Slashdot Log In
iTunes v6 FairPlay DRM Cracked
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:39 PM
from the round-and-round-they-go dept.
from the round-and-round-they-go dept.
luaine writes with an Engadget article claiming the cracking of iTunes v6 FairPlay DRM. From the article: "[A] new app called QTFairUse6 looks like it can now be used (with some amount of difficulty) to dump iTunes version 6.0.4 - 6.0.5 files of their chastely protection." At present this is a Windows-only tool for those who are "not afraid to get [their] hands dirty with a little python." Engadget does not provide a link to QTFairUse6, and neither will we. We've run several DRM stories recently, but it's been 19 months since Cracking iTunes' DRM with JHymn.
Related Stories
[+]
Apple: Cracking iTunes' DRM with JHymn 449 comments
comforteagle writes "Howard Wen has interviewed 'FutureProof' of the JHymn project, a DRM removal application for iTunes song files laden, or 'crippled' as some say, to prevent filesharing. FutureProof tells us how Apple's DRM works, how to rip it out using JHymn, how they build on the work of 'DVD' Jon Johansen, and how to upgrade to that brand new iShuffle safely."
[+]
Your Rights Online: 30 Days of DRM 170 comments
sonofollson writes "Michael Geist, a Canadian law professor, in the middle of a 30 Days of DRM project,
which is targeting the planned introduction of the DMCA in
Canada. Each day, the project identifies an exception or
limitation that is needed to address the danger of anti-circumvention
legislation. Issues covered so far include interoperability,
privacy,
region
coding, and reverse
engineering. The project is also supporting a wiki version for
broader participation."
[+]
FairUse4WM Breaks Windows DRM 617 comments
An anonymous reader writes "FairUse4WM, according to engadget, "can be used to strip Windows Media DRM 10 and 11". What does the slashdot community think of this development in the ongoing cat-and-mouse game going on between big media and what is available online?"
[+]
Ask Slashdot: A Working Economy Without DRM? 686 comments
Tilted Equilibrium asks: "In a few weeks, our school will be hosting a panel on DRM with several respected individuals. In advance of the panel, I have been doing some research on the topic and thinking about it in my free time. In economics, we learn that the price of a product is determined essentially by supply and demand. Without a DRM in place, we are capable of making as many copies of a piece of content as we want and seeding it onto the net. How do you create a market for a product, and make money of a product that has a huge initial creative investment, but then no manufacturing cost, and is in infinite supply?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Uh... (Score:2)
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Informative)
They won't, but I will: http://hymn-project.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=155 3 [hymn-project.org]
Re:that doesn't make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.elflord.net/ | Last Journal: Monday March 19 2007, @10:35AM)
Does wanting to format-shift my paid content easily constitute dishonesty? If you think so, I would kindly say, "Fuck you."
Re:that doesn't make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 09 2006, @05:02PM)
This notion, if applied to any other object you legaly own and use in the privacy of your own person could make it "wrong" to bake a cake with the surgar you just purchased for sweetening your breakfast cerial. Or more to the a simular end, It might make it "illegal" to crush your vitamins and drink them from your orange juice in the morning because the bottle says clearly they intended them to be swallowed whole with water. Simply absurd!
I wonder if people realize this when they try to support the idea of "you can only do what someone else wants you to do after you paid for something?" Can i joins in on saying "Fuck You"!?
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Psst... here ya go (Score:5, Funny)
(http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 07, @07:05AM)
<span style='voice: Mick Dundee' >
That's not a link, that's a link [google.com]
</span>
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.elflord.net/ | Last Journal: Monday March 19 2007, @10:35AM)
It works, and works well.
Also, it doesn't actually require any mucking about in python; it works out of the box, once python's installed. If you're mucking about, it better be to add 'faad -a dump_xx.decoded.aac dumpxx.aac' to the end of the dump process.
Meanwhile, the link in the forum linked by the engadget article is to rapidshare.de. I hate these things, and I assume most others do. Additionally, that zip doesn't have FAAD in it. So, I took the liberty of putting it in and hosting it myself. It's not offshore, and I'm nothing like anonymous, so the first Cease and Desist will get it off my site. If I get a lawsuit instead, you can be sure I'm going to grab the EFF's attention on the matter.
QTFairUse w/ FAAD [fordi.org]
Enjoy!Python 2.4.3 (required) [python.org]
So what (Score:1, Insightful)
Behold... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://users.mtrx.net/funnypics | Last Journal: Monday September 25 2006, @11:29AM)
Re:Behold... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://cozzyd.web.stanford.edu/)
Re:Behold... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.comparecomponents.com/ | Last Journal: Friday September 15 2006, @02:04PM)
Macs have this ability - via iMovie (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday October 23 2006, @01:43PM)
No, they don't. (Score:5, Informative)
iMovie works by decompressing and recompressing the music, resulting in a loss of quality. Apparently, this new software works by extracting the compressed stream after it has been decrypted, giving it the distinct advantage of being lossless.
Of course, it doesn't do me any good, since it only works in Windows...
Re:Macs have this ability - via iMovie (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday September 20 2006, @10:30AM)
I want a legal system, so I use allofmp3 (because it is legal in my country (the UK)), but isn't there any alternatives for you to iTunes without DRM at all?
Re:Macs have this ability - via iMovie (Score:4, Informative)
(http://localhost/)
A Link to a download (Score:4, Informative)
wonder if works for itunes video (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not Napster? (Score:1, Offtopic)
$15.00 one time charge for WMAConvert software..
All the unprotected MP3 files I could ever need.
Yeah, ok, so I'm listening to sound quality that's less because I went from one lossy to another. BFD - I can't hear the difference anyway.
As long as I have my Napster subscription -- I can download all the stuff I want, and I'll rely on Fair Use Copyright Law to rest my conscience. No, I don't upload or share.
I just can't stand slow assed
Oh, NOW you won't link to it? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://felter.org/wesley/)
DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.nine-times.org/)
It's like buying a Ford and ripping the Ford emblem off the car and thinking that you're "sticking it to Ford." I have news for you: Ford (Apple) is laughing all the way to the bank.
Actually, it's not like that. It's like... the opposite of that. Or not really, but it's just not like that.
There are a bunch of differences here, the first being that I don't know how a Ford logo is anything like DRM. You might not like the Ford logo, and ripping it off might be a cosmetic improvement (or not, depending on your opinion), but it doesn't inhibit your use of the car. Second, I can't think of a reason why Ford's suppliers would stop selling to Ford if their cars didn't have a Ford logo. It's generally believed, on the other hand, that Apple fought with the record companies because Apple didn't want to use DRM, but for the RIAA, it was a deal-breaker. No DRM, no music, hence no music store.
In any event, I don't think people want to remove the DRM so they can "stick it to Apple". They buy from Apple because they like the service Apple is providing, and they strip the DRM because they don't like the DRM.
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.unity08.com/)
Google: QTFairUse6 (no results?) (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Google: QTFairUse6 (no results?) (Score:5, Funny)
(http://whineymacfanboy.googlepages.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 12 2007, @09:28AM)
Haven't you heard? Google CEO joins Apple Board [slashdot.org].
Google have given up on 'do no evil' in favour of joining Apple
been there, done that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:been there, done that (Score:5, Informative)
Two reasons:
nothing was cracked (Score:5, Informative)
With some amount of difficulty? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.KateTheDog.com)
Music from iTunes is already compressed a fair bit. Yes, you'll lose some fidelity, but the copy to CD and re-rip has always been there if you're not too picky but seriously DRM-phobic.
But other than single-track purchasing, the whole point of the ITMS is convenience. If you want music a single click away it's there. If you want it a click away, but are willing to go through hoops to remove the DRM you kinda lost the convenience part, so what's the point?
If you wanted cheap music, at least an ablbum at a time, borrowing or buying used CDs, ripping them yourself then returning ( or re-selling ) them is an option. If you look at the price of a used CD, minus the price you get selling it back the next day, it's going to be cost competitive with ITMS purchase. Heck, splitting the price of a new album with 2 friends and you all rip it before selling it is going to be a better price. Illegal, yes, but no more so than de-DRMing
So if that's an option, why would you buy from ITMS in the first place if you're going to go through pains to de-DRM it? Poor impulse control? If you can get it for the same price ( or cheaper ) by getting the CD and ripping yourself AND less hassle than removing DRM, why not do just that?
Which is why I think any DRM removal that is more than a single click just silly.
Re:With some amount of difficulty? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. I personally feel that copyright infringement is dishonest. I don't feel that breaking the DMCA and circumventing DRM for fair use reasons is dishonest. I want to be able to honestly pay for the music that I want for a reasonable price. iTunes is one way of doing that. I also want to be able to play that music on whatever player I want. This requires the DRM to go away.
the whole point of the ITMS is convenience.
I agree that convenience is a big selling point but for a lot of people it is not more convenient than finding the torrent file. It is much more honest. The best solution would be a convenient service through which I could buy the music I want unencumbered by DRM. I don't know of one.
Engadget double-standards?? (Score:1, Interesting)
Implementation of Apple DRM MS DRM (Score:2)
Now mvoe to Microsoft DRM...you pay $5.99 for unlimited access to a million Napster songs. You then rip the DRM. Net to Napster? You paid $5.99 for 1,000,000 songs.
God Loves DRM. (Score:3, Interesting)
I always wondered what would have happen to some of the world's major religions if copyright law in its current convoluted form existed at the time of Moses. Would the Ten Commandments be copyrighted? Would Gutenberg have had to pay royalties? Would he have had to pay God? Check or money order? Would churches now have to get a volume license to relate the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah? Would Cain and Abel have gotten 'points'? Gross or net? And when Cain killed Abel, who bought up his rights from his estate?
If the first letter of Paul to the Ephesians was read out loud to the Ephesians by someone other than Paul without Paul consenting in writing, could Paul sue for damages? Or does this qualify as fair use?
If God liked DRM, would the first Bibles be like a big sheaf of blank pages, and when you pay your licensing fee, the words magically appear (only partially illegible due to compression loss)? Or would he just temporarily blind you every time you looked at it until you paid.
Along the same lines, you know how people like to quote scripture? Would God give you a case of laryngitis if you tried to quote scripture without accepting a EULA first? Does the fact that God is omniscient and knows what you're thinking constitute a 'rootkit'?
DRM, always a fun topic.
The lesson being - never delete DRM'd files (Score:2)
my little python (Score:1)
get [their] hands dirty with a little python
Am I the only one who was thinking something entirely unrelated to a programming language?
Cracked? Not quite... (Score:2)
This Python program fishes for frames in iTunes memory after the decryption and before the decoding process and writes them out to a file. This does yield an unencoded AAC file in the end, but the process is real-time and therefore very time-consuming for large libraries.
Automated script, including tagging (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:Another Stupid Headline (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://whineymacfanboy.googlepages.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 12 2007, @09:28AM)
Or
iTunes wasn't cracked. The DRM shackling people to itunes was cracked.
Re:Another Stupid Headline (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.nps.gov/c...reation/ohioerie.htm)
Re:Another Stupid Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://kadin.sdf-us.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 16, @01:46PM)
Is it illegal? Probably.
Was it really dumb to spend $1,000 on DRMed music? Yep.
Re:Another Stupid Headline (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://kim.biyn.com/)
However, much like the Fair Use clause in copyright law, the proponents of DMCA invariably choose to overlook this clause in the DMCA. DVD Jon is in the clear when it comes to the DMCA because of this clause, only it seems that no cases have been defended citing this clause. I do not worry at ALL about ripping DVDs for use on my PocketPC and posting about it on here because that clause specifically allows me to use DeCSS to bypass DRM for the purpose of interoperability with other software (Windows media Player on PocketPC 2000), and it allows me to use DeCSS (and derivatives) to view DRMed video on alternate software such as Linux. Note that it does NOT allow me to bypass DRM for the purpose of violating copyright law, but making backups and transcoding and/or timeshifting (e.g., bypassing HDCP when I buy an HDTV) are all specifically excepted from liability/prosecution under the DMCA.
Re:Another Stupid Headline (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://honeypot.net/ | Last Journal: Friday April 07 2006, @09:33AM)
Wired had a good print article on that a few months ago. Summary: you have to get a cell carrier to distribute the phones, and none of them want to let you upload music to your phone for free instead of making you pay to send it through their data network.
Re:Another Stupid Headline (Score:5, Funny)
(http://integramod.tripod.com/)
Pah! Those Europeans and their "free choice" crap... Next thing you know, they'll be talking about how they need more than two political parties to choose from!
Re:Another Stupid Headline (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.dasnet.org/)
And it wasn't even that. According to this forum entry [hymn-project.org], all the hack does is tie into the audio "output" side of iTunes and skim off the decoded AAC stream, writing it to a file. One step above grabbing it at the sound card, but certainly not a crack of the DRM itself.
What's astounding is how many people seem to consider this "a step in the right direction," when it's really a "step in a totally different direction that will do nothing for actually breaking the DRM itself." Then again, maybe I shouldn't be *too* surprised....
Re:Another Stupid Headline (Score:5, Informative)
(http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 07, @07:05AM)
Not quite. It grabs the audio when it is decrypted, but not yet decoded. I.e. it grabs the raw AAC frames. These can then be inserted into a proper container file and tagged with metadata. This process needs to be automated, but it should be soon.
The good thing about this approach is that, unlike capturing the audio, it accesses it before the AAC stream has been decompressed, meaning that you don't have to recompress it, adding artefacts.
Re:Another Stupid Headline (Score:1)
Re:DRM v GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.ender.com/)
Re:Another Stupid Headline (Score:3, Funny)
(http://localhost/)
Re:Link vs. Google (Score:1)
Re:I wonder.... (Score:1)
Re:Whew (Score:2)
(http://scorch.quickfox.org/)
Re:I wonder.... (Score:1)
(http://moofie.lastcoolnameleft.com/)
Re:I wonder.... (Score:2)
(http://wiitimer.com/)
Re:I wonder.... (Score:1)
"My restrictive, DRM-encumbered, overpriced music files are more secure than yours. Neener neener."
"Nuh uh. Read TFA."
"Oh. I hang my head in shame."