Apple Hunts Playfair in India 782
An anonymous reader writes "A news posting at Sarovar.org says that they have to take down the 'PlayFair' program upon receiving a notice from Apple's attorneys. They are awaiting their attorneys' response. This is bad news for all those who appreciated this cool program. Let's hope that 'PlayFair' might appear in some other country now."
Preferably a country with fat pipes... (Score:5, Informative)
And again, if you put up a public (foo)Forge, make sure you have a Terms of Service [rubyforge.org] document to cover this sort of thing.
They could move PlayFair to Afghanistan... (Score:5, Funny)
Ba-doom-boom-crash!
Time for the /. IANAL to begin (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not familiar with what they are referring to. Is that Indian law, or are they doing some cross-ocean hand-waving and hoping Sarovar doesn't notice?
Re:Time for the /. IANAL to begin (Score:3, Informative)
Probably relates to this, too...
Re:Time for the /. IANAL to begin (Score:5, Informative)
>
Both are Indian laws. FWIW, Indian law is largely based upon English common law. It's quite common for Indian courts to cite English and US Court judgement in their judgements. (India's tradition of of law interpretation is one reason why India has been considered a "safer" IP outsourcing destination than, say, China).
One thing that Indian courts don't have (very apparent in criminal trials) is a jury. (It had one to begin with, it was abandoned after it was found prone to abuse) The judge alone hears arguments and interprets the law.
Too little ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Mind you, I don't think it's such a terrible thing for them that they can't. It's not like you can get any old AAC and remove the DRM - only ones you own. So this is no different to CD ripping with its associated risks of ripped files being shared on P2P networks.
Re:Too little ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep in mind that everything Apple has done has been to remove the program, not to go after the author.
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The way people are talking here, it is ok if you bought a box of GPL software, decided it had commercial potential then released it. I make the comparison becasue, like the GPL, in the itunes system, you understand clearly what you agree to when you get it.
How is violating the itunes licence (that being you can share it with 3 machines, unliited ipods yada yada yada) different from voilating the GPL?
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
No, the way people are talking here, you got a box of GPL software, made changes and then installed a binary copy on your friend's machine, but intended for your own use only. Then, you refused to release the changes, saying it's fair use, not redistribution.
There are all kinds of rights users get in addition to license - fair use, first sale doctrine, lemon law. It's good w
Re:No. I bought the song (Score:3, Informative)
As a matter of fact, YES YOU CAN (within the limits of copyright law). The GPL places no restrictions on use and does not require that you accept it to use the program. If you want to redistribute it, however, you would be breaking copyright law unless you accept the license. In the case of Apple's DRM, removing the DRM on songs you have purchased is certainly covered under fair use. If you then decide to distrib
Fine by me. (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone who's concerned about what little DRM Apple has put in the ITMS files can just burn it to an audio cd (on a rewritable disc) and then rip it to MP3. It's what my girlfriend and I do.
(besides, I could never get the win32 version of this program to do anything other than spit out the help file)
Re:Fine by me. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a iTMS customer, but I care about this program.
It's the thin end of the wedge, and we need to be reacting to these DMCA takedowns. I don't see any reason for someone to be unable to choose to distribute the source code to any program that they have created. I want to protect this idea as a fundamental principle because otherwise more companies or "industry groups" will erode it and attack other free software projects.
We shouldn't be in a position where pe
What's the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have one of the original 5 gig iPods that I use on a daily basis. I may be one of the "converted" or "brainwashed" or whatever you'd like to say, but I don't see what's so wrong with the minmal DRM that Apple chose to use.
If I want, I can burn my songs to a CD. And play them in my car. Or in my house. Or at work. Or in a portable CD player.
If I want, I can put these songs on my iPod and listen to them wherever I go.
If I want, I can listen to these songs on my computer using iTunes.
I've yet to find a gross infraction upon my rights to do with the music as I wish.
BitTorrent mirror for PlayFair (Score:5, Informative)
Re:BitTorrent mirror for PlayFair (Score:3, Informative)
http://btiteam.bttracker.co.uk/download.php?id=38
Why use a GUI when you can run an itunes script? (Score:5, Interesting)
This applescript will peruse the selected playlist for protected AAC songs, run the tracks through PlayFair, and add the stripped songs to a new playlist. This is for your own fair use...please don't ruin it for the rest of us and make your songs available on P2P networks.
*)
global protectedTracksFound
global newPlaylist
--initialize playList
tell me to set newPlaylist to ""
-- initialize protectedTracksFound flag
tell me to set protectedTracksFound to false
display dialog "This script will search for Protected AAC tracks in the selected playlist and prepare them for your own personal Fair Use...such as moving them to a non-iPod portable music player...by stripping the DRM. The original, protected, tracks will not be affected. DON'T STEAL MUSIC!"
-- Create/Set the new playlist for the converted tracks
tell me to handleNewPlaylist()
-- Begin search and conversion process
tell application "iTunes"
set oldFI to fixed indexing
set fixed indexing to true
set thePlaylist to a reference to view of front window
repeat with i from 1 to (count of tracks in thePlaylist)
set theTrack to track i of thePlaylist
with timeout of 300000 seconds
try
tell theTrack
if the kind of theTrack contains "Protected" then
set protectedTracksFound to true
set fileLoc to location as string
display dialog (("Converting '" & name of theTrack as string) & "'") giving up after 1
tell me to callPlayFair(fileLoc)
end if
end tell
end try
end timeout
end repeat
set fixed indexing to oldFI
if protectedTracksFound is false then
display dialog "No protected AAC tracks were found in the selected playlist. Please choose a playlist with at least one Protected AAC track and try again." with icon 0 giving up after 10
error number -128
else
display dialog "Finished! Your music has been set free!" buttons {"Thanks"} default button 1 giving up after 10
end if
end tell
-- Conversion subroutine
to callPlayFair(useFile)
tell application "iTunes"
set protectedAACPath to (POSIX path of useFile as string)
set freeAACPath to (POSIX path of (text 1 thru -5 of useFile) & ".m4a") as string
set writingFile to false
do shell script "usr/local/bin/playfair '" & protectedAACPath & "' '" & freeAACPath & "'"
tell me to addToNewPlaylist(freeAACPath)
end tell
end callPlayFair
-- add track to the output playlist subroutine
on addToNewPlaylist(freeTrack)
set newTrack to (POSIX file freeTrack)
tell application "iTunes"
add newTrack to newPlaylist
end tell
end addToNewPlaylist
-- Create or set output playlist subroutine
on handleNewPlaylist()
copy (display dialog "Add converted files to a playlist named:" default answer
"FairPlay Free" buttons {"OK"} default button 1 with icon 1
giving up after 300) to newPlaylistPrompt
set newPlaylistName to (text returned of newPlaylistPrompt)
tell application "iTunes"
if user playlist newPlaylistName exists then
set newPlaylist to a reference to user playlist named newPlaylistName
else
copy (make new playlist with properties {name:newPlaylistName}) to newPlaylist
end if
end tell
end handleNewPlaylist
Re:Why use a GUI when you can run an itunes script (Score:3, Informative)
do shell script "usr/local/bin/playfair '" & protectedAACPath & "' '" & freeAACPath & "'"
I could be wrong...it's been working for me without it. Sorry about that. But the script works!
The laws are Indian (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The laws are Indian (Score:3, Informative)
Post it on Freenet (Score:3, Interesting)
But I guess these guys could always post it on Freenet - let's see them trying to pull it off then!
Perhaps Apple Should Make iTunes for Linux/Unix (Score:5, Insightful)
If Apple developed iTunes (and iPod drivers) for Linux and Unix, perhaps the number of people trying to circumvent the DRM would decrease.
As it stands, you can only buy online music if you use Windows or Mac OS X --a set up that accounts for 98% of computer users, maybe, but obviously the remaining 2% (Unix/Linux users) know how to code.
C'mon Apple, OS X is "based on Unix", so how hard could it be to port iTunes over to Linux and Unix? If you really want to set an online music standard (and possibly reduce OSS-attempts at circumvention), you gotta give Linux some love.
Re:Perhaps Apple Should Make iTunes for Linux/Unix (Score:3, Informative)
Because Linux doesn't have Aqua. I doubt iTunes makes much use of any particular underlying UNIX features. It does use a particular toolkit (Aqua) designed to run on a particular graphics engine (which sure as hell isn't X11) using NeXT APIs (Objective-C based equivalent
Re:Perhaps Apple Should Make iTunes for Linux/Unix (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps Apple Should Make iTunes for Linux/Unix (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Perhaps Apple Should Make iTunes for Linux/Unix (Score:3, Insightful)
And it wouldn't reduce circumvention attempts, as it would be exposed even more to the "everything
Re:Perhaps Apple Should Make iTunes for Linux/Unix (Score:3, Insightful)
they don't want to use the media on a Windows or Macintosh computer
I really want to use iMovie and Sherlock, but I don't want to use them on a Macintosh, I like my Windows machine. I'm out of luck. There's nothing forcing Apple to make Windows versions of this software because I want it. If I want it bad enough, I have to buy a Mac. Just as a company can't force you to buy something, you as a customer can't force them to make something!
Again, I agree, in an ideal world..
That's just a stupid rationale (Score:3, Insightful)
So in order to use Playfair, you're already a mac or PC user anyhow.
Despite my anti-DRM stance... (Score:3, Interesting)
They're the lesser of evils, and I'd rather have them than proprietary formats and players that only work on one OS. *Cough*WMV, Windows Media Player*Cough*
Though I'm glad WMP only works on Windows - other platforms don't endure the horror.
Whatever happened to the interoperability clause? (Score:3, Interesting)
This paragraph (Section (f)(2) [cornell.edu]) seems to explicitly allow applications like playfair, which have a primary use of enabling someone who has legally purchased a song to make use of it on other devices:I'm not addressing the questions of whether the user is legally bound enough by the EULA that they can't *use* playfair, only asking whether, technically, playfair is in fact covered by this clause and therefore not subject to a "DMCA takedown."
If so, then sourceforge should be able to distribute it with no repercussions, and Apple could return to (1) going after people who distribute playfair'd tracks, or (2) going after people in civil court for contract violations pertaining to the EULA.
Of course, if anyone were to call Apple on this (and had the $$ and time to do so), and if Apple were to realize halfway through that they'd lose, then they'd just withdraw their C&D letter, pulling the rug out from under the defendants (who'd lose standing as a result) (yes, pun intended), and so no precedent would be set. Just like happened with the RIAA and, was it, Felten?
next country candidates? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or how about the Norway? The courts there said that DeCSS (AAC-DRM is to music as CSS is to video) didn't infringe, especially since the intent of the utility was not to make illegal distribution but to enable normal use on unsupported systems (OS's).
One way (and better than what they did) to get rid of Playfair is for Apple to release a Linux player to eliminate the main legal objective for PlayFair.
O yea, as for that first post [slashdot.org] that essentially says "Take it or leave it,"
So many people missing (a lot of) the point (Score:3, Interesting)
Think "iTunes store for Linux".
Think Open Source iTunes store for Linux.
Think someone reverse-engineering the protocol for iTunes store and allowing music to be downloaded - AND PAID FOR - on a Linux computer using only Open Source software.
That would be a big deal. Apple's never going to do it. Playfair is necessary (but not sufficient) to make it happen.
Furthermore, it's probably the only way that I'd ever use iTunes store. I haven't decided for sure whether I'd consider using a binary proprietary iTunes release for Linux, but I certainly won't be using a Windows or Mac version.
The Open Source client could even enforce the DRM when used unmodified - I'd still use it, and I wouldn't hack the source to remove it. Probably some people would, but those people already have Playfair anyway. I have no need to bypass those restrictions, but I do need a Linux client if I'm going to use the thing at all.
So in a small way, Playfair would allow Apple to make a little more money (by selling to Linux users - a small but not non-existent, and growing market) without costing them a cent in development costs.
I just don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Gotta love a whole generation of people who have nothing better to do then get all up in arms because *gasp* you change the file format on a product you already own. Lastly of course my favorite response is when people say its "O.K," if you go from digital->digital(CD)->digital but not if you go from digital->digital(Playfair)->digital. If the end result is the same what the heck is the difference besides one method being slightly easier than the other. Oh right, the whole "not in accordance to manufacturer guidelines"...
Sorry you think Playfair ruined your favorite incarnation of DRM. If this makes you uncomfortable you better get out of computing now because it just going to get worse.
btw I understand you can do this with Applescript as well. So is Apple going to sue Apple now?
DRM maintains the status quo (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me quote Cory Doctorow here, who is fond of saying:
No consumer ever woke up in the morning and said "you know, I want to do less with my music today".
For me, it's the principle of the thing. If you look at the last hundred and fifty years of technological development, copyright regularly gets broken. It's happened again with peer-to-peer file sharing networks.
DRM represents and maintains the status quo. Artists still get shafted while studios make more profit and we get less control over the music we 'own'. Furthermore, it endorses instead of punsihing an industry that refuses, again and again, to embrace technological change. Alternatives like voluntary collective licensing of music file sharing [eff.org] offer a way forward.
In my view, buying from the iTunes store is a tacit approval of the music industry and its appalling treatment of its consumers over the past five years. Me, I'm waiting for a paradigm shift.
Another Country? (Score:3, Funny)
Let's hope that 'PlayFair' might appear in some other country now.
In Soviet Russia, Apple plays fair!
NotFair (Score:3, Interesting)
The current strategy definitely does not live up to the name "PlayFair."
Why are you championing this product? (Score:3, Troll)
I am so damn sick of hearing "just burn CDs" (Score:4, Insightful)
PlayFair allows you to strip the annoying DRM from the M4P files while preserving the metadata. Those of you saying "burn and re-rip" are missing the point. Time is a finite resourse and PlayFair makes the converting process MUCH quicker, so you can spend time enjoying your music instead of messing with it.
You can then use a utility like the free dBpowerAMP with an AAC plug-in to convert to LAME MP3, WMA or even OGG, while still preserving the metadata. The last step is to use an MP3/WMA/OGG tag utility program to use the metadata to rename the file to something more meaningful than ITMS's default "[track] [title].m4a"
I've converted over 151 protected iTunes tracks this way so I could play them on my MuVo2. With the WinAmp AAC plugin, I can also play my iTunes purchases on my old laptop that still runs Windows 98. Thank you PlayFair!
Freenet! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Apple Playing Fair (Score:3, Informative)
As another poster pointed out, they didn't specify *what* laws they were going to do anything. They merely said that if they didn't take it down, they would begin reviewing what legal options they had available to them. Maybe they don't have any, maybe they do - but if I had Apple's lawyers on my back I might want to take it down too until I found out they had no chance of touching me.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
The Microsoft-Apple Comparison FAQ (Score:3, Insightful)
A: The rules for a CONVICTED CRIMINAL MONOPOLIST should be -- and are -- stricter than those for a fairly competing business.
*****
If Apple successfully squashes all other sellers of digital music (or personal computers, or whatever), then yes, they should be morally condemned for closed policies. Maybe even legally force them to open up their system. But that "if" has not happened yet.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
And the more Apple tries to stuff it back in, the more attention they draw to the futility or DRM and the existence of playfair.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
more likely Apple moves to stricter controls to keep the record companies from pulling content from iTunes
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
http://students.washington.edu/joshuadf/decss/ [washington.edu]
Use responsibly.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
You're fooling yourself if you think that you must distribute binaries of a copy-protection circumvention application. The 2600 guys were successfully prevented from hyperlinking to sites with the source code. That's right. There is precedent for /. to be sued for leaving your comment in this discussion, based on the DMCA.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
What's next? Not being allowed to speak the name of copyrighted material since it could give pirates an idea that they can download it?
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
In any case, THIS IS EXEMPT! Read the DMCA under 6 exemptions:
2. Reverse engineering (section 1201(f)). This exception permits circumvention, and the development of technological means for such circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability with other programs, to the extent that such acts are permitted under copyright law.
PlayFair is needed to allow us to use the protected work in hardware that does not support the FairPlay encryption scheme. While I might not bet my life on that, it at least is a good place to start in challenging this (as well as in the case for DVD's).
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
Some court decisions, some laws, are just plain wrong. Forbidding people to look at a web site by refusing permission to anyone to link to it is wrong. I don't care about legal; it's wrong.
Streeeeetching for an example: jury nullification. Juries actually have four verdict options.
1. Guilty
2. Not guilty.
3. No verdict (hung in a tie, or unable to reach majority).
4. NULLIFICATION. The jury can decide that, although the defendant is guilty of violating the law, the law itself is wrong.
I don't know what happens as a result of 4: guilty? not guilty? I do know that judges do not want such an outcome, and as far as I know never inform the jury that they can decide in that manner.
There is civil disobediance, of course, but you can go to jail or be fined. Juries aren't charged for nullification.
Let's say that in this case I am nullifying the legal decision. No precedent on the books, but plenty in real life. People speed. People take mood enhancing drugs. They end-ran Prohibition. They copy music. Bush is sandbagging the Plame investigators. Cheney won't give up notes to energy policy meetings that he should. They don't think of themselves as criminals as they do all these felonious things. They effectively nullify the law.
So tho there is precedent, I agree, in that court ruling, I deny the validity of the decision. I have lots of company.
And the parent poster is simply not guilty of linking to the code: he's hosting the source, making it available for downloard. He's past the 2600 decision, and out in another dimension.
Not that it stopped me from downloading it. I don't like being told by whatever power that I can't read forbidden text.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that counts as the best possible outcome we can achieve in the current legal climate - That we can download it regardless of legality. Apple wants to squash it, and in trying to do so, have guaranteed it immortality (almost a software equivalent of martyrdom).
Personally, I downloaded it because of the legality, as I have done with several similar programs (DeCSS, Waste, PadLock, etc) in the past. I don't even have an iPod, nor an iTMS account, nor will I ever (I would rather pay a few bucks more for a physical CD of the music, and keep all my own ripped music as OGGs, not AACs). But because Apple decided to go after them, I grabbed a copy.
You could call this "petulant" if you wanted, but really, what more can we do? "Civic Duty" advocates might say "vote". Market-focused individuals would say "vote with your dollar". But put simply, neither of those matters, nor does any other action I could take. "The little guy", ie, almost all of us, has absolutely no say in what the government or corporate America does, we can at best try to poke sticks into the chinks in their legal armor.
I do have to wonder, though - Why has Apple gone after PlayFair, but not VideoLan (which can also remove FairPlay, though taking just a bit more effort)? I do have a theory on that - VideoLan's ability comes directly from "DVD Jon", who already won (in his own country) a very similar precedent-setting case - Namely, over DeCSS. If Apple went after him, his lawyer would just point to his earlier victory and call it a day.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A few thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
If this is true, and I sincerely hope it is NOT, then perhaps online music stores shouldn't exist at all.
As of this moment we have a legal, cheap, and DRM free way to get music: buy used CDs.
Everyone here seems to only be concerned with moving forward and having online music stores as soon as possible... what they don't realize is that because of the DRM we are moving BACKWARD. All the freedoms that we HAD with regular retail don't exist with the online stores, and already music companies are starting to experiment with DRM on regular CDs.
So here is what I say: buy CDs or don't buy music at all. If you choose to use these services because they are convenient or whatever then you are just saying to the corporations: "I will take any crap that you want to give me as long as I get exactly what I want right now"
Sounds kind of childish, doesn't it?
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yes they did.
Is not an "intellectual appeal", it's a threat to make them spend the rest of their lives in court and/or be bankrupted. It's one step removed from a horse's head in the bed.Re:A few thoughts (Score:4, Informative)
The laws cited are Indian. (If it were US, they'd be talking DMCA.)
Re:A few thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
So, DRM is either wrong or right. Acceptance of "some" DRM is acceptance of DRM. If you really wish to choose not to accept DRM technology, you must not accept it at all. By accepting Apple's DRM as acceptable, you are in essence accepting DRM technology.
"I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good." - Mar
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
Suggesting that DRM is a black/white right/wrong issue is pretty ridiculous. You no doubt would love to protect your own rights to things you have of value (you do lock up your valuables... right?). Are you suggesting that because I have a moral problem with the idea of things being locked up, and found a site that allows me to successfully pick any MasterLock, that it's now perfectly OK for me to come by when you're not home, pick the lock, and take what doesn't belong to me?
I can agree/disagree with the IMPLEMENTATION of DRM in this case, or I can say that it's a mixed bag. In my opinion, it's a mixed bag, and people who are going out of their way to circumvent the MINIMAL DRM on iTunes are simply looking for a way to justify immoral/illegal behavior.
Tim
Re:A few thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm so SICK TO DEATH of people comparing IP "piracy" with theft of physical goods.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
If I break into your home, and steal your TV, you are out a TV. If I use a special HU Card or what-have-you to "steal" satalite TV, strangely enough, your satelite TV still works.
If I download a movie with BitTorrent, share a song with Kazaa, put some games up on eMule, paste a
Copyright infringement is much different from theft, in that IT DOESN'T DENY the "victim" of WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY HAD.
So yes, go ahead and "break into" my p2p share folder, and "steal" whatever you like. In fact, I encourage it. But leave my TV alone. I only have one of them.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A few thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
powerful rhetorical device for deluding your readers, so, congratulations.
There is NO USEFUL ANALOGY between the use of physical locks and the use of DRM in iTunes.
The purpose of DRM is to rob the public domain
for personal gain. The purpose of a padlock is
to protect personal property from public depredations. They are OPPOSITES.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Funny)
President Bush? Is that you? If so, I hope to god you are not "the next president."
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
And therefore you have 2 choices, to subscribe to the iTMS or not.
It is NOT ethical to subscribe to the iTMS (and thus, agree to the EULA) with the full intent of violating what you are agreeing to. Same deal as GPL violators.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be the 'Same deal as GPL violators' if someone set up their own webshop, copied and sold iTMS content.
EULA's may, or may not, be enforcable. It's by no means a certain thing, and in the case of Apples EULA for iTMS it goes straight up against the First Sales Doctrine, which means that copyright law can very well trump the contract EULA trying to limit buyers rights beyond what copyright law permits them.
It's not even close to the 'same deal'.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
There will always be someone who believes that the easiest way to get ahead is t
Don't buy from iTunes, asshat, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A few thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Apple did good job balancing the demands of the copyright holders with the wants of the people.
3. The heart of the issue. Legally Apple is 100% right here but ethically I believe they are lacking, just because it is law does not make it ethical (Jim Crow laws for example).
4. Dang make me read the article will you . They were "nice" only because they didnt have the legal leverage to do anything else.
5. Hmm, I would define br
Re:A few thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
Now I get to tell you you're dead wrong.
Sadly this must reappear tilll we get it straight (Score:5, Funny)
A SLASHDOT FLOWCHART EXCLUSIVE
Start:
Did a corporation use Was the encryption--Y-->Did someone break
encryption to prevent-Y->in question the encryption and
their customers from pathetically weak? post source code
fairly using purchases? |
N-------N---<------<----N----<--+----<
| \ Y
N<------N----<---Did the corporation Did this new<--+
| use the DMCA in a<--Y-software enable
| Was the<--Y--failed attempt to fair use?
| corporation suppress the source
| Apple(tm)(R)? code as free speech?
| | |
| Yes +No-->Oh my God those assholes! It's time we put this source
|_ | code on a T-shirt! Time to contribute to the author's
\ / legal defense fund! Time to call our senator and tell
No big deal! him to repeal the evil, flawed DMCA! Time
Time to play "Quake!!!" to practice "civil disobedience!". Time
to write "distributed peer to peer"
corporate-subversion software! Time to call for a radical reform
of copyright laws! Time to decry Palladium(tm)(R) design and
distribution as a grand scheme to put us under the lock and key
of DRM! Time to raid DVD-Jon's jail cell with Dimitri as lead
commando! Time to hack Hillary Rosen's web site and deface statues
of Jack Valenti! Quick buy another 2600 T-Shirt!
By the way, wouldn't it be great if Devo was 99c a song?
God I still remember the HACKER MANIFESTO!!!!
Re:Sadly this must reappear tilll we get it straig (Score:4, Insightful)
Folks, Apple isn't getting special treatment - if any other music store had come out with similar universal licensing terms, interface, and products, we'd say the same things. The fact is that NO ONE HAS.
Microsoft is the company that gets special treatment of another kind - everything they do is viewed with suspicion. However, there's a good reason for that - they have a long history of manipulating the market and twisting everything to their own ends whether or not that benefits consumers. Apple, meanwhile (and a great many other companies), have a history of doing things expressly for the benefit of their customers.
Look at IBM. People used to view them the same as we view Microsoft today, and for good reason. Then they changed, and after years and years (over a decade's worth) of just creating great technology, contributing to the community and other "good works", IBM is viewed as a positive company. Apple has created great technology, contributed to the community (Darwin, KHTML contribs, expanding the reach of UNIX-kind) and other "good works". Microsoft has created lots of crappy technology, stifled and attacked the community (even its own) and engaged in criminal business practices time and time again, and been convicted!
So get off your high horse about people being mindless followers of Apple. Apple has every reason to have its followers, supporters, and admirers.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
So, however odious these moves might be to some (doesn't affect me, I don't use Playfair or anticipate the need for it), Apple is probably legally required to defend its rights in this matter. Complain to the music c
Re:Do this instead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do this instead (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Do this instead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A few thoughts more (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple exists to serve... it does NOT serve to exist. Why push Music and Garageband? Serve a market. Why push iMovie and create iDVD? Serve a market. Why create a niche hardware item like the iSight? Serve with the BEST camera and the best solution for video conferencing. Gateway for instance - they build computers to make a profit - no innovation - nothing special - they serve to exist!
This is the REAL disadvantage to releasing programs
Re:A few thoughts more (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell that to the stockholders.
Re:A few thoughts more (Score:3, Insightful)
There's never really been a true communist society, but the idea that everything is free ain't communist. Marx thought everyone was entitled to equality of wages (whether this compensation is in the form of money or goods and services is beside the point). Taking someone's work without consent and depriving them of their wage is simple theft.
It's not romatic, idealistic, or civil diso
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has a lot more resouces than most people and can make good on their threats.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple used to have service manuals for their old Macs on ftp.apple.com, with no passwords. But if anyone even gave a link to them in any Mac discussion group they had very heavy legal threats using "copyright" and "trade secret" language that made all the site and list owners immedaitely delete the articles. Again, these were simply links to documents freely available on Apple's own site, for obsolete machines that would cost more than they were worth to take to a repair centre -- even for trivial (once you see the diagrams) tasks like replacing the motherboard battery.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A few thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
So the onus is on _you_ to explain why, in India, PlayFair is _illegal_.
FP.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
One other thing I just thought of. Why is Apple the one going after this program? They are not the ones who wrote the FairPlay DRM. Do they even own the copyrights? It would be kinda funny if they have no legal right to enforce the copyrights.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with getting free music. All of the songs available on iTunes are freely available anywhere else on the Internet. Nobody is breaking iTunes' DRM for the purpose of "stealing": You have to pay for the song before you even get the chance to break the DRM.
No, the reason it's been broken, and the reason I am applauding their efforts to continue to do so, is because Fairplay isn't fair for me. I can't listen to it on portable MP3 players other than iPod. I can't put the files on my server and freely play them from any computer. I can't play them from standalone hardware players. I can't burn a hundred of them to a CD in data format and pop that disc in my in-car MP3 player.
These are for legally purchased songs that I own, and I should be able to do what I please with them. Playfair solves this.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if you know that iTMS downloads don't meet your needs and are not compatible with whatever mp3 player you want, why did you buy anything from iTMS?
The restrictions and usefulness of what you get for 99 cents are clearly and unambiguously disclosed before purchase. The terms are good enough for a great many people. There's really no need for PlayFair.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
A copyright holder has rights over distribution. They have no rights on usage and monitoring after they sell a copyrighted work. What right does Apple or the RIAA/MPAA have to control how you use their copyrighted work? They have none.
I personally have never used iTMS (or any other music store) and never will until DRM is removed (which may never happen). I cannot understand how people don't care about these companies telling them how they can use a product after they make a purchase. Do people put up with this for other industries? Would you buy a car from Ford that only allowed one person at a time and had security devices to try to enforce that rule? What if Ford sold a car that would only work on Sundays? Would you put up with that? I don't think most people would. Yet, they bend over for software and media companies and let their fair use right be stripped away. Now some end-user is fighting to keep their fair use rights and you call them a theif? How stupid of you.
On the contrary: friendly and smart (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that being able to...
- play the music on three different computers
- play the music on an unlimited number of iPods
- burn any and all music to CD an unlimited number of times, stripping all DRM, and then play anywhere (or rerip in any format, transcoding losses [which I myself can't detect] aside)
It's not incompetence at all. Since all DRM can, and will, be broken - from a technological standpoint; perhaps not a legal one - then by your definition, they're all "incompetent". I don't think any of these people think DRM can't be circumvented; they just know that the content providers want it, and these laws like the DMCA are getting pushed through Congress. If *anything*, Apple is in a *better* position to influence copyright and content protection laws for the better. Had they done no DRM, we'd have no major label music on iTunes Music Store, and thus no iTunes Music Store as we know it (i.e., successful), and Apple wouldn't have any relevance whatsoever in this discussion at all.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have a file in AAC format, you got it through iTunes. And if you got it through iTunes, then you signed the User License, a legally binding agreement. Sure, you probably skimmed it because it's long, but that's expected, and it's legal. Part of the agreement no doubt said that you respect the DRM that exists in the files that you download.
So anyone using PlayFair to overcome the DRMs is essentially in breach of contract.
That all being said:
STOP COMPARING THIS TO MLK AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT!
Sorry for shouting, but this seriously has me PO'd. There's a huge difference from being banned from a restaurant because of the color of your skin, and being prevented from making unlimited copies of a song you like, or using that song wherever you want. I understand there are some usese of FairPlay that might fall under the traditional definition of Fair Use (perhaps!) but you all are kidding yourselves if you think that pissing and moaning about DRM is going to change anything.
If you want to effect real change, vote with your pocketbook. Stop buying new records especially at national chains. Go to local music stores and buy used CDs. Hell, buy vinyl. Only buy music that is made and distributed by independent labels.
And, while you're at it, take it upon yourself to do something good and worthwhile for the world -- help tutor someone, volunteer time at a soup kitchen, or even just talk to a friend who seems in the dumps. Surely there's something better to do than waste it arguing about whether or not Apple should be doing what it's doing.
Re:Let's hope indeed (Score:5, Informative)
(you can also just burn the song to CD and rip it back as mp3...)
PlayFair is the better way to go. (Score:3, Insightful)
While what you say is true, there are those that are concerned that one day something may happen to the iTMS and th
Re:Let's hope indeed (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that in some cases, even those conditions are not enforceable.
Many years ago (early 1900's, I think), book publishers tried to insert conditions on the front page of a book saying that you couldn't resell the book, etc. It was struck d
Re:P2P? (Score:3, Interesting)
Once they pick all the low-hanging fruit (hosted on popular websites), the recording industry can't claim they didn't try. Steve Jobs said himself that it was only a matter of time before the DRM was cracked, I am surprised it lasted this long (I'm sure he is, too). I predict Apple is going to make a good-faith effort to send around take-down notices to anyone who hosts it, and then it wi
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does it automatically become evil when a company wants to defend a product/scheme/etc. that they have spent time, money, and man hours developing?
Apple isn't breaking down doors, calling the FBI, pillaging homes. They're sending legal notices asking politely for people to take down content. That's how the system works.
Unfair at times it may be, it doesn't mean that the entire system is corrupted and we should brand Apple with a scarlet letter. If you don't like the way things work, then send letters to your Congressman/woman about our copyright law. Send email to Senators about the DMCA. Get involved, and things will change.
Re:my usage (Score:3, Insightful)
When you set up your iTunes account, were you misled in any way about what machines you'd be allowed to play the files on? About how many times you could transfer the files? Stuff like that?
Do you complain about not being able to drive your car on the sidewalk? It's your car, after all, you should be able to drive it however you want it.
You want iTunes for Linux? Petition for iTunes on Linux.
Re:I Wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who didn't see this coming? (Score:3, Interesting)
Free advertising at its best.
Re:I thought Apple Was Different? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would Apple be any different? Apple is looking out for their own interests. They make little to no money with the ITMS. They make their money with the iPod. If people can play their ITMS music on other portable music players Apple will not sell as many iPods and make less money.
Re:linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:linux (Score:4, Informative)
Someone else that doesn't understand the difference between a EULA and the GPL.
The GPL has zero clauses about how you use a product. Once you've downloaded a GPL'd program, you can do anything you like with it - run it how you like, or print it out and stick it to your cat, even use it to run your tinpot dictatorship torture chambers.
Music downloaded from itunes has an implicit licence (or even an explicit licence - I can't find out, as they won't let us heathen british in yet), enforced by DRM, which restricts how you use the music. You can't put it on anything but an ipod, you can't sell it to anyone else, you can't easily transcode so you can listen to in other than your "Apple Approved" equipment (yes, yes, I know about the cd-burning. My only machine with a burner runs linux.)
NONE of these are protections entitled by law. EULA's are unenforceable fake contracts. The ONLY thing stopping you is the DMCA, which prevents you circumventing protections, even when it otherwise LEGAL to do so.
Even that is debatable, as the DMCA does not prevent reverse engineering for interoperability, so it could be argued that, even in the US, you are entitled to media shift your legally purchased music to use on an alternate player.
So the GPL allows you to do whatever you want with the product, Apple'd DRM does not. One is as open as you can be, one is very restrictive (if you don't own 100% apple equipment)
When you get a GPL program, you can copy it as much as you like, and distribute as much as you like, even distributing modified versions. Except that's illegal under copyright law, so you need permission to do so. The GPL grants you that permission, as long as you distribute the source.
When you get an Apple DRM file, you can make a handful of copies for personal use. You can't give it to anyone else at all, even to legally sell your only copy!
So even with making copies, the one thing copyright law prevents, the GPL is very open, while the Apple DRM is very restrictive.
Playfair has nothing to do with copyright (the right to publish copies, natch). Playfair allows you to remove the DRM-enforced USE restrictions.
It's as defendable as a record button on a video player, it's as defendable as a lockpick, it's as defendable as a crowbar - all of which can be used for legal, or illegal things.
Apple have the right to sell their products with use-restricting DRM; we have the right to remove it.
Re:A little reminder here... (Score:5, Insightful)
You want fair use? Fine! Write your own program for doing whatever you want.
That is also unacceptable, and frankly it's very hostile. You are basically saying that people who want to record a show off TV should have to invent and build their own VCRs; that people who want to xerox a page from a book should have to develop their own xerox machine. It's the kind of inanity that I normally only associate with people who have weevils infesting their brains. People typically create tools not only for themselves, but for the benefit of other people who may not be so able to make their own tools. Hell -- I feel quite confident that you didn't build your own computer from the grains of sand level on up. You relied on others, and that's _great_. Why should it be any different here?
It is because without the DRM, the RIAA would not permit any sort of digital distribution.
Then fuck them. Let's work on reforming the law so that they can't prevent it in the first place.
Re:A little reminder here... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A little reminder here... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure Apple would not like something like that, but at least that's defensible and would not kill the goose with the golden egg, since it does not actually defeat the DRM terms to which the RIAA agreed when they licensed their content to the ITMS.
There are three reasons not to do something this way:
- It's harder!
- Cry me a freakin' river. If you don't like the DRM, go buy the CDs at a store and rip them to MP3s yourself!
- But I want to distribute my MP3s over Kazaa because information wants to be free!
- Information wants to be free as in speech, it's true. But that doesn't mean that it should be free as in beer. Beer wants to be free, but someone does actually have to pick up the tab if you want there to be more beer. Yes, I know all the arguments, and I have not lost any sleep over Metallica's lost sales, but all in all, I believe that the artist who creates something should be allowed to make the decision as to how it is distributed, and their fans should respect that decision.
- I want to put this music on some device other than that damned overpriced iPod!
- So use a different music service! All the other services support much more byzantine DRM which fills the coffers of a bigger, badder company, which will not be named here. The merits of the iPod vs. other players can be discussed ad infinitum, but if, at the end of the day, you want to download your music legally and use a non-iPod device, just use a different service. Or buy the CDs and rip them yourself.
I guess there is another reason, a la Mt. Everest. I want to challenge the DRM because it's there. I don't have a good argument against that. Do it all you like. Just don't distribute the program so that anyone else can do it without a shred of technical knowledge.In short, do the right thing, m'kay? It's worth it in the end.
Re:not a cool program at all (Score:3, Funny)
No. Why would a more legit store, like Audio Lunchbox [audiolunchbox.com], care if their competitor's DRM system got cracked?
DRM is just a phase the industry was going through. Eventually the stockholders will start asking for money, and the industry will go back to the making-it-easy-to-have-customers business. You know, the busin