Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

FairUse4WM Breaks Windows DRM

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:47 AM
from the not-so-secret-any-more dept.
An anonymous reader writes "FairUse4WM, according to engadget, "can be used to strip Windows Media DRM 10 and 11". What does the slashdot community think of this development in the ongoing cat-and-mouse game going on between big media and what is available online?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: iTunes v6 FairPlay DRM Cracked 421 comments
luaine writes with an Engadget article claiming the cracking of iTunes v6 FairPlay DRM. From the article: "[A] new app called QTFairUse6 looks like it can now be used (with some amount of difficulty) to dump iTunes version 6.0.4 - 6.0.5 files of their chastely protection." At present this is a Windows-only tool for those who are "not afraid to get [their] hands dirty with a little python." Engadget does not provide a link to QTFairUse6, and neither will we. We've run several DRM stories recently, but it's been 19 months since Cracking iTunes' DRM with JHymn.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • FairUse4WM Breaks Windows DRM

    should read:

    FairUse4WM Fixes Windows DRM

    'cause it makes something previously unusable, usable. (Not that I will ever be using this app, I've never been stupid enough to buy a DRM encumbered piece of content).

    Oh - and for those hoping it stripped the DRM from WMV9. Nope, WMA DRM only.
      • by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenisNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday August 28 2006, @12:01PM (#15994253) Homepage
        Well just think about this. DRM is their way of saying "fork over your money, you'll get to use it on our terms."

        You may not have hit a DRM wall but that could because

        1. You're not an enthuiast
        2. You don't know what your rights are anyways [fairuse?]
        3. You're not doing anything special with your media.

        Try making a backup [shock! that's legal!] or a clip for a class or ...

        Try to watch that movie on a "non-approved" device? Try to listen to that music CD in your computer, try to ...

        DRM breaks otherwise valid products in a futile attempt to extract more money out of you.

        Tom
          • My God your nick is appropriate!

            I know well what my rights are. They are listed right in the EULA when I installed the various Music Stores.

            Then you don't know what your rights are - because all those Music Store licenses allow them to change your rights, without notice, at any time, for any reason.

            I hope you wouldn't accept the same conditions for your constitutional rights.
          • by Richard Steiner (1585) <rsteiner@visi.com> on Monday August 28 2006, @12:52PM (#15994635) Homepage Journal
            1.) I have over 12,500 songs in my collection. All WMA. All play fine on my WMA playback devices, of which I have four.

            My music collection is roughly the same size, but I use MP3 files instead. I have many more playback devices (two car stereos, two discman units, several PCs running various OSes, component stereo in sitting room, home theatre system in living room, and a boombox).

            2.) I know well what my rights are. They are listed right in the EULA when I installed the various Music Stores. They ARE NOT MY SONGS. They belong to the artist or the record label, right or wrong.

            99% of the songs I have in MP3 format are ripped from my own CDs. I also know what my rights are, and since I did not have to sign or accept a EULA I suspect I have signicantly more flexibility than you do in terms of what I can legally do with the music I've purchased over the years. :-)

            3.) Define special...

            It's a term I sometimes use to describe people who are willing to accept a severe curtailing of their rights and think the whole concept is a really neat idea. It isn't, except to the middle men who do the distributing, and both the artist and the listener get screwed in the process.

            It seems to me the only people that have problems with DRM are the ones that think everything should be free and the ones who do regularly steal music and software.

            I've been collecting LPs since 1976 and CDs since 1986, and I pirate neither music nor software. That doesn't mean I agree with DRM schemes or the rationale behind them.

            I also believe that some software is far more efficiently produced in a free environment, but acknowledge that proprietary software development has its place. I don't pirate software -- open source provides most of my new applications and utilities on all of the platforms I use, but I'll register shareware I use and purchase retail software when necessary.

            Face it: history is against you, and against those who would use DRM. In the end, DRM will not work. It's as effective as classic software copy protection schemes were -- only those who are legitimate customers are limited by them, and actual pirates typically have cracks to the various schemes within days if not hours.

            It's fine if you accet DRM and its limitations, but that doesn't mean *I* have to.

          • by Abjifyicious (696433) on Monday August 28 2006, @12:42PM (#15994560)
            basically with Apple DRM *I* can do whatever *I* want to do

            Well good for you, but please don't generalize your own situation to the rest of the world. I happen to have a Linux machine, and as such I can not (legally) do whatever I want to do with music I've purchased from iTunes.
          • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Monday August 28 2006, @12:48PM (#15994610) Homepage Journal
            basically with Apple DRM *I* can do whatever *I* want to do, I just can't give the same right to other people. and isn't that what copyright is all about anyway?

            I own some Apple DRM'd music, and I want to play it on my mobile 'phone, which supports AAC. I want to play it on my spare machine that runs FreeBSD. I can do both of these with AACs I've ripped from CD, but not with iTMS DRM'd music.

            it has never been legal for me to transfer rights to other people's work and that's all that (Apple's) DRM stops me from doing.

            If my musical tastes change, I can sell music I own on CD. I can't resell iTMS music. Transferring rights is find from a copyright perspective under the doctrine of first sale. If I buy a CD, I can sell it on. I have to delete all of my backups, but I don't violate copyright law by selling it.

            Copyright should be about the right to make and distribute copies. If I create something copyrightable (and I'm a writer, so this is not just a gedanken experiment), I have the right to restrict who distributes copies of it. That is the only right I have under copyright law. I don't have the right to say 'blind people are not allowed to feed it through a screen reader.' I don't have the right to say 'you may not read this from a mobile device.' I don't even have the right to say 'you may not photocopy a few pages of this book to read on the train when you don't want to lug the entire book with you.' If you want to tear pages out of a book I've written, or change the font of something I've written for online distribution, then that is entirely up to you; I don't have the legal (or moral) right to tell you not to.

            Copyright is a limited monopoly on distribution granted to encourage the production of content. It is not a right, and it is not a privilege; it is a trade. The state awards me limited rights in exchange for my relinquishing others (which I could retain by simply not publishing). We both win; I gain a method of producing income, while others gain access to the material I produce. By exercising copyright, I am agreeing to this; I am saying 'I wish to retain exclusive distribution rights, in exchange for publishing this work and permitting others to purchase it.' DRM alters this balance. If I publish a DRM'd version of something, then I am attempting to retain more control than copyright grants me. This is nothing more and nothing less than vigilanteism.

                  • And if the teacher is distributing content in violation of the law, then that teacher should be fired.

                    In many jurisdictions, there are "fair uses" for copyrighted material in an educational context. DRM ignores those fair uses - that's why tomstdenis used 'or a clip for a class or ...' as an example of how DRM can limit fair use.

                    Jesus Christ, I can't see how people can be so thick about this issue...

                    Yes - I agree with you there - but perhaps with a different definition of 'people' to you ;-)

                    How freaking self-centered does a person have to be to believe that their rights to pirate music are more relevant than the rights of the people who actually own the music?

                    How freaking self-centered are those who put the protection of entertainment over the education of our children?*

                    * (won't somebody think of the children?)
                  • by Gorm the DBA (581373) on Monday August 28 2006, @12:56PM (#15994668) Journal
                    "And if the teacher is distributing content in violation of the law, then that teacher should be fired."


                    But that teacher isn't. Educational use is enshrined in the Copyright law as an allowable use. DRM that refuses to allow this is illegal, as it infringes on a legal right.

                    Similarly, commentary, parody, and many other "Fair Use" exceptions exist, none of which the current DRM regime respects.

      • by hyfe (641811) on Monday August 28 2006, @12:11PM (#15994337)
        FairUse4WM is going to be rightly bitch slapped by Microsoft.
        It's only "rightly" if you assume Moraly==Legality.
        Piracy of software and music is still piracy and still illegal.
        Actually, in consumer-protecting sizzy-countries like the Scandinavians ones, where the rights of re-sale and free-use trumps contracts, terms-of-use and EULA's there's a good chance DRM-stripping is not only legal, but a civil right. Too bad we've never tested it in court (from the correct angle).

        So even if you assume Morailty==Legality, legality does differ from country to country.

      • Just because its not usable to YOU, doesn't mean its not usable to the rest of us.

        But I was talking about me! Neither my preferred music software, nor my mp3 player support fairplay *spits* music. To me it is unusable.

        Some of us don't have this fixation on the thought that software and music should be free.

        Strawman.

        I have a fixation that I should be free to listen how I like to music I've paid for.
        • by walt-sjc (145127) on Monday August 28 2006, @12:45PM (#15994587)
          The GP is forgetting a major issue. He doesn't have a problem listening to his music TODAY. What about 10 years from now? How about 30? What if MS totally fails in the marketplace for music players and subscription services, and you can't buy hardware / software that supports that particular format of DRM'ed music anymore?

          I have albums over 50 years old that I can still play, and due to the lack of DRM I can easily convert them into OGG / MP3 and play them on the latest music players. I can keep converting them and enjoy my DRM free music for the rest of my life. It's VERY VERY unlikely that the GP will have that same ability.
      • Some of us don't have this fixation on the thought that software and music should be free. Regardless of what you think, its currently not, right or wrong. Piracy of software and music is still piracy and still illegal.


        This has nothing to do with privacy. It has to do with being usable under the rights granted by fair use under the United States Copyright Act and similar laws in other countries.

        Under fair use, it is my right to be able to take copyrighted music that I have legally purchased and be able to play that on any device I own. That would include being able to burn music to CDs, listen to it on an MP3 player, convert it from one format to another (say, WMA -> OGG or MP3, listen to it on my PC regardless of underlying OS (i.e., under Linux or *BSD), sample it into my music synthesizer/audio sequencer, etc. DRM prevents me from excercising my legal rights.

        Or maybe you don't care about your legal rights... but one day, you will get a right taken from you that you care about. We'll see who's complaining then.

        • by SirTalon42 (751509) on Monday August 28 2006, @12:13PM (#15994359)
          What does DRM have to do with Piracy?


          One encourages the other. And I'll let you in on a little secret, it's not the one the RIAA wants you to think.
          • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday August 28 2006, @12:39PM (#15994538)

            Because that's the whole justification for it? If you can't copy it, you obviously can't violate copyright*. Any other reason why you would want in whole or in part to copy it is collateral damage.

            But you can copy DRM'd materials. You can make an exact copy, you can strip the DRM, or you can plug your speakers straight into a recording jack. It is an inconvenience to copying, but for the most part you can just download a DRM-free copy elsewhere and the fact that it is illegal does not matter if you're a pirate to start with.

            I thought the myth that DRM stops piracy or even is intended to stop piracy was debunked long ago by a huge variety of different people. It is useful to make things hard for the law abiding, not for pirates.

      • by |/|/||| (179020) on Monday August 28 2006, @12:46PM (#15994594)
        There is only one reasonable solution - you *trust* the consumer not to violate copyright law. *If* the consumer does so, and you catch the consumer, and you try the consumer in a court of law, and the consumer is found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then you punish the consumer.

        In other words, you can't force people to obey the law. Well, you can, but you have to have some sort of fascist state in order to do so - fine if you're a hive dwelling insect, but not acceptable for humans (at least not for me!). Write me a ticket if you catch me speeding, but don't put a governor on my car that won't allow me to speed. Lock me up if I bash someone with a club, but don't handcuff me at birth. That's the way it has to work.

        I understand that, given the chance, most consumers will steal media without a second thought.
        I absolutely disagree with that statement. In fact, I don't think most people would do that even if it were not illegal.

  • ones and zeros (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rjdegraaf (712353) on Monday August 28 2006, @11:50AM (#15994152)
    You have the right to manipulate the magnetization on your harddisk in any way, right?
    • by truedfx (802492) on Monday August 28 2006, @11:58AM (#15994232)

      No, you don't. What gave you that idea?

      • by rainman_bc (735332) on Monday August 28 2006, @12:09PM (#15994321)
        You have the right to tear down your home and put up a scale replica of the Taj Mahal, right?

        As zoning laws apply to your property by precdent, licensing applies to the ones and zeros on your HD by precedent.


        Wow. that's quite the analogy.

        I don't understand how one is related to the other. Putting up a replica of the Taj Mahal is (arguably) an eye sore, and should have community consultation before said replica is built. I don't understand the parallels you've drawn. I don't understand how doing anything to my hard drive has any affect on my neighbours.
  • by Noksagt (69097) on Monday August 28 2006, @11:51AM (#15994165) Homepage
    They've already written a follow-up: An open letter to Microsoft: Why you shouldn't kill FairUse4WM [engadget.com].

    This whole thing reminds me of Cory Doctorow's DRM and MSFT: A Product No Customer Wants [boingboing.net].
  • Cat and Mouse? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord_Slepnir (585350) on Monday August 28 2006, @12:00PM (#15994240) Journal
    the term cat and mouse game implies that there is a chance for the big media companies to win. For every programer that they employ to create DRM, there are at least 10 hackers sitting around with nothing better to do than to break this, and many of them come from countries that either do not respect US IP laws (Korea, China), or that do not have such insane IP laws like ours to begin with (Sweden). To be blunt, they do not have a chance to win at all.
  • Predicted. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by twitter (104583) on Monday August 28 2006, @12:06PM (#15994298) Homepage Journal

    Everyone knows the DRM is nothing but an inconvenience to normal users suckered into repurchasing music they have owned for decades in format after format. It had zero impact on wholesale media rip off, where "pirates" duplicate the original distribution medium. It's had zero impact on file sharing. Sooner or later, legitimate users are going to get fed up with format changes and eternal copyright. DRM is the last gasp of industries that depended on expensive physical distribution and government broadcast franchises to survive. No one else wants it and it's going away. Until it does, I've given up on their content. Big media won't be seeing any of my money till they make life easier for me and their artists.

    • by Daniel_Staal (609844) <DStaal@usa.net> on Monday August 28 2006, @11:56AM (#15994207)
      Come singularity I want to be able to buy music, not just rent it.

      But I'd rather these services died a market death than a technolocial one. Then maybe the media companies would realize that people don't want to pay for something continually.

      And, well, if other idiots think that renting music is better than buying than maybe they should be allowed too.
    • by Red Flayer (890720) on Monday August 28 2006, @12:05PM (#15994290) Journal
      I think the industry should start wondering who the cat really is.
      That's jumping the gun, a little bit.

      First they need to figure out if it's dead or alive, and whether it should be treated as both.

      Then when they are cetain that the cat is alive|dead, they need to figure out where they are.
      • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday August 28 2006, @12:07PM (#15994304)

        Granted, a better way to be would simply to have avoided buying DRMed music in the first place, but not everyone has that foresight.

        That would be better, if music distribution was not run by a cartel, repeatedly convicted of abusing their control of the market. I'd love to see everyone become enlightened and move to all DRM-free indy music, but realistically, the market will not properly counter a monopoly or cartel and the legal system and legislature are corrupt and easily bribed.