Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PlayFair Pulled Due to DMCA Request

pudge posted more than 10 years ago | from the fair-use-foiled-again dept.

Media (Apple) 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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Project still available elsewhere..... (4, Informative)

michael path (94586) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817454)

The project has been moved here:

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..... (1)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817490)

Hmmm... the CVS repository [sarovar.org] is empty...

Re:Project still available elsewhere..... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817531)

What????
Clearly all of this is true, but I don't not need understand what?
S.O.A.P.

Re:Project still available elsewhere..... (4, Informative)

Saint Aardvark (159009) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817544)

Thought this might happen, so I checked out a copy from CVS when the original story was posted. The tarball can be found at:

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..... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817629)

Grabbed from SourceForge before they shut it down:
4645fa4753a3fb50521fa8750e9932a2 playfair-0.2.tar.gz

Re:Project still available elsewhere..... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817724)

From a macslash post:
I am the playfair author. Yes, it was a C&D from Apple. The kind folks at sarovar.org have agreed to host the project, as it does not violate any Indian laws. The C&D from Apple will be posted to the website when it's back up at
sarovar.org [sarovar.org] .

To clarify:

1. The DRMS code was written by VLC folks. I just used their code and two libaries (mp4ff and mp4v2) to create a nice, easy-to-use program. I did NOT reverse-engineer FairPlay.
2. I think $0.99 is a fair price, too. I just (a) philosophically disagree with DRM and (b) want to be able to play the songs that I have legally purchased outside of iTunes / Quicktime. For the record, I do not use P2P networks to share files illegally.
3. The DMCA is an abomination. Please write your congresspeople and ask them to repeal it.

link to the new host (-1, Redundant)

Numeric (22250) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817463)

http://sarovar.org/projects/playfair/

Didn't see that one coming? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817468)

Funny, everyone else did.

Re:Didn't see that one coming? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817532)

> Funny, everyone else did.

Here, you'd better wear this helmet.
And we have a little yellow bus to take you to a nice place where you can place with other people like yourself.

Re:Didn't see that one coming? (0, Offtopic)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817573)

Run, Forest, run...

Re:Didn't see that one coming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817556)

Funny, everyone else did.

Like everyone else understood the sarcasm?

Re:Didn't see that one coming? (2, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817557)

Funny, everyone else did.

Indeed. I'm also counting the days until this [slashdot.org] shares a similar fate.

Apple making the same dumb mistakes. (5, Insightful)

ln -sf head ass (585724) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817469)

By trying to sue something off the Internet, you only ensure its wider propagation and interest among people who otherwise wouldn't have cared. I'll be sharing a tarball on eMule immediately. Come and sue everybody, Apple.

Oh come on. (4, Insightful)

Liselle (684663) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817607)

Give me a break, you speak as if they have a reasonable alternative. If Apple doesn't go after these people, you know that the recording industry is going to throw a conniption fit.

Re:Oh come on. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817671)

Of course. It's not like Apple has willfully used the DMCA before. Except against Aqua skinners, people who enabled purchased copies of iDVD work with third party drives, and people who dared to make a WinCE device act like an MP3 player.

Where do you think the pressure is coming from... (5, Insightful)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817638)

I honestly don't know, but I would imagine that Apple is concerned about this not because they want to make sure everything stays locked up for the sake of being locked up, but probably because they don't want the RIAA to yank their licenses and cause all of the iTMS to come crashing down.

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. (5, Insightful)

ln -sf head ass (585724) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817728)

I'd like to think that Apple is doing this reluctantly, but they've used the threat of litigation against individuals and small organizations too many times in the past to give them the benefit of the doubt. They're like a smaller version of Microsoft--just as evil, but with style and with better PR.

Re:Apple making the same dumb mistakes. (1)

bl4nk (607569) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817675)

In other news, it has been reported by some anonymous sources that Apple and the Recording Industry Association of America (also known as the RIAA) have banded together for a "Sue the Planet" campaign. Apple will apparently be first targeting those who are proliferating 'FairPlay' over P2P networks.

Re:Apple making the same dumb mistakes. (1)

ln -sf head ass (585724) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817696)

LOL :). I'll hold my breath. The nice thing about being a CS student in the U.S. is being judgment proof. Given trends towards outsourcing, I'll probably be able to maintain that status as long as necessary after graduation.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817470)

fp

Looks like (0, Offtopic)

sobriquet (666716) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817481)

it has been mac/.'ed

They're not playing fair... (2, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817483)

Apple created a piece of software that doesn't allow people to play the music their paid for on the devices of their choice.

What this program is is not circumvention... It's fair use.

Re:They're not playing fair... (5, Insightful)

twbecker (315312) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817520)

Just to play devils advocate, it's not as if people who bought their music from Apple weren't aware of the "limitations" of it's use. If they were, then it's no one's fault but their own.

Re:They're not playing fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817585)


I think not my friend.

Re:They're not playing fair... (5, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817592)

We are allowing for bad precedents to be set. The more we allow to slip out the more we will lose. Are we going to allow shrink-wrap EULAs on CDs when we open them now? "This CD is the only medium you can listen to this music on. You may not encode, rip, record via analog, etc"?

Re:They're not playing fair... (5, Insightful)

wankledot (712148) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817547)

"play their music"

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817604)

"You have certain limitations on what you can do with it, like it or not, because you bought it from Apple with those limitations."

Fair use trumps those limitations.

Re:They're not playing fair... (5, Insightful)

wfberg (24378) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817609)

"play their music"

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... (2, Insightful)

JTFaustus (553534) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817653)

How do you figure? The music really belongs to the person who created it, regardless of copyrights or anything else.

Re:They're not playing fair... (2, Insightful)

Mr. McGibby (41471) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817729)

If the person who "created" it actually created the *whole* thing, then yes, it's his. But that's not how it works. Every creative work is derivative in some way. That's why copyrights expire. Because the creative work we create is a shared resource. It was created based on other work.

Re:They're not playing fair... (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817664)

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.

It's mine. I paid for it. Just because it's bits doesn't invalidate the doctrine of first use.

Re:They're not playing fair... (2, Insightful)

LookSharp (3864) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817714)

I don't like what Apple did (with this lawsuit)

*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... (4, Insightful)

Drakino (10965) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817576)

Apple created a piece of software that doesn't allow people to play the music their paid for on the devices of their choice.

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... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817581)

When you downloaded the song from iTMS you agreed to the terms of use of the song. You knew from the beginning that you had to play by Apple's rules about what device the music can be played on; and you agreed to it. To come back later on and say that you should be able to circumvent that agreement is wrong.

Re:They're not playing fair... (4, Insightful)

JohnGrahamCumming (684871) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817596)

No, it's not fair use. When you buy music from Apple you are buying it under a specific contract and by buying it you are accepting the terms of that contract which limits the use of the music. Don't like the terms, don't get it from Apple.

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817598)

The people buying music from iTMS are entering into an agreement about what rights and restrictions they have with the music they "purchased". If they don't agree to those restrictions then they should not be buying music there.

This program defeats those restrictions and is at least against the rules agreed to in the iTMS contract if not the DMCA and other US copyright laws. I personally have no sympathy for people who enter into an agreement such as this and then whine about not having full control over the music they "purchase". If you don't like the agreement then go buy the actual CD or better yet, the vinyl version.

Re:They're not playing fair... (3, Interesting)

MP3Chuck (652277) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817599)

But therein lies the problem of the DMCA... True "Fair Use" becomes criminal.

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.

Re:They're not playing fair... (1)

Beatbyte (163694) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817600)

So you're saying they sold them the music claiming they could play it on any device?

NO, they did not. They knew what they bought and this is only going to promote piracy.

I understand there are going to be a few users who use it legitimately but its going to be a very marginal amount.

Re:They're not playing fair... (1)

Orgazmus (761208) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817612)

Well, I want you to be right, and you should.
But the deal is one piece of music software that can be played on any of the players apple wats it to be played on. Legally they are in their full right.
But when it comes to fair use apple are legaly fubar.

No... (3, Insightful)

Pirogoeth (662083) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817627)

...not quite. When you bought your music from the iTMS, you already knew [apple.com] that you would only be allowed to play it within iTunes or on your iPod.

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.

Re:They're not playing fair... (2, Informative)

briaydemir (207637) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817710)

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.

What up wit dat? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817485)

()===## I just thought about it too

T-Shirts coming soon (4, Funny)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817489)

> PlayFair has been removed from SourceForge.net.

Oh good, should I order my T-shirts now?

Lest we forget... (3, Interesting)

Gothic_Walrus (692125) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817497)

Once a file's made it to the internet, it's always going to be available. Undergroud websites, file sharing, Usenet groups...it's still available. It's just become a bit harder to find.

In this case, though, that's a moot point, seeing as it's been rehosted. Oh well.

It is all clear now. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817511)

SourceForge.net is owned by OSDN, the parent company of Slashdot.

is that all it takes to get your story posted?

btw don't eat meat today. unless your black.

Re:It is all clear now. (0, Offtopic)

Ithika (703697) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817551)

my black what?

Re:It is all clear now. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817578)

sorry, "unless your black ass can't put down that chicken leg to fix my typos."

Re:It is all clear now. (-1, Offtopic)

christopher240240 (633932) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817656)

It's cowardly bitches like you that give bitches a bad name. Bitch.

Re:It is all clear now. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817676)

>btw don't eat meat today. unless your black.

unless my black what?

Mac idiots still praise Apple for that (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817526)

I am glad to see one more examples that show how evil Apple is. Apple idiots will argue that you can still use your songs fairly, but if that would be the case then they wouldn't use DMCA against this open source project. This also point out how Apple is viewing open source. Apple is essentially RIAA, nothing more nothing less, anybody who say otherwise is simply an Apple idiot who loves to kiss Apple's ass.

You don't say (-1, Flamebait)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817527)

Apple strong-arming the little guys? Apple using the DMCA to kill a free software project? Apple behaving like Microsoft et. al? And then reported on MacSlash? What is the world coming to??

I can't wait to read all the apologist crap that's about to be posted here. Let the McFanboy fest begin.

Re:You don't say (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817655)

Let the McFanboy fest begin.

Maybe I should RTFA, but what happened with McDonald's?

Re:You don't say (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817667)

i think it's more of a symbolic move. apple/jobs probably knows better than to think c&d will remove this program from existence.

but at least taking a public stance against it, they can appease the record labels...

Cry me a iRiver (-1, Troll)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817540)

So the twenty hippies that used this program can't use it anymore. If you don't like a company's policies, DON'T BUY FROM THEM!

Bring on the poems and prime numbers! (2, Insightful)

jamonterrell (517500) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817541)

It's that time again... Seems like people would eventually get the point that programs are free speech. I can't wait to see the poems and prime numbers that get produced for this (remniscent of DeCSS).

Bad weekend to be a Mac user (4, Funny)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817542)

*runs and hides*

Apple has no right (4, Interesting)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817549)

Unless you mean the music publishing company. Which of Apple Computer's copyrighted works, does PlayFair remove the protection from?

Foot - Aim - Shoot! (2, Insightful)

Beatbyte (163694) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817552)

First, iTunes Music Store is by far the most successful online music store. Good prices, great selection (sounds like a damn commercial doesn't it?).

I'm very pleased with it. I get ALL my purchased music from it.

This "playfair" project is just going to have the recording industry folks who reluctantly agreed to go in with Apple and distribute their music get scared and pissed off. They're going to pull their music and/or the prices are going to go up in fear of piracy.

It can not only hurt Apple, but also hurt online music sales as a whole.

Its nice to see the people bitching about the $20 CD's ruining the $10 online albums.

Its not good enough until its free right? GIVE ME A BREAK!

Re:Foot - Aim - Shoot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817611)

Maybe you're missing something here... these people have already paid for it. If I buy a CD and complain because it has copy protection, what argument are you using? I paid for it and want a copy on my computer... that doesn't make the CD I just paid for free.

My advice: think before you type.

Re:Foot - Aim - Shoot! (3, Interesting)

ignipotentis (461249) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817635)

I'm very pleased with it. I get ALL my purchased music from it.

Maybe you should take a look at
this [arstechnica.com] . Everyone knew it wasn't going to last, but I'm shocked at how quickly the music industry has changed their minds on on-line pricing.


Re:Foot - Aim - Shoot! (2, Interesting)

Beatbyte (163694) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817705)

I want more money too but that doesn't mean I'm going to get it.

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.

Re:Foot - Aim - Shoot! (1)

Catbeller (118204) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817677)

This "playfair" project is just going to have the recording industry folks who reluctantly agreed to go in with Apple and distribute their music get scared and pissed off. They're going to pull their music and/or the prices are going to go up in fear of piracy.

The labels are already raising the prices. [wired.com] Apparently fear of the nasty customers pirating their wares wasn't a factor for them. Just lots of money.

So who cares. They had a nice model, and now they're even more greedy than ever.

Here's a clue for you... (5, Informative)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817689)

It's not about piracy.

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! (2, Insightful)

System.out.println() (755533) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817720)

What I want to know - aside from getting a higher quality file (duboius at best) what's the point? It's not like this is legal, you might as well just download the songs anyway. (Unless you have a particularly large legal library or dialup, I suppose)

If you're running a public [something]Forge... (2, Interesting)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817558)

...you need to have a Terms of Service to deal with junx like this. We've got one on RubyForge [rubyforge.org] just in case...

What/who is sarovar.org (5, Informative)

aacool (700143) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817559)

Sarovar.org is India's first portal to host projects under Free/Open source licenses. It is located in Trivandrum, India and hosted at Asianet data center [asianet.co.in] . Sarovar.org is customised, installed and maintained by Linuxense [linuxense.com] as part of their community services and sponsored by River Valley Technologies [river-valley.com]

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 (5, Insightful)

RoboOp (460207) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817684)

Thus begins the stampede of technological innovation to environments where freedom is celebrated, rather than crushed.

WHY WHY WHY (2, Insightful)

CaptScarlet22 (585291) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817561)

Why must people insist on going around the system!??!?!
Why can't people be content in buying music at .99 cents and burning it anyway they want!?!??!

This isn't a "Unconditional Surrender" here...There has to be some rules....

I just can't understand this, .99 cents is SOOOO cheap!!!
It's not like your paying $50 bucks for a game!!!

Somewhere down the line something has to break....

Re:WHY WHY WHY (1)

ln -sf head ass (585724) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817647)

The only "unconditional surrender" that will be accepted is that of the industry. There is no putting the toothpasted back into the tube. They'll sell us music on our terms, or not sell us music at all, because their distribution oligopoly will not protect them from the Internet.

WHAT WHAT WHAT are you talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817706)

Why are you talking about money? What do $50 games have to do with anything? Why so much punctuation? I'm all questions today :)

Re:WHY WHY WHY (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817722)

The DRM limits what devices/applications you can play the song with. For example, the only way to listen to a song purchased through iTunes on Linux was to burn it to a CD and listen to it, or rip it from the CD ( losing quality ) and copy it into Linux. I did my part when I payed for the song, I should be able to play it wherever *I* want. I understand the rules, but the record company got their money from me, so in my personal opinion, I should be able to listen to it where I like. That's why I like Playfair.

terms and conditions do not apply; no law broken (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817567)

Apple has not come close to proving that a law has been broken, so there are no grounds for the project to be suspended either under the law or under OSDN's own T&C (which, it seems, basically say, "you must obey the DMCA"). PlayFair is a system for promoting interoperability, an act explicitly protected under the DMCA.


I can only conclude that OSDN are either lazy, scared of Apple, or have interests in Apple. None of these are good things.

Re:terms and conditions do not apply; no law broke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817608)

Mod parent up - by banning this project, OSDN are making a very clear mark as to where they stand on Open Source as a tool to protect rights in the face of bullying corporations.

How in the world? (0, Troll)

Jack Comics (631233) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817568)

from the fair-use-foiled-again dept.

Could that line be any more biased? Exactly how is FairPlay fair use? When the RIAA started cracking down on MP3/digital music sharing, the most common excuse given by those who download and/or share was that it was because CDs were too expensive, and they just wanted one or two songs off of an album that they could download. They even claimed that if they could do this legally for the appropriate price, they would.

Well, Apple (along with others), have granted you your request... tracks off an album you can legally purchase and download without spending $10+ on a CD. But what do some thieves do anyway? They go ahead and download it for free anyway, going around the protections made by the owners and original distributors of the content.

So, what is your excuse now? When it comes down to it, those who are involved in FairPlay and those who use it are nothing more than common thieves, and should be treated appropriately.

Re:How in the world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817616)

You're either trolling, or a moron. This utility is of no use whatsoever unless run against a purchased track by someone running an "authorized" computer.

Re:How in the world? (1)

nanter (613346) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817662)

FairPlay is Apple's DRM. You mean PlayFair, which this article is referencing.

Re:How in the world? (1)

jamonterrell (517500) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817663)

Probably a troll, but I'll bite, because it needs to be said.

It is fair use because you can't otherwise play music that you have paid for on portable equipment not "recommended" (ie. sold by) iTMS. Not to mention that you also can't play it on Linux and FreeBSD. Also to note is that you can't otherwise play the music in a music player other than their music player (ie. I can't play it in Winamp, I have to use ITunes).

Theft by definition requires deprving someone of something that belongs to them. In this case they're not depriving anyone of anything. Oh yeah, and did I mention they PAID FOR IT.

Re:How in the world? (1)

steveit_is (650459) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817704)

I don't need an excuse. I am the almighty consumer, and I will continue doing whatever is easiest/cheapest to get what I want. This is the way it has always been, and the way it will always be. Just because a company has a bad business model based entirely around the concept of 'unbreakable' DRM (a logical impossiblity) doesn't mean that the nature of consumers will change. Even stupid laws will not stop people, because after a stupid law has been passed it is not only easier, but now more fun as well.

Re:How in the world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817717)

Do you even know what FairPlay is? It's not a tool that does anything related to "download it for free." All it does is remove the protection from music you paid for. Now you can do things like transcode the music to a format that your portable player can handle, and then listen to it in your car. Apple already allowed that sort of thing anyway, but you have to use the iTunes software to decode the song and write it to CD. This software just competes with iTunes.

Nobody who uses this program, is using to to download music for free. The program can't work unless you already have the scrambled music file and the key, and buying the music is the easiest way to get those two things.

playfair (0, Redundant)

MakoStorm (699968) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817574)

I cant really say anything I am still miffed at the idea of charging 1.25 per song or more. This is really making me hate music, one side, music should be free, and on the other side you have the RIAA saying that they will charge more because music copyright code is being cracked.

I am about ready to say Fork it, and I will just listen to the radio. and not buy any of the beer thats advertised on the radio commercials! HAH! I just won, I listened to the radio and the music and didnt buy any of the advertised products, HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW! ....

okay I feel better

Our response should be simple and brutal. (-1, Flamebait)

adequacy (544972) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817582)

I call again on everyone who supported us in our campaign to Free Dimitri [freesklyarov.org] from the unjust shackles of an insane law to help by immediately Boycotting Apple. Things you can do to help:

  • Publicly burn any Apple hardware you own Mac/Ipod/etc. Try to do this en masse, and call your local news station.
  • Write a letter to your congressman. Make sure you mention why the DMCA is a bad law, and why you cannot suport any company which uses it to attack legitimate reverse engineering.
  • Do whatever you can to remove Apple software from your workplace. Now that Apple has publicly sided against freedom, OS/X must be considered dead as a development platform. Ditch it immediately!


Good luck, and may the Force be with you.

Re:Our response should be simple and brutal. (1)

diamondsw (685967) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817670)

And your recommended response for Apple would have been...?

Re:Our response should be simple and brutal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817693)


Publicly burn any Apple hardware you own Mac/Ipod/etc. Try to do this en masse, and call your local news station.

How about burning Macs/iPods/etc that I don't own? A lot cheaper that way. Besides, I couldn't afford an iPod even if I wanted one ;).

now watch (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817590)

how a million apple zealots will try to spin this into how apple is on the side of the people against evil corporations, and get modded +5 insightful in the proccess.

ARE YOU GAY? DO YOU HAVE aPPLE COMPUTER? JOIN!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817594)

JOIN THE CLUB!! aPPLE GAY COMPUTER club is there for you!! Young man, join now!! CLUB THEME SONG IS "YMCA" by the VILLAGE PEOPLE!! Join now young man!!!!

Mantra when writing this sort of software (3, Funny)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817595)

Mirror early, mirror often!

Test Case? (5, Insightful)

Landaras (159892) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817603)

Unfortunately, I am not a lawyer, nor do I have the disposable income to pay for one.

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.

Who didn't see this one coming ? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817605)

Yeah, Apple is such a great, 'stand up for the little guy' company, isn't it ?

How is PlayFair different from (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817619)

DeCSS?

history repeats itself... (1, Insightful)

Anubis333 (103791) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817621)

Apple didn't 'play fair' in '84, if they had, the world might be running on Macintosh today. Jobs always tries to cut out any 3rd parties. The first thing he did when he returned as 'interim' CEO was to buy up all the really good 3rd party Macintosh computer makers like Power Computing [everymac.com] and Motorola [everymac.com] . The entire point of iTunes, the entire reason they are suffering the losses they are, is that every customer that purchases even one song from them must have either Apple licensed software or hardware to 'play fair' with the DRM.

As an Apple Computer user and stock holder... (1)

eXtro (258933) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817623)

I think this sucks. The DMCA is a rotten law and I hate seeing it used. Rather than innovate and try to protect copyright companies are allowed to use legislation that has a side effect of silencing free speech. I understand Apple's concerns about fairplay since it reduces the chance that the record companies will renew their contracts but using the DMCA is vile. It's especially ornerous because I recall Apple (possibly even Steve Jobs) admitting that they purposely encumbered itunes with fairly weak copyright protection.

It's a sham, or is it? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817624)

Its a great thing this was taken off. Finally we see some good prices, and some good technology to protect the artists. And yeah, there will always be ways around the protection... but leave it for the L33t; dont give it to the masses.

Playfair torrent (5, Informative)

SeanTobin (138474) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817636)

I haven't gotten a DMCA takedown notice in the last week or so, so here is a torrent for everyone to enjoy:

http://www.isthatdamngood.com/playfair-0.2.torrent [isthatdamngood.com]

Enjoy!

A Business decision - Apple is a music reseller. (4, Insightful)

acomj (20611) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817668)

This is purely a business move by apple. They're DRM is pretty light. Everyone has known that you can burn a cd then rip it back. Even easier you can record anything going to the speaker as an mp3 using some freely available software.

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.

Depressingly Predictable (4, Informative)

Chilltowner (647305) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817672)

As soon as I read the earlier /. story about PlayFair, I went straight to SourceForge and downloaded a copy. It now sits at home in a (sadly) ever expanding directory named "samizdat [ualberta.ca] ", along with things like deCSS stuff [cmu.edu] , the Grey Album [illegal-art.org] , and various other bits from Illegal Art [illegal-art.org] . Some of those things are still available, but I have such little faith in the DCMA that I think private copies are warranted.

Now hosted at sarovar.org (2, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8817686)

From a macslash post:
I am the playfair author. Yes, it was a C&D from Apple. The kind folks at sarovar.org have agreed to host the project, as it does not violate any Indian laws. The C&D from Apple will be posted to the website when it's back up at
sarovar.org [sarovar.org] .

To clarify:

1. The DRMS code was written by VLC folks. I just used their code and two libaries (mp4ff and mp4v2) to create a nice, easy-to-use program. I did NOT reverse-engineer FairPlay.
2. I think $0.99 is a fair price, too. I just (a) philosophically disagree with DRM and (b) want to be able to play the songs that I have legally purchased outside of iTunes / Quicktime. For the record, I do not use P2P networks to share files illegally.
3. The DMCA is an abomination. Please write your congresspeople and ask them to repeal it.

Essentially DMCA says... (2, Interesting)

seangw (454819) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817701)

That no matter how good/bad the encryption mechanism is, people can't break it.

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.

How far does DMCA extend? (1)

Cesaro (78578) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817703)

Practically everything I own, the hard drives, the IPAQ, the Zen, the car, the thumbdrive, the DVD player, everything can be completely taken apart and circumvented in some way shape or form. Nothing besides fear of me breaking it is preventing me from tearing apart my Nomad Zen and bypassing their firmware chip and using my own home made one.

So in all seriousness how far can the DMCA actually extend? If I use a screwdriver to open my zen and do that, is Craftsman liable under the DMCA for providing me with circumvention tools? Most everything we interact with has some digital component that COULD potentially fall under some subclause or subsection of the DMCA as it is written.

So what is the furthest that it has gone? How far can it go? And how far will it go before we realize what we've done?

Freedom, AAC, and fair use. (4, Insightful)

mfh (56) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817709)

Consider this.

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?

Just a tad hypocritical... (4, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 10 years ago | (#8817715)

As per SourceForge.net policy, the project has been disabled.

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?