Viodentia responds to Microsoft, releases FairUse4WM 1.3
By Ryan Block 
posted September 27th 2006 11:55AM
posted September 27th 2006 11:55AM
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!
glacia00
"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."
So you mean that when CD's become obsolete I will have to go out and purchase the tracks again in the new format? That sounds pretty absurd and far from fair use. I paid for it once and I'm not about to spend more money on something I already own just to get it upgraded.
The HUGE difference between iTunes and FairPlay is that with FairPlay there are subscription based stores. for for $9.99 I can download all 2 million songs in a fairplay catalog, and then strip off the DRM out of them.
With iTunes I own the song already, and don't have to keep paying.
I think it's why microsoft is so pissed, everyone is using subscription based model, which means you can keep all the music for free, for one price, and run up nothing but bandwidth fees for them.
I have been watching this DRM issue for years now, and like most here, agree that it both undermines the entertainment industry and makes criminals out of the wrong people. However, this new tactic to "break microsoft" is a little unsettling. Whether you are an M$ fanboy(girl), MacWorshipper or %nix Lvr, the unfortunate fact that Windows computers pretty much rule this country, protects our information, and runs our government should give us a pause for concern at the very least. I totally agree that hindering technology and the flow of information in order to make a buck is Orwellian evil, but where are we headed with all this?
Sanity, you are misnamed.... To answer your question - yes you will because no one is making the right argument. They're so wrapped up in crying about buying DRMed music then saying they don't want to agree to the licence they bought.
I have no idea how you translated what I said into what you said. At any rate - what I said - one last time - You have a limited use license when you buy any copyrighted media. Do you understand that when you buy a CD that you can't do anything you like with the content? If you think you own the content then by all means buy some CDs and start your own business selling the content and go to jail. When you buy a CD you get 3 things; content, license, distribution medium. You own 2 of those the license and the distribution medium NOT THE CONTENT. (not yelling just to emphasize the point.
This entire problem is wrapped up in the fact that true content owners movie musicians/studios/recording studios etc. had no way of separating the content (movie, music etc.) from the license to USE the content for personal use (which is what you actually buy) and the content distribution medium (albums, cassettes, CDs, DVDs). Because of this people like yourself have the false notion that you own the content.
You actually had much more freedom with a CD because the license to use was vague and you could do nearly anything except resell the content itself which is why the recording industry has had such a difficult time with CD ripping. Buy a CD. And if you break it lose it or whatever DEMAND THAT THEY REPLACE IT BECAUSE YOU STILL OWN A LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR CD QUALITY CONTENT. But of course no one can think that far ahead because they're crying at having legally agreed to a more restrictive license and dancing the content owners dance and cheering on this guy who has no fix whatsoever for the real problem instead of thinking for themselves.
Now - with digital content the 3 are separate. They sell you a much more restrictive license (not saying I agree with it but it's the recording industry's content and you're agreeing to it when you purchase it). You share the cost of the distribution medium; internet (not saying I agree with that either since we're both paying for 100% of the bandwidth of a single transaction). And the content is still theirs as it always was.
"I don't know what the law says," Don't feel bad Molly no one else seems to either. And as for the rest of your post I'm sure no one else would have a problem with any of this if people were inherently honest.
But the fact is we're not and I suspect many people after the first month on a subscription service ask themselves why if I have a hard drive full of music do I need a second month of this service.
And after canceling the service I suspect very very few people will actually delete the content. Do I have a problem with it? None. I don't care. It isn't my service and I have never bought a single piece of music or a movie online. What I have been saying has nothing to do with morality of it. I'm just saying that it can't be spun into being legal no matter the argument.
People are still trying to use the same argument they used for CDs and it doesn't work because they made a different agreement when they bought DRMed digital content. They're spinning out of control demonizing MS because they're too childish to see that it's the owners of the content who have the only interest in restricting use. Content owners are from a legal standpoint one step ahead this time and they don't even realize it.
what a load...