PlayFair Shutdown

[MacRumors]

MacSlash claims that Apple has issued a cease and desist order to Sourceforge regarding the iTunes DRM circumvention software reported earlier in the week.

No independent confirmation is available regarding the exact sequence of events, but the project's website (http://playfair.sourceforge.net/) is no longer available.

[AssassinOfGates]

Damn

[pb1212580]

OUCH!
Play nice......

[Doctor Q]

You can't stop progress, but you can throw a wrench into the gears to delay it.

[polyesterlester]

http://playfair.sarovar.org/

[Ajmbc]

Is there anything that Apple can do about a company in India hosting the website?

aj

[ZildjianKX]

Originally Posted by Ajmbc

Is there anything that Apple can do about a company in India hosting the website?

aj

Nope, no DMCA there.

Also, a nice GUI version is now available.

As a note for anyone who is having problems running the software, your iSight might be causing a conflict.

[lindmar]

Everyone needs to realize as much as a mac fan I am and I love Apple, but the iTMS has done nothing truly positive to solve the file sharing issue..

It does nothing really for the Artists...

Here are some great websites so everyone can learn, This such software to remove the DRM are positive things..Read downhill battle's piece on iTunes..
The Music Store is a crock of crap when it comes to treating artists fairly..
Now, artists get around 3% of a 1 dollar sale... And Apple's suggested profit on the song is far more then they hype..

Download this software, hold on to it.. and if you buy from the iTMS, share...


http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/index.html

http://www.lift-band.com
http://www.canfli.org

[GigaWire]

Good it served no purpose anyway. I would much rather have to burn my iTMS music to a disc then rerip it to to share it than have no iTMS at all.

[polyesterlester]

Originally Posted by lindmar

...The Music Store is a crock of crap when it comes to treating artists fairly...

Now, artists get around 3% of a 1 dollar sale... And Apple's suggested profit on the song is far more then they hype..

Download this software, hold on to it.. and if you buy from the iTMS, share...

So you suggest that we don't give the artists any money, rather than giving them 3%?

[lindmar]

Not at all..
I suggest we continue this battle against the Recording Indsutries and we seek alternative...
I suggest we give the artists 100% or 95%...

Let alone, the report released in the past week showing that Downloading had no affect on CD sales,, so where is the RIAA and CRIA (in Canada) getting their #'s from?>

I think there needs to be an alternative...
Why not, download your favorite album and send the artist 20 bucks in the mail.. a stupid thought, but hey,, the artists who made the creation YOU want.. just got 20 bucks instead of 1.00....

Today, an artists can create a CD from very low costs..
Alternatives are popping up...so why are CD costs rising?

Not at all am I saying that the artists shouldnt get 3%,, I am only saying that iTMS is a crock... and it was a huge media plot hyping it as the saving "heavens" answer to Music...

Look,, there is this huge issue.. and the RIAA and CRIA are saying one thing...
and the artists are actually saying another... besides a few...
And fans are saying another... so it seems there is one party here who is f-ing things up and it's the middle man.. the Record Industry.

[thatwendigo]

Originally Posted by polyesterlester

So you suggest that we don't give the artists any money, rather than giving them 3%?

Actually, I prefer that I give my money directly to the artist. I've been strongly considering supporting an underground campaing I stumbled across late at night, where you mail the artist $5 when you download their songs. I'm thinking that $5 for every ten songs would be a nice gesture, especially since it means that they're making more than ten times what the record companies let them have from online music sales.

If everyone would buy directly, and artists realized how easy it is to do so now, then things would be so much nicer. The RIAA is parasitic, not benign, and it needs to be excised.

Or, everyone could be like Here Are the Facts That You Requested, and make music because they love to do it, put all their tracks on their website in MP3 and RealAudio, and then trust their fans to compensate them.

[lindmar]

Originally Posted by thatwendigo

Actually, I prefer that I give my money directly to the artist. I've been strongly considering supporting an underground campaing I stumbled across late at night, where you mail the artist $5 when you download their songs. I'm thinking that $5 for every ten songs would be a nice gesture, especially since it means that they're making more than ten times what the record companies let them have from online music sales.

Or, everyone could be like Here Are the Facts That You Requested, and make music because they love to do it, put all their tracks on their website in MP3 and RealAudio, and then trust their fans to compensate them.

Such a great idea...
contact me and lets talk...
But seriously..
Thats the way it should be... Fair Trade, fair use.. fair rights.. fair payment for creation...

Great response man!

[nsb3000]

This was going to happen sometime. I would venture to bet it is almost impossible to build a fool-proof copy protection formate ...One of the prices of being the leader in a industry for once is that hackers and others are going to focus on apple more than it competitors.

I am not quite sure how I feel about this ...as an apple/ OS x fan I want them to be successful, but than sometime Apple takes on that draconian mantra that all cooperation's do sometimes, and it seems un-apple. (Didn't part of Apple initial funding come from selling devices that allowed you to use Pay Phones for free? In that light, this is ironic. )

The fact of the matter is, Playfair does not really matter as long as it does not become a main stream product that people like my Mom could use. Right now it is far too complex to a have any real impact.

This was a logical move for apple, but as the DVD copying legal battles have shone, it will take a lot more than a simple cease and desist order to get rid of something like this.

My two cents..

[sethypoo]

Originally Posted by lindmar

Not at all..

I think there needs to be an alternative...
Why not, download your favorite album and send the artist 20 bucks in the mail.. a stupid thought, but hey,, the artists who made the creation YOU want.. just got 20 bucks instead of 1.00....

I've thought about this, and at first I thought it was a good idea, but it leaves a very wide gap open where a 3rd party (say, a new RIAA) can come into play. By this I mean somehow intercept that $20 and again leave a small amount for the artists themselves.

Sending the artists money directly won't work, ever. I'm sure that if your idea ever takes flight that all the record companies will just write a stipulation into their contracts that artists can't accept money directly in the way in which you are suggesting.

[supatekmedia88]

So, what about a small label that invests all it's money into an artist's manufacturing, marketing (posters+music videos), and recording costs?

Who pays for all that sh*t?

Who pays the person that discovered and believes in the band?

If I could make copies of sandwiches, god I would
love one right now!

[sethypoo]

Originally Posted by supatekmedia88

So, what about a small label that invests all it's money into an artist's manufacturing, marketing (posters+music videos), and recording costs?

If we were only living in a perfect world. Which we're not, so too bad, this won't work either!

[Sayer]

So I guess the people who make the CDs, the record stores that sell the CDs, the truck drivers that deliver the CDs, the warehouse workers that manage the logistics of the CDs don't need to get paid? Screw them?

What about the guys running the recording studio with gobs of modern electronics and many years worth of experience producing music? Screw them too?

Music does not fall out of the mouths of artists in a shiny package ready to be experienced by someone who can't be bothered to fork over one measly dollar per song, even if they may only buy a few songs per artist.

Yes the artist deserves to be compensated, but so does everyone else who makes the end product.

Even if you go directly to downloads someone somewhere recorded, produced, mixed and created the files for download. Someone must host the files, manage the connection and more.

You file-swappers want to paint this picture with 3 colors (artist, label, customer) and it's simply now how it is.

If the artist really wanted to make some money they just need to go on tour. Or self-record and produce and release their music. OR you can just listen to the radio, it's completely free.

[pounce]

yes, the labels were pretty much always screwing the bands. the contracts were terrible.

of course illegal downloading is also screwing the bands. now they are getting it from both sides.

fwiw, downhill battle is full of ****. they tend to put the emphasis on the wrong syllable when it comes to the consumers rights to digitally duplicate. they show a lack of understanding of what the label and band relationship is, and the actual economic reality for labels, bands, and others in the industry.

itunes and other legal digital distribution sources are clearly the way of the future. the idea that some reasonable measures would be taken to assure that the rights of the CREATORS OF THIS DIGITAL CONTENT were protected is the area that's been left out. the are portrayed as being big nameless faceless labels or huge rich bands, missing the fact that the industry has a lot more people in it than that who depend on it for a living. i am one of those people. i am an ascap artist and a full time engineer. my own work and the work i record for others has value, and i find most peoples arguments for copying weak. and this technology to digitally copy is used and abused more than a hooker on nickel night. most people i know steal music and movies since the software and hardware to do so is readily available. we are not talking about people who really buy anything. we are talking about just regular theft.

hey, if apple continues to make legal downloading convenient, and slows down the people who are trying to circumvent the system, good for all of us. to be clear, my itunes arrangement gets me more money than my old record labels cd royalty payments. i like legal digital distribution. go apple.

[thatwendigo]

Originally Posted by nsb3000

I am not quite sure how I feel about this ...as an apple/ OS x fan I want them to be successful, but than sometime Apple takes on that draconian mantra that all cooperation's do sometimes, and it seems un-apple. (Didn't part of Apple initial funding come from selling devices that allowed you to use Pay Phones for free? In that light, this is ironic. )

I have the very same issue, since I am almost universally anti-DRM and pro-informational freedom. People ought to pay for things because it's the right thing to do, and the artists should be comnpensated for their music, not the RIAA and industry groups for their ability to maintain a fully parasitic structure. At this point in the game, they add nothing to the market, but they pull ridiculous amounts of money in because that largely have a lock on traditional channels, and are doing their damndest to plug any new ones and stop them before they can really take off.

I like Apple, and I'd rather them hold the keys to DRM than Microsoft or Sony, but I'd still much rather ther not be any DRM at all. Still, I have to grimace and wring my hands, though, because the iTMS is selling iPods like hotcakes, and that's helping bolster Apple's warchest at the moment.

It's a thorny issue.

I've thought about this, and at first I thought it was a good idea, but it leaves a very wide gap open where a 3rd party (say, a new RIAA) can come into play. By this I mean somehow intercept that $20 and again leave a small amount for the artists themselves.

Opening mail is a federal crime. Send them cash, check, or money order through the postal system, and unless there's some ridiculous clause that allows all mail to be censored before it's read, the RIAA or another group can't touch it.

Sending the artists money directly won't work, ever. I'm sure that if your idea ever takes flight that all the record companies will just write a stipulation into their contracts that artists can't accept money directly in the way in which you are suggesting.

So? Anyone with $200,000 in startup capital for two willing programmers, a couple of xserves and xserve RAIDs, and an optical line could have a musicians collective selling directly to the public in a matter of weeks. Apple's shown that WebObjects can power such a thing now, and PayPal (or something similar) could be the payment service.

The only problem is that the music companies own anything produced under their contracts in perpetia. It would have to be new music, indie tracks, and other material, but it could easily be done.

I don't know why it hasn't been, yet, other than fear of the RIAA's draconian reach into the legislative and judicial system.

[maxterpiece]

The heart of this issue is, as usual, the public. Most people don't want to think about what music they really like. They don't want to have to wade through all the wild stuff that gets put out. They just want something that everyone else listens to and that they can bob their heads to - something that they don't have to necessarily have a reason for liking. The record companies are the ones who promote all this stuff and invest huge dollars in making pop bands mainstream. Mainstream music isn't going anywhere until there's some kind of huge worldwide intellectual revolution. Almost all truly financially successful musician is successful 97% because of the hype and production people who surround them and 3% because of the talent that they provide. The record companies are here to stay.

[thatwendigo]

Originally Posted by Sayer

So I guess the people who make the CDs, the record stores that sell the CDs, the truck drivers that deliver the CDs, the warehouse workers that manage the logistics of the CDs don't need to get paid? Screw them?

It's an outdated model of economics, and you're going to see this increasingly drying up as a source of money for anyone. The shipping and warehousing will still exist, but traditional retail is on the way out, especially when it comes to information media like books, music, and movies.

What about the guys running the recording studio with gobs of modern electronics and many years worth of experience producing music? Screw them too?

Two words: **** 'em.

Bands can entirely manage everything on their own at this point. Technology is fast, easy, and cheap enough that any band that wanted to learn a little bit could entirely bypass the production arm of the music companies, and make at least as much as the non-headliners do now, all without risking the rights to their music or their ability to explore other avenues without being slapped by contract law.

Music does not fall out of the mouths of artists in a shiny package ready to be experienced by someone who can't be bothered to fork over one measly dollar per song, even if they may only buy a few songs per artist.

I belive in fair compensation to the artist, but not to their greedy owners. Sorry.

Yes the artist deserves to be compensated, but so does everyone else who makes the end product.

Cut out the middle man, because he no longer is necessary.

You file-swappers want to paint this picture with 3 colors (artist, label, customer) and it's simply now how it is.

I know this is a typo, but you accidentally spoke the truth. The paradigm is shifting, and as information technology advances, broadband universal access becomes the lay of the landscape, and artists wise up, then there will only be two colors, with possibly a secondary shade of one (artists' groups).

If the artist really wanted to make some money they just need to go on tour. Or self-record and produce and release their music. OR you can just listen to the radio, it's completely free.

So we're the ones who don't understand the situation, and yet you're suggesting they self-record? Many contracts bind the artists to their label and make it so that they own anything that is created while under their thumb. That makes it a bit difficult, now, doesn't it?

[SiliconAddict]

Too late. The source is on the net now. Its like piss in a pool. Once its in there its in there.

[ITR 81]

Originally Posted by lindmar

Not at all..
I suggest we continue this battle against the Recording Indsutries and we seek alternative...
I suggest we give the artists 100% or 95%...

Let alone, the report released in the past week showing that Downloading had no affect on CD sales,, so where is the RIAA and CRIA (in Canada) getting their #'s from?>

I think there needs to be an alternative...
Why not, download your favorite album and send the artist 20 bucks in the mail.. a stupid thought, but hey,, the artists who made the creation YOU want.. just got 20 bucks instead of 1.00....

Today, an artists can create a CD from very low costs..
Alternatives are popping up...so why are CD costs rising?

Not at all am I saying that the artists shouldnt get 3%,, I am only saying that iTMS is a crock... and it was a huge media plot hyping it as the saving "heavens" answer to Music...

Look,, there is this huge issue.. and the RIAA and CRIA are saying one thing...
and the artists are actually saying another... besides a few...
And fans are saying another... so it seems there is one party here who is f-ing things up and it's the middle man.. the Record Industry.

So your saying F U to all the indi labels trying to just survive in this dog eat dog world...

CD costs rising? WTF are you talking about? I can still buy most CD's for around $10-12 bucks?!?!

Most all surveys are crap anyway...because I can pay someone to make them say just about anything.

[AlbinoPigeon]

Originally Posted by Sayer

If the artist really wanted to make some money they just need to go on tour. Or self-record and produce and release their music. OR you can just listen to the radio, it's completely free.

What it's going to take is a major artist (I hate that term, but you all know what I mean - a U2, Justin Timberlake, etc) to not renew their contract with their record company and go it solo. This could be very possible because:

1) Big artists already have a lot of name recognition and hence dont need a whole lot of record company side publicity (they usually get it free from the media and have money to handle a bit of their own)

2) They have enough money to handle any up front costs (setting up distrubution deals with record stores and other similar stuff)

I really think if something like this happened it would revolutionize the record industry into a more organic business. Only smaller record comanies would be left to help new artists, and there's no problem with that because I think the consensus is that smaller record companies are nicer.