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

[therevolution]

Sorry, i didn't read every post so this may be repeatative but...

why would you pay for something you don't want

To prove a point: DRM is basically useless.

 

[stcanard]

The main purpose of iTMS is to sell iPods. iPods are the only players at this time that can play iTMS purchased music, due to the DRM. Tell me how the DRM has nothing to do with iTMS's business model.

Do you really think it's DRM lock-in that's fuelling those sales?

Because personally I think it's the integration and "it-just-works" aspects, combined with a superior product.

 

[fpnc]

So, if I use PyMusique, and Apple cancels my account, thereby forcing me to use some other music store, or P2P service, Apple comes out ahead how, exactly?

No one's account is getting cancelled...

Yes, Apple might cancel your account, so go ahead and be the first to try. Thus, if they have to cancel one, or ten, or a thousand accounts to protect their service you really don't think they will do that? It wouldn't be any big deal if they lose a few thousand accounts over this, since that would likely be only a few thousand dollars in revenue (if even that), less than a day or two's legal fees for a half decent lawyer.

In that case, it won't take people very long to learn that they shouldn't use such obvious methods to violate the iTunes Music Store Terms Of Service (TOS) and (possibly) the DMCA.

Note: iTunes Music Store TOS -- that legal statement that you said "Yes" to when you signed up for the iTunes service.

Everybody relax.

Exactly, that's why I said in my previous post that this doesn't really mean much.

Edit: replaced EULA with iTunes Music Store TOS.

 

[Eniregnat]

This concept will also work with other services that do not recode the song/data before transmission. Every DRM scheme has its flaws. I am willing to bet that Apple already has a fix and wasn’t going to release it before it was necessary.

This kind of hack is not illegal, and isn’t unethical. It is unethical to distribute music that doesn’t contain the DRM envelope. That’s no different than ripping a CD to some other form and distributing it.
I think is fine for the digital survivalists who fear that the rights that they purchased may be revoked (by changing iTunes and Apples proprietary client soft and firmware).

Hopefully this will not freak the music industry out and further increase cost or further limit access to downloadable music. Perhaps this will further push the price of music down. I think most people would pay .25$ a song and drop their music theft (if they did thieve.)

Edit- the Music Industry will freak.

 

[Doctor Q]

Like, where's my credit for providing Macrumors with the link/story, about 8 hours ago???

Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the irony

What kind of credit do you think you were denied? Most submissions are anonymous and if you submitted this story 8 hours before the time of your post that was still hours after somebody else had submitted the same story.

MacRumors normally gives credit to a member who first provides a story when the member has been identified, but that wasn't the case here.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.

Don't iTMS and iTunes already do this?

According to wikipedia, that's right...

 

[madoka]

Obviously, Apple will freak (what else is new...), but all this does is provide a shortcut around the burn-to-CD-and-rerip shortcut that's built into iTunes.

Wouldn't this shortcut result in a loss in sound quality?

 

[Doctor Q]

I think most people would pay .25$ a song and drop their music theft (if they did thieve.)

No doubt there are some such people, but I have the feeling that most consumers aren't making a price-sensitive decision about this.

If they buy online music legally, it may be because they believe in following rules in general, or fear breaking the law, or want to support the business model, or understand and accept the DRM tradeoffs, or think 99 cents is a bargain, or have enough money for the music they want, or think they are helping the artists, or don't even know how to steal music, etc.

If they steal online music, it may be because they feel any price is too much, or because artists are not getting enough of their money, or big business is bad, or DRM is a violation of their rights, or that it's ok because they couldn't afford to buy the music, or that it actually helps increase sales since they might buy the audio CD from a store if they like it, etc.

In other words, I think most people follow their principles, one way or another. And we'll continue to hear all of these points of view.

 

[fpnc]

Okay, here are a few relevant portions from the iTunes Music Store Terms Of Service (TOS).

Security. You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork (“Products”), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors (“Usage Rules”). You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.

and

You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.

So, basically if you use PyMusique you are in violation of the TOS and because you need an iTunes account to even make use of PyMusique, Apple will know who is trying to violate the TOS.

Thus, as I said before, you'd have to be pretty stupid to even try and use this software.

 

[~loserman~]

Thats hilarious

I can't think of anything funnier than this except maybe when it happened to Real but then again this is still pretty funny.

 

[looklost]

Freedom.....BS

I can't believe that people think this is a bad thing. Don't you like freedom?

You knew the deal when purchasing a song from itunes, you get a DRM protected song playable on a certain number of authorized computers.
Why do people think freedom means they can do whatever they want no matter what. There are plenty of things in life that have restrictions on their use. Take a car for an example, you can't drive any speed you want and pay no attention to stop signs, lights, ect., but to say my freedom is being taken away because I can't do those things even though the car and myself are capable is just wrong.

 

[Doctor Q]

I didn't know before that "DVD Jon" is a movie star as well. He plays himself in the documentary Info Wars.

Hey, I wonder if we can get that movie on DVD and play it on our Linux systems.

 

[desdomg]

There are two reason why this doesn't mean much. First, Apple may just cancel the accounts of anyone who tries to use PyMusique (that's covered by the EULA).

But can a user be considered to be a party to that agreement if they have not used iTunes to access the store - does the purchasing process still involve an agreement approval stage using this software? Presumably not.

 

[fpnc]

But can a user be considered to be a party to that agreement if they have not used iTunes to access the store - does the purchasing process still involve an agreement approval stage using this software? Presumably not.

Why don't you try it and find out?

 

[geezusfreeek]

All this is just a more convenient way to get the same result as running your purchased music through Hymn or JHymn. It's not quite the same as burning and ripping a CD though, since that is lossy.

 

[fpnc]

All this is just a more convenient way to get the same result as running your purchased music through Hymn or JHymn. It's not quite the same as burning and ripping a CD though, since that is lossy.

It's not really the same, because Apple will know (most likely) who has use this software to violate the TOS. It's pretty much like I said earlier:

It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.

 

[Quobobo]

It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.

Except with one key difference: you're paying for the music. If you can buy a CD and rip it to any format you like, why should you have to have DRM on files you (legally) download? This is why I never use online download sites, I don't understand why I should pay for files that are inferiour to what I can download for free. When I pay for music, I'd rather buy a CD that doesn't have any DRM.

 

[Stage]

DRM contravenes users rights under copyright law.

The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.

DRM has everything to do with the iTMS business model.

Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.

Apple killed the Harmony file functionality because it is important for the product lock in that all downloadable music on an iPod be Apple dependent. Harmony files can be played on other devices and don't lock a customer into iPods.

Apple doesn't give a rat's butt about DRM in a philosophical sense, what they care about is a captive market of iPod users with hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of iTMS files permanently locked to iPod music players. These people have to be customers for life or throw away their music investment. This is why DRM is evil. From a copyright perspective, consumers have full legal right to play their music on any device they want. Apple doesn't want you to be able to exercise those rights (neither does Microsoft.)

By controlling access to your legally owned content, each company expects to leverage your investment in music to their own advantage. DRM to these giant companies is just a leash on their customers.

Support legal alternatives to DRM'd music, like http://www.mp3tunes.com/
DRM is literally a corporate tool to control you and your future purchases. DRM is not your friend.

Finally, boy was Apple silly to send plaintext non-DRM'd music to iTunes. Talk about hubris. The so-called hack that let people "steal" Napster to go files involved recording the stream in realtime in a different CODEC. The iTMS hack involves downloading the original files and no transcending.

Personally, I don't see this as stealing since people have to pay Apple and Apple normally sends the DRM free music anyway. The hack simply cuts out the final step. It doesn't strip any DRM.

However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.

 

[drewyboy]

Cd's overpriced... i think not

Now why do hackers have to go do this? they say they do it cuz the prices that cd's are is "unfair" and "overpriced". now i simply have to ask the question... if your a hacker.. more than likely you deal with computers. dont you think that your overpaid for you job? for a small simple example.. best buy geek squad.. overpriced.. they want 30+ dollars to install a stick of ram. the point is... the money is for the most part equally distributed to be able to pay these high prices. income is accomidated for the high prices of products. if u think it's bad over here.. go to japan and try and buy a medium fries on their "dollar menu" which in usd=$5. so back my main point... just pay the frick'n money, most ppl's income are accomidated for the increase cost. if you feel u cant afford a cd... that's what christmas or your birthday is for or even the radio. by the way... i'm not an "artist" either... im majoring in ECE myself so i'm not biased.

 

[Xtremehkr]

I can understand why people would think this is a good thing. But at the same time, there are consequences for Apple. Apple sells others peoples songs, if they thought that selling to Apple would mean that their songs could be immediately transfered to P2P outlets they would be reluctant to supply ITMS with any songs.

When it comes to picking ITMS over a different outlet, the amount of available content has a lot to do with it.

I am really curious about who is behind this new group. This software is a poison pill for ITMS, as far as label owners are concerned.

Steve was just in the news for sending an email claiming that a rivals software was easily hacked in order to bypass the restrictions in place to prevent downloaders from freely sharing the music they have purchased.

This smacks of corporate skullduggery at its worst.

On a positive note, it proves that Apple is the company to go after in this area.

On the other hand, Apple needs to step up and protect its interests in this area.

For some reason, 'PlaysForSure' keeps coming to mind.

 

[dudemac]

DRM has everything
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.

I have to disagree that this is somehow a security breach. I have seen other front-end for the itms, just not ones that allowed purchase. It has been awhile but I think there was a extension in firefox that allowed you to access the itms database. So really this is just a feature enhancement of that.

 

[DavidLeblond]

Do you really think it's DRM lock-in that's fuelling those sales?

Because personally I think it's the integration and "it-just-works" aspects, combined with a superior product.

It's not the only thing fueling those sales, but yes. That IS iTMS's purpose. It has been stated several times before. Apple doesn't make tons of profit off of the music sales, its the iPods that they make the money off of.

And the DRM lock-in DOES play a factor in this. Remember, Apple is a big corporation... they're out to make money, just like everyone else.

 

[Quobobo]

Now why do fag hackers have to go do this? they say they do it cuz the prices that cd's are is "unfair" and "overpriced". now i simply have to ask the question... if your a hacker.. more than likely you deal with computers. dont you think that your overpaid for you job? for a small simple example.. best buy geek squad.. overpriced.. they want 30+ dollars to install a stick of ram. the point is... the money is for the most part equally distributed to be able to pay these high prices. income is accomidated for the high prices of products. if u think it's bad over here.. go to japan and try and buy a medium fries on their "dollar menu" which in usd=$5. so back my main point... just pay the frick'n money, most ppl's income are accomidated for the increase cost. if you feel u cant afford a cd... that's what christmas or your birthday is for or even the radio. by the way... i'm not an "artist" either... im majoring in ECE myself so i'm not biased.

You're majoring at a university? If you're a native speaker of English, you shouldn't have passed high school English with writing skills like that.

All complaints about how painful reading your post is aside, you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with CDs, it's about what people can and can't do with music they paid for. I'd like to be able to play music I download on any computer I own, but DRM files prevent me from doing that. Worse, what's going to happen 10 years from now? If I want to start using something other than iTunes for music, I'll be out of luck.

P.S.
Cost of Medium Fries in Japan: 252¥, about $2.4 USD

 

[Dippo]

Now why do hackers have to go do this? they say they do it cuz the prices that cd's are is "unfair" and "overpriced".

Let me repeat for those who aren't listening...
You still have to buy the music!!!

You have every right to rip DRM free music from a CD that you bought, and the same should go for music that you download.

Just because the industry paid the lawmakers enough money to make a law that makes getting around DRM illegal, that doesn't make it wrong!

 

[Doctor Q]

Sorry for all the posts. I seem to have more opinions and questions than usual today.

Will it be possible for a third party software company to write a front-end client for the iTunes Music Store that plays by "the rules" (paying for purchases, allowing or applying DRM) but has other features that iTunes lacks, in a way that wouldn't be a problem for Apple?

I'll make up an dopey example. Maybe there's a use for an auto-purchasing tool that waits for a certain time (e.g., the exact release day/time of a new tune) and then purchases the song. Must it be written by scripting iTunes or could it work standalone? Can Apple permit this without a risk to its business?

iTunes is a cross-platform jack of all trades, for purchasing music, organizing music, playing music, handling iPods, interfacing with other iApps, etc. I think it's a very well done application, but it's a shame if the DRM issue prevents the free market from trying to produce a better mousetrap for any of these functions, including interfacing with the store, because what could be an open interface must be closed.