PlayFair Pulled Due to DMCA Request 711
doubleacr writes "MacSlash is reporting that PlayFair has been removed from SourceForge.net. Didn't see that one coming." We posted about PlayFair on Monday. SourceForge.net received a DMCA complaint from Apple on Thursday, claiming PlayFair is in violation of the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA, section 1201(a)(2). As per SourceForge.net policy, the project has been disabled. Should the project managers file a counterclaim, the project could be restored. SourceForge.net is owned by OSDN, the parent company of Slashdot.
Project still available elsewhere..... (Score:5, Informative)
http://sarovar.org/projects/playfair/ [sarovar.org]
Though nothing has yet been posted to it, the author posted on MacSlash that the C&D order from Apple will be posted - and will be continued as long as there is no violation of Indian law.
Re:Project still available elsewhere..... (Score:5, Informative)
http://saintaardvarktehcarpeted.com/mirror/playfai r.tgz [saintaardv...rpeted.com]
Keep in mind that all you have is my word that nothing's been changed (nothing has, but that doesn't mean you should trust me). I'm open to suggestions about verification (md5s of original files, maybe?).
Re:Project still available elsewhere..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Project still available elsewhere..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and of all the people the American government fucks over, none does it fuck over more than its own peop
Re:Project still available elsewhere..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Project still available elsewhere..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not everybody wants to bask in your Open Source Society. Some of us are here for the money.
Re:Project still available elsewhere..... (Score:3, Funny)
Because they don't match.
Re:Project still available elsewhere..... (Score:3, Informative)
The posted MD5 did match the source I got from another source, though.
I saw a torrent [isthatdamngood.com] posted, but it wasn't modded up (maybe it is by now). In any case, I'll mention it here so folks are browsing this thread might notice it. =)
Doing a diff on the two, I see additional files (from loading it in an IDE, it looks) but no changes to actual source code. So still no conspiracy to report, darn it. :-(
I agree a conspiracy would have been much more fun...
Re:If your going to be paranoid, do it right! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Project still available elsewhere..... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Project still available elsewhere..... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's in their terms of service, and is a contract/license that is fully enforceable - while click throughs are arguable, payment definitely constitutes agreement. By this logic, he doesn't really care about the GPL or any agreement that isn't convenient to his personal whims.
Not quite (Score:3, Interesting)
while click throughs are arguable, payment definitely constitutes agreement
Just because he legally agrees doesn't mean he philosophically agrees. Just because he accepts terms he doesn't agree with - terms he can't escape when buying
Re:Project still available elsewhere..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Um... a CD, perhaps? We're talking about obtaining music to listen to and use as he sees fit. All iTunes offers are DRM-tied AAC files, which obviously isn't what he wanted. He wanted the price, but not the terms, which is a breach of contract* by any definition.
* Yes, I'm still making the leap that authorizing payment implies agreement with the Terms of Service and therefore a contractual agreement. It's the same legally as when you buy something off the 'Final Sale - no return' rack. Or buying anything at Best Buy agrees to their Return restrictions that are printed on the wall. Maybe even more so, since you could reasonably claim you didn't see them if you have bad vision and the sales person mentioned them.
Re:Project still available elsewhere..... (Score:5, Funny)
Apple making the same dumb mistakes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh come on. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because a nice, juicy negligent breach of contract is surely brewing if Apple doesn't put it's foot squarely in the ass of PlayFair. It's be the same even without the DMCA -- if I sell you a security system, and somebody posts the backdoor password, I'd be in a world of shit if I didn't try my hardest to make it better.
Remember deCSS? (Score:4, Insightful)
Before the MPAA started harassing "DVD-Jon" and DMCA-ing everyone who so much as mentioned the name deCSS in public; only a small handful of linux nerds had even heard of the thing, much less built and compiled it into media players for their own machines. No big deal. It was just a toy for extreme hobbyists.
After the MPAA tried to take deCSS out, every self-righteous geek on the 'net made sure to get a copy. And many of them made it their mission to spread it further, and more mirrors than I could guess popped up. Somewhere *I* still have a copy of deCSS embedded into a webpage banner in some way that I don't even remember how to extract it.
So what was PlayFair before Apple DMCA'd sourceforge? Another cute toy that was only of any use to someone who had already BOUGHT the song from ITMS in the first place. It's not like anybody hacked a backdoor into ITMS itself and made the entire library free to the 'net. Now, there are half a dozen mirrors in this
It reminds me of a Douglas Adams quote.... about how while humans are unique in being the only species capable of learning from the mistakes of others, we are remarkably disinclined to actually do so.
cya,
john
Re:Remember deCSS? (Score:5, Informative)
False. DVD-Jon's warez palz had built a Windows-based GUI ripper program long before the Linux community was aware of the software.
The Windows Rip & Pirate community was up and running and distributing thousands of movies over P2P before Linux even got DVD filesystem support, much less a working player.
Where do you think the pressure is coming from... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, you can make all the standard black helicopter and tinfoil hat jokes, but I really don't see how Apple would care about this, save the ramifications for keeping an amicable relationship with the RIAA pigopolists.
While the DMCA is a horrible piece of legislation, a business would not be doing their shareholders a favor if they didn't use it to protect their business. This is a standard move, everyone saw it coming; and to say that it is a dumb mistake is a bit myopic.
To do nothing would be a bigger mistake for Apple, for entirely different reasons.
Re:Where do you think the pressure is coming from. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple making the same dumb mistakes. (Score:4, Informative)
- not be accepted in the marketplace--information moves too fast for even today's sheep-like consumers to be fooled that easily
- be cracked anyway
The industry is still making billions of dollars a year selling Red Book CDs with no DRM. But they want to move towards a pay per play model with DRM. And I'm the prick?Re:You're the prick (Score:5, Insightful)
I've done my part in promoting fair use in as much as I can. I'm anti DMCA, just as a good SlashThinker should be.
Using the software that Apple provides means you agree to the terms that usage provides. Don't like it, don't use it, but SURE AS HELL don't ruin it for people who agree with it and accept it in it's current form because you can't play it on every device you own.
Find an alternative, but don't ruin what I find is the fairest, most reasonable DRM to exist on the market.
There is a GPL comparison found later in this discussion which I love completely, and will reiterate here.
What would be said by the OSS community if someone decided they were going to use GPL'd software outside of it's license "because they didn't agree with it," but still wanted the benefit of using it. You'd all be up in arms. I'd be up in arms.
I think I've made my point.
T-Shirts coming soon (Score:5, Funny)
Oh good, should I order my T-shirts now?
Lest we forget... (Score:4, Interesting)
In this case, though, that's a moot point, seeing as it's been rehosted. Oh well.
Bring on the poems and prime numbers! (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad weekend to be a Mac user (Score:5, Funny)
Apple has no right (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're running a public [something]Forge... (Score:3, Interesting)
What/who is sarovar.org (Score:5, Informative)
Sarovar is hosted on a Compaq box running Debian woody and GForge.
(34,266) PSTricks Tutorial
(5,855) PDFscreen
(5,693) LaTeX Primer
(3,965) PDFslide
(3,675) PDFtricks
(2,087) Draft Copy for PDFTeX
(1,504) JavaDBF
(1,256) TeXLive
(966) Swathantra Malayalam Computing
(802) CVSPermissions - An ACL tool for CVS
Hosted Projects: 126
Registered Users: 659
Re:What/who is sarovar.org (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What/who is sarovar.org (Score:5, Funny)
Mantra when writing this sort of software (Score:4, Funny)
Test Case? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, this looks to me like a(nother) possible test case of the DMCA.
What makes this case attractive is that, to my understanding, PlayFair works WITHIN the accepted norms of society for copyright law (if you don't have a key from iTunes showing you bought the song, it won't convert the audio).
It is a law that is OUTSIDE the accepted norms of society that is causing the problem here.
I googled EFF.org for "playfair" and didn't have any returns of relevance.
Is the EFF involved in this case, or are they even aware of it?
- Neil Wehneman
P.S. I've mentioned this in previous [slashdot.org] posts [slashdot.org], but I'll mention it again here because it's relevant.
Dr. Larry Lessig, who argued "our side" in Eldred v. Ashcroft, has put up his new book Free Culture under a Creative Commons license. Noncommercial redistribution with attribution is freely allowed.
Download [free-culture.org] the PDF or buy it [free-culture.org] and support Creative Commons in the process.
Playfair torrent (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.isthatdamngood.com/playfair-0.2.torren
Enjoy!
A Business decision - Apple is a music reseller. (Score:5, Insightful)
Jobs is quoted as saying the his PHds said you can't make a DRM that stops piracy completely.
However apple needs music to resell. To allow software the strips the DRM would likely irk those big music companies that sell apple the songs it needs to sell. And with other DRMed formats apple probably needed DRM to open the store in the first place.
Re:A Business decision - Apple is a music reseller (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is presumably why Apple employs Phds to 1) devise new forms of DRM [uspto.gov]
and 2) head the Copy Protection Technology Working Group with Sony and Warner Brothers. [google.com]
They look as snug as three bugs in a rug.
Depressingly Predictable (Score:5, Informative)
Essentially DMCA says... (Score:3, Interesting)
If I published software that "encrypted" an audio stream by reversing the bits, and someone figured it out or wrote software to get rid of my "encryption" scheme, then I could just start a legal battle against all those who try to publish against me?
This is a wild, unpredictable, capitalistic world, not a pre-school.
Freedom, AAC, and fair use. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's 128kbps AAC's quality is very good, about the same as a 192kbps mp3. You can burn AAC to CD - that's allowed by the iTunes DRM scheme with no problems.
The AAC -> CD data conversion has no quality loss associated with it. The data, on the CD, is sonically identical to how you bought it from Apple.
If people rip commercial CDs to OGG (or any other format) without complaining about quality loss, I don't see how it's anything but hypocrisy to say that converting from AAC -> CD -> OGG/whatever is some kind of huge hindrance to their fair use. There's only one loss of quality, which is tiny, in that chain of events, and it happens EVERYWHERE else you convert CD data to a compressed music format.
Where is this mysterious and show-stopping quality loss happening?
Re:Freedom, AAC, and fair use. (Score:4, Insightful)
AAC removes some bits from the master copy of the audio. When you burn it to disc, you don't get those bits back; they're still gone.
When you read it back from disc, and encode with $LOSSY_ENCODER, it removes some different bits from your copy of the audio. The final copy on your hard drive has fewer bits than the AAC copy or the master copy.
The more levels of lossy transcoding you do, the more the result is going to diverge from the original. Your example would be true only if all music CDs were actually run through lossy compression.
Re:Freedom, AAC, and fair use. (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a mp3 file, convert to ogg. Convert back to mp3. Repeat 10 times. Then do a binary diff on all the 10 mp3 files, and you will se that they are ALL different, and that the quality of the last mp3 you made will be far worse then the first mp3 you started with.
Now if only Apple would begin to sell music here en EU, but thats the debate for an other day
Just a tad hypocritical... (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? The policy linked to speaks of copyright violation. Was the code stolen? If not, I fail to see the reasoning.
It simply allowed fair use- it couldn't be used to unlock songs you didn't already own, right?
What about programs which are almost exclusively used for illegal activity, ie, copyright infringement? Like, say, emule? Or BitTorrent? Or any of dozens of gnutella clones? None of which require you to own a copy of anything?
One can argue that all these p2p clients CAN be used for perfectly legal purposes. The same argument applies to PlayFair, if not more so because it required ownership in the first place.
Re:Just a tad hypocritical... (Score:3, Informative)
But to be fair to OSDN and Sourceforge, the Slashdot blurb linked to the wrong section of the Sourceforge policy. See instead this section [sourceforge.net] on termination. Essentially, if they are required by law to disable an account or remove content, they will. I agree that they could have pushed back on a simple C
Re:Just a tad hypocritical... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sourceforge is not in the business of judging the code it hosts. If a third party has a problem and the developers don't want to take responsibility and fight them, I don't see any problem with SF yanking the project.
My 2 cents (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see this as any type of strong arm tactic by Apple to "put the little guy down" just protecting an updated bussiness model. Without ITMS no more iPod sales, which means no more street muggings (maybe this is a good dthing after all)
Full of sound and fury... (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple is no friend of DRM, but you can bet they are going to do what is necessary to maintain their relationship with the music labels, particularly in light of the labels trying to raise prices and increase restrictions.
The end result of this is moot. Some will say the cat's out of the bag, the genie's out of the bottle, etc, but that's not the case. The cat was never in the bag - this could always be accomplished by a simple burn/rip cycle.
(And before people point out that this doesn't require lossy recompression, seriously consider how many people will leave the file in AAC format, rather than transcode it to the ever-popular MP3.)
I can see why they demand it be pulled, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
So someone could distribute high quality AAC files stripped of DRM. So what? There are already plenty of high-quality mp3, ogg and various other audio format rips of cds on p2p. There are also tons of fakes, radio rips, decoys, trojans, and just plain crappy rips floating on these networks as well. There is nothing stopping anyone from taking a fake or crappy mp3 rip and re-encoding it as aac and distributing it via p2p.
The people that shop at itunes are not going to stop because there are now some additional aac files available on p2p. People that shop iTunes do so because of the user experience. You know you will get a fast, high quality download from iTunes. You can't be sure with P2P until you've downed the file and listened to the whole thing.
On the other hand, increasing [slashdot.org] the price of downloads and/or forced bundling will cause iTunes sales to drop.
Re:I can see why they demand it be pulled, but.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Challenging this (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhh, I doubt it. This is about the most clear-cut case of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions applying you could get. The only way this could be declared unworkable is if the DMCA was struck down. Given, striking down the DMCA is only a matter of time, and it needs to happen. But if you're trying to find an optimal case on which to challenge the DMCA, this certainly isn't it.
The EFF failed to challenge their lower-court losses over DeCSS because they believed they would not have a higher court's sympathy when defending a group named "2600.com", and they needed to wait for a more opportune small case that could be used to set precedent. I'm not so sure this was a good idea. But in any case, this would be even worse.
With DeCSS, there was at least overwhelming public sympathy, and the intent of the opposition was clear; you were fighting the DVD consortium and MPAA directly, and they were clearly moneygrubbing oligopolists trying to price-fix between countries and take rights consumers had had for years (like copying vhs tapes) and remove them through a law they personally bought. Whereas Apple has created something new, and is giving their users at least a modicum of ability to exercise fair use. The application of the DMCA is still unjust, and DRM is still an idiotic concept, but framing Apple as a villan in this would be really difficult, especially when far more clear abuses of the DMCA are still going on.
I do wonder, though, why the EFF seems totally disinterested in challenging the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. It seemed like DVDxCopy made a great test case, and the bullshit with the lexmark print drivers made an even better one. Have they just given up?
(P.S.: If I am not mistaken, isn't this the first time Apple has ever invoked the DMCA? There was that one time that someone was doing something wierd involving allowing iDVD to work on a different OS version, and Apple asked them to stop, and they did and went and complained to the press and made some cryptic comments about the DMCA, yet from what was seen of apple legal's correspondence with them there didn't actually appear to be any DMCA invocation. Hm.. oh well.)
Am I the only one laughing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple tries to use the DMCA to suppress source code as free speech, a million Slashdot users get in line to support their right to do it because hey, "They're Apple!!".
Maybe Jack Valenti was right after all - it's all about who you know.
Now get in line and drink the cool-aid.
Re:Am I the only one laughing? (Score:4, Funny)
Person 1: Why is vendor lock in for Apple ok when it's considered bad for anyone else?
Person 2: It's like being taken hostage initially against your will, then realizing your captors are the Swedish Bikini Team.
What I can recall about copyright law... (Score:5, Informative)
If the Apple DRM applied to cars.... (Score:5, Funny)
You could drive your car anywhere you wanted, so long as you only park it in authorized spaces. Those who do not park in an authorized space will be immediately crushed and sold for scrap during your incarceration.
You may drive your car anytime you want, so long as you gain permission from an authorized Apple Car Dealer first. Once permission has been granted, your car will be unlocked and started for you. Any attempt to unlock or start your car without prior authorization will result in your car exploding.
You are the only authorized driver of the car. Any attempt to "share" the car with another passenger or driver will result in your immediate incarceration.
All cars would only have 3 seats.
Burn + Rip, Mix, Burn = No more 'FairPlay' (Score:3, Funny)
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:3, Informative)
The reason shrinkwrap licenses like EULA's don't hold is because they are contracts provided after the purchase of the item in question. So you have no chance to back out of the contract before you pay money.
Since you have to agree to the iTunes Music Store terms before you pay money, the contract is quite binding.
Amen! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:3, Interesting)
And FairPlay is the main reason I never signed up for the iTunes store. I have 4 PC's at home alone, and one PC at work - what, I can only play the songs I purchase on 3 of them? Sorry, but that's BS.
Something like PlayFair would actually encourage me (and people like me, of which I know there are a lot on this sit
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:5, Interesting)
And the counterargument that gets made to comments like yours is that you can burn the tracks to a CD and play it anywhere. You can even re-rip it and listen to the tracks DRM free on 1,000 PCs if you have them.
The counterargument to my counterargument is that by burning & re-ripping you are losing quality, but the counterargument to this counterargument of my counterargument is that if you were enough of an audiophile to care about this, you wouldn't be buying 128K mp4s from iTMS anyway.
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, Apple, the RIAA, and the rest of the industry ought to be happy that the people are buying and paying for this music, rather than just going KaZaA-ing for it. I really do have to believe that PlayFair users are more likely just wanting to unlock the music for their own use without restrictions, rather than sharing it. The sharers would have gotten their copies for free to start with.
In short, the
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not "your music." You have certain limitations on what you can do with it, like it or not, because you bought it from Apple with those limitations. Don't like it? Don't buy it from them.
I don't like what Apple did (with this lawsuit), but changing the facts to suit your argument doesn't do you any good.
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not "your music."
It's our music. All of us. The record companies just have it on loan for the duration of their copyright, which, unfortunately for us, keeps getting extended.
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does Jules Verne own "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea"? Do we have to negotiate payments with Mark Twain's estate to get a copy of "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer"? Who do we bestow ownership of Beowulf to?
The fact is, these works are in the Public Domain. Nobody owns them. Although, where possible, they are attributed to their authors.
You discard copyright rather quickly. However, the concept of owning a creative work (rather than the physical representation of that work, such as an actual book) come entirely from copyright. Copyright is a grant by government to a work's creater. It gives them a (in theory) limited time to capitalize on their work though exclusive control over that work. Eventually, this grant runs its course and the work enters the public domain.
There is no ownership of ideas.
Compare this to physical property. The origional manuscript for "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" could still be owned by Mark Twain past the length of his copyright on the work represented by that physical manuscript. Furthermore, that property could have been passed on to his estate or sold. The actual manuscript never becomes public property unless it is specificly sold or donated to a public library (government seizure aside).
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the principal reasons against the DMCA that this is not correct? You are not allowed to circumvent copy-protection schemes, period. Whether the protected work is copyrighted or part of the public domain is irrelevant. E.g., if someone were to sell a CD of PD works, say, from Project Gutenberg and used some trivial copy protection on it, you wouldn't be allowed to copy the CD.
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:3, Insightful)
*Looks around...* Lawsuit?
What lawsuit?
A Cease and Desist letter stating believed copyright infringement (per the DMCA) is not a lawsuit.
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
The same goes for dual VCR's which were opposed when initially marketed, but couldn't be suppressed because although they could be used to do wrong, they can also be used to do right: and the courts can't allow the device to be suppressed just for this reason, otherwise they'd be able to suppress knives and all sorts of things that have dangerous uses.
Something like PlayFair would make a fantastic test case to see how the courts draw the line between the users right to effect some means for fair use, because it's a large debate at the moment about how technological measures suppress legitimate fair use, and there's surely a fine line between the DMCA rights management provisions and the allowance for fair use that we need some enlightened opinion on - until we get that opinion we have so much FUD.
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyright law gives you fair use of the audio. Which you have. Burn it on a CD, use it to your heart's content. It's yours. There's not even any copy prot on the disc.
However, the AAC file itself it not audio. It's an encrypted data representation of audio -- but it doesn't become audio until you decrypt it. And the encryption is protected under the DMCA. Say what you will about the DMCA, it's the law, and breaking it is not guaranteed by copyright law any more than owning a copy of the White Album gives you the right to the original magnetic tapes it was recorded on.
After all, the artist didn't make the AAC file. They made audio. Apple made the AAC file, and sold you the rights to make CDs with it.
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:3, Insightful)
With MP3, there was a gray area: the same technology that awakened new uses like microjukeboxing and strea
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also clearly stated what these limitations are ahead of time. Last I knew, you could burn any song you bought from Apple onto a music CD, and play that. Or rerip that back to an MP3 to put on device X.
Oh, wait, the quality goes down, right? Well, explain what device it is that has AAC audio playback capabilities? There are very few beyond the iPod, so having the raw AAC does most people very little good, since it would still have to be transcoded into another format.
I don't like the idea of DRM and the DMCA much, but the print on the front door was pretty clear. Don't like it? Don't shop there and instead go buy a CD.
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:4, Insightful)
Flip this around and imagine that I decide to circumvent the GPL by taking a piece of GPL software and using its source in piece of closed source commercial software. Wouldn't like that now, would you?
Now imagine that the I cry "fair use" (i.e. I didn't like this nasty GPL license so I decide to circumvent it). Doesn't sound so good, huh?
John.
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL/fair use comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a really interesting comment. You're drawing a comparison between the people who wrote the GPL and the people who wrote the iTMS contract, which is not something I've seen before.
But it makes sense. Whether you're drawing a contract to protect intellectual property or protect *distribution* of intellectual property, in either case you are deliberately writing a contract that protects some actions and prohibits other actions.
The GPL was developed based on the notion that software is essentially a form of speech, and so should be free. In order to protect this freedom, the GPL dictates that modifications to GPLed software must also be made under the GPL.
The iTMS contract was developed based on the notion that in order for digital music to prosper, there must be limits on how widely a given purchased download can be distributed, so that the music's copyright holders can make a return on their investment. Without the profit motive for the copyright holders, the music won't be put on the iTMS, and Apple won't be making money.
In both cases, restrictions are placed in the license to further the end goal. Attempts to circumvent the license by definition negate the end goal. If the GPL were repeatedly circumvented, the *implementation* of Free Software would be crippled as well. The same is true of the iTMS.
You can't expect that if you change the rules of the game so you can enjoy benefits beyond those you agreed to at the time of purchase, Apple is somehow going to continue to provide the very tools that you hacked. This is quite similar to what would happen if Microsoft took all of the GNU tools, changed them slightly, and released their own Free Windows OS. Everyone on Slashdot would be crying bloody murder, because the value of GPLed software would be denigrated by Microsoft's circumventing of the GPL contract.
Re:GPL/fair use comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it doesn't make sense. Is it really so hard to see that the two are not comparable at all?
Here is why these are completely different: the iTMS agrement is a contract, the GPL is a license. Contracts are based on contract law, and the GPL is based on Copyright law. You can check Groklaw for a decent explanation of the GPL: see the "Copyright and the GPL" section" [groklaw.net].
Further more, the GPL is a license which grants you rights above and beyond what the law grants you (fair use rights are part of copyright law). The iTMS agreement (and DRM in general) restricts your rights to fewer than granted by fair use. This is why EULAs and such are controversial, and may not really be enforcable.
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry - you fundamentally misunderstand the way the world works: contractual rights cannot in any way supress legislative rights; meaning that even if you _agree_ knowingly to a contract that has a clause saying "you can't fair use this work", then that clause is unenforceable by the other party even though you agreed to it.
You can in fact make fair use of GPL'd work, btw.
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:4, Interesting)
Strange thing is, this program just quickens what one could already do. I could very easily burn my MP4's to CD, then rip back to MP4 and (if done right) there will be little or no loss. But the bottom line is that PlayFair reaches an ends equal to what one could do with iTunes.
No... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's it.
If you want to play it on a different device, there are many [walmart.com] other [napster.com] sources [buymusic.com] for your music, including buying a CD and ripping it into whatever format your heart desires.
Whether you agree that "information should be free" or not is irrelevant. By purchasing your music from iTMS, you agreed to Apple's restrictions.
Don't like the terms? Don't buy the music. Simple. (Score:3)
If you don't like the licensing terms, don't purchase the music under those terms! The choice is all yours!
You've got to be joking (Score:3, Informative)
Apple created a piece of software that doesn't allow people to play the music their paid for on the devices of their choice.
You know how hard it is to format-shift those DRM equipped AAC files in iTunes?
Congrats, you now have a standard audio CD. No DRM, plays in any machine that will play a CD. Feel free to rip it to MP3, OGG or anything else.
All PlayFair saves is $0.25 on a blank CD and about 5 minutes. If that's a serious problem for
Are CDs and digital downloads the same? (Score:5, Informative)
A large part of what you're paying for when you buy songs from the iTMS is the payoff Apple has to give to the music industry just so they'll allow Apple to use such lax DRM.
I think that with any music I purchase online, I should be able to make multiple copies on multiple computers, my iPod, and so on. In a perfect world I'd be able to do that right now.
But realistically, what I'm paying for when I buy songs from the iTMS is convenience. I can find songs I want, listen to clips of songs I haven't heard, and satisfy my craving for some long-forgotten song in a matter of moments. I don't have to get in my car, drive to the store, and buy a full album just to hear the one song I actually want.
So the iTMS is giving me a totally new option. I'm paying for the convenience of a new shopping experience. Because I'm able to buy music in a fashion that suits my individual preferences (I've probably purchased more music from the iTMS in the last six months than I did at music stores in the last six years), I'm willing to make a compromise with Apple: You make it ludicrously easy for me to obtain, organize and manage my music, and I'll forgo full fair use in favor of limited DRM.
People who say that digital music shouldn't have DRM are right. But I'd argue that in this case, the medium truly is the message. Apple has come up with the first truly viable means of legally purchasing music online. When I started using the iTMS it radically changed my music purchasing and listening habits. So I ask myself, how is Apple screwing me?
In particular, how is Apple screwing me when I agreed to the terms of the contract, which are based on the fact that online distribution is quite different than physical distribution of music?
People talk about the music industry being unwilling to change, but at the same time they want more benefits from digital music without being willing to compromise in the slightest.
It sounds like a triumph of ideology over practicality to me.
Re:Foot - Aim - Shoot! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Foot - Aim - Shoot! (Score:3, Interesting)
They can't justify that price increase though.
Apple is footing the bill for the backend stuff.
They're not distributing physical goods.
They don't have store fronts.
And if they do increase the price, more piracy will definitely be happening. And they will bitch again.
Here's a clue for you... (Score:5, Informative)
All one has to do to "unprotect" the files is have a player that unlocks them and a high-fidelity digitizer (you know, something like an Audigy card or pod...) to record it with. The loss is not going to be noticeable (i.e. even AAC inserts worse loss than this process does in the first place...) and as long as you use AAC or something that doesn't distort the results appreciably worse, you win.
All this program does is make it easy for a legitimate user to shift it into other formats for their own use. They don't want you to do that. They want you to pay for the CD, the AAC/MP3, and any other format you want to use. In all honesty, they want you to pay for each time you listen to it, but they've not figured out how to do that without drawing too much attention to their damn greed.
If anyone needs a break, it's me- I'm tired of hearing about piracy when it's not about friggin' piracy. Get it in your head about that. They lose FAR more to real IP pirates in Asia where they crank it out by the tons in spite of the protections these jokers keep adding. Why in the hell don't they go shut those SOB's down first? It's because the "public" is an easier target and provides for nice, nifty laws bought with their money that give them all the advantages and the consumers nothing in return.
Re:Foot - Aim - Shoot! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Foot - Aim - Shoot! (Score:4, Interesting)
what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when is Apple protecting their and others' copywrited works that they DID NOT RELEASE AS FREE (as in speech) SOFTWARE siding against freedom?
Maybe you can explain that, as I don't understand.
Re:Our response should be simple and brutal. (Score:5, Funny)
I hereby volunteer to be the organizer for a massive event of apple destruction. Please send any Apple hardware (and accessories... don't forget accessories) to me and I will personally supervise its elimination.
Re:You don't say (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't wait to read all the apologist crap that's about to be posted here. Let the McFanboy fest begin.
Being free (as in beer or as in speech) doesn't exclude you from being prosecuted if breaking the law. Don't like DMCA? Go lobby your congressman.
If Apple didn't go and prosecute and strong-arm the "little guys" that illegaly (see above) damage its business, it would be a stupid move and be perceived in future lawsuits as "having no interest in protecting its trademarks, etc.".
Apple is only protecting its interests, damaged by people that are acting against the law... how exactly is that "behaving like Microsoft"? I would call that "behaving smartly".
<sarcasm> If some "little guy" mugs you in the street or strips your house bare, it should be your duty to report to the police, however futile. Poverty in the world? Go lobby your congressman. </sarcasm>
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WHY WHY WHY (Score:4, Interesting)
So let's download something like, oh, Manson's _Golden Age of Grotesque_. It costs us $14.95 and downloads in a few minutes (since we're already paying $50 for broadband).
What do we get? 15 non-cohesive, DRM-encrypted, lossy-encoded AAC files that are illegal to play outside of iTunes or an iPod. But, of course, we can burn it.
So let's do just that. It's been awhile since I've bought CD-Rs with jewel cases, but last time I did, they were about 60 cents each. Our total is now $15.55.
We want liner notes, of course, since we want to know who's playing which songs, and so we can read any difficult-to-understand lyrics. And the pictures are pretty cool, too. I figure it'd cost another $3 in raw materials for me to print this stuff out on my inkjet, and an additional $2 to have it laminated so that it's at least waterproof like a real CD. And since Apple doesn't have anything like a PDF file for me to work from, it also costs me a few hours of my time to research, assemble, set, and print this stuff. Being conservative, let's say 5 hours at a modest $12 per hour.
We're now up to $80.55 in just time and materials, and we don't even have a label for the fucking CD yet.
Amazon sells this CD [amazon.com] for $14.99, with free shipping. It's even cheaper than that at the large, local music store downtown, and I can walk there from here. Comes with jewel case, glossy liner notes, a screen-printed universally-playable CD with unencrypted, unprotected, uncompressed 16/44.1 stereo audio just like the mastering engineer heard. Takes a but a few minutes to rip to MP3, AAC, WMA, FLAC, OGG, MPG, or whatever your particular fancy is. And the folks at Gracenote, freedb, or MusicBrainz will gladly fill in the id3 tags for you, negating any severe production time from the format conversion.
Are you sure iTMS is cheaper?
Re:WHY WHY WHY (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because it misses the point entirely. If you can modify your Ford Escort to go over a rocky mountain pass, would Ford try to stop you? And no one is stealing anything! The music is *already owned by you* (in the same sense as you owning the music you buy on a CD), you are merely circumventing the DRM so you can use it however you see fit (that is, in the same you can use music from your CD). Apple is not even contending that this has anything to do with theft, so why a
Re:This isn't fair use, live with it (Score:3, Insightful)
So lossless is a myth. You've gotta pick the point that's "good enough for most consumers' ears" somewhere.
Besides, its not only the RIAA members who want DRM on their tracks. You don't see any of the indie labels on iTMS demanding that
Re:Live by the crack pipe, die by the crack pipe (Score:4, Interesting)
No, they didn't.
PlayFair actually checks that you have a valid key to use the downloaded music. It won't work on music that you haven't paid for. Thus, it doesn't "circumvent" the DRM, it fully enforces it. It does, however, change what happens to the music for those with legal access to it. Rather than play it, it writes the perfectly-legitimately-accessed music stream to a non-DRM'd AAC file.
Call such a distinction nit-picking, but that very fact means the difference between a DMCA violation and a legal use of one's purchased music.
Now, an end-user actually doing this process may violate their contract with Apple, but that differs drastically from the authors of PlayFair violating the DMCA.
you just gotta get your DMCA violating source code from an off-shore ISP or get sourceforge to relocate.
Exactly what happened - The project relocated to Sarovar, an Indian equivalent to SourceForge. Since India lacks an equivalent to the DMCA, the project should count as legal now.
Interestingly, I'd like any readers of this to really stop and think about what that means - A project designed to protect our fair use (a concept itself (theoretically) recognized in the US but not in all countries) may have broken US law (unless this goes to trial, we can't say they did break the law), simply by moving to another country, magically becomes legal.
So, the DMCA has so much validity that one can circumvent it (how apropos <G>) merely by changing where the "illegal" codebase resides? Definite problem there... Which of course, rather than address in any meaningful way, US lawmakers will try to "fix" by imposing the DMCA on the entire world via treaties (such as those currently under debate in the UN).
Dike, meet fingers. Fingers, meet Dike.
I DID! ... Apple = ( Pretty & !Free ) (Score:3, Funny)
They're like that pretty girlfriend who suckers you in hook, line, and sinker - and you let her get away with it or don't pay attention because she is sooooo pretty. Next thing you know, you have no money, no pretty girlfriend, and one big agonizing heartache that you never really get over.
Please pal, I know you won't
Re:One rule for you, one rule for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Second: by unencrypting a protected music file that I've purchased, I am not disregarding the copyright on that work. By converting the unencrypted music file to MP3 and copying it to my Pocket PC (which does not support AAC) I am STILL not disregarding the copyr