The Online Music Ripoff

[Adam Krebs]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/218559/the-online-music-ripoff/page1.html' target='_blank'>http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/218...poff/page1.html</a><br /><br /></div><p><span>"</span><em><span>Why is DRM so contentious? Surely it's designed to protect the rights of artists and record companies in a climate where, as one international music industry body claims, illegal downloads swamp legitimate music store downloads by a ratio of 20 to 1? The problem is DRM doesn't affect the pirates, who upload and download DRM-free files often ripped directly from CD. Instead, it affects legitimate buyers in a range of deeply irritating ways. </span></em><span><em>The first roadblock comes down to Gates' talk of "simplicity" and "interoperability", or rather the lack of both</em>" </span></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/zt/auto/1218960217.usr495.jpg" border="1" /></p><p>I think most people who know anything about DRM hate it. They hate dealing with the limitations of the technology, both intentionally built-in or as a direct result of poor technical planning/implementation. Unlike a good protection scheme which is invisible to the end user, DRM is too limiting to the average customer, and does nothing to stop hardcore music pirates. Plus, when a <a href="http://www.digitalhomethoughts.com/news/show/88952/the-day-the-msn-music-died.html" target="_blank">store</a> <a href="http://www.digitalhomethoughts.com/news/show/90108/yahoo-music-to-reimburse-for-drm-d-music-when-site-shuts-down.html" target="_blank">goes</a> <a href="http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/f5/mtv-closing-urge-merging-rhapsody-22907.html" target="_blank">down</a> and its licenses stop renewing, the customer is the real loser. Sure you can burn your songs to a CD and re-rip them (or do it <a href="http://www.digitalhomethoughts.com/news/show/29915/convert-your-drm-d-music-with-soundtaxi-platinum.html" target="_blank">virtually</a>), but the process is time-consuming and you lose audio fidelity. Another option is to free your purchased music using tools like <a href="http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/f314/fairuse4wm-strips-windows-media-drm-30118.html">FairUse4WM</a> (above) or Hymn, or just buy DRM-free in the first place. Check out the article if you need yet another reason to hate DRM.</p>

[alcedes78]

I thought that Windows Updates made FairUse4WM unusable for updated computers quite some time ago. I don't think it is an option any further.

[inteller]

I thought that Windows Updates made FairUse4WM unusable for updated computers quite some time ago. I don't think it is an option any further.


that is ture, and I think black coats from Redmond shuffled away the author which is why there haven't been any updates in a long time.

I'm waitng for the day someone cracks Zune Pass.

[Jason Dunn]

I'm waitng for the day someone cracks Zune Pass.

Zune Pass or Zune Marketplace? I'd like to see Zune Marketplace tracks cracked so people can purchase their songs DRM-free.

...but Zune Pass? Why, so someone can pay $15 for one month, download 1000+ songs, and crack the DRM then cancel their Zune Pass? Doesn't seem very ethical to me - they might as get the songs from P2P networks. :confused:

[jeff119]

i have to agree with jason. in my opinion any subscription service for music should not be hacked, but it should be drmed. i know if i were to purchase music from an online store, i would expect it to be drm free.

[Adam Krebs]

I thought that Windows Updates made FairUse4WM unusable for updated computers quite some time ago. I don't think it is an option any further.

Nope, it still works for me. You can also use drmdbg (the command line equivalent of FU4WM), which works with the latest.

Inteller: Though Microsoft tried to to sue Viodentia (the author) as 10 John Does, they dropped the suit earlier this year. And because Zune Marketplace/Pass DRM relies on the PlaysForSure DRM components, if you can unDRM from Napster, Rhapsody, et. al, you can unDRM from Zune. I still like to have the option of removing DRM from the ocassional track I purchase from the Marketplace that isn't yet available in MP3. I do agree with the concept that subscription music should be properly protected, and all a-la-carte music should be DRM free, however.

[gjw]

FairUse doesn't work with any of the Vista versions of WMP and only some of the XP versions.
If you never install WMP updates or if you run an old version of WMP within a virtual PC under Vista then you'll still be ok.

[inteller]

Zune Pass or Zune Marketplace? I'd like to see Zune Marketplace tracks cracked so people can purchase their songs DRM-free.

...but Zune Pass? Why, so someone can pay $15 for one month, download 1000+ songs, and crack the DRM then cancel their Zune Pass? Doesn't seem very ethical to me - they might as get the songs from P2P networks. :confused:


we're talking about bypassing a DRM system here and we are talking about ethics? DRM is DRM, whether you "purchase" it or "rent" it. If you want to circumvent some DRM you might as well talk about all DRM because once the line is crossed it is crossed.

when napster had a subscription service and fairuse4wm came out, that was exactly what people did....they got a napster supscription and downloaded 1000s of songs, then broke the DRM.

and just below this post, another user states that command line version works with the current PFS DRM....if it were to work with Zune Pass DRM it would open the floodgates.

[Adam Krebs]

FairUse doesn't work with any of the Vista versions of WMP and only some of the XP versions.
If you never install WMP updates or if you run an old version of WMP within a virtual PC under Vista then you'll still be ok.

It's not the version of WMP that is the issue, it's the IBX ("Blackbox") version that has to be 11.0.60xx or less (like 11.0.57xx). You can "roll back" your DRM components on both XP and Vista to the earlier, FairUse-compatible (or rather, Mirakagi-comaptible) IBX.

And again, you can install whatever WMP updates you want, so long as they don't update the IBX components. Doom9 has some good threads on this, if anyone is interested.

[Jason Dunn]

we're talking about bypassing a DRM system here and we are talking about ethics? DRM is DRM, whether you "purchase" it or "rent" it.

You mean to tell me you can't see the difference between a user removing the DRM on a 99 cent song he purchased, and a user removing the DRM on 1000 songs he rented through a subscription service? It's like the difference between ripping a DVD you bought and ripping every DVD you ever get from Netflix. The ethical difference is crystal clear to me, and I suspect most people.

[inteller]

ok, so instead of robbing a bank you are robbing a convienence store.....what kind of warped ethics is this?

you buy a DRM music track, you are agreeing to the delivery terms therein. You can't just say, "hey I don't like how this is delivered anymore so I'm going to break it out of jail". now if later the vendor wants to release you from the DRM license and provide you with a drm free track no charge that is their perogative...not yours.

What you do is you don't buy DRM music in the first place. And you don't justify breakng it out of DRM now because of the abundance of non-drm music.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe in DRM music either, but I don't try to apply some strange grey ethics to the whole process of circumventing DRM. It's like saying I'm just a casual law breaker instead of a hard core one....you still are breaking the law.

[Chris Gohlke]

you still are breaking the law.

Which is a totally differernt matter than the ethics of it.

I get where you are coming from with regards to the DRM packaging and that you eseentially agreed to it when making the purchase. But none of the analogies really work, hence the problem getting good laws regarding digital products. However, in general you can do whatever you want with a product you own.

If I buy a DRM'd product and choose the remove the DRM and still only use it for my own personal use, what have I done wrong and who have I damaged. And I'm talking at the ethical, not legal level.

If you rent a DRM'd product and remove the DRM with the intent to keep the product past the rental period, I'd say you did something wrong legally and ethically. I'd even go so far as to say that if you removed it from from a rented product and only used the non-DRM'd version during your rental period, you are still on good ethical ground.

[inteller]

Which is a totally differernt matter than the ethics of it.

I get where you are coming from with regards to the DRM packaging and that you eseentially agreed to it when making the purchase. But none of the analogies really work, hence the problem getting good laws regarding digital products.



uh, yeah, they do.


However, in general you can do whatever you want with a product you own.


sorry that is not the case. you can do whatever you want with the product within the terms you agreed to when you bought it.



If I buy a DRM'd product and choose the remove the DRM and still only use it for my own personal use, what have I done wrong and who have I damaged. And I'm talking at the ethical, not legal level.


the fact is you broke the terms of use. if you find nothing unethical about breaking agreements then I can see how you can justify this.


If you rent a DRM'd product and remove the DRM with the intent to keep the product past the rental period, I'd say you did something wrong legally and ethically. I'd even go so far as to say that if you removed it from from a rented product and only used the non-DRM'd version during your rental period, you are still on good ethical ground.

I'd say this ethical reasoning can't get any more warped.

[Chris Gohlke]

I've never bought a piece of DRM'd music, but are you saying the terms of the purchase specifically say you may only use the music in a DRM'd format?

[inteller]

I've never bought a piece of DRM'd music, but are you saying the terms of the purchase specifically say you may only use the music in a DRM'd format?


yes, it falls under the general clause "you agree to not modify" in the terms. It is included with most IP products such as music and video.

[Chris Gohlke]

Then how come iTunes specifically allows you to convert to mp3 and break the DRM by burning to CD and re-ripping?

[Jason Dunn]

Discussing ethics is kind of like discussing religion or politics, which are both very explosive subjects and usually discouraged here, but let's see if we can have this discussion in a civil manner. :)

ok, so instead of robbing a bank you are robbing a convienence store.....what kind of warped ethics is this?...It's like saying I'm just a casual law breaker instead of a hard core one....you still are breaking the law.

In my opinion, the law isn't always ethical. Ethics transcend the law, and the law is rarely bound by ethical constraints; they are two very different things. I can cite times in human history where it was legal to persecute, enslave, and kill people of a certain race, religion, or creed. Just because it was legal doesn't mean it was ethical. And saying "It's legal, I'm allowed to do this!" doesn't excuse anyone from the ethical ramifications of their actions.

If you believe that the law and ethics are the same, how do you feel about speeding? Technically you're breaking the law if you're going 5 MPH over the speed limit, but I don't consider speeding to be unethical in most cases; do you? If someone is doing 60 MPH in a playground zone on the other hand, that's reckless and unethical behaviour. To the law, speeding is speeding - though there will be different penalties applied of course.

Ethics stay the same, while the law changes based on the society that creates the laws. What's legal today might not be legal tomorrow, and vice-versa.

Now, as it applies in this this circumstance: when I purchase a CD, DVD, or digital file, I'm purchasing the right to watch/listen to that content. I do not consider it unethical for me to crack the DeCSS encryption on a DVD to rip it to my hard drive. Technically, doing that is still legal in Canada, though it's illegal in the USA. If you believe the law and ethics are the same, then you would think that ripping a DVD is unethical for you, but ethical for me. And what kind of sense does that make?

[Jason Dunn]

yes, it falls under the general clause "you agree to not modify" in the terms. It is included with most IP products such as music and video.

Ok, so riddle me this: I bought about $80 worth of music from MSN Music a couple of years ago. At the time I agreed to their usage model, which was DRM authentication on "X" number of computers. Seems reasonable, right? Until they decide to shut down their service, effectively altering their EULA (as they have the legal right to do) and shutting out all customers from accessing the music they bought. Public pressure had them bump back the shut-down date, but it's still going to happen.

What MSN Music did was perfectly legal, but how can you argue that it's morally right to take $80 from someone, then take away their ability to listen to the music they bought? I didn't purchase it with the understanding I was renting it for a few years - I purchased it with the understanding that once I bought it, it was mine to keep for as long as I wanted. That's the way it was marketed to me, and that's the way it was sold - clearly differentiated from the music subscription services out there.

[Jason Dunn]

I'd say this ethical reasoning can't get any more warped.

Obviously, ethics is a deeply personal matter, but what Chris is saying makes perfect sense to me. Due to time/scheduling problems, I've ripped DVDs that I've rented from Blockbuster, returned the DVD, watched the ripped DVD, then deleted the file. Legal for me in Canada? Yes. Legal in the US? No. Ethical everywhere? Yes, I'd say so.

How does that scenario seem unethical to you?

[inteller]

Then how come iTunes specifically allows you to convert to mp3 and break the DRM by burning to CD and re-ripping?

convert yes, break no. They have an agreement that allows you to do that 3 times. The original file still stays intact, you just can't burn it anymore. If you decide to take your 3 copies and makes 1000s of copies from that thats your ethical delimma, but you have not broken your agreement with Apple. BUT, if you lose all 3 copies and decide you don't like that and want to break/convert the now closed file so you can make more copies you have broken your agreement with Apple. I find that to be unethical because you had a promised agreement and you broke that promise.

[inteller]

What MSN Music did was perfectly legal, but how can you argue that it's morally right to take $80 from someone, then take away their ability to listen to the music they bought?

***long quote trimmed by mod JD***

i believe that is why there is a class action lawsuit out for this issue? I am of the opinion that they need to remedy the situation, but if that remedy is another DRM'd solution (say on another provider) you'd have to accept it, because it did not result in a material change of the original deliverable. Or alternatively if they offer an official conversion tool as an addendum to the original purchase agreement you could take advantage of that. but they didn't do anything unethical, nor does it warrant any justification to take matters into your own hands. Companies going out of business sucks, but it happens all the time. there are sometimes legal reprecussions to be felt, but that doesn't mean taking ethical leaps to arrive to justifiable solutions.

[Jason Dunn]

but they didn't do anything unethical, nor does it warrant any justification to take matters into your own hands. Companies going out of business sucks, but it happens all the time.

Fascinating. You don't see any ethical issues with selling a customer a product, then taking that product back (or making it stop working) when the company goes out of business? Imagine you buy a chair, and one day the company who made that chair decides they're going out of business, so they come and take your chair from you. You say "But I bought that chair!" and they say "Oh, we changed your original bill to say it was just a rental - sorry, but we have the right to do that."

How can you say that's ethical behaviour on the part of the company?

I noticed you didn't answer any of my other posts - I'd encourage you to. I want to understand how and why you believe the law defines ethics.

[inteller]

Imagine you buy a chair, and one day the company who made that chair decides they're going out of business, so they come and take your chair from you. You say "But I bought that chair!" and they say "Oh, we changed your original bill to say it was just a rental - sorry, but we have the right to do that."

***long quote trimmed by mod JD***

bad analogy. A correct analogy would be you bought a car that could only get its oil changes from the dealer and then the dealer went out of business. So now your car runs out of oil and breaks down. In this case the dealer did nothing wrong but go out of business, but the car your bought will eventually break down and no longer work unless the dealer can point you in the direction of someone who can service it.

[Jason Dunn]

bad analogy. A correct analogy...

The trouble with analogies and digital content is that NONE of them ever quite measure up because we're talking about something without a physical form.

..would be you bought a car that could only get its oil changes from the dealer and then the dealer went out of business...the car your bought will eventually break down and no longer work unless the dealer can point you in the direction of someone who can service it.

That's not a bad analogy, but this presumes that the person buying the car understood what they were getting into with buying a custom-oil car. The average consumer doesn't understand DRM, and only a tiny fraction of everyone that purchased MSN Music tracks understood the ramifications of DRM.

Also, car companies don't tend to go out of business, but lately we've seen more than a few DRM-based music/video stores go away. If the big auto companies released a bunch of cars to the market using custom oil, then said "We're no longer supporting this oil, sorry", consumers would be livid - and rightfully so.

Again, this comes back to you believing that legality and morality are the same thing - that if a company is legally allowed to do something, it automatically makes it morally correct. I guess we're going to have to disagree on this point. :)

[onlydarksets]

I've got to agree with inteller on this one (for the most part).

With DRM'd music, you purchased a license to use that particular file in the way outlined in the licensing agreement. If you no longer like the way it works, it's definitely illegal to bypass it (click-through or "clickwrap" contracts have been routinely upheld in the US).

As far as unethical, I believe it depends on your understanding when you "bought" it. If you knew you were getting a limited license to the music, yes, it's definitely unethical. If you thought you were buying an unlimited license to the music, then I think it is ethical to attempt to put yourself in the position you originally intended. It's still illegal (no question), but I believe it is ethical in that situation, since you could have gone to the store to buy the CD (there may be a price difference, but you could always mail a check to Apple).

Now, for ripping CDs, I'd come to the opposite conclusion. I've agreed to no limited use license, so fair use applies. Thus, it follows, since I'm not knowingly circumventing something I've agreed to, it's not unethical to rip it.

[Chris Gohlke]

I totally follow the logic. But, if iTunes gives you the option to burn to CD, you do essentially have an unlimited license to use it however you want. Back to the software in question, if it just give you a different way to do it, isn't it just a different path to the same end result?

[onlydarksets]

I totally follow the logic. But, if iTunes gives you the option to burn to CD, you do essentially have an unlimited license to use it however you want. Back to the software in question, if it just give you a different way to do it, isn't it just a different path to the same end result?
I believe that is incorrect. What you have is an easier way to use the file in any way you choose, but the license is not altered. Here's a pretty good read on it:
http://aplawrence.com/Bofcusm/2228.html

[Jason Dunn]

I've got to agree with inteller on this one (for the most part). With DRM'd music, you purchased a license to use that particular file in the way outlined in the licensing agreement.

What's funny is that I can't think of ever reading or agreeing to a licensing agreement when it comes to purchasing music. I'm sure you're right - it's probably part of the account creation - but they sure don't make the user rights obvious. And they definitely don't bother to explain DRM or what the rights are that the consumer is agreeing to.

I believe it depends on your understanding when you "bought" it. If you knew you were getting a limited license to the music, yes, it's definitely unethical.

Agreed. Anyone who tries to crack the DRM on a music rental system (Zune Pass, etc.) is acting in an unethical manner because they're taking music they rented and they're trying to keep it permanently.

If you thought you were buying an unlimited license to the music, then I think it is ethical to attempt to put yourself in the position you originally intended.

Agreed. Anyone who tries to crack the DRM on a DRM'd music file they bought, assuming they're not going to share the music with others, is acting ethically - they're only giving themselves access to the music they paid for. That's in sharp contrast to what inteller said though, so I don't see how you can be in agreement with him. :confused:

Now, for ripping CDs, I'd come to the opposite conclusion. I've agreed to no limited use license, so fair use applies.

It's interesting that you feel fair use applies to CDs, but not DRM'd tracks. What makes it different to you? That on a CD you didn't agree to a license that says "you have to authenticate the contents of this CD with a server before you can listen to it" but on a DRM'd track that's what you do agree to? Fair use to me is broader: it's looking with reasonable assumptions about what you paid for, and being able to use that, within reason, however you wish.

[inteller]

The average consumer doesn't understand DRM, and only a tiny fraction of everyone that purchased MSN Music tracks understood the ramifications of DRM.


yes, but fortunately ignorance has never been a valid excuse in either ethical or legal matters. I have no pity on a person who doesn't take the time to study something before they buy it. Just like I have no pity for all of these house owners who claimed they were 'duped' into getting a bad home loan.

[Jason Dunn]

yes, but fortunately ignorance has never been a valid excuse in either ethical or legal matters. I have no pity on a person who doesn't take the time to study something before they buy it.

<sigh> You're sure a hard person. But do you really believe that buried in the MSN Music EULA, there was something that actually said "We may, at some point in the future, deactivate our authentication server, thus making your music non-playable." I doubt it - so even if the user read the EULA, it wouldn't have mattered. Who's going to read the EULA for a 99 cent song?

Take a look at the Zune EULA:

http://www.zune.net/en-US/legal/termsofservice.htm

7200 words. Who in their right mind would take 30+ minutes to read through that, especially since it can be changed without notice, for any reason. It could say "we're going to take your first born child" and no one would notice.

[onlydarksets]

Agreed. Anyone who tries to crack the DRM on a music rental system (Zune Pass, etc.) is acting in an unethical manner because they're taking music they rented and they're trying to keep it permanently.

Agreed. Anyone who tries to crack the DRM on a DRM'd music file they bought, assuming they're not going to share the music with others, is acting ethically - they're only giving themselves access to the music they paid for. That's in sharp contrast to what inteller said though, so I don't see how you can be in agreement with him. :confused:
I agree with inteller that when you purchased a DRM license, you agreed to a limited use for the track. If you know that the limited use is unlimited plays on 3 machines or burning to 5 CDs or whatever, then that is the legal and ethical limit of what you can use it for. I didn't weigh in on what happens when the business goes under.


It's interesting that you feel fair use applies to CDs, but not DRM'd tracks. What makes it different to you? That on a CD you didn't agree to a license that says "you have to authenticate the contents of this CD with a server before you can listen to it" but on a DRM'd track that's what you do agree to?
Exactly.

Fair use to me is broader: it's looking with reasonable assumptions about what you paid for, and being able to use that, within reason, however you wish.
Fair use is about copyright law, not contract/licensee law. Fair use has no relevance when you've agreed to a particular use under contract.