Fairtunes, Playfair, and iTunes

[Bear]

Re: 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.

Have you cantacted Apple yet? If you haven't reported the issue, you are hurting everyone who may run into such an issue in the future.

If you have reported it to Apple, what did they say?

 

[Bear]

SOme people not me might want to send songs to their friends. Some people not me might have more than 3 computers at home.

To answer your first point. That's not legal in most cases.

To answer your second point, they had to decide a cutoff somewhere. In the average household, 3 computers should be enough. They had to decide a cutoff on the number of computers, and in fact we may be lucky that Apple was able to get it up to three computers.

 

[Bear]

converting to aiff and then back to aac, assuming that there is no difference between protected and unprotected aac is there any loss of quality? Just wondering about the pros and cons.

Yes there is. Any time you uncompress and recompress music, you can and probably will lose quality.

 

[Bear]

FairTunes is actually less useful than a CD since it won't let you do batch processing. One bloody m4p at a time.

BTW, if someone would be generous enough to email me (dshim@hotmail.com) a copy of PlayFair, I'd much appreciate it. It'd be nice to able to stream some of my iTMS purchases ($275 and counting).

Stream them to where? With iTunes you can stream them to another computer on the same lan. It just needs to be an authorized computer for the accound the songs were purchased on.

If you don't like the music restrictions, which you and everyone else who is complaining knew about before you bought the music from iTMS, don't buy any.

And if people are complaining about songs they won in a contest. they're whining about something they got for free.

 

[eSnow]

Basically, PlayFair is the argument that convinces me to buy at all at iTMS (if it ever makes it to Europe). Not that I regard the restrictions imposed by FairPlay to be too tight, but:
- just think about what happens if one day Apple pulls out of the player market. No more iPods, and most likely no more players that can decode DRM-AAC _at all_. So, your best chance is to decode, burn and re-rip to mp3 or unprotected AAC (if there is a player for that). With PlayFair, you at least don't lose audio quality on the transition.

- if you decide to switch to Linux a few years down the road, your audio files are unplayable. Peel off the DRM wrapper and they are as good as new. Basically, PlayFair is Apples platform-lock in strategy - you buy them on MacOS or Windows, you ain't going nowhere without losing them (or audio quality via transcoding). Where is Apples commitment to license out FairPlay?

- You have a cheap Linux server and wish to use mt-daapd to share them to iTunes on your notebook? You are out of luck unless you unprotect.

- You care for options and would like to use a different player than iTunes (yeah, I know, the heresy)? Out of luck again (note: I could be wrong here, since I do happen to like iTunes).

So, if I ever buy from iTMS, first thing I do will be to unprotect the files and write backups of both protected and unprotected files. If Apple changes the DRM to make this impossible, I stop buying there. They can take their contract and stuff it, I am not cattle waiting to be prodded.

Besides, I believe FairPlay was never intended to be a really tough cryptographical challenge. Like CSS, it was drafted to be just tough enough to pass as a crypto-method according to DCMA, so that it is illegal to crack it. No need to invest more resources to make it really bullet-proof agaings hackers if you can strongarm the suckers, right?

 

[1macker1]

I've stopped using the iTunes music store. If people really has a problem with the Fairplay, then stop using iTunes. With their prices going up, hell i just go BestBuy and get the cd for 12 bucks. Burn the CD to my Mac in high bit rate Mp3's.

 

[Bear]

I've stopped using the iTunes music store. If people really has a problem with the Fairplay, then stop using iTunes. With their prices going up, hell i just go BestBuy and get the cd for 12 bucks. Burn the CD to my Mac in high bit rate Mp3's.

Except fo r the part of prices going up, I agree with what you are saying.

If the prices do go up for tracks, then it will make a difference on whether to buy the Album on CD or just download tracks you want.

Since the music I am buying currently is mostly not available on iTMS, I have no choice anyway but to buy the CD.

We'll see if the music industry is stupid enough to force a price increase and kill the paid download services. Unfortunatly, the music industry is probably that stupid.

 

[1macker1]

Another reason i stopped buying is because the initial thrill of buying music online has faded. I was really excited to purchase music without leaving the house via iTunes. But now, all they hype has died, and i'm back at physical stores buying music.

 

[uzombie]

Plenty of reasons why:

• ...
• 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.

Hear Hear!
I've a Panasonic MP3 player (the 1.5"x1.5") that takes SD cards (I have a 1 gig card!) and its Windoze-only for transferring songs. I take MP3s, copy them to folder that the program converts and moves to the player/SD card reader.

But the Toast tip is good to know...off to experiment!

 

[the_mole1314]

I've stopped using the iTunes music store. If people really has a problem with the Fairplay, then stop using iTunes. With their prices going up, hell i just go BestBuy and get the cd for 12 bucks. Burn the CD to my Mac in high bit rate Mp3's.

Where is the press release? I mean, sure, speculation, but that would be, atleast, years down the road.

 

[greenstork]

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.

PlayFair used the iPod the strip the DRM from the AAC file but did not re-encode at all. It was a straight .m4p to .m4a conversion with no audio loss. I'd be happy to be proven wrong but my guess is that this is why Apple absolutely freaked out and went chasing the software all the way around India.

FairTunes on the other hand, produces an uncompressed audio file with the same audio quality of the .m4p, which is obviously significantly less than the original uncompressed file. So although the algorithm is the same, you're encoding twice, losing audio quality each time. The original .m4p is lower quality and you lose more when re-encoding from an uncompressed format.

 

[Snowy_River]

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.

The original poster said he needed MP3 to play on his Linux machine, which is why I posted it the way I did:

This still won't work on a Linux machine that needs MP3.

As far as ethics goes, Apple's choice not to offer a Linux version of iTunes is neither ethical, nor unethical. Trying to argue whether it is right or wrong to offer a port of an application to any given platform is quite pointless. If you're argument is that not offering a given application on every possible platform is wrong (unethical), then I'd say there isn't an ethical person in the entire software industry...

 

[Snowy_River]

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?

Okay, was there a particular reason that you decided to be so blatantly insulting? If you burn a CD-RW you don't waste anything. If you don't want to use this perfectly legitimate and supported method, then use QTConvert to get an AIFF file, then encode it to MP3.

My point was that the uses being named required MP3, not unprotected AAC, and therefore a simple DRM stripping can't get the needed final result.

Geez...

 

[Rustus Maximus]

The issue is literally open blatant copying of music on the internet without any means of collecting "fair price"...

I have to stand by the side of the rights holders and say that even though the technology readily exists to copy even copy protected music, that does not make it right, and going after illegal copiers is right and fair.

Since the only valid purpose of the program is to violate the law and commercial rights, that makes the program a "bad thing" as well.

Comments?

Rocketman

Only one comment...aaaaamen, brother...

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.

Whether or not your moral rageinator is going off has nothing to do with the morality of the issue. Copying illegally cracked music is wrong just as going 57 in a 55 zone is wrong...ahhhh to have an Audobon here in America. Just as there are different contracts or speed limits...using these programs is a violation of iTunes contract...period.

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.

What the H is this?? Since when does Apple have to make sure that their products play nice with a competitor. If they choose not to let Linux in on the game then that's their business. They control iTunes and AAC so they will decide who can use it, as they decided to make it available to Windoze boys and girls. It's called capitalism...look into it.

and speaking of anti-capitalism...

Originally Posted by cait-sith: 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 signed it when you clicked accept partner, welcome to the digital age. And if EULA's haven't been upheld in court it was because of unclear guidance on that same issue and limp wristed leftist judges. DRM seeks to change that and protect the property of the people who create software and music and anything else that can be distributed digitally. The days of EULA's having no real power are ending soon as they should. The laws of protection must change as the laws of distribution change. But make no mistake...you did sign a contract and are therefore bound by it.

Originally Posted by cait-sith: 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.

Perhaps cait-sith just didn't state it correctly. You can use the software just as you can use cocaine. but regardless...to do so is a violation of the law or contract you signed and a violation of the DRM you agreed to.

Originally Posted by cait-sith: 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.

The very comment of being a...what was it? weenie boy scout...reveals your true nature and attitudes about law and morality in general. And you bear out the reason why the government or Apple in this case has a reason to tell you that you can't use this software because use of it does hurt other people. It hurts the artists and Apple in the sense that you are robbing them of revenue. Whether or not you think they are all greedy bastards has nothing to do with it. You are stealing from them if you violate the DRM you agreed to.

Yes the software is just a tool...you are right. But just as guns don't kill people...it's the person that uses it for the wrong purposes who is the criminal.

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.

Ummm...easy on those Vienna sausages...that jelly in those things does funny things to the brain cells. Your argument depends on your school of philosophy as to whether or not it is not always immoral to break the law. Socrates would disagree with you. However being a redblooded American revolutionary (no offense to our British members) I agree with you that an immoral law must be disobeyed. But what exactly is immoral about iTunes DRM? It's immoral because it stops criminal activity? Hmmm...that's a new one...must be the jelly...

<walks away to the sound of sheep noises>

 

[ITR 81]

So when Apple upgrades iTunes and QT again will any of this crap still work. I'm expecting Apple to even change the encyrption again in the DRM.

 

[eSnow]

So when Apple upgrades iTunes and QT again will any of this crap still work. I'm expecting Apple to even change the encyrption again in the DRM.

I doubt that. Very much so. They would have to change the Firmware in every Gen3 iPod, every copy of QT and iTunes to allow for two different kinds of DRM, the old FairPlay (since customers might insist that their already-bought music still works) and the new FairPlay+

 

[iMeowbot]

- just think about what happens if one day Apple pulls out of the player market.

If? I think it's more a matter of when. Apple have a consistent record of abandoning services when they lose interest. That's what makes the DRM stripping tools nice to have around: not for now, but for When Apple inevitably pull an Apple.

Even the US Govt. will likely be on the side of Playfair users when that happens. It's very much consistent with how they view other obsolete copy protection measures.

 

[Snowy_River]

You signed it when you clicked accept partner, welcome to the digital age. And if EULA's haven't been upheld in court it was because of unclear guidance on that same issue and limp wristed leftist judges. DRM seeks to change that and protect the property of the people who create software and music and anything else that can be distributed digitally. The days of EULA's having no real power are ending soon as they should. The laws of protection must change as the laws of distribution change. But make no mistake...you did sign a contract and are therefore bound by it.


Perhaps cait-sith just didn't state it correctly. You can use the software just as you can use cocaine. but regardless...to do so is a violation of the law or contract you signed and a violation of the DRM you agreed to.

And there is such a thing as an illegal contract. If I sign a contract that is illegal, it doesn't matter that I agreed to it, I'm under no obligation to abide by it, legally. (Morally may be another issue.) Violating such a contract would in no way be a violation of the law.

...you can't use this software because use of it does hurt other people. It hurts the artists and Apple in the sense that you are robbing them of revenue. Whether or not you think they are all greedy bastards has nothing to do with it. You are stealing from them if you violate the DRM you agreed to.

Yes the software is just a tool...you are right. But just as guns don't kill people...it's the person that uses it for the wrong purposes who is the criminal.

Uh... well, you kind of make my point for me. If I'm using this software to 'unwrap' my pAAC files to share them, then I'm misusing it and breaking the law. Then I'm hurting Apple and the artists, etc. But if I'm using it simply to provide myself with an unprotected copy of the file for my own use, for example (as has been mentioned before) if I want to play my music on my Linux machine without the loss of quality from burn-rerip (this being a use that is protected under Fair Use), then I'm in no way hurting Apple or the artists, etc., and it is in this context that the legitimacy of the iTMS EULA is questionable. Of course it's illegal to copy and distribute music, but making your own copies for your own use is not only not illegal, but it's protected under the law.

 

[coolsoldier]

A contract violation is not stealing. It just isn't.

Contract violations are only valid in the case of an enforceable contract.

Click-through agreements have never yet been deemed enforceable by a court. To understand why, do the following:

-Sign up for iTMS. Enter your information and credit card number and so on and so forth.
-Call a friend. Have them come to your house and click the "I Agree" button.

Alternatively, write an AppleScript to send the form for you -- that way nobody agreed to a contract.

The point is, there is no verification whatsoever that you actually clicked the button. You could have had somebody else click the button for you. You could have a script that submits the HTML form automatically without the need to click the button. And so on and so forth. The idea of an "implicit agreement" by using a service provided through publicly accessible servers is equally shaky -- it's the technological equivalent of a line in a paper contract that says "by reading this contract, you agree to all of it's terms."

 

[hulugu]

A contract violation is not stealing. It just isn't.

Contract violations are only valid in the case of an enforceable contract.

Click-through agreements have never yet been deemed enforceable by a court. To understand why, do the following:

-Sign up for iTMS. Enter your information and credit card number and so on and so forth.
-Call a friend. Have them come to your house and click the "I Agree" button.

Alternatively, write an AppleScript to send the form for you -- that way nobody agreed to a contract.

The point is, there is no verification whatsoever that you actually clicked the button. You could have had somebody else click the button for you. You could have a script that submits the HTML form automatically without the need to click the button. And so on and so forth. The idea of an "implicit agreement" by using a service provided through publicly accessible servers is equally shaky -- it's the technological equivalent of a line in a paper contract that says "by reading this contract, you agree to all of it's terms."

But the point of this contract is for you to estimate in good faith that you will abide by this contract. While the click-through may not be legally enforceable, your reading of the contract is overly legalistic. By all other means, including a verbal contract—which can be enforceable—you agree by affirmation, and do not necessarily need a signature in triplicate.
You can refuse such a contract, but you don't instead you hit I AGREE which isn't the same thing. Now, a EULA stating that by opening the box so that you can read the EULA is an agreement of the terms and conditions is problematic.
If a click-through agreement is not valid then we will have to endure some byzantine process of legal affirmations in order to be responsible for our end of the contract.
When it comes down to it you agreed to a kind of contract, you agreed to a set of rules and to the possible affects of breaking that contract (ie you lose your account).
However, by breaking the iTMS contract I did not steal from the RIAA or its 'artists' I broke a contract. Those, I agree with you here, are two entirely different things which the RIAA is confusing in order to make their case.

 

[coolsoldier]

But the point of this contract is for you to estimate in good faith that you will abide by this contract. While the click-through may not be legally enforceable, your reading of the contract is overly legalistic.

My interpretation is overly legalistic? Have you, by chance, read the contract itself? It is far more legalistic that my inerpretation of it!

If a click-through agreement is not valid then we will have to endure some byzantine process of legal affirmations in order to be responsible for our end of the contract.

Or, they could simply fall back on the adequate legal protections that are in place. The restrictions on contracts, how they can be agreed to, and when they are enforceable exist for a reason -- to prevent the vast majority of people who are not lawyers from being taken advantage of by the small minority who are.

When it comes down to it you agreed to a kind of contract, you agreed to a set of rules and to the possible affects of breaking that contract (ie you lose your account).

If Apple wants to take away my account for circumventing their DRM, I invite them to do so. They lose a paying customer, and in return gain nothing -- none of the things I do with my un-DRMed files hurt their business.

However, by breaking the iTMS contract I did not steal from the RIAA or its 'artists' I broke a contract. Those, I agree with you here, are two entirely different things which the RIAA is confusing in order to make their case.

The RIAA doesn't even come into the picture with tools like this until people start violating their copyrights. For users like me, who are entirely within my fair use rights for everything I do with their material, this issue is entirely between me and Apple.

 

[ingenious]

quick question

I have few concerns about the use of these programs. The main reason is that I think people who are already using iTunes are doing so as an alternative to file sharing, so won't bother going to such efforts to remove the DRM.

Those who do will probably be people who use iTunes but want to play music on their Linux machine or in some other way use the song for personal use that is currently being restricted by the DRM. I don't see this hindering iTunes either.

Having said this, it is still an illegal program, and the writers are clearly going straight to hell.

sorry off topic, but does anyone think apple will ever port iTunes to Linux? I mean, OS X has a UNIX core.. I'm no linux user, but how hard could it really be?

 

[eSnow]

sorry off topic, but does anyone think apple will ever port iTunes to Linux? I mean, OS X has a UNIX core.. I'm no linux user, but how hard could it really be?

Nope, they won't
It's not a technical problem, it's a marketing decision to hurt Linux.

 

[hulugu]

My interpretation is overly legalistic? Have you, by chance, read the contract itself? It is far more legalistic that my inerpretation of it!
Or, they could simply fall back on the adequate legal protections that are in place. The restrictions on contracts, how they can be agreed to, and when they are enforceable exist for a reason -- to prevent the vast majority of people who are not lawyers from being taken advantage of by the small minority who are.

I'm sorry if I mispoke, my point was that you should try to follow an argreement in the spirit of the agreement and not hunt for legal arguments to avoid doing do once you've already agreed to the contract. You agreed to the contract, as insidious as it may be, you cannot suddenly change you mind because now you don't like the contract six months down the road. If you do you must understand that Apple would be well within their rights to enforce the contract.
The trouble is if you clicked-through you agreed, if not in absolute legal terms, at least in good faith, that you would follow your end of the contract.
Now, argue all you want about the unfair nature of the EULA on iTMS, argue that their enforcement of DMCA is dangerous because it sets precidences that make the law more enforceable, argue that all DRM is inherently dangerous to Fair-Use which is just as important as copy-right itself.
But, I don't believe you can agree to a contract and then argue that you don't like it and you won't follow it anymore.

 

[hulugu]

Nope, they won't
It's not a technical problem, it's a marketing decision to hurt Linux.

Apple's relationship to Linux is a little brain-damaged in my opinion. Linux is going to become as important as Microsoft is, it is going to engage Microsoft in markets that Apple has barely a toehold and ultimately I believe that OpenSource and all its associated entities under GPL will create some great products that will change the dynastic power-struggles we have previously faced. Apple understands that OpenSource is a great lever to use, hence Safari, but they ignore the actual OS entirely.
Now, I understand that too a certain point it may be difficult to assure that a program like iTunes will compile and run correctly on all the various flavors of Linux, however I believe that they can release the programs so that say Red Hat users can use iTunes and the iPod, iChat AV, and QuickTime. If you put Linux users in a position to use QT, buy iPods and iSights not only have you created a new revenue stream, but this works in the same Trojan horse strategy that Apple has been persuing for Windows. Furthermore, dealing with Linux means that Apple can dial into projects like OpenOffice (Aqua version sooner than later I hope) and maybe Darwine and between the two Microsoft suddenly could suddenly seem less important.