About DRM protected music that you have purchased

[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

[Feanor]

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.

[Snoooop]

Soundtaxi convert DRM protected music files legally. It just rerecord music file!

[noddin0ff]

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.

Protected Audio

[Snoooop]

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.

Protected Audio

Good,then tell me what program can make same that can soundtaxi and which is legal in America??? tunebite??? anything else

[Feanor]

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.

[Snoooop]

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

[SlumpBuster]

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.

[Mike Anderson]

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.

[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.

[Mike Anderson]

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.

[SlumpBuster]

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.

[Mike Anderson]

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.

[Geoffcin]

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)

[SlumpBuster]

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.

[spasticteapot]

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!

[spasticteapot]

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.

[Snoooop]

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

[noddin0ff]

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?

[Mike Anderson]

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...

[nightflier]

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.

Nod, Slump,

That's just the problem, CDs are going away. Pretty soon, the only way to buy music will be via a download (Tower Records ring a bell?). What so many of us are so fed up about is that the rights we had over our music with CDs (and LPs) are not the same rights we have with downloaded music.

The Zune DRM-attaching nonsense is a case in point. It's as if someone attached a tracker to your CDs and prevented them from playing more than three times outside of your own home. If you're not pi$$ed off about these changes, than you have the money to pay for the extra expense, and make the moguls richer. At what point will you care?

[SlumpBuster]

Sorry for the long response, but I got on a roll.

Nod, Slump,

That's just the problem, CDs are going away.

I don't know that that is necessarily going to happen, however, I might be wrong. Unlike cassettes, CD are a portable hi-rez format and thus likely to have much more staying power. Just as boomers still listen to their LPs and 45s, Gen-X (i.e. people like me) will be using and buying CDs for at least a couple more decades.

At what point will you care?

I don't think its that we don't care. Rather, I think both of us are proposing a market solution: if you don't like it, don't buy it and the market will respond. Frankly, I do care, so I stopped buying CDs and I stopped downloading music after Napster got shut down.

But, to be pissed about DRM is to miss the point about what you should really be concerned about, the Long Slow Death of Rock Music, or the fact that there is less and less good music to buy, rather than what you can and can't do with the music once you buy it.

Accordingly, these are the things I am pissed about before DRM:

1. 1996 Telecommunications Act - This is the granddaddy that started it all. This is the act that essentially deregulated ownership of broadcast outlets. Monopolies and Duopolies are the flavor of the day in many markets now. In 1989, 33 different singles topped the Bill Board Hot 100 in the 52 week year. In 2005, 9 different singles topped the Hot 100 in the 52 week year. More songs went to number one in 1989 than in 2003, 2004 and 2005 combined.


2. The Death of Rock Radio - Many markets no longer have a rock radio format thanks to the 1996 Telecom Act. This kills the chance for rock artists to develop. Regardless of anyones likes or dislikes of rock music, it undeniably forms the backbone of modern popular music. Rock music was the first genre that separated "what the kids were listenitng to" from what "the parents were listening to." Prior to the post-war rise of rock and roll, kids and parents listened to the same popular artists. Rock forms the "us" vs. "them" foundation of modern pop music. It guarentees that I will never like My Chemical Romance like my 15 year old niece does; and she will never like Oasis like I do; and I will never like the Beatles like my mother does. American Idol on the otherhand is premised upon all three age groupes liking something about Clay Aiken. I went to some top 40 concert last summer with like Nelly, Ciara, ect. and there were groups of 3 generations all over the place. On the other hand, nobody takes their grandma or their kids to a Tool concert.

3. The continued perpetuation of racial stereotypes by the Music Industry- This one's controversial. To paraphrase Ice-T "Rock and Roll is black music." Some people criticize rock and roll and jazz as having been misappropriated or stolen by white artists. Critics often cite Pat Boone's white bread Little Richard covers or Elvis's sanitized version of "Hound Dog" as examples. I disagree. I think rock and roll and jazz are universal art forms that are not secondary to someone's ethnicty.
However, hip-hop is an art form that the industry has generally denied to white artists. White hip-hop artists end up being exceptions (Emimem), sideshows (ICP), also rans (Rap Rock), or genre hoppers (Kid Rock).
It's a crying shame that "great hip-hop that could have been" has been denied to fans because the industry does not want to expand the definition of what a hip-hop artist looks like. Given that hip-hop has long ecliped rock as the dominant commercial genre, the industry owes it to the fans and itself to be more inclusive in its artist development and marketing. Good hip hop should not be denied simply because the artist is white, or Indian, or Chinese, or Latino.
One of the radio stations in my area (and I assume there's one in every market) has the tag line "All of today's best hits, without the rap." The disdain is apparent when the deejay says "rap." To which I respond, "Oops, you're racist." I don't hear Adult Contemp. satation adverting "Today's best hits, without all the crunchy guitars." No, the industry just has to keep reminding you that rap is for black artists only.

4. Music Industry Consolidtion: Around the time of the 1996 Telecom Act, the music industry went through a massive consolidation. Lables were closed down wholesale and the artist rosters were gutted without remorse. Gold records were no longer the goal, platinum records were required to keep the companies in the black. At the time, the music press was predicting that this was the worst thing to happen to pop music. I remember Kurt Loder going into seizures about how this would be death of music as we new it. I think he was right. Suits managing the music biz is a bad idea. Combine that with lack of radio outlets and you have records by Paris Hilton, K-Fed, and that chick from the Soprano's wasting space. Something rings hollow when I hear a radio dejay talk about how you would never catch them playing Hilton's record just before they go into the new Pussy Cat Dolls joint.

5. The Myth that Downloading Killed the Industry: The industry was on its way down before Napster. It has failed to adopt almost any workable model. You can't download without a credit card. Kids don't have credit cards. So, they go to Best Buy to buy a debit card with cash, and walk past a rack of CDs. How does that make sense?
Also, I've never been much for downloading since Napster got shut down and the RIAA started suing little girls. "F@ck that noise." Also, I can't get past the lack of a physical tangible thing.

So, did I pick up arms and revolt? or ignore the law and do as I please? No, I stopped buying major lable CDs. The last straw for me was Sony's Rootkit fiasco last year. http://businessweek.com/technology/c...122_343542.htm
I got one of the disks with the rootkit on it. Thankfully the story blew up before I ripped it on any computer, but what if I had put it on a work computer? How am I supposed to explain that? "Yeah, the reason we've been shut down the last couple days is because I needed a DMB fix."

So what do I buy instead. LPs, independant lable CDs, CDs at the Merch Table at concerts, and only the occasional major lable. Its somewhat easy for me, because there is not alot that I want that is for sale at Target or BestBuy. But for most of my life I was a very good customer of the industry. Every friday afternoon since I was 15 was spent going to the record store for the new releases. Not so much these days. I still go every weekend, but I now I end up with a stack of LPs and used CDs rather than the hottest new releases.

The more people that stop buying the crap forced on them, the more quickly the industry will respond. K-fed can't tour if he only moves 3000 copies, and DRM can't survive if no one buys it. Don't believe me? Go try and buy a PSP movie at Target this weekend. You can't because they have been removed from the shelves for lack of sales. Artists have already begun to respond. I can still get all my favorite new releases, they are probably just on the bands new indie lable since they got dropped by the major for only moving 130,000 units of the last release.

Anyway, there ya go.

[Feanor]

...
I don't know that that is necessarily going to happen, however, I might be wrong. Unlike cassettes, CD are a portable hi-rez format and thus likely to have much more staying power. Just as boomers still listen to their LPs and 45s, Gen-X (i.e. people like me) will be using and buying CDs for at least a couple more decades.
...
Anyway, there ya go.

I've been reading Grammophone's Awards 2006 issue. You'd never suspect that classical music was dead, CDs were on their way out -- or SACDs a flash in the pan for that matter. And as for racism, well, you'd never guess that classical was "dead white men's" music either.

[noddin0ff]

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...

[nightflier]

...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.