Update on Playfair

Coverage on K5 also. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-25 02:06 · Score: 5, Informative

Some nice discussion here.

I for one... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-25 02:07 · Score: 3, Funny

am happy to India onshore insourcing american law practices.

Hmm.. by bigattichouse · 2004-04-25 02:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Need a good ol' fashioned Chinese to-hell-with-western-law hosting... works for spammers, why not legit projects that exist in that legal grey-zone?

--
meh

Re:Hmm.. by gid13 · 2004-04-25 02:15 · Score: 4, Funny

Yes, China, that world-renowned last bastion of free speech. They'll SURELY be the answer to our prayers. :P
Re:Hmm.. by bigattichouse · 2004-04-25 02:19 · Score: 2, Informative

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...

--
meh
Re:Hmm.. by tomstdenis · 2004-04-25 02:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Re:Hmm.. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2004-04-25 03:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Hmm.. by Hatta · 2004-04-25 03:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Hmm.. by Dlugar · 2004-04-25 04:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

--
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
Re:Hmm.. by finkployd · 2004-04-25 04:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.. by tylernt · 2004-04-25 04:43 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
Re:Hmm.. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2004-04-25 04:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Hmm.. by NigelJohnstone · 2004-04-25 07:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

"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.. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2004-04-25 07:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Hmm.. by TravisWatkins · 2004-04-25 08:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--

"But I'm still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. And I'm still right here."
Re:Hmm.. by Hatta · 2004-04-25 09:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Hmm.. by IntlHarvester · 2004-04-25 10:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.

It's down? by tommasz · 2004-04-25 02:15 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by 2nd+Post! · 2004-04-25 02:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

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...

--

GPL Deconstructed

Re:Not agreeing with Apple here by Qzukk · 2004-04-25 02:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

So they acknowledge that the unauthorized copying of music is illegal

Copying? The tool specifically takes a song you have bought, the key that you have bought to play that song, applies the key to the song and uses it to remove the DRM. Lets say that I delete the original file afterwards, in which case the net IP "possession" is unchanged: I have one instance of a song I bought, only now I am no longer beholden to the artifical monopoly of things-capable-of-playing-this-song.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here by Spellbinder · 2004-04-25 02:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

--

stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here by 2nd+Post! · 2004-04-25 02:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

You've still made ONE copy in that process, even if you delete the original.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, since I believe it's perfectly within Fair Use to make a decrypted copy. What happens if Apple goes out of business? What happens if I don't have a suitable network connection to authorize my Macs? I paid for the music, and do have some right to listen to it at 100% quality.

However, all I am stating is the strict legality of the situation. Owning this tool isn't illegal, but using it is. I don't know, however, that is enough under Indian law to get them knocked off the servers.

--

GPL Deconstructed
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here by 2nd+Post! · 2004-04-25 02:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--

GPL Deconstructed
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here by vegetablespork · 2004-04-25 02:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

But waiver of fair use rights is arguably an unconscionable and therefore unenforceable contract provision. If indeed clicking an "I agree" button on a Diktat contract forms a valid contract. (I know it doesn't morally, whether it does legally has yet to be demonstrated except in a very narrow context.)

--
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here by 2nd+Post! · 2004-04-25 02:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

It all depends on whether you signed a contract when you bought the Sony drive that you would only use Sony blanks, doesn't it? Then it wouldn't be illegal to use the non Sony blanks, only that you would have violated your contract with Sony, and Sony then has the right to not honor any warranty with you (there is some wiggle of course, since you used a fairly extreme example).

All sales of Apple's music have implicit contracts, which you should have read before purchasing. There is authorized copying, which is streaming to three machines, converting m4p->CD->MP3 or m4a, and then there is unauthorized copying, which is streaming to unlimited machines and converting from m4p->m4a.

You can argue Fair Use, but they can argue that you willingly agreed to their contract, and all they are doing is enforcing it through vague laws.

--

GPL Deconstructed
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here by XipX · 2004-04-25 02:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by cdrguru · 2004-04-25 02:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by 2nd+Post! · 2004-04-25 02:54 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--

GPL Deconstructed
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here by 2nd+Post! · 2004-04-25 02:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 :)

--

GPL Deconstructed
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here by plj · 2004-04-25 03:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

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).

--
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here by 2nd+Post! · 2004-04-25 03:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--

GPL Deconstructed
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here by M.+Baranczak · 2004-04-25 03:19 · Score: 2, Funny

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 by Nexum · 2004-04-25 03:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

--

This sig has been deprecated.
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here by bnenning · 2004-04-25 04:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here by alexo · 2004-04-25 04:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

>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?

easy way to keep the project active by Dusanyu · 2004-04-25 02:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by Entropius · 2004-04-25 02:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by Mr.+Darl+McBride · 2004-04-25 02:52 · Score: 2, Informative

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? by mark-t · 2004-04-25 02:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Apple is a computer company. They do not own or control the copyrights on the music they are allegedly trying to protect. If anything, the RIAA should be the ones to go after these guys, not Apple. And since the RIAA doesn't have any pull in India (while Apple probably has some), I suspect that this whole mess would have been summarily ignored. They should tell Apple straight out that since Apple does not own the copyrights to the works which are supposedly being illegally copied, they do not have the right to make this request.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:Why is Apple involved with this? by JeffTL · 2004-04-25 02:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

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? by cioxx · 2004-04-25 02:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

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? by squiggleslash · 2004-04-25 03:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Why is Apple involved with this? by st0rmshad0w · 2004-04-25 03:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

"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? by cioxx · 2004-04-25 05:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Software Lock-in by Silvers · 2004-04-25 02:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by iantri · 2004-04-25 02:47 · Score: 4, Informative

Aah.. but not true.
You might find this plugin quite helpful. This thread has more info.

Sealand by acceleriter · 2004-04-25 02:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.)

--

CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

Let's face it... by Mengoxon · 2004-04-25 02:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

...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... by bryanp · 2004-04-25 02:50 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
Re:Let's face it... by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · 2004-04-25 02:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

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... by bryanp · 2004-04-25 05:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper

Contents of the Letter (playfair.txt) by ixt · 2004-04-25 02:28 · Score: 3, Informative

(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) by crackshoe · 2004-04-25 04:35 · Score: 2, Informative

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

--
Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.

I haven't got a clue about Indian law.. by Kjella · 2004-04-25 02:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

...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

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:play fair or else. by Zycom · 2004-04-25 02:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Freenet? by Entropius · 2004-04-25 02:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

We will fight them on the beaches... by theAmazing10.t · 2004-04-25 02:36 · Score: 3, Funny

We will fight them in our homes...

Opps, wrong war.

This is what they want to stop by BuddieFox · 2004-04-25 02:38 · Score: 2, Funny

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

Fair use? by kitzilla · 2004-04-25 02:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

> 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.

--
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.

must be legal off the coast of New Zealand by kayen_telva · 2004-04-25 02:49 · Score: 4, Informative

Playfair

Read the "Terms Of Service" by supercobrajet428 · 2004-04-25 02:49 · Score: 5, Informative

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" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-25 03:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

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" by cdrguru · 2004-04-25 03:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

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" by supercobrajet428 · 2004-04-25 03:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

"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" by Fnkmaster · 2004-04-25 03:06 · Score: 4, Informative

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" by supercobrajet428 · 2004-04-25 03:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

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" by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2004-04-25 03:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Except that the TOS also states that you agree not to encourage such behaviour, I suppose it MIGHT be questionable as to whether downloading the software and/or using it would/should be considered encouraging - I see your point though. Maybe it's not so black and white as I had thought originally.

I wasn't real clear as well- I was refering to Playfair's developer, not someone who uses it to remove DRM features. I think as long as the developer doesn't use ITMS, then he or she hasn't agreed to the TOS and is not bound by any terms - now someone actually using it would because they agreed to Apple's TOS.

So Playfair, itself, would not violate any contractual terms since the developer hadn't agreed to them, unlike someone who used it, Apple's recourse would be to go after its users if it suspects they are using Playfair for breach of contract, but has no grounds contractual grounds to stop Playfair from being distributed.

Of course, it may have other legal means to stop Playfair, and suing your users is both difficult and would be very counter productive to a company such as Apple which wants to be viewed as a part of its user's life. So guess what they do?

You really need to strip tools from their use - for example, I have friends who routinely carry "Burglery tools" in their vehicles, but because tehy ar elicensed locksmiths, they have a legitimate reason to do so. Baring the manufactur of such tools would prevent their legitimate use of them.

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Re:Read the "Terms Of Service" by supercobrajet428 · 2004-04-25 03:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

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" by supercobrajet428 · 2004-04-25 03:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

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" by supercobrajet428 · 2004-04-25 04:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

Has clicking a button been found to NOT BE a legally enforcible means of signing a contract?
Re:Read the "Terms Of Service" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-25 04:32 · Score: 2, Funny

By reading this comment, you agree to transfer your life savings to my bank account. Sucker!
Re:Read the "Terms Of Service" by bnenning · 2004-04-25 04:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.

They should get their facts straight by Baumi · 2004-04-25 02:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

What scares me... by faaaz · 2004-04-25 02:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

...is not the fact that Apple went after PlayFair, that was more or less expected. What scares me is the fact that a large part of the slashdot crowd are siding with apple and big media on this one. Hacking your DVD-player is okay, the right to fiddle with your own devices shall not be infringed upon. Media files, however, are sacred. You shall not use them in any way big media does not approve of.

And why? To please big media, otherwise they would not venture into this internet selling thingy, posts explain. Anyone who does not accept the control big media is forcing upon buyers is a damn dirty pirate, responsible for the thousands of plagues in the world and puts 'us' in a bad light. The brainwashing is apparently working.

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

--
we come in peace / shoot to kill

Re:What scares me... by Lewisham · 2004-04-25 04:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

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... by Have+Blue · 2004-04-25 05:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

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... by IntlHarvester · 2004-04-25 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:What scares me... by drwav · 2004-04-25 06:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Freenet by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-25 02:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why not put the site on Freenet?

Re:Nuts to them by 2nd+Post! · 2004-04-25 02:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

I wrote this in another post, regarding their terms of sale and terms of service, and it's relevant to your point:

In this case users of Apple's iTunes signed an agreement; signed it with their credit card number, actually, when they first opened their accounts on iTunes! Terms of Sale and Terms of Service.

Specific relevant portions:
Terms of sale:
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.

Terms of service:
b. Security. You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork ("Products"), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors ("Usage Rules"). You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.

and

c. You agree that your purchase of Products constitutes your acceptance of and agreement to use such Products solely in accordance with the Usage Rules, and that any other use of the Products may constitute a copyright infringement. The security technology is an inseparable part of the Products. The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party. Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time.

I'm not saying it's right, only that it is clearly outlined when you gave then your buck.

--

GPL Deconstructed

RTFA before you mod, please by ronmon · 2004-04-25 03:07 · Score: 4, Informative

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 by ronmon · 2004-04-25 04:50 · Score: 2, Informative

Negative.

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

Apple is taking a bad rap for this... by Llywelyn · 2004-04-25 03:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX

Re:Apple is taking a bad rap for this... by bnenning · 2004-04-25 04:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

With FairPlay there is a way to play it under Linux (though yes, there is a loss of quality)

Actually, there were already ways to play iTMS files under Linux with no loss of quality (burn a CD or convert to AIFF). Playfair just lets you retain the compression with no quality loss.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Re:Apple is taking a bad rap for this... by WiseWeasel · 2004-04-25 07:13 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)

"[Fsf-friends] Call the bluff" by sir_cello · 2004-04-25 03:42 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Simply an establishment of precedent by timmi · 2004-04-25 04:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by jimicus · 2004-04-25 04:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

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,

Re:Welcome to Amerikva by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-25 04:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Indian law specifically protects PlayFair by Sanity · 2004-04-25 04:51 · Score: 4, Informative

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!

It sort of works by iamacat · 2004-04-25 05:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

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? by dbc001 · 2004-04-25 05:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

new title by kardar · 2004-04-25 06:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

"Nobody photocopies newspapers" by holygoat · 2004-04-25 06:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

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

It already IS on Freenet by salahx · 2004-04-25 17:56 · Score: 2, Informative

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!

95 of 370 comments (clear)