FairUse4WM strips Windows Media DRM!

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.)

[James Smith @ Aug 25th 2006 11:56AM]

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."

[spencer @ Mar 24th 2008 5:08PM]

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

[Wes Felter @ Aug 25th 2006 11:59AM]

Conspiracy theory: Microsoft leaked this tool to collapse the PlaysForSure market to make way for Zune.

[blah @ Aug 25th 2006 12:08PM]

Power to the people! Stick it to... no, LYNCH the Man! >:( Skewer his head on a pike!!!11!oneowe!1!!!!

[Mr. B @ Aug 25th 2006 12:10PM]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
The Life of Reason, George Santayana

[defectivebydesign @ Aug 25th 2006 12:11PM]

This is indeed Armegeddon for DRM. Whoever is responsible will go down as a hero.

[grub @ Aug 25th 2006 12:17PM]

Bye bye tunebite and nights of comverting music....



Yay for free university Napster too!!!

[ben @ Aug 25th 2006 12:21PM]

"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.

[Scott @ Aug 25th 2006 12:22PM]

Does this strip DRM from videos well?

[Rik @ Aug 25th 2006 12:25PM]

Ben has a point - you are providing information which allows other people to break DRM. Aren't you liable under the DMCA?

[Jimmy @ Aug 25th 2006 12:28PM]

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.

[p-diddy @ Aug 25th 2006 12:29PM]

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-

[porkypig12 @ Oct 3rd 2006 6:41AM]

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."

[dan @ Aug 25th 2006 12:29PM]

Yet, the iTunes 6 DRM remains unbroken, as far as I am aware.

[keller @ Sep 5th 2007 4:17PM]

Not so.

http://mostlysavingmoney.com/2007/06/how-to-break-itunes-drm/

[Murray @ Aug 25th 2006 12:31PM]

/me heads over to Yahoo! Music for a subscription. Let the downloading hilarity ensue. :p

[blah @ Aug 25th 2006 12:34PM]

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

[pete @ Sep 27th 2006 10:08PM]

And that's why artists in your country do so poorly.

[Walt D in LV @ Oct 15th 2007 5:11PM]

Yeah, that Canadian Celine Dion sure doesn't do well.

[blah @ Aug 25th 2006 12:37PM]

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.

[helio9000 @ Aug 25th 2006 12:37PM]

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.

[Jake @ Aug 25th 2006 12:39PM]

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.

[squidf @ Sep 21st 2006 11:07AM]

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. . .

[pableu @ Aug 25th 2006 12:39PM]

NOW napster & co are boned :p

[Jeffrey @ Aug 25th 2006 12:46PM]

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.

[Steve @ Aug 25th 2006 12:51PM]

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.

[srw985 @ Aug 25th 2006 12:51PM]

so can i use napster with my ipod now?

[noobs @ Aug 25th 2006 12:51PM]

BREAKING THE LAW??

I CAN'T BREAK THE LAW...I AM THE LAW!

-judge dredd

[Jake doesn't get it @ Aug 25th 2006 1:04PM]

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!"

[Fred @ Aug 25th 2006 1:11PM]

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.

[weaszel @ Aug 25th 2006 1:11PM]

ne, defectivebydesign, he will go down as _an_ hero.

[TC @ Aug 25th 2006 1:26PM]

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.

[Forrest @ Aug 25th 2006 1:27PM]

-----------
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

[gfox78 @ Aug 25th 2006 1:30PM]

if i buy the subscription for yahoo, can i play it on my ipod if remove the dmr?
is flip4mac necessary

[p-diddy @ Aug 25th 2006 1:32PM]

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-

[CliffBurton @ Nov 21st 2007 10:57AM]

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!

[Fred @ Aug 25th 2006 1:35PM]

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.

[Nooby McNoobins @ Aug 25th 2006 1:42PM]

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.

[p-diddy @ Aug 25th 2006 1:43PM]

addendum to my last point:

... and live without. It's just entertainment, not food or shelter.

-p-

[TC @ Aug 25th 2006 1:43PM]

Fred:
Yes but with the DRM removed you can convert the files easily to mp3 using DbPoweramp. And then play it on your iPod.

[xVariable @ Aug 25th 2006 1:46PM]

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. :)

[Puff Daddy @ Aug 25th 2006 1:51PM]

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.

[Mike Scott @ Aug 25th 2006 1:51PM]

-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.

[dan @ Aug 25th 2006 1:54PM]

@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?

[Cotten iScumbag @ Aug 25th 2006 1:55PM]

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

[p-diddy @ Aug 25th 2006 1:57PM]

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-

[Jakg @ Aug 25th 2006 1:59PM]

well this would be good if i hadn't already lost my licenses for my old content :(

[Jeff @ Aug 25th 2006 2:10PM]

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.

[xVariable @ Aug 25th 2006 2:11PM]

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...

[p-diddy @ Aug 25th 2006 2:12PM]

>> 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-