What is "Fairplay," exactly?
 

The new layer of "digital rights management" software that Apple has put into iTunes 4, the 1.3 iPod update and Quicktime 6.2 is called "Fairplay." It provides, for instance, for digital markers so that files can only be copied a certain number of times, can "expire" and so forth. Before I more or less irretrievably load this stuff on our machines, can anybody tell me what it is and what else it does? Apple haven't been terribly up-front about this and that does induce a little anxiety. Like, what exactly did they give to the record companies to get their new marketing deal?

All thoughts and knowledge would be appreciated.

I'm not really sure what "Fair Play" is, but I did look up "Deauthorize Computer" in the help menu because I saw that was a new choice in one of the iTunes drop downs.

Here is what I found in the Help:

Thanks. That's very interesting. How do you suppose "de-authorization" would work? By calling home to a data base somewhere or other that holds a list of the tunes we are authorized to listen to? I expect this will become obvious if de-authorizing requires an active Internet connection. Still feel better if they told us something about this though.

I found this on Cnet:

http://news.com.com/2100-1027-998675.html?tag=fd_top

Just a bit about "Fair Play" in it.

Perhaps the new Quicktime Pro 6.2 documentation talks about this 'fairplay' issue as I imagine that Quicktime Pro 6.2 can encode with restrictions?

I know intel is developing a new processor that has this enabled on the chip. so a media company, whether it be software, music, movies, etc etc., can put some lines of coding in that will not show up in copied, or pirated versions of it. therefore if the processor does not detect this little copy protection code it will not run the app or file on your computer. they are getting more crafty at this copy protection stuff, which means hackers will race to be the first to crack it. I believe i read about this in wired magazine, I cannot remember though.

Fairplay
 

A little more info in this article.

I also read that when the tune is burned to a CD (and I guess that means when it is converted to AIFF), it loses all the Fairplay restrictions. (Sorry, I can't find the link for that article.)

what would be the point of expanding an mp3 file to aiff?

... if you wanted to burn a standard music CD of your favorite tunes.

but, wood-dent (pun) they turn to muddled crap?!

expanding an mp3 to a ~40MB AIFF file wood make a lot of airy space. perhaps that's the sound you're looking for?

No, an mp3 converted to AIFF will sound identical to the mp3.

(OF course, one could argue that all mp3's sound like muddled crap to begin with, but that's a different story!)

i really doubt the veracity of your claim.

of course? wth does that mean? i can't hear you! not to demean, but for open room listening, it's not a big deal, audio-wise. anyone who tells you different is selling snake oil, and claims they grok your cognitive hearing skills and general aural abilities. and claim that you listen to crap music anyway, so it doesn't matter.

mervtormel,

exactly what veracity are you doubting?

mervTormel,

have you ever converted an mp3 to AIFF?

my efforts to clarify
 

- we're talkin' about AAC files here, not MP3.

possible reasons to expand AAC to AIFF:

- burn to CD
- edit using audio software like Peak
- remove 'Fairplay' protection

also, i have no AAC files to test on, but i believe iTunes will not permit you to transcode AAC to MP3. if this is true, i bet all of QuickTime will restrict transcoding AAC to MP3. so one more reason to expand AAC to AIFF would be:

- intermediate step in converting AAC to MP3

------------------

if anyone has any AAC files, i'd be curious about 2 things:

- if i'm correct about not being permitted to transcode to MP3.

- how bad do AAC files converted to MP3 really sound? (it might not be as bad as people seem to expect. i've downsampled MP3's from 256CBR to my preferred 160VBR, and the quality hit isn't very noticeable.)

what is this world coming to?
 

ALittlePeaved is right and mervTormel is wrong. what is this world coming to?

- expanding a compressed format to an uncompressed format produces the identical output.

Re: what is this world coming too?
 

ok. thanks for the input.

i have no reason to convert an mp3 to aiff, so, no, i haven't. but thanks for the meaningful question.

"exactly what veracity are you doubting?" does not grammatically compute ;] but, when it comes to peaved, well...

i've bought one AAC file from iMS, and, no, it is not mutable to mp3 thru itunes.

Re: Re: what is this world coming too?
 

mervTormel,

There was no grammatical error, either!

What is "Fairplay", exactly?
 

i'll take a stab at answering the question.

Fairplay is a DRM technology embedded in AAC music files downloaded from the iMS.

no one seems to know the mechanics of this technology yet.

the practical effect of Fairplay is to restrict unlimited copying of purchased tracks, IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM - the AAC file, while giving the user complete freedom once the tracks have been converted out of AAC.

IMHO, this is quite a brilliant strategy. it gives the end user some flexibility, but will definitely impede mass electronic distribution.

there are two end runs, but both have disadvantages:

- you can unlimited copy the tracks in AIFF format, either via networks, or physically via CD's. you'll have to do a single conversion step, and these AIFF tracks will have no quality dropoff from the original, but it would require unrealistic amounts of bandwidth to transfer via networks.

- you can unlimited copy the tracks in MP3 format via networks. but you'll have to do two conversion steps, and the tracks will have a recompression quality dropoff.

if the user chooses to keep the tracks in their original AAC format, the DRM restrictions seem quite reasonable to me:

- use on 3 AAC compatible computers (currently only OS X machines, but Windows is likely coming soon). the user can change which 3 computer he uses, as long as Apple provides support. if Apple exploded tomorrow, i believe the AAC files will still be playable/convertible on those 3 computers.

- use on an unlimited number of AAC compatible handhelds (currently only the iPod, and likely to remain that way). the caveat is that if you want to load a track onto your friend Sally's iPod, you'll have to physically connect her iPod to one of your 3 authorized computers.

it's an interesting attempt to balance user rights w intellectual property rights. and it's probably better for the user than anything else big media is going to agree to in the forseeable future.

of course, Fairplay means i'll personally steer clear of iMS for a while. my stereo component is a non-iPod MP3 player, and unless/until i buy an iPod, i don't think iMS makes much sense in my case.

Re: What is "Fairplay", exactly?
 

reasonable summary, petey.

Just to clarify:

original AAC file, but NOT the original CD track! (that's probably what petey meant to say)

AAC is a lossful compression format.

Like mp3's, AAC files are LOWER QUALITY audio than the original audio CD tracks.

thank you for your help, peaved.

you define 'noise' in the phrase 'signal-to-noise ratio'.

According to Apple's website (although I have not tried it), iTunes 4 also allows you to encode your own AAC files.

Apparently, these files do not have any DRM restrictions... is this correct?

Re: quality of iMS AAC tracks
 

If you start with an audio CD and encode it to AAC, that is true.
But in the context of this discussion, it should be pointed out that Apple claims that the AAC tracks are encoded from the studio masters. This means that it is possible - at least in principle - for the AAC tracks to be comparable in quality to audio CD tracks.

hayne,

in terms of the iMS you're wrong here: no matter what the quality of the original input, the conversion process to AAC is by nature *lossy*, meaning you lose information in exchange for trimming size.

but you are correct in a theorectical sense: if you were to compress to AAC at a very high data rate, say around 320kbps, the human ear wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

apple is encoding at a much lower rate. they seems to be claiming 128AAC is equivelent to 160CBR MP3. if this is true, then the loss is likely to be noticeable to a reasonably perceptive ear.

(FWIW, i believe apple is using 128kbps not only for the obvious bandwidth reasons, but also to make Fairplay more effective.)

hayne,

Where does Apple make the claim that they are encoding from studio masters?

petey,

why would 128kbps "make Fairplay more effective"?

Compressed vs Uncompressed Formats
 

AAC & JPG are compressed formats. AIFF and TIFF and uncompressed formats.

the point where the human ear can no longer reliably differentiate between an AAC and a CD format AIFF is probably somewhere around 320kbps.

the point where an AAC is acutally of equal quality (as much sound 'information') to a CD format AIFF would be at a much higher bitrate.

the quality of an AIFF is determined by its bitrate and sample rate, both of which are fixed for CD's.

working from a studio master, you could possibly produce an AAC file with an equal actual sound quality to a CD format AIFF. it depends on whether or not there are limits at the top end of the AAC specification. if AAC permits a bitrate and sample rate higher than CD format AIFF, then you could end up with an AAC that is better than CD quality.

it's the same rationale that explains why you can have a JPG that of higher quality than a TIFF.

petey,

you are way, way off about "the human ear".

petey,

you haven't answered this question:

why would 128kbps "make Fairplay more effective"?

peaved,

128AAC is going to right around the border of Acceptable/Not Acceptable in terms of quality for most people. (for me it's slightly on the Not Acceptable side of the border, but that's besides the point.)

transcoding something that borderline to MP3 (and thereby removing the Fairplay protection) should leave the quality of the MP3 at very low standards. probably around what you'd get encoding a CD to MP3 at 96kbps (i'm guessing, of course.) this will probably be unacceptable for many people.

if apple had encoded at 192AAC, you could probably make decent MP3's out of that. and then you could send them around the net.

maybe i'm being DRM paranoid here, and Apple's reasons for 128kbps is just bandwidth related, but i doubt it.

PS why aren't you taking your Xanax like i told you to?

petey,

thanks for the reply. strange little theory.

anyway, are you going to apologize to hayne, now that you finally understand what he posted?

Apparently Steve Jobs said this during his presentation on April 28.
See, e.g. http://www.macnn.com/news/19276

From what I understand the AAC files you create by ripping a CD are OK, no *DRM* there.

The files from Apple have some kind of encrypted signature. The validation across computers, or deauthorisation is linked to that key. I suppose it's probably like GPG keys.

Apparently, if you buy an AAC encoded song from *Apple Music* (ha!) and burn it AIFF style, then decide to re-rip the tune back to MP3 or AAC the quality would drop through the earth. So I suppose it doesn't matter which bitrate it's at if people want to *steal* the music.

The problem comes in when your hard drive fails or if you have some problem and you have to reninstall your OS in a hurry. Extreme. Lets say you have *authorised* three (or just one it doesn't matter) computers and one decided to die on you. If you haven't deauthorised it then you're screwed. After you do what you need to do to correct any problem the music you've bought from your account can only be shared on two computers, or you could always buy it again. I think this is right. Somebody test it ;)

*DRM* is just a fancy acronym for *you will buy my product and I don't trust you*.

bassi,

i'm not sure that you wouldn't be able to deauthorize a computer that had exploded into a fine mist of silicone and arsenic.

i bet the 3 keys are managed off the owner's appleID, and so the apple public key (?) could be changed at the request of the appleID owner, even without the physical existence of the non-existant computer. but i'm way out of my league here - request for info at the bottom of this post.

if all i'm assuming is true, it should mean that apple could, in theory, allow you to redownload the files that went blooey on yr harddrive, for some token redownload fee to cover the bandwidth.

the replacement file apple would let you download would give you no additional DRM abilities over the file you lost.

-------------

can anyone give a short explantion of the mechanics of public/private keys in this context, and how they'd function around the troika of the AAC file, the authorized computer, and the AppleID login.

the part that really confuses me is what goes down when a new machine gets autorized.

- obviously, the AAC file doesn't change.

- so does apple have to write some key onto the harddrive of the newly authorized machine?

- if so, where and what is it writing on the machine.

- and if that's right, if you lost or fried a machine, it would mean you'd lose one authorization.

all that said, it doesn't seem like the most elegant solution, which is why i'm curious how the DRM mechanically works.

it seems to me like there is some public/private key system where nothing has to written onto an authorized machine.

any experts out there>

Catastrophic hard drive failure is enough if the keys are not stored in nvram, if they do exist. I'm no expert on their DRM strategy, the key issue is a little foggy. Somebody will go through this someday and it'll be enlightening.

Here's some more info on the DRM stuff.

edit: another article, links therein are informative.

My thanks to the people trying to keep the thread on topic.

The RIAA's tactics aside, they have good reason not to trust people and a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their product.

On the other hand, it's my opinion that it is/was their methods and pricing policies--along with technology--that created this mess in the first place.

my guess as to how it works
 

Here's my guess as to how it works.
(It can only be a guess since I'm in Canada and hence unable to experiment with it to check any theories.)

I guess that when you authorize a computer to play a song, you connect to an Apple server and that server gives your computer a key (specially calculated numerical data) which gets stored on your hard disk somewhere. You are only allowed to have 3 such keys and somehow the key is tied to particular characteristics (serial number?) of your computer.
And then when iTunes tries to play that song, it looks for the key.


People with ability to purchase songs could test this theory by looking to see what files get changed by the purchase.

Andrew, I like to compensate for products I use. I just like to do what I like with the product, within the bounds of the law. I agree with your opinion on RIAA tactics, they seem a little hamfisted.

Hayne, that's a good idea. There might be a file which holds the info in /library or ~/library. I wonder if it can be opened up by a editor? It'll probably spit back encrypted info of some sort. It has got to be the serial number for the identity along with your Apple ID, you can spool that just by getting info on your mac etc.

The music server has to identify who you are uniquely, when you setup an account Apple groks your serial number and/or Apple ID and probably uses an algorithm to scramble that, the private key, then it continues to create a 'public' key from that.

You keep a copy of this 'public key' in your database, synced with Apple's central server which has the key to decrypt your password and validate you. Deauthorisation just deletes your key and *might* invalidate your private key with Apple. You *might* want to reauthorise your computer again. Working offline allows you to continue with your music, theoretically.

Actually sounds a bit flakely, illogical and overly complicated *must think harder*. Anyway I'm in the same boat, outside the US so I can't test the 'changed file theory'.

thanks, hayne! (for the info about Steve Jobs' claims)

Personally, i think it's not feasible or very likely to happen for the vast majority of songs. There are lots of reasons why it will not happen.

DRM summary article
 

This article summarizes known information about Apple's digital rights management:


"iTunes Music Store Digital Rights Summary"

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/...29195456.shtml

www.macrumors.com

bassi,

good links.

the most interesting item i found is from an apple document:

"Initializing the drive will not deauthorize the computer. If you will be initializing the drive, deauthorize the computer first, then initialize the drive."

aside from trying to figure out the relationship between those 2 sentences, it seems to indicate no keys are stored on the hard drive.

so either keys are stored in NVRAM, or nothing is stored on the user's computer. if nothing is stored on the user's computer, how could this all work?

To answer my previous question:

"AACs you rip from CD yourself (via iTunes) have no restrictions." - www.macrumors.com

petey,

You are off track again. A computer is computer, NOT a hard drive (obviously).

Apple specified it is possible to authorize 3 COMPUTERS, not hard drives.

There are quite a few ways to implement this mechanism, time will tell which technique Apple employed.

perhaps...
 

- apple keeps the MAC addresses of your 3 authorized machines on its servers.

- if you initialize yr harddrive and try to play an M4P, yr computer contacts apple servers and redownloads a working key to yr harddrive by verifying the MAC address.

if this is true, it would mean you would lose an authorization if yr machine exploded or was lost.

petey,

I missed that one [hard drive initialisation]. Maybe it is the MAC address rather than the confusing scheme I dreamt up. Sharp people those Apple folks.

So the question is, can it be spoofed? Check out this search. Doesn't look secure to me.

my two cents is it seems like quality is great enough for headphone listening off your computer while you're working, even if it does not pass muster for the godzilla-level audiophile.

I also made an allowable Music CD from the newly downloaded Sheryl Crow album and in my car with a standard CD player, the sound quality is just fine.
I suspect with extremely high-end systems you might be able to detect differences, but for general bebopping, I've not been able to note any significant lossyness.

additionally, for some reason, i've found that setting itunes4 equalizers to "vocal booster" seems better for some reason than the "rock" setting I used to have itunes3 on.

just as a caveat, we should probably limit our discussion to what is actual allowable usage of the downloaded files. ;)

I'm not into downloading at all regardless of the source i have to rip my own music from originals that i own.... I've tried to do some searching but there are too many biased meaning on the net to get straight answers can someone please give me a good sound MP3 to AAC lesson... How does a 128 AAC really stack up against an MP3 at lets say 192 where i used to keep them? I spent the last two days re-ripping my cd's to this format wanting to save space cause my iPod was just way to full...

Rod76, there's a discussion and link to a comparison here

Thanks but this article which i spent a bit of time siffting through yesterday bugs me.... Too many opions not enough hard facts and data... Precicly the biased stuff i had already encountered.... Seems at the root of this discusion people know that this is a PC/Apple thing so they take pot shots at AAC and cry cause Ogg is not where they think it should be...

Rod76,

apple is claiming 128AAC is as good as 160CBR MP3.

this seems reasonable to me, as CBR produces generally lousy results with MP3.

(FWIW, i encode most MP3's at 160VBR, with the stuff i listen to most often at 192VBR.)

Actually it's not a PC/Mac thing. From the GUI you can use Vorbis Rage and Ogg Drop. The AAC format allows the use of *DRM* with no hangups. That's fine. I would like to see adoption of the Ogg format as a choice, maybe in 3-6 months with 10.3.

Ogg is a little smaller than MP3 at equivalent bitrates and the *quality* is good. Subjective of course.

If all else fails, try making your own tests and comparisons, and let your own ears be the judge.

lerkfish,

rock eq usually boosts highs and lows. compression artifacts are more present there, so it can sound worse.

vocal eq boosts the midrange, where most of the "information" exists (because our brains adapted to frequencies of human speech) so sometimes bad recordings sound better or more "clear".

audio encoding algorithms try to balance the job of reducing file size while preserving the most important information, but that varies a lot depending on the source material and other factors.

UN-Fairplay
 

I hope everyone is aware that the record companies already receive money from most sales of blank consumer audio cassette tapes and blank audio CD-R media.

This is supposedly to offset losses from illegal copying, but it is quite a scam- because you pay the money no matter how you use the blank media.

Re: Re: Re: what is this world coming too?
 

Best not to sweat the small stuff.

But there was a confusion in your question.

Merv doubted a certain CLAIM (of yours) to veracity. You asked him the question: What VERACITY (of mine) he doubted--not the question: What claim (of mine) to veracity he doubted.

Merv could not be expected to respond "I doubted the following veracity of yours, which is ....", for then he would be conceding your point as true and also saying that he doubted it.

Small stuff. But on this, Merv was clear-headed.

no, itMS does _not_ have the song, "She's got freckles on her, but..."

i am depressed.


thanx, Roy!

[oops, nevermind]

Very interesting, Roy.

veracity is a noun, as in person, place or thing.

exactly what "fred anderson" are you doubting?

exactly what "siberia" are you doubting?

exactly what "toaster" are you doubting?

mervTormel,

better get that anti-depressant dosage figured out, man! (not trying to be offensive, just basing recommendation on your remark that you are depressed.)

your last post is anything but clear-headed.

veracity IS a noun.

however, noun is NOT the definition of veracity.

sarcasm
 

sarcasm
n : witty language used to convey insults or scorn;

mervTormel, you're the moderator. nice job.

As a reforming thread killer and perpetrator of diversionary posts, this exchange is about to make me fall off the wagon.

How to Keep Score
 

remember, if you find yourself arguing with peaved, then you've lost the game.

It's a time zone problem. Did I really see a line go by about somebody having freckles on her veracity?! Complex, a little kinky, but all I really wanted to know is what Fairplay is reporting to One, Infinite Loop about our music collections. Thank you for all the time and, uh, intellect.

J.

Maybe it's time for a new, on topic thread to re-appear.

This one is going nowhere mighty fast.

Thread closed.


Edit - there is a new thread about this here. Please try to keep it on topic. Thank you.