Apple breaks PyMusique
By Peter Rojas 
posted Mar 21st 2005 3:43PM
posted Mar 21st 2005 3:43PM
The party's over—CNET is reporting that Apple has "fixed" iTunes so that you can't use PyMusique, that interface DVD Jon and co. created to lets you buy DRM-free songs from the iTunes Music Store, anymore. Pretty much what everyone expected (it would have been incredibly surprising if Apple hadn't done something), but there is one annoying result of DVD Jon's handiwork: to plug the security hole Apple is now requiring anyone who wants to buy songs from the iTunes Music Store to upgrade to at least iTunes 4.7.1 (which has introduced limitations on the number of machines that can access your iTunes shared music collection per day). Smooth move, guys.
I expected this. Why wouldnt apple fix it? Wasnt the "crack" illegal if then used anyways? Apple is just staying legal!
That really sucks. Those guys really know what they are doing, im sure they will attack back. This was a very handy little app :) Oh well Back to other methods :)
TheTspoT Admin
The war is over; the war is never over.
Dear TheTspoT Admin,
Please stop spamming here.
Honestly, I'm surprised it lasted through the weekend. I figured this would be dead by late Saturday, at the latest.
Yep, Apple's bending over backwards to provide a fair and competitive online music purchasing system that is sustainable and continues to get music from most every label -- all these hackers are doing is making the record labels more & more nervous about allowing this to go on. If they keep it up, the hackers are going to kill iTMS.
does this effect Connections from ourtunes?
So much for the masses not needing to upgrade to 4.7.1. Thanks for nuthin, DVDJon!
well congrats geeks.. the more you try to hack Apple's Music Store, the more restrictive the record labels are going to require Apple to make it.
what's that called?
oh yeah, Irony.
Geeks, fuck off.
"Geeks, fuck off."
kindly get stuffed. it's geeks who brought you the ability to listen to music on your computer, who came up with the idea of sharing music with other geeks, and who invented the tools that make it possible to trade and, yes, sell music over the internet. the day the geeks "fuck off" is the day you stop being able to spend your fat dollars on shinies like ipods and that hives track you think makes you so cool.
You know, this reminds me of what happened when people started to abuse the Internet Library sharing feature in iTunes a few years ago...
Wow... I can't believe everyone is siding with Apple on this one. I thought iTunes was cool too, until I accidently hit delete on some songs I had bought from them. No problem, I would ask to confirm the deletion, right? Wrong, it froze and a whole $10 worth of music I PAID for was gone. WTF? Screw them, I've been pretty down on iTunes ever since.
Has anyone considered that the reason this Apple product is restictive and user-UNfriendly is because Apple is NOT thinking about its users. Shame on them. They shouldn't be supported for this.
#9 is a little pissed off that all the geeks nearby can kick his ass in a fight.
"Yep, Apple's bending over backwards to provide a fair and competitive online music purchasing system "
Are you shitting me? Fair? I use to be able to buy music and it was MINE! Now they want me to buy it online and they have the right to put restrictiosn on it? Doesn't sound like its mine after all. Well, back to my other methods too.
No one use to really make a big stink of it when you made a copy of a tape for a friend. Greedy bastards.
Funny. Make the labels more paranoid so they make their product more restricted and useless so they fall ever further behind in their approach to the market and their customers. QUICK RIAA! Shoot yourself in the head! Oh. Still kicking? Do it again! Now your turn MPAA.
Repeat after me: "Video Tape Machines DID NOT MULTIPLY THE MARKET AND MY PROFITS..." [Jedi mind trick]
BANG! Was that another self inflicted wound??? Good work RIAA. Nice result, MPAA...
BTW, I am not forgetting that you ("the record industry") overcharged me all those years for CDs. [ask my friendly local class action lawyer; he'll tell you we won the case and I have my check for $12.64 that proves it] It is your lost goodwill that allows me to derive pleasure from watching your suicidal marketing plan unfold.
A couple of points...
First, the PyMusique method was not illegal. It's a fine point, but an important one. The DMCA makes it a crime to bypass a DRM system in digital media. What PyMusique was doing was interecepting the data *before* any DRM was applied. In this way, there was no illegal act, although there may have been a violation of ITMS terms of service.
Second, these skirmishes are inevitable and will continue. The recording industry will continue to try and keep a hammer-lock on their content either through technical or legislative means, the tech companies will continue to walk the tight-rope between appeasing the media companies and satisfying their customers, and the masses will continue to find ways to enforce their perception of value and work around DRM methodologies that are considered too restrictive.
Whether the media companies want to admit it or not, the perceived value of recorded music has plummeted and their energies would be much more profitably spent researching new business models instead of thrashing around trying to hang on to a system that was outdated the minute broadband hit the 20% mark.
I believe that in the long-term, the masses will win the battle in some form, but as with any period of sudden technological advancement (cars replacing horses, computers replacing typewriters, etc.) there will be a period of instability and chaos.
And railing at the geeks is unproductive. They've been doing it since before the computer age, and will continue. The real lesson, and the one that never seems to sink in, is that all DRM/copy protection mechanisms have been defeated. At this point, we've just entered a new technological arms race (like radar guns and radar detectors).
The Constitution and the original intention of granting a copyright as a balance between the need for artist compensation and public benefit have long been left in the dust. Personally, I'm rooting for the hackers.
As far as Apple, they've shown a frightening behavior pattern that we would be rabidly foaming over were it to come from Microsoft. Apple has slowly and quietly reduced iTunes functionality and restricted user options and turned it into just another shopping portal. I still use it for personal playback, but I moved to other means of remotely accessing my music when version 4.1 came out.
I never bought an ITMS track because I suspected this would be their course of action. At the time, my friends called me paranoid...
Just one more reason why I'm glad I got an iRiver instead of an iPod. No DRM issues to mess with or fight over.
So pissed at lazy people. Now there forcing me 2 use 4frickin.1. This was developed be3cuase people were to lazy to go and get jhymn to remve the DRM Post-Purchase. This made it easy enough for everyone so apple got el freako and put another choke hold on us! ANd F%%% the geeks is what u say! Without the geeks you wouldnt have the ability to be posting F444 the geeks
re: 17
you have got to be kidding me. what an ill-informed comment. iPods have no fixed ties to the ITMS. you could rip all your cd's to MP3s (or AAC) and fill your iPod just as easily as your iRiver. you are not FORCED to fill your iPod with ITMS songs... in any case the DRM lies with the ITMS, not the iPod.
What the heck are you talking about, #17?
The iPod supports has some non-DRM formats i.e.., mp3 format. (You may have heard about it. :P) The iRiver also supports a DRM format. Guess what? It is Windows Media Audio.
Yeah that didn't take long. It's a shame that we all have to upgrade to 4.7.1 if we want to buy more music.
Want to end the problem? Stop buying RIAA infected music! Look for good indie bands, also over at Magnatunes.com you can select what you want to pay for an album and the artist gets 50%.
DAMN IT! I should've used my remaining 4 credits, I really don't want to update iTunes.
I'm thinking tell apple I want the credits in cash.
#14: Yes, Fairplay is fair. Apple has not made it impossible (or even all that difficult) to convert music you purchase from iTMS to any non-DRM'd format you want. Burn to CD and re-rip is one of those ways, but there are other utilities that Apple has NOT tried to block that do the same thing in fewer steps.
The point is to make the EASIEST thing to do, the "RIGHT" thing to do, and to make it a bit more cumbersome to try to get past the DRM. It's a tenuous balance that Apple has struck with record companies, and a fragile one. In my opinion, Apple is doing everything it can to create a compromise that gives consumers as much control over the purchased music as possible, while still keeping the RIAA happy and while still keeping in tune with the DMCA.
The problem with this latest hack is that it circumvents the Fairplay DRM completely, and THAT is a violation of the iTMS terms of service.
Comment spam from dangspam@yahoo.com deleted.
Other utilities Apple hasn't tried to block, eh #24? Like Hymn? Oh wait, Apple did everything they could to break Hymn until they ran out of things they could do...
http://www.hymn-project.org/
Regarding DMCA stuff... the DMCA is against 'circumventation'... IANAL but I think that preventing a copy-control mechanism from being installed in the first place, as opposed to taking it off afterward, could still be convincingly called 'circumventation', say, in a court of law. Stranger things have happened in the courtroom...
Disclaimer: I use and love both iTunes and an iPod. I have never purchased an iTMS song because it doesn't make sense to me compared to CDs.
Comment spam from dangspam@yahoo.com deleted.
Things like this will only drive up the cost in iTMS to support the additional programming, etc. Instead of all these crazy work arounds I say instead get music from a non DRM source.
Anyone else think this is a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' being willfully carried out by 'big music'? The more restrictive iTMS and other legitimate services become the more 'big music' can say 'see, i told you it wouldn't work, now lets go back to cds for $24.95'.Seems like the problem with the music industry is those in control of it.
I remember reading one time somewhere a wise man said that those who are intent on stealing will not be deterred by trivial protections, nor would they buy the product if those protections became impossible to bypass. They would simply find something else to steal. I think this is true for the most part and DRM only hinders those who purchase legally and intend to use legally.
Regarding my previous post, I'll admit that it was incomplete, but it was not ill-informed. I'm well aware of the file formats that both the iPod and iRiver support, as well as the DRM restrictions and allowances.
Before buying a player, I tried both out and weighed the pros and cons, and it didn't take much to decide that even though the iPod had some neat features and tons of available accessories, I didn't want to have Apple forcing my hand when it came to my music. Just because I don't have to buy music from ITMS to use an iPod doesn't release me from having to use iTunes if I were to use an iPod.
With my iRiver, if I want to put music on it, I put music on it. Wherever I am. If I want to delete music or copy it off, I copy it off. Wherever I am. And I don't have to be shackled to any specific computer or software to do it.
The iPod is a great device. For better or worse, it's changed the way that consumers buy and listen to music. But when it comes to my experience in the digital music realm, I'm looking for freedom and flexibility. And as long as the iPod sports the same logo as ITMS, I'll be an iRiver man.
Chicks don't dig iRiver men.
So post #29 is pointing out that iPod needs iTunes to sync, and iRiver doesn't. Fair enough.
Until you notice that his post #17 was about DRM. And yes, post #17 was ill-informed, and flat out wrong. The "DRM issues to mess with or fight over" is no worse for the iRiver, compared to the iPod.
Post #29 does absolutely nothing to clarify #17, it's simply a digression away from the false statements that the original post tried to make.
This is why if you've hacked something, you keep it to yourself =D
Sorry, Kevin. Post #17 is about being glad that I own an iRiver and not an iPod.
As for that DRM remark that has everyone wanting to cram my foot in my mouth, it stems from the back-and-forth between Apple and its consumers. Every time somebody tries to make the iPod work the way the public wants it to, Apple comes along and disables features through firmware. Every time, someone wants to strip DRM from the files they've purchased, Apple forces an iTunes upgrade. And they should. After all, it's their product.
But it's a fight, and a mess, and like it or not, DRM is at the center of it all. Prevention of unauthorized copying is the reason that iPod users have to use iTunes to load their players. It's the reason I abandoned Sony's MiniDisc, steered clear of Creative's Zen, and won't buy Apple's iPod.
I don't know why iRiver didn't make its users go through a software portal to load music on the H120. But I do know that I'm not gonna have to worry about Apple making me do things their way. My iRiver works the way I like it, and it will continue to do so, regardless of what shenanignans Apple or Hymn or PyMusique are up to.
iPod needs iTunes? WRONG.
- EphPod (free; official site is down right now, but you can still find it by Googling)
- Lots of alternatives for Mac, Linux, Windows: http://www.ipodlounge.com/downloads_list.php?id=0
Apple has not disabled any features through firmware. Apple disabled the RealNetworks hack (on some iPods, not all) which was circumventing their DRM without permission. See a common thread here?
It's not as though Apple does no wrong; I'll be the first to admit the falsity of that claim. But it's amazing how far some people will go to justify a past purchase... even so far as to deceive themselves... is it really that important to your ego? Perhaps it does need some altering.
The iPod is an MP3 player, much like any other MP3 player. DRM sucks, but nobody is cramming it down anyone's throat. Really. End of story.
#29
-- With my iRiver, if I want to put music on it, I put music on it. Wherever I am. If I want to delete music or copy it off, I copy it off. Wherever I am. And I don't have to be shackled to any specific computer or software to do it. --
I think the iPod has Drive access that let's you just drag and drop songs on and off of it like a hard-drive. I could be mistaken as I just use iTMS but wanted to post anyway.
EphPod user here - and I love it. No yucky iTunes or crippled crappy-sounding (sorry, but they do) DRMed tracks for me.
#26 - IANAL (yet) but PyMusique likely would qualify as circumvention under the DMCA.
In 321 Studios v. MGM Studios, the court found that because 321 Studios' product used a decryption key that 321 Studios was not authorized to use, it therefore avoid[ed] and bypasse[d] CSS and so the relevant provisions of the DMCA applied to the software.
PyMusique interfaces with the iTMS in an unauthorized way, avoids and bypasses FairPlay - and thus most likely the anti-circumventions of the DMCA apply.
IANAL, TINLA.
... Apple has slowly and quietly reduced iTunes functionality and restricted user options and turned it into just another shopping portal. I still use it for personal playback, but I moved to other means of remotely accessing my music when version 4.1 came out.
---
Hmmm.. when you analyse what Apple's actually done, and whom it benefits, you realize this is not Apple abusing its customers, its the labels begging for more restrictions and Apple coming up with a compromise (one that will NOT affect 99% of iTMS customers).. in fact they increased the sharing while reducing the # of burn times, did they not? That's a cool compromise from a cool company..
As far as my railing on the 'geeks'.. I fully understand that 'geeks' have contributed a great deal to the world, the problem i have is when you push the boundary of geek, into the realm of miserable anti-establishment cyber-vandal. Let's be honest here.. who goes out of their way to hack what Apple has created, a fair music store that balances the prehistoric record labels and ultra-picky public.. they deserve their pathetic 5-10 cents a song or whatever..
Hacking the store is OBVIOUSLY going to cause APple to have to go back to the drawing board and renegotiate.. what will ultimately become a MORE RESTRICTIVE deal for ALL OF YOU..
Hence, IRONY.
I demand to know who here is burning 10+ CD's and hates Apple for the restrictions.. or sharing with 5+ other computers and hates Apple for it.. who here desperately wants a MuVo player but LOVES the iTMS.. so ..
ugh.
you see my point
i hope
Obligatory IANAL statement here as well...
I'm not saying that there isn't some way that a clever lawyer could get a judge/jury to believe that the DMCA was violated by this software, especially in these times of purchased legislation and "industry-friendly" judges who see no problem in ignoring that pesky Constitution when corporate profits are on the line. (Ask ThinkSecret about that one...)
However, the only violation from a technical point of view is against the iTMS terms of service. The PyMusique guys wrote their own front end to interpret an unencrypted, unprotected, transmitted stream of data - akin to writing your own web browser or email client.
Because the copy protection mechanism was not part of the data stream (and that's the important technical point here), I don't think there was a *technical* violation of the DMCA's circumvention section. That's not to say that the "spirit of the law" wasn't violated, or that the motivations behind the software were honorable. That's for lawyers, judges, and juries to determine based on all the evidence, which we don't have.
The DMCA circumvention section, by the way, conflicts with several other U.S. laws and court interpretations which specifically say we have the ability to circumvent such measures in order to utilize our property under fair use conditions.
Should anyone in media actually choose to sue over this one, I think they'll have an interesting fight on their hands that will most likely end up in the Supreme Court. That is, if the Supreme Court doesn't gut the "Betamax decision" later this year. As I mentioned above, we're in the period of turmoil as one technology replaces another and all sorts of business models become casualties.
Sooner or later, Congress and the courts will have to iron out the mess they've made of copyright laws. My sincere hope is that they iron it out in a manner that upholds the original intent of copyright (which was to provide a reasonable period for the author of a work to be compensated for its creation balanced with the need of the public to have unfettered access to the art within a reasonable timeframe) and not the interests of multinational conglomerates who have no motivation to provide benefit to the public.
Ultimately, though, the point of all of this for me is that it's one more data point proving that copy protection is ineffective, easily bypassed, and only punishes people who respect and follow the law in the first place. Any DRM scheme is only temporary.
38:
Hi Mike,
I do see your point, and I will heartily agree that the iTMS is by far the most balanced source for music that serves both of Apple's masters.
However, I think you're wrong about them increasing sharing. With version iTunes 4.0, you could share your music with any number of iTunes clients anywhere on the internet. With 4.1, you could share only your local subnet. Next they restricted it to only 5 computers at a time on your local subnet. Now, with 4.71, it's only five unique connections on your subnet per 24 hour period.
Additionally, they've reduced the number of times you can burn a specific playlist, and the number of computers that can be authorized to play licensed iTMS tracks. Further, they've forced upgrading by making previous versions of the library files incompatible with later versions of the software and restricting purchases at the store to specific versions. This is a consistent and ongoing pattern of reducing and restricting user options, regardless of how common those maximum-use scenarios might be or how many people with legitimate uses are actually being affected by the restricions.
I don't buy music from iTMS (or any download service) because I see it as a lower value and don't want to be bound by their terms. As long as I don't violate copyright law by distributing to others, I will access the music I've purchased when I want, how I want, and where I want. People seem to forget that there are other options besides iTunes and the iTMS (which is a testament to Apple's marketing!).
I do agree with you about the short-term effects of these hacks: they will cause the media companies to wring their hands and wail about intangible lost profits (read up on record label accounting if you want a real nightmare - makes Enron look like amateurs) and the improperly termed "piracy" and ultimately put behind-the-scenes pressure on Apple to tighten the DRM and license screws at the risk of pulling their content.
However, the dike has too many holes, and the computer and media industries don't have nearly enough thumbs. It's only a matter of time... You might note that sales of HD Tuner cards that don't honor the broadcast flag have gone through the roof. It's not because there are a bunch of pirate wannabes out there...
As for Apple... yeah, they're still a cool company, but they've made some hinky decisions in the last 6-12 months that make me, for the first time EVER, question their coolness and see them more as just another big company. And that's sad.
The copyright protection mechanism doesn't have to be part of the data stream - "technological measure" can refer to the system as a whole.
For instance in Pearl Investments v. Chunn (I can give cites/fuller summaries if you drop me a line at my name above - without the space - at gmail), the copyrighted software was on a computer connected to a VPN. The VPN was held to be a technological measure; the court said that it was the electronic equivalent of a locked door.
The case that is most useful to the PyMusique situation is IMS Inquiry Management Systems v. Berkshire Information Systems, where a company used a third party's (legitimate) password to access a competitor's website. The court found that this was not a DMCA violation, saying that [d]efendant did not surmount or puncture or evade any technological measure to do so; instead, it used a password intentionally issued by plaintiff to another entity. The court reconciled this with Universal City v. Reimerdes by analogizing the password defendant used to enter plaintiffs website [with] the DVD player, not some other alternate avenue of access not sponsored by the copyright holder (like a skeleton key, or neutralizing device).
PyMusique would constitute an "alternate avenue of access not sponsored by the copyright holder".
NB: these two cases were both from district courts.
I haven't any cases ruling substantially differently. While cases have found that we may have the right to circumvent such measures to use our physical property (I'm thinking Lexmark and Chamberlain here), the reasoning from those cases would almost certainly not extend to stripping DRM from music etc.
Basically, it doesn't take clever lawyering or a biased judge - that's just the way the law is. I'm not saying I like it, of course.
IANAL, TINLA.
Are you *sure* you're not a lawyer,, Eion? :-)
That's an interesting precedent and reminds me why I didn't go into law... I see your point on evading the system as a whole as constituting an infringement.
And hey... if they can't win with that stuff, there are always plenty of twelve year olds to sue into oblivion, right?
Not a lawyer yet... just a student and a copyright geek for the time being. Hopefully soon.
And yeah, that's way the DMCA was written. I honestly don't see what's wrong with those cases as an interpretation (although I do disagree with effect of the law as interpreted).
This is BS, because I am forced to use version 4.6, as 4.7 will not allow me to import CDs at any bitrate other than 128Kbps. Aaargh!
Someone ought to sue Apple for breach of contract. The contract is "signed" at time of purchase. They can't change the license you bought later on a whim (or did they reserve that right in the EULA? Doesn't matter much, that would never hold up in court).
Who cares, with allofmp3.com I can buy music encoded at any bitrate or format I desire. No built in DRM that limits what I can do with what I purchase. I can listen to any song they sell in it's entirety at any time from anyplace I can access the internet. Until the scumbags pay some crooked Politician enough money to change a few laws I'm good to go, after that I guess I'll be old and grumpy enough not to give a damn.
#44 -- are you sure about this? 4.7.0 lets me configure it to do MP3 at 192...
I'm using 4.7.1 and I can record MP3 all the way to 320 (stereo), just click on the custom choice at the bottom. Oh and I agree with most here, it's not the geek's fault, it's the thieves fault. Oh and I think I might have bought 2 iTMS songs that I needed really quick for a project. All my others came from Pepsi, thanks! Everything else is ripped from my CD's with no problems.
the thing is, I would contend Apple doesn't actually care that much about iTMS, it makes practically no profit from the service and provides a massive headache to the company (e.g. issues with the EU regarding pricing of tunes in eurozone countries vs UK)...as far as Apple is concerned, they're happy while their customers stuff more and more music/data/content into their iPods (from whatever source, legal or illegal), so they can continue selling us upgrades of Ipods with higher capacities (hardware margins being a healthy 40% or so...) this is where Apple makes its $$$
I can see where they are coming from, blocking the third-party applications and all, but shit, if they want my business, they need a linux client. i don't use windows/mac for anything. not even buying music. iTunes is bullshit, and mac is too.
I still think ipod s...s despiste a cool design.
I still think ipod s...s despiste a cool design.
The options are getting short...But i wouldn't stick with iPod only