Slashdot Mirror
Playfair Relocates to India
Lord Grey writes "Imagine my surprise to see playfair 0.5.0 appear on Freshmeat's project list. Remember, the project was pulled after Apple filed a Cease-and-Desist order just a few days ago. playfair's new web site talks a bit about the move, as well as sporting the latest release of the controversial utility."
Even our "Information Wants to be Free" activists are being outsourced to India!
Good for them! Great that they are standing up to bullies. Apple deserves nothing but condemnation for threatening frivolous lawsuits against them. There is more "Bill the Borg" in Apple than most people think
doubt that will last too long.
i wouldn't doubt Apple has a lot of money invested in the economy there, call centers and such.
This was the 2nd reader post from the original story of PlayFair being pulled. Why is this news?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
We'd you moderate as Troll -1, but Slashdot duties moderation were outsourced to India yesterday. The moderation pace will pick up again as soon as our staff English learns. Thank you. Please to come again.
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=103485&c id=8817454
No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
...in 4 days playfair has gone to second place on their download counter. Jeepers.
Sarovar will be moving higher on the list of GForge sites pretty soon... they're # 12 currently...
The Army reading list
to the previous Playfair story, but it took the editors 3 days to post a front page story about it?
Guess it's true they can't be bothered reading the site -- maybe they should outsource their duties.
deus does not exist but if he does
For once I don't agree with something like this and it's Playfair. Apple works with open source and even uses it in it operating system. They use the DRM to appease the recording companies. They were able and did negotiate the best possible license to download the music. They charge what they are charged per song ($.99). Granted they are no super nice guy and are still in for the profit, but they try and I have yet to find a time where I would need to strip out the DRM unless to share with the masses.
It's like picking a friends pocket.
Evolution or ID?
But probably not for the reasons you would think. Apple is probably under contract to release the music under DRM only. The sad thing is they would probably make more money if they just sold MP3's. People would probably steal less too. I know the RIAA has an antiquated business model and they probably deserve to go into the toilet, but I do feel sorry for them.
If they would just stop trying to oppress the music listeners and just satisfy them, maybe they would do a little better.
Corporations should no by now, just telling someone not to do something makes them want to do it more. If they sold MP3's, more people would take their complaints more seriously.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
So I guess there are advantages to outsourcing beyond plain old poverty alleviation in third world countries. But I wonder how long it will be before the US uses the WTO to push "intellectual property rights" down the throats of Indians?
more about me
is that bad? IMO, it's development only advances the core principle (information wants to be free - read that in caps please as the website says).
;-)
Or is that bad those outsourcing heathens in India are doing open source work as well?
http://efil.blogspot.com/
This was exactly the wrong thing to do.
Rather than working with Apple to try to resolve their differences, whomever is responsible for this little hack (the person or persons responsible refuse to attach their name to their work or their collateral) decided to just slip through what many perceive as a loophole in the law.
This does nothing to legitimize the hack or the idea behind it. Rather, it does just the opposite: it makes it clear to all interested parties that the person or persons behind this are more interested in finding ways to subvert the system than working within it to improve it.
Apple's support for "fair use" is obvious. They specifically added features to iMovie, iDVD, and iPhoto that allow you to use purchased or ripped music in your own media projects, even if the tracks you want to use are protected by FairPlay.
Doing this kind of end-run around Apple, instead of working with them to come to a resolution, completely de-legitimizes the whole effort for me, and I'm sure for many others.
If you want to assume the moral high ground--"I don't believe the majority of the people who use my program will use it so that they can share their files on Kazaa."--then you'd damn well better stick to it, instead of cutting and running for the sewer at the first sign of trouble.
Dumb, dumb.
I write in my journal
I think this is a pretty good example of how silly laws like the DMCA only restrict commerce in their own country. If India shuts this project down, how many other places could this be hosted? Many.
How does that song from the Disney ride go again? Oh ya, "Its a small world after all..."
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
"money if they just sold MP3's. People would probably steal less too"
It is impossible to steal less, as the theft rate is 0. It is technically impossible to steal music by copying it, downloading off of p2p, or anything like this.
i think they will be bugged again by Apple and maybe the indian government will help apple, since india is cashing in a lot on out sourcing and they will not be willing to get themselves a bad name. it's wud have been better if they out sourced to cuba ;-)
Umm .. if people are using Fairplay to remove the DRM from their iTMS bought songs then guess which format they'll end up with: AAC.
Now imagine if those said people start distributing those AAC across the P2P networks. Guess which player is commonly associated with reading AAC files: iTunes.
Which may in turn drive those people to use iTMS for those songs they can't get off the networks. Now these people have all these AAC files, which device is commonly associated with AAC support: iPod.
So it seems like either way Apple wins ?
Funtage Factor: Purple
Sarovar means lake(i think). Is there a hidden meaning in this?
This comment discusses some of the issues of sending work to another country: It is successful? Is it successful over 20 years? Those who outsource to another country should not assume that the laws of another country are the same as the home country, as the PlayFair author demonstrates.
I agree with the PlayFair author: "I want to be able to play the music I buy wherever I want to play it without quality loss, since I PAID FOR that quality."
Treating everyone as dishonest because some people are dishonest is abusive.
Nevertheless, moving PlayFair to another country to escape the domination of the rich, government-corrupting interests in this country shows one of the issues of outsourcing.
For years people have been justifying the "illegal" copying of music with arguments such as "the cd is overpriced", "I don't want to pay $17 for one or two songs", etc. Now Apple comes out with a service that addresses many of these issues. They allow you to purchase just the songs you want for a decent cost. They have a flexible DRM policy (without which they wouldn't even be able to offer the service to begin with). Now guys like this come along and still insist on continuing the copying tradition. The excuses now get even thinner. Basically they have no moral leg to stand on.
Worst part is that this just adds fuel to the RIAA fire. They view all sharers as a bunch of crooks, and why not? Basically people are saying "We don't give a crap about copyright laws and your rights to have control over your content, oh, but do something against OUR policies (i.e. GPL) and we'll be first in line crying about "when are you going to release the source!! why are you taking advantage of the hard work of others for your own purposes".
"If you don't like the US and you live there feel free to move out. Don't presume to tell Apple how to run their business though."
There is this little thing called the Constitution. Ever hear of the First Amendment? According to it, I can tell Apple whatever I want to, including how to run their business. They don't have to listen, but I can still tell them.
By that tinfoil-hat-wearing theory, MS should have stopped propping up Apple, since MS have been found to be a monopoly by Federal courts, a finding of law which has survived even US Supreme Court review.
No going back now. Under US law, MS _is_ a monopoly. Any "beard" utility of Apple is now gone. So explain to us again why MS would want to maintain a viable alternative OS/hardware-platform choice?
Be sure to don your protective headgear before replying.
Downloading is convinient for broadband users and reduces instances of CD swapping (still popular amonst people with dial-up). If downloading becomes awkward, I see a rise in the popularity of DVD swapping.
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
"No going back now. Under US law, MS _is_ a monopoly"
However, in reality, it is not one. largely due to Apple Macintosh at this time. There is a difference between legal monopoly and actual monopoly, just like there is a difference between legal war and actual war: The Vietnam War, was, legally a "police action" not a war, but we all know it was a war.
Read Jobs interviews on this. Jobs predicted and expected this. From the way he talks about it I think that he believes that eventually the recording industry will be shown that it is useless to keep pursuing this "protection" of the music through technology. He has made it clear that he doesn't think it is going to succeed.
To be clear, he believes that iTunes, and stores like it. Will primarily succeed because they provide a better experience than P2P for a reasonable cost. The DRM is something that's in there only to appease the RIAA.
"They have a flexible DRM policy (without which they wouldn't even be able to offer the service to begin with). Now guys like this come along and still insist on continuing the copying tradition"
But it is a kludge: it requires burning to a CD and then re-ripping in order to get a useable "file.
To play on my digital music hardware, I have to burn to CD and re-rip: or use something like Playfair", which is a lot simpler.
Playfair makes fair use possible. Apple's DRM policies have up until now made it tough.
""We don't give a crap about copyright laws and your rights to have control over your content"
If it is on my machine, it is my content.
Remember, DRM is keeping control of a product after it is sold. It's like signing a contract that the seller can change at any time in a way that is bad for you and "good" for the seller.
See Zealots Attack for an excellent explanation about why PlayFair should be allowed, from the man who wrote the library PlayFair uses:
Zealots attack
I've been getting some emails from angry Mac zealots. Many of them start out similar to this: None of them explain how this is different and why GNU/Linux users should not be allowed to play legally bought music. Instead they go on to rave about how great iTMS is and that the imposed DRM is a good compromise. If they hadn't been completely clueless about copyright law, they'd know that Fair Use is the compromise. Some of them claim that this will lead to the RIAA imposing stricter DRM. Did they suddenly realize that it's the RIAA, and not Apple, which determines the rules for the iTMS DRM? When they complain about Microsoft's DRM used by other music stores, why do they think that it's Microsoft, and not the RIAA, which determines the DRM rules?
They have failed to understand that by buying into DRM they have given the seller complete control over the product after it's been sold. The RIAA can at any time change the DRM rules, and considering their history it's likely that they will when the majority of consumers have embraced DRM and non-DRM products have been phased out. Some DVDs today include commercials which can't be skipped using "sanctioned" players. If the RIAA forces Apple to include commercials, what excuses will the Mac zealots come up with? "It's a good compromise"?
Here's how one of the emails, from a guy in the UK who's working on his Ph.D, ends: Funny stuff. I just hope I have enough room in
We seem to have served a cease-and-desist operation on their server.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
"will continue to use "stealing music" in ordinary conversation and writing"
Then you will likely be the one to use "murder" to describe a crime of rape, right?
"If you commit copyright violation by taking another person's copyrighted music, copying it without authorization, and redistributing it, you are taking some sales away from them"
Maybe, maybe not. Next...
" In the case of music copying it is "copyright violation." They are both forms of "stealing.""
No, it does not meet the definition of stealing at all.
"Depriving a work's rightful owner of income generated by that work by giving away copies of that work without permission. Sure sounds like stealing to me, and to most honest people."
Few honest people actually abuse the definitions of words like this. To abuse word meanings like this is a sort of lie, and if you lie like this you are not honest.
"How is this morally different from letting your friends in the back door of a club that has a cover charge? "
I never said it was moral. I was just saying it is not theft, since it does not meet the definition. Whatever those back-door sneaks in your example are, they are not thieves.
You are somewhat incorrect. DMCA type provisions on technological measures and rights management information stem from the WIPO Copyright Treaties (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/index.html ) for which there are a number of signatories. This does not _yet_ include India (although a draft has been completed: http://itmatters.com.ph/news/news_01172000a.html), but it does include other countries (not to mention the many that are still in draft stage ...).
_ id=15659).
These are the equivalent to offshore tax havens, yet in the context of ipr. Expect to find that (as occurred with tax havens) pressure and other activities to reduce the usefulness of them (here you can see one of them by the BSA: http://www.financialexpress.com/print.php?content
Note that a US based service providing links or references may actually be liable, I'm not sure how likely this is, but it bears mulling and thinking about.
There will be no escape from DMCA style provisions in the world. It's too late for this fight. The fight to have now is to preserve fair use, interoperability and other rights within the context of DMCA.
We found out that it would be best to leave you back at camp with the women and children.
Yes but when did Freenet last work? I haven't seen any working network for over a year. and before that it was too slow to be any good.
"I've never seen an Apple ad dealing with their position on the DMCA or breaking their DRM"
Remember those Apple ads that said "don't steal music"? Pretty nasty and condescending, consieering that it is/was impossible to steal music using their hardware.
The RIAA could not have been happier with that ad campaign.
Just a quick question...
Has any group of people done any research into whether there is any watermarking or identification contained within the cleaned AAC files... ?
IE, two or more users buy the same song, use PlayFair to strip and clean the AAC, and then compare the resulting AAC files... is there any differences ?
I'll continue to purchase music from iTMS. I'll continue to use PlayFair. I'll continue to pay for my music and get the use out of it that I am entitled to.
For the last time, you are NOT entitled to play music purchased from iTMS anywhere or anyhow you want . If you don't like it, don't purchase your music there. But this is a clear violation of iTMS's terms of service and use. So if you use *Apple's* system then *they* get to set the rules. Don't like it? Fine. Buy music elsewhere where you like the rules, but don't go into their store and complain and break their rules!
If it is fair use for my ripped music, it should be fair use for my protected music as well. I don't understand the distinction.
So just because you don't understand it you're going to violate the terms of an agreement that you made when using their service? Good to know you're an honest and trustworthy individual. If you really cared about making a statement you wouldn't have agreed to the terms in the beginning. You're trying to have you cake and eat it too. Make up your mind.
The only law I'm breaking is the DMCA, and my karma (the karma that Jobs refers to) will be just fine, because the DMCA is a bad law that I'm convinced will eventually be struck down. To say that I have fair use of my music, but that I can't use the tools to get that fair use is to say that I don't have fair use at all.
You have no clue about civil disobedience. Moreover, it's individuals like yourself and most of the rest of slashdot apparently who are giving a bad name to those who are trying to change the laws.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
No, you would be buying records if you were a true audiophile
You *CRACK* tell *POP TSSS* them! Nothing "snap* beats *snap snap* the perfect pure *POP* sound of an LP.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
"RTFA, the story is about stripping DRM from COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED POP MUSIC."
Have you ever looked at the ITMS catalog? Much of it is rock, rap, R&B, country, classical. Not "pop". The story is about stripping DRM from ITMS songs, regardless of the genera
"I think this is a pretty good example of how silly laws like the DMCA only restrict commerce in their own country."
Its pretty silly how laws like pickpocketting only restrict commerce in their own country too. While in Mexico a few years back, a few friends were robbed and had to ask me to western union them money to get back. I've heard that if Mexico started enforcing the pickpocket laws, the pickpocketers will just find another country to pickpocket in.
Its amazing how moronic posts like the parent of this one get modded up.
Whats even more amazing is that I know some fucking moron is going to mod this up too.
Dear Mr. Omega1045,
Please remit payment for your use of Disney intellectual property; specifically your quotation from our "Small World" song and ride. Should your payment not be recieved within 30 days of this notice, your name will be turned over to our collections agency and legal dept. for further action.
Sincerely,
M. Mouse
IP Invoicing Dept.
Disney Corp.
Lake Buena Vista, FL
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
"Let me fill you in on a secret: the Clash sold a helluva lot of records."
The Clash also were a punk band, not a pop band.
"Bush has Osama already [troed.se] "
hahaha. Yeah right, He's in the white house basement along with Elvis.
Here's how one of the emails, from a guy in the UK who's working on his Ph.D, ends:
You may think you're doing the right thing "liberating music for one and all" but you really aren't. Thanks for fucking it up for all of us, asshole.
Um, in the UK the word is "arsehole". I guess he might be an American transfer student or something though.
Now Apple comes out with a service that addresses many of these issues.
Apple charges $1 per track for a lossily-compressed file.
That would be $11 for a typical Britney Spears CD, according to a quick look at a Britney Spears discography.
When the RIAA was bitterly complaining about piracy justified by "expense of CD", they put out a cost breakdown -- here's one of the news articles mentioning it.
Let's take a look at this:
Retail Markup is $6.23. Apple says that they're breaking even on iTune audio sales, and only making money on the iPod. Their server hardware and the software backend is a constant cost, and already sunk. Bandwidth is a couple of cents a gig -- let's be generous and say 20 cents/GB. Let's say each AAC is five megs -- that'd be 55 megs. That's about a penny in retail markup to cover those costs that Apple says they're only breaking even on. So far, the price should decrease by $6.22.
Company overhead, distribution and shipping is effectively nil, aside from constant-cost B2B negtiation. The price should decrease by another $3.34, in total $9.56.
Marketing and promotion costs. These should stay the same. Personally, I think that radio (and netradio) stations should be free to play whatever they want, sans royalties, since it's effectively nothing but marketing. But we'll leave the cost, $2.15, in place.
The artist and songwriter recieve $1.99. No decrease.
The signing act and producing record get $1.08. No decrease.
Co-op advertising and discounts to retailers don't really apply in the online world -- a banner ad on Apple's site when buying your music is of negligable bandwidth cost to Apple compared to the bandwidth cost of the audio file -- $.85 decrease.
Pressing album and printing booklet -- doesn't exist in the online world. $.75 decrease.
Profit to label -- $.59, stays the same.
Okay, let's do the math: $.59 + $1.08 + $1.99 + $2.15 + $.01 = 5.82. The price for that Britney Spears CD that used to cost $16 and Apple is selling for $11 should be $5.82 in the online world.
There are numerous other benefits to labels to online music purchases, including the fact that CD audio is lossless and Apple is selling lossy data that is likely to eventually be behind the times in compression algorithm, meaning resales sooner. Cheaper online purchases mean more sales -- and my numbers (unless, of course, the RIAA is lying about their costs and hiding additional profit in per-unit distribution costs or similar) mean that the RIAA makes *more* money in such a scenerio. Returns don't exist -- CDs can be defective, but a bunch of bits is the same bunch of bits when anyone obtains it. Unique per-copy watermarking is easy to do, and watermarking seems to make the RIAA absoutely giggle in delight, so they should like online sales.
Want lossless FLAC quality? It should require about five times the bandwidth -- it should be about four cents more in cost to Apple, or $5.86, for that Britney Spears album.
Now, a couple of assumptions here should probably change, to be realistic. First, the RIAA should probably expect to be making less per-unit, since there's simply less money involved. Second, most retailers aren't going to be happy with just breaking even, and probably are going to want more money (plus, I ignored constant costs, and big business is usually incapable of setting up any computer systems without flushing masses of money down the toilet -- even if data transfer costs should be the dominant expense for a company that makes money by selling data in an automated fashion). That album in lossless FLAC still shouldn't be costing more than $6, which is *half* what Apple charges and provides much better quality.
May we never see th
UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT: /--to the Internet?- --<-<No.. . |
A SLASHDOT FLOWCHART EXCLUSIVE
Start:
Did a corporation use Was the encryption--Y-->Did someone break
encryption to prevent-Y->in question the encryption and
their customers from pathetically weak? post source code
fairly using purchases? |
N-------N---<------<----N----<--+----<
| \ Y
N<------N----<---Did the corporation Did this new<--+
| use the DMCA in a<--Y-software enable
| Was the<--Y--failed attempt to fair use?
| corporation suppress the source
| Apple(tm)(R)? code as free speech?
| | |
| Yes +No-->Oh my God those assholes! It's time we put this source
|_ | code on a T-shirt! Time to contribute to the author's
\ / legal defense fund! Time to call our senator and tell
No big deal! him to repeal the evil, flawed DMCA! Time
Time to play "Quake!!!" to practice "civil disobedience!". Time
to write "distributed peer to peer"
corporate-subversion software! Time to call for a radical reform
of copyright laws! Time to decry Palladium(tm)(R) design and
distribution as a grand scheme to put us under the lock and key
of DRM! Time to raid DVD-Jon's jail cell with Dimitri as lead
commando! Time to hack Hillary Rosen's web site and deface statues
of Jack Valenti! Quick buy another 2600 T-Shirt!
By the way, wouldn't it be great if Devo was 99c a song?
God I still remember the HACKER MANIFESTO!!!!
Beethoven and the Clash are not pop, period.
"The Clash produced pop music, just as Led Zeppelin, Elvis Presley"
The Clash produced punk. Led Zeppelin was rock, So was Presley, with some blues and country in there.
Ludacris is a rap star, again, not pop. Anne Murray? Not sure what to call her.
Rock, rap, pop, etc are sub-genres of music. Rock and rap are not sub-genres of pop. (pop being a sub-genre of music often closely related to rock. Britney Spears is perhaps a stereotypical practicioner of it).
This is the last place I expected to see such a widespread misunderstanding of the implications of what this program does.
It does the same DRM removal that iTunes does for you already.
In iTunes, you can burn tracks to CD. Then, you can rip them as unprotected tracks. There's a slight quality hit, but it's still equivalent to the original for purposes of copyright law. All PlayFair does for you above iTunes is save you a CD-RW, a few minutes, and the quality hit. You are left with a non-DRM track that is not substantially different from the PlayFair-stripped track. The copyright violation occurs if you distribute the track to those not licensed to have it.
<RANT>
I'm amazed that any slashdotters at all are willing to put up with any sort of DRM, even the relatively friendly Apple version. It's reasonable for the copyright holder to expect me not to distribute it, but restricting my ability in any way to listen to it on all my computers is ludicrous.
My experience in college radio has shown me that RIAA labels are slimy bastards. I'm not willing to give up rights so they can apply an overzealous solution to a "problem" that might not actually exist. Even if all labels ceased to exist tomorrow, we'd all still be alive, folks.
</RANT>
Maybe I'm smoking crack on this one; would someone care to correct me?
Though they share common name, they are 2 different companies. They started as one, but now split and managed by 2 different groups.
raj
Sarovar.org Hosting for open source projects in Indi
I've read some pretty strange DRM arguments, and come to the conclusion that although I really really like iTunes and root for its success, I'll be breaking the DRM as soon as I can.
If I were to buy iTunes music, I'd want to escape the "fair" restriction of 3 computers, certainly.
I have vinyl that's 20 years old, I have a shit-heap of CD's and I've digitised some of this. Who's going to restrict MY use of MY music?
I don't care about the true colours of other people, I don't condone copyright crime (or theft or whatever) and I LOVE iTunes and iTMS (can't buy yet).
And yes, I'll circumvent the DRM as soon as I can. Of course I will. And I don't care about any or all politics about this, I'll just do it as an extension of MY normal use of MY music.
Or do you think I've re-stocked my vinyl or CD collection after changing my stereo equipment?
And to make matters worse: I'll probably be sharing some of my music around, just as I have been doing for more than 20 years with cassettes.
You now officially have the right to despise me as much as you like.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
I swear, some of the posts here surprise the hell out of me.
So because Apple is a "nice" company we should just let them restrict free use?
People have purchased this music. Think about that.. to use playfair you already need the legit key and the music you *already bought*. People have a right to do with it as *they* want to, and playfair lets them do that.
Any restriction on fair use is too much! You want to go after those who redistribute, then by all means go after them.. but one should not give up ones rights to fair use of your own purchases just because Apple is "nice".
This is simple people, Apple should have made a better DRM.
Just be cause this is Apple, and not Microsoft dosn't mean they should get away with bad DRM protection.
Apple should have known better, they wanted to protect the music they make avaliable, they should have spent much more time creating a better DRM.
They fsk up, now they pay for it, try again and move along.
TruePunk | Games
Now the author can expect a civil suit.
Say, Sony brings out a one button CD burner for easy digitising of your Vinyl without audio loss. ...
...
-> yeeeeey, waaaaw, coool, nice,
Say, some punk makes a "little hack" for easy liberating of your DRM'd track without audio loss.
-> awooo, faul, bastards, end of the world,
Both however are extensions of one's guaranteed fair use of bought copyrighted material and help you leverage the use of your bought material to your other sound carriers.
Both can be abused, but that's not the point. I'm fairly certain I can kill someone with a tube of mayonnaise if needs must. Ban mayonnaise?
I am an Apple enthusiast and really like iTunes, but I'm a bit embarrassed by the arguments I've seen from some mac-users.
When all fails, remember that the Great Jobs doesn't really like DRM either, yesyes?
And he won't punish you for circumventing the DRM so that you can use your music on your FOURTH macintosh, for crying out loud! He'll love you and bless you for it.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
This weekend, I really wanted to buy a song I heard on the radio, an RIAA artist but not quite in the same vein as Britney et al. So I went online to try to find a download legally from one of these many stores popping up. I found the song, and was willing to maybe drop my RIAA boycott for just a moment to buy a song and maybe show them, "Hey, this is a model that works." But all the songs from various stores had some form of DRM, or were in WMA. I couldn't get my stomach around the fact that after buying it, I would not have basic rights over it, like number of computers I could have it on (I have a sizable network at home, I'm always shuffling files around and backing them up as insurance agaisnt my putzing), whether or not or how I can burn to CD (used for car or jogging). So, instead, I illegally downloaded it. (I've read tales of smartasses who have been in similar situations and sent a dollar to the artist, which I may do just on principle. Maybe the artists will eventually get the clue?). I haven't used P2P for music in ages, and even when I did before, it did increase my exposure to groups I never would have known about and many who I now own many CDs by. The next day after making that download, I bought a $60 stack of CDs of independent groups online (from CDBaby et al). I don't have a problem paying for my music, I have a problem having to give up my principles in order to do so.
Since I'm sure India is a member of the WTO, it shouldnt be too hard for Apple to file a complaint with them, and have the 'organization' reach out and smack down the new site..
Remember all the members must play by the same rules or face sanctions..
( not saying this is right, just an example of why the WTO is bad and can usurp a contrie's own laws at will )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Is there something that I can't do with the music that I have bought from itunes that this will allow me to do?
Nope. Unless my favorite mp3 player gets a firmware update to play mp4s...no....do I need this on a machine other than the three that I play tracks on? No....
Am I going to hop on Kazaa with all the tracks that I've downloaded? No....The heat is still too much on that program.
Wow, really *useful* program ya got there dude.
--pete
The only thing that this application will achieve is to convince the record companies that trusting Apple's watered down DRM scheme was a mistake. They will all happily move to WMA instead. Which is so DRM shackled as to be useless, based on no standard whatsoever (AAC is an open standard), and will probably get more onerous as time passes.
Note: After installing a service pack on a win2k box, an office drone where I used to work freaked cause none of his music would play anymore. He was convinced we had purposely tampered with his files.
http://www.seyboldreports.com/ebooks/news/011023 -windows.html
That's an old report which details how DRM was removed from Microsoft's WMA format a while back.
Here's how I see PlayFair:As someone with fairly sensitive ears, I can hear the difference between an original AAC file at 128 and a re-ripped mp3 at 192. The high end gets a bit crinkly, especially when the music is something electronic or with a high woman's voice. This loss in quality is why, I believe, Apple was allowed to distribute such high-quality rips on their store and still allow burning: it's like taping a CD-- you're not getting a perfect copy.
The real issue with PlayFair is that it allows a perfect copying of the compressed data. No generation loss from a re-rip. Somehow, the RIAA sees that as a more heinous offense than the way iTunes can re-rip music, or iTunes would have added something special to CD's with purchased music burnt onto them that prevented the re-ripping in the first place.
Here's a crazy notion: DRM in any form is just a request for cracking. No matter how long the encryption key is, or whether or not it's somehow linked to a secure chip in secure memory, companies will *never* be able to fully limit the desires of intelligent individuals. So instead of punishing the intelligent for removing what amounts to a general annoyance (the inability to play music I bought on my linux box or my PS2), what companies should be doing is reevaluating their strategies for distribution. I still think that music downloads could work without DRM, but the customer would need to be treated differently.
Anyway, PlayFair has a legitimate use, just like DeCSS -- the playing of purchased items on a box chosen by the purchaser. So unless Apple ports iTunes to Linux, then PlayFair has grounds to stand on, just as DeCSS will until DVD player makers start porting their players to that platform.
Incidentally, I too purchased $20 from the iTunes store once I found out I wasn't locked into my iBook, and I'll likely buy more. I was hesitant because I knew the music wasn't portable; now that it is, I fear it's going to be a money sink of epic proportions, as I live in Japan and can't always get the latest music.
- Cloud
"I'm not willing to give up rights so they can apply an overzealous solution to a "problem" that might not actually exist"
That's a very good point. The problem is when people complain about that *after* they've bought songs under the iTMS terms, which are very explicit and easy to understand. As far as I'm concerned, once you do that you've voluntarily given up those rights, as well as the right to complain.
(now, ranting, not about you)
This is how I see the transaction with iTMS typically going:
iTMS: I'm going to give you this file for a dollar. You may listen to it with up to 3 copies of iTunes, as many iPods as you like, and you may burn it to a CD. You may not play the file in any other way, though what you do with the CD is up to you.
buyer: sounds like a good deal to me. I agree.
iTMS: here's your file, enjoy it.
buyer: hey! I can only play this on iPods or computers with iTunes, and burn it to CD! you ripped me off!
iTMS: schmuck.
From this perspective, I basically see playfair as a tool to help people break a contract they knowingly entered. That's a far cry from 'fair use', where I buy a CD with the expectation that I can back it up however I like.
Why are people are defending Apple's actions of taking on Playfair? To do so would be to legitimize the DMCA. It's called fair use people, and the DMCA prevents you from having it.
What I find sad is the way the newer generations (especially Americans) have dumped all discussion of "reason" in favor of "rights." They will discuss whether x is within their "rights" till they're blue in the face, but won't even think about whether x is "reasonable."
Is it reasonable to publish music CDs that install some program on your Windows box, partially crippling your ability to use your computer? No.
Is it reasonable to sell music online containing DRM (like Apple's) that only affects the sold product? Yes.
Is it reasonable to find and publish a program to defeat such DRM? Hmmm.
If Apple is one of the good guys (i.e. supporting true fair use and consumer rights) then at some point they will have satisfied whatever their minimum level of due diligence is and go to the RIAA and say 'we tried to stamp it out, I guess we'll just have to live with it'.
If on the other hand Apple does not support fair use and consumer rights, then they will keep suing.
I suspect however that if Apple doesn't fix this then the RIAA will kill their deal with Apple, leaving WiMP and Real as our only major outlets for legitimate digital music. Ugh. This is one situation where one really hopes that the reality distortion field us up to full power (when Apple goes into the conference room to negotiate with the syndica^W RIAA)
In point of fact I just want digital distribution of music, and I'm willing to pay a fair price for a fast, reliable service, with consistent quality of product. You don't get fast, reliable, or consistent quality on the P2P networks. This is the key differentiator IMHO. I don't want DRM, the RIAA wants DRM. FairPlay DRM was workable for me (I understand that reasonable people can differ over what level of DRM they can live with, however.) If Apple wants to treat me as the customer, they will give me what I want. If Apple wants to treat me as an eyeball and the RIAA as their customer, then screw 'em.
The DMCA, while trying to accomplish some lofty goals, is unfortunately a good example of a law written by people that had no clue about the technologies that they were trying to legislate. In some places it seems to be in direct opposition to Fair Use laws that are still in effect, and as with many laws, it reflects more the side that had the most money to spend on lobbyists.
So here we stand, about a year after iTunes debut, an easy solution to removing the DRM has appeared. Here is a 'test' if you will of the current laws and policies. Many more will follow.
This is where things get interesting as far as I'm concerned.
Will apple now change it's scheme to stay ahead of the programmers working to crack the encryption schemes?
Is the DMCA going to survive?
Do Fair Use rights trump the DMCA or visa-versa?
Are we moving to a more restricted use model for purchasing content?
To people who are picking on the author of this program, i think you are missing the point. Were it not him it would have been someone else. Not speaking from a legal point of view, but a human nature point of view, any DRM is a gauntlet thrown down, it's like Mt Everest, people climb it because it's there.
Personally I think there is a place for fairplay, and as long as we move toward the restricted rights model for purchasing content, these tools will only become of more value, and more sought after. When I found playfair I quickly tested it, and finding it did what it claimed to, I promptly removed the DRM from all the tracks I have purchased from iTunes (about 20 CDs worth) because the one thing that bothered me about iTunes was the thought that apple could get out of the music distribution business at some point and decide that FairPlay is no longer needed in quicktime, and I would be stuck with unplayable tracks. I like the fact that with playfair I have unencumbered copies of the tracks I bought that I can play on many platforms. I haven't shared any of my DRM removed tracks. I don't feel I am breaking any laws, I may well be, but that is for the courts to decide. And that is what is needed at this point.
The parent post has this right. Apple's iTunes already allows you to strip DRM from a track. Playfair just makes the process a bit easier.
Apple only installed DRM because the RIAA insisted. Apple made the DRM strippable because Jobs has a clue - he realizes that music with both DRM and a price tag can't compete against free music ripped from a CD. But the procedure for stripping the DRM was obscured, so that the intended market (RIAA executives and the technologically uncurious, or (ahem) both) wouldn't notice.
The problem with Playfair is that it rips away the obscurity and exposes the fact that iTunes DRM is easily removed. Naturally, the RIAA will want Playfair shut down and the obscurity restored. Apple, of course, doesn't want Playfair shut down because Playfair is a tool which makes Apple customers very happy, thus promoting Apple products. Jobs' role is to walk the line between these two rivals.
The obvious answer is to publicly oppose Playfair while keeping it available behind the scenes. I will now play my role in this Kabuki dance by stating that Playfair is absolutely terrible and I'll never use it in public. It has bugs too. Really nasty bugs that will send you spam and make your computer explode. Of course, I believe that software = free speech and that engineers have a right to own Playfair, just as they have a right to own other ungodly writings. But I would certainly never let it be known that I use Playfair to remove the DRM so I can keep my music even after my Macintosh crashes. No, that would obviously be wrong, just like sex and bad language are wrong.
"So using Apple's supplied tools to burn a CD, the DRM can be removed. By using playfair, the DRM can be removed. Why is one bad and one not?"
How dare you bring logic into a discussion where Apple is involved?
Now before I get modded Troll let me make a point. I've been reading Slashdot daily for a long long time. In that time we've seen a of programs that do emulation, reserve engineering, etc etc that in the end are applauded for empowering consumers. Over the years I have NEVER seen an outburst like this over something so natural to the computing and electronics world.
Let's go back to the original IBM bios being "cracked". This ushered in a whole new generation of cheaper "clones" and brought affordable computing to the mainstream. Look at Samba, look at DeCSS, look GAIM, look at Novell DOS, look at WINE, look at any of a billion pieces of software or hardware which let people use products in ways not forseen are authorized by the product manufacturers.
Now just because its Apple suddenly we are talking about how a "Criminal" "cracked" Apple's DRM and how we are all a bunch of assholes for not supporting Apple's commercial venture. Sorry but this is just like every article on Slashdot where Apple gets mentioned. Apple users come out in droves to support whatever Apple sells no matter what the story is about. These people are actually defending the DMCA for Christ's sake when you just know that if it were somthing that didn't affect Apple but they pesonally found useful they'd be cheering it on.
This is fanboyism at its worst. I'm sick and tired of reading posts from people who benefit from reverse engineering every single day yet don't even give it a second thought. Like the parent said. WTF is the difference between burning to CD and then ripping as opposed to just ripping? The end result is the same, a nonDRM file. Apple still got paid and you Itunes users seem to think this method for circumventing DRM is just dandy. Why are people who skipped the burning to cd part criminals? Oh I get it, they didn't work within the "Apple approved framework" and we should all be obeying the DMCA when it involves Apple. Hypocrites.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
zeal-ot n.
;-)
1. Person who repeatedly and continously hurts own cause.
Aaaaw, but aren't they just too cute?
Apple should have known better
They did.
they wanted to protect the music they make avaliable
Not really.
they should have spent much more time creating a better DRM
They realized that would be pointless. Steve Jobs: "We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content." iTunes DRM isn't intended to be anything other than a speedbump. The only reason Apple has any protection at all is to keep the RIAA happy. Remember, the iTMS is just a loss leader for the iPod.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
My guess is that its NOT ok for "illegal" companies to offshore to avoid compyright laws.
But it's OK for "legal" companies to offshore to avoid paying minimum wage and having to follow labour standards.
man, you are sad.
How is a multinational company your friend? You should really try and meet some real people. Maybe you could introduce them to your best mate Apple.
I hate to tell you this, Apple may be cool with its purple computers and people dancing to iPod, but Apple doesn't give a shit about you!
Apple's just using you for your money. Notice who's giving money to who. When's the last time Apple bought YOU a drink?
(okay, sorry for being a dick, i know your first paragraph acknowledged they're in it for profit; it's just the last sentence sounds so gay!)
If they listened and complied to their customers, the music cartels would lose their monopoly of music distribution. If you're in business, there's nothing better than having a monopoly.
Get a clue and stop wasting your breath saying they're dumb not listening to their customers.
When you want to use analogy with these people, you need to use the GPL because it's related, not something unrelated.
Suppose people use GPL softwares but they feel the GPL is bullshit and distribute their modified version in binary only, would this guy get modded up still for justifying GPL violations?
Now, the point is why are people apologizing for Apple for using DRM, and "colluding" with the music Cartel? I'll never understand why one company gets support for using DRM and the DMCA, while another gets contempt for doing just that.
The solution is too simple: boycott DRM and their ilk.
the abject hypocrisy is amazing. Because this is Apple using the DMCA there are actually people defending it. Remember when the DVDCA used the DMCA to suppress DeCSS?
People were gathering with torches and pitchforks.
I understand that in some people's eyes Apple can do no wrong, but really, this is almost funny.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Sarovar.org Admin - 2004-04-16 17:18 - Site Admin
This is to announce that the project "PlayFair" has been taken down from
Sarovar.org upon receiving a legal notice this morning from Apple's
attorneys. We are awaiting to hear from our attorneys. Here is the notice we received in its full form: