hymn

MossPile · Joined: 19 Nov 2007 Posts: 16777215

I suppose this is a reasonable point to make one thing clear about myself:

I don't hate Apple.

In fact, I rather like them. They make good stuff - both hardware and software - and I enjoy using it.

For what it's worth, Apple is entirely within their rights to request that I cease distribution and development of this software. The WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act (a component of the DMCA), §103, says that "manufacturing" and distributing software (i.e, ffh) to circumvent a protection system (i.e, Fairplay) is illegal. While I don't agree with this law, I don't really have much of a choice but to follow it.

If you disagree with this as well, good. Tell your senator as much. Apple isn't to blame, though.

It's also probably worth considering that Apple is probably bound to pursue any violations. Although I'm certainly not privy to the details of their agreements with record labels, I strongly suspect that one of the terms of those agreements is that Apple must maintain the integrity of the Fairplay system (or - I imagine - risk dire penalties, either in terms of cash penalties or in companies breaking off music licensing contracts). I certainly can't fault them for doing what they've got to do.

ejonesss · Joined: 16 Oct 2005 Posts: 745 Location: usa

Annath · Joined: 22 Jul 2006 Posts: 325

MossPile · Joined: 19 Nov 2007 Posts: 16777215

Brahms · Joined: 19 Feb 2008 Posts: 2

I'd like to apologize to everyone, especially the moderators, for
posting what turned out to be more of a lightning rod than I thought
(hoped?) it would be. Looks like pushing the boundaries a little
triggered a crackdown that hurt everyone, and I'm sorry for that.

The way I see it, the RIAA is the real villain here. Apple is just a
co-conspirator who chose to dance with the RIAA under their terms, one
of which is probably the requirement to be C&D-DRM-enforcement
bastards.

Apple may be down a notch, but I still think they are one of the best
companies around, as evidenced by my typing this message on a Mac Pro,
wirelessly linked via an AirPort with my MacBook and my iPhone...

Any chance someone could post the actual C&D?

Sorry again,
Brahms

sk8rpro · Joined: 24 Oct 2006 Posts: 205

Brahms,

Perhaps Requiem was the last straw. Don't feel bad about it - you and Moss fought the good fight. Apple were being a bunch of inconsistent jerks. They left the software open on this site for years w/o C&D. They are the villains, not you. There are other ways to find the software on other sites. The fact you did this shows you did a great job on this software.

Don't stop working on ironing out the bugs either. Fight the good fight!
_________________
JHymn, rest in peace! You will be missed.

MossPile · Joined: 19 Nov 2007 Posts: 16777215

The Hymn project moderators have stated that they're unwilling to make the contents of their C&D public. I, however, have no such reservations about the one I received.

sk8rpro · Joined: 24 Oct 2006 Posts: 205

MossPile · Joined: 19 Nov 2007 Posts: 16777215

xordef · Joined: 23 Feb 2008 Posts: 1

colivigan · Joined: 26 Oct 2005 Posts: 290

DrmBytes · Moderator Joined: 16 May 2004 Posts: 3002

@MossPile

I don't hate Apple, either. I've been a very big supporter of theirs for many years. People who ask me what player to get, and there are a lot of people who respect my opinion on such matters, are told to get an iPod. I have always recommended the iTunes store so long as there was a way to deprotect the music. That all being said, my boycott isn't about hating a company. It's about making a stand for something I believe in. The name I chose to use on this forum was not some random thing. It's a play on words, yes, but, it's also a belief that DRM is more about control of the purchasers than about controlling piracy rates. Look at how Apple wields the power of DRM. iPod lock in? That's consumer friendly how exactly? You're blaming the RIAA for the Apple DRM? Really?? Cause I look at Amazon and a few other stores and I see music without DRM being sold legally. If it was the RIAA that absolutely required DRM, those stores wouldn't be doing that. Please don't go giving Apple some kind of free pass here. They're not even close to innocent and quite a bit hypocritical in their "we hate DRM" stance.

@brahms

My only regret was that you didn't talk to one of us mods before you posted that link on the site. Everyone needs to understand, there was absolutely no rule or requirement for you to do so. Therefore you did nothing wrong by posting that there. Had I listened to my instincts I would have taken it down and PM'd you about it so we could discuss it. I knew from the beginning that it was going to cause trouble. But, since you posted it publicly I figured it was too late. And I really didn't think it would cause this site any problems because it wasn't hosted here. I was obviously wrong and the site has paid the price for my lack of judgement. Your code is absolutely brilliant and I do appreciate what you managed to do. But in the end, releasing something of that magnitude was definitely going to piss off Apple and change the balance. I know for a fact that it would have worked on video had the code been worked on. The decryption of it works, but the writing out the decrypted video is broken. That is most definitely why Apple was concerned and why I was majorly concerned about hosting it here. If it works on rentals, and I have no idea if it does or not, then yea, Apple had a right to take the action they did....sort of. I think it was a bit heavy handed towards this site, to be honest. They could have demanded that we remove the link to it and we would have complied. Instead they demanded we remove everything, which we've done, but, that severely changes the balance I've worked so hard to maintain over the years.

It's always been a fine line. What I mean is, we wanted tools that could strip the DRM from legally purchased songs, but, we didn't want to enable widespread piracy. The tools we've hosted on this site all require that you are an authorized user of a song before it can be decrypted. The idiots that come here and say "I got this song from my friend but xyz program won't decrypt it" always get dealt with harshly by me for the very reason of this site walking the fine line. I was content to keep that balance and up until recently I personally believe Apple was content to more or less ignore it because there weren't a lot of people using these tools and the majority of them were using them for legitimate purposes. I think when requiem was posted and they realized that it had the potential to decrypt EVERYTHING, they freaked out and went heavy handed with the lawyers. This basically sucks for us and in the end them, as well. That fine line balance has kept the peace between those who wish to decrypt their massive libraries of legally purchased songs and Apple who wished to protect their DRM scheme. Sadly that balance was delicate and can now never be restored. One wrong move in a chess game can kill you. And that's what's happened here.
_________________
READ THE FAQ

chillywilly · Joined: 14 Sep 2006 Posts: 127

Thanks for posting that, Moss. I was curious how much information they put in a C&D letter.

Reading it raises a question. If Apple were to pursue "MossPile", how do they do so? I mean, how much information can they get from a posting on TUAW? An IP address perhaps? And Gmail... I know my Gmail account doesn't have my home address or any concrete information on me.

A lot of other bigger questions come to mind that I don't wish to post, but it really seems they pay people to scan the web for anything and everything. I guess that's common practice when you are a large company with billions in profit (the phrase "Your iPod dollars at work" comes to mind Confused

)

Regardless, this is what it is and while I still think Apple is a great company that makes great products I use each and every day, I won't be fully committed to them in the music arena until they drop DRM. Plain and simple.