Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Businesses Media Apple

How To Play Your iTunes Music On Other Systems 243

Posted by timothy
from the shame-this-is-necessary dept.
ptorrone writes "Engadget has a step-by-step for the non-uber geek on how to play your purchased music from iTunes on other systems. To be clear, this isn't a way to take music you bought and give it to someone else, this is so you can listen to your own purchased music on other systems or devices. In fact, your personal info is still in the file."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How To Play Your iTunes Music On Other Systems

Comments Filter:
  • Sweet! (Score:5, Informative)

    by djhankb (254226) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @07:36PM (#9191258) Homepage
    I've purchased a bunch of em.
    My previous solution was to burn then to CD, then rip them using something else, like Grip under linux.

    my 2

    -H
    • Re:Sweet! (Score:2, Interesting)

      I've purchased more music off of iTunes in the two months since I got my iPod than I have in the last 5 years. Apple has gotten about $70 dollars so far off of iTunes from my wife and I, which isn't bad considering my less than legit ways in the past...
    • Re:Sweet! (Score:2, Informative)

      CDEX works well for it too, or if you can play it in some other players with a .wav output.
  • by maxbang (598632) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @07:41PM (#9191297) Journal

    From the article:

    Now the application is called "hymn", or "hear your music anywhere"...

    I would have called it "hyman" because it makes more sense. Then again, if the program crashed on you, I guess you'd have a busted hyman, so I see where they're coming from on that.

    • "Now the application is called "hymn", or "hear your music anywhere"... "

      Seems to me that the acronyum is HYMAW.

      • Re:"Hi, Ma!" (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by black mariah (654971)
        If you're going to be a humorless pedantic tit then the acronym is actual HYMA. Then again, none of those are funny which was the entire fucking point of the grandparent.
  • Cool... But... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thedogcow (694111) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @07:41PM (#9191301)
    This is a great way to do this legally... but... there is always someone that will circumvent the issue and find a loop hole to share music within iTunes.

    I really don't see illegal mp3/acc file sharing to be stopped. Ever.
    • Re:Cool... But... (Score:5, Informative)

      by DaHat (247651) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @07:47PM (#9191344) Homepage
      This is NOT a legal method!

      By purchasing songs from the iTMS you have contractually agreed NOT to bypass their DRM system in anyway other than those provided (ie burning to cd and re-ripping). Any other means, such as this is a violation of said contract and you are liable for any and all damages, regardless of if they are actual (ie 10,000 people didn't buy a CD because they got the song from you instead) or imaginary (ie they think 10,000 didn't buy a CD because they had the remote ability to get the song from you).
      • by d34thm0nk3y (653414) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @07:59PM (#9191414)
        Breaking a contract is not necissarily illegal (lets not even debate whether an EULA actually counts as a contract)

        The S in TOS stands for service. The contract stiplulates the penalty for breaking the contract: refusal of service. Basically they say we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who breaks our terms. The only thing Apple could do to you for breaking this "contract" is ban you. (of course the DMCA could possibly come into play somehow, but it is relatively untested)
        • Breaking a contract is not necissarily illegal

          Yes, it is. We even have a term for it: "breach of contract."

          The contract stiplulates the penalty for breaking the contract: refusal of service.

          Right. Which means if you run PlayFair or Hymn or I'mABigScriptKiddieLookAtMeWoo or whatever on one of your iTunes songs, you are no longer legally authorized to listen to any of your iTunes songs. You are, at that point, engaging in copyright violation, which if you do it enough is a felony!
          • Re:Not necissarily (Score:5, Insightful)

            by d34thm0nk3y (653414) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @08:11PM (#9191505)
            Except that at this point you are no longer copying them since they are already on your computer. Copyright only deals with distribution.
            • While I really wish that were the case, it isn't. Nothing's stopping us from pretending like it is as a wussy form of civil protest, though.
            • Re:Not necissarily (Score:3, Interesting)

              by DaHat (247651)
              On a Windows based machine:
              Step 1: Click on file
              Step 1: Press Control-C
              Step 1: Press Control-V

              I don't know about you... but I'd call this copying.

              If you use an application to do it and in the process of copying it strips DRM information it is still copying, regardless of if it is not distributed outside of your PC. And remember, copyright does not come into play on this as contract law (ie the agreement between you and Apple governing your purchase of songs) supersedes copyright law in this case.
              • What your parent is saying is that copyright law is a misnomer: it should be called distribution law. Sure, copying a file from one place to another, including with this program, is copying. However, it isn't distributing it, and thus title 17 has nothing to say about the actual copying (though the DRM removal would be a sticky issue).

                Whether this is true or not, who knows.
                • In my copying example I was only referring to the actually copying act, not the copyright law. Furthermore, I did state the fundamental point that:

                  copyright does not come into play on this as contract law (ie the agreement between you and Apple governing your purchase of songs) supersedes copyright law in this case.

                  Which is the point I am ultimately trying to hammer home here.
                  • "In my copying example I was only referring to the actually copying act, not the copyright law. Furthermore, I did state the fundamental point that:

                    copyright does not come into play on this as contract law (ie the agreement between you and Apple governing your purchase of songs) supersedes copyright law in this case."

                    I don't disagree that your statement is true. However, I'm saying that you're still misunderstanding the parent who was saying that copyright law doesn't apply *at all* because there's no dis
                    • Re:Not necissarily (Score:5, Informative)

                      by DaHat (247651) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @09:07PM (#9191882) Homepage
                      The ultimate question is regarding distribution.

                      This evening while looking for something completely unrelated I found an interesting page providing some case law regarding emulation at: http://www.worldofspectrum.org/EmuFAQ2000/Appendix B.htm [worldofspectrum.org]

                      Quoting from it:

                      Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. George Frena. 839 F.Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla., 1993).
                      George Frena, the sysop of the Techs Warehouse BBS, had 170 digitized images from both Playboy and Playgirl magazine posted to his computerized bulletin board system. The two magazines were commercial adult publications protected under copyright law. Playboy Enterprises, owner and publisher of both magazines, sued Frena for copyright infringement. The Federal District Court acknowledged Frena's claims that the uploading had been done by his users without his approval; however, it still found him liable for intellectual property violation. It ruled that Frena's users had illegaly copied the pictures by digitizing them; furthermore, Frena had infringed on exclusive vendor distribution rights by making the pictures available for download by his users. It also found Frena in violation of trademark law, since the infringing material contained registered trademarks belonging to Playboy Enterprises (the Playboy and Playgirl logos).

                      This case established two things. First, courts can find against a defendant in an intellectual property dispute whether or not the defendant is aware of such activity. Second, intellectual property protection extends to all copies of a given work regardless of how they are made or the media on which they are presented.

                      It would not be hard for a plaintiff to argue that in bypassing a DRM system, the resulting file could very easily end up being copied by potentially thousands and thousands of users, with or with out the knowledge of the original copier of the file give how most P2P apps work.

                      There does exist the principal of "substantial non infringing use", however when a system exists to prevent rampant copying and is bypassed, it is not unheard of (and some would say not unreasonable) for a content owner/licensee owner (ie Apple) to fear unauthorized distribution and sue preemptively.
                • What your parent is saying is that copyright law is a misnomer: it should be called distribution law. Sure, copying a file from one place to another, including with this program, is copying. However, it isn't distributing it, and thus title 17 has nothing to say about the actual copying (though the DRM removal would be a sticky issue).

                  Whether this is true or not, who knows.


                  I know. It's not true. Copyright law deals with copying AND distribution AND lots of other stuff besides.

                  Copying a file as you desc
              • And remember, copyright does not come into play on this as contract law (ie the agreement between you and Apple governing your purchase of songs) supersedes copyright law in this case.

                Nope. (IANAL-RU?)

                the iTunes EULA--heck, every EULA from MS Windows to Kazaa to the GPL--relies upon copyright law as its foundation. The license is "merely" a means whereby the rights-holder agrees to let others make copies in exchange for something--be it "share and share alike" or simply money in their pocket.

                If you vi
                • Re:Not necissarily (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by DaHat (247651)
                  Once again quoting from the Apple Terms of Sale [apple.com]...

                  REFUND POLICY
                  All Sales are final.

                  If you violate the contract/agreement/etc midway through, it does not nullify past events. That's not unlike me breaking my lease and expecting my landlord to refund my last 12 months worth of rent. Such an idea is preposterous, and many such contracts have provisions for should either party break the contract. A cell phone contract is a perfect example, a customer of Verizon has agreed that should the customer break the
            • Re:Not necissarily (Score:3, Informative)

              by cpt kangarooski (3773)
              Copyright only deals with distribution.

              No.

              Copyright deals with half an assload of different things. Distribution is one of them, but only one of them.

              The biggies are reproduction, creation of derivatives, distribution, and certain public performances or displays. Read 17 USC 106.

              You may also want to read MAI v. Peak, and Utah Lighthouse v. Intellectual Reserve, which go into some detail as to how things already on your computer can be copied illegally without leaving.
            • Didn't the files get distributed (copied) to your computer? Making further use of that copy is copyright violation.

              It's like if you had software you rented for $5 a month. If you stopped paying but continued using, you would be liable for breach of contract and copyright violation - your "right" to "copy" was contingent upon your payment. Simply because you were earlier authorized to copy and use the software, it doesn't mean you are perpetually authorized to use one copy that you aren't copying any more.
          • Re:Not necissarily (Score:3, Informative)

            by arkhan_jg (618674)
            The contract stiplulates the penalty for breaking the contract: refusal of service.

            Right. Which means if you run PlayFair or Hymn or I'mABigScriptKiddieLookAtMeWoo or whatever on one of your iTunes songs, you are no longer legally authorized to listen to any of your iTunes songs. You are, at that point, engaging in copyright violation, which if you do it enough is a felony!

            Simply not true. once they've sold you a track, the doctrine of first sale applies, and apple CANNOT impose greater restrictions th
            • While you're *almost* completely on track here, but you're forgetting the DMCA. The transcoding of your iTunes track would be illegal because it would involve circumventing a copyright protection algorithm.

              (I'm just saying what the law says here, not what would be held in the courts.)
              • The DMCA does not prevent you circumventing copyright protection schemes, only distributing a tool that does so. Using said tool that's hosted outside the US is perfectly legal.
                • Re:Not necissarily (Score:5, Informative)

                  by arkhan_jg (618674) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @09:07PM (#9191887)
                  Oops, hit enter too quickly. The DMCA does not prevent you using a DRM-circumvention tool, but it does prevent you writing one in the US, or distributing it in the US.

                  If it's hosted offshore from the US, then it's not illegal under the DMCA to download and use it on something you legally own.
                  • Perhaps you were thinking of 1201 (c)(1)"Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. - (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title", however circumvention is not infringement. Therefore there is no fair use defence.

                    Yippie! A non-existant defence is not diminished, LOL.

                    The DMCA does make descrambling a crime:
                    TITLE 17 CHAPTER 12 Sec. 1201 (a)(1)(A) [cornell.edu]
                    No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effect
          • Re:Not necissarily (Score:3, Interesting)

            by zpok (604055)
            "You are, at that point, engaging in copyright violation"

            No, you are not. You might be in breach of contract, but you are not engaging in copyright violation. On the contrary. Copyright explicitly grants you the right to make copies on other media.

            IANAL but I know that much.

            BTW I am part of a record label and while I don't condone piracy, I think Fair Use is extremely important. I think FairPlay violates Fair Use. I don't think that's the end of the world, but if I can or must, I'll circumvent it.
          • Re:Not necissarily (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Chester K (145560) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @09:31PM (#9192023) Homepage
            Yes, it is. We even have a term for it: "breach of contract."

            A contract can never strip you of certain rights guaranteed to you, even if it specifically outlines you as giving them up. Fair use is one of those rights as recognized by the courts.
          • For instance, I know someone who rented an apartment which has no window in the bedroom for escape from fire. But it is in a very nice place at below average rent, so he puts up with it. Legally, that apartment should not have been rented at all.

            I rented an apartment whose lease had an illegal clause concerning a cleaning deposit. I ignored it and signed it anyway, and when time came to leave, and they tried to enforce it, I took them to small claims court and scared them so much I got an additional sev
          • "breach of contract" is a civil matter, not criminal. You haven't violated any laws, therefore what you're doing it ain't illegal. You can only be accused by the other party(ies) to the contract of breach - not by any officials of an executive branch of a government (in the US.)

            Furthermore, the breach has to be declared by a civil court judge - lawsuits must be filed, and your case has to make its way through the system before that judgement (and/or injunction) can be declared.

            OTOH, if it were criminal,
          • Re:Not necissarily (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Wylfing (144940)
            >> Breaking a contract is not necissarily illegal

            > Yes, it is. We even have a term for it: "breach of contract."

            I've almost lost count of the number of times I've seen this misunderstanding. A breach of contract is grounds for a lawsuit, but it is in no way, shape, or form a crime or "illegal." In other words, the other party(-ies) to the agreement can take you to court if they think you've harmed them, and then a judge will decide whether you were justified in breaking the contract.

            So no, it i

          • Re:Not necissarily (Score:3, Informative)

            by Phillup (317168)
            Breaking a contract is not illegal, but the legal system can be used by one party to seek recourse from the other party.

            Can be... not must.

            And, to the best of my knowledge... the government, or any other entity, has no standing to bring chages for breach of contract unless it is a party to the contract.

            It is a PRIVATE matter.

            Of course, IANAL... and YMMV... and void unless otherwise prohibited... etc...
        • Re:Not necissarily (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DaHat (247651)
          I will not debate you on the legality or binding-ness of a EULA as they have almost always been upheld by the courts.

          I suggest you check your facts though, as you will note from the Apple Terms of Sale [apple.com] which says:

          You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.

          This does not mean that if you bypass the DRM of a song that you loose the 'right' to download any new songs but still
          • I will not debate you on the legality or binding-ness of a EULA as they have almost always been upheld by the courts.
            Crap, I said I wasn't going to but This decision [linuxjournal.com]certainly didn't.

            Now, for the sake of argument lets take an edge case. You purchased the songs on iTunes and burnt them to CD. After doing ghis you break the EULA. Do you think a court would allow Apple to confiscate that CD (assuming they could). I seriously doubt it, especially considering the above decision, the fact it was in Califo
            • The fundamental difference between your example and the Apple agreement is that the purchaser of the software has not agreed to anything, but when you buy an iTMS song you have.

              The case has to do with free software you may receive with hardware which is often labeled as "not for resale", similar to candy bars or bottles of pop which make come in a bag or 6 pack. Under those cases you have not agreed in anyway to not sell them individually and can do so. (Hell, I'm receiving some free software soon which is
              • When you purchase a song from the iTMS, you are purchasing the (revocable) rights to said song, something Apple can exercise at their leisure.

                Then by definition it cannot be a sale. if your ownership of the song is revokable, it's a lease, not a sale.

                However,it's not a lease simply because the vendor says it is.

                It is a sale if:
                they give you a tangible product. You pay them for it.

                Since you have a legal copy of the song on your harddrive, they advertise the product as a sale (buy this track...) and you
        • Not necissarily Breaking a contract is not necissarily illegal

          Merely breaking a contract is not "illegal" if by "illegal" you mean "criminal" (as opposed to incurring only civil liability). However, violation of the DMCA may (or may not) be "illegal" -- i.e., criminal. The DMCA, and particularly 17 U.S.C. sec. 1201(b) [cornell.edu] provides in pertinent part:

          (b) Additional Violations. -

          (1)
          No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, ser

      • Re:Cool... But... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by arkhan_jg (618674) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @08:41PM (#9191706)
        a) Terms Of Service are not a contract. They are terms which if you do not obey, they are grounds for terminating your business relationship. I.e. if apple catch you removing DRM from itunes tracks, they can refuse to sell you any more tracks. However, once they've (Apple) sold you something, first sale doctrine dictates that they cannot use copyright law to impose further restrictions. Specifically, use restrictions (i.e. you cannot do this with our product) are simply not enforceable post purchase. The music is not licenced, it is sold, and the only restrictions are those of copyright itself, i.e. you cannot distribute your copies to other people.

        b) even if by some legal juggling*, these TOS could be treated like a contract, i.e. you were considered to be licensing the music, not buying it, you cannot give up your legal rights by contract. No more than you can sign into slavery, or sign away your first amendment rights in the US. Such a clause would be, and has been judged to be an illegal clause, and thus stricken from the contract. Since fair use rights are not constitutionally granted rights, it would be less clear cut; but there is a strong precedent for fair use rights not being revocable by contract terms. But in this case it's a moot point, as there's emphatically not a contract post sale.

        c) There are in fact two offences you could be taken to court over. The first is copyright infringement. Your fair use rights are a defence to this charge, as long as you do not distribute copies to anyone else. Potentential to distribute has nothing to do with it, you have to actually be spreading those tracks on a p2p network. Therefore, making copies to play on another device would be legal.
        The second charge would be with the DMCA. However, it's not illegal to use a DRM-removal tool under the DMCA, only to write or distribute one. Therefore, stripping music you own of drm to use on another device is also fully legal.

        Ergo, despite what Apple and it's fans tell you, removing DRM from music you own is 100% legal. Distributing it to others without permission is 100% illegal. Since the article contains instructions on how to play your legally purchased music on other devices you legally own, that is a 100% legal action.

        * Note, in order for it be a valid contract, the seller has to have to have an ongoing relationship with you regarding the product post sale. If, on the other hand, they give you something, and you give them money, and you get nothing more from them after that other than their legal obligations like warranties (and you pay them nothing more for that particular product) it is a sale, and the contract is finished regarding that item, regardless of what the vendor would have you believe by tacking on EULA's, use clauses, licences or anything else. The only things that apply from that point on are the relevent laws of the land, and the vendor *cannot* restrict you any further than the law allows. And I will keep saying this till people stop spreading false information to the contrary.
      • "This is NOT a legal method!
        By purchasing songs from the iTMS you have contractually agreed NOT to bypass their DRM system"

        Well, yes, but there's also the notion of Fair Use, a legal right that allows you to copy or re-format for your own use.
        So while this might not be a strictly legal method - breach of contract - the contract itself might put unfair restraints on your rights. It's not as simple as you make it out.

        Then again IANAL.

        Where I totally disagree with you is that any party could claim damages w
      • And this is why it was genius to watermark the files as well as DRM them. DRM can always be broken, if you can play a file at all. "Scratching out" watermarks will seriously degrade sound quality, since the watermark is in the audio even after decoding. Even if you break DRM for your own backup purposes, you can't release anything into the wild without fear of being nabbed for illegally distributing copyrighted material.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @07:42PM (#9191307)
    What is the need to buy music when we can all sing to ourselves and save money instead?

    la de la de la..
    *cat suffers heart attack*
    oh...thats why we buy.
    • Because by singing a copyrighted song you would still need to pay royalties for the performance you give to your roommates or neighbors as they hear you sound like a tortured cat in the shower.
    • by AtariAmarok (451306) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @08:06PM (#9191472)
      "What is the need to buy music when we can all sing to ourselves and save money instead?"

      William Hung? Is that you?

      • The most recent MP3s I listened to were of my church's youth choir, of which I am a part. And yes, I started singing along my part.

        Incidentally, since I am one of the artists, what are my legal rights with respect to distributing the MP3s without asking permission of the choir director (or, worse, the entire choir)? We are unpaid, but the mini-orchestra that accompanied us was. And the CD was of course not free.
        • Short answer... you have no right to copy it. Were it physically possible, you could copy your part of the performance. Normally people assign their rights to a single entity (perhaps your church) and then they can ask a representative of that entity (your pastor) for permission.

          Asking a single person is of course significantly easier than asking everybody who contributed, and if you're concerned about that person turning around and saying no, then you can write a contract stipulating when they should sa
  • 4 cents (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bon bons (734068) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @07:42PM (#9191311)

    "hymm decodes the songs you have purchased using the key from your iPod and/or your operating system and make a new file which is not protected, it keeps the cover art and song data as part of the file. Since this is using your key, you can only do this for your songs, which I personally think is fair- they're the songs you bought, you should be able to put them on your other computers or devices."

    I don't know, even if that doesn't technically violate fair use, it comes really close. He [the author] is right though: they're the songs you bought, you should be able to put them on your other computers.

    • Re:4 cents (Score:3, Insightful)

      by reiggin (646111)
      You did not buy them outright. You bought them with conditions attached. You licensed them for use with iTunes and iPod. Those are the terms you agree to after you install iTunes and the iTMS. You are violating those terms after you click on "I Agree."
      • Re:4 cents (Score:5, Insightful)

        by harlows_monkeys (106428) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @07:58PM (#9191406) Homepage
        You did not buy them outright. You bought them with conditions attached. You licensed them for use with iTunes and iPod

        Then how come iTunes supports CD burning? Are you only supposed to use iTunes to play those CDs?

      • Yes. Buying rights to listen to music is not buying all rights to the music. Bill Gates payed a lot more than 99 cents for full rights for "Start Me Up" (regardless of whether you think it was worth it). Apple was sued for a lot more than 99c when it used Eminem's song in an ad without what he felt was necessary permission.

        People, if you want to fight DRM, etc. there's only one way. Raise millions of dollars somehow, buy a song, and then distribute it freely. Or most likely don't, because you too will feel
    • Re:4 cents (Score:3, Informative)

      by DaHat (247651)
      WRAAAAAG! At times it feels like I'm the only one who recognizes that fair use does not apply when you have contractually agreed not to bypass the DRM... for further info, see some of my other posts in this thread.
      • Fair use certainly DOES apply. You may be in violation of your TOS, but thats not a LEGAL issue, it's s civil issue between you and Apple. Doing this is NOT a violation of copyright under any reasonable interperation, although writing and distributing this application may be unlawful under the DMCA, which only makes provisions for research and not for fair use.

        It is extremely questionable and probably false that the licensing terms from iTunes (or, indeed, for any other online music store) can be applied t

      • Re:4 cents (Score:2, Insightful)

        by OmniVector (569062)
        and does that make it right? it used to be illegal for black people to sit on a certain part of the bus, or for rape victims to get an abortion but it's not anymore.

        if everyone's breaking the law, then it's a sure sign that the law is flawed.
      • Re:4 cents (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TwinkieStix (571736) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @08:18PM (#9191558) Homepage
        WRAAAAAG! At times it feels like I'm the only one who recognizes that fair use does not apply when you have contractually agreed not to bypass the DRM... for further info, see some of my other posts in this thread.
        Contractually? I believe that it's a "license agreement" not a contract. That's a big difference. And these licenses haven't yet been tried by a court. License are intended for copyright - how I can distribute the program. If I pay for something, I own it, and nobody but the government can legally tell me what I can and can't do with it.

        Some of those things I can do:
        • destroy it
        • dispose of it in an environmentally friendly way
        • drive over it with my car
        • yell at it
        • take it apart and look at it
        • tell my friends that I have it
        • make backup copies of it
        Some of the things I can't do:
        • use it to kill people or physically harm them
        • copy it and distribute it without permission
        • use it to hurt the environment or some endangered specie


        • Contractually? I believe that it's a "license agreement" not a contract. That's a big difference.

          Actually, there is basically no difference.

          And these licenses haven't yet been tried by a court.

          Yes, actually they have, and they're often upheld. ProCD is the leading case.

          License are intended for copyright - how I can distribute the program.

          That makes no sense whatsoever.

          If I pay for something, I own it, and nobody but the government can legally tell me what I can and can't do with it.

          So when
    • Maybe someone can 'splain this to Ricky who's been trying to tune out copyright related stories to keep his sanity ...

      I'm wondering whether songs on iTunes, etc. are really "bought" or just "licensed"? If they're just licensed, seems to me that if without the transfer (or possibility of transfer) of ownership, the "It's Copyright Infringement Not Stealing!" debate leans in favour of the ..., err ... casual infringers.

  • Easier with VLC (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @07:48PM (#9191352)
    13 steps to play your songs?

    I prefer this 3 step procedure instead:

    1. Install VLC [videolan.org].
    2. Open your M4P file in VLC.
    3. Click play.

    That's it!
    • Re:Easier with VLC (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Phroggy (441) *
      I have an even easier solution that works just as well as yours does:

      1. Open iTunes [apple.com].
      2. Find your M4P file in the Purchased Music playlist.
      3. Click play.

      That's it!
  • It just works? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bifurcati (699683) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @07:50PM (#9191362) Homepage
    I find it ironic (though perhaps humorous!) that this hack is most simply implemented on a Windows platform. Note that on Mac et al., you have to have an iPod, and have it plugged in, because that's where the decrypted keys come from. On Windows, however, the key encryption has been reverse engineered somehow (I don't really understand this bit) and they're able to get the key directly from your computer. This hasn't been done on the mac, so you have to wait for the iPod to decrypt it for you.

    I just find it interesting that the DRM was most easily compromised by allowing iTunes for Windows! Is this just because of the sheer user base, meaning things get hacked together faster, or is it more profound, i.e., Windows is more easily hacked. Food for thought :)

    PS - I've just ordered by G4 Powerbook laptop (drool, drool), doing the switch from Windows. Faintly nervous, but all my friends (both of them...) are getting the Powerbooks and loving them!

    • Re:It just works? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's a flaw in Apple's implementation of iTunes on Windows, nothing in the least inherant about the Windows platform.
    • Re:It just works? (Score:5, Informative)

      by scorpioX (96322) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @08:05PM (#9191463)
      On OS X, Apple added a special flag to the kernel execve() call that will not allow a debugger (gdb) to attach to a process that sets this flag. They did this specifically for DVD Player (at the behest of the MPAA) and for iTunes (maybe a condition of their contract with the RIAA?) so that people could not attach and get the decrypted key (or trace the encryption method). I suspect (but don't know for sure) that iTunes on windows does not have this "protection" and someone attached to it with SoftIce and got the key or RE'd the encryption method.

      The same "protection" was used in the OS 9 DVD player so that MacsBug could not attach to the player. But with that, DVD player just refused to run if it detected MacsBug was loaded.
      • Re:It just works? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SmittyTheBold (14066)
        Why not modify the iTunes binary to NOP at the point it sets the flag? Simple, easy-to-undo hack that solves the problem.

        It certainly sounds more likely to work reliably than just hoping any potential user has an iPod.
  • by Polarism (736984) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @07:55PM (#9191394)
    Step 1: Use iTunes to burn a CD with whatever songs you bought and want to burn.

    Step 2: Use winamp to rip the CD to your computer.

    Step 3: Enjoy restriction-less CDs and MP3s.

    Then again, I stopped using iTunes now too..
    • Step 4: Play music at loud volume and cringe at distortion caused by music being re-encoded twice into a lossy format.
    • by real_smiff (611054) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @08:08PM (#9191491)
      This method (the one discussed in the article) is superior* because it doesn't involve transcoding [dbpoweramp.com].

      *from an audiophile (i.e. not legal) perspective

  • by hartba (715804) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @08:04PM (#9191459)
    I just plug the headphone out into the line in of my computer and encode the songs to MP3 myself while I'm asleep. As long as you can get an audio output from a device, music DRM will never work. So what if it takes as long to record as my tape deck used to. I'm asleep, so I don't know the difference. Encoding music is easy, filling your iPOD full of illegal substances and getting it across the border is hard. Those dogs can smell anything. That's why you have to kick them in the throat. I'm not saying I'd do anything illegal... but I'd kill somebody, in front of their own mama to listen to itunes in my car and if anybody tried to tell on me, I'd gouge their eyes out.
  • After all, we all know that about 1% of people (maybe slightly higher on the mac side) are smart enough with even less people caring enough to want to use something like this, especially since it is anti-piracy minded. Apple is only appearing to be serious about this to keep the record companies in bed with them.
  • by chaos421 (531619) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @08:22PM (#9191589) Homepage Journal
    i really like itunes. the layout is great, and the integration of itunes music store is fantastic because of the ease of use, speed of download, etc. it is slightly annoying that the songs are encrypted. if my other mp3 player could read these files, i wouldn't have any complaints. perhaps the solution is to send e-mail/letters to your favorite mp3 player company and request they release firmware upgrades for your players so that the itunes format is supported.
  • Burn, Rip? (Score:3, Informative)

    by pclinger (114364) * on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @08:56PM (#9191804) Homepage Journal
    Is it just me, or can't you just burn the cd, then rip it into mp3? Is this against the iTunes EULA? Or do people just not want to do this because they feel they are going to lose some minor amount of sound quality doing this?
    • Is it just me, or can't you just burn the cd, then rip it into mp3?

      Sure. But when you do so, you lose quality. For one thing, some of the songs at the itms come from 24 bit masters. So immediately when you turn them into 16 bit CD audio tracks, you throw away a lot of potential dynamic range. That's beside the fact that decoding the AAC and then re-encoding it to either AAC or MP3 will lower the audio quality, AND you'll lose all the meta data.

  • GUI (Score:4, Informative)

    by ahoehn (301327) * <andrew@hoe.OOOhn minus threevowels> on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @01:29AM (#9193049) Homepage
    If you hate the command line, like I do, you can download a GUI wrapper for the Windows version of HYMN at http://stilleye.com/hymn.net/

Excessive login or logout messages are a sure sign of senility.

Working...