AAC Cracked

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Link



This might not be good for iTMS.



I don't really get what they mean by download music for free, or take off the aac anti-piracy stuff? Or both?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x

    Link



    This might not be good for iTMS.



    I don't really get what they mean by download music for free, or take off the aac anti-piracy stuff? Or both?




    My reading of that says that he hasn't cracked anything. All it's done is dumped the audio data from memory into a file. So AFAIK, the music still has to be authorized in the first place to do this. And why not just burn a CD of it if you've already bought it? It seems like an awful lot of work for 99¢.
  • Reply 2 of 18
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    Aahh! you beat me to it by just an hour! I thought I was going to be popular again.



    Another link



    Hopefully Apple will not convert to a new type of encryption without first giving out firmware updates for ALL the iPods, not just the newest ones. I don't want my iPod to be out of date because someone tried to rip off a few songs.
  • Reply 3 of 18
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    The kid's site is here



    Also on this website (haha, wininsider)



    Quote:

    Ironically, despite all the headlines indicating that iTunes DRM was hacked, the truth is, as the Jon posts on his website, the application or rather the code, ONLY dumps the file from memory to hard drive. Which means that you have to have legal access to the music (an authorized account on an authorized machine) to even use the code. It doesn't really crack Apple's DRM as opposed to attempts to get around it. Ironically though the benefits of it really aren't that great, at least at this stage. Not only do you have to have an account and legal access to the music file, you have to start playing the music file so that QuickTime will begin the decryption process, and then the file gets dumped as a raw AAC file to disk. Then you have to go back and add all the proper music headers so that the file is actually usable (the file is useless in its dumped state).



    What all this effort gets you is a file that is close to an exact unecrypted copy of the AAC file. Unfortunately, the entire process is almost four times longer than just using iTunes to burn the file to CD, then ripping it back as an MP3 file, or any other format you desire. Also needed to be added to the time process is, well theres not to much to do with the unencrypted AAC file, except then convert it to MP3 so that you could share it, or use it with portable players other than the iPod.



    It should also be mentioned that memory dump process has been in use in the Mac community already, where tools to work with the QuickTime API to play iTunes Music Store purchase files, and autoconvert them to MP3 without burning a CD is in use.



    Can something really be considered a hack, if the company gives you the means to create it. A quick look at the Apple Developers page for QuickTime, will provide any user the ideas and sample code for using the QuickTime APIs to dump, collect, and convert data.



  • Reply 4 of 18
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Like others have said, this is only marginally interesting. It doesn't compare with DeCSS in technical magic, and there isn't a great deal of demand for it.



    iTunes is not very restrictive at all, and so the demand for the ability to remove the restrictions isn't great.



    And if you're going to share music, it's useless because why decrypt your iTunes files for others when there are a million other people sharing DRM-free ripped CDs?



    This is a weakness of DRM: it is totally ineffective to you the producer until you have only DRM restricted distribution. If that ever happened, maybe they'd be demand for QTFairUse.



    Barto
  • Reply 5 of 18
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    People don't pay the $.99 to Apple because the music is high fidelity or anything. They pay because on Kazaa or other p2p networks nothing is guaranteed. You may get a file masquerading as what you want, or you might wait for hours in a queue. QTFairUse doesn't change anything for pirates. The only thing it's useful for is the consumer who has already bought music from the store and wants to play it on more than 3 machines at home.



    Maybe that user might rip the raw AAC data from the protected file and share it with his friends, but nobody on Kazaa would really care if he shared it with them.



    In the end, the ability to defeat the DRM might actually boost sales to the iTMS as the savvy will know what to do... They would of course be held legally accountable for breaking the terms of the iTMS EULA.
  • Reply 6 of 18
    What is it with the register at the moment? They are really gunning for iTMS.



    New article calling us the Apple Taliban:

    http://theregister.co.uk/content/6/34291.html



    There is a reader letter (at the end) that states: not being a user of ITunes I didn't realize copy restrictions ... yadda yadda.



    The article writer is realy banging the DRM FUD drum really hard, misquoting, blurring definitions and generally making false claims about iTMS. Basically stating that the iTMS DRM is exactly the same as the MS version that was touted around earlier.



    Not sure why they are doing this. I'd like to know.
  • Reply 7 of 18
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Because it seems that almost every "tech journalist" is an idiot. Just look at all the articles in papers or the web these days. Appalling. The average high school or college student could produce articles embarrassingly better. The Register has always been full of crap though so don't worry about it Ast3r3x. They're like MOSR they read something hear and all of a sudden it's a "CONFIRMED!!!!" () fact in an article, like the 7457 for example.
  • Reply 8 of 18
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MarkL

    Not sure why they are doing this. I'd like to know.



    1) It's TheReg. Not the pinnacle of good journalism by any stretch of the imagination.



    2) DRM is bad no matter what. Loose DRM is not an "honest comprimise" at all, the only honesty will be seen once the media cartels are dismatled and whatever replaces them are forced to sell us the products that we the people want.



    So yes the Reg are going overboard, but they do have a point. It just gets lost in all the exaggeration.



    Barto
  • Reply 9 of 18
    marklmarkl Posts: 57member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Barto

    2) DRM is bad no matter what. Loose DRM is not an "honest comprimise" at all, the only honesty will be seen once the media cartels are dismatled and whatever replaces them are forced to sell us the products that we the people want.





    Good point. But there are lots of issues wound up into that sentence.



    I agree that DRM is potentially bad, if it gets out of hand. The online world has had plenty of time and chances to prove that they are trustworth and time and time again (I speak mainly of PC users here) rip off software/movies/audio. I think it is inherently buried deep within the understanding of PC users that you never pay for content. Maybe your operating system once.



    Even though concept like napster and limewire are started with the best of intensions - it doesn't take long for greed and laziness in users to abuse it.



    As a person who creates music and has it sold through traditional means (CD store) I do have concerns about people stealing my material. For example my last CD cost $15,000. Marketing was about the same.

    Why should I bother if people are simply going to rip it off.



    There is the argument that having more people listen to the music via kazaa etc.) will lead to an increase in sales. Just like a radio as such. However, this is an idealistic view to cover up copying. I'd like to see some figures about how many people download a song then go out and buy the CD. There might be a few (for I am one of those) but I'm sure it will be a minority. (Also with radio and TV at least I get an APRA cheque).



    What I suggest is: in the old days singles were free. They were just a sampler to sell the album. I reckon would should go back to those days. Artists should supply a couple of songs which the public could download for free. The rest of the CD should be bought.



    Ultimately, no matter what your arguement - it is plain wrong to steal.



    Now, I'm not saying that it's right for labels to charge so much, but then whose choice is it to go with them in the first place. These days there are a wealth of good independent labels (Shock MGM etc) who give GOOD deals. There is a choice for the artist.



    Business is business. Example: I wanted to sell my house. The real estate people (and there were many I tried) all said their fee (set) would be $13,500. To do what? Put a couple of ads in the paper and wear a suit for a couple of weekends?



    So I sold it myself. I made more and the person who bought it paid less.



    There is always a choice.



    Labels like everyother business exists to make profit. And to keep making profit. We are the fools if we keep supplying them with that expectation. Especially when there are other paths available to us (other than stealing).



    However, the mentality that the label is all greed and evil and all the money that they get stays with them is wrong.



    Most of the money is distributed to the mechanical artist and the writers. Sticking it to the record exec man is mainly sticking it to the artist, then sticking it to the distributor, then the CD shop owner and the label.



    And the part about: sell us the products that we the people want: we all know what we think about alex #[email protected]$ lloyd.



    sorry about the long post.
  • Reply 10 of 18
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    iTunes Music Store would sell more songs, not less, if it didn't have DRM. Only marginally more, because it has very weak DRM, but more none-the-less.



    DRM doesn't increase sales of music, because it reduces the value of music. If I want to download a song for free, I can do so using Poisoned, which has a much wider variety of songs than iTMS. iTMS DRM isn't going to stop me downloading free songs (not to mention the fact that as Aussies we don't really have a choice )



    So, why buy iTMS songs at all? Because iTMS is a better service than any P2P application can hope to provide. That's because there is a company behind it, Apple, and a company has the CAPITAL to make a better service. This is why copyright law was written to target businesses, not individuals.



    Why have DRM in the first place then? It seems to me that DRM is the sign of a morally bankrupt and financially failing industry trying every possible mechanism to save itself.



    Barto



    PS Misinterpreting Copyright by Richard Stallman makes good reading



    PPS You were AMAAAAAAZZZZZZINGGGGG, and we did AMMAAAAZZ *BLAM*
  • Reply 11 of 18
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    PS Misinterpreting Copyright by Richard Stallman makes good readin



    BwahAHah AhHAhhaHHahHAh AHahAhhahAHHhaHhAHhaha. That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks for the laugh, Barto!
  • Reply 12 of 18
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    upside your head you goddamned tab hater
  • Reply 13 of 18
    marklmarkl Posts: 57member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Barto

    upside your head you goddamned tab hater



    Wasn't Elle McFearson the offical Tab model during the 80s? How could you hate that? Is Tab still around today?
  • Reply 14 of 18
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    BwahAHah AhHAhhaHHahHAh AHahAhhahAHHhaHhAHhaha. That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks for the laugh, Barto!



    I'm failing to see the humour.



    When a guy who is officially a genius (i.e. a reciever of a MacArthur Fellowship) writes at length on one of his favourite topics, I'd expect a more reasoned response.



    This isn't even controversial or weird by Stallman's own standards and is close to becoming accepted wisdom in many circles.



    So what's the beef?
  • Reply 15 of 18
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MarkL



    New article calling us the Apple Taliban:

    http://theregister.co.uk/content/6/34291.html



    Not sure why they are doing this. I'd like to know.




    I've always been a fan of the Register, especially their Apple coverage, but in the last 3, maybe 4, months it has gone right down the tubes.



    Articles on Apple are now full of basic factual innaccuracies, and their rabid anti-DRM rants makes no distinction between different implementations. More importantly it fails to see that iTunes Music Store (and to a lesser degree other stores) actually weaken the RIAA by offering artists a way to endrun round the media cartels and still make money.
  • Reply 16 of 18
    The question is, what is music? That somehow copyright protection should be extended to cover music is somewhat bizarre. There's no intellectual value inherent in music. Why should it be afforded such protection? It's a scam. And now these scam artist are whining about being scammed. What a joke.
  • Reply 17 of 18
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MarkL



    Ultimately, no matter what your arguement - it is plain wrong to steal.



    ...



    There is a choice for the artist.



    ...



    There is always a choice.



    ...



    However, the mentality that the label is all greed and evil and all the money that they get stays with them is wrong.



    Most of the money is distributed to the mechanical artist and the writers. Sticking it to the record exec man is mainly sticking it to the artist, then sticking it to the distributor, then the CD shop owner and the label.







    It's not theft, it's copyright infringement.



    I can't steal something from you if you can still use it. I can however cause your income to drop in a variety of legal and non-legal ways. Copying your CD is one of those ways I could reduce your income, sometimes legally--backup for letting kids use, or for my in-car CD, or putting on my iPod (though this is apparantly illegal in Australia)--and sometimes illegally--file sharing with people who don't own the CD, playing the song in a public performance, using it as the backing track on an iMovie of my wedding etc. But if you had perfect DRM, the vast majority of those activities (even the legal ones) almost certainly would never happen as the transaction costs would be too high to be worth the bother, so the 'income' I am reducing is merely hypothetical in most cases.



    ...



    There is a very poor choice for artists and it has been getting worse. There may be good deals available but do these labels own radio stations or cable channels? Saying "There is always a choice" makes it sound more like an article of faith than a rational assessment. I'm not impressed by blind-faith in the free-market generally, but coming from someone defending excessive government-granted monopolies it's just not on.



    ...



    I'd love to see some figures backing up your assertions about where the money goes as your statements run counter to everything I've ever read on the matter as well as basic intuition about who has the power in the relationship.
  • Reply 18 of 18
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by stupider...likeafox



    So what's the beef?




    The beef is that it is really a tangent, so it is rather poitnless to bring it up in this specific thread. All this talk of copyright is less important than the real issue...



    What is the customer entitled to? Can he accept the terms of a voluntary contract, like the iTunes Music Store's, then break them without being held legally accountable?
Sign In or Register to comment.