QTFairUse6 Updated Hours After iTunes7 Release 292
Nrbelex writes "Mere hours after iTunes 7's release, QTFairUse6 has received an update which enables it to continue stripping iTunes songs of their 'FairPlay' DRM. Some features are experimental but at least it's proof that the concept still works."
How it works (why it's easy) (Score:4, Insightful)
So an update to the iTunes software just means an update to the memory address offset to read the data from. Piece of cake.
Re:At what point... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DRM is a cryptographical pipe dream (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I think the real reason legal music downloads is working is because iTunes is a better experience. That's it. I think they're wasting their own time and money with DRM and lawsuits and whatever. All they've ever had to do was provide a better experience and people will pay. People with money will, anyways. They've seen this but they won't believe it. And if they wanted to take it further down the "better experience" path, they'd drop DRM and lawsuits. But whatever; they won't.
Cheers.
The Future Looks Dim with DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm an "Apple Fanboy" but have limited my iTunes purchases to a few albums. CDs are still considerably more flexible regarding how and where I can use the music. Sure I own an iPod, but I also own a phone and PSP that can both play music. I also have a device that will play MP3s through my TV. None of those last three will play my FairPlay music. While I accept the limitations of the player, it's simply frustrating at times.
Regarding the new Apple Movie Store, let me get this right... we pay $9.99 (to $14.99) for a movie... that's of a lower quality than DVD and can't really be moved outside of your local network (it's not like you can take it over to a friends house without unauthorizing their computer and authorizing their computer under your username). Just trying to explain this to my fiance made her eyes glaze over. Her exact words: "sounds compleicated... why not just go to the movie store."
Re:Folks here don't "get" DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
The people who stick to legitimate uses are more likely to give up and say "forget it, I guess I won't use it for my legitimiate use because I can't", and not bother looking for a crack.
The only people that DRM hurts is the honest people who are not technically inclined.
What the authors don't get (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same reason MS don't come down too hard on piracy of their OS and office suites. It actually supports their business.
Re:DRM is a cryptographical pipe dream (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly correct. In the classic crypto scenario, A(lice) encrypts communication to B(ob) to protect it from attacker C(harles).
But as Bruce himself would tell you, in the DRM scenario, B and C are the same person! Attempts to enable "Trustworthy" computing is simply a move to make the computer itself B, with C being the computer's owner... You own it, you pay for it, but your own computer doesn't trust you. No thanks...
Re:DRM has no place in the free market. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why iTunes works (Score:5, Insightful)
1. price
2. easy to use
Fairly simple. 99 cents is a sum that convinces people it's more convenient to click and pay than to fire up a filesharing system or phone 'round with their friends. It downloads quickly and it's guaranteed to work with your iPod, no need to wonder what format or how to transfer it, the software is built to fit.
That's what makes it popular and that's why people pay for it. I bet a sizable sum that most of them didn't even notice yet that it contains DRM. Simply because nobody bothered to try to copy it instead of simply clicking and paying the buck.
Re:Let the law suits begin (Score:5, Insightful)
The DMCA [loc.gov] is pretty clear on what it means by circumvention:
If you think you can convince a judge that this isn't textbook circumvention, hey, go for it. But saying it'd be an uphill battle is putting it lightly. Especially if you go in there claiming that it's somehow impossible for a "mere memory dump" to constitute circumvention, when it is clearly one of many types of transform wherein you put a protected work in one end, and get an unprotected work out the other.
(Do not confuse this post with DMCA advocacy. I strongly disagree with outlawing technologies and actions; I think the law in this area should merely concern itself with results. But I also think you can't fight against something you don't understand; you just make yourself sound like an idiot. You need to understand there is a distinction between what the laws says and what you wish it said. Understanding the DMCA better is a necessary step in fighting it.)
Re:This is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Why you are all wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The arguments lack one perspective, that the purchase of music from iTunes, et. al., comes with certain conditions. There is no fundamental right to purchase anything free of conditions, so when music companies and online retailers decide that they will offer music that is ensconced in DRM, that is a business and marketing decision that they make, assuming that people will forgo some freedoms in order to have the convienience.
The sort of "active" protest over DRM that is represented by tools to strip the DRM merely confirms that the market for the music exists and offers no reason for the music companies to move away from DRM. A better protest would be to boycott the entire DRM scheme altogether and only seek music from outlets that provide it free of DRM.
Will you still be able to get all of the CCR and Radiohead from other, non-DRM outlets? No, but if you want to make a point with a corporation, you need to do it by removing yourself from the market. The problem that I see is that many people want to have it both ways; they want all of the convience of an iTunes or Rhapsody, or similar, none of the DRM and want all of this without any real sacrifice.
A major problem today is the erroneous sense of entitlement that pervades so much. Too many people think that they are entitled to market for products that suits their needs and are willing to resort to unethical, if not blatantly criminal, activity to create that market. The truth is that the online music market will only change when providers are losing money because their markets have shrunk and they must retool the offering. AS long as people buy the DRM'ed music, that won't happen.
Re:Why you are all wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is wrong (Score:1, Insightful)
Why don't you pay the five dollars to download your ringtone?
Note: Yes it was a joke.
DRM for Apple is about hardware (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What the authors don't get (Score:4, Insightful)
And that'd be what, exactly? Emusic just has indie stuff, allofmp3.com is still in a legal grey area as far as most people are concerned, and has some other issues (audible pops in the music, incorrect id3 tags (Everything I get is tagged 'Blues' for genre, for instance), strangely limited selection for many artists; the list goes on). I'd like to know where there's a legal service of the same quality as iTunes, but without the DRM.
Re:At what point... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple - "whoops" (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with downloading and viewing sans commercials (do it myself with DVR and fast-forward, which is legal), I'm just letting you know what I think they would retort with. I happen to think that corporate-owned media is in violation of the spirit of my nation (USA). I believe the airwaves should belong to the public, and that the corporate/advertising model is fundamentally flawed. So even if such activities were illegal, I wouldn't look negatively upon them. Who needs more protection: the broadcaster or the consumer? I think the latter.
Re:Why iTunes works (Score:5, Insightful)
"finally, the russians do claim that they are sending a percent of the fees to the artists. I can trust that as much as I trust the riaa sending its 'cut' to its artists."
The licensing fees that the Russian sites pay are estimated to be on the order of a few hundred bucks a month. Divide that by the tens of thousands of tracks they sell per month, and it's hundredths of a cent. However, the Russian sites refuse to divulge which tracks are being downloaded. Some indie artists have asked. They refuse to tell.
By comparison, an iTunes sale will net the artist around $0.15. And, yes, iTunes reports and pays. Sell a thousand tracks a month and that's $150 per month, vs. zero for sales on the Russian sites.
Now, you might think that $150 means nothing to your average recording artist, and that they can easily eat this loss. But the reality is that the typical recording artist has a standard of living that's much closer to your own (and quite likely worse) than the image you might have from watching MTV. If you would miss that $150 a month -- or, better put, if you would be angry if somebody cheated you out of $150 on the rationale that they thought you didn't need it -- then it's a safe assumption that your favorite artist would, too.
Make no mistake -- it's perfectly acceptable to say something like "I don't give fuck all if an artist makes $15 or $150 or $1500 a month. Just give me all the DRM-free music I can handle, baby!". As the Electric Company pointed out, the most important person in the world is YOU, and not some random artist. Pirate all you want if that works with your moral code. But it is intellectually dishonest to state that you use a Russian site for your music because it is no worse a deal for the artist than buying it legitimately.
Re:Why iTunes works (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why iTunes works (Score:3, Insightful)
they are also always complete. never a partial/fragment song.
the mp3 id tags are accurate and pre-set for me.
at a dollar an album, its not even worth hacking around with poor quality pirate rips and encodes.
(any other questions?)