Viodentia responds to Microsoft, releases FairUse4WM 1.3

After yesterday's news that Microsoft was launching a lawsuit campaign against the John Does responsible for FairUse4WM, we weren't expecting the next volley to come so soon. So it's somewhat contrary to expectations that Viodentia has released the newest version of his software to counter Microsoft's latest PlaysForSure IBX update (dated 9/23, regarding the memo which we recently printed). We asked Viodentia about Redmond's accusation that he and/or his associates broke into its systems in order to obtain the IP necessary to crack PlaysForSure; Vio replied that he's "utterly shocked" by the charge. "I didn't use any Microsoft source code. However, I believe that this lawsuit is a fishing expedition to get identity information, which can then be used to either bring more targeted lawsuits, or to cause other trouble." We're sure Microsoft would like its partners and the public to think that its DRM is generally infallible and could only be cracked by stealing its IP, so Viodentia's conclusion about its legal tactics seems pretty fair, obvious, and logical to us. An American megacorp swinging around bogus indictments in order to root out a hacker? Surely you jest!

[Andy @ Sep 27th 2006 12:01PM]

Haha, way to go. Keep up the good work!

[Alexandre Ludolf @ Sep 27th 2006 12:05PM]

Viodentia, i�m your Fan!

[grandmasterdibbler @ Sep 27th 2006 12:09PM]

Shame Microsoft!

You just got ripped by an anonymous hacker!

Twice!!!!

Better get the, 'crack law squad of death (TM)' ready to combat all the evil out there!

[ND @ Sep 27th 2006 12:11PM]

Why are people still buy drm media anyway... doesnt everyone have an ipod + itunes?

[Guthrie @ Sep 27th 2006 12:15PM]

itunes also has DRM, and a lower resolution to boot.

[Huey2k2 @ Sep 27th 2006 12:17PM]

To ND:

Because not everyone is a corporate whore that bought into the iFad.

[John Doe @ Sep 27th 2006 3:17PM]

No because people like iTunes and at the time the iPod Photo was the only MP3 player with an 80GB hard drive in that form factor. Oh than and their accessory base. I think someone is too much of a damn fanboi to figure out that some people purchased iPods for more then just hype.

PS- I don't wear the white earbuds either.

[OlivierB @ Sep 27th 2006 12:49PM]

Where's the donate button for this guy?
Seriously, I like having a convenient online store rather than going on p2p fishing for some bad quality rip with bad tags, but I *hate* DRM.
Who would trust Microsoft now? Imagina all these poor souls who bought play for sure media that won't play on MSFT's new device (Zune).

If this guy can keep it up long enough, Microsoft may get tired or better yet DRM may loose all credibility.
This could potentially leed to free (as in speech, not beer) music.

[Molly C @ Sep 27th 2006 7:15PM]

"This could potentially leed to free (as in speech, not beer) music."

What's the *practical* difference? If "free as in speech" includes the right to distribute to millions without the creator getting anything, isn't that the same as "free as in beer"?

[LaSean @ Sep 27th 2006 12:26PM]

ND, when do you show up to the party? Media you buy from iTunes contains DRM (Apple's FairPlay). The stuff you rip from WMP or iTunes contains no-DRM. Without the DRM (Janus, Fairplay, or Helix) files are just naked codecs (AAC, MP3, MP4, WMA) that you can do with as you please.

[chaosrain @ Sep 27th 2006 12:19PM]

Sheesh...looks like Microsoft is taking a page from the US Administration. Make public statements that are less than accurate in order to sway public opinion in your favor, understanding that the truth is less advantageous to your public image than any tangential revelations of the fact that you've been lying all along. Morally reprehensible, no doubt, but in the age of the sound-bite and adult ADD, quite effective nonetheless.

Just another reminder that life's a game, the public is the referee and you can foul all you want if you do it when the ref's not looking. The key to kicking butt at the game is to employ tactics like this, where you become great at distracting the ref as part of the process of committing a foul.

[Robotron @ Sep 27th 2006 12:22PM]

"broke into its systems"

Wow MS I thought you had the most secure system OS out there? Better be careful what lies you sell.

[glacia00 @ Sep 27th 2006 12:29PM]

So lets say they didn't steal IP; this makes it legal to fill your hard drive for the price of a one month subscription? The Robin Hood fantasy just isn't flying.

The argument that is that because MS created a service that was possible to steal from makes it not a crime.

We can call it the Viodentia defense. Murder victims are to blame because they're so easy to kill. Rape victims shouldn't make it so easy to rape them. And parents make children that are too easy to molest.

[tenchi71 @ Sep 27th 2006 12:47PM]

But the analogy you are making is incorrect. What you should have said is that the gun makers are responsible for all deaths that accur when using a gun. Viodentia=Gun maker. Viodentia isn't stealing anything. They just make a tool that can be used for nefarious things. Of course, our DMCA makes this illegal, but I bet Viodentia is overseas somewhere...

[ROBOGAMERX @ Sep 27th 2006 12:34PM]

i have been following this story,because i knew it would get ugly.not because im one of the suckers being taken advantage of by this product.i dont even like or listen to music.i would rather spend my life educating myself,instead of entertaining myself.
the entire entertainment industry is just mind-fucking everybody.its only a distraction from the real world,and the real problems..

its a damn shame people pay more attention to hollywood,than they do to washington.

you have all been brainwashed,mith melodies,and shiny moving pictures. while the powers that be exploit you.
media has you convinced that the "war" is exactly that,you are all wrong its a hostile take-over.

just like the many that ms is responsible for.

bill gates is like that school yard bully,that gets away with taking lil kids lunch money,for a long time ,then one day he picks on the wrong kid and gets beat up,then tells!

i dont feel sorry for him!
does bill feel sorry for all the people tricked into buying windows m.e. ?
i didnt think so.

viodentia,who ever you are,keep it up,
your my hero!!

[Killian @ Sep 27th 2006 12:54PM]

what are you talking about? Music was created by the government to distract us from the war in Iraq? What?

[Killian @ Sep 27th 2006 12:57PM]

also, he can't be your hero, he listens to MUSIC! The horror! he is just being brainwashed and mind-fucked!

[Rick Lyon @ Sep 27th 2006 12:39PM]

I love when the little guy sticks it to the man and the man gets mad and tries to use his powers to crush the little man only to get smacked in the face again.

Keep it up!!

[disciple83 @ Sep 27th 2006 12:43PM]

@chaosrain,

the government is run by Microsoft. Duh. How do you think the whole spot about leaking CIA prison sites and faulty evidence of WMDs and "who shot JFK?" (that might be pushing it), thing came about? It's cuz Viodentia stole their IP and told foreign Fox News, courtesy of Microsoft's faulty security. Shouldda got a Linux box there Uncle Sam.

Anyway, I think what Viodentia is doing is really a good thing. Call it Robin Hood or not, I think that the exploits found in the DRM being brought into public light only show the general public what exactly is going on with their secure music that they assume they are buying. Its helping them to understand that their music is so secure that even they can't play it when they want to. Eventually, the Man is gonna come to understand that the people want to buy music, really, I do, so that we can all walk down the street with a good song in our ears and a clean conscience. It's just that with these ridiculous standards and guidelines being forced upon the product, it makes is totally not worthwhile.

[hugoliva @ Sep 27th 2006 12:47PM]

Man, i'm naming my first son Viodentia!
Long Life Viodentia

[greatsunjester @ Sep 27th 2006 12:51PM]

Well -- if MS is using that an an excuse I assume they are ready to publicize the dates their system was compromised?

IANAL (thank god!) They will certainly need to in order to "prove" the John Does had the code.

[tekdroid @ Sep 27th 2006 12:55PM]

ND @ Sep 27th 2006 12:09PM

Why are people still buy drm media anyway... doesnt everyone have an ipod + itunes?
--------
By default, iTunes rips your CDs in AAC format. You can change it to mp3 if you like. Both are DRM-free (although both are known as lossy; less-than-CD quality files). That's when ripping your own CDs.

However, tunes bought from the iTunes store is a Digital Rights Restricted version of AAC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay
"Every file bought from the iTunes Store with iTunes is encoded with FairPlay. It digitally encrypts AAC audio files and prevents users from playing these files on "unauthorized" computers."

Read under "Restrictions" on the same page to get the details. To many, these are no big deal. But what if you want to transfer your bought tunes to another player sometime in future? Then you're stuck with quality losses converting your 'protected' FairPlay tracks and/or stripping the Digital Rights Restrictions off them to get them to play in anything other than an iPod.

Tracks can be burned to CD and ripped again, but they will only sound as good as the original AAC file, which is less-than-CD quality to start with. Ripping it again from the CD to mp3 or AAC, will make the sound quality even worse (it's like making a photocopy of a photocopy) - it has gone through two lossy operations.

So, really...what you are buying is tracks worse than CD for around the same price, or more, with playback restrictions (non-iPods will not be able to play your 'protected' iTunes-bought music without some sort of quality loss/conversion or DRM-stripping), no real packaging, and in a proprietary lossy format.

This is different from a lossless file - like FLAC or WavPack (or even Apple's lossless format). These formats retain every bit of info from the actual track or CD, but take longer to download and take more space to store. But you are getting identical CD quality and no restrictions and the easy ability to convert to whatever lossless or lossy file you desire (on virtually any operating system you desire, and for no cost), at the bitrate you desire, with free tools, anytime in the future. And has no Digital Rights Restrictions like FairPlay or PlaysForSure, etc.

Not everyone has an ipod. Some buy players that require no software to be installed to get music on and off their players with ease (on virtually any relatively modern operating system) using royalty and licence-free open source codecs that sound better and have no restrictions like Apple's FairPlay - which really isn't FairPlay, IMO (or CD quality).

So, my opinion is all these online sales are a backwards step from the compact disc on so many levels that it's really not funny. And a backward step for artists, too. Huge savings in distribution and packaging, only to be pocketed by the record companies and Apple, with the artists getting precious little (which is business as usual, even with major label releases on CD).

[NuttyBars @ Sep 27th 2006 1:03PM]

The release of the latest version of FairUse4WM is an amazing shot over the bow of Microsoft. The speed at which the latest version was cracked shows that the emperor wears no clothes.

[ROBOGAMERX @ Sep 27th 2006 1:03PM]

to killian;
comments like that remind me of my first wife.

[glacia00 @ Sep 27th 2006 1:10PM]

tenchi71, I'm guessing one of the first things he did was pay $10 and fill his hard drive with thousands of songs. So maybe the better analogy is he shot someone, then handed the gun off to thousands of others who also wanted to kill someone.

Or maybe it's more like someone from another country who hates America creates a weapon then trains others to kill Americans and stays safely out of legal reach all the while blaming the victims that were killed...

[Oozer @ Sep 27th 2006 2:03PM]

You're making a blatant mistake in your logic. You do realize that this program can be used for other things other than de-DRMing subscription files, right? Like, for instance, a track I bought, legally, from the Walmart music store (the iTunes Store didn't have it). I'd like to put it on my iPod, but of course, it's not possible to do it losslessly. I'd have to burn it to CD and then rip it, or use a program to record the audio, both of which introduce quality loss. With FairUse4WM, I can get back a file that is the same quality, and, with minimal quality loss, encode it such that my iPod will play it. And no CD had to be sacrificed for it. I'm transferring to the iPod a song I bought completely legally, no piracy involved. A PlaysForSure music player is out of the question because I get quite a few songs from the iTunes music store, while this particular song is the only one I have from a non-iTunes music store. You're using the logic that because some one hurts some one else with a baseball bat, than all people who own baseball bats are violent criminals. You're not taking into account that most people do not use the bat (or the program) for that activity.

[tenchi71 @ Sep 27th 2006 3:04PM]

@Oozer
Thank you. I'm in the same boat. I own 2 iPod's, and I buy songs online. Sometimes I can't find a song I want in iTunes. Before, I was SOL. Now FairUse4WM gives me several other options to choose from. DRM is what was holding me back from actually spending more money!

@glacia

Jeeze... keep spreading the FUD why don't you. You're beginning to sound like our leaders...

DRM is anti-consumer. Period. That much is obvious. Just look at the steps I need to take now in order to listen to music that I PAID for, and to listen to it the way I want to! It's ridiculous that this has been criminalized by the DMCA. It's the same kind of FUD as your posting that the **AA's used in order to get these bull crap anti-consumerist laws passed in the first place. I look forward to the day when the media industry collapses under it's own wieght. Then we'll finally get an industry that actually serves it's customers instead of the one we currently have, one that treats them like criminals while raping our wallets.

[SlyEcho @ Sep 27th 2006 4:27PM]

He's said before that he lives somewhere where he can't subscribe to these kind of services.

[Dave95 @ Sep 27th 2006 1:14PM]

Microsoft > RIAA =

Does this mean the RIAA can take a back seat to Micro (big Brother) soft?

[aL P @ Sep 27th 2006 1:25PM]

Instead of V for Vendetta. ITS V for Viodentia!

[Pood @ Sep 27th 2006 1:49PM]

Are the people who download this program gonna get sued?

[disciple83 @ Sep 27th 2006 1:55PM]

Your first wife huh ROBOGAMERX? Didn't see that one coming... Was she brainwashed, too? Maybe she enjoyed a good opera or musical about the freedom of the press or protection against privacy invasion? That's music too you know. If you are so bent on educating yourself instead of entertaining yourself, why in the hell would you read engadget, it's not educating, it's geek porn.! Don't you know they work with Microsoft machines? They probably have swank little ceiling speaker systems that play elevator music or something, just bent on brainwashing us all as they too have been.

[ROBOGAMERX @ Sep 27th 2006 3:50PM]

well i guess i read engadget because i like the geek pr0n too,duh.

and what reminds me of my first wife,was how she would be too stuid to understand what i was saying and she would twist it all around so she could feel clever with a statement that proved otherwise.

damn sheep

[Molly C @ Sep 27th 2006 7:20PM]

But iPod doesn't support WMA, so you don't get "lossless" conversion into a format that iPod understands, regardless of whether you stripped the DRM.

[whatevas @ Sep 27th 2006 2:13PM]

Viodentia, YOU ARE MY HERO! I love you man!

[Matt @ Sep 27th 2006 3:23PM]

I have files that I have purchsed legaly from a al la carte online store that where issued the incorrect licences from the stores DRM processor .Now I can look at every liciece that I have and contact the support department of the online store via email who would in turn contact thier DRM processor to fix the licnence .This process could take up to 5 days to resolve as it has in the past .

Or I can fire up FU4WM and fix the files myself and not worry about any incorrect media usage rules .

[glacia00 @ Sep 27th 2006 3:06PM]

Oozer, not sure who that's aimed at but if it's me then you missed the point. To use your own analogy I'm saying that the people bashing heads are wrong and if the maker of the bat started out bashing heads then he's wrong too.

Also you essentially stripped the DRM from the file to get it on your ipod. You 'might' be able to claim you slipped through a legal loophole but not even you can make a broad claim that most people are using the software ONLY for files they've paid for individually.

So back to you - do you concede that someone using this software to strip DRM from files acquired from a subscription service are breaking the law? If (like many people posting here) you don't then your argument and analogy really fall apart because you're saying every use of it is leagl.

[tenchi71 @ Sep 27th 2006 3:14PM]

@glacia00

By your account, then the VCR and DVR should have been illegal too. It COULD have been used mostly to steal copyrighted material. I wonder how many times you hit the record button on your VCR or DVR to watch something on cable later on or over and over again? Cable's a subscription service, no? What's the difference? What we are arguing here is in the name of the application: Fair Use.

[Molly C @ Sep 27th 2006 7:29PM]

@glacia
"So back to you - do you concede that someone using this software to strip DRM from files acquired from a subscription service are breaking the law?"

The question wasn't directed at me, but here's my take on it. I don't know what the law says, but from a morality standpoint, I don't have a problem with people stripping DRM off protected content (so they can play the content on devices that don't work with the particular DRM involved) as long as they 1.) don't distribute the non-DRM versions to anyone else and 2.) they throw away all non-DRM versions of content they obtained via a subscription service the moment that they terminate their subscription.

[glacia00 @ Sep 27th 2006 5:37PM]

tenchi71, if you don't like DRM don't buy it. And if it's a subscription service you didn't buy it. Those really seem to be an impossibly difficult concepts for some.

FUD?????? What are you babbling about George W. I couldn't care less what people feel emotionally about this. I only started commenting on this issue because people were making absurd and factually incorrect claims. If people fear corrections to their misconceptions they should post them.

As I've said to several other people spinning out of control over this I'm no fan of MS, DMCA, RIAA or any of a hundred other acronyms but to argue that you somehow have a right to fill your hard drive for $10 using this software is pretty absurd. You can claim it all you like and it still doesn't make it so.

[Rob @ Sep 27th 2006 6:09PM]

but glacia00, the ability to commit a crime and committing the crime are two totally different things! You seem to be totally obsessed with the idea that having the ability to commit it means you will, which is clearly ridiculous.

If I'm not committing a crime, then it doesn't matter if I have the ability to. I have the ability to commit loads of crimes, as does everybody.

And as other people have said, we aren't even particularly talking about subscription services here - ok, so you CAN rip off a subscription service, but there are ways to do that anyway. So what?

How about wippit.com? you pay per month, not per track, but it isn't a subscription service. Some of the stuff is MP3 and I can do what I like with it. Some of the stuff is DRMed WMA, which I can write to a CD and then legally rip back to MP3. I've had to do that in the past because I have plenty of devices that can't handle DRMed WMA (and actually the wippit licence server is down more than it is up which actually regularly prevents me from buying the content I've bought!) FairUse4WM would simply make this a much simpler process but without wasting a CD in the process, whilst leaving me with the best quality I can get under the circumstances...

[John Doe @ Sep 27th 2006 3:26PM]

Ummm a 60GB hard drive that is. :-

Note to self: read before you post.

[James @ Sep 27th 2006 3:30PM]

im still using the first version. lol

[tekdroid @ Sep 27th 2006 3:44PM]

it simply comes down to this: don't want DRM? Don't buy it. Don't want sub-par lossy audio? Don't buy it.

People circumventing DRM and claiming some sort of victory over the very corporations they feed with their hard-earned dollars is nonsense, IMO.

Frankly, I'd be happier if FairUse4WM wasn't released; Microsoft's Digital Rights Restrictions could not be circumvented and less people would be feeding the very beast they speak out against.

With every single purchase, you're suppporting them. Whether you strip the DRM or not, with every purchase you are guaranteeing a DRM future - and you are giving Microsoft another reason to continue the fight. So you're shaping your own audio / video future. Want DRM gone for good? Simply don't buy it. It will cease to exist - guaranteed - without customer support.

Don't want DRM? Don't buy it. It really is that simple. This software workaround by Viodentia is no doubt a piece of highly-skilled work, but it is a very short-sighted way to think you're 'sticking it to the man'; nothing more. And nothing could be further from the truth. You're feeding the beast with every purchase, and I wish this would be discussed more than it is.

[bonch @ Sep 27th 2006 4:00PM]

@Huey2k2:

"Because not everyone is a corporate whore that bought into the iFad."

Man, you're such an individual!� I bow to your hip rebellion against good technology.

I'm not a "corporate whore" just because I bought the best music player out there and use the best media jukebox software.� For an "iFad," it's lasted half a decade and going strong.� Unlike PlaysForSure...

[ROBOGAMERX @ Sep 27th 2006 4:18PM]

@bonch

you sound like a person with an unhealthy attachment to his gadgets.
i know,your just defending your investment.
but let me ask you this,a hundred years from now what good will it do you?

[derek @ Sep 27th 2006 4:57PM]

ha! i knew it! i knew he would do another after that!

[glacia00 @ Sep 27th 2006 6:53PM]

tenchi71, bad analogy. The better analogy would be subscribing to HBO and then using a piece of software to DL HBOs entire movie collection and canceling the service.

What many people are arguing is that in spite of the fact that they bought a limited lisence to use the content and not the content itself they should be able to change the terms of the deal after the fact. You can do it but there's no way to spin this to make it legal.

[Kris @ Sep 27th 2006 5:52PM]

HA! Take that DRM. Micro-analyze the implications all you want, but it's still a victory in my book.

[glacia00 @ Sep 27th 2006 6:54PM]

Rob. Point to where I said the ability to commit it means you will? You can't so moving on, And frankly I'm one of the very few here not obsessing.

Like it or not no matter how you get the content you're not buying the content. In fact even when you buy a CD you do not own the content you ALWAYS purchase a limited use lisence. Like it or not that is a fact and always has been. Notice that nowhere did I say "the ability to commit it means you will."

What I have said is, don't like DRM don't pay for it. Infinitely more logical than entering into a lisence agreement then complaining you don't like it. Like many people it sounds like you simply entered into a deal you didn't understand. You thought you owned the content and you never did.