Slashdot Mirror
Update on Playfair
An anonymous reader writes "A few weeks back, Slashdot reported that Apple had sent a cease and desist letter to Sarovar.org, the Indian site hosting the Playfair project. This is the first incident in India where a corporation has used legal means to shut down a Free Software project. Some of the prominent members of the Open Source/Free Software community in India have issued an update on this situation. There is also an interesting post in the FSF-India mailing lists."
Need a good ol' fashioned Chinese to-hell-with-western-law hosting... works for spammers, why not legit projects that exist in that legal grey-zone?
meh
Apple is a computer company. They do not own or control the copyrights on the music they are allegedly trying to protect. If anything, the RIAA should be the ones to go after these guys, not Apple. And since the RIAA doesn't have any pull in India (while Apple probably has some), I suspect that this whole mess would have been summarily ignored. They should tell Apple straight out that since Apple does not own the copyrights to the works which are supposedly being illegally copied, they do not have the right to make this request.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
What is really happening is a corporation is using legal means to shut down a free software project in India for the first time and the small project is left defenseless even though they believe that they are right.
Goddam Bill Gates and his Evil Empire -- ohwaitaminnit...
...if Apple did not do this kind of thing, the computer-unsavy media CEOs would panic and shut down itunes. (As if piracy could be stopped that way)
And portraying a cracker-program as an "open-source effort" is a bit like calling the NRA a grass-roots civil rights campaign.
This is really no different than what DirecTV is doing to people who have purchased smartcard readers.
Big money eats up little money. It doesn't matter whether your are right or wrong. Go against Apple (or DirecTV) and they will bury you in legal bills. They will make in cost-prohibitive to defy their will. It's a total abuse of the legal system, but until someone steps in and makes changes it will continue.
The only way to survive is to release Playfair anonymously and in a method that never lets Apple find out exactly who you are.
So they acknowledge that the unauthorized copying of music is illegal
Copying? The tool specifically takes a song you have bought, the key that you have bought to play that song, applies the key to the song and uses it to remove the DRM. Lets say that I delete the original file afterwards, in which case the net IP "possession" is unchanged: I have one instance of a song I bought, only now I am no longer beholden to the artifical monopoly of things-capable-of-playing-this-song.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Unfortunately, the least expensive colocation package that they offer is $1500/month. There's just no way a smallish FS project can afford that.
The way I see this is that PlayFair is an innocent (well almost) casualty of a larger conflict between Apple and Microsoft as to who will control how music will be sold on the internet. the developer(s) of PlayFair may be within their legal rights but since when has any corporation cared about the rights of mere mortals?
You've still made ONE copy in that process, even if you delete the original.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong, since I believe it's perfectly within Fair Use to make a decrypted copy. What happens if Apple goes out of business? What happens if I don't have a suitable network connection to authorize my Macs? I paid for the music, and do have some right to listen to it at 100% quality.
However, all I am stating is the strict legality of the situation. Owning this tool isn't illegal, but using it is. I don't know, however, that is enough under Indian law to get them knocked off the servers.
GPL Deconstructed
But waiver of fair use rights is arguably an unconscionable and therefore unenforceable contract provision. If indeed clicking an "I agree" button on a Diktat contract forms a valid contract. (I know it doesn't morally, whether it does legally has yet to be demonstrated except in a very narrow context.)
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
It all depends on whether you signed a contract when you bought the Sony drive that you would only use Sony blanks, doesn't it? Then it wouldn't be illegal to use the non Sony blanks, only that you would have violated your contract with Sony, and Sony then has the right to not honor any warranty with you (there is some wiggle of course, since you used a fairly extreme example).
All sales of Apple's music have implicit contracts, which you should have read before purchasing. There is authorized copying, which is streaming to three machines, converting m4p->CD->MP3 or m4a, and then there is unauthorized copying, which is streaming to unlimited machines and converting from m4p->m4a.
You can argue Fair Use, but they can argue that you willingly agreed to their contract, and all they are doing is enforcing it through vague laws.
GPL Deconstructed
In what way is removing the DRM from iTunes music "fair use"? The user agrees to Apple's terms upon purchase. If you don't like the number of players Fairplay will authorize, buy your music elsewhere.
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.
i don't think it is (or should not be) illegal to use it (except if you do something illegal with the encoded files afterwards like distribution on the internet)
Its STILL should not be illegal to use it even if your intentions are to distribute the song illegaly. The distribution is the crime and always has been. It would still be illegal even if you distributed the song without stripping the DRM.
I put this on the same level as the "subsidized" price for game consoles with the understanding that you are going to use the device to play games. If they charged what the game console hardware really cost, it would be two or three times as much. Similar models exist everywhere where the hardware is artifically cheap and revenue is made up for by future sales.
Sort of like giving away staplers and charging lots for staples.
From their statement:
The Apple iPod permits the iTunes user to make a music CD out of iTunes songs.
That's nonsense. iTunes permits the user to burn a CD, no iPod necessary.
I realize that this doesn't undermine the main part of their argument, but they should still check their public statements for this kind of factual errors, otherwise they'll just look like they don't know what they're talking about.
Baumi
...is not the fact that Apple went after PlayFair, that was more or less expected. What scares me is the fact that a large part of the slashdot crowd are siding with apple and big media on this one. Hacking your DVD-player is okay, the right to fiddle with your own devices shall not be infringed upon. Media files, however, are sacred. You shall not use them in any way big media does not approve of.
And why? To please big media, otherwise they would not venture into this internet selling thingy, posts explain. Anyone who does not accept the control big media is forcing upon buyers is a damn dirty pirate, responsible for the thousands of plagues in the world and puts 'us' in a bad light. The brainwashing is apparently working.
Really, what's the difference between deCSS and PlayFair? I don't recall anyone posting that Jon Johansen was guilty.
we come in peace / shoot to kill
I wrote this in another post, regarding their terms of sale and terms of service, and it's relevant to your point:
In this case users of Apple's iTunes signed an agreement; signed it with their credit card number, actually, when they first opened their accounts on iTunes! Terms of Sale and Terms of Service.
Specific relevant portions:
Terms of sale:
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.
Terms of service:
b. Security. You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork ("Products"), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors ("Usage Rules"). You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.
and
c. You agree that your purchase of Products constitutes your acceptance of and agreement to use such Products solely in accordance with the Usage Rules, and that any other use of the Products may constitute a copyright infringement. The security technology is an inseparable part of the Products. The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party. Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time.
I'm not saying it's right, only that it is clearly outlined when you gave then your buck.
GPL Deconstructed
Just look at what has happened with Kazaa and multiple other free/shareware examples where they expect you to blip right through their usage agreement which explicitly states that the Kazaa installer has the right to install whatever it wants wherever it wants. It's horse-sh*t, but millions of people subject themselves to it everyday.
Again, it doesn't make it right, it just makes us (the collective, consumer, public populous who does these things) pretty dumb sometimes.
Except that the TOS also states that you agree not to encourage such behaviour, I suppose it MIGHT be questionable as to whether downloading the software and/or using it would/should be considered encouraging - I see your point though. Maybe it's not so black and white as I had thought originally.
I wasn't real clear as well- I was refering to Playfair's developer, not someone who uses it to remove DRM features. I think as long as the developer doesn't use ITMS, then he or she hasn't agreed to the TOS and is not bound by any terms - now someone actually using it would because they agreed to Apple's TOS.
So Playfair, itself, would not violate any contractual terms since the developer hadn't agreed to them, unlike someone who used it, Apple's recourse would be to go after its users if it suspects they are using Playfair for breach of contract, but has no grounds contractual grounds to stop Playfair from being distributed.
Of course, it may have other legal means to stop Playfair, and suing your users is both difficult and would be very counter productive to a company such as Apple which wants to be viewed as a part of its user's life. So guess what they do?
You really need to strip tools from their use - for example, I have friends who routinely carry "Burglery tools" in their vehicles, but because tehy ar elicensed locksmiths, they have a legitimate reason to do so. Baring the manufactur of such tools would prevent their legitimate use of them.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Now, whether that's legally enforceable and under what jurisdiction it should fall is another question.
What's legal and what's not is different in every part of the world. But where I'm from a contract is a contract is a contract. I don't know of anywhere in the world where you can enter into usage agreements and not be expected to live up to them - free nation or not.
I haven't been thinking about the problem that long but I can't figure ANYTHING out.
double standard
ok, so international IP laws are good
but international labour laws are bad.
With FairPlay there is a way to play it under Linux (though yes, there is a loss of quality)
Actually, there were already ways to play iTMS files under Linux with no loss of quality (burn a CD or convert to AIFF). Playfair just lets you retain the compression with no quality loss.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
If they just served MP3 files, people would have a tendency to just give everyone a copy of their whole collection or add it to share list on LimeWire. As it is, if you just copy a file to another machine, it tells you to authorize it, and you can only authorize 3 machines at a time. You get to burn CDs for your friends, but this form of sharing is both smaller in scale and closer to fair use. They would have to incur another round of compression artifacts and enter track names manually to re-rip the CD, making unlimited further copying unlikely.
Now, let's say someone breaks the DRM. First, you will need to scour chinese warez sites to download the program. Then, it's not going to be integrated with iTunes. You would still need to run it every time you buy new music. If you are just using it to listen to your stuff on an mp3 player, you are okay. But otherwise, you will be constantly reminded you are doing something you are not supposed to do. As well you should be.
The only problem is that DMCA has no exceptions for legal applications. You should be able to publish source code for a DVD player for Linux, an iTunes plugin to download to mp3 players and so on. If you release a pre-made warez toolkit and document it as such though.. well you deserve what you get.
But if you enter into a contract with anyone, let alone a multinational, multi-milliondollar-a-year computer company with a reputation for aggressively protecting their IP, you had better be ready to stand by your decision.
Lookie, the F in FUD. Meanwhile, back in reality, if you aren't illegally distributing music over the internet, the Apple Gestopo is not going to know find out about you using PlayFair for personal use.
Here's some Counter-FUD: Eventually Apple will change the iTunes TOS without warning and in a way you won't like. You'll wish you had cracked your legally paid-for music with PlayFair at that point.
One can definitely argue that it's not fair. But in the context of the DRM, it's obvious that playfair removes a parameter of control from the track.
Limiting the number of CD's you can burn, limiting the number of copies that you can make, basically, limiting the number of copies in one way or another. That would seem, to me, to be an important parameter.
I don't think this has anything to do with open source at all. It's basically removing a very important parameter as far as Apple is concerned.
What it is doing is setting a bad precedent; Apple is being a bad role model; Apple is showing other wanna-be companies how to intimidate people by them. I am not going to talk about this anymore.
The file-sharing phenomenon is exactly that. It's a phenomenon. Is it unethical? I don't know enough about ethics to say yes or no. Personally, the way I feel is that if you can purchase the music somewhere, either online or brick and mortar, then it's wrong to download that music. Music that you can't buy, like live shows, especially bands that allow trading of their live shows, that is perfectly ethical to download and trade those.
I have felt for a long time what is really important for us right now is to move the technology of sound quality forward, not backwards. We have bent sound quality to fit within our new internet phenomenon. I don't know about you, but I have gotten some pretty nasty headaches from listening to mp3 files. I don't like being at a party or something along those lines where mp3 music is being played. mpc files don't help the issue, although they sound a lot better in some cases. Apple's format is not that much better. It's the subtle nuances, it's the stuff you don't hear. I might be overly sensitive, but it still does give me a headache sometimes.
Once the legal and economic systems allow us to move away from the CD to something like DVD Audio, file sharing will change, and it will truly become a haven for the young and the poor. Why on earth would somebody opt for a free mp3 when the "real deal" is 24bit 96khz? No money, don't care about sound quality, etc...
Nothing wrong with being young and poor, but it's no way to live. Growing up, in the future, is going to involve listening to "real" audio formats with "excellent" sound quality. And if iTunes doesn't keep up the pace, they will fall behind. So the real question becomes bandwidth, and can an online distribution center, Apple's or any other, sustain the bandwidth that is necessary to be able to provide 24bit 96khz downloads of stuff? Or 24bit 96khz resampled, reworked, remastered stuff? Will the price and profitability of an online download service scale well when DVD Audio becomes the mainstream, and the bandwidth required increases exponentially, both at the server end, and at the last-mile?
With a 3Mbps cable modem, a gig still takes slightly less than an hour; with slower services it can take much longer, and dialup will take you a month or more of leaving the modem connected all night. A gigabyte of 24bit 96Khz audio is not that much; I haven't done the math precisely, but my rough calculations show that it's about 20 minutes worth of music. Bending sound quality to enable downloading of tunes is only going to go so far. The only real solution is to have fiber running through the neighborhood.
So in the long run, if the economy improves, and as the fascination of the "PC" fades somewhat, sound quality will again see a rebirth, and there is no worse enemy of file sharing and p2p than sound quality. I still wonder why the music industry doesn't see this. In many areas of the world, broadband is a metered service, and ultimately, it's just less expensive to order the CD than it is to download 3+ gigs of data, plus having to pay for the tracks from the download service.
A simple way of putting it. The cost-benefit is different.
Nobody copied vinyl, whereas people "photocopy" MP3s freely.
The code was released anonymously in the first place. The only way you can know that it does nothing illicit in both cases is to actually read the code. (or trust someone else to do it for you)
If you actually trust the author, he can sign all of his releases with a public key cryptography system (like GPG). Besdies, most people don't care anyway. That's why they download their IE toolbars complete with web tracking software.