Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

'DVD Jon' Reopens iTunes DRM Hole

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

March 22, 2005, 8:30 PM

The cat and mouse game has begun. Just one day after Apple closed a hole that allowed a third-party program to access its iTunes Music Store and download content without digital rights management protection, programmer Jon Johansen re-opened the back door with a new version of the software.

Johansen, known for releasing the code to break DVD copy protection, wrote in his Web log that he broke Apple's latest encryption. Johansen developed the program, called PyMusique, with the help of two fellow hackers.

"The iTunes Music Store recently stopped supporting iTunes versions below 4.7 in an attempt to shut out 3rd party clients. I have reverse engineered the iTMS 4.7 crypto which will once again enable 3rd party clients to communicate with the iTMS," Johansen said.

PyMusique replicates the capabilities of Apple's iTunes application, and its users must still pay for the music they download. But because iTunes adds DRM protection to songs only after they have been downloaded, Johansen simply left that piece out of his program.

This means that iTunes music downloaded with PyMusique can be freely shared and transferred to portable devices other than Apple's iPod.

As iTunes 4.7 is the latest release available, it's not clear how Apple will respond to Johansen's latest move. The company may be forced to change its software once again and require all customers to upgrade.

PyMusique's programmers claim the software is designed to give Linux users access to the iTunes Music Store. Seemingly to reaffirm this position, a Windows version of PyMusique that bypasses Apple's block will not be released.

Add a Comment (57 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By TehMark

posted Mar 24, 2005 - 2:12 AM

A lot of people have posted that its dumb to use iTunes because theres ways to get music for free still. Congrats on your large e-p****. iTunes is a good service and yeah its kinda weak that you get drm attached so you can't use programs besides iTunes to burn and/or play the music. I'm just glad that people like Jon Johansen have the guts to put their name on something that makes our lives easier. Thats what iTunes is for after all.

Score: 0

By seanism

posted Mar 24, 2005 - 12:35 AM

I applaud what has been done. Users should be allowed the will to do whatever they want with a file they purchased, I fail to see how this is even an issue! iTunes was definately a move in the right direction away from CDs, but now we need to make sure they understand it's OUR money. Why should we pay for something that isn't what we truly desire?

And I also am loving the fact that Linux users are the only ones who can use this software. It's a big slap in the face to a large percentage of users who get music for free. If you can't undersand my last sentence, you just might be one of the people I'm talking about. ;)

Sometimes you really do have to fight for your right! Keep up the good work Mr Johansen!

Score: 0

By kise

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 4:10 PM

My full support for the anti-drm actions.

People against this can use the regular iTunes and buy DRM-protected AAC files.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 8:50 PM

And those who do choose to use PyMusique may find themselves locked out of iTunes in the future. If you don't play by the rules, you risk losing the game.

Just like the Harvard students who tried to take advantage of a Web-based admission system to find out if they got accepted, and ended up being kicked out if they were.

Score: 0

By Pipewrench

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 10:30 AM

What a good thing. I too pay for my music with iTunes. It's crap that it's all protected and I can't even play it unless I log into iTunes. I bought it damn it, and I should be able to do what I want with it. What a rackett. Greedy jerks.

Score: 0

By Galway

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 3:45 PM

It makes me laugh reading all these comments, your all trying to justify your own point and in your own head you succede. But on this board where we all have our own minds and beliefs it all falls appart, just like in real life.

Heres my version I have in my mind.

If you buy music from itunes, then (Legally) you agree to its terms and conditions. Thats it ... you have paid your money and you take your choise.

Apple knew the risks when it offered the service, it knows that if you give anyone a choice who has no morals about copyright the chance to get anything for free then they will, END OF STORY.

I personaly have never paid for music, I get all i ever need from the NET. Those savy with a browser can get all they need, and if I cant get it when i want, i go without but i have yet so far not had to go without.

Its like ONDigital, yea I was one who paid for nothing. And the price was its now long gone, its the same with itunes, as far as i can see ( excuse my ignorance, but I dont use the service ) you still have to pay for ur songs, and the hack is that you get a perfect unprotected MP3. So apple is getting its money, the people who are getting fleeced are the record companys. And they will either stop the service or not, it dependson how much they are earning out of it.

One point I would like to say is allot of crap is said about how much money they are losing cus if this. Well I have hundreds of MP3's. But they lose no money cus of me, cus if i could not get it for nowt then I would not have them and its as simple as that.

This issue is cat n mouse, you will never get rid of it, you just have to make sure there are enuf peeps paying to keep it afloat. otherwise you get a Ondigital.

Score: 0

By DigitalSin

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 4:37 PM

Well there are always people out there who love to get something for nothing even if it was at someone else's hard work and expense.

iTunes prices are great in my opinion. A mere 99 cents for a song. How can you go wrong with that?

I do dislike the DRM, but I'd rather play music on iTunes than spend an hour trying to find some lamer on kazaa with enough bandwidth to give my a song I want. I like the convenience of getting a song in my head and thinking, "Oh, I have to have that song now!" and just logging in and buying it.

Score: 0

By roj

posted Mar 24, 2005 - 7:00 AM

"iTunes prices are great in my opinion. A mere 99 cents for a song. How can you go wrong with that? "

Paying 99 cents for lossy content when you can get the original lossless content for less in the store is stupid at best and moronic at worst. It enters the realm of "braindead" when you add the concept that you can't do what you want with what you've paid for.

Only a fool pays more for less.

Score: 0

By DigitalSin

posted Mar 24, 2005 - 3:39 PM

What is the alternative? Waste time and bandwidth (which both equal waste of money if either are valuable to you) searching stupid warez or P2P networks? If you want the absolute definition of "braindead" and "moronic", spend 10 mins on those kinds of sites. A moron doesn't waste his time.

Another alternative: go out and spend $13-18 on a CD with one or two of the songs you like.

I both agree and disagree with your statement about not being able to do what you want with what you've purchased. Nothing stops me from burning a CD of my music and ripping it back as an MP3. Once burned to a CD the quality is just fine. I dislike the DRM in that I don't like not being able to just take my songs and fire them up in whatever media player I want - but again, I can just burn to a CD and rip them back. 99% of the time I burn my songs to a CD anyway so I can play them in the car.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 24, 2005 - 8:22 AM

99 cents for a song, or $13.99 for a full album when I only want one song.

It's not calculus: iTunes is considerably cheaper and less of a hassle.

And for most people, the DRM doesn't prevent them from doing the things they'd do anyway (burn to CD, copy to iPod, etc.)

Score: 0

By BklynKid

posted Mar 24, 2005 - 1:20 AM

See, you're downloading from the right places. The real stuff isn't on Kazaa or any other P2P network.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 24, 2005 - 8:32 AM

Yeah, all the "cool" kids go to Easynews...

Yawn.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 1:02 PM

So you'd rather see the recording industry decide online music isn't safe and iTunes go out of business entirely?

Then what, you'd return to buying CDs at $15 a pop?

Score: 0

By roj

posted Mar 24, 2005 - 7:10 AM

"So you'd rather see the recording industry decide online music isn't safe and iTunes go out of business entirely?"

Who loses if they do? Net users? I don't think so. Cry me a river if that happens. This is the time of a paradigm shift - it has all the hallmarks of one, right down tot he incumbents being rabidly resistant to change. Those that won't learn will suffer economically eventually.

Net users can afford to wait - they're the ones causing the paradigm shift.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 24, 2005 - 8:23 AM

And yet more revolution talk... This isn't the 60s. Music is a big business and isn't going to change in the next decade.

Score: 0

By roj

posted Mar 24, 2005 - 10:11 AM

No revolution necessary, just a couple simple facts of life:

The music business can't stop people breaking DRM.

All the rhetoric in the world can't can't that.

The money spent on DRM is wasted.

All the rhetoric in the world can't change that either.

If the music industry wants to keep wasting money then they will - it just won't get them anywhere.

That should be blatantly obvious by now, even to you.

So why do it? Why hang on to a paradigm that's no longer working? Why keep pouring money into a black hole? Why keep sponsoring shills like yourself to be their mouthpieces on forums? To get back control of something they lost control of the day the mp3 spec was willingly placed on the Net by its creators?

Never gonna happen.

The genie is long since out of the bottle.

Deal with it.

Change is inevitable in this business. Those that wish to survive embrace it and look for new opportunities. Those that don't suffer the consequences. That will always be so. It's evolution, it's inexorable and it's inevitable.

Nothing else need be said and that's all I have to say.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 24, 2005 - 11:19 AM

People said the same thing about Windows and Microsoft seems to be doing just fine. DRM doesn't need to be perfect, 99% of the people out there don't want to bother with breaking it.

Hymn has allowed you to strip the DRM off iTunes for ages, but guess what? Nobody really cares because for the majority of people, the DRM isn't a problem.

People will always break encryption/protection and people will always steal. But when you make a decent service available, the majority of people will pay and will be happy.

Score: 0

By DigitalSin

edited Mar 22, 2005 - 11:46 PM

I support this effort not because I don't want to pay for my music or because I want to give it out to my friends so they don't have to pay. I support it because the iTunes DRM format really adds an inconvenience. I want my songs to be in MP3 format. I paid for them, I should be able to have that. MP3 is supported by more players and I don't like using iTunes to play my music. I also want to play my songs on my Linux machine. I can't unless I use WINE which just barely tricks iTunes and the performance is utter crap.

Right now I have to go to the trouble of burning my songs to a CD then ripping them back as MP3s. I could simply take these mp3s and pop them on a P2P file sharing network if I wanted, but I paid for them so I don't want anyone else to get a free ride. THAT is the DRM, not the lame, easily circumventable format.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 7:57 AM

All of these claims that music stores are wronging people and you "deserve" more rights are getting a bit ridiculous.

When you purchase music from iTunes, you know full well what format it is. And you also agreed to Apple's terms of service. You never had to agree, and could have bought your music elsewhere that sells in MP3 format (audiolunchbox.com comes to mind).

We all know full well that without DRM, record labels would have never agreed to online music stores in the first place. And Apple's DRM was one of the best, easiest and non-intrusive. Life is about compromise, get used to it.

Score: 0

By DigitalSin

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 11:18 AM

If your car dealer told you that after buying your car outright you can't change the tires or customize it in any way, how would you feel? Wouldn't you feel like "Hey, I paid for this with my own hard earned cash, can't I do with it what I like?".

All I want is to be able to play my music in other music players which support industry standard formats and may not support Apple's proprietary format. How is that demanding more rights than I deserve? We as consumers keep Apple and the artists in business to begin with, they aren't doing us some kind of favor. We get a say in things.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 1:01 PM

If you signed a document and agreed to not being able to change your tires, then that is your fault. If you don't agree, go buy your car somewhere else.

Nobody forces you to buy music from iTunes. You do so because it is arguably the best service. So if you want it to remain available to you, then you live with the restrictions it comes with. That's life.

Score: 0

By DigitalSin

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 4:28 PM

If everyone had this mentality about change I'm afraid cars would still not have seatbelts ("if you don't want the safety risk, walk"), more children would die from choking hazards in their toys ("buy someone else's toy if you don't like mine"), and blacks would still be second class citizens ("you dont like the rules in this country go find another one").

This is all about us, the consumers, having the right to demand change if a vendor wishes to make money from us. We are sustaining them, not the other way around. They are doing us no favors - we are paying for what we want.

You say the industry would not be agreeable to services like iTunes if iTunes' DRM was not in place. I wholeheartedly disagree. The industry was struggling to survive after Napster really spread. Now they have a service where people pay for their music once again, they (artists \ labels) do not have to pay to distribute music on a medium (CD), and they get much better advertising. Of course, I am not sure what the relationship is as far as who compensates who between iTunes and the labels, but I am sure everyone is making a great profit.

Anyway I believe the problem here is a distortion in thought relating to who is helping who. You have to understand we are the ones in control here because we have money. As long as artists are being paid for their work, we should be able to have whatever format we want. iTunes' weak DRM is just a negotiating matter to get artists. They need to find some other negotiating point to compensate.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 7:41 PM

If you think you have the upper hand, you are mistaken - unless you want to boycott the product. The person selling makes the rules, you choose whether to buy. There is no negotiating here.

And when Apple bans your account for using PyMusique, you shall see who has the control. As I said, if you don't agree, don't buy.

Score: 0

By roj

edited Mar 24, 2005 - 7:22 AM

"If you think you have the upper hand, you are mistaken - unless you want to boycott the product. The person selling makes the rules, you choose whether to buy. There is no negotiating here."

You're perfectly correct here. There is no negotiation. If the person selling the wares doesn't sell any, they go out of business. No negotiation at all. Since time immemorial, the market has decided. More than one business has failed because it didn't pay attention to same.

Bottom line:

You can be an Apple / DRM shill all you like. That isn't going to change the fact that DRM will continue to fail and be circumvented again and again and again. Your views certainly can't stop that. It's inexorable.

The industry will have to change its tune. It's spending a LOT of money on a fool's errand. Never mind the so-called legalities, bought and paid for by special interest lobbies in the entertainment industry - this is a worldwide issue not subject to the laws enacted on behalf of of the Holy RIAA.

The times they are a changing. Many consumers are not the sheep they used to be. While I personally consider all online music services a ripoff for reasons I have oft stated, they may have their place - if they start offering value to the customer. Currently they don't. That's not an auspicious beginning for a solution to marketing in the digital age by dinosaurs who have always had their own way. They should take a hint.

But hey, keep spouting the party line if it makes you feel better. Just remember - it won't change anything REAL happening out there or amke DRM circumvention go away.

Score: 0

By DigitalSin

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 9:38 PM

Well, I believe we as consumers do have the upper hand. That is why this Pymusique and all the others to follow are being created. Apple can either play along nicely, or allocate resources to constantly fighting hackers. I personally do not use it - it's not enough of an inconvenience right now to take a chance, but I do support the idea and I am very confident Apple is going to change its method of distribution to support more open formats (or at least mp3).

Score: 0

By anthonyt

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 11:27 AM

On one hand....
So it's ok to decompile Microsoft Windows and recompile it into something else? That's basically what you're saying. It's not right. You know the terms, you know the format. If you want another format, buy another format. You pay for what you get. The songs on iTunes would probably not even be there for you to buy in the first place if they didn't have the security in place.

On the other hand... "The squeaky wheel gets the grease." If people complain enough, maybe they'll give in. But that doesn't mean its ok to change the format right now.

Score: 0

By DigitalSin

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 4:40 PM

I don't think that is a fair analogy. If I decompiled Windows and recompiled it into something else, I have in effect changed the functionality of the product itself.

With the DRM, I simply want the ability to convert the format, not the product, itself. The product is the song, not the format. I am not downloading 50 cent, making a remix out of it, and sending it to other people. I just want the format to be in an industry standard format for my own personal use.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 7:44 PM

It may not be the same as decompiling Windows, but you are using a hack to get a different product than intended. And it's still against the terms Apple mandated for their service.

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 4:06 AM

what is the format now? and for heavens sakes, STOP SUPPORTING THIS CRAP WHEN IT IS SO WRONG!

(by support, I mean stop buying music from Apple, and other DRM infected music).

I wouldn't buy it in Linux using this DRM removal app, even though that would benefit me, it benefits more not to support it. I just assume download illegal copies another way than pay for an illegal copy.

Score: 0

By roj

edited Mar 23, 2005 - 10:15 AM

These people are paying for their content. It's their right to decide what to do with it.

End of discussion.

This hole may be closed. Another will open. Just like the last time. And that will continue to happen until companies start to respect the rights of their customers.

I applaud that.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 1:05 PM

Yes, they are paying for content, and Apple won't sue anyone who wants to re-encode their music.

But that's not the case here, this software is accessing iTunes without Apple's permission and violating its terms of service. That is completely different than "my content is mine." When you buy from iTunes, it comes with DRM. If you don't want DRM, go buy the CD.

Score: 0

By roj

posted Mar 24, 2005 - 7:28 AM

Wrong.

The terms of service are Draconian and should be modified. The vendors need to be made aware that such behavior is unacceptable. In an age where many including yourself self-righteously cloak themselves in so-called "legalities" (in much the same way that the English Lords did centuries ago, forcing an exodus to Plymouth Rock), it's time for a more forceful message to be sent.

This is one of them.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 24, 2005 - 8:25 AM

You seriously need to wake up from your dream world. CD sales have gone up. Online music is skyrocketing. There is no revolution on the way.

Sorry for being a party pooper, but idealism is a waste of time.

Score: 0

By TwoTailedFox

posted Mar 22, 2005 - 10:09 PM

"PyMusique's programmers claim the software is designed to give Linux users access to the iTunes Music Store."

All Apple have to do is program a Linux-ported version of iTunes.

Score: 0

By rburly

posted Mar 22, 2005 - 9:54 PM

Music CD sales were never as high as when Napster was free. After it was shut down, sales dropped to the lowest ever.

Correlation, you betcha. Cause and effect: Yes.

RIAA. Learn from your mistakes. I hope the mouse wins this one. RIAA, you'll be making $$$ hand-over-fist.

Score: 0

By Noremacam

edited Mar 22, 2005 - 9:49 PM

Articles like these make me smile. I hate DRM. Hopefully, he can keep it up. Apple can't possibly make people upgrade all of the time.

Apple should just learn that people want to do whatever they want with the music they purchased out of their own wallet(apart from letting others take what isn't there's to give).

Why buy music online, when you can steal it at a higher quality, and with no DRM(apart from having a bad conscience)?

With DRM removed, itunes looks oh so much more appealing.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 8:01 AM

Apple knows people want freedom with their music, that's why the DRM is extremely flexible. However, the record labels would never allow the music to be sold without DRM. If you don't like DRM, keep buying CDs, but stop acting like companies like Apple are evil and forcing it on you - there is no other option. The amount of ignorance about this is just amazing.

Score: 0

By roj

edited Mar 23, 2005 - 11:01 AM

There is no option?

I beg to differ.

One option is being exercised as shown by what's happening here.

There is another option for the music companies as well:

Change their paradigm of doing business.

That one is the most important because they'll eventually find out that unless they do, they won't HAVE any business.

Those of us who work in security know that Moore's law is the ultimate enemy against ANY encryption. So is the vast diversity of the internet.

The music companies (and Apple) need to be taught a lesson in consumer rights. That lesson is being taught to them the hard way with every passing day.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 1:08 PM

Yawn. Same old argument, different day. Music should be free, software should be free, life should be free. Let's be realistic here.

Music sales have gone up. Online music stores are raking in the money. Consumers are happy, the industry is happy with Apple's DRM. Doomsday isn't coming anytime soon, sorry.

Score: 0

By roj

edited Mar 24, 2005 - 7:36 AM

Yawn yawn yawn.

Same mindless self-righteous, sanctimonious pro-DRM / pro-music industry drivel.

I'm not saying music should be free. Far from it. I am saying that the rights of the consumer should be respected and that said consumer has the right to do what they will with their own property.

You can dismiss the arguments all you want - they won't change the reality of DRM circumvention.

But then again, there is none so blind as those who will not see.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 24, 2005 - 8:26 AM

I'm not pro-DRM or pro-music industry. Hell, I'd rather have non-DRM'd music as much as the next guy. But unfortunately, this is the real world and it's not going to happen.

You can do what you want with the music you buy. You can crack the DRM and you can burn it to CD or transcode it, nobody is going to stop you. But this is about abusing a system, which is completely different.

Score: 0

By mrp-

posted Mar 22, 2005 - 8:49 PM

I supported dvdjob when he did decss and i support him with his other programs but this is stupid and if i have to download another itunes update (which installs quicktime ugh) im gonna flip

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 4:07 AM

who's fault is it that you have to install quicktime! evil propreitary businessmen's fault, that's who.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 8:03 AM

Coming from someone who doesn't even know what format iTunes songs are in, I know your post is simply flamebait. However, QuickTime is required because that's what iTunes uses for its codecs. So if Apple makes some changes to the DRM, QuickTime must be upgraded. Apple isn't forcing people to use QuickTime.

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

edited Mar 24, 2005 - 4:26 PM

who's fault is it that quicktime be installed? Simple solution:

place codecs in a directory specifically for codecs.
install iTunes will install it's own codecs there or look if they are already installed, same with quicktime, and whatever app you wanna/dont-wanna use. (yes, I know this is up to the programmers, not the end user, which goes back to my point of whose fault it is)

Score: 0

By M1M2Z1

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 12:11 AM

Buying music in any format other than lossless is stupid.
Buying AAC or MP3 with or without DRM is like buying an 8-track or a 45.

You're getting suckered again, as usual!

Score: 0

By Scary Guy

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 2:38 AM

At 192 KBPS and even at 128 most people can't tell a difference. Most especially the drunks in the bar I DJ at. I'm all about quality and get CDs when I can. But it's really nice to just walk in with a computer, hook up, and not have to drag 500+ disks with me.

Also I'd rather use a lossy open file format rather than a proprietary flawless one (MP3 is still proprietary but far more open than DRM enabled (or rather dissabled) files).

Score: 0

By Rolphus

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 7:44 AM

How about a lossless open source format like FLAC (flac.sf.net)? Seems like the ideal plan to me.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 7:50 AM

Most people don't want to download 30MB song files, when a 5MB file sounds practically identical. Serving 30MB song files would also prove impossible when it comes to bandwidth and storage requirements.

Lossless formats are great, but they will never be offered by music stores because they are completely impractical for that purpose. All these requests are getting a bit tired.

Score: 0

By Rolphus

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 9:14 AM

I absolutely agree - I don't think I have a single thing encoded in any lossless format... high-bitrate MP3 or high-ish bitrate OGG or AAC are just fine for me. I was merely pointing out the existence of such a format ;)

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 10:03 AM

Understood, and I do agree - lossless formats are important and it's good that we have them, especially for archival purposes. And who knows, in 5 years, maybe 30MB will be nothing when everyone has fiber to the home ;)

Score: 0

By nabicat

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 2:48 PM

DRM infringes on my fair-use rights. Simple, end of story.
As a consumer, DRM is starting to pervade every avenue of home entertainment. Arguments for the inclusion of DRM protect the publisher's rights. Who is arguing for my rights?
Why should I have to install hacked software to simply store the file I have legally paid for, in multiple places? Why should the copyright holder have ANY say as to what device I play it back? Why should HDTV/DTV content providers specify 1) What I can record and 2) How long I can store and view a publicly broadcasted signal?
These are all LEGAL rights I have now, which the DMCA, RIAA, and MPIA are usurping.
Do I buy music online? Nope, I wont bother with DRM infected music as it violates my rights.
Do I buy less CDs now than I did 5 years ago? Yup.
Is it because of p2p filesharing? Nope, I finally uninstalled my last p2p client last week after not using it for 2 years.
Then why? The music is plain CRAP. Even when I did fileshare, I bought the CDs I liked. During my p2p days I bought more cds than I ever did before or will after.
CD sales are slumping because there is little to no innovation in the music industry. This is manifested in their approaches to licensing and publishing. Today's music is as tired as RIAA/MPIAA/DMCA rhetoric.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 23, 2005 - 7:49 PM

So you don't buy music and won't watch controlled TV. Your life must be pretty boring.

Seriously though, fair use has nothing to do with DRM at all. Fair use means that if you buy a CD or DVD, you can copy it to your hard drive and make backups. And if you choose to buy a song with DRM, you can record it to CD and re-record it all you want.

But it was your choice to buy that DRM music and thus, you know your rights. Using a hack to get the music and bypass DRM is not fair use, it's violating the terms of service and potentially breaking the law.

Score: 0

By roj

edited Mar 24, 2005 - 7:34 AM

"you can record it to CD and re-record it all you want."

...at a commensurate additional loss of quality.

Unacceptable.

Period.

We won't even get into the concept of inconvenincing the customer. You;ve obviously never worked in a client oriented occupation - your understanding of same is non-existant.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Mar 24, 2005 - 8:29 AM

So don't buy DRM music. Buy the CD if it's unacceptable to you. Nobody is tricking you or forcing you to buy music online.

But obviously, millions and millions of people don't agree with you. So you are in the minority. And by supporting hacking of DRM, you are just causing problems for those millions of people who DO enjoy iTunes and don't mind the minor DRM restrictions.

Score: 0

By nabicat

posted Mar 24, 2005 - 1:05 AM

How is that choice? You have one person that controls your access to something you have always had access to and have paid for, who is now forcing additional restrictions on your personal use. Are you saying that as a consumer I should attempt to negotiate my own terms with the music conglomerates? Or is your argument simply, if I don't like it, don't do it? Coz I don't do it.
DRM does impact fair-use since DRM conditions include restrictions on the number of times you play the file, what devices the file may be played on and the number of transfers the DRM file may undertake. Fair use allows the consumer to play, copy and use in whatever personal way they choose.
As far as boring life, it sure will be fun when the no record flag is implemented on a tv show's season finale or super bowl so that the media rights owner can force you to watch the program on their terms. Lol, you won't even have the right to fast-forward the ads.... but I guess, you have the choice not to watch.

Score: 0

By Quizzical

posted Mar 25, 2005 - 7:52 AM

May I draw your attention to this article ?

http://www.betanews.com/...s_UK_Pricing/1109354365

I am all for fair usage rights and a solid base for business too, but,Itunes has been taking advantage of honest folks like me for a long time by overcharging in our marketing zone.
They have blocked access to other Itunes servers for UK residents, in a callous disregard for my rights as Eu consumer, so please spare me the hard luck stories I have been hearing here of poor Apple.
Give us a fair deal and get a fair reward for your efforts Apple.
Otherwise face the consequences

Score: 0

Dec 1 - 9:34 PM ET Alltel breaks in a mobile wallet with mFoundry

Dec 1 - 7:38 PM ET Intel tries to turn the tables on AMD in document discovery dispute

Dec 1 - 6:59 PM ET Palm to restructure yet again, may cut more jobs

Dec 1 - 4:58 PM ET Blockbuster downloads headed for more devices via Live Mesh

Dec 1 - 4:55 PM ET AOL's PlaySavvy speaks to game-shy parental units

Dec 1 - 4:41 PM ET Less bad news than anticipated for the semiconductor industry in 2008

Dec 1 - 3:51 PM ET 'Xohm' makes way for 'Clear,' as Sprint/Clearwire merger moves ahead

Dec 1 - 2:01 PM ET Chasing down the latest Cyber Monday tech deals

Dec 1 - 12:50 PM ET Will 'Cyber Monday' fare better than a weak 'Black Friday?'

Dec 1 - 12:38 PM ET Microsoft Cashback goes offline to Black Friday shoppers