Now matter how many file sharing networks get shut down and now matter how much DRMing methods are developed, like the saying goes: "If theres a will, theres a way."

Posted at 11:56AM on Aug 25th 2006 by James Smith [  ]

Conspiracy theory: Microsoft leaked this tool to collapse the PlaysForSure market to make way for Zune.

Posted at 11:59AM on Aug 25th 2006 by Wes Felter [  ]

Power to the people! Stick it to... no, LYNCH the Man! >:( Skewer his head on a pike!!!11!oneowe!1!!!!

Posted at 12:08PM on Aug 25th 2006 by blah [  ]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
The Life of Reason, George Santayana

Posted at 12:10PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Mr. B [  ]

This is indeed Armegeddon for DRM. Whoever is responsible will go down as a hero.

Posted at 12:11PM on Aug 25th 2006 by defectivebydesign [  ]

Bye bye tunebite and nights of comverting music....



Yay for free university Napster too!!!

Posted at 12:17PM on Aug 25th 2006 by grub [  ]

"In other new, popular tech site "Engadget.com" is being sued by... well.. Everyone for hosting a file that let the user steal music. Engadget's Ryan Block reportly said in reply to this news 'I have no idea what you are talking about!'"

Lol, just kidding Ryan.

But, I will be surprised if the links don't get removed soon.

Posted at 12:21PM on Aug 25th 2006 by ben [  ]

Does this strip DRM from videos well?

Posted at 12:22PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Scott [  ]

Ben has a point - you are providing information which allows other people to break DRM. Aren't you liable under the DMCA?

Posted at 12:25PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Rik [  ]

I am a writer and editor of DRM Blog and I can verify that this utility has worked on three different services we have tried it on. We have been in possession of a "beta" version of this tool for a couple weeks now. The file we received was sent to us via email and the author of the email suggests this tool was built as a fair use tool. The name of the exe suggests this also.

We have not posted this to our site because we do not think most uses of the tool will be "fair use". If you are paying a subscription fee then you do not 'own' that content. You are renting that content. If you remove the DRM and keep the content then you are committing copyright infringement. Almost all of the plays4sure services are monthly subscriptions.

If you purchase your content and use this tool then I see no problem and I fully support your use of this tool. If you did not purchase your content then you have no "right" to use this tool.

Posted at 12:28PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Jimmy [  ]

this is a shame. why can't people just show their displeasure with these DRM schemes by not buying into them in the first place. If you ask your neighbor to paint your house and he wants a million dollars for it, your response is "no, that's not worth it." Why can't people apply the same logic. If you think it is not fair to have a DRM'ed single for $0.99, then don't buy it. If you don't want to rent your music, and have your rights terminate with the subscription, DON'T SUBSCRIBE. Circumventing DRM just gives the content providers ammo when they try to get Congress to pass anti-circumvention legislation.

Speak with your wallets people.

-p-

Posted at 12:29PM on Aug 25th 2006 by p-diddy [  ]

Yet, the iTunes 6 DRM remains unbroken, as far as I am aware.

Posted at 12:29PM on Aug 25th 2006 by dan [  ]

/me heads over to Yahoo! Music for a subscription. Let the downloading hilarity ensue. :p

Posted at 12:31PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Murray [  ]

Jimmy: Not in all jurisdictions. Here in Canada, for example, we can download all the music we like. Let me put that another way: IN CANADA, DOWNLOADING MUSIC W/O PAYING FOR IT (AND, PERHAPS, ALL COPYRIGHTED CONTENT), OR CRACKING ANY COPY PRTECTION, IS PERFECTLY LEGAL. Enjoy, my fellow countrymen! :p

Posted at 12:34PM on Aug 25th 2006 by blah [  ]

p-diddy: That's a very, very good question. Maybe, instead of blaming those people, and the untold MILLIONS that will use this software, you should be asking what's wrong with the SYSTEM that brought this all about.

Posted at 12:37PM on Aug 25th 2006 by blah [  ]

Why would the platform collapse exactly? While it is true that iTunes 6 hasn't been broken before it you could easily strip the DRM out of iTunes tracks and the platform seemed to survive that pretty well.

Posted at 12:37PM on Aug 25th 2006 by helio9000 [  ]

A) Ryan, what exception from the DMCA were you relying on in first using this software and then confessing to its use in writing?

B) People who think this is great news are very short sighted. If you think that someday the major media producing companies (music, film) are just going to roll over and make of their expensive-to-produce-and-promote properties available to everybody for free and without any kind of copy protection, you are smoking crack. So, all software like this does is freak media producers out and make them less and less willing to make things available digitally in the first place.

As far as I can tell, what this software does is completely illegal and anyone that uses it in the United States will be violating the law. You can make fun of those laws if you want, or think they're stupid or whatever. The DMCA *is* law.

Posted at 12:39PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Jake [  ]

NOW napster & co are boned :p

Posted at 12:39PM on Aug 25th 2006 by pableu [  ]

I hope this makes the music industry realize that they can't sell music with DRM. It will always be broken. This is actually really bad for them as people can signup for a free trial of a subscription service, download all the music that the want, strip the DRM, and then cancel the service. They could theoretically get millions of songs, without DRM, for free.

Posted at 12:46PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Jeffrey [  ]

WMA DRM was cracked once before and pretty quickly patched by Microsoft. I'm sure that the same will happen here so you won't have long to enjoy it.

I don't buy music in DRM format and will resist doing so, but if I did then I'd certainly use the application on those tracks to give me back the freedom they've arbitarily taken away. Using it on rental music services isn't fair on the service provider however. Fair use goes both ways.

Posted at 12:51PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Steve [  ]

so can i use napster with my ipod now?

Posted at 12:51PM on Aug 25th 2006 by srw985 [  ]

BREAKING THE LAW??

I CAN'T BREAK THE LAW...I AM THE LAW!

-judge dredd

Posted at 12:51PM on Aug 25th 2006 by noobs [  ]

Jake: With all due respect, it is you that doesn't get it. To paraphrase a line from Star Wars, 'the more The Establishment tightens its grip, the more it's power and influence will slip through its fingers'.

The Establishment's power is derived from The People, and the respect the latter has for the former. It is inevitable 1) that these regressive copy protection schemes will be defeated, and 2) that the media companies, with the support of government, will devise ever-more draconian and nefarious schemes in response. Eventually, things will become so intolerably oppressive, that people will revolt. In all aspects of society, the noose is tightening. Eventually, people are going to say, "Enough!"

Posted at 1:04PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Jake doesn't get it [  ]

This means that Napster's prices now beat allofmp3.com:

Assuming you download 1000 tracks a month ( a conservative estimate) for a £14.95 fee that works out at 1.5p per track.

Posted at 1:11PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Fred [  ]

ne, defectivebydesign, he will go down as _an_ hero.

Posted at 1:11PM on Aug 25th 2006 by weaszel [  ]

Dan: "Yet, the iTunes 6 DRM remains unbroken, as far as I am aware"
The music side of things (Protected AAC) has been cracked ages ago though.

Posted at 1:26PM on Aug 25th 2006 by TC [  ]

-----------
p-diddy: That's a very, very good question. Maybe, instead of blaming those people, and the untold MILLIONS that will use this software, you should be asking what's wrong with the SYSTEM that brought this all about.

-----------

The problem is that the 'untold MILLIONS' will be obtaining 'usage rights' for intellectual property at a price that the owners of said property feel is less than what should be paid.

Apparently music companies don't feel that paying $.99 for a song should give you the right to freely re-distribute it, or even use it on any device you choose. Whether that's right or wrong is largely an issue for the market to decide. How much would you be willing to pay for a song that was availble to you in any format with no DRM?

Music and movies are no different than software, no matter how you buy them. A particular fee grants you particular usage rights. It would be impossible to prosecute all license infringements, so content providers are forced into an attempt to prevent the infringement altogether.

If they can't prevent the infringements, they'll either start charging more money for licenses or get out of the content creation business altogether. DRMs, while a huge pain in the ass at times, actually keeps the cost of the content lower.

How much does a music company currently charge for the rights to freely distribute a particular song in a digital format? That's what we're all gonna start paying if we don't have DRMs, or some concept like them.

Of course, if people would just pay for their f*****g music, we wouldn't need DRMs, but somehow I don't see that happening :P

Posted at 1:27PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Forrest [  ]

if i buy the subscription for yahoo, can i play it on my ipod if remove the dmr?
is flip4mac necessary

Posted at 1:30PM on Aug 25th 2006 by gfox78 [  ]

I know what's wrong with the system: content providers overcharge for subpar quality content. And the peoples' response is "I'm not paying $15 for garbage."

The thing is, it is the content providers' RIGHT to determine the price they think is fair for their product. If the people don't agree, they don't have the right to just take it without paying. If the content providers give a little and say, ok, we'll sell it to you for $12 but with these restrictions, it is NOT OK for the people to say "ok" and then strip off the restrictions. Either pay the $15 for unrestricted content or realize that if it isn't worth it to you, don't just take it. Say "No, that's crap. Change your pricing scheme because I won't pay $15 for crap." If there were no piracy and no one was paying $15, don't you think the content providers would lower the price to move SOME of their product? Yes. Because that is the law of supply and demand. But if people keep going around the established means, the content providers can say "Hey, our price is at $15, but all these pirates are getting it for free! Our model is legit and these rapscallions are just criminals! Please help Mr. Congressman!"

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You have no right to be entertained. If you're not willing to pay the set price, then don't buy it.

-p-

Posted at 1:32PM on Aug 25th 2006 by p-diddy [  ]

You're not going to be able to play any wma tracks on your ipod unless you convert the tracks into an ipod comptible format. Even without the DRM the wma format is still incompatible with the ipod.

Posted at 1:35PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Fred [  ]

Where's the centralized database that keeps track of all the music I've bought from any service so I can move from player to player, service to service, and still retain all of my music?

I'm not against DRM if they keep one central database which is used to allow me to download music I purchased from any service. Then again, maybe my issue is that I bought music from Apple and so I'm now locked in to an iPod unless I use methods unspeakable due to the DMCA.

With almost 500 songs purchased in the last year on iTunes - I really feel like this DRM bull**** is cramping my style. I've even had a subscription to Napster just for work, so I'm not against DRM - I'm just against not having the ability to move around from player to player.

Posted at 1:42PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Nooby McNoobins [  ]

addendum to my last point:

... and live without. It's just entertainment, not food or shelter.

-p-

Posted at 1:43PM on Aug 25th 2006 by p-diddy [  ]

Fred:
Yes but with the DRM removed you can convert the files easily to mp3 using DbPoweramp. And then play it on your iPod.

Posted at 1:43PM on Aug 25th 2006 by TC [  ]

Forrest: At virtually every point, in your arguement, your premises are demonstrably faulty. *I* know they are, even if you don't. I'm not going to refute what you've said, point by point, since the last thing I want to do is give you additional information about the strategies we, your opponents, are implementing.

Suffice to say, you are wrong. :) I am more than happy to allow you to proceed with your faulty premises. No doubt you'd say the same. The difference is, we know *exactly* where you are coming from, whereas you seem completely unable to internalize and assimilate the reality we keep reminding you of, and how what you are trying to do to our Species will fail. Here, take this: It's just enough rope to hang yourself, and use it in ignorance and bliss. :)

Posted at 1:46PM on Aug 25th 2006 by xVariable [  ]

P Diddy,

I couldn't agree with you more! I am so sick of people saying, "I'm not gonna pay 17.99 for this crap." Well then don't buy it! People should have a right to sell things as THEY see fit. Besides, this is ENTERTAINMENT. This isn't a staple. If you don't like the deal, don't take it, but don't steal it because you didn't like the deal. The problem is that people have ZERO regard for items whose marginal production cost is zero. Arggghhh. Frankly, I just don't understand how people don't see the fundamental point.

If you don't like their terms, don't partake in their services. It's that simple.

Posted at 1:51PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Puff Daddy [  ]

-p- :

If your neighbour wants $1 million to paint your house, you can go and get someone else to paint your house instead. But if you want a particular music track and the record company doesn't make it available in a DRM-free format, you can't just go and buy it from someone else who does. Copyright gives the copyright-holder a massive monopoly, and therefore should place massive restrictions on the way in which copyright holders can exercise their monopoly power. Personally, I'd say that no work may be copyrighted unless it is copyable -- distributing a work with any measures intended to prevent or control copying automatically puts it into the public domain, permanently. So you can use DRM or you can use copyright, but you can't use both, so you had better believe that your DRM works.

Posted at 1:51PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Mike Scott [  ]

@TC
From the Hymn Project website: "It appears that if you make any purchases using iTunes 6.0 (or, even without making any purchases use iTunes 6.0 for other Music Store activity which authorizes against your account, such as authorizing a new computer to play your music), from that point on you must use 6.0 — and then JHymn won't work for you either. JHymn will have to learn how to perform the iTunes 6.0 protocol before this problem is likely to be fixed -- so hang on, it could be a bit of a wait.

In the meantime, you may wish to delay upgrading to iTunes 6.0 so that you can continue to free your music until a new solution is found."

http://www.hymn-project.org/jhymndoc/

Is there another program that I should be aware of?

Posted at 1:54PM on Aug 25th 2006 by dan [  ]

The developer claims it only works on PURCHASED tracks
so it wouldnt work on Napster to Go tracks, Real, Yahoo or any other services rental tracks.

So which is it?

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=114916

Posted at 1:55PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Cotten iScumbag [  ]

Way to promote intelligent debate on the subject xVariable. Very informative and insightful.

Nooby, that's exactly the problem: there is no contral database and that's what you agreed to when you bought all that music. It's great that you did the Right Thing (tm) and actually paid for it, and I totally feel for you when you can't move a DRM'ed track around like you can with one just ripped from a CD, but that's what you bought. If it wasn't agreeable, don't buy it. Pay the full price and buy the CD. If you're not willing to do that, then don't buy the CD and show the content industry their model is broken.

Standing up to the content providers and not buying into these schemes is captialism. Stripping off the DRM and taking what you want is anarchism. It's just entertainment people. Go buy a book. Or beter yet, read a book who's copyright has expired ala project gutenberg.

-p-

Posted at 1:57PM on Aug 25th 2006 by p-diddy [  ]

well this would be good if i hadn't already lost my licenses for my old content :(

Posted at 1:59PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Jakg [  ]

Forrest: now which record label do you work for again?

"How much would you be willing to pay for a song that was availble to you in any format with no DRM?"

Approximately 1/15 the cost of a DRM-free CD, minus the cost (including markup) of physical materials and minus the amount of value being lost in terms of the quality downgrade. I'd peg that at somewhere below 50 cents per track. (That's more than tracks with DRM on them, though, which I'd call pretty much worthless.)

You're making the same mistake the music industry is making, which is that you're assuming people are paying for a license. They're not, they're paying for music. The *industry* may feel consumers are paying for a license, but that's immaterial. If I buy a car from you and later find out I only bought a license to drive that car rather than the car itself, that doesn't change what *I* paid you for. I paid you for the car. You may have *sold* me something different, but that's not what I was paying you for. We used to call that "bait & switch", by the way, and it is illegal in most states.

When the industry starts putting purchase links on web sites that say "purchase the license to listen to this song!" and stickers on CD's saying "own the limited rights to listen to the contents of this CD!" then you can talk about consumers buying a license. Right now, consumers are buying music, and the industry is *telling* them they're buying music. When I go to iTunes, it says "BUY SONG". It doesn't say anything about buying a limited license to listen to that song with specified restrictions. So you really can't make the argument that consumers are buying licenses; the industry may like them to be, but consumers are buying music. And as such, they have certain rights that have already been upheld in court and are defined in copyright law itself.

I'm not saying anything about *distribution* on the consumer end. I'm just talking about what consumers are allowed to do under the law with the products they purchase. And no company can sell you something and then turn around later and say you're only allowed to use that thing in certain ways and on certain devices. The world just doesn't work that way; it never has and it never will.

The music industry has become the modern-day equivalent of the mattress tag police, if you ask me. Distributing music is clearly illegal, but most of the rest of what the music industry is trying to get us to stop is not. There's no law against me ripping CD's and putting that music on as many devices as I own, for example. Same with stripping DRM for my personal use (the DMCA specifically makes an exception to circumventing technological protection measures to exercise fair use rights - "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.").

"Of course, if people would just pay for their f*****g music, we wouldn't need DRMs"

People *do* pay for their music, and we're the ones being adversely affected by DRM. The pirates will just strip it and trade freely. Which leaves the paying customer holding the bag. You don't think we have a right to be a little annoyed about that? Why should a paying customer be stuck with inferior, more restrictive files than pirates? If they can move their music around to various devices freely, then I should be able to also. I'm not paying for the privilege of being a sucker. I'm paying for music.

Posted at 2:10PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Jeff [  ]

p-diddy: My comments promote more intelligent debate than you know. Unless, of course, you understand all to well what I'm saying: that people don't have to accept what people like you have to say as The Last Word on the subject.

There's far, far more to these issues than people like you can accept or admit, and that will be your downfall. People aren't stupid: they are able to critically analyze and deconstruct your arguments, and see right through them. Their ability to do that is usually directly proportional to how hostile you are towards them...

Posted at 2:11PM on Aug 25th 2006 by xVariable [  ]

>> But if you want a particular music track and the
>> record company doesn't make it available in a
>> DRM-free format, you can't just go and buy it from
>> someone else who does. Copyright gives the
>> copyright-holder a massive monopoly, and therefore
>> should place massive restrictions on the way in
>> which copyright holders can exercise their
>> monopoly power.

Mike, the monopoly is the point of having a copyright. In exchange for someone creating a work of authorship, the government gives them the right to determine how that work of authorship is copied and distributed. That is the copyright holder's incentive for sharing his or her work with the rest of the world. This right then expires after a certain amount of time and enters the public domain. Now whether you agree with the duration of the monopoly or not is a separate topic.

Your counter to my neighbor example is exactly my point! If you aren't willing to pay neighbor X for his services, go pay neighbor Y. If you won't pay $15.99 for an album by band X, go by the album of band Y for 14.99. No, it's not the same product, but it's what you are willing to buy for the price. Neighbor X and neighbor Y are not going to do the exact same job. One may be better at trim, one may be better at the general coat. But you as the consumer decide what you are willing to pay for. Would it be ok to somehow mind control neighbor X into painting your house for only $20?? That way you'd get the X job but only at a price you are willing to pay??

-p-

Posted at 2:12PM on Aug 25th 2006 by p-diddy [  ]

--------------
Forrest: At virtually every point, in your arguement, your premises are demonstrably faulty. *I* know they are, even if you don't. I'm not going to refute what you've said, point by point, since the last thing I want to do is give you additional information about the strategies we, your opponents, are implementing.
--------------

Uhh, I don't have any opponents. I don't create content. I'm not trying to do anything to our Species, aside from trying to understand why the average person is so ignorant of just about everything... but that's another matter altogether :)

Your 'strategies' - is their purpose to consume content at a price less than what its creator wants for it? Sounds like either good haggling or theft to me.



Content providers are going to charge whatever they think their content is worth. Their current view is that worth is dependent upon how the consumer is allowed to consume it. Is that right or wrong? I don't know, and it's not for me to decide. It's not for any one person to decide. Consumers as a whole will decide.

Say I started a website tomorrow that offered DRM free media in any format desired by the consumer.

Say as part of that site I maintained a database like Nooby up there is talking about, so that even if every device you own simultaneously and spontaneously combusts, there's still a record of what you own so you can get it back for free. That would make a lot of consumers happy, right?

How much would I have to pay the media companies to distribute their content in such a manner? Would consumers be willing to pay that much so that I could maintain the site? If yes, then the world is ready to dump DRMs (legitimately) and the concept they represent.

Posted at 2:12PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Forrest [  ]

look, x, I would love to debate this topic all day. Step up to the plate and make an argument that people should be allowed to pay a lower price for DRM'ed music and then remove the DRM. You haven't made one yet. You've only, in both comments, alluded to this shadow community of those willing to take "us" down.

I'm not hostile towards you or your point because you haven't made a point yet.

And jeff, that's not a bait and switch. A baith and switch is "come on down for a $99 washing machine" and when you get there the sales guy says "oh sorry, we just sold out *wink* How about this $125 model? Even better and for just $25 more." You're right that people have traditionally been allowed more freedom with their music, i.e., tapes and records. But that's because they had built-in copy protection schemes. You can only make so many copies of a tape because each subsequent copy degrades. If this were somehow built into mp3s I'm sure the record companies would have no problem with people copying and sharing because by the 5th user, that 256kb/s mp3 sounds like it is a 64kb/s version. But they don't the 1,000,000th copy sounds just as good as the first. So the record companies are trying to shoehorm some copy protection scheme to prevent the wholsale theft of their product. But if that's not acceptable, don't buy it! And, honestly, if you didn't read the terms and conditions of the license agreement when you first started iTunes, that's you're own fault. You SHOULD know what you're buying, it was right there in front of you.

-p-

-p-

Posted at 2:24PM on Aug 25th 2006 by p-diddy [  ]

Hate to keep making such a trivial point but it doesn't really matter what any of you think the system *should* be. The fact of the matter is that the DMCA makes software like this illegal.

To those of you who think it's ok to break the law just because you don't agree with it, well, I guess there's not really much point in discussing it further.

More fundamentally, I don't have the slightest clue why anybody would think that it should be just A.O.K. to distribute copyrighted music/films freely across the planet via the internet without any restrictions.

Someone quoted "Star Wars" above (which I thought was pretty funny). Movies like Star Wars that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to get made will cease to exist if the producers of that content have no way to ensure that they will recoup their investment. Piracy and P2P greatly undermine their ability to do so. Therefore, the need for DRM.

People who think they have some sort of fundamental right to get whatever they want free of charge as long as they can figure out how to download it on the internet are just living in some weird fantasy land that I don't understand.

Posted at 2:29PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Jake [  ]

Here's one more point. Someone above was griping about not being able to shift the 500 songs they bought on iTunes to some other player.

A very fair point. I wish all the Apple Fan Boys would wake up and smell the freaking coffee that IT IS APPLE that is preventing you from using anything other than an iPod to play your iTunes on.

They have created a very restrictive MONOPOLY-like situation for the SOLE PURPOSE of locking you into Apple products for the rest of your life. If Microsoft does that kind of thing people go insane but Apple gets a free pass. No clue why. I guess the fan boys honestly believe the Apple is "really cool."

Posted at 2:33PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Jake [  ]

Look, p-diddy, there is no debate, and never was from the time you declared DRM an Immutable Fact of Life. In doing so, you've declared war on humanity and civilization. It's a winnder take all proposition, and you will lose. Why? Because DRM needs people, but people don't need DRM. We don't need corporate reptiles, either. Sooner or later, you will fall.

Posted at 2:56PM on Aug 25th 2006 by xVariable [  ]

"To those of you who think it's ok to break the law just because you don't agree with it, well, I guess there's not really much point in discussing it further."

No one has to follow the 'law.' The cost of breaking the laws of the country you live in comes in the form of fines, jail time, etc imposed by whoever decided they could make those laws. Some people choose to pay the cost for the music up front. Others choose to take their chances, and may pay greater consequences at a later date.

There's really no universally right anwser. Some people are happy to do whatever they are told. Other people want to do things their own way. Just because you agree or disagree with the governing body doesn't mean your position is any more valid than any one else's. You know the costs for either choice, make whatever choice suits you.

Posted at 3:00PM on Aug 25th 2006 by Sticky [  ]

People don't even _want_ DRM. If anything, they want fewer restrictions. DRMers will never get it...

Posted at 3:01PM on Aug 25th 2006 by boischemoi [  ]