An Open Letter to Microsoft - Why you shouldn't kill FairUse4WM
By Peter Rojas 
posted Aug 27th 2006 1:08PM
posted Aug 27th 2006 1:08PM
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
well done, engadget.
Very, very true. Let's hope (however unlikely) they are listening.
laws are laws... this will do nothing... they legally MUST kill FairUse4WM. (I hate DRM too, but laws are laws, even bad laws.)
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.
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.
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.
*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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Nevertheless, I applaud Engadget for choosing the right side of a battle which, ultimately, The Corporation will lose.
hey lee. they is the DMCA, which protects DRM... so in affect, that is a DRM law... kinda
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.
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!
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
That's the truth.
But Microsoft doesn't like the truth, it portrays them in a negative light.
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.
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!
A reminder to please keep your comments respectful and polite! Thanks!
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
The one who surely benefits from FairUse4WM is Microsoft.
All of a sudden, the WMA format becomes popular (it was in computers, but not in the iPod dominated digital audio players). New users are attracted to subscription services who use Microsoft's DRM. Even iPod owners may give it a try, as it's extremely cheap for the amount of music you can get (and keep).
The timing is right, too. FairUse appeared during the discussion about Zune. The ability to fill up your Zune with music obtained from legal online music stores, makes Zune more appealing than we all expected.
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.
I use a Mac and the DRM in iTunes just works. I can copy music to my iPod and play it very easily. The only time it becomes a pain is when I want to distribute it on peer-to-peer networks for all my "friends" to enjoy.
Amen.
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!
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.
I was beat to it, but I concur:
Amen.
Oh, but also, could you convince them to sell some high-quality files too?
Thanks.
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.
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 $$$.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The problem with this open letter is it assumes a number of things.
1. That Microsoft wants to eliminate FairUse4WM.
2. That Microsoft holds sway with the recording industry.
I don't either is true.
Firstly, WM-DRM has the ability to be updated, quickly and near-silently. For subscription users, it will happen the next time you get your license update, and for buyers, the next time you buy a track. And unlike Windows updates, you won't have the option to decline the update. You'll either get the update, or lose access to your subscription music.
Secondly, Microsoft is a technology provider, not a music retailer (well, apart from MSN Music.) I'm sure its contracts with its licensees include provisions to push out automatic updates to the encryption and/or take steps to eliminate the distribution of any tools that disable its encryption.
And of course, the licensees are going to be pressured by the RIAA and its associates to get Microsoft to issue an update. But, with the exception of MSN Music, the RIAA won't be dealing with Microsoft in this matter. It will be dealing with the retailers, because it's with them they have licensing contracts with. Of course, they'll deal with Microsoft as a seperate issue, and Microsoft will bend over backwards because it is on the side of the record companies; it has its own battles with piracy to deal with, and the RIAA will appeal to those sensibilities.
But yeah, I think I lost my point somewhere along the way there. :erm:
well said, thanks for putting something i would have yelled into a balanced and thoughtful letter.
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.
. . . I use Tunebite?
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.
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.
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
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)
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.
@ 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?
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.
Just an addition to teh talk about Apple's DRM. Apple's DRM has been hacked several times. There was a program called jHymn that would do great things. Most notably, it would strip the DRM from iTune purchased songs, but with every new iTunes upgrade they make their DRM more difficult. It's been about a year since jHymn worked, but I have faith that it will work again. The website is still up and the program still available for downlaod. I've recently used it to check the number of PCs my account is on and also to break my iTunes library so it would rebuild it from scratch after a music library switch.
The point is, MS may not go after the program (or even be able to if it's outside the US) but they will certainly strengthen their DRM. However, without having ONE proprietary music store and ONE proprietary music player the update will be slow to implement.
I assume they will make updates to players that will be mandatory to continue to download "rented" songs. Perhaps not, but that is the first place I'd refortify since a one month subscription could be the most profitable to pirateers looking to complete a collection quickly.
"BTW, it is only a matter of time until the FairUse dev or someone else pulls the same stunt on the Apple DRM."
It's called JHymn, and its compatibility was broken by, I think, iTunes version 5. It was good while it lasted.
Oh, and I call shill on what-about-the-artists.
I'm in favour of this.
Which is probably funny because I do a fair amount of work on making sure content producers get paid.
But at the same time I always argue that making the content freely available for the user to do what they want is better for a long term relationship - trust the user and they may respect your product/IP a bit more.
I don't use any of the PlaysForSure services at the moment becuase my portable player is an iPod. I also don't use iTunes Music Store because I don't like their pricing model - why does it cost pretty much the same for a restricted rights download as a rippable CD? Sometimes more if you trawl the bargin bins and "pre-loved" stores.
Given the continued existance of Limewire, AllOfMp3 and their like (and the Sony DRM fiasco) any restrictions which cripple my use of something I've bought and paid for (crashed HDD, stolen laptop etc) are not going to be my first choice for spending my $
For preference.. I still buy CDs (and AnyDVD makes sure I can read them), I buy unrestricted MP3 from unsigned bands who are actually doing something creative and I support the artists whos music I do discover thanks to the occasional shared rip from a friend (sometimes having to resort to Amazon to actually get it into the country because the label have decided not to release it in my little backwater)
Actually, you should encourage them to push for more and more DRM until the whole system topples over under it's own weight. Each move on their part pushes the consumer closer and closer to ending their relationship with RIAA members, which is what the industry needs as a whole.
Rather than saving everyone, kill it and start over. It's time to put RIAA down like a rabid animal and get a newer, tamer animal.
First I hate it when people can't wait for a company to go out of business, are you going to give money to those now unemployeed workers to feed their kids? I think not. Second, lets look how counterintuitive this is...ipods rule the market because they are cool, however if you want to subscribe to yahoo or napster you have to settle for a sub standard player because there is no apple support. Look originally when I first heard of this I thought about going all captain jack sparrow on them and just loot and pillage however after using the service and moving some of these to my ipod I really dig it. For as long as fairuse is usable I will continue to subscribe.
" They might already be threatening to withdraw their licenses for their music..." Question, If I, as a manufacturer, was dependent on only a few distributors for my product, wouldn't I realy be at the mercy of them? Would I be able to "threaten" them with pulling back my product from them? Let's face it, the music industry is way behind times, they better catch up and start working with the consumer, making their product more attractive, than trying to tighten down. This is going to blow up in their faces, hopefully soon, and then you'll see artists completely bypass the whole bunch of fu**s. and start utilizing online distribution, word of mouth (free trades!) and tours. Hell, if I was a fledgling band, I'd make my music available for free- you make most of your money on tours since the music industry sucks up most of it anyways.
I'd love to be able to buy all my music legally through a service and I hope some day I will. Currently I occasionally use allofmp3.com and while I have heard all the issues about "Russian Mob", etc I refuse to buy anything with DRM on it and/or of a less than ideal quality. I use to download from torrents, etc but I find its not worth the hastle, give me a legal pay alternative and I'm more than happy to use it..
allofmp3 allows me to pick my format and quality and the higher quality I want the more I pay for it and I'm fine with that. I download everything at 256k bit rate. I do not share my music, but I have 3 PCs, a Sun box, a car mp3 player, an ipod, home stereo, etc and I want to be able to play on all systems without any hoops to jump through. allofmp3 is cheap at $25 per GB and I'd be willing to pay double that or possibly more to a comparable legal North American system without DRM.
If the recording industry gives me that I say sign me up!
I shall have no truck with these content distributors. I've no interest in services that just assume I have criminal intent by default, and treat me as such. Until such a time as I am offered the same losslessness and flexibility I currently enjoy with Red Book CDs, they can forget it.
As for Microsoft's position, it's possible they realise how DRM can actually prove contrary to the prosperity of the entertainment industry and the artists involved, and they may even just go through the motions of updating their DRM, just to satisfy the narcissistic bullies running the show. But given their insistance of horrid product activation, a measure as effective at stopping piracy as a gnat is at stopping an 18 wheeler, I wouldn't like to speculate.
PS- I had to laugh at the "Stealing music is getting harder to do, and more dangerous" comment. Have you been to the internet before?
Great letter. And excellent points to make about what people really want.
Music for most people boils down to one thing: we want to decide when, where and what we listen to without restrictions. DRM complicates that to a large degree and having tools that remove the DRM, keep honest people happy and spending more money on music.
RIAA and the music industry is do far behind the times.... i mean, sueing your customers is just something I've never grasped as a way to keep people buying your product.
Piracy is going to happen regardless how many restrictions you put on music. It goes back to the days when we used to tape vinyl albums to cassette at a friend's house. Eventually, we purchase the music we like. I know I do and I know a ton of other people that do the same.
I don't think Microsoft will give a second thought to leaving this useful tool in place. They will see it as a hinder to doing business, but us consumers will see it as a way to justify spending more on digital downloads.
>>Send Steve [...] to smooth things over.
Absolutely. Nothing like a folding chair upside the head to ease corporate tension.
Seriously though, Engadget has the right idea.
Microsoft does have to attack this project as they have to protect the viewpoints of not only themselves, but with every record company that 'agreed' to sell their music with a DRM-related protection. You may not like it, but there are several artists who do not want their music unprotected and these artists might very well leave the Online Music business because they can no-longer drust the DRM protection that microsoft has designed.
This is not the right way to fight DRM.
DWM came, and the number of people illegally downloading music certainly didn't go down. In fact, the compatibility problems probably made it flourish.
there is no such thing as intellectual property that can be owned by the distributors of media. It is only owned by the creators and artist, programmers, musicians etc. They have already been paid by the distributors. When I buy a book, I buy the print and not the content. However, it depends quality of the print when i decide which price i am willing to pay for it. Again, I won't accept any claims on "intellectual property" from anyone else as the creator himself.
The music industry grew so big through artifical marketing techniques. Like everyone who had owned a music album on vinyl had to buy it again when the cd was invented. Why did he do this? because the Industry promised higher quality of the product (not intellectual, only technical) and more durability of the audio cd as a media. They lied to any which one of us, because the quality of the media wasn't better in quality nor durability. They cheated on us to pay again for an "intellectual property" which we probably already paid for, because in their minds we are only f...ing Consumers. Then they invented the CD-burner, to sell them to everyone and at the same time criminalize everyone who uses it. Now that everyone has a computer they try to sell you the same music AGAIN, claiming _their_ intellectual property, so that you can play them on your pc or mp3-player. Because in the near future you won't be able to listen to your own created mp3-files, ripped from your own audio-cds. because they put DRM in it. So, the media-industry grew fat and rich by stealing from a: the artists (by throat-gagging contracts)and b: you (by creating artifical need for products). And now they see their beautiful cardhouse fall to pieces, so they go even further and try to force the law to forbid any copying at all, even if it has always been practiced with audio-tapes and -rails. And if they can't forbid it, they#ll try to make it impossible. Well guess what, not the industry invented technology, people do. And just like wozniak (sadly what happened to apple) invented the Bluebox and later the computer, fantastic people like him (or here) invent methods to get around DRM. That's the nature of the free mind.
So the law may be different because law and politics really represent the industry, not the people. if law and industry go on and call me a thief, I am still not willing to accept that in any way and knowingly will break the law if I have to, because IT IS NOT FAIR.
All digital content should be free, copying is not stealing, taking "intellectual property" from the creators through contracts is stealing. Adn if a Microsoft-Employee thinks that piece of code he wrote for windows should be free and distributes it on his Website, than Microsoft would sue and fire him. But if everyone would think that way, Microsoft wouldn't have any employees and Major-Labels wouldn't have artists to sign on.
You say "It is a fact that it is illegal, so they are right to call you a criminal". You are sheep. People like you make the world an awful place to live in.
COPY, COPY, COPY. If you can't copy it, CRACK it, and then copy. free your mind. Don't be charged for an MP3-Album. They charge you for printing the Cover, even if you don't get it delivered (or maybe a low-quality JPG-File). Now, THAT's Stealing!!! Beat DRM in any way, it is NOT fair!!!
Microsoft leaked FairUse4WM to kill the anemic PlaysforSure and pave the way for a Zune DRM!
My two cents.
Whatsizface
Not that it is right to be downloading music/movies for free if you don't already own a physical non-DRMed format, but as we all know, people will always look for the free/cheaper way to get the same things they want and they don't want any hassles.
If you're hungry and there's your favorite food, free of charge, laying in front of you, would you take it? Or would you rather go somewhere else to pay and sit in a restaurant to get the same food? Or try hard and find the phone number of the restaurant to order take-out/delivery and wait? Same goes for illegal downloads and DRMed music/movies.
If music and movies are priced reasonably, very easy to get and are guaranteed to work on all hardware, most people will choose to buy. The current DRM scheme is not offering all of these things, and that's why people don't like it.
Lastly, I agree with koder that you should be allowed to copy/convert the music/movies you already own into another format, as long as you're not selling the copies for profit.
I for one like to burn a 1:1 copy of the more expensive CDs I bought so I won't be screwed even if I scratched the copied disc. Some people I know may also make photocopies/electronic copies of books so you don't have to worry about the book pages fall off, ripped out, water damage, etc.
It's also funny, I'd like to add, that pro-DRM-people (how can you even actually beFOR this???) like to mention the "right of the creator of content".
this isn't about the rights of the Creators at all. The real Creators have already given up most of their rights by signing a contract. They are gone, when it comes to sales. Musicians mostly don't get all to much from the sales. And, as Artists, which often also means "free thinkers" (not already assimilated by the man), most musicians are _against_ DRM. You don't believe it? Well, ask one! You think labels create Content? give an Sony-BMG-Exec a guitar in his Hands and see if he's another Santana! These people are cold, they think only in numbers. They don't give a damn about any one. People like that rule. If you argument pro DRM in _any_ way, then I guess you like to be ruled... I don't!!!
It is also very funny, that in the US it calls "copyright". In Germany we do not have copyright. No, over here it is called "Urheberrecht". And THAT means right of the creator. That also means, everything you create on your own will always stay yours. i.e, if I'm a writer and I write a Book and then my publisher says: "well, we really like the story, but we've changed that part, because most readers wouldn't like it and we wanted to be a little more John-Grisham..." Then you _always_ can sue his ass off! In an American copyright-based contract, you as the creator can give up that right. That is possible and common (well, not for books but maybe you write for a TV-Miniseries or something). In Germany such a contract would be totally against the law and so worthless. You have to give your ok to all they do with your creation and you have a veto-right to everything that doesn't suit you. It is not possible to give up your "Urheberrecht" completly, and you don't even have to write it down or put a "c" anywhere. As long as you are able to proof that you've created it on your own, it stays your own, no matter what.
And I don't give a shit about the musiv industry at all. They deserve to die, really. They eat up every small Label out there, they decide what's good and deserves to be published, even if there's a lot very better artists who noone will ever hear about. Nowadays they even create artifical artists, aka "one-hit-wonders" and people actually buy it through mass-media-manipulation. You know how much media corporations invest in the science of mind-manipulating advertising-techniques? Wonder why a jingle has a certain sound? That's because it sticks to your brain like malware on a computer,vlike it or not. Do you like to be mentally enslaved (well, if you're actually pro-drm you possibly already are). Copying may be against the law, but morally it is right and good. You will still pay for concerts, still pay for cinema, you'll still want artists to get something for their creation. You wouldn't want the grey men get filthy rich just for their skill to betray and cheat on people, do you???
Alternatively, you could save yourself the trouble and use Wippit's subscription service that offers 60,000 MP3s at any one time for $90 / £50 a year and lets you keep the music permanently.
One day all subscription services will be this way...
Aaahhh.. Sweet Dreams..
When will you people understand that the tech companies that want to have a music player and music store MUST follow the rules of the industry. This same debate happened with VHS macrovision.
BTW, Macrovision is still in force.
Get a grip and find a hobby.
what sucks is the fact every service use a different audio format with DRM so it is really a pain to know what audio player to buy.
I say Audio cause Ipod files needs to be in ACC and zune I sure will do WMA This is why I would never own such a device. Why can all compines just agree on a standard and let people copy their audio files to any player?
Until this happens I am boycotting these type of devices.
@Lee: I don't use Napster, so I could be wrong about this (please correct me if I am), but my understanding of their business model makes me thing of anything BUT fair use. Sure, you can download as much as you want and play it wherever you want, but as soon as you stop paying you can't use that music anymore. If it works for you, then by all means, keep at it. Personally, I don't want to rent my music.
As for other business models like those of iTMS and Rhapsody, I don't want my music to be tied to one kind of player, or become useless if I decide to get a new
device. It used to be that if I bought any old CD, I could play it on the CD player in my living room, the one in my car, or the one in my computer at work. And if they were to come out with a new kind of CD player, chances are it will be backward compatible, so I'll still be able to listen to that CD. Example, I no longer have a CD player in my living room because my DVD player will handle CD, SACD, and DVD-Audio as well.
Enter the age of copy-protected CDs. I've gotten disks that won't play in my car or MP3 capable stereo because it sees the copy protection and thinks it's trying to read a data disk instead of an audio CD. I don't even dare put it in my computer because I don't want some rootkit or driver being installed without my consent. Result: I won't buy a CD that says anything about any type of copy protection scheme. I'm not trying to pirate it, I'm actually trying to support buy it and enjoy it. And if it's not a plain-jane audio CD, chances are I can't do that, so I'll go "elsewhere" to get the music.
Same thing goes for DRMed files. I'd almost be willing to bet my whole music collection that DRM creates about as many pirates as it thwarts.
Very well said engadget. Why should people buy music with complicated DRM when they can get it on P2P? With technology these days, there are ways to download from P2P anonymously, and the RIAA cant do a thing if they cant catch you. Since this FairUse program makes people feel better about DRM, and more and more people are signing up for subscription services, why not turn it into an advantage? Because if Microsoft kills this, the people who signed up will drop their subscriptions and go back to P2P. And I can guarantee you all that they will lose much, much more money from P2P than they ever have a chance of losing with FairUse, or any DRM removal program. One more thing. No matter what the music industry does, there will always be a certain level of piracy. Every time that a company has patched a security hole, especially with music downloads, someone has been smart and created a hack for it. Believe it or not, there are programmers out there who are better with a computer than the millionaires at Microsoft. VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
Microsoft might have the "clout to make this happen and drag the entertainment industry into the 21st century", but there is a very good reason why they won't.
Keeping DRM in the files means the consumer needs to keep buying and using the OS' that supports the DRM. Currently of course, that's XP. In time, that will be Vista. Take the DRM out of the media and you lose another compelling reason to stick with the OS from Redmond. Jump ship to Linux/OsX for example, and kiss your music goodbye. Unless it's unprotected of course, in which case you're free to leave.
MS is all about keeping the shackles on, restricting the choice. So we can instantly see why MS will never do this.
"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."
Have you actually used Napster? You plug in your player, napster detects it and shows a player area in the bottom right of the napster window. You drag an drop files from napster on to this and they are downloaded and transfered.
You are all missing the point here. You have no rights to the owner of the musics copyright other then that they grant you. If you dont like the terms they offer you then don't buy the music. Simple as that.
Your rights never extend to infringing others however much you don't like them.
Great argument for allowing for the removal of DRM. My feeling exactly. I stopped using MusicMatch once I got my iPod and switched to an PowerBook G4. What good is the music to me when I can't play it, or have to go through very contorted schemes to get it playable. (e.g. doing a digital capture from the audio card while playing the file)If anyone from MS or even the "music industry" is reading these comments. Please note that I am an example of a lost customer because these DRM systems. I also buy much less from iTunes for the exact same reason.
I use Napster to buy music, but I own an iRiver H140 - so I can't directly play anything on that player. To date I've been burning and re-ripping, but I can detect a drop in quality in some songs. I've purchased less music over time because of this, eventually all but stopping because it seemed silly to buy music I could play only on my PC (really, who uses actual CDs anymore other than to rip from them?). This tool coming out made me immediately go and buy MORE music, knowing I could losslessly convert them to a format my player WILL play. Breaking the DRM made me buy more music. It's not counter-intuitive.
Think.....its only going to be another Windows Update patch (most probably). So if you want to keep using this, don't update your computer.
Silly Windows Updates slows down your compuuter anyway.
This is going to encourage me to keep buying. Why didn't they making DRM become inactive once you've downloaded it to your machine (if you chose to do so)?
Voting with one's pocketbooks doesn't work any more than electing politicians. Except instead of it beign a war with a ton of ppl on hte sidelines, its just... a bunch of people on the sidelines with pirates fighting corporations guerilla- style. Come on! We have to have complete control, or we don't have enough to value it, and if we don't value it, we lose it! We have to have a direct democracy in which we control EVERYTHING, or we'll never have as much control as we want or need.
Think about it. Free market creates unfree people. Eliminate it already! We have IT! This could be implemented now! Eman out.
The DRM is why I don't buy online music. I have several friends that do but I got tired of hearing how they couldn't transfer files from one device to another. If I break my current my3 player and purchase one from a different vendor, I didn't want to worry about not being able to use my music.
The DRM is all about money anyway. If the music studios had there way, you would have to but a the same music cd several times, one for you car and house and a different one if you wanted to play music on the go.
@Randall: iTMS files are in protected AAC format, but the iPod can play good ol' fashioned MP3s, AIFFs and WAVs as well. The default encoding format in iTunes when you import a CD I believe is AAC (at least on Macs), but you can easily change that in the preferences.
Instead of begging for them not to patch this hole, give them another route to money.
Imagine if Microsoft started their own WM-based subscription service, and spent the next few years systematically replacing old holes with new ones, such that their hackers would go home and tell their buddies how to get at the new holes, and new versions of FU4WM keep getting made for the new holes. Microsoft and all other subscription services would stand to make a ton of money, all because of a very convenient conflict of interest that strongly benefitted the consumer.
...It's dishonest maybe, but it's an idea.
A business interest people are forgetting is the need for Microsoft to make you keep that collection in Windows Media Format. It's the reason Windows Media format exists in the first place. If you break the DRM you can transcode into something like Ogg Vorbis, and Bill Gates forbid[1] switch over to Linux!
- Richard
[1] I doubt God cares about your software choice.
why shouldn't we kill
why shouldn't we kill