Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Businesses Apple Your Rights Online

Update on Playfair 370

Posted by CmdrTaco from the gonna-get-messier dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A few weeks back, Slashdot reported that Apple had sent a cease and desist letter to Sarovar.org, the Indian site hosting the Playfair project. This is the first incident in India where a corporation has used legal means to shut down a Free Software project. Some of the prominent members of the Open Source/Free Software community in India have issued an update on this situation. There is also an interesting post in the FSF-India mailing lists."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Update on Playfair More

Update on Playfair

Comments Filter:

  • Coverage on K5 also. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:06AM (#8964639)
    Some nice discussion here [kuro5hin.org].
    • Is there such a thing as a p2p-based Savannah/Sarovar system? If not perhaps this is a good time to consider creating such a thing. I'm assuming that the current systems have features that basic p2p clients don't support. But between Bnetd, playfair, DeCSS, and others, there is clearly a need for a distributed, peer-to-peer, source distribution/co-authoring system. Maybe WASTE could be modified to do this sort of thing?

      Note: I am not a programmer, so I'm not exactly sure what Savannah/Sarovar/Sourcefo

  • I for one... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:07AM (#8964643)
    am happy to India onshore insourcing american law practices.

  • Hmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigattichouse ( 527527 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:12AM (#8964662) Homepage
    Need a good ol' fashioned Chinese to-hell-with-western-law hosting... works for spammers, why not legit projects that exist in that legal grey-zone?

    • Re:Hmm.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by gid13 ( 620803 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:15AM (#8964679)
      Yes, China, that world-renowned last bastion of free speech. They'll SURELY be the answer to our prayers. :P

      • Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Informative)

        by bigattichouse ( 527527 )
        Not that they give a crap about free-speach, its more that they are very adept at looking the other way... Although that kind of environment is wonderful soil for all sorts of illicit activity, it also gives you a great climate for anything that might normally get snuffed out in lawyer happy environments...

      • Re:Hmm.. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by tomstdenis ( 446163 )
        Last I checked free-speech wasn't running rampant in the US either. Can't say that, DMCA. Can't say this, un-patriotic....

        What I don't get about companies like the RIAA, Apple, Sony, etc...

        STOP USING DRM!! IT'S FLAWED LOGIC THAT WON'T WORK!!!

        Yet they keep trying, over and over and over. Then they scream bloody murder when it gets rolled on.

        Why not spend money on getting some artists some real music lessons [e.g. less titney spears, more composers, real music!] more music on better technology [e.g. mo

        • Re:Hmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Sunday April 25, 2004 @11:14AM (#8964976)
          STOP USING DRM!! IT'S FLAWED LOGIC THAT WON'T WORK!!!

          More than a year on, iTunes is going strong. If anything, from the numbers it seems to be gaining momentum. Seems to me like it works just fine.

          • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @12:31PM (#8965346)
            Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • It sort of works (Score:3, Insightful)

          by iamacat ( 583406 )
          If they just served MP3 files, people would have a tendency to just give everyone a copy of their whole collection or add it to share list on LimeWire. As it is, if you just copy a file to another machine, it tells you to authorize it, and you can only authorize 3 machines at a time. You get to burn CDs for your friends, but this form of sharing is both smaller in scale and closer to fair use. They would have to incur another round of compression artifacts and enter track names manually to re-rip the CD, ma

      • Re:Hmm.. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @11:32AM (#8965049) Journal
        Ironic, but no more ironic than the fact that the "land of the free" incarcerates a greater proportion of its population than any other nation. cite [hrw.org]

  • It's down? (Score:2, Informative)

    by tommasz ( 36259 )
    I tried to access it at 10:13 EDT, and the entire site is unreachable. Perhaps my ISP is blocking it at some level or Apple got to them already.
    • (cut out '-' used to serve as underlines for section headers to get past /.'s "lameness filter" and made all paragraphs into one line to get past /.'s "lines contain fewer than 38 characters". Enjoy)

      BACKGROUND

      Sarovar (http://www.sarovar.org/) was setup about a year back as a facility for free software hackers. It's running the GForge software under Debian GNU/Linux. Think of it as a Savannah in India (http://savannah.gnu.org/ and http://savannah.nongnu.org/ are servers providing facilities for distributed

  • Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 2nd Post! ( 213333 ) <gundbear.pacbell@net> on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:16AM (#8964685) Homepage
    Since more AAC is more better, but there's a quote in the linked article I think is relevant:

    Apple has stated that PlayFair contravenes the Indian Copyright

    Act. 1957 and the IT Act, 2002, but have not specified how these acts
    are violated. While these acts make the unauthorized copying of music
    illegal, they nowhere bar the creation of tools that could potentially
    be used to illegally copy music. Trying to stop dissemination of a
    tool that permits legal licensees of songs from iTunes to play them on
    non Apple-authorized hardware is purely a business loss prevention
    strategy from Apple and must be deplored.


    So they acknowledge that the unauthorized copying of music is illegal, and believe a tool that makes an unauthorized copy of the music is not illegal? Because as the author states, Apple already provides a means to permit legal licensees of songs from iTunes to play on non Apple authorized hardware via CD burning (and subsequent re-ripping). This is *authorized* copying. Anything else, then, is unauthorized copying isn't it? Doing a clean decryption of the AAC file would certainly fall into unauthorized copying, according to the terms of use, I think.

    So FairPlay's only legal defense is that it isn't illegal to write such a tool, only illegal to use such a tool...
    • But cdburning and re-ripping does lower the audio quality.

      Now I Apple would use their time to setup a shop to sell to EU, that would be better use of their time.

    • Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:29AM (#8964744) Journal
      So they acknowledge that the unauthorized copying of music is illegal

      Copying? The tool specifically takes a song you have bought, the key that you have bought to play that song, applies the key to the song and uses it to remove the DRM. Lets say that I delete the original file afterwards, in which case the net IP "possession" is unchanged: I have one instance of a song I bought, only now I am no longer beholden to the artifical monopoly of things-capable-of-playing-this-song.

      • Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 2nd Post! ( 213333 ) <gundbear.pacbell@net> on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:36AM (#8964775) Homepage
        You've still made ONE copy in that process, even if you delete the original.

        I'm not saying this is right or wrong, since I believe it's perfectly within Fair Use to make a decrypted copy. What happens if Apple goes out of business? What happens if I don't have a suitable network connection to authorize my Macs? I paid for the music, and do have some right to listen to it at 100% quality.

        However, all I am stating is the strict legality of the situation. Owning this tool isn't illegal, but using it is. I don't know, however, that is enough under Indian law to get them knocked off the servers.

        • Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:5, Interesting)

          by alexo ( 9335 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @12:42PM (#8965436) Journal
          >You've still made ONE copy in that process, even if you delete the original.
          > I'm not saying this is right or wrong, since I believe it's perfectly within
          > Fair Use to make a decrypted copy. What happens if Apple goes out of
          > business? What happens if I don't have a suitable network connection to
          > authorize my Macs? I paid for the music, and do have some right to listen to
          > it at 100% quality.
          >
          > However, all I am stating is the strict legality of the situation. Owning
          > this tool isn't illegal, but using it is. I don't know, however, that is
          > enough under Indian law to get them knocked off the servers.

          Since when making a copy for purposes covered under fair use provisions (as you stated yourself) is illegal?
      • So what is wrong with building a business based on supplying music for the iPod only? This seems to be exactly the point of Apple's complaint - that converting the files easily and quickly makes it too easy to play them on non-Apple hardware. Since it is generally known that iTMS is a loss-leader supplying content for the iPod series, this sounds like a perfectly valid complaint.

        I put this on the same level as the "subsidized" price for game consoles with the understanding that you are going to use the de

    • I haven't got a clue about Indian law.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:32AM (#8964755) Homepage
      ...but the creation of personal copies may not require authorization, as is the case with DeCSS in Norway. Depending on the accuracy of that statement "unauthorized copying" may mean "unauthorized copies made for distribution to third parties".

      And regardless of what you might think, tools are hardly outlawed anywhere but in the US, due to the DMCA. I can make a key that fits your front door, and only your front door, which has no other purpose. It's still not illegal until I use it to gain unauthorized entry.

      That brings up an interesting question, given that there's a strong legal precedent in Norway, why isn't it hosted somewhere there? I'd love to see if they'd have the balls to try another DVD-Jon style case before the EUCD (aka the Euro-DMCA) is in place...

      Kjella
    • i don't think it is (or should not be) illegal to use it (except if you do something illegal with the encoded files afterwards like distribution on the internet)
      what would you think if you went to a shop to buy a cd writer from sony and the writer would state that it is only legal to write on sony blanks even if it is technical possible to use this device to write others
      or a car manufacturer say you have no right to give someone a lift which does not belong to your family

      • Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 2nd Post! ( 213333 ) <gundbear.pacbell@net> on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:42AM (#8964794) Homepage
        It all depends on whether you signed a contract when you bought the Sony drive that you would only use Sony blanks, doesn't it? Then it wouldn't be illegal to use the non Sony blanks, only that you would have violated your contract with Sony, and Sony then has the right to not honor any warranty with you (there is some wiggle of course, since you used a fairly extreme example).

        All sales of Apple's music have implicit contracts, which you should have read before purchasing. There is authorized copying, which is streaming to three machines, converting m4p->CD->MP3 or m4a, and then there is unauthorized copying, which is streaming to unlimited machines and converting from m4p->m4a.

        You can argue Fair Use, but they can argue that you willingly agreed to their contract, and all they are doing is enforcing it through vague laws.
      • i don't think it is (or should not be) illegal to use it (except if you do something illegal with the encoded files afterwards like distribution on the internet)

        Its STILL should not be illegal to use it even if your intentions are to distribute the song illegaly. The distribution is the crime and always has been. It would still be illegal even if you distributed the song without stripping the DRM.
        • How about violating contract law? You would be upset if Apple sold your private info or misused your credit card, right? Pulled from another post I made about Apple's terms of sale and service:

          In this case users of Apple's iTunes signed an agreement; signed it with their credit card number, actually, when they first opened their accounts on iTunes! Terms of Sale [apple.com] and Terms of Service [apple.com].

          Specific relevant portions:
          Terms of sale:
          You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to,
    • They acknowledge that unauthorized copying is illigal, but state that just because something has illigal uses does not mean it is inherrintly illigal. The main purpose of the program is to move songs that you have a valid key for (read: that you own) from one format to another. That's simple fair use, completely legal. If you ban something because it can be used illigally in ways it was never intended to be used then you'll have to ban cars, knives, guns, peanut butter, computers; that doesn't make sense

    • Re:Not agreeing with Apple here (Score:5, Interesting)

      by plj ( 673710 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @11:00AM (#8964897)
      Apple fans on Slashdot (disclaimer: I'm writing this on my PBook) always seem to claim that everyone willing to use iTMS should just obey Apple's TOS and never crack their DRM, because their DRM is fair as it can be circumvented by burning and re-ripping.

      Well let me tell you: It is not fair. If one is a Hi-Fi geek, like I am, one wants to get rid of DRM without any additional quality loss.

      Oh, but what I hear now: "128 kbit/s is not enough for Hi-Fi types, they want CDs nevertheless, regardless of their price". Sure - if CD's are available. But many songs are very, very hard to obtain on CD, if available at all, although they can be found from iTMS. And though 128 kbit AAC is barely adequate to my ears (my own iTunes library is mostly ripped as 224 kbit AAC), I can stand it if the alternative would be not having that song at all. But like hell will I accept any additional quality loss! And I still want to be able to play that song on Linux, too.

      So, what options do I have left now? PlayFair. Would my intented use for it be within the limits of fair use? Yes. Would it be possible within the limits of Apple's DRM? No. Thus, the Apple's DRM is NOT fair. Would it be in violation of Apple's TOS? Yes. Thus, the TOS is not fair either. As it is a B2C standard-term contract, I seriously doubt it would hold any water in most courts here in Europe.

      Yes, I live in EU (Finland), so no iTMS here, and the question is purely academic. But may be iTMS will be here one day.

      That said, the EUCD is going to be applied in Finland pretty soon, but although that will probably make distributing of PlayFair illegal here, it seems the Finnish implementation won't outlaw its private use.

      And what would make Apple's DRM fair to me? If the songs would be losslessly compressed in first place. Now the quality would be good enough even if an analog re-recording would be required (that is, no CD burning would be allowed).

      • new title (Score:3, Insightful)

        by kardar ( 636122 )
        One can definitely argue that it's not fair. But in the context of the DRM, it's obvious that playfair removes a parameter of control from the track.

        Limiting the number of CD's you can burn, limiting the number of copies that you can make, basically, limiting the number of copies in one way or another. That would seem, to me, to be an important parameter.

        I don't think this has anything to do with open source at all. It's basically removing a very important parameter as far as Apple is concerned.

        What it

  • easy way to keep the project active (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dusanyu ( 675778 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:18AM (#8964693)
    Just move the Projects to a Host based out of Sealand http://www.sealandgov.com/ from the HavenCo Acceptable Use Policy http://www.havenco.com/legal/aup.html "Material that is unlawful in the jurisdiction of the server. For instance, if a customer's machine is hosted on Sealand by HavenCo, content which is illegal in Sealand may not be published or housed on that server. Sealand's laws prohibit child pornography. Sealand currently has no regulations regarding copyright, patents, libel, restrictions on political speech, non-disclosure agreements, cryptography, restrictions on maintaining customer records, tax or mandatory licensing, DMCA, music sharing services, or other issues; child pornography is the only content explicitly prohibited. At the present time, child pornography is not precisely defined; HavenCo is obeying rules similar to those of the United States, specifically a prohibition on any depiction of those under 18 in a sexual context."

    • Sealand (Score:3, Interesting)

      by acceleriter ( 231439 )
      This would be a good test--would Apple be the one that would finally get the Royal Navy to cut the links to the platform, or to outright invade? Who would you expect to stand up and defend Sealand from a "British war of aggression?" (n.b. There's no oil on the platform.)
    • Unfortunately, the least expensive colocation package that they offer is $1500/month. There's just no way a smallish FS project can afford that.
    • Sealand pretty much gives up customer lists on request specifically because they don't want their tenuous claim of independence to be tested. So you're not anonymous, and if your actions are illegal in the country where you are, not your server, you're sunk.

  • Why is Apple involved with this? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt.nerdflat@com> on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:20AM (#8964702) Journal
    Apple is a computer company. They do not own or control the copyrights on the music they are allegedly trying to protect. If anything, the RIAA should be the ones to go after these guys, not Apple. And since the RIAA doesn't have any pull in India (while Apple probably has some), I suspect that this whole mess would have been summarily ignored. They should tell Apple straight out that since Apple does not own the copyrights to the works which are supposedly being illegally copied, they do not have the right to make this request.
    • I don't think the program does anything illigal in the first place.
    • It should be blindingly obvious that anything which compromises the less restrictive DRM of Apple's iTunes distribution system is money in the bank for Microsoft.
    • Apple DOES own FairPlay, though, so it's their DRM system that's been cracked. Surely they have a right to defend their patents and/or trade secrets.

    • Re:Why is Apple involved with this? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cioxx ( 456323 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:53AM (#8964853) Homepage
      That's possibly the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.
      Apple is a computer company.

      Also, content distributor, and a software company.
      They do not own or control the copyrights on the music they are allegedly trying to protect.

      But they control the method which facilitates AAC DRM, needed to let record companies to release their catalogues for distrubution. Without PlayFair DRM, it would be hard or next to impossible to persuade record labels to furnish iTMS with audio content (which they own).
      If anything, the RIAA should be the ones to go after these guys, not Apple.

      Again, it's the method not the content.
      They should tell Apple straight out that since Apple does not own the copyrights to the works which are supposedly being illegally copied, they do not have the right to make this request.

      Let me give you an example. Suppose you manufacture and sell locks and at the same time rent a storage facility where people keep their property. Someone comes along and makes a master key which defeats your lock mechanism, when it is illegal (by law) to reverse-engineer, or reproduce master keys or to otherwise tamper with the lock. In the end, the gatekeeper is liable for the stolen property and the burden to prosecute those who are manufacturing these master keys is on the lock manufacturer, not the owner of the property.

      Get it? RIAA doesn't have anything to do with AAC DRM. Apple is the gatekeeper and they're trying to protect the well-being of their online music store.

      You want fair-use? Go buy the CD or use less-restricted distribution channels who provide you with MP3s and OGGs. iTMS doesn't force you to purchase digital (restricted) files from their store. Abide by the terms of the contract you signed whilst registering. Any fair-use argument here is completely laughable.
      • "Abide by the terms of the contract you signed whilst registering."

        I see. While registering with Apple computer, who is barred from entering the music business due to a suit brought by Apple Records oh so many years ago.

        If Apple Records gets iTunes shut down, I expect that all the fair use arguements suddenly get way more valid.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Software Lock-in (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Silvers ( 196372 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:21AM (#8964707)
    I think apple just wants people to keep using its iTunes software. I personally like Winamp a heck of a lot more, but I put up with iTunes because i like the music store. (Only iTunes is capable of playing protected AAC files)

    This ofcourse makes people much more willing to go buy iPod's which is apple's real revenue stream.

    If people can use playfair to convert to non-protected AAC which can play in a number of players, they lose their iPod lock which is their main revenue stream.

  • Let's face it... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mengoxon ( 303399 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:22AM (#8964715)
    ...if Apple did not do this kind of thing, the computer-unsavy media CEOs would panic and shut down itunes. (As if piracy could be stopped that way)

    And portraying a cracker-program as an "open-source effort" is a bit like calling the NRA a grass-roots civil rights campaign.

    • Re:Let's face it... (Score:5, Informative)

      by bryanp ( 160522 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:50AM (#8964842)
      And portraying a cracker-program as an "open-source effort" is a bit like calling the NRA a grass-roots civil rights campaign.

      They're at least as grass roots as the ACLU.

      Anyway, you say that as if the 2nd Amendment portion of the Bill of Rights wasn't a civil right.

      Join the ACLU & EFF to support Amendments 1 and 3-9. Join the NRA and GOA to support Amendment 2. Amendment 10 gets ignored selectively by everyone, unfortunately.

    • And portraying a cracker-program as an "open-source effort"

      But it is an open source effort. It meets the definition of open source. Why would it not be worthy of that title just because it bypasses some DRM?

      In fall of 1999 when a few open source DVD projects (LiViD for one, I believe) received DMCA cease & desisit letters noone was saying "they bypass DRM, so they're cracker programs, not open-source efforts and thus not worthy of our sympathy".

      playfair makes it easier to play legally purchased mu

    • RTFA before you mod, please (Score:5, Informative)

      by ronmon ( 95471 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @11:07AM (#8964946)

      A "cracker-program"? Hardly. Just a snippet from the sarovar response:

      PlayFair does not give the user any special facilities that Apple itself has not given the user:


      1. PlayFair requires a valid key from Apple to convert the format of music downloaded from iTunes. PlayFair cannot convert downloaded songs' formats without authorized keys.

      2. PlayFair is not a music distribution program. All PlayFair does is convert songs from one, restricted format to another, less restricted format.

      3. PlayFair is not a method for making illegal copies of iTunes songs. PlayFair by itself cannot be used to copy music to CD, distribute on a peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing network, play music or edit songs.

      4. PlayFair saves time in converting songs. The Apple iPod permits the iTunes user to make a music CD out of iTunes songs. After that the user can convert the songs in that CD to MP3 or another digital format for playing on portable, non-Apple music players. By converting iTunes songs directly to a common digital format, PlayFair shortcuts this sequence by eliminating the need to make a CD and then convert it.
      So read it and think again.
    • And portraying a cracker-program as an "open-source effort" is a bit like calling the NRA a grass-roots civil rights campaign.

      I am assuming that you said this just to incide a response. I'll bite. The NRA IS a grass-roots group. The vast majority of our 3+ million members are regular everyday people.

      Remember Bill Clinton's 1995 State of the Union address? He did all but name us when he gave a reason for the Republican takeover of the House and Senate. We pay taxes and we vote.

      LK
      • The NRA isn't about 2nd adm rights, it is about them keeping power.

        Press Release - Is the NRA Serious from Gary Gorski, attorney for Silveira Plaintiffs August 26, 2003 [filed here late due to site being down] [Additional analysis by Angel Shamaya below press release]

        The NRA issued the following press release:

        NRA Files Brief with the Supreme Court in Silveira v. Lockyer The National Rifle Association (NRA) has filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Silveira v. L

  • Freenet? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Entropius ( 188861 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:36AM (#8964771)
    Sounds like this would be a good application for Ian Clarke's Freenet project.

  • We will fight them on the beaches... (Score:3, Funny)

    by theAmazing10.t ( 770643 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:36AM (#8964772)
    We will fight them in our homes...

    Opps, wrong war.

  • Apple probably wants to stop this [dilbert.com] from happening anymore than nessecary..

  • Fair use? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kitzilla ( 266382 )
    > PlayFair is a tool to enable fair use for music purchased from Apple's iTunes music service.

    In what way is removing the DRM from iTunes music "fair use"? The user agrees to Apple's terms upon purchase. If you don't like the number of players Fairplay will authorize, buy your music elsewhere.

  • Personally, I disagree with Apple on this one, but I can understand their position. If this was typical American copyright law, it would seem to me that PlayFair is nothing more than another method of fair use for the home user, just like burning to CD would be as well.

    However, it also seems that when you buy the song from Apple, you are basically agreeing to their contract by giving them your money. So, while you might not be breaking copyright law, you probably still can't do this because you're breaki

    • Re:Nuts to them (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 2nd Post! ( 213333 )
      I wrote this in another post, regarding their terms of sale and terms of service, and it's relevant to your point:

      In this case users of Apple's iTunes signed an agreement; signed it with their credit card number, actually, when they first opened their accounts on iTunes! Terms of Sale [apple.com] and Terms of Service [apple.com].

      Specific relevant portions:
      Terms of sale:
      You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of th

  • must be legal off the coast of New Zealand (Score:5, Informative)

    by kayen_telva ( 676872 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:49AM (#8964830)
    Playfair [pied.nu]

  • Read the "Terms Of Service" (Score:5, Informative)

    by supercobrajet428 ( 624375 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:49AM (#8964831)
    A Quote from the "Terms Of Service" [apple.com] which you MUST AGREE TO in order to purchase tracks from the ITMS:


    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.

    It's not really a question about whether it's ethical or not. If you have music from the ITMS, you bought it from Apple, and YOU AGREED TO THESE TERMS OF SERVICE. If you make a piece of software to "circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service" than you are breaking your contract with Apple, and thusly breaking the law. It's pretty simple.

    • 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.

      It's not really a question about whether it's ethical or not. If you have music from the ITMS, you bought it from Apple, and YOU AGREED TO THESE TERMS OF SERVICE. If you make a piece of software to "circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service" than you are brea
      • "It is possible that Playfair does not violate ITMS - for the developer, as long as it was written without using ITMS content in the development. If the devloper did not us ITMS music, then they would not be bound by its TOS, since they would not have agreed to ITMS TOS."

        Except that the TOS also states that you agree not to encourage such behaviour, I suppose it MIGHT be questionable as to whether downloading the software and/or using it would/should be considered encouraging - I see your point though. Ma

        • Except that the TOS also states that you agree not to encourage such behaviour, I suppose it MIGHT be questionable as to whether downloading the software and/or using it would/should be considered encouraging - I see your point though. Maybe it's not so black and white as I had thought originally.

          I wasn't real clear as well- I was refering to Playfair's developer, not someone who uses it to remove DRM features. I think as long as the developer doesn't use ITMS, then he or she hasn't agreed to the TOS and
          • Any ideas about how they would have obtained the info about the DRM, the encrypted files, and an Apple authorization key, as well as the algorithms that govern all these pieces' interaction, without the ITMS?

            I haven't been thinking about the problem that long but I can't figure ANYTHING out.

    • Re:Read the "Terms Of Service" (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No, apple could just as well say "You also agree to give your first-born daughter to Steve jobs upon her 18th birthday."
      JUST BECAUSE YOU AGREE TO THEIR EULA DOESNT MAKE IT ENFORCEABLE.
      • Is there any reason in particular you do not believe that clause is enforceable, or are you just going off at the mouth?

      • Re:Read the "Terms Of Service" (Score:4, Insightful)

        by supercobrajet428 ( 624375 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @11:11AM (#8964963)
        I guess I disagree. In my mind, if you agree to a TOS you agree to it. It is not the responsibility of the company (Apple in this case) to come up with a nifty TOS that everyone will like and agree to. Though that may be in their best interest. It IS the responsibility of the consumer to understand the contracts they sign before they enter into them.

        Just look at what has happened with Kazaa and multiple other free/shareware examples where they expect you to blip right through their usage agreement which explicitly states that the Kazaa installer has the right to install whatever it wants wherever it wants. It's horse-sh*t, but millions of people subject themselves to it everyday.

        Again, it doesn't make it right, it just makes us (the collective, consumer, public populous who does these things) pretty dumb sometimes.

    • Re:Read the "Terms Of Service" (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cdrguru ( 88047 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @11:04AM (#8964924) Homepage
      I don't think you are breaking the law, but you are leaving yourself open to civil liability with Apple. They can sue you. They will almost certainly win unless you get baffle the judge with technical nonsense.

      This could be far worse than any criminal penalty, because Apple could (in theory) go for pretty unreasonable damages. I don't see this happening - I think they will settle for the program going away from being publicly available. This does mean playing wack-a-mole for a while where they chase down every appearance on the Internet. It is possible to win that sort of thing if you are motivated enough.

      Remember the DeCSS stuff and how long that took. Notice how long and how expensive the case against 321 Studios (DVD X Copy) has been. This stuff is now out of "public" view and confined to a few places that most people can't find easily. Is it gone? Heck no. Can every Joe Sixpack find it in five minutes? Maybe that is good enough.

    • Re:Read the "Terms Of Service" (Score:5, Informative)

      by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @11:06AM (#8964942)
      Well, there's no reason to believe that the person who wrote the software needed to violate this EULA - they didn't necessarily ever buy any music from Apple or agree to the EULA. Whether using such a piece of software that somebody else wrote constitutes violation of this EULA is a less obvious question based on that wording.


      In any case, breaking an EULA without redistributing somebody else's copyrighted material is one of those offenses which you won't find much support for on Slashdot. People here generally support the concept of electronic freedom - data you've acquired legally is yours to do what you will with within the bounds of your own home and computer. It's like breaking the speedlimit on your own private racetrack - it may be illegal, but it shouldn't be enforceable. And even here in the grand ole' USA EULAs are of questionable enforceability (mind you, at SourceForge.net, the issue was the unconstitutional legislation we call the DMCA, it had nothing to do with the EULA which SF.net had certainly never agreed to).


      Of course, in India, it doesn't matter, since the people distributing Playfair at sandovar.org didn't write it, AND because they lived in India, were almost certainly not iTunes customers. Thus we have no reason to believe they had ever agreed to this EULA in the first place - assuming such EULAs are even recognized under Indian law, which I seriously doubt. In most countries' legal systems, click through screens don't make legitimate contracts.

      • No one's forcing people to buy music from Apple. If you don't like the TOS, don't buy their music. But if you enter into a contract with anyone, let alone a multinational, multi-milliondollar-a-year computer company with a reputation for aggressively protecting their IP, you had better be ready to stand by your decision. No one forced people into this TOS - they wanted music and bought it and that inherently binds them under the TOS.

        Now, whether that's legally enforceable and under what jurisdiction it

    • Yes its fair to say that if you agreed to the terms, you are responsible if you break them. But that brings up an interesting point - given that allot of laws these days are there to 'protect the public' maybe there should be some laws or atleast a campaign to make people more aware that these terms and EULA's exist. Maybe it should be a legal requirement that you sign a physical document - that way you would be more inclined to read it (well i say that, but some people will sign anything). What happens whe
    • Has clicking a button been found to be a legally enforcible means of signing a contract?

  • They should get their facts straight (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Baumi ( 148744 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:52AM (#8964848) Homepage
    From their statement:

    The Apple iPod permits the iTunes user to make a music CD out of iTunes songs.

    That's nonsense. iTunes permits the user to burn a CD, no iPod necessary.

    I realize that this doesn't undermine the main part of their argument, but they should still check their public statements for this kind of factual errors, otherwise they'll just look like they don't know what they're talking about.

    Baumi

  • What scares me... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by faaaz ( 582035 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:54AM (#8964857)
    ...is not the fact that Apple went after PlayFair, that was more or less expected. What scares me is the fact that a large part of the slashdot crowd are siding with apple and big media on this one. Hacking your DVD-player is okay, the right to fiddle with your own devices shall not be infringed upon. Media files, however, are sacred. You shall not use them in any way big media does not approve of.

    And why? To please big media, otherwise they would not venture into this internet selling thingy, posts explain. Anyone who does not accept the control big media is forcing upon buyers is a damn dirty pirate, responsible for the thousands of plagues in the world and puts 'us' in a bad light. The brainwashing is apparently working.

    Really, what's the difference between deCSS and PlayFair? I don't recall anyone posting that Jon Johansen was guilty.

    • Re:What scares me... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Lewisham ( 239493 )
      The difference is that, like it or not, we are pretty screwed when it comes to DRM. It's coming. It's already here. Whatever. The open-source community cannot stop that happening now.

      What we can do is start messing things up for everyone else. The DRM being used in FairPlay is, actually, quite fair. You pay less for the song you want, you get less rights. I find it quite difficult, however, to see how I would want to move out of the generous (relatively) rights FairPlay gives you. The music can be on more

      • Re:What scares me... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by drwav ( 577314 )
        What we can do is start messing things up for everyone else.

        I hate people with your attitude.

        "Please everybody, don't fight back or they might try to take away even more. I don't want to lose anymore than I have already lost."

        Well too bad, some of us aren't happy with the way things are or where they are going and will do anything to make it stop and reverse.

        I'm sorry that you feel that we are somehow attacking you by trying to get back something that we once had. I truly am, it's not fair to you.

        Howe

    • Re:What scares me... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @01:03PM (#8965597) Homepage
      Because Apple's DRM is not as bad as DVD restrictions. There are fewer practical objections and fewer people who are currently unable to do something they want because of Fairplay. Nearly everyone objecting objects on ideological grounds- they decided long ago that they will never, ever back down from their position on any form of DRM; everyone siding with Apple has decided it's not really a big deal and it's an acceptable tradeoff for the benefits of being able to buy what the ITMS is selling.

    • Re:What scares me... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by IntlHarvester ( 11985 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @01:26PM (#8965752) Journal
      What scares me is the fact that a large part of the slashdot crowd are siding with apple and big media on this one.

      Reality Distortion Field at work -- A lot of people feel the need to defend their favorite 'beleaguered' computer maker. Had it been MS DRM or Real DRM instead of Apple DRM, you would see hardly any of the same reaction.

      Their story is that Steve did everyone a big favor by implementing a "fair" DRM system, but the reality is that FairPlay isn't any different than the other RIAA-approved online music store DRM systems, other than it has Mac support.

      Furthermore, their opposition to PlayFair isn't very pragmatic, as there's a real argument that it will only help Apple's music & ipod sales and not significantly increase piracy. All they have is a reactionary argument that PlayFair is bad because Apple says it is bad, and it's bad to lie to Apple and break their EULA.

      -----------

      What Apple Fans should understand is that consumer electronics and music are now way more profitable than Macintoshes -- and that will invevitably leave Apple, Inc. to make decisions that are good for RIAA/MPAA and not necessarily good for personal computing or the Mac platform.

      I think it's perfectly possible to be a Macintosh booster without going balls to the wall for every new business Apple gets into. There's nothing inconsistant about believing that the Mac is the greatest computer ever made without endorsing Apple & the RIAA's online business model.

      So, try being an Mac Fanboy instead of a Apple Inc Fanboy. It's refreshing.

  • Freenet (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:56AM (#8964867)
    Why not put the site on Freenet?

  • Apple is taking a bad rap for this... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Llywelyn ( 531070 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @11:15AM (#8964984) Homepage
    In truth, however, this is probably a very good move on their part.

    Apple knows this technology is completely irrelevant, that it is "no big deal" from a technical standpoint and they expected something like this to be created from the beginning (Steve Jobs said exactly this--that they couldn't protect digital content).

    As a *political* move, however, it makes a lot of sense. They aren't actually suing people RIAA style and I doubt it will ever come to that--instead they are just shutting down the servers that host it via C&D letters. If they didn't do this, they would be at risk of the music labels deciding that they aren't doing enough to protect their interests and *backing out*.

    If you get this off P2P or FreeNet then good for you, you are an irrelevant statistic as far as Apple is concerned.

    The comparisons to DeCSS really miss the point. DeCSS was big in part because there was no way to watch DVDs under Linux and because the MPAA really wasn't expecting it and tried to shut it down completely. With FairPlay there is a way to play it under Linux (though yes, there is a loss of quality) and they did expect it, so what they are doing is protecting their interests with the RIAA by giving a good go at it.

    It doesn't matter if they "succeed" so long as they are actively pursuing it to the extent of the law.
    • With FairPlay there is a way to play it under Linux (though yes, there is a loss of quality)

      Actually, there were already ways to play iTMS files under Linux with no loss of quality (burn a CD or convert to AIFF). Playfair just lets you retain the compression with no quality loss.

  • "[Fsf-friends] Call the bluff" (Score:3, Informative)

    by sir_cello ( 634395 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @11:42AM (#8965114)
    This posting is irrelevant: the poster quoted some useful parts of the copyright act, but these are not useful in in the case of playfair. The sections quoted apply to computer programs, _not_ to other forms of media. Songs with RMI are not computer programs. I don't think there's any way to argue around this.

  • Indian law specifically protects PlayFair (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sanity ( 1431 ) * on Sunday April 25, 2004 @12:51PM (#8965512) Homepage Journal
    According to the FSF india post, Indian law specifically permits this kind of thing:
    (ab)the doing of any act necessary to obtain information essential for operating inter-operability of an independently created computer programme with other programmes by a lawful possessor of a computer programme provided that such information is not otherwise readily available;
    Moreover, it even deals with baseless threats such as Apple's:
    Section 60. Remedy in the case of groundless threat of legal proceedings.- Where any person claiming to be the owner of copyright in any work, by circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens any other person with any legal proceedings or liability in respect of an alleged infringement of the copyright, any person aggrieved thereby may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), institute a declaratory suit that the alleged infringement of any legal rights of the person making such threats and may in any such suit-

    (a) obtain an injunction against the continuance of such threats; and
    (b) recover such damages, if any, as he has sustained by reason of such threats.
    So PlayFair may even be able to take action against Apple for this!

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close