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."
3..2..1 (Score:2, Interesting)
It is cool, however (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you read the article? Or even its title? This is about BUYING drm files from iTMS, not downloading them for free. It is quite cool, as the DRM makes it a big hassle for purchasers to listen to the music on their own equipment.
RIAA music isn't free
How is this relevant? It is not free if you are buying it by the cassette, the CD, or by iTMS with AND without this DRM-remover.
I agree.. DRM is a pain. mp3 everywhere! (Score:3, Interesting)
My Tivo allows easy playing of all the songs in my itunes collection which is cool
My car plays mp3 Cds. This is cool. Except it can't play the songs I bought from the Itunes music store.
Yes I know I can burn them too plain music CD. But in the car i tend to like to have one CD filled with songs and just leave it in there.
When the DRM starts tripping you up, it gets annoying.
Gimme a library license, Apple! (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple's DRM is so danged innocuous that I haven't run into it, ever -- aside from the inability to attach a song to an e-mail and send it off to my sisters. There's not one thing I've ever actually tried to do with the files that's been blocked by the DRM. A minor interface quirk -- the way it uses checkboxes in more than one way depending on context -- caused me a minor headache once, and that's the only problem I've really had with iTunes or its store. (Oh, that and the fact that not that many books get made into CDs, at least for my running tastes.)
You have a burning (pun intended) need to produce more than 10 copies of the same exact playlist as a CD? That must be it. Yeah.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:3..2..1 (Score:5, Interesting)
There are ways they could reduce the server load and make it a bit more secure though - eg. blanket encrypt/drm everything on the server and have the client rip that off and apply the personalised drm. Then you'd have to go fishing around in the client for keys etc.
They could also add some form of security handshake to the client & the protocol to identify it as a valid apple client.
By far the biggest problem they have is how to fix this without breaking their massive installed client-base. That is where I think things get interesting.
That's precisely what I'll be doing this evening. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm hoping that when they dissect the log files from iTunes over the next few days they'll see an awful lot of non-iTunes client downloads. Whilst Apple can't condone this, it would be nice if they could go to the record labels and say without DRM we sold x many hundre thousand more tracks.
An other interesting point is this. The argument for DRM is that without it we'll all start copying music amongst ourselves. Surely if this was a case, with Apple leaking de-DRM'd music into the world, P2P and other piracy should immediately ramp up now (and I suspect it won't).
Problems getting to site? Mirror here... (Score:2, Interesting)
this is crap (Score:2, Interesting)
They provide a service, and if you don't like it you are free to use another. The reason for a DRM is so you don't pass on the music to someone else for free, because once 1000 people get copies of the song you bought for $.99 the artist only gets 1 royalty payment - and that is unfair.
Music is not open source.
A
Re:if you don't like the license agreement (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet more and more CDs are coming copy protected, and won't play on some CD players. You also can't rip them for use on your MP3 plater.
Not limited by DRM eh? Think again.
Not legality, but implications (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not entirely convinced that legality is the issue (home-taping/burning and modification by the purchased user, if AFAIK "fair-use"). It is more the fear (and in some respects rightly so) of the RIAA and Apple of the said purchased media being deseminated.
Pure and simple, distributing copyrighted material (whether you burn CDs using iTMS tunes or you break the DRM) is illegal. However, what you do with your purchased music in private (e.g. for yourself, on your own computer) is your business, so long as you are not deseminating it to those who didn't buy it, or you are not using the said copyrighted material for public performance. Electronic media, in terms of copyright, does not disallow personal backups, remixing for fun (no profit), or any sort of arbitrary modification. You own that file, albeit, not the media therein (the music in this case).
In the cases of fair-use, home-taping has been defended (likewise photocopying library books for personal/academic/private use). There are certain rights that extend to the public over what they own.
In the case of DVD Jon and others, what they see that they are doing (and arguably they are) is cleverly extending the capabilities of the end-user in lines of usage. When exploited for desemination, profit, and piracy, it is not the process or tool that is wrong, but the use. The tool does have legitamate, legal uses (playing purchased media on your Linux box, for example).
I personally think PyMusique [nanocrew.net], Hymn [hymn-project.org], and the FairPlay mechanisms for VLC [boingboing.net] are legitimate and can (and should) be used for Fair Use. If exploited, like any other tool, for illegal ends, then the people infringing on copyrights should be prosicuted (albeit the RIAA has been in recent years more proactive is fining grandma and various 12-year olds that busting pirating rings).
I have been using Hymn for months now, for fair-use purposes. I buy from iTMS (when you ride the Boston T every morning and evening, your iPod is your best friend) and I frequently get gift cards from family. I and my fiance think it is great, however, if she buys something and I buy something and we want to make a mix CD for our car when we go on a trip, something that allows extended fair-use would be great.
I personally, and I don't think I am alone, think what DVD Jon is doing is great because it is useful to the consumer (although as a side effect, the pirate). The consumer can better enjoy the beniefits of the purchase.
This will probably be corrected by iTMS with a subsequent version of iTunes and I have no problem with that. Apple is there to make money from their sales (so preventing piracy is a good motive) and they have to protect the fidgety record labels who are still uncomfortable with digital media, although CDs themselves are not secure in any regard. Those (like DVD Jon and myself) who see a need as a consumer to modify their legitamately purchased music to use it on all computers/OS they have, should make an effort to archive their media in forms they can use, with the technology at their disposal, and if the DRM system is changed, keep up or enjoy what they already bought.
Somebody mentioned subscription services, and I don't think that subscription services are only legally de-DRMed if you currently subscribe to the service, e.g. it is blantantly illegal to rip and crack a storehouse of music and continue to use them once you no longer subscribe. However, with these models, fair-use would apply to burning CDs for your car, ripping tracks and making MP3s for your iPod or whatever. It is when the use is exploited and people are not being pais is when you have a problem.
He is referring to AAC files. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a overy convoluted process that should not be required in the first place. Just watermark the damn song when written to a MP3 CD. I just to play the music I am legally entitled to in my car. Jumping through hoops is not a valued expenditure of my time.
Still need to transcode to get MP3s out of it (Score:3, Interesting)
All you're going to get through this process is unencumbered AAC files, which still don't play on as many players. Sure, it's faster than burning/ripping, but I really don't see the point in breaking my contract with Apple just to save me that bit of time.
This is a much better "security" story than "DRM" story. Apple clearly blew it in the security department here.
Re:Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:5, Interesting)
PyMusique captures the paid for track before the DRM gets put on.
Hymn strips off the DRM after the track is downloaded.
Hymn appears to violate the DMCA to the letter of the law because the DRM is in place at the time Hymn performs it's functions.
PyMistique most likely only violates the TOS because the user isn't using the iTunes application, the client component that puts the DRM on the downloaded file. The file is simply downloaded as iTunes sends it (without DRM).
Either way, the user would have paid for the song. They are simply making a choice to maintain their "fair use" rights.
Re:Why burn to a disc? (was Re:I love ITS but ...) (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:if you don't like the license agreement (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Except, as far as I understand it, you can use GPL software anyway you want, without having to worry about the licence. As long as you don't distribute it, that is. You see, the licence doesn't try to take away the fair use rights you have. What the licence does say, is that if you go beyond what is permitted by fair use, (i.e. modifying and redistributing), you have to play by the GPL rules.
What DRM tries to do is take away your fair use rights. I suppose you could argue that you are agreeing to a contract when you download/click a EULA, etc., but I think that's bunk. The reason that's bunk is we've already agreed to a contract that gives them the monopoly rights over the distrubution of their material. That agreement is copyright law and it lays out the rules over what is theirs and what is ours. They shouldn't get to leverage their monopoly rights to get even more out of the bargain. They are essentially saying, "You need to abide by the former contract when it benefits us, but we don't need to abide when it doesn't".
Now there is a case we're I'm OK with DRM. That's when it comes to rentals (or rental-like, such as pay-per-view). Here you are not making a purchase, but you are instead being lent material for a set time (or # of uses). It's OK under these circumstances to place restrictions on how I use something, since I did not outright purchase it. (Even here, though, we need to be careful, or we could find ourselves in a world where everything becomes pay-per-view/listen, if the technology allows it). In the case of i-tunes, you are clearly making a purchase.
Having said that I don't approve of this piece of software. The reason I don't approve of it, is because it interacts with Apple's store, and Apple has a right to restrict what software interacts with their store. However, software such as Fairplay I think is OK, because that software only interacts with data on your computer.
Re:Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:5, Interesting)
Hymn appears to violate the DMCA to the letter of the law because the DRM is in place at the time Hymn performs it's functions.
I don't think this is actually true. Hymn does not break any encryption, it merely uses your legally obtained encryption keys to remove the DRM. This is a very fine point, but based upon my reading of portions of the DMCA, Hymn seems to be in the clear if you can explain it properly to a jury.
Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much (Score:1, Interesting)
Doesn't "authorizing" your iTMS songs require Apple server support? If so, it would stop working as soon as you buy a new computer.
Legal issues mainly. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like to add, though, that when you dig into the mechanisms you find that there is a legal inconsistency, and a moral inconsistency, at the root of the matter.
The moral inconsistency is with regard to the copyright holder's (presumed) intent:
In the case of music and other "content industry" files, the (presumed) intent of the copyright holder is to sell the material for money or other benefits.
In the case of the GPL the (presumed) intent of the copyright holder on the base material was to freely distribute the material, obtaining less direct benefits (satisfaction, reputation, improving humanity's situation, external support of the code, access to other code on the same terms, etc.)
The GPL is used, rather than public domain, to head off a scenario where someone would write a fix or upgrade, copyright THAT, and keep the original author and the rest of humanity from using it - at all, without restrictions, and/or without paying a fee.
The underlying conflict, both in law and possibly in morality, is that distributing outside the license terms violates the intent of the author. This means that arguments against the content industry's restrictions potentially could be turned against the GPL and other open-source licenses.
But one of the beauties of an open-source license is that most SUCCESSFUL attack on copyright restrictions shouldn't damage the original point of the license. If you weaken the ability of copyright owners to control copying, you also weaken the ability of the creators of derived works to block the original authors and the rest of humanity from replicating their fixes and improvements. So the original point of the GPL - not to force disclosure, but to block attempts to lock up the free software base against improvement and reverse-engineering - may still be maintained.
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Actually, lots of stores like Costco and Sam's Club ask to see your receipt and check your buggy when leaving. Isn't this the same thing? "Thanks for shopping--oh, lemme make sure you didn't rob us real quick"
Cache and bandwidth considerations (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't researched Apple's solution; however, I have personal experience of implementing a Windows Media-based DRM solution in my previous job. (I don't agree with DRM, and won't purchase any DRM-protected media, but it was nonetheless an interesting assignment, and I discovered a lot about how it works.) With that in mind, here is my tentative analysis.
Apple are probably using one of the edge-cache services like Akamai to reduce server load and bandwidth fees. In order for this to work, the data that each client downloads must be the same - otherwise, it can't be cached.
Although it is possible, and even desirable from a security standpoint, to apply the DRM to each file as it is downloaded, the increased server load and bandwidth probably makes this economically and logistically unviable.
It may be judged as stupid that Apple has not applied even basic, generic encryption to what they send over the wire. However, since they would have to supply the enemy (a.k.a. the customer) with the encrypted content and the means to decrypt it, it would not deter a determined hacker. Then again, nor can DRM.
The parent writes, "The first rule of security is that the client is untrustworthy." The first rule of DRM is, by contrast, "We give the client the encrypted content, the keys, and the decoder, and hope that he won't work out how to use them."
The lesson that you should take away from this is that DRM is snake oil. It can never work. But it is being sold to and bought in gallons by the entertainment oligopoly mastodons who have repeatedly proven that they don't get the internet. It's basically useless for all parties concerned. We get inconvenient restrictions; they think that they are getting copy protection but are actually being sold a river.
As an aside, even if Palladium/NGSCB becomes prevalent and required for downloading DRM content, it seems unlikely that each resource will be custom-encrypted against the customer's Palladium/NGSCB public key. And even if it were, there would be likely be ways to extract the raw data at some point. I doubt that we will see truly uncrackable DRM for a long time to come. In fact, I doubt that we will ever see it.
Re:DRM broken anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't matter how much hearing loss you have (unless you're up to grandpa level), there are certain types of music that completely degrade when you do audio compression on them. Some good examples are metal like At The Gates that has heavy guitars and drums and bass in the front, but then has a second guitar riffing over it. When you mp3 them, even at higher bitrates (high as in 160, 192), you lose the riffing a little. It starts to blend in with everything else. The same goes for types of electronica like AphexTwin. All his little twidly tinkering over the weird ass background effects get lost when encoded. And on some tracks, I've noticed that loss even at 256kbps mp3s. I've never played with VBR since it was first introduced and most software mp3 players would fuck up on them.
yeah, transcoding will REALLY degrade the music, even on things that wouldn't normally degrade when encoded.
I especially like your Ansel Adams reference.
Re:Contrast with GPL violator story (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Great (Score:1, Interesting)
DRA is crap. It was born crap, and the companies that insist on it will die in a puddle of their crap.
Look at how awful WMA DRM is... Recorded Books via WMA are almost completely useless and limited to such a tiny audience as to defeat the very purpose of it's existance.
Electronic Media formats should EXPAND the audience for whatever media you're attempting to distibute. DRM serves no logical purpose other than making it more difficult for noobs to use that media.
DRM Business Model:
1. Load Shotgun
2. Aim at face.
3. Use ridiculously complicated algorithms to Pull trigger with toe.
4. Say good bye to profits
5. Good Riddance
Re:Place it hereI don't liek butterfiles (Score:1, Interesting)
Basically this is how it worked for me.
Download the latest version of Virtousa. I think it is version 5.Something.
Scour the internet for the wma_dec.vpl file that trats protected wma's the same as unprotected wma's.
Here is the part about keeping the track numbers.
After you have downloaded your music from napster, load it all into virtousa. This may take a bit as virtousa neeeds to get the license for the music.
After all your music is loaded, exit virtousa and copy the broken vpl file over the existing one (back up the existing one for good measure).
Restart virtousa and convert to your hearts content. I noticed the program takes a bit to start the conversion so if it doesn't start immediately don't get too bugged out. I also noticed that it hangs if I try and convert more then about 100 tracks at a time or so.
Enjoy the free music and stop trying to rationalize your theft. Life is better when you admit to yourself exactly what you are anyway.
Good luck, and if you can't find the vpl make a throwaway email and I will send it to you.
Don't say all AC's are assholes, some of us just don't want a
I don't like butterflies, one of them killed my little brother and game me herpes. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong, what Apple should be praised for is their desire and attempt to sell NON-DRM MUSIC. If you actually check the facts and the history you'll see that Apple wanted, and still wants, to sell non-crippled music. That they battled against the RIAA on this.
What Apple is "guilty" of is caving to the abusive practictices of the RIAA cartel. And you can't really place a heck of a lot of blame on someone who declines to get into an ugly and expensive legal battle. What Apple should have done is sued the RIAA for abusing their copyrights in an attempt to control formats. In fact at the time the RIAA was already on extremely dangerous antitrust ground as they had in effect imposed a Windows only market. The RIAA was accutely aware of just how closely the member companies were skirting antitrust law in conspiring to impose uniform and oppressive terms to control the only market. One of the rather comical aspects of this is that during the negotiation process their lawyers set a rule that no two studio heads were allowed to be in the same room at the same time because any direct agreement between them would have resulted in INSTANT ANTITRUST CONVICTION. No ifs ands or buts about it, their lawyers said they'd be nailed to the wall for what they were doing if there was ever any evidence that the studio heads directly agreed to what they were doing. The RIAA were despesperate to get Apple on board to ward off antitrust prosecution. That is the reason they made an exception to the uniform and oppressive terms they conspired to imposing on the online market. Apple was fighting against any DRM at all, and they were going to just walk out. The RIAA needed Apple and they didn't take the small Apple market seriously, so they offered Apple slightly less oppressive terms than anyone else. Which is exactly why Apple's iTunes has absolutely STOMPED every single other online music service. In a free market a noncrippled product (or merely less crippled product) simply exterminates any attempt by anyone else to sell crippled crap.
Apple does not want to use DRM at all and they have absolutely no objection to removing or defeating it other than the fact that headaches and battles they get for it from the RIAA.
-
Re:DRM broken anyway (Score:1, Interesting)
I've listened to FLAC encoded files, and fairly high quality ogg files of the same song, from the same PC, through the same consumer-grade headphones, with the same music player. (Song I chose was Ashokan Farewell from Ken Burns' Civil War documentary)
The ogg files are missing a lot. In particular the high stringed instruments are missing something.
I admit I could have encoded the OGG files poorly. But for me, in my experience, with my limited knowledge of proper lossy encoding settings... its much better for me to go lossless. And I assume the same could hold true for the OP as well.
And hard drives are cheap.
Re:Advice (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:5, Interesting)
These DRM-cracking P2P-downloading "freedom fighters" are forgetting that they were the origins of this problem to begin with. It's like an all-you-can-eat buffet at the local restaurant. It charges $10 per person to eat, but you and 10 of your friends come in every day, pay for one plate, and use it to feed everyone. But not only do you expect the restaurant to continue to do business with you, you expect them to lower their restrictions because of your exploits!
But a new analogy has crept into my head (forgive its over-the-top comparison): those black individuals in the US South in the 1950s and '60s. They could have simply not done business with with the city bus system, or the lunch counters that didn't allow their presence. But by confronting the situation, and edging their way just into the place where they were not supposed to be, they ignited a sweep of change that completely altered the situation.
Now, I'm not arguing that the freedom to break copy protection on your music files is on the same moral level as the civil rights movement. I do, however, consider the continued violation of the DCMA in these ways a valid method for fighting it.
Every time a major crack is announced, the public sees yet another example of large corporations trying to control the behavior of their customers, which is something that people inherently don't appreciate. The goal here is to show the publishing houses and such that, unlike the buffet, they cannot continue to do business by simply locking people down even harder, or banning them from the premesis. They will have to innovate a new way of doing business that does not rely on the infringement of its customers' freedoms.
This is, of course, a pretty radical goal, and one which I'm not completely sure I support. But I have moved beyond the stage where I would boycott iTunes because of its DRM. Instead, perhaps cracking it to allow for legal fair use and then making Apple completely aware that your business depends on your ability to do so would be a better solution?
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's all based on trust in the digital world [thats rather cliche, I know]. The industry can't trust people to *not* copy and give away the songs; hence we have DRM.
But people don't like DRM because people want their fair use rights without having to jump through hoops, which I think is fair.
We've got to come to a better solution for this mess. Sometimes I ponder on what a 'trust' model industry would be like; we eliminate DRM and essentially let people pay to download songs and do whatever the hell they want with them according to the fair use laws we already have. If you break your fair use rights, then you get sued into oblivion for breaking that trust.
But then again, there are so many problems with that model I can already see now. The sad truth is that we can't trust people. You just can't. How would you know when someone was breaking their fair use rights without DRM? Put unique ID tags on mp3s, and keep track of which ID goes to which individual?
Maybe we need to revamp the whole concept of IP. I don't know. I wish minds smarter than mine would arise and solve this mess soon though. And by that I mean I wish someone other than the -AA.
As for Apple, I hope this doesn't put them into a bad mojo with the music industry, which it will. I wish Apple in this case could just do nothing and ignore this but thats not gonna happen since the music industry will be up in arms over this.
Isn't it ironic, that DVDJon, in his fight for our rights (or whatever it is that he's doing) or whomever else, when they do things like these; often in the end make it harder to slay the beast?
We need a different way to kill this Goliath. Making programs and things like these isn't the pebble that will bring that b*tch down. We've got to rethink this.
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:2, Interesting)
Under copyright law there are licences to create more copies and distributing them and for public performance. In a nutshell that pretty well covers what rights it is even possible to licence. All other uses are unrestricted by copyright. You do not need any licence at all for an unrestricted use.
Guess what? Virtually all sales of copyrighted works in fact come with no licence at all. You sure as hell didn't receive any licence when you bought a book. If you have not been given a licence to create more copies or distribute them or for public performance then you have not been given any licence at all. You do not need a licence to read a book, yhat is an unrestricted use. You do not need a licence to play music, that is an unrestricted use. You do not need a licence to resell a book to a used book store, that is an unrestricted use.
Sure you need to buy a copy of a book before you can read it, and you need to buy a copy of a song before you can play it, but none of that involves any licencing at all.
-
Intercept socket traffic? (Score:1, Interesting)
The tcpdump output file may have to be post-processed, but that can be done without violating the law or the TOS.
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hackers will continue to keep cracking it but online music is not doomed to fail (nor will it look that way).
Pirates long ago copied Tape Cassettes and more recently CDs. It's in a large part due to the number of music CDs sold each year that are ripped to MP3 and traded online that online music is a must. If songs are available legally online, even at a cost to the consumer, consumers will be more likely to seek out legal music (provided they can use the music how they need to and/or it isn't grossly more expensive) iTunes, for example, would be ideal if it didn't prohobit users from listening to music with third party MP3 players...
Ripping an audio CD and posting the MP3s on Kazaa is way easier than installing a Python based iTunes substitute with it's 5 or required python libraries, but for people who would rather purchase music from iTunes than Walmart, this complicated solution that could allow them place the music onto a non-Apple branded MP3 player might look like a pretty nice solution. It's at least easier than recording from the Wave-Out with SoundForge or Nero WaveEdit or something...
No, online DRMs will continue to be cracked, but this won't hurt online music sales in the long run. More likely it will put downward pressure on prices as lower prices will help consumers choose legal over illegal means.