Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

QTFairUse6 Updated Hours After iTunes7 Release

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the escalating-arms-race dept.

292

Nrbelex writes "Mere hours after iTunes 7's release, QTFairUse6 has received an update which enables it to continue stripping iTunes songs of their 'FairPlay' DRM. Some features are experimental but at least it's proof that the concept still works."

cancel ×

292 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'm almost ready to buy (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16095988)

When third-party vendors start adding essential features like this, and on a timely basis, I start thinking about subscribing/installing/whatever you have to do to iTunes

Re:I'm almost ready to buy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096054)

It's a shame when 3rd party software is required to fix a defective product (DRM is a defect).

Apple - "whoops" (1)

HatchedEggs (1002127) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096097)

I hope Apple didn't spend too much time and effort on that, being that it only took a few hours for people to undo it. DRM is a pain. I don't particularily believe in downloading content I haven't paid for... but if I own something I should not be limited in how I want to use it. Kind of reminds me of Sony's shady DRM system on some of their CDs that you have to install their spyware to be able to use. And to think I'd purchased it and I still had all those restrictions on what I could do with it. I think that media companies don't seem to want to do themselves any favors with fans in all of this. At least it would appear so.

Re:Apple - "whoops" (4, Interesting)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096324)

I hope Apple didn't spend too much time and effort on that, being that it only took a few hours for people to undo it. DRM is a pain. I don't particularily believe in downloading content I haven't paid for...


Slightly off topic, but I wonder how you feel about downloding content that was on broadcast TV. Take the show "Lost" for example. Lets say you missed it when it was broadcast. Now, you could have recorded it for free and stripped out the commercials. But you didn't for whatever reason. You could wait a year for the DVD to come out, but you don't want to wait. You could pay some "legit" online service for the convenience of downloading, but why should pay for something that was broadcast for free just yesterday? Is there anything wrong with downloading it or getting it from a friend?

-matthew

Re:I'm almost ready to buy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096116)

What the hell is this?!

Re:I'm almost ready to buy (5, Funny)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096233)

It's called slashdot. It's a self-regulated forum of intellectuals who espouse fairness, rational discourse, wit and good fellowship above all else.

Re:I'm almost ready to buy (1)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096294)

It's a self-regulated forum of intellectuals who espouse fairness, rational discourse, wit and good fellowship above all else.
You have a fine career as a politician ahead of you!

Re:I'm almost ready to buy (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096320)

No it's not. You came here for an argument!

Re:I'm almost ready to buy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096495)

Sorry, arguments is down the hall. This is abuse.

How it works (why it's easy) (4, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16095993)

From the linked site:

the program attaches itself to the running itunes process and intercepts the decrypted stream as the song plays. It needs to know where in memory to grab the stream from and this is different depending on which itunes you have. It cannot just decrypt a file on its own.


So an update to the iTunes software just means an update to the memory address offset to read the data from. Piece of cake.

Re:How it works (why it's easy) (1)

bsharitt (580506) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096042)

Removing DRM from Music is nice, but I wonder if they could adapt this to work with video as well. That would be nice.

Part of it is easy (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096060)

Later in the thread they refer to a "fast dumping" feature which does not use real-time capture. Not sure how that works; in any case the fast dumping doesn't work w/iTunes 7 yet,

So basically... (2, Informative)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096105)

They're capturing the unencrypted and unencoded audio stream? That means that they're transcoding if they store it as an AAC file, right?

Re:So basically... (2, Informative)

SteveEast (1002242) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096224)

Just the decrypted audio stream. No transcoding. AAC in, AAC out. No loss of fidelity.

Re:So basically... (4, Informative)

TortiusMaximus (719234) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096253)

iTunes unencrypts the m4p file to AAC, then transcodes the AAC file to .wav before sending to the sound card driver. QTFairUse6 just intercepts the AAC datastream before it gets transformed to .wav and writes it to disk.

Re:How it works (why it's easy) (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096146)

To some extent I hope they would fix this hole as the same technique is used to produce cheats for games such as radar for certain MMOGs. On the other hand however I hope this hole isn't closed because of this very reason - DRM circumvention.

I'm not terribly sure whether Vista does or can properly fix this, whether hardware changes go anyway towards fixing it or not so I'd be interested to know more about this. I think overall I'd rather it was left open as freedom to use media and my (Not Microsoft's) computer as I see fit is more important than dealing with in game cheats etc. It's quite a dilemma though as to whether we let companies fix it or not.

How much has changed? (1)

epee1221 (873140) | more than 7 years ago | (#16095994)

Does anyone know how much the iTunes DRM scheme changed with the new release?

Re:How much has changed? (1, Flamebait)

eggoeater (704775) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096217)

It can't be much or it would break backward-compatibility with about a zillion iPods that are out there.
I doubt Apple is going to force iPod owners to upgrade their firmware just for DRM.
MS, yes, they would do that kind of thing. [slashdot.org] But not Apple.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16095995)

fp?

Re:fp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096340)

you failed miserably

Cracking because we care. (-1, Troll)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#16095996)

Isn't that nice? Someone tries to put another impediment in the way of our pursuit of doing-whatever-the-hell-we-want, and a whole community of dedicated hackers puts in the time and effort to smooth that crease out of our lives for good.

Gives you faith in humanity, doesn't it.

(Honestly, I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic or not...)

Re:Cracking because we care. (0)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096037)

impediment in the way of our pursuit of doing-whatever-the-hell-we-want-with-the-music-we- purchase

FYP

Re:Cracking because we care. (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096090)

Honestly, the reason people do this, is because most DRM, like [un-]'FairPlay', prevents a lot of valid and legitimate use.

I have well over 200 CDs in my CD cases at home, many probably have copy protection on them, though I've never done anything special to get around it (well, one CD crashes my Windows computer no matter what I do, so I don't put it in there). I have copies of all of these on my HD. Not so I can share the music with others online, I've never shared one song, but because I don't want the cpu hogging garbage the CP puts on my computer, and because I don't want to listen to one CD at a time, and switch every time I want a new song, especially since this risks damaging the CDs. On top of that, I want to listen to it on whatever device I have, be it my notebook, my desktop, my sterio, or my portable audio player. In this last case, DRM can cause major headaches and hinderances. Kein danke.

It restores my faith in humanity that there are people who willingly and freely help us preserve up our legitimate interests, when companies would try to take it away from us for a few extra bucks.

What might have been.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096325)

It occurs to me that right now the industry is being reactionary because of what happened when people started ripping and sharing files illegally. If people hadn't started ripping and sending through Napster their whole CD collections, the industry wouldn't have thought of "DRM" and perhaps instead their efforts would be focused on accomdating 'fair use' Instead we now have an arms race of people crying 'fair use' against an industry trying to stop people from doing things that in no way approach the idea of 'fair use'

Re:What might have been.... (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096367)

I won't argue; that is a very valid point. However, DRM is the wrong route.

The pirates are breaking the law - lawsuits are fine, government action is fine, but inhibiting non-theft useage is just wrong.

Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16095997)

Hopefully this keeps up. I used this to remove the DRM from the few songs I had to buy from iTunes (exclusive tracks).

At what point... (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 7 years ago | (#16095999)

will the iTunes people and the Media Monopolies in general learn that they will NEVER win the DRM war and all they are doing is costing themselves money and customers?

Re:At what point... (4, Insightful)

goMac2500 (741295) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096031)

I don't think "the iTunes people" really care. But they don't have a choice if they want to sell music. It's all about what the record labels want, not Apple.

Re:At what point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096050)

The record labels would demand better DRM or pull Apple's authorization to sell their music.

Re:At what point... (1)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096138)

I'd mostly agree with that but not entirely. They also like thier private DRM to try to lock others out. Now yes, the iPod can play non-DRMed media but in order to legally purchase most media off the net (movies, music, etc) the content owners will only allow it if its protected with DRM so your certainly correct there. However, if Apple didn't really care they'd license thier DRM to other online stores. Apple cares a LOT about that! ;-) If they did that they'd have tons of competitors to iTMS. As it is all competitors must use other DRM because Apple won't license theirs. This is mostly the MS DRM (since they are willing to license it). From there customers must find someway to strip the MS DRM and convert to mp3, etc (since iPods funny enough don't support other DRM) before they can play it on thier iPod. So just buying from iTMS in the 1st place is just WAY easier.

We'll see if this comes back to bite them later but they certainly have an interest in thier DRM. Basically thier DRM puts them in a position where even though the iPod can play non-DRMed media, you basically have to buy all your online media from them (unless you want to jump through a bunch of hoops).

Re:At what point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096342)

Then how come same record labels let selling non-DRM'ed music through different online music shops around Globe? Even more how come some of those labels let sites to give out free copies? As long as you pay enough money to labes to subside their profit, they won't care DRM or any kind of copy protection.

Never (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096193)

Simple answer. Also a simple reason.

How many people use iTunes? How many of them know about and use the circumvention tool? No matter how many it may be, the answer is invariably "not all of them". I.e. some cannot copy their songs for friends. And those friends will thus also buy the songs.

Copy protection does work. Not flawlessly, not against everyone, but at least SOME people will be kept from copying. Whether those people would have copied altogether and whether inconveniencing your paying customers is a viable business practice is a different question, though.

Re:At what point... (1)

babbling (952366) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096200)

Probably after they start using encryption well enough that programs like QTFairUse6 become impossible to create. This will happen. Once hardware supports encryption, DRM will become many times more difficult to crack.

When programs like QTFairUse6 are around, people just "work around" the DRM. I tend to still avoid it because I don't want to purchase music and make these companies think that "consumers are okay with DRM".

Re:At what point... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096434)

> Probably after they start using encryption well enough that programs like QTFairUse6 become impossible to create.

It's a truism I find myself having to repeat: you cannot encrypt something to keep it from its intended recipient. You can't embed it in hardware (CSS tried that, look how trivial that is), you can't do it with online activation. At some point, you the intended recipient of the "plaintext" are going to receive that content, and barring complete end-to-end encryption through the hardware with no leakage whatsoever, some process will always be able to get at those bits.

They're trying to lock down the hardware, but that's also a pretty doomed effort, since it just doesn't work out economically for the hardware manufacturers.

Re:At what point... (1)

nbuet (944469) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096222)

You know what DRM is for? It's only because majors want you to buy the same songs again and again. The make most of their revenues with old songs, and their worst nightmare is that you buy it "once and for all". This is why they want DRM. If someone comes with an idea where good old mp3s are just good for trashcan, I bet they'll forget this DRM thing very fast to make as much profit as possible in no time.

Re:At what point... (1)

beoba (867477) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096271)

I don't believe they intend to win the DRM war by developing some sort of unbreakable lock on their content, they just want to make it enough of a hassle to rip things that most people believe they're supposed to go out and buy another version of the same content each time they get a new device.

Re:At what point... (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096482)

I doubt this is costing them customers, people who have ipods and who use iTunes (on the whole) don't care or don't know about DRM, probably because "It'll never affect me" or some other such notion.... Then it does. And they'll buy their music again, maybe complain, but probably not enough to do anything about it.

If you really cared about DRM to the point that it would make you not use the service you'd probably be using a different service which doesn't have it.

Let the law suits begin (1)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096005)

Only a matter of time till both Apple and MS initiate lawsuits on those that cracked their DRM. No doubt aided and abetted by the **AA. The silver lining is that if this gets to the SC, the DMCA *might* get struck down as unconstitutional.

Re:Let the law suits begin (5, Informative)

xtracto (837672) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096065)

Only a matter of time till both Apple and MS initiate lawsuits on those that cracked their DRM. No doubt aided and abetted by the **AA. The silver lining is that if this gets to the SC, the DMCA *might* get struck down as unconstitutional.

Cracked DRM? where? What this program does is something similar to dump some part of the memory in your machine into a file. It does not cracks anything, it does not modify any program, it is not any key generator, it just dumps a section of your computer memory into the disk.

Guess what, Microsoft Office does exactly that when you click the "save document" function. =o)

Re:Let the law suits begin (1)

mrjb (547783) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096130)

I'm not in the U.S. nor a citizen, but doesn't this "Circumvent" the copy protection?

Re:Let the law suits begin (1)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096205)

An interesting question... if you recorded the analog output, would that circumvent copy protection? I mean, at that point, there's no copy protection to circumvent, right? So they are capturing a stream, it seems, after it's been formatted into something that can actually be played. In other words, they're not touching a copy protected file or stream, so how can they be circumventing the copy protection?

I know it sounds really wishy-washy, but when mymp3 was ordered to shut down, it seems that intent of the law doesn't matter, and any little technicality can be exploited, which is why legal documents are so long and ridiculous.

For those that don't know the story, it's one of my favorite anti RIAA ones to tell... mymp3 let you "unlock" mp3s on their servers by having their software installed on your computer and giving you access to mp3 versions of songs on a CD you had to put in your computer. So you'd put the CD in, the computer would read the ID, and unlock mp3s of those songs on their server.

They were ordered to shut down because you are allowed to copy your CD for your own use, but you're not allowed to copy someone elses CD. It didn't matter that, with the same settings and encoder, the files were identical.

So if they can play that game, then so can we.

Sounds familiar (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096162)

...it just dumps a section of your computer memory into the disk.
Hmm, isn't that precisely what the swapping mechanism of the OS itself does?

Re:Let the law suits begin (1)

Moby Cock (771358) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096199)

I am no lover of DRM or the DMCA but your arguement is a little weak. To say that this hack does the same thing as the 'Save As' function may be technically true but there is a little matter of intent to consider. A person who is involved in a horrible accident that causes a death of another is treated differently under the law because of intent. This purpose of the hack is to take away copy protection whereas the purpose of 'Save As' is to make a record of your work. They may do the cause the same process on a harddrive but they are hardly the same thing.

Re:Let the law suits begin (1)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096370)

A person who is involved in a horrible accident that causes a death of another is treated differently under the law because of intent.

Yes, it's true that we should treat people differently depending on whether or not something was intentional, but besides that, intent shouldn't matter. It shouldn't matter if you killed your wife because she was sleeping with someone else or simply because you wanted the life insurance money, for example. It shouldn't matter if you beat someone up because they were gay, all it matters is that you intentionally beat someone up and you should get the maximum punishment (IOW, I totally disagree with "hate crimes", people should always be subject to harsh punishment when they intentionally hurt someone).

Back on the topic, though, intent has little to do with it. If there's a stop sign out in the middle of Oklahoma where you can clearly see for miles and miles that there are no other vehicles or people on the road, then you've still violated the traffic code by blowing that stop sign. The intent of the sign is public safety, you did nothing to make anyone unsafe, but you could still get a ticket and never be able to argue your way out of it.

So now we go on to intent, and in a previous post I described mymp3.com, which I'll quickly repeat. MyMP3.com provided software that you installed on your computer. By putting a physical copy of a CD in your computer, the software would read the ID and "unlock" those songs on your account. Really, given the rights by congress we have to copy our own music, this does not violate the intent of the law - after all, you have provided the service proof that you at least have a physical copy of the CD, which means you are perfectly capable of making your own MP3s.

MyMP3 was shut down on the technicality that they were providing you with a copy of their CD, and not yours. The letter of the law, not the intent, is what is judged.

As far as your comment about intent is concerned, the fact is there are different laws written to handle different intent when committing the same crime. That's why there are hate crime laws, and why there's a difference between murder and involuntary man-slaughter, it's because the laws are actually written to take that into account.

The laws are very specific (annoyingly so). This program does not circumvent copy protection, it accesses the stream AFTER it's already been circumvented in order to actually make the content useful.

Re:Let the law suits begin (5, Insightful)

Jerf (17166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096264)

When you play the law game, the argument of the form "Look, there's a definition of X in the dictionary, under which X didn't happen. Therefore, I didn't do X. Ha-ha! Got you!" works about as well as I've made it sound. You really don't get to pick definitions; you can do some limited advocacy if you can find some evidence, but you aren't going to get away with arguing that because one of the definitions of murder [m-w.com] is "something very difficult or dangerous", you therefore didn't commit murder when you shot that guy that was annoying you, on the grounds that it was quite easy and involved no danger to you.

The DMCA [loc.gov] is pretty clear on what it means by circumvention:

`(3) As used in this subsection--

`(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
If you think you can convince a judge that this isn't textbook circumvention, hey, go for it. But saying it'd be an uphill battle is putting it lightly. Especially if you go in there claiming that it's somehow impossible for a "mere memory dump" to constitute circumvention, when it is clearly one of many types of transform wherein you put a protected work in one end, and get an unprotected work out the other.

(Do not confuse this post with DMCA advocacy. I strongly disagree with outlawing technologies and actions; I think the law in this area should merely concern itself with results. But I also think you can't fight against something you don't understand; you just make yourself sound like an idiot. You need to understand there is a distinction between what the laws says and what you wish it said. Understanding the DMCA better is a necessary step in fighting it.)

Re:Let the law suits begin (1)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096318)

It is still a DRM circumvention tool, and so still illegal in the US (not that I agree it should be, just pointing out the legal facts).

Re:Let the law suits begin (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096089)

Except that won't happen. For the DMCA to be struck down, somebody would have to first lose a massive lawsuit against the **AA people, and who is willing to take that risk? And this is not a political climate that favors striking down the DMCA; even if it was struck down, corporate lobbyists would instantly be pushing congress to pass an even stricter law. What is really needed is to have a study publicized which demonstrates that the content industries never had anything to fear in the first place (such a study was conducted, but never made it to the press...), and press coverage about just how stupid the content industry is being. But where are these stories? I guess the media really doesn't want to criticize itself.

Re:Let the law suits begin (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096311)

What is really needed is to have a study publicized which demonstrates that the content industries never had anything to fear in the first place (such a study was conducted, but never made it to the press...), and press coverage about just how stupid the content industry is being. But where are these stories? I guess the media really doesn't want to criticize itself.
I once took the time to put together a cross-referenced list of news media outlets, including newspapers, magazines, radio, and television and record labels, movie studios, et. al., that very clearly showed the link in ownership. It's old, out of date, and I can't find it now; but, it suffices to say you are right in that "the media doesn't want to criticize itself" because that is precisely what it would be doing. Most major "news" providers are owned by the same folks that own most major "content" providers.

Re:Let the law suits begin (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096135)

Only a matter of time till both Apple and MS initiate lawsuits on those that cracked their DRM.

I thought the people that develop this kind of thing live in Norway or other countries which recognize fair use and don't extradite to the US over such matters.

DRM has no place in the free market. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096022)

The free market has spoken: DRM is not wanted.

Re:DRM has no place in the free market. (2, Funny)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096083)

I beleive the dignified response a consumer should give to Apple and other makers of DRM is:
"Neener neener naw naw," coupled with happy-dancing around the computer desk.

Re:DRM has no place in the free market. (2, Insightful)

kalemba (549251) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096213)

ummm, 1 billion+ songs sold with DRM, and that's just from itunes. perhaps you have misinterpreted what the free market has said... [i am not advocating DRM, just commenting on the previous post]

Re:DRM has no place in the free market. (1)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096231)

The free market isn't really so free, is it? Where's my Drug-n-Hooker Mart? That's it, I'm making my own free market, with drugs, and hookers! In fact, forget the free market part. I'm moving to an island someplace and I'm taking all the drugs and hookers with me. All you squares can have fun with your drug-and-hooker-less so-called free market.

Re:DRM has no place in the free market. (1)

mingot (665080) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096261)

But on the other hand the free market has ALSO said they want badly the product apple is selling and are willing to put up with a lot of nonsense to get it. If "people" really wanted to send a clear message to the record companies about DRM they would simply not purchase or deal with DRM'd material.

DRM is a cryptographical pipe dream (5, Informative)

ControlFreal (661231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096023)

In a DRM system, the consumer's machine needs to get both the encrypted content, and the key to decrypt this content. Otherwise, the consumer cannot listen to the audio he just purchased. As long as we listen to music with our analog ears, and watch video with our analog eyes, this will be the case.

As any cryptographer will tell you: if you have the cyphertext and the correct key, you can decrypt the content. Therefore, DRM systems are, by their very definition, nothing more than security by obscurity. It is a cryptographical pipe dream.

Re:DRM is a cryptographical pipe dream (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096078)

As long as we listen to music with our analog ears, and watch video with our analog eyes, this will be the case.

Heheh ... Just wait 'til we introduce our new BrainImplant(R) DRM-on-a-chip(TM) decoding system! We will pwn j00!

Sincerely,
The RIAA and MPAA Joint Cartel

Re:DRM is a cryptographical pipe dream (3, Insightful)

localman (111171) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096098)

I agree with you. However it doesn't actually need to be a solid system to seemingly have the desired effect. iTunes 6 broke Hymn quite a while ago and until last week there was no way to decrypt. There still isn't on the Mac. They can keep changing things up and make it a pain. And even though there's still CD's out there and people can download from P2P, they file lawsuits to put a damper on that. So I think they believe their strategy is stopping 80% or more of the problem.

However, I think the real reason legal music downloads is working is because iTunes is a better experience. That's it. I think they're wasting their own time and money with DRM and lawsuits and whatever. All they've ever had to do was provide a better experience and people will pay. People with money will, anyways. They've seen this but they won't believe it. And if they wanted to take it further down the "better experience" path, they'd drop DRM and lawsuits. But whatever; they won't.

Cheers.

Why iTunes works (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096214)

iTunes works not because you can't copy the song or because of DRM. It works because of two simple reasons:

1. price
2. easy to use

Fairly simple. 99 cents is a sum that convinces people it's more convenient to click and pay than to fire up a filesharing system or phone 'round with their friends. It downloads quickly and it's guaranteed to work with your iPod, no need to wonder what format or how to transfer it, the software is built to fit.

That's what makes it popular and that's why people pay for it. I bet a sizable sum that most of them didn't even notice yet that it contains DRM. Simply because nobody bothered to try to copy it instead of simply clicking and paying the buck.

Re:DRM is a cryptographical pipe dream (1)

Moby Cock (771358) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096157)

our analog eyes

This may be a little off topic, but it strikes me that our eyes have a finite number of rods and cones to sample the incoming light. As such, they are a natural world digital system, albeit very high fidelity.

Re:DRM is a cryptographical pipe dream (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096208)

I've often thought about this, and my answer is that our eyes aren't as sensitive as you'd believe. The key is that 'finite number'... How small could such a receptor be and still be useful? And there's cones and rods both, taking up space.

My theory on this is that yes, it's pretty 'high-def' in there, but our mind takes it a step further and interpolates. Our eyes are always moving, even if by almost imperceptable amounts. And they've proven how your mind makes your 'blind spot' look just as real and detailed as the rest of your vision.

So I think the answer is the interpolation. This also partly explain why some people notice frames per second more than others. Some peoples' brains heavily interpolate and so the information has a lag/blur effect. Others tend to use ever single bit of information as it comes in, but their perceived definition is probably not quite as good.

Just theories of mine, and I'm a programmer not a biologist, but they sure sound good. :)

Re:DRM is a cryptographical pipe dream (1)

camcorder (759720) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096293)

If my ears won't catch a frequency played through the audio stream, or my eyes won't catch a color on an image, I would not care as a plain audience. That's why lossy compression algorithms are common, and more than enough for most people. If you need that fidelity you must be a professional and it's wise to pay for that content. Indeed it's ripping people off to sell lossy compressed audio or video. That's like demo of your original content.

Re:DRM is a cryptographical pipe dream (2, Insightful)

pegr (46683) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096206)

As any cryptographer will tell you: if you have the cyphertext and the correct key, you can decrypt the content.
 
This is exactly correct. In the classic crypto scenario, A(lice) encrypts communication to B(ob) to protect it from attacker C(harles).
 
But as Bruce himself would tell you, in the DRM scenario, B and C are the same person! Attempts to enable "Trustworthy" computing is simply a move to make the computer itself B, with C being the computer's owner... You own it, you pay for it, but your own computer doesn't trust you. No thanks...

Re:DRM is a cryptographical pipe dream (1)

Garrett Fox (970174) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096265)

As long as we listen to music with our analog ears, and watch video with our analog eyes, this will be the case.

You realize, then, that you'll have to replace your ears five years from now to fix this flaw.

Moo (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096029)

That was quick. Almost too quick...

Apple, a DRM company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096035)

I imagine that there whole business will solely become selling DRM data and DRM players/viewers.

The market of re-selling/renting disposible encrypted media is very large as long as it remains legal and the public doesn't figure out what is really going on.

Folks here don't "get" DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096079)

By listening to the rants around here ranting against DRM, you'd think all these folks also don't have locks on their doors or even use software (after all, both are imperfect and have security issues and software has stability issues not to mention usability, etc). Fact is, that the DRM does the job intended (really intended) in that it keeps the majority of users honest. OK, so there is a crack for itunes drm, fine, the majority of people don't know and don't care. They feel that they are getting fair value for their $.99, which in the end is all that matters. As another poster mentioned, the market has spoken, and it's overwhelmingly in favour of DRM (not directly of course).

Re:Folks here don't "get" DRM (3, Insightful)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096141)

no, because people who don't have legitimate uses find easy ways around them.

The people who stick to legitimate uses are more likely to give up and say "forget it, I guess I won't use it for my legitimiate use because I can't", and not bother looking for a crack.

The only people that DRM hurts is the honest people who are not technically inclined.

Re:Folks here don't "get" DRM (1)

Lussarn (105276) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096171)

The majority of people don't have DRM-laden music at all, yet most people have hundreds or thousands of songs. Mostly downloaded. Sure, there are a few who thinks that DRM-laden music at $.99 a piece is a bargain but I can't see how the market have spoken in favour of DRM when 99% of the music on peoples hardrives don't have DRM.

Re:Folks here don't "get" DRM (1)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096227)

No, I don't see how.

DRM means the vast majority of people purchasing from iTunes can't share their music on P2P. However, the vast majority of people purchasing from iTunes wouldn't P2P share their music anyway.

Meanwhile, it does nothing to stop people who download music. The music is still out there. Yes, even ripped from iTunes.

I can't even vaguely begin to guess what iTune's DRM is supposed to be accomplishing, what obstacles it is putting in the way.

This is wrong (0)

Microsift (223381) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096092)

There is no legitimate reason to strip the DRM from iTunes Store purchases. Apple has made great efforts to publicize how products purchased can be used (up to 5 computers, any number of iPods). So, there's no reason someone who buys music from iTunes should be surprised that there is DRM attached to the file.

I contrast this with CDs that have attempted to prevent users from copying songs to their computers. A customer who bought a copy-protected CD could reasonably expect to be able to copy those songs to their computer, because that is the way that most CD's work. The record companies have made little effort to communicate to the public how these CDs can be used.

Re:This is wrong (1)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096158)

here is no legitimate reason to strip the DRM from iTunes Store purchases

Itunes music didn't work particularly well on my Sandisk MP3 player till I burned it to CD-R and then extracted it as MP3. It quickly got to be too much hassle, so I stopped using Itunes.

Re:This is wrong (5, Informative)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096174)

So, I could download something from iTunes, and without hassle, put it on my non-apple MP3 player, have a copy on my work (windows) PC, my home (Windows) PC, my notebook (BSD), and use it on my Audiotron player (MP3 and WMA compatable) that pipes it through my sterio?

Somehow I doubt it, yet those are all legitimate uses.

Re:This is wrong (1)

Deadguy2322 (761832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096240)

Hey, jimsimpleton, learn how to spell. The word is STEREO, dumbass.

Nope, but Apple told you so before you bought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096259)

Legitimate uses or not, Apple specifically states how these downloads can be used, and what restrictions are placed on them. If you buy music from iTunes expecting to be able to do the things you mentioned (copy them to a non-Apple MP3 player easily etc.) then you're a moron for not reading the terms of sale beforehand and you only have yourself to blame.

Re:Nope, but Apple told you so before you bought.. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096375)

Legitimate uses or not, Apple specifically states how these downloads can be used, and what restrictions are placed on them.
You cannot be obliged to sacrifice your firstborn at midnight, even if there is a clause requiring you to do exactly that in a contract you sign. Some people think that quite a few rights, fair use among them, are important enough that they should fall under the same category (i.e. you cannot be deprived of them, wilfully or not). I'm not sure what the U.S. law says in that regard, but there are some jurisdictions where this is indeed the case.

Besides, even when something is illegal, it does not mean that something is not a right thing to do.

Re:This is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096439)

...and use it on my Audiotron player (MP3 and WMA compatable) that pipes it through my sterio?


I didn't know an Audiotron player can stream music over the internet to a sterio. I'll have to invest in some of those!

What the authors don't get (4, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096182)

Is that by stripping the DRM, they're actually supporting the iTunes model and therefore the record labels because people will continue to buy from them instead of switching to the non DRM competition.

It's the same reason MS don't come down too hard on piracy of their OS and office suites. It actually supports their business.

 

No (1)

goldcd (587052) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096241)

I'm supporting the digital distibution model. I buy m4p tracks and convert them to m4a.
Record companies don't notice, they got their money and I'm not sharing the unprotected files.
Only person that should care is Apple, as I can now shift from ipod when the whim takes me. Currently I'm not in a huge rush, I'm perfectly happy with it by and large, but I hated the feeling of being trapped.

Re:No (1)

Shawn is an Asshole (845769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096307)

Record companies don't notice, they got their money and I'm not sharing the unprotected files.


Record companies did notice. The noticed that you bought a DRM-crippled format, which only serves to encourage them to add more DRM in the future. After all, it sells. Add more.

Re:What the authors don't get (1)

SensitiveMale (155605) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096369)

It's the same reason MS don't come down too hard on piracy of their OS and office suites. It actually supports their business.

Apparently, you haven't heard of the WGA.

A few years ago you were correct. MS didn't give a damn since it increased market share. Due to Vista being a clusterfuck and years late, ms needs to crack down on piracy in order to get their revenues back up.

Re:This is wrong (2)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096243)

Actually, I can think of a couple perfectly legit reasons involving things that I want to do.

1. I have been unable to listen to my music on my XP x64 installation. I've been using this as my primary PC for a while now, and I've been unable to play any of my M4Ps since iTunes won't even install (until today). I spent a long time looking for an older iTunes 6 installation, but to no avail. I'll see if I can get things working again tonight. If I could strip the DRM, I'd just open up any number of other players and listen in Media Player or Winamp.

2. I have a car MP3-CD player. I cannot convert my M4Ps to MP3 without wasting a bunch of CDs. iTunes doesn't let you create an MP3 CD with your protected songs. If iTunes allowed me to burn an MP3 CD with those protected songs, or if I stripped the DRM, I could make that MP3 CD and have my music with me in the car.

Yes, I know that if the DRM was easily removed the *AA would be all over them... I understand that this isn't all on Apple, and they have to at least try to keep their music locked down. And no, I'm not going to go spend $400+ just to listen to music I already bought.

Re:This is wrong (1)

mondoterrifico (317567) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096247)

DRM has no legitimacy period.

Re:This is wrong (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096249)

There is also no legitimate reason to inconvenience your paying customer and lock him into protection schemes at all. Whether it's some arbitrary number of copies he may hold or other limitations imposed on him. What happens to my music when I went through 5 computers (you know the MTBF is shrinking quickly in the current hardware, yes?), not every song is fast food like current pop music. I might still want to be able to listen to it in 10 years.

Re:This is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096494)

All you have to do if you're unable (or forget) to deauthorize your previous computer is deauthorize ALL the computers associated with your account. (I can't remember if you do this through iTunes, or through apple.com somewhere). Then you can authorize up to 5 new computers. Very snazzy, really. I just wish the number of computers was higher. I have 7 just at home, not to mention 3 at the office. But that's why I have an iPod (can play it through the computer's speakers, even if that computer's not authorized for my library).

Re:This is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096255)

"There is no legitimate reason to strip the DRM from iTunes Store purchases."

Do you still have the first 5 computers you worked on?

Do you still have the first 5 CDs you bought?

For me the answers are no and yes. Music has far outlasted my computers. Tie my music to my computer and I'm not buying. Ever.

Re:This is wrong (2, Insightful)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096351)

I think Apple has procedures for deauthorizing a computer and adding a new one in its place. Unless you're going through computers like the Flash, it shouldn't be much of a hassle.

Re:This is wrong (1)

Fished (574624) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096268)

uh huh. So, tell me, since I carry a Palm Treo with me, which is perfectly capable of playing MP3s (except for the DRM), how then do I play itunes files on my Treo? Why should I have to by a separate box to play my iTunes files?

Re:This is wrong (3, Informative)

Shawn is an Asshole (845769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096276)

There is no legitimate reason to strip the DRM from iTunes Store purchases.


Yeah sure. Wanting to listen to purchased music on Linux systems is wrong.

Re:This is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096299)

So, how should i play it on my palm lifedrive?
Or my old pocket pc?
Or my father on his creative muvo?

Re:This is wrong (1)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096358)

There is no legitimate reason to strip the DRM from iTunes Store purchases.

Some of us use MP3 players not produced by Apple, or OSes that Apple has refused to produce a player for.

Of course, some of us also don't buy damn crippled music from Apple, but claiming there is 'no legitimate reason' for stripping DRM is idiotic. It's format shifting, and there are plenty of legitimate reasons to do it. Hell, maybe we want to use it as a ringtone.

I find it sort of funny that it's magically okay to take a legally purchased song from a CD and copy and alter the data to get it on an iPod, but it's not okay to take a legally purchased song from Apple and copy and alter the data to get it on a different brand of portable music device.

I mean, it was one thing when the record industry was arguing that any copying was illegal. That stance was at least consistent. Now they're letting Apple sell music using software with features explicitly designed to copy CDs, but somehow it's 'wrong' to do a different format shift.

I guess slapping the logo 'DRM' on it makes it somehow morally different.

Re:This is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096361)

There is no legitimate reason to strip the DRM from iTunes Store purchases.

Here is another legitimate reason: My Squeezebox network music player will not play DRM protected AAC files from ITunes but will play plain AAC files just fine. I strip the DRM using these tools and voila I can listen to them without any additional conversion or burn/re-rip and the loss of sonic quality that would cause.

Re:This is wrong (1)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096394)

There is no legitimate reason to strip the DRM from iTunes Store purchases.
What about playing it on my non-Apple MP3 player? What about having a shared music source for my Windows & Linux dual boot?

What about something as simple as wanting to play it in the audio software of my choice? Personally I like MixMeister Pro, it's DJ software, and gives me the kind of control I want in a music player (which iTunes is lacking).

iTunes DRM is purposeful incompatibility designed into the codec. Frankly, unless Apple opens this format for others to implement on non-Apple hardware/software, shortly they're going to start risking wandering into antitrust territory, as they become the vast majority player in the market. Other companies have been burned for purposely taking great lengths to make their dominant product incompatible with competetor's products in order to lock their customers in. This is no different other than that Apple is a broker and not a producer.

The Future Looks Dim with DRM (3, Insightful)

mitchell_pgh (536538) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096117)

I really do fear that the future will be riddled with incompatibilities from DRM.

I'm an "Apple Fanboy" but have limited my iTunes purchases to a few albums. CDs are still considerably more flexible regarding how and where I can use the music. Sure I own an iPod, but I also own a phone and PSP that can both play music. I also have a device that will play MP3s through my TV. None of those last three will play my FairPlay music. While I accept the limitations of the player, it's simply frustrating at times.

Regarding the new Apple Movie Store, let me get this right... we pay $9.99 (to $14.99) for a movie... that's of a lower quality than DVD and can't really be moved outside of your local network (it's not like you can take it over to a friends house without unauthorizing their computer and authorizing their computer under your username). Just trying to explain this to my fiance made her eyes glaze over. Her exact words: "sounds compleicated... why not just go to the movie store."

We just said NO to such entertainment. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096218)

DRM has been a fantastic thing for me and my family. Just over a year ago, we were much like most other American families when it came to entertainment. We'd listen to a lot of music, and we'd rent and buy DVDs fairly frequently. We'd go to the cinema maybe twice a month. But that all changed quite rapidly.

About two years ago we had gotten a new DVD/VCR/TV combo. Off we went to the local video store, to rent some videos for our daughters. One of the videos happened to be on a VHS tape. We went to play it, but it wouldn't play right in the new VCR. It'd had lines running through the pictures, for some reason. It worked fine in our older player, so the tape itself wasn't damaged. We tried with some of our home videos, that we had taken with our own VHS recorder years back. Again, the same problem. They'd work fine in our older player, but not in our newer one. The only VHS video tape I could get to play was one of the James Bond movies we had lying around.

Several days later while talking to some coworkers, and they mentioned that it was likely Macrovision that was causing the problems. I wasn't aware of Macrovision at the time, so I asked them to explain it to me, and they did. Put simply, I was quite irrate after finding out that I couldn't play my home videos on my new VCR/DVD/TV combo because of this anti-piracy technology. We're not pirates. We weren't playing pirated media. We want nothing to do with that sort of junk.

Later on, my oldest daughter received an iPod from a relative for Christmas, and so we tried out iTunes. Long story short, we were quite disappointed with the whole system, and all of the restrictions. It reminded us of the Macrovision hassles. And we just got to the point where we didn't want to use the products from companies that assumed us to be criminals.

At that point, we decided as a family that we were not going to be victims any longer. We went to our local library, and each got library cards. Every week, we take out several books and read them instead of listening to music, watching TV, or going to the cinema. We have taken the money we saved, and invested it building a quality home book library. It's amazing how many great books you can get on sale at your local bookstore, especially when you don't spend money on mainstream Hollywood entertainment. Unlike DRM'ed media, we will be able to read these books decades from now. We will be able to let our grandchildren read and enjoy them, just as much as we can today. Just saying "No!" to this type of nonsense technology was the best thing we have done.

Why you are all wrong (4, Insightful)

rockhome (97505) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096400)

There are a lot of arguments about how bad DRM is and why it is stupid and how it restricts one's fair use.

The arguments lack one perspective, that the purchase of music from iTunes, et. al., comes with certain conditions. There is no fundamental right to purchase anything free of conditions, so when music companies and online retailers decide that they will offer music that is ensconced in DRM, that is a business and marketing decision that they make, assuming that people will forgo some freedoms in order to have the convienience.

The sort of "active" protest over DRM that is represented by tools to strip the DRM merely confirms that the market for the music exists and offers no reason for the music companies to move away from DRM. A better protest would be to boycott the entire DRM scheme altogether and only seek music from outlets that provide it free of DRM.

Will you still be able to get all of the CCR and Radiohead from other, non-DRM outlets? No, but if you want to make a point with a corporation, you need to do it by removing yourself from the market. The problem that I see is that many people want to have it both ways; they want all of the convience of an iTunes or Rhapsody, or similar, none of the DRM and want all of this without any real sacrifice.

A major problem today is the erroneous sense of entitlement that pervades so much. Too many people think that they are entitled to market for products that suits their needs and are willing to resort to unethical, if not blatantly criminal, activity to create that market. The truth is that the online music market will only change when providers are losing money because their markets have shrunk and they must retool the offering. AS long as people buy the DRM'ed music, that won't happen.

Re:Why you are all wrong (5, Insightful)

ambrosen (176977) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096411)

Actually, the European Comission does consider that there is a right to purchase things free of conditions, and in the case of any transaction that looks like a sale, it is a sale, and the constraints the seller can put on the purchaser are very limited.

Re:Why you are all wrong (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096496)

A better protest would be to boycott the entire DRM scheme altogether and only seek music from outlets that provide it free of DRM.
In a country, where more people vote in American Idol than USA Elections? You can say in other countries it's similar (I live in Poland where in last elections only slightly over 50% people voted), but I think USA people are the most influential here.

Troubled times. (1)

DoctorDyna (828525) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096507)

I think it's a symptom of technology, personally. We love technology as good little consumer whores. Well, just so happens, so do the greedy bastards at record labels. Just as much as we like to use technology, in increasingly grave amounts to make our lives easier, faster, dumber, cheaper, smoother, so do they. Unfortunatly, it's become far too easy for them to screw with our lives as far as consumption of entertainment goes.

Perhaps it's time for them to be taught that their product is simply not as valuable as they think it is and try to sue us into thinking it is as well.

I'm obviously not a Mac user.... (1)

xoundmind (932373) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096510)

I read that headline and thought that Trolltech had adjusted the QT license in response to the new iTunes.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>