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

[geofftay]

Bottom line...

Don't care how many times this has been regurgitated...

I paid money for the file. I dont care about the license. I dont own my books, my software, my music, my life, my anything if I sit back and shut up. So the only issue here that bothers me is that short term, this could affect how I get my music and what I pay for it. Long term? It wont make a damn bit of difference... RIAA will eventually lose this war.

 

[stcanard]

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.

And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.

 

[DavidLeblond]

And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.

How does that matter? Last I heard, iPods didn't cost $.99. Plus Apple doesn't get $.99 per song, they get roughly $.34. iTMS makes Apple money, sure... but compared to the amount of money iPods make them there is no comparison.

I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.

 

[macfan1977]

Poll: Is DVD Jon is an attention slut?

So sorry if I missed any thread on DVD Jon's involvement in this.

I have to admit that I am cynical he was the brains behind DeCSS. I always figured he played the patsy for some adult he knew. Like maybe the true owner of that Timex/Sinclair Spectrum thingy PC you see on his home page. I am however grateful for the program. I just think it was a matter of time before *someone* leaked or discovered the algorithm.

So getting to my point, it would seem like this guy is spending a lot of energy trying to piss off media corporations. The only conclusion I can see is that he wants the attention. Flirting with lawsuits sounds as crazy as publishing trade secrets on your website. There's also this pro-Real Networks thing I think I am getting from his site, but that's for another thread...

If I'm wrong and he's truely genius (and can repeat it), then maybe he ought to create something of his own with all that talent. If he knows so much about DRM and coding, there should be a whole lot more money in making the next generation DRM. Sometimes the best thieves make the best security experts. He'd still get the fame, and wouldn't have to worry about legal issues.

The line that "information wants to be free" won't buy a Porsche!

 

[macfan1977]

How does that matter? Last I heard, iPods didn't cost $.99. Plus Apple doesn't get $.99 per song, they get roughly $.34. iTMS makes Apple money, sure... but compared to the amount of money iPods make them there is no comparison.

I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.

I've used iTMS before I bought my iPod Shuffle (way cool!) to simply download music and burn to it CDs. Beats the inconvenience of running out to Walmart and buying the CD for even more money. And I get to search and preview. This is the best way to buy music WITH OR WITHOUT a portable music player.

Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits!

Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?

 

[digitalbiker]

I'm glad I don't support DRM!

I think this whole issue with Apple, DRM, & the music industry once again makes it perfectly clear that this distribution model is flawed. I have never used the Apple Store because I won't support digital encryption methods that restrict rights for the sole purpose of profit. I buy cd's and rip my music.

The recording industry needs to change or die. We are no longer living in the 1950's. Making perfect copies of recordings and distributing multiple copies of the recording is no longer the significant monetary burden it once was.

The recording industry needs to shift to a new business paradigm. If downloading music is to be the standard for distibution then profit-margins should be reduced to pennies per song. Artists should try to generate income through live-performances, or through managing their own web distribution system, charging a few cents a song.

The recording industry wants to be compensated at ever increasing rates even though technology has significantly reduced the cost of doing business. They can't have their cake, eat-it too, and lose weight.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Ah, the insanity

This isn't rocket science! iTMS sells DRM'ed songs - period.

If you don't want DRM'ed tunes (and still want to do things legally):
1.) burn 'em to a CD and re-rip as AAC or MP3 (or WAV/AIFF)
2.) (Mac only) use iMovie to export it (essentially the same as #1, but easier).
3.) use another service
4.) go buy the CD, you'll get better quality anyway

My prediction: Apple will release an iTunes patch that implements some kind of public/private key challenge/response message between their server and the client app and require iTMS purchases to be done only from that new client. Old clients will get an error that tells them to upgrade.

 

[latergator116]

I think this program is great. It will make it a lot more convenient for people to play their music anywhere they like. DRM is one of the reasons (in addition the the crummy AAC format) I don't buy music from the iTunes music store. I like being able to play my music where *I* want; I don't want Apple/RIAA putting any restrictions on that.

 

[stcanard]

I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.

Go back through what I have said. I agree 100%. iTunes and ITMS sell iPods.

DRM lock in does not sell iPods.

Integration and a superior user experience does sell iPods.

Now to the point you apparently missed -- If you look at the number of songs sold compared to the number of iPods sold, do the math and realize that only a fraction of those iPods have ITMS songs on them. Therefore DRM lock in does not enter into it.

Now look at home many people used iTunes to rip their entire music collection. That plus the ease of finding the song you want on the ITMS is what sells them.

You've fallen into the trap the RIAA wants you to. You're working on the assumption that everyone in the world wants to violate copyright to get their music. Once you get out of that mindset and understand that in general people are fair and honest you'll begin to see the point.

If you want, look at it another way. Steve Jobs has said time and again that unbreakable DRM is impossible. Do you really think he would base his company's future on a business model that he openly admits is flawed?

 

[Xtremehkr]

iTMS exists to sell iPods yes. But, if iTMS does not do something to protect the profits of those who allow iTMS to sell their songs then they will stop supplying iTMS with songs to sell.

There was a way to get around this before, but it was only used by a minority of people and considered an acceptable loss I guess.

What you have here is someone who is internationally advertising a way to beat copyright protections through iTMS, which hurts Apple as it may affect suppliers of music to iTMS.

There were ways to beat iTMS before and the best way was to avoid it altogether and use a P2P software.

This to me is different however. It is a direct attack on Apple aimed at disuading music labels from providing iTMS with songs to download.

In this instance I stand with Apple, as the MP3 market heats up, one of the determining factors in who people choose to buy their music from is going to be exclusive content. Labels are not going to release material to distributors who cannot assure that their material won't be easily pirated.

*If they fix this hole and leave everything else in place there really is no problem*

The songs iTMS sells are not their own! iTMS is a middleman that is not guaranteed access to the product that it resells. An essential part of selling iPods is being able to offer current music to play on them. iTMS needs to protect its ability to resell the music needed to use on iPods.

 

[bleachthru]

All I have to sya is F*&% the RIAA, They are just a bunch of profiteering gluttons anyways. Kudos to whomever cracked the DRM, good work.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

 

[tveric]

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.

Well, 18 hours later, here we are, I used a Pepsi cap song to download thru PyMusique, it plays perfectly and all that, and so far my account hasn't been cancelled. You know why? Because it JUST ISN'T WORTH THE FRIGGIN EFFORT on Apple's part to start cancelling accounts for using this software. They have to come up with a block to PyM anyway, and that will solve all their problems.

As for violation of the TOS, nobody gives a rip except people who were hall monitors in high school. And as for being stupid, well, maybe some of us just like our freedom without limits. You can attack us for being "stupid" all you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Get used to it - DRM is a paper tiger. I buy music thru iTMS, I buy music on CD, I buy it at allofmp3.com for a dollar an album, and I download for free too. No amount of DRM is going to make me change my habits. Only differences in prices and convenience will make me shift from one method to another when required.

 

[joeboy_45101]

It's this kind of crap that's going to scare the record companies into demanding a higher price for songs sold online. They are at this time still sceptical about the whole online business as is. DVD Jon has proved his points, yes he is a good hacker and DRM is not bulletproof. But, I wish he would get it into his head that MOST people don't mind DRM on digital music if it is designed to be flexible enough so that it doesn't stand in the way of enjoyment.

If there is one upside to this it is that this gives Apple a chance to prove it's skills in plugging up these holes. And maybe, that could give some comfort to the record companies in the security of online music stores. This whole situation would not be so big if the record companies did not exist, but they do and for now everybody has to deal with them like it or not. Sort of like Republicans, but that's something else altogether.

 

[Snowy_River]

...
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits!
...

Well, that assumes that $0.34 is profit, not gross. Any idea how much they net per song? It seems to me that the last number I heard was somewhere around $0.02-$0.03. The rest goes to cover expenses of pushing those bits around. And $0.03 * 300+ million, while still a respectable number - especially in comparison to my checking account balance - is really little more than a drop in the bucket for Apple...

 

[fpnc]

tveric, actually, I didn't call any individual "stupid," I said you'd have to be stupid to use PyMusique (the former and the latter are not exactly the same thing). Sorry if you were somehow offended.

Everybody relax.

I am.

I agree however that Apple will probably soon block access through PyMusique and that might not even require any changes other than on the server side of the music store. That's another reason why this whole story is pretty much overblown.

Well, 18 hours later, here we are, I used a Pepsi cap song to download thru PyMusique, it plays perfectly and all that, and so far my account hasn't been cancelled. You know why? Because it JUST ISN'T WORTH THE FRIGGIN EFFORT on Apple's part to start cancelling accounts for using this software. They have to come up with a block to PyM anyway, and that will solve all their problems.

As for violation of the TOS, nobody gives a rip except people who were hall monitors in high school. And as for being stupid, well, maybe some of us just like our freedom without limits. You can attack us for being "stupid" all you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Get used to it - DRM is a paper tiger. I buy music thru iTMS, I buy music on CD, I buy it at allofmp3.com for a dollar an album, and I download for free too. No amount of DRM is going to make me change my habits. Only differences in prices and convenience will make me shift from one method to another when required.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

These rants about the RIAA never fail to amuse me. And, the idea that people who are illegally downloading music are somehow doing a favor to the world is another great myth. It's all justification and bullsh*t.

It is really easy to pick a lock. There are lots of people who can do it. Why not run down to your local record store and stock up on CDs? I mean, f*ck the RIAA, right?

Posers. Learn the real issues around the music industry if you care. But don't just try to justify theft with some robin hood bullsh*t.

 

[henrikmk]

Sales might increase

I would be amused if this now leads to increased sales of music on the iTMS. DRM haters and/or Linux users will be allowed to buy music. It probably won't be noticable if they shut off access quickly enough, but it would be interesting.

DRM just doesn't work.

 

[cluthz]

In the perfect world, this wouldn't be neccecary.

I would rather buy a song without DRM than with DRM,
because you have very few rights with files with DRM.
If you buy tha same CD and encode it it won't have DRM, so why do the internet music stores need to have DRM?
Since this will create big trouble for apple I find this negative.

When then day comes that most cds are copyprotected I might buy something from iTMS, but i'll never buy a DRM file unless I have no other options!

 

[latergator116]

These rants about the RIAA never fail to amuse me. And, the idea that people who are illegally downloading music are somehow doing a favor to the world is another great myth. It's all justification and bullsh*t.

It is really easy to pick a lock. There are lots of people who can do it. Why not run down to your local record store and stock up on CDs? I mean, f*ck the RIAA, right?

Posers. Learn the real issues around the music industry if you care. But don't just try to justify theft with some robin hood bullsh*t.

I don't understand how using this program has anything to do with illegaly downloading music?

 

[macnulty]

Um, you still have to buy the song, he hasn't cracked the DRM, and the user has to use a program other then iTunes to execute. It would seem to me the easiest thing for Apple is to use a more stringent iTunes identifier. After all, all us non-IE users should be familiar with this concept.

 

[dudemac]

So getting to my point, it would seem like this guy is spending a lot of energy trying to piss off media corporations. The only conclusion I can see is that he wants the attention. Flirting with lawsuits sounds as crazy as publishing trade secrets on your website. There's also this pro-Real Networks thing I think I am getting from his site, but that's for another thread...

Actually from what I know about the DCESS thing is that he is just a linux geek who wants to use mainstream products on his linux box. It has nothing to do with attention or media companies.

 

[dudemac]

Can no longer download from

As of this morning sometime it seems that it is no longer able to download, but still allows browsing and account login.

 

[Evangelion]

It's theft, pure and simple.

No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.

Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?

I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"

 

[latergator116]

No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.

Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?

I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"

Well said. I have a feeling that the people blindly defending Apple and calling it "theft" don't quite understand how this program works. At least I hope that's the case.

 

[qubex]

Apple programmed a flawed system - it's only fair somebody has bothered to exploit it. Maybe now they can rebuild it in a manner that is secure.