Apple Disables PyMusique Hack

[ewinemiller]

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!

I don't hate iTunes, and I'd like the artist to be compensated for their work. I don't think allofmp3 does since the last I saw they didn't really have rights to distribute that stuff but exist through some loop hole in Russian law.

My concern is the DRM that will keep me from listening to the music I've purchased in the future. I have a hardware failure and can't deauthorize a computer, there's one of my 5 gone. OS get's trashed and can't deauthorize a computer, there's another one gone. I've had to reauthorize my PC laptop because I applied a bios update. The old bios is gone, I can't go back and deauthorize what it thought was a different computer. Not as likely, but Apple goes out of business and I can't reauthorize anymore (same argument folks like to use against MS's mandatory registration of XP BTW). All those things can make my investment in music through the iTunes music store worthless. The only legal (not subject to DCMA) choice for removing the DRM is burn and re-rip which of course reduces audio quality and is frankly a pain in the rear.

Thankfully it seems to me that iTunes music store is having an impact on CD prices. New releases are often 9.99 at Circuit City and Best Buy, and stuff a few months old is often available for 8.99. After a while with the itunes music store I've started buying the real thing again. Thanks Apple for helping change the industry and my buying habits, but I don't think it was the way you wanted.

 

[peharri]

I really don't know what to make of this.

I think there are alternatives to the iTMS. One example is some store called Amazon.com. Apparently, they offer the ability to "download" music in batches of 8-12 songs at a time (pre-selected.) These songs are transmitted via some protocol called "USPS" or sometimes "UPS", both of which are a little slow, but they work. The music arrives on a plastic disc, and isn't just DRM free and possible to play on all platforms, but is actually uncompressed too.

Ok, sarcasm aside, I do think in this instance, there's a good alternative to iTMS that provides the physical goods people want. So from my point of view, using something like PyMusique is unnecessary. In this case, that's relevent because we're using something that is unquestionably Apple's property, their music store. Their servers. Their resources.

This isn't like the "Get Real music to play on an iPod hack". Real wasn't using anything of Apple's, that entire issue was about allowing a third party to provide a product that worked with my property. Yes, there were alternatives, but there was also no legitimate leg for Apple to stand on.

In this case, we're talking about using Apple's resources in ways they've specifically forbidden. And in a way that's fundamentally unnecessary. I'm not going to work myself into a moral tizzy about it, but I think DVDJon would do us a few favours by avoiding this particular type of hack. He (or the people he fronts for) have done some great stuff of late, DeCSS, the thing to unencumber M4P files, but this is arguably not one of them.

 

[matticus008]

I really don't know what to make of this.

I think there are alternatives to the iTMS. One example is some store called Amazon.com. Apparently, they offer the ability to "download" music in batches of 8-12 songs at a time (pre-selected.) These songs are transmitted via some protocol called "USPS" or sometimes "UPS", both of which are a little slow, but they work. The music arrives on a plastic disc, and isn't just DRM free and possible to play on all platforms, but is actually uncompressed too.

Ok, sarcasm aside, I do think in this instance, there's a good alternative to iTMS that provides the physical goods people want. So from my point of view, using something like PyMusique is unnecessary. In this case, that's relevent because we're using something that is unquestionably Apple's property, their music store. Their servers. Their resources.

This isn't like the "Get Real music to play on an iPod hack". Real wasn't using anything of Apple's, that entire issue was about allowing a third party to provide a product that worked with my property. Yes, there were alternatives, but there was also no legitimate leg for Apple to stand on.

In this case, we're talking about using Apple's resources in ways they've specifically forbidden. And in a way that's fundamentally unnecessary. I'm not going to work myself into a moral tizzy about it, but I think DVDJon would do us a few favours by avoiding this particular type of hack. He (or the people he fronts for) have done some great stuff of late, DeCSS, the thing to unencumber M4P files, but this is arguably not one of them.

Exactly. You can do what you want by buying the appropriate product. What a novel thought! I wish more people would see it this way.

 

[w00master]

My problem with *ANY* DRM

No one has really mentioned this, but my problem with DRM is that it assumes that all users are "pirates/criminals." What most of the commenters who are "anti-PyMusique" fail to realize is people who pirate will continue to pirate regardless what sort of DRM scheme is out there. Isn't this the (crazy) reason why DRM exists in the first place? Yet, in the end as everyone can clearly see, DRM fails in that "key aspect."

Using the argument to just "buy a CD" is a poor argument. Why should *I* as a *HONEST* consumer have to resort to an outdated distribution model, and yet the piraters have free reign? Seems lopsided to me.

w00master

 

[minton]

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!

You forgot:

Support the Russian mafia!

 

[shamino]

Using the argument to just "buy a CD" is a poor argument. Why should *I* as a *HONEST* consumer have to resort to an outdated distribution model...

So you consider superior sound quality with no restrictions on fair use to be inferior, just because it's a few years old?

I assume you only commute to work on a Segway or something modern, since cars have been around for over a hundred years. Why in the world would you want to use such an outdated mode of transportation?

When I evaluate something's value, the number of years since its invention is irrelevant.

There's an old quote: "There are two kinds of fool. One says 'This is new and therefore good'. The other says 'This is old and therefore better'"

 

[Doctor Q]

No one has really mentioned this, but my problem with DRM is that it assumes that all users are "pirates/criminals."

I've seen quite a few comments here that mentioned that. For example, one post compared DRM to the detectors at store exits that catch shoplifters. They scan us all, as if we are presumed guilty, but of course it is a minimal intrusion so they get few complaints. If you want to open a checking account, they ask you for ID to confirm your name. That seems perfectly reasonable, but you could claim they are assuming you are guilty (of lying about your identity) until you prove otherwise.

People who oppose any DRM on principle are unlikely to ever be happy with any system that deters thieves. Record labels are unlikely to ever be happy with any system that does nothing to deter thieves.

So a more useful question to ask is how regular honest users can be allowed to use their music without hindrance, i.e., minimal intrusion for uses that are reasonable to expect, even though we know the system can't be foolproof in separating proper from improper uses.

Apple has done it one way, applying DRM that gives you certain rights one computer at a time, a way to remove DRM (burning CDs, but only with a change of format), and iPod-only software.

Who has practical alternative ideas? DRM that expires? Watermarked copies of music? Higher prices for more rights? Varying rights for individual tunes, depending on what the artist agrees to? An independent third-party digital rights management group that tracks, manages, and enforces DRM, with Apple as only one of its clients?

What most of the commenters who are "anti-PyMusique" fail to realize is people who pirate will continue to pirate regardless what sort of DRM scheme is out there. Isn't this the (crazy) reason why DRM exists in the first place? Yet, in the end as everyone can clearly see, DRM fails in that "key aspect."

I don't think it's all or nothing. The most determined pirates will find a way. DRM need not be applied to those who wouldn't consider stealing music anyway. But many people in the middle may have their behavior influenced by the ease of beating the system. Make it harder to cheat, and fewer people bother to cheat.

Using the argument to just "buy a CD" is a poor argument. Why should *I* as a *HONEST* consumer have to resort to an outdated distribution model, and yet the piraters have free reign? Seems lopsided to me.

For the same reason that we pay more for clothes at the department store to cover their shoplifting costs. It is not fair, but stores have little choice. Either they find a perfect deterrent system or the cost of shoplifting comes out of their other income source: paying customers. We're inconvenienced with DRM on some of our music because the companies we buy from think they will make more money overall with DRM that without it.

 

[limulus]

We're inconvenienced with DRM on some of our music because the companies we buy from think they will make more money overall with DRM that without it.

Indeed. Except it's not the reduction in piracy that will make them more money, it's the "rent your music instead of owning it" business model that is really going to be what makes them more money.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Indeed. Except it's not the reduction in piracy that will make them more money, it's the "rent your music instead of owning it" business model that is really going to be what makes them more money.

Unfortunately, as demonstrated with Napster 2.0, "subscription services" where music is rented instead of bought are far more vulnerable to exploits that strip the DRM. The reason is that these services depend on the DRM to track playcounts so that payment can be appropriately distributed. If the DRM is stripped, nobody gets anything. This contrasts with "a la carte" services like the iTunes Music Store - even if you buy a song and strip the DRM, everyone STILL GETS PAID. This inherent vulnerability in the design of subscriptions may end up killing the business model prematurely, which would supremely annoy the music labels (there would be NOTHING the labels could do about it, either).

 

[w00master]

So you consider superior sound quality with no restrictions on fair use to be inferior, just because it's a few years old?

I assume you only commute to work on a Segway or something modern, since cars have been around for over a hundred years. Why in the world would you want to use such an outdated mode of transportation?

When I evaluate something's value, the number of years since its invention is irrelevant.

There's an old quote: "There are two kinds of fool. One says 'This is new and therefore good'. The other says 'This is old and therefore better'"

You misunderstand me. I am not saying you shouldn't buy CDs or that CDs in of themselves are "inferior." Also, I am not saying at all that downloaded music have better audio fidelity that CDs. I am just talking about distribution. Additionally, for me personally, I could care less about perfect CD quality sound.

w00master

 

[w00master]

I've seen quite a few comments here that mentioned that. For example, one post compared DRM to the detectors at store exits that catch shoplifters. They scan us all, as if we are presumed guilty, but of course it is a minimal intrusion so they get few complaints. If you want to open a checking account, they ask you for ID to confirm your name. That seems perfectly reasonable, but you could claim they are assuming you are guilty (of lying about your identity) until you prove otherwise.

Agreed however, what you are talking about is a "Point of Sale" issue, not an ongoing issue. With opening a checking account, I am still able to do whatever I'd like with the money. I can move the money whereever I'd like. Heck, I can even completely withdraw my money and move it another bank. Additionally, banks are insured up to a certain amount (which is well beyond the amount money that I actually have) so even if the bank shuts down, I am still protected. You cannot do ANY of this with DRM media. Can I transmit/transfer my iTunes (or Napster-to-go, whatever) music to anywhere I'd like? Nope. Will I be protected if iTunes shuts down? Not necessarily, none of this is guarenteed. This is not imho a valid comparison.

People who oppose any DRM on principle are unlikely to ever be happy with any system that deters thieves. Record labels are unlikely to ever be happy with any system that does nothing to deter thieves.

And they never will, this has happened time and time again throughout history. Guess what, in the end the consumer wins. In the long run, DRM will be a failure. Ultimately, I, as an honest consumer, should not be punished for a crime that I wouldn't commit.

So a more useful question to ask is how regular honest users can be allowed to use their music without hindrance, i.e., minimal intrusion for uses that are reasonable to expect, even though we know the system can't be foolproof in separating proper from improper uses.

Apple has done it one way, applying DRM that gives you certain rights one computer at a time, a way to remove DRM (burning CDs, but only with a change of format), and iPod-only software.

Who has practical alternative ideas? DRM that expires? Watermarked copies of music? Higher prices for more rights? Varying rights for individual tunes, depending on what the artist agrees to? An independent third-party digital rights management group that tracks, manages, and enforces DRM, with Apple as only one of its clients?

I don't think it's all or nothing. The most determined pirates will find a way. DRM need not be applied to those who wouldn't consider stealing music anyway. But many people in the middle may have their behavior influenced by the ease of beating the system. Make it harder to cheat, and fewer people bother to cheat.

For the same reason that we pay more for clothes at the department store to cover their shoplifting costs. It is not fair, but stores have little choice. Either they find a perfect deterrent system or the cost of shoplifting comes out of their other income source: paying customers. We're inconvenienced with DRM on some of our music because the companies we buy from think they will make more money overall with DRM that without it.

We disagree on this issue at a philosophical level. I believe that DRMs in the long run will cause many honest people to become "criminals." How? Let's look at DVDs:

You are LEGALLY allowed to make backups that you have purchased (fair use). However, what makes backing up DVDs illegal is because in order to "back them up" you have to "crack" the DRM (crappy DRM btw) contained in the DVD. Many honest families want to make backups for their kids favorite DVDs: kids scratch them up, do crazy things with them, etc. It's a shame then that the only way they can do this is by breaking the law.

My problems with ALL DRMs stem from (imho) one of the worst laws ever to come out the US: the DMCA. Both of these issues are tied together, because in order to go around one issue you have to violate the other one.

Honestly, I can understand where you're coming from, but ultimately (perhaps it's my positive outlook on life) I think DRMs will eventually go away. Mainly because they don't work, consumers (when they run into it) don't like them, add additional costs to media (i.e. macrovision DRM on DVDs), so on and so forth.

w00master

 

[Doctor Q]

We disagree on this issue at a philosophical level. I believe that DRMs in the long run will cause many honest people to become "criminals."

I disagree that we disagree. We're both talking about the influence that DRM has on people, but we mentioned different effects. I said that the inconvenience would keep some people from breaking the rules. You said that making a backup for their own protection will cause some people to break the rules. I think I'm right and I think you're right.

My problems with ALL DRMs stem from (imho) one of the worst laws ever to come out the US: the DMCA. Both of these issues are tied together, because in order to go around one issue you have to violate the other one.

I'm no fan of the DMCA either. And I tolerate iTunes DRM and play by the current rules because it's the best compromise we have at the moment.

Honestly, I can understand where you're coming from, but ultimately (perhaps it's my positive outlook on life) I think DRMs will eventually go away. Mainly because they don't work, consumers (when they run into it) don't like them, add additional costs to media (i.e. macrovision DRM on DVDs), so on and so forth.

I hope you are correct. I look forward to better systems than the one we have now.

 

[matticus008]

Agreed however, what you are talking about is a "Point of Sale" issue, not an ongoing issue. With opening a checking account, I am still able to do whatever I'd like with the money. I can move the money whereever I'd like. Heck, I can even completely withdraw my money and move it another bank. Additionally, banks are insured up to a certain amount (which is well beyond the amount money that I actually have) so even if the bank shuts down, I am still protected. You cannot do ANY of this with DRM media. Can I transmit/transfer my iTunes (or Napster-to-go, whatever) music to anywhere I'd like? Nope. Will I be protected if iTunes shuts down? Not necessarily, none of this is guarenteed. This is not imho a valid comparison.

Yeah, you can do all of those things, but you sitll need to identify yourself in order to do it. With iTunes, you can move your music around, even "withdraw" the music by burning CDs and taking it wherever you like, but you must identify yourself by providing authorization (user name and password). That was the point of the comparison above. The insurance metaphor doesn't really play into that, because a bank is not exactly a "point of purchase."

And they never will, this has happened time and time again throughout history. Guess what, in the end the consumer wins. In the long run, DRM will be a failure. Ultimately, I, as an honest consumer, should not be punished for a crime that I wouldn't commit.

Maybe you're right. But so far the security-protection model seems to be predominant in all fields. We didn't always have security cameras and door scanners and ink tags or magnetic protectors. Seems as though the "honest consumer" is suffering in all those other fields, and history has shown that that security is getting more pervasive, rather than going away. So I'm not sure from where you're drawing your example from "history." I'd like to hear it, though.

You are LEGALLY allowed to make backups that you have purchased (fair use). However, what makes backing up DVDs illegal is because in order to "back them up" you have to "crack" the DRM (crappy DRM btw) contained in the DVD. Many honest families want to make backups for their kids favorite DVDs: kids scratch them up, do crazy things with them, etc. It's a shame then that the only way they can do this is by breaking the law.

Have you tried contacting the distributor of the DVD? Often times you can have a scratched disc replaced for a small shipping fee. This is an exact duplicate of your original purchase, not some stripped out version designed to fit on a smaller-capacity DVD.

My problems with ALL DRMs stem from (imho) one of the worst laws ever to come out the US: the DMCA. Both of these issues are tied together, because in order to go around one issue you have to violate the other one.

NOT TRUE. This is a common misconception. DRM existed in various forms many years before the DMCA. It was illegal then to remove DRM in order to redistribute or provide free access to paid content. The DMCA only tightened the law in one regard: by making it illegal to tamper with DRM. Removing it was already illegal and the DMCA just spelled that out in concrete terms for people who believed it wasn't already covered by usage laws (even though it was). The DMCA has some suspicious and easily abused wording, and I don't like it either. But DRM didn't magically appear after the DMCA. Software registration codes, CD keys, user names and passwords to access protected content, etc. are all forms of DRM.

Now I hope that you're right and DRM does go away one day. But the more people seek to break the law, the tighter the laws get. The more people try to steal, the tighter security gets. It's not difficult to see that. When people stop actively and consciously pirating so much music (when they finally get over their belief that it's okay), and start obeying the law, then maybe DRM will go away. Since that will probably never happen, we have to look at ways of making DRM work for us. Maybe every software should have a plugin for each of the DRM schemes, and every mp3 player have a firmware update? Maybe a separate, third-party DRM management group should appear to mandate the DRM model used on all digital music? What if all of the DRM models incorporated a user name/password authentication so that you could approve of your music's use when you copy it to a new internet-connected device?

 

[peharri]

No one has really mentioned this, but my problem with DRM is that it assumes that all users are "pirates/criminals." What most of the commenters who are "anti-PyMusique" fail to realize is people who pirate will continue to pirate regardless what sort of DRM scheme is out there. Isn't this the (crazy) reason why DRM exists in the first place? Yet, in the end as everyone can clearly see, DRM fails in that "key aspect."

Using the argument to just "buy a CD" is a poor argument. Why should *I* as a *HONEST* consumer have to resort to an outdated distribution model, and yet the piraters have free reign? Seems lopsided to me.
w00master

I agree with you that DRM sucks, that it's insulting to end-users. Apple's is by far one of the least intrusive, but that doesn't mean I like it. My suggestion of using CDs isn't the classic pseudo-liberatarian response of "Then use CDs, get over it", it's "There are a bunch of ways of getting around what Apple is doing. One is to make use of their servers in a way they haven't authorized, another is to by-pass Apple completely. I choose the latter, it's legal and ethical, it makes the point, and I end up with what I actually wanted in the first place."

I'm neither a fan nor a hater of Apple. I love OS X. Their hardware's okish. The iPod is wonderful. iTunes is very good. The iTMS, on the other hand, doesn't give me what I want. I have two choices - I can use it alegally or illegally (by using PyMusique which is a direct abuse of Apple's servers and a violation of T&Cs I agreed to when I signed up at a time I had real, practical, choices; or by violating the DMCA by using one of the multitude of M4P to M4A convertors), or I can use the very real choice that's open to me where I can easily get the music I want in the way I want it, and get them on CD.

Of course, should it ever start to become seriously difficult to get music on CD, I'll probably move my position a little, though even then, given the two legally-problematic choices, I'd probably prefer the M4P to M4A convertor route, that's not doing anything with something that clearly belongs to someone else. Even then, that's in the extreme, that's assuming Apple starts preventing people burning to CD and re-ripping those CDs, and that no other store is offering a way to remove DRM too.

 

[shamino]

I've seen quite a few comments here that mentioned that. For example, one post compared DRM to the detectors at store exits that catch shoplifters. They scan us all, as if we are presumed guilty, but of course it is a minimal intrusion so they get few complaints. If you want to open a checking account, they ask you for ID to confirm your name. That seems perfectly reasonable, but you could claim they are assuming you are guilty (of lying about your identity) until you prove otherwise.

There's one huge difference.

Scanners to detect shoplifting are mostly effective.

DRM is not. DRM prevents the casual honest user from making personal copies, but does absolutely nothing to deter actual piracy. The people pirating music have no interest in redistributing songs from ITMS or Napster or whatever. They are redistributing songs that they themselves ripped from CDs.

If the system takes rights away from honest users and does nothing to stop piracy, then it is wrong and should be abolished. Unless, of course, taking away honest users' rights is the real goal of the record companies. Which I have come to believe over the past few years. (Hilary Rosen even said so in a few speeches - she's openly said that the RIAA doesn't care about making money but about retaining control over all aspects of the music business.)

 

[F/reW/re]

You forgot:

Support the Russian mafia!

haha, like the IRAA is any better!

 

[Ashwee]

Anyone compiled this for OS X yet?