Slashdot Mirror
PlayFair Pulled Due to DMCA Request
doubleacr writes "MacSlash is reporting that PlayFair has been removed from SourceForge.net. Didn't see that one coming." We posted about PlayFair on Monday. SourceForge.net received a DMCA complaint from Apple on Thursday, claiming PlayFair is in violation of the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA, section 1201(a)(2). As per SourceForge.net policy, the project has been disabled. Should the project managers file a counterclaim, the project could be restored. SourceForge.net is owned by OSDN, the parent company of Slashdot.
The project has been moved here:
http://sarovar.org/projects/playfair/
Though nothing has yet been posted to it, the author posted on MacSlash that the C&D order from Apple will be posted - and will be continued as long as there is no violation of Indian law.
Funny, everyone else did.
By trying to sue something off the Internet, you only ensure its wider propagation and interest among people who otherwise wouldn't have cared. I'll be sharing a tarball on eMule immediately. Come and sue everybody, Apple.
Apple created a piece of software that doesn't allow people to play the music their paid for on the devices of their choice.
What this program is is not circumvention... It's fair use.
> PlayFair has been removed from SourceForge.net.
Oh good, should I order my T-shirts now?
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
In this case, though, that's a moot point, seeing as it's been rehosted. Oh well.
Goo goo g'joob.
It's that time again... Seems like people would eventually get the point that programs are free speech. I can't wait to see the poems and prime numbers that get produced for this (remniscent of DeCSS).
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
*runs and hides*
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Unless you mean the music publishing company. Which of Apple Computer's copyrighted works, does PlayFair remove the protection from?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
First, iTunes Music Store is by far the most successful online music store. Good prices, great selection (sounds like a damn commercial doesn't it?).
I'm very pleased with it. I get ALL my purchased music from it.
This "playfair" project is just going to have the recording industry folks who reluctantly agreed to go in with Apple and distribute their music get scared and pissed off. They're going to pull their music and/or the prices are going to go up in fear of piracy.
It can not only hurt Apple, but also hurt online music sales as a whole.
Its nice to see the people bitching about the $20 CD's ruining the $10 online albums.
Its not good enough until its free right? GIVE ME A BREAK!
Get paid to code OSS
...you need to have a Terms of Service to deal with junx like this. We've got one on RubyForge just in case...
The Army reading list
Sarovar is hosted on a Compaq box running Debian woody and GForge.
(34,266) PSTricks Tutorial
(5,855) PDFscreen
(5,693) LaTeX Primer
(3,965) PDFslide
(3,675) PDFtricks
(2,087) Draft Copy for PDFTeX
(1,504) JavaDBF
(1,256) TeXLive
(966) Swathantra Malayalam Computing
(802) CVSPermissions - An ACL tool for CVS
Hosted Projects: 126
Registered Users: 659
Why must people insist on going around the system!??!?! .99 cents and burning it anyway they want!?!??!
.99 cents is SOOOO cheap!!!
Why can't people be content in buying music at
This isn't a "Unconditional Surrender" here...There has to be some rules....
I just can't understand this,
It's not like your paying $50 bucks for a game!!!
Somewhere down the line something has to break....
It's left blank because I have nothing to say to you punks!
Mirror early, mirror often!
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Unfortunately, I am not a lawyer, nor do I have the disposable income to pay for one.
However, this looks to me like a(nother) possible test case of the DMCA.
What makes this case attractive is that, to my understanding, PlayFair works WITHIN the accepted norms of society for copyright law (if you don't have a key from iTunes showing you bought the song, it won't convert the audio).
It is a law that is OUTSIDE the accepted norms of society that is causing the problem here.
I googled EFF.org for "playfair" and didn't have any returns of relevance.
Is the EFF involved in this case, or are they even aware of it?
- Neil Wehneman
P.S. I've mentioned this in previous posts, but I'll mention it again here because it's relevant.
Dr. Larry Lessig, who argued "our side" in Eldred v. Ashcroft, has put up his new book Free Culture under a Creative Commons license. Noncommercial redistribution with attribution is freely allowed.
Download the PDF or buy it and support Creative Commons in the process.
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
Give me a break, you speak as if they have a reasonable alternative. If Apple doesn't go after these people, you know that the recording industry is going to throw a conniption fit.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
...not quite. When you bought your music from the iTMS, you already knew that you would only be allowed to play it within iTunes or on your iPod.
That's it.
If you want to play it on a different device, there are many other sources for your music, including buying a CD and ripping it into whatever format your heart desires.
Whether you agree that "information should be free" or not is irrelevant. By purchasing your music from iTMS, you agreed to Apple's restrictions.
Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
I haven't gotten a DMCA takedown notice in the last week or so, so here is a torrent for everyone to enjoy:
t
http://www.isthatdamngood.com/playfair-0.2.torren
Enjoy!
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
I honestly don't know, but I would imagine that Apple is concerned about this not because they want to make sure everything stays locked up for the sake of being locked up, but probably because they don't want the RIAA to yank their licenses and cause all of the iTMS to come crashing down.
Sure, you can make all the standard black helicopter and tinfoil hat jokes, but I really don't see how Apple would care about this, save the ramifications for keeping an amicable relationship with the RIAA pigopolists.
While the DMCA is a horrible piece of legislation, a business would not be doing their shareholders a favor if they didn't use it to protect their business. This is a standard move, everyone saw it coming; and to say that it is a dumb mistake is a bit myopic.
To do nothing would be a bigger mistake for Apple, for entirely different reasons.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
This is purely a business move by apple. They're DRM is pretty light. Everyone has known that you can burn a cd then rip it back. Even easier you can record anything going to the speaker as an mp3 using some freely available software.
Jobs is quoted as saying the his PHds said you can't make a DRM that stops piracy completely.
However apple needs music to resell. To allow software the strips the DRM would likely irk those big music companies that sell apple the songs it needs to sell. And with other DRMed formats apple probably needed DRM to open the store in the first place.
As soon as I read the earlier /. story about PlayFair, I went straight to SourceForge and downloaded a copy. It now sits at home in a (sadly) ever expanding directory named "samizdat", along with things like deCSS stuff, the Grey Album, and various other bits from Illegal Art. Some of those things are still available, but I have such little faith in the DCMA that I think private copies are warranted.
It's not about piracy.
All one has to do to "unprotect" the files is have a player that unlocks them and a high-fidelity digitizer (you know, something like an Audigy card or pod...) to record it with. The loss is not going to be noticeable (i.e. even AAC inserts worse loss than this process does in the first place...) and as long as you use AAC or something that doesn't distort the results appreciably worse, you win.
All this program does is make it easy for a legitimate user to shift it into other formats for their own use. They don't want you to do that. They want you to pay for the CD, the AAC/MP3, and any other format you want to use. In all honesty, they want you to pay for each time you listen to it, but they've not figured out how to do that without drawing too much attention to their damn greed.
If anyone needs a break, it's me- I'm tired of hearing about piracy when it's not about friggin' piracy. Get it in your head about that. They lose FAR more to real IP pirates in Asia where they crank it out by the tons in spite of the protections these jokers keep adding. Why in the hell don't they go shut those SOB's down first? It's because the "public" is an easier target and provides for nice, nifty laws bought with their money that give them all the advantages and the consumers nothing in return.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
That no matter how good/bad the encryption mechanism is, people can't break it.
If I published software that "encrypted" an audio stream by reversing the bits, and someone figured it out or wrote software to get rid of my "encryption" scheme, then I could just start a legal battle against all those who try to publish against me?
This is a wild, unpredictable, capitalistic world, not a pre-school.
Consider this.
Apple's 128kbps AAC's quality is very good, about the same as a 192kbps mp3. You can burn AAC to CD - that's allowed by the iTunes DRM scheme with no problems.
The AAC -> CD data conversion has no quality loss associated with it. The data, on the CD, is sonically identical to how you bought it from Apple.
If people rip commercial CDs to OGG (or any other format) without complaining about quality loss, I don't see how it's anything but hypocrisy to say that converting from AAC -> CD -> OGG/whatever is some kind of huge hindrance to their fair use. There's only one loss of quality, which is tiny, in that chain of events, and it happens EVERYWHERE else you convert CD data to a compressed music format.
Where is this mysterious and show-stopping quality loss happening?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Huh? The policy linked to speaks of copyright violation. Was the code stolen? If not, I fail to see the reasoning.
It simply allowed fair use- it couldn't be used to unlock songs you didn't already own, right?
What about programs which are almost exclusively used for illegal activity, ie, copyright infringement? Like, say, emule? Or BitTorrent? Or any of dozens of gnutella clones? None of which require you to own a copy of anything?
One can argue that all these p2p clients CAN be used for perfectly legal purposes. The same argument applies to PlayFair, if not more so because it required ownership in the first place.
Please help metamoderate.
I'd like to think that Apple is doing this reluctantly, but they've used the threat of litigation against individuals and small organizations too many times in the past to give them the benefit of the doubt. They're like a smaller version of Microsoft--just as evil, but with style and with better PR.
Apple is mearly defending there copy protection mechinism(sp), most likly a requirment in the sea of contracts that Apple has with the RIAA and its affiliats, though I do not agree with using the C&D with the DMCA instead of a normal C&D. You must remember that Apples DRM is is the most liberal out there, allowing you to burn multiple CD's (which can still be ripped into MP3's) and transfer AAC Files to a back up and restore.
I don't see this as any type of strong arm tactic by Apple to "put the little guy down" just protecting an updated bussiness model. Without ITMS no more iPod sales, which means no more street muggings (maybe this is a good dthing after all)
Ahh.. The mind what a wonderful trap!
"Now that Apple has publicly sided against freedom"
Since when is Apple protecting their and others' copywrited works that they DID NOT RELEASE AS FREE (as in speech) SOFTWARE siding against freedom?
Maybe you can explain that, as I don't understand.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I can't wait to read all the apologist crap that's about to be posted here. Let the McFanboy fest begin.
Being free (as in beer or as in speech) doesn't exclude you from being prosecuted if breaking the law. Don't like DMCA? Go lobby your congressman.
If Apple didn't go and prosecute and strong-arm the "little guys" that illegaly (see above) damage its business, it would be a stupid move and be perceived in future lawsuits as "having no interest in protecting its trademarks, etc.".
Apple is only protecting its interests, damaged by people that are acting against the law... how exactly is that "behaving like Microsoft"? I would call that "behaving smartly".
<sarcasm> If some "little guy" mugs you in the street or strips your house bare, it should be your duty to report to the police, however futile. Poverty in the world? Go lobby your congressman. </sarcasm>
Looks like you might be able to still donate to this project here. Could help them cover some court fees?
I would never use this because of that fact. I bought my music at iTunes because the agreement is reasonable to me. I have burnt my songs to CD to play in my vehicle, and I have copies on my laptop and iPod. I'm satisfied, that my needs were met. If this is unreasonble to you, don't buy it. The people who use this software are trying to change the agreement after the fact, to suit them. Personally I think the price is about $0.49 too high, but the DRM restrictions are in no way unreasonable to me. If I thought otherwise, my money would go elesewhere.
I fully expect this to be struck down in the same way action against DeCSS was struck down. PlayFair only allows those who have already legally purchased the music to remove the DRM protections - something that was already possible with burning and re-ripping.
Apple is no friend of DRM, but you can bet they are going to do what is necessary to maintain their relationship with the music labels, particularly in light of the labels trying to raise prices and increase restrictions.
The end result of this is moot. Some will say the cat's out of the bag, the genie's out of the bottle, etc, but that's not the case. The cat was never in the bag - this could always be accomplished by a simple burn/rip cycle.
(And before people point out that this doesn't require lossy recompression, seriously consider how many people will leave the file in AAC format, rather than transcode it to the ever-popular MP3.)
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Huh - weird, I thought Sourceforge was related to Free/Open Source software. Odd how relevant that the DMCA is to this goal.
Sounds like free and Open Source world requires a better domicile which is unaffected by parochial considerations. Maybe time that the EU or UN hosted software for and on behalf of the free world.
Its a serious consideration as the US seems to be cyclical based on presidential terms whereas the EU or UN has no such short term considerations to trample rights.
Apple should realise that the only way to protect youself from Open Source is to adopt a strong cryptographically signed service. There is no intrinsic value is any line of code but in code as a service. Sounds like lazy programmer bugs fixed by application of lawyer.
Publicly burn any Apple hardware you own Mac/Ipod/etc. Try to do this en masse, and call your local news station.
I hereby volunteer to be the organizer for a massive event of apple destruction. Please send any Apple hardware (and accessories... don't forget accessories) to me and I will personally supervise its elimination.
This "crack" would not have cost Apple one cent (okay 99) in lost downloads.
So someone could distribute high quality AAC files stripped of DRM. So what? There are already plenty of high-quality mp3, ogg and various other audio format rips of cds on p2p. There are also tons of fakes, radio rips, decoys, trojans, and just plain crappy rips floating on these networks as well. There is nothing stopping anyone from taking a fake or crappy mp3 rip and re-encoding it as aac and distributing it via p2p.
The people that shop at itunes are not going to stop because there are now some additional aac files available on p2p. People that shop iTunes do so because of the user experience. You know you will get a fast, high quality download from iTunes. You can't be sure with P2P until you've downed the file and listened to the whole thing.
On the other hand, increasing the price of downloads and/or forced bundling will cause iTunes sales to drop.
This is a really interesting comment. You're drawing a comparison between the people who wrote the GPL and the people who wrote the iTMS contract, which is not something I've seen before.
But it makes sense. Whether you're drawing a contract to protect intellectual property or protect *distribution* of intellectual property, in either case you are deliberately writing a contract that protects some actions and prohibits other actions.
The GPL was developed based on the notion that software is essentially a form of speech, and so should be free. In order to protect this freedom, the GPL dictates that modifications to GPLed software must also be made under the GPL.
The iTMS contract was developed based on the notion that in order for digital music to prosper, there must be limits on how widely a given purchased download can be distributed, so that the music's copyright holders can make a return on their investment. Without the profit motive for the copyright holders, the music won't be put on the iTMS, and Apple won't be making money.
In both cases, restrictions are placed in the license to further the end goal. Attempts to circumvent the license by definition negate the end goal. If the GPL were repeatedly circumvented, the *implementation* of Free Software would be crippled as well. The same is true of the iTMS.
You can't expect that if you change the rules of the game so you can enjoy benefits beyond those you agreed to at the time of purchase, Apple is somehow going to continue to provide the very tools that you hacked. This is quite similar to what would happen if Microsoft took all of the GNU tools, changed them slightly, and released their own Free Windows OS. Everyone on Slashdot would be crying bloody murder, because the value of GPLed software would be denigrated by Microsoft's circumventing of the GPL contract.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Physical barriers also stand in the way of lossless tracks. Simply put... downloading everything as a .wav file would mean multi-hour downloads even on broadband. Even the first digital file captured contails some loss from the analog audio that was available at the studio.
So lossless is a myth. You've gotta pick the point that's "good enough for most consumers' ears" somewhere.
Besides, its not only the RIAA members who want DRM on their tracks. You don't see any of the indie labels on iTMS demanding that Apple use non-DRMed AACs for them.
If you don't like the licensing terms, don't purchase the music under those terms! The choice is all yours!
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Should the project managers file a counterclaim, the project could be restored.
Uhh, I doubt it. This is about the most clear-cut case of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions applying you could get. The only way this could be declared unworkable is if the DMCA was struck down. Given, striking down the DMCA is only a matter of time, and it needs to happen. But if you're trying to find an optimal case on which to challenge the DMCA, this certainly isn't it.
The EFF failed to challenge their lower-court losses over DeCSS because they believed they would not have a higher court's sympathy when defending a group named "2600.com", and they needed to wait for a more opportune small case that could be used to set precedent. I'm not so sure this was a good idea. But in any case, this would be even worse.
With DeCSS, there was at least overwhelming public sympathy, and the intent of the opposition was clear; you were fighting the DVD consortium and MPAA directly, and they were clearly moneygrubbing oligopolists trying to price-fix between countries and take rights consumers had had for years (like copying vhs tapes) and remove them through a law they personally bought. Whereas Apple has created something new, and is giving their users at least a modicum of ability to exercise fair use. The application of the DMCA is still unjust, and DRM is still an idiotic concept, but framing Apple as a villan in this would be really difficult, especially when far more clear abuses of the DMCA are still going on.
I do wonder, though, why the EFF seems totally disinterested in challenging the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. It seemed like DVDxCopy made a great test case, and the bullshit with the lexmark print drivers made an even better one. Have they just given up?
(P.S.: If I am not mistaken, isn't this the first time Apple has ever invoked the DMCA? There was that one time that someone was doing something wierd involving allowing iDVD to work on a different OS version, and Apple asked them to stop, and they did and went and complained to the press and made some cryptic comments about the DMCA, yet from what was seen of apple legal's correspondence with them there didn't actually appear to be any DMCA invocation. Hm.. oh well.)
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I've written my Congressman on the appealation of the DMCA, I've gone to open forum talks and brought the subject up, so don't talk to me about bellyaching.
I've done my part in promoting fair use in as much as I can. I'm anti DMCA, just as a good SlashThinker should be.
Using the software that Apple provides means you agree to the terms that usage provides. Don't like it, don't use it, but SURE AS HELL don't ruin it for people who agree with it and accept it in it's current form because you can't play it on every device you own.
Find an alternative, but don't ruin what I find is the fairest, most reasonable DRM to exist on the market.
There is a GPL comparison found later in this discussion which I love completely, and will reiterate here.
What would be said by the OSS community if someone decided they were going to use GPL'd software outside of it's license "because they didn't agree with it," but still wanted the benefit of using it. You'd all be up in arms. I'd be up in arms.
I think I've made my point.
Can you ping me now? Gooood! | Manhappenin.Net - Things to do
Apple created a piece of software that doesn't allow people to play the music their paid for on the devices of their choice.
You know how hard it is to format-shift those DRM equipped AAC files in iTunes?
Congrats, you now have a standard audio CD. No DRM, plays in any machine that will play a CD. Feel free to rip it to MP3, OGG or anything else.
All PlayFair saves is $0.25 on a blank CD and about 5 minutes. If that's a serious problem for you, perhaps you should buy something else.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
The MPAA tries to use the DMCA to suppress source code as free speech, spawns a million Slashdot stories and a T-shirt, and the concept of the "digital crowbar" is born. They're suppressing fair use! We can't excerpt or time-shift!
Apple tries to use the DMCA to suppress source code as free speech, a million Slashdot users get in line to support their right to do it because hey, "They're Apple!!".
Maybe Jack Valenti was right after all - it's all about who you know.
Now get in line and drink the cool-aid.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
So, can anyone tell me why it is that it's "fair use" for "us" to disregard a companies copyrights but it's not okay for a company to disregard our copyrights?
Did I miss a memo or what?
Or are we all just a bunch of hypocrites?
Having read "This Business of Music" Revised and expanded 8th edition By Krasilovski and Shemel, I feel I am qualified to set the record straight on copyright law. As the Law stands, (or stood at the time of the book's publising) all people involved in the creation of a work, be it a book, speech, Musical score, or recording, or Video content such as TV and Film, have equal rights as anyone else invloved in the production. In the case of the band I am with, I have equal rights to the copyright and any royalties, even though I am not a "Musician" (I am the Recording engineer, and I insure that levels are good, and without my contribution the recordings would sound lousy.) If, on the other hand, I was working at a professional studio, all clients (Bands and individual artists) would sign a contrack that establishes the studio as a contractor on a "Work for Hire" basis, and therefore, by default hold no power over the copyright, except anything explicitly spelled out in the contract. A common clause of this nature gives all employees of the studio who work directly for the band, (All the people in the control room) the right to use excerpts of the band's songs as a Demo Reel, or in promoting the studio as a whole. the point of the above was that "Record Labels" make musicians who are "Signed" give up full copyright control over their existing body of work, to the "Label" Lastly, Failure to take action against a known infringer is tantamount, according to the letter of the law, to willfully allowing the work to fall into the public domain. The ultimate point is this: The Judicial system needs to work out who holds the trump card. The Users: In other words "Fair Use is the trump that overrides all else" The DMCA: DMCA makes it illegal to break the DRM, and that is the end of it. Apple: The iTMS EULA is the trump and everything, even fair use must be carried out in accordance with the EULA and its DRM protections
They basically broke the law
No, they didn't.
PlayFair actually checks that you have a valid key to use the downloaded music. It won't work on music that you haven't paid for. Thus, it doesn't "circumvent" the DRM, it fully enforces it. It does, however, change what happens to the music for those with legal access to it. Rather than play it, it writes the perfectly-legitimately-accessed music stream to a non-DRM'd AAC file.
Call such a distinction nit-picking, but that very fact means the difference between a DMCA violation and a legal use of one's purchased music.
Now, an end-user actually doing this process may violate their contract with Apple, but that differs drastically from the authors of PlayFair violating the DMCA.
you just gotta get your DMCA violating source code from an off-shore ISP or get sourceforge to relocate.
Exactly what happened - The project relocated to Sarovar, an Indian equivalent to SourceForge. Since India lacks an equivalent to the DMCA, the project should count as legal now.
Interestingly, I'd like any readers of this to really stop and think about what that means - A project designed to protect our fair use (a concept itself (theoretically) recognized in the US but not in all countries) may have broken US law (unless this goes to trial, we can't say they did break the law), simply by moving to another country, magically becomes legal.
So, the DMCA has so much validity that one can circumvent it (how apropos <G>) merely by changing where the "illegal" codebase resides? Definite problem there... Which of course, rather than address in any meaningful way, US lawmakers will try to "fix" by imposing the DMCA on the entire world via treaties (such as those currently under debate in the UN).
Dike, meet fingers. Fingers, meet Dike.
this time I don't think the problem it's the RIAA.
iTunes does not make any money
Apple earns money from selling the hardware (iPod e c.)
So they can never let to play their songs withouth their buying anything else from them
Additional mirror: http://evilpen.net/playfair.tgz
[voice type="whiny"] i want a take down notice too, c'mon, please? [/voice]
Got plenty of upstream left...
A large part of what you're paying for when you buy songs from the iTMS is the payoff Apple has to give to the music industry just so they'll allow Apple to use such lax DRM.
I think that with any music I purchase online, I should be able to make multiple copies on multiple computers, my iPod, and so on. In a perfect world I'd be able to do that right now.
But realistically, what I'm paying for when I buy songs from the iTMS is convenience. I can find songs I want, listen to clips of songs I haven't heard, and satisfy my craving for some long-forgotten song in a matter of moments. I don't have to get in my car, drive to the store, and buy a full album just to hear the one song I actually want.
So the iTMS is giving me a totally new option. I'm paying for the convenience of a new shopping experience. Because I'm able to buy music in a fashion that suits my individual preferences (I've probably purchased more music from the iTMS in the last six months than I did at music stores in the last six years), I'm willing to make a compromise with Apple: You make it ludicrously easy for me to obtain, organize and manage my music, and I'll forgo full fair use in favor of limited DRM.
People who say that digital music shouldn't have DRM are right. But I'd argue that in this case, the medium truly is the message. Apple has come up with the first truly viable means of legally purchasing music online. When I started using the iTMS it radically changed my music purchasing and listening habits. So I ask myself, how is Apple screwing me?
In particular, how is Apple screwing me when I agreed to the terms of the contract, which are based on the fact that online distribution is quite different than physical distribution of music?
People talk about the music industry being unwilling to change, but at the same time they want more benefits from digital music without being willing to compromise in the slightest.
It sounds like a triumph of ideology over practicality to me.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The parent has a good point. Apple should have looked at the example set by deCSS.
/. article alone. And more are coming. And no doubt that work on PlayFair will continue, with much-increased enthusiasm once it is hosted somewhere outside US borders.
Before the MPAA started harassing "DVD-Jon" and DMCA-ing everyone who so much as mentioned the name deCSS in public; only a small handful of linux nerds had even heard of the thing, much less built and compiled it into media players for their own machines. No big deal. It was just a toy for extreme hobbyists.
After the MPAA tried to take deCSS out, every self-righteous geek on the 'net made sure to get a copy. And many of them made it their mission to spread it further, and more mirrors than I could guess popped up. Somewhere *I* still have a copy of deCSS embedded into a webpage banner in some way that I don't even remember how to extract it.
So what was PlayFair before Apple DMCA'd sourceforge? Another cute toy that was only of any use to someone who had already BOUGHT the song from ITMS in the first place. It's not like anybody hacked a backdoor into ITMS itself and made the entire library free to the 'net. Now, there are half a dozen mirrors in this
It reminds me of a Douglas Adams quote.... about how while humans are unique in being the only species capable of learning from the mistakes of others, we are remarkably disinclined to actually do so.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
"... Jobs is quoted as saying the his PHds said you can't make a DRM that stops piracy completely.
Which is presumably why Apple employs Phds to 1) devise new forms of DRM
and 2) head the Copy Protection Technology Working Group with Sony and Warner Brothers.
They look as snug as three bugs in a rug.
You could buy your car only from an authorized dealer, and only online... but it would be delivered to you in 23 seconds and placed in your garage.
You could drive your car anywhere you wanted, so long as you only park it in authorized spaces. Those who do not park in an authorized space will be immediately crushed and sold for scrap during your incarceration.
You may drive your car anytime you want, so long as you gain permission from an authorized Apple Car Dealer first. Once permission has been granted, your car will be unlocked and started for you. Any attempt to unlock or start your car without prior authorization will result in your car exploding.
You are the only authorized driver of the car. Any attempt to "share" the car with another passenger or driver will result in your immediate incarceration.
All cars would only have 3 seats.
The Code Ninja is swift with his tool, precise in his delivery, and deadly accurate in his execution.
Everything about Apple says pretty but not free. So let the lesson be learn't that just because something looks good doesn't mean that it is. Apple Inc should really be called Poison Apple.
They're like that pretty girlfriend who suckers you in hook, line, and sinker - and you let her get away with it or don't pay attention because she is sooooo pretty. Next thing you know, you have no money, no pretty girlfriend, and one big agonizing heartache that you never really get over.
Please pal, I know you won't listen to me till it's too late, I know you're beyond hope, I know you can't help it, probably can't even muster up the will-power, you may even get mad at me. But if you know what's good for you, you would dump her hard before it's too late and never look back.
Look, how about I set you up with that penguin gal - I know she's not as pretty, but I promise you'll really get to like her as time goes on, and most importantly she won't leave you high and dry when you need her the most. She'll stick with you thru thick and thin.
I wonder if corporate america is ever going to figure out that you can't (ever, ever, period) remove something from the Internet....
Burn a bunch of iTunes with copywrite protection. The format on the disc will now be AIFF. Put the new disc back in. Re-rip (Using iTunes, if you like). No more 'FairPlay'. Not that I'd do it, I'm just saying... I have bought songs from iTunes. I was fine with only burning them twice. But because I can't burn with iTunes (No idea why), I was forced to use the Toast Lite that came with the burner. It wasn't until I had put an iTune on about five different mixes that I realized I was (Gasp!) 'circumventing the DMCA'! Of course I quickly microwaved the discs and scattered them at sea. Then I realized I had just dumped toxic waste in the ocean. I quickly wrote a letter to the EPA telling them I was going to have to move my business to another country if they decided to pursue any legal action. Then I sent the Republican Party a check for $2,000. Then I threw a big party at a hotel, got the Bush twins drunk, and took pictures of them taking lines. The moral of the story? Don't cheat, unless you're a good cheater with lots o' dough.
Why would the MPAA care what you do with your music files?
There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
That's a bit of a leap of logic. If the contract said "and we get your firstborn son", he could have a philosophical objection to that without being against the idea of enforcable contracts. In other words, he objects to the terms of the contract, not the contract itself.
while click throughs are arguable, payment definitely constitutes agreement
Just because he legally agrees doesn't mean he philosophically agrees. Just because he accepts terms he doesn't agree with - terms he can't escape when buying music online - doesn't invalidate his beliefs.
Last post!
But, if Apple (and this applies to Adobe too) was truly interested in "protecting" what is theirs, they'd implement their ideas in a more unbreakable fashion.
Oh, come on! If you understand why the DMCA is so bad, you certainly realize that nothing can be made "unbreakable", and further, that the harder you try to lock something down, the more you invite (and even force) people to try to break it.
Indeed, Apple seemed to have realized this in their DRM implementation, imposing such lax restrictions that fewer people need or want to circumvent it. I doubt it would have taken this long for a tool like this come out if FairPlay were more restrictive. (Barring, for this discussion, the proof-of-concept implementations like DVD Jon's and VLC's undocumented support, neither of which produced a usable file alone.)
I was on the verge of buying my first Mac because of OSX, but you know, it's hard to financially support a company that does this kind of shit.
I suppose you also don't pay taxes to the government that created the DMCA in the first place?
When the DMCA gets repealed, what are you going to do Apple? Hire thugs instead to find software authors, and deal with it that way??
That's rediculous. However fucked up it may be, the DMCA is law, and Apple's has a legal right to do what it's doing. To suggest that their willingness to do something legal (though deplorable to some) means that they'd be equally likely to do something illegal, like hire violent thugs, is misleading hyperbole.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Who says it's illegal? I'm pretty sure that congress said that, back in October of 1998. Singing:
"(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof"
No, it hasn't yet been proven in court that PlayFair violates this, nor would it have to for linking to PlayFair to be illegal. I think it's obvious PlayFair is both A and B. The link is offering to the public the ability to download Playfair, which is both A and B. If it walks like a crime and talks like a crime, it's probably not okay to abet it. And that's my point.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Burning and reripping is time-consuming and wasteful; the right software can eliminate the waste and some of the time, but even that is flirting with the DMCA. Also, iTMS files represent a minimum acceptable level of quality to some people; settling for 128 Kbps AAC doesn't imply a total lack of standards.
However fucked up it may be, the DMCA is law, and Apple's has a legal right to do what it's doing.
I would like to point out that not only does Apple have a legal right to do this, but as the parent of the parent inferred but did not state explicitly, they have a legal responsibility to the shareholders to do this! The executives of the company can be held legally and financially responsible for not acting in the shareholder's interest if they do not do everything possible to protect their businesses interests.
It's not Apple that's screwed up, it's the (legal|economic) system. Start writing your Congresspeople and helping the campaigns of those who would improve the system.
Free yourself. Everything else will follow.
It is located in Trivandrum, India
Sounds like a nice place. Gotta visit sometime. Looks like India put a spanner in the works of the good old DMCA.
Apple invoked the DMCA? That was the last thing people thought would happen, right? I mean, Apple are our heroes - right?
So, then, I personally find the GPL offensive, and believe that it actively makes the world a worse place. What do you recommend that I do to undermine it?
> In other words, if you don't agree to the terms of the contract, there are plenty of other ways to register your disagreement
> without denying yourself the use of the product/service.
That is to say, 'I am the ultimate arbiter of what is fair and right, as long as I'm pretty sure I won't get caught at it.'
> Not only that - the terms may not be legal in all areas of the world, in which case it's quite legal to agree to the terms and
> simply ignore them.
I am assuming that you mean it's quite legal to agree to the terms and ignore them IF you are in a place where they aren't legal. However, even this is not the case, as anyone with a smattering of knowledge of international contract law could tell you. Otherwise you'd never end up with contracts between two countries at all.
Oops. Time for me to leave for the day. Sorry, more enlightenment tomorrow.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.