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."
More Details (Score:5, Informative)
Links for the lazy:
Source Code: pymusique-0.3.tar.gz [nyud.net]
Debian Package: pymusique_0.3-1_i386.deb [nyud.net]
Windows: pymusique-setup.exe [nyud.net]
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't you guys realize... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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:5, Insightful)
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: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: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.
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: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: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:Don't you guys realize... (Score:4, Funny)
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: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:5, Informative)
This caused some pause in the Music Industry, but caused an even bigger ruckus in the Educational Market, since many a university bandwidth was being ate up by music streaming. Tons of Universities complained, I know most of the CSC at my campus block it if they have that level of control.
Apple then placed limits on it, very similar to the multi-user limits embedded in FileMaker (also owned by Apple), 5 simultaneous users. Then months ago, that limit was switched to 5 daily users.
Now I see no benefit in 5 daily users, unless they are trying to guarantee personal use vs office level radio station. I still believe 5 simultaneous users was more fair. But in all honesty, automated music streaming was a feature Apple added, not a right of your music.
You can still share and stream your music without the limits if you set up your own music server. Obviously more effort than clicking a checkbox in an application, but the same effort that was required before Apple put the checkbox in the iTunes preferences.
The limit applies to all music that you would use iTunes for, including non-DRM music. But has absolutely nothing to do with DRM, as opposed to application functionality.
Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
[1] Until iTunes closes this loophole
Re:Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:5, Informative)
You could do what you wanted before, with Hymn.
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: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: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: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.
-
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).
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:Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:3, Informative)
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:Napster is far better, and free (Score:5, Funny)
Stemmo
Re:It's a freedom you wouldn't notice much (Score:4, 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:5, Informative)
First was the restriction of streaming libraries to local subnets.
Second was reducing the number of CDs burned from a playlist from 10 to 7.
Third was changing from 5 concurrent listeners to 5 different listeners per day.
Fourth was the recent reports that iPhoto albums, iMovie movies and Keynote presentations that use iTMS songs refuse to play on other systems.
The only loosening of restrictions was changing the number of authorized computers to listen to a DRM'd file from three to five.
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: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 with
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.
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: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?
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 ou
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.
DVDjon is my hero (Score:5, Funny)
I have an idea... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
I love ITS but ... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm using the songs legally, but to do what I want I have to burn the 99-cent songs to an audio-CD, then rip them back into iTunes as mp3s, *then* copy the mp3s to the CD.
Sam
Re:I love ITS but ... (Score:3)
(granted... i drank the kool-aid and am saving up for an iPod now, but still............)
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
Why burn to a disc? (was Re:I love ITS but ...) (Score:3, Informative)
Moot. (Score:4, Informative)
Just thought you should know.
Re:Moot. (Score:3, Informative)
The data CD option will allow m4a tracks to be included, but since they are in AAC f
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.
Another little article (Score:5, Informative)
Wahoo! (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Hymn? (Score:5, Informative)
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: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.
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 (presu
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?
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.
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.
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.
Its computational cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple seems to not care overly much about the DRM as long as most people are using it.
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: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:Its computational cost (Score:3, Informative)
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes
aes-128 cbc 40374.59k 41316.13k 42083.38k 41993.47k 42237.07k
aes-192 cbc 35109.10k 36010.80k 36434.73k 36583.09k 36474.95k
aes-256 cbc 31374.07k 31896.19k 32164.51k 32317.72k 32333.49k
At 4mb per song, my desktop machine has a raw encryption rate more than suitable for a million songs a day.
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:
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.
windows only? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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.
Re:if you don't like the license agreement (Score:3, Informative)
So don't buy those either: and if you do buy one by mistake, take it back to shop for a refund -- since it is not fit for the purpose you bought it for.
If we quietly work around stuff like this (with stuff like Hymn and ever-cleverer CD copy protection defeaters), then there's no incentive for the industry to get back to giving us the usable product we want to pay them fo
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
Unlike Hymn... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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?
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.
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: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."
What's interesting is (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.
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.
Re:It is cool, however (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:3, Informative)
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: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.
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:3, Informative)
FREE as in _FREEDOM_. This doesn't not allow anyone to download music from iTunes without paying for it. What it does, is allow you the freedom to use the music how you'd like. For those of us who'd prefer to not be tied to only listening to this music on an iPod or with iTunes, (maybe a media PC in the living room?), this is GREAT news.
Nobody is advocating stealing anything from Apple.
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
Bwaling's Law (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why is this news or stuff that matters? (Score:3, Informative)
From Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use Overview [stanford.edu]
Actual text of the law [cornell.edu]
It goes on to describe what it means by transformative, etc. and even includes examples in later pages of fair use. This doesn't even technically qualify as Timeshifting, as came up with
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: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.
Re:3..2..1 (Score:3, Informative)
I don't see how they could "pre-encrypt" the files. If you did someone could just break this blanket encryption and then use this program to get the "pre-encypted" files and decode them. Adding a handshake is better, you could have iTunes pre
Re:3..2..1 (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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.
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!
Asterix... didn't you read? (Score:4, Funny)
Did you read the "Asterix in Civil Court" graphic novel? It's the one where the bard Cacaphonix is replaced with a guy named "DRMfix" who carries around a boombox playing "stolen" Kazaa and iTMS music files.
Re:the DRM is the thingamajig (Score:3, Informative)