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.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

What does DRM have to do with Piracy?

Re:Headline incorrect.

[dsginter]

Actually, it should read:

FairUse4WM Circumvents Windows DRM

Now, "fair use" is another argument altogether. I understand that, given the chance, most consumers will steal media without a second thought. I also think that the current DRM implementations are stepping on consumer rights. Is there a balance?

Yes. This discussion is left as an excercise for the reader.

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.

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

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

lame examples. with Apple's DRM (the only one I'm familiar with) both of these examples are trivial (in fact Apple encourgaes you to make backups when you buy from them).

on the other hand, if I wanted to start lending my "backups" to other people (or at least more than 4 other people), or if I wanted to email these "educational" clips to everyone in my class then I'd have some trouble. but should I really be able to do those things anyway?

basically with Apple DRM *I* can do whatever *I* want to do, I just can't give the same right to other people. and isn't that what copyright is all about anyway? it has never been legal for me to transfer rights to other people's work and that's all that (Apple's) DRM stops me from doing.

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.

[MSFanBoi2]

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.

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.

3.) Define special...

Making a backup of a song? I have most on three or four devices inlcuding my PC. Not to mention the fact that if I do lose the song, I simply go and download it again, for free, as I already paid the fee to download the right to use said song.

Why would I want to watch a movie on a handheld device? Thats why I own a large screen TV and DVD player. No need to be stuck to a tiny device with no surround sound, or having to squint to see anything.

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.

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.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

then I'd show the clip during CLASS

Every class I've been to, the teachers have made all of their teaching material electronically available to the students.

A good teacher will show the clip during class, and have that clip available for students if they need to refresh their memory, had a conflicting class, dentists appointment, were sick (or just at the beach) (d.a)

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.

[walt-sjc]

It's important to remember that the "traditional" classroom is changing. We now have things like "distance learning."

Maybe your school doesn't use computers, or doesn't use them effectivly, but they aren't "just" for word processing and "myspace". It's important to think about innovative current or future uses instead of dwelling on ancient historical uses of computers in education.

DRM really hampers the flow of information in education. Since DRM is still fairly new, the impact has yet to be felt in any major way.

(BTW, let's be grownups and stop with the personal attacks, M-Kay?)

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.

[Abjifyicious]

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

Well good for you, but please don't generalize your own situation to the rest of the world. I happen to have a Linux machine, and as such I can not (legally) do whatever I want to do with music I've purchased from iTunes.

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.

[TheRaven64]

basically with Apple DRM *I* can do whatever *I* want to do, I just can't give the same right to other people. and isn't that what copyright is all about anyway?

I own some Apple DRM'd music, and I want to play it on my mobile 'phone, which supports AAC. I want to play it on my spare machine that runs FreeBSD. I can do both of these with AACs I've ripped from CD, but not with iTMS DRM'd music.

it has never been legal for me to transfer rights to other people's work and that's all that (Apple's) DRM stops me from doing.

If my musical tastes change, I can sell music I own on CD. I can't resell iTMS music. Transferring rights is find from a copyright perspective under the doctrine of first sale. If I buy a CD, I can sell it on. I have to delete all of my backups, but I don't violate copyright law by selling it.

Copyright should be about the right to make and distribute copies. If I create something copyrightable (and I'm a writer, so this is not just a gedanken experiment), I have the right to restrict who distributes copies of it. That is the only right I have under copyright law. I don't have the right to say 'blind people are not allowed to feed it through a screen reader.' I don't have the right to say 'you may not read this from a mobile device.' I don't even have the right to say 'you may not photocopy a few pages of this book to read on the train when you don't want to lug the entire book with you.' If you want to tear pages out of a book I've written, or change the font of something I've written for online distribution, then that is entirely up to you; I don't have the legal (or moral) right to tell you not to.

Copyright is a limited monopoly on distribution granted to encourage the production of content. It is not a right, and it is not a privilege; it is a trade. The state awards me limited rights in exchange for my relinquishing others (which I could retain by simply not publishing). We both win; I gain a method of producing income, while others gain access to the material I produce. By exercising copyright, I am agreeing to this; I am saying 'I wish to retain exclusive distribution rights, in exchange for publishing this work and permitting others to purchase it.' DRM alters this balance. If I publish a DRM'd version of something, then I am attempting to retain more control than copyright grants me. This is nothing more and nothing less than vigilanteism.

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.

[TheRaven64]

it is their music and they can do whatever they want with it

No, it isn't. It is their music before they publish it. Then they have two choices:

1. Release it into the public domain, or
2. Copyright it.

If they choose option two, then they are making an agreement with the state that they will release the work into the public domain in exchange for a time-limited monopoly on distribution. This is all you get. You don't get a monopoly on telling people how they may enjoy your material.

If you want to retain all of the rights to something, then don't publish it. Copyright is not for you.

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.

[Gorm the DBA]

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

But that teacher isn't. Educational use is enshrined in the Copyright law as an allowable use. DRM that refuses to allow this is illegal, as it infringes on a legal right.

Similarly, commentary, parody, and many other "Fair Use" exceptions exist, none of which the current DRM regime respects.

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.

[c_forq]

Have you ever taken a language class? EVERY language class I've ever taken (Hebrew, Spanish, and French) have all had sound clips (CDs and/or cassettes) and video. I have yet to see a language class have anything but supplimentry material posted online (and 98% of the time that material is text). I don't know where you go to school, but here the teachers have to follow copyright so in almost all circumstances would not be able to provide online copies even if they wanted to (if the material was a recorded broadcast this would be differant, but fair use doesn't work the same for non-broadcasted material - last I looked using more then a minute of non-broadcasted material was getting close to the line).

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.

[walt-sjc]

You need to understand "Fair use". Note that with DRM, you can't excersize your Fair Use rights. Educators make extensive "Fair use" of copyrighted material in classrooms. Things just are not as black and white as you (and the pigopolists) would like them to be.

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.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

trying to educate the future business leaders of America...

Hahahahaha! Now I know you're trolling! "Educating" the "future business leaders of America" indeed.

You don't "educate" business leaders - you throw them in a tank full o' sharks & promote the survivors.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Tweekster]

It isnt really helpful to have a right...that you cannot excercise in any fashion without breaking the law...

I can back up my media, but in order to do so I absolutely have to break the law...kind of seems like they limiting that original light.

Contracts should be extremely limited in giving up rights. Most contracts are already extremely limited when it comes to giving up a right...except when dealing with IP. That contract you agree to is inside the box, but the way the world works....you have to agree to it at the point of sale otherwise you lose your money.

That would absolutely never fly in any other arena of the world, but for some reason it does in software.

Contracts that modify after signing are blatantly illegal everywhere else...but for some reason it is just dandy with software. I wish someone with a lot of money would force that issue and some sanity would return to software licenses.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Waffle Iron]

Copyright is not a moral right. The US constitution explicitly states the goal of copyright: it's an economic incentive to increase the production of works of authorship. It does not say anything along the lines that authors have the inalienable right to "sell things as they choose" such that they retain control of use after the sale. (Nor did any of the great philosophers of history touch on the moral necessity for you to have total control over all copies of everything that you write down or record.)

You only get that impression because the laws that were enacted to implement copyright happen to vaguely make it look that way. However, those laws have big exceptions to letting people "sell things as they choose". You simply never had these rights of total control you think you're "giving up"; they don't exist, and they never did, either government law or natural law.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[UserGoogol]

Copyright is simply a legal construct which is created to promote innovation, by making it illegal for anyone but the creator to sell their ideas, so the creator can benefit and put some food on the table. Making an exception to the law is therefore morally justified if the benefit taken from the creator is outweighed by the benefit gained by the copyright infringement. Education is, arguably, an area where the benefit is so high that ignoring copyright is something that is moral a great deal of the time. (Indeed, "educational purposes" is explicitly mentioned as something to be taken into consideration by judges.)

More generally, whenever a person infringes copyright, a benefit occurs, although not neccesarily a net benefit. It's a fun thing to do. In that sense, it may be true to say that the restrictions of copyright should be kept as limited as possible; big enough that people are willing to create creative works, but not so high that it starts to cut in unneccesarily on people's "fun." It's not selfishness (although I probably am selfish) but merely that the interests of pirates often outweighs the interests of creators.

I see no reason to believe that just because you create an idea that you should be free to put whatever restrictions on it you want. Yes, you put your blood, sweat, and tears into it, but you also put a whole lot of other ideas into it. No idea is absolutely new, so it seems unfair to give someone a absolute monopoly on an idea just because they put last pieces together.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[InsaneGeek]

It isnt really helpful to have a right...that you cannot excercise in any fashion without breaking the law...

Helpful, yes... required, no. US citizens have a right to bear arms for a purpose of protection from the government, however it is illegal to use those arms against the government.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Talchas]

Or:

As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. --Commissioner Pravin Lal "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

From Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

Re:Headline incorrect.

[ink]

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...

For educational use is but one example. What if I want to remix a song that I have? As long as I do not re-distrbute the derivative work, I am abiding by copyright law. How do you think bands end up with material from sampled songs in the FIRST place? They don't sign a separate contract from the RIAA for unrestricted access before the creative period starts, but rather, license the material after the matter. People use the educational angle to appeal to a broad range of individuals, but it is by no means the only reason for fair use.

Even Apple's DRM makes this sort of thing a huge pain in the ass. You can't import an iTunes song into Garage Band, for example. You have to burn it to a CD, and then re-rip it back (which is technically illegal*).

*For RIAA/MPAA values of legal

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.

[acousticiris]

Let me speak to the "stupid enough to buy DRM encumbered content" market...since I *was* stupid enough.

I subscribed to Yahoo! Music Unlimited, upgraded my Windows Media Player, installed all of the patches and purchased a brand spanking new Creative Zen Vision last year.
The whole setup process was about two hours after the litany of patches and firmware upgrades, but it worked...actually very well...
Then one day, about 7 months later, it failed.

For no explainable reason other than "DRM is garbage", my player decided to play only the first song downloaded, and then claim that every other song was unlicensed thereafter. It didn't matter which track, the minute it skipped to the next one, everything was unplayable that was DRM'd.

You can imagine how abundantly helpful Yahoo!'s tech support was (not at all). So I cancelled my subscription.

Lets add up my total costs:
1-year Subscription (at the time $4.99/month, now $9.99): $59.88
New media player for subscription content: $399.99 (somewhere in that range)
Number of tracks effectively "rented" for seven months: ~150
Total Cost "the day the music died": $459.87 or >$3.00/tracks I didn't get to keep.

Sure, I factored the player into the cost and maybe that's not fair since I still use it for videos and music (and I would buy it again, today, if given a choice), but the fact remains that I had to buy a new player because only a select few are subscription compatible.
I won't resubscribe now that this tool is available because my guess is that Microsoft will have this hole patched before the week is out (Here's betting they don't wait until "Patch Tuesday" for this update, we all know where their priorities are).

So I have access to less music (legally) "at my finger-tips", but at least I get to enjoy the music on all of my PCs, my stereo, my two players, and wherever the heck else I can adapt the unencumbered tracks to.
It's amazing to me that something that was "standard" 100 years ago (unencrypted/encumbered music) is now the first feature I look for in music I buy.

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:Headline incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

"Educating everyone is a teacher's priority" translate to giving you the right to copy and distribute your Coldplay CDs to other little fanboys?

Incorrect.

DRM hasn't seemed to hinder the p2p networks at all, I can't imagine it doing so in the future.

DRM only inhibits legitimate users of content.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[vertinox]

I must have missed that article in the Constitution protecting people's rights to digitally copy and distribute other people's work.

To refresh everyone's memory...

An author's exclusive right to his creation is mandated in the US Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, also known as the Intellectual Property Clause, which also gives Congress the power to enact statutes: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

So in theory after a limited time the public should be legally able to digitally copy and distributes others work and secondly your work must promote Science and useful Arts.

If it fails these criteria... Then it fails the spirit of the copyright law. DRM breaks this comprimise since it is forever and often promotes neither science nor arts.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Aim Here]

Yes it does. You want to take a look at 17 USC 110. It starts off thus:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:

(1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made; "

and continues in much the same vein for a while. Note that interpreting this verbiage so that you know your rights exactly would require access to case law and a legal professional...

Re:Headline incorrect.

[swillden]

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.

Perhaps true, definitely irrelevant. The fact is that copyright law contains some important exceptions that are completely ignored by DRM implementations. What that means is that "It prevents copyright infringement" is not a valid defense of DRM, because it also prevents non-infringing copies. DRM is not a technological implementation of copyright law, it is a technological mechanism for effectively writing new extensions to copyright law.

Corporate America already has too much ability to write the laws that they like. Let's at least try to avoid removing Congress from the process.

BTW, I do not pirate anything. I do break DRM on a regular basis to make backups, format-shift and time-shift, but I'm scrupulously careful to honor copyright law, in spite of the fact that it's so horribly unbalanced I feel no real moral obligation to do so.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[|/|/|||]

I believe the point that you're making is that prevantative measures are reasonable in the case where the crime is sufficiently damaging. I have to say that I agree, but I would argue that copyright violation is *not* such a case.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[badasscat]

Standard copyright myth #17: US copyright law grants "fair use rights".

It doesn't.

Sounds like someone needs to read section 107 of US copyright law, which is titled "Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use" and states:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Yes, US copyright law specifically grants fair use rights.

It does bring up two things that really are myths, though:

#1. That the examples cited above are the *only* applications of fair use. Note that the law itself uses the words "including" and "such as" - the courts are free to interpret other examples of fair use, and indeed have. The criteria for determining what is and isn't fair use are what matters, not the examples.

#2. That the DMCA restricts and contradicts the fair use law. It doesn't. In fact, under the section 1201, entitled "Circumvention of copyright protection systems", you will find this nugget:

(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

In other words, it is only illegal to circumvent DRM if you are doing so to infringe copyright. It is not illegal to circumvent DRM for purposes that would otherwise fall under fair use.

This is all part of copyright law. Fair use is not some idea that the EFF invented because they want to have free music. This is part of the contract that copyright holders have with the government; it is written into law and has been tested repeatedly in court.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[jamstar7]

How's next Tuesday for you? I don't have anything planned I can't move around...

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Farmer Tim]

...and secondly your work must promote Science and useful Arts.

You aren't interpreting that quote correctly: the works must be science or useful art. The "promote" part is there to explain why congress is allowed to pass intellectual property laws, and does not impose any criteria on the nature of the works themselves.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[ballwall]

I paid for my movie ticket, shouldn't I be able to record it with my camcorder so I can watch it later?

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Waffle Iron]

True; and the specific rights you acquire over your new shiny MP3 are defined by the terms of the transaction. In other words, if you sign the contract without reading, well that's too bad, so sad.

I signed nothing, nor would I ever sign such limitations. Copyright gives me statutory rights, and those are what define the transaction. This is true irrespective of what DRM they attempt to install on disks I purchase.

I also see that you still have given no reference at all to whatever moral authority gives an author total control over something after he sold it to me; most likely because you realize that there is no such theory.

Oh and please stop using non sequiturs

It matches these fanciful moral principals that you're inventing out of thin air.

Winged unicorns vs respecting property?

Excersise of fair use rights is NOT disrespecting property. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright. The physical item is my property. The only kind of "property" the author retains is a limited lien over my ability to produce further copies of the information on my disk. The author does not retain any other rights over my disk, including rights over how I play it, what I play it in, or what copies I make under the exceptions to the lien that the author holds. (This is true even under the DMCA, which doesn't prevent me from hacking the DRM as long as I don't share knowledge of how I did it.) If anything, DRM schemes are a lame attempt to interfere with my rights over the property I own. Why don't you consider that to be immoral?

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Ma�djeurtam]

Teaching cinema, music, arts in general and science can be hard without access to media. In my area of study (social sciences, sorry), medias have been useful to show things that would have been expensive/dangerous/difficult to see in real life. Media != Flashy shiny. Using the right tool for the right job seems a good thing to me.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Michael Hunt]

Piracy is theft, violence, and murder upon the high seas. FairUse4WM allows legal but non-allowed (per the DRM) uses of DRM'd media.

These two things are not the same.

Asstard.

What do I think?

[w33t]

I think the industry should start wondering who the cat really is.

Re:What do I think?

[Red Flayer]

I think the industry should start wondering who the cat really is.

That's jumping the gun, a little bit.

First they need to figure out if it's dead or alive, and whether it should be treated as both.

Then when they are cetain that the cat is alive|dead, they need to figure out where they are.

ones and zeros

[rjdegraaf]

You have the right to manipulate the magnetization on your harddisk in any way, right?

Re:ones and zeros

[truedfx]

No, you don't. What gave you that idea?

Actually hope they fix this

[Cybert4]

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.

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.

Re:Actually hope they fix this

[eobanb]

By 'iStore' I assume you're referring to iTunes. Maybe not, but it seems like it to me. You are simply wrong about losing iTunes tracks and never being able to recover them. Apple does, in fact, let you re-download tracks that you've bought in case they get deleted. I might also mention that being able to 'download all you want' from the Windows Media online stores doesn't mean that you actually OWN those tracks, just that you're renting them in the same manner that you can 'get shipped all the movies you want' from NetFlix.

Or maybe you knew this and were trolling all along.

Re:Actually hope they fix this

[NewWorldDan]

Here's the thing from my perspective: the current DRM regime is flawed as a matter of design. Content that consumers own shouldn't come encumbered. And for subscription services, the best bet is to have some sort of smart card or dongle that does the decryption. Doing everything in software - when the end user inherently must have the decryption key to listen is completely flawed. Of course, working in hardware necessitates a trused hardware chain also. And that infrastructure currently doesn't exist.

Or then we'll see things really get clamped down with the 64-bit version of Vista. Ugh.

Re:Actually hope they fix this

[Nik13]

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...

Re:Actually hope they fix this

[friedmud]

Here's my personal take on the "Rent a Song" thing....

What about 10/20 years from now?

Have you ever picked up a tape/record/old cd that you used to listen to and pop it in? It's a great experience to be "teleported" back to Junior High or whenever...

When I buy music, I buy it forever (forever being a really long time of course). Yeah, it's cool to have a music service that you can download shitloads of music from _for now_ but 10 years from now you might look around and wish you had spent that monthly fee on physical cd's instead of renting ones and zeros.

Like I said... this is just my personal opinion... but it's personally the thing that keeps me from buying DRM'd stuff. I want to "own" what I pay for as much as possible... so I can do what I like with it and keep it and use it as long as I like. But maybe I'm in the minority.

Friedmud

Re:Actually hope they fix this

[jb.hl.com]

Apple does, in fact, let you re-download tracks that you've bought in case they get deleted.

Um, no they don't. I know because I tried yesterday (new HD, so reinstall and rerip of CDs). I ended up having to use EphPod to recover the M4P files from my iPod.

Re:Actually hope they fix this

[Anonymous Coward]

The iTunes music store is quite clear that if you accidently delete your iTunes downloads, you're SOL. There are plenty of accounts of people who've lost iTunes downloads who've had Apple tell them to repay to redownload or fuck off.

Plus, once you've gone past five times that Apple's decided your computer is different, you also lose all your music. Gone. Locked out.

Apple is just as evil as the rest of them. At least the "rent music" places are telling you up front that you're just renting and that you can lose the ability to play your downloads at the drop of a hat.

Re:Actually hope they fix this

[dim5]

Plus, once you've gone past five times that Apple's decided your computer is different, you also lose all your music. Gone. Locked out.

Wrong. You can deauthorize all computers at once easily through iTunes. You'll need to reauthorize on any existing machines that you still actually use after doing this, and you can only do it once a year. So I'll give you "locked out" (if you somehow get yourself into this spot twice in 12 months), but "gone" is just false. The files are still in your library, and hopefully wherever you backed them up. You do back them up, don't you?

Re:Actually hope they fix this

[eobanb]

Yes, they do. If you contact Apple Support and explain to them that you've lost your music, they will reset your account so that you can go to Advanced > Check for Purchases, which will then cause iTunes to re-download every track you've previously purchased with that account.

Re:Actually hope they fix this

[nolife]

Times are changing, so is the type of music and the listening habits of kids.
I have Rhapsody and Yahoo Music subscriptions. I use then on occasion but my kids use those and the my Sirius radio all day, every day. Both of these services combined are cheaper then buying a single CD a month. One of my kids listens to the popular song of the week and/or month and has absolutely no interest in maintaining long term ownership of those songs (and I don't blame her) because in two months, she will be on to something else. $5 or $10 is worth the cost of these services.

I will always have "my" copy of my classics and I will always want it that way and only in a source format that is not compressed.

Think of it this way, like a FIFO storage device with different capacities.
My personal buffer for music has a much larger and discriminating FIFO scheme then my kids do. They hold about 40 songs and always add new ones. I have about 20 times the capacity but rarely add new ones.
For some people, subscription is good, for others it is not.

Follow-up; Cory Doctorow on DRM at MSFT

[Noksagt]

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.

Re:Follow-up; Cory Doctorow on DRM at MSFT

[Ravensfire]

Or more accurately titled "Dear Microsoft: Please don't bitchslap us"

-- Ravensfire

Also of interest:

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Perhaps also of interest, engadget's open letter to microsoft on why they shouldn't kill FairUseWM.

Bittorrent breaks Windows DRM

[PIPBoy3000]

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.

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 :)

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:Bittorrent breaks Windows DRM

[MikeBabcock]

I think it should be lobbied that this not be the case.

I'd love to see a law that would make the acquisition of digital variants of legally owned materials legal.

That is to say, if I own a book and lose my eyesight, I should be able to download a digital version of the book for use with a screen reader without having to repurchase my entire library.

The same should go for downloading *exact* copies of music I already own; my CD gets wrecked in the sun so I keep it in the jewel case for proof and download a new copy off P2P services. Should this be legal?

Many of us live in democracies -- by the people, for the people, right? Go lobby your local representatives for the rights you believe you should have.

Re:Bittorrent breaks Windows DRM

[bigredradio]

I have to agree with you on this. I doubt that the record companies are too concerned about someone buying a cd and copying it to their computer or making a mix tape or cd. It's because there are people actively distributing their copies to the masses via p2p services. Personally, I use iTunes and purchase my music. I think Apple got it right by using the same distribution channel. Find a way to prevent mass distribution and I am all for it. I think the record companies will too. The DRM solution is no solution at all. It cuts off the nose to spite the face. But I also understand the real world and people are not perfect or 100% honest 100% of the time. There will continue to be piracy. The solution in my mind is to make the value of purchasing music more beneficial than the free download. Right now, users don't see a difference, so why pay for it. For me, I like the speed of the downloads, the quality of the rip, and the fact I do not need to update the mp3 tags.

Good news

[jay2003]

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.

DMCA arrest

[kabloom]

I think the next Slashdot story will be about the authors' arrest for DMCA violation. :-(
I doubt Microsoft will let this slide.

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:Cat and Mouse?

[Red Flayer]

the term cat and mouse game implies that there is a chance for the big media companies to win.

Nah, it just means they are being constantly played with by crackers. Like a cat letting a mouse 'escape' just so it can pounce on it again. It's inevitable that the cat wins in the end (assuming the mouse doesn't find a hole in the wall to run through, like the DMCA in the US).

If only it were so easy...

[Electrawn]

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.

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.

Re:If only it were so easy...

[pthisis]

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.

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

Re:easy

[jedidiah]

Information wants to be free as soon as you publish it.

Information IS free as soon as you publish it.

That's rather the point.

Your weak attempts at analogy creation fail to capture that one key element of the information actually under discussion: It's already being spread far and wide by it's creator. The creator actually wants it that way.

Re:easy

[AK Marc]

Can I have your ATM card number and PIN please?

You are confusing two types of information. A song is released into the public domain. The rights holders release the song for all the public. What you are talking about is private information. It is considered a "trade secret" and can only have that status if it is never publically released. It's the difference between Scientology's internal writings (private, never printed in a book for sale to the general public) and a song that is offered for free to everyone and broadcast multiple times to millions of people in various formats.

If you'd like to restrict your analogies to the same type of information, then it will be a whole lot more useful. It's as bad as people that whine about trademarks every time a patent article comes through.

Bad News

[Kadin2048]

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.

Re:Bad News

[ControlFreal]

That is not true. I tried some video clips from ezdrm.com, and I could strip the DRM without any problems.

Thank God

[kemo_by_the_kilo]

all Ican say is So long and thanks for all the DRM

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:What a scoop!

[Red Flayer]

Extra! Extra! Slashdot travels back in time to retrieve everybody else's headlines from last friday! Read all about it!

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.

What is the future of rental?

[Wesley Felter]

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"?

Microsoft ploy?

[ssummer]

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?

Where there is a will...

[steve-o-yeah]

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.

Re:obligatory porn reference...

[kemo_by_the_kilo]

Why would you want to watch porn of DRM stipping... sicko.

Re:DRM doesn't have to be unbeatable

[hey!]

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.

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:

I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot.

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.

other uses to DRM

[milal]

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.

FairUse4WM is not a baddie

[in2mind]

I think FairUse4WM is not a baddie exactly - It still needs the original license to remove the DRM. The guys who managed to crack the DRM,could have easily made it possible to unDRM thr content that you do not own too.

But they didnt.

Marketplace Sets All Price & Terms

[BoRegardless]

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.

What is the big deal???

[refriedchicken]

I am all for free stuff, but I am also all for paying people for their work (regardless of how much they actually get, that is between them, their agent and their contract). I am not sure I understand what the big deal is about all this DRM. I am have happily purchased music from iTunes and Sony Connect (in excess of 2000 songs to be specific) and all this talk of DRM is nonsense. All it has meant is that I have to burn it to CD and then rip it back, not much different from when I use to buy the physical CD. Everything I have works on my iPod, PSP, and PC.

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.

Re:What I wonder is...

[moyix]

1) Does it run (on) Linux?

No. And it's unlikely that it ever will. Reasons why below.

2) How does it work?

WMDRM stores encryption keys on the system that purchased the media originally, and then uses those keys to decrypt the content when you want to listen to it (and stores / encrypts them in a way that is pretty obfuscated). What the creators of this program have done is find a way to duplicate that process, but then just dump the decrypted content back out to an unencrypted .wma file that will play anywhere.

So to answer (1) more fully, to work on Linux this thing would have to access the keys from the Windows install that originally purchased the content, AND it would have to fully re-implement the decryption process (unlike the way I believe the current version works, which is by figuring out how to call the decryption functions in the MS DLLs correctly).

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.

A thoughtful response

[stinky wizzleteats]

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...

Phone Call

[in2mind]

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: !!!!!!

What does the slashdot community think of this..?

[Goody]

I'll take Questions With Obvious Answers for $200, Alex!

Is there a mac or linux version of this

[goombah99]

Anyone know of a mac or linux version of this? On windows machines, it's sort of pointless since you can play the songs. If they dont' come out with a linux or mac version then they enhance the argument that this is piracy enhancement tool not an access tool.

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?

Bout Time

[GmAz]

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!

Alternative: use stream capture software

[John Jorsett]

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.

DRM?

[wolff000]

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.

What about Janus-DRM files?

[MC Negro]

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.

Download sites

[OfNoAccount]

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

How is this funny?

[remmelt]

DMCA anyone? You REALLY don't have that right.

Better analogy

[sjonke]

The analogy I prefer is that the pro-DRM argument is a lot like the anti-gun-control argument. They're both wrong.

Re:WTF?

[vertinox]

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.

Download link?

[funkatron]

How am I supposed to comment this when theres no link to download it?

Are people inherently immoral?

[swillden]

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.

Re:Curious.

[JustNiz]

>> 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.

What an ordeal!

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

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.

ugh

[twitter]

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.

Why this will happen again - or ...

[foo23]

... a refresher course in cryptography.

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):

... Cryptography - secret writing - is the practice of keeping secrets. It involves three parties: a sender, a receiver and an attacker [...]. We usually call these people Alice, Bob and Carol. [... A few explanations of cipher, ciphertext and key] In DRM, the attacker is *also the recipient*. It's not Alice and Bob and Carol, it's just Alice and Bob. So Alice has to provide Bob - the attacker - with the key, the cipher and the ciphertext. Hilarity ensues.

Looks like it uses a similar method to unDRM tivo

[cbreaker]

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.

Buyer Beware

[woolio]

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]

Re:I want to listen to music, is that so wrong?

[dk-software-engineer]

Replying to myself to add a side-note:

My girlfriend was listening to one of her brand new DRM'ed tracks and said "I like this one, but I miss a bass-line. It could go something like..." and then she started humming. And I though it would sound great, so I opened a tracker to create the bassline. First step however was to import the track without the bassline. I spend hours trying to do that, but the DRM stopped the project. I gave up.

We paid for the stupid track, we have a right to play around with it. It would have been fun and creative. It was fun back when we bought our music on CD, but today that is expensive and inconvenient.