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.
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?
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?
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 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
5000x a day is nothing.
Let's assume the file is 500k.
That's 2.5GB a day. Not much at all. Sounds like it at first, but it isn't. That's roughly 100MB per hour, 1.5MB per minute, 0.25MB / 250Kb / 2Mbit a second. Most cable connections could support that.
TODO: Something witty here...
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
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
Apple exists to serve... it does NOT serve to exist.
Tell that to the stockholders.
When you set up your iTunes account, were you misled in any way about what machines you'd be allowed to play the files on? About how many times you could transfer the files? Stuff like that?
Do you complain about not being able to drive your car on the sidewalk? It's your car, after all, you should be able to drive it however you want it.
You want iTunes for Linux? Petition for iTunes on Linux.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
>>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.
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,"
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
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.
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.
> I could care less about this program.
I'm not a iTMS customer, but I care about this program.
It's the thin end of the wedge, and we need to be reacting to these DMCA takedowns. I don't see any reason for someone to be unable to choose to distribute the source code to any program that they have created. I want to protect this idea as a fundamental principle because otherwise more companies or "industry groups" will erode it and attack other free software projects.
We shouldn't be in a position where people are talking about whether ${SOME_COMPANY} will permit us to distribute our programs.
- Brian
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.
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.
As an artist myself, I'd LOVE to reply to the comment. I have no problem with p2p music sharing, it helps expose people to music. If someone likes it enough, they will buy the cd.
But you have no idea how the music buisness works. The only real money made for an artist is through merchandise AT the shows. You don't get your paycheck by playing, but by selling your wares at a venue. "But you get $50,000 for each show!" Okay, now, subtract 7 hours of labor for the 20-some guys setting up the eq. The $20 / hour the soundman gets. The traveling expenses, room use, security, yadda yadda.
While society has been "raping our minds" for years, it's a simple matter of believing lies, or finding your own truths. And advertising makes the world go round. Get used to it, it's not going away anytime soon.
Oh, by the way, artists don't need you, the consumer to rip them off. The record labels do that job for you.
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?
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.
Keep in mind that Apple may not even care about 'getting it back' as was the case with the studios and DeCSS, it's profits are not directly affected since the music store is not profitable, iPods are, and the only downside is the labels complaining. So as long as Apple is seen to be making an effort (for the program not to be readily available) that's all that's required.
Keep in mind that everything Apple has done has been to remove the program, not to go after the author.
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
"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.
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.
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)?
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 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.)
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?