Microsoft drops case against FairUse4WM creator Viodentia

Hey Viodentia, you can come out of hiding now -- we have good news for you and the rest of the DRM-hating world. Microsoft has gone home with its tail between its legs, and very, very quietly dropped their lawsuit against you. (In official terms, they filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims with the Seattle Federal court.) For those not in the know, Microsoft charged Viodentia with "copyright infringement" after they showed the world how easily FairUSE4WM could circumvent its PlaysForSure DRM. Microsoft's reason for dropping the charges? Simply enough: they couldn't find Viodentia. Hey Microsoft, instead of trying to shackle those of us interested in the fair use interoperability of our music, why not redirect your substantial legal resources to negotiate some DRM-free music (and video while you're at it) with the majors? We hear EMI might be interested.

[Thanks, Steven J.]

[Philster @ Apr 6th 2007 2:13PM]

@ 7of7

WTF, dude?!

[Joe Smith @ Apr 6th 2007 1:27PM]

V for Viodentia!

[kingofwale @ Apr 6th 2007 1:43PM]

well, since even Microsoft is giving up on its OWN PlaysForSure DRM, why should they still be suing others for it?

1 more victory for DRM haters!!!!

[Dylan @ Apr 6th 2007 1:46PM]

Good for him, it must be intimidating having a corp like microsoft of your tail. Stick it to the man eh!

[Shunnabunich @ Apr 6th 2007 1:52PM]

Now watch Viodentia come out of hiding and Microsoft say "AHA!" and slap him with a fresh suit. :P

[Thataboy @ Apr 6th 2007 2:03PM]

If he "comes out of hiding," Microsoft can just refile. They dismissed their claims without prejudice.

[Nij @ Apr 6th 2007 2:11PM]

Pity Ryan Block didn't write this story. I'd have another opportunity to call him a hypocrite for claiming Engadget's gleeful cheerleading for FairUse4WM is only about getting rid of DRM when he constantly speaks on the podcast about how great this program is for stripping the DRM off of subscription tracks from Napster.

[Ryan Block @ Apr 6th 2007 5:52PM]

Actually, I co-wrote this post with Thomas, and I did all the legal research. Your comment, however, makes no sense. Where's my hypocrisy exactly? You don't seem to realize that FairUse4WM only works with tracks that have a valid license -- it's not a piracy tool because you can't strip the DRM from music you didn't legitimately download.

I believe in being a legitimate consumer of music, and I choose to get some of my music from Napster. I also believe that consumers deserve the best possible experience, and I don't believe wrapping music in DRM provides that, which is why FairUse4WM exists (and hence the name). So, what's the problem?

[carl @ Apr 6th 2007 2:14PM]

Even if MS is using newer DRM for the Zune, there are still some stores out there using PlaysForSure. But of the relatively few who are using those stores (as opposed to buying elsewhere or stealing), and the even fewer who know about FairUse4WM (let alone use it), it's probably not worth the time or effort to hunt down viodentia, despite his action's questionable legality. Sure he stuck it to the man, but I wonder what the real impact of his actions are.

[EngFan @ Apr 6th 2007 2:32PM]

"If Microsoft is unable to procure useful information from Google or Yahoo!, or if they run into a dead end at the ISP level, it will need to find some other means of identifying Viodentia. To expand the scope of its search, Microsoft would need to seek and receive further permission from the court. The present order gives Microsoft only 120 days to discover Viodentia's identity. Although Microsoft can seek a time extension, if it cannot name an actual person in its suit before Judge Coughenour's patience wears out, the case will likely be thrown out."

Yep, they were right.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/microsofts-war-waged-with-fairuse4wm/

[Chris @ Apr 6th 2007 3:29PM]

For a second, I thought title meant that they put up another suit against Viodentia. The liberal use of the word "drop" on this site messes with my head.

[NarfPointZort @ Apr 6th 2007 3:54PM]

HAHA, this article made my day!

[Anonymous @ Apr 6th 2007 4:27PM]

It's sad where it's come to the point that a corporation can file a lawsuit against a freaking alias, and then use all of their resources in an attempt to find out the persons real identity. This is why I'm pro-anonymity. The guy probably never posted anything when not on a proxy, and I don't blame him.

[LordJohnWhorfin @ Apr 6th 2007 4:38PM]

"without prejudice" doesn't that mean that they can bring the same case in front of the same court should there be some new information (such as... discovering the identity of the guy?)

[Molly C @ Apr 6th 2007 7:57PM]

Ryan, for a subscription service, you are only within your theoretical "fair use" rights if, when you decide to cancel your subscription, you THROW AWAY THE DRM-STRIPPED CLIPS. Do you understand that or not?
That's the difference bewteen buying a song and getting access to it through subscription.
If you buy the song, then you can strip the DRM and claim to be within fair use rights.
If you got the song through subscription, then you can strip the DRM, but you must throw away the song if you ever cancel the subscription.

You know damn well that 99.9999999% of those that strip DRM away from subscription songs have ZERO intention of throwing those songs away when they cancel their subscriptions. That you refuse to acknowledge this fact is what makes you disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Whether it makes you a hypocrite or not, depends on whether you do throw away your DRM-stripped songs when cancelling the subscription.

(Of course, in order to stay within fair use, one must also refrain from sharing DRM-stripped songs, regardless of whether you bought them or subscribed to them, or even if you bought a DRM-free song (e.g. EMI). This should go without saying, but I include it for the sake of completeness.)

[akijikan @ Apr 6th 2007 6:58PM]

I can't believe no one has said this:

It's a trap!

[Chris @ Apr 6th 2007 7:10PM]

FOOLS!

Without prejudice means that as soon as they find out who he is, they will REFILE the lawsuit.
I am currently involved in a lawsuit with one of the Microsoft lawyers, Brien Jacobsen.

Do NOT trust Microsoft farther than you can throw one of their big fat ass developers.

Period.

[Ryan Block @ Apr 6th 2007 8:06PM]

I don't appreciate your attacking my character, speaking in a belittling and accusatory tone, and undermining my "intellectual honesty".

I believe it's fair use to strip the DRM from any song -- now, whether you keep it after you cancel your subscription (if it was a subscription track) is when that fair use gets called into question. Ultimately, though, what people do with tools is their business and responsibility, not mine. But I have no problem advocating any practical and harmless means necessary to ensure the end user has the best possible experience with digital media when they are paying money out of their pocket for its legitimate use.

[Basketcase456 @ Apr 6th 2007 8:05PM]

So now hopefully it won't be too long before we see FairUse4WM 1.4

[Josh McGrath @ Apr 7th 2007 1:43AM]

word.

[Molly C @ Apr 7th 2007 8:23AM]

Ryan, the reason I used a harsh tone with you is
1. you played stupid and preteneded to not know what the OP of this subthread was talking about when he referred to your (potential) hypocrisy (and playing stupid is one of the cheapest debating tactics that there is)
2. I finally got fed up with your own sanctimonious tone on this issue, whereby you promote the right to strip DRM in the name of fair use but never ever mention your own responsibility to stay within the limits of fair use.

I hate DRM. I advocate Fair Use. But I also hate piracy, and I don't favor advocating freedoms without mentioning the responsibility that goes with it. The saying goes, "With great freedom comes great responsibility". And tacitly promoting the practice of joining a subscription site, downloading thousands of songs, stripping the DRM, then quitting the subscription the next week, is to advocate a practice that would kill off the subscription model altogether, were it done en-masse. I submit that you *tacitly* advocate this because you constantly promote stripping the DRM as fair use, but never ever mention that to stay within fair use one must throw away the songs (and any copies that the user made) when cancelling the subscription. Well, I don't want such a practice to be widely adopted because I don't want the subscription model killed.

I don't know about you, but $1.30 per DRM-free song is absurd. The subscription model, even with DRM, is much more pro-consumer (which you claim to be your highest priority). And even more so with the ability to strip said DRM (again, with the proviso that user throw away the songs when cancelling the subscription). So tacitly advocating practices that would kill the subscription model bugs me.

Your fair use advocacy would have a lot more credibility if you mentioned the limits of fair use as well as the freedoms. Fair use is not a one-way street.

This is the first time that I've ripped into you on this, I would normally just let it go. But your playing dumb when responding to the OP of this subthread prompted me to flame you. :p

Now, in your post, you say, "whether to keep the [DRM-stripped song] after cancelling the subscription is when fair use gets called into question". That's not exactly what one would consider an unequivocal statement. It seems that you actually think that fair use might indeed include the right to keep the DRM-stripped songs (and/or the copies that you made) even after cancelling the subscription. Is that your stance? When you cancel your subscription, do you intend to keep the DRM-stripped songs?

[hh @ Apr 7th 2007 5:03PM]

although you may have some valid points. your methods of discussion are too passionate and would seem offensive.
ultimately, it may be hard to be taken seriously.

[Blake Kachman @ Apr 7th 2007 12:52PM]

How did Microsoft have a case in the first place they didn't even create DRM, it wasn't thier battle to pick.

[rath @ Apr 8th 2007 12:44AM]

Actually, the EMI deal was not exclusive to apple according to http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=mobile_devices&articleId=9015898&taxonomyId=75

"The EMI announcement on Monday was not exclusive to Apple," said Katy Asher, a Microsoft spokeswoman on the Zune team, in an e-mail to the IDG News Service today. She said Microsoft has been talking with EMI and other record labels "for some time now" about offering unprotected music on its Zune players in an effort to meet the needs of its customers"

[pixelsword @ Apr 10th 2007 11:43PM]

Hypocrites. When Lucient puts the boots to M$, I wonder if the XboX fans realize that the XboX may be shut down for good...

[Kevin @ Nov 14th 2007 12:23AM]

Hey Microsoft why not fire some lawyers and hire people to make sure your products and upgrades work BEFORE you release them. This new Zune update is very random.... ie it doesn't work a lot of the time. I shouldn't have to spend hours trying to make your products work...... I hope Linux brings competetion to the marketplace. This is the first and last Zune I will buy. I should have stuck with iRiver. The Zune is worthless in comparison. The folks at Microsoft want to know way to much personal information.