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."

Comments

For Once I don't Agree

[millahtime]

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.

Re:For Once I don't Agree

[usermilk]

Just because you disagree with a law doesn't mean you are allowed to break it.

If I feel that a law preventing me from drinking and driving is a bad law, does that entitle me the ability to just break it on a whim? No.

There are proper routes you can take in the justice system to get a law like the DMCA repealed, until then breaking it doesn't make you look like anything except a criminal.

Re:For Once I don't Agree

[the chao goes mu]

Actually, to get a law overturned the usual process IS to break that law. That is how "test cases" come about. If no one breaks the law how can courts ever review it?

No good can come of this

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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.

Re:No good can come of this

[mst76]

> Rather than working with Apple to try to resolve their differences,

The purpose of Playfair is simple and clear: to strip the encryption from a Fairplay protected AAC file. What kind of resolution did you have in mind, other than stopping the development/distribution of Playfair?

Re:No good can come of this

[mrwiggly]

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.

You are foolish to believe that apple would allow fairplay to be distributed under any conditions, and your classification of 'little hack' shows your bias.

This has nothing to do with apple, itunes, or ipod. This is all fair use vs. DMCA.

Re:No good can come of this

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is, the Playfair person or persons never sat down and said, "Here's what I want to be able to do. I do not want to enable people to pirate iTunes music, nor do I want to break the law. What's the solution?"

Maybe he sat down and said: "Here's what I want to be able to do. I want to strip the encryption of the iTMS AACs. I do not believe in licenses that restrict on what hardware I play these files. I don't care if it was drafted by Apple or Microsoft, whether they use big legal terms or not, whether I click-agreed or not. Bullshit is bullshit."

Brute-forcing an illegal solution is neither elegant, nor impressive. It's just lame. Taking it off-shore to avoid legal entanglements is both lame and cowardly.

People reacted very differently when CSS was broken, even though hardware to play DVDs was available from a dozen of different vendors and costs way less than hardware to play iTMS AACs.

Re:No good can come of this

[mrwiggly]

We have a system for dealing with bad laws. These laws are challenged in court, and a judge or panel of judges decides whether the law should continue to apply, be narrowed in scope, or be stricken entirely from the books. Did the Playfair... what do you call it? Organization? Whatever. Did the Playfair Dude engage that system? Did they raise the level of debate, or seek restitution in a court?

Please tell me how this system of ours works when it's an individual that is challenging the law makers. Tell me about the time required. Tell me about the money needed. Tell me about the personal attacks the will be levied against this individual. The U.S. law makes martyrs out of heroes every day.

The bias is obvious, As a content producer (Apple) all you have to do is issue a C&D, and sit back.

The deck is stacked against the single person trying to exercise their fair rights.

Clearly, you are a person willing to take up the fight. Step up to the plate, mirror fairplay on your own personal site, and when the C&D's come in stand your ground. I'll be the first one to cheer you on.

Re:No good can come of this

[nolife]

Apple's DRM has the ability to be burned to CD. That means the CD can then be played anywhere

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?

Seperate "Apple" the company out of the picture and look what you have. Media that is restricted or controlled. Maybe the current level of control and hardware availability is acceptable to you but to others it is not. What happens in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? I have NO idea and neither does anyone else. I have mp3 files that I ripped myself in 1997/1998 that I can still listen to today on a multitude of equipment (portables, DVD players, car stereo, any computer running any OS, my Dreamcast etc...)without converting them to anything else. Choosing a specific download service and hardware required is a personal choice that is acceptable to some, not to others. The rules given by the provider are clear. Some people are not happy with the choice and take the matter into their own hands. Some people agree with that, some do not.

If they fail in India, there are other places....

[Omega1045]

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..."

The point of this is ?

[naden]

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 ?

Laws may be different in another country.

[Futurepower(R)]

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.

Re:Apple the bully

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple deserves nothing but condemnation for threatening frivolous lawsuits against them. There is more "Bill the Borg" in Apple than most people think

Corporations are supposed to play by the rules of business, which are laws. "Bill the Borg" routinely broke those rules to get ahead. Apple is not breaking any laws.

Your problem is with the law, so what you are really complaining about is the lawmaking/decision skills of American legislators. So by proxy what you are really mad about is the gullibility and/or apathy of American voters.

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. That's what the law is for.

Re:Apple the bully

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hardly call Apple suing these guys a frivolous lawsuit. Unfortunately, because people lack moral character these days, Fairplay is a necessary evil. Apple doesn't want to use Fairplay, hell, they provide one of the most lenient DRM schemes. But the fact remains that Apple NEEDS Fairplay in order to continue to distribute music. Do you think the record labels would allow Apple to sell music through iTunes without DRM? Do you think the record labels may reconsider Apple's ability to sell music online as a result of Playfair? Apple essentially has to do something about PlayFair or risk losing the iTunes music store.

Besides, Apple already provides an acceptable (By most users and the record labels) method of removing the DRM... burn it to a CD. If you're vain enough to complain about the degradation in sound that results from ripping and re-encoding, you shouldn't be buying anything other than CDs, DVD-Audio, and SACDs.

There is this little thing called the Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Shows many peoples true colors

[otis wildflower]

They have a flexible DRM policy (without which they wouldn't even be able to offer the service to begin with).

How do I play encumbered files on my Tivo home media player?

How do I play them at work on my Linux box, even if they're streaming off my iPod?

Thieves are thieves, if they hadn't purchased the songs in the first place they wouldn't need this utility, and there's plenty of files in sharing anyways. People use the iTunes store for convenience, and quality fast downloads. Sharing cracked iTunes files is kind of silly, frankly, because you're definitely not gonna have the same ease-of-use and quick-downloadability that makes the itms worth the 'premium'.

See Zealots Attack for an excellent explanation.

[Futurepower(R)]

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:

Sorry to say this but, unlike with DeCSS where you were allowing Linux users to view DVDs, this time you've gone too far.

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:

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. I hope Apple, the RIAA and the BPI come down hard on your ass now that the EUCD and DMCA are in place.

Funny stuff. I just hope I have enough room in /dev/null.

Obligatory Heinlein Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

You're not willing to *really* pay the price.

[jaaron]

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.

Re:You're not willing to *really* pay the price.

[esme]

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!

bullshit.

the doctrine of first sale is pretty clear: once you've bought something, you have the right to use it any way you want.

there are limits to how many copies you can make and what you can do with those copies. there are limits to public performance. but if you're just using your purchased thing, there are no rules whatsoever. just because the media and software companies don't like it doesn't mean the law has suddenly changed.

-esme

Re:Apple the bully

[Alphanos]

Canada.

Dude WTF are you doing?

[bogie]

"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.