FairUse4WM Breaks Windows DRM 617
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?"
Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
FairUse4WM Circumvents Windows DRM
Now, "fair use" is another argument altogether. I understand that, given the chance, most consumers will steal media without a second thought. I also think that the current DRM implementations are stepping on consumer rights. Is there a balance?
Yes. This discussion is left as an excercise for the reader.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 absolutely disagree with that statement. In fact, I don't think most people would do that even if it were not illegal.Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are people inherently immoral? (Score:5, Interesting)
I understand that, given the chance, most consumers will steal media without a second thought.
I think this is true, although perhaps a bit too strong. What's interesting to me is *why* it's true, because I've found that most people are quite honest. They wouldn't dream of stealing a CD from a store, so why would they create an infringing copy of the same content?
I think the answer is: Because the media industry has screwed itself.
I think the reason people don't see infringement as immoral is because they don't understand the social contract that underlies copyright law. And that's because the social contract has been trashed so thoroughly by the media industry that it's effectively invisible. Joe Average isn't stupid, but he's not an IP lawyer and given that he has never seen any copyrights expire during his lifetime, and may never see it, the notion that copyright is a tradeoff of short-term disadvantage for long-term advantage never occurs to him, because as far as he knows it's just a permanent restriction. Ask Joe who owns the copyright to Shakespeare's works and he's likely to think it's a reasonable question.
Since Joe doesn't see that tradeoff, he evaluates infringement in its most direct, immediate terms: Who does it hurt, who does it help, and how do those balance? Who does it hurt? Well, no one, really. Perhaps Joe might have paid for it if he couldn't copy it, but maybe not, and besides those musicians are already millionaires, so it's not like anyone is going to go hungry. The pain inflicted by the loss of a single sale on someone who lives in a mansion and drives a Ferrarri is negligible. Who does it help? Why, Joe. Not in any huge way, but it gives him some music to listen to that he might not have otherwise been able to afford.
Ignoring the issue of what copyright is supposed to do, Joe's moral calculus is compelling. Weighing a clear good against a questionable and negligibly-small bad, the result is a no-brainer. If you throw in arguments about what would happen if everyone copied instead of buying, the waters are muddied a bit, but since that's not in imminent danger of occurring, it's a red herring.
If the media industry wants Joe to feel some moral obligation to honor copyright, they should push to go back to reasonable copyright terms, so that Joe can see the value of the copyright system as evidenced by the flow of materials into the public domain. When there's lots of stuff that he can copy, legally and without qualm, he'll be more concerned about the propriety of making infringing copies.
Personally, I saw that evolution in myself with respect to software. Before I switched over to using primarily Free software, I had no qualms about copying software that I knew I wasn't going to purchase -- and that even though I was a software developer making my living from copyrighted software. When I found that I could do most of what I needed to without infringing, though, I began to be offended by the idea of casual infringement. After a few years of Free software usage, I actually get angry at people who illegally copy software, and I don't use any commercial software without paying for it. I also don't copy music or movies illegally. I do download TV shows, but only because I can justify that I could have sucked them off the cable, albeit less conveniently.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Informative)
I subscribed to Yahoo! Music Unlimited, upgraded my Windows Media Player, installed all of the patches and purchased a brand spanking new Creative Zen Vision last year.
The whole setup process was about two hours after the litany of patches and firmware upgrades, but it worked...actually very well...
Then one day, about 7 months later, it failed.
For no explainable reason other than "DRM is garbage", my player decided to play only the first song downloaded, and then claim that every other song was unlicensed thereafter. It didn't matter which track, the minute it skipped to the next one, everything was unplayable that was DRM'd.
You can imagine how abundantly helpful Yahoo!'s tech support was (not at all). So I cancelled my subscription.
Lets add up my total costs:
1-year Subscription (at the time $4.99/month, now $9.99): $59.88
New media player for subscription content: $399.99 (somewhere in that range)
Number of tracks effectively "rented" for seven months: ~150
Total Cost "the day the music died": $459.87 or >$3.00/tracks I didn't get to keep.
Sure, I factored the player into the cost and maybe that's not fair since I still use it for videos and music (and I would buy it again, today, if given a choice), but the fact remains that I had to buy a new player because only a select few are subscription compatible.
I won't resubscribe now that this tool is available because my guess is that Microsoft will have this hole patched before the week is out (Here's betting they don't wait until "Patch Tuesday" for this update, we all know where their priorities are).
So I have access to less music (legally) "at my finger-tips", but at least I get to enjoy the music on all of my PCs, my stereo, my two players, and wherever the heck else I can adapt the unencumbered tracks to.
It's amazing to me that something that was "standard" 100 years ago (unencrypted/encumbered music) is now the first feature I look for in music I buy.
What an ordeal! (Score:3, Interesting)
When they work perfectly, DRM schemes prevent you from doing many things with your media. When they don't work perfectly, they are infinitely more likely to erroneousl
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What if you were the teacher? (dumbass)
basically with Apple DRM *I* can do whatever *I* want to do,
As the GP said:
Oh - and congratulations. I've never seen a post disagreeing with it's parent backup the parents POV as thoroughly as you just did!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every class I've been to, the teachers have made all of their teaching material electronically available to the students.
A good teacher will show the clip during class, and have that clip available for students if they need to refresh their memory, had a conflicting class, dentists appointment, were sick (or just at the beach) (d.a)
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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?)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And how sad for a society that requires entertainment in order to provide education. If we can't teach without flashy shiny media clips then something is wrong, and it isn't DRM.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the people who are complaining the most and trying to find software to break DRM protections are the people who don't want to pay for the latest CD they heard on the radio. That is all that this discussion is about.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Funny)
Hahahahaha! Now I know you're trolling! "Educating" the "future business leaders of America" indeed.
You don't "educate" business leaders - you throw them in a tank full o' sharks & promote the survivors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For educational use is but one example. What if I want to remix a song that I have? As long as I do not re-distrbute the derivative work, I am abiding by copyright law. How do you think bands end up with material from sampled songs in the FIRST place? They don't sign a separate contract from the RIAA for unrestricted acce
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
Umm... No. People that Pirate don't give a fuck about DRM because they are already circumventing it and hence do not complain. These people are either using audio video hijack programs and analog loop holes and don't really care about quality as long as its free.
The people that are complaining about DRM are those who are getting fucked by it or can't buy online media because they don't want to have to be tied in to that companies DRM and loose all their music when the company goes bankrupt or a software glitch hoses their authorization key.
Its why I won't buy iTunes music... I really don't like the idea of a hard drive crash killing my music and I have to pay for it all over again because I had to jumps through hoops of fire to back that data up (yeah I could burn it to audio cd and then back again but each time you burn from lossey and re-encode to lossey formats from that cd you loose quality big time. Not to mention you will have to manually type in the CD track names over again).
Until I get unecumbered MP3 downloads, I won't pay for it online. I'll stick to going to the local indie store and buying it there and then ripping it.
On the same note, I won't pirate a song either because the music I like is hard to find and online music sounds like crap or cuts out at the end. I'm willing ot spend that extra money for the quality but at the same time I don't want to pay for it twice if something goes wrong on the technical side of DRM.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're telling me that you never played with Legos as a kid? or Barbies? Or Lincoln Logs? Or the little games where you stick shapes into their corresponding holes? Did your teacher never read you books in class? Did you never sing songs for a school concert? Did you ever watch Donald in Mathmagic Land [imdb.com]?
I know I did all these things in school. In fact, I'm sure I learned just about everything from playing games (entertainment), watching movies (entertainment), and listening to/singing songs (entertainment).
In fact, short of a direct brain interface, not sure how you would teach children anything if you couldn't entertain them in the process. They just wouldn't pay attention. Heck, the only reason I practiced multiplication tables was to win our math races... and we spent a week during our poetry unit in Junior english listening to and analyzing song lyrics (The Sound of Silence and Stairway to Heaven included)... and I expressly remember singing along to that Kokomo song (by the Beach Boys) in first grade at a school play... it would've been a shame if the RIAA had shown up then and busted poor Mrs. Sanderson for playing it...
How sad society would be if our kids had to learn without entertainment...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Incorrect.
DRM hasn't seemed to hinder the p2p networks at all, I can't imagine it doing so in the future.
DRM only inhibits legitimate users of content.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To refresh everyone's memory...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the people who are complaining the most and trying to find software to break DRM protections are the people who don't want to pay for the latest CD they heard on the radio.
Perhaps true, definitely irrelevant. The fact is that copyright law contains some important exceptions that are completely ignored by DRM implementations. What that means is that "It prevents copyright infringement" is not a valid defense of DRM, because it also prevents non-infringing copies. DRM is not a technological implemen
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You aren't interpreting that quote correctly: the works must be science or useful art. The "promote" part is there to explain why congress is allowed to pass intellectual property laws, and does not impose any criteria on the nature of the works themselves.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:
(1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by mea
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
That one sentence manages to sum up the exact reason why DRM-encumbered western societies of the future will find themselves severely outclassed by those cultures that can manage to maintain a free exchange of ideas. While the other cultures continue to develop, we're setting up to fire (and even jail) our teachers.
And all just because a bunch of suits find this to be an opportune way to guarantee their own profits.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
Doug,
The point is that if DRM continues to creep into our world, there won't much music/video/etc available that come with a use agreement that I can abide by.
Beyond personal use, those who oppose DRM do so realizing that this is in part a struggle of how we want our society to operate- more open and free, or more closed and proprietary. More broadly, it's a struggle/conversation/battle/whatever about how best to distribute rights between content creators and consumers.
So while I don't endorse violating copyright law any more than I endorse violating any law, I do endorse getting copyright law modified to benefit society more fully- or at least getting people to use copyright law in a more beneficial manner (eg Creative Commons).
Bottom line, I don't accept the 'just do what works for you' apology for DRM, because that's a sinking ship. I oppose DRM because it represents a value system that I don't like so much.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't.
Sounds like someone needs to read section 107 of US copyright law, which is titled "Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use" and states:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe your school doesn't use computers, or doesn't use them effectivly, but they aren't "just" for word processing and "myspace". It's important to think about innovative current or future uses instead of dwelling on ancient historical uses of computers in education.
DRM really hampers the flow of information in education. Since DRM is still fairly new, the impact has yet to be felt in any ma
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not like you crashing on my bed without my permission; this is like me wanting to put my bedsheets on my couch and sleep there, but for some reason the bedsheet makers only want me to put bedsheets on a bed, so it's illegal. Why would people not want me to put my bedsheets on my couch? I don't know, I guess for the same reasons they don't want me to play my DVDs in my computer...
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
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. :-)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it isn't. It is their music before they publish it. Then they have two choices:
If they choose option two, then they are making an agreement with the state that they will release the work into the public domain in exchange for a time-limited monopoly on distribution. This is all you get. You don't get a monopoly on telling people how they may enjoy your material.
If you want to retai
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
So even if you assume Morailty==Legality, legality does differ from country to country.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:4, Insightful)
NOW, the legal problem isn't the DRM. in the U.S., it's the DMCA which makes it illegal to break/bypass/strip the DRM. SO, DRM doesn't block fair use (just impedes it), the DMCA is what blocks fair use. So, again, DRM doesn't limit your rights. The legal backing (the DMCA, or your country's equivalent) limits your rights.
NOW, on top of this, any contract you sign can modify your legal right to act in certain ways. If you sign a valid contract saying 'I will not say 'thud' in your presence', and then say 'thud' in his presence, you may be contractually bound by any penalties stipulated in the contract, free speech be damned. Why? BECAUSE YOU LEGALLY AGREED TO LIMIT YOUR OWN RIGHTS.
Until proven otherwise in a court of law, EULA's and TOS's seem to be considered part of the purchase agreement, whether you like that or not. You have the option of attempting to modify the contract prior to ratification (good luck), or you refuse to enter into the contract, where the seller will likely refuse sale, as is his right.
So, reviewing, your fair-use rights are currently limited by:
(a) laws making protection removal/circumvention illegal (DMCA or equiv.)
(b) contracts your voluntarily entered into.
(a) is a tough one, and where the focus needs to be. (b) should be able to be determined by the fair market, but won't until (a) is taken care of. The majority of this topic seems to be that (b) is somehow the fault of the selling side, and not the buying side. But, as long as rule of law is on their side, they'd be stupid not to use DRM if it would mean more sales in the end. (which the Marketing dept currently says is so.)
The solution, if you can't change (a)? Don't buy DRM'd music, and don't give away your rights via EULA's. Yes, it limits your available options, but that's your choice. And (Chicken and egg) more people making that choice will give those options more market share.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can back up my media, but in order to do so I absolutely have to break the law...kind of seems like they limiting that original light.
Contracts should be extremely limited in giving up rights. Most contracts are already extremely limited when it comes to giving up a right...except when dealing with IP. That contract you agree to is inside the box, but the way the world works....you have to agree
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Interesting)
Helpful, yes... required, no. US citizens have a right to bear arms for a purpose of protection from the government, however it is illegal to use those arms against the government.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Headline incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, although what you're saying is complete common sense, it seems to be frequently lost on people making laws. I don't know if they perform some sort of lobotomy on you when you run for office, and disconnect the part of your brain that normally would say "Hey buddy, done a reality check in a while?" but it sure seems like it.
My personal opinion is that the pro-DRM argument smells a lot like the pro-gun-control argument, in that both of them put restrictions on law-abiding people in order to modify the behavior of people who frequently just ignore the law anyway; when you ignore the difference between law-abiding people and those who just don't give a damn, it's quite easy to descend into a "feedback loop," where in response to your last restrictive law not working, you pass a more restrictive one
Better analogy (Score:5, Funny)
Is there a mac or linux version of this (Score:3, Interesting)
Barring that is there any way to play WMA with the DRM 7.0 on liinux or macs?
And what will the french say? After all AAC/itunes drm, will play on windows machines. And apple even provides cracking tools for it's own DRM ( imovie tranlates it t
What do I think? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What do I think? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
ones and zeros (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:ones and zeros (Score:5, Funny)
No, you don't. What gave you that idea?
If only it were so easy... (Score:3, Informative)
As zoning laws apply to your property by precdent, licensing applies to the ones and zeros on your HD by precedent.
Silly nation of laws.
Re:If only it were so easy... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At least in the US you have this backward. Historically, taking land for private development was the norm for decades if not centuries (contrary to what media uproar after the recent Kelo v. New London case would have you believe). See Berman v. Parker, Luxton v. North River Bridge, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, etc. Even before the US was formed
Actually hope they fix this (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, information wants to be free and all that. But this service rocks. I haven't bought a CD since (probably not what they want to hear!) And it works fine with portable music players. You just have to plug it in every few weeks-which you can do to get more music anyway. Yeah, a bit annoying, but come singularity we won't have any limitations.
Re:Actually hope they fix this (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because YOU want to buy only doesn't mean everybody else wants to. Just like some people prefer to rent DVDs instead of buying 'em. Nobody prevents you from buying.
But I'd rather these services died a market death than a technolocial one.
Why want them to die at all? Because less options is a good thing? Perhaps you want netflix-like services to die too? Because people renting contents is a bad thing from your standpoint seemingly...
Then
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have Rhapsody and Yahoo Music subscriptions. I use then on occasion but my kids use those and the my Sirius radio all day, every day. Both of these services combined are cheaper then buying a single CD a month. One of my kids listens to the popular song of the week and/or month and has absolutely no interest in maintaining long term ownership of those songs (and I don't blame her) because in two months, she will be on to somet
Re:Actually hope they fix this (Score:4, Informative)
Or maybe you knew this and were trolling all along.
Re:Actually hope they fix this (Score:4, Informative)
Um, no they don't. I know because I tried yesterday (new HD, so reinstall and rerip of CDs). I ended up having to use EphPod to recover the M4P files from my iPod.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Actually hope they fix this (Score:5, Informative)
Plus, once you've gone past five times that Apple's decided your computer is different, you also lose all your music. Gone. Locked out.
Apple is just as evil as the rest of them. At least the "rent music" places are telling you up front that you're just renting and that you can lose the ability to play your downloads at the drop of a hat.
Re:Actually hope they fix this (Score:4, Interesting)
What about 10/20 years from now?
Have you ever picked up a tape/record/old cd that you used to listen to and pop it in? It's a great experience to be "teleported" back to Junior High or whenever...
When I buy music, I buy it forever (forever being a really long time of course). Yeah, it's cool to have a music service that you can download shitloads of music from _for now_ but 10 years from now you might look around and wish you had spent that monthly fee on physical cd's instead of renting ones and zeros.
Like I said... this is just my personal opinion... but it's personally the thing that keeps me from buying DRM'd stuff. I want to "own" what I pay for as much as possible... so I can do what I like with it and keep it and use it as long as I like. But maybe I'm in the minority.
Friedmud
Follow-up; Cory Doctorow on DRM at MSFT (Score:5, Informative)
This whole thing reminds me of Cory Doctorow's DRM and MSFT: A Product No Customer Wants [boingboing.net].
Re:Follow-up; Cory Doctorow on DRM at MSFT (Score:5, Funny)
-- Ravensfire
Also of interest: (Score:3, Informative)
Bittorrent breaks Windows DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing I could see this being helpful for are cases where the media is unpopular and there's a fair use need to circumvent the DRM.
Re:Bittorrent breaks Windows DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
But to me there is a clear distinction -- in one case, you're manipulating a file that you acquired (likely legally, since it's DRM'd). In the other case, someone is distributing a file that is a copyrighted work -- not fair use.
I don't want to get into the whole debate about whether copyright is Evil (tm), but from a personal liability point-of-view, I'd think it also much easier to justify fair use when you remove the DRM yourself than if you acquire a DRM-free version via bittorrent. Maybe not easier to justify it to **AA lawyers, but at least easier to justify it to yourself
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd love to see a law that would make the acquisition of digital variants of legally owned materials legal.
That is to say, if I own a book and lose my eyesight, I should be able to download a digital version of the book for use with a screen reader without having to repurchase my entire library.
The same should go for downloading *exact* copies of music I already own; my CD gets wrecked in the sun so I keep it in the jewel case for proof and download a n
Re:Bittorrent breaks Windows DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Good news (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad News (Score:4, Informative)
So you're still stuck.
Not sure whether the DRM schemes are related at any fundamental level, though; perhaps a break in one of them could lead to a break in the other sometime soon? It's really surprised me that they haven't been circumvented earlier.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
DMCA arrest (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt Microsoft will let this slide.
Cat and Mouse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
DRM doesn't make sense (Score:3, Insightful)
easy (Score:4, Insightful)
Information is public property, DRM is just a challenge
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Information IS free as soon as you publish it.
That's rather the point.
Your weak attempts at analogy creation fail to capture that one key element of the information actually under discussion: It's already being spread far and wide by it's creator. The creator actually wants it that way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are confusing two types of information. A song is released into the public domain. The rights holders release the song for all the public. What you are talking about is private information. It is considered a "trade secret" and can only have that status if it is never publically released. It's the difference between Scientology's internal writings (private, never printed in a book for sale to the general public) and a song that is offered for free to
Predicted. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
What is the future of rental? (Score:4, Interesting)
FairUse4WM is not a baddie (Score:4, Interesting)
But they didnt.
Marketplace Sets All Price & Terms (Score:3, Insightful)
My bet is that the media companies have done and are doing EVERYTHING possible to keep the "old pricing" at the top of their requirements for the sale of their products.
In the end, I predict the consumers will pay what they want to pay or not buy, and that will force prices down. Why should a person have to pay a premium for a DVD movie, once the first run week has gone by? Is a movie download going to be more than a movie ticket? Would people ultimately by more movies if the price were $3/movie?
I still think the consumer, collectively, will ultimately set the price, by whether he buys a single piece of entertainment in volume or not.
DRM is dead as far as I am concerned, because I won't buy content with it, so I have already voted. The media companies just don't know it, as they have not asked me.
What is the big deal??? (Score:3, Interesting)
And before everyone says, "Well you shouldn't have to burn and rerip", I do agree, but I would be burning for a backup copy anyway, not to mention to listen in the car that doesn't have the iPod adapter.
So can someone please tell me why breaking DRM is news, my CD burner and I have been doing it for years.
Woah.. Napster and Yahoo? (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, removing the DRM is more like making a copy of a DVD or VHS tape that you rent from Blockbuster.
I'm more interested in converting my iTunes m4p files (that I bought and paid for to own) to MP3 so I can play them in my car. This is illegal, and qualified as illegal before any DMCA. You're copying something you don't own if you use it on Napster.
A thoughtful response (Score:3, Funny)
Click... Save As...
What does the slashdot community think of this..? (Score:4, Funny)
Alternative: use stream capture software (Score:3, Informative)
What about Janus-DRM files? (Score:5, Interesting)
A little backdrop for context -
Like a lot of people, I travel a lot (commute to work, business trips, family, etc...). I have a Creative Zen Touch 40GB w/PlayForSure update that I've been pretty pleased with for the past year. However, last April I was doing my semi-annual reinstall of Windows on my Tablet PC. Being quite naive, I just assumed backing up My Music would be sufficient for license back-up -- after all, it contains the "My License Backup" folder. So you know, just going with that. Noooo sirreee, Rhapsody will have none of that. It informed me that each DRM'd file I had used with RhapsodyToGo didn't have a valid license or was corrupt. The only way I could get the files to update their licenses was to queue the files needing a license update for download, pause the download, then cancel the download. This worked great for files on my computer, but the licenses wouldn't transfer to my MP3 player. Additionally, my playlists were broken because of this mess. These inconveniences, coupled with the fact that I don't feel like browsing through Rhapsody's unresponsive IE-control and manually selecting the gigabytes of locked-up and unplayable files on my tablet and MP3 player forced me back to BitTorrent.
Words cannot capture how fucking frustrating it is to have a 5 hour drive ahead of you and be presented with a "No License To Play File" message when you try to play half the files on your MP3 player. No warning, no hint, not even a goddamn "License will expire in x days" message when I downloaded the file originally. Which brings me to another point -- I pay my RhapsodyToGo subscription quarterly, why the fuck should I have to update once a month? . Or put more accurately -- GUESS when I should have to update during the month, because that's part of the fun - YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT DAY THE FILES EXPIRE.
Anyways, I got kinda off track there. I simply downloaded MP3s and FLACs of the music I wanted and replaced most of the DRM'd horseshit, but certain artists (e.g., Robert Johnson, Blind Willie Johnson, Muddy Waters, hell even mainstream artists like Jeff Beck) are harder to find on P2P networks and BitTorrent trackers. So a tool which could unlock the files I've legitmately acquired would be really great.
If anyone from Microsoft or RealNetworks is reading this -- I'm trying to do the right thing, but you're making it so fucking difficult. It's almost as if you want me to pirate the music.
Download sites (Score:4, Informative)
Download link? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Good for Slashdot. I'd rather read some well-thought out comments and great links to other material on the topic than see the inanity that passes for comments at other places -- which you've obviously been a part of creating.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. And it's unlikely that it ever will. Reasons why below.
WMDRM stores encryption keys on the system that purchased the media originally, and then uses those keys to decrypt the content when you want to listen to it (and stores / encrypts them in a way that is pretty obfuscated). What the creators of this program have done is find a way to duplicate that process, but then just dump the decrypted content back out to an unencrypted .wma file that will play
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahh.. but the don't.
A normal recording contract requires that the artists sign any rights away to the music they record. Its the record companies that own all the rights to all music produced by the artist while under contract.
Actually most artists hate DRM as it prevents the free propagation of their music and therefore impacts the growth of their popularity.