How To Play Your iTunes Music On Other Systems 243
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."
PFT. (Score:1, Insightful)
Cool... But... (Score:4, Insightful)
I really don't see illegal mp3/acc file sharing to be stopped. Ever.
Re:4 cents (Score:3, Insightful)
It just works? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:4 cents (Score:5, Insightful)
Then how come iTunes supports CD burning? Are you only supposed to use iTunes to play those CDs?
Re:I have an easier method: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not necissarily (Score:3, Insightful)
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:I have an easier method: (Score:4, Insightful)
*from an audiophile (i.e. not legal) perspective
Re:Not necissarily (Score:3, Insightful)
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 retain the 'rights' to your existing ones, it means that if you bypass the DRM that you can have your 'rights' to the already purchased songs revoked! You not only loose access to the service but everything you 'purchased' from it.
Re:Not necissarily (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:4 cents (Score:2, Insightful)
if everyone's breaking the law, then it's a sure sign that the law is flawed.
Re:Not necissarily (Score:0, Insightful)
Nonsense. It deals with all aspects of the rights of the creator of a work. Which is why, for instance, copyright law governs when, how, and how often a radio station can play your CD.
Re:4 cents (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Re:Not necissarily (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:4 cents (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, I'll bite, even though I'm not the parent poster.
Take this with a grain of salt, because it's only an engineer's understanding of law from the professional practise exam.
If you contractually agree to something that is legal and within your rights to agree to, and does not restrict "commerce", the courts are likely to interpret the wording of the contract in a strict sense - i.e. accept that you intended to waive your "fair use" and abide by the terms of the contract (maybe the Hedley Byrne case applies, if i remember right). This is similar to companies entering into an agreement for services, and the customer agreeing to the use of the product provided - terms that could include non-disclosure agreements and restrictions of the use of designs and such.
It may be arguable that the terms of service are not a contract and as such are not enforcable under contract law, but that is an issue for the courts to decide, and in general, the courts are averse to trying to re-interpret agreements between two parties when the wording is clear, except in cases of "fundamental breach" (see Harbutt's Plasticine) where the service provided was so flawed as to render the contract invalid on the whole.
Again, IANAL, but I did have to take a (limited) contract law exam for my engineering professional practise exam. This is Canadian common law - precedents can sometimes be applied to US cases. Is there a lawyer out there who can add anything, or correct me where my memory fails?
ed
Re:Cool... But... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not necissarily (Score:3, Insightful)
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 describe is copying, and is perfectly capable of being illegal all by itself per 17 USC 106. Title 17 discusses copying quite a lot, in fact.
Re:I run ful time in linux, you insensitive clod (Score:2, Insightful)
There is presumably no good business case for building an iTunes for Linux.
They are a company, not a charity.
Re:Not necissarily (Score:3, Insightful)
> 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 is not illegal to break a contract. It is merely actionable by the (possibly) aggreived party.
Re:It just works? (Score:4, Insightful)
int execve(const char *path, char *const argv[], char *const envp[]);
Having execve() do the protection wouldn't work anyways, seeing that gdb wouldn't call execve() with that flag set. I ktraced iTunes, and it's just calling ptrace(PT_DENY_ATTACH, ...) on itself, rather than having its parent do it. You could probably run iTunes under a debugger and set a breakpoint on ptrace() and skip over the offending call.
On the other hand, while recompiling Darwin may not be "something a user would be able to do" (I've never tried), I'm sure someone who is knowledgable enough to reverse engineer iTunes' key generation scheme is also capable of compiling their kernel.
Re:Easier with VLC (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It just works? (Score:3, Insightful)
It certainly sounds more likely to work reliably than just hoping any potential user has an iPod.