Blog

  • Same News; Two Articles.

    It’s interesting how two newspieces can present such utterly different articles on the same event. Take the two following examples covering the re- discovery of how to bypass iTunes’ DRM:

    Hard to lower pirate flag while legal alternatives still lacking

    There’s a fun little back and forth going on between Apple and a group of programmers. Apple runs the iTunes music service, where you can download any of a gazillion songs for a buck or so.

    But those songs come with restrictions on where you can play them. So Jon Johansen, Cody Brocious, and crew (Johansen is the Norwegian who cracked the encryption on DVDs several years ago) created PyMusique — software that lets you access iTunes, pay for music, and download it without the built-in digital rights management (DRM) restrictions.

    Apple responded by closing the “hole” PyMusique exploited, and requiring all iTunes users to upgrade to the latest version of the software.

    Johansen and the PyMusique folks responded by “reopening the door” with a new version. (I am writing this on Wednesday. By the time you read this things may have changed.)

    To be fair, the PyMusique group said they weren’t interested in stripping the DRM, only in making iTunes available for Linux users. But the restrictions aren’t in the songs — they are added by Apple’s software. Johansen and crew simply decided not to add that feature.

    Who can blame them? By adding restrictions to music, Apple is going against decades of an understanding between music makers and music buyers.

    Imagine buying a music CD at the mall, bringing it home, and playing it on your stereo. Then you play it on your car’s CD player driving to work. But when you get there and pop it into the little player on your desk, you hear a voice say, “We’re sorry, but you are only authorized to play this disk on up to two CD players. You have now exceeded that. Thank you.”

    That’s exactly how iTunes and most of the other legal online music service work. When you pay for and download a song, it comes with various built-in restrictions. Maybe you can only pay it while you’re subscribed to the service. Maybe you’re limited to playing it on certain machines. Maybe you can’t copy it to other media (say, a CD to play in your car).

    And people wonder why music piracy is so rampant.
    […]

    This article is from USA Today, and can be found here.

    Now lets look at another article on the subject:

    Crack hacker stunts iTunes growth

    LONDON, England – Apple’s plans for a subscription music service from iTunes could be blighted by a hacking attack that took the American electronics giant by storm on Friday.

    The attack was alleged to have been led by legendary hacker Jon Johansen, who is credited with illegally cracking the encryption code for software protection of DVDs.

    The hackers cracked the code for Apple’s digital rights management software, allowing downloaded songs from iTunes to be passed on. Digital rights software normally allows only the purchaser to play downloaded songs on their computer and personal digital music player. This could mean somebody swapping songs with a friend or offering the songs for free to millions through filesharing sites.

    Although Apple is reported to be moving quickly to try to solve the problem, there may be no quick fix. Ken Chow, a spokesman for US information security company SafeNet, said: “Hacking communities are now so widespread via the internet that once the genie is out of the bottle, it is hard to to undo what has been done. A suitable replacement for much of the DVD encryption hacked into years ago has not yet been widely adopted.”

    Apple is reported to be planning a subscription service for iTunes to enable users to expand their music collections more rapidly. Instead of buying individual songs, consumers would pay a set fee each month and rent as many as they wanted to. This service would enable them to download thousands at a time.

    Any such product is likely to be put on hold until Apple has solved its hacking problem.

    The company may be hit by competition, however, in the interim. Online music rivals are introducing subscription services to rival iTunes.

    Napster To Go, the most prominent competition for Apple, highlights iTunes’ flaws, particularly the fact that building a music collection from scratch would cost hundreds of pounds.

    While less money is paid for subscription services, it does have to be paid indefinitely. The songs are rented. If the monthly subscription is not paid, all the downloaded music disappears -unless the files have already been copied with the aid of the illicit hacking software.

    This article is from the Billings Gazette, and can be found here.

    Needless to say, I obviously disagree with the latter view on the subject. But I find it so very interesting how different the perspectives from the same event are.

  • Canadian Copyright Reform Plans

    The new Canadian Copyright Reforms Plan have been released. It has complied with some international treaties, and in doing so ammended this article:

    It would not be legal to circumvent, without authorization, a TPM applied to a sound recording, notwithstanding the exception for private copying.

    TPM being DRM. In other words, it would be illegal for you to use the music files you purchased from iTunes or whatever to make a CD out of it. Because that would involve “circumventing” copyright protection, even though you payed for the music files, and now own them.

    I hate any law that says you cannot do with your property as you wish. I bought it, I own it, so why is it illegal to use it in anyway I see fit?

    In conformity with the WPPT, performers would be provided with moral rights in their fixed and live performances, consistent with the moral rights already provided to authors in relation to their works.

    I really don’t like the concept of “Moral Rights”. In essence it means that if the people who own the music (which isn’t the actual artist in 99% of the cases) can sue you if you use the music in a way that they don’t see fit. For example, even if I payed $5,000 to liscence an Operatic song for a movie, the company owning the music could still sue me if they didn’t like the movie.

    Copyright would also be infringed by persons who … facilitate circumvention…

    In other words, you can be sued if you make and distribute a tool that lets you modify your property (even legitimately).

    ISPs would be exempt from copyright liability in relation to their activities as intermediaries, namely, their activities as mere conduits for information, their caching activities, their hosting activities, and their information location activities.

    The only thing this act does right: internet providers are no longer liable for the acts of their users.

  • Orrin Hatch in charge of IP.

    United States Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has been appointed chairman of the new Intellectual Property Subcommittee.

    This is the man that has been bribed by the RIAA and MPAA:

    The music and movie industries, who contributed $179,928 to Hatch in 2004, are most likely very enthused about his new position.

    So in other words, a man in charge of a judicial committee has been payed approx. $180,000USD from the organizations representing a specific side to the issue he is overseeing. To me, that’s like the individual in charge of reforms in gun laws being payed $180,000 by a gun maker. Can anyone say “biased”?

    Moral: Justice is only as strong as one’s wallet.

  • My new heroes.

    Maybe its because it was a spur of the moment, but some developers (including Warren Spector) gave a very good speech on the state of gaming at the GDC. What I enjoyed most was their view on piracy, as follows:

    Q: I am one of the bad guys: I’m working on a big budget next generation console game. I want to ask about totally legalised piracy? Not Russia and grey market – I’m talking Blockbuster. 20 dollars a year you can borrow whatever you like then give it back. People are going to rent my game for 4 dollars. I won’t see any of that. They’re robbing me!

    Chris: I’m pro-piracy. I want people to play the games I make. I do it because it’s art. I think DRM is a total fucking stupid mess. If the game industry collapses and can be reborn, I’m all for it. Pirate on!

    Greg: they’re not pirating the game! Someone bought a legal copy! The world is not designed in such a way that money inherently funnels its way into your wallet!?

    Warren: I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of shit. Anyone who pirates your game wasn’t going to buy it anyway!

    As you know I’m fundamentally divided when it comes to piracy. However, I despise the corporate view on the issue, which is to say that pirates cost the game industry $4 Billion a year (which would represent half of the total revenues in the gaming industry btw). It’s a black-and-white view that is completely innacurate. So its refreshing to see when those inside the network adopt a different perspective.

  • For those here for the IE6 Vulnerability…

    I realise that some of you may be here concerning information about the IE6 Vulnerability that was exposed a few months ago. Unfortunately, with my transition of blogging platforms, I’ve lost the original article + example. My apologies if this inconveniences you in any way. Anywho, you will be able to see a demo of the code in action in the EYNTO Show (as an example of why one should drop IE and switch to FireFox or Opera.)