QTFairUse?

[MacSlut]

No big deal

I don't think this is really that big of a deal. You can't crack an AAC that you don't have the rights to. If you already have the right, there's not much need to crack it.

Also while going AAC -> AIFF -> AAC creates a copy that is not bit-perfect, it's pretty damn close.

The real degradation comes from encoding the original AAC. That's where the quality loss takes place. Once it's squeezed down, converting it to AIFF makes it pretty indistinguishable from the original AAC. Re-compressing back to AAC doesn't introduce hardly any degradation relative to the first time it was encoded into AAC because the audio has already been "simplified".

Try it for yourself. Take a CD and rip a track. Then encode it in AAC at 128K and compare it to the original. If you know what to listen for, have good equipment, and decent ears, you should easily be able to hear the difference. Now convert the file to AIFF. You should have a very hard time comparing the AAC to this AIFF. Encode back to AAC and compare it to the original AAC...*very* little difference.

Bottom line is that if a 128K AAC is ok quality for you, then a 128K AAC that has gone through the AIFF wash would also be ok.

BTW: With Toast, you don't have to burn a CD-R to do this.

 

[reedm007]

Originally posted by ZildjianKX
I hate digital rights management... now that this hack is out, I might actually buy some music so I won't have to deal with the hassle.

I found that statement very funny and ironic. You might use iTMS to buy music now so you "won't have to deal with the hassle".

I hate to break it to you, but it sounds like it *is* quite the hassle to remove the DRM, if this app even works.

In fact, the whole idea of fairplay is that it *isn't* a hassle at all. I've had no problems! I've burned CDs, I've used the songs in iMovies, on my iDVD creations, play them iTunes, iPod, what more do I need to be doing with these songs, and what hassles am I faced with? I could go through a huge hassle and remove DRM on every single song... but, frankly, that sounds like a LOT more work for virtually only one benefit I can think of: the ability to put them up on Limewire.

And I'm not sure that's really a benefit at all....

 

[JW Pepper]

Well if this works we could easily see the iTMS close.

 

[applefan]

can this be done efficiently in large quantities? if not, isn't like counterfeiting one dollar bills? does anyone counterfeit one dollar bills?

 

[sparkleytone]

Originally posted by JW Pepper
Well if this works we could easily see the iTMS close.

are you insane? this kind of stuff has already been made for WMA. iTMS won't be closing for something as stupid as this. Did the movie industry stop selling DVDs when CSS was cracked? No.

 

[arn]

Originally posted by applefan
can this be done efficiently in large quantities? if not, isn't like counterfeiting one dollar bills? does anyone counterfeit one dollar bills?

In current form this application is next to useless.

But it's just part of the constant battle between copy protection and "hackers".

arn

 

[trog]

Originally posted by Exponent
Trog:


Sorry Trog, this isn't true. I'm writing code that uses QuickTime translation RIGHT NOW (as in I have had Project Builder and now XCode open and running 24/7 the past 3 months), and I can attest that the QuickTime engine available to developers can NOT read the music data of DRM files.

Perhaps saying any application can do it is just asking for it. I tried a couple (Toast and Sound Studio) and they both worked just fine.

Originally posted by Sol
Some people go so far out of their way to steal music. Apple should use a watermark technique to be able to track down the people who purchased the original protected AAC files that will go floating around the Net because of applications like this.

This has nothing to do with stealing music; it doesn't make things any easier to share files. Even if this had worked, it would still require you to input the correct password to open it in Quicktime in the first place. You couldn't just take anybody's protected file and rip the DRM off it. So you can put down the phone and let Ashcroft sleep through the night.

As long as you can burn CDs with it, you can convert it, share it or whatever. I always re-rip mine to get rid of the DRM just because I have more than three computers and I don't want to deal with it. Like 99% of people I can't tell the difference as long as I re-encode with AAC compression.

The important thing is, if/when they remove that feature I won't be buying anymore and I believe others would feel the same way. DRM is just a fun puzzle for hackers and pirates and they will always solve it, instead the only people really hurt or inconvenienced by DRM are those who payed for the product. Apple and Steve Jobs seem to know this, but unfortunately they couldn't convince the old shrivs.

 

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by JW Pepper
Well if this works we could easily see the iTMS close.

The crack as released isn't going to do much to anything. With the dependency on QT Player it's a lot slower than ripping a CD (1X capture). I fully expect someone to whip up a little wrapper to add headers and do automagic renaming, but even after all that you're still going to be missing the things that make ripping from a CD so tempting (ability to choose bit rates, use any old MP3 player, and so on). The simple fact that MP3 and not AAC is already the de facto standard for file traders will limit the appeal.

 

[SiliconAddict]

The ball is in the RIAA's court.

The RIAA has a few options when it comes to dealing with this. It all depends on how the handle it. The question is have they learned anything from the heavy handed approach? If they go after this like rabid dogs they are going to get people who are curiously optimistic of online music purchases to pull a full blow retreat back into the relatively safe haven of Shareaza for their music.
If they try and request that Apple work on solving this hole via suggested methods like watermarking while realizing that there will be no such thing as a sure proof method. (I'd expect watermarkings to be circumvented in the long run as well.
They NEED to realize that they have an opportunity to fix the massive blunder ****s they have made over the last few years. It all depends on what there reaction is to this. All I know is that from what I understand of this even if AAC had been locked to just one computer this crack would have still worked. So tightening down rights is NOT the answer. I just pray that the RIAA realizes this. I don't have much faith in their collective intelligence. Sue first. Ask questions later.
I want to continue to use iTMS for a LONG time. Don't make me regret I've already spent 120 bucks on this service. Burning me an everyone else at this point would spell certain death for online music. You don't pull the table out from under someone when they are starting to really enjoy their meal.

 

[ZildjianKX]

Originally posted by reedm007
I found that statement very funny and ironic. You might use iTMS to buy music now so you "won't have to deal with the hassle".

I hate to break it to you, but it sounds like it *is* quite the hassle to remove the DRM, if this app even works.

In fact, the whole idea of fairplay is that it *isn't* a hassle at all. I've had no problems! I've burned CDs, I've used the songs in iMovies, on my iDVD creations, play them iTunes, iPod, what more do I need to be doing with these songs, and what hassles am I faced with? I could go through a huge hassle and remove DRM on every single song... but, frankly, that sounds like a LOT more work for virtually only one benefit I can think of: the ability to put them up on Limewire.

And I'm not sure that's really a benefit at all....

LoL, ya got a point. But its fun to play and tinker with stuff. I just don't like have limitations on something I legitimately buy.

 

[iwantanewmac]

Re: Re: Re: I don't see the point.

Originally posted by trog
Ahh I see, thanks. So the question then is whether the utility has to "re-compress" the file to AAC or not. All stream-rippers would essentially go AAC»AIFF»AAC and lose quality. Yup, I see why this would be interesting.

My guess is it wouldn't (yes, I'm jumping to conclusions, sorry), because from reading about Apple's DRM there isn't anything encoded into the song per se, there is only a lock on whether the song will play...

Hope someone can try this and see. Would there be a way to tell if the song has been re-encoded? Looking at the waveforms perhaps?

Well..some/most people don't even hear the difference between 128 mp3 and 320 mp3 on a good stereoset so I dont think they hear the difference between drm aac ->aiff -> aac or drm aac -> aac
but ok....

 

[arn]

TheRegister's article has been updated... but I think they are way off.

They compare this to a standard stream-ripper - such as MyTunes. I questioned myself when I read their updated article... but it's clear that this is not a simple analog stream ripper.

When you compare the data from an Unprotected AAC file and the output this program gives... aside from the header, the data is exactly the same. This means that the data has been copied directly... not reencoded.

On the other hand... the data from a Protected AAC and the resultant file are NOT the same. This means that the Protected AAC file has been processed... which we assume is the decryption to remove the DRM.

arn

 

[iMeowbot]

Re: The ball is in the RIAA's court.

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
If they try and request that Apple work on solving this hole via suggested methods like watermarking while realizing that there will be no such thing as a sure proof method. (I'd expect watermarkings to be circumvented in the long run as well.

For compressed audio, watermarking should be Good Enough. Watermarks can be (and have been) successfully removed already, but the catch is that you do have to decode, alter and re-encode the file to get there. The resulting audio may or may not be acceptable; the scrubbing process leaves behind plenty of signal when the source is CD or DVD audio, but the streams found on iTunes have already been pared down. In any event, it's going to be roughly comparable to a decent D->A->D transfer, and not the bit-for-bit duplication that scares the industry so much.

 

[dstorey]

Originally posted by ZildjianKX

The moral of the story... any human made protection can be broken...

How about 100 monkey on typewriter created protection?

 

[gbm]

Sounds like audio hijack for osx. Intercepts audio from any application before it is played and saves in aiff.

 

[stingerman]

It just means Apple will need to build in signatures throughout Quicktime and catch any patches to the Quicktime code. If it senses an unauthorized patch, it will either self-repair or shut down.

 

[Analog Kid]

Wonder what this means for iTMS Europe... Probably won't shut down the US store, but might cause some headaches in licensing new ones...

 

[sanford]

Theft, plain and simple.

Doing it for the sake of proving you can do it is one thing, but distributing it is just promoting theft, plain and simple. Sure Big Labels don't cut fair deals with artists; sure CDs cost too much money; but the artist don't make a *dime* when you download music for free from Internet file-swapping services. Also, please note that independent labels are now contributing to the iTunes Music Service. Labels that make equitable deals with their artist roster are being shortchanged.

To put it in perspective, why don't the entrenched free music downloaders among you try working for a year without your salary or benefits. Is that an attractive prospect? And the fruits of your labor, the profits, will all go to your employers, gratis.

 

[visor]

Re: Theft, plain and simple.

Originally posted by sanford
To put it in perspective, why don't the entrenched free music downloaders among you try working for a year without your salary or benefits. Is that an attractive prospect? And the fruits of your labor, the profits, will all go to your employers, gratis.

Well, sounds like the typical student salery. Actually having to pay that you may work (and eventually learn) something.

Since the typical song ripper is located somewhere in the education environment, and doesn't get any salery, your argument is rather counter productive - it shows just WHERE the MI rips it's money from.

As Steve Jobs put it in his initial ITMS Keynote
"... there are also BAD things in the Music Industry"
It's worth investigating what the '...' in the quote stand for.

 

[Sol]

Re: Re: Theft, plain and simple.

Originally posted by visor
Since the typical song ripper is located somewhere in the education environment, and doesn't get any salery, your argument is rather counter productive - it shows just WHERE the MI rips it's money from.

His argument was not counter productive because you came up with the student example. Just because students pay bills does not mean that they have a right to download copyrighted music.

The Music Industry may not be perfect but by not buying what you listen to hurts the artist and the publisher.

 

[sanford]

Music labels aren't as a rule fair in their contracts. But artists are suffering from unauthorized downloading, too. And they often take such a miniscule portion of the cut as it is.

And many students *do* work and earn a salary, perhaps to pay for their education. How would they like it if they worked for free and therefore couldn't make their tuition payments?

It's safe to say that "free music for everybody who wants it" is not what Jobs would put in those quotes; otherwise he would be handing out free Macs. Likely, he meant that overly restrictive rights management is an obtrusive burden to the consumer.

 

[autrefois]

Originally posted by sanford
It's safe to say that "free music for everybody who wants it" is not what Jobs would put in those quotes; otherwise he would be handing out free Macs.

Free Macs--sounds like a good idea to me!

Even if I had Windows (well, I have Virtual PC, but Windows 98 and thus no iTunes in Windows) I wouldn't try out the program because, even if we're just testing to see what this program does, isn't it still technically illegal? Or would it just be illegal if we shared the files we obtained through it?

 

[coumerelli]

Why limit me in the first place?

Originally posted by trog
...[snip]I always re-rip mine to get rid of the DRM just because I have more than three computers and I don't want to deal with it.[/snip]...

I just want to know why Apple had to concede to limiting us to three computers? Why put a limit on it at all? Geez, I'm not about to give my ID/password out to everyone so they can use my credit card on a whim! And since the 'authorized computer' information is held in cuportino, they could just flag ID's that have more than, say, ten authorized computers. If one has thousands, then they just shut it down. Can someone tell me why THAT wouldn't work? Now all of the sudden, your only limitation is apple branded peices - smart marketing.

 

[Dippo]

I don't think this is really much of a hack of the Fairplay protection.

Apple will probably release a new version of iTunes and Quicktime that will prevent program from working. So be sure to hold on to the old versions

This reminds me of the internet streaming that was allowed with iTunes, it was fixed and so will this.

 

[ITR 81]

Apple will probably just update or upgrade Quicktime to stop this and I doubt it will be a feature they will advertise for the simple reason if people don't know they just accept it as is and use it anyway.

Apple could also start encoding a watermark with that persons account serial when said person downloads song or albums or audio books.

Also Apple could always change code that protects the AAC's and all they would have to do is put out update for iTunes and firmware update for iPod. This time only having one portable player plays right into Apples hands.