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!
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.
http://freenet.sf.net
This is one of the reasons to use Freenet. Projects should be moved there instead of just off shore to countries with less draconian (yet) laws.
Freenet won't allow realtime CVS checkins, but it'd be impossible to remove the software from it using legal means.
it's in my head
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
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
It's only picking a friend's pocket if I take my unencrypted iTunes and give them to others. Until I do that, it's no less morally wrong than storing my DVDs on my hard drive with DeCSS for my personal use.
In fact, as soon as I confirmed that PlayFair worked, I celebrated by purchasing $11 worth of music at the iTunes Music Store, which I then promptly stripped of all DRM, and I'll be buying more in the future now that I know that all I have to do is back my files up and I'll have this music for the rest of my life, regardless of what happens to Apple.
So I've actually put money in my friend's pocket.
The one place that Apple's DRM failed me was at the office. My office mates and I share our music libraries, and they weren't able to access my protected music. Yet Apple provides music sharing for the other music I've purchased and ripped from CDs. 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.
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.
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 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".
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.
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.
Now, if you had said that you want to play your iTunes Music Store purchases on your Linux box, you'd actually have an argument.
I live in India and AFAIK apple has zero investment here (no call centers, never seen a Apple retailer here). Near zero percentage of Indians use Macs too.
Moreover, the sarovar website is hosted by Asianet, which is a leftleaning TV channel in a state with a history of communist governments (BTW communist is not a bad word here). So not only are they cool with the idea of community ownership of information they are also not to be messed with easily since they can very well publicise it.
Not saying that India has never censored information (pakistani news/TV is the most commonly banned), but its not very common either.
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.
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!!!!