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.
Come singularity I want to be able to buy music, not just rent it.
But I'd rather these services died a market death than a technolocial one. Then maybe the media companies would realize that people don't want to pay for something continually.
And, well, if other idiots think that renting music is better than buying than maybe they should be allowed too.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
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.
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.
But to me there is a clear distinction -- in one case, you're manipulating a file that you acquired (likely legally, since it's DRM'd). In the other case, someone is distributing a file that is a copyrighted work -- not fair use.
I don't want to get into the whole debate about whether copyright is Evil (tm), but from a personal liability point-of-view, I'd think it also much easier to justify fair use when you remove the DRM yourself than if you acquire a DRM-free version via bittorrent. Maybe not easier to justify it to **AA lawyers, but at least easier to justify it to yourself
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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
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.
Granted, a better way to be would simply to have avoided buying DRMed music in the first place, but not everyone has that foresight.
That would be better, if music distribution was not run by a cartel, repeatedly convicted of abusing their control of the market. I'd love to see everyone become enlightened and move to all DRM-free indy music, but realistically, the market will not properly counter a monopoly or cartel and the legal system and legislature are corrupt and easily bribed.
You have the right to tear down your home and put up a scale replica of the Taj Mahal, right?
As zoning laws apply to your property by precdent, licensing applies to the ones and zeros on your HD by precedent.
Wow. that's quite the analogy.
I don't understand how one is related to the other. Putting up a replica of the Taj Mahal is (arguably) an eye sore, and should have community consultation before said replica is built. I don't understand the parallels you've drawn. I don't understand how doing anything to my hard drive has any affect on my neighbours.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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'.
I think you make an important point here. One thing that people have lost sight of is that copyright is, in effect, a deal. Companies are too frightened of changing their business models to propose reasonable deals to consumers; and in their fear they place complicated restrictions on their customers.
Like many acts borne of fear, it is bound to produce the effects it fears most.
This puts me in mind of Lord Macaulay's speech on copyright extension:
Lord Macaulay's position on intellectual property was one of moderation and pragmatism. He had no truck with either form of absolutism: that which states and absolute right to use whatever information falls into our hands, or that which states and absolute right of an author to control his work as his personal property. He sees this as a deal whose terms should be set in a way that provides income to the author while minimizing inconvenience to the public. In the case of copyright extension, I think this position is sound: the gulf between what a copyright term needs to be to incent an author and the point at which the public is seriously inconvenienced is large enough to permit a whole range of pragmatic solutions that maximize the production of new books equally.
DRM for recorded music performances is possibly a different situation, and more challenging to forge a pragmatic solution for. A service like the original Napster is so convenient the bar for inconvenience is set very low. Low enough that the business models for music distribution that worked at the start of the 1990s no longer work. Apple has shown the way here: low price with high convenience converts into high volume. Keeping the DRM relaxed, basically only strict enough to prevent wholesale redistribution, keeps convenience reasonably comparable to the original Napster service. I don't think a monthly subscription service works, because it is inherently more complicated, because you are buying a relationship, not music.
The problem is greed, which I'd define as demanding more than is good for you. Or at least demanding what, if others in your position did likewise, would encourage the kind of reaction Macaulay envisions to excessive restrictions.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
Come singularity I want to be able to buy music, not just rent it.
Just because YOU want to buy only doesn't mean everybody else wants to. Just like some people prefer to rent DVDs instead of buying 'em. Nobody prevents you from buying.
But I'd rather these services died a market death than a technolocial one.
Why want them to die at all? Because less options is a good thing? Perhaps you want netflix-like services to die too? Because people renting contents is a bad thing from your standpoint seemingly...
Then maybe the media companies would realize that people don't want to pay for something continually.
You're not paying for the songs directly... You're paying for a monthly service, with tons of great new contents every month, totally unlimited. That's EXACTLY like saying "people don't want to pay for a netflix-like service continually" (and LOTS of people seem pretty happy to do just that - or just like millions of people pay every month for cable TV and such, stop paying, and you have nothing left either)
And, well, if other idiots think that renting music is better than buying than maybe they should be allowed too.
Yeah, all them idiots who think renting DVDs is better than buying than [sic] maybe they should be allowed too.
Big deal. Some people don't mind paying a few bucks for a month's worth of unlimited music, from a ridiculously huge selection (both on their portable mp3 players and home PCs). That full month of music cost pretty much the same as renting a couple DVDs from my local blockbuster (thousands of hours of music from a huge library, or ~3h worth of movies). Such a bad deal... Great for finding what new CDs are worth buying, finding new interesting stuff and such.
No one's forcing you to pay for a montly rental service, but others understand what it is (I don't think I'm buying the music there any more than I'm buying movies from netflix when using their service) and are more than happy to use it for what it is. Don't like the monthly service? Fine, just don't use it and just buy it instead. No one's preventing you from doing so...
///<sig
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 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.
DMCA anyone? You REALLY don't have that right.
Heck, if the government wants...they can take your property away via imminent(sic?) domain for a interstate. (or more recently, for private development!)
At least in the US you have this backward. Historically, taking land for private development was the norm for decades if not centuries (contrary to what media uproar after the recent Kelo v. New London case would have you believe). See Berman v. Parker, Luxton v. North River Bridge, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, etc. Even before the US was formed such takings were considered legitimate.
It's only recently (in June) that the use of eminent domain was banned by executive order "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken." (whether such an order is binding remains untested).
While property laws regarding physical property have had centuries to sort themselves out via the legal system, Intellectual property has only had about a full half century to sort itself out.
Much bigger nit:
Intellectual property laws have been a big part of at least European legal systems for centuries as well.
Copyright law in Western law goes back at least to 1557 when the Stationer's Company was granted monopoly over publishing and the right to regulate copyright, and modern-style laws go back to the 1709 Statute of Anne.
Patent law goes back to the Venetian Statute of 1474, crown letters patent granted in England from the late 1400s-1623, and the Statute of Monopolies passed in England in 1623 (the latter of which looks very much like the US Constitutional guarantees, being the first patent law to allow only new inventions to be patented, limiting the duration of patents, etc).
I'm less familiar with trade marks, service marks, and trade dress, but they all go back far longer than a half a century as well.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
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.
>> And if the artists and musicians own the copyrights to their music,
Ahh.. but the don't.
A normal recording contract requires that the artists sign any rights away to the music they record. Its the record companies that own all the rights to all music produced by the artist while under contract.
Actually most artists hate DRM as it prevents the free propagation of their music and therefore impacts the growth of their popularity.
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]