Slashdot Mirror
FairUse4WM Breaks Windows DRM
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?"
FairUse4WM Breaks Windows DRM
should read:
FairUse4WM Fixes Windows DRM
'cause it makes something previously unusable, usable. (Not that I will ever be using this app, I've never been stupid enough to buy a DRM encumbered piece of content).
Oh - and for those hoping it stripped the DRM from WMV9. Nope, WMA DRM only.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I think the industry should start wondering who the cat really is.
My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
You have the right to manipulate the magnetization on your harddisk in any way, right?
I've used yahoo music for a year, and now Urge (Urge is far better from a user interface viewpoint). I think these services are great! I know this is against some singulatarians--but I hope this gets patched up quick. Look at the differences between iStore and this. I can download all I want--and the bookmarks are even saved so I can download to another computer! If you lost your tracks in iStore, you're out the money. I don't want the iStore to be the only game in town!
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.
They've already written a follow-up: An open letter to Microsoft: Why you shouldn't kill FairUse4WM.
This whole thing reminds me of Cory Doctorow's DRM and MSFT: A Product No Customer Wants.
Perhaps also of interest, engadget's open letter to microsoft on why they shouldn't kill FairUseWM.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
But seriously, if you've bought something with Windows DRM, you could spent a few minutes searching around on Bittorrent and download a DRM-free version of it.
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.
Now I can finally see Windows Media DRMed content on my mac. I really don't care whether M$ supports DRM on the mac or somebody else breaks it. I'm just sick of the "macs not supported" errors when trying to view video on the mac.
I think the next Slashdot story will be about the authors' arrest for DMCA violation. :-(
I doubt Microsoft will let this slide.
Does this mean I can use it to strip the DRM from pr0n I've downloaded?
> 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?
Big Media is screwed.
Unless of course they develop new business models.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
the term cat and mouse game implies that there is a chance for the big media companies to win. For every programer that they employ to create DRM, there are at least 10 hackers sitting around with nothing better to do than to break this, and many of them come from countries that either do not respect US IP laws (Korea, China), or that do not have such insane IP laws like ours to begin with (Sweden). To be blunt, they do not have a chance to win at all.
The goal of DRM is to make content harder to pirate than most people are willing to work. IE, make DRM easier than piracy. However, since only one or two people (hi-fi and low-fi versions) need to crack a CD/song to get it into the filesharing networks, DRM as it stands is failing. However, a non-crippled DRM, that can do almost everything pirated music can do, can work well. It's easier to use, legal, and can play on most players. That sounds like something that can beat piracy, because most people want easy, legal, and affordable music. $10 or $15 a month for music is reasonable, and if you get decent rights to go with it (any MP3 player, all your computers, etc.), it sounds like a great deal.
yahoo / napster subscriptions increase ten fold overnight :-)
You have the right to tear down your home and put up a scale replica of the Taj Mahal, right?
As zoning laws apply to your property by precdent, licensing applies to the ones and zeros on your HD by precedent.
Silly nation of laws.
It only takes 1 realy angry 12 year old to make a copy of a piece of media (un DRMed through various means including cracking and the analog hole) available freely on the internet for it to be available to anyone everyone. Why would you alienate your consumers with a technology that doesn't fix the problem but creates more?
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?"
Information is public property, DRM is just a challenge
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
This doesn't have any effect on WMV. It's WMA -- that's audio content only.
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.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
all Ican say is So long and thanks for all the DRM
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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
anything locked by windows DRM is not useable on anything else. so it's a good think to crack that crystal cage. data wants to be freely used, not enslaved to only brand X equipment.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Let them build their walled, locked garden of delights. Don't ask for admission; don't steal tickets; don't even wonder what's inside. Convince everyone else you can to do the same -- don't buy DRM'd products (but only the open ones).
Shortly those who thought "their" product was so sacrosant will learn they rule only at the pleasure of the peasants.Do you like Japanese imports?
who encodes/downloads in WM anyway?
they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!
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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
If a company rents discs with digital data on them, many Slashdotters will claim the right to rip them before returning. If a company rents DRM'ed files, tools will be created to strip the DRM. Is rental an unenforceable, and thus obsolete, business model? Or will companies simply accept the "shrinkage"?
No kidding. I sent this story in to Slashdot early Friday morning. It was summarily rejected a half hour later.
/.!!!!!
Way to keep on top of things,
It's highly amusing how different the reaction here is than to any of the "FairPlay DRM Broken" stories.
Particularly since this seems to be far less legitimate than Hymn and the like, in that it actually does let you have access to songs you have no legal access to - songs purchased on the subscription model where you've stopped paying the subscription.
http://www.apple.com/ilife/tutorials/itunes/it7-3. html
"The best way to ensure you don't lose your music and videos is to perform regular backups"
Maybe they'll redownload it if you beg them, but there doesn't seem to be a willingness to use it as a repository to move from computer to computer--something I'd find useful. "Plays for sure" does this just fine. I did buy a song through Urge--I'm not sure if that will be transferable.
Does this mean more people are going to use the wm format? That's a bad thing
Just a thought but this could be a strategic plan for Microsoft. How so?
1. This causes a huge swell in memberships to the WMA services (Napster, Yahoo! and URGE) before their launch of Zune. Looks good on paper and looks good for Wall Street. Not to mention they patch the hole shortly thereafter...
2. They significantly disrupt the other WMA services (since they won't be needed anymore after Zune product launch?).
3. They get a ton of people to adopt WMA, fix the hole, and then hope people say "this ain't so bad, I might just pay for the service and/or a player to avoid the inconvenience of converting/rebuilding my collection on the iPod platform".
4. Build a "blacklist" of IPs/computers prone to piracy.
5. Build a marketing list of people who likely object to FairPlay.
6. Great publicity stunt for WMA, it's services and devices (bad press is better than no press?).
7. Excellent way to grab marketshare from iTMS and not at their own expense (unless the RIAA tries to recoup it's losses from MSFT).
Any other suggestions?
Who would mod this as a troll? I It is a valid question based upon the previous poster's presupposition.
This further proves that in spite of the best efforts of media companies, some brave souls on the Internet will continue to fight the good fight...and more often than not, win.
I hate the term 'Sig'.
They may be able to legislate the analog hole out of America, but there will always be someone, somewhere, with a device capable of getting an analog signal that's 99.9% as good as the digital one. Remaster the video from that signal and distribute it and it's game over.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Is that it doesn't harm someone else. That's generally assumed whenever someone says people have the right to _______.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
The Cat v. Mouse battle is not a good analogy here -- a better one is the age old battle between armor and warhead. As soon as new armour comes out, a new weapon comes out. This will conclude in the same way the battle between sword and armor ended -- with the ultimate evolution in a killing blade and method of swordplay -- the rapier (and its derivatives, the sabre and smallsword), and fencing. The rapier (in the hands of an expert) was so fast and applied such pressure at the point that it could puncture any armor that had joints. It was so light that the unarmoured duelist could easily avoid the swings of a man in mail. The only armor that could stop the ultimate sword was too cumbersome to be of any use to the wearer, and a duelist wearing armour and wielding a heavier sword tired so quickly that an adroit fencer could win any contest of individuals.
DRM will meet the same fate. Better armor, then better weapons in a cycle till the ultimate blade comes to pass.
And then we'll move on to guns.Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
While it is true that each time a new DRM scheme comes out, some prodigy out there reverse-engineers/cracks it so that anyone can listen to it. Unfortunately, they're in violation of the DMCA each and everytime they do this. Any US citizens are at an extreme liability. Any non-citizens who accomplish said goal better be in a non-extraditing country, and making no future plans for travel within the US's boarders.
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
That we (as 'comsumers') have to purchase DRM-free (and other assorted rootkit-style malware) music/movies/etc. from 'shady' dealers overseas if we wish to enjoy our purchase any way we wish?
And by 'any way we wish' I mean 'in the same fashion our fathers enjoyed their purchases'
Boo DRM, hooray allofmp3!
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Download directly from FileForum here. I couldn't get the forum thread with the download link to load.
This message will self-destruct in 5, 4, 3...
Good Idea - but it breaks the logic of not downloading illegal content to avoid getting a Notice from RIAA.
Wincopy
1) Does it run (on) Linux?
2) How does it work?
As for 2, I would like to know whether they just remove some bytes from the files and then everybody can play it anywhere or is it a special driver/codec that doesn't care about the WMDRM. In the first case, it should be fairly easy then to play your stuff on other hardware and platforms (as you should always be able to do without evil companies) using eg. VLC in the second case, you will have to transcode using this software to DivX or other formats to play your stuff on other players
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Though it does have a negative stigma surrounding the technology, DRM isn't always the enemy. For example, it is the backbone of email anti-theft software, which prevents your information from being stolen or redistributed when sent through email.
I think too many focus on the negative aspects of DRM associated with media files to remember that it has some very useful qualities.
Nice in theory, except for the fact you are not taking into consideration a number of things:
1)In our society, the number of people who are actually going to follow your advice are a small enough blip to be dismissed as other factors (IE "there's no boycott, it's those damned pirates")
2)Popular music is popular for one reason -it's popular. You're not going to stop people from buying or pirating what's popular. It's how our culture currently works. Flat out, all of the people who buy britany spears and watch reality tv aren't going to stop. You haven't considered that
3)You have to get the word out to not just the people you're trying to convince, but to all of the people who *need* to be convinced. With no media access, you plan to do that how, exactly? (PROTIP: most suits, grandmothers and normal people aren't going to visit your fightdapowa.com websight)
In short, I think you need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan which takes the real world into consideration.
But they didnt.
Wincopy
If a seller sets his price &/or terms too high and (thus) restricts the end user, his volume falls, and he makes less off his product.
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.
Let's see. I use Linux. I would like to play my music on any device I want, including Linux.
There was a time when I actually owned music. Hell, there was a time when we owned software. You are right to have that "right or wrong" disclaimer. It is most certainly wrong.
Watching a movie on a handheld device, like a Video iPod, is a good way to pass the time on, say, a train ride, or a road trip...
Now, in your case, I can actually see it's a tradeoff. But you don't seem to see that, all you see is "If you disagree, you must be a pirate."
There is one kind of DRM I do put up with, and that's Steam. I put up with it because games are software, and commercial games are commercial software, and when was the last time anyone got source code to commercial software? Steam's DRM seems like it would only be a problem to people who are still on dialup, as it requires you to be online at least sometimes, and when it's online, it wants to update. But other than that, it lets me do absolutely everything I want with it -- I can install it on any number of computers, I can backup to DVD or to a network, I can restore to my account or someone else's, I can have it installed as many places as I want (as long as only one is online at a time), I can re-download any game I've bought, no matter where I bought it... Basically, Steam gives me more freedom than the competition, and the only cost is something I will never hit.
Compare that to Windows Media DRM. I like to play my music on Linux, with a commandline program so I can easily play it on a headless box plugged into a sterio, on my Mac laptop (which I'm switching to Linux soon). I like to copy it as many times as I want, copy it over the network, keep it archived in Flac so I can convert from the source to any format I want. I like to actually own my music, and I like to buy from sites like MagnaTune, so I actually support the artist.
I admit that, in terms of sheer cost and convenience (if I give up Linux), I'm tempted by these music rental services. But I don't want to rent my music, I want to own it.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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.
You know not of what you talk. The singularity will be unlike any other event in our past. A self-sufficient being needs not to barter or gain money.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.
- Benjamin Franklin
MISSING - Sig file. 2 years old black and white and very funny. If found please email me.
The only problem is that subscription services are vulnerable to the software. If you sign up for a free trial for one of these services, you can strip the DRM from all of the music you download before your trial expires, and keep it without charge.
I thought that the point of those services was to provide a subscription model so that you never *BUY* the music. You're supposed to pay for access to their library. In this case, you aren't buying the music, you're renting it from the provider.
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.
I look forward to the day when this DRM issue moves more into the center of popular politics. It will (I hope) when the people who really understand these issues grow up (literally) and vote. Then maybe we can vote out the entertainment industry whores who gave us unconstitutional trash like the DMCA and 75 year copyright protection in the first place.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
No, they couldn't have done easily at all. The license contains the decryption key which is needed to decrypt the files and liberate them from the DRM.
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?
Click... Save As...
A MS employee rings up Mr.BiLL
Emp:Sir.Important News.
Bill:What is it?
Emp:WMA DRM has been cracked!!
Bill: What! It took them so long !?
Emp: !!!!!!
Wincopy
I'll take Questions With Obvious Answers for $200, Alex!
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
I thought of that.Still,it doesnt break unpaid content.
Wincopy
Windows has stopped making WMA players for macintoshes. and the DRM component Media Manager version 7 is not available for the old Media Player 9. Flip for Mac, mplayer and vlcplayer all lack it too.
I went to my public library yesterday to get check out their new "downloadable audio books" which they say will work on any "mp3" player. Not so. they wont play on ipods or mp3 players or even WMA players. Only WMA players with Media Manager 7 drm work.
So I can download the books to my mac, and my ipod but I cannot play them.
I'd love to be able to strip this DRM so I can play these. I'm not interested in piracy, just being able to use them, at all.
I note that I can't even simply buy a WMA player to use these. I also have to have a windows computer in order to perform the transfer of the DRM to the audioplayer. Talk about monopoly lock-in. sheesh.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Now if only I hadn't deleted all of that DRM porn that I got off USENET. Damn.
freenet:CHK@4B0S18-TtnyPlrpFbc8g5hOZ8FwSAwI,s42fmD RUV1A0x~B-P7XRSA
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 to AIFF that is DRM free). So the itunes DRM is more of a honesty reinforcement protocol than a fairuse prohibition. If the French did not like AAC/drm why are they not making a perfumed hairy armpit stink over WMA?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Bout time this happens. I have had Napster Audio for a long time now that I want to convert to MP3 so I can play on my old Diamond Rio 300. PS, if you ever want to convert some iTunes music files into MP3 (which is not allowed by the software) use a program called JHymn. It will convert the audio on the fly from M4P -> WAV -> MP3. Great stuff!
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
I can see slashdot has descended into a flame war about copyright law. Fine, but I was hoping I could talk about the technical details of this attack.
Disclaimer, I work on Windows Media DRM for portable devices(PD) and network devices(ND) porting it to a secure computing(trusted computing) enviornment running Linux.
With WMDRM each peice of content has their own unique symmetric key created by the content manufacturer. This key is encrypted using a public key of a device. During the decryption stage the content key is decrypted using a private key on the device. This private key is *also* encrypted, but is used very breifly to decrypt the content key.
That means this key sits in resident memory for a few microseconds while the decryption operation takes place, and I am %99 sure that these guys have figured out a way to either intercept one of the decryption calls, or calculate a memory offset for this content key.
Not a very difficult hack, but it takes some in depth knowledge of the DRM(I've worked on it for 6 months and doing such a thing would be non-trivial for me). However, Microsoft knows that WMDRM can be cracked easily using these methods on any non-trusted machine. Hence the trusted computing group and devices like the one I work on.
- should
become cheaper than it currently is since the disc pressing costs and whatnot have been removed. It is there with music right now. A disc at the store will cost you 13-18 dollars, a digital download will cost you 10. Granted, it isn't lossless like you get from the disc, but if that's a big deal to you, then just buy the disc.I just hope that platform-independant shops like allofmp3 become the standard.
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.
Wrong. Apple's Terms of Service explicitely give you a permission to remove the DRM by burning the songs to a CD as Audio-CD (it's illegal to remove it by any other means, thanks to DMCA). Once the DRM is gone, you are no longer bound by Apple's Terms of Service and can do what you want with the CD just as if you buy a pressed CD from record stores. That includes ripping it into MP3s. You can even use CD-RW to be environmentally friendly.
However, you are going from one lossy format (AAC) to yet another lossy format (MP3), and each scheme throws away different set of data to compress the file. You may end up with an inferior audio quality. That's the only drawback.
No actually Napster sells music too, for $.99 a song.
This makes your purchased music more usable and is just as ethical as converting your itms purchases to mp3.
Just use a stream capture software package (Replay Music among others) if you want to save a song. Since it captures at the audio card level, short of DRM being installed in hardware, no DRM can prevent it. Maybe purists can detect a degradation of quality, but to my untrained ear, the captured MP3 sounds exactly the same as the original.
I can use windows sndrec32 to capture anything played over my computer to MP3's..
create a blank.wav as long as your 'capture'
i.e. record 4 seconds of nuthin-- decrease speed (doubles time) a few times.
record OVER your blank.wav
hit 'properties' choose the lame mp3 codec & bitrate
save, !important!, type in the mp3 extension.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Just FYI, the iTunes media format is relatively simple to circumvent. Apple fought the RIAA pretty hard using the popularity of the iPod as leverage, to make this possible. The RIAA is still pissed about it, hence its recent push to tell everyone "Apple is a monopoly on music!" and that we should all use the ultra-restrictive Windows format instead.
So anyway, to convert your DRMed iTunes purchase into mp3: burn a backup copy of the songs you bought as cd-audio (a good idea regardless, so you can get it back if your computer dies). Now rip that cd-audio cd as mp3.
Obviously you're using up a cd, you're going to have to retitle your songs, and you've just downsampled your music from one lossy format to an even more lossy format. But it sure beats buying 3 more copies of that same song so that you can play it on your laptop, desktop, in your car, and at work, right?
The fact of the matter is that music is the universal language . To put a price on it is a huge strike against humanity, culture, and the chance for even the poorest people to have a bright spot in their otherwise pathetic lives.
Besides, why isn't the RIAA trying to shut down the radio stations of the world? They constantly pour free music in to the market (yeah yeah, ads are their revenue, but still). Pure hypocrisy.
And where are the calls for boycott?? The major labels are going extinct, so why don't we expediate the process and save everyone alot of pain and agony? Why can't we roll out more bit torrent-type systems? The more methods by which we can share tunes, the more frustrate the industry will become, and hopefully the quicker their demise.
Fight 'The Man', people! We deserve the freedom to enjoy music! If you have to buy, buy local and support the little people!
I have actually never come across it. I donwloand all my music via bit torrent. I know it's stealing and i don't care. If the artisist went broke and stopped performing oh well others would still make music. It's not like then end of paid musicians would be the end of music. It would be performed by people who love it and are willing to do it without being paid. That is a day I look forward to. That way we won't have so many no talent hacks putting out crap I am forced to listen to in public places, ie mall, offices, etc.. So screw buying music, I'm a thief and a revoluntionary just like our fore fathers.
WTF?
Does this tool work for Janus-locked files (commonly used in "ToGo" services)?
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.
"You and your third dimension."
Haven't tried them myself, so watch out for viruses etc, but here's a coral cached forum post @ doom9 linking mirrors etc: Download mirrors
DMCA anyone? You REALLY don't have that right.
The analogy I prefer is that the pro-DRM argument is a lot like the anti-gun-control argument. They're both wrong.
--- What?
it would be good if someone could come up with a system of government whereby, if a majority of the people think a law is unjust, they can have that law changed to better reflect what they feel is acceptable behaviour, regardless of the wishes of an elite. this of course without being sued, without civil disobedience, without suffering imprisonment or state violence. some people think that it could never work though.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
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.
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.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
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.
Like other attempts to corral the consumer, DRM will be routed around and made irrelevant by the very people it seeks to ensnare. Witness the growth of YouTube and Google Video. Both of those originated here, did they not?
I agree with the conclusion you reach (the free exchange of ideas being vital to a nations ecenomic health) just not that we are really in danger because some people can't easily make copies of "Snakes on a Plane".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I might be wrong, and I'm not a lawyer, but I thought I read somewhere that DRM was protection for copyright owners. And the use of DRM tools was to be used by those same copyright owners. And if the artists and musicians own the copyrights to their music, did they provide any kind of proxy contract with those that deliver that music to the public?
I don't know what the big labels have in their contracts, but if they haven't been given a proxy to the copyrights, I don't see how they can provide/sell that music under any kind of DRM. The labels will own the software that provides the DRM, and that software they can do as they please, but if they don't have a proxy or own the copyrights to the music, then putting that music behind any kind of DRM would be illegal.
I also think the labels would have a better chance of owning or having a proxy on the music than Apple does. So if Apple doesn't have a proxy contract with the copyright owner of any music they sell, they shouldn't be able to have that music DRMed.
At last, a person who understands the argument... You don't like DRM, you don't like the iTunes store, so you don't buy from there...
Why is that concept so difficult to understand for so many people? Is Vertinox some sort of genius that is gifted beyond the abilities of the rest of the people on Slashdot?
Or maybe it is because many Slashdotters are so childishly selfish that all they see is that something stands between them and something they want, causing them to react with an angry tantrum...
Slashdot, where you get modded down as redundant for stating an opposing viewpoint... Independent thought anyone?
I have albums over 50 years old that I can still play,
Brief seque...
When those albums were published and sold to unsuspecting buyers, the terms of the agreement under which they were sold (i.e. copyright law) were such that by now the contents would have entered into the public domain and you would be free to make copies and share as many of them as you wished with all 4+ billion of your closest friends.
But, in the time since the album was purchased and the terms of the contract agreed to, the copyright cartel changed the terms and stole that music from you. In fact, by changing the terms of the contract under which all copyright material had been created, released and sold to included a longer duration they stole millions of creative works from the general population. I would even go so far as to say that it was the single largest theft ever in the history of the USA and unlikely to be eclipsed in dollar value any time soon (at least not until the next great thieving in about 10 years when they change the terms of copyright again).
Just something to think about next time a mafiaa apologist accuses people of stealing -- the kettle is far blacker than the pot.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
While FairUse4WM can be used to "fix" a subscription track, it can just as easily be used to make a "fixed" version of a purchased track...after which the only remaining step would be to convert it from WMA to the format of your choice.
"God is dead!" - Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead!" - God
"must have missed that article in the Constitution protecting people's rights to digitally copy and distribute other people's work."
Well first of all, the constitution isn't a list of protections of people's rights, it's a list of limits on the government's power. I realize that you didn't pay attention in 6th grade civics, but hey, I'm here to help you.
Second, you probably missed a lot of things in life, but it seems that you haven't missed on an opportunity to astroturf. And you are an astroturfer. All your replies are emotional soundbites meant to gain an emotional sympathy for your arguments. Like this one... it tries to get people to say "Hey yea, the consitution doesn't say anything about this, and the dirty pirates are stealing and anyway, I heard from our president that most of these pirates are just terrorist anyway".
But the reality is that Copyright was intended to prohibit commercial distribution of copyrighted works, not in people sharing books (and now, CD's and movies). So let's say times have changed and congress, because of massive lobbying by entrenched lobbyist are now trying to expand the definition of copyright in order to make more money. That's an honest appraisal. The question for all of us is, are we better off with a lot more control over our daily lives by corporations, or are we better off with people sharing these things without limits, probably fundamentally changing how we view creative works?
That's an unemotional response; something that would help your arguments a lot more than simply saying everyone is a theif if they don't agree with your (clearly astoturf'd) responses.
Let's see...
Top 5 Classical Tunes on Napster (as of August 28.2006):
1. Upside Down - Jack Johnson
2. These Boots Are Made For Walkin' - Nancy Sinatra
3. I Will Remember You - Sarah McLachlan
4. Fallen - Sarah McLachlan
5. Popular [Original Cast Recording] - Kristen Chenoweth
It's a complete joke. Not to mention all of the reasonably popular tunes I searched for came up empty. How useful can this service possibly be? Fifth Element soundtrack - nope. The Beatles - nope. Lots of Justin Timberland/ake tho.
$
After the millions have been invested in DRM development, was it worth it to protect the investment for the few years?
DRM makes even that simple task painful, so the new pain of subscription music is extended to your old media. Both iTunes and WMP do what you say, but the lock you to a specific machine to one extent or another. WMA is famous for being impossible to transfer to another computer. iTunes is equally onerous when you run into their R - restrictions - of DRM. If you've been a good customer and have hundreds of CDs, you will resent having to encode them again. It gets worse when you want the freedom to put your music onto portable players. Like I said, all this has really stopped is honest users who want to do normal things with their music.
I've been happier encoding my CDs with ABCDE, and now Konqueror. They get the tags right and give you a choice of formats, FLAC, ogg or mp3. Needles to say, I can put my music onto as many machines as I want and the CD is now just a nice, last resort backup.
Such ease of enjoying music has some wrong headed people at music companies talking about killing CD as a format.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm from Denmark and I really don't think there is anything sissy about having the state protect citizens from cooperations.
In fact I think it's an important part of protecting freedom of the citizens, just look how badly the US is doing in the freedom department (people getting stomped by cooperations in courts, MPAA/RIAA buying laws like DMCA, software patents, DRM).
I realize that freedom is out of fashion in the US right now, so protecting freedom might be a lost argument on the bootlicking sheep who seem to accept any restrictions placed on them by their cooperate or government overlords.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
Which is why the US is much better off as a republic than it would be if we were a democracy.
Granted, we're stuck with 2 crappy parties who control the voting process enough that no third party has a chance of taking leadership nationally for many years to come.
Good teachers are too busy to complain about DRM impacting their classroom. They're too good at adapting to whine until some industry dude decides to play nice in the classroom. Their students are too smart to let a little thing like DRM stop them (how old was the guy who invented WinAMP?). The good teachers are busy picking up the slack from the parents and other bad teachers to care too much about using a sound clip in the classroom. The clip doesn't work? Fine, I'll use something else to teach with.
This isn't a fight fit for the classroom. This is a fight fought with your wallets. If they want to DRM themselves out of business, it is the consumer's responsibility to say so in cash or complete and utter lack thereof.
I think you mean Answers with Obvious Questions :)
DRM=Draconian Rights Management, Down Right Mean, Don't Reuse Music, Don't Record Music, Delete Rights to Music, Digitally Restricted Music, Damn Rippoff Music, Damned Retarded Media.
Digital Rights, who's rights, Oh yes we have none. Go Pirate Bay!!!
The funny thing is that Jeopardy! actually has a category like this, called "Stupid Answers."
Wow, clearly you've been reading a different Slashdot all these years. You're right. I'm responsible for why every technology site on the internet is filled with whiny 13-year-olds. I can't believe you found me out.
Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
That's what the moderation system and comment filtering is for.
Re: your obvious contribution to the crap, you've posted it here (your OP in this thread) so I feel quite justified in assuming that you post worthless crap elsewhere also.
If you want breaking stories, go somewhere else. If you want good discussion (yes, with all its foibles) read Slashdot. The two are pretty much mutually exclusive at this point.
So, quit your whining and realize that you pick the appropriate tool for the job.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
It's a different story if you are talking about disabling
an optional component from an optional (XP) upgrade, or if
it is included by design (Vista), and always running even
if you use their competitor's similar (RealPlayer) product.
How am I supposed to comment this when theres no link to download it?
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
I meant you wouldn't be able to have meaningful (low latency communication). This is still up in the air in the physics community. Also up in the air and quite meaningful are speculations on heat death--are we guaranteed to die because of thermodynamics?
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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Most of the major record companies have adopted a method of distributing musical content that is not encumbered by DRM, and is built around a standards compliant system that allows the content to be used in a tremendous number of devices built by any manufacturer.
As a side benefit, the musical content being distributed is also available in a much higher audio resolution than is available from iTunes or any similar online music store.
Musical content distributed in this format is easy to make backup copies of, and although it is still unlawful to distribute these copies to others, you can easily and legally preserve your musical library.
The format is called a "Compact Disk", or "CD" for short... I've tested the technology out, and it seems quite promising. Give it a try...
Slashdot, where you get modded down as redundant for stating an opposing viewpoint... Independent thought anyone?
You are blowing what I am saying all out of proportion by equating it to big scary proclimations from "The Government".
I am saying consumers themselves will make any DRM that annoys them irrelevant. They are already doing so with YouTube. They have done so in other countries buy only buying region-free players even when companies tried to lock down regions (not as popular in the US because most content is region one anyway).
I am saying the DRM will be irrelvent because IF it affects user freedoms as you or I fear, people will use something else, and that something else is probably online distribution of video that people will enjoy just as much as the heavily encumbered video that fewer people will watch.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
CAT: Wait, I know this game. It's called cat and mouse, and there's only one way to win; don't be the mouse.
The only informative part of this post is that Yahoo!s tech support didn't help with what was probably a Creative problem. (I suspect if you had formatted the player and tried again you'd have been OK.)
You've somehow decided that factoring in the cost of a fairly expensive player makes sense (what, did you give it back?) -- and have neglected to tell us why you purchase what was apparently a 20+GB model and only loaded 150 songs on it when you had made the choice to use a subscription service. (Hint--subscription services are so that you can experience a large amount of music without having to buy it all.)
You still paid only $60 for 150 songs (~ $0.40 per song) for 7 months. And then you want to keep the songs?
I don't feel that a subscription model fits my music habits, so I don't use one. Apparently you shouldn't either. However, there are some people for whom it makes perfect sense.
The only argument FOR FairUse4WM is that you want to use your subscription-based songs on an incompatible player (be it your Linux box or your ipod).
Wanting to KEEP the songs that are SPECIFICALLY sold as a rental is just wrong. You want to keep the songs, BUY THEM. (Walmart will sell them to you for $0.90 IIRC.) THEN you have an argument for removing the DRM because you paid to keep the songs, not rent them.
People who want to abuse the subscription model just give everyone wanting exercise their actual fair use rights a bad name.
>>To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts
>>secondly your work must promote Science and useful Arts.
The music IS the art that is being promoted. Sheesh. After a limited time, your work should go into public domain BECAUSE IT'S ART. It's part of society, culture, etc.
SO in order to promote art, we let them have exclusive rights to distribute their works for a limited time. Otherwise, they'd have to be working a "real" job instead of producing art.
Glad you took the time to post your experience with this. Hope you also take the time to help non-techies understand what happened to you. I'm getting sick of being the tech support guy for acquaintances whose hassles are the result of uninformed purchasing decisions like using a DRM infested online store to acquire their entire music library.
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 erroneously prevent access than to erroneously grant it. The crime of it all is that purveyors of crippled content take advantage of gullible consumers by creating an illusion of simplicity, ease and permanence. Only when they try to use the content as they normally would do these folks find out that what they actually got was an ultra-complicated rental process that takes their content with it when they cancel.
Pi Ran Out
My biggest fan writes:
Ripping with iTunes does not add DRM to your music. Ripping with Windows Media Player can add DRM to your music, but it's a choice you are given very clearly when you first rip a CD with it.
As if anyone can rip their CDs and transfer the results any number of times to any device on either system. If that were true, the world would be a better place because DRM would not be DRM.
Not having either iTunes or WMP, I have to defer to what others report. For WMP and iTunes, I trust Cory Doctorow of the EFF and my own friends. For an updated look at where WMP has gone, I'll refer you to previous posts quoting the Washington Post review of ViiV and WMP, which show things have gotten worse instead of better in the last two years. Yes, my biggest fan is sure to know where that is, so I don't even have to look for it.
Doctrow has this to say:
I hit Apple's three-iTunes-authorized-computers limit pretty early on and found myself unable to play the hundreds of dollars' worth of iTunes songs I'd bought ... If I hadn't bought so much iTunes music that burning it to CD and re-ripping it and re-keying all my metadata was too daunting a task to consider, I would have been fine. As it was Apple rewarded my trust, evangelism and out-of-control spending by treating me like a crook and locking me out of my own music ...
...
I know who used to rip their CDs to WMA. You guys sold them software that produced smaller, better-sounding rips than the MP3 rippers, but you also fixed it so that the songs you ripped were device-locked to their PCs. What that meant is that when they backed up their music to another hard-drive and reinstalled their OS (something that the spyware and malware wars has made more common than ever), they discovered that after they restored their music that they could no longer play it. The player saw the new OS as a different machine, and locked them out of their own music.
He's being too nice to Apple about the rekeying and M$ about WMA formats. Friends have told me that Apple's restore is a royal pain that loses the metadata. If you've lost the metadata, you might as well re rip all of your CDs again. I know I don't want to go through that every three computers. The EULA is unilaterally changeable, so once they have you they can impose whatever they want. In the end they are going to impose what the RIAA wants, which is what M$ delivers today. Oh yeah, if the "choice" about adding DRM to your ripped CDs was so clear, how come so many people have gotten burnt that Doctrow can walk onto M$'s campus and wag his finger at them?
I'm going to skip the whole mess. WMA is not really better than MP3 and both loose out to ogg. Free software does everthing I want it to do with my music and comes without restrictions of anykind.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I think any form of restriction is useless. If I can look at it, or hear it, I can tell/inform others about it, and they can make an informed decision based upon someone they trust. Trusted Computing will always be defeated by "Trusting Users" especially when those trusting users aren't trusting Microsoft, but their friends, instead.
/. response on this article, apparently not many of you do believe in it. Those that do speak out are probably 200% or more free than the rest. The rest of this crowd, are sheeple. I got off my ass to do something about our problems, now how about the rest of you follow a 24-year old's example, huh? If you sit around and bitch, nothing happens. Do you want to see change? Get out of your damned computer chair and make a damned scene. Until you do, you accomplish NOTHING with your griping. Quit being hypocrites.
/. posts as my hard drive allows me to store. You people are not only hypocritical, but LAZY. Either make a difference, or get the fuck out of the way for someone who wants to make a difference.
On a side note, DRM is still useless. As long as we do not have chips implanted in our heads and eyes and ears in order to control what we "should see" the DMCA is a moot point, and a weak atempt at controlling the consumer's willingness to buy a product. I call that "Forced consumerism" and from what I remember, the government has no right to force us to buy something we don't want, DRM-laden or NOT. Kinda like insurance - if they're going to require it, they need to PROVIDE IT. Require Car insurance? They need to provide the insurance for us, and our tax money goes to pay the insurance company of our choice.
I have to wonder, on that last piece of my side note, how many of you people truly believe in "No taxation without fair and equal representation." Judging from the current
I've done my part, now it's up to the rest of you tools to get things done. Sorry for an inflammatory post, but I'm speaking the truth, and I've archived as many
Bring on the downmods - you've been accounted for and factored into my equation. It's pre-planned, so I expect to be downmodded into oblivion - which means I'm reading all of you PERFECTLY. The only cure to this is to mod me up. I doubt that happens.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You're painting with a pretty broad brush there. How about engaging people's arguments instead of attacking the motives you project onto them?
If I want a song, I'm happy to pay for the CD once. Mind you, that doesn't mean once to play it from my computer, once to play it from my wife's, once to play it at work, once again for my car, and once again for my mobile device - and having that just cover usage in August. I'm not happy that purchased, DRMd content needs to be re-transferred to my mobile device every 48 hours because it expires, and that it requires a connection to the provider to renew the license. I'm not happy that my sister's entire *purchased* music library was lost over a DRM snafu. I'm not happy that quite a bit of music can't be purchased in an unencumbered, interoperable version at all, leaving illegit channels as the only purveyor of tracks in this manner.
If I want a movie, I'm happy to purchase or rent it. I pay for a Netflix subscription in addition to having HBO and Showtime added to my cable subscription. I'm also happy to pay my cable provider extra for the HDTV experience, and I'm happy to pay extra for a Media Center edition of Windows that lets me timeshift my content. Now I'm not happy to be unable to watch HDTV in HTDV through my setup. I'm not happy to have my purchased content artificially degraded down to S-Video quality when all the equipment is natively capable of recording the original HDTV stream and delivering it to my screen. I'm not happy that with many of my favorite programs, there is no way to purchase a recording at HD resolutions (or the means to make one legitimately), but there are means to acquire it illegitimately in HDTV with the commercials already stripped out. I'm also not happy to be artificially restricted from archiving certain programs to a video DVD from the Media Center interface, when a normal DVD recorder/player or any other software recorder would allow it; I'm not happy to have Media Center's TV guide data include flags that add artificial restrictions onto my already distorted copy of content I've rightfully purchased.
I'm also not happy to be forced to watch pre-show messages when viewing a DVD I've purchased on a player I've purchased.
Lastly, I'm *extremely* unhappy that I cannot legally discuss the technical details of programmatic fixes that may exist for some of the above conundrums. This isn't a fair use issue, it's a first ammendment issue.
At the end of the day, I'm happy to pay the asking price for the media I consume, and I'm one of the ones complaining the loudest about DRM. The discussion certainly is not all about free songs.
Pi Ran Out
Nothing whatever. I wouldn't pay a dollar for a song even if the major labels were producing anything I'd want to listen to, anyway. I buy CDs from local bands, and occasionally a used title from Recycled Records or a garage sale and rip it to MP3.
That said, Sony still got me with their "DRM" rootkit when my daughter played a CD she bought at the record store she worked at in it. Wound up costing me $100 for XP (I was running 98 'cause Linux won't work in this box and video drivers were unavailable for 98) and a new sound card. But Sony's rootkit isn't really DRM... is it? DRM is something that trashes your computer?
If I'd examined my daughter's Sony-BMG rootkit CD I would have made a safe copy of it for her to play.
The only problem I have with DRM (besides Sony's rootkit, I mean) is DVDs and the DMCA.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
But I belive extradition treaties would not permit the US to demand the author's arrest, as no crime was commited in the US. While the action would have been illegal in the US, it wasn't commited in the US.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
Yes, many other companies will sink their money in DRM systems, and many of these platforms are still bound to fail. Unfortunately the legal provisions will make many people bleed until a reasonable way of dealing with digital technology will have been found. As Cory Doctorow put it (in his talk to the Microsoft Research group to be found here: http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt):
I just purchased a Dell DJ Ditty so that I could play my Yahoo Music Unlimited Subscription Service audio files. Now that Dell is no longer supporting the DJ Ditty http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/ 24/2154216, will I have a broken MP3 player when and if Microsoft upgrades their DRM to a "unbreakable" version 12? My MP3 player's firmware is built to handle current Subscription services, will the next gen DRM require a firmware upgrade?
You need to get a better understanding of Cryptography.
He license is the cryptographic key. Cracking the DRM when you have the key is much much easier then doing so without it.
probabsly too late to be read but.....
(in the US) Kids in the late half of the 19th century living in rural areas could easily outperform kids today at math, science, history, and literature. School in that era was not fun, I was fortunate enough to know my great-grandmother who was a 1 room schoolhouse teacher for most of her life.
Education in Japan is far superior to education in the US by just about every measure conceivable. Education is probably far more entertaining in the US than it is in Japan.
I'd say there's an argument to be made against entertainment in education.
Yeah, I'm a real fun guy. But I think I've got a point here.
That's only because the online music companies *choose* to provide the music in lossy compressed format. They could use lossless compression, and, with larger hard drives and faster DSL, 3-400 MB per album is actually an acceptable size since it can be downloaded in less than the play time.
Given 1.5Mbps downstream, that's ~150KB/s, so less than an hour for a 400 MB album. Not doable with a 56k modem; but 60% of the US is on some sort of broadband these days.
-b.
With a simple program called Graphedit and a 3rd party demuxer, you can extract the video and audio from .tivo files into standard mpeg files. You need the decryption keys (as you do with this) and it uses those to decrypt the stream.
This program seems to do a similar thing with the WMA files, it doesn't recode, it just filters the file through windows media player libraries and copies out the decrypted streams.
I like it.
Now, if there were only an online music service that had better quality files then Napster... and didn't charge per-song.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
How can anyone expect the public to understand the evil of DRM, when people who supposedly have a clue misuse such basic words as "piracy"? Let's ask Webster's for a correction:
b3po@freed:~$ dict piracy
3 definitions found
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Piracy \Pi"ra*cy\, n.; pl. {Piracies}. [Cf. LL. piratia, Gr. ?.
See {Pirate}.]
1. The act or crime of a pirate.
[1913 Webster]
2. (Common Law) Robbery on the high seas; the taking of
property from others on the open sea by open violence;
without lawful authority, and with intent to steal; -- a
crime answering to robbery on land.
[1913 Webster]
[1913 Webster]
Note: By statute law several other offenses committed on the
seas (as trading with known pirates, or engaging in the
slave trade) have been made piracy.
[1913 Webster]
3. "Sometimes used, in a quasi-figurative sense, of violation
of copyright; but for this, infringement is the correct
and preferable term." --Abbott.
[1913 Webster]
So those comments above really meant the word "infringers". If anyone still thinks copyright infringement involves the high seas or open violence, then they deserve their BSA, MPAA, and RIAA overlords.
A good filter could counteract politically-correct speak such as "piracy", and if slashdot does not do it, it would be a public service for a perl coder to whip up a filter to help rescue English from the juggernauts.
I've never been stupid enough to buy a DRM encumbered piece of content
I don't think anyone has ever BOUGHT content that had DRM.
The only way to get DRMed content is to LICENSE it or to STEAL it....
Only fools think they own it!
[Yes, these are sad times]
Heck, the only reason I practiced multiplication tables was to win our math races...
I admit, learning the math tables isn't the most exciting thing to do for a young kid.
Not all that long ago, I was in the same position. What got me to learn them was my school started a new program where we would have to to 100 arithmetic problems in 5 minutes -- for a grade. (I think this was in 3rd grade?).
We did this several times a week for an entire year. By the end of the year, I was finishing the problems (and getting 100% correct) in about 2-3 minutes. A little friendly competition proved to be more motovating than Math Munchers, flash cards, etc, etc...
And yes, this was an elementary school in the USA. And yes, I'm American, non-oriental, with easy-going parents, etc, etc....
Despite my school adopting the whole computers-in-the-classroom thing early on (with a set of Apple II/e !), I can't say it benefited me much. Yes, the games were fun, but they didn't educate me.
Isn't this the same DRM that runs their IPTV software at SBC, Swisscom, Bell Canada, etc ?
First thought: "Great, maybe now I can listen to all that music my girlfriend bought".
This has happened several times: I hear a great track in the radio. I start searching online for a place to buy it. Every single place I find it uses DRM in a way so I can listen to the music. I give up. A few days later my girlfriend is playing it on her computer - she bought a DRM-infected copy of the track. Great, now I can hear it on hear flimsy speakers while I'm in the office and don't really want to listen to music, but still not in my car or whatever when I do want to.
Sometimes I'll try to find a pirated copy of the track. If I succeed I usually pay, but I this very weird feeling, when I'm buying something I know I won't be able to use, supporting a DRM'ed shop. I can be really hard to convince myself to pay.
It's good when bad security design is identified and exposed. Because later it will be corrected, and eventually someone will get it right.
Likewise, if it wasn't for crackers, our firewalls would probably not be as firewally as we like to believe. Enemies (whether corporate spies or terrorists or foreign states) would have a much easier job compromising networks.
So, hug a cracker today. He keeps us safe from the bad guys. (As long as he discloses his exploits)
Stop the brainwash
Parent presents fallacious straw-man argument. Parent's parent wasn't for depriving children of entertainment. Parent misses simple truth:
/ARE/ EDUCATIONAL FOR TODDLERS.
/wisely/.
Parent wisely points out that the men & women
who hold the reigns of boardroom control over
a handful of companies with $3 bn/yr profits,
who make untold sums and live - to the world-
view of 99/100 - not only *incomprehensibly*
glutted w/the EMPIRICAL funds to act as God; &
most wouldn't be facile enough to get the joke
of, on /., playing off double-entendre out of
the rather scientific term "empirical," and
that the U.S. is at least a /part/ of Empire.
/exposure/.
/table scraps/ of certain
obscenely obese in their overruly ownership
Americans, following in the footsteps both
of those like the Medici and aiding glory -
but more often crippling their selves with a
crutch of money - and of its hypnotic power.
LEGOS
Misfire b/c "Entertainment"'s miscontext'd.
We should implement our priorities
Th'empire extends to our entrenched oligopolies sweet-dealing one another to deceive consumers. Hollywood = "Entertainment" = top-down model that Gov't/Indsutry/Crooks have had time to dig their talons into over decades without oversight, and artists MUST go through that system to provide their work broad
You'd prefer our society spend its time and effort to protect
Indeed, a recent trent in biz and politics has been OUTSOURCING of distasteful and hard PERSONAL MATTERS; the true challenges of life, those which prompt growth; maturity.
*HENCE*: --> Why the fuck give away money to the people who are one step below those like Buffet & Gates who, given the immense RICHNESS of America, ALREADY CAN'T **GIVE** THEIR UNTOLD WEALTH AWAY PHILANTHROPICALLY(!!!!!) when those 2nd order wealthy are on average less likely to be able to do immediate good in the world around them with the additional funds (vs their already $80mil in the bank) when it could affect the lives and situations of so many other people out there who could truly benefit from exposure to what artists out there wanted to SAY to EVERYONE ELSE... that's what art is, a STATEMENT that's meant to be HEARD; "Communication is the effect upon the listener," and all EDUCATION can't happen without entertaining simultaneous. Otherwise it's not tied to your self, and you might gain something, but you will be none the wiser for it. NOBODY WHO IS RICH BECAUSE THEY OWN SOMETHING *HAS* TO THINK. Some are rich due to character, fortitude, etc.; those of the record industry bilked their fortunes by being sharks preying on innocent & gullible, producers & consumers.
At least for all its bureauCRAZY and rules (not to mention structural problems that retard people by decades in development, both socially as well as intellectually), the EDUCATION sector has its fair share of hands-on chaperone nurturing teaching and cultivating type of WISE & PROTECTIVE SOUL who recognizes more fully where value lies than he who tries to sleeze value from the pimping and perversion of artists' visions.
Yes, because it's sooo much better when a few hundred people could strip the rights of, say, gays or Jews or Muslims without a second thought...
http://outcampaign.org/
You're a looser.
I think that DRM is a monopoly problem that should be solved by laws.
:)
Selling intelectual property is one legitime business. Authors sell their work to editors.
Now the editing business is a monopolist business.
I don't have various editors selling my favorite author's work so I can buy it from the one that is more avantaging to me. I think this business model is the fairest and would end up with all the DRM discussion.
Please forgive my rusty english.
I don't download music, movies or anything of the sort, mostly because I have a slow ADSL connection, and not much interest anyway.
I buy almost no music CDs, movies or whatever, because, listening to/watching all the "Anti Piracy" rants, the DRM warnings & fiascos like Sony DRM on their CDs, the "I-want-to-download" rants, I don't want to get caught in the middle of all the Big Business -v- Users action, and the legally available CD/DVDs are usually pricey.
I've been watching all this stuff for what feels like years, and it's seriously off-putting. I'd love to hear if anyone knows how many people simply don't bother for those reasons.
I'm in Australia, by the way.
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
Well, this is what Microsoft think of it...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5294750.stm
Damn it where are your modpoints when you need a -1 redundant?
If you don't want to get modded down, perhaps you shouldn't write pieces of flamebait like this; argumentum ad hominum (yes I had to look the spelling up) is considered a logical fallacy, and I personally feel it's more childish than wanting to be able to play a bought music file on your linux box, but then that's just me and 90% of slashdot it seems.
Gun-control, anti-gun-control, they're all gun-control-control movements
I think the anti-iPod thing is trendy right now. There was a point here on Slashdot, when iPods were new, when everyone and their brother was talking about how cool they were and which one they had/were-going-to-buy/etc.
Now, because they've become common, they're no longer cool; they have no geek cachet anymore. (I've always wondered whether, if the apparently dream of so many Slashdotters became reality and Linux really went mainstream, if we'd be flooded with posts the next month about how it was such a crappy OS and BSD/Minix/ReactOS was really far superior.)
The iPod certainly isn't the end-all and be-all of MP3 players, but it's pretty good at what it does. There are certainly a lot worse things floating around on the market; my girlfriend has a Creative and I think the interface and software are just terrible. She doesn't use it nearly as much as she would, I think, if it was an iPod.
I think people also can't separate the iPod from their dislike of the iTMS and its DRM scheme. This is a bit ridiculous; I might as well hate the Creative player because it works with Microsoft's DRM scheme and the Napster subscription service, or bitch because the "PlaysForSure" tracks won't play on my generic MP3-only player or my iPod. Nobody, either in the iPod camp or on the MS/PlaysForSure one, is putting a gun to your head and making you purchase DRMed tracks for that type of player.
If you become a victim of vendor lock-in, whether to an iPod or to a Creative or any of the other MS-compatible models, it's because you made a consious decision to become that way. It's lack of foresight, nothing more; you can't blame the manufacturers for capitalizing on stupidity, it's been a good business plan for thousands of years.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Or you can go to the online indie store, which sells downloads in the Fraunhofer format you ask for.
Big deal. Thanks to copyright term restoration and extension laws, no more works of authorship will enter the public domain through copyright expiration. Once a couple orders of magnitude more works are published on or after 1923 than were published before 1923, what is the significance of the public domain other than as a quaint oddity?
Over the years, Project Gutenberg will become insignificant. High school literature teachers already require students to read specific books that are copyrighted and aren't provided as part of the school's textbook rental program. For instance, a lot of curricula require the student to read the copyrighted novel The Great Gatsby by Fitzgerald. As the mainstream media recognize more recent novels as "classics of twentieth century literature", this situation will expand; students will be expected to read more post-1923 books in addition to pre-1923 books.
So do you believe that, say, a music appreciation course should stop abruptly at 1922, where the Mutopia and Gutenberg Music stop due to copyright term extension?
OK, now imagine two formats: CD and MD. There is only one manufacturer of MD players. I buy a MD player and buy MDs. Now my MD player breaks. What should I do?
You can do exactly the same thing with an iPod or other brand of digital music player: just set your iPod on "play" and your computer or CD recorder on "record". You lose less quality this way then you lost when you copied your LPs to tape.
Suspending the exclusive rights under copyright is within the power of the Congress, but it would be really f*cking dumb for the U.S. economy. It depends on whether other countries recognize international law enough to suspend trade with the United States, as implementation of the Berne Convention on Copyright is one of the necessary conditions of World Trade Organization membership.
So for people who are otherwise happy with dial-up Internet access, Steam costs $240 per year based on the average difference between residential dial-up pricing and residential broadband pricing, or more for people who live in rural areas whose only option higher than analog dial-up is ISDN. It costs even more for people with no Internet access at all, who are content to use their computers only for word processing, spreadsheets, image editing, single-player games, and same-screen party games. Should public libraries and cybercafes allow members of the general public to cart in their PCs in order to activate a game?
About gun control: If I want to buy a gun to defend myself, the government has a legitimate public safety interest in making sure that I know how to control my gun. In an ideal world, the process for getting a firearm license would resemble that for getting a motor vehicle driver license, so as to prevent nutjobs who can't control a gun from causing a problem. Car control is choosing a destination and not hitting other cars on the way there, and gun control is choosing a target and hitting your target.
The problem is when the government oversteps this public safety issue and prohibits people from keeping and bearing arms that they have been trained to control, just as when it prohibits people from cracking digital restrictions management for uses that they otherwise have a right to make.
How do I make so that it just strips the DRM? So that it doesn't go and make a brand new file? Or alternatively, how can I delete all the old DRM'ed versions in one shot?
Read my blog: HansMast.com
I think this whole copyright thing should be more like a stock.
The artists/label issue 1.000.000 stocks.
You can buy one and than you own 1/1.000.000 of a song. It has artist's name on it. You can resell it, show it to your children/friends, but you cannot make 2 stocks out of it. It is unique and has its serial number.
The label should be more like a stock exchange, living from transaction fees.
I don't think is it fair to customers to rent digital media. What do we pay for? bandwidth????
let's develop this idea...