FairUse4WM Breaks Windows DRM

An anonymous reader writes "FairUse4WM, according to engadget, "can be used to strip Windows Media DRM 10 and 11". What does the slashdot community think of this development in the ongoing cat-and-mouse game going on between big media and what is available online?"

Comments

Headline incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

FairUse4WM Breaks Windows DRM

should read:

FairUse4WM Fixes Windows DRM

'cause it makes something previously unusable, usable. (Not that I will ever be using this app, I've never been stupid enough to buy a DRM encumbered piece of content).

Oh - and for those hoping it stripped the DRM from WMV9. Nope, WMA DRM only.

Re:Headline incorrect.

[tomstdenis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

Re:Headline incorrect.

[hyfe]

FairUse4WM is going to be rightly bitch slapped by Microsoft.

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

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

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

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

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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

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

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

Strawman.

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

Re:Headline incorrect.

[SirTalon42]

What does DRM have to do with Piracy?

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

Re:Headline incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

My God your nick is appropriate!

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

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

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

Re:Headline incorrect.

[morgan_greywolf]

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

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

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

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

Re:Headline incorrect.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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

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

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

Re:Headline incorrect.

[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.

[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.

[syphax]

Doug,

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

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

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

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

Re:Headline incorrect.

[ElleyKitten]

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

Re:Headline incorrect.

[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.

[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.

[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...

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?

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

Re:Actually hope they fix this

[Daniel_Staal]

Come singularity I want to be able to buy music, not just rent it.

But I'd rather these services died a market death than a technolocial one. Then maybe the media companies would realize that people don't want to pay for something continually.

And, well, if other idiots think that renting music is better than buying than maybe they should be allowed too.

Cat and Mouse?

[Lord_Slepnir]

the term cat and mouse game implies that there is a chance for the big media companies to win. For every programer that they employ to create DRM, there are at least 10 hackers sitting around with nothing better to do than to break this, and many of them come from countries that either do not respect US IP laws (Korea, China), or that do not have such insane IP laws like ours to begin with (Sweden). To be blunt, they do not have a chance to win at all.

Re: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.

Predicted.

[twitter]

Everyone knows the DRM is nothing but an inconvenience to normal users suckered into repurchasing music they have owned for decades in format after format. It had zero impact on wholesale media rip off, where "pirates" duplicate the original distribution medium. It's had zero impact on file sharing. Sooner or later, legitimate users are going to get fed up with format changes and eternal copyright. DRM is the last gasp of industries that depended on expensive physical distribution and government broadcast franchises to survive. No one else wants it and it's going away. Until it does, I've given up on their content. Big media won't be seeing any of my money till they make life easier for me and their artists.

Re:Bittorrent breaks Windows DRM

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Granted, a better way to be would simply to have avoided buying DRMed music in the first place, but not everyone has that foresight.

That would be better, if music distribution was not run by a cartel, repeatedly convicted of abusing their control of the market. I'd love to see everyone become enlightened and move to all DRM-free indy music, but realistically, the market will not properly counter a monopoly or cartel and the legal system and legislature are corrupt and easily bribed.

Re:If only it were so easy...

[rainman_bc]

You have the right to tear down your home and put up a scale replica of the Taj Mahal, right?

As zoning laws apply to your property by precdent, licensing applies to the ones and zeros on your HD by precedent.

Wow. that's quite the analogy.

I don't understand how one is related to the other. Putting up a replica of the Taj Mahal is (arguably) an eye sore, and should have community consultation before said replica is built. I don't understand the parallels you've drawn. I don't understand how doing anything to my hard drive has any affect on my neighbours.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.