More like the wrath-of-Jobs!jsw said:I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.jsw said:I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
Probably before the the end of the day, I would imagine.Pipian said:I wonder how long it'll be until Apple comes up with a fix for this?
Yes and no. True iTunes is getting hacked more than WMA because of its popularity, but this has no bearing on the relative security of the software or operating systems.stoid said:Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
And that rental services are based on per play, not per download, so without DRM, the music companies don't get paid. With iTunes, they still get paid the full amount as if it was a DRM file. I don't think this will hurt Apple at all, mainly because the companies are still getting paid in full for each download. Also, Apple can then inforce their Terms of Serive about how you have to use iTunes to download the songs, or they can cancell your account.narco said:How long before the CEO of Napster writes a letter to the RIAA about this? Talk about karma.
But it's still not as bad as Napster's dilemma. With iTunes, you still have to actually BUY the song for this to work. Not everyone who purchases songs from iTunes will take out the DRM, most people don't even mind or know it's there to begin with.
And it will take Jon a day to figure out how the iTunes client generates that key and spoof it. Again by definition DRM has to be insecure, because the client must have all the information necessary to break it.mattroberts said:But it can be fixed by possibly: Encrypting (or Changing the way it is encrypted) the AAC file on the transfer from itms to the player.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
There's a good overview of what's happening at Ars.Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
Agreed, Jon probably wants headlines.stcanard said:It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
The problem is, this may not hurt Apple all that much but it will hurt the Music Download industry. With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.stcanard said:Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Obscurity IS a factor that helps Mac users. The point is that good, secure design is ALSO a factor. But DRM file distribution doesn't relate to OS security/privacy anyway.stoid said:Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement.
I think at this point you could argut that Apple is the Music Download industry.DavidLeblond said:The problem is, this may not hurt Apple all that much but it will hurt the Music Download industry.
A year ago I would have agreed with this, but I think the landscape has changed.With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
Maybe some big company should tell the greedy money grubbing RIAA to "go jump in the Lake" and just leave things how they are instead of trying to change Apples DRM and create even more restrictions to what you can do with legally purchased music. Maybe if the greedy money grubbing RIAA looked at changeing its business model to bring it inline with the newer digital age it might find some better way of doing things. After all there is NO evidence that file sharing kills music and CD sales.DavidLeblond said:It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
Note: This application has been untested by this site, and Apple will likely take steps to prevent future usage.It is somewhat interesting from a DMCA/EUCD perspective. The iTunes Music Store actually sells songs without DRM. While iTunes adds DRM to your purchases, PyMusique does not.