boycott-riaa.com - Article: DMB encourages Windows users to bypass the DRM

DMB encourages Windows users to bypass the DRM

Posted by Mike (Shmoo) on August 17, 2005 at 8:05 PM (printer friendly)

DMB encourages Windows users to bypass the DRM tuaw.com

Posted Aug 17, 2005, 11:30 AM ET by Laurie A. Duncan

For once, it's Mac users who are free to pop a shiny new CD into their computers without fear of it bringing down the entire system or becoming stuck in the optical drive. Windows users, however, are getting the shaft this time if they want to copy the Dave Matthews Band "Stand Up" CD to their iTunes Music Library and onto their iPod, due to the disc's copy protection which effectively locks it into Windows Media Player 9.0 and higher.

Don't fret, though. DMB has posted a few tips to help PC users circumvent the restrictions. It's simple really... you just have to agree to an alternate End User License Agreement and burn a CD of the tracks from within Windows Media Player. Once you have this duplicate CD, you can rip the tracks from that CD into iTunes, much like Mac users often do to circumvent Protected AAC restrictions.

DMB stresses that they think Apple is really to blame for this inconvenience since iTunes and the iPod aren't compatible with WMA or protected CDs. They say "Please note an easier and more acceptable solution requires cooperation from Apple, who we have already reached out to in hopes of addressing this issue. To help speed this effort, we ask that you use the following link to contact Apple and ask them to provide a solution that would easily allow you to move content from protected CDs into iTunes or onto your iPod rather than having to go through the additional steps above. http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipod.html."

I'm not as anti-DRM as C.K. is, but I'll stick to blaming the record companies and the artists (although mostly the record companies I think) for restricting their CDs to begin with. If I've bought a physical CD I should have the right to play it in whatever format suits me without jumping through hoops to do so.

====

(Thanks for pointing us to this one Tom!)

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


gdZiemann	Date: August 17, 2005 @ 8:29 PM "For once, it's Mac users who are free to pop a shiny new CD into their computers without fear of it bringing down the entire system or becoming stuck in the optical drive." For once???? I just ripped about 90 CDs. No problem. Window users crash when they stick in Dave Matthews' CD and it's Apple's fault? I don't know what DMB is, but they obviously are morons. "contact Apple and ask them to provide a solution" They have. They're called Macs. But, of course, Windows users are busy today trying to patch their operating system for the umpteenth time because of some virus or worm, so they can't be bothered with this.

independentm...	Date: August 17, 2005 @ 8:45 PM Even though I know you/we don't pay much attention to RIAA slaves, DMB = Dave Mathews Band

gdZiemann	Date: August 17, 2005 @ 9:02 PM I've got three of his albums, all from last century. I won't own this one. My moron comment is unchanged by the knowledge of who said it. It's still a stupid viewpoint. If he didn't allow copy protection on his CDs in the first place, there wouldn't be a problem.

ShadowMom	Date: August 17, 2005 @ 9:26 PM Do the artists have that kind of control--or do the labels decide?

Dreddsnik	Date: August 17, 2005 @ 11:22 PM The artist decides by not signing to the label. The only way I know.

JDonahue	Date: August 18, 2005 @ 12:12 AM That's why my DRM is open source. This is their fault that there DRM is so closed source and so restricting that it just tick off consumers. My proposed DRM will still give consumers complete freedom. The only losers in this DRM are the dirty thieves that copy 30,000 songs and give them to other people. Why? Because you can still make as many copies as you want, but the fingerprinting technique blocks people from giving copies to other people who don't have licenses to mess around and play with the song. And, My DRM is open source, supports MP3 formats as well as OGG, AACs, WMAs, and even Sony's ATRAC and WAV files. Why do people have to put up with bad DRM while my DRM is unrestrictive to the consumers while it throws the pirates to the lake of fire.

goldenpi	Date: August 18, 2005 @ 6:15 AM JD: Stop advertising. And no effective DRM system can ever be open source. If its open source, its easy to circumvent. If the structure of whatever watermark you use is known, someone will code a filter to remove it. Interestingly, just as the copy-prevention manufacturers blame Apple for refusing to licence WM-DRM (Which Microsoft would never allow them to do anyway, as they have stated they intend to sell their own equivilent of the ipod at some point), Apple blames the copy-prevention companies for refusing to licence FairPlay from them. The burn-and-rerip technique is a standard way of removing protection from audio content. Some copy-prevention companies are developing ways to burn a CD which is itsself protected - last I heard there were hardware compatability problems still, but they will be solved.

brenthannah	Date: August 18, 2005 @ 9:48 AM Besides, you will always be able to plug your CD player into your soundcard and record the track. No amount of DRM can ever prevent that. I can't believe how much money is being spent on something that will always be easily defeated.

gdZiemann	Date: August 18, 2005 @ 11:59 AM "My proposed DRM will still give consumers complete freedom." THEN WHY IS IT EVEN NEEDED?? We always had complete freedom. To return to that requires the elimination of DRM. "my DRM is unrestrictive to the consumers while it throws the pirates to the lake of fire." This is, of course, impossible. You are assuming that you are smarter than the pirates. You don't by any chance work for the bozos at SunnComm in Phoenix, do you? I'd be glad to drop by and show you the futility because I guarantee you haven't considered a Mac with OS 9. Audio comes up as one disc (the first session), the DRM crap is stored in another session, which sows up as a separate disc that can be dismounted. Otherwise, the CD won't play in a standard CD player. You can probably make a DRM that works. But not without abandoning the Red Book audio standard completely and forcing everyone to buy new CD players that conform to your "scheme."

Jefrystube	Date: August 18, 2005 @ 5:51 PM JDonahue, DRM=Doesn't Really Matter. Try selling your snake-oil to someone who will buy it, the RIAA members. They believe all this stuff works despite all evidence to the contrary. You won't make money here, so why bother? Go for the DEEP pockets! Screw 'em blind for us if you can.

independentm...	Date: August 19, 2005 @ 8:54 AM JDonahue, you will NEVER be able to 'sell' any of us on DRM (even if it really could/would only do what is in compliance with what is fair.) I welcome you to write up a lengthy detailed article about your version/brand of copy protection if you want. I would post it immediately! But it would be spitting into the wind. I promise you will NEVER be able to 'sell' any of us on DRM (even if it really could/would only do what is in compliance with what is fair.) Those who wish to have DRM controls over their content have no desire to allow fair-use. We only support those who allow fair-use. You are wasting your time on us.

RaidHHI	Date: August 24, 2005 @ 5:23 PM "And no effective DRM system can ever be open source. If its open source, its easy to circumvent." Thats a foolhearty comment. Do you know anything about Cryptography? It's along similiar lines, it's even used in somewhat drm controlling fashion. Good crypto is always peer reviewed. A good crypto algorithm won't be weaker simply because you know how it works.

RaidHHI	Date: August 24, 2005 @ 5:25 PM "Those who wish to have DRM controls over their content have no desire to allow fair-use. We only support those who allow fair-use." If you understood what fair use actually meant, you probably wouldn't complain so much. Fair Use doesn't mean copy/download any fuckin thing you want, as long as it's not for commercial use. Fair Use only means you can make a copy for YOUR personal use, not your pals, not your mommies, not your daddies. When you learn wtf fair use actually means, then we might get someplace beneficial for everyone. "You are wasting your time on us." Ignorance is curable, Stupidity is not. On that note, I agree with your comment.