Slashdot Mirror
Apple Hunts Playfair in India
An anonymous reader writes "A news posting at Sarovar.org says that they have to take down the 'PlayFair' program upon receiving a notice from Apple's attorneys. They are awaiting their attorneys' response. This is bad news for all those who appreciated this cool program. Let's hope that 'PlayFair' might appear in some other country now."
1. The iTunes Music Store - and thus all other worthwhile online music stores that follows - would have *existed* in the first place if it wasn't for *some* DRM capability. Apple's is the most flexible, least intrusive of all other current implementations (other than no DRM at all).
2. Remember, if Apple chose to "fight the good fight" against DRM, we wouldn't have an iTunes Music Store at all. Apple put in the LEAST DRM it could get away with.
3. Whether or not the DMCA is unconstitutional is irrelevant to the fact that, at least with regard to Sourceforge, Apple used a law in existence in its favor - how can it be faulted for that?
4. With refard to Sarovar, Apple did nothing more than make with is essentially an intellectual appeal. Apple didn't "force" anyone to do anything.
5. If you don't like the iTunes Music Store license, don't buy music from it. Please, no lame arguments about "stealing" vs. "copyright infringement", and "fair use" vs "licenses I didn't sign", or "playing music **I paid for** anywhere". We all agree with you. By the way, breaking DRM isn't civil disobedience: civil disobedience involves some kind of personal sacrifice on your part - and if that personal sacrifice is going to jail and/or getting fined for violating US law, unconstitutional or no, then don't bitch about it. Publicize it, but don't bitch. THAT'S civil disobedience. And maybe it will change the law(s).
6. We all know that many here are against *any* DRM, on principle, no matter how unintrusive. That's another argument all together...should rights owners have *any* rights to protect/monitor/control their products? A huge matter, to be sure...but be that as it may, Apple tried for the best possible balance in favor of consumers, and did a pretty darn good job. Remember, too, that one DRM element is keeping iTMS purchases tied to the iPod, which is how Apple chose to deploy this service. It's their service and products; if you don't like it, don't use or buy them. It's your choice.
...since it was getting downloaded around 5000 times a day before it got pulled. I'm sure the other project admins at Sarovar aren't sad to see it go; now they have a much more responsive server :-)
And again, if you put up a public (foo)Forge, make sure you have a Terms of Service document to cover this sort of thing.
The Army reading list
sheesh.
I make these: http://beatseqr.com
So its gonna be all over gnutella, winmx, etc?
If Apple keeps going after every website that hosts it, its gonna be everywhere on P2P... what are they gonna do then?
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
...It'll never be caught there! :^)
Ba-doom-boom-crash!
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Why can't they just seem to leave well enough alone? I'd like to know under what law they are threatening PlayFair.
Oh, and liberate India on the way out. Hey, two birds with one stone!
Wait, what's that? India is an ally? Oh... Um... Guess we'll just have to settle for killing those "PlayFair" guys, whatever that means. Darn, I was looking forward to my daily bloodbath. Wonder how Iraq is doing? *click*
- G. W. Bush
I'm not familiar with what they are referring to. Is that Indian law, or are they doing some cross-ocean hand-waving and hoping Sarovar doesn't notice?
This certainly doesn't suprise me, however, I find something odd about the letter they posted. Something about that letter just doesn't seems right. Granted, I don't have much experience with C&D letters, but there's something about the language in the letter that seems off.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
There'd be no way for them to force it down, if I understand freenet, anyway.
/. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
I downloaded the source the moment I saw it.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
... too late. It's out there, Apple can't get it back.
Mind you, I don't think it's such a terrible thing for them that they can't. It's not like you can get any old AAC and remove the DRM - only ones you own. So this is no different to CD ripping with its associated risks of ripped files being shared on P2P networks.
Why? if you dont like the itunes licence, don't use it. There are other ways of getting music online either legally or illgally. There are WMA options or you could just buy a real CD. When you bought the song on itunes, you agreed to the licence
The way people are talking here, it is ok if you bought a box of GPL software, decided it had commercial potential then released it. I make the comparison becasue, like the GPL, in the itunes system, you understand clearly what you agree to when you get it.
How is violating the itunes licence (that being you can share it with 3 machines, unliited ipods yada yada yada) different from voilating the GPL?
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
OK, I'll admit it, I'm a long-time Apple user. But I'm not too quick to defend them when they are wrong. The first poster had a good point in that ITMS would not even exist without some DRM, and the reason for that is not because of Apple or any other retailer. It is because without the DRM, the RIAA would not permit any sort of digital distribution.
You want fair use? Fine! Write your own program for doing whatever you want. But to distribute a public project which is essentially a tool for excising the golden egg from the goose is not a sustainable action. Didn't anyone read Aesop's Fables as a kid?
Forget Aesop. What about Jurassic Park? Aren't there a million examples of the same moral? "Just because you CAN do something doesn't make it right."
The CB App. What's your 20?
That was up there pretty quickly!
When do we get to see a T-shirt version of the playfair application? I'd like to see Steve Jobs making people to stop wearing the T-shirts. Though I suppose he could maybe stop people from making them in the first place.
how would you react if, hypothetically, it was Microsoft or Real who introduced iTMS. Exact same conditions, etc, etc. And then someone cracks the DRM, and they use DMCA to hunt down them down. How would you react? Please be honest.
With the exception that the terms of purchasing the songs from the iTMS as specificaly stated in the contract presented to you before you enter into the transactions was that you would not circumvent the DRM on the file.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I could care less about this program.
Anyone who's concerned about what little DRM Apple has put in the ITMS files can just burn it to an audio cd (on a rewritable disc) and then rip it to MP3. It's what my girlfriend and I do.
(besides, I could never get the win32 version of this program to do anything other than spit out the help file)
I wonder if this were Microsoft rather than Apple trying to inflict the US legal system on a foreign country in this manner, would the person who submitted this article have a different reaction and would the reaction of Slashdotters be more hostile?
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
I have one of the original 5 gig iPods that I use on a daily basis. I may be one of the "converted" or "brainwashed" or whatever you'd like to say, but I don't see what's so wrong with the minmal DRM that Apple chose to use.
If I want, I can burn my songs to a CD. And play them in my car. Or in my house. Or at work. Or in a portable CD player.
If I want, I can put these songs on my iPod and listen to them wherever I go.
If I want, I can listen to these songs on my computer using iTunes.
I've yet to find a gross infraction upon my rights to do with the music as I wish.
When a program is threatening Apple's business, that may be well enough for you, but not for them.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
mirrored do we /. this server AGAIN?
countdown to this appearing on p2p near you
5...
4...
3..
2..
If it were Microsoft doing the same, everyone would be jumping all over them. Slashbots are pathetic.
sealand!
(it's still illegal for americans to conduct private business in iran, right?)
"into the transactions was that you would not circumvent the DRM on the file"
Easy enough. Make a copy of the file you downloaded. Circumvent the DRM on the copy you made, while obeying the contract by leaving the DRM alone on the copy you actually bought.
Which, of course, would only be binding in those jurisdictions where such a condition would actually be legal and enforceable. In Sweden, for example, any DRM used specifically for the purpose of hindering fair-use provisions (such as copying, media transfer and so on) are explicitly allowed to be circumvented.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
From what I understand, Playfair's functionality is rooted in the OpenSource FAAD2 project, isn't it?
Why, then, is Apple pursuing Playfair so strenuously and not really bothering with FAAD2?
How many computers do you have? You can authorize the files to be played on up to three computers, and if you have more than that, just set up a iTunes server. I have one box that has iTunes which I buy the music from. Then I just leave iTunes running all the time and I can then access the music from any computer in my house.
(you can also just burn the song to CD and rip it back as mp3...)
http://btiteam.bttracker.co.uk/download.php?id=370 &name=playfair-0.2.tar.gz.torrent
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
Playfair... let's me use my iTunes music library on my linux box. Tell me again why this is bad? Apple does not provide iTunes for linux, or any way to play their files under linux. I can't bring my personal machine to work because of a security policy, and I'm bound to a linux box.
So, since playfair has been released and I can play the music on my linux box, I have purchased about $200 worth of music from the itunes store. Previously, I had about 30 songs. playfair has only resulted in increased sales for apple.
If I want, I can put these songs on my iPod and listen to them wherever I go
That is the situation if you have the iPod, which plays the obscure non-standard AAC format. Most digital music players play MP3 format files.
You had to post this AC because it couldn't be further from the truth.
/P2P!
Apple exists to serve... it does NOT serve to exist. Why push Music and Garageband? Serve a market. Why push iMovie and create iDVD? Serve a market. Why create a niche hardware item like the iSight? Serve with the BEST camera and the best solution for video conferencing. Gateway for instance - they build computers to make a profit - no innovation - nothing special - they serve to exist!
This is the REAL disadvantage to releasing programs to Windows users. It really sucks that Apple has to deal with this and the "/. mentality" that everything should be free. That's communist. Apple is capitalist. They have a solution, it's paid. You have a free solution - Kazaa
I agree with the parent. If you don't like Apple DRM - don't try to circumvent it by HACKING IT - just do something that HAS NOT BEEN termed illegal - go buy the CD and then sell the CD back to a used store once you've ripped it. You'll come OUT WAY ahead of iTunes prices.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
(*
This applescript will peruse the selected playlist for protected AAC songs, run the tracks through PlayFair, and add the stripped songs to a new playlist. This is for your own fair use...please don't ruin it for the rest of us and make your songs available on P2P networks.
*)
global protectedTracksFound
global newPlaylist
--initialize playList
tell me to set newPlaylist to ""
-- initialize protectedTracksFound flag
tell me to set protectedTracksFound to false
display dialog "This script will search for Protected AAC tracks in the selected playlist and prepare them for your own personal Fair Use...such as moving them to a non-iPod portable music player...by stripping the DRM. The original, protected, tracks will not be affected. DON'T STEAL MUSIC!"
-- Create/Set the new playlist for the converted tracks
tell me to handleNewPlaylist()
-- Begin search and conversion process
tell application "iTunes"
set oldFI to fixed indexing
set fixed indexing to true
set thePlaylist to a reference to view of front window
repeat with i from 1 to (count of tracks in thePlaylist)
set theTrack to track i of thePlaylist
with timeout of 300000 seconds
try
tell theTrack
if the kind of theTrack contains "Protected" then
set protectedTracksFound to true
set fileLoc to location as string
display dialog (("Converting '" & name of theTrack as string) & "'") giving up after 1
tell me to callPlayFair(fileLoc)
end if
end tell
end try
end timeout
end repeat
set fixed indexing to oldFI
if protectedTracksFound is false then
display dialog "No protected AAC tracks were found in the selected playlist. Please choose a playlist with at least one Protected AAC track and try again." with icon 0 giving up after 10
error number -128
else
display dialog "Finished! Your music has been set free!" buttons {"Thanks"} default button 1 giving up after 10
end if
end tell
-- Conversion subroutine
to callPlayFair(useFile)
tell application "iTunes"
set protectedAACPath to (POSIX path of useFile as string)
set freeAACPath to (POSIX path of (text 1 thru -5 of useFile) & ".m4a") as string
set writingFile to false
do shell script "usr/local/bin/playfair '" & protectedAACPath & "' '" & freeAACPath & "'"
tell me to addToNewPlaylist(freeAACPath)
end tell
end callPlayFair
-- add track to the output playlist subroutine
on addToNewPlaylist(freeTrack)
set newTrack to (POSIX file freeTrack)
tell application "iTunes"
add newTrack to newPlaylist
end tell
end addToNewPlaylist
-- Create or set output playlist subroutine
on handleNewPlaylist()
copy (display dialog "Add converted files to a playlist named:" default answer
"FairPlay Free" buttons {"OK"} default button 1 with icon 1
giving up after 300) to newPlaylistPrompt
set newPlaylistName to (text returned of newPlaylistPrompt)
tell application "iTunes"
if user playlist newPlaylistName exists then
set newPlaylist to a reference to user playlist named newPlaylistName
else
copy (make new playlist with properties {name:newPlaylistName}) to newPlaylist
end if
end tell
end handleNewPlaylist
I don't recall MS sending out C&Ds like they are Christmas cards, but maybe they don't need to as MS has whores and drug pushers working directly with congress.
The undercurrent of control makes me wonder what Apple would be like if they ever deposed MS as market leader.
I love my mac, but don't want to be thrown in the gulag if I change a .plist file. Maybe Steve needs a vacation - relax, take in the scenery, enjoy a massage with a happy ending.
I'd like Apple to do well, but not at the loss of freedom to use my computer and the files I make and use with it.
Both the Copyright Act 1957 and the Information Technology Act, 2000 are Indian laws. I doubt that the Copyright Act would have any DMCA like provisions that could apply on this case. Not so sure about the Information Technology Act. It was hailed as a great piece of forward looking legislation when it was introduced. Any Indian lawyers care to comment?
more about me
But I guess these guys could always post it on Freenet - let's see them trying to pull it off then!
AC comments get piped to
really? so when i buy a box of mandrake linux, i own it and can ignore the licence? i didnt know that..
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Sorry, but the only way that this indicates that Apple is the same as other large companies is that it indicates that they are interested in protecting their business. Really. As other people have mentioned in other threads, this is similar to the FSF or somebody like that going after GPL violators. People who download iTunes songs agree to the terms. They don't want to follow them? Then that's a violation of that contract. You do think that the GPL should be enforced?
Why does it automatically become evil when a company wants to defend a product/scheme/etc. that they have spent time, money, and man hours developing?
Apple isn't breaking down doors, calling the FBI, pillaging homes. They're sending legal notices asking politely for people to take down content. That's how the system works.
Unfair at times it may be, it doesn't mean that the entire system is corrupted and we should brand Apple with a scarlet letter. If you don't like the way things work, then send letters to your Congressman/woman about our copyright law. Send email to Senators about the DMCA. Get involved, and things will change.
It seems to me that many of the copy-protection-circumvention programs that have come out in recent years (DeCSS, PlayFair) are not meant for piracy as much as they are to enable users of Linux and Unix to play DRM'd/locked content because they don't want to use the media on a Windows or Macintosh computer.
If Apple developed iTunes (and iPod drivers) for Linux and Unix, perhaps the number of people trying to circumvent the DRM would decrease.
As it stands, you can only buy online music if you use Windows or Mac OS X --a set up that accounts for 98% of computer users, maybe, but obviously the remaining 2% (Unix/Linux users) know how to code.
C'mon Apple, OS X is "based on Unix", so how hard could it be to port iTunes over to Linux and Unix? If you really want to set an online music standard (and possibly reduce OSS-attempts at circumvention), you gotta give Linux some love.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Remember, when you buy something, you accept the sale conditions that the seller (owner or owner's agent) specifies. That's a contract between you and the seller. If that contract involves DRM, well, too bad, but remember, you are not obligated to make the purchase.
Ethical people abide by the agreements they make. When you buy music you are making agreements.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
So I can take the Linux kernel, ignore the license, and do whatever I want with it then? Well why the hell do people get mad when people "violate" the GPL. They are just ignoring it! That's ok by you!
You owned the song, then bought it again with DRM? Well, now you have two copies of the song, one you own and another you own, with slightly more restrictions than the first one that you own.
One of my three computers died. I told iTunes about it and they let me download the files that I lost, that was nice. The problem is I can only use 2 computers now. The other computer is dead.
If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
So when I bought my Linux CDs, I bought the Linux distribution and software. Period. I ignored the license. I already owned the distribution and software so by that point it did not matter.
I guess that means I can say screw the GPL and sell all kinds of closed source, derivative works as I feel like. I mean, who cares about the GPL, I bought the software so I can obviously choose to ignore the license. See how dumb that makes you sound?
This is the REAL disadvantage to releasing programs to Windows users.
By "Windows users", you mean "non-brainwashed, non-koolaid-drinking, non-zealot users", right?
I'm a Mac user and Playfair is the thing that will get me into the iTunes store. I just have no interest in buying something that can be disabled in the future, like DIVX.
Apple has one of the least restrictive DRMs out there, and honestly, it's not like you can't burn your iTunes songs to a CD and then rip them to MP3 using something else - and Apple knows it.
They're the lesser of evils, and I'd rather have them than proprietary formats and players that only work on one OS. *Cough*WMV, Windows Media Player*Cough*
Though I'm glad WMP only works on Windows - other platforms don't endure the horror.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
I'll pay for someone to produce and copyleft music but I'll never pay for (effectively) a license to listen to music again.
Apple exists to serve... it does NOT serve to exist.
Tell that to the stockholders.
The rich can hide there, why can the poor?
This paragraph (Section (f)(2)) seems to explicitly allow applications like playfair, which have a primary use of enabling someone who has legally purchased a song to make use of it on other devices:I'm not addressing the questions of whether the user is legally bound enough by the EULA that they can't *use* playfair, only asking whether, technically, playfair is in fact covered by this clause and therefore not subject to a "DMCA takedown."
If so, then sourceforge should be able to distribute it with no repercussions, and Apple could return to (1) going after people who distribute playfair'd tracks, or (2) going after people in civil court for contract violations pertaining to the EULA.
Of course, if anyone were to call Apple on this (and had the $$ and time to do so), and if Apple were to realize halfway through that they'd lose, then they'd just withdraw their C&D letter, pulling the rug out from under the defendants (who'd lose standing as a result) (yes, pun intended), and so no precedent would be set. Just like happened with the RIAA and, was it, Felten?
Thats probably the nicest cease-and-desist I've ever read. Most other ones are like ``Fuck you, pay me''
But that agreement contains restrictions you are not legally bound to obey. Cracking DRM for personal use *is allowed*. US legal system makes distributing code for someone else to use a crime, but if you got the code from someone not bound by those rules, you could then use the code to bypass DRM and keep the AAC-encoded files at their highest quality.
The thing is, even when shared, you still need the key, sharing it will do nothing.
Companies have to protect their interests. But in all probability, Apple is doing this more to pacify the RIAA than anything else. It's their copyrighted material, not Apple's. As a distributor, it would be unethical to turn a blind eye to gross public circumvention of the one very thing (DRM) that let them strike a deal in the first place. (The ethics of the RIAA and their agreements, etc etc are another matter.)
>>Apple put in the LEAST DRM it could get away with. > >I think it's more of a technical inefficiency and incompetence >than trying to make life easier for the hackers. Really, if I use a >protection/license management system for my new software >and use a weak one, do you think I'm acting friendly or you >think I'm just stupid?
...is being "friendly", and very, very smart (by virtue of getting all 5 major labels to let Apple skate with such comparatively unrestrictive DRM)
I think that being able to...
- play the music on three different computers
- play the music on an unlimited number of iPods
- burn any and all music to CD an unlimited number of times, stripping all DRM, and then play anywhere (or rerip in any format, transcoding losses [which I myself can't detect] aside)
It's not incompetence at all. Since all DRM can, and will, be broken - from a technological standpoint; perhaps not a legal one - then by your definition, they're all "incompetent". I don't think any of these people think DRM can't be circumvented; they just know that the content providers want it, and these laws like the DMCA are getting pushed through Congress. If *anything*, Apple is in a *better* position to influence copyright and content protection laws for the better. Had they done no DRM, we'd have no major label music on iTunes Music Store, and thus no iTunes Music Store as we know it (i.e., successful), and Apple wouldn't have any relevance whatsoever in this discussion at all.
Offtopic? Guess I should've included the obligatory "Laugh. It's a joke". Mods have no sense of humor. :cries:
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Well, Apple is different in that they were able to establish a relationship with the RIAA that was more benevolent towards DRM than the RIAA wanted with regards to consumer rights in the first place. Yes, Apple sells more music/iPods because of this, but I doubt MS/Real would do anything other than kowtow to the RIAA's demands.
I believe that is the fundamental difference..
Beyond that, of course Apple is a large multinational corporation that looks out for its' and APPL shareholder's interests. No point in pretending otherwise. Still, Thinking Different beats being told Where To Go Today :)
Lucite hardening ... must end life in classic Lorne Greene pose from "Battlestar Galactica." Best ... death ... ever!
- Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
As a matter of fact, YES YOU CAN (within the limits of copyright law). The GPL places no restrictions on use and does not require that you accept it to use the program. If you want to redistribute it, however, you would be breaking copyright law unless you accept the license. In the case of Apple's DRM, removing the DRM on songs you have purchased is certainly covered under fair use. If you then decide to distribute those DRM-free songs, you are in violation of copyright law. It remains to be seen whether Apple's Term of Service are legally enforable and if they trump fair use, especially since portions are contradictory and Apple enables you to strip the DRM anyway (via CD burning).
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
Keep in mind that you have to have PlayFair installed in "/usr/local/bin/". I'm not sure, but you also may need to add the leading slash to "usr/" to make it "/usr/" on the line:
do shell script "usr/local/bin/playfair '" & protectedAACPath & "' '" & freeAACPath & "'"
I could be wrong...it's been working for me without it. Sorry about that. But the script works!
There is no gravity...the earth just sucks.
Many insightful comments aside, I haven't seen the most obvious point stated yet: this program can potentially undermine each and every deal that Apple (or Microsoft, or whoever) has made or can make with the music industry. What do you think will happen when this takes off and the labels see it? It'll be the end of digital music stores. THAT's the real danger here. I don't care how cool this program is, these guys are ruining everyone's fun peddling their program. What's more, they're endangering the near (at least) future of legal digital music downloading.
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
And STFU.
Yes.
Next!
Apple IS different from other companies... at least my experiences with them have proven that to be the case.
For example...
Remember the Rip, Mix, Burn ad campaign? They tried the "karma"-based approach while few other companies even thought of it.
Apple uses and gives back to the open source movement.
Apple brings in local and national talent to perform in their retail stores. I didn't see Gateway or Walmart do that.
Apple brings talented professionals in video, audio, graphics, journalism, and business in to their retail stores to help show how to best take advantage of the mac. First hand information and not just some marketing B.S. I can't think of too many major companies that do something similar.
How many companies would display an ad featuring Will Ferrell, "porn actor" right before a major trade show?
If you've ever worked for Apple, you'd see a company that does indeed have a unique corporate culture and approach to business. I'm sure there are a lot of other things I could site, but it's really just a waste of my time since you're just a simple troll.
There are always freaks think everything have to be open to everyone. Look at them, those poeple. They do something illegal, accused and will shout, "I am innocent! I am just following GNU spirit"
I love IPod and hope apple music store goes world wide so i can enjoy it too. It is a good service. Please don't spoil it!
-- Y. J. Chun
I agree! If you want songs encoded in AAC without DRM attached, buy the CD and rip it yourself.
I'm a 2000 man.
I thought that Apple was different than other large companies?
Why would Apple be any different? Apple is looking out for their own interests. They make little to no money with the ITMS. They make their money with the iPod. If people can play their ITMS music on other portable music players Apple will not sell as many iPods and make less money.
I think Apple did two days ago.
What about Canada? The recent court rulings have been pro-consumer so it might be safe-haven for PlayFair.
...well..would you buy a car that has its hood welded shut? And I tend to argee with this guy; the pro's don't outweigh the cons. Why buy a cake that no one can eat when the intention is to eat it?
Or how about the Norway? The courts there said that DeCSS (AAC-DRM is to music as CSS is to video) didn't infringe, especially since the intent of the utility was not to make illegal distribution but to enable normal use on unsupported systems (OS's).
One way (and better than what they did) to get rid of Playfair is for Apple to release a Linux player to eliminate the main legal objective for PlayFair.
O yea, as for that first post that essentially says "Take it or leave it,"
I'm pretty sure even Gandhi would have hit back in self-defense. Well, maybe not Gandhi. Martin Luther King, maybe.
Yep. The GPL covers distribution. Not use.
I didn't even know I wanted it till I found out I couldn't have it.
I do the exact same thing - cept it goes to a cd-rw. Yeah, it's a little inconvenient, but in the end, I'm willing to accept the Apple DRM as long as there's a way around it.
Look, there are much worse schemes out there and while I am a Linux and Mac user and not necessairly a zealot for either, I'm still ok with dealing with their service, the product, and the terms. It's a good deal for the price and the experience.
However, if it was not for ability to burn this off to a cd, I might shy away from iTMS all together.
They're just trying to ensure that the recording companies keep putting songs to sell in the itunes music store.
That simple. If they drop DRM, or dont go after companies/individuals that try to strip the DRM from the songs, the recording companies could stop allowing the songs to be sold in the iTMS, or even sue apple.
Simple question, simple answer. Close down their music store, therby the few causing the majority (once again) to lose out on a good thing. Remember their store itself isn't a money maker for them (the Ipod's are).
DIVX is disabled?
Circuit City released permanent unlock codes for them LONG ago!
Apple would have to go out of business for something like that to happen - and if that happened Quicktime/AAC/All other Apple programs would be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
How did Playfair that is for PCs get you, as a Mac user, more interested in iTunes?
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
I will not pay one cent for the music I listen to. Megacorporations (read: marketing scum) owe me enough for raping my brain up until the age I was able to begin understading this. They owe me even more for all the active filtering I must still employ to block inexistent-necesity-inducing (read: advertisements) images they post everywhere. Not to mention the rest of the Mtv-Hollywood-disco-dancing-fever drones I have to deal with every day.
Artists: (cultural recombinators, actually) GIVE YOUR MUSIC AWAY, charge for many live performances, and leave the mental-space fuckers to rot.
HAD
omg tehy cna disabel teh divX??? How cna i wathc teh pr0n then omg !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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!!!!
just have the Indian host site outsource to an American company...nobody would ever suspect that
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Remember, when you buy something, you accept the sale conditions that the seller (owner or owner's agent) specifies. That's a contract between you and the seller. If that contract involves DRM, well, too bad, but remember, you are not obligated to make the purchase.
Except that in some cases, even those conditions are not enforceable.
Many years ago (early 1900's, I think), book publishers tried to insert conditions on the front page of a book saying that you couldn't resell the book, etc. It was struck down, and thus the "doctrine of first sale" was born. (or something like that, IANAL and my memory isn't what it used to be).
So there might be an argument that these doctrines take precedence over the "agreement" entered into when you first started using iTunes. But nobody's tested it (and probably never will).
No, they just want you to THINK they're DIFFERENT.
aQazaQa
That's not true in this case. Apple is using two tools at their disposal: Copyright law and the DMCA. What they're saying is that you can't crack the files because it's a violation of the DMCA. The software is used (in their opinion) is a tool to redistribute cracked AAC files and that's copyright infringment. At no time are they talking about any end-user contract. It has no bearing this issue. If Apple goes after end users who use this tool to crack their music files so they can transfer them to other players without ripping them to CD, then you'll have a point.
I've never had a problem with it before. Maybe back in the day I authorized all my computers, but I don't remember doing that. I'll have to check and see. But if worse comes to worse, you can always burn and rip to mp3. I've never had problems with that in the past.
sheesh is right. do you really think this is about pirating?
I'd wager that 90% of the people downloading this just want control over the music they have purchased. (please no silly arguments about purchase vs license) Remember, in order for this to work, you have to have purchased the music in the first place.
I don't think this is a matter of Apple being draconian, as other's have stated, they have done what they had to do to get this going. That doesn't make it right or desirable or something we should lie down and take.
Downloaded music should be _at least_ as good a value as a physical CD - and it's not. Especially when you consider the hassle-factor of the DRM. But the convenience and immediate gratification of the iTunes store is sexy to the extreme. However, -- and I'm sure other's feel the same way -- there has been buyer's remorse with every purchase I've made from the iTunes store.
I've paid a premium for a crippled, hassle-ridden product. Oops, I reformatted the drive on that machine with out deauthorizing it from the iTunes store, damn! one less place I can play those songs with out some huge hassle trying to figure out what to do... Oh Damn, I accidently deleted the songs themselves!
And for anyone who doesn't think the price is a premium, consider the fact that for what is usually only a few dollars more and in more and more cases virtually the same price, you get physical media, liner notes, lyrics, and pristine uncompressed audio that you can manipulate (encode) for your own personal use to your hearts content.
To put up with the restrictions and inconvenience of the Fairplay DRM, I think the price should be much lower, something like $4 per album and $.50 a song. If I _really_ like the music I would inevitably buy a physical copy for the pristine audio and freedom of use.
In my opinion, and most certainly in my own case, Playfair actually increases the likelihood of purchases from the itunes store.
The US C&D said "we demand". This one says "you are hereby called upon to".
Conclusion: Sarovar should tell them to call a little louder, or get lost.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
You thought wrong.
They'll say Apple had no choice, that they'd lose their contracts with the record industry, that they're not really DMCA-wielding jackbooted thugs, that they're really not just a more stylish, metrosexual, smaller version of Microsoft, with more of a fiefdom than a monopoly.
It amazes me that a company like Apple that sometimes seems to "get it" is engaging in an attempt to litigate something off of the Internet. Search the peer to peer networks for "playfair" and see how well it's working. Is Apple going to start suing 13 year olds and grandmothers, too?
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
So many people are missing one important reason why PlayFair is important.
Think "iTunes store for Linux".
Think Open Source iTunes store for Linux.
Think someone reverse-engineering the protocol for iTunes store and allowing music to be downloaded - AND PAID FOR - on a Linux computer using only Open Source software.
That would be a big deal. Apple's never going to do it. Playfair is necessary (but not sufficient) to make it happen.
Furthermore, it's probably the only way that I'd ever use iTunes store. I haven't decided for sure whether I'd consider using a binary proprietary iTunes release for Linux, but I certainly won't be using a Windows or Mac version.
The Open Source client could even enforce the DRM when used unmodified - I'd still use it, and I wouldn't hack the source to remove it. Probably some people would, but those people already have Playfair anyway. I have no need to bypass those restrictions, but I do need a Linux client if I'm going to use the thing at all.
So in a small way, Playfair would allow Apple to make a little more money (by selling to Linux users - a small but not non-existent, and growing market) without costing them a cent in development costs.
Bingo! And if India wants to be business central (outsourcing)? Then they have to have a business climite that favours strong copyright protection (just look at the issues China's having).
When does it become automatically evil when a human wants to defend their rights as a purchaser of goods?
When Apple thinks it is wrong?
People act like this is a tool that let's you hack into the Itunes Store and get Free unencrypted files that are then automatically shared for Free on the Net. Gimme a break. Playfair is one of a million other things people use "not in accordance to manufacturer guidelines". Just because its Apple we supposed to give them a free pass for cracking down? What's next? If I use my Oven to dry clothes instead of cook food do I go to jail because the Oven maker says your not allowed to put anything but food in it? And don't give me any of this "well don't buy from Itunes" crap.
Gotta love a whole generation of people who have nothing better to do then get all up in arms because *gasp* you change the file format on a product you already own. Lastly of course my favorite response is when people say its "O.K," if you go from digital->digital(CD)->digital but not if you go from digital->digital(Playfair)->digital. If the end result is the same what the heck is the difference besides one method being slightly easier than the other. Oh right, the whole "not in accordance to manufacturer guidelines"...
Sorry you think Playfair ruined your favorite incarnation of DRM. If this makes you uncomfortable you better get out of computing now because it just going to get worse.
btw I understand you can do this with Applescript as well. So is Apple going to sue Apple now?
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Because they have said they are different.
This thread has been very intersting.
at the moment, i am ripping out references to the GPL from a copy of the linux 2.6 kernel source i have been doing some research with.
Once that is done, i will post a tar.gz it on a site binary only.
Come and stop me.
If you do, i will put it up on p2p networks. What isnt GNU supposed to be different? infomation wants to be free. I dont like copyrights.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Now, as you pointed out, you can simply burn the files to a CD and then re-rip them as MP3's, AAC's or whatever format you like. However, the act of burning and re-ripping is circumventing the DRM, which is a violation of Apple's license agreement and possibly the DCMA. Since a user would be in violation of Apple's license if they burn and re-rip or if they use PlayFair to strip the original of the DRM, why would you not just make your life easier and use PlayFair? It eliminates some steps and ensures that the quality of the audio won't be degraded. In either circumstance, PlayFair or burning and re-ripping, you're circumventing DRM. Since that's the case, it's better to do it the easy way.
I was starting to think I was the only person who felt this way :)
If you (the rhetorical you) disagree with the terms of the sale, you don't make the purchase. That's all there is to it. You disagree with Apple's DRM, you don't buy the file. There's no rationalizing of why you can do what you want to do after the fact.
Let me quote Cory Doctorow here, who is fond of saying:
No consumer ever woke up in the morning and said "you know, I want to do less with my music today".
For me, it's the principle of the thing. If you look at the last hundred and fifty years of technological development, copyright regularly gets broken. It's happened again with peer-to-peer file sharing networks.
DRM represents and maintains the status quo. Artists still get shafted while studios make more profit and we get less control over the music we 'own'. Furthermore, it endorses instead of punsihing an industry that refuses, again and again, to embrace technological change. Alternatives like voluntary collective licensing of music file sharing offer a way forward.
In my view, buying from the iTunes store is a tacit approval of the music industry and its appalling treatment of its consumers over the past five years. Me, I'm waiting for a paradigm shift.
Instead of using AppleScript to run PlayFair, why not just use AppleScript to directly transcode the file?
(Yes, you can do this. No, I'm not going to tell you how).
I would just like to see an end to the legal protections for bad code. Law has no place in DRM, period. Companies are releasing their works in digital formats of THEIR choosing, but they are still releasing them, let's not forget that. I don't think the law should protect the fact that they release them more open than they intended to. I believe that since I paid for the file I should be able to do whatever I like with it, it's mine. If I want to I should be allowed to turn it into a different format, play it on any device I want or delete it at my own will, PERIOD. If they want to protect their interests, they have two options in my mind.
1.) They can make me agree to a contract or license stating how I am permitted to use the media.
2.) They can keep trying to write unbreakable encryption... good luck.
Now, you're going to say that yes, they did choose both options, and thus I've broken the rules by changing the format of my media, and if I break the contract/license I agreed to then you're right, and they shoudl take me to court and sue me to protect their interests. But the second part is entirely seperate. I still should have the right to write a program that will play any kind of file I want. I want the same protection on the internet and with computers that all other industries have. Just because guns are used to kill people you don't see the families of victims sending Cease and Decist orders to Smith&Wesson... or at least they have no fear of having to stop making their guns. It's rediculous and it's high time we start taking our rights back in America.
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
"Like helping to educate and feed the poor?"
Give Saddam and Osama some free soup! They have truly led lives of deprivation.
Apple Hunts Playfair in India
:-P
What are you trying to say, that they're on a Safari?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Someone needs to just upload it to freenet and be done with it. I'm really interested in seeing how that would turn out legally. Perhaps any web page that linked to the file's URI would instead receive the C&D letters?
If you know you shouldn't do something because you agreed not to do that thing, if you go ahead and do it anyway, you have shitty ethics.
Enforcable or not, *YOU* *AGREED* not to circumvent the DRM. Is your word *NOT* you bond? Perhaps I don't want to do business with you...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
If you want to play your purchased music on your Linux or OS/2 machine, then just insert the CD you just burned on your Mac into your PC drive and go. If you then decide you want to keep that music on your Linux hard drive then you can rip it from the CD! Apple's DRM doesn't stop you moving music from system to system, it just makes it a 2 step process. Where exactly is the infraction on my rights again?
there's no escaping the wrath of Job(s) it has like three letters almost like another three letter word with an 'o' in the middle which has been known to strike out that those supposidly out of reach.
excuse me while me and my iMac go to devotion.
Let's hope that 'PlayFair' might appear in some other country now.
In Soviet Russia, Apple plays fair!
please die, kthx.
If you ask me, making Apple play Whack-A-Mole by running around to different countries trying to find one that's friendly to your cause is a lot like SCO or Microsoft shopping around for the friendliest venue in which to have their various cases tried. If you've actually got a legal leg to stand on in your own damn country, then make your case and get on with it. Else, stop your infringing behavior, and stop giving the rest of us a black eye.
The current strategy definitely does not live up to the name "PlayFair."
in soviet russia, software hunt lawyers..but seriously,
it should move there....
And then...
At no time are they talking about any end-user contract.
Yes, they are talking about the end-user contract. It is the end-user contract that specifies that you are not to crack the file.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
You would think that argument would work, but the same argument would have also applied in the MPAA-vs-2600 case. 2600 lost.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It is illegal anything that circuvents DRM out into place when there is no need to circuvent it IS illegal. You can burn a DRM free CD, you can upload it to any iPod you want... the DRM DOESNT hurt people and was deemed a legal DRM so therefore the DMCA says if you circuvent it your breaking the law. Trust me Apples lawyers know what they are doing... just because a shitload of jolted up hippy computers users think its illegal doesnt me they are right
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Most songs aren't "programs". Or is your argument that stripping the DRM is for the purpose of interoperability between iTunes and another mp3 player?
If the folks at sourceforge had a clue, they would setup a mirror at Pirates Central!
in Guangzhou or some other little Chinese city
where they probably use C&D letters as toilet tissue on their tough asses.
in fact if you learn chinese and search hard enough, I bet you fill find multiple copies of Playfair on various chinese servers.
"You want iTunes for Linux? Petition for iTunes on Linux."
But, but, that sounds too much like work. I hate work. I'd much rather bitch in a public forum about some ficticious right being violated, and I did read the agreement...with my eyes closed, so it's not binding, rather than try and do the right thing. Of course I'm only thinking about myself, and don't care what the reprecussions of my actions are. So who care's if iTMS closes due to my actions. I got what I want. Woo, Hoo!
Subject says it all
I was unaware the software had not been ported to the Mac (familiar situation ....), However, someone else has posted an applescript.
This is the future without DRM.....h ap.html
http://homepage.mac.com/mattbrook/macbi
I guess they're just stupid. Anybody can easily download music without DRM from file sharing networks. Often it's at higher bitrates and sometimes it's even in a lossless format like Mokey's Audio (APE). Furthermore I can't see how DRM can work because if you can decode it to play it then you can strip the DRM from it and distribute it. No, the software might not support that but cracking it can't be hard.
The only thing DRM really accomplishes is it annoys people who legally download music. Compare the amount of software and hardware that can play plain MP3 files with the amount that can play DRM formats. What about if you live in a country that they won't sell to? (Where's the logic there anyways?) What about if you want to move to another country and iTunes wants to delete all the music you purchased? (I remember reading about that on Slashdot.)
Simply watermarking music so the original purchaser can be tracked might be a nice un-intrusive way to protect music. However, with all the viruses and worms going around you'd probably find that some people have their music stolen through back doors and then they'd be liable for that.
No, his underlings are mad-dogs not interested in prosperity. They only want to kill those who do not worship the Muslim god.
"Stop oppressing them with trade barriers"
If we stop those, then the dictators get even more powerful and oppressive.
I always wonder what the big "hassle" is about Apple's DRM? I mean, seriously. I burn as many CD's as I want. I use the downloaded music in my DVD projects. I copy the music to my iPod and listen to it there. I listen to it on THREE of my computers. The only inconvenience I have run into is getting the music onto a crappy MP3 player that I sometimes use. But that is a minor nuisance, so I gotta drop a quarter and three minutes on making an interimn CD and rerip as MP3.
Sadly, we support so many terror organizations (Israel, Saudi Arabia) that we'll never be out of this mess. Bush and his "bring it on" attitude is only making things worse.
OK, that's it. We'll see you in court, mister Coward.
--- The Apple Legal Team
Nah, I just wanna fuck shit up!
If music has no value to you, why do you want it so badly?
If you don't like iTunes DRM, don't buy from them. Go to the store and buy the CD! Or, buy it from Amazon or some other online retailor!
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Something I haven't seen addressed here yet is this:
Is it possible that Apple is doing this to cover their own butts? I don't think there's any question that the industry would take their ball and go home, so to speak, if Apple were to effectively ignore such a program, but worse yet, could Apple actually be sued for allowing PlayFair to exist unmolested?
IANAL, but I'd like to know unofficial legal opinions from SOYWAL (some of you who are lawyers).
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
Anywhere in *.ro !!!
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
It could choose NOT to seek enforcement of the DMCA in this case, rather than supporting the supression of a user's right to choose where and how a purchased media product can be used.
The number of arguments is irrelevant unless some of them are correct. This is not a grey area. The choice is clear. The right to use vs perpetual indenture to a media format provider.
Apple has fulfilled it's requirement (to RIAA no doubt) to obfuscate the media content it is delivering. Taking a neutral stance on encryption circumvention of this product would doubtless earn them respect in the eyes of users rights advocates, while heavy handed enforcement of a law with such dubious pedigree as DMCA can only hurt their reputation as being a "friend of the little guy". Again, the choice is clear.
Corporate politics be damned, but I hope to live to see the day a company actually sides with it's users rather than big media.
Exactly. I understand and accept that apple wants to promote their hardware products. I only ask that apple understands and accepts that promotion of their products by means of legal threats in opposition of users rights prevents my support and use of their products. As mere users, with apparently no rights, the only thing we can do is not support them. That is my choice.
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte
I'm not sure why people don't do this by my creative sound card has an option to record what is being played. This isn't circumventing DRM as discussed in the previous slashdot ask an internet lawyer article. Why don't people just do this? Its just as easy as using the program to remove the DRM. Sure you lose some marginal amount of quality but on an MP3 player with shitty headphones on the quality isn't really and issue at all
> The Linux marketshare (2%) simply isn't big enough to pay attention to yet.
And yet another guy who's smoking good stuff. Where do you even get that 2% marketshare for Linux desktops? Apple is barely 5-6%!
I'd like to see the logs for Slashdot. I'm sure even here with all the LinuxZealots(tm), the Linux share is below 10%.
Hey Neal, open up the logs to us! We wanna know!
Where do you guys come from?
"They're either flat out thieves.."
"..or they're hair splitting posers who'll bitch about it on principle alone.."
For starters, burning every digital album I purchase just to be able to listen to it over the network from a Linux/Solaris/BSD/BeOS/DOS/Amiga/TRS-80/Etc computer is not something I'd realistically do. Its just not convenient and the sole advantage to purchasing these lower quality digital files is...c'mon you can get this! Convenience! So rather then being a 'flat out thief' I'm more of a honest consumer, the only posers I see here are all the Apple fan boi's out there who can't seem to fathom why on earth anyone would want to use anything but the iPod and their shiny Mac to eat, breath and shit.
But do me a favor, take it on faith. There are Mac users who use hardware and software in their day to day lives that is not blessed by Apple (don't tell anyone, but some of it is actually good too).
Next time you feel inclined to stand up on your little pulpit, think about it a little more. Somehow we've been brainwashed into thinking theirs only two kinds of people, happy proprietary DRM users and thieves. That's insulting and that's bullshit.
FTR, there are plenty of honest companies out there selling great music without DRM and often with higher quality codecs. I'm pretty fond of Magantune.com right now, but I'm sure other readers could point out a whole slew of others.
Quack, quack.
Yes, it would not work for Apple to have non-DRMed music store. It's not an issue that it has DRM. The issue is mostly in the limitation of the non-standard DRM. Their implementation makes it impossible to use with non-iPod devices that do support raw AAC. If they didn't have exhorbitant licensing fees, more devices would offer support for their AAC. And maybe if they were giving in somewhat to licensing the DRM technology to people like Real and device makers, you wouldn't have people trying to hack it. Get a life, Apple fan-boys. Your precious company has a right to profit, but why do they always do so by vendor lock-in? They're probably trmebling at the thought of reasonable licensing and losing more money through itunes by not selling as many iPods.
omg tehy cna disabel teh divX??? How cna i wathc teh pr0n then omg !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hopefully, they will re-enable your spelling program.
First it's easy. Then it's a bit harder. Then it's a lot harder. Then it's almost impossible. Then it's *too* hard for you. Where do you go then? Start complaining then?
"Well, these anti-piracy measures have been in place now for 10 years. However, since the frog was boiled slowly, no mass protests came about, and by now most have resigned to music coming on crippled shiny discs or DRM'd files. Sorry kiddo."
Granted, us on slashdot are likely to be some of the last ones to go, but still. Either you have the right or you don't. The very reason you cite, might be a reason to dispute it under the DMCA though.
If you can save it to CD without DRM, isn't that proof then FairPlay is not a mechanism that "effectively controls access"? That is in fact optional, since you can choose to save it in a non-crippled format?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I'm assuming you have at least one mac or pc. If you bought a mac or pc in the last 3-5 years, it came with a CD burner. I have not seen any major computer manufacturer recently make a pc without a CD burner, or at least offer one as a "free upgrade" or whatever. With a mac you don't have a choice, they just give you one. What you are trying to do is find an extremely unlikely argument that DRM should not be used at all, probably so you can do something illegal in its absence.
Let me ask, how do you make your Linux installation CDs? Do you download it onto each machine you want to install it on? What's that? You have a CD Burner?
Doesn't even exist I believe; at least not in the context of making copies for personal use, at least according to this Register article. At least in the US there is at least some legal protection (currently under attack, admittedly)
Please remain calm, there is no reason to pani... wait, where are you all going?
" So many people are missing one important reason why PlayFair is important.
Think "iTunes store for Linux".
Think Open Source iTunes store for Linux."
Actually I would recommend that Open Source run away from this as fast as possible. Our reputation is already under assault. The larger community is basically going to say "Why should we release such, and such if those communist open sourcers are going to violate it six ways to the compass?"
If we want to go the "we'll do it all by ourselves" then we can continue down this path?
Else we need to acknowledge that we need the larger community with their apps, and hence we need to at least show them some respect. And protest in a manner that doesn't make us look bad, if something we disagree with shows up.
In other words, people aren't going to do things for you if you repeatedly tell them "Fuck You!".
I'm not arguing against DRM, I'm just saying that for some people, the iTMS DRM limits their fair use. We could argue all day as to how many people it actually affects negatively, but thats not the point. If there is even one person who wants to play their legally purchased AAC files on a non-Mac or non-Windows device, then they should be able to, as this falls under Fair Use, and PlayFair lets them do that, since they shouldn't need to buy/own a CD burner and transcode and lose quality in order to do that.
This has nothing to do with me. I don't have iTunes or a Mac at all. I'm just arguing the principle of the matter, and not my own personal situation. I'm saying that there are plenty of legal uses of FairPlay. Of course there are illegal uses too, there are illegal uses of almost everything in the world
moo
I don't buy music CD's. I tend not to download MP3's. There's one source of free music that no one has mentioned yet that I have seen... What happened to the good old RADIO?
Still, DRM is infringing upon our rights of Fair Use. Thus, the reason I do not support the RIAA's bankroll by purchasing CD's, Used or new, or anything else music related. I still think that their "FairPlay" crap should have been named "FoulPlay". But hey, that's just my opinion.
I also don't buy DVD's... But I do go to the cinema. I just can't fit that 40' screen in my little motorhome, and I like big screens.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
-Phyrebyrd
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -Thom
That like saying I bought a copy of Adobe Photoshop for Windows but I only have a Linux machine at home so its fair use for me to try to reverse engineer the application to run directly on linux.
And what's illegal about that? Is Wine now a "circumvention device", too?
Jeez. From listening to people here, you'd think content creators had the right to reach into your house and force you to use only Approved Operating Systems and Approved Software on your bought-and-paid-for boxes.
The law allows for cracking to achieve interoperability. If Apple doesn't want Playfair, Apple should provide a Linux player for iTMS tunes.
Why is this funny and not insightful?
</mod-bitching>
I recall a time when every software program "locked".
There were many attempts at protecting this software from copying (recall this was back in the 5 1/4" days). Everything from bit mangling to (gack) writing your own driver to read a custom written track (in some bizzarro land format). Guess what? Folks got around it.
Finally, some bright genius did some math and realized "hey, we are spending more money on this copy protection than it's worth". I recall the first program WITHOUT copy protection received more press than probably was due. PR? Marketing? Who knows.
This concept of copy protection died years ago.
First, it is not economically supportable without knowledge (read FACTS, not freaking guesses) how much and how many illegal copies are out there.
Second, it is a waste of resources. Spending time and money on it reduces, not increases, your bottom line.
Finally, in the long run your just pissing off the very customer base you want to expand. How many people bought from iTMS only to discover that they couldn't play the song on their favorite (non-iPod) music player? THEN blamed it on Apple when it was really the RIAA who places the restrictions?
Yup. Copy Protection is dead. But then again, I could be wrong...
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
Seriously, I welcome the fact that I can go and instantly buy a single song I heard and liked for 99 cents. The one thing that upsets me is that just because someone's being all bitchy about any DRM, this solution is possibly in jeopardy. If you want the song without DRM, go get it on some P2P network. Is there any song that's available on Apple's store that's not already available ripped straight from CD to MP3/OGG/MP4/WMA? The only thing this guy's doing is weakening Apple's ability to assuage the RIAA's fears about digital distribution, threatening the distribution medium and process altogether.
Anybody remember that independant island/country/state named havenco, which is situated off the coast of the United Kingdom? That is setup specifically for this type of subversion, butit costs $$$$$, and is well worth it. There is no chance of them taking the site down unless Apple were to hire a gun ship to go in and force the situation, and I hardly doubt that will happen because havenco has guns too!
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
arrhhRgg there mateys all your music are now belong to me. .........rule of the internet - to the pirate goes the spoils.
> everything should be free. That's communist.
> Apple is capitalist.
I consider myself capitalist. At the same time I don't believe everything should be free - I just don't think there should be artificial government decrees that say people can own ideas beyond the right of recognition and the right to protect personal privacy.
You can say that's communist, but it's no more communist than saying that someone shouldn't be able to own a spirituality or the right to wear their eyeliner a particular way or exclusive and enforced naming rights to the moon.
You give the concepts of intellectual property too much credit. They're arbitrary. Well entrenched, but arbitrary.
Readers: if this doesn't sit well with you please do reply - I'm interested to see how other viewpoints clash with this one.
Believe with me, my saplings.
Hehehehehe...shallow gene pool...hehehehehehe
The Italian navigator has reached the New World and the natives are friendly.
There's never really been a true communist society, but the idea that everything is free ain't communist. Marx thought everyone was entitled to equality of wages (whether this compensation is in the form of money or goods and services is beside the point). Taking someone's work without consent and depriving them of their wage is simple theft.
It's not romatic, idealistic, or civil disobedience. It's stealing.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Q: What if Microsoft did the same thing that Apple is doing now?
A: The rules for a CONVICTED CRIMINAL MONOPOLIST should be -- and are -- stricter than those for a fairly competing business.
*****
If Apple successfully squashes all other sellers of digital music (or personal computers, or whatever), then yes, they should be morally condemned for closed policies. Maybe even legally force them to open up their system. But that "if" has not happened yet.
"Are you suggesting that because I have a moral problem with the idea of things being locked up, and found a site that allows me to successfully pick any MasterLock, that it's now perfectly OK for me to come by when you're not home, pick the lock, and take what doesn't belong to me?"
are you suggesting that if you did so, the hosts of that site would be guilty of breaking & entering & not yourself?
Enforcable or not, *YOU* *AGREED* not to circumvent the DRM.
But if you "agreed" with full knowledge that such an agreement was not enforceable, but with intent to honor other enforceable terms of the "contract," then I'd say there's no ethical violation.
In fact, my
Now, if your argument were to hold (that enforceable or not, you agreed to the terms), then the court would have found for the publisher (from a legal standpoint). Or you would say that the buyer, who flouted the terms after knowlingly "agreeing" to them, was acting unethically or immorally.
So, let's revisit the scenario, assuming that all potential buyers will behave "ethically" and honor the license, even though it was legally unenforceable:
(okay, that last bullet might be reaching a bit. :) )
So, let's review:
Either way, this portion of the discussion hinges on a contract dispute between Apple and the person who uses playfair. It does not, IMHO, involve a DMCA violation. So bringing up the "you agreed to a license" argument to support Apple's actions in quashing the distribution of playfair doesn't wash, in my book.
Whether playfair itself (and the distribution of playfair, in source and/or binary form) violates DMCA is a separate discussion, and could be equally applied to an instance where a FairPlay-encoded song was sold with no license at all (which isn't the case here). That is, playfair's DMCA status should be evaluated in light of whether it violates the anti-circumvention clauses without being ameliorated by the interoperability clauses (somebody shoot me, I'm really talking like a lawyer now!). If someone were to record a song, protect it with FairPlay, and sell it to someone else, as is, with no license attached, would the use of playfair on that file be in violation of DMCA? If so, then Apple's initial Cease
Cool, can you point to the actual legislation? Maybe PlayFair can find a new home in Sweden.
Isn't it almost easier and yet still pretty much legal to rip a CD burned with iTunes? Seems a lot easier and less illegal to me to burn, rip, and encode than to just remove DRM.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Nobody seems to be able to shut-down these browser hijacking scumbuckets, so it seems the perfect place to host PlayFair and other contra-DMCA packages. Maybe CWS can incorporate PlayFair into the next version of their browser hijacker code, thereby actually providing some value in their service.
If for no other reason, it ought to be interesting to watch the legal circus that would result.
--- A man with a briefcase can steal more money, than any man with a gun. [Don Henley]
Playfair assists in removing DRM from songs you personally have already purchased from iTunes store. It does nothing to strip DRM off songs that someone else bought. It doesn't help you get stuff from iTunes from your *nix box.
So in order to use Playfair, you're already a mac or PC user anyhow.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
"Pretty much everyone said "
Dangerous way to begin a conversation, with a falsehood.
The level of DRM is suspect on iTunes, but the value isn't there. $10 for a CD of FM-Plus quality... When I can go to BMGMusic and buy a CD for $8, shipped to my door, with no DRM and full quality.
This is the point when theh apple apologist:
(a) Tell me how *good* the DRM is that apple has
(b) 128kb is good enough
(c) and besides, AAC is so good from Apple that its better than CD's.
(d) All of the above
I'm wondering which letter you'll choose.
It really sucks that Apple has to deal with this and the "/. mentality" that everything should be free. That's communist. i'd agree that is a rather incorrect statement about communism. Saying that everything should be free is in my opinion closer to anarchism
"more likely Apple moves to stricter controls to keep the record companies from pulling content from iTunes"
Riiiight. Apple returns $50M to the record companies, and their response will be that they pull music from iTunes because Apple isn't strict enough.
Do you realize how dumb that sounds? It makes no sense on any level.
You just think Apple gave you the magic juju with iTMS, and that if anything changes the way it works it will disturb the juju and all your magic will disappear.
Promise me this... next time you watch "National Geographic", promise me that that you won't make fun of the native with the plate in his lip worshipping fire. Because you're kinda in that category right now.
its just pop music and bad prices to listen to on your ipod over ear buds. if it goes away tomorrow (impossible) your life won't change even a little bit. Get over it.
How strong do you think the relationship is between Apple and the copyright holders? If AAC is going to be ineffective DRM then would it surprise anyone if the copyright holders end their relationship with Apple/iTunes?
Well, as long as you complete it with..
"Apple exists to serve the stockholders"
then you'll be fine =)
You're such a sheep. I'll bet you graze in grass, and say "baaaaah" a lot.
Get a little backbone. Be willing to challenge authority.
Because really, making a copy of a song you already bought isn't exactly "Bonnie and Clyde". Get over yourself already.
Nope. Hacking into the box is illegal. Copying the document is illegal. There are a lot of things that are illegal and aren't theft. Jaywalking. Murder.
We can debate morals, if you'd like, but the law is clear: copyright infringement and theft are distinct offenses. If you think they should be conflated, start by proposing a new definition for the combined law. You'll have to do better than 'denying revenue', though--fair use, repair, buying from a competitor, and doing without all have that effect.
Oh yeah, right man, I mean, how could those Southerners be faulted for using Jim Crow laws in their favor...
The fact that something is legal doesn't necessarily mean that it is ethical.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
"If you don't like iTunes DRM, don't buy from them"
No, the point is to keep breaking the DRM until one of two things happen:
1) They say "Oh, we'll make it so tough that you won't like it". Good! Then people will understand why DRM is bad, and why it limits us in unacceptable ways.
2) They finally say "Shit, this DRM is useless, its always broken, maybe I should give people the same rights as they have with a CD".
3) Apple's music store isn't magic. Its selling mediocre quality music at a premium price. Its not a "good deal" or "revolutionary".
Acceptance of any DRM will simply lead to more rights erosions. Its the old "how to boil a frog" debate over and over. Don't you get it? When the price on itunes goes to $2/tune because of record company greed, will you finally "get it". probably not. You'll make another excuse because you think iTunes is magic.
You're a fucktard.
Face it folks, there are excellent options out there if you just want to listen to good music, pay the musicians you like a reasonable fee, and have no limits on your fair use of the music. The only reason anybody bitches about this is because they want to listen to major label music without following the content owner's rules.
So, to recap:
I refuse to use any service that forces DRM on me. The only way I'd consider subscribing to an online music service is if I can strip off the DRM once I have downloaded the music.
I have no interest in sharing music over P2P. Just want to make DAMN sure that I can access my music, regardless of the continued existance of the service, operating system, my machine configuration, crashes, whatever.
It can still be found on DataFetish. If you can, uh, find it there in the first place. :-) There is absolutely no way Apple will be able to erase all traces of this code from the Internet. The harder they try, the more people will secret it away.
No I don't think the GPL should be adhered to, nor do I support any other kind of copy-ambidexterity. I'm talking about copyright as a concept.
;)
/. heresy! To suggest I don't support the GPL! But while I admire with the goals, I disagree with the approach. After all, with the FSF's ideological roots, I expect I am not the only one to disagree.
While mutual agreements have done well to promote commerce in the sphere of the all-time-in-memory, when telephone arrived (harbringer of long distance, instant communication) things changed. Now humanity shares and distributes and mutates information as long as there is a safe harbor to collect it in. Copyright had been largely successful in limiting and cryogenically freezing information for decades in the time before. As long as there are places [switzerland, palestine, etc.] where the DMCA/GPL holds no sway, efforts to enforce them are ridiculously ineffective to a degree. This degree instantly grows into a gaping hole of wasted effort in a number of seconds and matter of keystrokes. It's a liberal stance to say that you cannot effectively eliminate domestic (illicit) drug use, child pornography dealing, or other societally frowned upon 'illegal' human behaviors. I think it's also a demonstrable truth. I take this same esoteric stance in software. FSF has engaged in a long-term battle to change society using a not-so-new tactic. FSF intends in using the system to further their goals of shared access to all implementation methodologies. Make no mistake, that any attempt to create a social subsystem within a parent system, still leaves you at the mercy of the parent's keepers. While the idea that 'the SCO case strengthens the GPL as a functioning concept' has merit, it also shows that the GPL is no stronger than DRM (and vice versa). They can be swept away by the whims of those who enforce copyright, with a simple string of letters like 'possible Al-Queda Connection'. An an extreme (but chilling) example. In the case of the GPL it would be various governmental agencies. In the case of DRM the keepers would be those private industries funding the various governmental agencies
If I were a problem solver for any sufficently large major commercial body (RIAA), my (insane) logical recourse to better enforcing legal agreements (which are not being adhered to) would be to implement tighter monitoring on the populace. Take small test groups, try out implants, ID wristbands, omnicient camera networks, fingerprint scanners on keyboards, whatever the voices in your head tell you would be a BAD THING (tm) and implement it. Spin it.
What I am convinced of, is that the 1984 scenario stems from private industry propoganda in the not-too-far-future persuading a populace that tighter monitoring will save them money/keep their kids safer/fight the aliens (modified based on culture and/or economic system, and earth's invasion alert color), rather than insidious public bodies which can't seem to count ballots, much less function as intended.
Private legal agreements are just another form of interpersonal social despotism and I do not shake hands with a computer click-thru agreement or shrinkwrapped license and do not respect them. This is
No more time to waste thinking about this crap.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Even though Sarovar.org did take the project `PlayFair' down, they didn't do anything with the user account of the playfair project admin. He is ranked 8th and will be moving up. If anybody wants to support the author they can rate this author by logging onto http://sarovar.org/
Okay, this is stupid and is pissing me off.
Folks, Apple isn't getting special treatment - if any other music store had come out with similar universal licensing terms, interface, and products, we'd say the same things. The fact is that NO ONE HAS.
Microsoft is the company that gets special treatment of another kind - everything they do is viewed with suspicion. However, there's a good reason for that - they have a long history of manipulating the market and twisting everything to their own ends whether or not that benefits consumers. Apple, meanwhile (and a great many other companies), have a history of doing things expressly for the benefit of their customers.
Look at IBM. People used to view them the same as we view Microsoft today, and for good reason. Then they changed, and after years and years (over a decade's worth) of just creating great technology, contributing to the community and other "good works", IBM is viewed as a positive company. Apple has created great technology, contributed to the community (Darwin, KHTML contribs, expanding the reach of UNIX-kind) and other "good works". Microsoft has created lots of crappy technology, stifled and attacked the community (even its own) and engaged in criminal business practices time and time again, and been convicted!
So get off your high horse about people being mindless followers of Apple. Apple has every reason to have its followers, supporters, and admirers.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Ah come on. We have the inaliable right to violate any legal contract we sign. It's in the constitution somewere, and if it isn't? Well, we'll make up something on the spot. Oh BTW Apple, release more music, we're good for it. Same for the rest of you. E-Books, movies and some closed source apps too, if you can swing it? Gotta get on the desktop, you know. *fake smile* Thanks from the "Actions speak louder than words" Crew.
Four legs good, two legs better!
sulli
RTFJ.
But that's what I want to do with the kernel! I want to change it and sell it as my own. Why can't I do that? Oh yeah, IT'S A LICENSE VIOLATION. A license is a license is a license.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
"If you have a file in AAC format, you got it through iTunes. "
This is false. AAC tunes can be created in many programs; hell, WinAMP will create AAC files if you insist on using an obscure format.
Either you are a blooming idiot, or you're an only okay troll. This is such bullshit I can't let it slide.
Guess what: there were computers, and even an internet, prior to the release of FairPlay, iTMS, etc. They worked fine.
Moron.
its hard to make money when people exercise their fair-use rights. After all, that's why nobody ever made money from books, CD's, and Video tapes.
...By hunting down these small apps.If not PlayFair then there will be some other app in a coupla weeks popping up which remove the copy protection from their songs.
In Fact it would be better for them to ignore these little things which will barely decrease their business and concentrate on marketing and such things.For people who want to circumvent , they will, anyhow.For those who want to buy, they'll buy just for the convenience.
I think it makes no real sense in Apple gunning for these small guys and spoiling their clean reputation.
Lord of the Binges.
All property rights are arbitrary. Just well entrenched, also. Physical property rights? Completely arbitrary. Who owns the moon, for instance?
"I consider myself capitalist. At the same time I don't believe everything should be free"
straight from the 'missing-the-point' department.
But if you had an 8-track transcoder to put those tracks onto a player you could play in your car is that illegal or immoral (in India so no DMCA)?
Of COURSE you can - you burn the song to a CD and then rip it as an MP3.
Are you stupid or just lazy?
From the C & D letter:
In short, our clients have one of the most generous personal use rights attached to services of this kind... [emphasis mine]
Since when is giving me access to music that I've already paid for "most generous".
Would a car dealer be "most generous" if he allowed you a second set of keys to your new car?
Would McDonald's be "most generous" if they gave you an additional straw for your large Coke?
It's coming to the point where ownership seems to be reserved solely for corporations. Instead of owning things, people are starting to lease them, or even "license" them - they pay for ownership, receive all of the liabilities associated with ownership, yet none of the rights.
I looks to me like iTunes isn't playing fair. They seem to think that they still own what they've sold you. Perhaps you should try this:
- Sell your house to Apple. After they've assumed legal ownership and paid the taxes, utilities, and mortgage, inform them that they can't occupy the property, because it would violate the "license agreement."
- Sell your car to a dealer. After he's paid the money, change the locks - informing him that the "license agreement" requires him to contact you anytime he needs the keys.
Sound reasonable? Of course not. If it was indeed "intellectual property", Apple wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But it's not. Yet they treat it as property as far as their interests are concerned, but when it comes to your interests, it's merely a "license agreement".The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
After all, look what a bang-up job they did with Microsoft on that "look and feel" issue.
They're the keystone cops of lawyers.
" Why? if you dont like the itunes licence, don't use it. "
What if I like it and want to play the music, but not in iTunes.
Oh right. burn the mediocre quality song to a CD, and then rip with an MP3 player. Just fuckign brilliant.
PlayFair is a postconsumer tool to remove potentailly unwanted packaging. Some people are actively trying to take up as the mouth piece for the RAII, as if I can't be trusted to use a product that I purchased or use it across a realistically broad range of electronic devices.
As far as I'm concerned I bought the product, not this packaging. And if I see fit to unwrap it so I can play it with my Squeezebox or my Rio or my wife's Linux box, who cares?
Quack, quack.
It takes forever, and you lose all the metadata!
PlayFair allows you to strip the annoying DRM from the M4P files while preserving the metadata. Those of you saying "burn and re-rip" are missing the point. Time is a finite resourse and PlayFair makes the converting process MUCH quicker, so you can spend time enjoying your music instead of messing with it.
You can then use a utility like the free dBpowerAMP with an AAC plug-in to convert to LAME MP3, WMA or even OGG, while still preserving the metadata. The last step is to use an MP3/WMA/OGG tag utility program to use the metadata to rename the file to something more meaningful than ITMS's default "[track] [title].m4a"
I've converted over 151 protected iTunes tracks this way so I could play them on my MuVo2. With the WinAmp AAC plugin, I can also play my iTunes purchases on my old laptop that still runs Windows 98. Thank you PlayFair!
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
If you don't agree to the terms of purchase on the iTunes Music Store, don't buy the music. No one is forcing to you to use iTunes.
Why is this such a difficult concept for people to understand?
Software like FairPlay will drive up the cost of online music or cause it to be pulled completely.
If you find the DRM used by Apple is too restrictive, you can always buy a physical CD and rip it for use on any device.
if any other music store had come out with similar universal licensing terms
All the music stores have similar licensing terms and DRM restrictions -- can burn to CD, etc. Like you said, Apple is not getting special treatment from the RIAA.
The only really unique feature of iTunes is that it runs on Macs and that it has a considerably larger advertising budget.
No, it's a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. Repeating your point over and over doesn't make it any more valid. If you have any more questions try reading Title 17 of the US code.
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
If you agreed knowing full well you didn't intend on upholding your end of the deal, you are a lier, your ethics are questionable, and I feel lucky I don't have to associate with you beyond /.!
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
My god, that's gorgeous :-)
you are a moron
Unless PlayFair is the fastest encoder/decoder of AAC which currently exists, I think the only thing it does is decrypt the M4P file using the valid key. Decoding to WAV (or CD) and then encoding back to AAC (or other format) is lossy compared to the original (already lossy M4P). PlayFair is not lossy (compared to original M4P).
MORTAR COMBAT!
FUCK APPLE!! and their pathetic iTunes Music Store.
This program is probably all over P2P and with any luck someone will host it on a server located on one those small island nations (like Sharman does with some of it's servers).
WTF !!! Why did Michael allow this posting????
Don't you think this hurts the Slashdot community?
It's scary how disgustingly ugly a language AppleScript is. COBOL anyone? Or perhaps INTERCAL ("please do X" vs. "tell me to Y"). Eek. Dear God. Won't someone think of the programmers?
Apple needs to get over themselves.
Reread the last paragraph, dipshit:
"It's not incompetence at all. Since all DRM can, and will, be broken - from a technological standpoint; perhaps not a legal one - then by your definition, they're all "incompetent". I don't think any of these people think DRM can't be circumvented; they just know that the content providers want it, and these laws like the DMCA are getting pushed through Congress. If *anything*, Apple is in a *better* position to influence copyright and content protection laws for the better. Had they done no DRM, we'd have no major label music on iTunes Music Store, and thus no iTunes Music Store as we know it (i.e., successful), and Apple wouldn't have any relevance whatsoever in this discussion at all."
[n/t]
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
101.12.125.24.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR c-24-125-12-101.va.client2.attbi.com.
The difference between PlayFair and GPL violations is in fact quite simple. They concern two separate laws. Violating the GPL means that the person in violation is breaking copyright law. They are redistributing without the permission of the copyright owner. This is bad. Using PlayFair means the person in violation is breaking the DMCA. They are using in a way that is in violation of the DMCA. This is good!
The fundamental difference between the two laws is simple. Copyright law reserves distribution rights to the copyright holder. It does not make any (but a handful) restrictions on use of the copyrighted material. Under copyright law, If I have a legally aquired copy of a work, I can use it in just about any way I wish. I can manipulate it. I can copy it. I can even destroy it. What I cannot do under copyright law is redistribute copies of the work. Bad pirates. No breaking copyright laws.
The DMCA is a different beast. There are apparently a large number of people here who are either too young to know why the DMCA is bad, or have just forgotten it. The problem with the DMCA is that it does place restrictions on use. Use restrictions are a new thing that take away rights we once had, for no significant benefit. There is, especially, no benefit for the people. Think about it. For what benefit do these use restrictions exist? They are supposed to stop piracy, yet piracy, being illegal redistribution, was already illegal under copyright law. Why add restrictions that only aggravate law-abiding citizens? There is no real benefit to the use restrictions of the DMCA. Worse, it is in fact detrimental to the stated mission of copyright.
Use restrictions inhibit the progress of Science and the useful Arts. Just look at the cases where the DMCA has been used. Academic researchers have been stopped from sharing information. Interoperability-enabling software has been buried. And yes, I can't stream the audio of iTMS songs from my Linux server.
I hope that clarifies the issues. Copyright law's distribution restrictions (and limited use restrictions) promote progress. The DMCA's use restrictions inhibit progress. That is why we can cry for the blood of GPL violators who break copyright law, while at the same time praising people who violate the DMCA.
The RIAA and record companies will drive up the price of online music downloads. Not FairPlay. If anything more people would use a product like FairPlay if the prices went up.
They can use a free Blog to post a PGP Public Key so that the integrity of the files can be verified. I'd like to see Apple go after a host for putting up a PGP Key.
Download the tarball from your favorite P2P, check the signature with the Public PGP Key and you're in business.
Signature checks aren't something for lay people, but neither is PlayFair.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The annoying application can be found here and use your favorite Bittorrent Client to retrieve.
- zi p.torrent
http://66.90.75.92/torrents/1586/playfair-0.5.0
Why transcode and lower the quality again?
By purchasing Apple's DRM-laden files, you are accepting Apple's DRM. Yes, you may plan on stripping it so you can play the file with WMP or whatever, but when you bought that file you also bought and paid for a little piece of DRM and did your part to encourage it.
By paying for DRM and then stripping it, you are not telling the companies that DRM is not acceptable. You are telling the companies that what they need is STRONGER DRM.
I don't care how much you whine about DRM being bad and the RIAA being bad and all. If you purchase DRM-encoded files or buy music from the RIAA, you are paying to support the very things you are whining about. In the grand scheme, software like PlayFair is a step backward for the anti-DRM crowd. It's an attempt to live with DRM, not a refusal to accept it, and trying to think of it otherwise is missing the point.
Why did Sarovar post this software without first checking the legality so as to ensure that it wouldn't be removed?
If someone's going to post this software, they shouldn't be taking it down two days later due to the expected legal threat from Apple.
Why buy it and then complain about fair usage. Go buy from whereever else that fits your needs.
The 2600 court took a very narrow view of the interoperability clause, limiting it's applicability to direct program-to-program interoperability, not program-to-data interoperability.
P.S. O'Reilly's Applescript book is the shiznit.
There is no gravity...the earth just sucks.
As far as I know, it's still debatable if you can deny someone the right to copy something they purchased for their own personal use. Unless there's some laws that have been inacted in the meantime that I'm not aware of.
This is an issue of someone trying to impose restrictions on a product I legally purchased, in my personal use of the product. In this case I am not attempting to distribute said product.
My understanding is that any copyright that is imposed on me is still bound to only apply in ways that are legally alowable in the place the copyright is imposed. It can't just contain anything anyone feels like putting in there, regardless of the burdons on my freedoms.
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
...put up a gallery of "Fair Play Descramblers"? Is there a thinkgeek T-shirt with a Fair Play Descrambler?
There's a marked difference in tone and vitriol from when Jon Johansen's apartment got raided. Don't wave your hands and pretend it's not true.
It's currently up at SuprNova.org.
If apple didn't bill itself as a 'enlightened' company that things would be different. But the do say they are different but when it comes down to it they aren't.
The fact that you are willing to defend their lies just shows how much of a blind fanboy you are.
(Fuckit, if I am going to be mod bombed as a troll then I will give them a reason to mod me down.)
So with iTunes you get all the freedom of going to the mall and buying a disk, except you need to burn it first yourself and it uses lower sound quality. See when I buy music online I do because its convenient, PlayFair just makes music I've purchased convenient on my non-Apple hardware.
Quack, quack.
I really don't see what's wrong with Playfair. All it does is allow people to use music they legally pay for. I have a non-iPod MP3 player. So, if I want to listen to ITMS songs I have to first burn them to CD. How is it not fair for me to skip that step, and put the songs I paid for directly on my MP3 player, without having to first burn to CD? How is this program different from DeCSS? If this were any company other than Apple, they would not be getting a free pass on this.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
Unlike some folks, I've been tracking the relationship between Apple and the Linux world for a while now. In fact, my original impetus for becoming a switcher (in 1997 or 1998, no less) was the introduction of MkLinux. That's what convinced me to get rid of my PC and buy a PowerMac 7300.
MkLinux was a project within Apple to port the Linux kernel, along with the necessary GNU tools to make a complete OS, to the PowerMac architecture; this was accomplished by running the Linux kernel as a personality on top of the Mach microkernel, which was ported to the PowerPC PREP/CHRP architecture.
With the advent of other Linux ports to PowerPC, most of which involved running the Linux kernel monolithically rather than hosting it on top of Mach, MkLinux was mothballed and quietly discontinued. However, the engineers at Apple learned a lot from the process, and this set the stage for the eventual merger with NeXT and the Rhapsody project, which evolved into Darwin and OS X. Specifically, lessons learned from porting Mach to PowerPC and hosting various OS personalities on top of it proved invaluable.
It's fair to say that Apple contributes a lot to the Open Source world, and therefore the Linux world by extension. (KHTML has been improved a fair bit by Apple engineers since they picked it as the rendering engine for Safari.) Of course, Apple's contributed more heavily to the *BSD communities.
Suffice it to say that I don't think Apple is worried about Linux, at least not in the way that Microsoft is. I certainly don't see any enmity between Apple and the Linux communities that you seem to be implying.
What software does Apple make available to the Linux world? Well, besides their contributions to KHTML, they have Quicktime Streaming Server (or whatever they're calling it today) and various other Open Source projects that are free for the Linux community to use. Apple's Rendezvous code is open, for instance, and it's a pretty good implementation of ZeroConf as I understand it.
Of course, when push comes to shove, Apple will try to promote their own products over other products. What else would you expect of them? But failure to endorse Linux doesn't mean Apple and Linux are "enemies." Apple's big selling point is ease of use and ease of administration. So far, the Linux world doesn't have this across the board. Since Apple tightly controls the look and feel of everything Macintosh, as well as other aspects that make up the user experience, I don't think Linux will ever quite catch up in this arena. Some things can't be commoditized, and Open Source (for all its benefits) doesn't lend itself to the development of seamlessly integrated software suites with consistent user interfaces. Should that ever happen in a big way, then maybe Apple might re-think its relationship with the Linux world, because then Linux will be competing on Apple's turf; right now, though, there's not much competition.
And why is it a copyright violation? Because you are not abiding by the author's terms. Copyright law makes no restrictions on distribution, the GPL does.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Actually, Apple has a long history of legal bullying for which they are endlessly forgiven by their devotees. I'm typing this on an iBook and it's a good product (even if QA has markedly slipped), but I have little respect remaining for the company that made it. Sadly, that's the state of the computer industry today - it would be difficult to do any better.
Dude why won't you buy a Stereo?
All you would have to do is get a decent new mother board with optical out, and a reciver with optical in, it has nothing to do with DRM.
Get a decent stereo and a optical connection if you are that into music. I have Bose speakers for my computer, and even they don't sound 75% as good as my computer hooked up to my $200 sony reciver via optical.
... but I thought the whole reason to move the project to Sarovar was the fact that it was legal in India? It looks like Apple is just throwing empty threats around, doesn't it? Personally, I think we should encourage them to put Playfair back up until Apple actually cites a violation of Indian law, instead of threatening unspecified potential legal action.
If anyone has a copy, post it up on freenet. This is just the kind of thing that freenet is good for.
----
All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
Let 'em go after this one.
Actually, it was salt made by collecting seawater and evaporating it. Principle is the same though, so soap/salt really maks no difference.
The torrent is at http://www.torrentz.com/torrents/view_10993
My email addy? should be easy enough.
http://openjaguar.online.fr/pub/
http://openpanther.online.fr/pub/
http://mmw.online.fr/pub/
http://almisr.online.fr/pub/
http://monkeyfacepresident.online.fr/pub/
God, what an awful looking programming language. I'd need to take some valium before trying to write code in that.
Well, it is readable, even for a non-programmer. Don't know who would have both the knowledge and the tolerance to write it, though.
(Obligatory IANAL, but I slept at a holiday inn last night) - one slight nitpick with your comment. "the jury exists as a group of peers that decide on guilt." - yes, but it's more generalized than that.
A jury's job is to answer questions of fact, while judge's job it to answer questions of law. So yes, a jury decides if someone is guilty. It also decides if he was drunk when he did it, and whether he premeditated it or not. All questions of fact, not just whether he is guilty or not.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
A point that nobody else has made as far as I can tell, is that iTMS songs are tied to your iPod and/or your PC, and when your iPod and/or your PC goes away, I assume your songs vanish along with it. Now, this could happen because your iPod is stolen, or broken, or simply surpassed by superior technology. What then?
If I follow the argument of all the people supporting Apple's right to restrict my use of iTMS songs, then I'm out of luck. Essentially, my "lease" has expired and it's time to renew it (with more $$$) on some new device.
But I didn't purchase a lease, did I? So I don't think that's a very reasonable bargain. The vast majority of my MP3 music is ripped from CD's I own, but I find iTMS convenient and I think my fair use rights allow me to do more with my purchased songs than Apple would have me believe. I suspect the songs will remain interesting long after my iPod ceases to be, and I definitely think I should be able to keep enjoying them. I should be able to archive them and retrieve and play them for the rest of my life on the hardware of my choice. To me, that means archiving without encryption.
FairPlay makes this possible, and as long as I don't start exporting decrypted files, I'm on pretty solid ground, and essentially invisible to Apple in any case.
If you've actually got a legal leg to stand on in your own damn country, then make your case and get on with it.
So are you going to finance this case? If not, I'd hardly call making their case "fair", at least in countries where money influences legal outcomes.
Anyone who wants a copy, please email me: gabe[asdfasdfahsdfasdgsdfgasdfdafgasdfkgasdlhgfk]@ slacker.[asdfhuasghdhfjgajshdjfjha].homeunix.[asdf asdfasdf]net. I am hosting it on my server which is password protected, http://slacker.homeunix.net:8080/stuff
[delete the brackets and eveything in between from email address]
The license gives you more rights than copyright law. If you actually read it sometime:
Seems to me the license is allowing you more freedom than copyright law does.
The stupidity is people supporting music cartels who are trying to keep their monopoly, and for you to advocate for licensing infringement.
If people have no respect for licenses, your beloved GPL would mean little or nothing. If the product isn't Free, don't support the makers and boycott. It's not like anyone is forcing these people to buy, and it's not like music from cartels is an essential for life.
If it's too restrictive, don't support it with your money. The idiotic thing to do is to give them money to set up more DRM. This is what you and other idiots don't comprehend. It's you and your ilk are supporting DRM in the First place - layer #1.
By saying you're going to break DRM after paying for it doesn't make any sense. The $1 or $2 or $100 you already spent go into their warchests. They are hiring lawyers using Your money!!!
Maybe nobody will ever read this cause of this bs moderating stuff I don't even want to understand, but I write it anyway.
I make my living writing and producing music.
Believe it or not, my job gets harder and harder, mainly due to stupid labels mainly scared by piracy, or taking this as an excuse to make more profit. But due to piracy too. No need to argue.
I think all the argument à la "i bought those song so i can break their DRM" is total BS! Why would you want to break it if it's not to share them illegally? And if you don't like those DRM, don't buy. And if you think an album is not worse it, don't buy.
Or admit your a thief!
As I admit I steal software. Almost all of them!
I support some dev I like, and if I can afford it, the rest is for free. And i crack all your protections, sooner or later, no need to go to India or wherever for that.
But I do this in the dark, without hiding myself behind some "rights" I have to use intellectual property of others without paying. I know I'm a thief.
Pay me for my job, and I'll pay for yours.
I'm the anonymous, you're the cowards.
Hmm. I think that I help Apple instead of hurting them by using Playfair. There's no way that I will buy an iPod or iTunes if I can only use them together. I use Linux a lot, and I have a non-iPod MP3 player that I'm very fond of. With Playfair, I am likely to buy songs from iTunes, so Apple gets more money from me.
As my shitty ethics don't stretch to sharing the music freely, I won't violate any other terms of the license. I help them and remain well within the spirit (if not the letter) of the agreement.
I think that means my ethics aren't so shitty, in fact. I don't see a problem.
Now, the people who create and distribute Playfair, knowing full well that it may be used in other less ethical situations - they don't have my excuse; they may be actually harming Apple.
Apple's main goal is to force you to listen to music in their music-approved devices. Get a clue already.
You don't care about their format only playing in their devices? DRM is preventing you from listening to your bought song in any of your other hardware.
People are stupid, if they think they will pay for DRM and then break it. It's these circumvention hacks that prevents people from "STOP BUYING IT." This just leads them to buy it and wait for the crack - users gain nothing, more DRM, more bad laws.
Simple solution: don't pay for DRM in any way, even if there's a crack for it.
Apple is using DRM and in business with the music cartels, and people like you are applauding them and buying into it.
If you call wanting freedom being on a high horse, what else are you saying?
Yes, copyright law makes restrictions on redistribution -- in particular, it says you can't do it at all without the copyright holder's permission.
The GPL, by contrast, says you *can* redistribute -- as long as you follow certain terms.
Thus, the GPL lets you do something (redistribute) that copyright alone won't allow.
Compare to reverse engineering; copyright law says nothing about reverse engineering, only redistribution, preparation of derivative works, public perforance, etc etc. Licenses that prohibit reverse engineering are thus preventing you from doing something that copyright law would allow, as distinct from the GPL.
Clear now?
I'm not a capitalist but here are my thoughts...
Capitalism calls for privatization of EVERYTHING (except courts). If you are a (pure) capitalist, you would be in favour of privatizing anything. This can include electricity utilities, schools, hospitals, roads, parks, rivers, trees, animals, etc ( simple principle regarding environment here).
The world is not practicing pure capitalism so all of it hasn't happened. However, the world is shifting towards pure capitalism. So things like parks are being privatized (check out Bush's plan to privatize American parks), schools are being privatized (applies to almost any country), animals are being privatized (genetic rights allows corporations to own newly created biological beings--so far it has only applied to simple organisms (like plants--look up the Monsato controversy) but it will likely include mammals in the future). Owning the moon may seem ludricrous to you but capitalism calls for privatizing it. It's just that it hasn't happened right now. However, I will guarantee you that the moon will be ownd by some private entities in a few hundread years (assuming capitalism is around--I think it will collapse).
Under capitalism, everything is supposed to be privately owned. That's a result of capitalism, just like how under socialism, communism, and anarchism, everything is supposed to be owned by the "common good" or society (usually represented by government or communes).
I have just talked about physical entities so far. The same applies to intangible things like "intellectual property", "thoughts", styles, fashion, etc. There is no difference between physical and mental entities--at least according to capitalism. For example, you will be sued in a similar manner whether you steal a company's (private) financial statements or its (private) computers. The courts--and consequently societies under capitalism--see no difference. Everything is private property according to capitalism.
Under capitalism, patents, copyrights, IP (intellectual property) rights, etc are just as strongly protected as tangible property like buildings, capital/money, or houses. You may think what I am saying is a bunch of nonsense. You might think that capitalism has nothing to do with privatizing mental concepts. You are mistaken.
Perhaps a very good example that is similar to the IP/copyright/DRM stuff is stock market indices. Financial institutions are the heart of capitalism so you can be sure that anything that they support is due to capitalism. How many of you know that a stock market index, like S&P 500, is owned by some corporation? An index is just a collection of stocks and anyone can make it up. But the fact that these things are owned essentially means that it is plausible for anyone to own IP, patents, DRM rights, etc. So it is actually a result of capitalism that mental constructs are owned.
Based on your thoughts you don't seem like a capitalist to me. Or perhaps you are not a pure capitalist. You may be a quasi-capitalist who supports some non-capitalist ideals. For instance, your comment "I just don't think there should be artificial government decrees that say people can own ideas beyond the right of recognition and the right to protect personal privacy" essentially implies that you are not a capitalist. Capitalism actually calls for governments to protect rights, however arbitrary, and capitalism has nothing to do with privacy. Things like privacy, human rights, environmental rights, etc have nothing to do with capitalism.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Straight from the typo dept.
--
Slow down cowboy! Fuck me gently! Yeah, that's teh way.
Yes, this is OT. Go ahead and mod me down. At least it's intelligent OT.
Umm, Osama bin Laden is a millionaire. You don't see the heads of the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or any other terrorist organization out there begging on the street, either.
There's a reason for this: terrorism is not fundmentally fueled by either poverty or hunger. The components of terrorism are hatred, bigotry, and racism. "But the world is filled with those things!" you may say, "But terrorism is not universal. We have some hatred, bigotry, and racism right here in the USA, and way too much poverty for a rich country, too. Yet domestic terrorism is almost completely unknown here. Why?"
Why, indeed? It's because terrorism needs a catalyst. That catalyst is the wealthy men with radical agendas and no regard for the rule of law who head the terrorist organizations, among whom bin Laden is the richest. Besides being pretty good at terror, Al Qaeda is a heck of a good fund-raising and money-laundering organization, too. One that would probably make most political parties and some drug cartels look on with envy.
You can educate people all you want. It won't stop terrorism. You can feed them all you want. it won't stop terrorism. Indeed, Hamas feeds lots of people, and the Islamic world is filled with Islamic schools that educate people. The radical ones educate people in terrorist ideology, and they later graduate from ideology to techniques. So what we see is that feeding and "educating" people is an integral part of recruiting new terrorists. After all, somebody has to go out and be the suicide bomber, and it sure isn't going to be the guy in charge, or anyone from his family. They'll advocate suicide bombing but they have no taste for it themselves. It's pretty plain from that just how much they really care about the people they recruit.
So, what will end terrorism? First of all, there is no quick fix. I'm in my forties and I believe we will be at war against terrorism for the rest of my life. I don't know if even my very young children will see an end to it in their old age.
To end terrorism, we need to do a lot of things. Kill terrorists, firstly. Especially those on top. Make it clear that any country that harbors or aids terrorists is putting its collective neck on the block. You don't think Qaddafi's playing ball all of a sudden is a coincidence, do you? He was what happened to Saddam Hussein, and decided he wanted no part of that. Any dictator cares first and foremost about himself, and it was clear to him that the way to retain power was to play ball with the international community and dump his WMD programs before someone came along and dumped him. Qaddafi is no fool. Hussein was a fool to continue following the course he did after Sept. 11.
Secondly, we need to encourage democracy and freedom in the Mid East. Sometimes, that can only be achieved through forcible regime change. Other times, a carrot and a stick will be enough.
Finally, getting a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians is key. No one had a right to gripe about Israel holding the west bank and Gaza, and no one would have a right to gripe if they kept them forever. The only reason they are in those places is the 1967 war, a war of aggression waged against Israel by its neighbors. The Israelis won, and took that land to buffer them against future attacks. That's how they got the Golan Heights, too.
Despite the fact that it would be fair if Israel kept that land, they won't have peace unless they give it back and let the Palestinians make a state on it.
An end to terrorism and achievement of peace is possible, but it cannot be achieved through appeasement now any more than it could against Hitler in the 1930s. We all know what appeasement of Hitler led to. It led to waiting to fight him after he was too strong to beat easily. It led to countless millions of deaths that wouldn't have happened if they had taken him down years earlier when he had n
Thank you for your considered reply. I wish to qualify one thing:
> Owning the moon may seem ludricrous to you
> but capitalism calls for privatizing it.
I talked about exclusive and enforced naming rights to the moon. What I implied by this warrants more explanation than that short sentence. In this system, if a corporation in Europe owned this thing, it would make it illegal for an uncivilised tribesman with no knowledge of Europe to point the moon out to his child and use the of his own language.
I wanted to come up with an examples that were absurdly contrived yet somehow conceivable. Because much of our intelletual property concepts are similarly contrived. Would capitalism support a concept such as I have indicated? Perhaps it would - trademarks are widespread. But I don't think they are that out of control in any sense.
Imagine reading a Heinlen-style dialogue featuring a character new to our planet who has never had a concept of IP. this character is slammed with the concept in the face rather than being seduced into the madness over the course of hundreds of years.
"What? You can... *own ideas*?! But - that's absurd. They are artifacts! They are the building blocks of the world. They are not something that somebody can accrue... like bread on the table or a collection of books. They are something inherent about the universe. They are not *made* - they are discovered.
When an explorer wades into uncharted territories, capturing pictures of scenes or the paths to them this should not make the lands he discoveres his property. Similarly - when a scientist discovers something about DNA - that's not hers to own - it's just an accrual of knowledge about the nature of things."
The concept of intellectual property is a hack that was produced to give people an incentive to discover things that are not really property.
Does pure capitalism extend to my moon example? Or do you think there is a break somewhere between it, IP and owning a car?
Believe with me, my saplings.
You are so full of shit it isn't even funny. Stop spreading around your misinformation. Just because you believe something is "illegal" doesn't automatically make it so.
I'm not a capitalist so you need to ask the capitalists who control earth ;)
My view is that the world will shift towards pure capitalism (assuming capitalism doesn't collapse). This will mean that everything will be privatized, including the moon. My impression of capitalism is that you can privatize names, concepts, ideas, etc. This is why you can patent scientific discoveries, genetically engineered plants, books, brands, etc.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
It doesn't limit their fair use because it doesn't actually stop them from doing anything. It just makes it more inconvenient because you have to have a CD burner to pull it off.
Oh come on, lets have a reality check here. CD burners are dirt cheap now, and not hard to come by. I don't know anyone what doesn't own one.
Exactly, that's the entire point of Copyright law, it says under what conditions you are forbidden to redistribute. The license, on the other hand, lists conditions under which you CAN redistribute.
Never confuse volume with power.
That's what I was addressing, and I'm fairly sure that my post was on-topic, correct and direct. Consequently, I'm not exactly sure what you're meaning to add via your follow-up; it frankly strikes me as a bit of a non-sequiteur (and a touch inaccurate; copyright law isn't as much under what conditions one is forbidden to redistribute as what activities, redistribution among them, one is forbidden from taking without permission of the copyright holder).