Napster To Go DRM cracked already: stupid is as stupid does

[jsw]

So it really does only cost $15 to fill my iPod! I knew Napster was better!

Even less, if you do it in 14-day increments! Napster rules!

 

[Jamvan]

Use iTunes?

Now..how long before someone eliminates the need to actually burn a CD to make this all work?

Just use iTunes to convert the WAV to an MP3 or AAC (or lossless or AIFF etc). Burning to CD is a wasted step in this entire process.

 

[mkaake]

Not the same thing. If you replace Napster with iTunes, there is no 14-day free download-fest. Sure, you can burn 252 CDs from iTunes this way. But it'll cost you a lot more than nothing to get them.

Unless, of course, you're happy with half a minute of each song.

from what i understand though, this requires the use of a win-amp plugin that takes the audio stream and directly converts it to wav format. that wouldn't work on a mac... or a pc for that matter, because winamp can't play AAC protected files. now if there was an itunes plugin that did the same, that would be something else. but again, as stated, you can't get songs for free from the iTMS, and once you have them, you can burn them anyway. so comparing the two is really a moot point...

 

[rtdgoldfish]

I wouldn't exactly call this "cracked". I followed the process on my PC and used iTunes to convert the tracks instead of burning them to CD. This would work to get free music for two weeks but it is very time consuming and not very practical. I guess if you are going to listen to the music after downloading it anyway, then go for it. Just waiting for someone to have a program to launch that just disables the DRM and then converts the track to MP3 instead of this WMA crap.

The Napster interface is just horrible. There are so many links and buttons, I don't know what I should press. Also, they are not very clear as to what is free in your 14 day trial. I think it should be anything I want but I am going to be checking my credit card statement online every day to make sure. I don't want to pay for music from their crap store and then convert it to WAV so I can put it on my iPod.

Another thing I found funny: Napster has Metallica in their library. Weren't they the ones that started the lawsuits against the original Napster?? Guess things change when they can make a buck.

 

[rtdgoldfish]

One other thing, does anyone know what happens when you cancel your subscription?? I am assuming that the DLed tracks stay on your PC, they just become unplayable. Just wondering if I DL a bunch of stuff then cancel the subscription if I can still convert the songs to MP3.

 

[Nickygoat]

One other thing, does anyone know what happens when you cancel your subscription?? I am assuming that the DLed tracks stay on your PC, they just become unplayable. Just wondering if I DL a bunch of stuff then cancel the subscription if I can still convert the songs to MP3.

According to the T&Cs the tracks stay on your hard drive. The DRM protects them from being played. I suppose this is to reactivate your tracks if you renew your subscription at some point in the future. Can't imagine it will be too long though before someone cracks Napster's DRM and you can access those tracks.

 

[jettredmont]

Category: 3rd Party Software
Link: Napster To Go DRM cracked already: stupid is as stupid does
Posted on MacBytes.com

Approved by Mudbug

Ummm... Wouldn't the cheaper solution be to subscribe to just plain vanilla Napster at $10/mo instead of Napster-To-Go at $15/mo? I mean, since you have no intention of ever using the Janus technology, why pay the extra $5 for your all-you-can-transcode smorgasborg?

FWIW, I knew several people who did exactly this when Napster 2 first went live last year. They took their free month subscription, downloaded all the albums that interested them, and analog-ripped them to DRM-free. None of them are subscribers any more. Having a conscience, however, I don't think they've returned to do the same again. Yet. Hardly news-worthy!

IMHO, this is bad news. Not for Napster, who will have inflated subscriber numbers and can shove the churn numbers under the table for a while. This is bad for the recording industry, who just saw their entire back catalogue relegated to the $10 discount bin. This is far worse for them than the original Napster, as (1) there is no way to track the theives unless they're going to assume anyone who tries Napster then unsubscribes is guilty of having ripped the entire library (which might not be out of the question with the DMCA ... who needs silly civil liberties and "innocent until proven guilty"? This is the 21st century!) (2) the source quality is generally better than most of the files that were being sent around Napster 1.0, and (3) there's a few more years of music waiting to be plundered. Finally, of course, the final insult: the recording industry has its hands all over this; it is complicit in its own demise, directly here instead of as a public relations backlash.

Being bad news for the recording industry, this is also of course bad for iTunes. More importantly, it is really bad for people who actually *enjoy* listening to music and are able to pay for that music.

Negative votes all around. Obviously, there's a way around any DRM (if you can hear it you can record it). Obviously, rental programs like this make the way around the DRM from a personal "why would I do that" game to a high-stakes, "get my entire music library containing every song I've ever heard and a few I hope I never hear again for $10" game.

 

[jettredmont]

So it really does only cost $15 to fill my iPod! I knew Napster was better!

But I'm going to try this on my PC. Can't resist getting free music legally.

Ummmm ... You do know that this is illegal, right? Granted, this isn't "stealling" (music piracy never really fits that definition); it is violatoin of contract. You are violating the terms of your agreement with Napster, which states the music can not be transfered to another device without their consent? You are also possibly in violation of the DMCA because you are getting around the DRM (granted, you aren't decoding the encryption by illegal means, but you are using the decrypting device in an unintended and unsanctioned manner).

Is it legal? No, absolutely not. Is it moral? Not in my world. Can this be prosecuted? No, probably not.

This is only different from Napster 1.0 and Kazaa et al in that (1) it is not easily prosecuted and (2) it doesn't open you up to spyware, any moreso than installing Napster's client does normally.

 

[Sunrunner]

hehehe

lol! Die Napster, Die!

 

[madmaxmedia]

Being bad news for the recording industry, this is also of course bad for iTunes. More importantly, it is really bad for people who actually *enjoy* listening to music and are able to pay for that music.

Negative votes all around. Obviously, there's a way around any DRM (if you can hear it you can record it). Obviously, rental programs like this make the way around the DRM from a personal "why would I do that" game to a high-stakes, "get my entire music library containing every song I've ever heard and a few I hope I never hear again for $10" game.

While it does make for bad PR, I don't believe it is universally bad for everyone. In fact I think it will definitely benefit Apple in the end.

What is required for online music is not an unpenetrable DRM scheme, it's simply for purchased online music to be no easier to rip off than regular CD's. You can get around Apple's DRM, but if I'm going to steal music I'd rather download a 256 kbps VBR that someone ripped from a CD. Or just borrow and copy said CD from a friend. DRM-free music is all over the place, 99.9% of which did not come from cracking iTunes DRM.

This Napster thing is much different, as it potentially enables much faster theft of a lot of music. Like I said, in the next few days someone will put together a simple program (a simple script actually) to automate this WinAmp endaround, including automatically re-encoding to say mp3, and copying over ID tag data. Let you computer run overnight to continuously churn out the tunes, and in a few days you have gigabytes of free music. (the only thing I'm not sure of is if the current workaround requires playing the DRM music at 1x. If so, surely there will be a way of cranking out WAV files at 10X or faster...) Keep in mind this is BEFORE the actual DRM has been cracked (and it inevitably will.)

Once this happens, it will give Napster a big black eye in the eyes of the record company. Who will win? It will be Apple, who really thought through the entire digitial music process starting a few years back, has a very popular service, and has a DRM system that is certiainly no easier to bypass than just copying regular CD's or downloading P2P. The record companies want safety and stability, and this problem with Napster will make them even more likely to be pro-Apple/iTunes.

 

[ClarkeB]

Why would you bother encoding them as WAVs...I mean, the music has already been compressed, so saving it in an uncompressed format is pretty much a waste of 20+MB.

 

[madmaxmedia]

Why would you bother encoding them as WAVs...I mean, the music has already been compressed, so saving it in an uncompressed format is pretty much a waste of 20+MB.

If you're going to burn to CD, then you burn directly from the WAV. Your CD will sound as good as playing the original WMA file. If you re-encode as mp3, then burn to CD you'll have further signal degradation.

If you want to store the music on your computer, you take the slight hit in sound quality and re-encode to mp3 or whatever format you want.

Ive never re-encoded music before, so I don't know how signficant the sound difference is. Of course, the previous crappy Sony players required you to re-encode ALL your music to go on the player...

 

[JeDiBoYTJ]

If you're going to burn to CD, then you burn directly from the WAV. Your CD will sound as good as playing the original WMA file. If you re-encode as mp3, then burn to CD you'll have further signal degradation.

If you want to store the music on your computer, you take the slight hit in sound quality and re-encode to mp3 or whatever format you want.

Ive never re-encoded music before, so I don't know how signficant the sound difference is. Of course, the previous crappy Sony players required you to re-encode ALL your music to go on the player...

I always thought of it this way (not based 100% on facts, just a mere visual model)

heres a sound file frequence, uncompressed on a CD: (100% original store-bought quality)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

heres what happens to the sound file frequency that is compressed in MP3:
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||_|_|_|_|_|_____

reburning it to a CD, you dont get the original quality back... now lets say the above MP3 one is Windows Media DRMed format

burning to a CD, its the same frequency range, only in a larger file
>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||_|_|_|_|_|_____<

now lets say that ripping a song in AAC format, does this to an Uncompressed original CD:
_____|_|_|_|_||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

so, if you were to re-rip a WMA file into an AAC file, your frequency might look like this:

_____|_|_|_|_||||||||||||||||||||||_|_|_|_|_|_____

meaning, you just lost more sound quality.

(again, the way I portrayed WMA and AAC in here is NOT exactly how it is, its just a more visual way to show how re-encoding an already compressed track can hurt it.)

basically, what this is showing, is that nearly every audio encoding out there encodes and compresses their music in different ways. others remove the lower frequency's, others remove the higher frequency's...etc

so basically, i try to keep from encoding a lossy sound file, to another lossy sound file....

 

[Diatribe]

This is the problem with subscription models, once the DRM is cracked you can shut the service down and once record companies actually get this they'll tell Napster to go hump themselves.

 

[musicpyrite]

Ummmm ... You do know that this is illegal, right? Granted, this isn't "stealing" (music piracy never really fits that definition); it is violation of contract. You are violating the terms of your agreement with Napster, which states the music can not be transfered to another device without their consent? You are also possibly in violation of the DMCA because you are getting around the DRM (granted, you aren't decoding the encryption by illegal means, but you are using the decrypting device in an unintended and unsanctioned manner).

Is it legal? No, absolutely not. Is it moral? Not in my world. Can this be prosecuted? No, probably not.

This is only different from Napster 1.0 and Kazaa et al in that (1) it is not easily prosecuted and (2) it doesn't open you up to spyware, any moreso than installing Napster's client does normally.

Legally probably wasn't the best word.... perhaps 'safely'. Nobody would have any way of finding out that I had these songs, short of someone breaking into my house with warrant saying 'all your music are belong to us'. In which case, I've got bigger problems that worrying about a couple of fraudulently DRM striped songs. (and I do )

 

[wrldwzrd89]

I wouldn't be using this little method on Napster music. It would be genuinely useful for some other stuff I do, which would not invoke the anger of the RIAA (or any of its equivalents worldwide) - particularly the Output Stacker Winamp plugin (warning - clicking link downloads an .exe file).

 

[jayscheuerle]

Now..how long before someone eliminates the need to actually burn a CD to make this all work?

Never heard of Audio Hijack Pro?

 

[Koodauw]

I think it goes to show you that Apple has the model right, when they set up the iTMS. I'm sure running a movie studio help Steve guide the set-up of On-line Music. Koodos to Apple for getting it right the first time.

 

[daveL]

Never heard of Audio Hijack Pro?

You could always duplicate a cassette, too, in the old days, but each generation of copying further diminished the quality of the music. The record companies didn't worry about it too much because of the inherent decline in sound quality. I think the same thing goes when you're taking a digitally compressed track, uncompressing it and then recapturing it as analog or even as WAV. You're not likely to want the format you captured, so you end up recoding it again in mp3 or whatever. The net of the whole process is loss of sound quality, and a lot of effort too boot.

The downside for Napster is the unlimited rental downloads, since the losses to the record industry could be much larger than with iTunes purchased music.

 

[applebum]

A spokeswoman for Napster said that such endeavors were nothing new and the company was not too concerned.

I bet they aren't too concerned. Think about who benefits and who gets screwed. The subscriber pays $15 and downloads say 50 - 100 songs per month and then uses this workaround to keep their music. They play it one time (to record it) and then they delete it. They are getting a great deal.

Napster gets the $15 per month subscription. They are supposed to pay the record companies and artists each time the songs are played. Well, they are only played once. Very little money out of Napster's pocket. Great deal.

Record companies and artists - They get paid a few cents for the one play. SCREWED!

How long can Napster not be concerned?

 

[narco]

Almost makes you feel bad for Napster.

What are their options? Stop this widely-publicized service already? Go out of business? Either way, it doesn't look good for Napster.

Fishes,
narco.

 

[midgetwarrior]

oldest trick in the BOOK!

INFO TO KNOW FROM A PC AUIDO GEEK:

and this just now made the news... just so you unkowing ones know ....HAHAH this meathod works with any song, any platform, any format, any service, you name it!!!.... its the oldest trick in the book.....
HAHAH you can encript auido ALLL YOUUUU WANNNNT... but the music coming to your head phones is ANALOG.. not didgital... *your ears cant decript one's and zeros*.. and its recordable.. so run that out put into some good PC recording equiptmment... get it as a wave- let some program hash it into an MP3... and there you go... your own digital copy of "ENCRYPTED" music. OH AND WINAMP isnt the only progam that dose this though your soundcard... almost every "music making" program on the planet- that allows you to record- has this feature. HOWEVER the catch to this trick is noise, interference, and sound quailty loss.... HOWEVER this can easliy be twarted by using good semi pro/professional recording equiptiment ... and or track mastering and cleaning programs.... AHHAHAH i knew it was only a matter of time before this one finally got into the media...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

FOR THE MAC DUDES HAVIN ISSUES WITH ITUNES DOWNLOADS:

IF mac towers are able to use 3rd party sound card systems like PC's do.. then every thing i just stated should work.... but i havent had the pleasure of trying it...so i cant be sure.... But there are other ways.... tooo for this "trick" to WORK
you can take the sound output of your compouter/ipod and run it though a tape deck, DV deck,- record it- then using a program like FCP or sound track... or a 3d party one... run the auido back though the machine.. and have it record it... OR
go out and buy a CD-R burner Sterio system unit... run the out put into it- it will record it to the disk... take the disk and pop it in to the mac pull the track to the desktop and use sound track to trim......

... or you could not do any of this and just download the tracks off LIME WIRE...

OH AND for all of you that are saying that this crazy ass PC method is ILLEAGLE.. its not.... becuse it dose not fall under anthing digital these are analog meathods... when the program *winamp* caputres the auido off the card its not re-digitizing it- its sampling the cards wave out put that is being sent out to your headphones... so winamp is acting like a virtual casset recorder... and because its the analog that being capured all aplicable laws fall under analog baised copy right acts even though the track in the end is a digital .WAV track... However as soon as you convert it into an MP3 and put out on LIME WIRE or KAzaa then your in violation for distribution. its a very thin line to walk but its not Illeagle.

BUY THE WAY THIS WORKS WITH ANY STREAMING AUIDO ASWELL!!

 

[wrldwzrd89]

<snip>
FOR THE MAC DUDES HAVIN ISSUES WITH ITUNES DOWNLOADS:

IF mac towers are able to use 3rd party sound card systems like PC's do.. then every thing i just stated should work.... but i havent had the pleasure of trying it...so i cant be sure.... But there are other ways.... tooo for this "trick" to WORK
you can take the sound output of your compouter/ipod and run it though a tape deck, DV deck,- record it- then using a program like FCP or sound track... or a 3d party one... run the auido back though the machine.. and have it record it... OR
go out and buy a CD-R burner Sterio system unit... run the out put into it- it will record it to the disk... take the disk and pop it in to the mac pull the track to the desktop and use sound track to trim......
<snip>

Hey midgetwarrior -

You probably didn't know about Audio Hijack Pro, did you? With that, you don't need to monkey around with all this third-party soundcard business, and it works on any Mac. It does much the same thing this hack does with Winamp, only this is infinitely more flexible.

 

[clayj]

Well, sports fans, it's official: The folks at MacMischief are apparently totally incapable of writing a headline that isn't misleading or just plain wrong. The DRM wasn't cracked, as the downloaded WMA files still are DRMed. They just bypassed the DRM and the result is a new, unprotected file.

Yes, I know it's hairsplitting, but there is a semantic difference. For example, contrary to some headlines, 14 million Xboxes weren't recalled; their POWER CORDS have an issue, and they're being replaced, but no one has to send anything in or incur any cost to themselves.

 

[madmaxmedia]

It's not hairsplitting at all, it should have been pretty clear that the DRM was not cracked. Bypassed would have been an obviously better choice of words...

BTW- With the Winamp output stacker or Audio Hijack Pro, does the quality of the resultant WAV file depend on the quality of your soundcard?

I am not familiar with the details of what is going on, but I'm curious as to how good the produced WAV files are (basically how close they are to the original WMA.)

If you re-encode of course there is further loss in quality.