QTFairUse?

[myndlinksw]

Originally posted by Dippo
Since this program isn't breaking any decryption but just copying what is in RAM, there should be no DMCA implications.

Are you sure? The DMCA 'protects' against the circumvention of technological measures used by copyright owners to protect their works.

Circumvent != crack. It means you found a way around those measures. A good legal team could definitely argue that reading the data out of RAM after it was decrypted was 'circumvention of their technological measures'...

http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf

read page 3 and 4 for a summary..

 

[mikedman]

Possible Test

Originally posted by jusvistin
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.

I am not sure on the details, but couldn't two itunes customers who purchased the same track from the online store compare hash tables of de-protected files or something? If a there were a difference it would indicate the presence of a watermark that got past the conversion process.


---sorry this seems to have been mentioned already--

 

[myndlinksw]

Here's a good post off apple.slashdot.org.. I didn't think about this

What's interesting about this (from a fair use standpoint) is that it only lets you get the AAC data if you have a computer that will play the protected file. This means that you can now play the AAC files with non-Apple hardware/software.

However, it doesn't let you play someone else's DRMed .m4p files. They person who is licensed to play them would need to decripple the files first using this tool.

Therefore, it's questionable whether this is really circumventing a copy-protection mechanism, since this method only allows the "rightful licensee" to extract the AAC. If that's not fair use, then I don't know what is.

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=86778&cid=7539136

 

[coumerelli]

Re: Re: Thieves

Originally posted by myndlinksw
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.

snip...snip..snipsnipsnip...snipsnip

snip...snip...

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.

snip snip....

Freedom?!? Constitutional rights?

If I choose to trade with someone, I've made a deal. And in THIS deal, I give apple $.99 for a song that can be played on any # of iPods, 3 comps, etc, etc... That's the deal I made.

Furthermore, my (and your) freedoms granted by the US Constitution are to say ANYTHING I want about and to anyone I want. But I can't DO anything I want. That would be anarchy, no?

The choice is not 'what to do with the .m4a,' take one step back (the one you missed). Your choice is: to make or skip the deal. Once you make the deal, you are bound by the terms of the agreement.

That's your choice. That is wherein your choice lies (lays, lain? )

Please don't ever forget that we DO have choices, but with those choices are various consequenses, some are positive, and others not.

Anywho....hey, thanks for listening.

 

[jonahan]

Re: QTFairUse?

In any case, this is the first public attempt at breaking Apple's Digital Rights Management format.

What a line of bull****. Maybe first windows attempt but I can do it in LAME on my MAC. Found the nice little app on versiontracker.. Damn windows people are always 2 weeks behind. People really need to do more reasearch when posting crap like this .. http://forums.2guysamacandawebsite.com/viewtopic.php?t=164 Quick search on google and page 4 right in the middle. Ahhh the wonders of the internet.

 

[arn]

Re: Re: QTFairUse?

Originally posted by jonahan
What a line of bull****. Maybe first windows attempt but I can do it in LAME on my MAC. Found the nice little app on versiontracker.. Damn windows people are always 2 weeks behind. People really need to do more reasearch when posting crap like this .. http://forums.2guysamacandawebsite.com/viewtopic.php?t=164 Quick search on google and page 4 right in the middle. Ahhh the wonders of the internet.

Um.... I believe you are mistaken.

I invite you to find me any other method to convert from Protected AAC to Unprotected AAC without transcoding.

Transcoding = Converting Protected AAC to AIFF/CD/WAV and then converting it back to AAC.

People really need to do more reasearch when posting crap like this ..

What I think you fail to realize is the quality of the unprotected AAC is identical to the Protected AAC that you are downloading from iTunes. The other methods you hint at do not do this.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong... but I'm confident this is the first true "breaking" of iTunes' DRM -> doing something it wasn't intended to do. (iTunes DRM allows you to burn to CD or be used in supported applications.)

arn

 

[j763]

arn's right.

Along with some other utilities, you can break the DRM. It's a very convoluted process, but it does work.

I really don't see this as being a big problem for Apple, simply given the number of steps involved in breaking the DRM. This is NOT something for the average user.

j

 

[Sol]

Average users and bad eggs

Originally posted by j763
I really don't see this as being a big problem for Apple, simply given the number of steps involved in breaking the DRM. This is NOT something for the average user.

Maybe the average user would not bother using this application or ripping a DVD but the people who do make it easy for anyone to access the resultant media files through P2P. Having said that, I believe that the iTunes Music Store is a success because it offers a legitimate alternative to the unpredictable and unreliable world of P2P.

 

[myndlinksw]

Re: Re: Re: Thieves

Originally posted by coumerelli
Freedom?!? Constitutional rights?

If I choose to trade with someone, I've made a deal. And in THIS deal, I give apple $.99 for a song that can be played on any # of iPods, 3 comps, etc, etc... That's the deal I made.

Furthermore, my (and your) freedoms granted by the US Constitution are to say ANYTHING I want about and to anyone I want. But I can't DO anything I want. That would be anarchy, no?

The choice is not 'what to do with the .m4a,' take one step back (the one you missed). Your choice is: to make or skip the deal. Once you make the deal, you are bound by the terms of the agreement.

That's your choice. That is wherein your choice lies (lays, lain? )

Please don't ever forget that we DO have choices, but with those choices are various consequenses, some are positive, and others not.

Anywho....hey, thanks for listening.

Yes, freedom, constitutional rights. Fair use, it's a freedom, it's a constitutional right. Yes, you can do anything you want, but not all possible actions will be protected under the constitution; but certain fair uses are.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

You talk about limiting choice. These limits are not physical constructs. They are limits you put on yourself. While your choice may be limited to 'making a deal' or 'not making a deal', my choices and the choices of everyone else are not limited by the same factors. Free will, the ability for everyone (theoretically) to think for themselves.

In your 'deal', Apple allowed you to burn CD's with your music. These CD's do not contain the DRM which the AAC is infected with. Please explain why you think bypassing the AAC DRM using this program is wrong, and why you think it should be wrong? They both achieve the same goal, and neither one has an inherent negative impact. The negative effects are optional, and as always, left up to the person making the choice.

The people who want to trade their mp3 files are going to trade their mp3 files. Again, they, like you and me, have free will; this freedom allows them to make whatever choices they want to.

If person X wants to send person Y XYZABC.mp3, that person is going to find a way do that. If you force them to burn a CD, chances are they will burn more music to that CD instead of wasting it on one song.

The only effect I see is that we put less CD-R's in a land fill by removing the need for burning and re-ripping.

The only people that DRM affects is the people who want to use their music legitimately, but are not advanced enough to get around the protection. Everyone else will either defeat the DRM, won't need to defeat it, or will ask someone to help them. So what's the point?

--------------------------------------------------

The iTunes Music Store is a success because people aren't inherently bad. They wanted a simple, fast, cheap way to find music. Various p2p programs offered them this ability. iTunes offers them a way to do this, and the opportunity to compensate the groups they listen to.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by arn
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

Its not going to take long for someone to combine this into a single app that does this automatically. Maybe 2 months?
Ripping a DVD use to be a pretty painful process. Now its been cut down to a few steps.

 

[j763]

Watermark rumor is false... Just did some testing. Checksums are identical.

 

[arn]

Re: A friend inside of Apple told me...

Claim:

Originally posted by Corpus_Callosum
A friend of mine that works at Apple told me that every song that is sold through iTMS contains a unique watermarked serial-number. Everytime you buy music from iTMS, the unique serial-number associated with that downloaded song is tied to your user account in some database.
.......
And I don't think it matters much if you burn it to CD and re-rip to MP3 or use a program like this to tear off the decryption. Either way, the watermark will still be there. Either way, the RIAA can find the original purchaser of the song.

Conclusion:

False. While Apple does tag each protected AAC file (in its header) with your iTunes ID, there is no watermark embedded into the actual music.

The Proof? It has been shown that two copies of the same song, purchased by two different people, result in the exact same files and md5 hashes when their QTFairUse output is compared.

arn

 

[visor]

Re: Re: A friend inside of Apple told me...

Originally posted by Dippo
Sorry, but I don't believe you.

Isn't there a way to detect if there is a watermark.

Well, there definately is a way to detect watermarks. wouldn't make much sense of using watermarks if there wasnt, right?

If I'd create watermarks in audio files, I would modulate them right onto the actual audio data. this way they will stay largely intact even after it was burned, ripped, encoded egain etc.
Since it is the aim of any good encoder to keep the audio signal largely intact, it would probable work until choosing a rather low bitrate, thus not really beeing a copy but rather a poor soundalike.

But then, modulating it onto the Audiosignal would take some time, esp. if you wanted to mark each file with a unique customer identifier. I don't think that can be done in real time while downloading yet. esp. not with Millions of requests per week.

 

[visor]

Re: Re: Re: Thieves

Originally posted by coumerelli
Freedom?!? Constitutional rights?

If I choose to trade with someone, I've made a deal. And in THIS deal, I give apple $.99 for a song that can be played on any # of iPods, 3 comps, etc, etc... That's the deal I made.

Actually you think of a wrong kind of deal. You think you buy a product. This is not the case.
What you do is: You license the use of a product. When you do your deal, you admit to obey the contractual limitations, namedly beeing copyright issues, allowing you to use, but not to redistribute, broadcast... you know...

Therefore it is juristically incorrect to claim that someone 'steals' music. One cannot steal music, at most, one can steal the media that it comes on.
However, one can copy music, and redestribute it, breaking the copyright limitations and thus be held responsible for that.
While it's not theft, it may be treated likewise depending on the country you live it.
There is, in most civilised countries a very significant difference between theft and contract offenses.

Theft is treated by criminal law, thus sending you the police on your heels, and have the state attorney impeach you, while contranct offenses are treated by civil law and a 'person' has to impeach you.

Civil offenses are mostly solved with monetary outcomes, while criminal law usually sends you to jail.

 

[visor]

Originally posted by Doctor Q


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.

May be, but I'd be real careful about using this as a mucis company. it may well destroy all trust and be the end of the Online music stores. Why? Well, imagine you loose your iPod, your PB is stolen - whatever. Now someone distributes the Music you bought, and the RIAA accuses you of distributing their music, sueing you for half a billion dollars...
Would that be a risk anyone was willing to take?

 

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by j763
Watermark rumor is false... Just did some testing. Checksums are identical.

That would confirm that there are no customer-identifying marks, but it wouldn't rule out their presence.

Watermarks are interesting to the industry as a way to identify the original distributor, not the end user. That's the level of detail that SDMI sought for portable devices.

You'll find that Apple are paying attention to SDMI and are already implementing some of those recommendations into iPod. See, for example, this part of the spec and compare it with iPod's analog recording capabilities.

An eventual goal of SDMI compliance would pretty much require that Apple be, at the very least, be in the process of testing Verance and other watermarking schemes. That's outlined in amendment 3.

(Incidentally, SDMI isn't actually dead, as some assume. Content providers like Apple are still participating through the Digital Media Association. In a nutshell, DiMA are okay with using DRM and various royalty schemes, but want control to stay in the hands of industry rather than governments.)

 

[StoneRoses]

Originally posted by EatingPie
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

Conversion from 44.1kHz/16bit stereo AAC --> PCM --> Redbook is no loss (compare to original AAC file not original master). But if you convert the PCM back to AAC it is lossy.

And Yes, iTMS AAC file is 44.1kHz 16 bit.

 

[StoneRoses]

Originally posted by j763
Unfortunately FooBar chokes on conversion into MP4. However, playback is perfect.

Any thoughts anyone?

Sorry for my mistake, I'm not in the USA so I don't have any iTMS song to test the concept. Foobar aac -> mp4 conversion is only work with ADTS AAC file.

According to menno (Nero Digital [MPEG4 solution from Nero] developer) @ Hydrogenaudio forum, the file from QTFairUse is RAW AAC, you must convert it to ADTS AAC and then convert it to MP4 (m4a).

The instruction and softwares to do this is on HA thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=15598

I think it fairly easy to write the frontend to automate all the processes since all softwares involved are command line apps.

 

[coumerelli]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Thieves

Originally posted by myndlinksw
Yes, freedom, constitutional rights. Fair use, it's a freedom, it's a constitutional right. Yes, you can do anything you want, but not all possible actions will be protected under the constitution; but certain fair uses are.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

I read that link (and thank you for posting a short link instead of some rediculously long article ). My comments came because you originally said that our constitutional rights were revoked by the DMCA. 'Constitution' and 'Rights' are too easily thrown around these day, and I didn't see how your point was accurate. I do, however, see now what your original point was - and it's well taken, thank you.

But, you in your excitement, read my post too quickly and began ranting...

You talk about limiting choice. These limits are not physical constructs. They are limits you put on yourself. While your choice may be limited to 'making a deal' or 'not making a deal', my choices and the choices of everyone else are not limited by the same factors. Free will, the ability for everyone (theoretically) to think for themselves.

[and...]

The people who want to trade their mp3 files are going to trade their mp3 files. Again, they, like you and me, have free will; this freedom allows them to make whatever choices they want to.

'Free will' is not covered in our constitution. For that, you will have to refer to the Bible. There is a grand difference between 'freedom' and 'free will'

In your 'deal', Apple allowed you to burn CD's with your music. These CD's do not contain the DRM which the AAC is infected with. Please explain why you think bypassing the AAC DRM using this program is wrong, and why you think it should be wrong? They both achieve the same goal, and neither one has an inherent negative impact. The negative effects are optional, and as always, left up to the person making the choice.

Yup, I agree that when you say our 'fair use' covers us using a song on more than 3 computers if we should own more than 3. And the 'optional negative effects' that you are talking about is a lot of what this thread is dealing with. Many people want to strip the DRM for the express purpose of freely distributing the songs they buy (why, I'll never know. Why pay for something to give it away? THIS isn't charity). I posted on like page 3 of this thread and asked why Apple conceded to the RIAA or whoever to limit us to just three computers? Read it, and you might better understand MY position.

Thank you

 

[qwerpafw]

I don't find this particularly interesting from a technical standpoint. When the iTMS and protected apple "fairplay" DRM'd AAC first came out, I tested the limits of the system.

Basically, I found that

a) if you screw the headers so it appears you own a song you actually don't, even if you change the hash, it will go call up the apple server to "make sure." I hypothesized that there might be a way to get around this by telling iTunes that you own the file, but I was too lazy to figure out how iTunes stores the data on what it is authorized (songs and users) to play. It's also likely that apple encrypts this somehow, since it would be a Bad Thing™ if I could authorize my computer to play your songs by messing with a simple unencrypted text file. I did search for this setting, but I didn't perform the at length in depth checks necessary to verify it either way.

b) if you pull the RAM cache as iTunes plays the song, you can get what appears to be AAC data. Yet no application I knew of could decrypt this data--whether the app be QT or any of a host of audio programs. Even programs that purported to be able to pull audio data out of composite files (check VT, there are a few of these) were unable to read it. I assumed it was hashed somehow, or that there was some necessary bit required.

c) if you strip the headers off a song and switch them with the file I derived from (b). iTunes hangs and QT burps on it.

d) DRM'd files are not just marked "do not play this," they are also really and truly encrypted with data-wise. For a real world explanation of this, try switching the headers of a DRM'd file you don't own with one you do, or a DRM'd file with one that is unprotected. This is also, to the best of my understanding, why you can't play .m4p files as you download them--the computer adds protection as the file is being downloaded, and thus, unlike mp3, you can't play-as-it-downloads, since the process cannot complete until the whole file is available to the DRM engine (from what I understood, and take this with a grain of salt, there's a hash which must match the DRM. hashes require a finished file. The DRM process also likely requires a finished file, though it probably gets started before the file finished--look at CPU usage while download a song from iTMS).

I don't know what I ****ed up so that this guy's approach didn't work for me. :shrug:

The only interesting thing I was able to do was write a program that made it impossible to read the DRM'd files. The app invented an imaginary iTMS user, edited the m4p file so that the fictional user owned the song, fed iTunes data saying the user owned the file, but then rendered the file useless since iTunes checks with Apple "just in case."

[mod. edit - Don't circumvent the profanity filter.]

 

[Doctor Q]

Re: Re: Re: A friend inside of Apple told me...

Originally posted by visor
But then, modulating it onto the Audiosignal would take some time, esp. if you wanted to mark each file with a unique customer identifier. I don't think that can be done in real time while downloading yet. esp. not with Millions of requests per week.

Here's a compromise they could use: they change the hidden information as fast as they can. Let's say they can re-encode every song every 24 hours, giving it a new unique ID that often. (The actual time doesn't matter for me to make my point.) That speed is not fast enough to make each file unique for each download, but it limits the number of copies to those purchased in that 24 period. Even if the music files are not individually unique, if someone was purchasing and then distributing large number of songs (making him/her the most likely target of an enforcement action), it could be shown that the entire collection had watermarks matching the time periods when they were purchased by the target person. The shorter the encoding cycle, the more persuasive this evidence becomes, simply based on statistics.

However, this is all theory. I haven't heard anyone propose such an idea, and I especially don't think Apple is going to bend over backwards to aid the enforcement process. They want to be a middleman, providing music with "reasonable" restrictions and "not-easy-to-break" security, i.e., a suitable compromise for the main body of customers.

 

[VoyagerRadio]

Re: Reasons why this might not matter.

Originally posted by sparkleytone
As much as this could potentially be a blow to the iTMS, there are a few things that may make it meaningless.

I have a hard time believing that people are going to be anywhere near as willing to pirate songs that they have already bought legally thru the iTMS. Music downloaded by people from the online store is a much more personal purchase than a CD at Best Buy that someone may have bought for one or two songs. I don't think people will be as willing to share freely the music that they picked out and bought online.

I also believe that a big part of the mp3 piracy problem stems from people on the inside. People in the industry are ripping and sharing CDs they never had to pay for, such as promotional prerelease albums. This is a HUGE problem for the record industry. This is a nonfactor with the iTMS.

The bottom line here is that someone has to buy the song before it can be cracked. This is not the case in the CD-ripping scene.

Thoughts?

Those are wonderfully interesting observations. Even if people don't agree that their iTunes purchase is all that personal, the fact that they're spending money on the iTunes tracks may prevent many people from sharing them. Most people don't seem all that willing to share, though they're certainly ready to partake of the bounty.

 

[myndlinksw]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thieves

Originally posted by coumerelli
I read that link (and thank you for posting a short link instead of some rediculously long article ). My comments came because you originally said that our constitutional rights were revoked by the DMCA. 'Constitution' and 'Rights' are too easily thrown around these day, and I didn't see how your point was accurate. I do, however, see now what your original point was - and it's well taken, thank you.

But, you in your excitement, read my post too quickly and began ranting...

oops

'Free will' is not covered in our constitution. For that, you will have to refer to the Bible. There is a grand difference between 'freedom' and 'free will'

I didn't mean that we are granted free will by the Constitution; the Constitution is there to set standards for the choices we make, and more importantly to set standards and guidelines for how the government treats us. In my opinion, freedom and freewill are closely related, but obviously very different. My points about free will were pertaining to the choices people have available to them at any given time. And the points about freedom pertained to the consequences assigned to various actions.

Yup, I agree that when you say our 'fair use' covers us using a song on more than 3 computers if we should own more than 3. And the 'optional negative effects' that you are talking about is a lot of what this thread is dealing with. Many people want to strip the DRM for the express purpose of freely distributing the songs they buy (why, I'll never know. Why pay for something to give it away? THIS isn't charity). I posted on like page 3 of this thread and asked why Apple conceded to the RIAA or whoever to limit us to just three computers? Read it, and you might better understand MY position.
[/B]

Yes, my point was just that those consequences have always been there and that they will always be there. There are no new consequences introduced by this new method. It was always possible to remove the DRM. There will always be a method. That's what makes it a waste of time.

Apple made it three computers because they had to make a deal. The RIAA loves DRM, 1)because they are Greedy and 2)because it makes them feel safe.

So Apple knew there would be DRM. After that, they probably used some sales/marketing data to show that the average household has like 2-3 computers, and obviously they want the iPod to have access. You can write the music to a CD unprotected because CD players don't read a protected format for the data, and since the RIAA worked so hard to get CD's accepted and have everyone re-purchase their favorite music on CD, they will have a hard time forcing everyone to buy a new media and new hardware to play that media. Not even Sony could do it ( MiniDisk ). CD's are entrenched. They don't need to be any bigger and they are being used so widely that there will just have to be a reason to switch formats. That is why I think the iTMS DRM is the way it is.

La

 

[Sol]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thieves

Originally posted by myndlinksw
The RIAA loves DRM, 1)because they are Greedy and 2)because it makes them feel safe.[/B]

I would say that the music publishers see a problem and want to do something, even anything to keep their jobs.

With iTunes they got it right. Five major publishers came on the table to sell under one roof, Apple. Similar models have since been used by the relaunched Napster and... some other guys.

With copy-protected discs, they got it wrong. Compared to Audio CD, the copy protected format offers less for the same price. No MP3 or any other codecs, no copies on CD-R and completely useless for devices like the iPod.

 

[manu chao]

Therefore, it's questionable whether this is really circumventing a copy-protection mechanism, since this method only allows the "rightful licensee" to extract the AAC. If that's not fair use, then I don't know what is.

Where were all these MP3s on Napster and Kazaa originally coming from? From a "rightfull licensee" who bought a CD and ripped the tracks.

As long as removing the DRM is not easier than ripping a CD, the record industry is not losing anything. They did not revert back to vinyl or tape to prevent the ripping of CDs, they won't kill iTMS because there is a (cumbersome) way to circumvent the DRM.

(O.k., they try to prevent the ripping of CDs, but when I buy a CD, I want to be able to rip it and listen to it on my iPod. And I am certainly not the only one, looking at the iPod sales figures. When I can't rip a CD I give it back, and others will also. This kind of technology (CD-copy protection) will never be accepted by the customer.)