Fairtunes, Playfair, and iTunes

[MacBytes]

Category: 3rd Party Software
Link: Another crack at iTMS (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040426115417)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

[1macker1]

how about Mp3 and AAC formats. :)

[Captain Canuck]

Roxio's Toast 5.x does the same thing:

01) Just drag and drop the protected song files onto a new Audio CD window and it converts them to AIFF.

02) Instead of burning the CD select "Save" and it will create a folder with all the AIFF files in it for you.

03) Re-encode them back into AAC or MP3 using iTunes.

WARNING: Both FairTunes and Toast strip all of the Tags and Album Art when you do this.

cc

[PlaceofDis]

so why does this one have "longevity"??

[idkew]

because this is no different than burning a cd.

[0 and A ai]

because this is no different than burning a cd.

Point is it works.

[mainstreetmark]

I wonder if people really need these songs on more than 3 simultanous computers, or if this thing boils down to just not wanting any restrictions whatsoever.

[0 and A ai]

I wonder if people really need these songs on more than 3 simultanous computers, or if this thing boils down to just not wanting any restrictions whatsoever.


SOme people not me might want to send songs to their friends. Some people not me might have more than 3 computers at home.

[Captain Canuck]

I wonder if people really need these songs on more than 3 simultanous computers, or if this thing boils down to just not wanting any restrictions whatsoever.

In my case I have a Rio 800 MP3 player, emphasis on the MP3!! It still works great, so until it dies there is no reason to buy an iPod, I just have to convert some of my iTunes purchases if I want to take them with me on the Rio.

cc

[LFrascogna]

converting to aiff and then back to aac, assuming that there is no difference between protected and unprotected aac is there any loss of quality? Just wondering about the pros and cons.

[shamino]

I wonder if people really need these songs on more than 3 simultanous computers, or if this thing boils down to just not wanting any restrictions whatsoever.
Plenty of reasons why:

You own more than three computers. (I personally have 5 at home and 4 at work. Plus two Apple-IIs, which aren't capable of playing digital music.)
You have a computer that's not running Windows or MacOS. Linux PCs and Sun workstations come to mind. For these, you'll need a more generic format like MP3 or OGG-Vorbis.
You have an older Mac that can't run OS X.
You have a portable music player that's not an iPod
You want to burn an MP3 CD to play in your car. (Having 10 hours of music on a single disc is really nice :D )
All perfectly legal and legitimate reasons why one might want to remove DRM from ITMS purchases.

[syco]

Here's an idea. Encourage fair use and not sharing by encoding losslessly at AIFF. It's a great boon to filmmakers like me who want to use iTMS'd songs in their apps without having to worry about burning a CD.

I for one really appreciate the work that's gone into the app.

[TheInevitable]

How long will it be until this ones shut down?

[punter]

it's very much illegal, but to some extent unstoppable. At least Apple can try to make sure the mainstream doesn't know about it.

[J-Squire]

I have few concerns about the use of these programs. The main reason is that I think people who are already using iTunes are doing so as an alternative to file sharing, so won't bother going to such efforts to remove the DRM.

Those who do will probably be people who use iTunes but want to play music on their Linux machine or in some other way use the song for personal use that is currently being restricted by the DRM. I don't see this hindering iTunes either.

Having said this, it is still an illegal program, and the writers are clearly going straight to hell.

[ryanw]

How long will it be until this ones shut down?

Well, the better question is "how long did they expect to go without it being circumvented?".

Whats crazy is in this circumstance the tables have turned. We're seeing it first hand. Mac guys talk about little to NO viruses for MacOSX and millions for Windows. The windows guy's argument is if macosx was the #1 OS there would be more viruses for MacOSX.

Well, we have Apple's FAIRPLAY DRM & Microsoft Windows Media DRM. Which DRM got circumvented first? iTMS DRM. Which store is #1? iTMS. I gaurentee if iTMS had bombed and Napster had taken off this wouldn't have happened yet. Quite possibly never would have happened.

[switcheroo]

wow, fairTunes works quite well, but it does not produce a decrypted aac file so its as useful as burning to a cd and ripping -- ie it is not lossless. i would like a lossless method to play purchased music on a linux machine that is my music server.

in the end though apple has nothing to worry about with programs such as this, the itunes drm is unrestrictive enough to allow most users to have no such need.

[Rocketman]

I rated this article positive and was seemingly the first to do so.

I look at it this way. The song is property and its use is a lisence. The rightful owner of the license can "back it up" but iTunes and related procedures already let you do that.

The issue is literally open blatant copying of music on the internet without any means of collecting "fair price".

I have to stand by the side of the rights holders and say that even though the technology readily exists to copy even copy protected music, that does not make it right, and going after illegal copiers is right and fair.

Since the only valid purpose of the program is to violate the law and commercial rights, that makes the program a "bad thing" as well.

Comments?

Rocketman

[bathysphere]

this isn't the same as playfair at all, and it doesn't do anything that you can't do with software already provided by apple. playfair stripped the drm from an aac file, with a resulting aac file, no recompression necessary. this one just converts it to an aiff or other uncompressed format, which you can do with itunes, imovie, etc.

[dukemeiser]

I give it 5 days.

[jwhitnah]

I give it 5 days.
Kill it now. What do you guys think about the Janus?

[iMeowbot]

FairTunes (http://fairtunes.cjb.net/) offers the same functionality as PlayFair

This program does not do what Playfair does. Rather, it is a less-capable clone of QTConvert (http://www.pyehouse.com/lynn/).

It saves you from using an intermediate CD, but otherwise it does nothing that unmodified iTunes won't allow you to do.

[slowtreme]

I dont see the point of this. playfair works great, and lets me listen to my iTMS files at work... where the connection to iTMS is blocked at the firewall and I won't bring an iPod to work.

[dongmin]

This program does not do what Playfair does. Rather, it is a less-capable clone of QTConvert (http://www.pyehouse.com/lynn/).

It saves you from using an intermediate CD, but otherwise it does nothing that unmodified iTunes won't allow you to do.

FairTunes is actually less useful than a CD since it won't let you do batch processing. One bloody m4p at a time.

BTW, if someone would be generous enough to email me (dshim@hotmail.com) a copy of PlayFair, I'd much appreciate it. It'd be nice to able to stream some of my iTMS purchases ($275 and counting).

[greenstork]

FairTunes is actually useless. It does nothing different than what iTunes itself does. It takes an m4p DRM'd song and converts it to a .wav or .aiff file and then if you want it in AAC format you have to re-encode it, losing audio quality. iTunes does the VERY SAME THING, if you care to rip .m4p protected songs and then re-rip to AAC. This too strips the DRM from iTMS songs.

So unlike PlayFair, FairTunes is a lossy program, which poses no greater threat than built-in iTunes features itself. I doubt there will be any lawsuits or legal action over this program.

[kingtj]

Actually, yes -- I personally find this limitation troublesome. I wish they made a more reasonable limit. I have a PC with iTunes on it at home, a laptop with iTunes on it, and a PowerMac G5 at home. Problem is, I also have a desktop PC at work I'd like to listen to my music on - and that exceeds my 3 machine limit for the songs I buy.

IMHO, if Apple simply placed a limit of 6 or 7 instead of 3, they'd still be accomplishing the goals they're trying to achieve, while ensuring they don't interfere with legitimate use by song purchasers. (If you really have more than 6 or 7 different systems you need your songs on, that starts to get a bit ridiculous. I mean, just how many jobs do you have, and/or different computers you have to have your music come out of at home?)


I wonder if people really need these songs on more than 3 simultanous computers, or if this thing boils down to just not wanting any restrictions whatsoever.

[cait-sith]

why can't people respect the contract they agree to when they download the music?

you are NOT allowed to use this software. regardless of how handy and useful it is, you agreed NOT to use it when you downloaded the music.

if you do, you are in violation of your contract with itunes. what does that make you? there's another debate i guess. :D

[AndrewMT]

Plenty of reasons why:

You own more than three computers. (I personally have 5 at home and 4 at work. Plus two Apple-IIs, which aren't capable of playing digital music.)
You have a computer that's not running Windows or MacOS. Linux PCs and Sun workstations come to mind. For these, you'll need a more generic format like MP3 or OGG-Vorbis.
You have an older Mac that can't run OS X.
You have a portable music player that's not an iPod
You want to burn an MP3 CD to play in your car. (Having 10 hours of music on a single disc is really nice :D )
All perfectly legal and legitimate reasons why one might want to remove DRM from ITMS purchases.

Guess what? All these people that complain about the restrictions imposed by Apple's DRM can use other online music stores or buy cds! If you don't like Apple's DRM, then don't use iTunes Music Store! It's a simple as that!

For the majority of the people using iTunes, the rights that come with their music files are more than adequate.

[wncmacs]

I have several songs I purchased from iTMS that won't play anymore in iTunes. They hang the program and crash it. I downloaded FairTunes, stripped the DRM, and my song again plays. There's apparently a problem with the DRM and Apple needs to fix it or more of us are going to be complaining when songs that play perfectly well on the iPod crash iTunes and won't play on our computers.

[arn]

er...

sorry...

FairPlay is not very exciting... it just takes a Protected AAC and converts it into an uncompressed audio file.

updated the story to reflect it.

arn

[gsabin]

Well, the better question is "how long did they expect to go without it being circumvented?".

Whats crazy is in this circumstance the tables have turned. We're seeing it first hand. Mac guys talk about little to NO viruses for MacOSX and millions for Windows. The windows guy's argument is if macosx was the #1 OS there would be more viruses for MacOSX.

Well, we have Apple's FAIRPLAY DRM & Microsoft Windows Media DRM. Which DRM got circumvented first? iTMS DRM. Which store is #1? iTMS. I gaurentee if iTMS had bombed and Napster had taken off this wouldn't have happened yet. Quite possibly never would have happened.

Which got circumvented first?
I don't know, but wmv got hacked a LONG time ago...
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-274721.html?legacy=cnet

And music distributed on a CD gets cracked as often as they come out with a new "security" scheme

Universals CD protection,
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/supergeek/story/0,24330,2391656,00.html

Breaking security by holding the shift key
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/08/shift_key_breaks_latest_cd/

and dont forget the marker
http://www.net-security.org/news.php?id=155

[3.1416]

Well, we have Apple's FAIRPLAY DRM & Microsoft Windows Media DRM. Which DRM got circumvented first? iTMS DRM.

iTunes DRM was never intended to be impenetrable. Steve Jobs is on record saying so: "We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible
to protect digital content". The DRM isn't intended to be anything more than a speedbump to keep honest people honest.

[hulugu]

Plenty of reasons why:

You own more than three computers. (I personally have 5 at home and 4 at work. Plus two Apple-IIs, which aren't capable of playing digital music.)
You have a computer that's not running Windows or MacOS. Linux PCs and Sun workstations come to mind. For these, you'll need a more generic format like MP3 or OGG-Vorbis.
You have an older Mac that can't run OS X.
You have a portable music player that's not an iPod
You want to burn an MP3 CD to play in your car. (Having 10 hours of music on a single disc is really nice :D )
All perfectly legal and legitimate reasons why one might want to remove DRM from ITMS purchases.

When you burn a CD of MP3s doesn't iTunes remove the DRM? Otherwise, I totally buy that this might be an okay thing, except I'm worried that this will give the Record companies another reason to restrict digital music, or at least try.

[3.1416]

f you do, you are in violation of your contract with itunes. what does that make you?

Obviously, a minion of Satan who should be exterminated. Come on. Apple specifically encourages you to burn CDs, and they give you iMovie which can do M4P->AIFF conversions. Fine, using Fairtunes or Playfair violates the contract, and going 57 mph in a 55 zone is breaking the law. I can't summon much moral outrage for either.

[corvus]

...you agree to these policies and terms:

http://www.info.apple.com/usen/musicstore/policies.html
http://www.info.apple.com/usen/musicstore/terms.html

Attempting to get around these policies and terms is dishonest. There is no other way to look at this---either your word is trustworthy or it's not.

BTW, there is not a wide-spread problem with the protection breaking the music files. That is just pure baloney and a justification to steal. Sorry.

Data files can become corrupt, but that is why you backup. You don't have to remove the protection to backup. Just backup.

[iMan]

Plenty of reasons why:

You own more than three computers. (I personally have 5 at home and 4 at work. Plus two Apple-IIs, which aren't capable of playing digital music.)
You have a computer that's not running Windows or MacOS. Linux PCs and Sun workstations come to mind. For these, you'll need a more generic format like MP3 or OGG-Vorbis.
You have an older Mac that can't run OS X.
You have a portable music player that's not an iPod
You want to burn an MP3 CD to play in your car. (Having 10 hours of music on a single disc is really nice :D )
All perfectly legal and legitimate reasons why one might want to remove DRM from ITMS purchases.

Sorry, I understand your point, but none of these are legal reasons to do anything with the DRM. Neither with Apples nor with anyone elses. As you purchase you also agrees to the limitations of use of that song - so basically; trying to circumvent the DRM is just plain illegal.
On the other hand, it WOULD be really nice to be able to choose which store to buy from, and which player to use - without any hassle. Unfortunately there seems to be a long way to go...

[iMan]

Actually, yes -- I personally find this limitation troublesome. I wish they made a more reasonable limit. I have a PC with iTunes on it at home, a laptop with iTunes on it, and a PowerMac G5 at home. Problem is, I also have a desktop PC at work I'd like to listen to my music on - and that exceeds my 3 machine limit for the songs I buy.

IMHO, if Apple simply placed a limit of 6 or 7 instead of 3, they'd still be accomplishing the goals they're trying to achieve, while ensuring they don't interfere with legitimate use by song purchasers. (If you really have more than 6 or 7 different systems you need your songs on, that starts to get a bit ridiculous. I mean, just how many jobs do you have, and/or different computers you have to have your music come out of at home?)

You know what? Having to use more than 3 machines does indeed seem ridiculous to me. I have a laptop at home, I have a G5 at work. Perfectly enough computing power. Actually - do you really need to have your songs installed on more than one machine at home? Seems more than troublesome to me. Why don't you rather use the sharing? Or just play through an iPod or something? A lot more handier imo.

[simX]

You know what? Having to use more than 3 machines does indeed seem ridiculous to me. I have a laptop at home, I have a G5 at work. Perfectly enough computing power. Actually - do you really need to have your songs installed on more than one machine at home? Seems more than troublesome to me. Why don't you rather use the sharing? Or just play through an iPod or something? A lot more handier imo.

Don't be so condescending. Other peoples' lifestyles are different than yours, so you shouldn't dictate how many computers other people use.

And besides, haven't you realized that you actually can't stream an iTMS-bought song through iTunes file sharing without first authorizing that computer? I'm not talking about the computer that's sharing the file: you have to authorize the one who wants to stream it. So you can't get around the low 3 computer restriction that way.

[ryanw]

...you agree to these policies and terms:

http://www.info.apple.com/usen/musicstore/policies.html
http://www.info.apple.com/usen/musicstore/terms.html

Attempting to get around these policies and terms is dishonest. There is no other way to look at this---either your word is trustworthy or it's not.

BTW, there is not a wide-spread problem with the protection breaking the music files. That is just pure baloney and a justification to steal. Sorry.

Data files can become corrupt, but that is why you backup. You don't have to remove the protection to backup. Just backup.

Well, it appears that some people who used earlier versions of playfair on their iTMS files jacked up their files they owned, so it's their own fault and they just want to fix them.

[iMan]

Don't be so condescending. Other peoples' lifestyles are different than yours, so you shouldn't dictate how many computers other people use.

And besides, haven't you realized that you actually can't stream an iTMS-bought song through iTunes file sharing without first authorizing that computer? I'm not talking about the computer that's sharing the file: you have to authorize the one who wants to stream it. So you can't get around the low 3 computer restriction that way.

Oh well, yeah I know. Sorry. This just seems to me like some people are buying a gallon of milk and wishing it would be one and a half... I perfectly understand and would appreciate the possibility of full freedom of the files I use (also in the sense that I could play them on other players than iPod). But these are the rules - like'm or not.

But I did in fact not realize that sharing was not possible also with DRMed songs... thought this was suppose to work like iPhoto... you would be able to play but not download to the computer in spe... (?) How would you then use the functions of Elgatos Eyehome and the likes then? (Located in Europe, I have not been able to purchase anything from iTMS yet...).

[Snowy_River]

Plenty of reasons why:

You own more than three computers. (I personally have 5 at home and 4 at work. Plus two Apple-IIs, which aren't capable of playing digital music.)
You have a computer that's not running Windows or MacOS. Linux PCs and Sun workstations come to mind. For these, you'll need a more generic format like MP3 or OGG-Vorbis.
You have an older Mac that can't run OS X.
You have a portable music player that's not an iPod
You want to burn an MP3 CD to play in your car. (Having 10 hours of music on a single disc is really nice :D )
All perfectly legal and legitimate reasons why one might want to remove DRM from ITMS purchases.

You know, there's one significant problem with these arguments. That is, using a DRM stripping app only gives you an unprotected AAC. This still won't work on a Linux machine that needs MP3. It still won't work on that older Mac. It still won't burn to an MP3 CD (as all non-MP3 songs are ignored/eliminated from a playlist when burning an MP3 CD, I believe). So, if you're converting formats, why not simply burn, and rip to MP3. Then you get your needed MP3 format.

[dontmatter]

same old story, same old conversation.

.....

[Snowy_River]

Sorry, I understand your point, but none of these are legal reasons to do anything with the DRM. Neither with Apples nor with anyone elses. As you purchase you also agrees to the limitations of use of that song - so basically; trying to circumvent the DRM is just plain illegal.
On the other hand, it WOULD be really nice to be able to choose which store to buy from, and which player to use - without any hassle. Unfortunately there seems to be a long way to go...


Well, actually, there is one caveat. It is quite possible that this is an illegal contract. It could be illegally restricting Fair Use, an established law. Does anyone want to spend the money to take Apple to court? I didn't think so.

Don't assume that just because a contract exists that it is the law. Many, many contracts are written that are illegal. I even worked under an illegal employment contract. I knew it was illegal at the time, and I knew that if I had to I could fight it and win. If I had made a fuss about it, though, I would not have been hired. So, sure it'd be great if we all stood on principles all the time, but that's not how the world works. We all enter into 'agreements' or 'contracts' that are either legally questionable or simply unenforceable, all the time.

I think the bigger issue is whether there is a material violation here. If a person were to use a DRM stripping app to be able to distribute iTMS songs on a P2P network, then that would be another matter entirely. So long as people are using such apps for uses that are covered under Fair Use (and thus within the legally questionable region of the contract), I cannot see any real issue here, at all.

[DGFan]

FairTunes is actually useless. It does nothing different than what iTunes itself does. It takes an m4p DRM'd song and converts it to a .wav or .aiff file and then if you want it in AAC format you have to re-encode it, losing audio quality. iTunes does the VERY SAME THING, if you care to rip .m4p protected songs and then re-rip to AAC. This too strips the DRM from iTMS songs.

So unlike PlayFair, FairTunes is a lossy program, which poses no greater threat than built-in iTunes features itself. I doubt there will be any lawsuits or legal action over this program.

Disclaimer: I have not looked at the code of PlayFair

All the articles on the subject I read (many of them) indicated that PlayFair was actually decoding the AAC and then re-encoding. And that the reason for the claims that it was "lossless" were due to the fact that it was reencoding it using the same algorithm.

Now, doesn't iTunes encode things using the same algorithm it decodes them? So why wouldn't rencoding this AIFF file from FairTunes result in exactly the same lossless (or low-loss) conversion? Sure, it's not as *useful* because it doesn't keep tags and art. But I don't think it is any more or less lossy.

[DGFan]

I think the bigger issue is whether there is a material violation here. If a person were to use a DRM stripping app to be able to distribute iTMS songs on a P2P network, then that would be another matter entirely. So long as people are using such apps for uses that are covered under Fair Use (and thus within the legally questionable region of the contract), I cannot see any real issue here, at all.

The legal requirement is "significant non-infringing" use. Emphasis on the word "significant" (which is hard to type at this hour). I doubt tools like PlayFair clear this test.

[eSnow]

You know, there's one significant problem with these arguments. That is, using a DRM stripping app only gives you an unprotected AAC. This still won't work on a Linux machine that needs MP3.

This is not correct. LibAAC plays unprotected AACs on Linux. So, from a moral standpoint it may be wrong, but Apple not offering the Linux guys a chance is not very ethical either, since it is clearly not a technology-oriented move but a stab at Linux as a viable platform.

[eSnow]

All the articles on the subject I read (many of them) indicated that PlayFair was actually decoding the AAC and then re-encoding. And that the reason for the claims that it was "lossless" were due to the fact that it was reencoding it using the same algorithm.

Nope. Apples FairPlay wraps AAC into a DRM container which makes it possible to peel off this DRM wrapper if you know the magic key. What falls out is a pristine, not re-encoded AAC like your iTunes would create from a song on CD.

[123]

So, if you're converting formats, why not simply burn, and rip to MP3. Then you get your needed MP3 format.
Yeah, why don't you burn a CD instead of not burning it, thereby not wasting money, not wasting time, not wasting polycarbonate and not being stupid?

[m.i.r.a.g.e.]

why can't people respect the contract they agree to when they download the music?

Because we don't have to. Because we understand the actions the contract seeks to stop, and we understand that our actions are legitimate regardless of what the contract may have to say about it.

Because we didn't sign anything, and AFAWK, EULA's haven't been held up in court as legaly binding.


you are NOT allowed to use this software. regardless of how handy and useful it is, you agreed NOT to use it when you downloaded the music.


We disagree.


if you do, you are in violation of your contract with itunes. what does that make you? there's another debate i guess. :D
Well, it makes you a weenie boy scout. Looking forward to a career in law enforcement?

Software. Tool. Neutral.

You can use the software legitimately, you can use it illegitimately. It's not up to you or Apple, or me, or your grandma, or the government to tell you that you can't use this software.

If at some point your actions actually hurt other people, then maybe there is an argument against you using the software.

Rebel against the corporate-ocracy. It's not always wrong or immoral to break the law. It's your responsibility to disregard laws which you do not believe in. Hell, you didn't even have a say when it got passed did you? Sheep.

[mabino]

Has anyone been able to unprotect a WMA file with the latest MS DRM scheme from a competitor's store yet?

[Bear]

I have several songs I purchased from iTMS that won't play anymore in iTunes. They hang the program and crash it. I downloaded FairTunes, stripped the DRM, and my song again plays. There's apparently a problem with the DRM and Apple needs to fix it or more of us are going to be complaining when songs that play perfectly well on the iPod crash iTunes and won't play on our computers.Have you cantacted Apple yet? If you haven't reported the issue, you are hurting everyone who may run into such an issue in the future.

If you have reported it to Apple, what did they say?

[Bear]

SOme people not me might want to send songs to their friends. Some people not me might have more than 3 computers at home.To answer your first point. That's not legal in most cases.

To answer your second point, they had to decide a cutoff somewhere. In the average household, 3 computers should be enough. They had to decide a cutoff on the number of computers, and in fact we may be lucky that Apple was able to get it up to three computers.

[Bear]

converting to aiff and then back to aac, assuming that there is no difference between protected and unprotected aac is there any loss of quality? Just wondering about the pros and cons.Yes there is. Any time you uncompress and recompress music, you can and probably will lose quality.

[Bear]

FairTunes is actually less useful than a CD since it won't let you do batch processing. One bloody m4p at a time.

BTW, if someone would be generous enough to email me (dshim@hotmail.com) a copy of PlayFair, I'd much appreciate it. It'd be nice to able to stream some of my iTMS purchases ($275 and counting).Stream them to where? With iTunes you can stream them to another computer on the same lan. It just needs to be an authorized computer for the accound the songs were purchased on.

If you don't like the music restrictions, which you and everyone else who is complaining knew about before you bought the music from iTMS, don't buy any.

And if people are complaining about songs they won in a contest. they're whining about something they got for free.

[eSnow]

Basically, PlayFair is the argument that convinces me to buy at all at iTMS (if it ever makes it to Europe). Not that I regard the restrictions imposed by FairPlay to be too tight, but:
- just think about what happens if one day Apple pulls out of the player market. No more iPods, and most likely no more players that can decode DRM-AAC _at all_. So, your best chance is to decode, burn and re-rip to mp3 or unprotected AAC (if there is a player for that). With PlayFair, you at least don't lose audio quality on the transition.

- if you decide to switch to Linux a few years down the road, your audio files are unplayable. Peel off the DRM wrapper and they are as good as new. Basically, PlayFair is Apples platform-lock in strategy - you buy them on MacOS or Windows, you ain't going nowhere without losing them (or audio quality via transcoding). Where is Apples commitment to license out FairPlay?

- You have a cheap Linux server and wish to use mt-daapd (http://mt-daapd.sourceforge.net) to share them to iTunes on your notebook? You are out of luck unless you unprotect.

- You care for options and would like to use a different player than iTunes (yeah, I know, the heresy)? Out of luck again (note: I could be wrong here, since I do happen to like iTunes).

So, if I ever buy from iTMS, first thing I do will be to unprotect the files and write backups of both protected and unprotected files. If Apple changes the DRM to make this impossible, I stop buying there. They can take their contract and stuff it, I am not cattle waiting to be prodded.

Besides, I believe FairPlay was never intended to be a really tough cryptographical challenge. Like CSS, it was drafted to be just tough enough to pass as a crypto-method according to DCMA, so that it is illegal to crack it. No need to invest more resources to make it really bullet-proof agaings hackers if you can strongarm the suckers, right?

[1macker1]

I've stopped using the iTunes music store. If people really has a problem with the Fairplay, then stop using iTunes. With their prices going up, hell i just go BestBuy and get the cd for 12 bucks. Burn the CD to my Mac in high bit rate Mp3's.

[Bear]

I've stopped using the iTunes music store. If people really has a problem with the Fairplay, then stop using iTunes. With their prices going up, hell i just go BestBuy and get the cd for 12 bucks. Burn the CD to my Mac in high bit rate Mp3's.Except fo r the part of prices going up, I agree with what you are saying.

If the prices do go up for tracks, then it will make a difference on whether to buy the Album on CD or just download tracks you want.

Since the music I am buying currently is mostly not available on iTMS, I have no choice anyway but to buy the CD.

We'll see if the music industry is stupid enough to force a price increase and kill the paid download services. Unfortunatly, the music industry is probably that stupid.

[1macker1]

Another reason i stopped buying is because the initial thrill of buying music online has faded. I was really excited to purchase music without leaving the house via iTunes. But now, all they hype has died, and i'm back at physical stores buying music.

[uzombie]

Plenty of reasons why:
...
You have a portable music player that's not an iPod
You want to burn an MP3 CD to play in your car. (Having 10 hours of music on a single disc is really nice :D )
All perfectly legal and legitimate reasons why one might want to remove DRM from ITMS purchases.

Hear Hear!
I've a Panasonic MP3 player (the 1.5"x1.5") that takes SD cards (I have a 1 gig card!) and its Windoze-only for transferring songs. I take MP3s, copy them to folder that the program converts and moves to the player/SD card reader.

But the Toast tip is good to know...off to experiment! :) :rolleyes:

[the_mole1314]

I've stopped using the iTunes music store. If people really has a problem with the Fairplay, then stop using iTunes. With their prices going up, hell i just go BestBuy and get the cd for 12 bucks. Burn the CD to my Mac in high bit rate Mp3's.

Where is the press release? I mean, sure, speculation, but that would be, atleast, years down the road.

[greenstork]

Disclaimer: I have not looked at the code of PlayFair

All the articles on the subject I read (many of them) indicated that PlayFair was actually decoding the AAC and then re-encoding. And that the reason for the claims that it was "lossless" were due to the fact that it was reencoding it using the same algorithm.

Now, doesn't iTunes encode things using the same algorithm it decodes them? So why wouldn't rencoding this AIFF file from FairTunes result in exactly the same lossless (or low-loss) conversion? Sure, it's not as *useful* because it doesn't keep tags and art. But I don't think it is any more or less lossy.

PlayFair used the iPod the strip the DRM from the AAC file but did not re-encode at all. It was a straight .m4p to .m4a conversion with no audio loss. I'd be happy to be proven wrong but my guess is that this is why Apple absolutely freaked out and went chasing the software all the way around India.

FairTunes on the other hand, produces an uncompressed audio file with the same audio quality of the .m4p, which is obviously significantly less than the original uncompressed file. So although the algorithm is the same, you're encoding twice, losing audio quality each time. The original .m4p is lower quality and you lose more when re-encoding from an uncompressed format.

[Snowy_River]

This is not correct. LibAAC plays unprotected AACs on Linux. So, from a moral standpoint it may be wrong, but Apple not offering the Linux guys a chance is not very ethical either, since it is clearly not a technology-oriented move but a stab at Linux as a viable platform.

The original poster said he needed MP3 to play on his Linux machine, which is why I posted it the way I did:

This still won't work on a Linux machine that needs MP3.

As far as ethics goes, Apple's choice not to offer a Linux version of iTunes is neither ethical, nor unethical. Trying to argue whether it is right or wrong to offer a port of an application to any given platform is quite pointless. If you're argument is that not offering a given application on every possible platform is wrong (unethical), then I'd say there isn't an ethical person in the entire software industry...

[Snowy_River]

Yeah, why don't you burn a CD instead of not burning it, thereby not wasting money, not wasting time, not wasting polycarbonate and not being stupid?

Okay, was there a particular reason that you decided to be so blatantly insulting? If you burn a CD-RW you don't waste anything. If you don't want to use this perfectly legitimate and supported method, then use QTConvert to get an AIFF file, then encode it to MP3.

My point was that the uses being named required MP3, not unprotected AAC, and therefore a simple DRM stripping can't get the needed final result.

Geez...

[Rustus Maximus]

The issue is literally open blatant copying of music on the internet without any means of collecting "fair price"...

I have to stand by the side of the rights holders and say that even though the technology readily exists to copy even copy protected music, that does not make it right, and going after illegal copiers is right and fair.

Since the only valid purpose of the program is to violate the law and commercial rights, that makes the program a "bad thing" as well.

Comments?

Rocketman

Only one comment...aaaaamen, brother...

Fine, using Fairtunes or Playfair violates the contract, and going 57 mph in a 55 zone is breaking the law. I can't summon much moral outrage for either.

Whether or not your moral rageinator is going off has nothing to do with the morality of the issue. Copying illegally cracked music is wrong just as going 57 in a 55 zone is wrong...ahhhh to have an Audobon here in America. Just as there are different contracts or speed limits...using these programs is a violation of iTunes contract...period.

LibAAC plays unprotected AACs on Linux. So, from a moral standpoint it may be wrong, but Apple not offering the Linux guys a chance is not very ethical either, since it is clearly not a technology-oriented move but a stab at Linux as a viable platform.

What the H is this?? Since when does Apple have to make sure that their products play nice with a competitor. If they choose not to let Linux in on the game then that's their business. They control iTunes and AAC so they will decide who can use it, as they decided to make it available to Windoze boys and girls. It's called capitalism...look into it.

and speaking of anti-capitalism...

Originally Posted by cait-sith: why can't people respect the contract they agree to when they download the music?

Because we don't have to. Because we understand the actions the contract seeks to stop, and we understand that our actions are legitimate regardless of what the contract may have to say about it.

Because we didn't sign anything, and AFAWK, EULA's haven't been held up in court as legaly binding.

You signed it when you clicked accept partner, welcome to the digital age. And if EULA's haven't been upheld in court it was because of unclear guidance on that same issue and limp wristed leftist judges. DRM seeks to change that and protect the property of the people who create software and music and anything else that can be distributed digitally. The days of EULA's having no real power are ending soon as they should. The laws of protection must change as the laws of distribution change. But make no mistake...you did sign a contract and are therefore bound by it.

Originally Posted by cait-sith: you are NOT allowed to use this software. regardless of how handy and useful it is, you agreed NOT to use it when you downloaded the music.

We disagree.

Perhaps cait-sith just didn't state it correctly. You can use the software just as you can use cocaine. but regardless...to do so is a violation of the law or contract you signed and a violation of the DRM you agreed to.

Originally Posted by cait-sith: if you do, you are in violation of your contract with itunes. what does that make you? there's another debate i guess.

Well, it makes you a weenie boy scout. Looking forward to a career in law enforcement?

Software. Tool. Neutral.

You can use the software legitimately, you can use it illegitimately. It's not up to you or Apple, or me, or your grandma, or the government to tell you that you can't use this software.

If at some point your actions actually hurt other people, then maybe there is an argument against you using the software.

The very comment of being a...what was it? weenie boy scout...reveals your true nature and attitudes about law and morality in general. And you bear out the reason why the government or Apple in this case has a reason to tell you that you can't use this software because use of it does hurt other people. It hurts the artists and Apple in the sense that you are robbing them of revenue. Whether or not you think they are all greedy bastards has nothing to do with it. You are stealing from them if you violate the DRM you agreed to.

Yes the software is just a tool...you are right. But just as guns don't kill people...it's the person that uses it for the wrong purposes who is the criminal.

Rebel against the corporate-ocracy. It's not always wrong or immoral to break the law. It's your responsibility to disregard laws which you do not believe in. Hell, you didn't even have a say when it got passed did you? Sheep.

Ummm...easy on those Vienna sausages...that jelly in those things does funny things to the brain cells. Your argument depends on your school of philosophy as to whether or not it is not always immoral to break the law. Socrates would disagree with you. However being a redblooded American revolutionary (no offense to our British members) I agree with you that an immoral law must be disobeyed. But what exactly is immoral about iTunes DRM? It's immoral because it stops criminal activity? Hmmm...that's a new one...must be the jelly...

<walks away to the sound of sheep noises>

[ITR 81]

So when Apple upgrades iTunes and QT again will any of this crap still work. I'm expecting Apple to even change the encyrption again in the DRM.

[eSnow]

So when Apple upgrades iTunes and QT again will any of this crap still work. I'm expecting Apple to even change the encyrption again in the DRM.

I doubt that. Very much so. They would have to change the Firmware in every Gen3 iPod, every copy of QT and iTunes to allow for two different kinds of DRM, the old FairPlay (since customers might insist that their already-bought music still works) and the new FairPlay+

[iMeowbot]

- just think about what happens if one day Apple pulls out of the player market.

If? I think it's more a matter of when. Apple have a consistent record of abandoning services when they lose interest. That's what makes the DRM stripping tools nice to have around: not for now, but for When Apple inevitably pull an Apple.

Even the US Govt. will likely be on the side of Playfair users when that happens. It's very much consistent with how they view other obsolete copy protection measures (http://www.copyright.gov/1201/).

[Snowy_River]

You signed it when you clicked accept partner, welcome to the digital age. And if EULA's haven't been upheld in court it was because of unclear guidance on that same issue and limp wristed leftist judges. DRM seeks to change that and protect the property of the people who create software and music and anything else that can be distributed digitally. The days of EULA's having no real power are ending soon as they should. The laws of protection must change as the laws of distribution change. But make no mistake...you did sign a contract and are therefore bound by it.


Perhaps cait-sith just didn't state it correctly. You can use the software just as you can use cocaine. but regardless...to do so is a violation of the law or contract you signed and a violation of the DRM you agreed to.

And there is such a thing as an illegal contract. If I sign a contract that is illegal, it doesn't matter that I agreed to it, I'm under no obligation to abide by it, legally. (Morally may be another issue.) Violating such a contract would in no way be a violation of the law.


...you can't use this software because use of it does hurt other people. It hurts the artists and Apple in the sense that you are robbing them of revenue. Whether or not you think they are all greedy bastards has nothing to do with it. You are stealing from them if you violate the DRM you agreed to.

Yes the software is just a tool...you are right. But just as guns don't kill people...it's the person that uses it for the wrong purposes who is the criminal.

Uh... well, you kind of make my point for me. If I'm using this software to 'unwrap' my pAAC files to share them, then I'm misusing it and breaking the law. Then I'm hurting Apple and the artists, etc. But if I'm using it simply to provide myself with an unprotected copy of the file for my own use, for example (as has been mentioned before) if I want to play my music on my Linux machine without the loss of quality from burn-rerip (this being a use that is protected under Fair Use), then I'm in no way hurting Apple or the artists, etc., and it is in this context that the legitimacy of the iTMS EULA is questionable. Of course it's illegal to copy and distribute music, but making your own copies for your own use is not only not illegal, but it's protected under the law.

[coolsoldier]

A contract violation is not stealing. It just isn't.

Contract violations are only valid in the case of an enforceable contract.

Click-through agreements have never yet been deemed enforceable by a court. To understand why, do the following:

-Sign up for iTMS. Enter your information and credit card number and so on and so forth.
-Call a friend. Have them come to your house and click the "I Agree" button.

Alternatively, write an AppleScript to send the form for you -- that way nobody agreed to a contract.

The point is, there is no verification whatsoever that you actually clicked the button. You could have had somebody else click the button for you. You could have a script that submits the HTML form automatically without the need to click the button. And so on and so forth. The idea of an "implicit agreement" by using a service provided through publicly accessible servers is equally shaky -- it's the technological equivalent of a line in a paper contract that says "by reading this contract, you agree to all of it's terms."

[hulugu]

A contract violation is not stealing. It just isn't.

Contract violations are only valid in the case of an enforceable contract.

Click-through agreements have never yet been deemed enforceable by a court. To understand why, do the following:

-Sign up for iTMS. Enter your information and credit card number and so on and so forth.
-Call a friend. Have them come to your house and click the "I Agree" button.

Alternatively, write an AppleScript to send the form for you -- that way nobody agreed to a contract.

The point is, there is no verification whatsoever that you actually clicked the button. You could have had somebody else click the button for you. You could have a script that submits the HTML form automatically without the need to click the button. And so on and so forth. The idea of an "implicit agreement" by using a service provided through publicly accessible servers is equally shaky -- it's the technological equivalent of a line in a paper contract that says "by reading this contract, you agree to all of it's terms."

But the point of this contract is for you to estimate in good faith that you will abide by this contract. While the click-through may not be legally enforceable, your reading of the contract is overly legalistic. By all other means, including a verbal contract—which can be enforceable—you agree by affirmation, and do not necessarily need a signature in triplicate.
You can refuse such a contract, but you don't instead you hit I AGREE which isn't the same thing. Now, a EULA stating that by opening the box so that you can read the EULA is an agreement of the terms and conditions is problematic.
If a click-through agreement is not valid then we will have to endure some byzantine process of legal affirmations in order to be responsible for our end of the contract.
When it comes down to it you agreed to a kind of contract, you agreed to a set of rules and to the possible affects of breaking that contract (ie you lose your account).
However, by breaking the iTMS contract I did not steal from the RIAA or its 'artists' I broke a contract. Those, I agree with you here, are two entirely different things which the RIAA is confusing in order to make their case.

[coolsoldier]

But the point of this contract is for you to estimate in good faith that you will abide by this contract. While the click-through may not be legally enforceable, your reading of the contract is overly legalistic.

My interpretation is overly legalistic? Have you, by chance, read the contract itself? It is far more legalistic that my inerpretation of it!

If a click-through agreement is not valid then we will have to endure some byzantine process of legal affirmations in order to be responsible for our end of the contract.

Or, they could simply fall back on the adequate legal protections that are in place. The restrictions on contracts, how they can be agreed to, and when they are enforceable exist for a reason -- to prevent the vast majority of people who are not lawyers from being taken advantage of by the small minority who are.

When it comes down to it you agreed to a kind of contract, you agreed to a set of rules and to the possible affects of breaking that contract (ie you lose your account).

If Apple wants to take away my account for circumventing their DRM, I invite them to do so. They lose a paying customer, and in return gain nothing -- none of the things I do with my un-DRMed files hurt their business.

However, by breaking the iTMS contract I did not steal from the RIAA or its 'artists' I broke a contract. Those, I agree with you here, are two entirely different things which the RIAA is confusing in order to make their case.

The RIAA doesn't even come into the picture with tools like this until people start violating their copyrights. For users like me, who are entirely within my fair use rights for everything I do with their material, this issue is entirely between me and Apple.

[ingenious]

I have few concerns about the use of these programs. The main reason is that I think people who are already using iTunes are doing so as an alternative to file sharing, so won't bother going to such efforts to remove the DRM.

Those who do will probably be people who use iTunes but want to play music on their Linux machine or in some other way use the song for personal use that is currently being restricted by the DRM. I don't see this hindering iTunes either.

Having said this, it is still an illegal program, and the writers are clearly going straight to hell.


sorry off topic, but does anyone think apple will ever port iTunes to Linux? I mean, OS X has a UNIX core.. I'm no linux user, but how hard could it really be? :confused:

[eSnow]

sorry off topic, but does anyone think apple will ever port iTunes to Linux? I mean, OS X has a UNIX core.. I'm no linux user, but how hard could it really be? :confused:

Nope, they won't
It's not a technical problem, it's a marketing decision to hurt Linux.

[hulugu]

My interpretation is overly legalistic? Have you, by chance, read the contract itself? It is far more legalistic that my inerpretation of it!
Or, they could simply fall back on the adequate legal protections that are in place. The restrictions on contracts, how they can be agreed to, and when they are enforceable exist for a reason -- to prevent the vast majority of people who are not lawyers from being taken advantage of by the small minority who are.


I'm sorry if I mispoke, my point was that you should try to follow an argreement in the spirit of the agreement and not hunt for legal arguments to avoid doing do once you've already agreed to the contract. You agreed to the contract, as insidious as it may be, you cannot suddenly change you mind because now you don't like the contract six months down the road. If you do you must understand that Apple would be well within their rights to enforce the contract.
The trouble is if you clicked-through you agreed, if not in absolute legal terms, at least in good faith, that you would follow your end of the contract.
Now, argue all you want about the unfair nature of the EULA on iTMS, argue that their enforcement of DMCA is dangerous because it sets precidences that make the law more enforceable, argue that all DRM is inherently dangerous to Fair-Use which is just as important as copy-right itself.
But, I don't believe you can agree to a contract and then argue that you don't like it and you won't follow it anymore.

[hulugu]

Nope, they won't
It's not a technical problem, it's a marketing decision to hurt Linux.

Apple's relationship to Linux is a little brain-damaged in my opinion. Linux is going to become as important as Microsoft is, it is going to engage Microsoft in markets that Apple has barely a toehold and ultimately I believe that OpenSource and all its associated entities under GPL will create some great products that will change the dynastic power-struggles we have previously faced. Apple understands that OpenSource is a great lever to use, hence Safari, but they ignore the actual OS entirely.
Now, I understand that too a certain point it may be difficult to assure that a program like iTunes will compile and run correctly on all the various flavors of Linux, however I believe that they can release the programs so that say Red Hat users can use iTunes and the iPod, iChat AV, and QuickTime. If you put Linux users in a position to use QT, buy iPods and iSights not only have you created a new revenue stream, but this works in the same Trojan horse strategy that Apple has been persuing for Windows. Furthermore, dealing with Linux means that Apple can dial into projects like OpenOffice (Aqua version sooner than later I hope) and maybe Darwine and between the two Microsoft suddenly could suddenly seem less important.

[arobasefr]

According to macbidouille.com and Macgeneration Steve Jobs will announce to day iTunes 4.5 at the phone conference.
macbidouille.com (http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2004-04-28#8421)

macgeneration.com (http://www.macgeneration.com/mgnews/depeche.php?aIdDepeche=109114)

New:

Conversion of unprotected WMA and FLAC support
iMix
New undestroy encoding
Direct impression of CD-covers
Dynamic music lists
No limit burning

iTunes becomes much more then a Mp3 player ! :p

[iMan]

Apple's relationship to Linux is a little brain-damaged in my opinion. Linux is going to become as important as Microsoft is, it is going to engage Microsoft in markets that Apple has barely a toehold and ultimately I believe that OpenSource and all its associated entities under GPL will create some great products that will change the dynastic power-struggles we have previously faced. Apple understands that OpenSource is a great lever to use, hence Safari, but they ignore the actual OS entirely.

Sorry to disagree with you there; Linux is never going to put Microsoft out of business. It is never going (in its current form) to be a major player for end users (large corporations/organisation etc is an other matter). It is - and will be for foreseeable future - way too complicated for the average user. And creating a GUI that really can compete with Mac OS or Windows is not going to happen in the Linux world - not the way it operates.
For Apple to not port iTunes to Linux is of course both a political and practical reason. Also note that Apple may have some ambitions for OS X to be the "user friendly" Unix/Linux alibi... think about where this is going if you match Linux's strengths and flexibility with Apple ease of use :)

[eSnow]

Apple's relationship to Linux is a little brain-damaged in my opinion. Linux is going to become as important as Microsoft is, it is going to engage Microsoft in markets that Apple has barely a toehold and ultimately I believe that OpenSource and all its associated entities under GPL will create some great products that will change the dynastic power-struggles we have previously faced.

Well, I am certainly not the only one who believes that Apple will be a victim too if or when Linux is this widespread. There just ain't competing with "for free".

Besides, OpenSource and GPL are not necessarily connected. Apple uses no (zero) GPL-software, which I believe is a good thing [TM] since the GPL deprives you of the freedom to decide what you are going to do with your own code, once you adopt it.

Therefore, I like Apple supporting free OpenSource (BSD) and fighting GPL.

[coolsoldier]

Apple uses no (zero) GPL-software, which I believe is a good thing [TM] since the GPL deprives you of the freedom to decide what you are going to do with your own code, once you adopt it.

GNU Emacs (Which is GPL-software) is part of every installation of OS X.

ALSO, the GPL lets you do whatever you want with your code. The only difference is that it also lets anyone else do the same.

Linux as a direct product of open source community will never have the interface to attract desktop users, simply because all of the Linux desktop environments are clones of existing, more mature interfaces. However, AFAIK, there's nothing to stop a company from developing a proprietary desktop env. that runs on top of Linux that rivals, or even beats anything out there now. But, being proprietary, it wouldn't be free, and therefore not as much of a threat.

Linux could, however, eventually kick proprietary operating systems out of the business world completely.

But this is entirely offtopic for the iTunes discussion, because iTunes is a carbon program -- in order to port iTunes, they'd have to either port the entire carbon API (unlikely) or rewrite the entire program (like they did for windows, also unlikely for what is currently an insignificant number of deskotp users, much less a userbase that's used to getting everything for free ;) )

[coolsoldier]

I'm sorry if I mispoke, my point was that you should try to follow an argreement in the spirit of the agreement and not hunt for legal arguments to avoid doing do once you've already agreed to the contract. You agreed to the contract, as insidious as it may be, you cannot suddenly change you mind because now you don't like the contract six months down the road. If you do you must understand that Apple would be well within their rights to enforce the contract.

The "spirit of the agreement" was something along the lines of "click this button to use iTunes," not some mutual endorsement of their tactics. I think you're being over-idealistic to say that they really expect their customers to even read, much less understand, the "contract" they present.

As I said, if Apple wants to terminate my account for circumventing their DRM, I invite them to -- they will have lost a paying customer and gained nothing. If they take me to court for it, it will be their money wasted, since any way they would have of knowing what I do with those files for my own personal use would be illegal. Hence, the contract, even if agreed to "in good faith," does not apply in this situation, simply because any way of enforcing it's terms would be illegal.

So I'm pretty sure it's not illegal. Is it unethical? That's really subjective, but here's a breif explanation of why I don't think it is:
--There are no damages -- none of the things I do with my decrypted files cause any damage to anyone (i.e. I'm not redistributing them or anything)
--There is no expectation that every customer read, understand, and agree to that agreement. In fact, because of the relatively small number of people that are even capable of reading and comprehending that kind of legaleese, I'd say that their entire business model depends on people using the store without knowledgeable agreement to those terms.

[eSnow]

GNU Emacs (Which is GPL-software) is part of every installation of OS X.

ALSO, the GPL lets you do whatever you want with your code. The only difference is that it also lets anyone else do the same.

Well, since Apple did replace wget with curl, I hoped they'd strife for a GNU-free environment.

And, no the GPL does not allow me to do whatever I want with my code. Keeping it private, for instance.

Linux as a direct product of open source community will never have the interface to attract desktop users, simply because all of the Linux desktop environments are clones of existing, more mature interfaces. However, AFAIK, there's nothing to stop a company from developing a proprietary desktop env. that runs on top of Linux that rivals, or even beats anything out there now. But, being proprietary, it wouldn't be free, and therefore not as much of a threat.

Linux could, however, eventually kick proprietary operating systems out of the business world completely.

Well, Linux is a knock-off of commercial unix concepts and yet it has succeeded in killing off most of them (notable exception: MacOS X). So by any indication, the dumping tactics will succeed in killing off Windows and MacOS in the long run and replacing it with craptified versions based on Linux.

But this is entirely offtopic for the iTunes discussion, because iTunes is a carbon program -- in order to port iTunes, they'd have to either port the entire carbon API (unlikely) or rewrite the entire program (like they did for windows, also unlikely for what is currently an insignificant number of deskotp users, much less a userbase that's used to getting everything for free ;) )

Apple did not rewrite iTunes for Windows, they ported Quicktime over and some parts of CoreFoundation and Carbon. Would be a minor effort to port it to QT.

[coolsoldier]

Well, since Apple did replace wget with curl, I hoped they'd strife for a GNU-free environment.

And, no the GPL does not allow me to do whatever I want with my code. Keeping it private, for instance.

Sure it does. You keep your code private as long as you also keep the product private. For instance, if you make a derivative work, you don't have to publish it. And depending how your code uses the GPL code, you might even be able to publish it anyway (i.e. wrapper apps, plugins, etc. are not considered "derivative works").