digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Apple Fairplay reverse engineered and FOR SALE

featured.gigaom.com — DRM-buster DVD Jon has reverse-engineered Apple's Fairplay and licensing it to companies who want their media to play on Apple's devices. Instead of breaking the DRM (something he'ss already done), Jon has replicated it, and wants to license the technology to companies that want their content (music, movies, whatever) to play on Apple devices.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bobasaurus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+53Ooh, there's some scary legal ground. Awsome, though.
    • Trention, on 10/12/2007, -14/+45Why is it awesome that this guy is trying to make money off of DRM? He's not removing it, he's trying to sell it to other companies so that they use it. Am I missing something?
    • 1021, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17I wonder if Microsoft is desperate enough to buy into this to get Zune into a better standing P-)
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+38"he's trying to sell it to other companies so that they use it"

      Yeah. He's trying to sell what apple probably consider to be 'their' DRM to other companies.


      I'm sure Apple's lawyers are gonna be working some long hours this week.

      Is it legal? Maybe.
      Apple gonna sue anyway? Probably.
    • stoanhart, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14It's awsome because it's already been broken. If you want to strip your apple music store files of DRM, that option is available for you. However, other companies may want to legally sell music online. Since the iPod has the majority of the market, being iPod compatible becomes a huge benefit for any company entering the market. This basically opens up the market to anyone.

      However, it would have been cooler if it was open source. Still, people gotta make money, and if he's licensing it for a reasonable fee, I don't see a problem with that.
    • threepio, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10Good for you Jon. Pity you won't have any takers. You might be a technical genius, but I doubt any corporation that wishes to continue to due business in the DRM-friendly United States will take you up on the offer.

      As for Apple - they're probably not overly miffed. The iTunes Store exists to sell iPods. At this point, if say, Urge or Rhapsody were to pick this up... they'd also add "existing to sell iPods" to their doctrine.

      More people using iPods = larger Halo effect = more Mac users = Steve Jobs in a Nehru suit sitting on a pile of ONE MILLION BILLION DOLLARS (insert Maniacal laughter here).
    • standardissue, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9"Why is it awesome that this guy is trying to make money off of DRM?"

      More competition is always a good thing.
    • Kolenka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I agree that this is on scary legal ground. DRM schemes tend to be patented (Apple actually bought the company that created FairPlay to get at the technology, IIRC, which had patents attached)... and even if you reverse engineer it, if there are patents on it, you can be sued for damages. :/
    • Splizxer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It's not reverse engineering if the same person who decypered the code is re-writing it, from a legal perspective anyway.
    • yasth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Apple's system is much less protected by patents then MS's system. Mostly because it just isn't nearly as good (or bad depending on how you look at it). Thus no rentals, play x number of times, and all the fancy stuff you can do with MS DRM.

      The reverse engineering protection is there, but limited. My guess is this why Jon is working with a partner he writes the specification and someone else writes the code to it. They will still probably be sued, but the damages would be hard to calculate (particularly if the content isn't in iTunes). Also by throwing their weight around too much they risk bringing anti trust heat to bear on themselves.
    • HonoredMule, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If apple has a problem with their protection scheme being supported by 3rd parties, then maybe they can sue based on patent ownership, but the sued could file an antitrust countersuit. Disallowing others to make/sell compatible hardware/media would be anticompetitive.

      PS - I wish ppl would stop trying to hijack this thread. Is it possible to actually have a DRM-related topic WITHOUT making it all about cracking?
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2DVD Jon sold out. No surprise, though.

      I guess when you're a CSS-cracking rogue in Sweden you're a champion of freedom. But nowadays he lives in the US (San Francisco, no less) and has a company, so I guess it didn't take long for the American way (Step 3: Profit!) to steal his soul.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Apple's system is much less protected by patents then MS's system. Mostly because it just isn't nearly as good (or bad depending on how you look at it). Thus no rentals, play x number of times, and all the fancy stuff you can do with MS DRM."

      It's not as "good" or "bad" as any other DRM, it's "less complicated". It's also not as covered by patents because the one patent that does cover FairPlay is very comprehensive, and not very restrictive.

      Lastly, DVD Jon is an idiot; even if he DOES sell the system, nobody can use it anywhere where it matters because of the patent covering FairPlay, so he's not going to get a lot from the sell of it. And then Apple can just go around it by releasing FairPlay 3.
    • kirkio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Real tried to do the same thing so that users of their music download service could transfer their music to the iPod. Apple ended up making a patch to disable this. For more on this:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay
  • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Well, I think what they are trying to do is legal. The problem is that Apple could try to prevent songs equipped with this fairplay lookalike from playing on the iPod. However, I'm not sure how that would be accomplished if Jon's version is nearly identical to the real Fairplay.
    • tigerdyr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Software update.

      No question that DRM is a bad idea. Duplicating it is not what will make it go away - craking it is.

      I respect Jon, but I believe he should have stuck to that.
    • threepio, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15According to the DMCA reverse engineering DRM is illegal - Jon ran into the same issue with CSS.
    • halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is similar to what Compaq did at the dawn of the PC era.

      The IBM PC was the MAJOR persona computer in the market, and due to IBM's brand name was crushing all it's competitors. The only one of those competitors to survive in the PC market was Apple.

      Most of the IBM PC was built with off the shelf components, except for the heavily protected BIOS.

      Compaq had a group of engineers reverse engineer the BIOS, and had another group write create a clean room version from the first group's specifications.

      The result was a perfectly legal clone of the IBM PC, which Compaq was more than happy to sell.

      That said, this case is different. Before the DMCA, it was legal to reverse engineer a product for the purpose of creating a compatible device. The Clean Room barrier Compaq used is a common one to prevent any hint of copyright infringement. For example, to prove that Compaq wasn't just using a copy of the IBM BIOS, but a complete ground up rewrite.

      Apple could use the apparent lack of a clean room implementation to accuse this guy of stealing code.

      Alternately, they could use the DMCA, which made most "Hacking to build a compatible device" illegal.
    • Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Actually, the DMCA makes it illegal to create, possess, or use software that circumvents and access control. In this instance, his software is not circumventing, rather it's creating an access control -- namely he's selling software that puts iTunes-compatible access control on the files so you can lock them down (more or less, FairPlay was cracked long ago).

      As of yet, there's no law against that (Apple might like to see one, though). It would be like reverse-engineering CSS (the method for encrypting DVDs) and then enabling vendors to sell encrypted DVDs without having to enter into an agreement with the DVD consortium for the rights (incidentally, you can't CSS encrypt your own DVDs because vendors aren't permitted to produce consumer recorders that can write that portion of the media and blank media generally don't support it as a result).
    • Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Real already did this once. I believe patents were used to keep them from doing it.

      The interesting thing is that once again, this hi-lights the oft-repeated lie that "Apple makes all their money saleing Ipods and almost none from Itunes Music Store!" (If that were true, Apple would WANT someone else to sale music for them!)
    • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Actually, the DMCA makes it illegal to create, possess, or use software that circumvents and access control. In this instance, his software is not circumventing, rather it's creating an access control -- namely he's selling software that puts iTunes-compatible access control on the files so you can lock them down (more or less, FairPlay was cracked long ago)."

      The DMCA actually does prevent users from recreating the DRM system (it covers reverse engineering, encryption and decryption, all three of which DVD Jon would need to use here). Selling it is going to be illegal anywhere that FairPlay is patented, and in the United States, it's a felony offense.
  • midmarky, on 10/12/2007, -18/+2W00t! stickin' it to the man!
  • tyns, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Someone's got balls.
    • dter, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Only until Apple's lawyers get on the case.
    • Evoguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15"Apple is not a litigious company" - Steve Jobs. Hahahaha.
  • chrislund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24the summary seems a bit misleading; fairplay isn't required to play media on the ipod. is he licensing this reverse-engineered fairplay to companies that want their *protected* content to play on the ipod (without going through the itunes store)?
    • hallous, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I think one of the uses for this will be the ability to play all that music you bought on iTunes on other devices (I may be wrong though). Also, like you said, they can now sell DRM'd music for the ipod from sites other then Apple's.
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6One thing to keep in mind -- it's largely the labels that are pushing for DRM. If you are, say, Real Networks, and you want to sell Sony music, Sony will *refuse* to sell to you unless DRM the tracks you sell.

      So, if you're Real Networks, and you want to sell Sony music to iPod users, you *have* to be able to DRM the tracks in a manner compatible with the iPod -- which means you *must* fairplay encode them.

      Additionally, if you're iRiver, and you want to be able to play iTunes tracks on your MP3 players, you'd need fairplay as well.
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Like iPod customers are gonna buy from a store other than iTMS, yeah right.
  • djjuice, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6this may be legal where dvd jon lives, but i dont know if it would fly in the U.S.
    i dont think companies will take up on it so much.
    • tofagerl, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3Yep, no D.M.C.A in E.U.R.O.P.E
    • mxpxpx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28he lives in California
    • kris33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Yup. He is smart, but at the same time stupid. Why move away from Norway(the best country to live in according to UN) and to USA, where cracking digital mediums are illegal? It is legal in Norway.
    • mainframe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'm fairly sure DVD Jon now lives in the US, he took a job here after he graduated.
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Why move away from Norway(the best country to live in according to UN) and to USA, where cracking digital mediums are illegal? It is legal in Norway."

      Money. He has the opportunity of becoming more wealthy in the US.
  • felderado, on 10/12/2007, -17/+13DVD Jon is a god damned legend. He'll never be forgotten in the history of cryptography.
    • digga, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16You've just totally missed the point of the article.
  • zetsurin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2hehe, that's pretty funny. as people have said though, total legal minefield. there will only be so long that this guy can keep doing what he does without ended up in the arms of Bubba.
  • Pissoff, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Long live DVD Jon! Bravo and good luck.
  • AdamFitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27Does this mean that he is going to crack his own DRM once companies start using it?
  • xshaisu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8C&D Letter in 3..2..1...
  • narduk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+37"Photo of DVD Jon by Irina Slutsky"

    Poor girl
  • flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9does anyone else smell that?........ smells like...... like....... a lawsuit from apple.
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Yes ladies and gentleman, this is why Apple needs to protect themselves. Its not cause they want to sue everybody, they just want to sue people like this guy. And I'm all for it.
    • Xanium4332, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1get the rope boys...
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Smells like Slashdot comments to me.
  • br0ken1128, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Hmm couldn't this be compared to IBM coming out with the PC and then clone makers replicating the bios so others could produce compatable hardware?

    I mean really, as long as he's not seen any of the source code to have stolen technology, wouldn't this be just as legal as cloning a PC?
    • halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@br0ken1128

      There are two differences:

      It doesn't look like a clean room implementation.

      While what Compaq did was legal at the time, the DMCA has rendered such hacking illegal. If the DMCA had been passed in the 1970's, the PC Boom would have been very different. There would have been IBM and Apple and not much else. No Dell, Compaq, HP or the like except as manufacturers of peripherals of using compel different operating systems.
    • Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4DMCA explicitly allows for reverse engineering (not removal) for the purpose of interoperability.
  • kayjay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2damn, i just wanted to submit the story. and i agree he doesnt break the DRM, but rather add DRM to other ppl's songs.
  • fkamthong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not sure if he used cleanroom reverse-engineering though...
  • TexasScott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hope he checked with his attorney :-)
  • opensourcepro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I don't see this business model lasting too long.
  • br0ken1128, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Yeah. He's trying to sell what apple probably consider to be 'their' DRM to other companies."

    Technically, he's just selling a compatable DRM .. or a DRM clone in my opinion, I like the IBM reference.. Apple's DRM is essentially an IBM PC, and Jon has just released the first HP compatable ;)
    • Kolenka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Difference is that IBM also forgot to /patent/ the original BIOS. By the time HP and the like had their clones on the market, IBM couldn't patent it anymore.

      The DMCA and the recent patent filing rampages have changed that landscape quite a bit.
  • felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What would be great is if you could play iTunes-purchased media on non-Apple devices.

    I don't care much about buying more DRM'ed media from other sources. I'm happy with my *ahem* ripped CDs and the few things I purchase from iTunes.

    I would like the option, however, to use other media players with iTunes. Apple's not going to be opening that up anytime soon (barring a court order), so a little reverse-engineering action would be welcome.
    • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Definitey. At least for music you can burn to a CD and thus remove DRM. That's going to be tougher for video since it doesn't look like Apple is going to include burning to DVD burning functionality in iTunes with iTV coming out.

      Does anybody still burn CDs in iTunes to actually listen to and not to break the DRM? I wonder how long before Apple takes that functionality out.
    • felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think Apple will ever take that functionality out. There are some very legitimate fair-use reasons to make a CD of your music, whether it's for backup purposes, or to play it in a CD player if you don't have a way to hear your iPod through speakers.

      Apple knows damn well that people burn CDs to break the DRM, or to make mixes for friends. They've been following the letter of the law instead of the spirit when it comes to the RIAA. It's in Apple's interest for people to do what they like with music, because it sells more iPods. They just keep the DRM on there because they couldn't work with the record labels if they didn't.
    • DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If the iPod and iTMS never existed, this burning feature would already be long-gone and all audio CD's would only contain DRMed WMA.

      I'm pretty sure Apple is holding its own against RIAA's pressures to remove the feature, just like they are trying to keep the price at 99 cents a tune, and have the most liberal DRM restrictions on the market.
    • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"just like they are trying to keep the price at 99 cents a tune"

      They're even failing at that. I've seen higher prices for certain songs in the iTS already. Plus, all albums are no longer a flat $9.99. Rasputina's Thanks for the Ether was $11.99 and How We Quit the Forest was a buy-by-track only, making the price for the whole album around $15.
  • tainc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Johansen doesn’t think what he’s doing is illegal; he’s adding DRM rather than breaking it." ~ DVD Jon claims that he hasn't actually reverse-engineered FairPlay, just made something very much like it.
  • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I wanted to say, "Jon! How could you?!" but I get the idea that he's doing this for the legal test: by licensing it for distribution to companies, he effectively seats himself right in the 'compatibility' clause.
    • eclectro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's interesting. It's not cut and dry. Out of all the DRM around, Apples seems to be the most fair, if you could ever dress up a pig. Helping it become even more of a standard would help kill off other more draconian (i.g. microsoft) frormats. I don't see this as a bad thing(tm), one way or another.
  • Vizin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'll admit I'm no expert on Apple's DRM procedures, but from what I understand, they've beaten previous DRM workarounds by simply changing the DRM and releasing a new version of iTunes (and of course forcing this new version on customers to continue using ITMS), but this seems different because it's about getting DRM'd files on the iPod, not letting iTunes DRM'd files play on other devices.

    Doesn't this mean the only way Apple could get around this (excluding legal actions) would be to release an iPod update that removes support for older (i.e. the one this is "based" on) versions of FairPlay?

    In that case, Apple would not only have to release a new version of iTunes, but also an iPod software update, and re-encode all users' previously downloaded songs into the new version.

    As I said before, I'm no expert on FairPlay, so I may be missing some critical information, but this seems like a problem that Apple may have trouble finding a technical solution for.

    Well, there's always legal action.
  • haggie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2AllOfMP3 should buy the DRM.

    They could market that their downloads are compatible with the iPod and iTMS and even charge a premium. iPod owners are just stupid enough to believe that these tracks would be "better" than regular, non-DRM mp3s.
    • bbrew, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Apple should SELL the implementation. Make it only run under OS X.
  • bunni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Reminds me of the Connectix Virtual Game Station - a Sony Playstation emulator for the MacOS - it was reverse engineered, perfectly legal, and in stores for a time. 3 court cases later Sony was forced to pay off Connectix and in exchange it appears Connectix agreed to stop shipping/producing CVGS.

    http://insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ArticleID=2334

    I still remember playing Metal Gear Solid on my blueberry G3 tower. The final case was post-DMCA (2001), and may bode well for DVD Jon.

    • Bootes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I believe that Sony bought the product just to stop it from being distributed.

      Anyways all I want is for someone to release firmware for my Rokus that let them play iTunes Music Store purchasees. :)
  • AlexaW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This would only be of benefit to companies like Real, who tried to do the same thing with its "Rhapsody" service. Apple made a change that prevented Fairplay-like songs from working.

    So Microsoft could license this to make songs to sell for the iPod? Silly. There is no big market for songs anyway - its the player that Microsoft wants to sell. Additionally, there's a difference between making Fairplay-like songs and making a player that can play Fairplay songs from iTS, so this isn't useful for the Zune. And why would Microsoft see any benefit from making its users able to play music sold by Apple? They want to sell music themselves, and in particular rent it at $15/month.

    This is a lot like the big to-do about cracking AirTunes - when all it allowed was sending other audio streams to the Airport Express.
  • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1one word: LAWSUIT
  • n808, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1RealNetworks reverse-engineered Apple's FairPlay more than 2 years ago. Since then you can buy music (AAC @ 192 kbps) from their music store and transfer it to any iPod, protected using FairPlay DRM. DVD-Jon is late to the game in this case.

    2004-07-26:
    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040726-4030.html
    • JackAxe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It also hasn't worked for about 2 years. :)
  • DCstewieG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ehh...I wish he was devoting all of his attention to the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray DRM.
  • the8toes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This was (is?) already done by RealNetworks, they called it Harmony and it was used to allow iPods to play music bought on the RealNetworks music store
  • pseudoastronaut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1billion dollar idea? huh...huh.....yeah I'm talking to you Yahoo.
  • Hyprtime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Ooh, there's some scary legal ground."

    Actually, the legal grounds are pretty explicit on this. You could sell this reverse-engineered DRM if and only if it had been reversed-engineered in a black box environment. That is, DVD Jon would've had to developed this without looking at any of Apple's FairPlay code, talking to anyone who knew of Apple's FairPlay code and would need to prove that he reverse-engineered it in that manner.

    If not, there's no scary legal ground. The second a company uses this, they'll be sued out of existence.
    • CharlesV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0hasn't it also been argued that looking at the OUTPUT of FairPlay would constitute a non-black box environment? Using a tool to break the too, as it would be.
  • Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"This may not be good news for iTunes the store, but it could make the iPod even more popular", I presume the article just got that the wrong way round...
  • randysouth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Sniff, sniff... what's that I smell? A lawsuit?
  • skellener, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If he can make money on it, more power to him.

    Of course any company can sell music right now to play on iPods (or Zunes) by simply NOT using DRM at all and selling open MP3s and AAC files (or AIFFs or WAVs, etc).
    • DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah and that was a good argument companies could use to pressure the RIAA to stop using DRM.

      But now, thanks to Jon, this point is moot...
  • codenoise, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What am I missing here? My ipod will play mp3s just fine. I've got seven albums from emusic that I listen to all the time, as well as several CDs that I've ripped with various bits of software, i.e. not all ripped with itunes.

    It sounds like this would be more useful for the other direction. Letting Apple DRMed files play on non apple devices.
    • sjgmoney, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1How many other music stores/services are there out there? That's his potential customer list for this service. DRM'd music that will play on the iPod that didn't come from the Itunes store.

      Emusic is great but you don't exactly see any major studio releases on there, do you? That's because they dont' want their music sold without DRM. So if you are Napster, or Rhapsody etc, vendors currently using Play for Sure DRM, you can sell these tracks so they'll play on the Ipod without any modifications. = Major Studios happy about this
    • DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Do you really think the major online music stores will invest tons of money to get their millions of tunes in another format, based on a hack that could stop working in two weeks?

      The Major studios would not be able to allow this anyway, as much as they want to, they simply cannot encourage the use of a cracked DRM scheme.
  • monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't get this.

    Apple could easily break his implementation tomorrow by releasing an update.

    Also everybody and their mom could put their content on iTunes.

    what's the point.
    • dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I believe then they would also break compatiblity with all non-firmware upgraded iPods as well. That would annoy a lot of people. (But Please "BIG MUSIC")..
  • pixelfox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1It's stupid. He takes something, reverse engineers it, and then sells it. How does that help us?
  • scooter17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3As much as I love Apple, I think we can all agree that DRM sucks.
  • bufbarnaby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1The tightwad (Jew) at the helm will sue for sure.
  • DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thank you Jon, now the RIAA will force Apple to have a much more secure and limited DRM that's hardware tied just like the Zune.

    The end result may be worse than what we started with.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.