Slashdot Log In
iPod Cracked, But Does it Matter?
from the something-to-think-about dept.
According to an Associated Press story, "DVD Jon" Johansen is planning to market a technology for cracking the copy protection on songs purchased from Apple's iTunes Music Store.
This technology will probably be much discussed in the press as the release date draws nearer, but it's a case of using a flame thrower to kill a fly. It's already possible to convert Music Store songs to MP3 without even using any functionality outside of iTunes.
Apple doesn't make this easy to find, of course, and in fact tries to make it look impossible -- if you set your preferred import format to MP3, then right-click on a song in your iTunes "Purchased songs" list and click "Convert selection to MP3", you get the error: "[song name] could not be converted because protected files cannot be converted to other formats". But you can easily burn a series of songs to a CD, then select the songs on the CD and import them into MP3 format. (Of course, if you don't like wasting a writable CD each time you convert your songs, then wait until you've purchased a few more songs and convert them all at once.) All of this is based on core iTunes functionality, which won't go away unless Apple decides to stop letting users (a) burn CDs or (b) import CD songs as MP3 files, neither of which is likely.
But suppose Apple does manage to block this path. (The easiest way I can see would be to write a hidden code on each CD burned from protected songs with iTunes, so that iTunes would refuse to re-import that CD into an unprotected format. Users could re-import the songs with another application, but at least they'd have to open two programs!) You can still use a program like Total Recorder that can capture any sound output on the computer and save it to an MP3 file.
And even if it ever becomes possible for the audio playback application to seize control of the operating system in order to stop programs like Total Control from working, you can always connect a portable MP3 recorder to the audio output of your computer.
It's a common misconception that if a copy-protection algorithm gets broken, it must be because the encryption was too weak or the algorithm was flawed. But the Achilles heel of any such copy-protection scheme is that in order for the content to be playable, the playback program has to "break" the encryption every time, in order to play it. If the content is encrypted using a key, the key has to be stored on the user's computer where the playback program can find it. (If you didn't have to store the key along with the encrypted content, you could use encryption algorithms that are believed to be impossible to break with today's computers, by 15-year-old Norwegians or anybody else.) But even though every copy-protection algorithm is breakable in principle, it's usually easier just to capture the content as it's played back, which is what the previous examples do.
Logically, I think the only algorithm that would help to fight music piracy would be one that embeds a unique "fingerprint" or "watermark" in each downloaded copy of a song -- in the audio itself. A good fingerprint would have these properties:
- it should not be noticeable enough to interfere with the user's enjoyment of the song
- it should not be possible to copy the song in a way that destroys the fingerprint, without degrading the song quality and diminishing its value
In the meantime, don't get taken in by the hype around a new way to "crack" the existed restrictions on copy-protected song files. They were never really protected.
DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM is such a futile idea that the only way it would be possible would be to lock down consumer electronics so badly as to make them virtually function free.
We call that the theatre or a live performance.
Tom
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:5, Funny)
Behold the ice cube! : p
Parent
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
This is one of those "if you observe it". Cuz if you touch steam or ice, it often reverts to water. So how can you "feel" them to tell they're not wet?
Tom
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:5, Funny)
Besides DRM is more than just copy protection. it's "rights" protection, like I have the "right" to only permit you to view that DVD on Tuesdays between 9pm and 930pm. I have the "right" to stop you from sharing the DVD, i have the "right" to stop you from backing it up or using clips for fair use purposes. I have the "right" make the media only work in select markets and then lock down the number of different players...
Effective, I have the "right" to make you my bitch. Squirm all you want, I'll cry foul and get the Federal government to lock up more kids!
Tom
P.S. note the quotes around "rights"
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:5, Informative)
The concept of fair use is mostly separate from copyright, because it is use and not distribution. If I buy a record and make a tape recording (or a digital one) so that I can listen to it on a portable player, copyright law has nothing to say about it because I'm not distributing it. If I buy a book and type all the content into a text file so I can read it on my laptop, that's fine.
The two areas come into conflict mostly due to the DMCA. Until this law came into force in the US, and its sibling pieces of legislation in other countries, DRM was annoying, as it inhibited place-shifting (fair use), but easily circumvented. The DMCA made it illegal to circumvent copy protection, so that, in theory, a person could be prosecuted for removing DRM in order to use a digital file on a portable player different from the intended one. In practice, it allows manufacturers of printers to sue manufacturers of replacement cartridges.
Anyway, I mostly just wanted to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about. I can't tell if you're joking.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole point of copyright is so that things get COPIED!
If not today, then 30 years from now all of those things that
the media robber barons want to lock up should be FREE TO ALL
so that the NEXT GENERATION OF ARTISTS AND INVENTORS have
suitable intellectual capital to work with. It is for that
creation of intellectual capital for future genreations that
copyright exists to begin with.
Copyright was never a movie mogul landgrab.
Culture belongs to everyone.
It is the product of 10 th
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't dislike DRM because I like free stuff. I dislike DRM because it artificially limits me. Before an argument about license and legitimate restrictions comes up, remember that I have to pay again if I lose or break my copy. The media companies need to decide that I own something, or that I license something, and give the rights to the consumer that correspond to the situation. They cant limit me based on the situation and change the rules only with the concern of screwing me for every penny.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies fo
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:4, Insightful)
First, a little point of pedantry: "copyright" isn't named such because you have a "right" (note the quotes) to your "copy", it is so named because only the owner of the copyright has a right to make/sell/distribute (or not) copies of the work. "Copyrights" are "the right to copy"; not "a right to a copy". When you buy a CD, you don't buy the copyrights, you buy a copy.
Second, copyrights, although owned by the original author, are not for the original author's benefit. The copyright is a bribe. The public has decided that it likes new things; new ideas, new stories, new songs. And it has decided that, in exchange for access to this new idea, the person who articulated it can, for a limited time, and with limits for education, criticism, and parody, restrict who has the right to make (and therefore sell) copies of the work. You know, to encourage people to create these new things.
No, DRM isn't evil, but it does subvert the intent of the law (to provide new works to the public) and replace it with the capitalistic, lucrecratic belief that profit is the only ends we work towards. It undermines the public's security in the copyright-contract by weakening the restrictions placed on the copyright holders ability to limit access. Neither of these is good. And it's often used to destroy the doctrine of first sale, which is what allows me to sell my copy of a book on eBay when I don't want it anymore; once the copyright holder has sold that copy to me, it's MINE, and I can sell it to anyone else I want, at any price I want, and there is nothing the copyright owner gets to say about it. I can't do that with a song I bought on iTunes. And that's just the tip of the iceberg for what DRM does wrong.
That said, yes, the best bet is to change (or clarify) the law. It may be obvious to everyone now that it's okay to have the radio playing in your hotdog shop, but the first hotdog shop to try it got sued by the radio station. That case was only narrowly decided in the shop's favor; it could have gone the other way. We are at another, similar point now as we were then, with new technologies clashing in different interpretations of old social norms (with the constant clink-clink of coins counting out the beat that drives us forward). Sitting in the basement burning tracks doesn't help! Get out there; vote; talk to politicians and your voting friends and family. If you don't, the law will be written by the corporations, and they do not have your best interests at heart.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I am sick of people trying to push digital restriction management. DRM make NO sense to me.
Are you on crack? I will never support any restrictions on a work that I buy. I will go out of my way to support people like "DVD John".
Your entire post is just silly. You have a corrupted sense of what copyright was designed to do. Copyright was never designe
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, just like if you wanted to play your vinyl album on your 8-track player. Or your wax cylinder on your Gramophone. Imagine if the Beatles had been around earlier, how many times would you have had to buy The White Album by now?
Seriously, I don't think the media companies are restricting people's usage any more than they used to, it's just that people want more from their media because the potential is greater. You might as well complain that you can't listen to satellite radio on your car's AM radio even though you purchased a subscription...
Hopefully, once they've figured out their One True DRM, it'll be incorporated into everything, so I'll be able to copy shows from my TiVo onto a DVD so my daughter can watch them in the car. And yeah, I realize that if there wasn't any DRM I could probably do that today, but that's not the point. The industry is fixated on curbing piracy, and I'm not a pirate, so I say the sooner they get something they're comfortable with in place, the sooner I can start lobbying for digital medium independence. Once the DRM BS is settled, we can start agitating for our rights under fair use again, and have a better argument ("Hey, as long as it's protected, I can copy my own DVDs onto my media server and watch them from a hotel in Bangkok, right? I mean, I purchased the right to view them, didn't I?").
Parent
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:4, Insightful)
Really?
When I had albums I used to be able to make tapes of them so I could listen to them on my (any brand portable tape player). This was legal, and easy to do. I could even make copies of my audio tapes with no prolbem. My cheap Sanyo receiver could dub audio tapes at 2x speed. And I could make my own mix-tapes off of stuff I recorded off the radio. All legal for personal use, simple to do.
But now I can't play my legally purchased DVD's from Japan in my American DVD player, I can't (legally) copy my DVD's. I can't copy my PlaysForSure files to my iPod (and listen to them) The new video download services lock the videos to my physical machine! I used to be able to record shows freely from TV to VHS. Now my TiVo will delete those same programs a week after I save them...
How is this not more restricted?
Parent
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM doesn't do shit to prevent copying - small or large scale. The hardcore pirates aren't phased in the least by DRM, and most people looking to send someone a few songs now will just burn a CD rather than being bothered by crap upload speeds and email antivirus, and in doing so strip the DRM from the tracks. The only thing it accomplishes is making sure that Joe Public has to buy another iPod (or PlaysForSure device, or Zune) when their current one dies, and stick with the same brand. It's not a damn thing more than vendor lock-in, and all of the media companies know this.
I understand where they're coming from and that they want to protect their content. I have plenty of things that I'd want protected too. But unlike them, I've realized that treating (potential) customers like criminals in order to try keeping a couple sales drives them to steal an unprotected leaked/cracked version of what I currently have, and will encourage them to buy from other vendors that have an equivalent product without being so draconian about it.
Parent
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That analogy would make sense except for one teeny, tiny little thing: The music companies say that you haven't purchased a physical object (for if you did, you could make legal copies of it at will, just like I can buy a hamburger, enjoy it, and make some at home to serve to my family and friends without violating any law), you have purchased a LICENSE to the music/video on the media. Under the terms of the license (and copyright law) you cannot m
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:4, Insightful)
Aha, but they've changed the rules, see? No consumer could make a backup copy of their vinyl. They could copy it to tape, but then tape hiss is introduced, and the vinyl sounds worse every time you play it anyway. So, the rule then was: you had purchased a physical object, and if said object fails, tough titty.
NOW, the consumer can make perfect digital replicas of their music purchases. So, we have this nebulous product called the CD that when it works, you have purchased a license, and when it is broken, you have purchased a physical object.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why did we grant (heh) temporary monopolies in the first place? It wasn't to enrich some people financially. It was because we want to encourage artists to create, because what the artists create is our culture.
So what you are really saying is that I am free to remain outside of society if I don't want to play by their new and improved rules.
That ain't right.
The rules were set up as a bargain betw
Bullshit! At least the editor(!) might RTFA! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bullshit! At least the editor(!) might RTFA! (Score:5, Funny)
-Eric
Parent
Re:Bullshit! At least the editor(!) might RTFA! (Score:4, Informative)
I believe that this is what real did several years ago without much success.
Parent
Re:Bullshit! At least the editor(!) might RTFA! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah! The point actually is that he is going to commercialise his hack. And that is something more newsworthy than the fact that you can copy DRMed material through a digital-analog-digital conversion.
And if he (or they i.e. DoubleTwist [doubletwistventures.com]) is really doing that - what will Apple do to him/them in court?
DoubleTwist seem to be pretty sure about not being sued, but I can't imagine Apple not taking them to court. And thyen will any mp3-player manufacturer buy it before the whole issue is settled?
Parent
But you lose quality (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But you lose quality (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:But you lose quality (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But you lose quality (Score:5, Informative)
The grandparent post has the right idea, but either misspoke or misunderstood the real problem...
Even with "perfect" fidelity analog (or in the case you offer as an alternative, bypassing the analog step completely), playing and recompressing to MP3 will still cause a loss of quality, for two reasons.
First, AAC throws away slightly different "unneeded" parts of the sound than MP3 (or Ogg, or whatever lossy format you want to use) does. This means you have a serial reduction in quality with every generation of transcoding. You can avoid this problem by transcoding to a lossless format ("lossless" at the same sampling rate and number of bits per sample, anyway, since no truly lossless encoding exists, not even in analog)... But doing so gives you a much larger file with the same (lossily compressed) quality as the AAC you started with.
Second - and your suggestion may get around this, if the sound hardware allows it - Resampling an audio stream will virtually never capture the exact same moments in time, with the same exact starting point. Thus, even reencoding with the exact same encoder as the original will still result in the same sort of quality loss you see from transcoding.
Thus, if you consider the convenience of downloading compressed audio as worth the loss of quality compared to buying a CD (for almost the same price new, and actually less if you buy used) and ripping it yourself to something like FLAC - At least keep the original and never, ever transcode it. That means, if you want to really "own" your collection, you have the sole option of directly stripping out the DRM. Any other method will sacrifice quality for the convenience.
Parent
Re:You lose quality, but only by choice... (Score:4, Insightful)
What you buy via iTunes is an AAC encoded song. AAC (just like MP3, OGG, etc) is a lossy compression format. "Lossy" means that you are throwing away information from the original in order to shrink the size of the song. When you make a CD, iTunes cannot recreate the original full quality song, because it cannot recreate the thrown away pieces. The result is a WAV file of significantly lower quality than the original song. When you then compress the crappy WAV file into an MP3 (and therefore throw away other pieces, different from the ones used in the AAC compression), you get loss of quality which is much worse than the original AAC song.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
First there are digital outputs like SPDIF which are not analog.
Second, if you encode it again with AAC with the same settings, then the quality does not go down but remains the same.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But how much? (Score:3, Insightful)
But is there any objective information on how much worse the sound gets? Does it matter at all in practice? For normal people playing normal music on normal equipment? The few times I've done it, the results have sounded just fine whan casually listening.
A slightly bigger question is if there even is an objective way of measuring sound quality?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or what if I have a CD and I need it r
Analog re-recording is tedious! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone use the "fair use" argument against DRM anymore?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly! I can't believe that a story containing crap like ``you can easily burn a series of songs to a CD, then select the songs on the CD and import them into MP3 format.'' actually got posted to the front page of Slashdot. Sure, edit
iPod Cracked? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh Bennett (Score:5, Informative)
Remember kids, Reading Is Fundamental!
Re:Oh Bennett (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6083110.stm [bbc.co.uk]
[Begin Quote]
The code that prevents music downloaded from Apple's iTunes store being played on any portable player other than an iPod has been "cracked".
Apple has not commented on claims that Jon Lech Johansen has "reverse engineered" the FairPlay system.
Prominent hacker Mr Johansen has made a name circumventing software used to restrict the use of digital media.
His company, DoubleTwist, said that it planned to license the code to other digital music player manufacturers.
[End Quote]
Perhaps that's why the company is called *Double*Twist. It will allow both iTunes tracks to play on non-iPods and non-iTune tracks to be encrypted using Apple's DRM and therefore be playable on iPods.
Parent
No Reason to buy an iPod... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone that assumes that the iPods success comes from iTunes Music Store is mistaken IMO, iTMS helps the iPod alot but what makes the iPod such a hot seller is good marketing by Apple, and a good product. The user interface for the iPod is still the best one on the market (never mind the fact that Apple has a patent on the interface which prevents competition), and iTunes is extremely easy to use even for people that know little about computers. That combined with excellent marketing makes the iPods extremely popular.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you aren't using the store, why bother to buy an iPod? If you are using non-protected files anyway, I find it much easier to just drag and drop the files like you woul
Bennett (Score:4, Funny)
crack still matters (Score:5, Interesting)
The same thing applies with iTunes. The question isn't "is it possible to strip DRM", but "how easy is it to strip the DRM". I don't think, for example, that being able to burn to a CD or capture audio output is practical for most people. I have over 40 GB of music. A lot of it is burned from my CD collection, a lot of it is from my wife's collection, and some of it is downloaded from iTunes. So I've got well over 8,000 files and of those a couple hundred are DRM-protected. I honestly don't know which at this point. For me to DRM-strip them using either of those methods is going to be like a day-long project that, frankly, I don't have time for. In addition to that, I'm not sure about the sound-quality degradation in converting from MP3 to audio CD and back to MP3. Or about going from digital to analog back to digital. In any case, it would be pain in the butt to go through my entire library, and I may not be able to practically avoid some quality degradation. Yeah - DRM is already "broken", but at what cost?
If the result of DVD Jon's crack is a program what will go through my iTunes library and batch process the files to strip any DRM automatically, then we have something on our hands that matters. In addition, there are a lot of additional potential applications for DRM-stripping to make music automatically portable across various music players. If my library was nothing but vanilla MP3s with no DRM, then it wouldn't realy matter if I accessed it with iTunes (for an iPod) or Windows Media Player (for various wannabe iPods).
The effect of DRM is not to make it impossible to move your music around, it's to make it inconvenient. Convenience is not a side-issue for digital music. It's the issue. Otherwise we'd all just carry around CD players and 500-disc CD wallets. The digital music industry exists because of convenience, so any approach that not only circumvents DRM but does it painlessly is a significant improvement over DRM-skirting strategies that require additional effort from the consumer.
-stormin
wow, new low (Score:5, Insightful)
iPod Cracked??? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Perhaps this explains ... (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, that's the "official" link. It works, though.
Parent