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?"

Comments

Headline incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[tomstdenis]

Well just think about this. DRM is their way of saying "fork over your money, you'll get to use it on our terms."

You may not have hit a DRM wall but that could because

1. You're not an enthuiast
2. You don't know what your rights are anyways [fairuse?]
3. You're not doing anything special with your media.

Try making a backup [shock! that's legal!] or a clip for a class or ...

Try to watch that movie on a "non-approved" device? Try to listen to that music CD in your computer, try to ...

DRM breaks otherwise valid products in a futile attempt to extract more money out of you.

Tom

Re:Headline incorrect.

[hyfe]

FairUse4WM is going to be rightly bitch slapped by Microsoft.

It's only "rightly" if you assume Moraly==Legality.

Piracy of software and music is still piracy and still illegal.

Actually, in consumer-protecting sizzy-countries like the Scandinavians ones, where the rights of re-sale and free-use trumps contracts, terms-of-use and EULA's there's a good chance DRM-stripping is not only legal, but a civil right. Too bad we've never tested it in court (from the correct angle).

So even if you assume Morailty==Legality, legality does differ from country to country.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Just because its not usable to YOU, doesn't mean its not usable to the rest of us.

But I was talking about me! Neither my preferred music software, nor my mp3 player support fairplay *spits* music. To me it is unusable.

Some of us don't have this fixation on the thought that software and music should be free.

Strawman.

I have a fixation that I should be free to listen how I like to music I've paid for.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[SirTalon42]

What does DRM have to do with Piracy?

One encourages the other. And I'll let you in on a little secret, it's not the one the RIAA wants you to think.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

or if I wanted to email these "educational" clips to everyone in my class then I'd have some trouble

What if you were the teacher? (dumbass)

basically with Apple DRM *I* can do whatever *I* want to do,

As the GP said:

1. You're not an enthuiast
2. You don't know what your rights are anyways [fairuse?]
3. You're not doing anything special with your media.

Oh - and congratulations. I've never seen a post disagreeing with it's parent backup the parents POV as thoroughly as you just did!

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

My God your nick is appropriate!

I know well what my rights are. They are listed right in the EULA when I installed the various Music Stores.

Then you don't know what your rights are - because all those Music Store licenses allow them to change your rights, without notice, at any time, for any reason.

I hope you wouldn't accept the same conditions for your constitutional rights.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[morgan_greywolf]

Some of us don't have this fixation on the thought that software and music should be free. Regardless of what you think, its currently not, right or wrong. Piracy of software and music is still piracy and still illegal.

This has nothing to do with privacy. It has to do with being usable under the rights granted by fair use under the United States Copyright Act and similar laws in other countries.

Under fair use, it is my right to be able to take copyrighted music that I have legally purchased and be able to play that on any device I own. That would include being able to burn music to CDs, listen to it on an MP3 player, convert it from one format to another (say, WMA -> OGG or MP3, listen to it on my PC regardless of underlying OS (i.e., under Linux or *BSD), sample it into my music synthesizer/audio sequencer, etc. DRM prevents me from excercising my legal rights.

Or maybe you don't care about your legal rights... but one day, you will get a right taken from you that you care about. We'll see who's complaining then.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Because that's the whole justification for it? If you can't copy it, you obviously can't violate copyright*. Any other reason why you would want in whole or in part to copy it is collateral damage.

But you can copy DRM'd materials. You can make an exact copy, you can strip the DRM, or you can plug your speakers straight into a recording jack. It is an inconvenience to copying, but for the most part you can just download a DRM-free copy elsewhere and the fact that it is illegal does not matter if you're a pirate to start with.

I thought the myth that DRM stops piracy or even is intended to stop piracy was debunked long ago by a huge variety of different people. It is useful to make things hard for the law abiding, not for pirates.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[walt-sjc]

The GP is forgetting a major issue. He doesn't have a problem listening to his music TODAY. What about 10 years from now? How about 30? What if MS totally fails in the marketplace for music players and subscription services, and you can't buy hardware / software that supports that particular format of DRM'ed music anymore?

I have albums over 50 years old that I can still play, and due to the lack of DRM I can easily convert them into OGG / MP3 and play them on the latest music players. I can keep converting them and enjoy my DRM free music for the rest of my life. It's VERY VERY unlikely that the GP will have that same ability.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[|/|/|||]

There is only one reasonable solution - you *trust* the consumer not to violate copyright law. *If* the consumer does so, and you catch the consumer, and you try the consumer in a court of law, and the consumer is found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then you punish the consumer.

In other words, you can't force people to obey the law. Well, you can, but you have to have some sort of fascist state in order to do so - fine if you're a hive dwelling insect, but not acceptable for humans (at least not for me!). Write me a ticket if you catch me speeding, but don't put a governor on my car that won't allow me to speed. Lock me up if I bash someone with a club, but don't handcuff me at birth. That's the way it has to work.

I understand that, given the chance, most consumers will steal media without a second thought.

I absolutely disagree with that statement. In fact, I don't think most people would do that even if it were not illegal.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Richard Steiner]

1.) I have over 12,500 songs in my collection. All WMA. All play fine on my WMA playback devices, of which I have four.

My music collection is roughly the same size, but I use MP3 files instead. I have many more playback devices (two car stereos, two discman units, several PCs running various OSes, component stereo in sitting room, home theatre system in living room, and a boombox).

2.) I know well what my rights are. They are listed right in the EULA when I installed the various Music Stores. They ARE NOT MY SONGS. They belong to the artist or the record label, right or wrong.

99% of the songs I have in MP3 format are ripped from my own CDs. I also know what my rights are, and since I did not have to sign or accept a EULA I suspect I have signicantly more flexibility than you do in terms of what I can legally do with the music I've purchased over the years. :-)

3.) Define special...

It's a term I sometimes use to describe people who are willing to accept a severe curtailing of their rights and think the whole concept is a really neat idea. It isn't, except to the middle men who do the distributing, and both the artist and the listener get screwed in the process.

It seems to me the only people that have problems with DRM are the ones that think everything should be free and the ones who do regularly steal music and software.

I've been collecting LPs since 1976 and CDs since 1986, and I pirate neither music nor software. That doesn't mean I agree with DRM schemes or the rationale behind them.

I also believe that some software is far more efficiently produced in a free environment, but acknowledge that proprietary software development has its place. I don't pirate software -- open source provides most of my new applications and utilities on all of the platforms I use, but I'll register shareware I use and purchase retail software when necessary.

Face it: history is against you, and against those who would use DRM. In the end, DRM will not work. It's as effective as classic software copy protection schemes were -- only those who are legitimate customers are limited by them, and actual pirates typically have cracks to the various schemes within days if not hours.

It's fine if you accet DRM and its limitations, but that doesn't mean *I* have to.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

And if the teacher is distributing content in violation of the law, then that teacher should be fired.

In many jurisdictions, there are "fair uses" for copyrighted material in an educational context. DRM ignores those fair uses - that's why tomstdenis used 'or a clip for a class or ...' as an example of how DRM can limit fair use.

Jesus Christ, I can't see how people can be so thick about this issue...

Yes - I agree with you there - but perhaps with a different definition of 'people' to you ;-)

How freaking self-centered does a person have to be to believe that their rights to pirate music are more relevant than the rights of the people who actually own the music?

How freaking self-centered are those who put the protection of entertainment over the education of our children?*

* (won't somebody think of the children?)

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Kadin2048]

It is useful to make things hard for the law abiding, not for pirates.

Sadly, although what you're saying is complete common sense, it seems to be frequently lost on people making laws. I don't know if they perform some sort of lobotomy on you when you run for office, and disconnect the part of your brain that normally would say "Hey buddy, done a reality check in a while?" but it sure seems like it.

My personal opinion is that the pro-DRM argument smells a lot like the pro-gun-control argument, in that both of them put restrictions on law-abiding people in order to modify the behavior of people who frequently just ignore the law anyway; when you ignore the difference between law-abiding people and those who just don't give a damn, it's quite easy to descend into a "feedback loop," where in response to your last restrictive law not working, you pass a more restrictive one ... ad infinium. The net result is just a lot of collateral damage.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[andyross]

And if the teacher is distributing content in violation of the law, then that teacher should be fired.

In what way is playing a song or a video for a class in "violation of the law?" I suppose you also think that it should be illegal to read books to the class too?

Jesus Christ, I can't see how people can be so thick about this issue...

Perhaps because the issue isn't as clear-cut as you think it is. Like many people, including much of the media, you are confusing "law" with "license". One of those is inviolate, written by our elected representatives, and must be adhered to. The other is just an agreement, and can be enforced only when it doesn't conflict with the law. You need to look up "fair use" (a legal term) and read some background on this issue.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[bentcd]

And if the teacher is distributing content in violation of the law, then that teacher should be fired.
That one sentence manages to sum up the exact reason why DRM-encumbered western societies of the future will find themselves severely outclassed by those cultures that can manage to maintain a free exchange of ideas. While the other cultures continue to develop, we're setting up to fire (and even jail) our teachers.
And all just because a bunch of suits find this to be an opportune way to guarantee their own profits.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[jank1887]

Let's split some hairs here. DRM does not limit your rights. Just like Macrovision, SafeDisc, etc., do not limit your rights. They just make it more difficult to 'do whatever you want to do' with the thing you bought. Your fair-use rights in no way dictate that the manufacturer/producer must make it easy for you to exercise those rights, or that they cannot take action to make it more difficult for you. This is supported by one of the arguments against DRM: Any DRM, or other analog or digital protection mechanism can and will be circumvented. Thus, implementation doesn't block your fair use rights, it just adds to the difficulty. This is the end goal of the implementors: to raise the difficulty above the point where Joe-public does it without thinking (i.e., fast-dubbing a copy of your friend's cassette tape, and how common/easy that was/is).

NOW, the legal problem isn't the DRM. in the U.S., it's the DMCA which makes it illegal to break/bypass/strip the DRM. SO, DRM doesn't block fair use (just impedes it), the DMCA is what blocks fair use. So, again, DRM doesn't limit your rights. The legal backing (the DMCA, or your country's equivalent) limits your rights.

NOW, on top of this, any contract you sign can modify your legal right to act in certain ways. If you sign a valid contract saying 'I will not say 'thud' in your presence', and then say 'thud' in his presence, you may be contractually bound by any penalties stipulated in the contract, free speech be damned. Why? BECAUSE YOU LEGALLY AGREED TO LIMIT YOUR OWN RIGHTS.

Until proven otherwise in a court of law, EULA's and TOS's seem to be considered part of the purchase agreement, whether you like that or not. You have the option of attempting to modify the contract prior to ratification (good luck), or you refuse to enter into the contract, where the seller will likely refuse sale, as is his right.

So, reviewing, your fair-use rights are currently limited by:
(a) laws making protection removal/circumvention illegal (DMCA or equiv.)
(b) contracts your voluntarily entered into.

(a) is a tough one, and where the focus needs to be. (b) should be able to be determined by the fair market, but won't until (a) is taken care of. The majority of this topic seems to be that (b) is somehow the fault of the selling side, and not the buying side. But, as long as rule of law is on their side, they'd be stupid not to use DRM if it would mean more sales in the end. (which the Marketing dept currently says is so.)

The solution, if you can't change (a)? Don't buy DRM'd music, and don't give away your rights via EULA's. Yes, it limits your available options, but that's your choice. And (Chicken and egg) more people making that choice will give those options more market share.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[syphax]

Doug,

The point is that if DRM continues to creep into our world, there won't much music/video/etc available that come with a use agreement that I can abide by.

Beyond personal use, those who oppose DRM do so realizing that this is in part a struggle of how we want our society to operate- more open and free, or more closed and proprietary. More broadly, it's a struggle/conversation/battle/whatever about how best to distribute rights between content creators and consumers.

So while I don't endorse violating copyright law any more than I endorse violating any law, I do endorse getting copyright law modified to benefit society more fully- or at least getting people to use copyright law in a more beneficial manner (eg Creative Commons).

Bottom line, I don't accept the 'just do what works for you' apology for DRM, because that's a sinking ship. I oppose DRM because it represents a value system that I don't like so much.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[ElleyKitten]

This is where copyright law goes too far. If I buy some iTunes music, or a DVD, or whatever, I should have the right to listen, or watch, or whatever, that media. I mean, why would I buy it if I don't have the right to use it? Should I just pirate all the music and movies I want, since it's illegal for me to watch it anyways? Well, it would save me money, but no. I'm going to continue to buy music and movies, and I will continue to break any DRM that prevents me from playing it. The law is stupid, and I do not follow laws that are that stupid.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Columcille]

How freaking self-centered are those who put the protection of entertainment over the education of our children?

And how sad for a society that requires entertainment in order to provide education. If we can't teach without flashy shiny media clips then something is wrong, and it isn't DRM.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[DougLorenz]

The whole fair use side of this debate is little more than quibbling. I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of the people who are so passionately demanding their "fair use" exemptions are not teachers trying to educate the future business leaders of America...

No, the people who are complaining the most and trying to find software to break DRM protections are the people who don't want to pay for the latest CD they heard on the radio. That is all that this discussion is about.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[ElleyKitten]

I don't want the right to free use of others' hard work if they don't agree to it (I do appreciate free/open source software, but I don't think everything should be required to be free). What I would like is for me to be able to legally watch the Friends DVDs that I've bought on my computer. I'm not asking to share them with all my friends, hell, I'm not even asking for backup copies. I just want to sit on my bed and watch the DVDs that I've bought without breaking the law.

This is not like you crashing on my bed without my permission; this is like me wanting to put my bedsheets on my couch and sleep there, but for some reason the bedsheet makers only want me to put bedsheets on a bed, so it's illegal. Why would people not want me to put my bedsheets on my couch? I don't know, I guess for the same reasons they don't want me to play my DVDs in my computer...

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Xichekolas]

So you're telling me that you never played with Legos as a kid? or Barbies? Or Lincoln Logs? Or the little games where you stick shapes into their corresponding holes? Did your teacher never read you books in class? Did you never sing songs for a school concert? Did you ever watch Donald in Mathmagic Land?

I know I did all these things in school. In fact, I'm sure I learned just about everything from playing games (entertainment), watching movies (entertainment), and listening to/singing songs (entertainment).

In fact, short of a direct brain interface, not sure how you would teach children anything if you couldn't entertain them in the process. They just wouldn't pay attention. Heck, the only reason I practiced multiplication tables was to win our math races... and we spent a week during our poetry unit in Junior english listening to and analyzing song lyrics (The Sound of Silence and Stairway to Heaven included)... and I expressly remember singing along to that Kokomo song (by the Beach Boys) in first grade at a school play... it would've been a shame if the RIAA had shown up then and busted poor Mrs. Sanderson for playing it...

How sad society would be if our kids had to learn without entertainment...

Re:Actually hope they fix this

[Daniel_Staal]

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.

Cat and Mouse?

[Lord_Slepnir]

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.

Re:Bittorrent breaks Windows DRM

[Red Flayer]

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.

IANAL etc.

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 :)

DRM doesn't make sense

[WatchTheTramCarPleas]

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?

easy

[scenestar]

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

Predicted.

[twitter]

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.

Re:Bittorrent breaks Windows DRM

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:If only it were so easy...

[rainman_bc]

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.

Woah.. Napster and Yahoo?

[lorenlal]

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.