iPod Cracked, But Does it Matter? 370
According to an Associated Press story, "DVD Jon" Johansen is planning to market a technology for cracking the copy protection on songs purchased from Apple's iTunes Music Store.
This technology will probably be much discussed in the press as the release date draws nearer, but it's a case of using a flame thrower to kill a fly. It's already possible to convert Music Store songs to MP3 without even using any functionality outside of iTunes.
Apple doesn't make this easy to find, of course, and in fact tries to make it look impossible -- if you set your preferred import format to MP3, then right-click on a song in your iTunes "Purchased songs" list and click "Convert selection to MP3", you get the error: "[song name] could not be converted because protected files cannot be converted to other formats". But you can easily burn a series of songs to a CD, then select the songs on the CD and import them into MP3 format. (Of course, if you don't like wasting a writable CD each time you convert your songs, then wait until you've purchased a few more songs and convert them all at once.) All of this is based on core iTunes functionality, which won't go away unless Apple decides to stop letting users (a) burn CDs or (b) import CD songs as MP3 files, neither of which is likely.
But suppose Apple does manage to block this path. (The easiest way I can see would be to write a hidden code on each CD burned from protected songs with iTunes, so that iTunes would refuse to re-import that CD into an unprotected format. Users could re-import the songs with another application, but at least they'd have to open two programs!) You can still use a program like Total Recorder that can capture any sound output on the computer and save it to an MP3 file.
And even if it ever becomes possible for the audio playback application to seize control of the operating system in order to stop programs like Total Control from working, you can always connect a portable MP3 recorder to the audio output of your computer.
It's a common misconception that if a copy-protection algorithm gets broken, it must be because the encryption was too weak or the algorithm was flawed. But the Achilles heel of any such copy-protection scheme is that in order for the content to be playable, the playback program has to "break" the encryption every time, in order to play it. If the content is encrypted using a key, the key has to be stored on the user's computer where the playback program can find it. (If you didn't have to store the key along with the encrypted content, you could use encryption algorithms that are believed to be impossible to break with today's computers, by 15-year-old Norwegians or anybody else.) But even though every copy-protection algorithm is breakable in principle, it's usually easier just to capture the content as it's played back, which is what the previous examples do.
Logically, I think the only algorithm that would help to fight music piracy would be one that embeds a unique "fingerprint" or "watermark" in each downloaded copy of a song -- in the audio itself. A good fingerprint would have these properties:
- it should not be noticeable enough to interfere with the user's enjoyment of the song
- it should not be possible to copy the song in a way that destroys the fingerprint, without degrading the song quality and diminishing its value
In the meantime, don't get taken in by the hype around a new way to "crack" the existed restrictions on copy-protected song files. They were never really protected.
DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM is such a futile idea that the only way it would be possible would be to lock down consumer electronics so badly as to make them virtually function free.
We call that the theatre or a live performance.
Tom
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:2, Insightful)
But you lose quality (Score:5, Insightful)
Analog re-recording is tedious! (Score:4, Insightful)
iPod Cracked? (Score:4, Insightful)
No Reason to buy an iPod... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone that assumes that the iPods success comes from iTunes Music Store is mistaken IMO, iTMS helps the iPod alot but what makes the iPod such a hot seller is good marketing by Apple, and a good product. The user interface for the iPod is still the best one on the market (never mind the fact that Apple has a patent on the interface which prevents competition), and iTunes is extremely easy to use even for people that know little about computers. That combined with excellent marketing makes the iPods extremely popular.
reson to buy an iPod? (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering that the iPod is the top selling MP3 player right now it sounds more like he's missing the point than making great insights. He makes it sound like people only buy iPods for the specific purpose of playing music bought from the iTunes store. I'm sure there are plenty of people (myself included) that have never bought music online and bought the iPod for other reasons, be it usability, style, social status or whatever. The ability to play music bought from iTunes never even crossed my mind.
Re:But you lose quality (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No Reason to buy an iPod... (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you aren't using the store, why bother to buy an iPod? If you are using non-protected files anyway, I find it much easier to just drag and drop the files like you would on a portable hard drive than to mess around with some application, and every other player on the market it seems supports linking their device to your computer as a USB-Mass Storage class unit. Why bother with the iPod? The addons? I mean, come on.
Watermarks are evil (Score:2, Insightful)
... at least when it is used to identify the original buyer.
Just imagine you have lots of CD/iPods/whatever full of watermarked (with your name) titles. And you lost your stuff or someone stole it. Then those same files are found on P2P networks or on counterfeited CD. And tada, the RIAA lawyer charges you with massive copyright infrigment.
What should you do ? Go to the police to tell them precisely all the tunes you were stolen, then try to fight the RIAA lawyer with that ?
Sorry, but I do not want to take so much juridical risks for stupid songs. The scary thing is that iTunes or any other service could very well implement that in their "burn cd" features, and without telling you about it.
Re:Analog re-recording is tedious! (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly! I can't believe that a story containing crap like ``you can easily burn a series of songs to a CD, then select the songs on the CD and import them into MP3 format.'' actually got posted to the front page of Slashdot. Sure, editors miss things, but I'd expect the Slashdot editors to know the difference between automated and manual processes, and why one would prefer the former over the latter. Guess I overestimated them.
And I'm not even talking about all the other things that are wrong with this story.
What the Comments Are Missing (Score:2, Insightful)
This could be huge for consumers and a huge blow for Apple. I expect extended court fights!
Goodbye Slashdot. (Score:1, Insightful)
I just wanted to say, I've loved reading you for the last few years. I'm sure I clicked on an ad or two to make up for it. I just can't stand the duplicates, unjust bias, and inability for the site to "grow up."
We're just not the same anymore. I don't have time for linux. have a job. I have money to buy a new pc when my old one breaks. I just don't agree with 90% of what you say anymore.
It's been great,
-Clinko
Re:Bullshit! At least the editor(!) might RTFA! (Score:1, Insightful)
wow, new low (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what I'm proposing is that everyone shut up about how "evil" DRM is and get right down the point: You have rights to the copies of the music you've purchased, let's try to support a DRM scheme that works. If DRM is getting in the way of you doing something illegal, then you can just piss off and move to a country where want you want to do is legal, or wait to do your illegal thing until you've somehow prompted the law to change so that it becomes legal.
To the article poster: All of your points above are pretty weak. Yeah, a user _could_ plug a wire from the out of their soundcard to the in to make a copy of an mp3. That's a lot of work for most computer users, not to mention how far from ideal those recordings will be (mp3, converted to wave on the fly, spit out of your - most likely crappy soundcard - back into your soundcard, then back to wave, then back to mp3 will sound crappy - not that most music listeners can tell these days) - a user _could_ burn their mp3s to the CD, then re-convert them back to mp3 (waste of a CD you mention, but I didn't see any talk about degrading sound quality in your post) but who would do that? - so, I gather from your comments that DVD Jon's whole thing is fundamentally flawed because you were able to come up with 2 ways to make even-lower-fidelity-recordings of songs you paid for - wow. thanks for chiming in there buddy. How could I have been so blind to think that a model where the user doesn't have to do anything is superior to a model where the user has to do a bunch of crap only to end up "owning" audio files that have been degraded (in fidelity) from what was purchased. Thank you for showing me the light .
This whole doublemint thing or whatever DVDJ came up with is actually pretty neat. It's legal, and it works without the user having to jump through hoops (remember, not every ipod user is as computer saavy as you undoubtedly are) to get it done. In fact, with hardware manufacturers licensing it, the consumer won't have to do anything, nor will he/she have to pay for more than the mp3**. Hell, the user (ideally) won't even know what's going on behind the scenes. His rights are managed for him (which sounds scary to a lot of you, but as long as it is done within the constraints of the law, there is little you can do to rightfully bitch about it) and he gets to listen to his music how he wants to. Sounds like a good deal to me.
-w
* Notice the wording here. I'm not talking about people who have, rightful, complaints about faulty/poorly-implemented DRM enforcement.
** hmmm I suppose I kinda use 'mp3' interchangeably to mean 'computer audio file' - you'll have to pick up on my meaning from context clues
Give it up to Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But you lose quality (Score:2, Insightful)
In response to the cheap PC speakers comment, i'm one of the weird people that spent $80 on a 2.1 speaker system just because i wanted the quality and frankly, it sounds good.
Now to make this post a relevant one, If people are honestly worried about quality and needing the highest, then go buy a CD, that way you won't have to worry at all about DRM or anything to speak of aside from putting a CD in the tray and clicking "Import" through iTunes or your favorite music importing program. This would allow for both a bypass of the DRM and having to get rid of that for use on non-iPod devices and also, for those audiophiles like me that require over 128kbps quality, allows for near perfect, if not perfect, quality straight from the cd itself.
Yes yay for getting rid of the DRM but come on, trying to market it as if it's something new? Not likely to really do anything or cause any problems or excitement in the world.
Re:But you lose quality (Score:2, Insightful)
That isn't true.
Re:But you lose quality (Score:3, Insightful)
Or what if I have a CD and I need it replaced? For instance: Chicane - Far from the Maddening Crowds. It would cost me more than normal price (>$60) to acquire via ebay and the like. The money isn't going to go to the artist or label, and it's out of print. Hell, I have a legal copy of it, but somehow it managed to get a few good scratches and as it's years old I never made a good copy. Don't even have it on mp3. Anyone want to help?
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole point of copyright is so that things get COPIED!
If not today, then 30 years from now all of those things that
the media robber barons want to lock up should be FREE TO ALL
so that the NEXT GENERATION OF ARTISTS AND INVENTORS have
suitable intellectual capital to work with. It is for that
creation of intellectual capital for future genreations that
copyright exists to begin with.
Copyright was never a movie mogul landgrab.
Culture belongs to everyone.
It is the product of 10 thousand years of joint effort.
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't dislike DRM because I like free stuff. I dislike DRM because it artificially limits me. Before an argument about license and legitimate restrictions comes up, remember that I have to pay again if I lose or break my copy. The media companies need to decide that I own something, or that I license something, and give the rights to the consumer that correspond to the situation. They cant limit me based on the situation and change the rules only with the concern of screwing me for every penny.
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
Why did we grant (heh) temporary monopolies in the first place? It wasn't to enrich some people financially. It was because we want to encourage artists to create, because what the artists create is our culture.
So what you are really saying is that I am free to remain outside of society if I don't want to play by their new and improved rules. ... just like PP.
That ain't right.
The rules were set up as a bargain between society and the publishers, and what's happening here is that they are unilaterally altering the agreement.
And that leaves one in the position that either they become self-inforced social outcasts, or they bend over and take it... *OR* they stand up and fight it and say that it's not right what the companies are doing
But how much? (Score:3, Insightful)
But is there any objective information on how much worse the sound gets? Does it matter at all in practice? For normal people playing normal music on normal equipment? The few times I've done it, the results have sounded just fine whan casually listening.
A slightly bigger question is if there even is an objective way of measuring sound quality?
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:4, Insightful)
First, a little point of pedantry: "copyright" isn't named such because you have a "right" (note the quotes) to your "copy", it is so named because only the owner of the copyright has a right to make/sell/distribute (or not) copies of the work. "Copyrights" are "the right to copy"; not "a right to a copy". When you buy a CD, you don't buy the copyrights, you buy a copy.
Second, copyrights, although owned by the original author, are not for the original author's benefit. The copyright is a bribe. The public has decided that it likes new things; new ideas, new stories, new songs. And it has decided that, in exchange for access to this new idea, the person who articulated it can, for a limited time, and with limits for education, criticism, and parody, restrict who has the right to make (and therefore sell) copies of the work. You know, to encourage people to create these new things.
No, DRM isn't evil, but it does subvert the intent of the law (to provide new works to the public) and replace it with the capitalistic, lucrecratic belief that profit is the only ends we work towards. It undermines the public's security in the copyright-contract by weakening the restrictions placed on the copyright holders ability to limit access. Neither of these is good. And it's often used to destroy the doctrine of first sale, which is what allows me to sell my copy of a book on eBay when I don't want it anymore; once the copyright holder has sold that copy to me, it's MINE, and I can sell it to anyone else I want, at any price I want, and there is nothing the copyright owner gets to say about it. I can't do that with a song I bought on iTunes. And that's just the tip of the iceberg for what DRM does wrong.
That said, yes, the best bet is to change (or clarify) the law. It may be obvious to everyone now that it's okay to have the radio playing in your hotdog shop, but the first hotdog shop to try it got sued by the radio station. That case was only narrowly decided in the shop's favor; it could have gone the other way. We are at another, similar point now as we were then, with new technologies clashing in different interpretations of old social norms (with the constant clink-clink of coins counting out the beat that drives us forward). Sitting in the basement burning tracks doesn't help! Get out there; vote; talk to politicians and your voting friends and family. If you don't, the law will be written by the corporations, and they do not have your best interests at heart.
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you on crack? I will never support any restrictions on a work that I buy. I will go out of my way to support people like "DVD John".
Your entire post is just silly. You have a corrupted sense of what copyright was designed to do. Copyright was never designed to give a perpetual dictatorship over a work. Copyright has become corrupted by scum in the media industries. Copyright has effectively become perpetual for an author. Life plus 70 years is just insane. There is no author that can benefit from their work(s) for 70 years after they die.
You really need to read copyright law and not be a sheep of the misinformation pushed around by the media companies. I have more rights than what you state in your post. I have a right to resell (first-sale doctrine) the work that I bought. I have the right to convert (format-shift) to different formats. Digital restriction management PREVENTS me from exercising those rights and others. Your perverted and greedy views on copyright laws are out of touch with the reality of what copyright was made for.
Once a work/idea is released to the public, that work/idea becomes a part of other peoples minds/knowledge. No one should have the right to years of control over peoples knowledge.
ultra technical crack of ipod/itunes (Score:1, Insightful)
1. Purchase iTunes album
2. Burn disc
3. import disc
4. what drm?
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:4, Insightful)
Really?
When I had albums I used to be able to make tapes of them so I could listen to them on my (any brand portable tape player). This was legal, and easy to do. I could even make copies of my audio tapes with no prolbem. My cheap Sanyo receiver could dub audio tapes at 2x speed. And I could make my own mix-tapes off of stuff I recorded off the radio. All legal for personal use, simple to do.
But now I can't play my legally purchased DVD's from Japan in my American DVD player, I can't (legally) copy my DVD's. I can't copy my PlaysForSure files to my iPod (and listen to them) The new video download services lock the videos to my physical machine! I used to be able to record shows freely from TV to VHS. Now my TiVo will delete those same programs a week after I save them...
How is this not more restricted?
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM doesn't do shit to prevent copying - small or large scale. The hardcore pirates aren't phased in the least by DRM, and most people looking to send someone a few songs now will just burn a CD rather than being bothered by crap upload speeds and email antivirus, and in doing so strip the DRM from the tracks. The only thing it accomplishes is making sure that Joe Public has to buy another iPod (or PlaysForSure device, or Zune) when their current one dies, and stick with the same brand. It's not a damn thing more than vendor lock-in, and all of the media companies know this.
I understand where they're coming from and that they want to protect their content. I have plenty of things that I'd want protected too. But unlike them, I've realized that treating (potential) customers like criminals in order to try keeping a couple sales drives them to steal an unprotected leaked/cracked version of what I currently have, and will encourage them to buy from other vendors that have an equivalent product without being so draconian about it.
Re:You lose quality, but only by choice... (Score:4, Insightful)
What you buy via iTunes is an AAC encoded song. AAC (just like MP3, OGG, etc) is a lossy compression format. "Lossy" means that you are throwing away information from the original in order to shrink the size of the song. When you make a CD, iTunes cannot recreate the original full quality song, because it cannot recreate the thrown away pieces. The result is a WAV file of significantly lower quality than the original song. When you then compress the crappy WAV file into an MP3 (and therefore throw away other pieces, different from the ones used in the AAC compression), you get loss of quality which is much worse than the original AAC song.
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
That analogy would make sense except for one teeny, tiny little thing: The music companies say that you haven't purchased a physical object (for if you did, you could make legal copies of it at will, just like I can buy a hamburger, enjoy it, and make some at home to serve to my family and friends without violating any law), you have purchased a LICENSE to the music/video on the media. Under the terms of the license (and copyright law) you cannot make copies. BUT, by the same token, when the media is damaged, you still have a valid license to the music/video, bought and paid for, and they should pony up another copy. As George Carlin would say, the want to eat their cake and have it too.
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:4, Insightful)
Aha, but they've changed the rules, see? No consumer could make a backup copy of their vinyl. They could copy it to tape, but then tape hiss is introduced, and the vinyl sounds worse every time you play it anyway. So, the rule then was: you had purchased a physical object, and if said object fails, tough titty.
NOW, the consumer can make perfect digital replicas of their music purchases. So, we have this nebulous product called the CD that when it works, you have purchased a license, and when it is broken, you have purchased a physical object.
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:2, Insightful)
Make the TV out the primary and you'll be able to watch the DVD on the big screen.
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:2, Insightful)
actually, what you just described is not DRM (remember, DRM is a concept) - you've described a poor implementation of a DRM system - blacking out the video over s-video is not in and of itself DRM, again, it's a poor implementation/design - with this design, it prohibits you from watching as a side-effect of prohibiting you from copying via that output - again, we should focus our efforts into finding a DRM scheme that works and not just dissing it because we don't understand it
-w
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:1, Insightful)
If you buy a Picasso print and put your elbow through it, you don't get another copy for free. If you buy a book and fall asleep reading it in the bathtub, you don't get another copy for free. If you buy a porcelain sculpture, drop it and it shatters, you don't get another one for free. CDs are no different in this respect than any other copyrighted work.
Just because you buy an object does not give you the right to duplicate that object or the information on it. This is not a new interpretation of copyright law. It's always been that way. In fact, it's even in the name: "copy right" -- that is, the right to copy. That right doesn't belong to you.
Licensing versus physical objects have nothing to do with it.
I personally would like to see "format shifting" of digital information for personal use explicitly allowed by copyright law. Currently, however, that area is fairly murky.
It is, however, abundantly clear that you don't get to make dozens of copies for your friends, or thousands of copies for people you've never met when they access your torrent.
Re:DRM sucks, news at 11 (Score:2, Insightful)
It's an option now. Pull out your checkbook and start mailing out your dough, coward. What's stopping you? Could it be that your own sense of greed is the only thing "preventing" you from ponying up the money for the stuff you've already stolen?
I sympathize with you. Labels are assholes. But...
A) You don't have a need for any of this content. This is strictly about you wanting to enhance your entertainment experience and make your life cushier than it already is. Hence, you don't need to buy (or steal) any of the crap the labels dish out.
B) There are a few possible positions here. You could be a typical thief and offer zero recompense to the artists, or you could be a slightly more moral thief and offer some payback for the stuff you're stealing. Of those two options, at least, the latter would seem better.
That is, of course, if you're just looking to keep your cushy life with little to no cost.
The ironic aspect of all of this is that you're probably blowing enough on electricity, hardware, software, and time to make the whole file-sharing thievery enterprise not worth your while.