DVD Jon hacks iTunes, creates program that allows you to buy...

[Trimix]

two three months ago i would have thought oh my gawd - however, after apple going after that think secret bloke, taking on the weakest out of the bunch, i am sitting here and going - hmmm apple, serves you right.
get me right, i love the product, but i have a problem with their attitude - so what goes around.....

 

[dragonsbane]

What did that law say again?

I am interested in the "law" in this case. I think capvideo has brought up some good case history. If anyone has any other legal insight into this matter, I for one, would sure like to hear it. Reviewing the cases discussed here has been... informative. I suggest a quic review for those on the "pro-DRM" side.

 

[geniusj]

Agreed, Jon probably wants headlines.

Kudos to Jon. I have spoken with him a few times now (I had written, essentially, a copy of hymn for my own use before hymn existed), and I don't think that he's all about the headlines necessarily. At least, it doesn't seem to get to his head, he's quite approachable and very friendly. I think the reason he 'targets' iTunes, is because that's the one he likes. He liked watching DVDs, so he cracked the encryption so he could play them on Linux. He liked the iTunes Music Store, so he made it so that he could play the files on any OS he wanted to. Basically, he sees a problem, or a barrier preventing him from doing what he wants with his data, and he breaks through it. Has hymn really hurt Apple's bottom line? It's very very doubtful.

Again, Kudos.

 

[matticus008]

Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.

It is wrong to do something you know you are not supposed to do. Whether or not you think that's the right thing to do morally does not mean it's not also the wrong thing to do. Respect for the law is part of morality. It's very simple. You might feel justified in doing something illegal, but that doesn't change the fact that doing something illegal is also wrong. Right and wrong are not mutually exclusive like legal and illegal are.

Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.

But since I haven't lost the argument, it doesn't apply. On moral grounds alone, no one should use the application, because you gave your word to abide by the terms presented to you when you created the account. If your word is not morally binding, then you are an immoral person. Deal with it.

Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.

No, follow the laws because you are obligated to do so. If you decide you do not support one of the laws and you live in a society that can address those concerns and change the law, you have the moral obligation to society to act with legitimate force to change the law. Clearly, you've not dealt with the bulk of what I said. Have you, personally, done anything legal to address the situation? No. Furthermore, you gave your word not to break your agreement with iTunes, and you are going back on your agreement. You have no moral ground to do so. You cannot argue that breaking your word is morally justified. I don't understand what's so hard to see about that.

Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?

It's not any different from speeding. The fact that I know the law and its consequences and still choose to speed demonstrates that I do something that is personally more convenient than following the law. I know this is not a right thing to do, and I know that I'm not supposed to do it, and I know that there are consequences for doing so should I get caught. If I get caught for speeding, I'll get a ticket or go to jail or whatever the legal punishment is for doing so, regardless of my moral opinion of the matter. It's the same with this, if you choose to break the law, that's your decision, but it's wrong and there are consequences. If you do not accept the consequences, don't break the law, and don't pretend that because you feel justified breaking it that it's okay to do.

If everyone went 90mph on the freeway all the time, the cops would install speed limiters in our cars and then people like you would complain that the cars don't do everything you want and break the speed limiters. What you're doing is breaking the law because you want to, and then complaining when the government makes the law harder to break, all because you were breaking the law in the first place.

As for the law cases discussed, they don't apply. The majority of them date back long before a useful, recent period. Furthermore, none of them conflict with the idea of intellectual property. The Supreme Court has ruled that you purchased and own what you buy, not that you own the intellectual property of someone else. You have the right to use that material according to your agreement with the owner. The owner of a book can't tell you what to do with your physical paper object, but they can tell you that you don't have the right to copy the text. The final comments of the judges agree. Jerry's rant would apply if digital music files gave you anything to own, but they don't. It would apply if someone told you that you weren't allowed to sell your CDs after you buy them. But you can. It does not and has never applied (in 100 years or more) to the intellectual property contained in what you buy. For a long time, you haven't been able to steal a design, or republish someone else's book without their permission, or sell a song that doesn't belong to you. None of those cases say you can, and if you believe that you have the right to do so, show ME a case to say it.

 

[dragonsbane]

Corrupt souls

No, follow the laws because you are obligated to do so.

Last I checked you were required to sign something when you got your license stating you would obey all laws. I believe you just said:

You are obliged to not speed.
You choose to to speed (because it is personally more convenient).
Does this mean you are as morally corrupt as a murderer or someone using this application?

Please explain.

 

[dragonsbane]

The Brass Ring

he sees a problem, or a barrier preventing him from doing what he wants with his data, and he breaks through it.

What a fine upstanding human citizen! Good for Jon. If you want something - go get it. Mitigate your journey only by your own morals and your tolerance for the punishments society may place on you for choosing the road you walk. (FWIW: I doubt society would be anywhere if this was not the governing ethic of revolutionaries the world over.)

 

[hulugu]

I disagree. What he's doing is illegal and unethical....They will also easily obtain a court injunction to stop this. What he's doing is illegal from two perspectives. First, it's a violation of the iTMS terms of service (which allows only iTunes access). Second, it's a violation of DCMA.
...I happen to disagree - but that's because my company depends on the ability to protect our intellectual property in order to stay in business.
...The music owners have the right to do whatever they want with the music. You can legally (and morally) do what they request or live without their music....Your position is the same as a person who steals a BMW because he doesn't like the purchase terms....No, it's not your music. The music belongs to whoever the artist sold it to (usually a member of the RIAA). They sell you a license to use the music under a given set of terms. If you violate the terms that you paid for, you're stealing....
The music industry owns the music - and they're free to price it however they want. If you think the price is too high, your only legal and moral response is to not buy it. Not liking the price is not justification for theft.

This is a gross and dangerous simplification of Intellectual Property, which is a grab-bag of very complex rights, including copyright.
Music is such a total mess right now because of computers that most people can't see straight, so I like to think of books. I buy a hardcover edition of Pattern Recognition: I can read the book the minute I get it home and I can keep it around for years dog-earing the pages, highlighting passages, making notes. I can even copy pages for reference or to give to my students to read. I can also lend the book to others or I can sell the book to a used bookstore and buy another book. These are my rights, because when I gave the publisher money, the book—the physical lump of paper—becomes mine.
However, the ideas contained within still remain the author's and while I can quote the author at length in various mediums, I must request permission to reproduce the work in its entireity. None of the things above is stealing from the author or robbing the publisher of some imagination monetary stream, because I ownthe book.
When I buy a CD, I should have the analogue rights: the rights to listen to the music at will, to make my own changes and alterations to it (ie mix tapes), to quote it (mash-ups, assuming I can credit the original author), and even make copies of it for personal use (backups, iPod, etc.) Now technology allows me to reproduce exact copies, but this doesn't rob me of my rights to make those copies, it is not my fault that I can make a perfect copy. The changes in technology did not suddenly make the rights I've had since the phonograph change, it may threaten your business model, but it does not and should not affect my personal rights in this paradigm.
However, in either case, I still do not have the right to distribute, sell, or otherwise profit from the book or song. In the case of music, if I make a mash-up, I should request permission to use the track.
But, by selling me a piece of music you are transferring some rights, you are transferring to me, the rights given under the ideas of Fair Use. I did not become a serf to your intellectual property in the process of giving you money.
The idea that by buying a CD or a song from iTMS and then putting it on my iPod, my computers, and CDs from my car is stealing is a facile idea brought on by soft-headed Shylocks who demand their pound of flesh.
Is P2P wrong? Yes. Are mash-ups using the Beatles and Jay-Z? Only if distributed. Is my use of two songs in an iPhoto slideshow robbing Led Zepplin of their dime? No. Now, if I make a movie that uses a Led Zepplin soundtrack and start selling copies, do I own Led some change. Yes?Consumers and authors both have rights, and the inability to understand this rather fair system has resulted in the total cluster-f*ck we call DRM.

As authors (publishers, musicians, various lawyers) demand more money for fewer rights, consumers rebel as they always do.
I respect copyright, , but I did not give you my soul so that I could hear a little jam once in a while. Your demand of every possible right just shows how greedy the entire system has gotten; you demand a penny for every pleasure. And I'm sick of it.

 

[matticus008]

Last I checked you were required to sign something when you got your license stating you would obey all laws. I believe you just said:

You are obliged to not speed.
You choose to to speed (because it is personally more convenient).
Does this mean you are as morally corrupt as a murderer or someone using this application?

Please explain.

What? Where did anyone equate any of this to murder?

You are subject to the laws of the government where you are, regardless of anything you sign. Yes, you sign that you will obey all laws when you get your license. If you drive without a license, you are subject to those same laws regardless. If you break the law, you've done something wrong, whether you felt justified ("right") in doing so depends on you. But it does not negate the fact that your action was wrong and a violation of something you know you're not supposed to do.

It's not about degrees of morally corrupt. It's that what you did was wrong. If it's just a little wrong, it's still wrong. If it was REALLY wrong, it's still wrong. Breaking a law, any law, is wrong by definition. Your punishment will vary based on the severity of that infraction and a thousand other factors. No one is suggesting that you will get the death sentence for breaking these laws. And no one is equivocating any of these infractions to murder, so just knock it off.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing here--it's just plain ridiculous and illogical.

 

[geniusj]

Beautiful

That was beautiful, hulugu. This is why I happily 'unwrap' all of my music. Even if I do not run into the barriers imposed by the DRM, the fact that they are there bothers me to no end. I do not distribute my music to others, nor do I do anything that is affecting their bottom line. However, I feel that we have the right to do with the music within the boundaries that you outlined. These are rights that we've had for a long time, and I'm not about to see it go away.

 

[geniusj]

You are subject to the laws of the government where you are, regardless of anything you sign. Yes, you sign that you will obey all laws when you get your license. If you drive without a license, you are subject to those same laws regardless. If you break the law, you've done something wrong, whether you felt justified ("right") in doing so depends on you. But it does not negate the fact that your action was wrong and a violation of something you know you're not supposed to do.

It's not about degrees of morally corrupt. It's that what you did was wrong. If it's just a little wrong, it's still wrong. If it was REALLY wrong, it's still wrong. Breaking a law, any law, is wrong by definition. Your punishment will vary based on the severity of that infraction and a thousand other factors..

I would hate to live in a place where everyone thought as you do. How would anything get changed?

 

[matticus008]

You make all valid points repeating what's been said, with the exception of what follows.

When I buy a CD, I should have the analogue rights: the rights to listen to the music at will, to make my own changes and alterations to it (ie mix tapes), to quote it (mash-ups, assuming I can credit the original author), and even make copies of it for personal use (backups, iPod, etc.) Now technology allows me to reproduce exact copies, but this doesn't rob me of my rights to make those copies, it is not my fault that I can make a perfect copy. The changes in technology did not suddenly make the rights I've had since the phonograph change, it may threaten your business model, but it does not and should not affect my personal rights in this paradigm.

You have those rights with your CD. You don't have those rights with the iTunes downloads. You are free to copy music from CDs for your personal use on your iPod or whatnot. Your rights have not changed. You even have the right to copy the songs you've bought from iTunes to your iPod or to CDs. But you do not have the right to take DRM out and do it, when you purchased your file with fair use and purchase-contract rights which include DRM stipulations.

However, in either case, I still do not have the right to distribute, sell, or otherwise profit from the book or song. In the case of music, if I make a mash-up, I should request permission to use the track.
But, by selling me a piece of music you are transferring some rights, you are transferring to me, the rights given under the ideas of Fair Use. I did not become a serf to your intellectual property in the process of giving you money.
The idea that by buying a CD or a song from iTMS and then putting it on my iPod, my computers, and CDs from my car is stealing is a facile idea brought on by soft-headed Shylocks who demand their pound of flesh.

Buying a CD, you're absolutely right, and this has been defended in this thread. Buying a song from iTunes gives you the same rights to use that file and copies of that file WITH DRM. You have every freedom to put it on computers, iPods, and CDs when you buy from iTunes, as long is it works with FairPlay. FairPlay allows you to do all of these things that are your legal right. But you don't have the right to take DRM out and put the material on mediums that are not allowed by your usage rights. If an artist decides to sell music for use in Canada and not the US, you don't have the right to use the music in the US, even if the same music is sold in the US. You have to buy a version that works in the US. If an artist sells music for use with FairPlay-compatible devices, and you accept those terms (by buying it), you don't have the right to use it with non FairPlay enabled devices. The artists are not doing anything illegal by using DRM. If you don't agree with DRM, don't buy music that has it. Buy CDs that are not protected.

 

[matticus008]

I would hate to live in a place where everyone thought as you do. How would anything get changed?

You do live in such a place. Things get changed through legitimate channels. If you'd read the other comments, you'd see that there are extreme cases of personal harm and substantial financial harm where illegal action can be permissable. This is NOT one of those cases.

There are many legal avenues for addressing your concerns. You can write to legislators and companies. You can vote with your wallet by not buying things with DRM (because no one is forcing you to do so). You can sue if you believe the terms or laws are illegal. You can lobby and stage protests. These are your options. You've chosen to break the law (which encourages tighter restrictions and greater punishments) rather than do anything productive. Revolutionaries don't always work within the law, but you're pretty deluded if you think that digital music is worth overthrowing the government.

Breaking the law because you feel like it is not the correct way to deal with this problem. If someone steals my car, I go to the police. That's why they exist. If I go and find him and beat him up because he stole my car, then I've broken the law and I go to jail, even if I think it was okay for me to beat him up.

 

[geniusj]

There are many legal avenues for addressing your concerns. You can write to legislators and companies. You can vote with your wallet by not buying things with DRM (because no one is forcing you to do so). You can sue if you believe the terms or laws are illegal. You can lobby and stage protests. These are your options. You've chosen to break the law (which encourages tighter restrictions and greater punishments) rather than do anything productive. Revolutionaries don't always work within the law, but you're pretty deluded if you think that digital music is worth overthrowing the government.

Well, we will see where all of this goes in the next few years. Whatever DRM they put out there is going to be broken. It's almost a guarantee. Hopefully they will eventually realize this and remove the sticks from their (or more accurately: OUR) collective asses. We could argue about the morality of this forever. It's a personal judgment. I personally don't give a ****, because I am not doing anything with my files that their DRM was designed to prevent.

Why do I continue to buy from iTMS? I agree that it probably isnt' the best idea if I want anything to change. However, my laziness far exceeds my will to protest. This is likely the story with a lot of people. Driving to the store to get a CD, or waiting for it to be shipped sucks. Getting a whole CD when I only want one song sucks. iTMS provides me an easier solution, and provides me it legally. Am I going to get busted for unwrapping these files? No. Would I get busted if I were to get them off of a file sharing network? It's possible. I'm taking the easy way out, and everyone's getting compensated at the same time. Hooray.

 

[dragonsbane]

The center can not hold...

I'm not even sure what you are arguing here--it's just plain ridiculous and illogical.

There is little that is illogical going on here. Untenable but not illogical.

First you say that breaking the law is wrong. That is why we should not use this app to download songs from the iTMS. Then someone pokes in and shouts "If I want to murder you will you defend my right to do that?" I answer that I respect your desire to unwrap DRM and to murder me.. In both cases, you are subject to the laws of the land. But the key here is that you are driven by your M-O-R-A-L-S!!! You are NOT driven by following a law.

It is hypocritical for you to say it is OK to speed but not grab a tune using this app. You might not want to use this app, but that is just you. You are a SPEEDER for crying out loud. Our society is about to fall apart because you break the law "when you choose". UUUGH! The horror of it all.

I mean, my goodness, what would we do if everyone thought for themselves and made up their own minds about what they would and would not do! So much better if everyone just followed the laws of the land. I mean... if it is a law then it is good and should be obeyed!!!

You, my friend, have argued yourself into a corner. You say we should not break laws but you willingly break them when it suits you. Why is that OK for you but not for me? I have said from the start: Do what you feel. Learn the law and the consequences for breaking it. But at the end of the day, make up your own mind about right and wrong... and follow it.

Convince me of why it is wrong to break this law... but do not try to tell me that by breaking it I am doing something wrong. Illegal, yes. But since when is doing something illegal morally wrong?

 

[matticus008]

There is little that is illogical going on here. Untenable but not illogical.

No, illogical.

First you say that breaking the law is wrong. That is why we should not use this app to download songs from the iTMS. Then someone pokes in and shouts "If I want to murder you will you defend my right to do that?" I answer that I respect your desire to unwrap DRM and to murder me.. In both cases, you are subject to the laws of the land. But the key here is that you are driven by your M-O-R-A-L-S!!! You are NOT driven by following a law.

I'm glad you support my (hypothetical) desire to kill you, but the law doesn't. You are restrained by the law, regardless of what you think of them. Your actions are driven by morals and your understanding of the law and consequences for breaking the law. But your moral view does not place you above the law. And so stop trying to justify the breaking of the law as morally right, because it is not in this case. You have legal means to deal with your problems, and you are not using them. There is no moral imperative that makes it so that the law keeps you from doing what you want, because there are legal ways to put all of your music on mp3 players. They're called CDs. And please stop with the spelling out of words. It's unnecessary and juvenile. Most of us can spell.

It is hypocritical for you to say it is OK to speed but not grab a tune using this app. You might not want to use this app, but that is just you. You are a SPEEDER for crying out loud. Our society is about to fall apart because you break the law "when you choose". UUUGH! The horror of it all.

Nowhere did I say it was okay to speed. It is against the law. If you choose to do it, you accept the related consequences. If you break the law by using this app, you do it with full knowledge that it is illegal (wrong by definition) and that you have no moral right to do so (you gave your word that you wouldn't do it, which you've so far failed to parse, based on your responses). If you feel justified using this application and use it, that's your decision to make. But it is still wrong by the standards set forth for you by society, and it is still illegal (because law embodies the standards established by society), and you are still responsible for any of the consequences. Period.

I mean, my goodness, what would we do if everyone thought for themselves and made up their own minds about what they would and would not do! So much better if everyone just followed the laws of the land. I mean... if it is a law then it is good and should be obeyed!!!

That's exactly how people act. People make up their own minds about what to do. When people make a decision that is wrong, then the law takes action against you. The law is the collective will of the people. It can be changed, and it changes all the time to reflect what people want and what is morally "right" according to society. People make the laws, and they come into being because the majority of people agree with them as morally sound and in the best interests of society. You don't get to decide what rules to follow and which to break without facing consequences, and you cannot claim otherwise. No society exists where an individualistic approach to decisionmaking replaces the rule of law. Not a single society out of the approximately 207 nations on this planet. Zero. All of them have laws, because your "everyone choose for himself!" approach DOES NOT WORK. It never has. History has no support for moral relativism.

You, my friend, have argued yourself into a corner. You say we should not break laws but you willingly break them when it suits you. Why is that OK for you but not for me? I have said from the start: Do what you feel. Learn the law and the consequences for breaking it. But at the end of the day, make up your own mind about right and wrong... and follow it.

You are misrepresenting everything I've said. I'm in no corner, except the one that you've built in your head. What you believe is morally right is in conflict with the law. Your decision to break the law is by definition wrong. You can continue to do what suits you, but it does not change the fact that it is against the law and that you can be punished for doing it.

Convince me of why it is wrong to break this law... but do not try to tell me that by breaking it I am doing something wrong. Illegal, yes. But since when is doing something illegal morally wrong?

Hello? Anyone in there? A law is a social contract. You abide by the laws of the land, and when you break them, you are doing something that you are not supposed to do. That is wrong. That is the definition of wrong. "Since when is doing something illegal morally wrong?" Since the beginning of society. Breaking the law and breaking your agreement with iTunes are both wrong. In this case, there's no way to construe it as right. In other extreme cases (you know, those ones in history you're so fond of citing without any specific references), it can be justified ("right"), but it is still at the same time wrong. Right and wrong are not mutually exclusive. That's all there is to it, and breaking the law is ALWAYS wrong. If you choose to do it anyway, based on your personal beliefs, understand that you must be prepared to accept the consequences for doing something society has decided is wrong. These consequences are yours to face completely independently of what you feel about your actions.

 

[i_am_a_cow]

DVD Jon might want his iTunes on Linux, but he has no right to it.

He has a right to play his music on a totally legitimate platform, and Apple needs to somehow make the format usable on other mainstream computing platforms.

Also, the reason why there aren't linux Airport drivers is because Broadcom has the hardware specs CLOSED. No one is able to write drivers for the airport card except for Apple and Broadcom, because it is closed. It's not my fault. It's not the fault of knowledgeable people anxious and ready to write drivers. It's the fault of Apple/Broadcom. There is a "petitiononline.com" petition on this issue with 11,000 signatures, including my own.

People don't realize that Linux is a real platform. People who buy copies of music meant to play on computers don't want them to be restricted from a platform that they spend much of their time on. This is not FAIR for the people who buy music and use Linux. Now do you understand the meaning of "Fair" as Jon uses it?

 

[matticus008]

He has a right to play his music on a totally legitimate platform, and Apple needs to somehow make the format usable on other mainstream computing platforms.

Also, the reason why there aren't linux Airport drivers is because Broadcom has the hardware specs CLOSED. No one is able to write drivers for the airport card except for Apple and Broadcom, because it is closed. It's not my fault. It's not the fault of knowledgeable people anxious and ready to write drivers. It's the fault of Apple/Broadcom. There is a "petitiononline.com" petition on this issue with 11,000 signatures, including my own.

People don't realize that Linux is a real platform. People who buy copies of music meant to play on computers don't want them to be restricted from a platform that they spend much of their time on. This is not FAIR for the people who buy music and use Linux. Now do you understand the meaning of "Fair" as Jon uses it?

You didn't buy a copy of a song that works with Linux. That's your fault. It would be ideal if FairPlay worked with everything, but it doesn't. No one has any obligation to make it that way, either. You have the obligation of buying something that works with your hardware and software. That's "fair." Apple has no obligation to make its products work with platforms that it chooses not to support.

You don't have the legal right to play iTunes music on Linux systems. If you want to listen to music on iTunes, there are legal ways to do it. Use them.

 

[geniusj]

You didn't buy a copy of a song that works with Linux. That's your fault. It would be ideal if FairPlay worked with everything, but it doesn't. No one has any obligation to make it that way, either. You have the obligation of buying something that works with your hardware and software. That's "fair." Apple has no obligation to make its products work with platforms that it chooses not to support.

You don't have the legal right to play iTunes music on Linux systems. If you want to listen to music on iTunes, there are legal ways to do it. Use them.

Your point throughout this thread seems to have been that unwrapping these files is illegal and therefore a risk. No ****. Why complicate your point so much?

 

[matticus008]

Your point throughout this thread seems to have been that unwrapping these files is illegal and therefore a risk. No ****. Why complicate your point so much?

It's not complicated. It's because people feel they are entitled to things that they aren't, and because people pretend that it's somehow okay to break the law at will (which is the exact reason why there is DRM, and why people who are trying to use music legitimately are having problems--thereby affecting *ME*), and worst of all, that don't believe they are breaking any laws. Why not ask these people pushing fallacious arguments and justifications what gives them the right to do this? Why attempt to justify something so blatantly wrong on so many levels?

 

[dragonsbane]

Keep the info flowin' like water...

Your actions are driven by morals and your understanding of the law and consequences for breaking the law.
Your actions are driven by morals and your understanding of the law and consequences for breaking the law.
People make up their own minds about what to do.
You can continue to do what suits you, but it does not change the fact that it is against the law and that you can be punished for doing it.
If you choose to do it anyway, based on your personal beliefs, understand that you must be prepared to accept the consequences for doing something society has decided is wrong.

Thank you. I could not have said it better myself. Now what was your point again since you just stated mine almost verbatim? Oh, right, don't use this app because it is wrong to break laws. I agree - if you break a law you are doing something wrong. But you just proved the larger issue which is - do what you want and be prepared for the consequences. All humans should do what they want. All humans should think for themselves. No one should ever be led by "the law". Do not abdicate your responsibility as a human to think for yourself. If you do not agree with a law - and do not mind the consequences if you get caught - then you should not follow it. Period. Never follow a law just because it is a law.

Yup, I see you now agree with my position. Thank you. It is all so clear now =)

To make this even more clear to you: I do not agree with DRM and see no reason to be bound by it. Just because some silly law has been passed by people who want to make money does not mean I feel obligated to abide by it. So you know what? I will not! And if I get locked away or fined, well then I will deal with that. I applaud DVD Jon for breaking this foolish lock. I hope he opens the new one as well (and fixes jhymn while he is at it). I support him all the way. He is doing this world a fine service. Let the info flow...

 

[matticus008]

Thank you. I could not have said it better myself. Now what was your point again since you just stated mine almost verbatim? Oh, right, don't use this app because it is wrong to break laws. I agree - if you break a law you are doing something wrong. But you just proved the larger issue which is - do what you want and be prepared for the consequences. All humans should do what they want. All humans should think for themselves. No one should ever be led by "the law". Do not abdicate your responsibility as a human to think for yourself. If you do not agree with a law - and do not mind the consequences if you get caught - then you should not follow it. Period. Never follow a law just because it is a law.

Yup, I see you now agree with my position. Thank you. It is all so clear now =)

Well then, there you go. As long as we're all clear that it is against the law and you're aware of that, that's all there is to it. Aside, of course, from the morality of breaking the law when you don't have cause to or breaking your word.

 

[saltysea@mac.co]

Back to Pymusique

Now that Apple has released a patch in the form of security update that as a part of it effectively blocks DVD Jon's app, maybe the discussion should turn to how to rip DRM out of a file. I'm no programmer, but it seems to me that since a music file is just a song in code, it should be possible to develop a program that can scan one's music library, and rips the DRM code from the file itself, meaning all of your music whether mp3, aac, etc? This would be far easier (in theory) than developing a program that circumvents iTunes DRM adding code, only to have it blocked, the natural course of action from Apple in order to keep on the side of the DRM law...
Don't even start with me about legalities. Remember mix tapes? When one buys something, it is theirs, not for lease with conditions. I am no pirate, and deserve the right to share something in the public domain with friends if I paid for it.

 

[matticus008]

Now that Apple has released a patch in the form of security update that as a part of it effectively blocks DVD Jon's app, maybe the discussion should turn to how to rip DRM out of a file. I'm no programmer, but it seems to me that since a music file is just a song in code, it should be possible to develop a program that can scan one's music library, and rips the DRM code from the file itself, meaning all of your music whether mp3, aac, etc? This would be far easier (in theory) than developing a program that circumvents iTunes DRM adding code, only to have it blocked, the natural course of action from Apple in order to keep on the side of the DRM law...
Don't even start with me about legalities. Remember mix tapes? When one buys something, it is theirs, not for lease with conditions. I am no pirate, and deserve the right to share something in the public domain with friends if I paid for it.

No. Just no. This is not an appropriate forum for asking for help to do something illegal. Find your answers elsewhere.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Now that Apple has released a patch in the form of security update that as a part of it effectively blocks DVD Jon's app, maybe the discussion should turn to how to rip DRM out of a file. I'm no programmer, but it seems to me that since a music file is just a song in code, it should be possible to develop a program that can scan one's music library, and rips the DRM code from the file itself, meaning all of your music whether mp3, aac, etc? This would be far easier (in theory) than developing a program that circumvents iTunes DRM adding code, only to have it blocked, the natural course of action from Apple in order to keep on the side of the DRM law...

It's called Hymm (or JHymm or something) and it's been rendered broken since iTunes 4.7 apparently.

If DRM was so easy to remove, there would be a ton of tools to do it already.

Just burn it to a CD and re-rip it or import the song into iMovie and export the audio as another format. Those are the "supported" ways Apple has provided to do this. An interprising person could probably write an AppleScript program to automate this. (speaking of which, I wonder if the OS X 10.4 "Automator" tool could do that!)

 

[geniusj]

It's called Hymm (or JHymm or something) and it's been rendered broken since iTunes 4.7 apparently.

Hymn works fine with iTunes 4.7. People who upgraded to 4.7 without first 'scrubbing' their hymned m4a files had some trouble, however (nothing that isn't fixable, just an annoyance).