PlayFair - Stripping AAC DRM

[RIP]

I get playfair command not found..... any ideas?

Either place the compiled file(s) in a directory in your path, such as /sw/bin (assuming you have fink installed, or include a path statement to you newly compiled files in you environment settings found in either .bashrc or .tschrc.

 

[slowtreme]

Well I got my copy, before it gets yanked (if at all).

I am very happy to get this. I have purchased maybe 40 songs on iTMS, but they are locked to my home or iPod. I can't play them at work because my company blocks access to iTMS so I can't auth my work PC. (And I cant wear my iPod while working, occasionaly I have to answer the phone and stuff)

So this will allow me to stip the protection and let me listen to my music when I have to most time to listen... while I work.

 

[cl0r0x70]

Legality is not the point

Legality is not the point; ease of cracking is.

Jobs got the RIAA to buy into the ITMS concept after demonstrating that ANY digital means of transmitting music would eventually be cracked. The key was just to make the user jump through a couple of hoops to do so.

Even with this new code, users have to download and compile it (already above 99% of users' ability.) It's way more difficult to do this than to rip from a cd you bought, and either way you've paid for the songs.

As a professional computer programmer by day, and a semi-pro recording musician by night, I've been all around this issue.

I sincerely hope the RIAA eventually goes under due to all of this. They are a monopoly that makes Microsoft's abuses of power seem tame. It is an unnecessary organization that pays no one but itself. It's elimination would mean better radio, wider selection, and more independent music being given a chance.

 

[Frobozz]

Great news!

Hopefully Apple can quickly fix this vulnerability or it will hurt the online music stores.

You try and give people the option of a legal place to download music and some people just have to find a way to bring dishonesty into the mix.

I disagree with you. I agree that I wouldn't want this used to redistribute legal copies to illegal places, but it prevents the annoying download -> burn -> rip scenario that a lot of people have to go through. Why is this, you might ask? Because Apple won't let people like TiVo or other media hub devices to play AAC FiarPlay encoded songs on their equipment.

The whole damn reason I bought the home media option on my tivo was so I could download songs immediately and play them through my home stereo via a TiVo.

Apple is preventing a perfectly legal use of it's own technology, and I will circumvent it until they wisen up. The bottom line is that only pure novices wouldn't know how to pirate this stuff. It's SIMPLE. But I'm not looking to pirate my own legit copies of songs and give them to scumbags who want to steal. I just want to be able to play it on my stereo like all my other mp3's.

 

[mdesbiens]

The next retard who claims something is illegal because Apple's iTunes User Agreement says you can't do it should be back-handed out of the race. Darwinism will hunt the rest of you down.

...And as for the ability to share iTMS songs online?
Don't be stupid; don't believe the hype... All of these songs are already there! iTMS was not Apple's means of capitalizing off of people who are nervous SHARING their music. They can all simply stop sharing their music, and life would go on pretty much the same. iTMS is an attempt to capitalize off of people who feel nervous, or guilty, or whatever, STEALING music. If Bob Lobeless wants to pay for music, it makes no difference to Apple that Tim Braindead is, along with 1,196 other people, offering it for free.

...And as for something being wrong because it is illegal? Look, I know there are a lot of useless drones out there, but some of us still prefer to have our own set of morals. If your set of morals is based on a set of laws, and you suddenly were somewhere where laws do not apply, would you then steal a song? Smoke a joint? Murder your family?
Make up your own mind.

I did. I am going to use it on all of my m4p's.

 

[gbojim]

Of course you have the right to sell or license your code any way you wish. But shouldn't you listen to your customers, especially if they're telling you things like "I'd buy more of your code if it wasn't DRMed"? Isn't it smart business to give your customers what they want and not treat them like thieves?

I hope they can *decrease* the restrictions on how the files work. Shouldn't I be able to play my music over my airport network on my stereo? Right now, Fairplay doesn't allow it, so I don't buy much Fairplay protected music. I've been a loyal Apple user for 20 years, but if Apple can't provide the services I want, I won't be buying their products.

You make an interesting point. Yes I should listen to my customers, and I do. However, that does not necessarily mean it will be smart business to give them what they want. Every business, Apple included although many do not seem to believe this based on comments made, makes decisions on its target audience and product mix. For example, I set my consulting prices at a certain level. I do not work with many small companies because their perception is my services cost more than some others. From a value perspective I disagree, but from a straight dollars comparison they are right. So people tell me I should lower my prices and get more customers. That is an option, but it is my choice not to do so. It's impossible to provide for every possible clients wants. It's also the prospect's choice to buy someone else's services that more suits their wants. Fine, I have no problem with that.

In this particualr case, Apple has chosen to service a certain market. Apple has also chosen to not service other markets - Linux playback or streaming to a stereo as examples. For those who want capability not provided by Apple, use one of the alternatives.

 

[bennok]

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. It will only allow you to decode songs that you have rights to. So it is no different than burning a protected AAC to CD. I use it because my MP3 player does not support AAC.
http://www.pyehouse.com/lynn/qtconvert.php

If someone didn't say this already (I've only been skimming), this application is different in that it simply strips the DRM out of it. So, no decoding, no reencoding, no loss of quality--resulting in a quicker and better means of converting your music.
Oh and it transfers the tags, something Lynn is working on, but has not been able to implement.

 

[jxyama]

The next retard who claims something is illegal because Apple's iTunes User Agreement says you can't do it should be back-handed out of the race. Darwinism will hunt the rest of you down.

no need to be insulting to get your point across...

 

[iMeowbot]

It was a long time ago, perhaps even before I was born,

Ouch, the Sony v. Universal thing was only in 1982-1984.

but as I have been told, the MPAA made a huge stink about VCRs when they were first introduced. They went through this whole thing back then, trying to get VCRs outlawed, or limited.

Yep, Jack Valenti insisted that it would be the death of the film & TV industry. What the industry didn't recognize is that the recording ability made the machines more attractive for people to buy, and ultimately that vastly expanded the studios' ability to sell and rent tapes. They made a killing on the thing they wanted to kill!

I think that most of the concept of fair use comes from the legal cases revolving around the VCR. Unless I've been misinformed, nothing, in fact, has changed since then. They were simply forced to back off the last time they tried this.

There were controversies over audio tape recorders before that, and today there is still a tax on audio media (now including CD-Rs intended for music,) as part of the resulting settlement.

The more recent controversies came around when Sony wanted to bring its lossless DAT recorders onto the market. AHRA was a direct result of that one, and that's where garbage like SCMS (which pretty much killed consumer DAT) came into being. At the same time, computers and peripherals were given an exemption from the restrictions that were applied to standalone audio equipment; that was done so that technology development wouldn't be impeded; it also provided the loophole that made deviced like the Rio and iPod legal (and it's also the reason such players tend to have crippled recording capabilities). Commercial equipment has always been exempt from implementing SCMS, the higher cost of professional gear was assumed to be enough of a barrier to keep it out of most consumers' hands.

DMCA is mostly the result of the WIPO treaties. It's partly supposed to be a unified international version of what AHRA tried to do, but the scope has been expended to take widespread networking into account. When the Betamax case was current, people still needed to physically hand tapes to others, and the analog recording technology was inherently lossy. It's the current ability to transfer stuff with no loss and no physical effort that scares the entertainment companies now. This won't kill them either, but their consultants aren't going to put themselves out of work by saying there's nothing to worry about!

 

[Frobozz]

Shouldn't I be able to play my music over my airport network on my stereo? Right now, Fairplay doesn't allow it, so I don't buy much Fairplay protected music. I've been a loyal Apple user for 20 years, but if Apple can't provide the services I want, I won't be buying their products.

Amen brother. I agree. I want to be able to play my iTunes music over a WAN/LAN to distributed devices. I don't care if they prevent recording of that music on the destination device. That's fine with me. I just want to be able to listen to music I bought on hardware I bought for my own amusement/satisfaction.

I've bought about 150 songs on the iTunes Music Store, too. I'm not just blowing smoke here. I'm voting with my dollar for Apple, but this ONE ISSUE is a really big one for me.

 

[RIP]

Assessed.

Throwing law by the wayside, after pondering all these comments, evaluating myself, and taking into consideration other discussions, I have come to a conclusion. Being that I am not a thief and but also care for freedom, my conclusion is that I am more likely to purchase more music via iTMS than before knowing that I can strip the DRM off and play the music on devices other than an iPod or iTunes software. Portability is key for me, and I like the convenience of purchasing music online.

What hasn't changed is my preferences. I still prefer iTunes and its music store.

It seems to me that with this software, Apple needs to start making money from music sales rather than hardware.

 

[SiliconAddict]

IMHO....

[Removed...*grumbles* Too many tabs open]

 

[mustang_dvs]

re: You know what?

...

WOW! I was thinking exactly the same thing!

 

[entropy1980]

Maybe I am just unlucky but everyone I have tried to run this on has crashed iTunes miserably.... just my luck ....

 

[1macker1]

I wonder if the DRM is the reason why my brother's burned CD's will play in my car CD player, and my burned CD's won't.

 

[sethypoo]

Just wondering what personal reasons there are...

L i s t e n i n g

What else?

 

[jsw]

i don't want to turn this into an economic debate, but if you are talented musicians, you deserve "lavish lifestyle" to some extent. people providing social services are often underappreciated, no doubt, i won't argue on that point. but in this capitalistic economy, using superior talent as an economic leverage is perfectly acceptable. what you get paid is often what the market determined to be your worth. just because someone makes a lot of money doing not so noble things doesn't mean he/she doesn't deserve that money.

there are many people who has the talent to be a teacher. there aren't that many who can make music that will sell millions of copies or athletes who can sling a ball 60.5 feet at 100 mph. are their professions as "noble" as teaching the youth? maybe not. but they are rare, so they have the potential to be well compensated.

I'm not arguing against the salaries of musicians - one of the benefits of a capitalist society - and my post was mostly facetious. However, anyone who enters into an industry which is so easily pirated - and I include those among us who are software developers in this - need to accept that there is a risk of lost income. It's important to try to stop it, but not at the expense of alienated customers. Generally, if you provide sufficiently valuable item or service at a good price, people will buy it. Some people will always steal things, but most people won't.

For example, everytime I buy a CD or DVD, I am enormously annoyed by the effort involved in opening the damned thing. Often, the DVD case's plastic liner can be torn while removing the seals. I think this is overkill. I'd like to see easier-to-open packages so the 99% of store DVDs and CDs which are purchased and not stolen can be opened by buying customers. [As a related aside, anyone who'd purchased children's toys in the last year or two knows that it takes a lot more effort just to open them. Everything is sewn and/or twist-tied and/or taped into the box.]

So, as far as iTMS-type music is concerned, I want it to be easy to use. If I buy it, I want to be able to listen to it whenever I want. If I cannot do that, I'm less inclined to buy online and more likely to buy CDs - but since CD's are often packed with 90% bad songs, I just end up not buying anything at all.

So, it seems, for people like me, the music industry will net more money if they sell me cheap, easy to access music, not locked tunes that will get me prosecuted if I attempt to unlock them.

 

[iMeowbot]

For example, everytime I buy a CD or DVD, I am enormously annoyed by the effort involved in opening the damned thing.

Annoyances like this are why so many geeks carry something like a Leatherman everywhere

I kind of like all the extra wrapping, because it helps keep counterfeiters (the people the studios should really be hunting down) a step behind. Even if the quality of a fake pressing turns out to be reasonable, the idea that money is being shelled out to the wrong people really annoys me.

 

[jxyama]

Generally, if you provide sufficiently valuable item or service at a good price, people will buy it. Some people will always steal things, but most people won't.

i agree with this sentence, at least, i sure hope so.

pirates aren't customers because they don't pay. what i wonder is that there's now a generation of people growing up who do not recognize IP as "property" in the traditional, material sense. while i think record label's business model is antiquated and they need to adopt (i think they will have to go to merit based production/distribution system instead of fronting the costs for artists, taking chances on landing successful artists), i am wondering what will happen to the music industry as a whole. people will continue to create music, no doubt, and many musicians will do so even if it didn't mean lavish lifestyles - but i wonder what kind of affect continued piracy will have on the music industry as a whole.

i wonder about this because music piracy is the first time this issue has hit the mass. gaming and computer software have always had piracy but it was limited to computing public. books and prints have had piracy due to copying machines, but those were quite limited in scope and volume. compared to those, music piracy is mainstream and extremely prevalent. this level of piracy - by millions of people, many not technical at all, affecting millions of songs and artists and amazingly convenient, both cost and effort wise - is unlike anything we've seen before...

it is inevitable that the movie industry will be next. faster internet, cheaper storage and computing power can only mean it's a matter of time before DVD data will be subjected to similar effects of piracy as music. i wonder what will come of MPAA...

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

This isn't the first application that could decrypt protected AAC files. [...]

You're right. iMovie '04 converts DRM AAC files to no-DRM AIFF files just fine.

 

[jsw]

i agree with this sentence, at least, i sure hope so.

pirates aren't customers because they don't pay. what i wonder is that there's now a generation of people growing up who do not recognize IP as "property" in the traditional, material sense. while i think record label's business model is antiquated and they need to adopt (i think they will have to go to merit based production/distribution system instead of fronting the costs for artists, taking chances on landing successful artists), i am wondering what will happen to the music industry as a whole. people will continue to create music, no doubt, and many musicians will do so even if it didn't mean lavish lifestyles - but i wonder what kind of affect continued piracy will have on the music industry as a whole.

i wonder about this because music piracy is the first time this issue has hit the mass. gaming and computer software have always had piracy but it was limited to computing public. books and prints have had piracy due to copying machines, but those were quite limited in scope and volume. compared to those, music piracy is mainstream and extremely prevalent. this level of piracy - by millions of people, many not technical at all, affecting millions of songs and artists and amazingly convenient, both cost and effort wise - is unlike anything we've seen before...

it is inevitable that the movie industry will be next. faster internet, cheaper storage and computing power can only mean it's a matter of time before DVD data will be subjected to similar effects of piracy as music. i wonder what will come of MPAA...

I certainly hope that piracy can be reduced, but I don't expect it to happen. It's too easy to do, too hard to stop, and too attractive to many. I agree that it's a shame that kids are being raised to think it's OK to steal IP. I think that there are many talented musicians who will be adversely affected.

However, I think the music industry is to blame for a lot of this. Much of the "talent" is not talented at all but just promoted. Take someone who is sexy, give them songs to record and then electorically "fix" them, and teach them to dance. To me, that's not worthy of a multi-million dollar contract. Then MTV steps in to show how lavishly they live, and I can see why people don't think it's wrong to copy songs. Especially when CDs tend to have so many bad songs on them.

If, instead, real talent were promoted, and CDs had valuable content and were priced more reasonably, then I'd say that there would be less perception that it was OK. Maybe not, but even I am tempted to pirate when I see Cribs on MTV. I don't see much display of talent whatseoever.

I'm not promoting piracy. I think it's wrong. I'm just saying that I see some of the motivation.

And I don't have any problem whatsoever with PlayFair. If people are going to post music to share illegally - and they will - then they are doing something wrong. But I don't want to ban DVD burners because some people pirate DVDs, and I don't want to ban PlayFair because some people abuse it. For example, I ended up bringing my G5 in for repairs last fall, and they swapped it with a new one. I forgot to deauthorize the original one, and, had I not been lucky enough to get Apple to deauthorize it for me (because I had all the info), I'd've been SOL on using that music I'd purchased on it. That, to me, seems unfair. I'd have been happy to use PlayFair to safely archive what I'd spent a fair chunk of change to accumulate.

 

[shen]

Don't be stupid; don't believe the hype... All of these songs are already there! iTMS was not Apple's means of capitalizing off of people who are nervous SHARING their music. They can all simply stop sharing their music, and life would go on pretty much the same. iTMS is an attempt to capitalize off of people who feel nervous, or guilty, or whatever, STEALING music.

or possibly those, like me, who would rather spend a dollar than wasting their life hunting through low quality rips missing 20 seconds on the end after a 30 minute download just to find the 40 songs they need to add to their collection.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

All these holier than thou here.

I guess none of the people that think is bad ever do more than 5mph over the speed limit, never run a red light, always yield to pedestrians, never "cheat" on their taxes, and generally are up for sainthood.

I do not support the piracy of music. But I do feel that if I buy it, i should be able to use it as i see fit for my personal use. Sort of like being able to copy DVD's so that I don't damage the original.

 

[SiliconAddict]

The key was just to make the user jump through a couple of hoops to do so.

Even with this new code, users have to download and compile it (already above 99% of users' ability.) It's way more difficult to do this than to rip from a cd you bought, and either way you've paid for the songs.

And how long do you think it will be before this method is streamlined, filtered, and dumped into a GUI that simply requires a user to know how to point and click. I've been around the DeCSS program long enough to remember when it was a serious PITA to rip a DVD. Now? LOL. I can rip a DVD simply by clicking a button.
Ease of use will come with time. Right now this is a proof of concept piece of software. Since the source is available to the world it’s a solid bet that there will be a wave of people that will tinker with the software to make it easier to use.

 

[jxyama]

I guess none of the people that think is bad ever do more than 5mph over the speed limit, never run a red light, always yield to pedestrians, never "cheat" on their taxes, and generally are up for sainthood. .

i generally stay within 5 mph on the speed limit, i don't run red lights, i usually yield to pedestrians and i've never cheated on my taxes.

and i don't pirate music.

but i don't see the connection. you can't have an opinion condemning piracy unless you've lived a perfect life?

also, you claim you will use what you buy as you see fit for your personal use. using the same point you tried to make in citing common innocent breaking of laws, unless you are a saint yourself, why should i believe that you will really only use for personal purposes?