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."
What a world! (Score:5, Funny)
Moderation pending (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Moderation pending (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What a world! (Score:2)
Don't you mean 'Even our "Entertainment Wants to be Free" activists are being outsourced to India'?
Re:What a world! (Score:2)
Re:Story is not about pop music. (Score:2)
Do you really think that such sub-genres are not all a part of modern pop culture? Let me fill you in on a secret: the Clash sold a helluva lot of records.
Regardless of any personal stance differentiating one sub-genre's legitimacy from another simply by the sound of the music they produce and the branding image their marketin
Re:Story is not about pop music. (Score:2)
Re:The Clash (Score:2)
Important: Slashdot guide to DRM (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!!!!
Dupe post, not story (Score:5, Informative)
News ? (Score:5, Informative)
Check out the sarovar.org statistics... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sarovar will be moving higher on the list of GForge sites [gforge.org] pretty soon... they're # 12 currently...
Re:Check out the sarovar.org statistics... (Score:3, Funny)
After your post in slashdot the download counter is now #1 in the download counter webpage. What a world...
Except for that "Could not connect to the database" thingy that is.
This was the first (sensible) post in response (Score:3, Funny)
Guess it's true they can't be bothered reading the site -- maybe they should outsource their duties.
Re:This was the first (sensible) post in response (Score:2)
For Once I don't Agree (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like picking a friends pocket.
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 e reo.
Je
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:3, Insightful)
This is copyright violation.
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:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2)
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2)
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2)
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2)
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2)
Sure I can play it on my ipod.
"Or even to burn it to cd and play it in your car?"
I burn cds from them all the time. No problem. iTunes itself lets you make the list and burn the cd.
"What if you were searching for hidden messages and wanted to play it backwards?"
To be honest I don't do this. I listen to my music, not search for some message in it or play it backwards.
"Or play it on your network-enabled-but-not-ap
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:5, Informative)
Now, if you had said that you want to play your iTunes Music Store purchases on your Linux box, you'd actually have an argument.
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:3, Informative)
erm, no you cannot transcode a fairplay aac file to a mp3 file. You can burn it to a cd, and then rip it, but a direct transcode is not possible.
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2)
Yes you can, actually. You an transcode from M4P->AIFF->MP3 pretty easily. Just drag M4P songs into toast and they're automatically converted to AIFF. Then you can convert to MP3 or whatever else you want using ITunes. No need to burn them.
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:3, Informative)
You can't transcode a Fairplay AAC file to mp3 directly in iTunes, but if you know how to access the QuickTime API using Applescript, RealBasic or Apple's tools, you can transcode the files easily.
Also, you may be able to transoce Fairplay files using digital audio editing software that uses QuickTime.
True Audiophile (Score:5, Funny)
You *CRACK* tell *POP TSSS* them! Nothing "snap* beats *snap snap* the perfect pure *POP* sound of an LP.
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2)
You seem to suffer from a lack of imagination...
You seem to suffer from lack of a clue.
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?
Burning to unlimited CDs is explicitly allowed by apple's DRM (as long as you change a playlist if you want to make more than 10 CDs from it).
Converting to MP3 is perfectly possible without cracking the DRM, and cracking the DRM does absolutely nothing to reduce the minor quality degradat
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, as soon as I confirmed that PlayFair worked, I celebrated by purchasing $11 worth of music at the iTunes Music Store, which I then promptly stripped of all DRM, and I'll be buying more in the future now that I know that all I have to do is back my files up and I'll have this music for the rest of my life, regardless of what happens to Apple.
So I've actually put money in my friend's pocket.
The one place that Apple's DRM failed me was at the office. My office mates and I share our music libraries, and they weren't able to access my protected music. Yet Apple provides music sharing for the other music I've purchased and ripped from CDs. 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.
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.
I'll continue to purchase music from iTMS. I'll continue to use PlayFair. I'll continue to pay for my music and get the use out of it that I am entitled to.
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:For Once I don't Agree (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2)
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.
You're right. I am a criminal. There's no way to deny that. However, given that most of us are criminals in one way or another (say, driving over the speed limit), I don't feel particularly unusual.
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2)
Hard to say what you mean by "entitle" -- clearly not some sort of legal statement.
I wouldn't have a moral problem with breaking a law if I think that the law has no point, is unlikely to soon be reappealed, and is unlikely to be enforced. Take, for instance, public anti-profanity laws. I don't think that these are good laws. It is unlikely that they will be repeal
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:3, Interesting)
It's interesting that you believe so strongly in the rule of law, but your .sig quotes one of the heroes of civil disobedience.
You have to reconcile your belief in the rule of law with your admiration for great men and women who changed the world for the better by breaking laws.
The simple answer is to take one of the extremist views that either 1) the law must always be followed and civil disobendience is wrong, or 2) the law is an ass and we should all just do what we want.
The more sensible approach
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:You're not willing to *really* pay the price. (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly, I'm still not uncomfortable breaking the DMCA, because, as I said, I don't feel that it is a good law. It should never have been passed.
What does give me pause is your observation that I have broken an agreement with Apple that I have made. I do take my agreements seriously, although I'm sure I'm breaking other agreements as well. For instance, I have created disk images of Neverwinter Nights and Warc
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
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
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2)
What this utility allows is someone to transfer the music they bought to a non "apple sanctioned" platform. It allows for someone to play this music on Linux, or other portable music players.
I hardly think this will encourage sharing of AAC music with the masses, as it is just as easy to rip a CD of the same music and share that with the masses. And there is a lot more music available via the CD than download at Apple's website.
So this u
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2)
Transfering from one compressed form to another degrades the quality. To keep the quality as high as possible the best way is to burn it then rip it as something else. A little more time and the price of a cd but the quality is better.
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2)
True. Although the degradation may still be beyond the capabilities of a human ear.
This, on the other hand, is beyond stupid. What you are suggesting, is just a hard way of transfering from one compressed form to another. That's it. It does not provide a better result than what is possible with a pure software conversion.
Of
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2)
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2)
Re:For Once I don't Agree (Score:2)
iTunes has visulizations too.
"burning an Audio CD without crashing (about 1/2 the time I try to burn a CD in iTunes, it screws up so bad I have to reboot)."
Something is obviously wrong with your system or iTunes install. Why not fix the problem. What if winamp were crashing all the time. Would you not fix that install.
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
The joys of outsourcing (Score:2)
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.
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:No good can come of this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No good can come of this (Score:2)
The premise that you take is that iTMS AAC must be played by Apple approved solutions. The problem as you see it is that the Apple approved solutions may not be flexible enough for some. The solution that you offer is to ask Apple for more features.
The premise that the Playfair authors take is that an unencrypted AAC file on their hard disk is better than an encrypted AAC file on their hard disk. The problem
Re:No good can come of this (Score:2)
And Apple's answer... taken directly from your own grandparent post... is as follows:
[We] 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.
They do
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: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
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:No good can come of this (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a parallel with milita
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
Re:No good can come of this (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems to me that the DMCA is not working the way that the Media big boys thought it would. Back when DeCSS was released, the MPAA took all kinds of legal action under the DMCA and won, at least in court. Even though the MPAA "won", they lost in the end. I can find DeCSS (and newer programs that were developed from it) all over the Net. The legal action gave DeCSS all of the publicity it would ever need -- and not just in the Geek community.
We are seeing the same thing now with Playfair. What will A
Re:No good can come of this (Score:2)
Not that I agree with what they are doing (for the record, I don't -- Apple appears to have made allowances for measured fair play), how is subverting the system instead of working within it different than any other kind of activism.
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.
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:No good can come of this (Score:2)
The cynic in me says that s/Apple/Microsoft/ doing exactly the same thing would result in you not caring in the least about said efforts.
Re:No good can come of this (Score:3, Informative)
What they did was fine.
Not everyone has the desire to be a martyr for the cause. Whoever developed this is clearly worried about being found guilty of a crime or fighting an expensive legal battle. They have an easy, l
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:If they fail in India, there are other places.. (Score:3, Insightful)
These are the equivalent to offshore tax have
Re: (Score:2)
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 ?
Re:The point of this is ? (Score:2)
Sarovar (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sarovar (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, sarovar is lake in Hindi. Its generally used only in written language though.
In this case, the hidden meaning may be something like "pool of projects" or somesuch.
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.
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
Shows many peoples true colors (Score:5, Interesting)
Worst part is that this just adds fuel to the RIAA fire. They view all sharers as a bunch of crooks, and why not? Basically people are saying "We don't give a crap about copyright laws and your rights to have control over your content, oh, but do something against OUR policies (i.e. GPL) and we'll be first in line crying about "when are you going to release the source!! why are you taking advantage of the hard work of others for your own purposes".
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 fi
Why people complain about price (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple charges $1 per track for a lossily-compressed file.
That would be $11 for a typical Britney Spears CD, according to a quick look at a Britney Spears discography.
When the RIAA was bitterly complaining about piracy justified by "expense of CD", they put out a cost breakdown -- here's one of the news articles [cnn.com] mentioning it.
Let's take a look at this:
Retail Markup is $6.23. Apple says that they're breaking even on iTune audio sales, and only making money on the iPod. Their server hardware and the software backend is a constant cost, and already sunk. Bandwidth is a couple of cents a gig -- let's be generous and say 20 cents/GB. Let's say each AAC is five megs -- that'd be 55 megs. That's about a penny in retail markup to cover those costs that Apple says they're only breaking even on. So far, the price should decrease by $6.22.
Company overhead, distribution and shipping is effectively nil, aside from constant-cost B2B negtiation. The price should decrease by another $3.34, in total $9.56.
Marketing and promotion costs. These should stay the same. Personally, I think that radio (and netradio) stations should be free to play whatever they want, sans royalties, since it's effectively nothing but marketing. But we'll leave the cost, $2.15, in place.
The artist and songwriter recieve $1.99. No decrease.
The signing act and producing record get $1.08. No decrease.
Co-op advertising and discounts to retailers don't really apply in the online world -- a banner ad on Apple's site when buying your music is of negligable bandwidth cost to Apple compared to the bandwidth cost of the audio file -- $.85 decrease.
Pressing album and printing booklet -- doesn't exist in the online world. $.75 decrease.
Profit to label -- $.59, stays the same.
Okay, let's do the math: $.59 + $1.08 + $1.99 + $2.15 + $.01 = 5.82. The price for that Britney Spears CD that used to cost $16 and Apple is selling for $11 should be $5.82 in the online world.
There are numerous other benefits to labels to online music purchases, including the fact that CD audio is lossless and Apple is selling lossy data that is likely to eventually be behind the times in compression algorithm, meaning resales sooner. Cheaper online purchases mean more sales -- and my numbers (unless, of course, the RIAA is lying about their costs and hiding additional profit in per-unit distribution costs or similar) mean that the RIAA makes *more* money in such a scenerio. Returns don't exist -- CDs can be defective, but a bunch of bits is the same bunch of bits when anyone obtains it. Unique per-copy watermarking is easy to do, and watermarking seems to make the RIAA absoutely giggle in delight, so they should like online sales.
Want lossless FLAC quality? It should require about five times the bandwidth -- it should be about four cents more in cost to Apple, or $5.86, for that Britney Spears album.
Now, a couple of assumptions here should probably change, to be realistic. First, the RIAA should probably expect to be making less per-unit, since there's simply less money involved. Second, most retailers aren't going to be happy with just breaking even, and probably are going to want more money (plus, I ignored constant costs, and big business is usually incapable of setting up any computer systems without flushing masses of money down the toilet -- even if data transfer costs should be the dominant expense for a company that makes money by selling data in an automated fashion). That album in lossless FLAC still shouldn't be costing more than $6, which is *half* what Apple charges and provides much better quality.
Re:But it is a kludge! (Score:2)
Actually, yes it is your content. The GPL only covers distribution. As long as you don't distribute the code you are not bound by the GPL.
Copyright only restricts distribution of works, not use.
After India DVD parties! (Score:2)
Downloading is convinient for broadband users and reduces instances of CD swapping (still popular amonst people with dial-up). If downloading becomes awkward, I see a rise in the popularity of DVD swapping.
Jobs predicted this (Score:5, Interesting)
To be clear, he believes that iTunes, and stores like it. Will primarily succeed because they provide a better experience than P2P for a reasonable cost. The DRM is something that's in there only to appease the RIAA.
And, irony of ironies... (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory Heinlein Quote (Score:4, Insightful)
Are the AAC files watermarked in any way ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Has any group of people done any research into whether there is any watermarking or identification contained within the cleaned AAC files... ?
IE, two or more users buy the same song, use PlayFair to strip and clean the AAC, and then compare the resulting AAC files... is there any differences ?
Good god (Score:5, Interesting)
It does the same DRM removal that iTunes does for you already.
In iTunes, you can burn tracks to CD. Then, you can rip them as unprotected tracks. There's a slight quality hit, but it's still equivalent to the original for purposes of copyright law. All PlayFair does for you above iTunes is save you a CD-RW, a few minutes, and the quality hit. You are left with a non-DRM track that is not substantially different from the PlayFair-stripped track. The copyright violation occurs if you distribute the track to those not licensed to have it.
<RANT>
I'm amazed that any slashdotters at all are willing to put up with any sort of DRM, even the relatively friendly Apple version. It's reasonable for the copyright holder to expect me not to distribute it, but restricting my ability in any way to listen to it on all my computers is ludicrous.
My experience in college radio has shown me that RIAA labels are slimy bastards. I'm not willing to give up rights so they can apply an overzealous solution to a "problem" that might not actually exist. Even if all labels ceased to exist tomorrow, we'd all still be alive, folks.
</RANT>
Maybe I'm smoking crack on this one; would someone care to correct me?
Correct. Apple's DRM == fig leaf (Score:3, Funny)
Apple only installed DRM because the RIAA insisted. Apple made the DRM strippable because Jobs has a clue - he realizes that music with both DRM and a price tag can't compete against free music ripped from a CD. But the procedure for stripping the DRM was obscured, so that the intended market (RIAA executives and the technologically uncurious, or (ahem) both) wouldn't no
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 th
Re:doubt that will last (Score:5, Interesting)
This is one of the reasons to use Freenet. Projects should be moved there instead of just off shore to countries with less draconian (yet) laws.
Freenet won't allow realtime CVS checkins, but it'd be impossible to remove the software from it using legal means.
Re:doubt that will last (Score:5, Informative)
Moreover, the sarovar website is hosted by Asianet, which is a leftleaning TV channel in a state with a history of communist governments (BTW communist is not a bad word here). So not only are they cool with the idea of community ownership of information they are also not to be messed with easily since they can very well publicise it.
Not saying that India has never censored information (pakistani news/TV is the most commonly banned), but its not very common either.
Re:doubt that will last (Score:2)
This whole point seemed fairly obvious to me. Can't believe they would move there...
Re:doubt that will last (Score:4, Funny)
CFO to CIO: "Hey Jake, guess what?"
CIO: What?
CFO: You know how we made 78 million last year outsourcing our call center and IT support to Hyderabad?
CIO: Heck! That was the smartest move we ever did! We're back on the Street!
CFO: Well, we're gonna have to pull back...
CIO: What? Are you out of your mind?
CFO: Not at all. The Indian government is allowing some no-name company down there to violate Apple Computer's patents on their file format...
CIO: Let me cut you off right there Buddy... I don't give a damn about Apple. It's their problem. As long as we can get labor at $1 per hour, we're staying. So, got anything else?
CFO: Yeah, we're still on for golf at 3?
CIO: You betcha!
Asianet, channel and Asianet, ISP are different (Score:3, Informative)
raj
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 a
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: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:4, Insightful)
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: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: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 ple
Re:shhhh. keep the Apple secret secret (Score:2)
No going back now. Under US law, MS _is_ a monopoly. Any "beard" utility of Apple is now gone. So explain to us again why MS would want to maintain a viable alternative OS/hardware-platform choice?
Be sure to don your protective headgear before replying.
Re:Actual monopoly vs legal monopoly. (Score:2)
There are certainly effective monopoloies though.
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?