Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Disables PyMusique Hack
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Dangerous idea
I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to use this program. Since its use would obviously be a violation of your user agreement if Apple could figure a way to tell if your using it (and they are Apple, it shouldn't be to hard) they could cancel your account and ban you for life and disable all the tunes you've already purchased (liscensed really) and then get nasty...
remember your still using your account and they have your name and address.
This isn't hacking a file on your system. its using fraudulent means to enter a computer network and download a file you have no legal right too. This is a program that could get you a felony conviction and time in a federal pen.
I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to use this program. Since its use would obviously be a violation of your user agreement if Apple could figure a way to tell if your using it (and they are Apple, it shouldn't be to hard) they could cancel your account and ban you for life and disable all the tunes you've already purchased (liscensed really) and then get nasty...
remember your still using your account and they have your name and address.
This isn't hacking a file on your system. its using fraudulent means to enter a computer network and download a file you have no legal right too. This is a program that could get you a felony conviction and time in a federal pen.
One major problem with iTunes (at least for Windows users) is that you have to download the update from their site, and then run the update from your desktop (or wherever you downloaded it). For most experienced computer users, that's fine, but for amatuers that may be a bit of a hassle. Apple seriously needs to allow updates within iTunes, so when you are alerted you need an update, you don't have to get out of the program to do it.
trrosen said:
I think the program stops iTunes from adding DRM protection to your song once you download it, but I am not completely certain.
I highly doubt anyone would end up in prison for using this program.
How is this for economic gain? You pay for the song, but you get full use of the song without being crippled by DRM. Now you could put it up on P2P for someone else to gain from, but you could do a lot of things.Tulse said:
People using this program aren't stealing by any definition as some people seem to be hinting in their comments. They might be violating a license agreement, which is just *maybe* a breach of contract (nothing illegal at all, for those that don't understand the difference between civil and criminal law).
This brings up a question for me: Did we have to agree to terms when we accessed the store? I'm thinking so, since you practically have to sign a EULA to even use a mouse nowadays. If no terms were agreed upon, then there isn't even a breach of contract with this program. Nothing for Apple to sue over, really, since I doubt any provable losses occured. This is just Apple fulfilling their contract with the RIAA et al.
Jim
Excuses, excuses
As a 'side-effect' they also happened to disable Hymn/J-Hymn.
This is the excuse they were waiting for.
As a 'side-effect' they also happened to disable Hymn/J-Hymn.
This is the excuse they were waiting for.
Go Apple!!!!!
I'm glad Apple closed this. All DVD Jon does is to endanger online music by doing this hack.
If you want DRM-less music, buy CDs and rip them in yourself. It's easy. It can be a lot cheaper than buying them online - particularly when buying used.
I'm glad Apple closed this. All DVD Jon does is to endanger online music by doing this hack.
If you want DRM-less music, buy CDs and rip them in yourself. It's easy. It can be a lot cheaper than buying them online - particularly when buying used.
I agree with you, although I'm a little surprised to find out that Apple had already fixed this in iTunes 4.7. That means that very little work was needed on Apple's part. Personally, I use iTunes as if the iTMS doesn't exist since I have no interest in it nor in buying CDs.Marianco said:
trrosen said:
Yeah, let's all get hysterical about it. Are you nuts? No one's getting a felony conviction for downloading a song that you PAID for, you absolutely have a legal right to it when you pay for it. Guys like you are the people that allow totalitarian regimes to come into power. Calm down.
And for the record, I used PyM to download a song with a Pepsi cap code, and so far no cancellation of my account. And the song still works (in iTunes, I checked). And it's DRM-free. So what? Big deal. DVD Jon exposed a security hole and Apple fixed it. He did Apple a favor, if you ask me.
PS "Legal right to" not legal right too
Digital technology does bring about greater information and access to it by consumers. And now virtually anything can be copied and shared. It makes the cost of distribution and production extremely cheap, but with this comes the threat of piracy. DRM is fine as long as it is not too restrictive.
Break even?
To everyone who thinks that Apple doesn't make any money on iTMS, I give a great big BS! I have two words for you: gift certificate.
Right now, I have 3 of them that I haven't used...one is currently 'lost'. Do you think that money is going to the record companies? I don't think so. Un-used gift certificates are one hell of an income generator for any company. In addition, gift cards are for even amount denominations ($10, $20, $30, etc.) --- songs are $.99 each. Do the math. Either you're giving Apple the change, or are forced to spend your own money to 'even things out'.
I'll remain a passive dissenter. I will probably re-gift those certificates as I won't support buying second-rate quality, restricted music at a premium price. At least when I go to a record store to buy music, they DISABLE the security tag before I leave the store...not the other way around like iTMS.
but that's slightly off topic...
I'm not surprised that Apple fixed this so quick, they have to keep the music industry juggernaut happy to keep those iPods rolling out the door.
To everyone who thinks that Apple doesn't make any money on iTMS, I give a great big BS! I have two words for you: gift certificate.
Right now, I have 3 of them that I haven't used...one is currently 'lost'. Do you think that money is going to the record companies? I don't think so. Un-used gift certificates are one hell of an income generator for any company. In addition, gift cards are for even amount denominations ($10, $20, $30, etc.) --- songs are $.99 each. Do the math. Either you're giving Apple the change, or are forced to spend your own money to 'even things out'.
I'll remain a passive dissenter. I will probably re-gift those certificates as I won't support buying second-rate quality, restricted music at a premium price. At least when I go to a record store to buy music, they DISABLE the security tag before I leave the store...not the other way around like iTMS.
but that's slightly off topic...
I'm not surprised that Apple fixed this so quick, they have to keep the music industry juggernaut happy to keep those iPods rolling out the door.
I think I know why Apple responded so quickly. It isn't just the surface problem of Apple's practically immaculate security reputation suddenly being besmirched. It's also the problem of having several hundred record companies jumping on Apple's back complaining of lost revenue.
On the reverse side, by giving such a quick response, Apple is improving relations with these companies by showing how important their opinions of Apple are.
On the reverse side, by giving such a quick response, Apple is improving relations with these companies by showing how important their opinions of Apple are.
Lacero said:
Except DRM does nothing to prevent piracy! The entire concept of encrypting content for wide distribution is laughable. The RIAA and the MPAA must know this - they're not idiots. Piracy is simply the cover story that allows them to push laws like the DMCA through congress. What they really want is complete control of how, where and when you watch the content you buy.
trrosen said:
You still need to buy and pay for the song. The file you download with PyMusique is the same as if you had downloaded it with iTunes. The only difference is that iTunes modifies the file after downloading it. Therefore, it's incorrect to say that you're downloading a file that you have no right to, because it's the same file that you download with iTunes.
Nermal said:
I agree
Someone who pays for their music from ITMS and uses PyMusique doesnt break the law until he distributes the music to others who haven't paid for it.
DRM in my opinion is like a lock on a door. Its only there to TRY to keep the thief out. If the thief wants in though he will still find a way regardless of how good your locks might be.
Reasons for PyMusique
I'm not sure what the motivations of Jon and Cody were but my main reason for coding PyMusique was being able to use the iTMS on Linux. The files coming without DRM was a nice side-effect. Yes, you still have to pay for the songs you download, don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise (I've been trying to squash this rumor).
-Travis Watkins
I'm not sure what the motivations of Jon and Cody were but my main reason for coding PyMusique was being able to use the iTMS on Linux. The files coming without DRM was a nice side-effect. Yes, you still have to pay for the songs you download, don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise (I've been trying to squash this rumor).
-Travis Watkins
I'm not surprised. They must have seen the development of this software in the logs of their servers long ago. Every initial attempt to try to communicate with the server will be different of the iTunes programs and that is easy to spot.wrldwzrd89 said:
i've been think about this and there is a way that they could "technically" be just breaking even. every ipod ad is also an itunes ad right? even in australia where we don't have an itunes music store all the ipod ad end with a itunes graphic. so they could dump all the advertising cost onto itunes which would be a hell of a lot. that would also allow them to publish better profits on ipods.katanna said:
It's still illegal to enter the house if you haven't obtained the key in a legitimate way...~loserman~ said:
That would be interesting accounting by Apple, but perfectly legal, since the two products are closely related. I don't see the reasoning, though - out of everyone that looks at Apple's earnings, how many look at the breakdown by product line?abc123 said: