iTunes 7 patches QTFairUse 2.2, QTFairUse 2.3 patches iTunes 7

At some time around 10:22AM Pacific Time, by our estimations, Steve Jobs introduced to the world iTunes 7, Apple's latest and greatest hardware / software / service glue for their best-selling online media initiative. Everyone cheered its album art functions, enhanced video resolution, and movie downloads; a few of us, though, silently winced on behalf of QTFairUse / myFairTunes6 users everywhere, who'd been successfully stripping the DRM off their Apple FairPlay protected files for a few weeks now. Then, at 6:23PM PST, QTFairUse version 2.3 came out, which added (beta) iTunes 7 support. By our approximation that means it took Igor (no, not Iger) about 8 hours and 1 minute to crack the latest major iTunes update. Not bad, but we were hoping for something in the 4-6 hour range; it would seem to us the anti-DRM community is resting on its laurels. Don't make us crack the whip, guys!

[Thanks, Brian]

[NJ @ Sep 13th 2006 10:13AM]

I know you meant that last bit in jest, but it seriously never bothers you that a site as well-respected as yours continues to promote piracy to this degree?

[Jeff @ Sep 13th 2006 10:18AM]

"I know you meant that last bit in jest, but it seriously never bothers you that a site as well-respected as yours continues to promote piracy to this degree?"

I think you seriously need to look up what the term "fair use" actually means, and realize that it is actually codified into copyright law (title 17, chapter 1, article 107).

Fair use != piracy.

[Bob @ Sep 13th 2006 10:18AM]

To be fair, the code was released much earlier (official 2.3 exe came later) and basically just added compatability with itunes7. Itunes 7 didn't really do much to stop QTFairUse.

[Jeff @ Sep 13th 2006 10:19AM]

and just to add to my point - you need to have actually *bought* your music through iTunes in order to use QTFairUse (same with FairUse4WM, btw - you need to have a license for your music in order to use it). It's got absolutely nothing to do with piracy.

[zombieflanders @ Sep 13th 2006 10:20AM]

Ignorance must be bliss. It's for stripping DRM off of tunes you've already bought, so that you can play them in something that's not an iPod.

[ben @ Sep 13th 2006 10:21AM]

I don't think they are supporting piracy, NJ. I think that the QTFairUse creators aren't intending this for piracy either. I think they want to be able to use this song they just bought on anything they choose. So not only the iPod, but maybe their Creative too. That's what fair, hence the name, qtFAIRuse.

[ghost @ Sep 13th 2006 10:21AM]

@ NJ : Piracy? Please!!! Who said they were spreading the songs over the net? They are stripping Apple's monopolistic lock on a song they purchased so that they may play the song on any device.

The songs from the iTunes store is like a new car that only has permission to ride on freeways but not surface streets.

ghost

[Jaxim @ Sep 13th 2006 10:23AM]

>a site as well-respected as yours continues to promote piracy to this degree

They're not promoting piracy. Stop getting brainwashed from the RIAA. If you buy music from iTunes, Napster, etc, you should be able to play that music on whatever device you want to. I personally have not bought music online because I'm not willing to spend $1 on DRM-ridden files. With applications like QTFairUse / myFairTunes6, I am starting to rethink my online music purchasing habits.

[Paul @ Sep 13th 2006 10:25AM]

Is this process still a painstaking real-time conversion? Or have I not looked hard enough for the instantaneous-action version?

[Jim Woolmer @ Sep 13th 2006 10:27AM]

@ poster # 1

Do you mean that the $500.00 worth of music I purchased legally through the iTunes music store that I shouldn't be able to play through my Sonos music system in my house because of stupid DRM!?!?

I have stopped buying music on Apples iTunes music store and personally will NOT purchase music or movies with any sort of copy protection.

I personally would like to thank the guys or girls behind QTFairUse / myFairTunes6.

Thanks,

J....

[Frank Bruno @ Sep 13th 2006 10:30AM]

Great post

[Deluxe @ Sep 13th 2006 10:43AM]

NJ, You'll need some more bandages before that comment blows over.

[Tony @ Sep 13th 2006 10:50AM]

Where does one download QTFairUse and MyFairTunes?

[=['] @ Sep 13th 2006 10:54AM]

NJ - you got owned
You've been sucked in if you think DRM is fair.

[Kyle @ Sep 13th 2006 10:57AM]

I don't understand what the big deal is. Just burn your iTunes music to CD then rerip them back in to iTunes. this is what I do and never had a problems. Yes it uses a CD to do it but then you get DRM free mp3s/acc/orwhatever the heck.

[AL7AIR @ Sep 13th 2006 10:59AM]

@ Tony
Clicking on of the following links might help you ;)

QTFairUse » http://hymn-project.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1553
myFairTunes » http://hymn-project.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1555

[P13TR0 @ Sep 13th 2006 11:00AM]

NJ, you are a cretin. Cretin's should not be allowed to post in the comments section, full stop.

Please stick to commenting on things you understand. Hopefully by following that simple rule, we will never have to endure another one of your ridiculous posts ever again.

With regard QTFairUse; there is a much more simple way to ensure you can use what you pay for... do not buy anything from ITunes.

[Silver @ Sep 13th 2006 11:46AM]

Here's my case for stripping DRM - my ex had purchased a lot of music (while we were still together) using my credit card, which was totally fine at the time. Now we've both moved on... but so has some of the music I paid for since it was under her iTunes account (and I've had to reimport my music collection). Now I'd really like to get to play the music I paid for (about 100 songs)- I mean, that's fair use... right?

[popfrogs @ Sep 13th 2006 11:57AM]

@Silver:

I agree with your assessment of the situation, but ultimately, the cost of said purchased music gets compounded into the breakup tax. Cost of doing business and all that.

[Niget @ Sep 13th 2006 12:09PM]

Great post! NJ you are simply wrong! Keep up the good work guys.

[the_godfather @ Sep 13th 2006 12:46PM]

i'll continue to buy cd's and make my own rips tyvm

[Ryan @ Sep 13th 2006 12:58PM]

"I don't understand what the big deal is. Just burn your iTunes music to CD then rerip them back in to iTunes. this is what I do and never had a problems. Yes it uses a CD to do it but then you get DRM free mp3s/acc/orwhatever the heck."

You must not have ears then. That transcode of an already poor 128 m4p file is going to make it junkier yet.

FWIW, I agree with the_godfather.

[Adam Porrata @ Sep 13th 2006 1:50PM]

I've noticed something new to add to iTunes 7 discussion and that is that Apple has added Software Update to the PC world to ensure that iTunes 7, iPod Updater, and Quicktime 7 are all done together since they had been having problems with the iPod updater for Windows in the past. Check your Start > Programs list for "Apple Software Update". The look and feel is just like the Mac version.

[Tom Boucher @ Sep 13th 2006 2:31PM]

Does it support Mac yet or still windows only?

[kriz @ Sep 13th 2006 2:35PM]

Wow, heaven forbid anyone have an opinion you disagree with around here, I guess that makes them an idiot. What is this, middle school??

It's really really simple. No one is forcing you to buy music from iTunes. No one. You can get that same music elsewhere. But if you buy it from iTunes you know the rules and you are agreeing to them. Again if you don't like the restrictions, then buy your music somewhere else and stop encouraging illegal behavior.

[Liam Daly @ Sep 13th 2006 2:36PM]

can someone post a mirror other then rapidshare?, and if you purchased the music, you have the right to be able to play it on whatever you like, eg phone or mp3 player other then an iPod.... if you purchase a CD from the high street you can rip it to your mp3 player so whats the difference?

[SM @ Sep 13th 2006 3:13PM]

When you buy music from itms you agree to terms of use. If you don't like it then don't buy music from itms. It is really that simple.

[torpid @ Sep 13th 2006 3:53PM]

Precluding them the right to their own property sounds like stealing to me...

Shut up.
So called "Intellectual property" is not like physical property, and can not be stolen.

Since you're throwing around accusations of theft, please, tell us all what measurable asset is being diminished?
By your logic decrypting my music (that I paid apple for) is akin to breaking into apple headquarters and robbing them, right?

[Chris @ Sep 13th 2006 4:06PM]

It's fair use until you take all the DRM-stripped mp3s and file-share 'em! Once you do that, is it piracy?

[ChillyWilly @ Sep 13th 2006 4:12PM]

My thoughts on the commenters that don't understand FairUse.

True, all music, movies and shows purchased on iTunes are licensed. But this is the content that you are licensing. The actual M4P file you are downloading is yours to keep. The fair use of that file is what these programs are affording the person who paid for the license... the right to use the files as they intend to. The music is unchanged. So in actuality, this is perfectly legit. Is it illegal? That's debatable if you ask RIAA or Apple. But so long as you don't share your entire library on a torrent, I really see no harm in these programs that allow you to listen to the music without restrictions.

[Vik @ Sep 13th 2006 4:15PM]

Torpid- Do you really want to do this? Ok- let's go.

Far from being "stupid" I will not "shut up"
What are you 12?
Please point out where in US jurisprudence intellectual property is not like physical property? Apple developed the iPod and the iTunes service and they get to set the rules on how the music they sell is used. They decided not to cede complete ownership over to you but rather the mere right to use it (on 5 computers I think, I don't follow iTunes that closely).

Rather than hiding from your mom in the basement looking at trans porn do a Westlaw search and come up with some case law showing that Apple's use of a license can be superceded by your right to go beyond that license and assert complete "fee simple" ownership. Otherwise your a small time chump wasting people's time with your limited vocab and childish antics.

Again, you paid apple for a right to use the music. You didn't pay to own the music. If you don't like the rules of the game take your most assuredly small marbles elsewhere. You bought from Apple for whatever reason, you have an iPod or like the convenience whatever. Apple has all the marbles in their court. They have a hugely popular player and a nice place to buy media. Apple is entitled to reap as much profit and control over their property from your use of THEIR service and THEIR music. You simply paid for a ride. A right to enjoy the music for a period of time. Remember that tilt-a-whril ride you went on last weekend with your dad? Just because daddy paid for you to ride it doesn't mean you own the seat. If you don't like the ride son, walk away .

Do what you want, I really don't care, but, again, it certainly sounds like stealing to me.

[Vik @ Sep 13th 2006 4:30PM]

I take no stand on the DRM apple issue, but it doesn't appear you are purchasing a CD or a song or a CD on iTunus. You are purchasing a license, a permission to use, the song you have dowloaded. ownership still belongs to Apple and therefore they have the right to protect it. Precluding them the right to their own property sounds like stealing to me...

[znarfaggle @ Sep 13th 2006 5:25PM]

i actually think that qtfairuse and stuff discourage piracy. if i buy a load songs from itunes, and i want to play them on my creative( cos my ipod broke and this was really cheap), i got two options. no way in hell i'm paying another couple hundred dollars for tons of cds. so i can either download those songs illegally from the internet/whatever, or use qtFairUse. FairUse is easier.

[Daking @ Sep 13th 2006 8:19PM]

whatever, i'll just keep up my network of cds with all my friends. i've found thats its cheaper for 5-10 friends with with a smimilar taste in music to share and trade CDs than to buy it off iTunes. For the small bands with no CDs and no iTunes music, i use limewire or take it from thier site...

On the issue regarding the article i stand on both sides. Apple is only letting you play the music, it is not giving ownership to you. I think that noth letting music be transfered to other software or MP3 players is alittle harsh, but that hasnt stopped 1.5 billion songs being downloaded from ITMS and not illegaly off the internet. Please feel free to comment your opinions of my comments, past or present, for i have an open mind...

DAKING

[Steve @ Sep 13th 2006 8:23PM]

@Kyle,

Because you already PAID for the track. When a recordable CD is purchased, there is a small tax on those to PAY the RIAA....so in essence you are paying to get something you should have already had for free, as required by law.

That's outright fraudulent, and we should not be advocating that. What we should be advocating is solutions that can strip DRM off legally purchased files.

[Christopher @ Sep 13th 2006 9:25PM]

All this back-and-forth kinda makes me glad I agreed with myself never to buy an iPod (and get sucked in to the word of protected MPEG4 audio)...

*slinks off back to his iriver-running-rockbox corner and plays some gapless FLAC albums to pass the time... Heh, Apple have just introduced gapless and Rockbox has been doing it for years :D


Ok, never mind all that - seriously, though - why buy your music (or a license for that music, whatever) from iTunes, and, regardless of whether you strip the DRM afterwards or not, why do you (all) therefore continue to support a method of digital music distribution and acquisition which is inherently encumbered with something you immediately seek to remove?

It seems like a bit of a no-brainer to me, obviously Jobs doesn't give a flying barrel of monkeys what you do with the music afterwards because so long as the dollar bills keep racking up, the music industry will perpetuate this flawed, pain-in-the-ass method of digital distribution. At least if people voted with their feet and bought their music someplace else, say... On music shops' online stores, and did like the oldskool and burnt MP3s, they have something to count for their expenditure and bingo: free-format audio for their DAP/PC/mobile device... There's a lot to be said for a 7" laminated disc yet :/

[Christopher @ Sep 14th 2006 9:29AM]

To illustrate my point, here's an article from the MediaDailyNews highlighting just one of the issues people are getting themselves embroiled in as soon as they begin to purchase DRMed music...

http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=48102&Nid=23350&p=378656

Sure, you could lose all your MP3s in the same way, but I bung all my MP3s onto my MP3 player anyway, which just lets me drag 'n drop them right back to my PC via USB in Explorer should I ever lose a HDD (which I have, and I have done) - circumvention shouldn't be a necessary evil just to keep and use your own purchases, so while I laud the efforts of QTFairUse to me it's like trying to plug a hole in a boat made of swiss cheese... A bit pointless. In the end, the industry will just have more and more of an excuse to keep on offering us protection-laden offerings at poor quality and with many other restrictions. Fight the power :/

[Mark @ Sep 15th 2006 2:37AM]

99% of everyone here has downloaded programs / music / videos illegally so stop acting so holier than thou.

[Carl @ Sep 15th 2006 1:19PM]

@Vik

You sound like a typical apple zealot. How about this? A company in europe which has sold music to users who sign up for their isp service, and the users are told that they own the music, is closing up that kind of license and going to a rent only model where you gotta pay a monthly fee. What happens to the music that they told you previously bought and owned? Well it expires. How's that nice for DRM?

As for apple's store, what if it closes down? How are you suppose to get the legit licenses for your music now? Is all the music you own now gone? Unless there is a prevision in their license that says they will automatically unlock all drm'd songs that were purchased by their customers so that it no longer needs a license to play, that's why QTFairUse is so important here. It enables you to freely backup your music without worrying having to unlicense and relicense your computer. Same thing with FairUse for Microsoft DRM.

You yourself claim it's a violation of the license you agreed to. What if the Mac OS X license included a prevision that Steve Jobs can get nookie from you at anytime? Will you protest it or will you just bend over and take it because it's part of the "license" you agreed to?

[dave @ Sep 20th 2006 2:30PM]

NJ, and others, I don't see anywhere that Engadget is promoting piracy! This DRM stripping tool is not maent to be used for piracy, but for the FAIR USE OF THE FILES I HAVE PURCHASED. I have more than 5 computers. I have several portable digital music players. I don't want to be restricted in how I use my files.

On the other hand, I don't worry about DRM crap because I don't support it by not buying DRM encrusted files. I buy used CDs on eBay and actually pay LESS, in most cases, than the compressed crap from online.

[dave @ Sep 20th 2006 2:31PM]

PS. Carl, you're retarded.

[Justin @ Sep 20th 2006 5:51PM]

Just steal the music. Yes, steal it... Do these artists deserve MILLIONS of dollars for their voice when I'm out busting my ass everyday and not making a tenth of what they make!? Screw buying it, sorry! It's your own fault if you buy shit you already know is crippled... Just use Acqusition if you have a Mac, or Limewire if you own a PC. Then just convert it to Apple Lossless and you're good to go, right?

[Jeff @ Sep 20th 2006 8:21PM]

NO License Agreement can make you do anything illegal, or take away any of your rights. It wont hold up in court.

you wouldn't need to "protest" steve's nookie clause, simply laugh it off.

I think that fair-use should qualify as a right i retain no matter what silly license agreement i may sign.

[Jeff @ Sep 20th 2006 8:21PM]

"Don't make us crack the whip, guys!"

...you want to contribute some money? how about some programmers?

that line sounds fairly condescending for a bunch of copy editors to be saying to the programmers who are actually getting-shit-done. what whip will you crack? that "i'll complain a lot" whip?

bah!

[John Kessler @ Sep 25th 2006 8:21PM]

Despite what any of us may think of DRM and how it impacts Fair Use, US law (The DMCA) prohibits not only removing protection from the files you purchased, but from even discussing ways of removing this protection.

If you don't like these awful laws, you need to demand that your hard working lawmakers change them. Perhaps making a few million dollars in contribution to their campaigns the way the MPAA has will help. The US is a democracy after all. Anyone with enough cash can buy a senator or congress critter.

Another way of looking at this issue is to understand that the legal download business would not exist without DRM. The music industry would have never allowed the iTunes store to open.

[Tom @ Dec 5th 2006 1:56PM]

I hate brainwashed idiots like NJ and then accually has the nerve to post a comment like that. I suppose the Patriot Act is one of your favorites as well?

[gabriel @ Feb 8th 2007 7:55PM]

The DMCA) prohibits not only removing protection from the files you purchased, but from even discussing ways of removing this protection.

If that's true, then the DMCA is already unconstitutional (It is, btw). There is this little piece of paper called the Constitution (Ok, you got me there more than one piece of paper, there is a Bill of Rights and some amendments as well) which trumps any act of Congress. DMCA also contradicts not only fair use in the copyright law, but also antitrust laws, etc. Besides, QT fair use is not stripping DRM, itunes is. QT fair use just reads memory on your computer, which is your private property (So much for DMCA there, is the federal gov't going to take out warrants to monitor private computers?). It is just a scientific artifact.

Also, DRM does not stop privacy. Bottom line, DRM strips consumer rights, academic rights, it strips your right to investigate systems, particularly security systems, in order to protect yourself and the people. Case in point, the RFID devices, including proposed licenses, credit cards, and passports. DMCA would prohibit you from the right to analyze the device to determine that it has weaknesses that jeopardize the public. It the forbids you from disclosing that the device is flawed. That violates first amendment freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Think about the freedoms that corporations could subvert with a license and DRM.

[fairywishes @ Sep 12th 2007 7:34AM]

This is fantastic news. My hubby has a ipod with over 1000 tracks bought and i was utterfly peaved to find out i can't load them onto my phone. And even more peeved when realised when loking for a mp3 player i would be forced into buying an ipod to f i wanted to use those 1000 tracks. Which seems appaling to me. To those complaining about it being theft and that you didn't actually buy the track from itunes thats ludicrous its like saying when i bought my cd from a shop i was only actually allowed to play it but not keep it and that the shop still techinally owns it.. This is just an absolute con.
I for one shall be using the softwear now all i need is for someone to advise me of a decent mp3 player which is better then an ipod and cheeper but has a radio tuner and able to play video's and i will be happy. Any sujestions great appreciated :0)