Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
QTFairUse?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just found an app that will take raw mp4 audio and convert to a WAV file.
So....
Protected AAC -> QTFairUse -> Raw AAC (Authorization Req in QT)
Raw AAC -> faad.exe -> Song.WAV (no authorization req)
... so yes, it works. Again, not very useful at this point... but it does strip DRM from the AAC file, and keeps it in AAC form.
(This is distinctly different from an app which simply saves the raw audio output from a protected AAC)
arn
Yes, more people have tested it. You probably won't see too many first-hand accounts from WIPO countries (EUCD, DMCA etc.)
All software can be patched, and it doesn't much matter if the checks are being performed on the AAC files or the program itself. This is exactly the situation that hardware DRM initiatives like Palladium are hoped by their proponents to address.
DRM for sound files doesn't need to be perfect, it just has to be good enough to make the process inconvenient -- and in that espect it appears that Apple have already succeeded. The patch under discussion is indeed inconvenient because it takes an hour to capture an hour of music, and it still restricts you to using the limited selection of players that understand AAC.
In contrast, ripping from CD provides nearly instant gratification and the ability to obtain an essentially universal format (MP3). Even exporting a stream and re-ripping is more flexible than using this patch.
Two questions about watermarks...
1. Would a watermark in a DRM AAC be preserved when you burn a CD and/or rip it back?
2. Do audio perfectionists ever claim that a watermarked audio file loses any perceptible quality?
...and another thought: Aren't people who say "removing the DRM is pointless because you've already paid for the file" themselves missing the point that the resulting file will likely be used for purposes outside those permitted under the DRM?
That's why watermarks might be more viable for the music companies in the long run. If they can't stop the flow of digital audio files, tracking the owner of each copy might be their next best defense.
1. Would a watermark in a DRM AAC be preserved when you burn a CD and/or rip it back?
2. Do audio perfectionists ever claim that a watermarked audio file loses any perceptible quality?
...and another thought: Aren't people who say "removing the DRM is pointless because you've already paid for the file" themselves missing the point that the resulting file will likely be used for purposes outside those permitted under the DRM?
That's why watermarks might be more viable for the music companies in the long run. If they can't stop the flow of digital audio files, tracking the owner of each copy might be their next best defense.
Obviously taking this WAV file and reenoding to Unprotected AAC would result in loss of sound quality. We need some way of being able to add in the appropriate Unprotected AAC headers or whatnot.
While far from being totally successful, this app is certainly a major breakthough in cracking the Apple DRM.
Yes, that's exactly the kind of persistence that watermarking is intended to have.
For a real world example, advertisers are already using watermarked commercials to verify that they are getting the amount of airplay that they have purchased. This detection is being performed on analog broadcast signals.
Some claim they can hear it, others cannot. Those are the same people who would turn up their noses at iTMS audio anyway, so the point is essentally moot.
I for one am still not impressed with this program.
I am sure I could crack the DRM if given enough time, but I just have better things to do
Yes, well, as I say, it's a step forward, but not a complete solution.
We need to find a way of taking raw aac and wrapping it in the appropriate m4a headers.
Converting raw aac into WAV is just as useful (from an end-point perspective) as getting an AIFF out of Toast.
If there is a way of putting it into the m4a wrapper (which i'm sure there is), then once we have that, we'll be able to get great quality non-DRM AAC files. That's when this program will be useful.
Well, it's a proof of concept.
Without getting into details.... I can say based on feedback...
- There are players that will play the raw (de-DRM'd) output files
- There are existing methods to convert the output files to a proper M4A which will play in iTunes.
The point of this thread/news item is not to teach people how to circumvent DRM, but simply to report that someone has created a method to.
arn
Problem
The problem still seems to be in the law enforcement of internet(p2p) sharing. It is legal to create protection and encryption of files. It is legal to create software to break the codes. It is legal(if it is not, it should be) to actually break the encryption of music you have purchased. It is NOT legal to disribute files with or without the encryption. This is not a big issue for iTMS or anything else. The issue is enforcing laws that prohibit distribution of files. Using Kazaa or similar programs are illegal, and if services like iTMS are going to be succesful then punishment of offenders is crucial. There is not widespread looting of storefronts in stripmalls because enforcement of laws prohibiting it are in place. We all can agree that enforcement should be put into place because having services like iTMS are more benefitial than not having them. I don't think anyone would be support the idea of there being no enforcement of laws against storefront looting. The exsistance of the stores are more valuable than the looting. I think governments should step in an do the job they are paid to do, which is enforce the laws that we as people have set up.
The problem still seems to be in the law enforcement of internet(p2p) sharing. It is legal to create protection and encryption of files. It is legal to create software to break the codes. It is legal(if it is not, it should be) to actually break the encryption of music you have purchased. It is NOT legal to disribute files with or without the encryption. This is not a big issue for iTMS or anything else. The issue is enforcing laws that prohibit distribution of files. Using Kazaa or similar programs are illegal, and if services like iTMS are going to be succesful then punishment of offenders is crucial. There is not widespread looting of storefronts in stripmalls because enforcement of laws prohibiting it are in place. We all can agree that enforcement should be put into place because having services like iTMS are more benefitial than not having them. I don't think anyone would be support the idea of there being no enforcement of laws against storefront looting. The exsistance of the stores are more valuable than the looting. I think governments should step in an do the job they are paid to do, which is enforce the laws that we as people have set up.
foobar2000 (very advanced audio player for Windows) can play raw aac file and can wrap raw aac stream into mp4 (iTunes m4a is audio only mp4 file, so just rename it if you want m4a file ) container.
Links: http://www.foobar2000.org
Links: http://www.foobar2000.org
Tiny Little Holes
I'd just like to remind everyone that Apple didn't consider iTunes 4 playlist sharing over the Internet to be a "hole" until some gumby developed software that allowed you not only to listen but to download tracks. Internet sharing of iTunes playlists was a great way of introducing people to new music and new artists, potentially driving sales up for those artists; until, of course, somebody turned it into a Kazaa-like downloading device.
I'd just like to remind everyone that Apple didn't consider iTunes 4 playlist sharing over the Internet to be a "hole" until some gumby developed software that allowed you not only to listen but to download tracks. Internet sharing of iTunes playlists was a great way of introducing people to new music and new artists, potentially driving sales up for those artists; until, of course, somebody turned it into a Kazaa-like downloading device.
Re: A friend inside of Apple told me...
Sorry, but I don't believe you.
Isn't there a way to detect if there is a watermark.
If they were watermarked, I am sure that it would have been detected by now, and people have been sharing burn/ripped music from iTunes since day one.
Maybe "your friend" was talking about the encrypted version, which does contain that data, but it's not a watermark.
Sorry, but I don't believe you.
Isn't there a way to detect if there is a watermark.
If they were watermarked, I am sure that it would have been detected by now, and people have been sharing burn/ripped music from iTunes since day one.
Maybe "your friend" was talking about the encrypted version, which does contain that data, but it's not a watermark.
Re: A friend inside of Apple told me...
An easy way of disproving this would be if two users were to buy the same song, use QTFairPlay and compare the resulting .acc's. If they are different, it doesn't necessarily mean that the above is true, just that it can't easily be disproven.
An easy way of disproving this would be if two users were to buy the same song, use QTFairPlay and compare the resulting .acc's. If they are different, it doesn't necessarily mean that the above is true, just that it can't easily be disproven.
Re: Re: A friend inside of Apple told me...
In one sense, yes, there are ways to detect watermarks, that is after all the whole point of them. Detecting a watermark is pretty much trivial for the party who put it there, since the encoding method and the pattern applied are known.
For an outside party, it becomes more difficult. How easily a previously unknown watermark scheme can be detected depends a lot on how good the party who applied it was at finding a compromise between survivability and subtlety.
Watermarking and steganography are still evolving fields, so there really aren't absolute answers as to what can and can't be done.
In one sense, yes, there are ways to detect watermarks, that is after all the whole point of them. Detecting a watermark is pretty much trivial for the party who put it there, since the encoding method and the pattern applied are known.
For an outside party, it becomes more difficult. How easily a previously unknown watermark scheme can be detected depends a lot on how good the party who applied it was at finding a compromise between survivability and subtlety.
Watermarking and steganography are still evolving fields, so there really aren't absolute answers as to what can and can't be done.
I'm not sure it will be so easy to find the watermark.
Remember - the iTMS songs were encoded from a source that is not available to Joe average user. Sure, you can encode a CD from the Local WalMart, but it certainly won't be the same source Apple used.
Remember - the iTMS songs were encoded from a source that is not available to Joe average user. Sure, you can encode a CD from the Local WalMart, but it certainly won't be the same source Apple used.
Re: A friend inside of Apple told me...
To make sure of the watermark to enforce their rights (say in a court case against an infringer), they would have to use the watermark as evidence, hence revealing its existence. So it can't stay a secret if it is to serve its purpose.
Not all uses of a DRM-stripping app involve piracy. I've stripped DRM from all of my iTMS songs on my iBook (I cannot tell any difference between the original and AAC-p to AIFF to 128k AAC) and have never pirated any of them. I do this because:
--I want to play the songs on my win98 box
--My Mp3 Player is not an iPod (although I wish it was)
--I still use OS 9 on occasion and like to still be able to play my songs
--I am paranoid that one day Apple will stop supporting these files.
Nothing I want to do with these files is illegal, except for the fact that I have to (illegally) unprotect the files to do all of them. I'm sure windows users have at least some of the same issues. And those of you who use windows must have noticed that Apple's DRM is not as transparent on windows, since, unlike the mac, not every program uses quicktime to play media files. (Try using your protected files in a movie sound track on each platform to see what I am talking about)
--I want to play the songs on my win98 box
--My Mp3 Player is not an iPod (although I wish it was)
--I still use OS 9 on occasion and like to still be able to play my songs
--I am paranoid that one day Apple will stop supporting these files.
Nothing I want to do with these files is illegal, except for the fact that I have to (illegally) unprotect the files to do all of them. I'm sure windows users have at least some of the same issues. And those of you who use windows must have noticed that Apple's DRM is not as transparent on windows, since, unlike the mac, not every program uses quicktime to play media files. (Try using your protected files in a movie sound track on each platform to see what I am talking about)
Unfortunately FooBar chokes on conversion into MP4. However, playback is perfect.
Any thoughts anyone?
FreeMe is a couple of years old and only works on an old version of WMA (version 2). All of the current services that use WMA - BuyMusic, MusicMatch, MusicNow, et al - use a more recent version of WM DRM. The current version of WM DRM has not been cracked as of yet, so at least at the moment, FairPlay is "more compromised" than the current version of WM DRM.
Technical question regarding quality.
From what I understand AAC is lossy compressed, while AIFF and redbook CD are lossless.
So how is there a degredation in quality when going AAC --> AIFF --> CD?
The only answer I can come up with is that AAC is a 24bit format (is this true?), while redbook CD is 16bit (I believe). I guess in this regard, you upconvert to a higher bitrate, but you lose out on the smaller word size.
-Pie
From what I understand AAC is lossy compressed, while AIFF and redbook CD are lossless.
So how is there a degredation in quality when going AAC --> AIFF --> CD?
The only answer I can come up with is that AAC is a 24bit format (is this true?), while redbook CD is 16bit (I believe). I guess in this regard, you upconvert to a higher bitrate, but you lose out on the smaller word size.
-Pie
Re: Thieves
Some people go so far out of their way to reclaim the rights set forth in the constitution and unfairly revoked by the DMCA.
The iTunes 'DRM' is pointless. DRM protects nothing. Some of you just-don't-get-it. It's a waste of time, money and other resources to implement any of these DRM techniques because they will -always- be beaten.
This has nothing to do with stealing. It has everything to do with programs like DeCSS. As others have stated higher in the thread, you lose quality by converting your music from aac - > cd -> mp3. How much quality is lost? Why shouldn't people have the ability to convert their 'protected' aac files to some other format to use in a digital music/media player other than the iPod without wasting a bunch of cd-r's to do so? For use with their mp3 player of choice on their platform of choice?
What did you buy when you sent Apple your 99 cents? Did you buy the music? The rights to distribute the music? A license to listen to the music? Pick one.
I pick a license to listen to the music. I'll listen to it where I want with whatever program or piece of hardware I want.
You're probably from the USA (like me). I think 90%+ of the citizens have the same problem as you. It has something to do with the entertainment culture we've surrounded ourselves with or something. We constantly want to fix the effects of our problems. The effects are more flashy so we concentrate our attention there. This is no different. The effect of the problem is, people overcome DRM protection, and thereby violate the DMCA. They haven't even done anything 'wrong' yet. It's like watching DVD's on Linux. Sure, they have a potential to do something 'wrong'. But when don't we have that potential? And why are we so prepared to call them thieves? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? This program is a tool. Just like any other tool, it can be used for good, it can be used for evil, and it can be used for any combination in between.
Now you and someother people are concerned with 'catching those bandits'. The real problem is much much deeper... I'm not sure what it is to be honest. It's not even the DMCA, the DMCA is an effect as well. If I had to guess I'd say that the problem is loopholes in the law which allow monopolies to be created by allowing every business in a given sector band together to control that sector. This problem is compounded by the ability of these legal monopolies to fund their special interests in our government and (soon?) governments abroad.
I'm glad people are working on stripping the DRM out of these files. Everytime one of these mechanisms fails, we prove DRM wrong, and we're that much closer to freedom.
Don't buy into the false illusion that DRM actually protects any of this music. You can burn it and re-rip it. You can plug into core audio and record it. I can plug a cord into my sound out and record it to whatever medium I want; and I'm sure others can come up with 101 other brilliant ways to make a copy of the music they downloaded off the iTMS.
[Side note, to the person who posted about the .aac having your information. This makes sense because when you try and play a protected .aac file, iTunes asks you to authorize the computer. So yea, if you share out your protected .aac, it's not far fetched that someone could figure out what account that .aac came from. People have been talking about the .aac file headers. I would think that this information would be stored there, and not in the actually .aac sound data, so once you burn/re-rip or get the data out some other way...it probably wouldn't be preserved... anyone else know more about .aac than I do? It could be watermarked, only Mr. Jobs and the iTunes team knows for sure]
Some people go so far out of their way to reclaim the rights set forth in the constitution and unfairly revoked by the DMCA.
The iTunes 'DRM' is pointless. DRM protects nothing. Some of you just-don't-get-it. It's a waste of time, money and other resources to implement any of these DRM techniques because they will -always- be beaten.
This has nothing to do with stealing. It has everything to do with programs like DeCSS. As others have stated higher in the thread, you lose quality by converting your music from aac - > cd -> mp3. How much quality is lost? Why shouldn't people have the ability to convert their 'protected' aac files to some other format to use in a digital music/media player other than the iPod without wasting a bunch of cd-r's to do so? For use with their mp3 player of choice on their platform of choice?
What did you buy when you sent Apple your 99 cents? Did you buy the music? The rights to distribute the music? A license to listen to the music? Pick one.
I pick a license to listen to the music. I'll listen to it where I want with whatever program or piece of hardware I want.
You're probably from the USA (like me). I think 90%+ of the citizens have the same problem as you. It has something to do with the entertainment culture we've surrounded ourselves with or something. We constantly want to fix the effects of our problems. The effects are more flashy so we concentrate our attention there. This is no different. The effect of the problem is, people overcome DRM protection, and thereby violate the DMCA. They haven't even done anything 'wrong' yet. It's like watching DVD's on Linux. Sure, they have a potential to do something 'wrong'. But when don't we have that potential? And why are we so prepared to call them thieves? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? This program is a tool. Just like any other tool, it can be used for good, it can be used for evil, and it can be used for any combination in between.
Now you and someother people are concerned with 'catching those bandits'. The real problem is much much deeper... I'm not sure what it is to be honest. It's not even the DMCA, the DMCA is an effect as well. If I had to guess I'd say that the problem is loopholes in the law which allow monopolies to be created by allowing every business in a given sector band together to control that sector. This problem is compounded by the ability of these legal monopolies to fund their special interests in our government and (soon?) governments abroad.
I'm glad people are working on stripping the DRM out of these files. Everytime one of these mechanisms fails, we prove DRM wrong, and we're that much closer to freedom.
Don't buy into the false illusion that DRM actually protects any of this music. You can burn it and re-rip it. You can plug into core audio and record it. I can plug a cord into my sound out and record it to whatever medium I want; and I'm sure others can come up with 101 other brilliant ways to make a copy of the music they downloaded off the iTMS.
[Side note, to the person who posted about the .aac having your information. This makes sense because when you try and play a protected .aac file, iTunes asks you to authorize the computer. So yea, if you share out your protected .aac, it's not far fetched that someone could figure out what account that .aac came from. People have been talking about the .aac file headers. I would think that this information would be stored there, and not in the actually .aac sound data, so once you burn/re-rip or get the data out some other way...it probably wouldn't be preserved... anyone else know more about .aac than I do? It could be watermarked, only Mr. Jobs and the iTunes team knows for sure
]