PlayFair - Back Online

[frozenstar]

To the people that think Apple's DRM isn't fair...

WHAT PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS HAVE YOU RUN INTO?

So far the only ones I have heard is...

1. Non-Ipod support
2. Soundbridge Player type support

Other than those 2 issues, what limitations have you actually run into? Where they didn't allow you to do something.

I just cited three more for you in my previous post.

 

[soosy]

This is completely untrue. You CAN still use iTMS songs in iPhoto and iMovie.

I'd love to be wrong about this, but I did a test exporting a quicktime from iPhoto the other night and the sound wouldn't play on a computer that wasn't authorized. So not much use for sending to other family members and having the sound play.

Perhaps it's different for iMovie or iDVD?

(btw, was using latest iPhoto, QT 6.5.1 etc)

 

[whooleytoo]

That is fine if the online service doesn't provide the user what they want. They can choose not to buy from that service. That does not mean they can buy from that service and then violate the terms of service by cracking the file.

As I understand it, it's a legal grey area - provided it's only for personal use. Morally, I wouldn't have any problem with cracking a file to use on other devices.

It's all a bit academic for me, given that the service isn't here yet. But the more "constructive criticism" consumers give now, the quicker these services will move to less restrictive terms.

Also, I feel Apple will license Fairplay but they want to insure their future first. If they license it out now, they may be undercut and canablized the way they were when the Mac Clones were out there. Apple is the main player right now and that is how I like it.

Agree completely. I sincerely hope Apple do license it eventually, or they'll be marginalised the way they were when they decided not to allow Mac clones

Apple would control the Fairplay licensing, so they could control whether or not they were undercut. They could also license an iPod 'reference design' to third party manufacturers to make iPod 'clones'. This would give Apple a lot more scope for big margins, than simply licensing Fairplay.

 

[Gus]

"Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright."

From : http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include*—*

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

From: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

Regards,
Gus

 

[bpd115]

Just to make it clear that I have no desire to steal and/or illegally distribute music, I have listed three valid reasons for using PlayFair.

I have an MP3-CD player in my car. Without PlayFair, I have no means to play music purchased from iTunes in my car.

Then Buy the CD.

I have a machine running Linux in my house. Without PlayFair, I have no means to play music purchased from iTunes on that computer.

Buy the CD.

I have a wireless audio streaming device connected to my computer. Without PlayFair, I have no means to play music purchased from iTunes through this device.

Buy the CD.

iTunes was not ment to be used for those instances you've run into...unfortunately iTunes doesn't suite your particular needs at this time. Find an alternative legal way until it does.

 

[frozenstar]

It's funny to hear people screaming about what their rights are when it comes to using copyrighted material but no one stands up for the owners of the copyrights who currently are the ones having their rights trampled left and right. Oh, wait, that's because if do that you get called a greedy, corporate whore or something along those lines.

And I see everyone screaming at the RIAA but why aren't people screaming at the government for passing the DMCA? Or at the courts for, so far, judging in favor of the DMCA and against 20 year old consumer friendly precendents? The DMCA is a lot more dangerous and a lot more powerful that the RIAA.

Oh, the copyright owners are having their rights trampled on? The same record labels that have been engaging in price-fixing practices for years?

With regard to the DMCA, I entirely agree. I attack that piece of legislation every opportunity I have. Mix the DMCA and the Patriot Act, throw in a few Republicans, and you've got yourself a recipe for statism.

My apologies for the political commentary. I just couldn't help it. And in all fairness, the Democrats are just as bad, just in a different way.

 

[iggyb]

Many of you probably don't have much of a connection with the instrumental ensemble world (orchestras, bands, etc.) except maybe in high school, but this same topic comes up in a different way there:

An individual teacher decides that they hear a piece of music they want their ensemble to play, but they don't want to pay the $100 or so that it costs. So what do they do? They go to the local music library and photocopy the entire score and parts and hand it out to their members and perform it. Their justification is that the composer has been dead for 100 years and that it is "public domain" or some other excuse. What they have done is denied the publisher and the rights holder (usually a family member of the original composer, but not always) the money it cost them to typeset and print that piece.

This also happens on an individual level with private music teachers photocopying a piece of solo music for their student instead of having them purchase it. Both scenarios have people blatantly breaking the laws-both U.S. and internationsl rights laws-with impunity.

New composers cannot get music published and the price of printed music keeps skyrocketing every year because the publishers have to make up for lost revenue due to theft by copying. It is an endless cycle with those making the copies justifying it by saying the publishers are charging too much for the music ($10-$60 for a solo piece), and the publishers legitimately losing money and having to raise prices to cover their loss.

If everyone in this scenario would play by the laws and rules, everyone would be happy: lower prices and better selection. Just because the music exists and they can buy it, it does not give them the right to do with it as they please.

See a parallel?

Regards,
Gus

First of all, there are limits on the copyright laws. There are no owned rights to any Mozart pieces, family or otherwise. I believe the copyright expires 75 years after the death of the owner. So your argument would be for the printing publisher of the piece. Having experience in this field as well, most scores are printed on oversized paper, which makes running to a simple copy machine impractical. And of course, no Kinkos would ever do the service for you, since they won't make copies out of a published book.

That's not to say it doesn't happen. Sure, it does. However, most schools and all professional symphonies do buy the music. Why? Because if they're caught, they are paying huge fines. And all it takes is one disgruntled member to turn them in.

Now, as for a conductor not wanting to pay $100 for a score, so he/she goes to the library and copies it there? Hmmm.....15 pages at 10 cents per page is $1.50....times 70 members.....$105.

 

[alset]

If I decide to use a Roku Soundbridge for music I purchase its no one else's ****ing business but mine. Its not Steve's business, its not RIAA's business. They get my money for music, so they should ****ing shut up and be happy with it because that is all I am willing to give them. What I do with an item I purchase is my decision alone if RIAA don't like that they can ****ing die.

etc etc etc.....

Funny, it only took reading about six posts into the thread to remind me why I'm not active in these forums anymore. I wish arn would adopt a system with user moderation (slashcode comes to mind). I'd love to learn and share with the MR community without having to wade through waste-high ignorance.

Dan

 

[SiliconAddict]

Amen. It is bizarre to me that people seem to think they have a natural right to music. If you don't like the terms of the contract, don't agree to it -- it's really that simple. Any other argument is simply rationalization for theft.

What theft?!?! Are you daft?!? If you purchased the music or the music file or whatever you are entitled to listen to the song. Cracking the DRM is
NOT theft. Its breaking a contractual agreement that you made with Apple when you signed up for iTMS. I consider this to be in the same vain as Microsoft and just about everyone else's EULA. Screw the fine print. If I crack the encryption and use it to play music on MY terms without redistributing it who gives a crap. At the end of the day one and only one thing should matter. You gave apple the .99 cents for that track. Anything else is anal retentive legalese overkill. IMHO the world is already being choked to death with this kind of crap. Enough already.

That being said I'm not in any hurry to crack Apple's encryption now that they have upped the number of systems to 5 but I won't hesitate if I want to do something that Apple doesn't allow. Sorry but I've invested over $900 now in iTMS. This is no longer some pet project investment. If I want to listen to it on some other device or method. (My Pocket PC comes to mind.) I sure as heck will one way or another and some lic isn't going to stop me from doing that. I may be breaking a contractual agreement but I'm sure has heck no longer a thief.

PS- There is some serious questions whether or not simply clicking YES to an EULA is contractually binding. To date this issue has not come up in court but many are suggesting that clicking a button can not be considered a valid method of agreeing to a contract nor can it be guaranteed that it was YOU who clicked on the button. Hence the reason in most real world contracts you have to sign an agreement. I think in the next 5-10 years this issue will come to a head but right now its up in the air.

 

[iggyb]

Oh, the copyright owners are having their rights trampled on? The same record labels that have been engaging in price-fixing practices for years?

With regard to the DMCA, I entirely agree. I attack that piece of legislation every opportunity I have. Mix the DMCA and the Patriot Act, throw in a few Republicans, and you've got yourself a recipe for statism.

My apologies for the political commentary. I just couldn't help it. And in all fairness, the Democrats are just as bad, just in a different way.

Not too much in a different way...Clinton signed the DMCA and it's the Democrat Senators (like Fritz Hollins) that are always bringing up bills that benefit the RIAA. It's all lobbying.

 

[MacNut]

People always complain about how baseball players mane too much money, but those same people dont care that the RIAA or artists themselves make to much money. Nobody ever talks about a salary cap on Britney Spears, but oh no Derek Jeter is making 150 mill. The fact is everything is over priced and we are paying these people far more than they are worth.

 

[greenstork]

Amen. It is bizarre to me that people seem to think they have a natural right to music. If you don't like the terms of the contract, don't agree to it -- it's really that simple. Any other argument is simply rationalization for theft.

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.

I'm sorry, it is you who does not get it, and elo too. Ahmed seems to be the only one who does understand copyright law and the evolving definition of "fair use."

Fair use can be determined by weighing the following criteria:
1) What is the nature of the use?
2) What is the nature of the work to be used?
3) How much of the work will be used?
4) What effect would the intended use have on the market value of the work?

Many would argue that being able to play an iTMS song on something besides an iPod is fair use, and as Ahmed pointed out, so it being able to stream a song to his SoundBridge home stereo.

Seriously, everyone here needs to understand the DMCA and other laws about copyright before coming onto these forums acting like Apple apologists. Why do you all want Apple controlling how you can use music purchased on the iTMS. I certainly don't want corporations with that kind of control over my life.

I wouldn't ever want to share music over P2P networks but I do want the freedom to use music I purchase as I see fit under the rule of law.

As an aside, the fact that you can only use iTMS purchased music on the iPod is monopolistic. People rant and rave when Microsoft does this kind of stuff and apologize for Apple when they do it. Open your eyes folks.

 

[Doctor Q]

... An individual teacher decides that they hear a piece of music they want their ensemble to play, but they don't want to pay the $100 or so that it costs. So what do they do? They go to the local music library and photocopy the entire score and parts and hand it out to their members and perform it. Their justification is that the composer has been dead for 100 years and that it is "public domain" or some other excuse. What they have done is denied the publisher and the rights holder (usually a family member of the original composer, but not always) the money it cost them to typeset and print that piece. ... It is an endless cycle with those making the copies justifying it by saying the publishers are charging too much for the music ($10-$60 for a solo piece), and the publishers legitimately losing money and having to raise prices to cover their loss.

And I see the same thing with teachers copying software. They justify it by saying they have budget constraints. So the software vendors charge more because fewer people are paying for what they use.

 

[idkew]

Then Buy the CD.

Buy the CD.

Buy the CD.

iTunes was not ment to be used for those instances you've run into...unfortunately iTunes doesn't suite your particular needs at this time. Find an alternative legal way until it does.

I agree with you on these points.

Except, you forget to mention one. If Apple decides to close down the iTMS, they can legally make it so you can no longer use your previously purchased music. Apple is plain and clear about this in the user agreement.

I like this app since if the aforementioned situation were to ever occur, I hopefully could still de-DRM my legally purchased music and continue to enjoy it.

If you are thinking "that would never happen" look at the history of DIVX (not the compression scheme). When DIVX went under, I was stuck with several unwatched movies I never could watch, yet I paid for them.

The ability to stop me from using my music is my largest problem with the iTMS, and PlayFair makes this less of a problem for me. I have it Just In Case.

 

[cmoney]

Then Buy the CD.

Buy the CD.

iTunes was not ment to be used for those instances you've run into...unfortunately iTunes doesn't suite your particular needs at this time. Find an alternative legal way until it does.

Legal shmegal. Driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit is technically illegal but it's tolerated. Speeding however is not tolerated in situations where it may cause harm.

In this case, money has been paid to the copyright holder, the distributor, the artist. All that's happening is the medium is being changed. No money is being lost to piracy. Furthermore, the music is not being used in a manner inconsistent with its original purpose: eg, it's not being performed in public, it's not being rebroadcast to an audience, etc.

BTW, the music companies would also like to remove the "Buy the CD" option. IMHO, if it weren't for the potential bad blood and resulting loss of profits, the record companies would have closed this technical loop hole a long long time ago.

When 8 track machines went out of production, people had every right to change the medium and record it to cassettes. Why is it now illegal to change the medium and keep the original product (audio information including tags) intact? Imagine the uproar if record companies placed EULAs on a cassette that read: "you are allowed to play this in a Walkman style cassette player or stereo receiver but you are not allowed to record this to a CD and play it in a CD player."

 

[greenstork]

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.

I don't believe that giving corporations more control over using things that you purchase is the answer.

If the RIAA pulls the plug on online music, they are signing their own death warrant because P2P file sharing isn't stopping anytime soon. The only chance they have to recoup those losses is to "get in the game" by supporting online music services.

 

[Stella]

How would this work? Does this mean that if my Mac isn't connected to the internet I can't play my iTMS purchased music? If not, then how can Apple closing down the iTMS stop me playing such music?

I agree with you on these points.

Except, you forget to mention one. If Apple decides to close down the iTMS, they can legally make it so you can no longer use your previously purchased music. Apple is plain and clear about this in the user agreement.

 

[SeaFox]

Great, and then what is next? The more you give in to their demands the more of your rights they will take. Ever thought about that? These people will not stop with just that. Its time to stand up against that kind of business behavior.
Regards,

Ahmed

What do you think "agreeing to terms of contract" means? If you don't like the terms of the agreement, you don't use the iTMS. That is what "standing up against that kind of business behavior" is. Not using programs to violate the agreement. The moment you signed up for the iTMS and started using it you "gave in to their demands".

If the terms of service bother you so much you can buy CD's in stores and pay cash to avoid any DRM or tracking of what you bought.

Did you ever think about that?

 

[greenstork]

Not legally you can't.

But he can legally play it on something besides the iPod and subvert the DRM to do so, and he can stream it to his home stereo and strip the DRM to do so. DRM that does not allow you "fair use" isn't playing fair, so to speak

 

[greenstork]

The issue has nothing to do with Apple or Microsoft or even the RIAA.

Succumbing to limitations on fair use gives the corporate world the green light to go ahead and impose only more restrictions.

Freedom is a constant struggle between those in power and those not. If you're willing to sacrifice your rights so that one corporation can dominate the market instead of another, you don't deserve to have an opinion.

Amen, finally, the first poster on these forums who gets it.

 

[greenstork]

Since when is it my 'right' to do what I please with music I did not record, write or create? Must have missed that in the constitution.

This is simple. They are saying we have this product which you can do this this and this with for a price of .99 cents. If you say "HEY GREAT DEAL" then buy it.

If you think the restrictions are too much, don't buy it. End of story.

In the end the market will dictate what is acceptable and what is not.

Please read up on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) before making these broad assertions, it's obvious that you don't fully understand copyright law (not the Constitution BTW).

 

[jpk]

If I decide to use a Roku Soundbridge for music I purchase its no one else's ****ing business but mine. Its not Steve's business, its not RIAA's business. They get my money for music, so they should ****ing shut up and be happy with it because that is all I am willing to give them. What I do with an item I purchase is my decision alone if RIAA don't like that they can ****ing die. They act like they are Rolls Royce who can choose its customers, but guess what RIAA, you are ****ing Jugo and if I decide to be nice and give you money for your crap you should thank me, even if I just take the CD and piss on it! Take the money and SHUT THE **** UP(TM)!
Cheers,

Ahmed

Amen that!

All the best,
JPGK

 

[NP3]

Programs like this keep apple in check

I don't care if i can't use the music on unlimited computers, or burn it ten million times...The thing i like about programs like this is that it keeps apple in check as far as what digital rights it will apply.

It scared me when i found out that Apple changed the rights on all iTunes Music Store songs w/ version 4.5 ...not those bought from that point forward. I thought...what would prevent apple in the future from drastically changing the DRM of songs i bought years previous??

What happens if Apple (or most likely the RIAA) decides that we shouldn't be able to do much of anything with our music??

Programs like this give incentive to keep the rights reasonable. The companies know that if they go too far...many will turn to this program. As many others have already said...i'm going to download this just in case for the future...

 

[jpk]

This is important for those who don't have iPod. Ever tried using an mp3 CD with protected AACs in an mp3 CD player?

All my best,
JPGK

PS. If iTunes' mp3 CDs don't work, use the Finder and put all the files in a folder on the CD.

 

[slughead]

If you think minor restrictions on your use of a commercial product are a significant infringement on your civil liberties, I despair for democracy.

What is minor and what is major is to be decided once by the consumer.

I decided that iTMS was worth it--the convenience and cost seemed a worthy trade off for a hassle when burning and limited interoperability.

Apple explained all the things I could and could not do, and I accepted that and bought a few songs based on THOSE rules--10 burns, 3 computers.

What they didn't tell me is that they would later change what I can't do with it after I bought it. Like if chevy told me I was no longer allowed to use my passenger power windows... Even if they doubled the horsepower, they still changed the deal!

What if the record companies shut iTMS down and DELETE all your downloaded music, what are you going to do about it? OOPS! You're screwed! Use playfair now while you still can.

It's legal for them to do so. Will you endorse playfair then?

I used playfair to GET OUT of my apparent contract with iTMS, because they broke it when they took from me what was mine: Use of the files with toast, and 3 burns on the same playlist.

Ever hear the old saying "what's mine is mine" ? Well those were my rights, and they took them. No matter what they gave me in return, they still took from me without asking.

And don't give me that crap about "well you can just use itunes 4.2 forever" because when 10.4 rolls around, what do you think it will include? Will they support 4.2 forever? No? Then no, I can't use 4.2 forever.