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."
...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
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 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.)
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.
http://students.washington.edu/joshuadf/decss/
Use responsibly.
(*
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
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
Oh yes they did.
Is not an "intellectual appeal", it's a threat to make them spend the rest of their lives in court and/or be bankrupted. It's one step removed from a horse's head in the bed.Score: 4, Insightful? Last I heard, the "Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957" are Indian laws.
You're fooling yourself if you think that you must distribute binaries of a copy-protection circumvention application. The 2600 guys were successfully prevented from hyperlinking to sites with the source code. That's right. There is precedent for /. to be sued for leaving your comment in this discussion, based on the DMCA.
>>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,"
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!!!!
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.
Apple used to have service manuals for their old Macs on ftp.apple.com, with no passwords. But if anyone even gave a link to them in any Mac discussion group they had very heavy legal threats using "copyright" and "trade secret" language that made all the site and list owners immedaitely delete the articles. Again, these were simply links to documents freely available on Apple's own site, for obsolete machines that would cost more than they were worth to take to a repair centre -- even for trivial (once you see the diagrams) tasks like replacing the motherboard battery.
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
I look at it simply like this: You are either for DRM technology, or you are against it.
President Bush? Is that you? If so, I hope to god you are not "the next president."
Everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful
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.
In any case, THIS IS EXEMPT! Read the DMCA under 6 exemptions:
2. Reverse engineering (section 1201(f)). This exception permits circumvention, and the development of technological means for such circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability with other programs, to the extent that such acts are permitted under copyright law.
PlayFair is needed to allow us to use the protected work in hardware that does not support the FairPlay encryption scheme. While I might not bet my life on that, it at least is a good place to start in challenging this (as well as in the case for DVD's).
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
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?
That court decision was wrong. We disobey. And don't necessarily want to pay the "consequences", either.
Some court decisions, some laws, are just plain wrong. Forbidding people to look at a web site by refusing permission to anyone to link to it is wrong. I don't care about legal; it's wrong.
Streeeeetching for an example: jury nullification. Juries actually have four verdict options.
1. Guilty
2. Not guilty.
3. No verdict (hung in a tie, or unable to reach majority).
4. NULLIFICATION. The jury can decide that, although the defendant is guilty of violating the law, the law itself is wrong.
I don't know what happens as a result of 4: guilty? not guilty? I do know that judges do not want such an outcome, and as far as I know never inform the jury that they can decide in that manner.
There is civil disobediance, of course, but you can go to jail or be fined. Juries aren't charged for nullification.
Let's say that in this case I am nullifying the legal decision. No precedent on the books, but plenty in real life. People speed. People take mood enhancing drugs. They end-ran Prohibition. They copy music. Bush is sandbagging the Plame investigators. Cheney won't give up notes to energy policy meetings that he should. They don't think of themselves as criminals as they do all these felonious things. They effectively nullify the law.
So tho there is precedent, I agree, in that court ruling, I deny the validity of the decision. I have lots of company.
And the parent poster is simply not guilty of linking to the code: he's hosting the source, making it available for downloard. He's past the 2600 decision, and out in another dimension.
Not that it stopped me from downloading it. I don't like being told by whatever power that I can't read forbidden text.
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'.
No this would be more like Canada parking a boat with a moose and a mounty outside of a foreign country and making a 'request.'
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