Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

DVD Jon's DoubleTwist Unlocks the iPod

Posted by kdawson on Mon Oct 23, 2006 04:02 PM
from the making-good-on-steve's-promise dept.
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] "DVD Jon" Reverse Engineers FairPlay 299 comments
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.
[+] 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by justinbach (1002761) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:06PM (#16550958) Homepage
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this constitute a blatant violation via reverse-engineering of the Fairplay DRM? I'm not saying I disagree with his actions, I'm just asking the question...
    • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia (6573) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:19PM (#16551160) Homepage
      Thankfully he's not from the United States so it doesn't apply to him or anyone outside of US borders.
      • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)

        by strider44 (650833) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:30PM (#16551322)
        He's currently living in the US though (in San Francisco, according to Wikipedia), so it could very quickly apply to him.
      • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)

        by TubeSteak (669689) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:32PM (#16551374) Journal
        Umm.. but he's living in California and that's where his new startup company is incorporated.

        Here's what the previous /. linked article said about his whereabouts:
        Twenty-two-year-old Johansen moved to San Francisco to work with Monique Farantzos, who had contacted him after reading a Wall Street Journal profile of him last fall. The two now live in the Mission District and devote their time to DoubleTwist Ventures, which is Johansen's first major attempt at commercializing his hacking. They haven't raised any outside money because they have already found at least one (undisclosed) paying customer.


        What I'm more interested in is how he plans to provide the backend authentication scheme that lets you authenticate and deauthenticate certain computers from your DVDJohn-iTunes account. There's a lot of 'other' stuff going on beyond just converting files to FairPlay.
    • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)

      by MobyDisk (75490) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:23PM (#16551230) Homepage
      I think it would be funny if his inventions couldn't be sold in the US, but could be sold everywhere else. Maybe Kim Jong II would wear one, smug in his knowledge that the device is illegal in the US.
      • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)

        by soft_guy (534437) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:52PM (#16551696)
        Since his inventions have been software, I think I would pass on seeing Kim Jong Il wearing one. Emporer's New Clothes and all that.
      • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)

        by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice @ g m a i l . c om> on Monday October 23 2006, @04:40PM (#16551508)
        In short, no. In long, I wish Slashdotters would actually read the laws that they assume 'protects' them before commenting on them. Sheesh, Im not even American and I bet I know more about American Copyright Law than most American Slashdotters, purely because I read it before discussing it. Hint - Fair Use is not as wide ranging as some on this site seem to believe, even leaving the DMCA out of the equation for simplicities sake.
      • Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kinglink (195330) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:47PM (#16551630)
        define legally acquired. No really do it. Do you mean buying it on a CD and using it on something you created yourself. Your fine.

        However realize when you buy an Ipod, you're agreeing to use it the way Apple says you can. That means no changing it so it suddenly plays videos if it didn't before. You can, they likely won't hurt you, but the device itself has an agreement somewhere built into it.

        On the other hand do you mean the music you download from Itunes? Read the licensing agreements and other agreements regarding music you buy from it. I don't own either thing (Itunes song or an Ipod) But I'm sure both limits the way you're allowed to use the item.

        To my knowledge the Itunes song is licensed to you, for your use with itunes and Ipods. You arn't buying the song, you're buying a license to use it how they decide you can use it. Similar to Microsoft Windows (you might own the software and the CD key, neither really doesn't cost much, but the license to use Microsoft windows is what costs 100+ dollars, which is why your university might sell you it for 5 bucks. Because they sell you parts, but after you leave the school you lose the license. Again will they do anything? Probably not.)

        As someone else said, if we talked ethically and morally we could argue this, but this is part of a licensing agreement you agree to when you create your accounts or make your purchases.
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:19PM (#16551146) Journal
    {IANAL and other disclaimers here}
    The best thing about DVD Jon's work is that it proves, disturbingly and resoundingly, that the current *AA business model based on DRM is at best faulty, and at worst an attack on fair use and civil liberties. While that sounds a bit over the top, imagine a world where there were no DVD Jon's to show that the big corporations locks can be picked. Imagine a world where the emporer's new clothes were never laughed at?

    The point being that this only serves to help illuminate, in the minds of lawmakers, how feeble the current DRM schemes and laws really are, whether the work is ultimately found illegal or not.
    • ``The best thing about DVD Jon's work is that it proves, disturbingly and resoundingly, that the current *AA business model based on DRM is at best faulty, and at worst an attack on fair use and civil liberties.''

      Or, alternatively, it proves that DRM alone isn't going to stop people from doing illegal things with content, and we need to crack down on tools made to circumvent the DRM to protect the *AA's interests.

      And since the government holds the interests of the corporations over civil rights, it's the latter interpretation that gets used, and we get the DMCA, which is then globally enforced, because the USA is currently King of the Hill.
  • Serves 'em right. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ottffssent (18387) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:37PM (#16551472)
    I'm sure this makes me unpopular, but I'm going to say it anyway. Anyone who buys DRM'd music is either an idiot or ignorant, and it's a shame so few of them have learned their lesson yet. In this case, you're paying for a vague not-a-promise that you can probably listen to the music now and if you're really lucky you'll be able to listen in the future.

    If music really needed DRM to be a profitable business, I wouldn't still be able to buy CDs. So the only reason I can buy a CD and turn it into MP3s yet can't buy those MP3s to start with is because some jackass in a skyscraper either doesn't understand his own business or is trying really hard to pretend not to.

    That should get some discussion going.
    • by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Monday October 23 2006, @04:14PM (#16551084) Homepage
      Good thing we don't base our lives around things said in the Constitution in the 1700s, eh?
    • Re:niave (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gardyloo (512791) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:16PM (#16551108)
      If we held all companies responsible for promises from their CEOs no company would ever stand up to it.

          Agreed. And yet, imagine if there was a company which *did* keep promises. Those promises, over time, might actually MEAN something.
    • Hmmmm. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CyberLord Seven (525173) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:22PM (#16551208)
      Just because it's corporately and governmentally acceptable to encumber devices with DRM may mean it's legal, but it doesn't mean it's right.

      After all, "WE THE PEOPLE" grant "creators" the temporary right to restrict others from copying their work. We in no way, shape, or form grant a permanent right to restrict others from copying works. So, what happens at the end of "the temporary right"? I mean, will iPods suddenly allow us unrestricted use of legally purchased files?

    • Re:niave (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pandrijeczko (588093) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:32PM (#16551366)
      Whilst I entirely agree with the core of what you are saying, the fact that DRM exists in any product you buy is deliberately obfuscated by clever advertising and marketing - for example, has any iPod advert ever mentioned that the music you buy to play on it has been restricted? No, instead you get silhouetted images of groups of people (at least in one advert I've seen) that kind of leads you to think the iPod is about "communities" of people whereas, in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. MP3s aside, *YOU* buy iTunes songs for *YOUR* iPod for only *YOU* to listen to...

      Personally, as someone who buys every DVD and CD that I like, music downloads have no interest for me and, as an honest buyer, I find it objectionable that I potentially will have DRM enforced on me even though I do not copy (for anyone else) the media that I own. Therefore DRM is evil and anyone who does their best to crack it or break it is someone I consider a hero.

      However, aside from my personal opinions of DRM, there are far too many dumb people out there with far too much money to spend. Those same people buy things because they are "cool" or because lots of other people have them, without looking in greater depth about things like the erosion of their rights as a consumer. Because marketing has also hidden this important fact from them, what DVD Jon is doing helps to bring DRM into the public eye and, at least, goes some way to making sure that they have access to all the facts, good and bad, about DRM. That's why what he is doing is so important.

    • Brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Weaselmancer (533834) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:31PM (#16551358)

      If DVD Jon was smart, he'd write software that would unlock FairPlay, allow the user to copy it to another device, and then lock it down again

      And what of the copy to another device? How exactly do you dictate what happens to it?

      Look. Jon is simply giving people The Tools to do whatever they would wish to do with their purchases. If you do something illegal with the tools, that's your problem. Same could be said of owning a car. Or a gun. Or a freaking two by four for that matter.

    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:57PM (#16551778)

      All of these lamentations about Apple cheating and *AA "suing its customers" -- what is your problem? It is Apple's own device, and it is *AA's customers. If you don't like these companies, then stop using the darn things.

      Your commentary is all well and good, but it is not practical. The problems with DRM are problems with the law and problems with the industry. People act in their own interest. That might mean a person wants a particular song from a particular band so they endure DRM to get it. That might mean a band wants to be heard, so they pay money to give away their copyrights and accept DRM restricting their songs from being heard by future generations, in the hopes that the cartel that runs the industry will allow them to reach the mainstream audience.

      Sure, educated and enlightened people can boycott the mainstream, but that will not stop the problems DRM and an illegal cartel cause for society. Your argument is analogous to someone in prohibition era Chicago saying, "we all know the violence and corruption caused by booze smuggling organized crime is killing people, so why doesn't everyone just stop drinking?" People want to drink, and they want to listen to popular music and they want to get it instantly, online. Even if that means they download it from a file sharing network or they put up with DRM that prevents future generations from being able to hear the music they will. The solution is not to try to change society, but to change the laws so that they give society what it wants.