Apple Disables PyMusique Hack

[salmon]

Apple legal is coming now. There is no other way to stop this. Apple killed support for the ITMS on pre 4.7 itunes. I hope this guy gets murdered finically by apple.

Why would you hope this? Remember, no where does it say that he's using this to illegally distribute music. It's not something that is going to harm Apple financially in any way. It's just a way to have more freedom of use for items legally purchased. I have trouble understanding why this is a bad thing in any way, unless you don't mind corporations having control. Would you hope the same if it were Microsoft?

The only way it possibly cause Apple harm is if some people then decided to use it as a piece in their distribution of copyrighted works. Even then,

• despite what the RIAA keeps saying about downloads and file sharing, music sales in North America keep going up every year
• people who are going to distribute music are going to distribute music, with or without this tool
• even if people use this as source for their illegally-distributed music, at least Apple is now going to get the revenue for it (instead of CDs, for example)

I would be amazed if this was truly illegal, even if he were where US laws apply, and the draconian DCMA could be enforced. And if it is, it's time to rewrite the laws. My god, it even seems like some of the postings here are CHEERING the DCMA...

I really think people should be considering what the ramifications of DRM are, no matter who's peddling it. And how technology can be used to change things for the better. As somebody on Slashdot stated, there seems to be a misconception that just because there historically has been a middleman that has been able to make obscene profits off the backs of artists, doesn't mean they have a guaranteed continuing right to do so into the future. Let's start making sure the artists get our support, and revitalize the music industry (no more Britney Spears and other business-plan artists), and get rid of the middle class.

 

[desdomg]

Apple is now looking like a turkey for forcing older iTunes users to upgrade.

Lets hope DVD jon can now turn his attention to the iPod itself so you can load other stores music on there - I like iTMS but the catalogue is really limiting!

 

[shamino]

So, just as the DeCSS-case where "PR Jon" was aquited, unless Apple get him on American ground, they probably wont be able to do anything as Norwegian law cannot be given retroactive powers**...

**I have no idea if that's really the english term for what I'm trying to say: That when a law is passes, then it (normally) cannot be used to prosecute cases older than the law...

The legal term is "ex post facto". And it is supposed to exist in US law as well, although sometimes I'm not so sure of that anymore.

 

[d.perel]

Well, it has been less than 24 hours, and PyMusic or whatever has been re-enabled through a new version to download music, and re-download songs for free. Oy.

 

[ckr4282]

(Sigh).... one less app for iTMS...

 

[ifitaintbroken]

Wouldn't a simple port sniff work?

hear me out. If you RTFA it states that the song is sent from Apple DRM-less and the DRM is applied at the server. If this is the case, then one could also simply sniff the traffic on the local box, after purchasing a song. Capture all the data to disk, and find the AAC headers to extract the DRM-less file.

Whalla!

You would not even need PyMusiq. Just standard iTunes and a good packet sniffer.

right? ?

 

[gthomasdirect]

Wasting time and effort with DRM

Okay, I've read through most of this, and I understand everyone's point.

Everybody comes up with the same argument. The truth is DRM doesn't work and only hampers legitimate uses and methods for using purchased media or media created personally. Jobs and company, MIT, damn near everyone has told the movie studios, labels and broadcasters that DRM won't work.

I'm so tired of everything being crippled on purpose. I would one day like to be able to load (or record) music I made into my iPod (not the hard drive part, which doesn't work when I attach to a PC, because mine is Mac formatted) and easily move it to someone else's iPod or iTunes, or whatever player they want to use. I would love to see kids cut up movies, tv shows, news stories, etc and make some new form of entertainment from them. I would love to see young people be able to "sell" their music, photos, artwork, movies, animations, whatever directly from their .Mac account, using ITMS prepaid cards, or something like that.

I would like to see true artists making a living, not big corporate sponsored producers and performers, backed by the same 3 major labels.

Take away DRM and there's no need for proprietary schemes. You could buy (download or share) music, movies and televisions shows from and with whoever you want. Just like you did when you bought vinyl, or CDs, or VHS. The playing field would be level, the one with the best, most convenient, accessible, most whatever, would be the most popular. People will use and pay for what they like best, just like they do with ArrowHead, Deer Park, Aquafina, Crystal Geyser, even Brita.

Apple and Jobs are probably the only ones who would like us to do that. The media companies haven't realized the faster and easier we can share something, buy something, promote something, and use something, the more money they'll make in the end.

DRM is like the digital broadcast flag, you have to pay someone (or be paid by someone) to use their DRM schemes to swim with the fishes in their ocean. Even though the ocean belongs to all of us.

Oh, and finally. True art and expression is supposed to be free. So is speech. DRM is quickly becoming the way our free society will be censored.

 

[ManchesterTrix]

DRM is quickly becoming the way our free society will be censored.

DRM will be used by some people to vainly protect their Intellectual property. How exactly will it be used for censorship? Anyone who wants their work/art/music to be free can make it free, but people who want to keep their intellectual property, should be able to.

 

[limulus]

DRM will be used by some people to vainly protect their Intellectual property. How exactly will it be used for censorship?

Speech that is derived from DRMed works, that would otherwise be legal under fair use doctrine, will be silenced for fear of prosecution under the DMCA.

Anyone who wants their work/art/music to be free can make it free, but people who want to keep their intellectual property, should be able to.

For a limited time, yes. Right now, the length of copyright terms in the US is the life of the author plus 70 years. (This is probably not what the US Constitution means by limited, considering the first term was 14 years.) However, DRM doesn't magically stop working for a piece of content whose copyright has expired, it goes on forever.

 

[tdewey]

You try it, then.

Oh, and finally. True art and expression is supposed to be free.

According to whom? Creating is hard work and deserves to be compensated appropriately. This statement is a simply an attempt to justify theft.

/vent

I think the Met will let you in free if you insist. You can go check out their Van Goghs. Great artist, too bad he died basically penniless. But hey, who cares about the artist, as long as you get to enjoy the art for free.

If a band wants to release free tracks, in the hopes that they can make money via live concerts. More power to them. That doesn't mean other bands or other artists in different mediums (e.g. film) should do the same. Are you suggesting that those concerts should be free? That going to a film should be free?

Creating art isn't "free"--it takes blood, sweat and tears--why then should the enjoyment of the art be free.

The only reason professional artists are able to create is because they get money for, like, food and, like, clothes at the end of the process (and if they're really good houses).

/vent off

 

[artifex]

Speech that is derived from DRMed works, that would otherwise be legal under fair use doctrine, will be silenced for fear of prosecution under the DMCA.


For a limited time, yes. Right now, the length of copyright terms in the US is the life of the author plus 70 years. (This is probably not what the US Constitution means by limited, considering the first term was 14 years.) However, DRM doesn't magically stop working for a piece of content whose copyright has expired, it goes on forever.

When the presidential debates were going on last year, iTunes made the audio available as free downloads. If anyone here wants them but missed them before, too bad! You can't find them on iTunes now, and I can't send them to you, because they are protected AACs.

I wonder who the copyright holder is, that Apple was protecting, by making these DRM'd? Obviously not the public...

 

[shamino]

When the presidential debates were going on last year, iTunes made the audio available as free downloads. If anyone here wants them but missed them before, too bad! You can't find them on iTunes now, and I can't send them to you, because they are protected AACs.

I wonder who the copyright holder is, that Apple was protecting, by making these DRM'd? Obviously not the public...

Probably a side effect of the iTunes client program adding DRM to everything downloaded from the store.

I doubt anybody asked Apple to protect the Presidential debates, but it's far easier for the software to protect everything than to implement a system (that can't be fooled by malicious programs) that will protect some files and leave others unprotected.

 

[ManchesterTrix]

When the presidential debates were going on last year, iTunes made the audio available as free downloads. If anyone here wants them but missed them before, too bad! You can't find them on iTunes now, and I can't send them to you, because they are protected AACs.

I wonder who the copyright holder is, that Apple was protecting, by making these DRM'd? Obviously not the public...

You can still download them for free from Audible.com.

 

[ManchesterTrix]

For a limited time, yes. Right now, the length of copyright terms in the US is the life of the author plus 70 years. (This is probably not what the US Constitution means by limited, considering the first term was 14 years.) However, DRM doesn't magically stop working for a piece of content whose copyright has expired, it goes on forever.

And stuff that it is in the public domain will be available without DRM. You're acting like the DRMed copy will be the only copy ever available.

 

[limulus]

And stuff that it is in the public domain will be available without DRM. You're acting like the DRMed copy will be the only copy ever available.

Audio CDs, VHS, and film media are not going to be around forever. They're all on the path to be completely replaced by DRMed media.

The originals of course won't be DRMed, but 100 years-or-so later when the copyright term is finally over where will the originals be? Lost.

 

[therevolution]

And stuff that it is in the public domain will be available without DRM. You're acting like the DRMed copy will be the only copy ever available.

If the artist/company/whatever ceases to exist when the work enters the public domain, leaving behind only the DRM'ed copy, then what?

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Audio CDs, VHS, and film media are not going to be around forever. They're all on the path to be completely replaced by DRMed media.

The originals of course won't be DRMed, but 100 years-or-so later when the copyright term is finally over where will the originals be? Lost.

I normally don't have a 100 year perspective when buying CDs and DVDs. I know that they might last just about 20 years and then have to be replaced... that's all right, in my opinion... it's not like books that, with care, last 100 years or more.

And copyright has a limit, too... material older than a certain number of years (depending on type of material, I think that books, e.g., are copyrighted for 70 years, but it might have changed)... so all interlectual properties today will be freely available in 100 years...

And there are lots of media without DRM, out there...

And DRM is not a bad thing in itself, for most non-paranoid and law obiding users the DRM will not in any way diminish the media users experience with the music, film, book or whatever... basically just filesharers will have trouble with DRM...

Cannot see the problem, really... if you don't want to buy music with DRM, but CDs... and if your favorite artist begins distributing music on a new and improved CC (with a copy-protection that actually works, and not just messes up peoples car stereos and slot loading computers) then you have to decide what's most important to you: Buying the music with copy protection which may not let you transfer your music to your iPod (legally) or do without that album (which makes it sell, at least, one less copy... so if enough people does this it can really hurt sales...)

 

[therevolution]

I normally don't have a 100 year perspective when buying CDs and DVDs. I know that they might last just about 20 years and then have to be replaced... that's all right, in my opinion... it's not like books that, with care, last 100 years or more.

You're missing the point. The point is that the work is supposed to enter the public domain at the end of its copyright term. Current media is not encumbered by DRM, so theoretically, when it expires, you can just start using it as you please. You would not be able to do so with DRM'ed files. What if the content owner set your DRM file to expire (ie, render it unusable) before the copyright period ended? You couldn't use it, even though it should be in the public domain.

And copyright has a limit, too... material older than a certain number of years (depending on type of material, I think that books, e.g., are copyrighted for 70 years, but it might have changed)... so all interlectual properties today will be freely available in 100 years...

Again, right now, you can read books without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. This is not the case with DRM media, so you have no guarantee that it will be freely available in 100 years.

 

[matticus008]

You're missing the point. The point is that the work is supposed to enter the public domain at the end of its copyright term. Current media is not encumbered by DRM, so theoretically, when it expires, you can just start using it as you please. You would not be able to do so with DRM'ed files. What if the content owner set your DRM file to expire (ie, render it unusable) before the copyright period ended? You couldn't use it, even though it should be in the public domain.

See but when works enter the public domain, they are/will be made available without DRM. So yes, your DRM-protected file will continue to be restricted to DRM-enable actions, but you will be able to obtain the work freely elsewhere. You'll have to go to the great trouble of downloading the file again (probably at a better quality and much faster speed than is available today). But you will be able to get the music without DRM.

Again, right now, you can read books without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. This is not the case with DRM media, so you have no guarantee that it will be freely available in 100 years.

Yes you can. Don't exaggerate. You don't need anyone's permission to use DRM-protected music. All you need is compatible hardware/software. If it works when you buy it, it will continue to do so. If it doesn't work, it won't magically start working (my vinyl doesn't work on my CD player ).

 

[therevolution]

See but when works enter the public domain, they are/will be made available without DRM. So yes, your DRM-protected file will continue to be restricted to DRM-enable actions, but you will be able to obtain the work freely elsewhere. You'll have to go to the great trouble of downloading the file again (probably at a better quality and much faster speed than is available today). But you will be able to get the music without DRM.

How do you know that for sure? What if the copyright holder goes out of business, and they were the only one with the original non-DRM version? It's an entirely plausible situation, especially given the fact that copyrights can easily last 100 years or more. You have no guarantees it will be made available without DRM at that point.

Don't exaggerate. You don't need anyone's permission to use DRM-protected music

Wrong. If I attempt to open an iTunes song on an unregistered computer, it prompts me for a user/password and goes to Apple's servers to authenticate me before I can listen to it. What if I try to listen to a song many years from now, after iTMS ceases to exist? Maybe it will still exist, who knows... but the point is there are no guarantees.

 

[matticus008]

How do you know that for sure? What if the copyright holder goes out of business, and they were the only one with the original non-DRM version? It's an entirely plausible situation, especially given the fact that copyrights can easily last 100 years or more. You have no guarantees it will be made available without DRM at that point.

It's the same way copyrights are handled now. Like you said, there are no guarantees. If the publisher of a book goes out of business, those rights are transferred (very few books are public domain, even ones that have been in print for centuries). More appropriately, record labels that no longer exist that have works in the public domain are secured by various forms of trusts and estates. Once the work enters the public realm at the end of its copyright, it is made available by any number of sources, regardless of what happened to the original. Public domain music is available now, in many cases, due to the work of amateur restoration hobbyists and digitizers. Original, non-DRMed tracks will always be kept by the owners (to simplify their own reproduction needs), and even if they are lost (like the original masters to many public domain songs now), someone will take the best quality copy they can find and convert it into a freely distributable format.

Wrong. If I attempt to open an iTunes song on an unregistered computer, it prompts me for a user/password and goes to Apple's servers to authenticate me before I can listen to it. What if I try to listen to a song many years from now, after iTMS ceases to exist? Maybe it will still exist, who knows... but the point is there are no guarantees.

Precisely. Apple is asking you, the licensed user of those tracks, for YOUR permission to play them back. Requiring your own permission is hardly a concern. If iTunes does cease to exist, I'm sure that they would find some way to open FairPlay so the songs can continue to be used, if through no other means than a special authorization database service. In any case, your installation of iTunes would remain authorized indefinitely and it's likely that Apple would create a version of iTunes that could export authorization into a password-protected file that you could back up and transfer yourself. This is not the only possible method, but it's highly unlikely that Apple would shut down iTMS without providing some way to allow purchased tracks to continue to function.

 

[therevolution]

It's the same way copyrights are handled now. Like you said, there are no guarantees. If the publisher of a book goes out of business, those rights are transferred (very few books are public domain, even ones that have been in print for centuries).

Here's the difference: if I shelve a book right now and come back 5, 20, or 100 years later, I can still read that book. If I burn a DRM'ed copy of an iTunes song to CD, and try to play it back 5, 20, or 100 years later, will Apple still be around to grant me the ability to play it? Not necessarily.

More appropriately, record labels that no longer exist that have works in the public domain are secured by various forms of trusts and estates.

Um, when a work is in the public domain, who cares about securing it? Anyone can use it - assuming they have access to it, which I am trying to tell you is potentially very difficult with DRM'ed media - for whatever they want. Who cares about trusts or estates at that point? I don't get what you're trying to say here.

...Original, non-DRMed tracks will always be kept by the owners (to simplify their own reproduction needs), and even if they are lost (like the original masters to many public domain songs now), someone will take the best quality copy they can find and convert it into a freely distributable format.

The DMCA currently makes circumventing DRM to gain access to the work illegal. I honestly have no clue if it remains illegal after the work has entered the public domain, but even it if was legal, why should we have to deal with that? What if somebody comes out with a really effective DRM solution that prevents people from doing what you suggest?

Apple is asking you, the licensed user of those tracks, for YOUR permission to play them back. Requiring your own permission is hardly a concern.

WHAT?? That's a really warped way of looking at it. The fact is, you're asking for THEIR permission, not the other way around. If you forget your username or password, you can't listen to the song - you're screwed. In this situation, you have zero control over listening to the songs you paid to listen to - it's up to Apple to allow you to play it.

If iTunes does cease to exist, I'm sure that they would find some way to open FairPlay so the songs can continue to be used, if through no other means than a special authorization database service.

That's optimistic at best. Why are you so sure they would?

In any case, your installation of iTunes would remain authorized indefinitely

I doubt you or myself will be using the same computer in 10 years.

and it's likely that Apple would create a version of iTunes that could export authorization into a password-protected file that you could back up and transfer yourself. This is not the only possible method, but it's highly unlikely that Apple would shut down iTMS without providing some way to allow purchased tracks to continue to function.

Again, you're giving Apple too much credit. It would be nice, yes, but they are under no obligation to do any of these things you're suggesting. With DRM, they are the ones in control, and always will be. Please, explain your reasoning for "highly unlikely."

 

[BillHarrison]

Ok, here is some "Real World" info on all of this.

Doing some research for my boss, he wants to get his daughter onto one of these services, and me being the in house guru, I did some research.

Basically, when you sit down and try to explain all the DRM to your "Joe Customer" they completely get mixed up. I explained iTunes, then explained "wal-mart music". Showed him the setups of both.

It all boiled down to usage. He asked if he could play them in his new truck that plays "mp3's" from the factory. Nope, neither. How about her 3 year old mp3 player? Nope.

As it stands, I feel the DRM is too restrictive, and only hurts the consumer. What did I recommend to him? As of today, buy cd's. Its the only way to be guaranteed that you will get what you want. He asked about singles, and honestly? I recommended just skipping it.

Your average consumer cant be expected to PAY for the music, get it, and be highly limited in usage. Our economic model has always been based around purchasing for "ownership". Aside from obvious rental (Blockbuster - although even they are beginning to see people prefer the "ownership" model, as evidenced in the new rental programs) schemes, people buy something, they expect it to be "theirs".

Thats the way people think, and im tellin ya, none of the current schemes will work for most. I can burn a cd, and rerip to make mp3's for my car stereo, but most people will never figure that out.

So, they need to figure something out, to make customers happy. Personally, I use iTunes, as they are THE best, and give me enough freedom to do what i want with my music. And I don't mind being locked into apple hardware, as it is the best, so thats not much of a concession for me. But I think this will all come to a head, and while this may not be the best method, it is a method.

Personally, I don't buy cd's, and never did. I enjoy music, but not to that extent. But the ability to jump on iTunes and download what i like for a buck, that works for me. So the music biz needs to grow up, or go away. DRM can and always will be broken. Its a waste of time. Change your business model to fit the times, the old one is outdated, and wont work in todays world.

Thats the biggest problem i think.

 

[F/reW/re]

I don't get it... If you hate the iTMS drm go buy your music at AllOfMP3!
http://www.allofmp3.com/

It's cheaper!
No drm!
You can choose filetype and compression!

 

[limulus]

I think I may know why so many people here feel that they have to defend DRM. They think that if they concede that DRM and the DMCA are awful, that it would be hypocritical of them to continue to buy from the iTMS.

Except that it is not hypocritical. I dislike DRM very much, yet I continue to buy DRMed music from iTMS. My reasoning is that so long as there is a tool out there that allows me to circumvent FairPlay, I can disable the DRM the moment it gets in my way (it hasn't, yet).