats a side effect. The idea is to allow people who dont use a corporate OS (Windows, MAC) to use the itms. To the best of my knowledge none of the current major label online soulutions offer a "plain jane" high quality mp3, or a way to work with linux. (I might be wrong since I have never tried)
Re:Companies won't let us "Get over it" (Score:5, Funny)
MTV has obtained exclusive contracts such that certain music videos could only be found on MTV.
MTV still plays videos?
Re:Best Solution ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then
Re:rant (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about getting free music. It's about removing restrictions that traditionally haven't been in place on consumer media. DRM of any kind can become an obstruction even during benign activities traditionally protected under fair use. Sure, i COULD burn my DRMed AACs to a CD then re-rip to an MP3 to get my files onto my NOMAD or CD-MP3 player, but it's a pain in the rear and I'm going to lose my tag info. If there weren't restrictions on the files, that would be a non-issue.
Yes, Apple's DRM is less obtrusive than most, but it still locks you out from things you've traditionally been allowed to do. And that's simply not OK.
Re:More power to you, Jon! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't want to then fine... wait until you upgrade your computer and find that DRM has locked you out because you 'copied' the files to the new one.
Re:More power to you, Jon! (Score:5, Insightful)
* Copy music to the playback device of my choice.
* Re-sell a product I have purchased (selling a book second hand is legal. Selling second-hand music is also legal. See Doctrine of First Purchase for more details).
Anyone that gives me back my legal rights, is someone who deserves encouraging.
Re:More power to you, Jon! (Score:5, Informative)
A tip for you and others just in case you didn't know about this company. [magnatune.com]
Re:More power to you, Jon! (Score:4, Funny)
Because its yuppie-chic?
More power to you, Jon, and I stand by that! (Score:5, Interesting)
The music industry is plagued by an enormous problem of legacy. Creativity has been stifled by the labels' continuing drive towards commercialization. We have "artists" like Gwen Stefani releasing cover after cover, first covering Talk Talk's It's My Life then covering If I Were A Rich Man from Fiddler on the Roof, and both covers are atrocious. These are examples of an industry which is creatively bankrupt and where profit is the bottom line. It seems like nowadays the only place you can find creativity is in underground music, before the industry has commercialized and destroyed it.
Music needs a new distribution model, one where the artist is in the driver's seat and has complete creative control over their work. The Internet has rendered traditional music labels obsolete, they're aware of this, and they're fighting their eventual downfall tooth and nail. They will lose.
DRM is based around cryptographically unsound principles. In order to play DRM encrypted music you need the encrypted content and the key on your local system. Given this you have everything you need to unlock the encrypted data, it's only through obfuscation in the client that the key is hidden.
Eventually the industry will have to come to terms with this fact and the fact that their distribution model is antequated and obsolete. We need people to continue proving DRM is an unsound technology so eventually they give up on it entirely.
I also support Jon, but this is basically Offtopic (Score:4, Insightful)
But Gwen is now exactly who she wanted to be. She has become the rich, famous, self-centered girl she always was, only now she's actually rich and famous. That which allowed her fans to empathize with her, and her with her fans, is gone. And in it's place are terrible covers of If I Were a Rich Man (I didn't think It's My Life was that bad), and vaccuous cameos in Kid Rock videos. I don't think this happened because she lost control over her music, so much as the change in lifestyle which comes with money made her lose connection with her audience.
A similar problem struck Alanis Morisette. Radio overplay aside, Alanis had always composed music because she was unhappy. And her audience responded to this. Enough people responded, that soon she was rich, successful, and gave her the power to solve her problems and make herself happy. Which she did. And she lost the drive to make music. Eventually she found it again (she gives a great interview about this), but because she was no longer singing about being tortured, she lost the audience that had that connection with her.
Most artists don't survive the transition from poor no-name slob to rich superstar simply because they sing about their experiences, and their experiences go from things everyone can relate to, to experiences very few people on the planet have. What would Bill Gates sing about that any of us here would connect to? Compiler woes? Kobain was highly relatable up until the end simply because he suffered the entire time. Dr Dre still raps about the kids in the hood and yelling at his grandma on the front porch, despite the fact that he owns million dollar mansions and essentially lives like an investment banker for talent.
The point is that the problems with the music industry that you had pointed out are not so much with legacy, but money. Too much money and too much success will destroy pretty much any artist. Even overthrowing the big 5 wouldn't change that.
Re:More power to you, Jon, and I stand by that! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because encryption for my personal privacy doesn't infringe on any of your rights whereas DRM infringes yours, mine and everyone elses rights to copy for personal backup, right of resale (doctrine of first sale), right to timeshift and right to reverse engineer for interoperability.
Your arguments and contrasting of issues are not congruent.
Re:More power to you, Jon, and I stand by that! (Score:4, Informative)
I personally don't for various reasons, however you shouldn't rail those who do for standing up for their rights. That being said, on to the show:
As a content owner, how can I be sure you've deleted the copy you owned when you "sell" it to your friend?
You can't, however if you suspect me of breaking the law on your copyright sue me. Innocent until proven guilty my friend.
They'd just be downloading it for free in the first place, regurgitating something they read on slashdot about a "dying business model" justifying their behavior.
In the states this is a big issue and I agree it is morally wrong however where I live, in Canada, it's a bit different. I pay a levy on all my blank media to prop up the dying recording giants. I figure if I'm going to have to pay them so I can back up my hard drive and burn linux distro ISOs then I'm going to get a little something from them. You can try to argue this point with me all you wish, but if I'm giving them money for essentially nothing then I want something in return.
And in the case of iTunes Music Store, you can
- copy for personal backup, including burning to CD in an uncompressed, non-DRM format
- "timeshift" the content (which is admittedly meaningless in this context)
- however, iTunes Music Store's license (fuck the DMCA) prohibits reverse engineering
Since you're able to copy for personal backup to an unencumbered format I don't really have a problem with iTMS as the rest of the rights can effectively be done from that unencumbered format. Right to Timeshift means more than just playback at a later time and does apply here. It means allowing playback on other devices, for example: CD music copied to cassette tape for play in non-CD equipped cars.
Right of reverse engineering for interoperability means the interoperability of the copyright work, not the distribution medium. In this case interoperability for the music to play on non-ipod/non-itunes players. I'm not sure if Apple is legally allowed to restrict interoperability of the iTMS protocols or not as IANAL.
Re:More power to you, Jon! (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFA: the "back door" doesn't strip out the DRM. It merely lets you play it on Linux - if you want to get it, you need to buy it.
As iTunes already allows you burn purchased tracks to CD (allowing them to be ripped into MP3s according to the article), all this does is allow you to play music you purchase. After all, what are the odds that the music you steal is DRM'd when there's so much un-DRM'd music to steal instead?
All this is doing, as far as I can see, is filling a hole in the market by producing a player that works under Linux. Heck, they're not even releasing a Windows version - Windows already has a free-as-in-beer player in iTunes.
Re:More power to you, Jon! (Score:5, Insightful)
people have been broken. they are weak and without principles.
that's why most refer to themselves as "consumers" these days.
Re:More power to you, Jon! (Score:5, Insightful)
You certainly don't have to buy it, nor use it (especially since using without buying it would be stealing it), but frankly I don't think it's your place or anyone else's to tell people not to subvert it. People have a moral right, and perhaps a duty, to work to subvert things they think are unjust. And while I personally don't really feel that FairPlay is terribly unjust, I have a certain amount of understanding for those that do. If you want to argue morals, fine--but as someone who otherwise agrees with you, I take offense to the suggestion that people should not actively work against causes they find repressive.
If people think it's wrong, they're going to do their best to subvert it (regardless of what 'it' is). And as long as they're doing it from countries where this subversion is legal (ones without DMCA-like laws, in the case of DRM) then
Re:More power to you, Jon! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it does. Their business model is based on "First Sale Doctrine" and that model is moot in a digital world where the cost of reproduction is esentially zero. And so they are attempting to create new laws in congress so that they can sustain their business model. I believe Robert Heinlein put it best:
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit.
The copyright owners own the content, period, and get to decide how it's used, by whom, and under what conditions, whether you like it or not.
Wrong! Try reading the Constitution sometime. Once a work is published it is by its very nature a public work. They government grants the origiator a limited time copyright and with it come certain restictions and allowances. The inablity to resell or otherwise use the work in personal ways is beyond the scope of the granted copyright. These technologies are attempts to add restrictions to these works so that they become the sole distributor and "Second Sale" and personal use become impossible.
They don't have to encrypt the music. Apple is well within its rights to sell the music in the ways it sees fit on its own service.
Yes they are, and I am well within my rights under the constitution to place that music on phonogragh, tape, eight track, cd and any and all music playing devices I own.
Additionally, this argument is worthless, because even if it was encrypted, you'd be on the side of arguing that it's ok to break the encryption.
If GM sold cars with that only accepted gas from GM gas pumps and I removed their gas tap and replaced it with a standard gas tap, would I be breaking the law?
If you don't believe in copyright, licenses, or "trade secrets"
This isn't about doing away with copyrights and licenses completely. Its about returning to what copyright laws original intent was "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" and not to line the pockets of the middle men over and over again.
Oh, I forgot, those things only apply to the things you want it to, not corporate interests.
Please read the eighth section of the first article of the constitution I don't see anything in there about corporate interests. What I do see is the promoting of scientific progress and useful arts which are clearly public interests.
Re:Why are we proud of this guy? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. bring up some other hero to make the topic of this story seem insignificant? CHECK
2. act unimpressed by his hack? CHECK
3. try to make a metaphor relating computer software to killing people? CHECK
and finally...
4. try to impose your rules on others based on wild assumptions? priceless
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This Is NOT to Be Applauded (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps it's more like bringing your own tupperware with you when you go to the restaurant, so that you can take the food with you and eat it anywhere you want.
Re:This Is NOT to Be Applauded (Score:5, Insightful)
And Rosa Parks knew what she was getting into when she refused to give up her seat on the bus. Knowing that your are going to have your rights violated by a business does not mean that you have no right to complain. Your not suggesting that Rosa Parks should have moved to the back of the bus because |She knew what she was getting into| are you?
"Creating these hacks is really like taking the silverware and plates out of a restaurant when you know you are really paying just for the food."
No, it is like taking the onions off your burger when you know that the menu shows the burger WITH onions.
"It's so hypocritical how slashdot really realy really hates GPL violators, but cheers something like this."
This is nonsensical. Most people that hate GPL violators, hate them because the GPL violators are performing the same act as the DRR (Digital Rights Restriction) groups are doing. Building their projects on the shoulders of those that came before, then trying to stop anyone else from doing the same. It's not about honoring or breaking a license. It's about submitting an idea to society, then trying to control the idea, even if it means that part of our culture is lost to future generations.
Fox Movie Channel [thefoxmoviechannel.com] tells why DRM/DRR is a catastrophy in the making.. "Sadly, 90% of films made during the silent era are gone, due to neglect or chemical decomposition. 50% of films made before 1950 have suffered a similar fate." Much of our cultural history was lost. Now that we have ways for millions of people to help stop this from happening again, DRR shows up, and we are faced with it all happening again.
Re:Whack a mole (Score:5, Insightful)
[Record Labels, to Apple] Sorry, you can't guarantee security with your store, so we won't license the music to you anymore.
Re:Yes, more power to you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Like I said earlier today, I could buy music from the iTunes store, which comes in a mediocre sound quality (compared to DRM-free CDs), in a format that doesn't work with my portable music player. Then I could burn it to a CD, then rip the CD into another lossy format to lose even more quality, all just so I could use the music like I want to. Honestly, it would be a lot easier to just obtain the music illegally, because I'm not gonna run out and buy an iPod or sit at my computer all day. To be honest, I've decided to stick to CDs for now.
To keep the ease of use and freedom we already have with music, we have to recognize this DRM for what it is: a power grab. Anybody with half a brain can see it is pretty much just as easy to share music you rip off a CD as it is to share music you've downloaded. Whether you consider the DRM a hassle or not, there is no doubt that you are losing control you once had. Why would you want to pander to these people and their anti-consumer goals?
The way I see it, the music labels themselves are hurting online legal music, because I would be buying singles and so on, if I didn't get less rights and more hassle out of it. As far as I'm concerned, they can just not have my money, you know? I'm not going to encourage what they are doing. Hurting the iTunes music store or this kind of locked up DRM business model doesn't seem so bad.
As for the people cracking these DRM schemes, well, its not necessarily illegal, depending on how free of a nation you live in. It's hard for me to see it is inherantly unethical either. It's not like the music is being being taken without paying.
DRM threatens everybody (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it only hurts schemes that rely on DRM. It doesn't hurt on-line music sales that don't rely on DRM.
After all, we can't just NOT BUY THE SONGS if we don't like the DRM, right?
The existence of DRM still threatens me because as long as people erroneously believe that they can make DRM work, they will be trying to put all sorts of bogus technological protections in my hardware.
So, I don't buy DRM'ed music, but I still consider it very important, and applaud, that people break the hokey DRM schemes that companies try to build business models around.
If they looked at it sanely (Score:4, Interesting)
The key advantage to online sales is cutting out a lot of middle men and the convenience to customers that allows them to buy when the desire is there rather than having to go to a shop. IE they can reduce the cost of distributing their merchandise and increase it's accessibility and value to customers.
The labels are insane for buying into this DRM snake-oil. It will never be significantly effective and the degree to which it is defective inevitably makes the very product they are selling less valuable to the paying consumer.
On average I used to buy 3+ CDs a month. When they came out with "copy controlled" CDs that would not work with my Network Walkman (or laptop, or Xbox etc) I simply stopped buying any CDs thus afflicted (with the single exception of Radiohead's "Hail To The Thief" as I was seeing them in concert and thought it would be good to know the album properly beforehand). Fortunatly there are still some labels who haven't gone down this road but I am buying far less now.
Re:An arms race (Score:4, Insightful)
Any signature on a music file can be trivially bypassed by flipping a bit, thus rendering the any signature system useless.
There may be other ways to implement some sort of music check, but they would all be just as easily bypassed. How can a server possibly determine whether an mp3/aac/whatever is one that has been ripped from a cd, or downloaded/bought from iTunes, or from somewhere else completely?
Re:An arms race (Score:5, Informative)
I'm going to mention it here but someone else has already brought up the so sue me title...
The title of the blog was So Sue Me long before Jon went after iTunes Music Store like this. It's not something he's saying to Apple, ever since the DVD DMCA thing he has had this blog titled that way. Don't get the idea he's got that title in there JUST to spite Apple.
Re:An arms race (Score:4, Insightful)
Will you please stop propagating this nonsense?
The DRM is not about placating the music companies, and it never was. For Apple, it is about platform lock-in. The DMCA gives Apple the ability to lock out competition by a means that, although technically trivial to circumvent, is now illegal to hack in any way. At least in the USA, land of the free, where you can't do certain things with stuff you've paid for.
Re:Thanks! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Except one thing... (Score:4, Insightful)