WMP11 Beta 2 released [Archive]

zambelli

22nd September 2006, 08:44

Can you think of a reason you would need to connect to MS for permission to play the songs you ripped from you own CDs? How long do you think it will be before a service pack, masquerading as a 'critical security patch' takes away the optional part of the 'copy protection'? Now do you understand why they have been testing the waters on WiMP phoning home? Think their firewall will stop it even if you ask?
This stuff is wildly exaggerated. Microsoft has no interest in erroding away consumer's rights to copy their own CDs. There is nothing to be gained by doing that.

I hate to nitpick, but everyone seems to fail to understand that Microsoft doesn't define DRM rules. Microsoft provides a software service to content owners that allows them to define usage rights. The content owners define the DRM rules. Hence the term, Digital Rights Management. Microsoft doesn't tell Yahoo, MTV or Napster how to define their terms of agreement.

I think it's made very clear in the release notes, but the author of the article chose to ignore that angle:
If you obtained the file from an online store, contact the store to find out if it offers media usage rights (license) restoration (some stores refer to this procedure as computer activation, computer authorization, or license synchronization).
The procedure for restoring your rights varies from store to store. For example, you might be able to right-click the file in your library or click an Error button or an Information button next to the file, and then click a command. Or you might be required to delete the file from your computer and then download the file again.
The store might limit the number of times that you can restore your rights or limit the number of computers on which can use the songs or videos that you obtain from them. Some stores do not permit you to restore media usage rights at all.
For details, see the store's customer support or Help links.
The decision to remove the license backup option is about putting the DRM control in the hands of those who define their own service user agreements: the online stores.

That said... Does it suck that some online stores have the option of not allowing you to restore licenses for media you paid for? Absolutely. But guess what? If you don't like a store's terms, don't shop there. If Best Buy refused to give your money back on a DVD that was never unwrapped, would you shop there again?

I personally don't like online media stores. I don't like their DRM terms, I don't like their inferior quality, I don't like their limitations. The solution? Simple. I don't buy music or video online. Until they figure out a better business model, I have no desire to put cash into that business.

People who agree to some store's DRM terms, then turn around and complain about being denied rights they were never guaranteed in the first place - and bark at Microsoft - are totally barking up the wrong tree. Hell, they're not even barking in the right park.

We can discuss fair use all we want, and I'll be the first to stand up for my right to back up physical media that I own. But blaming Microsoft for the presence of DRM in online stores is absolutely misguided. If it weren't Microsoft's, it'd be somebody else's DRM solution they'd be using. And even then, you still can't blame the guy who makes fences for the fact that your landlord decided to put one around your house.

Sirber

22nd September 2006, 12:12

The decision to remove the license backup option is about putting the DRM control in the hands of those who define their own service user agreements: the online stores.

That said... Does it suck that some online stores have the option of not allowing you to restore licenses for media you paid for? Absolutely. But guess what? If you don't like a store's terms, don't shop there. If Best Buy refused to give your money back on a DVD that was never unwrapped, would you shop there again?Does the customer know that he cannot restore BEFORE buying? I guess not.

Sharktooth

22nd September 2006, 13:01

Well, you implicitly said it: M$ cares more about content owners than users... so why users should care about M$? That's the point where software piracy starts... why should you pay someone for limiting your freedom? you would HATE THEM, pirate his software, crack it to make their protections useless and let them invest tons of money to stop piracy and to make it less "crackable" (just coz they know they have a pontential userbase due to the huge piracy), increasing the selling price only to crack and pirate it again and say "thanks, dumba$$es"...
This is war... and YOU started it. It can always come to an end: without the users and their money there will be no content owners... nor M$.
Good luck!

Nematocyst

22nd September 2006, 14:18

People who agree to some store's DRM terms, then turn around and complain about being denied rights they were never guaranteed in the first place - and bark at Microsoft - are totally barking up the wrong tree. Hell, they're not even barking in the right park.

I can't agree here. Microsoft is a software company that caters to interests other than those who actually buy their software. When is the last time they made a decent tool for allowing you to exercise your fair use rights and didn't poison existing standards in the process?

Microsoft can easily "call their bluff" (the one where the media companies won't sell digital media without DRM) and ignore them. Microsoft can continue to make money on OS, compilers, office suites, and all their cash cows w/out designing defectiveness into its products.

In a world w/out DRM, you are kidding yourself if you really believe these companies will refuse to make a buck by selling content. The reality is that DRM is ultimately the biggest stumbling block for the convergence Microsoft thinks it wants. And it represents the single biggest threat to its own cash cows because it provides incentive for people to look elsewhere for an OS that isn't defective by design.

But you are right that in the end, people are not going to pay for content they can't control. Once they see how limited what they bought really is and how their rights got trampled, they'll stop buying it. (Probably after some lawsuits that force more useless warnings or lables, etc.)

But I do blame Microsoft for either deciding the media companies are more important than its end users, or for just being stupid. Pick one. (Actually, they are one in the same-- it's never made good business sense to treat your customers like criminals)

check

22nd September 2006, 14:19

Sirber

22nd September 2006, 15:38

Microsoft really likes DRM, as seen with Vista and it's TPM chip.

Sharktooth

22nd September 2006, 15:58

Whether MS care more about users or content owners is a debateable point, but I'll assume it to be true for this post.

Sharktooth, your call that "you implicitly said it: M$ cares more about content owners than users... so why users should care about M$?" is illogical. Just because a company cares more about one group does not mean they do not care about the second group, just that they care less. With your "eye for an eye" mentality that you show later in the post, it's would seem to suggest you should be urging consumers not to hate MS, but simply to like them less. Zealotry on either side is both ugly and counter productive.

This move by microsoft is moving control of DRM restrictions from MS to the content providers. In other words, deregulation. In case you missed what this means, let me illustrate:
Microsoft ---> Not Microsoft
The consequences of this are hard to tell. On one hand, you are giving more power to a group of companies (ie all the record companies) who have historically been the single largest group pushing for more control over how the user can use their content. If history is any guide (and so far it has been, but the murmers about that random new p2p startup uiversal has signed an agreement with may hint at change in the wind, but don't hold your breath), they will simply move immediately to further restrict end user's rights to the point right before it becomes intolerable.
On the other, economic 'laws' state that when regulation is reduced, barriers to entry are lowered, smaller suppliers can enter the market, competition increases, and the opportunity cost for the consumer lowers while the opportunity cost of the suppliers rises. This is of course dependant on the fact that consumers have no problem moving from one supplier to another, and of course if you want the music from one particular band this is impossible :).
You missed my point of view. Even if i shout at M$, with the word "YOU" i meant ALL the DRM supporters.
However i tend to agree with you on the "eye for an eye" point, but it's not illogical at all. There is a FAIR USE right they're completely IGNORING. They're going to thread on us, by limiting our rights. They're trying, with the help of DMCA, RIAA, MPAA and local organizations (like italian SIAE), to force (even with laws) the end user to buy $hit just coz they say it's good and smells of chocolate.
Let US decide if it's good or not. It's our right.
So it they will try to limit our rights with all their forces, the obvious consequence will be we'll try to retrieve them back with all our forces.
Giving the content providers the possibility to control our rights is like giving a fanatic a weapon of mass destruction.
DRM is no good, for no one.

zambelli

23rd September 2006, 03:37

Well, you implicitly said it: M$ cares more about content owners than users... so why users should care about M$?But I do blame Microsoft for either deciding the media companies are more important than its end users, or for just being stupid. Pick one.
All products in the business world are designed for those who demand them, not for those who oppose them or don't care for them. If you're in the business of making steel wire fences, you're going to cater to the needs of those buying and installing steel wire fences. Isn't that normal?
It's not Microsoft's job to tell content owners how to interpret and enforce copyright laws or set the terms of their own stores and services. DRM product is made for those who want to define usage rights for media content, not for those who hate the very idea.

I can't agree here. Microsoft is a software company that caters to interests other than those who actually buy their software.
Windows isn't the only software Microsoft sells. WM DRM is also a software that Microsoft sells. In fact, the companies that use it pay a pretty penny (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/final.aspx#WindowsMediaDRM10_Final) to use it. Napster or MTV are no less customers than you are.

Giving the content providers the possibility to control our rights
Do you think that if Microsoft didn't make WM DRM, nobody else in the world would be jumping at the opportunity to provide content providers with a DRM solution? Don't be naive. Content providers want DRM. Somebody is going to make it for them. If you're unhappy with the way the content providers define their content usage rights, then by all means complain to them, your lawyer, your senator, everybody that's willing to listen. But don't complain to Microsoft for making a product. There's nothing in the WM DRM design that says content owners must rip off their customers or treat them like dirt. If I give you a rock, and you smash someone's head with it, is it my fault? There were a million other things you could've done with the rock.

zambelli

23rd September 2006, 03:50

You missed my point of view. Even if i shout at M$, with the word "YOU" i meant ALL the DRM supporters.
...
Giving the content providers the possibility to control our rights is like giving a fanatic a weapon of mass destruction.
DRM is no good, for no one.
That's still a huge blanket statement and I think you're still failing to realize your zealotist point of view. You have to understand: DRM is not bad by it's definition. It's a tool just like PGP or WinZIP. If I make a video file and want only authorized people to see it - and some DRM tool allows me to do that - then it's a helpful tool. It doesn't have to be used on large scale and it doesn't have to be used to trample anybody's consumer rights. It's just a tool, like any else.

Those who you SHOULD be shouting at are those who take DRM and define rights which are unfair to their customers.

A hammer is not a bad thing. A person using a hammer to crack your knees is a bad person. There's a huge difference, and I'm puzzled that you don't seem to understand it.

feedback

23rd September 2006, 07:42

Sharktooth is right... DRM is no good... for no one.

Let's substitute DRM and change it to Heroin in a few of zambelli's sentences and arguments below to see how deluded zambelli's point of view has become(nothing personal zambelli).:)

All products in the business world are designed for those who demand them, not for those who oppose them or don't care for them. If you're in the business of making heroin, you're going to cater to the needs of those buying and using heroin. Isn't that normal?

Heroin product is made for those who want heroin usage rights, not for those who hate the very idea of heroin.

Do you think that if Microsoft didn't make Heroin, nobody else in the world would be jumping at the opportunity to provide content providers with a Heroin solution? Don't be naive. Content providers want Heroin. Somebody is going to make it for them.

Heroin is not bad by it's definition. It's a tool just like PCP or Crack Cocaine.

Regards,:)

DarkZell666

23rd September 2006, 08:02

I'd have rather compared DRM with a bomb.

Microsoft prepares bombs. Terrorists buy them and use them, 'coz they don't have the time to make them themselves (too busy plotting right ? :p)

The terrorists are acting bad, for sure, but why produce bombs if it isn't morally acceptable ? Because it makes money.

But it's still a bad thing because Microsoft is, by the simple fact of producing bombs, giving a dangerous weapon to the terrorists. If MS doesn't make them, someone else would, but it obviously isn't a good thing.

However, it's the terrorists' choice to act stupid and use those bombs. MS obviously didn't force them. But why produce them if nobody was to buy them in the first place ?

Really, everyone needs to accept the consequences of what they do, and start doing something about it.

(ps: Any similarities with real-life situations are cheer luck :D)

Sharktooth

23rd September 2006, 13:14

Wow, i couldnt find better examples...

int10h

23rd September 2006, 13:36

As zambelli pointed out, it is all about economic laws. Content providers are potential clients to Microsoft, and so are you (we ? Well, I don't feel so potential anymore). Microsoft is making money on the fact that most of Windows users are addicted to it, and are ready to accept more and more frustration to keep using it. Once users will begin to move towards more userfriendly OS, it will become more difficult (less profitable) to Microsoft to please both groups, as the more they please one, the less they please the other. Hopefully, this will reach a balance point (more DRM for less Windows users) of maximal profit for Microsoft.

Sharktooth

23rd September 2006, 13:44

It all depends on users. No users, no money... for both M$ (and similar companies, like apple, sony, etc) and content providers.
If you piss the users, be prepeared to be punished...

LoRd_MuldeR

23rd September 2006, 13:44

what's new?

Maybe this: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34523

Wow :mad:

One more time I'm happy to have MPlayer :D

LoRd_MuldeR

23rd September 2006, 13:52

It all depends on users. No users, no money... for both M$ (and similar companies, like apple, sony, etc) and content providers.
If you piss the users, be prepeared to be punished...

Yeah, but the regular PC user (not the regular Doom9 user ^^) doesn't care about DRM and he/she even won't understand what it means. They just use their pre-installed Windows with their pre-installed WMPlayer and are happy that it works so easy and looks so colorful. Most people don't have a clue that there's an alternative to WMPlayer. They just want to use it, not think about it or even understand how it works. They won't notice what's going on until it's too late. You have to keep that in mind...

Sharktooth

23rd September 2006, 14:17

The regular PC user would be pissed by the limitations too... sooner or later.
He will start looking for alternative solutions and maybe Win "M" (the one without WMP) will start to make sense.
However be sure I and few other friends will start spreading this story around the web, local newspapers and magazines.
Be sure to do the same thing on your own.

Sirber

23rd September 2006, 15:44

most people don't care about what they are using as long as it works.

Nematocyst

23rd September 2006, 15:52

All products in the business world are designed for those who demand them, not for those who oppose them or don't care for them. If you're in the business of making steel wire fences, you're going to cater to the needs of those buying and installing steel wire fences. Isn't that normal?

Yup. Tell me, who is demanding DRM content? The media companies want it, but end users aren't demanding it. I don't see them catering to the needs of those who buy content at all.

Microsoft doesn't make durable goods, just software. And guess what? There's demand for good backup software too. I'd love to see the media companies battling Microsoft's legal team when they try to shut down Microsoft backup tools as they did with DVD Decrypter or various 321 Studios products.

It's not Microsoft's job to tell content owners how to interpret and enforce copyright laws or set the terms of their own stores and services.

Such arguments work equally in support of DRM breaking tools too. eg. It's not Microsoft's job to tell end users how to interpret copyright laws. There are perfectly legal reasons for backuping up content. If you really want to shift the blame away from Microsoft on this matter, I'll believe you when they make and sell tools for both sides.

Do you think that if Microsoft didn't make WM DRM, nobody else in the world would be jumping at the opportunity to provide content providers with a DRM solution? Don't be naive. Content providers want DRM. Somebody is going to make it for them.

So what? One of Microsoft's arguments for building DRM was that the media companies would refuse to sell content without it. If they are obtaining DRM from non-microsoft sources, then Microsoft gets what they say they want-- content working under Windows. What's naive is believing that media companies would refuse to sell content w/out DRM. Because there's demand for content. There's demand for digital content. There is NOT demand for DRM content.

Doom9

23rd September 2006, 18:27

Let's swap the DRM in WMP11 with what's in Vista.. You don't sell operation systems to RIAA/MPAA (well, you do, but they're just like every other customer and compared to the overall numbers of Windows licenses sold, those aforementioned organizations are a drop in the ocean). Yet, why does Vista introduce processes that cannot be controlled by any outside entity, why do you limit the user's ability to do whatever he/she likes to do with their own PC? What about the protected video and audio path? As I said, the number of users that want it are insignificant - yet you punish dozens of millions of people. Why?

I understand why you make DRM, what I don't get is why you are about to release an OS that takes control away from me and that introduces complex new mechanisms for audio and video handling, not because it's more efficient, or better in any way, but because the RIAA/MPAA like the idea. They can't make you implement these features, and they don't have much of a recourse if you flat out refuse to cater to their interests in that matter.. you can't just swap out Windows with another OS in many cases, and I consider it highly unlikely that Linux would be getting any such extremely user unfriendly "features" that take control from the users and puts them with media conglomerates.

foxyshadis

23rd September 2006, 21:44

Yeah, but the regular PC user (not the regular Doom9 user ^^) doesn't care about DRM and he/she even won't understand what it means. They just use their pre-installed Windows with their pre-installed WMPlayer and are happy that it works so easy and looks so colorful. Most people don't have a clue that there's an alternative to WMPlayer. They just want to use it, not think about it or even understand how it works. They won't notice what's going on until it's too late. You have to keep that in mind...
Then the regular user will eventually get screwed, and will stop buying DRM'd product. A winning situation for all involved. But because the user won't know as much about DRM as we do, she'll probably assume all online stores will screw her over, even those without DRM. (Said user will probably turn to p2p in anger/resignation, so the companies and artists will end up the big losers from DRM in the long run, even the independant ones.) The studios' mismanagement of DRM is really poisoning the well here - and has been since before wma was more than a footnote. Remember liquid audio?

SeeMoreDigital

23rd September 2006, 21:45

As a matter of interest will a WMP free version of Vista be sold by Microsoft in the EU?

Sharktooth

24th September 2006, 02:57

Yes, the "M" version, and it is only for EU.

Sirber

24th September 2006, 05:30

I'd like it for Canada too. I have no use of WMP.

zambelli

25th September 2006, 02:08

I'm surprised so many of you are putting up such extremist arguments. DRM as bombs and heroin? Content providers as terrorists and drug dealers? Which online store have you been shopping at? :scared:

Yup. Tell me, who is demanding DRM content? The media companies want it, but end users aren't demanding it. I don't see them catering to the needs of those who buy content at all.
Microsoft is not the one selling the content! The businesses who are asking for DRM are Microsoft's customers too. Why should Microsoft not deliver a commercially viable product that's being requested?
Look, think of it as a content restriction feature in a web browser. Nearly every web browser has the feature to restrict access to certain web pages, whether it's in a household or a corporate environment. Certainly the people whose web access is restricted because their parents or bosses decided so aren't happy about it. Should Microsoft/AOL/Apple/whoever stop making the feature because of it?

@Everyone:

Why is it so difficult to understand that Microsoft is a middleman here? I can't help but note a certain amount of hypocrisy in everyone's attitude towards Microsoft's involvement with DRM. Let's turn the clock back a few years and consider Napster. When Napster got sued by the RIAA years ago, everyone jumped up and screamed "Foul!" because Napster wasn't actually encouraging people to illegally exchange copyrighted music online - it was merely providing a middleman service for people wanting to exchange music files. Whether they wished to exchange files legally or illegally - that was up to the end users and was none of Napster's business. Napster argued the service had plenty of valid legal uses; RIAA argued that Napster was all bad.
Fast forward to our current situation. Microsoft is providing a service that allows party A to distribute media to party B with specific usage rights defined by party A. You're all telling me that the concept - the idea alone - is all bad and that Microsoft is to blame for its ill use by certain parties? Let's not be hypocritical.
If anyone here simply said "The current online stores impose too many restrictions on music they sell", I'd agree with you wholeheartedly. But stubbornly insisting that an entire concept is bad and that Microsoft is evil for offering such a product is just an extremist point of view that has no place in the modern marketplace.

LoRd_MuldeR

25th September 2006, 02:35

@zambelli
I think the problem here is, the way DRM works. If I go to a shop and buy a CD, then it is mine. I can play it where and when I want. Just put the disc in the player and it plays (okay, there are those "copy protected" CDs now, that break the Red Book. But that's a different storry). So I get something that can be used without restrictions and I feel okay to have spend money for that. But what if I buy DRM infected stuff? It's like "You want to have that MP3 filke? Okay, first pay for it and then we will decide if you are allowed to play it or not. Well, and if we decide you are not allowed, then it's your probelm :-P" It's not like you buy something and then it's yours. It's like you have to ask if you are allowed to use your own stuff. And that's what pisses people! The customers are treated like cattle to be milked. Are you allowed to give away your money? Of course. Are you allowed to do what you want with the stuff you buyed legally? Not in the times of DRM. Sad...

And if you say "M$ is only the middelsman" then it's the same storry with the weapons industry. If somebody takes a gun and shoots innocent people, then you can say "it's not the weapons industry who is to blame. They don't kill people, they only deliver the 'tool' to do so." But you have to see from the other side too: They know very good what people will do with weapons and they are pretty happy they can use it for their own benefit - to make money! Well, it's a different thing here, but the principle is 100% the same! Saying "I'm just the middelsman. I take the money and then I look away, so I'm not responsible for what happens" is a miserable excuse !!!

Sharktooth

25th September 2006, 12:38

At least in the weaponry industry the "customer" has to meet certain criteria to legally "obtain" a gun.
While DRM is for all paying customers (content providers, etc) and no one verifies...
So if the major companies A, B and C (as if you dont know their names...) decide to kill the user rights, there will be no one to protect the end user from being a$$raped...

zambelli

25th September 2006, 18:41

@zambelli
I think the problem here is, the way DRM works. If I go to a shop and buy a CD, then it is mine. I can play it where and when I want. ... But what if I buy DRM infected stuff? It's like "You want to have that MP3 filke? Okay, first pay for it and then we will decide if you are allowed to play it or not. Well, and if we decide you are not allowed, then it's your probelm :-P" It's not like you buy something and then it's yours.
But that's exactly what I've been saying! I'll repeat it again in case you missed it the first time: DRM rules are defined by those who own the media content - and NOT by Microsoft. You could have a DRM'ed file that has rules defined as: "Infinite copying. Infinite transfers to portable devices. No authorization necessary." Get it?
It's like you have to ask if you are allowed to use your own stuff. And that's what pisses people! The customers are treated like cattle to be milked. Are you allowed to give away your money? Of course. Are you allowed to do what you want with the stuff you buyed legally? Not in the times of DRM. Sad...
I'm not disagreeing! I personally don't like the way any of the online music stores currently impose restrictions on the music they sell you. If I have to choose between restricted usage rights with inferior audio quality, and physical CDs with uncompressed PCM quality - of course I'll always choose the latter.
However, I think a lot of people also overestimate their rights when they purchase music online. People say "I paid money for this music track, I should be able to do whatever I want with it". Not quite. Once you accept an online store's terms and conditions - which you must in order to make a purchase - you've entered a legal business contract. Just check out Napster's terms: http://www.napster.com/terms.html. They're very clear about what exactly you "get" when you pay for a product. Fair or not fair, it's all legal and the final responsibility lies with the consumer. If the consumers don't like the business model and don't agree with the terms, then they should a) not shop there, b) urge lawmakers and consumer lobbyist organizations to help define better rights for consumers of online media.

And if you say "M$ is only the middelsman" then it's the same storry with the weapons industry.
Once again... an extreme example. Why is it always heroin, bombs, weapons? DRM does not exist to kill or mame anybody, despite of your overwhelming dislike of it.

If somebody takes a gun and shoots innocent people, then you can say "it's not the weapons industry who is to blame. They don't kill people, they only deliver the 'tool' to do so." But you have to see from the other side too: They know very good what people will do with weapons and they are pretty happy they can use it for their own benefit - to make money! Well, it's a different thing here, but the principle is 100% the same! Saying "I'm just the middelsman. I take the money and then I look away, so I'm not responsible for what happens" is a miserable excuse !!!
So in your opinion all P2P services are guilty of encouraging piracy? After all, that's what they're most frequently used for, aren't they, and they're just middlemen?

Sig: Install WMP11 now and give away all your rights to M$ instantly !!!
Oh, give me a break. MS isn't taking anybody's rights. I'm sure spelling MS as "M$" and insisting it's the evil empire threatening to enslave all humanity must seem like a great way to earn street cred on online forums, but it certainly doesn't earn you any believability points.

foxyshadis

25th September 2006, 18:44

In other words, some sort of industry regulation has to happen, or the government will eventually step in, as it has started to in europe. And industries never like it when government steps in, so I don't know why they keep assuming it's never going to happen - they can't lobby everyone forever.

DarkZell666

26th September 2006, 07:01

I'm sure spelling MS as "M$" and insisting it's the evil empire threatening to enslave all humanity must seem like a great way to earn street cred on online forums, but it certainly doesn't earn you any believability points.

Just remember that MS started with a massive lie and that this seriously won't help me believe that MS is now heading the "right" way ... (you know, liar one day: liar everyday).

Actually you are right about P2P, but P2P is an illegal way for some people to get what they can't get legally anyway because of the prices asked for (people don't get unlimited money IIRC ;)). Piracy doesn't even hardly harm the major studios because they earn so much money ... they don't make losses: they earn less profit. What do they use all those 000.000.000$'s for anyway ? Get real, they're the greedy ones, so using P2P as an example here isn't relevant imho.

check

26th September 2006, 12:11

excuse me? piracy is ok because we are poor students who can't afford to pay for it? This argument is very popular, but sort of ignores the elephant in the room: you have no right to the content in the first place. If a provider will only sell you their (luxury) good or service at a price that you cannot afford, this doesn't make it alright to pirate. I'll reiterate, because this argument is incredibly brainless: everything is not free.

Your second argument is that media companies "earn so much money" anyway, it's ok to steal for them. Well, I'm glad that there are laws specifying the maximum income of companies in your country, there sure aren't any in mine! Whether there is a moral responsibility for companies to be nicer to customers relative to their shareholders is debatable, but you can hardly claim it gives you a 'moral right' to steal from them.

Your third argument is pretty much your second, "it's ok to steal from them because they are bad and evil". This is the same argument that supporters of the Iraq war are prone to use, another way of saying it is "the end justifies the means". Because they 'should' have given you the songs for free; because they didn't it's ok to break the law in order to fulfill their 'obligation' to you. This is a highly morally dubious claim, and it would be easy case to make that in terms of moral stances, you are quite happy to pick and choose.

As for calling Microsoft M$, it's nothing more than childish name calling. True debate rests upon discussion and argument, not cheap one liners.

Sharktooth

26th September 2006, 13:18

Zambelli, let's face it. In the next years the market will be infested by DRMed producs while unDRMed one will be phased out.
When i buy a CD or DVD or any other stuff i DONT sign any contract. For the law the EULA is exactly NOTHING coz it's not signed by both parties (a simple "accept" button is not enough).
You can write whatever you want on it, it DOESNT LEGALLY count as a contract.
DRM was made to fool the user, to limit what he can do with his own LEGALLY OBTAINED and PAID media (or whatever).
If i buy a song, the song is copyrighted by the author... but the damn file (or media) is MINE! and i WILL DO whatever i want with it...
That's what the industry wants to limit... the right to use your own stuff in the way you want to use it... and YOU (and other idiots) are providing the industry the tools to do it.
Well, you cant whine and send "cease and desist" notices when other "sources" provide the tools to remove your CRAP... it's as legal as what you do!
You cant DICTATE the rules when there are LAWS that ensure the user rights. Providing tools explicitly made for breaking the laws is as guilty as breaking the laws by yourself. Any lawyer can confirm it...

Sirber

26th September 2006, 14:43

Isn't removing/breaking digital protection against DMCA (US)?

(Digital Millennium Copyright Act) A U.S. law enacted in late 1998 that provides penalties for developing hardware or software that overrides copy protection schemes for digital media. The DMCA is considered a very controversial law by many who see it as an infringement to freedom

Sharktooth

26th September 2006, 15:22

Isnt that law conflicting with the Fair Use act?
In my country when a law conflicts with an older one cant be approved unless the older one gets "cancelled"...
That BS happens only in US... where DMCA, MPAA and RIAA has too much control over the citizens.
Sadly they're also trying to corrupt EU.

Sirber

26th September 2006, 15:39

Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The term "fair use" is unique to the United States; a similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright. Yeah, it's pretty in contradiction...

Way to go US!

Sharktooth

26th September 2006, 16:31

So, even with those contraddicting facts, the Fair Use permits to develop tools to remove the DRM stuff.
Anyone can appeal to the Fair Use to remove the DRM infection.
Anyone getting "cease and desist" notices from MS for distributing DRM removal tools can appeal the Fair Use law to provide those tools for the application of Fair Use right.
Suddenly, DRM becomes useless...

Sirber

26th September 2006, 16:50

unfortunatly, people who don't know about DRM will not remove it. So, it effectivly prevent those people from copying their music to their friends.

It's like WGA, works for most people, piss a few.

Sharktooth

26th September 2006, 16:57

I cracked my legally paid Win XP Pro OEM when the MS support told me it cant be reactivated without buying a new license coz i changed the motherboard (my motherboard fried during a thunderstorm).
That's completely UNFAIR. I paid for a product and i was told i should pay again for the same product coz i changed my hardware.
I told them "some non kind words(tm)" and proceded cracking the activation.
EULA my a**, i didnt sign anything...

Doom9

26th September 2006, 19:22

b) urge lawmakers and consumer lobbyist organizations to help define better rights for consumers of online media.Lots of good that does when you have an industry that buys off politicians by the boatload..
And it's interesting to see how the issue of Vista gets ignored.. because there Microsoft can't claim to be the middleman and just provide what its customers want.

zambelli

26th September 2006, 22:58

When i buy a CD or DVD or any other stuff i DONT sign any contract. For the law the EULA is exactly NOTHING coz it's not signed by both parties (a simple "accept" button is not enough).
You can write whatever you want on it, it DOESNT LEGALLY count as a contract.
If you don't live in the U.S., I will cut you some slack on this one. But if you do live in the U.S., then you really need to read up on clickwrap agreements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap) because I think you're lacking some fundamental knowledge of U.S. computer law. Clickwrap agreements, if presented prior to using the product, have been upheld by nearly all courts in the United States. Good luck legally challenging a properly worded EULA.
If i buy a song, the song is copyrighted by the author... but the damn file (or media) is MINE! and i WILL DO whatever i want with it...
...as long as it's within the limits of the law. Ownership doesn't guarantee you rights that you've previously waived by accepting a purchase agreement. You can buy a house and still be subject to zoning laws.
That's what the industry wants to limit... the right to use your own stuff in the way you want to use it... and YOU (and other idiots) are providing the industry the tools to do it.
Violation of rule #4. Also, I am not Microsoft. I work for Microsoft. I don't singlehandedly make DRM. I don't even work on WM DRM. I am arguing this case primarily because your extremist position lacks logical arguments. All I'm trying to do here is present a balanced and fair view of the DRM issue. I'm not arguing you or anyone else should love it or use it - I'm merely trying to explain to you why it has a place in the world and why complaining to Microsoft about some online store's unfair usage rights is about as irrelevant as complaining to Toyota about traffic congestion in Los Angeles.
Well, you cant whine and send "cease and desist" notices when other "sources" provide the tools to remove your CRAP... it's as legal as what you do!
You cant DICTATE the rules when there are LAWS that ensure the user rights. Providing tools explicitly made for breaking the laws is as guilty as breaking the laws by yourself. Any lawyer can confirm it...
First of all, you're no lawyer. Second of all, I honestly don't think you've ever consulted a lawyer about this issue because your legal-ish assumptions don't hold water. Perhaps you should consult a lawyer before saying "any lawyer can confirm it" - because you might be surprised to find out most lawyers (at least in the U.S.) will firmly disagree with your Robin Hood-like view of the world.

Sharktooth

27th September 2006, 03:43

If you don't live in the U.S., I will cut you some slack on this one. But if you do live in the U.S., then you really need to read up on clickwrap agreements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap) because I think you're lacking some fundamental knowledge of U.S. computer law. Clickwrap agreements, if presented prior to using the product, have been upheld by nearly all courts in the United States. Good luck legally challenging a properly worded EULA.
Yeah i dont live in the US and those clickwraps things are not legally accepted. As i already said those things happen only in US coz RIAA, MPAA and DMCA have too much control over the citizens.
...as long as it's within the limits of the law. Ownership doesn't guarantee you rights that you've previously waived by accepting a purchase agreement. You can buy a house and still be subject to zoning laws.
When i buy a house i sign a contract...
Violation of rule #4. Also, I am not Microsoft. I work for Microsoft. I don't singlehandedly make DRM. I don't even work on WM DRM. I am arguing this case primarily because your extremist position lacks logical arguments. All I'm trying to do here is present a balanced and fair view of the DRM issue. I'm not arguing you or anyone else should love it or use it - I'm merely trying to explain to you why it has a place in the world and why complaining to Microsoft about some online store's unfair usage rights is about as irrelevant as complaining to Toyota about traffic congestion in Los Angeles.
Im not offending anyone on this board except those ones that acts like "idiots". I was not referring to your person but to those who like to create stupid things like DRM (as i already said the word "YOU" - uppercase - was referring to MS). However if you feel offended you can always sue me. Isnt that the way MS prefers?
First of all, you're no lawyer. Second of all, I honestly don't think you've ever consulted a lawyer about this issue because your legal-ish assumptions don't hold water. Perhaps you should consult a lawyer before saying "any lawyer can confirm it" - because you might be surprised to find out most lawyers (at least in the U.S.) will firmly disagree with your Robin Hood-like view of the world.
I did, and guess what? You live in the US, i live in Italy... things are a "bit" different here, as well as in other EU countries (except some like UK...).

DarkZell666

27th September 2006, 06:46

lol, check: Whether there is a moral responsibility for companies to be nicer to customers relative to their shareholders is debatable, but you can hardly claim it gives you a 'moral right' to steal from them.

I'm precisely meaning that. I simply wonder who is the most hypocritical here: p2p users, or the major companies. This was sort of a reply to zambelli's comment :
I can't help but note a certain amount of hypocrisy in everyone's attitude towards Microsoft's involvement with DRM.

In fact, you've opened my eyes man, it's all about laws being unfair and not being voted in a democratic way (when they should be !). Every couple of days you wake up and hear on the radio or TV things like : "Well, it's a sad day today, the government has decided to remove the FairUse rights for DVD's in <put_your_country_here>". Duh ? When have I been consulted ? Oh yeah ? You mean it's that guy who I voted for who decided this ? So much for democracy ... :sly:

But, let's not get off-topic, WMP still has years of succes in front of it ... :) Any bugs in beta 2 yet ? :D

Sharktooth

27th September 2006, 15:18

Yes, found one: DRM.

However i found this link in another thread: http://www.eff.org/corrupt/
Pretty fun and explicative...

zambelli

27th September 2006, 23:33

I think it's very interesting that Viodentia, the author of FairUse4WM, had this to say about WM DRM in an interview (http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/25/the-engadget-interview-viodentia-creator-of-fairuse4wm/)with Engadget:

I think the biggest mistake with the PlaysForSure / WM design is that it's targeted too broadly. By incorporating forced product obsolesence and platform restrictions, it misses the mark in managing content rights. My suggestion to future designers is simple: don't bother with weak client-side decryption. Instead, provide a public specification for licenses using digital signatures, manage the PKI through a not-for-profit organization, and apply social and legal pressure to programs that don't comform. Accept that folks can trivially patch around the system, but if the restrictions aren't onerous most people won't go through the hassle. If WM files were already interoperable and the license terms were clearly communicated, there wouldn't be anything left for a program like FairUse4WM to accomplish.

Like I've been saying: DRM is not the problem in itself. Restrictive licenses and poor customer experiences are the problems. Apparently even Viodentia himself/herself is less anti-DRM than Sharktooth and Sirber here. :D