Playfair Relocates to India 334
Lord Grey writes "Imagine my surprise to see playfair 0.5.0 appear on Freshmeat's project list. Remember, the project was pulled after Apple filed a Cease-and-Desist order just a few days ago. playfair's new web site talks a bit about the move, as well as sporting the latest release of the controversial utility."
For Once I don't Agree (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like picking a friends pocket.
RIAA sucks. (Score:2, Insightful)
If they would just stop trying to oppress the music listeners and just satisfy them, maybe they would do a little better.
Corporations should no by now, just telling someone not to do something makes them want to do it more. If they sold MP3's, more people would take their complaints more seriously.
No good can come of this (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than working with Apple to try to resolve their differences, whomever is responsible for this little hack (the person or persons responsible refuse to attach their name to their work or their collateral) decided to just slip through what many perceive as a loophole in the law.
This does nothing to legitimize the hack or the idea behind it. Rather, it does just the opposite: it makes it clear to all interested parties that the person or persons behind this are more interested in finding ways to subvert the system than working within it to improve it.
Apple's support for "fair use" [slashdot.org] is obvious. They specifically added features to iMovie, iDVD, and iPhoto that allow you to use purchased or ripped music in your own media projects, even if the tracks you want to use are protected by FairPlay.
Doing this kind of end-run around Apple, instead of working with them to come to a resolution, completely de-legitimizes the whole effort for me, and I'm sure for many others.
If you want to assume the moral high ground--"I don't believe the majority of the people who use my program will use it so that they can share their files on Kazaa."--then you'd damn well better stick to it, instead of cutting and running for the sewer at the first sign of trouble.
Dumb, dumb.
If they fail in India, there are other places.... (Score:5, Insightful)
How does that song from the Disney ride go again? Oh ya, "Its a small world after all..."
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2, Insightful)
You seem to suffer from a lack of imagination...
How about playing the files on non apple hardware such as a portable mp3 player? Or even to burn it to cd and play it in your car?
What if you were searching for hidden messages and wanted to play it backwards? (I don't know for sure, but I don't think apple currently lets you do that) Or play it on your network-enabled-but-not-approved-by-apple-home-st
Jeroen
The point of this is ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now imagine if those said people start distributing those AAC across the P2P networks. Guess which player is commonly associated with reading AAC files: iTunes.
Which may in turn drive those people to use iTMS for those songs they can't get off the networks. Now these people have all these AAC files, which device is commonly associated with AAC support: iPod.
So it seems like either way Apple wins ?
Laws may be different in another country. (Score:5, Insightful)
This comment discusses some of the issues of sending work to another country: It is successful? Is it successful over 20 years? [slashdot.org] Those who outsource to another country should not assume that the laws of another country are the same as the home country, as the PlayFair author demonstrates.
I agree with the PlayFair author: "I want to be able to play the music I buy wherever I want to play it without quality loss, since I PAID FOR that quality."
Treating everyone as dishonest because some people are dishonest is abusive.
Nevertheless, moving PlayFair to another country to escape the domination of the rich, government-corrupting interests in this country shows one of the issues of outsourcing.
Re:No good can come of this (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of Playfair is simple and clear: to strip the encryption from a Fairplay protected AAC file. What kind of resolution did you have in mind, other than stopping the development/distribution of Playfair?
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:3, Insightful)
This is copyright violation.
Re:Apple the bully (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporations are supposed to play by the rules of business, which are laws. "Bill the Borg" routinely broke those rules to get ahead. Apple is not breaking any laws.
Your problem is with the law, so what you are really complaining about is the lawmaking/decision skills of American legislators. So by proxy what you are really mad about is the gullibility and/or apathy of American voters.
If you don't like the US and you live there feel free to move out. Don't presume to tell Apple how to run their business though. That's what the law is for.
Re:No good can come of this (Score:5, Insightful)
You are foolish to believe that apple would allow fairplay to be distributed under any conditions, and your classification of 'little hack' shows your bias.
This has nothing to do with apple, itunes, or ipod. This is all fair use vs. DMCA.
Re:Apple the bully (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, Apple already provides an acceptable (By most users and the record labels) method of removing the DRM... burn it to a CD. If you're vain enough to complain about the degradation in sound that results from ripping and re-encoding, you shouldn't be buying anything other than CDs, DVD-Audio, and SACDs.
Re:will they survive india ? (Score:3, Insightful)
You raise an interesting point - what would happen in the US to an application developed largely in Cuba? I can't see most European countries having a problem with it, except indirectly (can't be partners with US companies because you use Cuban products -- can they still do that?) but how would it play in the US?
There is this little thing called the Constitution (Score:3, Insightful)
There is this little thing called the Constitution. Ever hear of the First Amendment? According to it, I can tell Apple whatever I want to, including how to run their business. They don't have to listen, but I can still tell them.
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm no fan of DRM, but when you agree to Apple's TOS for their service, you agree to get screwed by their restrictions.
This is copyright violation.
This is only copyright violation is you take these unencrypted tunes and give them to other people. Until then, this is not copyright violation.
Of course, it remains that using PlayFair is a violation of the DMCA.
Re:No good can come of this (Score:2, Insightful)
No. Wrong. Totally wrong.
It's not about engaging a fight, or even a debate, on fair use vs. the DMCA. If that were the case, the person or persons responsible for this would have stood their ground and made an argument.
We have a system for dealing with bad laws. These laws are challenged in court, and a judge or panel of judges decides whether the law should continue to apply, be narrowed in scope, or be stricken entirely from the books. Did the Playfair... what do you call it? Organization? Whatever. Did the Playfair Dude engage that system? Did they raise the level of debate, or seek restitution in a court?
No.
They ran and hid. They slipped through a loophole into the dank, seamy underbelly of the Internet. (No offense to the Indians who are hosting the project. I don't mean the site; I mean the behavior.)
The Playfair Dude did precisely what you'd expect an trafficker in illegal goods to do.
And that was a dumb-ass mistake.
Re:Shows many peoples true colors (Score:3, Insightful)
How do I play encumbered files on my Tivo home media player?
How do I play them at work on my Linux box, even if they're streaming off my iPod?
Thieves are thieves, if they hadn't purchased the songs in the first place they wouldn't need this utility, and there's plenty of files in sharing anyways. People use the iTunes store for convenience, and quality fast downloads. Sharing cracked iTunes files is kind of silly, frankly, because you're definitely not gonna have the same ease-of-use and quick-downloadability that makes the itms worth the 'premium'.
See Zealots Attack for an excellent explanation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, DRM is keeping control of a product after it is sold. It's like signing a contract that the seller can change at any time in a way that is bad for you and "good" for the seller.
See Zealots Attack [nanocrew.net] for an excellent explanation about why PlayFair should be allowed, from the man who wrote the library PlayFair uses:
Zealots attack
I've been getting some emails from angry Mac zealots. Many of them start out similar to this: None of them explain how this is different and why GNU/Linux users should not be allowed to play legally bought music. Instead they go on to rave about how great iTMS is and that the imposed DRM is a good compromise. If they hadn't been completely clueless about copyright law, they'd know that Fair Use is the compromise. Some of them claim that this will lead to the RIAA imposing stricter DRM. Did they suddenly realize that it's the RIAA, and not Apple, which determines the rules for the iTMS DRM? When they complain about Microsoft's DRM used by other music stores, why do they think that it's Microsoft, and not the RIAA, which determines the DRM rules?
They have failed to understand that by buying into DRM they have given the seller complete control over the product after it's been sold. The RIAA can at any time change the DRM rules, and considering their history it's likely that they will when the majority of consumers have embraced DRM and non-DRM products have been phased out. Some DVDs today include commercials which can't be skipped using "sanctioned" players. If the RIAA forces Apple to include commercials, what excuses will the Mac zealots come up with? "It's a good compromise"?
Here's how one of the emails, from a guy in the UK who's working on his Ph.D, ends: Funny stuff. I just hope I have enough room in
Obligatory Heinlein Quote (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No good can come of this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No good can come of this (Score:5, Insightful)
Please tell me how this system of ours works when it's an individual that is challenging the law makers. Tell me about the time required. Tell me about the money needed. Tell me about the personal attacks the will be levied against this individual. The U.S. law makes martyrs out of heroes every day.
The bias is obvious, As a content producer (Apple) all you have to do is issue a C&D, and sit back.
The deck is stacked against the single person trying to exercise their fair rights.
Clearly, you are a person willing to take up the fight. Step up to the plate, mirror fairplay on your own personal site, and when the C&D's come in stand your ground. I'll be the first one to cheer you on.
Re:If they fail in India, there are other places.. (Score:3, Insightful)
These are the equivalent to offshore tax havens, yet in the context of ipr. Expect to find that (as occurred with tax havens) pressure and other activities to reduce the usefulness of them (here you can see one of them by the BSA: http://www.financialexpress.com/print.php?content
Note that a US based service providing links or references may actually be liable, I'm not sure how likely this is, but it bears mulling and thinking about.
There will be no escape from DMCA style provisions in the world. It's too late for this fight. The fight to have now is to preserve fair use, interoperability and other rights within the context of DMCA.
Re:No good can come of this (Score:0, Insightful)
Allow you to use your audio tracks FAIRLY.
Not plea bargaining for individual specific usages.
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:3, Insightful)
If I feel that a law preventing me from drinking and driving is a bad law, does that entitle me the ability to just break it on a whim? No.
There are proper routes you can take in the justice system to get a law like the DMCA repealed, until then breaking it doesn't make you look like anything except a criminal.
Re:Apple the bully (Score:3, Insightful)
It really irks me when people can't understand... You can be the best, and still not be good enough.
Just like Windows. (For those that believe it is the best OS. I don't.) You can still suck.
So, where would you suggest moving to? Keeping in mind that the purpose would be to live somewhere better...
Re:Apple the bully (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is they've spent a couple decades selling themselves as different from all those big, bad corporations. And at one time, that was true. These days, its all so much bullshit.
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:4, Insightful)
You're not willing to *really* pay the price. (Score:5, Insightful)
For the last time, you are NOT entitled to play music purchased from iTMS anywhere or anyhow you want . If you don't like it, don't purchase your music there. But this is a clear violation of iTMS's terms of service and use. So if you use *Apple's* system then *they* get to set the rules. Don't like it? Fine. Buy music elsewhere where you like the rules, but don't go into their store and complain and break their rules!
If it is fair use for my ripped music, it should be fair use for my protected music as well. I don't understand the distinction.
So just because you don't understand it you're going to violate the terms of an agreement that you made when using their service? Good to know you're an honest and trustworthy individual. If you really cared about making a statement you wouldn't have agreed to the terms in the beginning. You're trying to have you cake and eat it too. Make up your mind.
The only law I'm breaking is the DMCA, and my karma (the karma that Jobs refers to) will be just fine, because the DMCA is a bad law that I'm convinced will eventually be struck down. To say that I have fair use of my music, but that I can't use the tools to get that fair use is to say that I don't have fair use at all.
You have no clue about civil disobedience. Moreover, it's individuals like yourself and most of the rest of slashdot apparently who are giving a bad name to those who are trying to change the laws.
Re:No good can come of this (Score:5, Insightful)
So using Apple's supplied tools to burn a CD, the DRM can be removed. By using playfair, the DRM can be removed. Why is one bad and one not?
Seperate "Apple" the company out of the picture and look what you have. Media that is restricted or controlled. Maybe the current level of control and hardware availability is acceptable to you but to others it is not. What happens in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? I have NO idea and neither does anyone else. I have mp3 files that I ripped myself in 1997/1998 that I can still listen to today on a multitude of equipment (portables, DVD players, car stereo, any computer running any OS, my Dreamcast etc...)without converting them to anything else. Choosing a specific download service and hardware required is a personal choice that is acceptable to some, not to others. The rules given by the provider are clear. Some people are not happy with the choice and take the matter into their own hands. Some people agree with that, some do not.
Re:Shows many peoples true colors (Score:1, Insightful)
How do I play my LPs in my CD player?
Re:Apple the bully (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No good can come of this (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't agree. Let us take the oft-cited example of people posting anti-Chinese government material on Freenet, where they are free from being thrown in jail for years (or worse). Are they not "engaging in a fight, or even a debate" by not wanting to march up in front of their local police station, giving it the finger and saying "repressive government must end"? Of course not -- that's absurd.
These people are not interested in taking it in the ass from Apple, a rather large and monopolistic company. That hardly seems unreasonable to me. In their shoes, I wouldn't want to be getting screwed over by Apple.
Jobs phrased it best -- Apple cannot expect to rely on the lack of DRM-removing tools. It's just not going to happen from a technological standpoint, no way no how. Media DRM is a tool used (at least on the PC platform) to extract money from media companies into the pockets of "security" companies. In Apple's case, it was a useful concession (since they viewed it as valueless anyway to whoever's content it was protecting) to allow them to get an early deal with the labels.
bull on fair use (Score:2, Insightful)
If I were to buy iTunes music, I'd want to escape the "fair" restriction of 3 computers, certainly.
I have vinyl that's 20 years old, I have a shit-heap of CD's and I've digitised some of this. Who's going to restrict MY use of MY music?
I don't care about the true colours of other people, I don't condone copyright crime (or theft or whatever) and I LOVE iTunes and iTMS (can't buy yet).
And yes, I'll circumvent the DRM as soon as I can. Of course I will. And I don't care about any or all politics about this, I'll just do it as an extension of MY normal use of MY music.
Or do you think I've re-stocked my vinyl or CD collection after changing my stereo equipment?
And to make matters worse: I'll probably be sharing some of my music around, just as I have been doing for more than 20 years with cassettes.
You now officially have the right to despise me as much as you like.
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2, Insightful)
I would be willing to bet that the majority of people who use this program are much more interested in fast, easy transcoding to MP3 than they are generating unprotected MP4s to give to others. Unfortunately, the DMCA doesn't care about the primary purpose of a tool, it only cares about whether or not a tool is designed to circumvent DRM measures. Since I don't think anybody around here believes the DMCA has any moral authority or is a legitimate law at all, I doubt you'll get much sympathy for the perspective of abiding by it or inconveniencing ourselves just to stay within the bounds of an annoying law when there are many other inconvenient, absurd or downright unconstitutional laws we break on a daily basis.
Honestly, nothing would please me more than getting prosecuted under the DMCA for using Playfair. Because I know that I wouldn't take the songs and distribute them - I'd only be using them on my MP3 playback devices. I can't imagine a better way to point out to the mass media the absurdity of a law that tries to ban the use of legally purchased media with legally purchased devices within your own private home.
Re:You're not willing to *really* pay the price. (Score:3, Insightful)
But Apple doesn't have a right to set the rules. I'm buying a product, not a license. What I do with the product after it leaves their hands is none of their business. If I delete the file, that's too bad for me, because they have no obligation to manage my product. If I didn't make sure that it couldn't be accidentally deleted, that's my problem. But wait, I can't back up my product, because of DRM which contradicts fair use. Hmm. But I can use playfair, regain my rights, back up my music, and have broken exactly one law, the DMCA, which the grandparent mentioned in the first place.
In short, this has nothing to do with Apple's rights. Because, once it leaves their hands, they don't have any. If anything, the copyright holder has some rights that may be violated, and Apple's capability to market a product may be hurt. But they don't have a right to market a product anyway. Which takes us back to the beginning.
Re:You're not willing to *really* pay the price. (Score:4, Insightful)
bullshit.
the doctrine of first sale is pretty clear: once you've bought something, you have the right to use it any way you want.
there are limits to how many copies you can make and what you can do with those copies. there are limits to public performance. but if you're just using your purchased thing, there are no rules whatsoever. just because the media and software companies don't like it doesn't mean the law has suddenly changed.
-esme
Rights vs Reason (Score:1, Insightful)
Is it reasonable to publish music CDs that install some program on your Windows box, partially crippling your ability to use your computer? No.
Is it reasonable to sell music online containing DRM (like Apple's) that only affects the sold product? Yes.
Is it reasonable to find and publish a program to defeat such DRM? Hmmm.
Dude WTF are you doing? (Score:5, Insightful)
How dare you bring logic into a discussion where Apple is involved?
Now before I get modded Troll let me make a point. I've been reading Slashdot daily for a long long time. In that time we've seen a of programs that do emulation, reserve engineering, etc etc that in the end are applauded for empowering consumers. Over the years I have NEVER seen an outburst like this over something so natural to the computing and electronics world.
Let's go back to the original IBM bios being "cracked". This ushered in a whole new generation of cheaper "clones" and brought affordable computing to the mainstream. Look at Samba, look at DeCSS, look GAIM, look at Novell DOS, look at WINE, look at any of a billion pieces of software or hardware which let people use products in ways not forseen are authorized by the product manufacturers.
Now just because its Apple suddenly we are talking about how a "Criminal" "cracked" Apple's DRM and how we are all a bunch of assholes for not supporting Apple's commercial venture. Sorry but this is just like every article on Slashdot where Apple gets mentioned. Apple users come out in droves to support whatever Apple sells no matter what the story is about. These people are actually defending the DMCA for Christ's sake when you just know that if it were somthing that didn't affect Apple but they pesonally found useful they'd be cheering it on.
This is fanboyism at its worst. I'm sick and tired of reading posts from people who benefit from reverse engineering every single day yet don't even give it a second thought. Like the parent said. WTF is the difference between burning to CD and then ripping as opposed to just ripping? The end result is the same, a nonDRM file. Apple still got paid and you Itunes users seem to think this method for circumventing DRM is just dandy. Why are people who skipped the burning to cd part criminals? Oh I get it, they didn't work within the "Apple approved framework" and we should all be obeying the DMCA when it involves Apple. Hypocrites.
Re:Apple the bully (Score:3, Insightful)
It astounds me how we look at the labels as these all-powerful lords who we beg to bestow upon us the gift of music. Give me a break.
Yes: if people stop buying CD's because they want to purchase music online, and DRM is continuously cracked or shunned in the marketplace, then the labels will be _forced_ to offer unecumbered tracks. They are subserviant to us, not the other way around. A corporation exists to please it's customers. People do not exists to feed corporations. We came first, remember?
If they continue to dick around with this, an entire generation will be raised who see music as something you download off P2P for free. Then they will be truly screwed. If they act fast, they could theoretically keep the idea of paying for music: i.e. you pay 99 cents for an "official" copy, easy searching, fast download, guaranteed quality, etc. I pay for that. And now that I can strip the DRM I've got no more reservations. I'll buy all my music via iTunes now.
Cheers.