PlayFair - Stripping AAC DRM

[JGowan]

QTConvert!

This isn't the first application that could decrypt protected AAC files. QTConvert will do it and it is OS X native. It will convert them to AIFF and from there you can use iTunes to go to MP3 or back to AAC.

THANKS, MAN! I d/l'd this and worked so well...

I did this with one of my protected songs bought from iTunes (White Trash Beautiful [kidding!]) and then played both the protected and the unprotected AAC in QUICKTIME (using "play all movies" [to synch them going both exactly the same time] and "play sound in frontmost player only") and when tapping the players back and forth, could hear only the smalllllest difference in quality. The files were the same file size but there was almost (really) no difference.

Highly recommended!

 

[Snowy_River]

Wow. Shut down. I figured it was only a matter of time. To some extent, I'm surprised that it took as long as it did. Still, I'm glad I grabbed a copy when I did. (Not that it will be that much use to me, with all dozen or so songs I've bought from iTMS. But I do like to have tools around...)

Oh, and for QTConvert, it works great with most songs, and generally it's best if you go back to AAC not MP3. You'll get a lot more sound distortions going to a different encoding format than you get going back to the original.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Here Here, -hh !!

We are in trouble again. This is just a tool (PlayFair). How you use it is what defines it.
However, read the latest about how the music industry is raising costs of the music YOU download LEGITIMATELY? Ironically, CDs on Amazon.com are less that the downloaded "album" from iTMS or other online music site.
http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/0407downloading07-ON.html

This is just Like Sony and others to plan. The music industry is greed incarnate. Its one thing to make a profit, but entirely another with MAP (Manufacturers Authorized Pricing..aka price fixing...aka imaginary inflation). Monica Lewinsky's trial completely pun away the news about the federal courts slapping several music companies with price fixing. The music pundits had leveraged against discount chains like BestBuy for having low priced CDs (Tower Records and 'mom&pop' stores whined to music companies that they built the record companies and were afraid to be closed down by competition and low prices). Inventory would be contrained against big boxes like Best Buy unless they raised their prices.

Now we will see a repeat, but this time, Apple and Napster are the "Best Buys" and again, the musioc pundits are crying fowl to congress that the feds need to spend tax payer dollars on the piracy that is hurting the revenues of the Great American Export- Entertainment!

Anybody with a clue at any music companies here? Price CDs at $9.99 and no higher. Sales will go up.

But then the execs would have to buy something other than Hummers then....

 

[puggsly]

It won't make me popular but glad it happened

Come on people. This was illegal and we all knew it. The terms of usage were very clear regarding songs purchased form iTMS and were as fair and reasonable as could be negotiated with the music industry. Software like this threatened the on going existence of iTMS which would have been very bad for consumers who have started voting with their wallet to say that they are ok with this level of restriction.

If you don't agree with these terms, don't buy (even if you have this tool) because it will send the wrong message to the record industry. Instead purchase only from people who allow for unrestricted use. If enough people do that, you could change the world.

Also, I would encourage Apple DRM to be optional at the artists discretion and just note it on the downloads (maybe even set a simple filter inside the iTMS to only see unrestricted music. Note: this might also be nice as a parental control for age appropriate music.)

iTMS is the right tool for the job, it just needs some tweaks. It does not need to be disassembled by removing the protections that the creator wanted to have on his work. They should have the right to distribute their music as they see fit.

 

[Snowy_River]

Come on people. This was illegal and we all knew it. The terms of usage were very clear regarding songs purchased form iTMS and were as fair and reasonable as could be negotiated with the music industry. Software like this threatened the on going existence of iTMS which would have been very bad for consumers who have started voting with their wallet to say that they are ok with this level of restriction.

If you don't agree with these terms, don't buy (even if you have this tool) because it will send the wrong message to the record industry. Instead purchase only from people who allow for unrestricted use. If enough people do that, you could change the world.

Also, I would encourage Apple DRM to be optional at the artists discretion and just note it on the downloads (maybe even set a simple filter inside the iTMS to only see unrestricted music. Note: this might also be nice as a parental control for age appropriate music.)

iTMS is the right tool for the job, it just needs some tweaks. It does not need to be disassembled by removing the protections that the creator wanted to have on his work. They should have the right to distribute their music as they see fit.

Well, there is arguably some question of whether or not this is illegal. Yes, I knew that it would be shut down. I also knew that it would be the threat of legal action, potentially costing a whole lot of money, that would actually do the shutting down. The true test of whether or not this is illegal is simply a matter of someone challenging the agreement rights as a violation of fair use. If the courts upheld the challenge, then PlayFair would be legal for certain uses. If the courts denied the challenge, then PlayFair would be confirmed as illegal.

However, I doubt there's anyone who would want to spend the outrageous amount of money on the court case to try to challenge it. So, we're left in legal limbo.

Personally, I think that there is a fair use issue here. As a case in point, last fall I did a full back-up of my computer, reformatted the hard-drive, and installed Panther. Then I restored all of my data. At the time I was actually in the midst of a road trip, no where near home.

I use my iPod to play through my car's stereo all the time (I have a really nice elegant set-up... ask me about it some time, if you're curious). In iTunes (which seemed to behave perfectly normally), I decided to make a new playlist for my drive the next day.

When I plugged in my iPod to update, iTunes informed me that it wasn't registered to play the .m4p files, so they wouldn't be copied to the iPod (which, up to that point, had them already stored in it and was authorized to play them). So, suddenly, far from home and an internet connection, I was denied access to my songs. Fortunately for me, I only have a very few iTMS songs, but, needless to say, I was miffed. Imagine if I had a few hundred (or thousand) songs from iTMS, or if the songs that I had really wanted to play were iTMS songs.

While it's true that the reinstall is what precipitated this, I've heard of iTunes have a corrupted pref. file, or something, which causes it to unauthorize itself. To me, having something like PlayFair around is a good insurance against just this sort of thing, and easily falls into fair use.

 

[puggsly]

Nice try, but I don't think so

Well, there is arguably some question of whether or not this is illegal.

Well it violates the DMCA and your terms of use so I would say that illegal is probably a fair guess.

Personally, I think that there is a fair use issue here.

Personally with all of the "use" that you are allowed I think arguing against this would be insane. You can not point to a single device that you CAN'T get your files to (although you might degrade them slightly and it might be difficult).

So, suddenly, far from home and an internet connection, I was denied access to my songs. Fortunately for me, I only have a very few iTMS songs, but, needless to say, I was miffed. Imagine if I had a few hundred (or thousand) songs from iTMS, or if the songs that I had really wanted to play were iTMS songs.

This is a bit of a stretch so my response will be as well. There is nothing about fair use that guarantees that you will have access to your music if you screw up (not re-authorizing your system). This would be like saying that you should be able to broadcast your music over the internet incase you forget to bring your CD with you to work.

I've heard of iTunes have a corrupted pref. file, or something, which causes it to unauthorize itself.

And I've heard of Tape players eating tapes and CD's getting scratched. That is why you can make backups. Again it sounds like you are reaching for reasons to limit the security on music and I have to wonder if you would feel the same if it was your property that was being unprotected.

Do not allow for car alarms because they can go off accidentally. Don't allow for car locks because the car could start rolling down the street and hurt someone (I've heard of things like this happening). Remove the requirement of keys to start the car as they can be misplaced and you could loose access to your vehicle for a time.

Come on, the argument is BS to try to continue to allow people to steal.

Or at least that the way I see it for most people (certainly not for you but for most).

 

[oldschool]

Well it violates the DMCA and your terms of use so I would say that illegal is probably a fair guess.


Personally with all of the "use" that you are allowed I think arguing against this would be insane. You can not point to a single device that you CAN'T get your files to (although you might degrade them slightly and it might be difficult).



This is a bit of a stretch so my response will be as well. There is nothing about fair use that guarantees that you will have access to your music if you screw up (not re-authorizing your system). This would be like saying that you should be able to broadcast your music over the internet incase you forget to bring your CD with you to work.



And I've heard of Tape players eating tapes and CD's getting scratched. That is why you can make backups. Again it sounds like you are reaching for reasons to limit the security on music and I have to wonder if you would feel the same if it was your property that was being unprotected.

Do not allow for car alarms because they can go off accidentally. Don't allow for car locks because the car could start rolling down the street and hurt someone (I've heard of things like this happening). Remove the requirement of keys to start the car as they can be misplaced and you could loose access to your vehicle for a time.

Come on, the argument is BS to try to continue to allow people to steal.

Or at least that the way I see it for most people (certainly not for you but for most).

as long as you have intellectual property you will have intellectual property theft. The means are there that if you can hear it, you can copy it and share it. Granted it may not be easy, but neither was ripping a cd back in the beginning of napster, yet many people did it.

as for your car alarm comment, there are communities that i know of that are moving to ban car alarms, as they are largely useless and more of a nuisance.

 

[Snowy_River]

Well it violates the DMCA and your terms of use so I would say that illegal is probably a fair guess.

The DMCA? Well the DMCA says that it's illegal to circumvent protective technology for unauthorized access. As these are music files that I bought, my accessing them is not unauthorized access. So, it can easily be argued that it doesn't violate the DCMA.

The terms of use? Are you unaware that there are such things as illegal and invalid contracts? That's my point. I wouldn't be too surprised if those terms of use could be shown to be invalid under fair use. But, the question is, who would want to spend the legal dollars to try to argue that.

Personally with all of the "use" that you are allowed I think arguing against this would be insane. You can not point to a single device that you CAN'T get your files to (although you might degrade them slightly and it might be difficult).

And by those processes that degrade your music, are you circumventing the DRM? Then they are just as legal or illegal as PlayFair.

This is a bit of a stretch so my response will be as well. There is nothing about fair use that guarantees that you will have access to your music if you screw up (not re-authorizing your system). This would be like saying that you should be able to broadcast your music over the internet incase you forget to bring your CD with you to work.

Two points. First, I acknowledged that the reinstall was a somewhat unique situation. However, it does point to a bit of an issue with this purchased music. If I were ever to go and live by myself in a shack without any internet access, but I still wanted to keep my music on my computer, I'd better never change the operating system.

Second, the more significant point was that my iPod was authorized until I plugged it into my computer. At that point it de-authorized it without giving me any warning. Suddenly, BOOM! my iPod couldn't play my (iTMS purchased) music anymore, when all I had wanted to do was upload a new playlist.

And I've heard of Tape players eating tapes and CD's getting scratched. That is why you can make backups.

So I made a backup of my m4p files, but I still couldn't play them if iTunes got corrupted. Unless my backup was through some means of circumventing the DRM (QTConvert->AIFF then iTunes->AAC, or burn CD then RIP back to AAC, or PlayFair to m4p->m4a), all of which are equally legal or illegal, according to the DMCA and Terms of Use.

Again it sounds like you are reaching for reasons to limit the security on music and I have to wonder if you would feel the same if it was your property that was being unprotected.

Well, no I'm not. I'm just stating that an argument can be made that PlayFair is not illegal, but no one will spend the money to make that argument in court. In general, I have no problem with the DRM that iTMS uses. It's there to discourage the casual music pirate. The serious music pirate wouldn't buy their music from iTMS to begin with. However, I will also say that for legitimate personal use purposes, I have no qualms about using PlayFair.

Do not allow for car alarms because they can go off accidentally.

There are times when I wouldn't mind seeing this come to pass. While I do have an alarm on my car, I consider its greatest value is not in being noisy if someone breaks in (and therefore have the sensitivity set pretty low), but rather in disabling the ignition while it's armed. This makes it a very non-trivial task to steal the car itself. (I rarely leave anything of significant value in my car).

Don't allow for car locks because the car could start rolling down the street and hurt someone (I've heard of things like this happening).

This is poppycock. The proper analogy is that I keep a spare key hidden in the wheel well, and many people do. Again, I'm not arguing against DRM.

Remove the requirement of keys to start the car as they can be misplaced and you could loose access to your vehicle for a time.

Actually, I've known people who have shorted out their ignition so it works off a switch because they have a terrible time losing their keys all the time. But, of course, it's their choice.

Come on, the argument is BS to try to continue to allow people to steal.

Or at least that the way I see it for most people (certainly not for you but for most).

As I've indicated, I have no intention of doing anything other than listening to my music. I don't advocate music piracy. The only songs I've ever downloaded off of P2P networks I've subsequently purchased the album in the store or purchased the song from iTMS. Most of my music is not from iTMS because I usually don't want just one song, and I can get the CDs cheaper than I could buy the entire album from iTMS.

 

[ethernet76]

The iTunes 'Terms of Sale'...

CONTENT USAGE RULES

"You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules."

http://www.info.apple.com/usen/itunes/policies.html

That refers to the iTunes program itself. It means you can't hack the code out of the program and try and make your own "iTMS" application.

If they wanted to address the issue of having the DRM removed, they would have done so specifically in a statement such as. "You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify the Digital Rights Management included in your purchased material."

As for those quoting the DMCA, it's the least enforced piece of legislation. How do you think technology companies stay in business. It's general practice to reverse engineer your competitors goods in order to see what they're doing that maybe you aren't.

 

[puggsly]

Why would you fight Apple's intent when they have already threatened a lawsuit against the company which caused them to move the files off of source forge?

Apple is stating that you can't circumvent the "Usage Rules" which are those rules that state 3 registered computers, and unlimited number of iPods and 10 CD per play list.

BTW they did not reverse engineer FairPlay, they stripped the DRM off the file. Period. This was not to learn how the world works, it was to extend the usage of the files beyond the ULA.

 

[Jaw3000]

Why would you fight Apple's intent when they have already threatened a lawsuit against the company which caused them to move the files off of source forge?

What do you mean by this? Is the PlayFair project still alive, just located somewhere besides Sourceforge? If so, where is the "new" location of the project? I hope it continues and someone gets the support needed to fight Apple and the RIAA and any other electronics company on the DRM issue (M$). Consumers have a right to revolt for their rights!

 

[arogge]

Do not allow for car alarms because they can go off accidentally. Don't allow for car locks because the car could start rolling down the street and hurt someone (I've heard of things like this happening). Remove the requirement of keys to start the car as they can be misplaced and you could loose access to your vehicle for a time.

Car alarms are pretty much useless because almost everyone ignores the noise. Car locks have really gotten ridiculous. I met someone who got locked in his car after he fell asleep inside and the car locked itself. He couldn't unlock the doors without a remote key. Some cars refuse to start because the chip in the key can't be read by the steering column receiver, and so the anti-theft system refuses to let the engine start. The people in my neighborhood have these cheap alarms that always go off at night for no reason. The best kind of car alarm is one that makes no noise and doesn't let a thief know he's being monitored. A car that needs no key to open the doors or to start is more secure against a common car thief than one with electronic security, if the car is slightly unusual. There was one thief who was fairly good at stealing cars left parked with their engines running in front of houses. Then he tried to steal a car that had a clutch, and couldn't get it down the street. A common thief will look for vehicles with features like a regular key lock on the steering wheel and a transmission that has "P, R, N, D, 2, 1". If the thief can't see what he's breaking into, he's not going risk opening the door to read the manual to figure out which of the hundred buttons to press or how to use the computer controls and wheel-mounted shifters. He's just going to look for a more common vehicle that he can drive down the the "chop shop" and get paid. Someone who already knows about a particular car will also know how to steal it.

 

[arogge]

Snowy_River,

"Are you unaware that there are such things as illegal and invalid contracts?"

Some users believe that a contract can be anything and it's always legal. "It looks like a contract with terms I don't understand, so it must be legal."

"Second, the more significant point was that my iPod was authorized until I plugged it into my computer. At that point it de-authorized it without giving me any warning. Suddenly, BOOM! my iPod couldn't play my (iTMS purchased) music anymore, when all I had wanted to do was upload a new playlist."

You must have pirated some music sometime because DRM is only supposed to stop pirates.

"Most of my music is not from iTMS because I usually don't want just one song, and I can get the CDs cheaper than I could buy the entire album from iTMS."

And with a CD, there's no DRM and you get a real disc that can be copied in any format without waiting for the AAC files to download.

 

[sjk]

Is the PlayFair project still alive, just located somewhere besides Sourceforge? If so, where is the "new" location of the project?

here

Also note that Apple may have tweaked something in iTMS that prevents the current version of PlayFair from properly converting newly-purchased songs.

What I think this implies is some flexibility in the FairPlay DRM that allows Apple to tweak it to at least temporarily circumvent PlayFair-type hacks. I'm sure Apple anticipated this sort of thing so it wouldn't surprise me if this is an attempt to defend against it.

If that's true I'm sure news will get around soon enough; I haven't looked yet.

 

[akjacob]

Playfair taken down from sourceforge and moved to India

Apple sent a cease and desist letter to the SourceForge management. The C&D cited the DMCA. Legally, SourceForge had to abide and pull the project. The project is now being hosted by Sarovar in India. see http://playfair.sarovar.org/ for more details.

 

[Snowy_River]

Apple sent a cease and desist letter to the SourceForge management. The C&D cited the DMCA. Legally, SourceForge had to abide and pull the project. The project is now being hosted by Sarovar in India. see http://playfair.sarovar.org/ for more details.

Just a note, a C&D carries no legal obligation. It is only a threat. Legally, SourceForge didn't have to do anything! If they have chosen not to pull the project, Apple could have taken them to court, suing under the DMCA, and SourceForge would have had to defend themselves. They might have won such a suit, they might not have. Either way, they would have had to pay for their defense. So, again, the C&D was basically a threat of "Pull the project or we'll make you spend lots of money on legal defense."

 

[arogge]

So, again, the C&D was basically a threat of "Pull the project or we'll make you spend lots of money on legal defense."

It's funny to see Apple behaving like Microsoft when it comes to threatening organizations with lawsuits. What is Apple trying to do - keep its Made in Elbonia hardware lock-in or make its DRM scheme look like a good thing? Now more people will want to get this "illegal" PlayFair software since Apple made the threat public.

 

[Snowy_River]

It's funny to see Apple behaving like Microsoft when it comes to threatening organizations with lawsuits. What is Apple trying to do - keep its Made in Elbonia hardware lock-in or make its DRM scheme look like a good thing? Now more people will want to get this "illegal" PlayFair software since Apple made the threat public.

Well, in point of fact, Apple has always done this. The C&D letters that rumor sites sometimes get are really just the same. A rumor site has no legal imperative to obey a C&D from a lawyer. Legally, Apple would be hard put to show that any real damage was being done after the first leak was made, and the rumor sites aren't the ones responsible for that leak. But Apple can make it expensive for the rumor sites to fight that battle, which is why they usually comply.

 

[phreaker57x]

you can already do this with iTunes...

just for clarity, AAC Fairplay DRM can be removed, perfectly legally, by converting AAC+FP into AIFF. the resulting AIFF is DRM free. from there, you can compress back to AAC or MP3 or whatever format you want. the complaint was that the sound quality is worse - which is precisely why jobs was able to convince record labels that iTMS purchased songs will not add to p2p piracy, because resulting MP3 will have worse sound quality.

this news describe a way to go from AAC+FP directly to AAC, stripping the DRM. no sound quality loss.

one saving grace is that it does require purchaser login. so AAC+FP cannot be shared on p2p and then downloader to strip the DRM...

Is that why the iTunes music store won't offer higher quality AAC files? (Rumors were flying around a few months earlier about 192 kbps AAC files.) The only thing preventing pirating is poor sound quality and 99¢?

 

[elgruga]

I suppose I should find it amusing when propeller-heads talk about legal issues and things like 'right and wrong' on these boards.
But I dont.

What I see here is an abject lack of understanding of history and politics and morality and how laws are made.

The US government says its illegal - so it's illegal.
But in Canada its legal to share music, and who knows what else.
So which is it?

Governments dont decide laws - people do. If enough people think that sharing music is ok, then it will become so. Thats how our laws are made, by custom and practice over time.

The US invaded Iraq against international law, but might is right, so they just did it. Now its kind of legal, right?

Has it ever struck anyone that perhaps the issue here is NOT file sharing but the nature of the music business itself?
Perhaps ordinary people sense that they are being RIPPED OFF by all the music labels?
Could that feeling underly the continuing popularity of 'illegal' file sharing?
Perhaps we are seeing a return to action by the people, maybe its a new socialism. Who knows.

I do know that I am sick of seeing the little ass-kissers on here who say that 'its illegal and thats that'.

Well it just aint that simple. If you think it is, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Or maybe a toy FBI badge to make you feel like one of the 'good guys'.

Grow up - there is no right and wrong written in black and white - there are shades of gray. Get used to it, its called being involved in the process of life.

Perhaps there should be limits on the profits made by individuals and companies in this world? Is it really a good thing that one man can have maybe $100 billion and another man have nothing?

There ought to be a law against it.......

 

[vertinox]

I think it just reflects the current thoughts of the population at large. If you don't physically take an item, you're not stealing. A whole generation of kids is being brought up this way.

I think that is the definition of stealing which the majority of the population thinks without being told from outside forces.

After all... Many people feel that they wouldn't have bought one otherwise hence no one would have theoretcially lost money to begin with.

It's just that the older generation didn't have computers or the internet to apply this as widely spread. Like small business or large corporation software piracy etc... Just doesn't apply to the kids. It's why the SPA does sweeps of businesses to audit for copies of $20,000 programs etc etc.

Because even business persons have been known to "not pay for things".

The main reason it is an issue today is because people are being paid to make it their business. If they don't make it their business they don't get paid to be a lawyer for certiain corporations and hence loose a job. They may or may not believe in what they are doing, but as long as they can show that laws are on their businesses side they will pursue by whatever means needed to acheive profit.

This doesn't just apply to music sharing files... Could be corporate logo lawsuits... Url fights... Or squashing bad press...

It's just the nature of the two cultures (if you could label them as such) and it's hard to say who is right and who is wrong.

 

[SyndicateX]

It's funny to see Apple behaving like Microsoft when it comes to threatening organizations with lawsuits. What is Apple trying to do - keep its Made in Elbonia hardware lock-in or make its DRM scheme look like a good thing? Now more people will want to get this "illegal" PlayFair software since Apple made the threat public.

Yeah but think about apples point of view when it comes to negotiating with the music industry and actual artists. Currently, AAC and the iTunes Music Store is regarded as a fairly safe place to release your music without the worry of it being spread over all the p2p networks. If FairPlay and others like it continue to prove otherwise, then you have less record companies and artists trusting in the process and less that will want to give Apple rights to sell it. If Apple didnt try so hard to get it off of sites then there would be links on almost every web page advertising it even when they are just giving info about it and everyone would be downloading it just for fun. Apple is just trying to keep its hold on being the safest way to digitally share and sell your music online, and I dont think there is anyway you can compare that to Microsoft, since it isnt their interest they are truly concerned with, but the record labels that actually release the songs who would be infuriated by this and then seek to distribute their music in another form than iTMS.