Navio to Reverse Engineer iPod/iTunes DRM

[Chacala_Nayarit]

(Although I consider any kind of DRM that restricts my own fair use rights as unethical - but that is another story).

Me too. So what do I do with iTunes AAC DRM songs? Make audio CDs, and then copy then rip them back to iTunes in non-DRM formats. 😀

 

[inkhead]

Who cares what itunes user agreement is? Good luck getting a court to hold up that they can't reverse engineer it. First of all in California the court's going to side with consumers and probably not Apple, this issue has already been played out in courts, and not in favor of Apple either.


Besides "ethically" Steve Jobs has to see the logic behind and open DRM format. My guess is he's torn between locking you into itunes profits and having a open-drm type standard. I mean he's preached countless times about the "consumers" interest, and it's in the consumers interest to have options.

These are in reference to iTunes and iTunes Music Store, not Fairplay. So, in other words you cannot reverse-engineer iTunes, and you cannot reverse-engineer the iTMS. However, it does not apply to the DRM, unless I'm missing something...

EDIT: The ITMS terms of service might be constricting for them, but they can totally bypass the iTunes terms of service.

 

[wongulous]

I hope they do reverse engineer it. I'm sorry to say it I love my iPod, but I love Yahoo's all you can eat music.

I currently record a couple hours of my customized radio station to mp3 (off yahoo) and then play it back on my iPod.

Yahoo music has some cool features, and since I paid $80 for a whole year of all I can eat music I've saved quite a bit... I spend $3800 last year off itunes, only to have two disks fail (my own fault) and lose my entire music collection. The idea that I couldn't redownload what I already paid for pissed me off.

Yeah the Yahoo music store interface sucks, but subscription is a nice option, I wish Apple would offer it. I'd pay even $50/month for all I could eat iTunes.

You're assuming that just because Navio is attempting to reverse-engineer FairPlay, that they'll be successful, and Apple won't once again stop them with either a more difficult workaround, legal threats, or an injunction and other court litigation doohickeys, and even then, that Navio will sell the product, and that Yahoo will buy it, within your one year of subscription to it.

And then you're supporting unethical reverse-engineering of Apple's technology, violation of iTunes/iTMS EULAs, *and* violation of the DMCA laws (and indirectly, international copyright standards), simply because you have some ridiculous grudge that you blew $4k on iTunes and then made the stupid mistake of not having a backup?

So irrational it hurts.

 

[DGFan]

You have just made my point. He is STILL BOUND BY US LAWS! He is still considered a criminal by the US, and therefore they US authorities can ask the Mexican authorities to arrest him and extradite him to the US for prosecution. Obviously, we are blowing it out of proportion for DMCA, but the point is still made. He is not free and clear of US law just because he did it outside of the US borders.

But what you're ALL forgetting is that the criminal part of the DMCA (section 1204) wouldn't apply to simply removing the DRM from a song you bought. You would have to be doing it for "commercial advantage or private financial gain" which probably means distributing it in some way.

So the basis of your disagreement is kind of moot for normal people.

 

[DGFan]

And then you're supporting unethical reverse-engineering of Apple's technology, violation of iTunes/iTMS EULAs, *and* violation of the DMCA laws (and indirectly, international copyright standards), simply because you have some ridiculous grudge that you blew $4k on iTunes and then made the stupid mistake of not having a backup?

So irrational it hurts.

First, since when is reverse-engineering unethical? It was a big contributer to the computer revolution (think BIOS).

Second, there's no guarantee that they're using iTUnes/iTMS to do the reverse-engineering. It's possible they're just doing it by looking at an iPod so the EULA wouldn't apply.

Third, it's *far* from clear-cut that the DMCA would apply. Remember, allowing others to create DRMed files is not the same thing as circumventing DRM. I think the much stronger argument, based on a reading of the statute, is that the DMCA would not apply.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Hello DMCA.

 

[shamino]

Any country that has signed into the WIPO copyright treaty has promised to do the same under Article 12.

But not all countries have signed into this.

Which is why businesses in some countries can manufacture copies for sale without permission of the international copyright holder.

 

[swingerofbirch]

Instead of reverse engineering Fair Play would it be legal for another music store, take Napster for example, to come out with a firmware upgrade for the iPod that lets it play whatever format music Napster sells alongside the Fairplay music?

 

[dejo]

I hope they do reverse engineer it. I'm sorry to say it I love my iPod, but I love Yahoo's all you can eat music.

I currently record a couple hours of my customized radio station to mp3 (off yahoo) and then play it back on my iPod.

Yahoo music has some cool features, and since I paid $80 for a whole year of all I can eat music I've saved quite a bit... I spend $3800 last year off itunes, only to have two disks fail (my own fault) and lose my entire music collection. The idea that I couldn't redownload what I already paid for pissed me off.

Yeah the Yahoo music store interface sucks, but subscription is a nice option, I wish Apple would offer it. I'd pay even $50/month for all I could eat iTunes.

I'm just curious. How many calories is the average track? 😀

 

[shamino]

But what you're ALL forgetting is that the criminal part of the DMCA (section 1204) wouldn't apply to simply removing the DRM from a song you bought. You would have to be doing it for "commercial advantage or private financial gain" which probably means distributing it in some way.

Not quite.
Section 1204 specifies the maximum penalties for someone who does it for "commercial advantage of private financial gain". Subsection (b) exempts certain non-profit organizations.

The absence of a specified penalty is not the same as being immune from prosecution.

Breaking DRM for personal non-profit use is not mentioned and will probably depend on case law, should anybody actually be sued.

Developing and releasing software to break DRM (whether commercial or not) is similarly gray, and probably more likely to end up being illegal when tried in court.

 

[shamino]

Instead of reverse engineering Fair Play would it be legal for another music store, take Napster for example, to come out with a firmware upgrade for the iPod that lets it play whatever format music Napster sells alongside the Fairplay music?

Sure they could. An iPod is a computing platform, just like your Mac.

But they're going to have one heck of a job writing such an upgrade if they plan on retaining compatibility with iTunes and iTMS purchases. And Apple could very easily start making changes to iTunes that render it incompatible with a Napster-iPod.

I suppose this wouldn't be a problem for those who want to use their iPod exclusively as a Napster playback device, but how many people would really want that?

 

[swingerofbirch]

I spend $3800 last year off itunes, only to have two disks fail (my own fault) and lose my entire music collection. The idea that I couldn't redownload what I already paid for pissed me off.

OUCH! SO SORRY! I lost my entire CD collection on an airplane once, but I hadn't spent almost $4,000 on it.

That would really piss me off too, not too mention all the other documents you would have lost.

Audible.com has always been great about letting you redownload what you have purchased.

I don't know if you have tried, but Apple's customer service can be exceptional at times. If you find a caring person in customer service, and sweet talk and sob story your way through they might arrange something for you. They have a record, of course, of all the music you purchased. Say something like, could I pay a one time fee to redownload the music I lost. For legal reasons they won't let you pay for it, but they might let you do it for free.

This happened to me once when I downloaded an audiobook from iTunes and I couldn't find it. I wrote them an email saying I couldn't find it on my computer, and they said they would for one time only grant an exemption and make it available for me as a download.

Also, when you call them, tell them how much you love Apple and you're an iPod lover and tell all your friends about it and how you've been using Apple products for over 20 years. I hope maybe some of that advice could get you your music collection back!

 

[Meyvn]

I'm sure their lawyers would say that the spirit of the law was to protect copyright of the protected material, not to support an iPod monopoly, and they would have a point.

Are you insinuating that Apple doesn't have the right to control the playback formats its own product accepts?

 

[iMeowbot]

But not all countries have signed into this.

You'll find that a lot more countries have at least signed onto Bern (the one that matters) than some may think.

Which is why businesses in some countries can manufacture copies for sale without permission of the international copyright holder.

It's illegal in virtually all the countries where bootleg manufacturing actually happens.

 

[EricNau]

I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS! 😕 WHAT DOES IT MEAN? 😕

 

[NicP]

Heres an idea, if you want ipod compatiable files SELL THEM AS MP3S!!

Copy protection dosent do jack anyway, all you need is 1 person to rip it (if all else fails you can always record the analog audio) and seed it on a p2p network and then more and more users get it and distribute it between each other.

It would be much more logical to develop some kind of watermark to store in the mp3s that could identify the original user. The the lables could also stop copyright works from being searchable in p2p programs.

None of this would eliminate piracy completly, but it would make the casual pirate lean towards doing the right thing. All the drm is doing is making it a pain in the ass for regular consumers and encouraging them to download illigal DRM-free files, people who pirate stuff dont suffer any effect at all.

 

[DGFan]

Not quite.
Section 1204 specifies the maximum penalties for someone who does it for "commercial advantage of private financial gain". Subsection (b) exempts certain non-profit organizations.

The absence of a specified penalty is not the same as being immune from prosecution.

Breaking DRM for personal non-profit use is not mentioned and will probably depend on case law, should anybody actually be sued.

Developing and releasing software to break DRM (whether commercial or not) is similarly gray, and probably more likely to end up being illegal when tried in court.

I was responding to the people who were talking about getting extradited and criminal penalties. This wasn't about people getting sued.

 

[mkrishnan]

I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS! 😕 WHAT DOES IT MEAN? 😕

It means that we save so much time, because our iPods Just Work™, that we have to put all of that time to good use, and we have decided as a group that the best use would be to debate the DMCA in such an annoying fashion that eventually the First Amendment will be repealed. 😀

Seriously, what do you / don't you understand? This company plans to develop software that emulates Apple's technology for playing protected music in iTunes and on iPods. The purpose is so that other stores can sell iTunes compatible songs, such as RealNetworks tries to do. Presumably the same tech development could easily be used to put iTunes songs on other players, which would also be a potential "market" for Navio.

We've just been debating whether Apple will have to bother stopping them, or whether the sucky nature of other services and the shaky nature of this technology (since Fairplay could be updated and the songs could stop working) would be enough for Apple to protect itself. And also what Apple should do in the long run, since it seems like such monopolostic, protectionist policies as the private Fairplay are unnecessary given how good their product is.

 

[EricNau]

It means that we save so much time, because our iPods Just Work™, that we have to put all of that time to good use, and we have decided as a group that the best use would be to debate the DMCA in such an annoying fashion that eventually the First Amendment will be repealed. 😀

Seriously, what do you / don't you understand? This company plans to develop software that emulates Apple's technology for playing protected music in iTunes and on iPods. The purpose is so that other stores can sell iTunes compatible songs, such as RealNetworks tries to do. Presumably the same tech development could easily be used to put iTunes songs on other players, which would also be a potential "market" for Navio.

We've just been debating whether Apple will have to bother stopping them, or whether the sucky nature of other services and the shaky nature of this technology (since Fairplay could be updated and the songs could stop working) would be enough for Apple to protect itself. And also what Apple should do in the long run, since it seems like such monopolostic, protectionist policies as the private Fairplay are unnecessary given how good their product is.

I just don't get the part about emulating Apple's technology for playing protected songs on iTunes. What would that change? How are Apple's Songs protected? Are they trying to open up an online music store similar to iTMS? I can already put songs not bought on iTunes, onto my iPod? I just don't get it. 😕 Sorry 😱
I don't even know - is this a good thing, or a bad thing?

Thanks

 

[mkrishnan]

I can already put songs not bought on iTunes, onto my iPod? I just don't get it. 😕 Sorry 😱

You can put songs not bought at iTunes, and not bought at another online music store, on an iPod and on iTunes now. But if you buy a copy-protected song from Napster, say, then there is no way to put it on an iPod, unless you burn it to a CD and re-rip it, or otherwise disable the existing protection. Because Napster uses its own protection on its songs. And Napster doesn't want you to use that solution, first, because it's a PITA, and second, because then the song is no longer protected, and you can share it with whomever you want.

What this software does is really more of a back-end feature. It lets Napster easily sell songs that can be converted into the Apple protection scheme, so that they can go on an iPod, but still are protected.

Dunno if it's a good or bad thing. I guess it's potentially bad for Apple's iTunes dominance. But good for consumers, as long as it works in a straightforward manner. And Apple doesn't suffer too much, because the iPod is what people want (including Napster), and that's Apple's cash cow.

 

[EricNau]

You can put songs not bought at iTunes, and not bought at another online music store, on an iPod and on iTunes now. But if you buy a copy-protected song from Napster, say, then there is no way to put it on an iPod, unless you burn it to a CD and re-rip it, or otherwise disable the existing protection. Because Napster uses its own protection on its songs. And Napster doesn't want you to use that solution, first, because it's a PITA, and second, because then the song is no longer protected, and you can share it with whomever you want.

What this software does is really more of a back-end feature. It lets Napster easily sell songs that can be converted into the Apple protection scheme, so that they can go on an iPod, but still are protected.

Dunno if it's a good or bad thing. I guess it's potentially bad for Apple's iTunes dominance. But good for consumers, as long as it works in a straightforward manner. And Apple doesn't suffer too much, because the iPod is what people want (including Napster), and that's Apple's cash cow.

I get it now! 😀 Thank you!

 

[longofest]

Are you insinuating that Apple doesn't have the right to control the playback formats its own product accepts?

It really depends upon market position, doesn't it? Look at Windows? You could say the same thing about Windows. Your argument says: Doesn't Microsoft have the right to chose which Media player was installed as default in the OS? But the courts disagreed due to Microsoft's monopoly on the market.

Since Apple has a monopoly on portable music players, they are in a very similar position that Microsoft was in, and it is only a matter of time before they receive the same kind of antitrust attention that Microsoft or any market-dominating company receives.

I'm an Apple fan. I have a PowerBook 867, PowerMac 2x1Ghz QS, and a Quad order that I'm about to place once I graduate this fall (grad gift :-D). However, I'm not blind to the fact that every company that comes to market dominance ends up getting some legal short-end of the stick.

 

[BobMcBob]

I'm surprised Apple can't (or isn't) doing more to prevent it. It seems like there could be lots of tricky things they could do to make it more difficult to reverse engineer. It makes me wonder if they don't mind that much, or if it's actually that hard to stop. They control the iPods. They control iTunes.

 

[EricNau]

Since Apple has a monopoly on portable music players, they are in a very similar position that Microsoft was in, and it is only a matter of time before they receive the same kind of antitrust attention that Microsoft or any market-dominating company receives.

In no ways does Apple have a monopoly. Their market share is at only 80%, which is a lot, but it means it still doesn't have 20%. There are atleast 5 very popular companies out there that offer something of similar quality* for about half the price.

*hardware, not software 😉

 

[SiliconAddict]

I hope they do reverse engineer it. I'm sorry to say it I love my iPod, but I love Yahoo's all you can eat music.

I currently record a couple hours of my customized radio station to mp3 (off yahoo) and then play it back on my iPod.

Yahoo music has some cool features, and since I paid $80 for a whole year of all I can eat music I've saved quite a bit... I spend $3800 last year off itunes, only to have two disks fail (my own fault) and lose my entire music collection. The idea that I couldn't redownload what I already paid for pissed me off.

No offense dude and I'm sorry if this comes off as pissy but it’s your own dang fault for not backing up your files. I'm dead serious. I have my tracks on my desktop. Once a month I drop the files onto my home server and then every 6 month I do a backup of my home server and drop the backup tapes in my safety deposit box. Now not everyone has 60/80GB backup drives available to them but if you spent almost 4 grand on files you sure as heck could have spent the $100-$150is on a DVD burner and backed those files up.
My point being is that Apple isn't responsible for the files once it's out of their hands. (Actually if you get a bad download they will actually credit you for the file to try and download it again.) Just as the makers of CD content aren't responsible to replace your CD's when you house, God forbid, burns down.