Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Online Music Service For Australia

Posted by timothy on from the where-music-flows-clockwise dept.

arb writes "Destra Music is the first online music retailer to open its doors in Australia. Currently their catalogue offers over 100,000 tracks priced from 99c (Australian) and they hope to have half a million tracks available by mid next year. Purchasers will be able to burn the songs to CD and copy them to portable devices. The tracks are available for purchase through online partners, such as JB Hi-Fi and Sanity Online. In what is believed to be a first for online music retailers, vouchers will be available in stores so you will not need a credit card to purchase online." Sounds like competition for Bigpond Music's download service, and also dealing with DRM'd .wma files.

46 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Yes but what if we don't run Windows.... by miknight · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...or want files in .wma format?

    1. Re:Yes but what if we don't run Windows.... by caston · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "Tought shit" we don't have to use their music service either.
      I don't believe the business model of the future is selling tracks online although the licenses will be sold (ie for commercial broadcast or public playback such as in clubs) for artists that decide to charge for commercial use.


      Most music will be free for most people and the artists will make money through sponsorship, merchdising and concerts.

      --
      Beings aspergers AND pulling chicks... I enjoy the challenge!
    2. Re:Yes but what if we don't run Windows.... by FrostedWheat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...or want files in .wma format?

      Sample the music from existing P2P services, order the CD's you like from online store and rip to high quality Ogg/MP3/etc... Just as quick, they profit, you get better sound quality and no silly DRM.

      There is the matter of intentionally corrupted discs, but so far I've not met one yet that one of my CD-ROM's could not read.

    3. Re:Yes but what if we don't run Windows.... by hype7 · · Score: 4, Informative
      ...or want files in .wma format?


      then do what everyone else does when offered WMA files.

      Just say no.

      The first to take on Apple was BuyMusic.com in July. It expected 1 million daily song downloads. "We're not achieving that at all," says BuyMusic CEO Scott Blum. "I've spoken with my competitors, and we're nowhere near (Apple's) numbers."

      -- james
    4. Re:Yes but what if we don't run Windows.... by Technician · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My living room DVD player does play MP3's, and doesn't run Windows or play WMA DRM files. My portable Panasonic CD/MP3 jogger does not play WMA DRM files. My in-dash stereo does not play WMA DRM files.

      The industry is still stuck on pushing a new standard that is incompatible with everything except a few select portable players and a Windows PC. Too bad they are not listening to their consumers. That's another music service I can't use. It's full price for much reduced functionality. I don't do the in-car CD shuffle. That's why I RIP, MIX, BURN MP3 CD's. Incompatible formats are not supported. (or purchased)

      Get a clue. How about some high quality unencumbered music files. Evan and Dasani can sell water in bottles even though most people have water plumbed into their houses.

      You can sell quality music tracks even though most people have lower quality free radio directly broadcast into their homes.

      What most people do not want is high priced limited use DRM files.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    5. Re:Yes but what if we don't run Windows.... by shark72 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "DRM is not only taking away our freedom, it flawed by design as well."

      Not to be trollish, but the ugly fact is that when one says "DRM takes away my freedom," it means "DRM takes away my freedom to violate somebody else's rights." "Rights" being the "R" in "DRM."

      Unfortunately, today's laws say that only the rightsholders of a book, piece of software, or a piece of music have the right to say how it can be distributed. If a record company or an artist will only release their wares in a rights-managed format to protect their investment, that is, until the laws are changed, their prerogative.

      Can DRM be inconvenient? Hell yes. But if it comes down to the creator's right to control how their work is distributed, vs. your "freedom" to ignore those rights, the law will usually fall on the side of the creator.

      Anyway, what would change the music industry's stance on DRM is the success of a legal download service that offers DRM-less content. Launching such a service would require a huge leap of faith from the rightsholders, and it would also require that a significant portion of the subscribers to such a service follow the honor system and redistribute said content illegally. Unfortunately, the record industry has plenty of evidence (the widespread piracy on the P2P networks, for example) that the honor system does not often work well on the Internet.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    6. Re:Yes but what if we don't run Windows.... by shark72 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "But it does take away MY freedom of fair use."

      Exactly. As I said, it's an issue of their right vs. your freedom, and when both go up against the law, their right will typically win. This is my point. I am aware that it causes inconvenience. And, there are plenty of analogs to this: for example, the right to own property can impede your freedom to go anywhere you like.

      Just because copying media for your own personal use (to use on your portable player or in your car, for instance) is legal, if the rightsholder doesn't want you to do this, it's their prerogative.

      The good news is that the free market economy tends to take care of folks who put too many restrictions on their copyrighted works. I and many others refuse to buy CDs with copy protection, because they won't even work in one of my car's CD players. Music download services that have easy-to-live-with DRM (such as Apple's) will do better than services that do not.

      Ultimately, DRM is a compromise that allows the widespread legal distribution of content. iTMS, Napster, and the rest would likely not exist if they hadn't been able to give a reasonable assurance to the rightsholders that their content would be protected to a certain degree. Sure, we can complain about DRM being inconvenient, but it sure beats the alternative.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    7. Re:Yes but what if we don't run Windows.... by shark72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure thing. That comment was within the context of the record companies only agreeing to participate in the online music stores once they were offered the ability to release their stuff in a DRM-encoded format. If the technology purveyors hadn't developed DRM systems that were to the record companies' liking, the labels probably wouldn't have participated so eagerly, if at all.

      So, in short, the recent explosion in legal music download services owes its existence to DRM. I don't think the record companies would have gone for it otherwise. Having to get DRM-encoded files from iTMS may be inconvenient for some, but it's better than no iTMS at all.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  2. Napster by jcausey · · Score: 3, Informative

    Napster has been doing the voucher thing for a while now. That being said, "a while now" means a few months :)

  3. RIAA still does not get it. by argonaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet another nail in the RIAA coffin. When will the RIAA and other organizations realize their outmoded distribution methods and crazed sue little girls and old women tactics will not save their business? How many times must we say this and flex this opinion where it hurts them most, in the wallet?

    1. Re:RIAA still does not get it. by Green+Monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Huh? This service, and others similar ones such as Napster 2.0 and iTunes, are legal services that put money in the hands of the record companies whenever you purchase a track. So I'm not sure why this would be considered a "nail in the RIAA coffin" - the companies that comprise the RIAA are making a pretty penny off Destra Music, iTunes, et al.! People buying music from online vendors certainly isn't going to put the RIAA out of business...

      --

      Green Monkey

    2. Re:RIAA still does not get it. by shark72 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Very good points indeed. Just as it took several years for the recording industry to get the whole CD thing right (good remastering, decent pricing), online music distribution is in that "getting it right" phase. DRM and file format standards still need some tweaking, and I still think there's some room to move in pricing models.

      This is exactly why I'm not taking the "sky is falling" approach and shrieking about the imminent death of the recording industry. They survived the CD transition and they'll survive this one. It just takes time.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  4. Don't believe the advertising by femto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just visited the site and every track I saw cost $1.99. Presumably there is at least one song on the site that costs 99c, so they can say 'from 99c'.

    1. Re:Don't believe the advertising by cujo_1111 · · Score: 2, Funny

      There is a Fred Astaire track that is $0.99...

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    2. Re:Don't believe the advertising by CrystalChronicles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yup, not to mention the bonus content on some singles like videosclips, screen savers etc. It almost seems like RIAA/ARIA wants this to fail just so they can say 'look we offered a music service and nobody bought. we're going to have to sue more p2p software and lock the cd format up even further'

    3. Re:Don't believe the advertising by eclectro · · Score: 4, Informative


      For those that are curious, at today's exchange rate; .99 Australian dollar = .74 USD

      and

      1.99 Australian = 1.48 USD

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  5. Good idea, but.... by bckrispi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've always had issues with setting a fixed rate per track. A full movie soundtrack may have 30 tracks on one disk, many of which are brief ( 1 minute) segues. In this case, it would cost you twice what it would do purchase the full disk through retail. OTOH, you could grab some progressive rock concept album that has five 15 minute tracks for five bucks. Albiet, a great deal for the consumer, but perhaps not so for the artist.

    --
    Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    1. Re:Good idea, but.... by zem_11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not offer a whole album option? Say $10-12??

      Not a "mix it yourself" selection of songs but the same as you'd get buying a CD. That way both the many * short-tracks and few*long-tracks are covered. That way both the artists and consumer is happy... what you mean the label doesn't make much on the deal? Damn!

      In either way its a start for us Aussies ... in a few months other services will be coming on line. Til then I think I'll sit back a bit and watch the catalogues grow and hopefully the prices drop.

      BTW, I even saw a couple of free promo tracks, so its not ALL $1.99. Then again City Rules by Daniel Merriweather isn't my thing :^(

    2. Re:Good idea, but.... by lpret · · Score: 4, Insightful
      However, here in the US, we're starting to see new CDs under 10 dollars. I just picked up a Coldplay CD for 9 bucks (US of course). I find I only buy CDs now for the liner notes -- sometimes there are some good bits that are thrown in them.

      All that to say, if you're going to offer an album for download, you'll have to do better than 10-12 dollars. Maybe 6-8?

      --
      This is my digital signature. 10011011001
  6. The fundamental flaw... by doublebackslash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is a chink in their armor, the forced windows useage and new generations of file shargin under development.
    Newer file sharing protocols will be fully encrypted (making traffic mnitoring illegal at best),
    Be de-centralized to the point of being pure p2(No big intorduction server to take out, or central company to go after),
    Use dynamic ports and protocols that disguise their packets,
    Use spoofing, so that noone knows who is getting what file exept the sender and the reciver, and the reciever dosn't know where its coming from, and vice versa,
    Spoofing is in a round fassion, with multiple hops, and multiple agents seting up different hops, so the packet round trip is HARD to follow (I know, bandwith is precious, but if you distribute the send across multiple agent chains, this ain't so bad),
    And Searching won't reveal who has the file (more spoofing) keeping share-ers annonymous.

    This is the basis for something that I'm planing right now, long way off, but these are the keys to the next gen P2P network. Once in the wild, there is no way to take it down. =)

    I hope such a system sees the light of day.

    --
    md5sum /boot/vmlinuz
    d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e /boot/vmlinuz
    1. Re:The fundamental flaw... by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      OK, how about this:

      I'd just like to point out the fact that using encryption and spoofing addresses and ports are methods for hiding your actions and keeping secrets. Remember how Janet Reno said that they needed to crack down on encryption because it made it "difficult for us [law enforcement] to do out jobs?" Remember the Clinton administration's "Clipper" chip initiative to have the government keep copies of all our encryption keys so that they could snoop on whoever they please?

      These methods of hiding what we're doing will not bode any better with the RIAA than they did with Janet Reno's Department of Justice. Face it: the guys and gals over at the RIAA believe that they are entitled to collect money from us for music. They will hate this. I imagine that their push for draconian laws against techniques such as encryption would make their push for the DMCA look like a cakewalk by comparison. However, I hope that as they did in the past derailing the "Clippr" initiative, people will be able to see how this organization wants to restrict our freedoms. I believe that there are far more people who would be concerned if they wanted to outlaw encryption than are concerned about the DMCA.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    2. Re:The fundamental flaw... by marcello_dl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is the basis for something that I'm planing right now, long way off, but these are the keys to the next gen P2P network. Once in the wild, there is no way to take it down. =)

      To avoid risks of reinventing the wheel, try looking at GNUnet

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  7. sample music by shione · · Score: 2, Informative

    Their site still needs some work. I'm downloading a sample song off jbhifi's site http://jbhifi.destramusic.com/player/ and on Mozilla Phoenix its coming down as a html file. I should be able to renamed it as a wma file when its done so it shouldn't be a problem but it still something they need to fix.

    I wonder how restirctive the drm is on their wma files. AU99c is only ~US72cents so its cheaper than the US sites but as somebody already mentioned thats how much the prices starts from.

    1. Re:sample music by cscx · · Score: 3, Informative

      The web server is probably returning an incorrect MIME type in the HTTP header; IE makes a guess at the file's contents regardless of what the header says, while Mozilla variants follow the header exactly.

    2. Re:sample music by shione · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ah crap

      I renamed the file to wma when it finished downloading and when I right clicked it it said:

      Protected Content
      Can't play on this computer
      Copy to CD not allowed
      Copy to portable player not allowed
      Copy to an SDMI-compliant portable player not allowed

      When I try to play it in Winamp, it loads my browser and takes me to wiredrecords.com

      then I fired up WMP and it wants me to 'update my digital rights management installation'

      I'm using the version WMP that comes when you update XP with SP1.

      oh well so much for trying this 'freebie' out. I'll stick to un-DRMed music thanks

  8. Subscription or Per Track ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would prefer a subscription service where you only pay a monthly fee for unlimitted access to content.

    Most people think you can only have a streaming service for subscription systems which is not correct. You can still download DRM enabled tracks since sites could revoke the license if you didnt pay your monthly fee.

    This would be much better than paying per download. Companies only have one value to justify, that of the music base as a whole, instead of trying to establish value at each individual trak sale.

    1. Re:Subscription or Per Track ? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      emusic.com was like this. (Almost) all you can eat, $10/month, straight mp3 (no DRM).

      Sadly, they got bought and the new overlords downgraded it to same price, 40 tracks per month. I expect a LOT of people jumped ship. I know I did.

  9. The Cutting Room by CrystalChronicles · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If online music stores really take off, I hope this isn't going to encourage artists to make shorter length songs... On the other hand this could encourage artists to pack more songs on their albums, eg instead of having 30 minutes of music, they're make it the full 72 minutes, filling the rest with tracks they wouldnt have deemed worthy but would make the fans happy. It doesnt mean these songs are bad, for example, the Smashing Pumpkins had lots of songs written which didnt make it on their albums until many years later and it made their fans very happy. I'm sure other bands would have songs of their own which didnt make the cutting floor but they weren't popular enough to release them later on.

  10. Australian Dollar value... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1 USD = 1.35 AUD
    1 GBP = 2.35 AUD (1 GBP = 1.75 USD)
    1 EUR = 1.65 AUD (1 EUR = 1.23 USD)

    (Currency values taken from http://www.x-rates.com/.)

    So those 0.99 AUD downloads are equivalent to getting 0.73 USD downloads from the US iTunes music store. Not bad at all.

    The 0.99 xxx artificial price point is good news for Aussies, but I can't help but think Brits (and, to a lesser extent, continental Europeans) are going to get shafted when similar stores appear for us - 0.99 GBP is 1.62 USD (and 0.99 EUR = 1.22 USD).

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Australian Dollar value... by femto · · Score: 2, Funny
      afraid that one costs $1.99 too:

      Do Wah Diddy Diddy by Los Mustang 2min 18sec
      Cost $1.99
  11. Will these services be the end of lossless music? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Am I the only one who has issues with paying for approximations? If I'm going to burn it to a cd, there's no reason it should be lossily compressed just so I can decompress it and have a lower quality recording than if I had bought the cd. If all of these services offering lossy music catch on, the uncompressed cd you can buy in the store now may become a distant memory. You would think that the RIAA would love this just as the MPAA liked MPEG2 for dvd.

    Folks, the whole point of digitizing music is to prevent errors from creeping in!

  12. Re:Oxymoron? by blowdart · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well there's limited by IP address (unreliable) or checking the address of the payment card.

    A better question is why is music on-line limited to one area? The answer to that lies in the painful way rights are issued to record labels. For example, Capitol in the US own the rights to Beatles recordings, EMI own them in Europe. Setting aside that Capitol really is EMI, Capitol cannot grant the rights to sell "Let it Be" to a company based in Europe, only EMI Europe can.

    It gets even more complicated when you start looking at the copyright on lyrics, which may belong to someone else altogether.

  13. I'll wait for iTMS.au by rogerbo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    lemme see,

    * butt ugly interface
    * three pages of dance/electronic music with a grand total of 27 albums to choose from!
    * WMA only
    * no support for MacOS or Linux
    * no indie music

    And why would I be interested again?

    Rather than just stocking the stuff you can buy in any mall why don't online music retailers specialise in stuff that is hard to find? Eg set up international music store per genre eg a psytrance store that sells globally. I can't walk into a record store and buy this stuff cause no one in Sydney stocks it so I either have to steal it off soulseek or order physical CD's from overseas retailers and wait. I would think it would be much easier to obtain international distribution rights from more obscure independant labels as well.

  14. Re:Will these services be the end of lossless musi by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because even people with 512K broadband (OK, you may have an l33t 2 MBit pipe) may balk at the prospect of 50MB per song. Granted, 256k and 384k MP3s are becoming more popular with faster connections.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  15. Brilliant by dracvl · · Score: 3, Insightful
    In what is believed to be a first for online music retailers, vouchers will be available in stores so you will not need a credit card to purchase online.

    Cool. So now I can actually go to a real store to buy music too? Why hasn't anybody thought of this before?

    1. Re:Brilliant by Green+Monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, there are a lot of tracks available on online retailers that may not be available in the stores. Most of the big online music retailers have some exclusive tracks and similar material - iTunes certainly does. Plus, people often use online music shops to buy B-sides or music from less popular artists, which you aren't necessarily going to be find in stores. So buying a voucher in a store allows you to go home and buy any music that Destra offers, even if that music wasn't in the store!

      --

      Green Monkey

  16. DRM Ogg? by AmVidia+HQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    DRM is not a word most of us want to hear, but let's face it, it's coming whether you want it or not. So, besides the fact that "nothing is uncrackable", why not "embrace and extend" DRM?

    I, for one, would welcome our open sourced DRM overlords, than the MS "trusted computing" counterpart. Besides, we all know Ogg is superior to WMA, right?

    --
    VIVA1023.com | Political Fashion.
  17. Just paid for and downloaded a song... by rixon · · Score: 4, Informative

    For the record:
    - it was easy to find the song
    - easy to sign up
    - easy to pay
    - easy to download
    - easy to play (after media player updated itself with the DRM stuff)
    - easy to burn to audio CD

    The web site's HTML needs work, though.

    Overall I enjoyed the experience. It gave me the "hey that's cool" smile.

    Oh and yes I know I'm supposed to hate it 'cos it's DRM WMA. Know what? If I can burn it to a red book CD then I'm happy.

    --
    360**2 + 262**2
  18. Ugh! by mallie_mcg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1) WMA only, which means no iTunes compatability, and no iPod which I desperately want.

    2) $2 AUD a pop, screw that, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to expensive.

    3) No mention of bit-rate used and source. (yes I read the "info" section and was unable to find it)

    4) The web page looks shit, which does not bode well for the future!

    --


    Do the following really mean anything? SCSA MCP CCSA CCNA
    --I'm not actually after an answer!
  19. Install pieces of Palladium by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 3, Informative
    Yes, despite the "strong dollar" policy the bad shape of the economy meant using tricks like cutting the interest rate. However, the interest rate is already as low as it can go so that can't be cut further. There have already been several recessions recently, but just now deflation is the problem. The recent "growth" seems to result from the change in the value of the dollar, jobs are still getting cut, rather than an increase in trade. Maybe economic depression can be avoided maybe not. Hiding deflation by devaluing the dollar relative to other currencies is only cosmetic and irresponsible.

    It's a shame that in the last three years the U.S. looks now in a position where two or three large countries could make it cry "Uncle"

    Anyway, strong or weak US vs Australian dollar, the service is misleading. 99 cents my ass. It's just another gimmick to get kids to install pieces of Palladium/DRM on their parents machines.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  20. Yet another excuse to RAPE the customer by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 3, Interesting
    • (a) most/all tracks are $1.99 ie basically TWO DOLLARS
    • (b) for example, BT has ONE I repeat ONE SINGLE track listed

    So this "new service" works out to be about the same cost as a NEW CD, only
    • You PAY for the CD media yourself (assuming you burn-your own)
    • You have no original physical copy for the digital you just downloaded (can anyone say Drive Crash?)
    • In this country, most ISPs charge you for bits downloaded (though often after passing a 'cap') - so you're paying EXTRA for those CDs of music
    • Sweet Fuck All for music selection

    This is a "service" in the same sense as what stud horses do to mares when they're in season.
    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  21. Nohopester by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Look, none of these WMA-only sites are going to survive. Not only are there formats with better sound quality, but ones with less cumbersome overhead and available on more platforms. iTunes can play on both Macintosh and Windows so far.

    No matter the relative market shares of the two platforms, Mac + Windows > Windows Only.

    See also Metcalfe's Law in other contexts.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  22. DRM by HalfFlat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I dislike DRM, but I dislike it a whole lot more when its proponents just straight out lie. Quoting the DestraMusic site,

    DRM (Digital Rights Management) is the process in which digital content (audio, video or documents) is securely delivered to consumers over the Internet.

    Bullocks.

    Of course as others have said, the service itself is insulting: $2AU per track for lossily compressed (128mbps!) music that I can't play on my non-Windows computer, or use on my iPod. Thrilling.

  23. Hack the DRM. by Trejkaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why the hell not, reverse engineering is legal in Australia... ;-)

    --
    Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
  24. DRM problems - freeme not working? by Rob+from+RPI · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes, to start with, I'm an aussie, so this is kinda cool for me, being that it's local. Not cheaper, I point out (US$.99 is still less than AU$1.99, I couldn't find *any* songs for $0.99) but coolier.

    So, I downloaded the demo one, and it came up with all the WMA DRM crap. I bit the bullet and installed all the DRM stuff that WPM9 wants to throw in, and played it. Woo. two weeks of listening to this demo thing. Lets see how hard it is to remove the DRM.

    Hard. Very hard.

    Freeme just doesn't work - it's getting a totally bogus content key, roughly 85 bytes long, as opposed to the usual 7. This is the first time that I've *used* freeme, being that I try to avoid non-open stuff, but it seems to be borked. I've compiled from source to ensure it wasn't a compiler error (Well, it still could be, ms vc6) and read the Technical of freeme, but it doesn't seem to work.

    Could someone possibly clue me up on what's going on?
    --snippy--
    C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\MyProjects\freewma\Debug>freewma -v c:\daniel.wma
    Found DRMv1 header object.
    Found DRMv1 header object.
    Found DRMv2 header object.
    Found KID (eO34+zbpuEm1e08JBtl1Ug==)
    Starting to look for license.
    License file full path: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\DRM\drmv2.lic
    BlackBox library to use: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\DRM\IndivBox.key
    Keystore to use: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\DRM\v2ksndv.bla
    Created BlackBox instance - extracting key pairs

    Public key 1 x: 309b232d07c8760d393524e4ce4f21eecc6c3a10
    Public key 1 y: 08d86239f8d892cd54ffedee368387c1869d2a1d
    Private key 1: a7e9d6e62fc3921e8fd22a58fbeff849e678baef

    Checking license with PUBKEY 309b232d07c8760d393524e4ce4f21eecc6c3a10
    Matched public key! Proceeding...
    Bytelen is 20
    Bytelen is 20
    x.d[0] is 85
    Decrypted content key is too big! - I would usually die here.
    Content key: e1 11 e2 e5 82 d7 58 b2 9a f8 63 8d 90 32 ff a8 6f 35 83 fe 96 89 9
    7 9c ef 18 fc 7a f7 18 4b b5 bf 58 92 0d 12 bb 24 00 00 00 00 94 fc 12 00 0d 4c
    40 00 28 25 43 00 28 68 88 00 30 69 88 00 a0 fd 12 00 a0 fc 12 00 00 f0 fd 7f cc
    cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc
    Opened output file
    Starting to process data packets
    644 packets of length 5976
    |The 'Lameness' filter decided that a row of hashes here is bad| 100%
    --snippy--

    Note how the content key ends in a whole pile of cc's? I've got a sneaking suspicion that MS have updated something to break freeme, but, it a subtle way. The found public key and calculated public key are the same, which makes me think the private key is correct, but..?

    Hopefully someone with more crypto knowledge than I may be able to offer some assistance.

    --
    Schlock Mercenary.
    1. Re:DRM problems - freeme not working? by blowdart · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Freeme just doesn't work - it's getting a totally bogus content key, roughly 85 bytes long, as opposed to the usual 7. This is the first time that I've *used* freeme, being that I try to avoid non-open stuff, but it seems to be borked.

      You're about 2 years too late. Microsoft's reaction to freeme took about 2 weeks, and one simple update to a Windows DRM server. When you play a DRM track for the first time and get that "individualisation update", it's also an update to the bug that allowed freeme to work