EFF Releases Music DRM Guide

Chris Chiasson writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) recently created a plain English guide to several fair use restrictions that major online music services, such as Apple's iTunes, force on their customers via Digital Rights Management (DRM) laden music files and End User License Agreements (EULAs). An excerpt from the guide follows: 'Forget about breaking the DRM to make traditional uses like CD burning and so forth. Breaking the DRM or distributing the tools to break DRM may expose you to liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) even if you're not making any illegal uses.' The EFF also lists four alternative music services which sell unrestricted files."

Comments

Missing from list

[overshoot]

They missed at least one unrestricted-music site: MagnaTune -- nice people. Don't miss the founder's comments.

Re:Missing from list

[rebeka thomas]

The best bit about magnatune is you get to download their entire catalog without paying. Best few weeks I've spent on the net.

Re:Missing from list

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually when you first hear that a music download service doesn't have big name musicians, you figure that the music must suck. Magnatune has really, really great music and some of the most talented musicians I've ever heard.

I've bought a few Magnatune albums and downloaded them as WAV files so that I can write them to CD, then compress them into OGG/Vorbis for local hard drive storage. Perfect.

DRM

[eneville]

Any form of DRM sucks, and I'll do whatever I can to avoid entering into any DRM agreement.

Re:DRM

[Coniptor]

You are an idiot!
People on the greater average do NOT know the limitations ahead of time nor what DRM is. Walk down a street or hall in your local mall and randomly ask people if they know what DRM is.

People who research and are aware what they are buying are the minority.

People who go buy the next new toy because it's the latest fad tech/music toy because so and so has it and now they must have it to keep up with the Jonses don't research and educate them selves. That's too much trouble, they just want it to fill like equals to everyone else who's gone out and bought it. It's more of a indirect peer presure sort of thing.

So please shutup and do trip down a flight of stairs so I and others don't have to read your ignorant words and so there is more oxygen for the rest of us. Your taking up space!

Re:DRM

[KillShill]

actually, most of the buyers don't have a clue as to the limitations of the pseudo-music files they'll be buying.

the geek population (and shame on them for buying DRM-crippled music when they should know better) that buys music online is a small fraction of the total number of purchasers.

so no, most people don't have any notion whatsoever of the artificial limitations imposed on them by the high priced music files.

Re:DRM

[Blondie-Wan]

Sure, they ought to know what they're getting into, but aside from the question of how realistic it is to expect Joe Average to actually read the EULA (and then decide not to go along with it, and reject it at that point after going to the trouble to download the software or whatever to get there), it'll still affect those of us who do reject DRM in one form or another, since mass acceptance will make them commercially viable, and may make the alternatives you seek commercially unviable. It's therefore in your interests to not only read the agreements for yourself, but also to educate others on them, and to generally oppose ones you think are particularly intolerable.

That said, I do permit myself to buy from the iTMS, since I gave it some consideration and decided the DRM implementation isn't too intrusive (for my own needs, anyway). I do support alternative, DRM-free services, though, and encourage others to do the same.

Re:DRM

[QuietLagoon]

People know the limitations of the DRM ahead of time,

If the media companies wanted the purchasers to know the limitations ahead of the purchase, then the media companies and the DRM companies would not go through so much marketing mumble-jumble in order to hide the fact that DRM is limiting the use of the media being purchased.

Forget about breaking the DRM

[Saven Marek]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) recently created a plain English guide to several fair use restrictions that major online music services, such as Apple's iTunes, force on their customers via Digital Rights Management (DRM) laden music files and End User License Agreements (EULAs). An excerpt from the guide follows: 'Forget about breaking the DRM to make traditional uses like CD burning and so forth.

Yeah forget about trying to break the DRM in iTunes cos like... uhh. you don't need to, to burn CDs.

Re:Forget about breaking the DRM

[TheSpoom]

But see, I don't want to burn CDs. I want music that will play anywhere. And I don't want to have to go through some complicated process like burning to CDs first then ripping the CDs, or using some obscure program to strip the DRM.

This is not a flame; this is simply why I won't buy something from a service encumbered by DRM restrictions.

Re:Forget about breaking the DRM

[RAMMS EIN]

``Honestly. Buy a bloody CD then. You use a DRM'd music service you abide by the T+C's - what's so damn complicated about that that so many people just don't get it.''

The problem is that the ones selling the DRM'd content make every effort to conceal the restrictions. That's why people don't know they're paying but not buying. People expect that when they pay for something, they can do whatever they want with it. Now, these music stores are not going to tell them up front that this assumption is very much not true for the music they "sell". The media are not publishing anything about it. So how is J. R. Person supposed to know?!

``While I'd never like to see DRM'd files as the sole distribution method as this is to open to proprietry player lock-in, I have zero objection to it as an alternative method of purchasing music.''

The problem is that DRM is slowly becoming the standard. Most of the large online music stores that used to sell MP3s have either quit or switched to DRM'd formats. DVDs have protection mechanisms on them. Even CDs are often crippled these days (intentionally fscked up so that CD-ROM drives will barf on them).

All of this is happening under the radar, where J. R. Person doesn't notice it. After all, it still plays on his CD player or Windows machine! And when I tell them, they don't care, or they think it's not gonna be that bad. But I'm afraid their favorite music and movies are only going to be available in a very restricted format in the not too distant future.

Of course, there will still be people publishing things in unrestricted format. I'm supporting these people even now, and steering clear of any materials that have restrictive DRM or even just proprietary formats. But that does exclude a lot of popular music, movies, sofware, and information.

Re:Forget about breaking the DRM

[Mr2cents]

While I'd never like to see DRM'd files as the sole distribution method as this is to open to proprietry player lock-in, I have zero objection to it as an alternative method of purchasing music.

The record companies have always been trying to force copy protection upon any medium. Any time a copying device gets on the market, they go wild! BTW, they force us to pay taxes on blank CDs because 'they are only used to copy music', but at the same time it remains illegal to copy them (totally ignoring the fact that I paid taxes to do so).

This DRM thing will not remain limited to those online songs, it will (try to) become a general 'feature', locking you down and threatening your electronic freedom.

Independent music recommendation services?

[RAMMS EIN]

Ok, so I've had it with the musicians who have sold their souls to the corporations. With the advert of the Internet, they don't need anyone else to publish and distribute their music to the world. So now I want to get my music from independent artists. The problem is: I know what kind of music I like, and I know which mainstream bands make this kind of music, but I don't have time to go listening to every indie artist to find out what they make.

What I'm looking for is a site where I can enter or select names of bands or songs that I like, and get independent music recommended to me. You like Alanis Morisette? Try Jen Pitch. That sort of thing. Does anybody know of such sites?

By the way: the example above is just an association I know from the top of my head; I'm not very much into the kind of music at all.

Re:Independent music recommendation services?

[cortana]

cdbaby has a useful genre/category/mood browser.

Re:Independent music recommendation services?

[Transmogrify_UK]

I'm not sure if it's your taste in music (hardcore punk/metal/post-hardcore), but if you take a look at http://www.hxcmp3.com/ they have a "sounds like" field in their search. Chances are it'll be nothing overly clever, simply the bands who upload their music suggest if you like XXX band, you'll probably like them. But all the same, more music download sites should do this.

Re:Independent music recommendation services?

[servoled]

Allmusic is a good starting point for reccomendations. You can search an artist and it will give you similar artists along with artists who influenced that artists and artists who were influenced by that artist. It also is a good source for biographical and discography information.

The Yahoo subscription service also has a neat feature where you can queue up songs which are similar to a song/album/artist and listen to those songs, plus at $60 a year it is a pretty cheap way to find new music. I wouldn't reccomend it for building a music library due to the subscriptionyness of it though.

Re:Independent music recommendation services?

[sd_diamond]

Ok, so I've had it with the musicians who have sold their souls to the corporations. With the advert of the Internet,

Freudian slip?

Re:Independent music recommendation services?

[MP3Chuck]

A lot of indie music sites have some sort of "Sounds Like" or "Influenced By" search. Check out this list for about 50 indie music sites.

If anyone's reading this and has a site that's not on the list send me an email (robert AT rmpmusic DOT com) and I'll add it to the list. Include your slashdot account URL and I'll link to it, too.

Re:Independent music recommendation services?

[RAMMS EIN]

``With the advert of the Internet,

Freudian slip?''

Absolutely! See, those Dvorak keyboards are good for something after all ('r' is right above 'n' on a Dvorak keyboard).

Re:Independent music recommendation services?

[servoled]

I also reccomend finding radio stations which have shows that play music you like, and see what else they play.

For example, WFMU has a nice playlist search where you can look for shows which have played certain artists. They also have all of their shows archived back to ~2000, so you can find a show that plays stuff that you like and listen to a few of the archives to see if they play anything else you like.

They also have a genre finder that allows you to search for shows by genre.

Derek Slater

[turnstyle]

fwiw, the DRM guide was written party/mostly (I don't know) by hard working blogger, Derek Slater.

Oddly, I couldn't seem to find credits on that EFF page.

Re:Derek Slater

[turnstyle]

er, now quoting from his site:

"My name is Derek Slater. I'm 21, and I'm a senior at Harvard College. I'm also a fellow at the Berkman Center, working on the Digital Media Project. The last three summers, I've worked at the EFF, Creative Commons, and the Samuelson Clinic."

If that's not hard-working, I'd like to know what is.

It's a choice

[dirk]

I've never understood why so many people are against DRM in any format for anyone. I personally am not a fan of it, so I usually don't but anything with DRM. But I understand that if I want the benefits of buying from someplace like iTunes (lower price, being able to buy individual songs, etc), then that is the trade-off. If I don't want DRM, I will buy from someplace that doesn't use it, buy the CD (assuming it isn't broken), or not buy it at all. If you don't want DRM, don't buy it. But accept that there will HAVE to be trade-offs for buying music online (and at lower prices). If you don't want those trade-offs, that's okay, but plenty of people are willing to accept them. It's an agreement you enter into to get the music you want the way you want it. If you don't agree, don't enter into the agreement and go elsewhere for your music.

Re:It's a choice

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's a choice"

No, it's not a choice. It stopped being a choice when they passed the DMCA.

"If I don't want DRM, I will buy from someplace that doesn't use it, buy the CD (assuming it isn't broken), or not buy it at all."

What, then, will you do when everything is distributed via DRM?

I'll tell you: you'll either 1) Buy things with DRM and basically live a rental-based existence where you cannot create without purchasing a "distribution license," 2) Become a felon for buying things with DRM then breaking it to actually make use of them, or 3) retreat to your cabin in the wilderness and live out a life without the DMCA.

"If you don't agree, don't enter into the agreement and go elsewhere for your music."

But, you see, software-based DRM is always cracked. That's why all of the big companies are working to embed it in the hardware of every PC manufactured.

They claim you can "turn it off," but the problem is that DRM will only actually work when it's a closed system. So it's basically a lie that you can turn it off. Sure, you can disable it, but you'll be disconnecting yourself from the Internet and everyone else by doing so.

In conclusion, "so many people are against DRM in any format for anyone" because DRM is not being presented as a choice. The DRM-supporters (large companies) have paid their congresspeople to enact the DMCA, thus establishing a universal contract without our consent.

The DMCA applies to everyone in this country (and many people in other countries, as can be seen from enforcement actions) and it exposes you to potential prison time not for doing anything wrong, not for infringing copyrights, not for plagiarism, not for any of these things... the DMCA exposes you to prison time for altering a product which you legally purchased.

That is why so many people fundamentally oppose DRM.

Bad reporting

[Have Blue]

The EFF dings Apple for cutting the number of identical playlist burns from 10 to 7, while conveniently neglecting to point out that Apple simultaneously raised the number of authorizable computers from 3 to 5. If they're going to give "the real deal rather than spin" they should refrain from inserting spin themselves.

Re:Bad reporting

[Lord Byron II]

All they were doing was giving an example of how Apple could change your rights. The argument was not "Apple is bad because they lowered the burn rights from 10 to 7", but "Apple is bad because they *can* lower the burn rights from 10 to 7".

If they were attempting to provide complete details on how iTunes works, then yes, things like the number of authorizable computers would have been important to have. But since they were only trying to show how the consumer can have a purchased product taken away from them, the example they provided was sufficient.

Fair use not protected by law?

[RAMMS EIN]

``Breaking the DRM or distributing the tools to break DRM may expose you to liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) even if you're not making any illegal uses.''

So, does that mean fair use is not protected by law in the USA? I'm pretty sure that where I live, fair use is allowed even if the EULA forbids it or the technology prevents it. You can reverse-engineer the technology (a right protected by law), and an EULA that restricts your rights too far is not valid, even if you signed it.

Re:Fair use not protected by law?

[dotwaffle]

Not quite right - you have the right to free speech, and therefore can technically speak on any subject you wish - however if you've signed an NDA - you're restricted, by choice. You violate that, you're screwed, just as reverse engineering a protected technology would be.

Re:Fair use not protected by law?

[bladernr]

an EULA that restricts your rights too far is not valid, even if you signed it

That seems to me to prevent people from voluntarily entering into binding contracts, and as such is a government interference in freedom and commerce.

I, for one, don't want to government walking around declaring contracts I've made with another party as void because something is "too far." What if I sell my house to someone, and then the government comes back and says I charged too much (even though the person agreed to pay that amount) and makes me refund to what the government thinks is fair value?

Sorry, you can keep your government interference into private affairs, such as contracts entered into freely between two parties.

Re:Fair use not protected by law?

[Raul654]

"So, does that mean fair use is not protected by law in the USA?" - yes, fair use is defined (very, very vaguely) in Title 17, section 107. In practice, fair use is defined by in court decisions as whatever-the-hell-we-think-it-should-be. Caselaw is inconsistent, and there are precious few rules.

Also, fair use is not a license, it's a defense in court. But by the time you actually win, you've already paid $100,000+ in legal fees, so you lose anyway.

Re:Fair use not protected by law?

[Waffle Iron]

I've got news for you: the government has already made all kinds of restrictions on what kinds of contracts you can enter into.

- Non-compete employment clauses aren't valid in California.

- You can't sign yourself into slavery.

- Homeowner's association contract clauses that prohibit small satellite dish antennas are all invalid.

- Attempts to put an EULA on a paper book are null and void.

- There are very specific rules on how the interest and payments section on a loan are to be worded and formatted.

The list goes on and on. The real world just isn't as simple as you'd like it to be.

Re:Fair use not protected by law?

[cahiha]

So, does that mean fair use is not protected by law in the USA?

It's protected to the degree the law protects it. And in the USA (and many other nations now), "fair use" has been greatly limited.

You can reverse-engineer the technology (a right protected by law), and an EULA that restricts your rights too far is not valid, even if you signed it.

The DCMA is a law, not a EULA. It modifies previous copyright law, so things that you used to be able to do under "fair use" provisions, you can't do anymore. Elected representatives have that power--that's how laws come about in a democracy.

preaching to the choir, blah blah

[Anonymous Coward]

the EFF need to get their guides printed onto paper and distributed to the public, buses, trains, in the street , through doors, offices, trams, subways, parking lots, schools , youth clubs, community centers ,even TV (get those cheques written) basically anywhere the public might see it and read it and understand it

otherwise nothing will change, we (technologists/gurus/nerds etc) all know the ramifications of DRM and the threat it poses to society, but society doesnt know or even care about what they dont understand sick profiteers are trying to do

educate people, lots of them, quickly, using traditional methods, because this inteweb is not the answer to this problem

Re:preaching to the choir, blah blah

[knipknap]

You can't educate all people unless the media wants to. You'll hardly convince them.
IMO pushing for national culture freedom laws is the most promising approach. In other words, culture needs to be published using open standards.

Get rid of Apple DRM on Linux [thnx to DVD Jon]

[drgonzo59]

My brother gave me an iTunes gift certificate. So bought some albums. After my windows hard drive died with a "click-o-death" I just re-installed Linux by itself and am using that now for about a year. But the problem is when I went to play the music that _I bought_ from the iTunes, I couldn't! I payed money for the freakin' songs, I want to play them. Why do I have to install windows or buy an Apple computer to play the music that I bought?

I found Jon L. Johansen's site and his two programs :

1. FairKeys - to get the keys from Apple's site

2. DeDRMS - uses the keys to DeDRM the files.

The site is here (no html hyperlink, copy and paste if you want):

nanocrew.net/?page_id=59

You also need to install mono for linux as the programs are in C#. After that just run with "mono programname options". No I can play my albums again. Thanks Jon!

Re:Get rid of Apple DRM on Linux [thnx to DVD Jon]

[Hatta]

The site is here (no html hyperlink, copy and paste if you want):

nanocrew.net/?page_id=59

WTF?! it took you longer to type that disclaimer than it would have to wrap the link in html tags. Here, I'll do it:

nanocrew.net/?page_id=59

Re:Get rid of Apple DRM on Linux [thnx to DVD Jon]

[drgonzo59]

Hatta,
You said WTF!?. The 'F' is that I didn't contact Jon to ask him if I can posting the link to his program in a slashdot post.

You might say "WTF!? You don't have to ask permission to link". I would respond that the 'F' is that it is not illegal to link to his site, but it is not very nice if he has to pay for the bandwidth. So by not providing a click-able link I thought I was making sure that only those who really want to get his program will get there as opposed to having tens of thousands of slashdotters click on it just because it is something to do.

Re:Get rid of Apple DRM on Linux [thnx to DVD Jon]

[SeaFox]

Do you read every single EULA and other agreements? They could have written there that I should give them my firstborn child, if I click the button.

It's not a EULA gotcha, it's common sense.

If I buy a piece of software commonly known to be available for platforms X or Y and then decide later to switch to platform Z, I don't whine that the developer ripped me off because my X/Y software doesn't run on the Z it was never created to run on to begin with.

You started using the iTMS knowing full well you need iTunes to play these files and iTunes is only available for Windows and Mac. You had Windows, it was YOUR choice to switch to Linux. I'm sure there was other Windows software you couldn't use when you switched to Linux. Unfortunatly, without iTunes your purchases don't play. How exactly is Apple responsible for your choices?

Re:Get rid of Apple DRM on Linux [thnx to DVD Jon]

[MntlChaos]

This is, of course, assuming slashdotters even click on links... how many even RTFA? ;)

As many a slashdotted site will tell you, slashdot readers RTFA. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of slashdot commenters in general.

Re:Get rid of Apple DRM on Linux [thnx to DVD Jon]

[afree87]

I admit it, I don't need the software but I clicked that link because I was bored.

Forgive me, Jon :(

Re:DRM Circumvention

[servoled]

Both are still illegal, their use still requires some kind of Robin Hood/civil disobedience line of reasoning to properly operate.

It's a choice... but for how long?

[sound vision]

Sure, you can go out and buy a CD today, but what about in 10 years? 5? CDs will eventually be replaced by SACD or DVD-A, both of which have DRM schemes. If we don't stop DRM now, there will be no alternative.

Sure, DRM can and will be cracked, but that's not what it's about. The iTunes DRM can be cracked, too. It provides a major inconvenience, many hurdles for us to jump over just to use something we already bought & payed for.

About DVD-A's encryption being cracked, it wasn't What happened was a patch was released for WinDVD to redirect the output to a file instead of a sound card. You can bet the RIAA is working on a way to neutralize this.

Fair and unbiased

[shmlco]

"... fair use restrictions that major online music services, such as Apple's iTunes, force on their customers via Digital Rights Management (DRM) laden music files..."

Wow. Sounds like a balanced, fair, and unbiased review of the issues to me.

Re:Fair and unbiased

[The Journalist]

Consider the source. This isn't an independent news organization attempting to create a "fair and balanced" account of DRM, its pros/cons etc. It's the EFF discussing how DRM reduces a user's rights to listen to music they have paid for.

Some words may appear to intentionally attack, but let's consider the ramifications of the words you chose.

(Sidenote: Merriam-Webster is my source)

• force: n. violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing. Given that if one wants to use iTunes to purchase music from iTMS, one is indeed _forced_ to agree to an EULA allowing DRM. No agreement, no music.
• laden: adj. carrying a load or burden. How else do you describe music that has DRM? "Music that has DRM"? "Limited-access music"? Given that most people want to listen to their music _whenever_, _wherever_ and on _whatever_ they please, how else should they describe music that prevents them from doing so? "Laden" is a term that conveys a sense of awkwardness.. like trying to load a DRM'd file onto an unapproved device.

Sorry, Jack, but claiming bias here is a bit of a waste.

Good.

[Captain Scurvy]

As others have pointed out, we presently have a choice as to whether or not we do business with people who sell DRM media. If the laws do not change to require DRM (and that is a really big if), then you just don't have to give your money to people who sell DRM. It is good that the EFF has pointed out some alternative choices. If people don't want DRM, then the marketplace will decide whether or not it'll stick around.

However, I'm pretty cynical, so I instead expect laws to change to make restricted media the norm.

Wow...

[rampant mac]

"...force on their customers via Digital Rights Management (DRM) laden music files and End User License Agreements (EULAs)"

Force onto their customer? They held me up at gunpoint so I had no choice but to buy from the iTMS? If you buy music from iTunes, you're going to have DRM'ed files. Don't like it? Don't buy it.

It's not like music isn't available from other sources (both brick and mortar and online). But remember, those "easily" converted music CDs are starting to include DRM mechanisms as well.

Its not Digital Rights Management

[Snaller]

Its Digital Restrictions Management, get it right Slashdot ;)

Re:DRM Circumvention

[RAMMS EIN]

``Both are still illegal'' ...in the US. What about Europe? Canada? Russia? New-Zealand? Brazil? I'd like to have these questions answered, so that I get an idea of how the situation is in various corners of the world. Is there some site that monitors this?

Re:Take it on the other side.

[cnerd2025]

I agree that no one is *forcing* anyone to use the DRM'd music, but the way things are going, we will have no choice but to use DRM'd music and video.

Big Tobacco is completely different. Tobacco is addicting (rather nicotine in Tobacco is addicting) and once you're hooked it's hard to be unhooked. Of course, no one forced you to get hooked in the first place other than yourself. But the point is once you're on cigarettes, it's hard to get off of them.

DRM is no such thing. It is not a product and it isn't something that consumers would want at all. I don't like Apple's DRM because I'd like to store my music in a format that I like and not be restricted by it. I don't 'illegally' share it or anything like that. I use the JHymn software to remove the FairPlay DRM from it. Doesn't really hurt much, it's my Fair Use right to do so. The courts have determined that.

The problem with DRM is that companies will soon impose it on us. If you have been following the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray wars at all, you will know that the two camps are trying to say that they have *better* DRM than the other, stating that their format is effectively more DRM'd than the other. Microshaft has stated that in Vista, it will be handling media files much differently from how they are handled today. This will limit users' fair use rights. DRM is going to be imposed on us. It is not like tobacco which is only imposed on us if we use tobacco products or live with those who do.

The time has come to make a choice. Do we want software that, while preserving the 'rights' of select few (mainly the RIAA and the Five labels), arguably infringes upon our rights as users and as consumers? The US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 Clause 8 enumerates that Congress has the right "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" This is the legal stem of copyright. In the words of (former) Surpreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:

The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.

Copyright is not an end for artists, it is an end for the immortalism of art and science.

emusic.com!

[FatSean]

I signed up when it was unlimited downloads...now you get a certain number a month depending on your subscription...I have the cheapest one and it's $10 a month for 40 downloads.

Best part? 192kbps+ MP3s! No protection! And even if you cancel your subscription...if your harddrive dies you can just sign up again (for as little as a month) and they'll let you re-download your whole library for free.

Granted, you lose some fidelity as it is MP3 and not CD-quality...and there are very few 'brand new' or 'popular' artists...

but I don't care. The price is right and I've downloaded a whole bunch of cool stuff that I like.

Re:Lets see...

[d34thm0nk3y]

Also, the Emusic search page is here: search

enough iTunes bashing

[TRRosen]

enough already with the iTunes bashing just because its the most popular. iTunes has by far the least restrictive DRM of any of the (drm) services. And lying about those who are fighting to keep as many rights available to the consumer as possible accomplish nothing.

how many of these articles come out and say iTunes is bad because it has DRM and DRM prevents you from burning CDs (but failing to mention that iTunes does not do this).

and adding misinformation such as this-

"Restricts back-up copies: Song can only be copied to 5 computers"

You can copy iTunes song to a billion computers if you want but you can only play them on 5 computers at a time. It should be noted that with a CD you can only legally use one copy at a time (first sale doctrine says you have a license for ONE COPY). In this instance iTunes actually expands the rights of its users.

PS changing the number of times IN A ROW one can burn a PLAYLIST is a nonissue - if your making more than 7 copys of a song your not backing up your pirating. and if you really need to have 60 copies just recreate the playlist and start over.

THIS JUST IN:

[Twid]

Many public foundations employ "copyright" and "licenses" -- also known as "legal restrictions" -- that prevent you from doing things like reproducing or distributing their works. Forget about breaking the license with a copy machine. Breaking the license is a violation of the law and could expose you to prosecution.

The EFF says:
"EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers, technologists, volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect your digital rights."

But buried in the source to this very article is the following secret code:
License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc/1.0/"
requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attributi on"
permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduct ion"
permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribut ion"
permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Derivativ eWorks"
prohibits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Commercia lUse"
requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice"

This "code" restricts your rights to use the article. Even worse, each article might have a different license! Future articles might change their license at any time!

The facts: you read it, they still own it. Sounds like 1984? Read on.

Additional EFF article restrictions:
- Prohibits commercial re-use or re-mixing into a new article.
- Requires that the license and copyright be reproduced with the article.
- Requires that you credit the copyright holder and/or author.

Other articles using this same "licensing" could be even more restrictive!

Looking for alternatives? Here are some sites that don't use restrictive "copyright" and "licensing".
- Project Gutenberg http://promo.net/pg/
- Public Domain Music http://www.pdinfo.com/

Re:THIS JUST IN:

[Twid]

Commercial entities, in this case the RIAA, MPAA, and other organizations, are merely the enforcement agents for the artist, who voluntarily contracted with them to provide such enforcement.

Let us say you really enjoy listening to the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. They have an upcoming show. You show up with a rack of recording equipment, saying that you truly enjoy listening to them and want to record it for your own enjoyment. The symphony members themselves say no, and kick you out to the sidewalk. Were they within their rights as the artists? Of course! Could they add a soundproof wall to the outside of the venue, preventing free listening? Of course! But yet, we don't accept the digital equivalent when it comes to DRM.

Sadly, your message just shows that consumers of art feel they have a right to use the artist's creations in any way they please. But yet, the EFF uses these same laws to protect their own content. You can't have it both ways. Either you love freedom and hate the artist, or you love the artist and hate freedom. DRM itself can be art, an expression of the desires and wishes and creative programming of the creator of the DRM engine. Indeed, who watches the watchmen?

Re:THIS JUST IN:

[sean23007]

Man, I hope you're kidding. In your tirade against the EFF's use of 'restrictive licensing,' you failed to notice that they licensed it under a Creative Commons license. Now, let me explain something to you. When you put something online, you are automatically assigned the copyright for that content. This means that legally, you can pursue anyone who quotes it, puts it on their own site, or does anything with it without your permission. By licensing it under the Creative Commons, you can choose what extra rights to grant your audience. In this case, the EFF has allowed anyone who wants to do take their content and change it, redistribute it, and reproduce it, as long as you credit them as the creator of the original work.

These are more rights than you would have if they had not put this 'restrictive license' on this document. So, in fact, it is not restrictive at all! Bear in mind that when they explicitly prohibit commercial use, they are still not taking away any of your rights. What other copyrighted content is it okay for you to take and sell for commercial gain? I certainly hope you were being facetious, but you got an Insightful mod, so I felt I had to explain some things to at least four moderators. I, personally, thought it was funny, until I saw the moderation. Good links, by the way. And look up Lawrence Lessig and his books. He created the Creative Commons as a modern public domain - esque license, because he fears that the public domain will disappear and he wants to protect it. The Creative Commons is actually a pretty cool way to do that. As a content creator, it gives you a choice between the perhaps-too-restrictive copyright laws and the public domain, which gives you no rights as a creator.

DRM forks pop music

[Simonetta]

The most probable consequence of having DRM on CDs and download MP3s is that there will be a fork in the popularity of music. Music with DRM will have one clique or group of followers and non-DRM (or pre-DRM) will have a different group. These groups will generally be unaware of each other's music (because less and less music is being exposed to a general audience through broadcast radio).
    The non-DRM and pre-DRM (albums released before the widespread implementation of unbreakable DRM on CDs) will not appeal to the DRM crowd because it will have a 'old' or 'amateur' character to it.
DRM music will not appeal to the sharers because it will be too expensive to buy and it will seem 'plastic' or 'corporate'.
    This split may develop not unlike the traditional splits in American pop music along racial and class lines. In the 20th century musical trends would all eventually cross lines and there would be the occasional crossover recording between black pop music (originally called "Rhythm'n'Blues" in order to allow the records to be sold in white stores in the days of racial segregation) and middle-class white "Top40" music. This probably won't happen as much in the coming music legality segregation era (where people who trade the non-DRM music can and will be put in prison for their activities).

    The file sharers won't associate with the corporate poppers because they won't be able to trust that the more monied people who can afford to buy the DRM recordings won't turn them into the Copyright police for a reward. (Or to keep themselves out of prison if they get offered a '3 years or 3 names' deal should they get caught doing their own file sharing.) The file sharers will make much effort to keep their own culture (their own 'illegal' recordings) secret. That would be completely opposite of the situation today, where everyone tries to make others aware of especially interesting recordings.

      The file share community in the future will have many of their favorite recordings come from albums that were released on CD in years before unbreakable DRM when it was easy to convert CDs to MP3s and distribute them. They (the file sharers) will not be engrossed in the current corporate pop culture trends. This will become one of the ways that the copyright police (or bounty hunters) will identify file sharers. They won't know who the latest corporate pop stars are. They have a parallel culture that will have been defined as illegal, and therefore kept secret.

      Needless to say, the entertainment corporations will covertly allow the illegal 'parallel' file sharing culture to remain in place because whenever a recording appears that is good enough to crossover to the corporate culture, it can be released without paying any royalities to the musicians. This would be similar in manner to the way that record companies in the 1950's and 1960's would pay black entertainers next to nothing for the rights to their recordings and then collect millions of dollars for decades from record sales and broadcast fees.

    I'm rather intrigued that no one is exploring the consequences that the coming unbreakable DRM will have on popular culture.

DRMed CDs

[spisska]

But remember, those "easily" converted music CDs are starting to include DRM mechanisms as well.

What follows is most of a post I sent to a mailing list not long ago about copy protected CDs, and what (if anything) you can do about it:

The only real answer is to stop buying, and let the record stores and production companies know why you've stopped buying.

I actually had a fairly amusing experience not too long ago along these lines. I was at the mall waiting for my wife to finish looking for something or other and I wandered into the music shop. It's the first time I've been in a cookie-cutter mall music shop in probably 10 years. They haven't got any better.

But anyway, I had no intention of buying anything, but wanted to see what would happen. So I picked up some copy-protected disc (can't remember which one) and headed over to the counter. The converstion went something like this:

Me: Hi. Do you have this record in a Compact Disc format?

Salesdrone: That is a Compact Disc.

Me: No it isn't. [showing the disc] There's no CD logo on it, it isn't red-book compliant.

SD: That is a music CD, it will play in your CD player.

Me: I didn't ask for a music disc, I asked for a Compact Disc. Do you have one?

SD: That is a compact disc.

Me: This is most definitely not a Compact Disc. A Compact Disc has an emblem on it indicating that it's compliant with the red-book CD Audio standard. This has no emblem, so it's not red-book compliant, therefore it's not a CD. Do you have a CD?

[I have since learned that this is not strictly true -- a lot of red-book CDs do have the emblem on the packaging, but not all. However, the emblem will be on the disc itself. If there is no emblem on the disc, then you can be fairly sure that it's not a red-book CD, i.e. it's been DRMed]

SD: That is a CD. Would you like to buy it?

Me: Let me talk to the manager.

SD: [grumble, grumble, goes to get manager]

Manager: How can I help you.

Me: Sorry to be a bother, I'm just trying to find out if you have this record on Compact Disc.

Mngr: That is a compact disc.

Me: As I explained to your colleague, it is not a Compact Disc because there is no emblem indicating red-book CD Audio compliance. Do you have it on Compact Disc?

Mngr: Ah. Well this is better than Compact Disc [I nearly lost it when he said that, but kept my composure and plugged along].

Me: How?

Mngr: You can play it on your computer and keep the tracks as high-quality Windows media files.

Me: But I can play a Compact Disc on my computer, and I don't run Windows.

Mngr: Look, This is a music disc that will play in any CD player. Would you like to buy it.

Me: No. I'd like to buy a Compact Disc. Do you have one?

Mngr: If you look around, I'm sure you'll find a lot of Compact Discs in the store.

Me: But not this one?

Mngr: No, I guess not.

Me: Thanks anyway for your time. [leaves]

When we went by the shop a little later, I noticed some of the employees were looking very closely at CD boxes. I can only hope they were looking for the logo.

The moral of the story is that I have very little power against the music companies, and the only power I can excercise is to not purchase their goods. Along the same lines, I don't download their goods either. A legal download gives them cash and legitimacy, while an illicit download gives them ammunition. All I want to give them is the finger.

Instead, I've been gradually filling my Myth box with music from my local library. They've got tens of thousands of CDs [though I've never seen any of these better-than-CDs there], and don't seem to want to tell me where and how to listen them. My current crop is The Miles Davis Quintet box set, The The's Dusk, Tom Waits' Alice, and Falling in Love with Duke Ellington.

If it came down to it, I'd rather live without music than do anything that would help the current major record labels.

Just my $0.02.

How to kill DRM

[spaceyhackerlady]

Like all brain-damaged products, the way to kill DRM is not to buy it. If the manufacturers can't make any money with it, they will drop it. That's how business works.

Sadly, few people have any idea of what's going on. I rmember trying to explain the Dmitry Sklyarov case to somebody and failing miserably.

I have several CDs that claim to be copy protected, but this seems to range from nasty warnings only, to CDs that refuse to play on windows boxes unless you play them with their player. My Linux boxes play them without comment.

Only one copy-protected CD (Face A Face B by Axelle Red) in my collection is in any way difficult to play - on my portable CD player, where it plays the first few seconds of each track, over and over. My car CD player plays it without comment, and my Linux boxes play it and will rip tracks from it until the cows come home.

I've never bought a DRMed tune from an online vendor, and never will. If enough people did this, all this nonsense would come to an end. When the marketplace speaks, business has no choice but to listen.

...laura

Re:Apple Cheats

[Blondie-Wan]

Well, call me a Mac fanboi...

DRM does indeed suck, and open standards are good, but in all fairness, the EFF article there is misleading or wrong on at least a couple points with regard to iTunes purchases:

For one thing, check out this paragraph from TFA:

But Apple reserves the right to change at any time what you can do with the music you purchase at the iTunes Music Store. For instance, in April 2004, Apple decided to modify the DRM so people could burn the same playlist only 7 times, down from 10. How much further will the service restrict your ability to make legal personal copies of your own music? Only Apple knows.

Yes, it's true you can only burn a single unmodified playlist seven times. However, to burn it more than seven times, all one has to do is change the playlist - you can simply change the order of a couple tracks, add a track, delete a track, change the name of the playlist, whatever - and then burn it again; you can even change the playlist and then immediately change it back to the way it was before burning, so that you can still easily make as many burns of the playlist as you like. The workaround is incredibly trivial. The burn limit, then, doesn't remotely stop anyone from making >7 CDs of a playlist for friends or whatever; all it does (and all it's intended to do) is require a little human intervention in the duplication process after every seventh burned disc, to keep you from simply hooking up your computer to a multi-hundred-disc burner and cranking out copies by the truckload to sell on the streets while you go out for a sandwich. Unlike songs from some of the other DRM'ed music outfits, there is no limit on the number of times you can burn any individual track, so if you really "need" to burn a thousand CD copies of whatever it is you're getting, you can do so (and you can even burn the same playlist a thousand times; you just can't do it automatically, without intervening after every seventh burn).

The box at the end of the iTunes section also adds:

Additional iTunes Music Store Restrictions

* Restricts back-up copies: Song can only be copied to 5 computers

... except that's actually not true. You can copy the songs to as many damn computers (or CDs or DVDs or whatever, as discussed above) as you like; you just can't simultaneously enable more than five computers to play them. This has nothing to do with back-up copies; the author has confused backing up the files with actual usage of them (listening). You can make an infinite number of backups (and if, for whatever reason, you would rather use whole entire computers for backup purposes rather than blank optical discs or whatever, you can indeed copy the files to hard drives in hundreds or thousands of computers if you've got them handy; you just can't play it on all of them at once).

Do note, too, that when Apple changed the number of times you could burn a playlist without changing it from ten down to seven (which was done at the request of the record companies, who despite their frequent filesharing lawsuits and whatnot are evidently still more concerned about unauthorized actual physical copies), they also increased the number of computers you could simultaneously authorize to play the music, up to five; it used to be just three. I personally think this is a considerable improvement over the DRM situation when the iTMS first launched (since the playlist burning limit is so trivial to workaround, whereas if you wanted to listen to music on more than three computers you'd have to deauthorize one and authorize another each time, aside from the greater need to be able to play a track on multiple comps than to be able to burn more than seven "backups" in the first place).

All that said... yeah, I do think it still sucks that DRM "has" to be there, and I do use other services that provide unfettered, DRM-free MP3s (eMusic, for one).

Re:They missed one more

[nolife]

A quick skim of the Yahoo music site show at least the following are compatible with its service:

Creative Labs Zen Micro
Dell DJ 20GB (Gen 2)
Dell DJ 30GB
Dell Pocket DJ
RCA Lyra RD2762
RCA Lyra RD2765
Audiovox SMT 5600 Smartphone
Creative Labs Zen Portable Media Center
iRiver H10
iRiver H320
iRiver H340
iRiver Portable Media Center-120
Samsung YH-999 Portable Media Center
Creative Labs NOMAD MuVo series
Creative Labs NOMAD MuVo series
Creative Zen Touch
irock 800 series
RCA Lyra 1021/1071
RCA Lyra 2010/2011/2012
Rio Cali series
Rio Carbon series
Rio Forge series
Samsung YP-MT6 series
Samsung YH-820
Samsung YH-925
SanDisk 256MB/512MB/1GB

You can head over to the WMA compatibility list at MS and find a list of at least over 250 portable devices plus another 100 or so other devices that can play WMA.

I would estimate from the MS site referenced alone, there is about 100x more devices on the market that can play various WMA files then can play something from iTMS. Many of the above players will play music bought from just about any music service as well (Yahoo, Rhapsody, Wal-Mart etc) with the exception of iTMS.

There are a large percentage of people who do have iPods and I guess technically you may be correct in your statement about a majority being excluded. They are NOT excluded by the lack of other units and services though, only the fact that they decided to stick with the single choice of iTMS and an iPod. Each person is capable of making a decision on which route to take. I still use cd audio disks and plain old data cds of mp3s in an old $40 portable cd player. At my computer I use Rhapsody (no individual track buying though, just unlimited streaming). If I was making the jump to a music service and wanted portable support, I believe the choice of players and services of the other offerings would far outweight the "stlye" and "hipness" of an iPod and iTMS any day. YMMV

You're not buying, you're renting.

[CustomDesigned]

That is what I tell non-techie family and friends. I don't talk about how "evil" such media companies are, I just explain that calling their purchase a "sale" is a "stretcher" - something average folk are very familiar with in advertising.

When you "buy" a DVD, you do not actual own the copy, you have merely purchased a long term rental. The rental agreement lets you play it at home for an indefinite period (basically as long as the current type of player is still produced and/or yours still works) - subject to certain restrictions on some titles (e.g. being forced to watch the previews).

Instead of breaking the law wherever feasible, I think our crowd would be much more successful helping to enforce it. If the EFF could bring suit simply to force media companies to stop calling what they do "selling copies", and call them "long term rentals" instead, then the market would take care of the rest. There would still be a market for long term rentals - but you would also be able to actually buy a copy for more money than a long term rental (probably something around what video rental stores pay for their copy).

The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it vigorously.

Incorrect, Hymn at worst in a grey area

[SuperKendall]

The thing to note about Hymn (a tool you can use to convert AAC files with DRM into plain AAC files) is that is DOES NOT break the DRM Apple uses. It uses YOUR OWN KEY to extract the data.

That is why Hymn still stands out in the open (relativley), while WMV crackers are more low-profile.

That is the difference, the Apple tools leans toward the side of Fair Use (legally at least) while the WIndows Media breakers looks much more like pure copyright bypass mechanisms as defined by the DMCA.

Consider that the first versions of Hymn even still included your userID in the de-DRM'ed file, as a goodwill gesture to show it really was for fair use. Sadly Apple axed that feature when they changed iTunes a bit to try and not play files converted through Hymn (Apple seems to have given up trying though since now there's no way to tell the difference between an AAC file from Hymn and one from other programs).

Half truths about iTMS

[aristotle-dude]

Additional iTunes Music Store Restrictions
Restricts back-up copies: Song can only be copied to 5 computers
False. Songs can only be authorized for playback on up to 5 computers but you can make as many backups as you like.

Restricts converting to other formats: Songs only sold in AAC with Apple DRM
False. You have been given the right to burn and export songs for personal use.

Limits portable player compatibility: iPod and other Apple devices only
Partially true, however, you can burn and rip for personal use.

No remixing: Cannot edit, excerpt, or otherwise sample songs
False. You can do all of those things for personal use. I've done so many times with iMovie and iDVD. It is no different than the rights you get with CDs unless you explicitly purchase as commercial license for a recording.

Here are the terms of service.