Fairtunes, Playfair, and iTunes

[kingtj]

More than 3 simultaneous PCs?

Actually, yes -- I personally find this limitation troublesome. I wish they made a more reasonable limit. I have a PC with iTunes on it at home, a laptop with iTunes on it, and a PowerMac G5 at home. Problem is, I also have a desktop PC at work I'd like to listen to my music on - and that exceeds my 3 machine limit for the songs I buy.

IMHO, if Apple simply placed a limit of 6 or 7 instead of 3, they'd still be accomplishing the goals they're trying to achieve, while ensuring they don't interfere with legitimate use by song purchasers. (If you really have more than 6 or 7 different systems you need your songs on, that starts to get a bit ridiculous. I mean, just how many jobs do you have, and/or different computers you have to have your music come out of at home?)

I wonder if people really need these songs on more than 3 simultanous computers, or if this thing boils down to just not wanting any restrictions whatsoever.

 

[cait-sith]

why can't people respect the contract they agree to when they download the music?

you are NOT allowed to use this software. regardless of how handy and useful it is, you agreed NOT to use it when you downloaded the music.

if you do, you are in violation of your contract with itunes. what does that make you? there's another debate i guess.

 

[AndrewMT]

Plenty of reasons why:

• You own more than three computers. (I personally have 5 at home and 4 at work. Plus two Apple-IIs, which aren't capable of playing digital music.)
• You have a computer that's not running Windows or MacOS. Linux PCs and Sun workstations come to mind. For these, you'll need a more generic format like MP3 or OGG-Vorbis.
• You have an older Mac that can't run OS X.
• You have a portable music player that's not an iPod
• You want to burn an MP3 CD to play in your car. (Having 10 hours of music on a single disc is really nice )

All perfectly legal and legitimate reasons why one might want to remove DRM from ITMS purchases.

Guess what? All these people that complain about the restrictions imposed by Apple's DRM can use other online music stores or buy cds! If you don't like Apple's DRM, then don't use iTunes Music Store! It's a simple as that!

For the majority of the people using iTunes, the rights that come with their music files are more than adequate.

 

[wncmacs]

Problem With iTMS DRM is Why I Want FairTunes

I have several songs I purchased from iTMS that won't play anymore in iTunes. They hang the program and crash it. I downloaded FairTunes, stripped the DRM, and my song again plays. There's apparently a problem with the DRM and Apple needs to fix it or more of us are going to be complaining when songs that play perfectly well on the iPod crash iTunes and won't play on our computers.

 

[arn]

er...

sorry...

FairPlay is not very exciting... it just takes a Protected AAC and converts it into an uncompressed audio file.

updated the story to reflect it.

arn

 

[gsabin]

Who got cracked first?

Well, the better question is "how long did they expect to go without it being circumvented?".

Whats crazy is in this circumstance the tables have turned. We're seeing it first hand. Mac guys talk about little to NO viruses for MacOSX and millions for Windows. The windows guy's argument is if macosx was the #1 OS there would be more viruses for MacOSX.

Well, we have Apple's FAIRPLAY DRM & Microsoft Windows Media DRM. Which DRM got circumvented first? iTMS DRM. Which store is #1? iTMS. I gaurentee if iTMS had bombed and Napster had taken off this wouldn't have happened yet. Quite possibly never would have happened.

Which got circumvented first?
I don't know, but wmv got hacked a LONG time ago...
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-274721.html?legacy=cnet

And music distributed on a CD gets cracked as often as they come out with a new "security" scheme

Universals CD protection,
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/supergeek/story/0,24330,2391656,00.html

Breaking security by holding the shift key
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/08/shift_key_breaks_latest_cd/

and dont forget the marker
http://www.net-security.org/news.php?id=155

 

[3.1416]

Well, we have Apple's FAIRPLAY DRM & Microsoft Windows Media DRM. Which DRM got circumvented first? iTMS DRM.

iTunes DRM was never intended to be impenetrable. Steve Jobs is on record saying so: "We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible
to protect digital content". The DRM isn't intended to be anything more than a speedbump to keep honest people honest.

 

[hulugu]

Plenty of reasons why:

• You own more than three computers. (I personally have 5 at home and 4 at work. Plus two Apple-IIs, which aren't capable of playing digital music.)
• You have a computer that's not running Windows or MacOS. Linux PCs and Sun workstations come to mind. For these, you'll need a more generic format like MP3 or OGG-Vorbis.
• You have an older Mac that can't run OS X.
• You have a portable music player that's not an iPod
• You want to burn an MP3 CD to play in your car. (Having 10 hours of music on a single disc is really nice )

All perfectly legal and legitimate reasons why one might want to remove DRM from ITMS purchases.

When you burn a CD of MP3s doesn't iTunes remove the DRM? Otherwise, I totally buy that this might be an okay thing, except I'm worried that this will give the Record companies another reason to restrict digital music, or at least try.

 

[3.1416]

f you do, you are in violation of your contract with itunes. what does that make you?

Obviously, a minion of Satan who should be exterminated. Come on. Apple specifically encourages you to burn CDs, and they give you iMovie which can do M4P->AIFF conversions. Fine, using Fairtunes or Playfair violates the contract, and going 57 mph in a 55 zone is breaking the law. I can't summon much moral outrage for either.

 

[corvus]

When you use the iTunes Music Store...

...you agree to these policies and terms:

http://www.info.apple.com/usen/musicstore/policies.html
http://www.info.apple.com/usen/musicstore/terms.html

Attempting to get around these policies and terms is dishonest. There is no other way to look at this---either your word is trustworthy or it's not.

BTW, there is not a wide-spread problem with the protection breaking the music files. That is just pure baloney and a justification to steal. Sorry.

Data files can become corrupt, but that is why you backup. You don't have to remove the protection to backup. Just backup.

 

[iMan]

Legal?

Plenty of reasons why:

• You own more than three computers. (I personally have 5 at home and 4 at work. Plus two Apple-IIs, which aren't capable of playing digital music.)
• You have a computer that's not running Windows or MacOS. Linux PCs and Sun workstations come to mind. For these, you'll need a more generic format like MP3 or OGG-Vorbis.
• You have an older Mac that can't run OS X.
• You have a portable music player that's not an iPod
• You want to burn an MP3 CD to play in your car. (Having 10 hours of music on a single disc is really nice )

All perfectly legal and legitimate reasons why one might want to remove DRM from ITMS purchases.

Sorry, I understand your point, but none of these are legal reasons to do anything with the DRM. Neither with Apples nor with anyone elses. As you purchase you also agrees to the limitations of use of that song - so basically; trying to circumvent the DRM is just plain illegal.
On the other hand, it WOULD be really nice to be able to choose which store to buy from, and which player to use - without any hassle. Unfortunately there seems to be a long way to go...

 

[iMan]

Actually, yes -- I personally find this limitation troublesome. I wish they made a more reasonable limit. I have a PC with iTunes on it at home, a laptop with iTunes on it, and a PowerMac G5 at home. Problem is, I also have a desktop PC at work I'd like to listen to my music on - and that exceeds my 3 machine limit for the songs I buy.

IMHO, if Apple simply placed a limit of 6 or 7 instead of 3, they'd still be accomplishing the goals they're trying to achieve, while ensuring they don't interfere with legitimate use by song purchasers. (If you really have more than 6 or 7 different systems you need your songs on, that starts to get a bit ridiculous. I mean, just how many jobs do you have, and/or different computers you have to have your music come out of at home?)

You know what? Having to use more than 3 machines does indeed seem ridiculous to me. I have a laptop at home, I have a G5 at work. Perfectly enough computing power. Actually - do you really need to have your songs installed on more than one machine at home? Seems more than troublesome to me. Why don't you rather use the sharing? Or just play through an iPod or something? A lot more handier imo.

 

[simX]

You know what? Having to use more than 3 machines does indeed seem ridiculous to me. I have a laptop at home, I have a G5 at work. Perfectly enough computing power. Actually - do you really need to have your songs installed on more than one machine at home? Seems more than troublesome to me. Why don't you rather use the sharing? Or just play through an iPod or something? A lot more handier imo.

Don't be so condescending. Other peoples' lifestyles are different than yours, so you shouldn't dictate how many computers other people use.

And besides, haven't you realized that you actually can't stream an iTMS-bought song through iTunes file sharing without first authorizing that computer? I'm not talking about the computer that's sharing the file: you have to authorize the one who wants to stream it. So you can't get around the low 3 computer restriction that way.

 

[ryanw]

...you agree to these policies and terms:

http://www.info.apple.com/usen/musicstore/policies.html
http://www.info.apple.com/usen/musicstore/terms.html

Attempting to get around these policies and terms is dishonest. There is no other way to look at this---either your word is trustworthy or it's not.

BTW, there is not a wide-spread problem with the protection breaking the music files. That is just pure baloney and a justification to steal. Sorry.

Data files can become corrupt, but that is why you backup. You don't have to remove the protection to backup. Just backup.

Well, it appears that some people who used earlier versions of playfair on their iTMS files jacked up their files they owned, so it's their own fault and they just want to fix them.

 

[iMan]

Don't be so condescending. Other peoples' lifestyles are different than yours, so you shouldn't dictate how many computers other people use.

And besides, haven't you realized that you actually can't stream an iTMS-bought song through iTunes file sharing without first authorizing that computer? I'm not talking about the computer that's sharing the file: you have to authorize the one who wants to stream it. So you can't get around the low 3 computer restriction that way.

Oh well, yeah I know. Sorry. This just seems to me like some people are buying a gallon of milk and wishing it would be one and a half... I perfectly understand and would appreciate the possibility of full freedom of the files I use (also in the sense that I could play them on other players than iPod). But these are the rules - like'm or not.

But I did in fact not realize that sharing was not possible also with DRMed songs... thought this was suppose to work like iPhoto... you would be able to play but not download to the computer in spe... (?) How would you then use the functions of Elgatos Eyehome and the likes then? (Located in Europe, I have not been able to purchase anything from iTMS yet...).

 

[Snowy_River]

Plenty of reasons why:

• You own more than three computers. (I personally have 5 at home and 4 at work. Plus two Apple-IIs, which aren't capable of playing digital music.)
• You have a computer that's not running Windows or MacOS. Linux PCs and Sun workstations come to mind. For these, you'll need a more generic format like MP3 or OGG-Vorbis.
• You have an older Mac that can't run OS X.
• You have a portable music player that's not an iPod
• You want to burn an MP3 CD to play in your car. (Having 10 hours of music on a single disc is really nice )

All perfectly legal and legitimate reasons why one might want to remove DRM from ITMS purchases.

You know, there's one significant problem with these arguments. That is, using a DRM stripping app only gives you an unprotected AAC. This still won't work on a Linux machine that needs MP3. It still won't work on that older Mac. It still won't burn to an MP3 CD (as all non-MP3 songs are ignored/eliminated from a playlist when burning an MP3 CD, I believe). So, if you're converting formats, why not simply burn, and rip to MP3. Then you get your needed MP3 format.

 

[dontmatter]

same old story, same old conversation.

.....

 

[Snowy_River]

Sorry, I understand your point, but none of these are legal reasons to do anything with the DRM. Neither with Apples nor with anyone elses. As you purchase you also agrees to the limitations of use of that song - so basically; trying to circumvent the DRM is just plain illegal.
On the other hand, it WOULD be really nice to be able to choose which store to buy from, and which player to use - without any hassle. Unfortunately there seems to be a long way to go...

Well, actually, there is one caveat. It is quite possible that this is an illegal contract. It could be illegally restricting Fair Use, an established law. Does anyone want to spend the money to take Apple to court? I didn't think so.

Don't assume that just because a contract exists that it is the law. Many, many contracts are written that are illegal. I even worked under an illegal employment contract. I knew it was illegal at the time, and I knew that if I had to I could fight it and win. If I had made a fuss about it, though, I would not have been hired. So, sure it'd be great if we all stood on principles all the time, but that's not how the world works. We all enter into 'agreements' or 'contracts' that are either legally questionable or simply unenforceable, all the time.

I think the bigger issue is whether there is a material violation here. If a person were to use a DRM stripping app to be able to distribute iTMS songs on a P2P network, then that would be another matter entirely. So long as people are using such apps for uses that are covered under Fair Use (and thus within the legally questionable region of the contract), I cannot see any real issue here, at all.

 

[DGFan]

FairTunes is actually useless. It does nothing different than what iTunes itself does. It takes an m4p DRM'd song and converts it to a .wav or .aiff file and then if you want it in AAC format you have to re-encode it, losing audio quality. iTunes does the VERY SAME THING, if you care to rip .m4p protected songs and then re-rip to AAC. This too strips the DRM from iTMS songs.

So unlike PlayFair, FairTunes is a lossy program, which poses no greater threat than built-in iTunes features itself. I doubt there will be any lawsuits or legal action over this program.

Disclaimer: I have not looked at the code of PlayFair

All the articles on the subject I read (many of them) indicated that PlayFair was actually decoding the AAC and then re-encoding. And that the reason for the claims that it was "lossless" were due to the fact that it was reencoding it using the same algorithm.

Now, doesn't iTunes encode things using the same algorithm it decodes them? So why wouldn't rencoding this AIFF file from FairTunes result in exactly the same lossless (or low-loss) conversion? Sure, it's not as *useful* because it doesn't keep tags and art. But I don't think it is any more or less lossy.

 

[DGFan]

I think the bigger issue is whether there is a material violation here. If a person were to use a DRM stripping app to be able to distribute iTMS songs on a P2P network, then that would be another matter entirely. So long as people are using such apps for uses that are covered under Fair Use (and thus within the legally questionable region of the contract), I cannot see any real issue here, at all.

The legal requirement is "significant non-infringing" use. Emphasis on the word "significant" (which is hard to type at this hour). I doubt tools like PlayFair clear this test.

 

[eSnow]

You know, there's one significant problem with these arguments. That is, using a DRM stripping app only gives you an unprotected AAC. This still won't work on a Linux machine that needs MP3.

This is not correct. LibAAC plays unprotected AACs on Linux. So, from a moral standpoint it may be wrong, but Apple not offering the Linux guys a chance is not very ethical either, since it is clearly not a technology-oriented move but a stab at Linux as a viable platform.

 

[eSnow]

All the articles on the subject I read (many of them) indicated that PlayFair was actually decoding the AAC and then re-encoding. And that the reason for the claims that it was "lossless" were due to the fact that it was reencoding it using the same algorithm.

Nope. Apples FairPlay wraps AAC into a DRM container which makes it possible to peel off this DRM wrapper if you know the magic key. What falls out is a pristine, not re-encoded AAC like your iTunes would create from a song on CD.

 

[123]

So, if you're converting formats, why not simply burn, and rip to MP3. Then you get your needed MP3 format.

Yeah, why don't you burn a CD instead of not burning it, thereby not wasting money, not wasting time, not wasting polycarbonate and not being stupid?

 

[m.i.r.a.g.e.]

why can't people respect the contract they agree to when they download the music?

Because we don't have to. Because we understand the actions the contract seeks to stop, and we understand that our actions are legitimate regardless of what the contract may have to say about it.

Because we didn't sign anything, and AFAWK, EULA's haven't been held up in court as legaly binding.

you are NOT allowed to use this software. regardless of how handy and useful it is, you agreed NOT to use it when you downloaded the music.

We disagree.

if you do, you are in violation of your contract with itunes. what does that make you? there's another debate i guess.

Well, it makes you a weenie boy scout. Looking forward to a career in law enforcement?

Software. Tool. Neutral.

You can use the software legitimately, you can use it illegitimately. It's not up to you or Apple, or me, or your grandma, or the government to tell you that you can't use this software.

If at some point your actions actually hurt other people, then maybe there is an argument against you using the software.

Rebel against the corporate-ocracy. It's not always wrong or immoral to break the law. It's your responsibility to disregard laws which you do not believe in. Hell, you didn't even have a say when it got passed did you? Sheep.

 

[mabino]

Has anyone been able to unprotect a WMA file with the latest MS DRM scheme from a competitor's store yet?