PlayFair - Stripping AAC DRM

[wordmunger]

if apple leveraged it's online music prowess to sign recording labels to an exclusive contract so that online music will only play with iPod and make all other mp3 players obsolete - then the monopoly becomes horizontal (like M$) and illegal.

I don't think that's true. Copyright is already a government-enforced monopoly, so signing labels to exclusive deals is no different than a book publisher signing an exclusive deal with a particular book club. The rightsholder has sole discretion on how his/her work is distributed.

 

[jxyama]

I don't think that's true. Copyright is already a government-enforced monopoly, so signing labels to exclusive deals is no different than a book publisher signing an exclusive deal with a particular book club. The rightsholder has sole discretion on how his/her work is distributed.

hmm... ok, i guess i'd need another example of illegal horizontal monopoly...

how about: if apple leveraged its dominance of iPod to purchase exclusive licence of mp3 codecs to make all other mp3 players obsolete? that's an example of horizontal monopoly...

 

[greg75]

I got my region-free formware update from the drive manufacturer. Darned if I can see what would be wrong or illegal about that.

Got a link? That would be in violation of the manufacturer's license agreement with the DVD-Forum.

 

[billyboy]

Meanwhile, there are benefits to iTMS users:

1) Music can be played on older computers (OS 9, Win 98/ME -- people do still use these, even if not as their primary computers)
2) Music can be played on non-iPod music players.
3) Music can be converted to mp3 to play in cheap players or burn to mp3 cd's
4) Windows users can now (like mac users have been able to all along) use their music files in movies, etc. -- iMovie supports AAC-p, but there is no windows movie software that does.
5) If, for some reason, people want to switch music software at some point in the future. Even if iTunes is the best jukebox software out there now (this has been disputed), odds are that it won't stay the best forever. This gives them the option to switch software in the future.

So yes, it's technically illegal. But overall:
--The impact on the music industry is basically nothing, because music can be pirated far more easily by other means
--The impact on the iTMS is net positive because it allows customers to get more value out of their products, while it's not likely to increase piracy.

So, all in all, it's a net positive for iTMS.

I also initially thought that easy removal of DRM would have good benefits for iTMS, but then I looked at the reasoning behind iTMS. Basically by looking at the scenario from Apple's point of view rather than the music buyers point of view, maybe you might change your opinion too.

iTMS is slick and easy to use and heavily invested in, because its sole aim is to convince the public to buy iPods.

It is not in existence to boast that it can channel every single music purchase in the world through its servers at 10 cents profit a pop. There has to be a hardware sale at the end of these music download numbers

Whilst tied into the music industry, iTMS is not in existence to help out the music industry per se, music is a marketing medium to sell iPods

iTMS is not in existence to give consumers a brainless way of downloading music legally just so they can one-click strip its DRM to play iTMS tracks on some competing POS from Dell.

Apple have iTMS as a vehicle to sell hardware, their hardware. If iTMS stops selling Apple hardware, iTMS will disappear in its present form, and the wheels will fall merrily off of this paradigm shift in music distribution until Apple come up with a different way of angling in on audio hardware gadget sales.

 

[dloomer]

Are there many iPod cometitors out there today which use (unprotected) AAC? Are any of them any good?

I realize the answer to this question doesn't solve anything, I'm just curious.

 

[123]

your other points are fine, but why is it the responsibility of apple to support linux, other media players or home entertainment systems? show me the motivation for apple to support platforms and hardware/software they derive no profits from.

Because people will crack Apple's DRM if they don't. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or not or if it's good or bad, it's clear that it happens sooner or later and if they don't want it to happen (for file sharing/RIAA reasons), they have to provide the decoders for all legit applications, thus making the use of their protected songs as painless as possible. Otherwise, it's their own fault if pissed programmers develop DRM stripping solutions that work painlessly even for the general public.

Also, IMO, they would make more profits if they opened the ipod and their music format. If their music store offers such a great shopping experience, they can sell their songs anyway, if the iPod is the best player, they can sell it with or without having a good music store... but only if the formats are open. The way they are going now is dangerous and only hurts their sales. No product will ever please everybody. The iTunes Store-iPod package deal combines the flaws of the individual products which puts off those customers who would buy songs or iPods from Apple if they could combine them with different software/hardware. It might not be that big of a problem as long as the iPod is clearly superior, but things will change and Apple is about to make the same old mistake again because they never learn.

 

[jxyama]

Because people will crack Apple's DRM if they don't. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or not or if it's good or bad, it's clear that it happens sooner or later and if they don't want it to happen (for file sharing/RIAA reasons), they have to provide the decoders for all legit applications, thus making the use of their protected songs as painless as possible. Otherwise, it's their own fault if pissed programmers develop DRM stripping solutions that work painlessly even for the general public.

i have a feeling even if iTunes was offered for linux, DRM would still be cracked. if anyone would want to crack DRM for the sake of cracking it, i would have guessed he/she would come from the linux crowd as the advocater of anti-DRM movement.

 

[coolsoldier]

Apple have iTMS as a vehicle to sell hardware, their hardware. If iTMS stops selling Apple hardware, iTMS will disappear in its present form, and the wheels will fall merrily off of this paradigm shift in music distribution until Apple come up with a different way of angling in on audio hardware gadget sales.

In the long term, promoting AAC helps to edge out WMA downloads that don't play on the iPod. And as long as the price is less than the cost of sale (i.e. they don't actually lose money per song, which I doubt they do), they don't lose iPod sales by selling to people with low-end players -- those people just aren't in the market for iPods, and for them its either low-end player+WMA download or low-end player+stripped iTMS download. Since the WMA option locks them out of ever buying an iPod, the DRM stripped downloads still help the iPod.

 

[iMeowbot]

Got a link? That would be in violation of the manufacturer's license agreement with the DVD-Forum.

A link? Uh, no, I'd be shocked if that was available for consumer use (though there are plenty of unofficial patches floating around for those who want them).

 

[nmk]

yeah ok

I'm not talking about the legality of the system here. MS is bitched for doing a lot of things that are legal but give them an unfair (this is ofcourse a subjective term) advantage over the competition. The iPod does gain an advantage by being tied in with ITMS. Anyway, the point I'm making is that from a consumer standpoint this software is good for me. I can now choose any music player based solely on the quality and utility of the player. This may indeed end up being the iPod, but ITMS will now sway that decision. I'm just surprised that people here are complaining about a piece of software that allows them to legally be more versatile in how they store and playback their digital music.

I'm sure that Apple will eventually find a way to stifle the distribution or effectiveness of this software. But that will certainly not be to the benefit of the consumer, and that includes the posters on this forum. I would really love to see Apple license fairplay (or GASP, make it freely availible). Rely on ITMS to make money. When will they learn. THE MONEY IS NOT IN HARDWARE, THE MONEY IS NOT IN HARDWARE, THE MONEY IS NOT NOT NOT IN HARDWARE.

 

[alamar]

If it is used for personal use only, I see no problem with it. But if it is used to share music then it's stealing. I hope people would just pay the 99 cents per song or at least rent music thru a subscription. That is fair.

If you already own the song on CD it is also legal to DL it from a P2P source for personal use. Instances where this would be more convient than just putting the CD in and ripping it to MP3 or whatever are rare, but do occur. Some people don't have a CD drive, or the know-how, or the original copy they bought is too badly damaged.

That said, once you buy the song of iTMS it is your data. I don't see anything wrong with pulling the DMR out of it, some people might want to burn a certian song onto dozens of mixed, sample it and make music for themselves ect.

Also, when you get to the core of it, making music avalible for share isn't stealing. Taking music that you never purchased is.

The long and short of this is that with the end user being so savy these days as to crack nearly any software put to market; the music industry is going to be chasing its tail as it continually revizes it DMR, and it is cracked over and over.

Those who enjoying purchasing music legally should continue to do so worry free. Those file hoarders out there who enjoy lifting off the P2P networks will doubtlessly do the same. Its really no ones biz except the music companies and the "criminals" that they go to guns on.

Live and let be burried under horrific threatening lawsuit. There are more important things for the average human to worry about than the well being of iTMS. Its something few of us can affect in any signifigant way.

 

[greg75]

A link? Uh, no, I'd be shocked if that was available for consumer use (though there are plenty of unofficial patches floating around for those who want them).

That's exactly what I was referring to. Those unofficial patches are the original firmwares from the manufacturers which have been cracked by third parties and are being distributed illegally.

 

[fpnc]

You can convert your AAC files to AIFF files using Toast. When you start to create an audio CD and drag over your AAC files, there is an option to save the converted files. You can save these files as AIFF (uncompressed).

To which jxyama replied:

you can already do this with iTunes...

jxyama, I think you may misunderstand what xhost_plus said. With Toast you can go directly from your (own) protected AAC files to AIFF __WITHOUT__ burning a CD. iTunes requires that you burn an intermediate CD.

 

[manu chao]

For all those complaining that iTMS songs are not full quality, one should say that a CD is not full quality either, for once there is frequency limit (everything above ~ 42 000 Hz is lost) and in principal every A/D conversion is lossy, you convert a smooth curve into something made up of steps.

For example, a DAT tape offers a higher frequency limit and therefore a slightly better quality, but you need very expensive equipment to hear the difference.

 

[appleguru1]

Wow... this app is certainly a lot better than the VLC method I had to use... Version .2 seems to be flawless for me.. works for every song, gets/decrypts key from iPod, and copys all metadata and gfx art... The other good news is that once you get a key from your iPod, you can play your songs in VLC too. You can copy this key to, say, a linux computer, and then play the protected songs there too. All within fair use.

 

[RIP]

I'm not talking about the legality of the system here. MS is bitched for doing a lot of things that are legal but give them an unfair (this is ofcourse a subjective term) advantage over the competition. The iPod does gain an advantage by being tied in with ITMS. Anyway, the point I'm making is that from a consumer standpoint this is good for me. I can now choose any music player based solely on the quality and utility of the player. This may indeed end up being the iPod, but ITMS will now sway that decision. I'm just surprised that people here are complaining about a piece of software that allows them to legally be more versatile in how they store and playback their digital music.

I'm sure that Apple will eventually find a way to stifle the distribution or effectiveness of this software. But that will certainly not be to the benefit of the consumer, and that includes the posters on this forum. I would really love to see Apple license fairplay (or GASP, make it freely availible). Rely on ITMS to make money. When will they learn. THE MONEY IS NOT IN HARDWARE, THE MONEY IS NOT IN HARDWARE, THE MONEY IS NOT NOT NOT IN HARDWARE.

I don't disagree with you in any way. As a matter of fact, I made this point many pages ago. However to strengthen your argument, the iPod has its advantage over the competition because of its integration with iTunes. The fact that is also can play DRM'ed AAC is secondary. Without DRM, I would still be inclined to use the iPod with iTunes because they work so well together. I think others would second that.

This thread is so strong not because of the legal consideration of the presented source code, but the excitement it has created by the consumers of Apple's products. It proves that there is a need for this software. Legal or not this technology will exist, and I for one intend to use it.

Apple must learn to make money selling songs and must better educate people of the symbiotic relationship that the iPod has with iTunes, the best player and jukebox software in existence today, period. The iPod should be the end all, be all player of any codec out there.

Apple would be wise to acknowledge this technology privately and leave it alone as it has the strong potential to help sales of both iPods and music.

 

[rdowns]

I'm going to try that out.

I've bought music from iTMS and it really bothers me that I cant play those songs on my Linux System. I dont want to go through the hassle of burning to a CD and then ripping again.

I see no problem with this program. You're unprotecting your own songs for your own use. Even though you might want to use them on more systems than allowed, what does Apple expect you to do? Buy several copies of the same song? That would be idiotic.
You've already paid for the song, you should be able to listen to it when you want to, where you want to.

You bought the songs knowing the limitations or should have known. There is a problem with this program.

 

[maxterpiece]

One of the things that bothers me the most about ITMS is that you can only play your downloaded songs on an iPod. Apple is refusing to license fairplay. We constantly complain about MS's monopolistic practices, but I can remember them doing anything like this. I really dont think this restriction has much to do with the RIAA as Coke seems to have found a way to get a legal online music store going which isn't MP3 player specific (soon many other people will too).

I think the primary utility of this software will be to allow people to play songs on non Apple MP3 players. If Apple has a problem with that F**k them. There is nothing illegal about playing that song on any other medium provided the person that purchased it is the one listening to it. It just saves you the hassle of having to rip it to a CD and then back to your computer.

Apple's way has always been to control a large part of their OS and what it interacts with. They're are no clones, only certain hardware works on an apple. Obviously this kind of forces people to use apple's hardware which makes apple money, but it is also the way that apple is able to avoid dropping to the "most stuff for the least $" policy that PC manufacturers follow and that makes windows based PCs less reliable. By controlling everything apple is able to customize everything so that it is easiest for the consumer to use. They only have to focus on making iTunes and ITMS work with seamlessly on the ipod and this makes using Apple machines much less of a hassle - thus the addage "apple's just work!" Apple won't license their DRM because there would then be no way for them to provide the same fluid user experience for all MP3 players that they provide between the iPod and itunes.
Now you and I, being relatively computer saavy, would probably be alright with that kind of sacrifice. For Apple, however, it would be a sacrifice that would go completely against the philosophy upon which they have built such an easy system. Users would buy these less reliable mp3 players, be frustrated, and it would be windows on a mac.
As far as the monopoly perspective goes, Windows is in a position where many people have to use windows machines because there is no way for them to run the software that they need to run (ie software built for a specific company). Microsoft is in a position where if they had an itunes-like system, they could force people to use even the crappiest of mp3 players because that would be there only choice. Apple will always have pressure to provide a product that is good for the consumer because consumers have no other reason to choose apple. Microsoft is not in the same situation. We, as mac owners, might be a little perturbed at not being able to use alternative players, however, we did choose macs and the apple philosophy has been as it is now since the end of clones.

 

[nmk]

I don't disagree with you in any way. As a matter of fact, I made this point many pages ago. However to strengthen your argument, the iPod has its advantage over the competition because of its integration with iTunes. The fact that is also can play DRM'ed AAC is secondary. Without DRM, I would still be inclined to use the iPod with iTunes because they work so well together. I think others would second that.

This thread is so strong not because of the legal consideration of the presented source code, but the excitement it has created by the consumers of Apple's products. It proves that there is a need for this software. Legal or not this technology will exist, and I for one intend to use it.

Apple must learn to make money selling songs and must better educate people of the symbiotic relationship that the iPod has with iTunes, the best player and jukebox software in existence today, period. The iPod should be the end all, be all player of any codec out there.

Apple would be wise to acknowledge this technology privately and leave it alone as it has the strong potential to help sales of both iPods and music.

I completely agree. iTunes is a fantastic jukebox and its integration with the iPod is fantastic. However, you have to wonder if Apple has as much confidence in this "symbiotic" relationship as you and I do. If the product is the best on the market, let it sell on its own merits. After all, iTunes and ITMS is availible on windows. Let the iPod play WMA and let fairplay encoded AAC's play on other players. If the iPod iTunes solution is really the best in the market (which I believe it currently is) then it will sell on its own merits.

However, keep one thing in mind. The future of digital music storage and playback does not belong the the dedicated MP3 player alone. Smartphones are comming of age. Soon they will incorporate mini hard drives (much like the one used in the iPod mini) and they already have MP3 players built in. Many people buy PVP's which also play MP3's. By keeping fairplay proprietary you are forcing these people to choose alternate music stores. This is a massive future market for digital music and one which Apple will stubbonly alienate.

 

[iMeowbot]

That's exactly what I was referring to. Those unofficial patches are the original firmwares from the manufacturers which have been cracked by third parties and are being distributed illegally.

...which has nothing to do with the firmware I used.

 

[appleguru1]

Nice little tool that saves you from burning to disk and then re-ripping, but I'm sure it's not going to make Apple or the RIAA happy...

I'm guessing first comes the DMCA lawsuit and then changes to the iTMS structure. More than likely this is going to result in more restrictive DRM in the long run...

I respect the philosophy behind the app, and really don't think you can stop stuff like this from being written, but this certainly is going to add strength to WMA (until it's also cracked).

All the way from the first page, I know... but... WMA is cracked already...

http://home.wanadoo.nl/lc.staak/freeme.htm

 

[nmk]

Apple won't license their DRM because there would then be no way for them to provide the same fluid user experience for all MP3 players that they provide between the iPod and itunes.

No, they wont license their DRM becuase they want to make money of the iPod. Fluid user experiance has nothing to do with it.

Users would buy these less reliable mp3 players, be frustrated, and it would be windows on a mac.

No, it would be windows on windows. The future of ITMS lies primarily in sales through the Windows platform, not Mac.

Microsoft is in a position where if they had an itunes-like system, they could force people to use even the crappiest of mp3 players because that would be there only choice.

They will very soon have an ITMS like system which will no doubt be included in WMP. They will not force people to buy any mp3 player as WMP will be licensed.

We, as mac owners, might be a little perturbed at not being able to use alternative players, however, we did choose macs and the apple philosophy has been as it is now since the end of clones.

We chose to buy Apple computers becuase we like the integration between their OS and hardware. We did not choose to be alienated from any non Apple technology that may appear on the market.

 

[sebisworld]

That's exactly what I was referring to. Those unofficial patches are the original firmwares from the manufacturers which have been cracked by third parties and are being distributed illegally.

There are also many, many DVD players from not-so-well-known companies where one has to press no more than one button to deactivate the region code. Amazon Germany even used to have a cheap DVD Player with instructions on how to remove the region code right on their page for ordering.

Now all I need to know is how to strip this stupid region code of my iMac's Sony DVD RW DW DR-U10A. It's the most retarded feature ever created and, a friend of a friend of mine, who knows a guy that knows someone else, whose friend again knows a friend bypasses the region code on DVDs he gains interest in when visiting the states by renting them and then burning them region free, because quite frankly, original region-protected DVDs are of no more value than AOL CDs to him.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Actually, except for the sainthood part, that pretty much describes me. I have mixed feelings about this application though... certainly it's nice, and I'll use it on the tracks I get from ITMS, but I KNOW others will abuse it just because they can. It's disappointing, but there are always people like that I guess.

I am sorry i am tired of those that want to throw the baby out with the bath water. thinking everyone is evil.

The point that I was trying to make is that many that are against this software actually break even more important laws.

They want to pick the laws that they support.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

You bought the songs knowing the limitations or should have known. There is a problem with this program.

So if you buy a small car today, you should know that an SUV can cause serious damage or even death with your small car. Then you should be limited in the damages that you receive.

Or that a drug has side effects or may not cure what you have. Or the limitations of medical knowledge might mean that your doctor does not have all the knowledge to make sure you are healthy.

Prosecute the guilty, not the innocent.