PlayFair - Stripping AAC DRM

[MacRumors]

Source code for an application called Playfair (http://playfair.sourceforge.net/) has been released.

The application takes protected AACs from the iTunes Music Store and decrypts them into unprotected AACs. From the site:

It takes one of the iTMS Protected AAC Audio Files, decodes it using a key obtained from your iPod or Microsoft Windows system and then writes the new, decoded version to disk as a regular AAC Audio File. It then optionally copies the metadata tags that describe the song, including the cover art, to the new file.

According to reader feedback, the application does work as described, allowing owners of purchased songs to convert their Protected AACs into UnProtected AACs. Due to the key-based system, users are not able to decode protected AACs from other individuals.

The application is presently only available as source code and requires compilation.

[AmigoMac]

Source code for an application called Playfair (http://playfair.sourceforge.net/) has been released.

The application takes protected AACs from the iTunes Music Store and decrypts them into unprotected AACs. From the site:



According to reader feedback, the application does work as described, allowing owners of purchased songs to convert their Protected AACs into UnProtected AACs. Due to the key-based system, users are not able to decode protected AACs from other individuals.

The application is presently only available as source code and requires compilation.



It will damage iTMS business and Europe release... ***** with this!... :mad:

[Analog Kid]

It will damage iTMS business and Europe release... ***** with this!... :mad:
Nice little tool that saves you from burning to disk and then re-ripping, but I'm sure it's not going to make Apple or the RIAA happy...

I'm guessing first comes the DMCA lawsuit and then changes to the iTMS structure. More than likely this is going to result in more restrictive DRM in the long run...

I respect the philosophy behind the app, and really don't think you can stop stuff like this from being written, but this certainly is going to add strength to WMA (until it's also cracked).

[Frisco]

Was only a matter of time. Very sad though :(

Hopefully Apple can quickly fix this vulnerability or it will hurt the online music stores.

You try and give people the option of a legal place to download music and some people just have to find a way to bring dishonesty into the mix.

Bill now I know why Longhorn is delayed--this took up some of your resources huh?

[Mac-Xpert]

I think (if possible) Apple should sue the distributor of this source code. Or can this only be done if it is distributed as a working program, rather than just the source code?

This might also delay the European introduction of the iTunes Music Store. :(

[Sabbath]

This got me thinking about the motivation for obtaining unprotected files from your own purchased protected files. It is clearly a different motivation to downloading songs illegally.

The most obvious reason is to allow you to play your files somewhere you currently cannot, maybe on a portable player other than the iPod or on more of your computers than you are allowed, on a linux box or to share across your network. None of these strike me as a particularly wrong, obviously you are not meeting the restrictions of the sale but you are not doing anyting you couldn't do with a cd, except maybe playing on several devices at once.

There clearly could be a other reasons, such as wishing to share the music with friends or over p2p networks. This obviously goes against the principle of iTMS and will be damaging to the service. However until CDs are properly protected against this form of copying will it really cause any additional harm to the industry?

I wonder if this will have any effect on the role out of iTMS here in Europe, I guess it comes down to a trade off is it better for the record companies to sell more music this way and have some copied or not to sell it digitally? Personally I don't see iTMS being here in Europe for a while. Clearly UK music stores are up and running, so Apple must be making the store Europe wide (to some degree) the problem is then the licensing which will mean a lot of problems to iron out.

[foniks2020]

As noted on the web site, this tool only allows you to decode your own files. Fair Use, nothing more.

People will still download and pay to do so.

Individuals may share their decoded files via P2P.

If an individual shares copyrighted files they can apparently be prosecuted.

Let the courts decide whether sharing is legal or not, this is not a sharing tool. This tool is legit and legal.

No contest.

[Oirectine]

I just downloaded it and checked out the readme and install files. They don't mention any platform-specific instructions, so it looks like it'll work for OS X. Well, time to compile and find out :)

Edit: It looks like you can't use it on OS X, at least not without an iPod. Maybe it does, but I can't find any documentation online, and there's no MAN page installed. Ah well.

[BornAgainMac]

If it is used for personal use only, I see no problem with it. But if it is used to share music then it's stealing. I hope people would just pay the 99 cents per song or at least rent music thru a subscription. That is fair.

[B!nej]

This is just one of the fundamental (unsolvable) problems in computer science showing it's head again - If You Can Read The Data You Can Copy The Data. That's just the way it is - no ifs, no buts. All systems like Fairplay do is make it slightly more of a pain in the ass to do so.

Trying to make this sort of thing impossible is like trying to ban gravity. It tends to keep happening no matter what you do because it's a fundamental law.

[ssnmx]

Man, this sucks...

Aren't you "allowed" already to share WMA in p2p apps?
I mean, it can be done, right?
How come nobody complains about that?

All of the bad publicity Apple is gonna get now! :mad:
DAMN!

[Trekkie]

Well, it was only a matter of time. I wondered how long it would take the windows folks to figure out a way to decode the encryption. If you note everywhere on it says stuff about how you need Windows to do this.

The 3 - 5% of population that uses Apples aren't idiots either, but for some reason you don't see them figuring out how to crack iTunes MS DRM do you? Interesting.

I think it just reflects the current thoughts of the population at large. If you don't physically take an item, you're not stealing. A whole generation of kids is being brought up this way.

Right now the key is the one you bought with, but how long until you see keys being traded/zipped up with the songs?

[kirk26]

About time!

[173080]

I'm going to try that out.

I've bought music from iTMS and it really bothers me that I cant play those songs on my Linux System. I dont want to go through the hassle of burning to a CD and then ripping again.

I see no problem with this program. You're unprotecting your own songs for your own use. Even though you might want to use them on more systems than allowed, what does Apple expect you to do? Buy several copies of the same song? That would be idiotic.
You've already paid for the song, you should be able to listen to it when you want to, where you want to.

[eddyg]

As noted on the web site, this tool only allows you to decode your own files. Fair Use, nothing more.

People will still download and pay to do so.

Individuals may share their decoded files via P2P.

If an individual shares copyrighted files they can apparently be prosecuted.

Let the courts decide whether sharing is legal or not, this is not a sharing tool. This tool is legit and legal.

No contest.

Agreed, this is no different from ripping a CD, as a CD you had to physically posess the CD (Rights Management of a sort, I was forced to cart the physical media around with me) ripping broke that. Mind you, now that CDs can no longer be reliably ripped I don't buy them any more (I was burnt a couple of times with ******** EMI and their unlabled CDalikes that won't play in computer or car CD players, I only listen to music from the computer or iPod now, and can't wait for an Apple Hi-Fi component to complete the set).

I don't see a problem other than the perceived possible affect by the RIAA - oh no, pure digital copies of compressed lossy songs! ;)

Given that it's distributed as source it is beyond 99% of people to figure out how to compile and use, I don't see it as having a large actual affect.

Now what I'd like to see is WMA also broken, just to level things out a bit :)

And on a final note, get iTunes out in Aus & NZ please.. I want to spend lots and lots of money buying music, it's been such a long time.

Cheers, Edward.

[animefan_1]

The iTunes 'Terms of Sale'...

CONTENT USAGE RULES

"You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules."

http://www.info.apple.com/usen/itunes/policies.html

[gekko513]

I think it just reflects the current thoughts of the population at large. If you don't physically take an item, you're not stealing. A whole generation of kids is being brought up this way.
I know, it's frustrating. If I try to suggest that piracy of software or music is stealing, I just get a strange look and comments that suggests I'm crazy or something.

[eddyg]

And jaywalking also breaks the rules, but is a reasonable and safe thing to do at times.

The iTunes 'Terms of Sale'...

CONTENT USAGE RULES

"You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules."

http://www.info.apple.com/usen/itunes/policies.html

[wrldwzrd89]

Why has this and QTFairUse been released only for Windows? I don't quite understand why the developers can't or won't make a Mac version. I have no use for it, since I don't use the ITMS (or Windows). I don't like either of these applications anyway, since I think they'll hurt Apple. By the way, the name appears to be a pun on FairPlay, the name of Apple's DRM system; I found that slightly funny.

[manu chao]

Is there any difference between buying a CD, ripping it and putting the files on a P2P network and buying a song, stripping the DRM and putting it on a P2P network?

No, there isn't, only ripping a CD is still easier.

The music industry wants to prevent that we put a file out for sharing, which is a completely legitimate aim, as long as they do not make it too much of a hassle for us to use the song for legitimate purposes.

So they invented the DRM (which in case of the iTMS implementation seems to be a reasonable compromise), copy-protected CDs, and so on. Copy-protected CDs could be a real nuisance, preventing users from ripping their CDs and putting them on their iPods, but fortunately, Macs in general are not affected by it (I've ripped lots of copy-protected CDs on my Powerbook without a any problems).

As long as stripping the DRM is not easier than ripping a CD (which could not be easier, just but a CD in your drive and wait a few minutes) nothing changes fundamentally.

[wrldwzrd89]

Copy-protected CDs could be a real nuisance, preventing users from ripping their CDs and putting them on their iPods, but fortunately, Macs in general are not affected by it (I've ripped lots of copy-protected CDs on my Powerbook without a any problems).
Copy-protected CDs are a lost cause for this very reason. They will never have the desired effect because they aren't really CDs and the copy protection does not work consistently across platforms (which is nearly impossible to do). The music industry needs to abandon the idea of copy-protected CDs and also rethink their entire distribution system, otherwise these kinds of things will continue to occur (and the music industry won't be able to stop it).

[Bear]

...
I respect the philosophy behind the app, and really don't think you can stop stuff like this from being written, but this certainly is going to add strength to WMA (until it's also cracked).I presume you mean WMA rights/usage control. Well, this was cracked a while back. And I suspect every time Microsoft changes it, the new version gets broken rather quickly.

[Bear]

The iTunes 'Terms of Sale'...

CONTENT USAGE RULES

"You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules."

http://www.info.apple.com/usen/itunes/policies.htmlSince you can definatly back up and restore protected AACs, and you can play it on multiple compuyters and multiple MP3 players, and you can burn it onto CD-Rs, the need for cracking the protection on the AAC files seems not really needed for fair use.

Come to think of it, you could also record it to audio tape usimg line out on a computer.

[Azmordean]

Since you can definatly back up and restore protected AACs, and you can play it on multiple compuyters and multiple MP3 players, and you can burn it onto CD-Rs, the need for cracking the protection on the AAC files seems not really needed for fair use.

Come to think of it, you could also record it to audio tape usimg line out on a computer.

It comes down to this. It is impossible to play iTMS songs on a Linux computer. Many potential mac users use (or will use) some combination of Macs and Linux PCs. You should be able to play songs on 3 computers, yet, you can't use them on Linux at all. And yes, I know you can burn and re-rip but that results in fairly significant quality loss. Until Apple releases a player thant can play iTMS files in Linux, you will continue to see this (and you'll see it even if they do release such a player, but not with the fervor or frequency).

[bathysphere]

so how would someone compile this? apparently it works in osx 10.3.3, according to one of the bug reports (mentions the app not correctly copying the album art to the finished file, in 10.3.3). i would like to try this, anyone lend help? or point me to help?

[ankit]

This is great news. Maybe I'll finally buy something from itms now...

[wordmunger]

you can play it on multiple compuyters and multiple MP3 players
Well, technically I guess you can play it on the iPod and the iPod mini, so in that sense you can play it on multiple MP3 players. However, you can't burn MP3 CDs, you can't play it on any other media players, even those that support AAC, and you can't play it on any of the wireless networkable stereo thingies (I'm drawing a blank here--you know, the players that allow you to play your iTunes playlist on a stereo). To me this last one is the key. I'd use ITMS a lot more if there was an easy way for my stereo to access my iTunes DRMed AACs. Sounds like this software would do it. Unfortunately it's probably illegal.

[bathysphere]

This is great news. Maybe I'll finally buy something from itms now...

agreed...
i've bought a couple of albums from the itms, primarily albums i wanted but didn't want enough to pay an extra 3 to 5 dollars for. the 'fair' in fairplay and drm are mutually exclusive concepts. while it may not be fair to illegally trade music over kazaa or whatever, it's also not fair that the consumer can't do what they wish with their music. it's really as simple as 'two wrongs don't make a right'.

[eSnow]

As I am listening to music which is played by my old Wallstreet connected to the stereo mostly, and I am too cheap to upgrade it with a 30GB HD, I am iTunes-sharing the files from my Linux box over the LAN. Since iTunes does not run on Linux, I use mt-daapd, which of course cannot stream DRM'ed material.

So, this is actually great news for me. Should Apple at one point in the future decide to deploy iTMS/Europe (unlikely, I know), I would actually consider buying music there - which I would not if FairPlay could not be decrypted.

OTOH, it probably still is illegal material if I decrypt it, as you are not allowed to break DRM, right? Then, I can as well continue buying CDs or turn to P2P - after all, illegal is illegal.

[pcharles]

[QUOTE=foniks2020]As noted on the web site, this tool only allows you to decode your own files. Fair Use, nothing more.

I can understand claims that families where every kid has their own computer might want more distributable music than Fairplay offers, but if you believe this is why the software was developed then you are a fool. There is only one reason to remove the file protection; copyright infringement, and that is how the recording industry will see this.

Fair use is determined by the fairplay system within the file. When you buy that track (or album), you agree to the terms laid down by Apple and agreed on by the record companies. By breaking (or removing) the encryption, you are in breach of contract.

Whether this has any impact on iTMS is another question. Apple is doing their best and iTMS is the best chance artists have to distribute their music, but I am sure something will come of it.

Posting the code is an interesting move though. It suggests they are asking Apple to fix this loophole in the Fairplay system.

[eSnow]

At least one good will come out if it (for Apple, not the MI):
the appearance of cracked AACs on P2P will boost the adoption of the (nonprotected) format and make it harder for WMA and mp3.

[xparrot]

Seems I'm the only non-Terminal savvy person here. How do I install/run this thing?

I have a ton of music I paid for through the iTunes music store. I also have a Tivo with the home media option. I can play all my imported music except for the downloaded. Currently there is no way to "authorize" my Tivo.

If you respond, please do so in very basic terms. The Terminal scares the heck out of me.

-Kirk

[billyboy]

Not wishing to state the obvious, but surely Apple must know how to break the fairplay DRM. They must also know that one day, someone else would inevitably break it. They must have had a good answer for the record industry who must have put the "what happens when DRM is cracked" question to them.

Any ideas?

[SiliconAddict]

I really have mixed feeling on this app. Obviously its ultimate use is to give users more freedom with their music but it’s a foregone conclusion that people will use it to rip iTMS tracks and share them on P2P clients further irking off the already over paranoid RIAA and further stalling more songs from being released to music stores for distribution. Now we know why the RIAA and most music companies have been dragging their heels. They wanted a shakeout of this DRM system and now we know that its as vulnerable as any other. But can anyone really be surprised by this outcome?

I have to admit that I will most likely use this app once a simple program executable is compiled for windows. I will simply because I abhor the 3 system rule. I have 2 laptops, a desktop at home, a primary workstation at work, and a desktop setup in our server room so I can listen to MP3's when I working on a server. This is obviously more then 3 computers and its irked me that I've had to limit myself to a laptop at home, my desktop at home, and my workstation at work. With this app it becomes a moot point. Personally I wish Apple would up the limit to 6. It’s a solid number and one in which the average person isn't likely to go over. Heck I would be happy with 4 but 3 seems a bit too restrictive. Beyond that, AAC support does exist in other applications but there is no way to get around the fairplay DRM consequently some of the cooler things I can do with my music like copy it up to my PDA can't be done with iTMS songs. With this I can actually listen to a small handful of songs on my PDA.

As for further restricting rights. I don't see what good that would do. Lets say Apple removed the streaming feature and decreased the number of computers down to 1. How would this have stopped this app? If nothing else Apple will probably work on tightening what you can do with the music after your system is authenticated so in that regards yah they probably will tighten things down but overall rights? I don't think that will change. What the idiots at the RIAA need to wrap their collective minds around the fact that there will never be a 100% sure fire method of locking down DRM. someone somewhere WILL find a way. And I will bet that this project was born of a Linux user. They have been forsaken by Apple in all of this just like DVD playback was and you saw where that went. What I'm going to be interested in seeing is if this effects sales at all. If not that the RIAA needs to shut the hell up and get to work prodding the remaining artists/music labels to release more of their songs to iTMS, Music Match, Napster, etc. Get this crap out there for us to buy dang it!

[Paranoir]

Looks like some of source forge's mirror's have removed the file.. I was able to get it - but only one one of the eastern european mirrors - all the others were broken.

This is a flagarant violation of the DMCA - even if you don't agree with the law you can't argue that it's in violation. I see this going underground rather quickly.

[eSnow]

Not wishing to state the obvious, but surely Apple must know how to break the fairplay DRM. They must also know that one day, someone else would inevitably break it. They must have had a good answer for the record industry who must have put the "what happens when DRM is cracked" question to them.

1) AAC/Fairplay is protected by a DRM system, so in the US, the DMCA applies, in Europe exists a similar law.

2) Therefore, distributing this as binary (executable code = as an application) is very likely ilegal.

3) This will prevent n00bs from easily cracking their AACs, reducing the audience by 90% or so and facilitates hunting down the more educated.

4) CSS encryption of DVDs was broken a long time ago and the things are selling like mad.

In the end, it will not work, though. As long as the computer is an open platform, information will be free in some way or other. Only after the arrivals of "trusted computing platforms" will this change. And, of course, on cell-phones which are closed platforms.

[SiliconAddict]

Not wishing to state the obvious, but surely Apple must know how to break the fairplay DRM. They must also know that one day, someone else would inevitably break it. They must have had a good answer for the record industry who must have put the "what happens when DRM is cracked" question to them.

Any ideas?


Yah... **** happens.
They have the source of the software that cracked the DRM. They will patch the hole and move on. I will use a MS Windows excuse for iTunes. If WMA was as popular and as prevalent as iTMS you would see a crack for that software as well. This kind of thing happens.

[dloomer]

I agree that Apple will not be completely happy about this (although as people have pointed out, Apple was aware of the burn-then-rip workaround since before iTMS rolled out -- so they might only be moderately ticked off).

I do not agree that there will be any noticeable impact on iTMS sales.

Anyway, for my own personal reasons I'm pretty happy about this. The one thing that has stopped me from buying a HomePod or EyeHome system for my house is the inability of any third-party music player to play protected AAC. I figured I was patient enough that I could just wait for Apple to release their rumored set-top box (which they WILL release in the next year or so, they just have to). I'd still much prefer to have an Apple-branded box, but not knowing how long I'd have to wait for one, this announcement might tip the scales in HomePod's favor for me.

[pishnaris]

The file is no longer on the mirrors. Apple moves quickly, eh?

[gemio17]

the only reason I buy cds at all is to put them in my iTunes library and then I never even open the cd again-so along these lines, what's the difference between me giving a cd I purchased from an overpriced record store to a bunch of people to rip and me making a cd or dvd of my itms purchased music for others to look through and rip? I bought it, I can do what I want with it. Resale of used cds isn't illegal so what's the problem?

I see absolutely no problem with this software and may I recommend Podworks as another great tool for sharing music between iPods-Hey it just eliminates the time that I would spend going through and ripping other people's cds, and to tell you the truth, a lot of the music that I get from other iPods is not stuff I would buy anyway. I would wait and go through their cd collection and take the stuff I want to rip. I can't imagine why people seriously have a problem with this.

[jxyama]

well, i have mixed emotions about this also...

this basically shows that any attempt to limit any aspect of musical data files will be broken - no matter how reasonable or miniscule the restrictions are. i find it disappointing, so to speak, that even with very liberal restrictions iTMS offers, some needs to break them...

so the hope is that RIAA will realize that this is inevitable and try to forget about it... and offer all music without any restrictions and pray that "average" consumers are honest, would walk away from illegal sharing if CD or near-CD quality music is offered online and (most importantly) pay $$$ for them...

of course, "average" consumers won't know much about this kind of DRM stripping app anyway...

[psurrena]

How can anyone view anything that you have to use terminal for as a threat? figuring %99.9 of OSX users don't touch terminal...This is a good app - checks and balances.

[padrino121]

Man, this sucks...

Aren't you "allowed" already to share WMA in p2p apps?
I mean, it can be done, right?
How come nobody complains about that?

All of the bad publicity Apple is gonna get now! :mad:
DAMN!

You can post unprotected WMA songs on a p2p network just like you can post unprotected AAC files, or any non-DRM content. What's your point?

[Trowaman]

It comes down to this. It is impossible to play iTMS songs on a Linux computer. Many potential mac users use (or will use) some combination of Macs and Linux PCs. You should be able to play songs on 3 computers, yet, you can't use them on Linux at all. And yes, I know you can burn and re-rip but that results in fairly significant quality loss. Until Apple releases a player thant can play iTMS files in Linux, you will continue to see this (and you'll see it even if they do release such a player, but not with the fervor or frequency).

Well, I'm against this new app, but you sir are the only person I've seen so far to name why this new app is a good thing and say why. This would solve the linux issue and I could see people using it for that purpose but I say more people using this program for "evil" rather than "good."

Maybe if peole filled out a paper on why they were to download the app before they did, then some moderators went over it and judged whether their reason was legitamate and let them download accordingly then this would be great. :rolleyes:

If only the world were a horrible place . . .

[jxyama]

the only reason I buy cds at all is to put them in my iTunes library and then I never even open the cd again-so along these lines, what's the difference between me giving a cd I purchased from an overpriced record store to a bunch of people to rip and me making a cd or dvd of my itms purchased music for others to look through and rip? I bought it, I can do what I want with it. Resale of used cds isn't illegal so what's the problem?

the difference is, you have finite number of friends on the order of hundreds at most, i assume. and physical CD can only be at one place at once.

online, there's no limit to how many "friends" you can reach, there's no lost time in transporting the file, you don't run the risk of losing the file and the file can be shared by many at once.

let's not kid ourselves, there are differences. and they can cause different problems.

[jxyama]

Well, I'm against this new app, but you sir are the only person I've seen so far to name why this new app is a good thing and say why. This would solve the linux issue and I could see people using it for that purpose but I say more people using this program for "evil" rather than "good."

Maybe if peole filled out a paper on why they were to download the app before they did, then some moderators went over it and judged whether their reason was legitamate and let them download accordingly then this would be great. :rolleyes:

If only the world were a horrible place . . .

i agree with most of your points...

and to be able to play iTMS music on linux... well, how about if you are "knowledgeable" enough to use linux and want to play iTMS music on it, why not write your own code to strip DRM? is it "necessary" to distribute the code to the public so others can use them - and let's be real - most will use for illegal purposes...

just a thought. i understand why you'd release it to the public - i just hope something like this won't make apple/RIAA to change policies in ways that will inconvenience 99% of users for the "right" of the 1%.

[wordmunger]

why not write your own code to strip DRM? is it "necessary" to distribute the code to the public so others can use them - and let's be real - most will use for illegal purposes...

It's illegal to write such software even for personal use. I believe there are exceptions for educational use, but that's it. Even educators are forbidden from distributing encryption-breaking software they write to fellow educators.

[tny]

so how would someone compile this? apparently it works in osx 10.3.3, according to one of the bug reports (mentions the app not correctly copying the album art to the finished file, in 10.3.3). i would like to try this, anyone lend help? or point me to help?

I imagine the reason the app was only released as source code was precisely to make the point that the demonstration is for proof-of-concept only, and not to provide an actual *tool* for distribution that is in violation of the iTunes terms of service. In other words, if you don't know how to compile it, you aren't in the intended audience.

[eric_n_dfw]

Keep trying those mirrors - I just got it from a US one :)

I'd have no use for this except for the fact that Apple's brain dead scheme of de-authorizing a computer is silly. I've had to ask have them re-set my authorized list twice now due to my company re-imaging my Windows machine or some other Windows/iTunes flakyness causing my two Win2000 machines to forget they were authorized. (You must deauthorize a computer, from the authorized computer - thus, if iTunes thinks it's not authorized, it won't de-authorize itself :rolleyes: )

[billyboy]

the difference is, you have finite number of friends on the order of hundreds at most, i assume. and physical CD can only be at one place at once.

online, there's no limit to how many "friends" you can reach, there's no lost time in transporting the file, you don't run the risk of losing the file and the file can be shared by many at once.

let's not kid ourselves, there are differences. and they can cause different problems.

Surely every single track on iTMS is available on P2P now and was available when it was launched. The sales have still been 50 million plus with restrictions.

Perhaps if it becomes "easy" to circumvent the DRM, more people with a gripe against any limits on purchased music will actually buy more than ever from the iTMS, which at the bottom line is a legal and very convenient source of music.

[jesuscandle]

This is just one of the fundamental (unsolvable) problems in computer science showing it's head again - If You Can Read The Data You Can Copy The Data. That's just the way it is - no ifs, no buts. All systems like Fairplay do is make it slightly more of a pain in the ass to do so.

Trying to make this sort of thing impossible is like trying to ban gravity. It tends to keep happening no matter what you do because it's a fundamental law.

Absolutely. I think Steve has said it best when he makes his argument that you're never going to sue people out of wanting something for nothing. You have to compete with Kazaa if you want to beat it.

I'm a music fanatic and I use all sorts of methods to get what I want. For obscure import indie stuff, I buy a CD from my local record store. For more mainstream stuff I know I want, I buy it from itunes. For stuff I've heard is good, but don't really know anything about, I find it on acquisition. For stuff that's magically available at the time I look, I use bittorrent.

The fact is that itunes is probably a better experience for *digital* music than all of them. That they're ID3 tags are standard and right everytime is a huge plus in their favor. Obviously, buying a physical CD is great for some purposes, but for importing to my itunes library, it's still a little flaky.

itunes is quick, easy, reliable, and inexpensive. Compared to slow, complicated, flaky, and free (except for my not insignificant time). That's still a battle itunes can win.

That's why these software programs (download and compile the source? Right.) still face an uphill battle.

[DVW86]

This isn't the first application that could decrypt protected AAC files. QTConvert will do it and it is OS X native. It will convert them to AIFF and from there you can use iTunes to go to MP3 or back to AAC. It will only allow you to decode songs that you have rights to. So it is no different than burning a protected AAC to CD. I use it because my MP3 player does not support AAC.
http://www.pyehouse.com/lynn/qtconvert.php

[shen]

this will ruin iTunes! oh dear! never been done before!

WTF guys, i have 2 apps that do this already, though they go to aif which i have to convert by hand. and you could always burn and rip before those. and audio hijack didn't work, right? get over it already......

if this does cause changes it will only be because everyone loudly complains and the tech peasants at the RIAA hear about it. shut up already.

[SiliconAddict]

This is a flagarant violation of the DMCA - even if you don't agree with the law you can't argue that it's in violation. I see this going underground rather quickly.


And we now are thinly treading a very touchy subject so lets stay cool folks.


If the law permitted beating a person senseless for spitting on the sidewalk we should follow it to the letter? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't automatically mean you should follow it. Change is done through protest and sometimes-outright rebellion of the status quo. How about prohibition? It was, among a long checklist of reasons, the massive and flagrant violation of that law that really made the government reconsider. It’s the people that decide what is deemed right and wrong not a bunch of over paid execs who have the ear of certain senators who have introduced such wonderful bills as allowing the RIAA to attack P2P networks and block copyright material. Or how about hacking into your computer? Theft is theft but handcuffing the user in terms of what rights they have with the songs that they has purchased is a high yield load of BS.

[123]

and to be able to play iTMS music on linux... well, how about if you are "knowledgeable" enough to use linux and want to play iTMS music on it, why not write your own code to strip DRM?
Because not everyone has the time to do this?

and let's be real - most will use for illegal purposes...
Most PC/Mac sharers either don't know how to compile the app, don't buy their music anyway or won't bother to compile the app only to be able to share 10'010 files instead of 10'000. Linux users, on the other hand, know how to compile it and also have good use for it.

just a thought. i understand why you'd release it to the public - i just hope something like this won't make apple/RIAA to change policies in ways that will inconvenience 99% of users for the "right" of the 1%.
This is already the case now.

Apple's to blame for this. They ignore Linux, they ignore other media players, home entertainment systems etc. If their files were supported on most/all platforms, nobody would really need this app and I doubt it would have been developed in the first place. It seems they'll never learn, though.

[iJed]

It really bugs me that some people here think that copying music is stealing. I agree that it is mostly wrong (unless the CD version has some kind of stupid copy protection -- which should itself be illegal) but copying music is not and can never be stealing. Since the definition of "steal" is "take without the owner's consent," there are obvious problems with calling this "stealing". You are, rather obviously, not taking the item without the owners consent since the owner is not losing anything. In fact most "owners" who share these files give full consent to copying them.

[jxyama]

Apple's to blame for this. They ignore Linux, they ignore other media players, home entertainment systems etc. If their files were supported on most/all platforms, nobody would really need this app and I doubt it would have been developed in the first place. It seems they'll never learn, though.

your other points are fine, but why is it the responsibility of apple to support linux, other media players or home entertainment systems? show me the motivation for apple to support platforms and hardware/software they derive no profits from.

does M$/Xbox ignore PS2 and gamecube? does nintendo ignore N-gage? :rolleyes:

[jxyama]

It really bugs me that some people here think that copying music is stealing. I agree that it is mostly wrong (unless the CD version has some kind of stupid copy protection -- which should itself be illegal) but copying music is not and can never be stealing. Since the definition of "steal" is "take without the owner's consent," there are obvious problems with calling this "stealing". You are, rather obviously, not taking the item without the owners consent since the owner is not losing anything. In fact most "owners" who share these files give full consent to copying them.

not this again, it's mostly semantics. it's easier to type "stealing" than "copyright infringement" in all the posts and most of the points still stands. it's not "stealing" for us, perhaps, but for copyright holders, it is "stealing" because things are being distributed without their consent. finally, when you buy a CD, you don't "own" the music either. you own the right to play those music - music labels still own the music.

it also bugs me when this point is raised in every one of these topics, as if it makes a huge difference in the illegality of music sharing. ok, it's not "stealing." so what?

BTW: the word "stealing" was used in one post (and one reply to that post) this entire thread in the way that you think is "wrong." ;)

[TRiPod]

gee i'm glad to see rumor sites publicizing this... next it'll be on cnn and this will turn into the whole ipod battery rumor thing. stupid macrumors. :mad:

[Veldek]

the difference is, you have finite number of friends on the order of hundreds at most, i assume. and physical CD can only be at one place at once.

online, there's no limit to how many "friends" you can reach, there's no lost time in transporting the file, you don't run the risk of losing the file and the file can be shared by many at once.

let's not kid ourselves, there are differences. and they can cause different problems.

I think he’s somehow right but what he forgets is, that giving his CDs to friends to rip them is illegal, too.

[jxyama]

I think he’s somehow right but what he forgets is, that giving his CDs to friends to rip them is illegal, too.

of course... i didn't say it was legal.

i was just responding to the post claiming that there's no difference between lending CDs for others to rip and offering music files on p2p.

[Veldek]

It really bugs me that some people here think that copying music is stealing. I agree that it is mostly wrong (unless the CD version has some kind of stupid copy protection -- which should itself be illegal) but copying music is not and can never be stealing. Since the definition of "steal" is "take without the owner's consent," there are obvious problems with calling this "stealing". You are, rather obviously, not taking the item without the owners consent since the owner is not losing anything. In fact most "owners" who share these files give full consent to copying them.

If you don’t like the word, ok, it’s illegal nevertheless, so discussing if the word is appropriate doesn’t get us anywhere.

Edit: jxyama, you beat me to it ;)

[isus]

i've read a few people backing this guy up on the basis that you need a key to strip the drm, and that that's ok, it's just 'fair use'.

ok, that's fine, but now that file, which is just an aac now, can be shared.

sure, it won't be as widespread as britney spears mp3's on kazaa, but this is more of a negative than a positive, and i do hope apple does something to stop this program.

[7on]

yeah, I've been de-fairplaying my music for a while now. You can use QTConvert, iMovie, or Toast as I have found out to turn to aiff then back to M4a. And anyone who complains of a significant loss of quality should actually try it. It doesn't sound any worse than what you get from the iTMS. Oh, I do it because sometimes I like listening to my music on school/lab computers without having to authorize them.

If you're buying from the iTMS, you shouldn't be complaining about a rerip quality issue.

[sushi]

Mind you, now that CDs can no longer be reliably ripped I don't buy them any more (I was burnt a couple of times with ******** EMI and their unlabled CDalikes that won't play in computer or car CD players
It is a shame when you cannot rip/convert to MP3, AAC, etc. the songs from a CD that you have purchased. The latest one for me was Santana.

However, I have found a work around that works sometimes. Use an old cd player (1X variety) to copy the songs to your HD. Use QT Pro to strip out the copy protection crud for each track (AIFF file). Then compress with iTunes.

YMMV...

Sushi

[greg75]

This utility uses the several months old FairPlay code from VideoLAN. The only thing new is the DMCA violating frontend :D

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34712.html
http://wiki.videolan.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=5

Check the src/mp4ff/drms* files. They're copyrighted by VideoLAN.

It will be interesting to see if Apple sends a cease and desist letter to SourceForge. If they do and SourceForge removes the project, it's bound to end up on Slashdot. From Slashdot, it's a short way to news sites around the world.

[dho]

Firstly, this does work on the mac. Yesterday I downloaded it and converted about 20 songs to test it. Unfortuneately not all of them converted properly and those that didnt work continued not to work.

For the files that didnt work, it would cause Quicktime or iTunes to crash.

But I can tell you I did get about 15 or so songs that came out fine. It even copied the album art and complete song info. The only thing mising was the copy protection.

For anybody with issues getting the file, try the unc mirror on sourceforge, because thats the only one that worked for me.

[Dippo]

This isn't a big deal. Apple isn't going to change Fairplay, and yet we will still be able to have all of the rights of a CD.

Sounds like a good thing to me.

[morkintosh]

I think (if possible) Apple should sue the distributor of this source code. Or can this only be done if it is distributed as a working program, rather than just the source code?

This might also delay the European introduction of the iTunes Music Store. :(

I suspect strongly that Apple doesn't have a tort here even if it were a compiled application being shipped. The software itself is not illegal, rather the use of the code to remove a DRM is. It is tantamount to suing the manufacturer of the gun that shot you when you were mugged last week. Sure you can do it, but you'd better have a Mississippi jury or you won't get much.

[macphisto]

What a bunch of garbage!!! Remember what happened when everyone exploited the ip sharing of the iTunes library in 4.0? Why do some people have to ruin it for the rest of us.

Idiots.

[sethypoo]

Well, this seems obvious, but at least you have to buy a song in order to decode it.....though this is bad news.....http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/seth/iconrolleyes.gif

[SiliconAddict]

The software itself is not illegal, rather the use of the code to remove a DRM is.

Actually doesn't the DMCA specifically state it is illegal to create a method of circumventing DRM schemes? I've only read the first few pages of the thing. I never could get through the whole document. Legal ease makes me drowsy.

[sethypoo]

I think he’s somehow right but what he forgets is, that giving his CDs to friends to rip them is illegal, too.

Wait wait wait, this isn't illegal! Lending CD's, or VHS tapes, audio tapes, or even DVD's to friends isn't illegal, and even if they copy them, it still isn't illegal.

Back in the days of audio tapes, people were swapping and sharing all over the place.

Sharing/copying CD's, to my knowledge, is legal, so long as it's not done for commercial gain.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but you can to share CD's!

[legion]

The point of this little program is that you're going from AAC-FairPlay straight to AAC(unprotected.) When you use QTconvert or rip from a burned CD or use an AIFF, you're uncompressing a lossy format(AAC) to a lossless format that now has artifacts (AIFF or stream capturing) and then recompressing it back to AAC with more artifacts compounding the original compression. That creates generation loss in sound quality. If you can just strip the DRM, you have a fairly pristine single generation lossy song already in AAC.

That's why this is important.

[Dippo]

It comes down to this. It is impossible to play iTMS songs on a Linux computer. Many potential mac users use (or will use) some combination of Macs and Linux PCs. You should be able to play songs on 3 computers, yet, you can't use them on Linux at all. And yes, I know you can burn and re-rip but that results in fairly significant quality loss. Until Apple releases a player thant can play iTMS files in Linux, you will continue to see this (and you'll see it even if they do release such a player, but not with the fervor or frequency).


Also, what if you want to use a player other than iTunes to play your music. Shouldn't you have a choice?

[legion]

Wait wait wait, this isn't illegal! Lending CD's, or VHS tapes, audio tapes, or even DVD's to friends isn't illegal, and even if they copy them, it still isn't illegal.

Back in the days of audio tapes, people were swapping and sharing all over the place.

Sharing/copying CD's, to my knowledge, is legal, so long as it's not done for commercial gain.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but you can to share CD's!

No, sharing/copying CDs is illegal if it is not for your immediate personal use. It's a bit of myth that it's ok if you're not making a profit you can do what you want.

Now breaking any digital encryption (even for personal use) is in direct violation of the DMCA. That's where people are up in arms; it's over fair-use clauses already in law that are becoming invalidated because the DMCA in essence makes even fair-use illegal.

[legion]

Also, what if you want to use a player other than iTunes to play your music. Shouldn't you have a choice?


Not according to Apple :eek:

[dudemac]

Why has this and QTFairUse been released only for Windows? .

There is a version for Mac. It is called QT convert and I have used it for a while now. It dumps the acc to an aiff file which is huge then I use itunes to reconvert it to MP3 or acc. It is pretty simple. Then I just delete the aiff file. This version does the same thing but it cleans up after itself. Automation make things easier for users. However I don't see this a circumvention of the DRM because you still have to be authorized to use the music before you can convert it. Plus it allows people that don't own an iPod to use their existing MP3 player. Which in my opinion is within the fair use criteria. It is sad that we have been told something for so long that we now without any proof believe. What I mean is that it seem like the burden of proof has shifted from the accusers and now is just accepted by the accused. Just because I didn't by an iPod it shouldn't restrict how I use my media. As long as I am not mass distributing (once again burden of proof here seems to be null) or selling them for profit (again burden of proof) both of these things are wrong and breaking the law. Anything else falls under the fair use guidelines. But no one ever seems think about that when they sue. Anyway, I could go on and on and it would make no difference because we are all being brainwashed by the RIAA and the Media that supports it.
This is a nice update to the program I was already using.

[sethypoo]

No, sharing/copying CDs is illegal if it is not for your immediate personal use. It's a bit of myth that it's ok if you're not making a profit you can do what you want.

Yes, that's what I thought, I always use it for personal reasons. :D

[gemio17]

the difference is, you have finite number of friends on the order of hundreds at most, i assume. and physical CD can only be at one place at once.

online, there's no limit to how many "friends" you can reach, there's no lost time in transporting the file, you don't run the risk of losing the file and the file can be shared by many at once.

let's not kid ourselves, there are differences. and they can cause different problems.

I took limewire off my machines as soon as the whole lawsuit thing started- I am responsible and pay for most of my music- this software will allow me to do what I have already been doing, burning dvd's and cd's of my purchased music so my co-workers, friends and I can swap. I am not interested in bringing my music collection online to a massive audience or take the risk of being sued or worse fired-until a week ago I did all my music stuff at work.

It'll be nice to do this without having to take 18 trillion steps to get there (burn, retag, reorganize, seperate, convert, repost/reburn) I'm not doing the p2p thing except extremely locally. It's so annoying to have to waste all sorts of cds just so I can re-import them as mp3's and swap!! It seems like a viable option for those of us who want to swap locally.

I guess that was my original point, I agree that there is a difference, but if they want to swap online, so be it. For everything that is invented/written, there will always be people who exploit the negative aspects and use it irresponsibly. What can you do? (besides say that the software is bad because of what it has the potential of doing... :D ) This is gonna happen anyway regardless of the fact that this software is out there, if people know about the software there's a good chance they've already figured out how to convert protected files into unprotected files anyway-the looooong way...

[jxyama]

Wait wait wait, this isn't illegal! Lending CD's, or VHS tapes, audio tapes, or even DVD's to friends isn't illegal, and even if they copy them, it still isn't illegal.

Back in the days of audio tapes, people were swapping and sharing all over the place.

Sharing/copying CD's, to my knowledge, is legal, so long as it's not done for commercial gain.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but you can to share CD's!

here's how i understood it:

if you own a CD:
1) you may make a copy as a backup.
2) you may lend the original CD to friends.
3) you may NOT lend the backup CD to friends. (because backup CD is for your use only.)
4) you may rip the CD for your own use.
5) you may NOT share the ripped CD tracks with others. (because ripped tracks are for your use only.)
6) you may copy or rip the CD and then sell the original CD.

when you download songs from p2p, even if you own the CD yourself, you are technically in violation because you are knowingly copying tracks that were meant for personal use by the person who ripped the original CD.

your friend can rip the CD and you won't be in violation because lending is not a violation. your friend, however, is in violation because he doesn't have the right to copy a CD he didn't pay for...

[Veldek]

What a bunch of garbage!!! Remember what happened when everyone exploited the ip sharing of the iTunes library in 4.0? Why do some people have to ruin it for the rest of us.

Idiots.

Well, if you're missing it then you must have used it. Which means you're one of them, so why do you complain?

[gemio17]

I think he’s somehow right but what he forgets is, that giving his CDs to friends to rip them is illegal, too.

Veldek - you have any Kit-Kat bars??


GIVE ME A BREAK :D

[Veldek]

Yes, that's what I thought, I always use it for personal reasons. :D

Just wondering what personal reasons there are... ;)

But it's strange how many people think buying a CD, ripping it and then selling it to someone else is legal. Of course you can sell your own property but after you sold it, you have to delete the ripped songs, of course, because you don't own them anymore.

[Veldek]

Veldek - you have any Kit-Kat bars??


GIVE ME A BREAK

Hmm, what do you want to say? That it is legal?

[jxyama]

Also, what if you want to use a player other than iTunes to play your music. Shouldn't you have a choice?

no, because it wasn't part of the term of service you supposedly agreed to when you used iTMS.

if you bought GTA3 for PS2, would you expect to be able to play GTA3 on Xbox for no additional charge? shouldn't you have a choice?

the other obvious question is, why would you want to use anything but iTunes anyway? ;)

[jxyama]

Just wondering what personal reasons there are... ;)

But it's strange how many people think buying a CD, ripping it and then selling it to someone else is legal. Of course you can sell your own property but after you sold it, you have to delete the ripped songs, of course, because you don't own them anymore.

i think you can sell the CDs and still keep the copy of it... not sure, though.

you paid for the right to listen to the music, CD just happens to be the medium. since you are allowed to make a copy for your own personal use, do you have to own the original medium to continue to exercise the right you paid for? (albeit it's not fully paid for when you sell the original CD...)

[Veldek]

i think you can sell the CDs and still keep the copy of it... not sure, though.

you paid for the right to listen to the music, CD just happens to be the medium. since you are allowed to make a copy for your own personal use, do you have to own the original medium to continue to exercise the right you paid for? (albeit it's not fully paid for when you sell the original CD...)

Let me ask you in return: if you buy the CD, rip it and then get it back to where you bought it, is it legal? I don't think so.

[gemio17]

Hmm, what do you want to say? That it is legal?

No, but that's such a strict draconian stance to take. You cannot give cd's to friends to rip. Fine, then they paid me 1 penny and I transferred ownership to them. Then I gave them a penny to buy the cd back. Would that make it legal enough for you guys?? That's all I'm saying.

While I'm at it, I'm gonna go rip tags off of unsold mattresses at Sleepy's mattress store...watchout world I'm breaking the law!!!! :D

[Veldek]

No, but that's such a strict draconian stance to take. You cannot give cd's to friends to rip. Fine, then they paid me 1 penny and I transferred ownership to them. Then I gave them a penny to buy the cd back. Would that make it legal enough for you guys?? That's all I'm saying.

While I'm at it, I'm gonna go rip tags off of unsold mattresses at Sleepy's mattress store...watchout world I'm breaking the law!!!! :D

Apart from the penny deal: look at my previous post. It's not legal. Only the one who paid for it last, is allowed to have a copy of it.

[sushi]

Wait wait wait, this isn't illegal! Lending CD's, or VHS tapes, audio tapes, or even DVD's to friends isn't illegal, and even if they copy them, it still isn't illegal.
That is incorrect!

Lending is okay. Copying is not!



Back in the days of audio tapes, people were swapping and sharing all over the place.
In those days, the recording industry was not as worried since a copy was not near as good as the original.

However, these days in the age of digital copies, this situation has changed. I can now make an exact duplicate (digitally) of a CD. Therefore the copy is the same as the original in sound quality.

If you will recall, a third or later generation copy of a VHS tape or audio cassette tape was generally of low quality (yes there are some exceptions for those with very high end <<expensive>> recording equipment) unlike today's digital copies.

So the situation has changed.



Sharing/copying CD's, to my knowledge, is legal, so long as it's not done for commercial gain.
I think that you are getting confussed between personal use and commercial use.

Commercial entities pay a royalty each time a song is played. Yes, today there are different systems with playlists, but the concept is basically the same. The more airtime, the more royalties must be paid.

Individual do not have to pay royalty fees. Individuals only pay for the original purchase of the CD.

Copying a CD, DVD, VHS tape for distribution to others is illegal, whether commercial or privately. Period.



Please correct me if I am wrong, but you can to share CD's!
See above.

Bottom line. There is a big diference between lending a friend your CD and making them a copy. One is legal and the other is not.

Sushi

[jxyama]

Let me ask you in return: if you buy the CD, rip it and then get it back to where you bought it, is it legal? I don't think so.

well, this is precisely why most stores won't accept returns on software, music or DVDs once they are open. they know people make copies.

i'm trying to see if i can find recent information on legality of copies, but it's pretty hard...

one thing i do remember is that copyright infringement is not cut and dry - the fact p2p involves more people is, in fact, an issue. because one of the reasons for copyright is to protect the creation from devaluation through distribution. there's a distinction between letting friends copy a CD and offering tracks to millions via p2p. it's pretty easy to see that the latter case has much greater impact on the market value of the copyrighted work than the former and that does make a difference.

[123]

6) you may copy or rip the CD and then sell the original CD.

Now that makes a lot of sense. You sell it to your friend for, say, 20 bucks, who then makes a copy and sells you the original for, say, 20 bucks.

[iMeowbot]

Now breaking any digital encryption (even for personal use) is in direct violation of the DMCA. That's where people are up in arms; it's over fair-use clauses already in law that are becoming invalidated because the DMCA in essence makes even fair-use illegal.

I already whined about this over on macslash, but that's not quote accurate. DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent access controls (designed to keep out people who didn't pay to use the content), but not copy controls (which deter people from making fair use of content they legitimately acquired). DMCA also makes it illegal to distribute products that can circumvent either type of control, but if you have the tool you have the tool.

The playfair program doesn't break the Fair Play encryption, you need a valid key to use it. That's quite different from DeCSS, which cracks keys.

The legality of using playfair then comes down to the purchaser of the content. If the resulting stream is used at home and not redistributed, that's copy control circumvention and okay. If that stream is distributed to other people, the act becomes access control circumvention and a DMCA violation.

[geniusj]

Well, it was only a matter of time. I wondered how long it would take the windows folks to figure out a way to decode the encryption. If you note everywhere on it says stuff about how you need Windows to do this.

The 3 - 5% of population that uses Apples aren't idiots either, but for some reason you don't see them figuring out how to crack iTunes MS DRM do you? Interesting.

Actually.. I have had a program like this that I made and finished about 1-2 weeks before the first version of playfair was released. However, there was no way I was going to release it as publicly as he is simply for the fear of being sued. I'm a bit more at ease now though. But, to my point, I am a mac user. It can be done.

Another thing to remember is that this program is very easy to make. The code that decrypts the file is already done, you just plug into it. It is the code in VideoLan Client. The person who wrote that code (same one who broke DVD CSS) I believe is largely a linux user. So I wouldn't give the windows crowd too much credit. The hard part is the part that was done by jlj, not the parts that the m4p2mp4 author did, I did, and the playfair crew did.

Oh, also.. Some applescript studio code that might make your lives easier (it's for a droplet). I'm sure someone will figure out how to put it to use.


-- m4p2m4a.applescript
-- m4p2m4a

on idle
(* Add any idle time processing here. *)
end idle

on open names
set thePath to the path of the main bundle
repeat with currentName in names
set filePath to the quoted form of the POSIX path of currentName
set filePath to replace_chars(filePath, ".m4p", ".m4a")
do shell script quoted form of thePath & "/Contents/Resources/playfair " & the quoted form of the POSIX path of currentName & " " & filePath
end repeat
quit
end open

on replace_chars(this_text, search_string, replacement_string)
set AppleScript's text item delimiters to the search_string
set the item_list to every text item of this_text
set AppleScript's text item delimiters to the replacement_string
set this_text to the item_list as string
set AppleScript's text item delimiters to ""
return this_text
end replace_chars

[Veldek]

well, this is precisely why most stores won't accept returns on software, music or DVDs once they are open. they know people make copies.

That's right and just supports my point.

[jxyama]

That's right and just supports my point.

true.

so the not so clear issue is whether you can sell the CD back and still retain the backup copy or ripped copy...

it has long been considered semi-legal because the copyright holder never tracked down the copiers to be punished or the sheer volumes involved were small. p2p definitely changed it because now copies were reachable to millions.

[gemio17]

Apart from the penny deal: look at my previous post. It's not legal. Only the one who paid for it last, is allowed to have a copy of it.

all this discussion of legality is annoying- who cares. BLAH BLAH BLAH. our country is overly puritanical as it is. just let me and my copied cds be. By the way anybody have an actual law that pertains to the situation that we're talking about here? I mean something that says I cannot copy a cd to my harddrive and then sell it. And if I do sell it I have to erase said songs from my harddrive- and my iPod? Do laws say iPod? specifically?

or are we just spewing around trash, assumptions and law school ideology??

[wordmunger]

Sushi, I think you've basically got this right. I just want to clarify a couple of things:


That is incorrect!

Lending is okay. Copying is not!

Copying for personal/backup use is okay.

In those days, the recording industry was not as worried since a copy was not near as good as the original.

However, these days in the age of digital copies, this situation has changed. I can now make an exact duplicate (digitally) of a CD. Therefore the copy is the same as the original in sound quality.

If you will recall, a third or later generation copy of a VHS tape or audio cassette tape was generally of low quality (yes there are some exceptions for those with very high end <<expensive>> recording equipment) unlike today's digital copies.

So the situation has changed.

No, the law with regards to when/how you can distribute copies has always been pretty much the same. A copy is a copy, digital or otherwise, and users still have pretty much the same rights with digital copying. The difference is the aggressiveness of the enforcement measures. Furthermore, the DMCA allows for even more aggressive enforcement including criminal penalties.

Copying a CD, DVD, VHS tape for distribution to others is illegal, whether commercial or privately. Period.
Unless you're a library, or a teacher, or a member of any number of different groups for which exceptions have been drafted. However, the DMCA *specifically* makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection even for personal use. Only educators (and maybe libraries) get an exception for that.

[gemio17]

That's right and just supports my point.

Ever been to a used cd store?? I sure have. All of my cd's are in perfect condition and I can sell them back to the store after using it once- or on ebay, half.com, amazon etc.

[puggsly]

Yes, writing this and or using this is illegal.

>>But we just want the same access that I could have had with a CD<<<

Then buy a CD! You all knew full well the DRM restrictions on these songs. If you use Linux and CD rips are not good enough for you DON'T BUY ITMS MUSIC!

>>Well they let you burn to CD and re-rip so this is no different<<<

Yes it is different. You get full quality reproduction and it is faster and easier to do. This is why nobody stopped people from recording songs from the radio and splicing together tapes. It was too time consuming to really hurt the industry and because of the reduced quality, if you really liked a song. You would buy it eventually.

>>But I'll only us it for myself<<

It is still illegal. You agreed to pay for the songs with certain restrictions. Abide by your contract

>>>The RIAA/Apple is evil for forcing DRM on me<<<

Then purchase songs from bands that don't use DRM. You'll show them!

>>>I have the right to listen to what I want<<<

NO! YOU DON'T. Someone created that music and it is THEIRS to distribute as they wish. If they want to give it away for free, they can. If they want to charge for it, they can. I write code for a living. If I write something and sell it, I have the right to determine how I should be compensated for that code. If you don't like what I ask for, don't use the code.

I hope Apple can figure out a good way to increase security on these files such that this is no longer possible. Unfortunately, this may increase restrictions on how the files work.

[Veldek]

all this discussion of legality is annoying- who cares. BLAH BLAH BLAH. our country is overly puritanical as it is. just let me and my copied cds be. By the way anybody have an actual law that pertains to the situation that we're talking about here? I mean something that says I cannot copy a cd to my harddrive and then sell it. And if I do sell it I have to erase said songs from my harddrive- and my iPod? Do laws say iPod? specifically?

or are we just spewing around trash, assumptions and law school ideology??

Well, if you don't care that something isn't legal, ok, that's your choice and nothing we can argue about. But you can't say something is legal that isn't, thus making it legal for you.

[Veldek]

true.

so the not so clear issue is whether you can sell the CD back and still retain the backup copy or ripped copy...

Well, perhaps it's not clear for you, but I know that it isn't legal.

[Veldek]

Ever been to a used cd store?? I sure have. All of my cd's are in perfect condition and I can sell them back to the store after using it once- or on ebay, half.com, amazon etc.

Of course, you can. I never said you can't. You just have to delete all copies you made of it (if you want to do the right thing ;)).

[0 and A ai]

So how long for a link to a compiled windows/mac version?

:)

[iMeowbot]

so the not so clear issue is whether you can sell the CD back and still retain the backup copy or ripped copy...
Nope, that's been made very clear in AHRA. All backup copies have to either be given to the new owner of the CD, or destroyed.

[wordmunger]

NO! YOU DON'T. Someone created that music and it is THEIRS to distribute as they wish. If they want to give it away for free, they can. If they want to charge for it, they can. I write code for a living. If I write something and sell it, I have the right to determine how I should be compensated for that code. If you don't like what I ask for, don't use the code.
Of course you have the right to sell or license your code any way you wish. But shouldn't you listen to your customers, especially if they're telling you things like "I'd buy more of your code if it wasn't DRMed"? Isn't it smart business to give your customers what they want and not treat them like thieves?
I hope Apple can figure out a good way to increase security on these files such that this is no longer possible. Unfortunately, this may increase restrictions on how the files work.
I hope they can *decrease* the restrictions on how the files work. Shouldn't I be able to play my music over my airport network on my stereo? Right now, Fairplay doesn't allow it, so I don't buy much Fairplay protected music. I've been a loyal Apple user for 20 years, but if Apple can't provide the services I want, I won't be buying their products.

[biw314]

First double click to untar and unzip the thing.
Then open terminal or x11.
cd to the unzipped directory eg: 'cd /Desktop/playfair-0.2'
type './configure'
when all that is finished type 'make'
and when all that is finsihed 'sudo make install'
you will be asked for your password
then use 'playfair <infile> <outfile>' to use. make sure your ipod is plugged in. and /usr/local/bin/ is in your path.

[mrsebastian]

as it's been said this was all a matter of time and we all knew it. will it be bad for business? not so sure, because people who wanted to "share" their itunes music and circumvent the copy protection, were already doing that by burning a cd and then ripping the music back to mp3 (it takes what, like 5 minutes and a 5 cent cd). as far as this pissing of the record industry, well they're hanging on for dear life anyway. what's most important is that a new system has to be created, that will allow artists to be in control, but furthermore be in control of selling their music. that's why i see this whole "piracy" whining from big record companies as a good thing. put the artists in control of their music, if it's good and we like, then we'll buy it directly, and then piracy for the most part won't even be an issue.

[jxyama]

Nope, that's been made very clear in AHRA. All backup copies have to either be given to the new owner of the CD, or destroyed.

thanks. just what i wanted to know, not just "of course it's illegal..." ;)

[SiliconAddict]

First double click to untar and unzip the thing.
Then open terminal or x11.
cd to the unzipped directory eg: 'cd /Desktop/playfair-0.2'
type './configure'
when all that is finished type 'make'
and when all that is finsihed 'sudo make install'
you will be asked for your password
then use 'playfair "filename"' to use. make sure your ipod is plugged in.

Also if I'm not mistaken even doing the above is a violation of the DMCA. Don't ya just love ambiguous laws? :rolleyes:

[Veldek]

thanks. just what i wanted to know, not just "of course it's illegal..." ;)

Okay, got it... :D

[Quarkie]

Nothing personal, but I find this whole thread funny. At the moment, Digital Music Stores are a cruel consumer joke, not to mention the mediocre audio quality they provide, which is, in part, a reality of storage and playback technology.

I love the quote from Apple's site which reads:

In fact, some expert listeners have judged AAC audio files compressed at 128 Kbps (stereo) to be virtually indistinguishable from the original uncompressed audio source.

After the words "listeners" and "judged," it seems like they forgot to include the phrase "from our vast audio consulting pool of the hearing-impaired elderly."

Or, in other words, would you pay 80-85% of the price for a book that was printed missing every 6 or 7th word? OH - but it's so close to the original that our illiterate test subjects said it was virtually identical!

Nothing you do will ever make that book as good as the original. Similarly, nothing you do will ever give you full CD quality out of those lossy/compressed sound files. So, who cares if you can decrypt .AAC files (or any format)? You're buying the wrong source material! Is paying slightly less for "good enough" material really "good enough?" Not for me, I guess.

For a little more, you can buy the CD and rip it yourself for portability IN ANY FORMAT without multiple pass compression loss, if you so desire. Oh yes...what about copy-protected CD's? That's what sound input cards are for, if there doesn't already happen to be a ripped version on the CD that you can use (Sony, etc.).

The only advantage that DMS's have is that it's nice to be able to buy individual favorite songs off of entire, or otherwise unwanted, albums. If you know you like the album, BUY THE CD!

But...AAC is cracked! What about the pirates? You can't stop them. Sue everyone...and their infants, pets, and any microbes who may be listening. There is no doubt but that the underground music network continues to thrive, despite the RIAA's draconian actions. The gophers just dig deeper, and I hear they now have a stargate to go off-world!

In the grand scheme of things, deprotecting AAC files for legitimate, personal use is off in the weeds. EVERY copy protection scheme can be broken and has been, over time. Anyone who thinks it won't happen needs to take another hit of "crack," or maybe "anti-crack." The anonymous infrastructure for music sharing (Internet) is really "the problem," since it extends to everyone, everywhere, and no file format, protected or unprotected can stop that.

I'm still waiting for Apple to send me a transparent aluminum, well-ventilated, branded garbage can with a lock on it and a little door so that I can see and smell the garbage inside, add more one piece at a time, and the garbage collectors can't open the lid. Codename: GUX-6000! It's the RoboCan and it's ultra-secure!

Actually, it would be really nice if they included a picture in protected .AAPEG format that was keyed to my personal computer, viewable only via the QuickTime Pro browser plug-in, for Safari only, on OSX only, on a G5 only, in case I missed my real garbage can and wanted to see it. (Note: original MacPaint format available for iPod for a small fee.) And I could do it too, if it weren't for all those garbage can image pirates ruining it for everyone, even though the whole world has been able to see everyone's garbage for all of time (http://www.zaonce.com/travels/giza/dump.jpg).

Another problem: What happens when proprietary music/device combos don't have the music you want, and the store that does have it won't support your player's format without additional quality loss of already compressed/compromised audio? It's YOU, the consumers, who suffer after giving the DMS your money. It's your special reward from the Rewards Program!

At some point, stores or players will have to support all formats with one-pass, optimum compression quality, since not all songs will be available from all stores. The closed competition model, or elevated premiums for specific formats, isn't going to work. In other words, DH APLE! (compressed for distribution). Wait! Get Marketing to tell me that an iPod is just like a Ferrari! That will convince me! NOT. Or, maybe I'll be lucky and the defective battery in my cell phone will run out during the call.

The digital music distribution business is still in its infancy, and from a global perspective, Apple's current iTMS sales and perennial SpinDoctoring™ are insignificant. We'll see where they are in a year or so once the competition and supporting technology really emerge. It's probably only a matter of time before Apple is eclipsed by music industry giants, such as Sony, and left with similarly small marketshare.

So, someone cracked iTMS. Boo hoo. It's about time. If Apple wants to make a believer out of me, they will have to offer me one-pass, optimum compression quality on all formats and support them in hardware. They will also have to offer FULL QUALITY CD's at a small incremental cost available after purchasing a complete iTunes album.

If they wanted to go the extra mile, it would be great to be able to get full-quality, custom CD's based on some minimum quantity of individual tracks, but that would require a further industry paradigm shift. I guess, among other things, this might depend on how the dual-session lawsuits turn out, or maybe it might require surrendering download rights (but that would be counter-productive).

Until then, CD's work just fine for me and I am an mp3 phone user. For those who are dedicated and honest iPod users, three cheers for the author(s) of PlayFair. Good job.

[iMeowbot]

as it's been said this was all a matter of time and we all knew it. will it be bad for business?

I don't think so. Steve Jobs' argument for getting labels to buy into the iTMS idea was "We have PhDs here who know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content." The Rolling Stone interview where he said that appears to have been archived, but a summary is here (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/?http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?pid=20031209095757).

[Spades]

It was a long time ago, perhaps even before I was born, but as I have been told, the MPAA made a huge stink about VCRs when they were first introduced. They went through this whole thing back then, trying to get VCRs outlawed, or limited. I think that most of the concept of fair use comes from the legal cases revolving around the VCR. Unless I've been misinformed, nothing, in fact, has changed since then. They were simply forced to back off the last time they tried this.


In those days, the recording industry was not as worried since a copy was not near as good as the original.

However, these days in the age of digital copies, this situation has changed. I can now make an exact duplicate (digitally) of a CD. Therefore the copy is the same as the original in sound quality.

[jxyama]

After the words "listeners" and "judged," it seems like they forgot to include the phrase "from our vast audio consulting pool of the hearing-impaired elderly."

Or, in other words, would you pay 80-85% of the price for a book that was printed missing every 6 or 7th word? OH - but it's so close to the original that our illiterate test subjects said it was virtually identical!

...

For a little more, you can buy the CD and rip it yourself for portability IN ANY FORMAT without multiple pass compression loss, if you so desire. Oh yes...what about copy-protected CD's? That's what sound input cards are for, if there doesn't already happen to be a ripped version on the CD that you can use (Sony, etc.).

...


several points:

AAC is not "missing" sound in the same sense a book with missing words, as you had described. parts that are missing are either deemed inaudible or unimportant. and if you want to talk about missing sound - then nothing short of live performance will get you the full sound. audio recording is a sampled copy, afterall, even if it's sampled at a very high rate.

if you can hear the difference, good for you. i can't. all that means is that you have superior listening capabilities. it doesn't mean online music distribution is stupid or without viable market. or that people who use the service are somehow duped into buying something stupid.

i can read japanese. can you? assuming you can't, can i declare that you'd be stupid to pay for introductory japanese books because it doesn't have much of a content in japanese? i think not.

also, one of the greatest things about iTMS is the fact you can pick and choose songs. yes, you can buy a CD and it would be a viable alternative if you liked most of the songs on the album. but such is not the case all the time.

edit: man where are the hardware updates? so we can talk about something other than stupid lawspeaks. :D ;) :p

[spice weasel]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so I apologize if someone else made the same point, but here is my two cents.

I see no problem with the playfair application. While it is true that Apple's Fairplay DRM is a much better alternative than what most of the other competitor's are offering, it is still DRM. What really bothers me about it is that it assumes that every individual who purchases music intends to commit a crime by illegally sharing that music. If I go to a brick and mortar music store and buy a CD, there is nothing (as of yet, anyway) stopping me from digitizing it and making as many copies as I want. What stops people from doing so is either the law/fear of getting caught, or their ethics, or a combination of both. The same should apply to legally downloaded music. This is especially the case given that you are essentially getting an inherently inferior quality product when you buy music off any online site, since it has already been encoded using a lossy process. To offer people the option of buying compressed audio and then impose extra-legal restrictions on their use of that audio is ridiculous.

This is why I have no qualms about the RIAA going after file sharers. While I think their tactics are a PR nightmare, and I have serious questions about the legality of court clerks issuing subpeonas rather than actual judges, they have a right to stop copyright infringement and to take legal action AFTER IT HAS BEEN COMMITTED!!! and not before.

Here is to cracking all DRM!

[entropy1980]

Firstly, this does work on the mac. Yesterday I downloaded it and converted about 20 songs to test it. Unfortuneately not all of them converted properly and those that didnt work continued not to work.

For the files that didnt work, it would cause Quicktime or iTunes to crash.

But I can tell you I did get about 15 or so songs that came out fine. It even copied the album art and complete song info. The only thing mising was the copy protection.

For anybody with issues getting the file, try the unc mirror on sourceforge, because thats the only one that worked for me.
How did you get it to compile cleanly?

[xhost_plus]

You can convert your AAC files to AIFF files using Toast. When you start to create an audio CD and drag over your AAC files, there is an option to save the converted files. You can save these files as AIFF (uncompressed).

There is really no way around DRM except Paladium, which is M$'s hardware based approach...

[entropy1980]

First double click to untar and unzip the thing.
Then open terminal or x11.
cd to the unzipped directory eg: 'cd /Desktop/playfair-0.2'
type './configure'
when all that is finished type 'make'
and when all that is finsihed 'sudo make install'
you will be asked for your password
then use 'playfair "filename"' to use. make sure your ipod is plugged in.
I get playfair command not found..... any ideas?

[jsw]

Personally, I think that this is terrible, terrible news for the music industry. People might be able to more easily access music which they have purchased and share it with others. Since I'm convinced that the musicians whose songs might be stolen need to maintain a lavish lifestyle with incomes that are orders of magnitude above other, less useful citizens (teachers, heart surgeons, police officers), I propose the following:

(1) No new music is released onto any format, ever. What isn't released cannot be copied.

(2) New music can be heard only in sound-proofed, radio-isolated chambers after being strip-searched and run through an intense magnetic field.

(3) New music will always be performed, never played from a recording, and never in public (only in the aforementioned chambers).

(4) A permanent, national, one percent income tax will be leveled against all citizens to support the music industry.

In this way, there is no possibility of recording and then sharing music.

Or, of course, the industry could produce a decent product at a good price wherein there is some value to purchasing the item.

[Soire]

This is a very interesting topic, and it's good that we're forgetting about new hardware updates for a spell. I happen to be a graduating college student and as part of my studies I have researched media issues like digital piracy. While I agree with the point that copyright laws exist for a reason, and artists are entitled to make money, I am also a cheap college student who likes to listen to free music.

So every time I hear this argument I must logically agree that pirating music is wrong (movies and other media I would never want to pirate) yet at the same time I can't help but feel good at getting even with the system. You see, for as long as the recording industry has existed they've done nothing but try and turn a profit on the talent of artists. And artists who started out wanting nothing more than to play music to fans all wind up doing it for the cash. Not that I blame them, because they have the right to do that and I probably would sell out as well. But here's the thing- music is an artform, this art is copied, the copies are sold, the copies are copied, and suddenly lawsuits are issued for some binary code you downloaded.

It's like photocopying a beautiful oil painting. It's not the original, but it will suffice. Just as a CD is not the original live performance, but a copy. But you're not allowed to copy a copy because you didn't clear it with the original copier! The whole thing winds up being frustrating and confusing, and it all boils down to why shouldn't one person be able to share something with another. That's the hardest part for many people to handle. Nobody is making a profit off of music piracy. It's all done in the spirit of "goodwill".

So now that I just ranted on, let me end by saying that technology will always find a way to benefit the people who use it, and not those who control it. I wonder if the RIAA would have released the CD format 20 years ago knowing what they know now, or just stuck with 8-track...? :o

[jxyama]

You can convert your AAC files to AIFF files using Toast. When you start to create an audio CD and drag over your AAC files, there is an option to save the converted files. You can save these files as AIFF (uncompressed).

There is really no way around DRM except Paladium, which is M$'s hardware based approach...

you can already do this with iTunes...

just for clarity, AAC Fairplay DRM can be removed, perfectly legally, by converting AAC+FP into AIFF. the resulting AIFF is DRM free. from there, you can compress back to AAC or MP3 or whatever format you want. the complaint was that the sound quality is worse - which is precisely why jobs was able to convince record labels that iTMS purchased songs will not add to p2p piracy, because resulting MP3 will have worse sound quality.

this news describe a way to go from AAC+FP directly to AAC, stripping the DRM. no sound quality loss.

one saving grace is that it does require purchaser login. so AAC+FP cannot be shared on p2p and then downloader to strip the DRM...

[mdesbiens]

[jxyama]

Since I'm convinced that the musicians whose songs might be stolen need to maintain a lavish lifestyle with incomes that are orders of magnitude above other, less useful citizens (teachers, heart surgeons, police officers),

i don't want to turn this into an economic debate, but if you are talented musicians, you deserve "lavish lifestyle" to some extent. people providing social services are often underappreciated, no doubt, i won't argue on that point. but in this capitalistic economy, using superior talent as an economic leverage is perfectly acceptable. what you get paid is often what the market determined to be your worth. just because someone makes a lot of money doing not so noble things doesn't mean he/she doesn't deserve that money.

there are many people who has the talent to be a teacher. there aren't that many who can make music that will sell millions of copies or athletes who can sling a ball 60.5 feet at 100 mph. are their professions as "noble" as teaching the youth? maybe not. but they are rare, so they have the potential to be well compensated.

[RIP]

I get playfair command not found..... any ideas?

Either place the compiled file(s) in a directory in your path, such as /sw/bin (assuming you have fink installed, or include a path statement to you newly compiled files in you environment settings found in either .bashrc or .tschrc.

:)

[slowtreme]

Well I got my copy, before it gets yanked (if at all).

I am very happy to get this. I have purchased maybe 40 songs on iTMS, but they are locked to my home or iPod. I can't play them at work because my company blocks access to iTMS so I can't auth my work PC. (And I cant wear my iPod while working, occasionaly I have to answer the phone and stuff)

So this will allow me to stip the protection and let me listen to my music when I have to most time to listen... while I work.

[cl0r0x70]

Legality is not the point; ease of cracking is.

Jobs got the RIAA to buy into the ITMS concept after demonstrating that ANY digital means of transmitting music would eventually be cracked. The key was just to make the user jump through a couple of hoops to do so.

Even with this new code, users have to download and compile it (already above 99% of users' ability.) It's way more difficult to do this than to rip from a cd you bought, and either way you've paid for the songs.

As a professional computer programmer by day, and a semi-pro recording musician by night, I've been all around this issue.

I sincerely hope the RIAA eventually goes under due to all of this. They are a monopoly that makes Microsoft's abuses of power seem tame. It is an unnecessary organization that pays no one but itself. It's elimination would mean better radio, wider selection, and more independent music being given a chance.

[Frobozz]

Hopefully Apple can quickly fix this vulnerability or it will hurt the online music stores.

You try and give people the option of a legal place to download music and some people just have to find a way to bring dishonesty into the mix.


I disagree with you. I agree that I wouldn't want this used to redistribute legal copies to illegal places, but it prevents the annoying download -> burn -> rip scenario that a lot of people have to go through. Why is this, you might ask? Because Apple won't let people like TiVo or other media hub devices to play AAC FiarPlay encoded songs on their equipment.

The whole damn reason I bought the home media option on my tivo was so I could download songs immediately and play them through my home stereo via a TiVo.

Apple is preventing a perfectly legal use of it's own technology, and I will circumvent it until they wisen up. The bottom line is that only pure novices wouldn't know how to pirate this stuff. It's SIMPLE. But I'm not looking to pirate my own legit copies of songs and give them to scumbags who want to steal. I just want to be able to play it on my stereo like all my other mp3's.

[mdesbiens]

The next retard who claims something is illegal because Apple's iTunes User Agreement says you can't do it should be back-handed out of the race. Darwinism will hunt the rest of you down.

...And as for the ability to share iTMS songs online?
Don't be stupid; don't believe the hype... All of these songs are already there! iTMS was not Apple's means of capitalizing off of people who are nervous SHARING their music. They can all simply stop sharing their music, and life would go on pretty much the same. iTMS is an attempt to capitalize off of people who feel nervous, or guilty, or whatever, STEALING music. If Bob Lobeless wants to pay for music, it makes no difference to Apple that Tim Braindead is, along with 1,196 other people, offering it for free.

...And as for something being wrong because it is illegal? Look, I know there are a lot of useless drones out there, but some of us still prefer to have our own set of morals. If your set of morals is based on a set of laws, and you suddenly were somewhere where laws do not apply, would you then steal a song? Smoke a joint? Murder your family?
Make up your own mind.

I did. I am going to use it on all of my m4p's.

[gbojim]

Of course you have the right to sell or license your code any way you wish. But shouldn't you listen to your customers, especially if they're telling you things like "I'd buy more of your code if it wasn't DRMed"? Isn't it smart business to give your customers what they want and not treat them like thieves?

I hope they can *decrease* the restrictions on how the files work. Shouldn't I be able to play my music over my airport network on my stereo? Right now, Fairplay doesn't allow it, so I don't buy much Fairplay protected music. I've been a loyal Apple user for 20 years, but if Apple can't provide the services I want, I won't be buying their products.

You make an interesting point. Yes I should listen to my customers, and I do. However, that does not necessarily mean it will be smart business to give them what they want. Every business, Apple included although many do not seem to believe this based on comments made, makes decisions on its target audience and product mix. For example, I set my consulting prices at a certain level. I do not work with many small companies because their perception is my services cost more than some others. From a value perspective I disagree, but from a straight dollars comparison they are right. So people tell me I should lower my prices and get more customers. That is an option, but it is my choice not to do so. It's impossible to provide for every possible clients wants. It's also the prospect's choice to buy someone else's services that more suits their wants. Fine, I have no problem with that.

In this particualr case, Apple has chosen to service a certain market. Apple has also chosen to not service other markets - Linux playback or streaming to a stereo as examples. For those who want capability not provided by Apple, use one of the alternatives.

[bennok]

This isn't the first application that could decrypt protected AAC files. QTConvert will do it and it is OS X native. It will convert them to AIFF and from there you can use iTunes to go to MP3 or back to AAC. It will only allow you to decode songs that you have rights to. So it is no different than burning a protected AAC to CD. I use it because my MP3 player does not support AAC.
http://www.pyehouse.com/lynn/qtconvert.php

If someone didn't say this already (I've only been skimming), this application is different in that it simply strips the DRM out of it. So, no decoding, no reencoding, no loss of quality--resulting in a quicker and better means of converting your music.
Oh and it transfers the tags, something Lynn is working on, but has not been able to implement.

[jxyama]

The next retard who claims something is illegal because Apple's iTunes User Agreement says you can't do it should be back-handed out of the race. Darwinism will hunt the rest of you down.


no need to be insulting to get your point across...

[iMeowbot]

It was a long time ago, perhaps even before I was born,

Ouch, the Sony v. Universal thing was only in 1982-1984.

but as I have been told, the MPAA made a huge stink about VCRs when they were first introduced. They went through this whole thing back then, trying to get VCRs outlawed, or limited.

Yep, Jack Valenti insisted that it would be the death of the film & TV industry. What the industry didn't recognize is that the recording ability made the machines more attractive for people to buy, and ultimately that vastly expanded the studios' ability to sell and rent tapes. They made a killing on the thing they wanted to kill!

I think that most of the concept of fair use comes from the legal cases revolving around the VCR. Unless I've been misinformed, nothing, in fact, has changed since then. They were simply forced to back off the last time they tried this.

There were controversies over audio tape recorders before that, and today there is still a tax on audio media (now including CD-Rs intended for music,) as part of the resulting settlement.

The more recent controversies came around when Sony wanted to bring its lossless DAT recorders onto the market. AHRA was a direct result of that one, and that's where garbage like SCMS (which pretty much killed consumer DAT) came into being. At the same time, computers and peripherals were given an exemption from the restrictions that were applied to standalone audio equipment; that was done so that technology development wouldn't be impeded; it also provided the loophole that made deviced like the Rio and iPod legal (and it's also the reason such players tend to have crippled recording capabilities). Commercial equipment has always been exempt from implementing SCMS, the higher cost of professional gear was assumed to be enough of a barrier to keep it out of most consumers' hands.

DMCA is mostly the result of the WIPO treaties. It's partly supposed to be a unified international version of what AHRA tried to do, but the scope has been expended to take widespread networking into account. When the Betamax case was current, people still needed to physically hand tapes to others, and the analog recording technology was inherently lossy. It's the current ability to transfer stuff with no loss and no physical effort that scares the entertainment companies now. This won't kill them either, but their consultants aren't going to put themselves out of work by saying there's nothing to worry about!

[Frobozz]

Shouldn't I be able to play my music over my airport network on my stereo? Right now, Fairplay doesn't allow it, so I don't buy much Fairplay protected music. I've been a loyal Apple user for 20 years, but if Apple can't provide the services I want, I won't be buying their products.

Amen brother. I agree. I want to be able to play my iTunes music over a WAN/LAN to distributed devices. I don't care if they prevent recording of that music on the destination device. That's fine with me. I just want to be able to listen to music I bought on hardware I bought for my own amusement/satisfaction.

I've bought about 150 songs on the iTunes Music Store, too. I'm not just blowing smoke here. I'm voting with my dollar for Apple, but this ONE ISSUE is a really big one for me.

[RIP]

Throwing law by the wayside, after pondering all these comments, evaluating myself, and taking into consideration other discussions, I have come to a conclusion. Being that I am not a thief and but also care for freedom, my conclusion is that I am more likely to purchase more music via iTMS than before knowing that I can strip the DRM off and play the music on devices other than an iPod or iTunes software. Portability is key for me, and I like the convenience of purchasing music online.

What hasn't changed is my preferences. I still prefer iTunes and its music store.

It seems to me that with this software, Apple needs to start making money from music sales rather than hardware.

[SiliconAddict]

[Removed...*grumbles* Too many tabs open]

[mustang_dvs]

...WOW! I was thinking exactly the same thing!

;)

[entropy1980]

Maybe I am just unlucky but everyone I have tried to run this on has crashed iTunes miserably.... just my luck .... ;)

[1macker1]

I wonder if the DRM is the reason why my brother's burned CD's will play in my car CD player, and my burned CD's won't.

[sethypoo]

Just wondering what personal reasons there are... ;)

L i s t e n i n g

What else?

[jsw]

i don't want to turn this into an economic debate, but if you are talented musicians, you deserve "lavish lifestyle" to some extent. people providing social services are often underappreciated, no doubt, i won't argue on that point. but in this capitalistic economy, using superior talent as an economic leverage is perfectly acceptable. what you get paid is often what the market determined to be your worth. just because someone makes a lot of money doing not so noble things doesn't mean he/she doesn't deserve that money.

there are many people who has the talent to be a teacher. there aren't that many who can make music that will sell millions of copies or athletes who can sling a ball 60.5 feet at 100 mph. are their professions as "noble" as teaching the youth? maybe not. but they are rare, so they have the potential to be well compensated.

I'm not arguing against the salaries of musicians - one of the benefits of a capitalist society - and my post was mostly facetious. However, anyone who enters into an industry which is so easily pirated - and I include those among us who are software developers in this - need to accept that there is a risk of lost income. It's important to try to stop it, but not at the expense of alienated customers. Generally, if you provide sufficiently valuable item or service at a good price, people will buy it. Some people will always steal things, but most people won't.

For example, everytime I buy a CD or DVD, I am enormously annoyed by the effort involved in opening the damned thing. Often, the DVD case's plastic liner can be torn while removing the seals. I think this is overkill. I'd like to see easier-to-open packages so the 99% of store DVDs and CDs which are purchased and not stolen can be opened by buying customers. [As a related aside, anyone who'd purchased children's toys in the last year or two knows that it takes a lot more effort just to open them. Everything is sewn and/or twist-tied and/or taped into the box.]

So, as far as iTMS-type music is concerned, I want it to be easy to use. If I buy it, I want to be able to listen to it whenever I want. If I cannot do that, I'm less inclined to buy online and more likely to buy CDs - but since CD's are often packed with 90% bad songs, I just end up not buying anything at all.

So, it seems, for people like me, the music industry will net more money if they sell me cheap, easy to access music, not locked tunes that will get me prosecuted if I attempt to unlock them.

[iMeowbot]

For example, everytime I buy a CD or DVD, I am enormously annoyed by the effort involved in opening the damned thing.
Annoyances like this are why so many geeks carry something like a Leatherman everywhere :D

I kind of like all the extra wrapping, because it helps keep counterfeiters (the people the studios should really be hunting down) a step behind. Even if the quality of a fake pressing turns out to be reasonable, the idea that money is being shelled out to the wrong people really annoys me.

[jxyama]

Generally, if you provide sufficiently valuable item or service at a good price, people will buy it. Some people will always steal things, but most people won't.


i agree with this sentence, at least, i sure hope so.

pirates aren't customers because they don't pay. what i wonder is that there's now a generation of people growing up who do not recognize IP as "property" in the traditional, material sense. while i think record label's business model is antiquated and they need to adopt (i think they will have to go to merit based production/distribution system instead of fronting the costs for artists, taking chances on landing successful artists), i am wondering what will happen to the music industry as a whole. people will continue to create music, no doubt, and many musicians will do so even if it didn't mean lavish lifestyles - but i wonder what kind of affect continued piracy will have on the music industry as a whole.

i wonder about this because music piracy is the first time this issue has hit the mass. gaming and computer software have always had piracy but it was limited to computing public. books and prints have had piracy due to copying machines, but those were quite limited in scope and volume. compared to those, music piracy is mainstream and extremely prevalent. this level of piracy - by millions of people, many not technical at all, affecting millions of songs and artists and amazingly convenient, both cost and effort wise - is unlike anything we've seen before...

it is inevitable that the movie industry will be next. faster internet, cheaper storage and computing power can only mean it's a matter of time before DVD data will be subjected to similar effects of piracy as music. i wonder what will come of MPAA...

[ChrisBrightwell]

This isn't the first application that could decrypt protected AAC files. [...]
You're right. iMovie '04 converts DRM AAC files to no-DRM AIFF files just fine.

[jsw]

i agree with this sentence, at least, i sure hope so.

pirates aren't customers because they don't pay. what i wonder is that there's now a generation of people growing up who do not recognize IP as "property" in the traditional, material sense. while i think record label's business model is antiquated and they need to adopt (i think they will have to go to merit based production/distribution system instead of fronting the costs for artists, taking chances on landing successful artists), i am wondering what will happen to the music industry as a whole. people will continue to create music, no doubt, and many musicians will do so even if it didn't mean lavish lifestyles - but i wonder what kind of affect continued piracy will have on the music industry as a whole.

i wonder about this because music piracy is the first time this issue has hit the mass. gaming and computer software have always had piracy but it was limited to computing public. books and prints have had piracy due to copying machines, but those were quite limited in scope and volume. compared to those, music piracy is mainstream and extremely prevalent. this level of piracy - by millions of people, many not technical at all, affecting millions of songs and artists and amazingly convenient, both cost and effort wise - is unlike anything we've seen before...

it is inevitable that the movie industry will be next. faster internet, cheaper storage and computing power can only mean it's a matter of time before DVD data will be subjected to similar effects of piracy as music. i wonder what will come of MPAA...

I certainly hope that piracy can be reduced, but I don't expect it to happen. It's too easy to do, too hard to stop, and too attractive to many. I agree that it's a shame that kids are being raised to think it's OK to steal IP. I think that there are many talented musicians who will be adversely affected.

However, I think the music industry is to blame for a lot of this. Much of the "talent" is not talented at all but just promoted. Take someone who is sexy, give them songs to record and then electorically "fix" them, and teach them to dance. To me, that's not worthy of a multi-million dollar contract. Then MTV steps in to show how lavishly they live, and I can see why people don't think it's wrong to copy songs. Especially when CDs tend to have so many bad songs on them.

If, instead, real talent were promoted, and CDs had valuable content and were priced more reasonably, then I'd say that there would be less perception that it was OK. Maybe not, but even I am tempted to pirate when I see Cribs on MTV. I don't see much display of talent whatseoever.

I'm not promoting piracy. I think it's wrong. I'm just saying that I see some of the motivation.

And I don't have any problem whatsoever with PlayFair. If people are going to post music to share illegally - and they will - then they are doing something wrong. But I don't want to ban DVD burners because some people pirate DVDs, and I don't want to ban PlayFair because some people abuse it. For example, I ended up bringing my G5 in for repairs last fall, and they swapped it with a new one. I forgot to deauthorize the original one, and, had I not been lucky enough to get Apple to deauthorize it for me (because I had all the info), I'd've been SOL on using that music I'd purchased on it. That, to me, seems unfair. I'd have been happy to use PlayFair to safely archive what I'd spent a fair chunk of change to accumulate.

[shen]

Don't be stupid; don't believe the hype... All of these songs are already there! iTMS was not Apple's means of capitalizing off of people who are nervous SHARING their music. They can all simply stop sharing their music, and life would go on pretty much the same. iTMS is an attempt to capitalize off of people who feel nervous, or guilty, or whatever, STEALING music.

or possibly those, like me, who would rather spend a dollar than wasting their life hunting through low quality rips missing 20 seconds on the end after a 30 minute download just to find the 40 songs they need to add to their collection. :D

[Chip NoVaMac]

All these holier than thou here.

I guess none of the people that think is bad ever do more than 5mph over the speed limit, never run a red light, always yield to pedestrians, never "cheat" on their taxes, and generally are up for sainthood.

I do not support the piracy of music. But I do feel that if I buy it, i should be able to use it as i see fit for my personal use. Sort of like being able to copy DVD's so that I don't damage the original.

[SiliconAddict]

The key was just to make the user jump through a couple of hoops to do so.

Even with this new code, users have to download and compile it (already above 99% of users' ability.) It's way more difficult to do this than to rip from a cd you bought, and either way you've paid for the songs.



And how long do you think it will be before this method is streamlined, filtered, and dumped into a GUI that simply requires a user to know how to point and click. I've been around the DeCSS program long enough to remember when it was a serious PITA to rip a DVD. Now? LOL. I can rip a DVD simply by clicking a button.
Ease of use will come with time. Right now this is a proof of concept piece of software. Since the source is available to the world it’s a solid bet that there will be a wave of people that will tinker with the software to make it easier to use.

[jxyama]

I guess none of the people that think is bad ever do more than 5mph over the speed limit, never run a red light, always yield to pedestrians, never "cheat" on their taxes, and generally are up for sainthood. .

i generally stay within 5 mph on the speed limit, i don't run red lights, i usually yield to pedestrians and i've never cheated on my taxes.

and i don't pirate music.

but i don't see the connection. :confused: you can't have an opinion condemning piracy unless you've lived a perfect life?

also, you claim you will use what you buy as you see fit for your personal use. using the same point you tried to make in citing common innocent breaking of laws, unless you are a saint yourself, why should i believe that you will really only use for personal purposes?

[Hamshrew]

All these holier than thou here.

I guess none of the people that think is bad ever do more than 5mph over the speed limit, never run a red light, always yield to pedestrians, never "cheat" on their taxes, and generally are up for sainthood.

I do not support the piracy of music. But I do feel that if I buy it, i should be able to use it as i see fit for my personal use. Sort of like being able to copy DVD's so that I don't damage the original.

Actually, except for the sainthood part, that pretty much describes me. I have mixed feelings about this application though... certainly it's nice, and I'll use it on the tracks I get from ITMS, but I KNOW others will abuse it just because they can. It's disappointing, but there are always people like that I guess.

[appleguru1]

You guys do realize that this includes the same code written by DVD Jon (The guy who wrote DeCSS) right? He also incorporated the code into VLC (http://www.videolan.org), and you can use VLC w/ filestreaming to do the same thing as this app (Although it will be at 1 x)

The reason this is "for the PC" is because you need a PC (At least at the moment) to get the encrypted song hash (Which is then decrypted...) If you get that (I used virtual PC to do it, and it worked fine), and you place the drms file in a folder called ".drms" in your home folder, (Should be named something like 03052679.001), then you can use VLC (and possibly this application on the mac) to decrypt your .m4p files.

To get a decrypted .m4a file (actually .mp4, but .m4a is exactly the same as .mp4; just renamed and audio only), use the file streamer to stream to a .mp4 file. It will "play" at 1x, and no sound will be output, when its done you'll have a decrypted file. You can play any of _your_ .m4p files in VLC once you have your key btw...

The file probably wont retain any meta data/album art, but this can be added again with iTunes (It didn't when I did this to my iTMS songs a month or so ago.. but I think the latest nightly build of VLC actually does retain some tags...)

I'm sorry if this was mentioned already; I haven't read this entire thread yet... Just my $0.02

[Azmordean]

i agree with most of your points...

and to be able to play iTMS music on linux... well, how about if you are "knowledgeable" enough to use linux and want to play iTMS music on it, why not write your own code to strip DRM? is it "necessary" to distribute the code to the public so others can use them - and let's be real - most will use for illegal purposes...

just a thought. i understand why you'd release it to the public - i just hope something like this won't make apple/RIAA to change policies in ways that will inconvenience 99% of users for the "right" of the 1%.

Linux has a larger user base than the Mac. Also, Linux is long past the point where only "hackers" use it. I would still say you have to "learn" it, but there are people who use or have used linux who know little or nothing about programming.

[ajb13]

so how would someone compile this? apparently it works in osx 10.3.3, according to one of the bug reports (mentions the app not correctly copying the album art to the finished file, in 10.3.3). i would like to try this, anyone lend help? or point me to help?

So what did Apples clause state again about not assisting!? Why is it that people have such a problem upholding the LAW? :mad: On a side note, just be patient, Quicktime is in development for Linux. (Now where did I read that again...)

[jsw]

So what did Apples clause state again about not assisting!? Why is it that people have such a problem upholding the LAW? :mad: On a side note, just be patient, Quicktime is in development for Linux. (Now where did I read that again...)

Compiling this app is in no way illegal, nor is helping someone to do so. Also, as far as I know, Apple's clauses haven't necessarily been held up in a court of law. In any event, building PlayFair is not illegal.

[jxyama]

Linux has a larger user base than the Mac. Also, Linux is long past the point where only "hackers" use it. I would still say you have to "learn" it, but there are people who use or have used linux who know little or nothing about programming.

all probably true. (i believe linux has larger marketshare than Mac, not user base, anyway, it's irrelevant.)

but when you signed up for iTMS, you knew it was made to work with iTunes, which is available only for windows and Mac. if your primary machine happens to be linux, which apple doesn't support with iTunes, well, that's your problem... whether linux is bigger than Mac or linux is used by computer n00b is quite irrelevant, i feel...

if i buy a gamecube, will i complain that GTA3 is not available, unlike Xbox or PS2? i just find it funny endorsing a service/product that doesn't meet your needs - if you want apple/iTMS to support linux, then the correct thing to do, i feel, is to complain to apple, vote with your wallet and wait for iTunes to come to linux..? apple doesn't have an obligation to support linux... if you like linux then don't support apple because it clearly doesn't provide the service you like/need.

[appleguru1]

In any case.. to compile this application, download it and untar/gz it (Stuffit works fine for this..). Then open up the terminal and type (Without quotes):

"cd " (Note the trailing space)

and drag the decompressed directory to the terminal window (the playfair-0.2 folder)

Press return.

Type "./configure"

Press return.

When its done, type "make", and hit return...

When that's done.. type "sudo make install", return... and then enter your admin password at the prompt; return...

After that completes, you have successfully compiled the app.. as for using it, I'll give a report in a few to see if/how well it works...

[Chip NoVaMac]

i generally stay within 5 mph on the speed limit, i don't run red lights, i usually yield to pedestrians and i've never cheated on my taxes.

and i don't pirate music.

but i don't see the connection. :confused: you can't have an opinion condemning piracy unless you've lived a perfect life?

also, you claim you will use what you buy as you see fit for your personal use. using the same point you tried to make in citing common innocent breaking of laws, unless you are a saint yourself, why should i believe that you will really only use for personal purposes?

The point is that some here take positions that is advantageous to them. There are legit reasons for the program. But so many here are thinking the worse.

You can not judge unless you are willing to be judged.

For many of us, this program offers an opportunity to continue our ownership of the music despite the rights management that Apple seems to think is fair, but may not fit our lives.

These laws i mentioned are not innocent laws that are being broken, but costing us dearly in terms of life and property. Following your logic, we have speed limiters on cars (this is rights management), id systems so that insurance companies and DMV's can restrict usage of a car to those that have the "right" to drive.

So sad that many think that this is about piracy for users of this software. Not saying that I am a saint, but i do try to lead a good life. And do what is right for my fellow man, my country, and my church. Evidently some feel that the temptation is too great for them.

[Spades]

With apologies to anybody over 25, like I said, it was a long time ago. :D

Ouch, the Sony v. Universal thing was only in 1982-1984.

[bangy]

running 10.3.3... here are the results for the files I tried.

6 files made itunes/quicktime crash
1 file plays, sounds normal in itunes but in quicktime the whenever the cymbal was hit it made kind of a rattling sound (the song is the ben folds cover of "inbetween days" for those interested).

it's been more trouble than it's worth. most of my files won't work period and the one that did work has questionable quality.

how's everyone else doing with this?

[ajb13]

Compiling this app is in no way illegal, nor is helping someone to do so. Also, as far as I know, Apple's clauses haven't necessarily been held up in a court of law. In any event, building PlayFair is not illegal.

Sure, it's not illegal to do so, but think about. If you agree to the terms and conditions, that is binding on your conscience. Okay, so it doesn't fit your lifestyle, well, then why aren't all the Linux users lobbying Apple for QuickTime™ for Linux? The thing is, most of us read the terms and conditions, accept, and never pay heed. I guess it's more of a moral issue, and of course, I don't want to see Apple harmed. iTMS is still revolutionary, and it just takes one plonker to mess the whole thing up.

Oh well, hoping above all their is still hope for the morally challenged. ;)

[puggsly]

Of course you have the right to sell or license your code any way you wish......"I'd buy more of your code if it wasn't DRMed"? Isn't it smart business to give your customers what they want and not treat them like thieves?

Great! We agree the author has the right to distribute as he/she/it sees fit. As to what the best business choice is, I don't know and neither do you. You can speak for yourself about what you would do but you can't speak for everyone else. To put it into perspective, try this.

I Personally promise I will never enter your home uninvited, so why don't you stop locking your doors?

Shouldn't I be able to play my music over my airport network on my stereo? Right now, Fairplay doesn't allow it....Apple can't provide the services I want, I won't be buying their products.

This is not a limitation of FairPlay exactly but more Apple's decision not to license FairPlay. There is no reason that Apple couldn't license Fairplay to Tivo (they support rendezvous) or any other manufacture (including other MP3 players) and allow for streaming over 802.11 (as they do from one mac to another). And your reaction to this situation is a good one. Don't buy the music until the DRM allows you to do what you want. You and I can both hope for this in the future.

But as you agreed, it is not up to us what the restrictions should be. If we don't like them we can choose to not support them but we can not circumvent them. That's my point.

[jxyama]

The point is that some here take positions that is advantageous to them. There are legit reasons for the program. But so many here are thinking the worse.

unlike p2p or dvd ripper, i don't think there's any legally "legitimate" reasons for this program. p2p can be used to share public domain software. dvd rippers can be used to back up. both uses are legally legitimate.

this program, however, does nothing but rip DRM out, which is illegal, according to apple iTMS term of service and possibly DMCA.

[coolsoldier]

People have said this software is illegal. That's true (at least in the US), but then in several places it's also illegal to cary wirecutters in your car. Not everything that violates a law is objectively wrong. And yes, piracy is fundamentally wrong. But circumventing copy protection is not (necessarily).

As for the practical impact, I don't think there is any. Until you can name a song on iTMS that you can't find on Kazaa (or LimeWire, or Acquisition or <insert other p2p software>), then there's no real impact. iTMS and it's DRM really don't do anything to keep songs from propagating over p2p, because the people who upload music on p2p networks are far more likely to obtain (unprotected) music over p2p networks (or CDs).

There is no damage whatsoever to iTMS or the music industry if somebody uploads a file to a p2p network that was already available on the same network. From a piracy perspective this software doesn't matter, because there are other, far easier and cheaper methods of pirating music, no matter how simple this software gets. The only place that this software is really useful is for people who want to pay for downloads and have flexibility. Because of the way p2p networks work, the amount of music piracy is driven by the number of downloaders, not uploaders, and therefore the presence or absence of DRM doesn't matter.

It's unlikely, given the other methods available, that pirates will use this software at all unless iTMS becomes ubiquitous and completely eliminates CDs, and even if pirates do use it, the impact on the availability of pirated music isn't really that great.

Meanwhile, there are benefits to iTMS users:

1) Music can be played on older computers (OS 9, Win 98/ME -- people do still use these, even if not as their primary computers)
2) Music can be played on non-iPod music players.
3) Music can be converted to mp3 to play in cheap players or burn to mp3 cd's
4) Windows users can now (like mac users have been able to all along) use their music files in movies, etc. -- iMovie supports AAC-p, but there is no windows movie software that does.
5) If, for some reason, people want to switch music software at some point in the future. Even if iTunes is the best jukebox software out there now (this has been disputed), odds are that it won't stay the best forever. This gives them the option to switch software in the future.

So yes, it's technically illegal. But overall:
--The impact on the music industry is basically nothing, because music can be pirated far more easily by other means
--The impact on the iTMS is net positive because it allows customers to get more value out of their products, while it's not likely to increase piracy.

So, all in all, it's a net positive for iTMS.

[ajb13]

I Personally promise I will never enter your home uninvited, so why don't you stop locking your doors?

But as you agreed, it is not up to us what the restrictions should be. If we don't like them we can choose to not support them but we can not circumvent them. That's my point.

Living in a world of fast food, fast cars and even faster tech advances, we are forever in pursuit of changing things to suite "us". Often in this pursuit, we don't give a thought to the implications of our "selfishness".

just a thought.

[appleguru1]

Shouldn't I be able to play my music over my airport network on my stereo? Right now, Fairplay doesn't allow it....Apple can't provide the services I want, I won't be buying their products.

You can... If you have a squeezebox (SliMP3-ish device...), a piece of software written by a friend of mine autmotically uses QT to decompress your .m4ps to .aiff and stream to your stereo...

[jxyama]

Living in a world of fast food, fast cars and even faster tech advances, we are forever in pursuit of changing things to suite "us". Often in this pursuit, we don't give a thought to the implications of our "selfishness".

just a thought.

thanks for your post... yeah, i feel that way some time. sure, you have rights... and it's great to have those rights and being able to exercise them. but i just feel like, dunno, sometimes, it's just obnoxious, in a way...

"i don't care what consequences my creation may have in general. i have my rights and i am going to exercises them, consequences be damned."

[maxterpiece]

Well, it was only a matter of time. I wondered how long it would take the windows folks to figure out a way to decode the encryption. If you note everywhere on it says stuff about how you need Windows to do this.

The 3 - 5% of population that uses Apples aren't idiots either, but for some reason you don't see them figuring out how to crack iTunes MS DRM do you? Interesting.

I think it just reflects the current thoughts of the population at large. If you don't physically take an item, you're not stealing. A whole generation of kids is being brought up this way.

Right now the key is the one you bought with, but how long until you see keys being traded/zipped up with the songs?

I think it's more an attitude that if you don't directly hurt anyone, it's not a crime. For example, not many people have a problem with the idea of underage drinking - you aren't harming anyone directly, but by being drunk you may harm yourself or someone else.

The only problem with this is that the recording industry may back away from this online music thing. As for as the moral side of it, the recording industry is so full of fat cats that I don't really care. Maybe one day it won't be economical to promote commercial bands. Then people will actually listen to music they like and that they connect to instead of listening to the garbage that the recording industries forces down their throats.

[dloomer]

Apple has been much to slow to enter the market occupied bye HomePod, Squeezebox, EyeHome, et al. Although they would be sure to dominate the market (at least as far as Mac users are concerned) as soon as they entered it whether or not they waited until the end of this year, I'm betting it's just around the corner. The market sounds more than ready.

[greg75]

How many of you have flashed your DVD-ROM in order to make it region free?

Doing that violates both traditional copyright law (the firmware you downloaded was a derivative work that was illegally distributed) and the DMCA (circumventing access control).

[biw314]

seems to work fine for me.

[iMeowbot]

How many of you have flashed your DVD-ROM in order to make it region free?

Doing that violates both traditional copyright law (the firmware you downloaded was a derivative work that was illegally distributed) and the DMCA (circumventing access control).

I got my region-free formware update from the drive manufacturer. Darned if I can see what would be wrong or illegal about that.

[wordmunger]

You can... If you have a squeezebox (SliMP3-ish device...), a piece of software written by a friend of mine autmotically uses QT to decompress your .m4ps to .aiff and stream to your stereo...
Sounds great. So how does your friend's software work? Does it expand everything into .aiff? If that's the case, it would be a problem because I don't have that kind of HD space. Does the device directly access my iTunes playlist? 'Cause it be kind of a pain to have to use my computer (two rooms away) to control what's playing. I'm just a little concerned about accomplishing all this with hacks, when what we're really talking about is only a marginal improvement over CDs. Mainly I'm interested in all this to make my life easier--to get rid of CD clutter, to have my music all available at a central location. If the cost of all that is Terminal hacks, messy file structures, patches etc., then it's not worth it to me.

[nmk]

One of the things that bothers me the most about ITMS is that you can only play your downloaded songs on an iPod. Apple is refusing to license fairplay. We constantly complain about MS's monopolistic practices, but I can remember them doing anything like this. I really dont think this restriction has much to do with the RIAA as Coke seems to have found a way to get a legal online music store going which isn't MP3 player specific (soon many other people will too).

I think the primary utility of this software will be to allow people to play songs on non Apple MP3 players. If Apple has a problem with that ****** them. There is nothing illegal about playing that song on any other medium provided the person that purchased it is the one listening to it. It just saves you the hassle of having to rip it to a CD and then back to your computer.

[jxyama]

One of the things that bothers me the most about ITMS is that you can only play your downloaded songs on an iPod. Apple is refusing to license fairplay. We constantly complain about MS's monopolistic practices, but I can remember them doing anything like this.

apple's monopoly here is vertical, which is not illegal. making iTMS only work with iPod is no more illegal than making PS2 DVD games work only with PS2 console.

if apple leveraged it's online music prowess to sign recording labels to an exclusive contract so that online music will only play with iPod and make all other mp3 players obsolete - then the monopoly becomes horizontal (like M$) and illegal.

[wordmunger]

if apple leveraged it's online music prowess to sign recording labels to an exclusive contract so that online music will only play with iPod and make all other mp3 players obsolete - then the monopoly becomes horizontal (like M$) and illegal.

I don't think that's true. Copyright is already a government-enforced monopoly, so signing labels to exclusive deals is no different than a book publisher signing an exclusive deal with a particular book club. The rightsholder has sole discretion on how his/her work is distributed.

[jxyama]

I don't think that's true. Copyright is already a government-enforced monopoly, so signing labels to exclusive deals is no different than a book publisher signing an exclusive deal with a particular book club. The rightsholder has sole discretion on how his/her work is distributed.

hmm... ok, i guess i'd need another example of illegal horizontal monopoly...

how about: if apple leveraged its dominance of iPod to purchase exclusive licence of mp3 codecs to make all other mp3 players obsolete? that's an example of horizontal monopoly...

[greg75]

I got my region-free formware update from the drive manufacturer. Darned if I can see what would be wrong or illegal about that.
Got a link? That would be in violation of the manufacturer's license agreement with the DVD-Forum.

[billyboy]

Meanwhile, there are benefits to iTMS users:

1) Music can be played on older computers (OS 9, Win 98/ME -- people do still use these, even if not as their primary computers)
2) Music can be played on non-iPod music players.
3) Music can be converted to mp3 to play in cheap players or burn to mp3 cd's
4) Windows users can now (like mac users have been able to all along) use their music files in movies, etc. -- iMovie supports AAC-p, but there is no windows movie software that does.
5) If, for some reason, people want to switch music software at some point in the future. Even if iTunes is the best jukebox software out there now (this has been disputed), odds are that it won't stay the best forever. This gives them the option to switch software in the future.

So yes, it's technically illegal. But overall:
--The impact on the music industry is basically nothing, because music can be pirated far more easily by other means
--The impact on the iTMS is net positive because it allows customers to get more value out of their products, while it's not likely to increase piracy.

So, all in all, it's a net positive for iTMS.

I also initially thought that easy removal of DRM would have good benefits for iTMS, but then I looked at the reasoning behind iTMS. Basically by looking at the scenario from Apple's point of view rather than the music buyers point of view, maybe you might change your opinion too.

iTMS is slick and easy to use and heavily invested in, because its sole aim is to convince the public to buy iPods.

It is not in existence to boast that it can channel every single music purchase in the world through its servers at 10 cents profit a pop. There has to be a hardware sale at the end of these music download numbers

Whilst tied into the music industry, iTMS is not in existence to help out the music industry per se, music is a marketing medium to sell iPods

iTMS is not in existence to give consumers a brainless way of downloading music legally just so they can one-click strip its DRM to play iTMS tracks on some competing POS from Dell.

Apple have iTMS as a vehicle to sell hardware, their hardware. If iTMS stops selling Apple hardware, iTMS will disappear in its present form, and the wheels will fall merrily off of this paradigm shift in music distribution until Apple come up with a different way of angling in on audio hardware gadget sales.

[dloomer]

Are there many iPod cometitors out there today which use (unprotected) AAC? Are any of them any good?

I realize the answer to this question doesn't solve anything, I'm just curious.

[123]

your other points are fine, but why is it the responsibility of apple to support linux, other media players or home entertainment systems? show me the motivation for apple to support platforms and hardware/software they derive no profits from.

Because people will crack Apple's DRM if they don't. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or not or if it's good or bad, it's clear that it happens sooner or later and if they don't want it to happen (for file sharing/RIAA reasons), they have to provide the decoders for all legit applications, thus making the use of their protected songs as painless as possible. Otherwise, it's their own fault if pissed programmers develop DRM stripping solutions that work painlessly even for the general public.

Also, IMO, they would make more profits if they opened the ipod and their music format. If their music store offers such a great shopping experience, they can sell their songs anyway, if the iPod is the best player, they can sell it with or without having a good music store... but only if the formats are open. The way they are going now is dangerous and only hurts their sales. No product will ever please everybody. The iTunes Store-iPod package deal combines the flaws of the individual products which puts off those customers who would buy songs or iPods from Apple if they could combine them with different software/hardware. It might not be that big of a problem as long as the iPod is clearly superior, but things will change and Apple is about to make the same old mistake again because they never learn.

[jxyama]

Because people will crack Apple's DRM if they don't. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or not or if it's good or bad, it's clear that it happens sooner or later and if they don't want it to happen (for file sharing/RIAA reasons), they have to provide the decoders for all legit applications, thus making the use of their protected songs as painless as possible. Otherwise, it's their own fault if pissed programmers develop DRM stripping solutions that work painlessly even for the general public.

i have a feeling even if iTunes was offered for linux, DRM would still be cracked. if anyone would want to crack DRM for the sake of cracking it, i would have guessed he/she would come from the linux crowd as the advocater of anti-DRM movement.

[coolsoldier]

Apple have iTMS as a vehicle to sell hardware, their hardware. If iTMS stops selling Apple hardware, iTMS will disappear in its present form, and the wheels will fall merrily off of this paradigm shift in music distribution until Apple come up with a different way of angling in on audio hardware gadget sales.

In the long term, promoting AAC helps to edge out WMA downloads that don't play on the iPod. And as long as the price is less than the cost of sale (i.e. they don't actually lose money per song, which I doubt they do), they don't lose iPod sales by selling to people with low-end players -- those people just aren't in the market for iPods, and for them its either low-end player+WMA download or low-end player+stripped iTMS download. Since the WMA option locks them out of ever buying an iPod, the DRM stripped downloads still help the iPod.

[iMeowbot]

Got a link? That would be in violation of the manufacturer's license agreement with the DVD-Forum.
A link? Uh, no, I'd be shocked if that was available for consumer use (though there are plenty of unofficial patches floating around for those who want them).

[nmk]

I'm not talking about the legality of the system here. MS is bitched for doing a lot of things that are legal but give them an unfair (this is ofcourse a subjective term) advantage over the competition. The iPod does gain an advantage by being tied in with ITMS. Anyway, the point I'm making is that from a consumer standpoint this software is good for me. I can now choose any music player based solely on the quality and utility of the player. This may indeed end up being the iPod, but ITMS will now sway that decision. I'm just surprised that people here are complaining about a piece of software that allows them to legally be more versatile in how they store and playback their digital music.

I'm sure that Apple will eventually find a way to stifle the distribution or effectiveness of this software. But that will certainly not be to the benefit of the consumer, and that includes the posters on this forum. I would really love to see Apple license fairplay (or GASP, make it freely availible). Rely on ITMS to make money. When will they learn. THE MONEY IS NOT IN HARDWARE, THE MONEY IS NOT IN HARDWARE, THE MONEY IS NOT NOT NOT IN HARDWARE.

[alamar]

If it is used for personal use only, I see no problem with it. But if it is used to share music then it's stealing. I hope people would just pay the 99 cents per song or at least rent music thru a subscription. That is fair.

If you already own the song on CD it is also legal to DL it from a P2P source for personal use. Instances where this would be more convient than just putting the CD in and ripping it to MP3 or whatever are rare, but do occur. Some people don't have a CD drive, or the know-how, or the original copy they bought is too badly damaged.

That said, once you buy the song of iTMS it is your data. I don't see anything wrong with pulling the DMR out of it, some people might want to burn a certian song onto dozens of mixed, sample it and make music for themselves ect.

Also, when you get to the core of it, making music avalible for share isn't stealing. Taking music that you never purchased is.

The long and short of this is that with the end user being so savy these days as to crack nearly any software put to market; the music industry is going to be chasing its tail as it continually revizes it DMR, and it is cracked over and over.

Those who enjoying purchasing music legally should continue to do so worry free. Those file hoarders out there who enjoy lifting off the P2P networks will doubtlessly do the same. Its really no ones biz except the music companies and the "criminals" that they go to guns on.

Live and let be burried under horrific threatening lawsuit. There are more important things for the average human to worry about than the well being of iTMS. Its something few of us can affect in any signifigant way.

[greg75]

A link? Uh, no, I'd be shocked if that was available for consumer use (though there are plenty of unofficial patches floating around for those who want them).
That's exactly what I was referring to. Those unofficial patches are the original firmwares from the manufacturers which have been cracked by third parties and are being distributed illegally.

[fpnc]

You can convert your AAC files to AIFF files using Toast. When you start to create an audio CD and drag over your AAC files, there is an option to save the converted files. You can save these files as AIFF (uncompressed).


To which jxyama replied:

you can already do this with iTunes...


jxyama, I think you may misunderstand what xhost_plus said. With Toast you can go directly from your (own) protected AAC files to AIFF __WITHOUT__ burning a CD. iTunes requires that you burn an intermediate CD.

[manu chao]

For all those complaining that iTMS songs are not full quality, one should say that a CD is not full quality either, for once there is frequency limit (everything above ~ 42 000 Hz is lost) and in principal every A/D conversion is lossy, you convert a smooth curve into something made up of steps.

For example, a DAT tape offers a higher frequency limit and therefore a slightly better quality, but you need very expensive equipment to hear the difference.

[appleguru1]

Wow... this app is certainly a lot better than the VLC method I had to use... Version .2 seems to be flawless for me.. works for every song, gets/decrypts key from iPod, and copys all metadata and gfx art... The other good news is that once you get a key from your iPod, you can play your songs in VLC too. You can copy this key to, say, a linux computer, and then play the protected songs there too. All within fair use.

[RIP]

I'm not talking about the legality of the system here. MS is bitched for doing a lot of things that are legal but give them an unfair (this is ofcourse a subjective term) advantage over the competition. The iPod does gain an advantage by being tied in with ITMS. Anyway, the point I'm making is that from a consumer standpoint this is good for me. I can now choose any music player based solely on the quality and utility of the player. This may indeed end up being the iPod, but ITMS will now sway that decision. I'm just surprised that people here are complaining about a piece of software that allows them to legally be more versatile in how they store and playback their digital music.

I'm sure that Apple will eventually find a way to stifle the distribution or effectiveness of this software. But that will certainly not be to the benefit of the consumer, and that includes the posters on this forum. I would really love to see Apple license fairplay (or GASP, make it freely availible). Rely on ITMS to make money. When will they learn. THE MONEY IS NOT IN HARDWARE, THE MONEY IS NOT IN HARDWARE, THE MONEY IS NOT NOT NOT IN HARDWARE.


I don't disagree with you in any way. As a matter of fact, I made this point many pages ago. However to strengthen your argument, the iPod has its advantage over the competition because of its integration with iTunes. The fact that is also can play DRM'ed AAC is secondary. Without DRM, I would still be inclined to use the iPod with iTunes because they work so well together. I think others would second that.

This thread is so strong not because of the legal consideration of the presented source code, but the excitement it has created by the consumers of Apple's products. It proves that there is a need for this software. Legal or not this technology will exist, and I for one intend to use it.

Apple must learn to make money selling songs and must better educate people of the symbiotic relationship that the iPod has with iTunes, the best player and jukebox software in existence today, period. The iPod should be the end all, be all player of any codec out there.

Apple would be wise to acknowledge this technology privately and leave it alone as it has the strong potential to help sales of both iPods and music.

[rdowns]

I'm going to try that out.

I've bought music from iTMS and it really bothers me that I cant play those songs on my Linux System. I dont want to go through the hassle of burning to a CD and then ripping again.

I see no problem with this program. You're unprotecting your own songs for your own use. Even though you might want to use them on more systems than allowed, what does Apple expect you to do? Buy several copies of the same song? That would be idiotic.
You've already paid for the song, you should be able to listen to it when you want to, where you want to.

You bought the songs knowing the limitations or should have known. There is a problem with this program.

[maxterpiece]

One of the things that bothers me the most about ITMS is that you can only play your downloaded songs on an iPod. Apple is refusing to license fairplay. We constantly complain about MS's monopolistic practices, but I can remember them doing anything like this. I really dont think this restriction has much to do with the RIAA as Coke seems to have found a way to get a legal online music store going which isn't MP3 player specific (soon many other people will too).

I think the primary utility of this software will be to allow people to play songs on non Apple MP3 players. If Apple has a problem with that ****** them. There is nothing illegal about playing that song on any other medium provided the person that purchased it is the one listening to it. It just saves you the hassle of having to rip it to a CD and then back to your computer.

Apple's way has always been to control a large part of their OS and what it interacts with. They're are no clones, only certain hardware works on an apple. Obviously this kind of forces people to use apple's hardware which makes apple money, but it is also the way that apple is able to avoid dropping to the "most stuff for the least $" policy that PC manufacturers follow and that makes windows based PCs less reliable. By controlling everything apple is able to customize everything so that it is easiest for the consumer to use. They only have to focus on making iTunes and ITMS work with seamlessly on the ipod and this makes using Apple machines much less of a hassle - thus the addage "apple's just work!" Apple won't license their DRM because there would then be no way for them to provide the same fluid user experience for all MP3 players that they provide between the iPod and itunes.
Now you and I, being relatively computer saavy, would probably be alright with that kind of sacrifice. For Apple, however, it would be a sacrifice that would go completely against the philosophy upon which they have built such an easy system. Users would buy these less reliable mp3 players, be frustrated, and it would be windows on a mac.
As far as the monopoly perspective goes, Windows is in a position where many people have to use windows machines because there is no way for them to run the software that they need to run (ie software built for a specific company). Microsoft is in a position where if they had an itunes-like system, they could force people to use even the crappiest of mp3 players because that would be there only choice. Apple will always have pressure to provide a product that is good for the consumer because consumers have no other reason to choose apple. Microsoft is not in the same situation. We, as mac owners, might be a little perturbed at not being able to use alternative players, however, we did choose macs and the apple philosophy has been as it is now since the end of clones.

[nmk]

I don't disagree with you in any way. As a matter of fact, I made this point many pages ago. However to strengthen your argument, the iPod has its advantage over the competition because of its integration with iTunes. The fact that is also can play DRM'ed AAC is secondary. Without DRM, I would still be inclined to use the iPod with iTunes because they work so well together. I think others would second that.

This thread is so strong not because of the legal consideration of the presented source code, but the excitement it has created by the consumers of Apple's products. It proves that there is a need for this software. Legal or not this technology will exist, and I for one intend to use it.

Apple must learn to make money selling songs and must better educate people of the symbiotic relationship that the iPod has with iTunes, the best player and jukebox software in existence today, period. The iPod should be the end all, be all player of any codec out there.

Apple would be wise to acknowledge this technology privately and leave it alone as it has the strong potential to help sales of both iPods and music.

I completely agree. iTunes is a fantastic jukebox and its integration with the iPod is fantastic. However, you have to wonder if Apple has as much confidence in this "symbiotic" relationship as you and I do. If the product is the best on the market, let it sell on its own merits. After all, iTunes and ITMS is availible on windows. Let the iPod play WMA and let fairplay encoded AAC's play on other players. If the iPod iTunes solution is really the best in the market (which I believe it currently is) then it will sell on its own merits.

However, keep one thing in mind. The future of digital music storage and playback does not belong the the dedicated MP3 player alone. Smartphones are comming of age. Soon they will incorporate mini hard drives (much like the one used in the iPod mini) and they already have MP3 players built in. Many people buy PVP's which also play MP3's. By keeping fairplay proprietary you are forcing these people to choose alternate music stores. This is a massive future market for digital music and one which Apple will stubbonly alienate.

[iMeowbot]

That's exactly what I was referring to. Those unofficial patches are the original firmwares from the manufacturers which have been cracked by third parties and are being distributed illegally.

...which has nothing to do with the firmware I used.

[appleguru1]

Nice little tool that saves you from burning to disk and then re-ripping, but I'm sure it's not going to make Apple or the RIAA happy...

I'm guessing first comes the DMCA lawsuit and then changes to the iTMS structure. More than likely this is going to result in more restrictive DRM in the long run...

I respect the philosophy behind the app, and really don't think you can stop stuff like this from being written, but this certainly is going to add strength to WMA (until it's also cracked).

All the way from the first page, I know... but... WMA is cracked already...

http://home.wanadoo.nl/lc.staak/freeme.htm

[nmk]

Apple won't license their DRM because there would then be no way for them to provide the same fluid user experience for all MP3 players that they provide between the iPod and itunes.
No, they wont license their DRM becuase they want to make money of the iPod. Fluid user experiance has nothing to do with it. Users would buy these less reliable mp3 players, be frustrated, and it would be windows on a mac.
No, it would be windows on windows. The future of ITMS lies primarily in sales through the Windows platform, not Mac.
Microsoft is in a position where if they had an itunes-like system, they could force people to use even the crappiest of mp3 players because that would be there only choice.
They will very soon have an ITMS like system which will no doubt be included in WMP. They will not force people to buy any mp3 player as WMP will be licensed.
We, as mac owners, might be a little perturbed at not being able to use alternative players, however, we did choose macs and the apple philosophy has been as it is now since the end of clones.
We chose to buy Apple computers becuase we like the integration between their OS and hardware. We did not choose to be alienated from any non Apple technology that may appear on the market.

[sebisworld]

That's exactly what I was referring to. Those unofficial patches are the original firmwares from the manufacturers which have been cracked by third parties and are being distributed illegally.

There are also many, many DVD players from not-so-well-known companies where one has to press no more than one button to deactivate the region code. Amazon Germany even used to have a cheap DVD Player with instructions on how to remove the region code right on their page for ordering.

Now all I need to know is how to strip this stupid region code of my iMac's Sony DVD RW DW DR-U10A. It's the most retarded feature ever created and, a friend of a friend of mine, who knows a guy that knows someone else, whose friend again knows a friend bypasses the region code on DVDs he gains interest in when visiting the states by renting them and then burning them region free, because quite frankly, original region-protected DVDs are of no more value than AOL CDs to him.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Actually, except for the sainthood part, that pretty much describes me. I have mixed feelings about this application though... certainly it's nice, and I'll use it on the tracks I get from ITMS, but I KNOW others will abuse it just because they can. It's disappointing, but there are always people like that I guess.

I am sorry i am tired of those that want to throw the baby out with the bath water. thinking everyone is evil.

The point that I was trying to make is that many that are against this software actually break even more important laws.

They want to pick the laws that they support.

[Chip NoVaMac]

You bought the songs knowing the limitations or should have known. There is a problem with this program.

So if you buy a small car today, you should know that an SUV can cause serious damage or even death with your small car. Then you should be limited in the damages that you receive.

Or that a drug has side effects or may not cure what you have. Or the limitations of medical knowledge might mean that your doctor does not have all the knowledge to make sure you are healthy.

Prosecute the guilty, not the innocent.

[Chip NoVaMac]

For all those complaining that iTMS songs are not full quality, one should say that a CD is not full quality either, for once there is frequency limit (everything above ~ 42 000 Hz is lost) and in principal every A/D conversion is lossy, you convert a smooth curve into something made up of steps.

For example, a DAT tape offers a higher frequency limit and therefore a slightly better quality, but you need very expensive equipment to hear the difference.

And a recent post here showed that in most cases AAC is as good as it gets, except in some selected cases.

[rdowns]

So if you buy a small car today, you should know that an SUV can cause serious damage or even death with your small car. Then you should be limited in the damages that you receive.

Or that a drug has side effects or may not cure what you have. Or the limitations of medical knowledge might mean that your doctor does not have all the knowledge to make sure you are healthy.

Prosecute the guilty, not the innocent.

Sorry, your analogies are ludicrous.

People chose to buy songs from iTMS under the T&C there. They had the option of not accepting the T&C and not buying. If they bought, they should follow the T&C. What's so hard abou that?

[Chip NoVaMac]

I also initially thought that easy removal of DRM would have good benefits for iTMS, but then I looked at the reasoning behind iTMS. Basically by looking at the scenario from Apple's point of view rather than the music buyers point of view, maybe you might change your opinion too.

iTMS is slick and easy to use and heavily invested in, because its sole aim is to convince the public to buy iPods.

It is not in existence to boast that it can channel every single music purchase in the world through its servers at 10 cents profit a pop. There has to be a hardware sale at the end of these music download numbers

Whilst tied into the music industry, iTMS is not in existence to help out the music industry per se, music is a marketing medium to sell iPods

iTMS is not in existence to give consumers a brainless way of downloading music legally just so they can one-click strip its DRM to play iTMS tracks on some competing POS from Dell.

Apple have iTMS as a vehicle to sell hardware, their hardware. If iTMS stops selling Apple hardware, iTMS will disappear in its present form, and the wheels will fall merrily off of this paradigm shift in music distribution until Apple come up with a different way of angling in on audio hardware gadget sales.

I doubt it since iTMS has shown that this is a viable method of music distribution. Record companies may not like since they aren't selling 10 to 20 crap cuts, but singles that we really want. But in the end we are buyting, and they are getting paid.

As long as i don't use this software to pirate the music for others, i should be able to do what I need to to do with music that I bought.

I should add that I bought into iTMS because of the liberal rights provided. I can see as technology changes, and the such that even that is restrictive.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Sorry, your analogies are ludicrous.

People chose to buy songs from iTMS under the T&C there. They had the option of not accepting the T&C and not buying. If they bought, they should follow the T&C. What's so hard abou that?

It is only ludicrous since you and I have our own opinions on this issue.

You may have a point, but if there is software to allow legal users to retain rights beyond the T&C's, then there should be no problem.

Following your thought then since most T&C's for computer software have not spoken about just how long the support the software is for, then I see class actions suits with the changes that Adobe and others are talking about dropping support for older software.

Or maybe the movie industry should only allow for a certain number of viewings of a DVD before the DVD is no longer viewable?

For us legal users, we need direction as to what we are buying, and what technology may provide to users beyond the T&C's. Yes, i bought form iTMS knowing what is what. But secretly I hoped that there would be a program down teh road that would allow me to gain the rights to the music, even if Apple and their publishers don't fully agree. There is something called the fair use doctrine.

[coolsoldier]

People chose to buy songs from iTMS under the T&C there. They had the option of not accepting the T&C and not buying. If they bought, they should follow the T&C. What's so hard abou that?

From a practical and/or ethical standpoint, there is no reason to follow the Terms and Conditions. From a legal standpoint, restrictions on what you do to your music privately for your own personal use are not enforceable.

Legal or not, buying music and not following the T&C is an option. In fact, assuming you only use it privately, it's a better option than any of the alternatives, and hurts nobody.

[TyWahn]

What is "the key" that you need? (which some sy can be used in VLC as well)

[Stella]

Of course.. you are assuming the country the said person is in has a law similar to DCMA.. otherwise -> f?ck the DCMA, it doesn't apply!

Added:
RE: Region Free DVD players: There are plenty of places I can buy Region Free DVD Players.. I have European DVD, and Region 1 DVDs. Do you really think I'm going to buy the same DVD again for the region I'm in? Of course not - and I shouldn't have to. Its my right to play the DVD whereever in the world I'm in... whatever anyone says

How many of you have flashed your DVD-ROM in order to make it region free?

Doing that violates both traditional copyright law (the firmware you downloaded was a derivative work that was illegally distributed) and the DMCA (circumventing access control).

[ryanw]

Looks like someone already posted a patch to make it automatically name the files for you. Much needed!

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=105982&atid=642764

[iMeowbot]

Of course.. you are assuming the country the said person is in has a law similar to DCMA.. otherwise -> f?ck the DCMA, it doesn't apply!

Yep, and for things like this you're subject to the laws of the country you're in at the moment, not the one you came from.

[reorx]

Following your thought then since most T&C's for computer software have not spoken about just how long the support the software is for, then I see class actions suits with the changes that Adobe and others are talking about dropping support for older software.


Unless purchased separately, most software companies do NOT provide long-term support for old software releases. Its moronic to think that they should.


Or maybe the movie industry should only allow for a certain number of viewings of a DVD before the DVD is no longer viewable?


Ever heard of the DIVX fiasco pushed by Circuit City & Co?

[appleguru1]

What is "the key" that you need? (which some sy can be used in VLC as well)

Just have your iPod plugged in when you first run the app, and it will get your key for you (and put it in ~/.drms/). Don't have an iPod? If you have a PC or Virtual PC, you can use that to get your key too...

Looks like someone already posted a patch to make it automatically name the files for you. Much needed!

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?gro...982&atid=642764

A friend of mine wrote a perl script that auto-names the files from the originals.. but also batch processes an directory (Recursively no less)... I'll post a link when it's fully done ;)

[Swift]

Let's say everybody walks on the ground. At most, some people can hop. Then somebody invents wings. He can actually go sailing through the air for hours, travelling far. No good, they say. He might look down women's blouses. He might be able to give away the positions of armies. And above all, the commercial airlines would be mad at him. Stealing airfares, they'd say.

This is all nonsense. This is no more stealing than it was to tape an album off the radio, or even listen to the radio back when they played a lot of music that was the DJ's choice, not Clear Channel's and the record label's. You've been hypnotized into believing that the enormous extension of copyright in our time is NORMAL, but sharing music is THEFT. Sooner or later, you will wake up.

We should institute mandatory licensing, a tax on blank media, a tax on ISP's, all that. Sharing music over the net is perfectly all right. Look! Somebody has invented wings, and you can fly all the way to India in a few milliseconds. This cannot be wrong. If the law says it is, change the law. :(

[appleguru1]

Ok.. here's that perl script... First you'll need to have PlayFair installed. Once you do, download and unzip...

http://piewalker.home.comcast.net/playfairbatch.zip

Usage: playfairbatch.pl /input/directory /output/directory

You use this from the terminal.. Just drag the perl script to the terminal, and then drag the folder containing the files you want to process, followed by the folder you want to use as a destination for the .m4a's. The final file name is derived from the source filename.

NOTE: If no input/output directory is specified, it will use your current working directory for both input and output. (So another way to use the app is to cd into the directory where your .m4ps are, and run the script; it will put the output files in that directory as well.) You can also cd /, and run the script. Since it is recursive, it will scan your entire hard drive for .m4ps, and output .m4as for any found on the root of your hard drive.. Just a few ideas ;)

[Chip NoVaMac]

Unless purchased separately, most software companies do NOT provide long-term support for old software releases. Its moronic to think that they should.



Ever heard of the DIVX fiasco pushed by Circuit City & Co?

One, what i mean by support is being able to run the program, and address issues in running on future OS's (as long as the OS developer offers the capability - like Apple with their "Classic" mode). Not to mention that many T&C's don't truly address this issue at this point.

And with DIVX the consumer voted. Maybe people that feel the way i do about this AAC "rights stripping" software and maybe iTMS could join the likes of consumers that left BetaMax and DIVX behind.

[reorx]

Because people will crack Apple's DRM if they don't. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or not or if it's good or bad, it's clear that it happens sooner or later and if they don't want it to happen (for file sharing/RIAA reasons), they have to provide the decoders for all legit applications, thus making the use of their protected songs as painless as possible. Otherwise, it's their own fault if pissed programmers develop DRM stripping solutions that work painlessly even for the general public.

Also, IMO, they would make more profits if they opened the ipod and their music format. If their music store offers such a great shopping experience, they can sell their songs anyway, if the iPod is the best player, they can sell it with or without having a good music store... but only if the formats are open. The way they are going now is dangerous and only hurts their sales. No product will ever please everybody. The iTunes Store-iPod package deal combines the flaws of the individual products which puts off those customers who would buy songs or iPods from Apple if they could combine them with different software/hardware. It might not be that big of a problem as long as the iPod is clearly superior, but things will change and Apple is about to make the same old mistake again because they never learn.

Apple isn't forcing you to use their music store, because its the ONLY distribution mechanism out there. If you want the most unrestricted rights to some form of recorded music, you can go to the music store and buy the CD.

The iPod already supports all the "open" formats available. WMA is not an open format.

I think this has been said before: Apple is hardware company that uses its software prowess to sell its goods. They operate the way they do, because its the only way to remain viable in a Wal-Mart economy. They make good products and sell them for the price the market will bear. They are NOT about to dive into an hardware market without a great, abeit proprietary product, because they are smartly not going to play "loss-leader" game... You the consumer have a choice, which is a damn good thing.

[jxyama]

To which jxyama replied:



jxyama, I think you may misunderstand what xhost_plus said. With Toast you can go directly from your (own) protected AAC files to AIFF __WITHOUT__ burning a CD. iTunes requires that you burn an intermediate CD.

gotcha. dang! thanks for the info!

[pEZ]

I refuse to argue whether or not stripping the DRM is legal or not, because it's only going to end in either a moral issue or a flame war - I have my own opinion, and for this post I'll keep it to myself.

At any rate, I fail to recognize how anyone could possibly see this as being a good thing for Apple. In every way, this program violates the agreements between the Recording Industry and Apple, and as soon as everyone's lawyers catch wind of this, suddenly we'll be greeted by a friendly, trite message saying "The iTunes Music Store is currently down due to technical difficulties beyond our control."

BAD. REALLY BAD. Sure, I'm overreacting, but I know I'm not alone here. If the iTunes store is down, there are lots of other choices out there for people to download individual songs, regardless of whether they play on their iPods or Dell DJs or whatever-the-gizmo. Not that I'm saying I'll have a choice, I only have a Mac and I only have an iPod and I will only purchase individual songs from the iTunes Music Store.

But thank goodness this happened after the Pepsi Promotion ended. I can only imagine the carnage. I leave you with a quote from Sports Night:

"But tomorrow, the sky's gonna fall down on both of us."

[Chip NoVaMac]

Apple isn't forcing you to use their music store, because its the ONLY distribution mechanism out there. If you want the most unrestricted rights to some form of recorded music, you can go to the music store and buy the CD.

The iPod already supports all the "open" formats available. WMA is not an open format.

I think this has been said before: Apple is hardware company that uses its software prowess to sell its goods. They operate the way they do, because its the only way to remain viable in a Wal-Mart economy. They make good products and sell them for the price the market will bear. They are NOT about to dive into an hardware market without a great, abeit proprietary product, because they are smartly not going to play "loss-leader" game... You the consumer have a choice, which is a damn good thing.\

To a degree I agree with the previous poster to yours comments.

As much as I dislike "Big Brother" I should be able to go to Apple and request further rights based on my own situation without additional cost.

Current situations have shown that there "protection" methods that do work quite well. Why treat us all as criminals, as opposed to looking at us as individuals that are not out to rip`off the system.

[reorx]

One, what i mean by support is being able to run the program, and address issues in running on future OS's.

And with DIVX the consumer voted. Maybe people that feel the way i do about this software and maybe iTMS could join the likes of BetaMax and DIVX,

As a person who writes software for a living, I have to disagree about supporting "future" OS's. If I write a piece of software for a particular platform, specifiying which operating systems I support, I in no way imply that the software will run on any operating system than the ones it was written for. If a new version of whatever OS there is comes out, and said it was 100% compatible, it still does not mean I will support that OS. End of story.

I still hear people whine and complain that PC software they purchased for "Win95" won't work on XP, even with the compatibility flags correctly set... Sorry, consumer beware...

Yes, Apple will eventually lose this market to the clones, just like they lost the desktop market to Windows "clones" of the Mac UI back in the early days of the personal computer. As an innovative company, that is the price of doing business in this free market. Sometimes they are so ahead of their time time that its silly: NeXT and Newton being two shining examples of future successful ideas. At least Apple was smart enough to re-introduce one of them...

[reorx]

\

To a degree I agree with the previous poster to yours comments.

As much as I dislike "Big Brother" I should be able to go to Apple and request further rights based on my own situation without additional cost.

Current situations have shown that there "protection" methods that do work quite well. Why treat us all as criminals, as opposed to looking at us as individuals that are not out to rip`off the system.

No, you don't have a right to additional "rights" at no additional cost. Music, like Movies, Books, Software and Art is intellectual property. The rights that are established for the given medium are exactly stated. Per medium. You can't go to a book publisher and request additional copies of a book or magazine because you want an extra copy in your car, or get an extra copy of Photoshop for your Windows box, or an extra Renoir for the study. Fortunately for some of these artists/developers, its difficult to copy their end-product. Books, art and sofware (thanks to copy-protection schemes), are difficult to duplicate. For music and movies, the situation is not as good. Anyone and their aunt and uncle with a PC can perfectly copy the entire contents of your work without any loss in quality, thus making pirating way too convenient and casual. If there had been some kind of protection scheme in place, ANY kind, it would have deterred the casual theft of these works. As it were, most people had NO idea it was actually harmful or illegal to digitally copy music and give it away because it was so easy...

Ask yourself this: Why do you have a lock on your house and car? Do these prevent people from breaking in if they REALLY want to? There has to be SOME limit, and SOME reminder that you have limits.

[xparrot]

As I wrote early on on this forum. The terminal scares the heck out of me. I would very much like to use this program to open my library up to my Tivo.

I followed the instructions below and got a "Permission denied." response.

I need some serious hand holding through this. What am I doing wrong?

_kirk


In any case.. to compile this application, download it and untar/gz it (Stuffit works fine for this..). Then open up the terminal and type (Without quotes):

"cd " (Note the trailing space)

and drag the decompressed directory to the terminal window (the playfair-0.2 folder)

Press return.

Type "./configure"

Press return.

When its done, type "make", and hit return...

When that's done.. type "sudo make install", return... and then enter your admin password at the prompt; return...

After that completes, you have successfully compiled the app.. as for using it, I'll give a report in a few to see if/how well it works...

[ryanw]

This should calm everyone down. If you try the tool on protected purchased files, the resulting file crashes quicktime and iTunes. Of course it doesn't screwup any files you just imported from CD's... it'll read them and output files, but using this to create DRM'less purchased files just results in crashing apps.

It might be fixable in the future, but I wouldn't go and converting all your files using the batch scripts to convert all your files using this tool.

[nagromme]

I'd just like to clear up a little misunderstanding I see a lot.

Burning songs to CD and then re-ripping them can be done with ZERO quality loss.

No quality was lost when the compressed song went to uncompressed CD. And no quality is lost ripping BACK to computer either, as long as you choose a LOSSLESS format like uncompressed AIFF or WAV. Which WILL work in portable players.

So the real issue with re-ripping is that it makes you CHOOSE between quality and file size.

If you're one of the ones who can truly tell, blind, that a track has been re-ripped, then you may wish to re-rip to WAV and dodge the issue. Don't forget that option :)

[bangy]

As I wrote early on on this forum. The terminal scares the heck out of me. I would very much like to use this program to open my library up to my Tivo.

I followed the instructions below and got a "Permission denied." response.

I need some serious hand holding through this. What am I doing wrong?

_kirk

your password doesn't work because it is asking for your root password which is disabled by default in osx (you can screw your computer up pretty bad logged in as root if you're not careful). here's a good site that'll help you set up your root password.

http://www.tenon.com/support/itools6/osx/root_user/

once you have your root password do the "sudo make install" command again and use that password when prompted. type "exit" to logout of your root account.

[ZildjianKX]

This should calm everyone down. If you try the tool on protected purchased files, the resulting file crashes quicktime and iTunes. Of course it doesn't screwup any files you just imported from CD's... it'll read them and output files, but using this to create DRM'less purchased files just results in crashing apps.

It might be fixable in the future, but I wouldn't go and converting all your files using the batch scripts to convert all your files using this tool.

I got the same result, the files I converted crashed iTunes and quicktime... anyone else get similar results?

[fawlty]

As I wrote early on on this forum. The terminal scares the heck out of me. I would very much like to use this program to open my library up to my Tivo.

I followed the instructions below and got a "Permission denied." response.

I need some serious hand holding through this. What am I doing wrong?


that's easy, you're breaking your purchase agreement

[ssnmx]

You can post unprotected WMA songs on a p2p network just like you can post unprotected AAC files, or any non-DRM content. What's your point?

oh, just didn't know that. I hope somebody comes up with some code to strip the DRM out of WMA files... I'm just wondering how Cnet and the eternal Mac basher news sites are gonna react to this... :confused:

It's not like I'm against more "rights" with your music, but I think people who have bought music from iTMS knew all along that there were rules as to how you can use those files. Don't like that? Then buy a CD.

Anyway, if you wanna use the code because you need it or because you want to share files, then do that.
If not, well... duh.

But in any case, I can see the headlines coming in a little while
"iTunes hacked!!", ''Apple is not immune after all", blah blah blah... :mad:

[nmk]

lol, I dont know why everyone seems to be saying if you dont like the ITMS terms and conditions, buy a CD. You seem to forget there are other online music store options out there, with many more to come in the future (the biggest, no doubt, will be the Virgin online store). So if you have a problem with ITMS, just go with another store. Of course, you'll have to ditch your iPod. I'm not sure what type of DRM the other stores are using, but if it suits your needs better, go for another MP3 player and Music store.

[AhmedFaisal]

For a simple reason. The way the tool works, it requires you to have a legal copy of the DRM-AAC. All it does is make it possible for you to play that AAC without loss of quality (due to reencoding) on any non Apple device (the PC doesn't count because you have to run Apple iTunes in order to play your music). I for example own a Roku Soundbrige which understands AAC and even iTunes Playlists but it can't play iTMS AACs because Apple refuses to licence their DRM technology to 3rd party hardware producers. While I can understand that from a business point of view I absolutely hate it as a user. This tool enables me to circumvent that problem without loss of quality and do something I should be able to without all this BS: Playing my Music that I legally own on whatever device I choose. That is all. If Apple decides to change their licencing policy and licence their DRM to Roku, I will be the first to move the crack tool to the Trashbin.
Cheers,

Ahmed

[ssnmx]

lol, I dont know why everyone seems to be saying if you dont like the ITMS terms and conditions, buy a CD. You seem to forget there are other online music store options out there, with many more to come in the future (the biggest, no doubt, will be the Virgin online store). So if you have a problem with ITMS, just go with another store. Of course, you'll have to ditch your iPod. I'm not sure what type of DRM the other stores are using, but if it suits your needs better, go for another MP3 player and Music store.

As many other online music stores gladly greet me with the "you need to have windows" message that deters me from using them. But it's not only that but the quality of some of them... most of them. iTunes, IMO, is a better experience overall. If I can't find something in iTunes, I get the CD. I don't want files in WMA ( :( ) and I certainly don't want to ditch my iPod... (to get a Dell DJ? hah) :p
So for me at least, if it's not iTunes it's a regular music store. :D

[billyboy]

So, have I got all this right? Every track on iTMS is currently available for free on Kazaa and co? Some people have stripped the DRM from some of the 50 million plus tracks purchased from iTunes Music Store. Instead of removing the DRM via a legal 5 minute burn to a CD, some people now have an original quality AAC track via a convoluted illegal power user process. Having said that, not every track that goes through this process has been successfully de DRM-ed, and even successfully stripped tracks might or might not crash QT or iTunes?

So where to from here? Presumably Apple are going to do some techno stunt to move the goal posts so that tracks purchased from hereon in wont be able to be stripped down by the determined few using the exact same process just released on the internet. Hopefully Apple anticipated this, and before the next assault Apple will have launched a full range of audio related gadgets under Apple brand,and done a few more HPod style deals to increase customer choice, all topped off with the launch the next version of iTunes with batch conversion of every non AAC format out there.

[Wash!!]

I played my itms purchased songs on my macs and stereo.

It is very simple just run a wire from the line out of the playing mac to the one of the inputs on the stereo or get a wireless line transmitter they are about $50 USD and you can "broadcast" your music all over the house. This hack, app or whatever is called is not worth the effort... :rolleyes:

You can also just plug you ipod to the stereo.. duh!! ;)

[nubero]

Buying CDs is niver anyway. At least when it's real music and not some bloody Britney Spears.

But this app really sucks. Wonder how Apple will react to it in the next few days...

--- --- --- --- ---
My free Desktop Pictures!
http://homepage.mac.com/nuber

[appleguru1]

I honestly don't think that this will warrant a very large response from Apple; if it's ackknowledged/addressed at all. So long as its usage is kept largely personal, and the files aren't distributed anywhere (At least most of them), then there shouldn't be a problem. This technology has been avalible for months; and we've yet to see any response to Apple. This app just makes things easier. Look at it from a monitary perspective. As long as money keeps coming in, the record companies are happy. And as long as the money actually lost by an app like this (Which in all honesty is little to none at the present time) is less than the R&D required for apple to successfully re-engineer FairPlay, I don't see any delays or changes in that regard any ime soon.

[nmk]

If you have a problem with DRM check this out.
http://www.allofmp3.com/index2.shtml

[AhmedFaisal]

If you have a problem with DRM check this out.
http://www.allofmp3.com/index2.shtml

LOL, why not post a chinese or korean site (no offense to those nationalities meant). Russian "Copyright" Laws are not even worth the paper they are printed on. Do you actually thing that place legally owns the stuff they distribute?
Cheers,

Ahmed

[3-22]

If you have a problem with DRM check this out.
http://www.allofmp3.com/index2.shtml

Ha, if that doesn't look like a scam. Looks like a high tech version of boot leg CDs on the street corner.

While it may be "legal" in some unknown russian state the legal text pretty much states you are still liable under local laws. So if you use this legal service you might get a knock on the door by RIAA, jeez your probably less likely to get caught on p2p.

"Users are held liable for the use and distribution of the MediaServices site information materials according to local legislation. "

[nmk]

True, it may not be completely (or even partially) legit. However, it is much more sophisticated than selling bootleg CD's on the streetcorner. The site is actually very well developed. Believe me, my countries copyright laws are even worst than Russia's. So this just saves me a lot of trouble. The RIAA is anyway, in conjunction with Apple (and various other partners), ripping off the general public. Somehow I don't feel guilty about not contributing money to help make Shakiras a** even hotter than it already is.

[Snowy_River]

I'm really not sure what all the hubbub is all about. This app really just takes one step out of an already existing process. QTConvert could convert m4p (protected AAC) files into aiff files, which iTunes could then convert to m4a (unprotected AAC) with little or no loss from the original m4p (based on a could of attempts and comparisons that I've made).

So, in any event, it's really not that big a deal. DRM will always be broken. I can't imagine Apple or RIAA imagined that it wouldn't be. Also, I think that it's likely that the majority of iTMS users won't know about this or any other method of stripping the DRM from the files. So, all in all, I really think that this is a non-issue.

[maxterpiece]

No, they wont license their DRM becuase they want to make money of the iPod. Fluid user experiance has nothing to do with it.
No, it would be windows on windows. The future of ITMS lies primarily in sales through the Windows platform, not Mac.

alright, fine you can look at it like this - ITMS is part of what you buy when you get an iPod. The store itself hardly makes any money. I am pretty darn sure that apple would never have invested in such a risky and low margin business if it wasn't to drive their iPod sales. It's a service for ipod users, not a business on its own.

[sjk]

And how long do you think it will be before this method is streamlined, filtered, and dumped into a GUI that simply requires a user to know how to point and click.Not long: OS X Cocoa GUI coming soon ... (http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=366137)

Regardless of whether or not FairPlay DRM would eventually be circumvented or cracked, I think it would have been a less significant issue if Apple had *already* provided a way to "legitimately" play m4p files on other devices/systems. Hacks like PlayFair will likely increase negative publicity and perceptions about these issues in the mainstream. Then Apple may react in ways that cause more negative side effects. Seems like there's a damaging "war on drugs" mentality to this.

[sjk]

This thread is so strong not because of the legal consideration of the presented source code, but the excitement it has created by the consumers of Apple's products. It proves that there is a need for this software. Legal or not this technology will exist, and I for one intend to use it.Exactly. Let's hope PlayFair et.al. are a wakup call to Apple to somehow legitimize this for the benefit of honest people.

[ryaxnb]

It is a shame when you cannot rip/convert to MP3, AAC, etc. the songs from a CD that you have purchased. The latest one for me was Santana.

However, I have found a work around that works sometimes. Use an old cd player (1X variety) to copy the songs to your HD. Use QT Pro to strip out the copy protection crud for each track (AIFF file). Then compress with iTunes.

YMMV...

Sushi

Another workaround: plug a CD player into your Mac's mic port, play the CD, and while playing, use Sound Studio or GarageBand to record. Stop at each track, and then record again. Painful, but possible.

[sjk]

I need some serious hand holding through this. What am I doing wrong?that's easy, you're breaking your purchase agreementWhile I won't judge anyone's intentions for using a program like this I have no interest in helping them.

Why should this forum be a place for the kind of clueless handholding this person is asking for? If it's that important I say let him/her figure it out and maybe even learn something in the process, and/or get help somewhere else. Or wait for the GUI.

Grumble.

[wordmunger]

While I won't judge anyone's intentions for using a program like this I have no interest in helping them.

Why should this forum be a place for the kind of clueless handholding this person is asking for? If it's that important I say let him/her figure it out and maybe even learn something in the process, and/or get help somewhere else. Or wait for the GUI.

Grumble.
I appreciate your taking the time to tell us all why you're not going to help this guy. That kind of community spirit is what forums like this are all about!

[dontmatter]

This sucks pretty sufficiently because apple's whole strategy w/ iTMS/itunes is to use them to sell the ipod and make money there, and now people can use other players. But, you must admit, that it is pretty monopolistic behavior on apple's part, and so it's not so cool, but it's apple, and on this site, we gladly excuse them. I mean, hey, they're leveraging their power a bit unfairly, but they don't have that much power to leverage, and, they make better stuff anyway.

But, that I'm sure has all been said. The thing that worries me, is that record labels and artists wil not be fans, and won't be willing to sell their stuff through ITMS, but will support vendors of the yet-uncracked WMA format. Because if apple looses ipod profits, it's lost profits, but if apple looses the whole music market, profitable or not, they loose a hell of a lot of attention, and I don't think any of us want any less market share or attention from software makers. GRRRRRRRRR.

[bathysphere]

i personally don't care what apple or the riaa think about this app. i have a use for this, and i'm probably going to use it. i bought a couple of things from the itunes music store, and regret it, due to the somewhat low quality of the tracks (compared to cd), and it being overpriced for what it is. i mean, the new modest mouse album came out today and it costs about $16 (16 tracks, have to buy each one seperately, no full album purchase). i went to the record store today and got the same album for under $10. and you can get it on amazon for like $10.38 or something. whatever, i'm just sick of this pussyfooting crap.
regarding apple licensing their drm, they really need to do that quickly, or they're going to be in trouble real quick. i realize that there is a possibility that it could cut into their profits, but nothing else is compatible with the itms tracks, and consumers are going to get pretty irritated at that pretty quickly (and judging by the length of this thread, already are). maybe it's already been said (didn't read the past few pages of the thread), but maybe apple should enable wma in the ipod. there's really no reason not to that i can see, if the major sale of the itms is the ipod, why not let other downloading services promote the ipod too.

[ingenious]

....Bill now I know why Longhorn is delayed--this took up some of your resources huh?


or hes just waiting til OS 11 comes out so he can include all features from 10.0-11.0 in Longhorn and say M$ had 150,000 industry firsts! :D

[ingenious]

.....it's lost profits, but if apple looses the whole music market, profitable or not, they loose a hell of a lot of attention, and I don't think any of us want any less market share or attention from software makers. GRRRRRRRRR.

sorry i couldnt resist. its loses.. not looses!!!! loose= looses lose= loses loss=losses

[ssnmx]

i personally don't care what apple or the riaa think about this app. i have a use for this, and i'm probably going to use it. i bought a couple of things from the itunes music store, and regret it, due to the somewhat low quality of the tracks (compared to cd)

again and again: it ain't gonna be like a CD!
If you can perceive the difference between AAC and a CD and are bothered by it, then don't buy AAC files... duh! :cool:

You're better off buying a CD, but... of all the other music stores, obviously the highest quality is for iTunes.