Hacker reopens iTunes Music Store back door | iLounge News


Hacker reopens iTunes Music Store back door

Only a day after Apple blocked the original version of PyMusique,  Jon Lech Johansen says that he has posted an updated version of his software that allows users to once again tap into the iTunes Music Store and buy songs without digital rights management (DRM) protection.

In a post on his blog entitled “So sue me,” Johansen writes: “The iTunes Music Store recently stopped supporting iTunes versions below 4.7 in an attempt to shut out 3rd party clients. I have reverse engineered the iTMS 4.7 crypto which will once again enable 3rd party clients to communicate with the iTMS.”

« Apple provides further iPod Camera Connector info

Toyota/Lexus AVIC-100i iPod adapter available »

Related Stories



Why is it that some people mistakenly think they have a born right to hack into systems just because they have the ability to do so? It is malicious damage and should certainly be dealt with as such.
Hackers, like so called grafiti artists, are a pain in the ass full stop.
Their arrogance is breathtaking and all they achieve is to cause hassle for others. Their supporters are nearly as arrogant and if they don’t like the iTunes shop then they should continue buying CDs and stop whining – nobody is forcing anybody to buy from iTunes.

kind regards

Posted by ipodrog in Germany on March 23, 2005 at 5:42 AM (CST)


“The real beef Apple have is solely the fact that they can’t restrict your use of what you have properly paid for.”

F**cking idiot.  If you don’t like Apple’s terms, don’t use the service.

Posted by Quoth_the_Raven in Herndon, VA on March 23, 2005 at 5:58 AM (CST)


I love my iPod and have no particular love for MS but am I the only one thinking if this was a MS app/service people would be saying “cr@ppy MS, buy Apple they dont have these sorts of problems”?? ;)

Posted by robroe in Manchester, UK on March 23, 2005 at 6:08 AM (CST)


Is that the most elequant argument you could come up with?

If you read what I’d written you’d have seen that I haven’t used Apple’s service - and have no intention of doing so.

I find it faintly amusing how no one seems to be concerned with the issue that slowly Apple are going to make your use of these files more and more restricted and yet all you can do is have a go at someone who’s written some software that you don’t have to use.

And don’t give me the “but I’ll now have to install a new version of iTunes thanks to this hack” - you had to do that recently anyway and what “benefit” did the new version give you - oh yeah, a restriction on how you can use something you bought but don’t own.

How would you feel if you bought a new car and at it’s first service the manufacturer (without your being able to choose) decided to make changes to how the car drove?

You didn’t want them to do it.

It was your car - or so you thought.

But no - like US foreign policy, this was done unilaterally simply because THEY decided what YOU can do.

In the past “digital” was a sign of increased quality, convenience and was generally for the good of the consumer - these days “digital” pretty much signifies more control for the corporations and less freedoms for the consumers.

Posted by PugRallye on March 23, 2005 at 6:12 AM (CST)


You guys saying “Apple is getting our money anyways” need remember that Apple is barely evening out on iTMS.  The record indusry takes something like $.75 of each $.99 sold on iTMS, artists get a few cents, and the rest goes to Apple to run and maintain the whole thing.  iTMS mainly exists, in Apple’s eyes, to support the iPod.  By cracking iTMS to be DRM-free, Apple is losing iPod sales.

I hafta echo the opinion that if you don’t like what Apple’s offering, DON’T USE IT.  I think what Jon did with DVDs was totally fair, because there simply wasn’t a way to watch DVDs at all on Linux.  With this though, he’s just being a pain in the ass.  Apple isn’t preventing him from listening to music.  If he wants to use iTMS then he better accept the terms that Apple offers it on, or go to a record store.

Posted by Bemanix88 on March 23, 2005 at 6:13 AM (CST)


That’s a very good point - Apple don’t make much money out of this - the record companies do.

This (closing the hack etc) was doubtless driven by them as was the decision to restrict the number of people who can share you files and how many devices you can copy them onto.

So I’ll just assume Apple are acting their behest - how’s that for a compromise?

But my main issue is in the lack of control consumers have over what they bought. Or rather, what they paid for.

As for the don’t use it and accept the terms they’re both fair points - however, the terms change AFTER you’ve paid your money!

That surely is a bad precedent?

Posted by PugRallye on March 23, 2005 at 6:23 AM (CST)


“As for the don’t use it and accept the terms they’re both fair points - however, the terms change AFTER you’ve paid your money!

That surely is a bad precedent?”

Nope.  That’s just Apple, and the fanboy sychophants just keep letting them get away with it.

Posted by stark23x on March 23, 2005 at 7:01 AM (CST)


A couple obvious points:

a) It’s not Apple who demands DRM, it’s the RIAA demading it FROM Apple and Apple’s customers.

b) The advantage isn’t just convenience, it’s the ability to buy just one song you like.

Lots o’ good trolling here today, though :)

Posted by Nagromme on March 23, 2005 at 7:09 AM (CST)


Go DVD Jon is all I have to say. I would hug and kiss every person who breaks any DRM scheme out there designed to limit *my* use of things *I* paid for.

If it’s a “rental” scheme like Napster’s sub service then DRM serves a bonafide purpose, but for paid-for software and music it is anethma that should be resisted by anyone with an IQ above roomtemp. Anyone criticising him needs beaten with a 2x4 until this corporate bootlicking stops polluting your minds. I guess it’s one more example of the sort of psychological mentality where victims come to sympathise with their abusers over time.

Posted by Code Monkey in Midstate New York on March 23, 2005 at 7:13 AM (CST)



The terms are still more than fair for a 99 cent product.

Posted by Cyberwhore in Perth on March 23, 2005 at 7:13 AM (CST)


“The terms are still more than fair for a 99 cent product.”

Really? Then why does my generally far less than $0.99 CD track have *no* restrictions?

The terms are no more fair than the notion that your car dealer should be able to tell you what days of the week you can drive and what route you must take even though you paid for the car.

Posted by Code Monkey in Midstate New York on March 23, 2005 at 7:14 AM (CST)


You haven’t bought the track you have a licence to use it. Same as buying a cd. Sell the cd you no longer have the licence.

I’ll stick with your car anology.
You have a drivers licence ... the powers that be tell you the maximum speed you can drive at right?

Posted by Cyberwhore in Perth on March 23, 2005 at 7:19 AM (CST)


For anyone who thinks that this is okay because you still have to pay for the song consider this. One, I believe that DVD Jon’s program will allow you to redownload songs that you lost due to HD failure. Now consider that you have bought 200 songs. We all know that it will cost apple money when you redownload those files. And they do not have that cost built into their priceing, so they are losing money.
Two, if you walk into a car dealer and buy a two door sedan, but as you leave you take the keys for the four door luxury sedan. Hey whats the difference, you paid for it, so you get a couple more options, big deal you paid for it right? I don’t think anyone would read that as fair. And if Apple sold a DRM free track don’t you think it would cost more, ala the Luxury Sedan?

Posted by graphicgeek in Utica, NY on March 23, 2005 at 7:33 AM (CST)




oh come ON!

:enter stream of consciousnesss writing here:

This thread is sounding more and more like an     M$ Windoze XP forum!

I swear I wish Apple never supported the Windoze market with the ipod/itunes duo.  Now look whats happening!!!  All you sick windoze freaks who were writing stupid hacks that made the windoze world a living hell, now brought them into the Mac realm.  THANKS, you bastards…  Keep your trash in your own yard, and leave us “non-geeks” alone.  You know, Apple was doing fine until they decided to support the “unsupportable” platform.  Now it seems they (Apple) threw out the baby with the bath water.  Wonderful.  Whats next, viruses? spyware? junk mail?  Service Packs? YAY!  I love PCs and all their self-rightous/ignorant users who make life a living hell.

:exit stream of consciousness writing:



Whoa, did I say that out loud?

Posted by apple juice in USA on March 23, 2005 at 7:37 AM (CST)


I think (even though it appeared to the opposite) that we’re in agreement stark23x.

The fact that Apple or whoever can change the usage terms after you’ve paid for something IS a bad precedent.

And I think it’s just the start.

As for Apple needing the DRM to sell iPods - I’d not agree. The sales from iTMS are to upsell iPods, but if you could have DRM’d or DRM free AAC files from iTMS it would make no difference. What it does do is RESTRICT people to buying from iTMS if they a) have or b) want an iPod.

Posted by PugRallye on March 23, 2005 at 7:42 AM (CST)


This guy’s a jack**s.  Find something better to do with your time then breaking the law and rallying a bunch of antisocial delinquents behind your “cause.”  Maybe getting a job would be a start.  And for the rest of you b**ching about Apple, go somewhere else.  Buy an iRiver, Dell, Sony or something else.  Nobody made you buy an Apple or use iTunes.

Posted by sechannell in United States on March 23, 2005 at 7:49 AM (CST)


Oh BTW, don’t be surprised if user rights of purchased CD’s change too.  Those copyright laws were written before the dawn of digital music, therefore, I expect they will modify those laws/rights very soon, in reaction to this ‘digital’ age.

Posted by apple juice in USA on March 23, 2005 at 7:51 AM (CST)


DRM is not the same as buying a CD - you try and sell an iTMS file and see what happens from a legal point of view.

It’s not your’s. You own a licence - not the file and you cannot sell anything. It was proven shortly after iTMS started I think.

The “taking a 4 door luxury sedan” makes no sense. You paid for a track, you lost that track, you got another copy - cost to apple? Virtually nothing I’d say. The sedan example would be the same as buying one track and downloading the whole album.

As for the PC people leaving the Mac people alone - again is surprises me the level of devotion that Macophiles have to “the brand” - they (apple) are removing YOUR rights too and all you do is bitch about some PC software and it’s writer.

There will be more and more restrictions. It’s happening with TV too - with the advent of massive internet connections, TV will soon be “on demand” and I bet, unrecordable - they don’t want YOU to have any content stored - they will want you to pay for it on demand, over and over again. Everything will be like Pay-per-view…..

Posted by PugRallye on March 23, 2005 at 7:52 AM (CST)


PS: I’m not trolling - hand on heart. It’s just this DRM stuff really gets up my nose.

There was no way for them to control analogue stuff - but with digital they have realised that they can. And they will. More and more.

I have an iPod that I really do like. However in the past year or so Apple are appearing more and more complacent, more and more “corporate” - all those thing Macophiles loathed in MS.

In the past, Apple had to be inventive and creative to get and maintain market share.

Now it’s other companies like iRiver who are inventive and creative with products, adding features and facilities to gain a foothold in the market and it’s Apple who seem content to sit back and peddle the same old products, relying in “brand” and image to shift them.

If ANY other company had released something like the shuffle for example, it would not have been noticed. If it had it would be derided as a feature-less product that was bettered 4 years ago. As it’s Apple though it makes the evening news FFS…..

Posted by PugRallye on March 23, 2005 at 8:00 AM (CST)


So, in summary (I really should do some work).

What you’re saying is this:

1) you’re p1ssed off that you have to d/l a new version of iTunes cos of this new hack

2) you have no problem with Apple/anyone else changing the T&Cs; once you’ve paid you money for a track

Is that about it?

Posted by PugRallye on March 23, 2005 at 8:12 AM (CST)

Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy