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?).
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:Project still available elsewhere..... (Score:2, Informative)
Playfair torrent (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.isthatdamngood.com/playfair-0.2.torren
Enjoy!
Depressingly Predictable (Score:5, Informative)
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:They're not playing fair... (Score:2, Informative)
Hate to break it to you, but by buying the songs, you (or whoever bought them) agreed to the following restrictions (which I cut and paste from the iTunes Music Store Terms of Service [apple.com]).
b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following Usage Rules, and you agree to use Products in compliance with such Usage Rules.
Usage Rules.
Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.
You shall be authorized to use the Products only for personal, noncommercial use.
You shall be authorized to use the Products on three Apple-authorized computers at any time.
You shall be entitled to export, burn or copy Products solely for personal, noncommercial use.
Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners in any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition, or artwork embodied in any Product.
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
The delivery of Products does not transfer to you any commercial or promotional use rights in the Products.
Re:WHY WHY WHY (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Project still available elsewhere..... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Apple has no right (Score:2, Informative)
Apple controls the technological measure that controls access to copyrighted material. When the technology is circumvented, it is the owner of the technology that has the right to (ab)use the DMCA, not the owner of the copyrighted material behind the protection. The copyright owners get to sue when their material is illegally distributed. That has not happened (to anyone's knowledge) in this case.
Re:Apple making the same dumb mistakes. (Score:4, Informative)
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 you, perhaps you should buy something else.
What I can recall about copyright law... (Score:5, Informative)
oh oh, me too! (Score:2, Informative)
[voice type="whiny"] i want a take down notice too, c'mon, please? [/voice]
Got plenty of upstream left...
Re:They're not playing fair... (Score:4, Informative)
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: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&D letter and waited to get sued, but they didn't, and I don't think that's unreasonable given the way the DMCA works in the US.
I don't believe the DMCA is a good, just or constitutional law, and I believe that we are all justified in doing our fair share of civil disobedience against it. But the legal risk to a company here is pretty substantial, not like the mythical risk of standing up to the SCO bullies and their bullshit case - there is a real likelihood that FairPlay does violate the DMCA as it's worded even though the clearest purpose of it is to ensure continued rights to use of legally purchased material.
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.
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.
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:Who says its illegal? (Score:3, Informative)
"(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof"
No, it hasn't yet been proven in court that PlayFair violates this, nor would it have to for linking to PlayFair to be illegal. I think it's obvious PlayFair is both A and B. The link is offering to the public the ability to download Playfair, which is both A and B. If it walks like a crime and talks like a crime, it's probably not okay to abet it. And that's my point.
Re:Project still available elsewhere..... (Score:3, Informative)