[Freeze]

This program is freakin awesome. You know all the drm crap on your music when you buy it and it blocks you from using it on other players or from burning it or from those subscription services like urge or zune pass you pay 10-15 bucks a month and you can download and listen to as much as you want but when you cancel your subscription your music goes bye bye well not with this its strips the drm so you can pay 10-15 a month and download 10000 albums strip all the drm cancel ur subscription and you just got 10,000 albums for 15 bucks. omg im in download heaven. I'm so happy i found this surfin the web.
 
DRM is evil, you pay money for something and they restrict you on how you use it. It is anti american. Stripping this crippling DRM is exactly what the founders of this great country would want us to do.
 
Man microsoft are LIARSSS in their FAQ it states:
 
Can I remove DRM from a song or video?

No. Once applied to a song or video, DRM can't be removed from it.
 
Thats funny cause i've removed it. Plus what stops you from using analog outputs from a soundcard and connecting that to a recording device and recording it as a wav then compressing that to flac or mp3 or whatever, Dont even need an advanced program to strip the drm but it perserves the quality when you just strip it.

 

[Hybrys]

They're theoretically not lying.  DRM cannot be removed from that file.  So the DRM remover strips that information, but can't CHANGE the file, so it makes a new one.
 
And, an analog stereo loop is usually lossy unless you have some amazing equipment.  Digital out to digital in would do it better,

 

[Freeze]

the only part that sucks about fairuse4wm is its not flac quality. Most files are 192-256 .wma's

 

[Hybrys]

Quote:

the only part that sucks about fairuse4wm is its not flac quality. Most files are 192-256 .wma's

That's not a problem with fairuse4wm.  That's a problem with the source files.  You get a lossless conversion from DRM to non-DRM.

 

[Freeze]

yes it;s not as useful as i thought. i already got torrent sites with tons of flac and im not real big on lossy but it does work really good. And if you have bought any music and its drm'd then as the program states it's your fair use rights to strip the drm.

 

[stewtheking]

Does this count as strictly 'legal'? If not, then I think we are tiptoeing towards breaking head-fi rules here...

 

[ddrddrddrddr]

From their terms of service:
 
15.  Content Usage Rules
...
Any reproduction, redistribution, transmission, display, sale, broadcast, public performance, rental or lending, modification, adaptation, sub-license or other use of the content provided through the Service, except as otherwise expressly permitted in this contract or by copyright law, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of the copyright owner.
...
 
 
 
I think if you argue that the program in no way modifies the original files, and do not technically reproduce it either. It's more like you use the file as a source and another file is outputted. Like a music player converting the file to sound, except it plays the music to a location on the hard drive, with some, ooo intended loss... maybe you can get away with that argument?

 

[setmenu]

So.. $15 buys potentially 10000 albums.
Sounds like quite a good deal.
I am sure huge profit potential here will help the growth of the music industry/sellers quite nicely.
 
 
 
.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

I think if you argue that the program in no way modifies the original files, and do not technically reproduce it either. It's more like you use the file as a source and another file is outputted. Like a music player converting the file to sound, except it plays the music to a location on the hard drive, with some, ooo intended loss... maybe you can get away with that argument?

But it does modify the original file. The DRM is part of the file, and removing that is altering the file. Or if you argue the copying issue, it is copying the file minus the DRM. Music playback is irrelevant to how this works. It's like opening a book in a text file to read it as opposed to copying everything but a word or two and claiming you wrote it. One's fair use, one's plagiarism.
 
With the original music files, you pay Microsoft or whoever $15 to listen to all that music for a month. You own the right to listen to it for a month, not the files themselves. When you strip the DRM, you claim to own it, period. Like paying for a membership at a gym then taking the equipment home with you.
 
If, of course, I'm understanding this program.
 
First post here:
Quote:

This program is ONLY designed and intended to enable fair-use rights to PURCHASED media. 
- While I haven't been able to support license expiration/rental detection, please don't use this to abuse rental license
- This code does NOT allow import of KID/SID pairs to preclude its use for piracy

 

[marvin]

Quote:

But it does modify the original file. The DRM is part of the file, and removing that is altering the file. Or if you argue the copying issue, it is copying the file minus the DRM. Music playback is irrelevant to how this works. It's like opening a book in a text file to read it as opposed to copying everything but a word or two and claiming you wrote it. One's fair use, one's plagiarism.

 
Yep. Either way you look at it, you're making an unauthorized reproduction of the original file and violating the terms of service agreement. It's also illegal under the DMCA which criminalizes the circumvention of DRM under most circumstances.

 

[ddrddrddrddr]

From Hybry's post
 
They're theoretically not lying.  DRM cannot be removed from that file.  So the DRM remover strips that information, but can't CHANGE the file, so it makes a new one.
 
So it seems to be reading the file, and a creating a DRM-free copy. It is therefore not modifying the file. As for reproduction... it's iffy, but I'm hoping that one can get by saying that the file was modified during transfer, so whether that qualifies for reproduction would be a pure technicality. Plagiarizing doesn't actually apply here so no comment.
 
The difference between going to the gym and the program is that you're making an imprint on your own hardware. How would you do the same thing with a gym? Steal the treadmill? The server loses energy from the transfer of energy, but nothing material. A file on my hard drive is owned by me since I own the medium. I may not have the authority to sell it or claim authorship but it makes no sense for it not to be mine. It seems unreasonable that I can't modify my own files.
 
And legality aside, there's really no way for any company to stop things like this. Programs can be modified at will, streams can be recorded, short of that everything's available on the internet. They can take the 15 dollars and earn as much possible or unrealistically hope people won't get it via different means. There are many Chinese programs that let you download songs on a p2p format, in exchange for ad space or less. They don't waste bandwidth with uploading, and users get music to keep. Seems like a healthier relationship.

 

[necropimp]

that's the fine line too many people tend to ignore... purchased vs rented
 
those $x/month services are rental services you stop paying the fee the rental license doesn't get renewed and the files stop working... using a DRM stripper on these files is comparable to using netflix and copying all the discs you get (either to your HD or burning a copy)
 
 
of course even with purchased music it's still technically illegal even if it's not morally wrong

 

[Hybrys]

The term 'Reproduction' in that license agreement is MEANT to cover things like recording the stream, or a DRM stripper (which reproduces the file in it's original form, minus DRM, so you are reproducing the audio information.  This is true, because all the DRM stripper does is remove the data streams involved in the DRM process.)