Slashdot Log In
"DVD Jon" Reverse Engineers FairPlay
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Oct 02, 2006 02:02 PM
from the double-twist-of-fate dept.
from the double-twist-of-fate dept.
breun writes to bring us up to date on the doings of Jon Lech Johansen, known as "DVD Jon" after he cracked CSS encryption at the age of 15. As reported by GigaOM's Liz Gannes, Johansen has now reverse-engineered Apple's FairPlay DRM — but not to crack it. Instead Johansen's company, DoubleTwist Ventures, wants to license the tech to media companies shut out by Apple from playing their content on the iPod. And, soon, on the iTV. Johansen could end up selling a lot of hardware for Apple.
Related Stories
[+]
DVD Jon's DoubleTwist Unlocks the iPod 377 comments
An anonymous reader writes, "On the 5-year anniversary of the iPod, Fortune Magazine has an article called Unlocking the iPod about Jon Lech Johansen's new venture. Slashdot briefly covered DoubleTwist earlier this month, and those of you who complained that he was not enabling iPod competitors to play FairPlay files will be happy to learn that according to the Fortune article he will also be going after the hardware market." From the article: "As [Johansen] and Farantzos explain DoubleTwist in a conference room they share with several other companies, he points to a sheet of printer paper tacked on the wall that has a typed quote Jobs gave the Wall Street Journal in 2002: 'If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own.' As Johansen sees it, Jobs didn't follow through on this promise, so it's up to him to fix the system... Johansen has written [two] programs...: one that would let other companies sell copy-protected songs that play on the iPod, and another that would let other devices play iTunes songs."
[+]
iPod Cracked, But Does it Matter? 370 comments
Bennett Haselton writes "The Associated Press is
writing
that "DVD Jon", known for breaking the copying restrictions on DVDs, plans
to market a method for breaking the copy protection on songs purchased from
iTunes Music. What's missing from the story is the fact that converting
iTunes music into unrestricted formats like MP3 is already trivial. In
principle it's impossible to prevent music from being copied anyway,
because a user can always play a song through an audio output jack and use
another device to record the sound; there are several other methods that
work by reducing the same principle to practice. Bottom line: there's no
reason yet to get excited about the iTunes-cracking technology (and,
indeed, no reason to buy an iPod), when you can already convert songs this
way." Bennett's full article on the subject is available below.
[+]
Norway Outlaws iTunes 930 comments
haddieman notes that while many people are getting more and more annoyed at DRM, Norway actually did something about it. The PC World article explains: "Good intentions, questionable execution. European legislators have been giving DRM considerable attention for a while, but Norway has actually gone so far as to declare that Apple's iTunes store is illegal under Norwegian law.
The crux of the issue is that the Fairplay DRM that is at the heart of the iTunes/iPod universe doesn't work with anything else, meaning that if you want access to the cast iTunes library, you have to buy an iPod."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
"DVD Jon" Reverse Engineers FairPlay
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 299 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
*sniff*.. *sniff*. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://globalhopping.blogspot.com/)
Oh that's right.. a lawsuit.
Hold on to your hats boys and girls, its going to get fun.
Re:*sniff*.. *sniff*. (Score:5, Interesting)
How will it work here? A court says DVD JON stop it, that's apple technology they worked hard to make. A court says APPLE CHILL OUT, DVD JON is going to let other MP3 players play FAIRPLAY files and non-Ipod owners will spend their money on your iTunes store.
I'm sure apple would love to sell more iPods, but then again, they could end up selling more music.
I predict lawsuits myself, the legal department will feel the need to get them going if only to prove to the bosses that they are doing productive work for the company.
iTMS gives the iPod legitimacy. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://kadin.sdf-us.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 16, @01:46PM)
If Apple really was interested in running an online music venture and making their money there -- as in, really having that be their core business -- they would have tried to license out FairPlay as widely as possible and make it a de facto standard. (Which it already practically is, without licensing; given that the iPod is the de facto standard MP3 player.)
However, since the iTMS is really only there to grant legitimacy to the iPod as a device (does anyone remember how the music industry was screaming bloody murder about iPods being "piracy machines" back before the music store existed?), it makes no sense for them to share this "excuse" with anyone else's MP3 players. They benefit more from a consumer who buys an iPod than they do from a consumer who buys a few iTMS songs -- you'd have to buy a LOT of music to give Apple the same amount of profit that they get from a single iPod, and most people don't buy that much.
I think you'll see Apple go after this in the courts if it can, or just start a vicious cycle of "upgrades" and "enhancements" to the format if it can't.
Re:iTMS gives the iPod legitimacy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I disagree - they didn't license out to protect the market as it was growing, if they had attempted to license early it could easily have meant the death of their format. Licensing out to the likes of Microsoft and their hardware partners would leave them forced to play along with multiple implementations of their DRM, possibly even dealing with outright sabotage (see Java in MS Windows) to undermine their position. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. By building a strong monolithic market first, they're in a perfect position to open up licensing and make a killing, and no-one can challenge their position at this point as the one who sets the standards.
In fact there's going to be far more money in online media when it takes off than there will ever be in gadgets - once people don't bother buying physical media the market will be huge; owning the most widely licensed DRM will be very profitable. For now though the money is in the gadgets.
Re:*sniff*.. *sniff*. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:*sniff*.. *sniff*. (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://moofie.lastcoolnameleft.com/)
Golly. It's almost like neither political party has our best interests at heart. Who'd a thunk it?
It does sound fun. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday October 30, @10:59AM)
Why do I... (Score:2, Funny)
Worse (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Saturday February 25 2006, @11:02PM)
He is so getting sued & this time his home country's laws will not protect him.
TFA does make an interesting point: he isn't stripping DRM, he's adding it... but isn't that exactly what Apple is licensing?
Re:Worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Do these people not get it? In the U.S., the government doesn't fuck around--they WILL kick your door down, take your computers, and drag you off to jail if they suspect you're up to something (or some company or other government agency tells them you are). Hell, they'll drag you out of the airport if you even LAND here. And they don't give a shit about it causing an international incident, either (really, how much lower could the U.S. sink in international opinion than it already has).
-Eric
Re:Why do I... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://das.doit.wisc.edu/)
Hey, you were the one who made yourself look like a tool when you posted what you did...these issues couldn't possibly be more unrelated, and just as Apple did nothing to Real (because it can't), nothing will happen to DVD Jon. Sorry to disappoint.
Real already did this (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://das.doit.wisc.edu/)
With each successive iPod update, Apple can keep breaking Harmony. Sure, they can come back and "fix" it again, only for it to be broken again.
Besides which, anyone can sell or deliver content on Apple's iPod now:
- They can deliver it in any number of media formats without DRM (since DRM is so evil, right?)
- If they really want DRM, any music provider not currently affiliated with a major label can distribute on iTunes to iPod via services like this [cdbaby.net]
So, if we're to believe the putative reasons that FairPlay has been "reverse-engineered", it is actually to specifically enable and further the usage of DRM.
Is this what the people who would applaud DVD Jon actually want? More DRM, and DRM that won't be guaranteed to work (in fact, will almost be guaranteed to NOT work) the next time an update comes out from the vendor, at that?
Re:Real already did this (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://das.doit.wisc.edu/)
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, Apple isn't utterly retarded like Microsoft, doing things like making "PlaysForSure" content NOT work on their own devices, and doing other ridiculous and confusing things with DRM. Apple's DRM is unobtrusive enough to most customers that most customers DON'T CARE, and will NEVER "get screwed" by it. Period.
Note I said "most". And ultimately, that's all that counts.
Also, DRM isn't necessarily intrinsically evil. I know there's a lot of belief here that copyright law is hopelessly corrupted, content owners are greedy bastards, the laws surrounding DRM are horrid, and I could go on and on. And all of that may be true. But as long as there is some level of legal protection for someone who generates content and/or their agents, or their agent's agents, or trade groups that represent them, etc., there is nothing intrinsically wrong with using some level of technological means to protect that content from misappropriation under the current body of legal frameworks that cover such use. Everyone who buys content from, e.g., iTunes, knows exactly what the restrictions are. No one is forcing them to buy it.
DRM will never die. Shitty, overly restrictive DRM that pisses off massive amounts of customers will die. But "DRM" in general won't.
Re:Real already did this (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.hansprestige.com/ | Last Journal: Friday September 14, @04:25PM)
Close: they know what the restrictions are right now. They don't know what the restrictions will be tomorrow or next year. Apple has, in fact, issued updates to iTunes to tighten the restrictions on music that had already been purchased, and they may very well do so again in the future.
Re:Real already did this (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://das.doit.wisc.edu/)
Um, examples, please? Are you talking about things like being able to burn one playlist 7 consecutive times instead of 10? (Even though you can just make one change to the playlist, change it back, and then burn again?) Other than that, I am not aware of any changes that makes Apple's DRM more restrictive, unless you're talking about the waaaaay-old changes to iTunes that disabled the ability to do music sharing via IP (as opposed to only on your local subnet, the way it is now), which had nothing to do with DRM, or the syncing changes in iTunes 2.0, which again had nothing to with with DRM, or disallowing music from easily being downloaded by others (as opposed to streamed) via iTunes, which, again, had nothing to do with DRM.
As I said in another post, Apple has actually been making their DRM more lenient: you can now two-way sync any iPod with any iTunes libraries on computers that are authorized on the same iTunes account (and you can have up to five computers and an unlimited number of iPods, which is how it's always been). Previously, you could have an iPod associated with only one music library; now you can easily keep all libraries in sync across multiple computers and multiple iPods.
While your point stands in general with regard to DRM, Apple has not introduced any new restrictions that fundamentally limit what you can do, and instead has removed limitations that previously existed.
Microsoft has done precisely the opposite, even introducing a new music player that doesn't play its *own* ironically-branded PlaysForSure content. (And to others reading this, no it wasn't just a rumor or misunderstanding...Zune really won't play PlaysForSure content, and vice versa: http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/14/the-engadget-i
Re:Real already did this (Score:4, Insightful)
All of those changes and restrictions are made possible only because of DRM. So it does actually have everything to do with DRM. Then there's the point that, regardless of what Apple has done so far, it is entirely possible and legal for them to add restrictions at any time on media that you have already purchased. So the GP post was correct that while you may know what the restrictions are now, you have no way of knowing what they'll be tomorrow.
Re:Real already did this (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Yes, it is the iTunes software that has the behavior irrespective of whether the file has DRM.
However it is the DRM that prevents you from bypassing the iTunes software and its behavior by using some other software that does not have the same limitations.
Thus while the behavior is part of the software, it is the DRM that restricts you to using that particular software, and thus turns a behavior into a restriction. Thus any changes in iTunes behavior in the future is made into a future restriction by DRM and DRM alone.
I have a hard time believing you don't actually understand this.
So, we can only go on Apple's track record, which has so far been positive and has included negotiating aggressively with content owners for the least restrictive DRM possible.
Right, as I say in another post, they have found a very nice compromise. Who knows if this is temporary or not, and the whole point is that because of DRM -- and only because of DRM -- we are subsequent to any future changes thay make whether they are nice or not.
Way to go, kid! (Score:1, Interesting)
(http://www.vicvegas.com/)
And watch.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple will snarl and bite yet another hand. Anyone that thinks Apple is consumer friendly is an idiot.
Snarl!! Bite!! (Score:5, Funny)
They'll do more than snarl and bite. I just saw a bunch of sinister looking stealth UAV's loaded to capacity with Norvegian-nerd-seeking lawyer-missiles and Apple logos painted on their wings jetting off from our local Air Force base. They were heading in the direction of San Francisco.
Selling for Apple? (Score:2)
(http://seenonslash.com/ | Last Journal: Friday May 11 2007, @04:02PM)
How's that? If Apple doesn't sell hardware they don't make money. If they don't make money from the hardware they won't be selling content. They only offer the content to profit from their own hardware. Am i missing something?
Confused (Score:5, Funny)
That sound your just heard is thousands of Slashdotter heads asploding.
The drama abounds... Who will Apple sue first? Will anyone be brave enough to buy a third-party implementation of FairPlay? Will Apple try to thwart this by monkeying with FairPlay to cause compatibility problems, leading to a game of cat and mouse?
Ton o Bricks time... (Score:2)
(http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/)
B: They can keep tweaking the format. Having every iPod upgrade break your music and you'll quickly stop buying it.
Re:Ton o Bricks time... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://leebenningfield.net/)
You have that completely backwards. Apple's profit margin on the iPod is huge compared to what they're making on iTunes downloads...
Suuuure (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://homestarrunner.com/)
I'm sure Apple will see it that way.
This is yet another example of why DRM is nothing more than a snakeoil-based totally flawed concept. You CANNOT turn the concept of public key cryptography upside down like that. All DRM does is have you create a keypair (or create one for you and send you the private key), then it encrypts media using your public key before it gets to you. Great, except they have to (1) keep the private key accessable to their programs/devices that need to decrypt it and (2) keep it completely away from you (the "owner" of the key) and any other programs that could use it to decrypt media without following their silly restrictions.
Keep trying to hide it in software, keep trying to hide it in hardware, as long as debuggers, logic probes, and soldering irons are available to the general public, someone will always get it. And it only takes one to make it completely pointless. After that there will be a software or hardware solution available to anyone to do the same thing. Or more to the point, the un-drmed media will be in the wild.
Close the analog hole? Trying to force everyone to upgrade to monitors, sound cards (and speakers), TVs, etc. just to restrict what they can do will backfire as well. Eventually people will figure out that there is no benefit to upgrading all this stuff. And let's be honest with outselves, most of the really cool features of Vista have been canceled, it is nothing more than XP + DRM with some OSX eye candy thrown in to make it seem different. OSX is not much better, try loading a debugger while the DVD player app is running. Or even taking a screenshot.
Nobody is waking up going "geeze, my PC, Tivo, DVD burner, and VCR can do way too much, I really wish I could pay a lot more for devices that prevent a lot of the use that is available to me now".
Wow, I guess I really needed to go off on a DRM rant. I feel better.
Finkployd
Re:Suuuure (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Not just public key crypto, but crypto itself.
Cryptography is concerned with making it so that Alice can send a message to Bob, without Charlie being able to read it even if he intercepts the message en route.
DRM is concerned with the same thing, except Bob and Charlie are actually the same person.
In crypto, both the sender and intended recipient are assumed to be trusted (or more precisely does not try to deal with the case where they are not). In DRM, the intended recipient is assumed to be untrustworthy. DRM pretends to be an extension/application of crypto, but it fundamentally breaks the most basic assumptions of cryptography.
Wrong way to approach this... (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://www.gnolaum.com/)
Talk to me when DVD Job offers other MP3 player manufactures that ability to use a FairPlay DRM'd song on there own MP3 player. That is the lock in I would like to eliminate (and apple wants to keep).
May be non-news... (Score:4, Insightful)
The iPod can play non-DRM'd media formats, in mp3, non-FairPlay AAC, etc...
If content from other music stores can't play on the iPod, it's not Apple's fault. It's their own fault, most probably because of the RIAA, for clinging to their own proprietary DRM.
On the other hand, it is Apple's(and the RIAA's) fault that iTMS content cannot play on other devices, and this is why we really need a way to strip FairPlay DRM.
It looks like this technology just benefits the record companies, who want to force all their music licensees into developing proprietary DRM technologies that make every single media device mutually incompatible with every other one.
Sigh.
Luckily, this is old news - Johansen had already circumvented the FairPlay encryption algorithm. He just wanted to develop something which was marketable to other music stores who want to compete with iTMS and who have the RIAA's proverbial gun to their heads. This seems like good news for everyone but the people who are buying the music, and (as I see it) the people who create it, who are tethered to an unfair distribution model.
For those that didn't RTFM (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.valerieandevi.be/)
Apple saved from Anti-trust in europe (Score:4, Interesting)
DoubleTwist (Score:2, Interesting)
Now finish the job (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://burndive.blogspot.com/)
The next step would be to reverse engineer the iPod, so that you can play iTMS tracks on your Zune or iRiver or whatever other device is out there.
As long as the DRM on these other players works just as well as the iPod, the only thing that changes is that the single-vendor lock-in that Apple has worked so hard to create gets shattered. This is good for the consumer, and may perhaps be what finally moves DRM from the "evil" category over to "annoyance" in the mind of consumers, thus increasing the market size.
Only an idiot would voluntarily lock themselves in to a single vendor (Apple, Zune Marketplace) if they had the choice. PlaysForSure was Microsoft's shot at creating an open marketplace for players along with an open market for media players, which, if DRM must exist, is the best market situation from the consumer perspective: you get to pick the best music store (or several of them) and the best player (or several of them). Music and players are interchangeable commodities.
I still don't like the fact that downloaded music is licensed in stead of purchased (as with a CD), but if all DRM were made interoperable (as France recently tried to do), the difference would be tolerable.
I still plan on purchasing CDs for the foreseeable future, but this developement is definitely welcome.
Think Different! (Score:2)
This will not stand in court (Score:2)
Nice work though...
Swedes Don't Care (Score:1)
Useless (Score:2)
content sellers - yeah we'll just start up a company to compete with the ITMS selling the exact same thing they do...NOT
content owners - a lot easier and cheaper just to let ITMS sell your stuff for you
hardware vendor - no good, making your device play ITMS files is a 100% DCMA / copyright violation...doesnt matter if you can make it play on your device, its not liscenced for your device
basiclly he created his own version of fairplay which can not legally interoperate with Apple's so it could only be used to create a smaller, less capable, DRM ecosystem