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."

Comments

Hmm..

[bigattichouse]

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?

Re:Hmm..

[Twirlip of the Mists]

STOP USING DRM!! IT'S FLAWED LOGIC THAT WON'T WORK!!!

More than a year on, iTunes is going strong. If anything, from the numbers it seems to be gaining momentum. Seems to me like it works just fine.

Re:Hmm..

[finkployd]

Selling music over the internet is not the flawed model (people have been asking to be able to purchase single tracks at reduced prices for years, it is no surprise it is a success).

DRM, technically is a flawed concept though. It is basically PKI turned upside down. In PKI, you generate a private key and give out your public key so that people who want to send encrypted things to you can by encrypting them with your public key. This stuff can only be decrypted with your private key. You are the sole holder of your private key and should guard it effectively.

DRM is basically the same thing, but instead of you being the only with with access to your private key, they system tried to PREVENT you from getting at it. So with ITMS (and WMA9), MY computer is storing a private key and attempting to keep it secure from ME. This is basically impossible and will ALWAYS be broken over time since it can only be done in software.

And NOW we see why palladium exists... It is a way in HARDWARE (supposedly tamper proof) to let a system store a private key that is inaccessible to the owner of the key.

Finkployd

Re:Hmm..

[Twirlip of the Mists]

iTunes is going strong--but would it be going any less strong if they had, by some magical miracle, convinced the RIAA to go with non-DRM protected AAC files?

Yes. Because they would not have the selection of music they have today. Many music copyright holders will not release their works digitally without some kind of technological protection.

Furthermore, do you think the DRM they do have stops anybody who wants to from copying the music?

Yes. Because it's easier, faster, and more convenient to just buy the damn thing.

Years ago, I read a book by Stewart Brand about the MIT Media Lab. In it, Brand interviewed Nicholas Negroponte on many topics. One of the topics was what Negroponte called the "digital paperback."

Nobody bothers to pirate paperback books. You could; there's nothing at all stopping you. But nobody bothers, because it's easier, cheaper, and faster to just buy your own copy.

What we need, Negroponte opined, is a digital paperback. He expressed the opinion at the time that the CDROM would be the digital paperback; obviously he was mistaken about that, because unencrypted CDROMs are just too darned easy to duplicate.

The encrypted M4P file, on the other hand, is a digital paperback. Yes, you can strip it of its encryption and make copies of it using any number of tools, not the least convenient of which is simply converting it to AIFF and back with iTunes and a CD burner. But it's just easier to buy your own.

But DRM will never, short of a police state, prevent people from copying DRM'd stuff.

Of course it will. All you have to do is make it more convenient to buy the real thing than to pirate it. Those who would pirate for profit will continue to do so, of course; those people are thieves, and rotten to the core. Let the police deal with them. For the average consumer, all you have to do is make it more convenient to buy than to steal. As we've seen time and again, people will pay a small price for a great deal of convenience: i.e., the paperback.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[2nd Post!]

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.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[2nd Post!]

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.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[cioxx]

That's possibly the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

Apple is a computer company.

Also, content distributor, and a software company.

They do not own or control the copyrights on the music they are allegedly trying to protect.

But they control the method which facilitates AAC DRM, needed to let record companies to release their catalogues for distrubution. Without PlayFair DRM, it would be hard or next to impossible to persuade record labels to furnish iTMS with audio content (which they own).

If anything, the RIAA should be the ones to go after these guys, not Apple.

Again, it's the method not the content.

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.

Let me give you an example. Suppose you manufacture and sell locks and at the same time rent a storage facility where people keep their property. Someone comes along and makes a master key which defeats your lock mechanism, when it is illegal (by law) to reverse-engineer, or reproduce master keys or to otherwise tamper with the lock. In the end, the gatekeeper is liable for the stolen property and the burden to prosecute those who are manufacturing these master keys is on the lock manufacturer, not the owner of the property.

Get it? RIAA doesn't have anything to do with AAC DRM. Apple is the gatekeeper and they're trying to protect the well-being of their online music store.

You want fair-use? Go buy the CD or use less-restricted distribution channels who provide you with MP3s and OGGs. iTMS doesn't force you to purchase digital (restricted) files from their store. Abide by the terms of the contract you signed whilst registering. Any fair-use argument here is completely laughable.

What scares me...

[faaaz]

...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.

Re:What scares me...

[IntlHarvester]

What scares me is the fact that a large part of the slashdot crowd are siding with apple and big media on this one.

Reality Distortion Field at work -- A lot of people feel the need to defend their favorite 'beleaguered' computer maker. Had it been MS DRM or Real DRM instead of Apple DRM, you would see hardly any of the same reaction.

Their story is that Steve did everyone a big favor by implementing a "fair" DRM system, but the reality is that FairPlay isn't any different than the other RIAA-approved online music store DRM systems, other than it has Mac support.

Furthermore, their opposition to PlayFair isn't very pragmatic, as there's a real argument that it will only help Apple's music & ipod sales and not significantly increase piracy. All they have is a reactionary argument that PlayFair is bad because Apple says it is bad, and it's bad to lie to Apple and break their EULA.

-----------

What Apple Fans should understand is that consumer electronics and music are now way more profitable than Macintoshes -- and that will invevitably leave Apple, Inc. to make decisions that are good for RIAA/MPAA and not necessarily good for personal computing or the Mac platform.

I think it's perfectly possible to be a Macintosh booster without going balls to the wall for every new business Apple gets into. There's nothing inconsistant about believing that the Mac is the greatest computer ever made without endorsing Apple & the RIAA's online business model.

So, try being an Mac Fanboy instead of a Apple Inc Fanboy. It's refreshing.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[supercobrajet428]

I guess I disagree. In my mind, if you agree to a TOS you agree to it. It is not the responsibility of the company (Apple in this case) to come up with a nifty TOS that everyone will like and agree to. Though that may be in their best interest. It IS the responsibility of the consumer to understand the contracts they sign before they enter into them.

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.