-
About DRM protected music that you have purchased
most of people that buy legally music on music sites as MusicMatch,Napster,Yahoomusic,MSNmusic etc. and haven't all right on it are disappointed)
I've found one interestnig sites that help's me to forget about DRM protection
______________________________________________
NO MORE DRM
-
Legal & ethical minds, please!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snoooop
most of people that buy legally music on music sites as MusicMatch,Napster,Yahoomusic,MSNmusic etc. and haven't all right on it are disappointed)
I've found one interestnig sites that help's me to forget about DRM protection
______________________________________________
NO MORE DRM
I don't have lot of DRM'd files, but I find the issue irksome anyway.
Is it legal in the US or elsewhere to subvert DRM protection? What is the current state of the law? I suspect it is against the law to defeat this protection -- at least in some jurisdictions. What are the consequences for a person breaking the law?
The ethical questions:
- Should we care whether creators and producers of content are properly rewarded for their work? What is proper reward, for that matter?
- Making a copy of a file for backup and other conceivable purposes isn't necessarily to deprive the creators/producers of their rightful due. Hence should we not defeat DRM just because it's against the law? Should citizens of a democracy always to obey the law regardless of whether it is seems wholely just or flawed?
Remeber that in all countries, including democracies, the power and influential attempt to have laws to be passed that a biased in their favor. The more disproportionate the bias written into the laws, the less the laws are respected by the less rest of the population.
-
Soundtaxi convert DRM protected music files legally. It just rerecord music file!
-
Soundtaxi not legal in the US. It is possibly legal in the Ukraine where Soundtaxi is sold. Anything that defeats DRM is not legal in the US.
http://forums.audioreview.com/showth...ight=soundtaxi
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
Good,then tell me what program can make same that can soundtaxi and which is legal in America??? tunebite??? anything else
-
What noddin0ff said is that ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snoooop
Good,then tell me what program can make same that can soundtaxi and which is legal in America??? tunebite??? anything else
It is illegal, State-side, to defeat or remove DRM by any means whatsoever, viz. you've got to live with DRM.
-
Re
Well,it is your personal position, there are people which use this program and it is a lot of them, believe. This program exists also it exists absolutely legally.I am assured that there will be people which will estimate to the full programs of the same type
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snoooop
Well,it is your personal position
Actually, the illegality of programs used to defeat DRM is more than just a "personal position." It is also the position of the U.S. Congress, the Office of the President, the FBI, the US Customs, the US Postmaster, and the US Attorney General.
Take your spam elsewhere.
-
I just clicked the link. It says "DRM Removal Software" rflmao! Can you get more illegal?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
you've got to live with DRM.
Unless you simply refuse to buy it in the first place, which is precisely what I do.
I encourage everyone else to do the same.
-
Well, not so fast...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlumpBuster
Actually, the illegality of programs used to defeat DRM is more than just a "personal position." It is also the position of the U.S. Congress, the Office of the President, the FBI, the US Customs, the US Postmaster, and the US Attorney General. Take your spam elsewhere.
If a law is unjust, isn't it our patriotic duty to disobbey it? Additionally, haven't "the U.S. Congress, the Office of the President, and the FBI" broken quite a few laws in the last decade (from extarordinary rendition to illegal wiretaps to starting wars)? What makes that OK, but ripping a legally owned music track not OK? The laws that you refer to are only enforceable in this country because the RIAA had the money to buy off the votes to get the DMCA passed in the first place. This did not happen to the same degree in other countries. If the whole world is less beholden to the RIAA, why do we feel so self-righteous to claim that our laws trump theirs? Maybe the DMCA went too far.
For example, if you were arrested for charging a cover charge at the door to watch the pay-per-view Tyson fight on your new 60" plasma tv, should you serve the maximum US jail sentence or be made to just pay a small fine as they do in France? If it was the next decade of your life on the line, I'm sure you'd opt for the French solution, regardless of what you may think of their cheese. And this becomes pretty serious when your crime is equated to terrorism. Maybe we should interrogate you filthy bootleggers by waterboarding to see who else might be involved. Who knows, we could find out all kinds of other information like who was speeding on the way home last night, who "borrowed" a couple of pens from the office, and who was involved in the office pool before the big game last week. Pretty soon, we'll be arresting and waterboarding all you filthy criminals.
Oh, so you don't do that, huh? Well what if it was your 15 yr. old daughter who did? You'd still be on the hook for it. There is a reason why we value our civil liberties, fair use, and privacy in our homes. Sometimes it is to bend the law to make life a little more bearable. Just like we don't want to know what you do in your bedroom, we also don't want to know if it involves a little bootlegged music. If no one gets hurt, why do we equate such crimes with much more heinous ones?
Snoop was careful to refer specifically to "people that buy legal music." For most of us who abide by the law most of the time, DRM is a pain-in-the-a**, and only makes the enjoyment of music that much harder. To proclaim that one does not partake in crime as loosely defined as in the DMCA, is like mounting a slingshot on the porch of a glass house. To be satisfied that the DMCA is the law of the land is just a convenience of priviledge and wealth. If we're going to move the debate from a "personal issue" to a universal issue, then why stop at the borders of the US?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
If a law is unjust, isn't it our patriotic duty to disobbey it?
Um, no. We are a country of laws, not men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Additionally, haven't "the U.S. Congress, the Office of the President, and the FBI" broken quite a few laws in the last decade (from extarordinary rendition to illegal wiretaps to starting wars)?
Um, irrelevant. We're talking about music copyrights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
What makes that OK,
Um, never said it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
but ripping a legally owned music track not OK?
Um, it's against the law to defeat DRM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
The laws that you refer to are only enforceable in this country because
the RIAA had the money to buy off the votes to get the DMCA passed in the first place.
Um, no, the DMCA was subjected to the legislative process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
This did not happen to the same degree in other countries. If the whole world is less beholden to the RIAA, why do we feel so self-righteous to claim that our laws trump theirs?
Um, I don't claim our laws trump theirs. However our laws do apply here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Maybe the DMCA went too far.
Um, probably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
For example, if you were arrested for charging a cover charge at the door to watch the pay-per-view Tyson fight on your new 60" plasma tv, should you serve the maximum US jail sentence or be made to just pay a small fine as they do in France? If it was the next decade of your life on the line, I'm sure you'd opt for the French solution, regardless of what you may think of their cheese. And this becomes pretty serious when your crime is equated to terrorism. Maybe we should interrogate you filthy bootleggers by waterboarding to see who else might be involved. Who knows, we could find out all kinds of other information like who was speeding on the way home last night, who "borrowed" a couple of pens from the office, and who was involved in the office pool before the big game last week. Pretty soon, we'll be arresting and waterboarding all you filthy criminals.
Um, what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Oh, so you don't do that, huh? Well what if it was your 15 yr. old daughter who did? You'd still be on the hook for it. There is a reason why we value our civil liberties, fair use, and privacy in our homes. Sometimes it is to bend the law to make life a little more bearable. Just like we don't want to know what you do in your bedroom, we also don't want to know if it involves a little bootlegged music. If no one gets hurt, why do we equate such crimes with much more heinous ones?
Um, intellectual property rights are a constitutional rights too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Snoop was careful to refer specifically to "people that buy legal music." For most of us who abide by the law most of the time, DRM is a pain-in-the-a**, and only makes the enjoyment of music that much harder. To proclaim that one does not partake in crime as loosely defined as in the DMCA, is like mounting a slingshot on the porch of a glass house. If we're going to move the debate from a "personal issue" to a universal issue, then why stop at the borders of the US?
Um, Snoop is a spammer pedalling a program out of Ukraine to defeat DRM. I'm willing to bet Snoop is that antithesis of "careful" and I don't think he gives a crap if the music was bought legally or not. Whether or not the program is illegal is not just a matter of personal opinion. Any reasonable person would understand that is is designed to defeat DRM. That is illegal. The fact that you don't like that it is illegal does not change the fact that it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
To be satisfied that the DMCA is the law of the land is just a convenience of priviledge and wealth.
Finally, um, no. Actually, picking and choosing which laws you will follow and which laws you won't premised upon what is most beneficial to you is "a convenience of priviledge and wealth."
-
Slump,
Um, with all due respect, laws that are unfair should be resisted. If our founding fathers had been as law-abiding as you, we would still be paying taxes to a queen in England.
And for the record, I have no idea whether Snoop is "a spammer pedalling a program out of Ukraine," but that is a harsh accusation.
-
Quote:
Um, intellectual property rights are a constitutional rights too.
Only as against takings by a state actor. This has nothing to do with private parties stealing intellectual property.
-
I say fvck the audio industry.
I've lived in nashville, and have seen big-shots in $50,000 SUVs cut off little old ladies with station wagons on the freeway who, coincidentally, had about six kids in the car with her.
I've met the people who benifit - the people who work for Sony/BMG, Virgin, and the RIAA. Slimy little creeplings, the lot of them.
And now, if you'll pardon me, I'll go off to the public library to rip their CD collection to FLAC on my laptop.
Mmmm.....lossless goodness!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Slump,
Um, with all due respect, laws that are unfair should be resisted. If our founding fathers had been as law-abiding as you, we would still be paying taxes to a queen in England.
And for the record, I have no idea whether Snoop is "a spammer pedalling a program out of Ukraine," but that is a harsh accusation.
The founding fathers were railing against a monarchy and a parliment in which they had no representation. Your talking about disagreeing with properly enacted legislation. No revolution is necessary; just vote instead.
As for the OP Snoop being a spammer hawking a program out of Ukraine, click the link. It is quite clearly a program from ukraine. OP's first post was about said program. Smoke + Fire = Spam.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Anderson
Only as against takings by a state actor. This has nothing to do with private parties stealing intellectual property.
There is more to the Constitution then the Amendments. Article 1 Section 8 specifically authorized the legislature "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." That is the constitutional foundation of the Copyright Act and by extention the DMCA.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlumpBuster
There is more to the Constitution then the Amendments. Article 1 Section 8 specifically authorized the legislature "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." That is the constitutional foundation of the Copyright Act and by extention the DMCA.
All that does is give Congress the jurisdiction to legislate it; that does NOT elevate intellectual property rights to the status of a "constitutional right" held by individuals as against private parties. That's a critical distinction.
For example, Congress could pass a law tomorrow completely rescinding the Copyright Act, or the DMCA. By contrast, it could NOT pass a law allowing for takings of property by a state actor in violation of the Fifth Amendment, because that would violate individuals' constitutional rights.
-
The DMCA has passed into the realm of horrendous commercial abuse. I bought the bleeping music; I want to play the bleeping music - on my iRiver, not a turntable.
-
About DRM
We've discussed the pitfalls of DRM and copy protection many times, generally from the angle of the problems it creates for businesses, and how it does nothing to stop piracy, but just creates hassles for users and ultimately harms content companies by holding down sales. Many of these issues are easily lost on a lot of consumers, who tend to not really care, as long as their stuff works. However, the mainstream media is starting to pay closer attention to these issues, and the New York Times today uses the launch of the Microsoft Zune to explain to the average person what DRM means to them: that music they've bought from one service that works with one device may not work if they get a different brand of device. This sort of lock-in ultimately holds back the market by distorting competition: if users can't switch brands of music players without losing access to music they've purchased, they're much less likely to switch. This is why iTunes as a loss leader works for Apple -- every song a user buys from the iTunes Music Store is another reason for them not to switch away from the iPod. This really isn't good for anybody other than Apple. It certainly doesn't do anything to help users, and it does little for record labels, either. Their continued insistence on using pointless, ineffective copy protection and DRM continues to shoot themselves in the foot by holding back the market. Perhaps as more members of the general public understand how copy protection impacts them, they'll begin voting with their wallets and affecting some change.
Regards
-
Actually they could do it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Anderson
All that does is give Congress the jurisdiction to legislate it; that does NOT elevate intellectual property rights to the status of a "constitutional right" held by individuals as against private parties. That's a critical distinction.
For example, Congress could pass a law tomorrow completely rescinding the Copyright Act, or the DMCA. By contrast, it could NOT pass a law allowing for takings of property by a state actor in violation of the Fifth Amendment, because that would violate individuals' constitutional rights.
But it would have to be an amendment to the constitution recending the Fifth Amendment,
AND it would have to be ratified by a 38 state majority for it to become law. That being said, the sad fact is that lately the powers that be have walked all over the Constitution, some of them in our goverment even calling it "that damn piece of paper!" (it's actually on parchment)
-
Hmmm. Snoooop seems to have taken a crash course in grammar and spelling....
If you don't like DRM music DON'T BUY IT. How could this be made any simpler? You wanna overthrow the RIAA? Vote with your CA$$ not with your A$$.
It's not like anyone is pulling something over on you, the terms of the sale regarding DRM music are spelled out for you. It has, is and always will be buyer beware. You want more flexibility with your music, buy the CD. Buy it used even. Check it out from you local library and maybe even read a book while you're there. Your taxes likely paid for the library anyway, why not use it?
AND NOTE: It is not illegal to copy music. It is illegal to defeat DRM.
If you don't like the laws of your land you can either petition your representatives, move, or suck it up. I don't like having to wear a helmet when I ride my bike but it's the law. I can live with it. I don't like DRM, I think the DCMA is idiotic, but that's the law. Maybe everyone should go dump their iPods into the Boston harbor?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
Maybe everyone should go dump their iPods into the Boston harbor?
For the kajillionth time, you can use plain old MP3s on your iPods (as well as many other non-DRM formats) - you do NOT have to buy music from the Apple music store to use an iPod.
I have about 8,000 songs on my iPod and not one of them is DRM'd. Why people persist in equating the iPod with DRM is beyond me...
-
Well, I guess my sarcasm generator was miscallibrated...
I, like Mike, have an iPod and have never purchased music from the iStore.
Go throw your DRM protected music in the harbor. Or maybe even throw that new Zune in the Harbor since is will attach DRM to any non-DRM'd file that you share with your friends wirelessly...
-
Now that ought to be illegal
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
...Or maybe even throw that new Zune in the Harbor since is will attach DRM to any non-DRM'd file that you share with your friends wirelessly...
So what you're saying is that if I have a file, even one I created myself specifically as an open source file, Microsnot will still infect it with a DRM virus? (yes, I'm intentionally using the analogy). Someone please explain how this is legal.
|