FairPlay v2 Reversed, Playfair Back Online 621
An anonymous reader writes "Two weeks ago Apple released iTunes 4.5. The minor changes Apple made to their Music Sharing Protocol (daap) were reverse engineered after just one day. According to a post in the Doom9 forums FairPlay version 2 has also been reverse engineered. playfair has
already been patched with the new code and is back online with FSF India providing legal support. How will Apple respond?"
Obvious (Score:5, Redundant)
With FairPlay v3.
Re:Obvious (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't bother with DRM, RIAA sponsored music, and certainly don't bother with breaking it. Just ignore it and support free music.
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
To which community do you refer? FSF people? GNU people? EFF people? Free-and-Open source (in general) people? Whitehats? Greyhats? Blackhats? Music lovers? Anti-corporate people? Slashdotters?
Put simply, it doesn't really matter how you answer. When something threatens corporate profits (you can see that I at least fall into the last category above), they spin it so we all manage to come out looking bad. Cracked DRM? Damn those anti-corporate open-source hippy weed-smokin' bastards! Leaked Windows source code? Damn those anti-corporate open-source hippy weed-smokin' bastards! A new worm that only affects Outlook or MSIE? Damn those anti-corporate open-source hippy weed-smokin' bastards!
We can't win the PR war, because "they" have a PR budget, and we do not.
Don't bother with DRM, RIAA sponsored music, and certainly don't bother with breaking it. Just ignore it and support free music.
While good in theory (and a stance I almost fully agree with), we all have a few RIAA-signed groups we enjoy. As a better choice than supporting DRM'd downloads, just buy the CD (preferably used so the RIAA doesn't actually profit from the sale, although on the down side, the artist doesn't get any money that way either). Then rip to whatever format you like.
Of course, the RIAA has already started working to plug that particular hole (via broken CDs), but so far have failed miserably. Aside from the overall pathetically weak nature of the DRM on CDs so far, broken CDs have failed for the only reason the RIAA cares about - Profit. The general poublic may have no idea about the trampling of their fair-use rights, but they do get annoyed when they buy a CD and it won't play in their car.
A little too close for comfort (Score:3, Funny)
And I for one welcome our new anti-corporate open-source hippy weed-smokin' bastards.
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
See, but that's stupid. People can already download music for free without playfair.
The only compelling reason for the existence of playfair is so that you can use the music you've legally purchased in whatever format you want. (Maybe you want to buy an Ipaq instead of an ipod for example).
THIS ISN"T ABOUT PIRACY IT'S ABOUT CONTROL.
It's like a "broadcast flag" for music. By claiming it's a pircacy issue, you only HELP the RIAA and hurt those who understand the big picture.
You conveiniently forgot a word... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On whose behalf? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fair use includes making a backup copy. I don't believe making a backup includes downloading one from the Internet (but that is open to interpretation).
Illegal copy I make for my wife?
Doesn't fall into the downloading category.
Illegal copy of music I already bought so I can take it in my car without worrying about car thieves stealing my only copy?
Illegal copy on my hard drive so when the less than immortal physical CD craps out I don't have to pay for a new copy at full price?
Again, doesn't fall into the downloading category.
Illegal monopoly on region codes (violates WTO)?
I don't see how this has anything to do w/this topic. We are talking about music not region coded DVDs/games.
Illegal price fixing (RIAA)?
They were found guilty and supposedly paid the price they deserved. The open debate about the severity of the fine is irrelevant.
Re:Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Remind me again how Apple (or anybody) is forcing you to buy music with DRM included? I seem to have missed that part.
Re:Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
That's stupid.
Of course no one's FORCING you to buy something.
Even if there was only one place left on the planet to get food, technically you aren't being *forced* to buy food there, as you could always "choose" to starve to death.
I've got an idea, why don't you show me a site where I can legally download major-label music WITHOUT DRM?
Then there would be a real alternative.
Re:Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Therefore, they are forcing you to either...
1. buy music with DRM
or
2. pirate music without DRM
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "force". FWIW, nobody is "forcing" either of those 2 alternatives on anyone. People voluntarily choose to patronize those services.
Incidentally, you left off several other options, such as "buy a legal CD and rip it yourself." Nothing illegal about that.
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Buy music with DRM.
2. Don't.
And that's ignoring your third choice, which is to keep doing whatever you were doing (legally!) before the iTMS came about. Which includes, for example, buying a CD and ripping it yourself. All Apple's done here is give you another way to purchase your music legally, should you so choose; no one's FORCING you to use it.
Re:Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
I knowingly bought tape deck and tapes, knowing that someday CD was going to be coming down the road.
Guess what? There's nothing stopping me from ripping old tapes to mp3 since I now carry an mp3 player instead of a walkman.
If you knowingly buy something that won't work for you, you give up all rights to later complain that it doesn't work based simply on your own stupidity.
Re:Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
yes, non-DRMed MP3s serve them extremely well by providing the pirates with perfectly ripped tunes that they know not to be purposely screwed over by the RIAA. AFter all it's not like you can't just give that MP3 to all your friends without having them need to pay for the artist's work( and a large "packaging" fee to the
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obvious (Score:3, Informative)
You obviously think DRM is OK, that is fine for you. Many of us think it is very bad, and boycotting is the only way we have of telling anybody. It seems pretty retarded to say don't boycott because at least this DRM isn't that bad. You just wait...
BTW, any DRM war will be won by the hackers and
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
>With FairPlay v3.
Of course! Apple has to show the RIAA and record labels that they're trying to prevent "unauthorized decryption" of the
There's really nothing else that Apple can do. If they ignore PlayFair, the RIAA will surly pull the plug on iTunes.
I'm waiting for Microsoft to start their MSN music store. I have a feeling MS will tell the RIAA what they can do with their wishes and desires. For one, MS will want to keep as much money to themselves as possible. They'll also want the RIAA to quick overreacting every time a weakness in DRM is exploited.
Re:Obvious (Score:3, Informative)
Being a monopoly has its advantages.
Show me the money (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for one thing - iTunes is making a LOT of money for the RIAA and associated companies! As iTunes grows in use and popularity, Apple has much more of a stick to brandish and show music companies that even with tools like Hymn, sales can continue to grow. I think that was Apple's plan all along, to start with the least restrictive DRM possible and then relax it further as time went on
Though there's less and less point... (Score:3, Insightful)
But if it comes down to "Sure, the last 30 years of music is bust, but we have protected the last 3 months worth" the DRM is essentially useless...
Kjella
Re:Obvious (Score:3, Funny)
>
> With FairPlay v3.
I give 2:1 odds and 500 quatloos that says v3 is cracked within 48 hours.
Anyone care to take 10:1 and 50 quatloos that says it's less than 24?
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is not fighting this because they are evil, they are doing it becasue if they don't, record labels will be less interested in working with the iTunes Music Store.
If you must blame someone, blame the RIAA. I agree that it's sad that Apple is playing along with the bastards, but if they aren't seen as vigorously defending the "right" of the labels to make egregious profits, they could stand to lose a critical revenue stream.
Bander
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
That may be one of the reasons, but then there's also the fact that their DRM only works with iPods. The whole idea behind the music store is just to sell more iPods. If there was no DRM, people could use their music on non-iPod players that support AAC, but as it is they're locked into buying iPods forever unless they want to re-purchase all their music.
Oh Come on. (Score:3, Informative)
Burn protected AAC to CD Media.
Rip with VBR --r3mix -b112 with lame or your favorite encoder.
Play on whatever you want.
And the 'compression' argument doesn't hold water unless you have a $10k set of speakers to listen to it on powered by a McIntosh analog amp. And if you have that you're just a cheap a$$ bastard for not buying the music.
I burn all sorts of CDs and listen to them in my cars, my stereo, etc. I can't tell the difference between it and my
Re:Oh Come on. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh Come on. (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly there must be a difference between the copies, or else there would be no point not allowing stright copying but allowing burn/rip
Not buying the music? (Score:5, Informative)
Last I heard, you had to actually purchase the music and have a iTMS account for Fairplay to work. It won't work on that AAC file you grabbed off of Kazaa, because you don't have a valid key to begin with. This is clearly a fair use issue, not one of copyright infringement.
I just burned my ability to mod this discussion, but that had to be said.
Re:Oh Come on. (Score:3, Insightful)
And "The 'compression' argument" as you
Re:Oh Come on. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes I could do that but it is just one more step I must do in order to play the music I purchased on my non-ipod player. I purchase music online because it is convenient. This is not convenient.
I'm sad to say that Apple may once again lose to Microsoft. Microsoft's DRM hasn't been cracked yet. If this continues the major labels may decide to back Microsoft and shun Apple.
I do not have any problems with Apple's implementation of DRM except only supporting the iPod. I lo
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
The Slashdot article about "Janus", found here [slashdot.org], contains a similar discussion about DRM, but with a focus on Microsoft (since "Janus" is Microsoft technology).
There is a post very similar [slashdot.org] to the parent of my reply, stating that Microsoft is not the one pushing for DRM, it is the media giants (RIAA, MPAA). Of course, since it was defending Microsoft's DRM, it was not moderated very high. But the parent to my reply is rated +5 and says almost the same thing (but is defending Apple).
And there was a lot of Microsoft bashing regarding the proposed DRM, moderated very highly of course, which can be found here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], and here. [slashdot.org] But if you bash Apple on Slashdot for their DRM, you will be moderated -1 in a few seconds.
I know this will get moderated straight to -1, but I am not attempting to start a flame war, I would actually like to start a discussion and have someone explain to me exactly why Apple DRM is wonderful but Microsoft DRM is wrong. Keep in mind that I am not trying to defend Microsoft's DRM, my position is that BOTH DRMs are bad. Anyway, my real question is, what makes Apple so perfect and Microsoft so wrong?
It's about the history. (Score:3, Informative)
Keep in mind that I am not trying to defend Microsoft's DRM, my position is that BOTH DRMs are bad. Anyway, my real question is, what makes Apple so perfect and Microsoft so wrong?
It's a simple matter of history. For the past 10 years, Microsoft has behaved atrociously in any market where they have had a stake. They have run roughshod over consumer interests, antimonopoly laws, and have singlehandedly destroyed free market competition.
While no one can be sure, many of those who mod pro-MS DRM (or pro
Re:Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple DRM is not "wonderful," but there are obvious reasons why Microsoft's position is more unfavorable and negative as far as people's opinions, IMO:
- Apple's iTunes music store (and associated DRM) is a service that you may or may not use; there are many other music download services that you may or may not use also;
- the perception with Microsoft is that their DRM w
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
How is that innovative?
Playfair is the equivalent of a Windows OS keygen. It might be an interesting academic exercise, but no more so than picking a lock or cracking encryption.
iTMS is actually more deserving of the title "innovative." And even that's not by very much. "Good business" is a better label.
Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say they are better, its much harder to reverse engineer than to engineer.
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a side note, why can't Apple make it easy for their own client to download newer versions of the whole app, or at least the protocol code, automatically from the client? Downloading and updating seems so archaic nowaways. Upgrading directly from the client would be convienient and allows them to update their stuff with a lot of reliability amongst their userbase.
Re:Maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe... (Score:3, Interesting)
With reverse engineering you can watch the machine do its work, examine the input and output and compare them, etc. You have something to work with and you know when it is right...because it works.
The original engineers had to create something out of nothing...
Re:Maybe... (Score:3, Informative)
Nope (Score:5, Informative)
The key to decrypting iTMS files lies in its keyring. See, when you get "authorized" by Apple to play your purchased music, a key gets downloaded to your machine. This key is used to decrypt your music. The key is stored inside a keyring, and the keyring is encrypted using other information specific to your machine (Windows key, chunks off the BIOS, etc, etc).
The method to decrypt the keyring was reverse engineered, giving you the key, giving you the ability to decrypt the songs directly.
Simple.
How is this different? (Score:5, Insightful)
For all of the lofty talk in the community, is it at it's root support for whatever it takes to get "what I want, free"?
I just would like to know the difference between these things which to me seem similar.
Looking for a better understanding.
Re:How is this different? (Score:5, Insightful)
We can and should be upset with people using this to distribute cracked files, but there is no clear reason why using it to, say, play back legitimately purchased files on a Linux machine is morally or legally wrong.
Re:How is this different? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only using it, we're talking about the legality of distributing this program. People need to understand how fundamental this is, and stop saying idiotic things like "it's the nicest DRM around, so it doesn't seem right to break it".
It comes down to whether we have the right to distribute software that we have created (from scratch).
- Brian.
Re:How is this different? (Score:5, Informative)
For example, take a video game. Do you need to agree to the EULA to run it? Of course not:
1- Minors can't enter into contracts. Can only people 18+ buy games?
2- They are amending the terms of sale, after the sale has taken place. This is not legal.
3- Contract laws require that you actually receive something in exchange for what you are offering. Now, the theory behind the EULA is that your computer (and through extension, you) makes a copy when you run it, as such, you need a license to copy. However, Copyright law specifically allows fair use [cornell.edu], which allows you to do more than the EULA anyway, and copyright law lets you make copies anyway. As such, you are literally getting nothing in return.
4- Click-through agreements have never been shown to count as a legal agreement
5- What if you just skip it altogether?
The reality is, the companies who use EULAs are abusing the system, and trying to treat a license like a contract. It is not. A license doesn't have any of the above issues (the GPL is, for example, a license).
For example, copyright law says that you may not distribute copies. However, a license can say "you can go ahead and distribute copies, but only if you do X, Y, and Z". A license giveth, a license does not take. As such, minors can use licenses, too.
For example, suppose I were to were to write some sheet music, and give it to you. Copyright law is fairly specific about what you can do with it. For the most part, it just means you can't distribute copies. Now, suppose I placed the text "You may make and distribute copies, provided this copyright notice is present on all copies". This is a license. It gives you rights you do not normally had. You do not need to "enter" into any agreement at all. If you don't want to use it, you don't have to.
Re:How is this different? (Score:3, Insightful)
2) The terms are not amended after the sale. You have to agree to these terms BEFORE you buy the music.
3) You do recieve something in exchange, you recieve the music in exchange for $.99 and giving up the right to use unauthorized programs to make cop
Re:How is this different? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How is this different? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you imagine I think it is. So far as I know recording TV to tape for personal use is not recognised as fair use, except i the limited case of time shifting (ie when you erase the tape after watching it, rather than creating a copy to keep).
[...]since you've actually purchased the product, and therefor have more right to use it as you see fit
You have purchased a copy, but not a dispe
More Apple-related hypocrisy (Score:3, Interesting)
Not if they are drunk, or a child, or any one of the multitude of other things which make click-through agreements legally suspect.
How come all it seems to take is the mention of Apple, and all the things slashdotters normally hate, such as DRM, and restrictive click-through agreements that prohibit reverse engineering, suddenly become the best thing since sliced bread?
big difference (Score:5, Informative)
For all of the lofty talk in the community, is it at it's root support for whatever it takes to get "what I want, free"?
There's a big difference here...
PlayFair decrypts
PlayFair still requires the music to be purchased in the first place. Apple's files (at the RIAA and record labels' demands) are still encrypted, even after "purchase".
PlayFair users are generally working with their own, purchased files. They are not dipping into some secret Apple server full of encrypted, unsold songs.
iTunes buyers simply want more freedom. They're using PlayFair to achieve this.
Also, it is legal in India. (Score:2)
Re:Also, it is legal in India. (Score:3, Insightful)
Are YOU in India?
Re:How is this different? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How is this different? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not similar at all... (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone decrypting FairPlay'd songs has a whole host of reasons to do so, including using those songs in a fair use manner. You have to *buy* the songs before you can decrypt them.
Example: Say you want to convert the M4P's into MP3's for compatibility with your portable player. iTunes won't let you do that, without the tired hack of burning and reripping an audio CD. But if you FairPlay, you can decrypt the songs into M4A's and then iTunes will convert them to MP3's for you just fine. No (sane) laws have been broken, and it's perfectly ethical to do this. You're not giving away the music, you're just converting it to another format for compatibility with other devices. That's fair use, as I see it.
And frankly, getting iTunes store music, decrypting it, and sharing it isn't going to happen. Nearly everything you can get at the iTunes Music Store is *already* out there on the P2P networks. It's not like this creates more copyright infringement.
Re:Not similar at all... (Score:4, Interesting)
a) The word is spelled "naive".
b) Naive it may be, but it's true nevertheless. What's the point of putting decrypted songs on the P2P networks? They're all already there, and in better quality than 128kbps AAC too.
c) The power to work around a DRM system is not a power that they have the ability to take away, so whether they trust people with it or not is irrelevant.
where do you want to draw the line?
I'm perfectly satisfied with the line as it stands. They can keep trying to protect things with DRM, we can keep breaking them. Until they finally understand that it is not possible to create an unbreakable DRM scheme, it'll likely stay this way.
Structured society is all about trading certain rights for benefits
Yes, and that's why we have laws in place to define those rights. Fair use is something we, the people, do have, and I will not trade it away for anything.
This isn't about encryption or breaking DRM or even copying music. This is about taking the music I paid for and using it in the way that I want to use it. Are you seriously suggesting that I no longer have the right to listen to music I purchased on a portable player? Because that will be the main use of this software. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant, because it's still true.
Re:Not similar at all... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course you do, as long as that player is an iPod--just like it outlines in the iTunes Music Store contract you agreed to. What... you wanted to use your non-iPod player? Then why did you AGREE to the contract?
If you want to buy music and listen to it on your non-iPod player, no one's stopping you--there's plenty of stores where you can buy CDs to rip. The iTMS is a service, not a God-give
Re:How is this different? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever visited the planet Earth?
It's not about stealing, it's about exercising your right to fair use, on the songs you purchase from Apple. It's a *right* you have, you hear? this simply prevents Apple from trampling on *your rights*.
No doubt some people will use it to steal and share, but then, you can buy laser printers, yet the KKK have the right to print their racial slur with the same hardware you use. Would you like it if laser printers couldn't be bought easily anymore just to fight a minority that misuses the product?
Re:How is this different? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, violating the GPL is by definition a violation of copyright law, assuming the GPL is a valid license (which I believe to be true).
While most people who use the DRM breakers will be breaking copyright laws in their actions, there are uses of it that are not inherintly violatin
Re:How is this different? (Score:5, Interesting)
No.
It has been proven time and again that there ARE economic models to make money that don't include vendor-lock-in. In fact not only is vendor lock-in anti communistic, it is anti competition and that makes it anti-capitalist.
Fuck DRM, fuck every sniveling executive whose job relies on just being a middle man who takes his little "tax" off everything that real people produce. These people are worthless to a communist society, and they are usless to a capitalist society. They are the dead weight every way you measure it and as far as I am concerned I am not going to let them slowly seal up cultural production across the globe into their little cabals.
Why would ANY society want that to happen? The ONLY society I can imagine that happening in, is one that is run by the self-same people who stand to make a profit off it. And that worries me, because I think there are deals being cut between big media and government for kick-backs. And we need to crush that type of non-citizen corporate lobbying. Why does a corporation have a right to lobby, or even meet with elected representatives? Only citizens should be allowed to meet with government, and only AFTER an elected rep has meet hundreds of citizens for hundreds of hours should he be ALLOWED (we own them remember) to talk policy with a PAID lobby employee of a company.
It doesn't seem all that wrong until you *really* think about what is going on. We need radical democracy to smash all these cretins off the face of the political landscape and start anew; with old-school right wing libertarians and old-school liberal humanists fighting it out for the CITIZENS. There is always corruption, but back in the early days of each democracy of the world there were people *who could not be bought*, I don't think any modern democracy can make that claim anymore. And it makes me sick.
shame ... (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
FiarPlay name change? (Score:5, Interesting)
How will they respond? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How will they respond? (Score:3, Insightful)
Doing something to make Apple's apparent respect for the industry's "IP rights" look less than sincere appears to be kind of foolish, and a great way to damage what is a pretty reasonable setup. Price increases or a desire by the industry to embrace a more draconian DRM structure that doesn't allow for an easy copying loophole li
Apple's rock and hard place (Score:5, Insightful)
So, now I'm kind of boned (maybe - probably not, but maybe) in the future. Yes, I can "rip to audio-CD-and-then-to-MP3", but Hymn will make it all a "one stop shopping trip" for my fairly large iTunes store collection (hey, they had a special on classical music and BB King - give me a break).
Apple really doesn't have much to worry about, since people have to buy the music first before they can remove the Fairplay protections. And even if a bunch of butt-munches start "sharing" their music with others, that means more AAC files out there, which means a better chance we'll see more MP3 players that include AAC support in the future.
So while Apple doesn't have to worry about Fairplay, the fact is that the folks they get their music from - IE, the RIAA and even independant musicians - might like to hear that Apple's not letting just anybody give away their music without paying for it. Apple might not care, but since the place where they get music does, Apple's obligated to at least "fight the good fight" to show "due process" or some such.
Yeah, I'll use it, I know Apple will work to shut it down, but it should all be good in the long run.
Re:Apple's rock and hard place (Score:5, Informative)
AFAIK you don't have to have a
And don't forget... (Score:3, Informative)
And don't forget that FairPlay purposely leaves in the Apple ID used to purchase the song. So if people DO start putting their
with fair play v3? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hire the guy! (Score:4, Interesting)
More info (Score:4, Informative)
...they'll respond by (Score:2, Funny)
Silly. (Score:3, Insightful)
The only successful DRM has been to have a completely proprietary platform like Apple or SGI. You also get the side bonus of locking your customers into only buying your proprietary hardware upgrades.
Encrypted music the next big thing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Matt Fahrenbacher
If you don't like the terms of the iTMS service (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If you don't like the terms of the iTMS service (Score:5, Insightful)
Bull! The music is owned by the public but the artists or whoever shafts them are granted by us a (supposedly) time limited monopoly on that work during which they can make money. This is incentive for people to actually create things.
Disney, et al. have perverted this system so that an artists grand-children can milk money from their works. They have also worked hard to mislead people about copyright. In your case they have succeeded.
If you want free music, buy from artists who choose to give their music out freely. Respect the property rights of others.
No argument.
more info (Score:5, Informative)
According to MacWorld [macworld.com]...
(Not really karma whoring, just adding the info that was in my submission... bah.)
Keeps with Copyrights (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's Response (Score:3, Interesting)
The registered address of the hymn-project.org domain is in India, but for its "A" record I currently get the following:
OrgName: United Layer, Inc.
OrgID: LAER
Address: 1019 Mission Street
City: San Francisco
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 94103
Country: US
So perhaps there remains a danger that Apple will simply DMCA this place as per usual.
- Brian.
Reactions (Score:5, Insightful)
Fry this guy! Apple was the first to market with an online music store and is currently market leader. The Apple DRM system is probably the best out there when it comes to quality (AAC, much better than those crappy 128/192 KBps MP3s) and restrictions: Basically you can use the files on every computer in your household and iPod.
If you really want to hack a DRM system: Windows Media 9 is waiting for you and it will be the HD-DVD scheme both in coding and as DRM. Remember: If you break it now, make it to the press, the DVD Forum will not like using WM9. Clips are available here [microsoft.com]
What will Apple's reaction be? Well, the iPod has a lot of processing power (ARM core? Does anyone know the exact specs?) and it will survive the next generations of DRM change.
But but but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would guess that approximately ZERO pirates have been twarted by DRM and LOTS of legitimate users have been annoyed by the restrictions.
Why are they (Apple|RIAA) so intent on DRM anyways?
Cheers.
Kinda funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Support Hymn? Buy more iTunes songs!! (Score:5, Interesting)
I plan to buy a CD or two this week to show that just because I can free up my music doesn't mean I'm going to stop buying or shipping my music out to everyone on the planet.
You can also fill out a form [apple.com] to let Apple know you'd like Hymn to stay around and it will increase you purchases there.
Interesting Change (Score:5, Informative)
Cool
Good Fences Make Good Neighbors (Score:4, Insightful)
obligitory steve jobs quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Mirror in US, on University connection (Score:4, Informative)
It's probably a DMCA-banned circumvention device, but these are my last days on ResNet. *sniff*
Here's a mirror:
UNIX-style source: http://128.220.38.69:8071/hymn-0.6.0.tar.gz [128.220.38.69]
Windows binaries: http://128.220.38.69:8071/hymn-0.6.0.zip [128.220.38.69]
Mac binaries (with GUI): http://128.220.38.69:8071/hymn-0.6.0.dmg [128.220.38.69]
You can check my MD5SUMs against the official ones, http://hymn-project.org/download/MD5SUM .
3 Machine limit is why i use (Score:3, Interesting)
twice now, i've had a machine leave me without deauthorizing it. once because i forgot to, and once because it died on me totally (iBook repair program).
So i have yet 1 machine that is authorized - and rather than do an XP-like "mother may I" call to Apple to pay for music i've paid for - i'd rather just run this app, move my music to whatever machine i've got - and keep buying more music.
there are lots of good reasons for this - few are bad - and since my ID is still attached - its not like i could easily get away with using it on a P2P anyhow.
I use iTunes because it works better than p2p, and will keep on doing so so long as Apple doesn't stop me from using what i've bought.
GOOD! (Score:4, Interesting)
This program is made to circumvent DRM, but not to pirate. As such it allows fair use as stipulated under copyright law
IANAL but I don't like this trend of locking in the user more and more. There was never any real action against people taping their LP's in the time when my back didn't hurt that much after sex.
I'm actually from the other side (involved with a label) I and don't think pirating stuff is in some weird way noble and nice, but like almost everybody on that side of the fence, I do like music - a lot more than most Britney Spear copying idiots I'm sure - and I do buy the stuff, and I can't foretell on what equipment I'll be wanting to play it on in a couple of years time. So the more options I have, the happier I am.
That doesn't mean I want Apple to support every music format possible, I like their focus on ease of use... When I was a kid I also had to find out how my cassette player and mixing desk had to be hooked up in order to copy. But nobody was actively trying to make my life difficult either.
On that: Apple needs to show it's "concerned" and needs to be seen to try and do something about this - it's a lawyer thing, else they don't uphold their part of the bargain - but really, do you think deep down they really care? There isn't a company that's more into music than Apple. They know very well what reality looks like and how consumers think.
"Protection" is stripped... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Apple will respond... (Score:2)
No, I'm pretty sure Apple will ignore this. The company would love for the RIAA to pull the plug on iTunes.
Re:Apple will respond... (Score:2, Interesting)
Just a guess... (Score:2)
This is just a guess, however, I have no real info on the subject.
No... (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone is sharing music on P2P, I can virtually guarantee you that they ain't buying it from iTunes, and furthermore, this program will be of no use to them. You have to buy music to decrypt it. You can't decrypt other people's music.
What everyone wants (Score:3, Insightful)
It's free on the radio, why shouldn't it be free on the net.
Re:looks like its time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Fair use does not gurantee you to the right to a perfect copy.
Taking away our rights hurts everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
If you feel like turning over your rights to corporate America, then so be it. Fortunately, not everyone shares your view.
Re:PPC Emulator for x86 runs Mac OS X !!! (Score:4, Funny)
So PearPC is written in Java, then?
Ba-ZING!