[Cadaver]

According to an article at The Register, the young Norwegian programmer who cracked the DVD copy protection has done the same for Apple's FairPlay AAC protection used for iTunes' downloaded tracks.
It appears to be geared towards cracking files authorized to play on a PC, but once modified, they become DRM-less m4p files.

Not sure what to think of this. I hope the RIAA doesn't go overboard and start limiting the music available at the iTMS!

[gorickey]

DVD Jon is an animal...can he crack my bank account as well?

[ambush]

it has been cracked before, there was an article on /.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by gorickey:
DVD Jon is an animal...can he crack my bank account as well?

I think the real question is... can he get a date

[insha]

Crack Jon : needs to do something other than ruining a sweet thing for the rest of us. In fact, he needs to get laid.

[wataru]

Originally posted by ambush:
it has been cracked before, there was an article on /.

No, that was not a crack of the protected AAC format, it was a sneaky way of getting the decoded data from QuickTime.

[DeathToWindows]

Apple legal smells blood... and he just got off for the DeCSS work

[khufuu]

Originally posted by insha:
Crack Jon : needs to do something other than ruining a sweet thing for the rest of us. In fact, he needs to get laid.

Absolutely!!

[jessejlt]

I don't see why anyone would even go through the trouble. Just burn a bunch of iTMS tracks to a CDR and then rerip them, problem solved.
jesse ;-)

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by insha:
Crack Jon : needs to do something other than ruining a sweet thing for the rest of us.

He ain't ruining anything for me. Maybe if we could get iTMS here in the first place...

[benb]

Originally posted by jessejlt:
I don't see why anyone would even go through the trouble. Just burn a bunch of iTMS tracks to a CDR and then rerip them, problem solved.
jesse ;-)

You see, there is a group of Hackers (not Crackers mind you) that like to crack encryption, DRM, etc. solely for "fun" and "educational" purposes. Supposedly they do not desire to pirate or steal, but do it to "learn." These people see the DMCA as "teh d3\/1|_" because it limits people to "normal, fair use" by making attempts to circumvent copy-protection illegal. They argue, that circumventing should not be an illegal action, the use of a product that has had copy protection circumvented should be illegal.

Now I don't fully agree with all the DMCA, but it does raise a few valid points. Namely, if the sole reason for the existence of a program is to circumvent copyright protection, then why have the program?

Some might argue that it is within legal rights to circumvent it on things they own, but I fail to see this. Then why purchase it in the first place? You are not forced.

Basically the whole issue makes me sick. Sick to think that corporations need to spend so many resources on keeping users in line with "fair use" and that people spend so much time and money finding ways to further break the law.

[insha]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
He ain't ruining anything for me. Maybe if we could get iTMS here in the first place...

Where you at?

[disectamac]

If he really meant to cause harm he would have done it, distributed it and hid. He didn't hide. Either he just likes the attention or the wanted attention has a purpose. ie, "hey CIA i'm here, hire me."

[PJW]

What motivates this guy to do this stuff? All he does is piss off groups like the RIAA, who then end up making life tougher for everyone else.

[simonjames]

The guy is a genius - wish I were half as smart

As to the whole iTunes and AAC - if Apple got ITMS to the rest of the world and not just for the American elite then maybe things would be different

I hope he goes on to breaking the other codes too

[- - e r i k - -]

Hello and welcome to last year. This was done in the first two weeks after Windows iTunes (in november). The latest DVD-Jon headlines is that he is officially off the hook (for the last time) in the DeCSS case.

[rjenkinson]

guess the itunes music store won't be opening in norway for a while...

-r.

[cpt kangarooski]

PJW--

What motivates this guy to do this stuff? All he does is piss off groups like the RIAA, who then end up making life tougher for everyone else.

Yes, it's just as baffling as those uppity blacks that wanted to sit at white lunch counters and go to white schools. Certainly there's no chance that RIAA is simply in the wrong.

benb--

Now I don't fully agree with all the DMCA, but it does raise a few valid points. Namely, if the sole reason for the existence of a program is to circumvent copyright protection, then why have the program?

Firstly, there's no such thing as copyright protection, save for undertaking legal action.

For example, the CSS encryption on DVDs doesn't prevent people from duplicating the DVD, which is a form of copyright infringement, but does impair people from using DVDs, which isn't a copyright infringement.

Use is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder, but it is generally the target of DRM systems, which are pretty useless for preventing copying directly. And before you decide that it's merely a roundabout means of discouraging copying, remember that in many cases it won't matter -- a bit for bit identical copy of a DVD is just as encrypted as the original, and will therefore play in all the same players, making CSS an attack on people who'd build their own players, but not on pirates.

Secondly, circumvention tools have legitimate uses. Remember, in the US at least, all copyrights are required by the Constitution to expire. Some DRMed works (e.g. very old movies) may already be in the public domain. And other times a work may be copyrighted, but still be fair game for copying. Since the DRM on those works doesn't magically evaporate when it's legal to copy those works in or out of term, there's a real need for tools to crack the DRM. Frankly, I regard DRM as being so hostile to the interests of the public that if I had my way, I'd revoke the copyrights of anyone evil enough to use it, and encourage circumvention whenever possible.

Basically the whole issue makes me sick. Sick to think that corporations need to spend so many resources on keeping users in line with "fair use" and that people spend so much time and money finding ways to further break the law.

Well, corporations DON'T have to lift a finger in developing or using DRM. The fact that they can sue people is sufficient all on its own; no further protection is required, given the interests involved.

And corporations HATE fair use. And it is utterly impossible for ANY mere DRM system to EVER "keep in line" with fair use, as ANY INFRINGEMENT IS POTENTIALLY FAIR. This is why it requires learned judges to look at the issue, and it's not unusual for appellate courts to reverse the lower courts. Fair use is a difficult analysis. But fair use exists due to the public's interest; it's quite opposed to business interests which would prefer to charge for anything, and never let go of control.

DRM has nothing to do with fair use, other than that it seeks to destroy it, which we must not allow.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by jessejlt:
I don't see why anyone would even go through the trouble. Just burn a bunch of iTMS tracks to a CDR and then rerip them, problem solved.
jesse ;-)

Because that way you need to re-rip them, with all the loss of quality that entails (yes, there is).

What Jon has done (about three months ago, btw) allows people to just remove the DRM from an aac file, without having to decode/reencode.

It's not quite so simple, though, and it's hardly likely to affect Apple at all, since their position from the start has been that ALL DRM is hackable; they just want to make staying legal simple and attractive enough that people won't *want* to hack around it.

-s*

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
It's not quite so simple, though, and it's hardly likely to affect Apple at all, since their position from the start has been that ALL DRM is hackable; they just want to make staying legal simple and attractive enough that people won't *want* to hack around it.

An excellent point.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by insha:
Where you at?

England, but the only point relevant is that I'm outside the US.

While you guys in the US continue to produce US-only product, there's going to be people hacking it. You can't spread your culture then deny everyone else product without them getting pissed off and trying to do something about it.

to iTMS being US-only. to whoever had the idea for DVD region codes.
to the guy cracking stuff and making product acquisition easier for the rest of us.

[Link]

Sorry sherwin, but I don't see how cracking a file is going to do you any good if you can't buy them in the first place.

I believe it should exist for every country but every country has different copyright rules, not to mention a great many songs on iTMS are published within the US, yet again for corporate reasons.

It can in some cases be simply because a company wants, for example to sell michael jackson songs in the UK for $3 because they're higher demand, or smething of the like... long messy story.

What I can say is it will come -- apple would be stupid not to make the store international but there's probably more reasons than arrogance or politics involved in it and it would be ignorant to assume this.

I still fail to see how cracking itunes encryption changes much. I'd love having the ability again because iTMS screwed up and one of my computers got authorized twice so I now have to deauthorize one to play music on another and it REALLY makes me mad

But that can probably be fixed by calling apple and having them clear my authorized comps list and whatnot

[entrox]

The kid really needs to get punched in the face. I mean, how stupid can he be? He just got off the hook for DeCSS and now he's literally screaming for another litigation. His defence in the DeCSS case was that he should be able to play his legally purchased DVDs on any operating system and he won. But this won't work now, because there's no way that he as a Norwegian could have purchased the iTMS songs legally. Stupid nerd - he could have at least kept a low profile or post it anonymously.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Link:
Sorry sherwin, but I don't see how cracking a file is going to do you any good if you can't buy them in the first place.

Norwegian makes crack. Americans use crack. Americans put cracked tracks on Overnet/Gnutella. Rest of World downloads tracks.

It's simple. If someone wants something, can't buy it because of geographic location and it'll fit down an ADSL line in reasonable time, they'll steal it. More power to them. If a company (not just Apple) doesn't make an effort to sell a product where there's a demand for it, it's gonna get distributed via other means. It's not hurting sales if there were no sales channels to start with.

For example: If I can't shell out for a copy of series one of The Outer Limits on DVD here because of stupid geographic product limitations, I'm not going to feel guilty about downloading it. And I'm gonna like the guy who creates the crack which allows me to do so.

As for iTMS. I can import a physical CD from the US by buying from any number of online US retailers. When I do this, the UK licensees/labels/distributors/retailers don't get any money out of it. How exactly is buying a tune off iTMS any different? Why can't I do it? Why the limitations?

The media companies have brought this upon themselves by introducing such geographic limitations (region codes, for example - is there any reason at all why Hollywood can't do a global release instead of a staged release to negate the need for market timing protection?).
Not to mention that they've all been pushing broadband Internet services in some misguided anticipation of being able to deliver their programming via the 'net. They push a technology to make media transfer easier, expecting us all to subscribe to their online TV streams for their own benefit, then they wonder why they have a problem with people pushing/pulling around the media which the people actually want to see instead of the crap the programmers want them to have.

Did that make sense? It's way too early in the morning and I haven't had enough coffee yet.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Link:
I'd love having the ability again because iTMS screwed up and one of my computers got authorized twice so I now have to deauthorize one to play music on another and it REALLY makes me mad

Are you sure that was Apple's screw-up?

Because, if you're dumb enough to share your *purchased* music via P2P, all someone who downloads one of your songs has to do is to click "Authorize this computer" when he tries to play it.
Presto, you're out of an authorization.

I know this because a friend just downloaded some iTMS exclusives via P2P, and he is now authorized on the stupid dolt's iTMS account. BTW: is my friend traceable in any way?

-s*

[Sven G]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
[...] DRM has nothing to do with fair use, other than that it seeks to destroy it, which we must not allow.

... And, as for iTMS in Europe (or non-US regions of the world), an often overlooked fact is that the presence of European artists (especially the more "locally known", so to say) is really too low, sofar...

[joltguy]

Originally posted by disectamac:
...he just likes the attention...

Yep, I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

I'm all for cracking crypto as an intellectual exercise, but as soon as he integrated the functionality right into VLC, it was no longer an exercise... it was an act of brutal irresponsibility.

[benb]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Secondly, circumvention tools have legitimate uses. Remember, in the US at least, all copyrights are required by the Constitution to expire. Some DRMed works (e.g. very old movies) may already be in the public domain. And other times a work may be copyrighted, but still be fair game for copying. Since the DRM on those works doesn't magically evaporate when it's legal to copy those works in or out of term, there's a real need for tools to crack the DRM. Frankly, I regard DRM as being so hostile to the interests of the public that if I had my way, I'd revoke the copyrights of anyone evil enough to use it, and encourage circumvention whenever possible.

And corporations HATE fair use. And it is utterly impossible for ANY mere DRM system to EVER "keep in line" with fair use, as ANY INFRINGEMENT IS POTENTIALLY FAIR. This is why it requires learned judges to look at the issue, and it's not unusual for appellate courts to reverse the lower courts. Fair use is a difficult analysis. But fair use exists due to the public's interest; it's quite opposed to business interests which would prefer to charge for anything, and never let go of control.

I don't buy that. I think they HATE getting screwed by people not buying what they want. That's what I think. Sure, they look at you as a prospective criminal, but so does every one else in this world. I lock my car because of you, I cut up credit card statement because of you, and I need HTTPS and MD5 hashes because of you. Is it not fair then to protect a DVD or iTunes files from you too? I don't see this upstanding track record of humanity that warrants no DRM. It's not there. And fair use? Isn't fair use buying a CD and not sharing it with the world? Do consumers care about fair use? Not many. So why should those who sell it to you? This is a two way street you know.

And secondly, the DVD case he was acquitted for. His argument was that he wanted to view them in Linux. Ya fine. I feel for ya that you can't. But then why buy the DVD? Would I buy a region 2 DVD then complain I can't play it without a crack? Didn't I know it at time of purchase? Is it different because it is digital, instead of say a Ford radiator for my Chevy? Oh, so now people who use Linux can play DRM AAC. Oh, but you had to break DRM to do it. But what is that? Fair use? But didn't you know that you couldn't use it anyway? This cracks me up. People on Linux wanting the "latest and greatest" stuff. You use Linux, too bad.

Fair use can be a cover for these actions. While fair use is not bad, people can distort it's intent.

[PJW]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
PJW--
Yes, it's just as baffling as those uppity blacks that wanted to sit at white lunch counters and go to white schools. Certainly there's no chance that RIAA is simply in the wrong.

Thanks for answering my reasonable question with a sensationalist response. I would've never thought of making the connection between DRM and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, but you went and did it. Kudos to you.

[ThinkInsane]

Does anyone seriously think this guy cracked the DRM because iTMS isn't available internationally? Somehow I don't think it really mattered all that much, and if it were available internationally, he would have done it anyway, for no other reason than he can.

[wataru]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
Hello and welcome to last year. This was done in the first two weeks after Windows iTunes (in november).

Like I said earlier, that was NOT a crack of the protected AAC file format. Yes, this IS news.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Does anyone seriously think this guy cracked the DRM because iTMS isn't available internationally? Somehow I don't think it really mattered all that much, and if it were available internationally, he would have done it anyway, for no other reason than he can.

I dunno. Seems to me like the guy has an agenda.

[residentEvil]

"You can't spread your culture then deny everyone else product without them getting pissed off and trying to do something about it."

wait a minute, just because a company created a product, doesn't mean you get to have it/buy it. (in this case, it is a US made product only for the US. you do realize japan, for example, has many electronics that we can't have (unless we resort to hacks/cracks, but again, back to my point)). you mean to tell me that everyone all over the world has a right to buy said product, and when they can't, you can steal it, cause you should have the right in the first place? was that what you meant? correct me please, cause i hope that isn't what you meant.

where do you draw the line? i don't live there, but i should have it. i can't afford it, but i should have it. i can't use it, but i should have it.

and what do you mean 'culture'? like, we have converse high tops, but only the bright green ones are sold in the US cause it is our latest trend (random example)? so now you have to be able to buy them cause you saw them worn by a those trendy americans? (just using US as an example, cause that is what is being discussed)

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by residentEvil:
where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at "I can afford it but some artificial restraint system prevents me from buying it"

Originally posted by residentEvil:
and what do you mean 'culture'? like, we have converse high tops, but only the bright green ones are sold in the US cause it is our latest trend (random example)? so now you have to be able to buy them cause you saw them worn by a those trendy americans? (just using US as an example, cause that is what is being discussed)

There's nothing artificial stopping me from buying that product from a US store and wearing it in Europe.

Get it?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
There's nothing artificial stopping me from buying that product from a US store and wearing it in Europe.

Get it?

There certainly is if that US store WON'T SHIP IT OUTSIDE THE US. There are plenty that won't.

And if a store chain has a distribution agreement over a certain area like, say, the US, for, say, a certain brand of jacket, and they mail some of said jackets to customers in Europe, you can BET that it would take no more than a day or two for that store chain to be OUT OF A CONTRACT - and a hefty breach-of-contract fee to boot.

This sort of thing is the RULE, not the exception.

Get it?

-s*

[cpt kangarooski]

entrox--

But this won't work now, because there's no way that he as a Norwegian could have purchased the iTMS songs legally.

My understanding is that someone gave him a gift certificate to iTMS, so while he didn't purchase anything at all, someone else did.

Whether he'd still be barred or not probably depends on the details of how the iTMS store and its contracts work, and until someone is kind enough to post them here, we can but guess.

benb--

I don't buy that. I think they HATE getting screwed by people not buying what they want. That's what I think.

Sure. But it's their place to get screwed. Business interests would gladly rather sell you Shakespeare than have you copy it for free. They surely don't appreciate being left out of the loop on that one. Indeed, take a look at the ProCD case sometime, and you'll see a company going to pretty extreme steps to prevent people from copying public information that was never copyrighted in the first place, and which never could be.

Businesses are greedy, and so they want to eradicate fair use. There's money in it for them if they succeed. That doesn't excuse it, however.

Is it not fair then to protect a DVD or iTunes files from you too?

No. Because unlike your car, or your house, or your credit, the law REQUIRES that the work as embodied in every copy enter the public domain sooner or later, and that people can even do some acts during the term that would be infringement but are specially excused.

So the proper analogy would be something like, if you went bankrupt, and the law required you to sell your beach house to pay off your creditors, should you be allowed to leave them locked out of it?

The answer of course, is no. That's spiteful behavior, it is inappropriate for someone who is required to surrender control, and it is way out of line.

The copyright system exists for the benefit of the public. Copyright holders are like debtors, in that they owe their works to the public, in part now, and in toto eventually. They must not be allowed to bar the public from their due.

And fair use? Isn't fair use buying a CD and not sharing it with the world? Do consumers care about fair use? Not many. So why should those who sell it to you? This is a two way street you know.

Fair use is one of the reasons why copyrights don't apply in a given situation, actually. There are no fair use limitations on the public; only barriers to invoking fair use against copyright holders.

Besides which, given the right circumstances, it may indeed be fair use to rip a CD and share it with the world. Certainly it's okay once the CD enters the public domain. Or if the copyright law changes.

Consumers of course care deeply about fair use, but often don't realize it. Fair use is a doctrine of equity. It is fair behavior, when applying the law would yield an unjust result. Ordinary people have an amazing innate sense for this sort of thing (though I will agree that people often try to cloak uses in the garb of fair use even though they aren't).

But it's no two way street, save for that in exchange for a copyright to begin with, the public expects copyrights to not apply in all circumstances. As I said before, if a copyright holder doesn't like that, we can easily solve his problem by revoking his copyright altogether.

residentevil--

wait a minute, just because a company created a product, doesn't mean you get to have it/buy it.

Actually, in the case of copyrighted works, that's precisely what's ultimately envisioned. One of the goals of copyright is to ensure that eventually anyone who wants a work can get it, probably for the least possible cost (which might be zero).

Public knowledge should ALWAYS spread unless the public itself doesn't want it, in which case it will take care of itself.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
There certainly is if that US store WON'T SHIP IT OUTSIDE THE US. There are plenty that won't.

For physical goods, this is NO PROBLEM AT ALL.

I buy a pair of US-only shoes, they still work on European pavements. I don't have to mess about finding a crack for them because there's no artificial trade barrier mechanism preventing their use (once they arrive here).

Can't preach free trade then implement mechanisms preventing it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
For physical goods, this is NO PROBLEM AT ALL.

So we agree that the only option is to work BY PROXY, eh? Well, there is absolutely no problem with having someone purchase songs within the US and then forwarding them to you via mail or ftp or whatever.

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I buy a pair of US-only shoes, they still work on European pavements. I don't have to mess about finding a crack for them because there's no artificial trade barrier mechanism preventing their use (once they arrive here).

If you buy US-only iTunes songs, they will work perfectly fine on your European computer. You don't have to find a crack or anything. All you have to do is click "Authorize this computer". I know this because a friend has done so.

You're arguing hot air, and you know it.

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Can't preach free trade then implement mechanisms preventing it.

Point 1: Apple didn't invent free trade.

Point 2: Record companies didn't invent free trade.

Point 3: "Having lectured music technology since Emagic Logic was just C-Lab Creator and Cubase was but a twinkle in Pro-24's eye", I'm sure you must have SOME inkling of the BASICS of record distribution and how regional distribution deals work?

I agree that this model needs to be revamped, but the ENTIRE distro structure as set up is completely oblivious to new-fangled global distribution techniques.

That is one of the aspects of the internet that utterly caught the industry cold, and one that made it so difficult for them to do anything except panic, fire people left and right, and start threatening to sue teenagers and their grandparents.

-s*

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You're arguing hot air, and you know it.

Yeah. You're right. I'm just titsed off that I can't get some of my favourite films on region 2. My flimsy argument not helped by my being drunk for the majority of the day.

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Point 3: "Having lectured music technology since Emagic Logic was just C-Lab Creator and Cubase was but a twinkle in Pro-24's eye", I'm sure you must have SOME inkling of the BASICS of record distribution and how regional distribution deals work?

Yep. However, it's not that hard. Apple have pulled it off in the US - it can't be that hard pulling if off in Europe.

With distribution becoming more and more centralised, it should be a pretty easy task these days, at least to get the major label product on board.

Not that I really give a monkey's about iTMS - I'll always prefer physical product. Just making a point that there may be a political reason why the guy is cracking stuff left right and centre.

Like I said, I'm just titsed off I can't get my favourite stuff on region 2.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Yeah. You're right. I'm just titsed off that I can't get some of my favourite films on region 2. My flimsy argument not helped by my being drunk for the majority of the day.

Lucky man - I had to work, and had a wonderful job interview with people who didn't want me for a job I don't want (though I didn't know until today).

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Yep. However, it's not that hard. Apple have pulled it off in the US - it can't be that hard pulling if off in Europe.

With distribution becoming more and more centralised, it should be a pretty easy task these days, at least to get the major label product on board.

The US is a single market, covered in all cases I've seen by a single distro deal.

Europe *is* becoming more centralized wrt distro, but the UK nearly always has a separate agreement (as per the small print on the backs of my albums), and occasionally, southern Europe does, too.

Add the frogs into the mix, then Eastern Europe...

Anyway, carry on - cheers to you, sir!

-s*

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Europe *is* becoming more centralized wrt distro, but the UK nearly always has a separate agreement (as per the small print on the backs of my albums), and occasionally, southern Europe does, too.

Hmmm... Surely there's gotta be something in the constitution about this with regard to "free movement of goods within the EU"? Like, landing it in the least contractually tied-up state would allow everyone to buy from it?

(like, land in Malta now and it's all sorted come June).

I'm only guessing, mind (all said and done, I just twiddle the knobs).

[m.brown]

Originally posted by PJW:
What motivates this guy to do this stuff? All he does is piss off groups like the RIAA, who then end up making life tougher for everyone else.

Why do you want to climb Everest?

"Because It's There"

[Kenneth]

I heard this from the ScreenSaver show on TechTV.. it said he did write a plug-in for VLC to playback the protected AAC files from ITMS.

[Mediaman_12]

You can't use 'fair use' as an argument, because it doesn't exist outside the USA, it is technicaly ilegal for me to record backups of my CD's create 'mix CD's' for in the car etc. in the UK anyway (I am fairly sure that this is cross EU). Softwhere licence agrements always state that you are alowed to make a copy for backup.

Also if Apple started a iTMS in any part of the EU then no other EU country could be 'locked out', even if thay created multiple iTMS for each country, then thay couldn't stop me for buying music from the other EU stores. This is possibly the problem for Apple seting up the EU iTMS.

Apple also can't just open up the US store to EU coustomers as shown by this Register article where the BPI (UK version of the RIAA) is investigating Amazon.com for 'gray' importing of CD's

[iNeusch]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
It's not quite so simple, though, and it's hardly likely to affect Apple at all, since their position from the start has been that ALL DRM is hackable; they just want to make staying legal simple and attractive enough that people won't *want* to hack around it.

Exactly.
Apple said the solution to music pirate would be ideological, not technological