PlayFair - Back Online

[SeaFox]

Of course, weren't they found guilty of illegal price fixing? In that case it's not just my opinion that they're too expensive.

Right. It was a court opinion too. But they were fined/forced to pay refunds/whatever for that action. The ruling never said "everyone who uses the iTunes Music Store gets to break the DRM" so that has nothing to do with the current state of CD prices or really any of this discussion.

 

[JohnGalt]

Testing in my shop also shows (as stated in post #77) with latest iTunes & Quicktime that movies (.mov) will only play sound on Authorized Computers. Seems to be outside the spirit of Jobs saying you 'own' the song. And it means you need to keep track of what you ripped vs what you bought so your slideshows in QT will play the sound.

 

[riots]

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

Absolutely! And also allowing the agreement to be breached in this manner will only harm iTunes and Apple. Do we really want that? A few people abusing the system could hurt the millions of people who are playing by the rules.

 

[ethernet76]

If you have several computers (like I do), why can't you just have one copy of the file in iTunes and share the library to other iTunes computers over your network (like I do)? Works really well.

You know that you have to authorize the local computer for playing that song even if the file is on another computer.

 

[tgilbey]

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?

Think you hit the nail on the head. I do have to agree with all the people who say you enter into an agreement with apple and then have to honour it.....

Why are people so obsessed with ITMS? Yes, it is very easy and quick to use. But not SO much easier than amazon that it'll make me endure far less choice, a lossy compressed version, and DRM/ operating system-specific controls, all for a price that's not much less.

So....if you don't like it, go and buy your own copy for about the same price which will sound exactly as the sound engineer and band intended, choose from pretty much all the acts under the sun, and rip it into your library so you get the digital ease of use as well... and if you want to trade it to encourage the record companies not to screw us over any longer.....YOU CAN!

 

[rbrugman]

What's the big deal?

I really don't see why Apple and the rest of the industry is up in arms over Playfair, or Hymn or whatever you want to call it. It doesn't allow you do decode other users m4p's. You still need to own a license to the song for it to work. If you try to decode music that isn't yours, it gives you the error "Failed to get DRM key for user". It's just a shortcut instead of re-ripping.

Robert

 

[ethernet76]

Here's the problem. It's not the artists who are screaming for DRM. Only record companies are pushing the issue, and the artists have just as much to lose at the recording companies.

And copyright law agrees with them -- your rights to someone else's artistic productions are not unlimited.

The law also said slaves were 3/5s a person, women aren't allowed to vote, and blacks could be forced to attend a seperate school from white children just as long it was seperate, but equal.

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

Nig***, f***, s*** are just a few words from thousands in the English language. Yet people don't believe they should be able to be spoken publicly because they are considered profane. Surely you won't object to the outlaw of these words, for there are 500,000 other words to chose from.

 

[mangoduck]

the bottom line

somewhere inside everyone lies a pirate. whether one actually believes that unauthorized use and duplication of copyrighted software and media is morally wrong or not, they still love to download, have, and share. even metallica loves a free lunch.

sometimes this communal ideal is strong enough to inspire the creation of networks and utilities that circumvent copy protection and enable absolute free use and trade. though superficially these organizations and authors may deny it, this is the driving force behind kazaa, gnutella, decss, the old napster, and many other projects, living and deceased.

fairplay, now hymn, is one of these. it fits the description.

now, i agree with the main principle behind hymn, which is if one legally purchases something, in this case a song, they should be able to use it privately in any way they see fit. regrettably, some will abuse this and distribute the unregulated files, but the author(s) of hymn can't be held directly responsible for the misbehaviour of users.

so, that's it, right? all the bases covered? not exactly, since transacting with the itunes music store binds one to a contract. a legal document that outlines in specifics what one can and cannot do with apple's product. whether such strict guidelines are fair, or even completely obscene, is moot, for the very act of downloading a song represents a signature. going back on this agreement makes one just as low as the organizations drafting and enforcing digital rights management laws - moreso in the eyes of the justice department.

supporting the principle of hymn, free use, does not mean one endorses hymn itself, nor piracy and lawlessness. certainly it is not just cause to author and distribute drm-disabling, contract-mangling software. rather it means one condemns apple's drm, the reason hymn was created to begin with. we don't need more hacks and utilities, what we need is a petition and formal protest to the contract itself. we need a proactive movement aimed at the source.

to digress for a moment, however, if apple had not settled on the restrictions they did, it's doubtful the itunes store would have made it out the door. surely apple strived to make the legal aspect as liberal as they could without compromising success, and for that we owe them thanks.

but now that it's out, now that it's an established and widely successful system, perhaps certain key people would be willing to bend in order to better appease consumers. that's us, folks. businesses just love to appease us, because what are they alone. we have the home field advantage.

 

[ifjake]

music can't go with you everywhere you go. the advancement of the digital format for music has allowed for some very nice things to happen. music used to not be portible, or suffered in quality as time went on. music once had to be live to exist. there were limitations to what you can do then and there are limitations to what you can do now. i just try to enjoy the music.

 

[RubberChicken]

Ah the delicious irony

Now that you can no longer use iTMS songs in iPhoto slideshows or iMovies, I actually have an interest in looking into this.

You realise that playfair is probably the reason why you can no longer open iTMS songs in other iLife apps. Apple has done an awesome job convincing a group of extremely conservative music moguls that people are inherently honest - and so Apple's originally modest level of DRM would be more than sufficient. Make it easy for them to be honest and they will be. Some poeple seem dedicated to proving Apple wrong. Everytime some dropkick with too much time on their hands works around the DRM, Apple has to tighten it up to keep the moguls happy. Nothing they do will stop the dedicated hacker, but does make it progressively harder for the legitimate user. Apply some logic and you can see where this is leading... a point may be reached where access becomes too restrictive and legitimate users will abandon the model as too much hassle. Apple is trying to balance the needs of the users against the music moguls, the last thing most users or Apple needs is creative little anarchists like plafyfair. I'm losing intertest in iTMS and is has not even been launched in Australia yet, and may never be at this rate.

 

[ryanw]

Think you hit the nail on the head. I do have to agree with all the people who say you enter into an agreement with apple and then have to honour it.....

Why are people so obsessed with ITMS? Yes, it is very easy and quick to use. But not SO much easier than amazon that it'll make me endure far less choice, a lossy compressed version, and DRM/ operating system-specific controls, all for a price that's not much less.

So....if you don't like it, go and buy your own copy for about the same price which will sound exactly as the sound engineer and band intended, choose from pretty much all the acts under the sun, and rip it into your library so you get the digital ease of use as well... and if you want to trade it to encourage the record companies not to screw us over any longer.....YOU CAN!

The thing that is amazing about this whole thing is that Record Labels make more money off a DIGITAL sale off the iTMS then a CD sale. Distributors charge a whole lot more for PHYSICAL Ds in PHYSICAL stores in PHYSICAL SHELVES. PLUS you have to PHYSICALLY duplicate the CDs, inserts, assemble the cds, etc. You'd think the labels would be screaming to have everything digital by now. Plug in your iPod and drag tracks over for $.99 each instead of buying a physical CD in a physical store. You'd think they'd be screaming for this. They got it, and they are baggin it.

You know what? I just thought about this. I bet it's not the record labels crying and screaming. I bet it's the DISTRIBUTORS that are trying to make this thing fail. I bet they're lobbying the RIAA and other assosications to complain and make iTMS jack the prices up so people go back to Amazon, BestBuy, TowerRecords, etc...

 

[Gus]

Do people take the time to actually read a thread anymore? Twice now, relative portions of the copyright law have been posted involving copyright coverage and "fair use", yet some of you are determined to avoid the actual legality issue of piracy.

Back to the real topic, however. My point earlier about the photocopying of music was that the more that it has been done, the fewer new pieces that have been published, and the higher the prices have gone on those that are. It is a direct result of stealing this music. Yes, at kinkos it might cost more money to photocopy a score and parts, but if your school has a copy machine, and you have unlimited access to it, it is not out the realm of possibility for it to be done, and it is, in fact, done all of the time.

I don't care if you do or do not like "pop" artists that do make tons of money. I don't care if you're jealous of the people on "cribs" who have nice houses, cars, etc. Justy because you don't like the artist, or think that you deserve those things more than they do doesn't give you the right to do what you want with their product. Despite what you think, you do not own their music. You may own the medium on which it is encased (the physical CD itself or perhaps even the actual 1s and 0s), but the content is theirs. By the way, most of those artists on cribs-I bet they don't actually own a lot of those things. Many of those items are paid for through credit or advances on future sales. They don't make the sales, they lose the nice things.

Regards,
Gus

 

[eric_n_dfw]

You can extract in iMovie

I just tested it - you can still extract to aiff (or any other QuickTime codec):

But I realized that it's just transcoding it from AAC to DV and then to whatever format you pick in the Quicktime exporter so it really is no better than burning an Audio (Red-Book) CD and then ripping it back as Aiff. In fact, the CD method is one less generation so it's probably better. I've been using the iMovie way of doing it and have noticed absolutely no loss in audio quality in my final DV and DVD products from Final Cut Pro.

Now if I could just figure out the maze of rules involved in getting the rights to use copywrited music in videos I do for profit like wedding videos. (but that's a whole other can of worms!)

 

[cjc343]

I've downloaded it, and I'm going to use it. I will not distribute the songs on P2P networks or give them to friends, I would only use it for things that I can't do when the DRM is still there.


When I want to obtain music, I immediately rule out all choices besides iTMS and Poisoned.

Now, to those of you who have said that if I don't agree with the EULA I should not buy from iTunes, do you think the RIAA would rather I purchase from iTunes and then strip the DRM so I can play it over my network? or do you think that I should start up poisoned and download it in higher quality at a faster speed for free?

I am inclined to choose iTunes, but without fairplay, I would use Poisoned.

now, pick one, violate the EULA but pay $1? Or get it free? I picked the first one, so if you still don't think I should buy from the iTMS, PM me, I will switch over to only using Poisoned....

 

[soosy]

For the third time, you CAN use the tracks in iPhoto and iMovie.

Yes, but you can also only playback on Authorized computers (iPhoto slideshow quicktimes, anyway) which seriously limits the usefulness IMO.

My point meant to be that the more strict the DRM is, the less incentive there is to buy from iTMS. The RIAA obviously just doesn't get it.

I've only bought a couple albums and a few songs from the iTMS... and for now, I think I will definitely stick with CDs.

 

[cmoney]

Do people take the time to actually read a thread anymore? Twice now, relative portions of the copyright law have been posted involving copyright coverage and "fair use", yet some of you are determined to avoid the actual legality issue of piracy.

Back to the real topic, however. My point earlier about the photocopying of music was that the more that it has been done, the fewer new pieces that have been published, and the higher the prices have gone on those that are. It is a direct result of stealing this music. Yes, at kinkos it might cost more money to photocopy a score and parts, but if your school has a copy machine, and you have unlimited access to it, it is not out the realm of possibility for it to be done, and it is, in fact, done all of the time.

I don't care if you do or do not like "pop" artists that do make tons of money. I don't care if you're jealous of the people on "cribs" who have nice houses, cars, etc. Justy because you don't like the artist, or think that you deserve those things more than they do doesn't give you the right to do what you want with their product. Despite what you think, you do not own their music. You may own the medium on which it is encased (the physical CD itself or perhaps even the actual 1s and 0s), but the content is theirs. By the way, most of those artists on cribs-I bet they don't actually own a lot of those things. Many of those items are paid for through credit or advances on future sales. They don't make the sales, they lose the nice things.

Regards,
Gus

Again, count on your thumb how many people are fighting for their "right" to pirate the music! Notice in everyone's argument here, no one is saying give me free music, everybody's saying they simply want the ability to copy the music, intact, into another format. Again: PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO COPY THE MUSIC THEY ALREADY PAID FOR TO ANOTHER FORMAT TO PLAY IT ON ANOTHER DEVICE.

To bring it into your sheet music analogy: let's say I'm a music director, I find some sheet music I want my orchestra to perform. I go buy the sheet music for $200 for say 10 parts but wait, they only gave me 1 copy of each part. Are you saying it's still illegal for me to photocopy each part, say 2nd viola so that 5 different violas can play it?

 

[LethalWolfe]

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.

Yeah, 'cause only bands signed by the *evil* major labels are the ones that have their work kicked around on P2P networks.
You can't pick and choose whose rights should be upheld and whose it's okay to trample.


Lethal

 

[dloomer]

So back to the Roku Soundbridge thing. Let's say I had hypothetically spent $500, $1000 on iTMS songs, then sometime later decided I wanted a Soundbridge. My m4ps are unplayable on a Soundbridge. However, I can burn all those songs to CD and re-rip them, and not make anyone unhappy. Of course, this would be a big hassle, waste a lot of CD-Rs (which I would probably just throw away) and mean some loss of quality (which I may or may not be able to notice).

Or, I could re-purchase all those CDs, rip them, and have equal-quality m4as without making anyone unhappy. The drawbacks here are obvious, though.

I'm not a screw-the-industry kind of guy. I'm also not too sure I'd feel "entitled" to the music I had already bought. But, given the burdens brought on by options A and B, I'm sorry, I'd go for option C and strip out the DRM. Some of you will argue "you should have thought of this when you made the agreement with Apple, even if you didn't expect to buy a SoundBridge" and I'd listen to that, it's a rational argument. But seriously, in the end I would still go with option C and not feel much of an ethical problem with it.

Now, I'm a big Apple fan, and as for the whole Apple music monopoly thing, so far that doesn't seem like too bad a thing but then apple needs to complete the puzzle. Bring on the Apple set-top box, and a bunch of us on this thread would have nothing to bitch about.

Until then ... long live Option C.

 

[cmoney]

And don't forget with option A, it also means you lose all the tag information so when you're scrolling through those 750 songs, it'll simply say "track 1, track 2, track 3, track 4" unless you go through the hassle of entering all the metadata again for 750 songs.

But seriously, in the end I would still go with option C and not feel much of an ethical problem with it.

Exactly, because IMHO I don't think there really is an ethical problem with it. The artists have been paid, Apple has been paid, the record companies have been paid.

 

[jcshas]

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...

Ah sure, but let's try to stay on topic here folks.

 

[Tulse]

When I want to obtain music, I immediately rule out all choices besides iTMS and Poisoned.

[...]

now, pick one, violate the EULA but pay $1? Or get it free? I picked the first one, so if you still don't think I should buy from the iTMS, PM me, I will switch over to only using Poisoned....

Hey, how about option 3: "buy a CD like 99.9% of the law-abiding music-buying public"?

I am truly aghast at the moral lassitude expressed by many folks in this thread. The sense of entitlement is truly staggering. Just for the record: Inconvenience, expense, laziness, outrage at artist's lifestyles, and anger at the RIAA are not morally defensible reasons to break a contract. (I think there may be legal questions about the legitimacy of the iTMS EULA, but that's a different matter.)

The law also said slaves were 3/5s a person, women aren't allowed to vote, and blacks could be forced to attend a seperate school from white children just as long it was seperate, but equal.

Good Lord -- you are actually going to equate copyright law and slavery? I don't even have a snarky comeback for that...I'm just too dumbfounded...

PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO COPY THE MUSIC THEY ALREADY PAID FOR TO ANOTHER FORMAT TO PLAY IT ON ANOTHER DEVICE.

Some people also want a pony, but that doesn't mean they get it.

This isn't a matter of what people "want", but what they legally agreed to.

 

[longofest]

Uh... doesn't work!!!

Okay... has anyone actually tried this app??? It isn't working for me. I did everything it told me to do, with iTunes both open and closed at the time, and it keeps coming up with the error "iTunes Key or an iPod couldn't be found."

I do happen to have an iPod, and when I turned on Disk mode, it worked. But that doesn't help people who don't have an iPod, or don't have theirs with them.

Either way, this app should only be used in honest ways. I don't think that the quote from the Supreme Court Justice that is included in the ReadMe is actually from any court case (I think it was just some random quote that he pulled, but I might be wrong).

 

[bpd115]

Yes, but you can also only playback on Authorized computers (iPhoto slideshow quicktimes, anyway) which seriously limits the usefulness IMO..

Actually I do not believe this is new with iTunes 4.5....I'm pretty sure it's always been that way with iphoto quicktime slideshows.

 

[SiliconAddict]

And you can listen to the song, on 5 machines as AAC, or an infinite number if you convert it to MP3.

I can't convert a DRMed song to MP3. I've tried. And I can't listen to my song on my Pocket PC. I can listen to plain ordinary AAC a.k.a MP4, WMA's, OGG's, MP3's and just about anything else but not FPed AAC files. The only device I can use is an iPod.

It may not technically be "theft", but it is breaking the law all the same.

So was drinking during prohibition. Your point?

I hope you don't have the same attitude when you buy a house, or sign an employment contract.

Please tell me you aren’t seriously trying to make a comparison between a $100,000 purchase and a person’s job to the joke that is Apple’s DRM TOA. Thank god if I buy a house in most cases I can remodel the inside and if I’m not allowed I can go somewhere else. If I’m not allowed to do that with the tunes I get off of iTMS where do I go? Would I go out and buy a 400,000 house (A crap load of CD’s) instead? No in the case of the realestate market I have choices. The RIAA has seen fite to give us NO choices. Either pay through the nose with CD’s or get F-ed with DRM. Thanks but I’ll take door number 3.
Apple isn’t losing any money off of me ripping the DRM wrapper off of the track. The sole reason for a DRMed song is to stop pirating. Period. There is NO other reason so if I’m not pirating a track then there is no point of DRMing a song is there? If fact all Apple is doing is screwing me over while someone else actually DOES pirate a tune.
Oh and by all rights I should get the chair because 3 weeks ago I finished ripping the last of my 348 DVD’s onto my server. Oh god! I’m going to burn in **** for my sins. Oh wait. All I use it for is a storage location so when I go on a trip or am out and about I can copy over a dozen or so movies to my laptop without taking the original media with me. THAT is fair use. That is what a consumer should be allowed to do without Apple, the RIAA, the MPAA, or anyone else looking down their nose as if we are being a bad little boy. NO DINNER FOR YOU! But as I said before for now I’m content with iTMS and fairplay’s rights. But make no mistake if I want to do something different with the songs that goes beyond what Apple’s FPed AAC allows I will convert them over in a heartbeat.

Apple, among others.

Tell me who the others are other then Apple and the RIAA. Do you think the artist gives a crap as long as I pay for the music? Heck I question if even the RIAA cares since I'm shelling out the cash. No it’s just Apple and why? Because they are covering their ASSets.

If you want to "Fight the Power", then don't play their game. It's that simple. It's not "Fighting the Power" to agree to their terms, and then break that agreement. If you are really committed to the cause, don't buy DRMed music.

As for Fair Use, I don't see anywhere in the law that says you have a legal right to an exact reproduction of a work (except explicitly in the case of software backups). I think that the ability to make MP3s, and to burn CDs, would count as meeting the requirements of Fair Use. I'd be interested in seeing what other folks think about this point, as it seems pretty crucial to me.[/QUOTE]

That makes NO sense. If I am allowed to circumvent Apple's DRM through creating an MP3 (Even though as I stated before I CAN NOT do this with FPed AAC files.) or through creating a CD then why would or SHOULD I not be allowed to do the same with their DRM? Again this is to stop pirates. I'm not a freaking pirate.

 

[Gus]

To bring it into your sheet music analogy: let's say I'm a music director, I find some sheet music I want my orchestra to perform. I go buy the sheet music for $200 for say 10 parts but wait, they only gave me 1 copy of each part. Are you saying it's still illegal for me to photocopy each part, say 2nd viola so that 5 different violas can play it?

Yes, that is what the law says. If you want another copy of the part, you have to order that part from the publisher, even though most do not. It is illegal to perform any piece in public off of photocpoied music. While there are a very few exceptions to this rule, (such as a copy of an individual part used for analysis in an educational setting that will never be reproduced or performed) most people do not bother with the right way to do it.

You have to admit though, that no publisher would only give you one second viola part, but I got your point.

It's been fun debating, but I think I'll just go back to trolling for a while. You all have fun though!

Regards,
Gus