Apple To Play Fairer With FairPlay? 153
NewbieMonster writes "According to tech.co.uk, Apple is about to license its Fairplay DRM to Made for iPod accessory manufacturers. It's reported that Apple will also allow streaming of protected AAC content via USB. Could this signal a move to allowing other music players to access and play ITMS content?" From the article: "The expected announcements could signal a move on Apple's part to take some of the sting out of its Fairplay DRM which has come in for a great deal of criticism over recent months. It may also be a way of keeping Made For iPod makers onside, as the draw of the Microsoft Zune becomes stronger." Anyone noticed the draw of the Microsoft Zune becoming stronger?
hmm.... (Score:5, Funny)
.......no
Re:hmm.... (Score:5, Funny)
Come to think of it, I *do* notice a distinct sucking sensation coming from the Zune...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:hmm.... (Score:5, Funny)
Black hole (Score:5, Funny)
There was a brief flurry of interest in Zune when it was released, but now we seem to be getting steady-state numbers.Only one model rates in amazon's top 25 MP3 players list (Apple takes out the first 5 or so entries).
Using "lemon" to describe Zune is an insult to citrus!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
wrong star type (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We had a discussion about why Steve Jobs was so interested in making MS develop an iPod clone. Most of last January, Steve used every possible public apperance to claim that MS had to take control over the full music experience and copy how Apple developed iPod. There had to be a reason.
And then Zune came, and Microsoft didn't just abadon their partners (by not using P4S as DRM), they screwed them first (making sure Zune didn't play P4S). This way they alienated all their curr
but seriously ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it cracked? (Score:3, Funny)
No (Score:5, Informative)
The iTMS (iTunes Music Store) was cracked, meaning that people were able to buy DRM-free songs from iTMS using custom software. iTMS 6.0 changed that, and to date, it is not possible to buy unencrypted music from an account registered with iTMS 6.0 or higher. It's possible to run older iTMS versions (for now) and buy music, but some of us had extensive music purchases before we got our heads out of our butts and realized we wanted to play the music on something other than an iPod.
The DRM encryption itself is completely uncracked. IF you can get a hold of your decryption key, there is code to decrypt your music files. Apple has done a rather amazing job of keeping that key secured, though. It's pretty much impossible to pull it off of newer iPods, and I think it's not possible yet to extract it from a box with iTunes 6+.
If I'm wrong about that, let me know... I've got 250+ encrypted songs I'd really like to play on my Linux box with its superior sound setup, instead of on my iBook.
Re:No (Score:4, Informative)
You may already know about this, but here is how to un-DRM your songs: simply burn them to an audio CD, then re-import them from the CD's. Sure, you theoretically lose sound quality this way, but I cannot tell the difference, and I'll bet if I blindfolded you, you couldn't either.
This is a bit tedious when done by hand for a large number of songs. The only working Macintosh utility to automate this process that I know of is "DRM Dumpster," which uses a single CD-RW over and over to get the job done. Worked great for me. Other utilities seem to have bugs that prevented me from using them.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised no one has made an AAC encoder specifically designed for this situation. Consider how lossy audio compression works. The 30000 ft overview would be that you simplify the input by throwing away some of it (hopefully, some of it that is inaudible), resulting in something that can be losslessly compressed.
When you take a lossy compressed song and expand that (e.g., burn to an audio CD), and want to compress that again, you don't need to throw any of it away to get something that will compress well, if you are trying to compress using the same compression system that was originally used. (If you were expanding an AAC file, and then wanted to compress with, say MP3, that would have to have some degradation, because AAC and MP3 would have different ideas of what needs to be thrown away). What this means is that it should be possible to design an AAC encoder that can take advantage of the knowledge that the input is the result of expanding a 128 kbit/second stereo AAC file, and compress back to something that matches that original AAC file.
Re: (Score:2)
I Just use Audio Hijack Pro (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
At this point, if anybody knows how to get the keys for iTunes music, they're not talking. This doesn't mean DRM can't be removed. There is a program written in Python that latches onto iTunes like a debugger, has iTunes play DRMed songs, then grabs AAC frames after they've been decrypted but before they've been decoded. It then prevents iTunes from decoding and playing the audio, so a 5 minute song can be decrypted in less than 30 seconds, and it's a lossless transfer (as opposed to burning and ripping). Unfortunately, this program was written for Windows, and I don't believe anyone ever got it working on a Mac. If you can come up with a Windows box, one of the sibling posts has linked to it.
My interest was the same as yours. I had about $300 invested in my iTunes library, but my media center (and now all my other boxes) runs Linux. I certainly don't want to promote piracy, but I think it's perfectly legitimate to want your music library on a Linux box.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Artie strikes again! (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing in these links contradicts what the parent said. You can't buy unencrypted music with PyMusique anymore, and the DRM encryption is still unbroken. QTFairUse extracts AAC frames from memory, it does not break the encryption.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
None of them broke the encryption in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
To break copy control, you just re-implement the algorithm and find the keys. Or you let the original code run and grab the unencrypted output.. which is the simplest way.. and yeah, if I gave a shit about iTunes I'd give it a go, but yeah, I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, this is probably the core reason why Apple's FairPlay has come under such strong attack recently: People are getting impatient with waiting for the encryption to get cracked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think a more elegant solution would be for someone to write a virtual CD-R package :)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a less elegant solution that has the advantage of not requiring a CD: using iMovie. You just make an iMovie project with your protected audio track, and any video (even a still image), and export to QuickTIme using Expert Settings -- from there you can do AAC, AIFF, WAV, or anything else QuickTime supports -- just be sure to deselect the video track or you'll just have to remove it later.
Not elegant at all, but
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if that'll get you the original compressed AAC version with absolutely zero loss (not even transcoding loss, nevermind the D/A/D loss of the analog hole), what more exactly do you need? Even if you found the key, the encryption is no more or less broken than it was before, they can ship a new version with a new key and a new memory location and you're back to square one again.
Re:No (Score:4, Interesting)
Not very difficult at all, just a bit time consuming.
(From the original author of PyTunes, which PyMusique is a GUI frontend to
again.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, reinforcing the point that DRM isn't about preventing piracy, it's about maintaining control over other things. Like competitors in the marketplace.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
you bought it... hook, line, and.... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's false, and Apple loves that you believe it. The license holders don't "require it". Case-in-point, eMusic, which sells DRM-free MP3's [boingboing.net]. A ton of them. Johnny Cash, Dashboard Confessional, Credence Clearwater, Moby, the list goes on for miles.
Those song
Re:you bought it... hook, line, and.... (Score:4, Insightful)
eMusic doesn't have major label stuff precisely because it doesn't do DRM (well, that, plus it's not as lucrative). That's not necessarily a bad thing, of course; as an eMusic user myself for a fair while, I've come to realize one of the many benefits of the service is how it fosters discovering new/obscure music, and that's frankly easier without the same major label stuff one can get elsewhere anyway dominating the site and distracting one from the hidden real treasures. However, it does mean there's an additional factor that has to be taken into account when comparing DRMed iTunes to DRMless eMusic.
There are in fact a bunch of download services, both with DRM and without (iTunes, eMusic, Audio Lunchbox, Napster, etc.), and the line dividing the ones with major label material from ones without is the same line dividing the ones with DRM from ones without. There's a reason for that, and it's a lot bigger than Apple, since only one of the download services is theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
then how do you explain ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Then how do you explain that *all* the labels on iTunes sell *all* that music in a higher quality (ie. not lossily compressed) unprotected form? It's called a CD.
DRM is pushed by tech companies like a narcotic and some music labels are stupid enough to buy into it.
It will *always* be possible for content to end up on the P2P networks in a "good enough" (for 95% of the audience) form anyway, and as soon as one person does it that nixes the value of the DRM to the label anyway.
Some labels might "want" DRM, bu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I work for a record label (and distributor). We don't give a stuff about DRM and neither do the labels we distribute. They just want to sell records.to people that want to buy them.
Your move.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, indie labels for years have known DRM is stupid, but the big 5 swore by it up till now despite you accusations of the contrary, or would you like me to google up 5 years of articles that prove you a liar?
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
OK. You clearly have some kind of personal demons about the whol
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Steve Jobs agrees with you, the labels don't. (Score:2)
Steve Jobs told the labels that DRM wouldn't work, and had to talk them around to accepting half a loaf with Apple's "honor system" quality protection:
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, but a lot of music that's available on Emusic without DRM has DRM slapped onto it when the iTunes store sells it. So it would seem that it's NOT the studios that are requiring it (or, at least, not all of them).
-Eric
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
am I missing something (Score:4, Insightful)
Outside of slashdot (an alternate reality where grandmothers use lunix and ogg vorbis is popular), who is criticizing fairplay? Is there anybody that doesn't think Zune is a turd?
Please, enlighten me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Outside of slashdot (an alternate reality where grandmothers use lunix and ogg vorbis is popular), who is criticizing fairplay?
People who want to transfer files that they've bought to others without handing over the keys to their account. Like, for example, a father on Christmas morning who gives his son an iPod with Pirates of the Carribean loaded - but then he realizes he bought it with his own account, and the son will lose that file as soon as he syncs it with his own computer, unless he also gives his son one of his 5 "authorization" slots.
Is there anybody that doesn't think Zune is a turd?
I played with one for a few minutes in the store the other day, and the interface is a
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No scroll wheel, nothing to even remotely replicate its functionality. It's just not an efficient interface.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you're right, if you're slowly going down one item at a time, you're unlikely to overshoot your target.
Seriously, though, your answer simply makes no sense. Are you arguing that slow is better, or that fast is better? Becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, though, your answer simply makes no sense. Are you arguing that slow is better, or that fast is better? Because the scroll wheel can do both.
I'm arguing that discrete is better. With buttons, if you press once, the pointer moves one stop. If you press three times in rapid succession, the pointer moves three stops. If you want to move a long distance, you hold it down until typematic takes over.
The scroll wheel is either not sensitive enough (you have to move really damn slowly to get it to move just one stop at a time) or too sensitive (any average movement moves several stops at once) or again not sensitive enough (you have to move really damn
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong - I use two iTunes accounts under one user on my computer (different countries), no problems with authorisations.
However, I don't believe we can mix libraries, even on the same machine.
You have heaps of options -
use the inbuilt "Sharing" feature of iTunes;
point both your iTunes libraries to the same directory (change permissions on the dir so you can both rw);
copy the songs into bo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:am I missing something (Score:5, Insightful)
Not too many people.
In truth its not very restrictive, as far as the current policies go. And apple has defended the users against abuses from the RIAA (esp with increases in pricing).
In particular, the fact that you can authorise 5 machines and an unlimited number of ipods is good.
More importantly, you can reset the list of 5 machines once per year even if you have lost all your old machines. Which means that having your music work on a new machine isn't likely to be a problem, even if your old machines get stolen or reformatted before you could deauthorise them out of your list of 5 computers.
Not to mention that you can burn the music and rip it again anyway. Sure it loses quality, but if you are buying for quality alone, you wouldn't be using either iTunes or an iPod for that matter.
I'm not surprised that iTunes isn't yet hacked. Mostly because there aren't many reasons yet why a legit user would get pissed off.
The biggest thing they should offer (in my opinion) is the ability to redownload your music that you have purchased. In this situation you would be getting defacto off-site storage of your music, which would be a huge plus for the service that you wouldn't get with mp3's. Unless you consider bittorrent as your off site backup.
Anyway, DRM has worked against the RIAA. They thought it would give them control over the users. Instead it has given apple control of the RIAA.
Michael
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because those labels haven't been anywhere near to disrupt Apple's success and continued growth? Eventually Apple will be such a large sales channel, they have no choice but to fall in line. Unless they create a proper alternative (which the users will reject) it does them about as much good as staying on DOS and OS/2 did to pr
Re:am I missing something (Score:4, Insightful)
Because those labels haven't been anywhere near to disrupt Apple's success and continued growth? Eventually Apple will be such a large sales channel, they have no choice but to fall in line.
I have to agree with Kjella.
Look at Apple Corp (the Beatles). I'm willing to wager money that they are about to start releasing music using iTunes. Certainly you have to wonder why else Steve Jobs had their albums splashed everywhere in his keynote speech.
The label's have two real choices: Fairplay for the iPod, or no DRM. The fact that they are starting to sell songs without DRM says how scared they are of apple.
The trouble is that if they use any other DRM, the percentage of the market that they get is so small it isn't worth having. Not to mention the debacle that microsoft produced when it abandoned its "plays for sure" platform for the Zune. I wouldn't want to be selling music to any of those WMA players - the users there might forget to blame microsoft and blame the label when the music they bought 6 months ago now can't be played on a Zune, or pretty much any new hardware that's coming out.
I'm not trying to defend apple for its DRM, but if you look at what happened with iTunes when the music store was cracked - basically they moved to a new version of iTunes but kept the old version still working, even though people were downloading music and bypassing the DRM. To my knowledge, you can still do this with the old version of iTunes if you really want to, but certainly nobody suffered from the DRM being bypassed.
The net effect of this is that the RIAA, if it wants DRM, has to use Apple. Anything else is probably worse than pointless the way microsoft is playing with WMA.
And if they have to use fairplay, they do so on apple's terms. A point which they are just starting to realise.
Michael
I think Jobs simply likes the Beatles' music (Score:2)
This may sound quaint, but I think he just likes the Beatles. Apple also had the John Lennon poster, and they used to play Beatles songs before Keynotes. Maybe there's some additional meaning to it, but more likely, Jobs just added some music which he liked and thought they kind of represented Apple's spirit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I didn't mean to say that it was by accident. Just that it doesn't imply anything other than that Jobs thinks the Beatles fit with his presentation.
Again, no, not accidentally. But personal stuff? Sure. He used to show home movies done in iMovie by people working at Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you can't do this. The DRM from iTunes > 5 cannot be bypassed anymore (with JHymn) and iTunes <= 5 is locked out from the iTunes Store.
JP
Re: (Score:2)
Simple doesn't mean free of restrictions, but they are certainly free to use their music, otherwise obtained, in iTunes and on their iPods... the ITS isn't a requirement to use either one.
But with 2 billion songs downloaded, it's hard to call it unpopular!
Yawn. Rumors, rumors... (Score:2)
That should be interesting considering there are USB to Optical adapters.
Only if these other players have the ability to record the content. When I tried to record a song from a DVD (music video playing) to my Minidisc via optical, all I got was "NO
Re: (Score:2)
Only if these other players have the ability to record the content. When I tried to record a song from a DVD (music video playing) to my Minidisc via optical, all I got was "NO COPY" flashing on my player's display.
That's SCMS (serial copy management system). It allows the source device to indicate whether the target device should permit recording. The idea is to prevent you copying a copy: you can space-shift your CDs onto MD, but you can't then space-shift that MD onto another without going analogue. The
Re: (Score:2)
I still occasionally think of buying one of the last generation Hi-MD recorders. I'd like to have one for taping. They can play MP3 natively and you can export recordings to your PC (and to unprotected WAV, too). And they can record at quality as high as full PCM.
I actually used my Minidisc for covert recording for a school project recently. I couldn't use my mini cassette recorder as it had no
Re: (Score:2)
I still occasionally think of buying one of the last generation Hi-MD recorders. I'd like to have one for taping.
Don't bother. A better alternative would be one of the professional digital recorders that generally use flash memory for storage.
In device recording abilities is something I am still waiting to see in iPods.
Meh. I prefer the add-on approach, because it is more flexible. So you can buy an add-on that has nice features like proper XLR connectors and level meters, rather than trying to cram more into the iPod itself. You're never going to fit professional-grade input connectors into something that is supposed to be as compact as an iPod.
SCMS (Score:2)
You're seeing SCMS. Does line-in misbehave the same way?
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a problem any longer as that DVD is no longer working. The model is actually part of a class action lawsuit against Sony, but I wont be able to get in on the settlement since I have little proof of purchase (it's was bought 5 years ago after all).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another Rumour (Score:2)
We can discuss what this means until the cows come home, but surely it's better to wait for it to *actually* *happen* before we sacrifice millions of innocent pixels as we agonise over this?
iPod != Fair Play (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone notice there are still people who don't realize that you can use plain MP3/AAC files with the iPod?
The Zune has a proprietary DRM system, just like the iPod. It even (illegally, in some cases) ads DRM to your non-DRM'd files if you "squirt" them. Or maybe I'm just not getting something here.
Re:iPod != Fair Play (Score:4, Interesting)
The moral here is that stores that encrypt music or tie them to a device suck. I really don't understand why music publishers want DRM at all. All that happens with lock-in is that somebody like Apple dominates the market and then the music industry is compelled to dance to their tune. If you level the playing field by publishing music without restrictions, then you can set your own price, since if Apple won't meet your price, then somebody else sure as hell will. Consumers win out too since they can get their music from dozens of sites and use them on dozens of their own devices. I doubt the amount of piracy would change significantly either since albums can be had right now on P2P, so what difference does it make if there is DRM or not?
Exactly: The music industry is hurting itself (Score:2)
Exactly. This is a question of which shop you're using. The device doesn't play any kind of role. You don't need to own an iPod to use the iTunes store, and you don't need to use the iTunes store if you own an iPod.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't understand why music publishers want DRM at all. All that happens with lock-in is that somebody like Apple dominates the market
The mistake the labels made was to not insist on some form of key escrow so that they could independently create DRM's tracks that can be played on iPods etc; that way they could have licensed other music shops to sell ipod compatible music with DRM and thus been able to bypass Apple and have iPod owners directly as customers.
I believe that so far the full DRM si
Burning a CD is circumvention? (Score:2)
Burning a CD from iTunes using iTunes own CD-burning function that's explicitly supported by Apple for burning files you bought from the iTunes store is "circumvention"?
Re: (Score:2)
It even (illegally, in some cases) ads DRM to your non-DRM'd files if you "squirt" them.
That's just pure, Grade-A, USDA-Approved FUD. "Illegally"?
Adding DRM to non-DRM'd files can be illegal (Score:2)
Haha. Okay. Thanks very much, now everyone is looking at me. Hey, guys, I'm working, I promise!
Anyway. I find it funny how people accuse others of spreading FUD when the issue is that they simply aren't informed about the things they think they are informed about.
The problem with adding DRM to non-DRM'd meterial is that it is illegal in some cases - depending on the rights the person adding the DRM has.
Some licenses allow you to give content
Re: (Score:2)
In this specific case, it may not be illegal
Of course it's not illegal, since, as you pointed out, nothing is actually added to the file. Once that's taken away, the copyright holder has nothing to say about how it's used unless a licensing agreement is entered into, and there is no license to my knowledge that requires users to distribute or use it. What is the CC license going to be modified to say? Anyone who accepts a CC file must distribute that file to a certain number of other people? Anyone wh
Re: (Score:2)
You may distribute the file to a third party, but if you do, you must follow these conditions:
(1) You may not cause the third party to to be unable to distribute the file to other parties.
(2) You may not cause restrictions to be placed on how many times the third party can utilize the file.
(3) You may not cause restrictions to be placed on the manor that the thrid party can utilize the file.
IANAL, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's simply not true, and you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I'm seriously not sure whether you're just baiting me or whether you're serious. Either way, you're wrong. Copyright holders have quite a bit of rights to restrict what users can do with their works (ever watched a DVD which told you not to show the film publicly?). In fact, creative commons licenses will probably be updated to reflect the Zune's DRM:
Re: (Score:2)
Its perfecly within the rights of the copyright holder to specify constraints such as these.
They are perfectly free to dictate the terms under which I may copy or perform the work. But if their policy is that only unaltered duplication is permissible, and I have a device which digitally transmits an unaltered duplication of the work, I have met their requirements. The problem you have is what my device does with the tracks that are distributed to it, and contrary to your baseless assertions, they have n
Re: (Score:2)
You do agree to a license if you use copyrighted works. The copyrighted work is licensed to you. Obviously, fair use applies. A copyright holder may not forbid that you, say, listen to his song in reverse, bu
Re: (Score:2)
You do agree to a license if you use copyrighted works. The copyrighted work is licensed to you.
No. If you want to have a license that restricts my use (beyond copying and performance) of something, I must actively accept that. I can go buy a CD or a DVD - a copyrighted work - with no license restrictions.
Whose free choice? The copyright holder's free choice or yours?
Mine - that is to say, the user's - obviously. Otherwise, the CC is as worthless as a Microsoft EULA. Or am I missing the point of org
Wow, WTF is wrong with you? (Score:2)
Wow. What is your problem? You really should seek professional help, anonymously cursing at strangers like that does not seem normal to me.
Also, your post makes no sense. We are talking about copying and performance here. or are you arguing that "squirting" somebody a file does not copy it? I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Maybe less swearing and more meaningful sentences would help.
Re:No (Score:4, Funny)
My guess is these people [zunescene.com] can't get enough punishment to satisfy their 'masochistic tendencies||hatred of all things Apple||love for all things Microsoft||pseudo-metalhead-gamer-wannabe fantasies'.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's the DRM... right? ...Guys? (Score:3, Funny)
Obviously, it's because the Zune is unencumbered by a proprietary, consumer-hating DRM scheme unlike the iPod, and you can access music stores that offer a better and cheaper experience than the iTunes store.