Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

PlayFair - Back Online

ALoLA said:
If you wanted to do all that, wouldn't it have been easier just to buy the CD then? That way, you could rip it, without DRM, into any format you want.

I think many of us here don't want any additional roadblocks for iTMS, should software from PlayFair and others get the RIAA' s attention.
Click to expand...

If they would still sell normal CDs I would love to do that. But not only are CD prices a rip-off but they are also so called UnCDs which contain copy protection such as Cactus which not too long ago caused a lot of trouble to ;Macs and some won't even play in computer drives at all unless you hack the firmware. I do still buy a few CDs here and there, from independent artists who make their own stuff. I sometimes still go to the record store, but the only reason I go there is to see if some RIAA member was stupid enough to print the CDDA symbol on an UnCD, because that would be label fraud, and I could finally sue those ****ing *******s.
Cheers,

Ahmed
 
ryanw said:
According to their website there is an important difference between this version and the old version. This version does not strip the apple meta data from the files. So if users use this tool (unmodified of course) then when they strip the fairplay DRM from their files it still includes the username they purchased/downloaded the files as.

I think this is an important note because if people were to blindly strip the drm from their files and post them on usenet, they would be tracked back to the person who purchased and presumably posted the songs.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's probably only a matter of time before someone takes it a step further, and replaces the valid user name/ID in the file with a fake one.
 
Playfair helps Microsoft

I have no problem with someone hacking anyone's DRM, even Apple's. DRM is the last refuge of corporate media greed.

No, the problem I have with Hymn/Playfair is that it plays right into Microsoft's hands. They're popping champagne corks in Redmond over this, because Microsoft now owns the only major DRM scheme that's still unbroken. They should have cracked WM9 before they went after Apple's Fairplay. The record companies will look upon Playfair as a big reason to embrace Windows Media Player and Microsoft's WM9 DRM. I hope everyone likes .WMV files, cuz we'll be seeing a lot more of them in the near future, imho.
 
I think it's you who doesn't get it. If you want to use licensed music for a purpose not in the agreement, then you shouldn't have made the agreement. A person is only as good as his or her word.
Click to expand...

Most spyware makes you sign an agreement essentially allowing them to transfer your personal details to whomever they want. The fact that you signed this agreement doesn't change the fact that its crap. The agreement that you sign with Apple violates your fair use rights. I'm not sure how a contract can supersceed a national law. I think that there is more than enough grey area to conclude that your agreement with Apple is not worth the pixels it is rendered on.
 
AhmedFaisal said:
The loss in quality, not even talking about the amount of time it takes, to burn and rerip is tremendous. The effect was once described in a good analogy. If you take an image of 800x600 pixels and blow it up to 8000x6000 and then convert it back to 800x600 the picture will show a significant loss in quality, just try it out. Same happens when you burn and rerip. What PlayFair/Hymn does is simply remove the DRM wrapper from the AAC, no conversion nothing, just removing the DRM, meaning no loss in quality.
Cheers,

Ahmed
Click to expand...

sounds like you have already made up your mind. are you posting to try and convince others? and frankly, your lack of eloquence is part of the problem.

be reasonable, shouldn't everyone get paid for their work? the protection mechanisms are supposed to deter the average users from making or distributing copies. for those, like yourself, intent on not paying for music or encouraging others to not use copy protected music - they will never convince you. there are always ways around the rules. based on other licensing models this is one of the best out there - look at sony's site.

for others, hang in there, someone likely apple will keep introducing better ways to protect everyone's interest.
 
soosy said:
Now that you can no longer use iTMS songs in iPhoto slideshows or iMovies, I actually have an interest in looking into this.
Click to expand...

This is completely untrue. You CAN still use iTMS songs in iPhoto and iMovie.
 
What a lame argument

Tulse said:
That's what I like to see -- political protest about not being able to copy music. Yep, that's a real pressing issue.

I've got news for you -- rights far more important than being able to copy music are already being taken from you. Yet you want to organize around music copying? With those priorities, I hope you get the government and corporations you deserve...
Click to expand...

Don't bring in politics, allright? DRM is a symptom of a larger evil that is called "****ing consumers and citizens in the ass" we all know that. But why ignore it here? I protest not only against that but against any way they want to limit my rights. I probably gave more money for the lawsuits to bring down the new laws for tapping into private homes and phonelines in germany than anyone else on this site. Why? Because I want to protect criminals? Heck no, but the way the law was constructed all it did was take away ordinary citizen's rights without achieving any of its goals (bringing down large scale crime). And why was that? Because the ones where you could get vital information on large scale crime were protected from the law, which are lawyers and politicians. So the guys that defend mobsters and manage their finances and the government crooks that protect mobsters were excluded from the law. Then I say **** that law. And with DRM its the same thing.
Cheers,

Ahmed
 
elo said:
I think it's you who doesn't get it. If you want to use licensed music for a purpose not in the agreement, then you shouldn't have made the agreement. A person is only as good as his or her word.

elo
Click to expand...

Just because something is placed in an agreement by a company does not mean it is legal or right. Many EULA's prevent the copying of a CD for a backup copy, which is protected by law. If you went and copied the CD for backup use, you would be protected by law, even though the EULA says otherwise.
 
superfunkomatic said:
be reasonable, shouldn't everyone get paid for their work? the protection mechanisms are supposed to deter the average users from making or distributing copies. for those, like yourself, intent on not paying for music
Click to expand...

Excuse me mister, either you show me where I said that I do not want to pay for music or you take it back/edit it out right now. I do not appreciate being called a thief!

Ahmed
 
I follow license agreements because I agreed to them. But if it is true that I can't use any song I purchase in a Final Cut Pro home movie, I find that very frustrating.

Tulse said:
That said, it looks like the hymn folks may be on a bit firmer legal ground with this version -- it preserves the ID of the original purchaser in the cracked file, which would make sharing a file over a P2P network much less attractive.
Click to expand...
What if somebody else creates a separate application that removes the ID from an unprotected AAC file? The combination would counter the Hymn deterrent against illegal sharing, but where would the ID remover application stand on legal grounds? This uncharted legal territory makes the whole subject fascinating.
 
ryanw said:
Are you serious? They made it so you can't use your purchased files in iPhoto or iMovie? Not even iLife 04 stuff?? Jeash..... this sux.. why not just go back to buying CDs from amazon.com?
Click to expand...

No you can use it in iMove and iPhoto. Just install the new Quicktime.
 
Wow. Some people have very dirty mouths. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

I agree with others, in that if you don't like the terms of the service..DONT USE IT. If it is as horrid as you make it out to be, then the market won't support it.

It will be interesting to see how this thing plays out. Companies like Sony have done a pretty good job of preventing mod-chip sales (at least I think) to help prevent piracy, and DVD-X copy can no longer distribute a DVD-ripper in it burning software. I just hope that software such as this doesn't encourage record labels to pull out of the iTMS.
 
nmk said:
These guys have just become greedy bastards, and I say **** them.
Click to expand...

Fight the Man!

I'm downloading it now.

It's my music, I can do what ever I wish with it. (other than making dozens of copies and handing them out to friends (which I already do)) Edit: LOOK AT MY USER NAME!!!
 
musicpyrite said:
Fight the Man!

I'm downloading it now.

It's my music, I can do what ever I wish with it. (other than making dozens of copies and handing them out to friends (which I already do))
Click to expand...

I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy but the way I see it is you're paying .99 cents for access to a track that you can do pretty much anything you normally want with (Sans streaming, using with other MP3 devices, home media, etc.)

If you want to do other things with it, then buy the CD or the CD single and rip it yourself.

Online music is the future and crap like this just provides the RIAA with ammo to pull the plug in its infancy, right or wrong.
 
Koodauw said:
It will be interesting to see how this thing plays out. Companies like Sony have done a pretty good job of preventing mod-chip sales (at least I think) to help prevent piracy, and DVD-X copy can no longer distribute a DVD-ripper in it burning software. I just hope that software such as this doesn't encourage record labels to pull out of the iTMS.
Click to expand...

LOL. Do you really believe in the fairytale that Sony prevented modchips because of piracy? Do you honestly think Region Codes were invented because of that? No, the reason is Sony wants to decide what we can buy and what not. Why should I go to the movies here in Germany and spend 15 Euros for a lousy done dub if I can already get the US DVD for 10$ on Amazon? Its money friend. Same goes for games, why should I buy a hackjob censored European version of a game if I can get it cheaper and uncut from Japan or USA. That is what Sony wants to prevent, not piracy.
Cheers,

Ahmed
 
musicpyrite said:
Fight the Man!

I'm downloading it now.

It's my music, I can do what ever I wish with it. (other than making dozens of copies and handing them out to friends (which I already do))
Click to expand...

I'm arguing about this on an ideological basis. I'm from Pakistan, and over here all music is pirated. I don't need to download PlayFair to pirate music. All I have to do is go buy a CD from a music store.
 
Tulse said:
That's what I like to see -- political protest about not being able to copy music. Yep, that's a real pressing issue.

I've got news for you -- rights far more important than being able to copy music are already being taken from you. Yet you want to organize around music copying? With those priorities, I hope you get the government and corporations you deserve...
Click to expand...

And I've got news for you. You can fight for more than one right, or even what one may or may not constitute as a "right". But since you're so omniscient, make a list of the rights we ought to fight for and the rights that you deem unworthy.

I doubt I'll ever download this, as I imagine the songs I've purchased on iTMS will do just fine on my iPod or my computer. But I hate the RIAA, I hate their tactics, and I think they've done far more damage to themselves than anyone who will download this program. I anticipate the whole music industry will be (however painfully) a complete revamp of how music artists make money. Fine by me, since the whole setup now is ridiculous.
 
Apple should be happy, to use this on a mac you need an iPod :)

Windows is a different story... anyways... I'm really happy that this program came back... I hate the DRM crap and I'll actually buy more music now that I can strip it. And no, I don't pirate my music. It sucks if your internet connection goes down and you need to re-authenticate your music, for example.
 
The day I tried playfair was the day iTunes 4.5 came out and told me they were tightening the restrictions on their DRM (no more toast, no more iphoto, no more than 7 burns of the same playlist).

Apple had one chance to keep me buying iTMS, and to keep me from breaking their DRM, and that by was NOT locking down the music that I had already purchased.

All they had to do was NOT try to screw me over, a simple request.

I bought the song, I want to use it in the same way I did when I first bought it. You try to "indian give" my permissions and I'm cutting you off.

Since then I've converted all my m4ps to m4a, and trashed everything having to do with iTMS, I'm even thinking about eliminating my account.

You all can do what you want, they changed the deal after it had been done, and THAT's not playing fair.

Just my two cents.
 
slughead said:
The day I tried playfair was the day iTunes 4.5 came out and told me they were tightening the restrictions on their DRM (no more toast, no more iphoto, no more than 7 burns of the same playlist).
Click to expand...

Where does this 'you can't use it in iphoto and imovie' come from? The only thing they did was drop playlist count from 10 to 7 (really hard to switch up a song on a playlist if you need to, not to mention if you really really want or need another copy of a cd, there are other ways to copy a cd). They INCREASED the playback from 3 to 5 computers...that was a trade off that was fine be me!
 
bpd115 said:
If you want to do other things with it, then buy the CD or the CD single and rip it yourself.

Online music is the future and crap like this just provides the RIAA with ammo to pull the plug in its infancy, right or wrong.
Click to expand...

But by the same logic, if the online music service doesn't provide the freedom of usage a certain user might want, then why should they be concerned if the RIAA do pull the plug?

In this case, Apple's closer to being the 'bad guy' than the RIAA, since it's Apple that refuses to support protected WMA on the iPod (which doesn't bother me), nor license Fairplay to others (which does).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back