Apple Disables PyMusique Hack

[ewinemiller]

Why would you reach that conclusion? The number sold has absolutely nothing to do with it.

If your total costs are equal to your total revenue, you don't make money. Simple.

Look at the airlines. How could they be flying millions of passengers billions of miles and not making money?

You're probably right in that just having the number doesn't give you enough information to determine profitability, but the number sold certainly does impact profitability.

There are some costs wich are the same over item sold, things like bandwidth, Apple probably pays Akamai some number / byte transfer. So each song might incure a $.02 cost for bandwidth and as you get bigger that stays the same. So for these costs # of songs sold really has no impact on profitability, though there might be some break for bulk buying your bandwidth.

There are other costs that are fixed and you need to pay that money no matter how many items you sold, like say the DB admin who keeps the database server humming. If his salary is 100k and you only sold 10 songs, that salary cost you 10k/song, very hard to be profitable. If you sell 3 million songs, his salary only cost you $0.0333/song which is a much smaller slice of your gross, thus you are more likely to be profitable.

 

[Sunrunner]

Im just happy that Apple managed to plug this hole so fast. (something like 36 hours?) Such a hack going unchecked for any extended period of time could do a lot of PR damage to Apple before long...

 

[Sun Baked]

Why would you reach that conclusion? The number sold has absolutely nothing to do with it.

If your total costs are equal to your total revenue, you don't make money. Simple.

Look at the airlines. How could they be flying millions of passengers billions of miles and not making money?

Passengers were always a lossy business.

But the cargo they carried would added far more to the bottom line than the meat in the seats. However 9/11 really killed that as quite a few of the cargo carrying options were closed.

The songs are probably a bit above break even at the volume they're running now.

But they really don't need to be a huge profit center, only pay for themselves. I'm quite sure Apple will be expanding the iTMS in the future with some more profitable ventures in the future.

We've already seen some of this with the "Made for iPod" scheme, and you know this is only the beginning.

 

[Sunrunner]

Passengers were always a lossy business.

But the cargo they carried would added far more to the bottom line than the meat in the seats. However 9/11 really killed that as quite a few of the cargo carrying options were closed.

The songs are probably a bit above break even at the volume they're running now.

But they really don't need to be a huge profit center, only pay for themselves. I'm quite sure Apple will be expanding the iTMS in the future with some more profitable ventures in the future.

We've already seen some of this with the "Made for iPod" scheme, and you know this is only the beginning.

Next update needed for the iTMS: Higher-bitrate files and ability to redownload purchased music.

 

[limulus]

It's still illegal to enter the house if you haven't obtained the key in a legitimate way...

No, it's not. The DRM as a locked house analogy doesn't work, because it means that you've already bought the house and what's inside. It's not a crime to break into your own house.

It also means that, in most cases, you have obtained the key in a legitimate way. In the case of FairPlay, the key for your account is stored on your computer, and there's a key on your iPod if you own one. In the case of DVDs, each DVD player has decryption keys. Are we going to make reverse engineering a crime?

 

[shamino]

Well, obviously you couldn't write a program such as "PyMusique" without having a copy of iTunes to begin with. Once again, the "CLICK THROUGH" demands that you agree to TERMS OF USE of the software or you can't have access. Certainly, these terms were broken.

But click-through/shrink-wrap licenses are only legally binding in two states (at least in the US.) If he doesn't live in MD or VA, all those "license" terms are meaningless unenforceable trash.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

No, it's not. The DRM as a locked house analogy doesn't work, because it means that you've already bought the house and what's inside. It's not a crime to break into your own house.

It also means that, in most cases, you have obtained the key in a legitimate way. In the case of FairPlay, the key for your account is stored on your computer, and there's a key on your iPod if you own one. In the case of DVDs, each DVD player has decryption keys. Are we going to make reverse engineering a crime?

Who says I was using an analogy...

There is a big difference, you own your house, not music you buy... you just buy a right to play it... and even if you have payed for the music you violate the end user licence by stripping the DRM... thats not legal... may not be stealing, or even breaking and entering, strictly legally speaking, but that's just semantics...

The real funny part is that in a way you're right, speking from a Norwegian legislative view, as it's not illegal to strip music of DRMs in Norway today... this is, by the way, one of the reasons why "PR Jon" is relativly safe from Apple's lawyers at the moment... but new (EU) legislation is on it's way to plug that loophole - even if Norway's not an EU member...

And, I guess, reverse engineering other companies software is also a violation against both EULAs and maybe even the law, so I don't think we need to make it a crime...

 

[shamino]

Apple's update of their server is expected. Heck, the original articles we read yesterday about pyMusic all said that Apple would probably shut down the program in about 12 hours!

Personally, if I developed such a program, there is no way I would ever publish it or announce it to the rest of the world. I'd keep it to myself and use it to purchase my own songs without DRM. The minute you tell the world, someone will start to take measures to shut you down.

Anyone who thinks such a program could be distributed to the internet and remain useful for more than a trivially short period of time is living in a fantassy world.

 

[ManchesterTrix]

Who says I was using an analogy...

There is a big difference, you own your house, not music you buy... you just buy a right to play it... and even if you have payed for the music you violate the end user licence by stripping the DRM... thats not legal... may not be stealing, or even breaking and entering, strictly legally speaking, but that's just semantics...

Except, he didn't strip the DRM. Apple sends the music un-DRMed so he didn't even need to strip it, and the stream wasn't encrypted so he didn't need to break that. No laws were broken, Apple's TOS probably was, but no laws were.

 

[limulus]

There is a big difference, you own your house, not music you buy... you just buy a right to play it...

I don't know about Norwegian/EU copyright law, but in the US, you own the content you buy - with the exception of the right to widely distribute it.

...and even if you have payed for the music you violate the end user license by stripping the DRM... thats not legal... may not be stealing, or even breaking and entering, strictly legally speaking, but that's just semantics...

EULAs are not legally binding contracts.

 

[coolfactor]

Apple, you've done all that is necessary. Don't proceed with any form of legal charges. That would just be bullying. People love your product, and want to buy your music and hardware... open it to the Linux community, as well.

 

[Eric5h5]

I don't care what Apple says... you can't sell, what is it now, 3 million songs and just break even.
They have to be making money from it.
(this is my opinion, I know you are not going to agree, but don't try to convince me otherwise)

Well hey, why let mere facts stand in the way of a good opinion! Apple did release the breakdown of who makes what off selling songs, and they don't get much of it. Most of it goes to the music companies.

--Eric

(I was going to add some stuff about EULAs not generally being legally binding, but I see that it's already been pointed out. Just because they use lawery-sounding words doesn't mean you have to fall for it, people. Nobody can just write their own laws whenever they feel like it! Or are some people so sheep-like that they'll actually obey if I attach a EULA to my posts, stating that readers must send me $10 each time they read them? Hmm, must try that sometime....)

 

[mcdermd]

BTW, apparently this also disables JHymn. Both of them used the iTunes 4.6 identifier.

 

[ZeitGeist]

Cute

At which point, you pull out the debugger, trace through the iTunes code to find out where the 128 bit encryption key is kept, and then make use of that 128 bit key to decrypt the music as it downloads using the existing PyTunes code.

Which makes it a DMCA violation, and then Apple's option are far more 'fun'. Yes, I know that technically any protection can be circumvented, but we're also talking 'real-world' here.

Speaking of 'real-world', I certainly hope that people take note that everytime some moron like DVD Jon comes up with yet another way to compromise, Apple has no choice but to plug the issue, resulting each time in iTunes consumers' freedoms being further curbed.

In other words, it is the fault of the 'anti-DRM' monkeys that Apple's DRM has to get tighter and tighter, and while they complain about DRM restrictions:

- They are repeatedly attacking the most consumer-friendly DRM in the industry, while crying about their 'cause', and blaming Apple for leaving these security holes open. Idiots - Apple left older versions of iTunes to be able to connect to accomodate these consumers, something the likes of DVD Jon can't seem to grasp.

- DVD Jon, while revered by some misguided dorks, seems to fail to even crack Windows DRM (undoubtedly the consumer nastiest DRM out there), which seems odd, seeing as it seems his side is so anti-DRM, that cracking Windows DRM would seem like a far more obvious target. Yet, nothing of that sort is happening.

- This is odd enough that it makes me wonder that DVD Jon, and others of his ilk, are really just interested in propping themselves up, and don't really concern themselves with whatever cause they tout; alternatively, I wonder how big Jon's paycheck from Microsoft, Napster, etc... really is.

Doesn't it make anyone wonder?

ZeitGeist

 

[salmon]

But you presumably don't do so for economic gain.

He's not doing it for economic gain - he makes no money off it. He's doing it so he can use things he purchases in whatever way he wants, without arbitrary restrictions.

He's far from being a bad person, as a previous poster commented. He's fighting for freedom, although in a non-traditional way.

He took a different approach. I just won't buy anything from iTMS, that's how I'm fighting it.

 

[edPod]

DRM is a nuisance

Last weekend the iTunes Store service was down for two days over here in Holland. Very annoying if you want to authorize another computer!

Apple's DRM has nothing to do with security; it is just a smart way of vendor lock-in.

As long as you can buy CD's that can be ripped, DRM will do near to nothing to prevent piracy.

 

[limulus]

Which makes it a DMCA violation, and then Apple's option are far more 'fun'. Yes, I know that technically any protection can be circumvented, but we're also talking 'real-world' here.

Speaking of 'real-world', I certainly hope that people take note that every time some moron like DVD Jon comes up with yet another way to compromise, Apple has no choice but to plug the issue, resulting each time in iTunes consumers' freedoms being further curbed.

How exactly is it that this has curbed iTMS user's freedoms? By no longer being able to use iTunes 4.6 with iTMS? Its not like that wasn't going to happen soon anyway. If anything, our freedoms have been increased with the ability to authorize more computers and burn more CDs.

In other words, it is the fault of the 'anti-DRM' monkeys that Apple's DRM has to get tighter and tighter, and while they complain about DRM restrictions:

- They are repeatedly attacking the most consumer-friendly DRM in the industry, while crying about their 'cause', and blaming Apple for leaving these security holes open. Idiots - Apple left older versions of iTunes to be able to connect to accommodate these consumers, something the likes of DVD Jon can't seem to grasp.

The most consumer friendly DRM system is still a DRM system, meaning that at anytime the companies that control the DRM system can change the rights. What is the most user friendly DRM system today may not be so tomorrow.

- DVD Jon, while revered by some misguided dorks, seems to fail to even crack Windows DRM (undoubtedly the consumer nastiest DRM out there), which seems odd, seeing as it seems his side is so anti-DRM, that cracking Windows DRM would seem like a far more obvious target. Yet, nothing of that sort is happening.

Jon Johansen, AFAIK, does not actually come up with these hacks. He puts windows GUI wrappers around them, and acts as the proxy for releasing them. It's not him that is failing to crack Windows DRM.

- This is odd enough that it makes me wonder that DVD Jon, and others of his ilk, are really just interested in propping themselves up, and don't really concern themselves with whatever cause they tout; alternatively, I wonder how big Jon's paycheck from Microsoft, Napster, etc... really is.

Us anti-DRM "monkeys" are not fighting against Apple. In the long run, I think Apple is on our side. We're fighting the RIAA and MPAA not just for our own rights but yours as well. Maybe you think that what has been happening to copyright law recently (DMCA and indefinite copyrights) is fine and dandy, but then this is the future you'll get.

 

[budugu]

Good and quick move by Apple, but I'm afraid it's not a lasting solution. I guess it won't be that big a problem for PyMusique to spoof an iTunes 4.7 identification. So unless Apple actually changes their whole DRM scheme, I guess "PR Jon" and others just gonna crack it again fairly soon...

Well the new "copyright" law, which is soon(?) to be passed here in Norway, will (even if it has its shortcomings) either stop "PR Jon", or send him in exile to China or somewhere else where copyright laws are non-existent...

That would be stupid as universal claiming that sony's VCR would destroy copyright! and it actually lost the case then in the 80s. But what i fail to see is that people has a more stupid ... banning HDTV cards, DVD copying software ... and what not? Just because they donot want to invest in developing technology they donot want any one else to do that..... i think DVD John (wo got DVD playing capability for linux) or who ever should not be discouraged!

He did not find a way to rip the whole itunes store ...he just made a linux interface for it which apple did not provide ...and if it is about protection... once you copy the stuff from a AAC to WAV on CD one can easily make a darn MP3 out of it!

This move is just please Wallstreet analysts who advice those brain dead media companies that this system is safe or whatever...

 

[Tulse]

He's not doing it for economic gain - he makes no money off it.

I realize that DVD Jon makes no money, but it's not the developer I was talking about -- it is the end user who would be committing fraud. (That said, the notion of fraud here might admittedly be hard to maintain legally.)

He's doing it so he can use things he purchases in whatever way he wants, without arbitrary restrictions.

Arbitrary or not, they are legal restrictions.

He's far from being a bad person, as a previous poster commented. He's fighting for freedom, although in a non-traditional way.

"Freedom"? Good lord -- at least when Mel Gibson was shouting about freedom is was freedom from English tyranny. Has the notion of freedom been reduced to "the ability to play music however I want"? That's kind of sad, no?

He took a different approach. I just won't buy anything from iTMS, that's how I'm fighting it.

It seems to me that your way is precisely what people should do if they don't like DRM -- just don't buy products that have it. Circumventing it isn't a solution -- boycotting is.

 

[limulus]

"Freedom"? Good lord -- at least when Mel Gibson was shouting about freedom is was freedom from English tyranny. Has the notion of freedom been reduced to "the ability to play music however I want"? That's kind of sad, no?

It seems to me that your way is precisely what people should do if they don't like DRM -- just don't buy products that have it. Circumventing it isn't a solution -- boycotting is.

Maybe today it is about music, but DMCA and similar laws around the world apply to eBooks too. And when the day comes that all new books are DRMed eBooks, should those of us who don't like DRM just not buy any new books?

Boycotting is not and option, because there are way too few people who even understand what DRM is to make even a slight difference to the RIAA and MPAA.

 

[Tulse]

Boycotting is not and option, because there are way too few people who even understand what DRM is to make even a slight difference to the RIAA and MPAA.

Presumably those few people are the same few using DRM-stripping software, which again has slight impact on the RIAA and MPAA, so I don't see how that advances the cause. Surely the best approach would be to educate the vast majority about DRM.

(By the way, I'm one of those few people who does understand DRM, and isn't that upset about it.)

 

[limulus]

Presumably those few people are the same few using DRM-stripping software, which again has slight impact on the RIAA and MPAA, so I don't see how that advances the cause. Surely the best approach would be to educate the vast majority about DRM.

The DRM stripping tools keep the RIAA's and MPAA's efforts to destroy fair use in check by restoring fair use to DRMed content. That certainly advances the anti-DRM cause, and considerably more-so than boycotting.

Educating the general populace about DRM is not cheap, especially when you have to compete against lobbying groups like the RIAA and MPAA. They even have the resources to bring their people in to public schools to teach kids about copyright law. You can be sure that they are not teaching kids about the copyright law that the US founding fathers intended - they are teaching them their own twisted version of copyright law.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

That would be stupid as universal claiming that sony's VCR would destroy copyright! and it actually lost the case then in the 80s. But what i fail to see is that people has a more stupid ... banning HDTV cards, DVD copying software ... and what not? Just because they donot want to invest in developing technology they donot want any one else to do that..... i think DVD John (wo got DVD playing capability for linux) or who ever should not be discouraged!

He did not find a way to rip the whole itunes store ...he just made a linux interface for it which apple did not provide ...and if it is about protection... once you copy the stuff from a AAC to WAV on CD one can easily make a darn MP3 out of it!

This move is just please Wallstreet analysts who advice those brain dead media companies that this system is safe or whatever...

Well, I for one am very glad for the ability to copy VHS tapes, I've got about 800 movies, mostly (legally) copied from rentals...

It's not like copy protection is something new, e.g. Hollywood Pictures and Disney has copy-protected their VHS-tapes for years... very annoying as I had a legal right to make copies (at least untill the above mentioned law is passed)... of course the introduction of DVDs made my entire VHS collection very little interesting, and that problem, with VHS copy protection, is academic, now... but for a long time I stayed away from renting films distributed by Hollywood Pictures, because I knew I couldn't copy them...

This actually kept me from copying the VHS, but Fairplay doesn't do that, it still lets you copy the song, lossless even, to an endless number of computers (but just a few at the time) and play them whenever you want... if you want a copy you can upload on BitTorrent (or whatever else you want a non-DRM'd music file for, and forget the Linux sh...excuse, as there are other shops for linux users, just as there are shops Mac users cannot use) go buy the CD or buy it on one of the other on-line shops... it's not like you're foreced to shop from iTMS... (He...ck, it's not even available in most of the World...!!!)

(Much the same thing with CDs, by the way. Here in Norway EMI is, more or less, the only distributer who sells CCs, all others sell CDs. If I knew iTunes couldn't handle CCs, or I ment to use CDs in a car stereo or whatever, I would just stay away from all EMI's publications...)

 

[salmon]

"Freedom"? Good lord -- at least when Mel Gibson was shouting about freedom is was freedom from English tyranny. Has the notion of freedom been reduced to "the ability to play music however I want"? That's kind of sad, no?

Taken by itself, you're right - it doesn't seem like a very important battle. But I would argue it is, when looked at in a larger context. There is a new paradigm being determined at this period in time, and it is going to have repercussions for a long time to come. It is the rules of how information will be controlled in the digital age - and information is increasingly becoming more and more valuable of an asset. Do we want corporations completely controlling and restricting how we live our lives? That's what they're trying for.

Granted, this is one small - maybe music isn't a big deal, and if it went away, life would go on (although it is a huge investment of money for a lot of people). What about if they could control how you could show people your family photos, because the file format was patented, and they decided to start charging $0.25 every time you looked at a picture? Or if they decided you could only rent all of your entertainment content (which is what they really want to do anyway). Or because your Great American Novel you wrote is in a proprietary format, they get a royalty payment if you want to publish it?

Some other visions of DRM are pretty scary, check out here for some examples. (Yes, Mr. Stallman has some views about things that are easy to dismiss on the surface - but he is extremely intelligent and makes very good points.)

To me, it doesn't matter what company it is. I like and respect Apple in a lot of ways, I wish them success and am excited about the fact they have reinvigorated the IT industry. But, if it's proprietary, there's no way that can work out in my favour, so I'm not going to play. I'm not saying that I think DVD Jon's approach is the best way to fight the battle, but I have more respect for him than a corporation trying to control aspects of my life.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

What about if they could control how you could show people your family photos, because the file format was patented, and they decided to start charging $0.25 every time you looked at a picture? Or if they decided you could only rent all of your entertainment content (which is what they really want to do anyway). Or because your Great American Novel you wrote is in a proprietary format, they get a royalty payment if you want to publish it?

Now, that's just silly, there is a big difference in what rights you have when buying other peoples work, like a song or a painting/print, and the rights you have to your own intellectual work. Noone can charge you for using music, paintings, images or a novel you have made yourself (unless you have sold the rights, but that's another discussion...)

(Of course if you use a patented format to save your work in, you actually pay for it but only when you save it, and usually it's the cost is baked into the software licence, like with gif images. But if you don't want to pay, you can, always, use an open source alternative, like png. And if someone started chargin people for viewing gifs the format would die, fairly quickly...)