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
...It'll never be caught there! :^)
Ba-doom-boom-crash!
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
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?
... 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?
As another poster pointed out, they didn't specify *what* laws they were going to do anything. They merely said that if they didn't take it down, they would begin reviewing what legal options they had available to them. Maybe they don't have any, maybe they do - but if I had Apple's lawyers on my back I might want to take it down too until I found out they had no chance of touching me.
Random Musings
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 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.
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.
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.)
Remember bnetd? Blizzard had no problem with people who loved their game, but they'd be idiots to stand by while a program existed that circumvented their CD-key system. Same deal with Apple (sot of).
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
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
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
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 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!
Apple exists to serve... it does NOT serve to exist.
Tell that to the stockholders.
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?
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.
Score: 4, Insightful? Last I heard, the "Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957" are Indian laws.
The thing is, even when shared, you still need the key, sharing it will do nothing.
>>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.
A lot of the language in the letter was "press release" material. I'm sure Apple knew that the letter would be posted on web sites worldwide, so they probably figured "why not take the opportunity to remind people how nice iTunes, iPod, and the iTMS are!"
Free advertising at its best.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
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 :)
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.
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.
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,"
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!!!!
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).
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.
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.
Let's hope that 'PlayFair' might appear in some other country now.
In Soviet Russia, Apple plays fair!
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."
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.
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!
DRM is just a phase the industry was going through. Eventually the stockholders will start asking for money, and the industry will go back to the making-it-easy-to-have-customers business. You know, the business where they made countless millions of dollars selling unprotected CDs. The business that sold more DVDs after CSS was cracked, than before. Greed and the desire for sales, will eventually destroy DRM. You don't get rich, telling potential customers to fuck off.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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