Slashdot Mirror
New Tool Cracks Apple's FairPlay DRM
goombah99 writes "PlayFair is an integrated utility that removes the DRM from AAC music files protected by Apple's FairPlay encryption. Information is limited, but the source code is on SourceForge.net and it appears to actually remove the encryption itself and not simply hijack the QuickTime audio stream as earlier methods did. The cracking operation can only be done on songs the user has already has valid licenses for and requires either an iPod or a windows computer for key recovery. If you choose to redistribute these songs you will be violating the contract you bought them under: better hope they aren't watermarked or you might end up paying for releasing one in the wild. To me the authors are vandals not revolutionaries, and may have ensured WMA becomes the standard."
Amen brother. The problem is in polite conversation (and slashdot too, for that matter) "I know a guy..." trumps statistics every time.
Download my free songs!
US CODE TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 106. - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works grants six exclusive rights to copyright holders, but they really only amount to 3 different rights. The right to make copies, the right to distribute copies, and public performance.
Those are the ONLY rights a copyright holder has available to licence to anyone. If he isn't granting one or more of those rights then he isn't licencing anything.
US CODE TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use says it is not infringment to make fair use, thus you don't need any licence at all to make fair use. It gives a non-exhaustive list of examples of fair use. It gives a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider in determining fair use.
And rather signifigantly, fair use rights are NOT granted by that law. If you check the congressional record they specificly stated that we already had fair use rights and that that law was merely an attempt to write down those existing rights. They specificly said that law was not intended to expand or restrict or alter fair use rights in any way.
Not only are fair use rights NOT granted or defined or restricted by copyright law, but if you look back at the various supreme court cases mapping out the extent of fair use, the fact is that it's fair use that restricts the extent and reach of copyright. The term "fair use" never even appeared in copyright law before 1976. We had fair use before that, and where fair use treads copyright restrictions are swept away.
There is no such thing as a "licence to use". Doesn't exist.
Ordinary "use" rights remain with the public. You don't need any sort of licence to read a book you bought or to play a song you bought.
As for contracts, I don't know if iTunes even has one, or if it's even valid, or what's in it. But assuming there is, it cannot grant some non-existant "licence to use". The most it could do is attempt to impose a clause against making fair use. And even if it does, and even if it's a valid clause, it would still be strictly a contract issue, not copyright.
No, I'm not a lawyer, but I HAVE been reading the law and many court cases. You're the one tossing around a "licence to use" with absolutely no basis. I defy you to find it anywhere in US copyright law.
I will certainly admit the RIAA and MPAA want the law to recognize a "licence to use". I will certainly admit the RIAA and MPAA are putting out a missinformation campaign to convince the public and congress that's what the law already says. If that's what everyone thinks that's what the law says then it becomes very easy to get the law re-written to "fix" the law to actually say that.
"Licence to use" is a myth, part of a campaign to get copyright law changed.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.