The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

Here's my post about it: http://3650anda12inch.blogspot.com/2004/06/good-to-know.html

It links to Gizmodo's post about it: http://www.gizmodo.com/archives/how-to-undrm-your-undrmd-itunes-46-songs-016013.php

Nice rant, but an easier way to fix it is provided by DVDJon: http://nanocrew.net/blog/2004/06/10/#dedrms03

Cheers.

Reply

↓↑report

The full story and fix is available here:
http://www.gizmodo.com/archives/how-to-undrm-your-undrmd-itunes-46-songs-016013.php

Reply

↓↑report

I suspected Apple might try something like this, so I didn't even update. And I won't until either Hymn comes out with a new version to deal with the problem or Apple comes out with a new version of iTunes that has some cool add-on feature I want to use.

Reply

↓↑report

Does anyone know: if you strip the DRM and then convert the songs to mp3 format, does iTunes 4.6 still refuse to play them?

Reply

↓↑report

Paul: it shouldn't. As far as I know, the Fair Play DRM scheme only works on AAC files, not on mp3 files. Of course, if you are just going to go to mp3, why not simply convert the AAC files into mp3 via burn and rip? DRM doesn't translate to CD and then back again.

Reply

↓↑report

Three thots: 1.) Since "hymn" is the acronym chosen by the former Fair Play service, and in reading the rhetoric used for a long time re "strip" (what iTunes /
RIAA do to music records they want to deny to poor people like myself (yes, some of us have computers and manage to stay off-and-on the Net), I recalled the Biblical norm found thru-out the Hebrew Bible. It was a (God-given) law that the poor be permitted to glean the fields after the harvest, to gether up the surplus was that was neglected by the harvesters. Something like that. Well, the concept carried over into the Christian theological ethics of St Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages (Europe) to the effect that if a person is hungry and cant afford food, it was permissible (no sin) to go to the field or the orchard and get something to eat. Christian landowners were instructed that interference with such gleaning was itself a sin. Rather than iTunes stripping the music we have recorded onto our iTunes file from fellow music-sharers, the gleaning principle should be recognized. Okay, that's one take. 2.) In Canada, iTunes doesnt activate the Music Store. This may well be due to the rulings since Jan 1, 2k4 (don't have exact dates), rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada, that the Law School of the University of Toronto could supply a free copier for its law students to copy pages from legal sources in the School's holdings; the case turned on Canada's traditional definition of commercial "distribution." A month later, also in Canada, an RIAA-style suit to persecute a digital-sharer of music, cited the earlier free-copier-machine-use decision (where it was assumed users did not intend to copy for sale) as a precedent for deciding that "distribution" in the Canadian legal sense could not be implied from sharing digitally-recorded music. I am wondering what would happen were iTunes-RIAA to interfere with my legal-in-Canada collection of music, either stripping my songs, poetry, and speeches or messing up my legally-acquired iTunes app or whatnot. In other words, were iTunes to breach respect for the border and the difference in digital-rights law between the two national jurisdictions on "distribution," there could be a severe reaction here. I have a high regard for iTunes (and for iMac, mine a gift from friends on my 60th birthday 3 yrs back; I have no other way to get a recorded music collection or listen to its songs; I consider myself to be gleaning, a necessity since I am on Disability permanently and have very limited income. At the bottom end of the scale, I would be one of those who would suffer cultural deprivation. Music (all kinds, except perhaps for a few) is an intrinsically human enrichment. If you live a confined life with little means to experience what music can offer, you begin to meditate on just what it is generically and why the digital revolution changes the experience of human life for many people who just cant be out buying a big music collection of vinyls, tapes, or hard disks. That's a second take. 3.) There's a tangential philosophical observation that relates to the knot of issues here. It's this: people with vast collections of digital music acquired largely by sharing-facilities and music-sharers cannot be judged by the numbers of songs they have on hand. Some people collect, but cant possibly ever listen to the majority of their collected songs. They should not be held accountable for simply having digits. Their having a vast surplus of electronic digits takes nothing away from any commercial interest (and, of course, the trend to Big Digits beyond any conceivable comparable use happens thru-out the new culture of which interconnected computers are a part.
Now, the simple collecting-beyond-actual-use does have a positive effect insofar as it coincides with the desire to have mobile use of music (large iTunes collections of songs, poetry, speech, and other sounds feeds the desire to have a mobile use, such as iPod for some part of that collection). Now, if anyone asks this year what I would like for my birthday, I think I'm going to say "an iPod," but not if it locks me into an iTunes that strips me of my small collection of songs acquired thru music-file-sharing. It would be like a jail term, to have to go without free music. I should be permitted to glean. Yours, Albert.

Reply

↓↑report

I would expect that every update of iTunes will include provisions to delete/disable all music that has been tinkered with.

Those who are playing with these iTunes DRM tools are breaking the EULA they agreed to when they signed up with iTunes, and may contribute to music companies pulling their music out of iTunes.

So once again, the thieves will make things more difficult for the honest.

If you don't agree with the Terms of Service for iTunes, DON'T USE IT.

And please, music is NOT equivalent to food, and manipulating God's Word to justify your own causes is not righteous, it is closer to blasphemy.

Having access to a computer makes you rich, in a world where the majority of the people live on under $200/year, so let's not be overly dramatic about our need for music.

Reply

↓↑report

how ot make hymn work for iTunes 4.6

Convert your files hymn files to AAC (still on 4.5 for example on your backup system or second computer) then transfer the clean files to 4.6. For the moment that's the easiest way to do it.

Joe

Reply

↓↑report

Files stripped with earlier incarnation 'Playfair', are not affected by the new iTunes 4.6.

This is probably because all metadata which might have indicated that the file was originally bought via the iTMS is stripped by this earlier program, wheareas Hymn does not strip all of it.

This new move by Apple will only force Hymn to revert to the earlier practice of completely stripping all metadata that indicates the file was bought at iTMS.

Reply

↓↑report

you cannot make the argument that breaking the EULA is inherently evil and wrong, mainly because the EULA itself makes for a bad and highly contestable agreement because it spits in the face of years of fair use laws in the United States.

also, "So once again, the thieves will make things more difficult for the honest." is an idiotic argument, because many of the people using Hymn, like myself, aren't thieves. I own these files. Every press conference Steve Jobs has ever held about iTMS focuses on the fact that what separates iTMS from all the other mp3 services out there is that you as the consumer actually own the file. The EULA hypocritically denies that. Hymn doesn't enable illegal file sharing, as your ID is still linked to the file.

In fact, anyone who wanted to circumvent the DRM in their songs can much more simply do it by burning a copy to disc and then rip the songs as DRM-free mp3s. All the DRM is doing is giving the greedy music industry a false sense of security at the inconvenience of us the consumers while infringing upon our fair use rights.

Reply

↓↑report

I own several Squeezebox'es and was able until QuickTime 6.5.1 to play my iTMS music on them without altering the files (QT 6.5 had a provision to stream iTMS AAC)

Now Apple introduces AirTunes in AirPort Express and people can stream iTMS outside of their Mac. I call this "anti-competitive practice".

I have no choice but to use Hymn and co to play music that I bought. And I won't buy anymore music until SteveJ behaves right.

http://www.slimdevices.com/

Reply

↓↑report

I agree with some here that you shouldn't start playing the justification game for stealing music (and that's a REALLy poor attempt at justification via the gleaning concept as well)...

However, there are MANY reasons why we need to be able to strip the DRM.
There are several devices that no longer work, as pointed out by the above with the Squeezebox, since the update to Quicktime, and there are many devices that can play mpeg (both mp3 and m4a), but don't know what to do with a DRM'd file. My personal reason is two fold. I do a lot of testing that requires me to constantly be imaging and restoring my hard drive. Each time I forget to unregister iTunes first, I have permanently lost a computer I can use that account with, even if I'm always on the same computer. The biggest reason though, is so that I can use the files on my Linux machines. Maybe if iTunes and/or Quicktime (including the DRM play/stream ability) were ported to Linux, it would make it a lot easier for people to use these files where they wanted without having to strip the DRM. But at this point, it must be done.

Reply

↓↑report

all i want is my belovid music back, i used hymn so i could convert the songs i buy for use in my amature film making just innocent home family movies !! and now apple shut the iron fist down on me and i need some way to get around this, apple if your listening IM SORRY AND I BEG YOUR FORGIVNESS if i cant figure one of these dumb fixes out im calling applecare and confessing could i get in trouble for doing that? ut oh any body else know how it is?

Reply

↓↑report

First of all, iTMS is rediculous to begin with. Convinent but ultimately faulted since it caters to popular music, which is only 1/nth of the coin. DRM is pathetic since you can simply modify the end product to bypass the security. It's sad that the government states circumvension of DRM by modification of data is a crime.

If you have a run of 1's and 0's and you want to change a few to see what happens, that should be your right. Who cares what the manufactueres intended use is when you own a product. The concept of 'ownership' is being twisted into 'We own, but you can use as long as you use it the way we want'. This is dung, as modification of a product disconnects any liability of the manufacturer because the product is no longer the device it was.

Then again freedom in the true sense of the word has yet to grace this planet, so I digress.

End transmission.

Reply

↓↑report

My music, my computer, my hard drive. That's all the justification I need.

Hymn is in the house. DRM is gone.

---
why don't you remove the "required" label for posting? You didn't get my name or email address. why do you need it, anyway?

Reply

↓↑report

I think the user agreement should include a warning that iTunes will destroy your hard drive if you attempt to hack their file format (and we're getting there). The funny thing about copyrighted material is YOU NEVER OWN THE MATERIAL UNLESS YOUR NAME APPEARS ON THE COPYRIGHT. Legally, the ownership position is more closely related to leasing the material for a nondisclosed duration. When these songs undergo the copyrighting procedure, there are very clear statements that the material is not to be tampered with in any way. Songs for sale in the iTunes music store have been copyrighted to include Apple's format, meaning if you tamper with the format, you are legally liable. It is very easy to detect when you do this, and with the current international brewings, the Privacy Act is up for more and more modification. The eventual outcome could turn in such a way that you would have to provide proof of ownership for every copyrighted holding in your home, stored on your computer, or wherever, should you go up for audit. If you can't agree with that, you have issues as copyright law has been adopted internationally, meaning there is no where in the world you can go to avoid it. Just as you get smarter in undoing its protection, the legal side is also getting much smarter in finding you and dealing with you in a very tangible and expensive manner. iTunes is allowing a compromise over a long disputed run, as you'll recall, with the music industry, who you may also recall won the court case. If you continue to steal music or share it, then you're hurting the cause and ultimately your financial stability if you had any to begin with. Bottom line, if you can't deal with the format, don't buy it and support your cause in that manner. CDs are still sold everywhere they have been for the past 20 years and there are even plenty of online stores selling them, as I'm sure you're aware. If you choose to use the format, get an iPod as it was designed for, and you can enjoy your music wherever you want and successfully backup your music investments. Can't afford one? Get a job like the rest of us. I'm tired of leeches complaining when they can't get something for nothing. In a sytem of given rights, they can also be taken.

Reply

↓↑report

I have bought multiple albums on iTunes when the store came out. I even bought a few singles here and there. The bottom line is that is easier to buy music online then it was to steal it. Plus, it IS legal..it's not stealing.

Anyways...so a few months ago, my car stereo breaks. I buy a new one that allows for MP3/WMA playback. At the time, I found a script that just reencodes the Protected AAC files and outputs an MP3. I used this script on all my purcashed music so that I could play the tracks in my car.

Well, now that I've got the newer iTunes, the music i buy can no longer be converted with this script. So..screw it. I'm done buying music on iTunes. i'm trying to listen to the music I played in my car, and Apple is telling me I cant.

I undersstand the dlemna faced with playing back protected AAC files in your car (after all, how could you aithorize your car stereo?) ...but that's not my problem. That's a problem with Apple's (and everyone else's) approach to DRM.

The funny thing is, I bet if Apple didnt use DRM on their tracks, people would buy MORE. The people who steal, are going to continue to do so...

Reply

↓↑report

'The funny thing about copyrighted material is YOU NEVER OWN THE MATERIAL UNLESS YOUR NAME APPEARS ON THE COPYRIGHT. Legally, the ownership position is more closely related to leasing the material for a nondisclosed duration. When these songs undergo the copyrighting procedure, there are very clear statements that the material is not to be tampered with in any way. Songs for sale in the iTunes music store have been copyrighted to include Apple's format, meaning if you tamper with the format, you are legally liable.'

This is simply not true. If I buy a book in a store that is copyrighted, I own the book. The same for a music file from iTMS. At issue is whether I can make a copy of the material I have purchased, and that is where the copyright laws come into play.

Back to the book example. If you were ever educated in any form of school, 'Tired Ofyouall", you would know that there is a certain amount of fair use involved in copyright, which allows, for example, students to quote parts of copyrighted work for use in their papers.

Also, if I buy a book and rip it apart at the seams and make it into 10 smaller books that are easier for me to carry to read on the subway, I am in no way violating copyright laws. If I make a photocopy of a section of the book for me to read on the subway, b/c I do not want to carry the entire large book with me, I am still not violating copyright laws, as it falls under my fair use rights as a consumer. As long as I am not selling or redistributing the copyrighted material, everything is a-okay.

The clause that iTMS has you agree to when downloading songs off of their site flies in the face of this very basic and practical idea of fair use, and for that reason, if anyone were to ever heavily contest the use of software like hymn to circumvent the DRM, it would fall apart in court.

The entire presence of the DRM in iTunes is something that wouldn't be there if it weren't for the paranoid money-grubbing bastards in the music industry who are trying to roll over everyone's fair use rights. It is a sham that Apple agrees to in order to gain more press and sell more iPods, but it is hardly enforceable in any real way and for that reason alone it is a bad and illegal agreement.

Reply

↓↑report

Your statements about the book are somewhat correct, but not entirely. It is illegal to make copies of books, sheet music, and many other forms of copyrighted material, though few cases of this are taken to court at the individual level. Usually businesses and organizations are watched for this, not individuals. Often these charges are not pursued in individual cases because the copies are significantly degraded in comparison with the original, and few copies are made. So, yes you do own the paper, thread, glue, cardboard, etc., that comprise your book and it's yours to destroy. You DO NOT and CAN NOT own the copyrighted material, which is strictly the authorship. The book itself is just a medium of transporting and conveying the authorship, which I don't think you fully understand. Further, children in school and myself do not "quote" entire books. University and public libraries are supposed to (and do, as authors and their lawyers frequently check into this) pay royalties to make legal copies. For instance, a professor uses a passage from a copyrighted book he wishes to provide to his students in some bound notes for a class he is teaching. Either the university or the professor have to pay royalties on that material to use it legally. This is the way it is and always has been (at least since January 1, 1978), whether you were aware of it or not. Now, keep in mind a copyright has a finite duration. Works whose copyright has expired are no longer copyrighted, obviously. Just a side note: "My fair rights as a consumer" is a little vague, and making copies of a copyrighted book is technically illegal, though we've already discussed how often that is prosecuted for an individual.

The digital problem: A book you purchased is a physical, tangible object. It is expected to have a life-cycle and not be copied very effectively or in mass numbers. Even microfilming isn't all that effective, and the originals must be destroyed (they usually are regardless of the law anyway to save space). The digital age creates material that can be duplicated infinitely, without loss of quality, and has no life-cycle. This is something the law has never had to deal with before. If you copied your book and gave me a copy and I then copied it and passed it on, etc., someone after the 3rd or 4th time would get a page of mud. If you have experience with xerox, as I'm sure you do, you know often a copy of a copy is hard to read, so in essence little problem ever existed before to deal with this on a mass level. Digital material has nothing holding it back from every person on the planet getting a copy with no loss of quality.

Now, that aside... First of all, no one said this system was flawless. None are. To the gentleman who wanted music in the car and could not, you could potentially burn your music onto CDs and re-rip them into MP3s at minimal loss, though the simplest and intended solution is to get an iPod, as is Apple's vision and business plan. As long as you didn't attempt to then distribute that material, no one would be the wiser or particularly care, but what assurance is given? DRM exits because if it didn't, what guarantees does the market provider have that you will not distribute the music infinitely and destroy the market? The answer is none, and from a legal perspective SOMETHING has to offer a degree of liability. DRM is that legal compromise to keep you, though your intentions may be pure and non-damaging, from doing whatever you want with copyrighted material. This digital duplication age has had the law world spinning because it is very difficult to keep the ill willed of the world from destroying a major industry. Unfortunately, law must generalize most everything, so ALL consumers are assumed to have impure intention. DRM, like it or not, is actually working quite well in preserving the law. The ACC format is Apple's patented solution to the problem, and Playfair, Hymm, etc., are sabotaging it. You still have every "consumer right" to not support the ACC format. The iTunes music store is an engineered system designed with specific components, of which are an iPod, a computer connected to a stereo, or a CD burner. That is the compromise and limitations of the system, and you must take it or leave it as a consumer. The bottom line again is, if you don't like it, don't buy it.

Reply

↓↑report

"few cases of this are taken to court at the individual level"

this is the key issue. the only cases that have been taken to court on an individual level are ones where the accused was actually doing something illegal with the copies (making a copy of something they didn't own or attempting to resell and profit from breaking copyright) and these are exactly the people that copyright law is meant to deter &/ protect against. That is the purpose of the law. Copyright law was never meant to prosecute individuals for "technically" breaking the law when there is no actual damage done to the author / creator / distributor of the original work. This is one of the shortcomings of copyright law that has come to light in the digital age: an accusatory criminalization of the innocent. This is also where it falls apart, because such non-infringing (in the sense that they do not take damage anyone) uses of the copyrighted work are practical, make practical sense under normal ideas of property ownership, and any act to prosecute them would be easily shown to be impractical and dismissed.

In recent years, big money dollars have been pushing to expand this horribly strict interpretation of the law that you are supporting, so that the consumer is required to purchase multiple copies of the same thing. This same sort of movement by big money concerns occurred when xerox first came around and when recordable cassette tapes and VHS tapes were released on the market, but enforcement and the demands that the industry wanted to place upon the consumer were considered impractical and for that reason summarily dismissed. What is occurring now is that big money in the music and film industries are pushing again in the same ways they did in the past, but now they get to point to the imaginary flawlessness of the digital, and what is scary is that people like you are buying their insanely stupid argument this time, and throwing your fair use rights to the wind in the process.

The problem with DRM is that it doesn't deter copying at all. Anyone who wants to make illegal copies and break the law can easily circumvent the so called digital rights management by the burn and rip method previously discussed. The only people DRM inconveniences are legitimate consumers, who aren't breaking any laws, but are instead trying to exercise their fair use rights. This is impractical and one of the main reasons it would fall apart in court if taken far enough.

What you need to consider is: if DRM doesn't really stop the pirates, then why do we have it? Easy answer: the big moneys involved want to destroy fair use and make us pay for more than we should. Again. Except this time, people (like yourself) are caving to their plan.

Also, your bottom line is flawed, because of the monopoly situation that currently exists in the music industry. It is very difficult to find anything DRM free for sale on the internet.

I could babble on and on, but before you rebut to my rebut, I ask that you read a much smarter piece on why DRM is bad law:
http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

Reply

↓↑report