Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sends Cease-and-Desist To the Hymn Project
Troed writes "Tools for removing DRM from iTunes-purchased songs (myFairTunes7, QtFairUse6) have been available from the Hymn Project Web site for some time. These are legal in many countries. But on the 20th Apple sent a Cease and Desist note to Hymn's ISP, forcing the site admins to remove all download links. It is speculated that this is due to a new tool being created (Requiem) that attacks Apple's FairPlay DRM through cryptographic means instead of by copying the unprotected music from memory while it is being played. But since the tools are no longer available (after several days there are still no public mirrors), discussion around this topic has died out. Many users buy music from the iTunes store and rely on DRM removal to be able to play the content on their mobile phones. Apple may be on dangerous ground here, since those users might now start checking out competing services."
I'd put money on http://www.doubletwist.com/ being next. Given the cross platform, Zune, iTunes etc applications it covers, Doubletwist would be a pretty high profile target to hit with a C & D.
G4 Hackintosh
If someone gets a Cease & Desist letter threatening them with harm if they don't c&d, then fights it in court and shows the C&D was invalid, the court should treat the sender of the C&D letter like any other bully making threats. Fine them, count a strike against the attorney who wrote it (and start disciplining/disbarring them after some number of strikes in some period of time). And find damages to cover the time the recipient had to spend to straighten this out when they weren't wrong.
And when the C&D sender loses such a case, every other recipient of such a letter should be able to file to get the same results applied to their own case, if they can prove it was the same circumstances (which should be cheap, easy and quick if they were indeed the same). That should load up the fines and strikes on the sender and their lawyers.
Which in turn will deter lots of these C&D letters, especially when they're just bluffing (and they know it). Why should a law license and a retainer let these bullies litter the land with their C&D letters that get enforced with just the threat of intimidation, but which don't have a legal leg to stand on (or ever have to demonstrate they do)? They should have to face some consequences for abuse themselves.
--
make install -not war
In my view you can't steal something unless you're depriving the original owner of it's use. Copying is copyright infringement, and whether that's right or wrong is left an an exercise to the individual.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
back OT, back in 1999 (I think, don't remember it exactly), one at my university user was publishing some Windows XP themes created by him which gave Aquas look and feel to XP (OK a far look and feel but anyway). After a week we got 5 (F I V E !!!!) letters in 2 days from Apple's hounds trheating us with legal actions if we don't inmediatelly deleted those icons and themes from our servers.
We obviously deleted them because nobody likes legal problems here for nothing, but anyway, that was overeacting: all other themes from BeOS, OS2/WARP, Super Mario, The Coke theme are still inplace and nobody reacts. Hey, that's free ads for them anyway... But hey, that's Abble for you!
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
So he bashes DRM http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ and then turns around and has his company issue a take down for anti-DRM software? That's awfully two-faced.
A new version of itunes doesn't just come out for bug fixes and enhancements. Apple is well known for both passively and actively combating software that works against their DRM.
I had an itunes plugin awhile ago that mounted a second ipod on your itunes list, with an important difference. You could drag music FROM the second pod to your library. Very neat hack, using apple's built-in plugin architecture for itunes. It didn't break any of the rules.
At that time there were three itunes updates in two weeks. The first two attempted to detect and deactivate the plugin, looking for strings of code from the plugin. Each time the author quickly released a newer version that got around the checks. The third release of itunes in that run looked specifically for the plugin by name, and deactivated it. The author at that point decided he was fighting a battle he wasn't going to win, and stopped releasing updates.
Now while I think he should have kept trying, as the mac users would not have tolerated a new itunes update every week, I see why he did it.
The problem with the torrent isn't that it's hard to distribute an old release, it's that it's hard to keep distributing new updates every week after apple breaks it again. That's why they had a web page for updates, and that's why apple CnD'd it.
The CnD is questionable, and it's very likely there was no legal teeth to it. The text of the CnD is usually just a formality covering up the sabor rattling of a large company that is ready to drag you into a meritless yet expensive lawsuit, to discourage your legal behavior.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
The notion that Apple has to do this because the record companies force them to is patently untrue. If the record companies did not want DRM-free music, then they would not have agreed to let Apple sell DRM-free music.
The fact of the matter is that Apple likes the vendor lock-in they established between their ipod hardware and itunes software; it is a huge money-maker for them, and they will not willingly give up money anytime soon.
That they can simply blame somebody else for their actions ("B-b-but he made me do it!") and other people believe them is a testament to the gullibility of the general public and their blind hatred of faceless corporations. Does anybody really see a difference between "we do what we want or the record companies attack" and "we do what we want or the terrorists attack"?
Record companies provide a convenient scapegoat for Apple to pass their immoral actions off on, and people just eat their shit up with a smile and a defensive attitude.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
I suppose this is a reasonable point to make one thing clear about myself:
I don't hate Apple.
In fact, I rather like them. They make good stuff - both hardware and software - and I enjoy using it.
For what it's worth, Apple is entirely within their rights to request that I cease distribution and development of this software. The WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act (a component of the DMCA), 103, says that "manufacturing" and distributing software (i.e, ffh) to circumvent a protection system (i.e, Fairplay) is illegal. While I don't agree with this law, I don't really have much of a choice but to follow it.
If you disagree with this as well, good. Tell your senator as much. Apple isn't to blame, though.
It's also probably worth considering that Apple is probably bound to pursue any violations. Although I'm certainly not privy to the details of their agreements with record labels, I strongly suspect that one of the terms of those agreements is that Apple must maintain the integrity of the Fairplay system (or - I imagine - risk dire penalties, either in terms of cash penalties or in companies breaking off music licensing contracts). I certainly can't fault them for doing what they've got to do.
I personally bought a ton of music on itunes. Then I switched full time to linux. I used this project to strip drm so I could use my music on my computer. Finally, I needed a good music player for traveling, and I found the ipod shuffle to be in my price range and in a format I liked. So I bought one of those. I was thinking about getting a large iPod for storing all my music. Now I will reconsider. They already lost my business by not supporting the platform I now use, now they will lose my business from their tactics.
To average buyers who think that MP3 is the only audio format in existence it would be like buying a Coke tagged with RFID and the cashier never disabling the RFID tag after the sale or telling the customers about it. When the anti-shoplifting gates beep as the customer tries to take the newly-purchased Coke outside, then the cashier tells the customer that they are only allowed to drink the Coke inside the store, and that going outside to drink it or trying to remove the RFID tag is punishable by 5 years in federal prison.
It's nothing like that. I buy my music from iTunes, to play on the two iPods I have also bought from Apple. However, I would also like to play this music I've paid for on my laptop, which runs Linux. So I remove the DRM. I'm not cracking this music in order to rip anyone off, but in order that I don't get ripped off because I'm a Linux user.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Perhaps I'm atypical, but at least in my case they were far better off for allowing the piracy than they are now. Perhaps we should let them decide that for themselves, rather than deciding what is convenient for us. I recognize that it's unpopular to say so in some circles, but the reality is that if the founding fathers had meant for the situation that we are presently in with perpetual post mortem copyright and tightly controled access to art, they wouldn't have limited the term for a copyright to require the creator renew the copyright periodically.
The media corps., would be just fine if they were to adapt their business plan to invest fewer dollars pushing music and investing those dollars providing innovative ways for fans to find the music that speaks best to them. Rather than having to make a platinum album to turn a profit, the labels would only have to sell a a few thousand to turn a profit.
If they had kept their promise to cut the prices on CDs, noticed that the internet was changing the model or started to pay more attention to the needs of their customers they wouldn't be in the sort of mess they are now.
Piracy will always exist, but piracy in the levels that it has been is really just a sign of extreme sloppiness on the part of the labels to provide a product people want at a price people are willing to pay. Perhaps sometimes that would be $0, and others $20 for a disc, but if it weren't for the club that is the DMCA there'd be a chance that market forces would answert that question without all the piracy.
"you should *never* open a pop/soda, particularly a huge 2l bottle, unless you have chilled it."
Many moons ago I put a large unopened bottle of warm soda in the freezer before starting a BBQ. When I later opened it at the table we watched the cold liquid completely freeze in a surprisingly rapid and regular manner. At first the slush formed a distinct 'freeze line' at the top of the bottle which then quickly worked it's way down to the bottom. The entire contents were frozen in a mtter of seconds.
My soda-less ex-wife was singularly unimpressed by the accidental party trick and sent one of the kids down the street to get another bottle.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Fixed that for you.
GPL code is free to hand out and share.
So we don't mind if people hand it out and share.
When people make money off counterfeit music we call that piracy (still not theft) and we don't like it.
When people make money off counterfeit GPL code (not sharing the code) we call that piracy and we don't like it.
Now, can you see there is no double standard?
Sharing music for money without having paid for the right (in money): Bad
Sharing GPL code for money without having paid for the right (in sharing the code): Bad
Both the same.
And we call NEITHER theft.