New Tool Cracks Apple's FairPlay DRM

goombah99 writes "PlayFair is an integrated utility that removes the DRM from AAC music files protected by Apple's FairPlay encryption. Information is limited, but the source code is on SourceForge.net and it appears to actually remove the encryption itself and not simply hijack the QuickTime audio stream as earlier methods did. The cracking operation can only be done on songs the user has already has valid licenses for and requires either an iPod or a windows computer for key recovery. If you choose to redistribute these songs you will be violating the contract you bought them under: better hope they aren't watermarked or you might end up paying for releasing one in the wild. To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard."

Lies

[monstroyer]

1) My computer, my data, my choice. DRM snake oil providers can deal with it. The future won't tolerate the crap these copywrite perverters are trying to enforce, may as well wake up now before it's too late.

2) Downloading music does not affect sales. [dailytarheel.com] DRM is only there to appease the record industry, still scared shitless that artists can have direct contact with their fans who still provide them with income. This cuts them out as the middleman. Like the landlord [landandfreedom.org] of times before us, they will be replaced or burnt to the ground. Again, deal with it.

3) The previous two paragraphs are both 'revolutionary' premises. Vandals these coders are not.

We can only hope WMA will win!

[SeanTobin]

Wouldn't it be wonderfull once the WMA standard becomes available everywhere? All online music stores will use it because it will be so secure. On-demand video companies will spring up from this new found industry standard. Portable players and home stereo systems will all support it. Every media file on your computer will fall under one standard.

And then a code monky from Argentina will be codeing at 3am and have a Mountain Dew inspired breakthrough, and WMA will be broken wide open forever.

Software companies continue to forget the days of dongles, code wheeles, and manual page/paragraph/word lookups. All it will do is annoy real consumers.

Boy howdy

[aaronsb]

That's not much of a crack now, is it?

Monkey See, Monkey Do

[ackthpt]

To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard."

The problem with incredibly clever people is inevitably they come up with something you don't want. Who's to say they weren't WMA or even (shudder) RIAA proponents, bent on showing the public can't be trusted and DMCA is the right approach?

What was the point?

[CrackedButter]

The fairplay system allowed for FAIRPLAY, it is seen as the best DRM scheme online and yet somebody has to crack it? What for other than to get bragging rights and make AAC look inferior to WMA with its security protocols?

Re:Lies

[csoto]

Except that it's NOT your data. You have a license to use it.

Apple's DRM is pretty benign. I can live with it. They worked out a lot of rights for their customers.

The author implies that...

[Limecron]

Micrsoft DRM *won't* be cracked?

If *anything* is crack fodder after this...

But seriously, the first thing to crack is what people actually use. So, good job crackers.

Anyway, how is unlocking something you've paid for being a vandal?

Is FairPlay really better than WMA?

[Anonymous Coward]

To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard.

If DRM is offensive to you, than FairPlay is no better than WMA.

If you don't particularly mind DRM, then what's your complaint about WMA? I think it is the iTunes contract you like, and not FairPlay itself.

Re:We can only hope WMA will win!

[__aagctu1952]

Unfortunately, if that happens it will only bring the age of gov't mandated hardware DRM even closer - and then you can say goodbye to actually owning your own computer. What it's really time for is a property revolution - and I'm not talking about the Lenin/Che Guevara kind, I'm talking about actually giving people control over what they legally own. My computer? Then let me hack it as much as I want - software as well as hardware. My DVD? Then let me play it however I want (skip trailers, play it backwards, make my own "phantom edit"). All those things are already restricted by the DMCA and other laws, and it will only get worse unless somethings is done, soon...

Fair use, and nothing but fair use

[isomeme]

To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard.

Interesting position. How is rearranging the bits of something I own "vandalism"? How is this not a perfect example of fair use?

I agree that redistributing the results would be both unethical and illegal. But last I hear prior restraint was still frowned on by the courts.

DeCSS

[Jeffrey Baker]

Lots of ignorant comments already. PlayFair is the same as DeCSS: it removes restrictions on fair use, and allows compatibility. Now I can play my paid-for iTunes songs wherever I wish, just as DeCSS allowed me to play DVDs anywhere.

It's a good thing.

I think this is good

[shadowcabbit]

Contrary to the knee-jerk reaction (and incidentally, also contrary to the blurb), I think that this tool is a blessing. Since it only works on songs that you have a valid license for (ie stuff you bought), it removes the burn-to-cd step from the "buy from ITMS, burn to CD, re-rip to MP3" process for those of us who don't have an iPod. I've bought quite a bit of music from the store, and I relish the opportunity to use it on my Lyra. This, I think, was the developers' intention with this tool-- not infringement. This is the only use I will have for this tool. Others may use it improperly or illegally, but that does not mean I should be denied access to the tool.

Re:Lies

[neverkevin]

My computer, my data, my choice

Technically it is not your data, you did not write it, create it or anything, you just payed for the ability to listen to it. I doubt iTMS is selling the legal copyrights to songs for only $.99 a piece.

Re:FoulPlay

[ImpTech]

> it's defeating one of the most liberal copyright-protection schemes in existance.

What about actual copyright law?

Re:What kind of comment is that?

[funny-jack]

Why can't I do whatever I choose with the music I pay for?

Because when you pay for it, you agree to a set of restrictions on what you can do with it. Don't like those restrictions? Buy it somewhere else.

Point of contention

[proverbialcow]

To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard.

And yet you do them the service of propagating news of their work through Slashdot, to people (like myself) who have oft wondered about the feasibility of cracking Fairplay, yet otherwise would not have known.

Good job.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's DRM is considerably more restrictive than WMA's. All sound quality aside, Apple gives you one store, one media player, and one portable player. WMA gives you many stores, several players, and quite a few portables.

Apple seems benign when you're willing to completely surrender every aspect of your machine (including the choice not to boot ;)) over to them.

This is like a selling point

[AtariAmarok]

Having this available is like a selling point for ITMS. I've been rather resistant about buying songs there because they place restrictions about what I can do with my own data on my own machine. (and no, I'm not talking about selling them).

Not Apple's problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Apple has anything at all to fear from people distributing their AACs and cutting into the iTMS profits. If people wanted to hunt down and download music files for free they would be doing that in the first place, instead of going to the iTMS; people use the iTMS out of concience or convenience already.

No, I think what Apple has to fear is that now that fairplay's been cracked, the RIAA will freak out, go "YOU TOLD US TEHY WOULDNT BE ABLE TO COPY TEH FILES", and pull apple's music licenses.

So let me get this straight...

[ChangeOnInstall]

I can now go iTunes using my Windows XP box that doesn't even have speakers, buy music tracks, run them through this DRM remover, and then play them back on my Linux machines at home and at work?

If this actually turns out to be the case, I'll be sending Apple (iTunes) about $20-50/month for the forseeable future.

Vandals??

[morelife]

To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard

By the intro blurb, I could not tell who said this.. no matter.

Programming a utility which circumvents Apple's DRM in Fairplay - or whatever it actually accomplishes - does well to show the weakness of that implementation, and is therefore valuable in two ways --

by proving false that any "security" is provided, and

this will get Apple to improve its implementation, and demonstrate if it really cares enough to do so.

Unfortunately, I won't hold my breath waiting for Apple to invoke the DMCA here against any "criminals" who use it; that's bound to happen soon enough.

If Apple doesn't want WMA to become the standard, let Apple get its act together with a demonstrably good implementation of the DRM idea, one which can't be cracked.

These programmers are no more vandals than Dmitri Skylarov, and Apple should realize that they're doing them a favor - for FREE.

Re:Lies

[csoto]

Whatever. I can play the songs on my Macs, my Dell and my iPod. I can burn CDs and play it in my car, on my stereo, in my portable CD player. Not very restrictive at all. That works for me.

Besides, I can buy MP3s from anywhere else. Oh wait. Who sells those?

Re:What was the point?

[Ziviyr]

Maybe they wanted to play their paid for tunes on something other then iTunes or an iPod.

Vandals, eh?

[cb8100]

From Merriam-Webster:

One entry found for vandal.
Main Entry: vandal
Pronunciation: 'van-d&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin Vandalii (plural), of Germanic origin
2 : one who willfully or ignorantly destroys, damages, or defaces property belonging to another or to the public

Since I bought the music, it does not belong to the public. If I choose to remove the DRM that keeps me from doing what I want with my private property, that's not vandalism. Worst case: I just voided my song's warranty

Re:Lies

[Alsee]

You have a license to use it.

No such thing. Doesnt' exist.

You can only licence the right to create new copies and derivative copies and to distribute those copies and for public performances. Those are the only licences that exist (at least under US law anyway).

You don't need any licence at all for any sort of fair use.

Apple's DRM is pretty benign... They worked out a lot of rights for their customers.

It doesn't matter WHAT rights that "worked out". The fact is that ALL fair use is perfectly legal and legitimate, and a copyright holder has absolutely no legal right to say squat when I make fair use.

Unauthorized use and unauthorized copies are perfectly legal and legitimate when they are fair use.

-

Re:Lies

[gothzilla]

Unfortunately its not your data. You get the music by agreeing to the terms. Your choice was to get the music with DRM.

It's rather silly to then jump up and down about how you disagree with DRM when you agreed to it in the first place.

Re:Lies

[Neil Blender]

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Duh, the the plural of 'anecdote' is 'Slashthink'.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever. I can play the songs on my Macs, my Dell and my iPod. I can burn CDs and play it in my car, on my stereo, in my portable CD player. Not very restrictive at all. That works for me.
Great. Sounds like you've found something that is still more restrictive than WMA music, but you're happy with it.

Besides, I can buy MP3s from anywhere else. Oh wait. Who sells those?

http://www.magnatune.com/ [magnatune.com] for starters.

Foul ball... into the stands and out of play...

[LostCluster]

This program wasn't released. It escaped into the wild and was quickly recaptured.

Try following the download link... SourceForge has apparently decided to pull the program. All you'll get is a 404 Error from whatever mirror you select.

This program is going to be quite the hot patato. It's DeCSS all over again... No USA web provider is going to be willing to host it for very long since it's going to be clearly on the wrong side of the DMCA.

Re:Lies

[FredFnord]

Nice to see a lawyer among us.

Even one who hasn't ever actually opened a law book.

Come back when you know what 'fair use' actually means, or when you know what 'license' means or what a contract is.

-fred

watermarking?

[ziggy the zagnut]

Well, what are we waiting for? Let's diff two cracked AAC's of the same iTune bought by different people to see if there's any encoding!

So maybe it's not secure...

[raehl]

But is that a bad thing?

What if sales of music in this format increase, because people are more likely to buy songs they can use as they please instead of buying songs that have annoying DRM restrictions on them?

The bad assumption here is that by removing DRM, people won't want to buy a product, because they'll just copy it instead of paying for it. The problem with that assumption is it ignores the fact that copying itself has a cost, even if it's not a financial one: You both have to have a copy of what you want to make a copy of, and you then have to actually distribute that copy to whoever actually wants it.

Or you could just go to a central store of digital copies, pay your paltry 99 cents, and get your own copy. For most people, 99 cents is worth the convenience of having whatever they want on demand.

Before you start thinking this won't work, look at DVD sales nowadays. VHS tapes were priced to cost many, many times more than the price of a rental. Rentals were attractive. DVD's are priced at about $20-$30 each. Result? Even though people could fairly easy copy DVDs if they REALLY wanted to, it's just "easier" to walk into Best Buy and plop down the $20 - so much so that many many more people buy DVD's than used to buy VHS tapes.

For most people, trying to find and download a copy of something off the internet just isn't worth the $20 to buy the copy at Best Buy, or the $20/month to have Netflix mail it to you.

Very little of the cost/value of content is the content itself - most of it is the distribution. Efficient distribution can distribute content at prices low enough to be competitive with comparatively inefficient illegal distribution while still creating enough revenue to pay content providers.

Re:God damn

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardware DRM works?

You mean like the PS2 (whoops, there's a modchip there) and the XBOX (whoops, there's a modchip there too)

Sheesh

[stratjakt]

Well, I'm used to the slashdot hypocrisy.

- CSS cracked. All hail DeCSS! Those dirty corporate bastards can suck on this! Now I can do "fair use" with all those movies I rent from blockbuster!

- Apple's DRM cracked. "To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard."

Bah. The standard of what? The standard of what your overpriced iPod plays? Well that's always going to be AAC only, because Jobs said so, is it not?

Morons. Lets forget that MP3 already IS the standard, and has been so for nigh on a decade without Steve Job's official seal of approval.

Argue if you must. You know it's true. There are dozens of mp3 players. Everything plays mp3s these days, my DVD player, my car stereo, my phone.. What plays AAC? The iPod. One line of devices from one manufacturer under delusions of "we control the art world" grandeur.

Analogy: mp3 = elf, the binary standard linux uses by default. AAC = XBox Executable, a proprietary binary format that only runs on one company's line of devices (the xbox).

Fuck AAC, WMA, RA and every other proprietary MP3 clone.

Bah, of course if it was WMA cracked, would you be complaining that AAC might "become the standard?"

Re:Lies

[badasscat]

Except that it's NOT your data. You have a license to use it.

Bullshit. If it's on my hard drive, which is a physical platter that I purchased at retail, then it's a physical thing that exists in the real world and it's mine. You're telling me my hard drive is mine but its contents aren't? I don't buy that for a second, whatever some RIAA lackey wants to say to convince me. If it somehow found a way (legally) into my house and onto my hard drive, it belongs to nobody else but me, and as long as I keep it for myself, I'm allowed to do whatever I damn well please with it.

In fact, DRM exists because copyright holders know this. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for DRM! The whole point of DRM is to keep you from doing things you are legally entitled to do as specifically written in copyright law. The RIAA does not like the way copyright law is written so they are doing their best to usurp it with DRM (which they seem to think gains them additional protections under the DMCA that they don't otherwise have under regular old copyright law). I see no problem in breaking DRM in order to exercise my legal rights.

Now, as for this sob story about WMA becoming a "standard" because of this... I mean really, cry me a river. Neither AAC nor WMA will ever be considered a "standard". The only thing close to a "standard" is MP3 (only because so many people have already ripped their music to it, so every piece of hardware has to support it) and it obviously isn't used for many applications where real compression efficiency or the best absolute sound quality are required. MP3 will always be around - I'm sure not about to re-rip all 2,000 or so CD's I own, and doubt many others will either - so whatever gets declared a "standard" for any specific use doesn't really matter anyway.

WMA's DRM will be broken in time just as FairPlay apparently has been, in any case. It's the nature of digital data. Anything that's expressed in bits can and will be cracked, so WMA has no advantage here. Eventually these companies will hopefully accept that all DRM is doomed to fail, and just go back to allowing their customers to exercise their rights under the law, as they used to do many years ago.

I still buy CD's

[CrackedButter]

And will continue to do so since they offer the most out of the music i want, i get to choose the format i want it in, i get the cover art, i get a hard copy and i shop when its the sales anyway so i don't have to pay allot.

Re:FoulPlay

[Slack3r78]

Honestly, this is borderline, but I can understand the logic behind it. What happens if it turns out the trolls are right, Apple does die, and you need new hardware? Or play your AACs under Linux? Or any number of other scenarios that could call for legitimate fair use?

Here's the thing you and many others are missing - PlayFair only strips the DRM if you already own a legal copy. If you read so much as the single paragraph summary on their site, you'd see that in order crack the DRM, PlayFair extracts your key from either your iPod or your iTunes software. So if you don't already have legal access to the music, you're not going to be able to strip the DRM.

Yes, it can be used as a piracy tool, but really the argument for this isn't really any different than the one for DeCSS. This can be, and very much is, a tool for fair use.

Re:UnfairPlay

[Alsee]

Maybe this will blow over and iTMS can stay in business

Hell, Apple never wanted to incorporate DRM in the first place. They don't care it was cracked. They expected it. The only thing that is going to cause trouble is the RIAA. I guarantee to that the RIAA imposed a contract allowing them to shut down iTunes unless Apple "fixes" the broken DRM.

-

Re:What kind of comment is that?

[router]

I am tired of this argument; if the Music Companies were selling the right to listen to the music then I could exchange my old scratched up CDs for new ones for a buck or less. The fact that this requires 18$ alone is reason enough to shaft them at every opportunity. They have screwed with their markets and their consumers for too long, and the market is sticking it to them at every possible opportunity. Music Companies are going to sit on their catalogs and screw their artists and customers until they are forced by the market to change. This is an instrument of change. People need to remember that we get to make and change the laws; ones cast in stone went out with Hammurabi.

andy

Just a GUI

[m1a1]

These guys didn't do anything special. The libraries they used have been out and available in a simple command-line form for quite awhile. They apparently just made it more accessible to the public. The libs are available at http://www.audiocoding.com/ [audiocoding.com]. I've played with the command-line version before and it works fine.

Don't Listen to the FUD, this won't hurt apple.

[AaronBaker2000]

The fact of the matter is that $.99 DRM music is a lot more expensive that a CD. When I buy an overpriced CD, I can not only use the music however I like, but I can even sell the disc later when I no longer enjoy the music. I could even copy music and then sell it. However, I probably wouldn't do that because music is a strong part of my identity and my CD collection shows what kinds of bands I would like to be associated with.

FairPlay DRM keeps me from buying music from iTMS. I already have three computers. I'm not going to lose my rights to play music that I've purchased just because I decided to format a hard drive. This program can only be a good thing and I look forward to a mac version.

Re:Not Apple's problem

[Hawthorne01]

Given the iPod's approach to piracy (an admonishment not to steal music on the package), I'm quite certain Job's didn't push the security of iTMS as a selling point to the labels. Rather, I can see him stressing the ease of use and karmic value to the user.

So it's been cracked. Does this affect the massive quantity of illegal MP-3's out there in the least? No. If you needed a copy of a song that was on iTMS, you could always find it elsewhere if you weren't worried about copyrights.

I use iTMS because of:

• Download speed
• Gauranteed Results
• Gauranteed Quality
• Ease of use

The DRM affects me not in the least. I have no reason to crack what I've bought from iTMS, and won't do so.

Re:What was the point?

[ctr2sprt]

To you, Apple's DRM system is distinct from "other DRM" because it doesn't prevent you from doing the things you want. To me, Apple's DRM system is exactly like every other, because it does prevent me from doing what I want. (At least, as far as I've heard; I'm not going to pay for something that may or may not work, even if it is only a buck.)

Maybe the guy who did this project is like me. He needed to something with AAC that "FairPlay" wasn't allowing him to do, so he found a way around it. Or maybe he was just being a geek and wanted to see if it could be done.

Re:I agree that they are vandals and scoundrels...

[3Suns]

I can't speak to the feasability of cracking WMA itself, but you seem to be romanticizing things a bit. True, all encryption technologies can be subverted. However, there are plenty of examples in which it is mathematically unfeasable to do so, and no amount of clever hacking tricks can change it. What if the next version of WMA encryption were as secure as AES? It's certainly not likely, but I wouldn't say it's impossible either. I understand that there are fundamental differences between DRM and plain encryption, but the point is that uncrackable systems are possible.

We can't just rely on "someone" to eventually crack everything we don't like. Microsoft has a lot of smart people working for them, as does Apple. Apple will fix their encryption, and MS will improve theirs. What we have to do is get to the root of the problem with DRM; namely that fair-use rights are being blocked, and the standards are proprietary and strategically limited in availability. I don't think these problems are impossible to solve either.

I would actually encourage an open-source DRM implementation, perhaps as part of OGG media. If a free alternative were available to publishers, that fixed the fair-use problems, I can certainly see that it might be adopted.

Contract law say you're goofy

[Anonymous Coward]

You apparently dont understand contract law. When you contract for something you can indeed give up rights if that's what the contract says. There are of course certain rights that cannot be contracted away (such as the right to sue or silly things like killing yourself or giving up your first born).

Re:I agree that they are vandals and scoundrels...

[bahwi]

Ditto.

I agreed to not give this music to other people, I agreed not to steal music by uploading this to other people. I can do the following with this music too:

1) Burn it
2) Listen to it on Linux from my iPod. Not quite iTunes but hell, ain't nothing on Linux that compares to iTunes yet(juk is coming a long way though!).
3) Listen to it on the go
4) Listen to it fro Windows

What did I lose? Well, a little bit of space because of the DRM, but other than that? Nothing. I can play it on my big stereo system at home, in the car, burn it on a CD. It's just more difficult to give it away. Darn. Guess my friends will have to shell out the $0.99 for songs! I guess I better LEND THEM THE MONEY.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Pitiful misinformation.

Well said.

WMAs can (depending on the licensing) play on Windows machines, directly on 500+ devices [microsoft.com] , portable and otherwise, instead of two [apple.com], and it most certainly does let you burn them to CD, unless you have purchased one with a license that does not allow you to do that. You can also play the files in WMP, Napster, MMJB, and I believe there are a few others that also work instead of one [apple.com] choice. I haven't purchased much music online, but I haven't seen any that don't let you burn CDs. The CDs are compatible with any CD player out there as well.

Stop spreading FUD and lies. You can be an Apple fanboi all you want and love love love the pretty lickable interface, but it is more restrictive in almost all aspects - other than perhaps no DRM'd WMAs on a Mac.

What's the problem

[smartin]

This only works if you already have a key, so you aren't stealing anything, it just makes it possible to get better use out of music you paid for. Such as putting it on your slimserver etc. I don't think that the availability of such a tool is going to cause people to go hunting for protected aac files to crack, and if you are going share them, you could just rip them as mp3 (yes i know lesser quality yada yada). I think this tool is useful for people that do buy iTunes an i for one will probably buy more now that i can get better use out of them.

Think of it as the same thing as cracking a game you already bought so that you don't have to put the CD in the drive every time you want to play it.

Re:So maybe it's not secure...

[FredFnord]

> What if sales of music in this format increase, because people are more likely to buy songs they can use as they please instead
> of buying songs that have annoying DRM restrictions on them?

Let's think this through. What if they do?

Then the RIAA claims that Apple is in violation of their licensing terms. They could ask Apple to rewrite FairPlay, which I think is unlikely because it'll just get cracked again, given the way quicktime works. (I suspect, though I'm not certain, that I could have written a crack for this myself, because I know how QuickTime's guts work.)

They could impose some much more restrictive DRM scheme on iTunes. This is the way I suspect they'd go.

They could let things go on the way they are. I think that unlikely.

Or they could just pull Apple's license altogether.

Before you see this as a good thing, it might be wise to wonder which they'll do?

Re:The author implies that...

[badasscat]

The iTunes store afforded consumers much more freedom with their purchases than any of the other online stores, and this software may well have a hand in taking that away.

So f'ing what? Seriously. You gloom and doom types are overlooking the patently obvious here: without iTunes, what's left? KaZaA, Gnutella, etc. Shut down iTunes and you drive all those consumers right back to the free (and illegal) services, including the ones currently in the works that encrypt data across multiple nodes and make it nearly impossible to track downloaders. It's not like there's no other way to download music (and if you want it legally, it's not like there's no other way to buy it besides downloading). And let's not forget that it's legal to share music in Canada!

Shuttering iTunes is not in the record industry's best interests. Oh, they still may not realize it, but they will eventually or they will die. What is in their best interests is to simply let this go. Don't publicize it. Let the Slashdot crowd break the DRM on the tunes they've purchased; they're not the ones downloading music on KaZaA anyway. Sue more people who are sharing illegally and drive them to iTunes.

Alternative strategy is to try to shut this software down with a massive legal and PR blitz. Won't work, but it'll put the fear into a few people, at least. But shutting down iTunes does not seem to be an option in any case. It would be suicidal. It's not as if alternatives don't exist, that cost less (ie. free) and don't have DRM. Why push customers back to that at the very moment you seem to be educating them on the benefits of actually paying for music?

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear clueless poster,

please stop posting lies.

Thanks

> WMA: lets you play on Windows machines and some non-iPod players. Can't play on Macs.

Really? so this page is just to confuse you?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/so ft ware/Macintosh/osx/default.aspx

Can't transcode.

yes it can.

> Can't burn to CDs unless you want them to only play from your Windows machine.

Hmm, well I can go to my Windows media Player, copy to cd, and then it burns me a regular CD (i.e. the Philips standard). Alternatively I copy the actual wma files to a CD

Why do people think that Apple stuff is somehow less evil than Microsoft. Everyone's out to make a dollar, and Apple will do that just as much as MS.

Re:How cute, a crack named after a cipher

[Unnngh!]

Not to be pedantic, but I think the more obvious correlation is the play on Apple's "Fairplay" technology.

Interesting link though;)

Re:DeCSS

[harlows_monkeys]

Lots of ignorant comments already. PlayFair is the same as DeCSS: it removes restrictions on fair use, and allows compatibility

Incorrect. With DVDs, you go to the store, and buy them. There's no contract involved, other than what is implied by the UCC.

With iTMS, you have to sign up for their service, and agree to their contract, before getting access to the songs. You can't use PlayFair without violating the contract you agreed to.

That's a big difference: DeCSS can be used by honest people simply trying to use what they paid for, whereas this iTMS cracker is only used by people who are being dishonest.

Usual Ogg advocate post

[cgenman]

I would argue that OggVorbis is also a standard, if not for market acceptance than because the format is well documented: anyone can make an OggVorbis ripper or player. WMA and FairPlay, like DOC files are not standards, but products. You couldn't create a product that creates or plays these files, as you don't have access to data defining the files. Hence, by definition, neither can be considered "standards."

Re:FoulPlay

[Slack3r78]

Absolutely - and this will likely follow the same path that DeCSS did. Sourceforge has actually already pulled it, but's out, and it will be mirrored in places outside of the US' jurisdiction where such software is legal.

It's a shame that as a country that prides itself in its freedom, when it comes to information, we're rapidly becoming one of the least free nations on earth, thanks to the media lobbies. With any luck, the US will come up with a DVD Jon of our own in the near future - someone willing to fight it out and get the DMCA at least partially struck down.

Re:What was the point?

[James Lewis]

Slashdotters lamenting the cracking of AAC and looking down their noses at the authors of this program need to wake up. You're spitting in the wind. This was GOING to happen, just like every single lock companies have put on their programs has been broken in the past. This should be further proof the the record companies that DRM does NOT WORK. If they want to switch to WMA fine... but no matter how hard Microsoft tries, it will be cracked too, just like it HAS been cracked over and over. Any time a company makes a product and says, "Don't do this, whatever you do please don't do this!" some nerd is going to wet himself in the anticipation of doing just whatever it was that company didn't want done. Like Steve Jobs himself said, it doesn't matter how good the lock is, because all it takes is ONE person getting in ONE time, and the whole thing is worthless. I totally agree that a solution to mass pirating needs to be found, but it isn't DRM. If we can't find a socially exceptable way of stopping pirating, then maybe someone is just going to pull their head out of the sand and change their business model...

Re:Lies

[badriram]

Pitiful answer actually

Apple AAC: iTunes, iPod, Macs, Windows

Windows WMA: Just about every media player(WMP, real, Winamp, etc), Macs(Yes they have WMP), Windows, atleast 10 different mp3 player manufacturers, and you can burn on CDs (depends on who you buy from and what rights you have

Dont talk trash unless you really know what you are talking about....

Re:Lies

[Jherico]

Bullshit. If it's on my hard drive, which is a physical platter that I purchased at retail, then it's a physical thing that exists in the real world and it's mine. You're telling me my hard drive is mine but its contents aren't? I don't buy that for a second, whatever some RIAA lackey wants to say to convince me. If it somehow found a way (legally) into my house and onto my hard drive, it belongs to nobody else but me, and as long as I keep it for myself, I'm allowed to do whatever I damn well please with it.

No, you're not. Just like you're not allowed to do 'whatever you want' to a rental car just because its in your garage. Granted, there are major differences between physical property and data. The law is supposed to be based around providing benefit to the public, and that includes incentives for artists to create. If we all subscribed to your 'finders-keepers' mentality, or if that were the law then there would be much less financial incentive for musicians, game makers, virtually everyone who creates information for a living. Something doesn't belong to you just because you have a copy, legal or otherwise. Dumbass.

Using this breaks the ToS

[JustinXB]

If you choose to redistribute these songs you will be violating the contract you bought them under

Um, no. Using PlayFair alone breaks the Terms of Sale you bought them under. The ToS statse you cannot remove the DRM protection layer.

Re:Lies

[rjelks]

When I spend $15.00 dollars on a CD, I own that media. I don't claim to own the copyright to it, just the CD itself. With my ownership, comes "fair use" rights and the ability to sell said CD. I can't copy it and sell multiple copies, but I can sell the CD....which to me confirms my ownership of it. When I buy a CD, I don't just purchase the "ability to listen to it", but also the ability to copy it for personal use, put it on an mp3 player or sell it. /don't really buy CD's anymore, new music sounds strange

Re:Lies

[GileadGreene]

Amen to that. Circumventing the DRM on downloaded music is like modifying GPL software, and then repudiating your agreement to the terms of the GPL and saying you can do what you like with any derived products.

People like to say that the GPL means "free as in speech". And just like preserving free speech means allowing speech we disagree with, a strong GPL requires strong respect for licensing terms - even if we disagree with those terms.

If apple is free to write, we are free to write

[t_allardyce]

Id much rather people had the freedom to write software like this than we all sit around and play along with DRM because its the law. To me DRM represents one of those stupid javascripts people employ on websites to stop you 'right-clicking', now imagine if by-passing that was illigal!

Re:What was the point?

[pavon]

The fairplay system allowed for FAIRPLAY, it is seen as the best DRM scheme online

This line of reasoning drives me crazy. For the last 20 years we have had an open, digital, non-DRM music standard which has succeded wildly. And yet now people are constantly praising FairPlay, because it is the least restrictive of the new DRM schemes. I am supposed to be happy that we have only taken one step back instead of two? To be fair it is worse than a step backwards, because it is introducing restrictions that have never existed before. FairPlay is not the best DRM - no DRM is the best DRM.

But you are right on one thing. What is the point of buying music under terms that you don't agree with? If you don't like DRM, then don't buy DRM'd music. At least now you still have the option. If consumers continue to be so eager to support these new formats, that option won't exist for very long.

Re:Lies

[jazman_777]

If it's on my hard drive, which is a physical platter that I purchased at retail, then it's a physical thing that exists in the real world and it's mine.

Trying to refine my thoughts on property here...There are lots of things that may be physically in my house, but I don't own. Library books, movies. I don't claim that possession is ownership there, because there were conditions placed on my getting possession, and I agreed to those conditions. How is a piece of music different from those?

Re:I agree that they are vandals and scoundrels...

[daw]

What if the next version of WMA encryption were as secure as AES? It's certainly not likely, but I wouldn't say it's impossible either. I understand that there are fundamental differences between DRM and plain encryption, but the point is that uncrackable systems are possible.

This is nonsense. Encryption systems may be practically uncrackable. Encryption systems that have to decrypt the "protected" contents for you so that you can listen to them will never be in the least bit secure. If you can hear it you can record it. There is no getting around this. The entire idea of DRM is, on the face of it, futile.

Without "Vandals", no DVD watching under Linux...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why there is so much hypocrisy around? When Apple is in question, everything is suddenly good, including DRM.

When I purchased a song, then I have right to listen it as I want. How can I listen DRMd AAC under Linux or with portable player which doesn't have Fairplay support?

Then you say that you don't need anything beside Itunes, right? Why don't you use players approved by DVD consortium for watching DVDs then?

Re:Lies

[zcat_NZ]

Not 'fair use'; 'unregulated use'

Fair use relates to things that would have been covered by copyright; derivative works, quoting, etc. They're allowed, even though technically they're a little bit of the 'copying and redistribution' that copyright is supposed to regulate.

Unregulated use relates to things that have nothing to do with "copying", and should never have been covered. Transfering a work 'I own' into another format, playing a DVD on a non-standard platform, etc. If I bought the work, I should have the right to do anything I want short of making copies and giving them to my friends. Playing DVD's under Linux, converting AAC's into MP3's, etc -should- all be unregulated uses. It's none of the copyright-holders business what I do with the disc after I bought it, unless they can PROVE that I'm redistributing unauthorised copies!

Re:Lies

[Catbeller]

Regardless, I choose to reward the artist*, rather than blatantly "steal"** from them.

I wasn't aware the labels were paying the artists a large part of the iTunes income. Anyone you know getting a check from RIAA?

Artists - don't - get - money - from - labels. Artists PAY labels for the privilege of making money for the labels, unless they get more than one gold record, at which point, if they were very careful negotiators, they might actually pay off their creditor and start seeing a royalty stream. Most musicians under a label make the only money they can keep from live performances. If ClearChannel hasn't ripped them off.

The labels, represented by RIAA, are NOT the artists and are NOT their benefactors. Let's stake this meme in the heart. We aren't paying the artists, we're paying the crooks who take advantage of them with their hold on the distribution chain.

Altogether, people:

WHEN WE PAY THE LABELS, WE ARE NOT PAYING THE ARTISTS. WE ARE PAYING DOWN THE DEBT THE ARTISTS OWE THE LABELS, WHICH WOULDN'T EXIST IF THEY HADN'T RAPED THE ARTISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Re:We can only hope WMA will win!

[Jade E. 2]

I'm talking about actually giving people control over what they legally own. My computer? Then let me hack it as much as I want - software as well as hardware. My DVD? Then let me play it however I want (skip trailers, play it backwards, make my own "phantom edit").

The problem is that the protections you are talking about work both ways. The DMCA (although it's overly broad) is there to enforce the contract you have when you purchase a DVD (See where it says 'Do not make illegal copies'?) or an iTunes song. (That agreement you clicked 'Agree' on when you signed up.) You are complaining about that contract, but it has the exact same status as, say, the GPL. You can't have software you write protected against being co-opted into a commercial product, and at the same time not allow DVD publishers to enforce whatever restrictions they feel like on their content. (And yes, even if you bought a disc with the movie on it, it's still their content. Buying a Redhat CD doesn't let you re-license Redhat however you want.)

I don't know what the answer is, but disallowing content providers from placing restrictions on the use of their content isn't it.

Wow, whats with all the hoopla?

[msimm]

To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard.

Vandals? Really? Wow, because the first thing that came to my mind is: wow, I can unencrypt MY files and put them on my MythTV box, or trascode them to use in my cars mp3 player or send them through my Slimplayer. People are getting a little weird about DRM. Vandals is probably the most ridiculous thing I've hear yet. Itunes is great, but if we are going to continue to have fair use we are going to have to stop buying in to all the hype and realize that using a product we bought isn't criminal. I'm a fucking consumer, not a pirate.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like you're not allowed to do 'whatever you want' to a rental car just because its in your garage. Granted, there are major differences between physical property and data.

I'd say that pretty much invalidates your analogy right there. But glad to see you acknowledge it, even though you're trying to apply it to your argument nonetheless.

Want to wear that "dumbass" tag for a while?

Re:Lies

[Yakko]

Show me a free (costs nothing, free of encumberances like patent and EULA issues, etc) media player that plays these "rights managed" WMAs, and maybe then I'll consider starting a WMA collection. I may not be fully imformed, but until I'm certain there's one out there that won't tie me to a Windows machine, I'm just going to have to continue using mp3. Simple as that. ITMS lets me get mp3s from the AACs I buy, so they're in.

Oh... said player needs to work on most any Unix I care to throw at it. No Rube Goldberg devices, no tricky hacks.

(I don't think those "bum the win32 codecs" players are going to cut it, either. Something that'll natively play it is what I'm seeking. My point is that WMA is not cross-platform to the extent that mp3 is.)

Uncrackable systems - NOT possible

[kylector]

I don't think your argument about algorithms being as secure as AES and the like stand at all. They could use an RSA algorithm and still be hacked. The weakness is not in the encryption, as this tool clearly demonstrates. The weakness is that the key has to be stored somewhere. When it's found, the key is used to do the decryption, which is a a no-brainer if you know the algorithm. The strength of those algorithms (AES, RSA) is the secrecy of the private key. However, for the local iTunes and the iPod to play the music the key MUST be stored somewhere. They finally found it, deciphered it (because this key probably isn't in plain text, but isn't encrypted with another key or it just gets cyclical and redundant with no benefit), and wham, here we are.

Uncrackable systems are not possible in an automated environment (iTMS and iTunes are essentially automated, requiring no human interaction to decipher a file). Uncrackable systems are not possible period because even with human interaction, your human becomes the weakness. Humans are greedy, power-hungry, and can be bought to give up their key. In an instant, security is instantly and completely comprimised.

Re:Lies

[Planesdragon]

My computer, my data, my choice--

Stop.

You have a choice. You can not buy from Apple, and look for someone to sell you one without DRM.

The future won't tolerate the crap these copywrite perverters are trying to enforce, may as well wake up now before it's too late.

It's copyRIGHT, jackass. As in, rights to the work. As in, the right to do what you want with what you create.

Oh, and I just remembered a differnet way to avoid DRM. Partake of and promote public-domain music.

copyright and other obsolete concepts

[N3wsByt3]

"To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard"

Yes, well, I'm sure the aristocracy that had been exploiting the populace for centuries thought the same when the poor masses rebelled. Or maybe not, because they used the term 'revolutionary' as if it meant 'criminal'. In any way, it's all in the eye of the beholder, it would seem. But we can safely say that it's a good thing their rights were trampled on and disgarded and abolished, or most of us would still be serfs.

The IFPI/RIAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.

First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality).

Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?

It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare [sourceforge.net].

And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.

And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).

It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.

But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.

Re:Lies

[neverkevin]

While that might be true about CDs, but it is not true about iTMS.

Is this Slashdot or New York Times?

[Hao Wu]

"To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard."

Interesting. Good point. So why was this allowed in reporting the story?

This belongs in the comment section, to be moderated fairly, like my little opinion and other people's comments.

Re:Lies

[Kelson]

If it's on my hard drive, which is a physical platter that I purchased at retail, then it's a physical thing that exists in the real world and it's mine. You're telling me my hard drive is mine but its contents aren't?

I own a lot of books. The paper, the ink, the glue - I own those, uncontested. I own that instance of the book. I can lend that particular book to a friend, I can sell it to someone, I can throw it in the trash, put it in a barbequeue, whatever. I can take the book down to Kinko's, photocopy it and write all over the photocopies. But if the book is still in copyright, I can't legally give those photocopies to someone else, nor can I legally typeset it, publish a new edition, and start selling it. Even though those words are physical objects in my possession.

The whole point of DRM is to keep you from doing things you are legally entitled to do as specifically written in copyright law.

More bull. Companies pushing DRM don't give a damn whether you make copies for yourself, they just want to make sure you don't upload it to the net and share it with a few thousand of your closest friends. And it's easier for them to prevent you from doing anything than it is to only prevent you from handing out free copies everywhere. That's why most DRM is so draconian - not because they want to lock you into only listening in one room, but because they just don't care.

Apple at least made an effort to compromise.

widely used doesn't account for everything

[SethJohnson]

Please note that you typed your entire message in English. This is not the majority language used on the globe. It is a minority language compared to Mandarin Chinese. But you used it because it is familiar to you and your intended audience.

However, others on the globe may argue that you should have typed it in Mandarin Chinese because English, as a standard, is not as widely used as Chinese.

I'll be serious for a moment, though. You conclude your message saying that WMA wins out because it's so widely used. You do not suggest that a DRM standard be judged on how good it is. This philosophy supports stagnation and hinders innovation.

Did you happen to read on the Drudge Report that your boss is no longer the richest man alive [drudgereportarchives.com]?

Re:Lies

[bfg9000]

Just like you're not allowed to do 'whatever you want' to a rental car just because its in your garage.

You're not "renting" songs off the iTunes Music Store, are you? Do you have to give them back after 30 days? No? Then you OWN them.

If I OWN my car, I can spray paint it with polka dots and grow a chia pet on the hood and the government can't do jack. And even if they could, that wouldn't make it right, because the car is MINE. Private Property rights are the fundamental building block of western civilization; if you're trying to overthrow America you couldn't find a better way than to undermine societal freedom.

Re:Lies

[DeltaSigma]

But that copy does belong to him if he acquired it legally. If I'm the only occupant in my living space and I have twelve individuals computers comprising an obscene amount of redundant backup storage, and I make twelve freaggin' copies of every piece of data legally acquired by myself, plus a DVD for the television, and a CD for the stereo, it still shouldn't make a lick of difference to musicians, game makers, virtually everyone who creates information for a living, because they succeeded in selling one copy to one consumer.

End of story, no "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about this license restriction crap.

DRM will never substitute for value

[HangingChad]

Somewhere down the line record companies started getting the idea they had a right to a living and stopped earning it.

Re:Lies

[MrAndrews]

This just popped into my head, and I need to write it down before I forget: we (meaning a certain percentage of /.-type people) say "the music industry needs to adapt to the new paradigm and understand p2p" --- but then we argue that any songs we buy from iTMS should be sell-able just like CDs were.

So it occurs to me that perhaps we are not as in-tune with the new paradigm as we thought... if we insist on turning THEIR lives upside down in this revolution, we might have to do the same to ours. It's not a question of legality or technology, but the basic concept of "if I buy a song for $.99, what can I expect to do with it?". We have to get our story straight, I guess.

Gosh. Those painkillers really DO make me profound!

The authors are not vandals.

[Performer Guy]

They have given people back the freedom to use the music thay have purchased as they see fit. This is *FAIR USE* it is the music industry that are vandals and thives, implementing a concerted campaign to steal our rights to use the products we purchase while pretending that they are being harmed by unrelated online theft. Do you really thing your cracked DRM'd copy matters a damn when anyone can rip the CD? Give me a break, copyability is not the issue at all. The evidence does not support the industries position and the facts make them look positively ridiculous. *ANYONE* can go rip any tune today from any CDROM, one uncracked mp3 later and you've got the equavalent of what they're so scared of. We have rights that are being undermined and the industry's protections including those enshrined in law are extremely artificial and strengthening with every law passed and court case prosecuted.

It is not vandalism to protect consumers against unreasonable proprietary restrictions, particularly those that tie us to vendor specific platforms or even force multiple purchases of the same art. These developers are heroes and the activities of those corporations they fight against should be branded criminal but unfortunately are not. If congress did their job to uphold our constitution and rights instead of fostering corrupt lackeys like Orrin Hatch then this would not be a problem and user's rights would be physically guaranteed. Instead we have idiots like the senator from Disney continually trying to sell us all down the river for a few campaign dollars. When one individual stands up to help the situation fools like you call them a vandals, you should show more respect to people fighting and coding for freedoms and your rights to the information you have purchased.

Re:Not Apple's problem

[bwy]

I'm not trying to dispute what you are saying, I just wanted to mention some concerns I've had about my iTMS purchases and see if you agree or disagree:

I've stopped and thought about whether I should actually burn a new mix CD, since I believe iTMS limits you to the number of times a track can be burned? It wouldn't be unusual for me to want to have a given track on several CDs, over time. It also wouldn't be unusual for me to need to replace (reburn) one of the CDs at some point due to loss or damge.

Second, I can't copy the things to my Rio 500. A trusty legacy device I won't part with until the day it dies.

Third, I'm not going to burn audio CD's and re-rip them. I think that is ridiculous and I'll just buy real CDs if it comes to that.

Fourth, somewhat unrelated, I guess I need to research how the DRM works. I kind of worry about needing to reload OS X and then having the music files I backed up not work with the new load of OS X because it thinks I am a different user or something. On the surface I didn't find anything to explain this.

Anyway, I've bought several CD's worth of music so far and I knew the limitations so I'm not complaining. But the points above do concern me and may affect future purchases. What does everyone else think about these issues?

Re:copyright and other obsolete concepts

[wayne606]

You say that in order for something to be stolen the original owner must lose. If they are no worse off than before then nothing has been stolen. But this misses the point. The record companies are the owners of the songs. They paid the artists for the rights. Maybe they haven't paid them fairly but the artists were under no obligation to sign the contracts.

As the owners of the music they would be perfectly within their rights not to release it at all. Or to play it only in specific places and not allow in anybody with recording equipment. Etc etc.

However they decide to release the music on CD's or on an on-line store and do so under a specific license. Namely, "don't give this music to your 1M closest friends without us getting extra money". If you don't like it why did you buy the CD in the first place? If you really like the music why don't you contact the artist and convince them to release their next album for free to the world, or possibly under different terms?

If you want to listen to music for free, just say so. Admit you're breaking the law and violating the contract you agreed to when you bought the music. It won't be the first time and it won't be the last that it's happened. Admit that (in this case at least) you don't care about the law and you are just taking what you want. The world won't dissolve into anarchy because of it.

If you want to convince the music industry that they are fighting a losing battle and making things harder for the honest people who just want "fair use" of their purchases, go for it. Ask them to reform their distribution model for the 21st century. Maybe with Steve Jobs on your side you will get somewhere.

But just don't waste your time and everybody else's trying to pretend that you have a right to rip tracks from CD's and put them on P2P networks, just because "they wouldn't have gotten that revenue anyway". That's irrelevant and you make your other arguments lose credibility.

Re:Lies

[a whoabot]

And that "photocopying" you refer to is exactly what's he's talking about.

He's saying he can download music from iTunes, get around the copy protection, make copies, and then use those copies himself. He never says he has the right to distribute those copies.

He says this PlayFair program is alright, because it allows copying of music for personal usage. It does also allow for non-personal usage: no one is contesting that. But the personal usage would be easily describable as a "significant non-infringing use", and so the program is not infringing itself.

Re:Lies

[zangdesign]

Yep. Man's gotta dream, though.

Realistically speaking, a widespread boycott will work though. It just requires that as many people as possible spread the word to as many other people (consumers and artists) as possible.

There aren't any other options. RIAA has the money and influence to get Congress to change the laws. RIAA controls the message, to an extent, through their advertising and their contracts with the artists.

Software like the above may be morally right, but that's cold comfort for anyone caught with it; they'll have their cold comfort in jail.

I mean, really, what other option is there? No one beyond a few geeks seems to really give a damn.

Re:Lies

[TENTH SHOW JAM]

Try to pay attentin kiddies, I will only be ranting once on this topic.

As I write this paragraph I own it. I own the computer whose memory it resides in, I own the Hard disk it caches to, I own the screen that makes it easier to type. As soon as I hit the submit button and send this paragraph up to the beloved slashdot community, I loose control of it. I have a choice. Either I keep this comment to myself or I send it.

If I am an artist and create a song, and wish to have total control over it, I do not release it. As soon as I release the song to the public I relinquish control and rely on the honesty of people to receive dues.

The long and the short of it is Intelectual Property is not Physical Property. Trying to apply the same rules will not work. If I steal a CD from the record shop, they are short one CD. If I grab a copy of a song from the internet. The original people still have the data. There is no loss except in dues that authors and artists think they are owed.

Maybe it's time to rethink the value of knowledge in this age. Perhaps knowledge is not a commodity after all.

Re:Contract law say you're goofy

[Phigs]

A contract requires some meeting of the minds. The fact that most people click through "read this and agree" proves that doesn't happen as a rule, and does only as an exception.

Although I am not arguing your point that clickable licenses are invalid (more due to a lack of consideration, but thats a whole other topic) but this is not a valid argument. The law does not reward ignorance. This would be the same thing as saying you signed your signiture to a contract without reading it. The law expects you to know what you are getting in to.

Re:watermarking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, what are we waiting for?

Maybe we're waiting for somebody to care. Why should anyone care if their file is watermarked? How is anyone outside of my house, ever going to see the watermarks on my files? (I don't run Microsoft Outlook.)

Re:We can only hope WMA will win!

[simeonbeta2]

No no no! This is the way that some corporations want you to understand the debate about the DMCA, but it is ignoring the history of contracts and copyright have historically worked.

Do you really think that DVD publishers should be able to put arbitrary restrictions on the use of media that you purchase from them? What if your DVD label said that only one person at a time is allowed to watch the movie on the DVD? What if the federal Gov. passed a law that not only allowed "content providers" to make such restrictions as a part of contracts but would make it a felony to in any way circumvent the contract...

This is essentially what is happening right now with the DMCA: historically *fair uses* (time shifting, copying for purpose of backup, converting to a different format, etc etc) are being disallowed through technological means and the government is applying its muscle to lend the threat of criminal prosecution to prevent such uses. Rights you have always had are being taken away from you with a clever confluence of technology and law and you seem to think that's ok.

Note that the GPL is in a completely different position: it grants you rights to someone else's Intellectual Property (rights that you do not normally have) if you will respect certain restrictions. If you don't like the restrictions, you still have all the same rights any normal person has!

The concept of Fair Use has been valuable to prevent tyranny and keep people from making unreasonable demands (really, if you do not accept any limit to what someone may demand "Contractually" as part of purchasing mass commercial goods, where might it end? Imagine a world in which you commit a felony by whistling a pop tune, in which you could go to jail for speculating with a friend about what algorithm a piece of software uses, or where the full weight of governmental wrath can be brought down on your neck if you are watching a DVD and someone else walks into the room...)

I must admit that my understanding of these issues is quite limited. IANAL. But listening to Lessig's description of these issues (hear it at http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html) has almost radicalized this conservative/libertarian... This is important stuff that will touch our livelihood and it is important that we (Geeks, technology and digital enthusiasts generally) get these issues right!

Re:What kind of comment is that?

[Ibag]

I don't know exactly how buying music from iTMS works, so I am going to make my comments slightly general.

When you buy something, you accept that as bought, it might have restrictions. For example, if I buy a used Honda, I accept that it cannot fly. However, I do not have to agree to the restriction "This vehicle will not fly." If I wanted to modify it to turn it into some sort of flying machine, then I am free to do so.

When you liscense something, you agree to restrictions. If I liscense a used Honda, the lisecne might prohibit me from modifying it or turning it into a flying machine.

When you buy things at retail, they are actually yours to do with. Of course, you're not allowed to do anything illegal (like creating coppies of a CD and distributing it to people, because that is a breach of copyright), but you're not agreeing to anything more. This is the right of first sale. You buy it. It is yours. Do what you want with it.

When you buy things online, though, I am not sure things are that simple. I would think that you can agree to additional restrictions. For example, Apple could say that you are liscensing both the files and the keys to decode them and that you are not allowed to modify the files. Running PlayFair would then be prohibited by the lisecnse under which you are using the files under.

So to answer the grandparent poster's question, why can't you do whatever you choose with the music you pay for? Because you might not have actually bought the files. If you only liscensed them, there may may be additional restrictions. There is a difference between paying for and buying, and the files might not be yours in a legal sense to do with what you please.

Of course, there might be other issues like "is a contract that you click through but do not sign actually enforceable," but I think this is enough to understand why you might not be able to do some things with the music you paid for.

So, in summary, accepting how things are is not the same as agreeing to keep them that way, and paying for something does not have to mean buying it. I hope this helps.

Wrong on multiple counts...

[StevenMaurer]

The DMCA is not there to "enforce the contract when you purchase a DVD". Contracts are already covered under Tort law. (And among other things, Tort law does not allow you to impose additional conditions on a purchase after consideration has been given.)

The DMCA outlaws publishing decryption techniques so that copyright holders can effectively demand a second payment from consumers (a "license fee" that you have to pay as part of buying an approved player of that material), and as an end run around fair use laws (including region encoding lockout - preventing people from viewing material they have legally purchased).

So, despite its name, the DMCA expressly has NOTHING TO DO WITH COPYRIGHT. It does nothing that normal copyright laws didn't do. It doesn't stop real commercial pirates (like those found all over Asia), nor does it protect people from taking the final material decoded and republishing it. (Despite the lack of reconstruction filters, a single A-to-D/D-to-A on a decent consumer player does far less damage to a video or audio stream than the original codec in terms of blockiness and frequency response; it's multiple iterations that cause noticable degradation.)

The answer, in my opinion, is to repeal the DMCA. And simultaneously to link serious anti-Pirate measures in China to their ability to import to the U.S. to get them to crack down on the flagrant abuses happening there. Our copyright conglomerates are crying crocodile tears over this stuff, but the Hong Kong entertainment industry has been decimated because of companies openly making and distributing knock-off copies.

We do need to get serious about real piracy. But peer-to-peer is no more piracy than taping songs off the radio.

Re: Lies

[cft_128]

As countless other pointed out, the WMP on Macs does not support v2 of the DRM, not to mention WMP on Macs sucks. Really sucks. Bad UI. Uses up way too much CPU time. With MS adding a 'time bomb' [betanews.com] to WMA it's not looking like I'm going to be sending them a lot of love. When I buy music, I want to be able to play it forever. Hopefully market forces will do to this what it has done to previous attempts at this.

Also of note HP has licensed [hp.com] Apple's iPod, so add one more player to the market. (albeit a iPod clone as far as I can tell). HP will use iTunes so there will still only be one software player, but from what I can tell iTunes wipes the floor with WMP when it comes to managing and playing my music on both my Macs and my PCs.

You might want to do your own research before accusing others of not doing it.

Not a "Crack"

[Bert690]

A crack would imply it breaks the encryption scheme. However, seeing as it only works on music someone has legally purchased, it's clear to me that this relies on having access to the decryption keys. So it sounds as if they simply reverse engineered the decryption protocol. Not an easy task by any means, but it's not as interesting as something like DeCSS which involved determining both the decryption keys and decryption algorithm.

Re:Vandals, eh?

[shadowpuppy]

How is the encryption system destroyed? The system may be weak or easily compromised but it hasn't changed any. It's still the same system it was when Apple released it. A weakness doesn't suddenly come into existance because some one exploits it. It was always there to begin with.

well, a point is missed, that's for sure

[N3wsByt3]

Your first three paragraphs are quite true, but have no bearing at all on what I was saying. I was saying that the claim those companies make that 'It is just the same as stealing from a shop' (actual quote) is false.

It does not matter what kind of contract they have with the musicians, nor if they are owners, nor if I or anyone else agreed to the licence. The *statement* is false. If I go to a shop, see some vase, let's say, and I copy that vase at home, can the shop or the owner accuse me of stealing his vase? No. (at least not icn the jurisdiction I live). I *could* be breaking copyright or some patents, yes, but I would not be charged with stealing it from the shop.

The RIAA claims one could, if one does exactly the same, but instead of a vase, with one of their CDs. THAT is what is absurd, and what I was arguing.

The problem with your line of reasoning, is that it starts from the established point of copyrights that we have developped into today, and do not try to see outside the framework that is now almost considered a natural right. but it isn't, and, in fact, it never was. It's very clear (whatever the Supreme Court says about it) that the founding fathers meant it to be a right of limited scope and duration, to *stimulate* new and innovative works, and then bring it to the public good.

This, clearly, has been perverted and corrupted in a system that has virtual no limitations anymore, and which main goal is the squeeze as much money and profit out of it by and for the middle-man; corporations that have huge profits but hardly create anything innovative themselves, and, in fact, try their best to stiffle innovation when they feel threatened.

You think 'asking to reform' will do actually amount to anything, since it would mean they practically vanish from the scene? Me thinks not. I think the chance of that happening is as big as it was if the serfs would have 'asked' the aristocracy if they would please give up their powerbase.

This line of reasoning shows an apparent lack of sense for reality.

Unjust laws are most often overruled by breaking them en masse, and what's more, I do not think that that is an immoral act on itself, on the contrary. Far from me to entice anyone in doing something illegal, but I still can say what I think (unless Free speech has been abolished too?), and I think that the law, as it was original conceived and intended was just, but what it is and has become today is unjust and immoral, and should not be used to make ppl guilty, let alone criminalised, when they are disregarding those perverted laws.

Vandals NOT!

[salesgeek]

Since when did Slashdot decide that someone who renders DRM useless is a vandal? Especially when it requires the user to have a legitimate right to use the DRM protected data!

What is going on is very simple: we have a new round of businespeople trying to understand the data and software business. I'll shorten the lesson up for them as I lived though the last two rounds of "copy protection":

PROTECTING DIGITAL DATA FROM DUPLICATION IS A FOOL'S PURSUIT. Stating that is is IMPOSSIBLE TO BREAK THIS PROTECTION is very shortsighted and will come home to roost when someone with the ability has a need to de-DRM data.

We went through this whole iteration of stupidity in the mid-80s. Ultimately, copy protection failed. Every couple of months someone would come out with a new and unbreakable copy protection scheme - which is a lot like what is going on in the DRM world now. If you even go look at the newspapers of the day, you'll find articles advocating changing laws to make cracking copy protection extra-double secret illegal.

Fortunately, the business people will figure it out: copy protection, drm and so on is incredibly unprofitable because it does not have value to the buyer. In fact, it reduces the value of the purchased product substantially.

Re:Lies

[rampant mac]

"I wasn't aware the labels were paying the artists a large part of the iTunes income."

Last time I checked, positive income was better than NO income.

"Anyone you know getting a check from RIAA?"

Yes. Me.

"Artists - don't - get - money - from - labels. Artists PAY labels for the privilege of making money for the labels."

People - don't - get - money - from - their - employers. Employees sign a contractual agreement that they WILL perform the work assigned to them, or are you not on salary?

It works both ways...

Re:Lies

[Dirtside]

Fuck off, it _IS_ stealing.

If copyright infringement is in all ways identical to stealing, why do we have the term "copyright infringment" and an entire Title of the U.S. Code dedicated to it? The fact that data and matter are different is the very reason that we have different terms for the two actions.

Copyright infringement is certainly illegal. But you don't help your case by conflating larceny (stealing) with copyright infringement. It just makes you look ignorant. Whether or not someone believes that copyright infringement is immoral, it is de facto not the same thing as larceny.

I'm saying that, in the future, you want to say, "Copyright infringement is WRONG!" not "Copyright infringment is STEALING!"

Re:I agree that they are vandals and scoundrels...

[bfields]

This is nonsense. Encryption systems may be practically uncrackable. Encryption systems that have to decrypt the "protected" contents for you so that you can listen to them will never be in the least bit secure. If you can hear it you can record it. There is no getting around this.

You can outlaw recordering equipment; or legislate that it include watermark-detection technology.

Printers are getting built-in currency detection, old-fashioned analog VCR's are getting their own copy protection--macrovision isn't uncrackable, but it's annoying at least--the DRM folks are talking about "closing the analog hole"--so that isn't farfetched.

Clearly DRM is hard, but with tamper-resistent security subsystems being built into new machines and such, it's not obvious to me who wins this arms race; certainly I wouldn't go so far to say that "The entire idea of DRM is, on the face of it, futile."

At the very least, DRM is likely to make things that should be easy very annoying, and force us to do things furtively that we should be able to do openly. So I think it's sensible to worry.

--Bruce Fields

Re:Fair User

[Jade E. 2]

You have forgotten fair use. For example, the Supreme Court ruled that it is part of fair use for me to timeshift a television program.

I'm picking your comment to respond to among all the responders that are crying 'fair use' and pointing out the difference between a contract and a license (ie the GPL), but the same answers apply to all of them.

First, regarding fair use. Fair use is not a right. Fair use is not an entitlement. Allow me to quote US Title 17, section 107 [copyright.gov]:

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... [list of fair uses] ...

is not an infringement of copyright. [Emphasis added]

Read that again. And again. And over and over until you finally understand that what it says is that fair use is not an infrinement of copytight. It doesn't give you the unalienable right to timeshift. It doesn't grant you unlimited power to convert things into whatever format you want. All it says is that those things (and things later ruled to be protected, such as timeshifting) are not illegal. If the content provider uses some technological measure to prevent you from doing any of those things, that's perfectly legal. They just can't sue you or have you arrested for doing them.

Now, maybe fair use should be a protected right, but it isn't. And pretending it is doesn't help.

You also said:

My GPL software is protected from being co-opted by commercial abusers by copyright law, not by technical measures. If it ever came down to me suing for copyright infringement, the truth is guaranteed to come out through discovery. There is no technical measure necessary or possible to protect my rights.

Well, those DVDs are protected by copyright law, too. But they're also protected by stupid DMCA-sanctioned technological measures. If you felt like creating some super DMCA protected GPL-DRM that went through and added GPL notices to every file in a project as soon as the linker saw your file, go for it. Just don't expect anybody to actually use it. Unfortunately, it's a bit late to use start touting DMCA protections as a reason to not buy DVDs.

Re:FoulPlay

[Anonymous Coward]

So you mean it's liberal enough to allow me to play files in Linux?

If you want to play stuff in Linux, I bet you're not going to use iTunes which only runs on Mac/Windows. Therefore, since iTunes doesn't meet your needs you should go and find something which does, rather than advocating cracking the software.

Re:We can only hope WMA will win!

[Jade E. 2]

There is no purchase contract for most DVDs. You must shop at a truly bizarre store.

There is no explicit contract, true. But the DVD you purchase is protected by CSS. You cannot legally descramble CSS due to the DMCA. In order to do anything legally with the disc you need a player from a third party who has an agreement with the disc's publisher to allow their equipment (or software) to decode CSS. Having an unwritten requirement that only the publishers approved players will work sure sounds like an implied contract to me.

Incidentally, that requirement is where I see the comparison with the GPL, too. If you want to play a DVD, you have to have an approved player. If you want to redistribute GPL'd software, you have to GPL your changes. In both cases, there's an extra condition you have to agree to in order to use the data in a certain way that you otherwise cannot legally do, although the GPL is more explicit.

AES and WMA

[Ironsides]

What if the next version of WMA encryption were as secure as AES?

Umm.... Currently AES comes in 192 and 256 bit flavors and supports higher. But remember, they have to be sufficiently week such that a computer or (DVD-type) player can decode them on the fly. (That's the reason DVD's only have 40 bit encryption.) Given that they will have to have a single master key for everything. (DVD's have many master keys, knocking the 40bit down to something a few bits less. 36 maybe?) It would be possible for a group to simply brute force the key. Given that Distributed.net [distributed.net] Has been doing this with RC5 implementations on many computers (i know how long it would take them in comparison, but computing power will catch up.) They could crack the master key in a couple years. Less if more people got involved, or if they made special hardware for it. Therefor, if they used that and enough people helped out, they could make it infeasable to use any encryption at all. Hell, it would probably take them a week at most to find every single DVD master key by brute force.

Re:Wrong.

[fname]

Fine, then you are a leach, and in reality you are the minority. Surveys have shown that downloadable music actually has a positive impact on sales of popular albums and a negative impact on unpopular albums. The net result is only a slight decline in music sales on the order of like 1 in 5000 cd's.

Find, great, good. I'm so glad that someone has a study now that contradicts the RIAA party line. And I'm sure the Slashdot community has vigorously studies the methods used by the investigators; to make sure there is no bias, that there methods are sound and so forth. Because we all know that the RIAA studies presented were complete BS, b/c they had an agenda. Let's disregard all that. No we have a study that proves our point of view.

This is such unadulterated BULLSHIT! When the RIAA had studies, everyone on Slashdot loved to disregard the studies (biased or not) and instead touted their anecdotal stories. Hey guess what? No one f'in knows if p2p networks increase or decrease record sales. My gut feeling says that they do, although the RIAA clearly exaggerates its effect. And if p2p increases sales, then why are nearly all the big money musicians against it? I guess they're not as smart as the Slashdot crowd and the RIAA has managed to brainwash them with their biased studies, and they really believe that p2p might hurt their incomes. Poor stupid bastards.

The outright arrogance of 90% of the posts (not necessarily 90% of posters or readers; rather, the vocal plurality) on Slashdot is overwhelming. It's always tinged with the idea that since-I'm-a-techie-I'm-smarter-than-the-average-pe rson smarminess. Fuck that. We're no brighter than the rest of the populace. I know jack-all about the effect of p2p downloading other than through personal experience. Often there are subjects I'm more knowledgeable about, and I hope my posts reflect that. By the BS like that espoused by this AC ("surveys have shown?") are just too much too bear.

Enough. Just because you're passionate about a subject doesn't mean you know what the hell you're talking about. Post some links, provide some critical analysis, but please don't parrot the same Slashthink BS that permeates Slashdot.

Re:Lies

[Tassach]

So I assume you'd be okay if MS started using fuckloads of open source code without bothering to abide by the terms of the license

You are not talking about *USE*, you are talking about *DISTRIBUTION*. I can modify and use a GPL'ed program any fucking way I want to and lock my modifications up in a fucking safe, and there's not a fucking thing anyone can do about it AS LONG AS I DO NOT DISTRIBUTE MY CHANGES. Get it, dipshit? Open source licences grant two rights: the right to make derivitive works and the right to distribute the software and derivitive works. They cannot grant the right to use the software because as the grandparent demonstrated by citing the actual law, you cannot license a right you don't have.

Grow up, learn to read, and get your head out of your ass.

Re:I agree that they are vandals and scoundrels...

[Jerf]

DRM is unfeasible from a security standpoint, even though you can make it difficult on the average Joe.

If you do a full-fledged security analysis, the system is "secure" if the cost of breaking the system is less then the value the system protects. DRM systems will be designed to protect billions of dollars of content. Billions of dollars will be able to crack any remotely feasible DRM scheme. Once cracked, the content can be freely copied by all.

Sure, you can cut down the number of crackers and you might even make it unfeasible, but you can never make it impossible.

All the outlawing and penalities and such just raise the price, but in the end, you can only fine one person so much (life in jail, all assets, that's it), and that's all the system needs to be broken with.

Re:Lies

[ArsonPanda]

Eh, no. GP said right at the beggining, the copyright holder has the right to limit distribution. So if I buy something from you, be it software, music, a book, a photo, whatever, I can do anything I damned well please with it as long as I don't distribute it or a derivitive work.
If I wan't to use copyrighted photos from a magazine I purchased to make a collage for myself, I get to.
If I wan't to sample music of a CD I bought to remix it, i get to (again, as long as I don't redistribute it).
If I want to photocopy a whole book I own and make myself pajamas out of the pages, gues what? I get to!
MS can do whatever the fuck they want with open source code, *as long as they don't redistribute it or dirivitives*
Are you starting to see a pattern here 'dipshit'?

Yes you can sign a contract with Apple ITunes saying you won't, and that's fine. Don't fsck with those ones. But AAC isn't apple's format. I can get AAC files from other sources that may not have such stipulations. So no, there's nothing wrong with this.

Re:Lies

[Alsee]

Something doesn't belong to you just because you have a copy, legal or otherwise. Dumbass.

Actually copyright law deals distinctly and explicitly with ownership of copyright and ownership of individual copies. The copyright holder owns the copyright and the associated rights. However the owner of the medium is the owner of the individual copy embedded in that medium.

So yeah, when you own your hard drive YOU OWN the particular copy stored on that hard drive.

The Supreme Court has even explicitly stated that ownership rights exist and must be dealt with even in the case of infringing copies. If you "steal" a copy onto your harddrive you are the legal OWNER of that copy. In some cases of infringment the law can then impose government confiscation of your property and the copies stored on your property, but is is explicitly confication of copies you owned.

So the original poster was right. If something legally got onto his harddrive then he can do pretty much anything he likes with it, short of opening up shop selling copies of it.

If it made it's way onto his harddrive illegally, it's still his property to do pretty much anything he like with, short of government seisure of that property or going into business selling copies.

And yes, copyright law works that way for the public benefit, and it provides an incentive to artists to create in servive of the public benefit. If he got the copy legally then he generally had to pay to get it, and he is forbidden to compete with the artist's limited monopoly to market that work. If he got it illegally then someone most likely committed infringment and owes the artist damages for making that copy, and he is still forbidden to compete with the artist's limited monopoly to market that work.

The fact that the parent poster was right does not conflict with copyright doing it's job, a valuable job as you noted.

-

Re:For the millionth time

[An Onerous Coward]

Dear God! You mean to tell me that your floorplan is exactly the same as mine? That you ripped off every decorating idea I spent years and years perfecting? The inhumanity!

Wait... I'm confused. You've found a way to build houses for free, and I'm supposed to be angry? No, I'm not. I'm overjoyed. Now everyone can a comfortable home, and it's absolutely wonderful if they thought my design was worth copying.

Your analogy is deeply, fundamentally broken. I don't even know where to begin trying to fix it. No matter what analogy you could use relating music copying to physical items, any loss incurred by the creator--time, money, ego, whatever--is absolutely overwhelmed by the brute force of the simple fact: The copiers are creating new stuff at no cost!

If we could provide quality housing for anyone, for free, simply by ripping off the design you put your blood, sweat, and tears into, it's absolutely worth hurting your feelings.

Re:Contract law say you're goofy

[Phigs]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The thing is that a lot of your points center around a party acting in bad faith. As you have pointed out, contracts made in bad faith are voidable. But assuming the contract is written in good faith, like the Apple contract or whatever, then you cannot claim ignorance of the terms of the contract as a defense unless you are mentally incapable of entering into a contract. Like I stated before, the problem with click-through licenses is not that the users do not read them, it is modification of a contract without consideration. But even this doesn't always stand up... Mortenson v. Timberline Software Corporation, et al

Re:Lies

[Lumpy]

sorry, I signed no agreement I purchased a physical item. NOTHING EVER told me that I have a limited license bla bla bla....

I dont care what you RIAA/software apologists say. it is simple copyright law, there is no license that was ever agreed to or signed or even implied.

just because you print worthless drivel in 3 pt font on a cd cover does not mean it is legally binding in any way. you know this, the lawyers that wrote it know it and everyone knows it.

It's covered under copyright law, get over it there is no license.

Re:Lies

[1010011010]

Ah, yes, the standard definition of "portable" and "cross platform" as meaning, "runs on several versions of Microsoft's software."

"fanboi?" How about the folks that think Microsoft's control of the computing industry is some type of manifest destiny!

Re:Lies

[EelBait]

Chances are, however, if you dissembled your car, figured a way to mass-produce the components, and started selling them or giving them away you'd run afoul of patent laws.

The Federal govt. and most states also have restrictions on what kinds of modifications you can make to a vehicle. If you remove the tail-lights, seat-belts, (and especially) emissions equipment, your car is no longer legal to drive on public roads.

You would also not be allowed to paint the vehicle in a way that would cause someone to mistake it for a Police, Fire, etc. vehicle. You wouldn't be able to attach flashing blue lights, for example.

Certainly, as long as your car never left your private land, you could do as you please with the vehicle. (Except maybe burn it since most counties would frown upon that too). You probably can't legally dump its fluids into the ground either.

Consider also building codes, CC&R's, zoning laws, etc. with regard to land use.

You see? Gov't can impose all kinds of restrictions on your private property rights.

Re:For the millionth time

[caitsith01]

Nope, I'm happy that you can enjoy the design I've perfected over all these years. You're not reducing my ability to enjoy me house (unless I'm a capricious, elitist bastard who only likes things if other people don't have them), and frankly I'm flattered that you like my house so much you want to live in the exact same design.

I mean, seriously, what have I lost? Nothing.

In any case, as another poster has already pointed out, I'm basically too stunned at how cool it is that you can copy a whole house for free to care about the money.

I think you need to consider that 'scarcity' is what determines price. With instant, flawless copying, there is no scarcity. Therefore, we need to come up with a new way of distributing and, indeed, creating such things, not create silly laws to artificially recreate scarcity.

Re:For the millionth time

[caitsith01]

Value to whom? The copyright holder?

IMHO a decent bit of music has value even if a copy is given to every person on earth.

I don't understand why people are so desperate to protect the record label hegemony. People will not stop making music even if Sony-EMI-Time-Warner-Bertlemann-Whatever goes bust. Therefore, the innovation incentive for allowing copyright - an essentially man-made notion - to exist falls away and there is no reason to retain it in this particular sphere.

Three step DRM removal guide.

[r84x]

Step One: Buy music from iTunes store. Step Two: Burn said music to CD. Step Three: Import CD into library. Outcome: Standard mp3 encoded non-drm files. Easy to do, no messing with other programs, and undeniably legal.

Re:I've given up on music downloads

[floateyedumpi]

Do you really believe a WAV or FLAC file contains music in it's "original format"? Of course it doesn't. It's a compromise, designed to be "good enough", which limits the temporal sampling rate, the frequency bandwidth, and the digital encoding depth of sound intensities. The original recorded format, as created in the sound studio, likely has a much higher sampling rate and bandwidth, just as the film or digital master of production movies has much higher bitrate than DVD video. The particular compromise for CD's produces very good results on good equipment, but there's no fundamental (physical or technical) reason that these precise limits were chosen: they were based on typical human acoustical response and the limitations of sound reproduction equipment, driven by the cost-to-market and feasibility of a given data volume/second! CD's could have been designed to hold only 22min of music sampled at 32bit and 88kHz, but that wouldn't meet marketing or customer expectation, and wouldn't actually benefit the majority of equipment (ears included).

The compressed file formats trade size by making more significant and less obvious compromises, but are nonetheless in the same class: a limited, digitized realization of a continuous source. Increasing download bandwidth and further research will likely yield future formats which rival CD quality for all practical (and conceivable) purposes. Of course, by then we'll have 24bit, 192kHZ DVD-audio (in, ironically for the present discussion, the AAC format [theregister.co.uk]), and you'll still complain that the newest generation of super-high-fidelity compressed music isn't "original". If you want your music "original", go hear it in person.

WMA becoming standard? Why not!

[henrypijames]

To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard.

Sure, sure. Let WMA come, since I've got enough "confidence" in Microsoft's "security". If I absolutely have to pick a DRM "technology", I absolutely would choose Microsoft (grin). "Unbreakable"? Forget Oracle, watch out for Microsoft DRM!

stop whining

[hak1du]

To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard.

Well, and if Apple produces a DRM system with gaping holes, then from the point of view of the music industry, that's exactly what should happen. Or do you think people aren't also hard at work cracking WMA?

If Apple wants to be a provider of DRM, then they better do it right or they don't do it at all.

Re:Lies

[Znork]

No. The GPL is nothing like an EULA. The GPL is a copyright permission license. An EULA is an END USER license agreement. The GPL covers only distribution.

EULA's most commonly try to contractually remove rights from the end user. Rights that they _do_ have under copyright law.

The GPL grants rights to someone wishing to distribute software _to_ end users (or anyone else). Rights that they do _not_ have under copyright law.

They are wildly different things.

Re:Lies

[linwoes]

Show me a free (costs nothing, free of encumberances like patent and EULA issues, etc)

Interesting you should choose those words as MP3's are surely encumbered by patents [fraunhofer.de] and is not free [mp3licensing.com].
Sure, some players of MP3s are free but the lincees of the MP3 have strict rules as to when you move from free to non-free. MS and Apple have just chosen different criteria for the move to free and non-free.

Re:Lies

[@madeus]

It seems you fail to understand:

i) The GPL.
ii) The difference between use and distribution.

There are allowments in law for levels of distribution (for quoting and sampling media, for example), but these are not licenses to be granted, they are allowed for in law, and they are rights that effect only the distribution of content, not personal use.

Many companies ship with extensive EULA's (which, with reference to another post of yours, the GLP is not, if you do not grasp that then you have not read or understood it), this is primarily true of software. These are not legally binding however, and many are in fact worthless, you cannot create a legally binding contact that 'sets aside' existing laws (in any western country, to the best of my knowledge).

Such ELUA's that attempt to are as meaningless as the 'No Refunds' sign in shop stores, if a product does not live up to reasonable expectations you are still entitled to a full refund, reguardless of 'Store Policy'. Likewise if software does not live up to reasonable expectations you are still legally entitled to a refund, even after breaking the 'hallowed seal' that claims that by breaking it you accept to abide by all the terms contained in the license (in the 80's vendors used to amusingly include the license on the inside of the envelope).

In fact, by practices such as including the license on the inside of the envelope, or including even a single illegal (and thus unenforceable) clause in some countries (and possibly in some states) this rendered the entire license unenforceable, meaning that companies where actually shooting themselves in the foot with such practices, by losing the right to legally enforce some otherwise legitimate restrictions.

Some companies have already attempted to restrict the 'right to use' and cases have been tested in court and have thus far all failed.

In the Sony vs. Connectix case, it was of note that what Connectix had done broke all Sony EULA's (using Sonys software in an act of reverse engineering is forbidden on all it's licenced games for the PlayStation platform). They still lost their case in the Supreme Court. The court ruling stated that Connectix had every right to distribute their Playstation emulator, reguardless of the 'EULA vilotations', which proved rather worthless, unable as they were, to prevent Sonys software from being used in a 'forbidden' manner.

Another example of a failer to enforce such restirctions would be the DeCSS case in Norway. Something the MPAA have not specifically tried in the US because they know it would likey fail, and they are fearful of repercussions that would have (in that it would damage there current stance on the issu, as well as help bolster negative public opinion, making it very hard for them to be listened to). This was a particularly relevent case, as although this ruling was in Norway and only applies there, it shows that citizens have the right to choose how they use something they have already purchased.

Very simply, you can't simply exempt yourself from common law, or create artifical restrictions the law does not permit. The only reason they are able to enforce any restrictions on how you distribute it is because of copyright law in Western countries that specificlly allows them to do so (created with the reasonable intention of proctecting the interests of copyright holders). The laws that allowed them to impose certain restrictions exist because of the the belief that without them, there would be less incentive for creators to come up with new content, which is likely the case (though some avocades of a more anarchic legal framework do disagree on it's level of success in this regard).

The concept that content creators have control about how you use an item (as distinct from how you distributed) is a mime spounted from those seeking to encorage this sort of thinking in an attempt to make it easier change copyright law so that it is does work in this fav

Re:I've given up on music downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

I will stop downloading because I no longer want to own music that is in a format other than its original format.

While it may be practical to have Eric Clapton play his guitar in the back seat of your car, you'll find listening to the original format more difficult if you want to listen to a symphony. And if hip-hop is your thing, you'll need a bullet-proof glass barrier installed, which will muffle the sound (that's not necessarily a bad thing, however).

You're really a very silly person, you know.