Mere days after Microsoft started
pushing a new IBX version for "protecting" PlaysForSure files from its users, the
FairUse4WM guys have thrown down a new version that deals with that and other little DRM-circumvention obstacles. The new release -- version 1.2 -- knocks out DRMv1 files you've ripped yourself with protection, breaks down individualized WM9 files and has a workaround for WM11beta2. Of course, we're guessing it won't be long until Microsoft has another quick update to break FairUse4WM again, but it seems like a more drastic update might be in order to shut down this hack for good. We're sure you're well familiar with
our stance on this whole issue, and hope that version 1.2 treats you right.
posted Sep 2nd 2006 2:15PM
i love whoever made that
i'll happily have their babies.
Not a bad idea. But there's no real need for such DRM-stripping apps if one never purchases music bound up in DRM in the first place. I see no sense at all in paying for merchandise that you then must run through a separate application just to make it accessible on all devices.
This makes the new Napster work almost like the original Napster. Sean Fanning should be happy.
Hooray for Viodentia!
I agree, stop buying DRM media whenever have an option. That is the only way that the consumer will have rights, speaking with their money.
Reg, except your still paying for the music :(
...I'm not really paying yet since there is a 7-day trial.
In 7 days you can download a lot with a 6Mbs connection. And even after that, $10 USD per month is not that much, as long as FairUse4WM still works. I'll cancel when FairUse4WM stops working, or until I run out of hard drive space! :-)
In the 80s, a revolutionary silver disc was offered to the masses. A joint development with Philips and Sony. It offered 16bit/44.1KHz lossless audio. In many cases, printed artwork & packaging too.
In the 90s it became popular to extract said discs and use them with computers. They offered the best mass-market audio experience. The discs could be ripped to any format the customer desired. Flavour-of-the-month, lossless FLAC, mp3, Ogg Vorbis, etc.
The choices were unlimited. Free software from the net and more recently, open codecs have heavily influenced audio hardware development.
Oh wait these discs still exist. So does the software.
The excitement about removing Digital Rights Restrictions from sub-par expensive lossy audio tracks is what, exactly?
yes tekdroid
and in the 2000's as digital media gained prevelance, the volume of media in an individuals collection increased greatly. As such, consumption patterns have changed - more content, refreshed faster.
Compressed formats fit consumers desires to have more music delivered faster. Through both legal and (questionably) illegal means, users can now easily obtain an entire album just out of curiosity, for little or no cost. No longer do consumers have to buy/borrow physical media to fully discover new music, something optical formats will never be able to provide.
cos those disks now give you rootkits that prevent you from ripping the tracks... And they involve driving down to the local warehouse or waiting days for them to arrive in the mail... AND they are 80's, get with the times man! Not to mention expensive...
I might be alone in this, but I really don't mind lossy formats at all. Having music with pops, hisses, and non-crisp audio, reminds me of my old vinyls, which I've always enjoyed more than my CDs.
I'm not sure if it's about lousy formats, big brother, rights management, greed, etc. I believe that the market is what determines the price. When honest people steal music, it tells me that the music is not worth what it costs. Lower the costs, and people will pay for it.
Trying to control morality through software will always fail. Controlling it through price and quality will always win. I'm glad that there are people that continue to fight to destroy this kind of technology.
Companies can go out of business from theft, or they can go out of business trying to prevent theft, or they can make a lot of money by supplying a product that is worth the money. Make it worth the money and people will buy it.
"When honest people steal music, it tells me that the music is not worth what it costs."
When people steal music, they're not honest. Unless there is some morally exculpatory reason for doing something that contravenes your supposed morals, then doing such a thing means you actually aren't moral.
If you steal music for any reason other than to satisfy some moral necessity - e.g. saving someone's life - then you're not, in fact, an honest person. Deal with the reality of the situation.
Stealing is stealing whether it is music or something that will save someone's life.
So, it's OK to steal if it'll save someone's life?
This might get the Studios to look at other options like DivX who has a great install base of 50 Million DivX certified DVD players ,a awesome codec and an account based DRM solution .This works with rental content also .You are able to watch DRMed content on your TV quite easilly already ,Microsoft Just want you to know about it.Think Netflix done the online way .
Theres also the Coral Consortium who have a cross platform , inter-operable DRM Framework which many consumers are asking for.No More vendor Lock in .
For Music and Movies theres the great business model of Voluntary Collective licensing where artists are still paid and consumers keep file sharing .
https://vod.divx.com/
http://www.coral-interop.org/
http://www.eff.org/share/collective_lic_wp.php
All information should be free. Every time society improves, some people have to change jobs. Like the tire sellers on the AlCan before it got paved. Its pavement was an improvement. And for the people who had to reevaluate their careers, oh well- the greater good prevailed. Information is a much bigger field, but the same basic concept. When no person depends on any company for information products, society will be free. Until then, we'll be a remorseless pain in the rear. P2P: Power to the People.
If its not God, it's not a single individual, and it's not the government I chose to be a part of, I have no concern for its existance. And I mean you, M$.
Posted at 4:36PM on Sep 2nd 2006 by D2 [ ]
----
Compressed formats fit consumers desires to have more music delivered faster. Through both legal and (questionably) illegal means, users can now easily obtain an entire album just out of curiosity, for little or no cost. No longer do consumers have to buy/borrow physical media to fully discover new music, something optical formats will never be able to provide.
-----
Little or no cost, legally? At the same quality? Without DRM? I find them quite expensive considering you get:
1) your rights taking a back seat with Digital Rights Restrictions
2) Sound quality sacrifices. Any subsequent conversion to another (compressed) format results in more sound quality drops.
3) A whole bunch of suits looking to save money on manufacturing, distribution, etc offering ONLY lossy content. None of them are even thinking about lossless , and the more buy into DRM, the less rights we'll have to do what we please with our content.
Even rootkit-infested CDs can be easily ripped with the right (free) ripper and settings, with no harm done.
Closer fan/artist relationships is what these new compressed (lossy and lossless) formats are providing. But, every purhcase we make to a DRM-infested industry is putting real freedom (not the fake freedom we see above in this app) further and further away.
The sound quality has suffered over the popular 80s disc, back-ups still need to be made onto optical and/or HD formats. What's new here? What's new is we're taking a step backwards for a little convenience. A little convenience we can get with FREE TOOLS anyway...
FLAC, mp3, Ogg Vorbis, etc. The PC brings it all together, so I disagree with your assertion that "no optical format will be able to provide for these "new needs". Optical is connected to the net and computers just like HDs and portable audio are. In the end, it's all based on some sort of physical device. And it all needs back-up...
"All information should be free." I kinow this is a common mantra but, for the most part, we're not talking about information, are we? We're talking about entertainment. And even if it was real information - something useful in the marketplace of ideas - why should it all be free? You may have information in your head, something unique to you. Usually, you want to be paid to share that with others (e.g. your job) rather than just give it away, unless you happen to be independently wealthy and very altruistic.
"When honest people steal music, it tells me that the music is not worth what it costs." What it tells me is that their sense on honesty has eroded and they are not the moral people they think they are. Piracy is not part of the marketplace, despite those who claim that it reflects overpricing. Housing in my neighborhood is overpriced, so I must then be justified in squatting and using a house without paying for it? As long as enough people shell out the $ for the crap that is being peddled, the price will remain as it is. If you don't want to pay what the industry is asking for that crap, then you don't buy it - that's honest.
"Closer fan/artist relationships is what these new compressed (lossy and lossless) formats are providing." There's no relationship at all when the artist doesn't get paid. You just become one of the freeloaders who skulks away when the busker on the street passes the hat around at the end of the show.
Saying you are comfortable being a thief is one thing. Trying to justify it as moral is quite another. But, remember, if you're comfortable being a thief, you can't get upset if anything gets stolen from you by another person who is also comfortable being a thief.
"All information should be free."
This is proclaimed by those justifying pirating music, movies, video games, and software, even though none of these things qualifies as "information".
Aside from that, everyone who believes that "All information should be free", please post your name, Social Security Number, credit card info, drivers license number, ATM card number (with PIN of course), etc. I look forward to making use of that information that you freely provide.
>But, remember, if you're comfortable being a thief, you can't get upset if anything gets stolen from you by another person who is also comfortable being a thief.
Hey, I have absolutely no problem with anyone wanting to make an exact copy of anything that I own. Go right ahead. Their copying doesn't diminish my possessions in any way, as they are not stealing anything.
Likewise is it impossible for me to 'steal' music. My copying an mp3 doesn't change the amount of stuff that anyone has.
The honest fact is that people try to lease you music because they are giving it to you at what they consider a rental price. CD prices were more because you "own" the album, everyone assumed that this was because of the physical packaging, then everyone realizes they can make the things for pennies and that really they are just overcharging you. Bring in digital media, suddenly it's easy to have a large collection of music without paying a nickel. It's the other end of the pendulum, for years people overpaid and now they aren't paying anything. This is what the industry gets for breeding artists that have no musical talent who release CDs with one pop tune for the radio and 10 tracks of filler and selling it for 20 bucks. The quality alone has made CDs not worth the price for a while. People are discovering real music through this avenue, and finding artists that actually enjoy making art versus making money. The old industry heads have gotten so used to the pay now quality later game of the industry that they are losing their mind. The fact is that if you make great music that everyone enjoys, eventually you'll get paid for it in some manner. I find it hard to feel sorry for Paris Hilton or Britney Spears when their CDs don't sell due to piracy, because they are a whole lot better off monetarily than the people buying the crap in most cases. Music was born free in the beginning, out of a love of art and performed for free. There's no reason why all of these people have to be millionaires, and even if they aren't, and it forces the more ambitious monetarily to find another pursuit, music will be all the better for it because it will go back to being about the art instead of the money.
Same goes for film, sports, etc.
If you are doing it for the money, screw off anyway.
Maybe you have to be in a creative field to empathize with this situation. If you create something, you usually do it for the art's sake, but you truly hope to be able to make a living doing what you love. After all, we don't live in a state where all one's other needs will get covered off, allowing one to just concentrate on art for art's sake.
Each one of us (well, not Paris Hilton and the like) has to get a job of some sort. So, even if we don't aspire to millionaire status, we'd still like to get paid to do what we do. If I create something and someone else buys a copy of it and then allows others to get copies from her for free instead of having them come to me to get a copy, that's not a pendulum swing of the market, it's theft. You're not making the pie bigger (to use a Bush-ism). Someone is worse off - me. Despite the anti-corporate tirades, piracy does affect individuals, not just the corporate middlemen who each take their pound of flesh along the way. If you propose a new paradigm that fairly compensates the artist and cuts the cost to the consumer because it cuts out many of the middlemen, that's great, but that's not what piracy does. Piracy may indicate an overpriced marketplace, but it's more indicative of malnourished morals.
Posted at 12:00PM on Sep 7th 2006 by FREEdom [ ! ]
There's no relationship at all when the artist doesn't get paid. You just become one of the freeloaders who skulks away when the busker on the street passes the hat around at the end of the show.
----------
How is copying a CD *I paid for* for use on my walkman or PC, stealing from artists? My whole point was to say CDs are far better value than this tosh. Anndddddd, many artists nowadays can "do it themselves" and connect directly with the fans with these lossy (and lossless) files over the net. Without DRM. Without even supporting these suits feeding us DRM.
Looks like you've misunderstood the argument completely.
i love whoever made that
i'll happily eat their babies.
I must admit it is tempting to use this, but I mean if you cant afford 10 or 15 bucks a month for music you love, than you have a problem, go to a shelter.
I love the idea, my bad side is eating it up but at the same time I think... Isn't this goin just a bit too far? I subscribe to a service, milk it for it's trial, then go and remove the DRM... morally and i think legally too u are truly a criminal. you agreed to something when you started paying, then stopped and think the agreement doesnt continue? yes it does, because u agreed to that "service" that without paying you can't listen to the tracks.
With download services I think it's less "cruel", cause indeed when u buy a song u are really sayin that it's URS, and it is indeed URS, if you were to remove the DRm it would just be to use it on more devices which I think is ok.
but removing it so you don't have to pay for it anymore... just a bit criminal...
and i'll compare it too mobile phones, you can get em for the full price without a plan, or at a (very) reduced price but locked to a network and a plan. so u SIGNED a contract (which is rly the same thing you do when u agree to a license agreement) that you would pay the plan for that amount of time. now u stop paying the plan, remove th simlock and ignore the contract you signed, i can't see how legally and morally that would not be criminal.
if u download 100 songs on a month on these subscription services it can cost u about 10 cents a song really, can't we pay that? and that whole stupid stuff about information should be free, i really see a difference between art and information, so i should be able to rob a book from a store and say "information should be free!", and who pays for the making of that information exactly? and go to a bar listen to sum music, mayb a nice indie band, it'll be free, if you wana listen to Beyonce and Shakira that specifically put themselves in the "pay to listen to me" genre than i think u have to indeed go by their rules.
and if information should be free, how come you have to pay to go to school? it's very weird, it's the most basic form of information really, knowledge, still you have to pay BOATLOADS of money for it.
some information should be free, art doesnt have to be at all really.
why be a criminal? why can't we all get along :p
and don't say im a goody too shoes or anything lol, i love pirated things, from my PSP games to P2P programs, really i have no other way though, still live in the caribbean and it's hard to come buy legal ways to buy and download media, though that is changing. but i truly don't believe in agreeing to a contract than ignoring it.
A new version of FairUse4WM v1.3 Fix 2 is out. It removes DRM license from songs/music downloaded from Zune marketplace on Vista (for DRM IBX v 11.0.6000.6324)
http://thinkabdul.com/2007/07/15/fairuse4wm-13-for-zune-remove-drm-license-protection-for-music-songs-downloaded-from-zune-marketplace-in-wmp-11-in-windows-vista/