So far as the yet very quiet forums are claiming, a new app called FairUse4WM can be used to strip Windows Media DRM 10 and 11 (i.e. PlaysForSure, but not WM DRM 9). Yes, yes, we know,
we've heard this song and dance before. But before we proceed, let's just be totally clear on how the system works: providers like Napster and Yahoo Music Unlimited provide subscription service for unlimited access to Windows Media DRMed files; stop paying the fee, stop getting access to the files -- but you already knew all this. We tried FairUse4WM and we can verify that it quickly and easily stripped the DRM from our Napster To Go tracks, and made them freely available to play on our Mac (which, of course, has Flip4Mac installed). In other words, it's a simple, apparently lossless, one-step method for making your files playable after you're no longer paying fees on your subscription service. The app didn't work on our Vongo videos, but we can verify with all certainty that yes, Windows Media DRM can now be easily and quickly stripped from PlaysForSure media services. Now watch as Microsoft shuts down the forums and runs damage control in order to prevent an digital media entire platform from collapsing. Click on for a couple more pics of the app in action!
P.S. - Kinda goes without saying but we take absolutely zero accountability for what you may do with FairUse4WM, ok?
[Thanks, Frank]
Now here's that same track we just downloaded from Napster playing on Quicktime (with Flip4Mac, which, of course, doesn't support WM DRM.)
posted Aug 25th 2006 11:48AM
Ever heard of SoundTaxi or Daniusoft?
ummm... isn't doing that against the DMCA? and is Illegal?
Now matter how many file sharing networks get shut down and now matter how much DRMing methods are developed, like the saying goes: "If theres a will, theres a way."
every time i try to load the key, windows keeps coming up with this error that causes the program to shut down. anyone have suggestions as to why this is? im running xp pro
Conspiracy theory: Microsoft leaked this tool to collapse the PlaysForSure market to make way for Zune.
Power to the people! Stick it to... no, LYNCH the Man! >:( Skewer his head on a pike!!!11!oneowe!1!!!!
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
The Life of Reason, George Santayana
This is indeed Armegeddon for DRM. Whoever is responsible will go down as a hero.
Bye bye tunebite and nights of comverting music....
Yay for free university Napster too!!!
"In other new, popular tech site "Engadget.com" is being sued by... well.. Everyone for hosting a file that let the user steal music. Engadget's Ryan Block reportly said in reply to this news 'I have no idea what you are talking about!'"
Lol, just kidding Ryan.
But, I will be surprised if the links don't get removed soon.
Does this strip DRM from videos well?
Ben has a point - you are providing information which allows other people to break DRM. Aren't you liable under the DMCA?
I am a writer and editor of DRM Blog and I can verify that this utility has worked on three different services we have tried it on. We have been in possession of a "beta" version of this tool for a couple weeks now. The file we received was sent to us via email and the author of the email suggests this tool was built as a fair use tool. The name of the exe suggests this also.
We have not posted this to our site because we do not think most uses of the tool will be "fair use". If you are paying a subscription fee then you do not 'own' that content. You are renting that content. If you remove the DRM and keep the content then you are committing copyright infringement. Almost all of the plays4sure services are monthly subscriptions.
If you purchase your content and use this tool then I see no problem and I fully support your use of this tool. If you did not purchase your content then you have no "right" to use this tool.
this is a shame. why can't people just show their displeasure with these DRM schemes by not buying into them in the first place. If you ask your neighbor to paint your house and he wants a million dollars for it, your response is "no, that's not worth it." Why can't people apply the same logic. If you think it is not fair to have a DRM'ed single for $0.99, then don't buy it. If you don't want to rent your music, and have your rights terminate with the subscription, DON'T SUBSCRIBE. Circumventing DRM just gives the content providers ammo when they try to get Congress to pass anti-circumvention legislation.
Speak with your wallets people.
-p-
Bravo to p-diddy.
It's just like the preachers who whine about porn. If there was no market for it, that is, if tomorrow 99% of people who buy porn stopped, porn producers would be making corporate training videos tomorrow.
Same same with DRM. Only I call it "Rights Destruction Technology" because DRM is, at best, a brilliant example of Double-Speak (read some Eric Blair, kiddies; and if you don't know the name...tsk..tsk...)
I've basically stopped buying music from the iTunes store even tho' I love my iPod and have the newest 89gig model on the way to the house as I write this.
There are a few tracks that are only available via iTunes, however.
Alison Krauss' haunting "Jubilee" is available nowhere else.
I will also, occasionally buy a song, usually some momento from my youth from a band I have no interest in buying an album of their stuff.
Other than those tiny exceptions, I'll never buy another album from iTunes.
CDs are the only way to go. Once I've got the CD, I can use Easy CDDA Extractor (highly recommended) and rip to well over a dozen different formats and hundreds of different settings within those formats.
As for Microsoft's Rights Destruction Technology...I've never bought a WMP file on line and I never will (even tho' I have a file that would allow me to crack it should I wish).
But p-diddy's got it right.
If iTunes and RDT'd WMP song sales fell by 90% this year, in Q1 of next yr (that's 1 JAN for those of your in Rio Linda), then next year "FairPlay" and "DRM" would be as dead as Network Computing.
If we vote with our dollars, Lord Bill and Prince Steve will have no choice but to follow us. But with so many millions eagerly lapping RDT-encrusted tracks like discount crack at the dope house, they can sit on the billionaire asses and laugh whilst perusing the Lear Jet catalog.
The dollar rules. If enough people realize that, then we'll get the market we want.
To paraphrase Edward Albee: "In a democracy you get exactly the kind of rights you deserve."
Yet, the iTunes 6 DRM remains unbroken, as far as I am aware.
Not so.
http://mostlysavingmoney.com/2007/06/how-to-break-itunes-drm/
/me heads over to Yahoo! Music for a subscription. Let the downloading hilarity ensue. :p
Jimmy: Not in all jurisdictions. Here in Canada, for example, we can download all the music we like. Let me put that another way: IN CANADA, DOWNLOADING MUSIC W/O PAYING FOR IT (AND, PERHAPS, ALL COPYRIGHTED CONTENT), OR CRACKING ANY COPY PRTECTION, IS PERFECTLY LEGAL. Enjoy, my fellow countrymen! :p
And that's why artists in your country do so poorly.
Yeah, that Canadian Celine Dion sure doesn't do well.
p-diddy: That's a very, very good question. Maybe, instead of blaming those people, and the untold MILLIONS that will use this software, you should be asking what's wrong with the SYSTEM that brought this all about.
Why would the platform collapse exactly? While it is true that iTunes 6 hasn't been broken before it you could easily strip the DRM out of iTunes tracks and the platform seemed to survive that pretty well.
A) Ryan, what exception from the DMCA were you relying on in first using this software and then confessing to its use in writing?
B) People who think this is great news are very short sighted. If you think that someday the major media producing companies (music, film) are just going to roll over and make of their expensive-to-produce-and-promote properties available to everybody for free and without any kind of copy protection, you are smoking crack. So, all software like this does is freak media producers out and make them less and less willing to make things available digitally in the first place.
As far as I can tell, what this software does is completely illegal and anyone that uses it in the United States will be violating the law. You can make fun of those laws if you want, or think they're stupid or whatever. The DMCA *is* law.
The DMCA is indeed law, and people who steal should be prosecuted. On the other hand, we also have computer crime laws that prescribe a visit from the FBI and hefty jail time for individuals who sneak rootkits onto other people's computers. The day that Sony's execs and First4Internet's programmers get that knock on the door will be the day I regain my sympathy for the media industry. Until then, look to find me laughing my ass off every time one of these DRM schemes fails. . .
NOW napster & co are boned :p
I hope this makes the music industry realize that they can't sell music with DRM. It will always be broken. This is actually really bad for them as people can signup for a free trial of a subscription service, download all the music that the want, strip the DRM, and then cancel the service. They could theoretically get millions of songs, without DRM, for free.
WMA DRM was cracked once before and pretty quickly patched by Microsoft. I'm sure that the same will happen here so you won't have long to enjoy it.
I don't buy music in DRM format and will resist doing so, but if I did then I'd certainly use the application on those tracks to give me back the freedom they've arbitarily taken away. Using it on rental music services isn't fair on the service provider however. Fair use goes both ways.
so can i use napster with my ipod now?
BREAKING THE LAW??
I CAN'T BREAK THE LAW...I AM THE LAW!
-judge dredd
Jake: With all due respect, it is you that doesn't get it. To paraphrase a line from Star Wars, 'the more The Establishment tightens its grip, the more it's power and influence will slip through its fingers'.
The Establishment's power is derived from The People, and the respect the latter has for the former. It is inevitable 1) that these regressive copy protection schemes will be defeated, and 2) that the media companies, with the support of government, will devise ever-more draconian and nefarious schemes in response. Eventually, things will become so intolerably oppressive, that people will revolt. In all aspects of society, the noose is tightening. Eventually, people are going to say, "Enough!"
This means that Napster's prices now beat allofmp3.com:
Assuming you download 1000 tracks a month ( a conservative estimate) for a £14.95 fee that works out at 1.5p per track.
ne, defectivebydesign, he will go down as _an_ hero.
Dan: "Yet, the iTunes 6 DRM remains unbroken, as far as I am aware"
The music side of things (Protected AAC) has been cracked ages ago though.
-----------
p-diddy: That's a very, very good question. Maybe, instead of blaming those people, and the untold MILLIONS that will use this software, you should be asking what's wrong with the SYSTEM that brought this all about.
-----------
The problem is that the 'untold MILLIONS' will be obtaining 'usage rights' for intellectual property at a price that the owners of said property feel is less than what should be paid.
Apparently music companies don't feel that paying $.99 for a song should give you the right to freely re-distribute it, or even use it on any device you choose. Whether that's right or wrong is largely an issue for the market to decide. How much would you be willing to pay for a song that was availble to you in any format with no DRM?
Music and movies are no different than software, no matter how you buy them. A particular fee grants you particular usage rights. It would be impossible to prosecute all license infringements, so content providers are forced into an attempt to prevent the infringement altogether.
If they can't prevent the infringements, they'll either start charging more money for licenses or get out of the content creation business altogether. DRMs, while a huge pain in the ass at times, actually keeps the cost of the content lower.
How much does a music company currently charge for the rights to freely distribute a particular song in a digital format? That's what we're all gonna start paying if we don't have DRMs, or some concept like them.
Of course, if people would just pay for their f*****g music, we wouldn't need DRMs, but somehow I don't see that happening :P
if i buy the subscription for yahoo, can i play it on my ipod if remove the dmr?
is flip4mac necessary
I know what's wrong with the system: content providers overcharge for subpar quality content. And the peoples' response is "I'm not paying $15 for garbage."
The thing is, it is the content providers' RIGHT to determine the price they think is fair for their product. If the people don't agree, they don't have the right to just take it without paying. If the content providers give a little and say, ok, we'll sell it to you for $12 but with these restrictions, it is NOT OK for the people to say "ok" and then strip off the restrictions. Either pay the $15 for unrestricted content or realize that if it isn't worth it to you, don't just take it. Say "No, that's crap. Change your pricing scheme because I won't pay $15 for crap." If there were no piracy and no one was paying $15, don't you think the content providers would lower the price to move SOME of their product? Yes. Because that is the law of supply and demand. But if people keep going around the established means, the content providers can say "Hey, our price is at $15, but all these pirates are getting it for free! Our model is legit and these rapscallions are just criminals! Please help Mr. Congressman!"
I've said it before and I'll say it again: You have no right to be entertained. If you're not willing to pay the set price, then don't buy it.
-p-
this is my thought on this i'm and up and coming musician myself and if u pay $1 or .50 cents u should have the right to do what u wish with the music content other than selling it yourself.industry must be dumb if that many people are "stealing" music its because it cost to much in the first place duh.u should save the millions instead of spending it to create drm and shit that will be hacked almost as fast as they write it.they in turn wouldnt be out that much.more people would buy it if lower cost.there are those few that want a free ride in life u know who i'm talking about that dont want to pay for anything always will be.but thoes few arnt going to bring industry down if industry set better usage rights and chared better price on content there would be alot less people "stealing" content. $1 a song to do what u please isnt realy that bad so an 8 song disk would cost u $8 plus tax. if u want to keep honest people honest charge an honest price!
You're not going to be able to play any wma tracks on your ipod unless you convert the tracks into an ipod comptible format. Even without the DRM the wma format is still incompatible with the ipod.
Where's the centralized database that keeps track of all the music I've bought from any service so I can move from player to player, service to service, and still retain all of my music?
I'm not against DRM if they keep one central database which is used to allow me to download music I purchased from any service. Then again, maybe my issue is that I bought music from Apple and so I'm now locked in to an iPod unless I use methods unspeakable due to the DMCA.
With almost 500 songs purchased in the last year on iTunes - I really feel like this DRM bull**** is cramping my style. I've even had a subscription to Napster just for work, so I'm not against DRM - I'm just against not having the ability to move around from player to player.
addendum to my last point:
... and live without. It's just entertainment, not food or shelter.
-p-
Fred:
Yes but with the DRM removed you can convert the files easily to mp3 using DbPoweramp. And then play it on your iPod.
Forrest: At virtually every point, in your arguement, your premises are demonstrably faulty. *I* know they are, even if you don't. I'm not going to refute what you've said, point by point, since the last thing I want to do is give you additional information about the strategies we, your opponents, are implementing.
Suffice to say, you are wrong. :) I am more than happy to allow you to proceed with your faulty premises. No doubt you'd say the same. The difference is, we know *exactly* where you are coming from, whereas you seem completely unable to internalize and assimilate the reality we keep reminding you of, and how what you are trying to do to our Species will fail. Here, take this: It's just enough rope to hang yourself, and use it in ignorance and bliss. :)
Forrest, I don't know about you but I pay between £7 and £15 for a non-DRM crippled CD that is freely useable on all of my devices (including an iPod and a Windows Smartphone - is there a music store that supports both and includes DRM? Nope, didn't think so).
I have no wish to share music via P2P.
DRM will go the way of the dodo eventually after the record companies work out that the money they make off people buying the music will be far higher than they make now. eMusic and AllofMP3 show that their is a large market for DRM free downloads.
P Diddy,
I couldn't agree with you more! I am so sick of people saying, "I'm not gonna pay 17.99 for this crap." Well then don't buy it! People should have a right to sell things as THEY see fit. Besides, this is ENTERTAINMENT. This isn't a staple. If you don't like the deal, don't take it, but don't steal it because you didn't like the deal. The problem is that people have ZERO regard for items whose marginal production cost is zero. Arggghhh. Frankly, I just don't understand how people don't see the fundamental point.
If you don't like their terms, don't partake in their services. It's that simple.
-p- :
If your neighbour wants $1 million to paint your house, you can go and get someone else to paint your house instead. But if you want a particular music track and the record company doesn't make it available in a DRM-free format, you can't just go and buy it from someone else who does. Copyright gives the copyright-holder a massive monopoly, and therefore should place massive restrictions on the way in which copyright holders can exercise their monopoly power. Personally, I'd say that no work may be copyrighted unless it is copyable -- distributing a work with any measures intended to prevent or control copying automatically puts it into the public domain, permanently. So you can use DRM or you can use copyright, but you can't use both, so you had better believe that your DRM works.
@TC
From the Hymn Project website: "It appears that if you make any purchases using iTunes 6.0 (or, even without making any purchases use iTunes 6.0 for other Music Store activity which authorizes against your account, such as authorizing a new computer to play your music), from that point on you must use 6.0 — and then JHymn won't work for you either. JHymn will have to learn how to perform the iTunes 6.0 protocol before this problem is likely to be fixed -- so hang on, it could be a bit of a wait.
In the meantime, you may wish to delay upgrading to iTunes 6.0 so that you can continue to free your music until a new solution is found."
http://www.hymn-project.org/jhymndoc/
Is there another program that I should be aware of?
The developer claims it only works on PURCHASED tracks
so it wouldnt work on Napster to Go tracks, Real, Yahoo or any other services rental tracks.
So which is it?
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=114916
Way to promote intelligent debate on the subject xVariable. Very informative and insightful.
Nooby, that's exactly the problem: there is no contral database and that's what you agreed to when you bought all that music. It's great that you did the Right Thing (tm) and actually paid for it, and I totally feel for you when you can't move a DRM'ed track around like you can with one just ripped from a CD, but that's what you bought. If it wasn't agreeable, don't buy it. Pay the full price and buy the CD. If you're not willing to do that, then don't buy the CD and show the content industry their model is broken.
Standing up to the content providers and not buying into these schemes is captialism. Stripping off the DRM and taking what you want is anarchism. It's just entertainment people. Go buy a book. Or beter yet, read a book who's copyright has expired ala project gutenberg.
-p-
well this would be good if i hadn't already lost my licenses for my old content :(
Forrest: now which record label do you work for again?
"How much would you be willing to pay for a song that was availble to you in any format with no DRM?"
Approximately 1/15 the cost of a DRM-free CD, minus the cost (including markup) of physical materials and minus the amount of value being lost in terms of the quality downgrade. I'd peg that at somewhere below 50 cents per track. (That's more than tracks with DRM on them, though, which I'd call pretty much worthless.)
You're making the same mistake the music industry is making, which is that you're assuming people are paying for a license. They're not, they're paying for music. The *industry* may feel consumers are paying for a license, but that's immaterial. If I buy a car from you and later find out I only bought a license to drive that car rather than the car itself, that doesn't change what *I* paid you for. I paid you for the car. You may have *sold* me something different, but that's not what I was paying you for. We used to call that "bait & switch", by the way, and it is illegal in most states.
When the industry starts putting purchase links on web sites that say "purchase the license to listen to this song!" and stickers on CD's saying "own the limited rights to listen to the contents of this CD!" then you can talk about consumers buying a license. Right now, consumers are buying music, and the industry is *telling* them they're buying music. When I go to iTunes, it says "BUY SONG". It doesn't say anything about buying a limited license to listen to that song with specified restrictions. So you really can't make the argument that consumers are buying licenses; the industry may like them to be, but consumers are buying music. And as such, they have certain rights that have already been upheld in court and are defined in copyright law itself.
I'm not saying anything about *distribution* on the consumer end. I'm just talking about what consumers are allowed to do under the law with the products they purchase. And no company can sell you something and then turn around later and say you're only allowed to use that thing in certain ways and on certain devices. The world just doesn't work that way; it never has and it never will.
The music industry has become the modern-day equivalent of the mattress tag police, if you ask me. Distributing music is clearly illegal, but most of the rest of what the music industry is trying to get us to stop is not. There's no law against me ripping CD's and putting that music on as many devices as I own, for example. Same with stripping DRM for my personal use (the DMCA specifically makes an exception to circumventing technological protection measures to exercise fair use rights - "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.").
"Of course, if people would just pay for their f*****g music, we wouldn't need DRMs"
People *do* pay for their music, and we're the ones being adversely affected by DRM. The pirates will just strip it and trade freely. Which leaves the paying customer holding the bag. You don't think we have a right to be a little annoyed about that? Why should a paying customer be stuck with inferior, more restrictive files than pirates? If they can move their music around to various devices freely, then I should be able to also. I'm not paying for the privilege of being a sucker. I'm paying for music.
p-diddy: My comments promote more intelligent debate than you know. Unless, of course, you understand all to well what I'm saying: that people don't have to accept what people like you have to say as The Last Word on the subject.
There's far, far more to these issues than people like you can accept or admit, and that will be your downfall. People aren't stupid: they are able to critically analyze and deconstruct your arguments, and see right through them. Their ability to do that is usually directly proportional to how hostile you are towards them...
>> But if you want a particular music track and the
>> record company doesn't make it available in a
>> DRM-free format, you can't just go and buy it from
>> someone else who does. Copyright gives the
>> copyright-holder a massive monopoly, and therefore
>> should place massive restrictions on the way in
>> which copyright holders can exercise their
>> monopoly power.
Mike, the monopoly is the point of having a copyright. In exchange for someone creating a work of authorship, the government gives them the right to determine how that work of authorship is copied and distributed. That is the copyright holder's incentive for sharing his or her work with the rest of the world. This right then expires after a certain amount of time and enters the public domain. Now whether you agree with the duration of the monopoly or not is a separate topic.
Your counter to my neighbor example is exactly my point! If you aren't willing to pay neighbor X for his services, go pay neighbor Y. If you won't pay $15.99 for an album by band X, go by the album of band Y for 14.99. No, it's not the same product, but it's what you are willing to buy for the price. Neighbor X and neighbor Y are not going to do the exact same job. One may be better at trim, one may be better at the general coat. But you as the consumer decide what you are willing to pay for. Would it be ok to somehow mind control neighbor X into painting your house for only $20?? That way you'd get the X job but only at a price you are willing to pay??
-p-
--------------
Forrest: At virtually every point, in your arguement, your premises are demonstrably faulty. *I* know they are, even if you don't. I'm not going to refute what you've said, point by point, since the last thing I want to do is give you additional information about the strategies we, your opponents, are implementing.
--------------
Uhh, I don't have any opponents. I don't create content. I'm not trying to do anything to our Species, aside from trying to understand why the average person is so ignorant of just about everything... but that's another matter altogether :)
Your 'strategies' - is their purpose to consume content at a price less than what its creator wants for it? Sounds like either good haggling or theft to me.
Content providers are going to charge whatever they think their content is worth. Their current view is that worth is dependent upon how the consumer is allowed to consume it. Is that right or wrong? I don't know, and it's not for me to decide. It's not for any one person to decide. Consumers as a whole will decide.
Say I started a website tomorrow that offered DRM free media in any format desired by the consumer.
Say as part of that site I maintained a database like Nooby up there is talking about, so that even if every device you own simultaneously and spontaneously combusts, there's still a record of what you own so you can get it back for free. That would make a lot of consumers happy, right?
How much would I have to pay the media companies to distribute their content in such a manner? Would consumers be willing to pay that much so that I could maintain the site? If yes, then the world is ready to dump DRMs (legitimately) and the concept they represent.
look, x, I would love to debate this topic all day. Step up to the plate and make an argument that people should be allowed to pay a lower price for DRM'ed music and then remove the DRM. You haven't made one yet. You've only, in both comments, alluded to this shadow community of those willing to take "us" down.
I'm not hostile towards you or your point because you haven't made a point yet.
And jeff, that's not a bait and switch. A baith and switch is "come on down for a $99 washing machine" and when you get there the sales guy says "oh sorry, we just sold out *wink* How about this $125 model? Even better and for just $25 more." You're right that people have traditionally been allowed more freedom with their music, i.e., tapes and records. But that's because they had built-in copy protection schemes. You can only make so many copies of a tape because each subsequent copy degrades. If this were somehow built into mp3s I'm sure the record companies would have no problem with people copying and sharing because by the 5th user, that 256kb/s mp3 sounds like it is a 64kb/s version. But they don't the 1,000,000th copy sounds just as good as the first. So the record companies are trying to shoehorm some copy protection scheme to prevent the wholsale theft of their product. But if that's not acceptable, don't buy it! And, honestly, if you didn't read the terms and conditions of the license agreement when you first started iTunes, that's you're own fault. You SHOULD know what you're buying, it was right there in front of you.
-p-
-p-
Hate to keep making such a trivial point but it doesn't really matter what any of you think the system *should* be. The fact of the matter is that the DMCA makes software like this illegal.
To those of you who think it's ok to break the law just because you don't agree with it, well, I guess there's not really much point in discussing it further.
More fundamentally, I don't have the slightest clue why anybody would think that it should be just A.O.K. to distribute copyrighted music/films freely across the planet via the internet without any restrictions.
Someone quoted "Star Wars" above (which I thought was pretty funny). Movies like Star Wars that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to get made will cease to exist if the producers of that content have no way to ensure that they will recoup their investment. Piracy and P2P greatly undermine their ability to do so. Therefore, the need for DRM.
People who think they have some sort of fundamental right to get whatever they want free of charge as long as they can figure out how to download it on the internet are just living in some weird fantasy land that I don't understand.
Here's one more point. Someone above was griping about not being able to shift the 500 songs they bought on iTunes to some other player.
A very fair point. I wish all the Apple Fan Boys would wake up and smell the freaking coffee that IT IS APPLE that is preventing you from using anything other than an iPod to play your iTunes on.
They have created a very restrictive MONOPOLY-like situation for the SOLE PURPOSE of locking you into Apple products for the rest of your life. If Microsoft does that kind of thing people go insane but Apple gets a free pass. No clue why. I guess the fan boys honestly believe the Apple is "really cool."
Look, p-diddy, there is no debate, and never was from the time you declared DRM an Immutable Fact of Life. In doing so, you've declared war on humanity and civilization. It's a winnder take all proposition, and you will lose. Why? Because DRM needs people, but people don't need DRM. We don't need corporate reptiles, either. Sooner or later, you will fall.
"To those of you who think it's ok to break the law just because you don't agree with it, well, I guess there's not really much point in discussing it further."
No one has to follow the 'law.' The cost of breaking the laws of the country you live in comes in the form of fines, jail time, etc imposed by whoever decided they could make those laws. Some people choose to pay the cost for the music up front. Others choose to take their chances, and may pay greater consequences at a later date.
There's really no universally right anwser. Some people are happy to do whatever they are told. Other people want to do things their own way. Just because you agree or disagree with the governing body doesn't mean your position is any more valid than any one else's. You know the costs for either choice, make whatever choice suits you.
People don't even _want_ DRM. If anything, they want fewer restrictions. DRMers will never get it...
I reported this last night, along with analysis here:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2006/08/25#a1889
In short, "While interesting news, it's rather irrelevant to online media services using WM DRM. Most users won't care about these decryption tools, not because the DRM is 'consumer-friendly,' but rather because there are already readily-accessible alternatives to acquire unencrypted copies and thus get around the DRM's unfriendly limits."
Now, this IS stealing. I hate DRM as much as anyone else. But, if you sign up for a subscription-based music service, you AGREE that you are only "renting" the songs and in order to keep listening to them, you must keep paying. This is perfectly acceptable.
Like everyone else, I hate DRM that is applied to music that is purchased outright, like from ITMS. If I buy it for a set price, I should be able to play it on whatever device I own. Period.
If you are ripping the DRM out of subscription-based music downloads, it's not FAIR PLAY....it's stealing.
...and in other news, Napster has noticed a vast increase in downloads.
I don't work for any record company. I don't create any copyrighted content whatsoever, so DRMs don't impact me in any other way than as a consumer.
----
You're making the same mistake the music industry is making, which is that you're assuming people are paying for a license. They're not, they're paying for music.
----
No. Consumers do not paying for music - they paying for the right to listen to it. Your license agreement is embodied in whatever copyright laws pertain to you (check local listings :P). That's the way the system works right now.
If you were 'buying' the music, you'd be allowed to do whatever you wanted with it. Even if you buy a CD, you can't start making copies of it and reselling it. Look on the back cover of any CD you've purchased - see the part that says 'Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws'? Those applicable laws are your license agreement.
Is it a good system? Maybe it was 20 years ago. I don't know about now.
-----
There's no law against me ripping CD's and putting that music on as many devices as I own, for example.
-----
Maybe for now, but look at this kind of stuff:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php
At least some people in the RIAA think so. And you know what? That's their right. They created the content. They have the right to charge whatever they'd like for it. They have the right to grant whatever rights they wish to whomever they wish. Right now, they think sticking you with the other 12 garbage tracks on a CD is payment enough for you to do whatever you wish with that one track that is listenable. Remove that, and they're not so sure. A lot of garbage music would go unpaid for.
We have no right to consumption. Simple creation of a piece of music or a film is does not guarantee our right to enjoy it. We must be granted that right from the owner, and they have the right to demand from us whatever they wish. If we don't agree to the demand, nothing forces us to consume it.
Those of you arguing against DRMs, saying they're taking away your rights - do you not realize that by violating DRMs you're taking away THEIR rights? It's easy to ignore that fact since they're all assholes and they have more money than God, but it's still an infringment of their rights.
>> Look, p-diddy, there is no debate, and never was from
>> the time you declared DRM an Immutable Fact of Life.
>> In doing so, you've declared war on humanity and
>> civilization. It's a winnder take all proposition,
>> and you will lose. Why? Because DRM needs people,
>> but people don't need DRM. We don't need corporate
>> reptiles, either. Sooner or later, you will fall.
Sorry. I didn't realize I was dealing with the timecube guy. Carry on, Dr. Gene Ray... I mean "xVariable," carry on.
http://www.timecube.com/
-p-
Shawn: No, it's not. It's breach on contract. Stealing is a criminal act, dealt with by criminal courts. Breach of contract is a civil matter, and a question of liability (not criminal guilt), dealt with by the cival courts.
In any case, the courts don't equate either copyright infringement or breach of contract with stealing. That's because, in order to be guilty of theft, you actually have to steal a physical object. That's not my opinion, unlike what you've said, it's The Law.
MTV's Urge offers a free, 14-day trial in which you can download as much music as you can. These tracks use PlaysForSure DRM. I wonder what the connection between this post and that is...? Hmm.
p-diddy: Ah, yes, very good. :) What was it that Ghandi said?
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win?" Of course, I'm no Ghandi. Keep doing what you do. It's not as though you could be any other way. Like I said, very good...
Works great with Yahoo music...hehe!
x, since we're qouting, it's like in Billy Madison:
"[W]hat you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Seriously, all you've done is call me a corporate reptile and other ad hominem attacks. Give me an argument. PLEASE! And I actually used to be very anti-corporate anti-DRM, anti-establishment. Then I realized we are talking about something I don't need. If this were over taking food or shelter, then yes, take what you need to survive. Steal it if you must. But declaring yourself above the contract you agreed to when you bought your DRM'ed music because you want to be entertained cheaply or for free? C'mon.
-p-
Hey incorrect, you can be found guilty of criminal copyright infringement if done enough in a short enough period of time.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
So, I quote Ghandi, and you respond with... Billy Madison? BTW, you didn't seem to take the sentiment of Ghandi's words to heart much, since you're basically just reiterating what you said in your last post.
Given that, I'll reiterate what I said earlier:
Look, p-diddy, there is no debate, and never was from the time you declared DRM an Immutable Fact of Life. In doing so, you've declared war on humanity and civilization. It's a winnder take all proposition, and you will lose. Why? Because DRM needs people, but people don't need DRM. We don't need corporate reptiles, either. Sooner or later, you will fall.
-----
DRM an Immutable Fact of Life
-----
DRM is not an Immutable Fact of Life. I'd argue that nothing is an Immutable Fact of Life, short of Death :P
Corporate reptiles or not, if you want to consume what they're shovelling, you've got to deal with them. If you don't, the result is the same - no more access to content. The only difference is in how soon that access is lost.
>> So, I quote Ghandi, and you respond with... Billy
>> Madison?
I thought it apporpos given the ridiculousness of your responses to date.
>> Look, p-diddy, there is no debate, and never was
>> from the time you declared DRM an Immutable Fact of
>> Life.
There is a debate: should people have a right to remove the DRM from the content they "purchase." Some people say yes, others say no, and there are cogent arguments for boht. As for declaring DRM an Immutable Fact of Life, I never said this. In fact I never said anything like this.
>> In doing so, you've declared war on humanity and
>> civilization.
How have I declared war? Much less on humanity and civilization? I've simply stated that a) people have no right to be entertained and b) they should vote with their wallets and not buy DRM'ed content if they can't abide by the restrictions.
>> It's a winnder take all proposition, and you will
>> lose. Why? Because DRM needs people, but people
>> don't need DRM.
I'm not going to lose either way. I get my content as I see fit. If I just want a track, I buy it from iTunes. If I want an un-DRM'ed CD, I'll buy that. As for people don't need DRM, you're right, they don't. And they don't need what DRM protects either.
>> We don't need corporate reptiles, either. Sooner
>> or later, you will fall.
I don't even have a response to this. I'm simply slackjawed I've even responded this far.
-p-
Forrest: Exactly. The sooner we lose access to this content - by way of driving these companies out of business to make way for companies will to play a little nicer with humanity - the better. :)
To be clear: this story has proven that we will not lose access due to DRM. The law is no deterrent, since you can't prosecute 100s of millions of people. At the same time, as things get harder and herder to use, due to DRM, these companies' profits (and customer mindshare and credibility) will get lower, and lower.
Eventually, they will capitulate, or die, but not before a high to the death. :)
----
Forrest: Exactly. The sooner we lose access to this content - by way of driving these companies out of business to make way for companies will to play a little nicer with humanity - the better. :)
----
I don't think it has to come to that, nor will it come to that. And a company that will 'play a little nicer with humanity'? Good luck.
----
To be clear: this story has proven that we will not lose access due to DRM. The law is no deterrent, since you can't prosecute 100s of millions of people. At the same time, as things get harder and herder to use, due to DRM, these companies' profits (and customer mindshare and credibility) will get lower, and lower.
----
DRMs are a direct result of the law being no deterrent. They are a digital attempt at law enforcement. Why do we need the law in the first place? To entice people to create content.
It would be great if everyone was willing to pay what the content creator considered a fair price for what we use, or if we could find some suckers to create content for little or no fee. That's not even remotely realistic, however. So we're left with the law. If you've a better suggestion, I'd love to hear it.
Forrest: Patience, my friend, patience. ;) Really, the specific status quo, that we're in right now, hasn't existed for very long. Give it some time, and it'll collapse under its own untenability...
I have tested this program with a DRM protected WMV movie file.
It worked. Before I could not convert DRM protected AVI's to DVD with Nero Vision Express; now I can. Please update the original post with this information.
See my URL.
File Mirror
http://mike.anselcomputers.com/upload/FairUse4WM.zip
Jake doesn't get posted:
The Establishment's power is derived from The People, and the respect the latter has for the former. It is inevitable 1) that these regressive copy protection schemes will be defeated, and 2) that the media companies, with the support of government, will devise ever-more draconian and nefarious schemes in response. Eventually, things will become so intolerably oppressive, that people will revolt. In all aspects of society, the noose is tightening. Eventually, people are going to say, "Enough!"
------------------------------------
Seems to me that all this accomplishes is making the online subscription model untenable. Is that the goal of saying "Enough"? To make it impossible to run a subscription biz?
If you don't want to sign up for a subscription to an online rental service, then don't. But to sign up, download thousands of songs in a week, strip the DRM, and keep the songs forever is a hell of a lot more immoral than offering DRM'ed songs for rent. Or can't you see that?
As for media items that are purchased, I could see that it might be Fair Use to strip the DRM, IF YOU DON'T THEN GO AND DISTRIBUTE THE ITEM TO OTHERS.
...."Now watch as Microsoft shuts down the forums and runs damage control in order to prevent an digital media entire platform from collapsing."
Big thanks to the media for advertising this article.
Let a sleeping dog be.
Hmmm... I got a Sansa m240 just so I could use Yahoo! Music Unlimited. Oh, well, my net cost for the Sansa 1GB player is still going to be under $40 after I get my rebates back from Office Depot and Sandisk. For that price it is pretty handy to have something that small.
I guess I can just put some of these tracks on my 2nd Generation 20GB IPod and not be in a big rush at this particular time to get a Zen Vision (60GB M or W when they come out in September). I can probably wait to see the MS Zune specs, too, since the Zune should be out in October. And Apple might even wow me with their 6G IPod, which must be coming out before XMas.
DRM limits us to where and what we can play our music on. DRM limits us on where we can buy music. Its propiatary, and thats why ill never subscribe or buy any music on line with DRM. Stripping it of DRM is not whats wrong its selling or passing it on for free, Thats whats wrong. If I could buy DRM free music I would pay for it. I should be able to play my music on what ever music player I chuse and however many.
Parasites of the world, Rejoice!
It is amusing that these rip-off artists always try to mislead people by using words like 'fair use' when actually it is just a way of circumventing legal restrictions.
This is like that key posted today that opens certain locks...I'm sure that is being portrayed as merely for honest people who might have lost their keys...right. They are simply burglar tools and have no legitimate purpose so don't pretend that this is some benefit to honest people. It is a tool made by crooks FOR crooks.
Be careful with this though. I tried this with a napster song and id did work. But, when i looked at the file info in winamp, it said it wasn't protected but still had a "SubscriptionContentID" listed with a number and other various stuff. Don't let them track it down if it gets on the net. Re-encode to a different format! aac or mp3. Your choice. Better safe than sorry.
Forrest, why do you assume people will "sign up, download thousands of songs in a week, strip the DRM, and keep the songs forever."
I for one am perfectly willing to continue to pay my $14.95/mo for Napster to Go because I want a continous fix of new music and am constantly learning of older music I like. I like the quality vs 128kbps crap on the share sites and I like downloading the song I want in 3 seconds rather than searching for 2 hours and downloading for 3 days.
As near as I can tell the studios find that me paying $14.95/mo to listen to all the music I want is "Fair" and I'm OK with that.
However, what I *might* use this program or one like it is to enable me to listen in my numerous CD and MP3 players that are not compatible with WMA. I.e. the 6-CD changer in my brand new $50K Corvette. What are my other choices? 1) don't listen to music I'm prefectly willing and in fact DO pay for, 2) listen through a crappy FM tuner (I've bought 4 so far and they suck in metro areas) or 3) replace the stereo in the car with something that will not interface with the other built in controls.
This DRM crap is attempting to keep honest people honest and all it's doing is driving honest people to do dishonest things. The market WILL correct itself and we WILL get to a point where all of our devices play well together. But that's going to take a good long while and it's going to mean the end of gravy jobs for a whole bunch of layers of record executives who ain't going down easily. Meanwile I'm going back to listening to my record collection!
ENGADGET, you guys have some bad lawyers at AOL, because telling people how to circumvent copyright restrictions is very much illegal.
Danska, I don't think the program ever claims to strip any indentifying information that might be included in the file format, probably only the bits that lock it to a particular device. I can't think of a "fair use" that would require stripping identity information. Obviously resharing files that you rent would be a bad idea whether or not they have the information to track you
To debate the right vs wrong of DRM and it's fallability is missing the much larger picture. Entertaining yourself, gathering things at the lowest personal cost, and protecting your things (and your creations)is part of life. The relationships between consumer, producer, pirate, and distributor, as well as regulator and enforcer are, and always will be in flux, but each group will continue to exist.
There is no "final solution". Protections will constantly evolve but fail; DRM was bound to fail, as will it's offspring, and so on. There will be no monumental revolution of ethics. There will be Pirates and thieves who will eventually be foiled, only to devise new means, as will their followers, and so on.
As the industry evolves, each group involved will be affected, and each will complain about the situation and point a finger elsewhere.
You can fret over solutions, but it's probably true that each of us is going choose the role they want to play, take the benefits and bemoan the consequences that come with it, and continue to watch this battle continue endlessly onward as it inevitably will.
Conflict and evolution are perpetual.
This is beautiful. Just got Ruckus from my school. A bunch of high quailty tracks. Then poof! No DRM. Thanks you Jesus!
Jake said: --"They have created a very restrictive MONOPOLY-like situation for the SOLE PURPOSE of locking you into Apple products for the rest of your life. If Microsoft does that kind of thing people go insane but Apple gets a free pass. No clue why. I guess the fan boys honestly believe the Apple is "really cool.""--
Apple gets a free pass because they are going -against- Microsoft's OS monopoly and prevent them from getting a sub-monopoly in the audio/video DRM format market simply because they own the OS market.
The OS market monopoly problem and the audio format monopoly problems are not separate issues, one is a subset of the other.
Microsoft has a very stable and established monopoly in the OS market, and they can use this as a way to impose audio/video DRM formats as Windows defaults. It could also easily create a hardware player licensee market because companies wanted to be able to plug into the dominant OS.
Still, why can Apple get a free pass? It's not a case of Apple is good Microsoft is evil. Both companies happen to be in different contexts: MS owns 90%+ of the OS market, Apple doesn't... Even if Apple is really evil, they simply can't do the same things MS can.
DRM is bad and the worst thing IMHO would be to hand off control of it to a single company that happens to controls the whole computer OS market and have plans to integrate the audio/video DRM into hardware (TPM).
Competition is good? Well why wouldn't competition between DRMs be a good thing? Apple may have 70-75% of the player and digital music store market, but Microsoft has an unfair additional weight in the balance so the competition might be fairer than from what it looks.
Windows will still dominate 3 years from now. It's hard to argue against that. But what will happen with the iPod and iTMS by then?
The interoperability problem underlines a basic flaw in DRM. But if MS's DRM was playable everywhere (under restrictions of course), we couldn't bring this point against DRM. People would only be able to bitch about the copy restriction and this argument has much less impact since it's the point of DRM.
Apple brings the interoperability problem into the equation in a concrete way, and the more iPods and iTMS tunes Apple sells, the more negotiation power they'll have when they end up being pushed to open and license, and will be able to get a fair deal that doesn't give MS control of the market on a gold plater.
Was it intentional, are Apple geniuses and really want to show that DRM is flawed? To me it doesn't matter much, the single fact that they are shaking things up and prevent MS from imposing its DRM everywhere is cool in itself.
It's obvious that Apple cannot become the single provider of music player and online digital music forever. Apple must be aware of that, something will have happen about interoperability, and they have to be ready for it. Until then they are entitled to get more out of it, until they have more weight to compensate Microsoft's unfair advantage.
This is fantastic. And here's what I have to say about it: I hope it isn't used for piracy. For me, I have an active URGE subscription because I purchased a gigabeat S because I don't want to have to pay per-the-track as I was with my iPod, because well, I'm only going to listen to that The Fray song until I get bored of it in two days, so I don't want to pay $0.99 on what I won't care for. But then I bought a MacBook Pro and having to use Parallels to just run WMP 11 is tedious and clunky when all I want is a nice cross-platform media experience.
I will continue my URGE subscription because this tool doesn't make it less valuable, it makes it more valuable, much more so.
I don't like DRM, I live with DRM, I accept it, but I don't want it.
Nice...but does anyone know a subscription service that offers high quality (320kbps MP3, FLAC, etc) files?
Didn't think so.
I'll pass until some starts selling me my damn music with the same quality as the CD. You get what you pay for.
wma is incompatible with ipod, but add un-drm-ed wma to itunes, and itunes will auto-convert to aac or mp3.
lossy content being freed of its shackles? Oh joy. Maybe one day we can educate the masses to stop buying this DRM junk to start with, so it never even has a chance of gaining a foothold.
quote - B) People who think this is great news are very short sighted. If you think that someday the major media producing companies (music, film) are just going to roll over and make of their expensive-to-produce-and-promote properties available to everybody for free and without any kind of copy protection, you are smoking crack. So, all software like this does is freak media producers out and make them less and less willing to make things available digitally in the first place. /quote. I think that's the whole thrust of Apple's mission - to make the creation of compelling and original content both easy and inexpensive. That's what will bring the big media conglomerates down to earth...
Using Napster Lite (no subscription fees), after you buy some tunes, use Napster to burn the WMA files to a CD, which converts them to CDA files. Then import the CDA files into iTunes, which converts them to M4A files, just like a CD you buy in the store. Then sync with your iPod.
Can this utility crack PayPlay.FM files (http://www.payplay.fm/)?
"I should be able to play my music on what ever music player I chuse and however many."
That's right! I bought a copy of WinXp and should be able to put it on any apple machine I "chuse".