Update on Playfair 370
An anonymous reader writes "A few weeks back, Slashdot reported that Apple had sent a cease and desist letter to Sarovar.org, the Indian site hosting the Playfair project. This is the first incident in India where a corporation has used legal means to shut down a Free Software project. Some of the prominent members of the Open Source/Free Software community in India have issued an update on this situation. There is also an interesting post in the FSF-India mailing lists."
Coverage on K5 also. (Score:5, Informative)
P2P-based Savannah/Sarovar? (Score:3, Interesting)
Note: I am not a programmer, so I'm not exactly sure what Savannah/Sarovar/Sourcefo
I for one... (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:2, Insightful)
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. mo
Re:Hmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
"Nobody photocopies newspapers" (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody copied vinyl, whereas people "photocopy" MP3s freely.
Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)
offtopic, but is that book called "II Cybernetic Frontiers"?
If so, there's a relevant quote in there:
This was written in 1974, 30 years ago.
It sort of works (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, we should all reject data that conflicts with our preconceptions. My post was short to draw
It's down? (Score:2, Informative)
Contents of the Letter (playfair.txt) (Score:3, Informative)
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
Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:3, Interesting)
So they acknowledge that the unauthorized copying of music is illegal, and believe a tool that makes an unauthorized copy of the music is not illegal? Because as the author states, Apple already provides a means to permit legal licensees of songs from iTunes to play on non Apple authorized hardware via CD burning (and subsequent re-ripping). This is *authorized* copying. Anything else, then, is unauthorized copying isn't it? Doing a clean decryption of the AAC file would certainly fall into unauthorized copying, according to the terms of use, I think.
So FairPlay's only legal defense is that it isn't illegal to write such a tool, only illegal to use such a tool...
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:2)
Now I Apple would use their time to setup a shop to sell to EU, that would be better use of their time.
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:4, Insightful)
Copying? The tool specifically takes a song you have bought, the key that you have bought to play that song, applies the key to the song and uses it to remove the DRM. Lets say that I delete the original file afterwards, in which case the net IP "possession" is unchanged: I have one instance of a song I bought, only now I am no longer beholden to the artifical monopoly of things-capable-of-playing-this-song.
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying this is right or wrong, since I believe it's perfectly within Fair Use to make a decrypted copy. What happens if Apple goes out of business? What happens if I don't have a suitable network connection to authorize my Macs? I paid for the music, and do have some right to listen to it at 100% quality.
However, all I am stating is the strict legality of the situation. Owning this tool isn't illegal, but using it is. I don't know, however, that is enough under Indian law to get them knocked off the servers.
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:5, Interesting)
> I'm not saying this is right or wrong, since I believe it's perfectly within
> Fair Use to make a decrypted copy. What happens if Apple goes out of
> business? What happens if I don't have a suitable network connection to
> authorize my Macs? I paid for the music, and do have some right to listen to
> it at 100% quality.
>
> However, all I am stating is the strict legality of the situation. Owning
> this tool isn't illegal, but using it is. I don't know, however, that is
> enough under Indian law to get them knocked off the servers.
Since when making a copy for purposes covered under fair use provisions (as you stated yourself) is illegal?
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:3, Insightful)
I put this on the same level as the "subsidized" price for game consoles with the understanding that you are going to use the de
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a heck of a "loss-leader" (but I do get the gist of your post).
- Nex
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely nothing. But getting governments to enforce that business model is another matter.
I haven't got a clue about Indian law.. (Score:5, Interesting)
And regardless of what you might think, tools are hardly outlawed anywhere but in the US, due to the DMCA. I can make a key that fits your front door, and only your front door, which has no other purpose. It's still not illegal until I use it to gain unauthorized entry.
That brings up an interesting question, given that there's a strong legal precedent in Norway, why isn't it hosted somewhere there? I'd love to see if they'd have the balls to try another DVD-Jon style case before the EUCD (aka the Euro-DMCA) is in place...
Kjella
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:2, Interesting)
what would you think if you went to a shop to buy a cd writer from sony and the writer would state that it is only legal to write on sony blanks even if it is technical possible to use this device to write others
or a car manufacturer say you have no right to give someone a lift which does not belong to your family
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:5, Insightful)
All sales of Apple's music have implicit contracts, which you should have read before purchasing. There is authorized copying, which is streaming to three machines, converting m4p->CD->MP3 or m4a, and then there is unauthorized copying, which is streaming to unlimited machines and converting from m4p->m4a.
You can argue Fair Use, but they can argue that you willingly agreed to their contract, and all they are doing is enforcing it through vague laws.
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [apple.com] and Terms of Service [apple.com].
Specific relevant portions:
Terms of sale:
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to,
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:2)
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
new title (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:4, Interesting)
So making a m4p -> CD -> MP3 is authorized, but making an m4p -> m4a is unauthorized. The law this tool violates is contract law, I think.
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:2)
I agree that this isn't *sufficient*, but on the other hand, the way this contract works, is you trust Apple with your credit card number and they trust you with their AAC files. It's not an empty promise here. Apple has your credit card number! That they hold up their side of the contract is very important. That you hold your side... a little less, but I can see why they do this. This is, I think, mostly a paper defense against the RIAA. Apple doesn't care what you do, b
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:2)
The user totally has a right to decrypt their AAC file, I believe. All I am saying is Apple's stance (for better or worse, right or wrong) isn't without some justification.
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:3, Informative)
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,
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:2, Funny)
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 p
easy way to keep the project active (Score:3, Interesting)
Sealand (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:easy way to keep the project active (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:easy way to keep the project active (Score:2, Informative)
Why is Apple involved with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is Apple involved with this? (Score:2)
Re:Why is Apple involved with this? (Score:2)
Re:Why is Apple involved with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is Apple involved with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, content distributor, and a software company.
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).
Again, it's the method not the content.
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? (Score:3, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 beca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Software Lock-in (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
You might find this plugin [winamp.com] quite helpful. This thread [winamp.com] has more info.
Re:Software Lock-in (Score:2)
Let's face it... (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
They're at least as grass roots as the ACLU.
Anyway, you say that as if the 2nd Amendment portion of the Bill of Rights wasn't a civil right.
Join the ACLU & EFF to support Amendments 1 and 3-9. Join the NRA and GOA to support Amendment 2. Amendment 10 gets ignored selectively by everyone, unfortunately.
Re:Let's face it... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 w
Re:Let's face it... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 mu
RTFA before you mod, please (Score:5, Informative)
A "cracker-program"? Hardly. Just a snippet from the sarovar response:
So read it and think again.Re:RTFA before you mod, please (Score:3, Informative)
It allows you to do the same thing with fewer steps.
Re:Let's face it... (Score:2)
I am assuming that you said this just to incide a response. I'll bite. The NRA IS a grass-roots group. The vast majority of our 3+ million members are regular everyday people.
Remember Bill Clinton's 1995 State of the Union address? He did all but name us when he gave a reason for the Republican takeover of the House and Senate. We pay taxes and we vote.
LK
The NRA isn't about the 2nd adm anymore (Score:2)
Press Release - Is the NRA Serious from Gary Gorski, attorney for Silveira Plaintiffs August 26, 2003 [filed here late due to site being down] [Additional analysis by Angel Shamaya below press release]
The NRA issued the following press release:
NRA Files Brief with the Supreme Court in Silveira v. Lockyer The National Rifle Association (NRA) has filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Silveira v. L
Freenet? (Score:3, Interesting)
We will fight them on the beaches... (Score:3, Funny)
Opps, wrong war.
This is what they want to stop (Score:2, Funny)
Fair use? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Nuts to them (Score:2)
However, it also seems that when you buy the song from Apple, you are basically agreeing to their contract by giving them your money. So, while you might not be breaking copyright law, you probably still can't do this because you're breaki
Re:Nuts to them (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [apple.com] and Terms of Service [apple.com].
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 th
must be legal off the coast of New Zealand (Score:5, Informative)
Read the "Terms Of Service" (Score:5, Informative)
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" (Score:2)
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 brea
Re:Read the "Terms Of Service" (Score:2, Interesting)
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. Ma
Re:Read the "Terms Of Service" (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Read the "Terms Of Service" (Score:2, Insightful)
I haven't been thinking about the problem that long but I can't figure ANYTHING out.
Re:Read the "Terms Of Service" (Score:2, Interesting)
JUST BECAUSE YOU AGREE TO THEIR EULA DOESNT MAKE IT ENFORCEABLE.
Re:Read the "Terms Of Service" (Score:2)
Re:Read the "Terms Of Service" (Score:4, Insightful)
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" (Score:4, Interesting)
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" (Score:5, Informative)
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" (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, whether that's legally enforceable and under what jurisdiction it
Re:Read the "Terms Of Service" (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree. I also agree that the proper penalty for violating a contract should be actual damages suffered. In the case an iTunes customer using Playfair that would be $0.
Re:Read the "Terms Of Service" (Score:2)
Re:Read the "Terms Of Service" (Score:2)
They should get their facts straight (Score:4, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
And why? To please big media, otherwise they would not venture into this internet selling thingy, posts explain. Anyone who does not accept the control big media is forcing upon buyers is a damn dirty pirate, responsible for the thousands of plagues in the world and puts 'us' in a bad light. The brainwashing is apparently working.
Really, what's the difference between deCSS and PlayFair? I don't recall anyone posting that Jon Johansen was guilty.
Re:What scares me... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:What scares me... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Howe
Re:What scares me... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What scares me... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Freenet (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple is taking a bad rap for this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple knows this technology is completely irrelevant, that it is "no big deal" from a technical standpoint and they expected something like this to be created from the beginning (Steve Jobs said exactly this--that they couldn't protect digital content).
As a *political* move, however, it makes a lot of sense. They aren't actually suing people RIAA style and I doubt it will ever come to that--instead they are just shutting down the servers that host it via C&D letters. If they didn't do this, they would be at risk of the music labels deciding that they aren't doing enough to protect their interests and *backing out*.
If you get this off P2P or FreeNet then good for you, you are an irrelevant statistic as far as Apple is concerned.
The comparisons to DeCSS really miss the point. DeCSS was big in part because there was no way to watch DVDs under Linux and because the MPAA really wasn't expecting it and tried to shut it down completely. With FairPlay there is a way to play it under Linux (though yes, there is a loss of quality) and they did expect it, so what they are doing is protecting their interests with the RIAA by giving a good go at it.
It doesn't matter if they "succeed" so long as they are actively pursuing it to the extent of the law.
Re:Apple is taking a bad rap for this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, there were already ways to play iTMS files under Linux with no loss of quality (burn a CD or convert to AIFF). Playfair just lets you retain the compression with no quality loss.
Re:Apple is taking a bad rap for this... (Score:3, Informative)
"[Fsf-friends] Call the bluff" (Score:3, Informative)
Indian law specifically protects PlayFair (Score:5, Informative)
Re:play fair or else. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Simply an establishment of precedent (Score:3, Interesting)