Apple vs. Anti-DRM

[fpnc]

iMovie v4.01 still works

iMovie v4.01 still works with iTunes-purchased, DRM-protected songs. You can add protected iTunes tracks to an iMovie timeline and then export -- "share" -- the audio to an unprotected, QuickTime, AIFF audio track. However, after updating to QuickTime v6.5.1 and iTunes v4.5 earlier versions of iMovie (I tried v4.0) will only produce silence when you try to use a DRM-protected song.

Also, I believe that GarageBand has never supported AAC songs (DRM-protected or not). I think it only works with AIFF, MP3, and WAV files.

Thus, the only application that apparently has suffered from the new version of iTunes and QuickTime is Roxio's Toast software which can no longer burn DRM-protected songs to CDs (well, it burns the songs but all you get is silence). So, for Toast users this change in iTunes/QuickTime has broken a previously Apple-supported and probably completely legal use of iTunes songs (i.e. using Toast to burn iTunes songs to a CD).

 

[SiliconAddict]

Linux? Hahahah. Ok im done laughing. Seriously. What are you on that you think Apple owes the "Linux community" anything? Is there even a single line of Linux code in Darwin sans GCC? Which is the FSF anyway. This is the problem I have with the whole Linux/GPL/FSF crowd. They think because you write something free and release it and the source somehow that equates to someone owing you for it. You don't see the BSD people whining and moaning iTunes doesn't work on BSD do you? Or why there is no Quicktime technology required to use iTunes ported to BSD? No. Of course not..

Don't be obtuse. I said *nix as in Unix, Linux, etc. The core of OS X is BSD which is open source which is based off of a Unix variant. Without Darwin Apple would probably still be working on OS X as we speak. At the end of the day BSD/Linux are in the same family and it’s a pretty good bet a fair portion of the people that made BSD what it is also have worked on a Linux variant. So for all those people that Apple has to thank for doing the behind the scenes grunt work of the development of the core of their OS along with KDE for its browser, SBM, SSH, X11 and god know how many other techs that were pioneered on Linux/BSD/Unix they get a nice slap for a think you. I'm talking about more then just Linux even though that is probably the most important aspect. I'm talking open source in general. I think a little appreciate would be in order.

 

[3.1416]

That said, I'm dissapointed that this broke mytunes and gettunes also. There's a big difference between preventing piracy of the music you're selling, and preventing piracy of music that's simply played on something you make.

Exactly, and that's the fundamental problem with any DRM. It will never be possible to stop infringing use without also preventing legitimate uses.

 

[Steve M]

There's a third area. Use in any app outside of iTunes where conversion is required. This used to work by using quicktime to do the conversion, but now quicktime just exports silence when you try to convert a protected file. No iMovie. No Roxio. Probably no GarageBand. It worked before, so why did they suddenly remove it? As far as the DRM goes, stripping with quicktime was no better than the CD Burn/Rip method, which still works.

Wrong. I just put a track I purchased yesterday into a quickie iMove, exported to QuickTime, and played the movie on an unupdated, unauthorized computer with no issues.

 

[dontmatter]

Exactly, and that's the fundamental problem with any DRM. It will never be possible to stop infringing use without also preventing legitimate uses.

Well, it wasn't the DRM that stopped gettunes (which, itself, isn't QUITE a legitimate use, but more so than DRM stripping, I'd say). It was the way they allowed 3rd party software to access itunes that was changed. Iportance is, they weren't enforcing their DRM, but deciding that it was their job to regulate 3rd party software, that was much more the responsibility of the RIAA or somebody directly effected by said software.

 

[rjwill246]

<i>broken already...



Personally, I hope either playfair cracks the new drm soon, or Apple releases their DRM system to third-party developers. What Apple is doing, is basically locking in their customers to itunes and ipod. This is exactly the same thing that Microsoft did with Word. We don't need yet another monopoly-abusing company.

Then don't use the service. You don' t have to, you know.

 

[cb911]

well, you get what you pay for... so if you don't like it, don't buy it. or you could always just keep buying CDs.

alternatively, just use the Russian MP3 site. legal downloads at 6c a track! pay by the MB, i think it was USD$5 for 500MB. if you can get on the server when it isn't busy.

 

[dontmatter]

Exactly, and that's the fundamental problem with any DRM. It will never be possible to stop infringing use without also preventing legitimate uses.

Actually, the DRM had nothing to do with mytunes/gettunes (which, I might add, are not quite legitimate uses, but more so than breaking the DRM). And that's the problem-I'm perfectly fine with apple protecting their DRM, but what blocks gettunes is the way third party software is accesses itunes. That's the issue- apple has decided it's their duty to disable third party software that has the potential for abuse (against music that isn't apple's either). That is not apple's buisness, and should be undertaken by the RIAA or other approprite body.

 

[dontmatter]

tunesbrowser?

I don't want to be mistaken for a troll, but...

does anybody know if there's a windows version of tunesbrowser? Don't worry, it's not for me, but none friends unwise enough to be using windows are upgrading their itunes b/c of the lack of mytunes... and party shuffle is so cool!

 

[dontmatter]

well, you get what you pay for... so if you don't like it, don't buy it. or you could always just keep buying CDs.

alternatively, just use the Russian MP3 site. legal downloads at 6c a track! pay by the MB, i think it was USD$5 for 500MB. if you can get on the server when it isn't busy.

Hmm, russian download, 6¢ a track...no, that's not shady in the least, not shady at all.

What is this russian site?

 

[Jeff_R]

Personally, I hope either playfair cracks the new drm soon, or Apple releases their DRM system to third-party developers. What Apple is doing, is basically locking in their customers to itunes and ipod. This is exactly the same thing that Microsoft did with Word. We don't need yet another monopoly-abusing company.

Not quite the same thing, in my opinion. Apple is the hardware and software maker, and the host of the music files. As far as I'm concerned, they can do as they please with both. With Microsoft, however, they were utilizing their dominance in the operating system realm to impose their other software on businesses and users.

 

[Spades]

I updated quicktime, iTunes, and iMovie all in one go, so I have only tried using iMovie 4.0.1. I just tried it again since two people have said it worked for them, and I got nothing. I have Quicktime 6.5.1, iTunes 4.5, and iMovie 4.0.1. Importing a protected file just gives me silence.

iMovie v4.01 still works with iTunes-purchased, DRM-protected songs. You can add protected iTunes tracks to an iMovie timeline and then export -- "share" -- the audio to an unprotected, QuickTime, AIFF audio track. However, after updating to QuickTime v6.5.1 and iTunes v4.5 earlier versions of iMovie (I tried v4.0) will only produce silence when you try to use a DRM-protected song.

 

[Steve M]

I updated quicktime, iTunes, and iMovie all in one go, so I have only tried using iMovie 4.0.1. I just tried it again since two people have said it worked for them, and I got nothing. I have Quicktime 6.5.1, iTunes 4.5, and iMovie 4.0.1. Importing a protected file just gives me silence.

I didn't import a file -- I selected a protected track from the Audio panel, and then Shared my movie as QuickTime. I was then able to play the QuickTime movie on several machines -- with different versions of QuickTime -- and the movie played on all of them, music included. So while I wasn't able to strip the DRM, I -was- able to include purchased music in my iMovie.

 

[Spades]

Same here. I select the track from the audio panel, share the movie as Quicktime, and all I get is silence. When you preview the movie, does the audio work?

I didn't import a file -- I selected a protected track from the Audio panel, and then Shared my movie as QuickTime. I was then able to play the QuickTime movie on several machines -- with different versions of QuickTime -- and the movie played on all of them, music included. So while I wasn't able to strip the DRM, I -was- able to include purchased music in my iMovie.

 

[MrMacMan]

what's the point in hacking the apple drm anyway? I think it's fair enough already..

Well, just not for everyone.

It makes no sense, if people are so concerned with hacking the DRM, which is illegal, why do they even download from iTunes in the firstplace, why not just use Limewire of Kazaa.

Illegal is Illegal no matter how you look at it, it is not anymore legal if you buy it then strip the DRM.

There is a difference bewteen breaking encrpytion and downloading music (copyright infringement).


Look of it in a simple manner, I buy a dvd.
Bring it home and want to watch it.

No Problems.

I pop it into my dvd tray -- Problem.

I use Linux and there are no licensed dvd viewing programs.
You have to crack the simple encrpytion (Lowest crack yet is 6 lines of code) and watch the movie you legally bought.


Same for Linux and iTMS.



Years in the future when Apple's iTMS is long gone I doubt I will be able to listen to the songs. I would have to crack their encrpytion (which would probably take seconds in the future) to get the songs...

Should this be illegal if I legally bought the songs?
I don't think so, but right now it is. Thank you DMCA.

Besides, everyone knows that if you HAVE to have the music in a non-protected format you simply have to burn the playlist to a disc, then just re-rip the music from that disc as MP3 files. duh

Of course, these thieves are just too lazy for that, I forgot.

sibelius

Uhh, wouldn't that go against your theory of wasting money?

You burn it to a cd just to rip it back to your computer... yes go make a lossy slightly bad sounding copy and convert it back into an even more lossy sounding copy... ech.


Why not listen to static eh?




Look, DRM is only good for as long as the company that support is (apple's iTMS) is around.


With normal files you can always re-rip or even just copy the file to the new location. With DRM and the company is gone you might as well be trying to defuse a bomb with your eyes blindfolded and your hands tied.


--MrMacMan

 

[X86BSD]

Don't be obtuse. I said *nix as in Unix, Linux, etc. The core of OS X is BSD which is open source which is based off of a Unix variant. Without Darwin Apple would probably still be working on OS X as we speak. At the end of the day BSD/Linux are in the same family and it’s a pretty good bet a fair portion of the people that made BSD what it is also have worked on a Linux variant. So for all those people that Apple has to thank for doing the behind the scenes grunt work of the development of the core of their OS along with KDE for its browser, SBM, SSH, X11 and god know how many other techs that were pioneered on Linux/BSD/Unix they get a nice slap for a think you. I'm talking about more then just Linux even though that is probably the most important aspect. I'm talking open source in general. I think a little appreciate would be in order.

BSD *is* Unix. It has more legal and technical right to claim UNIX heritage then anyone. But BSD people just dont care enough to argue such a pointless point at this point in the history of UNIX. Linux and BSD I would argue are not the same family. SysV vs BSD.

Actually those projects get their code USED. What is the point of releasing code if no one uses it? There isn't one. It's pointless. If you are releasing code to be used and then have some kind of moral dilemma that people are using it, again just stop releasing code. Apple contributing code back to BSD is appreciation. And I seriously doubt, that McKusick, Carrels, Kolstad, Leffler, Joy and others ever touched Linux. But im willing to be proven wrong.

 

[fpnc]

I updated quicktime, iTunes, and iMovie all in one go, so I have only tried using iMovie 4.0.1. I just tried it again since two people have said it worked for them, and I got nothing. I have Quicktime 6.5.1, iTunes 4.5, and iMovie 4.0.1. Importing a protected file just gives me silence.

I've tried several DRM-protected songs and they all worked in iMovie v4.01. I even moved these converted songs to a non-Macintosh host and they also played there. Finally, I just tried using the Import feature in iMovie and that worked also (previously I had used the Audio panel to just add the DRM-protected song as a second-audio track in iMovie). The import dialog even shows the songs with the little lock symbol so I know these are DRM-protected (besides I know that they were purchased on the iTunes store). I can also hear the music when I preview the movie.

Note, however, that BEFORE I upgraded to iMovie v4.01 I WAS getting silence when I tried to use or import one of these very same songs.

The only difference between our setups may be that I'm using QuickTime Pro, but I can't believe that Apple would enable a feature like this in the Pro (for pay) version of QuickTime while preventing it in the free version.

 

[Spades]

It's not even that. I have Pro as well.

The only difference between our setups may be that I'm using QuickTime Pro, but I can't believe that Apple would enable a feature like this in the Pro (for pay) version of QuickTime while preventing it in the free version.

 

[fpnc]

It's not even that. I have Pro as well.

Maybe you need to reinstall the QuickTime and iMovie updates. Only other issue, I'm using a pretty clean copy of OS X, no third-party hacks or haxies. I seem to remember reading just today that a third-party iTunes enhancer was causing some problems with the latest versions of iTunes and QuickTime.

 

[mhouse]

If you REALLY want them to listen to it why don't you give them your USER NAME and PASSWORD so they can authenticate their computer to play YOUR music. What? You won't do that? What? You don't TRUST them with your personal information??? Yeah... I don't think I would trust a thief either. You'll go out of your way to pirate/steal music but become all clutched-up when it comes to your own "security". What a pile of crap. You know who you are... and you honestely can't see that your personal "security" and the "security" behind copyrighted songs are no different, right? If you can steal someone else's material and have no problems with that, then why don't you go ahead and post your iTunes Music Store ID and Password on this site... or is that somehow different??? Maybe I should just hack your system... after all information is supposed to be 'free', right???

Boneheads....
sibelius

This post is absolutely, positively right in every way that a post can be right. Amen, brother.

This double-standard where DRM is concerned is so clearly intellectually bankrupt I can't believe how many people actually espouse it. Information is "free"? No one owns it? Sure, send a copy of your name, address, and the number of DVDs you've ripped to your local FBI office. Then we'll all be impressed with your philosophical consistency.

And, btw, where are those personal credit card numbers, passwords, bank accounts...

Go on...we're waiting. Don't be like the "evil corporate overlords" who put all this horrible DRM on things!

Seriously, I don't care much one way or the other. Just be intellectually honest and say, "I want to steal stuff." Don't try to back it up with some brain-dead, hopelessly bogus "rights" argument.

 

[kindall]

No thanks required

So for all those people that Apple has to thank for doing the behind the scenes grunt work of the development of the core of their OS along with KDE for its browser, SBM, SSH, X11 and god know how many other techs that were pioneered on Linux/BSD/Unix they get a nice slap for a think you.

I've looked, but I just don't see anything in any open-source license that says the licensor (i.e. Apple) must produce application software for a particular flavor of UNIX. If the people who created the software Apple is using wanted something specific for it, then they shouldn't have released their software as open-source. It's not an "open-source unless you happen to make some highly desirable software" license.

 

[applebum]

Breaking DRM losslessly...

You know, I have been breaking the DRM on these songs losslessly (aside from the loss built into ITMS songs) since day one. This requires no software. I simply plug my Mac into my stereo, play the playlist I want to record and then record it using my stereo comonent CD recorder. I realize that it is real time and a very slow process, but this is just what we had to do with tapes. I get great sound quality (can even enhance the sound a bit) and I get CD's with no DRM. I don't do this to intentionally circumvent DRM, this used to be the only way I had to make a copy of the music I downloaded (my CRT iMac didn't have a cd recorder). So, would this be violating the rules to do this? Actually, when I do this, I can burn the same playlist as many times as I want, because it is simply being played as far as iTunes knows. This is certainly and interesting work around...any thoughts?

 

[zync]

I realize that Apple is very fair with regard to DRM but the simple fact is, DRM shouldn't exist in the first place. Now I realize they wouldn't be able to have the iTMS without DRM but still it's very annoying to have these files and, even if it's never a problem, know that they are protected and that you can't do everything with them that you wish. I haven't read all the posts so please excuse me if this same exact point has been brought up a million times by now, but if I buy a CD from the store and rip it to AAC it is unprotected and I could do all the things with it execs fear. Now, why should I have to pay for music on iTMS and not have the same freedom as when I buy it on CD? Why buy anything on iTMS? I hate having protected files. Couple that with not having the actual CD, booklet, etc. and there's no point that I can see to buy songs on iTunes unless you want just one song. Places like Circuit City and the like have started to offer CDs at reasonable prices and so I find iTMS pretty much pointless. I like what they've done, don't get me wrong, but for me the system isn't worth it. I've bought 1 song because it was a pre-release and I don't like getting radio quality MP3s from P2P. And yeah, I don't see a point paying even the 99cents it costs to get a song from an artist that I don't wish to support. I don't think getting singles and the like off P2P is wrong either. I guess I just see it this way:

I want to do with my music as I please, especially since I've paid for it. I don't think I should have to support crappy artists who have 1 good song. I'm an artist myself and I don't think I should make people pay to view my stuff at all, and especially not if they only like 1 picture. MP3s, etc. are lossy so I could also say I don't mind people taking pictures of my art. However, if someone blatantly stole a CD, or in my case a picture, without permission that's wrong. Many people, as far as I know, have actually bought more CDs due to filesharing. I used to never buy CDs and now I do. Why? Cause they've become cheaper. The RIAA neglects to mention this. CD sales are directly proportional to CD prices. They've been down because prices have been up.

/rant

 

[eddyg]

All well and good until you can't rip CDs anymore

I don't have to worry about this or care about the iTMS because... <snip> ...i buy music discounted at the stores or from independants dirt cheap with no DRM.

However this all goes up in smoke when the frigging record labels start protecting the CDs so you can't rip them anymore. The last two CDs I bought in Australia wouldn't play in my Powerbook, that was a few months ago. I now no longer buy CDs, because they are useless to me, I only listen to music on my iPod.

I also can't use iTMS because it's not in Australia yet.

So that leaves me with P2P (no way) or just making do with my existing music, which is what I'm doing, I've got plenty of existing music, a lot of it not even listened to.

So, record labels, you're f*cking yourselves out of my money, your fault.

Cheers, Edward.

 

[autrefois]

I want to do with my music as I please, especially since I've paid for it.

This actually answers a previous post, where they asked why people would want to strip protected iTunes music instead of just using Kazaa and getting them for free anyway.

People figure "I paid 99 cents for this song, I should be able to do whatever I dang well please with it."

On Kazaa, they can't justify it. It's blatantly wrong. It's pure stealing.

On iTunes, they think "I paid for it, so I own it." They think they can justify it.

But you don't own the music. You own a copy of the music. When you buy a book, you don't own the book, you own a copy of it.

To be more precise, iTunes now gives you the right to own FIVE copies of any given song for 99 measly cents. Less than 20 cents a copy!!* And that's STILL not good enough for some people, because they "paid for" the song.

Does anyone truly think 99 cents should buy unlimited copies of ANYTHING?!?

(* That's not even counting being allowed to make more copies for yourself by burning CDs.)