An Open Letter to Microsoft - Why you shouldn't kill FairUse4WM

We know that you're already probably working to fix the, um, hole that's been discovered in Windows DRM 10/11, but we're going to ask you this anyway: please don't stop consumers from using FairUse4WM to remove copy protection from music they've downloaded.

We understand why you put DRM on these files in the first place – the major labels won't grant you (or rather the companies that are using your DRM) a license to sell their music without it – but there are some good reasons why you should let this one slide.

For starters, it'll actually make consumers more likely to buy music and sign up for subscription services like Napster To Go and Rhapsody To Go. This sounds counterintuitive, but it's not. Being able to strip out the DRM on a file actually makes it more useful – and thus more valuable – for the consumer.

Shortly after posting the news, we got a slew of messages from readers and friends telling us they were signing up with a PlaysForSure service provider because they were no longer worried about being able to play the songs they've downloaded on their MP3 player. Since you can already get the same music for free if using P2P networks, all DRM does is make it harder for honest consumers to enjoy the music they're paying for. It's difficult to justify paying for a less useful version of a song when with a little effort you can find it elsewhere in a non-copy protected format.

We're big fans of the subscription services, here at Engadget, but let's face facts: the damn things don't work very well. It's pretty easy to download tracks, but it's a serious pain in the ass to successfully transfer them to a portable device. The only way for DRM to be successful is if it's painless and seamless, and we get tons of emails from consumers complaining about how hard it is to get Napster, Rhapsody, Yahoo Music Unlimited, etc. tracks on to their players, or, god forbid, Macs.

Are a lot of people going to pay $15 to sign up for a subscription service, download a ton of music, and then cancel a month later? Absolutely, but that's not a big deal. Those people were never, ever going to sign up for a service that offers locked down music anyway, so be happy that you squeezed any money out of them at all. (Yeah, this does make it tougher to offer free, unlimited trials, but that's not the end of the world.) Could those same people then put all the music they've just downloaded up on the P2P networks? Sure, but all that music is available there anyway, so it shouldn't make a bit of difference in the grand scheme of things.

So just try and look the other way this time. We've been on the verge of canceling our subscription services for a couple of months now (too many snafus involving DRM licenses and device syncing), but FairUse4WM has changed our minds now that we can actually download music with the confidence that we'll be able to enjoy it. Does the fact that we could quit and "keep" the music that we've been "renting" a problem? Theoretically, but what's going to keep consumers paying those monthly fees isn't the threat of losing access to their collection (though that's part of it); what keeps them paying is the continuing access to a large, frequently updated catalog of new releases and older tunes. DRM makes paying for music less attractive than stealing it; FairUse4WM flips that around and makes paying for music more attractive since you can more easily play the music you've purchased on the device of your choice.

Without a doubt you guys in Redmond are getting an earful from the record labels. You promised them a secure system, and you failed. They might already be threatening to withdraw their licenses for their music, but here's where you have to stand up and explain to the labels why they need to chill. Send Steve or Bill or J or whomever to smooth things over. We aren't assuming this is going to be an easy thing to make happen, but c'mon, you guys are /Microsoft/, if any company has the clout to make this happen and drag the entertainment industry into the 21st century, it's you. The music industry needs to accept that there is always going to be a certain amount of piracy, and then just get on with the business of selling digital. Let 'em keep the DRM in place if they want – we can all pretend that it still works -- just make it possible for anyone who really wants to get rid of it to take that extra step.

Besides, whether the RIAA likes it or not (or realizes it or not), you'll be doing the right thing for both consumers and the music business. (And isn't that the point of all this?) FairUse4WM means that all our PlaysForSure tracks will actually play for sure, so please don't go and spoil it.

Sincerely,

Your friends at Engadget

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

Very, very true. Let's hope (however unlikely) they are listening.

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

well done, engadget.

[Darkbird @ Aug 27th 2006 1:27PM]

laws are laws... this will do nothing... they legally MUST kill FairUse4WM. (I hate DRM too, but laws are laws, even bad laws.)

[3rdsun @ Aug 27th 2006 1:29PM]

LOL beg all u want they still gonna screw us over. Its all about their pride. Everything microsoft has seems to get hacked and it makes them look bad. They gonna shut this down in a heartbeat. If itunes fairplay got cracked they'd do the same thing and no amount of begging could change their minds.

[Matt @ Aug 27th 2006 1:33PM]

I'd rather buy my music online, but until the lawyers let WM DRM'd files have 'multizone' rights and other BIG ISSUES with DRM - why would anyone buy music this way? I have my Sonos system and love it, but it won't play DRM files and it's not a technology issue - it's a legal issue.

[E71 @ Aug 27th 2006 1:33PM]

If someone discovers which one of the future windows updates fixes this, please 'oh please let us know the name of the update so we can skip it.

[Lee @ Aug 27th 2006 1:43PM]

*applause* Fairuse is the reason I signed up for Napster (And have spent well over $200 already). And if Fairuse goes away, then I suppose I'll just have to go back to Limewire Pro.

[Jeff @ Aug 27th 2006 1:44PM]

"laws are laws... this will do nothing... they legally MUST kill FairUse4WM. "

Why?

The only law that might apply here is the DMCA, and the DMCA specifically notes that fair use clauses of existing copyright law are not affected by the protections against circumvention of technological measures in the DMCA. Format-shifting is long settled case law (going back to court cases involving personal copying of CD's onto audio cassette) that has already been defined as fair use by the courts, so there's nothing illegal about this app. And there's certainly nothing *compelling* MS or anybody else to do anything about it.

No doubt the RIAA is going to put out a lot of bluster about this, but despite what they're going to say, there's nothing they can legally do about it unless they can prove an individual is using it to pirate music. But it would have to involve an actual infringing act and it would have to be on the individual level - that's where the DMCA would then be invoked. Just stripping the DRM so you can listen to songs on your iPod is completely and 100% legal even according to the DMCA. (People who say it's not need to read the whole law, not just the specific clause about protection of technological copyright measures. Exceptions are listed later, and one of those is existing fair use.) If, however, you were to strip the DRM and then put those files on a file sharing network, you would not only be liable for illegal distribution, but you would then *also* be liable for a DMCA violation because you stripped the DRM for a purpose that was not fair use.

MS will probably change their DRM to fix this, but it's their choice to do so. It's not a legal requirement.

[Lee @ Aug 27th 2006 1:51PM]

Hey darkbird, there is no DRM law. There are standards that have been set up, and technically this isn't breaking any of those standards. There is nothing that says that the DRM cannot be removed by the customer to ensure usefulness. Do you remove the tags off your clothes? It is the same situation - those tags ensure the clothes are purchased instead of stolen, and those tags MUST stay in place until delivered to the consumer. Once you own the shirt, does the tag matter anymore? DRM, like those price/description tags, definitely hinders ease of use. Yes, the ability to remove DRM leaves record labels open to pirating, but oh well. As said earlier, there will ALWAYS be piracy. Make the protection smarter and the pirates will get smarter too.

[Lee Gibson @ Aug 27th 2006 1:51PM]

You know that part in Wayne's World where they say "Shyaa...and monkeys might fly out of my butt!"?

That part just happened. When they say that, not when the monkeys fly out of my butt.

[Lee @ Aug 27th 2006 1:57PM]

Yea, I agree with Lee Gibson. The probability that Microsoft (whoever that is) will read this and be compelled by a few comments is slim. Greedy bastards piss me off.

[blah @ Aug 27th 2006 1:58PM]

Microsoft has absolutely no reason to do this, and they never will, if for no other reason than they've proven, time again, that the only "customers" they care about are their business parteners (read: the Entertainment Industry).

[blah @ Aug 27th 2006 2:01PM]

Nevertheless, I applaud Engadget for choosing the right side of a battle which, ultimately, The Corporation will lose.

[Simon @ Aug 27th 2006 2:29PM]

Microsoft care about their business partners? So, screwing them over by tying companies like Samsung into PlaysForSure then jumping ship to the Zune system counts as 'caring'?

Microsoft cares about one thing, and that's Microsoft.

[Tom White @ Aug 27th 2006 2:35PM]

It's worth a try, as we all know Bill does read engadget. I would sing up if I could get the damn thing to work, currently WMP11 isn't connecting to the internet at all, whatever I do to it, so DRM doesnt work at all anyway!

[Alden @ Aug 27th 2006 2:41PM]

That's the truth.

But Microsoft doesn't like the truth, it portrays them in a negative light.

[Weisenheimer @ Aug 27th 2006 2:54PM]

Let's face it. A subscription service ("all u can eat" such as Napster) without limited usage rights (= without DRM) won't work (economically). And - when you sign up with Napster, you agree to respect the usage rights granted by Napster (= you're not allowed to use FairUse4WM to rip their files). The whole discussion is narrow-minded.
Instead, check WIRED's article on Zune's ecosystem and force MSFT to do exactly that! (Drop Plays for Sure! Build a proprietary Zune ecosystem! Yes, labels will be stuck between Zune DRM and FairPlay! Let MSFT and Apple control digital music - then: the labels will be going to drop DRM). Praise be!

[koresho @ Aug 27th 2006 2:54PM]

Yeah, I totally agree. They should let this one slide. I have been using Napster for a few months, and I'm not stopping now... on the contrary, it prompted me to download a couple hundred new songs off the service I was seriously considering quitting. Finally, I can get all that on my iPod. Unless you guys make an iPod compatible subscription service, this is about the only thing keeping my business.

[Peter Rojas @ Aug 27th 2006 2:56PM]

A reminder to please keep your comments respectful and polite! Thanks!

[Craig @ Aug 27th 2006 3:02PM]

Nice letter.
I signed up for Napster on saturday because of FairUse4WM, and I feel a lot less guilty than downloading from limewire hehe. I do get a lot of music from itunes, and every month I burn it all to a cd and rip it to remove the DRM.

Every piece of music in existance can be found on Limewire. In essence Im paying not for the music but the DRM, which limits where I use it. Now why would I do that? Maybe thats what the record companies need to ask themselves.

I truly believe that removing DRM would increase sales of music downloads.

[RockDad @ Aug 27th 2006 3:32PM]

Well argued article but why stick with WM DRMed music if the whole thing is such a pain? Why not just go on iTunes? You get to buy the music, not just rent it and lose as with Napster and other subscription outlets. The whole iTunes thing is pain-free compared with the rest and is one brillaintly integrated experience. What's your problem with it, what is the rational objection? Like 80% of legal downloaders I do not mind paying 0.99 a track. If enough people avoid paying you can kiss your future music goodbye.

[Philip @ Aug 27th 2006 3:33PM]

Nice try, but I don't expect anyone to listen. But the fact is that I have purchased some more tracks from MSN now that I know I can play them on all of my devices without the hassle of burning them do disc and re-ripping them.

[Raskawa @ Aug 27th 2006 3:34PM]

I think this is more complicated than simply releasing a patch. This software strips the DRM... The players out in the market that use WMV require that DRM to be there (or not) but they will not be able to handle a altered DRM...

So if Microsoft releases a altered DRM to fight FairUse, people who own players will probably not be able to play legal WMVs until the manufacturers release patches (and we know how good they are about doing that).

Technically, I think this is going to be a nightmare - you can't firm up the DRM against a hack like this without the risk of breaking the early players into the DRM game. Any "updates" that they try to send via synch, hackers will be able to sniff and use to just release another FairUse.

So in essence they are screwed, so are the studios (in their minds.. I think in the end this will be better for everyone).

BTW, it is only a matter of time until the FairUse dev or someone else pulls the same stunt on the Apple DRM.

-David

[L.Rawlins @ Aug 27th 2006 3:44PM]

Fantastic read.

I often wonder why MP3 player/audio device licensing isn't enforced. Especially here in the UK. Take a look at our TV. We HAVE to pay a sum every year in order to watch TV. We can record the TV. Burn the TV to discs. Whatever. It's all paid for.

Perhaps a similar system should be in place for audio? You buy an MP3 player/audio device, you need a license for its use. 'They' get their money on tap, we get our limitless audio.

It could be merged with our current licensing to turn the BBC run 'TV License' into a wider scoped 'AV License'.

We'll be watching TV on our mobile phone/music devices soon enough anyway which will require covering. Once the 'digital switchover' pulls the plug on the analog frequencies.

DRM: Defiantly Ruining Music.

[Raskawa @ Aug 27th 2006 3:44PM]

RockDad,

No offense, I think you are missing the point. WMV DRM is no more difficult or less portable than iTunes/Apple DRM. WMV providers also offer .99 download (some offer cheaper). And they offer subscriptions (all you can eat for x per month) which Apple does not.

The point of this is the universal portability of the music. People don't like any DRM because they want to buy music and not be restricted to a PC/Ipod/Mac/PMP/PSP/ Player - they want to play the music they buy anywhere/anyway.

What many of suspect is if DRM went away - more people would aquire music legally and in the end the studios/providers would make more money.

-David

[kevan @ Aug 27th 2006 3:47PM]

I thought laws were made by the people for the people....*cough*

I will never buy my music online as long as I live. I would rather by a CD from the store and always have it, not to mention be able to do with it as I please.

I did accidently purchase a Sony DRM CD once and I have since stopped buying anything at all remotely associated with Sony and their products. I pray they go out of business sooner then later.

[Scabies @ Aug 27th 2006 4:02PM]

Amen.

[Bryce Fischer @ Aug 27th 2006 4:15PM]

Gosh, this makes you all look like a bunch of babies. Hers'a clue for you. You don't like DRM? Buy the CDs. Napster to go and !Yahoo music are subscription services.. You want to keep your music after you quit? Buy the music. If you are just using the service to download, think of it as a giant jukebox. I use it to try out music before I buy it, or play music that I'm in the mood for, but don't have to buy it. If I really want to keep the music? I buy it online, or buy the CD.

Grow up you babies!

[Reg @ Aug 27th 2006 4:18PM]

I for one have legitimately purchased DRM protected music from Wal-Mart but had the hard drive fail and had to reinstall the OS. All that DRM purchased music would no longer play on this new OS install. In this regard DRM does not protect anybody, and in fact hurts the consumer. Of course, a counter-argument would be that I, as a consumer, being given the RIGHT to listen to the artists music, should have done the due diligence and backed-up my license keys but that is another inconvenience for me, the consumer. I am glad that FairUse4WM exists, it helps prevent me from losing my music that I legitimately paid for.

In short DRM is more of an inconvenience for the consumer and gives the music labels a false sense of security at best. If M$ makes changes to DRM in the WM10/11, how will this affect all current "Plays for Sure" devices.

Afterall, most PMP and DAP devices nowadays can record straight to MP3 with the line-in recorder anyways (albeit time-consuming). So even if the music is DRM proteted you can still find some other way to move audio to another device. DRM is just a slight impedence to media sharing devices.

...my 2 cents.

[Juaquin @ Aug 27th 2006 4:28PM]

I was beat to it, but I concur:

Amen.

Oh, but also, could you convince them to sell some high-quality files too?

Thanks.

[what-about-the-artists @ Aug 27th 2006 4:31PM]

I just don’t believe this, how you guys be so mean? It’s one thing to steal and feel guilty about it, but very disturbing to steal and see nothing wrong in it. DRM came after consumers showed they didn’t care that their favorite artists were not paid for their hard work. These artists are real people like you and me, who also have to make a living and feed their families. Kanye West almost lost his life because of his endless hours in the studio which led him to sleep on the wheel. And yet you demand that he allow you to do whatever you want with his music, even giving it away to a million strangers.

Look I’m no saint, I have downloaded music and software which I didn’t pay for and I am NOT proud of it. Today I subscribe. In the real world when people are given an opportunity to steal and get away with it, many will steal rather than pay. There will always be burglars in this world who can break into your house, do you just give up and leave your door open? No, you ask the locksmith to keep building a better lock – one that keeps out the burglars but allows you to easily come in and out.

How many of you wake up each morning to go to work for free? All this talk about the RIAA, Microsoft, Sony blinds you from seeing the real people affected. When fans stop paying, Artists stop caring.

[Mike @ Aug 27th 2006 4:39PM]

I'm with Reg. As a developer of software, I'm sensitive to ripping off someone else's work. I've always paid for my music downloads. However, the hoops one has to jump through to hang onto their licenses across OS reinstalls, upgrades, etc. is just too painful. License backup? Didn't work for me. De-authorizing computers? Couldn't find a link on MSN Music. Ask customer service to do it for you? No responses.

FairUse4WM allowed me to recover all of the DRM'd music I no longer had access to. I won't buy anymore DRM'd music without it or some similar tool.

[Michael G @ Aug 27th 2006 5:04PM]

I thought laws were made by the people for the people....*cough*

The theory behind copyright (and patent) law is that by providing some protection to the creators of these products, we're providing an incentive to people to create more products; which in theory benefits us all.

If you believe people who create music, movies and software should not be able to make a living doing so, then that's a legitimate view; however you should be trying to change the laws, rather than just go around breaking them.

[Juaquin @ Aug 27th 2006 5:14PM]

While I don't think it's right to strip DRM in general, I can see it's uses. It seems many people in this thread have encountered problems moving their music across OS installs and different computers, so I would say it is fair use to strip DRM in these cases.

The industry could SERIOUSLY come up with a DRM that actually works on all computers, MP3 players, and in all possible scenarios. But seeing as how that isn't really possible in this day of proprietary technology and people not being willing to share, I propose this:

Just sell the tracks. Outright, no DRM, high-quality tracks would be the same as a CD. Sure, I could upload them to bittorrent. But I could do the same with a CD, and you let me buy CDs. Sell individual tracks for 99 cents, and it will be the same as someone buying the actual CD (16 tracks on a CD, 99 cents each, makes 16 dollars, the same price as the CD). Offer discounts for buying the whole CD - say $10; after all, you don't have to pay for materials, manufacturing, and distribution. I think that's fair.

Follow the iTunes music model, changing only one thing: NO DRM. It worked for them - if you take out the DRM, you'll probably be even more succesful than them. Explain to the industry that if they're selling CDs which can be uploaded and shared, why should they be so concerned with digital tracks without DRM? It's just as easy for anyone with half a brain to share music on a CD as it is to share a file, so get over your paranoia and just sell music without DRM.

[Tony Martin @ Aug 27th 2006 5:20PM]

It isn't up to Microsoft, it is the RIAA you should be appealing to. They make up the rules, MS has to follow it or be sued a lot of $$$.

[menatekera @ Aug 27th 2006 5:25PM]

This tool everyone should have. You wanna to use it or not, ups to you. Everyone have knife in their kitchen and by using this knife it make your life easier. You cut an apple and meat. But knife also can be used to kill people. Here you must UNDERSTAND, knife is a good tool if you use it at right place, but it also can be a bad tool if you use it at wrong place. Tool is not the topic but the topic is YOU. You have a choice to use it for whatever reason, either backup purpose, piracy, warez, crack etc. The tool still at it name, FairUse4WM.

[Jack @ Aug 27th 2006 5:26PM]

oh wait a minute, its all about music industry trying to squeeze evry buck out of us, jus sell each track for 99c, with the consumer geting the flexibility to transfer his music anywhere, but "NO i want each and evry person in this blue world to pay 25.99 so i can buy a maseratti this year" piracy serves these $hungry people right "in ur face music industry".....its time for a change

[Johan @ Aug 27th 2006 5:27PM]

way2go engadget!!

i hate this stupid DRM b.s.

If I spend a good dollar of my money to buy a song (let alone 2k), i wan't to be able to do what i want with it! I don't want them to restrict it to only 5 computers (iTunes and maybe others), only their own products, and most of all, I wan't to be able to convert it!!. DRM means no mp3 cds or making your own ringtones. I hate this stuff.

[Brent @ Aug 27th 2006 6:09PM]

To me it seems that both sides arguing this are using esentially the same argument.

The law is the law, even if it's wrong.

Pirates will pirate, even if it's wrong.

I've long been told that two wrongs do not make a right. To me it would seem that the world cares less about right and more about fair, and Peter's letter seems to be mostly about being fair.

It is an inconvenience and costly to record, software, and hardware companies to come up with these DRM schemes.

It is an inconvenience and more costly to the consumer to have these DRM schemes.

Companies will continue to fight piracy, and pirates will continue to fight the industry.

Geurilla warfare is almost always the result of overly opressive entities. It's all a cycle that can only perpetuate itself until both sides get to a point where they feel comfortable. Peter's letter illustrates that both sides COULD be happy at this point. Why shouldn't Microsoft consider it? Why shouldn't you delete limewire and bittorrent and give them just a little of your hard earned dollars.

Consider this: If a service is so good that it can get 1 billion customers at $15 a month that's 180 billion dollars a year to the industry. The limitted amount of artists, executives, and programmers that deserve some real cut of that will all still live much more comfortable lives than nearly every single one of the 1 billion customers subscribing to their service. How long do you really believe it'll be before there are a billion people interested in a service that can get them the music they want anywhere and everywhere for $15 a month?

Stop arguing about it like children, clinging to the idea that your wrong makes things right and get behind Peter, go sign up for a service and make Microsoft realize that the advent of this tool has meant thousands and thousands more subscribers. Realize we're all on both sides and let's see if we can start getting that mythical service we all want.

[Bryan! @ Aug 27th 2006 6:15PM]

. . . I use Tunebite?

[andy @ Aug 27th 2006 6:25PM]

This is a great open letter; but it will fall on blind eyes. However, the earlier poster who indicated the problems with trying to patch this issue is actually very accurate. This is like DeCSS leaking out onto the grid. Once out, the DRM was totally compromised along with an entire generation of DVD players. The best thing they could do would be to pay the developers big money to buy the software and figure out a way to cripple existing copies. And hope the flaw isn't as easily discovered by someone else. The original developer would have been wise to incorporate that feature into the software (the ability to cripple it) as they could have commanded a significant ransom. But I'm sure its not there as this was designed to expose DRM for what it is.... Not evil, but ultimately futile. All DRM can be circumvented. Even FairPlay can be circumvented through CD burning/ripping.

Although Microsoft stands to lose a lot of credibility here, I suspect that Steve Jobs and Apple are actually more concerned about this development now. It does great harm to their business model and provides a significant disadvantage to a competing offer from Apple. No doubt this will take a bite out of Apple revenue stream.

Oddly, I suspect that those who do sing up for subscription services may not cancel the service. Netfilx seems to be doing just find even though there are several tools to rip dvd's. Sure, people sign up, burn and cancel. But I'm also sure that a lot more people will find the service very useful and stay on.

As the original Open Letter stated quite well, the Play for Sure services are valuable; but the DRM make them all but useless for 95% of the music buying market.

[David Chartier @ Aug 27th 2006 6:32PM]

Translation:
______________________
Dear Microsoft:

We're consumers. We give you money for products we want, which helps you stay in business and to keep creating products. Because of this and various other reasons, we believe we should be allowed to do whatever we want with technology, in any way we want, without regard for the social or economic implications of such a practice.

Now that we've discovered a loophole in your DRM, we'd like to ask you to let it go, so we can continue to do whatever we want, otherwise we'll simply go back to using illegal means to accomplish this 'whatever we want' task. We don't really care whether the failed technological and cultural experiment that is P2P networks has proven that people will give and take whatever they want because the technology allows for it, we just want to be able to do this because, well, technology says we can. We're consumers - do we need much more reasoning than that? Oh yea, don't forget: if you don't succumb to our request, we'll simply flip you the digital bird and go back to that P2P market we mentioned to get whatever we want, any way we want.

So please, simply because we're demanding it and threatening to turn back the other way, allow us to keep this loophole as a new form of taking advantage of your more than reasonable services. After all, the customer is always right.

[david @ Aug 27th 2006 6:46PM]

well said, thanks for putting something i would have yelled into a balanced and thoughtful letter.

[casey chesnut @ Aug 27th 2006 6:48PM]

i actually think its unfair to put the burden on MS. it should be up to end users to let the content providers know that they don't what DRM content. i.e. don't buy it

[Alex D @ Aug 27th 2006 7:01PM]

they should try an experiment with a popular music store (like iTMS) whereby DRMed standard quality tracks would go for a buck (or 99 cents, big difference) and high-quality, nonDRMed tracks would go for, say, a 10-15 percent premium and see peoples reaction to that

PS: I am aware tha is likely never to happen
PPS: great letter

[Alex D @ Aug 27th 2006 7:05PM]

To casey chestnut: Where on (physical) earth do you expect to find individual tracks for sale?
oh, and as a note, a few months ago i read up (on a blog whose name i forgot, very likely one of the Weblog group blogs) that the decryption of DRM in PMP could cause the loss of a good chunk of battery life (10-15% if my memory isnt half-bad)

[Chip @ Aug 27th 2006 7:30PM]

I'll continue to use allofmp3.com until one or more major subscription services offers DRM-less music(read mp3), at which time I'll immediately jump ship to that/those service/s. I am reminded each time that I use allofmp3.com that its catalog is not as deep as I would like, and yes, I realize that the artists don't get money from it.

However, allofmp3.com has been a reliable source of DRM-less music for me for 2 years, and frankly, I don't expect any subscription service to be allowed by the RIAA to offer MP3s. So, I expect to continue to send my money to allofmp3.com for the forseeable future.

[shirizaki @ Aug 27th 2006 8:25PM]

@ Thomas Goddard:

They pay a fee to Napster (or whoever) to listen to their music. This program allows you to actually use that music in a PMP without error. The only way aroud that (other than this program) is to download it illegally. At least this way SOMEONE is getting money.

And if you're pissed about artists not getting money, mail them a check for their contribution to society, because they get crap from album sales. The only opponets of any "DRM stripping program" or "All use music files" are the heads of music industries who need their 5th Porche.

If Engadget is such a bad thing in your eyes, why continue posting comments in here?

[Josh Einstein @ Aug 27th 2006 8:29PM]

Hope you don't have aspirations of becoming a lawyer because that is the crappiest argument I've ever heard. Stripping DRM is a tool for piracy, plain and simple. Pirates are criminals and should not be allowed to go free simply because they probably wouldn't have paid anyway. There's alot of things I'd like that I'm not willing to or can't afford to pay for. That doesn't mean I should get them anyway.

Stealing music is getting harder to do, and more dangerous. It's like buying drugs in Camden... sure you can find smack pretty easily, but you can also get robbed or shot just as easily. Same goes for piracy and malware. Microsoft conceding to the pirates (which by the way will not happen) just takes a step backwards.

You are not BUYING music from Napster or Yahoo, you are licensing it. And you are licensing it to be played on players that support DRM. It's not your right to remove the protection so you can play it on unsupported devices. If you want to own the rights to music, then start making your own music.

[shirizaki @ Aug 27th 2006 9:08PM]

It isn't a crime if it isn't illegal. That was already pointed out in the comments.

And the reverse is true. Stealing music is just as easy as it was in '99. And if I wanted drugs that bad, I can just find a recipe on the net.

I'm licensing music, but now with this program I'm not limited on what tool can use my music. I'm still paying, I'm still using their system. I'm not uploading every file to the net illegally. I'm deciding what player I can use.

I have a right to not be forced to choose a crappy PMP because it supports only this certain DRM.