Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'DVD Jon' Launches Doubletwist: Share and Sync Protected iTunes Music
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I totally agree. He wrote the software. He is (or could be) a software writer by professional. Why shouldn't he get paid for it? I'd pay for this software, especially with an iPhone version.
There are plenty of people out there who do things like this for free, to combat what they see as evil.
God bless 'em!
Go to a show, buy the CDs there, and go buy a t-shirt. If you think the artists are making any money on iTunes you're kidding yourself.
FairPlay has been defeated for years. I think the notable aspect of this software is that it makes it much easier for noobs to deal with.
It is not my fault if they sign with a greedy record company. If they are on their own and there some who are, they get almost 70% of the revenues. If they sign with an indie record company they would get lower, but still a substantial percentage. If they work with one of the biggest four, then who knows, but they would not do business with them unless they get something valuable in return. Otherwise it is their fault.
If I like only one of some band's songs enough to buy on iTunes, what makes you think I'll go to an overpriced concert of theirs. I am pretty sure most people who "steal" songs don't go to the concerts of every artist they have "exploited."
Double Twist seems to have raised VC money, so there must be some kind of income stream, at least in the near future. Somebody has to pay the bills.
Well, for starters copyright infringement isn't theft or stealing. That said it's still illegal and probably immoral depending on what you're copying and how the copyright holder feels about it. I was responding to someone who wanted to know how best to support artists, and I told them. The best way to support artists is to go to their shows and buy merchandise from them. If they're smaller artists, you're much better off buying CDs directly from the band's website or at one of their concerts.
Personally, I won't pay for anything digital. I'm just a physical media kind of guy. I like the vastly superior sound quality, freedom to buy/sell/lend the disks, and the freedom to rip in any format and any quality.
There are plenty of ways to generate revenue outside of selling software. Advertisements, service, special "enterprise editions"... they're out there.
This is the digital equivalent of making cassette tape copies of my CDs so I could play them in my car (no CD player). DoubleTwist is the patch-cord between the CD player (protected music file) and the tape deck (MP3). Just like I wasn't "cracking" the CD format to make the tape, he's not defeating/decoding/circumventing FairPlay.
But here's the catch, DoubleTwist also includes functionality to send the music file to your friend's Facebook account and other places. In the past, in the US, courts have said that peer-to-peer software developers can't be held liable for what content their customers share using their software unless they provide explicit assistance to their customers in sharing copyrighted content. For example, if they provide instructions or specific functions intended to share copyrighted content.
By that measure, it appears that DoubleTwist would have a tough time defending itself in a US court if it ever came to that.
But here's the catch, DoubleTwist also includes functionality to send the music file to your friend's Facebook account and other places. In the past, in the US, courts have said that peer-to-peer software developers can't be held liable for what content their customers share using their software unless they provide explicit assistance to their customers in sharing copyrighted content. For example, if they provide instructions or specific functions intended to share copyrighted content.
By that measure, it appears that DoubleTwist would have a tough time defending itself in a US court if it ever came to that.
I don't think Double Twist does that. There are ways to strip FairPlay without any lossiness, this is one of them:
http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/2006/09...our-music-files-in-batches-with-myfairtunes6/
I don't know how they would hold up in court, but my understanding is that they are billing this product as something you can use for fair use (copying a song you bought on iTunes over to your PSP for example) as well as transferring non-copyrighted material from one format to another. So unless they're encouraging people to send copyrighted songs to friends, they should do fine. I'm no lawyer though.
You said they are doing this not for the money, but they wanted to fight evil, but it turns out they did it for the money. Whether they get paid by software sales or advertisement is irrelevant. Like I've said before, somebody has to pay the bills.
Apparently it is only evil as long as it messes with somebody else's business plan. If somebody finds a way to use their software without the end user having to view any ads, I'd like to see how calmly they will react.
You should probably read up more on DVD Jon before you make sweeping accusations about him doing this "for the money".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvd_jon
This is a man who has devoted much of his life to fighting DRM in all forms. He's clearly brilliant; VC money often follows brilliant developers even if no suitable business plan is in place. Look at the fellow who created punBB, or Bram Cohen who wrote bittorrent in a crummy Berkeley apartment. They did this not for money, but because they had a belief and a vision.
Then as soon as someone invests in them or their company, you just brush it all aside and say "they're doing it for the money."
Lots of people out there block all ads. I don't respond to advertising and consider it insulting and obtrusive, so they really aren't losing anything if I block ads. My friends who run blogs and websites could care less.
I am not accusing him of anything. I don't think there is anything wrong with doing something for the money anyways. I just don't like it when other people wrap it into a flag of fighting the "evil" corporations or some such, especially if they don't mind turning it into a corporation of their own.Then as soon as someone invests in them or their company, you just brush it all aside and say "they're doing it for the money."
I don't like it when DRM interferes with my fair use rights, especially if I do not have a way of obtaining DRM free media. This makes his DeCSS worthy for me, as there is no DRM free alternative of watching movies. This does not really apply to iTunes as there are alternatives such as CDs and DRM free online sources. In the end, most people who cry about DRM interfering with their "fair use" rights don't really want to crack DRM for that. They just want to get their hands on a piece of work that they did not pay for.
DRM only hurts people who legally pay for stuff. Anyone who wants to get their hands on a piece of work they did not pay for will simply go to a torrent site and download it for free.
That's why I resent DRM. I do think DRM is evil, and I love it when people crack it.
And here's another link that says that's exactly what your myfairtunes is doing...playing back the audio file and capturing the audio stream and re-encoding it: "The myFairTunes software captures the audio stream of a song while it's being played in iTunes, and outputs it to an MP3 file. In non-technical terms, you could say that myFairTunes "listens" to the song while it's being played on your computer, and converts it to another format."
http://askbobrankin.com/drm_removal.html
Also, if you take the time to read the links in the original MacRumors article, specifically the one to CNET, it states: "The software automatically plays the song files in the background (sans volume) and re-records them as MP3 files so they can be transferred to any device."
Therefore, my analogy is perfect fine. You are playing the audio on one "device" and recording it on another, with a little loss in quality along the way. Also, there is really nothing new about doing that. You can easily capture Apple's text-to-speech voices and record them to an audio file. You can even do it faster than real-time.
In fact, Rogue Amoeba has sold a product for several years called Audio Hijack that does exactly this, including recording iTunes Fairplay audio.
http://www.rogueamoeba.com/audiohijackpro/
So, basically, the infamous DVD Jon has done nothing but assemble old technology into an integrated package. That's some hacking skills. (You should also note that I believe he was hired to do this...so basically, they bought his name and notoriety to market the product).
Finally, with regard to purpose/intent as the law may be concerned. The doubleTwist home page clearly states: "Send files effortlessly to your Facebook friends and others." Combine that with a claim of circumventing DRM and you could be in trouble. I'm not saying the defense wouldn't be successful, I'm just saying it makes a stronger case against you! The peer-to-peer networks survive by having (claiming) no knowledge or responsibility of what you are doing. DoubleTwist can't make that claim. I forget which one, but a couple of years ago a peer-to-peer network was shut down after being found guilty of aiding users in copyright infringement because they provide assistance specifically for sharing music.
That's what I was hoping for too. Doesn't seem to be the case here. I can't seem to find any indication of removing video drm.
this seems pretty cool. i bet apple doesn't like it though.
i think i'll stick to burning my own cds and ripping them for free
i think i'll stick to burning my own cds and ripping them for free
Actually, the method does introduce loss just like burning to CD.
But the point is that this is much much easier to do than buring to CD and ripping it again, and accessible for non-technical folk.
This is free too. Actually more free, since you don't need a blank CD.
arn
Good luck in prison!
Now, with all of the VC cash, this DRM cracking has become organized crime, so RICO and racketeering statutes can be enforced.
It was cute when DVD Jon was just some uppity kid making a statement about DRM and "freeing" the music and movies with free software, but now that he is part of a multi-million dollar corporation, he's just another mafioso -- might as well be selling crack to schoolkids.
If you think record company execs are a bunch of greedy, parasitic, blood-sucking, money-grubbing bastards, don't fool yourselves about venture capitalists. Many of both species will be occupying the same corner of Hell!
Now, with all of the VC cash, this DRM cracking has become organized crime, so RICO and racketeering statutes can be enforced.
It was cute when DVD Jon was just some uppity kid making a statement about DRM and "freeing" the music and movies with free software, but now that he is part of a multi-million dollar corporation, he's just another mafioso -- might as well be selling crack to schoolkids.
If you think record company execs are a bunch of greedy, parasitic, blood-sucking, money-grubbing bastards, don't fool yourselves about venture capitalists. Many of both species will be occupying the same corner of Hell!
Some people (Linux type usually) believe in free information and free software. Other types believe in charging for every little two-bit utility out there (quite common on the Mac as I've seen since I bought this one 9 months ago where even common free things like add-ons for browsers cost money for Safari whereas they are free for Firefox (fortunately even for its Mac incarnation). Personally, I'm used to sticking with free utilities so I find it hard to find useful software on the Mac. That along with piss-poor gaming support, drivers and general video card type hardware options are the Mac's achilles heel, IMO. Maybe you enjoy paying for every little ala carte item (piece-mealed to death), but I don't. And yes I do give free software I've made myself away quite regularly. It's called quid-quo-pro. But then Capitalists tend to hate any system that doesn't involve the transfer of money.
How is selling a AAC music file having "vision"? Personally, I don't like compressed music. I have hundreds of CDs (yes I did buy them) and a high-end audio rig. Compression makes the sound quality worse. AAC with a good rate minimizes that (it is one of the better audio codecs), but it's still compressed. The only use I have for iTunes is as a server type function for implementing a whole-house audio system based around using an iPod Touch as a remote control (via wireless network in house) to control iTunes on the server Mac and send it to whatever room (via Airport Express modules connected to DACs via digital out). I intend to use uncompressed WAV files ripped from the CD collection and stored on a 500GB drive (I currently have 300-400 CDs). I don't have any intention of buying music from Apple. Not only do artists not get a 'bigger cut' of the sales, you also have Apple taking their share on top of the music industry's share. I suppose it IS nice to only buy the 1 or 2 hit songs from a given album instead of the whole album, though. OTOH, a good CD club like BMG or Sony can get you entire CDs for an average price of less than $5 an album (compared to getting ripped a new one at the local music stores for $16-18 for CD technology that used to sell for $11-14 despite the fact that it's now cheaper than ever to manufacture them; THAT is the record industry.
The artist's cut is as small as ever BTW. Even huge hit maker artists make very little off album sales. The record company takes the VAST LION SHARE of every album sold. New artists tend to get next to nothing in their contracts. Many one-hit wonders end up working minimum wage jobs again as they are disposed of by the industry when they fail to produce any more mega-hits, which is all the industry really cares about anyway. Most fairly rich artists makes most of their money touring, not from album sales so attending a concert is in fact, usually a better way to support your favorite artist than buying their albums as they typically can get far more money that way than through albums sales.
If people really wanted to see the artist make more money from actual album sales, they should encourage more artists to sell directly to the consumer. This is the digital age, after all and almost anyone can set up their own online stores to sell music digitally straight to the consumer. It seems kind of ironic to me that in 2008, most well known artists are STILL using the ancient recording industry machine that eats up and spits out artists like they're so much garbage. Industry reps get fat off other people's work. Apple gets fat off other people's work even through iTunes. Artists get squat by comparison (typically less than $1 per album sale goes to the artist out of that $18 CD at the record store). An artist selling their own album for $5 a pop directly online is making over 5x what the recording industry would give them per sale. And there is NO reason it can't be done in today's day and age. Heck, MTV doesn't even hardly show any music videos anymore. I don't listen to the OTA radio. It's hard for me to find new music easily. Sites like Pandora Internet Radio (which can suggest new music based on music you tell it you already like) can help quite a bit, IMO. And it can help find artists that you would never otherwise hear on a traditional outlets.
I agree the artists SHOULD be supported, but ultimately, sites like iTunes need to support more independent artists and sites like Pandora should be supported to help you find those artists. You can't support music you love if you can't find that music TO love. OTA Radio hits don't do much for me these days. Maybe I'm not "with it" but some of my favorite artists (e.g. Tori Amos) almost never get traditional airplay let alone trying to find an artist that the industry doesn't care about or has ejected due to lack of hit tunes.