DVD Jon hacks iTunes, creates program that allows you to buy... [Archive]

stcanard

Mar 18, 2005, 01:13 PM

But it can be fixed by possibly: Encrypting (or Changing the way it is encrypted) the AAC file on the transfer from itms to the player.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.

If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.

And it will take Jon a day to figure out how the iTunes client generates that key and spoof it. Again by definition DRM has to be insecure, because the client must have all the information necessary to break it.

In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.

Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?

There's a good overview of what's happening at Ars.

Basically the issue (and I hadn't thought about this) is that the song has to be individually encrypted for each client; that's how its made playable on your system not other people's. Because they're using Akamai to cache and distribute the files they can't distribute pre-encrypted ones! (The analogy is it would be like libraries carrying a copy of the book for everyone who might borrow it). Apple can't link everything back to their servers as you'd bottleneck it.

Instead its your copy of iTunes that's actually adding the DRM (and that's probably why the new Motorola phone won't let you buy directly from the store, it can't add the DRM).

It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.

Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.

1macker1

Mar 18, 2005, 01:24 PM

AHAHAHHAHA, good job. I think the head of Napster should send this link to the record company execs. Karma is a bitch.

DavidLeblond

Mar 18, 2005, 01:25 PM

It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.

Agreed, Jon probably wants headlines.

Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.

The problem is, this may not hurt Apple all that much but it will hurt the Music Download industry. With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.

ldburroughs

Mar 18, 2005, 01:29 PM

I wonder how long it'll be until Apple comes up with a fix for this?

iTunes SP2??? I kid, I kid.

1macker1

Mar 18, 2005, 01:49 PM

This will cause a major problem for apple. Cant wait to see the fallout.

nagromme

Mar 18, 2005, 01:54 PM

Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement.

Obscurity IS a factor that helps Mac users. The point is that good, secure design is ALSO a factor. But DRM file distribution doesn't relate to OS security/privacy anyway.

Anyway... you still have to BUY the song to use this hack.

stcanard

Mar 18, 2005, 02:04 PM

The problem is, this may not hurt Apple all that much but it will hurt the Music Download industry.

I think at this point you could argut that Apple is the Music Download industry.

With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.

A year ago I would have agreed with this, but I think the landscape has changed.

Apple has already signed all the major labels, and realistically they don't dare back out. This will come up in contract negotiations only.

The indies don't care nearly as much about DRM, they don't make money through moving huge numbers of tracks, but through raising awareness of the artists leading to concert and merchandising sales.

Overall the cat's out of the bad, its turned into a (dare I say it?) Tiger, and nobody's putting it back in.

winmacguy

Mar 18, 2005, 03:17 PM

It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.

We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.

Maybe some big company should tell the greedy money grubbing RIAA to "go jump in the Lake" and just leave things how they are instead of trying to change Apples DRM and create even more restrictions to what you can do with legally purchased music. Maybe if the greedy money grubbing RIAA looked at changeing its business model to bring it inline with the newer digital age it might find some better way of doing things. After all there is NO evidence that file sharing kills music and CD sales.

What the evidence actually tells us is file sharers are downloading singles which the music industry doesnt cater for so they get the impression that they are losing sales.

Hmmmm methinks that maybe the RIAA needs to adjust its buiness model to meet the changing music environment rather than change the business environment to keep with its outdated business model.

Cheers Winmacguy

PS I was aware as mentioned in the article that in Apple's case you still have to purchase the music before you can strip the DRM from it unlike Napsters music which you onliy have to pay $15 for as much as you can eat!

MacRumors

Mar 18, 2005, 03:22 PM

According to Corante.com (http://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/2005/03/17/johansen_creates_drmfree_interface_to_itunes.php), from the same authors of QTFairUse (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031122001549.shtml), comes what is described as "the fair interface to the iTunes Music Store". The application called PyMusique (http://fuware.nanocrew.net/pymusique/) acts as a front end for the iTunes Music Store and allows users to preview iTunes songs, signup for an account, buy songs and redownload songs that were bought with PyMusique.

The most notable twist is this quote from Jon Johansen ("DVD Jon"), one of the authors of the application:

It is somewhat interesting from a DMCA/EUCD perspective. The iTunes Music Store actually sells songs without DRM. While iTunes adds DRM to your purchases, PyMusique does not.

Note: This application has been untested by this site, and Apple will likely take steps to prevent future usage.

Panther

Mar 18, 2005, 03:26 PM

Note: This application has been untested by this site, and Apple will likely take steps to prevent future usage.iTMS just used web service interfaces and XML over HTTP... It will be interesting to see just how they could stop an app from accessing.

What is more likely is that the iTMS servers would add in the DRM and buyer metadata before it gets downloaded. Its actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!

paulypants

Mar 18, 2005, 03:27 PM

Oh! There goes the email from Gorog to the Music Labels!

Macaddicttt

Mar 18, 2005, 03:35 PM

Anyone care to make this interesting? I'm taking all bets. How long until Apple fixes the problem?

jmsait19

Mar 18, 2005, 03:36 PM

Oh! There goes the email from Gorog to the Music Labels!

even so, if an itms song's drm is cracked, you still payed 99 cents for it. where if the napster to go drm is cracked, people have thousands of songs for 15 bucks a month. which hurts more?

qzak

Mar 18, 2005, 03:36 PM

might as well ask, other people are probably wondering too... whats DRM?

DTphonehome

Mar 18, 2005, 03:39 PM

might as well ask, other people are probably wondering too... whats DRM?

DRM= digital rights management= copy protection

I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.

SPUY767

Mar 18, 2005, 03:39 PM

DavidLeblond

Mar 18, 2005, 03:40 PM

might as well ask, other people are probably wondering too... whats DRM?

In a nutshell (help! I'm in a nutshell!) DRM (Digital Rights Management) is that little wrapper around the downloaded AAC files that makes it so you can only play the song on up to five computers/devices.

mkjellman

Mar 18, 2005, 03:43 PM

For those who don't speak the lingo-

Digital Rights Managment

It is a huge source of debate within the recording industry, the consumer, and the online stores who are selling digital management. This is what limits you to the number of times you can burn a playlist, play the music on other computers, and use it on portable devices. It is the recording industries way of reducing piracy of their software, but that is up to debate.

What is big is that there is no OS X binary yet, so we will see. I am also surprised the John has not focused on Janus yet, I hope he does because it would send a very clear message to the recording industry.

I personally use Hymn because I need my music to be compatible with Traktor and my Roku device. I think it will be very difficult for Apple to stop this unless they release a new "security" patch for iTunes modifying their protocol.

Time will tell.

jsw

Mar 18, 2005, 04:01 PM

It's actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!
It's a lot easier to use the buyer's CPU to add DRM than to task the iTunes servers with doing it - so making the servers do it will cause Apple to either add more horsepower there or slow down iTunes' response times under load.

Vonnie

Mar 18, 2005, 04:01 PM

yg17

Mar 18, 2005, 04:02 PM

DRM= digital rights management= copy protection

I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.

The music has to be stored un-DRMed which is a huge risk for the iTMS or Napster or any other online store. The difference is when it gets the DRM added to it. If it gets the DRM at the server before its sent out for download, then this will solve the problem. But either way, the music has to be stored without any DRM somewhere and hacking into the servers would indeed be trouble

sangre de toro

Mar 18, 2005, 04:04 PM

the more barriers there are the more we get used to them. Give us a break! You pay for it, you use it and if anybody restricts you ... Long live to the many dvd whatever!

wnurse

Mar 18, 2005, 04:05 PM

It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.

We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.

Really?. how?. Regardless of what apple does, it might be even easier for DVD Jon to break their new programming than for them to come up with new programming. Think about it. A company with a lot of paid developers getting outwitted by a guy with time on his hands. I think he wins everytime. Their cost to defeat him is astromnomical compared to his cost to defeat them.

Although it's an eye opener to know that itunes itself is what wraps the music with DRM. I'd have thought the music was already DRM'd on the server. But I can see why apple chose that route, so that to get DRM'd songs onto an ipod, you would have to use itunes. I bet they never thought someone would bypass the itunes interface (kind of shortsighted if you ask me, this should have been anticipated).

One way around this problem would be to store the music in an encoded format and have itunes decode the music and wrap in DRM.
Unfortunately, that can be bypassed too. A competent enough person (example DVD jon) could intercept the process between decode and before DRM wrapping and deliver the music. Another way would be for itunes server to request itunes to send a key and then use that key to add DRM to the music on server before delivering to user, although then you could build a player that intercepted the key and uses it to remove the DRM.
I'm sure for every solution apple can think of, DVD jon can think of a way to defeat it. There might be no technical solution to the problem at all.

Porchland

Mar 18, 2005, 04:06 PM

In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.

...

Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.

Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?

That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.

albinogoldfish

Mar 18, 2005, 04:10 PM

Porchland

Mar 18, 2005, 04:12 PM

Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".

But since "DRM sucks," I guess you'd rather the store give it away for free and go out of business when the cashflow immediately dries up.

DavidLeblond

Mar 18, 2005, 04:14 PM

Although it's an eye opener to know that itunes itself is what wraps the music with DRM. I'd have thought the music was already DRM'd on the server. But I can see why apple chose that route, so that to get DRM'd songs onto an ipod, you would have to use itunes. I bet they never thought someone would bypass the itunes interface (kind of shortsighted if you ask me, this should have been anticipated).

Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.

They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.

Dippo

Mar 18, 2005, 04:15 PM

Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".

I can't see anything really wrong with this program.
You still have to buy the music!

The labels need to get over trying to shove this DRM crap down our throats.
It will never work! This has been demostrated time and time again.

Of course Apple will shut it down soon.

wnurse

Mar 18, 2005, 04:18 PM

Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.

aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.

Nermal

Mar 18, 2005, 04:23 PM

Does anyone know how to use the app? The readme file is empty :confused:

jiggie2g

Mar 18, 2005, 04:23 PM

DVD Jon is unstoppable this guy could crack a Diamond.

ASP272

Mar 18, 2005, 04:29 PM

I haven't used the program, but anything that scares the music industry and bands like Metallic (about increased sharing/piracy) is bad news for itms. Apple will hopefully fix it before I finish typing this response. :eek:

ShavenYak

Mar 18, 2005, 04:30 PM

I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.

From my limited knowledge of WMA from a miserable two days spent trying to help a friend's daughter with a crappy RCA player and Wal*Mart downloads, I think they may work differently. The license file is separate from the actual WMA file, so I'm betting the WMA is encrypted just once, with a long random key, and sent across the wire to any purchasers already encrypted. The key is then transmitted to the user and stored in the license file. Both the WMA and the license file are needed for playback.

I could be wrong, but it seems like it would be silly to separate the license information from the music file unless you were doing something like this. Of course, Microsoft is well-known for silly decisions....

desdomg

Mar 18, 2005, 04:30 PM

This is great news - by removing the DRM I can play my music on any device I like. It is my music after all. The music industry needs to get used to the idea that you should really only sell a track once to each user, not one track for each device the user wants to play that track on.

Apple and the music industry in general will continue to rake in the $$$ regardless of this development - the real threat to the industry was always P2P, not sales.

dudemac

Mar 18, 2005, 04:35 PM

Does anyone know how to use the app? The readme file is empty :confused:

to use make sure you have installed the GTK 2.3 from the site that you got the program.
Restart windows... :) I love that part :)
Open the program under the accounts window select login
put your login and password from itms wait until the status bar at the bottom says balance -0. Then just type the artist song etc intot he search
Select the song. to preview it select preview under the song menu or to purchase select purchase under the same menu. Once you select purchase you will get a confirmation window that has a cancel and purchase button once you click the purchase button it will down load to a folder located in C:/Documents and Settings/User/Music this can be changed in the preferences located in the edit menu.

Once downloaded just add the song to you itunes music library and away you go.

enjoy

Dippo

Mar 18, 2005, 04:38 PM

Apple and the music industry in general will continue to rake in the $$$ regardless of this development - the real threat to the industry was always P2P, not sales.

And if the industry would sell cheaper music without DRM then P2P wouldn't be as big of a problem.

Swift

Mar 18, 2005, 04:44 PM

DRM is a big, fat target for every hacker in the world. I doubt very much it will ever be perfect. It can't be. It would be easy to encrypt music so badly that you couldn't play it. To allow legit users to listen to it means the key is already there. The hacker just finds it.

bentmywookie

Mar 18, 2005, 04:44 PM

I can't see anything really wrong with this program.
You still have to buy the music!

The labels need to get over trying to shove this DRM crap down our throats.
It will never work! This has been demostrated time and time again.

Of course Apple will shut it down soon.

Well put - I can't believe some people actually wrote "hopefully Apple will fix/shut this down soon" - do you enjoy having usage of your music crippled? I certainly don't.

d.perel

Mar 18, 2005, 04:47 PM

Wish he'd do something useful like cracking WMA.
Right on! As a side note, I bet this will change the music encryption slightly speeding up the release of iTunes 4.8 ( ! ) to stop any piracy.

shamino

Mar 18, 2005, 04:50 PM

The interesting thing here is that this hack doesn't violate the DMCA. It violates the iTunes shrink-wrap license, but that's only enforceable in VA and MD.

The DMCA doesn't allow breaking encryption. So saving a data stream that is sent unencrypted from a legal distributor doesn't violate this law.

Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.

This doesn't make it any more difficult for a creating programmer to capture the stream and remove the common encryption without applying DRM, but it does mean that he has to decrypt something in the process. Which makes it into a DMCA violation.

Of course, a new iTunes update will be required to make this happen, but this wouldn't be the first time Apple made a change to ITMS requiring an iTunes upgrade.

stcanard

Mar 18, 2005, 04:52 PM

Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?

The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.

You've been able to strip the DRM out of these for ages (without the burn/rip cycle). All of these songs exist on the various P2P networks. People are still buying from the store.

If you build your business model on the assumption that everybody is a thief, you just become as hated as the RIAA.

Apple understands this. Its worked very well with the software sales (after all there is no copy protection on their consumer apps). It's working with song sales. All you have to do is hit the right price / feature point.

Doctor Q

Mar 18, 2005, 04:54 PM

I'm not pleased with this development, because Apple's DRM is necessary to maintain the compromise they made with the record labels and allow the iTunes Music Store to exist in the first place. If the labels gets the jitters about how well Apple is controlling distribution, that threatens a good part of our "supply" of music, even though I wouldn't expect a large percentage of mainstream customers to actually use a program like PyMusique.

Will Apple be able to teach the iTunes Music Store to distinguish the real iTunes client from PyMusique with software changes only on the server side? If not, I imagine that only an iTunes update (which people would have to install) could stop the program from working.

Suppose iTunes is updated to use a new "secret handshake" with the iTunes Music Store in order to stop other clients from spoofing iTunes. Will iTunes have any way to distinguish tunes previously purchased through PyMusique from tunes acquired from other sources, i.e., ripped from CDs? Perhaps the tags identify them as coming from iTMS and iTunes could apply DRM after the fact. Then again, tags can be removed.

DavidLeblond

Mar 18, 2005, 04:56 PM

The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.

The main purpose of iTMS is to sell iPods. iPods are the only players at this time that can play iTMS purchased music, due to the DRM. Tell me how the DRM has nothing to do with iTMS's business model.

dudemac

Mar 18, 2005, 04:58 PM

To all but a few of the replies so far that seem totally out raged by this,
\
First there is no support for itms on linux as it currently stands and this just allows user of linux to purchase songs from the itms and play them on that platform. It also allows someone like me who has a high speed connection at work to purchase music and take it home with me. Yes I have a couple of mac's and an ipod, so my loyalty hasn't changed.

Secoundly this doesn't hack the DRM that apple supplies, however it does violate the EULA, which I don't know anyone that doesn't violate a EULA at least once a day. But that is really a different argument.

Finally why is there no outrage that DRM is not optional or that there hasn't been a standardized format for music. There are reasons why the mini disc failed and it had nothing to do with quality. But it was a propriotary format that needed to be liscencsed. So when looking at the delima of DRM it should be more of a how do we get everything to play everywhere kind of question then just limiting how the user can play/share the music at home. I really hate being limited for "my own good". or more appropriately for the good of a corporation. If WMA beats apple it will only be because they failed to standardize and work within the industry.

:mad:

d.perel

Mar 18, 2005, 05:01 PM

Echoing a comment I saw elsewhere, why doesn't someone just hire this guy. It probably costs more for Apple to sue each person than it would be to hire them and keep them busy fixing these problems internally.
This is one of those nuts who thinks he is for the common good, and has already won lawsuits against movie companies challenging his dvd-decryption software (software doesn't decrpyt and distribute movies illegally, people do) :mad: I bet he is VERY careful not to cross the line, and he probably has a great lawyer ;)

jared_kipe

Mar 18, 2005, 05:07 PM

More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:

Same thing.

Doctor Q

Mar 18, 2005, 05:10 PM

Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.Don't iTMS and iTunes already do this?

nagromme

Mar 18, 2005, 05:11 PM

I have no problem with people using this, as long as people don't use it for piracy. Easier methods exist for pirating music.

The record labels will have SOME problem with this, but--like CDs--you have to BUY the music first. That's not like people signing up for one month of Napster and stealing non-stop.

Apple will have a bigger problem with this--it was tough enough for them to convince the record industry to allow downloading at all, and they'll be extra sure to defend their system now that it's successful.

And it sounds easy for Apple to fix with a future iTunes update:

1) First, force iTunes to identify itself more strictly when connecting to the store.

2) Assuming that crackers keep finding ways to spoof the iTunes app anyway... send the songs to Akamai and to the iTunes app already encrypted. NOT with the account-specific DRM, just with standard 128-bit encryption, the SAME encryption for everyone. Only iTunes, not 3rd-party apps, would have the key to decrypt those files (and add the individual DRM).

3) If the crackers manage to extract the universal key from the iTunes app, Apple need only change the key every so often to interfere. Either as part of iTunes updates, and/or by obtaining a new key online so there's one more process crackers would have to spoof.

Thinking out loud. Anyway, one way or another, I imagine this is short-lived.

The existing, easy, legal method for stripping DRM--burning to CD--is here to stay. And you lose no quality. When you re-import, you ALSO lose no quality, as long as you can spare the HD space and use Apple Lossless etc. Looking at the long-term, HD space is getting cheap.

ACED

Mar 18, 2005, 05:15 PM

Like, where's my credit for providing Macrumors with the link/story, about 8 hours ago???

Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the irony

Dippo

Mar 18, 2005, 05:20 PM

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 ... not treat them like criminals.

--from Slashdot

jragosta

Mar 18, 2005, 05:43 PM

Obviously, Apple will freak (what else is new...), but all this does is provide a shortcut around the burn-to-CD-and-rerip shortcut that's built into iTunes. You still need to buy the music. So, at best, this makes it easier to share music, but it doesn't provide a new capability.

I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.

I disagree. What he's doing is illegal and unethical.

If you burn a CD and rip it back, you're losing quality. The owners of the music (mostly RIAA, but anyone who licenses it to Apple) apparently decided that they can live with that. They did NOT agree to what this guy is doing.

It's theft, pure and simple.

More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:

Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.

There's a big difference. This is not a system security flaw. It's simply a matter of someone reverse engineering a file format. AFAIK, there isn't a single file format which has not been reverse engineered. That's actually a trivial task.

iTMS just used web service interfaces and XML over HTTP... It will be interesting to see just how they could stop an app from accessing.

What is more likely is that the iTMS servers would add in the DRM and buyer metadata before it gets downloaded. Its actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!

Yes, they could do that.

They will also easily obtain a court injunction to stop this. What he's doing is illegal from two perspectives. First, it's a violation of the iTMS terms of service (which allows only iTunes access). Second, it's a violation of DCMA.

Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".

I happen to disagree - but that's because my company depends on the ability to protect our intellectual property in order to stay in business.

The music owners have the right to do whatever they want with the music. You can legally (and morally) do what they request or live without their music.

Your position is the same as a person who steals a BMW because he doesn't like the purchase terms.

This is great news - by removing the DRM I can play my music on any device I like. It is my music after all. .

No, it's not your music. The music belongs to whoever the artist sold it to (usually a member of the RIAA). They sell you a license to use the music under a given set of terms. If you violate the terms that you paid for, you're stealing.

And if the industry would sell cheaper music without DRM then P2P wouldn't be as big of a problem.

If BMW would sell cheaper 5 series cars, no one would steal them.

The music industry owns the music - and they're free to price it however they want. If you think the price is too high, your only legal and moral response is to not buy it. Not liking the price is not justification for theft.

Nermal

Mar 18, 2005, 05:51 PM

Second, it's a violation of DCMA.

Why? He's not breaking copy protection, because the protection wasn't there in the first place.

I can't believe that people think this is a bad thing. Don't you like freedom? :eek:

desdomg

Mar 18, 2005, 05:57 PM

The music industry owns the music - and they're free to price it however they want. If you think the price is too high, your only legal and moral response is to not buy it. Not liking the price is not justification for theft.

Ah, but isn't that the heart of the matter - shouldn't you have the choice to be to go to another cheaper provider? At the moment we have expensive and free - no wonder P2P is such a success.

tveric

Mar 18, 2005, 05:58 PM

I would just like to point out that, sort of, this thread and topic are a repeat of this thread:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=116009

started this morning.

It's not often I notice some Mac news before this site does, so hey, the one time it happens...

fpnc

Mar 18, 2005, 05:59 PM

There are two reason why this doesn't mean much. First, Apple may just cancel the accounts of anyone who tries to use PyMusique (that's covered by the iTunes Music Store Terms Of Service agreement). Second, it would be very easy to make this a violation of the DMCA (if it already isn't), all Apple would have to do is implement a "weak" encryption, like adding a zero to the start of the music stream and more zeros thereafter at 256 byte intervals. The DMCA doesn't say anything about how "good" the protection needs to be, so if anyone used a tool to strip those values they would be in violation of the DMCA.

I suspect, in any case, that the iTunes Music Store doesn't broadcast the unprotected AAC file completely in the clear or as an uninterrupted stream of AAC data, so PyMusique may already violate the DMCA.

The most important thing to note, however, is if you use PyMusique you may have your account cancelled (and Apple knows who you are and where you "live" based upon your credit card). So, if you really want to take that risk go ahead. And remember, you could also be found guilty of violating the DMCA even if you just try to use this tool. It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute. Basically, you're stupid to even try to use PyMusique.

This is just a headline grabber or a means to raise the "fair use" banner.

Edit: replaced reference to EULA with iTunes Music Store Terms Of Service.

therevolution

Mar 18, 2005, 06:02 PM

There's a big difference. This is not a system security flaw. It's simply a matter of someone reverse engineering a file format. AFAIK, there isn't a single file format which has not been reverse engineered. That's actually a trivial task.
Um, wrong. Did you read the story?

Currently, when you buy a song from iTunes, it sends the song to you with no DRM. Your copy of iTunes then adds the DRM using your personal key. So, if you make a copy of the song before iTunes adds the DRM, you've got a DRM-free music file. That's it.

I say go DVD Jon. DRM like this is doomed to fail. If you can hear it, you can copy it. Simple as that. Maybe one day the RIAA will figure that out... probably not, though.

tveric

Mar 18, 2005, 06:04 PM

The most important thing to note, however, is if you use PyMusique you may have your account cancelled (and Apple knows who you are and where you "live" based upon your credit card). So, if you really want to take that risk go ahead. And remember, you could also be found guilty of violating the DMCA even if you just try to use this tool. It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute. Basically, you're stupid to even try to use PyMusique.

So, if I use PyMusique, and Apple cancels my account, thereby forcing me to use some other music store, or P2P service, Apple comes out ahead how, exactly?

No one's account is getting cancelled. Apple will quickly negate the effects of this work-around just like they did the other ones. And I find it funny that every time someone finds a hole in the iTMS DRM and thereby forces Apple to make the iTMS more secure, a bunch of gloom-and-doom types weigh in on how bad, bad, bad it is to write/use such exploits. Just read some of the posts in this thread, it's friggin' hilarious.

Everybody relax.

jeffgarden

Mar 18, 2005, 06:04 PM

Sorry, i didn't read every post so this may be repeatative but...

If you're going to PAY for music to break drm, just buy it at a store or use Kazaa

OR get napster to go trial, get virtuosa 5.0 to make them mp3's and you're done

why would you pay for something you don't want

dubbz

Mar 18, 2005, 06:07 PM

I disagree. What he's doing is illegal and unethical.

If you burn a CD and rip it back, you're losing quality. The owners of the music (mostly RIAA, but anyone who licenses it to Apple) apparently decided that they can live with that. They did NOT agree to what this guy is doing.

It's theft, pure and simple.

Theft? That's really stretching it! If it allowed you to download music without paying, then I'd agree, but it doesn't.

Also, It might be illegal, but I certainly don't agree that it's unethical.

therevolution

Mar 18, 2005, 06:08 PM

Sorry, i didn't read every post so this may be repeatative but...

why would you pay for something you don't want
To prove a point: DRM is basically useless.

stcanard

Mar 18, 2005, 06:23 PM

The main purpose of iTMS is to sell iPods. iPods are the only players at this time that can play iTMS purchased music, due to the DRM. Tell me how the DRM has nothing to do with iTMS's business model.

Do you really think it's DRM lock-in that's fuelling those sales?

Because personally I think it's the integration and "it-just-works" aspects, combined with a superior product.

fpnc

Mar 18, 2005, 06:23 PM

So, if I use PyMusique, and Apple cancels my account, thereby forcing me to use some other music store, or P2P service, Apple comes out ahead how, exactly?

No one's account is getting cancelled...
Yes, Apple might cancel your account, so go ahead and be the first to try. Thus, if they have to cancel one, or ten, or a thousand accounts to protect their service you really don't think they will do that? It wouldn't be any big deal if they lose a few thousand accounts over this, since that would likely be only a few thousand dollars in revenue (if even that), less than a day or two's legal fees for a half decent lawyer.

In that case, it won't take people very long to learn that they shouldn't use such obvious methods to violate the iTunes Music Store Terms Of Service (TOS) and (possibly) the DMCA.

Note: iTunes Music Store TOS -- that legal statement that you said "Yes" to when you signed up for the iTunes service.

Everybody relax.
Exactly, that's why I said in my previous post that this doesn't really mean much.

Edit: replaced EULA with iTunes Music Store TOS.

Eniregnat

Mar 18, 2005, 06:30 PM

This concept will also work with other services that do not recode the song/data before transmission. Every DRM scheme has its flaws. I am willing to bet that Apple already has a fix and wasn’t going to release it before it was necessary.

This kind of hack is not illegal, and isn’t unethical. It is unethical to distribute music that doesn’t contain the DRM envelope. That’s no different than ripping a CD to some other form and distributing it.
I think is fine for the digital survivalists who fear that the rights that they purchased may be revoked (by changing iTunes and Apples proprietary client soft and firmware).

Hopefully this will not freak the music industry out and further increase cost or further limit access to downloadable music. Perhaps this will further push the price of music down. I think most people would pay .25$ a song and drop their music theft (if they did thieve.)

Edit- the Music Industry will freak.

Doctor Q

Mar 18, 2005, 06:57 PM

Like, where's my credit for providing Macrumors with the link/story, about 8 hours ago???

Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the ironyWhat kind of credit do you think you were denied? Most submissions are anonymous and if you submitted this story 8 hours before the time of your post that was still hours after somebody else had submitted the same story.

MacRumors normally gives credit to a member who first provides a story when the member has been identified, but that wasn't the case here.

Mitthrawnuruodo

Mar 18, 2005, 07:04 PM

madoka

Mar 18, 2005, 07:07 PM

Obviously, Apple will freak (what else is new...), but all this does is provide a shortcut around the burn-to-CD-and-rerip shortcut that's built into iTunes.

Wouldn't this shortcut result in a loss in sound quality?

Doctor Q

Mar 18, 2005, 07:10 PM

I think most people would pay .25$ a song and drop their music theft (if they did thieve.)No doubt there are some such people, but I have the feeling that most consumers aren't making a price-sensitive decision about this.

If they buy online music legally, it may be because they believe in following rules in general, or fear breaking the law, or want to support the business model, or understand and accept the DRM tradeoffs, or think 99 cents is a bargain, or have enough money for the music they want, or think they are helping the artists, or don't even know how to steal music, etc.

If they steal online music, it may be because they feel any price is too much, or because artists are not getting enough of their money, or big business is bad, or DRM is a violation of their rights, or that it's ok because they couldn't afford to buy the music, or that it actually helps increase sales since they might buy the audio CD from a store if they like it, etc.

In other words, I think most people follow their principles, one way or another. And we'll continue to hear all of these points of view.

fpnc

Mar 18, 2005, 07:10 PM

Okay, here are a few relevant portions from the iTunes Music Store Terms Of Service (TOS).

Security. You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork (“Products”), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors (“Usage Rules”). You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.
and

You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
So, basically if you use PyMusique you are in violation of the TOS and because you need an iTunes account to even make use of PyMusique, Apple will know who is trying to violate the TOS.

Thus, as I said before, you'd have to be pretty stupid to even try and use this software.

~loserman~

Mar 18, 2005, 07:19 PM

Thats hilarious

I can't think of anything funnier than this except maybe when it happened to Real but then again this is still pretty funny.

looklost

Mar 18, 2005, 07:21 PM

I can't believe that people think this is a bad thing. Don't you like freedom? :eek:

You knew the deal when purchasing a song from itunes, you get a DRM protected song playable on a certain number of authorized computers.
Why do people think freedom means they can do whatever they want no matter what. There are plenty of things in life that have restrictions on their use. Take a car for an example, you can't drive any speed you want and pay no attention to stop signs, lights, ect., but to say my freedom is being taken away because I can't do those things even though the car and myself are capable is just wrong.

Doctor Q

Mar 18, 2005, 07:24 PM

I didn't know before that "DVD Jon" is a movie star as well. He plays himself in the documentary Info Wars (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0415067/).

Hey, I wonder if we can get that movie on DVD and play it on our Linux systems. :D

desdomg

Mar 18, 2005, 07:24 PM

There are two reason why this doesn't mean much. First, Apple may just cancel the accounts of anyone who tries to use PyMusique (that's covered by the EULA).

But can a user be considered to be a party to that agreement if they have not used iTunes to access the store - does the purchasing process still involve an agreement approval stage using this software? Presumably not.

fpnc

Mar 18, 2005, 07:31 PM

geezusfreeek

Mar 18, 2005, 07:31 PM

All this is just a more convenient way to get the same result as running your purchased music through Hymn or JHymn. It's not quite the same as burning and ripping a CD though, since that is lossy.

fpnc

Mar 18, 2005, 07:36 PM

All this is just a more convenient way to get the same result as running your purchased music through Hymn or JHymn. It's not quite the same as burning and ripping a CD though, since that is lossy.

It's not really the same, because Apple will know (most likely) who has use this software to violate the TOS. It's pretty much like I said earlier:

It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.

Quobobo

Mar 18, 2005, 07:46 PM

It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.

Except with one key difference: you're paying for the music. If you can buy a CD and rip it to any format you like, why should you have to have DRM on files you (legally) download? This is why I never use online download sites, I don't understand why I should pay for files that are inferiour to what I can download for free. When I pay for music, I'd rather buy a CD that doesn't have any DRM.

Stage

Mar 18, 2005, 07:49 PM

The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.

DRM has everything to do with the iTMS business model.

Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.

Apple killed the Harmony file functionality because it is important for the product lock in that all downloadable music on an iPod be Apple dependent. Harmony files can be played on other devices and don't lock a customer into iPods.

Apple doesn't give a rat's butt about DRM in a philosophical sense, what they care about is a captive market of iPod users with hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of iTMS files permanently locked to iPod music players. These people have to be customers for life or throw away their music investment. This is why DRM is evil. From a copyright perspective, consumers have full legal right to play their music on any device they want. Apple doesn't want you to be able to exercise those rights (neither does Microsoft.)

By controlling access to your legally owned content, each company expects to leverage your investment in music to their own advantage. DRM to these giant companies is just a leash on their customers.

Support legal alternatives to DRM'd music, like http://www.mp3tunes.com/
DRM is literally a corporate tool to control you and your future purchases. DRM is not your friend.

Finally, boy was Apple silly to send plaintext non-DRM'd music to iTunes. Talk about hubris. The so-called hack that let people "steal" Napster to go files involved recording the stream in realtime in a different CODEC. The iTMS hack involves downloading the original files and no transcending.

Personally, I don't see this as stealing since people have to pay Apple and Apple normally sends the DRM free music anyway. The hack simply cuts out the final step. It doesn't strip any DRM.

However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.

drewyboy

Mar 18, 2005, 08:05 PM

Now why do hackers have to go do this? they say they do it cuz the prices that cd's are is "unfair" and "overpriced". now i simply have to ask the question... if your a hacker.. more than likely you deal with computers. dont you think that your overpaid for you job? for a small simple example.. best buy geek squad.. overpriced.. they want 30+ dollars to install a stick of ram. the point is... the money is for the most part equally distributed to be able to pay these high prices. income is accomidated for the high prices of products. if u think it's bad over here.. go to japan and try and buy a medium fries on their "dollar menu" which in usd=$5. so back my main point... just pay the frick'n money, most ppl's income are accomidated for the increase cost. if you feel u cant afford a cd... that's what christmas or your birthday is for or even the radio. by the way... i'm not an "artist" either... im majoring in ECE myself so i'm not biased.

Xtremehkr

Mar 18, 2005, 08:09 PM

I can understand why people would think this is a good thing. But at the same time, there are consequences for Apple. Apple sells others peoples songs, if they thought that selling to Apple would mean that their songs could be immediately transfered to P2P outlets they would be reluctant to supply ITMS with any songs.

When it comes to picking ITMS over a different outlet, the amount of available content has a lot to do with it.

I am really curious about who is behind this new group. This software is a poison pill for ITMS, as far as label owners are concerned.

Steve was just in the news for sending an email claiming that a rivals software was easily hacked in order to bypass the restrictions in place to prevent downloaders from freely sharing the music they have purchased.

This smacks of corporate skullduggery at its worst.

On a positive note, it proves that Apple is the company to go after in this area.

On the other hand, Apple needs to step up and protect its interests in this area.

For some reason, 'PlaysForSure' keeps coming to mind.

dudemac

Mar 18, 2005, 08:11 PM

DRM has everything
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.

I have to disagree that this is somehow a security breach. I have seen other front-end for the itms, just not ones that allowed purchase. It has been awhile but I think there was a extension in firefox that allowed you to access the itms database. So really this is just a feature enhancement of that.

DavidLeblond

Mar 18, 2005, 08:14 PM

Do you really think it's DRM lock-in that's fuelling those sales?

Because personally I think it's the integration and "it-just-works" aspects, combined with a superior product.

It's not the only thing fueling those sales, but yes. That IS iTMS's purpose. It has been stated several times before. Apple doesn't make tons of profit off of the music sales, its the iPods that they make the money off of.

And the DRM lock-in DOES play a factor in this. Remember, Apple is a big corporation... they're out to make money, just like everyone else.

Quobobo

Mar 18, 2005, 08:40 PM

Now why do fag hackers have to go do this? they say they do it cuz the prices that cd's are is "unfair" and "overpriced". now i simply have to ask the question... if your a hacker.. more than likely you deal with computers. dont you think that your overpaid for you job? for a small simple example.. best buy geek squad.. overpriced.. they want 30+ dollars to install a stick of ram. the point is... the money is for the most part equally distributed to be able to pay these high prices. income is accomidated for the high prices of products. if u think it's bad over here.. go to japan and try and buy a medium fries on their "dollar menu" which in usd=$5. so back my main point... just pay the frick'n money, most ppl's income are accomidated for the increase cost. if you feel u cant afford a cd... that's what christmas or your birthday is for or even the radio. by the way... i'm not an "artist" either... im majoring in ECE myself so i'm not biased.

You're majoring at a university? If you're a native speaker of English, you shouldn't have passed high school English with writing skills like that.

All complaints about how painful reading your post is aside, you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with CDs, it's about what people can and can't do with music they paid for. I'd like to be able to play music I download on any computer I own, but DRM files prevent me from doing that. Worse, what's going to happen 10 years from now? If I want to start using something other than iTunes for music, I'll be out of luck.

P.S.
Cost of Medium Fries in Japan (http://www.mcdonalds.co.jp/sales/menu_h_f.html): 252¥, about $2.4 USD

Dippo

Mar 18, 2005, 08:44 PM

Now why do hackers have to go do this? they say they do it cuz the prices that cd's are is "unfair" and "overpriced".

Let me repeat for those who aren't listening...
You still have to buy the music!!!

You have every right to rip DRM free music from a CD that you bought, and the same should go for music that you download.

Just because the industry paid the lawmakers enough money to make a law that makes getting around DRM illegal, that doesn't make it wrong!

Doctor Q

Mar 18, 2005, 09:17 PM

Sorry for all the posts. I seem to have more opinions and questions than usual today.

Will it be possible for a third party software company to write a front-end client for the iTunes Music Store that plays by "the rules" (paying for purchases, allowing or applying DRM) but has other features that iTunes lacks, in a way that wouldn't be a problem for Apple?

I'll make up an dopey example. Maybe there's a use for an auto-purchasing tool that waits for a certain time (e.g., the exact release day/time of a new tune) and then purchases the song. Must it be written by scripting iTunes or could it work standalone? Can Apple permit this without a risk to its business?

iTunes is a cross-platform jack of all trades, for purchasing music, organizing music, playing music, handling iPods, interfacing with other iApps, etc. I think it's a very well done application, but it's a shame if the DRM issue prevents the free market from trying to produce a better mousetrap for any of these functions, including interfacing with the store, because what could be an open interface must be closed.

geofftay

Mar 18, 2005, 09:26 PM

Don't care how many times this has been regurgitated...

I paid money for the file. I dont care about the license. I dont own my books, my software, my music, my life, my anything if I sit back and shut up. So the only issue here that bothers me is that short term, this could affect how I get my music and what I pay for it. Long term? It wont make a damn bit of difference... RIAA will eventually lose this war.

stcanard

Mar 18, 2005, 09:41 PM

Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.

And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.

DavidLeblond

Mar 18, 2005, 09:50 PM

And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.

How does that matter? Last I heard, iPods didn't cost $.99. Plus Apple doesn't get $.99 per song, they get roughly $.34. iTMS makes Apple money, sure... but compared to the amount of money iPods make them there is no comparison.

I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.

macfan1977

Mar 18, 2005, 09:52 PM

So sorry if I missed any thread on DVD Jon's involvement in this.

I have to admit that I am cynical he was the brains behind DeCSS. I always figured he played the patsy for some adult he knew. Like maybe the true owner of that Timex/Sinclair Spectrum thingy PC you see on his home page. I am however grateful for the program. I just think it was a matter of time before *someone* leaked or discovered the algorithm.

So getting to my point, it would seem like this guy is spending a lot of energy trying to piss off media corporations. The only conclusion I can see is that he wants the attention. Flirting with lawsuits sounds as crazy as publishing trade secrets on your website. :D There's also this pro-Real Networks thing I think I am getting from his site, but that's for another thread...

If I'm wrong and he's truely genius (and can repeat it), then maybe he ought to create something of his own with all that talent. If he knows so much about DRM and coding, there should be a whole lot more money in making the next generation DRM. Sometimes the best thieves make the best security experts. He'd still get the fame, and wouldn't have to worry about legal issues.

The line that "information wants to be free" won't buy a Porsche!

macfan1977

Mar 18, 2005, 10:05 PM

How does that matter? Last I heard, iPods didn't cost $.99. Plus Apple doesn't get $.99 per song, they get roughly $.34. iTMS makes Apple money, sure... but compared to the amount of money iPods make them there is no comparison.

I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
I've used iTMS before I bought my iPod Shuffle (way cool!) to simply download music and burn to it CDs. Beats the inconvenience of running out to Walmart and buying the CD for even more money. And I get to search and preview. This is the best way to buy music WITH OR WITHOUT a portable music player.

Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits! :cool:

Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?

digitalbiker

Mar 18, 2005, 10:08 PM

I think this whole issue with Apple, DRM, & the music industry once again makes it perfectly clear that this distribution model is flawed. I have never used the Apple Store because I won't support digital encryption methods that restrict rights for the sole purpose of profit. I buy cd's and rip my music.

The recording industry needs to change or die. We are no longer living in the 1950's. Making perfect copies of recordings and distributing multiple copies of the recording is no longer the significant monetary burden it once was.

The recording industry needs to shift to a new business paradigm. If downloading music is to be the standard for distibution then profit-margins should be reduced to pennies per song. Artists should try to generate income through live-performances, or through managing their own web distribution system, charging a few cents a song.

The recording industry wants to be compensated at ever increasing rates even though technology has significantly reduced the cost of doing business. They can't have their cake, eat-it too, and lose weight.

eric_n_dfw

Mar 18, 2005, 10:17 PM

This isn't rocket science! iTMS sells DRM'ed songs - period.

If you don't want DRM'ed tunes (and still want to do things legally):
1.) burn 'em to a CD and re-rip as AAC or MP3 (or WAV/AIFF)
2.) (Mac only) use iMovie to export it (essentially the same as #1, but easier).
3.) use another service
4.) go buy the CD, you'll get better quality anyway

My prediction: Apple will release an iTunes patch that implements some kind of public/private key challenge/response message between their server and the client app and require iTMS purchases to be done only from that new client. Old clients will get an error that tells them to upgrade.

latergator116

Mar 18, 2005, 10:26 PM

I think this program is great. It will make it a lot more convenient for people to play their music anywhere they like. DRM is one of the reasons (in addition the the crummy AAC format) I don't buy music from the iTunes music store. I like being able to play my music where *I* want; I don't want Apple/RIAA putting any restrictions on that.

stcanard

Mar 18, 2005, 10:27 PM

I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.

Go back through what I have said. I agree 100%. iTunes and ITMS sell iPods.

DRM lock in does not sell iPods.

Integration and a superior user experience does sell iPods.

Now to the point you apparently missed -- If you look at the number of songs sold compared to the number of iPods sold, do the math and realize that only a fraction of those iPods have ITMS songs on them. Therefore DRM lock in does not enter into it.

Now look at home many people used iTunes to rip their entire music collection. That plus the ease of finding the song you want on the ITMS is what sells them.

You've fallen into the trap the RIAA wants you to. You're working on the assumption that everyone in the world wants to violate copyright to get their music. Once you get out of that mindset and understand that in general people are fair and honest you'll begin to see the point.

If you want, look at it another way. Steve Jobs has said time and again that unbreakable DRM is impossible. Do you really think he would base his company's future on a business model that he openly admits is flawed?

Xtremehkr

Mar 18, 2005, 10:35 PM

iTMS exists to sell iPods yes. But, if iTMS does not do something to protect the profits of those who allow iTMS to sell their songs then they will stop supplying iTMS with songs to sell.

There was a way to get around this before, but it was only used by a minority of people and considered an acceptable loss I guess.

What you have here is someone who is internationally advertising a way to beat copyright protections through iTMS, which hurts Apple as it may affect suppliers of music to iTMS.

There were ways to beat iTMS before and the best way was to avoid it altogether and use a P2P software.

This to me is different however. It is a direct attack on Apple aimed at disuading music labels from providing iTMS with songs to download.

In this instance I stand with Apple, as the MP3 market heats up, one of the determining factors in who people choose to buy their music from is going to be exclusive content. Labels are not going to release material to distributors who cannot assure that their material won't be easily pirated.

*If they fix this hole and leave everything else in place there really is no problem*

The songs iTMS sells are not their own! iTMS is a middleman that is not guaranteed access to the product that it resells. An essential part of selling iPods is being able to offer current music to play on them. iTMS needs to protect its ability to resell the music needed to use on iPods.

bleachthru

Mar 18, 2005, 11:24 PM

All I have to sya is F*&% the RIAA, They are just a bunch of profiteering gluttons anyways. Kudos to whomever cracked the DRM, good work.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

tveric

Mar 19, 2005, 12:53 AM

So, basically if you use PyMusique you are in violation of the TOS and because you need an iTunes account to even make use of PyMusique, Apple will know who is trying to violate the TOS.

Thus, as I said before, you'd have to be pretty stupid to even try and use this software.

Well, 18 hours later, here we are, I used a Pepsi cap song to download thru PyMusique, it plays perfectly and all that, and so far my account hasn't been cancelled. You know why? Because it JUST ISN'T WORTH THE FRIGGIN EFFORT on Apple's part to start cancelling accounts for using this software. They have to come up with a block to PyM anyway, and that will solve all their problems.

As for violation of the TOS, nobody gives a rip except people who were hall monitors in high school. And as for being stupid, well, maybe some of us just like our freedom without limits. You can attack us for being "stupid" all you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Get used to it - DRM is a paper tiger. I buy music thru iTMS, I buy music on CD, I buy it at allofmp3.com for a dollar an album, and I download for free too. No amount of DRM is going to make me change my habits. Only differences in prices and convenience will make me shift from one method to another when required.

joeboy_45101

Mar 19, 2005, 02:27 AM

It's this kind of crap that's going to scare the record companies into demanding a higher price for songs sold online. They are at this time still sceptical about the whole online business as is. DVD Jon has proved his points, yes he is a good hacker and DRM is not bulletproof. But, I wish he would get it into his head that MOST people don't mind DRM on digital music if it is designed to be flexible enough so that it doesn't stand in the way of enjoyment.

If there is one upside to this it is that this gives Apple a chance to prove it's skills in plugging up these holes. And maybe, that could give some comfort to the record companies in the security of online music stores. This whole situation would not be so big if the record companies did not exist, but they do and for now everybody has to deal with them like it or not. Sort of like Republicans, but that's something else altogether.

Snowy_River

Mar 19, 2005, 02:30 AM

...
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits!
...

Well, that assumes that $0.34 is profit, not gross. Any idea how much they net per song? It seems to me that the last number I heard was somewhere around $0.02-$0.03. The rest goes to cover expenses of pushing those bits around. And $0.03 * 300+ million, while still a respectable number - especially in comparison to my checking account balance - is really little more than a drop in the bucket for Apple...

fpnc

Mar 19, 2005, 02:54 AM

tveric, actually, I didn't call any individual "stupid," I said you'd have to be stupid to use PyMusique (the former and the latter are not exactly the same thing). Sorry if you were somehow offended.

Everybody relax.
I am.

I agree however that Apple will probably soon block access through PyMusique and that might not even require any changes other than on the server side of the music store. That's another reason why this whole story is pretty much overblown.

Well, 18 hours later, here we are, I used a Pepsi cap song to download thru PyMusique, it plays perfectly and all that, and so far my account hasn't been cancelled. You know why? Because it JUST ISN'T WORTH THE FRIGGIN EFFORT on Apple's part to start cancelling accounts for using this software. They have to come up with a block to PyM anyway, and that will solve all their problems.

As for violation of the TOS, nobody gives a rip except people who were hall monitors in high school. And as for being stupid, well, maybe some of us just like our freedom without limits. You can attack us for being "stupid" all you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Get used to it - DRM is a paper tiger. I buy music thru iTMS, I buy music on CD, I buy it at allofmp3.com for a dollar an album, and I download for free too. No amount of DRM is going to make me change my habits. Only differences in prices and convenience will make me shift from one method to another when required.

Timothy

Mar 19, 2005, 03:04 AM

These rants about the RIAA never fail to amuse me. And, the idea that people who are illegally downloading music are somehow doing a favor to the world is another great myth. It's all justification and *********.

It is really easy to pick a lock. There are lots of people who can do it. Why not run down to your local record store and stock up on CDs? I mean, ***** the RIAA, right?

Posers. Learn the real issues around the music industry if you care. But don't just try to justify theft with some robin hood *********.

henrikmk

Mar 19, 2005, 04:21 AM

I would be amused if this now leads to increased sales of music on the iTMS. DRM haters and/or Linux users will be allowed to buy music. It probably won't be noticable if they shut off access quickly enough, but it would be interesting. :D

DRM just doesn't work.

cluthz

Mar 19, 2005, 04:41 AM

In the perfect world, this wouldn't be neccecary.

I would rather buy a song without DRM than with DRM,
because you have very few rights with files with DRM.
If you buy tha same CD and encode it it won't have DRM, so why do the internet music stores need to have DRM?
Since this will create big trouble for apple I find this negative.

When then day comes that most cds are copyprotected I might buy something from iTMS, but i'll never buy a DRM file unless I have no other options!

latergator116

Mar 19, 2005, 08:08 AM

macnulty

Mar 19, 2005, 08:32 AM

Um, you still have to buy the song, he hasn't cracked the DRM, and the user has to use a program other then iTunes to execute. It would seem to me the easiest thing for Apple is to use a more stringent iTunes identifier. After all, all us non-IE users should be familiar with this concept.

dudemac

Mar 19, 2005, 08:48 AM

So getting to my point, it would seem like this guy is spending a lot of energy trying to piss off media corporations. The only conclusion I can see is that he wants the attention. Flirting with lawsuits sounds as crazy as publishing trade secrets on your website. :D There's also this pro-Real Networks thing I think I am getting from his site, but that's for another thread...

Actually from what I know about the DCESS thing is that he is just a linux geek who wants to use mainstream products on his linux box. It has nothing to do with attention or media companies.

dudemac

Mar 19, 2005, 08:51 AM

As of this morning sometime it seems that it is no longer able to download, but still allows browsing and account login.

Evangelion

Mar 19, 2005, 09:43 AM

It's theft, pure and simple.

No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.

Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?

I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"

latergator116

Mar 19, 2005, 09:51 AM

No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.

Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?

I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"

Well said. I have a feeling that the people blindly defending Apple and calling it "theft" don't quite understand how this program works. At least I hope that's the case.

qubex

Mar 19, 2005, 09:52 AM

Apple programmed a flawed system - it's only fair somebody has bothered to exploit it. Maybe now they can rebuild it in a manner that is secure.

1macker1

Mar 19, 2005, 10:51 AM

I'm wondering what's the big deal with this program. If i buy a CD from Best Buy, it doesn't have DRM, so why do they even bother doing it with Internet downloads.

Apple will find a way to block this non-DRM downloading...and in turn DVD Jon will another way to get around this. It will go back and forward.

Abstract

Mar 19, 2005, 11:08 AM

aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.

No no, I don't think people get it.

If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.

Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.

smiley

Mar 19, 2005, 12:07 PM

I appreciate what DVD Jon did to help Linux owners watch dvds, but this is going to far. I hope Apple come up with a fix for this, and soon.

How is this going farther than DeCSS for DVD's?

Last I checked, Linux users couldn't use iTunes DRM'd songs on Linux either. How is this different from the DVD cracker? Its purpose is to use digital files LEGALLY PURCHASED on a device of the purchaser's choice.

The only differences here are that 1) the offending company is Apple, and 2) The iTunes Music Store's terms of service agreement. By using Jon's tool, you KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY are violating an agreement that you yourself agreed to.

I never signed away my rights to play a DVD on Linux when I bought it, for example, so DeCSS has a tiny bit more of a leg to stand on.

But, this certainly isn't "going too far"

YMAMV (Your moral ambiguity may vary)

:)

manu chao

Mar 19, 2005, 12:50 PM

By using Jon's tool, you KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY are violating an agreement that you yourself agreed to.

And if you use an Apple or AOL ID, Apple knows who is violating the agreement.

Even if the current iTMS server protocol cannot distinguish between iTunes and PyMusique, it should be quite easy to figure out how to do that distinction once Apple has its own copy of PyMusique. Then Apple can go over its server logs and get a list of the people who have used PyMusique.

Use at your own risk (or use at least gift certificates...).

manu chao

Mar 19, 2005, 01:10 PM

Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?

If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?

Not according to your logic.

Should this behaviour be allowed?

Doctor Q

Mar 19, 2005, 01:31 PM

Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.We've had this dictionary discussion before. But when a book author finds somebody using a photocopier to make a copy of their book instead of buying it, the word used doesn't matter as much as the fact you got something they were selling without paying.Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?Same logic: Musical artists aren't selling you round bits of plastic. They are selling you a copy of their music. Same logic: When you buy PhotoShop, you are buying more than the CD and some packaging. You are buying a license to use it, and even if you download a copy without taking something away from somebody else, you are getting something worth money and the owner/producer has reason to expect payment.I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven.Yeah, and I wonder why they did that. It was at the same time they increased the number of Macs you can authorize, so overall it was an improvement. Maybe they were tinkering with their deal with the record labels.Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others.I can't imagine how they made that mistake, allowing sharing over the Internet instead of only over LANs when anybody could tell you the record labels (yes, them again) would be up in arms.Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"I wonder if they could offer a new program: You get to have all DRM removed in exchange for burly RIAA enforcers paying you surprise visits whenever they like to check what you are listening to. I'm just kidding, but it's too bad that honest customers have to bear the burdens of dishonest customers, and that any of us have to feel hogtied.

Tulse

Mar 19, 2005, 02:09 PM

I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven.
As I recall, the limit is on how many times you can burn a specific playlist. You can burn a song an unlimited number of times. This is a big difference.

manu chao said:If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?
This is an excellent analogy, manu chao. Everybody knows that it is wrong to sneak into a movie theatre, but for some reason people think it is OK to copy music illegally. It is just bizarre.

It seems to me that the issue is pretty darned simple -- as a potential user of iTMS you know what the rules are. If you don't want to abide by the rules, don't use the service. Any talk of "it's actually helping Apple" or "it's my music to do with as I want" is just self-justifying bull. If you don't like the rules, don't play. It's really that simple.

matticus008

Mar 19, 2005, 02:29 PM

But can a user be considered to be a party to that agreement if they have not used iTunes to access the store - does the purchasing process still involve an agreement approval stage using this software? Presumably not.

Yes. By signing up for an account to use the iTunes Music Store, you are bound to their terms of service. Those terms only appear in the official iTunes client because that's the only source for the music. Just because those terms don't pop up on the screen if you use this PyMusique thing doesn't mean you aren't responsible for knowing. For example, if you do not receive a bill in the mail for your credit card, you are still responsible for making the payment and paying any late fees--it is your responsibility as the borrower to make the appropriate payment on time. By using the service, you are implicitly agreeing to the terms of service and use, including Apple's rights to prosecute (should they choose to) for your violation of those terms (i.e. using a non-approved client application). This is enforceable; whether Apple chooses to do anything about it remains unclear.

Also enforceable is the DMCA violation (and yes, it is a violation, because you are BYPASSING technology designed to secure DRM). Even though you paid for the songs, you also paid for the license for that song (which includes DRM), and you are breaking encryption by bypassing it. Walking through a hole in a fence is still trespassing, whether you made the hole or not. Again, from a legal perspective, this is a punishable violation.

I'm not saying that I like having my digital music locked down more vigorously than a CD I buy. But there are logical reasons for doing so. Namely, that the digital version, if un-DRMed, can be copied and transmitted with no special software or effort. If I want to share a CD, I have to burn a copy (requiring hardware and software) or extract the audio digitally and transmit it. Digital music does all that for you, and Apple's DRM gives you appropriate fair use rights. The DRM is designed to prevent casual copying that results in lower license sales.

You don't own the music you've bought, and you don't have any legal right to redistribute it because your license does not allow it. Should you be able to use it on any type of device you choose? Yes. Does DRM prevent that from happening? Often, also yes. Can you choose a different format that works with all devices (standard MP3 imported from a CD)? Yeah, but not on purchased iTunes music. Until DRM and file format technology becomes standardized, you have to deal with "early adopter syndrome" in a volatile market, which can result in purchases not being universally compatible (betamax/VHS/laser disc/DVD anyone?). Make a choice that works for you.

By purchasing AAC with Apple's DRM, you are choosing a file format with known and public limitations that will only work with a specific combination of hardware and software. You chose the delivery platform; you can't buy Windows software and then complain that it doesn't work on your Mac without buying it again. That's the way business works. Of course it would be fantastic if buying a license of Office for my PC gave me a corresponding license for all the other computer platforms I use, but that's not the case. Even say, Dreamweaver, which gives you Mac and PC installers, is only licensed to be used on one of the computers. I can install it on both, but that doesn't make it right or legal, even if I think that Macromedia is horrible (which I do).

In conclusion, breaking or bypassing DRM, while understandable on a basic level for getting compatibility with everything, is against the law. Using tools to do this which violate the iTMS terms of service is also a legal violation. The best way out of this situation is to support a universal standard that ensures compatibility with all devices and file formats. DRM isn't going away, and it shouldn't. But it should also not work against honest customers who just want iTunes songs to play on their Rio. Long post, my apologies.

Timothy

Mar 19, 2005, 02:43 PM

Long post, my apologies.

No apologies needed. It was well-said, and I agree with you completely.

The ongoing justification of bypassing or defeating the DRM, as though this is somehow a "moral" action is pathetic. Period.

Blackcat

Mar 19, 2005, 05:14 PM

Does iTunes really only sell you a license to the track? Is this in writing anywhere?

matticus008

Mar 19, 2005, 05:35 PM

Does iTunes really only sell you a license to the track? Is this in writing anywhere?

It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).

dguisinger

Mar 19, 2005, 05:37 PM

Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.

They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.

Not really, with any web-based programming language you can process the output of a file in real time. The server can insert water marks into images, provide different content on a URL based on who is accessing; oh yes, and encrypt the file stream with the users encription and not have to store a byte of it....

Blackcat

Mar 19, 2005, 05:39 PM

Firstly, let me say I'm against DRM if it restricts me using my own music I've paid for, but equally I see why artists don't want me uploading my iTunes Library to Gnutella.

Now, this "I do it to help Linux" excuse, it's rubbish. I've no objection to people choosing Linux (I use it on several servers) but to then moan it can't do xyz is crazy. If you need to watch DVDs, access iTunes, play The Sims, use Word etc then you should be running an OS that can do those things not by hacking support by illegal means. I understand the frustration of not being supported, but again it was by choice, lobby Apple to do Linux iTunes.

I applaud this software for giving me my usage rights back, but lets not make DVD Jon a hero of Linux, he just likes beating the system.

Blackcat

Mar 19, 2005, 05:51 PM

matticus008

Mar 19, 2005, 05:59 PM

I'd like to see the RIAA, or in my case BPI, try to revoke the license on the 200 CDs I own simply because I've ripped them to my HDD to load onto my iPod. Removing the DRM to load songs I have purchased onto my phone, media streamer or Panasonic digital music player seems very similar to me, as does buying them without DRM.

Your CD does not have DRM built in that you agreed to when purchasing the CD. Thus burning your CD is not a violation of the DMCA. Furthermore, the iTunes Music Store terms of service don't govern the usage of your CD collection.

Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.

Your analogy is invalid.

latergator116

Mar 19, 2005, 06:27 PM

Your CD does not have DRM built in that you agreed to when purchasing the CD. Thus burning your CD is not a violation of the DMCA. Furthermore, the iTunes Music Store terms of service don't govern the usage of your CD collection.

Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.

Your analogy is invalid.

I could really care less about breaking some DRM law or "international copyright law". I would love to see them try to enforce it.

matticus008

Mar 19, 2005, 06:43 PM

I could really care less about breaking some DRM law or "international copyright law". I would love to see them try to enforce it.

Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.

Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.

i_am_a_cow

Mar 19, 2005, 06:46 PM

I wish people would understand that this program is mainly created so that people who use Linux (don't know if you have heard of it, it has a larger market share than Mac OS X if I remember right :rolleyes: ) can listen to the music which they have purchased.

If Apple would just stop being assholes and port iTunes and Quicktime to Linux we wouldn't have these "problems," which in reality are nothing more than people trying to use Linux. I am totally for that.

I'm not able to use Linux on my new Powerbook because Apple, like usual, won't open up airport extreme card drivers.

Apple, you are ridiculous.

i_am_a_cow

Mar 19, 2005, 06:51 PM

Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.

Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.

He just wants to play his music on Linux, is there something wrong with that? Are you saying that Linux is bad, and Apple is good? Do you think that Apple is doing the right thing by not preventing these issues in the first place (by failing to open up technology standards or port multimedia software to other operating systems)? I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.

jaseone

Mar 19, 2005, 06:59 PM

latergator116

Mar 19, 2005, 06:59 PM

Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.

Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with making copies of a song from a CD I bought. Also, I see nothing moraly wrong with downloading songs just to get a taste of an album, because I usually end up purchasing the whole think later on.

matticus008

Mar 19, 2005, 07:00 PM

He just wants to play his music on Linux, is there something wrong with that? Are you saying that Linux is bad, and Apple is good? Do you think that Apple is doing the right thing by not preventing these issues in the first place (by failing to open up technology standards or port multimedia software to other operating systems)? I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.

Yes, there is something wrong with that. You agreed when you created your account that you would use iTunes. You as a citizen, agree not to break the laws. Using iTunes songs in Linux breaks both of those agreements. Linux is great (I'm a Linux sysadmin, as a matter of fact), but you know going into a purchase agreement that iTunes does not support Linux. Apple should make iTunes for Linux, sure. But violating the TOS and breaking laws left and right isn't really going to convince them to do it.

If you have Linux, then iTunes really isn't a legal option for you. Get your music elsewhere and write a letter to Apple, or use another computer for iTunes and use CDs or one of the thousands of network audio streaming packages available for Linux. You do not have the right to break DRM or to use something other than iTunes to get music from iTMS, period. It's that simple.

eric_n_dfw

Mar 19, 2005, 07:06 PM

He just wants to play his music on Linux, is there something wrong with that?Yes.
I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.

eric_n_dfw

Mar 19, 2005, 07:10 PM

Yes, there is something wrong with that. You agreed when you created your account that you would use iTunes. You as a citizen, agree not to break the laws. Using iTunes songs in Linux breaks both of those agreements. Linux is great (I'm a Linux sysadmin, as a matter of fact), but you know going into a purchase agreement that iTunes does not support Linux. Apple should make iTunes for Linux, sure. But violating the TOS and breaking laws left and right isn't really going to convince them to do it.

If you have Linux, then iTunes really isn't a legal option for you. Get your music elsewhere and write a letter to Apple, or use another computer for iTunes and use CDs or one of the thousands of network audio streaming packages available for Linux. You do not have the right to break DRM or to use something other than iTunes to get music from iTMS, period. It's that simple.Amen brotha'!
BTW - has anyone here (who uses Linux on x86) tried to run the Windows version of iTunes under WINE? I'd be curious if it works. (IMO, DVD Jon would be better to put efforts into something like that then to keep antagonizing Apple)

eric_n_dfw

Mar 19, 2005, 07:21 PM

Answering my own question, it appears (from some quick Google searches) that WINE doesn't currently like the custom CD drivers that iTunes for Windows installs, but the comercial product "CrossOffice" which is a supported WINE port that is tuned for MS Office and other popular Win32 apps, has anounced iTunes support: http://www.codeweavers.com/about/general/press/?id=20041116;cw=3b02a63d1cda46fdf5bb968a31b557c4

It's not free, but it is a legal option and at $40 it's not to bad.

d.perel

Mar 19, 2005, 08:15 PM

the software would probably go over better if it did not contain the 1st syllable of 'Pirate' or 'Pirating' right before the word music..... :rolleyes:

gb3651

Mar 19, 2005, 08:46 PM

You can't download full albums for 9.99...you have to pay .99 for each song. I'm sticking with Jhymn

AndreMA

Mar 19, 2005, 09:21 PM

anyone got a link to Mac PyMusique downloads or is it Windows only?But the name implies it's written in Python and should be cross platform, I'd assume.

SPUY767

Mar 19, 2005, 09:31 PM

You are one of the few moral and sane individuals who I see on this server. People who see beyond this robin hood mentality that permeates the computer world like a plague. People don't seem to feel as though they have done anything wrong when they have stolen something that is not physical.

Now I won't sit here and claim that I have never ever stolen music or software. I have downloaded my fair share of warez in my day, we all have. To deny that is to deny the very thing that makes us human. Ok, maybe not, but I'm not going to play holier than thou. Software companies, however get it, where movie companies don't. Software companies understand that they aren't Losing money by having software pirated (with the exception of game publishers, and office style software.) The fact is, that five to ten years ago, when i warezed it up, and stole a copy of say, Photoshop, and FinalCutPro 1, the software company was not losing money. Why? Because there is no way that I would have purchased the software did I not steal it. It was a zero sum game then. Now, that I use Photoshop, FCP, DVD SP, and a load of other expensive apps, (My computer is worth a third of what the software installed on it is,) for business purposes, I purchase them legally. Most businesses do the same thing.

Recording companies should realize the same thing. I have never downloaded a song that i would have purchased could I not have downloaded it. If I like something enough to buy it, the I buy it. Recodring companies don't lose that much to file sharing for that very reason. People download music as a preview a majority of the time. Give the rate faeces that the recording companies want to release, thank god for that ability too. My rant is over, I'm getting bored.

Peace

thejoshu

Mar 19, 2005, 11:31 PM

crazytom

Mar 19, 2005, 11:33 PM

Why I don't like copy protection: I would prefer to use the music I purchase in whatever way I want. For those of you who say "If you don't like the scheme, don't buy it" --- I agree, I haven't purchased a single song from iTMS. It's overpriced, second rate quality, and rounded out with restrictions. I'm saying F U to the RIAA. I don't have anything against the artists, but it's a shame they won't ever get my appreciation ($$$) for their creativity and hard work (it's criminal, I tell you...).

DRM only protects the already well-to-do artists. It's like they have a bucket full of money and they want to keep ANY of it from leaking over the edge...it sure sounds like greed....say, isn't that one of the seven deadly sins? Oh...I'm sorry, maybe that's sounding too 'Robin Hood-ish'. :rolleyes:

Recording engineer Steve Albini spoke a community college and was asked what he thought about sharing music. His response was that it was a great idea; his band got more exposure to a greater number of people because of music sharing. Hmmm....that coming from someone who recorded Nirvana, Cheap Trick, Jesus Lizard, Bush.....

Now, if the RIAA would sell me a piece of music that I could sell back to them (at a discount, of course) because I realized what a piece of crap it was after listening to it 5 times, then we'd be in business!!! Wait...that sounds ~a little~ like Napster's deal (except for the selling it back)...too bad it's PC only. :(

And, I'd just like to say: "Way to go DVD Jon!!! Keep up the good work!!!"

Uh, wait....

From the iTMS TOS:

You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.

Oh, crap. Now I'm screwed. I'm a criminal. Canada here I come. :p

wnurse

Mar 19, 2005, 11:41 PM

That when you do things like this, it hurts apple. Apple has a market to protect. If people keep doing this enough until the RIAA gets pissed and won't let apple sell music any more. It's just like complaining that apple hass had to change their DRM policies. It's not apple that is doing it, it's pressure from the Recording Industry. Apple has to walk an extremely fine line, and they do a goo djob of it, so those folks need to lighten up.

I know this comes as a shock to you but not a lot of people care whether Apple is hurt or not. While apple fans are loyal to apple, pc fans are loyal to no one and a lot of people who would use this app are pc fans. Also not everyone who uses a mac cares about apple. After all, what do they care if apple survives?. They still get the same paycheck. It's not like if apple gets richer, we get richer. It's the same with every company. Customer loyalty is fleeting.

eric_n_dfw

Mar 19, 2005, 11:46 PM

wnurse

Mar 19, 2005, 11:54 PM

Why don't you try it and find out? :)

I would. I don't care if apple cancels me or not. So what if they cancel me? Am i going to get poorer?. How a company makes money by deliberatly losing customers is beyond me. Are you a apple employee or stockholder?. You sound pretty desperate. You should sell your stock quick or put your resume out there but stop posting silly stuff. As noted before, apple is not going to cancel anyone's account.

wnurse

Mar 20, 2005, 12:02 AM

No no, I don't think people get it.

If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.

Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.

No that is not true. If you had read my previous post to this post, you would have seen where i said that your copy of itms would have to send a key to the itms server. Each computer would send a unique key so the song cannot play on any other computer other than the one that sent the key. This is not technically challenging, not like building a rocket ship or anything. I could do it.

Tulse

Mar 20, 2005, 12:30 AM

You're all far too willing to accept the RIAA's iron grip over downloading music. Apple's DRM is disgusting - but you want to say "shut it down! or our prices will go up! or they'll make the DRM worse!" Well, you've got to do better than that - because they owe it to us to sell a better product.Bullpucky. The RIAA, and recording artists, and Apple, and any other corporate entity, owe you exactly nothing. If you don't like what they're offering, don't buy it -- it's that simple. If enough people don't buy it, then the companies will change -- that's capitalism in action.

I want to own my musicAnd I want a pony, but neither is going to happen. In the case of music, the person(s) who actually writes and performs the music owns it (unless they sell those rights to someone else, as is often the case). What you get when you buy a CD, or download a song, or for that matter buy a paperback or a poster, is a license for certain legally defined rights. In some cases (like a Creative Commons license) you may have substantial freedom to do what you like with the material, but in most cases, your rights are constrained. That's the way it's always been, and this is nothing new -- copyright has been around for a long time. There isn't anything really special about the digital era with regards to the principle of copyright -- the Internet just makes it easier to violate.

I know the paradigm is new, I know it's a virtual product any way you slice it, but DVD Jon is doing the right thing, and we need to send a message.If only people could work up a tenth of this kind of moral indignation over things that really matter, like poverty or racism. I despair that the only thing that seems to get geeks politically active is the threat that they won't be able to use their music illegally. It's sad, really.

Stage

Mar 20, 2005, 12:54 AM

If only people could work up a tenth of this kind of moral indignation over things that really matter, like poverty or racism. I despair that the only thing that seems to get geeks politically active is the threat that they won't be able to use their music illegally. It's sad, really.

Yeah, you can't. Instead of being out protesting you are stuck at your computer dissing IP geeks. Mmm...Sad and hypocritical. Now that's sad.

dragonsbane

Mar 20, 2005, 01:09 AM

dragonsbane

Mar 20, 2005, 01:18 AM

beyond this robin hood mentality
I think you may be misunderstanding the natural human desire to be free with a fairy tale. No matter where you look in history, humans are always trying to find ways to increase their freedom and decrease oppression. This is not "Robin Hood", this is nature.

If only people could work up a tenth of this kind of moral indignation over things that really matter, like poverty or racism.
Start working at changing the world from where you stand. No one needs to "wait" to care. And what you care about is of much less importance than the fact that you feel anything at all.

ductapesuprhero

Mar 20, 2005, 03:12 AM

I've used iTMS before I bought my iPod Shuffle (way cool!) to simply download music and burn to it CDs. Beats the inconvenience of running out to Walmart and buying the CD for even more money. And I get to search and preview. This is the best way to buy music WITH OR WITHOUT a portable music player.

Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits! :cool:

Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?

No one has mentioned the bigger picture... Apple sells music to sell iPods for the same reason they make iLife, Safari, and OSX - to sell computers. Sure, Apple has raked in $100milion in profits from iTunes, and as big as that number sounds, it pales in comparison to the rest of their numbers.
Its all about the halo effect.

Plus, what people don't see is that they are not buying music, or a file etc.; they are purchasing the right to play that file/music which carries with it certain terms and conditions. The DRM is there simply to enforce what you've already agreed to. If its so bad, why do you agree to it in the first place? To download the music? That's both illegal and unethical; it is not your music.

[EDIT: Typo]

matticus008

Mar 20, 2005, 05:59 AM

It is nice that some folks here feel they know the "law". Look at the world your "law" has created. Look back in history and review what "law" has allowed humans to do to other humans and our planet.

Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.

But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.

As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it. And I applaud your efforts to sway people to your logic and world view. But at the end of the day, every person must sleep with themselves and must make up their own minds as to what to do. I am glad that people here care enough to talk about this issue in the hopes of finding where they stand.

[...]

Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance.

It's not "law," it's law. You live in a country, I presume? That means you're bound to the laws of your government, whether you find them morally sound or not. If you don't agree with the laws, renounce your citizenship and start your own community. It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law. Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people. The same reasoning you use for your position can be used against your position--the common logical fallacy of ignorance.

Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).

People will do what they choose, whether it's right or wrong. Doing the right thing is easy enough. But if it's wrong, they'll attempt to rationalize until they arrive at a way for them to believe it was right, or they'll justify the decision based on a series of other evils/corruptions to cloak the decision in a grey area. Neither changes the reality or frees you from the consequences or potential consequences.

matticus008

Mar 20, 2005, 06:22 AM

As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it.

Abortion isn't even on the same plane of existence as this issue, and as for the legal sphere, abortions are not illegal. I'm not advocating a stance against something that is legal to do, and I'm not arguing for reducing your personal rights to take something that you can do legally and make it illegal. I am stating that what this software does is illegal and that it's not DRM use/the law interfere with legitimate exercise of rights. It is not the law that made iTunes music incompatible with other MP3 players, it's the file format and DRM design. Further, Apple has done nothing illegal in its choices and implementation. There is therefore no legitimate reason to break the law--your rights are what you agreed to when purchasing the music and nothing more. If you need a different sort of DRM or no DRM for your uses, then you need to buy that product instead.

DRM does not, in theory, infringe on your license rights. In practice, you might come across incompatibilities due to the individual designs of the DRM models and a competitive, segmented market. The law has provisions for your rights to use the content and that DRM is used to protect against infringement on those rights. There is not just one DRM that works for everything, so when you buy music with DRM, you the consumer are responsible for making sure it works with what you intend to use it for. Your freedom of choice comes with certain sacrifices and restrictions, none of which have been imposed on you illegally or prohibit you from legal use of the product. The only reason to break the law here is for the purpose of breaking the law, not for any delusions of your rights to do as you wish with music.

dudemac

Mar 20, 2005, 06:41 AM

It's not "law," it's law. You live in a country, I presume? That means you're bound to the laws of your government, whether you find them morally sound or not. If you don't agree with the laws, renounce your citizenship and start your own community. It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law. Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people. The same reasoning you use for your position can be used against your position--the common logical fallacy of ignorance.

Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).

People will do what they choose, whether it's right or wrong. Doing the right thing is easy enough. But if it's wrong, they'll attempt to rationalize until they arrive at a way for them to believe it was right, or they'll justify the decision based on a series of other evils/corruptions to cloak the decision in a grey area. Neither changes the reality or frees you from the consequences or potential consequences.

The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem. There are many issues that fall under this and for what seems a rather well reasoned argument it fails because of this. So ignoring your first statement, you are correct in stating that laws are used to keep order in society and they should serve the interest and rights of the people. As soon as the laws no longer server this purpose there will be tyranny. Freedom of the people should be the most important thing. If you look at your life today and ask the question am I really free, the answer might scare you. Just look how much control is exerted over you life before you even get to make one decision. And when this control is coming from corporate interests it makes you wonder why and how people let this happen. Corporate wellness should never super seed the well being of the the people or trample the freedom of the people. As soon as you take away the ability to protest and to sometimes break the laws to effect change you have crippled society. And this kind of thinking starts "real" wars.

As for does this break laws, yes, but to better understand it is more like speeding than say a conspiracy to pirate music. It has been said many times that you still have to pay for the music, you just get something that is free of control. Now if you where running a p2p out of you house or directly selling it this might be a problem(but it would be no different than doing this with ripped CD's). However most of us just want to be able to play this on non apple players. Or in my case at work where I can not log into my account.

dragonsbane

Mar 20, 2005, 06:54 AM

You live in a country, I presume? That means you're bound to the laws of your government, whether you find them morally sound or not.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.

It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law.
Did you read what I wrote? I said nothing about being above the law. I do not have enough money (yet) to be above the law ;)

Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.

PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak - or haven't you read the papers recently? Persoanlly, I think your whole idea of law is faulty but then I would since I do not belive most of what you write. Good theories but they will never work in reality. What planet do you live on where borders, military, money and laws protect the weak? Sure some do sometimes, but why are we drilling in Alaska for oil again and why has our government stopped to keep Schiavo alive?

Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
What is up with your fascination for "supremacy over the law"? All I said was that it is more important for people to feel and think for themselves. I wonder why that seems to bother you so. Don't like this app? Don't use it. Like it and do not find anything wrong morally with using it (and are willing to risk getting caught), then knock yourself out and do it. I tire of people standing on high preaching about moral certainty. Wonder how often you feel like you are on the wrong side of things. Sure is easy to be certain when you are right all the time.

Don't believe everything you think - Anonymous

dragonsbane

Mar 20, 2005, 07:19 AM

It is not the law that made iTunes music incompatible with other MP3 players, it's the file format and DRM design. Further, Apple has done nothing illegal in its choices and implementation. There is therefore no legitimate reason to break the law--your rights are what you agreed to when purchasing the music and nothing more.
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing™. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.

DRM does not, in theory, infringe on your license rights.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]

Your freedom of choice comes with certain sacrifices
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?

and restrictions, none of which have been imposed on you illegally or prohibit you from legal use of the product. The only reason to break the law here is for the purpose of breaking the law, not for any delusions of your rights to do as you wish with music.
Option A (Legal Participation): Buy the music and abide by the laws
Option B (Legal Non-Participation): Don't buy the music and not be subject to any laws
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws

I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself. Even if I end up the same place as you, the journey I took to get there will make all the difference.

johnnowak

Mar 20, 2005, 08:00 AM

Gah... "it's against the law"... whatever.

When stuff is ********, you have to protest. I assume you also think all "illegal" protests, such as the sit-ins and the like during the civil rights movement, were wrong because they were technically illegal?

My mp3 collection is 100% legal (ripped from CDs and downloaded from artists' websites). However, I might consider using this service. Everyone still gets paid, and I get a version of the song that I CAN ****ING PLAY ON MY LINUX PARTITION. *ahem*

johnnowak

Mar 20, 2005, 08:01 AM

The "Apple first" nuts in this thread are the the ones that give the Mac community a bad name. "Digital rights management" blows.

eric_n_dfw

Mar 20, 2005, 09:10 AM

If a law is wrong, we have courts, the legislature and the free press to get such laws changed.

If you break the law in an act of "civil disobedience" you very well may go to jail or be sued. That's exactly what the heros of the civil rights movement like Dr. King and Rosa Parks did. (OMG, I can't believe we're using examples like this compared to music files!) They willfully broke the law, and in doing so brought attention to an injustice that eventually got the system changed.

So, if you sincerely believe that the Apple iTMS TOS (or any other EULA) is doing you an injustice, go right ahead and break it. Just be sure to shout it from the mountain tops so you can be sued and be covered by the news stations as being abused by an evil system. But, if you're just wanting things to be the way you want them, then you're just breaking the law for your own convenience. Live with your crime, enjoy your non-DRM'ed AAC files and stop trying to convince us that what you are doing should be legal. To be clear, I'm not saying you are BAD, as far as I care, you're no more bad than I am when I drive over the speed limit (so easy to do wih an RSX-S! :P) or take a pen home from work.

eric_n_dfw

Mar 20, 2005, 09:18 AM

The "Apple first" nuts in this thread are the the ones that give the Mac community a bad name. "Digital rights management" blows.Excuse me?!?!

I, sir, am a NeXT nut! It just so happens that Apple currently owns them! ;)

Seriously, though, Apple's in a tough spot - they currently have the most permissive form of DRM that the record companies will allow. Remember, also, that they took a lot of flack from said companies when the iPod originally came out because the only copy protection on it is that the music files are in a hidding folder to make it harder to copy from one Mac/PC to another. (something easily defeated though) DRM does suck - but it's "not that bad" and CD's are cheap enough that you can rip 'em for near the same cost. The biggest problem I have with iTMS is that the files are compressed. Some tracks need higher bitrates (thus I buy them). But for 90% of the music out there, it's good enough.

Don't confuse Apple fanaticism with people who just want the facts kept straight: iTMS TOS says you must use iTunes to purchase music from it - use anything else and you've broken that agreement. The arguement (at least from me) would be exactly the same if it was MTV, Dell or WalMart's music store's TOS in question.

I seriously think that if every Linux user would just send an email to Apple every time they bought a track off another service or bought a CD when they would have done so on iTMS but couldn't, that they'd get the hint.

bigandy

Mar 20, 2005, 10:08 AM

anyone got a link to Mac PyMusique downloads or is it Windows only?

from what i see on it's website tis a *nix programme... ie not windows.. ;)

Evangelion

Mar 20, 2005, 10:44 AM

If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?

Not according to your logic.

Should this behaviour be allowed?

So, what did I steal? Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission. Note: I'm no saying whether it's right or wrong, I'm merely discussing whether it's stealing or not. The example you gave is not stealing. I did not take anothers property without his permission.

dudemac

Mar 20, 2005, 11:23 AM

from what i see on it's website tis a *nix programme... ie not windows.. ;)

it runs on windows too you just to have the GTK installed also. Its on the website. see my post to page 3 first post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=115997&page=3&pp=25)

But as of yesterday morning I could no longer purchase songs this way, I can log in and browse, but it will not finalize the sale.

Tulse

Mar 20, 2005, 11:51 AM

Yeah, you can't. Instead of being out protesting you are stuck at your computer dissing IP geeks. Mmm...Sad and hypocritical. Now that's sad.Stage, I work for a charity -- I think I'm doing my part.

People can certainly disagree over whether DRM is appropriate or not. But like it or not, it is the law (copyright law, DMCA, and EULA law). You can break that law as a form of protest if you like, but, as eric_n_dfw says, the way to do that is by making your lawbreaking public, to be willing to accept the consequences of the lawbreaking, and thus work within the system. That's precisely what the civil rights movement did, that's what Gandhi did, that's what Thoreau wrote about. Anything else isn't protest -- it's no more "noble" than sneaking into movies for free.

Of course, there are a multitude of other ways to fight the law, including financially supporting the EFF and other like organizations, contacting your lawmakers, contacting recording companies, and, most effective, not buying products you feel restrict your rights. If folks were doing all of these things, then I'd have some respect for the notion that this is a moral and political issue. But as far as I can see, most people stripping DRM out of iTunes aren't doing it out of protest, but simply to make their lives easier, even if that impacts on the rights of the music writers and creators.

Protest and political change almost always involves sacrifice -- of time, of money, even in extreme cases of personal freedom (as in being jailed). If people aren't facing those kind of sacrifices, then I have serious doubts that they're actually "protesting".

whfsdude

Mar 20, 2005, 12:41 PM

The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.

You've been able to strip the DRM out of these for ages (without the burn/rip cycle). All of these songs exist on the various P2P networks. People are still buying from the store.

If you build your business model on the assumption that everybody is a thief, you just become as hated as the RIAA.

Exactly! I know when I used to steal music it wasn't because I wouldn't buy it, it was because it was far easier to leave the computer on downloading some songs that I would have to go to two or three places to find.

Now that their is iTMS it's easier to buy and I can find most of the music that I want that wouldn't even be in stores.

Yes, some people will always steal but most of the consumers won't steal if they find a service they like. With iTMS service there is no reason to steal. Yes I do strip the DRM from my files. Why? Because I don't like having DRM on my files, it's just that simple. I am not using 5 computers, using 3. I use the non-DRMed files on my iBook and iPod. No reason to de-DRM except for the fact it makes me feel like I don't have control over the music.

Bottom line is people will support your service or products if they enjoy and use them. So as a company you have to trust your consumers and consumers must trust a company. DRM = breaking trust. :(

desdomg

Mar 20, 2005, 01:05 PM

I say break the law and be done with it.

It is a stupid law that deserves to be broken IMO.

I paid for the song and will do what I want with it - passive resistance is all well and good but sometimes there is no substitute for direct action. Given the sheer size of the P2P communities it is clear that the "law makers" are not representing their electorate very well.

Stage, I work for a charity -- I think I'm doing my part.

People can certainly disagree over whether DRM is appropriate or not. But like it or not, it is the law (copyright law, DMCA, and EULA law). You can break that law as a form of protest if you like, but, as eric_n_dfw says, the way to do that is by making your lawbreaking public, to be willing to accept the consequences of the lawbreaking, and thus work within the system. That's precisely what the civil rights movement did, that's what Gandhi did, that's what Thoreau wrote about. Anything else isn't protest -- it's no more "noble" than sneaking into movies for free.

Of course, there are a multitude of other ways to fight the law, including financially supporting the EFF and other like organizations, contacting your lawmakers, contacting recording companies, and, most effective, not buying products you feel restrict your rights. If folks were doing all of these things, then I'd have some respect for the notion that this is a moral and political issue. But as far as I can see, most people stripping DRM out of iTunes aren't doing it out of protest, but simply to make their lives easier, even if that impacts on the rights of the music writers and creators.

Protest and political change almost always involves sacrifice -- of time, of money, even in extreme cases of personal freedom (as in being jailed). If people aren't facing those kind of sacrifices, then I have serious doubts that they're actually "protesting".

Evangelion

Mar 20, 2005, 01:39 PM

We've had this dictionary discussion before.

And apparently it needs to be had again, since people STILL don't understand what the word means!

But when a book author finds somebody using a photocopier to make a copy of their book instead of buying it, the word used doesn't matter as much as the fact you got something they were selling without paying.

The word does matter, since the word carries with it certain meaning and different acts (described by different words) carry different penalties. If you hit me in the face, could I claim that you were trying to murder me? after all I could have died. Or are you saying that all of a sudden the word does matter?

Copying copyrighted material against the will of the copyright-holder is wrong, I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is the notion that it's stealing. It's not, fair and square.

Same logic: Musical artists aren't selling you round bits of plastic. They are selling you a copy of their music. Same logic: When you buy PhotoShop, you are buying more than the CD and some packaging. You are buying a license to use it, and even if you download a copy without taking something away from somebody else, you are getting something worth money and the owner/producer has reason to expect payment.

What you are describing is copyright-infringment, not stealing. Of course, RIAA and the like would just LOVE to label those who download music as thieves, since that word has such strong negative connections. But they are not thieves and they are not stealing no matter how much RIAA tries to claim that they are.

dragonsbane

Mar 20, 2005, 02:08 PM

You can break that law as a form of protest if you like, but, as eric_n_dfw says, the way to do that is by making your lawbreaking public, to be willing to accept the consequences of the lawbreaking, and thus work within the system.
By living in this country I am bound by its laws. Period, full stop. Why is protest only allowed if you make it public and go to jail? The most public display of protest I am aware of is the 50+% of people who do not vote in any election. You might think their protest is foolish, but by not participating in the sham they speak volumes for those who listen.

Likewise, the BILLIONS of songs "stolen" vs. purchased on iTMS speaks volumes about people's feeling about DRM, RIAA, and these laws you speak so highly of. It is like "terrorism", it is 100% dependent on what side of the argument you are on. The USA has directly killed far more people than these so-called terrorists. Many who are on the side of the USA do not see this. This does not make those who disagree with the USA supporters of "terror", it simply means they disagree with the logic - and laws - of the USA.

Breaking DRM is no different. If you agree with the laws you speak of how important it is to follow them. If you don't agree you justify your actions in a myriad of way. Everyone is subject to the "law" however just or unjust the law may be.

i_am_a_cow

Mar 20, 2005, 02:21 PM

Uhm why is the program Windows only then???
Wow people are ignorant. It is clearly not Windows only. I can compile it on my mac if I want to. You must not have any idea what you are talking about.

capvideo

Mar 20, 2005, 02:32 PM

It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).

No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.

Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.

But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.

This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.

For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.

In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.

When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.

This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.

I rant much more about this at my blog:

http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9

Jerry

i_am_a_cow

Mar 20, 2005, 02:53 PM

Yes.
Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.

What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.

The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.

And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.

ductapesuprhero

Mar 20, 2005, 02:58 PM

i_am_a_cow

Mar 20, 2005, 03:00 PM

Thankyou Jerry!

recursivejon

Mar 20, 2005, 03:23 PM

If this is true (transfer of the music without DRM to be added by iTunes), then couldn't anyone with a bit of networking knowledge just pipe the packets into a file when they purchase something from the store using iTunes?

matticus008

Mar 20, 2005, 03:53 PM

The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem.

Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.

Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.

Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.

PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).

By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing™. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.

Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]

All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.

Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws

I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.

matticus008

Mar 20, 2005, 04:14 PM

No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.

Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.

But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.

This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.

For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.

In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.

When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.

This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.

No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.

But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.

Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.

matticus008

Mar 20, 2005, 04:27 PM

What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.

The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.

And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.

It is NOT unethical to keep drivers for your own hardware and distribute them how you choose. Apple has an obligation to keep up with their own hardware and software. They have no moral or legal obligation to make drivers for any OS they don't want to. Is it frustrating? Yes, if you want to run Linux on your PowerBook. But in that situation, you have to know that Linux doesn't have mainstream support for tons of hardware, and nothing is stopping you from writing your own driver, except a lack of knowledge or time on how to do so. If you need assistance or technical information, join Apple's Developer program. That's exactly why it exists, and why I participate. If they don't want to port their software to another platform, they don't have to.

You might say that iTunes should be on Linux, and that it will make more money for Apple, so it's a good idea. It doesn't mean that someone violating the TOS is an ethical action. DVD Jon might want his iTunes on Linux, but he has no right to it. Like I've said previously, he can just as easily import the audio from CDs into Linux and stream purchased music over his network from a Windows or Mac machine with iTunes legally installed. Or, as it turns out, you can buy CrossoverOffice (or modify Wine yourself to avoid having to pay for it) and install iTunes that way. Those are legal alternatives to accomplishing what you want, and that's that.

Doing something you are specifically not supposed to do is NOT the same as not doing something you could do, but don't have to do.

Applespider

Mar 20, 2005, 05:48 PM

desdomg

Mar 20, 2005, 05:52 PM

Glad you are having fun. Many would argue that the it is the music industry that is doing the pillaging and it is the consumers pockets that are being raided. Legal and right are not always the same things. How come there is no competition in song pricing anyway?

HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.

~loserman~

Mar 20, 2005, 06:17 PM

The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.

CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.

DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.

The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.

Therein lay the problem. Most people are using the music illegally.
The record industry is right.
In your own analogy of Joe Public burning a track on his wedding video.
Guess what? when he distributes those copies to wedding guests he breaks the law.
It's illegal for him to do that. It is stealing. He pirated it.
The problem is we have become so used to stealing that we don't recognize it as such anymore. We justify it away.
Almost no one would even consider it to be wrong if they bought a cd copied it and gave it to their friends. It is wrong. It's stealing/pirating.

fpnc

Mar 20, 2005, 06:20 PM

IMO, this whole discussion has deteriorated beyond any form of usefulness. However, it does reaffirm two points -- never discuss either politics ("laws") or religion ("right" and "wrong") in mixed company. :)

The recent direction of this debate should have been seen as a non-starter -- that is, neither side of the argument is going to win and thus it's pointless to continue.

It does seem somewhat newsworthy, however, that there have been a few reports that the PyMusique utility has stopped working. Apparently you can no longer complete the purchase authorization. Can anyone else confirm this (may or may not be true)?

h'biki

Mar 20, 2005, 06:33 PM

Likewise, the BILLIONS of songs "stolen" vs. purchased on iTMS speaks volumes about people's feeling about DRM, RIAA, and these laws you speak so highly of..

I suspect it probably has more to do with the fact the music is free than it has to do with ideology. People were pirating music way before the RIAA and DRM became 'evil'. They're the justification for piracy, not the reason.

Piracy is an economic behaviour. I can point you to plenty of impartial (ie not funded by anyone) studies on this. In order to stop piracy you have to compete with it. Both sides are dressing it up as some kind of moral war, but it (mostly) isn't.

eric_n_dfw

Mar 20, 2005, 06:34 PM

The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.Yep. This is true of many laws.

DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.Actually, they get even crazier when you start making derivative works like that. I do video as a hobby and have to be very careful if someone asks me to put a commercial track on the wedding video I'm editting. Technically, I cannot do it without a syncronization license plus royalty payment agreements for each copy sold. Just try to pin down a videographer on the legality of this - it's a HUGE grey area in the fair use clause. Some artists and/or labels (so I've read) won't even let you do it if you are willing to pay for said licenses because they don't want their "art" mixed with someone elses (the video).

The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.Welcome to humanity, were the one jerk always screws it up for the rest of us. :mad:

akw

Mar 20, 2005, 06:50 PM

desdomg

Mar 20, 2005, 06:51 PM

If you view debate as a means to some sort of winner and looser type outcome the I can understand that you would reach that conclusion. However, the merits of a good debate, particularly one where their are strong opposing views, lie in the illumination of many points of view.

bringing IMO, this whole discussion has deteriorated beyond any form of usefulness. However, it does reaffirm two points -- never discuss either politics ("laws") or religion ("right" and "wrong") in mixed company. :)

The recent direction of this debate should have been seen as a non-starter -- that is, neither side of the argument is going to win and thus it's pointless to continue.

It does seem somewhat newsworthy, however, that there have been a few reports that the PyMusique utility has stopped working. Apparently you can no longer complete the purchase authorization. Can anyone else confirm this (may or may not be true)?

latergator116

Mar 20, 2005, 07:15 PM

Therein lay the problem. Most people are using the music illegally.
The record industry is right.
In your own analogy of Joe Public burning a track on his wedding video.
Guess what? when he distributes those copies to wedding guests he breaks the law.
It's illegal for him to do that. It is stealing. He pirated it.
The problem is we have become so used to stealing that we don't recognize it as such anymore. We justify it away.
Almost no one would even consider it to be wrong if they bought a cd copied it and gave it to their friends. It is wrong. It's stealing/pirating.

It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.

Doctor Q

Mar 20, 2005, 07:21 PM

matticus008

Mar 20, 2005, 07:27 PM

It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.

Oh, for crying out loud. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong. If the law is wrong in your opinion, change the law. That is the only correct approach to dealing with it, except in cases of governmental injustice. This is not one of those cases, as this causes you no personal or meaningful financial harm. Furthermore, if you are using iTunes music, and you are using iMovie/iDVD, you CAN use tracks in your videos. They import in and you can use them freely in your projects. No step in that process is doing something actively against any terms of service or fair use. If you don't want to use something that supports FairPlay DRM for your project, DON'T BUY MUSIC FROM iTUNES TO DO IT. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED BY YOUR AGREEMENT WITH APPLE AND iTUNES TO USE THE MUSIC ANY OTHER WAY.

It's really very simple. If you want to break your active agreement to follow the terms of use, why should the RIAA uphold their agreement not to infringe on fair use rights? You're breaking your agreement, so why shouldn't they? This is why it's wrong.

Applespider

Mar 20, 2005, 07:27 PM

I switch all the time on this issue. For the most part, DRM doesn't get in the way of anything I do so I think 'what the hey!'

Then I envision wanting to make a silly video and using some music with it (which I could do if I'd burned it off a CD) and not being allowed to with the iTMS stuff. And yes, I know that the CD way is illegal too but until the RIAA make a very easy way for Joe Public to be able to pay a nominal amount for a very limited distribution, not-for-sale video, people are going to do it illegally.

~loserman~

Mar 20, 2005, 07:28 PM

Applespider

Mar 20, 2005, 07:29 PM

Furthermore, if you are using iTunes music, and you are using iMovie/iDVD, you CAN use tracks in your videos. They import in and you can use them freely in your projects.

Except there have been threads where people did this and when they sent it to friends to view, their computer had to be authorised to do so.

matticus008

Mar 20, 2005, 07:33 PM

Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.

Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?

Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.

Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.

Tulse

Mar 20, 2005, 07:33 PM

If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.The artist who recorded the piece, and the writer of the piece, are being denied the monetary compensation they are legally entitled to, so yes, someone is losing out on money.

Radio stations can't play music without paying for it, and movies and TV shows can't include music without paying for it (these licensing fees are why, for example, you will never see WKRP in Cincinnati on DVD, since licensing the music would cost too much). A wedding videographer who uses someone else's music is themselves profiting from its use without compensating the creator. And that's wrong.

There are plenty of sources for royalty-free music, and there is software that will even let you create your own original pieces, that you can use however you wish. But if someone wants to use "Wind Beneath My Wings" on their wedding video, and distribute it to 250 people, then yes, they should get the permission of the song's owner, and pay them appropriately.

matticus008

Mar 20, 2005, 07:41 PM

Except there have been threads where people did this and when they sent it to friends to view, their computer had to be authorised to do so.

This can't happen on finished and exported projects of a video track and an audio track (say, an MPEG or QuickTime MOV) or on a DVD to my knowledge. Those are the forms in which work should be transmitted and shared, not the iMovie projects themselves. If the DRM does somehow kick in in these instances, then there's a flaw in it and it needs to be addressed. Thanks for raising the issue, though. I hadn't heard of this, and if it happens, it's pretty ridiculous.

latergator116

Mar 20, 2005, 07:41 PM

Oh, for crying out loud. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong. If the law is wrong in your opinion, change the law.

Hey, good point. Even it is totally unfair and unjust, it's still wrong because breaking the law is wrong. :rolleyes:

strale

Mar 20, 2005, 08:00 PM

Music is too expensive, and the music industry doesn't do anything to fill the needs of the consumer - a aac file doesn't cost a penny to produce, unlike the CD, so why is a aac file so expensive? The music industry doesn't allow to sell mp3's - which is the format most likely to be accepted by the comsumer. At least Sony know now that mp3 is the future - their products now play mp3, unlike half a year ago. Mp3 is the most common format, my car radio plays it, my iPod (which harddrive crashed half a year ago) plays mp3, my laptop - everything, even our dvd player, plays mp3. Why in gods sake should I buy a aac file? It doesn't play on anything than the iPod ant my Powerbook. Every vendor has it's own format. I wouldn't buy a song in apples itunes music store. Sure, maybe apple would sell mp3 if the music industry would give them the rights to do so, maybe not, but who cares? I don't buy aac, I don't buy wma - mp3 is the past, and the future!

h'biki

Mar 20, 2005, 08:09 PM

space2go

Mar 20, 2005, 08:12 PM

Music is too expensive, and the music industry doesn't do anything to fill the needs of the consumer - a aac file doesn't cost a penny to produce, unlike the CD, so why is a aac file so expensive? The music industry doesn't allow to sell mp3's - which is the format most likely to be accepted by the comsumer.

Actually if i were an evil MI exectutive i'd developed (or rather have made my techs develop) DRM for mp3 and just sold it as mp3(with some explanation in tiny fontsize).
With the mp3 format it would even be simple to have some explaining sound as normal audio content and the actual "protected" content in another frame so normal players tell you why you're wrong ;).

Marketed as mp3, supported mp3 players play it and once people notice they got suckered it's too late.

Of course a generic DRM system for arbitrary content is just as easy to do but selling it piece by piece sure is the better business strategy.
Of course as no DRM system actually can work you'll never get out of business selling updates.

latergator116

Mar 20, 2005, 08:13 PM

eric_n_dfw

Mar 20, 2005, 08:19 PM

But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)

If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)

The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:

eric_n_dfw

Mar 20, 2005, 08:22 PM

Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.Not to the holder of the copyright.

eric_n_dfw

Mar 20, 2005, 08:25 PM

Hey, good point. Even it is totally unfair and unjust, it's still wrong because breaking the law is wrong. :rolleyes:What is unfair and unjust about DRM? It's your $.99, if you don't like DRM, don't bitch about it - just spend it elsewhere! :rolleyes:

~loserman~

Mar 20, 2005, 08:25 PM

Not to the holder of the copyright.

Agreed.

If these people who argue against copyright were having their creations stolen and it was affecting their living they would feel differently.

matticus008

Mar 20, 2005, 08:28 PM

Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.

I think you missed the point of that one. h'biki was saying that if someone, let's say someone well-known, like Britney Spears, got a copy of your wedding video and used it to make a music video for her latest song, that it wouldn't hurt anyone. It'd just be infringing on copyright, after all, even though it's your face and your wedding that's now on MTV without your permission.

And to your earlier comment, yes, breaking the law is wrong. If the law is unfair and unjust, you change the law. The exception to this is when the law, again, as I said and you must have skipped, causes you direct personal or meaningful financial harm. Then you might have an argument for breaking the law. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to have the law changed. The digital music situation fits into this category. If you break the law, you don't encourage the law being changed, and there is no immediacy of threat to justify your illegal actions except that it's more convenient for you and that you don't care about the law. You're the reason DRM exists in the first place.

latergator116

Mar 20, 2005, 08:30 PM

What is unfair and unjust about DRM? It's your $.99, if you don't like DRM, don't bitch about it - just spend it elsewhere! :rolleyes:

I wasn't talking about DRM or iTunes.

brap

Mar 20, 2005, 08:35 PM

I'm a little late to this party, but FWIW I don't see much of a difference between this and buying a CD (apart from its tangible nature). CDs are data discs without rights management, after all. It thus similarly boils down to the consumer's conscience.

I can't see it having any knock-on effect with regards diversity, as has been said before labels are pretty much 'locked in' to the ITMS; there's also the inconvenience of downloading another application. It removes the ease-of-use facet, effectively ruling out a large proportion of the ITMS' customer base who simply want a quick 99c. fix of the latest song by whatserface.

Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.

From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!

eric_n_dfw

Mar 20, 2005, 08:51 PM

Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.

Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?Depends on which issue you are referring to: the "music should be free" issue or the "DRM is wrong/unfair/unethical/unjust" issue.

I used to have a ton of pirated MP3's from back before even the original Napster came out. Don't know what it was that caused me to delete 'em all, probably the birth of my son and the realization that I'm now a role model. (that'll scare you sober!)

I've never really had a problem with DRM though - even the anoying serial number id's and hardware "dongles" make sense to me. Is seems to me that they are there to make piracy anoyingly difficult for the majority of users - the hard core geeks (like DVD Jon) will always find ways around them, but not most of us. I find the iTMS DRM to be quite liberal, I've never had a legitimate reason to complain about it.

eric_n_dfw

Mar 20, 2005, 09:01 PM

I wasn't talking about DRM or iTunes.Okay, but your comment was in reply to maticus' one about the opinion that "breaking the law is breaking the law". Who was, in turn, talking about iTMS and related issues. Sorry if I lost track somewhere but I assumed you were talking about the same thing.

latergator116

Mar 20, 2005, 09:11 PM

Okay, but your comment was in reply to maticus' one about the opinion that "breaking the law is breaking the law". Who was, in turn, talking about iTMS and related issues. Sorry if I lost track somewhere but I assumed you were talking about the same thing.
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of a couple burning music cd's for their wedding and handing them out (thus breaking a copyright) to their guests which I said there was nothing wrong with.

matticus008

Mar 20, 2005, 09:15 PM

I'm a little late to this party, but FWIW I don't see much of a difference between this and buying a CD (apart from its tangible nature). CDs are data discs without rights management, after all. It thus similarly boils down to the consumer's conscience.

[...]

Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.

From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!

It's more than a copyright/fair use issue. Let's step back from that for a moment and consider this. It is different from buying a CD and ripping it to your hard drive. You created an iTunes account under which you explicitly agreed to abide by the terms of said account. Ignoring the issue of whether the copyright laws are fair and whether breaking the law is morally justified, here's the thing. You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong? If you didn't accept the terms presented, then there is no reason you should have agreed to them. It nullifies your power to complain. You said, "I don't think this business model is right" in your head, but clicked "I agree to these terms and conditions" anyway. Then you decide that the terms are inconvenient for you. Now you are breaking those terms, which in addition to being illegal on two fronts (copyright law and a legal TOS contract), is breaking your word. There's no way to construe that as morally sound.

To your final point, I agree that the quality of music sold is inferior, and most who would agree don't use the iTMS anyway. I use it for the incidental track that I like and come across randomly from various artists or that sounds good in the preview. My actual collection of albums demands a higher quality, and I hope iTunes offers 320kbps or lossless in the future for the same price. Then they'd make a lot more money from me, but I know that I'm not necessarily the target demographic. It certainly won't happen if piracy keeps its current rates, though.

eric_n_dfw

Mar 20, 2005, 09:15 PM

That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of a couple burning music cd's for their wedding and handing them out (thus breaking a copyright) to their guests which I said there was nothing wrong with.I really wish it was okay. But all it takes is for one of those guests to be a busy-body radio station employee or someone otherwise with record industry contacts to send an email to the RIAA or ASCAP or someone to put your videography business in court.

beatle888

Mar 20, 2005, 09:24 PM

I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.

somewhat unwarranted? so apple should be passive, lay like a female dog and just take it in submissive glory? i think steves more of a man.

space2go

Mar 20, 2005, 09:25 PM

@eric_n_dfw

Perhaps you should read what you quote:

That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of ...
(thus breaking a copyright)
..which I said there was nothing wrong with.

legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.

matticus008

Mar 20, 2005, 09:41 PM

@eric_n_dfw

Perhaps you should read what you quote:

legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.

I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.

That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).

Tulse

Mar 20, 2005, 09:54 PM

it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD)As I understand it, the issue of using music in your wedding video has nothing to do with breaking DRM, but instead with violating copyright. Even you get the music off of a CD, it would still be illegal.

matticus008

Mar 20, 2005, 10:01 PM

As I understand it, the issue of using music in your wedding video has nothing to do with breaking DRM, but instead with violating copyright. Even you get the music off of a CD, it would still be illegal.

That was a poor example, I admit. The wedding video situation is fairly complicated, depending on whether you're selling the video (which doesn't seem to be the case) and on the manner in which the song is used. If the song is played in the background by a DJ and it winds up in your video, there's not really an issue. Putting it in in the editing process would fall under fair use for private viewing, but because it's something you're sending out, I can't say off the top of my head whether this is also fair use. You are protected under the law for making mix tapes and CDs, even if you give them away in small numbers. If you make a wedding video and send out two or three copies, I believe this is still considered private viewing. If you send out the video to more than a handful of wedding guests, then you are redistributing and have to obtain permission.

fpnc

Mar 20, 2005, 10:05 PM

I do not want to enter the "debate" about whether or not DRM and copyright laws are "good" or "bad." But for everyone who believes that the creation of this software was a good thing I would like to suggest that you put your efforts into more productive things, like starting a legal defense fund for that poor individual(s) who helped create the PyMusique software.

I'd just about be willing to bet that federal law enforcement agents will be knocking on his/her door within the next few weeks. No doubt, if Apple wants to press this issue those individuals could be charged with some violation of the DMCA or laws covering internet commerce . I suppose that they could even be charged in a civil suit for violation of the iTunes Terms Of Service agreement.

Seriously, if it is true that some of these people live in the U.S. and they've used their true identities then they could be headed for real trouble. Get their legal team ready (and, of course, I know you'll all be contributing money for their defense). :)

latergator116

Mar 20, 2005, 10:21 PM

brap

Mar 20, 2005, 10:54 PM

It's more than a copyright/fair use issue.
...
You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong?
...
<snip>
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?

Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?

Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.

Lacero

Mar 20, 2005, 10:59 PM

Apple will need to add a few extra Xserves to add DRM to the files before it uploads it to the end user. More bandwidth and processing power required to circumvent this hack. Or, iTMS would require post authentication to authorize the purchase or the user account gets suspended.

dragonsbane

Mar 20, 2005, 11:04 PM

It nullifies your power to complain. You said, "I don't think this business model is right" in your head, but clicked "I agree to these terms and conditions" anyway. Then you decide that the terms are inconvenient for you. Now you are breaking those terms, which in addition to being illegal on two fronts (copyright law and a legal TOS contract), is breaking your word. There's no way to construe that as morally sound.
Sounds to me like your world falls apart when people disagree with you. A small island you must live on when you know all options open to humans who have the same capacity to reason as you. It must feel good to know you are right. Funny how the same arguments you use have be used throughout history and have ALWAYS been seen as wrong over time. You are Midas yelling at the waves.

Personally, I would prefer to have a bunch of people like you around to check me when I think I know what is right. I am happy to let people see the world from their own vantage without the need to "correct" them. I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you. Pah! Tell us what you think and let us reason for ourselves. The fact that you agree or disagree with an individual is of no importance - except maybe to you.

the Rebel

Mar 20, 2005, 11:12 PM

Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.

But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.

Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else.

So if my morality tells me that it is right for me to kill you, then you support my choice to do so?

the Rebel

Mar 20, 2005, 11:15 PM

I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?

If you believe the original terms are morally wrong, then you should never agree to abide by them. Once you choose to agree to the terms, then you are morally bound to abide by them.

matticus008

Mar 20, 2005, 11:49 PM

I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?

Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?

Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.

Yours is a noble attempt at being pragmatic. It's very hard to be as liberal as possible and still maintain order :). You're right, people will use the software. It will allow them to play music on devices that don't support FairPlay or the AAC file format without them having to take extra steps to do everything in a compliant manner. It's a pain to have to buy a song, download it, burn it to a CD from iTunes, and reimport it. But each of those steps are allowed by iTunes TOS, whereas this software is specifically not allowed. They probably don't want to put iTunes music on P2P services, since they paid for it. But if Apple allows this software to go on, then it just takes one person to buy the song and redistribute it. At least the current system requires you to take ten minutes of your time and a CD to pirate from iTunes. It's not that big of a roadblock, and for the very small market you suggest, wanting just for their music to work on their other players, it's a small price to ask to prevent sales-damaging (as opposed to personal use only) piracy.

If you believe the terms and conditions to be morally wrong as they were presented to you, you should not have accepted them, so it's still not right to violate them. You weren't forced into accepting them. You chose to, and you chose them knowing the limitations. There's no cause for illegal action. Of course I don't mean "you" as in you particularly, but in the general sense for this post.

matticus008

Mar 21, 2005, 12:01 AM

Sounds to me like your world falls apart when people disagree with you. A small island you must live on when you know all options open to humans who have the same capacity to reason as you. It must feel good to know you are right. Funny how the same arguments you use have be used throughout history and have ALWAYS been seen as wrong over time. You are Midas yelling at the waves.

Personally, I would prefer to have a bunch of people like you around to check me when I think I know what is right. I am happy to let people see the world from their own vantage without the need to "correct" them. I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you. Pah! Tell us what you think and let us reason for ourselves. The fact that you agree or disagree with an individual is of no importance - except maybe to you.

My world holds together quite well when people disagree, actually. Better than yours must, especially since history has proven my argument and disproven your morally relativistic approach. That society exists is a testament to you being wrong.

I'm not here to impose what I think is right. I think that all electronic music-playing devices should support all of the DRM models so that regardless of where I get my music legally, I can use it. I don't like that I can have an mp3 player that can't play the music I buy on iTunes, but I've already written the companies involved, as well as my Senator and state and national level Congressmen. I've worked with people who make the decisions about law to bring this issue to their attention. That's not the point here. No one is stopping you from reasoning or thinking, even though it's clear you have chosen not to do so. But that's your right. It's not that I disagree, it's that the law disagrees. Independent of that, on a fundamental, moral level, breaking your word (wrt the iTunes TOS) cannot be morally justified. Don't give your consent and agreement if you don't intend to uphold it. Where is your moral compass now? If you don't value your word and don't care about breaking the law and you want to break DRM or pirate music, go ahead. But don't come here and say that it's right to do it, because it's simply not. There are legal ways to address your concerns, and you are not using them. There's no excuse.

EDIT: missed this little gem earlier...
I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you.
I would encourage my children to question and think and come to their own conclusions, just as I encourage students to do in my volunteer work. I'd expect them to stand up for what they believe in, and if they find an injustice, they should do what they can to stop it. That said, if they break the law in doing so, they must also know that there are consequences for that and accept them.

But what you are proposing is not questioning, it's self-serving rationalization. I'm not proposing that anyone roll over and agree with me, because I don't need anyone to agree with me. The law isn't something to agree with or disagree with, there's no room for debate. I expect people to question the law and hold their government accountable, and to act for change when appropriate. That is separate from deciding that the law isn't a good one and just not following it, based on your judgment. It doesn't free you from the consequences. If someone decides that the law that says you stop when the light is red is a bad law and just keeps going, what they just did is wrong, whether or not they get caught or prosecuted. If you do get pulled over, your personal idea that the law is stupid is not going to get you off the hook and you are very much responsible for paying the fines/doing the time.

fpnc

Mar 21, 2005, 12:36 AM

I doubt Apple would waste their time and go after and sue the people who used this program and broke the iTunes contract. It seems like a relatively trivial matter. (But after looking at their thinksecret lawsuit, I don't know).

My comments were about the people who wrote the software, not those that just use it. It's the PyMusique programmers that may face legal troubles, while those who merely use the software may or may not face consequences (I suspect that the worse for them might be termination of their iTunes account, in which case they won't have to worry any longer about iTunes DRM).

thejoshu

Mar 21, 2005, 02:32 AM

They owe it to us? The only people Apple owes anything to is their shareholders.

I am an Apple shareholder. I feel entitled to DRM-free products.

capvideo

Mar 21, 2005, 02:37 AM

Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.

Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.

Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.

No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.

You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.

You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.

This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.

When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.

Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.

Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.

Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.

But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.

In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.

Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.

Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.

Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.

That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?

Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.

Jerry

thejoshu

Mar 21, 2005, 02:41 AM

Bullpucky. The RIAA, and recording artists, and Apple, and any other corporate entity, owe you exactly nothing. If you don't like what they're offering, don't buy it -- it's that simple. If enough people don't buy it, then the companies will change -- that's capitalism in action.

Bullpucky -- I'm going to steal that one for future use, if that's OK - I presume it's CC licensed? I agree with your points about the way capitalism functions; of course, a good uproar always works better than sitting quietly.

And I want a pony, but neither is going to happen. In the case of music, the person(s) who actually writes and performs the music owns it (unless they sell those rights to someone else, as is often the case). What you get when you buy a CD, or download a song, or for that matter buy a paperback or a poster, is a license for certain legally defined rights. In some cases (like a Creative Commons license) you may have substantial freedom to do what you like with the material, but in most cases, your rights are constrained. That's the way it's always been, and this is nothing new -- copyright has been around for a long time. There isn't anything really special about the digital era with regards to the principle of copyright -- the Internet just makes it easier to violate.

Funny, I don't remember signing a EULA when I bought my last Allman Brothers CD. But I respect what you're saying: "Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws," you'll find everywhere. I care not for piracy, I care more about Apple not being my only service provider when it comes to listening to purchased tracks. But they provide a good service, and I'll continue to use it.

If only people could work up a tenth of this kind of moral indignation over things that really matter, like poverty or racism. I despair that the only thing that seems to get geeks politically active is the threat that they won't be able to use their music illegally. It's sad, really.

You don't know me. Shame on you for treating everyone with an opinion as a troll. I can spread my critiques and indignation far and wide, that I assure you. Please apologize.

matticus008

Mar 21, 2005, 03:45 AM

Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.

They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.

No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.

You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.

This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.

When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.

Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.

Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.

Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.

In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.

Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).

That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.

desdomg

Mar 21, 2005, 03:52 AM

I still say **** it and download mp3s - the music catalogue on iTMS is awful anyway. It may be "illegal" but there are lots of illegal things that most people do anyway and the world hasn't come to a stop. In the UK a few years back we had the Tory government introduce a new tax called the Poll Tax. Its introduction caused mass riots and non payment. Eventually the government had no choice but to change the law. We live in a democracy for crying out loud. The way half of you are arguing with your "its illegal" ******** sounds like we live in a corporate state. The music industry needs to be forced to introduce price competition - not force the consumer to pay rediculous prices for a song. $1 is crazy pricing. Let the market decide.

sebisworld

Mar 21, 2005, 06:23 AM

I think you guys should think about what's good for the customer, as well.

Thanks to DVD Jon, we can now watch DVD with VLC and don't have to buy a new DVD player for every different region code. Isn't that and advantage? Yes!
And thanks to him we can now buy songs of the iTMS and dow whatever we want with them. Think about it - before we had to pay for music with which we could do less than with the one we pirated. That doesn't make too much sense in my point of view.

We need something like Allofmp3 in the western world. Something that actually has an advantage over downloading the albums of P2P (something that can beat no DRM and high P2P bit rates)

latergator116

Mar 21, 2005, 07:44 AM

My comments were about the people who wrote the software, not those that just use it. It's the PyMusique programmers that may face legal troubles, while those who merely use the software may or may not face consequences (I suspect that the worse for them might be termination of their iTunes account, in which case they won't have to worry any longer about iTunes DRM).
Thanks for clearing that up, but I still don't undertsand why the creator(s) of PhMusique sohuld face legal charges. What have they done illegaly?

eric_n_dfw

Mar 21, 2005, 08:05 AM

I am an Apple shareholder. I feel entitled to DRM-free products.Good for you, I am too. But as someone else here said, "I want a pony!"

Present your opinion at the next shareholder's meeting. Presuming you own enough shares to bend their ear, they might listen. If not, then vote down Jobs and/or the board (again, owning a bunch of shares is helpful here.)

Remember though, what Apple owes us is return on investment. The only logical reason to buy shares in a company is that you either want to earn profits from it or you intend to buy it out (and earn profits from that). Ask yourself this: does Apple removing DRM from iTMS tracks make financial sense? Before answering, consider that Jobs said (the day the iTMS openned) that the FairPlay DRM was the best balance they could strike with all of the record labels. I'm sure any change in DRM would require ratification of the contracts with those record companies. Fat chance. (The only way I could see this happenning would be if un-DRM'ed tracks cost $5 or something - but even then, I doubt it)

The other reason to buy stock is because you like the company and want to support it. This is less of a logical reason, though, and falls under emotion. Not that there's anything wrong with that (it's probably part of my decision to own AAPL).

eric_n_dfw

Mar 21, 2005, 08:14 AM

I disagree with the comment put forth that the programmers are the ones that are breaking the law and the users aren't. Actually, it's the users who are.

Although, I'd asume the programmers also are users, so they too broke contract when they used it.

There might be something illegal about it's distribution, but I don't know enough about the law there.

dragonsbane

Mar 21, 2005, 09:06 AM

My world holds together quite well when people disagree, actually. Better than yours must, especially since history has proven my argument and disproven your morally relativistic approach. That society exists is a testament to you being wrong.
Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.

Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.

Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.

Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?