Buying DRM-Free Songs From the ITMS 894
mirko writes "Jon Johansen ("DVD Jon") has published a small program which allows the acquisition of DRM-free file from Apple's iTunes Music Store. He explains that his program works by bypassing iTunes which adds the DRM itself at the end of the transfer. His program, pymusique, is Windows-only compliant but it'd be easy to port it to other platforms."
Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
[1] Until iTunes closes this loophole
Only Logical Conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Content owners must sue every single person in the world. The RIAA and Apple will likely start with engadget.com for writing a story about it then move on to Slashdot for linking to a story about it and then round it out with everyone that read either of the stories or clicked on any of the links.
I'm going to hire an attorney now.
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:4, Insightful)
at which point the drm is added to stop you doing other things with it.
Re:3..2..1 (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you imagine the huge amount of processing that would be required to apply DRM server-side instead, which I should imagine is the only way to prevent the use of this method?
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're either an idiot or an employee of Apple or a mole for the RIAA.
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:1, Insightful)
> and it isn't anyone's right or obligation to make it free.
It's not making it free. It is making it so that I can do what I want with the music I bought with my own money.
I buy iTunes music, I can morally do whatever I like with it. it's mine. I own it. I can burn it to CD, listen to it on as many computers as I like, give it to my neighbour, my irc buddies, the world.
Apple has no moral right to stop me doing so, and DRM is an attempt for them to assert what is not theirs.
This simple allows me to do what I should be able to do with MY music.
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:2, Insightful)
Grey area = nerds think they can do whatever they want.
Contrast with GPL violator story (Score:5, Insightful)
but
Buying songs from iTunes without complying with the ToS is big and clever because music must be free?
Re:DRM broken anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure they might sound fine on your $5 earbuds or speakers, but for those of us who have quality headphones/speakers the difference is really easy to pick out.
Re:It is cool, however (Score:2, Insightful)
How useful to people who choose to use iTunes? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been an iTMS user since its inception and I've yet to feel encumbered or feel a lack of freedom. I read the agreement and understand the restrictions. I agreed. Simply put to those who use this sort of software, why do you purchase from iTMS? You know, or should!!, the restrictions imposed.
the DRM is the thingamajig (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It is cool, however (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The way it should be. (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether you like it or not, DRM is the cornerstone of iTunes acceptance among the music industry. Without DRM, there is no way iTunes would even exist.
The first rule of security is that the client is untrustworthy. For Apple to put all of the security of their DRM scheme on the client side is astoundingly dumb. I expected much better of them.
I don't (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't purchase from iTMS. However, I would strongly consider it if it would let me listen the music I bought on my own equipment without file format conversion hassles.
Re:DVDjon is my hero (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:2, Insightful)
He's not getting the music free. It's preventing the DRM from being added to the file.
I think being anti-DRM is very Slashdot. Arbitrary software restrictions on things that prevent *potential* mis-use hinder everyones' rights. It hasn't worked well before (copy protection in the 80s) and it obviously doesn't work well now. More frustrating is the push for legislation to make it illegal to break DRM.
Though I am amused that Apple chose an inherently flawed method of having the client add the DRM, most likely in order to save server resources. Could adding the DRM on the server-side be that problematic?
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not stealing, you are still paying for the music at a rate of about $15.00 US per album.
This is about doing what you want with something you legally purchased and now own.
The media industry is so concerned with losing control of their business that they are pissing people off and driving away business.
Its no different than when Disney fought against vcr's in the 70's now a substantial portion of their revenue comes from video.
Its computational cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple seems to not care overly much about the DRM as long as most people are using it.
if you don't like the license agreement (Score:5, Insightful)
by the way, let say i do not like the GPL license. should i:
1. not use GPL software
or
2. use, and violate it because i do not like it.
a lot people find the GPL license "viral" and disagree with it. but we still expect people to respect it and follow it.
Unlike Hymn... (Score:5, Insightful)
asshole (Score:1, Insightful)
they already let you burn the songs you want to a CD, that removes the DRM anyways.
why dont you unlock the DRM on educational
videos?
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Advice (Score:5, Insightful)
This is DVD Jon [cnn.com] we're talking about. He has a lawyer. He already hacked DVD's, got arrested, charged, sued, and won.
For the unfamiliar: His DVD hacking software (DeCSS [wikipedia.org]) was deemed illegal because it allowed you to bypass the protection put onto DVD's (so that you could store the digital content onto a hard drive or make a backup copy). He ultimately won that case. This was HUGE for the rights of YOU AND ME, akin to the original case [museum.tv] that allowed us to use VCR's to record TV shows!
Re:I have an idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
When you consider that the thing DVD Jon is best known for wasn't even his own work, it's not surprising that he keeps pecking at the low man on the DRM totem pole.
Re:Its computational cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Securely identify the client as yours before you transmit.
Not going to be uncrackable but would have been a lot harder to get round than this.
Re:Napster is far better, and free (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Post your name, address and phone number. THEN you will be openly admitting to being a thief.
Re:3..2..1 (Score:2, Insightful)
What's he done wrong? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:DRM broken anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much (Score:5, Insightful)
this is just bitching about DRM for the sake of bitching.
no control whatsoever is not going to happen - Apple should be praised for its reasonable mesaures and all effort should be focused on defeating, for example, the retards who make PC games that won't run on PCs with legal CD copying software and/or hardware.
Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with DRM is that even if it is "innocuous", it still restricts what I can do with something that I purchased. If I spend $0.99 for a song, I want to be able to be able to listen to it from any of the computers I use or in the car (all legal uses) without having to jump through hoops. Now, I have the technical knowledge to work around the DRM, but one shouldn't need to be technically savy just to fairly use a purchase.
This will only lead to Retribution (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I have ZERO qualms about the licenses on my iTunes music. So what you had to buy an iPod to use it? I wanted one anyway. My DRMed music plays just happy dandy on my Powerbook, my iPod, and my windows machine at work. I can burn essentially an unlimited number of CDs for the car. What more do I, joe user, need to do with this music that the DRM does not let me?
Re:That's precisely what I'll be doing this evenin (Score:5, Insightful)
If you believe that argument is valid, then you should have no trouble with the much more likely corollary:
Apple goes to the the labels and says "The site sold X songs without DRM. This represents less than
- Tony
Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much (Score:5, Insightful)
Or what happens when your Mac breaks? I can still listen to the Queensryche CDs I bought in junior high (if I wanted to). At the time I had a brand-new Sony DiscMan that took four double-A batteries, lasted a couple hours, had awful sound, and cost about $130 new. My family's computer was a CompuAdd 286.
What happens when Apple goes out of business? Sony is still is business, but CompuAdd went belly-up ages ago. Apple's market share has been shrinking since the mid-1980s (and I say that as someone typing this on a PowerBook).
Assuming you don't have a BMW /w iPod adapter, can you listen to your CDs in your car without burning them in uncompressed, WAV format? What happens when you decide you want to move to Linux? Or what if you decide you'd rather have an MP3 player with a built-in radio?
These days, you can't even stream unencrypted songs to other computers in your household with iTunes. How do you know that Apple won't take away more rights in the future?
What if the artist decides he doesn't want his album distributed (e.g. Beach Boys' original Smile, Prince's Black Album), but you want other people to hear it?
This is actually disappointing (Score:5, Insightful)
iTunes was one of the first times I have seen what I consider a fair and reasonable DRM. The industry and Apple get their cut. I don't have to buy a full CD if it is one good track with 12 shitty ones. And I can play it in my car, at home on stereo, or on my iPod.
This is only going to make the naysayers in the business world want to clamp down even more.
Re:DVDjon is my hero (Score:2, Insightful)
Jon Johansen is not the hero for open source software as he likes to describe himself lately.
http://www.chscene.ch/ccc/decss/decsstruth.txt [chscene.ch]
Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to be able to do damn near anything you want with the music you buy, then I suggest going down to the store and buying a non DRMed audio CD and rip it yourself, then you can have it in any format you want and be free of service agreements. On the other hand, if you want the convenience of being able to buy tracks online from a well known and reputable store, then you are going to have to face the facts that you have agreed to play by their rules with regards to DRM.
Re:Its computational cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Steve Jobs has stated as much that copy protection doesn't work, and that piracy is a social problem.
Given that stance, making music easy and making music affordable seems to have worked. We already have Hymn, for example, showing us that music can be decrypted. What would the point of making the music more secure? You don't sell more music by making it more secure, you sell more music by making it easier to find, making it easier on the ears, or by making it cheaper.
Re:3..2..1 (Score:2, Insightful)
What's interesting is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Contrast with GPL violator story (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that the only reason the GPL has any teeth is BECAUSE of copyright. If you get rid of copyright, then how can you distribute free code and ensure that the users of the code release their changes back to the community? If copyright was done away with, at least in regards to code, what stops me from modifying the Linux code, compiling and selling my modified version without releasing the source?
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, it's not that Apple's stupid. It's more likely that they never intended to make an utterly unbreakable system. As you mentioned yourself, the only reason Apple really cares about the DRM is that the music industry happy. In pretty much all of this copy protection for software/entertainment, there are three groups:
...and this situation is no different. The distributor isn't going to get their unbreakable encryption. What the RIAA should really want the DRM to do is:
Re:Contrast with GPL violator story (Score:4, Insightful)
In more words: The GPL promotes freedom. It encourages to copy, develop further and distribute those developments, thus advancing culture and public good in the process. It restricts only the ability to take someone else's work and lock it up for private gain.
DRM does the opposite. It discourages sharing and free enjoyment of culture, restricting our ability to enjoy what we bought in order to control and subjugate us.
Sure, both can be simplified to mere license issues, but I honestly don't believe that it is hypocritical to show respect for GPL while at the same time disrespecting music industry ToS.
It's all in the values and what people believe in. For some it's freedom, for others it's money and for you, it seems to be the need to squeeze everything down to black and white issues without thinking what lies behind people's actions and opinions.
Re:3..2..1 (Score:3, Insightful)
DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the industry freaked out and now we have DRMs on everything.
I'd like to remind you that when you sign up to use iTunes, you agree not to do anything to interfere with the DRM, but of course, those agreements don't really mean anything, do they?
Convoluted process:
1. Burn music to CD.
2. Rip music back.
Re:Contrast with GPL violator story (Score:2, Insightful)
GPL was created because Stallman was a programmer who did not believe in copyright. If you are such a person, no one has a right to distribute the code you give them, unless you explicitly grant them this right. Now, Stallman could have released his code under BSD or public domain. But he went one better. By GPLing his code, he created the root of a poison tree that no proprietary software vendor could build upon. The GPL is only necessary because of copyright. Destroying copyright is better than protecting the GPL.
Re:This will only lead to Retribution (Score:2, Insightful)
Opponents of DRM do not like the way it leverages control to record labels, how it makes portability more awkward, and generally removes the enjoyment of the media that they wanted to listen to in the first place.
DRM is not the only way.
Warp Records use plain MP3 files in their online music store [bleep.com] and prefer to rely on the fact that if their customers like the music, they will buy it.
Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been using jHymn on my iTMS purchases since it became available. I don't share my music with others, or do anything against the "rules" with my files - except, of course, for removing the DRM. I just feel better about keeping my purchases around without it.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:4, Insightful)
RIAA Okay, so you want to actually pay for your music, huh?
Customer Yep! Here's my money $$$
RIAA All right, slap the cuffs on him Officer. He's obviously trying to our steal music, even though he's paying us for it.
Putting DRM on music seems to me as though the RIAA was actively and publicly declaring every customer they have a Thief and a Criminal.
So why does the RIAA treat its customers like Criminals anyway? If you're willing to pay for your music instead of download it for free, the RIAA should be bending over backwards to give you what you want. They should be kissing your feet!!
What if Wal-Mart started accusing each and every customer they had of stealing AFTER they had already purchased their goods and had a receipt. They would go out of business pretty damn fast, is what would happen.
The RIAA needs to learn that a good business is supposed to cater to their customers
Because... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also nearly no way to prevent "hacks" like WireTap that just grab the audio stream without completely munging up the way an OS handles the audio stream. They can only do so much and Apple is not stupid enough to know that. They are the best buffer we have right now between the (wanting-to-try-to-be-legal) consumer and the greedy idiots controlling music distribution.
Maybe I'm optimistic, but I feel like something like what Apple is doing now had to happen to break open the digital purchansing flow. There's no turning back now. If "good" DRM gets more and more expensive to develop, implement, manage, and enforce, it might just become a poor(er) business model. Someone will hopefully push the "innovation" and get us beyond this hacked system we have now.
Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, first of all, your music won't magically stop working (you're thinking about when Napster goes out of business).
Sure, eventually you won't be able to get a new version of iTunes that works in Microsoft's new version of Windows that comes out after Apple's dead to play your existing music. But guess what... that version of Photoshop you just bought for your Mac will be worthless, too, and it costs a lot more than a song on iTunes. The "Apple might go out of business, and I won't be able to buy a new Mac after that" argument doesn't really hold water.
What are you going to do with your MP3s if an electro-magnetic pulse wipes out all of your hardware? What if the sun explodes?
I've got your hypothetical argument right here buddy.
Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much (Score:5, Insightful)
As for what happens when Apple goes out of business, well, DRM authorizations are localized, and there are already programs to move your authorization manualy. Presumably, if Apple were to go out of business, they would either open the DRM, issue a universal authorizer program, or someone else would step in.
As for listening to them in your car, sure, you can throw them on to AAC players (like the iPod) and pipe them through AUX inputs or FM transmitters or any of the other methods that people have used to add audio devices to their cars for years.
What happens when you want to move to linux? You use iTunes via WINE or you reencode the music into another format. Yes, you may have to do work to move from system to another, just like I have to do work to get my CDs to MiniDisc or my VHS to DVD.
If you'd rather have an MP3 player, then you need to make them MP3s, what if all of my music is MP3s and I'd rather have an UberCompressedHighQualityFormat player? I have to reencode the music.
As for streaming music, here's a novel idea. If you don't want to use the iTunes encryption, don't use iTunes. I must have missed the point where iTunes was an essential element for streaming music.
If the artist doesn't want his album distributed, what prevents you from playing it for your friends? That's right, nothing.
Re:It is cool, however (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, good luck with that. You would be very lucky if one of the jurors knew what the hell you were talking about. On the other hand, when the prosecutor (or plaintiff) gets up and says you stole music, they will all nod their heads and you're done.
I wonder if we have moved beyond the days of when a trial by a jury of your peers is really a good thing. I find the thought processes of most of my peers scary.
Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much (Score:2, Insightful)
this is just bitching about ... for the sake of bitching.
Yeah, I mean, the water in that fountain's just as good as the water in this one, so what if they have to use a seperate one to drink from?And they have no reason to complain about living in those ghettos, why can't they just be happy with the housing they've got?
yeah, extreme, incendiary examples, I know, and I do feel shame for having used them. But, for some, all this DRM encroachment is a matter of principle. It wouldn't be bad if there was some sort of choice in the market - if some major labels were willing to sell w/o DRM encumbrance, but the way things are heading, we're looking at all major label electronic releases having some sort of DRM attached.
Even if the bitching and complaining doesn't give us DRM-free music, at least it might help ensure that future DRM is less of a pain in the ass.
Re:Its computational cost (Score:3, Insightful)
I also think that there is a difference here - I believe that Apple will be contracted to deliver an encrypted track, and the user is contracting to buy an encrypted track. If the setup is such that the user can change the transaction to buy an un-encrypted track (that the seller isn't authorised to sell) then that is different to the user cracking the encrypted track later.
Also, it possibly changes the legality for the user - DMCA may not apply as there is no encryption being cracked because it is never applied. It may be a breach of site EULA or a fraudulent purchase of course - but not DMCA. The RIAA will be upset at that.
In terms of obviousness, I would put it at the same level as trusting data from a client-side shopping cart:
* some people have fallen for it
* it saves work on the server
* it isn't obvious to the layman why it is a bad idea ("but it's a hidden field, so the user can't see it")
* but it ought to be obvious to any serious ecommerce developer
Re:DRM broken anyway (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't you guys realize... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like you guys bitch when they don't embrace, then they start doing it, and you guys bitch and find ways to break their copy protection. If you don't like the DRM, don't buy the online music. Doing stuff like this just makes legal online music downloading look like it will always fail, because hackers will continue to keep cracking it.
Re:Because... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's 128kbps. It's unappealing to the discerning listener anyway.
Re:Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
Juries werent a great idea anyway: If you put twelve people in a room, a lot of them will just agree out of groupthink. It would be better to separate the 12 into smaller groups (say, 3 of 4) and declare a mistrial if they don't come up with the same verdict.
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:2, Insightful)
I already JHymn my music, simply because I don't want to depend on the commercial viability of iTunes to simply liesten to my 'tunes. If Apple or iTMS goes belly up, I want to be able to listen to my music. If Apple chooses not to support Linux or eComStation, I want to be able to listen to my music. Since I paid real non-Monopoly money for it, that I earned with my own sweat, I think I deserve the right to PLAY my music without ridiculous restrictions imposed on me.
Re:Because... (Score:2, Insightful)
I've been very happy buying music from the iTMS. I download the music, plop it on my iPod, burn it to CD as a backup and file it in a big CD wallet. When you download, they say "Please burn a backup so you have your own copy in case anything happens to your computer."
Maybe if I had 10 computers and wanted to mirror my music collection across all 3, I'd be more concerned about it. With iTunes, though, you can simply turn on "share this computer's music" and it lets you stream to any networked computer, without the need to copy the files in the first place. I actually prefer doing that.
I could go about numerous ways to decrypt the DRM, but they've never affected the way I listen to music. I only know they're there because people who don't use the iTMS complain about them.
I understand the complaints against the restriction, but there's a fine line between obvious restriction, and restriction that's pretty much never encountered by the user.
Re:Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
I've read those Terms of Service, and unless I am mistaken the only consequence is that Apple may, if they choose to do so, decline the sale or cancel your service. Period. If I missed something then I welcome anyone to jump in and cite the text I overlooked or missunderstood.
If I sign a contract saying that I will have your house painted by the end of the week or I owe you $1000 in damages. well... I'm perfectly free to choose not to paint your house if I have no objection to the alternative of paying you $1000. Maybe I just won the lottery and I want to fly to Hawaii this weekend. Ok, here's your $1000 in damages goodbye and have a nice life. All perfectly legal.
-
Re:Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:3, Insightful)
For a long time they have alienated the music consumers. Today almost all music consumers think that RIAA are evil. A lot of the music consumers are using this as a moral justification for copyright infringement: "They are evil, so it isn't that bad if I do something bad to them."
And a lot worse for RIAA is that artists are getting increasingly aware that they are being fucked by the big labels. More and more artists are distributing their music outside the established RIAA channels.
Probably this is what RIAA is most afraid of: If/when a significant number of artists start selling their music outside the traditional music industry, the traditional music industry will collapse as consumers and artists alike find out that they can do better without the outdated distribution and control models of the traditional music industry.
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:5, Insightful)
How are they screwing the customer? Nobody is putting a gun to the customer's head to force you to buy this DRM music online. Go back to buying CDs then.
I'm just saying, everyone bitches that they embrace an "obsolete business model." So they test the waters with a new one, and people just crack it. Regardless of how you feel about DRM, it's not going to put online music in a good light at the labels.
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's say for a moment that you're against putting DRM on music, which seems to be the case. Why are you supporting a music store (iTunes) which that puts DRM on every song they sell? I would imagine that, if you really did not like DRM, you would do everything in your power to discourage its use. But instead, you're giving money to a company that sells DRM with every product.
Do you think that Apple's restrictions are really that ridiculous? They are, basically: 1) before you can play the music file on another computer, you must enter your iTunes username and password and 2) you can't burn more than 7 copies of the same playlist. (You can delete and re-create an identical playlist and burn another 7 copies.) Do you consider that ridiculous? I think they're very reasonable... in fact, even if you want to do illegal activities with the music, they don't restrict you once. (If you want to illegally sell CDs, you can just burn one and then use iTunes to duplicate that CD as many times as you want.)
Look, the fact is:
1) If you don't like DRM, you're being a goddamned hypocrite by supporting a music store that uses it.
2) In addition, you're liable to hurt us people who don't mind the DRM, and in fact appreciate Apple's service, because cracking the encryption will more likely than not cause the RIAA to demand greater restrictions in the future.
You play it off as if fighting DRM is some great act of civil disobiedence which will liberate us all from some fantasy corporate-controlled nightmare world. You have to realize that you're in a small minority, and you have to respect the rights of others who don't hold the same views.
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:2, Insightful)
I buy off iTunes, then I burn to a CD. That's right a CD. A hard copy. It's like making a backup.
Honestly, I can't get everything I listen to on mp3 or acc (or insert acronym here) but I can find it on CD. So I add my digital files to my CD collection but I keep my digital files on my iPod because it is easier than lugging around 30 gigs.
But you know what I do after I burn my CD, I re-rip to iTunes as an mp3. Circumventing DRM? No, I'm ripping my CD.
Ridiculous how much complaining is done about DRM. If I couldn't burn to CD, you'd have a point but it is your music that you bought with your money knowing full well how it would act when you bought it. But all this is irrelevant because we should all backup our digital files, especially those we paid for.
And get off your moral soapbox about the music industry, if you want to support the artist and screw the industry, see the artist live and pirate the music but don't expect the industry to support artists they can't make money from.
Re:Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:1, Insightful)
Breach of contract, yes, assuming it can be shown that you agreed to that contract. Copyright/DMCA violation, no.
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can give away or sell my used CD's
I cant lend DRM'd music to someone.
I can lend a CD.
If the future of music is DRM, then these
activities will no longer be legal.
Not any different than hymn (Score:3, Insightful)
restrictive (Score:5, Insightful)
You are missing some important parts to their TOS. Under 9c:
"Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time."
And later under 13b:"...Apple and its licensors reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the Service at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for the removal of or disabling of access to any such Products, content or materials under this Agreement. Apple may also impose limits on the use of or access to certain features or portions of the Service, in any case and without notice or liability."
No, I'm not using iTMS, but if I did, I'd be burning backup, DRM-free, MP3s. (Or Oggs for those of you who are cooler than me)
Re:Cache and bandwidth considerations (Score:3, Insightful)
As you say, DRM is inherently snake-oil. It's an attempt to fool the uninformed that there is a way for content owners to give them something without actually giving them full access to it. Without hardware specifically restricting what creative people can and will do very few implementations will give any half way competent attacker any serious issues.
The only way it can be strongly secure is if the hardware protects private keys in a totally controlled manner and at the same time does not allow end user access to the secure store for those keys in any way. That is what NGSCB\Palladium is supposed to do "ideally" but it has to be flawed in an edge only implementation (where there is no centralised control of some keys). Specifically the problem is what happens when the consumer needs to move their content around - either the NGSCB device(s) allow for key export and import (and thereby expose the media access keys to discovery) or a decision is made to deny the user the ability to ever move DRM'ed data between devices. Now the content owners probably could care less about that but the hardware vendors who will want users to regularly upgrade their devices must care (they want users to upgrade regularly) and they are the folks who have to implement NGSCB. Bit of a catch 22 there. It's something that consumers might fall for once but they'll avoid any product that burns them in that way like the plague in the long term - a classic short term business strategy with no future.
The alternative approach is to recognise that the edge only solution is unworkable and that you have to centralise some user identity and key management in conjunction with NGCSB and thus allow devices to be enabled selectively. That is the general approach taken by MS's DRM which relies on a registration process built on their .NET Passport thing with all content encrypted to the user's primary key before it is sent to the user. Apart from the distribution problems this causes (and which perfectly explains iTunes behavior as you explain) the problem there is that MS's cavalier attitude to .Net Passport accounts demonstrates the fundamental problem with this: Users cede their rights to the content to the provider in perpetuity. The astounding thing is that while the best reason for doing DRM this way is to ensure end users can be kept somewhat happy (by giving them some way to continue to have access to material they have purchased in the past) MS have completely botched it by linking it to an "identity management" system where they arbitrarily delete inactive accounts. Users are not generally aware of this or why it's a problem but they are learning slowly as they discover how hard it is to move their content onto new systems when they upgrade. In MS's case their policy of aggressively disabling "inactive" .Net passport accounts effectively denies end users ongoing legitimate access to content they own when they (MS) arbitrarily disable "idle" accounts. If anyone has any doubts about this then purchase some MS DRM'ed content using a newly created .Net account, leave the account inactive for 2 months without touching it then try to gain access to your content on a device that hasn't been registered. The software only implementations of MS-DRM have been cracked a number of times so this isn't too much of a headache for any disgruntled user right now but with a "good" NGSCB platform the MS DRM approach would allow them to regularly steal content from users who's only mistake was to move content to a newer media device. Once again comsumers may agree to get burned by that once through ignorance but once it happens to them they will never use it again - once again a short term self defeating business strategy. Or at least so it
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a significant slice of the public who won't be happy until they can have it all for nothing and even then their pleasure will only be temporary. As soon as another format comes out the record labels should make it available for free in the new format as well. At no cost. They should probably be required to contact each and every one of us to tell us how to get the new version.
The record labels are assholes, no doubt about that. The guys who insist on finding a way to fuck up legal downloads are easily their match. This guy isn't doing anyone any favors, he's just helping to fuck up a good thing. Way to go Jon.
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because there's no feasible alternative at the moment? Maybe because he likes some artists who only distribute on iTMS? Maybe because he wants to play the AAC files he legally obtained on his Linux workstation?
Do you think that Apple's restrictions are really that ridiculous?
Who owns your computer? You or Apple? What right do they or anyone else have to tell you what you're allowed to do with your own personal property? I'm not talking about P2P or anything outside of your own computer. I'm talking about what you do with your personal physical property in the privacy of your home.
2) In addition, you're liable to hurt us people who don't mind the DRM, and in fact appreciate Apple's service, because cracking the encryption will more likely than not cause the RIAA to demand greater restrictions in the future.
DRM doesn't work and there is no way that it even theoretically can work. By necessity, DRM is the equivalent of placing your key under the doormat and expecting that nobody will use it without asking first. So what if the RIAA demands "stronger" DRM schemes than what Apple has implemented. It will only drive away customers. People like you will wake up and begin to care, perhaps. Which is really fine, because we don't need the RIAA anymore anyhow. Ever consider the fact that many iTMS artists are not RIAA member signed?
And incidentally, this does not appear to be a case of any encryption being cracked. In fact, it may not even be considered illegal, even under the bogus DMCA, because the data is merely being intercepted *before* DRM is applied to it. And it's not some form of wiretap because it's your own computer. But IANAL so don't base anything upon that speculation.
You play it off as if fighting DRM is some great act of civil disobiedence which will liberate us all from some fantasy corporate-controlled nightmare world.
If corporations are trying to define what you can legally do with your own personal property, then yes, there is reason to be concerned. And it is not a fantasy that abusive corporate control of the music industry has been detrimental to everyone minus the big-wig execs and a handful of top artists who managed to wrangle the system.
You have to realize that you're in a small minority, and you have to respect the rights of others who don't hold the same views.
Minority? Hardly. Maybe minority among Apple fanboys, but not among the majority of the population. Do you realize why MP3 is so popular? It's not because it's technically the best. It's because it is completely open. The free market has decided that most people don't like DRM. BTW, what "rights" is the original poster disrespecting of people who don't agree with him?
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:3, Insightful)
-First it was only allowing people on your own subnet to listen to low-quality streams of your music.
-Then they changed it to only 5 people at a time could listen to low-quality streams.
-Now only 5 people PER DAY can listen to the same low quality streams.
Welcome to DRM! Where your rights are eroded by the software you use.
So before you go calling people hypocrites, maybe you should take into account that people are also seeing their rights for using MUSIC THEY PURCHASED being slowly eroded over time...
N.
The RIAA will never be part of the solution (Score:2, Insightful)
What does the RIAA provide artists? Promotion and startup costs (among other things). Artists, like people, would rather "get rich quick" than work up to it slowly. The RIAA companies say things to make them sign their rights away to them in exchange for promotion and covering the cost of cutting the CD's etc.
So what needs to happen is more low-cost promotion agencies to pop up and fulfill this function for the artists. The cost of production can be significantly lower if the artist simply chooses to distribute online only...maybe create a few thousand cd's if they want for tours and such.
Once a few big name artists are persuaded to self-release with $onlineSite then the floodgates would be open IMO.
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:4, Insightful)
So then what? If I download from p2p or copy from friends, I'm a criminal. If I break the DRM, I paid for it fair and square but I'm still a criminal.
Downloadable music is the future. We buy our books online, hardware, medicine, news, advice, electricity and phone services. If something can be delivered directly as information like music then it certainly will be. It all ends up on our MP3/Ogg players so why stick to CD's as the transport mechanism?
Downloadable music is the future. The only choice is whether it's DRM'd or if we can keep ownership. Keep refusing the DRM and you will get the music unecumbered. Accept DRM and you will lose it.
A decade from now, DRM will become moral or immoral. But first there is a fight to decide how society will regard it and this has nothing to do with right or wrong - only which faction wins.
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that is exactly what Apple TOLD the RIAA in the first place.
Apple TOLD the RIAA that they wanted to sell a noncrippled product. Apple TOLD the RIAA that DRM was never going to work. Apple TOLD the RIAA that they never expected it to work. Apple TOLD the RIAA that DRM would never be anything more than window dressing.
-
Re:This is actually disappointing (Score:4, Insightful)
I would be more willing to evaluate an iPod and iTunes if I knew exactly what I was signing up for. Right now it is "DRM plus whatever Apple wants you to have" and that is a situation that is so heavily weighted in their favour that I'd rather not sign up to, essentially, borrow music from Apple without knowing the terms in advance.
People need to wake up. When people say "DRM is bad because it gives a corporation too much power and take away too much from the user", they can't also say "Yeah, but Apple is good."
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:4, Insightful)
No feasible alternative? I would counter that the following two alternatives are feasible:
1) Don't listen to the music if you don't like how it's distributed.
2) Listen to the music on the radio, but don't buy a copy of it.
3) Buy a copy of the music on CD, assuming there's a CD out with no DRM.
No feasible alternative, my ass. Only if you're a spoiled brat with "I want it now now now CDs take too long give it to me now I have to own it now" attitude.
Who owns your computer?
Irrelevant. The fact is that I accepted terms of service for iTunes which would be morally wrong for me to break. If I didn't agree with those terms of service, I had ample chance to simply not create an iTunes account. Or I can cancel my iTunes account at any time if the terms change so that I no longer agree with them. But both using iTunes and breaking their terms of service is morally wrong.
DRM doesn't work and there is no way that it even theoretically can work.
Again, irrelevant to my argument. I'm not arguing that DRM is or is not "right" and I don't much care. I'm saying that agreeing to do something, and then not doing it is morally wrong.
And it is not a fantasy that abusive corporate control of the music industry has been detrimental to everyone minus the big-wig execs and a handful of top artists who managed to wrangle the system.
If the artists (you know, the copyright holders of the music) don't want to deal with the RIAA, they don't have to. Nobody is holding a gun to your favorite artist's head forcing them to sign with an RIAA label.
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:2, Insightful)
What? If you're going to reply and be sarcastic at least use some logic.
I know the files are lossy, I don't mind. They sound just find to me.
I am also aware I may be removing different types of data by moving from aac to CD format to mp3. I have done it a number of times and they sound just fine to me.
Re:DRM (Score:2, Insightful)
because they didn't want to pay for them
Excuse me? There was a conspiracy to DENY THEM ANY OPTION TO PAY FOR DOWNLOADS.
For over half a decade the RIAA members conspired to prohibit any online market at all. It should have been apparent before Napster that they could sell downloads, and it was blatantly obvious during and after Napster that it was not only possible but that there was a huge demand for MP3 sales. And instead of serving that demand, they conspired to impose a market vacuum.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and markets abhor a vacuum. It was that very artificial vacuum that caused the P2P explosion. The RIAA created their own worst enemy. When you engage in abuses to surpress or manipulate a market it's not so unusual to get bitten in the ass when the market adapts and responds to that abuse.
And after half a decade of conspiring to deny any competition at all for the online market, they conspired to deny any competition on terms or on DRM in the online market. They conspired to impose uniform and oppressive DRM terms to control the online market.
The RIAA needed Apple on board to avoid antitrust issues for imposing a uniform and oppressive and Windows only market, and the RIAA slightly broke their conspiracy to impose DRM and uniform DRM terms. Apple did not want any part of the DRM nonsense and was about to walk away from the table. So the RIAA let Apple have slightly less oppressive terms. These different terms were a crack in their conspiracy to impose DRM and DRM terms, and natural market forces responded to that crack. And in free market, a better more desireable product always outcompetes crippled competition. iTunes' less crippled product handily outcompeted all of the other DRM crippled products. And in a genuine free market, in a market free of conspiracy between RIAA members not to genuinely compete, any label that offered a less oppressive DRM terms would outcompete other labels, and any label that offered a noncrippled DRM free product would handily outcompete any label attempting to sell any sort of DRM crippled crap.
Absent RIAA memeber noncompete conspiracy, absent antitrust violations, we would indeed not be in this DRM mess. We would be buying MP3s right now.
-
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:4, Insightful)
In my case, I'd liken it more to going into an all-you-can-eat restaurant by myself, ordering their buffet for $10, and then being told "Oh, and you have to eat it while supported upside down by this special chair, and you can only use these straneg corkscrew-shaped spring-loaded chopstick-like things to eat it. And don't try to get around this because the chair can detect if you're really upside down in it." Well, I think for the sake of my sanity, I'd probably go and bypass the detection on the chair and chopstick-like-things and eat it sitting upright with my own fork knife and spoon thank you.
I think one of the best analogies I have ever seen on this, in fact, is the following (paraphrased):
It would be like going to McDonalds, and buying food, and discovering that the food is packaged in special "Food Rights Management" containers. These containers are set up so that you cannot get the food out of them without a special unlock key. These keys are built into three specific models of one brand of car, and can also be purchased as a special table at your house. The key device must be in place for the duration of the consumption of the food, otherwise the FRM packaging will close back up again. And yes, when unlocked with the key, you can choose to extract the food to another packaging, however the FRM will pre-puree it for you if you do so, so you still have the food, and it is still edible and technically tasty, but just not QUITE as good.
Now, you can't have any other kind of car, and you can't eat it in the park, and you if you go to your neighbor's house to eat it, you can eat it at their table after you log in with their table, but they can't eat at the same time.
So, somebody manages to find a way to get the food out of this FRM packaging without it being turned into a tube of goop, and suddenly you can eat it in any car, or at the park, or at the same time with your neighbor.
"But this makes it easier for criminals to steal it and put it on P2P!"
Yeah, but so do CD's. So why are you treating everybody as a criminal just because they COULD be? Should we now treat everybody who has a gun as a criminal because the guns make it easier for them to rob a store if they chose to? Should everbody with fingers be a criminal because a fist makes it easier to perform criminal assualt and battery?
People really go to the easiest thing to do for their money. If it's easier to spend $0.99 and get the track and use it the way you want, then they will do that. If it's EASIER to do what they want to do with it if they spend hours trying to figure out a P2P network and find the right song that hasn't been screwed up and sounds halfway okay and such, then people will do that instead.
It's not about the money completely, it's also about ease of use. As an example, it is entirely possible to drive in a nail with a free rock, and it will get the job done. But if you want to drive in 20 nails, it's much EASIER to spend $9.99 on a hammer and use that instead, and more efficient. Then at the same time, if the hammers cost $99.99 instead, people probably would opt to use the free rock to drive them in, because the cost now overshadows the benefit.
How to get it right: Make it easier to do it the right way than to do it the wrong way. If there were less restrictions on the music that we could buy, then it would just be a heck of a lot easier to spend the 99 cents and get the music than to go throught he hassle on P2P and such. As long as it is EASIER to go on P2P and do what you want,
Re:Unlike Hymn... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A glint of common sense (Score:1, Insightful)
Goddamn fuckers can be heard from miles.
I should buy a 50KW tweeter to blast THEIR ears when they pass by me...
Re:restrictive (Score:3, Insightful)