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

Coverage on K5 also.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some nice discussion here.

I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

am happy to India onshore insourcing american law practices.

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..

[gid13]

Yes, China, that world-renowned last bastion of free speech. They'll SURELY be the answer to our prayers. :P

Re:Hmm..

[bigattichouse]

Not that they give a crap about free-speach, its more that they are very adept at looking the other way... Although that kind of environment is wonderful soil for all sorts of illicit activity, it also gives you a great climate for anything that might normally get snuffed out in lawyer happy environments...

Re:Hmm..

[tomstdenis]

Last I checked free-speech wasn't running rampant in the US either. Can't say that, DMCA. Can't say this, un-patriotic....

What I don't get about companies like the RIAA, Apple, Sony, etc...

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

Yet they keep trying, over and over and over. Then they scream bloody murder when it gets rolled on.

Why not spend money on getting some artists some real music lessons [e.g. less titney spears, more composers, real music!] more music on better technology [e.g. more capacity, better fidelity, more resilient to damage] and such instead of trying to sue 12 year olds for ripping CDs they bought.

We got to the point where content is moot and distribution is everything. Sure making money is cool but at what cost?

I mean look at the top 10 CD section of your local walmart. Try to guess how many of them studied music [e.g. conservatory, university, etc...] professionally? Now guess how many of them are just tit-bags who spend 98% of their day shopping and looking stupid-happy on MTV?

Just once I'd love to see a classical piece make the top of an MTV or MuchMusic call-in demand show. I'm sure teenage kids listen to and would like classical music if they were exposed to it.

I'm not saying classical music is the only music and yes I'm wickedly off topic at this point... My point though is that stupid technologies are more important than what they put on the damn things. It's really tragic.

Tom

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..

[Hatta]

Ironic, but no more ironic than the fact that the "land of the free" incarcerates a greater proportion of its population than any other nation. cite

Re:Hmm..

[Beale]

No no, Sealand is the Place to Be. (http://www.sealandgov.org)

Re:Hmm..

[Dlugar]

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.

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?

Furthermore, do you think the DRM they do have stops anybody who wants to from copying the music? I doubt it--it's just a bone thrown to satisfy those who don't understand that DRM is "FLAWED LOGIC THAT WON'T WORK!!!" to quote the grandparent.

Programs and products that use DRM may work--they may work very well. But DRM will never, short of a police state, prevent people from copying DRM'd stuff.

Dlugar

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..

[tylernt]

No, no. The 'King' is selling out on their previously cool privacy and terms of use policies. SeaLand is no longer a safe haven. See past Slashdot stories.

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:Hmm..

[Anonymous Coward]

Digital distribution of music that people want is going strong. The DRM just happens to be along for the ride. You can't logically deduce that DRM works just fine because iTunes is going strong.

Re:Hmm..

[NigelJohnstone]

"iTunes ...would it be going any less strong if they had,...convinced the RIAA to go with non-DRM protected AAC files?
Yes. Because they would not have the selection of music they have today. "

It wasn't the wide selection of records that caused iTunes to succeed, many other online services had bigger catalogues, it was the reduction in the DRM that was the big difference with the previous download stores.

"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."

The Kazaa copy has no DRM. If you lock the door, but leave the windows wide open, saying that nobody goes through the door therefore the door is working is true, but of no value. It may be FASTER & CHEAPER to buy the door key, rather than break the door down and go through the doors, but the windows are open!

"Of course it will. All you have to do is make it more convenient to buy the real thing than to pirate it. "

True, sort of. I think people perceive a value for an iTunes song. That value derives from it being legal, and high quality. As long as the price Apple charges is less than the perceived value of it, people are happy to pay.

DRM reduces the perceived value of the music, because it reduces flexibility and therefore the value of the music is less to the consumer, and the price it can support is less.

Re:Hmm..

[Mike Hawk]

Hold on hold on. That website merely says what you say, but also does not provide unique data to back it up. It shows absolute numbers for the US, but nowhere provides even a reference (or a reference to a reference) to international numbers. I guess thats what you get when the website supports the conclusion you want to come to.

And how does the US record of incarceration compare to the number of "prisoners" put to death without even a trial in other countries? Or countries that cut off limbs rather than put people in jail? I'm quite sure those nations are 100% accurate in their reporting.

Meh, its all relative I guess. Of course, everyone, regardless of race, is free to use the method I use to stay out of jail: Don't get caught breaking the law.

Re:Hmm..

[Twirlip of the Mists]

It wasn't the wide selection of records that caused iTunes to succeed, many other online services had bigger catalogues

On store--Buy Music--said they had a larger catalog, but it turned out they actually didn't. They were counting music they had not properly acquired the rights to sell.

The Kazaa copy has no DRM.

It's very difficult to find via Kazaa what you can get easily and quickly via iTunes. For example, it's virtually impossible to find a whole album via Kazaa; with iTunes, it's a one-click thing. There's no quality-control on Kazaa. It's incredibly easy to find tracks that are incomplete, mis-tagged, poorly encoded, or all three.

DRM reduces the perceived value of the music

Nonsense. If that were universally true, iTunes would not have succeeded to the degree that is has.

Re:Hmm..

[Hungus]

Your citation really isn't granular enough IMNSHO. While it does state what you are saying, they do not present any signifigant evidence of their statements. It is one thing to say that the US has the highest percentage of prison populace, but without comparable and citable figures from other industrialized nations we have no way of comparing and thus verifying the veracity of their claims. Understand that I am not saying they are wrong, meely untennable in their present condition. The best citation I could come up with in a short time is still not very good U.S. prisoner rate leads world. Other sites I found claimed other locals, so I would still cal the matter in dispute.

Re:Hmm..

[TravisWatkins]

You're simply trolling at the end. For starters, it isn't 'pirating' it's copyright infringement. Then, to say only 'thieves' (it isn't really theft) will break the DRM is simply ignorant. I will break the DRM. Doing so will allow me to play the song without quicktime and on a Linux PC.

Re:Hmm..

[NigelJohnstone]

"On store--Buy Music--said they had a larger catalog"

Are you asserting that Apple succeeded because it had a bigger catalogue than the competition? Before iTunes launched, the competition had hundreds of thousands of tracks more than iTunes, because iTunes had zero - it hadn't launched yet!
Yet none of those earlier download sites succeeded. The only novel thing iTunes brought to the market was considerably weakened DRM not more tracks than the competition.

"It's very difficult to find via Kazaa what you can get easily and quickly via iTunes."

My Kazaa reply was in response to your "DRM stops people copying music by making it more difficult" comment.
It might be true that tracks are quicker to find on iTunes than Kazaa, but the DRM has nothing to do with it. The DRM on iTunes has no effect on the unprotected DRM experience on Kazaa.

"DRM reduces the perceived value of the music...
Nonsense. If that were universally true, iTunes would not have succeeded to the degree that is has."

You've asserted that without making an argument as to why your assertion is true.

Without DRM I can play the iTunes tracks on my MP3 player, with DRM I can't, only iPod and CD players. So of course its worth more to me without the DRM than with.

Re:Hmm..

[Lumpy]

Many music copyright holders will not release their works digitally without some kind of technological protection.

wrong... FEW of them require that restriction.. usually the copyright holders that Stole the copyright to begin with.

if the people that had the real talent and abilities hold the copyright... they usually allow free and unrestricted release in non DRM enabled file formats.. many of the largest bands in history encouraged unauthorized recordings and encouraged the trading of their music.

Only no talent hacks are against it and want to "protect" their "property".

real musicians make music for people to hear and enjoy, fakes and thieves try to wring every last penny out if it.

Re:Hmm..

[drinkypoo]

There are several newsgroups on USENET from which you can download scans from paperback fiction. There are many other places to get such content as well; ftp sites, p2p apps, etc etc. Books are highly traded items because they take up little space/bandwidth.

If you want a specific book, "pirating" it is difficult. If you just want something to read, it's easier, faster, and cheaper to hit up USENET than to go to the bookstore.

Re:Hmm..

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The only novel thing iTunes brought to the market was considerably weakened DRM not more tracks than the competition.

Ease of use and brand recognition. iTunes' predecessors failed because they were obscure and difficult to use.

The DRM on iTunes has no effect on the unprotected DRM experience on Kazaa.

The fact that iTunes tracks have DRM makes it inconvenient for people to pirate them. It's easier to just buy them than it is to pirate them.

Without DRM I can play the iTunes tracks on my MP3 player, with DRM I can't, only iPod and CD players. So of course its worth more to me without the DRM than with.

But apparently the difference in value is (1) insignificant, or (2) not at all universal, because iTunes has succeeded. DRM, therefore, is not an impediment to success in the marketplace, as the "DRM DOESN'T WORK" guy seemed to think it was.

Re:Hmm..

[Hatta]

Man, please do something for me next time. The next time you read something or hear something, take 5 seconds to double check and see if it even makes sense. See if it contradicts almost every piece of knowledge you have already previously aquired. Do you really think the U.S. is less free than Chine or the Middle East? If not, and you read something to the contrary, starting thinking. Start asking questions.

Yes, we should all reject data that conflicts with our preconceptions. My post was short to draw attention to the fact, and not bury it in an essay. I probably could have given a better citation however. Perhaps you'd like to play with the World Population Brief for a while. There's also a very highly recommended PDF from the Sentencing Project. Just because it conflicts with the dogma drilled into our heads in schools and the propaganda you see every day on american news doesn't mean it's not true. If everyone thought like you we'd still be doing astronomy with epicycles.

And frankly, no it doesn't contradict anything I know about the USA. The american government is currently waging a war on people like me. That kind of thing shocks you out of your comfortable illusions pretty quickly.

Now I'll be the last person to praise the governments in the middle east, but at least they're not deluded into thinking the goverment is working for them. According to my immigrant friends at least. Of course you appear to have first-hand knowledge of middle eastern legal systems, so maybe you'd like to confirm or deny that.

Note also that I never said america was "less free" than anyone. Just stated a fact and noted its irony. Perhaps it's you should try reading more critically.

Re:Hmm..

[NigelJohnstone]

"Ease of use and brand recognition. iTunes' predecessors failed because they were obscure and difficult to use."

Isn't making unlimited CDs and running it on many computers part of "ease of use"?, i.e. the feature of Apples reduced DRM? So aren't you accepting (at least in part) that the turned down DRM contributed? Would removing the restrictions completely not make it even easier to use? Because then I could play it on my MP3 players etc. without a burn-rip stage.

"The fact that iTunes tracks have DRM makes it inconvenient for people to pirate them. It's easier to just buy them than it is to pirate them."

With iTunes DRM: Pirate want to download a copy of Britney, so they go to Kazaa and download it.

Without iTunes DRM: Pirate wants to download a copy of Britney, so they go to Kazaa and download it.

If iTunes was the only way to get the network seeded with Britney then your argument might be valid, but as long as there are many other *unprotected* ways to do it (including ripping from iTunes made CDs) then the DRM on iTunes does not affect that piracy.

In other words, you can lock the door, but the windows are wide open so the house is wide open.

(For local person to person piracy you would just write out an unprotected CD, so it doesn't help there either.)

"But apparently the difference in value is (1) insignificant, or (2) not at all universal, because iTunes has succeeded. DRM, therefore, is not an impediment to success in the marketplace, as the "DRM DOESN'T WORK" guy seemed to think it was."

The DRM can be an "impediment to success", yet you can still succeed. In this case it stops Apple selling tracks to users like me, who have MP3 players that aren't iPod.
The option of writing out a CDR and ripping it back into MP3 is so overly complicated and time consuming as to cut Apple out of that potential market. If the DRM wasn't there that wouldn't be a problem.
Apple have their niche, but its still a tiny success hampered by their DRM.

The "DRM DOESN'T WORK" guy seemed to be pointing to the basic flaw of DRM, sooner or later you have to decrypt the data and it only takes 1 person to seed a piracy network with an unprotected copy.

Re:Hmm..

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Isn't making unlimited CDs and running it on many computers part of "ease of use"?

No. What I meant is blindingly clear from context.

If iTunes was the only way to get the network seeded with Britney then your argument might be valid

You neglected to consider the fact that you can get the Britney Spears single for 99 in about ten seconds of searching and two minutes of downloading via iTunes. The resulting product will be (1) what you were looking for, (2) complete, and (3) of the expected quality.

This is not true of Kazaa or whatever. That's why iTunes succeeds even the face of Kazaa.

In this case it stops Apple selling tracks to users like me, who have MP3 players that aren't iPod.

I guarantee you, without a doubt in my mind, that you wouldn't buy your music from iTunes under any circumstances. Of this I have do doubt.

The option of writing out a CDR and ripping it back into MP3 is so overly complicated and time consuming

It's two clicks, and about five minutes.

The "DRM DOESN'T WORK" guy seemed to be pointing to the basic flaw of DRM, sooner or later you have to decrypt the data and it only takes 1 person to seed a piracy network with an unprotected copy.

And my point, which you still don't seem to be getting, is that DRM makes piracy inconvenient, and therefore it serves its purpose. It's easier for you to go to iTunes and get what you want than it is for you to pirate it. Therefore DRM does work.

Re:Hmm..

[Hamhock]

Why not spend money on getting some artists some real music lessons [e.g. less titney spears, more composers, real music!] more music on better technology [e.g. more capacity, better fidelity, more resilient to damage] and such instead of trying to sue 12 year olds for ripping CDs they bought.

So, if the music sucks, it's okay to steal it? And who's suing 12 year olds for ripping their own cd's?

Re:Hmm..

[IntlHarvester]

Years ago, I read a book by Stewart Brand about the MIT Media Lab.

offtopic, but is that book called "II Cybernetic Frontiers"?

If so, there's a relevant quote in there:

Since huge quantities of information can be computer digitalized and transmitted, music researchers could , for example, swap records over the Net with "essentially perfect fidelity." So much for record stores (in present form).

This was written in 1974, 30 years ago.

Re:Hmm..

[bwy]

You said:
Note also that I never said america was "less free" than anyone.

Well, the post you replied to was:
Yes, China, that world-renowned last bastion of free speech. They'll SURELY be the answer to our prayers. :P

So, why did you have such a problem with someone making a (sarcastic) comment that China would offer less than the U.S. in regards to free speech? Seems to me, the OP is right. If someone thinks they can do something more freely in China, I'm sure the OP and I would both invite them to move there. I see no problem with his statement and I really see no need for a reply like yours which was clearly an attempt at proving him wrong. Clearly, you disagree with him though. So, off to China for you. First stop, Tiananmen Square. I suggest you set up shop there preaching about democracy, the western way, how Communism sucks, how the Chinese governemnt sucks. Oh, and marry a Chinese woman and have 10 kids and see how they treat you. Oh, and for shits and giggles try the same thing someone in NYC before you go, just for comparisons.

Then decide if this is really a post you should have posted a disagreement with:

Yes, China, that world-renowned last bastion of free speech. They'll SURELY be the answer to our prayers. :P

Re:Hmm..

[Hatta]

Read my post again, I clearly acknowledged the irony of his statment. I then pointed out a similar, though inverted, irony with respect to the USA.

Re:Hmm..

[bwy]

Just stated a fact and noted its irony.

I guess I don't see the irony in the fact that the U.S. locks up people who break the law, and the fact that there is no such thing as free speech in China.

Re:Hmm..

[Hatta]

The irony isn't just that america locks up people who breaks the law, but that sentences are disproportionately severe compared to the rest of the developed world, and they claim to be the land of the free. Read the PDF I linked to elsewhere in the thread.

The irony about china is that there is some free speech about issues that are not free in the US.

Re:Hmm..

[tomstdenis]

Um iTunes is not a success because of DRM. It's a success in SPITE of it. Basically the price is right.

You can still pirate the audio [rather easily] yet that doesn't seem to be too rampant... hmm wonder why...

Tom

Re:Hmm..

[tomstdenis]

I never said it's ok to steal it. I said they spend too much time/money worrying about sales and not enough about quality.

Personally I find modern music [well the big labels] to be promoting "crap in, crap out". Sure there is modern music out there I would want to buy. That's not quite the point though.

As for suing the kids well ok not kids but what do you think the DMCA C&D would have resulted in if they didn't pull it?

Tom

Re:Hmm..

[tomstdenis]

I never said titney spears doesn't have a right to perform the crap she does. I'm just saying if the RIAA spent half as much on training the stupid yuppies as they did on suing people [or buying crappy DRM that costs millions] the music scene would be 10x better.

You can't tell me titney isn't a total sell out. Her first videos were all "look I'm a teenage tit-star" dancing around in a school with tight clothing etc...

Hey, how about this, if she's really not just some tit-bag sleeze show "artist" let's see a music video where she wears stylish and *non-revealing* clothing? E.g. cover the cleavage, dress/pants/etc that go down to the knees [at least] and a song not about "do it to me rough oh baby yeah one more time, oops I did it again" etc...

As for supporting local muscians... admitedly I'm not big in the local scene. Lack of money for music being a big reason. When bands play my school I buy their CDs even if they're only so-so but that's about it.

Tom

Re:Hmm..

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Um iTunes is not a success because of DRM. It's a success in SPITE of it.

iTunes could not exist were it not for DRM.

You can still pirate the audio [rather easily] yet that doesn't seem to be too rampant... hmm wonder why...

Because DRM makes it more convenient to buy it than to steal it.

Re:Hmm..

[Clockwurk]

From Merriam Webster

Main Entry: piracy
Pronunciation: 'pI-r&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Medieval Latin piratia, from Late Greek peirateia, from Greek peiratEs pirate
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright

Re:Hmm..

[tomstdenis]

No because P2P networks are useless?

Too much low quality, mis-labled, garbage files make 0.99 per track seem "reasonable".

It's like being given the choice of buying chocolate bars in a store with Air conditioning or in a store on top of mount everest and claiming it's the AC that makes the sales...

No, it's the ease of finding tunes of good quality fast for cheap.

Sure, DRM may have made the RIAA execs allow the thing to exist but the reason why Apple has customers is solely based on ease/affordability.

Tom

Re:Hmm..

[pluvia]

DRM reduces the perceived value of the music
Nonsense. If that were universally true, iTunes would not have succeeded to the degree that is has.

Your conclusion doesn't quite follow. The success of iTunes can be attributed to the fact that another service which provides the same music without DRM does not exist. Of course, all value is perceived, so only by comparing two identical services, one with DRM and one without, can we truly determine whether DRM reduces value.

IMHO, DRM does reduce the value of a product to a consumer because it restricts their ability to use and copy as they see fit. I can't argue that this is legal because of the DMCA, but it certainly is a valuable possibility that exists for non-DRM material.

I'd like a DVD player without User Operation Prohibitions that doesn't respect region coding, but no one is (legally?) making them. I place extra value on these features, but they are not available.

Re:Hmm..

[slntnsnty]

The fact that you got modded to "Insightful" and he got modded to "troll" show's exactly who's post is agreeing with or disagreeing with Slashdot Corp's Preconcepted "proper" way to think...

Re:Hmm..

[Chrontius]

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.

Really? New paperbacks cost just shy of ten dollars in Florida.

On the other hand, used hardbacks can be had for, on average, $5 if you have patience and you're not afraid to try a few stores. And if you hit a garage sale and pick up the entire Wheel of Time for $10, that's about $200 you're not spending on new books. (well, assuming everything is hardbound)

Let me put this bluntly: Paperbacks are no longer cheap.

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.

Your answer violates the assumption the original post asked for - and while I have an iTunes account and five songs to my name, all were paid for courtesy of Pepsi. I'm not going to spend $1 on the track, then another $1 on a blank CD to produce a degraded track that I can listen to on my MuVo. If, on the other hand, I can skip paying for a CD, I'd be much more inclined to give the nice people my money. I could get an iPod, and sure I'd be happier using that and playing by the rules than using my keychain to listen to music, but I've been saving for the last year or so.

Apple is very close to having a natural monopoly in online content, simply because they offer fairly reasonable restrictions on the use of content bought from them. However, assume they removed the requirement to buy an iPod to get the full Apple experience - I predict that sales on iTms would jump significantly.

Re:Hmm..

[Greg W.]

Many music copyright holders will not release their works digitally without some kind of technological protection.

Sure they do. They release their music on standard audio CDs. Well, most of them anyway... there are a few that release only plastic discs that happen to look like CDs except for all the errors... not that this stops anyone from copying the CDs using cdparanoia or its Windows equivalents.

Re:Hmm..

[Greg W.]

If you want a specific book, "pirating" it is difficult. If you just want something to read, it's easier, faster, and cheaper to hit up USENET than to go to the bookstore.

No, it's faster for me to drive to the public library. Hell, I could even walk there from my house in about 20 minutes.

And for any books they don't have, there's always an Inter-Library Loan.

Re:Hmm..

[drinkypoo]

Most or at least some libraries won't do an ILL on some fiction, like the paperback kind. Most of the hardback fiction that they stock tends to be pretty elderly.

Granted, you can just go to the library and read these books, but morally what's the difference between one copy of a book read many times at the library, and one copy of a book read many times in the comfort of your own home?

I guess the only reasonable answer would be that the book will eventually wear out and have to be replaced, but this is not true of the digital version. Therefore the libraries are deprived of an infinitestimal amount of income?

It's down?

[tommasz]

I tried to access it at 10:13 EDT, and the entire site is unreachable. Perhaps my ISP is blocking it at some level or Apple got to them already.

Not agreeing with Apple here

[2nd Post!]

Since more AAC is more better, but there's a quote in the linked article I think is relevant:

Apple has stated that PlayFair contravenes the Indian Copyright
Act. 1957 and the IT Act, 2002, but have not specified how these acts
are violated. While these acts make the unauthorized copying of music
illegal, they nowhere bar the creation of tools that could potentially
be used to illegally copy music. Trying to stop dissemination of a
tool that permits legal licensees of songs from iTunes to play them on
non Apple-authorized hardware is purely a business loss prevention
strategy from Apple and must be deplored.

So they acknowledge that the unauthorized copying of music is illegal, and believe a tool that makes an unauthorized copy of the music is not illegal? Because as the author states, Apple already provides a means to permit legal licensees of songs from iTunes to play on non Apple authorized hardware via CD burning (and subsequent re-ripping). This is *authorized* copying. Anything else, then, is unauthorized copying isn't it? Doing a clean decryption of the AAC file would certainly fall into unauthorized copying, according to the terms of use, I think.

So FairPlay's only legal defense is that it isn't illegal to write such a tool, only illegal to use such a tool...

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[TheSunborn]

But cdburning and re-ripping does lower the audio quality.

Now I Apple would use their time to setup a shop to sell to EU, that would be better use of their time.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[Qzukk]

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.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[Spellbinder]

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)
what would you think if you went to a shop to buy a cd writer from sony and the writer would state that it is only legal to write on sony blanks even if it is technical possible to use this device to write others
or a car manufacturer say you have no right to give someone a lift which does not belong to your family

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!]

The term 'unauthorized copying' implies a contract wherein the purchaser and the seller have some kind of agreement about what is authorized and unauthorized. I very carefully wrote that; my first draft had illegal copying, but the copying isn't implicitly illegal, it is only illegal because it isn't authorized.

So making a m4p -> CD -> MP3 is authorized, but making an m4p -> m4a is unauthorized. The law this tool violates is contract law, I think.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[vegetablespork]

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.)

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:Not agreeing with Apple here

[Davin Boling]

Not necessarily. All of these articles conveniently ignore the agreement users are bound by if they choose to utilize iTunes, and neither do they present legal justifications for why the agreement should be void. Unless I've made a mistake in my thinking here, I believe everyone has missed the point entirely.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[2nd Post!]

Isn't this proof it is enforceable?

I agree that this isn't *sufficient*, but on the other hand, the way this contract works, is you trust Apple with your credit card number and they trust you with their AAC files. It's not an empty promise here. Apple has your credit card number! That they hold up their side of the contract is very important. That you hold your side... a little less, but I can see why they do this. This is, I think, mostly a paper defense against the RIAA. Apple doesn't care what you do, because as I said earlier, more AAC is more better for Apple.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[Jim Starx]

They acknowledge that unauthorized copying is illigal, but state that just because something has illigal uses does not mean it is inherrintly illigal. The main purpose of the program is to move songs that you have a valid key for (read: that you own) from one format to another. That's simple fair use, completely legal. If you ban something because it can be used illigally in ways it was never intended to be used then you'll have to ban cars, knives, guns, peanut butter, computers; that doesn't make sense. This program moves information from one format to another, that's the same thing that a cd burner does. Just like a cd burner that process can be used legally or illigally. The fact that cd burners can be used towards illigal ends does not make cd burners themselves illigal. The fact that this program can be used towards illigal ends does not make this program illigal. Fair use doesn't state that you can only make personal copies in a certain way, it states that you can make personal copies, period. Apple isn't pursuing this because they think it fosters music theft, they're pursuing this because it decreased thier "Apple-authorized hardware" buisness.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[XipX]

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.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[cdrguru]

So what is wrong with building a business based on supplying music for the iPod only? This seems to be exactly the point of Apple's complaint - that converting the files easily and quickly makes it too easy to play them on non-Apple hardware. Since it is generally known that iTMS is a loss-leader supplying content for the iPod series, this sounds like a perfectly valid complaint.

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.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[vegetablespork]

Are you saying that Apple has the right to charge a subscriber's credit card if the "agreement" is breached? I think they'd be swimming in chargebacks faster than Intel's clock speeds wallop the G5 if they ever tried it.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[2nd Post!]

Not at all. That isn't my logic.

My logic is: If you signed/agreed to a contract with the stipulation you would *only* run Windows, then yes, installing Linux violates your contract. In some situations I can see how doing so might even violate the warranty, much like installing third party 'unauthorized' components can do the same thing. Not saying it's right, but saying that's my logic.

I also don't think you understand my logic if you think system restore tools should be illegal. It would only be illegal, according to my logic, if you sign a contract/agreement that you would only use the Windows system restore.

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.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[2nd Post!]

Not at all. I only bring it up to say the user expects Apple to maintain their end of the contract, here. Likewise then I suspect Apple would like the users to maintain their end :)

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that "everyone" include Apple as well? After all they said nothing about users violating their contractual obligations, but rather that there was a violation, first of the DMCA, and then of the IT act of 2002 and the Indian Copyright Act. They have apparently also failed to point out what exactly the violation was in the second case, which makes me think they are full of shit.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[plj]

Apple fans on Slashdot (disclaimer: I'm writing this on my PBook) always seem to claim that everyone willing to use iTMS should just obey Apple's TOS and never crack their DRM, because their DRM is fair as it can be circumvented by burning and re-ripping.

Well let me tell you: It is not fair. If one is a Hi-Fi geek, like I am, one wants to get rid of DRM without any additional quality loss.

Oh, but what I hear now: "128 kbit/s is not enough for Hi-Fi types, they want CDs nevertheless, regardless of their price". Sure - if CD's are available. But many songs are very, very hard to obtain on CD, if available at all, although they can be found from iTMS. And though 128 kbit AAC is barely adequate to my ears (my own iTunes library is mostly ripped as 224 kbit AAC), I can stand it if the alternative would be not having that song at all. But like hell will I accept any additional quality loss! And I still want to be able to play that song on Linux, too.

So, what options do I have left now? PlayFair. Would my intented use for it be within the limits of fair use? Yes. Would it be possible within the limits of Apple's DRM? No. Thus, the Apple's DRM is NOT fair. Would it be in violation of Apple's TOS? Yes. Thus, the TOS is not fair either. As it is a B2C standard-term contract, I seriously doubt it would hold any water in most courts here in Europe.

Yes, I live in EU (Finland), so no iTMS here, and the question is purely academic. But may be iTMS will be here one day.

That said, the EUCD is going to be applied in Finland pretty soon, but although that will probably make distributing of PlayFair illegal here, it seems the Finnish implementation won't outlaw its private use.

And what would make Apple's DRM fair to me? If the songs would be losslessly compressed in first place. Now the quality would be good enough even if an analog re-recording would be required (that is, no CD burning would be allowed).

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[2nd Post!]

How about violating contract law? You would be upset if Apple sold your private info or misused your credit card, right? Pulled from another post I made about Apple's terms of sale and service:

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.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[M. Baranczak]

So according to your logic, every single possible use of a product must be explicitly stated by the product's producer or it is illegal?

Coming soon...
Every GM car bought in the US is licensed for operation inside the US only. If you want to drive the car into Canada, Mexico, or the Democratic Republic of Vermont you need to purchase the InternationalPak (tm) from a GM dealer. Trying to leave the US without an InternationalPak (tm) will trigger a device which shuts down the engine and the in-dash media player (if present). Under the DMCA2, signed into law in 2009 by President Schwartzenneger, it is illegal to tamper with this device.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[vegetablespork]

I'm sure they'd like that, but if the contract is unconscionable, the users are under no obligation to do so.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[2nd Post!]

Do you believe the contract is unconsciousable?

The user totally has a right to decrypt their AAC file, I believe. All I am saying is Apple's stance (for better or worse, right or wrong) isn't without some justification.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[Nexum]

As of the last financial earnings report (Q2) the iTunes Music Store is actually "turning a small profit".

That's a heck of a "loss-leader" (but I do get the gist of your post).

- Nex

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[vegetablespork]

The contract denies the user his or her fair use rights to decrypt the AAC file that he or she paid for his or her own personal use. Thus, it is unconscionable in that it denies fair use rights.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[jimicus]

Apple already provides a means to permit legal licensees of songs from iTunes to play on non Apple authorized hardware via CD burning No they haven't. You need Apple authorised (hard|soft)ware to burn it to CD in the first place.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[2nd Post!]

You need Apple authorised (hard|soft)ware to purchase the AAC in the first place. How is that a setback?

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[bnenning]

So what is wrong with building a business based on supplying music for the iPod only?

Absolutely nothing. But getting governments to enforce that business model is another matter.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[2nd Post!]

The kind where you give Apple your credit card number and personal info! It's not some 'casual' click wrap, but serious legal tender here... they have all your data, and you wouldn't want them to misuse it, right?

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[alexo]

>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.

Since when making a copy for purposes covered under fair use provisions (as you stated yourself) is illegal?

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[tiptone]

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

there lies the problem, Apple's contract CAN NOT override Fair Use as described in US Copyright Law. you can sign a contract with me that says i'll kill someone, that doesn't mean that i can do it and say "i'm not guilty, i have a contract.". i violated US law by killing someone. Fair Use comes before Apple's contract.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, burning to CD and reripping is probably violating the terms of their contract too. It's circumventing the security on the files, and as far as I know they don't describe any allowable exceptions.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[thdexter]

Apple authorized hardware [decoding] via CD burning (and subsequent re-ripping). This is *authorized* copying. Anything else, then, is unauthorized copying isn't it?

There's a legal issue wherein, if a clause in a license doesn't jive with the laws of the land, that clause becomes null and void. If the Indian Copyright Act of 1957 and the IT Act of 2002 say that it's legal to take out encryption (or other encumberances) so as to remove imposed restrictions, then that part of the license is illegal. It's the same idea as, if Apple put in a clause in the ITMS EULA that said Apple has the right to kill you if you agree to the EULA, and then they come and kill you, they're going to be held on a murder charge, and the EULA defense is thrown out the window because it was arbitrarily abridging rights that the government had deemed inalienable. Perhaps the right to decode data streams is not 'inalienable,' but it's something the government has okayed and so any of Apple's whining can't stop it.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[alexo]

> Show me a reference to a law where copying a data file for archival purposes is considered fair use.

Last time I looked, it was about music.

> I can see one for computer programs, but not computer data.

Please define "computer data" and explain how it differs from any other type of data from a legal standpoint.

> TITLE 17 - CHAPTER 1 - Sec. 117.

Nice try but totally irrelevant to neither FairPlay nor PlayFair.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[gsfprez]

My iBook died - like so many other peoples' iBooks - and i had no means by which to "deauthorize" it.

Now, my wife's new Powerbook is authorized, my G5 from home is authorized - and my long-gone iBook is authorized...

i am now prevented from listening to my music as Apple authorized me to - to listen to music on my Windows machine at work.

i feel absolutely no guilt or shame using PlayFair versus burning CDs/ripping, or using iMovie (both of which would provide equal results to PlayFiar with the only difference being far more of my time wasted) to allow me to help Apple uphold their deal with me... to let me use 3 machines to listen to music i've purchased.

I also noticed when i went thru transmogrifying all my files with this "illegal" tool... i had purchased well over $300 worth of music....

concidering my CD collection has grown by 3 Dave Matthews and 1 Sting CD during the last 5 years - i'm fairly certain if they start going after folks like me to use this tool to make backups of my own, iTunes will be a loss leader.

If they just keep letting me pay them to buy music - everything will be just fine.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[Spellbinder]

i don't think sony could do this because to write cds is the intented use of their product
and i don't think they could go after(lawsuite) you because you used other blanks or even for selling blanks which state "Work with Sony CD-RW Drives"
at least not in switzerland
there was a very similar problem with ink-jet printers and ink not made by the manufacturers of the printers
they tried to void warranty per default if you used a ink of an other (alternative) brand
they had no success

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[Qzukk]

Sort of like giving away staplers and charging lots for staples.

More like patenting the staple, then licensing it only for use with your stapler and your staple. Then, suing everyone who sells other companies' paper for allowing their end users to infringe on that licensed use. Since its obvious that the only usage of paper is to be illegally stapled, despite that a few minority freaks claim they don't use staples at all.

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here

[Qzukk]

dammit, too early in the morning here. I meant to say licensing it for use with your stapler and your paper.

easy way to keep the project active

[Dusanyu]

Just move the Projects to a Host based out of Sealand http://www.sealandgov.com/ from the HavenCo Acceptable Use Policy http://www.havenco.com/legal/aup.html "Material that is unlawful in the jurisdiction of the server. For instance, if a customer's machine is hosted on Sealand by HavenCo, content which is illegal in Sealand may not be published or housed on that server. Sealand's laws prohibit child pornography. Sealand currently has no regulations regarding copyright, patents, libel, restrictions on political speech, non-disclosure agreements, cryptography, restrictions on maintaining customer records, tax or mandatory licensing, DMCA, music sharing services, or other issues; child pornography is the only content explicitly prohibited. At the present time, child pornography is not precisely defined; HavenCo is obeying rules similar to those of the United States, specifically a prohibition on any depiction of those under 18 in a sexual context."

Re:easy way to keep the project active

[Entropius]

Unfortunately, the least expensive colocation package that they offer is $1500/month. There's just no way a smallish FS project can afford that.

Re:easy way to keep the project active

[Mr. Darl McBride]

Sealand pretty much gives up customer lists on request specifically because they don't want their tenuous claim of independence to be tested. So you're not anonymous, and if your actions are illegal in the country where you are, not your server, you're sunk.

Why is Apple involved with this?

[mark-t]

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.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[Jim Starx]

I don't think the program does anything illigal in the first place.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[westlake]

It should be blindingly obvious that anything which compromises the less restrictive DRM of Apple's iTunes distribution system is money in the bank for Microsoft.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[JeffTL]

Apple DOES own FairPlay, though, so it's their DRM system that's been cracked. Surely they have a right to defend their patents and/or trade secrets.

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.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[squiggleslash]

Because Apple runs the iTMS, and if the pseudo-DRM Apple is using is compromised, the iTMS is compromised, and content makers who signed on on the specific understanding the pseudo-DRM existed will want out.

So it's in Apple's best interests to protect their pseudo-DRM scheme. The content makers have less of an issue, if Apple's is compromised they can just switch to the alternatives offered by Real and Napster/Microsoft.

I say pseudo-DRM because the system does allow burning to CDs and re-ripping with virtually no quality loss (I've tried it, iTMS AAC->CD PCM->128kbits iTunes AAC is fine by my ears, I can't tell the difference between the original and the reripped version.); Apple also cannot take that away, they can stop implementing it but if they do, we can stop buying if they produce protected AACs reliant on a later version of iTunes, and we can use the older versions to back-up our music.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[st0rmshad0w]

"Abide by the terms of the contract you signed whilst registering."

I see. While registering with Apple computer, who is barred from entering the music business due to a suit brought by Apple Records oh so many years ago.

If Apple Records gets iTunes shut down, I expect that all the fair use arguements suddenly get way more valid.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[mark-t]

In the vein of your lock example, if the person came along and developed a mere _mechanism_ that enabled others to defeat your lock mechanism, who should the lock manufacturer then be going after? Like the RIAA is attempting to, Apple should be going after the infringers, not the developers. It's also worth pointing out that the DMCA contains a _specific_ exemption with regards to fair use anyways, so I don't see how Apple has any business telling these people what they cannot develop.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Surely they have a right to defend their patents and/or trade secrets."

Since my fair use rights are being trampled, surely I have a right to defend those rights.

Or do you believe that rights only belong to big companies with lots of legal staff?

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[Gropo]

It appears as though Apple still merely Licenses FairPlay from Veridisc, rather than own it outright.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[cioxx]

That's really a bad example. There was a trademark dispute between Apple Corps and Apple Computer. AAPL settled for 25 million (if I recall correctly), and signed an agreement not to produce musical devices. This was in 1981; since then technology changed dramatically, so the court will ultimately be the the arbiter in this particular dispute. I'm not sure how this applies to fair-use.

Did Apple violate the contractual obligation not to produce musical devices? Yes. Is the contract from 1981 relevant today? Maybe not; it could be voidable. It's a far stretch to try and compare willful circumvention of DRM and consequent violation of the contract with two-decade-old trademark dispute.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[cioxx]

Fair use is a right, and it is regardless of the transmission medium. A company does not get to decide whether or not I have that right. Our government has already decided that I have the right to fair use.

That's all fine and dandy, but consider the following. AAC DRM media is not forced upon you. In the capitalist system you have the option of voting with your wallet and choosing alternate distributors. Willfully choosing a digital music vendor, signing a contract and then cracking the files simply because you disagree with the restrictions placed on them blows the fair-use (direct circumvention of DRM) argument out of the water. It doesn't even sound sane. You mean to tell me that you sign a contract with a company who's policy you hate, then go on to breach it? Where are your principles? I direct you to the terms of service:

"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."

While fair-use is a really good concept, it shouldn't be used as a moral blank check to excuse illegal practices, otherwise it just makes those people who are legitimately envoking fair-use to look foolish. I've heard people defend their use of warez as fair-use - some rebels who decided that they were entitled to OSX Panther 10.3 upgrade, and convniced themselves that it was just a Service Pack, or pirating iPhoto 4 because the standalone version lacked features and they didn't need iLife suite. Where does it stop?

In any event, before you attack me for the above sentence, you need to alter your perception of AAC DRM files and view them as rental media, rather than something you own - there is still a link between you and the vendor in a form of an ID which dictates how you may use the files. I would be more inclined to side with your fair-use concerns were you to advocate recording media onto CDs and ripping it from there, since Audio Discs fall beyond the control of Apple's proprietary anti-piracy measures.

The government's blessing which lets people engage in fair-use practices is superseded by Apple's own contract. Whenever there is such a legal conflict, company's contract with the customer supersedes the law, since you're not lifting information with legally available tools. The circumvention program has been deemed illegal by Apple, hence you're in violation and fair-use does not apply in this case. If you believe this is incorrect, sue Apple and observe the results. No judge would even consider your argument because you've been already accommodated enough in terms of being able to burn and control the content the way you please.

If the companys dont want us to have fair use, then the companys should not get any copyright protection. Period!

I agree. Call your representative. Vigilantism is hardly an effective (or legal) way to solve social injustice.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[tiptone]

this is my third one of these in this thread, wish people wouldn't mod bullshit up...

[quote]
Abide by the terms of the contract you signed whilst registering. Any fair-use argument here is completely laughable.
[/quote]

NO, i don't have to. US Copyright Law says that if i purchase copyright-protected works that i have the Fair Use right to make a copy for myself. and no i don't mean make a copy that can be used on an approved device...i mean make myself a USABLE copy (usable on my Linux box for example).

as "laughable" as you say a Fair Use argument is....it's just not. Apple does not have the right to make a contract that breaks US Copyright Law.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[cioxx]

Someone asked where the fan boys are earlier. Well, here's one. Apple's DRM is more about maintaining their hardware sales than about music protection.

The reason I'm siding with Apple on this one is simple - I would hate to see iTMS crash and burn, just to be replaced by WMA, where Microsoft can exert dominance yet in another technology sector with far more confusing and restrictive policies.

Killing the messenger because you don't agree with RIAA is a flawed strategy. I have no doubt that if it were up to Steve Jobs, he'd give away music for free just to push iPod sales. They're not the ones who created these rules. Blame the RIAA.

Isn't it absolutely clear Apple doesn't make money on music, but rather their devices?

I don't think anyone disputing this well-established fact.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget folks; m4p -> CD -> mp3 violates the terms of the contract too. It doesn't matter what the method is. It's not allowed.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed his point:
1) It is possible (tho unlikely) that Apple could be legally forced to shut down iTMS and stop selling iPods

2) If that happens your purchased music may become unusable (can't transfer between machines, etc)

3) You will will really want a tool that removes DRM at that point.

There's other things that could happen -- Apple can retroactively change the TOS on music you have already purchased, etc.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[cioxx]

NO, i don't have to. US Copyright Law says that if i purchase copyright-protected works that i have the Fair Use right to make a copy for myself. and no i don't mean make a copy that can be used on an approved device...i mean make myself a USABLE copy (usable on my Linux box for example).

Too bad you have little or no understanding of the law. Fair-use clause is superseded by Apple's contract which you willfully sign. Fortunately, this isn't a banana republic, and you can take your dispute to court and attempt forcing Apple to supply a tool which strips DRM from AAC files. I can almost guarantee that you will be laughed out of the courtroom.

You want to use your legally purchased music on Linux, BeOS, or tape decks? Fine. Burn it onto a blank CD and exercise your fair use, where Apple, as a gatekeeper, is out of sight. There are ways to go about practicing fair-use rights. Breaking the law by illegally cracking proprietary software is not one of them.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[cioxx]

1) It is possible (tho unlikely) that Apple could be legally forced to shut down iTMS and stop selling iPods

With over 30 million tracks sold through iTMS, Apple cannot simply abandon those who made these purchases. You will either see a) reimbursement or b) measures to strip the DRM from files c) class action lawsuit leading to either a) or b). It's an unlikely doomsday scenario laden with too many "What If's".

There's other things that could happen -- Apple can retroactively change the TOS on music you have already purchased, etc.

That's a risk you're going to have to assume - like buying a hotdog and not knowing whether the meat inside comes from contaminated rats or cows who have BSE. In fact, both Apple and Microsoft encourage those who buy DRM'd audio files to make backup copies.

What I don't understand is why people who are pondering these things even bother to shop at iTMS and then complain about DRM restrictions.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[cioxx]

Except when you rip the CD, it's no longer Apple's problem. As a company, they're trying to protect what's theirs.

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[dmaxwell]

Sounds to me like the lock system seriously sucks then. Law breakers by definition do not care about the laws they are breaking.

Also, that "terms of the contract" crap doesn't impress me at all. The way things are going every single item on grocery and department store shelf is going to have a fucking contract shrinkwrapped on it. What good is it to have rights and liberties when you have to sign every single damn one of them away to live?

Re:Why is Apple involved with this?

[geekee]

"Apple DOES own FairPlay, though, so it's their DRM system that's been cracked. Surely they have a right to defend their patents and/or trade secrets."

The DVD consortium DOES own CSS, though, so it's their DRM system that's been cracked. Surely they have a right to defend their patents and/or trade secrets.

I hope you agree with the above if you're defending Apple's actions.

Figures!

[vallejo1021]

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...

Software Lock-in

[Silvers]

I think apple just wants people to keep using its iTunes software. I personally like Winamp a heck of a lot more, but I put up with iTunes because i like the music store. (Only iTunes is capable of playing protected AAC files)

This ofcourse makes people much more willing to go buy iPod's which is apple's real revenue stream.

If people can use playfair to convert to non-protected AAC which can play in a number of players, they lose their iPod lock which is their main revenue stream.

Re:Software Lock-in

[iantri]

Aah.. but not true.

You might find this plugin quite helpful. This thread has more info.

Re:Software Lock-in

[Mr. Darl McBride]

This ofcourse makes people much more willing to go buy iPod's which is apple's real revenue stream.

Unless things have changed in the last few months, Apple was not making money on the iPod or the music store.

I believe Apple are pretty much trying to buy the leading position by making it impossible to compete so that later they can find a way to make money with the market they hope to corner. This isn't much different than what happened with all the DSL providers in the last few years.

Re:Software Lock-in

[fdobbie]

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that Winamp can't play protected AAC files, they are free to use the QuickTime API if they want to add support for it.

iTunes is not the only player that can play them, AFAIK RealOne Player can as of a recent release.

Re:Software Lock-in

[Silvers]

Interesting, thanks. I'll have to play with this.

Re:Software Lock-in

[DAldredge]

IIRC, appls isn't makeing their usual high margins on the itms, they are only making 15% - 20% profit per song. Reread what jobs said.

Re:Software Lock-in

[Silvers]

After playing with the Winamp plugin, winamps memory usage ballooned to 60megs and growing. Not sure if thats the fault of Quicktime API or the plugin, but its not ideal.

Re:Software Lock-in

[Silvers]

Unfortunately after a few hours of usage winamp has now grown to over 60megs of memory =x

Re:Software Lock-in

[iantri]

This might have something to do with the fact that it somehow (I haven't seen any technical details, so I'm not sure exactly what it does) interfaces with iTunes to play the music through Winamp.

I'd imagine that 60megs is Winamp + iTunes + Quicktime..

Or it could just be leaking memory like a sieve..

Re:Software Lock-in

[electricmime]

using itunes isnt ideal either, though

Sealand

[acceleriter]

This would be a good test--would Apple be the one that would finally get the Royal Navy to cut the links to the platform, or to outright invade? Who would you expect to stand up and defend Sealand from a "British war of aggression?" (n.b. There's no oil on the platform.)

Re:Sealand

[Erwos]

Of course no one's going to "stand up and defend Sealand", because no one really thinks it's a real country. They have no military. They have no international recognition. Their "currency" may as well be monopoly money, seeing as how it's linked to the US dollar yet has no real assets backing it.

The British military, however, is never going to waste tens of millions of dollars invading some dinky island server farm because Apple is upset. Cutting their links is a possibility, I suppose, but no one's going to care about that.

-Erwos

Re:Sealand

[meringuoid]

The British military, however, is never going to waste tens of millions of dollars invading some dinky island server farm because Apple is upset.

Probably not tens of millions. All it would probably take is a boat full of coppers. If the Sealand boys decide they want to make a fight of it, fine: make that a boat full of SBS. The place is only a few miles offshore.

Let's face it...

[Mengoxon]

...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.

Re:Let's face it...

[bryanp]

And portraying a cracker-program as an "open-source effort" is a bit like calling the NRA a grass-roots civil rights campaign.

They're at least as grass roots as the ACLU.

Anyway, you say that as if the 2nd Amendment portion of the Bill of Rights wasn't a civil right.

Join the ACLU & EFF to support Amendments 1 and 3-9. Join the NRA and GOA to support Amendment 2. Amendment 10 gets ignored selectively by everyone, unfortunately.

Re:Let's face it...

[arendjr]

Yes, they would. But does that make it right Apple is doing this?

Re:Let's face it...

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

And portraying a cracker-program as an "open-source effort"

But it is an open source effort. It meets the definition of open source. Why would it not be worthy of that title just because it bypasses some DRM?

In fall of 1999 when a few open source DVD projects (LiViD for one, I believe) received DMCA cease & desisit letters noone was saying "they bypass DRM, so they're cracker programs, not open-source efforts and thus not worthy of our sympathy".

playfair makes it easier to play legally purchased music on non-iTunes supported platforms as well as making it easier to throw them on p2p (not that either activity was impossible before this program)... insert crowbar analogy here.

Re:Let's face it...

[TheRoss]

This is only "cracking" for users in countries with DMCA-like anti-circumvention laws.

Re:Let's face it...

[Lord Kano]

And portraying a cracker-program as an "open-source effort" is a bit like calling the NRA a grass-roots civil rights campaign.

I am assuming that you said this just to incide a response. I'll bite. The NRA IS a grass-roots group. The vast majority of our 3+ million members are regular everyday people.

Remember Bill Clinton's 1995 State of the Union address? He did all but name us when he gave a reason for the Republican takeover of the House and Senate. We pay taxes and we vote.

LK

Re:Let's face it...

[bnenning]

Amendment 10 gets ignored selectively by everyone, unfortunately.

There's these guys, but they're too wacky even for me.

Re:Let's face it...

[bryanp]

I don't normally respond to Anonymous Coward comments, especially when we steer this far afield of the original topic, but I'll make an exception in this case.

Regrdless of how you wish to interpret it today, the second amendment was intended to refer to the collective right of people to bear arms, so the states can form a "well regulated militia."

Incorrect. The "militia" is the armed populace themselves. Some would argue that the National Guard are the milita, but the Supreme Court said otherwise when they ruled that the NG could be called up by the Federal Government and attached to the regular armed forces even if the individual States said no.

Also, all of the other rights specifically mentioned to be those "of the people" (as opposed to the state) enumerated in the Bill of Rights are individual rights (speech, religion, search & seizure, etc..), why would this one not be an individual right?

Moreover, the government regulates the ability to, say, own nuclear warheads. That's clearly arms. Why does the NRA support people owning assault rifles but not nuclear warheads?

Now this is where you need to study history. Back in the late 1700's when this was written the average individual citizen possessed individual firearms such as pistols, shotguns and muskets. Artillery such as cannon were held at the local armory. To extrapolate to modern times I would say that personal firearms, including full-auto, should be permitted. Anything more potent (rockets, grenades, mines and on up) would be held where? The local armory.

Not to start an angry political argument here, but I thought that this neede to be said...

And refuted. Your arguments are common but founded on shaky ground.

Re:Let's face it...

[meringuoid]

Why does the NRA support people owning assault rifles but not nuclear warheads?

As Timothy McVeigh's accomplice's brother put it: Because there's some wackos out there!

Re:Let's face it...

[jp10558]

I support the bill of rights, but so many "rights" that people argue for are not in the constitution.

It's when I see arguments like these that I am glad the founding fathers reluctantly decided that the most important rights needed to be laid out in the constitution.

You may be suprised to know this, but many of the founders thought that the bill of rights was unnecessary and redundant - that as they so clearlty stated earlier - they held "these rights to be self-evident". The way the founders meant the constitution to be intreperted was in a permissive sense, in that if it did not forbid something, then it should default to being allowed.

To be clearer, rights are not enumerated, they do not need to be laid out in law - they are. Laws are only necessary to infringe or restrict rights.

Illegal Art

[TenPin22]

See if Illegal Art will at least host the latest source tarball. Anything to stick it to Apple.

http://www.illegal-art.org/

A page out of the DirecTV playbook

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

play fair or else.

[DragonTHC]

how does play fair AAC dumper hurt apple or the studios?

you payed for the damn song in the first place.
you'd think they would allow you to play your song anywhere you'd like to hear it.

Re:play fair or else.

[Zycom]

It hurts Apple because iTunes isn't meant to make money by itself, it is meant to sell iPods. The music bought off iTunes can only be played by the iPod, so if you want to put it on an MP3 player, you have to get an iPod. By stripping the DRM, the audio can be played on anything that uses AAC, or converted to a different format.

Contents of the Letter (playfair.txt)

[ixt]

(cut out '-' used to serve as underlines for section headers to get past /.'s "lameness filter" and made all paragraphs into one line to get past /.'s "lines contain fewer than 38 characters". Enjoy)

BACKGROUND

Sarovar (http://www.sarovar.org/) was setup about a year back as a facility for free software hackers. It's running the GForge software under Debian GNU/Linux. Think of it as a Savannah in India (http://savannah.gnu.org/ and http://savannah.nongnu.org/ are servers providing facilities for distributed development of free software projects). The Sarovar server is physically located in Trivandrum, India. It is sponsored by Trivandrum based company River Valley Technologies and maintained by Linuxense, another Trivandrum-based company. Rajkumar S, who works at Linuxense. is one of the maintainers of Sarovar. These 2 companies (River Valley and Linuxense) maintain Sarovar as a service for the free software community in India and abroad. Sarovar now hosts 130 projects and has more than 930 registered users from across the world.

PlayFair is a tool to enable fair use for music purchased from Apple's iTunes music service. It lets people play music in non-Apple authorized hardware like a GNU/Linux PC, provided an authorized key is available. It does that by stripping the Digital Rights Management (DRM) facility from a song, provided the key to playing the song is available. PlayFair is licensed under GNU General Public License (GPL -- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL).

The author of PlayFair prefers to remain anonymous.

HISTORY

PlayFair was originally hosted at Sourceforge.net, a US-based project similar to Savannah and Sarovar. Apple invoked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) against PlayFair and Sourceforge took down the project. Since DMCA has an anti circumvision provision, PlayFair *may* be illegal in the USA.

Once Sourceforge shut down the project, PlayFair's author contacted Sarovar for hosting, and since India do not have a DMCA like law, Rajkumar S approved the project as it is legal in India. The project was available at Sarovar for about a week and had about 30,000 downloads.

Last Friday (2004-04-16) Apple sent a Cease and Desist (C&D) letter to the sponsors, maintainers and ISP of Sarovar.org invoking the IT Act 2002 and Indian Copyright act, and instructed them to take down PlayFair within 24 hours. The full letter from apple is available at

http://sarovar.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=474

Since the letter was addressed to the ISP and sponsors, and as they had some limitations on fighting the case, Sarovar decided to take down PlayFair, even though they believed that it was legal.

Some of the hackers who maintain Sarovar.org had pretty strong feelings about this case, but were helpless against the legal force from Apple.

As we think about the implications of such a C&D letter from a corporation against a free software project, it becomes apparent that the issue at hand is not just related to PlayFair or Sarovar or River Valley. 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.

This letter from Apple will have a profound impact on freedom for Indians and people all over the world. If we do not fight back, we will be on our way on a slippery slope. If we win it will be a momentous victory with impact all over the world.

PLAYFAIR IS NOT MUSIC THEFT

PlayFair does not give the user any special facilities that Apple itself has not given the user:

1. PlayFair requires a valid key from Apple to convert the format of music downloaded from iTunes. PlayFair cannot convert downloaded songs' formats without authorized keys.

2. PlayFair is not a music distribution program. All PlayFair does is convert songs from one, restricted format to another, le

Re:Contents of the Letter (playfair.txt)

[Beer_Smurf]

I'm an Apple fan as much as anybody.
I have a large collection of older Macs, all except one running OS 9 or less.
Please tell me how to listen to iTunes music across my home network without having to spend my time burning and reripping everything I buy?

Re:Contents of the Letter (playfair.txt)

[crackshoe]

Here. http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20030 50323231448 .

Re:Contents of the Letter (playfair.txt)

[tylernt]

Bad analogy. Your 9MM Uzis are instruments of life and death. Apple's iTunes are not.

I hope.

Re:Contents of the Letter (playfair.txt)

[tiptone]

[quote]
PlayFair is dangerous - it is an assault on the security of DRM. Apple's DRM is the industry "Gold standard", it really does allow you a great deal of freedom:


that's bullshit, i don't care how much of a "Gold Standard" you think it is. things allowed by US Copyright Law are not allowed through FairPlay. Fair Use is all i want, THAT is the "Gold Standard" that all other rules should follow.

Re:Contents of the Letter (playfair.txt)

[Abjifyicious]

What do people expect? That by cracking the DRM of the music services the record industry will just give up completely on DRM?

I expect that by cracking the iTMS DRM, I will be able to play the music I purchased on my Linux machine.

By undermining this DRM it encourages record companies to sway towards enforcing more arcane DRM,not removing it.

If some record companies start using DRM that I have no way to circumvent, I will simply stop buying music that's crippled by that type of DRM. There's always eMusic or Audio Lunchbox, and if there's a song I really want that I can't download in an unrestricted format, I'll just buy the CD on eBay.

Re:Contents of the Letter (playfair.txt)

[NigelJohnstone]

"This is like me going around handing out Uzi 9 millimeters to whoever wants one, and substantiating my actions by saying 'well this doesn't give the user any special facilities they didn't have before'

Possession of an unlicensed weapon & distributing unlicensed weapons is a crime, distributing tape recorders isn't. Your analogy does not hold up.

"PlayFair is dangerous - it is an assault on the security of DRM...By undermining this DRM it encourages record companies to sway towards enforcing more arcane DRM,not removing it."

Not so, the DRM could never work because you always have to decrypt the music to play it, so you always have to provide the key. DRM could never work, go ahead make it more restrictive, add dongles, widgets or Palladium none of it could ever work.

"What do people expect? That by cracking the DRM of the music services the record industry will just give up completely on DRM? "

Yes, it can never work, this shows them that it can never work. After a dozen more failed attempts to make this DRM stuff work, they will stop throwing money down the drain on it.

"You do not get your message across by breaking the law"

Playfair breaks no laws, Apple's EULA is not a law and never will be.

"PlayFair is counterproductive to reducing DRM restrictions. It makes it more difficult for bridge companies to work out issues with the recording companies, hampering the progress of online music."

Online music is doing just fine, *selling* online music was the failure until Apple turned down the DRM.

"The recording industry will simply take their ball home altogether."

Last 12 albums I've bought have been unprotect MP3 VBRs from the likes of Magnatune. Who cares what the DRM guys do, other companies will take their place! This is excellent for Apple & the Record companies because before people like me would never consider iTMS, but now we will. It does no extra piracy damage, because there was always a way to bypass the DRM in iTms anyway by ripping from CD.

"If you really have a problem with the terms of Apple's DRM, here is how to go about making your voice heard: 1. Consumer action. don't buy from iTMS. 2. Write to Apple/Your local newspaper/Your congressman with your views."

Or download playfair and continue to buy music. That way YOU get what YOU want, unprotected music and Apple & the record industry gets what it wants MONEY. A win win situation for all concerned. There's no law to change here, Playfair is LEGAL in India.

"Breaking the DRM will always make things worse for all involved, and will spoil the fun for those who at the moment DO enjoy the services of the iTMS and aren't impacted by the DRM, of which there are millions."

DRM isn't fun.

Re:Contents of the Letter (playfair.txt)

[wfeick]

[This is a bit of a long winded followup, that's more than just a response to your article. Bear with me and hopefully I'm not ranting too much. :-)]

So are you saying you think a business should not be allowed to negotiate a contract that restricts what you do with information or content they sell to you?

That seems to be all the Apple is doing here. They're offering to sell you access to content, with the restriction that it's locked into Apple's hardware. The reason they're willing to sell you content at the price they're selling it at, is that it drives more iPod sales. You're buying the content, and in doing so agreeing to the restrictions they've requested, but then breaking your part of the contract.

Don't get me wrong; I'd want to do the same as you. But you're changing the business model unilaterally, and if the bulk of consumers were to do what you want to do, Apple's response might need to be to raise music prices.

The general feeling here on Slashdot seems align into three groups.

1. Software, music, etc. should always be given away for free, since it costs nothing to duplicate.
2. It's okay to sell software, music, etc., but once I've paid for it, I get to do anything I want with it. The producer of that content must not be allowed to restrict my use in any way.
3. It's okay to sell software, music, etc., and to place controls on how it is used after sale.

The first group is whacked, in my opinion, and don't understand the realities of how things get produced. As someone who makes a living from writing software, I believe what I do has value and I should have the option of making the decision whether what I produce is given away for free, or sold as a product.

Personally, I fall somewhere in the second and third groups.

When I buy a CD, I expect to be able to rip MP3s and put them on a variety of machines from which I will listen to them. That means my home server, my portable player, my car stereo, and a directory on my work machine at the office. I don't download music, because it's already compressed at a lower quality setting than I desire. I buy CDs because I can rip them, and as compression technologies advance I can rip them again later to get a higher quality, smaller file.

I choose not to buy copy protected CDs, or DRM protected downloads, because I don't agree to the restrictions they include. But that's just my choice, and I support other people's right to sell in this way if they choose. If there is enough of a market to support that business model, then so be it.

And yes, I expect the government to help in enforcing rights, through the court system and the police if necessary. That's part of why we have a government.

DIVX was an attempt at an alternative licensing scheme, and it became clear quickly that there was not much of a market for DVDs that could only be watched a few times. I hated it, and I'm glad it died, but there was nothing wrong with it having been tried.

The video/DVD rental market is also a good example of an alternative licensing. Instead of paying $20 to own a copy of a DVD that you can watch as many times as you like, you're paying $3 to have the right to watch it for only a few days. You don't have the right to make a copy and add it to your personal library. If you want that, buy the $20 copy. If everyone were to buy the $3 rental and burn a copy, pretty soon you'd only have $20 rentals and we'd all lose out.

Another example would be if a CD was sold at $5, with the restriction that it could only be listened to for a year instead of forever. I believe a company should be able to do that, and some customers might choose that licensing for pulp pop music that they know won't stand the test of time. Personally, I wouldn't buy it (because it's pulp pop music, and because the DRM would probably get in the way of having the music available in the ways/places I want it), but other people should have the option if it works for them.

Re:Contents of the Letter (playfair.txt)

[MightyYar]

Contract or no contract, I'm not going to do something stupid just because a company has pinned its business model on an impossible concept.

Burn to compilation CD as many times as you want (making 10 duplicates of a specific playlist before you have to change the playlist - this is to thwart professional music piraters and should have no impact at all on 99% of legit users).

STUPID: Any "pirate" worth his sea-salt would make ONE copy of the CD and then use any CD duplication program on the planet to make as many copies as he wants. This restriction is in place so that Apple could put an extra bullet on the slide show they gave to the tech-retarded record execs.

Use on three of your machines simultaneously, I am a computer geek and I only have three computers, only two of them that I listen to music through, this has no impact on 99% of legit users.

Well, if you have three computers, does it really seem so inconceivable that someone might have four? How about if one of those computers is a linux machine and you don't have an iPod to use VLC? What if your wife is out jogging with the iPod?

The music resides as a file that will always play after you have paid the 99c cost, it is not subscription based DRM.

That is true today, but who says Apple will continue a free player for the next version of Windows? What about when Apple goes out of business or simply closes down their iTunes service? You are totally at their mercy.

You do not get your message across by breaking the law - PlayFair is counterproductive to reducing DRM restrictions. It makes it more difficult for bridge companies to work out issues with the recording companies, hampering the progress of online music.

Good! There should be no market for a stupid, ineffective product. You'd think that people would have learned from Sony's dismal failure with the MiniDisc and DAT. Both were great products that failed due to DRM. The non-DRM products like CDs, cassette tapes, and now hard-disk players totally wiped out MiniDisc and DAT. I hope that all attempts at DRM are shown for the farce that they are - any teenager can record from the audio out jack and companies really should know this.

Basically, break the DRM and you will not create a revolution in DRM free music. The recording industry will simply take their ball home altogether.

That is ridiculous. Music has been around for millennia, and it won't go anywhere just because of a failed business model. If BMG takes their Britney Spears catalog off of iTunes and tries to go all-CD again, who loses? You? No, you just download it from Kazaa. Britney? Yes, but she then signs with a company that doesn't have it head up its ass. If you think the current situation in music is "fun", then I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for you and I really don't care if your "fun" goes away.

I haven't got a clue about Indian law..

[Kjella]

...but the creation of personal copies may not require authorization, as is the case with DeCSS in Norway. Depending on the accuracy of that statement "unauthorized copying" may mean "unauthorized copies made for distribution to third parties".

And regardless of what you might think, tools are hardly outlawed anywhere but in the US, due to the DMCA. I can make a key that fits your front door, and only your front door, which has no other purpose. It's still not illegal until I use it to gain unauthorized entry.

That brings up an interesting question, given that there's a strong legal precedent in Norway, why isn't it hosted somewhere there? I'd love to see if they'd have the balls to try another DVD-Jon style case before the EUCD (aka the Euro-DMCA) is in place...

Kjella

Re:I haven't got a clue about Indian law..

[MoneyT]

It is ilegal if the original key says do not copy on it.

Re:I haven't got a clue about Indian law..

[Anonymous Coward]

playfair might not be hosted in Norway, but DeDRMS is:

http://nanocrew.net/software/DeDRMS/DeDRMS-0.1/DeD RMS.cs

Written by DVD-Jon, who also wrote the decryption code that playfair uses.

Re:I haven't got a clue about Indian law..

[jp10558]

Well, the EUCD won't really affect Norway, as they are not part of the EU.

Casulty of War

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Freenet?

[Entropius]

Sounds like this would be a good application for Ian Clarke's Freenet project.

We will fight them on the beaches...

[theAmazing10.t]

We will fight them in our homes...

Opps, wrong war.

This is what they want to stop

[BuddieFox]

Apple probably wants to stop this from happening anymore than nessecary..

Re:This is what they want to stop

[vallejo1021]

Yeah, Apple is extremely worried about the rights of the musicians. About as concerned as the RIAA. Typical Macinista fantasy: whenever Steve screws me, it's for my own good. Pa-thetic...

Fair use?

[kitzilla]

> PlayFair is a tool to enable fair use for music purchased from Apple's iTunes music service.

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.

Re:Fair use?

[pla]

In what way is removing the DRM from iTunes music "fair use"?

In the "format shifting" sense, which most certainly does fall under "fair use".

You can argue this from any angle you want, but in actual trials, the courts have repeatedly upheld the idea that people have the "right" to use media they purchase (regargless of the whole "bought" vs "licensed" issue). If that means using tools like playfair to unlock that media, then so it goes.

The injunction against DeCSS really counts as one of the first findings that contradicts the idea of format-shifting as fair use. And, you could interpret that as not so much of a slam against format shifting (remember, it had nothing to do with any actual, specific copyright violations), as against a DMCA-defined "circumvention device".


Of course, it really bothers me how many people want to step up to defend Apple here. Any other company, and we'd have a totally united front against this blatant use of the legal system to quash our rights. But blessed, inviolable Apple? No! "They need the money" (to cover their otherwise invalid business model?). "It allows enough uses to not affect anyone" (until your third computer crashes with you unable to release the key). "You can always burn it to a CD and re-rip it" (completely ignoring the resulting hideous loss of quality compared to what the user paid for)...

Just astounding, what the Apple fanboys will defend. "Steve needs to eat the brains of still-living childen", "Zombie sounds like such a harsh word, can we please call it by the correct medical term, 'necroambulate'?". If this time they hadn't stepped into the PC world to screw us all, I'd consider this almost self-served legal Darwinism. But as it stands - Grow some balls! Steve can err, deal.


PS - IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot.

Re:Fair use?

[bogie]

"In what way is removing the DRM from iTunes music "fair use"?"

So its okay to "remove" DRM from Itunes by burning to cd and re-ripping but its no okay do it otherwise? As I posted before, you Apple defenders come off looking rather silly for be so up in arms against this and need to choose your battles more wisely. Going from digital->digital(CD)->digital is okay but going from digital->digital(Playfair)->digital is illegal and not "fair use"? Umm, ok.

Nuts to them

[GarfBond]

Personally, I disagree with Apple on this one, but I can understand their position. If this was typical American copyright law, it would seem to me that PlayFair is nothing more than another method of fair use for the home user, just like burning to CD would be as well.

However, it also seems that when you buy the song from Apple, you are basically agreeing to their contract by giving them your money. So, while you might not be breaking copyright law, you probably still can't do this because you're breaking your contract with Apple (note: I have not read the itunes terms of use). That won't stop me from continuing to use this stuff though :)

In either case Apple will probably be able to win because it's got a chunk of change to back it up.

Re:Nuts to them

[2nd Post!]

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.

must be legal off the coast of New Zealand

[kayen_telva]

Playfair

Re:must be legal off the coast of New Zealand

[ja]

OK!

I suppose these files are now distributed worldwide.

At least I'll keep a copy for reference on "how to fail protecting other peoples IP"

mvh // Jens M Andreasen

Read the "Terms Of Service"

[supercobrajet428]

A Quote from the "Terms Of Service" which you MUST AGREE TO in order to purchase tracks from the ITMS:

Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners in any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition, or artwork embodied in any Product.

You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.

The delivery of Products does not transfer to you any commercial or promotional use rights in the Products.

It's not really a question about whether it's ethical or not. If you have music from the ITMS, you bought it from Apple, and YOU AGREED TO THESE TERMS OF SERVICE. If you make a piece of software to "circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service" than you are breaking your contract with Apple, and thusly breaking the law. It's pretty simple.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[Registered Coward v2]

You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.

It's not really a question about whether it's ethical or not. If you have music from the ITMS, you bought it from Apple, and YOU AGREED TO THESE TERMS OF SERVICE. If you make a piece of software to "circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service" than you are breaking your contract with Apple, and thusly breaking the law. It's pretty simple.



It is possible that Playfair does not violate ITMS - for the developer, as long as it was written without using ITMS content in the development. If the devloper did not us ITMS music, then they would not be bound by its TOS, since they would not have agreed to ITMS TOS.

Now some one who uses it to remove DRM features would violate the TOS, but that is a different issue since they agreed to Apple's TOS.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, apple could just as well say "You also agree to give your first-born daughter to Steve jobs upon her 18th birthday."
JUST BECAUSE YOU AGREE TO THEIR EULA DOESNT MAKE IT ENFORCEABLE.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[cdrguru]

I don't think you are breaking the law, but you are leaving yourself open to civil liability with Apple. They can sue you. They will almost certainly win unless you get baffle the judge with technical nonsense.

This could be far worse than any criminal penalty, because Apple could (in theory) go for pretty unreasonable damages. I don't see this happening - I think they will settle for the program going away from being publicly available. This does mean playing wack-a-mole for a while where they chase down every appearance on the Internet. It is possible to win that sort of thing if you are motivated enough.

Remember the DeCSS stuff and how long that took. Notice how long and how expensive the case against 321 Studios (DVD X Copy) has been. This stuff is now out of "public" view and confined to a few places that most people can't find easily. Is it gone? Heck no. Can every Joe Sixpack find it in five minutes? Maybe that is good enough.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[supercobrajet428]

"It is possible that Playfair does not violate ITMS - for the developer, as long as it was written without using ITMS content in the development. If the devloper did not us ITMS music, then they would not be bound by its TOS, since they would not have agreed to ITMS TOS."

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.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[Fnkmaster]

Well, there's no reason to believe that the person who wrote the software needed to violate this EULA - they didn't necessarily ever buy any music from Apple or agree to the EULA. Whether using such a piece of software that somebody else wrote constitutes violation of this EULA is a less obvious question based on that wording.

In any case, breaking an EULA without redistributing somebody else's copyrighted material is one of those offenses which you won't find much support for on Slashdot. People here generally support the concept of electronic freedom - data you've acquired legally is yours to do what you will with within the bounds of your own home and computer. It's like breaking the speedlimit on your own private racetrack - it may be illegal, but it shouldn't be enforceable. And even here in the grand ole' USA EULAs are of questionable enforceability (mind you, at SourceForge.net, the issue was the unconstitutional legislation we call the DMCA, it had nothing to do with the EULA which SF.net had certainly never agreed to).

Of course, in India, it doesn't matter, since the people distributing Playfair at sandovar.org didn't write it, AND because they lived in India, were almost certainly not iTunes customers. Thus we have no reason to believe they had ever agreed to this EULA in the first place - assuming such EULAs are even recognized under Indian law, which I seriously doubt. In most countries' legal systems, click through screens don't make legitimate contracts.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[Llywelyn]

Is there any reason in particular you do not believe that clause is enforceable, or are you just going off at the mouth?

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.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[super awesome]

The case seems pretty clear cut in Apple's favor. When you purchased the song, you have the right to burn the song. And from there on, it seems like it's up in the air what you can do with it. I'm sure Apple anticipated some people to rip the purchased songs that they burned, and to distribute it. But I'm sure Apple also anticipated that the extra work would veer most people away from doing it. That's why then included the clause that said what you can't do, which is to circumvent the DRM. The PlayFair group clearly violated the terms, and if they continue to hop countries to support their open source project, a lawsuit will be dropped on them promptly.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[Registered Coward v2]

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.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[supercobrajet428]

No one's forcing people to buy music from Apple. If you don't like the TOS, don't buy their music. 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. No one forced people into this TOS - they wanted music and bought it and that inherently binds them under the TOS.

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.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[supercobrajet428]

Any ideas about how they would have obtained the info about the DRM, the encrypted files, and an Apple authorization key, as well as the algorithms that govern all these pieces' interaction, without the ITMS?

I haven't been thinking about the problem that long but I can't figure ANYTHING out.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[t_allardyce]

Yes its fair to say that if you agreed to the terms, you are responsible if you break them. But that brings up an interesting point - given that allot of laws these days are there to 'protect the public' maybe there should be some laws or atleast a campaign to make people more aware that these terms and EULA's exist. Maybe it should be a legal requirement that you sign a physical document - that way you would be more inclined to read it (well i say that, but some people will sign anything). What happens when these agreements become stricter? isnt it entirely feasable that someone could literally agree to have the shirt taken off their back without realising? Don't get me wrong, i think if people dont read contracts they deserve what they get, but i also think people like that (which includes me - i've never read a contract in my life) should be protected to some extent. There are many ways this could be done eg creating more general purpose licenses like the GPL - once you've read one, you only have to read the heading of another one and you know its identical, it could also involve the recent idea of icons on software packaging - but on agreements aswell.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Has clicking a button been found to be a legally enforcible means of signing a contract?

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[supercobrajet428]

Has clicking a button been found to NOT BE a legally enforcible means of signing a contract?

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[Anonymous Coward]

By reading this comment, you agree to transfer your life savings to my bank account. Sucker!

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[bnenning]

But where I'm from a contract is a contract is a contract.

I agree. I also agree that the proper penalty for violating a contract should be actual damages suffered. In the case an iTunes customer using Playfair that would be $0.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[machacker]

IDIOT! No, PlayFair did not circumvent DRM. ***USING*** PlayFair circumvents DRM. The contract is between Apple and the User. If Apple wants to go after the USER for USING PLayFair to break DRM, that's probably ok (but still makes them jerks). Apple has no right to force SourceForge and Sarovar to get rid of PlayFair. There is a little thing apple might have forgotten about called the FIRST AMENDMENT.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[thdexter]

No. Again, if I put in a EULA that accepting the terms of the contract grants me rights to kill you, that doesn't mean that I can kill you. If I took that to my Murder 1 trial, the judge would tell me the contract was null and void because it permitted something that's illegal. Likewise if a EULA (or contract) says that I give up my right to sue the author in case the program shoots me in the face (somehow), that's unenforceable if one can show intent/lack of good faith/whatever. You know those signs that are at pools sometimes? "Management is not responsible for unsupervised children on the premises" and such? Well, they are. If there's a bunch of management-owned rusty bear traps by the pool and a kid falls into them and gets tetanus, his parents probably have a case against the management and if the management simply says that he posted a sign saying he's not responsible for unsupervised children, he will get laughed out of court. Likewise, if I post a sign that says "not responsible for you getting shot in the face by me," and then I shoot you in the face, I can't say that you'd agreed, even if I had a signature or verbal acceptance of those terms.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[SJS]

It's not really a question about whether it's ethical or not. If you have music from the ITMS, you bought it from Apple, and YOU AGREED TO THESE TERMS OF SERVICE. If you make a piece of software to "circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service" than you are breaking your contract with Apple, and thusly breaking the law. It's pretty simple.

Point, sorta, except that the original contract is still up in the air as to whether it's ethical or not. If the terms of service is unethical, the question still remains.

Provisions of a contract may be rejected by the courts when the run afoul of the law or of certain rights.

You cannot, for example, sell yourself into slavery, even if you've signed a contract that contains that provision. I believe that if you sign an NDA, and then you discover evidence of criminal activity and report it, punitive clauses in the NDA cannot be enforced against you.

Alas, there are apparently no punitive measures in place for TRYING to put this sort of crap into contracts. We really do need something like that, especially for non-negotiated contracts / terms of service.

The whole DRM nonsense is one of the reasons I'm not buying anything thru iTunes, and I won't until Apple gets slapped down, hard, and counter-sued for barratry. It also is a cause for great amusement to see Apple sued by Apple for violation of contract...

IANAL, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately for Apple, an EULA is less powerful than the Law. The law allows me to make a copy of my music for personal usage.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[super awesome]

Yes using PlayFair circumvents the DRM, imposed by Apple. But aren't the developers of the project users as well. They are contributing their efforts so that they may as well be able to listen to songs purchased on the iTunes music store. Open source developers don't just develop for others, they have a stake in it as well, so that working together with others will result in a program that they, and many others can use as well.

You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.

The developers and leaders behind the PlayFair project are doing exactly that, and Apple is responding accordingly.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[machacker]

LOOK MORON: The contract is between APPLE and the USERS. Doesn't matter if the PlayFair developers are makeing it possible for the users to break the contract because the developers aren't bound by it. I have absolutly NO problem with the contract. I have a problem with Apple trying to hold other people (FairPlay, Sourceforge, etc.) to a contract that doesn't apply to them.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[Fnkmaster]

That's a pretty simplistic understanding of life. Lots of corporations shove contracts down our throats all the time that none of us ever plan on abiding by - I'm 100% certain you've clicked on "I Agree" with many software packages where perhaps you've given a cursory glance to the EULA, or not read it at all. Every sane person does, because in simple cost/benefit analysis you waste lots of time reading and complaining about absurd restrictions, or trying to find alternative products because of some contractual restrictions that are completely unenforceable, and in many cases outright illegal.

This was perhaps my first lesson in the real world after college - I learned it when my company's investors shoved a 2 year non-compete clause down every employee's throat as a condition of them giving our company money. The clause was so broad and outrageous (as these things usually are) that it would be thrown out in 2 seconds in Massachusetts where we worked. But, and this is the key, there is no concept in our legal system of penalizing companies for sticking these sorts of terms in a contract. The worst that happens in the clause gets thrown out of a contract in court. The best that happens is it gets enforced, if there is a particularly ornery, corporate-whorish judge on a case. You can make the same market based argument you are making for random software EULAs or for employment agreements - "a contract is a contract, if you don't like it, go work somewhere else, or go buy software somewhere else".

I reject this argument on a rights basis, namely that I have certain inalienable rights that I can't contractually give away, and this includes the right to personal use of a product I've legally purchased as I see fit, on my computer, in my home. There are plenty of other fundamental rights you can't give away in a contract of adherence, like an EULA, and plenty you can't give away in ANY contract. Why not the right to privacy w.r.t. use of your own legally owned property?

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[super awesome]

The reason why are your argument is faulty because your definition of the term users is incorrect. In the corporate world, the companies/developers and end users are separate entities. In the world of open source, the developers are users first. You keep brining up the users, blah blah blah. The developers ARE users. In our situation, the users of the iTunes music store want to listen to their music on a different platform that Apple wants them to. So they become developers and try to bring together a project that will allow them to circumvent the DRM. Get that into your head k?

If you don't have a problem with the contract, then you would see why the PlayFair project has to abide by Apple's rules. Apple is not holding other people to the contract like you mentioned. Apple has nothing against Sourceforge or Sarovar. It's because they are hosting the PlayFair project, that Apple is asking them to take it off their servers. If Sourceforge or Sarovar failed to comply, Apple would have a different issue on their hands.

And your points aren't getting across any better with your personal attacks.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[machacker]

PLEASE LISTEN AND I WILL TRY TO PENETRATE YOU THINK SKULL: YOUR argument is faulty. Yes, the developers are users, but that is not why Apple is going after them. They are going after them because they are giving the software to people to use. NOW. Weather or not the PlayFair developers make their project availble through sf.net, sarovar, or another site is TOTALLY seperate from them or someone else violating the Apple contract.

>"The developers ARE users."
Mabey they are. Makes no difference. Hosting the PlayFair code is different than breaking the apple contract. Anyways, if Apple has "nothing" against sf.net or sarvoar, how come they send them C&D orders? Do you think if sf.net or sarovar refused to comply with Apple, that apple what not do anything and just try to resolve it with the actually PlayFair developers? NO. They would bring lawsuit against SF.net or Saravor.

There are TWO seperate issues here. One is breaking the iTunes music store contract by USING PlayFair. The other is creating and hosting a free software projects.

>If you don't have a problem with the contract, then you would see why the PlayFair project has to abide by Apple's rules.
PlayFair IS abiding by Apple's ruls because Apple has no rules that prohibit people from creating free software projects. That's like Microsoft making a rule that says all people can't eat potato chips. Makes no sense? Darn right. Apple's contract says that the users cannot break the DRM. OK.

Are the PlayFair devs breaking the apple contract by creating PlayFair? NO (They may be breaking the DRM when they actually use it, but that is a seperate matter)

Are SourceForge or Saravor breaking the apple contract. NO (First of all, sf and sarvoar have no contract with apple so their is none to break. Second, even if they did, there is nothing in the Apple contract that says you can't host a free softare project.)

The bottome line is that the contract is between two parties. Apple and the itunes music store User. Not Apple and SF.net. Not Apple and Sarovar. AND, not APPLE and PlayFair.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[super awesome]

Apple has nothing against the creation or hosting of free software projects, but what they are against is free software projects that break their DRM.

I agree that the Apple contract does not say anything about creating free software, and that maybe you're right about the right to create PlayFair. But these developers are making this software with the intent on using it, be it a separate issue like you said.

Perhaps the reason they are shutting down PlayFair is not because of the contract terms referenced by the parent post, but is something else.

This is contrary to our clients' terms and conditions governing availability of the service and is causing them enormous potential loss of revenue and reputation. Not only that, the PlayFair program is against the express provisions of our Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957

Maybe my whole argument is up in the air now. I don't know. Assuming the intent of the PlayFair user is to just listen to music they bought on the iTunes music store, this is like the DVD-copy case before, which was won. I'm pretty sure Apple's beef with this is that it could be used to distribute illegal copies to others.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[machacker]

yes. that or that it is hurting ipod sales.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[super awesome]

yeah

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[supercobrajet428]

Thanks for the spelling advice! I need it sometimes.

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[supercobrajet428]

Very good point!!
I guess I hadn't really thought of the "sign" scenario before. That little analogy actually clears a lot of this up eh? The TOS or EULA or whatever you agree to is more like a sign at a pool than a contract.

Also I never really thought of the instance when a contract makes me agree to endangering myself or breaking the law.

I'm glad there's some folks out there who know how this stuff works!

Re:Read the "Terms Of Service"

[supercobrajet428]

Thank you SOOOOOO much. This is exactly the argument I wanted to make originally but was not able to put together properly. So instead of making this argument I went after something else that I knew I could articulate. (Whether it was completely correct or not)

Truthfully, I WANTED to have this argument "rejected on a rights basis" because I wanted the to see an argument developed around that idea. I am saving your response to a file on my hard drive right now (posting info included) so I can keep this in mind in the future!

They should get their facts straight

[Baumi]

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

Re:They should get their facts straight

[Anonymous Coward]

why don't people use software-emulated CDROMs so that you don't have to waste a CD?

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...

[Lewisham]

The difference is that, like it or not, we are pretty screwed when it comes to DRM. It's coming. It's already here. Whatever. The open-source community cannot stop that happening now.

What we can do is start messing things up for everyone else. The DRM being used in FairPlay is, actually, quite fair. You pay less for the song you want, you get less rights. I find it quite difficult, however, to see how I would want to move out of the generous (relatively) rights FairPlay gives you. The music can be on more than one computer, copied to an iPod and burned to a CD. Sounds pretty good, and it's a lot better than the sort of "one purchase = one medium" rules that the RIAA would like.

By advocating PlayFair, you're essentially supporting the idea that FairPlay should be abolished, even though it's alright. Great. What comes in it's place? Something the RIAA would like a lot more I expect. Apple have done a pretty good job of pushing them to the limit thus far, a little bit more and they'll withdraw their songs from iTMS and start pushing them with some harder DRM instead.

Then we're all screwed. What needs to be done is have the authentication system opened to software developers so they can be played on OSs such as Linux. I'm sure the idea hasn't escaped Apple's mind, but that is where effort should be placed.

DeCSS is very different. DVDs were already done and dusted. Messing with them was not going to result in anything but bad news for Jon. PlayFair could result in bad news for everyone.

Siding with Apple is making the best of a bad situation.

Re:What scares me...

[MoneyT]

Because I didn't sign a contract before I bought my DVD that says I can't use deCSS. Nor did the author of deCSS sign a contract saying that he would not attempt to circumvent that system.

If you use playfair on iTMS songs, you did sign such a contract and you are violating that contract.

Re:What scares me...

[vallejo1021]

... Media files, however, are sacred.

No, Apple is sacred. It's the typical Pavlovian response from the Macinistas: "Steve's gonna fuck me in the ass again! Way cool!"

Re:What scares me...

[Anonymous Coward]

i bought songs on iTunes, now tell me how i can use them on my lovely Linux boxen, or FreeBSD!

I cant, with playfair however i can unencrypt them, and put them in a format that will work (OGG nice and small, and sounds good) so that i CAN PLAY it on my Linux boxen using XMMS.

There is no iTunes for Linux/BSD, and thus i am unable to listen to the songs i legally purchased from iTunes in the first place. Now that i have playfair i am able to decrypt the songs AND listen to them on my FreeBSD/Linux boxen without having to run Windows on a side box some place, except for purchasing songs.

I personally think that it is stupid that i am unable to listen to songs i paid for on another OS than one supported by iTunes. Sorry, but Linux/BSD is making an up march in the desktop area, so there will be more and more people like this.

bash-2.05b$ uname -a
FreeBSD DragonFlame.Network.Home 5.2.1-RELEASE-p1 FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE-p1 #1: Mon Mar 8 02:02:25 EST 2004 xistence@DragonFlame.Network.Home:/usr/obj/usr/src /sys/DRAGONFLAME i386

Running KDE.

Re:What scares me...

[Have Blue]

Because Apple's DRM is not as bad as DVD restrictions. There are fewer practical objections and fewer people who are currently unable to do something they want because of Fairplay. Nearly everyone objecting objects on ideological grounds- they decided long ago that they will never, ever back down from their position on any form of DRM; everyone siding with Apple has decided it's not really a big deal and it's an acceptable tradeoff for the benefits of being able to buy what the ITMS is selling.

Re:What scares me...

[Enucite]

It sucks that you can't afford a CD-ROM drive for your Linux/BSD boxes. Or maybe you can't afford a CD-R drive on the box you buy the songs with?

I feel for ya man, the job market is rough these days. But just save up a few bucks and wait for a good sale. Sometimes you can get a decent CD-R drive for $20.

Good luck.

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:What scares me...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is Apple's DRM not as bad as DVD restrictions? You could play DVD on Windows and Macintosh systems, just like FairPlay. You could play DVDs on hundreds of external systems, unlike FairPlay's one. DVD doesn't give you any means of copying it without stripping either macrovision or CSS, so that is worse than FairPlay's one (1) method of burning to CD. The only problem is, there are many more ways to play music than in a CD player. Plus, since there are hundreds of players that can play DVD anyways, what's the difference?

I don't know. I fail to see any significant difference in the restrictions.

Re:What scares me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Naw, what really sucks is that people pay $2500 for a computer and then work as AppleWhores for free. Microsoft pays good money for your type of messageboard astroturfing.

Re:What scares me...

[drwav]

What we can do is start messing things up for everyone else.

I hate people with your attitude.

"Please everybody, don't fight back or they might try to take away even more. I don't want to lose anymore than I have already lost."

Well too bad, some of us aren't happy with the way things are or where they are going and will do anything to make it stop and reverse.

I'm sorry that you feel that we are somehow attacking you by trying to get back something that we once had. I truly am, it's not fair to you.

However, we are not going to stop trying to end the madness of DRM, corporate control, big brother, or whatever you want to call it.

I think the real problem is that you don't know who your enemy really is, it isn't us, we are on your side. We want you to have all these cool service and be able to use them. We want that too, but we want it without the unneeded restrictions placed by the RIAA and other special interest groups that don't believe in fair use. We aren't the ones taking away the rights, they are. If they try to take away more rights as a result of some people's actions it isn't that person's fault, it is the fault of whatever entity pushed to have those rights removed.

I have not bought any music off of iTMS and I never will.

Supporting the iTMS is supporting all that we are striving to avoid regardless of how "fair" you think their terms are.

Re:What scares me...

[jonhuang]

That's not the same thing at all, you know. 12-15 songs a CD PLUS you need to occupy the drive... that sucks.

Re:What scares me...

[cduffy]

The DRM being used in FairPlay is, actually, quite fair. You pay less for the song you want, you get less rights.

Err-hrm.

Know what my interest in PlayFair is?

My girlfriend's got a few free songs via the Pepsi promotion, but she can't download (or, presumably, use) them with her computer -- she's on an unsupported platform. Having PlayFair available provides a way around that (albiet one that requires use of a Windows box or Mac for a bit).

This is, as far as I'm concerned, a legitimate use; and anyone who wants to block it can simply go to hell. I'm happy to respect copyright (and avoid distribution, public performance, and so forth of a given piece of media w/o the approval of its author or their successor in interest) -- but this EULA sh*t throwing extra restrictions above and beyond those that copyright law grants simply has to go. (As the designer and author of the copy protection/anti-reverse-engineering mechanism for my employer's hardware/software package -- a toolkit every bit as strong as I could design it to be -- I'm fully aware of the vaguely hypocritical position this puts me in).

As for your proposal of "play nice and it won't get worse" -- BS. It'll get worse no matter what, and I intend to make reasonable use of media I have now and in the future, whether or not it does so. Preventing people from getting to information stored on their own computers is a losing battle, "trusted computing" notwithstanding, and I have every intent of fighting it.

Re:What scares me...

[jht]

There's one relevant difference that I can think of, but it's comparably minor.

There are 6 legal ways that I can think of to watch a movie. You can go to a theater (one-time usage license via your ticket), watch it on pay TV (either regular premium cable or PPV), hope it gets to free TV, rent/borrow it from a video store or library, borrow it from a friend, or you can buy it - and all but the over-the-air methods incur some sort of copy protection. Short of recording an analog copy of the film if/when it makes it to cable or network TV, there is currently no legal way to obtain a non-protected copy. Both videocassettes and DVDs are copy-protected.

With music, there is an alternative. Anyone who buys the music as a physical CD is capable of ripping the CD to create a perfect digital copy. Or they can choose to compress it using a codec for efficiency's sake, with slight degradation. Buying the file from an online store is a choice, and if you want unrestricted media you have the alternative of buying the disc itself rather than the AAC files from the iTMS. You don't have that alternative with movies.

That's the only good reason I can think of to support Apple in this, and it's a little shaky. But Apple's given you a choice - if you don't like the choice then go back to buying music on disc and rip it yourself. It doesn't take long.

That said, I downloaded Playfair, and I've decrypted all my iTMS purchases. I also have stayed within the letter of Apple's restrictions on distribution - I haven't given them to anyone else, and I'm not using them on more than the permitted 3 computers + iPod. I do like that I no longer have to worry about authorized computers anymore, though - and that can be handy at the rate that machines tend to circulate around my little world.

Re:What scares me...

[JInterest]

Really, what's the difference between deCSS and PlayFair? I don't recall anyone posting that Jon Johansen was guilty.

Because it is Apple, silly. If you haven't noticed, there are a vocal minority of Apple fanatics who will rail against Microsoft, sneer at Sun, and express contempt for closed platforms and unfree software, UNTIL it touches on their Apple fetish.

There is no company that has proven itself more dedicated to proprietary platforms than Apple Computer. They sued clone makers out of existence, and continue to maintain an expensive, proprietary hardware platform. That proprietary character continued with their software as well, until Mac OSX came along; OSX is not, however, free software, it simply uses free software as a basis.

In their own little corner of the software world, Apple has proven itself as bad as Microsoft currently is, and as bad as IBM or Sun ever have been in the past. But Apple fantics don't ever see the contradictions in their point of view. Not everyone who uses an Apple is a fanatic of course, but you can identify the ones who are pretty quickly. I'm sure you will see a few respond to this post with various non sequiturs and ad hominems.

For my part, I say kudos to Jon for striking yet another blow for freedom. The only way we will keep information free is by crippling the ability of the wealthy and powerful to control it absolutely. It was the impossibility of locking down things entirely that kept Big Media and Big Government honest in the past, and left the little people some freedom to innovate and create. Let them have the power to lock down ANYTHING absolutely, and we are just one step away from Big Brother and the world of 1984.

Big Crime exists, and will also steal, usually by greasing the palms of powerful interests in whatever cultures they operate in. That will never change. Massive copyright violations for profit will be with us always. What people should wonder about, and fear, is the single-minded focus that has arisen on preventing INDIVIDUALS from making copies.

Re:What scares me...

[ducomputergeek]

Here is where I take issues with you. Yes I am a regular Mac users, but I also have a number of PC's around as well. Granted its my job to provide support to others on both platforms.

With that disclaimer out of the way, let me say why I like Apple's DRM policies is the fact that over all it is fair. Downloading songs for free from Napster, back in the day, and name your P2P service is stealing unless the band/group distributes the tracks for free.

I've seen people pay USD 1.50 a track for cell phone ringtones. And many of the people I knew in college would have gladly paid $.99 per track for the songs they wanted. And people are doing it including myself. I typically purchased maybe 4 CD's a year if that, now its one or two tracks a month.

The problem with many DRM solutions before Apple's fairplay was they were too restrictive and therefore did not make a good alternative. Like many things in life, the solution was about balance. If your going to distribute and sell music and other digital content over the Internet, your going to have to use some kind of DRM. The key was finding a balance and Apple was the first to do just that. Your allowed to download and copy to several computers, digital devices and even Burn several copies to CD. Overall I think it is a win-win for all.

Let's talk about the "Evil Industry" motives of many here at slashdot. Is it true the RIAA boarders on needed to be bitch slapped with RICO laws, yes. Did they calude to drive up music prices, yes. Do they give artists a fair shake, no. But stealing to make a point is not making a point people. Want to really send a message to artists to stand up, stop going to see them in concert, boycott anything they do. That's where they make their money. Really want to make a statement, stop listening to them. That will shake up the industry real quick.

FInally I will leave with a Simpsons refrence. Episode from season 2 in Lisa Vs. The Eighth Comandment: "Just read the brochure Marge"

Myth: Stealing Cable is wrong
Fact: Cable companies are large multibillion dollar companies

That is the falacy that I see here repeated time and time again on this issue: "Well they are an evil corporation, therefore by doing wrong I am doing right!" Sorry, but downloading movies, music, software and not paying for it is stealing folks. And if you do it, you have no moral high ground on those evil companies.

Re:What scares me...

[IntlHarvester]

The problem with many DRM solutions before Apple's fairplay was they were too restrictive...

Thanks for proving my point, AppleBot. Rather than handwaving, provide a reference showing that iTunes is less restrictive than the competition. The RIAA was very clear in saying that Apple got the same deal as everyone else.

Sorry, but downloading movies, music, software and not paying for it is stealing folks

Nobody is talking about "stealing" music -- they are talking about removing the DRM from songs that you paid for. Since you failed to grasp the most important part of the discussion, maybe you should go back and reread everything before posting advertisements for Apple.

Re:What scares me...

[MightyYar]

So besides a coaster and a waste of a half an hour or so, can you tell me what the difference between using PlayFair and going through the burn-rip process is? Don't I end up with an AAC file either way? What in the world is morally wrong with saving time and a piece of plastic?

Re:What scares me...

[MightyYar]

If your going to distribute and sell music and other digital content over the Internet, your going to have to use some kind of DRM.

That is simply not true. You can download albums off of the internet for free. In fact, the selection is much better on Kazaa than at the iTMS. Anyone who is using iTMS is paying because:

1. They like the convenience of getting exactly what they want, in real time, at a decent quality.
2. They feel bad about "stealing" and/or want to help the artists/content owners out.
3. They got a Pepsi cap and want to try it out.

Which of those paying customers is going to stop buying because of a lack of DRM? If anything, you'll get a lot more of the #1's on your side because it will be even more convenient.

Re:What scares me...

[ducomputergeek]

Very well, I shall. Give me about two weeks to compile the research and we shall see...

Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not put the site on Freenet?

RTFA before you mod, please

[ronmon]

A "cracker-program"? Hardly. Just a snippet from the sarovar response:

PlayFair does not give the user any special facilities that Apple itself has not given the user:

1. PlayFair requires a valid key from Apple to convert the format of music downloaded from iTunes. PlayFair cannot convert downloaded songs' formats without authorized keys.

2. PlayFair is not a music distribution program. All PlayFair does is convert songs from one, restricted format to another, less restricted format.

3. PlayFair is not a method for making illegal copies of iTunes songs. PlayFair by itself cannot be used to copy music to CD, distribute on a peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing network, play music or edit songs.

4. PlayFair saves time in converting songs. The Apple iPod permits the iTunes user to make a music CD out of iTunes songs. After that the user can convert the songs in that CD to MP3 or another digital format for playing on portable, non-Apple music players. By converting iTunes songs directly to a common digital format, PlayFair shortcuts this sequence by eliminating the need to make a CD and then convert it.

So read it and think again.

Re:RTFA before you mod, please

[MoneyT]

Play Fail does give the user the ability to do something they weren't able to do before, go directly from protected AAC -> unprotected AAC

Re:RTFA before you mod, please

[ronmon]

Negative.

It allows you to do the same thing with fewer steps.

Re:RTFA before you mod, please

[Mengoxon]

So, you reckon the media CEOs will RTFA?

...in their eyes this is nothing but a cracker.

Apple is taking a bad rap for this...

[Llywelyn]

In truth, however, this is probably a very good move on their part.

Apple knows this technology is completely irrelevant, that it is "no big deal" from a technical standpoint and they expected something like this to be created from the beginning (Steve Jobs said exactly this--that they couldn't protect digital content).

As a *political* move, however, it makes a lot of sense. They aren't actually suing people RIAA style and I doubt it will ever come to that--instead they are just shutting down the servers that host it via C&D letters. If they didn't do this, they would be at risk of the music labels deciding that they aren't doing enough to protect their interests and *backing out*.

If you get this off P2P or FreeNet then good for you, you are an irrelevant statistic as far as Apple is concerned.

The comparisons to DeCSS really miss the point. DeCSS was big in part because there was no way to watch DVDs under Linux and because the MPAA really wasn't expecting it and tried to shut it down completely. With FairPlay there is a way to play it under Linux (though yes, there is a loss of quality) and they did expect it, so what they are doing is protecting their interests with the RIAA by giving a good go at it.

It doesn't matter if they "succeed" so long as they are actively pursuing it to the extent of the law.

Re:Apple is taking a bad rap for this...

[bnenning]

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.

Re:Apple is taking a bad rap for this...

[WiseWeasel]

AAC files from the ITMS are 48 kHz. You're resampling at 44.1 kHz when you burn to CD, thus losing some fidelity, definitely not the most ideal solution, and definitely not without some quality loss.

Mirror, Anyone?

[tcgwebs]

http://tcgwebs.com/playfair.tgz

I'm swimming in bandwidth.. download it if you haven't already. =)

Re:Mirror, Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and if tcgwebs somehow goes 404, remember that the FastTrack network means you no harm either.

Re:Mirror, Anyone?

[tcgwebs]

Ok, who the hell modded me flamebait for posting a mirror on my server? ;)

Welcome to Amerikva

[craXORjack]

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.

In Soviet Amerika, the price of money is Freedom.

Re:Welcome to Amerikva

[Anonymous Coward]

we have the best government money can buy.

anyways I find it ironic how "selective" we are when it comes to international laws. Having international IP enforcement obviously benefits corporations while having international labour standards, environmental standards or wage standards does not benefit companies. How ironic that a cease and desist letter is written to stop distribution of software but cease and desist letters are not written for sweat shops or environmental polluters.

Re:Welcome to Amerikva

[craXORjack]

How ironic that a cease and desist letter is written to stop distribution of software but cease and desist letters are not written for sweat shops or environmental polluters.

Good point. It just goes to show that our government does not represent the people; Instead it represents business interests. I doubt very much that that is what Jefferson and Adams envisioned.

"[Fsf-friends] Call the bluff"

[sir_cello]

This posting is irrelevant: the poster quoted some useful parts of the copyright act, but these are not useful in in the case of playfair. The sections quoted apply to computer programs, _not_ to other forms of media. Songs with RMI are not computer programs. I don't think there's any way to argue around this.

Re:"[Fsf-friends] Call the bluff"

[kbsingh]

Apple dosent own the copyright on the songs and the media. They can only defend their part of the issue - the software and technology used behind this media. Not the media itself.

That is why this is a very valid point and can / will be upheld in court

Re:"[Fsf-friends] Call the bluff"

[sir_cello]

I think you are wrong. The provisions only allow interoperable computer programs with other computer programs. It doesn't extend to media or "consumable parts" (which is what the songs would be). Canon KK case in the UK.

The NRA isn't about the 2nd adm anymore

[DAldredge]

The NRA isn't about 2nd adm rights, it is about them keeping power.

Press Release - Is the NRA Serious from Gary Gorski, attorney for Silveira Plaintiffs August 26, 2003 [filed here late due to site being down] [Additional analysis by Angel Shamaya below press release]

The NRA issued the following press release:

NRA Files Brief with the Supreme Court in Silveira v. Lockyer The National Rifle Association (NRA) has filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Silveira v. Lockyer, arguing that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right, and a right that is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist said, "Every freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is extended to the individual citizen. The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right and it should not be subject to any discrimination. To address the dilemma of violent crime, lawmakers ought to place the full burden of justice on the criminal element. Sadly, society is more content to trade our valued freedoms as an alternative. We hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will stop this erosion of our independence."

Cox praised the hard work by Chuck Michel, an attorney who has worked on this case in California. "Chuck has worked tirelessly to safeguard Second Amendment rights in California for many years. He is an exceptional individual and a sharp attorney. We are fortunate to have him working on our behalf in California," concluded Cox.

Posted: 8/13/2003 3:45:26 PM [Click here to see it on NRAILA.org or here for a saved a screenshot.] This is clearly deceptive --- Chuck Michel has worked tirelessly in attempting to impede the case of Silveira v. Lockyer from its inception, up until the NRA filed it's amicus brief. He has tried to dissuade Silveira's attorney, Gary W. Gorski, from filing the action, and prosecuting the appeal. On appeal in the Ninth Circuit, he filed an amicus brief in opposition to Silveira, arguing that the Plaintiffs/Appellants lacked standing. So, it begs the question: What has Chuck Michel done for the case in California?

Gary W. Gorski Attorney at Law http://www.gwgorski.com SEPS EXERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATER INFINITAS ("Often Tested, Always Faithful, Brothers Forever") 916.965.6800 916.965.6801 fax

Additional Responses from KeepAndBearArms.com Founder/Executive Director, Angel Shamaya

NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris Cox's press release praising CRPA/NRA attorney Chuck Michel as "an attorney who has worked on this case in California" is overtly dishonest. The insinuation is that Chuck Michel has been helping the Silveira case. Nothing could be further from the truth.

While NRA's amicus brief supporting Silveira is welcome and excellently prepared, the organization has not given one dime toward the Silveira legal battle, of which KeepAndBearArms.com is the sole fundraiser. (They may have paid their law firm to write their brief -- a brief written and filed after the case had already been appealed to the Supreme Court.) Despite this, we have two documented reports that NRA's phone solicitors have raised money under the guise that they've been helping the case -- from months before they prepared their brief. Regardless, for Cox to imply that Chuck Michel has helped this case in any way is a gross insult to the many people who have worked on the case.

Here are some facts Mr. Cox omitted from his press release:

1) NRA/CRPA attorney Chuck Michel tried to KILL the Silveira case. Brian Puckett documented that fact for all to see. Go see for yourself: NRA Lawyer Undermining ALL Our Rights

2) NRA/CRPA Chuck Michel publicly threatened that if Mr. Gorski appealed the case to the Supreme Court, CRPA would "most likely file a brief asking the Supreme Court not to hear the dangerous case." In that press release of May 13, 2003, Michel said, among other things:

A) "CRPA opposes Supreme Court review of the Silveira decision."

B) "It is a

Re:The NRA isn't about the 2nd adm anymore

[Lord Kano]

I am in PA. I can't wait to vote for Toomey on Tuesday.

Specter's legacy as a good Republican is "Not Proven under Scottish Law" in my book.

I believe that so many people are endorsing Specter because he is seen as having a better chance to beat whomever the Dems put up in November than Toomey does. IMHO, having Specter in the Senate is no better than having a democrat there. So I'll take my chances on a real Republican.

LK

Incorrect on one count.

[Davin Boling]

I quote the following (bolding added for emphasis):

"It was recently brought to our clients' attention that a program called "PlayFair" had been developed, which decoded our clients' protected AAC files, converting them to unencrypted files allowing them to be played and distributed in an unrestricted manner. This is contrary to our clients' terms and conditions governing availability of the service and is causing them enormous potential loss of revenue and reputation. Not only that, the PlayFair program is against the express provisions of our Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957 and you are equally liable as accessories, being the means through which the offending program is available for download at the Sarovar site at the following URL: http://sarovar.org/projects/playfair/."

Double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

double standard
ok, so international IP laws are good
but international labour laws are bad.

Simply an establishment of precedent

[timmi]

As I have stated in a previous posting, this case, Like the one against 321 Studios, is an attempt to set the precedent, and establish who holds the trump card.

The Consumer: Fair use trumps all
Apple iTMS EULA: the EULA is the end-all-be-all
RIAA/MPAA: DMCA trumps all, and breaking the protection is illegal.

Re:Simply an establishment of precedent

[vegetablespork]

It doesn't really matter what the courts decide--as long as there's one free country left connected to the Internet, there's no stopping any of these sorts of programs.

Re:Simply an establishment of precedent

[jimicus]

The Consumer: Calls the Feds/(insert your country's law enforcement here). Nothing happens (but maybe the feds keep an eye on that consumer). Apple: Calls the lawyers. Who send your ISP a C&D order. And your ISP has better things to spend money on than lawyers, so complies. RIAA/MPAA: Think they *are* the Feds,

+1 Insightful - Apple fans are hypocrites

[Sanity]

Of course, it really bothers me how many people want to step up to defend Apple here. Any other company, and we'd have a totally united front against this blatant use of the legal system to quash our rights. But blessed, inviolable Apple? No!

Absolutely. Some people here have their tongues so far up Apple's ass that they are even willing to defend their attacking a free software project using the DMCA (or its Indian equivolent).

Shame on anyone that is defending Apple here but didn't defend the MPAA's attack on DECSS, you are hypocrites the lot of you!

-1 clueless

[alexo]

Tho the hell modded the parent up???
It is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.

> Since more AAC is more better, but there's a quote in the linked article I think is relevant:
>
> | Apple has stated that PlayFair contravenes the Indian Copyright
> | Act. 1957 and the IT Act, 2002, but have not specified how these acts
> | are violated. While these acts make the unauthorized copying of music
> | illegal, they nowhere bar the creation of tools that could potentially
> | be used to illegally copy music. Trying to stop dissemination of a
> | tool that permits legal licensees of songs from iTunes to play them on
> | non Apple-authorized hardware is purely a business loss prevention
> | strategy from Apple and must be deplored.

I have taken the liberty to bold some words in the paragraph that you quoted to help your reading comprehension.

> So they acknowledge that the unauthorized copying of music is illegal, and
> believe a tool that makes an unauthorized copy of the music is not illegal?

Hmmm... difficult case indeed. Let's try some analogies:

Stabbing people is illegal, knives are not.
Shooting people is illegal, guns are not (at least in the US).
Rape is illegal, penises are not.
Get it now?

> Because as the author states, Apple already provides a means to permit legal
> licensees of songs from iTunes to play on non Apple authorized hardware via
> CD burning (and subsequent re-ripping). This is *authorized* copying.
> Anything else, then, is unauthorized copying isn't it?

It isn't. The method of copying has nothing to do with it.

> Doing a clean decryption of the AAC file would certainly fall into unauthorized copying, according to the terms of use, I think.

Think again.

> So FairPlay's only legal defense is that it isn't illegal to write such a tool, only illegal to use such a tool...

No, the legal defence is that it is illegal to use such a tool (or any tool) for illegal purposes (such as unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material) but it has significant non-infringing uses.

And if that defence is not good enough for you, you should be incarcerated for posessing a tool that can be used for rape.

this is still true ...

[Sfing_ter]

once I purchase and take posession of something, IT IS MINE, and I can do what I choose with it, (so long as I don't "distribute" my item). So Steve and his legal staff can go bugger off.

Indian law specifically protects PlayFair

[Sanity]

According to the FSF india post, Indian law specifically permits this kind of thing:

(ab)the doing of any act necessary to obtain information essential for operating inter-operability of an independently created computer programme with other programmes by a lawful possessor of a computer programme provided that such information is not otherwise readily available;

Moreover, it even deals with baseless threats such as Apple's:

Section 60. Remedy in the case of groundless threat of legal proceedings.- Where any person claiming to be the owner of copyright in any work, by circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens any other person with any legal proceedings or liability in respect of an alleged infringement of the copyright, any person aggrieved thereby may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), institute a declaratory suit that the alleged infringement of any legal rights of the person making such threats and may in any such suit-
(a) obtain an injunction against the continuance of such threats; and
(b) recover such damages, if any, as he has sustained by reason of such threats.

So PlayFair may even be able to take action against Apple for this!

Re:Indian law specifically protects PlayFair

[yora]

The real beauty of Indian Law is that you can get a stay order against anything. Indian courts take years to resolve any case and typically the situation is like this:

- Person X does something wrong.
- There is a case registered against X.
- X obtains a stay order or figures our some legal means to delay court dates. Typically a case would drag on for quite some time. In a high profile case like this, the courts might be less willing to accomodate X's request.
- After the lawyers have made their money, some result comes out (It really doesn't matter much if the result comes out after 5-10 years)

In India, just like in the US it is the lawyers who end up making most ammounts of money. But unlike in the US, there is no concept of mega compensations in civil cases. Mostly the law is very clear and the fines are ridiculously low.

In this case there is a clear law, and the defendants just need to get some good lawyer to fight their case to win. But it is not about winning/loosing the case that is the issue. It is the time taken for the case to be resolved that is going to matter most.

Apple could also use the standard delaying tactics along with a stay order against sarovar.org and it's ISP. So in effect what would happen is that Apple would obtain a restriction and then pay their lawyers to delay the case for 4-5 years. By which time there would hardly be any intrest left in this case!

BTW.. I am from India.

Get your terms straight

[alexo]

> The user agrees to Apple's terms upon purchase.

* The author of PlayFair did not neccessarily agree to Apple's terms.

* The hosting providers did not neccessarily agree to Apple's terms.

> If you don't like the number of players Fairplay will authorize, buy your music elsewhere.

Perhaps. But then, it is a contract violation - a purely civil (not criminal) matter. Apple may sue the entities mentioned above if it can prove that they are indeed violating signed agreements, and that the provisions in the agreements are legal and enforceable (e.g., a requirement to sacrifice your firstborn).

Re:Get your terms straight

[Alsee]

contract violation

Actually you can avoid even that and still use PlayFair.

According to Apple's contract they can terminate your service and the contract in a number of cases. The best example is if they suspect your account infrmation may have been compromised. So you simply call Apple and tell them you saw your friend messing around on your computer and you're not sure if he got your password or not. You don't want to bother with a new account.

When Apple terminates the service and the contract then you are no longer bound by the terms either. You still own the songs you bought and you can perfectly legally use PlayFair on them.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to use PlayFair in any case, but it certainly is convient to be able to thumb your nose at the contract argument.

Even if we couldn't blow away the contract argument like that, it still does not make PlayFair in any way illegal. It would merely be a contract violation to use it in certain ways. Another funny point is that even if you do use it in violation of the contract, the ONLY penalty for violating that contract is termination of further service and termination of the contract.

If I sign a contract commiting to dance on my roof naked, and the contract imposes a $500 penatly for failure to comply, then I am prefectly free to accept the imposed penalty for non-compliance. I can use PlayFair and have my service terminated.

-

Grrrr

[buford_tannen]

Go ahead and die already, Apple!!!!

What's the matter, trying to be the next Microsoft or SCO?

Just go on into that good night and get the hell out of my life!!!!

(Mac zealots may mod me down for this, but deep down they feel the exact same way)

It sort of works

[iamacat]

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.

P2P-based Savannah/Sarovar?

[dbc001]

Is there such a thing as a p2p-based Savannah/Sarovar system? If not perhaps this is a good time to consider creating such a thing. I'm assuming that the current systems have features that basic p2p clients don't support. But between Bnetd, playfair, DeCSS, and others, there is clearly a need for a distributed, peer-to-peer, source distribution/co-authoring system. Maybe WASTE could be modified to do this sort of thing?

Note: I am not a programmer, so I'm not exactly sure what Savannah/Sarovar/Sourceforge sites do exactly, but there has to be a way to do it to prevent these projects from getting shut down.

My point is that instead of bickering over legal trivia, we need to be developing defensive systems to prevent corporations from controlling us.

Re:P2P-based Savannah/Sarovar?

[vegetablespork]

It could be called "freeforge."

Re:P2P-based Savannah/Sarovar?

[WWWWolf]

"We develop source behind closed doors, and we're making profit!" "That sucks! Let's do development in public!" "Good idea! Hey, looks like your vaguely legal application is under fire. What are you going to do?" "Errrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmm.... P2P?" "Weren't you listening?"

Progress isn't always progress, you know... and P2P still isn't the magic solution to everything.

You can always go "underground" when developing a project distributedly. "Open source" doesn't necessarily have to mean "you can check out bleeding edge code from anonymous CVS" or something!

If you need hints, just ask the Nethack devteam how they manage a gigantic open source application - and as far as I can tell, they don't even use a revision control system. Or maybe they just need to take a few notes on how the proprietary software is developed.

I know, I know, it's completely counter-intuitive. First, we thought that developing open source code had to be open and "bazaar-like", yet it seems that for some projects, like these projects that have questionable legal status, it's better to have an old-fashioned development methodology combined with an open-source license.

Why not use the best of the existing methods for your work - confidentiality of development given by the tried and true "commercial" processes, and free unlimited distribution of the results given by open-source licenses?

And if you insist you can always stick that P2P thing to the distribution part of the development process. That is where it works best right now.

One idea might be to use distributed version control systems like Arch, with each developer's repository published through some semi-secret channel. Not sure how well that thing would work if there would be no "root" repository though...

They're not using Patent, they're using Copyright

[Svartalf]

In the claims that they used to get takedowns in both cases, they used Copyright laws in the respective countries to get the resultant action.

It's not Patents they're defending, it's the DRM system, which is a whole different ballgame.

We choose software to be free

[AIXadmin]

Using software to circumvent DRM is a akin to using GPL'ed code in a closed source project. Its all about the freedom to choose how we want our copyrighted works used.

new title

[kardar]

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.

First time?

[Craig Ringer]

To quote a friend of mine: "Poppycock".

This is far from the first time legal means have been used to stop a free software project. The most obvious one that comes to mind is BnetD, a Diablo II Battle.Net server, but I'm sure there are more. DeCSS, in fact, would probably qualify nicely.

Re:First time?

[dpete4552]

RTFA. It says that this is the first time legal means has been used to stop a free software project in India.

Re:First time?

[Craig Ringer]

Whoops. Sorry all - reading too late at night.

Playfair-Sarovar position paper

[Anonymous Coward]

Playfair-Sarovar position paper

"Nobody photocopies newspapers"

[holygoat]

A simple way of putting it. The cost-benefit is different.

Nobody copied vinyl, whereas people "photocopy" MP3s freely.

possibly redundant...

[d34thm0nk3y]

but I don't feel like scrolling up to the original..

I am not sure that you CAN sign away your rights. Obviously it has not been tested in court. But you can't just sign a contract that makes you a slave for example. I mean you can SIGN it, but it has no actual obligation or weight in court.

Re:possibly redundant...

[2nd Post!]

But this contract *isn't* turning you into a slave. This contract only says that you can't decrypt the song without going through Apple's hardware/software tools; but Apple does provide you the tools through which you can decrypt it.

All Apple is stopping anyone from doing is doing a flawless translation. Does this fall into copyright? I don't know. At some point I know I will probably do it myself, just for convenience, law be damned. If a law is bad, I'm under no obligation to follow it, right? On the other hand, Apple has the right to not sell me songs either; it's a mutual relationship here. Apple wants my money, I want those songs, and somewhere we have to come to an agreement, right?

Re:possibly redundant...

[d34thm0nk3y]

interesting...

Apple has the right to not sell me songs either

It is called a "terms of service" agreement. By breaking the TOS maybe they can only refuse the service. Since no penalty is stipulated in the agreement and no actual copyright infringement is necissarily taking place. Of course, they could probably hit you with the DMCA.

I personally find iTunes overpriced and over restrictive so I will never buy anything from them anyway, it is an interesting case though.

Re:possibly redundant...

[2nd Post!]

I use it because it saves me money :)

It's cheaper than a CD!

Re:possibly redundant...

[d34thm0nk3y]

thats cool.

I use p2p to try out stuff I have never heard before, and used cd stores to buy the stuff I know I want. Celophane Square rocks, and has super cheap used cd's + good selection.

My mp3 player is a Creative Nomad, so I would have to Play Unfair (apparently) to even listen to anything off iTunes anyway.

Give a better summary please

[billybob]

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.

Ya know, I really hate front page stories like this. There's an update on the situation? Tell us what it is! There's an interesting post on a mailing list? How about a snippet!?!

I dont want to have to RTFA to decide if it's somethign I care about or not. Give me a summary and from there I will decide. In this case, I decided I did not care based on the poor summary and did not RTFA. :P

What DRM is and is not

[Archibald Buttle]

Every time we have an article on Slashdot that involves DRM technology we always get the following cry:

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

The reason for this cry is simple - DRM uses encryption to protect data, and for that data to be usable at some stage it must be decrypted. There is therefore a weak point in every DRM system where unencrypted data can be obtained, and thus every DRM system is flawed.

Now this is unarguably true, and very truely inelligent person that has ever looked into DRM will realise this. That actually includes record company executives...

DRM should not be looked upon as providing absolute security, rather it should be considered to be more akin to putting a padlock and chain on a bicycle. If you're the legal owner of the bike then you have the key to the padlock. A set of bolt cutters though can easily cut through the chain.

Now if you're not the owner of the bike then it's illegal to take it whether it's been padlocked or not. The padlock is there as a deterant to ensure that the bike is not taken by a casual opportunist thief - only a real criminal would take a padlocked bike. The padlock is not a magic solution against theft and only a fool would think it was intended as such.

DRM serves the same purpose for data.

Of Rocks & Hard Places

[rixstep]

I might see this wrong, but it appears Apple are caught between the proverbial rock and hard place. The Big Five finally gave in and trusted them. If they don't dance for this peanut gallery, they might lose their rights, their iPod and iTunes business, the whole ball of wax.

I'm not saying Apple would not do this anyway, but in this particular case they do not have much of a choice.

Nobody bother to pirate paperbacks?

[Wooky_linuxer]

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.

Really? Search for Harry Potter in any P2P network. Consider also the the last title, weighting somewhat over 800 pages, was available in the internet juts hours before it's official release; for most of the world, it was released in the internet way before an official version was.

People do bother to pirate paperbacks, as long as they're interested in them. The same applies for music, or the random assortment of bits RIAA likes to call music. The same way, DRM won't stop people from pirating music because there is *always* a way to unencrypt them. It will never work as intended, just as CSS didn't work. Damned be those CEOs who put their faith in encryption rather than in the intelligence of the consumers. Even if a really low percentage is actually intelligent.

Try Canada

[Lost Race]

The TLD is registered to Niue, but the web server is in Ontario.

Running in circles

[Tokerat]

Trying to stop dissemination of a tool that permits legal licensees of songs from iTunes to play them on non Apple-authorized hardware is purely a business loss prevention strategy from Apple and must be deplored.

...limiting use of copyrighted materials to that which the original authors agreed to let it be used is pretty much required by law to prorect the copyrights.

Then again, I suppose I can buy lockpick kits, can't I?

They code was released anonymously ( was: Freenet)

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Freesites are anonymous. How do you know which is the official code and which is backdoored?

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.

It already IS on Freenet

[salahx]

It was posted on Freenet several days ago (almost immediately after it is pulled from Sourceforge) - SSK@5Zy5e6nlgMfN3Bh23e3YAxYBYDAPAgM,J35mMqZOsmvjpV Z77labzg/playfair/1//

There also iTunes on Freenet - SSK@0AtjJ4FQD4seLtw5Z2cAAdGy~UAPAgM/iTunes/10//

Both are edition sites. I've retrieved both on the "unstable" network. As usual, the freeent keys have been mangled by Slashdot's spacing, so remove the spaces in the keys!

Why is this a Troll?

[vertical_98]

Who ever moderated this a troll must not live in the Midwest. We moved to Indianapolis and had our moving van broke into the first night up here. Police took a report and told us to contact our insurance agent.

Vertical

Because Apple doesn't want the RIAA backing out...

[weedenbc]

You are right that Apple does not control the license for the music. But it is in their best interests to act on behalf of the real license holder (the RIAA members).

The RIAA considers itself to be doing Apple a favor by allowing Apple to sell it's property. It would not hesitate to revoke this right at any time. In fact, the RIAA considers this whole digital music thing to be unsafe and will revoke it at the slightest hint that they are jeopardizing their revenue stream (read: cash cow).

Think of what would happen if the RIAA determined that Playfair will hurt their revenue and pulled licensing from Apple and maybe even the other digital music stores. Of course, this would be completly insane of them - why kill a 100% profit business model - but they have never been known for their foresight and business acumen.