Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Bug Businesses OS X Operating Systems Apple

Monday Releases Cause Crashes 170

Posted by pudge from the caveat-usor dept.
The two big releases yesterday, Apple's Security Update and the DRM-canceling PlayFair, are causing problems. The Security Update appears to break cvs over pserver under some conditions (hangs for a long time, then quits with a malloc error), and ryanw writes, "according to the SF.net forum for playfair, the 'iTMS DRM stripping tool' destroys your purchased songs: the resulting files crash iTunes, the iPod, and QuickTime." Those who follow the rules -- wait a few days to install Apple's updates, and make backups of your iTMS files -- will be unaffected.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Monday Releases Cause Crashes More

Monday Releases Cause Crashes

Comments Filter:

  • Er...ooops. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by System.out.println() ( 755533 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @11:54AM (#8780432) Journal
    I really need to learn to wait a few days before installing things. I'm so impatient.

    Even worse, I check a dozen or so Mac sites several times daily, (yes I need a life) so I probably get every update within 8 hours or so of release, if that.

  • that'll theach you... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @11:56AM (#8780449)
    ...to install version 0.2 of some guy's software

  • Hmm (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gkelman ( 665809 )
    I check everyday for updates as a matter of course and installed yesterday's security stuff. Luckily
    being in the UK I _still_ can't buy music from iTunes, and I don't have an iPod so no problem really.

    Annoying that they don't check these things more carefully.

  • PlayFair 0.2 (Score:5, Informative)

    by ZackSchil ( 560462 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @12:00PM (#8780500)
    The way PlayFair snags a decryption key doesn't always work, but it tries to decrypt the song anyway. If it finds a bad key and uses it, of course the files are going to come out as garbage! If you swap headers of an m4a file and an m4p file, QuickTime, iTunes and the iPod all crash while reading it also. It does not, as the post suggests, even touch your purchased songs. All decryption is made on a copy. Just more fear mongering.

    I have, however, had no trouble decrypting my songs under Mac OS X. They work perfectly.

    • Re:PlayFair 0.2 (Score:5, Informative)

      by obijywk ( 596747 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @01:10PM (#8781397)
      I had trouble with PlayFair at first too (on my Linux machine)... the same thing happened to me - if PlayFair doesn't find a valid key for your song, it goes ahead and creates a messed up file anyway. These files crashed every player I tried them in. After I moved my key into ~/.drms, where PlayFair could find it, the decrypted files came out fine.

      I guess PlayFair needs some improved error checking. But I think it's great... now I can listen to my iTunes songs on my linux machine!

    • Re:PlayFair 0.2 (Score:3, Informative)

      by ZackSchil ( 560462 )
      Upon further inspection, I've come across a few strange things. Only my more recent iTunes Music Store purchases decrypt correctly. The older ones make garbled files that iTunes tries to play for a minute, then crashes.

    • Re:PlayFair 0.2 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by prockcore ( 543967 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @02:31PM (#8782644)
      If you swap headers of an m4a file and an m4p file, QuickTime, iTunes and the iPod all crash while reading it also.

      You know, an enterprising hacker would take this as a sure sign of buffer overflows being present in QuickTime.

      Then again we all know hackers only use windows so there's nothing to worry about.

      • Re:PlayFair 0.2 (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Just because it crashes doesn't mean it's a buffer overflow.

    • Re:PlayFair 0.2 (Score:5, Informative)

      by ZackSchil ( 560462 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @03:24PM (#8783376)
      I got to the bottom of the freezing issue!!

      Just delete the folder ~/.drms between each decryption. I wrote a GUI for Mac OS X that integrates with iTunes and I just had to make it delete the .drms folder between encodes to make it work properly.

      Oh, and sorry for replying 2 times to my own post :)

  • Brilliant move combining those two stories (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @12:06PM (#8780575)
    Brilliant move combining those two entirely seperate stories into one article.

    You just know some ignorant tinfoil-hat wearing /.ers are going to assume that the stories are related somehow, and that the Apple Security Update somehow sabotaged playfair. Sheesh.

  • Apple protects fair-use (Score:4, Insightful)

    by valmont ( 3573 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @12:15PM (#8780689) Homepage Journal

    The nerds behind PlayFair are doing nothing but harm the very thing they seek to protect: Fair Use. Apple *already* allows you to make an unlimited amount of regular Audio CDs from music you purchased on iTMS. Apple already allows you to listen to your music on any computer running their free iTunes software. THAT *is* fair use. Why go thru the trouble of breaking encryption? just so you could listen to your music on linux? if you're going thru all that trouble then why not create a few audio CDs from all your purchased music, so you could listen to it on your stereo and in your car, AND RIP UN-DRM'ed MP3s onto your linux box?.

    This is all just silly. Why don't "freedom fanboys" either get a clue or stick to WMA, rather than bashing Apple on their attempt to make the RIAA play nice and bragging about circumventing a DRM scheme that has always been loose in the first place.

    i still buy most my music off of amazon, i'm a big fan of physical goods in the mail.

    • Re:Apple protects fair-use (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hawkbug ( 94280 ) <psxNO@SPAMfimble.com> on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @12:24PM (#8780785) Homepage
      I agree with you - I have no interest in unencrypting my iTunes files. However, some people would argue that by burning a CD and then creating an mp3 from it, you are losing a lot of quality. My ears aren't the greatest, but I sometimes think I can tell a difference between an mp3 created in that fashion vs the original iTunes download. But then again, maybe it's just my imagination - either way, that's how I convert my music - by burning it to CD first.
    • Sigh....did we not already talk about this? iTUNES -> CDAUDIO -> MP3 is extra loss. ITUNES-> CDAUDIO -> AAC also possibly extra loss. The CDAUDIO is same quality, but not portable, and I do not have an iPod, or disk space to hold the uncompressed ripped cd's. That is why I am also a big fan of physical goods in the mail.

      So point by point:
      THAT *is* fair use
      It is also fair use to break their encryption. One fair use does not stop another. DMCA may make it illegal though, but that is a differe
      • Swapping CD's is a pain.
        Eject, remove, insert, play. Have we gotten this lazy? Most music players have an eject button in the GUI and Mac's have one on the keyboard.
        • Lazy? Yeah maybe. But then again, how does one randomize CD's. I might not want to listen to the whole album at the same time. And changing CDs every 4 minutes is a pain. Not to mention, having no way to randomize them.
          • If you don't have the attention span to listen to an album for more than four minutes, maybe that's the problem rather than any technical issue. Do you also rip your dvd's onto your computer so that you can watch movies three minutes at a time without having to swap discs?
            • No, dvds tend to last more than a few minutes. Now if they were music video dvds, then yes, I would consider ripping them, and then randomizing them.

              And as for music, I do not like listening to the whole album at the same time. I prefer my songs randomized, and it has nothing to do with my attention span.

              Besides, what does attention span has to do with anything regarding how I use my media. My media, and I chose to listen to it the way I want.

      • Re:Apple protects fair-use (Score:5, Insightful)

        by valmont ( 3573 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @01:55PM (#8782089) Homepage Journal

        interesting points

        Could you please define not portable? When you use iTunes to burn an AUDIO CD, you get a real audio CD, that can be played on any CD player. My GF buys a lot of music off of iTMS and makes lots of CDs which she plays just fine in her car. I must be misunderstanding what you mean by "not portable".

        Please also define for my slow brain what you mean by "extra loss". You mean audio quality loss? See, I believe this is where you and I disagree. From personal experience, and that of a few other people, creating an Audio CD from a bunch of purchased iTMS AAC music doesn't appear to yield any loss in quality (which I believe, we agree on), and ripping MP3's or AAC's from that same CD does not either seem to yield any loss of quality either. The quality of the result from Audio CD ==> MP3/AAC process, will of course depend on what compression settings your ripping software is set to. This would apparently be where you and I disagree.

        I'm sure you are already aware of this and mainly making a point, but there is absolutely nothing legal about getting rid of DRM from music you purchased from iTMS. Most threads I've read about "Fair Use" and Copyright law seem to ignore one simple thing: When you download music from iTMS, you know ahead of time, what the rules are. You agreed to them when clicking "Accept" on the EULA screen iTunes threw at you upon installation. Apple offers you a contract, you accept it by using their service. It is that simple. All musings about "Fair Use" and "Copyright", from this point, are mainly scoped to whether or not Apple and the RIAA have a "moral right" to apply their DRM scheme, whether or not, from a consumer standpoint this is fair, and whether or not, as a consumer, you should choose to use their services and products. If you do choose to use those services, there is absolutely no law you can invoke to justify bypassing their DRM scheme. The only case where you'd have legal recourse would be if you were never warned in advance, if said companies never provided you with the information you needed as a consumer to make an educated choice as to whether or not you should use their services. Such as when certain CDs are sold with DRM built-in, yet advertised as AUDIO CD, which defines a precise digital format which those CDs technically don't conform to.

        • Steve himself has claimed that music from iTMS is superior in quality to what you get on a CD, because it is ripped from masters instead of from a CD. The masters have better sampling, so the resulting AAC file can be better than CD quality. Now when you burn that to a CD you are by definition getting a "CD quality" file, which according to Steve, is already worse than what you downloaded from iTMS. You then rip that file from the CD to create an MP3, which is another lossy process.

          So you go through tw

      • So what exactly does de-DRMing the AAC file give you that the original version doesn't? Unless your non-iPod player plays non-DRMed AAC, all you get is the ability to share AAC files with thousands of friends you don't know. The change to any other format is still as lossy as before.
        • I have a home jukebox [musicpd.org] that does play AAC files. It is linux based, so I can't really use iTunes. It would be really nice to put my purchased songs on the server and be able to play them. I could have done the M4P->CD->MP3 route, but this is much nicer.

          Just one (non-infringing) example.

      • If you're really that concerned about the minimal audio quality loss going from AAC -> MP3 you should be buying your songs on CD / SACD / DVD-Audio and not downloading them in the first place...

      • Re:Apple protects fair-use (Score:5, Insightful)

        by log0n ( 18224 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:21PM (#8784148)
        I'd mod you down but I'd rather share my thoughts instead.

        Download music isn't a right, it's a privilege. Where do you get this sense of all-encompassing sense of entitlement?

        What you're doing is rationalizing your process for circumventing this privilege of downloading music. You *choose not to support* or use the system Apple makes available for the product that you want to use, and somehow you think your intentional non-compliance justifies the right to 'fair use' how you see fit.

        Just because something exists doesn't mean you have limitless access, control or influence with it. Cope.

        You don't want loss imposed by transcoding between DRMAAC->CD Audio->mp3 (ogg,whatever). So then don't transcode; use the system that was designed for the format. Or, buy the CD or single that you're interested in and have a hard copy that bypasses all this DRM. Or better yet, don't buy anything - not for idealist Anti-DRM reasons, but because you realize that what you want to purchase isn't available for what you intend to do!

        Swapping CDs is a pain? I see where the sense of limitless entitlement comes from.

        Apple can do what they want. You can do what you want as well. But when it comes to who sets the rules for DRM AACs, it's Apple. If you don't like the rules they've set, there's no law that forces you have to buy/use a specific product that has rules you have fundamental disagreement with. Seek a legal alterative that works how you want it to work, or learn to cope with doing without.
        • Well, there is a big question of whether or not fair use is a right. For example, it is a (court-determined) right that I can time-shift or record TV. Why should it not be a right that I can change the formats.

          Yes, I have "signed" an agreement with apple that I will only use iTunes, but that does not mean that th e contract is legal. In fact if it is found to contain terms that infringe on my rights, then those terms may be struck out by the courts. That is in fact if Apple decides to sue me in court, whic
        • I buy a tune. It's mine now, and I can make any private use of it I want to. That is a right. That includes changing the format to anything I want, listening to it on any device I want, or printing it out as extended ascii and hanging it on my bathroom wall if I feel like it.

          Infringing on copyright, sure, that would not fall under fair use - I can't share the copies with people who haven't got a right to own them, I can't try to pass the thing off as my own work. But that only covers transferring the

          • I buy a tune. It's mine now, and I can make any private use of it I want to. That is a right. That includes changing the format to anything I want, listening to it on any device I want, or printing it out as extended ascii and hanging it on my bathroom wall if I feel like it.

            *yawn* read the terms and conditions when buying a DRM protected tune from iTMS. When you buy a tune from iTMS you are agreeing to bide by these terms and conditions. Anything else, include your misinformed rant above, is just blust

    • Re:Apple protects fair-use (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) * <slashdotNO@SPAMpudge.net> on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @01:33PM (#8781736) Homepage Journal
      Apple already allows you to listen to your music on any computer running their free iTunes software. THAT *is* fair use.

      Uh. I have five Macs in my house. I can only play music *I purchased* on three of them. It is quite clear: I am being denied my fair use rights. There's really no debating it. What to do about the problem is all that is under debate.

      Why go thru the trouble of breaking encryption? just so you could listen to your music on linux? if you're going thru all that trouble then why not create a few audio CDs from all your purchased music, so you could listen to it on your stereo and in your car, AND RIP UN-DRM'ed MP3s onto your linux box?

      You argue people should use DRM circumvention instead of DRM circumvention? You're quite confused. One method is no more or less legal or justifiable than the other. Both of them are methods to circumvent DRM, and in my case, perfectly legal, since the existing files prevent me from exercising my fair use rights.

      • Creating CDs off of iTMS music is a feature Apple has managed to negotiate with the RIAA. You are not messing with the encrypted file, you are not doing anything illegal. The fact that people might start creating MP3s from their newly created CDs is something the RIAA has been willing to live with, as it is a step that is cumbersome enough to limit the amount of rampant piracy originating from iTMS goods, yet convenient enough to decently promote Fair Use applications of this scheme, where, as i've mention

        • Creating CDs off of iTMS music is a feature Apple has managed to negotiate with the RIAA.

          Yes, and? You are saying people should use it to circumvent the DRM. The purpose of the CDs is to have CDs, not to re-rip it back to the computer. The fact that it is more acceptable to Apple or the RIAA has no bearing on me.

          You are not messing with the encrypted file, you are not doing anything illegal.

          Copyright has nothing to do with the file itself, but the content. You were talking about fair use, which me

      • Rendevouz (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        cant you just stream the music between all five macs. Saves disk space too.

      • Re:Apple protects fair-use (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NaugaHunter ( 639364 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @12:40AM (#8789058)
        I am being denied my fair use rights. There's really no debating it.

        Technically, it is debatable. You can set iTunes on a single machine to share its music, including purchased, with any Macs on the same network. The main reason Apple allows authorization on multiple machines is for fair use when traveling or at an office, and your main server wouldn't be available.

        Whether or not this is convenient for you is a personal matter, but the technology already exists to share your music with any computer you could carry CDs back and forth to, without having to authorize/de-authorize.
        • You can set iTunes on a single machine to share its music, including purchased, with any Macs on the same network.

          Limited in number.

          Whether or not this is convenient for you is a personal matter, but the technology already exists to share your music with any computer you could carry CDs back and forth to, without having to authorize/de-authorize.

          If I limit the number of Macs. It's the same problem. You've not highlighted any interesting difference.
          • You mean the number of macs you can share to are limited in number? If that's your problem, I'm fairly sure that fair use doesn't allow you to use a file or piece of media in as many different places at once as you want.

            Besides which, contract law supercedes copyright law, so if the license agreement limits your fair use, you have no legal argument from copyright law.

            • Yes, it does. As long as it's always just you using it, yes. If I really like roundelays, and I want to listen to a song I bought on seven different stereo systems, each half a verse behind the other, that's my right.

              And, more importantly, it's my right to listen to the music on any brand of device I want. If I can figure out a way to get NetBSD on RISC-Toaster to recognize a sound card, it's my right to use a tune I bought as the "toast is ready" theme song.

              As for contract law vs. copyright law - th

              • (a) I can't sign away rights. No matter how many slavery contracts you sign, you can't sell yourself into slavery.

                IANAL, so I don't know the term to describe your facetiousness, but by your reasoning all NDAs and gag-orders would be useless, since they'd interfere with your right to free speech. And while simply clicking 'I Agree' may be unclear software license acceptance, actually authorizing payment after clicking probably is a little clearer as acceptance of terms for a contract.

                All fair use arg
                • IANAL, so I don't know the term to describe your facetiousness, but by your reasoning all NDAs and gag-orders would be useless, since they'd interfere with your right to free speech.

                  You are conflating two things. Gag orders are not about you willingly signing away your rights, but you being ordered by a court, regardless of your will. And yes, many times, NDAs are held to be unenforcable, depending on what the right is. Certainly a company has the right to make you agree to some things, but the line is
                  • I will concede that fair use allows what you want to do. I will not concede that anyone has to make it easy for you. Apple has iTunes share up to 3 computers* immediately after purchase with no extra effort, which is more of a fair use concession than you get from a single CD. More than that and you'll have to do the work yourself, the same as you would for any other source. iTunes Music Sharing is a feature they probably could have left off with less controversy, but it's there and it works as it does.
                    • I will not concede that anyone has to make it easy for you.

                      And I will not concede I ever asked anyone to. I merely want to be able to do it without being accused of violating the law for circumventing anti-piracy measures which are there to prevent illegal use, not my legal use.

                      However, I still feel your initial claim of being denied fair use by iTunes sharing limit is erroneous

                      My point was never about sharing, but about the fact that I can only play the music on a limited number of devices (regardle
                    • So in essence we agree, as I never really meant to say it was illegal or should be, just that I felt it was a bit much to attack Apple for how little they did instead of acknowledging what they've done as a first step. While it would be nice for there to be no software limits, at this point it was impossible for Apple to get that to fly.

                      On the other hand, I don't consider burning a CD and then using the music elsewhere 'circumvent[ing] the copy protection', since you are implicitly allowed to and that f
                    • I felt it was a bit much to attack Apple for how little they did instead of acknowledging what they've done as a first step

                      They've gotten enough kudos from others, so I choose to attack Jobs for lying to us when he said we own the music and implied we can use it any way we wish.

                      While it would be nice for there to be no software limits, at this point it was impossible for Apple to get that to fly.

                      I understand that, but it is meaningless in regard to whether or not criticism is warranted. They chose to
                    • On most things I think we see where each other is, and we'll just go in circles with our slight differences. Just one point I'll comment on:

                      I can, legally, make as many perfect copies of a CD as I want, for personal use. How is that 'virtually identical' to the 3-copy limit of iTMS?

                      You can legally make as many perfect CD copies of songs you've downloaded, so I'm not sure how the 3-computer sharing limit enters into this. The only limit is you have to adjust the list every 10 burns or something like
                    • You can legally make as many perfect CD copies of songs you've downloaded

                      No, it is lossy.

                      By 'virtually identical' I meant that after burning they have no DRM and you will have the ability to do whatever you would have with a purchased CD.

                      Again, no. According to the terms, if you rip it back tp AAC/MP3 from the burned CD, you will be separating the product from the DRM. According to the terms, this circumvention would be indistinguishable from merely stripping the DRM from the original file. The ter
                    • OK, from the Terms of Sale [apple.com]:

                      CONTENT USAGE RULES Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.

                      You shall be authorized to use the Product only for personal, non-commercial use.

                      You shall be authorized to use the Product on three Apple authorized computers.

                      You shall be entitled to burn and export Products solely for personal, non-commercial use.

                      Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a g
                    • You can legally make as many perfect CD copies of songs you've downloaded
                      No, it is lossy.

                      No, burning a CD is pretty accurate conversion of an already lossy format (AAC) to a lossless format CD-Audio. Unless the AAC to AIFF conversion has bugs, the resulting AIFF audio should be the same as the original AAC audio with only a single generation of lossy compression artifacts.

                    • burning a CD is pretty accurate conversion of an already lossy format (AAC) to a lossless format CD-Audio. Unless the AAC to AIFF conversion has bugs, the resulting AIFF audio should be the same as the original AAC audio with only a single generation of lossy compression artifacts.

                      "Pretty accurate" is a synonym for "lossy." No, it is not exact, as you are extrapolating. And yes, all conversions have bugs. And more to the point, when I then convert it to any other compressed format later under the terms
                    • All I can say is that it is open for interpretation. Taking the hardline you are correct - you can't reimport. But taking a loose interpretation, you're not allowed to use the "Product" - the DRM enabled file - on more than 3 computers.

                      See the definition of "Product" in the Terms of Service [apple.com]: "products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork." When they say "[t]he security technology is an inseparable part of the Products," they are talking not about the specific files,
      • Fair use is not a right; it is a defense against an infringement claim.
      • You, Sir, is a winer.

        You are not being denied anything at all.
        You can only listen to *your* music in one place at a time, right ? So, use the iTunes sharing and *your* music is available everywhere, right ?
        • You, Sir, is a winer.

          I am in no way affiliated with Dave Winer. You take that back!

          You are not being denied anything at all.

          You're incorrect. It's quite clear to everyone who has eyes and ears. While it is technically true I am not being denied my rights, it is true that so-called "anti-circumvention" technologies like Apple's FairPlay DRM deny me the exercise of my rights. I have the legal right to play a song I purchased on as many computers in my home as I wish, but Apple's DRM prevents me from
      • I'll bite on the troll - You're not being denied any rights because you agreed to the terms of use when you bought the songs. If you don't like the terms, go buy the CD and rip it. Or try this new fandled thing called rendevous sharing in iTunes, and you can play all your songs over the network without even copying the files over. You can even do it over any Windows machines.

        • I'll bite on the troll - You're not being denied any rights because you agreed to the terms of use when you bought the songs.

          No, you're missing the point. As explained elsewhere in this thread, the terms don't actually deny my fair use rights, they deny me the *exercise* of those rights, making a not-so-veiled appeal to DMCA provisions. I still have the right to listen to the music on more than three computers, but not the right to circumvent the copy protection; the copy protection is *therefore* denyi

  • Dont know if this is related (Score:5, Interesting)

    by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @12:18PM (#8780722)
    I did the update and then had spinning-wheel-of-death four times in a row while trying to run an unrelated program installer and simultaneously burn a DVD. Had to do these operations sequentially to get them to work. (why was I doing both: I was simply multi-tasking my monthly maintainence chores.)
    • Blue Screen of Death sounds like something Peter Jackson would use in post production.

      Spinning Wheel of Death sounds like something pat sajak cum satan would use in hell with humormous but sometimes painful results.

  • Remove Playfair? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @12:22PM (#8780772)
    1. Anyone who is good at reading the install scripts - How do we "remove" playfair? (especially since it doesn't seem to get a good decoding done - the resulting files all crash whatever app tries to play them. Maybe wait a version or two...)

    2. Now this might be pretty basic, but does anyone have a favorite unix scripting tutorial so that I can learn how to script things like this to run on multiple files?

    • Re:Remove Playfair? (script) (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Save everything after this (start at #!/bin/bash), and chmod +x it.
      Run with ./saved-file m4p m4a
      This finds all m4p files in current dir (copy them first!) and saves the files in no-drm/.
      Also, run playfair first (and have /usr/local/bin in your path) to get your key.

      #!/bin/bash

      DIR=no-drm

      usage () {
      echo "Usage: $0 suffix newsuffix [converted-dir]"
      exit
      }

      if [ "$1" == "-h" ] || [ "$1" == "--help" ]; then usage; fi

      if [ -n "$1" ] && [ -n "$2" ]; then
      SUFF1=$1
      SUFF2=$2
      else
      usage
      fi

      i

    • Re:Remove Playfair? (Score:3, Informative)

      by absurdhero ( 614828 )
      The crashing is because it can't find a key. Read some of the other posts explaining how to fix that. As for uninstalling it, download the source code, and in the Terminal, go to that directory. Then type: make uninstall

  • PlayFair Works!!! (Score:5, Informative)

    by alatesystems ( 51331 ) <.chris. .at. .chrisbenard.net.> on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @01:27PM (#8781649) Homepage Journal
    It really does work. The crashing is caused by it not acquiring the key and decrypting it incorrectly with no error checking. This is what you have to do(the only way I know how, because I don't know how to compile it on windows).

    Download it on *nix and do ./configure, make, make install(if you're root).

    On windows, download VLC [videolan.org]. Run it and open your encrypted m4p file.

    Now, in c:\documents and settings\username(whatever you're logged in as)\application data\drms, you have the key file. Copy that key file to your ~/.drms dir(create it) on the *nix box.

    Then on the *nix box run ./playfair whatever.m4p new.m4p.

    WHAM! It now works. It grabs the key from your ~/.drms and decrypts it to new.m4p. It works! I've tried it. This is great. Now I can actually buy music(Until apple "fixes" this).

    If someone could compile this on windows it would cut down this process to 2 steps: 1. Run VLC with the file. 2. Run playfair.exe in.mp4 out.m4p

    Thanks,
    Chris Benard [chrisbenard.net]

  • It DOESNT mess with your iTunes songs! (Score:5, Informative)

    by da_dho ( 759264 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @01:34PM (#8781742)
    Firstly, this tool never touches the original so unless you deleted the original before testing the new one, you are fine. For Example: /usr/local/bin/playfair Secondly, the tool works fine most of the time. At least the mac version, but likely the pc one too. For me, its spits out 3/4 properly drm'd songs then spits out the rest garabage that crash iTunes/Quicktime. Try it yourself people, all you need is a mac with an ipod hooked up to it or just a windows pc.

  • CVS over pserve broken? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by XbainX ( 464073 )
    I installed the security update this morning on my 15" AlPB and I use CVS over pserver at work and have seen no problems.

    Just did a commit and an update for the hell of it, works fine...
    • Likewise. Sounds like the problem (assuming there is a problem, i.e. assuming it wasn't just one person installing on a dying hard drive) is difficult to reproduce, which doesn't usually lead to a quick fix....

      If anybody -does- experience this problem, it might help the relevant folks fix it if they knew more about the circumstances. Anybody?

  • What Luck! (Score:2, Funny)

    by aflat362 ( 601039 )
    I just bought a brand new PowerBook and got it yesterday. Being the good computer owner that I am, I of course ran the updates to get me up to speed. Damnit!

  • Crashes!?!?! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nullhero ( 2983 )
    How come everytime that Apple has an update people report that there have been crashes. I have updated Mac OS X since 10.2.2 when I bought the machine and never once had it...okay I lie it did crash - ONCE! - but that had nothing to do with any update file that I installed. I'm still not sure why it crashed considering it hasn't crashed since the ONE TIME CRASH!

    I'm just emphazing that little fact because my Windows Box at work crashed two to three times a week...I mean 2 TO 3 TIMES A WEEK!!

    Anyways, the DR

    • Simple. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ZxCv ( 6138 ) *
      How come everytime that Apple has an update people report that there have been crashes.

      Because, typically, Apple users expect things to Just Work(tm). So, when things don't Just Work(tm), most Apple users will complain loudly.

      Conversely, most Windows users don't have such an expectation. So when an update comes along that does break something, I imagine not nearly as many Windows users are inclined to complain loudly about it.

      Of course there will be a small number of users that are adversely affected

  • It's a real shame. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kiwioddBall ( 646813 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @05:34PM (#8785188)
    Its a little sad that a forum that generally celebrates Apples acheivements has a whole pile of posts on how to correctly configure the tool that will easily destroy them.

    I can appreciate it from the technical point of view, but perhaps a post on what this is now going to do to Apples future fortune now that AAC is not secure is more appropriate, especially as Apples growth recently has been on the back of achievements in the audio area.
  • Why does PlayFair make copies of the song? That's nice for portable players (where the codec can't be replaced), but I'd like to see the music players ignore the DRM all together. That way I don't have to make new copies of my files after I buy them. After all, most of us are just trying to solve the same problem: We either have too many computers (more than three) or we run an unsupported platform (linux). A tool that leaves the DRM in place might not be looked down upon as badly either.

  • Fair use and the iTMS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nsayer ( 86181 ) <nsayer.kfu@com> on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @07:07PM (#8786283) Homepage
    1. People keep talking about "Fair use." It's a moot point. Fair use is what you can do with intellectual property that you posess (note I did not say "own") WHERE THERE IS NO OTHER GOVERNING AGREEMENT. When you started up iTunes, you clicked through a license that spells out what you may do with the songs you purchase. That is the difference between the iTMS and a CD - CDs don't have shrinkwrap licenses.

    If you are in the United States, giving PlayFair to someone else or posting it on a web site probably violates the DMCA: It is not authorized by the rights holder, and it defeats an effective means of copy control.

    Using PlayFair to decode your purchases to use on machines that don't have iTunes (such as Linux machines) probably is legal under the reverse engineering for compatibility sections of the DMCA, but that law is very full of contradictions and has not been fully tested in the courts.

    I have a suggestion for the PlayFair authors: As you decrypt each song, put the account information in a hidden or comment section of the output file. Anyone using PlayFair to simply use their purchased content themselves would not be hurt by this, and it would provide an additional deterent against putting decoded content up on $P2P_NETWORK_DU_JOUR. It would bolster your eventual defense in court that you were not making a tool for piracy.
    • "When you started up iTunes, you clicked through a license that spells out what you may do with the songs you purchase. That is the difference between the iTMS and a CD - CDs don't have shrinkwrap licenses."

      You have fallen victim to a false way of thinking. You are suggesting, the mere moving of a mouse pointer over a button and clicking is the same as signing a contract. The idea that you "license" software is absolutely NOT supported by US law. Do you license books? A license is needed for distribut
      • Your click license misses a big point: There are many ways to use your text that do not require clicking 'reply'. I could make a new comment without hitting 'reply' that used your text. And yes, it was as stupid (as are most reducto ad absurdum arguments). But quite a bit less so than the iTunes license agreement or countless other click-through licenses in use today.

        But that's a tempest in a teapot.

        If a book came in a sealed container that had a license agreement, then yes, you would be licensing the boo
        • "It's called a 'contract'."

          Contracts, after the acceptance of item, aren't valid. That's the problem. How can one distribute an item with the IMPLIED acceptance of a contract before the contract is accepted? Why are people expected to KNOW the contents of a contract BEFORE the exchange of an item? They can't and it's absured to think they will. It's absurd to accept MONEY before the contract is accepted. Contracts don't work that way.

          Which is exactly why someone can't mail you a book and have a lic
          • If all you say is true, then it should be trivial for you to find some actual case law that supports your position. I await more than your mere argument of your assumptions with baited breath.
            • Do you expect to find positive statements of the non-existence of this twisted version of contract law? The burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders to find postive proof of it's existence.
          • Very wrong. You can downlaod and use iTunes without agreeing to any contract other than the basic software EULA present in the software, which is provided to you BEFORE you install, and which if you disagree to, imposes no costs on you. You can eve use the music store freature of iTunes.

            Now, if you want to BUY music from the music store, then you have to sign up with the music store, and BEFORE you do that, and BEFORE you pay money, you are presented with a contract regarding the use of products which you

  • pserver (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Onan ( 25162 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:18PM (#8787634)
    Uh, pserver is unencrypted, and using it is actually _more_ work than doing it the Right Way (over ssh). There's just no good reason for anyone anywhere to use it.

    So, yeah, I'd consider breaking pserver to be a valid security enhancement.

  • Stop Your Whining, You Guys!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by bfg9000 ( 726447 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @09:46PM (#8787839) Homepage Journal
    I just installed the patch and I don't know what you're all whining about! Everything's working per

Slashdot Top Deals

As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison

Close