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."
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
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
It doesn't matter. The cat is out of the bag.
And the more Apple tries to stuff it back in, the more attention they draw to the futility or DRM and the existence of playfair.
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.
If this is true, and I sincerely hope it is NOT, then perhaps online music stores shouldn't exist at all.
As of this moment we have a legal, cheap, and DRM free way to get music: buy used CDs.
Everyone here seems to only be concerned with moving forward and having online music stores as soon as possible... what they don't realize is that because of the DRM we are moving BACKWARD. All the freedoms that we HAD with regular retail don't exist with the online stores, and already music companies are starting to experiment with DRM on regular CDs.
So here is what I say: buy CDs or don't buy music at all. If you choose to use these services because they are convenient or whatever then you are just saying to the corporations: "I will take any crap that you want to give me as long as I get exactly what I want right now"
Sounds kind of childish, doesn't it?
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.
This is the samething as the USA parking an aircraft carrier off a country then making a 'request' they do something. While it is a 'simple request' it is backed up by a Nuclear armed air wing and an entire carrier battle group.
Apple has a lot more resouces than most people and can make good on their threats.
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
Score: 4, Insightful? Last I heard, the "Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957" are Indian laws.
>>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,"
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.
Oh puhlease... trying to make an association between your quote from MLK Jr. and your dislike of DRM makes your argument look ridiculous.
Suggesting that DRM is a black/white right/wrong issue is pretty ridiculous. You no doubt would love to protect your own rights to things you have of value (you do lock up your valuables... right?). 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?
I can agree/disagree with the IMPLEMENTATION of DRM in this case, or I can say that it's a mixed bag. In my opinion, it's a mixed bag, and people who are going out of their way to circumvent the MINIMAL DRM on iTunes are simply looking for a way to justify immoral/illegal behavior.
Tim
DRM is simply unacceptable. Frankly, I'm in favor of revoking the copyrights of any work that is authorizedly subjected to DRM, and to not only legalize, but encourage the circumvention of DRM. Obviously, it's perfectly fine for encryption to exist -- but there's certainly no reason we have to encourage it in the realm of works that are supposed to be published.
You want fair use? Fine! Write your own program for doing whatever you want.
That is also unacceptable, and frankly it's very hostile. You are basically saying that people who want to record a show off TV should have to invent and build their own VCRs; that people who want to xerox a page from a book should have to develop their own xerox machine. It's the kind of inanity that I normally only associate with people who have weevils infesting their brains. People typically create tools not only for themselves, but for the benefit of other people who may not be so able to make their own tools. Hell -- I feel quite confident that you didn't build your own computer from the grains of sand level on up. You relied on others, and that's _great_. Why should it be any different here?
It is because without the DRM, the RIAA would not permit any sort of digital distribution.
Then fuck them. Let's work on reforming the law so that they can't prevent it in the first place.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Because in almost all sane jurisdictions all things are legal unless they fall into a class of things that is defined to be illegal.
So the onus is on _you_ to explain why, in India, PlayFair is _illegal_.
FP.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
I'm sure Apple would not like something like that, but at least that's defensible and would not kill the goose with the golden egg, since it does not actually defeat the DRM terms to which the RIAA agreed when they licensed their content to the ITMS.
There are three reasons not to do something this way:
It's harder! Cry me a freakin' river. If you don't like the DRM, go buy the CDs at a store and rip them to MP3s yourself! But I want to distribute my MP3s over Kazaa because information wants to be free! Information wants to be free as in speech, it's true. But that doesn't mean that it should be free as in beer. Beer wants to be free, but someone does actually have to pick up the tab if you want there to be more beer. Yes, I know all the arguments, and I have not lost any sleep over Metallica's lost sales, but all in all, I believe that the artist who creates something should be allowed to make the decision as to how it is distributed, and their fans should respect that decision. I want to put this music on some device other than that damned overpriced iPod! So use a different music service! All the other services support much more byzantine DRM which fills the coffers of a bigger, badder company, which will not be named here. The merits of the iPod vs. other players can be discussed ad infinitum, but if, at the end of the day, you want to download your music legally and use a non-iPod device, just use a different service. Or buy the CDs and rip them yourself. I guess there is another reason, a la Mt. Everest. I want to challenge the DRM because it's there. I don't have a good argument against that. Do it all you like. Just don't distribute the program so that anyone else can do it without a shred of technical knowledge.In short, do the right thing, m'kay? It's worth it in the end.
The CB App. What's your 20?
You are either for DRM technology, or you are against it. I am against it.
And therefore you have 2 choices, to subscribe to the iTMS or not.
It is NOT ethical to subscribe to the iTMS (and thus, agree to the EULA) with the full intent of violating what you are agreeing to. Same deal as GPL violators.
Sigh. For the billionth time, the GPL is not an EULA. The GPL is a copyright permission license. To violate the GPL you have to be engaging in distribution.
It would be the 'Same deal as GPL violators' if someone set up their own webshop, copied and sold iTMS content.
EULA's may, or may not, be enforcable. It's by no means a certain thing, and in the case of Apples EULA for iTMS it goes straight up against the First Sales Doctrine, which means that copyright law can very well trump the contract EULA trying to limit buyers rights beyond what copyright law permits them.
It's not even close to the 'same deal'.
Okay, I think the point is this:
If you have a file in AAC format, you got it through iTunes. And if you got it through iTunes, then you signed the User License, a legally binding agreement. Sure, you probably skimmed it because it's long, but that's expected, and it's legal. Part of the agreement no doubt said that you respect the DRM that exists in the files that you download.
So anyone using PlayFair to overcome the DRMs is essentially in breach of contract.
That all being said:
STOP COMPARING THIS TO MLK AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT!
Sorry for shouting, but this seriously has me PO'd. There's a huge difference from being banned from a restaurant because of the color of your skin, and being prevented from making unlimited copies of a song you like, or using that song wherever you want. I understand there are some usese of FairPlay that might fall under the traditional definition of Fair Use (perhaps!) but you all are kidding yourselves if you think that pissing and moaning about DRM is going to change anything.
If you want to effect real change, vote with your pocketbook. Stop buying new records especially at national chains. Go to local music stores and buy used CDs. Hell, buy vinyl. Only buy music that is made and distributed by independent labels.
And, while you're at it, take it upon yourself to do something good and worthwhile for the world -- help tutor someone, volunteer time at a soup kitchen, or even just talk to a friend who seems in the dumps. Surely there's something better to do than waste it arguing about whether or not Apple should be doing what it's doing.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
Not that it stopped me from downloading it. I don't like being told by whatever power that I can't read forbidden text.
I think that counts as the best possible outcome we can achieve in the current legal climate - That we can download it regardless of legality. Apple wants to squash it, and in trying to do so, have guaranteed it immortality (almost a software equivalent of martyrdom).
Personally, I downloaded it because of the legality, as I have done with several similar programs (DeCSS, Waste, PadLock, etc) in the past. I don't even have an iPod, nor an iTMS account, nor will I ever (I would rather pay a few bucks more for a physical CD of the music, and keep all my own ripped music as OGGs, not AACs). But because Apple decided to go after them, I grabbed a copy.
You could call this "petulant" if you wanted, but really, what more can we do? "Civic Duty" advocates might say "vote". Market-focused individuals would say "vote with your dollar". But put simply, neither of those matters, nor does any other action I could take. "The little guy", ie, almost all of us, has absolutely no say in what the government or corporate America does, we can at best try to poke sticks into the chinks in their legal armor.
I do have to wonder, though - Why has Apple gone after PlayFair, but not VideoLan (which can also remove FairPlay, though taking just a bit more effort)? I do have a theory on that - VideoLan's ability comes directly from "DVD Jon", who already won (in his own country) a very similar precedent-setting case - Namely, over DeCSS. If Apple went after him, his lawyer would just point to his earlier victory and call it a day.
Nice, except you're missing the whole point of people being able to already download the same songs somewhere else in MP3 format. All unencrypted, and quality as good (or near as to be indistinguishable by most people) ... and get this, FOR FREE. But guess what? The people who are actually using Playfair aren't doing this. They're using it to remove DRM from files which they've paid for. And what use would it be for someone who wants it for free to go through the process of decrypting DRM'ed AAC files when they can get the same files quicker and easier somewhere else. Then even if the people who have removed the DRM were to share those files who would want them? Seriously who would want AAC music files that plays on how many portable players? How many PC media players? Not many.
*shrug*
Some kid breaks the DRM mechanism, and everyone jumps to his defence, because all they really want is FREE (gratis) music.
This has nothing to do with getting free music. All of the songs available on iTunes are freely available anywhere else on the Internet. Nobody is breaking iTunes' DRM for the purpose of "stealing": You have to pay for the song before you even get the chance to break the DRM.
No, the reason it's been broken, and the reason I am applauding their efforts to continue to do so, is because Fairplay isn't fair for me. I can't listen to it on portable MP3 players other than iPod. I can't put the files on my server and freely play them from any computer. I can't play them from standalone hardware players. I can't burn a hundred of them to a CD in data format and pop that disc in my in-car MP3 player.
These are for legally purchased songs that I own, and I should be able to do what I please with them. Playfair solves this.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
(bear with me for a moment here) My computer/car/walkman don't play 8-Track tapes. Knowing this limitation of the 8-Track Tape format, I don't buy any 8-Tracks, at any price. I don't fault the manufacturers of 8 Track tapes or units for this.
So, if you know that iTMS downloads don't meet your needs and are not compatible with whatever mp3 player you want, why did you buy anything from iTMS?
The restrictions and usefulness of what you get for 99 cents are clearly and unambiguously disclosed before purchase. The terms are good enough for a great many people. There's really no need for PlayFair.
One other thing I just thought of. Why is Apple the one going after this program? They are not the ones who wrote the FairPlay DRM. Do they even own the copyrights? It would be kinda funny if they have no legal right to enforce the copyrights.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison